Mo Williams rumor and Delonte West

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/la-sp-clippers8-2008aug08,0,3370100.story


My fear is that Miami will panic and make Delonte West a deal that is either too big or too short, thereby preventing the Cavs from reaping the true rewards of the restricted free agency system. (See Varejao, Anderson). Hopefully Ferry isn't overplaying his hand. I suspect he still carries a chip on his shoulder from his first crack at free-agent dealings in his rookie GM campaign, after which he was criticized by NBA insiders for being a soft negotiator. The contracts doled out that were not particularly egregious in their yearly amounts, but in each case (Damon Jones, Donyell Marshall, Z, and Hughes) the contract was one year longer than it should have been (in the case of Hughes, though, the extra year was almost certainly needed to lure him from the Wizards). Ferry was especially criticized for "negotiating with himself" on the Ilgauskas deal. Since then, Ferry has tried to reinvent himself as a "tough negotiator," with the media serving as occasional attendants in the makeover.

When I read the latest Cavs' rumor regarding Mo Williams, all I could think was "Oh, God, not again." Are we about to witness another example of Ferry either horribly misjudging talent, or over-valuing Lebron's personnel preferences? Finding a potential starting two guard is much easier than starting over again at the point guard position and still not having the answer at the two guard. Gibson is basically either a third guard, or a starter on a team with a talented big guard (read: not Mo Williams). A starting backcourt of Mo Williams and Daniel Gibson would be horribly undersized and one of the worst defensive backcourts in the league. Delonte West, on the other hand, could actually pair quite nicely with a guy like Mo Williams.

My hope, obviously, is that Gibson is the one on the trading block, not West, but my sense is that the Cavs (and Lebron) view Gibson as the untouchable commodity and West, therefore, is automatically the one being discussed in trade talks. This is very similar to the myopic stance they took a few years back with Varejao and Drew Gooden. Ferry should have traded high on Varejao in the middle of the 2006/2007 season. They were intent on keeping Varejao, though, forcing them to make Gooden the centerpiece of any trade conversation. The Cavs misjudged Varejao's upside and also assumed his impending restricted free agent status would allow them to keep him as a young, cheap, big through the signing of Lebron's next contract. (perhaps they could have made a trade for Bibby had they been willing to include Varejao, rather than Gooden, in a deal. As it turned out, Gooden, not Lebron's pet of the week, Varejao, was indeed the legit starter). The Cavs paid dearly for this when their optimism and marketing of "wild Thing" was enthusiastically adopted by agent Dan "Donald" Fegan.

The situation now is not much different. West is the more likely starter, not Gibson. Delonte West is arguably the best ballhandler the Cavaliers have had in the Lebron James era. He has basically given us everything Larry Hughes did, only for a fraction of the cost. He can guard two positions adequately, can play in transition or in the half court, and is generally an offensive asset rather than a liability. Is he an all-star? Probably not. But then again, neither is Gibson (or Hughes, for that matter). And if you look at the point guards available year after year, and combine that with West's performance in the playoffs, it seems like he's a pretty good fit with this team. Yes, West hasn't been a starter for long, but it's not as if he is asking for anything much over the midlevel exception ($5.85 million -- for comparison Gooden signed for around $7 million per year). My hunch is that West would take significantly less than the midlevel in a long-term deal -- something similar to the deal that Louis Williams just signed (five years/$25 million) to play as a backup for the Sixers. The Cavs supposedly won't sign West for more than the $20 million/five year deal that Gibson got. Sheer lunacy. Yes, Boobie has a nice stroke, but he doesn't quite have the handles of a true point guard and his defense is suspect (Sounds a lot like a young Damn Jones, though I think his midrange game has more potential -- I haven't completely abandoned my B.J. Armstrong comparison yet).

Part of the problem, I believe, goes back to that 2005 offseason. Ferry views the extra years of a contract as purely a bargaining chip in his favor. This is certainly the case in unrestricted free agency, when the players are older, and the team is, by definition, paying market value for the player. The rules of restricted free agency, though, make it nearly impossible for a player to get real market value (though Deng and Iguadala's recent contracts surely challenge this point). The players are also generally younger and just entering the prime of their careers. Therefore, the restricted player's best bet is to sign a 2-3 year guaranteed contract, ensuring some long term security, but also quickly getting to unrestricted status where he can earn full market value while still in his twenties. Contract length in these situations should be preferable to the team. If the player is worth having around at all (let alone starting), the team should want to get more years at the discounted rate during the player's prime.

