Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Cavs to replace Lebron with Josh Childress

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Cavs to replace Lebron with Josh Childress
I

I drain 3's

Senior Member

574 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:41 PM
What free agent is going to listen to a team that, at that time, didn't even have the cap space to sign them?
Jul 12, 2010 1:41pm
grodt's avatar

grodt

Senior Member

1,588 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:42 PM
grodt;421286 wrote:Because if LeBron comes out on July 1st and says...."Hey guys I'm not resigning", then the Cavs have some cap space and can pursue other free agents. But he didn't so they operated under the assumption that he'd resign so they couldn't use any cap space. Now that he made his decision and we could have space there are no decent free agents on the market.

And as for Izzo, well since free agency hadn't started yet I don't see how that's relevant.
thedynasty1998;421295 wrote:It's called a backup plan. You are telling me that Grant is even dumber than he currently looks by not exploring other free agents, because Lebron might sign?
If the Cavs tried to sign other free agents they wouldn't have cap space to sign LeBron
Jul 12, 2010 1:42pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:43 PM
If what Gilbert said about Lebron not returning any calls is true, then they had to be in complete denial if they thought he'd re-sign. Admittedly, how could you pull the trigger and risk not being able to sign him them, even if it's only a 5% chance? But if they were being honest with themselves and had no real communication with him or his agent, then they knew the answer.
Jul 12, 2010 1:43pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:46 PM
Okay, I'm wrong. The Cavs are the first franchise ever to wait on word from a free agent who they offered a contract to. What ever were they supposed to do?
Jul 12, 2010 1:46pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:47 PM
gut;421306 wrote:If what Gilbert said about Lebron not returning any calls is true, then they had to be in complete denial if they thought he'd re-sign. Admittedly, how could you pull the trigger and risk not being able to sign him them, even if it's only a 5% chance? But if they were being honest with themselves and had no real communication with him or his agent, then they knew the answer.

I don't think that is a reasonable option. Gilbert would have been lambasted in the Cleveland area for giving up on Lebron and filling the cap space with Travis Outlaw or the like. It also would have given Lebron the easy out to say "Cleveland didn't offer me." No way that would have flew in Cleveland. With no public statement from Lebron, it would have been too much he said/he said.
Jul 12, 2010 1:47pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:50 PM
thedynasty1998;421309 wrote:Okay, I'm wrong. The Cavs are the first franchise ever to wait on word from a free agent who they offered a contract to. What ever were they supposed to do?

That's not the issue. You were arguing that Cle wasn't handicapped by Lebron. That has been proven false.
Jul 12, 2010 1:50pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:56 PM
dat dude;421314 wrote:That's not the issue. You were arguing that Cle wasn't handicapped by Lebron. That has been proven false.

Were they waiting for Lebron? Yes.
Should that have stopped them from pursuing a backup plan? No.
Jul 12, 2010 1:56pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 1:58 PM
thedynasty1998;421317 wrote:Were they waiting for Lebron? Yes.
Should that have stopped them from pursuing a backup plan? No.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

However, how do you offer a FA when you do not have the cap space to sign them? Could they have "pursued" a FA, such as make contacts with agents, etc? Sure, and maybe they did. However, by the time of the "Decision," most, if not all, of those targets were already signed. That's the point.
Jul 12, 2010 1:58pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jul 12, 2010 2:03 PM
dat dude;421318 wrote:I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

However, how do you offer a FA when you do not have the cap space to sign them? Could they have "pursued" a FA, such as make contacts with agents, etc? Sure, and maybe they did. However, by the time of the "Decision," most, if not all, of those targets were already signed. That's the point.
Who had signed? It was really only Bosh, Wade, Amare, Boozer, Gay, Johnson and Amir Johnson? There are still plenty out there now and plenty that were available as of the 8th.
Jul 12, 2010 2:03pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 12, 2010 2:08 PM
dat dude;421314 wrote:That's not the issue. You were arguing that Cle wasn't handicapped by Lebron. That has been proven false.

Sorry, must've missed where it was proven false. One person pointed out, they could have pursued Childress sooner. That is not a handicap at all if they signed the guy that they were going to sign anyway.

I seriously don't know the answer to this question - who could they have gotten that they now can't get if LeBron had announced his intentions earlier? I've seen the name Travis Outlaw. Does possibly missing out on that one guy handicap them - that is, is he the difference maker?

Here's another one I honestly don't know the answer to - were they not trying to negotiate a deal for Chris Bosh with the assumption that LeBron WAS coming back? If that is so, could they not also have been looking for other deals using that same money - Bosh wasn't coming cheap either way.
Jul 12, 2010 2:08pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 2:15 PM
Handicap would be defined as the removal of an advantage, or a disadvantage, correct?

I don't think I read where anyone said that Outlaw is a "difference maker." But by taking away the chance to offer a contract because of Lebron's "Decision," that was a disadvantage to the Cavs. Therefore, the decision handicapped them. That is all I am saying. Nobody is saying they would have found a difference maker.
Jul 12, 2010 2:15pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 12, 2010 2:28 PM
dat -
krazie45;420013 wrote:One of the better FA's left on the market. You do what you can when LeBron handicaps you with "The Decision"
I believe there is a huge difference between this statement and simply saying they might have had a slight disadvantage. This makes it seem as if they had to take what they could get because all the big dogs they could have signed were already locked up. If they were never going to get those big dogs and they were going to go after this guy if LeBron left no matter what, then "The Decision" was a non-factor.
Commander of Awesome;421291 wrote:They couldn't have looked at FAs because with LBJ they would not have had any cap space. Way to talk out of your ass to try and hate.
This again, implies that Cleveland couldn't even talk to someone because they were waiting on LeBron. I don't think that is the case at all and if they did in fact not begin to explore options, that is just poor management.

Next question - did I read correctly that Cleveland did NOT, in fact, sign Childress. If that is the case, I'll be interested to see how much blame LeBron has to take for that one.
Jul 12, 2010 2:28pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 2:31 PM
Like I said, I wasn't saying they would find a difference maker. I just don't see how you can deny that the Cavs were handicapped in any way by the "Decision."
Jul 12, 2010 2:31pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 12, 2010 3:00 PM
dat dude;421353 wrote:Like I said, I wasn't saying they would find a difference maker. I just don't see how you can deny that the Cavs were handicapped in any way by the "Decision."

The fact that LeBron left certainly impacted the Cavs. How he did it and the timing of the announcement has had zero effect on the moves they could have/can/will make.
Jul 12, 2010 3:00pm
krazie45's avatar

krazie45

Senior Member

1,055 posts
Jul 12, 2010 3:17 PM
enigmaax;421387 wrote:The fact that LeBron left certainly impacted the Cavs. How he did it and the timing of the announcement has had zero effect on the moves they could have/can/will make.

I'm not sure how you could possibly say that. Had he been honest with his intentions and told the Cavs he was leaving when he made the decision they could've started to pursue other free agents. By the time the decision was made, most of the big names were already gone or at least far into negotiations with other teams.
Jul 12, 2010 3:17pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 12, 2010 3:26 PM
krazie45;421409 wrote:I'm not sure how you could possibly say that. Had he been honest with his intentions and told the Cavs he was leaving when he made the decision they could've started to pursue other free agents. By the time the decision was made, most of the big names were already gone or at least far into negotiations with other teams.

Who? Who would they have gone after? Who would they have gotten? They went after Chris Bosh without knowing what LeBron was going to do. What prevented them from going after anyone else? Who did they have a real shot at, that they didn't get because of LeBron's timing?
Jul 12, 2010 3:26pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 3:33 PM
enigmaax;421387 wrote:How he did it and the timing of the announcement has had zero effect on the moves they could have/can/will make.

That's just incorrect. Didn't you already agree that they could have made an offer to Travis Outlaw had they known? That is an effect.

Plus, the Bosh deal would have been a S&T, not an outright FA signing. That impacts the cap differently.
Jul 12, 2010 3:33pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 12, 2010 7:26 PM
dat dude;421426 wrote:That's just incorrect. Didn't you already agree that they could have made an offer to Travis Outlaw had they known? That is an effect.

Plus, the Bosh deal would have been a S&T, not an outright FA signing. That impacts the cap differently.

I don't believe Outlaw would've gone there. It only affects them if they missed out on someone they could've gotten.

So they couldn't have tried an S&T with any other free agents? There were options, they didn't explore them. That is their problem, not LeBron's.
Jul 12, 2010 7:26pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 9:45 PM
enigmaax;421661 wrote:I don't believe Outlaw would've gone there. It only affects them if they missed out on someone they could've gotten.

That's pure speculation. You have no clue.

You said zero effect and then I present to you a player they could have offered and you respond with, "well, he wouldn't have gone there anyway." LOL What's the point of continuing this? I would need a direct statement from a FA saying they would have went to Cleveland if offered. The fact of the matter is, the Cavs were handcuffed until Lebron made his choice. I know you relish in being the Huddle/OC contrarian, so I'll leave it at that.
Jul 12, 2010 9:45pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jul 12, 2010 10:17 PM
Thats cool. I mean, the original point was that Cleveland couldn't make any moves because LeBron didn't give them any time. That is just bullshit. You keep saying it was a disadvantage. There's a difference between doing nothing and being inconvenienced. If it makes you feel better to blame the next 50 years of Cleveland suck on LeBron, have at it.

As for your piont that you would need a direct statement from an FA ... well yeah, because you are the one who said it was LeBron's fault NOBODY went there. They weren't handcuffed, they sat on their own hands.
Jul 12, 2010 10:17pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jul 12, 2010 11:04 PM
enigmaax;421864 wrote:Thats cool. I mean, the original point was that Cleveland couldn't make any moves because LeBron didn't give them any time. That is just bullshit. You keep saying it was a disadvantage. There's a difference between doing nothing and being inconvenienced. If it makes you feel better to blame the next 50 years of Cleveland suck on LeBron, have at it.

As for your piont that you would need a direct statement from an FA ... well yeah, because you are the one who said it was LeBron's fault NOBODY went there. They weren't handcuffed, they sat on their own hands.
You must be confusing me with another poster. I never said it was Lebron's fault that NOBODY when there. You said there was no handicap to Lebron delaying his choice. I gave one of a few FAs whom the Cavs could have offered. I assume you know the definition of handicapped.

I also never said "Cleveland couldn't make any moves." However, they were limited in what they could do because of Lebron's cap space. I really fail to see what is so difficult about understanding that concept. And I'm not even a Cavs fan. I probably watched 10 Cavs games all year. So I'm not blaming the next "50 years of suck on Lebron."

Answer me this; (1) could they have offered Outlaw a contract during Lebron's delay? (2) Could they have offered Outlaw a contract on July 1 if Lebron had previously told them he would be going to Miami?

If yes, then how can you not understand that they were handicapped in pursuing FAs?
Jul 12, 2010 11:04pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jul 13, 2010 9:23 AM
dat dude, I think I was the first one to question the Cavs being "handicapped", so with that said, I get what you are saying. I guess I just thought of "handicapped" as being different than disadvantaged. In what you are saying, you are correct.
Jul 13, 2010 9:23am
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Jul 13, 2010 9:42 AM
thedynasty1998;422072 wrote:dat dude, I think I was the first one to question the Cavs being "handicapped"

Nope you weren't, wrong again. People who know the nba and how it works, have been saying the Cavs will be handicapped until LBJ makes a decision since we traded for Antwaun Jamison.
Jul 13, 2010 9:42am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jul 13, 2010 9:44 AM
Commander of Awesome;422079 wrote:Nope you weren't, wrong again. People who know the nba and how it works, have been saying the Cavs will be handicapped until LBJ makes a decision since we traded for Antwaun Jamison.

I was referring to this thread, as there was a couple pages of debate. Nice try though.
Jul 13, 2010 9:44am
KR1245's avatar

KR1245

Senior Member

4,317 posts
Jul 13, 2010 10:17 AM
Mike Miller is one guy that said he would have played with Bron in Cleveland. Cavs were somewhat handcuffed in this situation. Cavs knew that if Lebron left they werent going to be able to compete for quite some time. In my opinion the Cavs are going to blow it up and try again through the draft. Cavs didnt want to take on anymore bad contracts or throw the entire MLE at a guy like Haywood or Miller because lets be honest, without Lebron those guys dont really matter. Cavs had two options, re-sign Lebron or rebuild. If they would have made moves without a comittment from Lebron and than he left they would be stuck in a bad spot.........an average team with a mid 1st round pick, its very diffuclt to get out of that rut. They are better off acquiring picks and young guys and starting over which is why I dont think we have seen many moves. Bron might not have "handcuffed" the Cavs but he certainly didnt help them either.
Jul 13, 2010 10:17am