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.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Saturday, November 4, 2006
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.
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?
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?
Monday, October 23, 2006
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?
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?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)