Looking Ahead: 2013-2014 Cleveland Cavaliers

[Revenged25]

Actually, at 14 million for the season, he is a worse value then Gee. I don't want Granger on this team, even if he is free. He messes up our salary flexibility for a player who is clearly on the decline and with health issues. That 14 million is better used to try to work a trade next deadline for someone that actually is still good at basketball. Someone that will help in a longer term. Some of you have this image of the Granger from four years ago in your heads. That player no longer exists.

That's actually incorrect. He has one year at 14 million and then he's off the books. What free agents are we going to be bringing in that would make as big of a difference as Granger? And if you are talking about moves at the trade deadline, what's more valuable than a starting caliber SF with a 14 million dollar expiring contract? Also how is he still not good at basketball? When healthy he's still a great basketball player and better than everyone than Irving on our team at this point. If he can be had for a minimal amount and we can't get Otto Porter would you rather see Alonzo Gee manning the SF position, or a one year rental for a guy that many though Otto Porter compares to?

Also what are these trade deadline moves that you expect us to make? It's been mentioned numerous times that the Cavs want to conserve cap space for the 2014 Free Agency, so why would we need to make sure we have flexibility in our cap for a trade deadline trade that would likely net us a player on a much worse contract, for many more years, that removes flexibility for numerous years, and might only be a slightly better player, because let's be honest, no one is going to move a true star for cheap, even if it's to get to where they aren't paying the luxury tax. The only player that I could see possibly becoming available by the trade deadline, if not sooner, would be Love and truthfully I think we can all agree we'd much rather get Love than Granger if there is a chance. More than likely though, the chance won't be too high and Granger is a more likely scenario that fills a hole if we don't get Otto Porter. Once again most feel Granger is a contingent to if we can or can't get Porter.

 

[Scholar]

That's actually incorrect. He has one year at 14 million and then he's off the books. What free agents are we going to be bringing in that would make as big of a difference as Granger? And if you are talking about moves at the trade deadline, what's more valuable than a starting caliber SF with a 14 million dollar expiring contract? Also how is he still not good at basketball? When healthy he's still a great basketball player and better than everyone than Irving on our team at this point. If he can be had for a minimal amount and we can't get Otto Porter would you rather see Alonzo Gee manning the SF position, or a one year rental for a guy that many though Otto Porter compares to?

Also what are these trade deadline moves that you expect us to make? It's been mentioned numerous times that the Cavs want to conserve cap space for the 2014 Free Agency, so why would we need to make sure we have flexibility in our cap for a trade deadline trade that would likely net us a player on a much worse contract, for many more years, that removes flexibility for numerous years, and might only be a slightly better player, because let's be honest, no one is going to move a true star for cheap, even if it's to get to where they aren't paying the luxury tax. The only player that I could see possibly becoming available by the trade deadline, if not sooner, would be Love and truthfully I think we can all agree we'd much rather get Love than Granger if there is a chance. More than likely though, the chance won't be too high and Granger is a more likely scenario that fills a hole if we don't get Otto Porter. Once again most feel Granger is a contingent to if we can or can't get Porter.

I am not incorrect at all. He still ties up 14 million out of this year's salary. That hurts this season's flexibility. It inhibits the ability to make deals. A strength of Grant's. I also stand by what I said. Granger is in decline. His overall shooting average has dropped each of the last 4 years. In his last full season, he shot .416 from the field. Want to make a claim that that is good? I sure hope not. That sits squarely in the land of Chuckerville. His rebounding isn't really any better then Gee's. If you look at the per 36 minutes a game for their careers, it is almost identical. Granger has never been known as any defensive wunderkind. Plus, he still hasn't shown he has recovered from this season's injuries. Like I said, the guy you think you are talking about doesn't exist. Granger has a "name." So, he must be good. Only he isn't any more. This is like trading for one year of Larry Hughes right after one of those major injuries. What's the point? How does it get us to that championship?

Btw, stop this crap about having to have some name of who we could trade for at next year's deadline. The players that may be available are likely to be people none of us are thinking about at this time. They will be players that will be traded because of cost concerns and not talent. Maintaining flexibility and assets will put us in a prime position to pounce on any of those opportunities. I sure as hell wouldn't want to inhibit that with adding someone like Danny Granger.

 

[Revenged25]

You keep criticizing others for wanting to make clear upgrades on guys like Gee, who as the 20th option on the team was still inefficient, while Granger, during these declining years, was pretty much the one and only offensive threat causing him to take more shots, more bad shots, and have teams completely focused on him. With the Cavs he would be the 2nd or 3rd option on offense which would open him up to better shots and therefore better efficiency... he also spaces the floor, something Gee doesn't do.

