Chad Ford "Andre Miller is on the block"

[PapaG]

Portland is the closest team geographically to Victoria BC.

I meant in terms of winning a title. I know Nash is from BC, although he does now live in SoHo/NYC in the offseason. What if the Knicks can swing a deal for him? It would be Suns West!

 

[jlprk]

If I were Nash, I would fight like the dickens to not play for slow McMillan. If the trade happned, he just might retire and stay where he lives. He'd give up 1-2 years of diminishing play in the wrong system for him under the Blazer injury curse in a cold climate in a small market. Did I leave anything out?

 

[barfo]

I meant in terms of winning a title. I know Nash is from BC, although he does now live in SoHo/NYC in the offseason. What if the Knicks can swing a deal for him? It would be Suns West!

Or maybe East.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Or maybe East.

barfo

West of Europe, which is where D'Antoni learned to coach.

 

[Minstrel]

A PG with a 24 PER for a PG with a 19 PER, when both can't play defense? Sure...

Nash's defense is worse. That said, if it were Nash straight up for Miller, I'd do it, too. Giving up Batum seems like a bad idea for a team who's window seems further into the future, unless they're getting back someone who's prime is likely to be a few years from now.

 

[PapaG]

Nash's defense is worse.

That's a bit like choosing between Shasta McNasty and Baywatch Nights as the better TV show.

We all lose in the end.

 

[Minstrel]

That's a bit like choosing between Shasta McNasty and Baywatch Nights as the better TV show.

We all lose in the end.

Well, we could similarly say that both Matthews and a healthy Roy are good scorers, so it doesn't matter which we have. The actual amount of goodness and badness matters. Miller is now a poor man defender because he's lost a step, but he's still a pretty heady team defender. Nash has never been good at man or team defense. If Nash's defense yields more points for the opposing defense (as I believe it does), then it matters that he's worse.

 

[PapaG]

Well, we could similarly say that both Matthews and a healthy Roy are good scorers, so it doesn't matter which we have.

Matthews isn't close to being in healthy Roy's league as a scorer. I don't think Wesley has been doubled even once this season. The rest of your post was irrelevant to me after reading the sentence I posted.

 

[Minstrel]

Matthews isn't close to being in healthy Roy's league as a scorer. I don't think Wesley has been doubled even once this season. The rest of your post was irrelevant to me after reading the sentence I posted.

I'm afraid you missed the point. The point is that saying "bad is bad, differences in how bad are irrelevant" is just as silly as "good is good, differences in how good are irrelevant" (as I illustrated with Matthews and Roy). It is important to differentiate between different levels of good and bad.

Both (healthy) Roy and Matthews are good, but Roy is better. Both Miller and Nash are bad on defense, but Nash is worse. Those differences matter in terms of winning games. Saying that both Nash and Miller aren't good on defense, so who cares about individually evaluating their defense is pretty faulty.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

West of Europe, which is where D'Antoni learned to coach.

Isn't it also East of Europe, if you go the other way?

 

[MickZagger]

That's a bit like choosing between Shasta McNasty and Baywatch Nights as the better TV show.

We all lose in the end.

Crunch the numbers.

You're good at that. Unless of course it goes against your argument

 

[Shooter]

miller has not looked the same the last month

That's the third time you've said this. I think we got it the first time.