Larry Hughes to Cavs?

Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
463
Reaction score
0
Sources tell NBADraft.net that the Cleveland Cavaliers will sign Washington Wizards' free agent guard Larry Hughes. The deal is reportedly worth an estimated $12 million a year and will run through the 2010 season.

After losing out on Michael Redd and Ray Allen (both of whom resigned with their original teams), the Cavs have landed their shooting guard and LeBron James' running mate. Hughes fills a massive hole for a team in need of perimeter scoring and defense.

Hughes averaged 22 points, 6.3 rebounds, 4.7 assists, and 2.9 steals a game in his breakout season for the Wizards. He was also named to his first All-NBA Defensive First Team. His stellar play was one of the main reasons the Wizards were able to surprise nearly everyone and snag a 5-seed in the 2005 playoffs. Their first-round defeat of the Chicago Bulls was the first Washington playoff series victory since 1982.

While Hughes was one of the league's most sought-after free agent 2-guards, there are concerns surrounding him. First, durability is a issue. He missed 21 games last season due to a broken thumb. He's missed large chunks of time during his seven-year career due to other various injuries. He's only played more than 70 games in a season twice, in 1999-2000 and again in 2001-2002.

Second, for everything he does well, he does not shoot a high percentage from 3-point range. Last season, he shot 28%, which is a slight improvement over his 27% career average. This weakness was especially evident during the Wizards' playoff defeat to the Miami Heat, where he shot 33% from the floor and 25% from three. One of Cleveland's big weaknesses last season was their inability to knock down open threes, and at this point, it's hard to say whether Hughes will help fill that void.

Third, the 2004-2005 season was clearly Hughes' best season as a pro. Some feel that he might've kicked it up a notch in a contract year. He's bounced around a little, playing for three teams (the 76ers, Warriors, and Wizards) during his seven-year tenure. Some even considered him a mild disappointment until the past two seasons. Personally, I think Hughes has always had the ability to put up numbers like he did last season, but he just needed the right situation to prosper. Now we'll be able to see whether he can continue his fantastic play teaming up with King James.

These possible concerns are far outweighed by the positives he brings to this Cavalier ballclub. He is tremendously gifted athlete and can effectively defend three positions. His ability to force steals creates many easy baskets for his teammates. He's also a terrific penetrator who can create open looks for his squad. He's a versatile player who brings a lot of good things to the floor and will allow LeBron James to run wild at the small forward spot.

This is a big move for the Cavs, but they're far from finished. They still need to sign a quality point guard (both Antonio Daniels and Earl Watson's names have been mentioned). In a pinch, Hughes can fill in at the point, but he's built to play the off-guard. They also need to decide what to do with Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Depending on what happens with Big Z, they've expressed interest in signing another athletic bigman to go alongside Drew Gooden (Dalembert, Swift, Brown, etc.). Let's not forget, the Cavs are still in need of a permanent head coach. Signing Hughes is a big first step, but new General Manager Danny Ferry still has a lot of work ahead of him.

Where does this leave the Wizards? Their promising young nucleus has lost a big talent in Hughes. Jarvis Hayes will be expected to shoulder a much bigger scoring load and take over Hughes' role alongside Gilbert Arenas and Antawn Jamison. They'll still be an exciting team to watch, but they'll be hard-pressed to replicate their 45-win output of 2004-2005 without Hughes' contributions.

The Clippers and Nuggets had also expressed interest in Hughes.

Source -- NBADraft.net

Questionable source, but I hope it is true. That would leave Atlanta as the only real threat to offer JJ the max, and they can't seem to sign any big name FA because they are, well, Atlanta.
 

goldseraph

Irrelevance Sucks :(
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Posts
521
Reaction score
0
Location
Orlando, FL
Hughes was a stud last year, and has all the tools to be a top 15 SG in the league. The question is - was last so excellent because it was a contract year? Or was it just because he finally had a running team with Arenas and Jamison, and a coach who fit his style (Eddie Jordan)? 12mm is more than I'd want to pay , but the Wizards backcourt is going to be phenomenal if Hughes stays in form. Both he and Lebron were top 5 in steals, and they are both very long and tall for guards. They each are also capable of 30 pt nights at any given time.

