LeBron James and Kyrie Irving embraced when they faced each other at the start of this season. In the end, what did life with Irving really cost the Cavaliers this season?

Joshua Gunter, cleveland.com

EXPLAINING 3RD & SHORT

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Imagine watching Boston’s Al Horford, Jayson Tatum and Terry Rozier get swept by the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals. Or Victor Oladipo, or Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid. The Pacers in the Finals, or the young 76ers, with LeBron James on a beach somewhere?

A sweep leaves some scars. But for the Cavaliers this season, it leaves no questions. To lose the last game of the season to a champion lets you know exactly who you were, and how far you could go.

Championships are cherished. But the moments that churn your stomach and test your soul come in the fight for the title. As much as you want to win it, what you really want more than anything is the opportunity to scrap for it. Getting there is more than half the battle.

Nothing rings hollower than fans who fear the fight so much, they’d rather their team not take part, that somehow losing early is preferable to suffering a championship beatdown. You sometimes hear it from college football fans choosing a bowl win over a playoff loss.

Never.

I don’t think many Cavs fans are feeling that. None should. The what-ifs with this franchise are endless. But the reality with the roster that reached June is assured.

The Cavs did all they could.

On to 3rd & Short and the chance, hopefully, to think about Cleveland sports a little differently.

Don't Edit

LeBron James and Kyrie Irving were together in the playoffs last year, and they lost in the NBA Finals, same as the Cavs did this season without Irving.

Thomas Ondrey, The Plain Dealer

WITHOUT IRVING, CAVS WERE JUST ONE GAME WORSE

For all the talents and entanglements of Kyrie Irving, in the end, he was worth one game.

The trade of Irving to Boston was originally hailed with hope, then deemed a failure. The ensuing trades were then hailed with more hope, then also viewed as failures. And what, in the final score, was the difference?

A 4-0 loss in the Finals instead of a 4-1 loss in the Finals.

There was of course the pain and confusion of the journey, and the close calls and nervous moments, and those count for something.

But the 2017 Cavaliers, with Irving, won 51 games and tied for the second-best record in the East and the fifth-best record in the league.

The 2018 Cavaliers, without Irving, won 50 games and finished with the fourth-best record in the East and sixth-best record in the league.

No one is counting regular-season wins, though. If they were, the Cavs would have tried on defense.

The league is about the playoffs, and the Cavs got as far as they did with Irving last year as they got without Irving this year. They fell off the edge of the Earth in the Finals both times, or, more accurately, were pushed by Kevin Durant.

The era of the Warriors has shoved the whole NBA into an era of sensible desperation. Golden State is the giant asteroid hurtling toward Earth, and almost stopping it doesn’t do much good. It’s either going to blow everyone to smithereens or it’s not. You may as well keep trying new, crazy ideas to stop that thing, even if you wind up further from a solution than when you started.

The old Cavs were good enough against the Durant-less Warriors two years ago.

The old Cavs weren’t good enough against the Durant-led Warriors last year.

Of course, the ideal option was to improve. And there were better trades to be made. No one is arguing the Isaiah Thomas-Jae Crowder Cavs were better than the Irving Cavs, or that the George Hill-Larry Nance-Jordan Clarkson-is-shooting-again Cavs are better than the Irving Cavs.

But let’s not pine for the status quo of a year ago.

Maybe the Cavs could have added Dwyane Wade to James, Irving and Kevin Love. Maybe other pieces could have been signed.

What 2017 showed, however, was that the James-Irving-Love version of the Cavs wasn’t beating the Durant-Steph Curry-Klay Thompson-Draymond Green version of the Warriors. Whatever the Cavs did, at least they didn’t try the exact same thing.

Much has been made of the way the Cavs lost this series, a series that was competitive for Game 1 and the first three quarters of Game 2. They were so close to stealing the opener on the road, James punched a whiteboard.

They lost four games by 10, 19, 8 and 23 points, a total of 60 points.

A year ago, they won Game 4 in a blowout.

But they lost four games by 22, 19, 5 and 9 points, a total of 55 points.

So the Cavs, pressured by Irving’s desires and fully aware that more of the same wasn’t enough, tried something different. It didn’t work. But here are three reasons why the Irving trade didn’t really derail anything for the Cavs this season.

Don't Edit

Kyrie Irving (left) missed the last month of the regular season and the entire playoffs. That may have happened in Cleveland, just like it did in Boston.

