How insane is this? LeBron for Mitchell

[TheBrooklynKidd]

If the Cavs want Lebron that badly, they’ll draft his son at #20 and go from there.

[mcfly1204]

I'm not trading Mitchell for James, but I would consider something like Allen and LeVert for James. Cleveland moves Mobley to the 5 and runs James at the 4. They run a twin tower scenario in LA, with LeVert as their 6th m an.

[Skybox]

I like it, even as a Kawhi to TOR move. CLE young core can be good for a decade and survive losing Mitchell. LBJ cements his legacy, great story, great ending to his career…Mitchell’s a goner and not many teams will bid high, imo. Even when LBJ leaves…Garland & Mobley & Allen (or whatever Allen brings in trade) remain, possibly with a ring or a deep playoff run on their resumes. Bringing in LBJ signals absolute commitment to a ring. NOW…which draws ring-chasing vet mins. And…simply put, CLE roster is far superior to LAL already…meaning LBJ smells a ring…also why LBJ as an UFA to PHI isn’t inconceivable to me.

Just in basketball terms, the fit is 100% better than Mitchell/Garland- but this would go way beyond that in storyline

[mg]

If Mitchell decides to extend in Cleveland I could see them making an all in move. Perhaps Garland+LeVert for Lebron? I don't see the Cavs as a fit for a 40 yo old Lebron if their best player Mitchell is the one going out in the deal.

With that said the Lakers ownership, notably Jeanie Buss, wants to be the team raking in the profit for the Lebron retirement tour. Not to mention the Lakers can't trade him unless it's a s&t this offseason and that decision is in his court.

As already mentioned there is already a long history between Lebron and the Cavs. Gilbert would most likely need to sell him some kind of stake in the team for Lebron to agree to go back at this point.

[jbk1234]

I like it, even as a Kawhi to TOR move. CLE young core can be good for a decade and survive losing Mitchell. LBJ cements his legacy, great story, great ending to his career…Mitchell’s a goner and not many teams will bid high, imo. Even when LBJ leaves…Garland & Mobley & Allen (or whatever Allen brings in trade) remain, possibly with a ring or a deep playoff run on their resumes. Bringing in LBJ signals absolute commitment to a ring. NOW…which draws ring-chasing vet mins. And…simply put, CLE roster is far superior to LAL already…meaning LBJ smells a ring…also why LBJ as an UFA to PHI isn’t inconceivable to me.

Just in basketball terms, the fit is 100% better than Mitchell/Garland- but this would go way beyond that in storyline

I have LBJ signing with Philly as the most likely outcome behind re-signing with the Lakers. He gets his money and the team acquiring him surrenders nothing but cap space. Philly's window with Embiid is a huge question mark anyways, so why not give LBJ the money he wants?

[toooskies]

Gilbert will fire Altman on the spot if he comes to him with a Garland for LBJ trade (and he'd be right to do so). I'd also really question Mitchell's intelligence if that's what got him to extend.

LeBron plus Mitchell plus Garland is too many ball handlers and not enough glue. Obviously you'd want more from a long term piece like Garland, but his value is probably pretty low after the season he's had and the Cavs would likely be better with Strus out there in terms of fit.

Maybe a bigger deal with Garland moving elsewhere (NOP?) and a young asset or two back to Cleveland along with LeBron.

LBJ is 40-years old and at the very end of his career. Value aside, it's a mistake to make team building moves around him. If he wanted to load manage, run the second unit, and take a salary that was a little more than commensurate with that role with the understanding he'd earn that money in the playoffs, okay. But none of that is going to happen.

He's wants a fully guaranteed contract at max money for at least two years and a NTC. He's going to want to start. He's not going to play defense in the regular season. He's going to walk in and annoint himself leader of the locker room. He's going to pressure the F.O. to make all-in trades. He's also going to continue to regess. I
hope the Cavs have no desire to trade real value for any of that.

Frankly, just giving him the contract he's asking for is really, really risky and the NBA is currently littered with examples of it backfiring.

The Cavs' front office may very well decide that Garland + Mitchell can't work and Garland by himself isn't enough to drive winning reliably. Garland has had problems his entire career of being a selfish scorer. That's even more true today than it used to be.

The "Garland and Mobley are our only way to avoid mediocrity through the Mitchell picks transfer" philosophy may end as soon as this summer if Mitchell and Allen extend.

[mcfly1204]

I think that is the first time I have seen Garland referred to as a selfish scorer. Are you sure you don't mean that Garland has had problems not being selfish enough as a scorer?

[jbk1234]

LeBron plus Mitchell plus Garland is too many ball handlers and not enough glue. Obviously you'd want more from a long term piece like Garland, but his value is probably pretty low after the season he's had and the Cavs would likely be better with Strus out there in terms of fit.

