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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
