Is Jamal Murray washed?

[dhsilv2]

Also over the last 3 post seasons MPJ averages 15 ppg. That is a very generous interpretation of a guy that "can put up 20 any given night", especially when he relies so much on Jokic. His TS% last regular season was +6% higher with Jokic on the floor.

Gordon averaged 13.7 ppg in the last 3 post seasons.

By that same standard Lakers have Dlo, Rui and Reaves that can put up 20 any given night

Scoring in the post season is harder, yes. Porter had 20 plus in 29 regular season games last year. I'd say that's the definition of a guy who can put up 20 or more on a given night. Gordon less so, but he's more of an all around player than scorer.

You can say it about the Lakers, too I suppose. They have 2 all stars, too, which we're saying is the key to success, so I don't know why it's not working there since 2 all stars = success.

I just think people here are too caught up on the whole all star thing. There have been plenty of stars playing with similar or worse supporting casts than Murray/MPJ/Gordon. To the original point though, Murray isn't looking great these days.

How many legit contenders tho?

One I think their poor defense is overlooked. Murray is terrible and a constant target on that end, and MPJ is poor defender too. KCP and Gordon were great, but not elite. Denver has been a mediocre team at best in regular seasons, so they are getting by on their offense.

Two, there really isn't that much offensive talent either. Gordon gets most of his looks at the rim, can't create for himself and was never good efficiency until he played with Jokic. Same with MPJ but at the 3 point line, can't create and relies heavily on Jokic to get looks and bump his efficiency. Murray is the only one other than Jokic that can create offense. But he's such an up and down player, if we look exclusively at his elite playoff moments than he is great, the rest of his career he's just a good offensive player.

It's rare to see a contender with so many offensively limited role players without at least being full of elite role players. Not saying Jokic has the worst cast ever, but they're up there

One of the big parts this guy is missing is defense. So many people will ramble on and on about a guys who didn't have SCORING help. Ignoring that they often have multiple all nba defensive level guys. KCP and Gordon as you said are solid defenders. They aren't Dough Christie level defenders. They aren't Tyson Chandler. They are Deke to go even more extreme. Normally, we see offensive stars with defensive specialists. The rare exception was KG with offensive specialists...and they weren't even good at that for the most part.

[MarcusBrody]

Also over the last 3 post seasons MPJ averages 15 ppg. That is a very generous interpretation of a guy that "can put up 20 any given night", especially when he relies so much on Jokic. His TS% last regular season was +6% higher with Jokic on the floor.

Gordon averaged 13.7 ppg in the last 3 post seasons.

By that same standard Lakers have Dlo, Rui and Reaves that can put up 20 any given night

Scoring in the post season is harder, yes. Porter had 20 plus in 29 regular season games last year. I'd say that's the definition of a guy who can put up 20 or more on a given night. Gordon less so, but he's more of an all around player than scorer.

You can say it about the Lakers, too I suppose. They have 2 all stars, too, which we're saying is the key to success, so I don't know why it's not working there since 2 all stars = success.

I just think people here are too caught up on the whole all star thing. There have been plenty of stars playing with similar or worse supporting casts than Murray/MPJ/Gordon. To the original point though, Murray isn't looking great these days.

How many legit contenders tho?

One I think their poor defense is overlooked. Murray is terrible and a constant target on that end, and MPJ is poor defender too. KCP and Gordon were great, but not elite. Denver has been a mediocre team at best in regular seasons, so they are getting by on their offense.

Two, there really isn't that much offensive talent either. Gordon gets most of his looks at the rim, can't create for himself and was never good efficiency until he played with Jokic. Same with MPJ but at the 3 point line, can't create and relies heavily on Jokic to get looks and bump his efficiency. Murray is the only one other than Jokic that can create offense. But he's such an up and down player, if we look exclusively at his elite playoff moments than he is great, the rest of his career he's just a good offensive player.

