PDA

View Full Version : 2017 NBA Finals



-jk
06-11-2017, 12:51 PM
The troubles yesterday (a disk full error at the hosting site) corrupted the original 2017 NBA Finals (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?40136-2017-NBA-Finals) thread. For now, you can read it, but carry on the discussion here.

thanks,

-jk

subzero02
06-12-2017, 03:10 AM
subzero02:
Jordan and pippen would handle kyrie and lebron... toss Rodman into the mix as well. I can't believe how much the game has softened... the love foul on Durant would've been considered a love tap back in the mid to late 80s

Moonpie23:
this is absolutely incorrect...without going into individual metrics, jordan would foul out every single game trying to guard lebron (if they have referees)...
"Either they're going down, or we are! Kirk out!"


I'd expect 6'8" Pippen to be the primary defender on LeBron. I am sure Jordan would guard Lebron at times but I doubt his airness would foul out in every single matchup; especially if the game were played using pre-handcheck restriction(freedom of movement) rules from the 90s. Jordan was a savvy defender; he fouled out at a rate of about once every 114 games( 11 disqualifications in 1251 career games). This is pretty remarkable considering his mpg average (38.3 mpg regular season/41.8 mpg post) and the fact that he was named to the NBA's first team defense 9 times( Pippen was named to the NBA's first team defense 8 times). Also, when I said Jordan and Pippen would handle LeBron and Kyrie I meant that in a 5 on 5, or 2 on 2 matchup, the duo from the 90s would outperform the Cavs' duo. I think by most predictions, they'd have strong advantages on the defensive end and on the boards.

JasonEvans
06-12-2017, 11:45 AM
So, what are we expecting tonight?


A) Cleveland wins a tight one, sending shivers of fear through the supremely confident Warriors and their fan base
B) Warriors win a tight one, causing lots of folks to wonder "what if" regarding Cleveland's melt down late in game 3
C) Warriors win another laugher (like games 1 and 2), lending strong evidence to their "best team ever" argument

Note: There is no option D where the Cavs blow the Warriors out cause that ain't happening in Golden State unless someone poisons the Warriors pre-game meal.

-Jason "I think we are looking at B, I say the Warriors have a fairly steady 5-9 point lead throughout the 4th quarter to win title #2, Durant is Finals MVP" Evans

DukeTrinity11
06-12-2017, 12:20 PM
So, what are we expecting tonight?


A) Cleveland wins a tight one, sending shivers of fear through the supremely confident Warriors and their fan base
B) Warriors win a tight one, causing lots of folks to wonder "what if" regarding Cleveland's melt down late in game 3
C) Warriors win another laugher (like games 1 and 2), lending strong evidence to their "best team ever" argument

Note: There is no option D where the Cavs blow the Warriors out cause that ain't happening in Golden State unless someone poisons the Warriors pre-game meal.

-Jason "I think we are looking at B, I say the Warriors have a fairly steady 5-9 point lead throughout the 4th quarter to win title #2, Durant is Finals MVP" Evans
I'm with you on B Jason. I really believe the Cavs could have won this series had they not blown Game 3.

It took a few games but I think James and Irving have figured out this GSW defense. Give LeBron multiple looks at the same defensive scheme and he"ll eventually pick you apart.

Unfortunately GSW has a 3-1 buffer here and it will take LBJ and Kyrie going for 30+ a piece once again while the Cavs need 1 of Curry and Durant to have a bad game where neither Klay/Dray go bonkers either.

In all likelihood, GSW will close this series out tonight and Kevin Durant will be Finals MVP.

kshepinthehouse
06-12-2017, 01:04 PM
So, what are we expecting tonight?


A) Cleveland wins a tight one, sending shivers of fear through the supremely confident Warriors and their fan base
B) Warriors win a tight one, causing lots of folks to wonder "what if" regarding Cleveland's melt down late in game 3
C) Warriors win another laugher (like games 1 and 2), lending strong evidence to their "best team ever" argument

Note: There is no option D where the Cavs blow the Warriors out cause that ain't happening in Golden State unless someone poisons the Warriors pre-game meal.

-Jason "I think we are looking at B, I say the Warriors have a fairly steady 5-9 point lead throughout the 4th quarter to win title #2, Durant is Finals MVP" Evans

My honest guess is C. I wouldn't be surprised by A or B either. Were the Cavs just on fire? Or did they figure something out? I'm thinking they won't score over 130 again. Who knows? We shall see.

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 05:15 PM
Zach Lowe's great Game 5 preview column (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19609772/zach-lowe-golden-state-warriors-vs-cleveland-cavaliers-game-5-preview-2017-nba-finals)

Key part below. GSW still holds the ace in the hole of just playing their Death Lineup more i.e. removing GSW's true centers from the game since the Cavs have been abusing them. Kerr did a great job of that in Game 2 but he then proceeded to stick with his true centers too much in the games in Cleveland.


http://i.imgur.com/AiYMbAE.png

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 09:30 PM
Good start by the Cavs to absorb the initial punch by GSW. Zaza helped a lot -- he was awful on both ends.

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 09:36 PM
Playing Richard Jefferson more has helped so much. Crazy that he's 36 years old.

kshepinthehouse
06-12-2017, 09:50 PM
Way too many turnovers by the Warriors. This game doesn't have a good feel for those hoping the dubs win.

darthur
06-12-2017, 09:52 PM
Warriors are indeed playing really poorly. I think in Game 3, they played okay, but Cleveland was crazy good. This game, I think the Warriors are just playing poorly.

For those who think KD is the most important player on the Warriors, look at how terrible the KD+Klay offense has been in 2nd quarter. The team still absolutely runs through Curry.

Edit: A lot more life after the commercial break though. Fingers crossed...
Edit2: Holy crap that dunk by Iguodala!! The dude is like 50 years old. :)

Selover
06-12-2017, 09:56 PM
Pretty big no call on that dunk...

Duke79UNLV77
06-12-2017, 10:04 PM
Pretty big no call on that dunk...

Huge no call. And should have been a very easy call to make.

kshepinthehouse
06-12-2017, 10:04 PM
This clock
Stoppage may hurt the Warriors momentum.

Dr. Rosenrosen
06-12-2017, 10:10 PM
Tyron's substitutions and lack of TOs have been highly questionable all Q2. You gotta play your guys. What are you saving Kyrie for?

Philadukie
06-12-2017, 10:12 PM
Warriors are indeed playing really poorly. I think in Game 3, they played okay, but Cleveland was crazy good. This game, I think the Warriors are just playing poorly.

For those who think KD is the most important player on the Warriors, look at how terrible the KD+Klay offense has been in 2nd quarter. The team still absolutely runs through Curry.

Edit: A lot more life after the commercial break though. Fingers crossed...
Edit2: Holy crap that dunk by Iguodala!! The dude is like 50 years old. :)

KD is the most important player on the Warriors.

He's the second best player in the world.

Furniture
06-12-2017, 10:13 PM
It's over...

Duke79UNLV77
06-12-2017, 10:13 PM
West has always been a hothead. Good player, but always bugged me with the Pacers.

Selover
06-12-2017, 10:14 PM
KD is the most important player on the Warriors.

He's the second best player in the world.

He should also be on the bench with 3 fouls.

Duke79UNLV77
06-12-2017, 10:15 PM
I'm seeing some home-cooking.

darthur
06-12-2017, 10:21 PM
KD is the most important player on the Warriors.

He's the second best player in the world.

- Best player is not the same as most important.
- If you just watch finals games, you'll get an incomplete picture since Cleveland defends Curry better than anyone else, and KD isn't always as good as he is this series.
- Curry leads KD in all +/- metrics in both the regular season and the playoffs. The 2nd quarter blitz we saw here -- GS thrives on them, and they happen when Curry is on the floor. The offense just looks totally different when Steph is on vs off the floor because of his pace-pushing and because of the focus the defense gives him.

And yeah, KD and the Warriors absolutely got lucky with the missed call. Whether you buy my argument or not about how important Steph is, KD is still obviously incredibly important.

kshepinthehouse
06-12-2017, 10:26 PM
Wow. Cavs lucky to be down only 11.

darthur
06-12-2017, 10:31 PM
So LeBron has 21 points on 15 shots at half time, and I'm thinking the Warriors really did a much better job of slowing him down.

You know you are an incredible player when this is a "bad" game.

rsvman
06-12-2017, 10:40 PM
That no-call was yuuuge. Cavs should've been up by 9 and KD would likely have been on the bench.
Immediately thereafter the Warriors went on a tear and the Cavs got buried.

kshepinthehouse
06-12-2017, 10:49 PM
Huge travel thereby Lebron lol

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 10:49 PM
Cavs love the Zaza minutes. GSW is up by 8 in this game but Zaza is -10. Unfortunately, we probably won't see much more Zaza the rest of this game/series.

darthur
06-12-2017, 11:02 PM
Cavs love the Zaza minutes. GSW is up by 8 in this game but Zaza is -10. Unfortunately, we probably won't see much more Zaza the rest of this game/series.

I thought he was okay in the first quarter with the offensive rebounding. He was just truly awful in the 3rd quarter though.

dukelifer
06-12-2017, 11:04 PM
Durant is an other-worldly shooter.

jipops
06-12-2017, 11:06 PM
Suge Knight was such a good pickup for the Warriors. Much better than the Cavs' acquisition of Ashton Kutcher.

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 11:08 PM
Cavs deserve a lot of credit for hanging in here (even though GSW still up 7). They've probably played as well as they can the past 3 games, and it might still end tonight. Sigh.

dukelifer
06-12-2017, 11:13 PM
Cavs deserve a lot of credit for hanging in here (even though GSW still up 7). They've probably played as well as they can the past 3 games, and it might still end tonight. Sigh.

Got a shot. Down 5 at the end of the third quarter. Need to keep it close.

darthur
06-12-2017, 11:14 PM
Cavs deserve a lot of credit for hanging in here (even though GSW still up 7). They've probably played as well as they can the past 3 games, and it might still end tonight. Sigh.

If the 3rd quarter repeats, the Cavs will win and be looking pretty good overall. This series is definitely not over. The Warriors rested 3 of the big 4 in the late 3rd though, so hopefully they'll start strong in the 4th.

Dr. Rosenrosen
06-12-2017, 11:20 PM
Got a shot. Down 5 at the end of the third quarter. Need to keep it close.
They have no shot if Durant keeps shooting like this.

dukelifer
06-12-2017, 11:21 PM
If the 3rd quarter repeats, the Cavs will win and be looking pretty good overall. This series is definitely not over. The Warriors rested 3 of the big 4 in the late 3rd though, so hopefully they'll start strong in the 4th.

As long as Durant is shooting like this- I see no way they can lose. He is not human

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 11:37 PM
GSW's Death Lineup to close games is too hard to overcome. The only time Kerr can be counted on to play his best lineup is at the end of games. (Part of the reason why Cavs blew that Game 3 lead).

kshepinthehouse
06-12-2017, 11:45 PM
Greatest team ever

CoachJ10
06-12-2017, 11:48 PM
Can't wait to see Golden State with Paul George next year. That will be fun.

darthur
06-12-2017, 11:49 PM
Woohoo!!! :)

LeBron and Kyrie were great all series and those Cavs are an extremely good team, but the Warriors hold on. I don't give a crap about historical ranking now. Just so glad the Warriors got their redemption after last year's collapse.

duke4ever19
06-12-2017, 11:55 PM
Congrats to GS. Add Durant to a 70+ win team? Embarrassment of riches. Durant has several rings in his future if they keep that core together.

One nit-pick: Curry hoisting threes from ridiculous range while up 10 with and around 30ish seconds on the clock (???). . . he did it one two possessions in the closing seconds.

Sorry, but I like the Duke way . . . you dribble the clock out in that situation. I hate it in college ball and I hate it in the NBA.

JasonEvans
06-12-2017, 11:57 PM
ABC just said that Andre Igoudala won the finals MVP. That just can't be, can it?

Bluegrassdevil1
06-12-2017, 11:57 PM
I am quite intrigued as to how the remainder of the NBA adapts to what the Warriors have moving forward.

Cleveland is not built to beat them four times (last season took a perfect storm of GSW stumbles to do it in seven games).

San Antonio is Leonard and a collection of creaky knees (CP3 will only add to the creaking collection).

Boston is miles away.

And... The rest of the NBA is not even in the discussion.

It is profoundly fascinating that the Warriors do not have a Yankees to their Red Sox, Colts to their Patriots, Blackhawks to their Penguins, and for the coming future, should justifiably win the NBA title every single year.

Yes, the eighty-two game season is quite toothless, but watching the Warriors feels like having a televised perspective for the rise of the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie. I would love to read an in-depth analysis of the processes that shifted an also-ran franchise into a mega power.

Troublemaker
06-12-2017, 11:57 PM
Ha!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_zsD9L0XVY

rsvman
06-12-2017, 11:58 PM
Durant was the difference, not just tonight but in the whole series. He was just unstoppable. An incredible shooter and just an all-around amazing player.

I think if GSW still had Barnes instead the Cavs would have repeated.

pfrduke
06-13-2017, 12:00 AM
GSW's Death Lineup to close games is too hard to overcome. The only time Kerr can be counted on to play his best lineup is at the end of games. (Part of the reason why Cavs blew that Game 3 lead).

Well, Kerr didn't play Pachulia after 7:52 in the 3rd and only played West 1:27 in the second half. McCaw and Livingston had some minutes (because you have to rest people), but the Warriors played all but 5:35 of the second half with no center.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 12:00 AM
ABC just said that Andre Igoudala won the finals MVP. That just can't be, can it?

They meant 2015

JasonEvans
06-13-2017, 12:01 AM
I would love to read an in-depth analysis of the processes that shifted an also-ran franchise into a mega power.

Get unbelievably, incredibly, stunningly lucky three times in the NBA draft and then have a one-time glitch in the salary cap work your way to bring the second best player alive to your team.

Green Wave Dukie
06-13-2017, 12:01 AM
They meant 2015

I think they actually even said it was 2015

pfrduke
06-13-2017, 12:04 AM
Get unbelievably, incredibly, stunningly lucky three times in the NBA draft and then have a one-time glitch in the salary cap work your way to bring the second best player alive to your team.

And have a transformative star have eggshell ankles at the time his extension comes due. It's not just the salary cap jump; it's carrying a two-time MVP for less than Timofey Mozgov or Ian Mahinmi (among many, many others).

Troublemaker
06-13-2017, 12:10 AM
Durant was the difference, not just tonight but in the whole series. He was just unstoppable. An incredible shooter and just an all-around amazing player.

I think if GSW still had Barnes instead the Cavs would have repeated.

Deserving MVP. All kidding aside, he made a great choice to come to the Warriors. He's going to win multiple championships, and once he gets ring #4, I guarantee people will argue that he's better than Lebron.


Well, Kerr didn't play Pachulia after 7:52 in the 3rd and only played West 1:27 in the second half. McCaw and Livingston had some minutes (because you have to rest people), but the Warriors played all but 5:35 of the second half with no center.

Yes, Kerr took the game seriously tonight and coached his best game of the series. I also liked how he put Iguodala on Kyrie when Klay was in foul trouble. Kerr still gets like a C- for the series for not playing Green at C more the previous 4 games (although sometimes that is because of Green's foul trouble). And the true Death Lineup is Curry-Klay-Iggy-Durant-Green; he really should start them to ensure they get enough minutes together.

TexHawk
06-13-2017, 12:24 AM
Get unbelievably, incredibly, stunningly lucky three times in the NBA draft and then have a one-time glitch in the salary cap work your way to bring the second best player alive to your team.

The Ringer (https://theringer.com/2017-nba-finals-how-the-warriors-built-their-team-2d5f49a5265a) with a good article on this today.

Salary cap (Durant) was definitely timing and luck. Taking a risk on a PG who couldn't stay on the court, and drafting Draymond Green when every other team in the league could have had him fall under "doing a good job running the team".

It's also not their fault that their competition drafted Derrick Williams, Jan Vesely, and Jimmer Fredette instead of Klay Thompson.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 12:26 AM
Lebron referenced "me personally" multiple times in his interview. Can we infer he isn't happy with one or more of his team mates?

darthur
06-13-2017, 12:43 AM
The Ringer (https://theringer.com/2017-nba-finals-how-the-warriors-built-their-team-2d5f49a5265a) with a good article on this today.

Salary cap (Durant) was definitely timing and luck. Taking a risk on a PG who couldn't stay on the court, and drafting Draymond Green when every other team in the league could have had him fall under "doing a good job running the team".

It's also not their fault that their competition drafted Derrick Williams, Jan Vesely, and Jimmer Fredette instead of Klay Thompson.

Whenever a team gets this good, luck plays a big role. But I think the franchise management is looking pretty smart right now too. Things they've done well:

- Trading Monta Ellis for Bogut when Ellis was face of the franchise -- dropping a low-efficiency high-volume guy who could never pair with Curry on a contender, and getting a guy who can instill defense first into the team
- Steph + Klay + Draymond drafts obviously
- But Harrison Barnes and Festus Ezeli were really solid draft picks too that helped carry the team the last couple years
- Sign-and-trade for Iguodala so they both get an important veteran on a rising team and also dropping salary so they can keep building
- Having the courage to fire Mark Jackson even after he brought a perennial loser to the playoffs for the first time in many years. Kerr, in addition to being a good coach by conventional means, is universally loved by the players and literally calls out "having fun" regularly as one of his keys for success in games. I think this plays a big part in why the team has suddenly become so attractive for free agents (although winning of course is probably still the #1 thing).
- Refusing to trade Klay for KLove when KLove was hot stuff
- Dumping (via two separate trades) David Lee and his salary, allowing them the flexibility to sign KD and still be paying less than Cleveland
- Lots of really solid cheapo vet signings, like McGee when nobody wanted him, David West, Zaza, etc. They lost 7 players from last year's squad and yet their bench hardly suffered.
- And I'm quite happy with McCaw too. The Warriors got him as a 2nd round draft pick for $2M cash this year, and he's become a perfectly respectable defense-first bench player who's had some great playoff moments

dukelifer
06-13-2017, 06:48 AM
Deserving MVP. All kidding aside, he made a great choice to come to the Warriors. He's going to win multiple championships, and once he gets ring #4, I guarantee people will argue that he's better than Lebron.