West is 25, and almost certainly will play his best ball during the next 3-5 years. If he signs for five years there is significant chance this will be his biggest contract. A shorter deal isn't good for the team, as the luxury tax is more of an issue in the short term (the team would actually be paying more for the first several years of his services that they would later in the deal when, hopefully, they are not paying the tax), and a free agent replacement for West will cost more (likely at least the midlevel/max length for a legit starter who is also likely to be past his prime for a significant portion of the deal). So, the Cavs should go ahead and give West his $5 million per year, but, as with Gibson's deal, he should be willing to sign for four years with the fifth year as a team option. Five million per year is still generally a team friendly contract for a young point guard (not catastrophic if he ends up being a role player/backup and very good value if he remains the starter). As a bonus, Gibson (much like Varejao several years back) might be a more sought-after commodity in a trade -- a young specialist with a cheap contract.

My overall message to Ferry is this: If you aren't willing to trade the Anderson Varejao's and Daniel Gibson's of the world, then you probably can't expect to get a legit starter in return. Given that the cap situation makes expiring contracts the team's most valuable commodity, one would expect that that the Cavs will have to include at least one young, marginally talented player with a cheap contract. And if Daniel Gibson is what you have to give up to get a difference maker, then so be it. Signing West long-term would give them multiple young players with reasonable contracts. Keeping the right players though, not the most popular ones, might prove to be Ferry's biggest challenge.

Who's your MVP?

I guess I'm going to take this opportunity to expound upon a thought I had involving last year's MVP voting. I'm watching the mighty Dallas Mavericks, in their last throes, so to speak, about to be defeated by the eighth seeded Golden State Warriors. My problem with the MVP voting last year was that it was pretty clear to me that no player was more valuable to his team in than Lebron James was. But for as long as I can remember, the NBA MVP has really been given to the best player on a superlative team. Go ahead and look. It's not just that MVP voters want the winner to come from a winning team, or a playoff team, or even a fifty win team. Almost without exception, the MVP has gone to a player on a team with one of the two or three best records in the league. Now that we have so many more wonderful statistics to evaluate how valuable a player really is, this seems even more ridiculous. Even so, I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with the voting until I watched the likely MVP and his team go down in flames tonight.

By overrating a team's performance in voting for the MVP, we are making an assumption about the teams with the best records that might not really hold true -- namely that they are indeed the best teams, the elite ones. Now this might hold true in baseball, where after 162 games it's pretty clear who the best teams are. But in the NBA, the playoffs truly are the "second season." Even a casual observer of the NBA can see that the playoffs are a completely different animal than the regular season. The teams have more time to rest and gameplan, and the intensity and physicality of the games is off the charts. Most good teams are actually built for the playoffs, often losing a few games during the season for the "greater good."

Why should we give a player on an excellent team the MVP, if a player on another lesser contender had a better season, a greater impact on his team's success, and perhaps eventually leads a deeper run into the playoffs? Sure, the success of the team during the season may have been slighty better, but only in the playoffs will a team's true worth be determined anyway, so why overvalue the winning percentage? So, as long as the team has a winning record and makes the playoffs, the team's winning percentage should play little or no part in the MVP voting. Comments?

Cavaliers playoff scenarios: Lebron not in control

Interesting playoff scenarios tonight. Here's what's on the line:

Possible playoff matchups:
Chicago: Miami, Orlando, Washington, New Jersey
Cleveland: Miami, Orlando, Washington
New Jersey: Toronto, Chicago
Washington: Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit
Orlando: Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit

Only Chicago and New Jersey control their own destiny. And they play each other. Actually, only New Jersey is in complete control of their own destiny, in that they can win and assure playing Toronto. So, it's almost like a playoff game in that they can eliminate Chicago (at least as their first round opponent) by beating them tonight. This is good for the Cavaliers, sort of.

A Chicago win will assure the Bulls the second seed, but could leave them playing Washington, Orlando or New Jersey. New Jersey, likewise, cannot assume that the teams below them will lose, since both Washington and Orlando could move up in the seeding with a victory, and thereby avoid playing Detroit.

New Jersey owns tiebreakers versus both teams below them. They swept the season series from Washington and went 2-2 versus Orlando. They also have a better conference record than Orlando.But Orlando holds the tiebreaker over Washington by virtue of a superior record versus playoff teams within the conference.

Washington, though injured, is facing a very unmotivated Indiana team. Washington can avoid playing Detroit in the first round with a victory, ensuring them either the sixth or seventh seed. If they lose, Orlando can pass them for the honor of playing Cleveland or Chicago. The Magic, with something to play for, host Miami, a team trying to get healthy for the playoffs with absolutely nothing on the line.

The Cavs are obviously not in control of their own destiny. They need a Chicago loss/New Jersey win (and a victory over the Bucks) to avoid Miami and secure the No. 2 seed. So the real question is who would New Jersey rather play, Toronto or Chicago? And if New Jersey were to lose, who would Washington rather play?

A win tonight will give N.J. splits (2-2) versus both Chicago and Toronto, but Chicago just took them apart a few weeks ago, so you have to assume they'll be happy to avoid them in the first round. But this is not quite as meaningful of a game for New Jersey as we would like it to be. Here's what the experts say:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-070417

Washington has been spanked by Chicago recently as well, so I think it's safe to say they would prefer to play Toronto or Cleveland. As previously stated, a victory for Washington keeps them out of Detroit, but it also significantly decreases their chance of playing Chicago, while increasing their chances of playing Toronto. By my calculations, their chances of playing Cleveland are about the same whether they win or lose (1 in 4 compared to 1 in 5).

The best scenario for Cleveland is obviously for both New Jersey and Washington to win, as the depleted Wizards are probably the weakest team right now.

That's, like, your opinion man

A friend sent me this message the other day:

As I noted earlier Bill Simmons of ESPN.com is big on bashing LeBron...here's his latest:

[Thumb's Down] To LeBron James, who coasted through the Skills Challenge on All-Star Saturday and played the All-Star Game with the uplifting,charismatic intensity of a female porn star trying to break one of those"most male partners in one afternoon" records. Could we end up putting him in the "Too Much, Too Soon" Pantheon some day? Will he become the basketball version of Eddie Murphy, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and every otherceleb who became famous too quickly and eventually burned out?

Here's what I know. I had four conversations with connected NBA people over the weekend that centered around the same themes: LeBron isn't playing nearly as hard as he did last season; it looks like his only goal right now is to get his coach fired; he's regressing as a basketball player (especially his passing skills and his shot selection); he made a huge mistake firing his agent and turning his career over to his buddies back home (all of whom are in over their heads); he was a much bigger problem during the Olympics than anyone realized; he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself anymore; he has an overrated sense of his own worth and his ownimpact in the sports world (as witnessed by the ESPN interview last week when he answered the "What are your goals?" question with two words: "Global icon"); he's been protected by magazine fluff pieces and buddy-buddy TV interviews for far too long; he doesn't have the same relentless drive to keep dominating everyone like Wade and Kobe have; and basically, we're much closer to LeBron re-enacting the career arc of Martina Hingis, Eric Lindros
and Junior Griffey than anyone realizes. This will evolve into THE dominant NBA story of the next two months. You watch.

To this I responded:

I have no doubt that there are many Lebron-haters out there, ESPECIALLY amongst NBA "insiders." I suspect its actually trendy in NBA circles to trash "King" James. Well, I think it's mostly, but not entirely, bullshit, but for what it's worth I'll address each point:

1) First, I've always loved Bill Simmons, but his bit is actually starting to get old. His social commentary is funny, but I would hardly call him an expert -- hence the Page 2 billing. Secondly, it's the f***ing All Star game, in Vegas, and everyone but Dwight Howard was clearly hung-over. Even so, Lebron's stat line led the Eastern Conference. So I don't begrudge any lack of enthusiasm (he tried that alley-oop to himself, didn't he?). Back to our pornstar analogy: I don't think it matters if the chick coasts on a few studs, so long as she has a nice body and attempts a few nice moves in the process. It's the All Star Game. Records Room. B-1.

2) I agree Lebron is not playing as hard as he did last season. I think he looks tired. I also think that the Cavs brass and Lebron learned last year that the regular season is a marathon, not a race. Remember that it was Detroit that was far and away the best team in the league last year during the regular season. Miami proved that the important thing is to peak at the
right time and have all your players healthy for the stretch run into the playoffs. Lebron looked exhausted by the end of the Washington series, and was pretty much out of gas versus Detroit. One of the few things Mike Brown has done well this year is utilize the bench and rest his starters. Lebron's minutes are down to just over 40 per game -- still one of the highest in the league, by the way. Let's also not forget, that unlike nearly every other premier player in the league, Lebron has not been injured in his first 3+ years, so he didn't benefit from that extra down time. Nor has he been benched as the result of nagging injuries.

3) I think that there was considerable dissention within the ranks toward Mike Brown, and rightly so. Brown was too obsessed with defense, and he failed to consider that the Cavs were underachieving so much on offense that playing good defense was often futile and even self-defeating. Thankfully, Brown seems to have gotten the message, and the Cavs have made some rotation changes and are trying to push the tempo more. In Brown's defense, though, this is the first year installing the new offensive system, while the defense is on year two. This is reflected in the team's statistics. Also, pretty much all the teams with the best defense are near the top of the standings, while the best offensive teams have widely disparate records.

4) I hate to say it, but, at least in the short term, I agree that at times it looks like Lebron has regressed just a bit this year. Again, though, I blame this mostly on fatigue and frustration with the offense and surrounding cast. I think he and Coach Brown have finally come to an understanding. My biggest fear is that they will try to force feed Ilgauskas like they did last year. That really is what brought the offense to a grinding halt.

5) James fired his agent, Aaron Goodwin, almost two years ago, man. Since then things have continued to go quite swimmingly for Lebron. He has continued to grow his endorsement portfolio with only top brands and he successfully negotiated a contract extension with the Cavaliers that set the standard for several of his NBA peers (I thought that was a pretty shrewd move). I am sure that NBA "insiders" would like to think that only the good ol' boy network can get things done though. Also, he didn't "turn his career over to his buddies" -- from everything I've read, there is no mistaking who the CEO of that company is. Perhaps peple have been reading articles like this:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-07/02-11-07/20sports.htm

Seems almost identicle to the list you gave. The author fails to note that a) Lebron already has the best deals out there (Nike, Coke), b) the big fish only take the best endorsements (let scuba man down there hump T-mobile), and must be wary of saturation.

http://benjamincox.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-too-bad-lebron-signed-that-contract.html

6) I don't know about the "problem during the Olympics." Can you elaborate?

7) He seems like he's still having fun, but he's not 19 anymore. Maybe he's just growing up? Didn't you change a bit from 19-22? Overall though, he seems like basically the same guy to me, except he expects a few more foul calls. Again, normal for a four year veteran of his stature.

8) Lebron has said from almost day one that he wants to transcend the sport/be an icon. This is a) not news and b) something originally perceived in a positive way.

9) "He's been protected by magazine fluff pieces and buddy-buddy TV interviews for far too long." Pure Lebron hate speech. Yes, like Michael Jordan before him, Lebron and his handlers have been very careful about how they've portrayed him, keeping him as bland as possible for Wal-Mart America. I wouldn't say he's been "protected" by fluff pieces, though. I'm
calling bullshit here for sure. He's protecting his "brand" by not making political statements and the like. So what? He has his whole life after making his millions to make statements. He still gives a tremendous amount to charity and has been amazingly giving in his home town of Akron. Plenty of guys would have big-timed the hometown by now. Do you even know where Dwayne Wade is from?

10) First off, I don't put Wade in the same category as Kobe when it coms to "relentless drive." Wade has yet to prove that to me. Also, Wade has missed a bunch of games with injuries and generally had a lot more time to rest and recover than Lebron.

11) "basically, we're much closer to LeBron re-enacting the career arc of Martina Hingis, Eric Lindros and Junior Griffey." Well, again this just shows the credibility of your sources. I'd take Griffey's career any day.

12) "This will evolve into THE dominant NBA story of the next two months. You watch."

Are these your words, or your "insider"s words? Either way, I highly doubt it will be more than a footnote. Lebron is still in the top 7 or 8 in efficiency rating, and there's not that much season left. I expect the Cavs to continue to improve and finish strong. I also expect that Lebron's FG% and assist rate will improve between now and the end of the season. Want to wager?

Roster issues

According to Hollinger's rating system, updated daily, Gooden ranks #63. I think Z ranks fairly high there as well. Hughes is obviously a huge disappointment. He is our highest paid player, was supposed to be our #2 guy, but he is #4 at best. I don't think that Hughes has ever had a sustained stretch where he has been healthy, but given the money and production you can't deny he's been a big bust so far.

But what upsets me most is the Cavs apparent unwillingness to trade Anderson Varejao. His value will never be higher than it is now. He has no offensive game outside of 4 feet, and while I admire his defense and hustle, the reality is that he is not much more than a poor man's Tony Battie. Teams want him. If we can get some serious help in the backcourt, we should trade him now.

Regarding the Gooden, the traditional media continues to repeat the Cavs mantra that Gooden is "inconsistent" yet they refuse to give him consistent minutes. By that, I don't just mean his overall minutes per game, but sustained stretches on th court. Every time Gooden starts to warm up, Brown takes him out. I will asume that there are occassional defensive lapses, but Brown needs to look at the big picture in terms of developing chemistry and continuity that the Cavs talked about so much in the preseason. Apparently that doesn't apply to Gooden.

Z has made his own bed, to a point. His shots develop so slowly that its too easy for other teams to defend, and it forces the offense to remain in spread position for too long without anyone moving through the lane. He also doesn't pass well out of the double team, which is in fact one of the main definitions of a center. He is slow rolling off the pick and roll, and then doesn't make the interior pass when the weakside help gets there before he does. This is a deadly combination. He also compensates for his lack of speed by coming out of the pick early before forcing the defense to commit. I don't deny Z's skills, but I agree more and more with Charlie Rosen's assesment that he is a bad match for this team, and would actually be much more valuable as a bench player.

Have we ever seen the "big" athletic lineup with Lebron, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Varejao? That lineup would dominate on the boards without sacrificing too much on defense. That lineup could run, the middle would be much more open for slashers Lebron and Hughes to get to the rack, and yet we would still have Marshall camping out for three's. So, Lebron or Hughes would handle the rock, while Varejao would set the high screens. Gooden would essentially be the center on offense, with Varejao at the 4, Marshall at the three (your classic baseline shooting small forward). On defense, though, Varejao would be the center, with Gooden guarding the other team's 3. We could also run this offense with Gibson instead of Hughes. Tonight, we might see this with Gibson, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Varejao. I just think the Cavs talked so much about wanting interchangeable, athletic players to implement their defensive strategy, yet they never seem to play
those guys at the same time, even when it might help their offense as well.

Cavs beat Spurs again!

Bennie and I sat in the second row. The view of Eva Longoria was fantastic. I wonder if she knew we were sitting in her seats! I think the dude sitting next to us was a scout.

I got curious and looked at their roster, pegging Beno Udrich as a guy we might be wiling to take a flyer on at point guard. What would it cost us? Well, I thought to get a guy like Andre Miller we would for sure have to give up Varejoa. But Beno? I would hope we could get him for Sasha and Snow. It would probably be a package deal. I think they might have interest in Sasha because the Spurs really need some youth and athleticism on the wing. All this was just in my mind, of course, until I came across this little tidbit in the San Antonio Express:

"Do the Spurs look to make any type of trade before the deadline and who might they look to deal?

–Joseph Rodriguez, San Antonio

The Spurs are always looking at possible deals before the trade deadline. Finding one that works, however, is the hard part.

In the past three seasons, the Spurs have made one Deadline Day trade (Malik Rose for Nazr Mohammed) and had two others all but done before they collapsed (Rose for Kurt Thomas; Brent Barry for J.R. Smith). You can probably expect to hear three names come up in conversations this season: Eric Williams (he has an expiring contract); Jackie Butler (he’s young and not playing); and Beno Udrih (he has a cheap contract, he’s young, he’s skilled and he seems to have signed a three-year lease in Pop’s doghouse).

Barry surfaced in last week’s talks regarding Los Angeles Clippers’ swingman Corey Maggette, but the Spurs have been reluctant to move him – at least in that deal – because he’s finally playing like they hoped he would when they
signed him."

According to Bennie we were sitting next to this fellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Demps

Making the parts fit

Seems like overall, Gibson is being tested/groomed for the starting position. It’s hard to argue with the way they’ve handled this situation. Whether we are 10 games or 20 games away from Boobie being the starter, I don’t know. Have we found our BJ Armstrong? VERY similar skill set: same size, defensive acumen, and nice looking stroke. Similar handles at this stage of their career as well. Defensively, Gibson is still not quite as strong as Snow, but he shows a lot of promise.

In one of my posts last year regarding the Damon Jones signing, I mentioned that by the end of their contracts, both Jones and Snow would be fairly effective as backups, assuming we have a young, developing starter. Both have two guaranteed years remaining, and could be part of a salary dump in their final year. That last year is actually very valuable to the Cavs as trade bait in 07-08, when other teams may be looking to clear cap space.

Scott Pollard’s role is strictly as injury insurance and as a practice player. We are very deep in the frontcourt. Pollard was basically signed in case Z or V got injured.

The Cavs offense is terrible, although it showed signs of life versus Atlanta – hardly a worthy test. That said, I think it’s far too soon to make a statement about Brown’s ability to develop younger players. Gibson and Shannon Brown are only rookies, just a few months into their professional careers. The only other young players that Coach Brown has inherited have been Varejao and Pavlovic. I think he’s done okay there, if anything giving too many minutes to Varejao. Pavlovic would be more vauable to another team. And I don’t think anyone could kiss Lebron’s butt more than Silas did.

The Cavs never imagined Shannon Brown as anything but a two guard. Ferry was very clear about that over the summer. Turns out that he is a bit shorter than Gibson, though (although he is a bit stockier). I don’t think the Cavs are giving up on Shannon yet, but his path into the rotation isn’t quite as clear as Gibson’s, given his ball handling skills. Plus, Gibson has shown the better stroke in games, and apparently in practice as well.

I am not overly concerned about the Cavs at this point. I think that the organization made a commitment to give the starters more rest this year, trying to avoid injuries and burnout. This worked very well for the Heat last year, although it cost them some games during the regular season.

My main concern is that they are not giving Gooden quite enough minutes, and have relegated him to complete garbage man status in the offense. This is a terrible waste of his abilities, especially considering how often our offense stagnates, that we didn’t sign him for his defense, and he is still one of the younger players on the team. The dude has logged shockingly few minutes!

