Blazersedge: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

Why Mills got the Spot -- an Alternative Explanation


There's a possible explanation for the Mills/Udoka/Collins decision that I don't think has been mentioned yet.  I thought it deserved a fanpost by itself because it perhaps triggers discussions about what kind of organization the Portland Trailblazers are running.

This explanation has nothing to do with internal politics, whether people or Vulcans are making the decisions, or whether Paul Allen said that he pays the money and he gets to decide. 

Rather, it is a question about "culture".

Star-divide

The mantra for several years has been that the Portland Trailblazers want to "do things right."  One of the things that the team has tried to emphasize is that this organization watches out for its players.  Players are not just "hired hands", they are valued people who are taken care of as people.

Note the Pendergraph signing.  Some people questioned whether we should have signed him after his injury. 

Note the Martell signing after his injury.  If he hadn't been extended, we might have been able to sign him for $2-3 million a year this summer -- would anyone have offered him much more than that?  There was some head-scratching on Bedge when he was given that contract after his injury, it looked risky to some, but instead of leaving him hanging out to dry they took care of him.  Perhaps it will cost the team a lot.  Perhaps it will pay off.  Martell is a happy player.

Note the comments KP has made about wanting to take care of Brandon and LaMarcus.

On a more controversial point, note the comments KP made about not wanting to have it on his conscience about playing Darius.

It has been part of the "culture" the team is trying to create that they take care of their players.

Patty Mills was injured in a Blazers practice.  He hadn't yet been offered a contract.  His injury almost certainly cost him the chance of getting a job in Europe this year -- their season has already started, and he still can't try out.  He was stuck in a bad way -- out of school, perhaps unable to make a team anywhere this year.  All because he got injured in a Portland practice.

Most comments on Blazersedge have been looking at this from a basketball perspective, but we've been told it wasn't for basketball reasons.  Perhaps this was just about taking care of a player who got hurt in one of our practices.

Do we want players without a guaranteed contract to be willing to come work out over the summer?  Yes, we do.

Do we want to have the reputation of an organization that takes care of players and doesn't leave them twisting in the wind if something goes wrong?  Yes, we do.

Do we want players to be saying, "I tried out for Portland, got hurt while I was there, and they did nothing for me?"  Obviously not.

The cost here is negligible, in NBA terms.  It is not that there is a hard and fast ethical responsibility to keep Mills, but there are some real pluses from a cultural and organizational standpoint going forward.  If we want to attract free agents, we want a reputation as an organization that takes care of people.  If we want current players to sign reasonable extensions, we want them to feel good about this organization and the way they run their business, rather than demanding a premium because they hate the organization.  We want this to be an organization that players want to be part of, rather than one where they can't wait to finish their contract so they can leave. 

Players are people, not simply assets to be moved around on the basketball court.  They like to be treated as people, and they like to see other players treated that way as well -- it gives them confidence that if the situation ever arises where they need to be treated as a person rather than a basketball asset, this team will be there for them. 

If one of our centers goes down, and we can't swing a trade for a big man, we may have to pick up a D League guy who can probably play as well as Collins, anyway (I mean, really, we're talking Collins here, this isn't hard).  To do so, we might have to end up waiving Mills after all.  But if so, he'll have had a few pay days anyway, and everyone will know that we did what we could for him, but we had to get a big man.

Collins reportedly has a job in Phoenix.  Ime has a job somewhere.  Where was Patty Mills going if we cut him?  Mills needed this spot more than the other guys did, and he needed it because he got injured on our court playing under the supervision of our coaches getting ready to play for our Summer League team.  I don't know if that is what drove this decision or not, but it might be a big factor.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this is all just because Paul Allen likes Mills (as some have speculated), and he made the decision.  Maybe it's simply to save a few hundred thousand dollars, but if that were the case, the spot might just as well have been left open and save a few hundred thousand more.  Maybe my idea here is all wrong, and the team stumbled on the right decision for the wrong reason, but the decision to keep Patty Mills is still the right one.

As a basketball fan, I think both Collins and Udoka were more likely to see the court this year, more likely to be able to contribute a little bit (though the chances of any 15th man contributing at all are pretty slim).  In addition, I love Ime's game, his history, Ime the person, and it would have been great to see him on the team again.

But as a human being, I like retaining Patty Mills, and I would like my team's management a little less if they hadn't done so.

24 recs  |  Comment 177 comments  |  Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

A nice perspective, and a good reason.

