Darius Kinnard Garland

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just want to chime in to say that McCollum was a credible SG defensively coming out of college. Very solid rebound/steal/block numbers for his position, even accounting for the weak competition. Measured 6'2.25" in socks and 197 pounds. If he was an inch or so taller he wouldn't be undersized at all.

And despite that, Portland's opponent ppp was still horrible.

 

[Nathan S]

And despite that, Portland's opponent ppp was still horrible.

Yeah. Portland is a cautionary tale for mildly below-average defensive backcourts. They can win in the playoffs until they inevitably meet another elite offensive backcourt, and then they get roasted. But it'll take a miracle for Garland/Sexton to be mildly below average...you need both of them to hit their absolute ceilings defensively to be as good as Lillard/McCollum on that end. Realistically we'll have to trade or bench one of them, and the sooner the better.

 

[dark2332]

Now, I know that Harkless is only under contract for one more season, so they may just be a considering him a temporary bandaid rather than a potential building block. If true, that's fine. But I also suspect there would be a "re-sign Harkless because he's the kind of guy you need with Garland and Sexton" argument emerge by mid-seasons. After all, if he's a good fit for this season, why not moving forward?

This was from the Studio Fantasy Trade thread and dragged here, and yes, I would like to pick up Harkless.

I was basing it on the fact that the Clippers could really use a big who could play the 5 and alter shots, and our team is currently devoid of wings—especially wings who can defend. We have a glut of frontcourt players and we need to be getting Zizic some floor time.

I suggested a Henson for Harkless expiring contract swap as I believe it would help both rosters.

On our current roster, yes, he would help defensively on the floor with our small guard pairing.

However, keeping him on long term would largely be based on how he fit in, how he performed, him embracing a role, his future salary desires, and alternative solutions to fill the need.

In a vacuum, I simply would do the trade based on need for this season and our current roster holes. Why must it represent so much more? Perhaps we acquire more picks for the 2020 draft by taking on salary at the deadline. In which case, what if we pick up one or two long 3/D wings in the draft? That changes everything.

All of the future speculation and using it to make some kind of fictitious argument as some inevitable strawman is beneath you.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That said -- I'd caution against assuming that the best case scenario for Sexton/Garland will look like what Dame and McCollum have done in Portland. Why can't they be better? Or at least different?

Portland has the best "undersized" backcourt the NBA has seen in a very long time. People keep pointing to them as the example precisely because such backcourts having success is so rare. And, both of those guys were better defenders coming out of college than were either of our two guys. So realistically, our guys would have to be even better offensively than are Lillard/McCollum just to get to that same net level. And if we're considering the possibility of our backcourt being even better than Portland's, Garland/Sexton would have to be significantly better offensively to make up for the defensive end.

How likely does that truly seem?

And with what should be at least one more lottery pick next year, and perhaps a couple more as they continue their rebuild, can't the Cavs surround Sexton/Garland with more complete players than Aminu and Harkless?

This is where how you allocate money on the roster comes in. If your "better than Lillard/McCollum" scenario actually happens, imagine how much money we would have to pay those guys to keep them as they enter their prime. They'd be at or near max contracts. Then, we'd have to fill out the entire rest of the roster with our remaining space, keeping in mind that we basically have to build an entire defense around their flaws. I think that would be extraordinarily difficult/unlikely.

You're saying that we should pound square pegs into round holes. I'm saying: let's see what we have, and not just assume that they are square pegs. Maybe they'll turn out to be round ones after all.

Well, I did say I'd give it a year. But it seems to me you're arguing we should take a risk on a real longshot -- that our guys become better than Lillard/McCollum to make up for their defensive deficiencies. My point is...why make it so unnecessarily hard for ourselves? Why keep two guys whose presence would force us to replicate/surpass something that is so rare in the modern NBA, rather than just moving on to the much easier pairing of a smaller PG and larger SG?

 

[WorldFreeB]

Yeah. Portland is a cautionary tale for mildly below-average defensive backcourts. They can win in the playoffs until they inevitably meet another elite offensive backcourt, and then they get roasted. But it'll take a miracle for Garland/Sexton to be mildly below average...you need both of them to hit their absolute ceilings defensively to be as good as Lillard/McCollum on that end. Realistically we'll have to trade or bench one of them, and the sooner the better.

Aren't there a lot of really good point guards coming out in the draft next year? Sorta makes the value of dealing one of them lower as teams figure they can just draft the guy they want instead of giving value for one of our guys.