Yes, Kerr took the game seriously tonight and coached his best game of the series. I also liked how he put Iguodala on Kyrie when Klay was in foul trouble. Kerr still gets like a C- for the series for not playing Green at C more the previous 4 games (although sometimes that is because of Green's foul trouble). And the true Death Lineup is Curry-Klay-Iggy-Durant-Green; he really should start them to ensure they get enough minutes together.

No question that Durant makes GS special. He is an amazingly gifted shooter and scorer. I think that the Cavs have 5 pretty good players in Love, Smith, Thompson, Irving and James. But their bench is a mess- not that good offensively or defensively. The Warriors tend to get more from theirs on a consistent basis. Iggy and Livingston are pros and can step it up when needed. The Cavs are the only team right now that has a shot to beat them 4 games right now barring injury. It will be interesting to see how the league evolves to deal with this team. Maybe the Cavs can trade Love for Kawhi Leonard.

Indoor66
06-13-2017, 08:03 AM
Deserving MVP. All kidding aside, he made a great choice to come to the Warriors. He's going to win multiple championships, and once he gets ring #4, I guarantee people will argue that he's better than Lebron.



Yes, Kerr took the game seriously tonight and coached his best game of the series. I also liked how he put Iguodala on Kyrie when Klay was in foul trouble. Kerr still gets like a C- for the series for not playing Green at C more the previous 4 games (although sometimes that is because of Green's foul trouble). And the true Death Lineup is Curry-Klay-Iggy-Durant-Green; he really should start them to ensure they get enough minutes together.

A C-? He just coached his team to the championship 4-1 in the final series for a team that went 16-1 overall. What do you expect?

sagegrouse
06-13-2017, 08:09 AM
Whenever a team gets this good, luck plays a big role. But I think the franchise management is looking pretty smart right now too. Things they've done well:

- Trading Monta Ellis for Bogut when Ellis was face of the franchise -- dropping a low-efficiency high-volume guy who could never pair with Curry on a contender, and getting a guy who can instill defense first into the team
- Steph + Klay + Draymond drafts obviously
- But Harrison Barnes and Festus Ezeli were really solid draft picks too that helped carry the team the last couple years
- Sign-and-trade for Iguodala so they both get an important veteran on a rising team and also dropping salary so they can keep building
- Having the courage to fire Mark Jackson even after he brought a perennial loser to the playoffs for the first time in many years. Kerr, in addition to being a good coach by conventional means, is universally loved by the players and literally calls out "having fun" regularly as one of his keys for success in games. I think this plays a big part in why the team has suddenly become so attractive for free agents (although winning of course is probably still the #1 thing).
- Refusing to trade Klay for KLove when KLove was hot stuff
- Dumping (via two separate trades) David Lee and his salary, allowing them the flexibility to sign KD and still be paying less than Cleveland
- Lots of really solid cheapo vet signings, like McGee when nobody wanted him, David West, Zaza, etc. They lost 7 players from last year's squad and yet their bench hardly suffered.
- And I'm quite happy with McCaw too. The Warriors got him as a 2nd round draft pick for $2M cash this year, and he's become a perfectly respectable defense-first bench player who's had some great playoff moments

One factor working for the Warriors is that established players nearing the end of their careers will settle for lower salaries in order to have a chance at winning a ring. Bill Walton's joining the 1985-86 Celtics is a long-ago successful example. Pete Maravich also tried it, somewhat earlier, but the Celtics lost in the conference finals.

Or, as my parents used to say long ago, "Them that has, gets."

Indoor66
06-13-2017, 08:24 AM
Or, as my parents used to say long ago, "Them that has, gets."

Gee, now you say it.😎

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 08:34 AM
No question that Durant makes GS special. He is an amazingly gifted shooter and scorer. I think that the Cavs have 5 pretty good players in Love, Smith, Thompson, Irving and James. But their bench is a mess- not that good offensively or defensively. The Warriors tend to get more from theirs on a consistent basis. Iggy and Livingston are pros and can step it up when needed. The Cavs are the only team right now that has a shot to beat them 4 games right now barring injury. It will be interesting to see how the league evolves to deal with this team. Maybe the Cavs can trade Love for Kawhi Leonard.

Love for Leonard is not even close. I'm amazed when people come up with deals like this. Leonard is the 3rd best player in the league.

TexHawk
06-13-2017, 08:55 AM
Love for Leonard is not even close. I'm amazed when people come up with deals like this. Leonard is the 3rd best player in the league.

Love for Paul George makes some sense. They aren't equal players, but George only has one year left on his contract. (And he'll be flying to LA the nanosecond he becomes a free agent.)


It would be kind of funny to see the Cavs try to swap Love for a 3-and-D player like George to matchup better with the Warriors, to then have to defend a team like the Sixers in the playoffs, who have a superstar traditional big man.

TexHawk
06-13-2017, 08:58 AM
Whenever a team gets this good, luck plays a big role.

Absolutely, and forgive me for not feeling bad for the Cavs in the luck department. They were only here because they won the lottery 3 times in 4 years.

Troublemaker
06-13-2017, 08:59 AM
A C-? He just coached his team to the championship 4-1 in the final series for a team that went 16-1 overall. What do you expect?

Well, the Warriors have the greatest team of all time. C- is being nice when a coach doesn't play his best lineup enough. (And that's the scary thing for the rest of the league; GSW has another gear to go to if needed, but they just haven't needed it.)


No question that Durant makes GS special. He is an amazingly gifted shooter and scorer. I think that the Cavs have 5 pretty good players in Love, Smith, Thompson, Irving and James. But their bench is a mess- not that good offensively or defensively. The Warriors tend to get more from theirs on a consistent basis. Iggy and Livingston are pros and can step it up when needed. The Cavs are the only team right now that has a shot to beat them 4 games right now barring injury. It will be interesting to see how the league evolves to deal with this team. Maybe the Cavs can trade Love for Kawhi Leonard.

That's only when playing against the Warriors, though. The Cavs have a very good bench against every other team in the league. Frye and Korver are scary weapons off the bench, Deron Williams is a great backup PG, RJeff is still an athletic two-way presence, and Shumpert is a good defender. It's really only the Warriors that can expose those guys defensively and then also help-and-recover to all that shooting on the other end.

I have a difficult time criticizing Cleveland's roster construction too much. Ignoring the regular season (where, with hindsight, Cleveland doesn't try), this was Lebron's best team, imo. They just aren't the greatest team of all-time, and now that Durant is with GSW, front offices have to construct the greatest team of all-time in order to win the championship.

superdave
06-13-2017, 09:01 AM
And have a transformative star have eggshell ankles at the time his extension comes due. It's not just the salary cap jump; it's carrying a two-time MVP for less than Timofey Mozgov or Ian Mahinmi (among many, many others).

Curry is making $12-ish million right now.

They also got Igoudala to take less, and come off the bench.

But yeah, the draft - Curry at #7, Thompson at #11, Green at #35. Also the rules have been designed for exactly what the Warriors got lucky in the draft to do.

Skitzle
06-13-2017, 09:09 AM
Whenever a team gets this good, luck plays a big role. But I think the franchise management is looking pretty smart right now too. Things they've done well:

- Trading Monta Ellis for Bogut when Ellis was face of the franchise -- dropping a low-efficiency high-volume guy who could never pair with Curry on a contender, and getting a guy who can instill defense first into the team
- Steph + Klay + Draymond drafts obviously
- But Harrison Barnes and Festus Ezeli were really solid draft picks too that helped carry the team the last couple years
- Sign-and-trade for Iguodala so they both get an important veteran on a rising team and also dropping salary so they can keep building
- Having the courage to fire Mark Jackson even after he brought a perennial loser to the playoffs for the first time in many years. Kerr, in addition to being a good coach by conventional means, is universally loved by the players and literally calls out "having fun" regularly as one of his keys for success in games. I think this plays a big part in why the team has suddenly become so attractive for free agents (although winning of course is probably still the #1 thing).
- Refusing to trade Klay for KLove when KLove was hot stuff
- Dumping (via two separate trades) David Lee and his salary, allowing them the flexibility to sign KD and still be paying less than Cleveland
- Lots of really solid cheapo vet signings, like McGee when nobody wanted him, David West, Zaza, etc. They lost 7 players from last year's squad and yet their bench hardly suffered.
- And I'm quite happy with McCaw too. The Warriors got him as a 2nd round draft pick for $2M cash this year, and he's become a perfectly respectable defense-first bench player who's had some great playoff moments

Don't forget the key "moves" by Dwight Howard and Deandre Jordon.
Both rejected the Warriors gigantic offers to play for other teams, leaving the space to sign Kevin Durant.
Sometimes "good" Front Offices get lucky.

DukieInBrasil
06-13-2017, 09:59 AM
Cavs got lucky that Draymond allowed his punkishness get the best of him last year. Also, that Steph was playing less than 100%.
As GSW is structured now, assuming no free agency losses, i don't see how the Cavs can contend withe Warriors in the future. Steph and Kyrie are roughly equal, some would argue for an advantage for Steph, some see advantages for Kyrie. Lebron and Durant are also roughly equal, although perhaps Lebron is regarded more highly. So GSW and CLE are roughly the same at their 2 biggest star positions, in terms of production. JR Smith is a huge, huge, huge dropoff from Klay. KLove is a great rebounder, and occasionally lights it up from 3, but i would still have to pick Draymond over KLove if i want to win championships. Both C are sort of afterthoughts for both teams, and i'm not really sure if either offers an advantage over the other. The bench is a big, big bonus for GSW. Livingston is much better than anyone coming off the Cavs bench, and several others provide useful minutes. I'm really at a loss to think of anyone inspiring off the Cavs bench.
So GSW, in my view, has a big advantage with 2 of the 5 starters and a big advantage off the bench. That's a lot to overcome. The Cavs have to move KLove for a more mobile PF and upgrade their bench in a major way. If JR Smith was a bench player and they made a big upgrade at starting SG, they would still need a couple more high-quality reserves to be competitive with GSW.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 10:09 AM
Cavs got lucky that Draymond allowed his punkishness get the best of him last year. Also, that Steph was playing less than 100%.
.

You could also say the Warriors got lucky in 2015 when the Cavs lost both Kyrie and Love. What is the narrative if both those guys are healthy and the Cavs win in 2015 and 2016?

Obviously the Warriors are much better now but I do find it interesting people talk about the Draymond thing and Steph last year a lot but hardly bring up Love and Kyrie in 2015.

darthur
06-13-2017, 10:20 AM
Obviously the Warriors are much better now but I do find it interesting people talk about the Draymond thing and Steph last year a lot but hardly bring up Love and Kyrie in 2015.

Seems to me people bring it up all the fricking time...

CDu
06-13-2017, 10:36 AM
You could also say the Warriors got lucky in 2015 when the Cavs lost both Kyrie and Love. What is the narrative if both those guys are healthy and the Cavs win in 2015 and 2016?

Obviously the Warriors are much better now but I do find it interesting people talk about the Draymond thing and Steph last year a lot but hardly bring up Love and Kyrie in 2015.

I think most reasonable people can acknowledge that Cleveland was hurt by injury in 2015 and Golden State was hurt by injury and suspension in 2016.

And I think plenty of folks are bringing up Love and Irving's injuries in 2015.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 10:43 AM
And I think plenty of folks are bringing up Love and Irving's injuries in 2015.

I guess we have just seen different people talking about it then. FWIW the person I brought it up in response to made no mention of it and was just discussing the"luck" of the Cavs last year.

dukelifer
06-13-2017, 10:49 AM
Love for Leonard is not even close. I'm amazed when people come up with deals like this. Leonard is the 3rd best player in the league.

Well it obviously wasn't clear - that was a joke. Just thinking about what it might take.

dukelifer
06-13-2017, 10:52 AM
Well, the Warriors have the greatest team of all time. C- is being nice when a coach doesn't play his best lineup enough. (And that's the scary thing for the rest of the league; GSW has another gear to go to if needed, but they just haven't needed it.)



That's only when playing against the Warriors, though. The Cavs have a very good bench against every other team in the league. Frye and Korver are scary weapons off the bench, Deron Williams is a great backup PG, RJeff is still an athletic two-way presence, and Shumpert is a good defender. It's really only the Warriors that can expose those guys defensively and then also help-and-recover to all that shooting on the other end.

I have a difficult time criticizing Cleveland's roster construction too much. Ignoring the regular season (where, with hindsight, Cleveland doesn't try), this was Lebron's best team, imo. They just aren't the greatest team of all-time, and now that Durant is with GSW, front offices have to construct the greatest team of all-time in order to win the championship.

I should have been more clear- they are not good on either end against the Warriors. They need a different group or need to get a reliable bench guy- who can handle the big moment. I thought Korver was a disappointment. I think they expected him to Shane and he did not deliver in the Finals. If he hits the shot in game 3 a lot changes.

NM Duke Fan
06-13-2017, 11:15 AM
I should have been more clear- they are not good on either end against the Warriors. They need a different group or need to get a reliable bench guy- who can handle the big moment. I thought Korver was a disappointment. I think they expected him to Shane and he did not deliver in the Finals. If he hits the shot in game 3 a lot changes.

Korver did not make the hoped for impact, the bench overall is too weak Not sure what they can pull off with their current strictures. I was imagining this team with JJ and how that would have improved things on both ends compared to Korver.

DukieInBrasil
06-13-2017, 11:23 AM
You could also say the Warriors got lucky in 2015 when the Cavs lost both Kyrie and Love. What is the narrative if both those guys are healthy and the Cavs win in 2015 and 2016?

Obviously the Warriors are much better now but I do find it interesting people talk about the Draymond thing and Steph last year a lot but hardly bring up Love and Kyrie in 2015.

you could say that, but there is no guarantee they would have won. There is absolutely no doubt that GSW wins last year in 6 without Draymond's suspension, and that was with healthy Kyrie and Love. I've brought up Love and Kyrie's absence and its impact on the 2015 title before, just not in that post.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 11:40 AM
you could say that, but there is no guarantee they would have won. There is absolutely no doubt that GSW wins last year in 6 without Draymond's suspension,.

How do you know this? Also Green was suspended for game five when they were up 3-1 already. The warriors lost game 7 at home with a full roster, they could've lost game five as well.

rsvman
06-13-2017, 11:49 AM
you could say that, but there is no guarantee they would have won. There is absolutely no doubt that GSW wins last year in 6 without Draymond's suspension, and that was with healthy Kyrie and Love. I've brought up Love and Kyrie's absence and its impact on the 2015 title before, just not in that post.

Not a no doubt situation at all.

And I still think that if the Warriors hasn't picked up Durant, the Cavs would be celebrating back to back titles right now.

Troublemaker
06-13-2017, 11:52 AM
I am quite intrigued as to how the remainder of the NBA adapts to what the Warriors have moving forward.


It will be interesting to see how the league evolves to deal with this team. Maybe the Cavs can trade Love for Kawhi Leonard.

The NBA franchises themselves are powerless to do anything. To compete with GSW, it will take Lebron going behind the scenes and arranging a different super team to form in either Cleveland, San Antonio, or L.A.

The way GSW formed was Iguodala and Green recruiting Durant to come and Durant remembering how well he, Iggy, and Curry played together with USA basketball in 2010, under Coach K.

If I were Lebron, I would be on the phone with Paul George today. "Force Indiana to trade you here, and if we can't beat the Warriors next season, I will follow you to L.A. after the season." George should force Indiana's hand by saying there's no way he will re-sign with them, and so they should get what they can get. (And if the consolation prize is Kevin Love, that's a great trade for the Pacers.)

darthur
06-13-2017, 11:55 AM
Korver did not make the hoped for impact, the bench overall is too weak Not sure what they can pull off with their current strictures. I was imagining this team with JJ and how that would have improved things on both ends compared to Korver.

Is JJ very different from Kyle? I see them as very comparable players.

JJ's a little younger, a little faster on defense IMO, and scores a little more. Korver's a little taller and a little more efficient.

tbyers11
06-13-2017, 11:57 AM
The NBA franchises themselves are powerless to do anything. To compete with GSW, it will take Lebron going behind the scenes and arranging a different super team to form in either Cleveland, San Antonio, or L.A.

The way GSW formed was Iguodala and Green recruiting Durant to come and Durant remembering how well he, Iggy, and Curry played together with USA basketball.

So, what you're really saying is that Coach K is somehow behind the GSW super team :D

I guess LeBron shouldn't have skipped the 2010 World Championships, huh?

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 12:16 PM
The NBA franchises themselves are powerless to do anything. To compete with GSW, it will take Lebron going behind the scenes and arranging a different super team to form in either Cleveland, San Antonio, or L.A.

The way GSW formed was Iguodala and Green recruiting Durant to come and Durant remembering how well he, Iggy, and Curry played together with USA basketball in 2010, under Coach K.

If I were Lebron, I would be on the phone with Paul George today. "Force Indiana to trade you here, and if we can't beat the Warriors next season, I will follow you to L.A. after the season." George should force Indiana's hand by saying there's no way he will re-sign with them, and so they should get what they can get. (And if the consolation prize is Kevin Love, that's a great trade for the Pacers.)

Lebron already has a super team, it's just that his super team isn't nearly as talented as the Warriors, the biggest gap is on the defensive end. Warriors just have more multidimensional players.

Steven43
06-13-2017, 12:18 PM
I guess we have just seen different people talking about it then. FWIW the person I brought it up in response to made no mention of it and was just discussing the"luck" of the Cavs last year.

