Isaiah Hartenstein: wowing people in Vegas

[adam81king]

His agent likely said that he'd just go overseas if he was tendered, and the Cavs judged him to be serious.

Even then, tender him a QO, and if he ever comes back, the Cavaliers get first crack. Pretty sure the Cavaliers still have the rights to Semih Erden and Ante Zizic for that very reason...

 

[weepinwillow]

Even then, tender him a QO, and if he ever comes back, the Cavaliers get first crack. Pretty sure the Cavaliers still have the rights to Semih Erden and Ante Zizic for that very reason...

BRING BACK SEMIH

 

[inliner311]

His agent likely said that he'd just go overseas if he was tendered, and the Cavs judged him to be serious.

His agent might have said he had an offer overseas to try to set the floor for the negotiations and it backfired because it was too high.

 

[bigfoot5415]

BRING BACK SEMIH

There are people who still post here that were advocating for more time for Semih and were convinced that he was our franchise center.

Fun fact: while Allie was interviewing Cedi, his name came up when asking what Cedi knew about Cleveland. Allie Clifton argued that Semih never played here.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Even then, tender him a QO, and if he ever comes back, the Cavaliers get first crack. Pretty sure the Cavaliers still have the rights to Semih Erden and Ante Zizic for that very reason...

The problem is that teams often don't put in bids on RFA's at all because they expect them to be matched, and don't want to tie up.the money. So, the net effect of a tender is to depress the amount the player would actually get on the open market. Designating a guy like Hartenstein who has legit overseas offers may just mean that he never comes back.

Of course, you could always argue that result is better than him playing for someone else, but with a rotational guy like Hartenstein as opposed to a star, the Cavs may not want to be perceived as dicks.

 

[Man Called X]

The problem is that teams often don't put in bids on RFA's at all because they expect them to be matched, and don't want to tie up.the money. So, the net effect of a tender is to depress the amount the player would actually get on the open market. Designating a guy like Hartenstein who has legit overseas offers may just mean that he never comes back.

Of course, you could always argue that result is better than him playing for someone else, but with a rotational guy like Hartenstein as opposed to a star, the Cavs may not want to be perceived as dicks.

I couldn't care less about how players perceive the organization. Lowry once said he would never play for an owner like Dan Gilbert after the Letter, then accepted an offer that Houston matched the next fucking year.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I couldn't care less about how players perceive the organization. Lowry once said he would never play for an owner like Dan Gilbert after the Letter, then accepted an offer that Houston matched the next fucking year.

There's no reason to piss off players needlessly, which is very different from doing something that really helps the franchise and happens to piss someone off. I'm not saying we should materially disadvantage ourselves just so we don't piss off a player. But this is one of the more borderline cases. Here's what I'm thinking:

Cavs get told by Hartenstein's agent that if they tender him, he's leaving for Europe and likely not coming back. Maybe they call his bluff, but exactly where does that get them considering it probably isn't a bluff at all? If he ever does decide to come back, he's going to be pissed at the Cavs. So he signs a one-year tender, then he's gone. And that's likely best case, because he's just the kind of guy who may stay in Europe for 10 years. Not just to be a dick, but because he's not your average American fleeing to Europe because he couldn't get a contract here. He actually lived and played in Europe for nearly a decade. And if he does that, the Cavs get nothing out of it at all.

So instead, they figure its better to cultivate a positive relationship with the player and his agent by not tendering, letting him see what he can get in the open market, and trying to sign him them. You can argue either way on whether or not that's the right thing to do. But I do think it's certainly reasonably debatable and not something that means our FO are simply idiots.

 

[bs80]

There's no reason to piss off players needlessly, which is very different from doing something that really helps the franchise and happens to piss someone off. I'm not saying we should materially disadvantage ourselves just so we don't piss off a player. But this is one of the more borderline cases. Here's what I'm thinking:

100% agree, no need to generate any ill will with anyone over Hartenstein.

