Would you do it 5-7?

[Diesel]

[Packfill]

This move would only make sense as part of a larger roster restructuring where the extra annual cap savings was needed.  

[Diesel]

56 minutes ago, Packfill said:

This move would only make sense as part of a larger roster restructuring where the extra annual cap savings was needed.  

That sounds nice... but let's think about it. 

Nurkic is a 36% 3 pt shooter.   Who takes 2 a game last year.  It's not a lot but it is enough to make you call him a three point threat but it's enough to  make you say that he can play outside of the post. 

Portland is looking to move him because he hasn't worked with them.   They need rebounding and defense.   That's what the cries have been.   Well, introducing Clint. 

What we get is better spacing that allows JC to play inside more.  Nurkic is a big big so therefore, he can split time with OO and we not miss anything. 

 

 

 

[REHawksFan]

Pros:

• Floor spacer-ish; 36% on 3's this season (4.2 per game)
• Wouldn't lose too much on the boards with a career 17.5 per 100 poss vs CC at 19.4 per 100 poss; actually avg slightly more DReb per 100 than CC but fewer OReb
• 2.3 blocks for Nurkic vs 2.7 for Clint is a wash
• Nurkic avg 4.6 ast per 100 poss which is much more than Clint so we'd be upgrading the playmaking a little bit

Cons:

• Nurkic has played 153 games in the last 4 seasons. Even if you take out the bubble season where he only played 8 games, he's only played 145 over the last 3 seasons which is only 48 per season. 
• Nurkic is a significantly less efficient player;  On 2's, he's shot 56% the last 2 seasons compared to 63% for Clint
• Not sure he's as good as Clint defending the rim?

 

Overall, I like the idea of a big that stretches the floor and his raw stats look mostly good.  The biggest thing for me is availability.  If he had these same numbers compared to Clint but was playing the same number of games that Clint does, I'd probably be on board with him as a player.  But the fact that each of the last 4 years he's missed SIGNIFICANT time is a pretty big turnoff for me. 

 

 

[Diesel]

@REHawksFan  You make a good point.  He does have an injury history.  However, if the plan is to play OO more... 

You get those pros that you mention... but you forgot one.

We save 4.1 Million dollars in the trade and maybe more than that in the long run. 

But you can't escape injuries.  Injuries is why the Clipps with PG13 and Kawhi never won.

 

 

[bird_dirt]

22 hours ago, Diesel said:

@REHawksFan  You make a good point.  He does have an injury history.  However, if the plan is to play OO more... 

You get those pros that you mention... but you forgot one.

We save 4.1 Million dollars in the trade and maybe more than that in the long run. 

But you can't escape injuries.  Injuries is why the Clipps with PG13 and Kawhi never won.

 

 

The cap savings and floor spacing without giving up size seems like a good trade off for me. I proposed trading for him last year. 
Of course health/availability is the concern, and that’s what’s driving his price down. However, I think some of that will be mitigated by using him as a back up and not a starter. Less wear.

CC will be a back up here anyway, so I’d rather get a cheaper back up that fits better. 

[Diesel]

10 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

The cap savings and floor spacing without giving up size seems like a good trade off for me. I proposed trading for him last year. 
Of course health/availability is the concern, and that’s what’s driving his price down. However, I think some of that will be mitigated by using him as a back up and not a starter. Less wear.

CC will be a back up here anyway, so I’d rather get a cheaper back up that fits better. 

A cheaper back up that fits better.. means a floor spacer?

If so, I agree.   I think we see what we want to see in OO.   I see OO as having made great strides but is he really better than CC?  I would say not when it counts.   He had a misraeble post season.  It was CC who led us over Miami.   CC did more against Boston than OO in the first 4 games and wasn't a slouch in game 6.  OO's best work came in games  2, 5 & 6 after Quin found an offensive pairing that worked for OO. 

But I believe that if he can be better, i'd take OO back and consider trading CC becuase OO is not anchored to the post.   We have to move past him just playing on Instinct though.   Trae has worked on him with catching the lobs... and he has done a lot better.   He's no CC but I think he can get there. 

 

[bird_dirt]

21 minutes ago, Diesel said:

A cheaper back up that fits better.. means a floor spacer?

If so, I agree.   I think we see what we want to see in OO.   I see OO as having made great strides but is he really better than CC?  I would say not when it counts.   He had a misraeble post season.  It was CC who led us over Miami.   CC did more against Boston than OO in the first 4 games and wasn't a slouch in game 6.  OO's best work came in games  2, 5 & 6 after Quin found an offensive pairing that worked for OO. 

But I believe that if he can be better, i'd take OO back and consider trading CC becuase OO is not anchored to the post.   We have to move past him just playing on Instinct though.   Trae has worked on him with catching the lobs... and he has done a lot better.   He's no CC but I think he can get there. 

 

Yeah, he’s more of a floor spacer (better fit) while still being a big body, so we don’t lose that when CC leaves and OO struggles.