jbk1234 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:dockingsched wrote:If Mitchell extends it would be malpractice for the Cavs to even consider keeping Garland, shouldn’t require some trade demand.
Yeah it's weird this is coming out because it seems like all parties would see the sense in the situation.
It's possible that Garland's agent did this cluelessly, but most likely thing seems to be that the Cavs are at least telling Garland that they still think that a Mitchell/Garland back court is going to work, but Garland's alright concluded it isn't.
And I have to say, fit should have always been a major concern when considering acquiring Mitchell to pair with Garland, and it really doesn't seem like it was. Which is kinda bizarre when you remember that Garland didn't break out and earn his max deal until Sexton got injured.
Sexton had already been moved to the bench before he got injured
You won't find a bigger Garland fan than me on this board, but Rich Paul doesn't run the Cavs, and if Altman thinks running it back is the way to go, then that's what he should do. If Altman thinks that extending Mitchell is what he should do, then that's what he should do.
Not that it really matters at this point Sexton was still starting when he got injured in that game against the Knicks.
I don't get Altman's fascination with small guards and non shooting bigs but he's got a big mess on his hands right now. It took less than an hour after being eliminated for the dirty laundry to start airing.