2020 Offseason

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

ansatsusha80

I'm from the Land
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
744
Reaction score
939
Points
93
Yeah I think it will be tough to get to the playoffs. With brooklyn being better and people underestimating Orlando, it seems easier than it really is because Indy, Bucks, Celts, Raps, Miami, Brooklyn, Philly are all virtual locks barring catastrophic injury. Is Philly the worst of the top 7? I mean I think there is one spot that might be possible.

I think you are right that the goal should be teams being annoyed at how hard the Cavs play, and stealing games from good teams sometimes. Be that late lottery team that jumps into the top 4 if you are lucky an try to build winning habits so guys can learn to win game. I will say, I think the young guys came a long way during the season as far as playing the right way in close games and they won some of them. Build on that.


I think,if we can fight for the last spot with Orlando or be the 9th or 10th seed,along with getting better with each game, I think that's a success in my book....

Maybe,next lottery we'll a top 4 pick,if things goes that way,epecially, when next year's draft is supposed to be very deep...
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
21,511
Reaction score
22,472
Points
135
I understand people being underwhelmed by Garland but he should be given more time, I still think he has one of the highest ceilings on the team. For comparative sake, his first two seasons Jamal Murray: 13.3 pts 2.7 asts 43.2 FG% 35.9 3P%. Garlands shot and form are too good not to translate.
I heard this a few times. I looked at the numbers and they are fairly close. Murray is the better rebounder and Darius the better passer. Murray was a 0 Vorp player at 19 though, and garland was negative 1.7 at 20. Garland's inefficiency from 2(mostly finishing), and the lack of ft's really hurt him.

He needs to figure out what to do around the basket. Either get the ball to his bigs, or come up with more creative ways to score there without getting blocked.

The thing that has me positive about Garland is all the guys on the team think he is a big talent and they didn't think that about Sexton. So the question is, are they good at evaluating that talent or not? If they are, he still has lots of untapped potential. Garland himself says he was disappointed in his performance, so he thinks at least he can play a lot better.
 

inliner311

All-Star
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
8,221
Reaction score
7,287
Points
113
I heard this a few times. I looked at the numbers and they are fairly close. Murray is the better rebounder and Darius the better passer. Murray was a 0 Vorp player at 19 though, and garland was negative 1.7 at 20. Garland's inefficiency from 2(mostly finishing), and the lack of ft's really hurt him.

He needs to figure out what to do around the basket. Either get the ball to his bigs, or come up with more creative ways to score there without getting blocked.

The thing that has me positive about Garland is all the guys on the team think he is a big talent and they didn't think that about Sexton. So the question is, are they good at evaluating that talent or not? If they are, he still has lots of untapped potential. Garland himself says he was disappointed in his performance, so he thinks at least he can play a lot better.
Garland is a son of a former NBA PG. He most likely has been taught very well since day 1 to know what the right decisions are. I could see him knowing what he does wrong whenever Vets go to give him advice. That paired with going not full speed in practice could amount to Garland looking like he is real talented. Garland though could have maxed out his natural talent already because of that good coaching. Kyrie was a son of a former professional basketball player, he just has more natural talent than Garland. What I always found interesting about Kyrie was how little his game evolved and that might just be because he didn't have much more untapped talent to get out of him.

I think the difference between Garland and Sexton is the untapped potential. Sexton is a more gifted athlete but I could see his response to Vets being either just nods or saying ok. Garland most likely can give the exact answer a vet wants to hear. I think the question for Garland is how will he look when the game slows down and if there is any extra athleticism that we have yet to see in him. I've brought my expectation down on him because I'm just not sure if he has that elite skill or attribute to be a real good player in the NBA.
 

Murph

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
86
Reaction score
65
Points
18
Garland is a son of a former NBA PG. He most likely has been taught very well since day 1 to know what the right decisions are. I could see him knowing what he does wrong whenever Vets go to give him advice. That paired with going not full speed in practice could amount to Garland looking like he is real talented. Garland though could have maxed out his natural talent already because of that good coaching. Kyrie was a son of a former professional basketball player, he just has more natural talent than Garland. What I always found interesting about Kyrie was how little his game evolved and that might just be because he didn't have much more untapped talent to get out of him.

I think the difference between Garland and Sexton is the untapped potential. Sexton is a more gifted athlete but I could see his response to Vets being either just nods or saying ok. Garland most likely can give the exact answer a vet wants to hear. I think the question for Garland is how will he look when the game slows down and if there is any extra athleticism that we have yet to see in him. I've brought my expectation down on him because I'm just not sure if he has that elite skill or attribute to be a real good player in the NBA.
I think that's a pretty good off the cuff analysis of Garland vs Sexton.