It's rare to see a contender with so many offensively limited role players without at least being full of elite role players. Not saying Jokic has the worst cast ever, but they're up there

I think we're starting to underrate the Denver supporting cast here. How many 3rd/4th starters in the league would you rather have than MPJ/Gordon? They're both extremely good at their roles. Gordon is a good defender and MPJ has improved to the point that he isn't a bad one anymore. Both are good rebounders.

I think Murray - overall - is getting underrated by some as well. He's shown he can be a very good player. Not an All Star - I can't think of a year when he had any case over any of the guards in the West - but not bad. He's totally fine as the second option scorer on a championship team, even when he isn't going supernovae. He isn't a big asset (against a Championship team), but he'd be ok given the players behind him in a scoring sense. Murray's issue is that 1. He isn't a great playmaker. He's not terrible, but without Jokic, he isn't getting the guys who need set up easy buckets. Part of that is that he doesn't have a super quick first step so works best with a screen, which means a more predictable drive and kick game than guys who can. Part of it is that he's just not an amazing passer. The fact that he's not a particularly good entry passer despite playing with the best post player of his generation for years now drives me crazy.

Now, he has been playing as poorly, as has been claimed. Whether this is the new normal is an important question, but I think he's been a decent number 2 when healthy. It's most worrisome to me that his head seems to be out of it as there are definitely some parts of his game that could improve - footwork, passing angles - that would help him if he has lost some speed, but he needs to be willing to work at that to improve.

[Bobbymcgee]

Just need him to beat the Lakers in the playoffs till LeBron retires. Then the Nuggets can try and get rid of him.

[shrink]

I think the Nugs should trade him, he’s a killer in the playoffs sure, but you need consistency around the best player in the league. He should have made atleast one all star by now, and now I don’t think he’ll ever be able to.

great idea, this is the best moment to trade him
what return do you expect?

I think people are so locked into “buy low, sell high,” that they fail to understand that shouldn’t be the trigger for buying or selling. In fact, it’s not about the past or present, you make moves based on your projected future.

It doesn’t matter if Murray’s trade value is low right now. The question DEN should ask, is whether they think it will go lower. If he plays poorly for the next three months, will they need to give up assets to get off that contract for an expensive Nuggets team? If they wait three months and he still plays poorly, do they eliminate potential buyers who right now, think there is a chance Murray returns to form? Or does DEN think Murray is simply slumping, and they just need to ride it out, and his value will rise?

High Clyde’s opinion to trade him is reasonable, if that’s what DEN sees. The current value of a player doesn’t predict the best moment to trade him. That moment comes when a front office makes a determination about a player’s future, especially if it disagrees with at least one possible trade partner.

[nikster]

Scoring in the post season is harder, yes. Porter had 20 plus in 29 regular season games last year. I'd say that's the definition of a guy who can put up 20 or more on a given night. Gordon less so, but he's more of an all around player than scorer.

You can say it about the Lakers, too I suppose. They have 2 all stars, too, which we're saying is the key to success, so I don't know why it's not working there since 2 all stars = success.

I just think people here are too caught up on the whole all star thing. There have been plenty of stars playing with similar or worse supporting casts than Murray/MPJ/Gordon. To the original point though, Murray isn't looking great these days.

How many legit contenders tho?

One I think their poor defense is overlooked. Murray is terrible and a constant target on that end, and MPJ is poor defender too. KCP and Gordon were great, but not elite. Denver has been a mediocre team at best in regular seasons, so they are getting by on their offense.

Two, there really isn't that much offensive talent either. Gordon gets most of his looks at the rim, can't create for himself and was never good efficiency until he played with Jokic. Same with MPJ but at the 3 point line, can't create and relies heavily on Jokic to get looks and bump his efficiency. Murray is the only one other than Jokic that can create offense. But he's such an up and down player, if we look exclusively at his elite playoff moments than he is great, the rest of his career he's just a good offensive player.

