Cavs as an option to fill out our frontcourt

[action781]

As the Kemba rumors heat up, I keep coming back to the question if we sign him that many of you also are which is "What about our frontcourt?"  First, I don't buy the Steven Adams and Clint Capela rumors.  I think those two players are far too important to the contention of their current teams right now.

I came around to the Cavs as an option I haven't heard much about.  Larry Nance + Tristan Thompson + Delladova for Gordon Hayward + Yabusele is the idea I felt was the best for each team.  http://tradenba.com/trades/SymfVYQgH

For Boston:
I don't actually want to give up on Hayward and think he still can get back to a very high level of play.  But I am concerned about how many wings we already have and our lack of frontcourt depth.  It seems most trade ideas I see on these forums involving Hayward include giving away our draft picks or taking on terrible contracts to move him.  Tristan and Nance are both defenders, hustle players and finishers.  Tristan is only on a 1 year deal so could prepare Robert Williams to eventually take over the starting spot while Nance is our hustling bench player for the next few years (or good chunk of non-Marcus-Smart salary to use in a future trade).  Delly gives us depth at backup point guard.

For Cleveland:
I think this would be a no brainer for them as an opportunity to acquire a potential all-star player when they have just about no ability to bring one in otherwise.  This particular deal also saves them $5M to get them under the luxury tax or very close to under it.

I don't think I'm ready for this trade to happen based on what I said earlier about Hayward, but it is a possibility if we land Kemba and can't get a good starting center in free agency or via trade.  If you think Gordon Hayward's contract is an immovable albatross, then you probably will like this deal? 

Another option could be Love for Hayward straight up if Cleveland wants to clear themselves of Love's contract two years sooner, although his injury history would concern me.

[Fafnir]

You need more than two wings in today's NBA, so if you believe in Hayward getting back you don't move him for role players. I think his upside is so much greater than taking on other team's bad contracts, Nance and Tristan are bad contracts.

I have no desire to be paying Larry Nance 12 million for 4 more years, and Tristan has looked cooked for two years now.

[Kuberski33]

If you move Hayward you're getting rid of the one wing who'll distribute the ball to the others and quite possibly the best passer on the team.  Jaylen and Tatum don't move the ball nearly as well, plus there's no Horford (or replacement currently) to spread the floor and open up some lanes so you're going to have too much trouble scoring the ball.

Hayward's not going anywhere.  In fact, to the contrary, by bringing in Walker, it seems pretty obvious to me that Ainge & co are expecting that he's going to return to form.  Those two are going to work really well together.

[footey]

THis trade puts us in the lottery.

[Walker Wiggle]

I'm amazed by how eager people are to dump Hayward.

[Sketch5]

I'm getting a bit tired of the "trade Hayward" ideas. He was a + when playing with Irving and Horford. He makes great plays, but because he didn't score 20ppg on his 7spg people after coming back form a horrible injury people want to bounce him becuase he's not a sexy player....(in basketball sense )

Most of the time the package coming back isn't anything what would actually help us, except bring in a traditional PF, which is not Stevens style. Tatum and Hayward are long enough to play most PF's in the league.

And most of the time people trade for an expiring or for  guy with multiple years. Hayward is pretty close to an expiring after this season. And to be logged down with contracts with average to below average players is just silly.

I'm willing to role the dice on Brown/Hayward/Tatum this season to see where it goes, we only got to see 5 minutes of that realistically, last season doesn't count. 

[Kuberski33]

People either have short memories or only recently became NBA fans.  Utah Hayward was one heck of an all around player - who was still improving.

[gouki88]

People either have short memories or only recently became NBA fans.  Utah Hayward was one heck of an all around player - who was still improving.

I think it's just a massive lack in patience

[jpotter33]

Would love to have Nance, as I’ve always really liked his game.

Not sure how much I would trade for him though.

[Silky]

assuming team acquires Kemba, I think the more reasonable and fair trade with Cleveland would be Gordon, Yabusele, Milwaukee pick and perhaps a second or 2, for Love.

I think both teams improve, and this also saves Boston an additional ~7 mill, which would, after signing Kemba, leave team with close to what the MLE level would be, enough to get WCS, or Bryant

[Silky]

People either have short memories or only recently became NBA fans.  Utah Hayward was one heck of an all around player - who was still improving.

I think it's just a massive lack in patience

Or not.

If Gordon has a bad season team will without a doubt be handcuffed with another year of him.

If Gordon has a great season, it would be unreasonable to assume he would opt in, which means the team either has to cough up another max contract, or lose him for nothing.

So some of us see that the team is going young, the potential of either gordon proving he will never be back to his old form and team being saddled, or him being better and opting out and lose him for nothing, or as some reports state, his presence continues to be a sour note with some players.

[gouki88]

People either have short memories or only recently became NBA fans.  Utah Hayward was one heck of an all around player - who was still improving.

I think it's just a massive lack in patience

Or not.

If Gordon has a bad season team will without a doubt be handcuffed with another year of him.

If Gordon has a great season, it would be unreasonable to assume he would opt in, which means the team either has to cough up another max contract, or lose him for nothing.

So some of us see that the team is going young, the potential of either gordon proving he will never be back to his old form and team being saddled, or him being better and opting out and lose him for nothing, or as some reports state, his presence continues to be a sour note with some players.

I get that you're hell-bent on shipping Hayward for peanuts, but his value can literally only go up. I don't know how many times I and other posters have to say this, but you choose to ignore it, so that's alright.

[Moranis]

I don't think the Cavs would do that trade.  They really like Nance and aren't exactly clamoring to get rid of Thompson either.

[Silky]

People either have short memories or only recently became NBA fans.  Utah Hayward was one heck of an all around player - who was still improving.

