Nuggets want Varejao

[CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07!]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1416 ... er-says-so
In the ongoing Melo saga, it seems that in order to facilitate a trade of Melo to the Knicks (or anywhere else for that matter), a 3rd team would have to get involved. Seems like they are interested in SSB.

From the beginning of the Melodrama, Denver's wish list of veteran replacements for Anthony has been consistent: Joakim Noah, Andrei Kirilenko, Andre Iguodala, Gerald Wallace or Anderson Varejao.

Sources say numerous teams have inquired about Varejao, but the Cavs won't even entertain such talks unless they're getting a superstar in return; Anthony, for one, has made it clear he wouldn't sign an extension in Cleveland.

First off, why would the Cavs insist on a superstar in exchange for Varejao? Yes his offense has improved, and I love his tenacity on defense as much as the next guy, but he's not really a necessity on a rebuilding team. On a contender he has crazy value, but we are no longer contenders. Not to mention who even knows if his increased ofensive efficency will still exist without LeBron setting him up. Granted his jumper improved as well, but no one will ever mistake him for a Top 4 offensive option on a contending team. As much as I was a fan of his contract, on this current Cavs team it will be an albatross for years.

Secondly, why would the Nuggets even want him? Without Melo, they're no more a contender in the West than the Cavs are in the East. What value does Varejao bring to the table for them?

I dont get either side.

[SDM]

Trade him for a Denver 1st round'r yesterday.

[gotribe31]

Trade him for a Denver 1st round'r yesterday.

Really? You'd trade Andy for a pick that's probably going to be in the late-20's?

[peeker643]

First off, why would the Cavs insist on a superstar in exchange for Varejao?

First rule in negotiations is to ask for the stars.

Next rule is settle for substantially less (Mark Shapiro understands this, btw ) .

It's just positioning. And maybe the Nugs feel with JR Smith, Nene, Chauncey and Al Harrington they have enough to make noise if Varejao is a part of the roster. Interested to see how much Lawson has improved there too this season.

[CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07!]

Trade him for a Denver 1st round'r yesterday.

That's not only impossible, it has nothing to do with their desire for him in a 3 team trade to rid themselves of Melo.

[papacass]

Yes his offense has improved, and I love his tenacity on defense as much as the next guy, but he's not really a necessity on a rebuilding team. On a contender he has crazy value, but we are no longer contenders.

Varejao is a necessity on this rebuilding team. Who else plays center? Ryan Hollins?

Byron Scott wants a mobile, active center for his Princeton offense. The center needs to set a lot of screens in the Princeton the way Scott runs it, which is what Andy can do. Scott is on record saying Andy is the type of center he wants.

In other words, Andy is a useful piece, and the only reason to trade him would be in a total fleece-job that brings another franchise player to town. Which obviously isn't going to be Melo, since he wants to hook up with CP3 and Amare to form another Big Three in New York.

I expect Andy's name to keep appearing in trade rumors, but I don't expect him to be moved.

[CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07!]

And maybe the Nugs feel with JR Smith, Nene, Chauncey and Al Harrington they have enough to make noise if Varejao is a part of the roster. Interested to see how much Lawson has improved there too this season.

That's actually very interesting. A starting 5 of Chauncey, JR, Harrington, Varejao, and Nene, with Lawson, Birdman, Afflalo (he only started for his D - JR would have to be in the starting 5 to replace Melo's scoring, unless if you feel that Harrington is enough for that), and K-Mart off the bench would not be all that terrible. Odds are that they'd be rid of K-Mart and have a different piece instead in the event of a Melo deal. Hmmm...

[SDM]

All I was saying is if Denver trades 'Melo their first round pick could be pretty low.

[Orenthal]

BTW the only albatross contract the Cavaliers have on their roster is Jamison. However as an expiring in the supposed lockout year he probably will have a hard time being dealt. Both Mo(9.3, 8.5, 8.5) and Andy(7, 7.7, 8.4, 9.1, 9.8)in this open offense will probably wind up being bargains.

[daddywags]

I think they should trade Andy assuming they have multiple bidders and can get top value for him. I don't think a superstar player is in the cards, but I think New York wants Melo really, really, bad and that Denver wants to trade Melo bad, too. If Varejao is a guy who can make that happen (maybe along with a part of our TPE), then let me hear the offers baby.

