To the "Let's blow it up" Camp

[Kingpin74]

I don't agree or disagree with you (yet), but as an honest question, what do you expect to get for Mo and/or Jamison in trades? If we can get an expiring and a first round pick for each player, sign me up but I think their contracts are a little too onerous for that to happen. I also might support trading them for better players with worse contracts(i.e. Iguodala) but that could defeat the purpose of rebuilding. And is there anyone else we should consider dealing if we go that route? Even if a blowup is our best bet, we might just be forced to take our medicine with 30 wins and wait until Mo and Jamison's values increase as their contracts wind down. I don't want to trade them just to trade them and get 40 cents on the dollar.

[pup]

It has already been blown up.

Expiring contracts are pointless. Get as many guys under 25 that have the slightest glimmer of being able to play and go from there. Draft picks would be great. I guess. We are so good throughout history of using them.

Finding someone to take Mo and Andy together for a young player that can create his own would be a nice place to start.

[Love child of shawn kemp]

The blow it up theory of trading Mo and Jami will only work if they are playing well enough to be enticing to a team looking for help. Jami's normal line thus far of 2 for 7 for 5 points and 2 rebounds would not make even Ted Stepien trade a 1st rounder for him.

[peeker643]

You clearly have to hope they have some value and that there are teams out there needing what they offer (or what they think those guys will offer). That's why I think it could go right up to the deadline in February.

I want picks if possible. Any wasted youth I prefer the Cavs choose themselves.

[fundamentals]

I am a subscriber to the "Blow It Up Theory" mainly because this addition of the Cavaliers blows.

Not sure what you are getting for the alleged key pieces to this team (Mo Gotti, man opinions around here sure have changed about him, and same with Jamison). Sideshow Bob is a tradeable piece as might be Gibson. The NBA has some ignorant owners and presidents, it's possible to get something for a poo poo platter.

[swerb]

Bigggest detriment to Jamison's value is going to be his performance in last year's playoffs, when he was healthy, motivated, and playing with a guy that makes everyone better.

And was then beaten to a pulp for six games straight by a limping, creaky kneed Kevin Garnett. Who just made him his bitch for two weeks straight.

Too slow to guard 3's. Too big of a puss to guard 4's. Yeah ... he can get you 16 points a night if you play him 30 minutes. But he's gonna give up more than that most nights in the playoffs, directly and indirectly, if he's logging that kinda floor time.

Get the best you can from him in the way of draft picks, even if its a 1st rounder a few years out or a couple second rounders.

[daddywags]

I think (hope) the blow it up camp is realistic about what can be done and when. IMO, as a "blow it up-er," I think the main piece that can be moved now is Andy V. We should be able to move him for a couple of high draft picks or a nice young player and a draft pick.

Where there would/will be a bidding war for Andy, there won't be any such thing for Mo. But there should be a team around the deadline that will be interested in a proven 15 ppg PG/combo guard who can shoot a three and run an offense and only makes roughly $8 mill per year. Those guys don't grow on trees. Oh, and he's still mid-20s. We should get a lower first round pick or a young player for him.

Jamo is not movable this year, IMhO. You just have to sit on his contract and wait until next summer (if there's a CBA in place) or next year's trade deadline and move it for whatever you can get. I'd be willing to take on a longer term, crappy, contract to move him then if we get a nice first rounder along with it. We can afford the money.

In the meantime, if a team wants to overpay for an outside shooter like D. Gibson, go for it. But I'm not shopping him. I would, however, be willing to move Hickson for an unprotected first rounder from a team (say, the Timberwolves or Nets) that I'm darn certain isn't going to make the playoffs.


Anyway, that's my view of "blow it up."

[JJN]

The only way we get a high draft pick/young stud for Andy is if we take on a really bad contract in return. Even then, it will almost certainly be protected for a number of years. So maybe we get Minny's 1st rounder in 2015, which would be the year after we get through paying Darko's $20M contract.

Mo might be able to be moved for a young player, but it will be someone with a lot of question marks, either someone who hasn't played to their potential or has been constantly injured.

Jamison could still help a contender, especially one with a good defensive big man that can cover for most of his deficiencies. He could also be moved to cover for an even worse contract (Elton Brand, Okafor, Hedo are all examples on teams that want to be cutting salary even worse than we do). Between that and our trade exception, we might be able to pick up several lottery picks.

No one is really sacred on our roster. Hickson is the closest thing to it, but I don't give him up for a first rounder unless it is a draft day trade so I know the exact pick it is going to be. The lottery method is just too volatile to trade a guy with his talents and potential based on hoping ping pong balls fall my way. Also, if Gibson keeps playing like he has been, there might be some calls coming in asking for him. He potentially has a much greater value than Mo due to his better defense, and much cheaper contract.

[pup]

As an "it's already been blown up"er, I realize we are getting somewhere between jack and shit for the vets.

Which is why I take what I can get and hope Chris Grant > Danny Ferry.

[fundamentals]

The NBA is filled with folks who are none smart, see today's Mike Conley deal (five years, $45 million) as the latest example of stupidity being prevalent in the league. Some team will want Mo Williams, some team will want Antawn Jamison, and some team will want Sideshow Bob. The Cavaliers front office has to hope for the NBA, where stupid happens.

[leadpipe]

The NBA is filled with folks who are none smart, see today's Mike Conley deal (five years, $45 million) as the latest example of stupidity being prevalent in the league. Some team will want Mo Williams, some team will want Antawn Jamison, and some team will want Sideshow Bob. The Cavaliers front office has to hope for the NBA, where stupid happens.

Yea, problem is, for the better part of their existence, the Cavaliers are on speed dial when someone needs the above mentioned "stupid out."

[Prosecutor]

I think (hope) the blow it up camp is realistic about what can be done and when. IMO, as a "blow it up-er," I think the main piece that can be moved now is Andy V. We should be able to move him for a couple of high draft picks or a nice young player and a draft pick.

My belief is that only a playoff team will want Andy, who would make a nice finishing/complementary piece for a few contenders. However, playoff teams don't have high draft picks, and once they get Andy they'll go even farther in the playoffs. So I don't see how we move Andy (or anybody) for a "couple of high draft picks". And there's no way I trade him for low first round picks.

Where there would/will be a bidding war for Andy, there won't be any such thing for Mo. But there should be a team around the deadline that will be interested in a proven 15 ppg PG/combo guard who can shoot a three and run an offense and only makes roughly $8 mill per year. Those guys don't grow on trees. Oh, and he's still mid-20s. We should get a lower first round pick or a young player for him.

Again, any team interested in Mo "around the deadline" is going to be a playoff team. We'd be trading him for a low first round pick. I'm not sure that's a good deal. Our last low first round pick was - Eyenga? Let's see how Mo does in the Princeton offense, which might fit his skill set very well.

Jamo is not movable this year, IMhO. You just have to sit on his contract and wait until next summer (if there's a CBA in place) or next year's trade deadline and move it for whatever you can get. I'd be willing to take on a longer term, crappy, contract to move him then if we get a nice first rounder along with it. We can afford the money.

I can't see anybody giving us a "nice first rounder" for Jamison, even if they end up dumping a longer, crappier contract in exchange. He sucks, he's going to get hurt if he plays a lot, he's not effective playing in spots, and he makes a ton of money.

I think we're screwed for a long time.

[tired]

Keep in mind most likely there will be a lock out next year. Would it be wise to wait and see or trade em all now ?

[peeker643]

Good news is, despite thoughts otherwise, it looks like keeping what you got will get you close to the 60 loss mark. So all of us should be thrilled that we can blow it up without blowing it up.

Well, season ticket holders and actual fans of winning won't be thrilled. But you get the idea....

[Orenthal]

^That is the thought that has been rolling around in my head...

ETA
That and the fact no one on this team needs doubled, or that still trading away those guys gets you more picks. It is nice though that perhaps we get a top notch guy with our pick and are able to keep what core we have together.

[daddywags]

FTR - On Varejao, I'd trade him today for two picks in the mid-20s. What good is he going to do us this year and next while we win 20-some games? We picked up Hickson with the 19th pick and Tony Parker was picked in the 20s (there are others, but I'm not trying to overstate what we'd get). That said, if a team, say a Denver (which is reportedly very much in love with AV) wants him badly enough we might be able to pick up a lottery pick from another team that they either already own or can trade for somehow. Heck, sometimes come trade deadline time bad teams think they can goose the attendance by picking up that "missing piece" who will propel them closer to the playoffs only to fall short. All I'm saying is we need to be proactive with Andy and not just sit back and say "He's ours, and we're not trading him."

On Williams, I'd put his value lower but still think we could get a 20-something pick for him or a young player who's locked onto the bench on a decent team but has a real future. You have to look for opportunities. Some team is going to be in the playoff hunt with a GM/HC under pressure to win and will lose their PG or a top back-up combo guard between now and February. A Mo Williams could fit well there - and, no, I have no idea where "there" might be.

As for who to pick, I'm not expecting us to get a Michael Jordan late in the first round. I expect us to get our key players with our own lottery picks which we'll have in the next two drafts. The other picks will (if done correctly) be young complementary players who don't make $8 million per year and aren't almost 30 years old already.

[JJN]

I'd trade Andy for two 1sts or a 1st and kid with some potential. By the time we are good enough to actually need a guy like Andy on the team, he's gonna be too old. He's 28 now, and is going to be coming into the downside of his career soon. Love the guy, great player, fantastic effort, but facts is facts.

As for Jamo not being movable this year with getting anything other than a worse contract in return, let's see how things turn out in Philly. Brand's contract is really bad, and they should be picking in the right spot to offer picks/talent to get rid of him (considering Speights/Young are both playing less this year, and they seem to dislike Turner).

And for all our armchair GMs, here is a list of all the teams that are currently over the luxury tax: Lakers, Magic, Mavs, Nuggets, Jazz, Pacers, Rockets, Bucs, Celts, Blazers, Suns. The teams really worth noting are the Nuggets and Jazz. The Jazz love to dump salary (AK's $17M expiring, Okur's 2yr/$21M), and if the Nugs decide to get rid of Melo, they will probably want to get below the luxury tax (but a lot of their contracts are expiring). Now go get on ESPN's trade machine and go nuts.

[leadpipe]

I'd trade Andy for two 1sts or a 1st and kid with some potential. By the time we are good enough to actually need a guy like Andy on the team, he's gonna be too old. He's 28 now, and is going to be coming into the downside of his career soon. Love the guy, great player, fantastic effort, but facts is facts.

As for Jamo not being movable this year with getting anything other than a worse contract in return, let's see how things turn out in Philly. Brand's contract is really bad, and they should be picking in the right spot to offer picks/talent to get rid of him (considering Speights/Young are both playing less this year, and they seem to dislike Turner).

And for all our armchair GMs, here is a list of all the teams that are currently over the luxury tax: Lakers, Magic, Mavs, Nuggets, Jazz, Pacers, Rockets, Bucs, Celts, Blazers, Suns. The teams really worth noting are the Nuggets and Jazz. The Jazz love to dump salary (AK's $17M expiring, Okur's 2yr/$21M), and if the Nugs decide to get rid of Melo, they will probably want to get below the luxury tax (but a lot of their contracts are expiring). Now go get on ESPN's trade machine and go nuts.

You aren't getting two firsts for Andy, unless of course, you run into someone really, really stupid. Is Paxson in a front office?

Andy isn't a great player. He just isn't. Nice solid player that does some things to help you win. But the reality is that his only offensive strengths (moving w/o the ball and being able to catch it - and to a lesser degree offensive taps) were fostered almost exclusively by Lebron. No range, no touch - in a word offensively he's....bad. He's also not able to handle some of the stronger guys down on the block.

Really, the only thing he does "great" is hustle.

Again, nice player. A guy you win big with if he's complmentary. But if Andy Varejeo is a prime time guy on your squad, you aren't all that good.

You trade two first for a player who is already really, really good or a guy you feel has the potential to be great, not a solid 28 year old player.

[daddywags]

lead - If Andy's not worth two firsts then I'd take one. But I think he'd fetch more. I'd go back and try to find average bigs who were traded for two first rounders, but what's the point? I'll admit I could easily be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

[leadpipe]

lead - If Andy's not worth two firsts then I'd take one. But I think he'd fetch more. I'd go back and try to find average bigs who were traded for two first rounders, but what's the point? I'll admit I could easily be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

Well, I suppose there's a pretty liberal gap in first round picks, so maybe it's not out of the question to get two late first rounders (although I wouldn't do it), but he's not fetching more than that ILO.

All I'm saying is putting him in a category with average bigs, as you do above, is probably about right. He'll get what someone would routinely pay for an average big.

[JJN]

You aren't getting two firsts for Andy, unless of course, you run into someone really, really stupid. Is Paxson in a front office?

Andy isn't a great player. He just isn't. Nice solid player that does some things to help you win. But the reality is that his only offensive strengths (moving w/o the ball and being able to catch it - and to a lesser degree offensive taps) were fostered almost exclusively by Lebron. No range, no touch - in a word offensively he's....bad. He's also not able to handle some of the stronger guys down on the block.

Really, the only thing he does "great" is hustle.

Again, nice player. A guy you win big with if he's complmentary. But if Andy Varejeo is a prime time guy on your squad, you aren't all that good.

You trade two first for a player who is already really, really good or a guy you feel has the potential to be great, not a solid 28 year old player.

I was responding to what wags had said. I would absolutely take two #30 picks for Andy if it was offered. Would take a pick in the #20's plus a young player for him too.

I think you undervalue Andy's ability to defend the most dangerous play in basketball, the pick & roll. How many other 6'10+ guys can defend the p&r as well as Andy? Garnett on a good knee day, maybe one or two others. Having a big that can switch off and reasonably cover most wingmen can be really important to a contender. He also defends in the post as well as just about anyone, and the list of guys that are strong and skilled enough to destroy Andy in the post is pretty slim, and tend to be elite players that no one can really handle in the post without a double team anyways (Al Jefferson, Dewey, B. Lopez, et cetera). The list of great low post players in the league right now isn't very big.

For a 28year old center, his contract is reasonable, he defends well, rebounds well, and is a great teammate. We gave up #30 and an expiring for Jamison, and I think Andy is not only better than Jamo, but a better deal too.

We also have plenty of picks to play with in the future to play with that we can throw around.

2011: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd, Thunder 2nd (top 40 protected)
2012: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd, Hornets 2nd
2013: Cavs 1st, Miami 1st, Cavs 2nd, TWolves 2nd
2014: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd
2015: Cavs 1st, Miami 1st, Cavs 2nd

That's 15 picks in the next 5 years that can be used to move up in the draft.

[leadpipe]

You aren't getting two firsts for Andy, unless of course, you run into someone really, really stupid. Is Paxson in a front office?

Andy isn't a great player. He just isn't. Nice solid player that does some things to help you win. But the reality is that his only offensive strengths (moving w/o the ball and being able to catch it - and to a lesser degree offensive taps) were fostered almost exclusively by Lebron. No range, no touch - in a word offensively he's....bad. He's also not able to handle some of the stronger guys down on the block.

Really, the only thing he does "great" is hustle.

Again, nice player. A guy you win big with if he's complmentary. But if Andy Varejeo is a prime time guy on your squad, you aren't all that good.

You trade two first for a player who is already really, really good or a guy you feel has the potential to be great, not a solid 28 year old player.

I was responding to what wags had said. I would absolutely take two #30 picks for Andy if it was offered. Would take a pick in the #20's plus a young player for him too.

I think you undervalue Andy's ability to defend the most dangerous play in basketball, the pick & roll. How many other 6'10+ guys can defend the p&r as well as Andy? Garnett on a good knee day, maybe one or two others. Having a big that can switch off and reasonably cover most wingmen can be really important to a contender. He also defends in the post as well as just about anyone, and the list of guys that are strong and skilled enough to destroy Andy in the post is pretty slim, and tend to be elite players that no one can really handle in the post without a double team anyways (Al Jefferson, Dewey, B. Lopez, et cetera). The list of great low post players in the league right now isn't very big.

For a 28year old center, his contract is reasonable, he defends well, rebounds well, and is a great teammate. We gave up #30 and an expiring for Jamison, and I think Andy is not only better than Jamo, but a better deal too.

We also have plenty of picks to play with in the future to play with that we can throw around.

2011: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd, Thunder 2nd (top 40 protected)
2012: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd, Hornets 2nd
2013: Cavs 1st, Miami 1st, Cavs 2nd, TWolves 2nd
2014: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd
2015: Cavs 1st, Miami 1st, Cavs 2nd

That's 15 picks in the next 5 years that can be used to move up in the draft.

All well and good. Not going to split hairs. I like the guy.

