Would the Cavs be better with Wiggins

[Moranis]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

[Monkhouse]

Right now? No.

Love is still a better player, and as for Love being shut down by Porter, that's laughable. Love is leading the league in points scored in the low post...

I would still trust Kevin Love over Wiggins, considering the fact of the matter is, he's still one of the best rebounding power forwards, with complete offensive ability.

Wiggins could be better in 2-3 years, but that's all speculation. If you want to win now, you choose Love. Love, Kyrie, and LBJ will contend for at least 3-5 years.

[Fafnir]

The Cavs don't have many young legs or athletes right now you play a ton to make those second effort defensive/hustle plays. Thompson is about it right? Wiggins would add that element and allow them to not play JR Smith so much at the wing.

Not sure they'd be better, but given that I'm skeptical of Love continuing to play well once Kyry is back its a possibility.

[colincb]

No. Lebron wanted to win now, not 4-5 years down the road. Wiggins future is ahead of him.

Right now he's putting up numbers, but it based on high usage, not great shooting. Other offensive categories are not very good, Defensively, he's toward the bottom on defensive rating on his own team. By the numbers in the BB-reference comparison linked below, it's one-sided in favor of Love this year.

http://bkref.com/tiny/7TTrx

[Moranis]

The Cavs don't have many young legs or athletes right now you play a ton to make those second effort defensive/hustle plays. Thompson is about it right? Wiggins would add that element and allow them to not play JR Smith so much at the wing.

Not sure they'd be better, but given that I'm skeptical of Love continuing to play well once Kyry is back its a possibility.

Well Shumpert and Irving are both injured, which skews the rotation a great deal thus far this year.  Put both of them as the starting backcourt and move Williams and Smith to the bench and the team looks a lot different.  Cunningham and Delly are both in the rotation at the moment they are 24 and 25.  Thompson is 24 also.  Heck Love is only 27.  Irving and Shump are 23 and 25 respectively.  They have youth, but without Irving and Shumpert the depth has been hurt.  Irving is due back in the next couple of weeks and Shumpert is probably looking at mid to late January. 

[LarBrd33]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

I actually think you kind of make a compelling case for why they'd be better off with Wiggins.   Thompson and Love are sort of redundant.   I think the Cavs would be fine giving more of Love's minutes to Thompson and having that starting lineup you proposed.

Long term, no question you take Wiggins over Love.  He's great already as a two-way player and has a seemingly unlimited ceiling.

In a bubble, that trade was always insane... It just doesn't happen in any other scenario.  I'm 100% convinced that there were back channel discussions between agents that lead to those circumstances.  100% convinced that LeBron went to Cleveland knowing he was forming a big 3 with Kyrie and Love... and 100% convinced that Love and his people had to come to some kind of handshake agreement to re-sign with Cleveland after the season so they weren't trading for a lost asset.    I strongly believe the Cavs decided to trade the #1 pick for Love, because it secured them LeBron... even though the order in which those events officially took place suggests otherwise.   

It would be akin to Boston winning the lotto, having proxy discussions between 3rd parties that if they traded Ben Simmons for DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Durant would agree to come to Boston and Cousins would agree to sign an extension when his contract was up.   The Simmons for Cousins deal in a bubble might look crazy long-term, but knowing that it secured Kevin Durant, it would be a no-brainer.    I know this hypothetical is slightly off, because Cousins isn't heading into the final year of his deal next year, but I think you get my point.

[Monkhouse]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

I actually think you kind of make a compelling case for why they'd be better off with Wiggins.   Thompson and Love are sort of redundant.   I think the Cavs would be fine giving more of Love's minutes to Thompson and having that starting lineup you proposed.

Long term, no question you take Wiggins over Love.  He's great already as a two-way player and has a seemingly unlimited ceiling.

In a bubble, that trade was always insane... It just doesn't happen in any other scenario.  I'm 100% convinced that there were back channel discussions between agents that lead to those circumstances.  100% convinced that LeBron went to Cleveland knowing he was forming a big 3 with Kyrie and Love... and 100% convinced that Love and his people had to come to some kind of handshake agreement to re-sign with Cleveland after the season so they weren't trading for a lost asset.    I strongly believe the Cavs decided to trade the #1 pick for Love, because it secured them LeBron... even though the order in which those events officially took place suggests otherwise.   