Maybe a bigger deal with Garland moving elsewhere (NOP?) and a young asset or two back to Cleveland along with LeBron.

LBJ is 40-years old and at the very end of his career. Value aside, it's a mistake to make team building moves around him. If he wanted to load manage, run the second unit, and take a salary that was a little more than commensurate with that role with the understanding he'd earn that money in the playoffs, okay. But none of that is going to happen.

He's wants a fully guaranteed contract at max money for at least two years and a NTC. He's going to want to start. He's not going to play defense in the regular season. He's going to walk in and annoint himself leader of the locker room. He's going to pressure the F.O. to make all-in trades. He's also going to continue to regess. I
hope the Cavs have no desire to trade real value for any of that.

Frankly, just giving him the contract he's asking for is really, really risky and the NBA is currently littered with examples of it backfiring.

The Cavs' front office may very well decide that Garland + Mitchell can't work and Garland by himself isn't enough to drive winning reliably. Garland has had problems his entire career of being a selfish scorer. That's even more true today than it used to be.

The "Garland and Mobley are our only way to avoid mediocrity through the Mitchell picks transfer" philosophy may end as soon as this summer if Mitchell and Allen extend.

Did you mean to say selfish? Last year you were critical of Garland for not hunting his shot enough and he has far fewer fga pg than Mitchell.

In any event, I'm not against any theoretical Garland trade at some point, but the offense hasn't exactly hummed when he's rested in the playoffs. If the third quarter of Game 4 doesn't at least give you pause when it comes to Mitchell running the offense against a good defensive team in the playoffs, I don't know.

Suffice to say I'm firmly against the idea of trading Garland after he broke his jaw, lost 12lbs midseason, and came back to a team that had all of Mitchell, Strus, Mobley, and Wade out during the toughest part of the schedule. You're talking about a PG who is only 24, made an allstar team at 22, and was forced into trying to make it work with a ball-dominant all nba SG at 23 (a SG who somehow manages to avoid 100% of the blame for the absence of hoped-for synergy).

[DowJones]

If LeBron wants to go to the Cavs it would be to play with Mitchell and Garland. He would make a stink and threaten to leave so the deal would have to be Allen and LeVert. That is good enough for LeBron to play on a stacked Cleveland team and Allen is too good to pass up if LeBron actually threatens to walk.

This is all beyond the point--LeBron wants to live in LA. That is why he went to the Lakers in the first place.

[Skybox]

If LeBron wants to go to the Cavs it would be to play with Mitchell and Garland. He would make a stink and threaten to leave so the deal would have to be Allen and LeVert. That is good enough for LeBron to play on a stacked Cleveland team and Allen is too good to pass up if LeBron actually threatens to walk.

This is all beyond the point--LeBron wants to live in LA. That is why he went to the Lakers in the first place.

Lebrun has gone a lot of places for a lot of reasons. Things change.

[louc1970]

it would be incredibly short sighted for CLE

the reason Mitchell specifically is potentially on the market is that he can walk within a year and the team would get nothing. trading him for a guy that likely would only play for only one year before we lost him for nothing... doesn't seem ideal.

It would be a short term move by necessity. But, I could see a team being enamored with the idea of making one title run over maybe 4-5 2nd round and out type years.

I think
Garland
Strus
LeBron
Mobley
Allen
would be a true contender. And there is some depth there as well. Maybe I'm crazy.

How long before LBJ starts telling management they need to trade Allen, Mobley, Garland for win now players?

[toooskies]

LBJ is 40-years old and at the very end of his career. Value aside, it's a mistake to make team building moves around him. If he wanted to load manage, run the second unit, and take a salary that was a little more than commensurate with that role with the understanding he'd earn that money in the playoffs, okay. But none of that is going to happen.

He's wants a fully guaranteed contract at max money for at least two years and a NTC. He's going to want to start. He's not going to play defense in the regular season. He's going to walk in and annoint himself leader of the locker room. He's going to pressure the F.O. to make all-in trades. He's also going to continue to regess. I
hope the Cavs have no desire to trade real value for any of that.

Frankly, just giving him the contract he's asking for is really, really risky and the NBA is currently littered with examples of it backfiring.

The Cavs' front office may very well decide that Garland + Mitchell can't work and Garland by himself isn't enough to drive winning reliably. Garland has had problems his entire career of being a selfish scorer. That's even more true today than it used to be.

The "Garland and Mobley are our only way to avoid mediocrity through the Mitchell picks transfer" philosophy may end as soon as this summer if Mitchell and Allen extend.

