Cleveland Cavs (2016 NBA Champions)

[MaxBuck]

I feel the same way. Others have made valid points that this isn't quite the Yankees, but it's definitely not the most organic way to build a team.

What is the "organic way to build a team?" Does it involve tons of horse manure?

 

[exhawg]

What is the "organic way to build a team?" Does it involve tons of horse manure?

I don't know. I feel like we've been dealing with a lot of horse shit over the past 4 years so it's about time something grew. Assuming the Love trade happens the Cavs will have drafted or been the only team of 5 of the top 6 players on the roster. That seems as organic as anyone in the league. They are just filling in the bench with 10-15 minute players willing to take minimum salaries in order to have a shot at a title. I agree with bringing in guys like Miller, Allen, Marion, and Jones this year, but in the future they will need to find some high ceiling projects to bring along for down the road. The Spurs roster seems to have a lot of guys that started someplace else and ended up in San Antonio. Hell 2 of them were drafted by the Cavs and washed out.

If I had to guess the Cavs have 5 years of Lebron at the 3 and Love at the 4. After that Love will likely head out west and Lebron will bulk back up and be more of a stretch 4 until he retires. The "organic" growth has allowed the Cavs a ton of homegrown talent so it's just up to Gilbert to pay the tax and keep it together.

 

[NFBuck]

What is the "organic way to build a team?" Does it involve tons of horse manure?

Using "homegrown" talents to build a team either directly on court, or by moving those assets to acquire others...not simply going out and buying pieces through free agency.

 

[wadc45]

In case anyone missed this from last Thursday:

 

[NFBuck]

Also Detroit. Winning 1 title and choking away a 2nd title, along with going to 6 straight ECF. But yes, your point is still valid considering there is a list of 2 out of let's say 20 small market teams. And really the only team to do so without any superstar whatsoever.

I've never looked at Detroit as "small market." Despite the decline regionally, Detroit franchises (other than the perpetually inept Lions) have never been shy about spending money. Granted, when the Pistons have been elite, they were generally a "team" as opposed to a franchise that buys up superstars. But, I have a hard time calling them "small market."

 

[buckeyesin07]

I've never looked at Detroit as "small market." Despite the decline regionally, Detroit franchises (other than the perpetually inept Lions) have never been shy about spending money. Granted, when the Pistons have been elite, they were generally a "team" as opposed to a franchise that buys up superstars. But, I have a hard time calling them "small market."

Agreed. Certainly the Tigers' willingness to toss money around doesn't suggest "small market."

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

I've never looked at Detroit as "small market." Despite the decline regionally, Detroit franchises (other than the perpetually inept Lions) have never been shy about spending money. Granted, when the Pistons have been elite, they were generally a "team" as opposed to a franchise that buys up superstars. But, I have a hard time calling them "small market."

Agreed. Certainly the Tigers' willingness to toss money around doesn't suggest "small market."

Yea that's hard to say. Maybe if you were to include a 3rd category of "middle market" I would agree with that. I just don't see any way lumping in Detroit with the likes of New York or LA. And I'm not sure how much "small market" vs "large market" has to do with spending. It has to do with having a good GM. Free agents go to "large markets." "Small markets" build great teams through trades and finding unknowns . Essentially the entire Detroit Pistons core for the stretch of dominance in the East was traded for. It wasn't players choosing to come play for Detroit to help their image in endorsements. And the Tigers spend a lot of money, but a lot of it is not on free agents but rather players they got in the draft and through trades. Traded for or drafted the entire starting pitching staff, and Cabrera was traded for as well.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Yea that's hard to say. Maybe if you were to include a 3rd category of "middle market" I would agree with that. I just don't see any way lumping in Detroit with the likes of New York or LA. And I'm not sure how much "small market" vs "large market" has to do with spending. It has to do with having a good GM. Free agents go to "large markets." "Small markets" build great teams through trades and finding unknowns . Essentially the entire Detroit Pistons core for the stretch of dominance in the East was traded for. It wasn't players choosing to come play for Detroit to help their image in endorsements. And the Tigers spend a lot of money, but a lot of it is not on free agents but rather players they got in the draft and through trades. Traded for or drafted the entire starting pitching staff, and Cabrera was traded for as well.

Are you aware that the Tigers signed Cabrera to the richest contract in sports history (10 yrs, $292M) in March of this year? Do you know that Verlander makes over $20M this year, Scherzer over $15M, Price $14M, Kinsler $16M, Martinez $13M, Hunter $12M, etc.? Detroit has the 5th highest payroll in the MLB. There's nothing "middle market" about them.

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

Are you aware that the Tigers signed Cabrera to the richest contract in sports history (10 yrs, $292M) in March of this year? Do you know that Verlander makes over $20M this year, Scherzer over $15M, Price $14M, Kinsler $16M, Martinez $13M, Hunter $12M, etc.? Detroit has the 5th highest payroll in the MLB. There's nothing "middle market" about them.