Andy fits in Scott's offense? That's nice. We're back to the "maybe we can eak out an 8th seed, get our asses handed to us in the playoffs by 'you know who' and have the 16th pick in next June's draft" scenario. For the life of me, I have lots of trouble figuring out how that could be an attractive scenario to any Cavs fan. But have at it. I'm listening.

[swerb]

I think they should trade Andy assuming they have multiple bidders and can get top value for him. I don't think a superstar player is in the cards, but I think New York wants Melo really, really, bad and that Denver wants to trade Melo bad, too. If Varejao is a guy who can make that happen (maybe along with a part of our TPE), then let me hear the offers baby.

Andy fits in Scott's offense? That's nice. We're back to the "maybe we can eak out an 8th seed, get our asses handed to us in the playoffs by 'you know who' and have the 16th pick in next June's draft" scenario. For the life of me, I have lots of trouble figuring out how that could be an attractive scenario to any Cavs fan. But have at it. I'm listening.

Exactly. Worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle. And you can't win titles without star players, none of whom will come here willingly. Makes it very disheartening to be a Cavs fan right now if you get that.

Sadly, the only hope for this franchise to win a title in the next five years is to drop a nuclear fucking bomb on this franchise and bottom out.

Jim Paxson still looking for work? He's done it once before.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

Team ain't going to bottom out as long as Comic Sans Tommy Devito wants his big F-U to Lebron. 40 plus wins and a playoff spot would be a nice complement to his dream of the Heat getting bounced out of the postseason. 'Fuck you, it wasn't all about Roker and the supporting cast after all, was it?'

[Gradysmanldy]

I'm don't think i'm down with swapping Varejao OR Mo OR Twan until, (and i'm not 100% sure it's possible, with trade rules....feel free to smash this), we can package one of them with the trade exception at the break. Maybe we work with a team looking to shed salary with a useful player before potential lockout....that you can actually build around. (combo of Sessions, two of AV/Mo/Twan, Hickson, trade acquisition, and next year's lottery....something you can build around?)

This team is one dynamic 2 guard or SF away from being able to bang again, and the only way you get it without completely destroying everything is by stealing one from another team. (Iguodala? Jeff Green? )

EDIT: Im too drunk for this kind of reasoning, and I know when i'm sober this doesnt make sense)

[rebelwithoutaclue]

All I was saying is if Denver trades 'Melo their first round pick could be pretty low.

I see the exact opposite. Ewing theory to a T (Copyright Bill Simmons). Carmelo is one of the most inefficient players in the league; iso's too much and takes too many contested shots. Playing off Billups (still elite passing skills even if he isn't, or never was, Mr. Big Shot) should set him up with tons of open looks but he insists on taking the hard shots. Getting rid of Carmelo for a shooter who would actually play within the offense could ignite Denver, at least for a year until Billups/Martin become too old and they have to dismantle.

A frontcourt of Nene and Varejao would be nasty. They complement each other so, so well. The dark cloud of the entire Melo saga would be lifted and energize the rest of the players. Billups would go back to being the Billups in Detroit instead of the guy that passes Melo the ball to watch him take a contested shot.

Here's a link to a Nuggets blog post detailing just how bad Carmelo, or really, how much better he could be.

http://www.roundballminingcompany.com/2010/10/19/carmelo-anthony-efficient/

[Gradysmanldy]

Tough shots from Carmelo and all, that Nuggets team last year was a juggernaut. They were gangbusters in the playoffs until they a) lost Karl and b) seemingly lost their composure.

Also, they already have Chris Anderson, who is the most comparable player in the league to Varajeao. (PF/Undersized C who plays with a ton of energy, is great on defense, and is limited offensively) Why bother w/another? Unless Birdman's health is really that much of a concern...

[aoxo1]

Andy's trade value is not about what he is worth to the Cavs, it is about what he is worth to the top 5-10 teams in the NBA.

[papacass]

Exactly. Worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle. And you can't win titles without star players, none of whom will come here willingly. Makes it very disheartening to be a Cavs fan right now if you get that.

Sadly, the only hope for this franchise to win a title in the next five years is to drop a nuclear fucking bomb on this franchise and bottom out.

Jim Paxson still looking for work? He's done it once before.

The worst place is the middle, but I at this point, I truly think that Gilbert, Grant and most importantly Scott think they have some pieces here to rebuild. They believe that they don't need to bottom out to return to contention.

