Inside Access: "Nurkic is that 'third guy'"

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Boob-No-More said:
I'm pretty sure Neil knew he was getting a very good player.

As a GM, Olshey is smart enough not to brag about how he fleeced another team. Remember the whole Pritch-slap thing and how teams basically refused to deal with him after that? No one in a position of power, like an NBA GM, wants to be made to look like a fool and publicly humiliated by one of their colleagues. Neil knows that. He didn't go around gloating after he got CP3 from New Orleans and he's not going to go around gloating about stealing Nurkic from Denver.

BNM
Click to expand...

And that is why I couldn't be a GM. I would have been down on the court after the Denver win right beside Nurk yelling "RIP CITY!!" ala Damian Lillard.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You thought that Nurkic could come in and completely change our entire team, including Vonleh, almost overnight? If you can show me where you thought that he would completely revitalize our roster and propel us to the playoffs, I would love to see it.
Click to expand...

I don't care enough to actually dig up my comments about nurkic and how he'd team up well with Vonleh but I did say it so it's on here somewhere.
 
Boob-No-More said:
I'm pretty sure Neil knew he was getting a very good player.

As a GM, Olshey is smart enough not to brag about how he fleeced another team. Remember the whole Pritch-slap thing and how teams basically refused to deal with him after that? No one in a position of power, like an NBA GM, wants to be made to look like a fool and publicly humiliated by one of their colleagues. Neil knows that. He didn't go around gloating after he got CP3 from New Orleans and he's not going to go around gloating about stealing Nurkic from Denver.

BNM
Click to expand...
Not to bash Neil too much, but he had as much to do with that CP trade as David Stern.
 
yuyuza1 said:
Not to bash Neil too much, but he had as much to do with that CP trade as David Stern.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's true Paul was only available because the league vetoed the Lakers trade (thank god), but that still left 28 other GMs in the running.

BNM
 
Player 1 - 20.7 PER, 102 ORtg / 106 DRtg, 46.5% FG, 73.8% FT, 11.7 REB per 36, 0.9 BLK per 36
Player 2 - 21.1 PER, 105 ORtg / 104 DRtg, 50.8% FG, 66.0% FT, 12.8 REB per 36, 2.3 BLK per 36
Player 3 - 22.8 PER, 103 ORtg / 100 DRtg, 45.4% FG, 77.0% FT, 13.3 REB per 36, 1.3 BLK per 36

Which one would you pick, overall? Player 3 also shoots threes, at 37.9% on 5.8 attempts per 36.
 
yuyuza1 said:
There is so much revisionist history here.

Neil made the trade for a pick and to get rid of Plums. It was almost universally understood that we were getting worse for the present and hope to get better for the future.


Such bullshit.

Go watch Neil's initial trade PC. He talks about the pick and Mason way more than he does about Nurk.
Click to expand...
Yeah...I don't buy whatever spin Neil may have been selling there. Is this the only comment Neil made from which to determine his intent?

Myself and a lot of posters here thought the trade made the team better now. Plums was a popular guy, but we were lottery bound as long as he was our starting center. I think Nurk was the target.

BTW: The trade keeps being discussed as if we got Nurk AND the pick for Plums, but didn't Neil essentially buy the pick?
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Player 1 - 20.7 PER, 102 ORtg / 106 DRtg, 46.5% FG, 73.8% FT, 11.7 REB per 36, 0.9 BLK per 36
Player 2 - 21.1 PER, 105 ORtg / 104 DRtg, 50.8% FG, 66.0% FT, 12.8 REB per 36, 2.3 BLK per 36
Player 3 - 22.8 PER, 103 ORtg / 100 DRtg, 45.4% FG, 77.0% FT, 13.3 REB per 36, 1.3 BLK per 36

Which one would you pick, overall? Player 3 also shoots threes, at 37.9% on 5.8 attempts per 36.
Click to expand...
Player 2. Well balanced offense and defense.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Player 1 - 20.7 PER, 102 ORtg / 106 DRtg, 46.5% FG, 73.8% FT, 11.7 REB per 36, 0.9 BLK per 36
Player 2 - 21.1 PER, 105 ORtg / 104 DRtg, 50.8% FG, 66.0% FT, 12.8 REB per 36, 2.3 BLK per 36
Player 3 - 22.8 PER, 103 ORtg / 100 DRtg, 45.4% FG, 77.0% FT, 13.3 REB per 36, 1.3 BLK per 36

Which one would you pick, overall? Player 3 also shoots threes, at 37.9% on 5.8 attempts per 36.
Click to expand...
Can I get TS%, USG% and TOV% to go along with what you listed?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Can I get TS%, USG% and TOV% to go along with what you listed?
Click to expand...

