He may be 33 but since Dec. 1 he's hitting 54% from the field and an astonishing 46.7% on 3's. I'd love to slot him in next to Garland. But why would they trade a really good player making $18 million this year for a guy who can't play and is making $18 million? I suppose the answer would be that they would rather not have him on the team next year than pay him $19.6 M in '20-'22. The Cavs would have to make the cap space to pay him that next year.
Are you saying that even if the Rockets offered Gordon and draft picks for Rubio's expiring you would turn it down?
He may be 33 but since Dec. 1 he's hitting 54% from the field and an astonishing 46.7% on 3's. I'd love to slot him in next to Garland. But why would they trade a really good player making $18 million this year for a guy who can't play and is making $18 million? I suppose the answer would be that they would rather not have him on the team next year than pay him $19.6 M in '20-'22. The Cavs would have to make the cap space to pay him that next year.
It seems the Rockets are not in the mood to trade Gordon. From The Athletic on Jan. 24:
One name that has been generating a good deal of interest is shooting guard Eric Gordon. The 33-year old is enjoying a bit of a renaissance campaign, shooting a career-best 45.2 percent from 3-point range, and has brought some stability and much-needed professionalism to a young Houston team. The Rockets have received a number of offers for the veteran wing, sources tell The Athletic, but all have been turned down. Barring an offer that simply can’t be ignored, it’s becoming more likely that Gordon remains in Houston past the deadline. There is a good deal of internal admiration for how Gordon carries himself on and off the floor and the work ethic he shows on a daily basis, characteristics the staff is trying to impart on some of their younger players. They are in no rush to ship him away, a much different situation than the one involving Tucker last season.
But the column also says:
The Rockets have made it clear what their priorities are right now: Continue to develop their young backcourt of Jalen Green and Kevin Porter Jr., as well as the other young players around them.
So is it worth paying a 34-year-old Gordon $19.6 million next year if their "priority" is to develop the Green/Porter backcourt and they realisticallly are not going to be a playoff team in '22-'23, which is the final year they're obligated to pay him?
According to sporran.com, the Cavs will have $13.9 million in "practical cap space" next year.
NBA 2022-2023 Cap Tracker
A real-time look at the salary cap totals for each NBA team, including estimated cap space, positional spending, and cap types.www.spotrac.com
That does not include Sexton, who is a restricted free agent, or Rubio, Rondo, and Ed Davis. Just signing Sexton would put us over the cap. I don't see how we can afford a nearly $20 million player next year even if the Rockets would trade him. We'll also have a first round pick, although much less costly than what we've been drafting lately.
Galrand's a max player. He'll get that offer from Cavs or another team.
We've been choking on those cupcakes lately, almost losing to New York and OKC. But after a couple of games to adjust to Marky being out I'm hopeful they will get back to the level they were playing before he was hurt, or very close to it.
That’s the line Koby has to walk. Is it worth it to move valuable assets and or trade capital for a short term fix that may not be a good fit in a year or two?
I'm inclined to keep and extend Sexton. This year he agreed to change his game to be more of an off-the-ball player instead of running the offense. This is exactly what he needs to do. Knowing how relentlessly Sexton works on his game I have little doubt he'll be just as effective a scorer working off the ball as he was last year when he dominated the ball.
If there's any short-term moves to be made with Rubio's expiring, second round picks, etc. (and isn't there still some kind of exception for JaVale McGee?) then I'm fine with it. I'm nervous about how hard we're leaning on DG, feels like we're running him hard and putting him away wet on the regular.
I think they might come to something that is in the mutual best interest of both the team and of Sexton. Sexton needs a few show-me/make-good seasons to re-establish his value after he rehabs, and if that proves to help the Cavs move to the next level it helps everybody. I wouldn't be surprised to see a shorter term deal (maybe 3 years) that keeps Sexton in a comfortable financial range for both him and the team while they determine how and where he fits on this roster, or anyone's roster for that matter.
I'm not sure where the confidence that Sexton will become a completely different player, and happily accept a bench role, comes from, but suffice to say, I don't share it. It strikes me that there's a good deal of supposition, if not outright wish casting here. It's fine to hope for the best, but it's really unwise to pay players based on the most optimistic projections you can come up with for them when the evidence of them getting there is scant at best.
There is information out there indicating both sides are in positive agreement and Sexton is on board to move forward in whatever role it is that the Cavs need him to fill.
