Part 4, the Demise of “One-Star” teams
Something I meant to do at the start of this series was give credit to basketball-reference.com, an amazing source of NBA content. It really is astounding how much information they’ve accumulated there (also I’ll note to check out the links below, too. Lebron commented on playing for Cleveland again).
Over the last two days, we’ve seen how the best recent teams were built, forming a case for organizational excellence far exceeding the need for multiple lottery picks. You may be saying, “What an idiot this guys is. I saw what happened with the Cavs, Hornets, and Jazz as one-star teams. Is that what this guy wants to happen again?”
You’ve asked a great question. There could be very valuable lessons to be learned from the rise and fall of those teams. Let’s take a deeper look at what went wrong.
Lebron James’ Cavs (first 5 years)
The Cavs inability to quickly build a contender after the 2003 draft really started in 1997, when they traded their 2005 first round pick for Wesley Person.
Aside from that, most of Cleveland’s problems can be summarized through a little game. You’ll need a few things: seven hats, paper and a pen. We’ll see if you can randomly build a better team from 2000 to 2007 than the Cavs did. To start, in 2 separate hats, place the following names:
- Luke Jackson, Andris Biedrins, Robert Swift, Sebastian Telfair, Kris Humphries and Al Jefferson.
- Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Morris Almond, Aaron Brooks, Arron Afflalo, Tiago Splitter, Alando Tucker.
Draw one name from the first hat and two names from the second. The first hat represents the player the Cavs picked 10th in 2004 and the five players selected after. The second hat is the players picked within five of the 2007 first round picks that the Cavs traded in 2005 to acquire Sasha Pavlovic and Jiri Welsch. Did you end up with a better assortment of basketball players than Jackson, Pavlovic, and Welsch? If you did, your random selections worked out better than what Cleveland actually got!
In the next four hats, put in the following names:
- Jamal Crawford, Chris Mihm, Joel Pryzbilla, Keyon Dooling, Jerome Moiso and Etan Thomas
- Brendan Haywood, Joe Forte, Jerryl Sasser, Brandon Armstrong, Raul Lopez, Gerald Wallace
- Desagana Diop, Rodney White, Joe Johnson, Kedrick Brown, Vlad Radmanovic, Richard Jefferson
- Dejuan Wagner, Nene, Amar’e Stoudemire, Chris Wilcox, Caron Butler, Jared Jeffries
Draw from each hat. The first name in each list is a player the Cavs selected in the 2000 to 2002 drafts. Unfortunately, the Cavs traded Crawford for Mihm and Haywood for Michael Doleac. Doh! Did your random selections fare better than Mihm, Doleac, Diop and Wagner? Your random selections could have been the young team the Cavs entered 2003 with.
You’re probably thinking, “This is painful; Why is he making me do this?” You raise a good point; I’m mean. The point is there were real opportunities to build a nice team spread throughout these drafts. Combined with the Carlos Boozer debacle of 2004 and the Larry Hughes, Donyell Marshall & Damon Jones free agency bonanza of 2005; the Cavs made only two obviously good personnel moves over the span of 8 years: the 2003 draft and trading for Varejao. By the time the 61 & 66 game winners were built; the 2008 Olympics had already occurred, and the seeds of defection sowed.
Over the last couple paragraphs, you’ve probably been thinking, “If the Cavs had Crawford, Haywood, and Amar’e, they may not have picked #1.” I’ll concede that. Using the win shares per 48 minutes at basketball-reference, if I give Mihm’s minutes to 23-year-old Haywood, Smush Parker’s minutes to 22-year-old Crawford, and Diop’s minutes to 20-year-old Stoudemire; that adds 5 wins. Instead of having the league’s worst record, Cleveland has the second worst record, with a worst-case scenario of picking 5th in the draft. So for the seventh hat:
- Lebron James, Darko Milicic, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade.
Maybe the 8 names you drew, plus Varejao, Ilgauskas & a free agent, form the core of the championship that Lebron didn’t obtain.
Chris Paul’s Hornets
Chris Paul’s time in New Orleans was cursed. The circumstances are twisted and tragic; I’m probably not qualified to cover it. Two months after he was drafted, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the team packed up for Oklahoma City. Five years after that, the NBA acquired the nearly bankrupt team. Chris Paul’s time in NO never stood a chance.
