Message to Danny Ferry: Do Something!

[Buzzard]

Focus on WS/48 if you will. I am sure that the 18 win Kings and their .158 WS/48 Isaiah Thomas compares favorably to Turner's .025 WS/48 because of those 3 wins and not because Thomas scores at a .570 TS% compared to Turner's ugly .504 TS%. I am sure 10 win Milwaukee's Khris Middleton's .546 TS% has nothing to do with why his WS/48 is more than double Turner's and that is all has to do with how many few wins Philly is producing.

That is the problem with win/shares. Its the inconsistency. Players like Bron and Durant being exactly where you would expect them to be; only to find role players like Chris Anderson and Jeremy Evans ranked in the top ten ( 2013 W/S % ). Its a stat that is used to prove a very weak argument. All I said was Turner was a good scorer and rebounder. Somehow that rubbed you the wrong way; and off on a win/share tangent we go....

Link:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2013_advanced.html

Edited February 20, 2014 by Buzzard

[AHF]

Turner is a terrible scorer. Ignore the WSs. Look at the other numbers and all of them are bad.

The main reason his scoring is up is a simple one: more shots = more points.

That doesn't translate well onto a better team.

[IheartVolt]

Turner is a terrible scorer. Ignore the WSs. Look at the other numbers and all of them are bad. The main reason his scoring is up is a simple one: more shots = more points. That doesn't translate well onto a better team.

This ^^^^^DMC is just the better basketball player right now.. Why down grade the Sf position?

[Buzzard]

Turner is a terrible scorer. Ignore the WSs. Look at the other numbers and all of them are bad.

The main reason his scoring is up is a simple one: more shots = more points.

That doesn't translate well onto a better team.

That is not a absolute rule. Right now he is the #1 or #2 option on a bad team. He could be the 3rd or 4th option on our team with a healthy Horford. Translation: less double teams.

[AHF]

That is not a absolute rule. Right now he is the #1 or #2 option on a bad team. He could be the 3rd or 4th option on our team with a healthy Horford. Translation: less double teams.

To date in his career, he was even worse as a 3rd or 4th option than he has been this season as the top option. Sorry, four consecutive years of terrible scoring does nothing to entice me. You have to see a value from other skills that outweigh the bad scoring and he is a good rebounder, poor defender, and a decent passer. He is also in a prime position to get overpaid based on name recognition, draft slot and artificially inflated numbers due to Philly's pace.

Giving Lou for him and then resigning him on the cheap or letting him walk makes sense. Giving up assets for him doesn't.

[NineOhTheRino]

Don't bs us Danny.

[Admin]

[Buzzard]

To date in his career, he was even worse as a 3rd or 4th option than he has been this season as the top option. Sorry, four consecutive years of terrible scoring does nothing to entice me. You have to see a value from other skills that outweigh the bad scoring and he is a good rebounder, poor defender, and a decent passer. He is also in a prime position to get overpaid based on name recognition, draft slot and artificially inflated numbers due to Philly's pace.

Giving Lou for him and then resigning him on the cheap or letting him walk makes sense. Giving up assets for him doesn't.

All stats aside, Indy and Bird like him. I am going to side with them and wish we had gotten him instead.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Buzzard

[DrReality]

message to DF: SHOULD HAVE DONE NOTHING!!!!!!

[AHF]

All stats aside, Indy and Bird like him. I am going to side with them and wish we had gotten him instead.

Yeah they just love him. Let's see how much he resigns for with Indy. (This summer: What? They'll be spending that money on Stephenson and just wanted a backup wing that is healthier than Granger and will only resign Turner on a small contract? No. It can't be true!)

It is hard to believe that they were willing to give upon on someone like Granger who plays 7.9 mpg and shoots 35% from the floor. /sarcasm

The real question is what Philly got for upgrading the Pacer's bench. Because this is Turner's future role - reserve swingman - and it is one that should be a good fit for him. He isn't worthless, he just isn't an up and coming guy you want to pencil in as your starter for the next 3 years.

[hawkman]

At this point, Ferry needs to ask some hard questions about what his goals are for the rest of the season. If he is trying to win an NBA championship, that should dictate a very different set of moves than if he just wants to make the playoffs or wants to develop our young players or wants to dip into the lottery, etc.

What we can't do is drift in no man's land where we keep losing games and get just healthy enough to scrap into the playoffs for a first round trouncing by Miami or Indiana.

AMEN!

[DJlaysitup]

Don't bs us Danny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw

[yungsta]

dont understand the fascination of giving away future assets to guys who will be free agents this offseason just so we can delay our playoff exit by a few games.

that is a terribly short sighted move.

[Buzzard]

Yeah they just love him. Let's see how much he resigns for with Indy. (This summer: What? They'll be spending that money on Stephenson and just wanted a backup wing that is healthier than Granger and will only resign Turner on a small contract? No. It can't be true!)

It is hard to believe that they were willing to give upon on someone like Granger who plays 7.9 mpg and shoots 35% from the floor. /sarcasm

The real question is what Philly got for upgrading the Pacer's bench. Because this is Turner's future role - reserve swingman - and it is one that should be a good fit for him. He isn't worthless, he just isn't an up and coming guy you want to pencil in as your starter for the next 3 years.

I get your point of view. You do not like this guy more than Lou Williams and maybe even a Marcus Thorton. I think you are a minority concerning his value and potential vs the majority of sports writers and other NBA fans in general. Here is my point: Would Indy and Bird be getting a headline like the below for acquiring Lou Williams or Marcus Thorton?

