Re-sign Andre?

[Mediocre Man]

So, you've modified your original, inaccurate statement. A lay-up or floater counts just as much as a 17-foot jump shot. The fact that Miller can penetrate and get high percentage shots is a plus, not a minus. He also shoots free throws better than over half the guys on that list.

BNM

Yes, yes he does.

 

[Natebishop3]

Now minus layups and floaters. I am speaking in terms of 3's and jump shots. Miller can't make them.

I knew what you meant, so I figured it wasn't worth quibbling over your definition of a "shooter" lol

 

[Boob-No-More]

I knew what you meant, so I figured it wasn't worth quibbling over your definition of a "shooter" lol

2 points is 2 points. Doesn't matter how you get it, or what it looks like. Miller may not have 3-point range, but he's a better 2-point (and 1-point) shooter than most of the guys on that list. With his ability to penetrate, he also draws a lot of fouls (often on opposing big men), which is a good thing, and something that guys who settle for jump shots don't do.

Yes, Andre Miller is old and a terrible 3-point shooter. But, right now, he's the least of our problems.

BNM

 

[Mediocre Man]

I knew what you meant, so I figured it wasn't worth quibbling over your definition of a "shooter" lol

Everyone knew what I meant. It's not MBesque, so they quibble

 

[Mediocre Man]

2 points is 2 points. Doesn't matter how you get it, or what it looks like. Miller may not have 3-point range, but he's a better 2-point (and 1-point) shooter than most of the guys on that list. With his ability to penetrate, he also draws a lot of fouls (often on opposing big men), which is a good thing, and something that guys who settle for jump shots don't do.

Yes, Andre Miller is old and a terrible 3-point shooter. But, right now, he's the least of our problems.

BNM

he has easily been one of our best players

 

[Boob-No-More]

he has easily been one of our best players

Then why did you list ONLY his negative qualities? You labeled me "MBesque" since I disagreed with your 100% negative analysis of Miller's play. I guess that makes you Mixumesque, since you're not 100% positive?

I prefer a balanced discussion where both the positives and negatives are discussed. You chose to focus only on Miller's negatives. I posted some of his positives to help balance the discussion. I hardly think that makes me a blind "MBesque" homer.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

Then why did you list ONLY his negative qualities? You labeled me "MBesque" since I disagreed with your 100% negative analysis of Miller's play. I guess that makes you Mixumesque, since you're not 100% positive?

I prefer a balanced discussion where both the positives and negatives are discussed. You chose to focus only on Miller's negatives. I posted some of his positives to help balance the discussion. I hardly think that makes me a blind "MBesque" homer.

BNM

Really the only negative quality he needed to list was Miller's age, because that's the problematic issue. The Blazers window may not have closed, but it's definitely shifted a few years with Oden still out and Roy as a gigantic question mark. The team most likely will not be competing for a championship in the next couple seasons, thus making Miller irrelevant.

 

[Jayps15]

Now minus layups and floaters. I am speaking in terms of 3's and jump shots. Miller can't make them.

Actually he's making 2pt jumpers just fine this year; 38% from 16ft to the 3pt line, 50% from 10ft - 15ft, and 65% on jumpshots closer than 10ft so far this year. Compared to a guy often lauded for his midrange game like Aldridge, who's shooting 36, 40, and 41 percent from those respective areas, he's lighting it up with his jumper so far this year. Historically his percentages are closer to Aldridge's, but that's still a potent midrange game even without the hot streak.

http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Andre Miller
http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=LaMarcus Aldridge

 

[Boob-No-More]

Really the only negative quality he needed to list was Miller's age, because that's the problematic issue. The Blazers window may not have closed, but it's definitely shifted a few years with Oden still out and Roy as a gigantic question mark. The team most likely will not be competing for a championship in the next couple seasons, thus making Miller irrelevant.

I suppose it depends on who they add and when/if Oden comes back and how good he is if/when he does. Still, Miller at 34 is much more durable than Roy at 26. So, I suppose age is relative. He played 2500 minutes last season. That was second on the team, in spite of Nate starting Blake and playing him big minutes the first month and a half of the season. It's not like Miller's game depends on his athleticism. He's playing great right now, having one of the best years of his career.

Steve Nash isn't going to win the MVP this year, his team isn't good enough, but through 10 games, he actually has the highest PER of his entire career, at the age of 36. I'm not comparing Miller's game to Nash's They play different styles and Nash is a much better shooter (one of the best in the game - still). I'm just pointing out that smart PGs, who don't rely on their athleticism, can continue to be effective well past the age of 35. Nash is over two years older than Miller and still a damn good player. He's not as durable as Miller, but Nash's "unathletic" style also allows him to play big minutes and miss very few games due to injury. Both players are liabilities on defense, but do enough other positive things to help their teams win games.

Which is just another way of saying, I think Andre Miller has another 2 - 3 years of above average production still in the tank, AFTER this season. Will that fit our window? Who knows. At the very least, it will give us good, solid PG play and good mentor for Armon Johnson or any other young PG destined to evebtually be Miller's replacement.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

I suppose it depends on who they add and when/if Oden comes back and how good he is if/when he does. Still, Miller at 34 is much more durable than Roy at 26. So, I suppose age is relative. He played 2500 minutes last season. That was second on the team, in spite of Nate starting Blake and playing him big minutes the first month and a half of the season. It's not like Miller's game depends on his athleticism. He's playing great right now, having one of the best years of his career.