From a personnel perspective, he entered to the scattered remains of tropical storm Baron Davis, inheriting a team consisting of young David West (18th pick in 2003), 19-year-old J.R. Smith (18th pick in 2004), Chris Anderson (less than a year from a drug suspension), and Brandon Bass (33rd in 2005). Behind Paul’s brilliance, West, a trade of PJ Brown & Smith for Tyson Chandler, and the acquisition of Peja Stojakovic via Indiana salary dump; the Hornets rapidly improved to 56 wins in Paul’s third season.
Then they tailed off towards becoming a gnat to be swatted on the way to someone else’s championship. Some of this was precipitated by whiffs in the 2006 & 2007 drafts (picking 12th, 15th & 13th missing on gaining Sefolosha, Stuckey and Nick Young) . Stojakovic had been acquired at age 29 and was unable to produce up to the value of his 5 years & $63 million contract. At age 30, Morris Peterson was signed for 4 years & $24 million and at 32, James Posey for 4 years and $25 million. The effects of bad salary cap management and going broke started kicking in; they sold their 2008 draft pick and let Jannero Pargo head to Russia. To get rid of Peterson’s contract, they unloaded the 11th pick in 2010. A trade of Tyson Chandler for Emeka Okafor took place; at the time this was debatable, with hindsight, clearly it was misconceived. At the same age and similarly skilled, Chandler only had 2 years & $24 million left on his contract compared to Okafor’s 5 & 65. With the NBA taking the team over in December 2010, the countdown to Paul’s exit was on.
Deron Williams’ Jazz
In the second season after the Malone & Stockton era, the Jazz won 26 games and picked Williams 3rd in the draft. When he entered, the team was a lot more set than the Cavs or Hornets. Probably too set. The year before Williams came aboard, Mehmet Okur received a 5 year, $40 million contract and Carlos Boozer, 6 & 70. In the off-season when they drafted Williams, Andrei Kirilenko was given a 6 year, $86 million extension. Matt Harpring was under contract for $6 million per.
With the addition of Deron and two solid rookies the next year (Ronnie Brewer and Paul Millsap), the core was etched in stone. Eventual extensions to Williams and Millsap, combined with the aforementioned long-term deals, pushed the Jazz into luxury tax territory . To combat this, in 2009 they traded Eric Maynor (20th pick) in order to get rid of Harpring’s contract. They found Wes Mathews as an undrafted free agent, but after one season let him walk as a restricted free agent. Ronnie Brewer was traded for a future draft pick. Finally in 2010, Williams was done with the un-rebuilding and demanded a trade.
In addition to discarding Maynor, Matthews, and Ronnie Brewer to avoid the luxury tax; the Jazz missed on a couple of late draft picks. Morris Almond busted at #25 in 2007 with Aaron Brooks, Arron Afflalo and Tiago Splitter going 26 – 28. In 2008, it was Kosta Koufos with Serge Ibaka, Nic Batum and George Hill the next three to go.
So to wrap this up, better cap management and drafting could have reasonably given the Utah Jazz a 2010 core of Williams, Maynor, Matthews, Brewer, Gordon Hayward, CJ Miles, Ibaka, Millsap and cap space. Does Williams demand to leave that team? We’ll never know.
What the Cavs can learn
The failures of these teams boil down to poor cap management and decision making, and to some extent, impatience.
The 2003 – 2008 Cavs’ problems were a combination of poor personnel decisions and impatience. Trading three first rounders before surfacing as a true contender was a mistake. Coming away with nothing from the six draft picks they did make surrounding 2003 was very damaging when viewed alongside the availalble talent selected nearby.
The Hornets and Jazz both exhibited horrible salary cap management and jettisoned young talent because of it. For NO, full mid-level exceptions to 30-something players helped mold their demise. As a whole, the mid-level exception has been great for middle-of-the-road NBA players; it’s been horrible for the teams that sign them. Bidding against themselves shot Utah in the foot; their 2004 & 2005 free agency extravaganza was more damaging than Cleveland’s. I suppose teams need to set a player’s worth going into negotiations, and if the player demands more than that…hold firm and call their bluff . They may walk, but in a salary cap / luxury tax world, there aren’t alot of players worth 6 years and $86 million.
