I wouldn't call it unworkable, but I would call it less than ideal. My main point is that if you are trading for pieces in an attempt to upgrade the roster and keep it balanced, adding Childress and Miller (versus say Conley and Childress, or Miller and Artest) would seem like a less than ideal pairing ... however if that was the best you can do (ie. no other worthwhile deals/players out there) then I think you could live with it.
Childress has shot about the same amount of threes in 4 years as Martell did last year. So either Childress never got open threes or he was often reluctant to shoot them. And I don't see how Childress shooting 60 threes all season and Martell shooting 317 in less minutes and Martell shooting 2% better doesn't matter at all. And Childress' percentage is apparently inflated because his second year in the league he shot 49% which seems to obviously be a fluke. Because the next year it was 33% and the year after that it was 36% while in his rookie year it was 23% EDIT: I reread that last part and realize his first and second seasons kind of cancel each other out, but it still shows inconsistency and we don't know how he will shoot next year.
He didn't really tear up Euroleague, which is what I'd expect an good NBA player to do. But, if Webster doesn't make big improvements over what he's done thus far in his career, Josh would be an upgrade...though I'd still prefer us to go after Artest.
This all just smaks of rationalization for a predetermined choice. "I like Childress. I like Miller. How would they do if we got them both? I think it would be fine." Really? Maybe, but I doubt it and why, oh why swim against the tide? I don't think the Blazers should proceed that way at their stage. They need to decide exactly what they need - and it may be they have two or three ways they could go - and then look for the closest fit to that. This is a different approach then starting with your top priority of obtaining the best talent you can find, regardless of fit, then attempting to figure out a way to cram those skills into the rotation. Claiming that you think Miller and Childress should work out ok, seems to me to be defensive. Common sense says you have to constantly work around that problem. It is just a different form of having a loose cannon on the team, or have a huge defensive liability on the team that has to be "hidden" all the time. You can justify the player all you want, but unless that particular players strengths are dominating (Rodman's rebounding and defense, Nash's playmaking and shooting), it is rarely worth the negatives they bring for a team wanting to win. The Blazers have the chance to build around a core group of players and construct a rational roster by adding some pieces that fit into their slots. They would be stupid not to try hard to accomplish that now and first before they just grab whoever and hope the coaching staff can make it work.
We clearly have very different philosophies here. You seem to think there are only "tried and true" patterns that work, and everything else is jury-rigged and problematic. I don't think that's the case. I prefer to look at what elements the team needs most and address them. Andre Miller brings defense at point guard and good ball-handling/distributing ability. I think both of those things are huge needs. Defense at point guard was crushing for Portland. I further think having someone who can take on-the-ball duties from Roy, so that he's not the only one who can direct and create for others, will be a benefit to him. When Roy was out, the offense stagnated. When teams focused on Roy, the offense often stagnated. Having a second guy who can handle and initiate would take better advantage of the defense focusing on Roy, because Miller would be able to exploit that unbalanced defense with his own creation skills. These things, I believe, heavily outweigh the fact that Miller is a much weaker three-point shooter than Blake. As for Childress, you never bothered to respond to my point that Childress simply doesn't shoot the three-point shot significantly worse than Webster or Batum. Yes, Webster shoots at higher volume, but they were by and large open three-pointers off someone else's creative efforts. Childress also shoots those shots to get his three-point percentage. Thus, I don't think Webster's higher volume is indicative of significantly better shooting ability. I think given the same open shots, Childress could knock down a similar number of shots as Webster and at similar percentage as Webster (or Batum). So, since Childress actually doesn't give anything up in terms of perimeter shooting, what he brings over those players (defense, passing, rebounding over Webster and consistency and confidence over Batum) is simply pure profit. Therefore, the two of them together bring a net increase in perimeter defense (an enormous need), passing ability (a pretty large need) and greater consistency/decision-making (a significant need for a title-contender) at a net loss of three-point shooting at the point guard position. So, I absolutely think that trade-off is a huge benefit for Portland. Not simply because Miller and Childress are "the best talents available," but because they address major needs that Portland has and don't cost the team very much over what they already have. As an example, even though I think Jose Calderon is a much better player than Blake or Sergio, I wouldn't suggest getting him, because his defense would only exacerbate a Portland need, let alone addressing it. But for a team with a number of excellent defensive players (including a center not prone to picking up fouls), Calderon could be a great addition. It's not simply about talent upgrade.
The above is about 1 player. I like Miller as a Portland get. I think all things considered he probably would be an overall upgrade to our point guard play despite his horrible distance shooting. I do want to mention that I don't think Miller is a fast enough defender to make a whole lot of difference against the speedy points in the NBA. Against Houston, Brooks still would have had endless penetration and got to where he wanted. Lowry, on the other hand, Miller should have been able to keep in check. In other words, though Miller IMO is an overall better defender than Blake, it is not a very large upgrade and Miller is no "stopper". So your argument about how the added value of one new player and how we can work around their glaring, screaming, nasty flaw, is lost on me when you want to package him with another new player that does not compliment the situation. Until Childress (and Batum for that matter) actually put the 3 pt ball in the hole at a healhy clip for an entire season it is all conjecture. To me, Childress is not a long range gunner. One season out of three shooting a so-so percentage at a very low volume tells me little about his ability to stretch the defense. I can guarantee you, that Childress will NOT get the attention of opposing coaches until he hits the corner three for about 2 months at a 45% clip. So for right now, Childress is NOT a three point shooter. This is what we realy disagree about. I don't think Webster and Outlaw are Ray Allen. And I would love an upgrade. But both are more proven shooters than Childress and Batum. To just roll into a potentially contending season by dumping two long range threats and bringing in two that are not, and reducing minutes for our best long range theat (Blake) would not work for this team and the system the coaches run. If Blake or Rudy got hurt it would be disaster. Think about this. Recall how often in tight games (depending on matchups and how the game has gone) coaches will put in their two best players and surround them with 3 shooters - regardless of how crappy those players are in other aspects of the game. And two shooters on the floor is almost a given these days for most teams. Your stars need room to work when you iso them. Just how it is. Good teams need extra shooters on the roster. The Blazers shouldn't make roster changes that reduces the overall number of proven shooters on their roster. If they do, watch for a mid-season trade to get one, because it will be obvious it doesn't work. Obviously, I don't agree that 3pt shooting is so easily solved. Nor, do I think intentionally loading the roster with FEWER shooters overall will work to the benefit on the floor. I think we can do better in our player acquisitions, so there is no need to settle for the situation that Miller/Childress bring of solving one set of problems while creating a new one.
