2023-24 Season | Game #64 | Nets @ Cavs | March 10, 2024 | 7:00 p.m.

[Pierre Pan]

Niang’s had back to back solid games when pressed into the starting lineup— 20 tonight and 16 against the TWolves. It’s really hard to comprehend this loss against the Nets. Our very same lineup that beat the #1 team in the West albeit without Dean Wade tonight just got blown out by a sub .500 team on the second night of their back to back. Throw in the fact that Dean Wade didn’t score a single point in the TWolves win and was a -25 for the night; our only starter that was a negative. So basically he was a warm body that does provide some chemistry and can contribute in other ways (and offensively on occasion). Our bench contributed 35 points last night vs 21 against the Wolves, which was due to them getting more minutes but they lost 15 points from Caris who moved into starting duty. We lost a bunch of points from DG and JA, but the main difference was our defensive effort and we were outrebounded by 9 by the Nets where we were +1 against Minny.

It‘s just become way too common of an occurrence to spit the bit against teams significantly below us in the standings and with as many injuries as us

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

Merrill was 1-for-7 on 3's, missing a number of wide open, uncontested 3's. The Nets were 18-for-35 on 3's, including three WTF heaves that went in.

The T-Wolves were 1-for-19 on 3's except for Naz Reid, who was 7-for-11. So the Nets made 10 more 3's than the Timberwolves - a 30-point difference. Brooklyn is an average 3-point team, ranking 14th at 36.9%. Last night they hit over 50%. They were unusually hot while the T-Wolves were cold, making just 27%.

The Cavs scored more points in regulation against the Nets, 101 to 97, but the Nets' red hot 3-point shooting was the difference.

 

[CavsKermit]

Garland hasn't been playing great all year, yet you seem to think I'm only talking about the last couple of games for some reason. Garland's a max contract player. I guess we shouldn't expect more out of him lol

First off, Garland has played well. He's been injured and playing on a team that's been injury riddled all season. If his teammates weren't slumping, he'd be averaging at least two more assists a game.

What I'm seeing is that fans, who don't appreciate the difference between a rookie scale max deal and guys who take up 35% of the cap, expect perfection. If he has 10 assists and 4 turnovers in a game, all people focus on is the 4 turnovers.

I've listened to fans complain that *superstars* can carry a team, including apparently a team missing its best player and role players (as though only superstars get max contracts in the NBA). I'll say it plainly, fans who don't think Garland is worth his contract, or that Mikal Bridges is better, have no idea what they're talking about.

LeVert hasn't had a couple of bad games, he's been just brutal since the allstar break. A huge part of the value he brings is as injury insurance and he's outright failing at that. There are far better sixth men in the NBA, but part of the idea behind re-signing LeVert is that he could step in when injuries hit without us experiencing the extreme drop-off we're all currently witnessing.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

First off, Garland has played well. He's been injured and playing on a team that's been injury riddled all season. If his teammates weren't slumping, he'd be averaging at least two more assists a game.

What I'm seeing is that fans, who don't appreciate the difference between a rookie scale max deal and guys who take up 35% of the cap, expect perfection. If he has 10 assists and 4 turnovers in a game, all people focus on is the 4 turnovers.

I've listened to fans complain that *superstars* can carry a team, including apparently a team missing its best player and role players (as though only superstars get max contracts in the NBA). I'll say it plainly, fans who don't think Garland is worth his contract, or that Mikal Bridges is better, have no idea what they're talking about.

LeVert hasn't had a couple of bad games, he's been just brutal since the allstar break. A huge part of the value he brings is as injury insurance and he's outright failing at that. There are far better sixth men in the NBA, but part of the idea behind re-signing LeVert is that he could step in when injuries hit without us experiencing the extreme drop-off we're all currently witnessing.

How would you back up Garland being a better player than Bridges? Shooting is about equal at this point, but Mikel’s a significantly better and more versatile defender, a better rebounder, better finisher around the basket, etc. Bridges at $20M is better than Garland at $35M, and he doesn’t duplicate a skillset our best player has.

Look at it this way: Allen made one ASG as well. He’s ranked higher at his position than Garland. He’s on a great contract, but if Allen was making $35M/year or more, we’d expect way more out of him than he gives.

 

[CavsKermit]

How would you back up Garland being a better player than Bridges? Shooting is about equal at this point, but Mikel’s a significantly better and more versatile defender, a better rebounder, better finisher around the basket, etc. Bridges at $20M is better than Garland at $35M, and he doesn’t duplicate a skillset our best player has.