The plight of these three teams is avoidable (although New Orleans was dealt a very tough hand), even without today’s Cavs going back for another top five pick. To build around Irving and Thompson, Cleveland has to hit their draft picks, regardless of where. Some teams regularly accomplish this in the middle parts of the draft, including most of the team’s covered on Tuesday and Wednesday. As the Cavs add free agents, a keen eye will need kept on future cap ramifications, considering the likely extensions to Irving and other youngsters they’ll acquire. Prudence in free agency is a must; of the six teams discussed in parts 2 and 3, the big free agents were: Shaq, Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups. That’s about it. The three teams above were much more active in the market. Free agency can be very dangerous, treading carefully is important.
See you tomorrow, with a final installment taking a quick look at the other four championship squads of the last twenty years.
Boozer. You forgot Boozer.
Every team makes bad picks but releasing Boozer on his non word when you had his rights for another year was sooooo dumb.
Boozer was probably the dumbest decision since the Stepian era (I mean in the entire league, not just the Cavs). The only thing close was Sam Bowie. That being said, Boozer literally ruined it for everyone. No one will ever let a player out of a contract after that. Also, I don’t think he’ll ever win anything. Boozer is a mercenary.
It looks like Chris Grant really values draft picks, so we should be getting a steady influx of young talent for the forseeable future.
My main concern is Dan Gilbert getting impatient and forcing a sign/trade for a middling talent with a huge contract. No one wants to count down the days until Larry Hughes’ contract is up.
Regarding Boozer, for the sake of brevity (haha) I ran with the bad drafting. Making a bad pick would be one thing, but the Cavs made nothing but bad picks, which deserved discussing.
I don’t recall specifics, was there one year left on Boozer’s contract? If so and the Cavs sign him a year later for 6 years and $70 million, is this instead a cautiounary tale on wrapping up $25 – 30 million a year on Boozer and Hughes?
When I did the pick from a hat thing, I drew Stoudemire, Gerald Wallace, Afflalo, Splitter and …. Darko.
I did revise to reference Boozer in the Cavs section.
Good game Kevin, I didn’t hate it at all, I think it illustrates quite well the type of gamble draft picks really are. Sometimes better luck is not picking the guy that you think has more talent (e.g. OKC picking 2nd and ‘settling’ for Durrant instead of Oden).
It will be interesting to see how Grant evaluate and use draft picks going forward. Something I consider is that as of right now the Cavs have 3 picks in this upcoming ‘deep’ draft. Our own two, likely around #10 in each round, plus the second rounder from the Hornets, which is likely top 3 in the round. If we end up trading Sessions to the lakers for their first round pick (maybe even Utah who needs a PG as well), then that would be 4 opportunities for Grant to ‘prove’ himself as a GM. Possible picks for this draft could look like: Gilchrist/Beal/ or P. Jones @ #10, this gives us a potentially very good wing. If we made the trade with Utah, we could take Fab Melo or Leonard (both good C’s) @13 there is also a shot for Fab Melo around 20 if we traded with the lakers. There are also several SF/SG’s we could take in this area including T. Jones, Joseph, Buford or Jenkins. Any of which could turn into great picks or bust.
If we “end up” with two wings with our 2 first round picks (which wouldn’t be horrible) then we would almost certainly have to go after Withey/Ezeli/Sacre/Sims (All C’s) with our first second round pick from the Hornets. Then with our ‘final’ pick we could go in several directions. But ultimately, this draft is deep and 3-5 years from now we’ll be talking about how we did so well in it and developed such a strong core of young talented players, or we’ll be talking about the hat game again and what could have been.
Kyrie, was proven to be the right call – instead of Williams/Knight tandem that some people were hoping/pushing for. The question is still out on Tristan for me. Was he the right pick at #4 or should we have taken JV? We’ll have much better idea after next season. But at least, in only looking at this current group of rookies, I can’t really come up with a player taken immediately after him (that would have made since) that is outperforming him. So as of now, it appears to be that we made the ‘right’ choices in Grants first draft.
