(01-11-2022, 01:25 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]1. Who out there needs KP?
2. What is his market value and how does it compare to Turner’s value.
If I was starting a team from scratch I would take KP over MT every time. I think KP's value should be significantly higher (even with the injuries) than MT. That's my opinion, FWIW.
BUT if I was building around Luka, I would take MT over KP every time.
(01-11-2022, 01:25 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]3. Does simply adding Turner instead of KP to the current roster make us better?
I believe it would, yes, as long us he came into the situation wanting to play WITH and OFF OF Luka.
(01-11-2022, 01:25 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]I personally think Turner is better than he has shown in Indy and therefore will attract multiple bidders. Replacing KP with him is a big help financially toward retaining JB and DFS. I think he has the bulk to defend guys that our current roster struggles to defend (like AD and Jokic). He plays with force and I could see Kidd really valuing his D. I’m not sure Turner would harm our O much (if at all), but would improve our D. I think between his D and his ability to pick and pop that he can play alongside any of Powell, Maxi, DFS or even four guards and be just fine. My answer to number 3 above is Yes.
...and I agree with all of this, too. Well stated.
(01-11-2022, 01:30 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I think KP's value should be significantly higher (even with the injuries) than MT. That's my opinion, FWIW.
I agree, in theory. I would feel so much more tranquil about all of this, even potentially waiting and hoping Porzingis works out here, if I just knew WHY the Luka/KP two-man thing hasn't worked. I'm frustrated and confused by this, so much so that I find the situation frightening as a fan.
Does he not LIKE being the screen setter? Is that the issue? If so, I think that maybe there simply aren't many teams with any easily identified use for the guy, talented as he is.
(01-11-2022, 01:30 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]If I was starting a team from scratch I would take KP over MT every time. I think KP's value should be significantly higher (even with the injuries) than MT. That's my opinion, FWIW.
BUT if I was building around Luka, I would take MT over KP every time.
Fair. Hopefully the league agrees.
One note regarding Portland. They are a hair over the tax and Indy is a hair under. Both need to finish under in any 3-way. I think all three are ripe for swapping out pieces, but the money gets tricky fast as we are sending out the most expensive player and needing to take on extra salary and needed to meet roster limit goals.
(01-11-2022, 01:25 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]First, let me say that the “news” reported yesterday is most likely Indy ringing the bell asking for final offers (because we are really really really close to pulling the trigger).
Next, let’s take as fact your assertion that KP and Luka together don’t optimize either player. Logic would dictate that sooner or later Dallas would break up the band and Luka would be the one staying. So, for arguments sake, lets make that a given.
Next, let’s also make it a given that KP isn’t going to Indy or NY. So, my questions:
1. Who out there needs KP?
2. What is his market value and how does it compare to Turner’s value.
3. Does simply adding Turner instead of KP to the current roster make us better?
I personally think Turner is better than he has shown in Indy and therefore will attract multiple bidders. Replacing KP with him is a big help financially toward retaining JB and DFS. I think he has the bulk to defend guys that our current roster struggles to defend (like AD and Jokic). He plays with force and I could see Kidd really valuing his D. I’m not sure Turner would harm our O much (if at all), but would improve our D. I think between his D and his ability to pick and pop that he can play alongside any of Powell, Maxi, DFS or even four guards and be just fine. My answer to number 3 above is Yes.
HOWEVER, I don’t have a gauge as to what, if anything, would need to be added. Indy will NOT pay LT, so any deal requires Dallas take back extra salary (thankfully we have that TPE). I’m not sure I’m willing to add much in the way of real talent to KP to get this done (thus question 2) and I’m not sure other teams in a 3-way wouldn’t rather just have Turner for themselves. Charlotte carries a highly rated O already. Do they value KP higher than Turner? How about GS? Who out there needs KP worse than they need Turner (thus question 1.
I agree with pretty much all of this. Don't see a reasonable path to get Turner (or Collins for that matter).
So if we feel we need to trade KP, who does make sense? I keep coming back to Portland. They need to do something to keep Lillard interested. Nurkic is probably leaving after this year which leaves a gaping hole at the center position. They need to rectify having 3 of their best players all small defensively challenged guards. They also like can't put together a package that would interest Pacers. Something like KP/Bullock for CJ/Nurkic would make a lot of sense for them. I don't think that is good enough for us. Maybe you get them to include a Powell for Covington swap, especially if they are worried about him bailing. Then you are looking at a Nurk/Covington/DFS/Luka/CJ starting lineup. Brunson becomes expendable in this case and can potentially be traded for more value.
EDIT: Didn't realize I already posted basically this late last night. I'm over posting.
(01-11-2022, 01:35 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, in theory. I would feel so much more tranquil about all of this, even potentially waiting and hoping Porzingis works out here, if I just knew WHY the Luka/KP two-man thing hasn't worked. I'm frustrated and confused by this, so much so that I find the situation frightening as a fan.
Does he not LIKE being the screen setter? Is that the issue? If so, I think that maybe there simply aren't many teams with any easily identified use for the guy, talented as he is.
Reminds me of Dwight Howard with the Rockets.
