Honest LBJ question

[Hemingway]

Ok, so an interesting discussion came up about LBJ and I wanted some Cavs perspectives. This is all hypothetical so please don't flame me.

Ok, if in the summer LBJ demands a sign and trade, how would you rank a Celtics offer based around Pierce and Rondo. Other throw-ins could be 3 (probably late) firsts, 3 mil, Big Baby, MD, Williams and Perk. I had a friend say that the Celtics would have a ZERO chance of getting LBJ if he demanded a trade. I'm thinking that the Celtics could make a better offer than most teams while still retaining the talent to have a great team with LeBron.

I think other factors such as the Cavs not wanting to trade him to a team that is already very good and not wanting to have to see him every year in the playoffs do take away from the Cs chances, but are their chances ZERO?

I figure that you guys must have thoughts on a worst case senario. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how to rebuild/retool the Cavs if LeBron bolts. Would a sign and trade necessarily be better than just getting the cap space?

Again, I mean this with all respect. I really just want to settle and argument with a friend. If I was going to put money on it, I would say he stays. But you have to think that any GM wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't try to get LBJ. As a Cs fan he is the only player in the league that scares me and I don't even think he is that good yet (of course I mean in terms of his potential)

[landphil]

Why in the world would lebron demand a sign and trade?! That literally makes no sense. You guys might as well have a discussion on whether lebron would be a good hockey player.

[Niko23]

Actually, I have thought about this. To be honest, nothing in this world surprises me so lets go from there. Why would LeBron demand a sign and trade? Well a few reasons. Let us assume that the Cavs do not gel and the team loses say, to Boston in the second round. I think at this point, LB would seriously consider leaving Cleveland. But, he is a pretty diplomatic guy, so he could essentially say, that wants to be traded and does not want Cleveland to completely get screwed. So enter a sign and trade scenario. On the other hand, how else will LB get the MAX contract and get out of Cleveland? The answer is sign and trade.

To answer your question though, I do not think a Pierce/Rondo package gets it done. Piece is in his latter years and we already have a point guard. I just think the Cavs would want a young stud IMO

[Benedict_Boozer]

The Cavs aren't trading Lebron. It just isn't happening. If he is going to leave he will just have to walk in free agency.

The value of the franchise would drop horribly but we would just have to rebuild with draft picks and what we have left, and in that case we are better off tanking to the lottery anyways than trading for stop gap players.

[Niko23]

The Cavs aren't trading Lebron. It just isn't happening. If he is going to leave he will just have to walk in free agency.

The value of the franchise would drop horribly but we would just have to rebuild with draft picks and what we have left, and in that case we are better off tanking to the lottery anyways than trading for stop gap players.

BB - I respectfully disagree with you here. Lets move past the shock factor of what trading LeBron would represent. You have to understand that Gilbert would stand to lose, what, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars here by rebuilding. He is simply not going to do that IF the option of trading LeBron is on the table. It becomes at that point, a 100% business decision.

[TheOUTLAW]

I don't see the Cavs looking to trade LeBron either. But I think that the Cavs could find a better trade than the one being proposed. Pierce is getting old and Rondo is probably the most overated player in the history of the NBA at this point.

[Niko23]

I don't see the Cavs looking to trade LeBron either. But I think that the Cavs could find a better trade than the one being proposed. Pierce is getting old and Rondo is probably the most overated player in the history of the NBA at this point.

100% agree here. The only way, from an image standpoint, that he is ever traded is if he asks for it. Gilbert and Ferry will not be the ones looking for the trade, if would have to come solely from LeBron. That is the premise I am working from in my above posts. I know people will disagree with me, but the harsh reality here folks is he can walk at the end of the year and the Cavs get nothing.

[mup]

This is an honest question and deserves an honest answer.

Niko23 is 100% correct in his analysis of the situation. Dan Gilbert is not as pig-headed and stubborn as your average internet poster. He is a level-headed businessman who makes business decisions, not irrational, knee-jerk, "you scrwed me so f-you"-type decisions. If LeBron demanded a sign and trade (in order to get max dollars), I highly doubt that Dan Gilbert would respond like a scorned 4-year old and tell him to pound salt and just walk away. So, of course he would explore offers to make sure he got something back.

But, he's not running a charity, so he's not going to take garbage just to "get something back." If all that is offered is garbage, then Gilbert the businessman probably calls LBJ's bluff and says: "We are not trading you. If you want max dollars, sign with us."