But in no way is he a "great" NBA player, therefore, he's not going to fetch what a great NBA player would. That's all I'm sayin'

[peeker643]

2011: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd, Thunder 2nd (top 40 protected)
2012: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd, Hornets 2nd
2013: Cavs 1st, Miami 1st, Cavs 2nd, TWolves 2nd
2014: Cavs 1st, Cavs 2nd
2015: Cavs 1st, Miami 1st, Cavs 2nd

That's 15 picks in the next 5 years that can be used to move up in the draft.

More, more, more. That's what I want is more picks for Mo, Jamo and AV when it's all said and done. Guys that either have shown they ain't cut out for bright playoff lights (Mo), are too old now (Jamo) or are very good complementary players who will be too old in a few years when it might matter again (AV).

[Orenthal]

Anyone catch Eric Bledsoe starting for the Clippers in place of Baron Davis? He was picked 18th or 2oth. Quantity of picks helps ease skill in the GM/lottery odds.

[peeker643]

Quantity of picks helps ease skill in the GM/lottery odds.

Yep. Simple math. If anyone could miss on a bunch it'd be this franchise, but the odds are better and that's where you need to start.

[Orenthal]

dwags pointed out earlier that talent can be found in the 20ish region. Get the best deal you can, and don't pass up opportunities. Bledsoe was at a pick that possibly could have been bought.

[jb]

I don't agree or disagree with you (yet), but as an honest question, what do you expect to get for Mo and/or Jamison in trades?

Harrison Barnes.

It's about the losses.

Get a 1 for JJ and a low 1 maybe for Andy.

I want Ricky Davis and not Hill, Phills and Mills.

Same result. More hope with Ricky.

[Spin]

Dan Gilbert was on Tony Rizzo a couple weeks ago, and said he has been asked several times to tank the season, and get the #1 pick.

He didn't bring up the fact that with the ping pong game show, you don't know where you're going to draft.

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

[GodHatesClevelandSport]

Dan Gilbert was on Tony Rizzo a couple weeks ago, and said he has been asked several times to tank the season, and get the #1 pick.

He didn't bring up the fact that with the ping pong game show, you don't know where you're going to draft.

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

It got them to the Finals once and the best record in the league twice.

Seriously? He thinks it's BAD to have the best player in the league?

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

It got them to the Finals once and the best record in the league twice.

And how many rings?

[peeker643]

It got them to the Finals once and the best record in the league twice.

And how many rings?

Not sure I understand the point here. In 33/40 years of franchise history, having shitty players didn'yt work out well either. Nor did having mediocre players.

Having the best one in the game worked out somewhat better.

I'm an idiot to be sure, but I will cast my lot with more talented players in an attempt to actually win something.

[leadpipe]

It got them to the Finals once and the best record in the league twice.

And how many rings?

Not sure I understand the point here. In 33/40 years of franchise history, having shitty players didn'yt work out well either. Nor did having mediocre players.

Having the best one in the game worked out somewhat better.

I'm an idiot to be sure, but I will cast my lot with more talented players in an attempt to actually win something.

to take it a step further, I'll bet, if you really studied the data, you'd uncover that in the leagues history, the teams with the really good players win much more than the teams with not so good ones.

In any event, this is a fascinating argument.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

To repeat the question:

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

What did it get us? Sure, that Eastern Conference Championship banner looks awfully nice next to the collection of Indians' pennants, but, uh, what else?

[JJN]

To repeat the question:

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

What did it get us? Sure, that Eastern Conference Championship banner looks awfully nice next to the collection of Indians' pennants, but, uh, what else?

No more Ricky Davis. Yes, rings are the goal, but I'd rather be competitive than crap. We came up short, but got a hell of a lot closer than by having a bunch of scrubs.

to take it a step further, I'll bet, if you really studied the data, you'd uncover that in the leagues history, the teams with the really good players win much more than the teams with not so good ones.

In any event, this is a fascinating argument.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[pup]

To repeat the question:

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

What did it get us? Sure, that Eastern Conference Championship banner looks awfully nice next to the collection of Indians' pennants, but, uh, what else?

Packed crowds at The Q.

Bunch of additional sales at local places of food and drink.

So, a whole shit ton of cash to an area that desperately needed it.

You look at the days of Price and the fellas as equal to the other 40 years? Or is it simple hate that makes these seven years a black eye on top of the black eye that is Cavalier history?

[daddywags]

To repeat the question:

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

What did it get us? Sure, that Eastern Conference Championship banner looks awfully nice next to the collection of Indians' pennants, but, uh, what else?