Gooden’s post up game is actually one of his best assets, but requires that someone actually pass him the ball on the block with time on the shot clock. He is also athletic and he can run, which makes him perfect with LeBron and Hughes. I think the main problem is that he doesn’t compliment Z very well, especially since one of Z’s most glaring weaknesses is his inability to pass out of the double team. Interior passing, Denny -- we don’t have it. You can’t have a player who is completely ignored on offense (Gooden), especially when you already have a starter that is rarely guarded anyway (Snow). Gooden, for his part, is actually quite a good passer. I am also starting to agree more and more with last year’s critics who said that Z wouldn’t fit very well with the rest of the team they are building. This should be the real issue being discussed.

In defense of Eric Snow

Obviously the lack of a perimeter game seems more glaring for a perimeter player, especially one who can't really penetrate all that well. I'll concede that. But is it really that much worse than an interior player with no interior game? All I'm saying is that this would be a big problem on a lot of teams, but I think it's only a small problem on this team.
Ferry's backcourt additions were meant to further marginalize Snow's lack of offense. An important, and often overlooked, detail in this discussion is that the Cavs are only counting on Snow for about 25 minutes a game. Every team has a fifth best starter. The good teams are the ones with the best 3-4 starters plus the best bench.

The Cavs have a similar situation with Ilgauskas. Zydrunas's critics often point out that he is a liability on defense, and that his style of play conflicts with the Cavs' otherwise athletic, up-tempo roster. But the Cavs frontcourt depth will allow them to play more athletic lineups early in the game. This should have effect of negating Z's foul proneness by slightly reducing his minutes played which will ensure that he will always be available as an offensive weapon in close games when the tempo slows down. Over the course of an entire season, this should also ensure that Zydrunas will be fresher for the playoffs. So, Zydrunas is not the "wrong" center for this team as it is currently constructed. On the contrary, he is an unbelievable weapon when employed appropriately.

Jones is playing more minutes than I thought he would. He is still our most likely player to be traded.

Last night brown used Hughes at the 3 (defensively) when Lebron rested. He went big (tall) at the other two frontcourt spots, playing Z and Varejao. He played Jones and Wesley at the guard spots, but on offense it looked like Hughes was handling the ball. I thought it was a sound lineup. He left Hughes in, and surounded him with both height and perimeter shooting without sacrificing too much ballhandling. I think a lot of lineups could work, but I suspect the main rule will be that when Lebron sits, Snow will sit as well.

Sasha Pavlovic is not yet 23 years old. On this team he might be trade bait. I think he has plenty of potential, but given the team's overall depth I would be thrilled if we could get him 10 minutes per night.

I'll dig up my old "thesis," which compared the evolution of the Cavs to MJ's Bulls. As I recall, I was pretty bullish (no pun intended) on the Cavs chances for THIS season. My main point was that the Bulls went from being a very average team (in MJ's first three years) to a championship team without making any drastic changes (though they did have the benefit of some high draft picks). On paper, those Bulls teams were every bit as "flawed" as LBJ's Cavs.

Cavs beat Spurs

I'm not so sure that one win could be so significant this early in the season, but it was certainly a benchmark of some magnitude. I think the fact that we haven't won in San Antonio since 1988-1999 season is significant. Combined with last season's playoff showing, we can certainly feel this victory marks the return to the late 80's glory. It looks like the team has taken a step forward. Everyone came to camp in great shape and you can sense a comfort level, trust, and comraderie that wasn't yet fully developed last year. This is what a venture deep into the playoffs can do for a team. As I said at during last offseason, the team will get better with time. Some national pundits have questioned why Ferry didn't do more this offseason, particularly with the backcourt. As usual, these gurus failed to give a single example of exactly what plausable moved Ferry should have made. Ferry made some small, but significant changes, and would probably be willing to make a big move if the right deal presents itself. But, barring injury, this team is a contender without making any changes, so the deal would have to be absolutely perfect.

Yes, the Cavs are a great rebounding team. This is one of the reasons I like the Gooden deal so much. Had he been on the floor late against the Pistons ....

We have great, quality frontcourt depth and flexibility. Just about every possible combination of frontcourt skills can be put on the court at the same time. About the only weakness (and its only a slight definciency) is physicality on defense. This weakness is somewhat mitigated by several related factors:

1) The new rules that de-emphasize the interior game
2) Depth (highlighted somewhat dubiously in this case by the Pollard
aquisition) gives us plenty of fouls to go around and
3) lack of quality big men that can score inside and also make foul shots

The Cav's backcourt defense seems improved, but it's too early to make any statements. I would like to think the Lebron's experience with Coach K in the Olympics will improve his defensive game. Based on what we've seen from LBJ so far, I think it's a good bet. Hughes and Snow both look to be in excellent physical condition.

One overlooked factor for the Cavs backcourt is David Wesley. As mentioned earlier, Ferry's critics seem to think that his failure to significantly upgrade the backcourt is a major shortcoming.

1) As one astute comentator pointed out, the Cavs major offseason aquisitions were Gooden and Hughes. This team played most of the season and all of the playoffs without a healthy starting SG. Getting a healthy Hughes back is a big deal.