These pieces have completely changed my views on rebuilding. Well done.
If they sign Boozer they’d never have the cap room to sign Hughes. Damon Jones was probably still a possibility, they probably don’t sign Marshall either, since they play the same position. One year left on Booze’s contract at 500K or so. They let him out so he could sign a better deal, and he took like 28 million more to play with the Jazz. It was such a backstab that his agent resigned.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836318
So having the money to sign Booze would’ve kept them out of the Hughes chase for sure. When you look back at 2005, it was one of the worst free agency years in the last 10 years, and the wrong one to have money to spend.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2097450
The moral of the story is that it’s better to be like the Mavs and trade for decent players off distressed teams with your cap room, than it is to throw money at bad free agents (they’re usually free agents for a reason).
Great job with these pieces. Very informative and insightful…like Trill said, it made me rethink my ideas about rebuilding.
I find it funny how Boozer gets vilified while Gilbert gets ignored. Gilbert tried to circumvent the rules of the CBA to snag Boozer at a below market rate. He basically was betting that Boozer’s integrity wouldn’t let him leave for more money while hoping that the fact that he was trying to ignore rules would go ignored.
Actually, that was Gordon Gund. I think it led to his selling of the team.
baconisgood – Dan Gilbert didn’t own the team then. It was Gordon Gund who let Boozer out of his contract. It wasn’t clear at the time whether the GM, Jim Paxon, recommended for or against it, but either way the decision was Gund’s (as he publicly acknowledged in the aftermath of that debacle). And yes, the irony is that it was clearly against NBA rules and, had Boozer actually kept his word, might have led to the Cavs losing multiple 1st rd picks – the league had taken FIVE first-rounders away from Minnesota (later reduced to “only” four) for a similar illegal handshake deal with Joe Smith. So it was an unforgively stupid thing to do even if Boozer had kept his word.
baconisgood: First, a point of clarrification, it was Gund who ‘made the deal’ with Booze, not Gilbert.
Second, I guess I don’t have a problem if a person without integrity get’s villified. IF, as the reports suggest did happen, the Boozer’s lack of integrity was the ‘issue’ here.
Third, how did Gund try to circumvent ther rules of the CBA? As the rules were, he relingquished Boozer from his contract. Rather than extending Boozer for another year for $600,000 or so, he thought that they could just sign a new contract for around 6 years $40,000,000. I’m not sure where there was any attempt to circumvent any rules here. Please explain, because as far as I can tell (and the league could to or Gund would have been fined), there was no actual or attempted rule violation or circumvention that took place.
So on one hand you have Booze who reportedly made a deal and then backs out of it – so get’s villified for lack of integrity. And on the other hand you have an owner trying to do right by his player and letting him make more money sooner, who doesn’t get villified but called ‘dumb’ in a number of ways for trusting a player that he had a relatioship with for many years. No rules bent or ignored in the entire situation. In fact it’s because Gund played by the rules that was his ‘stupid’ mistake that allowed Boozer to walk.
I didn’t see Brian’s response befor posting.
Brian, What rule did he violate. How was it similar to Minnesota. I remeber the investigation of the Cavs about this and they were cleared of any wrongdoing or intent by the commish.
Kevin,
Someone might use your hat concept to illustrate how the Cavs current rebuild could be very different from the LeBron era rebuild. Imagine taking multiple picks from most of those hats. That is similar to the position that Grant has put the Cavs in with his decisions so far. The first hat went about as well as can be expected when they pulled Kyrie. The names in the remaining hats may not be the same as the ones from the LeBron hat series, but the distribution of talent will likely be about the same. I like the Cavs chances having multiple pulls from most of those hats.
