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

Donovan Mitchell: All-NBA BEST Team

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Grade the Trade

  • A+

    Votes: 71 25.5%

  • A

    Votes: 109 39.2%

  • B

    Votes: 60 21.6%

  • C

    Votes: 26 9.4%

  • D

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • F

    Votes: 7 2.5%
  • Total voters
    278
Dr No said:
I’m still not convinced he is top 25.
Click to expand...
He is not. When you adust WS/48 for position he is about the same level as Garland. I am sure Moderator Edit: Come on guy. The deleted part here isn't even close to acceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
macbdog said:
bUt hE WoUlD hAVe nEvER DoNE tHAt HEre!
Click to expand...

My man..

Lauri with Cleveland last season: usage percentage of 19.5%, 11.5 field goal attempts per game, 4th to 6th offensive option on the team. The guys who were ahead of him [and would've still been ahead of him this season] were DG, LeVert, and Mobley. Rubio was ahead of him before he got hurt.

Lauri with Utah this season: usage percentage of 26.6%, 17.3 field goal attempts per game, 1st offensive option on the team.

I'm trying to figure a way that Lauri does what he did in Utah on this Cleveland team and it's just not there. Utah basically gave him the ball and said we will turn you into our #1. He would've likely been more efficient with the shots that he got here [or maybe not, Lauri's a rhythm player], but he wasn't getting that role here on the Cavs.

I wouldn't even want him as the #1 option or even the #2 option like that on a contending/playoff team. Too easy to exploit and not the weapon Mitchell is. Lauri was assisted on 65% [3% less than last season with the Cavs] of his two pointers and 93% [6% less than last season with the Cavs] on his three pointers. Roughly a 79% average. For comparison, Mitchell was assisted on 26% of his two pointers and 48% of his three pointers. Roughly a 37% average.

It's easier to shut down a guy that only creates 21% of his own shots than it is the guy that creates 63% of his own shots. On this Cavs team, if you shut down DG, then you eventually shut down Lauri. And that's another reason Lauri likely wouldn't have been doing this on the Cavs. I'm happy for him. He's a great player. But he wasn't going to be that guy here imo.
 
Jscc said:
My man..

Lauri with Cleveland last season: usage percentage of 19.5%, 11.5 field goal attempts per game, 4th to 6th offensive option on the team. The guys who were ahead of him [and would've still been ahead of him this season] were DG, LeVert, and Mobley. Rubio was ahead of him before he got hurt.

Lauri with Utah this season: usage percentage of 26.6%, 17.3 field goal attempts per game, 1st offensive option on the team.

I'm trying to figure a way that Lauri does what he did in Utah on this Cleveland team and it's just not there. Utah basically gave him the ball and said we will turn you into our #1. He would've likely been more efficient with the shots that he got here [or maybe not, Lauri's a rhythm player], but he wasn't getting that role here on the Cavs.

I wouldn't even want him as the #1 option or even the #2 option like that on a contending/playoff team. Too easy to exploit and not the weapon Mitchell is. Lauri was assisted on 65% [3% less than last season with the Cavs] of his two pointers and 93% [6% less than last season with the Cavs] on his three pointers. Roughly a 79% average. For comparison, Mitchell was assisted on 26% of his two pointers and 48% of his three pointers. Roughly a 37% average.

It's easier to shut down a guy that only creates 21% of his own shots than it is the guy that creates 63% of his own shots. On this Cavs team, if you shut down DG, then you eventually shut down Lauri. And that's another reason Lauri likely wouldn't have been doing this on the Cavs. I'm happy for him. He's a great player. But he wasn't going to be that guy here imo.
Click to expand...


I’m not sure if you’ve been around this site to understand the compliment I’m about to give you for this, but your post is old school rep worthy.

You nail every aspect of every possible point in the argument. Well done!
 
B Mac said:
I’m not sure if you’ve been around this site to understand the compliment I’m about to give you for this, but your post is old school rep worthy.

You nail every aspect of every possible point in the argument. Well done!
Click to expand...
What we really need is a “great points, but it’s gonna fall on deaf ears” button.

Some blind men are actually blind. Others are blind because they deliberately refuse to open their eyes.
 
If Lauri could do what he did in Utah, here we wouldn’t have traded him.



As the other guy said, if you shut down DG and DM everyone else is screwed. We rely too much on those 2 scoring 30 each.

We need a roster in which Garland and Mitchell are the catalysts not the end all.

Look at Boston with Brown and Tatum. They can win if Tatum scores 15 or 55. The offense isn’t Tatum and Brown. It’s built AROUND Tatum and Brown.