It's rare to see a contender with so many offensively limited role players without at least being full of elite role players. Not saying Jokic has the worst cast ever, but they're up there

I think we're starting to underrate the Denver supporting cast here. How many 3rd/4th starters in the league would you rather have than MPJ/Gordon? They're both extremely good at their roles. Gordon is a good defender and MPJ has improved to the point that he isn't a bad one anymore. Both are good rebounders.

I think Murray - overall - is getting underrated by some as well. He's shown he can be a very good player. Not an All Star - I can't think of a year when he had any case over any of the guards in the West - but not bad. He's totally fine as the second option scorer on a championship team, even when he isn't going supernovae. He isn't a big asset (against a Championship team), but he'd be ok given the players behind him in a scoring sense. Murray's issue is that 1. He isn't a great playmaker. He's not terrible, but without Jokic, he isn't getting the guys who need set up easy buckets. Part of that is that he doesn't have a super quick first step so works best with a screen, which means a more predictable drive and kick game than guys who can. Part of it is that he's just not an amazing passer. The fact that he's not a particularly good entry passer despite playing with the best post player of his generation for years now drives me crazy.

Now, he has been playing as poorly, as has been claimed. Whether this is the new normal is an important question, but I think he's been a decent number 2 when healthy. It's most worrisome to me that his head seems to be out of it as there are definitely some parts of his game that could improve - footwork, passing angles - that would help him if he has lost some speed, but he needs to be willing to work at that to improve.

Honestly most contenders. Im not convicned MPJ is a good defender yet, and he's a good but not great rebounder. How many contenders can you look at and confidently say MPJ/Gordon are better? And when you factor in the drop of they have individually without Jokic on the floor I don't think it's really close.

Last 2 years MPJ has a TS% of 53.9 and 55.6 in minutes with Jokic off the floor. Gordon 56.1 and 53.5. With Jokic that's 63.4/60.8, and 61.9/62 respectively. That's a massive +7TS% bump that would completely change how we look at these players. Did anyone see elite role player potential in Gordon from Orlando? Because he's basically the same player in the non-Jokic minutes.

Looking at last year, Celtics just kill in depth, I'd take Knicks Divenczeno and OG, Bucks Lopez and Middleton (when healthy), 76ers were in a transition year but Harden/Maxey+Harris were better and PG+Oubre likely better assuming PG picks things up again this year. Myles Turner+ maybe Nembhard are close. Wolves with KAT/Gobert +Mcdaniels, OKC with Williams/Dort etc... Mavericks might be the only contender with an objectively worse 3/4

[xchange55]

Murray is so overrated because the Nuggets won a title and are in contention every year now. Never made an all star team. When he's hot he can certainly light it up. But he's not an all star because he's inconsistent. You could slot in dozens of players next to Joker and the Nuggets would be just as good. It's the same way where a number of players could have filled the Klay/Draymond roles for Steph.

[Karate Diop]

He's not washed in the athletic sense, but he's definitely checked out mentally. People kill Ben Simmons, but Murray is legitimately about the lifestyle not the life.

[Wolfgang630]

He’s 27!! Have we ever seen this before?? A dude who won a championship as the second best player and after that doesn’t seem to have any fire or drive in him anymore? How did Jokic get stuck with him.

If Murray is dog crap all year idc what the nuggets got to do they need to get rid of him or joker needs to demand a trade out.

[BigGargamel]

Just keep him on ice and un-thaw him when the playoffs roll around. It's not like he's helping Denver win during the regular season.

They should see how desperate the Bulls are to get rid of Zach Lavine. But honestly, this front office won't do anything, except keep the same few players around Jokic for the rest of his career.

[MarcusBrody]

How many legit contenders tho?

One I think their poor defense is overlooked. Murray is terrible and a constant target on that end, and MPJ is poor defender too. KCP and Gordon were great, but not elite. Denver has been a mediocre team at best in regular seasons, so they are getting by on their offense.