Also even if we made a trade for Granger, why does it completely remove our flexibility again? Because we don't have millions of dollars just sitting around waiting to be spent? You do realize we have numerous assets that could be moved to make things work. Guys like Cassippi, Varejao, Granger himself, are all on contracts that could be moved at the trade deadline to make money match and teams would likely be more than willing to take a 14 million expiring contract with a starting caliber SF in exchange to what we might've had to give up otherwise.

I mean we can't just sit on our thumbs all day, we need to eventually do something, sitting around and waiting and hoping is going to do nothing but help pack Irving's bags as he heads to another team with a desire to actually win. Sure the Cavs made some bad moves in the past trying to get players in that could immediately improve the team, but most of it was setup prior to LeBron being drafted and them caving to the pressure of giving long term deals to bad players. This is a good player on a one year deal.

Also once again, it's been said over and over and over again, and you keep forgetting, that Cleveland is looking to keep their cap flexibility for the 2014 Free Agent Class. That means this trade deadline won't be bringing in any big names that will cost us money for years to come, if they aren't off the books by 2014 or on small contracts, they won't be coming here. Grabbing Granger, should Porter be unavailable at our pick and we end up with Len, does nothing but improve the team and gets them from a purely losing aspect and mentality to a playoff team.

 

[caf]

.

 

[Scholar]

You keep criticizing others for wanting to make clear upgrades on guys like Gee, who as the 20th option on the team was still inefficient, while Granger, during these declining years, was pretty much the one and only offensive threat causing him to take more shots, more bad shots, and have teams completely focused on him. With the Cavs he would be the 2nd or 3rd option on offense which would open him up to better shots and therefore better efficiency... he also spaces the floor, something Gee doesn't do.

Also even if we made a trade for Granger, why does it completely remove our flexibility again? Because we don't have millions of dollars just sitting around waiting to be spent? You do realize we have numerous assets that could be moved to make things work. Guys like Cassippi, Varejao, Granger himself, are all on contracts that could be moved at the trade deadline to make money match and teams would likely be more than willing to take a 14 million expiring contract with a starting caliber SF in exchange to what we might've had to give up otherwise.

I mean we can't just sit on our thumbs all day, we need to eventually do something, sitting around and waiting and hoping is going to do nothing but help pack Irving's bags as he heads to another team with a desire to actually win. Sure the Cavs made some bad moves in the past trying to get players in that could immediately improve the team, but most of it was setup prior to LeBron being drafted and them caving to the pressure of giving long term deals to bad players. This is a good player on a one year deal.

Also once again, it's been said over and over and over again, and you keep forgetting, that Cleveland is looking to keep their cap flexibility for the 2014 Free Agent Class. That means this trade deadline won't be bringing in any big names that will cost us money for years to come, if they aren't off the books by 2014 or on small contracts, they won't be coming here. Grabbing Granger, should Porter be unavailable at our pick and we end up with Len, does nothing but improve the team and gets them from a purely losing aspect and mentality to a playoff team.

You are absolutely all over the place in your response. It's like you are just putting down every straw you can grasp, hoping that shotgun approach will work. I don't know what the hell is your obsession with Granger. I really don't. Once upon a day, he was a pretty decent player, "an almost was" you might say. Now, he's fallen to a "never will be." With any more injury issues, he is gonna become a "used to play." Really, that's where we are at. You might have noticed that Indiana never missed a beat when he was gone. Mr George walked right into his spot and things continued right along.

As for him doing it all himself, you might have forgotten that Indiana also has George, West, and Hibbert on their roster. Not like there is absolutely no other threats like you tried to claim. You can't just explain away 4 years of decline and a .416 shooting percentage his last full year. You do realize that is CJ Miles this past season for the Cavs. Everyone complains about his chucking. But, Miles put up an almost equal .415 from the field, with .386 from three. Granger during that last full season shot .381 from three. Again, awful similar. Also, an awful return for 14 mil on the season.

That's what you need to be looking at. You need to always look at getting value on your investment. You don't take on bad salaries for average at best talent. You don't further exasperate your mistake by also wasting additional assets on such an acquisition. If we were lucky, Granger would perform as an average NBA starting SF. But, he is paid as a top SF. That's a real issue. Even our best scenario still has us overpaying for a one year rental. It's not like we are going to contend this year, or that it's the one acquisition that might make the difference of winning it all. We are shifting into just competing for a playoff spot at this point. We don't need Granger to do that. Further, it is even possible that instead of helping us win more games this season, he actually hurts us. He was already in decline stats wise. We don't know if the injury he is recovering from will further that decline or not. How well he recovers is still in the air.

