Cavs looking to add big man

The Cavaliers might be close to adding another piece to their roster. Looking for depth and experience on their front line, a league source said, the team is near a deal with veteran big man Lorenzen Wright. Full Story
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
tom

Cleveland, OH

#147 Sep 5, 2008
there is no way the cavs are getting ben gordon. first, there is no point in giving up what it would take to get ben gordon here (hickson? gibson? draft picks?). wally for ben isnt going to get it done. secondly, the reason he is still available is because he has outrageous salary demands. why give up all that to get him here, and then either let him go because he is asking too much or else overpay him to justify making the trade? neither makes any sense. i would love to have gordon on the team, but its not going happen in this instance. gordon is a good player, but he's not an all star. he is an undersized SG who is very streaky, plays no defense and is one dimensional offensively. hes not a passer. he doesnt set up an offense. he gets ball, shoots ball. between wally, west, gibson, and now Mo, the cavs have enough shooters on the team.
tom

Cleveland, OH

#148 Sep 5, 2008
and all this Andrew Bynum talk - please just stop. the Lakers are not giving him up.
Critic

Brunswick, OH

#149 Sep 5, 2008
NO, he sucks! He is from my hometown. He sucked at the U of M. He cannot shoot!
NOOOO
Critic

Brunswick, OH

#150 Sep 5, 2008
Indy Finesse wrote:
I guess he's better than nobody, but it's close. My friend has a saying "a 7footer can always find a job in the NBA", this is the proof. Lorenzen Wright has been consistently no good for years now and can still find a job. I'd rather have nobody.
I AGREE!
Critic

Brunswick, OH

#151 Sep 5, 2008
Josh wrote:
Lorenzen Wright... big and athletic, and could be a sign that Andy is on the market too. Ol floppy hair better watch his minutes and come into camp in shape...
LORENZEN SUCKS! ALWAYS HAS!
alan t

Delaware, OH

#152 Sep 5, 2008
tom wrote:
there is no way the cavs are getting ben gordon. first, there is no point in giving up what it would take to get ben gordon here (hickson? gibson? draft picks?). wally for ben isnt going to get it done. secondly, the reason he is still available is because he has outrageous salary demands. why give up all that to get him here, and then either let him go because he is asking too much or else overpay him to justify making the trade? neither makes any sense. i would love to have gordon on the team, but its not going happen in this instance. gordon is a good player, but he's not an all star. he is an undersized SG who is very streaky, plays no defense and is one dimensional offensively. hes not a passer. he doesnt set up an offense. he gets ball, shoots ball. between wally, west, gibson, and now Mo, the cavs have enough shooters on the team.
The Cavs already have their poor man's Ben Gordon in the form of T-i-t-s Gibson. Gordon is 10 times the player Gibson is, but even if these silly pie-in-the-sky trade proposals had any validity, I wouldn't see the sense in acquiring Gordon unless you also get rid of Gibson.
tom

Cleveland, OH

#153 Sep 5, 2008
alan t wrote:
<quoted text> The Cavs already have their poor man's Ben Gordon in the form of T-i-t-s Gibson. Gordon is 10 times the player Gibson is, but even if these silly pie-in-the-sky trade proposals had any validity, I wouldn't see the sense in acquiring Gordon unless you also get rid of Gibson.
i actually agree with alan t for once. gordon is definitely better than gibson. no doubt. however, id take gibson at his price than gordon at his (outrageous) asking price at this point. 10 times the player gibson is is a obviously a stretch, but yes gordon is clearly better. if the bulls wanted to make a gibson for gordon swap (and throw in snow to make the money work) i'd do it. i dont see the bulls making such a stupid trade though (then again, paxson is there and so you never know).
Milos Babic

Alameda, CA

#155 Sep 5, 2008
The Cavs have had a Euro or two - including oft maligned two time All-Star Zydrunas Ilgauskas, probably one of the ten most successful European players so far in the NBA. What you're forgetting is that the Cavs can't just sign these players, they have to be drafted or their draft rights acquired.
Milos Babic

Alameda, CA

#156 Sep 5, 2008
alan t wrote:
<quoted text> The Cavs already have their poor man's Ben Gordon in the form of T-i-t-s Gibson. Gordon is 10 times the player Gibson is, but even if these silly pie-in-the-sky trade proposals had any validity, I wouldn't see the sense in acquiring Gordon unless you also get rid of Gibson.
Can't disagree with you on this one Alan,(although 10 times is a bit much - no need to take it into scientific notation, man) Gordon is bigger and a way better ball handler than Gibson, but Gibson is a little better from deep. Neither play much defense. Both are undersized, and could never be paired in a backcourt together. Why pay them both?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Daniel Gibson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Antawn Jamison has heard it all from Boston's K... (Jan '12) Jan '12 kamal007 1
Cavaliers 97, Pistons 91: Hickson, Davis give C... (Mar '11) Mar '11 Herman Hesse 1
LeBron James, Cleveland Cavaliers' Daniel Gibso... (Feb '11) Feb '11 Cleveland noble 1
Cleveland Cavaliers: Does Blame Fall On LeBron ... (Feb '11) Feb '11 ccc 1
Trail Blazers 111, Cavaliers 105: Futility mark... (Feb '11) Feb '11 Bob 1
Cleveland Cavaliers lose by 55 but LeBron James... (Jan '11) Jan '11 G Force 8
Cavs' Varejao has broken cheekbone (Dec '10) Jan '11 Freda Johnson 2
More from around the web