You can help your efficiency and the team offense by just setting some nice picks and running towards the rim. You'll even get a few cool dunks a game out of it.
Well hell with KP he can even pick and pop for some open 3's so it makes it even more confusing.
I really expected them to end every game 2 man-gaming like Dirk and JET did for years
(01-11-2022, 01:30 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]If I was starting a team from scratch I would take KP over MT every time. I think KP's value should be significantly higher (even with the injuries) than MT. That's my opinion, FWIW.
BUT if I was building around Luka, I would take MT over KP every time.
I think KP is the better player, but he is also the player with more risk and his contract is twice what Turners is. Given their current contracts and risk profile, I think Turner is probably a little more valuable.
(01-11-2022, 01:49 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with pretty much all of this. Don't see a reasonable path to get Turner (or Collins for that matter).
So if we feel we need to trade KP, who does make sense? I keep coming back to Portland. They need to do something to keep Lillard interested. Nurkic is probably leaving after this year which leaves a gaping hole at the center position. They need to rectify having 3 of their best players all small defensively challenged guards. They also like can't put together a package that would interest Pacers. Something like KP/Bullock for CJ/Nurkic would make a lot of sense for them. I don't think that is good enough for us. Maybe you get them to include a Powell for Covington swap, especially if they are worried about him bailing. Then you are looking at a Nurk/Covington/DFS/Luka/CJ starting lineup. Brunson becomes expendable in this case and can potentially be traded for more value.
EDIT: Didn't realize I already posted basically this late last night. I'm over posting.
Indy gets: Nurkic, CJ
Dallas Gets: Turner, LeVert, Lamb (we have to cut someone)
Portland gets: KP, Bullock
This gets both teams under the LT (Portland just barely and I’m not sure trade machine has up to date info on money spent on 10-day contracts). LeVert is a better creator than Bullock. RB is the better defender.
I'm just failing to realize what Myles Turner does exceedingly better than KP?
They are strikingly similar players. Turner is more efficient than KP in scoring (though on vastly lower shot attempts). KP has shown he can carry a bigger load than Turner and is similar in rim protection.
Turner has KP beat in health and contract. So you can make an argument there. But if we're replacing KP with Turner, I fail to see how much better this team gets unless you're expecting Turner to take a huge leap. In which case we've replicated what we have with KP.
I think we should be aiming for another scoring wing. This team looks radically different when THJ or Dorian both score in double figures. I like Gordon Hayward a lot for that role, contract be damn. Charlotte is one of the few teams that also would be interested in KP. They have plenty of scorers, so losing Hayward wouldn't be that big of a blow to them.
If the play is adding both Hayward and replacing KP with Turner then I start to see the logic. But other than that I don't see Turners fit on this team with KP.
(01-11-2022, 02:08 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just failing to realize what Myles Turner does exceedingly better than KP?
They are strikingly similar players. Turner is more efficient than KP in scoring (though on vastly lower shot attempts). KP has shown he can carry a bigger load than Turner and is similar in rim protection.
Turner has KP beat in health and contract. So you can make an argument there. But if we're replacing KP with Turner, I fail to see how much better this team gets unless you're expecting Turner to take a huge leap. In which case we've replicated what we have with KP.
I think we should be aiming for another scoring wing. This team looks radically different when THJ or Dorian both score in double figures. I like Gordon Hayward a lot for that role, contract be damn. Charlotte is one of the few teams that also would be interested in KP. They have plenty of scorers, so losing Hayward wouldn't be that big of a blow to them.
If the play is adding both Hayward and replacing KP with Turner then I start to see the logic. But other than that I don't see Turners fit on this team with KP.
There is this little thing called defense. Something the Mavs seem to value a lot more this season. KP improved a lot but Turner is better. Going big picture Turner has been the 2nd best rim protector in the league behind Gobert over the last couple of seasons and while he lost some mobility and added some bulk he is way better on the perimeter.
KP has his moments and when he is locked in he can reach a similar level (at least as a rim protector). Just lacks consistency.
(01-11-2022, 02:14 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]There is this little thing called defense. Something the Mavs seem to value a lot more this season. KP improved a lot but Turner is better. Going big picture Turner has been the 2nd best rim protector in the league behind Gobert over the last couple of seasons and while he lost some mobility and added some bulk he is way better on the perimeter.
KP has his moments and when he is locked in he can reach a similar level (at least as a rim protector). Just lacks consistency.
Turner is an elite rim protector I agree. But KP is what 80% of what Turner brings? Is an extra 20% worth a massive asset investment?
Unless we can turn KP into another wing that can create their own shot while simultaneously getting Turner, I just don't see why the Mavs would go out of their way in swapping Turner for KP when they are so similar.
(01-11-2022, 02:15 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]Turner is an elite rim protector I agree. But KP is what 80% of what Turner brings? Is an extra 20% worth a massive asset investment?
Unless we can turn KP into another wing that can create their own shot while simultaneously getting Turner, I just don't see why the Mavs would go out of their way in swapping Turner for KP when they are so similar.