Also, it isn't as easy to trade 14 million dollar expirings as you think it is. See Antawn as an example of this. You have to match up salaries. It is more difficult with larger salaries. It is a heck of a lot easier to do that with cap space then salaried players. You have a lot more "flexibility" in how your put together your trade. In fact, you might be getting your trade simply because you can absorb the salary with only having to give back a portion of it to the team you are trading with.

I am completely mindful of the 2014 off season. I haven't forgotten anything. Making deals at next year's trade deadline doesn't prevent that. You just have to plan out how you maneuver them. Some of our salary comes off the books after next season. But, it doesn't go away during the season. One of the reasons for maintaining this year's flexibility. You make the deals when they are there. If you are not prepared, you have no chance at them. Don't you think history might have been different if we had the assets and cap space at the time and acquired Garnett and Allen instead of Boston? You have to put yourself in position for the opportunity and keep yourself there. Yes, we should make moves along the way. But, they have to be with the thought of what is needed to contend. Long term goals. Not merely winning a few more games this year. Focusing on short term goals is a trap that may well endanger your long term goal of winning an NBA title. You must always be mindful of that.

 

[mhi]

Don't see how they make the playoffs without an All-Star FA/trade acquisition.

 

[mcfly]

Don't see how they make the playoffs without an All-Star FA/trade acquisition.

A healthy Varejao is essentially the equivalent of acquiring an All-Star.

 

[Lee]

You are absolutely all over the place in your response. It's like you are just putting down every straw you can grasp, hoping that shotgun approach will work. I don't know what the hell is your obsession with Granger. I really don't. Once upon a day, he was a pretty decent player, "an almost was" you might say. Now, he's fallen to a "never will be." With any more injury issues, he is gonna become a "used to play." Really, that's where we are at. You might have noticed that Indiana never missed a beat when he was gone. Mr George walked right into his spot and things continued right along.

As for him doing it all himself, you might have forgotten that Indiana also has George, West, and Hibbert on their roster. Not like there is absolutely no other threats like you tried to claim. You can't just explain away 4 years of decline and a .416 shooting percentage his last full year. You do realize that is CJ Miles this past season for the Cavs. Everyone complains about his chucking. But, Miles put up an almost equal .415 from the field, with .386 from three. Granger during that last full season shot .381 from three. Again, awful similar. Also, an awful return for 14 mil on the season.

That's what you need to be looking at. You need to always look at getting value on your investment. You don't take on bad salaries for average at best talent. You don't further exasperate your mistake by also wasting additional assets on such an acquisition. If we were lucky, Granger would perform as an average NBA starting SF. But, he is paid as a top SF. That's a real issue. Even our best scenario still has us overpaying for a one year rental. It's not like we are going to contend this year, or that it's the one acquisition that might make the difference of winning it all. We are shifting into just competing for a playoff spot at this point. We don't need Granger to do that. Further, it is even possible that instead of helping us win more games this season, he actually hurts us. He was already in decline stats wise. We don't know if the injury he is recovering from will further that decline or not. How well he recovers is still in the air.

Also, it isn't as easy to trade 14 million dollar expirings as you think it is. See Antawn as an example of this. You have to match up salaries. It is more difficult with larger salaries. It is a heck of a lot easier to do that with cap space then salaried players. You have a lot more "flexibility" in how your put together your trade. In fact, you might be getting your trade simply because you can absorb the salary with only having to give back a portion of it to the team you are trading with.

I am completely mindful of the 2014 off season. I haven't forgotten anything. Making deals at next year's trade deadline doesn't prevent that. You just have to plan out how you maneuver them. Some of our salary comes off the books after next season. But, it doesn't go away during the season. One of the reasons for maintaining this year's flexibility. You make the deals when they are there. If you are not prepared, you have no chance at them. Don't you think history might have been different if we had the assets and cap space at the time and acquired Garnett and Allen instead of Boston? You have to put yourself in position for the opportunity and keep yourself there. Yes, we should make moves along the way. But, they have to be with the thought of what is needed to contend. Long term goals. Not merely winning a few more games this year. Focusing on short term goals is a trap that may well endanger your long term goal of winning an NBA title. You must always be mindful of that.

We wouldn't have to match salaries because we have the cap room.

That said, I don't want Granger unless we are getting another asset to take on the 14 mil. But, I think Indiana is under the delusion that at 14 mil, Granger still has value and actually wants to receive an asset not give.

No Thank you.

 

[petes999]

Also, remember we need $10-$17.5 more million in salary to hit the cap floor. Just wonder if teams are going to want to dump salaries for picks when Chicago didn't dump Hamilton to avoid becoming a repeat offender down the road.

