Bio not provided
@AlexRaffalli@WhrOffnsHppns@WayneEmbrysKidsI'm not sure how great Deng has been, he hasn't been a difference maker. He should lead the Bulls in scoring, he leads them in FGA's, much the same Irving does here. Isn't it a REALISTIC expectation, if you take the most shots, you should score the most points? Deng is in Cleveland, because Chicago viewed him as being expendable. They couldn't come to an agreement on an extension (Deng's best years are not ahead of him) so they figured they could fleece the Cavs, and revisit signing Deng in the summer, not sure how the Cavs win there,
8 months ago on CHRIS GRANTLAND: 1-2-3, REPEATER YIELDS DENG
@WhrOffnsHppns@WayneEmbrysKidsWaiters has been a more effective, and efficient player coming off the bench, and closing games. He's a volume scorer, which doesn't fit well when the starting PG leads the team in FGA. Neither is a great defender, not sure why Gee doesn;t start at SG, as opposed to playing him out of position defending the SF position. As much as the ball is in the hands of Irving and Waiters, you expect the to get to the line more. Thomas got to the line, than the Cavs entire backcourt combined, basically making more 10, than they attempted 7. Shot selection and aggressiveness, plays a huge part there.
@WhrOffnsHppns@WayneEmbrysKidsWhat has Bennett done? Nothing good has happened when he's been on the floor. He hasn't EARNED time, they've already manufactured minuted for him with no success or production. Dellavedova, has made the most of his time on the floor, and has been a more productive player than the #1 overall pick. I'm not sure if Grant can survive this pick.
How can you say he was acquired for practically nothing? They gave up Andrew Bynum, a true DIFFERENCE MAKER on both ends of the court, where all they had invested was TIME and MONEY. They also gave up the 1st-round pick from Sacramento, two 2nd-round picks, and gave Chicago the right to swap1st-round picks in 2015 (if the Cavs are not in the lottery) and they took on MORE salary. Not really sure what the problem was with Bynum, I'm more inclined to believe that he was unhappy with his role, and how he was being utilized. There was no reason for Bynum to ever, in ANY game get ONLY 3 FGA in a game in which Irving takes 33, MISSING 16. Bynum came here and put in work, the Cavs were able to get him back on the floor and be productive, something Philadelphia was NEVER able to do. Deng DOESN'T make the Cavs better, he IMPROVES them on paper. I love his attitude, work ethic, and what he brings to a locker-room, but let's be honest, he wasn't a difference maker in Chicago. They just lost by 44 points at Sacramento... a team you HAVE to beat, so what's changed? He didn't shut down the opposing starting SF (Gay 20 PTS, 8-12 FG, 3-5 3P FG) The Cavs perimeter defense as a whole was awful, and at this point in the season, some problems should have solutions. Ironically, the Kings were led by Thomas (26 PTS 7-15 FG, 6 AST, 2 STL) who was one of those."PRACTICALLY NOTHING" 2nd round picks (Last pick of the 2011 Draft #60) Thomas was clearly the best PG on the floor, outplaying Irving (#1 Overall pick in 201 Draft) on both ends of the floor. Once again, its not WHERE you select, but WHO you select. The last 3 years, including Bennett this year, hasn't had the anticipated results. In fact, the talent evaluation here could be considered #HighlyQuestionable
@imsofocused Actually it does... but has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts or opinions in regard to the Cavaliers, or basketball.
1 year, 4 months ago on Breaking Down Potential Options for Cavs in NBA Draft Lottery
@Dreman I was responding to what was said in the article, When a team plays small I'm sure he will play PF and with comfort, but he doesn't handle the ball well enough to play SF, not really sure how he'll match-up physically or athletically, but then again, that will depend upon who he matches up against. We'll see how elite he is, I highly doubt the Cavaliers go with him with the their first pick, not saying he can't play, or that he won't work his ass off, but with a first pick, he wouldn't be it, and neither would Noel, but thats just me.
I'm just not as high on Nerlens Noel as everyone else appears to be, and not just because he's coming off an ACL. Instead of rehashing what he is, or isn't, I'll keep it as simple as possible. What he isn't is Anthony Davis. What he isn't. is DOMINANT. In a year when Kentucky was as low as they've been in awhile, he just didn't stand out. He hasn't accomplished anything at Kentucky, he's coming out on POTENTIAL alone. On the perceptions, and assumptions of others, probably based more on what he SHOULD have been at Kentucky. In this new NBA that's evolving, I just can't see drafting a guy to play the C position, #1 overall that isn't dominant.
