The offseason shouldn't have been about signing a point guard. Our biggest need is backup power forward. I've already said this. My opinion is that we'd be in better shape had we not low-balled Millsap.
Low balled Millsap???? They offered him a front loaded contract that would have paid him $11.9 million this season. Utah elected to match and will be paying another $11.9 million of luxury tax this year due to the salary of their back-up power forward. That's almost $24 million for a guy who doesn't even start and averages 10.9 PPG and 6.1 RPG. I hardly call that a low ball offer. I'm a HUGE Millsap fan,and wanted the Blazers to draft him back in 2006, but his scoring and rebounding are down considerably this season. His total rebounding percentage, is a very unimpressive 13.8%, by far the lowest of his career and barely better than LaMarcus Aldridge's 13.7. And at the time we made the offer, we had a healthy Geg Oden, and healthy Joel Przybilla and LaMarcus Aldridge. The contract the Blazers offered Millsap was extremely high for a player who would not have been starting and expected to only play 15 - 20 MPG. And based on the way Blake played as a starter (8.3 PER), I'd say starting PG was in bigger need of an upgrade than back-up power forward. BNM
And also a classic example of the "epic fail" - starting a thread with: "The dude is not that good. I didn't understand the signing at the time, and I still don't. I don't get it." And then watching him go off for 52 points in leading his undermanned team to an overtime road victory against a first place team 12 hours later. BNM
We had more cap room to make a better offer to Millsap. The fact that Utah matched pretty much proves we low-balled. It we offered the max we were allowed do you think Utah would have matched? I don't. Blake has played poorly, but if he just shot at the same clip that he did last season we would be fine. The point guard position is not that important when you have a player like B-Roy.
We got Miller, a starter, for much less ($14 million guaranteed) than we offered Millsap ($32 million guaranteed) - a back-up. And, quite frankly, Miller has outplayed Millsap this year and he's been a HUGE upgrade over Blake. BNM
So, he's averaged 28 points over those two games. Please also don't forget the 18.8 PTS, 4.0 REB and 6.7 AST he averaged for the month on 0.500 FG%. I've asked you several times to find a better month for a Blazer PG over the last decade and you haven't. You say the "dude just isn't that good", but you can't name another current or recent Blazer PG who is better. You say he's not your choice for starting PG, but when asked, fail to tell us who is. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that Miller actually is "that good", you simply ignore it and change the subject. Face it, this thread is even more laughable than those usually started by Mixum and Kingspeed. You simply won't admit that you are wrong about Andre Miller. He's the best PG the Blazers have had in nearly a decade and a half, an above average starting PG, a huge upgrade over Steve Blake, is helping the team win, is making his teammates better, and a huge bargain at his current salary of less than $7 million. But way to stick to your guns. BNM
Fail. Also, Miller's season PER is sitting at a nifty 17.3. Not star level, but solidly above average for a starter. So we can dispense with "one game" arguments. It's nice to finally have an upper-half starting point guard.
Yes, OMG. Agreed. Oden was just fine last year... there was no reason to make him take a step back in terms of his role offensively. This became clear ... what, within the first week or so of the regular season? And Blake's mental frame is barely relevant to me. He was one of the worst starters in the NBA early this year and should have been coming off the bench the whole season. Nate's poor decision-making--for whatever reason--cost this team wins early in the year and (IMO) delayed Miller's integration with the rest of the club. That is entirely on Nate, not on Oden or Blake for psychological weaknesses Nate might have perceived. Ed O.
And his PER has risen from 14.7 to 17.3 since he became the starting PG. He is playing well above average. If he's not a top 10 PG, he's close. Roy and Webster also saw significant improvement in their performance once Miller became the starter. Heck, even Blake is playing much better in his back-up role than he did as a starter (PER up from 8.3 to 11.0). BNM
Obviously you're not grasping what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that we have another point guard that is playing better than Miller. I'm arguing that he doesn't make us a much better team.
Even sooner than that. He led the team in scoring during the preseason - to which Net responded by telling him not to worry about offense, just focus on rebounding and defense. It was clear from the start of training camp and all through the preseason Oden was a force to be reckoned with on BOTH ends of the court. But Nate would rather ignore Oden's offensive potential than figure out a way to integrate it into his one dimensional, predictable offense. He was one of very few players getting > 30 MPG with a PER below 10 - and since he is not known for his defensive prowess there was absolutely no reason he should have been starting and getting that many minutes. Rather than do the obvious and bench Blake, Nate concocted his 3-guard line-up that forced two of the three players to play out of position and guard much bigger, stronger players. Agreed 100%. Nate cost this team wins at a time when their schedule was much easier - and the team was healthy. Inexcusable. BNM
Seriously? I've said it several times: 21-12 when Miller starts, 7-9 when he doesn't. The team is winning games with him starting and playing big minutes in spite of Oden, Przybilla, Outlaw, now Roy, previously Batum and Rudy out - in spite of a very tough schedule. Isn't winning games the objective? This team definitely wins more with Miller than without him. The evidence is irrefutable. If that doesn't meet your definition of "make us a much better team" what does? BNM
This is a stupid argument. Of all the players we could be debating, Miller really isn't the one who deserves it. I would rather talk Aldridge, Webster, or Rudy.
This is my main concern with McMillan. I think, at root, all the problems people have with him (overplaying Blake, underplaying Miller, de-emphasizing Oden) comes down to McMillan only being comfortable with one style of play and not having much ability to weave different offensive talents into one coherent system. So, he does whatever he has to in order to maintain his system...even if it means punting on Oden's offensive potential or on Miller's superior talent or on Bayless' dynamic offensive talent. If that's the case, I would want him replaced. That would mean that he's (unintentionally) placing artificial restrictions on the Trail Blazers, making them much less able to leverage player talent. I don't think most NBA head coaches have major effect on team performance, but I think the best teams need a coach who can find a way to leverage as much of his players' talent as he can. McMillan seems like a good college coach: a guy who can "coach 'em up" and maybe keep them focused. Not a guy who can create systems to extract the most production possible from a bunch of pros.
We've already debated that ad nauseum. There was no reason for Blake to start over Miller. None. Argument #1 - Roy plays better with Blake (false) Argument #2 - Roy and Miller can't coexist (false) Argument #3 - The team can't win without a three point shooter at pg (false) I'm done talking about it. Nate is an idiot who clings to his favorites. It's already been well established. I would rather talk about our backcourt's future and who should be dealt. I think Rudy is the prime candidate. Or why is everyone so down on Aldridge? Is Martell for real? How high is Batum's ceiling? I'm done debating Miller. He's playing great. The team is doing better than expected. Let's talk about the future.
