Exclusive Nurk has to go too

[ebott]

I think you guys are massively overestimating his value.

I concur. The only "value" Nurk has on the trade market is that he might be part of the asking price in a deal for Dame. I feel like his situation is a little like CJ's. You might be able to trade him for an obviously lesser player, a pick (in Nurk's case a bad second rounder) and a trade exception.

Then you're hoping you can take that trade exception and throw in some other assets to get someone useful like we did for Jeremy Grant.

 

[riverman]

I think you guys are massively overestimating his value.

yeah...he's not bringing Lopez but he's solid enough to have value to the right team. You might have to throw in Nas or 2nd round picks but it the end I'm not sure it's worth the hassle..just sign a couple young cheap backup centers and keep him. I don't think you're getting a Claxton or Allen for him.

 

[riverman]

I don't think Dame and Nurk get traded to the same team..in the case of Miami..they can't come up with the assets for Dame alone, let alone Nurk.

 

[Tince]

I think you guys are massively overestimating his value.

I didn't say that what his value was, I'm simply pointing out the net-positive moves that make sense.

I see little advantage in trading starting center with 3 years left on his deal for some backup wing with an equal contract. So I disagree that he has to go if it nets us an even worse asset. I don't think Portland is in a position where it makes sense for them to downgrade their assets.

Would you trade Nurk for Duncan Robinson? If so, what advantage does Portland gain there?

 

[Cugel]

Nurk > Duncan

 

[STOMP]

Clear salary for what though?

The future, which doesn't mean before the 23/24 season starts. They'll need their young players to develop and prove their worth, but if they do and money is available stud FA's will want to be a part of a bright Trailblazer era.

STOMP

 

[Natebishop3]

I firmly believe in addition by subtraction.

Nurk has low value because of his attitude and his health, and it's because of those reasons that I don't really want him on our team either.

 

[Tince]

I firmly believe in addition by subtraction.

Nurk has low value because of his attitude and his health, and it's because of those reasons that I don't really want him on our team either.

I agree that there are plenty of superior options for this team than Nurk. For the reasons you listed, I'm unsure the Blazers can obtain a superior option.

Losing starters for nothing, or even worse, for a negative asset, is not a great way to rebuild.

I didn't think losing LMA for nothing was addition by subtraction, so that generic phrase doesn't hold true to me. Each situation requires looking at what a team gains by giving up a player before it can be determined if it's truly a net-positive.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

I'm betting if we wantv we can have James Wiseman after sending Detroit Hero. I'd rather give Wiseman 30 minutes and see if he can be something than continue with Nurk. I've been a big Nurk defender but it's time to move on.

 

[andalusian]

Chauncey doesn't use much drop coverage with Nurk from what I've seen...

So, what's the point of trying to win if you can't run the defensive scheme that works for your roster? The Blazers basically tried to emulate drop coverage without doing classic drop coverage by playing Zone. There are reasons this team played so much zone last year - either having to deal with a slow-footed center or defensively deficient small backcourt, at times, both.

No disrespect, RM, but this is talking from both sides of the mouth and it makes no sense.

If this team wants to build winning habits under the current coaching staff, it's imperative to update the roster to support the vision the coaching staff has. Keeping Nurk to fight against the heavy-weights of the league while running a system where he is marginalized is counter-productive, the same as trying to instill systems and habits for a young roster and playing against the style to maximize an older player that is not central to the team's future.

We can bring in young guys through the G league now as needed but bigs take longer to figure it out so Nurk doesn't have that issue.

That's one way to look at it, the other is that Nurk is a slow center that does not work well in a switching scheme - so he will never make it in this system. Better to start with young ones that might one day make it.

Stephen Adams played next to Jah Morant without any issues...same could easily be said of Nurk and Scoot

It can't really because:

1. While Adams is not the fastest center in the league - he is miles faster than Nurk

2. Memphis has JJJ (current defensive player of the year) playing next to Adams or as a center when Adams is out. The Blazers do not have this luxury.

It would be a no-issue to have someone like Nurk on the roster as a backup / secondary center if you have a quick, mobile stud as Memphis does. Keeping him for a rebuilding team because Jokic and Embiid are in the league is the wrong kind of team building. This team needs an upgrade at center for multiple reasons, a younger one that can grow with the new core, a mobile one that can play to the coaching system and one that does not pout and can be relied on to stay healthy. Nurkic, unfortunately, is not that guy.

