Rodney Hood: Won't be missed

[Jordan]

Yeah, Hood is not better than all of them lol.

Covington is infinitely better, Josh Richardson is better, Roberson is better, Crabbe is better, Green is better, CJ Miles is even better at his point, Moore is better...

Rodney Hood's BPM is deep in the minus and hasn't shown any real impact other than putting scoring numbers in Utah.

All of those guys other than Covington were signed during the cap explosion, so you are comparing apples to oranges here.

I would say that 7-8M is for 3 years is fair. And even then, I would try to sign him just to trade him.

Ugh, does he have trade value though? And is it worth having to showcase him for six months?

Because, if he sucks, then he takes minutes from the guys we want to be playing while becoming a negative asset.

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

Ugh, does he have trade value though? And is it worth having to showcase him for six months?

Because, if he sucks, then he takes minutes from the guys we want to be playing while becoming a negative asset.

Trade value on a 7-8M contract?

 

[Jordan]

Trade value on a 7-8M contract?

Clarkson’s contract is viewed as a cancer and it's only $3-4 million more, no? If Hood sucks then you have to find a way to match that contract while either adding talent (highly unlikely) or grabbing an expiring. I’d be worried about banking on the latter and then finding no takers.

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

Clarkson’s contract is viewed as a cancer and it's only $3-4 million more, no? If Hood sucks then you have to find a way to match that contract while either adding talent (highly unlikely) or grabbing an expiring. I’d be worried about banking on the latter and then finding no takers.

I suggested 7-8M because going lower puts us at a risk of him taking a QO and potentially losing him as an "asset". So it depends on how the team views him and what they believe the risk factors are.

AS far as you are concerned, you would be fine with him taking a QO?

 

[Douglar]

I would be much more interested in signing hood to a 3 year/30 Mil offer if we didn't already have Clarkson on the books with 2 years/25mil, however ....

1) The salary cap is a lot higher than it used to be. A 3 year/30 Mil offer is about the same percentage of the cap as a 3 year/$18 Mil offer was 4 years ago. A 3 year/$30 Mil offer is about 5% over the non-tax MLE. If Hood is willing to sign a 3 year/$30 Mil offer, you pretty much have to do it. He's worth a 3 year run on the MLE.

2) If Hood signs the qualifying offer, not only can he walk next summer, any team that trades for him gets an unrestricted free agent and they don't get his full bird rights. That makes it hard to retain him. That likely makes Hood's QO contract less attractive than a 3 year 30 mil contract because teams know there's a good chance that they are only getting a short term rental.

3) Since a QO trade doesn't convey bird rights, Hood is allowed to veto any trade if he agrees to the QO. That certainly complicates stuff.

 

[Jordan]

I suggested 7-8M because going lower puts us at a risk of him taking a QO and potentially losing him as an "asset". So it depends on how the team views him and what they believe the risk factors are.

AS far as you are concerned, you would be fine with him taking a QO?

My ideal would be a two year, $8 million deal. That way it’s short term and he becomes an expiring next summer. Three years is dangerous to me.

 

[TitleTown]

My ideal would be a two year, $8 million deal. That way it’s short term and he becomes an expiring next summer. Three years is dangerous to me.

It also doesn't allow Hood to relax because he's essentially proving himself for his next contract rather than having 3 years.

 

[Nathan S]

Given how cold the market was for Hood this summer, I think it's premature to talk about him being an "asset". Unless he looks very different next year, no team is suddenly going to be excited to pay him 8m, let alone 10m/year.

 

[TheISHT]

You forget what Hood looked like on a team that played like a team. We also forget what Clarkson looked like on the Lakers. IMO if they revert back to what they were Hood would be a very trade-able asset while Clarkson would at least be trade-able.

 

[Jordan]

It also doesn't allow Hood to relax because he's essentially proving himself for his next contract rather than having 3 years.

Frankly, if Hood demands more, I’d just pull the qualifying offer.

He may be able to become a good sixth man-type. Maybe. But I don’t see room for both he and Clarkson on this Cavs team. If Hood wants to take a very team friendly deal then, sure, keep him. I just do not think the Cavs really need to compromise.

 

[TitleTown]

You forget what Hood looked like on a team that played like a team. We also forget what Clarkson looked like on the Lakers. IMO if they revert back to what they were Hood would be a very trade-able asset while Clarkson would at least be trade-able.

I remember who he was. He was a player that a playoff team was willing to get rid of for pennies on the dollar.

Why?

Poor attitude and a weak will to win.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

3) Since a QO trade doesn't convey bird rights, Hood is allowed to veto any trade if he agrees to the QO. That certainly complicates stuff.

Hood's qualifying offer is $3.5 million. Suppose rather than offering him 3/30, the Cavs offer him $2/12. That mean he makes $6.0M this year instead of $3.5M, which benefits him. It also benefits the Cavs, because they can trade him to someone who gets to keep his Bird rights.

It also doesn't allow Hood to relax because he's essentially proving himself for his next contract rather than having 3 years.

He'll be able to relax even less if he has to play under the QO.

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

Frankly, if Hood demands more, I’d just pull the qualifying offer.

He may be able to become a good sixth man-type. Maybe. But I don’t see room for both he and Clarkson on this Cavs team. If Hood wants to take a very team friendly deal then, sure, keep him. I just do not think the Cavs really need to compromise.

That's true...

22M for Hood and Clarkson is insane. You can sign a much more impactful player for that amount. Two of them are not even net positive players at this point.

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

You forget what Hood looked like on a team that played like a team. We also forget what Clarkson looked like on the Lakers. IMO if they revert back to what they were Hood would be a very trade-able asset while Clarkson would at least be trade-able.

His advanced stats almost looked the same...which is scary.

 

[inliner311]

You forget what Hood looked like on a team that played like a team. We also forget what Clarkson looked like on the Lakers. IMO if they revert back to what they were Hood would be a very trade-able asset while Clarkson would at least be trade-able.

I feel the same way. As for development, Hood getting back to what he was in Utah and making improvements to his game as a SG/SF seems like a much easier path than what Clarkson needs to do. Clarkson needs to focus on playing off the ball and being a SG. His court vision needs to be better even if he plays SG full time, he can't be a black hole when he gets the ball.

For me, Hood could be part of the team long term. Unless Clarkson makes huge shift in the way he plays, I think he is a player you try to pump up his value and move off from. Hood has unique height and length for a SG while also having a fairly diverse skill set on offense. Clarkson on the other hand plays like he is in the G-league which is why I think the Cavs have looked for other backup PGs.