Two, there really isn't that much offensive talent either. Gordon gets most of his looks at the rim, can't create for himself and was never good efficiency until he played with Jokic. Same with MPJ but at the 3 point line, can't create and relies heavily on Jokic to get looks and bump his efficiency. Murray is the only one other than Jokic that can create offense. But he's such an up and down player, if we look exclusively at his elite playoff moments than he is great, the rest of his career he's just a good offensive player.

It's rare to see a contender with so many offensively limited role players without at least being full of elite role players. Not saying Jokic has the worst cast ever, but they're up there

I think we're starting to underrate the Denver supporting cast here. How many 3rd/4th starters in the league would you rather have than MPJ/Gordon? They're both extremely good at their roles. Gordon is a good defender and MPJ has improved to the point that he isn't a bad one anymore. Both are good rebounders.

I think Murray - overall - is getting underrated by some as well. He's shown he can be a very good player. Not an All Star - I can't think of a year when he had any case over any of the guards in the West - but not bad. He's totally fine as the second option scorer on a championship team, even when he isn't going supernovae. He isn't a big asset (against a Championship team), but he'd be ok given the players behind him in a scoring sense. Murray's issue is that 1. He isn't a great playmaker. He's not terrible, but without Jokic, he isn't getting the guys who need set up easy buckets. Part of that is that he doesn't have a super quick first step so works best with a screen, which means a more predictable drive and kick game than guys who can. Part of it is that he's just not an amazing passer. The fact that he's not a particularly good entry passer despite playing with the best post player of his generation for years now drives me crazy.

Now, he has been playing as poorly, as has been claimed. Whether this is the new normal is an important question, but I think he's been a decent number 2 when healthy. It's most worrisome to me that his head seems to be out of it as there are definitely some parts of his game that could improve - footwork, passing angles - that would help him if he has lost some speed, but he needs to be willing to work at that to improve.

Honestly most contenders. Im not convicned MPJ is a good defender yet, and he's a good but not great rebounder. How many contenders can you look at and confidently say MPJ/Gordon are better? And when you factor in the drop of they have individually without Jokic on the floor I don't think it's really close.

Last 2 years MPJ has a TS% of 53.9 and 55.6 in minutes with Jokic off the floor. Gordon 56.1 and 53.5. With Jokic that's 63.4/60.8, and 61.9/62 respectively. That's a massive +7TS% bump that would completely change how we look at these players. Did anyone see elite role player potential in Gordon from Orlando? Because he's basically the same player in the non-Jokic minutes.

Looking at last year, Celtics just kill in depth, I'd take Knicks Divenczeno and OG, Bucks Lopez and Middleton (when healthy), 76ers were in a transition year but Harden/Maxey+Harris were better and PG+Oubre likely better assuming PG picks things up again this year. Myles Turner+ maybe Nembhard are close. Wolves with KAT/Gobert +Mcdaniels, OKC with Williams/Dort etc... Mavericks might be the only contender with an objectively worse 3/4

But both MPJ and Gordon do play with Jokic and their skills are complementary to his strengths. Now most people would benefit from playing with Jokic, but MPJ is an elite shooter and Gordon is a great cutter. Even playing with Jokic, I don't think most 3/4s are going to be as good at those specific things even if they would be better at generating their own offense when Jokic was off the floor. Those TS%s with Jokic off aren't great, particularly the lower years, but they aren't that wildly low for players without their offense organizer. It's basically Mikal Bridges TS% from last year.

Talking specifically this year:
So I would grant you the Celtics with Jrue and KP are better, though KP is a big question mark healthwise (Porter has questions too, but has been durable lately). Cleveland is better 3/4. I would say that OKC has a better 3rd man, but less good 4th. The Rockets? I don't think yet. The Lakers? Austin Reaves is better at generating his own offense, but not as good at playing the role Denver would need in that role (and I'm not sure who their 4th is). The Suns? Beal (who would need to start playing better) and who? Philadelphia? In theory Maxey is better than either (especially creating), but 1. is he really the third option given George's availability 2. He's also not a great defender. Then who is 4? Caleb Martin over Oubre in my mind, but Gorden/Porter are better than both. The Warriors? I would take Gordon over current Kuminga or Wiggins and while Buddy is playing the best of the bunch, his .465 3P% may come back to earth, as career wise, his career percentage is basically the same as Porter's (actually slightly below) and has defensive limitations that are probably even worse (though he's also looked better there this year in the Warrior's scheme).