@The Nupe: Since I’m so tech-challenged that I couldn’t figure out how to insert the link, see below an except from an article that helps answer your question. The short answer is, secret contracts are illegal under NBA rules. My understanding (though I don’t know all the ins and outs of it) is that contracts are approved by the league office. The Joe Smith case involved an advance agreement between Smith and the T-Wolves that, 3 years later when he became a free agent, the T-Wolves would give him a specific amount of money. The T-Wolves were even dumber than the Cavs, because their secret agreement was in writing. The Cavs and Boozer only had a handshake deal, so when Boozer turned his back on it, there was nothing the league could “prove” and thus nothing to punish. But had he actually followed through on the handshake deal, the league may well have taken action against the Cavs. I don’t recall them ever being officially “cleared” of anything.
“The Timberwolves signed an illegal secret agreement with Smith, promising him a multiyear, multimillion-dollar contract extension that was to begin in the 2001-02 season after Smith had played three seasons in Minnesota.
Stern penalized the Timberwolves by taking away their next five first-round draft picks and fining the team $3.5 million.” http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100183&page=1
Hoopsdogg,
Yeah, 2005 was a horrible year for free agents. It was basically Ray Allen, michael redd, and unhhhh…Larry Hughes coming off a career year in a contract year at age 26 should have been a red flag. Hindsight is 20 / 20.
The Cavs signed jones, Marshall and Alan Henderson for about $10 million that summer. Boozer’s contract started at 11. The Cavs re-upped ilgauskas that summer; you sure that Z wouldn’t have taken 1 mil less if the Cavs really wanted Hughes?
In the vein of trading expirings, what contract are you looking to take back for Jamison?
Since you asked, Kevin:
With the Knicks surging, it doesn’t look like there’s much chance the Cavs (currently 10th behind Milwaukee) are making the playoffs. So the Cavs need to be sellers. They have two tradeable assets in Jamison and Sessions. Sessions is not a hard trade, because he has a reasonable contract which only goes through next year. But the problem is trading Jamison…
Jamison has been a good scorer this year, and has been passable as a stretch four. He would be an easy move if he didn’t make so much money. To get rid of Jamison, The Cavs have to take back anywhere between 10 and 22 million dollars in salary. (The total contract values of trades can be up to 150% of each other, and Jamison’s contract is right around 15 million). Jamison doesn’t work in a two team deal for almost any team in the league unless we take back some very bad long term contracts.
Here are some examples:
Team #1
Phoenix would probably give up any combination of Josh Childress (6Mil/4Years/11.7PER), Channing Frye (5.6Mil/4Years/13.8PER), and Hakeem Warrick (4Mil/3Years/13.6PER). Remember, an average player posts a PER around 15, so obviously these are all bad contracts that last too long. PER undervalues defense, but except for Childress, these are bad defensive players. The Cavs would have to take one or two of those contracts, and the Suns would have to trade a sweetener (someone who doesn’t completely suck), like Robin Lopez (needs a change of scenery), or Jared Dudley. Taking back two of these contracts would make sense if we could get Marcin Gortat, currently one of the top 5 centers in the league.
That is a lot of salary to take on, and would really hurt the Cavs long term cap situation, but to get Gortat, or Lopez and Phoenix’s lottery pick, it might be worth it, especially if Josh Childress could be rehabilitated into a serviceable NBA player (doubtful).
Team #2
The Rockets: another team with a lot of mediocre long term deals. The rockets would probably only deal for Jamison as a last resort, if they were looking to clear salary (say to make a run at Howard this summer, or as part of a three team deal). The only candidates that make sense for the rockets to deal are Scola(9.5Mil/4Years/13.6PER) or Martin(11.5Mil/2Years/18.2PER). The Rockets, as much as they like Scola, would probably trade him straight up in order to get out of his contract which still has almost 40 million on it (the last year is partially guaranteed). The Cavs would have to get a very high draft pick to do this deal. Also Scola is 31. His contract is the biggest reason that the original CP3 deal was canceled. It’s an albatross. Martin would be interesting, but we would probably have to give up a draft pick to make that happen. He’s a good complementary player, but has never been known for his defense. Another deal Houston could make is to package its collection of bad draft picks from other teams in an attempt to clear more room for this summer: Thabeet, Williams, Patterson, Flynn and/or Budinger for Jamison and Harangody. Cavs would end up having to cut two players out of their current team or the players they’re getting, and would probably only take on a few million in long term salary, as most of these players haven’t had their rookie options picked up. I like this deal for Budinger (who’s inexplicably in this year’s dunk contest – which might have the worst field ever), and taking a flyer on some of these prospects.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=7e29dxf
Team #3
Detroit. This scenario only makes sense if Detroit is willing to send us draft picks or the right to trade picks with them, in order to take on bad contracts. The targets: Ben Gordon (11.6Mil/3Years/12.3PER) or Charlie Villanueva (7.54Mil/3Years/Injured). With 33+ million on his contract, Gordon is a terrible idea, but he is a lights out shooter, who can score when motivated, and would probably do better on an up-tempo team. Villanueva is interesting if we could get a top 5 pick out of the trade. The contract isn’t crippling. Cleveland does it for a first round pick, or the right to trade first round picks in the next four years (top 5 protected 2012, top 3 2013, number 1 2014, no protection 2015).