They think they have the beginning of a nucleus in Hickson, Varejao and Sessions. Maybe Mo as well, but he might be more valuable in a trade. What I think you'll see them try to do is look for an opportunistic trade in the next year, a trade that could maybe add a frontline SG or SF.

Gilbert wants the Pistons of five years ago. A team that is headlined by a couple of borderline stars and filled out with strong role players. A team that has talent, but where no one player can overshadow the team concept. And to get players like that, you might not need to bottom out and pick in the top three.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but I think that's how the Cavs brass is looking at things right now, just based on the publicized comments I've read.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

Gilbert wants the Pistons of five years ago. A team that is headlined by a couple of borderline stars and filled out with strong role players. A team that has talent, but where no one player can overshadow the team concept.

I wouldn't call Duncan or Durant borderline stars, but that's pretty much the philosophy of the Spurs and Zombie Sonics. The Jazz of recent years as well.

Judge it how you will, but if the Association's alleged superstars are going to treat the Q like Shawshank then I really can't disagree with this strategy.

[swerb]

Exactly. Worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle. And you can't win titles without star players, none of whom will come here willingly. Makes it very disheartening to be a Cavs fan right now if you get that.

Sadly, the only hope for this franchise to win a title in the next five years is to drop a nuclear fucking bomb on this franchise and bottom out.

Jim Paxson still looking for work? He's done it once before.

The worst place is the middle, but I at this point, I truly think that Gilbert, Grant and most importantly Scott think they have some pieces here to rebuild. They believe that they don't need to bottom out to return to contention.

They think they have the beginning of a nucleus in Hickson, Varejao and Sessions. Maybe Mo as well, but he might be more valuable in a trade. What I think you'll see them try to do is look for an opportunistic trade in the next year, a trade that could maybe add a frontline SG or SF.

Gilbert wants the Pistons of five years ago. A team that is headlined by a couple of borderline stars and filled out with strong role players. A team that has talent, but where no one player can overshadow the team concept. And to get players like that, you might not need to bottom out and pick in the top three.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but I think that's how the Cavs brass is looking at things right now, just based on the publicized comments I've read.

That approach has won one NBA title in the last 31 years. The '04 Pistons. Each of the other 30 title winners has been led by a bona fide MVP caliber superstar.

Jordan/Pippen - 6
Magic/Kareem - 5
Duncan/Parker/Manu - 4
Shaq/Kobe - 3
Bird/Parish/McHale - 3
Kobe/Gasol - 2
KG/Pierce - 2
Isiaah - 2
Olajuwon/Drexler - 2
Moses - 1
Wade - 1
-------
'04 Pistons - 1

[leadpipe]

Exactly. Worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle. And you can't win titles without star players, none of whom will come here willingly. Makes it very disheartening to be a Cavs fan right now if you get that.

Sadly, the only hope for this franchise to win a title in the next five years is to drop a nuclear fucking bomb on this franchise and bottom out.

Jim Paxson still looking for work? He's done it once before.

The worst place is the middle, but I at this point, I truly think that Gilbert, Grant and most importantly Scott think they have some pieces here to rebuild. They believe that they don't need to bottom out to return to contention.

They think they have the beginning of a nucleus in Hickson, Varejao and Sessions. Maybe Mo as well, but he might be more valuable in a trade. What I think you'll see them try to do is look for an opportunistic trade in the next year, a trade that could maybe add a frontline SG or SF.

Gilbert wants the Pistons of five years ago. A team that is headlined by a couple of borderline stars and filled out with strong role players. A team that has talent, but where no one player can overshadow the team concept. And to get players like that, you might not need to bottom out and pick in the top three.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but I think that's how the Cavs brass is looking at things right now, just based on the publicized comments I've read.

That approach has won one NBA title in the last 31 years. The '04 Pistons. Each of the other 30 title winners has been led by a bona fide MVP caliber superstar.

Jordan/Pippen - 6
Magic/Kareem - 5
Duncan/Parker/Manu - 4
Shaq/Kobe - 3
Bird/Parish/McHale - 3
Kobe/Gasol - 2
KG/Pierce - 2
Isiaah - 2
Olajuwon/Drexler - 2
Moses - 1
Wade - 1
-------
'04 Pistons - 1

Exactly.

Take it a step further - not many on that list NOT going to the Hall.

