Cavs Actively Shopping Everyone

[theSTEREO.]

As for trading Kyrie, I hope they are just taking calls and not making them.

After a quick scan of teams and players, I just don't see a return that's valuable enough to let him go at the moment. And after an uneven year (which was magnified by the poo pile that was this team as a whole), trying to trade him now is the very definition of selling low. Awful idea.

I mean, if New Orleans calls up and says they'll give up Anthony Davis for Kyrie and some parts, sure let's listen. If that Steph and Klay deal resurfaced, sure let's talk.

Otherwise, smart to just sign him to an extension and revisit after a year.

 

[Kouki]

To me this is the opposite of good.

We spent the last few years saying how much we loved that Chris Grant was setting the team up for the future, maintaining flexibility, collecting assets, etc. Understanding that it is a slow process and that we want to build a team that can compete for a long time, not just be a flash in the pan after which we have no assets to speak of.

Now all of a sudden we are sick of that plan and praising Griffin for doing the opposite?

Maybe I'm extrapolating, but "going all in" and getting rid of a ton of future assets is a terrible idea for a team that has a bunch of young promising talent and the #1 draft pick.

I understand that we didn't collect all those assets just to sit on them indefinitely, but I'd rather build a team that can compete for close to a decade rather than going all in for a year or three.

I guess in today's NBA though, contenders are made by going "all-in", like the Celtics and Heat did. Hopefully SA and OKC prove that wrong.

 

[MirORich]

Nobody on this team is safe. The Cavs are taking and making calls on everyone. They are even taking calls about Irving (although I don't know if they are dangling him out there right now). Plenty of suitors for Deng in sign and trades.

From what I'm hearing I don't expect the Cavs to come away this off-season with any future assets or cap space. They are going all in. The team they build will be the team they think has a chance to win it all in a few years.

I also read this to mean look at big name guys beyond Love. Gasol, Cousins, Aldridge, etc.

 

[Green Lantern]

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Makes sense to get value out of the MEM & MIA picks so youre not essentially wasting them by throwing them in a S&T for a max free agent

 

[MirORich]

To me this is the opposite of good.

We spent the last few years saying how much we loved that Chris Grant was setting the team up for the future, maintaining flexibility, collecting assets, etc. Understanding that it is a slow process and that we want to build a team that can compete for a long time, not just be a flash in the pan after which we have no assets to speak of.

Now all of a sudden we are sick of that plan and praising Griffin for doing the opposite?

Maybe I'm extrapolating, but "going all in" and getting rid of a ton of future assets is a terrible idea for a team that has a bunch of young promising talent and the #1 draft pick.

I understand that we didn't collect all those assets just to sit on them indefinitely, but I'd rather build a team that can compete for close to a decade rather than going all in for a year or three.

I guess in today's NBA though, contenders are made by going "all-in", like the Celtics and Heat did. Hopefully SA and OKC prove that wrong.

I don't think it's supposed to be read as "going all in on a team of all 30 year olds"

Nor going all in on a team of "suitably decent veterans"

it means they are swinging for the fences to add bona fide premium talent with an emphasis being on fit and players either in their prime or just entering their prime.

It also means they are all in on using any means necessary. It doesn't mean they will turn over the entire 15 man roster. Obviously a million hypothetical trades can be discussed, but once some are made it will close the doors on others.

 

[CornerThree]

If you can trade Irving for someone like Love that makes us a better team and then just sign Kyle Lowry for straight up cash, you do it. I think you at least pursue that course of action. Lowry already signed here once, I'm sure if you do a bit of an overpay you could land him.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Am I the only one reading these comments and imagining Griffin going from a 1995 Honda Civic to behind the wheel of a Lambo?

Going all in with a rookie GM makes me think of this GIF.

 

[#21]

I don't like the sound of this.

 

[shoes22]

Depending on how good our #1 pick is, I wonder if that's what's making us have second thoughts about offering Kyrie a max extension. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what prompted all of this...