Are you aware that most of Detroit's top players (and the majority of the players you listed) were either traded for or drafted? I guess it's your definition of a small or middle market. My definition is one that struggles to get big name guys in free agency (other than throwing a shit ton of cash like Seattle did with Cano). I personally would not consider a team with a phenomenal GM and old-as-shit Owner who wants to win now a large market team just because the GM wheels and deals trades and the Owner signs them to large contracts down the road. A large market is when you can sit back and just get guys to come to you for endoresment purposes in free agency.

For example, I feel like I read somewhere in this thread before about Cleveland having a maxed out roster when LBJ was last there, but they were still bad because they were bad contracts. But the point still stands that they had a maxed out roster. So is Cleveland therefore a large market team since they had a roster that was maxed out?

Edit: I typed "still bad" but just meant not championship caliber.

 

[Bucklion]

Are you aware that the Tigers signed Cabrera to the richest contract in sports history (10 yrs, $292M) in March of this year? Do you know that Verlander makes over $20M this year, Scherzer over $15M, Price $14M, Kinsler $16M, Martinez $13M, Hunter $12M, etc.? Detroit has the 5th highest payroll in the MLB. There's nothing "middle market" about them.

The Tigers also bleed money like a sieve. It's no secret he loses substantial money because he wants to win now...has nothing to do with the actual market size. He runs the team like a large market team, there's no doubt of that.

 

[ImFrigginFly]

Speaking of Detroit, fuck Michigan.

 

[kujirakira]

It is practically impossible in "flyover country." Look at the NBA landscape over the last 20-30 years and show me one small market team that has been "consistently competitve." If you consider San Antonio "small market", that's the list. Cleveland, Milwaukee, Indiana, Minnesota, Charlotte, Orlando, New Orleans, Seattle, Portland. They've all had some good years, but it's usually followed by a down period. The Cavs will have another one once this run dries up. The best bet, right now, is to amass as many assets as possible to give them the best shot at winning a title or titles in the next 5-6 years. Because LeBron's gonna get old and decline. If they can keep LeBron, Love, and Kyrie together for five years, that gives them the closest thing to a guarantee. Hoping that Wiggins becomes a superstar is not in their best interest in capitalizing on what they have right now. Guys like Waiters and TT are better complimentary pieces than Mario Chalmers and Udonis Haslem.

At first I was in the "do not trade Wiggins" boat. But, looking at the big picture, it's the best move, IMO. Three months ago, this team was coming off it's fourth straight dreadful season. Nobody thought Kyrie was going to be here long term. They were looking at picking somewhere mid lottery this year, and Bennett was a huge question mark. We sit here today with Kyrie locked up long term, we have the best player on the planet, are about to trade for a top-10 player in Love, have kept solid complimentary pieces, and have added some vets that can shoot. The Cavs will have short odds on winning not only the East, but the whole thing next year. I have a hard time complaining about that, and I'm a hardened Cleveland sports fan that always expects the worst. This is a best case scenario. Stuff like this doesn't happen in Cleveland...but it has. Just enjoy it as long as you can.

Is Cleveland really "small market", though?
I get it's not "big market" like LA / Chicago / NYC but having lived in the Northwest, West, Midwest, and South... it seems to me that Cleveland has a much larger regional support base than places like Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Portland, etc.
In part because sports aren't a big thing in places like Portland or Miami, in part because the Rust Belt is very well populated in general. From Pittsburgh to Chicago is its own Megalopolis rivaling the Northeast and SoCal... just without the garish or gaudy self-centered "me me me" cultures those two are known for.... and Ohio is smack dab in the middle of it with only Detroit and Cinci close by (and Cinci doesn't count for basketball... though I suppose they probably bandwagon whoever is popular/good down there)

Anyway ... [/Midwest-biased rant]

 

[NFBuck]

Houston and Dallas are huge markets. Cleveland, population and support wise is pretty much the definition of small market. It helps that we now have an owner willing to spend, but take away LeBronie again, and you aren't attracting anybody with options to Cleveland.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Houston and Dallas are huge markets. Cleveland, population and support wise is pretty much the definition of small market. It helps that we now have an owner willing to spend, but take away LeBronie again, and you aren't attracting anybody with options to Cleveland.

Bingo. Even a guy from NE Ohio, who claimed to love NE Ohio, left. The notion that a player with no ties to Ohio would voluntarily go to Cleveland is absurd.

 

[kujirakira]

Houston and Dallas are huge markets. Cleveland, population and support wise is pretty much the definition of small market. It helps that we now have an owner willing to spend, but take away LeBronie again, and you aren't attracting anybody with options to Cleveland.

That has far more to do with the franchise than the market. I also see people confusing ownership with market.
Big market or Small market, if you're staffed with fools or owned by a cheapskate... yea, you won't have much success. The Mets are in NYC... big market... still crap. Same with the Nets and Clippers up til recently. LA and Brooklyn (or NJ for that matter) are by no means small market.
Houston and Dallas, in terms of market, are definitely small. Maybe Dallas can claim the majority of Texas and outpunch its weight with oil money ala the Rangers and Longhorns, but especially Houston (and San Antonio for that matter) is very limited in terms of marketing due to being limited to their city's immediate surroundings by local competition.