Charles Krupa, Associated Press

3. Irving was hurt

Maybe Irving’s knee situation would have unfolded differently had he stayed with the Cavs.

But it wouldn’t have been a healthy knee.

It’s reasonable to assume Irving would have missed the postseason with Cleveland as well. While everyone realizes that, it’s worth pointing out again. A healthy James with a healthy Irving taking a run at the 2018 Warriors wasn’t likely to happen no matter what.

Don't Edit

LeBron James was spectacular this season in part because Kyrie Irving was gone, and James had no choice but to play better than ever.

Joshua Gunter, cleveland.com

2. James was better without Irving

James tested the limits of his skills and his body this season and pushed past them. He played all 82 regular-season games for the first time. His scoring average was the highest in eight years. He tied a career high in rebounds per game and set a career high in assists. And in the playoffs, he did even more, playing five more minutes per game and scoring six more points per game.

James was clearly making a point by playing all 82 for the first time, reaching 104 total games after the playoffs.

But just as clear was that James thrived under the burden of single-handedly carrying a team. He drove the Cavs this hard and this far because he had to. He lifted them to the same level as the year before. He couldn’t take them higher.

But James, in these Durant in Golden State circumstances, in this city, at this stage, against these foes, accomplished as much without his sidekick as he did with him.

It’s enticing to imagine James like this with Irving. But this James – playing nearly every minute, making nearly every play – wouldn’t have existed with Irving. Because he wouldn’t have had to.

Don't Edit

Kevin Durant led the Warriors to a title when the Cavs had Kyrie Irving, and he did the same when the Cavs didn't have Irving.

Joshua Gunter, cleveland.com

1. Durant is the point

When the Warriors lost to the Cavs two years ago, they added Durant without losing anything of substance.

The Cavs never had that opportunity. They had to subtract in their search for additions.

That meant losing Irving in a deal that wound up as bad math.

But the Cavs and Warriors weren’t equal a year ago with Irving. What happened this year was a failed effort at addition that merely left you with the same negative result.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

Imagine if Irving was preparing to lead the Cavs next season with the expectation that LeBron James was leaving.

Joshua Gunter, cleveland.com

3 THINGS WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT IF KYRIE IRVING WAS STILL A CAVALIER

3. Nasal surgery

In an alternate reality that kept Irving in wine and gold, can you imagine the Cleveland reaction to Irving missing the last game of the season because of nasal surgery? He missed Boston’s Game 7 loss against the Cavs, and his agents explained that he needed surgery after a fracturing his face. In November.

The surgery he needed six months after the fact had to be done between Games 6 and 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals? Maybe. But imagine James saying his possible goodbye to Cleveland on Friday night, with Irving at home getting his nose fixed.

2. More flat earth

Irving also managed to double down on his flat earth theory during the Finals,

telling the New York Times,

among other things, "Can you openly admit that you know the earth is constitutionally round? Like, you know that for sure?"

This isn’t at all what James was talking about with his stated desire to play with great basketball minds. But it offered a stark juxtaposition as James fought the Warriors and Irving, once again, fought science.

1. Can Irving win without great support?

In his third NBA season, James carried the flawed Cavs to 50 wins and the second round of the playoffs. In his third season, Irving carried the flawed Cavs to 33 wins. In a world where James was preparing to leave, and a sore-kneed, science-ignoring Irving was preparing to emerge as the obvious leader of the Cavs, we’d wonder about this.

Irving balked at living in James shadow. The result landed him in Boston, as a centerpiece surrounded by young talent.

But this season, we saw exactly what James could do without much help, just like we saw it 12 years ago during his third season in the league.

He can win.

Irving won with James. He’ll win in Boston.

But if he was preparing to take over this Cleveland team right now, with Love, JR Smith, Tristan Thompson and Kyle Korver as his teammates, we’d be wondering if Irving could win with that.

Irving is a tremendous talent. But carrying a team without other great talent?

We’d be right to wonder.

Don't Edit

Ty Lue tinkered with his team until the end. Was that a sign of great coaching or uncertainty?

John Kuntz, cleveland.com

3 QUESTIONS ABOUT TY LUE'S ROTATIONS

3. Tristan Thompson

Ty Lue is either a lineup genus or a self-saboteur. He might be some mix of the two.

But the way he moved players in and out of the rotation in the playoffs left me unable to decide whether he mixed-and-matched like a savant, or whether he unnecessarily denied the Cavs solid minutes from players he buried.