2) Some critics wonder how the Cavaliers will replace Flip Murray. What these critics overlook is that Murray did most of his damage as a result of Larry Hughes' injury. Murray is also one of the most inefficient players in the league. The guy has to be on the court for 40 minutes to get decent production out of him. For the role we expect him to play, Wesley is actually a far better (and cheaper) compliment. Wesley plays good defense and has a much more consistent shot than Murray. Wesley will also provide a much better mentor for Shannon Brown, who from all accounts will very soon also be both a better defender and a better shooter than Murray. Murray was Hughes Lite, which is just not exactly what we need from a bench player.

3) There seems to be almost an obsession regarding Eric Snow as a starting point guard. While I would love for the Cavs to get rid of Snow's $6 million per year over the next three years, that's just not going to happen. And if it does, Danny Ferry will be a genius in my eyes. But what exactly will six million bucks buy you at the PG position these days? And, all things considered, would that buy a significant upgrade over Snow? Last I checked, Kirk Hinrich just signed a 5 year deal for over $9 million per year. And Hinrich is not exactly a good defender, which brings me to my last point:

Most of the skepticism regarding the Cav's success with Snow at the point is based on a false notion of traditional "positions" in basketball. The NBA has been slowly moving away from defined positions for almost two decades. The Cavs, like the Spurs and Pistons before, have based their organizational philosphy on athleticism and flexibility. With the Cavs, big Z is an
obvious exception. But why is it any more acceptable for a team like the Bulls to have one, or sometimes two, frontcourt starters with little or no scoring ability, but not for the Cavs, who start FOUR very legitimate scoring options (Lebron, Hughes, Gooden, and Z), to have one starter who's primary raison d'etre is defense and ballhandling?

Point Guard situation: reprinted from the Disappointment Zone

As for the Cavaliers point guard situation, I commend the brass for apparently thinking outside the box. They seem to have decided to abandon traditional positional philosophy and focus more on collections of skills and matchups on the floor at any given moment. They obviously feel that they have enough players who can handle the ball (read: Lebron, occassionally Hughes) even when their true point, Snow, is not on the floor (which is likely to be more often this season). The drafting of Shannon Brown and the aquisition of Wesley gives them something they did not have last year: a viable DEFENSIVE replacement for Snow. They always knew they could have Lebron or Hughes handle the ball for extended stretches, but when Snow was off the floor the team was very vulnerable defensively against quicker backcourts.

Perhaps the now fitter Damon Jones will be able to log more time on the floor with Hughes handling the ball, but I think Jones will again be the odd man out more often than not. He will be used in very specific situations when his long distance abilities are needed (think Steve Kerr).

Of course, we shouldn’t give the Cavs too much credit for adopting this outlook — what choice did they have? The free agent market at the point position has been sparse for two seasons running and for at least one more to come. The 2006 draft was deep at the point position, but without standouts (not that they would have gotten a hypothetical standout with the 25th pick anyway). This leaves the trade market, which, barring a blockbuster deal, wouldn’t be likely to land us a significant improvement. And we haven’t even mentioned our impossible cap situation yet, have we?

Luke & Wally - Together at Last

I don't think we need another 3. Supposedly Hughes can play the 3, although I have serious doubts about that. I think we have ways of playing without a traditional 3, just as we have ways of playing without a traditional point guard. Imagine a big lineup of Snow, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Z. Or even a bit bigger with Snow, Hughes, Gooden (3), Pollard (4), Z. OR Snow, Hughes, Marshall (3), Pollard (4), Z. OR Snow, Hughes, Gooden (3), Marshall (4), Pollard (5). Did I mention Varejao?

The overall team concept was to get longer and more athletic, while maintaining the ability to shoot. It is assumed that athleticism increases the ability to play defense, and allows for more flexibility in terms of substitutions and matchups. Whether Mike Brown knows how to exploit this is up for debate. Big Z kind of throws a wrench in this strategy, and Marshall's conditioning was also problematic last year, but now we could potentially field an all athletic lineup of Hughes, Brown, Lebron, Gooden, and your pick of Varejao or Pollard. That lineup wouldn't be huge up front, but overall would be bigger and faster that any lineup another team could put on the floor. The only spot wanting there would be a more athletic
center. Perhaps that's why they are looking at this Jones guy, although the improved Marshall, or the scrappy Pollard might be just the right fit.

Back to the question of resting Lebron though: I think that the main issue when we take Lebron out is not worrying about replacing his ball handling, but rather his athleticism and energy. So I say you make sure that when Lebron is rested, Hughes and Gooden must both be on the floor. So my small, non-Lebron lineup might be Snow, Brown, Hughes, Gooden, and Varejao. And my big non-Lebron lineup would be Hughes, Brown, Gooden, Varejao, and Z. The small lineup features ball handling and athleticism. The second lineup sacrifices some ball handling but replaces it with size AND scoring. I don't see why we can't manage to play ten minutes of basketball with one of these lineups.

