2019 NBA Draft Lottery

[NMCav]

If the Cavs believe Garland and Sexton can play together, then I’m OK with picking him. I’m not the biggest Culver fan, so I would prefer to trade the other pick to Atlanta. We could then slide back and pick Reddish, along with picking up another draft asset.

I'm not a fan of Culver on his own because I believe his best role is as a 3rd playmaker and shutdown defender. I prefer Culver to Reddish because hes more NBA ready and has almost as good upside as Reddish. I prefer Culver to Hunter because of playmaking. If the Cavaliers believe that Sexton and Garland are the future backcourt Culver is the perfect SF to go with them.

 

[inliner311]

I'm not a fan of Culver on his own because I believe his best role is as a 3rd playmaker and shutdown defender. I prefer Culver to Reddish because hes more NBA ready and has almost as good upside as Reddish. I prefer Culver to Hunter because of playmaking. If the Cavaliers believe that Sexton and Garland are the future backcourt Culver is the perfect SF to go with them.

I would be fine with any combo of Reddish, Culver, Hunter, White, and Garland except getting both White and Garland. If Koby can take Garland or White off the board then end up with #6, #8, and #10 with an additional future asset, I think that's the dream scenario. We could use #26 and JRs contract to go after Cam Johnson and Carsen Edwards then we would really have a full rotation for the future.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

While I see the value in moving Love for 4. I just have a hard time seeing it from the Cavs side. You basically are punting on the season ( I know we will be bad anyways) and give the casual fan no "star" type player to come to a game and watch. Unless the Cavs think the updated arena will draw in fans it will be a bad year for ticket sales. The only positive to a move like this is we could be players next summer in FA, or have a ton of cap space to gain assets. I really think Sexton, Cedi and who ever we draft at 5 and 26 would gain a lot from playing with Love. With how wide open the league is this year, if Love does get out to a hot start his value may go up.

I am definitely bias, but last year when Love was not playing the team was unwatchable, when he came back, I actually enjoyed watching the Cavs.

 

[CTownDown]

I would hate to trade Love and get the #8 and #10 picks in return. But I would be ok with trading Love for #4. I'd much rather have picks 4 and 5 than 5, 8 and 10.

 

[inliner311]

While I see the value in moving Love for 4. I just have a hard time seeing it from the Cavs side. You basically are punting on the season ( I know we will be bad anyways) and give the casual fan no "star" type player to come to a game and watch. Unless the Cavs think the updated arena will draw in fans it will be a bad year for ticket sales. The only positive to a move like this is we could be players next summer in FA, or have a ton of cap space to gain assets. I really think Sexton, Cedi and who ever we draft at 5 and 26 would gain a lot from playing with Love. With how wide open the league is this year, if Love does get out to a hot start his value may go up.

I am definitely bias, but last year when Love was not playing the team was unwatchable, when he came back, I actually enjoyed watching the Cavs.

Realistically getting #4 even with this questionable group after the top 3 is probably the most we will get out of Love. Even if he has a hot start, I just can't see another team ever being able to come up with an asset like that. There is already interest from teams to move up so #4 could be broken up to more picks.

 

[dark2332]

Terry Pluto has an interesting article on the possibility of Kevin Love being shipped to New Orleans for the #4 pick with other pieces involved. Griff supposedly loves Kevin and has a close relationship with him off the court. Here’s a possible 3-way deal:

ATL: #4 pick
CLE: #8 & #10 picks, additional protections on 2020 pick owed to Atlanta
NO: Kevin Love

Additional players, like Solomon Hill going to Cleveland, would need to be involved to make the trade work under the salary cap.

If you get #4, you don't trade #4.

You stay at #4 and #5 and take the best two guys on your board and devote all resources into making them better.

 

[I'mWithDan]

If you get #4, you don't trade #4.

You stay at #4 and #5 and take the best two guys on your board and devote all resources into making them better.

I'll disagree here.....why? Because if we want Garland, we know Atlanta is not taking him.

In the Atlanta scenario, the reason it makes sense is you know that they are trading up for Culver / Hunter or Reddish. They're not trading up for Garland.

So the Cavs could add one more pick and still get Garland.......vs. just 4/5.

A: (4) Garland, (5) Culver / Hunter
B: (5) Garland, (8) Whoever is left from Culver / Hunter / Reddish (10) Goga / Clarke / Bol

I absolutely want "B" if given the option. I'd only care about getting #4 if NYK pased on Barrett. If the top 3 is as expected, we are better off with the 8/10 package IMO......if we know ATL is not taking Garland. It's a way to add an additional meaningful young asset to our roster.

 

[jrcross13]

While I see the value in moving Love for 4. I just have a hard time seeing it from the Cavs side. You basically are punting on the season ( I know we will be bad anyways) and give the casual fan no "star" type player to come to a game and watch. Unless the Cavs think the updated arena will draw in fans it will be a bad year for ticket sales. The only positive to a move like this is we could be players next summer in FA, or have a ton of cap space to gain assets. I really think Sexton, Cedi and who ever we draft at 5 and 26 would gain a lot from playing with Love. With how wide open the league is this year, if Love does get out to a hot start his value may go up.

I am definitely bias, but last year when Love was not playing the team was unwatchable, when he came back, I actually enjoyed watching the Cavs.

I remember a few years ago, I lived in Baltimore. The Orioles were tearing down and rebuilding. Everyone knew it and they came up with a brilliant marketing campaign. "The kids are coming to play". They didn't have star power, they didn't have anything, but they marketed it as fun, young rookies that will probably lose, but dang it will be fun watching them try. This actually worked pretty well and they drew good crowds for a rebuilding franchise.