I think Archie Goodwin is by far the best pro prospect at Kentucky, and I think Gorgui Dieng will be available later. Noel's best games seemed to be when he was the superior athlete on the floor, won't be that way nightly in the NBA. I think he's a guy who may have an impact 2-3 years down the line. At best you project what, maybe Tyson Chandler?
I like Ben McLemore, but not as high on him as I am with Victor Oladipo, or Archie Goodwin. I think all 3 are an upgrade at the position over Dion Waiters, so what is that really saying about his selection at #4 this past year. He had some moments, but the Cavaliers were not significantly better with him. A year later your first 2 mentions are at position the Cavaliers made a point of emphasis to fill in last years draft. I actually liked Bradley beal more so than Waiters in last years draft.
Victor Oladipo Its hard not to like his play on both ends of the court. He's physically strong to the point where he forces his will. He's a lock down guy who can attack the basket, and get off his own shot. I just like him a bit more. I think McLemore is a much better version of Waiters, but defense is what separates Oladipo from McLemore, IMO.
Otto Porter is the guy I want for the Cavaliers, even if they get the #1 overall pick (highly doubt it though) He fills an immediate need at SF, can physically fill out and get stronger. Can flat out score the ball, and yet doesn't have to dominate the ball to be effective, or have an impact. For whatever the reason, I see Porter winding up in DC with the Wizards, just call it a hunch (#Conspiracy) I think he would be the guy most capable of having the biggest impact.
Trey Burke is a player I can't see the Cavaliers taking, even if he was available, having just selected Kyrie Irving #1 overall 2 years ago. I'm with you on Marcus Smart, but I'm not surprised he elected to return to school. With that being said, I don't see Irving being a cornerstone here for the duration.
The Cavaliers will have an opportunity to offer Irving a max extension after next season, and I think he will decline to accept it. I then look to move Irving for maximum value. Makes no sense to spend the next 2-3 years trying to convince a guy to be here that has no interest in doing so. I think its important to keep an open dialogue. but at the same time, not be held hostage. This can't evolve into being LeBron James all over again.
Accept the fact that a guy doesn't want to be here, than be diligent in building the team, and keeping on the path to future success without him. In 2 years, he hasn't made the team better, they are a 20-25 win team with or without him, he just doesn't elevate others, IMO.
Not interested in another Zeller, Muhammed intriguing, but like you, not enough to go after early. I think Bennett is a talent, but being undersized as a PF is a cause for concern. He'd be hard to pass over late though. Carter-Williams, love his size, and decision making ability with the basketball. He is very intriguing. especially when getting a commitment from Irving is a concern. Caldwell-Pope is also intriguing, very good comparison to George. I think he's a guy that fit right in effortlessly. What about Rice or Hardaway, both whom have NBA pedigree?
I like Thomas (wish he would have returned to OSU) and Covington (sleeper alma mater pick) who did well at the Portsmouth Invitational.
@Bric If losing had nothing t do with the coaching, what did? If he had no impact on the losing, he had no impact on the winning either (what little there was) so what was his purpose for being here? None of those players you mentioned greatly improved under his coaching staff. Explain that, or define significant improvement. He was 64-166 in 3 seasons, had an NBA record 26 game losing streak, and this season finished 42 games out of 1st place, what more needed to be seen?
How about maybe Scott wasn't an upgrade, maybe Scott just wasn't the right coach for this situation, maybe Scott just didn't get it done. Different methods get different results. Some need to be coddled, an extra pat on the back, and some need a swift kick in the ass. What does inner-city teaching have to do with anything? Not sure if you were making a racist remark or just an old ignorant asshole.
1 year, 4 months ago on Making Sense of Cavs decision to fire Byron Scott
@TV63TV It was never about whether or not Scott was a likeable guy, it was about whether or not he could EFFECTIVELY lead this team post-LeBron James. How has Scott developed Irving? All he did was hand the ball, and the team to him, when Ramon Sessions was a more efficient, and effective PG. I don't think he has anything to with irving leading the team in scoring, he leads the team in FGA's. In fact, I would not be surprised if that's not a category Irving leads his draft class in. Scott as a "PG Guru" has improved Irving's AST/TO ratio, and court leadership how? Let's not attempt to manufacture credit here.
