Over the past two days, defenders of LeBron James' horrific Game 5 performance have been pointing the fingers at coach Mr. Potato Head Mike Brown and general manager Danny Ferry for not giving the Self Proclaimed King enough help to advance deep in the playoffs. And while I'm not a LeBron James defender, I'm right there with them pointing the finger in those directions. Mike Brown is clearly in over his head, and Danny Ferry made one big mistake that's really costing the Cavaliers right now.
That's right: one big mistake. I don't have a big problem with any of Danny Ferry's moves from the 2008 trade deadline until the 2010 trade deadline. Dumping Larry Hughes in a package that netted Delonte West was a great move. Getting Mo Williams, a player who is faltering now but is also the exact kind of guy (great spot-up shooter that does just enough playmaking to give LeBron a break from that) you need to pair with the King, for basically nothing was a great move. Signing Anthony Parker (good defender, great three-point shooter) and Jamario Moon (same deal) for bargain contracts was outstanding. Keeping Anderson Varejao not once, but twice was smart, because he's such an important role player. Drafting J.J. Hickson with the 19th pick in 2008 was great value, and even the Shaquille O'Neal trade was a good move because a) Ferry gave up nothing, b) Shaq gave Cleveland a new dimension that Mike Brown overused (not necessarily Ferry's fault) and c) there were tons of games where Shaq did make a huge difference by getting opposing big men in foul trouble (see the Chicago series, for one).
The sum of all these moves was that the Cavaliers went from 45 wins in 2008 to 60+ the last two seasons, and that's without LeBron himself making significant improvements. Ferry erased his own mistakes from 2003-2007, finding a great mix of role players and shooters designed to take advantage of LeBron's passing and driving ability. The 2009/10 Cavaliers entered the season with a roster designed to play any style. They could go big (Shaq) or small (Varejao/Hickson) inside; they could go big (Parker/Moon) or small (West) on the perimeter, and they could throw elite defenders at you from every position. It was a roster that made sense. About the only thing Ferry did wrong during this stretch was holding onto Brown as his coach, but that was owner Dan Gilbert's call, not his.
But that was before the 2010 trade deadline, where Ferry made his fatal error. That error? Trading for Antawn Jamison (and by extension, keeping Hickson) instead of willingly giving up Hickson for Phoenix's Amare Stoudemire. That non-move is what's costing Cleveland right now. That non-move alone.
Just how close was this trade to happening? Here's what ESPN's Chris Broussard reported on February 14, just days before the trade deadline.
The Cleveland Cavaliers and Phoenix Suns are closing in on a deal that would send All-Star forward Amare Stoudemire to Cleveland, according to sources with knowledge of the negotiations.
The Cavaliers would send Zydrunas Ilgauskas and J.J. Hickson to Phoenix in exchange for Stoudemire, one of the league's most dominant big men.
So then why didn't it happen? We obviously can't know for sure, but a couple days later, the Cavaliers instead traded for Antawn Jamison. Phoenix eventually couldn't get a package together with Miami for Stoudemire and eventually held onto the guy. Those are the facts. The big unanswered question is this: did Phoenix reject a Hickson-led package, or was it the Cavaliers who chose Jamison over Stoudemire?
If you believe ESPN's Marc Stein, arguably the most well-connected reporter out there, it was the latter. Here are some lines from his February 18 story, when he reported the Jamison trade as a done deal.
"Antawn is a great pro. We are very excited to have an experienced all-star player of Antawn's caliber and character join us," Cavaliers general manager Danny Ferry said in a statement announcing the trade. "He has the ability to add a special, unique dimension to our team with a strong inside presence and the ability to stretch teams defensively, while impacting the entire court. We think he matches the culture we have built, and continue to build, and will fit well with our group on the court and off."
[...]
The Cavs have been chasing Jamison since last season and ultimately preferred this trade in part because they did not have to surrender blossoming young forward J.J. Hickson. The Suns were demanding Hickson along with Ilgauskas' expiring salary for Stoudemire.
In other words, it appears the Cavaliers did choose Jamison over Stoudemire, and did so because Jamison "fit" better and they could still keep Hickson. Now that we've seen the way this has played out, it's clear Jamison isn't fitting in, keeping Hickson was pointless because he never plays and Stoudemire is way, way better than anyone realized.
