At the heart of the Blazers' struggles is on-court chemistry -- there is none. The molding of new talent (namely free-agent pickups Andre Miller and Juwan Howard and the return of Martell Webster) with last season's key players has not gone smoothly.
Utah 108, Portland 97: Blazers get F in chemistry | Behind The Blazers Beat - OregonLive.com
I am shocked - SHOCKED! - to read that Andre Miller has joined a team as the supposedly missing piece at point guard but had trouble developing any chemistry with his teammates. Wait a minute. That sounds somehow familiar.
10 months ago
Steve Perrin
90 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I read this quote
and smile. As this team disappoints all year (but, but, the Blazers are the youngest team in the NBA) and fails to take it to the second level - in part due to this stupid pickup and in part due to other issues that Blazer fans refuse to acknowledge exists—- I will laugh and laugh. I just hope their struggles this year won’t keep their fans from lecturing the Clippers fans on how to do things the right way.
Because the Clippers obviously know how to do things the right way....
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 22, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess the difference
is that we know our management HAS been a laughing stock and we can accept and acknowledge that…
can the Blazers admit to picking Miller up as a mistake yet?
Yes
Before a single regular season game is even played….it is time to admit what a HUGE mistake it was signing Miller.
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 24, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
TURKOGLU
No argument here that the Blazers made a mistake signing Andre. Leaving this aside for a moment, though, I’m still wondering why Turkoglu opted for Toronto rather than Portland. If I remember right, Portland offered $50 million to Toronto’s $53… OK, so $3 million’s not chicken feed, but really he would have been a great fit on a hot Blazers team, whereas now he’s stuck in the northern plains on a second tier team that’s likely to lose Bosh next year. I don’t understand the life decision he made. At a certain point in a career, when you’ve already made a fortune, shouldn’t other things matter more than a few salary percentage points?
ah yes...
… the great end all. Is that why Bosh will stay, too?
Still...
… can you imagine the Blazers with Turk? They were that close, as was he, to being something special.
Toronto is more or less his scene
Not to bag on Portland but Toronto is one of the more diverse cities in North America and the team has a lot of European players on it (Calderon, Bargnani and now Bellinelli, plus former players like Parker played overseas). I believe he said he and his wife wanted to live in a more global city (whatever that means).
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 24, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I think adding Miller was a mistake and a Slap in the face to SBlake who did good last season.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
Blake is a horrible PG
Adding a PG was absolutely the right call for Portland. I question bringing in Miller when Sessions was available, especially since Portland’s logic was apparently that they needed a veterrany type player who can be a mentor to the young guys. Complete foolishness.
I also thought the Blazers should have looked at Shaun Livingston last year.
by Michael White on Oct 21, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
But why do they need a PG?
This is what I don’t understand. They have a playmaking SG in Roy and Blake who can pass the ball somewhat. Do they really need a traditional PG?
Maybe Roy was getting run down. Don’t watch the team enough to know.
Roy was getting swarmed
I think the series vs. Houston really frustrated the team. Houston had a great game plan of swarming Roy and forcing the ball out of his hands (using Artest, Battier and help defenders). Without Roy creating, the team was dead in the water. I think they realized that they needed another playmaker.
That’s why they went after Hedo. They feel weak at the 3 spot anyway (apparently not being sold on Outlaw and since Batum is still so young) and Hedo would have addressed both the need for playmaking and another clutch scorer who can create his own shot.
With Miller, they apparently gave up on the latter need, which IMO was foolish. Miller needs the ball in his hands to be effective. You can’t take the ball out of Roy’s hands just because you need an additional playmaker. They forgot that the key word was “additional” not “primary.”
Makes sense
guess they thought that there was nothing else out there. I think Sessions would have presented the same problems for them.
To me this is a team that could do pretty well in the triangle offense.
I'm not the one who said they should have gone after Sessions
They need a PG who can play off the ball, shoot the 3 and defend.
Basically kind of like Derek Fisher does next to Kobe.
The Houston series
also showed that other than Roy no player on the team was really capable of getting to the free throw line. Blazer fans were disappointed in the free throw disparity, but Roy was really the only guy taking the ball to the rim (and he got plenty of calls.) Interestingly, a PG who can get to the rim would have also been nice, like Baron, to combat the problems you note above.