Our offense this year basically was Garland and Mitchell. If they weren’t on, we lost. Josh Hart would’ve been a perfect fit here. Alot of ppl like Struss but he’s not gonna change anything but maybe raise the teams 3pt percentage a little bit. We need a guy like Andrew Wiggins. Defender, slasher, 3 ball. Too many of our players only do one or two things good. We need to start getting guys with multiple skills. If i could get anyone from the heat it’d be Gabe Vincent not Struss.
 
Kizzle said:
If Lauri could do what he did in Utah, here we wouldn’t have traded him.



As the other guy said, if you shut down DG and DM everyone else is screwed. We rely too much on those 2 scoring 30 each.

We need a roster in which Garland and Mitchell are the catalysts not the end all.

Look at Boston with Brown and Tatum. They can win if Tatum scores 15 or 55. The offense isn’t Tatum and Brown. It’s built AROUND Tatum and Brown.

Our offense this year basically was Garland and Mitchell. If they weren’t on, we lost. Josh Hart would’ve been a perfect fit here. Alot of ppl like Struss but he’s not gonna change anything but maybe raise the teams 3pt percentage a little bit. We need a guy like Andrew Wiggins. Defender, slasher, 3 ball. Too many of our players only do one or two things good. We need to start getting guys with multiple skills. If i could get anyone from the heat it’d be Gabe Vincent not Struss.
Click to expand...

All of this is a big reason why I want another coach. JBB has handicap this team with the lack of offensive structure. He is too reliant on the players themselves to figure out the offense. I believe we would have developed and/or found how to better use Sexton, Lauri, and Okoro with a more offensive minded coach. I think a good coach has a good understanding of both sides of the ball.

While I do think we need to bring in other players to take the offense load off Garland and Mitchell, they are going to run into problems trying to figure out how to mesh without a coach that provide some sort of structure to the offense.
 
Jscc said:
My man..

Lauri with Cleveland last season: usage percentage of 19.5%, 11.5 field goal attempts per game, 4th to 6th offensive option on the team. The guys who were ahead of him [and would've still been ahead of him this season] were DG, LeVert, and Mobley. Rubio was ahead of him before he got hurt.

Lauri with Utah this season: usage percentage of 26.6%, 17.3 field goal attempts per game, 1st offensive option on the team.

I'm trying to figure a way that Lauri does what he did in Utah on this Cleveland team and it's just not there. Utah basically gave him the ball and said we will turn you into our #1. He would've likely been more efficient with the shots that he got here [or maybe not, Lauri's a rhythm player], but he wasn't getting that role here on the Cavs.

I wouldn't even want him as the #1 option or even the #2 option like that on a contending/playoff team. Too easy to exploit and not the weapon Mitchell is. Lauri was assisted on 65% [3% less than last season with the Cavs] of his two pointers and 93% [6% less than last season with the Cavs] on his three pointers. Roughly a 79% average. For comparison, Mitchell was assisted on 26% of his two pointers and 48% of his three pointers. Roughly a 37% average.

It's easier to shut down a guy that only creates 21% of his own shots than it is the guy that creates 63% of his own shots. On this Cavs team, if you shut down DG, then you eventually shut down Lauri. And that's another reason Lauri likely wouldn't have been doing this on the Cavs. I'm happy for him. He's a great player. But he wasn't going to be that guy here imo.
Click to expand...

He has a lot more spacing in Utah, and that benefits his game a lot more than it did here. Sure, his usage is higher, but his efficiency is much higher.

The bold is all true, but he still provides all the skillsets we are missing on this team. I don't really care if he's not a 1, or 2, or just a 3 option.

We all know he would never average 26 a game here. Nor would we really want him to do that. What I do care is that he provides exactly what we are missing, and badly.

Him playing next to Allen and Mobley made no sense for Lauri's game to really take off.

I think Mitchell is better, no debate.

I do think the front office undervalued his importance though. If there was a way to pull off the Mitchell trade, without including him, that should have been a priority.

Because if you had a unit of Mobley, Lauri, Mitchell, AND Garland. This would be a completely more efficient team.

But there are two problems. I don't think that roster really meshes with JBB's coaching. And I think JBB himself would prefer Allen. JBB is defensive minded, grind it out coach. Slow paced.

A roster I mention, you'd have to change the pace and tempo. And that doesn't fit with how JBB coaches.

So if they were hellbent on keeping JBB, maybe it made no sense to keep Lauri.

JBB is just the gift that keeps on giving.
 
Of course Lauri wouldn’t be putting up Utah numbers on our team. It’s a different team and a different role. Waste of time to argue all this.

