Cavs face decisions on James Harden, Donovan Mitchell and Kenny Atkinson after Knicks’ sweep
CLEVELAND — The smoke was only beginning to clear after arguably the worst, and certainly the most inexplicable, loss in Cavaliers’ history.
National media outlets and the New York tabloids alike were pinning blame for the Cavs’ 22-point collapse in the fourth quarter of Game 1 of the Eastern Conference finals on James Harden, who both struggled to score and was also picked on, time and again, by Jalen Brunson and the Knicks’ offense.
There are no words to explain a loss like that. Any team, especially one with the most expensive roster in NBA history, two likely Hall of Fame players in Harden and Donovan Mitchell, and two other recent All-Stars in Evan Mobley and Jarrett Allen, should be able to protect a 22-point advantage over eight minutes — which was what the Knicks had on the clock to tie the game, and then win it in overtime.
Searching for something to say, in the moment, anything to try and turn a page that turned out to be un-turnable, coach Kenny Atkinson approached Harden, a 17-year veteran who has been to the NBA playoffs 17 times, and told him: “Without you, we’re knocked out in the first round.”
This sentiment, that the Cavs were better this year with Harden than without, and specifically, that a deep playoff run was made possible by Harden’s presence, was repeated time and again by top officials, privately and in public, throughout April and May. Atkinson wasn’t the only one saying so after the Game 1 loss.
What they don’t say out loud, but is implied, is how much weaker the Cavs felt they were with Darius Garland.
This was a one-for-one trade (yes, technically, the Clippers got a second-round pick). On Feb. 3, the Cavs traded Garland, a fan favorite and two-time All-Star who was both injury-prone and small (about 6-1 and under 200 pounds), for Harden, a 6-5 guard with 11 All-Star appearances who is 36 — a decade older.
The Cavs felt they needed to get bigger in the backcourt and tougher overall, and Harden was an upgrade over Garland in both categories. Also, the team scuffled through the first part of the season, hovering around .500 in December, and Garland’s absence — and poor play when he returned — put added pressure on the team.
The Cavs’ repeated mantra that they were “better” after Harden’s arrival (Cleveland also acquired Dennis Schröder and Keon Ellis), illustrated a profound realization that was obvious to some in the organization immediately this season and took others longer to come to.
The Cavs, as constructed when the season began, and basically for the past three seasons, were not good enough. The core of Garland, Mitchell, Mobley and Allen was not good enough.
By changing out Garland for Harden, the Cavs believe, they made it further in the playoffs than they had since 1992 without LeBron James on the roster. A significant asterisk because this is a franchise that has only reached an NBA Finals or won a title when Akron’s favorite son was in uniform.
But after the Cavs were swept by the New York Knicks in the Eastern Conference finals, the same basic question remains: Is this team, as constructed, good enough?
Owner Dan Gilbert seemed to answer that question with a social media post late Monday, writing, “We took a step ahead this spring, but we are nowhere near where we need to be.”
Harden would say the group should get a full season to jell. He only arrived in February, which meant about two months of regular-season games to get ready for the playoffs.
Mitchell, the team’s resident superstar before Harden’s arrival, would seem to agree. He said after the Cavs blasted Detroit in Game 7 of the second round: “I believe we’ve all been a believer since Day 1 … but even if we lost tonight, I still believe in this group. Like, it doesn’t waver just based on the result.”
Mitchell will have a chance to live up to his words this summer. Harden will likely get that year he’s been asking for. But the Cavs as a whole — do they know if they are good enough? Was trading Garland the only deal they needed? Or are other changes on the horizon?
When it looked like the league’s most expensive roster was going to fall well short — the Cavs needed to win Game 7s in the first and second rounds, losses in either would have meant the season was a failure — numerous questions were percolating in the background about the team’s future.
Now that the Cavs’ season ended in the conference finals, perhaps those same questions exist, with softer edges. Here is a look at the issues facing the Cavs as they head into the offseason and 2026-27 campaign.