I don't consider it a "glaring, screaming, nasty flaw." I think that's an enormous exaggeration. Every player doesn't need to shoot the three point shot well. I also disagree entirely about your evaluation of his defense. While he's not a "stopper," he's a big upgrade defensively on Blake and Sergio. And Childress does complement the situation. He also adds defense and passing and smarts, without costing the team anything on shooting. His career percentage is 36%, and that's over 285 games at 31 minutes per game. There's no sample size issues. Yes, he shoots fewer than Webster, but since Webster only shoots open three-pointers, I don't find that a compelling response. Childress limits his three-point shooting due to good shot selection...playing off Roy, Aldridge and Oden, there will be many "good shot" three-point attempts. He's shown he can knock those down. In the closing moments of games, the team also has Fernandez to use. In addition, Bayless has a very good shot, as he showed in high school and college. While he was off with it during a rookie season where he got inconsistent time on the floor, I think the team will have the shooters to spread the floor in crunch time. And if teams play off Childress in a close game, I think Portland will be in good shape having Childress shoot a wide-open three pointer. I think you're too locked into a "one post player, one mid-range player, one slasher and two (perceived) shooters" mindset, as if that's the only thing that works. I don't agree with that at all. I think having complementary skills on offense is important but it doesn't need to be taken to some theoretical extreme. As far as I'm concerned, Childress isn't a shooting downgrade on Batum or Webster (and is an upgrade in various ways). Miller clearly is a shooting downgrade on Blake, but his much superior defense and ability to lead an offense are well-worth that, to me. His ability to shoot the mid-range shot is complementary enough...it's not like the team will have five post players and no one who can shoot. Anyway, you are apparently on board for Miller...our disagreement is on Childress along with Miller. Considering Childress' three-point percentage is almost identical to Webster's/Batum's, I think you're being overly dramatic in suggesting that Miller is fine, but Miller and Childress is disaster. Saying that Childress hasn't shot as many threes as Webster is a valid point, but not justification for the huge disparity you're claiming between just getting Miller and getting both Miller and Childress.
Childress shoots about 60 threes a year. Martell shot 317 last year while shooting 2% better even though he shot over 5 times more threes. All I'm saying is that I think its a more valid point than you say it is. I would prefer to get Childress, and go with a different point guard. I know Miller has played a ton of games in a row but I still don't like his age because next year or the year after we could see a significant decrease in ability. You just never know, and to me, he isn't worth that risk.
Actually, my position is Miller is fine - BUT, not great - yet, there doesn't seem to be options available that are great. Miller has a glaring flaw - 3pt shooting, that we can work around, IF we keep him on the floor (against good defending teams - the kind that are most of the opponents in the playoffs) with one, preferably, two players we WANT hanging around the 3pt line. Another point, this is about next season. So developing a three point shooter - Batum, Bayless, Childress doesn't count. Maybe in two seasons we can pencil in one of those shooters as a quality floor spacer. Not for this upcomming season. Since I DON'T want the role of shooter to for Roy or Aldridge and Oden can't play that role, our Small Forward - by default - must hit the long ball. That is, if we have Miller.
I want Childress hanging around the three point line about as much as I do Batum, Webster and Outlaw. Yes, the last two are more prolific shooters and Outlaw is the best of the group, but their percentages are just too close for this to be a deal-breaker, IMO. We aren't talking about going from a 40% three-point shooter to a 30% three-point shooter. If we were, I'd resonate more to your "terrible fit" argument. When we're talking about essentially identical percentages, and only an issue of number of threes hoisted, then I agree that Webster and Outlaw are probably a bit better but not enough to substantially change the dynamic. Childress has shot enough three-pointers that I consider his career percentage to be representative and not a potential small-sample fluke. I think if he's given more shots of the type that he already shoots (open shots from his defender doubling someone else), he'll knock them down at approximately the same percentage. That's a fair point about Bayless, but I don't consider Childress a "developing" three-point shooter. On the sorts of open threes that we're talking about, I think he's proven to be able to knock them down like the other small forwards we already have. Batum may be developing, but his percentage is already equivalent to Webster or Outlaw. So Batum may develop into a better three-point shooter, but he doesn't need more development in order to punish defenses who double.
I really like Batum, but I could see the club wanting to attain an affordable talent who's timetable is more right now then down the line. I'd find it hard to understand how any Blazer fan could feel comfortable with Martell as the 2009-10 starter unless they suffer from memory loss. The stats aren't lying, dude has not been good on either end... I'd rather have Travis starting at 3. That said, need #1 is an upgrade at PG... I'm with you there. But this is the final season with capspace and it's fully possible to combine this with some player movement to address more then one position. What scenarios are you worried about losing out on going after Childress? STOMP
