Are the Cavs in danger of becoming irrelevant in this town?

[kovanovich]

Try to look at the injuries as a blessing instead of a recipe for irrelevancy. None of the injuries are serious and this was never going to be a good season. Instead of winning around 27-32 games the Cavs will probably win around 20-25 games and have more ping pong balls to show for it. Hopefully both individually and as a team they can begin to show more signs of growth by February/March.

Next season is the year. If they don't make a jump to the playofs then the rebuild is not on schedule.

At least a couple of interesting questions raised in this thread...

1. Will the possible Browns' resurgence have any impact on the Cavs' strategy? Dan Gilbert is not an idiot and surely realizes, all things being relatively equal, Cleveland is a Browns town first and foremost. However, if he perceives whatever (minimal) attention the Cavs now attract eroding, will he encourage (subtly or otherwise) Grant to speed up the rebuild? The lack of success by the Browns (and Indians) the last couple of years may have been a bit of a blessing for the Cavs, since their home town sports competition has been equally unwatchable. Plus, unlike the Browns and Indians, the Cavs at least have had a valid excuse for being so bad. But this residual sympathy will only further wane as the Browns improve. If you thought the Cavs TC wasn't covered this year, can you imagine what it would be like if the Browns were a playoff team?

2. What is the Cavs' 2013 off-season strategy? Jason Lloyd wrote a nice piece the other day where he implies, or maybe speculates in the better word, the Cavs likely won't be adding much payroll this coming year:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/cavs/jason-lloyd-mythical-salary-floor-for-next-season-won-t-thrust-cavaliers-into-free-agent-market-1.356591

But can the Cavs really afford being bad again in 2013-14? And I mean even 35 win bad, let alone an excruciating 20 win bad (which seems where we could be headed in 2012-13). Brian Windhorst in his RCF podcast at the beginning of this year raised the question of how long the Cavs would be willing to adhere to their strategy. To really build a team through the draft requires considerable patience. Given how difficult it is to win in the NBA, it's hardly any wonder that most teams seem content with merely achieving relevance (however that is defined -- for most markets, it means making the playoffs, I suspect). Can the Cavs reasonably expect to make the playoffs next year by staying the course and building via the draft without adding a significant veteran or two?

Personally, all things considered, I could hardly blame Gilbert/Grant if they were to make significant moves this off-season. Let's just hope that if this is what happens it doesn't land the team the likes of Okafur/Ariza.

 

[kovanovich]

This is an important point when considering the Cavs rebuild. The thing with the Knicks is they could compete for the championship this year and next year...but after that they're screwed.

Chris Grant seems to be going the ambitious route and trying to build a dynasty of some sort, or a team that can compete for a championship for several years. It's incredibly risky, because the potential for failure is way higher.

Well, things don't look particularly good for 2014-15 when Kidd and Camby -- who both turn, like, 50 that year -- are still on the payroll, and Amare will be in his final year of his contract making the highest salary in the league. But then almost all the salary comes off the books and they can reload for 2015-16, and it will just be a matter of whether they spend their money wisely. It's the Knicks, they are in New York, if they are managed well, they will do fine.

It's really tough to stomach, but I am surprised that we have the discipline (thus far) to truly assemble a tank. I didn't think the high character man, Chris Grant had it in him to intentionally assemble a dud roster for the sake of more draft selections.

It's kinda impressive, because it tells me that they know what it takes to truly contend. We could very easily be like the Houston Rockets or the Minnesota Timberwolves if we wanted to go out and sign some better players.

But you know and I know that Houston, Atlanta, Minnesota, Portland......is never going to even sniff a ring. Those teams certainly might be more watchable than the Cavaliers, but they will NEVER win.

The fact that we're using the opposite approach of those teams gives me a sliver of hope that maybe we're onto something.

It's Chris Grant's use of the cap, free agency and trades that will either guide us into the promised land or cause us to tumble back down again.

I wouldn't put Atlanta in this group. They jettisoned Marvin Williams and Joe Johnson, replaced them with cheaper alternatives with less of a spending tail, and are still winning. However, it remains to be seen what their plan is (Dwight Howard??), or whether they can execute it.