So I see 2 teams that are clearly better 3/4 than the Nuggets. I think the rest are certainly arguable, but I don't think that it makes that much sense to argue because they're not as good when they aren't playing with Jokic, the Nuggets are worse in those spots. They play the majority of their minutes with Jokic (and even more so in the playoffs), so tailoring their game to fit with that makes sense.

To me the problem is three fold 1. Murray isn't elite at running an offense, so staggering his minutes without Jokic hasn't really led to results 2. Relatedly, the Nuggets haven't had a decent backup center in years. They often play Gordon (and to a lesser extent Porter) in a small ball 5 roll, which isn't ever going to be ideal. They tried to addresss this through the draft, but then Holmes tore his Achilles. 3. Their backup PGs haven't been great since Monte Morris left (who wasn't great, but was a very solid backup). Even there, Morris is very good about taking care of the ball, but he wasn't disruptive enough to free up offensively limited players. I actually thought Russ -with all his warts - might be good for this role. Jury is still out.

[dc]

It's the same way where a number of players could have filled the Klay/Draymond roles for Steph.

Not as much as you think. Klay is an elite shooter and, in his prime, could move his feet extremely well defensively. Those guys don't grow on trees. There's a reason Kerr prefers not to start Hield and it's due to the defensive side.

If the Warriors could've replaced Draymond with just anyone, they probably would've done it after the Poole incident and certainly would've after his long suspension last year. The fact that they still put up with him with all the issues/antics tells you about how difficult it is to replace what he does on both ends of the floor.

[DaFan334]

He's not washed in the athletic sense, but he's definitely checked out mentally. People kill Ben Simmons, but Murray is legitimately about the lifestyle not the life.

Jamal lives in a $1M townhouse in Denver. I'm not sure that is really the "lifestyle".

As for his struggles this year, I do think it is interesting to look at the best Duos in the league as far as offensive rating.

Read on Twitter

I know everyone will see him and Jokic and just immediately say it is all Jokic, but its interesting to see Jamal and AG on this list.

Is Jamal's game heavily just reliant on quality big men? Its kind of interesting if that is the case. While he has struggled this year, he has had some games that seem like his normal self and with Jokic in the lineup, they are still a strong contender.

I wonder what is going on with him being off and hope it is an injury or something because they will need him to hold his weight come playoffs.

[MarcusBrody]

He's not washed in the athletic sense, but he's definitely checked out mentally. People kill Ben Simmons, but Murray is legitimately about the lifestyle not the life.

Jamal lives in a $1M townhouse in Denver. I'm not sure that is really the "lifestyle".

As for his struggles this year, I do think it is interesting to look at the best Duos in the league as far as offensive rating.

Read on Twitter

I know everyone will see him and Jokic and just immediately say it is all Jokic, but its interesting to see Jamal and AG on this list.

Is Jamal's game heavily just reliant on quality big men? Its kind of interesting if that is the case. While he has struggled this year, he has had some games that seem like his normal self and with Jokic in the lineup, they are still a strong contender.

I wonder what is going on with him being off and hope it is an injury or something because they will need him to hold his weight come playoffs.

I assume they're using NBA.com (or similar) two man lineups. A whole lot of those minutes with Murray-Gordon also have Jokic on the floor.

Edit: Best Duo in the League: Murray and Jokic, 5th: Porter and Jokic, 15th: Peyton Watson(!) and Jokic. 17: Braun and Jokic. 32nd: Gordon and Jokic. Basically of the 726 two man lineups, all 5 players Jokic plays with regularly are in the top 5% of pairings. And 6 others are pairings from Denver's starting lineup that play most of their minutes with Jokic.