We do have a reputation for standing by our injured guys lately it seems.
All three of the options for the last spot were great guys I would like on the team, but Mills is more interesting if just because he is more of an “unknown” entity. We can home for something special to happen. And KP has been doing pretty well on spotting talent. Plus, any injury to one of our points could provide an opportunity for the kid, similar to Batum, who nothing much was expected of when Webster went down. Could happen, and I like having him on tap.

by Berkeley on Oct 22, 2009 2:28 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

that was supposed to be "hope" for something special...

but perhaps “home” is more accurate. We’ll see.

by Berkeley on Oct 22, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Blazers are the feel-good hit of the year

Doesnh’t it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy and morally upstanding?

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine, US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

by Love on Oct 23, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Another reason to keep Mills

I don’t buy the “just because we are good guys” explanation for keeping Mills. Udoka’s invitation to fall camp was insurance in case Webster’s foot and/or Batum’s shoulder did not hold up during the preseason. Ime became redundant when it looks like Martell and Nic are good to go. Similarly, Collins was insurance against Greg or Joel going down in the preseason or if Howard shows he is too far over the hill. Greg and Joel are OK and Juwan showed he can give us 25-30 effective minutes a game. Bye bye Jared. So keep Mills for the chance he may be a good player for the future, not this year. Patty can wear a suit and sit behind the bench. Maybe his foot will heal to the point where he can get some D-league experience after the first of the year.

by illahe77 on Oct 23, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And from the Department of Redundancy department....

“I don’t know if that is what drove this decision or not, but it might be a big factor.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is all just because Paul Allen likes Mills (as some have speculated), and he made the decision. Maybe it’s simply to save a few hundred thousand dollars, but if that were the case, the spot might just as well have been left open and save a few hundred thousand more. Maybe my idea here is all wrong, and the team stumbled on the right decision for the wrong reason, but the decision to keep Patty Mills is still the right one."

You convinced me dude, you’re wrong!!
Go Blazers!!!

by blaze1 on Oct 24, 2009 4:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is all just because Paul Allen likes Mills (as some have speculated) [...]"

I’m sorry, jscot, but I’ve got to stand by that line of reasoning. Your conjecture is all warm and fuzzy, but I think it completely misses the mark.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 2:40 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Patty Mills is "young," but "talent" is too strong a word to describe his game; he's not NBA quality.

Mills, by the way, had forced the Portland Trail Blazers hand by signing the one-year, non-guaranteed minimum-level contract tender, which wasn’t exactly the organization’s plan from the get-go. Hell, the franchise would’ve been justified in throwing Mills “under the bus” by waiving him and his gimpy right foot.

Ime Udoka would’ve also been a nice addition for roster balance at the 3, as Nicolas Batum or Martell Webster could easily succumb to injury and Travis Outlaw may soon be dealt elsewhere for a backup 4/5. It’s pretty clear that Nate McMillan supported retaining Udoka into the season, but seemingly Paul Allen had different plans and called the shot here due to his affection toward Mills.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't see how you can say Ime would have added balance

We’ve got a surplus of wings as it is.

I agree this wasn’t the original plan, but the original plan died when he broke his foot. The original plan was for him to go through the formality of trying out for a spot, having it indisputably proven to him that he wasn’t ready, and pack him off to Europe for 3-4 years and see if he could turn himself into an NBA player.

But I want to explore your alternative explanation, that this was because Paul Allen likes him and called the shots. To accept that explanation, we also have to accept that his underlings would leak that it wasn’t for “basketball reasons”. This seems hardly credible.

Paul Allen was behind the Darius email because he thought people were just playing Darius to rip him off to the tune of millions of dollars in luxury tax, but the organization went to the wall for him. You know KP hated that email, but everything he said was we made the decision together.

Every personnel decision is described as “we made the decision together”. Paul Allen is part of the decision process, we’ve been told that, so is KP, so is Nate, and they “make the decision together”.

If Paul Allen made this decision on his own because he likes Mills’ game, they wouldn’t be saying “non-basketball reasons”. Paul Allen liking his game is not a “non-basketball reason”, it is a difference of opinion on the basketball reasons. They would be saying that there was a lot of discussion, and different viewpoints were expressed, but this was the decision they reached. And I don’t think you’d have a hint that this or that person was upset about it.

Perhaps it was just a “Paul Allen likes his game” move, but I don’t think they’d be insulting him by saying “non-basketball reason”. This seems unlikely to me.

That leaves three non-basketball reasons that I can think of besides the one I’ve suggested. The first is to save money. This is also not very credible. The man just splashed out $65-70 million on LMA, and if he wanted to save money, the spot would have been left open.

The second is to save cap space. Again, if this was a big motive, the spot would have been left open.

The third is to crack the huge overseas Australian market. I’m sure the Australian bucks are just going to roll in because Patty Mills is on the roster.

This was the right move for the reasons I’ve laid out, even if those reasons weren’t the motivation, as you speculate. But I don’t find the reason you are speculating to be very credible (nor do we have any solid source backing it), nor are any other reasons I can come up with very credible.