Mitchell’s extension
Mitchell loves it in Cleveland. He has said it, time and again, including saying, “I love it here, I don’t know any other way to say it,” following Monday night’s loss. As just one example, he told The Athletic in April he signed his last massive contract extension with the Cavs because of how well they take care of their players.
That hasn’t changed, and Mitchell is again eligible to be handsomely rewarded for staying in Cleveland.
Starting on July 7, Mitchell can sign an extension that adds four years and $277 million to his deal using the league’s current salary-cap projections. Adding four seasons would require declining his player option for 2027-28 and would run through the 2030-31 season, when he would turn 34.
There is at least one catch. Next season is Mitchell’s 10th, which means, by rule, if he waits until after next season for a new contract, the Cavs can bump him up to the 35-percent max, something in the five-year, $352 million range.
Both sides would have some questions to ask themselves and each other. Do the Cavs have the stomach to allow Mitchell’s free agency to arrive, which would be the case if he wanted to wait a year before re-signing? Does Mitchell want to place such a large bet on himself by waiting one year, a year in which he turns 30?
And the most uncomfortable questions of all: Do the Cavs believe they can win with Mitchell? And does he think he can win in Cleveland?
Because that’s what both sides want, and through four years of this partnership, the answer has been “no,” with some thrilling, worthy moments mixed in.
Atkinson’s future
Atkinson has three years left on his contract. Cleveland won 64 games last season, in his first year here, and he was voted NBA Coach of the Year. In this past campaign, he guided the team further in the playoffs than it had been without LeBron on the roster, since before Bill Clinton was president.
Atkinson is also believed to have strong working relationships with Mitchell and Harden, and in Harden’s case, was in on convincing him to accept the trade from the Clippers.
Mobley thrived under Atkinson in their first season together, when he became an All-Star and Defensive Player of the Year. He seemed to take a step back during the regular season (no accolades and struggled offensively early on when Atkinson asked him to facilitate the offense more), but had a strong playoffs. Mobley’s lack of progress was a reason cited behind closed doors for the dismissal of Atkinson’s predecessor, J.B. Bickerstaff.
But Atkinson also suffered through a tough playoffs. There were a couple of fourth-quarter collapses — Game 1 in the conference finals was just the worst of them. There were instances of conserved timeouts and questionable lineup decisions, and overall, the Cavs seemed to have a tougher time in the first two rounds of the playoffs than they should have, which set them up for disaster in the conference finals. When Atkinson said this weekend after his team lost its third straight to the Knicks, “Analytically … we’ve won two out of three,” well, that wasn’t a good sound bite.
Beyond that, Atkinson and the front office have not always been on the same page, dating back to when he was hired. At least some of Cleveland’s basketball executives preferred James Borrego to Atkinson, but Gilbert preferred Atkinson, leagues sources said. Those front-office members were taking notes on Atkinson early in the season while the team struggled.
There was a clearing of the air at the time of the Harden trade, and Gilbert had not shown any signs of losing faith in Atkinson (his show of support during the second round was substantial). But if there is going to be a fall guy for what transpired in the conference finals, Atkinson is a candidate.
Asked about his job security Monday night, Atkinson said, “Listen, I have confidence, confidence in myself first of all, confidence in the group.”
He added: “From a player and coaches perspective being with that group in there, I’m pretty darn proud of what we did.”
If Gilbert wants to blame someone other than Atkinson, he could look at president of basketball operations Koby Altman. It was Altman who handed him the league’s most expensive payroll and bet heavily on Mitchell, Mobley and Harden. Altman, 43, who was promoted to oversee Cleveland’s roster in the summer of 2017, is the only executive ever to get a contract extension from Gilbert, and he’s received multiple extended deals, including one last summer.
But if Gilbert decides the Cavs’ issues transcend coaching, he would have to either look at the players or the executive responsible for bringing them in.
Harden, retained
Harden turns 37 on Aug. 26. By then, he’ll probably have a new two-year contract from the Cavs.