Now the Cavs just need to piece together some kind of front court (and I think they would be foolish to resign Z for 5 years), and they will have a
playoff team.
 

playstation

Selfless Service
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
1,685
Reaction score
2
Location
Bay Area
goldseraph said:
Hughes was a stud last year, and has all the tools to be a top 15 SG in the league.

lol
you do know that would basically just make him starter material, right? hell, he's already top 15 sg.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,158
Reaction score
70,333
That's a nice pickup by the Cavs - a little too much, but they couldn't afford to completely strikeout during FA this year - not with so much cap room and not after the Boozer debacle of last year. I wonder if they will try to knock the socks off of Chandler/Dalembert/Curry - maybe making an offer the Bulls/Sixers won't match - they had 28 mill going inot FA, I don't know if this signing will preclude them from doing much else besides resigning Z - although, at this point, maybe they should use that money earmarked for him for one of those guy listed above. Z ain't getting any younger and those guys are all waiting to break out. I bet Bron could make any one of them look a hell of a lot better than they already are.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,158
Reaction score
70,333
at 12 million - I am starting to fear that if the Suns try and low-ball JJ - he might just sign the tender and go unrestricted next year - in that case, I could see bad things down the road.

Also - how come there's been no mention of Amare's extension? Why isn't that a done deal yet?
 

arthurracoon

The Cardinal Smiles
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Posts
16,534
Reaction score
0
Location
Nashville
cheesebeef said:
Also - how come there's been no mention of Amare's extension? Why isn't that a done deal yet?

There was an article a couple days ago stating that the deal is basicly done except the details which can only be settled once the new CBA is settled. The new CBA is still having its details settled.
 

Joe Mama

Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
9,501
Reaction score
964
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Larry Hughes is the Jason Kidd of the shooting guard position. He's a good defender (I wouldn't put him on the all defensive team though), he can get to the basket, he'll grab rebounds, he can create for the offense. He just can't really shoot well just like Jason Kidd.

He's also been averaging about 20 games injured each season.

$12 million is far too much for him. I don't think JJ is worth $12 million, and I would much, much rather have him than Hughes.

JJ is going to cost a fortune.

Joe
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
Hughes is a terrible three-point shooter, but overall he's not that bad. He shot .430 last season, which is about what he's averaged during his three years with Washington. Subtract out the three-pointers, and I would guess that he is above average among shooting guards from inside the arc. He also gets more than six rebounds per game, which is pretty amazing considering that he's generously listed at 6' 5".

I'm not sure whether I'd rather have Hughes or Johnson. I think it depends on the specific team.
 

Joe Mama

Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
9,501
Reaction score
964
Location
Gilbert, AZ
elindholm said:
Hughes is a terrible three-point shooter, but overall he's not that bad. He shot .430 last season, which is about what he's averaged during his three years with Washington. Subtract out the three-pointers, and I would guess that he is above average among shooting guards from inside the arc. He also gets more than six rebounds per game, which is pretty amazing considering that he's generously listed at 6' 5".

I'm not sure whether I'd rather have Hughes or Johnson. I think it depends on the specific team.

Larry Hughes last year:

37% jump shooting within 17 feet of the basket.

40% jump shooting from 17 feet to the three-point line.

28% from beyond the arc


Jason Kidd last year:

26% jump shooting within 17 feet of the basket.

39% jump shooting from 17 feet to the three-point line.

36% from beyond the arc.

I almost forgot. Larry Hughes is in the 49th percentile on his short jump shots and 58th on the medium ones.

Joe Mama
 
Last edited:

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
16,664
Reaction score
14,994
Joe Mama said:
JJ is going to cost a fortune.

Joe


I am wondering whether or not it may be a better idea to add a guy like Simmons at around 6 mil a year, or finley for cheaper, and add another big man for what JJ will cost us.
 

SweetD

Next Up
Supporting Member
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Posts
9,865
Reaction score
173
Location
Gilbert, AZ
ASUCHRIS said:
I am wondering whether or not it may be a better idea to add a guy like Simmons at around 6 mil a year, or finley for cheaper, and add another big man for what JJ will cost us.

As of right now I would say this team needs to stay together and keeping JJ is a major part of it.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
16,664
Reaction score
14,994
SweetD said:
As of right now I would say this team needs to stay together and keeping JJ is a major part of it.


Don't get me wrong, I love JJ, and think that he has the potential to be a top player, but we have an awful lot of money committed already in contracts, and I am very worried about the depth. If JJ is going to cost us 13 million, I could see that amount paying Finley, and two decent bigs. That may be a better package for our team than JJ at 13 million...
 

