David Griffin's Task Not An Easy one

[kovanovich]

I like the Jefferson signing. Especially the fact it is just one year, no player option for a second year. That would have been bad.

But I disagree with the sentiment that there is little or no risk. There are only 15 roster spots, and whenever you give out a guaranteed contract you are limiting your flexibility. I mean, you could just waive the player, but the cost for the Cavs to replace him with another player, even on a minimum salary, is such that it probably wouldn't happen.

Wouldn't be a big deal if there weren't two other old wings on the roster who would ideally be performing Jefferson's role, but they simply aren't able to do so at this point.

So it's important that Jefferson show he still has some legs and is able to perform as he has the last few years. (I was one who actually wanted the Cavs to trade for him back when they got Deng, since they could have had him just for the Bynum contract at the time.) If it doesn't work out, what's plan B? Try to use the TPE?

 

[Paul]

It might be easier for us to find common ground if we used some sort of rating or scoring system for Griffin's offseason. Not that we need to do this, but I suspect the people who are speaking highly of the offseason so far and those who have concerns/criticisms aren't really that far off. We're kind of splitting hairs but it at times IMO gets misconstrued as these absolutes that imply a larger gap.

I would probably rate Griffin's offseason work so far a B+.

He got Love back, which I agree is no small thing. It could have easily not happened, and it could have also easily been a shorter term deal, which would have muddied our big man outlook overall. At least now we know we have one of our bigs locked up for a long while.

I think he's handled the re-signing of the Cavs well. He got Shump done fast and it wasn't a great contract but it could have been worse under the circumstances. We kind of needed Shump.

He's also shown a willingness to play hard ball and try and save money on the TT, JR and Delly re-signings. He didn't just cave and give them the big deals they were looking for. He's trying to shave off some savings, I believe, in the cases of JR and Delly. With TT, I think there's a real possibility we just give him the qualifying offer and try and essentially delay the process 12 months. There would be risks associated with that, but I continue to be skeptical that we can afford both TT and Mozgov long term, and maybe Griffin agrees. By delaying that 12 months, we would save a ton this upcoming year and then Griffin could decide which of the 2 bigs he wanted to commit to long term based on all the information at hand.

As far as the bringing in of new players to replace our fossils of Perkins, Haywood and Marion, I am probably a bit more critical than most. A GM should get some credit for improving a team, but how hard is it for ANY GM to achieve a measure of improvement over those 3 names? At least one of those 3 is retiring, and the other 2 are likely to be Mike Miller type roles where they play only rarely and probably only in mop-up situations.

So yes, Mo Williams and Richard Jefferson are improvements over Perkins and Marion, but I believe you also have to factor in how attractive a destination the Cavs are or SHOULD BE to prospective free agents. I mean we should have an advantage over 80% of the other teams simply because we are favorites to come out of the East for the NBA finals and we have the best player in the world. We also have a young enough core where we could make multiple title runs in the next 3 or 4 years. So really, it shouldn't be that tough of a sell to convince a free agent to come here.

Griffin stated that he wanted more playmakers and he that he wanted to obtain younger players, ideally in the 26 to 30 range. The 2 guys we got don't ideally fit that description. I view Mo as a good pickup, I think he fits what the Cavs need and I think he's still young enough to provide a couple years of good value. Jefferson is more of a risk, and it's realistic that he does not pan out and that Griffin is forced to then go to the trade market to try and find a bona fide SF backup for LeBron sometime between now and the trade deadline. There were several cases of solid SFs in the 26 to 30 age range going for minimum or near minimum contracts. None of them were probably the 3 point shooter that Jefferson is, but they would have been younger more athletic guys who maybe could have helped us for multiple years. I think there's definitely hope that Jefferson can be good, but I'm surprised after what happened last year, that Griffin was willing to risk so much of our bench production on two guys who are 32 and 35, respectively.

I'm hoping we grab Kaun as a 5th big, I don't think we can do much better there under the circumstances. His experience overseas should make him much more ready to go from day 1 than Christmas would be.

 

[brownsbuck6]

Yes, and the Shump signing is very solid as well as we can use his D.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I still think TT signing the QO would be the best thing that could come out of this situation given

Signing the QO would give TT a lot of flexibility next off season, with a higher cap. IF he performs like he did in the playoffs.

 

[gourimoko]

It might be easier for us to find common ground if we used some sort of rating or scoring system for Griffin's offseason. Not that we need to do this, but I suspect the people who are speaking highly off the offseason so far and those who have concerns/criticisms aren't really that far off. We're kind of splitting hairs but it at times IMO gets misconstrued as these absolutes that imply a larger gap.

I would probably rate Griffin's offseason work so far a B+.

He got Love back, which I agree is no small thing. It could have easily not happened, and it could have also easily been a shorter term deal, which would have muddied our big man outlook overall. At least now we know we have one of our bigs locked up for a long while.