 

[Jordan]

No, that's not my idea at all. As a matter of fact, I made this point precisely because some other people are trying to consider "fit" around those guys right now, which I consider a bad idea. My point is that despite the claim that "we're just in asset accumulation and not worried about fit", it seems like that's exactly what some people are considering right now in terms of building a team around those two guys:

@Los216 said: (can't embed because that old Everything Cavs topic was locked)





Now, I know that Harkless is only under contract for one more season, so they may just be a considering him a temporary bandaid rather than a potential building block. If true, that's fine. But I also suspect there would be a "re-sign Harkless because he's the kind of guy you need with Garland and Sexton" argument emerge by mid-seasons. After all, if he's a good fit for this season, why not moving forward?

So, to sum up...I'm okay with hanging on to Sexton and Garland for awhile. What I'm not okay with is trying to build a roster around them to compensate for their weaknesses when I consider the prospects of their long-term viability as a backcourt duo to be so low.

Obviously, for those who have a much different opinion of their prospects as a long-term pairing, my point is worthless.

About to go on a date... but just to be clear, I don’t think your point is worthless, opposite is true.

 

[Nathan S]

Aren't there a lot of really good point guards coming out in the draft next year? Sorta makes the value of dealing one of them lower as teams figure they can just draft the guy they want instead of giving value for one of our guys.

Yup...tricky situation, and will get trickier as time goes on. This time next summer there may not be any teams shopping for their point guard of the future. Just one more reason why ideally I'd like to see the Cavs trade one of them before the season.

 

[dark2332]

Here’s the thing, @The Human Q-Tip , I may be misinterpreting your stance, but I think you may have it too black or white while ignoring the gray.

Can we not agree that Garland and Sexton represent an imperfect defensive pairing, while also stating that although unlikely, it could possibly work?

Similarly, we seem to be stuck on “BPA so the entire roster construction shouldn’t matter” or “we must move one guard immediately due to roster fit.” Can we not do a bit of both when it makes sense for all parties?

Our roster doesn’t have a single useful defensive wing on it currently. Simultaneously, we have too many bigs needing minutes.

If you can simply use a big to get a defensive wing—which also would help our guard pairing defensively this season—why not?

The “oh, but YOU said the roster doesn’t matter this year” argument is a poor one at this point.

It matters, and it doesn’t. It’s a gray area.

I don’t care if we stink this season. I want to develop our youth. I want a top draft pick. I want to see what we have.

Meanwhile, in that process of seeing what we have, wouldn’t you agree getting a defensive wing to play with them—if extremely cheap to acquire for one season—gives us a better chance to actually evaluate what we have? To evaluate the kind of pairing they could eventually be down the line?

I proposed a trade that I thought made sense for both current rosters. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

All of the future speculation and using it to make some kind of fictitious argument as some inevitable strawman is beneath you.

This is what I said:

Now, I know that Harkless is only under contract for one more season, so they may just be a considering him a temporary bandaid rather than a potential building block. If true, that's fine. But I also suspect there would be a "re-sign Harkless because he's the kind of guy you need with Garland and Sexton" argument emerge by mid-seasons. After all, if he's a good fit for this season, why not moving forward?

It was my intention to make a clear distinction between advocating pairing those guys with a defensively specialist like Harkless as a temporary measure for just this season, which I think is "fine", and advocating pairing them with defensive specialists in terms of team construction moving forward. I was not attempting to imply that you in particular supported the latter, only that I think some people will. So to the extent what I wrote came across as accusing you of supporting a long-term plan of using defensive specialists like Harkless to overcome the defensive deficiencies of our backcourt, I apologise. That was not my intent.

As a matter of fact, my recollection is that you have generally supported the idea that we're very likely going to have to move one or the other of those guys, so you're not someone I'd think would argue in favor of building a defensive roster around them. That being said, I meant to add this as well:

I still believe it is possible to build a decent defense around Sexton and Garland... Boston did it with IT and Bradley and Portland with Dame and CJ.
The challenge the Cavs will face is how much do you sacrifice to build a good defense around those two? If you can find two good defenders that are also 35%+ 3pt shooters as well as a rim protector, then you have a great start. But, that is not easy, and moreover...

