Anderson Varejao

[howler1313]

Great, but trading Andy for a mid 1st round pick doesn't yield us a dominant big who will peak with Dion and Kyrie.

At this point Andy is a difference maker. For this team or ANY team he would play for. Therefore you value him as such. And unless you get an absolute bombshell of an offer, you don't move him just for the sake of youth or the long term. And there are very few contending teams that would have what we would consider a bombshell offer for Andy and be willing to part with it.

I agree, don't just trade him for peanuts. The obvious trade that should happen is to OKC for the Raptors pick and one other young player/pick. He'd easily be their best big, we would drop in the standings, and we'd get a ton of additional ammo for the 2013 draft.

[randymoss1881]

As much as I love Andy (and he'll probably go down as one of my 5 favorite players of all time when he retires), we owe it to Kyrie and Dion to pair them with a dominant big who will grow with them. Love Andy, but we want a guy who will begin to peak in 5 years when Kyrie and Dion do, not one peaking right now.

if your gonna talk about him at least call JAMES MICHEAL MCADOO by name. And the only way we are getting him is by trading and with the way he is playing okc first call better start with pj3, torontos and there pick.

Mcadoo and adnois thomas

[BDaddy]

Unless we get a ridiculous haul, I do not trade him. This team could be a contender very, very soon, and while Andy is still at this level. I don't think we'll get equal value for him, and a lotto pick in next year's weak draft doesn't get it. I'll take 35 year-old Andy over anyone not named Anthony Davis in the last two drafts, and probably the next one.

I'm not believing my eyes- the guy has a serious jumper now. Give them an average-good bench and a league-average PF who knows what he's doing, and we are in the playoffs.

[MirORich]

There's no need to trade Andy provided we can get our other needs via current draft assets and/or free agency.

For example:

-Keep Andy, sign Josh Smith outright at whatever it takes in the offseason
-Keep Andy, execute sign and trade, Josh Smith for Tristan and the 2013 heat draft pick
-Keep Andy, sign Al Jefferson to a 2-3 year deal. Over bid on any other team, but make him concede on only 2-3 years. Signing him at 2-3 years will not cost us any of our future draft assets and will not prevent us in any way from eventual extensions to Kyrie, Dion and Zeller/TT if they merit it.

With Jefferson, we'd have one of the bost low post offense guys paired with Andy kitchen sink approach + Zeller and Tristan off the bench. Might be the best 4 man big rotation in the league for 2-3 years.

With Smith, you have a guy who can D up, block shots, fly up and down the court w Kyrie, Dion, Andy, and Gee + Zeller and possibly still Tristan off the bench.
With Jo

[rabman_gold]

Andy is a key cog for a winning team. Regardless of his role, it's not fair to him to keep dragging him into this rebuild. Once we see where were at at the 40 game mark, we'll have to figure out what to move for him. He's at least 7 years ahead of most of our core. Really though, getting ANY first round pick with an asset should be fair. We can't (and won't) settle, but it all relies on his health mid-season. Like we did with Zeller, we could easily use whatever picks and assets we got with AV to trade up for a solid core piece (we have a star, scoring guard, energetic/athletic defensive forward, and shooting center). It would be good to get an explosive scoring swingman with defensive upside. Or a starting big man who is a scoring threat. I love Andy, he's my favorite player, but by the time we're competing (if planned), he'll be way on the wrong side of 30. If it were just an energy vet, it'd been fine, but he's an impact player. Same as Michael Jordan on the Wizards and relying on a 40 year old star. Same as Karl Malone and John Stockton in their twilight years. Teams with old-as-hell impact guys have gotten quite as far unless their whole team was deep enough to compensate.

[NoTitleTown]

Unless we get a ridiculous haul, I do not trade him. This team could be a contender very, very soon, and while Andy is still at this level. I don't think we'll get equal value for him, and a lotto pick in next year's weak draft doesn't get it. I'll take 35 year-old Andy over anyone not named Anthony Davis in the last two drafts, and probably the next one.

I'm not believing my eyes- the guy has a serious jumper now. Give them an average-good bench and a league-average PF who knows what he's doing, and we are in the playoffs.

Do people know what the word CONTENDER means in sports conversations? It means that you have a strong chance of winning a championship.

As it currently stands, we aren't even a playoff team.

So, no, we will NOT be a CONTENDER any time soon.

(1) Before we can be a contender, we need to make the playoffs.

(2) Before we can be a contender, we need to get out of the first round of the playoffs.

(3) Before we can be a contender, we need to almost win or outright win the Eastern conference finals.

Until all three of the above have happened, we are NOWHERE near becoming a contender.

[Jack Brickman]

Andy is a key cog for a winning team. Regardless of his role, it's not fair to him to keep dragging him into this rebuild. Once we see where were at at the 40 game mark, we'll have to figure out what to move for him. He's at least 7 years ahead of most of our core. Really though, getting ANY first round pick with an asset should be fair. We can't (and won't) settle, but it all relies on his health mid-season. Like we did with Zeller, we could easily use whatever picks and assets we got with AV to trade up for a solid core piece (we have a star, scoring guard, energetic/athletic defensive forward, and shooting center). It would be good to get an explosive scoring swingman with defensive upside. Or a starting big man who is a scoring threat. I love Andy, he's my favorite player, but by the time we're competing (if planned), he'll be way on the wrong side of 30. If it were just an energy vet, it'd been fine, but he's an impact player. Same as Michael Jordan on the Wizards and relying on a 40 year old star. Same as Karl Malone and John Stockton in their twilight years. Teams with old-as-hell impact guys have gotten quite as far unless their whole team was deep enough to compensate.