I think the Cavs have to ask themselves whether or not committing to Garland is worth it. Yes, he will certainly improve as he develops and matures, but what is his eventual ceiling going to be? In my opinion, he is starting from such a low level, based on his rookie year, that by year 3 or 4, when his is close to his peak production, he still will not be much better than average. And he will likely never be as good as Sexton. So should the Cavs pay him when his rookie contract comes due?

And then there is the question, do the Cavs really want to commit long term to an undersized backcourt of Garland and Sexton for the next 4 or more years? Together their defensive deficiencies will be significant and almost impossible to improve upon, considering their heights.

IMO, the Cavs would do better to cut their losses early and move in a different direction. This year's draft might not be great, but the one thing it has is a number of intriguing, big, young PGs with a lot of potential. IMO, those point guards have a much higher eventual ceiling than Garland, especially defensively

One poster made a strong argument to draft Haliburton, especially since Hayes has no interest in playing in Cleveland. I agree. Draft Haliburton, and bring Garland off the bench. And if Garland surprises us all, and makes a quantum leap in production and efficiency in year 2, the Cavs still have him under contract and can reconsider again.
 

wildfan

Towel Waver
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
437
Reaction score
104
Points
43
I think that's a pretty good off the cuff analysis of Garland vs Sexton.

I think the Cavs have to ask themselves whether or not committing to Garland is worth it. Yes, he will certainly improve as he develops and matures, but what is his eventual ceiling going to be? In my opinion, he is starting from such a low level, based on his rookie year, that by year 3 or 4, when his is close to his peak production, he still will not be much better than average. And he will likely never be as good as Sexton. So should the Cavs pay him when his rookie contract comes due?

And then there is the question, do the Cavs really want to commit long term to an undersized backcourt of Garland and Sexton for the next 4 or more years? Together their defensive deficiencies will be significant and almost impossible to improve upon, considering their heights.

IMO, the Cavs would do better to cut their losses early and move in a different direction. This year's draft might not be great, but the one thing it has is a number of intriguing, big, young PGs with a lot of potential. IMO, those point guards have a much higher eventual ceiling than Garland, especially defensively

One poster made a strong argument to draft Haliburton, especially since Hayes has no interest in playing in Cleveland. I agree. Draft Haliburton, and bring Garland off the bench. And if Garland surprises us all, and makes a quantum leap in production and efficiency in year 2, the Cavs still have him under contract and can reconsider again.

Reading Exum wants o be in Phoenix and Phoenix also likes him. So trade him plus filler to the Suns for Oubre and lacque, Phoenix is looking for Bridges to be the starter at sf.

pg-Haliburton garland lacque(young development player)
Sf-Oubre or cedi Windler
 

WorldFreeB

Sixth Man
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,735
Points
113
If Exum wants to be in Phoenix he can sign there next year for the vet minimum after his bloated contract expires in Cleveland.
I don't think you could get a bag of basketballs for him,,he's always hurt and when he plays he moves so awkwardly
he looks like he's about to injure himself.
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
21,511
Reaction score
22,472
Points
135
No chance? Reminder that it's Phoenix....
Yeah they love to save money. Maybe it makes sense to get an expiring you can re-sign at a much lower number for a guy you are paying starter money for who won't be starting?

Let me ask you this. Would you trade Garland and Exum for their pick and Oubre? Then you have your wing and you can take Haliburton with 5 and pair him with Sexton? Team looks a lot better and fits better immediately. Porter is forced to find his place in this scenario though.

I like Okoro in the draft, but Oubre would be fine for me. Haliburton is the Perfect guy to maximize Sexton if that is what you want.
 

Los216

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
20,418
Reaction score
18,046
Points
123
Yeah they love to save money. Maybe it makes sense to get an expiring you can re-sign at a much lower number for a guy you are paying starter money for who won't be starting?

Let me ask you this. Would you trade Garland and Exum for their pick and Oubre? Then you have your wing and you can take Haliburton with 5 and pair him with Sexton? Team looks a lot better and fits better immediately. Porter is forced to find his place in this scenario though.

I like Okoro in the draft, but Oubre would be fine for me. Haliburton is the Perfect guy to maximize Sexton if that is what you want.
No. Is Haliburton going to be in the conversation as a top 5-10 PG next season? Nope. Then you don't draft him and trade a guy who plays the same position that you just drafted in the top 5 last season.

And for the record Colin Sexton is not a PG he's a SG.

Darius Garland was the 5th pick in the draft after playing a handful of college games in a rookie season that was cut short by a pandemic. There's just no excuse to trade garland for a PG unless you're getting back an All Star. You can't just tank his value like that.
 
Top