[Sixers in 4]

great idea, this is the best moment to trade him
what return do you expect?

I think people are so locked into “buy low, sell high,” that they fail to understand that shouldn’t be the trigger for buying or selling. In fact, it’s not about the past or present, you make moves based on your projected future.

It doesn’t matter if Murray’s trade value is low right now. The question DEN should ask, is whether they think it will go lower. If he plays poorly for the next three months, will they need to give up assets to get off that contract for an expensive Nuggets team? If they wait three months and he still plays poorly, do they eliminate potential buyers who right now, think there is a chance Murray returns to form? Or does DEN think Murray is simply slumping, and they just need to ride it out, and his value will rise?

High Clyde’s opinion to trade him is reasonable, if that’s what DEN sees. The current value of a player doesn’t predict the best moment to trade him. That moment comes when a front office makes a determination about a player’s future, especially if it disagrees with at least one possible trade partner.

I think people have a hard time seeing it from anyone perspective but their own.

He has zero trade value.

If he had a shorter deal, you could potentially convince a club to take on some risk. No one is going to take on his $200 million plus contract with the way he is playing. I don't even think it's a question of assets, like Warriors had to attach a 1st round pick plus a player who was just drafted in the 1st to take on Pooles contract, and he was 23 at the time of the trade, and making half as much.

Now Poole was much younger, but Murray has a much longer track record and is probably worth more in trade, or maybe he isn't, because if teams attribute his decline to injury, no team is going to trade for 4/200M+ until he shows he is fully recovered. Unless you want to call an Ainge and make a stupid offer like four plus first rounders to take a problem off your hands, remember Poole was moved for two first rounders, was younger, made half as much, and they maned to dump Paul 30M salary in the trade; he also wasn't coming off a potential career-altering injury.

It isn't a question of whether the Nuggets want to move Murray; the question is, who is trading for that contract for someone whose viewed as damaged goods at this point? The answer is nobody

[shrink]

I think people are so locked into “buy low, sell high,” that they fail to understand that shouldn’t be the trigger for buying or selling. In fact, it’s not about the past or present, you make moves based on your projected future.

It doesn’t matter if Murray’s trade value is low right now. The question DEN should ask, is whether they think it will go lower. If he plays poorly for the next three months, will they need to give up assets to get off that contract for an expensive Nuggets team? If they wait three months and he still plays poorly, do they eliminate potential buyers who right now, think there is a chance Murray returns to form? Or does DEN think Murray is simply slumping, and they just need to ride it out, and his value will rise?

High Clyde’s opinion to trade him is reasonable, if that’s what DEN sees. The current value of a player doesn’t predict the best moment to trade him. That moment comes when a front office makes a determination about a player’s future, especially if it disagrees with at least one possible trade partner.

I think people have a hard time seeing it from anyone perspective but their own.

He has zero trade value.

If he had a shorterm deal you could potentially convince a club to take on some risk noone is going to take on his 200M plus contract with the way the way he is playing. I don't even think it's a question of assets like Warriors had to attach a 1st round pick to take on Pooles contract and he was 23 at the time of the trade making half as much and they had to take on paul 30M trade two first rounders Baldwin and a 2030 pick and 2 2nd rounders.

Now Poole was much younger but Murray has a much longer trackrecord and is probably worth more in trade or maybe he isn't because if teams attribute his decline to the injury no team is going to trade for 4/200M+ until he shows he is fully recovered unless you want to call an ainge and offer him like four plus first rounders to take a problem off your hands and remember poole was moved for two first rounders makes half as much and they dumped Paul in the trade and wasn't coming off a potential career altering injury.

It isn't a question of whether the Nuggets want to move Murray the question is who is trading for that contract for someone who is viewed as damaged goods at this point? The answer is nobody

You’re missing the point. Step back. This is Econ 101.

It doesn’t matter if Murray has “zero trade value” or even negative trade value (and to who?). If DEN believes he’s never recovering and it would take a pick to trade him, they could still have incentive to trade if they think it will take two picks down the road.