I think the Cavs could do well with that type of youth movement. They may not win a lot this year, but look at all these young kids we have that are going to grown and compete together.

 

[inliner311]

If you get #4, you don't trade #4.

You stay at #4 and #5 and take the best two guys on your board and devote all resources into making them better.

I would agree with you in most drafts but prospects 4-8 could go in any order. The Cavs could really trade down at #4 and #5, while still ending up with the guys they want especially if they have 3 guys close to each other as their 4th-6th guys on their board. In that scenario, getting #10 and maybe the Bucks 2020 pick from the Suns could really help build out the team. #10 could be Goga and the spacing problems from trading Love becomes alot less. Sekou at #10 could be the guy to soak up the PF minutes to give him the chance to develop into the modern PF that most project him as.

 

[NMCav]

I'll disagree here.....why? Because if we want Garland, we know Atlanta is not taking him.

In the Atlanta scenario, the reason it makes sense is you know that they are trading up for Culver / Hunter or Reddish. They're not trading up for Garland.

So the Cavs could add one more pick and still get Garland.......vs. just 4/5.

A: (4) Garland, (5) Culver / Hunter
B: (5) Garland, (8) Whoever is left from Culver / Hunter / Reddish (10) Goga / Clarke Bol

I absolutely want "B" if given the option. I'd only care about getting #4 if NYK pased on Barrett. If the top 3 is as expected, we are better off with the 8/10 package IMO......if we know ATL is not taking Garland. It's a way to add an additional meaningful young asset to our roster.

I go with option A. With Option A you get the top 2 guys on your board. We have another pick at 26 and may or not be trading into the teens with JR Smith's contract. We don't need 4 or 5 rookies. Take who you want at 4 and 5. Then see what happens with JR Smith. Taking the top 2 guys vs taking 1 of your top targets then picking who ever is left.

 

[sailfish]

If you get #4, you don't trade #4.

You stay at #4 and #5 and take the best two guys on your board and devote all resources into making them better.

I disagree. The Cavs are, clearly, rebuilding and in asset accumulation mode. If they know the guy they want can be had at a later spot, why wouldn’t you trade down??

 

[inliner311]

I'll disagree here.....why? Because if we want Garland, we know Atlanta is not taking him.

In the Atlanta scenario, the reason it makes sense is you know that they are trading up for Culver / Hunter or Reddish. They're not trading up for Garland.

So the Cavs could add one more pick and still get Garland.......vs. just 4/5.

A: (4) Garland, (5) Culver / Hunter
B: (5) Garland, (8) Whoever is left from Culver / Hunter / Reddish (10) Goga / Clarke / Bol

I absolutely want "B" if given the option. I'd only care about getting #4 if NYK pased on Barrett. If the top 3 is as expected, we are better off with the 8/10 package IMO......if we know ATL is not taking Garland. It's a way to add an additional meaningful young asset to our roster.

I would pick B if you knew Coby White is going before #8. The Cavs can't come away with both Garland and White even if it means getting Clarke, Hachimura, Gogo, or Bol Bol. Now if they were fine with trading away Garland too and then coming away with either two of the wings or White and one of the wings, I think that's fine. They most likely pick up a future asset if they trade Garland.

 

[rastamon87]

Terry Pluto has an interesting article on the possibility of Kevin Love being shipped to New Orleans for the #4 pick with other pieces involved. Griff supposedly loves Kevin and has a close relationship with him off the court. Here’s a possible 3-way deal:

ATL: #4 pick
CLE: #8 & #10 picks, additional protections on 2020 pick owed to Atlanta
NO: Kevin Love

Additional players, like Solomon Hill going to Cleveland, would need to be involved to make the trade work under the salary cap.

Salary consideration aside, Love would be a good mentor for Zion on transforming body for NBA and being content on a small market... On the court Love stretches the floor for Zion to drive more and Zion can help hide Love's defensive limitations... I doubt that such a trade happens though, but if it does present itself 4th pick for Love is good value imho

 

[WorldFreeB]

Salary consideration aside, Love would be a good mentor for Zion on transforming body for NBA and being content on a small market... On the court Love stretches the floor for Zion to drive more and Zion can help hide Love's defensive limitations... I doubt that such a trade happens though, but if it does present itself 4th pick for Love is good value imho

Yeah i think you would have to make that trade as much as i would hate to see Love go.

 

[dark2332]

I'll disagree here.....why? Because if we want Garland, we know Atlanta is not taking him.

In the Atlanta scenario, the reason it makes sense is you know that they are trading up for Culver / Hunter or Reddish. They're not trading up for Garland.

So the Cavs could add one more pick and still get Garland.......vs. just 4/5.

A: (4) Garland, (5) Culver / Hunter
B: (5) Garland, (8) Whoever is left from Culver / Hunter / Reddish (10) Goga / Clarke Bol

I absolutely want "B" if given the option. I'd only care about getting #4 if NYK pased on Barrett. If the top 3 is as expected, we are better off with the 8/10 package IMO......if we know ATL is not taking Garland. It's a way to add an additional meaningful young asset to our roster.

We still have other picks in this draft (#26).

In my opinion, it's extremely difficult to devote the time, resources, and attention required to develop 3 lottery guys. Not to mention court time and simultaneous contract situations.

I think you take your top two--the one's you really truly believe in versus settling for one of them--and then we can grab a project or a stash player later in the round with that other pick.

I'd feel much better knowing that we took our shot at the top two players that our front office identified.

If we pass on someone higher on our board in a trade down--and that guy ends up better than the guy we took--that was a poor move.