Cleveland Cavaliers at Top of LaMarcus Aldridge's Destination List

[mAo_mAo]

If I am LMA, Cleveland makes the most sense. Why? Simply because we are in the East where competition is not as brutal as in them West.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Tell Aldridge to sign for the MLE if he's so committed to Cleveland.

 

[Jscc]

If I reply to anyone, I should show my cards: I don't think Aldridge is better than Love. As a post-player, defender, or rebounder. He's also older than Kevin. Kevin has 5-7 years of prime basketball left. Aldridge has maybe 2-3. 4 if he takes care of himself.

I will say though. A lineup of James/Aldridge/Mozgov at SF/PF/C respectively is some serious length. I don't know how you play against that. You could go small.. but then those three are also elite athletes at their respective positions.

 

[gourimoko]

If I reply to anyone, I should show my cards: I don't think Aldridge is better than Love. As a post-player, defender, or rebounder.

C'mon...

Aldridge ranked 5th in the league for Opp FG% at the rim, ahead of numerous "shot blockers," has twice as many bpg, and a much better Opp. PER (at both positions). He can also defend both PF and C positions, and do it fairly well.

Aldridge is a better 'center' than some very popular names that no one would question. He's not as big as Mozgov, but he's not as foul prone or slow either.

I don't think anyone would make the argument that Love is the better defender. Please see the Aldridge thread for my breakdown as to why this is simply not true (by any stretch of the imagination).

But Love is the better rebounder, that's a given. As far as who is better in the post? Well, if this were last year, I'd say Love. This year, definitely Aldridge, without a doubt.

Aldridge has also had a much more consistent career; however Love has a substantially higher ceiling (he's the better prospect between the two).

If I had to pick between the two players, right now on the spot, I'd take Love. My only concern in any of this is if we can (hypothetically) have both, and apparently we have two different sets of opinions on the matter.

He's also older than Kevin. Kevin has 5-7 years of prime basketball left. Aldridge has maybe 2-3. 4 if he takes care of himself.

The only fact here is that he's older than Kevin Love. We have no idea how many "prime years" either player has in front of them. Love isn't exactly what one would consider a healthy player.

I will say though. A lineup of James/Aldridge/Mozgov at SF/PF/C respectively is some serious length. I don't know how you play against that. You could go small.. but then those three are also elite athletes at their respective positions.

Still don't agree with the notion that you even need Mozgov. We don't have to have a traditional center. Miami went to the Finals 4 years in a row and won twice without one.

 

[gourimoko]

We need one of the big 3 plus another contract or 2. If love is gone then yes that would work.

I just can't understand why though. If we're sending out more salary than we receive, and we end up under the apron, then I don't see where in the rules a trade like this wouldn't be permitted.

If we're targeting $89M, but sent out $25M and took back Aldridge at $20.9M / 3+1 years (?), we'd end up at $84.9M which is below the apron ($85M).

Everything I've read says this is permitted because we're (1) taking in less salary than we're sending out; and (2) we also end up below the apron.

What in the rules am I missing?

p.s.

Also, and from reading the Portland forums, it seems like this idea isn't too far-fetched. The Blazers will be way under the cap and looking to do a short rebuild. They can take on tons of salary.

I don't think even LeBron would argue that Varejao shouldn't be traded or waived given his continual injury history. It's almost a joke at this point.

Portland could take almost $30M in salary in the form of Haywood+Varejao plus two good prospects in Mozgov and Shumpert as well as two first round draft picks. That is one hell of a haul, and since they're below the cap, they have the space for it. (I don't know if this trade is possible)

In doing so, we'd take back only Aldridge, thereby lowering our salary below the apron, and it should work within the rules, right?

For Portland, Haywood gets traded somewhere else for a draft pick and released ($10m), Varejao gets stretched and waived (or retires), and Portland pockets two first round picks from Cleveland, in addition to Mozgov, and Shump.

I wouldn't think it possible, too much movement, but after seeing Griffin operate this last summer fitting in Love and LeBron, I dunno.. I guess I just need to better understand exactly why this isn't possible, under the rules. Unless I'm just reading them wrong, which, is entirely likely.