Harden has a $42.3 million player option on his current contract for next season, which is partially guaranteed for $13.3 million until July 11. It means that if Harden were to pick up his option by June 29 (the deadline to do so), and the Cavs waived him before July 11, they would only be on the hook for $13.3 million.
It’s an unlikely scenario because Harden agreed to the trade from the Clippers believing a new deal from the Cavs would come. Cleveland is extremely image-conscious with players, and Harden is widely liked and respected by his peers; doing him wrong, even at his age, would hurt the Cavs’ reputation with future free agents.
So the most likely scenario is Harden declines his player’s option and then agrees to a two-year deal (Harden can sign a three-year deal, just not anything longer contract because of the over-38 rule). The annual salary on Harden’s new deal will be for less than the $42.3 million left on his current contract, but he’ll be pleased with the paycheck and the opportunity to show what a year can do with the Cavs playing together.
When asked on Monday, Harden said, “Yes, 100 percent to both” that he wants to return and expects he’ll return to Cleveland next season.
“I think we found something,” he said. “I think we found something. Like, all this stuff, not ending how we wanted it to, but I think I found something.”
Apron/costs/roster
You want LeBron here, do you?
Well, it can happen, but just to pay him pennies on his dollar the Cavs would have to take a Bobcat (the construction equipment) to their roster. To pay him anywhere near what he’s probably thinking, it would take a bulldozer.
The current projections for the 2026-27 season are a $165 million salary cap, $201 million luxury tax line, $209 million first apron and $222 million second apron. Cleveland has $177.1 million in guaranteed money not counting Harden’s $42.3 million player option or its non-guaranteed team option for Craig Porter Jr. ($2.4 million).
For the sake of discussion, not knowing what Harden’s likely new deal will cost in Year 1, if you plug the options for Harden and Porter into the cap sheet and slot the No. 29 pick in the draft, the Cavs are $224.8 million, which is almost $5 million over the second apron — with 12 players on roster. It would mean nothing more than minimum contracts to fill out the roster, including for unrestricted free agents Dean Wade and Ellis, who are both almost sure to command far more than that on the open market. The Cavs can pay Wade and Ellis real money, but it would only jack the payroll even higher over that second apron.
Yes, it’s confusing, but to understand the Cavs’ roster outlook, you need a refresher on the rules.
Teams above the $209 million first apron cannot take on more overall salary in a trade than they send out with their outgoing players, sign a player waived during the season whose salary was richer than the non-taxpayer mid-level exception (set at $14.1 million in 2025-26), or acquire a player via sign-and-trade or use a trade exception created the previous season, even if it has not expired yet.
Those teams over the first apron can only use the smaller taxpayer mid-level exception ($6.1 million for 2026-27) to sign players, but can’t use it to bring in players via trade or waivers.
The Cavs are headed way above that threshold, and are projected to be significantly over the $222 million “second apron” unless they change course, which means they are subject to all those restrictions plus they cannot aggregate multiple players together in a trade to match salary or send cash in trades.
Let’s apply this in real-world terms.
Without massive roster changes, which are hard to make anyway, the most LeBron could earn on the Cavs is $6.1 million – an 88 percent pay cut. Kinda steep for the NBA’s all-time leading scorer and author of the Cavs’ only championship, no? Especially with potentially far richer offers on the table from up to three California teams.
You want the Cavs to go after Giannis Antetokounmpo? As things stand, you’d have to do it with Evan Mobley, but even that would take some significant cap gymnastics because Giannis ($58.5 million) makes more than Mobley ($50.1 million) next season.
There are ways to get all the way down to under the first apron, such as waiving role players and “stretching” their salaries over periods of years. They could trade their No. 29 pick, and use other tricks to create more slots for minimum salaries.
Getting under the first apron makes it much easier to take these future-changing trades the Cavs will be linked to over the coming days and weeks.
Or, they could take Harden’s world view and say, all the Cavs need is more time.
— Danny Leroux contributed to this story.