Difference is that Turner offers more bulk against big bodies and post scorers and more quickness on the perimeter. I really like the current hard hedging and quick rotating scheme. Don´t think it is possible to run it with KP. Turner isn´t as quick as he used to be. He added some weight and improved his post defense. Still has a big mobility advantage over KP. He might be able to give the Mavs 80% of Powell´s movement and mobility with DPOY level rim protection.
Also think that many posters here would be suprised by Turner´s jumpshooting ability. I think he is a better shooter than KP. Especially from midrange. KPs big advantage on offense is the ability to put the ball on the floor and create for himself (albeit not with great efficiency). Turner is even more of a pure finisher. Cannot get to the rim by himself. Isn´t drawing a lot of fouls.
Agree with your notion that the Mavs should also look for another guard/wing (ideally a SF/PF).
(01-11-2022, 02:15 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]Turner is an elite rim protector I agree. But KP is what 80% of what Turner brings? Is an extra 20% worth a massive asset investment?
Unless we can turn KP into another wing that can create their own shot while simultaneously getting Turner, I just don't see why the Mavs would go out of their way in swapping Turner for KP when they are so similar.
I see three potential reasons (could be wrong about some of this, but it's all my honest take):
1) KP has been better on D this year. Better than I ever thought he'd be again. I'll take a huge helping of crow over that. BUT, he's still not going to be anything but a defensive liability against a good team in the playoffs who understands how to spread the floor and attack his feet. That, imo, is the safest bet that will be made on this forum today. I'm not positive Turner's effectiveness on that end lasts all the way through the playoffs, either, but I feel like that "extra 20%" you're talking about might just extend a round or two farther. That's not nothing, imo.
2) This one assumes that Turner would WANT to play off of Luka on offense (the Mavs had better not assume - they'd need to know). IF he does, then even as a less talented, slightly more limited offensive player, he'd open up this offense in ways Porzingis just refuses to do.
3) The financial situation with Turner is much more in line with the idea of being able leave him on the bench through important stretches when absolutely necessary, which in reality is probably a situation that will come up in some big games down the stretch and at least one playoff series with either player.
Just how I see it. I flat out believe the Mavs with Turner are better than the Mavs with KP.
Personally I think lots of people are reflexively undervaluing KP, both on what he brings to the team and on what he could be worth in a trade. But I do agree that if Dallas were to trade KP, Turner would be right near the top of my list for centers who I think could drop into what the Mavs want to do without missing a beat.
(01-11-2022, 02:06 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Indy gets: Nurkic, CJ
Dallas Gets: Turner, LeVert, Lamb (we have to cut someone)
Portland gets: KP, Bullock
This gets both teams under the LT (Portland just barely and I’m not sure trade machine has up to date info on money spent on 10-day contracts). LeVert is a better creator than Bullock. RB is the better defender.
Not sure why Indy would want Nurkic when they have Sabonis? Is CJ and salary dump enough return for Turner?
(01-11-2022, 02:34 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I see three potential reasons (could be wrong about some of this, but it's all my honest take):
1) KP has been better on D this year. Better than I ever thought he'd be again. I'll take a huge helping of crow over that. BUT, he's still not going to be anything but a defensive liability against a good team in the playoffs who understands how to spread the floor and attack his feet. That, imo, is the safest bet that will be made on this forum today. I'm not positive Turner's effectiveness on that end lasts all the way through the playoffs, either, but I feel like that "extra 20%" you're talking about might just extend a round or two farther. That's not nothing, imo.
2) This one assumes that Turner would WANT to play off of Luka on offense (the Mavs had better not assume - they'd need to know). IF he does, then even as a less talented, slightly more limited offensive player, he'd open up this offense in ways Porzingis just refuses to do.
3) The financial situation with Turner is much more in line with the idea of being able leave him on the bench through important stretches when absolutely necessary, which in reality is probably a situation that will come up in some big games down the stretch and at least one playoff series with either player.
Just how I see it. I flat out believe the Mavs with Turner are better than the Mavs with KP.
Lets also not forget the other big reason why folks want to move on from KP: injury risk.
(01-11-2022, 02:43 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Lets also not forget the other big reason why folks want to move on from KP: injury risk.
To be fair. I don´t think Turner is a big upgrade in that department.
(01-11-2022, 02:47 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]To be fair. I don´t think Turner is a big upgrade in that department.
KP
21-22: 26/40 65%
20-21: 43/72 59%
19-20: 57/75 76%
18-19: 0/82 0%
17-18: 42/82 51%
16-17: 66/82 80%
15-16: 72/82 87%
Most games played 72/82 in 15-16. Overall 59% (306/515)
MT
21-22: 40/41 97%
20-21: 47/72 65%
19-20: 62/73 84%
18-19: 74/82 90%
17-18: 65/82 79%
16-17: 81/82 98%
15-16: 60/82 73%
Most gams played 81/82 in 16-17. Overall 83% (429/514)
That's not even factoring in the nature of the injuries which would farther skew the results towards MT.
![[Image: FI2sHUMXsAIHnVR?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI2sHUMXsAIHnVR?format=jpg&name=large)