ok...in 8 seasons, Nurkic 23.3 WS (2.9/year); 6.1 VORP (.76/year) Jarret Allen in 5 seasons, 34.9 WS (6.98/year); 8.5 VORP (1.7/year) - 20M/year contract Steven Adams in 9 seasons, 56.0 WS (6.2/year); 11.3 VORP (1.3/year) - 17.5M/year contract Jonas Valuciunas in 10 seasons, 67.4 WS (6.74/year); 14.3 VORP (1.43/year) - 14.7M/year contract using the two metrics you mentioned, it seems hard to justify Nurkic making more than his current 12M/salary
thanks for that. winshares already takes into account games played. think you're double correcting, no?
not really double correcting...using winshares to illustrate that missing lots of games due to injury explicitly impacts value
I know I am not the only one disgusted sometimes with our usage of Nurkic in the past. Throw him the ball just inside the 3-point line and see what happens. When Justise Winslow arrived, everything changed. Nurk and Winslow worked together passing and cutting , give-and-go over and over making Nurkic very difficult to keep from scoring easy buckets. If the player and ball movement we saw with Nurk before he was shut down continue, he should have a very good 2022-23 season. I wonder how the offense and Nurkic would look without Winslow. It might not be as effective.
The market very well may be higher. But I don't believe that 'market' value is the same as what they are worth for their contract. Every year there are players that get WAY overpaid....and it hamstrings the franchises over and over again. We will pay Ant to be the heir apparent to Dame.....while he has to play another position that isn't what Dame plays and isn't what Ant played last year when he was putting up big numbers. Nurk will get good money because there are few decent big men available.....but not because he is that great.
Well, sure. Unfortunately though, when it comes to free agency you're always paying players in the market. If it makes people feel better though, I have a hard time believing that either player will be "WAY overpaid." Might Nurk and Simons get a couple more million per year then we would like? Possibly, but the difference in perception and effect is probably negligible. Assuming they both stay healthy and maintain a reasonable level of play based on the track record they've shown, they'll be movable contracts with reasonable value. And if disaster strikes or their play falls off drastically, it really doesn't matter if Nurk is making 14 million per year or 17 million per year. He's a bad contract and negative asset regardless. The bigger issue for me is far more about their salaries preventing or allowing other team acquisition tools to be used (type of MLE, etc.). The concern is less their value on these contracts when we're splitting hairs between a couple million per year. It would be far worse value in our current state to lose either player for nothing.
Exactly. We will overpay Nurk and folks will say we got him to a good deal. Powell was signed to a good deal last year then everyone turned on him when Joe decided to dump him. Then the contract was downright awful. For some, the team can do no wrong.
The compromise will be one less year but a little higher average per year than he probably should get. I think that's fair considering they have his bird rights and it doesn't really matter that much if he gets $12 million or more. Might as well try to keep him happy.
I know I'm not the only one who is sick of hearing about how informative a ten game sample size is. Let's stop talking about the games we had after the trades and before everyone sat... they are irrelevant. No one had those combinations of players scouted and by the time they could have we sat all of their asses down. So what Justise could do with Nurk was catch every defense off guard and capitalize on it. I'm not saying that I'm not excited to have Justise back for next season at 4M... I think he's going to be great off the bench as long as he can stay healthy because he plays with high BBIQ on both ends and has a well rounded skillset but before you say that the way he played with Nurk is the best way to maximize Nurk, let's see it replicated a bit more. I like Nurk, he seems well intended. He works hard on defense, with great results as long as you make him feel really special (which let's face it due to his limitations you can't always do) and he is a very good high and low post facilitator when he's not being too flashy, along with being an effective scorer inside when he decides to forego the bullshit flip up shots. If he did away with the pouting, could stay healthy, kept his passing simple and finished strong in the paint then he'd be worth a four year contract that starts at 18M and escalating from there. The problem is he's just never done that consistently. I mean the Bosnian Beast works comes out about nine more times a year than Punxsutawney Phil. So the most he should get is 15M next season and since we will sign him for three or four seasons with raises in the salary every season, only the first two seasons should be guaranteed.
If that's what he gets he'll likely get 16M next season and annual increases from there that get the contract to 70M over the four years and I hope there's a team option for year four. I'd be OK with that overpay.
Or just trade the dude for someone who doesn't play soft. Where this guy got "Beast" as a nickname i will never be able to figure out. Frilly soft finger rolls, looping soft passes with absolutely no zip> The guy might be able to get 6 inches on his vert. Hurt every year that he doesn't get paid to sit. I ask why? Why would they want to pay this dude 18 million US Dollars to suit up and sulk or continue complaining to the refs every time he gets touched?