• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2022 Summer League Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
foucault87 said:
That is not where we are. We are a borderline playoff team with a young group of stars not at their prime. This was a chance to take a swing and get another blue chip stud. Och might develop into that yet, but the probability of Eason or someone like Griffin or Branham doing that was much higher. Och might be the better prospect for 2023 but not for 2026 which is when we should be planning for.
Click to expand...
Sure, I can agree that Eason has a better chance to become a blue chip stud than Agbaji does, but the odds are still pretty slim for either guy, IMO.

On the flip side, I'd put the odds of Ochai being a significant contributer in 2026 as extremely likely, while I think the chances of Tari doing so are a coin flip at best. The last sentence of your paragraph implies that Och will not be the better player in 3-4 years and I can't fully get behind that simply because I think Eason could very well be a bust.

If the reports that Koby wanted Dieng are true, then that tells me that he is willing to assess risk vs reward on a prospect-by-prospect basis and is not going to pigeonhole himself into either side of the boom/bust vs safe pick spectrum. If a dude's potential is so great that it justifies the risk then he's willing to roll the dice. If the risk outweighs the reward then he's fine paying it more safe, and I applaud him for it.

I don't think he passed on Eason because he is risk-averse or because he is allergic to true SFs, as some like to joke. I believe he went with Och simply because of the prospects still remaining on the board, Agbaji was the best option when taking into account all the information and evaluations the scouting department had compiled.
 
Douglar said:
The Cavs have 3 young stars, but only one provides any outside shooting. The young stars that the Cavs have are not going to look good without more shooting or PG skills to fill in the gaps between them.

How were the Cavs going to add shooting if they spent the MLE on PG's and drafted another average/below average shooter? How is that young non-shooter even going to get playing time when there's a glut of average vets in front of him?

Maybe you think Sexton provides the play making and the shooting. Maybe he can. The problem is that it isn't a sure thing that he can, and it isn't a sure thing that he even rejoins the team this year.

Maybe you think Koby can trade a bunch of non shooters for a shooter. Once again, could happen. Probably not but it could happen. Seems like a big risk. Seems complicated.

No need to make it complicated or risky. You just draft the shooter.
Click to expand...
You can find shooting attached to bad players if you need it so desperately. There are always guys like Malik Monk or Tony Snell out there in FA or you could trade Cedi and a 2nd for Duncan Robinson. The lack of shooting in the Cavs lineup is an issue but I would put at least part of that on coaching. We have guys like Cedi and theoretically Windler glued to the bench because JBB doesn't want to play them and even when he does they just go stand in the corner instead of running curls or DHOs. Having shooters only matters if your offensive scheme doesn't reduce them to Amon Ones and Donyell Marshall in 2007.

I also expect to see improved shooting from our young guys. They are not sitting idle this summer and posting tons of open gym workout vids (looking at you ben simmons). Okoro and Mobley I expect to show more range and provide more spacing next year. Getting Collin back helps too.

Average to below average vets should never be a reason to not take a high upside player. If your young guy looks like he is the real deal, you send those guys packing and open up time to develop your young gun. If your vets are above average, you spend development time on your young guy and bring up to full speed in year 2 or 3. Portland has been doing the later for years and consistently churn out solid guys (Simons, CJ, even Nas Little). There are options, but Cedi Osman and Caris LeVert should not prevent you from taking a guy you think has even a 10% chance of becoming a difference maker or ceiling raiser.

I would have gone a different direction than Och at 14, but its not a terrible pick or anything. I have said this before, and I stand by it. The larger trend of recent moves is what worries me more than any specific trade. Between the way the other draft picks were used and the LeVert deal and honestly the JBB extension, I am worried we are losing sight of the big picture while chasing tiny goals. When you are optimizing your objective function, you don't want to get stuck in a local minima and I think we are focusing too much on that instead of the global trend.
 
bs80 said:
Sure, I can agree that Eason has a better chance to become a blue chip stud than Agbaji does, but the odds are still pretty slim for either guy, IMO.

On the flip side, I'd put the odds of Ochai being a significant contributer in 2026 as extremely likely, while I think the chances of Tari doing so are a coin flip at best. The last sentence of your paragraph implies that Och will not be the better player in 3-4 years and I can't fully get behind that simply because I think Eason could very well be a bust.

