Celtics Interested In Evan Turner?
- Thread starter knucklecup
- Start date
I'm not seeing the year(s)? It is just one, right? (I hope)
If this means the end of the Green/ Rondo era is coming soon, I hope so. All of these anticipatory moves are making me antsy.
If this means the end of the Green/ Rondo era is coming soon, I hope so. All of these anticipatory moves are making me antsy.
I go back to that 7-game playoff series against the 76ers in 2012, and how obvious it became as the series went on that Evan Turner was not a guy worth worrying about at all as an opposing fan. I can't think of one thing he was doing well that caught my attention.
It's nice that he is apparently excited about playing for Brad Stevens. I'm not worried about him screwing anything up, and I hope he discovers something. I just won't call this a low risk/high reward case; it's more like low risk / moderate reward. If you held the 2010 draft over again today, I don't think he'd be even a top 20 pick.
If this costs Chris Johnson a spot on the Celtics' roster I'm gonna be powerfully pissed. CJ has done everything he has been asked and does it @ the league minimum; Turner has done nothing to justify being the #2 overall pick in the draft.
I wonder if any of the analytical tools developed by Mike Zarren, or Drew Cannon, the kid Stevens brought with him from Butler, came into play in the decision to sign Turner, or in some of the other moves the Celtics have made since draft night.
I know Stevens was also close at one point with Frank Vogel (not sure how much they still talk now that Brad is in the same league and no longer down the street). I wonder if he talked to Vogel at all about Turner and what he was like in his time with the Pacers.
So I'm seeing a lot of "he's a bad shooter" "no defense" "needs the ball" "mental issues" being thrown around. Couldn't this thread be about Jordan Crawford last year?
If he was not a #2 pick with name recognition this thread would have a lot more of a "meh, depth signing, good player to have on the end of the bench," because you know what? Just because they signed him doesn't mean he is going to get 30 minutes a game. I think people are assuming due to his name and draft pedigree this is what is going to happen. Stevens is not going to play him if he does not add to the team, its as simple as that. He may only get garbage time all season, and that's usually what you get when you sign a vet for a million or two a season. Sure there is some upside, but strip the name and draft position and just put up his numbers compared to whatever little he gets paid and its really roster fodder with a little chance for that upside
edit: I'm stupid, wrong Crawford
If he was not a #2 pick with name recognition this thread would have a lot more of a "meh, depth signing, good player to have on the end of the bench," because you know what? Just because they signed him doesn't mean he is going to get 30 minutes a game. I think people are assuming due to his name and draft pedigree this is what is going to happen. Stevens is not going to play him if he does not add to the team, its as simple as that. He may only get garbage time all season, and that's usually what you get when you sign a vet for a million or two a season. Sure there is some upside, but strip the name and draft position and just put up his numbers compared to whatever little he gets paid and its really roster fodder with a little chance for that upside
edit: I'm stupid, wrong Crawford
Those are the tough breaks of not having NBA talent, versus having low end NBA talent.Don Buddin's GS said:
I'm hardly convinced this is a great signing, but I disagree with your first paragraph. He was rebounding very effectively in that 2012 Celtics/76ers series. He had 60 rebounds in the 7 game series, and led the Sixers in rebounding by a vast, vast margin. Next best rebounder was Iguodala with 39. Obviously, he shot 34% from the field in the series and was inefficient on offense, but he was doing some things that were helping the team.redsahx said:
As others have pointed out, he is a good rebounder for his size/position, and he is a good passer. He has looked promising on the corner three, and if he could commit to trying harder on defense, his athleticism suggests that he should be a lot better than he has been. He has a looong, loooooooong way to go to be a non-atrocious offensive player and make better decisions, but I think it's worth a shot, esp. if they can find a taker for Bass or Green, or (God forbid) Wallace.
You mean Jordan Crawford.
Anyways, if you read carefully most people are just saying "meh" anyways. However, those that object to Turner taking up too much playing time have a point. The difference between Crawford and Evans, is that Crawford actually had some ceiling left to explore. Turner has had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his skill set.
redsahx said:
whoops yeah I'm an idiot
anyways, I agree with what you're saying, and I would not be surprised if he does absolutely nothing for the team but a few minutes here and there, but I would actually argue he has a greater ceiling than Crawford in that he can contribute in more areas
ALiveH said:
I tend to agree.
Turner doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria I'd imagine is common in guys who breakout at an advanced age:
-Has this player been denied a chance to flourish in a role that fits his skill set yet?
