Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers

Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro

RealGM Wiretap
RealGM
Posts: 102,565
And1: 293
Joined: Mar 19, 2013

Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#1 » by RealGM Wiretap » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:00 pm

Evan Turner's agent, David Falk, believes the Philadelphia 76ers didn't make an expecially strong trade in dealing his client to the Indiana Pacers.


“I don’t think it’s about expectations,” Falk said. “I think he and Jrue Holiday were terrific together. And we had asked Philadelphia his entire fourth year, repeatedly, we urged him to please not trade [Turner]. He was really having fun. He was very productive playing for Brett Brown. and it’s not like they got a lot for the trade [to Indiana].

“They got a second-round pick for he and Lavoy Allen, and had to pay off many millions of dollars to Danny Granger to make the deal. I don’t think it was exactly a blockbuster deal for Philly. The situation could have been better.”


Turner signed with the Boston Celtics this offseason.

Via Gary Washburn/Boston Globe

thinktellectual
Rookie
Posts: 1,167
And1: 726
Joined: Jul 31, 2013

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#2 » by thinktellectual » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:16 pm

Translation: He was putting up dem stats on the Sixers, but then you **** traded him, he stunk on the Pacers, and that cost me a million or so. Why didn't you think of my pay cheque when making that trade ?
Rashidi
Rookie
Posts: 1,091
And1: 145
Joined: Dec 31, 2005
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#3 » by Rashidi » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:34 pm

Sixers didn't pay anything extra to get Granger, they were well below the salary floor and needed to give money to someone.
Lapinski
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,688
And1: 94
Joined: Nov 29, 2008
Location: Western PA
         

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#4 » by Lapinski » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:41 pm

Anyone know what he got from the Celtics?

Sixers traded him because he had no desire to stay with the team on a reasonable contract. He was not worth his qualifying offer of 8.7 million and he kept saying he was going to get paid.
User avatar
Buffalo_Tim
Freshman
Posts: 66
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 15, 2014

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#5 » by Buffalo_Tim » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:03 pm

Lapinski wrote:Anyone know what he got from the Celtics?

Sixers traded him because he had no desire to stay with the team on a reasonable contract. He was not worth his qualifying offer of 8.7 million and he kept saying he was going to get paid.


He got a portion of the mid-level, as per Steve Bulpett, but I couldn't find the exact value. Likely not a heck of a lot.

According to Jeremy Lundblad, of the 74 players with 8,000+ minutes over the last four seasons, Evans ranks 74th in both win shares per 48 and PER. So he's been pretty awful. Talented player though. Would be nice to see him smarten up his play and turn things around.
User avatar
MRxBLACK
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,064
And1: 1,872
Joined: Jul 16, 2012
Location: PA
       

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#6 » by MRxBLACK » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:13 pm

The way Turner (and Hawes) dogged it and quit on the team in the games leading up to the trade deadline was disgusting. Also, despite Turner's increased production for most of the season w/ the Sixers, he was doing it at the same poor efficiency level he always had.
ESPN Sucks
User avatar
IMAN5
General Manager
Posts: 9,997
And1: 5,666
Joined: Jan 08, 2012
 

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#7 » by IMAN5 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:22 pm

Evan Turner sucked, inflated stats on a losing team, nothing special.

there is a reason he got such a small deal in Boston. so much for "getting paid".
Image
instagram.com/510movement
User avatar
Rated T By CBRA
Starter
Posts: 2,135
And1: 163
Joined: Aug 06, 2013
   

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#8 » by Rated T By CBRA » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:27 pm

Not a good fit in Indiana, really not sure why Bird made the move - could have waited until the end of the season to deal Granger...who was a big part of the team with respect to chemistry. This guy will be a journey-man in the NBA unless he establishes himself nicely with Rondo/Smart/Olynyk and the young core that the Celtics have. I mean Antoine Walker was good there a long time ago, no reason he can't be decent either :)
puja21
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,303
And1: 187
Joined: Feb 08, 2013

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#9 » by puja21 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Rashidi wrote:Sixers didn't pay anything extra to get Granger, they were well below the salary floor and needed to give money to someone.


Falk wasn't talking about matching salaries

When he said "payoff many millions of dollars to Danny Granger," he was referring to the fact that they made the trade knowing they were going to waive him less than a week later.

When Granger predictably cleared waivers his 13/14 salary was $14M, so essentially they owed him the pro-rated value on that contract the moment the waiver period closed.

He was dropped with 25 games remaining on the schedule (+30% of the season), so that translates to almost 4.3M paid just to get rid of Turner. The Sixers' brass probably negotiated the actual physical dollar amount down some from there in the buyout terms (Granger is forgoing *some* salary for the right to sign with a playoff team like the Clippers) ... but who knows how much.
zeebo
Junior
Posts: 337
And1: 27
Joined: Jan 30, 2014
       

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#10 » by zeebo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:01 pm

IMAN5 wrote:Evan Turner sucked, inflated stats on a losing team, nothing special.

there is a reason he got such a small deal in Boston. so much for "getting paid".


I put Kevin Love in the category too!
DJ3thenew23 says:

"I love Lebron and will follow him anywhere. Don't hate me cause I bandwagon Lebron anywhere he goes. I used to be a Cavs fan!
Jabatchi22
Freshman
Posts: 56
And1: 5
Joined: Jul 29, 2011

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#11 » by Jabatchi22 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:04 pm

zeebo wrote:
IMAN5 wrote:Evan Turner sucked, inflated stats on a losing team, nothing special.

there is a reason he got such a small deal in Boston. so much for "getting paid".


