Some in here ooh & ah about Turner. I like him as a backup role player. What has he done in Indiana that has led to anything when he had a good surrounding cast? I think he suffers with an inconsistent motor. He can shoot, rebound, and block shots. But even Indiana isn't all in on him. Why is that?
Yes, he's athletic and can block shots. But he hasn't shot well in 3 years, he's really a pretty bad rebounder, and I don't think he's a very good positional defender. Not to mention his health issues. I think Turner and Grant would be a fun front court on offense, but I think they would be pretty poor on the other end.
i dont think billups & cronin wouldve gone to europe to visit nurk if they already have a deal lined up also, why would they give him 4/70 if they want to deal him, why not offer him less money/years (better value & more tradeable contract) and let him test the market believing he wouldnt get more money from other teams it doesnt add up at all
I got me some Nurk Fever coming on. Dame/Ant/Hart/Grant/Nurk Payton/Sharpe/Little/Walker/Winslow gonna make some wAvEs!!!!!
If you want to maximize the value of an asset that you might potentially lose, you do what is necessary to retain it. If Nurk didn't feel courted/appreciated, he could have signed anywhere he wanted, and the Blazers would have nothing for him. By wooing and possibly overpaying him, they were able to keep him as a tradeable asset. Note that I'm not saying that the Blazers want to trade him; just explaining why they might do the things you mentioned even if they didn't actually want to keep him.
Everyone here knows I'm not a big Nurk fan but i got to agree with this. On top of that Turner isn't much an upgrade. While Nurk is here I'm going to pull for the guy and hope this team and new coach work well for him.
Eubanks, Watford, Sarr...(7 ft French dude) Will play some 5...Grant will play small ball 5.. Walker, Winslow backup PFs....learn the team then post FAMS!
Turner is a weak rebounder, but he's a fairly elite shot blocker and rim protector. He's also a more efficient shooter than Nurkic and unlike Nurkic doesn't miss a lot of shots around the rim. He could be much more efficient at shooting but for some reason over the last 3 seasons he's chucked up 4 thre's a game while averaging less than 34%. That's poor shot selection but all that aside, he has the same issue over the last 3 seasons that Nurkic has had: inability to stay healthy. I would think the Larry Nance Jr. experiment last season would have made Portland reluctant to trade for an injury prone big man. Of course they gave a 70M to an injury prone big man so who knows what they are thinking
So your well thought out response to my question is that we will play Grant as a 5….. a player smaller than Nic Batum. And @THE HCP is the one who needs to learn the team? Cmon FAMS!
Lol. funny. We have them but i don't think they are potential wave creators like the guys i listed. And im hoping we upgrade by the trade deadline.
Grant and Nurk, obviously. The ones I mentioned plus maybe one of the training camp invites will be their backups. By trade deadline, the height/size will have to be addressed unless we're top-4 good
Although Grant is certainly not a center, I can envision playing him there at the end of the game when the opposing team needs a 3-to-tie. I would go with a defensive lineup of GP2, Hart, Little, Winslow, and Grant. I would also use that lineup in a two-point game as well unless the opposing team has a quality true center in the game who can score down low.
Yes he is one of the ones where it would not work. But I don't think there are too many more where a team would go away from their star players just because they like the center match-up against Grant. Even Phoenix who has a center who is much better, do they really want to take the ball out of Booker, CP3, or Bridges' hands for a last-second shot? I can live with that.