-Was this player's environment unstable early in his career (either due to injury or constant team changing)?
-Have they developed a specialized skill that wasn't a plus early in their career?
-Has there been a significant attitude change?
For Turner, the answer to all these questions is "No." He was given an entirely fair chance by the Sixers to play in a role as a ball dominant jack of all trades, a role that fits the supposed strengths of his skillset. He may have been asked to do too much on the whole, but it wasn't like Jim O'Brien asking Kedrick Brown to become a spot up shooter. For the most part, we saw Turner do what he does best, and he did it poorly at an NBA level. His environment wasn't totally ideal, but he was with the Sixers for 3+ years and given ample opportunity. During that time, he displayed no significant improvement in his well rounded but flawed set of skills. His attitude, while not great, doesn't seem to be the main issue here, so any change in that regard wouldn't give me much hope.
Gerald Green is a really, really rare case. Most of his career has been plagued by immaturity, lack of opportunity, being asked to fill roles he couldn't (Minnesota as a primary ball handler, Indiana in a slow it down, stand in the corner offense), and some plain old bad luck. He eventually got his head on straight, worked hard, developed a specialized skill (4th most 3s in the NBA last year), and with a bit of luck ended up in the perfect situation for him in Phoenix.
I will say this: I think there's a lot of value out there on that proverbial NBA scrap heap, guys like Green are rare, but they're out there, waiting for another opportunity in the right situation. I've watched a lot of DLeague basketball, and have often found myself thinking "man, that guy could definitely play in the right situation," I really hope teams become more aggressive in how they look for those outliers. I just don't think Turner is one of those guys.
Brickowski said:
I would expect that such tools are always involved, the question is, are they using those tools to specifically make the team better in the short term, find high upside guys, or perhaps even make the team explicitly worse in the short term? Before last season, I read a throwaway article about how Gerald Green was tremendously valuable as an asset for a tanking team; he'd jack up shots, miss a ton, but be generally entertaining for fans along the way. 48 wins later in Phoenix, things didn't quite work out that way, but maybe Turner fills that role for the Celtics.
I think this is a good idea, but a counter argument is one I've heard from Ryen Russillo: there are no role players on bad teams. It's only top-half teams in the league that could scour the D-league for missing pieces, below that it's just more bodies on the bench.
Apparently, season tickets sales have spiked 20% since the C's signed Turner. Correlation or causation?
Or perhaps Turner has a ton of family members in the Boston area.
Good post. You are probably right. But the one scenario I can see that might make Turner attractive if he could learn to be a playmaker who doesn't need to score. Maybe if he shot less, he'd be more efficient.
Also, for some reason, he's never improved his three-point shooting. You would think he could do that and if he did, he'd be a lot more valuable.
But like I said, you're probably right.
Or perhaps Turner has a ton of family members in the Boston area.
repole said:
Good post. You are probably right. But the one scenario I can see that might make Turner attractive if he could learn to be a playmaker who doesn't need to score. Maybe if he shot less, he'd be more efficient.
Also, for some reason, he's never improved his three-point shooting. You would think he could do that and if he did, he'd be a lot more valuable.
But like I said, you're probably right.
Some kind words about Evan Turner from his former coach, including this apparently real quote: "I think his growth is infinite." So not only should the Cs be fortunate to have him, if Hollywood is looking for someone to star in the sequel to "Lucy," they need look no further.
But more realistically, Brown had this to say:
Brown seems to get it, and he's convinced that Turner does as well. If Turner can fix his form and start shooting 3-pointers with better results, he could be a viable asset for the Cs.
Did anyone ever report how much he is going to sign for?
But more realistically, Brown had this to say:
Brown seems to get it, and he's convinced that Turner does as well. If Turner can fix his form and start shooting 3-pointers with better results, he could be a viable asset for the Cs.
Did anyone ever report how much he is going to sign for?
RT @KevinOConnorNBA: Here's my full take on Evan Turner and how he can redeem himself this season with the Celtics, for @celticsblog: http://t.co/qCLUhUnnCA
Good article. I believe in Evan Turner.
Good article. I believe in Evan Turner.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Remember in the immediate post-Bird era when they were broadcasting ticket commercials with an X theme centered on Xavier McDaniel?
.
Turner looked dominant tonight in his Celtics debut. Knucklecup may be on to something here. I, too, believe in Evan Almighty.
