Windy: Sessions traded to LA

[Scholar]

Exactly, to ESPN and those putzes they point out all the negative aspects in getting Walton's contract and trading a productive player in Ramon. However, it's not like Walton's contract is going to cripple us and hamper us from doing what we want to do. Just like Baron Davis' contract didn't hamper us...(thanks LAC). We'll gain hopefully a nice valuable piece at least off the bench at #24 essentially for nothing as Ramon was going to leave and Walton basically sits at the end of the bench for a year.

Not just that. But, Walton now becomes an expiring, and possible trade asset near the deadline. His 6 million dollar contract is a lot easier to find match ups for then Mr Jamison's was. Plus, we likely don't get the ability to exchange picks without taking on the salary. It'll be interesting to see what kind of dividends that ends up adding to the trade value.

 

[Douglar]

Not just that. But, Walton now becomes an expiring, and possible trade asset near the deadline. His 6 million dollar contract is a lot easier to find match ups for then Mr Jamison's was. Plus, we likely don't get the ability to exchange picks without taking on the salary. It'll be interesting to see what kind of dividends that ends up adding to the trade value.

And the Cavs were probably going to sign a mentor type guy anyway. If they can improve their trade assets in the process, so much the better.

I originally gave the trade a C. i'd give it a B now that it moved them up to the 3rd seed in the lottery. If they get the top pick in the lottery, then it's an A+++.

 

[Jon]

Not just that. But, Walton now becomes an expiring, and possible trade asset near the deadline. His 6 million dollar contract is a lot easier to find match ups for then Mr Jamison's was. Plus, we likely don't get the ability to exchange picks without taking on the salary. It'll be interesting to see what kind of dividends that ends up adding to the trade value.

Except, we don't need expirings ... we're under the cap - and we'd be under the cap even further if we didn't have Walton on the books. If he's serving any purpose, it's as a salary place holder.

 

[RchfldCavRaised]

I feel pretty vindicated for my Mike Brown criticisms.

Pretty hard to go to two entirely different franchises and stunt the offensive production of the team as a whole, while still winning with "bend but dont break" schematic defense and "iso" hero basketball. I thought MB would have picked up a few things in his year away from the game about in-game management, yet the guy came back and looked AS horrible if not worse in that aspect of coaching.

I put more of an emphasis on Sessions and about 75% of the other role players looking out of place for LA, on Brown and his lack of game feel. Really leaves his players out there on an island with his inability to adjust on the fly and capitalize on things in-game.

 

[Douglar]

stunt the offensive production of the team as a whole

If the Cavs offense was as stunted 2009-2010, the Cavs wish their offense was as stunted now was as stunted as it was then.

 

[Mdog1]

If the Cavs offense was as stunted 2009-2010, the Cavs wish their offense was as stunted now was as stunted as it was then.

If I remember correctly weren't we top 5 one of those years?

 

[Douglar]

And the Lakers lost the OKC series because of defense problems. Their offense was scoring at a pretty good clip per possession through the playoffs, but LA's defense has been crap.

 

[RchfldCavRaised]

If the Cavs offense was as stunted 2009-2010, the Cavs wish their offense was as stunted now was as stunted as it was then.

I think had Byron Scott been here instead of Brown back then in 09-10 we would have seen eye dropping offensive stats, efficiency and the some of the purest offensive basketball since the Showtime Lakers. The teams were structured to compliment Bron well on the offensive end, but there was no accountability and he was given too much freedom to establish horrible habits in "walk the ball" up pace.

This team has an attacking offense that plays to our best player's strength, now we just need to add more talent and watch the catalyst and his other developing young teammates mature within that.

 

[RchfldCavRaised]

And the Lakers lost the OKC series because of defense problems. Their offense was scoring at a pretty good clip per possession through the playoffs, but LA's defense has been crap.

I watched every game and "per clip possession" had nothing to do with why the Lakers looked foolish on offense.

This isnt a "stats" or numbers problem, though I could reach out to a statistician and have him cook up numbers to support any eye theory I have for what ailed the LA Offense.

What I saw, was a offensive plan that misused 3 out of 5 players who were on the court, pretty much every time down in half court sets. The same thing we had here. If the plan was for LeBron or Kobe to initiate offense, they would have one teammate who was interacting or would be in a position to benefit from the initiator having the ball... and every other teammate would just be on the floor.

I saw Gasol and Sessions being misused the entire series.