I think it's just a massive lack in patience

Or not.

If Gordon has a bad season team will without a doubt be handcuffed with another year of him.

If Gordon has a great season, it would be unreasonable to assume he would opt in, which means the team either has to cough up another max contract, or lose him for nothing.

So some of us see that the team is going young, the potential of either gordon proving he will never be back to his old form and team being saddled, or him being better and opting out and lose him for nothing, or as some reports state, his presence continues to be a sour note with some players.

I get that you're hell-bent on shipping Hayward for peanuts, but his value can literally only go up. I don't know how many times I and other posters have to say this, but you choose to ignore it, so that's alright.

If Gordon does not improve at all, how does his value go up?

You speak in absolutes, nothing is an absolute, nothing.


You have stated nothing, at any point in time to change my opinion. I am not set in stone in anyway shape or form, but I have yet to hear 1 single, rational, counterpoint other than.
1) perception of team around the NBA for trading a player who got hurt 2 years ago
2) his value will only go up. it wont stay the same, it wont decrease just solely go up. based on nothing, just that it will.
3) he was an allstar years back, on a different team, before the injury, in a different system, when he was younger


I have stated the potential of the opposite, a number of times, and am just still dealing with this new label of being hayward hater.

reasons to trade Hayward:
1) High salary low productin
2) older than tatum and brown
3) potentially being an expiring would increase value
4) can sell the potential of him being better next season, which raises his value, as opposed to having him play out the season and potentially show he is never going to be the same player which crushes his value, he opts in, and we are stuck with a 35 million dollar subpar bench player.
5) can use his large salary to fill depth need at multiple locations.
6) he and Tatums natural positions are both SF

If you look at realistic trade options for the team moving forward, today, june 28th, 2019

you have an allnba defender who is constantly improving, never complains and is only 25
a young 2 way sg who you would not trade for Leonard
a young potential superstar at sf (haywards position)
Lots of rookies and players on rookie scale contracts
Hayward

Its really hayward or smart as the only viable trade options moving from here.

And if I have a team of
Kemba, Brown, Tatum, all the youth
I cannot see any arguement as to why the skills that marcus brings, at the price he brings them, is not a better fit than another player who needs the ball to make stuff happen. We know how Irving and Hayward worked, why beat a dead horse.

Offensively we would have Kemba and Tatum and 1a and 1b options. Then brown as the 3rd option, and either a bigman or marcus smart as the 4th option.

defensively, its not even close, Marcus and Brown playing the wings with Kemba will completely negate any weaknesses that Kemba has.


If team wants to win now, then Hayward is the logical trade choice.

If team wants to spread the rebuild over multiple years, great, run with a weak front court and address it next season with MLE, potential capspace, 3 draft picks.

[gouki88]

People either have short memories or only recently became NBA fans.  Utah Hayward was one heck of an all around player - who was still improving.

I think it's just a massive lack in patience

Or not.

If Gordon has a bad season team will without a doubt be handcuffed with another year of him.

If Gordon has a great season, it would be unreasonable to assume he would opt in, which means the team either has to cough up another max contract, or lose him for nothing.

So some of us see that the team is going young, the potential of either gordon proving he will never be back to his old form and team being saddled, or him being better and opting out and lose him for nothing, or as some reports state, his presence continues to be a sour note with some players.

I get that you're hell-bent on shipping Hayward for peanuts, but his value can literally only go up. I don't know how many times I and other posters have to say this, but you choose to ignore it, so that's alright.

If Gordon does not improve at all, how does his value go up?

You speak in absolutes, nothing is an absolute, nothing.


You have stated nothing, at any point in time to change my opinion. I am not set in stone in anyway shape or form, but I have yet to hear 1 single, rational, counterpoint other than.
1) perception of team around the NBA for trading a player who got hurt 2 years ago
2) his value will only go up. it wont stay the same, it wont decrease just solely go up. based on nothing, just that it will.
3) he was an allstar years back, on a different team, before the injury, in a different system, when he was younger


I have stated the potential of the opposite, a number of times, and am just still dealing with this new label of being hayward hater.

reasons to trade Hayward:
1) High salary low productin
2) older than tatum and brown
3) potentially being an expiring would increase value
4) can sell the potential of him being better next season, which raises his value, as opposed to having him play out the season and potentially show he is never going to be the same player which crushes his value, he opts in, and we are stuck with a 35 million dollar subpar bench player.
5) can use his large salary to fill depth need at multiple locations.
6) he and Tatums natural positions are both SF

If you look at realistic trade options for the team moving forward, today, june 28th, 2019

you have an allnba defender who is constantly improving, never complains and is only 25
a young 2 way sg who you would not trade for Leonard
a young potential superstar at sf (haywards position)
Lots of rookies and players on rookie scale contracts
Hayward

Its really hayward or smart as the only viable trade options moving from here.

And if I have a team of
Kemba, Brown, Tatum, all the youth
I cannot see any arguement as to why the skills that marcus brings, at the price he brings them, is not a better fit than another player who needs the ball to make stuff happen. We know how Irving and Hayward worked, why beat a dead horse.

Offensively we would have Kemba and Tatum and 1a and 1b options. Then brown as the 3rd option, and either a bigman or marcus smart as the 4th option.

defensively, its not even close, Marcus and Brown playing the wings with Kemba will completely negate any weaknesses that Kemba has.


If team wants to win now, then Hayward is the logical trade choice.

If team wants to spread the rebuild over multiple years, great, run with a weak front court and address it next season with MLE, potential capspace, 3 draft picks.

Contracts get more valuable the less time they have on them when the player is not worth said contract. Not sure how many times I have to repeat that.

I'm going to ignore all your talk about trading Hayward being "logical", because frankly it is nothing of the sort