If the reports that Koby wanted Dieng are true, then that tells me that he is willing to assess risk vs reward on a prospect-by-prospect basis and is not going to pigeonhole himself into either side of the boom/bust vs safe pick spectrum. If a dude's potential is so great that it justifies the risk then he's willing to roll the dice. If the risk outweighs the reward then he's fine paying it more safe, and I applaud him for it.

I don't think he passed on Eason because he is risk-averse or because he is allergic to true SFs, as some like to joke. I believe he went with Och simply because of the prospects still remaining on the board, Agbaji was the best option when taking into account all the information and evaluations the scouting department had compiled.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this. I think I have a lower valuation on Och than Koby and some on the board. I think he will end up being a solid role player/fringe starter at 50th percentile and his 75th-90th percentile outcome is a ten year starter.

I just saw a few guys like Eason (50th percentile - energy bench wing, 25th: out of the league, 80th+: allstar), AJG (similar to Eason), TyTy and Branham (50th: LeVert, 75th: LeVert but with a shot) who I think had both higher upside and a higher probability of becoming long-term contributors at a higher level. Och was had the best worst case scenario so I see the logic for it...its just too risk averse at a critical stage in my mind.
 
foucault87 said:
I can agree with this. I think I have a lower valuation on Och than Koby and some on the board. I think he will end up being a solid role player/fringe starter at 50th percentile and his 75th-90th percentile outcome is a ten year starter.

I just saw a few guys like Eason (50th percentile - energy bench wing, 25th: out of the league, 80th+: allstar), AJG (similar to Eason), TyTy and Branham (50th: LeVert, 75th: LeVert but with a shot) who I think had both higher upside and a higher probability of becoming long-term contributors at a higher level. Och was had the best worst case scenario so I see the logic for it...its just too risk averse at a critical stage in my mind.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the only thing we don't agree on is our individual evaluations of the different prospects and that's cool. I wasn't exactly thrilled with how draft day played out but I'm pretty optimistic that Agbaji will turn out to be what we hope.

I'm of the belief that we don't need to be conservative with our picks because our window may still be a year or two away. But on the flip side, we already have some established cornerstones in the fold, so we also don't need to be swinging for the fences. If the reward justifies the risk then I'm all for it at this stage.

And to one of your points in a previous post, completely agree that average vets like LeVert should have no bearing on how the team continues to acquire young talent. I'm viewing LeVert and Osman as rentals that won't be around past this season. If either of them pleasantly surprise us, then that's just gravy.
 
I can understand taking OA over Eason even though I'd have preferred Eason. If he is indeed the best shooter in the draft, that's kind of invaluable to the spacing this team needs. And it looks like he's going to be a plus defender as an SG. And he's mature, so he's ready to rise at the same time as the rest of the squad instead of hoping for a project to come good. And next season, I can see him as the starter while we bring in an All Star SF since we'll have some cp room. I think the 14th spot is perfect for a role player.
 
foucault87 said:
The reason they didn't pick a wing makes sense but its that reasoning I dont like. If we were a team with stars in their prime on the cusp of championship contention, grabbing a ready to go shooter makes sense.

That is not where we are. We are a borderline playoff team with a young group of stars not at their prime. This was a chance to take a swing and get another blue chip stud. Och might develop into that yet, but the probability of Eason or someone like Griffin or Branham doing that was much higher. Och might be the better prospect for 2023 but not for 2026 which is when we should be planning for.

Short term thinking is what you do when you don't want something sustainable and jts what we've done here
Click to expand...

I'd argue they actually did the opposite.

Apparently, they had Jalen Williams and Dieng both higher on their draft board. Those are the exact kind of guys you are arguing they should have taken. However, they were gone by the time we picked.

At that point, their choice was to take a SG who looks to be a very good long-term fit, or take a lower-quality wing that might not pan out simply because wing was our most immediate need.

So, they instead made the move that looks to be best in the long term by actually solving the roster issue of insufficient shooting, and taking BPA. The long-term plan to fill the wing position is via free agency/player movement next summer when we are likely to have the most cap space.

