RealGM

Everyone is talking about Trae , but wouldn’t Darius Garland be just a good of a fit alongside Wemby, at a cheaper price point?

With all the rumors of Mitchell not wanting to stay longterm in Cleveland, why would they trade Garland?

jpatrick wrote:With all the rumors of Mitchell not wanting to stay longterm in Cleveland, why would they trade Garland?

Good point. From the Cavs perspective it doesn’t make lot of sense…however, I think the Spurs should at least make an attempt through. Crazier things have happened.

Garland has the same issues Trae does. He's just a worse version.

He's not much cheaper. Trae signed a 5 year 215 million dollar contract, Garland 5 year 197 million dollar contract.

Chuck Everett wrote:Garland has the same issues Trae does. He's just a worse version.

There are degrees to things.
Garland isn't a great defender but he's way way way better than Trae.
Trae has been more productive than Garland, but I do think Garland has a more fluid adaptable game. Trae likes to spam actions where Garland can play within the flow of an offense. One of the things Trae's teams struggle with is how to blend him into a team concept. It's Trae-ball or nothing. Garland has no such struggles.

cupcakesnake wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:Garland has the same issues Trae does. He's just a worse version.

There are degrees to things.
Garland isn't a great defender but he's way way way better than Trae.
Trae has been more productive than Garland, but I do think Garland has a more fluid adaptable game. Trae likes to spam actions where Garland can play within the flow of an offense. One of the things Trae's teams struggle with is how to blend him into a team concept. It's Trae-ball or nothing. Garland has no such struggles.

This. Garland would actually thrive in the Spurs system especially with his off ball play.

The problem is… how does SA pull off such a trade? There’s nothing on the team really that would interest the Cavs unless the Spurs give up this years draft pick… which is going to be a high one.

Trae is better, they have the same weaknesses. Regardless Wembyana will be able to help with that.

Garland is too expensive considering his injury history, salary, inconsistent oncourt production and what the Cavs would want in return. Besides, he's not the Robin needed next to Wembys batman. He's a good option C which Spurs already have in Vassell. They need a 1B next to Wembys 1A. As such, he's not worth paying the premium for.

Trea Young has his own issues. He can be an option 1B but his defensive issues, inability to play off the ball, play within a structured offense and general attitude is also not what the Spurs want/need.

^Think OP is talking about 'cheap' as in trade return, not contract/$ owed. I don't know that Trae would be that much cheaper--esp since ATL needs to make a trade more than CLE does--but it is a decent point if Garland were on the block.

Garland is too weak and is an inconsistent offensive player. Only on this board does anyone rate him over Trae and I don't even like Trae.

Chuck Everett wrote:Garland is too weak and is an inconsistent offensive player. Only on this board does anyone rate him over Trae and I don't even like Trae.

Who is rating him over Trae?

Spurs should go after Draymond and let him play Point Forward for a discount & still trade for Mitchell

ChipotleWest wrote:He's not much cheaper. Trae signed a 5 year 215 million dollar contract, Garland 5 year 197 million dollar contract.

I think the OP meant trade value as Garland should be cheaper means less assset to acquire him than Trae, not their actual salary contract.

I like Garland's game but as someone mentioned, with Mitchell's status in the air, Garland is solid insurance. It would take a lot for Cavs to even consider parting with him, all the more so should Mitchell leave.

Imperfect analogy, but if someone really likes their house and doesn't want to move they're really going to have to be blown away by the offer to be incentivized to even consider it.

Garland blows

Lowe has also been pushing the Garland to San Antonio narrative.

Garland has only had that one really good season from 2 years ago and ended up getting a rookie max extension out of it. He's been pretty bad since Donovan arrived. He's been just ok in an off ball role but it almost looks like he's totally forgotten how to play PG in this Orlando series. Too much dribbling the air out of the ball and too slow to get the team into their sets. If the Cavs can get Don to sign an extension I would assume Garland gets traded eventually.

Both Garland and Trae would look fine playing pick n roll with Wemby who could also help cover up a lot of the size/defensive deficiencies. Given that Trae really only makes about $3mil per season more than Garland I would pay up for the better player which is Trae. Of course it depends on which one comes available. The Hawks owner is hard to read. Maybe that org is fine treadmilling while selling a bunch of Trae jerseys. Who knows..

Iwasawitness wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:Garland has the same issues Trae does. He's just a worse version.

There are degrees to things.
Garland isn't a great defender but he's way way way better than Trae.
Trae has been more productive than Garland, but I do think Garland has a more fluid adaptable game. Trae likes to spam actions where Garland can play within the flow of an offense. One of the things Trae's teams struggle with is how to blend him into a team concept. It's Trae-ball or nothing. Garland has no such struggles.

This. Garland would actually thrive in the Spurs system especially with his off ball play.

The problem is… how does SA pull off such a trade? There’s nothing on the team really that would interest the Cavs unless the Spurs give up this years draft pick… which is going to be a high one.

Devin Vassell averaged 20 ppg and shot 37% from 3 this season, is 23 and on a good contract.
The Cavs wouldn't be interested in that?
(Not that I think the Spurs should trade him but I could see him being the centerpiece in such a trade).

One Last Shot wrote:

ChipotleWest wrote:He's not much cheaper. Trae signed a 5 year 215 million dollar contract, Garland 5 year 197 million dollar contract.

I think the OP meant trade value as Garland should be cheaper means less assset to acquire him than Trae, not their actual salary contract.

This exactly. Garland wouldn’t cost as many assets as Trae (who’s undeniably better)

Sidthekid87 wrote:Garland blows

All-Star 2 years ago. Think he just needs a change of scenery at this point.