Sure thing!

Player 1 - 52.4 TS%, 28.1 USG%, 15.5 TOV%
Player 2 - 54.5 TS%, 25.6 USG%, 18.0 TOV%
Player 3 - 56.4 TS%, 33.0 USG%, 15.0 TOV%
 
BBert said:
BTW: The trade keeps being discussed as if we got Nurk AND the pick for Plums, but didn't Neil essentially buy the pick?
Click to expand...
Supposedly, Denver didn't include the pick until they learned that Philly was offering Okafor to us for Plumlee, so they needed to sweeten the deal. So I would say that the pick is absolutely a part of the deal, not a separate transaction.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Supposedly, Denver didn't include the pick until they learned that Philly was offering Okafor to us for Plumlee, so they needed to sweeten the deal. So I would say that the pick is absolutely a part of the deal, not a separate transaction.
Click to expand...
At what point did we sweeten the pot with $$? And why?
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Sure thing!

Player 1 - 52.4 TS%, 28.1 USG%, 15.5 TOV%
Player 2 - 54.5 TS%, 25.6 USG%, 18.0 TOV%
Player 3 - 56.4 TS%, 33.0 USG%, 15.0 TOV%
Click to expand...
See, that pretty much tells me what I suspected, that player 3's PER is inflated by his role on his team. I'd think player 2 would actually be a better fit with Dame and CJ.
 
BBert said:
At what point did we sweeten the pot with $$? And why?
Click to expand...
Couldn't tell you, nor do we even know how much cash was sent. As to a reason, perhaps to offset the difference in salaries? I have no idea. All I know is what was reported regarding the chronology of the inclusion of the pick vis-a-vis Philly's offer.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Player 1 - 20.7 PER, 102 ORtg / 106 DRtg, 46.5% FG, 73.8% FT, 11.7 REB per 36, 0.9 BLK per 36
Player 2 - 21.1 PER, 105 ORtg / 104 DRtg, 50.8% FG, 66.0% FT, 12.8 REB per 36, 2.3 BLK per 36
Player 3 - 22.8 PER, 103 ORtg / 100 DRtg, 45.4% FG, 77.0% FT, 13.3 REB per 36, 1.3 BLK per 36

Which one would you pick, overall? Player 3 also shoots threes, at 37.9% on 5.8 attempts per 36.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in all three, but as an armchair GM, I'd also need to know their ages, injury histories, current salary and contract situation.

I'd also want to know of Player 3 is total ass hat and one of the biggest head cases in the league.

BNM
 
Player 2 is obviously Nurkic.

Player 1 is the same age as Nurk, and Player 3 is 26.
 
The other guy to look at in this comparison is also 22.

19.6 PER, 119 Ortg, 102 Drtg, 56.7% FG, 68.4% FT, 10.9 reb per 36, 1.9 blk per 36, 59.6% TS, 11.7% TOV, 17.2% USG.

Arguable that this guy would have been a better fit even than Nurkic.
 
That low usage rate makes me wonder if he can maintain that efficiency in a larger role... but everything else looks enticing.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
That low usage rate makes me wonder if he can maintain that efficiency in a larger role... but everything else looks enticing.
Click to expand...
Not an offensive guy--only 6.5 FGA and 9 points (in 23.5 minutes) per game.

This would be Nerlens Noel in Dallas.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Not an offensive guy--only 6.5 FGA and 9 points (in 23.5 minutes) per game.

This would be Nerlens Noel in Dallas.
Click to expand...

I would say only that we need Nurk's offense as much as his defense; without an offensive threat on both sides of the pick and roll there's no improvement for Dame and CJ. I still like him best.
 
Last edited:
My assumption as to what happened is something like this:

1) Neil wants to make a big FA splash, eventually finds ET.
2) He matches Crabbe, and know he'll need to flip him.
3) He re-signs the rest, knowing he'll need to flip Butters (or possibly ET).

4) He knows the cost of the above is losing Plums for nothing. The cost of re-signing Crabbe and then trading him for a 1st rounder is Plums. By doing this, he's essentially trading Plums (and Crabbe) for that Crabbe 1st rounder.
5) However..... if he could trade Plums and get a first rounder, then he'd effectively get 2 1sts for Crabbe and Plums.
6) If he could get more, than all the better. He got that 1st rounder and Nurkic.

7) So, once he trades Crabbe, he'll have traded Crabbe + Plums for 2 1sts and Nurkic instead of losing Crabbe for nothing and keeping Plums - pretty damn good GMing, IMHO.
8) I'm pretty sure he had all of this in mind (except for how good Nurk would be) BEFORE he matched Crabbe.

