Well I didn’t get all the reasoning right but I was right overall, especially that last sentence.I think this is a lateral move for the Cavs, at best. I’m actually tempted to call this a bad trade. Donovan Mitchell is not a first option scorer—his shot selection is too poor. And yeah, people will say that Garland’s playmaking ability and high level fourth quarter play can offset that but I’m not sure that’s going to be enough to compensate for the scoring droughts I can see happening.
In addition, what made Cleveland so good last year was their tremendous front court size that obviously made their D elite, but also allowed them to pressure the offensive boards as Garland create havoc with the pnr. With less size out there, I see the Cavs getting weaker on D and losing an element of causing havoc in the paint (though I think that issue pales in comparison to the negative impact of having two small guards who can’t play defence well, in part because of their size).
I dunno brehs. I know Donovan Mitchell is a big name but he’s one dimensional and not really efficient at the one thing he’s really good at (scoring). Losing size at the SF position (size that can shoot no less) and getting smaller on the perimeter, worse defensively on the perimeter, and losing the spacing that Lauri provided is going to hurt them. It’s gonna be sad in a few years when they learn they went all in with picks only to end up in the 3-5 seed every year and never getting past the second round.
Garland needs a big wing who can score next to him. Easier said than done obviously.