Team #4
Charlotte. Cleveland gives up Jamison and Skyenga for Maggette (10.3Mil/2Years/9.8PER), or Diop(7.8Mil/2Years/7.8PER) and Matt Carroll(3.9Mil/2Years/6.0PER) which saves the Bobcats 5-6 million next year, and Cleveland does it for the pick or the right to trade, as above. This deal actually seems doable. I like this deal, because one thing Cavs need to get is some draft picks farther out. The last thing you want in the NBA is all your rookie contracts due for extension at the same time. FYI, Maggette makes Jamison look like a selective shooter. How many of these contracts that Jordan doled out look like lost golf bets?
Team #5
New Jersey. Help them clear cap room for next year by taking on Brook Lopez (RFA next year) and some bad but not horrible contracts that don’t last beyond next year. This kind of trade is probably the most plausible: Jamison and Harangody for Morrow, Petro, and Lopez. This deal is contingent on the Nets being convinced they’re getting Dwight. I actually think they will.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=6rszfs2
Other Trade possibilities:
The most intriguing I saw was on this site a few weeks ago. It involved using Jamison as cap relief for the Magic in a three team deal. In return we would get Ryan Anderson (who should be a 2012 Cavs free agent target) and eat Turkoglu’s contract, and the Lakers would get Dwight and Jamison. I don’t think the Magic will give up Ryan Anderson in any kind of Dwight Howard deal, but it’s worth thinking about. That’s a lot of bad salary to eat though (22 Million between 2012 and 2014). Other three team deals are probably the other possibilities. The biggest possibilities I still see are Jamison getting a buyout, or being with the Cavs till season’s end. However, this is a crazy season and very fluid season. In two weeks time, standings can jump dramatically, and injuries can change everything for contending teams. If one of those teams loses a player with a matching salary who is in the last year of a deal, then that could be a very plausible destination for Jamison in exchange for a prospect or a first rounder.
Thanks HoopsDogg. You had to know that would get spammed.
the most unexpected thing I “learned” from writing this, was that maybe taking on salary by trading Jamison is a smart thing to do. Trading Jamison for a “bad” contract that will be expiring in a couple years (to be traded for another, better upgrade), while also pulling in a young talent or asset, could work out better than fa.
As long as the incoming players aren’t bad for chemistry, this has cost control benefits that fa often times does not. I proposed a diop / Carroll trade last month. turkoglu actually interests me now, too,if the return is right. Any of these players can be used in a trade as another expiring contract in the next couple seasons, potentially when a situation arises when the Cavs can package accumulated young talent and an expiring to make a big upgrade.
I would still want to stay away from 4 years contracts, like Phoenix and scola, and wouldn’t want Gordon or Magette either. Whoever the Cavs would trade for would need to halfway mesh into the team.
Anyways, thanks for all the great thoughts. The Cavs have a lot of flexibility and the next few years certainly should amount to a relatively quick rebuild, if they make good decisions.
You do NOT want a bad contract like Turk’s. If there’s one thing to learn from teams like the Thunder and Spurs, it’s NOT to take on horrible contracts. Inflated one’s aren’t bad, but don’t take on a complete albatross.
The Jamison situation is “the” next big challenge for Gilbert. Getting real value for Jamison’s expiring contract is an absolute must, but not out of an act of desperation. Therefore, any deal Gilbert might do has to include a viable player that fills a real need and/or a 1st round draft choice. Otherwise, let the contract expire.