And, with only a few exceptions (one we know well) you could look at NBA semi's and finals in that time frame and be hard pressed to find the teams in which the best PLAYER, not team, won the series.

Then, to spiral yourself into further depression, make a list of the topten free agents the Cavs have landed in their history. Then the list without the ones that came possibly because of Lebron.

If the wanna scratch and claw to playoff mediocrity, who am I to say that's not possible. If they wanna WIN, well, history clearly shows that they mine as well tear it down, cause if they are ver going to get there, it's not going to be any time soon. I'm not into delaying the inevitable.

[daddywags]

The Cavs have been relevant three times in their history. In the 70s, led by Austin Carr (1st overall pick, 1971), Jim Brewer (2nd overall pick, 1973) and Campy Russell (8th overall pick, 1974). In the 80s, led by Brad Daugherty (1st overall pick, 1986), Ron Harper (8th overall pick, 1986), Mark Price (second round pick, 1986) and Larry Nance (picked up in trade for Kevin Johnson, 7th overall pick in 1987). And in the 2000s, led by you know who, taken you know when.

IMO, to become relevant again we will have to suffer through a season or two that put us into the top 3 or 5 picks in the draft. Getting the number 1 overall is a bonus, but not any sort of guarantee (depends on the year). At best, that's where you get "the guy" who makes the whole team work; at worst, you hope to get solid starting players who can fit together with those "extra pieces" brought in via trade or free agency (or lucky draft pick later in the draft) to make something special or the players that make those trades possible.

[papacass]

The Cavs aren't becoming serial title winners. Like, ever. Let's just put that out there now. It's a league in which the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs and Pistons have won 27 of the 31 titles awarded since 1980. If a team like the Cavs is extremely lucky, one title might squeak in there. It's a very hard clique to get into, even when you do just about everything right.

So while it's all well and good to say that you shouldn't aim for mediocrity, facts are facts. Odds are very high that even if you end up with a No. 1 pick, you aren't getting another superstar. Maybe you get a solid project player like Andrew Bogut or Andrea Bargnani. Realistically, that's the best-case scenario. Anything else is wishing on a shooting star.

Even if you do get a superstar, Bron got the hell out of here. Bosh got the hell out of Toronto. Melo wants the hell out of Denver. CP3 wants the hell out of New Orleans. Unless Stern and the owners can turn the NBA into a police state with the next CBA, you aren't keeping a superstar talent in a city located in flyover country. It won't happen. The precedent has been set.

So if I were in the Cavs shoes, I would be much more apt to try and build around what I have here, and try to add to that. Scrapping the works in a wild goose chase for another superstar is basicaly pinning all your hopes on hitting the draft night bullseye yet again. In the meantime, you have driven the fan base to complete apathy, ticket revenues have dried up and ownership isn't interested in spending anymore.

We need to stop viewing the Cavs situation solely through the prizm of LeBron not being here anymore. Way I see it, if we could view this team in a vacuum, without the knowledge that LeBron left in free agency this summer, we'd see some decent talent and would be clamoring for management to add a couple more pieces. We wouldn't be turning our nose up and demanding that they bulldoze it.

[aoxo1]

Question is, would you rather follow a team that is bottoming out and paying to (1) get the ping pong balls to bounce just right and (2) for them to do that bouncing in the right year (preferably several years, to get a few guys), but in the meantime having a team that is completely unwatchable, or would you rather have a team that you can follow and will play exciting games late in the season and into the postseason pretty often?

I was all in favor of #1 when LeBron left, but in that case we are condemning ourselves to at least 3-4 years of nearly unwatchable hoops with no guarantee it won't stretch out for 10+. I'm coming around to #2, although it is dependent on not having a series of GMs like Embry/Paxson. I'd rather the Cavs be relevant and interesting, even if they don't have as great a shot at a transcendent's players first half decade in the league.

[British_Pharaoh]

I want to see this current squad play competitive basketball and see what they can do post-LeBron, rather than assuming this team is going to be dire and deciding to pick it apart and play for the lottery.
They had a promising preseason (cue "preseason means nothing" whiners) If the team is doing poorly and has no hope of getting into the postseason then trade AJ et al before the deadline get some pics and/or young blood and aim for a high draft selection position.

This roster can play. It won't always be pretty but we have a decent collection of players.
I think this is a big year for JJ and Sessions.

