Byron Scott: Cavs’ Next Move to Sign Alonzo Gee

In what will largely be considered a quiet free agency period for the Cleveland Cavaliers, team head coach Byron Scott says that their next move will be to re-sign small forward Alonzo Gee.

“I’m happy where we are,” Scott said on Thursday afternoon. “Our next move is to get (restricted free agent) Alonzo Gee done.”

Gee, dubbed a priority by Chris Grant following the end of the 2011-12 season, remains unsigned by the Cavaliers who have since made several moves since offering the 25-year-old a $2.7 million qualifying offer. Gee, who has stated that he wants to stay in Cleveland, continues to look for a longer-term deal but has not garnered much interest from other teams with a new Collective Bargaining Agreement that has since tightened budgets with regard to role players.

In his first season as a primary rotation player with the Cavaliers, Gee averaged 10.6 points and 5.1 rebounds per game, starting in 31 of the team’s 66 contests.

The Cavs have since signed CJ Miles, formerly of the Utah Jazz, who is expected to compete for a starting position with the 2012-13 team.

[Related: Random Cavaliers Off-Season Thoughts]

  • Steve

    Does everyone remember when the lockout was supposed to end players forcing teams to move them to desireable markets, and we were tripping over ourselves to congratulate Gilbert?

  • bridgecrosser

    Pretty sure the lockout was to drive more revenue back to the owners and away from the players. Not sure that was ever a goal.

  • Harv 21

    What Byron’s really saying: “Look at me, Alonzo. At me, this way, not at the agent, at … there you go. You’re wasting time, son, we signed CJ already, no one’s chasing you and this is a good place, I know how to play you. No, forget what the agent told you, that’s old CBA advice … LOOK at me.”

  • porckchopexpress

    Exactly what Iwas thinking. Gee went all in and didn’ get a bite in FA. Now he can play out the year but he is probably going to see reduced minutes and lower numbers. IMHO the Cavs played this as perfectly as possibe. Unless Gee has been training like a mad man, comes in an puts up 20+ a game and refuses to take more money from the Cavs out of spite.

  • porckchopexpress

    I don’t remember anyone “tripping” over themselves to congratulate
    Gilbert as being an integral part in creating a CBA that prevented star player
    movement. The current CBA is a
    compromise, Gilbert’s view represents some of it, as do the views of other
    small market owners. Large market team
    owners also have their views expressed as well.
    Two positives that won’t show up until next year; First is the end of
    the sign and trade that guaranteed players max dollars to go to the team they
    want . Now, the team trading can’t move
    him just after signing the contract, and the receiving team has to wait until
    free agency to offer him a contract, and any other team can make an equivalent
    offer. Second the severe luxury tax
    doesn’t set in until next year, which is when it is going to become really hard
    to construct super teams and pay them accordingly.

    If you just want to hate on Gilbert that’s fine, he certainly has done things
    that warrant it, but you are stretching this time.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    I hardly think Gee went all in I’m guessing both sides will get together and get a deal done. It’s not like the Cavaliers couldn’t use him.

  • BrownsFanSF

    I’ve heard some mixed stuff on this. Apparently a Western Conference scout (love the unnamed sources!) said there were 5-10 guys kicking around summer league they’d take over Gee. That seems to hold some water, since young athletic wings were all the rage this year (see Batum, Nic) and Gee didn’t get a single nibble.

    My prediction is he signs the qualifier and if he performs we get the deal done during the season.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    I don’t know whether Gee got a nibble or not I simply know the Cavaliers would be a better team with him then without. I’d rather have Gee then Gibson every day of the week. We’ll see what happens though.

  • mgbode

    you saved me alot of typing.

    in the end, if players want to force their way off your team, then there is not much you can do about it. but, there are at least penalties in place to restrict it to some extent.

  • mgbode

    there’s a decent chance neither player will be on the team in 2013/14 though.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Yea you think the Cavaliers are gonna find better players somewhere? I’d be happy to see Gibson leave but at the same time a little sad to see Gee go if true. Casspi can go as well as far as I’m concerned.