I also agree with Clipper Chuck below, a PG who could shoot would also alleviate the problems you noted.
I really don’t like Blake’s game at all, so I do understand the impluse to want to upgrade there.
by Michael White on Oct 21, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
You are correct...
Jax point is certainly not off base…Roy is a great playmaker, and Steve Blake is serviceable. In fact I think one of the reasons the Blazers have had recent success is because Blake can knock down an open jumper from the pg spot. However the problem for Portland is exactly what mwhite06 said, they were a good young team and not a great team, and there are reasons they couldnt take it to the next level. Steve Blake is one of those reasons. He is a serviceable backup pg in this league, but definitely not a starter.
So Portland knew they needed a pg, but boy did they make the wrong call. As Madglove pointed out, teams started swarming Roy and forcing him to pass. Our Clippers took full advantage of this in our preseason game agains the blazers, sticking Baron on Roy and sending Gordon to help as soon as he put the ball on the floor. Unfortunately for Roy and the blazers, Andre Miller can’t shoot.
It might be a long season (and perhaps another short one) for the Blazers in 09-10
A horrible PG that set a NBA record against your Clips
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 22, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Not in my view
Not a huge talent, good midrange shot, can run an offense and rack up assists.
I don’t see him as a huge risk.
agreed...
hes not a talent risk, but he was a bad fit for Portland IMO
What's up with Pritchard?
Kevin Pritchard was considered by many as the league’s best up and coming GM. He’d put together a young and talented squad full of potential. I don’t understand how a guy like that goes after Andre Miller. I mean, that’s the classic dumb GM’s mistake (Hi Elgin). Anyone who’s even had a mild interest in Miller’s career knows that he’s no winner. He puts up great stats and performs well for bad teams with no expectations. But put him on an up and coming team with pressure and his sulkish demeanor infects everyone and kills the team.
What’s even worse is that virtually every analyst doubted the move. Many saw it as a poor fit and didn’t understand why they would go after a ball dominating PG to put next to their franchise SG who also needs the ball.
Strange how things like this happen.
Miller
I’m going to defend him a bit here as he has been the PG on a number of playoff teams.
I do think Miller was a poor fit, he’s getting older and this move hurt the Blazers because they are at their best when Roy has the ball in his hands. They needed a defensive stopper and lights out shooter at the PG spot but Miller is neither. It was more of a panic room after Hedo ran off on them (who would have been a good fit).
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 21, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm taking a wait and see
I don’t think Andre Miller was a smart signing by them. But I’m not convinced it’s their demise either. ‘Struggling’ in pre-season and ‘struggling’ in the regular season are too different things, and the regular season hasn’t even started yet. The roster is deep and talented with or without Miller. He’d have to do a LOT of damage to completely wreck them; and the guy can still play. I’m not sure I agree with your blanket pronouncement about Miller. He didn’t kill Denver (though I suppose you could argue that the roster underachieved a tad with him). He certainly didn’t kill the Sixers – that roster overachieved with him. He’s an enigmatic dude, as we well know. But I don’t think it’s clear he’s not a winner.
As for Pritchard, he had a bad summer. If you think about it, it’s a classic case of “I have cap space and I’m going to spend it, dammit.” He went after a small forward (Turkoglu) and missed. So he went after a power forward (Millsap) and missed. So he went after a point guard. Huh? You’ve got this supposedly great and young and up and coming roster, but you need help to the tune of a new $8M per player at any one of three spots? He could have kept his money and stuck with Blake and waited for the right fit. Roy’s going to have the ball in his hands at the end of games anyway.
But we’ll see.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
The Sixers?
He didn’t “kill” the Sixers sure. But the fact that you said they overachieved goes to my point that he performs on bad teams. He led the league in assists on a horrible Cleveland team. He comes to LA to push us up the Playoff mountain and instead the team falls off the cliff. He goes to Denver, playoff team, does nothing and then Denver trades him and immediately turns into a 50 win team. That’s before Chauncey. Again, he does well on bad teams and does nothing at all for good teams.
How can you even argue that he’s not a winner? Where has he won? What has he won? The guy has had ZERO success in the postseason, having never been out of the 1st round ONCE.
If that’s being a winner, I guess the bar is pretty low.
So was KG a winner before he went to the Celtics?
Then he magically became a winner? Or those noted winners Allen and Pierce made him a “winner”?