What Waiters has proven, is that he's a better, or should I say more efficient player when he comes off the bench. Boeheim must have known what he was doing by bringing Waiters off the bench at Syracuse. Neither Irving or Waiters are known for their defense. so schematically it made sense to split them up, also both are most effective with the ball in their hands. That was a problem that surfaced previously with LeBron James, and Larry Hughes. It wasn't that Hughes was a bad signing, or poor player, he just didn't fit with LeBron James. Hughes was moved from Philadelphia for the same reason, how would he fit with Allen Iverson? Waiters has more favorable matchups, at both ends of the floor, opposing 2nd units, ie: coming off the bench.
Tristan Thompson has benefited more so than anything from the injury to Anderson Varejao, and more time on the floor. I thought Thompson had to start, had to see significant time to develop. With where he was drafted, and what the Cavaliers gained (nothing) by trading JJ Hickson away. Thompson is a significant upgrade over Varejao, and should be the starter. Same with Tyler Zeller, I think his improvement, has been due in part to more time on the floor. I'd rather have seen he and Thompson starting together, with Varejao coming off the bench paired with Waiters.
Define "Unleashing" Varejao? Varejao was not an option in the Brown era, he was about 7th-8th on the list of ACTUAL offensive weapons, and that's a generous assessment. What Varejao has found under Scott is more shot opportunities on a bad team. Maybe that;s why he hasn't been able to stay healthy (81 games played last 3 seasons) he's been exerting too much energy on trying to be an offensive option. Mike Brown knew exactly who, and what Varejao was a player, and put him in the best possible situations to have success. What Brown did do however, was in one season, turn Andrew Bynum into an All-NBA center, something Phil Jackson never accomplished in 7 years.
Livingston as well as Ellington, are also guys making the most of time, and opportunity. Livingston finally looks as if he's playing with no fear from the devastating knee injury he suffered. Ellington has been able to show what he's capable of, when given an opportunity. The one good thing in going to a bad team, there will be opportunities. Ellington in Memphis. was not much different than Green here.
I don't know if its fair to say that organizational expectations were minimal, i think they were high, but probably unrealistic. Kyrie Irving was not going to have the same TEAM impact on the floor as LeBron James had. I guess most of the so called experts had to ACTUALLY see that for themselves, as opposed to regurgitating the jargon of other so called experts. What hindered the growth, development, or transition of the organization moving forward, were poor personnel, and organizational decisions. Not being honest in assessments, only create more problems.
It's not that the Cavaliers didn't win enough games (they failed to win 25 in any of the last 3 seasons) its how they were losing games. As a team, they just never seemed to improve, or make progress. I don't think Scott was ever brought here for defense. more so offense, and the development of Kyrie Irving (also to get the attention of James #Fail) The team lost its defensive identity under Scott. I don't blame losing on youth and inexperience, I fault coaching, and lack of preparation. Just 2 years ago, Golden St was only 2 games better than the Cavaliers (23) and they are now in the playoffs. What's the difference?
@Bric If they lost leads because they weren't a good team, how did they gain those leads in the first place? You call timeouts to stop momentum, to make adjustments. to reset, and refocus. I watched the Cavaliers on occasions outplay, and out hustle good teams. Not my problem, or my concern if the opposing team loafed. Skill set is improved through teaching and coaching. Scott was very poor at making in game adjustments. Losing your team happens when the voice of the coach gets old and tired. Scott was pushing the same principles, and philosophy hoping for different results.
Defense begins with desire, energy, and effort. Recognition begins with understanding. Less talented players tend to work harder. Personally I think you've been watching too much Dr Phil. The best players on any given team, in the game of basketball can win a game individually, or for all intensive purposes, LEAD a team to victory. It was LeBron James back in 2007 in Game 5 vs Detroit, in the Game 6 clincher, it was Daniel Gibson.
A role doesn't mean ABANDONING as much as it means ACCEPTING. With that being said, roles should be clearly defined, and have to be accepted to have success. TEAM has always stood for Together Everyone Achieves More.
What else was varejao going to do, or contribute? He's an energy/hustle guy. He has to play team defense, he isn't a shutdown defender. He and Rodman will never, and shouldn't ever be used in the same sentence. Varejao is an overpaid role player, with very limited offensive skills, can't stay healthy, and benefited from the TEAM success derived from playing with LeBron James.