That means we will go through another season without ideal length on the three, but that's what you do when you're looking at the long-term rather than the short-term.
 
foucault87 said:
You can find shooting attached to bad players if you need it so desperately. There are always guys like Malik Monk or Tony Snell out there in FA or you could trade Cedi and a 2nd for Duncan Robinson. The lack of shooting in the Cavs lineup is an issue but I would put at least part of that on coaching. We have guys like Cedi and theoretically Windler glued to the bench because JBB doesn't want to play them and even when he does they just go stand in the corner instead of running curls or DHOs. Having shooters only matters if your offensive scheme doesn't reduce them to Amon Ones and Donyell Marshall in 2007.

I also expect to see improved shooting from our young guys. They are not sitting idle this summer and posting tons of open gym workout vids (looking at you ben simmons). Okoro and Mobley I expect to show more range and provide more spacing next year. Getting Collin back helps too.

Average to below average vets should never be a reason to not take a high upside player. If your young guy looks like he is the real deal, you send those guys packing and open up time to develop your young gun. If your vets are above average, you spend development time on your young guy and bring up to full speed in year 2 or 3. Portland has been doing the later for years and consistently churn out solid guys (Simons, CJ, even Nas Little). There are options, but Cedi Osman and Caris LeVert should not prevent you from taking a guy you think has even a 10% chance of becoming a difference maker or ceiling raiser.

I would have gone a different direction than Och at 14, but its not a terrible pick or anything. I have said this before, and I stand by it. The larger trend of recent moves is what worries me more than any specific trade. Between the way the other draft picks were used and the LeVert deal and honestly the JBB extension, I am worried we are losing sight of the big picture while chasing tiny goals. When you are optimizing your objective function, you don't want to get stuck in a local minima and I think we are focusing too much on that instead of the global trend.
Click to expand...
What direction would you have gone, my man? Och was the best floor spacer on the board at 14 wasn’t he?
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
I'd argue they actually did the opposite.

Apparently, they had Jalen Williams and Dieng both higher on their draft board. Those are the exact kind of guys you are arguing they should have taken. However, they were gone by the time we picked.

At that point, their choice was to take a SG who looks to be a very good long-term fit, or take a lower-quality wing that might not pan out simply because wing was our most immediate need.

So, they instead made the move that looks to be best in the long term by actually solving the roster issue of insufficient shooting, and taking BPA. The long-term plan to fill the wing position is via free agency/player movement next summer when we are likely to have the most cap space.

That means we will go through another season without ideal length on the three, but that's what you do when you're looking at the long-term rather than the short-term.
Click to expand...
I think thats fair. I just disagree with the valuation that Och as an SG is more valuable than Eason and to a lesser extent Griffin or Branham. Obviously, the Cavs have information we as fans are not privy to, but it seems to me that the long term play would've been to get one of the younger wings. Branham in particular stands out as he is a similar level of shooter (at least on paper) while younger and has a bit more offensive pop.

Ohioplayer00 said:
What direction would you have gone, my man? Och was the best floor spacer on the board at 14 wasn’t he?
Click to expand...
Yes but I had a higher valuation on Branham, Griffin, and Eason. I would've taken one of those three, probably Eason.
 
I'mWithDan said:
I feel like this is probably giving him way too much credit. We could have just drafted a cost controlled wing in Terry or Eason, if we actually wanted a wing relative to the positional value. Instead we took another more one dimensional guard who can’t create.

The only big positive to SL, to me, is it seems like OA might be able to scratch out some rebound and stock production, when his shot isn’t falling. So that would at least be an improvement over Okoro……who is commonly a complete zero across the board on bad nights.
Click to expand...

I do agree some of the calculations seems off in the way Koby has operated. I'm not sure Terry or Eason will end up being better picks vs OA but I do think we have really fallen short at taking enough swings at the SF spot. That's where I have been most critical of how Koby has operated, where he isn't using every avenue available on a consistent bases to try to find talent.

I also think there is still value in finding players with the combo of skills and the position they can play even if they don't pan out or hit the ceiling you want from them. I think it helps an organization find lineups and makes it clear on what exact combo of skills at which position you need to target for an upgrade. I think we might end up waiting so long to fill the SF spot that we go all in on a player with alot of assets and it's still not the ideal fit because we didn't test out what we actually needed with cheap placeholders.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about this thread is it's "Just Summer League" when a player we like has a bad game.

But when a player we don't like has a bad game? Suddenly we forget that line lol.


I remember game 1 Malakhi Branham was a Caris LeVert carbon copy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top