It is a fascinating discussion because the more I think about it, well my head hurts, but also I have no idea what he means. We didn't try sucking and having a top draft pick for 7 years, we did that once and then tried for 7 years to win without doing it again. What we did for 7 years that failed to win it all is attempt to incrementally improve each year, while winning as many games as possible, using every available means except a top draft pick. Sort of sounds to me like he thinks that's the recipe going forward. Which scares the heck out of me, frankly.

ETA: Just to extend the thought: Suppose that instead of Boston running into one awful 24 win season in 2006-07 it had been us. Might we have been able to pull off the Ray Allen trade for our 5th overall pick instead of them? Might that have made a slight difference in how the next 3 seasons played out?

[leadpipe]

To repeat the question:

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

What did it get us? Sure, that Eastern Conference Championship banner looks awfully nice next to the collection of Indians' pennants, but, uh, what else?

Packed crowds at The Q.

Bunch of additional sales at local places of food and drink.

So, a whole shit ton of cash to an area that desperately needed it.

You look at the days of Price and the fellas as equal to the other 40 years? Or is it simple hate that makes these seven years a black eye on top of the black eye that is Cavalier history?

This argument is happening.....it's really happening.

What it gotcha was the friggin' team still being here.

I mean good holy Christ, I can't wait for the guy to log on who's longing for the Fratello years - when the joint had the atmosphere of a child's wake. Perhaps the last seve nnyears were worse that being disallowed to trade or getting hit by softballs from the Tower. Wouldn't it be great if it were the World B free era again, to overachieve and backdoor some playoff games you had no chance to win?

Understand thru all the hate, that the last seven years were BY FAR...B-Y F-A-R the finest seven years of the Cavs existence. Nothing else is remotely close.

So, what it got you was many things you NEVER had before on the court, and provided the city a pulse during winter evenings.

God, I sure hope we don't get saddled with any more great players. Would be a disaster.

One division of these boards set up exclusively for humor is fine, we start adding the Cavs to the Tribe nonsense and it'll be overkill.

This is the extreme shit O and I were discussing last week. No ring=shit on the only years of relevance. No way there could be in betweens here.

Anxiously awaiting more responses on how the Cavs were better off without the best player in the league. Seriously....I can't wait.

[Kingpin74]

The last 7 years were awesome and I don't think anyone would dispute that. I just think the anti-tanking people are arguing that you don't have to completely gut the team to accomplish anything. We're obviously going to need some top 10 picks eventually if we're going to build a title contender, but some of us are forgetting how much damage tanking can bring. I keep going back and forth on the subject but even a 7 seed playoff season might go a long way towards removing the loser aura that LeBron's departure brought(and which was stifling before he got here). The Nance-Price-Daugherty teams were mostly built on draft picks in the 5-10 and early 2nd round range(Daugherty was the #1 pick but I don't think you'd NEED #1 to get someone of his talent level now). Those are the type of picks that might be available by taking on a ton of salary(i.e. Jamison and trade exception to Philly for Iguodala, Brand, and two top 5 protected first rounders) and even improving the team in the process. Again, tanking may very well be the right course of action eventually but I think some people are just arguing that we should be a little hesitant before diving into a losing mentality again.

[leadpipe]

The last 7 years were awesome and I don't think anyone would dispute that. I just think the anti-tanking people are arguing that you don't have to completely gut the team to accomplish anything. We're obviously going to need some top 10 picks eventually if we're going to build a title contender, but some of us are forgetting how much damage tanking can bring. I keep going back and forth on the subject but even a 7 seed playoff season might go a long way towards removing the loser aura that LeBron's departure brought(and which was stifling before he got here). The Nance-Price-Daugherty teams were mostly built on draft picks in the 5-10 and early 2nd round range(Daugherty was the #1 pick but I don't think you'd NEED #1 to get someone of his talent level now). Those are the type of picks that might be available by taking on a ton of salary(i.e. Jamison and trade exception to Philly for Iguodala, Brand, and two top 5 protected first rounders) and even improving the team in the process. Again, tanking may very well be the right course of action eventually but I think some people are just arguing that we should be a little hesitant before diving into a losing mentality again.

All well and good King, this has, and will continue some interesting debate I'm sure.

The supplementary argument that has grown out of this, the one insinuating that having Lebron was worthless, and his era was no better than any other is what I'm referring to in the last couple of posts.