 

[AMC]

Depending on how good our #1 pick is, I wonder if that's what's making us have second thoughts about offering Kyrie a max extension. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what prompted all of this...

If Embiid, Parker, or Wiggins are franchise players...might be enough to change who we build around.

 

[MirORich]

I don't like the sound of this.

Then you're misinterpreting what it implies.

It's not saying they want to unload people for the sake of it. It's saying they want to construct a team that can compete for multiple finals appearances starting this coming year. It would most likely end up consisting of the player we draft at #1, a few people currently on the roster, players we receive via trade for our players and assets, and FA signed this offseason.

What is the issue with that. If you're thinking of a midlevel Joe Johnson era Hawks team being assembled than your imagination is aiming way to low. Luckily Griffins is not.

 

[Derek]

To me this is the opposite of good.

We spent the last few years saying how much we loved that Chris Grant was setting the team up for the future, maintaining flexibility, collecting assets, etc. Understanding that it is a slow process and that we want to build a team that can compete for a long time, not just be a flash in the pan after which we have no assets to speak of.

Now all of a sudden we are sick of that plan and praising Griffin for doing the opposite?

Maybe I'm extrapolating, but "going all in" and getting rid of a ton of future assets is a terrible idea for a team that has a bunch of young promising talent and the #1 draft pick.

I understand that we didn't collect all those assets just to sit on them indefinitely, but I'd rather build a team that can compete for close to a decade rather than going all in for a year or three.

I guess in today's NBA though, contenders are made by going "all-in", like the Celtics and Heat did. Hopefully SA and OKC prove that wrong.

Just because they're going all-in doesn't mean that they are sacrificing the long-term outlook of the team. It just means that we are going to start to cash in on our assets. The cap space was already going to be gone because those rookie extensions are about to come to fruition. It's time to set a stable roster and move forward with it.

 

[theSTEREO.]

To me this is the opposite of good.

We spent the last few years saying how much we loved that Chris Grant was setting the team up for the future, maintaining flexibility, collecting assets, etc. Understanding that it is a slow process and that we want to build a team that can compete for a long time, not just be a flash in the pan after which we have no assets to speak of.

Now all of a sudden we are sick of that plan and praising Griffin for doing the opposite?

Maybe I'm extrapolating, but "going all in" and getting rid of a ton of future assets is a terrible idea for a team that has a bunch of young promising talent and the #1 draft pick.

I understand that we didn't collect all those assets just to sit on them indefinitely, but I'd rather build a team that can compete for close to a decade rather than going all in for a year or three.

I guess in today's NBA though, contenders are made by going "all-in", like the Celtics and Heat did. Hopefully SA and OKC prove that wrong.

Isn't going all in what Chris Grant intended to do with these pieces all along? We're not excited about Griffin doing the opposite. We are excited about him finally taking our stored assets and making them liquid. There was never a chance that all five of Irving, Thompson, Waiters, Zeller and Bennett were gonna be on this team two years from now. Zero.

And just because he's saying everyone is available doesn't mean that everyone is being traded. Just that there's no combination that won't be considered. Maybe there's a big player to be had by trading Dion and keeping Kyrie, and maybe there's a big player to be had by trading Kyrie and keeping Dion. But just because one happens doesn't mean the other is gonna happen.

A few teams that went all in and are continuing to go all in in recent years are the Celtics, the Heat, the Clippers, the Lakers (which failed, but the idea was right), the Rockets, etc etc. These are teams that stockpiled assets for years and years and years and sucked for years and years, except maybe the Lakers, until they pulled the trigger and now play late into May and June.

Count me in as someone who has wanted that for a long time now.

Edit: MirORich, stop posting exactly what I'm thinking 30 seconds before I type it all the time. :chuckles:

 

[Seiklis]

Depending on how good our #1 pick is, I wonder if that's what's making us have second thoughts about offering Kyrie a max extension. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what prompted all of this...

Exactly what I've been thinking, if Embiid is what we think he might be, you want the franchise player contract open in 4 years

Also not sure why...but Kyrie to Orlando smells promising to me