• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Cavaliers Offseason Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
NasstyNate said:
Problem is, the same thing applies to regular "stats" like rebounds. Lots of times teams designate one guy as the defensive rebounder and everyone else as transition players. So that guy ends up with 10+ easy rebounds a game, but does that necessarily make him a good rebounder? Stats like the one I provided do a lot more to judge a player in isolation. Not perfect, granted, but better.
Click to expand...

I get your point -- I really do. But the same "judgment" aspect that potentially makes your stat better also leaves it open to being worse. Your stat being "better" is dependent upon two pretty big "ifs" -- consistency, and accuracy. Even though the basic rebounding stat doesn't tell you exactly how good a rebounder someone is, we can rely on the fact that they are actually counted the exact same way every time (consistency) and that the number we're given accurately reflects when a rebound is actually corralled. It's a close to objective as you can get.

We have no way of knowing whether that applies to the "rebounding opportunity." stat. First, we don't know if the guy who is compiling that data is applying his standard consistently every time. And second, even if he is applying his standard consistently, we may not agree with his standard. It may be that he routinely classifies as a rebounding opportunity something that others would say was a player deferring to someone else, heading out on a break, whatever. Not everyone will draw that distinction in the same place, so it is a judgment call. And we have no idea whether we agree with that guy's judgment or not.

In other words, he may be consistent, but consistently applying the wrong standard. We just don't know. That's not really an issue with the basic rebounding stat, which is pretty objective.

I personally think that once you get to the point of wanting to look beyond the objective rebounding stat, you're better off just watching the guy actually play and rendering a judgment that way, rather than relying on some other guy's judgment that inherently includes his subjectivity/bias.
 
RDriesen said:
I don't overpay for a player. It is as simple as that. I don't care what needs there are. There is NO WAY I am paying TT 2 to 3 times more than Mozgov.
Click to expand...

Mozgov is ridiculously underpaid. Just wait till next summer and you will see what he will make. So any comparisons to his salary are meaningless.

But the bigger point is this: it would be ridiculous for the Cavs to not pay Tristan Thompson, even if they overpay him. This is true for several reasons:

1) Thompson may not be a $15 million a year player in the NBA of yesterday, but he damn for sure will be in the NBA of tomorrow when max salaries will be worth north of $30 million.

2) The Cavs will be over the cap so not signing him doesn't give you guys any real cap advantages. If he leaves you will not be able to replace his talent level.

3) Thompson is young, durable, and does at least two things at an elite NBA level (offense rebounding and guarding pick and rolls). You don't let players like that walk for nothing.

4) The Cavs have limited assets going forward...but players under contract will be assets. There may be real concern about whether it is worth paying three players in Thompson, Love, and Lebron who are all best at power forward, but you still re-sign all three. Why? Because they are assets and other teams may be able to use them. Perhaps in the future if things don't work out the Cavs can move one of them for more wing help. But if you don't re-sign Thompson you lose an asset.
 
Last edited:
Basically, if TT gets over-paid by us, which is likely, we have to look at it as a future investment. He is very young, has improved his game in some way each year, and is regarded as one of the team's hardest workers.

Assuming all of that is true, it is up to the coaching staff (and LBJ) to pressure him to get better, whether that is actually developing some offensive post moves or working on his jump shooting.

The "uncoachable" intangibles are there; heart, hustle, and dedication to defend. Typically, those are just as hard to instill in a player as adding actual elements to your game. We are overpaying TT NOW. Hopefully, we still don't feel that way a year or two down the road.
 
Danny Arison said:
Your other paragraph regarding TT,

Well, I'd take Biyombo over TT especially when we have Varejao that his natural position is PF, we also have christmas.

What if Mozgov gets injured? who is gonna replace him at C? Varejao? TT?
I'd take Biyombo for this team given his contract and insurance policy.
Click to expand...

A team just beat us in the Finals starting 6'7" Draymond Green at Center. If Moz goes down we play small ball. Biyombo would be cheaper than TT sure, but how do we sign him? With what money? There are plenty of other SG's I would prefer over JR Smith too, but keeping our own players is our only option outside of Haywood's contract and the mini MLE. Which we have other needs for.

Plus, Biyombo is a garbage FT shooter and passer. Tristan has his moments on offense. Biyombo is a liability on that end. If people were frustrated with hack-a-Tristan it would've been WAY worse with Biyombo in those final minute situations.

Lastly, if LeBron feels strongly about TT being here, and he clearly does, than that's all that matters at the end of the day. Is it really worth pissing him off over by being cheap like the Heat did with Mike Miller? On the open market TT, at 24, would get 10-12 mill a year at least. With us he'll probably get 14-16 mill. The overpay isn't THAT drastic. Especially when you consider a) with the cap rising the deal could end up being a bargain in a few years, and b) Kevin Love potentially walking in 2016 or 2017. (We'll have to wait and see on what kind of contract he signs).
 
RDriesen said:
I don't overpay for a player. It is as simple as that. I don't care what needs there are. There is NO WAY I am paying TT 2 to 3 times more than Mozgov.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand why though? In the NBA your worth is defined by the situations around you. Being over the cap we haven limited options, which is why we will over pay to keep a player we cannot replace. It be one thing if not signing him, opened up cap to sign someone else. But in this case we would lose a rotation player who is 24 years old and have the league min to replace him.
 
TheLand1287 said:
A team just beat us in the Finals starting 6'7" Draymond Green at Center. If Moz goes down we play small ball. Biyombo would be cheaper than TT sure, but how do we sign him? With what money? There are plenty of other SG's I would prefer over JR Smith too, but keeping our own players is our only option outside of Haywood's contract and the mini MLE. Which we have other needs for.