With this thought in mind, a move that might be feasible involves New Orleans-a team that desperately needs to get itself into a financial position to be sold. In other words, it has to shed salary. The deal would be Jamison for Okafor (another two years on his contract) and New Orleans 2nd 1st round pick in this years draft. Cleveland could give New Orleans back its 2nd round pick in this years draft. Okafor fills a definite need at center(depth) and the Cavs now have two picks in the lottery. Additionally, keep Sessions but extend his contract.
Keith,
I’m certainly not going to advocate heavily for trading for Turkoglu’s contract. But 1.5 seasons from now, it’s an expiring contract, too. If a decent asset is obtained by taking on his contract, that could be better than overpaying free agent X this off-season. The Cavs will need to spend money on someone next year…and then after next year, they trade Turkoglu’s expiring contract for something better. That’s potentially something to be learned from the Maverick’s model.
Also the Thunder made a few moves like this. They traded for Harpring’s contract to get Maynor and for MoPete’s contract to get the 11th pick in 2010. The key is to not take back a contract that will still be on the books once it’s time to extend your youngsters. Turkoglu’s contract ends the summer that Kyrie will get his extension.
In summary, I think trades like this at least warrant consideration.
Grant, not Gilbert. Sorry
Hoopsdog -
I really think you’re underestimating the Cavs’ chances of making the playoffs. I think Boston could realistically fall out – they’ve been pretty streaky this year, and haven’t beaten a great team yet (Orlando is definitely not great) so I’d definitely say they’re pretty even with the Cavs from here on out (we split the series with them, and the games were close) Furthermore, if Orlando ends up trading Dwight Howard, say goodbye to them in the playoffs.
I also think you missed the boat a little on the trades. Realistically no team is going to give up a potential lottery pick to save a few million – this I promise you. This draft is way too deep and the way that the league has shifted, especially for small market teams, is towards trying to get young guys and convince them to stay – I doubt Charlotte, Detroit, or Phoenix are going to give this up. Furthermore, the Rockets value Scola way more than anyone else, so they’re not going to trade him for 50 cents on the dollar. Same thing for Kevin Martin.
Basically what we have to hope for is that some contender gets desperate for a stretch for, along the lines of what the Cavs did, or hope that some mid-level team thinks they have a shot at a big free agent and is willing to give us a young prospect or a mid-first rounder to take on some bad contracts. If that doesn’t happen, I doubt we’ll see Jamison go.
The most telling part of the Jamison scenarios is that the rumors for Sessions are only yielding us a late first rounder (from the likes of the Knicks or Lakers). Is we’re only getting that for Sessions, you really think we have a shot at a lottery for Jamison?
I don’t think the Cavs are making the playoffs. If Boston misses them, it will only be due to two of the big four (Rondo, Garnett, Pierce, Allen) getting hurt. They just have too much will. The Varajao injury just hurts us too much. Miwaukee is better than us, and so are the Knicks. Realistically, we’d need two major slides in front of us, and this assume that no one behind us starts playing better (Toronto would be most likely).
If you look at my trades, only the ones with Charlotte are giving up a few million for a lottery pick (and I think the right to trade is more likely). The reason I picked Charlotte is that Michael Jordan’s cheapness cannot be underestimated. This is the guy who gave away Gerald Wallace. The other trades involve 20+ million in salaries over the course of the contracts for a lottery pick, or highly talented young player. The reluctance to do this will not be on the other teams’ ends, it will be on the Cav’s end, because those are really bad contracts. My point is that the only way to trade Jamison to get into the lottery is to eat a lot of really bad contracts. We’re not trading Jamison so much as trading his 15 million dollar contract that is ending.
Trading for Lopez and some of the junk from Jersey is not out of the realm of possibility, but I think the Nets hang on to Lopez as long as they can. I think Daryl Morey will see the light on Scola. He has to know how bad that contract is, and he sees that Scola’s play is diminishing. Daryl Morey got hosed more than any GM in the league this year, and now his Rockets are in the worst place to be in the NBA: just short of the playoffs.