Cleveland Cavaliers Interest in Forward Carlos Delfino Makes No Sense
On the outside, the interest makes sense.
The Cavaliers have a glaring hole at small forward, with only Omri Casspi under contract since Alonzo Gee hasn't signed his qualifying offer of $2.7 million.
Delfino fills their position of need and is a very good three-point shooter, an area where the Cavs struggled mightily last season.
Looking deeper, however, and bringing in Delfino just wouldn't fit what the Cavs are doing.
Under Chris Grant, Cleveland has spent its time stockpiling draft picks and young talent while building for the future.
Delfino is neither young nor particularly talented.
By the start of the NBA season, the Argentinian will be 30-years-old. In seven years with the Detroit Pistons, Toronto Raptors and Bucks, Delfino has averaged a mere 7.7 points and 3.6 rebounds per game. His player efficiency rating last season was 11.72, more than three points below the league average.
His three-point shooting would be nice, but ultimately what would it do? Add an extra win or two to a Cavs team that will likely still be picking in the lottery?
At 30, Delfino wouldn't fit into the Cavs rebuilding plans and would only take minutes away from the younger Casspi and Gee.
Should the Cavs sign Delfino?
If the Cavs want a small forward, they should look at Donte Greene or Terrence Williams. Both are younger, more athletic and would have a chance to grow and develop with the team.
They could also spring for an older, mentor player in the last few years of their career much like they had in Anthony Parker and Antawn Jamison the past few seasons. Although they wouldn't be a part of the rebuilding plan, classy veterans should be a welcome addition to any team. A player like Ohio native Michael Redd would make sense in this role for the Cavs.
Either option would be better than a journeyman forward best suited to join a contender in a small role.
Signing Delfino doesn't fit into the Cavs plans now or their plans for the future. They would be wise to turn their free agent attention elsewhere.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?