What's the logic in bringing Scott back, other than picking up the option of a coach in October, that had not yet won 25 games? I would think Livingston would be brought back, he provides length, stability, and is a better decision maker with the basketball than Kyrie irving, IMO. Walton? You want to lure back Luke Walton? For what purpose? If his last name wasn't Walton. and he wasn't a nice guy, would he even still be in the NBA? Statistically speaking, I believe Samardo Samuels has been better than Walton, he damn sure has more upside.
1. If Kyrie Irving didn't want Byron Scott fired, why do it? If anything was learned during the LeBron James era, it was make team decisions, not player decisions. Kyrie Irving has done nothing to have a say so in regards to who's coaching this team. He's a 2nd year player, who lately has given the indication he's clock watching on how much time he actually has left in Cleveland. It's my belief the Cavalier's couldn't risk/waste another year under Scott, 64-166 actually appeared at times to look a lot worse than what it was. Byron Scott (PG Guru) was brought here to develop Irving. Year 2 has come and gone, and I've seen no difference. Some of the questions asked at those pressers leave much to be desired, and usually leave me with more questions than answers. How do you tolerate Kenny Roda? ver question he asks, its like he just witnessed Ole Yeller get shot. The recruitment of Kyrie Irving began at the All-Star game, you heard it here first.
2. Kyrie Irving hasn't reached Superstar status yet, he hasn't changed the franchise. Superstar's make immediate impacts, they change circumstances. The Cavaliers are no better in Irving's 2nd year, than they were in his 1st. With or without him, this is a 20-25 win team. Irving isn't the franchise player, he's currently just the best player for the franchise. He hasn't changed, or elevated the team in any way. I don't see him wanting to stay in Cleveland. and I look forward to his actions when extended a max contract extension after next season.
3. When you're one of the best teams in the NBA, losing 1 player shouldn't make you one of the leagues worst. When you have the means to improve, through free agency (available CAP space) and through the draft (multiple lottery picks) This wasn't a rebuild situation that required, or warranted 3-5 years. You expect to see some sentiments of progress, other than Irving scoring more (he shot more). Nothing was accomplished by Scott coaching Irving his first 2 years. Irving's body language, sure didn't make a case for Scott in any regards. Maybe he's already starting his emotional disconnect. I've never put much in what people say, more so what's done, or not said. IMO, the Cavaliers are a BETTER basketball team now, with Mike Brown being renamed as Head Coach.
4. I don't anything would have been gained by Scott coaching another year, other than more disappointment., excuses, dissention, and time wasted. What do you mean by being held to a new standard? Mike Brown now has the added responsibility of cleaning up the mess of Dan Gilbert and Byron Scott? I think this draft, and off-season will set the table for a strong push in 2 years. I haven't really taken the time to look at draft possibilities, I've been more focused on the Browns. In regards to UFA, I want Brown, and Grant to pursue JJ Hickson, who at PF would be the perfect complement to Thompson at C.
I also wish former coach Byron Scott nothing less than success moving forward, but right here, right now, on this day.... I feel good about the Cleveland cavaliers, and the direction they're finally heading in.
@WayneEmbrysKids I think it's a trust factor more so than anything, most retreads have had instances of success. Having success in different areas can be intriguing, especially if it fits your particular need. Personal relationships could play a part as well. The first thing coaches do when they accept new jobs, in putting a staff together, they provide opportunities, sometimes first opportunities for those they've been in the grind with, or others a way back into the profession altogether. Nothing wrong with having people they trust, and are most comfortable with, around them. I'm not by any means saying its right, but it's the nature of the business. It's no different than local sports talk radio, beat reporters, and media coverage in this town, the same people recycled from station to station, up and down the dial. I KNOW I don't need to mention any names.
Most head coaches have an expertise in a certain area, and they add areas where they may come up short in assistants. Mike Browns was known as a defensive coach, and he turned the Cavaliers into one of the top defensive teams. Brown also lost coaches off his staff, when you have success, that's going to happen. so then you're left with trying to fill that void, and you may, or may not do better. Everything that went wrong with the Cavaliers was not the fault of Mike Brown, but at the head of the table, he was always quick to take blame, and accept responsibility for team failures. However, he was always quick to give credit for team success, as well as his own to others. What was most impressive about Mike Brown, is how he got the others to come together around a selfish superstar (at the time) for a common goal.