This hits the same point. I think events have a way of gaining and maintaining their own momentum, and that the "maybe we'll be able to find enough two way guys to build around them" is going to be a very tempting line of thought to follow that will delay necessary decisions. Surely, we can't find those two-way guys in just one offeason, right? We can't even draft a guy like that until next year. And then it likely would take at least another season to know if that particular two-way wing we drafted (assuming we manage to actually get one) is working out. So now we're talking about the third year of this backcourt pairing, and Sexton's fourth year in the league.

Here’s the thing, @The Human Q-Tip , I think you have it way too black or white while ignoring the gray.
Can we not agree that Garland and Sexton are not a perfect longterm defensive pairing, while also stating that although unlikely, it could possibly work?

I'm not pointing a finger in particular at either you or @jking948, but I'm just saying that in general, the temptation to defer a decision based on the hope that we can find the right guys to pair with them is going to be very strong. Rightly so, in a way. You can't reasonably be expected to both acquire and develop multiple two-way wings in just one or two offseasons. So I very much worry that the decision on the pairing of those two guys is going to be pushed further and further back.

So yes, it could possibly work. But I think we're better off making decisions based on what is most likely rather than what is simply "possible".

 

[dark2332]

It was my intention to make a clear distinction between advocating pairing those guys with a defensively specialist like Harkless as a temporary measure for just this season, which I think is "fine", and advocating pairing them with defensive specialists in terms of team construction moving forward. I was not attempting to imply that you in particular supported the latter, only that I think some people will. So to the extent what I wrote came across as accusing you of supporting a long-term plan of using defensive specialists like Harkless to overcome the defensive deficiencies of our backcourt, I apologise. That was not my intent.

As a matter of fact, my recollection is that you have generally supported the idea that we're very likely going to have to move one or the other of those guys, so you're not someone I'd think would argue in favor of building a defensive roster around them.

I apologize for misinterpreting as well.

I thought I was incorrectly being used as an example. You are correct in that I, too, believe one will eventually need traded if they both turn out to be what we expect them to be.

At that point, I believe both would retain trade value. In the meantime, I have no problem playing them together offensively—nor do I think they will hurt each other offensively.

In the meant time, even if I’m skeptical of them defensively, I’m going to enjoy watching them play together this season.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just to do a tl;dr, my bottom-line concern is that we're going to end up delaying moving one of those guys for years while we essentially hope to draw to an inside straight.

 

[dark2332]

Just to do a tl;dr, my bottom-line concern is that we're going to end up delaying moving one of those guys for years while we essentially hope to draw to an inside straight.

I just don’t believe in setting a timeline on it, that’s all.

If someone blew me away tomorrow, I’d make that deal.

Just the same, I’m not going to say that I have to make the move by this year’s deadline, by next year’s draft night, or what have you.

I think playing them together this year will be exciting and both will perform well offensively.

At that point, we also should have enough information to know which we’d like to build around and which is available.

There’s also the slimmest of chances that they show enough together defensively that it does give hope that they can work.

The Cavaliers right now—everything should be on the table, including trades for the right prices.

Not to oversimplify it, but to me it’s like the game of Monopoly.

Buy every open property you land on. Doesn’t matter that I have 1 red property, two green properties, and a purple, I’m still buying the yellow when I land there. Take value when you can get it. We can wheel and deal and make the pieces fit later.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I just don’t believe in setting a timeline on it, that’s all.

If someone blew me away tomorrow, I’d make that deal.

Just the same, I’m not going to say that I have to make the move by this year’s deadline, by next year’s draft night, or what have you.

I think playing them together this year will be exciting and both will perform well offensively.

At that point, we also should have enough information to know which we’d like to build around and which is available.

There’s also the slimmest of chances that they show enough together defensively that it does give hope that they can work.

The Cavaliers right now—everything should be on the table, including trades for the right prices.

I wouldn't have to be blown away. A decent/fair offer would be plenty for me to shift to a team

I just don’t believe in setting a timeline on it, that’s all.

If someone blew me away tomorrow, I’d make that deal.

Just the same, I’m not going to say that I have to make the move by this year’s deadline, by next year’s draft night, or what have you.

I think playing them together this year will be exciting and both will perform well offensively.

At that point, we also should have enough information to know which we’d like to build around and which is available.

There’s also the slimmest of chances that they show enough together defensively that it does give hope that they can work.

The Cavaliers right now—everything should be on the table, including trades for the right prices.

Not to oversimplify it, but to me it’s like the game of Monopoly.

Buy every open property you land on. Doesn’t matter that I have 1 red property, two green properties, and a purple, I’m still buying the yellow when I land there. Take value when you can get it. We can wheel and deal and make the pieces fit later.