It would be akin to Boston winning the lotto, having proxy discussions between 3rd parties that if they traded Ben Simmons for DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Durant would agree to come to Boston and Cousins would agree to sign an extension when his contract was up.   The Simmons for Cousins deal in a bubble might look crazy long-term, but knowing that it secured Kevin Durant, it would be a no-brainer.    I know this hypothetical is slightly off, because Cousins isn't heading into the final year of his deal next year, but I think you get my point.

The thing is if Cousins and Durant came to the Celtics, could we honestly beat the Cavs?

[Moranis]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

I actually think you kind of make a compelling case for why they'd be better off with Wiggins.   Thompson and Love are sort of redundant.   I think the Cavs would be fine giving more of Love's minutes to Thompson and having that starting lineup you proposed.

Long term, no question you take Wiggins over Love.  He's great already as a two-way player and has a seemingly unlimited ceiling.

In a bubble, that trade was always insane... It just doesn't happen in any other scenario.  I'm 100% convinced that there were back channel discussions between agents that lead to those circumstances.  100% convinced that LeBron went to Cleveland knowing he was forming a big 3 with Kyrie and Love... and 100% convinced that Love and his people had to come to some kind of handshake agreement to re-sign with Cleveland after the season so they weren't trading for a lost asset.    I strongly believe the Cavs decided to trade the #1 pick for Love, because it secured them LeBron... even though the order in which those events officially took place suggests otherwise.   

It would be akin to Boston winning the lotto, having proxy discussions between 3rd parties that if they traded Ben Simmons for DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Durant would agree to come to Boston and Cousins would agree to sign an extension when his contract was up.   The Simmons for Cousins deal in a bubble might look crazy long-term, but knowing that it secured Kevin Durant, it would be a no-brainer.    I know this hypothetical is slightly off, because Cousins isn't heading into the final year of his deal next year, but I think you get my point.

Thompson provides almost nothing that Love provides, except rebounding.  Love is a significantly better passer, significantly better ball handler, significantly better shooter, etc.  Thompson is a better defender, but he is far from a world beater.  The offense would be very perimeter dependent without Love.  Once Cleveland is healthy, you will see them go on a Golden State like tear and a large reason for that is Love.  They need his inside scoring and outside shooting to really tick. 

James signed in Cleveland before the Love trade, but it was heavily rumored.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was some sort of behind the scenes dealing going on.  I also believe Cleveland still makes the Mozgov trade, but I'm not so sure they still acquire Shump and Smith if they have Wiggins (though the pick they got in the Shump trade they used in the Mozgov trade so I'm not sure how that would have worked).  Would put the team in a much different dynamic and Wiggins certainly doesn't develop as quickly playing with James and Irving. 

[KG Living Legend]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

I actually think you kind of make a compelling case for why they'd be better off with Wiggins.   Thompson and Love are sort of redundant.   I think the Cavs would be fine giving more of Love's minutes to Thompson and having that starting lineup you proposed.

Long term, no question you take Wiggins over Love.  He's great already as a two-way player and has a seemingly unlimited ceiling.

In a bubble, that trade was always insane... It just doesn't happen in any other scenario.  I'm 100% convinced that there were back channel discussions between agents that lead to those circumstances.  100% convinced that LeBron went to Cleveland knowing he was forming a big 3 with Kyrie and Love... and 100% convinced that Love and his people had to come to some kind of handshake agreement to re-sign with Cleveland after the season so they weren't trading for a lost asset.    I strongly believe the Cavs decided to trade the #1 pick for Love, because it secured them LeBron... even though the order in which those events officially took place suggests otherwise.   

It would be akin to Boston winning the lotto, having proxy discussions between 3rd parties that if they traded Ben Simmons for DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Durant would agree to come to Boston and Cousins would agree to sign an extension when his contract was up.   The Simmons for Cousins deal in a bubble might look crazy long-term, but knowing that it secured Kevin Durant, it would be a no-brainer.    I know this hypothetical is slightly off, because Cousins isn't heading into the final year of his deal next year, but I think you get my point.

The thing is if Cousins and Durant came to the Celtics, could we honestly beat the Cavs?

 Could we beat the Cavs with

 Cousins
 Sullinger
 Durant
 Bradley
 Smart


 Yes. Yes. And yes. Could we beat the Warrior's? No.

[Moranis]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

I actually think you kind of make a compelling case for why they'd be better off with Wiggins.   Thompson and Love are sort of redundant.   I think the Cavs would be fine giving more of Love's minutes to Thompson and having that starting lineup you proposed.

Long term, no question you take Wiggins over Love.  He's great already as a two-way player and has a seemingly unlimited ceiling.

