Swapping Darius Garland and a second-round pick for James Harden became a season-defining trade for the Cleveland Cavaliers. The early results were not perfect. However, it is hard to think the Cavaliers did not get what they wanted out of the deal.
They broke up a backcourt that was constantly questioned due to the limitations of having two small guards on the defensive end. They also secured a player in Harden who has mostly been an iron man, in terms of his availability. That is something Garland would never be confused for.
The Cavaliers even managed to have the best playoff run of the Donovan Mitchell era in Cleveland. Sure, it ended on a sour note when they got swept in the Eastern Conference Finals by the New York Knicks. That was still the deepest they had ever made it with this core.
None of that screams losers of that trade. Despite that, Sam Quinn confidently proclaimed the Los Angeles Clippers as the early winners of the trade. He even called it 'kind of nuts' that Cleveland was the side giving up the draft capital. What a confusing analysis of the Garland-Harden swap.
Darius Garland and the Clippers have done nothing to deserve being labeled as winners
Quinn referenced the fact that young guys can tend to be more valuable. He still found it shocking it was not the Clippers who paired Harden with draft capital for the younger player in the deal. Apparently, that was enough for them to be winners here, to this point.
Talk about ignoring context. For one, Garland was once again battling injuries last season. When he did play for the Cavaliers, the results were a mixed bag, but did look particularly painful for him on the defensive end where he was getting regularly lit up.
Garland's contract figure being hefty would also qualify as a negative. At a time, criticizing small guards was hitting one of its peaks and the leaguewide value was dipping. That made the max deal for Darius an ugly one.
Injury troubles and a poor contract: oh yeah, that sure sounds like a highly-valued young player.
The uncomfortable truth is there was just no way Garland was going to work out long-term for the Cavaliers either. The expectations in Cleveland were too much to navigate amid trying to get healthy.
Cleveland needed a deep playoff run. The less competitively focused Clippers were always going to be afforded more leeway to allow Garland to mend. There was immediate urgency in Cleveland to deliver results by contrast.
Now, let us skip ahead to the post-trade results. What exactly happened to make the Clippers early winners?
Garland looked good in 19 regular season games as a member of the Clippers. Cool, so did Harden in his 26 regular season contests with the Cavaliers.
Did the Cavs' new point guard deliver a round of his well-documented playoff struggles? That can be said, yes. Has Garland ever proven himself to be a potent playoff performer that would have been significantly better? You would be kidding yourself if you tried to make that argument.
What have the Clippers really won by adding Garland? Someone to steer the ship of the mediocrity that is going to follow their franchise post-Kawhi Leonard scandal?
The Cavaliers got off Garland's big money and managed to at least give themselves a fighting chance for the best years remaining of the Mitchell era. That is what they needed. At worst, you can call this deal a win-win. There is no justification to label the Clippers as having gotten the better of the Cavs.
Add us as a preferred source on Google