I think he's handled the re-signing of the Cavs well. He got Shump done fast and it wasn't a great contract but it could have been worse under the circumstances. We kind of needed Shump.

He's also shown a willingness to play hard ball and try and save money on the TT, JR and Delly re-signings. He didn't just cave and give them the big deals they were looking for. He's trying to shave off some savings, I believe, in the cases of JR and Delly. With TT, I think there's a real possibility we just give him the qualifying offer and try and essentially delay the process 12 months. There would be risks associated with that, but I continue to be skeptical that we can afford both TT and Mozgov long term, and maybe Griffin agrees. By delaying that 12 months, we would save a ton this upcoming year and then Griffin could decide which of the 2 bigs he wanted to commit to long term based on all the information at hand.

As far as the bringing in of new players to replace our fossils of Perkins, Haywood and Marion, I am probably a bit more critical than most. A GM should get some credit for improving a team, but how hard is it for ANY GM to achieve a measure of improvement over those 3 names? At least one of those 3 is retiring, and the other 2 are likely to be Mike Miller type roles where they play only rarely and probably only in mop-up situations.

So yes, Mo Williams and Richard Jefferson are improvements over Perkins and Marion, but I believe you also have to factor in how attractive a destination the Cavs are or SHOULD BE to prospective free agents. I mean we should have an advantage over 80% of the other teams simply because we are favorites to come out of the East for the NBA finals and we have the best player in the world. We also have a young enough core where we could make multiple title runs in the next 3 or 4 years. So really, it shouldn't be that tough of a sell to convince a free agent to come here.

Griffin stated that he wanted more playmakers and he that he wanted to obtain younger players, ideally in the 26 to 30 range. The 2 guys we got don't ideally fit that description. I view Mo as a good pickup, I think he fits what the Cavs need and I think he's still young enough to provide a couple years of good value. Jefferson is more of a risk, and it's realistic that he does not pan out and that Griffin is forced to then go to the trade market to try and find a bona fide SF backup for LeBron sometime between now and the trade deadline. There were several cases of solid SFs in the 26 to 30 age range going for minimum or near minimum contracts. None of them were probably the 3 point shooter that Jefferson is, but they would have been younger more athletic guys who maybe could have helped us for multiple years. I think there's definitely hope that Jefferson can be good, but I'm surprised after what happened last year, that Griffin was willing to risk so much of our bench production on two guys who are 32 and 35, respectively.

I'm hoping we grab Kaun as a 5th big, I don't think we can do much better there under the circumstances. His experience overseas should make him much more ready to go from day 1 than Christmas would be.

I give Griffin a C.

If Tristan comes back at anything higher than $80M, I'd give it a C-. If Tristan gets a max deal, I'd give him a D.

All passing grades, but... you'd like to see more. And people heaping on credit to Griffin for the Kevin Love deal... that's fan-fiction.

The reason I say C this is because no one is saying we had an excellent offseason ("A"); so that leaves B,C,D and F. Giving him an "F" would be overly harsh. I mean, he's not damaging the franchise. That leaves B,C, and D. C is generally considered an average score, and I think he's done about an average job. He hasn't improved the team by much, and I agree with Finnan and Parker's points overall.

Again, if Tristan gets maxed out, plus our inability to convert the Haywood deal into talent, failing to live up to his own stated goals, and not utilizing the draft; then I'd lower that C to a D.

Conversely, if Haywood gets turned into something other than a TPE, I'd consider a C+ or a B- depending upon what that something is.

That's just my two cents.

 

[JFT]

I give Griffin a C.
If Tristan comes back at anything higher than $80M, I'd give it a C-. If Tristan gets a max deal, I'd give him a D.

All passing grades, but... you'd like to see more. And people heaping on credit to Griffin for the Kevin Love deal... that's fan-fiction.

The reason I say C this is because no one is saying we had an excellent offseason ("A"); so that leaves B,C,D and F. Giving him an "F" would be overly harsh. I mean, he's not damaging the franchise. That leaves B,C, and D. C is generally considered an average score, and I think he's done about an average job. He hasn't improved the team by much, and I agree with Finnan and Parker's points overall.

Again, if Tristan gets maxed out, plus our inability to convert the Haywood deal into talent, failing to live up to his own stated goals, and not utilizing the draft; then I'd lower that C to a D.

Conversely, if Haywood gets turned into something other than a TPE, I'd consider a C+ or a B- depending upon what that something is.

That's just my two cents.

Yes, two cents. We have a championship team already. It won 33/36 once the team was together. Your expectations for this off season have obviously left you disappointed. B+ considering we already are favored to win it all and we'll have a TPE for flexibility moving forward.

 

[gourimoko]

Yes, two cents. We have a championship team already. It won 33/36 once the team was together. Your expectations for this off season have obviously left you disappointed. B+ considering we already are favored to win it all and we'll have a TPE for flexibility moving forward.