Everything you just said about Miller applies to Garnett.
Let’s see if the Blazers actually stumble and why before we start hanging it on Miller.
Uh....no
KG went to the Western Conference Finals with the TWolves with Sam Cassell as his best player. Name that team’s starting 5. I bet you can’t without looking it up.
And I’m not saying that the Blazers will miss the playoffs or anything. They have way too much talent and Roy is way too good for that. But they didn’t need Miller to be a playoff team. They needed an extra piece to become an elite team. For some reason they think Miller is that piece. I’m willing to bet that he’s not.
Wow, Madglove has truly gone mad
Sam is better than KG? The same KG who won MVP that year? The one who averaged a ridiculous line of something like 23-14-5? That Minnesota team added Cassell AND Spreewell that year.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 21, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Miscommunication
I said Sam was “HIS” best player. As in his best teammate. What I should have said was that Sam was the team’s 2nd best player. Sorry for the confusion.
I think they can stick Miller on the bench
And get Oden to step up and they will be fine. They have a great coach, good management and good players. They ingredients are all there.
I don’t know that Miller’s not a winner. I also don’t know that Sessions is a winner. These are players that need to be in the right system. I would have thought that LA would have been a good fit for Miller when they signed him. I applauded that move. Is the problem his personality? Maybe with the Clippers, although he’s not alone there (cough, Odom, cough). But with the Blazers I suspect that he just doesn’t meld with the style of play.
Define elite team
That’s not some esoteric question. We need it for verification purposes.
50 wins? 55 wins? Western Conference Finals?
To be honest
It’s simply hard to say. The team won 54 games last season. So obviously “elite” doesn’t mean 50 or 55 wins unless you consider them already elite. Especially considering the 6th seed in the West last year had 50 wins. If the Blazers go from 54 wins last season to 50 this season, it’s obviously not a positive.
To me, elite teams advance in the playoffs. So yea, I think a conference finals berth is one good indicator…for that one season at least. For example, Denver was an elite team last year. I don’t necessarily think they will be this year. The Spurs obviously got bounced early, but that doesn’t immediately strip them of elite status. Again, I see it as ONE good indicator. You have to combine that with other factors, including recent past performance, expectations, etc.
I know for debates like these it’s nice to have a standard to argue on. But I think we both know that’s not necessarily possible. Like the legal analysis of “obscenity”, it’s hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
I’ll tell you this, a team that never advances past the 1st round of the playoffs, like all of Miller’s teams, is not elite.
Good issue
It’s a very interesting question—and it’d be great to see SP weigh in on it at length.
Elite teams would seem to be the top 2-3 or even 5 teams in a conference. They are locks to make the playoffs, and they will defend the home court extremely well. As mg notes, they don’t get bounced repeatedly from the first round of the playoffs. Rather, they routinely go to the semis, often make the CF, and advancing to the NBA Finals has to make you elite for that particular year, of course.
Dallas, for instance, has been an elite team for a while now, dating back to the Nash-Nowitzki era. They were an still an elite team when they fell to GSW in the first round: just because a team is elite doesn’t mean that it doesn’t lose.
Player, coach, and management stability and excellence are good signs of elite teams. As mg notes, Denver emerged as a fast-rising and dangerous team after acquiring Billups and shipping out AI, though I don’t know that I would give them the elite brand so quickly—just like how you wouldn’t give it to GSW just for beating Dallas. But this year, Denver has consolidated its gains and you’d have to call them an elite team, apart from the unlikelihood that they stumble coming out of the box.
There are lots of good questions here. How do you lose elite status? Is Phoenix an example of a former elite team?
It’s ironic how both Boston and the Lakers looked to be very non-elite so recently, and then both perennial elites made such swift returns to the top level. Funny how that happens.
Of course, there’s elite, and then the 2nd tier. And then there are the lottery teams, the bottom dwellers. Home of the Clippers. The Clips hope to become a solid 2nd tier team this year.
by citizen zhiv on Oct 21, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
DEN
Actually Denver was more or less the same when they traded him for AI. And these aren’t bad teams, heck everyone here is a certifiable expert on bad teams, while they aren’t stellar teams they have been average or better for the most part.
And the bar is pretty low here, we’ve made the playoffs once in the past 15 years…
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 21, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Anyone gonna fact check madglove on this?
