The 2019-20 Cleveland Cavaliers: Exhibit A for HS Players Not to Enter the NBA Draft

[dtgold88]

Lets be clear....there will never be the next Lebron, even find a prospect on to close to his level with be near impossible. Even while Lebron was still there, the roster was shit lets remember that. He had to leave to go to Miami and let them rebuild, draft another future star, Kyrie, before the plan really worked out. The plan this time around should be getting a group of young, talented young guys and hoping you find a star in that group, like you said, the Cavs could already have that star whether it is Porter Jr, Garland, etc.

And I could care less if the level of prospect is very high...that doesn't always mean they will be a great player. I care more about results and getting the pick right. I don't see the Cavs getting lucky and getting so many tries at #1 pick like they did for years so their picks and their eye for talent will have to be more precise this time around.

I agree about how poor they were defensively in Lebron's second stint except the year they won the title, they were 10th. Lebron's first stint was the opposite, they had very good to great defensive teams but a lack of offensive talent around Lebron.

Point is, if the player is good enough to come straight from high school...he should. (even though technically you can't now) It all depends on the player, like in Zion's case it could have helped him.

Like I said earlier the plan should be developing these young players that could turn into stars, surrounding them with even more talent, somehow getting out of the Love contract and not resigning Drummond and let the process work out. But in the end the Cavs will have to rebuild through the draft 100 out of 100 times.

Yep...we will either need to get lucky by picking #1 with a clear cut #1 guy there to take.....or as you said maybe nail a lower pick (which will take some luck, as well).

we had our lottery luck in the Lebron, Kyrie and Wiggins drafts so can't really complain the lottery Gods did not smile on us the last 2 years.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah, I disagree strongly.

You may have a different definition of superstar than me. Superstars are 1st team all NBA caliber guys. Kyrie has never been in that class of players. He didn’t even make 3rd team those years.

You could make an argument for him last year with the Celtics I suppose, but even then I would say no.

OK...and I would make an argument he is a superstar. and he probably was as a Celtic but he had gone full crazy by then (he wasn't yet on the Cavs....at least not on the court). Can also be argued Love is as solid a #3 as most teams have had that won titles this millenium despite what seems like you wanting to ignore offense.

 

[msgkings322]

Other than GS, which teams are you sure were better this millennium? They could play adequate D and their O was often unstoppable. O matters.

Adequate D? That matters too especially in the playoffs. Sorry dude, not super. This millenium? Um, Kobe's Lakers were pretty good, especially the teams with Shaq. The Spurs had some good teams, as did LeBron's Heat. Come on dude. LeBron's Cavs (later version) were like the 9th or 10th best team of the millenium. Wade and Shaq, Dirk, Boston big 3...

 

[msgkings322]

arguably? I'd say sure....but also arguable the 2017 Cavs were better than all but 2017-18 Warriors who might be all time best.

You meant 2016-2017 Warriors (although the 2018 team was pretty much the same team, just with a bit less drive)

 

[dtgold88]

Adequate D? That matters too especially in the playoffs. Sorry dude, not super. This millenium? Um, Kobe's Lakers were pretty good, especially the teams with Shaq. The Spurs had some good teams, as did LeBron's Heat. Come on dude. LeBron's Cavs (later version) were like the 9th or 10th best team of the millenium. Wade and Shaq, Dirk, Boston big 3...

Honestly, and I don't know why, I forgot those Lakers were not that long ago so agree in conversation for sure. But so are the 2017 Cavs outside of last 2 GS teams.

 

[dtgold88]

You meant 2016-2017 Warriors (although the 2018 team was pretty much the same team, just with a bit less drive)

when I said 2017, yes, that referred to 2016-17.

 

[msgkings322]

Honestly, and I don't know why, I forgot those Lakers were not that long ago so agree in conversation for sure. But so are the 2017 Cavs outside of last 2 GS teams.

Depends on who you are having the conversation with. To me the conversation would go something like "Oh the 2017 Cavs? Great offensive team but not as good as at least a handful of teams this millenium"

 

[msgkings322]

when I said 2017, yes, that referred to 2016-17.

But you typed 2017-2018 not just 2017

 

[tlance]

OK...and I would make an argument he is a superstar. and he probably was as a Celtic but he had gone full crazy by then (he wasn't yet on the Cavs....at least not on the court). Can also be argued Love is as solid a #3 as most teams have had that won titles this millenium despite what seems like you wanting to ignore offense.

