Is it Miller time?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
LOL, even more fuel for the fire:

Rick Kamla from NBA TV was just on The Morning Sports Page a few minutes ago and the two doorknobs Chad and Gavin were saying the Blazers should try to get Mike Bibby and Kamla. Unprompted he said Miller would be "the perfect fit; a veteran, an iron-horse, will do whatever Nate wants, will know that he's third guy behind Brandon and LaMarcus, and will control tempo."
 
Last edited:
Nikolokolus said:
LOL, even more fuel for the fire:

Rick Kamla from NBA TV was just on The Morning Sports Page a few minutes ago and the two doorknobs Chad and Gavin were saying the Blazers should try to get Mike Bibby and Kamla. Unprompted he said Miller would be "the perfect fit; a veteran, an iron-horse, will do whatever Nate wants, will know that he's third guy behind Brandon and LaMarcus, and will control tempo."
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Kamla and I've never felt he understands the basketball pulse of our team. I don't doubt that Miller could help Portland immensely if he stays motivated and healthy. But staying healthy at that age is a risk Portland shouldn't take IMO.
 
Crimson the Cat said:
I'm not a fan of Kamla and I've never felt he understands the basketball pulse of our team. I don't doubt that Miller could help Portland immensely if he stays motivated and healthy. But staying healthy at that age is a risk Portland shouldn't take IMO.
Click to expand...

Kamla is OK, he's certainly not the worst analyst I've ever watched.

As for Miller's motivation and health, he'd be coming to a contender, and the guy has been a total stud having never played fewer than 80 games in a season ... it also doesn't hurt that he's only played 10 years and 28,000 minutes which is nearly identical to Mike Bibby -- it's the guys with an injury history or that have played 13+ NBA seasons that I worry more about when it comes to wear and tear.
 
Nikolokolus said:
As for Miller's motivation and health, he'd be coming to a contender, and the guy has been a total stud having never played fewer than 80 games in a season ... it also doesn't hurt that he's only played 10 years and 28,000 minutes which is nearly identical to Mike Bibby -- it's the guys with an injury history or that have played 13+ NBA seasons that I worry more about when it comes to wear and tear.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd be more apt to choose Miller over a more injury prone, age 30+ point guard. I still would prefer trading for a younger point guard, such as Ramon Sessions or Kirk Hinrich. I may even prefer to say move for a younger, much less proven guard such as Mike Conley instead. That's just me though.

I just don't like the idea of making such a huge change to buy us an upgrade for one or two seasons unless it's our only option to improve.
 
Crimson the Cat said:
I agree. I'd be more apt to choose Miller over a more injury prone, age 30+ point guard. I still would prefer trading for a younger point guard, such as Ramon Sessions or Kirk Hinrich. I may even prefer to say move for a younger, much less proven guard such as Mike Conley instead. That's just me though.

I just don't like the idea of making such a huge change to buy us an upgrade for one or two seasons unless it's our only option to improve.
Click to expand...

I would generally agree with the following caveat - if this team (KP / Nate) believes that Bayless is the long-term solution - Getting Miller to replace Blake while sending Sergio packing and handing the backup minutes to JB is a very acceptable solution.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Both! And I've seen neither from Miller. Nor Bibby, come to that. But then again, Nash and Kidd don't seem too demonstrative, but they've done okay. But Miller is SUPER quiet. And him skipping the final Philly meeting might give us hope but on the other hand, it wasn't exactly classy.

Don't get me wrong, I've always admired Miller's game, right from his rookie year in Cleveland. But I do wonder about a guy who seems to bounce around and I've never heard a teammate sing his praises.
Click to expand...
Rah Rah fist pumping, "heart" showing, in-your-face stuff. Important?

Not for the Spurs who have won without all that stuff. And since Portland is being run with a quasi-Spur blueprint I think the team actually favors players that keep that stuff toned down.

Thus, the comment from the article that Miller's style fits in with what Portland is building.

And to that point I agree that I doubt that Portland is saying to themselves right now, "what we lack is one of those extra demonstrative in-your-face players. That is one of our top criteria." No. Don't think so.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Kamla is OK, he's certainly not the worst analyst I've ever watched.

As for Miller's motivation and health, he'd be coming to a contender, and the guy has been a total stud having never played fewer than 80 games in a season ... it also doesn't hurt that he's only played 10 years and 28,000 minutes which is nearly identical to Mike Bibby -- it's the guys with an injury history or that have played 13+ NBA seasons that I worry more about when it comes to wear and tear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 28,000 minutes of GROUNDED basketball. As a non-high-flyer with no injury history, Miller has a shot to have Stockton-like extended career depending on his nutrition and off-season workout habits.

You ALWAYS worry about guys on the wrong side of 30, but in Miller's case I don't think we should obsess over it.
 
Ok so I'll throw this out there: Kirk Heinrich.

Rumor is the Bulls are going to choose between him and Gordon as who to keep. If he goes to another team, Portland would be a good fit IMO. He plays defense(solving many Blazer issues.) He can shoot from the outside. He gets assists. Comparable number to Miller, but with better outside shooting. Different strong facets of the game though.
 
hasoos said:
Ok so I'll throw this out there: Kirk Heinrich.

Rumor is the Bulls are going to choose between him and Gordon as who to keep. If he goes to another team, Portland would be a good fit IMO. He plays defense(solving many Blazer issues.) He can shoot from the outside. He gets assists. Comparable number to Miller, but with better outside shooting. Different strong facets of the game though.
Click to expand...

I'm leaning more towards Hinrich than Miller as a target. He fits like a glove IMO. He can play perfectly off of Roy. He can penetrate a defense better than Blake, IMO. He's a tougher than hell player. He's the swiss-army knife of point guards.

It depends on the price though. Remember this team is just now sniffing their ultimate potential. Next year Roy, and especially Aldridge, Oden, Fernandez and Batum will be more well rounded players. They'll have experienced the Playoffs and the grind of the regular season. Webster will be healed up and ready to join in. This leads me to wonder how significant of an upgrade we need to reach our lofty goals. Certainly a player such as Hinrich would be welcomed, but what if the asking price is one of our up-and-comers. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather go a less expensive route.
 
I think Miller is by far the better PG and player then Hinrich. The only thing Hinrich has over Miller is age. I think Hinrich isn't really tha much of a upgrade but would be ok if KP think he is the guy. I just think from watching Miller this year he would almost the perfect fit as our starting PG. I do think with 2 years 3 max as our starter and Bayless as the backup would be about as good as we could hope for.
 
hasoos said:
Ok so I'll throw this out there: Kirk Heinrich.

Rumor is the Bulls are going to choose between him and Gordon as who to keep. If he goes to another team, Portland would be a good fit IMO. He plays defense(solving many Blazer issues.) He can shoot from the outside. He gets assists. Comparable number to Miller, but with better outside shooting. Different strong facets of the game though.
Click to expand...

I'd definitely put it in my back pocket as a fallback if Sessions or Miller become unattainable. But if the goal is to get a true playmaking point guard who can get guys like Oden more involved in the offense then Hinrich is probably not the best choice.
 
Crimson the Cat said:
You're selling Kirk short. I believe he's also a better outside shooter and a better all-around defender.
Click to expand...

Hinrich is the better outside shooter, but Miller is a superior slasher and post-up player.

I wouldn't give Hinrich the edge defensively. They're both very good defenders.
 
Minstrel said:
Hinrich is the better outside shooter, but Miller is a superior slasher and post-up player.

I wouldn't give Hinrich the edge defensively. They're both very good defenders.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but to say that the only edge Hinrich has is age is wrong IMO.
 
Crimson the Cat said:
That's fine, but to say that the only edge Hinrich has is age is wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

You are right Hinrich is a better outside shooter but he hasn't shot the well from the outside the last couple years. Miller is a good mid range shooter not much for 3 point shootings. I have a different opinion then most Blazer fans about outside shooters. I just think we take a few to many outside shots already. I think we need more post up/slasher to the basket players not outside shooters but it would be nice if the PG can do everything like a D.Williams, CP3 etc.
 
Last edited:
If Bayless is Jarrett Jack on steroids, then Hinrich is Steve Blake on steroids. Especially his contract. Chicago fans don't think Hinrich is a PG. That scares me. I'd rather have Miller. Or Bibby, even.
 
Miller will be overpaid. He's aging and will only have a Rod Strickland-like presence here.
 
Tortimer said:
You are right Hinrich is a better outside shooter but he hasn't shot the well from the outside the last couple years. Miller is a good mid range shooter not much for 3 point shootings. I have a different opinion then most Blazer fans about outside shooters. I just think we take a few to many outside shots already. I think we need more post up/slasher to the basket players not outside shooters but it would be nice if the PG can do everything like a D.Williams, CP3 etc.
Click to expand...

You aren't alone. I think there has to be balance of course, but outside of Brandon who else does this team have in its rotation (outside of the centers of course) that isn't a jump shooter? Bayless can drive but he's glued to the bench. Sergio can drive, but has trouble finishing and he certainly can't be counted on to be a shooter, Batum has a decent handle but was way too passive (whether by design or habit) Blake took nothing but jump shots, LaMarcus started to mix in a little bit of post game, but was still primarily a mid-range shooter, Travis, Rudy, Frye all of 'em jump shooters to a man. It's time to mix things up a little bit people.
 
Mediocre Man said:
I am not sure we get the MLE this season because we will be under the cap.
Click to expand...

1) we sign Ron Artest, we will be just over.
2) we sign rookie on rookie contract, we will be just over.
3) we sign Miller with MLE?

I think this works.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
1) we sign Ron Artest, we will be just over.
2) we sign rookie on rookie contract, we will be just over.
3) we sign Miller with MLE?

I think this works.
Click to expand...

I do not think you can have the CAP and the MLE in the same year - but I might be wrong.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
1) we sign Ron Artest, we will be just over.
2) we sign rookie on rookie contract, we will be just over.
3) we sign Miller with MLE?

I think this works.
Click to expand...

No, you get the MLE if you enter the off-season (I think the date that you have to make decisions on which free agents you're renouncing rights to) over the cap. You can't go into an off-season under the cap, spend to get over it and then get the MLE.
 
I'm perfectly happy with a very short deal for Artest or a longer deal for Miller. Either way we add more veteran experience and fill some major gaps in the team. If we could somehow add both without giving up Roy/Aldridge/Rudy/Oden/Bayless, I'm very, very content.
 
Minstrel said:
No, you get the MLE if you enter the off-season (I think the date that you have to make decisions on which free agents you're renouncing rights to) over the cap. You can't go into an off-season under the cap, spend to get over it and then get the MLE.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks. You'd think I'd know that after all these years, but we haven't been under the cap in a while:lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top