Cavs' GM Danny Ferry resigns

[Andrew]

It's been brought up in the Bulls thread but probably worth discussing on its own.

Danny Ferry resigns as GM of Cleveland Cavaliers

Danny Ferry didn’t agree with the decision to fire Cleveland’s coach. He knew re-signing superstar free agent LeBron James would be difficult. He felt his authority as general manager was being reduced by an owner with a different vision.

The Cavaliers are changing.

Ferry decided to let them—without him.

He resigned as Cleveland’s general manager after five seasons on Friday, a stunning development for a team seemingly in turmoil during the most important offseason in team history, the Summer of LeBron.

I'm not sure that it really changes anything as far as LeBron is concerned. Ferry might not be a fan of letting Brown go, but it doesn't appear as though LeBron shares that sentiment.

[NovU]

Is thie only the beggining of another losing era in CLE? Hoping to see this guy(Lebron) remain in CLE as I tend to root for teams with smaller markets.

[Lamrock]

They are locked into their big 3 of Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison and Anderson Varejao. Good times ahead.

[shadowgrin]

Finally, Mo Williams won't be held back anymore by LeBron.

[Andrew]

Is thie only the beggining of another losing era in CLE? Hoping to see this guy(Lebron) remain in CLE as I tend to root for teams with smaller markets.

If LeBron bolts, I'd give them a decent chance of being a mediocre team at best. They've probably got enough talent to compete for a low seed in the East without him, but that's still a pretty dismal outlook.

[benji]

I think it's worth noting that the entire East will be shaken up this offseason. Orlando is the only contender that has any chance at automatically being one next year.

Return or not, Cleveland will be changing next year. Joe Johnson is all but gone from Atlanta. Miami will field a completely different team. Boston's core will be a year older. So on and so forth. I'm not sure the modern NBA has seen something like this before. 1997 was somewhat close but not really. The West is going to be yet another year of shifting places among the same teams. (Outside of Dallas' potential game changer.) The East will most likely look nothing like it did this year by this time next year.

We do also look at the successes too much. The 1998, 2000 and 2003 free agency failures were probably more important than the successes ever were.

If there's one thing the Lakers-Celtics Finals allows, is a time to realize that the East is not going to look anything like it has over the last three years.

[Rip32]

time to realize that the East is not going to look anything like it has over the last three years.

Does that mean you think it can overcome the stigma of being inferior to the West?

If LeBron bolts, I'd give them a decent chance of being a mediocre team at best. They've probably got enough talent to compete for a low seed in the East without him, but that's still a pretty dismal outlook.

Yeah, without LeBron they're probably this year's Bulls, maybe a little better. My thing is if they're clearing house for LeBron to come and pick and choose who he wants there, that's a gamble. LeBron is obviously the top talent around, but that talent is on the court, not off the court. If LeBron comes in and picks a GM he likes personally and that GM turns out to be Kevin McHale, that blame is going to be directed at LeBron. Not that LeBron is doing the hiring, but everyone knows he's picking these guys. If he gets stuck with a bad GM (McHale/Baylor-like) and a bad NBA coach (Calipari) his reputation is going to take a hit.

[shadowgrin]

Does that mean you think it can overcome the stigma of being inferior to the West?

Me thinks not.
Most of the sought after free agents are from the East. Assuming they go to different teams in the East, the talent level in the East somewhat stays the same. If they sign with teams in the West...

[Sauru]

i dont see the west being all that much better. i mean overall they may end with a better record but i think 3 of the top 4 championship contending teams came from the east with the lakers being the only west team top 4. after that 3 in the east though its pretty damn slim. i guess if you go by regular season only then the west is far better but imo if you consider the ultimate goal its not that far off

[benji]

I don't know about that. Consider that two Western contenders were demolished with injuries (Utah and Portland) and that two other quality Western teams spent the season either without their best player (Houston) or most of it without their best player who played in a funk when he did manage to play. (New Orleans) And before the playoffs (or at least before the second round) I think most people would have considered the Spurs and Mavericks more of contenders than Boston who were considered washed up.

