Archive

Cleveland Cavaliers official offseason thread

  • ytownfootball
    Again, it's not necessarily about what players exactly were brought in but about what players happened to be "available". I agree that those you mention were more an offensive threat, but what defensive guys were available, and for the right price? At some point you have to rely on the coach to make adjustments to what's available also, in this case, maybe emphasizing the O a little more to compensate for your "not so perfect for your system" guys that were the best palayers available.

    One trick ponies as a coach shouldn't be an excuse at the NBA level either.
  • thedynasty1998
    SQ_Crazies wrote: I'm not defending MB, I think he should be fired. But we should consider firing Ferry as well. In hindsight, most of the deals that looked like he won big in, he really didn't. He didn't get plays that fit the system. And if everyone is getting heat for this, there is no reason for Ferry being an exception.
    Finally you make some sense! I've been saying this all year. It started with the draft and everyone said I was stupid because the Cavs wanted to say $1 million per year in guaranteed money, which is just a dumb argument.

    Then they bring in Shaq, expecting what?

    They bring in Jamison over Stoudamire, and the more I've heard about it during the playoffs is that the Stoudamire talks were legit. I think Amare said himself he was about 15 minutes from being traded.

    And then the history of the Hughes trade, paying Boobie $4 million per year, thinking Hickson is a key piece for the future.

    All of those moves make me scratch my head and wonder why Ferry even has a job.

    If Lebron does leave, don't think Ferry is around for another year or two.
  • ytownfootball
    How many times do you need told that Stoudamire wasn't offered? They wouldn't pull te trigger, it wasn't on the Cavs.
  • SQ_Crazies
    ytownfootball wrote: Again, it's not necessarily about what players exactly were brought in but about what players happened to be "available". I agree that those you mention were more an offensive threat, but what defensive guys were available, and for the right price? At some point you have to rely on the coach to make adjustments to what's available also, in this case, maybe emphasizing the O a little more to compensate for your "not so perfect for your system" guys that were the best palayers available.

    One trick ponies as a coach shouldn't be an excuse at the NBA level either.
    No, I don't like that. Sometimes you take the lesser player who fits the system and it makes you a better TEAM. The names on the roster don't matter if the TEAM is good. Anthony Parker is a good example. He played his role VERY well this season--he's a player that fits Brown's system. Mo never fit QUITE right, was an even worse fit after bringing Jamison in. Shaq played really well IMO, but he's not the kind of player that fit the system--you can't be TOO worried about Dwight Howard. So even when some one plays well, if they don't fit the system the coach is running they're still a bit of a drag on how good the team could potentially be.
  • thedynasty1998
    ytownfootball wrote: How many times do you need told that Stoudamire wasn't offered? They wouldn't pull te trigger, it wasn't on the Cavs.
    I've been hearing different this postseason. Many people have said that Stoudamire was seriously shopped around (even though some on here think it was just Kerr doing Ferry a favor). Stoudamire said he was 15 minutes from being traded. One of the analysts said they question Lebron's GM skills, because he preffered Jamison over Stoudamire.

    It's undeniable that the Cavs were in talks with the Suns for Stoudamire, and if the Suns were willing to trade, you do whatever it takes minus trading Lebron to bring in Stoudamire. I mean you trade ANYONE on the roster to get him, because he's an elite player in this league. You could have packaged Hickson, 1st rounder, Varejao and Mo Williams and it's still a no brainer.
  • ytownfootball
    I don't like it either, but again what was a better fit that was available? At a reasonable price?
  • thedynasty1998
    SQ_Crazies wrote: you can't be TOO worried about Dwight Howard.
    That's another thing I've fully understood. First off, to think Shaq can guard Howard is a joke. Secondly, Howard will never beat a team. It's the other matchups that you have to worry about. Howard is a presence on the defensive end of the floor and is a great rebounder. To think they had to pay Shaq $20 million to shut down Howard is just mind boggling to me.
  • j_crazy
    Honestly, I could see this happening:

    Lebron and Bosh to NYK.
    Mike Brown fired as HC in Cleveland. HIRED as assistant for NYK (great defensive coach, knows LBJ).
    Shaq is not a Cav, probably goes to NOLA.
    Z-retires.
  • ytownfootball
    thedynasty1998 wrote:
    ytownfootball wrote: How many times do you need told that Stoudamire wasn't offered? They wouldn't pull te trigger, it wasn't on the Cavs.
    I've been hearing different this postseason. Many people have said that Stoudamire was seriously shopped around (even though some on here think it was just Kerr doing Ferry a favor). Stoudamire said he was 15 minutes from being traded. One of the analysts said they question Lebron's GM skills, because he preffered Jamison over Stoudamire.

    It's undeniable that the Cavs were in talks with the Suns for Stoudamire, and if the Suns were willing to trade, you do whatever it takes minus trading Lebron to bring in Stoudamire. I mean you trade ANYONE on the roster to get him, because he's an elite player in this league. You could have packaged Hickson, 1st rounder, Varejao and Mo Williams and it's still a no brainer.
    The pieces were in place, Kerr wouldn't pull the trigger, the door was closing on "Jamison for the #30 pick this year"....

    That's your "no brainer"
  • ytownfootball
    thedynasty1998 wrote:
    SQ_Crazies wrote: you can't be TOO worried about Dwight Howard.
    That's another thing I've fully understood. First off, to think Shaq can guard Howard is a joke. Secondly, Howard will never beat a team. It's the other matchups that you have to worry about. Howard is a presence on the defensive end of the floor and is a great rebounder. To think they had to pay Shaq $20 million to shut down Howard is just mind boggling to me.
    Shaq wasn't going to be asked to "defend" Howard...only to get him in foul trouble...just another body he can't dominate like Z.
  • se-alum
    Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
  • thedynasty1998
    ytownfootball wrote: Shaq wasn't going to be asked to "defend" Howard...only to get him in foul trouble...just another body he can't dominate like Z.
    I know that's it overestimating Howard, but if you are Van Gundy, you say just play Shaq straight up, let him shoot 50% from 2 feet away and just run the floor to wear him down. He won't be able to play more than 5 minute stretches.

