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?