The first question arose with inserting Tristan Thompson in the starting lineup for Game 7 against Indiana. Thompson played a total of 23 minutes in the first six games of the playoffs. He averaged more than 24 minutes per game in the final 16 games of the playoffs. Does Lue deserve credit for brilliantly discovering Thompson when the Cavs were on the brink in round one? Or did Lue ignoring Thompson help the Cavs nearly lose to the Pacers?

2. Jordan Clarkson

Jordan Clarkson’s vanishing act in the final two games against Golden State made sense but seemed overdue. He’d previously been benched for Game 2 against Boston, yet Clarkson took at least eight shots in eight playoff games. The Cavs were 4-4 in those games, so Clarkson didn’t ruin them every time. Obviously, matchups play a huge role in the postseason. But if Lue smartly kept Clarkson out of the nine-man rotation in the last two games of the Finals, wasn’t keeping him in the rotation for the first 20 playoff games an error?

1. Rodney Hood

Rodney Hood looked like the Cavs’ third-best offensive player in Game 3 of the Finals, scoring 15 points. How and why had he scored a total of 22 points in the previous 14 playoff games?

Hood was the cause and benefactor of Clarkson’s absence, with Lue announcing Hood would get his Game 3 chance. It sounded like a desperate shot in the dark in the moment, but it proved to be just what the Cavs needed. Hood was always the most intriguing offensive option acquired in the midseason deals, averaging 16 points per game in Utah. He seemed the ideal player to throw on the floor vs. the Warriors.

Yes, he seemed overwhelmed at times during the postseason, though he played in the playoffs with the Jazz last year. But for Hood to play just seven total minutes in the seven games from Game 3 of the Celtics series to Game 2 of the Warriors series is proof of some inability by Lue to get the most out of talented young scorer.

Revamping the team at midseason gave Lue little time to know and understand this roster. That wasn’t his fault. But while some of his moves struck gold in the last few weeks, overall the postseason gave you an indication of how little feel Lue had for his team.

Don't Edit

Signing Duke Johnson is exactly the kind of move the Browns need to be making.

John Kuntz, cleveland.com

3 THINGS THE DUKE JOHNSON CONTRACT PROVES

3. Valuing the middle class

The Browns locking up Duke Johnson is the kind of move that makes so much sense, it's hard to believe it got done in Cleveland. But it proves the Browns are making progress on one of the most important points Joe Thomas made about the franchise in the last few years – the inability to retain good solid players that form the backbone of a roster.

Johnson doesn’t have to be a star. But he was far too valuable to be swept away. He has seemed frustrated at times by his role, but he wanted to be here, and the Browns actually keeping him at a reasonable price is the kind of practical decision that builds winning rosters. Too often in the past, the Browns hadn’t done that.

2. Using the cap

There’s a point here about salary cap space, and why Sashi Brown cleared out players in the past, including some of those mid-tier players. When you build a young team, it costs to keep them around. The Browns still have a ton of cap space, but when you think about the players they should want to keep, like Emmanuel Ogbah, Joe Schobert, Shon Coleman and others like Johnson, they’ll eat up that space pretty quickly.

John Dorsey used some of that cap space adding players like Jarvis Landry. He needed to save some of it for players already here, like Johnson. That’s why the Browns cleared so much room – so keeping a smart pick like Johnson, drafted in the third round in 2015 by Ray Farmer, could be accomplished so easily.

1. Pay him, use him

Todd Haley is going to use him. Adding Carlos Hyde, Nick Chubb and Landry could have been the prelude to squeezing out Johnson. That would have been a mistake.

But Hue Jackson has also had trouble maximizing Johnson’s skills at times. The assumption when Haley arrived as the offensive coordinator was that Johnson would fit perfectly with the former Pittsburgh coordinator. Haley gave running back Le’Veon Bell more than 100 receiving targets in Bell's last two full, healthy years with the Steelers, in 2014 and 2017.

Johnson had a career-high 93 targets with the Browns last year. There was no reason for the Browns to sign Johnson if they weren’t planning to use him. He’s signed. And this could be good.

Don't Edit

Subscribe to our newsletters

Get coverage of the Browns and Cavs delivered right to you.

Get the best Cavs news and perspective in your inbox at lunch time every day. Sign up for our Cavs newsletter.

Get the best Browns news and perspective in your inbox at lunch time every weekday. Sign up for our Browns newsletter.