We're paying Andy over eight million a year to play basketball. We don't owe him a trade to another team. Varejao is one of our team's best players and one of the best bigs in the NBA. You don't trade him just to trade him. You have to get a nice return or there's no point in trading him.

[Cavatt]

We're paying Andy over eight million a year to play basketball. We don't owe him a trade to another team. Varejao is one of our team's best players and one of the best bigs in the NBA. You don't trade him just to trade him. You have to get a nice return or there's no point in trading him.

Absolutely. Any old pick actually hurts the team and their development. Andy helps with their development. Is their any question about the effect that Andy is having on these young guys? It looks to me like they are catching his fire. They are playing with a great energy right now, and he is helping their confidence. Don't trade him unless you get a lottery pick and a good player. I think you also have to think that Andy probably wants to stay with the Cavs just as long as he can.

[rabman_gold]

We're paying Andy over eight million a year to play basketball. We don't owe him a trade to another team. Varejao is one of our team's best players and one of the best bigs in the NBA. You don't trade him just to trade him. You have to get a nice return or there's no point in trading him.

Your missing the point. It's not that "we owe it to him" that we look to trade him. You trade him according to the value on the market. Of course, it has to be a deal that Grant would be interested in, but if Andy sustains another injury, his value goes down regardless. It's a fine line in playing him for half a season vs. dealing him when the iron's become hot.

Some of you believe he's worth a lottery pick. But with his past injury history, would any team with a lottery pick (99% of them are bottom feeders with a less than 20% chance to become a mini-playoff team) want him if the impact won't make them contenders? No one wants the treadmill of mediocrity. That's why his value is great for contenders (Spurs, Lakers, Oklahoma, Boston, Miami). Only one of those 5 has better to offer, but even then, he's hard to bargain with.

Also, by keeping him here, he'll play out his contract at 32 and become unrestricted. By then, it's too late since he's better coming off the bench but won't be the impact guy he is now. We need someone who's even better than Andy, but with him, we're good enough to get into the late-lottery/first round of playoffs. Getting ANY first rounder will become an asset since we can combine it with the other first rounder we traded for this year along with ours to get a top 5 pick (of course, we'd have to move as many other assets, like a young core guy, as possible to convince a team it's worth it).

He's good, but won't make us a complete contender in 2014. Even if he returns to his bench role, the price on him may not be as valuable as getting a future offensive big man starter who can be a threat every game night. 2013 will mean nothing if we're not contenders...

[Jon]

Do people know what the word CONTENDER means in sports conversations? It means that you have a strong chance of winning a championship.

Alas, the term is more grounded in perception (especially media perception). 1 & 2 are legit, though, and it's a lot easier to get out of the first round of the playoffs if you earn a top-4 seed. I don't think a team needs to win or reach the ECF to be considered a contender, but that's where perception really comes in. Someone has to think the team would have a chance.

[Lumthemad]

It is during times like these where i would hate to be Chris Grant. Anderson is playing brilliant basketball right now and any trade you'd make won't come close to replacing the intangibles he brings to the floor each and every game.

Unless you get a Harden like talent in your crosshairs (of which as far as i can tell, there isn't one) i'd be inclined to keep Anderson. I just don't see the value of getting an additional pick for a guy who means so much to the team. I know, i know...there is logic to why we should/would move him BUT as a fan who loves the Cavaliers, he is a joy to watch play the game. He's the closest thing to Rodman in terms of how he doesn't have to score to impact the game. You cannot give those types of players away.

[NoTitleTown]

Alas, the term is more grounded in perception (especially media perception). 1 & 2 are legit, though, and it's a lot easier to get out of the first round of the playoffs if you earn a top-4 seed. I don't think a team needs to win or reach the ECF to be considered a contender, but that's where perception really comes in. Someone has to think the team would have a chance.

Huh? No. The term comes from boxing, and the vast majority of the time you aren't considered a contender unless you have beaten top opponents in a "real" fight. In terms of the NBA, the real fights are in the playoffs. Until a team has had some measure of post-season success, then they are not a contender. Period. Obviously, the media can skew anything, but the term is pretty solid in its use and definition.

Of course, there are always exceptions to any definition--like Brooklyn. Teams that haven't had recent post-season success, but pulled in a lot of talent in one off-season. But they are called the exception for a reason--most of the time contenders have proven themselves. And personally, I don't consider Brooklyn a contender this year.

[Jon]

Huh? No. The term comes from boxing, and the vast majority of the time you aren't considered a contender unless you have beaten top opponents in a "real" fight. In terms of the NBA, the real fights are in the playoffs. Until a team has had some measure of post-season success, then they are not a contender. Period. Obviously, the media can skew anything, but the term is pretty solid in its use and definition.

I do believe the term predates boxing, but regardless - we're talking basketball and not boxing - and a team like Brooklyn being labelled a contender is not the exception, it's actually part of the rule. Any team that seems to have the players needed to win a championship will be labelled as one. Any team which seems insufficient in some area will be mocked as not being one.

Of course, there are always exceptions to any definition--like Brooklyn. Teams that haven't had recent post-season success, but pulled in a lot of talent in one off-season. But they are called the exception for a reason

Definitions that have exceptions are what we call ... bad definitions. So, of course there's disagreement.

[theSTEREO.]

If Andy's production stays like it is or close to it, literally the only question mark is his age, and will he be performing at this level for the next 4-6 years. That is a question for the training and coaching staff.

If they think he'll last that long, there will be no trade because you'll never get equal value back. If they think he'll be on the decline in 4 years, I think they try and get strong value now.

Fortunately, as hectic as his game can look, Andy's talent doesn't rely on speed or athleticism, the first two things to go with age. Andy's contributions come below the rim and with hustle and positioning, things that can stick with a player into later years.

[NoTitleTown]

Edit.