If I go to school take a test, get an average score, but since I'm set for life already then it didn't matter right? So give me a B+ so I can get on with winning at life, right?

Guys... saying Griffin did an average job as GM this offseason doesn't speak one way or the other about the Cavaliers chances at winning a title. We were stack going into the offseason and we're stacked coming out. That doesn't mean Griffin doesn't have a job to do.

 

[MoFlo]

I just don't know how replacing three guys who were literally unplayable with (so far) a legit playmaker/scorer and a legit 3pt threat who is a solid defender is not an improvement..

 

[Snarly]

I just don't know how replacing three guys who were literally unplayable with (so far) a legit playmaker/scorer and a legit catch & shoot guy who is a solid defender, is not an improvement..

Jefferson like I said could be our Battier. He is a lot better than people give him credit for at his age. Also add Mo with all the scoring we have already. We are set to score with the best of them at least. If Delly and Thompson are back then we got the Defense back as well. Nice to have options

 

[MirORich]

@Bob_The_Cat

A player who signs the QO can not be traded without his consent.

So hoping TT signs the QO for the purposes of setting up a midseason trade is not a realistic strategy.

 

[Jordan]

If I go to school take a test, get an average score, but since I'm set for life already then it didn't matter right? So give me a B+ so I can get on with winning at life, right?

Guys... saying Griffin did an average job as GM this offseason doesn't speak one way or the other about the Cavaliers chances at winning a title. We were stack going into the offseason and we're stacked coming out. That doesn't mean Griffin doesn't have a job to do.

George W. Bush says hello.

 

[MirORich]

Got some tough Graders in here. Definitely no grading on a curve in this class

Would love to hear some of the report cards for last offseason when we re-signed Kyrie, added LeBron, and traded for Love.

 

[David.]

If you're giving out grades, it better be on a curve.

This isn't third grade art where everyone gets an A as long as they put pencil to paper. It's a competitive sport, and wete not looking at this in a vacuum. It might not be fair, but do we care about how good griffin is or do we care about how we did relative to the competition? That's the grade.Frankly, we couldn't grade griffin, even if we wanted to, because we have no idea who was available nor do we have any clue what Dan wants or allows. It'd be a practice in futility.


I like the moves. They could have been better. Of I'm grading in a vacuum, I give it a c+. But im not.

Im looking at: "did we do better than the teams we are in direct competition with? Do we have a better shot against them than we did before the off-season?"

Those teams are chicago, san Antonio, gs, Memphis, Houston, the clippers. And Miami now.

We did better than gs, chicago and Memphis, but against all other teams, the answer is no in my opinion.

We do not get points for the team we had coming into it. We are judging this based on the rubric: "are we better against this team than we werebefore the off-season?" We are not, against four of our seven competitors.


It's a C grade.

Doesn't mean we lose to Miami who did better, doesn't mean I think we are better than gs now. We ate simply judging our offseason .

 

[MirORich]

If you're giving out grades, it better be on a curve.

This isn't third grade art where everyone gets an A as long as they put pencil to paper. It's a competitive sport, and wete not looking at this in a vacuum. It might not be fair, but do we care about how good griffin is or do we care about how we did relative to the competition? That's the grade.



I like the moves. They could have been better. Of I'm grading in a vacuum, I give it a c+. Could have been better or worse. We did something, and they were at the very least positive moves. How good,l they were, idk. How good they were compared to what we could have our needed to do, idk.

Fuck the grades. Im looking at: "did we do better than the teams we are in direct competition with? Do we have a better shot against them than we did before the off-season?"

Those teams are chicago, san Antonio, gs, Memphis, Houston, the clippers. And Miami now.

We did better than gs, chicago and Memphis, but against all other teams, the answer is no in my opinion.

We do not get points for the team we had coming into it. We are judging this based on the rubric: "are we better against this team than we were in the off-season?" We are not, against four of our seven competitors.


It's a C grade.

Doesn't mean we lose to Miami who did better, doesn't mean I think we are better than gs now. We ate simply judging our offseason .

Well see it's a lot easier to understand you when you take the time to thoughtfully spell out the big picture viewpoint of where you're coming from.

I still don't see it all the same way, but it certainly frames it in a light that lines up more with what we think is the reality of this team headed into next year

Edit: if that comes off as a backhanded compliment , then I missed the mark.

 

[MoFlo]

I see a pretty good debate (isn't that why we're all here? It is ok to disagree with people) going on regarding grades, etc with no personal attacks or ridiculous hyperbole, so I'm not sure where all this extra stuff is coming from (I'll go through again & make sure there was no trolling or personal attacks)

Just because someone likes the moves, doesn't mean they're "homers" or think the Cavs are perfect, just like those who don't like the moves aren't "hating" or think they never do anything right.

I'm about to delete some posts, now ignore all the extra crap and debate/post like we all know this forum is capable of.