The value of the asset doesn’t matter to whether it’s time to make a trade. What matters is the projected value for the future, and whether there are buyers that have a different projection. If a deal in the middle of those projections can be worked out where both sides feel they profited, then that’s when you make a trade.

[MarcusBrody]

I think people are so locked into “buy low, sell high,” that they fail to understand that shouldn’t be the trigger for buying or selling. In fact, it’s not about the past or present, you make moves based on your projected future.

It doesn’t matter if Murray’s trade value is low right now. The question DEN should ask, is whether they think it will go lower. If he plays poorly for the next three months, will they need to give up assets to get off that contract for an expensive Nuggets team? If they wait three months and he still plays poorly, do they eliminate potential buyers who right now, think there is a chance Murray returns to form? Or does DEN think Murray is simply slumping, and they just need to ride it out, and his value will rise?

High Clyde’s opinion to trade him is reasonable, if that’s what DEN sees. The current value of a player doesn’t predict the best moment to trade him. That moment comes when a front office makes a determination about a player’s future, especially if it disagrees with at least one possible trade partner.

I think people have a hard time seeing it from anyone perspective but their own.

He has zero trade value.

If he had a shorterm deal you could potentially convince a club to take on some risk noone is going to take on his 200M plus contract with the way the way he is playing. I don't even think it's a question of assets like Warriors had to attach a 1st round pick to take on Pooles contract and he was 23 at the time of the trade making half as much and they had to take on paul 30M trade two first rounders Baldwin and a 2030 pick and 2 2nd rounders.

Now Poole was much younger but Murray has a much longer trackrecord and is probably worth more in trade or maybe he isn't because if teams attribute his decline to the injury no team is going to trade for 4/200M+ until he shows he is fully recovered unless you want to call an ainge and offer him like four plus first rounders to take a problem off your hands and remember poole was moved for two first rounders makes half as much and they dumped Paul in the trade and wasn't coming off a potential career altering injury.

It isn't a question of whether the Nuggets want to move Murray the question is who is trading for that contract for someone who is viewed as damaged goods at this point? The answer is nobody

You’re missing the point. Step back. This is Econ 101.

It doesn’t matter if Murray has “zero trade value” or even negative trade value (and to who?). If DEN believes he’s never recovering and it would take a pick to trade him, they could still have incentive to trade if they think it will take two picks down the road.

The value of the asset doesn’t matter to whether it’s time to make a trade. What matters is the projected value for the future, and whether there are buyers that have a different projection. If a deal in the middle of those projections can be worked out where both sides feel they profited, then that’s when you make a trade.

I think that you are over "Econ 101-ing" this. The goal isn't to get the highest trade value, it's to maximize on court production. To benefit from trading Murray, they would need to get something back that gave them equal production to Murray AND those traded picks. The problem is the salary cap, which even without Murray's contract on the books, the Nuggets are going to be close to the salary cap with Jokic, MPJ, Gordon, and Nnaji signed and they really only have one year after this one before they need to extend Braun and Watson. Even if they could dump Murray's contract for an expiring one (Simmons? Fred Van Vleet? Middleton?), they still wouldn't be opening up much ability to sign a replacement and they would have eliminated the most effective way to acquire cheap talent (the draft). The team would save money (and so open up some potential options by doing so), but they wouldn't be able to spend similarly to the money they saved.

[Alatan]

Murray is untradeable at this point with his contract and play. Denver cant afford to pay to dump him even if they had the assets, as they are depleted in depth, talent, draft assets and over the cap for signing free agents. I am among the first to bitch and complain about him but its just venting as i know that once they extended him to that idiotic contract nothing more can be done.
They are stuck with his chucking, dumb ass till the end.

Sadly i dont believe that he will improve as a player since he is suffering from lingering lower body injuries and is packing extra weight.
At this point its up to Malone to significantly reduce his role to that of a 6th man but we all know it wont happen for a long time.