SweetD

Next Up
Supporting Member
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Posts
9,865
Reaction score
173
Location
Gilbert, AZ
ASUCHRIS said:
Don't get me wrong, I love JJ, and think that he has the potential to be a top player, but we have an awful lot of money committed already in contracts, and I am very worried about the depth. If JJ is going to cost us 13 million, I could see that amount paying Finley, and two decent bigs. That may be a better package for our team than JJ at 13 million...

JJ will not cost us 13million until his 3rd or 4th year into his new contract.
 

Joe Mama

Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
9,501
Reaction score
964
Location
Gilbert, AZ
ASUCHRIS said:
Don't get me wrong, I love JJ, and think that he has the potential to be a top player, but we have an awful lot of money committed already in contracts, and I am very worried about the depth. If JJ is going to cost us 13 million, I could see that amount paying Finley, and two decent bigs. That may be a better package for our team than JJ at 13 million...

Unfortunately that's not how it works. I agree that $13 million per season is an awful lot to pay JJ, but if the Phoenix Suns refused to match that doesn't mean they have $13 million to spend on free agents. If they don't keep JJ dell have to hope for a sign and trade, or that one of their summer league swingmen looks great, or that they can get a good free-agent cheaply (Michael Finley).

They won't have anything more than the minimum and the $1.7 million exception to spend on those big men.

Joe Mama
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
They won't have anything more than the minimum and the $1.7 million exception to spend on those big men.

It's possible that they could have slightly more than that. I have them at around $42 million if Johnson simply walks away, before signing Bell. I could be wrong, but I think if they renounce their exceptions at that point, they'd have space up the new cap number, which (by some reports) could be as high as $50 or even $51 million. In that case, they might still have $3 million, perhaps even a bit more, after keeping their promise to Bell.

Even so, I completely agree that the Suns' best plan, if they decide to give up on Johnson, is to hope for an appealing sign-and-trade. In fact, I could easily see that being the deciding factor: If they can get a good sign-and-trade, they do it, otherwise they take their medicine and match Johnson's offer from Atlanta.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
16,664
Reaction score
14,994
elindholm said:
They won't have anything more than the minimum and the $1.7 million exception to spend on those big men.

It's possible that they could have slightly more than that. I have them at around $42 million if Johnson simply walks away, before signing Bell. I could be wrong, but I think if they renounce their exceptions at that point, they'd have space up the new cap number, which (by some reports) could be as high as $50 or even $51 million. In that case, they might still have $3 million, perhaps even a bit more, after keeping their promise to Bell.

Even so, I completely agree that the Suns' best plan, if they decide to give up on Johnson, is to hope for an appealing sign-and-trade. In fact, I could easily see that being the deciding factor: If they can get a good sign-and-trade, they do it, otherwise they take their medicine and match Johnson's offer from Atlanta.


Well, so much for that idea. I agree, the sign and trade vs. 13 mil will probably be the question. It'll be interesting to see how people feel after Johnson signs his deal about a Marion/Johnson for TMac trade. I was for it at the time, and in the end, it may turn out to have been better long term for the team. (i.e. build around two superstars, surrounded by role players).
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
It'll be interesting to see how people feel after Johnson signs his deal about a Marion/Johnson for TMac trade. I was for it at the time, and in the end, it may turn out to have been better long term for the team.

It's not completely out of the question that something like that could still happen. Depending on how desperate Minnesota is with the Garnett situation, they might be talked into paying Johnson max or near-max dollars, then trading Garnett and Hudson for Marion and Johnson (and probably Barbosa). Very, very unlikely, but not entirely impossible, in my opinion. Of course it would require that Johnson would be just as happy to play in Minnesota as in Atlanta, but ... well, I'm not too concerned about that particular point.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
16,664
Reaction score
14,994
I think the trend of paying non superstars max money is a questionable investment, especially for a mid market team. We've learned this with Marion the hard way. There is no question that Amare is worth a max contract, and should be compensated as such. It would be interesting to gauge the interest in a move for Garnett or someone of that stature.
 

SweetD

Next Up
Supporting Member
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Posts
9,865
Reaction score
173
Location
Gilbert, AZ
ASUCHRIS said:
I think the trend of paying non superstars max money is a questionable investment, especially for a mid market team. We've learned this with Marion the hard way. There is no question that Amare is worth a max contract, and should be compensated as such. It would be interesting to gauge the interest in a move for Garnett or someone of that stature.

Every team over pays. The proble is that not every team has good players and needs to spend extra to get a player to even consider playing for that team. IMO you have to pay what the market is. But if you have a top talent you have to pay the average for that player.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
16,664
Reaction score
14,994
SweetD said:
Every team over pays.


