2019 NBA Draft Lottery

[dark2332]

I don't think it's even close. If Garland played all season he would be taken at#2. Kyrie only played a handful of college games, but it was at high profile Duke.
The Pelicans have put the#4 pick up for bid. I would consider trading Sexton for that pick. Because Garland is going to be better. Then we still have the 5th pick to use.

Sexton just shot over 40% from 3 as an NBA rookie. He also improved drastically over the season’s second half and basically became a walking 20+ points—efficiently—for the last 30 or so games.

He’s adept at getting to the line, and some of his passing issues can be attributed to the fact that the Cavaliers didn’t even run any type of true offense.

Combine his work ethic with John Beilein’s teaching and that combination could be special.

Now, Garland played basically 4 college games. He shot well against inferior opponents, but he didn’t really show an ability to get to the free throw line. His shooting numbers are likely unsustainable.

Even if they were sustainable—given where Sexton has transformed himself as a shooter in a single season through hard work and getting shots up—you have to think that trend is going to continue.

Both are scoring guards. One has done it effectively in the NBA and the other hasn’t. Neither has been stout defensively. Sexton is a better athlete and you already know he’s a gym rat. There can’t possibly be anything seen in Garland right now that should make you feel comfortable swapping the two of them.

Everyone always wants the next shiny toy, but I think you’re going to see a massive leap from Sexton in year two. I’m talking a clear 20-22 ppg scorer this season who will be improved defensively as well as better at setting up teammates.

If the Cavs think Garland is going to be great, sure, take him. However, that doesn’t mean Sexton needs dealt. Wait until you see what you have in each of them.

 

[WannaBstud]

I would be all for drafting Garland, but I am not trading Sexton.

I think Cavs made a good pick at 8. Let’s see if they can make the right one this year.

 

[AussieCavFan]

I don't think it's even close. If Garland played all season he would be taken at#2. Kyrie only played a handful of college games, but it was at high profile Duke.
The Pelicans have put the#4 pick up for bid. I would consider trading Sexton for that pick. Because Garland is going to be better. Then we still have the 5th pick to use.

Why would NOP trade 4 for Sexton if Garland is supposedly going to be better?

 

[AussieCavFan]

I would be all for drafting Garland, but I am not trading Sexton.

I think Cavs made a good pick at 8. Let’s see if they can make the right one this year.

This is why drafting Garland is not a great idea for me, unless Garland is so obviously better than the next best prospect available which I don't believe he is.

Sexton is going to be a good player for us but I don't think he has incredible trade value right now. At least it's not enough to make having Garland and what we get in return for Sexton be more valuable than us having Sexton and Culver (for example) or trading back to a team desperate for Garland.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't think it's even close. If Garland played all season he would be taken at#2. Kyrie only played a handful of college games, but it was at high profile Duke.
The Pelicans have put the#4 pick up for bid. I would consider trading Sexton for that pick. Because Garland is going to be better. Then we still have the 5th pick to use.

If Garland is so much better than Sexton, why would the Pels give us the No. 4/Garland for Sexton? Why wouldn't they just draft and keep Garland?

 

[inliner311]

Some of the blog sites are suggesting the Bull and Cavs swap picks and Clarkson and Lavine if Garland falls to #5.

Zach Lavine is only 24 and I think he is a much better player than Clarkson. I think he is on a proper contract for his production at 19 million a year. Cavs still will get their shot at one of Culver, Hunter, or Reddish at #7.

If Culver gets taken at #4 that might be the best offer we get for #5.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is why drafting Garland is not a great idea for me, unless Garland is so obviously better than the next best prospect available which I don't believe he is.

Sexton is going to be a good player for us but I don't think he has incredible trade value right now. At least it's not enough to make having Garland and what we get in return for Sexton be more valuable than us having Sexton and Culver (for example) or trading back to a team desperate for Garland.

If Garland is truly that much better than anyone else available at that slot, then some other team ought to be willing to pay a premium to trade up for him.

If nobody is...then perhaps the assumption he is that much better is wrong.

 

[catfish]

People on this board continue to not believe what is right in front of them and was basically told to you by Vardin day after lottery. Cavs like Reddish 2nd Garland first

 

[catfish]

If Garland is truly that much better than anyone else available at that slot, then some other team ought to be willing to pay a premium to trade up for him.

If nobody is...then perhaps the assumption he is that much better is wrong.

That is bogus logic if there is a player at our draft position that we like a lot better than all the others then we should just take him. This is not the NFL where you look at the whole draft. In the NBA the draft essentially is detemined by your top pick.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Some of the blog sites are suggesting the Bull and Cavs swap picks and Clarkson and Lavine if Garland falls to #5.

Zach Lavine is only 24 and I think he is a much better player than Clarkson. I think he is on a proper contract for his production at 19 million a year. Cavs still will get their shot at one of Culver, Hunter, or Reddish at #7.

If Culver gets taken at #4 that might be the best offer we get for #5.

I think Lavine is too poor a defender to be worth what he is getting paid.

 

[NMCav]

I want no part of Lavine.

 

[AussieCavFan]

People on this board continue to not believe what is right in front of them and was basically told to you by Vardin day after lottery. Cavs like Reddish 2nd Garland first

You can find sources linking us to just about every player. If Vardon did manage to obtain this information I'd say it is just as likely a come and get me call to opposition GM's regarding Garland as it is us announcing Garland is our most likely selected.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Some have argued that there is no harm in giving Sexton and Garland a year together in the backcourt because if it doesn't work out...so what? We weren't contending anyway.

I think that's flawed. I don't believe teams view developmental years as throwaways, where a year wasted on a failed experiment is no big deal. Nor should they.

A pairing that doesn't work will hinder the development of both players. It will create needless conflict, confusion of roles, and neither guy will progress as they should. As a consequence, you'll have a more difficult time evaluating correctly both players.

Sexton and whomever we draft this year are going to be our two most valuable assets. Prioritizing their proper development is a critical goal for this season.

So my thought is that if you believe a pairing is unlikely to work, don't waste your time trying to pound that square peg into a round hole. Instead, make whatever trades you need to make to avoid putting yourself in that position if possible.

 

[NMCav]

Some have argued that there is no harm in giving Sexton and Garland a year together in the backcourt because if it doesn't work out...so what? We weren't contending anyway.

I think that's flawed. I don't believe teams view developmental years as throwaways, where a year wasted on a failed experiment is no big deal. Nor should they.

A pairing that doesn't work will hinder the development of both players. It will create needless conflict, confusion of roles, and neither guy will progress as they should. As a consequence, you'll have a more difficult time evaluating correctly both players.

So my thought is that if you believe a pairing is unlikely to work, don't waste your time trying to pound that square peg into a round hole. Instead, make whatever trades you need to make to avoid putting yourself in that position if possible.

People said Lillard and McCollum wouldn't work. They got to the Western Conference Finals. I think they can work together in the right system. If the team thinks Garland is the player who has the most upside take him and make it work. Beilein likes using a system with a lot of ball movement. Garland and Sexton can both plan on or off the ball. Sexton proved last year he can improve in areas that need improvement. Garland has similar strengths to Sexton which is worrisome. But much like Lillard and McCollum if both players buy into playing with each other it could work out. Also means we also have 1 electric scoring guard on the court at all times. Sexton - Garland could start then through out the game when one subs out the other subs in. Then end games together. NBA is getting smaller and smaller. Fred Van Vleet and Kyle Lowry just closed out the NBA Finals playing next to each other. Both are smaller then Sexton and Garland.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Lowry and VanVleet are both better defenders than Garland and Sexton.

 

[NMCav]

Lowry and VanVleet are both better defenders than Garland and Sexton.

Garland and Sexton are also both young. Lowry and Van Vleet weren't even in the NBA at Sexton or Garlands age. Sexton and Garland are both athletic enough to be at least competent defenders down the line. Sexton and Garland both also have higher offensive upside then either Lowry or Van Vleet. Wasn't comparing them to Lowry/Van Vleet/Lillard/McCollum game wise. Was just pointing out that smaller backcourts can work if you use the players the right way. Hopefully Bickerstaff can develop Sexton's defense because clearly last year nothing helped improve that side of his game.