National Basketball Association

Making sense of Evan Turner in Portland

Published Jun. 30, 2017 6:28 p.m. ET

foxsports

Chris Manning (@cwmwrites): So, Ian, I think it’d be fair to say that Evan Turner’s contract with the Portland Trail Blazers raised some eyebrows. He was really useful last year with the Celtics — maybe for the first time ever, depending on who you ask — but he was filling a role that I’m not sure he will be in Portland. I get Portland wanting to spend and wanting to try and upgrade now around Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum. But when I think about what they added in Turner, I’m not sure I can see this working or Turner being as good as he was last year.

Ian Levy (@HickoryHigh): I was confused as anyone. After being lead engineer on the Evan Turner hype train out of college, he has done enough damage to my basketball psyche to last me a lifetime. My take on him with the Celtics last year was that he was useful essentially in that they didn’t have anyone better to handle the ball or run offense when Isaiah Thomas was out. But I’m not sure he really made them better at all. I suppose if I squint hard enough at Portland’s roster I can see it: Only play him when either McCollum or Lillard is on the bench. He handles the ball and lets them run off screens. He’s not ever allowed to shoot mid-range pull-ups. Noah Vonleh cleans his protective glasses.

The thing for me is his shooting. Al-Farouq Aminu and Mo Harkless aren’t consistent enough and adding another wing who can’t shoot seems troubling, especially if they’re going to give a lot of minutes to Ed Davis and Mason Plumlee, over Meyers Leonard. It seems like for this role, ESPECIALLY for the cost they paid, they could have found someone who was a ball-handler AND a reasonable 3-point shooter, no?

More from Hardwood Paroxysm

Manning: Exactly. This might sound crazy, but why not spend that money on J.R. Smith or push a little harder for Chandler Parsons? Especially with the latter option, you get the ball handling, the shooting and more upside in addition to just being a better fit with the team’s two best players.

I also really just question the timing of this deal in general. The Blazers aren’t going to win a title this year or even get out the West. They might not even get out of the second round. With Turner, it feels as if they’ve reacted to last year’s unexpected success and just spent money on whoever they could really get. As we know, growth isn’t always linear and this feels to me like they are trying to force something that might have been better off being cooked in one of Portland’s many amazing food trucks a little while longer.

Levy: Yeah, this seems like a poorly thought out and executed pork belly sushi roll or something. I mean, they’ve clearly banking on internal improvement right? This team isn’t anything more than they were last year (at best) if Aminu, Harkless, Crabbe and Plumlee don’t take another step forward. Sometimes I wish teams would lean a little more on best case scenarios. What’s the best case scenario for this team? And does it justify signing Turner? I feel the same way about the Pacers — doubling down on a best case scenario that still isn’t their ultimate goal. Why not make some short term sacrifices and preserve possibility?

Manning: I agree 100 percent. After the Warriors signed Durant, seeing teams that aren’t the Clippers or the Grizzlies (because they sort of both had to) invest lots of money in players just didn’t make sense to me. As noted, the Blazers weren’t really ever going to jump into the legit contender discussion out West, and signing a guy like Turner doesn’t really change things in a meaningful way. It’s easier to say this as someone who isn’t factoring in fan perception or ticket sales, but unless a guy is a perfect fit and can help in a clear way, it’s really hard for me to justify spending money.

For me, Portland’s best case scenario is to finish as the No. 4 seed, and I’m not confident in that happening. I would have said that with or without Turner being on the roster. There’s a lot to like, but it’s not just there yet fully.

Levy: How do you see that best case scenario playing out? If they do get to No. 4, how does it happen? And how does Turner fit into that rosy scenario?

Manning: For starters, I think it happens if the rest of the West underwhelms. Teams like Memphis, Utah, Oklahoma City and Houston would all have to be worse than I think they can/will be for Portland to make the No. 4 seed. Additionally, we’d need to see huge years from both Lillard and McCollum. We’d need to see big internal jumps from guys like Crabbe, eternal prospect Vonleh and even a slightly older guy like Aminu. If it happens, I don’t really see Turner being a main reason why. In fact, I’d go as far to say I think he’d have to somehow walk the line between ‘this kind of works’ and ‘this is an awful fit’ just well enough to make his game fit in Portland.

Basically, a lot would have to break right and I don’t think any of it involves Turner being an essential piece.

Levy: I’ll co-sign that plan right now. Every team’s season is the interaction of infinite variables, and I suppose there’s a path to anything. But too many external things would have to break their way, and too many internal things would have to work out perfectly. I don’t see Turner as a guy who’s really pushing enough of those levers to make a difference.

There’s a part of me that just can’t let go of the idea of Evan Turner as a useful player but I don’t totally feel like I’ve seen it, even with his modicum of success in Boston next year. Can you envision a hypothetical scenario where he’s a contributor on a championship contender? What the heck would that team even look like?

Manning: It would be a team that would function differently that most really good teams do. Even a team like the Warriors that plays so fluidly has their best players driving things and doing most of the creation. If Turner would be on a title contender, he’d have to be on a team like the Hawks of two years ago where the ball is shared and he is given the freedom to do what he does best/well. But even then, he’s not good enough to really warrant enough touches to do exactly what he does well all the time.

Do you see a team right now that could add Turner to fill a big role and get better for it? I’m not sure I do.

Levy: Suffice it to say that neither of us thinks it’s the Trail Blazers, which is why we’re here in the first place.

This article originally appeared on