Look at it this way: Allen made one ASG as well. He’s ranked higher at his position than Garland. He’s on a great contract, but if Allen was making $35M/year or more, we’d expect way more out of him than he gives.

Bridges will be cheaper than Garland for two more seasons and then will be unrestricted free agent. At that point, he'll get a vet max offer from some team whether he deserves it or not.

Bridges has demonstrated zero ability to create his own offense or break down a defense. His handle, floor vision, and passing skills just aren't there.

Also, while his defense is better than Garland's due to size, he's pretty overrated on that front. He hasn't demonstrated an ability to frustrate the other team's best player in the postseason. He can't switch onto better guards without getting cooked.

This was the season where he was going to show he could be a no. 1, or at least a 1a, option, and due to his performance, most front offices have questions as to whether he can even be a second option on a contender. He's a really good role player on a team-friendly contract for two more seasons. If Mitchell extends this summer, I fully expect the Nets to trade him while the latter is still the case.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

Bridges will be cheaper than Garland for two more seasons and then will be unrestricted free agent. At that point, he'll get a vet max offer from some team whether he deserves it or not.

Bridges has demonstrated zero ability to create his own offense or break down a defense. His handle, floor vision, and passing skills just aren't there.

Also, while his defense is better than Garland's due to size, he's pretty overrated on that front. He hasn't demonstrated an ability to frustrate the other team's best player in the postseason. He can't switch onto better guards without getting cooked.

So based on your assessment, we should be able to trade Garland for Bridges and DFS? Or Garland and Niang for Bridges and Cam Johnson? If so, sign me up…lol

Can Garland switch onto better guards without getting cooked? What would Garland look like defensively without Mobley and Allen behind him?

This was the season where he was going to show he could be a no. 1, or at least a 1a, option, and due to his performance, most front offices have questions as to whether he can even be a second option on a contender. He's a really good role player on a team-friendly contract for two more seasons. If Mitchell extends this summer, I fully expect the Nets to trade him while the latter is still the case.

I honestly didn’t realize you were talking about Bridges here until I got to the last line. I thought it was about Garland…lol

 

[CavsKermit]

So based on your assessment, we should be able to trade Garland for Bridges and DFS? Or Garland and Niang for Bridges and Cam Johnson? If so, sign me up…lol

Can Garland switch onto better guards without getting cooked? What would Garland look like defensively without Mobley and Allen behind him?



I honestly didn’t realize you were talking about Bridges here until I got to the last line. I thought it was about Garland…lol

I mean I conceded that Garland wasn't as useful as Bridges defensively, but you can get everything Bridges gives you on that end from Dean Wade. Bridges isn't O.G. He's not locking up, or even slowing down, the other team's best player.

My point is you'd be losing a lot more on the offensive end than you'd gain on defense in that swap. This is particularly true in the playoffs when the other team assigns a Derrick White or O.G. to Mitchell and no one else on the roster can break down the defense. You're going to stall out.

You know who else seems to appreciate this - Mitchell. He spent all those years on the Jazz as the only genuine offensive threat.

I really feel like fans of this team would do well to read fan boards of other teams.

 

[shoes22]

Wrong thread!

 

[buzzdog]

Niang’s had back to back solid games when pressed into the starting lineup— 20 tonight and 16 against the TWolves. It’s really hard to comprehend this loss against the Nets. Our very same lineup that beat the #1 team in the West albeit without Dean Wade tonight just got blown out by a sub .500 team on the second night of their back to back. Throw in the fact that Dean Wade didn’t score a single point in the TWolves win and was a -25 for the night; our only starter that was a negative. So basically he was a warm body that does provide some chemistry and can contribute in other ways (and offensively on occasion). Our bench contributed 35 points last night vs 21 against the Wolves, which was due to them getting more minutes but they lost 15 points from Caris who moved into starting duty. We lost a bunch of points from DG and JA, but the main difference was our defensive effort and we were outrebounded by 9 by the Nets where we were +1 against Minny.

It‘s just become way too common of an occurrence to spit the bit against teams significantly below us in the standings and with as many injuries as us

Last year we beat the bad teams and lost to the good teams in the league. People complained. Now it's kind of the opposite problem, playing tough and winning our share against the good teams, playing flat against teams we should beat.

Which would you rather have?

 

[2 For The Brew]

Last year we beat the bad teams and lost to the good teams in the league. People complained. Now it's kind of the opposite problem, playing tough and winning our share against the good teams, playing flat against teams we should beat.

Which would you rather have?

People will bitch either way so it doesn’t matter.