Just because a guy offers the opinion that Golden State would have won the championship in five games last year if not for the bogus suspension of Draymond Green does not therefore follow that the same poster has an obligation to bring up the topic of how the injuries of Love and Irving contributed to Golden State's championship in 2015.

Billy Dat
06-13-2017, 12:49 PM
And I still think that if the Warriors hasn't picked up Durant, the Cavs would be celebrating back to back titles right now.

It certainly seems that way, but I wonder if the Cavs were able to find that extra gear because they were facing such a formidable challenge? Game 5 was played with a really fearsome energy, guys were laying it all out there and it was really exciting to watch. It was Durant as that extra piece - suddenly two players (Durant and Curry) essentially had to be double teamed, and it exhausted the Cavs defense and, helped by the fact that they are such a good passing team, led to those many 4th quarter dunks.

Major kudos to Durant who, while he did join a Super team, was the on-court production leader of that team and clearly the difference maker. The guy was a stone cold killer.

The Cavs had their chances but ran out of gas. I can't remember how much time was left, but when they had whittled that lead to 5 or even 3, there were several times when they had make-able shots to pull even or take a lead and they missed, or took bad shots, etc.

A few other observations from the post-game, many of these show bias and are certainly opinions only:
-Owners championship podium presentations/reactions are always amazing on a awkward comedy perspective. They tend to scream into the mic, as if there is no mic present. Lacob and Guber didn't disappoint
-To me, the immediate post game should be a wide shot with no speaking to allow the viewer to see everything happening...who is hugging who? What is everyone doing...I want to see it all for myself and decide where I want to look!
-KD was off by himself in the immediate aftermath and hugged many different Cavs before he ever joined a title celebration
-KD says he said to LBJ, "We're 1-1 now"...ouch...must hurt for LBJ to know that ratio will likely tilt in the Slim Reaper's favor...but who knows?
-KD's Mom is a piece of work. I like her grabbing him by his chin and shaking his head around and generally scenery chewing. I think she thinks she the real MVP.
-Draymond showed a lot of humility during the Doris Burke trophy interview. He basically said, "I screwed up big time last year and cost us a title".
-Great Kyrie post game quote about Lebron - https://twitter.com/BenGolliver/status/874489094084075520/photo/1
-This examination of KD's post game beer-related foibles is funny - https://sports.yahoo.com/kevin-durant-hadnt-beer-since-february-kind-tell-071834411.html

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 12:49 PM
Just because a guy offers the opinion that Golden State would have won the championship in five games last year if not for the bogus suspension of Draymond Green does not therefore follow that the same poster has an obligation to bring up the topic of how the injuries of Love and Irving contributed to Golden State's championship in 2015.

I never said anyone was obliged to bring it up. I just found it interesting. The whole post was comparing the two teams and I felt 2015 has it's place in that discussion as well so I brought it up.

superdave
06-13-2017, 12:54 PM
the bogus suspension of Draymond Green

LOL
:
His suspension was a lifetime achievement award for being dirty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjeAMfW3RS0

If I were his teammate, I'd make him pay me a championship bonus from last year, because that's what his dumb rear-end cost me.

DukeTrinity11
06-13-2017, 12:57 PM
Lebron already has a super team, it's just that his super team isn't nearly as talented as the Warriors, the biggest gap is on the defensive end. Warriors just have more multidimensional players.
Stop it, the Cavs are nothing without LeBron. They were 1-8 without him this regular season. Kyrie excels in the Robin role with LBJ but you would be foolish to prefer him over Wall for the Wizards or Lillard for the Blazers. I do prefer Irving over those other PGs in this specific role as a 2nd banana on this Cavs team though due to his shooting and insane ability to create off the dribble.

You're basically saying that any team that LBJ goes to that has 2 reasonably good players is a superteam.

If LBJ joins the Blazers, does he then form a super team with Lillard and McCollum?
If LBJ joins the Celtics, does he then form a super team with IT3 and Bradley?
If LBJ joins the Bulls, does he then form a super team with Butler and Wade?

LeBron James is the superteam. His presence instantly turns every bottom tier team like the Lakers, Suns and Sixers into at least mid tier playoff contenders and the top half of the teams into NBA Championship contenders.

superdave
06-13-2017, 01:06 PM
If Paul goes to San Antonio, they have Kawhi, Paul, Aldridge, Gasol, Parker, Green. Plus David Lee, Kyle Anderson, Mills and potentially Ginobli.

Would love to see GSW have to go through something like that to make a Finals.

I do wonder how much Paul has left in the tank though, given his knee history.

ikiru36
06-13-2017, 01:22 PM
How do you know this? Also Green was suspended for game five when they were up 3-1 already. The warriors lost game 7 at home with a full roster, they could've lost game five as well.

I'm not arguing one way or the other regarding whether the Warriors definitely would have won in 5 without the Draymond suspension last year. Actually, I always thought the bigger impact on the series as a whole was the loss of Andrew Bogut during game 5. Bogut was incredibly efficient for them last year, offensively and defensively, with a 21 point differential between his offensive rating (120) and defensive rating (99) over the whole season as a starter (and a Top-20 in the league ws/48 of .180). Bogut, when healthy, was one of the top defensive, rebounding and passing Centers in the whole league and a big part of why they never lost back-to-back games all year (and set the NBA regular season record for wins), before losing 3 in a row without him to end the season. While many thought that the Warriors simply should have played the "death lineup" more, I think that what made that team so special was that they could switch styles between using a very skilled but bruising defensive Center wearing the other team's interior down, and the so-called "death lineup".

Serious respect to the Cavs last year for taking advantage (and less-so the Warriors the year before regarding injuries to Kyrie and Love), but to me the 2015-16 version of the Warriors was actually better than this year's team, until Steph got injured at the beginning of the playoffs (never more than 80% of former self thereafter) and then the injury to Bogut. To me, it is only the sublimeness of KD (and relative playoff health of the team this year) that makes it a contest between the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Warriors. KD makes up for a lot, but that team's added players (including Bogut, Barbosa, Speights, Ezeli, Rush and one whose name I shall not mention) was really something to behold when at full strength. That said, if the Warriors remain healthy next year, with KD already well integrated into the squad, they could really be even better than they were this year (or even last) and that is a scary thought.

In any event, C'est la vie and due congrats to the Warriors in 2017!!!

Go Duke!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

darthur
06-13-2017, 01:48 PM
Stop it, the Cavs are nothing without LeBron. They were 1-8 without him this regular season. Kyrie excels in the Robin role with LBJ but you would be foolish to prefer him over Wall for the Wizards or Lillard for the Blazers. I do prefer Irving over those other PGs in this specific role as a 2nd banana on this Cavs team though due to his shooting and insane ability to create off the dribble.

You're basically saying that any team that LBJ goes to that has 2 reasonably good players is a superteam.

If Irving, Love, Lillard, McCollum, Butler count as "reasonably good" players, then I think this is true. LeBron is absolutely 100% the heart-and-soul of the Cavs, but:

- I think you need to be a little cautious looking at a team's record in one-off games without their star. They tend to build their entire game plan around their star, and then have trouble (and are possibly unmotivated) to adjust for one game if the star is out. If LeBron was out all next season and the rest of the Cavs stayed, they would not be elite but I do fully believe they would be a solid playoff team.

- Regardless of who's contributing what, it seems pretty reasonable to me to argue this iteration of the Cavs is the best team LeBron has played on. Aside from the Warriors, they have absolutely annihilated the competition in the playoffs. Kyrie and KLove are not that much worse than DWade + Bosh, their game seems to align better with LeBron's, and I believe the Cavs supporting cast is a fair bit better than Miami's. There are many teams (including the Warriors) that would looove to have a Tristan Thompson for example. And LeBron himself is playing as well as he's ever played IMO.

darthur
06-13-2017, 01:52 PM
but to me the 2015-16 version of the Warriors was actually better than this year's team, until Steph got injured at the beginning of the playoffs (never more than 80% of former self thereafter) and then the injury to Bogut.

The injuries to the Warriors last year certainly hurt them, and it's no accident IMO that Steph had such a sharp decline in the playoffs last year after his injury, as opposed to this year where his playoff numbers were better than his regular season numbers.

Having said that, I think last year's team was just locked in more during the regular season as opposed to being actually better. This year's team seemed to really only lock in after the KD injury, and finished, what, 30-2? With one of those losses being a garbage game with resting starters and the other loss being the one where the Cavs played out of their fricking minds? To me, this iteration of the Warriors is clearly better, even if Steph never quite reached the same heights from last year pre-injury.

rsvman
06-13-2017, 01:57 PM
Is JJ very different from Kyle? I see them as very comparable players.

JJ's a little younger, a little faster on defense IMO, and scores a little more. Korver's a little taller and a little more efficient.

I don't know Korver's numbers this year, but for a guy who is supposed to be a long-range shooter, he shot very poorly. So are there differences? Yes. JJ is a better shooter, a better defender, and a better scorer than Korver. He's likely also a slightly better passer.

darthur
06-13-2017, 02:07 PM
I don't know Korver's numbers this year, but for a guy who is supposed to be a long-range shooter, he shot very poorly. So are there differences? Yes. JJ is a better shooter, a better defender, and a better scorer than Korver. He's likely also a slightly better passer.

I think you may be putting too much stock in one series against by far the best defensive team in the playoffs. And unfortunately, I remember all too well that JJ has struggled in some big games in his career too...

Korver was an all-star just 2 years ago, and shot 48.5% with the Cavs on 3s this regular season. I agree JJ's probably a better defender, but eh, he's not that much better. Korver and JJ also have very similar assist numbers.

CDu
06-13-2017, 02:15 PM
I don't know Korver's numbers this year, but for a guy who is supposed to be a long-range shooter, he shot very poorly. So are there differences? Yes. JJ is a better shooter, a better defender, and a better scorer than Korver. He's likely also a slightly better passer.

Korver led the NBA in 3pt shooting % this year at 45.1%. His career % is 43.1%. He shot 41.5% from 3 in the Eastern Conference playoffs. He shot 5-16 from 3 in the Finals. Basically, he missed 2 more shots in the Finals than he would have been expected to make. I wouldn't say he shot "very poorly."

I would argue that Korver is ever so slightly the better shooter (Redick is a career 41.5% 3pt shooter on nearly identical shots per game/minute). Redick is a better ballhandler (though this is not relevant to the Cavs, as they'd be using him as a spot-up guy) and probably the better passer (again, not highly relevant to the Cavs, as he'd be a catch-and-shoot guy), and perhaps better defender (though not a sufficiently good defender to pair with Irving anyway).

kAzE
06-13-2017, 02:21 PM
Korver led the NBA in 3pt shooting % this year at 45.1%. His career % is 43.1%. He shot 41.5% from 3 in the Eastern Conference playoffs. He shot 5-16 from 3 in the Finals. Basically, he missed 2 more shots in the Finals than he would have been expected to make. I wouldn't say he shot "very poorly."

I would argue that Korver is ever so slightly the better shooter (Redick is a career 41.5% 3pt shooter on nearly identical shots per game/minute). Redick is a better ballhandler (though this is not relevant to the Cavs, as they'd be using him as a spot-up guy) and probably the better passer (again, not highly relevant to the Cavs, as he'd be a catch-and-shoot guy), and perhaps better defender (though not a sufficiently good defender to pair with Irving anyway).

I wonder if JJ (who is now a free agent) would be willing to sign with the Cavs for the minimum (a la David West) to chase a ring? There's a ton of speculation going on with Cleveland following this defeat at the hands of the overpowered Warriors.

I'd be surprised if he did so, because he could get some serious dough on the open market, and at age 32, this is probably his last big contract. But still, it's intriguing.

CDu
06-13-2017, 02:35 PM
I wonder if JJ (who is now a free agent) would be willing to sign with the Cavs for the minimum (a la David West) to chase a ring? There's a ton of speculation going on with Cleveland following this defeat at the hands of the overpowered Warriors.

Maybe? Although if he's ring chasing, he could just as easily sign that minimum deal with Golden State, right? Does Redick see Cleveland with him as being able to compete with Golden State? More importantly, does Redick really improve Cleveland's chances against Golden State?

Let's put it this way: over the last 3 games, the Cavs got 40% shooting from Korver (4-10) and 63% shooting from Smith (17-27) from 3pt range. Cleveland lost 2 of those 3. Where is Redick going to provide the upgrade? He's not as good a defender as Smith or Shumpert, so at best he plays in a 3-man rotation with those guys (basically what Korver did). Does replacing Korver with Redick move the needle in the series? I don't think so.

kAzE
06-13-2017, 02:57 PM
Does replacing Korver with Redick move the needle in the series? I don't think so.

Not saying it would . . . I just like the idea of my 2 favorite Duke players of all time (JJ and Kyrie) on the same team, competing the NBA finals :)

But Korver is also a free agent, and he's going to be 37 next year (JJ will be 33). There's a legitimate role for JJ on that team if he's willing to sacrifice his big pay day.

We all know LeBron isn't going to just run it back. I suspect there will be moves up and down the roster, and it doesn't look to me like Kyle Korver will be back on the team.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 03:10 PM
If Paul goes to San Antonio, they have Kawhi, Paul, Aldridge, Gasol, Parker, Green. Plus David Lee, Kyle Anderson, Mills and potentially Ginobli.

Would love to see GSW have to go through something like that to make a Finals.

I do wonder how much Paul has left in the tank though, given his knee history.

They can't keep all those players and get Paul.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 03:22 PM
Stop it, the Cavs are nothing without LeBron. They were 1-8 without him this regular season. Kyrie excels in the Robin role with LBJ but you would be foolish to prefer him over Wall for the Wizards or Lillard for the Blazers. I do prefer Irving over those other PGs in this specific role as a 2nd banana on this Cavs team though due to his shooting and insane ability to create off the dribble.

You're basically saying that any team that LBJ goes to that has 2 reasonably good players is a superteam.

If LBJ joins the Blazers, does he then form a super team with Lillard and McCollum?
If LBJ joins the Celtics, does he then form a super team with IT3 and Bradley?
If LBJ joins the Bulls, does he then form a super team with Butler and Wade?

LeBron James is the superteam. His presence instantly turns every bottom tier team like the Lakers, Suns and Sixers into at least mid tier playoff contenders and the top half of the teams into NBA Championship contenders.

Lebron hand picked this team ever since he came back to Cleveland. Everyone knows that Lebron is the GM of this team. It's almost like people feel sorry for him but these are the guys he wanted. He just so happened to run into a juggernaut.

Lebron is absolutely a part of a super team. I think only one team in the league has a better threesome on paper than Lebron, Love, and Irving and that team is obviously Golden State. Deron Williams, Channing Frye, Kroger, not only do the Cavs have a super starting lineup but they have super role players too. Don't get confused just because the Warriors looked so much better. The Cavs made easy work of the #1 seed in the East. Yes, the Cavs are a super team.

I've said this before but I like the way Golden State was built better than how the Cavs or the Miami Heat with Lebron were.

CDu
06-13-2017, 03:34 PM
We all know LeBron isn't going to just run it back. I suspect there will be moves up and down the roster, and it doesn't look to me like Kyle Korver will be back on the team.

I agree. I guess I just don't see Redick replacing Korver as changing the dynamics of the matchup with the Warriors at all.

I think the moves they have to make involve getting more two-way players like Smith. Redick isn't a bad defender, but he's essentially on the floor for offense. They need more true "3 and D" wings and another playmaker.

A big part of the Cavs' problem against the Warriors is that they have either good defenders (Shumpert, Thompson) or good offensive players (Irving, Love, Korver), but not enough guys that excel on both ends. Basically, James-when-he-wants-to and Smith-when-he-makes-shots are it as two-way players. And against the Warriors, who are great on both ends of the floor, that becomes a problem.

It will be interesting to see how Cleveland retools. They have a lot of money invested in a mediocre player in Thompson. Love is really their only trade chip of any value unless they can convince someone that Thompson has value outside of Cleveland. But they aren't going to be able to get full value for Love because he's being diminished offensively playing the Chris Bosh role rather than a starring role. They aren't moving Irving, they can't and probably shouldn't move Smith and Shumpert, and nobody else moves the needle in a trade. So how they move from here is going to be really interesting.

kAzE
06-13-2017, 04:02 PM
It will be interesting to see how Cleveland retools. They have a lot of money invested in a mediocre player in Thompson. Love is really their only trade chip of any value unless they can convince someone that Thompson has value outside of Cleveland. But they aren't going to be able to get full value for Love because he's being diminished offensively playing the Chris Bosh role rather than a starring role. They aren't moving Irving, they can't and probably shouldn't move Smith and Shumpert, and nobody else moves the needle in a trade. So how they move from here is going to be really interesting.

The biggest rumor out there right now is trading Kevin Love for Paul George. To me, that absolutely makes them more competitive with the Warriors. George is well known to be an excellent 2-way player whose only real knock is that he doesn't show up offensively in big games/big moments. Kyrie and LeBron are as good as it gets when it comes to big games.

George is definitely a risk, as he has just 1 year left on his deal, and could leave if things don't work out, but given everything about the Cavs' situation, winning now seems to be the game plan.

The counter argument of course, is that everyone thought Kevin Love was a top 10 player before he came to the Cavs, so what makes me think this is a good move, considering most people have George just outside the top 10? Simple. It gives the Cavs another dynamic scorer and multi-positional defender to match up against the Warriors. Nothing else really matters. The biggest unknown is how George would respond to being the 3rd option on offense, when he's been the star on every team he's ever played for. The 3rd offensive guy is always the hardest thing to figure out with these super teams.

It would make the Cavs a less effective rebounding team, and they would miss Love's passing ability and back to the basket offense, but anything that improves their chances against the Warriors is worth it.

Troublemaker
06-13-2017, 04:04 PM
Lebron already has a super team, it's just that his super team isn't nearly as talented as the Warriors, the biggest gap is on the defensive end. Warriors just have more multidimensional players.

