# Are we making move this offseason or before the deadline?



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Looks like as expected the expiring value will really be at the deadline because we know they are going to be teams who are going to suck.

Any candidates out there?
I still suspect the Bucks will not be that good (although they do have talent so maybe they'll finally put it together)


----------



## hendrix2430 (Mar 21, 2005)

Not necessarily at the deadline. 

It seems we want to move AV BEFORE the season starts, and since he's our major trade asset, I hope teams are willing to take on expiring contracts before the deadline. 

I imagine Wally's expiring would be offered. He is still very capable, and could help a team. It's not like dealing Adonal Foyle's or Brian Cardinal's expiring contract for instance. Those guys are useless.

Unfortunately, whoever that may be, teams usually look for expiring contracts at the deadline... 

But I'd say Milwaukee or Charlotte.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

The thing about Wally is even though he sucked here, he always played with 100% effort out there...especially on defense. He is a decent piece to a team even outside of his expiring. 

The problem with dealing AV though is his trade veto rights..Fegan will hold out for the perfect scenario so he can get paid.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I doubt Redd comes close to Cleveland now. Milwaukee is starting to do things right.

I could see the Baron Davis thing coming true however.


----------



## LOYALTY (May 23, 2003)

Wasn't Charlotte a team that was interested in Varejao before? I wonder if they would accept AV and Damon's contracts for Raymond Felton. If Damon does not excite them, we could consider a sign & trade with AV and Boobie Gibson to Charlotte. This would allow Charlotte to put DJ Augustin on the floor early. Boobie and DJ.. the last two Texas point guards playing together.

I think Felton would be a nice fit with this team. And we would still have Wally's contract as a potential trade piece for another deal. I would rather have Redd or Baron Davis, but it never hurts to have a backup plan.


----------



## UrFavTeamSux (Jan 17, 2007)

ummm id rather have boobie than raymond.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

We're not allowed to trade Varejao to Charlotte, no? Since they are the ones who offered him a contract that we matched.

I think the Bucks are still going to suck. And by midseason they will have figured that out.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

It's becoming more and more certain we're not going to be making a big move till the trading deadline with alot of deals/FA signings already going down


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> It's becoming more and more certain we're not going to be making a big move till the trading deadline with alot of deals/FA signings already going down


Which is a big risk that could backfire...we shall see though


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I heard we were interested in Monta Ellis. For what that's worth. Apparently he's not happy with what is happening in Golden State, and we're one of a few teams he's talking with.

I think we're also waiting on Josh Smith to be resolved, so we can make a run at Childress.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

According to RealGM, Monta was looking at (or looking to sign) something around 11M per year. I doubt Cleveland is in the mix for that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Maybe if Cleveland hired some ex-CIA operatives to kidnap Mullin and get him strung out on heroin and LSD Danny Ferry could convince him that Delonte West was the poor man's Ellis and trade Monta to Cleveland for Wally & his Minime?


----------



## Krenzel16 (Jul 9, 2008)

According to Real GM, word is that the Knicks are very interested in Wally. This could be bad because Zach Randolph in a Cavs jersey would greatly upset me.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Krenzel16 said:


> According to Real GM, word is that the Knicks are very interested in Wally. This could be bad because Zach Randolph in a Cavs jersey would greatly upset me.


Or this could mean that Marbury may be coming to this team (with Wally and Snow going to NY).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Krenzel16 said:


> According to Real GM, word is that the Knicks are very interested in Wally. This could be bad because Zach Randolph in a Cavs jersey would greatly upset me.


Randolph in terms of pure numbers and talent could be an interesting add, but he's one of those guys like Gooden who just gives away so much on defense and in general being clueless that it basically cancels all the good out


----------



## hendrix2430 (Mar 21, 2005)

I don't like anyone on the knicks. Lee, maybe...

