Cavs interested in trading Haywood + Varejao for Joe Johnson?

[jbpats]

depending on the deal i'd probably take a chance on sideshow. His contract isn't terrible, but yes might as well flip a coin on guessing if he'll miss 20+ games.
I think adding him would move Amir to his true position and give us more flexibility to move Sully and/or KO.

[get_banners]

Anything that weakens the Nets sounds awesome to me, and losing Iso Joe would definitely hurt them (even though he's obviously not remotely worth his contract).

[Moranis]

Andy and a 1st into the Rondo trade exception seems to work for me. 

[jpotter33]

Andy and a 1st into the Rondo trade exception seems to work for me.

Can we still use that after the Amir signing? I was under the impression that we could not.
Besides, what kind of puck could we reasonably expect from the Cavs? They'll all be very low first round picks for the next several years.

[chambers]

I wonder if this trade makes them better this season though?
Insert Markel Brown or one of the Euro guys and they play much more team ball with Hollins as the coach and losing Johnson's 75% (lol) usage rate.

[celticsclay]

I wonder if this trade makes them better this season though?
Insert Markel Brown or one of the Euro guys and they play much more team ball with Hollins as the coach and losing Johnson's 75% (lol) usage rate.

its funny cause i am arguing about how bad johnson is in the other thread for cleveland, but I do believe he makes the Nets a little better. They don't have anyone that can really create their own shot late in the shot clock asides from him, and I don't think Markel Brown can do that. The Cavs by contrast have multiple players that can do that (Irving and James are probably 2 of the top 10 in the game). So I really think this would be a trade that could make both teams worse.

[chambers]

I wonder if this trade makes them better this season though?
Insert Markel Brown or one of the Euro guys and they play much more team ball with Hollins as the coach and losing Johnson's 75% (lol) usage rate.

its funny cause i am arguing about how bad johnson is in the other thread for cleveland, but I do believe he makes the Nets a little better. They don't have anyone that can really create their own shot late in the shot clock asides from him, and I don't think Markel Brown can do that. The Cavs by contrast have multiple players that can do that (Irving and James are probably 2 of the top 10 in the game). So I really think this would be a trade that could make both teams worse.

Yeah I'd say you're right and that ultimately it makes both teams worse...I think Johnson actually might surprise us and look good with all those other good players around him.

Eg when they play the Spurs in the finals, SAS has got to out Kawahi on Lebron, and Danny Green has to guard JJ.
That being said someone still has to guard Green.

I guess if the best possible gamble for our pick would be for the Nets to trade away their best or 2nd best player.

[Moranis]

This trade from the Cavs is about moving Varejao's long term contract and avoiding re-signing JR Smith.  If the Cavs do that and let Johnson walk there is a chance they aren't in luxury tax land the following year when the cap jumps and thus can possibly avoid the repeat offender tax. 

Johnson is a career 37% shooter from 3, but has been much better when surrounded with better teammates.  I would expect him to be near 40% on Cleveland.  And that is a consistent 40% i.e. he isn't going to have that many 0 for 10 or 7 for 8 type games.  He will be in the consistent 2 for 5 range (unlike Smith who is all over the place).  That is what a team like Cleveland needs from what will likely be their back-up SG (I would expect Shumpert to start for his defense).  Johnson is also still a decent shot creator which will help the second unit a great deal (along with Williams). 

[saltlover]

This trade from the Cavs is about moving Varejao's long term contract and avoiding re-signing JR Smith.  If the Cavs do that and let Johnson walk there is a chance they aren't in luxury tax land the following year when the cap jumps and thus can possibly avoid the repeat offender tax. 

Johnson is a career 37% shooter from 3, but has been much better when surrounded with better teammates.  I would expect him to be near 40% on Cleveland.  And that is a consistent 40% i.e. he isn't going to have that many 0 for 10 or 7 for 8 type games.  He will be in the consistent 2 for 5 range (unlike Smith who is all over the place).  That is what a team like Cleveland needs from what will likely be their back-up SG (I would expect Shumpert to start for his defense).  Johnson is also still a decent shot creator which will help the second unit a great deal (along with Williams).