There is a fine line between delaying the making of a decision for too long, and making a decision prematurely. We'll just have to hope that the Cavs get it right.

For me, the best case scenario realistically is that during the course of the season, both of these guys show enough skills developing to be plus point guards in the NBA. Very good shooters/scorers, and acceptable in terms of the developmental arc of their distribution skills. And that's the point at which we cash in our chips on one or the other, and shift to a more feasible model for building a team.

 

[AllforOne]

Portland has the best "undersized" backcourt the NBA has seen in a very long time. People keep pointing to them as the example precisely because such backcourts having success is so rare. And, both of those guys were better defenders coming out of college than were either of our two guys. So realistically, our guys would have to be even better offensively than are Lillard/McCollum just to get to that same net level. And if we're considering the possibility of our backcourt being even better than Portland's, Garland/Sexton would have to be significantly better offensively to make up for the defensive end. How likely does that truly seem?

Not very likely ... when you've assumed your way to your conclusion. You've assumed that Lillard/McCollum are somehow both seriously deficient defensively (that's one of the key assumptions for your entire argument), yet are also much better on defense than Sexton/Garland. Comparing them coming out of college is a red herring -- McCollum was a senior, and Lillard a junior, so it stands to reason they'd look better at the time they exited college than Sexton and Garland, both of whom were one-and-dones. If you really want apples to apples, wait two more years until Collin has his age-22 season, because that's the age at which Dame and CJ both were NBA rookies.

This is where how you allocate money on the roster comes in. If your "better than Lillard/McCollum" scenario actually happens, imagine how much money we would have to pay those guys to keep them as they enter their prime. They'd be at or near max contracts. Then, we'd have to fill out the entire rest of the roster with our remaining space, keeping in mind that we basically have to build an entire defense around their flaws. I think that would be extraordinarily difficult/unlikely.

News flash ... good players get paid. You're always going to have that problem of having to fill out the rest of the roster around the two or three guys who are making (near-)max coin. I don't see "oh my gosh, if Sexton and Garland are good, we're going to have to pay them five years from now!" as a very compelling argument. If anything, I hope that they do both earn max contracts. That's the kind of problem we want to have.

Well, I did say I'd give it a year. But it seems to me you're arguing we should take a risk on a real longshot -- that our guys become better than Lillard/McCollum to make up for their defensive deficiencies. My point is...why make it so unnecessarily hard for ourselves? Why keep two guys whose presence would force us to replicate/surpass something that is so rare in the modern NBA, rather than just moving on to the much easier pairing of a smaller PG and larger SG?

Because that's where the talent and the lottery balls fell? Would you feel more upbeat about the Cavs' long-term chances today had they taken, say, Mikal Bridges and Jarrett Culver? Because then they'd have those critical wing positions covered and would just need to fill in the gaps, right?

I'd rather take the talent and sort out positional fit later. This isn't like casting for a movie, where you need a 6'2" guy to play the role of Point Guard, and a 6'6" player as Shooting Guard, etc. Talent is where you find it when it's available to you.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Not very likely ... when you've assumed your way to your conclusion. You've assumed that Lillard/McCollum are somehow both seriously deficient defensively (that's one of the key assumptions for your entire argument),

No, I haven't assumed that at all. Lillard is a good defender at PG. McCollum has turned into a below-average defender at the SG position, and his lack of size is a major vulnerability. In combination, that's a below average defensive backcourt -- nearly 1.11 PPP is terrible.

News flash ... good players get paid. You're always going to have that problem of having to fill out the rest of the roster around the two or three guys who are making (near-)max coin. I don't see "oh my gosh, if Sexton and Garland are good, we're going to have to pay them five years from now!" as a very compelling argument. If anything, I hope that they do both earn max contracts. That's the kind of problem we want to have.

I think having too much talent in the backcourt but not enough in the frontcourt, or vice-versa, is less than optimal.

I'd rather take the talent and sort out positional fit later. This isn't like casting for a movie, where you need a 6'2" guy to play the role of Point Guard, and a 6'6" player as Shooting Guard, etc. Talent is where you find it when it's available to you.

As I said, I'm not complaining about the drafting of Garland. I'm simply saying that the pairing is so unlikely to work in the long-term that we're better off moving one or the other by the end of the season so we don't invest too much time, and too many draft picks, in building a roster around a pairing that won't work.