  • mgbode

    players I expect will be on the team in 2 years time barring a huge trade: Irving, Waiters, Zeller, Thompson

    young guys who we will likely play it by ear and could go either way (or even cut in some cases): Gee, Miles, Pargo, Azubuike, Samuels, Leuer, K.Jones

    guys who will likely be included in a trade or as options in a trade any time they come up: Walton, Gibson, *Casspi, Harangody

    *could play his way into 2nd group

  • BrownsFanSF

    If Casspi can find his range (his shot looked broke as heck most of last year) he may be a solid compliment to Kyrie/Dion back court.

    On paper, Casspi can run, has good size and can hit open threes. He’s my dark horse for “guy who makes the 2nd year with Byron Scott jump” this year.

  • mgbode

    I agree, but many things die on paper. When he isn’t hitting that corner-3, his defense (or lack thereof) make him an almost useless player.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    God that first group really needs to do well because seeing these names listed together along with the words, “two years” doesn’t make me feel all that well. I’m assuming this coming season is one of those two years, right, please say yes?
    Please oh please let there be another GM who would take a Walton, Gibson, Harangody or even Casspi if he plays anywhere remotely likely he did a year ago.

    You are right though the only way the Cavaliers are going to be able to do anything of significant impact is if they make a trade using the cap space, expiring contracts and draft picks they have accumulated.

    The problem will be finding the necessary partners willing to trade players who have more then a year left on their contract because we all know the Cavaliers can’t afford to take a chance on resigning a significant player i.e. a Bynum scenario. The other problem is I have very little faith that Grant will be able to achieve this but we can hope, I guess.

  • Steve

    Of course that was the real goal. But it was masqueraded behind “we’re here to help the small market teams!”

  • Steve

    Fine, I’ll pretend that the majority opinion wasn’t that we really helped out small market teams with the lockout, or that people in town were willing to give up a season (or more!) to back Gilbert. It was all smoke blown you know where so that the owners could cut a bigger piece of the pie for themselves, no more, no less.

    And while the luxury tax is more severe, it sure didn’t do a damn bit of anything in preventing the Lakers from adding payroll.

  • mgbode

    yes, this year counts as one of those years.
    Gibson is by far the most enticing of those names (at least for now) because his contract is only partial-guaranteed.

    i disagree with not being able to re-sign. except in the case of the truly elite guys, it’d be awfully tough for them to pass up more money (and bird rights and no sign-n-trades start next year). we’ll see what happens, but I think we can add a couple more pieces.

  • mgbode

    we’ll see. you have to be a luxury payer 3yrs in a row or 4/5 to get the real severe penalties. so, in 2 years, the Lakers will have some real questions of what to do on hand.

    and, restrictions and penalties are about all you can do in a CBA. you can’t convince players to play in small markets if they are dead-set against it.

    giving Gilbert/Grant a season has more to do that in basketball the only way for you to get real good is to get real bad first (even the Celtics needed to be bad for a long time to get the assets to trade for their big3).

  • mgbode

    i believe they were trying to do 2 things:

    1. make more $$
    2. get more control of the NBA (as players were wrestling it away)

    the second does help the smaller markets more than the bigger markets.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    I find nothing enticing about Gibson but if another team does please oh please let it happen.

    As far as the resigning of guys until there is a player worthy of that again we won’t know but to say I’m skeptical that the Cavaliers can do so would be generous. To be more precise I was envisioning the Cavaliers trading for a player, noone in mind I’m just speaking in generalities and then trying to resign that guy. Not resigning someone like Irving who they drafted.

  • mgbode

    the enticing part of Gibson is that a team can trade a $6mil contract to the Cavs, cut Gibson and only pay him $2mil 🙂

  • porckchopexpress

    If you need to pretend then fine, but anyone with common sense knew that the lockout was about guaranteeing more money for owners. The crux of the argument was the profti split Remember he players weregetting 57%? I have no idea what your second senence means. Yes people backed Gilbert tanking to get Kyrie and then Waiters. Regardlss of what you think of the players you can’t possibly argue with the method. Tanking and hitting a homerun n the draft is the fastst route to recovery in the NBAand NFL.
    Sure it was smoke blown by the owners -ALL the owners – their job is to make as much money as they can. You seem to continue to push the idea thatthis is all Gilberts fault and it just aint so.