If Crawford at least played a bit of defense, he might be an "ok" pickup.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

IMO, this is why it would not surprise me if LeBron James leaves Cleveland after the 2009-10 season. In hindsight, going to the '07 Finals may have been the worst thing that could happened to the Cavs, because management seems convinced the team is set. The Cavs brass isn't building to get to the next level; it seems the Cavs are run as if they _are_ currently at that level and a tweak here and there will get them over the hump.

Danny Ferry doesn't seem to get it through his head that the Cavs are a lottery team without LeBron. But then again, I'm not surprised because he seems to be following in the career path of his father Bob (sorry player, equally sorry executive). Cleveland's management has done practically nothing that has improved the team since LeBron has been there. Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Carlos Boozer were already on the roster when he came on board. The big acquisitions have been Larry Hurt, er, Hughes (a third option-type guy who was overpaid) and a trade that landed four fifth- to eighth-option type players (Joe Smith, Wally Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace and Delonte West).

If Cleveland had any sense, it would talk to Sacramento and try to negotiate a deal for Ron Artest: 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3485534 

The Kings want cap space and Szczerbiak's expiring contract could be an attractive bargaining chip. Artest can be a toxic personality, but he is showing out again after not filing for free agency but now is saying he regrets not filing because he apparently is no longer in Sacramento's plans. 

For the right price, Artest can be had. I would ask for a sign-and-trade deal and would be willing to take someone like Shareef Abdur-Rahim and/or Shelden Williams off Sacramento's hands. In addition to Szczerbiak, I would throw in Sasha Pavlovic.


----------



## Krenzel16 (Jul 9, 2008)

Cleveland is trying to build a Championship contender, no doubt, it's just things haven't fallen in place yet. What did you think they could honestly get last year for the likes of Hughes and Gooden? I think what we got, on paper, was a good deal. It's just too bad Wally couldn't hit a shot when he came to Cleveland (also known as the Donyell Marshall / Damon Jones Syndrome) and that Big Ben's best days were behind him. It was a calculated risk that didn't work but put us in good position this year with Wally's expiring. I would like Artest but we are talking like Ferry hasn't even though of trading for him. I'm sure there's a lot more than just talking to Sacramento, offering them an expiring and getting it done. The Kings will be hesitant to move Artest because of the bounty he can be had for. 

With that said, we make a move at the deadline. The biggest thing I can see us doing now is offering someone of Josh Childress' caliber the MLE.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Larry Hughes was a bad contract, but Cleveland traded for TWO bad contracts (Wally Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace) to get rid of him and they were arguably worse than Hughes. Moreover, the best player in that deal arguably was Delonte West (who I understand is free agent now).

No one is suggesting Cleveland can throw together a bunch of spare parts and pull off a trade for Chris Bosh. But the fact that Marcus Camby just got traded for a draft choice that may or may not even make the team when they are ultimately drafted shows that there are deals out there to be made. There is the possiblity of moving expiring contracts to free up cap room in order to make a play at players on the FA market. The problem is Cleveland looks like it's not doing anything and when it does it's a poor decision (signing Hughes as a free agent) or token desperation moves (this past season's "blockbuster"). 

Danny Ferry was on sports radio recently and basically said the Cavs will make a deal closer to the trading deadline -- which makes sense if you're a contender (IMO, the Cavs are not that).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The Cavs came within basically a possesion or two of beating the Celtics. Considering how the Celtics took out the Pistons and Lakers, I'm not sure how one wouldn't think the Cavs are contenders especially after going to the finals the year before. They're certainly not the favorites but they are definitely contenders


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

The Cavs are "contenders" solely because of Lebron. In all seriousness I think you can put Lebron on any team in the East and he would advance that squad in the playoffs. 

I think the Cavs as currently built have several solid role players, but to WIN a title Lebron is gonna need at least one all-star caliber running mate. No other player in history including MJ, or dominant bigs like Shaq won without it. Ferry needs to make that happen with these expirings....


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Some rumors around the Net that Mo Williams may be available secondary to the Bucks signing Lue and the way Ramon Sessions have been playing.

He may be a nice add: i.e. a Mo Williams/Boobie at the 1 is an upgrade over West/Boobie (I remain a West fan so am in favor of siging him)


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

Hmm not sure how much of an upgrade Mo is over West. On offense sure, but we need West on defense to cover perimeter guards. 

However depending on what we have to give up, I might take it. Say if it's just Snow's expiring+filler..


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Benedict_Boozer said:


> Hmm not sure how much of an upgrade Mo is over West. On offense sure, but we need West on defense to cover perimeter guards.
> 
> However depending on what we have to give up, I might take it. Say if it's just Snow's expiring+filler..


I like West on D but man I still have flashbacks to that one game that Mo was whipsawing past West and Jones like a seesaw. Not sure whether I'd go for this or not: Ideally with Boobie signed, it would be nice to resign West and get Redd. That would basically fill the SG hole and we could use West as a SG for D or if Redd is hurt as necessary. From a size and matchup perspective that works much better (maybe we have to take both Williams and Redd's contracts of there books???)


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Benedict_Boozer said:


> The Cavs are "contenders" solely because of Lebron. In all seriousness I think you can put Lebron on any team in the East and he would advance that squad in the playoffs.


That's my point, as well. It's fool's gold to think that Cleveland is a championship team; LeBron James is good enough to drag a team into the playoffs and possibly win 50 games (particularly in the East). But Cleveland is one serious injury by LeBron from being in the lottery and Zydrunas Ilgauskas is the only other above-average player on the roster (and Z is 33).

So Cleveland will win too many games to get likely high draft picks, so it has to build via free agency and trades. But it seems like the Cleveland brass acts like it has a championship level team (going to the '07 Finals seems to have distorted reality a bit), based on its personnel moves.


----------



## Krenzel16 (Jul 9, 2008)

Najee said:


> Larry Hughes was a bad contract, but Cleveland traded for *TWO bad contracts* (Wally Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace) to get rid of him and they were arguably worse than Hughes. Moreover, the best player in that deal arguably was Delonte West *(who I understand is free agent now).*
> 
> *No one is suggesting Cleveland can throw together a bunch of spare parts and pull off a trade for Chris Bosh. But the fact that Marcus Camby just got traded for a draft choice that may or may not even make the team when they are ultimately drafted shows that there are deals out there to be made.* There is the possiblity of moving expiring contracts to free up cap room in order to make a play at players on the FA market. The problem is Cleveland looks like it's not doing anything and when it does it's a poor decision (signing Hughes as a free agent) or token desperation moves (this past season's "blockbuster").
> 
> Danny Ferry was on sports radio recently and basically said the Cavs will make a deal closer to the trading deadline -- *which makes sense if you're a contender (IMO, the Cavs are not that).*


Wally's an expiring this year so his contract isn't an issue. Wallace's was equally as bad as Hughes so it's basically a wash. 

He's a restricted free agent that we are expected to watch any and all offers.

How are we supposed to get Camby? Do you know the situation? Camby was traded to the Clippers (because they have cap space) and the Nuggets wanted to get closer to the luxury cap so that they could re-sign JR Smith and not have to completely break the bank. 

If a good deal doesn't come along, you can't make a bad one. I put more pressure on Ferry than anyone, yet if he doesn't make a deal, it'll mean that there wasn't a deal out to there to be made. The pieces we have, expirings, are much more valuable closer to the trade deadline than they are in the offseason. I'd rather sit and wait to make a move rather than just throw away something valuable now for crap. Patience is a virtue.

And um, yeah, Cleveland is a championship contender. Like said, you forget that we were with the Celtics at the end of Game 7 and a break or two (or a Wally open 3) go our way and we'd be headed to play Detroit. There needs to be moves made to better our team, however, even if we don't, we're still one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the East.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Krenzel16 said:


> How are we supposed to get Camby? Do you know the situation? Camby was traded to the Clippers (because they have cap space) and the Nuggets wanted to get closer to the luxury cap so that they could re-sign JR Smith and not have to completely break the bank.


I never said Clevaland should have traded for Marcus Camby. I suggested finding a way to dump salary to get in the mix for some of the proven free agents. Cleveland has hamstrung itself with two more space cap-eating contracts and moreover the Cavs are sitting pat.

The Camby trade is an example of a team acquiring a very good complementary piece if you're actively shopping. The difference is some front offices are out there trying to make those trades happen and others aren't. Cleveland is one of those front offices that is not, and maybe because it has consistently made poor moves or token desperation moves since drafting LeBron James and is afraid of being burned. 



Krenzel16 said:


> And um, yeah, Cleveland is a championship contender. Like said, you forget that we were with the Celtics at the end of Game 7 and a break or two (or a Wally open 3) go our way and we'd be headed to play Detroit. There needs to be moves made to better our team, however, even if we don't, we're still one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the East.


Cleveland is a "contender" only because of one player, not because it's a good team. Take LeBron off the team and Cleveland is looking at the lottery - even in the East. You must have forgotten that the same Game 7 vs. Boston where LeBron scored roughly half of Cleveland's points was the same game most of the other players contributed little else offensively.

If you're going into the playoffs with arguably your second-best or third-best player being a castoff guard from Seattle, your team is not that talented. I think that's the part that you're overlooking, because outside of LeBron no one fears the Cavs.

But like I said, let Cleveland falsely continue it has a championship team and build around spare parts for a tweak here or there. But don't be surprised if LeBron leaves because of that distorted perception that "we have arrived."


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Najee said:


> Larry Hughes was a bad contract, but Cleveland traded for TWO bad contracts (Wally Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace)




Wally is a HUGE expiring contract. So you're kind of wrong there. We only got Wally because he's a big tradeable asset. He's probably our biggest asset this year for trades.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The sad part is that with Lebron the Cavs despite having a lot of junk are contenders. The Cavs realize they have holes and that's why they have made moves. The trade last years actually improved are expiring situation and was also made becuase Hughes situation had become untenable here. He was playing like crap so while he still could have got some value out of him he wanted to be treated like a star with 40+ minutes a game. West I would argue looks to be the best player in that deal


----------



## Krenzel16 (Jul 9, 2008)

I really disagree with you Najee on a bunch of things. Just because moves aren't getting done doesn't mean that we aren't actively trying. There's no way to say, Cleveland's standing pat and not doing anything, because as far as I've heard, they've been talking to Posey, they've been talking to the Bucks about Redd, they just re-signed Gibson...and so on. If there's not a good deal to be made for your team, no matter how hard you try, it's not going to get done. 

Poor moves and desperation moves? I will agree that I never liked the Hughes signing, but look at the statistics, Hughes was very good before he came to Cleveland. There would have been a problem if we wouldn't have signed anyone that offseason so our hands were really tied right there.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Mo Williams would be a great aquisition. That guy can really play, and would solve our point guard position entirely. He's very underrated. Really good point guard though. Plus at least the Cavs wouldn't have to deal with him lighting them up like a christmas tree everytime they play.

Depends on what we give up though. But if it were like just Snow for Mo, that'd be fine. It helps them clear cap for a player they don't need anymore, and gets us a player we can use.

Problem is, do the Bucks want to help a division rival? Probably not anymore. Now that they think they are good. Midseason we might be able to do some work with them, once the new GM has come back down to earth.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I like Daniel Gibson, LeBron James and maybe JJ Hickson (i like what i see) from the Cavs roster. Other than those players, i really odn't see anybody that is part of the future (Z is gettin' old).

LeBron definitely needs another star, but i don't think Artest is the answer as he plays similar to LeBron and they play the same position.

Just because of LeBron (who is easily the best player in the NBA and proves it because he constantly gets his team deep in the playoffs and without him they would be the worst team in the NBA) the Cavs are a contender and can possibly get to the ECF next year. But you have to think about keeping LeBron happy, and you have to think about the future. 

I don't think Michael Redd is a good addition to this team, simply because people say he is one of the most selfish players they have ever seen.

I also don't like Mo Williams as he is just a shoot first PG, something you guys already have in Gibson, who i like. He has a pretty big contract also.

Its really hard to decide who is the right player for Cleveland, but they definitely need a legit #2 option or they might be in serious danger of losing LeBron.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

See Mo Williams being shoot first is fine. If Gibson and him are scorers, then that takes pressure off of Lebron, and Lebron can do what he does best, and that's be a playmaker. What I really like about Williams is he can push tempo really well too. With a backcourt of Gibson and Williams, I would hope we ran all the time. We obviously are dying for a really really good 2 or 4 though.

I think JR Smith would be a good experiment. If Mike Brown can get Wally to play D, he can get JR Smith to. And Smith is incredibly talented offensively. A rotation of him and Sasha at the 2 would be solid to very good.

Mo Williams/Gibson
JR Smith/Sasha/DJ
Lebron
Wallace/Smith/Hickson
Z/AV/Jones

That's not too shabby I don't think. If we added a hard working 3 for the league minimum, we'd be solid.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Krenzel16 said:


> I really disagree with you Najee on a bunch of things. Just because moves aren't getting done doesn't mean that we aren't actively trying. There's no way to say, Cleveland's standing pat and not doing anything, because as far as I've heard, they've been talking to Posey, they've been talking to the Bucks about Redd, they just re-signed Gibson...and so on.


James Posey (now with New Orleans) is a player best served as your sixth or seventh man on a contender; that again falls in that "Cleveland has arrived" mentality, where the team is picking a type of player more suited for a team fine-tuning its roster. The same with Daniel Gibson. Like I said, whether it's stories or unconfirmed rumors the only thing I have heard concerning Cleveland has been re-signing its free agents.



Krenzel16 said:


> Poor moves and desperation moves? I will agree that I never liked the Hughes signing, but look at the statistics, Hughes was very good before he came to Cleveland. There would have been a problem if we wouldn't have signed anyone that offseason so our hands were really tied right there.


Two things have killed Cleveland:

1.) Letting Carlos Boozer walk by trying to do some under-the-table deal that backfired.

2.) Signing Larry Hughes to HUGE money in an act of desperation by losing Boozer. 

Hughes was an injury-prone player in Golden State and Washington who had a contract year. His production in 2004-05 was atypical of his career numbers, which is usually a bad sign if the player in his seventh season.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Najee said:


> James Posey (now with New Orleans) is a player best served as your sixth or seventh man on a contender; that again falls in that "Cleveland has arrived" mentality, where the team is picking a type of player more suited for a team fine-tuning its roster. The same with Daniel Gibson. Like I said, whether it's stories or unconfirmed rumors the only thing I have heard concerning Cleveland has been re-signing its free agents.


This is not logical: if the Cavs had signed Posey they would still have been looking to dump Wally, Snow's, JOnes, etc. expirings. We need someone to replace for example Devin Brown and pressure Sasha even IF a trade for a guy like Redd is made.




> Two things have killed Cleveland:
> 
> 1.) Letting Carlos Boozer walk by trying to do some under-the-table deal that backfired.
> 
> ...


Boozer asked the Cavs to let him become a FA. It was an act of faith by the Cavs and they got burnt. All's fair in love and war but the Cavs were not the bad guys there

Sure it sucks Hughes well sucks but I don't think you understand the Cavs situation that summer. Atlanta went way overboard to get JJ (big contract plus first rounders). Seattle and teh Bucks offered more money then the Cavs were able to offer Allen and Redd respectively. So that left Hughes. Sure it was a risk but from a Cavs perspective that signing that summer even though they no longer are with the Cavs got one HUGE thing done: it convinced Lebron to resign. W/o the Hughes signing the Cavs would not have been able to make a splash and Lebron could very well have lost faith and left. Remember the year before the Cavs couldn't even make the playoffs: after the signing they were able to push Detroit to 7 games.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> Its really hard to decide who is the right player for Cleveland, but they definitely need a legit #2 option or they might be in serious danger of losing LeBron.


The problem with Cleveland is that it is overstocked with marginal players at some positions (such as power forward). Hypothetically speaking in terms of playing style, but I could see Elton Brand playing well with LeBron James if the Cavs already didn't have Ben Wallace and Joe Smith. His playing style would complement what Zydrunas Ilgauskas does.

I agree with you on the Mo Williams thing; given that LeBron essentially is Cleveland's point guard, another primary ball-handler isn't necessary. My problem with Ron Artest isn't as much playing style (LeBron can move to the backcourt) as much as his history of imploding and possibly destroying chemistry. Michael Redd? Possibly, but if he wanted to play in Cleveland he could have done that a few years ago when he was a free agent.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Pioneer10 said:


> This is not logical: if the Cavs had signed Posey they would still have been looking to dump Wally, Snow's, JOnes, etc. expirings. We need someone to replace for example Devin Brown and pressure Sasha even IF a trade for a guy like Redd is made.


My point was that with the amount of free agents out there the last I would be looking for if I was Cleveland's GM is a player who is best suited as a sxith or seventh man. I don't see what is illogical about saying what kind of player Posey is.



Pioneer10 said:


> Boozer asked the Cavs to let him become a FA. It was an act of faith by the Cavs and they got burnt. All's fair in love and war but the Cavs were not the bad guys there


I wasn't saying one party was the good guy and the other party was the bad guy, nor do I care. It was a deal that sounded questionable and it ended up costing Cleveland.



Pioneer10 said:


> Sure it sucks Hughes well sucks but I don't think you understand the Cavs situation that summer. Atlanta went way overboard to get JJ (big contract plus first rounders). Seattle and teh Bucks offered more money then the Cavs were able to offer Allen and Redd respectively. So that left Hughes. Sure it was a risk but from a Cavs perspective that signing that summer even though they no longer are with the Cavs got one HUGE thing done: it convinced Lebron to resign.


I was well aware what was going on in the free agent market, but it still doesn't mean the team didn't go overboard in paying Larry Hughes that much. Again, it wasn't the signing as much as the number of years and dollars for a player who missed 98 games in his previous five years.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Najee said:


> My point was that with the amount of free agents out there the last I would be looking for if I was Cleveland's GM is a player who is best suited as a sxith or seventh man. I don't see what is illogical about saying what kind of player Posey is.


Umm when the Cavs don't have enough money under the cap to get a Brand or Davis it is completely logical to go after a player like Posey or Childress, etc. The major move for the Cavs won't be signing it will be the expirings to get a player during the season when teams start falling apart. You seem to want to believe just getting Posey and resigning Gibson is all the Cavs have in mind.



> I wasn't saying one party was the good guy and the other party was the bad guy, nor do I care. It was a deal that sounded questionable and it ended up costing Cleveland.


I used to believe this as well but the Cavs are built for defense and seeing how badly Boozer was exposed this year I'm not sure how much the Cavs really lost. I don't think the Cavs would be that much better with Boozer considering the frontcourt of the Cavs has produced well over the last few years.



> I was well aware what was going on in the free agent market, but it still doesn't mean the team didn't go overboard in paying Larry Hughes that much. Again, it wasn't the signing as much as the number of years and dollars for a player who missed 98 games in his previous five years.


You still don't get it: the Cavs had to overpay Hughes to get him and yes Hughes was the only option at that point. Hughes liked playing for the Wizards and they had just had a good season teamwise as well. Considering the Wiz could have payed him anything they wanted the Cavs had to overpay. It didn't matter the cost they had to get Lebron signed. I hate Hughes but I don't regret his signing as much as I would like to.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Pioneer10 said:


> You still don't get it: the Cavs had to overpay Hughes to get him and yes Hughes was the only option at that point. Hughes liked playing for the Wizards and they had just had a good season teamwise as well. Considering the Wiz could have payed him anything they wanted the Cavs had to overpay. It didn't matter the cost they had to get Lebron signed. I hate Hughes but I don't regret his signing as much as I would like to.


One rule in sports (like in life) is that you do not overpay for getting something of considerably less worth -- and that's what Cleveland did with Larry Hughes. The "only option at that point" excuse is merely that. His final season in Washington was an aberration of his career, plus he is/was perennially injured. 

You could see from the beginning that Hughes wasn't going to pan out. The angle about justification ("the deal helped Cleveland re-sign LeBron") is really just a strawman that may or may not have a connection.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Najee said:


> One rule in sports (like in life) is that you do not overpay for getting something of considerably less worth -- and that's what Cleveland did with Larry Hughes. The "only option at that point" excuse is merely that. His final season in Washington was an aberration of his career, plus he is/was perennially injured.
> 
> You could see from the beginning that Hughes wasn't going to pan out. The angle about justification ("the deal helped Cleveland re-sign LeBron") is really just a strawman that may or may not have a connection.


 Calling bull here again: you have not put up on any alternate scenario where the Cavs would have got enough talent to assure Lebron would stay (JJ, Allen, Redd, were not coming here). You're completely looking at this in a hindsight instead of where this organization was when Ferry took over. They had just dumped a coach in a pretty poor manner, had pretty much an unknown guy take over the team and replace a guy who was coaching veteran, it looked like a very real possibility that the Cavs second best player Z was about to leave, and had huge holes elsewhere. No one was picking them to do be a playoff contender before FA began and it was conventional wisdom at that time if the Cavs didn't add players Lebron was walking. Instead the team turned it around and made a good playoff run. Like it or not Hughes was a big part of that. A true strawman is trying to claim automatically that Hughes wasn't going to pan out. In fact he had put 3 good seasons prior to his best year: it's not like he was utter crap and then played brilliant one year only. Before he busted his finger up his first year most Cavs on this board actually liked him and his performance. In addition even though his finger never got fixed up the second year the Cavs put a ridiculous second half record in large part because of the large lineup of Hughes/Sasha. In no large measure that was due to Hughes always playing at least decent D no matter how injured he was. These were also freak injuries Hughes got like the finger and not chronic injuries (none of the injures that caused him to be hurt before he got to be a Cav actually came back). In any case predicting that a player will always be hurt is at best not a rocket science (just look at Z a player most people gave up on)


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Hey, if you want to rewrite history go ahead. But in the real world, Cleveland signed a player who missed 80 games in the previous five seasons and whose best season came in a contract year. Even at his best, Larry Hughes was never remotely close to being an All-Star-caliber player.

It was simply another bad move by Cleveland, a franchise whose best best move in the past decade was drafting LeBron James (and that only happened because the team was horrible). The team overpaid for a player whose best season came as arguably the third-best player in Washington. But Cleveland may not have to worry about surrounding LeBron with garbage in another two years, because he may leave.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Najee said:


> Hey, if you want to rewrite history go ahead. But in the real world, Cleveland signed a player who missed 80 games in the previous five seasons and whose best season came in a contract year. Even at his best, Larry Hughes was never remotely close to being an All-Star-caliber player.
> 
> It was simply another bad move by Cleveland, a franchise whose best best move in the past decade was drafting LeBron James (and that only happened because the team was horrible). The team overpaid for a player whose best season came as arguably the third-best player in Washington. But Cleveland may not have to worry about surrounding LeBron with garbage in another two years, because he may leave.


Hehe I see what's happening here you bought into notion that Hughes was only good for one season because that was the CW and now you have to back up the flawed argument. Sure he played well above his average his contract year but the Cavs would have been happy paying Hughes for the performance he put up the _3 years prior to his contract yea_r (60+ games with above avergae performance). His 4 years combined before coming to the Cavs are not that dissimilar to a guy like Richard Jefferson who isn't an All-Star, injury problems but still very good.


----------