In a bubble, that trade was always insane... It just doesn't happen in any other scenario.  I'm 100% convinced that there were back channel discussions between agents that lead to those circumstances.  100% convinced that LeBron went to Cleveland knowing he was forming a big 3 with Kyrie and Love... and 100% convinced that Love and his people had to come to some kind of handshake agreement to re-sign with Cleveland after the season so they weren't trading for a lost asset.    I strongly believe the Cavs decided to trade the #1 pick for Love, because it secured them LeBron... even though the order in which those events officially took place suggests otherwise.   

It would be akin to Boston winning the lotto, having proxy discussions between 3rd parties that if they traded Ben Simmons for DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Durant would agree to come to Boston and Cousins would agree to sign an extension when his contract was up.   The Simmons for Cousins deal in a bubble might look crazy long-term, but knowing that it secured Kevin Durant, it would be a no-brainer.    I know this hypothetical is slightly off, because Cousins isn't heading into the final year of his deal next year, but I think you get my point.

The thing is if Cousins and Durant came to the Celtics, could we honestly beat the Cavs?

 Could we beat the Cavs with

 Cousins
 Sullinger
 Durant
 Bradley
 Smart


 Yes. Yes. And yes. Could we beat the Warrior's? No.

I would still heavily favor the Cavs if all teams were healthy.  I actually think that team has a better chance against Golden State than Cleveland because that team would force GS out of their small ball lineups (no way they can defend Cousins without Bogut on the floor), which greatly affects their offensive identity.  The Cavs would just throw Mozgov, Varejao, and Thompson at Cousins (even Kaun), which wouldn't affect their offense, since those guys play anyway.  James and Durant would be a battle, but Irving would have a field day against Smart and Bradley. 

[slamtheking]

No.  The roster imbalance would be a lot more prevalent.  I mean I just don't see a starting 5 (assuming they still make the other trades) of Mozgov, Thompson, James, Wiggins, and Irving as better than a starting 5 of Mozgov, Love, James, Shump, and Irving.  The second team has a lot more balance and doesn't rely as much on James for the scoring load. 

Now 2 or 3 years, that is a different answer, but right now the team with Love is better and since the window with James isn't that large, you need the better team now.

I actually think you kind of make a compelling case for why they'd be better off with Wiggins.   Thompson and Love are sort of redundant.   I think the Cavs would be fine giving more of Love's minutes to Thompson and having that starting lineup you proposed.

Long term, no question you take Wiggins over Love.  He's great already as a two-way player and has a seemingly unlimited ceiling.

In a bubble, that trade was always insane... It just doesn't happen in any other scenario.  I'm 100% convinced that there were back channel discussions between agents that lead to those circumstances.  100% convinced that LeBron went to Cleveland knowing he was forming a big 3 with Kyrie and Love... and 100% convinced that Love and his people had to come to some kind of handshake agreement to re-sign with Cleveland after the season so they weren't trading for a lost asset.    I strongly believe the Cavs decided to trade the #1 pick for Love, because it secured them LeBron... even though the order in which those events officially took place suggests otherwise.   

It would be akin to Boston winning the lotto, having proxy discussions between 3rd parties that if they traded Ben Simmons for DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Durant would agree to come to Boston and Cousins would agree to sign an extension when his contract was up.   The Simmons for Cousins deal in a bubble might look crazy long-term, but knowing that it secured Kevin Durant, it would be a no-brainer.    I know this hypothetical is slightly off, because Cousins isn't heading into the final year of his deal next year, but I think you get my point.

The thing is if Cousins and Durant came to the Celtics, could we honestly beat the Cavs?

 Could we beat the Cavs with

 Cousins
 Sullinger
 Durant
 Bradley
 Smart


 Yes. Yes. And yes. Could we beat the Warrior's? No.

I would still heavily favor the Cavs if all teams were healthy.  I actually think that team has a better chance against Golden State than Cleveland because that team would force GS out of their small ball lineups (no way they can defend Cousins without Bogut on the floor), which greatly affects their offensive identity.  The Cavs would just throw Mozgov, Varejao, and Thompson at Cousins (even Kaun), which wouldn't affect their offense, since those guys play anyway.  James and Durant would be a battle, but Irving would have a field day against Smart and Bradley. 

I disagree on Irving vs Smart/AB.  I think those 2 could do a pretty fair/good job containing him.  it'll be when IT hits the floor that Kyrie abuses him on offense.