-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
Let it all out. The Cavaliers Rant Thread
- Thread starter Funny Man Rocco
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 14,898
- Reaction score
- 41,664
- Points
- 148
He’s a president of basketball operations how much more upstairs does he need to be kicked?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,271
- Reaction score
- 33,583
- Points
- 148
Chairman of the bored.
foucault87
All-Star
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 7,178
- Reaction score
- 9,491
- Points
- 113
Head of PR
Jscc
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2015
- Messages
- 17,557
- Reaction score
- 18,976
- Points
- 123
I like this roster, and the depth has shown up when needed, but we don't have a guy that can maximize it. I'm slowly consigning myself to Mitchell leaving. And I don't blame him.
If a guy is going to play me 42 minutes on the first night of a back to back while knowing I have been dealing with knee problems while other capable players rot on the bench, then %$&% him, he doesn't have anyone's best interests except his own in mind. Then this same clown tells the media it's the player's effort that was the problem after every loss. I'm not playing for a FO that thinks that's okay.
JMoneyYourHoney
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- May 28, 2015
- Messages
- 6,301
- Reaction score
- 10,586
- Points
- 123
You make that move if you’re 1 piece away from legit contention…not when you’ve had your first season of <.500 basketball since the GOAT and you’re rushing the development of a bunch of kids you’re unsure of.
It was absolutely reckless and harebrained, and nobody here will be singing that tune when Mitchell dips after another playoff disappointment…unless you want to stubbornly die on a hill.
Last edited:
foucault87
All-Star
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 7,178
- Reaction score
- 9,491
- Points
- 113
This is exactly what prompted my last post...
JMoneyYourHoney
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- May 28, 2015
- Messages
- 6,301
- Reaction score
- 10,586
- Points
- 123
Your last post is exactly what prompted my last post.
foucault87
All-Star
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 7,178
- Reaction score
- 9,491
- Points
- 113
And now your last post prompted this one
Thelastcavsfan
Situational Stopper
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2024
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 432
- Points
- 63
The Mitchell trade is similar to Watson. If you’re the browns you make that deal 10/10 times because you think you’re one player away. He just happened to not be that good. Cavs aren’t close to competing for a title. You make that trade 2/10 times.
inliner311
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 12,799
- Reaction score
- 13,565
- Points
- 123
While I know we got the best player in the trade. He didn't solve any fit issues. The other part of it is Koby strength has been is finding SGs in all shapes and sizes. It is currently the spot where we have the most depth and usable talent.
I just don't think it's a spot where you go and spend a lot of assets to go trade for a player if you have a eye for talent in that area. We still have a hole at SF and if Mobley doesn't develop like we want him we have a hole at PF.
Mitchell is a great player but I think Koby would have had an easier time saving the assets and going after a different target at a later date. Garland and Mobley need more development. Also the roster is suited to bring in a star at a different position.
Lauri Markkanen may not be at the level of Mitchell but he probably helps to solve some issues with Mobley and Allen. At worse he would have been part of a 3 man rotation with Mobley and Allen if they couldn't figure out the triple towers further.
Kouki
Kouki, Not Cookie.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 10,847
- Reaction score
- 11,306
- Points
- 123
It was certainly a risk/reward that hasn't exactly panned out the way we wanted.
The good, optimistic hypothetical was that DM would ensure we get more playoff exposure, accelerating the development of the young guys. But also taking pressure off them in the regular season so they can develop in that regard. ofc much different situation but Kyrie and TT only had three seasons under their belts before we got LeBron. I don't think Kyrie and TT's development were held back by LeBron.
Also there's the thought that any time you are able to get a top 15 player, or however highly you want to rate DM, you do it. NBA is an asset-driven league, DM is a great asset.
You also can't say that its a foregone conclusion that we'd be a playoff team without DM, and that a frontcourt of LM/EM/JA would carry us. Mobley and JA have not played well together this year. Is that because other teams have figured out how to defend them, or some other reason?
If I'm starting from scratch though, I sure would like my lead "point guard" or "combo guard" or rather "smallest player on the court with a high usage" to be 6'3 with a 6'10 wingspan, excellent athleticism, and built like a brick shithouse, as opposed to Garland, even if DM's not as "pure" of a PG.
But the story is not over yet...
The good, optimistic hypothetical was that DM would ensure we get more playoff exposure, accelerating the development of the young guys. But also taking pressure off them in the regular season so they can develop in that regard. ofc much different situation but Kyrie and TT only had three seasons under their belts before we got LeBron. I don't think Kyrie and TT's development were held back by LeBron.
Also there's the thought that any time you are able to get a top 15 player, or however highly you want to rate DM, you do it. NBA is an asset-driven league, DM is a great asset.
You also can't say that its a foregone conclusion that we'd be a playoff team without DM, and that a frontcourt of LM/EM/JA would carry us. Mobley and JA have not played well together this year. Is that because other teams have figured out how to defend them, or some other reason?
If I'm starting from scratch though, I sure would like my lead "point guard" or "combo guard" or rather "smallest player on the court with a high usage" to be 6'3 with a 6'10 wingspan, excellent athleticism, and built like a brick shithouse, as opposed to Garland, even if DM's not as "pure" of a PG.
But the story is not over yet...
I still think the trade was the right thing. A core of DG, Mobley, Allen & Lauri wasn't going anywhere beyond the play-in or maybe a 6 seed. We would have been just good enough to keep us from getting a high draft pick, so giving up all the 1st rounders isn't like we were likely giving up a future star. We would be in the same position Utah is in now and for the foreseeable future - too good to tank and not good enough to compete. DM is much, much, more dynamic that Laurie and has elevated this team to the point that we would have hosted a playoff series 2 year in a row had DM not gotten hurt (and still could). Worst case scenario is DM forces his way out. But, even then, the way he has elevated the Cavs means his trade value is going to be high and we should get a good return for him. I don't know if this trade is going to result in the levels of success we hoped it would (that has always depended on Mobley becoming a star), but I think it was the right move.
Kouki
Kouki, Not Cookie.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 10,847
- Reaction score
- 11,306
- Points
- 123
ETA if Mobley developed more of his offensive game, Koby would look like a f'ing genius. If you want to call the trade a failure then I would point to the coach and the lack of improvement from Mobley as to why it was a failure. The success of this team as built still hinges on Mobley becoming a more well rounded player, and the coach...well...doing less bad things.