The understanding I've had is that the Cavs still intend to re-sign Smith.  It's most about moving on from Varejao's deal and replacing him with a useful player.  The fewer minutes LeBron has to play in the regular season, and the more depth they have in the post-season, the better.  Andy helps with neither of those.  Getting West would have made it a slam-dunk move.

[Moranis]

This trade from the Cavs is about moving Varejao's long term contract and avoiding re-signing JR Smith.  If the Cavs do that and let Johnson walk there is a chance they aren't in luxury tax land the following year when the cap jumps and thus can possibly avoid the repeat offender tax. 

Johnson is a career 37% shooter from 3, but has been much better when surrounded with better teammates.  I would expect him to be near 40% on Cleveland.  And that is a consistent 40% i.e. he isn't going to have that many 0 for 10 or 7 for 8 type games.  He will be in the consistent 2 for 5 range (unlike Smith who is all over the place).  That is what a team like Cleveland needs from what will likely be their back-up SG (I would expect Shumpert to start for his defense).  Johnson is also still a decent shot creator which will help the second unit a great deal (along with Williams).

The understanding I've had is that the Cavs still intend to re-sign Smith.  It's most about moving on from Varejao's deal and replacing him with a useful player.  The fewer minutes LeBron has to play in the regular season, and the more depth they have in the post-season, the better.  Andy helps with neither of those.  Getting West would have made it a slam-dunk move.

I don't think they re-sign Smith unless it is a one year, veteran minimum type contract.  They just don't have minutes for all the guys to the point where it just doesn't make financial sense to keep Smith (if they have Johnson).  They'd get more out of a young guy like Harris sitting on the bench then Smith (unless of course Smith signs for small dollars).  Now maybe they go nuts and bring Smith back, but Smith was terrible in the Finals and is a total head case.  Just not a guy they will lock up long term, especially with Joe Johnson.

Now if they don't trade for Johnson, I'd expect Smith back.

[saltlover]

This trade from the Cavs is about moving Varejao's long term contract and avoiding re-signing JR Smith.  If the Cavs do that and let Johnson walk there is a chance they aren't in luxury tax land the following year when the cap jumps and thus can possibly avoid the repeat offender tax. 

Johnson is a career 37% shooter from 3, but has been much better when surrounded with better teammates.  I would expect him to be near 40% on Cleveland.  And that is a consistent 40% i.e. he isn't going to have that many 0 for 10 or 7 for 8 type games.  He will be in the consistent 2 for 5 range (unlike Smith who is all over the place).  That is what a team like Cleveland needs from what will likely be their back-up SG (I would expect Shumpert to start for his defense).  Johnson is also still a decent shot creator which will help the second unit a great deal (along with Williams).

The understanding I've had is that the Cavs still intend to re-sign Smith.  It's most about moving on from Varejao's deal and replacing him with a useful player.  The fewer minutes LeBron has to play in the regular season, and the more depth they have in the post-season, the better.  Andy helps with neither of those.  Getting West would have made it a slam-dunk move.

I don't think they re-sign Smith unless it is a one year, veteran minimum type contract.  They just don't have minutes for all the guys to the point where it just doesn't make financial sense to keep Smith (if they have Johnson).  They'd get more out of a young guy like Harris sitting on the bench then Smith (unless of course Smith signs for small dollars).  Now maybe they go nuts and bring Smith back, but Smith was terrible in the Finals and is a total head case.  Just not a guy they will lock up long term, especially with Joe Johnson.

Now if they don't trade for Johnson, I'd expect Smith back.

Most of the reports I read are that the Cavs (i.e. LeBron) want Smith back.  LeBron is also enjoying using his power to get his teammates paid.  Gilbert is paying for both his own past sins and Micky Arison's.  I would be surprised if Smith doesn't get a raise from the option he declined, and shocked if he gets less.  With or without Joe Johnson.

If Gilbert wants 4+ years of LeBron loyalty next summer, he gets to put a deposit on it this year.

[Moranis]

Seems like latest rumor is the Cavs sending Haywood to the Clippers for Jamal Crawford.  The Clippers would then use Haywood to make a different move.