I was away, but wow, is the above wrong. Citizen ClipperChuck stepped up, a little.
“He goes to Denver, playoff team, does nothing and then Denver trades him and immediately turns into a 50 win team.”
No, and no.
Denver won 17 games the year before Andre Miller arrived, and 43 the first year he played for them. They won 49 the next year. So if 50 win team makes you a winner, then he missed by 1. Obviously, some guy named Carmelo arrived about then also, but that doesn’t change the fact that what you wrote was completely and totally incorrect.
Did they get better immediately when he left? Not so much. 44 wins in 05-06 with him, 45 wins with Iverson in 06-07 – they made it to 50 wins (one more than they won with Miller three seasons earlier, mind you) the next season.
Can’t argue with the playoff thing.
Look, I don’t like the guy, but you can’t just make crap up.
So I think we’ve established that Chauncey Billups is better than Andre Miller.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 21, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Whoops my mistake
I had my years mixed up. Simple as that. When I was looking at the year Miller joined the team, I mixed it up for the 43 win season before he joined, not the 17.
Steve, you can make that correction without the completely unwarranted statement that I’m “just making crap up.” That’s BS and you know it. I think I’ve been around long enough to not have those kinds of allegations made against my character. I’ll debate any topic, but I don’t intentionally make things up out of nowhere. Are you always 100% on your stats?
And beyond that specific mistake, your still haven’t addressed my main question for you. How can you even argue that he’s a winner? Again, what has he won and where has he won?
You were way off
I didn’t bother because you were so way off it didn’t merit a huge discussion. It would be like giving someone from out of town directions when all they have on them is a map of Seattle. To put it mildly you were a bit lost. And hey anytime anyone makes a post as a matter of fact, then you put yourself in a position where you have to defend your statement.
So what is the definition of a “winner”? Well he’s made the playoffs 5 times, his teams have always been at least decent. Is he a game changer? No, but he’s also shown enough of a track record that he isn’t a team killer. His stats have been solid but I don’t recall anyone ever confusing him with being a superstar or even an all-star.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Confused for an All Star
Check the 2002 ASG. Coaches picked some guy named Baron as the backup point guard. Compare Davis and Miller that season. I’d call that confusing.
He was also on the team that represented the US in the World Championships in 2002. No, it’s not an All Star team, but it’s often chosen like one.
He’s an enigma.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 22, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Can we not mention the World Championships team in 2002? That was the beginning of the end for USA Basketball before the recent Redeem Team. We came in something like seventh, and then walked away with Bronze in 2004.
by Gordon for President on Oct 22, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
"Always been at least decent"?
Uh…are you seriously trying to talk to me about being lost and then making blanket statements like that? You should have at least remembered that the Clips team he “led” (and I use that term loosely…and facetiously) was 27-55.
His 3 years with the Cavs? 32-50, 30-52, 29-53.
What exactly is your definition of “decent”?
Maybe find your way out of the wilderness before talking about anyone else being lost. Is that matter of fact enough for you?
30 wins is decent
Its not even a high lotto pick. Not to mention the team became really bad after he left (in 2003 they ended up with some guy named Lebron).
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Two things...
My sentence would have been more accurate, “one can’t make crap up” as opposed to “you can’t make crap up.” I knew you knew better, but I was a little taken aback that no one had called you on it, so I got a little self-righteous – apologies for that. (Having said that, there’s no way you can explain 49 wins with Miller and 50 wins after he left as being such a huge difference nor was it an honest mistake as no matter when you thought he got there, you knew they won 49 games with him, so even in the best case, you’re splitting hairs by making a big deal over 1 more win.)
As for putting words in people’s mouths, my exact statement was “I don’t think it’s clear he’s not a winner”, which is not the same as saying he is a winner. It’s all a matter of opinion of course, and dependent on your definition of winner, but I’ll play.
what has he won and where has he won?
1) He joined a 17 win Denver team which then won 43 games and then improved to 49.
2) He joined a 6-19 Sixers team, which proceeded to go 29-28 the rest of the season. The team then won 40 games the next season and 41 the next. Is that great? No. But it’s a heck of a lot better than 6-19.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 22, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions
49 to 50
You and I both know it’s not as simple as 1 more win. I didn’t go into all the context because it gets kinda long, but since you’re challenging me on it, I will. The fact that the Nuggets went from 49 to 50 after trading him directly affects the relevance of your #1 of what Miller has won.
