clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Glass Half-Empty or Glass Half-Full?

New, comments


So the NBA draft has come and gone, with no activity at all from the Cavaliers.  There were 11 trades involving various teams and combinations, the most relevant of which was Kurt Hinrich going from the Bulls to the Wizards, which opens up millions of more dollars in salary cap space for Chicago, and which, of course, has rumor-mongers hither and yon alleging that this now makes the Bulls the front-runners to get LeBron James in the near future.

But let's look at the Cavaliers specifically in lieu of their inactivity with the draft.

 

Is it such a bad thing for the Cavs to stand pat with what they had at the end of the season?  Of course it can be assumed that there will be some roster changes between now and the 2010-11 season.  Shaq is not getting any younger; neither is Z, and although they both are still part of the team, that could change.  But would Cleveland be so bad off if they kept the core of the team that won 61 games last year?  And remember that of the 21 regular-season losses, the last four were basically give-aways, when LeBron was "resting" with his sore elbow.  A team that won close to 80% of the games "where they really tried to win" and with a healthy LeBron would be a force to be reckoned with, even with no significant additions.

Conversely, there is a chance that the lack of any draft-night activity from the Cavs might be the straw that broke the LeBron's back, so to speak.  But really, would adding a draft pick, who would have to be developed, make that much difference in the immediate context of where LeBron will decide to go?

And to be blunt, the Cavs have bent over backwards in the past few years to try to build a supporting cast around James.  If he should bolt and say "They didn't do anything to try to improve the team this off-season and that helped me make my mind up"...I would call "shallow" on that.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?  Your thoughts are more than welcome.