There's been a lot more team changing this offseason than many of us anticipated. Most deals have already been made, but there are still quite a few quality free (and restricted) agents out there, those which, if braintrusts choose wisely, may push this or that team to the next level. That said, not every suggestion I'm going to make here is free agent but in one case the type of player a particular organization appears to need most, even if the actual possibility of landing him is nonexistent.
CLEVELAND CAVALIERS (64-18) - JONATHAN KUMINGA
It's arguable that no team disappointed this past postseason moreso than the Cavs. By the looks of things, they're going to more or less run it back again next season, and on one hand it's like why not? But on the other hand, I'm not going to dumb out and put my faith in them yet again.
The problem with teams like Cleveland is that it's hard to identify any flaws on their roster to begin with. People were quick to denounce the idea of having a twin towers, but that strategy worked for the Thunder. One of the reasons it worked though is because Holmgren is more versatile than Mobley. You also see that during the Finals, OKC didn't even start Hartenstein.
So the lesson appears to be that, during the regular season if you will, a twin towers may work. But during the postseason, you need to accommodate or adjust. And that's why I'm suggesting Jonathan Kuminga. When the argument is that Allen is too slow to defend on the perimeter or doesn't have enough of an offensive repertoire, then start Kuminga instead.
The fact that no other team has offered Jonathan a contract isn't due to him being undesirable but rather, according to reports, this offseason being one in which virtually all squads are cash-strapped. So yeah, I don't realistically expect Cleveland to go after him, unless maybe they were willing to give up Jarrett altogether in the process.
And that, once again, is the problem with being really good during the regular season but sucking in the playoffs. You presume that some type of major change is needed yet at the same time are reluctant to initiate any. That begs the question of which is better, to be really good but then fail when everything is on the line, or to suck altogether? At the end of the day, are the Cavs even any better than, say, the Trailblazers?
INDIANA PACERS (50-32) - JOSH GIDDEY
This one was easy, since it appears that Haliburton will not be suiting up at all next season. Meanwhile, Giddey is a player with a very similar style, in terms of his build and versatility. It may even be argued that all-around stat-wise, Josh is better than Tyrese. But if Indiana did go out and get Giddey, then you'd have to ask what role would be play once Haliburton returns, since Josh is more or less a non-factor when he isn't allowed to run point.
I'm not as pessimistic about the Pacers as a lot of people, including apparently their own braintrust, are concerning next season. Another viable option would be going after Russell Westbrook who, in a manner of speaking, is like Haliburton and Turner rolled into one player. I don't think Indiana's braintrust just standing pat is the best solution, especially when it comes to trying to do the best for their fanbase.
MILWAUKEE BUCKS (48-34) - RUSSELL WESTBROOK
Honestly, I'm shocked that Westbrook remains a free agent as of this writing. But as I have noted numerous times throughout this blog, "the ScapeGOAT" has regularly suffered from misplaced(?) hate throughout the years.
Russell is the victim of what I would call the curse of greatness. When you're naturally better than most of your colleagues, people expect you to succeed by default. It's those types of expectations which has turned players like LBJ and KD to superteam feens.
I could easily perceive how Westbrook would at least prove more valuable to the Bucks than Dame did. It isn't like they have much to lose in giving him a shot. And since no one has high expectations for Milwaukee this coming season, if they do fail it's not like everyone can then turn around and blame it on Russell(?). He may not be the best three-point shooter out there, but given his multitude of other talents, does he really have to be?
DETROIT PISTONS (44-38) - KEVIN DURANT
I know that KD isn't actually available, but there's two reasons I suggested him anyway. First is that, as I've been saying for the longest, I would love to see more of these old superstars go to young teams. I'm not talking about the way CP3 went to the Spurs last season but more like old superstars joining younger teams and instantly making them contenders in the process.
In the grand scheme of things, there wasn't any super-major difference between the rosters of the Rockets and Pistons entering this offseason. They both lost in the First Round, after all. But Houston is more reputable and also apparently better resourced, so Durant could chose them without giving a less-popular team like Detroit a second or even first thought.
That said, unlike the Pacers and Bucks, it makes more sense for the Pistons not to rush out and make any major additions. But losing both Beasley and Schroder is far from ideal. Meanwhile, it seems they haven't made any notable additions at all this offseason except maybe Caris LeVert.
CHICAGO BULLS (39-43) - BOL BOL
Recently, there's been reports of the Bulls being interested in Kuminga or something like that, but I don't really see it. Jonathan is good and likely to get better, but I doubt if he'll ever be even a consistent number-two option. For the past couple of years, I've rather been advocating him going to a team like the Grizzlies. Their roster is more on his timeline, and the onus wouldn't be on him to play like superstar night in and night out. The Warriors, contrastingly, are a high-pressure team, where if you aren't consistently on point, it will show.
Chicago's roster sucks, so much so that if finish anywhere near .500, that would be considered an overachievement. They have the type of squad that could literally use any good player, outside of maybe a point, since Giddey already seems to have that role locked down.
The general consensus is the best (restricted) free agent currently available is, once again, Kuminga. But I can't advocate him going from the Dubs to a team that doesn't look like it'll make playoffs anytime soon, even in the lackluster East. Nor could I condemn Westbrook to such a fate.
So I'm going to go with Bol Bol because first of all, Chicago obviously needs depth in the frontcourt (as they have for years now). Secondly, it's sorta surprising, at least to me, that Bol doesn't have a contract. For whatever reason, after a promising season a couple of years ago, his minutes have been drastically reduced. Maybe he's not as good as I think he is. Or maybe, he's never gotten a fair shot due to his appearance and shit like that. His looks aren't exactly what we would call marketable from a Western civilization perspective. But I would like to see Bol for once get major minutes, like a starter, to really prove what he could do. And he'll likely only get that type of opportunity on a completely-garbage team(?) like the Bulls.
No comments:
Post a Comment