Phil Jackson doesn't coach. he sits with his legs crossed as much as Scott stands with his arms crossed. He whistles a lot, and loud too. What Jackson does is MANAGE. He manages, and delegates those under him. He's NEVER been a bad situation. In both instances (Chicago, and Los Angeles) when he felt he could no longer win, with the way the teams were constructed, he walked away. He doesn't do rebuilds, he does transformations.
The Cavaliers (Gilbert and Front Office) allowed LeBron to openly flirt and cheat, as long as he came back home, they were okay with it. Then he stopped calling, and decided to move on with someone else. What the Cavaliers did was choose LeBron over Mike Brown. they were turning their backs on someone who was loyal and faithful, for someone who lied, and cheated. and never gave any indication, he would stay home. If LeBron had went the route Carmelo had, and been honest with the organization, even though he took a character hit. Would the cavaliers still have fired Mike Brown? What exactly was it that made Byron Scott a better coach?
I'm all for opportunities, wish I had a few, but life isn't always fair. I'm not sure of Mark Price would make for a good coach, or not. He's been out of the league (playing) a long time, and he's yet to get an opportunity. why is that? Maybe he's just been labeled as a shooting coach, some guys get labeled as back-ups, until they get an actual opportunity to play. I've always said, "It's time and opportunity that can best change assumptions, and perceptions."
If the Cavaliers were going to go with a first time head coach, the time to do so was after firing Brown. They were faced with a similar situation when they hired Brown to replace Silas. They chose to go in the direction of Scott (voiced my reasoning there) for a reason. With Scott failing (PG Guru and all), the primary objective of the organization is to put Kyrie Irving in the position of wanting to stay with the Cavaliers, when he'll have an opportunity to leave. Can the organization afford to take that chance? What can Price bring to the table the table that Scott didn't, or couldn't? I don't know if Price will ever get an opportunity, Kareem has been openly campaigning for a head coaching opportunity for years. He's had some legendary coaching, and he's far more accomplished as a player than Price.
A situation like Detroit might be a good opportunity for Price, replacing Frank on a young team. I never heard him mentioned, is he on anyone's radar? Good luck to him, but my preference is to bring Mike Brown back, and right this ship.
@CLECavsOutsider @BowersCLE @SamAmicoFSO @
1 year, 4 months ago on HIRE MARK PRICE NOW
How is it you go from saying "Another Year For Byron Scott Was Always A Part Of The Process", to endorsing Mark Price, who has no NBA Head Coaching experience? Seriously, if it's not nostalgia, then what is it? Personally I always thought Kevin Johnson was a better "All Around" PG, and as far as popularity goes, Ilgauskas has always topped my list.
No question the Cavaliers were terrible on defense in 2012-13, but they weren't that way before Scott came on as head coach, they were one of the NBA's best. When I think of Mark Price, defense is not the first thing that comes to mind, its FT shooting. He could run the pick and roll, and he could shoot the ball. Improving individual players shooting, doesn't equate to being named as head coach, how about shooting coach, he has NBA experience in that capacity. In regards to Dion Waiters, poor shot selection, and poor decision making, tend to go hand in hand. There are a lot of former players out there who were great shooters, not really sure what makes him the BEST available.
The list of available coaches seems to be the same every few years. I'm trying to remember why the Cavaliers even hired Byron Scott in the first place. Mike Brown was the most successful coach in Cavalier team history, never having a losing season in 5 years. You like most, probably attribute all his success to LeBron James, but I never hear the same argument made on behalf of Phil Jackson for having Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O'Neal, What's the difference?
Experience with successful coaches doesn't make for being a successful coach. It doesn't get much better than Dean Smith, Doug Collins, and Phil Jackson, for Michael Jordan. I don't see that making him a good coach, and it damn sure hasn't made him a good owner. If orlando was so high on Mark Price as a coach, why didn't they hire him?
Why was Mike Brown even fired in the first place? If leBron had let it be known that he had no intent of returning to Cleveland, as soon as the season ended, do you honestly think the Cavaliers would have made a coaching change? Byron Scott was hired to get the attention of LeBron James, but he had already checked out.