The fact that the Nuggets can trade Miller, a natural PG, for Iverson, a notorious shot happy SG, to put on that team of shot happy players, and doesn’t miss a beat shows exactly how ineffective Miller is. You alluded to it yourself earlier when you pointed out that the huge improvement on the Nuggets from 17 to 43 happened to coincide with them drafting Melo.
Yet look what happens when Detroit tried to do the same thing a few years later, trading a pure PG for Iverson. The team completely implodes. Now yes, like you said, it’s clear Chauncey is better than Miller, but the mere fact that a team can trade a PG for an undersized SG and not miss a beat is a reflection of that PG’s relative worth. How can you use that as an example of him being a winner at all? The fact that they won 50 after he was traded isn’t significant just for the number. It’s significant that they hardly noticed he was gone, even with having to play Iverson at the point or a career backup like Anthony Carter.
huh...
So the Nuggets traded for Iverson, pushing their team way over the salary cap for years and years, because they expected to get worse, and they were pleasantly surprised when they got one game better. That is complex, but I appreciate you explaining it.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 22, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Who said anything about what the Nuggets expected or were surprised about?
You’re trying to use Miller’s “contribution” on the Nuggets as an example of how he’s not a loser.
My point is that it simply doesn’t support your case.
What the Nuggets expected has nothing at all to do with it. We could have a whole separate debate about why they did what they did. They needed a change, they hated Miller’s attitude, they wanted Iverson’s ticket sales…who knows? Frankly, hardly matters for this debate.
I wonder if there's anything more interesting to argue about
Like, for example, BG’s supposed nickname.
Dang Andre Miller is really really good
So good that he can still hijack a thread 6 years later.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Fascinating Issue
Clipper fans, many of whom kind of like the Blazers and Brandon Roy as a default team, will be watching this situation carefully. I got into it a little bit at Blazers Edge after the Clips preseason game. That’s a great SB Nation site, if anybody hasn’t been there and wants to follow these events. I haven’t been back there in a while though.
Andre Miller was just a horrendous, horrible addition to a promising and exciting, happy and fun Clipper squad. He took the life right out of the team, and it was one of the last really insane DTS-Baylor moves. The Clips had a rising young squad but they needed a PG and leader. When they traded for Miller, the intense effect of the fact that he had an expiring deal wasn’t properly considered, especially given how Olowokandi had turned down a generous offer and was going to be a UFA, and Odom, FElton and Maggette were going to be RFAs. And in the background, of course, DTS had never spent any extra money on any players at that point. Bringing in the anti-social Miller on an expiring deal to that team was the match that was thrown on the fire, which already had gasoline flowing onto it. It had completely the opposite result of its intended effect, as Miller gave a year-long clinic in uninspired “professional” play that was aimed at securing his next deal.
When it comes to Andre Miller, Clipper fans are abundantly entitled to take a jaundiced view.
But the situation in Portland this year has some significant differences. They won a whole lot of games last year, 50+. They have a legitimate star and leader in Brandon Roy. They hope that Greg Oden can make a big step forward in realizing his potential, but they have a strong roster from top to bottom, and a solid, determined coach. The expectations for what Miller needs to provide and how he is supposed to fit into the team are very different from when he joined the Clippers, but the expectations are still significant.
And they’re fascinating, because they go against everything that Miller has done in his career. Our own Clipper view is that Miller has never been a winner. He has been highly productive in non-winning situations. We feel that the Clippers were duped by the gaudy numbers that he put up on a losing team in Cleveland, and he wasn’t able to be nearly so effective on a more talented Clipper squad. And in his career he has been a major beneficiary of lesser Eastern Conference competition. After a stint in Denver where he played well and produced on a talented team that could never even show the first signs of playoff success, he was sent to Philly for AI. In Philly he did what he’s so good at, making a second-rate team better than the lottery-bound competition, but never getting beyond the quick playoff exit. He has been more successful in the East, where there has been a bigger drop-off from the elites (Boston, Cleveland, Orlando) to the second tier.
The thing is, making the playoffs and then failing to succeed in battling it out in the semis or conference finals isn’t what Portland is looking for. They want a player who is going to take them over the top, to help them succeed in the intense final matchups.