Plus, Biyombo is a garbage FT shooter and passer. Tristan has his moments on offense. Biyombo is a liability on that end. If people were frustrated with hack-a-Tristan it would've been WAY worse with Biyombo in those final minute situations.

Lastly, if LeBron feels strongly about TT being here, and he clearly does, than that's all that matters at the end of the day. Is it really worth pissing him off over by being cheap like the Heat did with Mike Miller? On the open market TT, at 24, would get 10-12 mill a year at least. With us he'll probably get 14-16 mill. The overpay isn't THAT drastic. Especially when you consider a) with the cap rising the deal could end up being a bargain in a few years, and b) Kevin Love potentially walking in 2016 or 2017. (We'll have to wait and see on what kind of contract he signs).
Click to expand...

It is drastic for Gilbert and it should matter to most of you.
I know it matters to me, it's not my money but Gilbert is being pressured by Lebron to pay ridiculous amount of money and not always for the better of the team, Gilbert should have profits while Lebron is here not going bankrupt after 3 years.

Also, not every team is going to play small ball against us, there will be other top teams that have alot of slashers and we are going to need rim protectors, especially with Love out there.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
I get your point -- I really do. But the same "judgment" aspect that potentially makes your stat better also leaves it open to being worse. Your stat being "better" is dependent upon two pretty big "ifs" -- consistency, and accuracy. Even though the basic rebounding stat doesn't tell you exactly how good a rebounder someone is, we can rely on the fact that they are actually counted the exact same way every time (consistency) and that the number we're given accurately reflects when a rebound is actually corralled. It's a close to objective as you can get.

We have no way of knowing whether that applies to the "rebounding opportunity." stat. First, we don't know if the guy who is compiling that data is applying his standard consistently every time. And second, even if he is applying his standard consistently, we may not agree with his standard. It may be that he routinely classifies as a rebounding opportunity something that others would say was a player deferring to someone else, heading out on a break, whatever. Not everyone will draw that distinction in the same place, so it is a judgment call. And we have no idea whether we agree with that guy's judgment or not.

In other words, he may be consistent, but consistently applying the wrong standard. We just don't know. That's not really an issue with the basic rebounding stat, which is pretty objective.

I personally think that once you get to the point of wanting to look beyond the objective rebounding stat, you're better off just watching the guy actually play and rendering a judgment that way, rather than relying on some other guy's judgment that inherently includes his subjectivity/bias.
Click to expand...
This criticism applies on a play by play basis and I agree with it in that regard.

However, when a player consistently rates at a certain level when plays are looked at cumulatively league-wide, a pattern emerges, no matter the minor quibble on how the stat is compiled. To argue against his placement is to state that there is either a conspiracy against TT or that there is something unique to only his game that is not captured by the statistician. I doubt you believe either.
 
Won't the market determine what TT gets paid? We give him a qualifying offer and match his best offer elsewhere? He for sure is worth keeping, age wise he's the equivalent of a player who did four years of college and one year in the NBA. Additionally, he's durable, which is needed on a team with Andy, Kyrie, and KL.
 
stowfan said:
Won't the market determine what TT gets paid? We give him a qualifying offer and match his best offer elsewhere? He for sure is worth keeping, age wise he's the equivalent of a player who did four years of college and one year in the NBA. Additionally, he's durable, which is needed on a team with Andy, Kyrie, and KL.
Click to expand...

I dont think we qualifying offered TT, which is baffling.
 
Danny Arison said:
It is drastic for Gilbert and it should matter to most of you.
I know it matters to me, it's not my money but Gilbert is being pressured by Lebron to pay ridiculous amount of money and not always for the better of the team, Gilbert should have profits while Lebron is here not going bankrupt after 3 years.

Also, not every team is going to play small ball against us, there will be other top teams that have alot of slashers and we are going to need rim protectors, especially with Love out there.
Click to expand...

So, what's the alternative? Letting TT walk, pissing off LeBron, and replacing him with a guy on a veteran minimum contract?

I'm sorry, but this team was 2 wins away from a title without Love and Kyrie, and depth that was spread thin. We're a city starved for a championship, we're as close as we've ever been, and now people want to go cheap and care about Dan Gilbert's money?! The guy is insanely wealthy. I would rather him pay luxury tax for 3-5 years with us on top of the basketball world, and have however many years of rebuilding with cheap contracts if that's what it takes. The goal is to win a championship, and it should come at any cost.
 
RDriesen said:
I don't overpay for a player. It is as simple as that. I don't care what needs there are. There is NO WAY I am paying TT 2 to 3 times more than Mozgov.
Click to expand...

Again, that is irrelevant as Mozgov will be a FA next year and get 15 million plus some team.

You simply can not compare contracts of players signed in different years.

Steph Curry is about to become the 5th highest paid Warrior behind Lee, Klay, Iggy, and Draymond.

That should tell you all you need to know about comparing contracts that were signed in different years.

And when curry is next up for a new contract, he will get 25+ million a year.

Contracts and relative worth of players is not a static thing.
 
Said in the Bulls game thread that Mike Dunleavy would be perfect... He doesn't defend like Battier, but is just so damn solid...

Like Ariza (LeBron's on court soul mate) --- Dunleavy is a guy LeBron needs on his squad at least once in his career.
 
If we sign Dunleavy, how many games till the media picks up on him being dirty?
 
RDriesen said:
I don't overpay for a player. It is as simple as that. I don't care what needs there are. There is NO WAY I am paying TT 2 to 3 times more than Mozgov.
Click to expand...
Lol, good thing you don't have to pay a dime then ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top