Rotoworld:
Coach Brad Stevens said Monday that Evan Turner "has to play, whether that's starting or coming off the bench."
Stevens has already said that he's going to split Jeff Green's minutes at both SF and PF to help make room for Turner's minutes, and the injury to Rajon Rondo's hand certainly helps Turner as well. But this is still the same guy that looked overweight and completely ineffective in Indiana last season, and Boston isn't like Philly was last year where he was one of a handful of players that deserved to be on an NBA roster. Throw in a stat-set that isn't conducive to standard league value and he'll probably remain a deep league guy at best.
***
So he didn't look overweight in Philly but looked overweight in Indiana? The ineffective thing I understand but that's on the Pacers for improperly using him, not on Turner. The Pacers also had something go terribly wrong for them last year; could be George having intercourse with Hibbert's wife, could be Stephenson's looming free agency... We'll never truly know but pinning any blame for his failure in Indiana on Turner himself seems wrong to me.
Had Turner started over George Hill at PG and actually been properly acclimated into the rotation in a position he's capable of succeeding in, I don't think they're as easy of an out as they were against Miami.
Coach Brad Stevens said Monday that Evan Turner "has to play, whether that's starting or coming off the bench."
Stevens has already said that he's going to split Jeff Green's minutes at both SF and PF to help make room for Turner's minutes, and the injury to Rajon Rondo's hand certainly helps Turner as well. But this is still the same guy that looked overweight and completely ineffective in Indiana last season, and Boston isn't like Philly was last year where he was one of a handful of players that deserved to be on an NBA roster. Throw in a stat-set that isn't conducive to standard league value and he'll probably remain a deep league guy at best.
***
So he didn't look overweight in Philly but looked overweight in Indiana? The ineffective thing I understand but that's on the Pacers for improperly using him, not on Turner. The Pacers also had something go terribly wrong for them last year; could be George having intercourse with Hibbert's wife, could be Stephenson's looming free agency... We'll never truly know but pinning any blame for his failure in Indiana on Turner himself seems wrong to me.
Had Turner started over George Hill at PG and actually been properly acclimated into the rotation in a position he's capable of succeeding in, I don't think they're as easy of an out as they were against Miami.
Well of course he has to play on this team for the same reason he had to play in Philly last year. Nobody is saying he doesn't deserve an NBA job over non-NBA players but saying a guy who lost all his backup minutes on a playoff team for sucking out loud deserved MORE minutes in a larger role is like blaming Farrell for not batting JBJ lead off last year so he could have succeeded.
To be fair Evan.....we didn't begin hating Shuttlesworth until it became known he was lobbying to be signed by the Heat.
What was wrong with the Turner signing? If he shows some upside, he's one more asset. And if he doesn't - as he hasn't - it's just going to cost a few wins, which is a positive for the Cs too.
oumbi said:
The Philly fans always liked Turner and always treated him well and wished him the best when he left. He didn't ask out and he didn't quit.
But if you wish to use a tired cliche the actual santa story is they threw snowballs at him. But otherwise. GOOD POST CARRY ON!
This Evan Turner as primary ball handler whether it be pg or point forward is getting interesting. He isn't turning over the ball that much and is getting a lot of rebounds and assists. He isn't shooting well but defenses seem to still honor his shot. I think it is worth paying attention to going forward.
I don't like it. Turner is playing well enough and he's good enough at the FT extended jumper to keep defenses honest. But at this point this team is about Marcus Smart and if he's going to make it in this league I think it has to be as a PG. He needs to be handling the ball and learning to get the team into its offense. I don't mind them using Turner in spells, but I think Smart is off the ball far too much right now for his development.
If, and it is a giant if, you had a 20 ppg scorer at the 3, I think you could go to war with Turner at the point and Smart at the 2. They can always swap off on defense. Smart just doesn't strike me as a playmaker. If we have to wait for Young to be that other wing, I'm afraid Turner might age out... The aptly named Young is still 20+ months from his first legal drink which absolutely amazes me.
Smart has flashed playmaking skills at times, but - at least for now - he's completely unable to get any penetration in half court sets, run pick and rolls, etc. If this is an area where he can improve markedly, then I could see him eventually being a PG. If not, he's a good passing wing.TheRooster said:
As for Turner, how much PG time did he get in Philly? For the little I've seen of him this year, PG seems to be his best position. He looks like someone who can have a decent career (not #2 pick worthy, but that ship has sailed) as a PG on the right team.