The Cleveland Cavaliers failed miserably with the De'Andre Hunter trade.
The reality that those reading this piece might not know which Hunter trade is being referred to only underscores the point. The Cavaliers made a bad trade bringing in Hunter, and they made a bad trade sending him out again.
For the purposes of this article, however, it's the second trade that is under scrutiny.
The De'Andre Hunter trade didn't work out
Last February, the Cavaliers appeared to have pulled it off. The De'Andre Hunter trade had not worked, as Hunter reverted into a pumpkin with Cleveland. He couldn't seem to get the offensive scheme, his shot was not falling like it had when he first arrived, and defensively he was a disaster.
Cleveland needed to pivot, and they found a willing partner in the Sacramento Kings. They sent Hunter and a second-round pick to the Kings and got back two guards: veteran point guard Dennis Schroder and young, "underrated" 3-and-D wing Keon Ellis.
Did the Cavaliers pull off a coup? Was Ellis a diamond in the rough who was going to solve the Cavaliers' defensive backcourt issues? Was Schroder the consummate backup point guard to replace what they lost when Ty Jerome walked in free agency?
The answer was answered quickly and consistently: NO. Ellis was too slight to survive in the playoffs, Schroder was fine but demanded the ball when he was on the court, and the Cavaliers fought their way to the Eastern Conference Finals almost entirely despite their two new guards than because of them.
Any upside for the future with those players also vanished into thin air. Ellis left in free agency to sign with the Brooklyn Nets. Schroder was dumped on the Charlotte Hornets at the cost of a $4 million in cash to free up space to re-sign James Harden.
Cleveland got nothing back from the Hunter trade
Just like that, everything that they got back from the Hunter trade was gone. After giving up multiple draft assets and two rotation players to bring him in, they ultimately traded him away and got only one thing in return: financial flexibility.
Sure, that flexibility was useful in the moment, with Cleveland finding a way to execute a sign-and-trade for young wing Peyton Watson and still bring back Harden on the contract he desired. But it's a paltry return for a player who should have been so helpful to the Cavaliers.
They don't need to pay to add Watson if Hunter is the player they thought he was. Or the Cavaleirs could have moved Jarrett Allen for real value if Hunter was up to the challenge of being a full-time stretch-4.
Not only was Hunter not able to be that level of palyer, he wasn't able to bring back much of anything in return. In the span of 18 months, the Cavaliers jettisoned picks and players for Hunter, tanked his value, and then got literally nothing back by trading him away. Nothing but a lack of money on their books.
Building a winning team is hard. Sustaining a winning team is even harder. Losing value on a player both coming and going makes that task all the more difficult.
Credit the Cavaliers a little for taking the bad lemons of the Hunter trade and making something akin to lemonade by finding their way to the Peyton Watson deal. It still doesn't change the fact that Cleveland failed both sides of the De'Andre Hunter trades miserably.
Add us as a preferred source on Google