Did you mean to say selfish? Last year you were critical of Garland for not hunting his shot enough and he has far fewer fga pg than Mitchell.

In any event, I'm not against any theoretical Garland trade at some point, but the offense hasn't exactly hummed when he's rested in the playoffs. If the third quarter of Game 4 doesn't at least give you pause when it comes to Mitchell running the offense against a good defensive team in the playoffs, I don't know.

Suffice to say I'm firmly against the idea of trading Garland after he broke his jaw, lost 12lbs midseason, and came back to a team that had all of Mitchell, Strus, Mobley, and Wade out during the toughest part of the schedule. You're talking about a PG who is only 24, made an allstar team at 22, and was forced into trying to make it work with a ball-dominant all nba SG at 23 (a SG who somehow manages to avoid 100% of the blame for the absence of hoped-for synergy).

I meant to say his problem was that he doesn't know how to be a selfish scorer.

I definitely don't think it's time to trade Garland in terms of value-- he's better than he's shown this year-- but if Mitchell says to the Cavs that himself and Garland can't work and he'll extend if Garland gets traded for another star, I think it makes more sense to keep Mitchell than Garland.

[jbk1234]

The Cavs' front office may very well decide that Garland + Mitchell can't work and Garland by himself isn't enough to drive winning reliably. Garland has had problems his entire career of being a selfish scorer. That's even more true today than it used to be.

The "Garland and Mobley are our only way to avoid mediocrity through the Mitchell picks transfer" philosophy may end as soon as this summer if Mitchell and Allen extend.

Did you mean to say selfish? Last year you were critical of Garland for not hunting his shot enough and he has far fewer fga pg than Mitchell.

In any event, I'm not against any theoretical Garland trade at some point, but the offense hasn't exactly hummed when he's rested in the playoffs. If the third quarter of Game 4 doesn't at least give you pause when it comes to Mitchell running the offense against a good defensive team in the playoffs, I don't know.

Suffice to say I'm firmly against the idea of trading Garland after he broke his jaw, lost 12lbs midseason, and came back to a team that had all of Mitchell, Strus, Mobley, and Wade out during the toughest part of the schedule. You're talking about a PG who is only 24, made an allstar team at 22, and was forced into trying to make it work with a ball-dominant all nba SG at 23 (a SG who somehow manages to avoid 100% of the blame for the absence of hoped-for synergy).

I meant to say his problem was that he doesn't know how to be a selfish scorer.

I definitely don't think it's time to trade Garland in terms of value-- he's better than he's shown this year-- but if Mitchell says to the Cavs that himself and Garland can't work and he'll extend if Garland gets traded for another star, I think it makes more sense to keep Mitchell than Garland.

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether being a more selfish scorer is good for the team with all of Allen, Mobley, and Mitchell on the floor. Can he maybe do a better job of picking his spots like he did in Game 5, sure, but he should be doing it because that's what the defense is giving up. Mitchell forces enough for the both of them tbh.

[toooskies]

Did you mean to say selfish? Last year you were critical of Garland for not hunting his shot enough and he has far fewer fga pg than Mitchell.

In any event, I'm not against any theoretical Garland trade at some point, but the offense hasn't exactly hummed when he's rested in the playoffs. If the third quarter of Game 4 doesn't at least give you pause when it comes to Mitchell running the offense against a good defensive team in the playoffs, I don't know.

Suffice to say I'm firmly against the idea of trading Garland after he broke his jaw, lost 12lbs midseason, and came back to a team that had all of Mitchell, Strus, Mobley, and Wade out during the toughest part of the schedule. You're talking about a PG who is only 24, made an allstar team at 22, and was forced into trying to make it work with a ball-dominant all nba SG at 23 (a SG who somehow manages to avoid 100% of the blame for the absence of hoped-for synergy).

I meant to say his problem was that he doesn't know how to be a selfish scorer.

I definitely don't think it's time to trade Garland in terms of value-- he's better than he's shown this year-- but if Mitchell says to the Cavs that himself and Garland can't work and he'll extend if Garland gets traded for another star, I think it makes more sense to keep Mitchell than Garland.

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether being a more selfish scorer is good for the team with all of Allen, Mobley, and Mitchell on the floor. Can he maybe do a better job of picking his spots like he did in Game 5, sure, but he should be doing it because that's what the defense is giving up. Mitchell forces enough for the both of them tbh.

Garland needs to be a threat to score 30 so that the defense will commit to him enough to ease the pressure off of Donovan and pull defenders away from the other players. Constantly setting others up is good in theory but averaging 12 points a game in the playoffs as he did in games 1-4 (and was his pace for 3 of 4 quarters in game 5) isn't what an all-star at age 22 should be doing at age 24.

