Crabbe was never and will never be, an average NBA player. Way too 1-dimensional. Moe is paid about what he's worth - which is actually a pretty good signing given the stupid money that was handed out during the summer of 2016. He's one of the few guys signed that summer that isn't outrageously overpaid. His problem is consistency. Good Moe is worth way more than his contract. Bad Moe is Black Meyers (minus the flexing). Actual Moe is somewhere in between. I was pissed at the guy and thoroughly disappointed in the way he sulked for the first 4 months of the season. I wanted him traded - GONE! But then Good Moe showed up and was a HUGE difference maker. If only we could get an entire season of Good Moe. BNM
I don’t think it’s that great of a deal in today’s market when you aren’t bidding against anyone. If he hits UFA next year he’s not getting more than that for sure and will probably get closer to $10million. 2016 Free Agency is history.
This is good news if true. We have him locked up for now. Not for a low amount that he'll pout about, and hopefully not for a crazy high amount that will make him feel like this is the only contract he'll ever need.
Mason Plumlee, who doesn't even start, got 3 years/$41 million last summer. Given how Nurk totally transformed our defense, I think he probably deserves slightly more than Plumlee money. BNM
This. Logic is lost on people. There is 0 market for Nurk. Giving him 15 per when he can't land a single offer in the open market is exactly what he did with Moe and Meyers. This is the summer to pinch pennies and compensate for paying out the nose in 2016. Who gives a shit if he makes less than Meyers? If Nurk lets that affect his play, then maybe we should go after someone who isn't so mentally fragile. It's a free market system. These are the realities-- no time for kiddie league. Nerlens Noel just signed a deal for a yr on the minimum in OKC. Brook Lopez does not yet have a contract. Julius Randle signed a deal for 9 per. 15 for Nurk in this market is overpaying. Let's see if this is real.
How would you propose we "go after" a player of Nurk's caliber here in Portland? Because we're not going to sign one as a free agent (even if we had cap space).
When we're paying over 5 mil a year in dead cap for Andrew Nicholson, Anderson Varejao, and Festus Ezeli, you try to squeeze Nurk. It's how businesses should be run. Clearly you don't agree or follow. The risk in Nurk taking the QO for a year and hitting unrestricted free agency next year is not a big deal when we still hold his bird rights. If you want to overpay him, make him prove it first. Nurk underachieved a lot of expectations last year.
We can't afford to piss off our players here in Portland. That's a game we just can't play. We have a rich owner who is willing to pay well and give the players perks. Not even the richest owner anymore. That's what we have going for us. That's it. We don't even have a winning tradition here anymore, though with Olshey it's started to come back a bit. We can't go get players of Nurks caliber in free agency so if he decides to leave we get nothing in return. That's a loss we can't afford if we want to win. We'd have a lot more of that going on if we tried to nickel and dime our players. The salary cap will figure itself out. But we're never going to be players in FA, so it's not worth losing quality players over. There are other ways to get trades done than cap space.
Then those expectations were unreasonable. He transformed our defense from bottom 7 to top 8. You expected more from him? You expected POR to finish higher than 3rd seed in the West? Neither of those things happen without Nurk. How exactly did Nerlens Noel transform DAL? How did Julius Randle transform the Lakers? Noel was injured or suspended for over 50 games and in the 30 games he did play, he only started 6 and was pretty underwhelming. In a career than has been plagued by injuries and attitude problems, he's coming off the worst year of his career. Nurk is coming off the best year of his career. One of these things is not like the other... BNM
Losing him for nothing would be a far worse move. Just to save some money? Again, this is not a bad move IMO. This is a good move. There are a lot of players nowhere near as good who make similar money. Low balling your players is a great way to run them out of town. You're not going to win much that way.
Do we have any conformation that the Blazers have actually offered Nurk this contract? If so, do we know if the 3rd year is a player or team option? Hard to call something a bad move, if it hasn't actually happened. Losing Nurk would be the worst move of all. It would be a huge setback to this team - especially on the defensive end. With Nurk as a starter, this team is 62-36 (.633). Without him, prior to the trade, the same team was 23-32 (.418). I know which team I prefer. So, if we have to overpay a little to keep Nurk and to keep him happy, what's the big deal - especially if only the first two years are guaranteed? Sure beats the hell out of losing him for nothing. BNM
So glad all those favors Neil gave those agents in the past are paying off. You do realize why we are stuck in purgatory now, right? We have 5 million in DEAD CAP, while we are pinching pennies and making offers to 8th tier free agents! Why the hell is this not talked about more? Those contracts he gave out in 16 and the moves he made after where he didn't want to low ball free agents is coming back to bite us in the ass now. That's why we can't sign anyone. We have no money left because of the bad contracts given before. You seem to want to condone this kind of move. Those who don't learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them.
I said earlier, let's see if this is real. A third year option will make this seem better. Slightly. I'm not arguing Nurk's impact on our team. I'm arguing the fact that we have to apparently overpay (your own words) someone just to keep him happy when we have 0 flexibility because of similar good faith moves earlier in Neil's tenure.