In making their decision, Cleveland overrated Jamison considerably, both as a player and in terms of his ability to fit in. Cleveland figured that the difference between Jamison and Stoudemire wasn't great enough to risk whatever possible chemistry issues might come. They were very wrong. Jamison may have a little more shooting range, but Stoudemire is way, way more efficient offensively. In his past five healthy years (i.e. not counting the three games he played in 2006), Stoudemire has never posted a true shooting percentage below 61%, which is an obscenely high number. By contrast, Jamison's career TS% is only 52.6%, which is actually below the league average, and save for his one year in Dallas, where he posted a 58.1% TS%, he's never had a year over 54.9%, which, again, is only slightly above the league average.
The long and short of it is that Amare is so much better offensively than Jamison that it's not even worth getting concerned over Amare being the right fit. And speaking of being the right fit - Jamison's not really looking like the right fit right now. He's essentially being treated as a glorified spot-up shooter, and whatever post-up and isolation opportunities he did get in the past aren't there anymore. In the playoffs, he's struggled to adjust to that, and is scoring even less efficiently than usual. I'd say more on this subject, but instead, I'll just point you here and here, where it's covered in depth. In retrospect, the "Amare can't play with Shaq" concerns at the trade deadline look pretty foolish, especially considering that Amare led the league in TS% and had his best offensive season the year the Suns traded for Shaq.
(Oh, and defensively? Even if Amare is a sieve, Jamison is far, far worse. Anyone who has witnessed Kevin Garnett's "rejuvenation" in this series knows what I mean).
All in all, there really was no logical reason to think Jamison approached Amare as a player, even if Amare wasn't playing as well then as he is now. The Amare from the first half of the season easily dwarfs Antawn Jamison. Easily.
As for J.J. Hickson, what's the point of keeping him if he never plays? Since the Jamison trade, Hickson's minutes, and by extension, his play, have nosedived. He lost the starting spot he earned earlier in the season and immediately went into the tank once Shaq came back from injury. When he does play, it's clear he's lost all his confidence. I change my mind a lot on Hickson's long-term potential - sometimes, I think there's something there, and sometimes, I think there isn't - but regardless, that Cleveland frontcourt needed to be consolidated. One Amare is better than one Jamison and one Hickson, especially when your coach can't find minutes for all those pieces he's been given.
At the end of the day, Danny Ferry did a remarkable job finding the right role players for LeBron James, but when faced with the chance to add the kind of co-star LeBron needed to win a championship, he chose the wrong guy. Very few GMs have the chance Ferry had, and instead of getting the co-star, he instead chose the guy that's no better than a role player on a championship team (albeit a role player with a huge, long-term contract despite being in his mid-30s). Don't blame Ferry for getting Mo Williams, Delonte West, Anthony Parker, Jamario Moon or even Shaq. Blame Ferry for not getting Amare Stoudemire.
Because with Amare Stoudemire, you can still have a chance to win even if LeBron goes into one of his funks.
14 comments
14
Comments
In 2007, the Cavs went to the finals with one of the worst starting lineups of any almost-championship-caliber team: Larry Hughes, Sash Pavlovic, LeBron James, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.
This time around, LeBron has an infinitely better roster. Even without a true No. 2, Shaq, Jamison, Williams and Parker give Cleveland a MUCH better starting five.
There’s no excuse for LeBron. After getting Jamison for literally nothing, he has everything he should need around him. Maybe you can blame Brown for not playing Daniel Gibson in favor of Moon, who doesn’t offer anything other than intangible athleticism, or other coaching decisions. But if that 2007 team could get to the finals, (admittedly in a much weaker Eastern Conference), there’s no reason this version can’t. It’s all LeBron. A 32-point loss is absolutely unacceptable.
Inhistoric.com -- the No. 1 source for sports history.
by ZombieMonta on May 13, 2010 4:57 PM EDT reply actions
Good read.
Letting our bullpen pitch is like playing Russian Roulette...
...with an automatic.
by DbacksSkins on May 13, 2010 5:57 PM EDT reply actions
Thanks for letting Amare stay here Cleveland.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad.
by JoeCB1991 on May 13, 2010 6:57 PM EDT reply actions
Damn, mike, where did you learn how to write like that
Steve Nash is the baddest man out there; no one, not even Robert Horry can hold him back. Oh, and Amare Stoudemire does play defense!
by Amare for 3 on May 13, 2010 7:52 PM EDT reply actions
Coach Brown is the real reason the Cavs fell, and Stoudemire would likely not have prevented that!