 

[BigJ]

Well if thats our backup plan if Loves wants to go home to Oregon i say we have a nice backup plan^^

Im not seeing it because despite all the clueless idiots around the Leaugue think.. Love seems to genuinely like the Cavs and Cleveland.

But if thats our "worst case scenario Love changes his mind and wants to go home" plan B... i think thats not bad^^

 

[The Oi]

There was nothing in that first article that indicated Cleveland is at the top of his destinations. All it said was that Cleveland could work a sign and trade for him.

People panic when the media says anything negative, but then they respond to non-news like this.

Jesus.

 

[gourimoko]

There was nothing in that first article that indicated Cleveland is at the top of his destinations. All it said was that Cleveland could work a sign and trade for him.

People panic when the media says anything negative, but then they respond to non-news like this.

Jesus.

I didn't read the article... Just going off Stereo's post.

 

[col63onel]

I just can't understand why though. If we're sending out more salary than we receive, and we end up under the apron, then I don't see where in the rules a trade like this wouldn't be permitted.

If we're targeting $89M, but sent out $25M and took back Aldridge at $20.9M / 3+1 years (?), we'd end up at $84.9M which is below the apron ($85M).

Everything I've read says this is permitted because we're (1) taking in less salary than we're sending out; and (2) we also end up below the apron.

What in the rules am I missing?

p.s.

Also, and from reading the Portland forums, it seems like this idea isn't too far-fetched. The Blazers will be way under the cap and looking to do a short rebuild. They can take on tons of salary.

I don't think even LeBron would argue that Varejao shouldn't be traded or waived given his continual injury history. It's almost a joke at this point.

Portland could take almost $30M in salary in the form of Haywood+Varejao plus two good prospects in Mozgov and Shumpert as well as two first round draft picks. That is one hell of a haul, and since they're below the cap, they have the space for it. (I don't know if this trade is possible)

In doing so, we'd take back only Aldridge, thereby lowering our salary below the apron, and it should work within the rules, right?

For Portland, Haywood gets traded somewhere else for a draft pick and released ($10m), Varejao gets stretched and waived (or retires), and Portland pockets two first round picks from Cleveland, in addition to Mozgov, and Shump.

I wouldn't think it possible, too much movement, but after seeing Griffin operate this last summer fitting in Love and LeBron, I dunno.. I guess I just need to better understand exactly why this isn't possible, under the rules. Unless I'm just reading them wrong, which, is entirely likely.

That would work on the Cavs end, but Portland would have to do some extra work to make it work on their end.

They would have to stay under the cap after the trade to able to take back all the extra salary. If you add their current salary + 15 extra for the trade + cap holds for their FA + player options for Afflalo and Blake they'd be at around 85 mil, or about 19 mil over the cap. They'd have to say goodbye to at least one of Mathews or Lopez, if not both.

 

[CardiacCavs]

I would rather have Love at this point.

 

[inliner311]

Right, but if the Spurs or another west team KNOW they can get LMA, again, what's to stop them from giving up something to get him?

Why would Portland want to make a west team stronger? Especially when they can get assets from a east team. With the west so close together, giving up LMA to a west team could push Portland out of the playoffs.

 

[czvo]

Why would Portland want to make a west team stronger? Especially when they can get assets from a east team. With the west so close together, giving up LMA to a west team could push Portland out of the playoffs.

Because the assets they could get from said West team are significantly better than they can get from the Cavs. And does it really matter if they make a west team "stronger?" If you're trading your best player assets, odds are that team won't be as strong when you finally get back to being a contender.

 

[gourimoko]

Because the assets they could get from said West team are significantly better than they can get from the Cavs. And does it really matter if they make a west team "stronger?" If you're trading your best player assets, odds are that team won't be as strong when you finally get back to being a contender.

Sign and trade requires LMA to consent to going to said team. I doubt many teams could simultaneously remain contenders, entice LMA to join them all while also providing more assets than we could.

 

[czvo]

Sign and trade requires LMA to consent to going to said team. I doubt many teams could simultaneously remain contenders, entice LMA to join them all while also providing more assets than we could.

The team in question was the Spurs, which, I would argue, can do those things.

 

[gourimoko]

The team in question was the Spurs, which, I would argue, can do those things.

What's the trade?