So, back to the original question--- no, I do not think that package would interest Gilbert. Rondo would be a good secondary piece to a package but I don't think Pierce would be anything he would be looking for. Too old and, as somebody said, he would be just good enough to stop us from getting decent picks the next few years without providing us any real chance to win a championship. So, I think the realistic package would include at least two can't miss prospects who have not yet reached their prime plus a host of draft picks. The Cavs would not accept a package that keeps them in the middle of the pack for the next 6 years. It would have to be a package that really establishes the Cavs as a team with the best young talent and draft picks in the league. That Celtics package doesn't do anything for me. So, yeah, from a realistic standpoint, I'd say the Celtics have zero chance. You'd have to look at teams with young talent.

[TheOUTLAW]

The reason that LeBron would want a sign and trade is to max out his contract. There is no really upside to the Cavs taking something to avoid sucking since the vast majority of the players in the league would at most pull the Cavs into lower mediocrity. As someone else said previously, it's better to be terrible and get the better pick than it is to take on some mediocre player (Pierce is better than mediocre, but it has been proven that he's not one to pull a bad team up to being good). So if we suck, so be it, it's happened before. But I don't see us trading LeBron unless he and his agents are the ones brokering the deal. And even then, only if it has enough to actually improve the Cavs. By the way 3 very late first rounders do absolutely nothing but take up cap space.

[tdfoss]

I actually heard a scenario from one of the Bull's writers (Sam Smith) of him going to LA and teaming up with Kobe. The pieces would be Bynum, Odom and Artest. Possible some other combination, with Bynum being the center of the trade....but Sam Smith is usually wrong on those things.

[mup]

I actually heard a scenario from one of the Bull's writers (Sam Smith) of him going to LA and teaming up with Kobe. The pieces would be Bynum, Odom and Artest. Possible some other combination, with Bynum being the center of the trade....but Sam Smith is usually wrong on those things.

Complete speculation and obviously Sam Smith did not contact Dan Gilbert to determine whether he would ever accept that package. It takes two to tango, you know?

I just couldn't see us taking back Odom and Artest. I mean, why bother? By the time we'd be good again, those dudes would be long gone. All they would do is make us mediocre for the next few years (if they didn't refuse to play here altogether). Much better to be horrible than mediocre.

[Niko23]

I actually heard a scenario from one of the Bull's writers (Sam Smith) of him going to LA and teaming up with Kobe. The pieces would be Bynum, Odom and Artest. Possible some other combination, with Bynum being the center of the trade....but Sam Smith is usually wrong on those things.

Complete speculation and obviously Sam Smith did not contact Dan Gilbert to determine whether he would ever accept that package. It takes two to tango, you know?

I just couldn't see us taking back Odom and Artest. I mean, why bother? By the time we'd be good again, those dudes would be long gone. All they would do is make us mediocre for the next few years (if they didn't refuse to play here altogether). Much better to be horrible than mediocre.

Exactly right. The Bynum part is intriguing, but thats about it.

[old skool]

I don't think that Lebron would look for a sign and trade to a team without an established young star. As presently constituted, that would rule out the Celtics. I don't see Lebron wanting to join a team built around himself, a pair of 34-35 year old (but clearly fading) stars and a bunch of role players. Rather than do that, he would try to go to Orlando with Dwight Howard, or Miami with Wade, or even LA with Kobe & Phil if he was looking to hook up with a veteran. He might also look at emerging stars like Rose in Chicago. Several cities might be ruled out based on their location, in spite of having young talent - Atlanta, New Orleans, Portland.

I think the discussion on a sign and trade is less about what the Cavs would want and more about what Lebron would want in a new home.

That said, I think that Lebron will stay in Cleveland. I think that he looks forward to being the object of everyone's affection for a month in 2010. He realizes that he is the big prize and that he should not have to accept less in free agency. He can attract a free agent or two to the Cavs. There is not a team out there that has enough players to send to Cleveland and still retain enough to make Lebron happy. That was the problem Kobe ran into when he "demanded" a trade 18-months ago.

oLd sKool

[old skool]

The Sam Smith article was NOT speculation.

Smith did not imply that any such discussion had taken place or was being contemplated. He just said that LA might make the most sense as a destination, even though he does not think that Lebron has any plans made for 2010. Smith clearly was talking about what he thinks makes sense, not what he thinks will happen. Or what he thinks Lebron will do.

oLd sKool

[rjgraca]

The Sam Smith article was for entertainment value only. The Chicago Bulls thought with their
big Market that they would get TMAC in 2002 and ended up with Ron Mercer as their big free agent signing.

Even with Wade being a remote possibility and that is only that since he bought a pricey Condo in Chicago and lived there this past summer. Lebron is a lesser probability for the Bulls than Wade is.

As for the Boston speculation, I agree with the other posters that Lebron wouldn't be that happy with all the declining players (on the wrong side of 30) leaving their primes surrounding him.