rim protection stats are almost identical. nearly every other defensive category, nurk is better in his career. turner blocks more shots but i value rim protection more. nurk is a far better rebounder and passer. actually not even in the ball park really. turner is a better post finisher. nurk is a far better shooter this year. nurk is signed long term on a reasonable contract for a starting C for 3 more seasons after this one. tuurner is a upcoming FA looking for a contract. injury history/durability a wash. i didn't come at this thought on a whim. look up the numbers
people get duped by the shot blocking numbers, while ignoring all the intangible stuff nurk does. lucky we have defensive stats can capture that impact now.
The only thing valid is the contract. Other than that I can go back and forth with you. Turner has a higher PER, TS%, BLK% (which Turner has lead the league in twice). Nurk makes disastrous decisions with the ball, can’t finish around the rim. Nurk is a better rebounder and likely will have a more reasonable contract, I’ll give you that.
Is blk% that important when the defensive impact at the rim is identical? i'd rather take the guy with the same protection stats AND also rebound the ball than a Whiteside/Camby redux
I never looked up stats. I watch the NBA a lot. Turner is a better player for what you want out of the modern big man.
Impact on team defense. Over the last several years the Pacers have had a solid defense. Their offense just sucks. Equating a BLK% stat to him just stay padding by leaving his man is just not correct. 7’4” wingspan tends to disrupt things.
turner is certainly not that bad. a bit of hyperbole on my part admittedly. but if you look at DRTG, RAPTOR, DRPM.... i don't see much difference over the years between him and nurk. for our team, i tend to think nurk is just as good if not better. agree to disagree on this
Consistency, that’s my problem and everyone’s problem with Nurk. You never know if Lazy Nurk or Pouty Nurk or Good Nurk is suiting up on any given night. I also know that 7 footers who play BELOW the rim suck. I wish someone could tell me how many games Nurk has cost us over the past few seasons in missed lay ins or flailing hook shots. I think I’ve seen him dunk 5 times in the past 3 season. The guy is soft! Sure he’s a huge body, decent rebounder and good passer but he’s a 4th option on a good team who thinks he’s a second option. Never been a fan and never understood why he gets a free pass for the 3 shitty games he plays in between each decent one. I do agree the contract is better and no way would Turner sign for that, because he’s better.
I don't know about that I guess it might come down to what you want from a C. Nurk is a better rebounder and has a much higher assist rate. Bu that comes with a much higher turnover rate. Turner is an elite rim protector and is mobile enough to defend on the perimeter so he's better in a switching defense Turner has developed a good enough 3 point shot he can stretch the floor. He's also a much better shooter from two, especially at the rim. In the last 2 seasons, Tuner has shot 78.% and 81.8% at the rim; Nurkic has shot 65.3% and 55.4%. Nurk is poor at the basket for a big man...and sometimes really frustrating to watch I think Turner is probably better. But the thing is Turner may actually have almost as bad an injury history as Nurkic. Neither one of these guys can stay healthy. I'd rather have a decent center who is available than a good one in street clothes
I know this is a KD thread but since Turner is getting brought up anyway, let me ask ya’ll a question: What would cost us more: trading for Turner, or trading into the 1st for Dereck Lively or Kel’el Ware?
If my team was headed for the lottery, (which is what would be needed to get either of those two) I would want to keep this year's pick for sure. So to answer your question I would want more in return for the pick than I would for Turner who has an ending contract. On a side note, the Pacers have the 2nd lowest payroll in the league. Can they get a free agent next year? If they think they can then they would not want any long-term contracts back. That is where Westbrook IMO..... is attractive. (I would cut him)
False. The value of a swap is nearly entirely on it being in the lottery, at which point its protected to where the Blazers would get it, thus it can be traded.
It does when you have a below average rebounder in Jerami Grant on the floor. Turner is the new Marvin Williams. We're going to hear about him from people who don't watch him play for the next decade...
Portland's first round picks are encumbered thru 2028...meaning the earliest 1st they could trade would be 2030...which they can't trade because it's past the 7 draft limit. All that's not false maybe they could trade a pick conditionally, and by the couple of weeks leading into the trade deadline the projection of Portland's picks would be clearer. I allowed for that possibility I also pegged the value of those conditional picks as low starting with the reality that none would be guaranteed to convey. And the first 2-4 years of a Dame/Durant team would almost certainly create late first round picks, which is again, low value, especially in pick swaps. That's not false if Portland needs decent draft pick leverage, they'd have to go to Chicago and work out an agreement to just convey this year's pick, regardless. Maybe some cash and/or a future 2nd could get that done. Then they'd have 6 years of of unencumbered 1sts, starting in 2024, to throw into the mix. It's too early to make their 2023 first unprotected though, IMO in any event, I think the Blazers need to be really cautious about trading any unprotected picks past the 2024 draft
I agree with your final sentence. The rest of your comments; no. If the Blazers are adding Durant or another great player in trade this season and already have a great record this season it will just be assumed by all parties the 2023 pick goes to Chicago. Then all the wording of traded picks can be conditional on that, just as many teams often have done previously when trading picks. Its really not an issue at all, that conditional wording will have no tangible impact on value of picks traded away. It's just a tiny asterisk in the detailed language that cap dorks can fret over.