Miller has never done it before. He is intensely anti-social.
This is an awesome thing to look forward to.
by citizen zhiv on Oct 21, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Andre Miller's gaudy numbers in Cleveland
When you get right down to it, Andre Miller’s gaudy numbers in Cleveland are one of the great mysteries of the NBA. The guy’s PER in his second year was 20.1. His PER in his third year was 21.9. That year he led the NBA in assists (10.9 per game), while averaging 16.5 points and 4.7 rebounds (all career highs, btw). So at the time looking forward, it looks like a clear progression to major star, but looking back it looks like a total outlier.
Are we going to blame Elgin on this one? Come on – when that deal was announced you thought it was unbelievably positive, admit it. Now, I probably didn’t watch Andre Miller play a minute in Cleveland – maybe I saw him against the Clippers, but I don’t remember that. Those were terrible teams, and who knows if LAC-CLE was even on TV in LA 8 years ago. So I can’t say how he looked from watching him. But I know how he looked from his stats, and he looked unbelievable.
So I guess the answer is “he puts up good numbers on bad teams.” But I’m not really clear on that. I mean, I know how scorers put up good numbers on bad teams. No one else is good, you take a lot of shots, you score points. I get it. But how does playing on a bad team help you LEAD THE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS? Doesn’t it hurt your chances of getting assists if you don’t have good players around you? So maybe Cleveland was playing Nellie ball at some crazy pace, which inflated his numbers? Nope. Lower half of the league in points per game the season he led the league in assists.
Let me repeat, as a Clipper fan, I do not like Andre Miller. But I have no explanation for what he did his first several seasons in Cleveland – or why he has never been that player since – and there’s no question that I thought Miles for Miller was a brilliant trade at the time.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 21, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
That's the point
You’re saying you can’t blame Elgin b/c you, me and most other fans didn’t watch Miller in Cleveland. All we did was look at his stats and think ‘wow this is great!" Sure, that’s fine for a fan. But for the freaking General Manager of an NBA team? The problem is that it feels like Elgin did pretty much what we did. Saw the box scores and thought he looked unbelievable.
Now of course if that was Elgin’s ONE mistake, then sure you can write it off. But when you have a history of incompetence, you pretty much deserve criticism for stuff like that.
Actually the front office is to blame but for a different reason
The Clippers had a number of expiring contracts that year (Andre Miller, Lamar Odom, Elton Brand and Corey Maggette at the very least) so every key player on the team was looking at the next deal. This created a huge chemistry issue and I think Miller in particular knew the Clippers wouldn’t pay him. Anyways the lesson learned is you can’t have all your key guys play on expiring deals, especially when they are still young players, and expect team chemistry to be fine.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Because otherwise Miller would have done what?
Led this team to the heights he was leading the Cavs to?
Actually 30 wins would have been a improvement I think
The main point being we had a bunch of guys trying to put up stats so they would get paid which is generally a recipe for disaster. You almost have to take into account that back in 2002-2003 the Clippers had NEVER spent the money to retain their own players. Heck they only kept Maggette and FElton that year after other teams had signed them first to contracts and the team matched (Miami got Odom though).
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions
If that's true than why does MDSr get a pass around here?
By the way, I too thought the Miller signing was a good one. I suspect that he just didn’t think management could support a winner and soured quickly on the team. No first hand knowledge though.
A Point of Pride
I’ve been wrong and overly optimistic about a gazillion different Clipper moves, but I have to say that I count as a point of pride that I was highly skeptical of the Miller trade when I first heard about it. I remember the feeling pretty well.
There were a lot of factors. One was that I didn’t know Miller very well and wasn’t aware of his level of success in Cleveland.
And before going on I’ll say that it didn’t take me long to talk myself into the deal, especially since every knowledgable fan of the Clippers (the handful of them) seemed to be geeked up about the trade. That’s something else I remember, how everybody was sure that Miller was the missing piece that would take the team into the playoffs.
