> CRTs are still likely to have ... better contrast,
This isn't true, and hasn't been true for decades. CRTs have relatively poor display contrast due to all of the light bleed. CRT contrast in real scenes (that is, not just comparing all-black to all-white screens) can be around 100:1 or 200:1. LCDs have been better than that for a very long time. Even the cheap oens.
> zero motion blur,
Also not true. CRT phosphors have some persistence. Even the best CRT monitors back in the day had several milliseconds of persistence, depending on what you're measuring. Definitely not zero!
Modern LCD monitors have motion blur in a similar range, perhaps less if you're getting a gaming panel.
> no fixed resolutions
At the cost of some very blurry text, of course.
> You can find some modern screens that do better at certain things than others but compared with what most people have
It's almost certainly easier to find a high performing LCD than a quality CRT. A working FW900 CRT can easily fetch $1000-2000, which will buy a modern OLED display that completely blows it out of the water.
The only reason to buy a good CRT monitor is for the nostalgia/retro effects.