Mark Jackson was a good fit for Golden State, it was the right time and right place. If the Cavaliers had fired Brown because they were overhauling the roster, and going with a youth movement, it may have made sense to bring in a young coach, I could at least see the reasoning. A similar opportunity was given to Monty Williams in New Orleans. After going with Scott, who I never thought was better than Brown in the first place, it's too late to go that route.
Just 2 years ago, Golden State was only 2 wins better than the Cavaliers, what was the difference, or deciding factors? Personnel decisions, coaching, or something altogether different? Just because Jackson has had success, doesn't mean Price would. If Price has been available, why no opportunity as of yet? I guess he just doesn't know the right people.
At this point, the Cavaliers don't need a low risk investment, they need a difference maker, there's a reason Mike Brown has been mentioned, the Cavaliers have been reduced to righting a wrong. No need for Mark to wait by the phone. that call WON'T be coming.
I define coaching as bringing out the best in what you have, as I said previously I don't see Scott as that type of a coach. Scott has had his most success, by taking over talented teams, with multiple stars, but UNDERACHIEVING. That was the case in New Jersey, as well as New Orleans. Scott was also fired in both places, for what most considered, underachieving himself. Can we please also stop with the Scott being a PG Guru? He had Jason Kidd (NJ), Chris Paul (NO), and now Kyrie Irving (CLE) who by most, were considered the best PG's in their draft class. That doesn't make him a guru, it makes him fortunate. Makes as much sense as labeling Phil Jackson a SG Guru, for having Michael Jordan (CHI), and Kobe Bryant (LAL)
In regards to Phil Jackson, since you mentioned him. Jackson would NEVER coach the Cavaliers, or take over a situation anything close to this. Jackson isn't a coach, he's a manager. He manages talent, attitudes, and egos, he has incredible coaches under him who actually coach. Phil Jackson walked away from the Lakers after getting swept from the playoffs. He didn't return, because he felt he could no longer compete, and win with the team as it was currently assembled. Mike Brown, was able to do in 1 season that Jackson couldn't accomplish in 7, and without the benefit of a training camp, and that was transforming Bynum into an All-NBA Center, who actually defended with a purpose. Once the Lakers acquired Dwight Howard, Jackson all of a sudden had an interest in returning as coach (manager)
I thought Scott deserved 3 years, at the 3rd quarter point last season, I had emotionally seen enough. I said Scott would be given 100 more games. I had to see enough progress during year 3, to warrant there being a year 4. I haven't seen it. As I try to be more fair than possible, I'd be willing to give him the 1st quarter of next season. Another draft in the lottery, available CAP space to make an addition capable of providing an IMMEDIATE impact. With that being said, a plan to make a change, needs to be firmly in place, there will not be an interim coach from the staff, picking up where Scott left off, with arms firmly crossed in place.
Anderson Varejao is not a core piece on this team, is not an All-Star, not a shot down defender, and far from a difference maker, He was never a factor in the playoffs when the Cavaliers were actually among the NBA's elite. He's an overpaid role-player, who for the last 3 seasons, can't manage to stay on the court. He should have been moved as part of the post Lebron transfo
Whether or not Scott finds success, isn't as important as the clock Irving is now on. When selected #1 overall 2 years ago, he was THE franchise player to carry the renewed hope of city. he's the anti LeBron. he isn't LeBron, he will never have the impact LeBron had on the court here, or off. He just isn't that TYPE of player. No question he's a talent, and destined for stardom, LeBron is greatness, and that's another universe. The same arguments made for irving (lack of talent around him) were made for LeBron, the only difference being. LeBron won.
This draft, and off-season are vital, on many different levels, a crossroads so to speak. This team is currently no better than 12th-13th in the Eastern Conference, nowhere near to even COMPETING for the playoffs. They almost HAVE to accomplish that fete next season. If the Cavaliers, fail to make the post-season. prior to the last option the Cavaliers hold on Irving, why would he even consider re-signing here? What sense would that make? Out of loyalty?
The Cavaliers will more than likely have 4-6 lottery picks on the roster over the next 2 years. All will have to have a decision made on them moving forward. Who do you extend, who do you move, and would any be considered a max deal type player? I don't consider every lottery pick, or #1 overall pick, a max player. Max players TRANSFORM franchises. There are franchise players, and best players on particular franchises, there is a difference.