I can’t say that I’m proud of the reason why I disliked the Miller trade: it was because I thought Darius Miles had potential to be a star. The thing to remember, I guess, is how popular Miles was along with Q and the rest of the young Clippers, led by the mercurial Lamar Odom. It turned out that it wasn’t Miles’ talent that was substantial and a big loss in the trade, but the structure, depth, and chemistry of the team, to which he made a significant contribution. It would probably be interesting to consider in relation to the increased depth of the current Clipper squad. The team had Kandi-FElton-Odom-Miles-Maggette-QRich, and I remember how it was hard for Maggette to get minutes, let alone Miles. But they had a talented, young second team backing up the talented young first team. It seemed like a big advantage regardless of what their PG situation was. And when Odom ran into injuries and drug suspension, the missing depth hurt the team, although it did provide Maggette an opportunity to step up.
And the PG situation wasn’t as broken as it might seem. The Miles-Q team had been led by Jeff McGinnis at PG. It turned out that McGinnis had a screw loose, apparently, something we didn’t really know at the time, and Miller’s lack of affect and his quiet personality, which turned out to be silent and anti-social, might have seemed like a necessary and very positive chemistry move. It wasn’t but that was hard to know. And Jaric was also coming to the NBA for the first time, an exciting and highly-touted Euro. Jaric promised to be the Clips PG of the future, but his rookie status must have contributed to the idea that bringing Miller in with an expiring deal made sense.
It would probably be interesting to compare the “expiring contracts” team of Miller and Kandi, etc. to the disappointing 0607 campaign.
And while we consider disasters from the old days, it’s worth noting the Clipper cycle of feast and famine, although “feast” is hardly the appropriate word. More like a decent meal for a change. But the rare good/decent years were never followed up by corresponding progress, and meltdowns of a sort have generally ensued. So if the Clips are on the rise this year, and looking forward to a healthy meal, it should be interesting to see if they can sustain it. To put two winning seasons in a row up on the board would be a huge step forward, but let’s take care of the first one first.
But like I said, it didn’t take me long to talk myself into joining the herd and thinking that Miller was a perfect fit, the Clips wouldn’t miss Miles, and everything would be great.
by citizen zhiv on Oct 22, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
The thing is, making the playoffs and then failing to succeed in battling it out in the semis or conference finals isn’t what Portland is looking for. They want a player who is going to take them over the top, to help them succeed in the intense final matchups.
They just had cap space that was going to waste next year because of Roy and Aldridge’s new contracts. Miller was a “spend it while you got it, otherwise it’s gone” situation.
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 22, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah and LA is no joke
Too early to tell, they still have some weapons with Roy, LA and Outlaw(not as consistent) so they just need time to jell and work the kinks out first before they declare it a disaster and call the Miller signing a bust.
I think it is Good that Portland sucks, better for us to take a step up to the playoffs.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
Portland does not suck
They had 54 wins last season and were 4th seed in the playoffs. What they are trying to do now is get to the next level (Finals)…maybe they are sucking at that. I look forward to the day when the Clips will suck that good.
"Excellence...is not an act, but a habit" Aristotle
by Cliptomaniac on Oct 21, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Last season was just that LAST SEASON, this is this season now.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
It may be safe to say that none of the Clippers want to "Suck Good"
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
I would just like to say
that it is so very nice to have a spirited basketball discussion again (even if it is mostly about a team other than the Clippers) instead of discussing nicknames.
Blazers
They are a virtual lock to win at least 50 games, imo. They have true leaders on and off the court in Roy and McMillan (wish I could say the same about Biddy and MD). It doesn’t matter who the PG is, the ball is going to be in Roy’s hands when the game is on the line.
Andre is going to be Andre...
But Andre is just ‘1’ guy, and I believe the Blazers team is strong enough to make this work.
Also, I really like this Clippers team this year, some really nice, even underrated players.
Numerically Blazers Edge is #25
by Outlaw is Rejector on Oct 21, 2009 7:25 PM PDT reply actions
hahahaha
even kevin prichard ain’t perfect. why didn’t they go after sessions instead?
Veteran presence
Portland is full of young potential and have desired to add a veteran player with playoff experience. Miller struggles in shooting and defense, but Sessions struggles in those areas even moreso.
by Lawler 4ever on Oct 21, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Good point
Just because Miller is a little funky doesn’t mean that Sessions is the answer. Too many young players, and they’re still hoping that Bayless comes on as a good complement to BRoy.
by citizen zhiv on Oct 21, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions
If they thought Bayless was the answer they never would have signed Miller
Even if they were desperate to make “a move.”
