Reply With Quote
The only things we’ve consistently heard is that they don’t want Trae.
Not really?
The only things we’ve consistently heard is that they don’t want Trae.
Thtge spurs 4th and 8th picks their own future first the chicipick and Charlotte pick and a couple young guys like keldon plus anyone but vassell and Wemby should be enough to land a target they covet. Without touching Atlantas picks which I think we should keep especially 2025
Garland and Vassell are the same age (both born 2000), and their deals run the same length. It’d be a commitment to that backcourt for the first iteration of Wemby teams, which is a risk, but one worth seriously considering.
Then you use the next two drafts to cycles to go through wings until you land the right one. And as those guys mature, it’d line up with the Garland and Vassell’s deals ending.
My top offer for Garland is something like:
#8, CHA pick, Malaki, Keldon, and filler
That's probably my best offer too. I'd also explore trading back to 7 & 14 and maybe moving up a spot or two from 14 by using both 2nds.
Cavs run it back if that's their best offer. They'll target nets Bridges and nets probably want draft capital. Spurs would need to add draft capital to make it work for three team deal.
That’s a nice combo.
IN: Garland, Salaun (7), Carter (14)
OUT: 4, 8, CHA pick, Malaki, Keldon, filler
We’ll see if the Mitc ’s camp indeed pushes to have Garland moved as a condition to him extending. In any case, if spurs can to add more assets if they think it merits.
I see Brooklyn as the Trae destination tbh.
Garland and Mitc ’s group can agree to look at trading Garland, but it has to make sense for Cavs. Cavs really need a two way swing. Keldon is not that. Vassell is. Spurs probably make Vassell off limits for Garland.
Garland is more intriguing than Trae Young, but... here we have Klutch steering a player off a playoff team because he's 'not being played the right way.'
CLE is hot to keep Mitc . Of course they’d want the Bradley Beal return for Garland, but the “making sense” part for them in largely getting the commitment from Mitc .
Then let them...
Yeah, but Garlands stock is very low atm. Cavs will wait for the right package. Then compe ion to obtain him gets harder. If spurs want him, not waiting is ideal and that package isn't enough. Garland is getting Allstar appearances with Wemby.
The biggest thing complicating a Garland trade (and yes, I don't like Garland either) is that the Cavs already paid a huge price for Mitc . So in their minds, three firsts and three young guys is a viable package I'd assume they know Garland isn't better than Mitc , but that still means they could think something like 8, ATL25, Vassell and Sochan is reasonable. I wouldn't put any of those things on the table for Garland, let alone all of them. But some people have it in their heads that the Spurs really want to acquire a young star PG for Victor, and the Cavs could easily look at that above package and conclude it's a significant discount from the Mitc standpoint and that's more than accounts for the difference between Darius and Donovan.
I don't see the Cavs as a rational trade ally this year. Maybe at the deadline.
I think there's a range on Garland from he's an all star calibre player who's been lower in the last 2 years with an odd fit / injury, to he's decent but not super dynamic on ball scorer who had an all star season, though the team won with defense. That has a huge range in trade value. I think he's towards the lower end of that spectrum. I'd be fine with something like a Keldon / Chicago pick + Charlotte pick, but not anything like the Vassell / Sochan / 8 combo. To me, that's an overpay.
The Cavs also being in trying to win mode also make them a poor partner as a direct trading partner. If another team is starting to rebuild and has a piece that fits what Cleveland wants, and the picks could be routed to team C (e.g, Washington for Avdija) it could make some sense.
.?? Garland and his representatives aren’t driving this. Mitc wants him gone, period.
They can’t wait, because Mitc and his reps are tapping their toes, waiting for that trade before they sign an extension. Sometimes it sucks, and you take the best offer on the table,even if it’s crap.
Nah, Garland isn't important enough to add more. If the cavs think they can get more elsewhere then let them... there's no way I offer more than that...
I was really high on Garland a year ago and I expected this outcome in Cleveland. Him and Mitc were never going to fit together.
He's had some injury issues and a disappointing season. I still believe there's a great player in there, but that contract is a big risk.
Still, even if he doesn't develop into a parennial all-star, he'll always be a good player and it won't take much to move him.
As for the offer, I'd maybe add Chicago pick, but only if they take Collins.
They're going with Mobley over Allen, so they'll need a backup after Allen is traded.
Keldon, Collins, #8, '25 Chicago, '25 Charlotte for Garland.
Or Tre instead of #8 since they're going to need a backup PG.
Then we draft a rookie PG with that #8 to come off the bench.
If KJ, Zollins, Chicago, Charlotte, and Tre get it done, then count me in on that...
My brother in Christ, this all started with Klutch and Rich Paul demanding a trade.
Mitc is our best friend here, the more he presses, the more desperate Cavs get.
Mitc will surely give them a deadline, this won't drag out all summer long like Lillard saga.
As already mentioned, Spurs should hold firm and not get fleeced unless they really think Garland is the playmaker to get.
The only issue would be other teams and potential offers.
I'd say Ingram<->Garland swap makes the most sense, but I'm sure he'd rather play with Wemby than go to another dysfunctional franchise.
Orlando would be the other compe ior. They have more than enough to trade for Garland and need a point guard badly.
Both Orlando and the Spurs can also look at D'Lo as a fallback option that doesn't cost as much in salary or assets too. That fact should help keep a lid on a maximum asset offer here.
If we are going someone paid 40M then just go ahead and get Trae at that point.
Trae makes about 5-7M more annually (that’s before his next deal). He will also probably command twice as much asset-wise in return than Garland.
The goal with Garland is to buy as his value is lowest to allow the Spurs to hold on to as many of their moat valuable trade assets (Vassell, Sochan, ATL FRP, their own FRPs) as possible.
To be clear, I like the theoretical fit of Garland and all, but I’m not breaking the bank for him either.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions