FanNation - The Republic of Sport

OM= Andrew Luck said 11/07, 01:43 PM
So what your saying is this:

Before they even take a chance at the possibility of him not resigning they should just trade him? Your saying that there is no chance he will resign and that trading him before the offseason is the best idea?

Let me tell you this my friend, that idea of yours is just about the dumbest thing I've heard all day on this site.

What could the Cavs possibly trade for that would be getting equal, or even close to equal value in return for Lebron? If you honestly think they could get Chris Paul, Deron Williams, or any of those other players you mentioned, your crazy.

You see, teams don't trade away their franchise players for the most part. But these trades never happen, when both teams are giving up their franchise players. Well, at least not anymore.

If Lebron does not resign with Cleveland in the offseason, they're best bet is making a big splash in the free agency market outside of Lebron, or going back into rebuilding mode and dumping Shaq as well.

OM= Andrew Luck said 11/07, 07:38 PM
Lebron's supporting cast isn't great. But they could still be a great team if they had plenty of money to spend on a great free agent class.

Here's the main thing I disagree with you on, do you want to trade him just for the sake of getting rid of him because you can't resign him? Do you want to just trade him away for some random players so you can say you got SOMETHING in return? No.

What the Cavs should do instead if they can't resign him is one of two things:

1. Go after some of the other big name free agents. Off the top of my head, one guy who is just as likely as Lebron to become a free agent is Dwayne Wade. Now I'm not saying they could sign him, but if they had the money to, I think it would make for an interesting situation for both sides.

2. Simple, rebuild. Prepare for a long 2 or 3 years, knowing that you have plenty of cash, flexibity and young players. Dump Shaq for a pick and/or other young players, and make sure you are geared up for the future.

Both of those are better options than just trading the King for the sake of doing so.

OM= Andrew Luck said 11/08, 01:38 PM
I didn't say they'd get Dwayne Wade, I said, given the cash they would have after losing Lebron, they would certainly be competitors for him, and the leading candidates for whatever other great players declare for free agency.

What does this even mean? "The Cavs only got him cause they got to dump a lot of garbage money".

Are you kidding me? Shaq cost them a ton of money. What is "garbage" money anyways? Pretty sure all money can be used to spend on things to improve your team. If they do lose Lebron, I gurantee you they dumb Shaq as they only brought him into to try and convince Lebron to stay.

And I still disagree with you on trading him. They wouldn't be getting half the equal value, but that isn't even the worst thing. The Cavs would not be getting what they wanted, they'd be getting some players that they chose as a consolation to Lebron. They'd be getting a bunch of 28-34 year olds who are underachiving, selfish players. Guys like Jamaal Crawford, or Stephen Jackson, or Al Harrington. Not saying those would be the exact names, but guys similar to them.

Picking up a bunch of random players in a trade to add to an already random assortment of playrer would do nothin