The Cavs contend using a traditional "Big 3" setup that you see often throughout NBA history. They are a great team and would be deserving NBA champions if Golden St didn't exist. That said, the Warriors are very different. They have put 4 stars in their prime together, including most crucially two of the top-4 players in the league. They added Durant to a 73-win team. They are a "super team" using a strict definition of "super." I don't get why it really matters. GSW fans should revel in the label. Basically, give some credit to amazing luck, and then give some credit to GSW being an amazing organization also, and then enjoy. No need to argue over how GSW isn't the only superteam, and this is just like when Lebron went to the Heat, etc, etc. Just enjoy your superteam.


If Paul goes to San Antonio, they have Kawhi, Paul, Aldridge, Gasol, Parker, Green. Plus David Lee, Kyle Anderson, Mills and potentially Ginobli.

Would love to see GSW have to go through something like that to make a Finals.

I do wonder how much Paul has left in the tank though, given his knee history.

All the articles I've read on this possibility suggest that the Spurs would have to gut their depth to sign Chris Paul (http://www.poundingtherock.com/2017/5/25/15688168/nba-free-agency-chris-paul-spurs-sacrifice). So, that team isn't really possible.

Dukehky
06-13-2017, 04:07 PM
I don't know Korver's numbers this year, but for a guy who is supposed to be a long-range shooter, he shot very poorly. So are there differences? Yes. JJ is a better shooter, a better defender, and a better scorer than Korver. He's likely also a slightly better passer.

JJ got absolutely shut down by the Jazz. The Jazz are good, but they are not the best defense in the league like the Warriors. I don't think Redick is moving the needle between the Cavs and the Warriors.

kAzE
06-13-2017, 04:11 PM
JJ got absolutely shut down by the Jazz. The Jazz are good, but they are not the best defense in the league like the Warriors. I don't think Redick is moving the needle between the Cavs and the Warriors.

Going by regular season numbers, Utah was actually very comparable to Golden State defensively. The Jazz were 3rd in defensive rating, and the Warriors were 2nd. (San Antonio was #1)

http://stats.nba.com/teams/defense/#!?sort=DEF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 04:11 PM
The Cavs contend using a traditional "Big 3" setup that you see often throughout NBA history. They are a great team and would be deserving NBA champions if Golden St didn't exist. That said, the Warriors are very different. They have put 4 stars in their prime together, including most crucially two of the top-4 players in the league. They added Durant to a 73-win team. They are a "super team" using a strict definition of "super." I don't get why it really matters. GSW fans should revel in the label. Basically, give some credit to amazing luck, and then give some credit to GSW being an amazing organization also, and then enjoy. No need to argue over how GSW isn't the only superteam, and this is just like when Lebron went to the Heat, etc, etc. Just enjoy your superteam.



All the articles I've read on this possibility suggest that the Spurs would have to gut their depth to sign Chris Paul (http://www.poundingtherock.com/2017/5/25/15688168/nba-free-agency-chris-paul-spurs-sacrifice). So, that team isn't really possible.



My only argument is when Lebron supporters have this woe is me attitude about how good the Warriors are. But Lebron built this team and they have a great team, just not on the same level as the Warriors.

Lebron had a much less talented team the first time he went to the finals as a Cav. His team this year is stacked. Seriously, go back and look at his roster. Boobie Gibson?? Lol

Dukehky
06-13-2017, 04:12 PM
The biggest rumor out there right now is trading Kevin Love for Paul George. To me, that absolutely makes them more competitive with the Warriors. George is well known to be an excellent 2-way player whose only real knock is that he doesn't show up offensively in big games/big moments. Kyrie takes care of that.

George is definitely a risk, as he has just 1 year left on his deal, and could leave if things don't work out, but given everything about the Cavs' situation, winning now seems to be the game plan.

The counter argument of course, is that everyone thought Kevin Love was a top 10 player before he came to the Cavs, so what makes me think this is a good move, considering most people have George just outside the top 10? Simple. It gives the Cavs another dynamic scorer and multi-positional defender to match up against the Warriors. Nothing else really matters. The biggest unknown is how George would respond to being the 3rd option on offense, when he's been the star on every team he's ever played for. The 3rd offensive guy is always the hardest thing to figure out with these super teams.

It would make the Cavs a less effective rebounding team, and they would miss Love's passing ability and back to the basket offense, but anything that improves their chances against the Warriors is worth it.

It might make sense but it's not going to happen. The only real thing they could do would be to trade Love and a semi-useful bench guy and try to get two rangy 3 and D guys who aren't individually as good as Love. But I can't think of a team with 2 athletic wings who can shoot that would equal the effectiveness of Love.

I just don't think there's really anything that the Cavs can do to make this closer. I think the best thing to do for next year is to keep it together and hope one of the Warriors gets hurt. It happened to Cleveland 2 years go, Love AND Kyrie went out. Who's to say that couldn't happen to the Dubs next year. I think the Cavs were better at full strength in 2015, just like the Warriors would be better next year at full strength, but if they didn't play at full strength... then there's something to that.

The Cavs don't have the cap flexibility or the assets to make any marked improvements. I think the Pacers would be kind of foolish to trade George to the Cavs and I don't think that it's going to happen. I also don't think that George instead of Love puts them over the top, and they would still need an injury. This would keep the Cavs in the same place except with a player who they don't have locked up for years and who wants to go to the Lakers.

Dukehky
06-13-2017, 04:15 PM
Going by regular season numbers, Utah was actually very comparable to Golden State defensively. The Jazz were 3rd in defensive rating, and the Warriors were 2nd. (San Antonio was #1)

http://stats.nba.com/teams/defense/#!?sort=DEF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Okay, so... What's your point? Korver and Redick got totally taken out of series by teams with similar defensive resumes (I would argue that when GS really wants to turn it up, they're the best in the league by a pretty good margin, but even without that...) Redick would have to take a huge pay cut to go to Cleveland, and he would be good, but Korver, I think, is a historically better shooter and is probably a better team defender if for no other reason than he's longer. I know Redick has become serviceable as a defender, but he's by no means a good defender. They both are smart team defenders. They're the same guy, Redick is just a few years younger.

kAzE
06-13-2017, 04:29 PM
Okay, so... What's your point?

Well, beyond the fact that I already explained that my motive for wanting this to happen was purely based on my love of JJ, and my desire to see him compete for a title, you answered your own question for me:


Redick is just a few years younger.

He's 5 years younger. 37 is pretty old. But they aren't the same guy. Korver is a pure catch and shooter player at this point of his career, while JJ is much more effective off the dribble as someone who can still create offense for teammates. 1 bad series against Utah does not mean the end of his playoff usefulness.

The Warriors are an offensive juggernaut because they have so many guys who can shoot AND make plays. Korver only does 1 of those things. JJ does both.

Dukehky
06-13-2017, 04:31 PM
Well, beyond the fact that I already explained that my motive for wanting this to happen was purely based on my love of JJ, and my desire to see him compete for a title, you answered your own question for me:



He's 5 years younger. 37 is pretty old.

Sorry, got caught up in the hot take mania of the world for the day. Didn't read your original explanation. My bad. I too would like to see Redick over Korver on the Cavs, just don't think it's financially feasible for either of them.

duke4ever19
06-13-2017, 04:34 PM
I know I'm merely projecting my disdain for the "rings" debates, but one day I hope there's some superstar like a Kevin Durant who -- after being perpetually hounded about not having a ring -- signs with a team on a one year deal, wins the NBA championship and then promptly returns to his old team saying, "There, I got a ring. Now go bother someone else."

An NBA championship is the ultimate goal in the sport, but it is a fatally flawed way of measuring an individual player's greatness.

Dukehky
06-13-2017, 05:17 PM
I know I'm merely projecting my disdain for the "rings" debates, but one day I hope there's some superstar like a Kevin Durant who -- after being perpetually hounded about not having a ring -- signs with a team on a one year deal, wins the NBA championship and then promptly returns to his old team saying, "There, I got a ring. Now go bother someone else."

An NBA championship is the ultimate goal in the sport, but it is a fatally flawed way of measuring an individual player's greatness.

I would argue that it is an even more flawed measure for College Coaches, but that is still a lot of what we do. It's not just NBA players. I would argue that winning a college national title may be tougher to do just because it's so random (at that point, it could also be less forgivable seeing as how you don't necessarily have to be the best team to win like you really do in the NBA).

But, I agree. That would be great.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 05:20 PM
It might make sense but it's not going to happen.

The Cavs don't have the cap flexibility or the assets to make any marked improvements. I think the Pacers would be kind of foolish to trade George to the Cavs and I don't think that it's going to happen. I also don't think that George instead of Love puts them over the top, and they would still need an injury. This would keep the Cavs in the same place except with a player who they don't have locked up for years and who wants to go to the Lakers.

Why not, they can either get Love for George or get nothing for him in a year. What other team wants to trade assets away to rent George for a year then have nothing to show for it?

kAzE
06-13-2017, 05:28 PM
Why not, they can either get Love for George or get nothing for him in a year. What other team wants to trade assets away to rent George for a year then have nothing to show for it?

The only reason the Pacers would be interested in keeping PG at all is because if he makes 2nd team All-NBA next year, they could then offer him a 5-year super max deal. But there's no indication that would be enough to keep George with the Pacers. Getting Kevin Love rather than gambling on maybe getting Paul George back (with the downside of losing him for nothing a la OKC/Kevin Durant) seems like a pretty good hedge.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 05:40 PM
Kevin Love is not enough to get Paul George. I'm also not sure the Pacers are interested in making the Cavs even better.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 05:47 PM
Kevin Love is not enough to get Paul George. I'm also not sure the Pacers are interested in making the Cavs even better.

It's a conundrum because yes it would make the Cavs better in the short run but it could also make the Pacers better in the long run, which is what the Indiana front office has to decide.

kAzE
06-13-2017, 05:50 PM
Kevin Love is not enough to get Paul George. I'm also not sure the Pacers are interested in making the Cavs even better.

What are they going to get from someone else? No one is going to be willing to give up assets for George because they would be paranoid about him leaving for the Lakers in free agency. The Lakers won't give up anything for him because they could just get him for free in 1 year. The Cavs are the only team who would be willing to offer an all-star on a long term contract for Paul George.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 05:58 PM
Ya never know what they can get for him. Maybe the Cavs don't want George anyway. George is supposedly going to LA no matter what so do the Cavs want a one year rental? What if the Pacers insist on Kyrie for George?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-13-2017, 06:04 PM
I would argue that it is an even more flawed measure for College Coaches, but that is still a lot of what we do. It's not just NBA players. I would argue that winning a college national title may be tougher to do just because it's so random (at that point, it could also be less forgivable seeing as how you don't necessarily have to be the best team to win like you really do in the NBA).

But, I agree. That would be great.

I agree. Single elimination tournaments (NFL, NCAA) lend themselves to more "parity." Not to mention, there are roughly ten times as many teams vying for an NCAA basketball championship.

darthur
06-13-2017, 06:39 PM
I know I'm merely projecting my disdain for the "rings" debates, but one day I hope there's some superstar like a Kevin Durant who -- after being perpetually hounded about not having a ring -- signs with a team on a one year deal, wins the NBA championship and then promptly returns to his old team saying, "There, I got a ring. Now go bother someone else."

An NBA championship is the ultimate goal in the sport, but it is a fatally flawed way of measuring an individual player's greatness.

It's not so dissimilar from what LeBron did, although his talking points were certainly different.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 07:01 PM
Ya never know what they can get for him. Maybe the Cavs don't want George anyway. George is supposedly going to LA no matter what so do the Cavs want a one year rental? What if the Pacers insist on Kyrie for George?

Yes if the Cavs don't want George then they won't trade for him and if the Pacers want Kyrie then you don't do that trade either. But Love for George is the one that could be possible and sensible for both teams. That's why it's being discussed.

The Cavs want George for possibly one year because they are in win now mode and George could potentially help them have a better shot against the Warriors next year.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 07:10 PM
Yes if the Cavs don't want George then they won't trade for him and if the Pacers want Kyrie then you don't do that trade either. But Love for George is the one that could be possible and sensible for both teams. That's why it's being discussed.

The Cavs want George for possibly one year because they are in win now mode and George could potentially help them have a better shot against the Warriors next year.

Who is it being discussed by? I think it's only getting discussed by fans.

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 07:27 PM
Who is it being discussed by? I think it's only getting discussed by fans.

https://theringer.com/nba-cleveland-cavaliers-trade-kevin-love-paul-george-29a4b6026666

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/13/cavaliers-paul-george-trade-kevin-love-pacers-warriors-rumors

http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-next-cleveland-cavaliers-paul-george-carmelo-anthony-trade-rumors-will-heat-2551508

If it is being discussed in front offices there probably won't be any signs until draft nigh at the earliest, but I don't think the Cavs and Lebron are just going to run it back next year. They will look to make moves this summer but they have zero cap room which is another reason the PG trade would work for them. He makes slightly less than Love.

kshepinthehouse
06-13-2017, 08:21 PM
https://theringer.com/nba-cleveland-cavaliers-trade-kevin-love-paul-george-29a4b6026666

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/13/cavaliers-paul-george-trade-kevin-love-pacers-warriors-rumors

http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-next-cleveland-cavaliers-paul-george-carmelo-anthony-trade-rumors-will-heat-2551508

If it is being discussed in front offices there probably won't be any signs until draft nigh at the earliest, but I don't think the Cavs and Lebron are just going to run it back next year. They will look to make moves this summer but they have zero cap room which is another reason the PG trade would work for them. He makes slightly less than Love.

If the cavs can get PG I agree they should, but this is just speculation with no basis of having any momentum of actually happening. Paul George is rumored to go to LA in 2018. I don't see the Cavs trading 3 years of Kevin Love for 1 year of Paul George.

Also, haven't multiple superstars has worked out for the Warriors, but I don't think it will always happen like that. Paul George would have to be willing to have the ball a lot less, which he may be fine with but who knows. I've seen multiple examples of players who don't play nearly as well if they don't have the ball in their hands a lot. Durant/Curry both adjusted exceptionally well to losing touches.

Both Kevin Love and Bosh took a hit in value after playing with Lebron and seeing a significant decrease in touches.

In summary, even if a team can match the talent level of the Warriors they would also need to math the chemistry they have, which could definitely be a challenge. I didn't see the Warriors meshing as well as they did this year, but since they did, look what happened.

moonpie23
06-13-2017, 08:45 PM
so, who are the free agents this off season?

Curry
Lebron
George
JJ
PJ Hairston




who else?

Ichabod Drain
06-13-2017, 09:07 PM
If the cavs can get PG I agree they should, but this is just speculation with no basis of having any momentum of actually happening. Paul George is rumored to go to LA in 2018. I don't see the Cavs trading 3 years of Kevin Love for 1 year of Paul George.

Also, haven't multiple superstars has worked out for the Warriors, but I don't think it will always happen like that. Paul George would have to be willing to have the ball a lot less, which he may be fine with but who knows. I've seen multiple examples of players who don't play nearly as well if they don't have the ball in their hands a lot. Durant/Curry both adjusted exceptionally well to losing touches.

Both Kevin Love and Bosh took a hit in value after playing with Lebron and seeing a significant decrease in touches.

In summary, even if a team can match the talent level of the Warriors they would also need to math the chemistry they have, which could definitely be a challenge. I didn't see the Warriors meshing as well as they did this year, but since they did, look what happened.

So what would you recommend the Cavs do? They have the best player in the world who isn't getting any younger and there is a team between them and next years championship who was clearly better this year. They're not just going to give it another go with the same squad.

MrPoon
06-13-2017, 09:08 PM
If the cavs can get PG I agree they should, but this is just speculation with no basis of having any momentum of actually happening. Paul George is rumored to go to LA in 2018. I don't see the Cavs trading 3 years of Kevin Love for 1 year of Paul George.

Also, haven't multiple superstars has worked out for the Warriors, but I don't think it will always happen like that. Paul George would have to be willing to have the ball a lot less, which he may be fine with but who knows. I've seen multiple examples of players who don't play nearly as well if they don't have the ball in their hands a lot. Durant/Curry both adjusted exceptionally well to losing touches.

Both Kevin Love and Bosh took a hit in value after playing with Lebron and seeing a significant decrease in touches.

In summary, even if a team can match the talent level of the Warriors they would also need to math the chemistry they have, which could definitely be a challenge. I didn't see the Warriors meshing as well as they did this year, but since they did, look what happened.

No trade would work without George making a longer term commitment to the Cavs as part of the trade (LBJ would probably have to do the same). The choice would be his, LA with all the glitz and the appeal of home but much lower prospect of winning (especially in the West) or winning with LBJ and a shot at Golden state for a ring. His D would improve the Cav's roster and it allows Tristan to stay on the court. The issue for Bosh and Love is that LBJ and Irving want rebounders but they also want the lane clear for them on offense. So Bosh and Love were pushed to the perimeter. A more natural move for Love than Bosh but both had to change. George wouldn't cause that problem.

With all of that, I'm not so sure it would still put the Cavs over the top. NBA is simple math. Good team depth+(all star player)(# of all stars)+good enough coach. Cavs were out coached in the finals (not that any coach could have made a diffrence, its just that Lue didn't help), Cavs are blessed to have three great All star players, but not four. George would be interesting as a defensive rotation against Durant spelling LBJ. But its still not ideal, there is no long term solve for Durant.

You have to force GS to count on Green and Klay to carry the offense. Both can but they can't do it for seven games, maybe two of seven. That would be the hope. Then George, LBJ and Irving win their individual matchups and set up enough roll players to out score GS. Probably still not going to happen over seven games.

The league has never been in this place since Wilt or maybe Russell's Celts. Where no team really can compete for a while. If the owners of GS are willing to pay crazy cap money and Durant is willing to take Slightly less than market value (which has been reported to be the case), this roster, with the NBA rules as being called, is nearly impossible to beat.
You can move the pieces around, it really doesn't matter unless something dramatic changes (Durant's foot, Curry's ankle's, Green's ...challenge with the rules, or Klay not wanting to play team ball, or in about four years they ship him or Green to avoid playing near max on all four of them). Short of that, this is what it will be the NBA for awhile. That isn't just recently bias. This team is historic. Already two of three with the best regular season sprinkled in there is amazing but they are all young. This is a problem for every team. The only team that should have been in a position is the 76rs with all their draft picks. Its was the one hope for a team that couldn't attract free agency. Their problem was they drafted centers, not defensive shooters, which is what the league demands.

pfrduke
06-13-2017, 10:52 PM
so, who are the free agents this off season?

Curry
Lebron
George
JJ
PJ Hairston




who else?

Curry is going to get a max from the Warriors, so is a free agent only technically. LeBron has a player option (ETA: No he doesn't, not until after 2018). George is not a free agent until next summer.

pfrduke
06-13-2017, 10:57 PM
Further replying to myself, people who are not tied via guaranteed year or team option to their teams next year include:

Durant - player option
Curry - unrestricted
Paul - player option
Griffin - player option
Hayward - player option
Lowry - player option
Millsap - player option
Ibaka - unrestricted
Iguodala - unrestricted

Troublemaker
06-13-2017, 11:28 PM
If the cavs can get PG I agree they should, but this is just speculation with no basis of having any momentum of actually happening. Paul George is rumored to go to LA in 2018. I don't see the Cavs trading 3 years of Kevin Love for 1 year of Paul George.

Also, haven't multiple superstars has worked out for the Warriors, but I don't think it will always happen like that. Paul George would have to be willing to have the ball a lot less, which he may be fine with but who knows. I've seen multiple examples of players who don't play nearly as well if they don't have the ball in their hands a lot. Durant/Curry both adjusted exceptionally well to losing touches.

Both Kevin Love and Bosh took a hit in value after playing with Lebron and seeing a significant decrease in touches.

In summary, even if a team can match the talent level of the Warriors they would also need to math the chemistry they have, which could definitely be a challenge. I didn't see the Warriors meshing as well as they did this year, but since they did, look what happened.

Unless the DBR host server ate some posts again, I'm not sure what you are responding to here.

Nobody is suggesting this trade is likely and/or on the cusp of really happening, and nobody is suggesting this trade would make the Cavs better than GSW.

It's just a reasonable trade idea for Day 1 of the offseason that theoretically could narrow the gap between the two teams. Out of all the fan trade ideas that have ever been suggested on the internet, Love-for-George probably ranks in the 90th percentile, frankly.

Troublemaker
06-13-2017, 11:40 PM
No trade would work without George making a longer term commitment to the Cavs as part of the trade (LBJ would probably have to do the same).

The Cavs don't have any leverage to force either Lebron or George into a long-term commitment, imo, much less both. Cleveland has to look at the situation as them having one more year of Lebron. Now, what do they want to do with that year? Do they run the same team back out there, or do they try to change it up?

cato
06-14-2017, 12:12 AM
They're not just going to give it another go with the same squad.

Well, no. Not in the sense that every team is different from the one year before. But why wouldn't they go with the same big three, plus whatever they can fit around them, if that's the best they can get? The Warriors are not guantanteed anything.

Any move has to make sense. If nothing makes sense, then try again next year and see what happens. The season is long and even if healthy, there is no guaranty that the Warriors can put together the same run.

Matches
06-14-2017, 08:19 AM
Well, no. Not in the sense that every team is different from the one year before. But why wouldn't they go with the same big three, plus whatever they can fit around them, if that's the best they can get? The Warriors are not guantanteed anything.

Any move has to make sense. If nothing makes sense, then try again next year and see what happens. The season is long and even if healthy, there is no guaranty that the Warriors can put together the same run.

If the Cavs run (essentially) the same team out there next year and lose to GSW again, which would be likely to happen barring some sort of major GSW injury, Lebron leaves next summer. He may leave anyway. The Cavs need to push their chips to the center of the table and go for it. In that context, Love for George makes sense, because it makes them better next year. Long term maybe not so much, but the Cavs don't have the luxury of thinking long-term right now. They've got one more year of Lebron and they need to give themselves the best possible chance to take advantage of it.

cato
06-14-2017, 09:50 AM
The Cavs need to push their chips to the center of the table and go for it.

Oh, for sure. But that could easily mean keeping Love.

kAzE
06-14-2017, 10:16 AM
Oh, for sure. But that could easily mean keeping Love.

In my opinion, the only option they have is to trade Love. Right now, the Cavs cannot put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time against the Warriors, because they can't get away with having both Thompson and Love on the floor at the same time. They need to trade one of them, and get a starting forward who can guard on the perimeter. If they trade Thompson, then they basically have no rim protection whatsoever. I think it has to be Love.

Anybody who thinks the Cavs wouldn't trade 3 years of Love for 1 year of Paul George doesn't understand the meaning of "win now." That's a risk you have to be willing to take to win a championship. They are not beating the Warriors with the team as it is currently constructed. If anyone says no to that, it would be the Pacers, and only in the case that they could somehow convince George to stay long term or somehow find a better trade offer. But if it did happen, it would probably be closer to the deadline than during free agency.

Ichabod Drain
06-14-2017, 10:22 AM
In my opinion, the only option they have is to trade Love. Right now, the Cavs cannot put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time against the Warriors, because they can't get away with having both Thompson and Love on the floor at the same time. They need to trade one of them, and get a starting forward who can guard on the perimeter. If they trade Thompson, then they basically have no rim protection whatsoever. I think it has to be Love.

This, and the fact that just their starting five will most likely be above the salary cap next year. So there won't be a lot of options for improving their bench.

DukeTrinity11
06-14-2017, 10:56 AM
In my opinion, the only option they have is to trade Love. Right now, the Cavs cannot put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time against the Warriors, because they can't get away with having both Thompson and Love on the floor at the same time. They need to trade one of them, and get a starting forward who can guard on the perimeter. If they trade Thompson, then they basically have no rim protection whatsoever. I think it has to be Love.

Anybody who thinks the Cavs wouldn't trade 3 years of Love for 1 year of Paul George doesn't understand the meaning of "win now." That's a risk you have to be willing to take to win a championship. They are not beating the Warriors with the team as it is currently constructed. If anyone says no to that, it would be the Pacers, and only in the case that they could somehow convince George to stay long term or somehow find a better trade offer. But if it did happen, it would probably be closer to the deadline than during free agency.
LeBron needs to try in the regular season and make sure the Cavs have the best regular season record in the NBA to ensure that the Cavs get the first 2 games at home with the Dubs rather than the other way around.

I think GSW will coast a little bit this upcoming regular season knowing that they're in the drivers seat for another title.

I think the Cavs could have pushed this series to 7 games had they not choked in Game 3. Essentially, as it stands, its very difficult for either of these teams to beat the other one on the road.

In a Game 7, even if its at the Oracle, anything can happen.

Troublemaker
06-14-2017, 11:32 AM
In my opinion, the only option they have is to trade Love. Right now, the Cavs cannot put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time against the Warriors, because they can't get away with having both Thompson and Love on the floor at the same time. They need to trade one of them, and get a starting forward who can guard on the perimeter. If they trade Thompson, then they basically have no rim protection whatsoever. I think it has to be Love.

Anybody who thinks the Cavs wouldn't trade 3 years of Love for 1 year of Paul George doesn't understand the meaning of "win now." That's a risk you have to be willing to take to win a championship. They are not beating the Warriors with the team as it is currently constructed. If anyone says no to that, it would be the Pacers, and only in the case that they could somehow convince George to stay long term or somehow find a better trade offer. But if it did happen, it would probably be closer to the deadline than during free agency.

I also doubt that other teams would value Thompson that much in a trade. He's a good player but more valuable to the Cavs than he would be to other non-contending teams like the Pacers.


LeBron needs to try in the regular season and make sure the Cavs have the best regular season record in the NBA to ensure that the Cavs get the first 2 games at home with the Dubs rather than the other way around.

I think GSW will coast a little bit this upcoming regular season knowing that they're in the drivers seat for another title.

I think the Cavs could have pushed this series to 7 games had they not choked in Game 3. Essentially, as it stands, its very difficult for either of these teams to beat the other one on the road.

In a Game 7, even if its at the Oracle, anything can happen.

I think GSW is so talented, they will win 65-70 games every year even while coasting. I mean, they rested players a decent amount this season and won 67; Durant missed a bunch of games with injury as well. I think it makes sense for Lebron, Kyrie, et al to just continue to chill during the regular season and rest themselves for the playoffs. Not sure they would look so good during the playoffs if they went all out for the 82 games prior (and that effort wouldn't even guarantee that they'd get homecourt).

cato
06-14-2017, 11:34 AM
In my opinion, the only option they have is to trade Love. Right now, the Cavs cannot put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time against the Warriors, because they can't get away with having both Thompson and Love on the floor at the same time. They need to trade one of them, and get a starting forward who can guard on the perimeter. If they trade Thompson, then they basically have no rim protection whatsoever. I think it has to be Love.

Anybody who thinks the Cavs wouldn't trade 3 years of Love for 1 year of Paul George doesn't understand the meaning of "win now." That's a risk you have to be willing to take to win a championship. They are not beating the Warriors with the team as it is currently constructed. If anyone says no to that, it would be the Pacers, and only in the case that they could somehow convince George to stay long term or somehow find a better trade offer. But if it did happen, it would probably be closer to the deadline than during free agency.

I'll try one more time, and then drop it.

Love produced for the Cavs in the post-season. If there is a deal on the table for Love that the Cavs think will improve the team, I agree that they will go for it. But there is a very real risk that they will be worse off without Love than they are with the current team.

The Cavs are too smart to do something just for the safe of doing something. I am skeptical that they will find a trade partner offering sufficient value for Love. I think there is a decent chance that they keep the core together because that will be their best option.

sagegrouse
06-14-2017, 11:54 AM
I'll try one more time, and then drop it.

Love produced for the Cavs in the post-season. If there is a deal on the table for Love that the Cavs think will improve the team, I agree that they will go for it. But there is a very real risk that they will be worse off without Love than they are with the current team.

The Cavs are too smart to do something just for the safe of doing something. I am skeptical that they will find a trade partner offering sufficient value for Love. I think there is a decent chance that they keep the core together because that will be their best option.

I wouldn't advise the Cavs to distort or significantly change their roster just to compete against the Warriors. There are 30 teams, and the Cavs will only play the Warriors in the finals -- and maybe someone else from the West will beat them or maybe the Warriors won't play as well in the future or maybe they have have injuries (I hope not).

At most, I would look for ways to get better incrementally (and I am OK with trading Love for equal value), and I might make moves to strengthen the defense, since the Cavs are a very good offensive team but not nearly as good on defense.

Also, I thought Curry, Durant and the other Warriors at times -- 4th quarter of game five, e.g. -- played at an unbelievable level of skill and efficiency. Best I've ever seen. At that level, they may be impossible to beat. The Cavs should play their game, work on defensive talent and schemes, and see what happens.

kAzE
06-14-2017, 12:50 PM
I wouldn't advise the Cavs to distort or significantly change their roster just to compete against the Warriors.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. They 100% need to change their roster to beat the Warriors. It's the #1 thing the Cavs entire organization will be thinking about this entire off season and next season all the way up to the trade deadline, and should be the #1 factor when considering any roster moves. Hoping they lose in the Western playoffs is not a strategy.

You have to do everything in your power to make sure you have the horses to compete with Golden State. Anything else is secondary. LeBron doesn't care about regular season record or playoff seeding.

But in a way, configuring your roster to beat the Warriors helps against most other teams in the league. Pretty much everybody is moving towards pace and space. Everyone except the Pelicans, that is . . .


But there is a very real risk that they will be worse off without Love than they are with the current team.

Of course there's a risk. There's always a risk. But if they don't take that risk, they will probably they lose in the exact same way next year. LeBron is not going to be fine with the status quo. They need to improve, and they have to do it now, because LeBron has 1 year left on his deal. I would be shocked if they showed up to the 2018 playoffs with the same team.

sagegrouse
06-14-2017, 08:08 PM
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. They 100% need to change their roster to beat the Warriors. It's the #1 thing the Cavs entire organization will be thinking about this entire off season and next season all the way up to the trade deadline, and should be the #1 factor when considering any roster moves. Hoping they lose in the Western playoffs is not a strategy.

You have to do everything in your power to make sure you have the horses to compete with Golden State. Anything else is secondary. LeBron doesn't care about regular season record or playoff seeding.

But in a way, configuring your roster to beat the Warriors helps against most other teams in the league. Pretty much everybody is moving towards pace and space. Everyone except the Pelicans, that is . . .



Of course there's a risk. There's always a risk. But if they don't take that risk, they will probably they lose in the exact same way next year. LeBron is not going to be fine with the status quo. They need to improve, and they have to do it now, because LeBron has 1 year left on his deal. I would be shocked if they showed up to the 2018 playoffs with the same team.

OK, but I cited four points that you didn't even address:

The Warriors are not a shoo-in to advance to the finals. Other West teams are gunning for them.
The Warriors may not play as well as a team in the future.
There may be injuries or other inhibitions that limit their ability to compete.
the Warriors are amazingly good, at their best; maybe the Cavs should take their chances in the future.

Not said but implicit in my post is that changes in direction for the Cavs, such as major changes to the roster, carry big risks as well. Moreover, the Cavs have made the finals three years in a row. Who's to say they won't win next year?

I did say the Cavs, within limits, should work on their defense, including swapping out Kevin Love is they receive equal value and better defense.

moonpie23
06-15-2017, 12:16 AM
The Warriors are not a shoo-in to advance to the finals. Other West teams are gunning for them.
The Warriors may not play as well as a team in the future.
There may be injuries or other inhibitions that limit their ability to compete.
the Warriors are amazingly good, at their best; maybe the Cavs should take their chances in the future.
[/LIST]


sorry....i'm seeing it differently...

1 - yes, they are....they just came within a game of SWEEPING The entire finals....they DID sweep the west.....teams can gun for them all they want, but the warriors are on a different level..

2 - actually, there's reason to think they may be even better.....KD was out of a good bit of this season, but he should integrate into this system even better next year.

3 - true

darthur
06-15-2017, 12:27 AM
1 - yes, they are...they just came within a game of SWEEPING The entire finals...they DID sweep the west...teams can gun for them all they want, but the warriors are on a different level..

From a Cavs' strategy perspective, I agree with you that the Cavs should plan for the Warriors first and foremost.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that the Spurs, when healthy, continue to give the Warriors fits. Barring regressions, the Spurs can and should feel like they would have a real chance against the Warriors in a playoff series.

Regarding playing as well together, I don't really see chemistry being an issue in he near future, but I think the Warriors had a kind of sell-your-soul-for-a-championship intensity this year that they might not always be able to replicate. That certainly seemed lacking at times during OKC last year for example.

cato
06-15-2017, 12:54 AM
However, I think it's worth pointing out that the Spurs, when healthy, continue to give the Warriors fits.

Just sweep the leg. Problem solved.

Duke79UNLV77
06-15-2017, 08:57 AM
The Cavs biggest issue (besides the fact that Durant was insane) in the Finals may not have been that they were a star player short so much as their role players did not play up to their capability. Korver, Jefferson, Shumpert, and Williams got a ton of open 3-point looks, thanks to the defense's focus on LeBron and Kyrie. They were only 9-45 in the Series, despite being a big part of why Cleveland took even more 3s and shot an even higher percentage than GS during the regular season. Meanwhile, Thompson only averaged 5.8 rebounds per game. LeBron and Kyrie combined for 63 points per game on excellent shooting. The Cavs could have hoped for more offensive consistency from their third star, as Love just averaged 16 ppg on 38% shooting.

JNort
06-15-2017, 09:09 AM
If only they never would have traded Love for Wiggins and not given Thompson that awful contract (still blows my mind). They would have a better wing defender who can switch on the wings which helps big time against GS. Saved a ton of money which in turn let's them sign better role players. O and they would still be set up for a good future after LeBron with Wiggins and Kyrie in their primes.

Ichabod Drain
06-15-2017, 10:13 AM
If only they never would have traded Love for Wiggins and not given Thompson that awful contract (still blows my mind). They would have a better wing defender who can switch on the wings which helps big time against GS. Saved a ton of money which in turn let's them sign better role players. O and they would still be set up for a good future after LeBron with Wiggins and Kyrie in their primes.

I agree that at this stage they would be better off with Wiggins than Love but i'm not sure if he helps that much the first couple years. Wiggins is pretty bad at defense right now. He has all the tools to be a great defender but hasn't put it together yet. He also hasn't been very efficient on the offensive end yet either.

JasonEvans
06-15-2017, 10:50 AM
I agree that at this stage they would be better off with Wiggins than Love but i'm not sure if he helps that much the first couple years. Wiggins is pretty bad at defense right now. He has all the tools to be a great defender but hasn't put it together yet. He also hasn't been very efficient on the offensive end yet either.

But, what would Wiggins be if he was on a team with LeBron, a team where he could have the luxury of being the 3rd offensive option and where winning was the focus of the team's mental makeup? I am not criticizing Minnesota, merely pointing out that when you play for a team with legit championship aspirations, it changes the feel of the locker room at the attitude of the players. I bet Wiggins would be developing in different ways, acquiring different skills and tendencies on the court, than what happens in Minnesota where the team is built around him and there is little room for him to learn on the job.