AV -$9.1
KI - 5.9
TT - 4.3
DW -3.9
TZ - 1.6
#3 - 3.6
#19- 1.2
AG - 3.3
CJM- 2.2
-----
35.1 for 9 players
MS - 4.5
WE - 3.1
-----
42.7 (depending what happens in free-agency and floor is $52.2 if no increase in cap)

 

[chrisrich91]

Don't see how they make the playoffs without an All-Star FA/trade acquisition.

Depending on how long it takes our players to buy into Mike's defensive system, I think all it would take to make the playoffs next year is health and a pure shooter at SF. With Kyrie, Dion, and Tristan a year older and Andy back, that's enough talent for a Mike Brown team to make the playoffs...again, depending on how long it takes for them to adapt to the new defensive philosophies. But our youngsters seem pretty bright, so I think they can do it.

If they can have that defense fine tuned by the All Star Break and still be in contention for the playoffs, they'll can sneak in. But at the end of the day, I think Grant goes out and gets 1 impact NBA player and 1 solid role player this offseason, along with 2 rookies. Those acquisitions will make our run to the playoffs more manageable.

 

[Scholar]

We wouldn't have to match salaries because we have the cap room.

That said, I don't want Granger unless we are getting another asset to take on the 14 mil. But, I think Indiana is under the delusion that at 14 mil, Granger still has value and actually wants to receive an asset not give.

No Thank you.

Right, we don't have to match exactly up to the amount of available cap space. Nothing I said contradicts that. I was trying to make the point that expirings are not as good as cap space. Large expirings are much harder to deal. If you start blowing your available cap at 14 mil a pop, it'll run out pretty damn quick. Flexibility during the season is just as important as after it. Most importantly, the amount of cap space is a key here. That's our maneuver room. How much you can be off from the other guy in a trade. Better to be 10 or 15 million under then just one or two.

Yes, I agree with that sentiment on Granger exactly. He is a "negative" asset at this moment. Far overpaid for his talent level. They should give you assets to take him.

 

[Scholar]

Also, remember we need $10-$17.5 more million in salary to hit the cap floor. Just wonder if teams are going to want to dump salaries for picks when Chicago didn't dump Hamilton to avoid becoming a repeat offender down the road.

AV -$9.1
KI - 5.9
TT - 4.3
DW -3.9
TZ - 1.6
#3 - 3.6
#19- 1.2
AG - 3.3
CJM- 2.2
-----
35.1 for 9 players
MS - 4.5
WE - 3.1
-----
42.7 (depending what happens in free-agency and floor is $52.2 if no increase in cap)

I don't believe we need to hit that floor until season end. Meaning that trades at the deadline that took on salary could bring us up to it. But, regardless, there is no real penalty for being short. You just pay the players you already have under contract more money. So, if you maneuvered this perfectly, you'd start the season short of the floor, Add a talented core player at the trade deadline that you got at a bargain price because of cost issues being suffered by the other team. That deal would bring your salary above the floor. You would also plan out things so that the cap space you gain at the end of the season, plus whatever you have remaining, is enough for that max free agent you want in the 2014 off season. That would be my perfect storm.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Still better than Alonzo Gee and would be better for this team than any SF in this draft outside of Otto Porter. Would provide defense, rebounding, another scoring option, and fill a hole if we end up going center instead of SF with our first pick. If we draft a SF then I would say no to any Danny Granger trade.

If you're a rebuilding team, you don't give up assets for a thirty-year-old player coming off a major knee injury who will probably only be a one year rental. That's the kind of short-sighted thinking that dooms small market teams all the time.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

What the Cavaliers need more-so than anything is Toughness!

If we're going to roll with Dan Gilbert's vision of a physical, defense first team.... We can't have Zeller smiling anchoring the paint.

 

[Derek]

Also, remember we need $10-$17.5 more million in salary to hit the cap floor. Just wonder if teams are going to want to dump salaries for picks when Chicago didn't dump Hamilton to avoid becoming a repeat offender down the road.

AV -$9.1
KI - 5.9
TT - 4.3
DW -3.9
TZ - 1.6
#3 - 3.6
#19- 1.2
AG - 3.3
CJM- 2.2
-----
35.1 for 9 players
MS - 4.5
WE - 3.1
-----
42.7 (depending what happens in free-agency and floor is $52.2 if no increase in cap)

I don't know why people act like the Cavs absolutely have to hit the salary cap floor. If they don't hit it all that happens is they take whatever amount they're short and disperse it evenly amongst their current roster.