Let's not overgeneralize. Look at the Spurs. They may have overpaid for Rasho, but Duncan, Ginobli and Parker are relative bargains at their positions. Overpaying is not always necessary, and max contracts should be reserved for superstars. Unfortunately, overzealous (or stupid) teams overpay for mediocre talent, artifically changing the market. The formula of two stars, and a few very effective role players has been the dominant theme in the NBA in the last 20 years, and I anticipate that to stay the norm. Investing all of our money in 5 starters makes me nervous because of this fact.
 

George O'Brien

ASFN Icon
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Posts
10,297
Reaction score
0
Location
Sun City
How much is too much? At what point does Sarver say, "screw the championship, I'm not going to spend the money"? $50 million, $60 million, $79 million, $80 million. I'm sure there is some point that is beyond the pale, but I'm not sure where that is. What I am sure of is that some fans think the limit is fairly low and others think it is a lot higher. I'm part of the second group.

Maybe I'm wrong. If the absolute limit is in the mid $50's, then we can simply write off any chance of the Suns winning the championship. Amare is going to be extremely expensive, Nash is fairly pricy, JJ is going to be very expensive, and Marion is already very expensive. The only way the Suns can substantially reduce their payroll is a salary dump and that is not going to make them a better team. Nothing short of giving their players away would ever get the Suns into major free agency and you have only to look at Cleveland to see just how limited that can be.

Curiously enough, a year and a half ago the Suns had a much worse salary situatatin than they are projected to have for next three years. But their problem was that they had a $65 million payroll and were not going to even be in the playofffs. They needed to get better and couldn't with the players they had.

The situation is different now. The Suns do not need to make massive changes to get better. They've put together a contender. How good is this team? Consider that most of the debate on this board is over who to get to be the 8th and 9th guys in the rotation and that outstanding veterans might not want to come here because there isn't enough playing time.

The Colangelos have spent a lifetime trying to put together a team like this. On paper at least, the 2005-06 Suns are better than best of Sun's teams of the early 90's: bigger, better balanced, equal if not better shooting, and this team should be vastly better defensively than those teams.

And so they are going to throw it all away because someday down the road this team will have a really high payroll?
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
If the difference between a maximum contract for Johnson and one starting at $9 million was only $15-$20 million over the life of the contract, it wouldn't be a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The bigger danger is that the team will be unable to make any roster moves later because all of their contracts are unmoveable. Already, many people on this board think that Marion wouldn't fetch much in a trade, even though he is "worth his contract" as far as his role on the Suns are concerned. A few years from now, as Nash's skills decline, his contract will be unmoveable as well. Do the Suns really want a third? Paying for it all is one problem, but the danger of paralyzing the team for several seasons shouldn't be overlooked.
 

George O'Brien

ASFN Icon
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Posts
10,297
Reaction score
0
Location
Sun City
elindholm said:
If the difference between a maximum contract for Johnson and one starting at $9 million was only $15-$20 million over the life of the contract, it wouldn't be a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The bigger danger is that the team will be unable to make any roster moves later because all of their contracts are unmoveable. Already, many people on this board think that Marion wouldn't fetch much in a trade, even though he is "worth his contract" as far as his role on the Suns are concerned. A few years from now, as Nash's skills decline, his contract will be unmoveable as well. Do the Suns really want a third? Paying for it all is one problem, but the danger of paralyzing the team for several seasons shouldn't be overlooked.

The solution is to sign everyone for less than they are worth. Unfortunately, when they tried to do that last summer with JJ, it backfired and is going to cost the Suns an extra $20 million.

Let's face it, being an NBA GM is closer to being a poker player than a chess master. No one can win every hand and every move involves an awful lot of risk. Also, nothing is gained by worrying about past bets that didn't work out since typically it won't tell a thing about future decisions.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
Let's face it, being an NBA GM is closer to being a poker player than a chess master. No one can win every hand and every move involves an awful lot of risk. Also, nothing is gained by worrying about past bets that didn't work out since typically it won't tell a thing about future decisions.

True, but the question is still how best to cut one's losses. At the time, I thought it was correct to wait on Johnson. Now it does like that decision may backfire, but I still think it was the best decision at the time, based on the available information. So now which loss would be greater -- to bid Johnson farewell and to find other ways to spend "his" money, or to keep him in the fold and get stuck behind yet another untradeable contract? I definitely agree that it's guesswork rather than science, but that doesn't make the answer any clearer.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
556,134
Posts
5,433,763
Members
6,329
Latest member
cardinals2025
Top