The Houston strategy is a very interesting one, and is worth a thread of its own.

 

[bushwick_bill]

Is this thread a joke?

 

[bushwick_bill]

Historically, it's quite accurate in terms of interest in this city.

Let's look at attendance for the past 10 years. You've got to be kidding me. The Cavs are number 14 this year again pulling 17.5 k a game. The Indians have been almost dead last how many seasons in a row?

 

[Birdy89]

I hope Dan Gilbert is saving all this money he is not spending so that when the time comes he won't think twice about the new repeater tax that is coming with the new CBA.

Kyrie will practically be on his first extension by the time it sounds like they plan on competing seriously, so all the sudden we will be looking at the start of some truly epic payrolls.

I keep reading article after article saying that even for the richest teams once the repeater penalty kicks in it will be extremely difficult to have more than 2 max guys if you want any kind of roster, so I just hope he is preparing for that now.

What he spent in the Lebron glory days will be a drop in the bucket compared to the payroll the roster will have with a hoard of rookies all getting big extensions as soon as we finally start competing. If fans put up with the full prices during the time they were intentionally losing, there had better be no expenses spared then once we reach that point even if it becomes ridiculously expensive.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

I hope Dan Gilbert is saving all this money he is not spending so that when the time comes he won't think twice about the new repeater tax that is coming with the new CBA.

Kyrie will practically be on his first extension by the time it sounds like they plan on competing seriously, so all the sudden we will be looking at the start of some truly epic payrolls.

I keep reading article after article saying that even for the richest teams once the repeater penalty kicks in it will be extremely difficult to have more than 2 max guys if you want any kind of roster, so I just hope he is preparing for that now.

What he spent in the Lebron glory days will be a drop in the bucket compared to the payroll the roster will have with a hoard of rookies all getting big extensions as soon as we finally start competing. If fans put up with the full prices during the time they were intentionally losing, there had better be no expenses spared then once we reach that point even if it becomes ridiculously expensive.

Your joking right?

 

[Huber.]

Your joking right?

He's not. The new CBA makes it harder for superstars to join up meaning only 2 max contracts per team. It will be hard for Gilbert to afford more than that.

 

[Funny Man Rocco]

I would say the Indians are more in danger of being completely irrelevant in this town than the cavs. I can't find anyone anymore that gives two shits about the tribe.

 

[brownsbuck6]

A few things...

1) While the Browns are the "default" favorite, it's only when all three teams are playing at the same level. No doubt, the Browns are Cleveland's favorite sports franchise. But fans also gravitate toward a contending Cleveland team. The Indians owned the 90's, and the Browns moving wouldn't have changed that. The Cavs owned Cleveland during the LeBron Era.

2) The Browns' recent success is nice, and I hate to be a wet blanket here, but it's come against the Bengals (7-6), Chargers (5-8), Steelers (7-6), Raiders (3-10), and Chiefs (2-11). They'll likely beat Washington if RG3 is out but will probably lose to both Denver and Pittsburgh, leaving them at 6-10. It would be their 5th straight losing season, and their 12th losing season in the 14 seasons since they returned. They have a lot of good young talent, but they are still a long way away from being a serious contender.

3) The Indians are my favorite Cleveland team (by far), but it's now looking like it will now be 2013 (at the earliest) before they can seriously contend again.

4) The Cavs have a superstar (Irving) to build around. That's half the battle in the NBA. If they hit on this coming draft and improve via trades/free agency next summer, they should be a playoff team next year, and will only get better as Irving improves.

Did you just say that the earliest the Indians will possibly contend is next season?

 

[The Process God]

I'm not feeling blessed.

We were losing just fine WITH Kyrie. What we're losing is the chance for him and the rest of our core to develop as a group.

What the fuck is up with you and emoticons lately? :chuckles:

 

[tsteele316]

You can't compare attendance between the three sports in this town, because all three have different attendance maximums. Furthermore, TV ratings for the Indians are up, while ratings for the Cavs are down.

that's why you look at attendance percentages as it relates to maximum capacity. the cavs far outpace the indians. then you look at how the individual teams rank in their respective sports leagues, and the cavs blow the indians out of the water there as well.

 

[JDeezy]

I was at the Knicks game at MSG last month, and the whole crowd was oohing and awwing over Kyrie's talent. This was an away game!

I'm a little confused... We haven't played the Knicks yet this season...

 

[MYoung23]

Let's look at attendance for the past 10 years. You've got to be kidding me. The Cavs are number 14 this year again pulling 17.5 k a game. The Indians have been almost dead last how many seasons in a row?

You completely missed the point. It's not about the attendance it's about interest or what people talk about.

Indians spring training coverage dwarfs the Cavaliers training camp. Interest in the Indians opening day and early season dwarfs the Cavaliers in terms of coverage and what gets talked about on the radio.

If you read my original post I said the Cavaliers have to win to garner any real interest or buzz in Cleveland and it's always been that way. In the Fratello Era attendance went down no one gave a shit about those mediocre teams despite making the playoffs. They got Shawn Kemp and buzz. After he fell off and Cavaliers stunk again you had nada. When the Cavaliers stink good luck finding a whole lot of talk about them other than they stink. Of course the James Era gave a huge boost. It was 7 years of having the NBA's biggest phenom in town.

Even now with Dolans damn near being pariahs you had winter meetings coverage about possible Indians trades and FA signings and Dolan hate will often drive talk during the season. The only thing Ive heard in reference to the Cavaliers on the radio recently is "God, they're unwatchable with the backcourt hurt" which was a little change from "Hey, Varejao is an All Star this year and Irving is good and that's cool but back to Pat Shurmur...."

People keep talking about the specifics of this particular team and that's not really relevant. They turn into a contender and people in this town will show up and talk about them. Irrelevancy is when the team get's real good and no one cares and in a town where nobody has won anything going on 50 years that wont happen.

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

The only team that's ever going to get a pass without winning for a prolonged period is the Browns.

The Indians were given patience through their rebuild, but then they tried to sell another, and another, and now another...

The Cavaliers are in the midst of their first rebuild and they are going to come upon a crucial kink-point within the next two years. It can either go extremely well, extremely poorly, or somewhere in between. Partially because of how close we were to the title during the LeBron era, anything other than extremely well will feel like a disappointment. There's nothing quite like having that juggernaut basketball team win 38+ home games and light the city up every time they play, at least for me.

If the Cavs build a winner, they'l be fine. If not, does it really matter whether or not they're relevant?

 

[tsteele316]

You completely missed the point. It's not about the attendance it's about interest or what people talk about.

Indians spring training coverage dwarfs the Cavaliers training camp. Interest in the Indians opening day and early season dwarfs the Cavaliers in terms of coverage and what gets talked about on the radio.

If you read my original post I said the Cavaliers have to win to garner any real interest or buzz in Cleveland and it's always been that way. In the Fratello Era attendance went down no one gave a shit about those mediocre teams despite making the playoffs. They got Shawn Kemp and buzz. After he fell off and Cavaliers stunk again you had nada. When the Cavaliers stink good luck finding a whole lot of talk about them other than they stink. Of course the James Era gave a huge boost. It was 7 years of having the NBA's biggest phenom in town.

Even now with Dolans damn near being pariahs you had winter meetings coverage about possible Indians trades and FA signings and Dolan hate will often drive talk during the season. The only thing Ive heard in reference to the Cavaliers on the radio recently is "God, they're unwatchable with the backcourt hurt" which was a little change from "Hey, Varejao is an All Star this year and Irving is good and that's cool but back to Pat Shurmur...."

People keep talking about the specifics of this particular team and that's not really relevant. They turn into a contender and people in this town will show up and talk about them. Irrelevancy is when the team get's real good and no one cares and in a town where nobody has won anything going on 50 years that wont happen.

so, your premise is that the cavs get less interest than the indians due to water cooler talk? because comparing people actually showing up to watch the two teams given their respective records totally torpedoes this argument. so i could see why you'd try to assert some ambiguous argument that is no way provable.