Mike,
Nice analysis, but truthfully, I really don’t think that Stoudemire would have changed the outcome of the series between the Cavs and Celtics. Why do I say that? You touched upon it with the dropoff of play of Hickson and even came out and said it early on in your piece – Coach Mike Brown and his philosophy.
As ZombieMonta touched upon, Brown has had the talent on the roster for the past two seasons, yet both seasons, he failed to make the Finals, let alone win.
The real problem with Mike Brown is that he doesn’t utilize half of his talented roster – just look at the time of play for guys like “Z,” Powe, Hickson, Gibson, and even West and Moon. These guys were key contributors during the season, yet were non-factors because they didn’t play at all or not enough to make an impact.
Additionally, the main reason why Stoudemire would NOT have changed the outcome of this series is because Mike Brown believes LeBron is the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd offensive choice on the Cavaliers, despite the talented teammates around him.
This was evident in Game 6 – Mo Williams led the charge in the first half, scoring 20 points, and being much mored productive offensively than LeBron. You’d think with the way Mo was playing as compared to LeBron in the first half, we’d do more of that in the second half, right? WRONG – we have LeBron handle the ball more, take more shots in the second half, and essentially forget about Mo in the second half outside of a few shot attempts.
LeBron gets his triple-double, and almost a quadruple-double with the turnovers, but doesn’t handle the offense nearly as well as Mo did in the first half and the Cavaliers go on to lose Game 6 and the series.
If the past is any indication, Brown trusts LeBron and wants LeBron to be the focal point of the offense. That essentially eliminates anyone else from being the focal point of the offense. This includes Mo, Shaq, Jamison, and yes, would have included Stoudemire as well. LeBron has to be the focal point all of the time – this is why the Cavaliers have underperformed with rosters that were arguably as good as any in the league – the players on the bench don’t play (or don’t play nearly often enough), and the players on the court with LeBron don’t get enough touches and get enough repetitions throughout the season or the postseason to get into any type of rhythm that would allow them to bail out LeBron if/when he falters.
This has happened for two straight seasons – LeBron needed more help, so they got Mo Williams. Ferry was criticized for not getting Shaq during the 2008-2009 season after falling to Orlando. He goes out and gets Shaq the following offseason, then goes out and gets Jamison, who was considered to be a very good pick-up, especially considering they didn’t have to give up Hickson.
The truth is that we don’t know how good Hickson can become – perhaps his potential is as good as Stoudemire’s, provided he continues to develop (he’s certainly young enough to approach that level with continued progression), but that won’t happen if Brown won’t utilize him and won’t trust him during the postseason.
Hickson and other young players, such as Gibson and Green, need to be integrated into the Cavaliers because they are potentially the future of this franchise. Brown, instead, doesn’t involve Hickson, who was showing great promise during this season, nor Gibson, who was a key reason why the Cavs made the 2007 NBA Finals, during these playoffs.
But, in reality, Brown relies on LeBron mostly and very little else – therefore, even if it had been Stoudemire and not Jamison, I really don’t think it would have changed the outcome. Shaq didn’t make much difference in the long-run, and Orlando’s frontline is more imposing, especially with Dwight Howard, Vince Carter, and Marcin Gortat, who Shaq was expected to match up well against. Yet, Shaq was a non-factor against the older and less imposing Celtics’ frontline.
I think Brown’s coaching style and lack of offensive ingenuity would have negated the benefits of a Stoudemire trade, would have led to the same result we have now (Cavs out of the playoffs – still to Boston, probably, and likely wouldn’t have gotten past Orlando and LA/PHX even with Stoudemire), AND they would have one less young, promising player to build around in the coming seasons. And, I’m not convinced Stoudemire would have resigned here, even if LeBron stays, so in essence, that trade might have been more damaging than the Jamison trade.
It all comes down to Brown’s coaching style, player management, and lack of in-game adjustments that doomed the Cavaliers, and likely would have been the case even with Stoudemire – that’s why Brown must go, even if LeBron decides to leave too because of it.
by cavaliersfan on May 14, 2010 1:50 AM EDT reply actions
You're forgetting what Amare's game is
Amare doesn’t need a lot of ISOs to get his game going. He gets 2/3 of his points on pick and rolls, especially high pick and rolls that he runs as the roll man. It really wouldn’t require much of a change in Brown’s “offense.”