Cavs get told by Hartenstein's agent that if they tender him, he's leaving for Europe and likely not coming back. Maybe they call his bluff, but exactly where does that get them? If he ever does decide to come back, he's going to be pissed at the Cavs. So he signs a one-year tender, then he's gone. And that's likely best case, because he's just the kind of guy who may stay in Europe for 10 years. Not just to be a dick, but because he's not your average American fleeing to Europe because he couldn't get a contract here. He actually lived and played in Europe for nearly a decade. And if he does that, the Cavs get nothing out of it at all.

You mentioned in an earlier post that his agent may have used a threat of playing in Europe but it still didn't make much sense to me until you elaborated on that.

If that is what actually transpired, then I think it makes the agent/player look more like dicks than we would look had we extended the QO anyway. Most veterans that made it in this league at one point had to pay their dues with RFA, and would probably wonder who the fuck IH thinks he is to make such a demand.

So instead, they figure its better to cultivate a positive relationship with the player and his agent by not tendering, letting him see what he can get in the open market, and trying to sign him them. You can argue either way on whether or not that's the right thing to do. But I do think it's certainly reasonably debatable and not something that means our FO are simply idiots.

I certainly appreciate your theory here, as it is the only one that makes sense to me. In the end, if we re-sign him on a 1 or a 1+1 deal for a little more than he would've gotten as a RFA, then no harm done to anyone besides Dan's wallet. If Dan is cool with buying a little goodwill, then good for us.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If that is what actually transpired, then I think it makes the agent/player look more like dicks than we would look had we extended the QO anyway. Most veterans that made it in this league at one point had to pay their dues with RFA, and would probably wonder who the fuck IH thinks he is to make such a demand.

I'm not so sure about that. It's not like either Hartenstein or his agent are necessarily posturing -- he's in a pretty unique situation given his unusual comfort level with playing/living in Europe. So it's not a guy petulantly making a threat -- it's just an honest information flow. "Just to let you know, if you guys tender him, he's going to play in Europe where he can make more than the tender. Your choice."

I mean, suppose they hadn't said anything. The Cavs tender him, he doesn't sign, and he chooses to go to Europe. Does that really put the Cavs in a better position considering he's a guy who may actually choose to stay there?

 

[Cavatt]

Still sort of mysterious. He was very good defensively and he finished much better as a Cav than he had in previous spots. His playmaking looked brand new and unlocked.

He was one of those guys I thought the Cavs actually found for less than nothing. I wish we could understand the reasoning. If they can end up signing him even for 2 yr 6M I would be really into it. I keep thinking he didn't fit in or something

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Still sort of mysterious. He was very good defensively and he finished much better as a Cav than he had in previous spots. His playmaking looked brand new and unlocked.

He was one of those guys I thought the Cavs actually found for less than nothing. I wish we could understand the reasoning. If they can end up signing him even for 2 yr 6M I would be really into it. I keep thinking he didn't fit in or something

It's odd. I agree that he looked pretty good -- certainly NBA backup-center quality. Maybe they just figured they didn't have the minutes, and didn't want to cock-block him from getting a payday somewhere else.

 

[Man Called X]

A little birdie told me he was bluffing about his euro contract offers, overplayed his hand, and now he's stuck trying to find a spot.

 

[daytripper]

I couldn't care less about how players perceive the organization. Lowry once said he would never play for an owner like Dan Gilbert after the Letter, then accepted an offer that Houston matched the next fucking year.

Lowry signed that RFA offer sheet with the Cavs the next week after LeBron left the first time in 2010.

 

[JJ_PR]

Was watching some Hartenstein clips, man we need to bring him back.

Just give him the full MLE, 4 years, $35 million.

 

[adam81king]

Was watching some Hartenstein clips, man we need to bring him back.

Just give him the full MLE, 4 years, $35 million.

Pretty sure that makes the Cavaliers a Luxury Tax team...and would also be a vast overpay. I'm a Hartenstein fan, but with the gaping hole at SF, wasting a chance to have him for $2.2M, and not being a contending team, I can't get on board with paying the dude $9M per.