I know that I specifically pointed this sequences in the past wondering how much of Mitchell’s “disinterest in defense” is actual real or part of the Utah scheme with Gobert sitting there behind him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Cleveland although he’ll have Allen and Mobley in the paint.
Bought a ticket for a runaway train
Everyone is so shortsighted. The Cavs were a 44-win team despite playing like a month with half of their rotation out of the lineup at the time to skew their win total. This isn’t about leapfrogging teams in ‘22-‘23 it is projecting the growth of their high upside stars who are ages 24, 23 and 21. I think people also underrate how good these kids already are. The only way these picks aren’t in the 20’s and likely deep 20’s is if there is some type of implosion or career altering injuries to these guys.
(An elite defensive wing like Wiggins would help them a lot, too.)
Pretty sure it's real, he did the same when Gobert was out, and in the playoffs when the scheme changed. There are guys who play lazy D in the regular season and turn it up, but Mitchell seems to play lazy D all the time, and honestly... he might also just be bad at it. Physical tools only go so far, if you don't make the effort to learn and practice you can't always turn it up, even when he looks like he's trying (rare) he's struggled to keep guys in front.
Not predictive and wasn't implying it was but thought it was interesting to look at the picks. Also, I assume the table would change significantly if updated to 2022.
I would vote MIN as between Edwards and KAT versus Mobley, MIN has a much better chance of getting a top-10 player but that's not a knock on Mobley as he could be really really good.So, whom are we buying between the Antman-KAT-Gobert Wolves and the Garland-Spidah-Mobley-Allen Cavs? A lot of similarities: both up-and-coming small market teams who have made splashy moves (involving Jazz stars) to try to level up to the big time rather than passively watching their young cores evolve.
I vote Cavs, as I feel like Mitchell + Garland is marginally more workable in the modern NBA than Towns + Gobert; plus I feel like Gobert at 30 with that giant body is right above to exit his prime, where Mitchell at 26 is just entering his. And the Wolves still have to figure out their D-Lo problem, whereas the Cavs have two savvy vets in Love and Rubio who will happily embrace their secondary roles while helping to mentor the the young'uns. Why can't the Wolves get guys like that???
On the other hand, I feel like of all the players on both teams, Edwards may be the one with the best chance of blossoming into the Top 5 type player that it would require to make either team a legit title contender.
Still: Cavs.
I love Simmons and Russillo talking NBA but I don't get how they destroyed Minnesota for giving up too much for Gobert but loving this trade for Cleveland. In his trade value column Simmons had Gobert 25th and Mitchell 34th.
Maybe worth noting that Garland was actually a bit better last season than Edwards. But he’s almost two years older, and doesn’t have that 6’-6” linebacker frame, which of course matters a lot.
So, whom are we buying between the Antman-KAT-Gobert Wolves and the Garland-Spidah-Mobley-Allen Cavs? A lot of similarities: both up-and-coming small market teams who have made splashy moves (involving Jazz stars) to try to level up to the big time rather than passively watching their young cores evolve.
I vote Cavs, as I feel like Mitchell + Garland is marginally more workable in the modern NBA than Towns + Gobert; plus I feel like Gobert at 30 with that giant body is right about to exit his prime, where Mitchell at 26 is just entering his. And the Wolves still have to figure out their D-Lo problem, whereas the Cavs have two savvy vets in Love and Rubio who will happily embrace their secondary roles while helping to mentor the the young'uns. Why can't the Wolves get guys like that???
On the other hand, I feel like of all the players on both teams, Edwards may be the one with the best chance of blossoming into the Top 5 type player that it would require to make either team a legit title contender.
Still: Cavs.
Don’t expect Tatum to appear in the update. Conveniently for their thesis, Fultz was the one chosen with that Nets pick.
Good catch and yeah, figuring out what eventually happened to all of the picks would be a Herculean task.
I'm not a betting person but I'd probably put down more than a little money on the proposition that Edwards will have a higher peak than Garland.
There is also the argument that he won't have to carry so much load on this team, maybe he can afford more effort on D for this Cavs team.
This is a good call. You can do a lot with erasers on the back side. Jazz have been getting away with it for years, and they only had one guy erasing. Not that they won a title, but there are many ways to construct a competent defense.
Everyone laughed at the Cavs last offseason (minus a few) and it worked just fine. There's more than one way to win in the league. Will they win a title? Probably not, but odds are the C's won't either.
He can score and not much else. He's also pretty well hated in the Cavs locker room from what I've read. It's not a huge loss. Players like him are readily available and I'm guessing he doesn't score 25 a night on a team that's actually competitive. He should be a microwave type player off the bench. He's JR Smith, really.
True, but it's REALLY hard to win when your best player is a massive defensive liability. And before you say "Curry", let's not pretend that Mitchell is even in the same galaxy as Steph as a scorer.
I'm just not sure that this is a rule. IT's Pistons and Magic's Lakers were led by guys who weren't good on defense. Magic tried, wasn't a massive liability per se. Neither was good.
Donovan Mitchell isn't the best player on the Cavs. That's Darius Garland. And maybe as soon as this year or next, Mobley.
Or defender.
Keith Smith with a nice recap of Trader Danny/Celtics
isn't Mitchell pretty much a healthy/younger version of Kemba when Danny signed him?
I don't think it will matter because he'll get POINTZ. If he's averaging 25 a night and leading the team in scoring, he'll be fine.
I don’t think Curry is a defensive liability anymore. He’s improved a lot over the years and has had good defensive ratings both of the past couple of seasons.
Well, other than the same reason he's not currently good at defense, whatever that is.
You continue to intimate that the Cavs are building around Mitchell when Garland and Mobley are still there and I have no idea why. It seems like you’re critical of Mitchell being “the man” when that won’t be his role in Cleveland.
@HomeRunBaker has referenced the Jazz's somewhat unique defensive scheme (i.e they had Gobert). We need too see it of course but given Mitchell's athleticism, he should be able to show improvement here.
There's also risk in projecting him to a new role, & trading away your future draft assets & some young players for a guy you're projecting to switch to being a 3rd banana.
I don’t know why but I had a flashback to the Abdul/Jabbar cockpit scene in Airplane.
I agree that there are no guarantees that Mitchell is a good fit here but there still isn’t much risk as they aren’t in “Championship or Bust” mode with such a young core. He’s 26 and would still carry immense trade value if it didn’t work out.
To be clear, I’m only questioning this since Mitchell was such a defensive beast in college complete with the instincts that should translate to the next level. We shall see.
Having Gobert should make playing defense much easier, not harder.
Like it's an excuse to be lazy, or like their scheme is to play matador defense?
The Jazz defended the PNR much differently where Gobert was on the floor in how they would allow soft dribble penetration into Rudy while being in position to switch off to contest/deny 3’s. This may appear “matador” in passing but was their scheme. I believe that prior to last years defensive abberation, that likely led to Ainge blowing this up, the Jazz allowed the fewest 3-pt Attempts and 3-pt Makes during the prior 5 seasons……and it was by design.
Not sure that's really true. Do other metrics disagree with DARKO?
Agreed on that, I’d take 25 year old Garland over 25 year old Mitchell.
