This is a great point. Ultimately, a good point guard has to be a good decision-maker about what will maximize a scoring chance. If he happens to be the best scoring option on a possession, he'd be a poor decision-maker if he didn't call his own number. You don't pass for the sake of passing. You pass to improve your team's chances of scoring. Bayless isn't the best scoring option each time down, now. And he's shown that he recognizes that, as he's been a willing passer. He's not at all a black hole.
I also read in another article that he says he wants to sign with a contender. I think we are the closest thing to a contender with cap space this off season.
reading through this thread I wanted to respond to every other post, but that would take longer then it will for my fish sticks to heat up so... I like Miller and think he'd be a significant upgrade to Blake. He seems like Nate's sort of take care of the ball PG and he's a West coast guy. He'll be 33, but he's only missed 5 games in his 10 year career and has enjoyed back to back years above his fine PER average of around 18. I'd be for renouncing Blake along with Ruffin and Frye to make this happen unless of course there is something better available... like some delicious fish sticks :homer: STOMP
I was just a little hungry... really anyhoo, I do like the potential of adding Miller. That would give them two heady physical guards who can create for others and finish. I'm sure he'd run a mean pick and roll with Greg. A starting lineup featuring Miller, Roy, Batum and Aldridge has plenty of outside threats... Roy and Nic shot 38% and 37% respectively from deep and LA and Miller have solid mid-range J's. 3 years guaranteed, max escalating starting at 8M would seem pretty ballpark figures of what it will take to sign him STOMP
We lack quickness, someone to push the tempo, and passing. Brooks provides all three (along with some ill-advised shots), but decision making improves with time and he has the raw skills we need to compliment Roy perfectly. Sign me up!
Maybe hypothetically compared to players the last couple of years but tell me who's really gonna pay him that, I see him making 6 or 7 million a year and I think a three year 7 million a year deal for him in this economy is generous personally.
In todays economy, and with his age, I really doubt he's going to get a contract that goes until he's 38 unless it's like a 5 year deal worth about 25 million. He might get a 2 or 3 year deal, for maybe 14-21 million. You guys are underestimating just how much of a financial hit teams are taking right now, and how much that will play a role in the size of the contracts given to players. Especially older players. 33 is about the age when PG's start to diminish their skills. When Kidd turned 33, his game got worse. Same with Nash (although Nash's game is still better than Miller or Kidd). I think one reason why people seem to think he'll get a bigger deal is because he hasn't been in the league for as long as his age implies. This is his 10th or 11th year, but he came into the league at 23. Being 33 is a lot for teams to invest money into, given the current situation of the league. The cap is going down, and teams are having to make cuts to their expenditures. If Andre was 28-30, that's one thing. This isn't a players market at all.
There's quite a few veteran point guards on the market this summer. Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, as well as Miller. I think Miller could be had for 6-8 million a year for 4-5 years.
thought the same thing about birdman hes a good defensive player and is high energy off the bench and you know he will never demand anything more! just as long as he stays off some crack or whatever the fuck he used to do hes okish in my book edit: what about kenyon martin too? whens his contract up and how much he get paid?
That's the one problem I have with Miller. I'd kind of like a more demonstrative PG. (Of course, many here would see that as Bayless.)
Stoke those fires!! (btw, it's obvious Barkley doesn't do any preparation for the games - he doesn't even know who all of the players are. He's an idiot.)
Demonstrative in what sense? Do you mean the fist pumping, rah-rah guy, or a guy who is willing to get into his teammates' grill and demand accountability? I admit I've never spent too much time studying Miller's demeanor on the court.
Both! And I've seen neither from Miller. Nor Bibby, come to that. But then again, Nash and Kidd don't seem too demonstrative, but they've done okay. But Miller is SUPER quiet. And him skipping the final Philly meeting might give us hope but on the other hand, it wasn't exactly classy. Don't get me wrong, I've always admired Miller's game, right from his rookie year in Cleveland. But I do wonder about a guy who seems to bounce around and I've never heard a teammate sing his praises.
Honestly, I think a big personality/huge ego type of guy coming in and trying to take over the alpha dog role could be more counter-productive than not. It worked for Chauncey when he went to Denver because he's got a ring, and who on that team was going to legitimately challenge Mr. Big Shot? Melo isn't a leader, K-Mart isn't a leader, he filled a vaccum. In Portland with Brandon as the undisputed top-dog, I think Miller is much less of a risk from a chemistry standpoint, primarily because he'll be able to come in and blend in. I fully agree that a team needs one or two intense personalities that can pump people up and maybe that gets addressed if a guy like Brandon Bass is added to the team, or if Jerryd gets a more prominent backup role, lastly, I think Rudy has that kind of potential. It's something to think about though.