The point is Lauri’s year with the Cavs was the best year of his career to that point, and he was killing it in FIBA. He is hard to defend due to his height, shooting ability, mobility, and has just enough ball control to get to where he wants most of the time.

He’ll never impact the game offensively as much as Mitchell can, but Lauri can impact rebounding and defense more, and is more versatile thanks again to his height, mobility, and shooting.

The Cavs going all in on a small backcourt is just disappointing to me. And with that small backcourt their offense as a team was still poor.
 
ice cream man said:
Of course Lauri wouldn’t be putting up Utah numbers on our team. It’s a different team and a different role. Waste of time to argue all this.

The point is Lauri’s year with the Cavs was the best year of his career to that point, and he was killing it in FIBA. He is hard to defend due to his height, shooting ability, mobility, and has just enough ball control to get to where he wants most of the time.

He’ll never impact the game offensively as much as Mitchell can, but Lauri can impact rebounding and defense more, and is more versatile thanks again to his height, mobility, and shooting.

The Cavs going all in on a small backcourt is just disappointing to me. And with that small backcourt their offense as a team was still poor.
Click to expand...

The Cavs offensive rating during the regular season was 8th in the NBA..

Mitchell and Garland had a 2-man net rating of +5.2 which is comparable, and better in some cases, to some of the best duos in the NBA..

The Cavs offensive struggles that shown through can be attributed to lack of spacing and coaching not the Mitchell and Garland pairing..
 
Yeah, I definitely don't think the argument is against Garland and Mitchell offensively, they are a find duo. Defensively is different, because neither one defends great. Mitchell is average defensively, Garland is just bad defensively.

But we still ranked quite high defensively, so I don't see where Garland and Mitchell can't succeed. Or is a bad pair. Are they perfect? No, but you can win with them.

We do need a bigger wing at the 3, that's a glaring hole.
 
godfather said:
Yeah, I definitely don't think the argument is against Garland and Mitchell offensively, they are a find duo. Defensively is different, because neither one defends great. Mitchell is average defensively, Garland is just bad defensively.

But we still ranked quite high defensively, so I don't see where Garland and Mitchell can't succeed. Or is a bad pair. Are they perfect? No, but you can win with them.

We do need a bigger wing at the 3, that's a glaring hole.
Click to expand...

The argument against Mitchell trade is solely based on the fictitious imaginary world where JBB runs some fluid offense that maximize everyone’s skills. It’s not based in reality.

Mitchell was a good defender last year. He ranked as one of the top SGs. Garland’s fine. That being said, I don’t think we’ll totally know until we find someone that can adequately defend SFs.
 
Bob_The_Cat said:
The argument against Mitchell trade is solely based on the fictitious imaginary world where JBB runs some fluid offense that maximize everyone’s skills. It’s not based in reality.

Mitchell was a good defender last year. He ranked as one of the top SGs. Garland’s fine. That being said, I don’t think we’ll totally know until we find someone that can adequately defend SFs.
Click to expand...

Trading either one, would be a disaster, and make us worse.

I have some beefs with Garland's game, like his high turnover rate. Really bothers me. I read some suggestions (not really here), that we got to trade him, well before the playoffs.

Trading an all-star talent, that's locked up, at his age, makes NO SENSE.

I take it back, Garland's defense has improved, he's never going to be awesome.

His first two years it was awful.

Defense isn't that bad, not where its a major problem, if you have the right team around him. Which we do.

I couldn't imagine how much worse our offense would be without Garland or Mitchell. It would be dog shit.
 
Smooth said:
The Cavs offensive rating during the regular season was 8th in the NBA..

Mitchell and Garland had a 2-man net rating of +5.2 which is comparable, and better in some cases, to some of the best duos in the NBA..

The Cavs offensive struggles that shown through can be attributed to lack of spacing and coaching not the Mitchell and Garland pairing..
Click to expand...

Whatever the numbers are...I know I did not watch good offense during the regular season. We were carried by DM most nights. A good defense with length can shut the Cavs down due to their lack of size/strength and spacing. Remove Allen to improve the spacing and down goes our defense. Do we have anyone outside of Evan who consistently contributes on both ends of the floor? No.

Defend the Cavs with numbers all you want. The roster is not that good and the coach is very bad. Hopefully Mobley is a top 5 player in a few years and I'm also praying that Garland also improves to the point where he's unstoppable offensively. I don't see how the Cavs have any chance at becoming legit contenders with this core unless both of those things happen. And they won't happen during the course of DM's current contract, in my opinion.
 
Would anybody trade Garland straight up for Jaylen Brown? Put Brown at SF, slide Mitchell to point and put LeVert at SG. Just asking!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top