[leadpipe]

The Cavs aren't becoming serial title winners. Like, ever. Let's just put that out there now. It's a league in which the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs and Pistons have won 27 of the 31 titles awarded since 1980. If a team like the Cavs is extremely lucky, one title might squeak in there. It's a very hard clique to get into, even when you do just about everything right.

So while it's all well and good to say that you shouldn't aim for mediocrity, facts are facts. Odds are very high that even if you end up with a No. 1 pick, you aren't getting another superstar. Maybe you get a solid project player like Andrew Bogut or Andrea Bargnani. Realistically, that's the best-case scenario. Anything else is wishing on a shooting star.

Even if you do get a superstar, Bron got the hell out of here. Bosh got the hell out of Toronto. Melo wants the hell out of Denver. CP3 wants the hell out of New Orleans. Unless Stern and the owners can turn the NBA into a police state with the next CBA, you aren't keeping a superstar talent in a city located in flyover country. It won't happen. The precedent has been set.

So if I were in the Cavs shoes, I would be much more apt to try and build around what I have here, and try to add to that. Scrapping the works in a wild goose chase for another superstar is basicaly pinning all your hopes on hitting the draft night bullseye yet again. In the meantime, you have driven the fan base to complete apathy, ticket revenues have dried up and ownership isn't interested in spending anymore.

We need to stop viewing the Cavs situation solely through the prizm of LeBron not being here anymore. Way I see it, if we could view this team in a vacuum, without the knowledge that LeBron left in free agency this summer, we'd see some decent talent and would be clamoring for management to add a couple more pieces. We wouldn't be turning our nose up and demanding that they bulldoze it.

Not sure if anyone is talking "serial title winners."

You need the above just to be A title winner.

And, while we may agree to disagree, if you agree that what Swerb and I claim to be true, you have no choice but to look at the Cavs situation RIGHT NOW, through the prizm of Lebron not being here any more. Just like any organization losing any player that has the ability to put a NBA team on top.

The rest I agree with, you aren't keeping that kind of talent in a flyover city anymore - but to that point, you ain't drawin' em' in here except for one way, via the lottery ball.

Again, I suppose our discord here is you believe its feasible to win the title with several good players. I think you need a GREAT one....or two. History shows that's the formula. There are about 20 teams every year with a quarterback as good as Trent Dilfer. So, you COULD win the Super Bowl with a hump quarterback, but you're probably wasting time aspiring to do it that way.

And, of course to aoxo's point, you've got some issues as far as attendance and interest if you are clearly scrapping the team for draft picks, but to be sure, when the czar was pulling miracles here just to achieve mediocrity there was no interest or attendance then. Not sure how much it'll hurt.

Lastly, to be clear of the overall goal. There are ways to be a "good" NBA team. If that is the goal, then we have an argument of what way the Cavs should go in relation to what they have on board right now. I'm speaking in regards to a championship team. And for the City of Cleveland, in the modern NBA; a few things, 1. The only way, unfortunately, it's going to happen is striking gold in some back to back drafts and 2. The best chance in our lifetime, by a LONGSHOT, took his snatch to South Beach.

[Orenthal]

Cass I agree 100% with your post just gonna nitpick that you have San Antonio and Detroit listed there, and IMO those cities really don't differ from Cleveland in many ways. Chicago, LA, and Boston are obviously big(more glamorous) cities, with huge basketball history.

Funny when I was making the Detroit/Dallas type rebuild/retool arguement I was roundly rejected. Good to see that the "lottery luck" relies not only on a lucky bounce, but also having the right player the right year. The points made above by aoxo and Cass, are probably better stated then anything I had this summer.

This is all going to come down to Grant's operation and Gilbert's willingness to spend now that the meal ticket is gone. Those two outlier teams, Detroit and San Antonio either stumbled into a few years of great managemeny(Detroit) or have had long run of great decision making (San Antonio). In Dallas they have the owner willing to spend, and whatever you want to say about those moves, they at least put Dallas in the position to be able to win it all.

You will probably still need a high pick, at least top 8, and you will still need to be lucky, or very skilled, but by no means do you have to suck so hard that you do become a victim of apathy and contraction.