 

[riverman]

So, what's the point of trying to win if you can't run the defensive scheme that works for your roster? The Blazers basically tried to emulate drop coverage without doing classic drop coverage by playing Zone. There are reasons this team played so much zone last year - either having to deal with a slow-footed center or defensively deficient small backcourt, at times, both.

No disrespect, RM, but this is talking from both sides of the mouth and it makes no sense.

If this team wants to build winning habits under the current coaching staff, it's imperative to update the roster to support the vision the coaching staff has. Keeping Nurk to fight against the heavy-weights of the league while running a system where he is marginalized is counter-productive, the same as trying to instill systems and habits for a young roster and playing against the style to maximize an older player that is not central to the team's future.



That's one way to look at it, the other is that Nurk is a slow center that does not work well in a switching scheme - so he will never make it in this system. Better to start with young ones that might one day make it.




It can't really because:

1. While Adams is not the fastest center in the league - he is miles faster than Nurk

2. Memphis has JJJ (current defensive player of the year) playing next to Adams or as a center when Adams is out. The Blazers do not have this luxury.

It would be a no-issue to have someone like Nurk on the roster as a backup / secondary center if you have a quick, mobile stud as Memphis does. Keeping him for a rebuilding team because Jokic and Embiid are in the league is the wrong kind of team building. This team needs an upgrade at center for multiple reasons, a younger one that can grow with the new core, a mobile one that can play to the coaching system and one that does not pout and can be relied on to stay healthy. Nurkic, unfortunately, is not that guy.

When you have no point of attack defense, you leave your big on an island, that's not Nurk's issue in my view...it's poor backcourt defense but if you know who the next Trendon Watford is, you'll have a young quick big but he'll get cooked against any 7 ft big man of starter quality. Small ball didn't make Chauncey's scheme win ball games and I'm actually not sure yet what Chauncey's defensive identity is other than bottom of the league so far. No offense but I clearly think Nurk is a better anchor than you do....and I don't think Adams is faster than Nurk either...I think they're pretty similar in mobility. I'm ready to see what a Nurk/ Tavares rotation looks like with our new roster...the good fast young centers are not on the market from what I've seen. As far as talking out of both sides of my mouth...no disrespect but I'm not talking out of my mouth at all...I'm typing!

 

[andalusian]

When you have no point of attack defense, you leave your big on an island, that's not Nurk's issue in my view...it's poor backcourt defense but if you know who the next Trendon Watford is, you'll have a young quick big but he'll get cooked against any 7 ft big man of starter quality. Small ball didn't make Chauncey's scheme win ball games and I'm actually not sure yet what Chauncey's defensive identity is other than bottom of the league so far. No offense but I clearly think Nurk is a better anchor than you do....and I don't think Adams is faster than Nurk either...I think they're pretty similar in mobility. I'm ready to see what a Nurk/ Tavares rotation looks like with our new roster...the good fast young centers are not on the market from what I've seen. As far as talking out of both sides of my mouth...no disrespect but I'm not talking out of my mouth at all...I'm typing!

If Nurk was so good in Chauncy's system, why was his DBPM lower than Eubanks?

Heck, if you look at efficiency, all you need to do is look at WS/48 and compare Eubanks and Nurkic last year. Eubanks (a 2nd/3rd center on a modern NBA team had a WS/48 of 0.134, Nurkic 0.092, just for shit and giggles, Steven Adams - 0.144)

You can think whatever you want, the numbers are very clear. Nurkic, playing under Chauncy is a sub-par Center and he is not a great defensive anchor as well. The only places where Nurkic can be effective in the modern NBA is in drop coverage. If the Blazers are not playing it, Nurkic has not been as good as Drew Eubanks last year, so why keep him?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I agree that there are plenty of superior options for this team than Nurk. For the reasons you listed, I'm unsure the Blazers can obtain a superior option.

Losing starters for nothing, or even worse, for a negative asset, is not a great way to rebuild.

I didn't think losing LMA for nothing was addition by subtraction, so that generic phrase doesn't hold true to me. Each situation requires looking at what a team gains by giving up a player before it can be determined if it's truly a net-positive.

Yeah I agree with this much more than Nate's comments.

If we can get a better option than Nurk I'm all for it. I have my doubts that makes sense at this time though or is realistic.

I don't really think he'll be a problem at all if we keep him. When he had issues in Denver he was trying to prove himself as a rotational player as well as get his first contract extension. Right now he has 3 seasons left on his contract while approaching 30. Those are jus totally different situations. I don't think he has any trade value now - but if he plays well in a year or two he might have much more. Blazers have no option and no backups either so theres plenty of room for his ~25 mpg or whatever he plays. It's fine to keep Nurk.

I'm fine trading him too - but I wouldn't dump him for nothing or give up an asset to get out of his contract.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I'm betting if we wantv we can have James Wiseman after sending Detroit Hero. I'd rather give Wiseman 30 minutes and see if he can be something than continue with Nurk. I've been a big Nurk defender but it's time to move on.

Wiseman and Nurk don't need to play 40+ mpg... There's plenty of minutes for both. Might even be room for three of these centers with how often those first two have been injured. Adding a player like Wiseman can be done irrespective of any trade or non trade of Nurk.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah I agree with this much more than Nate's comments.

If we can get a better option than Nurk I'm all for it. I have my doubts that makes sense at this time though or is realistic.

I don't really think he'll be a problem at all if we keep him. When he had issues in Denver he was trying to prove himself as a rotational player as well as get his first contract extension. Right now he has 3 seasons left on his contract while approaching 30. Those are jus totally different situations. I don't think he has any trade value now - but if he plays well in a year or two he might have much more. Blazers have no option and no backups either so theres plenty of room for his ~25 mpg or whatever he plays. It's fine to keep Nurk.

I'm fine trading him too - but I wouldn't dump him for nothing or give up an asset to get out of his contract.

I don't think you can say that he has no value right now and then say that he's an asset. Or at least not a positive asset. Positive assets have value.

Nurk is the 11th highest paid center in the league right now. Is he the 11th best center? He can't stay healthy, and he has made several public comments about being traded if Dame leaves. He already has a history of being a malcontent with Denver if he doesn't get his way.

I just don't want him around our young guys. If we can dump his contract with Dame, I say do it. We aren't trying to win right now.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

So, what's the point of trying to win if you can't run the defensive scheme that works for your roster? The Blazers basically tried to emulate drop coverage without doing classic drop coverage by playing Zone. There are reasons this team played so much zone last year - either having to deal with a slow-footed center or defensively deficient small backcourt, at times, both.

No disrespect, RM, but this is talking from both sides of the mouth and it makes no sense.

If this team wants to build winning habits under the current coaching staff, it's imperative to update the roster to support the vision the coaching staff has. Keeping Nurk to fight against the heavy-weights of the league while running a system where he is marginalized is counter-productive, the same as trying to instill systems and habits for a young roster and playing against the style to maximize an older player that is not central to the team's future.



That's one way to look at it, the other is that Nurk is a slow center that does not work well in a switching scheme - so he will never make it in this system. Better to start with young ones that might one day make it.




It can't really because:

1. While Adams is not the fastest center in the league - he is miles faster than Nurk

2. Memphis has JJJ (current defensive player of the year) playing next to Adams or as a center when Adams is out. The Blazers do not have this luxury.

It would be a no-issue to have someone like Nurk on the roster as a backup / secondary center if you have a quick, mobile stud as Memphis does. Keeping him for a rebuilding team because Jokic and Embiid are in the league is the wrong kind of team building. This team needs an upgrade at center for multiple reasons, a younger one that can grow with the new core, a mobile one that can play to the coaching system and one that does not pout and can be relied on to stay healthy. Nurkic, unfortunately, is not that guy.

So you think its fine to keep Nurk as a backup - but its wrong to have him as a starter even if he is injured often and plays ~25mpg? I just don't see any issue keeping Nurk right now with the lack of anyone else on the roster over 6'9". If we can add a good quick mobile center then do that - Nurk isn't preventing it. If someone outplays Nurk and deserves to start over him then do it. But we shouldn't dump Nurk for nothing or try to do "addition by subtraction".

 

[SharpesTriumph]

If Nurk was so good in Chauncy's system, why was his DBPM lower than Eubanks?

Heck, if you look at efficiency, all you need to do is look at WS/48 and compare Eubanks and Nurkic last year. Eubanks (a 2nd/3rd center on a modern NBA team had a WS/48 of 0.134, Nurkic 0.092, just for shit and giggles, Steven Adams - 0.144)

You can think whatever you want, the numbers are very clear. Nurkic, playing under Chauncy is a sub-par Center and he is not a great defensive anchor as well. The only places where Nurkic can be effective in the modern NBA is in drop coverage. If the Blazers are not playing it, Nurkic has not been as good as Drew Eubanks last year, so why keep him?

I strongly disagree that Nurk was "not as good as Drew Eubanks" last year.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I don't think you can say that he has no value right now and then say that he's an asset. Or at least not a positive asset. Positive assets have value.

Nurk is the 11th highest paid center in the league right now. Is he the 11th best center? He can't stay healthy, and he has made several public comments about being traded if Dame leaves. He already has a history of being a malcontent with Denver if he doesn't get his way.

I just don't want him around our young guys. If we can dump his contract with Dame, I say do it. We aren't trying to win right now.

Where did I say Nurk was an asset?

I think he's a much better than replacement level player but he's on a contract that probably gives him negative trade value. The Blazers would likely have to give up an asset to get out of his deal. I think in a year or two he might have positive trade value. I'd roll the dice on that, as even if he flops the Blazers don't really need that salary space for anything else the next few years.

If someone outplays him for center minutes then great.

Or if he can be wrapped up in a Dame trade I'm fine as well. I just don't think he "needs to go" for addition by subtraction.

 

[andalusian]

I strongly disagree that Nurk was "not as good as Drew Eubanks" last year.

Fight the numbers. They are very clear.

 

[andalusian]

So you think its fine to keep Nurk as a backup - but its wrong to have him as a starter even if he is injured often and plays ~25mpg? I just don't see any issue keeping Nurk right now with the lack of anyone else on the roster over 6'9". If we can add a good quick mobile center then do that - Nurk isn't preventing it. If someone outplays Nurk and deserves to start over him then do it. But we shouldn't dump Nurk for nothing or try to do "addition by subtraction".

For a contending or playoff team, sure Nurk is a great backup. For a rebuilding team that plays a very different style than the one he is good at, why keep him? Better take a chance on a young athletic young. Nurk makes no sense for a rebuilding team that wants to play a style he is not suited for.

 

[Natebishop3]

Where did I say Nurk was an asset?

Sorry, misunderstood this comment "I'm fine trading him too - but I wouldn't dump him for nothing or give up an asset to get out of his contract."

Thought you meant Nurk but you were saying you wouldn't dump ANOTHER asset to get out of his contract. But here's the thing.... if you don't think he has value and if you don't think he's an asset, why wouldn't it be worth it to dump him and get out of his contract?

 

[Pinwheel1]

I just don't want him around our young guys. If we can dump his contract with Dame, I say do it. We aren't trying to win right now.

I think that depends on who we get for Dame. I mean if we got Simmons in the trade, I see no reason why we can't compete for a playoff spot. Of course, health is a big concern, as with most teams, but I like that 2 deep if we get a 2nd center. I think Ant, Sharpe, and Grant would all benefit from playing with Simmons.

I wonder if the Nets would take Herro and Duncan for Ben?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

For a contending or playoff team, sure Nurk is a great backup. For a rebuilding team that plays a very different style than the one he is good at, why keep him? Better take a chance on a young athletic young. Nurk makes no sense for a rebuilding team that wants to play a style he is not suited for.

You keep him because it doesn't cost you an asset and has the chance he can be flipped for something at a later date.

Do you think the Blazers should cut him as they did Andrew Nicholson so his contract is stuck on our cap until 2030? Or give up draft picks to send him elsewhere? I think those would be very bad decisions.

There is no reason to dump Nurk when he's the only player over 6'9". If we are contending or not he can be fine next year as a backup.

If we can trade him for positive value or a different starter like Capella I'm all for it. I just don't see that as likely.

I want the Blazers to prioritize building talent and assets on their roster. A Nurk move needs to do that. If not then keep him.

I'm not saying Nurk is ideal with this team - I wouldn't want the Blazers to throw the MLE at him if he was a free agent. But that contract is done and can't be undone, so better to just make the best of it.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Sorry, misunderstood this comment "I'm fine trading him too - but I wouldn't dump him for nothing or give up an asset to get out of his contract."

Thought you meant Nurk but you were saying you wouldn't dump ANOTHER asset to get out of his contract. But here's the thing.... if you don't think he has value and if you don't think he's an asset, why wouldn't it be worth it to dump him and get out of his contract?

Because just letting Nurk stay on this roster this year is not a problem at all in my opinion. He was at a totally different point in his career in Denver and a different situation and I don't see there being a problem. Keeping Nurk has some upside if he plays well, and if he doesn't at least we still have that pick or whatever your saying to give up. I want the Blazers to add talent and add assets to this roster.

 

[riverman]

If Nurk was so good in Chauncy's system, why was his DBPM lower than Eubanks?

Heck, if you look at efficiency, all you need to do is look at WS/48 and compare Eubanks and Nurkic last year. Eubanks (a 2nd/3rd center on a modern NBA team had a WS/48 of 0.134, Nurkic 0.092, just for shit and giggles, Steven Adams - 0.144)

You can think whatever you want, the numbers are very clear. Nurkic, playing under Chauncy is a sub-par Center and he is not a great defensive anchor as well. The only places where Nurkic can be effective in the modern NBA is in drop coverage. If the Blazers are not playing it, Nurkic has not been as good as Drew Eubanks last year, so why keep him?

I never said Nurk was good in Chauncey's system but I did say Chauncey's system gave us two years of the worst defensive rating we've had in ages..our guards poor play made our bigs look pretty bad...it's all good. Nurk was injured also so of course Eubanks would have better stats. I get that you don't like Nurk's game. I'm not having some relapse of Nurk fever but I think he's the type of player you need for matchups with real 7 ft starting quality centers..he does need to be in shape and engaged though which is an issue at times.

 

[andalusian]

You keep him because it doesn't cost you an asset and has the chance he can be flipped for something at a later date.

I think the Blazers should actively look to trade Nurkic. That's what this thread is about, he has to go, that's what it means. I do not mean cut him or take Duncan Robinson type contract for him, but the plan should be to replace him, 100%.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I think that depends on who we get for Dame. I mean if we got Simmons in the trade, I see no reason why we can't compete for a playoff spot. Of course, health is a big concern, as with most teams, but I like that 2 deep if we get a 2nd center. I think Ant, Sharpe, and Grant would all benefit from playing with Simmons.

I wonder if the Nets would take Herro and Duncan for Ben?

Agreed, yeah I don't think this team is going to make the playoffs or anything, but they might have a run where they win 8 of 10 games or are in a race for a playin spot or something. Having a competent center for Scoot/Sharpe/Ant/Murray/etc is much better than not having one. I'd rather have Nurk out their starting than Badji or Butler Jr or trying to play small with Grant/Walker/etc.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I think the Blazers should actively look to trade Nurkic. That's what this thread is about, he has to go, that's what it means. I do not mean cut him or take Duncan Robinson type contract for him, but the plan should be to replace him, 100%.

"Actively look to trade Nurk" vs "he has to go" are two completely different statements. I'm fine with the first, but I'm not giving up assets to do the second.

I'd say Blazers should "actively look to trade" ______ veterans on the team. Grant when he can, Nurk, Thybulle in a few months, possible even Ant if he has value and Scoot/Sharpe play good enough to project as long term starters. The Blazers are a long way from contending, so right now they need to prioritize building assets.

They should NOT be looking to give away assets to dump players or do "addition by subtraction"

 

[Tince]

"Actively look to trade Nurk" vs "he has to go" are two completely different statements. I'm fine with the first, but I'm not giving up assets to do the second.

They should NOT be looking to give away assets to dump players or do "addition by subtraction"

Bingo, Bango, Bongo!

 

[Natebishop3]

Because just letting Nurk stay on this roster this year is not a problem at all in my opinion. He was at a totally different point in his career in Denver and a different situation and I don't see there being a problem. Keeping Nurk has some upside if he plays well, and if he doesn't at least we still have that pick or whatever your saying to give up. I want the Blazers to add talent and add assets to this roster.

You guys keep saying that the circumstances were different in Denver, but it's not about the circumstances. It's about how he reacted to things not going his way. Let's not pretend that this dude hasn't sulked on the Blazers. That's just how he is wired.