Not necessarily
The Blazers owner is very very wealthy (Paul Allen is a co-founder of Microsoft) and has never shied away from paying the luxury tax. This was kind of their last chance to spend the money as they have to extend Aldridge and Roy which will eat up all their cap space. Could they have waited for someone else in maybe a trade? Maybe we would have unloaded Baron on them at the time but its a pretty short contract at a decent price for the production but he is a bad fit on that team as many sportswriters noted when the deal was made.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 1:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Really good point
I hadn’t really thought that through before, but with Roy and LA coming off their rookie deals, this was indeed kind of ‘use it or lose it’ time for the cap space – makes the Darius thing all the more painful, because the Roy and LA money will eat up his $9M plus Blake and Outlaw’s expiring deals (or most of it anyway).
In that sense, the seeming desperation makes more sense, esp. considering Paul Allen. And since the deal is only 2 years (third year is a team option), it doesn’t tie up money long term.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 22, 2009 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Clips will be in that same boat in two years...
Good point. Pritchard HAD to make a deal. The only thing that explains the weirdness of his actions this summer.
Think of it like this...
KP got Miller for Sergio.
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 22, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Just because something doesn't work
in pre season, doesn’t mean it’s never going to work though. Miller is a totally different player to Steve Blake and it’ll take time to make those changes.
The more Oden develops and LA improves, the better the fit for Miller in my opinion as he’ll be able to find those guys for easy buckets and give BRoy some more time off the ball, not making him kill himself every game in order to get wins.
I like Batum after seeing him 4/5 times last year and think he’ll make strides.
I’ve no ill feelings towards the Blazer org and think Pritchard has done a decent job putting this roster together.
Imagine BRoy and KDurrant though. Now wouldn’t that have been scary!!!
Bingo! Oh me oh my!
Definitely have no ill will towards the Blazers
I think they’re a very talented and exciting team. They’re always on my list of teams to go see live when they come play the Clips.
My point was never that the Blazers will suck. Merely that the Miller signing was poor. At best he will have virtually no positive impact on the team. At worst, he’ll get in Roy’s way and actually cause the team to regress.
The Blazers don't suck
but I think they are definitely overrated, at least regarding their expected playoff success.. They are a nice team, and Roy is a remarkable player. That said, I really think that team is not buit for playoff success (and obviously their management thought so too, hence the Miller signing). They are a jump shooting team (and they now have a pg who cant shoot the 3 (btw I think Roy and Fernandez should be their starting backcourt with Roy handling the ball…Fernandez, Roy,Outlaw, Aldridge Oden/Pryzbilla with miller leading the 2nd unit) and their bigs aren’t post scorers. Aldridge seems to be adored around the league, and he is talented, but he isnt a great post presence, which is exactly what that team needs (and Oden is not even close to being that).
I think Portland will hover around 50 wins again this season before ultimately exiting the playoffs in the first round.
Miller has trade value
My gut feeling is the Blazers are going to use his contract as a key component of a bigger trade after this year. The Hornets for instance are one of the teams struggling financially, the Blazers could offer a package of Miller (expiring deal), Bayless (rookie deal), Rudy Fernandez (another rookie deal) plus draft picks for Chris Paul. Anyways they had cap space and a “use it or lose it” type provision where they would have no cap space after the Roy and Aldridge extensions. This gives them some contracts to move when they are over the salary cap aside from the MLE.
FA in 2010.
Miller is a 2 year deal
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 22, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions
After this year
I said after this year during the summer of 2010 they could make a move. Once you are over the salary cap its kind of in your favor to have some big contracts on your books if you want to make some deals (obviously the team needs to be okay with paying the luxury tax).
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Oct 22, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Or they could dangle Outlaw and Blake
Both have expiring deals.
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Oct 22, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Outlaw, Blake,
Miller, Fernandez, and Bayless just doesnt sound good enough for Chris Paul. I’m sorry, but if your asking for Chris Paul, you better send out LaMarcus and filler or Roy. Paul is in his own league with the players mentioned above. I’d give up Thornton, (cheap deal), R Davis (expiring deal), DJ (potential good pick deal), and Marcus Camby (expiring contract deal) and 2 1st round picks for Paul anyday. Of course then there’ll be an issue of Baron and Paul, but essentially, I would think the clear winner is Paul?