Bird’s Famous Fire Drives Pacers’ Granger-Turner Trade

I don't think a move for Lou Williams or Marcus Thorton would come close to the hype and agreement that it was a great move the Evan deal brought; but I am almost 110% positive you would disagree with me on that as well.

Link:

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/02/20/birds-famous-fire-drives-pacers-granger-turner-trade/

[AHF]

I get your point of view. You do not like this guy more than Lou Williams and maybe even a Marcus Thorton. I think you are a minority concerning his value and potential vs the majority of sports writers and other NBA fans in general. Here is my point: Would Indy and Bird be getting a headline like the below for acquiring Lou Williams or Marcus Thorton?

Bird’s Famous Fire Drives Pacers’ Granger-Turner Trade

I don't think a move for Lou Williams or Marcus Thorton would come close to the hype and agreement that it was a great move the Evan deal brought; but I am almost 110% positive you would disagree with me on that as well.

Link:

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/02/20/birds-famous-fire-drives-pacers-granger-turner-trade/

Rather than looking for a headline designed for the purpose of generating clicks:

"BLOCKBUSTER TRADE CLICK HERE AND IMPROVE OUR AD REVENUE"

Look at what Philly got for Turner.

NOTHING.

No picks.

No cash.

No players with a future.

Nothing more than an expiring contract that helps the team tank this year.

No team in the NBA beat the offer of an injured player who improves your odds of tanking. When a 2nd round pick would have been enough to get Turner, every GM in the league said...."pass."

So 2nd round pick > Turner is what the deadline tells us. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Edited February 21, 2014 by AHF

[Sothron]

I don't want to pick sides but honestly speaking Turner is just not that good. And by that I mean he is not a scrub but his numbers were completely enhanced artificially by I believe the NBA leaders in pace and their style of offense in Philly. He also is going to want some serious money as a RFA that I don't think anyone is going to be shelling out. Turner is going to get a rude awakening in FA.

[tbhawksfan]

What it tells us is that that cheap (but otherwise pretty worthless) 2nd is worth more the paying Turner. With the new Cba and economy (attendance) the teams are lowering cost at every level. It'll still be a superstar league, but with A LOT of low paid (in perspective) players and the few superguys. A few pretty good players here and there, but they'll just become bad contracts

[AHF]

I don't want to pick sides but honestly speaking Turner is just not that good. And by that I mean he is not a scrub but his numbers were completely enhanced artificially by I believe the NBA leaders in pace and their style of offense in Philly. He also is going to want some serious money as a RFA that I don't think anyone is going to be shelling out. Turner is going to get a rude awakening in FA.

I'm not saying the guy is worthless at all. I am saying that his trade value was de minimus because all you are buying is a couple months of solid bench production by an unrestricted free agent.

He is an UFA because no one wants to pay the $9M qualifying offer it takes to retain him. Then he has ambitions of getting highly paid and there is good potential for him being overpaid based on his draft status and the inflated stats you mention.

He isn't a good scorer at all but he can be a rotation player on a good team. He will just want to get a shot at starting and will want to be paid like a starter this offseason so you arrive at the idea I have been trumpeting:

Don't acquire him if you have to give up an asset of any real value and don't look to him to be your starter. The Pacers played this just right. They gave away nothing and got someone who can enhance their bench with the possibility of offering long-term value if the contract can be at the right price. If he wants to get paid, you can let him go and you have lost nothing because you weren't retaining Granger anyway. So giving away a player you have zero interest in keeping for Turner was the perfect play.

[Sothron]

I'm not saying the guy is worthless at all. I am saying that his trade value was de minimus because all you are buying is a couple months of solid bench production by an unrestricted free agent.

He is an UFA because no one wants to pay the $9M qualifying offer it takes to retain him. Then he has ambitions of getting highly paid and there is good potential for him being overpaid based on his draft status and the inflated stats you mention.

He isn't a good scorer at all but he can be a rotation player on a good team. He will just want to get a shot at starting and will want to be paid like a starter this offseason so you arrive at the idea I have been trumpeting:

Don't acquire him if you have to give up an asset of any real value and don't look to him to be your starter. The Pacers played this just right. They gave away nothing and got someone who can enhance their bench with the possibility of offering long-term value if the contract can be at the right price. If he wants to get paid, you can let him go and you have lost nothing because you weren't retaining Granger anyway. So giving away a player you have zero interest in keeping for Turner was the perfect play.

I thought he was a RFA not a UFA? And I agree with your post. Indiana traded a non producing due to injury (I do miss the Danny Danger Granger from old) wing player for a producing wing that will fit on their bench. It is a win/win for them. It also let the Sixers hit the mim. salary cap requirements which is why Philly did it.

[AHF]

I thought he was a RFA not a UFA? And I agree with your post. Indiana traded a non producing due to injury (I do miss the Danny Danger Granger from old) wing player for a producing wing that will fit on their bench. It is a win/win for them. It also let the Sixers hit the mim. salary cap requirements which is why Philly did it.

Like I said above (He is an UFA because no one wants to pay the $9M qualifying offer it takes to retain him), he is a RFA only if you offer a $9M qualifying offer. Since no one will offer that qualifying offer, you don't get the benefit of him being a RFA and so he is an UFA for all intents and purposes.

I would analogize it to a stock option that is under water. Do you really have a stock option if the purchase price for the stock is less than the strike price for an option? Technically you do, but since you would have pay more to exercise the option than to just buy a share of stock you really don't have an option for any practical purpose. Here, Turner should be viewed as an UFA since no one is willing to get stuck paying him $9M next season.

Edited February 21, 2014 by AHF