Lebron, Gooden, and the draft

Well, I have come to grips with the Lebron deal.

In the end, the signing is a good thing, even if it's for one less year than we all would like. It certainly made me feel better that some other marquee players took the same route, especially with Wade coming off a championship season in Miami. Financially, the shorter deal makes total sense for James and Wade, both of whom are making enough money from endorsements to justify the risk. Plus, Wade must realize that his chances of winning another championship in Miami will diminish significantly each year as Shaq gets older, and drastically once he stops playing altogether. I thought 'Melo was smart to take the longer deal. Bosh definitely should have taken the longer deal.

According to published reports, the Cavs and Drew Gooden are far apart on a new contract. Drew is restricted and no team has the cap room to make him a significant offer. So, the Cavs are obviously very much in the driver's seat. I just hope they don't overplay their hand; offensively talented 24 year old power forwards are not easy to come by. And regardless of the
Cavs' negotiating position, Gooden was the team's second best offensive option in the playoffs last year, in addition to being their most consistent rebounder. Right now it seems that the Cavs aren't offering much more than the mid-level exception, somewhere around $6-million per year. Clearly this is the bottom side of the negotiations. The top side is the 6-year/$60-million deal that Nene just inked. I predict that Drew's contract, if he signs, will be in the $8 million per year range. The Cavs are saying they will match any offer Drew gets -- the same posture Chicago took with restricted free-agents Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler last year, when there was a lot more money going around. Chandler got signed to a long-term, bad contract (6 years/$64 million). Curry was signed and then traded to the Knicks. Personally, I think $10 million a year wouldn't be such a terrible deal for the Cavaliers, especially considering they are almost certain to get the best six years of the guy's career. But the Cavs are playing things close to the vest, basically stalling to see if they can pull off some kind of blockbuster in a sign and trade deal.

Lastly, I have been researching Shannon Brown and Daniel Gibson since the days leading up to the draft. I was going to post a compilation of my findings tonight anyway, but as I was reading up on the Gooden situation I came across this article by Terry Pluto. Much as it pains me to say it, Terry did his research well, and did his job for me. Terry seems to have the scoop on the Cavs again lately, no doubt the result of Danny Ferry returning to town:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14949076.htm

I think the end result here is a guy in Brown who could contribute immediately as a third/fourth guard and eventually be a starter. Upside equals solid NBA starter. Downside is probably marginal NBA starter/sixth man type. He is basically a slightly bigger (presumably healthier) Dajuan Wagner who can play tough defense and shoot a little bit. I heard an interview with Ferry and he said that they do not think that Brown has the handles to play the point. But Ferry also said in the same interview that he expects Larry and Lebron to handle the ball anyway. So, there you have it. Obviously they think he can fill Flip Murray's role right now (Murray signed a smaller-than-expected contract with Detroit), and perhaps even be a little better (better defender, probably a better shooter).

Gibson is a tougher read. Supposedly he is 6'2", and even at that he is considered small as a shooting guard. I was going to make the same comparison to Damon Jones. And I often compare Damon Jones to Steve Kerr. Steve could shoot, but was always too slow to defend well or penetrate, and never had quite good enough ball-handling skills to play the point. That
doesn't mean you wouldn't want him on your team though. Supposedly Gibson is a better defender than either Kerr was or Jones is, but that remains to be seen. When is come to defense, though, it doesn't hurt to be 20 years old (Jones is 30). It's not a coincidence that Jones has been mentioned in trade rumors.

Overall, the Cavs, with some luck, did a good job in the draft. Chad Ford had our picks ranked as the 21st, 28th, and 51st best NBA prospects this year. Ferry clearly values guys that can shoot and defend, especially further down in the draft. Most of the players they were reportedly interested in at point guard were poor shooters, and I think they were overjoyed to see Brown fall to them. That said, I think there were players higher in the draft that they would have loved to have had. I know they were very high on Randy Foye (picked 7th), for instance, who has been lighting it up in the summer league, and I believe they were trying to trade up to get him. Why else would they have worked a guy out who was clearly not going to be available late in the first round?

Danny Ferry and Mark Shapiro have become good friends, so it's no shock that they share some of the same organizational philosophies. The one trend we see here is that Ferry is especially averse to paying free agent dollars for marginal talent that could be obtained through the draft. When it comes to the team's top seven rotation players, you are going to have to pay (and sometimes overpay), but beyond that, some version of VORP clearly comes into play. The main difference between Shapiro and Ferry in this scenario is obviously their respective owners' purse strings.