Just think of how many times Cleveland runs high p&rs. Imagine if that’s Amare diving down the lane instead of Varejao or Jamison. That makes a huge, huge difference.
And as far as the summer – if Amare doesn’t resign, then the Cavs have a ton of cap room to rebuild. Now, they have no cap room because they have Jamison’s massive contract on the books. So I don’t buy that either.
BF on Twitter I BF on Facebook.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 14, 2010 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
As clueless about Jamison as the Cleveland coaches
Mike, read this article and see if you still have the same clueless thoughts about Jamison’s failings: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AjsNm130m6OYLRbVzGaEkpTePaB4?slug=tsn-gameblowoutexposesca
To note:
[quote]To put it another way, Jamison’s strengths simply were not integrated into the Cleveland offense in any meaningful way; they just plopped him into a predetermined “stretch four” role and hoped it would work. Jamison can still be effective—he’s too talented not to be—but he’s not being used to his full abilities. Mike Brown and his staff haven’t attempted a creative solution to the issue or worked to get Jamison more opportunities. Yes, he’s the kind of player who doesn’t necessarily need to have plays run for him, but Antawn still likes the ball in certain places. Yet the Cavs have not done everything in their power to make it work.
It’s not entirely surprising that the Cavs view everyone else on the roster as a role player to be filled in around LeBron.[/quote]
The most bogus coach-of-the-year award in history and LeBron’s statistical greatness continue to blind an entire state as to the ineptitude of Mike Brown’s coaching staff and the Cavs organization as a whole. To blame Jamison for his flameout is foolish. How can a guy get into any rhythm when he never gets a single meaningful touch, goes entire quarters with no plays called for him?
All you people see are FG% in box scores. The possibility of actually DOING SOMETHING to help a guy like Jamison increase his effectiveness doesn’t even occur to you. A guy who once scored 50 points in back-to-back games is what we call an average scorer now? Wow.
The bulk of Jamison’s shots last night were on putbacks, dish-offs, and broken plays. Where were the postups, the most essential part of his game?
by MysticX on May 14, 2010 12:53 PM EDT reply actions
You do realize I'm quoted in that article, right?
BF on Twitter I BF on Facebook.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 14, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
And that I'm a Wizards fan, so I've seen every one of Jamison's games since 2005
BF on Twitter I BF on Facebook.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 14, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
John Kuester is the real guy to blame for Cleveland's failure this season
or perhaps it’s the fact that the Cavs’ front office though Mike Brown could brain fart up enough offense without his offensive coordinator to at least get Cleveland back to the Finals. To the guy above me, Jamison was pigeon-holed in Cleveland. They acted like he had no other talents. Anthony Parker is another guy who got lost in the shuffle. He definitely should’ve been on the floor more and encouraged to shoot any time he could get a good look at the rim.
As for Amare changing things, Mike Brown probably wouldn’t have known what to do with him either. Plus, unless they were going to get Steve Nash in the deal, Stoudemire wasn’t going to be as productive in Cleveland as he is in Phoenix, but if J.J. Hickson stopped the deal from happening, you kind of want to examine Danny Ferry’s brain—especially when Queen James somewhat campaigned for STAT.
Playing, coaching, and watching basketball.
by sherman r on May 14, 2010 1:58 PM EDT reply actions
Had he hung around
he could have been the guy to pick up the pieces and keep Her Highness happy OR maybe Cleveland wins it and he never gets to show his true worth or get serious consideration for a head coaching job. Either way, his value just went up regardless of how the Pistons fared this season.
Playing, coaching, and watching basketball.
by sherman r on May 14, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
@ sherman r – Did you actually watch the Pistons play this season? I think Ettore Messina would have been a better choice as lead assistant and offensive coordinator than Kuester.
by diehardNFFLbarnone on May 15, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
What he did with a band of aging, injured, and otherwise ragamuffin Pistons is one thing
but what he was to the Cavs can’t be denied. It took Mike Brown far too many games to figure out how to implement Shaq, and it never looked like the midseason gelling they did was Brown’s doing. It looked more like Shaq, LeBron, and Mo Williams just figured it out at some point.
Playing, coaching, and watching basketball.
by sherman r on May 15, 2010 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Good read
but I gotta nitpick at the “self proclaimed King” line. I believe that was the media sir.
by allovertheplace on May 24, 2010 9:05 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed