Brown for Garland - who says no?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

What's the obsession with trading an All-NBA 2nd teamer plus first round picks for an undersized guard that was a net negative on court every game this playoffs except one?

[Who]

In his last ten games, Wade is shooting 13.3% from three and 21.7% overall.

Maybe Wade just went cold. That is why they dropped him in the playoffs. I know his defense is well ahead of his offense.

Appearently, he had a shoulder injury before that. Unknown if it was still bothering him or not. If that is why his shot went into the tank.

[Goldstar88]

What's the obsession with trading an All-NBA 2nd teamer plus first round picks for an undersized guard that was a net negative on court every game this playoffs except one?

I would consider D-Mitchell, though. Maybe he'd be a better fit on the C's with Brown a better fit on the Cavs. Trade Smart for a PF, start White. That could work...

Starters: White, Mitchell, Tatum, Horford/PF from trade, Timelord

Bench: Brogdon, Grant, Gallo, Hauser...

[Smartacus]

I think Garland is a great player. For most of the reasons listed in the above posts, I wouldn't move Brown for him.

If it is true he isn't viewed as a core member in Cleveland, I would move basically anything they wanted outside of our stars to snag him. He is the kind of deadeye, passing lead guard that fits great with bigger stars. I just don't think Cleveland would move him for anything but a star.

My post was unclear, I mentioned that Okoro is no longer considered a core player for Cleveland not Garland. This is according to Chris Fedor of cleveland.com.

The Cavs will explore every path to offseason improvement — and Okoro is no longer viewed as a core player.

Any of the ‘expendable’ pieces could be dealt in the right deal. That means Okoro, the 22-year-old still-developing swingman who is beloved by teammates and members of the organization because of his ceaseless work ethic, team-first mentality and low-maintenance attitude. But the Cavs also don’t have as much time to wait for Okoro to develop.

https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/2023/05/should-the-cavs-consider-signing-dillon-brooks-this-offseason-hey-chris.html

[A Future of Stevens]

I think Garland is a great player. For most of the reasons listed in the above posts, I wouldn't move Brown for him.

If it is true he isn't viewed as a core member in Cleveland, I would move basically anything they wanted outside of our stars to snag him. He is the kind of deadeye, passing lead guard that fits great with bigger stars. I just don't think Cleveland would move him for anything but a star.

My post was unclear, I mentioned that Okoro is no longer considered a core player for Cleveland not Garland. This is according to Chris Fedor of cleveland.com.

The Cavs will explore every path to offseason improvement — and Okoro is no longer viewed as a core player.

Any of the ‘expendable’ pieces could be dealt in the right deal. That means Okoro, the 22-year-old still-developing swingman who is beloved by teammates and members of the organization because of his ceaseless work ethic, team-first mentality and low-maintenance attitude. But the Cavs also don’t have as much time to wait for Okoro to develop.

https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/2023/05/should-the-cavs-consider-signing-dillon-brooks-this-offseason-hey-chris.html

That makes alot more sense haha.

[gouki88]

What's the obsession with trading an All-NBA 2nd teamer plus first round picks for an undersized guard that was a net negative on court every game this playoffs except one?

I would consider D-Mitchell, though. Maybe he'd be a better fit on the C's with Brown a better fit on the Cavs. Trade Smart for a PF, start White. That could work...

Starters: White, Mitchell, Tatum, Horford/PF from trade, Timelord

Bench: Brogdon, Grant, Gallo, Hauser...

On paper it might, but pretty sure Brown and Mitchell are best pals. Hard to envision Brown having much affection for the team that just traded his best buddy instead of pairing them

[Goldstar88]

What's the obsession with trading an All-NBA 2nd teamer plus first round picks for an undersized guard that was a net negative on court every game this playoffs except one?

I would consider D-Mitchell, though. Maybe he'd be a better fit on the C's with Brown a better fit on the Cavs. Trade Smart for a PF, start White. That could work...

Starters: White, Mitchell, Tatum, Horford/PF from trade, Timelord

Bench: Brogdon, Grant, Gallo, Hauser...

On paper it might, but pretty sure Brown and Mitchell are best pals. Hard to envision Brown having much affection for the team that just traded his best buddy instead of pairing them

But JB would get to be THE man in CLE. The #1. That wouldn't happen with Mitchell there. Plus, all that money.. I think he'd get over it quickly. 

[footey]

I like Garland, but think we worry about his size on defensive end.  We don't have the size that the Cavs do underneath to protect against that.

Also worth pointing out (if not already above) that Mitchell is rumored to play out his deal in CLE and then sign with Knicks; he's a NY kid (from near where I used to live), and apparently really wants to play for the Knicks. Am sure JB knows this as well.

[Celtics4ever]

Brad Stevens would say no, as this makes us worse.

[Moranis]

What's the obsession with trading an All-NBA 2nd teamer plus first round picks for an undersized guard that was a net negative on court every game this playoffs except one?

To be fair, Garland's on/off differential for the series was +1.9.  Mobley, Mitchell, and Okoro were the only Cavs regulars better than that.  Brown was -6.5 during the Celtics playoff run this year and has now been negative his last 5 playoff runs for the team.  So perhaps it is Brown who is the net negative not Garland. 

[Moranis]

As for this trade, I'd probably do some variation of it.  Garland would be the best passer on the team since Rondo and he is an excellent shot creater for himself as well (as well as being an excellent shooter).  He is young and improving and signed long term at a much better price than Boston could re-sign Brown at.  You'd have to do a follow-up trade though for a bigger SG as I don't think Garland with Smart/White/Brogdon is near big enough. 

Maybe something like this

Boston - Garland, Harris
Cleveland - Brown
Brooklyn - Pritchard, Gallinari

In that scenario, Boston adds a good sized excellent shooter and still keeps the combo-guard trio (with the idea of moving one in the right deal later on).  So you'd probably start Smart and Garland and then play the matchups for the rotation.  Could in theory start Harris at SF and play small with Tatum at PF and 1 big as well. 

[footey]

What's the obsession with trading an All-NBA 2nd teamer plus first round picks for an undersized guard that was a net negative on court every game this playoffs except one?

To be fair, Garland's on/off differential for the series was +1.9.  Mobley, Mitchell, and Okoro were the only Cavs regulars better than that.  Brown was -6.5 during the Celtics playoff run this year and has now been negative his last 5 playoff runs for the team.  So perhaps it is Brown who is the net negative not Garland.

Harris was unplayable 2nd half of last season. Worried that he is cooked. I know he was coming off ankle injury, but does that alone explain his sharp drop?

[Greenblood35]

Cleveland says no, very quickly IMO.

They have a 23-year-old, that just averaged 21.6 points and just under 8 assists with 41% 3P shooting. He is locked up for the next 5 years at what will be considered pretty reasonable money starting at 33M. Why would Cleveland give him up for a player who, as good as JB is, is in the final year of his contract, with no guarantees (even if he verbally were to commit) that he will stay beyond this coming year. Even if Brown can agree to extension with them now, what incentive would he have? Sure, he is friends with Mitchell, but I'm sure he is friends with a lot of players. As we've seen from Dame's recent comments, there are markets/cities where players would welcome a trade to, i.e. Miami, LA, maybe NY. Boston may not be on the that list, but Cleveland is most certainly not on that list.

If Cleveland were willing to make that deal I would absolutely do that in a heartbeat. The contract that we have to sign JB to for him to stay has to be taken into consideration when you talk about the value of a player. Brown is certainly a better two-way player than Garland, but Garland is better offensively and will be making considerably less money, which could provide us with more flexibility to fill in the gaps going forward. Plus, Garland scares the heck out of me when we play the Cavs, which is the type player I want.