All over the net and Twitter, people say we're 15-5 with Nurkic but that just isn't true. What am I missing? We were 23-32 before his first game (in Utah).
First, the Bosnian Beast has never lost a game; he is 20-0 since becoming a Blazer. The laws of physics state clearly it is impossible for Nurkic to lose at anything. However, the win/lose record of the other 4 Blazer starters is 14-6. So the 15-5 record is the average of our 5 starters including Nurkic.
We lost to Milwaukee and NO. Is this not true? Quick, throw holy water on yourself to cleanse off a potential losing curse.
Don't know if someone posted this elsewhere, but seems the trade also benefited Blazers financially: Albert Nahmad: Nurkic trade could be more beneficial than realized, with @BobbyMarks42 revelation that Harkless has $500K bonus for shooting 35%+ on 3s. To start the regular season, Blazers were at risk of paying the tax if Harkless earned that $500K bonus. They would’ve been $403K over. Harkless was last contract signed by Blazers this summer, so they gave him the $500K bonus knowing it could take them above tax. Then something odd happened: Harkless started shooting fairly well on his 3-pointers… This is where the Nurkic deal comes in… Blazers saved $407K against the cap by trading Plumlee for Nurkic, keeping them $4,462 below luxury tax even if Harkless earns his bonus. Blazers, for 16-17, secured a ~$550K tax distribution (and no payment) in Nurkic trade. More importantly, repeater tax clock doesn’t start! Blazers, for 17-18, exchanged a potentially costly RFA in Plumlee for $2.9M salary of Nurkic + now official Grizzlies 2017 1st in the trade. Did math contribute to trade idea for Blazers, or did it just happen to work out? Who knows. But Nurkic, despite injury, has fit very well! – via Twitter