Basically Jokic is screwed for the next few years unless some of the young guys develop beyond their projected capabilities and the league doesnt concentrate talent into a few contenders.

Maybe Denver could try to rehabilitate Ben Simmons for a season if the league has given up on him. I could see Jokic making his life easy in the AG role. Maybe the LAL GMs are as infatuated with Murray as some of the posters here are and we could sucker them into trading Russel and a pick for him as some here offered.

Russel is also ass but at least he can be benched or sign and traded for something useful.

[shrink]

You’re missing the point. Step back. This is Econ 101.

It doesn’t matter if Murray has “zero trade value” or even negative trade value (and to who?). If DEN believes he’s never recovering and it would take a pick to trade him, they could still have incentive to trade if they think it will take two picks down the road.

The value of the asset doesn’t matter to whether it’s time to make a trade. What matters is the projected value for the future, and whether there are buyers that have a different projection. If a deal in the middle of those projections can be worked out where both sides feel they profited, then that’s when you make a trade.

I think that you are over "Econ 101-ing" this. The goal isn't to get the highest trade value, it's to maximize on court production. To benefit from trading Murray, they would need to get something back that gave them equal production to Murray AND those traded picks. The problem is the salary cap, which even without Murray's contract on the books, the Nuggets are going to be close to the salary cap with Jokic, MPJ, Gordon, and Nnaji signed and they really only have one year after this one before they need to extend Braun and Watson. Even if they could dump Murray's contract for an expiring one (Simmons? Fred Van Vleet? Middleton?), they still wouldn't be opening up much ability to sign a replacement and they would have eliminated the most effective way to acquire cheap talent (the draft). The team would save money (and so open up some potential options by doing so), but they wouldn't be able to spend similarly to the money they saved.

I appreciate this post. My point was that there isn’t a bad time to make any trade, based on what happened before or current value.

As for Murray specifically, I think that DEN needs to ride it out. While the contending Nuggets would probably like to minimize the risk of Murray not succeeding (a risk a non-contender might take on for compensation), the problem is that so much of Murray’s value is tied to Jokic. They have a special chemistry after so many years, and it looks to me like Jokic can anticipate when Murray is about to make a cut, and throw him open. Other teams don’t have that, so Murray is probably a “worth more to us than you” type of guy, that shouldn’t be traded. Maybe he will return to form, maybe he won’t, but as you point out, DEN likely has less of a chance of being a contender if they trade him.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

He's not washed in the athletic sense, but he's definitely checked out mentally. People kill Ben Simmons, but Murray is legitimately about the lifestyle not the life.

Jamal lives in a $1M townhouse in Denver. I'm not sure that is really the "lifestyle".

As for his struggles this year, I do think it is interesting to look at the best Duos in the league as far as offensive rating.

Read on Twitter

I know everyone will see him and Jokic and just immediately say it is all Jokic, but its interesting to see Jamal and AG on this list.

Is Jamal's game heavily just reliant on quality big men? Its kind of interesting if that is the case. While he has struggled this year, he has had some games that seem like his normal self and with Jokic in the lineup, they are still a strong contender.

I wonder what is going on with him being off and hope it is an injury or something because they will need him to hold his weight come playoffs.

Murray and Gordon without Jokic have a 233 offensive rating... in 2 minutes.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

But both MPJ and Gordon do play with Jokic and their skills are complementary to his strengths. Now most people would benefit from playing with Jokic, but MPJ is an elite shooter and Gordon is a great cutter. Even playing with Jokic, I don't think most 3/4s are going to be as good at those specific things even if they would be better at generating their own offense when Jokic was off the floor.

that's the issue, and it's true for Murray as well.
it's great that they fit with Jokic, but when you have that much money tied up to 3 players you would want them to be effective in more situations, not just when sharing the court with a guy who can make anyone look good on offense.
It's not a disaster situation because they are good when together and Jokic is that great, but not a good one either.

I honestly think that the Nuggets 5 to 10 are not great but actually ok, for a top heavy team. The issue is that they are not top4 heavy, but top1.