Steve Nash isn't going to win the MVP this year, his team isn't good enough, but through 10 games, he actually has the highest PER of his entire career, at the age of 36. I'm not comparing Miller's game to Nash's They play different styles and Nash is a much better shooter (one of the best in the game - still). I'm just pointing out that smart PGs, who don't rely on their athleticism, can continue to be effective well past the age of 35. Nash is over two years older than Miller and still a damn good player. He's not as durable as Miller, but Nash's "unathletic" style also allows him to play big minutes and miss very few games due to injury. Both players are liabilities on defense, but do enough other positive things to help their teams win games.

Which is just another way of saying, I think Andre Miller has another 2 - 3 years of above average production still in the tank, AFTER this season. Will that fit our window? Who knows. At the very least, it will give us good, solid PG play and good mentor for Armon Johnson or any other young PG destined to evebtually be Miller's replacement.

BNM

That's all very true, but do you think it's worth keeping him around or would you try to use Miller and Joel's expiring contracts to bring back some insurance in case Brandon Roy is done? I like the idea of Iggy, and if we can get him without giving up Miller I'm all for it, but I think we need to find a replacement and I don't think Matthews or Rudy is that guy.

 

[Minstrel]

That's all very true, but do you think it's worth keeping him around or would you try to use Miller and Joel's expiring contracts to bring back some insurance in case Brandon Roy is done?

If Miller is ammunition to get a young/young-prime guard who either is a stud or projects to be one, of course you make that trade. But do you really think Miller has that kind of trade juice at this point in his career? The same reason you want to deal him is the same reason a team with a talented young guard wouldn't want to deal that guard for Miller.

I really doubt Miller's trade value exceeds his value to Portland. I think Miller has a large positive effect for Portland, but much less trade value due to his age.

 

[Natebishop3]

If Miller is ammunition to get a young/young-prime guard who either is a stud or projects to be one, of course you make that trade. But do you really think Miller has that kind of trade juice at this point in his career? The same reason you want to deal him is the same reason a team with a talented young guard wouldn't want to deal that guard for Miller.

I really doubt Miller's trade value exceeds his value to Portland. I think Miller has a large positive effect for Portland, but much less trade value due to his age.

I would still consider Iguodala a young guard at only 26 years old. If Philly is willing to dump him for expirings and young talent, I'd do the trade.

 

[Minstrel]

I would still consider Iguodala a young guard at only 26 years old. If Philly is willing to dump him for expirings and young talent, I'd do the trade.

I would, too. He fits under "young-prime" to me. I just kinda doubt that Philly will deal him for nothing but expiring (or de-facto expiring) contracts like Miller's, and Portland has no significant young talent to deal at this point outside of Batum. If Philadelphia could package in Brand, too, yeah, maybe. But we couldn't absorb both (without putting in Roy or Aldridge).

 

[Natebishop3]

I would, too. He fits under "young-prime" to me. I just kinda doubt that Philly will deal him for nothing but expiring (or de-facto expiring) contracts like Miller's, and Portland has no significant young talent to deal at this point outside of Batum. If Philadelphia could package in Brand, too, yeah, maybe. But we couldn't absorb both (without putting in Roy or Aldridge).

Not true sir. If we send out Camby, Joel, and Andre, we can take back both Iggy and Brand.

 

[Minstrel]

Not true sir. If we send out Camby, Joel, and Andre, we can take back both Iggy and Brand.

True enough, but Camby isn't expiring. So if Philadelphia is okay with just a quicker ending contract, I'd be all for it.

 

[Storyteller2]

nothing but expiring (or de-facto expiring) contracts like Miller's,

Thank you....

 

[Natebishop3]

True enough, but Camby isn't expiring. So if Philadelphia is okay with just a quicker ending contract, I'd be all for it.

Well, when it comes to Brand, I'm sure they'd take Camby's contract over his.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Would anyone like to change their mind on closer to a rebuild than a championship right about now?

 

[LittleAlex]

Would anyone like to change their mind on closer to a rebuild than a championship right about now?

Of course.

Oden was the key to having a shot at a title.

Obviously that isn't going to be the case even if he comes back from the injury.

His ceiling right now is probably Bill Walton on the Celtics.
A valuable bench player on a great team but not a center piece for anyone.



The problem I see is that all of Portland's most tradable assets are at positions where Portland is the thinest.

We can trade Miller but we better get a point guard in return or we are fucked at that position for the near term.
We can trade Camby and Joel but we better get a center in return or Sean Marks will be starting.

Not sure anyone would take Oden off our hands right now when they can just wait for him to become a free agent and sign him for a fraction of his current contract under the new CBA.


I have heard people (The Bald Faced Liar) talk about the Celtics with regards to Portland making deals to become a contender.
I think that team caught lightning in a bottle and I don't think Portland could repeat what the Celtics did.

After all, there isn't a team out there right now trying to tank a season so they can move the team to another city.
Or an all world player stuck on a bad team that just so happens to have the 2nd worst gm in history that also played for Portland back in the day.

The closest thing we have to that would be the Kings.
Except they don't have a truly great veteran on that team, just a bunch of kids who might be good that the team probably wouldn't be willing to part with.

Before anyone says anything about Melo he has already stated he doesn't want to play here. We would be renting him for 6 months before he heads to the Knicks next summer.

Tanking isn't really an option because this draft class will be historically bad with players staying in school due to the uncertainty of a lock out next year.

Overall, this is a really bad time to try and rebuild.