[Orenthal]

1. The only way, unfortunately, it's going to happen is striking gold in some back to back drafts

My pushback starts at the use of "only". I see not only the Pistons of recent history, who were legit contenders for the NBA title for 6 years(6 straight ECFs, won one, went 7 games the next year), but also the current Celtics team while definetly built around "past" high picks, no one would confuse their Big 3, even during their first year together, to Miami's. Miami has arguably 2 of the top 3 players, and the other is at worst top 10.

Sure get a Jordon, Reggie Miller, Mitch Richmond, Charles Barkley...

Make it easier to have a top 5 talent, sure, but a complete team will always be right in the mix. I'd rather have what aoxo descibed above, then the Lottery Luck others would believe as foolproof.

[papacass]

Lead, I think the crux of the issue is really this: What should the Cavs be aiming for? A title, or basketball that keeps the fans engaged and buying tickets?

I'd venture to say that an NBA title is the hardest to achieve in any of the major sports, including baseball. The playoffs are a four-round meat grinder that can last more than two months. There are so many variables that affect whether you can win a title: injuries, fatigue, locker-room discord, running into a red-hot team at the wrong time, etc. It's noble to always have the title in your sights, but maybe not practical.

If you're aiming for winning basketball that keeps the fan base coming to the arena, that's more realistic. Aim for that team that is capable of winning 45-55 games year in and year out, and maybe if the stars align right, you get that opening for a title shot. The Utah Jazz have made that approach a way of life for a quarter century.

Everyone is afraid that this team will turn into the Fratello-era Cavs if they don't implode the works. To me, there is a not-so-fine line between the Cavs of the mid-'90s, a perennial 6-8 seed that was boring to watch, and a team that is consistently challenging for a top-four seed and plays basketball that is fun to watch. Which is what I think this Cavs team can become in a few years if you augment the current nucleus with a few draft picks or trades.

And if that doesn't work, the Cavs only have a few contracts that extend beyond the 2011-12 season, so there will be an opportunity to blow it up relatively soon if the more conservative approach doesn't work.

[leadpipe]

Lead, I think the crux of the issue is really this: What should the Cavs be aiming for? A title, or basketball that keeps the fans engaged and buying tickets?

I'd venture to say that an NBA title is the hardest to achieve in any of the major sports, including baseball. The playoffs are a four-round meat grinder that can last more than two months. There are so many variables that affect whether you can win a title: injuries, fatigue, locker-room discord, running into a red-hot team at the wrong time, etc. It's noble to always have the title in your sights, but maybe not practical.

If you're aiming for winning basketball that keeps the fan base coming to the arena, that's more realistic. Aim for that team that is capable of winning 45-55 games year in and year out, and maybe if the stars align right, you get that opening for a title shot. The Utah Jazz have made that approach a way of life for a quarter century.

Everyone is afraid that this team will turn into the Fratello-era Cavs if they don't implode the works. To me, there is a not-so-fine line between the Cavs of the mid-'90s, a perennial 6-8 seed that was boring to watch, and a team that is consistently challenging for a top-four seed and plays basketball that is fun to watch. Which is what I think this Cavs team can become in a few years if you augment the current nucleus with a few draft picks or trades.

And if that doesn't work, the Cavs only have a few contracts that extend beyond the 2011-12 season, so there will be an opportunity to blow it up relatively soon if the more conservative approach doesn't work.

Cass, nothing to disagree with here, I'll just leave it at two things.

1. Certainly I'm speaking selfishly in the sense that I'm looking for a championship, not being "good." Sat around here too many years watching three franchises pretty lean on good years, however, at least I've seen some good years. Championship is really all that interests me at this point, therefore, I only have interest in championship inspirations - not good ones. And, by the way, there are franchises in every sport that hold on to being good, sacrificing a championship bid, (I spoke about this in regard to the Patriots a couple weeks bac) and I'm sure many reasons aoxo, O, and yourself provide are the impetus. But, as a fan who's never seen a championship. I'm not looking forward to it.

2. I'm not sure that what you guys suggest keeps fan interest either. To be sure, scrapping things defintely would for a spell, I just see a lot of "Tribe like" apathy in regard to them falling out of championship contention, and probably magnified when you think about just how poor the atmosphere was before the King ping-ponged in here.

As I always say, we'll be able to watch this play out, and it looks like your way is going to get the first effort, unless something goofy happens like injury, or a ridiculous offer for a player.

Good talk Russ, good talk.