I have been one of the most vocal opponents of the Love-Wiggins trade. Though I think Love played considerably better in this Finals (and the rest of the season) than past ones in Cleveland, there is little question he has not lived up to the expectations that he would be one of the 20 best players in the NBA. I mean, is there anyone who thinks Love was better than the 7th best player in the finals? It is especially troubling that when Cleveland needed him most -- in game three, where the series was largely decided, and in game 5, when the Warriors closed it out -- Love was at his worst (7.5 ppg, 3-17 FGs, 1-10 3FGs). The brighter the stage, the dimmer his light shines. He's the anti-Kyrie in that regard.

In the next couple months, Cleveland will deal Kevin Love, they almost have to. So, the bottom line to all this is simple... if Cleveland had the cap space to make a Love for Wiggins trade right now, does anyone think Minnesota would even begin to make that deal? They would laugh hysterically and slam down the phone.

Here's a good question -- who could you trade for Love who makes a similar salary? Love makes $21.1 mil.

Here are the players who make between $20 and $22.2 million... which of them could you trade for Love?

Chandler Parsons, SF $22,116,750
Bradley Beal, SG $22,116,750
Anthony Davis, PF $22,116,750
Derrick Rose, PG $21,323,252
Marc Gasol, C $21,165,675
Brook Lopez, C $21,165,675
Kevin Love, PF $21,165,675
Nicolas Batum, SG $20,869,566
LaMarcus Aldridge, PF $20,575,005
Blake Griffin, PF $20,140,839
Paul Millsap, PF $20,072,033

I think a trade for Parsons, Rose, and maybe Batum or Lopez would go through. The rest of these teams laugh at the notion of a straight up deal for Love, right? Says something about whether Love is really worth the money they are paying him.

-Jason "and I haven't even gotten into the fact that Wiggins makes $15 mil less than Love, giving the Cavs room to make deals or bring in additional solid bench players" Evans

cato
06-15-2017, 10:59 AM
I agree that at this stage they would be better off with Wiggins than Love but i'm not sure if he helps that much the first couple years. Wiggins is pretty bad at defense right now. He has all the tools to be a great defender but hasn't put it together yet. He also hasn't been very efficient on the offensive end yet either.

Indeed. Wiggins would become a decent player right when LeBron leaves for a different team because the Cavs never won a championship and couldn't compete with Golden State.

CDu
06-15-2017, 11:08 AM
-Jason "and I haven't even gotten into the fact that Wiggins makes $15 mil less than Love, giving the Cavs room to make deals or bring in additional solid bench players" Evans

You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true. The Cavs are over the cap, and have been basically ever since they signed LeBron. They had to trade other assets in order to be able to bring in Love in the first place. They did not have cap space to bring in additional solid bench players or make other deals.

And you overlook the fact that - at the time - nobody foresaw Golden State being Golden State. Getting Love positioned Cleveland to win titles immediately, whereas Wiggins wouldn't have done so. Without Love, the Cavs probably don't win the title in 2016 (nor in 2015 or 2017), and LeBron is probably looking to leave soon. In hindsight, Love and Thompson don't work together against Golden State. But at the time, it was absolutely the right move for a guy looking to compete for titles immediately.

JasonEvans
06-15-2017, 11:14 AM
Indeed. Wiggins would become a decent player right when LeBron leaves for a different team because the Cavs never won a championship and couldn't compete with Golden State.

Are you saying that if Cleveland had Wiggins instead of Love they would not have won the title last year? Care to provide any statistical evidence to back that up? You are aware that Kevin Love averaged 8.5 ppg, 6.8 rpg, with 5-19 3FG shooting in the NBA finals last year, right? He missed a game completely and the Cavs won that game by 30 points (the largest loss GSW have suffered in 3 years).

I would love to hear the explanation for how Kevin Love was the integral piece of the puzzle that nets the Cavs the 2016 title, but Andrew Wiggins -- who averaged 20+ ppg, with a Defensive rating of 114 (Love was 102) -- would have prevented them from winning that title. Please, educate me!

-Jason "all due respect, cato... you are a great poster and a smart guy, but Love was not a key element in the Cavs 2016 title... not even close" Evans

CDu
06-15-2017, 11:20 AM
Are you saying that if Cleveland had Wiggins instead of Love they would not have won the title last year? Care to provide any statistical evidence to back that up? You are aware that Kevin Love averaged 8.5 ppg, 6.8 rpg, with 5-19 3FG shooting in the NBA finals last year, right? He missed a game completely and the Cavs won that game by 30 points (the largest loss GSW have suffered in 3 years).

I would love to hear the explanation for how Kevin Love was the integral piece of the puzzle that nets the Cavs the 2016 title, but Andrew Wiggins -- who averaged 20+ ppg, with a Defensive rating of 114 (Love was 102) -- would have prevented them from winning that title. Please, educate me!

-Jason "all due respect, cato... you are a great poster and a smart guy, but Love was not a key element in the Cavs 2016 title... not even close" Evans

A defensive rating of 114 is worse than a defensive rating of 102. You want a lower defensive rating, not a higher one.

Wiggins scored 20+ ppg inefficiently on a bad team. He would probably not have averaged much or than low double digits (at best) with Irving and LeBron taking so many shots. He's not a great shooter, so he isn't a good option alongside Irving/James. And given his defensive weakness, I'm not sure he would even move the needle in that series.

JasonEvans
06-15-2017, 11:33 AM
You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true. The Cavs are over the cap, and have been basically ever since they signed LeBron. They had to trade other assets in order to be able to bring in Love in the first place. They did not have cap space to bring in additional solid bench players or make other deals.

But, at the time they made the deal, if the Cavs were merely bringing on a $5 mil a season draft pick rather than the $20+ mil Kevin Love, they would not have had to trade those other assets. They were not horribly over the cap and hamstrung when they signed LeBron because they were able to make a major deal for Kevin Love (and his huge salary) only a couple months later. If they had Wiggins on the team, the money they paid Love in 2014-15 and beyond could have been used for other serviceable players. I don't see why that is a hard thing to understand.

Look, I know Cleveland is in horrible cap shape right now. GM Lebron largely dictated that when he forced the team to pay waaay too much for Tristan Thompson, JR Smith, and other buddies (Iman Shumpert makes $10 mil a season). But, there was a window before they brought in Love where they had some flexibility. Anthony Bennett probably still had some trade value at that point. I think Cleveland hamstrung themselves unnecessarily and they continue to pay the price for that to this day.


And you overlook the fact that - at the time - nobody foresaw Golden State being Golden State. Getting Love positioned Cleveland to win titles immediately, whereas Wiggins wouldn't have done so. Without Love, the Cavs probably don't win the title in 2016 (nor in 2015 or 2017), and LeBron is probably looking to leave soon. In hindsight, Love and Thompson don't work together against Golden State. But at the time, it was absolutely the right move for a guy looking to compete for titles immediately.

I 100% agree with you about this. No one saw the Warriors turning into this kind of a juggernaut. The 2013-14 Warriors won 51 games, but they were bounced in the first round of the playoffs by the Clips. Sure, their future looked good, but no one saw a 70-win superteam on the horizon. Draymond wasn't even a starter for them at that point and their post play was largely built around David Lee.

I guess this line you wrote sums it up best: "Getting Love positioned Cleveland to win titles immediately..." That was the conventional wisdom at the time and that is what Lebron was all about at that moment. Heck, I bet he told Cleveland they had to get Love or he would not sign with them. At the time, and still today, I thought Love for Wiggins was a bad move because I was looking a couple years down the line. I was looking for Cleveland to be a championship contender for 8+ years, until LeBron retired and maybe beyond. Lebron did not care about that and what Lebron wants, Cleveland does. I get it... but I still think it was a bad move.

-Jason "we've had this debate a million times... we all know where we stand. I am fine bowing out of it" Evans

CDu
06-15-2017, 11:58 AM
But, at the time they made the deal, if the Cavs were merely bringing on a $5 mil a season draft pick rather than the $20+ mil Kevin Love, they would not have had to trade those other assets. They were not horribly over the cap and hamstrung when they signed LeBron because they were able to make a major deal for Kevin Love (and his huge salary) only a couple months later. If they had Wiggins on the team, the money they paid Love in 2014-15 and beyond could have been used for other serviceable players. I don't see why that is a hard thing to understand.

I don't think you fully understand the way the cap and trades work, which is probably why you aren't understanding this. But first, at the time, Love was making $15.7 million and Wiggins $5.5. So it was not a $15+ million difference at that point. Second, the Cavs were over the cap. The only reason they were able to get Love via trade is because they involved a third team (76ers) in the deal to defray some of the costs (this is the part of the CBA that is complicated, so it is understandable not to understand it). They made the "huge" deal for Love by trading away Wiggins ($5.5 million) and Bennett ($5.6 million), and having Philadelphia absorb enough of the difference to make it work: as a capped out but not taxpaying team, you can only get $5 million more than you give out in a multi-team, "simultaneous trade" (Love's salary was less than $5 million more than that of Bennett and Wiggins combined).


Look, I know Cleveland is in horrible cap shape right now. GM Lebron largely dictated that when he forced the team to pay waaay too much for Tristan Thompson, JR Smith, and other buddies (Iman Shumpert makes $10 mil a season). But, there was a window before they brought in Love where they had some flexibility. Anthony Bennett probably still had some trade value at that point. I think Cleveland hamstrung themselves unnecessarily and they continue to pay the price for that to this day.

There really wasn't much flexibility, as I outlined above. Cleveland was over the cap for 2014-15 the moment they signed LeBron. As such, they had no cap space to sign any free agents of note that summer.

They would have had a little cap space after 2015 had they not signed Love, but not enough to add any stars, and not even enough to add anyone remotely decent without gutting the roster (including not bringing Thompson back). And if they managed to not spend any long-term money in 2015 (unlikely, given LeBron's win-now mode), they would have only had enough cap space for a second-tier free agent (like a Luol Deng, Pau Gasol, Timo Mozgov type) in 2016. And again, that would be without Thompson, Shumpert, etc on the roster.

And the Bennett "asset" would have been toast as soon as LeBron arrived, as he wouldn't have seen the floor.

Troublemaker
06-15-2017, 02:13 PM
Here are the players who make between $20 and $22.2 million... which of them could you trade for Love?

Chandler Parsons, SF $22,116,750
Bradley Beal, SG $22,116,750
Anthony Davis, PF $22,116,750
Derrick Rose, PG $21,323,252
Marc Gasol, C $21,165,675
Brook Lopez, C $21,165,675
Kevin Love, PF $21,165,675
Nicolas Batum, SG $20,869,566
LaMarcus Aldridge, PF $20,575,005
Blake Griffin, PF $20,140,839
Paul Millsap, PF $20,072,033

I think a trade for Parsons, Rose, and maybe Batum or Lopez would go through. The rest of these teams laugh at the notion of a straight up deal for Love, right? Says something about whether Love is really worth the money they are paying him.

I would add Aldridge, Griffin, and Millsap (bolded in green) as players that would also be traded for Love. Aldridge is in decline and over 3 years older than Love. Griffin is even more injury prone than Love in recent years, and the Clips would enjoy Love's shooting after years of having to work around Griffin and Jordan occupying the same space. And Millsap is 32; I would think your Hawks would trade for the 28-yr-old Love.

In terms of who is the better player (so getting away from age being a factor), I still think only the guys in red are better than Love. I mean, Kevin Love's very, very good. In a world without GSW, he'd be a fantastic third wheel for a dynastic Cavs team.

kshepinthehouse
06-15-2017, 02:26 PM
I would add Aldridge, Griffin, and Millsap (bolded in green) as players that would also be traded for Love. Aldridge is in decline and over 3 years older than Love. Griffin is even more injury prone than Love in recent years, and the Clips would enjoy Love's shooting after years of having to work around Griffin and Jordan occupying the same space. And Millsap is 32; I would think your Hawks would trade for the 28-yr-old Love.

In terms of who is the better player (so getting away from age being a factor), I still think only the guys in red are better than Love. I mean, Kevin Love's very, very good. In a world without GSW, he'd be a fantastic third wheel for a dynastic Cavs team.

I still would give Aldridge the edge but I have to admit, I'm not sure how good Love is. My gut is that he is a lot better than he has played in Cleveland. I think he needs the ball in the post more to produce at the level he did in Minnesota. I think his value has dropped since playing in Cleveland, but mostly due to the role he had been asked to play. The other thing I think hurts him a little is his defense. Seems undersized to guard the center position and just not quite mobile enough to guard the PF. I'm not sure trading Love at this point is going to fetch enough of a return to drastically improve the Cavs. If the Cavs want to dramatically change some things I think they would have to trade Irving, which I don't think they will do. I'm not sure any team in the NBA has the cap space, the draft picks, or the maneuverability to field a team that can beat the Warriors in a 7 game series without some help from injuries, suspensions, egos, etc. I think some teams will try and others may go into full rebuilding mode to try to compete in 3-4 years. I think the Cavs, no matter what they do, aren't going to be able to compete with the Warriors. No draft picks and no cap space leaves them in a bind.

By the way, some people are saying that teams should put together a roster to try to beat the Warriors. Well, the Cavs did exactly that this year. Lebron the GM insisted in several moves and they just didn't pan out. Resigning Smith and Thompson and trading for Krover. A lot of the moves they made were to help make them a more dangerous three point shooting team, which they were in the regular season. However, the finals just exposed the defensive flaws that the Cavs seemed to overlook when Lebron the GM built this roster.

CDu
06-15-2017, 03:01 PM
I would add Aldridge, Griffin, and Millsap (bolded in green) as players that would also be traded for Love. Aldridge is in decline and over 3 years older than Love. Griffin is even more injury prone than Love in recent years, and the Clips would enjoy Love's shooting after years of having to work around Griffin and Jordan occupying the same space. And Millsap is 32; I would think your Hawks would trade for the 28-yr-old Love.

In terms of who is the better player (so getting away from age being a factor), I still think only the guys in red are better than Love. I mean, Kevin Love's very, very good. In a world without GSW, he'd be a fantastic third wheel for a dynastic Cavs team.

Yeah, I think people are underestimating just how hard it is to look good/elite when you have two ball-dominant, iso-centric scorers on your team. I don't think Love is any worse today than he was in Minnesota. He just finished averaging 19 and 11 this year as a third option. That is amazing! If you put him on any team other than the two finalists and he probably averages 25 and 12.

Part of the problem - and this would be true for almost anyone - is that LeBron and Irving are such brilliant one-on-one guys that the Cavs' offense basically boils down to isos and pick-and-rolls for those two. Everyone else is relegated to a catch-and-shoot or a pick-and-roll player. And that offense works for them. They torched almost everyone and even scored pretty well against Golden State. But it marginalizes the value of other offensive weapons. There just aren't a ton of guys who would excel in that role. JR Smith fits it. Klay Thompson. Danny Green. Guys like that.

brevity
06-15-2017, 07:45 PM
Here are the players who make between $20 and $22.2 million... which of them could you trade for Love?

I would do anything for Love.


Anthony Davis, PF $22,116,750

But I won't do that.

JasonEvans
06-15-2017, 07:58 PM
I would do anything for Love.



But I won't do that.

I need to spread some comments around... someone please take care of Brevity for me!

moonpie23
06-15-2017, 11:15 PM
I need to spread some comments around... someone please take care of Brevity for me!

for me as well...

stickdog
06-16-2017, 02:42 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pbcWp40meQ

Troublemaker
06-16-2017, 09:16 AM
I still would give Aldridge the edge but I have to admit, I'm not sure how good Love is. My gut is that he is a lot better than he has played in Cleveland. I think he needs the ball in the post more to produce at the level he did in Minnesota. I think his value has dropped since playing in Cleveland, but mostly due to the role he had been asked to play. The other thing I think hurts him a little is his defense. Seems undersized to guard the center position and just not quite mobile enough to guard the PF. I'm not sure trading Love at this point is going to fetch enough of a return to drastically improve the Cavs.

I disagree. I think GMs are savvy enough to realize what CDu pointed out above, which is that going from the #1 option to the #3 option will reduce a player's numbers. I think GMs realize he's the same Kevin Love he was in Minnesota. Better really, because he now has plenty of big-game experience and, imo, has improved his defense some.


I'm not sure any team in the NBA has the cap space, the draft picks, or the maneuverability to field a team that can beat the Warriors in a 7 game series without some help from injuries, suspensions, egos, etc. I think some teams will try and others may go into full rebuilding mode to try to compete in 3-4 years. I think the Cavs, no matter what they do, aren't going to be able to compete with the Warriors. No draft picks and no cap space leaves them in a bind.

On this we agree. It will be hard for contenders to assemble the greatest team ever, which is what they basically have to do in order to beat GSW. As an NBA fan, I still expect those contenders to try their best to do so.


By the way, some people are saying that teams should put together a roster to try to beat the Warriors. Well, the Cavs did exactly that this year. Lebron the GM insisted in several moves and they just didn't pan out. Resigning Smith and Thompson and trading for Krover. A lot of the moves they made were to help make them a more dangerous three point shooting team, which they were in the regular season. However, the finals just exposed the defensive flaws that the Cavs seemed to overlook when Lebron the GM built this roster.

Just because the Cavs failed this season doesn't mean they should give up trying.

JasonEvans
06-16-2017, 02:27 PM
Just because the Cavs failed this season doesn't mean they should give up trying.

100% agree, especially because I actually thought the series was reasonably close. The home team won in a blowout in 3 of the games. The Cavs seemed to be on their way to a close win in game 3, but went absurdly cold down the stretch to blow it. Game 5 was also reasonably close, even with Kyrie hurting his back and running out of gas in qtr 4.

Kyle Korver, arguably the best long-range shooter in the NBA the past few seasons, had a terrible series. If he is his normal self (10+ ppg, 45% from 3) rather than the finals guy who only averaged 4 ppg on 31% 3FG, it changes the complexion of what Cleveland's second unit is able to do and maybe helps to keep them in games a bit when Lebron takes a brief rest.

I am not saying Cleveland should win a series with Golden State, but it is not like it would be impossible. Maybe the Cavs will be able to pick up a useful player or two via the veteran minimum or some other deal. Stuff happens.

-Jason "I would put the Warriors odds of repeating next season at maybe 40-50%, so someone else is fairly likely to win" Evans

JasonEvans
06-16-2017, 02:39 PM
-Jason "I would put the Warriors odds of repeating next season at maybe 40-50%, so someone else is fairly likely to win" Evans

I am sure someone will ask, so...

My totally unscientific, wild guess at the chances of every NBA team RIGHT NOW to win the 2018 NBA title:

Warriors 45%
Cavs 20%
Spurs 13%
Celtics 11%
Rockets, Clips, and OKC 6% (2% each)
Heat, Bucks, and Wiz 4% (1.33% each)
Rest of the NBA combined 1% (this 1% is mostly Toronto and Utah)

-Jason "so, how wildly insane am I?" Evans

flyingdutchdevil
06-16-2017, 02:55 PM
I am sure someone will ask, so...

My totally unscientific, wild guess at the chances of every NBA team RIGHT NOW to win the 2018 NBA title:

Warriors 45%
Cavs 20%
Spurs 13%
Celtics 11%
Rockets, Clips, and OKC 6% (2% each)
Heat, Bucks, and Wiz 4% (1.33% each)
Rest of the NBA combined 1% (this 1% is mostly Toronto and Utah)

-Jason "so, how wildly insane am I?" Evans

Warriors gotta be above 50%. This team looked unstoppable, and that's with Klay Thompson having a very mediocre series. Veterans are going to want to play for the Dubs.

CDu
06-16-2017, 02:58 PM
I am sure someone will ask, so...

My totally unscientific, wild guess at the chances of every NBA team RIGHT NOW to win the 2018 NBA title:

Warriors 45%
Cavs 20%
Spurs 13%
Celtics 11%
Rockets, Clips, and OKC 6% (2% each)
Heat, Bucks, and Wiz 4% (1.33% each)
Rest of the NBA combined 1% (this 1% is mostly Toronto and Utah)

-Jason "so, how wildly insane am I?" Evans

I don't think it is reasonable to say that there is a greater than 1 in 5 chance that the champ will be the Celtics/Rockets/Clips/OKC/Heat/Bucks/Wiz/Other. I especially think the 11% for the Celtics is too high. I would put their title chances at about 2-3%. I think they are a solid regular season team that stands minimal chance in a 7-game series against an elite team.

I would put the Warriors' chances higher (55-60%), the Cavs at 20%, the Spurs at 10-15%, and everyone else at 5-10%.

Olympic Fan
06-16-2017, 03:00 PM
I am sure someone will ask, so...

My totally unscientific, wild guess at the chances of every NBA team RIGHT NOW to win the 2018 NBA title:

Warriors 45%
Cavs 20%
Spurs 13%
Celtics 11%
Rockets, Clips, and OKC 6% (2% each)
Heat, Bucks, and Wiz 4% (1.33% each)
Rest of the NBA combined 1% (this 1% is mostly Toronto and Utah)

-Jason "so, how wildly insane am I?" Evans

Not a bad guess -- as the rosters now stand -- but there will be some significant movement in the offseason and that will change the odds.

Paul George could be key player. But there is also talk of Chris Paul to the Spurs ... how big would that be? I also heard a commentator talking about how Close Chris Paul and Lebron are. Would trading Kyrie for Paul make the Cavs better? But adding Paul to the Spurs makes San Antonio a lot better.

And here's one -- I was listening to Cornbread Maxwell (who broadcasts for the Celtics) talk about the draft. He thinks Boston should package the No. 1 pick and next year's No. 1 from Brooklyn that the Celtics own (and is likely to be a top 4 pick) and trade both picks to the Pelicans for Anthony Davis? I can't imagine the Pelicans would make that deal -- Davis is under contract through 2020-21. Still, that's an interesting package and could lure a top power player from a bad team (one that's not under contract as long).

DukeTrinity11
06-16-2017, 03:30 PM
Guys, what are some free agent 3 and D players that the Cavs should be looking to add next year in order to compete with the Warriors?

If I were to start a list, this is how I would rank them:

1. Jonathon Simmons (San Antonio Spurs)
2. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (Detroit Pistons)
3. Joe Ingles (Utah Jazz)
4. Tony Allen (Memphis Grizzlies)
5. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (Charlotte Hornets)
6. Thabo Sefolosha (Atlanta Hawks)
7. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (Los Angeles Clippers)
8. PJ Tucker (Phoenix Suns)

Anyone else I'm forgetting? Do any of you have a good understanding of the Cavs salary cap situation and who they can afford?

kshepinthehouse
06-16-2017, 04:34 PM
Guys, what are some free agent 3 and D players that the Cavs should be looking to add next year in order to compete with the Warriors?

If I were to start a list, this is how I would rank them:

1. Jonathon Simmons (San Antonio Spurs)
2. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (Detroit Pistons)
3. Joe Ingles (Utah Jazz)
4. Tony Allen (Memphis Grizzlies)
5. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (Charlotte Hornets)
6. Thabo Sefolosha (Atlanta Hawks)
7. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (Los Angeles Clippers)
8. PJ Tucker (Phoenix Suns)

Anyone else I'm forgetting? Do any of you have a good understanding of the Cavs salary cap situation and who they can afford?

Cap situation looks terrible for the Cavs

CDu
06-16-2017, 09:01 PM
Guys, what are some free agent 3 and D players that the Cavs should be looking to add next year in order to compete with the Warriors?

If I were to start a list, this is how I would rank them:

1. Jonathon Simmons (San Antonio Spurs)
2. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (Detroit Pistons)
3. Joe Ingles (Utah Jazz)
4. Tony Allen (Memphis Grizzlies)
5. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (Charlotte Hornets)
6. Thabo Sefolosha (Atlanta Hawks)
7. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (Los Angeles Clippers)
8. PJ Tucker (Phoenix Suns)

Anyone else I'm forgetting? Do any of you have a good understanding of the Cavs salary cap situation and who they can afford?

Umm, to put it mildly, #2-7 aren't "3 and D" guys. Number 4-7 are just "D" guys. Ingles is mainly just a "3" guy. Caldwell-Pope is neither a "3" nor a "D" guy.

As for cap space, the Cavs have none. It is veteran's minimum guys and one midlevel exception. Most of the guys on this list are out of their price range unless those guys decide to take well below market value.

superdave
06-17-2017, 10:35 AM
Umm, to put it mildly, #2-7 aren't "3 and D" guys. Number 4-7 are just "D" guys. Ingles is mainly just a "3" guy. Caldwell-Pope is neither a "3" nor a "D" guy.

As for cap space, the Cavs have none. It is veteran's minimum guys and one midlevel exception. Most of the guys on this list are out of their price range unless those guys decide to take well below market value.

The Cavs really are hurt by over-paying JR Smith on a long-term deal; Shumpert too, but to a lesser degree.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/CLE.html

They could maybe package Love or Thompson with one of those guys, and get something nice in return. But they should have shown more discipline and given those guys 1-2 year deals.

Their best hope would be to get a Milsap type guy with the mid-level exception, right? Someone hunting a ring....

Edouble
06-17-2017, 11:37 AM
The Cavs really are hurt by over-paying JR Smith on a long-term deal; Shumpert too, but to a lesser degree.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/CLE.html

They could maybe package Love or Thompson with one of those guys, and get something nice in return. But they should have shown more discipline and given those guys 1-2 year deals.

Their best hope would be to get a Milsap type guy with the mid-level exception, right? Someone hunting a ring...

What is a Milsap type guy? Who besides Paul Milsap is a Milsap type? I am being serious. I have no idea what this means. An All-Star who is the best player on a playoff team? I don't think that will be an easy get for Cleveland.

CDu
06-17-2017, 11:50 AM
The Cavs really are hurt by over-paying JR Smith on a long-term deal; Shumpert too, but to a lesser degree.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/CLE.html

They could maybe package Love or Thompson with one of those guys, and get something nice in return. But they should have shown more discipline and given those guys 1-2 year deals.

Their best hope would be to get a Milsap type guy with the mid-level exception, right? Someone hunting a ring...

Smith's contract isn't actually a problem considering what he provides (great defense, willing off-ball player). Similar for Shumpert. They actually need more guys like Smith.

They aren't getting Paul Millsap at the mid-level exception. And anyway, they already have a better version of Millsap in Love.

kshepinthehouse
06-17-2017, 06:01 PM
Smith's contract isn't actually a problem considering what he provides (great defense, willing off-ball player). Similar for Shumpert. They actually need more guys like Smith.

They aren't getting Paul Millsap at the mid-level exception. And anyway, they already have a better version of Millsap in Love.

JR Smith plays great defense? I'm not sure about that. I'm not saying he's a bad defender but I wouldn't call him a great defender. Smith and Thompson are the two who stick out in my mind as being over paid.

Smith is one who completely disappeared in multiple games in the finals both this year and last year. Has also been known as a head case. I'm not sure the Cavs wouldn't be better off without him.

CDu
06-17-2017, 06:12 PM
JR Smith plays great defense? I'm not sure about that. I'm not saying he's a bad defender but I wouldn't call him a great defender. Smith and Thompson are the two who stick out in my mind as being over paid.

Smith is one who completely disappeared in multiple games in the finals both this year and last year. Has also been known as a head case. I'm not sure the Cavs wouldn't be better off without him.

Good luck finding a guy who can hit 18-31 from 3pt range over a 5-game stretch like Smith did in the Finals at that price on the free agent market. Smith had two quiet games (in which he didn't shoot) and three fantastic games. He was absolutely not the problem for Cleveland, and they would definitely be worse without him.

kshepinthehouse
06-17-2017, 06:45 PM
Good luck finding a guy who can hit 18-31 from 3pt range over a 5-game stretch like Smith did in the Finals at that price on the free agent market. Smith had two quiet games (in which he didn't shoot) and three fantastic games. He was absolutely not the problem for Cleveland, and they would definitely be worse without him.

He had a good couple of games to end but is he really with 14 million? Tristan Thompson 17 million? I'm pretty sure the Cavs would love to have a do over on those 2 contracts as these will hamper them from improving this summer.

8.6 points a game fetches 14 million a year?????

CDu
06-17-2017, 07:18 PM
He had a good couple of games to end but is he really with 14 million? Tristan Thompson 17 million? I'm pretty sure the Cavs would love to have a do over on those 2 contracts as these will hamper them from improving this summer.

8.6 points a game fetches 14 million a year?????

You are seriously underselling his play here. He didn't just have a good couple of games. He played unbelievably well in 3 of the 5 games. And yes, a double-figure scorer (averaged 12ppg in the Finals) for a title contender gets that kind of money on the free agent market in this era of the salary cap. Remember: his scoring average suffered this season because of a hand injury during the year.

Especially true for a team that is already over the cap and trying to compete for a title. It was either Smith or a veteran minimum guy.

Now, in a couple of years? Yeah, he might not be worth the back end of his contract in his mid-30s. But he is definitely worth it in the early years of the deal.

Troublemaker
06-19-2017, 09:35 AM
If I were Lebron, I would be on the phone with Paul George today. "Force Indiana to trade you here, and if we can't beat the Warriors next season, I will follow you to L.A. after the season." George should force Indiana's hand by saying there's no way he will re-sign with them, and so they should get what they can get. (And if the consolation prize is Kevin Love, that's a great trade for the Pacers.)

So, apparently this DID happen over the weekend, the bolded part at least. George told Indiana he won't re-sign with them (https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-paul-george-tells-pacers-plans-leave-franchise-prefers-joining-lakers-191520531.html).

And now the Pacers have reached out to Cleveland for a trade (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19674093/indiana-pacers-reached-cleveland-cavaliers-possible-paul-george-trade).

Not too shabby, folks who had suggested George-to-Cleveland in a trade. It might very well happen.

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 09:45 AM
So, apparently this DID happen over the weekend, the bolded part at least. George told Indiana he won't re-sign with them (https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-paul-george-tells-pacers-plans-leave-franchise-prefers-joining-lakers-191520531.html).

And now the Pacers have reached out to Cleveland for a trade (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19674093/indiana-pacers-reached-cleveland-cavaliers-possible-paul-george-trade).

Not too shabby, folks who had suggested George-to-Cleveland in a trade. It might very well happen.

Question is does Cleveland want to give valuable assets for what most likely looks like a one year rental.

Troublemaker
06-19-2017, 10:18 AM
Question is does Cleveland want to give valuable assets for what most likely looks like a one year rental.

Yes, within reason. The Cavs are only guaranteed one more year of Lebron, and it behooves them to maximize their chances of winning in that year.

George's declaration that he prefers the Lakers will also lower his trade value. No team, not just the Cavs, wants to give away the farm for a rental. The Cavs apparently also believe they have a chance of convincing him to stay, according to that ESPN link.

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 10:50 AM
Would trading Kyrie for Paul make the Cavs better?

I certainly would not trade 25 year old Kyrie Irving for 32 year old Chris Paul.

Ichabod Drain
06-19-2017, 10:56 AM
I certainly would not trade 25 year old Kyrie Irving for 32 year old Chris Paul.

Also Paul is expected to take the option to end his contract early this summer and resign for roughly twice what Kyrie is making. For a Cavs team that has negative cap space it simply won't be an option.

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 10:58 AM
Yes, within reason. The Cavs are only guaranteed one more year of Lebron, and it behooves them to maximize their chances of winning in that year.

George's declaration that he prefers the Lakers will also lower his trade value. No team, not just the Cavs, wants to give away the farm for a rental. The Cavs apparently also believe they have a chance of convincing him to stay, according to that ESPN link.

Also, if the Cavs lose George, they lose a bunch of salary and can't sign someone with a similar salary. They can resign George to a big contract but can't sign a free agent to an equal contract. Another thing that people haven't talked about is not only where George would rather play but where would he rather live. George is from the LA area and obviously LA is a lot more appealing than living in Cleveland.

NSDukeFan
06-19-2017, 11:11 AM
I came on to this thread looking for new information about the NBA Finals and see trade talks being discussed. Can we keep this thread to NBA Finals discussion? Just kidding. 😀

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-19-2017, 11:13 AM
I came on to this thread looking for new information about the NBA Finals and see trade talks being discussed. Can we keep this thread to NBA Finals discussion? Just kidding. 😀

I have a feeling the Warriors are going to take care of business and win in 5.

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 11:49 AM
Another thing that people haven't talked about is not only where George would rather play but where would he rather live. George is from the LA area and obviously LA is a lot more appealing than living in Cleveland.

Is location really a big deal to George? He just spent 7 years in Indianapolis which is only about 300 miles from Cleveland.

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 12:46 PM
Is location really a big deal to George? He just spent 7 years in Indianapolis which is only about 300 miles from Cleveland.

Apparently it is, what else is drawing him to LA?

cato
06-19-2017, 01:35 PM
Is location really a big deal to George? He just spent 7 years in Indianapolis which is only about 300 miles from Cleveland.

I've never been to Cleveland, but get the sense that it's pretty different than Indy. Both are worlds away from LA. There are probably countless people who have moved from one of those cities to one of the others based on location.

JNort
06-19-2017, 01:44 PM
Question is does Cleveland want to give valuable assets for what most likely looks like a one year rental.

I would, especially if they can clear cap space in the process. Pacers have almost 0 leverage here and if I'm Cleveland I try to move Love and Shumpert and maybe picks or more role players for George and whomever else (Miles, Allen, Lance, Ellis)

cato
06-19-2017, 01:49 PM
I would, especially if they can clear cap space in the process. Pacers have almost 0 leverage here and if I'm Cleveland I try to move Love and Shumpert and maybe picks or more role players for George and whomever else (Miles, Allen, Lance, Ellis)

I am no cap expert (or novice, really), but assuming a Love/George trade works from a cap perspective, that might be to Cleveland's benefit as far as rebuilding, correct? Assume they get a one year rental from George before he and LeBron head to LA to join BI and co. Cleveland would be relegated to a complete rebuild, but at least they would have cap space and Kyrie, no?

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 02:16 PM
I've never been to Cleveland, but get the sense that it's pretty different than Indy. Both are worlds away from LA. There are probably countless people who have moved from one of those cities to one of the others based on location.

My point is Indy and Cleveland are about the same distance from L.A. and George has been willing to make the trip for 7 years. IIRC, George has owned a second home, in L.A., most of the time he has played in Indy. I doubt Cleveland (and/or Lebron) would have a problem adding the use of a private jet to the contract discussions.

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 02:22 PM
Apparently it is, what else is drawing him to LA?

I'm thinking it's more than location. Otherwise, I doubt he would have waited 7 years, if location is his primary concern.

Neals384
06-19-2017, 02:25 PM
Average annual snowfall:
Indy: 25"
Cleveland: 68"

Having a second home in LA is fine for the offseason, but Cleveland is where Cavs spend the winter.

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 02:25 PM
I'm thinking it's more than location. Otherwise, I doubt he would have waited 7 years, if location is his primary concern.

LA is a better place to live and he's also from there. That's enough for me. If you want you can add the history of the Lakers and the fact they have some young talent.

JasonEvans
06-19-2017, 02:29 PM
I am no cap expert (or novice, really), but assuming a Love/George trade works from a cap perspective, that might be to Cleveland's benefit as far as rebuilding, correct? Assume they get a one year rental from George before he and LeBron head to LA to join BI and co. Cleveland would be relegated to a complete rebuild, but at least they would have cap space and Kyrie, no?

According to ESPN's trade machine, Love ($21.1 mil) for George ($18.3 mil) is a trade that works.

Moving on to the Lakers, after next season the Lakers will have approx. $39.9 mil in cap space, assuming the renounce the rights to all their free agents (Cory Brewer, Julius Randle, Nick Young, and Tarik Black). That will not be enough space to get Lebron and George. They would have to also get rid of Mozgov ($16 mil), Deng ($18 mil), and/or Jordan Clarkston $12.5 mil) to get where they need to be to sign two superstars.

They could clear another $7 mil by not exercising their option on D'Angelo Russell, though I can't imagine them doing that. I also suspect they will want to keep Randle around as he is developing nicely. They will have to make a $5.5 mil qualifying offer to him and then just go ahead and match whatever someone else offers him.

The priority is finding a way to get rid of Deng and Mozgov's contracts. That's $34 mil of cap space that just isn't doing much for you and both those guys are under contract for 3 more seasons (until 2020).

The Lakers dream is rolling out this lineup:

PG- Ball
SG- George
SF- Ingram
PF - Lebron
C- Randle
With Russell, Clarkson, and TBA big man coming off the bench. That team would be huge, but with lots of long, athletic guys who could defend well together. Against the Warriors and other teams that go small, Randle goes to the bench and Russell or Clarkson play, which may be their better lineup anyway as George, Ingram, and Lebron all have the size and quickness to guard anyone -- big or small.

-Jason "All they need to do is get rid of two deadly contracts and then convince two amazing free agents to come to LA... piece of cake, right?" Evans

CDu
06-19-2017, 02:37 PM
I'm thinking it's more than location. Otherwise, I doubt he would have waited 7 years, if location is his primary concern.

It is a combination of location and opportunity. He's from LA. But neither LA team had cap space when he signed his first (and so far only) free agent contract (summer of 2014). And at that time, it was his first big contract opportunity, so maximizing dollars over taking a mid-level exception or veteran's minimum made sense. Now, the Lakers will be in a position to be able to sign him as a free agent, and he has star-power leverage to help make it happen.

That's not to say he couldn't end up elsewhere in the long term. But it's a lot more feasible (i.e., actually feasible) for him to go to LA now.

-jk
06-19-2017, 02:59 PM
Average annual snowfall:
Indy: 25"
Cleveland: 68"

Having a second home in LA is fine for the offseason, but Cleveland is where Cavs spend the winter.

Don't they spend half the season on the road?

-jk

cato
06-19-2017, 03:02 PM
It is a combination of location and opportunity. He's from LA. But neither LA team had cap space when he signed his first (and so far only) free agent contract (summer of 2014). And at that time, it was his first big contract opportunity, so maximizing dollars over taking a mid-level exception or veteran's minimum made sense. Now, the Lakers will be in a position to be able to sign him as a free agent, and he has star-power leverage to help make it happen.

That's not to say he couldn't end up elsewhere in the long term. But it's a lot more feasible (i.e., actually feasible) for him to go to LA now.'

Also, IIRC, Indy seemed like more of a contender 3 years ago. Then again, time flies, so it's possible that was actually before then.

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 03:08 PM
It is a combination of location and opportunity. He's from LA. But neither LA team had cap space when he signed his first (and so far only) free agent contract (summer of 2014). And at that time, it was his first big contract opportunity, so maximizing dollars over taking a mid-level exception or veteran's minimum made sense. Now, the Lakers will be in a position to be able to sign him as a free agent, and he has star-power leverage to help make it happen.

Which opportunity? IMO, Cleveland is the far better opportunity for George to win a championship the next few seasons. It will probably be at least a few years until L.A. gets past G.S. and goes to another Finals. In 2014, George picked money over location. This time, it would not surprise me if he picked championship opportunity over location. IMO, playing with the best player in the world is George's best chance of winning a championship. L.A. has a much harder path to a championship. If somehow (maybe, by injury) L.A. beats G.S., they will still have to face Lebron.

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 03:18 PM
Don't they spend half the season on the road?

-jk

Yes and George will shovel the same amount of snow wherever he plays. Snow is a much bigger issue for the rest of us.

CDu
06-19-2017, 03:24 PM
Which opportunity? IMO, Cleveland is the far better opportunity for George to win a championship the next few seasons. It will probably be at least a few years until L.A. gets past G.S. and goes to another Finals. In 2014, George picked money over location. This time, it would not surprise me if he picked championship opportunity over location. IMO, playing with the best player in the world is George's best chance of winning a championship. L.A. has a much harder path to a championship. If somehow (maybe, by injury) L.A. beats G.S., they will still have to face Lebron.

Opportunity, as in opportunity to go play back home. You asked why he might have stayed put "for 7 years." Well, the only time he was a free agent, opportunity to go play at home did not exist (aside from taking a veterans minimum or mid-level exception). In 2018, it will very much be an available option for a max contract.

LasVegas
06-19-2017, 03:28 PM
LA is a better place to live and he's also from there. That's enough for me. If you want you can add the history of the Lakers and the fact they have some young talent.

Saying LA is a better place to live is an opinion and it's offends me that you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Give me Cleveland over LA any day. Have you been to both cities? Have you spent any time at all in CLE?

Jeffrey
06-19-2017, 03:37 PM
Opportunity, as in opportunity to go play back home. You asked why he might have stayed put "for 7 years." Well, the only time he was a free agent, opportunity to go play at home did not exist (aside from taking a veterans minimum or mid-level exception). In 2018, it will very much be an available option for a max contract.

I agree this is his first chance to go back to L.A. without a financial cost. However, I do not assume his priority rankings are:

1. Money
2. Location
3. Championship

CDu
06-19-2017, 04:01 PM
I agree this is his first chance to go back to L.A. without a financial cost. However, I do not assume his priority rankings are:

1. Money
2. Location
3. Championship

You can assume whatever you like. Neither you nor I have any idea what will ultimately motivate his decision. I was merely pointing out the argument as to why he might now be ready to go back to LA. It remains to be seen whether or not he does so.

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 04:01 PM
Saying LA is a better place to live is an opinion and it's offends me that you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Give me Cleveland over LA any day. Have you been to both cities? Have you spent any time at all in CLE?

He's back lol.

P.S. It's also been rumored that Lebron is ready to ditch Cleveland and head to LA.

pfrduke
06-19-2017, 04:28 PM
Is it also wrong for superstars to take less money to make sure their team can continue to be a superteam?

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19681613/kevin-durant-decline-option-re-sign-warriors

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 05:20 PM
Looks like the Cavs are more interested in Jimmy Butler.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=1-19682349

English
06-19-2017, 05:35 PM
Saying LA is a better place to live is an opinion and it's offends me that you are trying to pass it off as a fact. Give me Cleveland over LA any day. Have you been to both cities? Have you spent any time at all in CLE?

Wait, does it really offend you?

In a discussion about a guy who is from LA, who has publicly said he'd like to go back home to LA, it offends you that someone would suggest that LA is the better location than Cleveland? Touchy.

gocanes0506
06-19-2017, 08:15 PM
And why play every game if we know GSW and Cavs are going to the finals? Where is the fun in the league if 2 teams continue to add to their 8 all-stars in hopes of besting the others? If you're one of about 24 teams' fans why go to a game unless they are playing Cleveland or GSW? The 80s had the Celtics and Lakersbut at least there were other teams who had legitimate shots to stop them Pistons, Bucks, Rockets, Sixers, etc. Who has a serious chance to knock off GSW? Houston and the Spurs aren't going to be able to add much to get over the hump in the post season. Celtics have the best chance of any to upset the Cavs but I don't think Fox or Tatum get them there. It isn't worth investing time watching when you know the regular season and 1st three rounds of the playoffs outcome.

The NBA wont. It makes a cap to pretend to care but it is only a soft cap, not a hard one.

LasVegas
06-19-2017, 09:16 PM
Wait, does it really offend you?

In a discussion about a guy who is from LA, who has publicly said he'd like to go back home to LA, it offends you that someone would suggest that LA is the better location than Cleveland? Touchy.

Basketball aside, better location in Paul George's mind? Sure, because that's where he is from. I took the post as a definitive "la is better than Cle to everyone" claim. Which I don't like at all. People talk some serious crap on my hometown when Cleveland gets into the sports news. I am willing to bet 90% of these people have never been and 99% have never spent more than a few days there. It's offensive. To me. No one talks crap on my city without me defending it.



He's back lol.

P.S. It's also been rumored that Lebron is ready to ditch Cleveland and head to LA.

I never left...I posted this to defend my city against someone who has probably never been there.
And I guarantee Lebron will never say LA is a better place than the Cleveland/Akron area.

kshepinthehouse
06-19-2017, 09:27 PM
Basketball aside, better location in Paul George's mind? Sure, because that's where he is from. I took the post as a definitive "la is better than Cle to everyone" claim. Which I don't like at all. People talk some serious crap on my hometown when Cleveland gets into the sports news. I am willing to bet 90% of these people have never been and 99% have never spent more than a few days there. It's offensive. To me. No one talks crap on my city without me defending it.




I never left...I posted this to defend my city against someone who has probably never been there.
And I guarantee Lebron will never say LA is a better place than the Cleveland/Akron area.

Where do you think 99% of stars would rather be, Cleveland or Los Angeles?

Bluedog
06-19-2017, 09:32 PM
Is it also wrong for superstars to take less money to make sure their team can continue to be a superteam?

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19681613/kevin-durant-decline-option-re-sign-warriors

When you're making $20M+ a year, I don't think it really matters...That's more money that he could possibly spend especially given that he actually earned $60M this year and has guaranteed endorsements paying him hundreds of millions. And I think winning the championship probably can get you more publicity/endorsement money anyways. Money wagged the tail more when players were maxing out at a "paltry" $10M/year. ;) But money is so obscene right now that when you get near max deals, it's not much of a difference really (except for maybe agents and other enoutage folks trying to convince them it is). I get your point though. It's a bit funny when you think about it that the world we live in pays guys who play a game so much money and it's often based on POTENTIAL (or past performance) not even actual performance for that season, but obviously that's what the market bears and the player's attorneys have negotiated across all/most the sports leagues.

LasVegas
06-19-2017, 09:33 PM
Where do you think 99% of stars would rather be, Cleveland or Los Angeles?

I would say 99% is wayyyyy too high for either city. Is LA more appealing to the young basketball player? Sure. By how much? Not sure. I go to LA frequently for business and I hate everything about it. Surely I am not the only one?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-20-2017, 04:32 AM
I would say 99% is wayyyyy too high for either city. Is LA more appealing to the young basketball player? Sure. By how much? Not sure. I go to LA frequently for business and I hate everything about it. Surely I am not the only one?

I would rather chew glasd than live in LA. There's more to life than weather.

kshepinthehouse
06-20-2017, 06:15 AM
I would rather chew glasd than live in LA. There's more to life than weather.

You're also not a multi millionaire star athlete.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-20-2017, 07:12 AM
You're also not a multi millionaire star athlete.

You suggest that all millionaire athletes would choose LA over other places? Seems unlikely to me. Athletes have diverse priorities, just like the rest of us.

kshepinthehouse
06-20-2017, 07:15 AM
You suggest that all millionaire athletes would choose LA over other places? Seems unlikely to me. Athletes have diverse priorities, just like the rest of us.

I agree. But before Lebron name the last huge free agent Cleveland signed. The Lakers have cashed in huge in free agency over the years. Is this a coincidence?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-20-2017, 07:48 AM
I agree. But before Lebron name the last huge free agent Cleveland signed. The Lakers have cashed in huge in free agency over the years. Is this a coincidence?

Of course not. I am just saying that it isn't a given that everyone prefers Los Angeles to everywhere else. Clearly, the Lakers have been a premier destination for decades, but that's not just because of the beach and the movie scene. The team was at the top of the league for several decades - might have had an impact on how attractive it has been historically.

Edouble
06-20-2017, 08:34 AM
When you're making $20M+ a year, I don't think it really matters...That's more money that he could possibly spend especially given that he actually earned $60M this year and has guaranteed endorsements paying him hundreds of millions. And I think winning the championship probably can get you more publicity/endorsement money anyways. Money wagged the tail more when players were maxing out at a "paltry" $10M/year. ;) But money is so obscene right now that when you get near max deals, it's not much of a difference really (except for maybe agents and other enoutage folks trying to convince them it is). I get your point though. It's a bit funny when you think about it that the world we live in pays guys who play a game so much money and it's often based on POTENTIAL (or past performance) not even actual performance for that season, but obviously that's what the market bears and the player's attorneys have negotiated across all/most the sports leagues.

I dunno. Antoine Walker lost all of his money, $100+ million from salary alone, and he hung 'em up almost 10 years ago.

There are so many great ways for pro athletes to lose huge chunks of their money.

cato
06-20-2017, 10:11 AM
I would rather chew glasd than live in LA. There's more to life than weather.

There are also many reasons people would chose LA over Cleveland.

Does anyone think that Paul George would rather chew glass than live in LA?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-20-2017, 10:30 AM
There are also many reasons people would chose LA over Cleveland.

Does anyone think that Paul George would rather chew glass than live in LA?

No, he has publicly stated that he wants to go there. I am referring to the assumption that ALL athletes would rather be in LA, given the choice. Blanket statements like that are rarely accurate and also ignore that athletes are not of a singular mindset that LA is the greatest home on earth.

CDu
06-20-2017, 10:34 AM
No, he has publicly stated that he wants to go there. I am referring to the assumption that ALL athletes would rather be in LA, given the choice. Blanket statements like that are rarely accurate and also ignore that athletes are not of a singular mindset that LA is the greatest home on earth.

I think we're getting into an inane discussion here.

The entire discussion arose from whether or not George would want to play in LA rather than Cleveland. George has made it known that he'd like to play for the Lakers when his contract is up. That would seem to suggest his preferences.

The rest seems kind of immaterial. Are there folks that would prefer Cleveland (or Indianapolis, or other cities) to LA? I'm pretty sure there are. Are there folks that would prefer LA to those other cities? I'm pretty sure there. Does that really matter when we are talking about a specific player's interests? Especially when said player has already given indications of his interests?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-20-2017, 11:44 AM
I think we're getting into an inane discussion here.

The entire discussion arose from whether or not George would want to play in LA rather than Cleveland. George has made it known that he'd like to play for the Lakers when his contract is up. That would seem to suggest his preferences.

The rest seems kind of immaterial. Are there folks that would prefer Cleveland (or Indianapolis, or other cities) to LA? I'm pretty sure there are. Are there folks that would prefer LA to those other cities? I'm pretty sure there. Does that really matter when we are talking about a specific player's interests? Especially when said player has already given indications of his interests?

I agree with all your statements.

Indoor66
06-20-2017, 12:17 PM
I think we're getting into an inane discussion here.

So, what else is new?

superdave
06-20-2017, 12:45 PM
There are also many reasons people would chose LA over Cleveland.

Does anyone think that Paul George would rather chew glass than live in LA?



Danny Ferry once faked his death to avoid playing in Cleveland.

sagegrouse
06-20-2017, 12:58 PM
I have lived in LA -- Pacific Palisades -- and worked in Santa Monica. My opinion is that, if one is extremely wealthy, there are only a few cities with high appeal. LA, SF and NYC are on this very short list. Maybe wealthy 20-somethings would add a couple of others (Miami?).

For upper middle class and below -- most of us, I expect -- LA has some challenges -- cost of living, traffic, smog away from the coast, etc. For the richest, though, you have great weather, lots and lots of entertainment plus the entertainment business, loads of art and culture, and great residential locations in the hills above Sunset.

Just my opinion. I'd be interested in dissents, especially from those who have lived in So. Cal.

Troublemaker
06-20-2017, 01:26 PM
I have lived in LA -- Pacific Palisades -- and worked in Santa Monica. My opinion is that, if one is extremely wealthy, there are only a few cities with high appeal. LA, SF and NYC are on this very short list. Maybe wealthy 20-somethings would add a couple of others (Miami?).

For upper middle class and below -- most of us, I expect -- LA has some challenges -- cost of living, traffic, smog away from the coast, etc. For the richest, though, you have great weather, lots and lots of entertainment plus the entertainment business, loads of art and culture, and great residential locations in the hills above Sunset.

Just my opinion. I'd be interested in dissents, especially from those who have lived in So. Cal.

I would guess about 80% of the extremely wealthy share roughly the same tastes, and therefore you're probably right about them. But, I gotta think there is a 20% or so (maybe more) who dissent. Doesn't Warren Buffett live in Omaha, for example?

Jeffrey
06-20-2017, 02:08 PM
Doesn't Warren Buffett live in Omaha, for example?

Yep, Warren is cheap. For example, he eats breakfast everyday at McDonalds. On a good day, he supersizes.

elvis14
06-20-2017, 02:26 PM
I have lived in LA -- Pacific Palisades -- and worked in Santa Monica. My opinion is that, if one is extremely wealthy, there are only a few cities with high appeal. LA, SF and NYC are on this very short list. Maybe wealthy 20-somethings would add a couple of others (Miami?).

For upper middle class and below -- most of us, I expect -- LA has some challenges -- cost of living, traffic, smog away from the coast, etc. For the richest, though, you have great weather, lots and lots of entertainment plus the entertainment business, loads of art and culture, and great residential locations in the hills above Sunset.

Just my opinion. I'd be interested in dissents, especially from those who have lived in So. Cal.

Although I hate to add to this inane discussion, I just wanted to say that IMHO (where the H is somewhere with sagerouse), he has it right. I think that being super wealthy and living in LA (or NYC) is very different than being middle class and living there. I wouldn't want to live in LA but I suspect that if I was super rich I'd be more OK with it because I could afford a better side of town, land, transportation and I'd have the means to travel. I still wouldn't do it, I'm an East Coast kind of guy, but I can see where it'd make sense to some.

I also agree with those that say that there aren't a whole lot of safe assumptions when it comes to where people want to live. I've often said I'd rather flip burgers in NC than have a 'real' job in NYC. As for Paul George, since he's stated that he wants to go back home to LA, I think the whole argument is moot.

JasonEvans
06-20-2017, 02:34 PM
Your post-season NBA thoughts should now be posted in this thread (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?40217-2017-NBA-Summer-Thread). Thanks!!