9) The game's not over. He still has to flip Crabbe and trade Biebs. Then he can go about smoothing out the roster. A process which should be much easier with 3 1st round picks in the fold.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
My assumption as to what happened is something like this:

1) Neil wants to make a big FA splash, eventually finds ET.
2) He matches Crabbe, and know he'll need to flip him.
3) He re-signs the rest, knowing he'll need to flip Butters (or possibly ET).

4) He knows the cost of the above is losing Plums for nothing. The cost of re-signing Crabbe and then trading him for a 1st rounder is Plums. By doing this, he's essentially trading Plums (and Crabbe) for that Crabbe 1st rounder.
5) However..... if he could trade Plums and get a first rounder, then he'd effectively get 2 1sts for Crabbe and Plums.
6) If he could get more, than all the better. He got that 1st rounder and Nurkic.

7) So, once he trades Crabbe, he'll have traded Crabbe + Plums for 2 1sts and Nurkic instead of losing Crabbe for nothing and keeping Plums - pretty damn good GMing, IMHO.
8) I'm pretty sure he had all of this in mind (except for how good Nurk would be) BEFORE he matched Crabbe.

9) The game's not over. He still has to flip Crabbe and trade Biebs. Then he can go about smoothing out the roster. A process which should be much easier with 3 1st round picks in the fold.
Click to expand...

He also knew that with C.J.'s extension coming up, last summer was the one and only time he'd have cap space to use to sign free any agents. He blew his load on Turner and Ezeli, apparently the best he could do.

With such a young roster, we also had a LOT of guys (Crabbe, Leonard and Harkless) all coming off their cheap rookie contracts at exactly the same time. He, no doubt, planned on using their Bird Rights to go over the cap and re-sign all three. I don't think he counted on BRK giving Crabbe that ridiculous offer sheet. In the end, he spent right up to the luxury tax threshold to retain those three.

I agree he knew all along, with using all his available cap space to sign free agents, giving C.J. his extension and retaining his own RFA's he wouldn't be able to also retain Plumlee this summer, without moving Crabbe. Moving Leonard alone would not have been enough to retain Plumlee. Meyers makes about $10 million a year. Plumlee will get far more than that - something closer to Crabbe's $18.5 million. So, had he not flipped Plumlee for Nurkic, this summer would have come down to either trade Crabbe or let Plumlee walk for nothing. In the end, he got a hell of a lot in return for a guy we were going to lose anyway.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
He also knew that with C.J.'s extension coming up, last summer was the one and only time he'd have cap space to use to sign free any agents. He blew his load on Turner and Ezeli, apparently the best he could do.

With such a young roster, we also had a LOT of guys (Crabbe, Leonard and Harkless) all coming off their cheap rookie contracts at exactly the same time. He, no doubt, planned on using their Bird Rights to go over the cap and re-sign all three. I don't think he counted on BRK giving Crabbe that ridiculous offer sheet. In the end, he spent right up to the luxury tax threshold to retain those three.

I agree he knew all along, with using all his available cap space to sign free agents, giving C.J. his extension and retaining his own RFA's he wouldn't be able to also retain Plumlee this summer, without moving Crabbe. Moving Leonard alone would not have been enough to retain Plumlee. Meyers makes about $10 million a year. Plumlee will get far more than that - something closer to Crabbe's $18.5 million. So, had he not flipped Plumlee for Nurkic, this summer would have come down to either trade Crabbe or let Plumlee walk for nothing. In the end, he got a hell of a lot in return for a guy we were going to lose anyway.

BNM
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
BBert said:
Yeah...I don't buy whatever spin Neil may have been selling there. Is this the only comment Neil made from which to determine his intent?

Myself and a lot of posters here thought the trade made the team better now. Plums was a popular guy, but we were lottery bound as long as he was our starting center. I think Nurk was the target.

BTW: The trade keeps being discussed as if we got Nurk AND the pick for Plums, but didn't Neil essentially buy the pick?
Click to expand...

I liked the trade when it was made. I am a fan of Plums, but our team needed a defensive upgrade badly and we got that in Nurkic. Looking at the trade retrospectively, he's an absolute steal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr. Robot
Nurkic extension not a sure thing
2 3 4
Replies
107
Views
12K
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
SlyPokerDog
SI - The Jusuf Nurkic Revival Is Underway In Portland
Replies
9
Views
794
Sinobas
Sinobas
Rastapopoulos
Turner vs. Nurk?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Blazers Roy
Blazers Roy
Haakzilla
Fantasy Outlook: Will Nurkic Thrive?!
2 3
Replies
77
Views
3K
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
A$AP Meyers
Nylon Calculus: Was Jusuf Nurkic always this good?
Replies
2
Views
308
Trackjack
Trackjack

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top