The defense was bad, no doubt. But again, just like the offensive problems that showed themselves under Mike Brown, I guess Laker fans today who rely on stats to tell the game are probably saying OKC just gave Browns defense some really bad "matchup problems".

 

[TitleTown]

I think had Byron Scott been here instead of Brown back then in 09-10 we would have seen eye dropping offensive stats, efficiency and the some of the purest offensive basketball since the Showtime Lakers. The teams were structured to compliment Bron well on the offensive end, but there was no accountability and he was given too much freedom to establish horrible habits in "walk the ball" up pace.

This team has an attacking offense that plays to our best player's strength, now we just need to add more talent and watch the catalyst and his other developing young teammates mature within that.

This team is also full of a bunch of young guys willing to support and listen to their coach. LeBron had a LARGE role to play in how our team was on the court. Laying all of it on Brown is short-sighted.

 

[TitleTown]

I watched every game and "per clip possession" had nothing to do with why the Lakers looked foolish on offense.

This isnt a "stats" or numbers problem, though I could reach out to a statistician and have him cook up numbers to support any eye theory I have for what ailed the LA Offense.

What I saw, was a offensive plan that misused 3 out of 5 players who were on the court, pretty much every time down in half court sets. The same thing we had here. If the plan was for LeBron or Kobe to initiate offense, they would have one teammate who was interacting or would be in a position to benefit from the initiator having the ball... and every other teammate would just be on the floor.

I saw Gasol and Sessions being misused the entire series.

The defense was bad, no doubt. But again, just like the offensive problems that showed themselves under Mike Brown, I guess Laker fans today who rely on stats to tell the game are probably saying OKC just gave Browns defense some really bad "matchup problems".

Again. There's a reason why Kobe was calling out Gasol, and not calling out Brown. Kobe felt that Gasol wasn't executing the gameplan, and was being a giant pussy. Also, you assume too much when you say Sessions was being "misused" -- rather, Sessions was abused by opposing point guards that he had no chance of matching up against.

I don't give two shits about Brown, but your analysis is very simplistic.

If Brown is to blame for anything, it's not building the right kind of rapport with players that he needed to get 100% buy in to his system.

 

[cdt]

These smart trades we've been making are going to be fun to look back on once we've assembled a nice nucleus of young talent ala OKC.

When we become relevant again, they'll show a nice graphic about how we basically turning nothing into a young core players on our perennial title contender.

 

[Dr. Gymbo]

Except, we don't need expirings ... we're under the cap - and we'd be under the cap even further if we didn't have Walton on the books. If he's serving any purpose, it's as a salary place holder.

I think Scholar's point was that the expiring contract of Luke Walton is by itself now another asset. You're right we don't need to collect expiring contracts thereby shredding salary to free up cap space because we've got plenty of it moving forward.

However, Luke Walton can be now flipped to some other team for another player with a longer contract that may be tying up valuable cap space on that team that may be counting towards the tax (Dallas and Shawn Marion), could be better served extending young players (Denver and Al Harrington), or used to pry a longer deal on a team in flux (Sacramento and John Salmons) or (Washington and Andray Blatche).

I'm not directly advocating all of those trades, however, just pointing out that depending on the right combination of assets, the Cavs could flip Walton into another player's contract presumably laced with some positive asset/incentive that Grant can continue to collect.

 

[Jon]

I won't give Mike a complete pass, but there are certainly extenuating circumstances with the Lakers giving up the triangle, not being able to obtain Paul, Odom going nuts, everybody getting older, and very little time to implement anything due to the nearly non-existent training camp and a lack of practice time.

Ramon Sessions certainly isn't the sort of PG who was going to come in and make their offense run right, and I suspect they may have been better off keeping Fisher as their starting PG to maintain leadership and continuity and then used Ramon off the bench as a weapon.

 

[Jon]

I think Scholar's point was that the expiring contract of Luke Walton is by itself now another asset. You're right we don't need to collect expiring contracts thereby shredding salary to free up cap space because we've got plenty of it moving forward.

Yes, that's possible now that we have him; but if we never took him on in the first place - the money we never paid him would have been a more valuable asset and our cap space remains a much more valuable asset.

Like I said, the only positive for taking him on that I can think of is that he's a salary placeholder. He will help us reach the min salary threshold next season and then he's off the books. It's basically been 5 years since Luke was a productive player. He has rings and experience on a championship team, but unless he can turn back the clock, I just don't see the value.