And new readers of this thread, you read the above paragraph correctly, and somehow on God's green earth, it's being debated.

[daddywags]

No, you can't debate whether having LeBron was a good thing or whether having LeBron was better than not having LeBron. It was a great run, a fun run, and one of the three nice runs I've experienced as a Cavs fan. Was it the best run? I can't say that, each had it's own personality and quirks. The Miracle year was the first run, and so near to the beginning that a young man could dream that it might always be that way. The Price/Daugherty years featured a well balanced team coached by a legend and stopped by one man. The LeBron years brought us closer in some ways but in others kept us always hoping for "someone else" and always on edge knowing that "he" might go someplace else sometime soon.

For whatever it's worth, as I've noted elsewhere, each one of these runs was led by a player picked with the number one overall pick in the draft. So they have that in common.

[peeker643]

For whatever it's worth, as I've noted elsewhere, each one of these runs was led by a player picked with the number one overall pick in the draft. So they have that in common.

Blah.... the Miracle of Richfield was led by a crippled #1 (Austin Carr) as much as former #1 Joe Smith led the the 2008 Cavaliers.

I get the point though. But I'd say the '76 Cavs and the Daugherty/Price Cavs shared much more in common than anyone has with the James-led Cavs.

Bottom line is you need talented players. And typically the most talented are obtained early in the draft.

[YahooFanChicago]

Perhaps the issue most of the opponents to the "blow it up now" approach have is that blowing it up and being crappy don't necessarily result in a rapid influx of talent and quick return to contention. Many of the blow-it-up supporters seem to assume that you do that and in 2-4 years the team has talent and is contending again. How often in the history of the league has that happened? I don't think too many.

Look at how long it took the CAVS post Daugherty/Price/Williams/Nance to contend again. There were some really crappy years in there but unfortunately the luck of the pingpong balls and uncertain draft talent have a huge say in the rebuild.

Hell, the Bulls have tried to blow it up 2-3 times since the end of the Jordan era with nothing to show for it. Their current team is the best chance they have and even after 8-10 years of trying they finally drafted a star (Rose). Even with Rose they aren't going to win crap unless they can draft, trade or sign another star or two. This year they are a middle of the road, 2nd round playoff loser after 10+ years of trying the blow it up approach.

I think many want to blow it up and hit the reset button out of frustration and to end the chapter of Lebron and his team. Kind of a natural reaction to the Decision and bad end to last year's playoffs. Kind of like the person who get's divorced and wants to sell the house, furniture and move to some totally new place to mentally start over. It's a natural reaction but not necesarily the best one in this case.

I personally like the patient, logical approach our front office is taking. It seems they are evaluating the talent we have and how it gells under Byron Scott's system to see how good or bad we really are and what type of players we need. If guys like JJ, Andy, Gibson, Sessions and even MO develop and thrive under this system you may not need to blow it all up. Particularly given the likely lock-out and impact that will have on team's free agent decisions and the 2011/2012 drafts.

However, if later in the year it is obvious that they can't be competitive the FO will have a better idea of who to keep and build around and who to trade for future assets. Hell at this point do we even know what we really have in JJ? Is he the real deal or is he another Roy Hinson that should be spun-off for a top pick? To me it is too soon to know so I prefer the patient, non-emotional approach our FO is taking.

I might be mis-interpreting it but I thought Gilbert was essentially saying that blowing it up does't necessarily solve the problem and that it may actually make things worse. His comments were quite ambiguous though.

[FUDU]

Pretty solid post ^, can't disagree with a whole lot.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

I was going to say that a team that was competitive day in and day out would put butts in seats and bring about an era of Cavs basketball better than 90% of their existence to date, but YFC made the better argument than I could. Winning doesn't necessarily require tanking for another 'Whore Of Insert-City-Here'.

[leadpipe]

One last time....Not really sure anyone in this thread has insisted HOW to do it. Just that it needs to be done. And THAT is getting a couple excellent players in here. Not decent, not good, if you wanna have a chance to win it all, I mean EXCELLENT.

Christ, forget Lebron or the "whore of Akron" or whatever. Best to leave him out cause he's clouding people's minds, and they are losing rationality.

Just in general, you need some excellent players. If it so happens you can do it on the run, make a smooth transistion, and aquire guys in the mid-rounds of the draft, hell, I'd be stupid to not be all for it.