[jbk1234]

I meant to say his problem was that he doesn't know how to be a selfish scorer.

I definitely don't think it's time to trade Garland in terms of value-- he's better than he's shown this year-- but if Mitchell says to the Cavs that himself and Garland can't work and he'll extend if Garland gets traded for another star, I think it makes more sense to keep Mitchell than Garland.

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether being a more selfish scorer is good for the team with all of Allen, Mobley, and Mitchell on the floor. Can he maybe do a better job of picking his spots like he did in Game 5, sure, but he should be doing it because that's what the defense is giving up. Mitchell forces enough for the both of them tbh.

Garland needs to be a threat to score 30 so that the defense will commit to him enough to ease the pressure off of Donovan and pull defenders away from the other players. Constantly setting others up is good in theory but averaging 12 points a game in the playoffs as he did in games 1-4 (and was his pace for 3 of 4 quarters in game 5) isn't what an all-star at age 22 should be doing at age 24.

My counter to that is is that it worked pretty well in Games 1 & 2 even with Strus and Niang unable to hit the side of the barn. I'm more focused on team efficiency and will probably die on that hill. Michell scored 30 on 38 shots against the Knicks in Game 1 last year. The Cavs still lost.

[toooskies]

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether being a more selfish scorer is good for the team with all of Allen, Mobley, and Mitchell on the floor. Can he maybe do a better job of picking his spots like he did in Game 5, sure, but he should be doing it because that's what the defense is giving up. Mitchell forces enough for the both of them tbh.

Garland needs to be a threat to score 30 so that the defense will commit to him enough to ease the pressure off of Donovan and pull defenders away from the other players. Constantly setting others up is good in theory but averaging 12 points a game in the playoffs as he did in games 1-4 (and was his pace for 3 of 4 quarters in game 5) isn't what an all-star at age 22 should be doing at age 24.

My counter to that is is that it worked pretty well in Games 1 & 2 even with Strus and Niang unable to hit the side of the barn. I'm more focused on team efficiency and will probably die on that hill. Michell scored 30 on 38 shots against the Knicks in Game 1 last year. The Cavs still lost.

Game 1's ORTG (101.2) and game 2's ORTG (104.9) were good enough to win but definitely were not efficient.

[DowJones]

Garland needs to be a threat to score 30 so that the defense will commit to him enough to ease the pressure off of Donovan and pull defenders away from the other players. Constantly setting others up is good in theory but averaging 12 points a game in the playoffs as he did in games 1-4 (and was his pace for 3 of 4 quarters in game 5) isn't what an all-star at age 22 should be doing at age 24.

My counter to that is is that it worked pretty well in Games 1 & 2 even with Strus and Niang unable to hit the side of the barn. I'm more focused on team efficiency and will probably die on that hill. Michell scored 30 on 38 shots against the Knicks in Game 1 last year. The Cavs still lost.

Game 1's ORTG (101.2) and game 2's ORTG (104.9) were good enough to win but definitely were not efficient.

Yeah, the offense has really been bad against Orlando. It isn’t like Garland is some maestro running the offense. He mostly dominates the ball with mindless dribbling until there are 10 seconds left on the shot clock. It was refreshing to hear Zach Lowe echo the points I was making when it comes to Garland’s ineffectiveness.

[zimpy27]

Garland+LeVert for LeBron might make more sense

[jbk1234]

My counter to that is is that it worked pretty well in Games 1 & 2 even with Strus and Niang unable to hit the side of the barn. I'm more focused on team efficiency and will probably die on that hill. Michell scored 30 on 38 shots against the Knicks in Game 1 last year. The Cavs still lost.

Game 1's ORTG (101.2) and game 2's ORTG (104.9) were good enough to win but definitely were not efficient.

Yeah, the offense has really been bad against Orlando. It isn’t like Garland is some maestro running the offense. He mostly dominates the ball with mindless dribbling until there are 10 seconds left on the shot clock. It was refreshing to hear Zach Lowe echo the points I was making when it comes to Garland’s ineffectiveness.

An up and down season filled with injuries really has turned the fanbase toxic.

[toooskies]

Game 1's ORTG (101.2) and game 2's ORTG (104.9) were good enough to win but definitely were not efficient.

Yeah, the offense has really been bad against Orlando. It isn’t like Garland is some maestro running the offense. He mostly dominates the ball with mindless dribbling until there are 10 seconds left on the shot clock. It was refreshing to hear Zach Lowe echo the points I was making when it comes to Garland’s ineffectiveness.

An up and down season filled with injuries really has turned the fanbase toxic.

I fully expect Garland to be better next year. But I do need him to sometimes play like the best player on the floor. Mitchell probably wants him to be that player sometimes, too.