The Brooklyn TPE is such a Nurkic-sized fit! He and Herro would be positives for Bridges as they're not a young, rebuilding team; their youth amounts to Claxton and Clowney ... both of whom I'd prefer as Blazers rather than the Miami guys. I'd take Claxton over a 1st and while his UFA is a concern, he'll have good young players for him to grow with. Whether a Lillard trade is with Miami, Brooklyn, or both, Nurkic to the Nets works, IMHO. Nurkic as simply gone? Probably. I'd want it to happen during the trade to get it done, but it's not crucial that he's gone. His skill-building has come along and should fit better ball movement. If he's thin-Nurkic, okay. Regardless, this team needs better, athletic BIGs with size/length for effective hedging, rim protection and rebounding.
I'm not going into the season thinking about not contending...I want them hungry from game one and if they can't win, fine, but I don't think it should be a game plan for a third year to tank. Roster balance is overdue and I don't see Chauncey wanting to lose anymore either. I want to sweep Miami this season
You can think whatever you want but for the Blazers to succeed long term, they need to prioritize giving the coach the roster that works with his system and develop it rather than waste money / roster spot on a player that does not fit the system in some kind of "hope we shock everyone and contend" kind of decision. I would rather have the young roster grow in the system that coach wants to play rather than waste time playing in drop coverage because an older center that does not fit the timeline of the team (or the modern NBA) is still around. That's just a waste of time and effort. If the Blazers had Dame and thought they were a move away from contending, sure. Without him, waste.
In response to the title, I would push back that Nurk needs to go. If Cronin can get appropriate value for Nurk, then great. Getting rid of him just to get rid of him would not make much sense at this point.
Nurk is not old...and he's very low mileage since he had years off when his leg snapped but it's all good...Chauncey doesn't use much drop coverage with Nurk from what I've seen...the timeline of the team will be extended because of all the rookies but you need balance and you need vets..you can assume that we'll be further aways from playoff noise than I do..it's all good. I don't want the coaching staff or roster to think that way. We can bring in young guys through the G league now as needed but bigs take longer to figure it out so Nurk doesn't have that issue, nor Grant or Thybulle or Ant. I know Scoot fever is around the team but you still need a "team" I still say the old stars are going to be a year older next season and we're going to be younger. Stephen Adams played next to Jah Morant without any issues...same could easily be said of Nurk and Scoot
The Blazers already lack size. Discarding Nurk for the hell of it doesn't help us unless the point is to try and lose more games. But being terrible isn't necessarily good for the development of Sharpe and Scoot. We'll probably be a lotto team anyway....
There are probably 100s of combinations of transactions I would accept in return for Nurk. One type may include a better/equal vet on a better contract. One might include an equal or lesser big who is younger and/or fits the style of play. Another might include draft compensation. Of course, these things can be mixed and matched. I wouldn't trade Nurk for Duncan Robinson, just to get rid of Nurk though.
Brook Lopez would be nice or Stephen Adams or Poeltl..Adams you could probably get...Lopez, doubtful ..what 7ftrs are making 17 million a year?
I concur. The only "value" Nurk has on the trade market is that he might be part of the asking price in a deal for Dame. I feel like his situation is a little like CJ's. You might be able to trade him for an obviously lesser player, a pick (in Nurk's case a bad second rounder) and a trade exception. Then you're hoping you can take that trade exception and throw in some other assets to get someone useful like we did for Jeremy Grant.
yeah...he's not bringing Lopez but he's solid enough to have value to the right team. You might have to throw in Nas or 2nd round picks but it the end I'm not sure it's worth the hassle..just sign a couple young cheap backup centers and keep him. I don't think you're getting a Claxton or Allen for him.
I don't think Dame and Nurk get traded to the same team..in the case of Miami..they can't come up with the assets for Dame alone, let alone Nurk.
I didn't say that what his value was, I'm simply pointing out the net-positive moves that make sense. I see little advantage in trading starting center with 3 years left on his deal for some backup wing with an equal contract. So I disagree that he has to go if it nets us an even worse asset. I don't think Portland is in a position where it makes sense for them to downgrade their assets. Would you trade Nurk for Duncan Robinson? If so, what advantage does Portland gain there?
The future, which doesn't mean before the 23/24 season starts. They'll need their young players to develop and prove their worth, but if they do and money is available stud FA's will want to be a part of a bright Trailblazer era. STOMP
I firmly believe in addition by subtraction. Nurk has low value because of his attitude and his health, and it's because of those reasons that I don't really want him on our team either.
I agree that there are plenty of superior options for this team than Nurk. For the reasons you listed, I'm unsure the Blazers can obtain a superior option. Losing starters for nothing, or even worse, for a negative asset, is not a great way to rebuild. I didn't think losing LMA for nothing was addition by subtraction, so that generic phrase doesn't hold true to me. Each situation requires looking at what a team gains by giving up a player before it can be determined if it's truly a net-positive.
I'm betting if we wantv we can have James Wiseman after sending Detroit Hero. I'd rather give Wiseman 30 minutes and see if he can be something than continue with Nurk. I've been a big Nurk defender but it's time to move on.
So, what's the point of trying to win if you can't run the defensive scheme that works for your roster? The Blazers basically tried to emulate drop coverage without doing classic drop coverage by playing Zone. There are reasons this team played so much zone last year - either having to deal with a slow-footed center or defensively deficient small backcourt, at times, both. No disrespect, RM, but this is talking from both sides of the mouth and it makes no sense. If this team wants to build winning habits under the current coaching staff, it's imperative to update the roster to support the vision the coaching staff has. Keeping Nurk to fight against the heavy-weights of the league while running a system where he is marginalized is counter-productive, the same as trying to instill systems and habits for a young roster and playing against the style to maximize an older player that is not central to the team's future. That's one way to look at it, the other is that Nurk is a slow center that does not work well in a switching scheme - so he will never make it in this system. Better to start with young ones that might one day make it. It can't really because: 1. While Adams is not the fastest center in the league - he is miles faster than Nurk 2. Memphis has JJJ (current defensive player of the year) playing next to Adams or as a center when Adams is out. The Blazers do not have this luxury. It would be a no-issue to have someone like Nurk on the roster as a backup / secondary center if you have a quick, mobile stud as Memphis does. Keeping him for a rebuilding team because Jokic and Embiid are in the league is the wrong kind of team building. This team needs an upgrade at center for multiple reasons, a younger one that can grow with the new core, a mobile one that can play to the coaching system and one that does not pout and can be relied on to stay healthy. Nurkic, unfortunately, is not that guy.