But an old point still stands, let's say Boston hadn't rejuvenated. Orlando stomped their first and second round opponents and played a total of eight games, Cleveland likely would have only taken ten games to get there. Every single Western Conference First Round went six games, and it could be argued all of them could have easily gone seven. The second round was a sweep as Utah didn't have enough left standing, but what if Denver had come out, they may have taken the Lakers to six games again. If the healthy Blazers beat the Suns that'd be a different series with the Spurs, same if the Mavericks had beat the Spurs.

The way it's been many years, and the reason for the "Leastern Conference" meme is that an Eastern team can often make the Finals through one competitive series, usually the Conference Finals. While a Western team has to take on two or three series against much tougher opponents. Similar things used to be said about the West.

[Sauru]

good points as in the west the 8th seed can scare a top seed usually where in the east you are sitting with 3 real teams. i am just saying if you look at the top teams that have a chance to win the east is not that bad its going past the real contenders that the west really pulls away. for instance some of the top west teams have no real shot imo to win a ring (talking about you dallas and phoenix). i think the top eastern teams and build more for playoff basketball and less for the regular season. this years celtics are a great example of that.


however like you said the playoffs can be harder out west. i did not think anyone had a real shot to beat the lakers out west but each team could have brought them 6 or 7 games where in the east the top 4 should have just swept the first round

[Jackal]

Oh shh old man. This years Celtics arent "built for the playoffs" and "less for the regular season", their old asses just couldnt keep up during the season so like any good caretaker of old people Doc (see what I did there?) just rested his patients till they got a bit healthy to be able to knock off younger teams who actually made an effort during the season.

Silly Sauru, making up fantasy things to ease his mind about how the Celtics will lose to LA.

On another note, I whole heartedly agree about the Phoenix/Dallas thing. Especially Dallas. They just crumble come playoff time even if they are amazing during the season.

[air gordon]

Yeah, without LeBron they're probably this year's Bulls, maybe a little better.

lol are you kidding? the Cavs don't even make the playoffs. Shaq wouldn't even make it through halfway through the season as the #1 option. Jamison/Mo Williams would be enough just to keep them out of last place in the Central Division lol

[Rip32]

Yeah, without LeBron they're probably this year's Bulls, maybe a little better.

lol are you kidding? the Cavs don't even make the playoffs. Shaq wouldn't even make it through halfway through the season as the #1 option. Jamison/Mo Williams would be enough just to keep them out of last place in the Central Division lol

lol, for some reason I thought they had a winning record without LBJ this season. Turns out they were 1-5... whoops. I mean, they have talent on the team (improved vastly by LBJ's presence of course) and they would probably acquire one more guy this off-season to replace LeBron if he leaves-- but I do rescind that comment, they might be as good, but probably not.

[Andrew]

If LeBron leaves, I don't think they'll have Shaq next season. He's a free agent too and I doubt he re-signs if LeBron isn't around.

[Sauru]

if i was the cavs i would not resign him either way

[Andrew]

Certainly not for anything like he's currently being paid. Perhaps he'll call it quits, though I could see him trying to sign on with another contender, perhaps even try for a return to the Lakers (though I don't see the Lakers getting on board with it).

[benji]

The rumor was that he might up for the veterans minimum or something with Miami or Orlando since that's where he lives during the off-season.

Something similar for a team like Dallas might not be out of the picture either.

[Andrew]

That'd be an interesting situation if he went to Orlando, given all the shots he's taken at Stan Van Gundy and Dwight Howard. If he went there I reckon he'd make an immediate about face on those opinions at the press conference.

[benji]

I'm sure he could say something like how he was needed to come in and teach Dwight post moves and passing out of double teams. Letting his criticisms stand while setting up potential to be a "hero."

[Sauru]

maybe he can be howards free throw coach