I put Kevin Love in the category too!


If Minnesota were in the East you wouldn't be saying that. TWolves got 40 wins in a harder conference, cannot compare Turner to Love.
User avatar
caronimo
Rookie
Posts: 1,205
And1: 53
Joined: Jun 26, 2013

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#12 » by caronimo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:07 pm

he's right...it's not a blockbuster. it was getting something (a 2nd round pick) for a player with an expiring contract that the sixers didn't plan to re-sign while preserving their cap space.
djxsremix
Ballboy
Posts: 39
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 18, 2013

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#13 » by djxsremix » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:17 pm

Unless you are an obviously exceptional talent (Kevin Love, Chris Bosh, Al Jefferson etc.) it is very hard to put any stock in a player putting up numbers on a bad team. Especially guys like Evan Turner who so far, is mid tier at best.
saltybs
Sophomore
Posts: 236
And1: 55
Joined: May 12, 2014
 

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#14 » by saltybs » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:50 pm

Jabatchi22 wrote:
zeebo wrote:
IMAN5 wrote:Evan Turner sucked, inflated stats on a losing team, nothing special.

there is a reason he got such a small deal in Boston. so much for "getting paid".


I put Kevin Love in the category too!


If Minnesota were in the East you wouldn't be saying that. TWolves got 40 wins in a harder conference, cannot compare Turner to Love.


I sure as heck do. KLove = overrated.
User avatar
IMAN5
General Manager
Posts: 9,997
And1: 5,666
Joined: Jan 08, 2012
 

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#15 » by IMAN5 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:02 pm

zeebo wrote:
IMAN5 wrote:Evan Turner sucked, inflated stats on a losing team, nothing special.

there is a reason he got such a small deal in Boston. so much for "getting paid".


I put Kevin Love in the category too!


Kevin Love is very overrated too but he's much more talented than Turner. I put Love in the category of Harden, Dwight, Joe Johnson.
Image
instagram.com/510movement
LApwnd
Banned User
Posts: 20,606
And1: 1,146
Joined: Jul 09, 2008

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#16 » by LApwnd » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:07 pm

MRxBLACK wrote:The way Turner (and Hawes) dogged it and quit on the team in the games leading up to the trade deadline was disgusting. Also, despite Turner's increased production for most of the season w/ the Sixers, he was doing it at the same poor efficiency level he always had.


you sure they weren't just following instruction to lose/tank?
Rashidi
Rookie
Posts: 1,091
And1: 145
Joined: Dec 31, 2005
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#17 » by Rashidi » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:30 pm

puja21 wrote:
Rashidi wrote:He was dropped with 25 games remaining on the schedule (+30% of the season), so that translates to almost 4.3M paid just to get rid of Turner. The Sixers' brass probably negotiated the actual physical dollar amount down some from there in the buyout terms (Granger is forgoing *some* salary for the right to sign with a playoff team like the Clippers) ... but who knows how much.


I don't think you understand.

They money they paid to waive Granger went towards the salary minimum that all NBA teams have to meet for a given year. Philly was WELL below that number prior to the trade. Had they not traded for Granger, everyone on the roster simply would have gotten a substantial raise at the end of the year, up to the salary floor.
CoreyGallagher
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,137
And1: 12,924
Joined: Feb 02, 2012
Contact:

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#18 » by CoreyGallagher » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:48 pm

You sort of have to be trading a worthwhile player to begin with for it to be a blockbuster.
CoreyGallagher wrote:I hope the Cavs don't take Embiid because then we'll take Embiid.
User avatar
MRxBLACK
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,064
And1: 1,872
Joined: Jul 16, 2012
Location: PA
       

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#19 » by MRxBLACK » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:03 pm

LApwnd wrote:
MRxBLACK wrote:The way Turner (and Hawes) dogged it and quit on the team in the games leading up to the trade deadline was disgusting. Also, despite Turner's increased production for most of the season w/ the Sixers, he was doing it at the same poor efficiency level he always had.


you sure they weren't just following instruction to lose/tank?

They knew they were as good as gone and quit on the team.

You're probably joking but I think that's a common misconception about the Sixers, if you saw almost any of their games last season the coaches and players want to win, it's the GM that's not giving them a full deck of cards yet.
ESPN Sucks
puja21
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,303
And1: 187
Joined: Feb 08, 2013

Re: Falk: Trading Turner Wasn't Blockbuster For 76ers 

Post#20 » by puja21 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:16 pm

Rashidi wrote:
puja21 wrote:
Rashidi wrote:He was dropped with 25 games remaining on the schedule (+30% of the season), so that translates to almost 4.3M paid just to get rid of Turner. The Sixers' brass probably negotiated the actual physical dollar amount down some from there in the buyout terms (Granger is forgoing *some* salary for the right to sign with a playoff team like the Clippers) ... but who knows how much.


I don't think you understand.

They money they paid to waive Granger went towards the salary minimum that all NBA teams have to meet for a given year. Philly was WELL below that number prior to the trade. Had they not traded for Granger, everyone on the roster simply would have gotten a substantial raise at the end of the year, up to the salary floor.


Ah that makes more sense -- didn't realize their payroll was that low

Return to Wiretap Discussion