If Scott is relieved of his duties at the 1st quarter mark of next season, the only explanation needed, will be why he was allowed to remain that long in the first place.
1 year, 5 months ago on Another year for Byron Scott was always part of the process
The message to fans, and the objective of the organization, should ALWAYS be to win games. Wasn't it the primary objective of owner Dan Gilbert, when LeBron elected to take his talents to South Beach? What firing Scott would accomplish, more so than anything, is the regaining the trust of the fans in having faith in the organization.
Let's be honest for a moment. the only reason Scott was even hired in the first place, was with the hope of getting the attention of LeBron, after he checked out on the city, at seasons end. Someone through him, allegedly mentioned LeBron wanted to play for a former player, someone who played in the league, has won in the league. Every move made, every poor decision exercised, was with him in mind. Then to not have a contingency plan in place, does nothing more than reflect poor leadership.
While I can appreciate Byron Scott as a person, and a coach, he was not the right coach for this particular situation. Byron Scott isn't the type of coach, IMO suited for a rebuild. Personally, I think the Cavaliers should have retained Mike Brown (the most successful coach in franchise history) It's not that I'm impartial to Brown, but I think with what he went through, what he gave the organization, he earned an opportunity to lead his team post LeBron.
While Scott deserved a pass in year one, the organization not having a plan in place, not draft picks, handcuffed in free agency, so blowing it up, was THEIR only alternative. Most were quick to point out that Scott always made significant process in year 2? Which year 2, post LeBron, or Kyrie, or in the lottery? Either way, I'm still waiting. It's unacceptable to to accept tanking, in any regards. This isn't tanking, this just isn't a very good team, not well put together, not well coached, and not well managed. These are players Scott wanted, 3 top 4 picks in the past 2 years, where's the progress?
Mike Brown was fired 5 games into the season, with a completely revamped bench, key additions Howard and Nash, slow to recover, and ailing. While Mike Brown was being fired, Scott had an option picked up, what sense did that make? What has he shown, to warrant it? How can your primary means of turning around the franchise depend on the lottery? Especially when you use such selections on projects?
I expected Irving to get better, I never questioned his work ethic. What's impressed me most, is his shot selection has improved, he's driving the ball more, thus getting to the line more. He's scoring more, but he's shooting more, so shouldn't that be expected? He doesn't defend well, in fact Scott has even been critical of his defense, on occasion this season. On the flip side, he can't seem to stay healthy, missing extended time this year, and last. As the PG, leader of this team, who has he elevated, or made better?
I never bought into the whole genre of LeBron making everyone around him better when he was here, the team just experienced more success. LeBron was able to win. Being named in All-Star isn't all that impressive, I mean seriously, its for entertainment purposes only. Starters are voted on by the fans, more so out of popularity, than anything else. When Irving gets around to being named All-NBA, then I'll be impressed. I like the way Thompson is progressing, while his production is a bit distorted, his effort, energy, and ambition, has been full throttle.
Rondo is by far the best defensive PG in the league. He is avg 16 PPG and over 10 AST, on about 11 FGA, and he's shooting about 52% from the floor. He also rebounds on both ends of the floor. Rondo probably gets more from fewer shots, than any PG in the league, I anticipate as the season progresses, his FGA will go up, and he will have an even greater impact. He and Irving will go head to head, later this month, anxious to see how he responds, when actually challenged.
2 years, 8 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.stepienrules.com/2012-articles/january/previewing-cavs-at-sunskyrie-irving-steve-nash.html
If you're trying to build a new team, with a new identity, you start with young assets, young core pieces. JJ Hickson was 23, to think Casspi, and an unknown draft pick, makes them better, is asinine. Sessions is 24-25?? You finally have depth at a position, productivity at a position, to actually build around, and you're looking to move him?? Who, or what would be available, behind Sessions? Gibson? Another unknown commodity? The Clippers have Paul, Billups, and castoff Williams, playing them both could add to Irvings growth, and development. He may be the teams most trade-able asset, so why trade it? When you have a player, others covet, there's value there. Sessions makes the Cav's better moving forward, He puts teams like the Lakers, and Knicks, possibly over the hump. I move Varejao, because there is no upside, I just don't believe in over-paying for hustle, no value there. I'd rather see Thompson on the floor more, more of Samuels.
2 years, 8 months ago on Cavs Aren't Shopping Anderson Varejao, But What About Ramon Sessions? | January