[Kingpin74]

Very good debate here but I think some of you overrate the NBA Draft Lottery. Even the worst team only has a 25% chance at the top pick and a 60% chance at a Top 3 pick. We remember how putrid the team was in 2003 and that still wasn't enough to secure the full 25% chance. Then, once you look at the top 5 players picked in the last 6 years since LeBron's draft, it's surprising how few superstars/potential title centerpieces there actually were. In order,

2009: Blake Griffin, Hasheem Thabeet, James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio
2008: Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love
2007: Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Mike Conley, Jeff Green
2006: Andrea Bargnani, LaMarcus Aldridge, Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams
2005: Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton
2004: Dwight Howard, Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon, Shaun Livingston, Devin Harris


By my count, that's Rose, Durant, Deron, CP3, and Dwight as the only ones who COULD be #1's on a championship team and even then, there's a total of 1 NBA Finals game won among them so far. The draft is obviously still important and we need to explore all options but the rest of these top 5 guys are mostly the caliber of player we have a realistic shot at with our current trade assets. Maybe not those players in particular, but slightly older guys of similar ability that you might need to pay a little extra for. Taking a hatchet to the franchise may sound good on paper but I think we underestimate collateral damage. It would make the LeBron mess even worse and even a 7 seed playoff season would give us fun meaningful basketball to watch and would stop us from being ESPN’s stupid pity party. Selling off veterans for 30 cents on the dollar seems a bit extreme to try for a lottery that gives you 5 truly relevant guys in six years(and like previous posters said, you STILL have to end up in the right spot within the top 5). If we can actually get a lottery pick for Mo or Jamison, great but those deals are becoming rarer and rarer in the NBA now. I think we should take a shot at an Iguodala type or a "talented cheap young guy/plum draft pick but take the overpaid old guy" combo with our trade exception, listen to Mo/Jamison offers but demand fair value, and just see what we have in our thusfar underexposed young guys. If it doesn’t work in 2-3 years, the blowup option is always there and would probably be the first chance to properly do so anyway given our contract situations.

[leadpipe]

Very good debate here but I think some of you overrate the NBA Draft Lottery. Even the worst team only has a 25% chance at the top pick and a 60% chance at a Top 3 pick. We remember how putrid the team was in 2003 and that still wasn't enough to secure the full 25% chance. Then, once you look at the top 5 players picked in the last 6 years since LeBron's draft, it's surprising how few superstars/potential title centerpieces there actually were. In order,

2009: Blake Griffin, Hasheem Thabeet, James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio
2008: Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love
2007: Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Mike Conley, Jeff Green
2006: Andrea Bargnani, LaMarcus Aldridge, Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams
2005: Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton
2004: Dwight Howard, Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon, Shaun Livingston, Devin Harris


By my count, that's Rose, Durant, Deron, CP3, and Dwight as the only ones who COULD be #1's on a championship team and even then, there's a total of 1 NBA Finals game won among them so far. The draft is obviously still important and we need to explore all options but the rest of these top 5 guys are mostly the caliber of player we have a realistic shot at with our current trade assets. Maybe not those players in particular, but slightly older guys of similar ability that you might need to pay a little extra for. Taking a hatchet to the franchise may sound good on paper but I think we underestimate collateral damage. It would make the LeBron mess even worse and even a 7 seed playoff season would give us fun meaningful basketball to watch and would stop us from being ESPN’s stupid pity party. Selling off veterans for 30 cents on the dollar seems a bit extreme to try for a lottery that gives you 5 truly relevant guys in six years(and like previous posters said, you STILL have to end up in the right spot within the top 5). If we can actually get a lottery pick for Mo or Jamison, great but those deals are becoming rarer and rarer in the NBA now. I think we should take a shot at an Iguodala type or a "talented cheap young guy/plum draft pick but take the overpaid old guy" combo with our trade exception, listen to Mo/Jamison offers but demand fair value, and just see what we have in our thusfar underexposed young guys. If it doesn’t work in 2-3 years, the blowup option is always there and would probably be the first chance to properly do so anyway given our contract situations.

Not claiming this to be ideal by a long stretch. Luck and good fortune is nothing you want to bank your business on.

Again, this is has to do with building a championship team in this market - a market that cannot draw championship caliber free agents. If you haven't drawn a championship caliber free agent in the history of the franchise, it leaves one place to get one - understanding how slim that chance may be.