I'd love that. We were always our best when we went through Nurk. I gave up hoping for that. It's been so long.
If he is missing games then to his detractors isn't that "addition by subtraction"? Either he has positive value in which case missing games is bad. Or no value in which case missing games is irrelevant. Or he has negative value in which case missing games is good. Some of the Nurk haters try to spin it that it's bad either way which simply logically can't be true.
Any players we have that play the same position are so far away from being contributors that Nurk being here will have absolutely no impact on their development.
Nurkic has tanked in Portland 2 years straight. He's good with the kids. He's a fun guy to talk to. Nurk sets good screens and can even hit a few 3 pointers now. woohoo! Nurk bombs get the crowd fired up. Last year was Jerami's 4th year in a row of extended chilling for a better ping pong ball. Nurkic & Simons both have 2 consecutive seasons of riding the pine for the greater good. what if there's a lottery odds tug of war between the Spurs, Pistons, Hornets, Wizards, Rockets, Magic & Blazers by the end of next season?? It's important for the Blazers to employ starters that like the idea of accepting an entire month of paid vacation to finish the year on a flop.
that's one way to look at it but it sure is slanted when talking about Nurkic as a C compared to other NBA C's, he isn't worth 18M/year even when healthy; he has negative value. It's probably not significant negative value, but it's pretty damn easy to gauge compared to the rest of the NBA but that's assuming good health...which Nurk doesn't have. He's been in the NBA for 9 seasons and has averaged playing in 51 games while missing 29 (Covid adjustment). He's missed 36% of his team's games. Now, some of that is due to tanking so you have to adjust downward a bit. Still. And over the last 4 seasons, he's played in 153 games while missing 157. Worse is that in his time in Portland the Blazers have played 35 playoff games and Nurk has missed 19. He isn't there when needed most; although the 'need' is debatable since the Blazers actually had some playoff success with Kanter at C. They lost every series when Nurkic played because traditional C's have diminished roles in the playoffs gauging player value resides in some foundational factors: talent-versatility-impact-consistency AND availability. Nurk has some talent and he has some regular season impact. Not so much in the playoffs. But he's not versatile or consistent, and his availability is poor. Negative value the debate has devolved to the point where the biggest remaining argument for Nurkic is simply that Portland doesn't have anybody better. That's a poor argument in his favor, especially for a team in a major rebuild when wins don't matter and with a coach that schemes defense opposite of Nurk's abilities
His playing status isn't static in fact it fluctuates wildly. When he's healthy, engaged and in shape, he can be a positive overall. When he's not, he can be a negative. Pretty simple stuff that shouldn't be a stretch for anyone to comprehend. STOMP
When looking at the contracts of the Blazers players individually, I think you must put on your Portland Talent Excise Tax (PTET) glasses on. We all know Portland has to overpay to keep or acquire talent. Nurk is overpaid, as is Ant and Grant. That is the price to pay to be Portland. PTET is why Portland should be more judicious in the players they sign and extend. They can't just waste money overpaying if eventually they will have to move them.
Which is why the Josh Hart trade made so much sense. The cupboard inherited by Cronin and co was bare thanks to the magic of the NeO years. They had to be very careful who they extend. Nurk and Grant had to be extended since the team was trying to rebuild around Dame and these are positions of need. Ant had to be extended since he was the only young one with star potential on the roster. Hart, as good as he is, was not a priority for a team saddled with so many guards.
If the Blazers decided to rebuild back then the Hart trade made sense. But then giving Nurk 70 million months prior doesn't make sense. If the Blazers wanted to try and win with Dame they should have kept Hart, he's way more valuable next season than Murray. Many of these moves in isolation made sense if they were part of a consistent direction. The problem the last two years is the Blazers didn't have a direction, they did moves that fit one way not the other. Then a move that fits the other way but not that first path. Hopefully now that Dame has asked out their moves will be better aligned.
I'm in full agreement Nurk is not worth the 70 million contract he was given. That was a clear mistake at the time as well as today. But that is far different than saying Nurk being removed is addition by subtraction. Remove Nurk and put Badji or whatever scrub in his place and the Blazers are clearly worse. If the Blazers can get an upgrade I'm all for it. If they can't then having Nurk in the rotation next year is fine.
I disagree. The Blazers did not need to trade Hart just for a rebuild. They tried to get better assets to balance the roster around Dame. In reality, they basically got a real size forward for him in Murray even if the goal was to use it in a trade that they did not, so they did balance the roster, but clearly not on the right timeline.
Not sure what you mean by the Blazers tried to get better assets around Dame. Murray is not close to a better player than Hart today, nor would his trade value lead to an expected better win now player. Blazers have a theme above all else of trying to pinch pennies since Jody took over. That apparently was the primary motivation behind the Hart trade. It is really odd how they stack that with grossly overpaying their own free agents. I guess that blend is what makes them such a poorly managed franchise.
I really agree about Hart. Great player, but I fully believe the reports his wife wanted to be on the east coast and he informed Cronin he would not be extending with Portland which allowed Cronin to work a great deal for both parties. You may not agree with this next part, but I am happy NeO locked up Portlands picks. Stopped them from throwing them away like NeO did.
from my POV, Portland being worse next season is not a negative. They will be in the lottery anyway. If the Blazers had an opportunity to clear Nurk's salary without cost, I'd be just fine with it. I'm not necessarily opposed to him being on the team next season, but with Dame gone (probably), I think it would be better if Nurk was gone sooner rather than later
That could be the best move, depends what Nurk value ends up in 1 or 2 years. I'd prefer to hold on to Nurk for the chance he plays well, has decent health, or can be flipped for a late pick or something later. If he is healthy and the cap keeps going up he might have value. He certainly might instead have zero or negative value. But clearing his salary is unlikely to give the Blazers a better opportunity to get an asset than just holding onto him at this point for the next 1-2 years.
Why does it matter if we start Badji? This team is gonna suck. This is the best time to give young guys reps. I’d rather try to get some cheap vet to start but I don’t see the harm in playing Badji. We aren’t trying to win right now. I don’t understand why there is this urgency to trade Grant when he’s not really overpaid at his position compared to similar players. To your point about Nurk, do we have a better replacement for Grant? Who starts at power forward if we trade him?
