Does something like Bridges for Mitchell make sense

[Laimbeer]

The Nets could have one star ready to pair with another. Cavs get a little better balance and affordability while avoiding the flight risk. The Nets feel more like a team that can attract/will pay a second star that satisfies MItchell. Someone like DFS could be filler/sweetener for the Cavs.

Some help with value?

[HadAnEffectHere]

So I think the Cavs would want to do basically Mitchell for Bridges+DFS+two OK firsts or one great first, but the issue is just the Nets are then so bad that it's not clear Mitchell would want to play there.

The Nets would absolutely need to get a star wing player at the same time using most of their picks.

[Wolveswin]

This has been discussed to no end. The wrinkle to this idea (Bridges to Cavs) is backfilling Bridges with Markkanen (who isn’t a direct option back to Cavs).

Bones of trade…

To Jazz: Picks (Ainge would love those Suns picks - aging roster - sounds familiar)

To Nets: Mitchell + Markkanen

To Cavs: Bridges

Filler and value to taste.

[Skybox]

The OP is very interesting for both, imo...don't forget, CLE doesn't have a WHOLE lot of leverage once Mitchell pretty much announces he's exploring UFA in a year. BRK, IMO should take the risk because it's still close to a homecoming for Mitchell and, honestly, a backcourt with Brunson really isn't pretty and Brunson ain't going anywhere- he's arguably better than Mitchell now.

Bridges is a really nice player to get back and plug in to CLE's young but somewhat mismatched (with Mitchell) roster...I kind of think CLE FO isn't all that heartbroken by Mitchell "forcing their hand"...he hasn't really worked out as far as team success goes. I think BRK adds but CLE fans need to forget unreasonable demands for multiple firsts, etc...I'd guess Bridges and DFS or a single first is more realistic. There's not going to be a bidding war for a guy that's a clear flight risk.

[jbk1234]

The OP is very interesting for both, imo...don't forget, CLE doesn't have a WHOLE lot of leverage once Mitchell pretty much announces he's exploring UFA in a year. BRK, IMO should take the risk because it's still close to a homecoming for Mitchell and, honestly, a backcourt with Brunson really isn't pretty and Brunson ain't going anywhere- he's arguably better than Mitchell now.

Bridges is a really nice player to get back and plug in to CLE's young but somewhat mismatched (with Mitchell) roster...I kind of think CLE FO isn't all that heartbroken by Mitchell "forcing their hand"...he hasn't really worked out as far as team success goes. I think BRK adds but CLE fans need to forget unreasonable demands for multiple firsts, etc...I'd guess Bridges and DFS or a single first is more realistic. There's not going to be a bidding war for a guy that's a clear flight risk.

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

[Skybox]

The OP is very interesting for both, imo...don't forget, CLE doesn't have a WHOLE lot of leverage once Mitchell pretty much announces he's exploring UFA in a year. BRK, IMO should take the risk because it's still close to a homecoming for Mitchell and, honestly, a backcourt with Brunson really isn't pretty and Brunson ain't going anywhere- he's arguably better than Mitchell now.

Bridges is a really nice player to get back and plug in to CLE's young but somewhat mismatched (with Mitchell) roster...I kind of think CLE FO isn't all that heartbroken by Mitchell "forcing their hand"...he hasn't really worked out as far as team success goes. I think BRK adds but CLE fans need to forget unreasonable demands for multiple firsts, etc...I'd guess Bridges and DFS or a single first is more realistic. There's not going to be a bidding war for a guy that's a clear flight risk.

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

I love Garland and I love Mitchell, but I made the same pronouncements when the Cavs first got Mitchell and I still feel like it's accurate. I don't blame them for taking the shot - but, on paper at least, it's not an ideal pairing...reminiscent of Dame/CJ...add to that the flight risk potential of Mitchell and I'm not even sure how far they'd have to go to make Mitchell feel compelled to promise to re-up. IF I'm CLE, I need the promise or I make a move while somebody else feels like THEY are where Mitchell will sign.

Personally, I think Bridges might be at the top end of principle players CLE MIGHT get offered for Mitchell at this point and Bridges is a great fit.

[Slim Charless]

So I think the Cavs would want to do basically Mitchell for Bridges+DFS+two OK firsts or one great first, but the issue is just the Nets are then so bad that it's not clear Mitchell would want to play there.

The Nets would absolutely need to get a star wing player at the same time using most of their picks.

Mitchell wants to play in NYC, but the Knicks probably aren't interested. So he's likely to take the Nets as a consultation prize.

I'd bet anything the Cavs owner would do the deal if BRK included those PHX picks. He hates the Suns owner and would love to have a personal stake in the Suns losing games in the future.

[louc1970]

This has been discussed to no end. The wrinkle to this idea (Bridges to Cavs) is backfilling Bridges with Markkanen (who isn’t a direct option back to Cavs).

Bones of trade…

To Jazz: Picks (Ainge would love those Suns picks - aging roster - sounds familiar)

To Nets: Mitchell + Markkanen

To Cavs: Bridges

Filler and value to taste.

The concern is at some point Utah has to cash their chips. While I think it is the right move to move Markkanen for youth/picks, I just wonder when Utah starts to think of winning versus stockpiling.

[louc1970]

The OP is very interesting for both, imo...don't forget, CLE doesn't have a WHOLE lot of leverage once Mitchell pretty much announces he's exploring UFA in a year. BRK, IMO should take the risk because it's still close to a homecoming for Mitchell and, honestly, a backcourt with Brunson really isn't pretty and Brunson ain't going anywhere- he's arguably better than Mitchell now.

Bridges is a really nice player to get back and plug in to CLE's young but somewhat mismatched (with Mitchell) roster...I kind of think CLE FO isn't all that heartbroken by Mitchell "forcing their hand"...he hasn't really worked out as far as team success goes. I think BRK adds but CLE fans need to forget unreasonable demands for multiple firsts, etc...I'd guess Bridges and DFS or a single first is more realistic. There's not going to be a bidding war for a guy that's a clear flight risk.

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

[Skybox]

The OP is very interesting for both, imo...don't forget, CLE doesn't have a WHOLE lot of leverage once Mitchell pretty much announces he's exploring UFA in a year. BRK, IMO should take the risk because it's still close to a homecoming for Mitchell and, honestly, a backcourt with Brunson really isn't pretty and Brunson ain't going anywhere- he's arguably better than Mitchell now.

Bridges is a really nice player to get back and plug in to CLE's young but somewhat mismatched (with Mitchell) roster...I kind of think CLE FO isn't all that heartbroken by Mitchell "forcing their hand"...he hasn't really worked out as far as team success goes. I think BRK adds but CLE fans need to forget unreasonable demands for multiple firsts, etc...I'd guess Bridges and DFS or a single first is more realistic. There's not going to be a bidding war for a guy that's a clear flight risk.

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

Brunson is likely all-NBA...this season it's not close. Mitchell is a stud but he led a better roster right up to Brunson's rear-view mirror. Both teams had significant injury issues this year, but I'd say Brunson overcame more obstacles and played a bigger role in his team's greater success.

I'm a big fan of DM...but I think anyone outside of CLE, with any national perspective, has Brunson ahead atm.

[jbk1234]

The OP is very interesting for both, imo...don't forget, CLE doesn't have a WHOLE lot of leverage once Mitchell pretty much announces he's exploring UFA in a year. BRK, IMO should take the risk because it's still close to a homecoming for Mitchell and, honestly, a backcourt with Brunson really isn't pretty and Brunson ain't going anywhere- he's arguably better than Mitchell now.

Bridges is a really nice player to get back and plug in to CLE's young but somewhat mismatched (with Mitchell) roster...I kind of think CLE FO isn't all that heartbroken by Mitchell "forcing their hand"...he hasn't really worked out as far as team success goes. I think BRK adds but CLE fans need to forget unreasonable demands for multiple firsts, etc...I'd guess Bridges and DFS or a single first is more realistic. There's not going to be a bidding war for a guy that's a clear flight risk.

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

The advantage to having both Garland and Mitchell on the floor at the same time is the other team can only assign their best defender to one of them. The other team cannot tilt the defense towards both of them simultaneously. I think any talk of trading either of them is premature.

[louc1970]

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

Brunson is likely all-NBA...this season it's not close. Mitchell is a stud but he led a better roster right up to Brunson's rear-view mirror. Both teams had significant injury issues this year, but I'd say Brunson overcame more obstacles and played a bigger role in his team's greater success.

I'm a big fan of DM...but I think anyone outside of CLE, with any national perspective, has Brunson ahead atm.

I would never take Brunson over Mitchell as a player and to lead the team.
Brunson was able to play in as the second option when Randle was healthy. Mitchell will always be the top defensive assignment and defensive focus on Cleveland.
Imagine if Mitchell had been playing PG all year rather than just when Garland went out. He would have been in the running for MVP. He was putting up stats and had Cleveland at #2. I am a Mitchell fan so I am biased. But i would suspect if you take Brunson's family situation from NY, the Knicks would trade for Brunson for Mitchell.

[louc1970]

Allen, Mobley, Mitchell and Garland have shared to court fewer than 20 games this year, and they were still banged up for most of the games they did play this year. Obviously, it will ultimately depend on how we perform in the postseason, but the pronouncements about it not working out are premature.

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

The advantage to having both Garland and Mitchell on the floor at the same time is the other team can only assign their best defender to one of them. The other team cannot tilt the defense towards both of them simultaneously. I think any talk of trading either of them is premature.

It is premature but we as fans get to be immature about it! I think Cleveland will have to use either Garland or Mitchell to get the missing piece(s) they need - a quality SF and depending on whether Mobley is a 4 or 5, another PF.
Would anyone agree to a trade of Garland for F. Wagner?

[jbk1234]

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

The advantage to having both Garland and Mitchell on the floor at the same time is the other team can only assign their best defender to one of them. The other team cannot tilt the defense towards both of them simultaneously. I think any talk of trading either of them is premature.

It is premature but we as fans get to be immature about it! I think Cleveland will have to use either Garland or Mitchell to get the missing piece(s) they need - a quality SF and depending on whether Mobley is a 4 or 5, another PF.
Would anyone agree to a trade of Garland for F. Wagner?

I don't speak for all Cavs fans, but I'd only trade either of them for a 3 or 4 who can shoot and defend, and I don't really think the Cavs should entertain trading Garland for anything reasonable.

[JKiddy]

If Bridges was going to be traded it would have been at the last deadline or right after he was acquired.

He would not be moved in this deal. It seems they are working with other players for trades to build a team to include Bridges at this point going forward at least until 2026.

[Skybox]

Exactly. And I do not know one team outside of Knicks that would say Brunson is better. All you have to do is look at where Mitchell led Cleveland without Garland.

I think a lot of people are misjudging where Mitchell wants to be. He is not going to choose Brooklyn or NYK over winning just to play near his home.

Cleveland needs to look at 2 scenarios: 1) if Mitchell wants out, what is biggest return they can get? And 2) if Mitchell stays is it better to move Garland for missing pieces?

Cleveland needs to figure out the SF spot.

Brunson is likely all-NBA...this season it's not close. Mitchell is a stud but he led a better roster right up to Brunson's rear-view mirror. Both teams had significant injury issues this year, but I'd say Brunson overcame more obstacles and played a bigger role in his team's greater success.

I'm a big fan of DM...but I think anyone outside of CLE, with any national perspective, has Brunson ahead atm.

I would never take Brunson over Mitchell as a player and to lead the team.
Brunson was able to play in as the second option when Randle was healthy. Mitchell will always be the top defensive assignment and defensive focus on Cleveland.
Imagine if Mitchell had been playing PG all year rather than just when Garland went out. He would have been in the running for MVP. He was putting up stats and had Cleveland at #2. I am a Mitchell fan so I am biased. But i would suspect if you take Brunson's family situation from NY, the Knicks would trade for Brunson for Mitchell.

I agree...you are biased

[JKiddy]

I can see DFS, Cam Johnson, and a young player with 2 1sts and a swap happening this summer.

Mitchell might just walk which sucks. I think he is the guy BK has been shown that he wants in the door to play with Bridges. But, it might be Trae or someone else! Stay tuned!