    Plus, Howard is going to play screen and roll to get Shaq in space. That would have been comical.
  • thedynasty1998
    se-alum wrote: Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
    Yea, and Jamison does?
  • Hb31187
    se-alum wrote: Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
    How? Hes a pick and pop big man with a better jumper then any of the bigs on the Cavs except Z. Can move without the ball, doesnt have to be fed in the post. Which is perfect for playign with LBJ bc when you post up you just clog the lane up and LBJ cant drive
  • thedynasty1998
    ytownfootball wrote: That's your "no brainer"
    A "no brainer" is a deal that improves your team. Jamison did not do that. And now you are on the books with his contract for two more years. He's getting $28 million over the next two years. I wouldn't touch that contract unless he is indeed a "no brainer".

    IMO, it was a HORRIBLE move!
  • thedynasty1998
    Hb31187 wrote:
    se-alum wrote: Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
    How? Hes a pick and pop big man with a better jumper then any of the bigs on the Cavs except Z. Can move without the ball, doesnt have to be fed in the post. Which is perfect for playign with LBJ bc when you post up you just clog the lane up and LBJ cant drive
    Exactly my thoughts, but I wanted to hear how he didn't fit first.
  • ytownfootball
    thedynasty1998 wrote:
    ytownfootball wrote: Shaq wasn't going to be asked to "defend" Howard...only to get him in foul trouble...just another body he can't dominate like Z.
    I know that's it overestimating Howard, but if you are Van Gundy, you say just play Shaq straight up, let him shoot 50% from 2 feet away and just run the floor to wear him down. He won't be able to play more than 5 minute stretches.

    Plus, Howard is going to play screen and roll to get Shaq in space. That would have been comical.
    Lol...yeah....just let the "old Superman" shoot at will underneath...I'm sure Howard has a little bit of pride he couldn't swallow, that's the point. You're asking a lot of Howard if you're Van Gundy to do that.
  • chs_redskins
    Mo is good, just not in the playoffs when it matters. Mo is a very streaky player.
  • se-alum
    thedynasty1998 wrote:
    se-alum wrote: Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
    Yea, and Jamison does?
    Never said he did, but they didn't have to get rid of other pieces to get him. If you pick Stoudemire for Hickson, Mo, AV, and a first rounder, they still wouldn't have won a championship. Also, Stoudemire doesn't play defense either. I would've loved to have him, but you can't overpay for someone that might jet after the season is over.
    Hb31187 wrote:
    se-alum wrote: Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
    How? Hes a pick and pop big man with a better jumper then any of the bigs on the Cavs except Z. Can move without the ball, doesnt have to be fed in the post. Which is perfect for playign with LBJ bc when you post up you just clog the lane up and LBJ cant drive
    He doesn't play defense, which is what everyone is saying about Jamison. Like I said above, I would've loved to have Stoudemire, but I don't think we would've been any better after what we would've had to give up to get him.
  • thedynasty1998
    se-alum wrote:
    thedynasty1998 wrote:
    se-alum wrote: Stoudemire wouldn't fit Mike Browns system either.
    Yea, and Jamison does?
    Never said he did, but they didn't have to get rid of other pieces to get him. If you pick Stoudemire for Hickson, Mo, AV, and a first rounder, they still wouldn't have won a championship. Also, Stoudemire doesn't play defense either. I would've loved to have him, but you can't overpay for someone that might jet after the season is over.
    I completely disagree with this.

    First off, I wish Jamison were gone after this season. Who wants to pay him $25 over two years? The Cavs would be better off without that contract.

    Secondly, I don't know if they win the championship if that trade goes down, but it certainly makes them a better team. You lose a first rounder that the Cavs would end up wasting. You get Stoudamire to play the PF, so Hickson and Varejao are now expendable.

    Then you get rid of Williams and play Delonte in his place. You have your #2 scorer in place in Stoudamire now and Delonte can handle the job.

    It's a huge upgrade. Now, I will say that it doesn't set them up for the long term, but at this point the future is already in jeapordy. If you lose Lebron you are starting over anyways, so it would be better to not have a big contract like Stoudamire or Jamison's on the books.
  • se-alum
    We will agree to disagree.

    I just don't see how this team has anymore success:

    PG- West
    SG- Parker
    SF- LeBron
    PF- Stoudemire
    C- Shaq

    Bench:
    Gibson
    Moon
    Z

    Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and the Lakers bigs would love to see that lineup!
  • Al Capone
    I hope you Cleveland pukes watched the the Lakers last night. That should take care of any doubt who the best player in the league is.
  • thedynasty1998
    Okay, we agree to disagree. But Dwight Howard, Garnett and the Lakers bigs loved the current lineup.

    I don't care how bad of a defender Stoudamire is, but he is a better defender than Jamison. Plus, he's a better player than Garnett and Lewis.
  • se-alum
    thedynasty1998 wrote: Okay, we agree to disagree. But Dwight Howard, Garnett and the Lakers bigs loved the current lineup.

    I don't care how bad of a defender Stoudamire is, but he is a better defender than Jamison. Plus, he's a better player than Garnett and Lewis.
    When healthy, Garnett and Stoudemire are close offensively. Defensively it's Garnett in a landslide over Stoudemire.
  • SQ_Crazies
    thedynasty1998 wrote: But Dwight Howard, Garnett and the Lakers bigs loved the current lineup.
    With inside information like this, no wonder he thinks we're all stupid...