But, as you know, ole' LP is a numbers man. Not much into what could happen, much more into what's likely to happen. So again, in a market that can't draw free agents, it's much more likely the superstars are going to walk thru the door from the lottery, and not the end of the first.

And, again, I realize it's a crapshoot to a degree, but, so is picking in the mid to late first.

So, I'm not necessarily in the "blow it up" camp. I'm in the "Need some superstars" camp.

Cause you can't win without em'

You can be mediocre without them. If that's ok, we're all set.

Mediocre with no chance to win it all, and totally blow make the same bit of difference to me. And I know if I was Dan Gilbert I couldn't feel that way, but I'm not.

Seriously, how many current Cleveland Cavaliers are playing significant minutes on a championship caliber team? How ya gonna get wht's missing? Which is practically everything important.

[jb]

Anyway he said the Cavs tried that for seven years. They had the first pick, the best player in the game for seven years. And where did it get us?

Much, much closer than Hill, Mills and Phills did.

Billups may be available soon.

maybe TMLP can trade our number one for him.

[jb]

Interesting take by Kingpin bring bak the old cavs example.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/teams/ClevelandCavs/History/coaches.html

I nake the case that the very reason for the Daugherty - Price run was that they DID blow it up and sell out for lottery picks instead of trying to scrape along for the 8th seed.

If you recall, the '85 Karl team was a collection of scrappy vets and so-so draft holdovers. they started slowly and ended up giving the Greatest Collection of Players in NBA history on one team one hell of a challenging series, causing them to expend enough energy to destroy what would have been a 3 peat run for them.

Bags, World, Dinner Bell, Hubs, Poquette, Lonnie and most of all, Edgar the Destructor.

It was as much fun as any other cavs run as it was so improbable.

But instead of trying to keep that rolling, in the next year they blew it sky high. They let those guys all go and then even traded their only young talented player for a shot at a lotto pick. In fact, you can make a very valid Hinson / Hickson analogy AFAIC.

They blew it up and had some luck, getting the first overall pick in the draft, and then with their OTHER lotto pick, they took Ron "he's dating WHO? TRADE HIM NOW!" Harper. Hot Rod had been a flier and there is no way he would have been a 2nd rounder except for the point shaving scandle, and as you write, Mark Price was just a brilliant 2nd round luck out pick.

The next year they were back in the lotto having just taken the hit and starting all those young players, plus Hubs, the sole significant holdover vet IIRC, and
scarificed (blew up) that season to develop the kids an land another high pick in KJ.

The 86 - 92 run was in no way an attempt to maintain medicority on the fly. It is an example of a successful blow up.

The Fratello years of 93 - 98 of Mills, Phills and Hill are what you get when you try to go zombie off your legit run.

So again I say unequivicably:

[pup]

Still missing the overall point.

You can easily not blow it up and still lose 55 games.

[FUDU]

Interesting take by Kingpin bring bak the old cavs example.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/teams/ClevelandCavs/History/coaches.html

I nake the case that the very reason for the Daugherty - Price run was that they DID blow it up and sell out for lottery picks instead of trying to scrape along for the 8th seed.

If you recall, the '85 Karl team was a collection of scrappy vets and so-so draft holdovers. they started slowly and ended up giving the Greatest Collection of Players in NBA history on one team one hell of a challenging series, causing them to expend enough energy to destroy what would have been a 3 peat run for them.

But interesting stat about that series, IIRC we outscored Boston by a point for the series while losing 3 games to 1.

[jb]

Interesting take by Kingpin bring bak the old cavs example.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/teams/ClevelandCavs/History/coaches.html

I nake the case that the very reason for the Daugherty - Price run was that they DID blow it up and sell out for lottery picks instead of trying to scrape along for the 8th seed.

If you recall, the '85 Karl team was a collection of scrappy vets and so-so draft holdovers. they started slowly and ended up giving the Greatest Collection of Players in NBA history on one team one hell of a challenging series, causing them to expend enough energy to destroy what would have been a 3 peat run for them.

But interesting stat about that series, IIRC we outscored Boston by a point for the series while losing 3 games to 1.

MJ > Bird > McHale > Parrish > DJ > Pippin > Rodman > Bulls Goggled PF > Ainge > Tiny > Walton > Schiesting > the whiole lot of bums MJ carried