Yeah.

not a superstar.

You clearly have a different definition.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Adequate D? That matters too especially in the playoffs. Sorry dude, not super. This millenium? Um, Kobe's Lakers were pretty good, especially the teams with Shaq. The Spurs had some good teams, as did LeBron's Heat. Come on dude. LeBron's Cavs (later version) were like the 9th or 10th best team of the millenium. Wade and Shaq, Dirk, Boston big 3...

Cavs had the greatest comeback vs arguably the best team ever (at the time) but they were far from a top team in the decade, let alone since 2000...

Lakers - Kobe and Shaq
Lakers - old Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom
Spurs - Kawhi, Duncan, Parker, Manu (old team version)
Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Manu (young team version - 10 years or so)
Heat - Big 3
Warriors - Big 4
Celtics - Big 3
Pistons - Rip, Ben, Rasheed, Chauncey, Tashaun (all in prime)

 

[msgkings322]

Cavs had the greatest comeback vs arguably the best team ever (at the time) but they were far from a top team in the decade, let alone since 2000...

Lakers - Kobe and Shaq
Lakers - old Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom
Spurs - Kawhi, Duncan, Parker, Manu (old team version)
Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Manu (young team version - 10 years or so)
Heat - Big 3
Warriors - Big 4
Celtics - Big 3
Pistons - Rip, Ben, Rasheed, Chauncey, Tashaun (all in prime)

I love how you get that in every post about the Cavs. Respect.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah.

not a superstar.

You clearly have a different definition.

clearly. and not necessarily the wrong one.

 

[dtgold88]

Cavs had the greatest comeback vs arguably the best team ever (at the time) but they were far from a top team in the decade, let alone since 2000...

Lakers - Kobe and Shaq
Lakers - old Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom
Spurs - Kawhi, Duncan, Parker, Manu (old team version)
Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Manu (young team version - 10 years or so)
Heat - Big 3
Warriors - Big 4
Celtics - Big 3
Pistons - Rip, Ben, Rasheed, Chauncey, Tashaun (all in prime)

Only ones I'd be sure the 2017 cavs are behind are GS with Durant and maybe Kobe/shaq Lakers. That Lebron fellow was pretty good and would be the best player on the court in any series which matters quite a bit. Of course, the Heat had him as well. I'll put Kyrie, love and our depth against Wade, Bosh and theirs. But I could see if someone preferred Miami.

 

[dtgold88]

But you typed 2017-2018 not just 2017

Sorry for the confusion....meant the 2017 and 2018 seasons, which would be 2016-17 and 2017-18.

 

[dtgold88]

Depends on who you are having the conversation with. To me the conversation would go something like "Oh the 2017 Cavs? Great offensive team but not as good as at least a handful of teams this millenium"

Disagree, but OK.

 

[msgkings322]

clearly. and not necessarily the wrong one.

It's a vocabulary word fight. There is no 'wrong'. I discussed this with a poster (TrustMeImRight?), he thinks there are like 10-15 "superstars" in the league each year. That's his definition. I think there's 6-7.

 

[msgkings322]

Only ones I'd be sure the 2017 cavs are behind are GS with Durant and maybe Kobe/shaq Lakers. That Lebron fellow was pretty good and would be the best player on the court in any series which matters quite a bit. Of course, the Heat had him as well. I'll put Kyrie, love and our depth against Wade, Bosh and theirs. But I could see if someone preferred Miami.

Might depend on if you were, say, a Cavs fan or not

 

[dtgold88]

It's a vocabulary word fight. There is no 'wrong'. I discussed this with a poster (TrustMeImRight?), he thinks there are like 10-15 "superstars" in the league each year. That's his definition. I think there's 6-7.

I think something that got forgotten here (not by you as you weren't involved in original discussion) was we were talking about the worth of a team's #2. Does one even need to be a superstar to be among the top #2s in the game?

I think your number is closer at 6-7 than 10-15, though. at least when you get closer to 15. I would say 10 might be the max.

 

[dtgold88]

Might depend on if you were, say, a Cavs fan or not

you aren't so what do you think. Kyrie/Love that far behind Wade/Bosh? Miami's depth better?

 

[Shanemansj13]

Superstars imo (not future, right now):

Giannis
Kawhi
Lebron
KD
Steph
Lillard
AD
Harden

RW is borderline bc at one point he definitely was...I would vote YES still but wouldn't have a problem with either.