We may never know. Even if I’m right, they aren’t going to come out and say, “We did this because he got hurt on our watch.” They don’t want to tie their hands so that they absolutely have to do it again in the future. In this case, they could take care of the player without any real hindrance to what they are trying to accomplish, and keeping either of the other players wasn’t really going to be particularly beneficial to the goals.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 4:07 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

if the Blazers are keeping Mills just because he hurt his foot

why wait until the end of camp to do it? And why would the coach and GM seem unhappy with the decision? And why wouldn’t they disclose this “humanitarian” reason? You’d think the PR reaction would be favorable

I think they’ve been trying to talk Mills out of his NBA dream for a month and he didn’t budge. Patty played “chicken” (or “emu” or whatever they call it in Australia) with the Blazer’s front office and they blinked

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He only signed his contract a short time ago

That’s why they waited until this point. Once he signed his contract, they would then have to consider and make a decision. They haven’t taken a long time since he signed the contract to make that decision. Since this is not the only factor in the decision, they would take some time to weight it up.

Yes, they wanted him to defer the NBA thing and develop overseas.

Why wouldn’t they disclose the reason?
1. For the reason I gave above. They might let it be whispered around (“non-basketball reason”, anyone?). But a blatant public statement would place them under some implied obligations in future. They might be willing to do it this time because there was no compelling reason to give the 15th spot to either of the other guys.
2. Because the fact that there’s a chance he turns into a player in future was probably a factor in the decision as well. You don’t want to come out and say that you only kept him for “humanitarian” reasons if you think he might actually pan out some day. Obviously, they think that is possible, or they wouldn’t have drafted him.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Another pronouncement

Is your opinion based on having watched Mills play a lot? Or are you just recycling the Draft Express scouting report?

I realize that his stats at St. Mary’s were not great, but he was dealing with injuries and he is very young. He is definitely small and definitely has a long way to go as a distributor, but how can you pronounce a guy as “not NBA quality”?

by upper left corner on Oct 22, 2009 6:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The most recent time I caught Patty Mills play was in the NIT, but came away unimpressed.

Mills had a pretty easy matchup against WSU in Taylor Rochestie, who was the one abysmal defender on an all-around hard-nosed team. I also caught the St. Mary’s v. Davidson matchup, which featured two overhyped chuckers, Stephen Curry and Mills, in a shootout. I don’t recall much from either one of his games against Gonzaga — with one in the regular season and one in the WCC Tournament — except for the first meeting he hurt his wrist partway through the contest and in the second meeting he played like utter crap. In total, I’ve seen four games with Mills. While that’s not a whole lot to some folks, it’s enough for me.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've only seen him play in two games.

That’s certainly not enough to make a good solid scouting report, but enough to not believe the hype. The fact that McMillan doesn’t want him on the team, should leave little doubt that this isn’t about basketball talent.

You can’t teach speed, but you can’t teach size either. He’s not a total lost cause but people are throwing around words like “potential” for a guy who doesn’t have a lot of it.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is the whole....

“semi-torched the US Olympic team”-thing in Beijing……he has experience beyond St. Mary’s. And we’ve seen many players play much better as pros than as collegians, based on what they were asked to do in college. Who’s to say he’s not one of those?

"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green

by antediluvian on Oct 22, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Could be.

Projecting talent is tough. Maybe he learned how to become a dead-eye shooter over the Summer. Maybe he grew three inches. Maybe his crappy efficiency in college was due to his injuries and not his ability.

Who knows.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right...

Who knows….. ;-)

"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green

by antediluvian on Oct 22, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Short, fast gunner is what I've seen

We’ve got another one of those who is a little taller and not as fast in Bayless. I have not seen indications he is the past-first, set-up guy we need long-term which is my biggest concern with keeping him.

A sub-6’ shooting guard?

put a body on 'em

by RayBourque on Oct 22, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"I’m sorry, jscot, but I’ve got to stand by that line of reasoning. Your conjecture is all warm and fuzzy, but I think it completely misses the mark."

I’m sorry, AK1984, but I’ve got to stand against your line of reasoning. Your conjecture is all heartless and cold, but I think it misses the mark.

"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez

by bfan on Oct 22, 2009 6:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It seems that everyone want to hear the Blazers are the good guys.

If the Blazers wanted to sign Mills out of the goodness of their hearts, why didn’t they do it earlier. Its pretty poor form to tell two highly respected veterans to come to camp, “We have a roster spot for you, if you can beat out the other guy.” Then, at the last minute, change your mind and say we’re going with the injured rook (56th pick) who hasn’t done squat.

So yeah, the Blazers MIGHT have done the right thing in regards to Mills, but they certainly didn’t treat Udoka and Collins with professionalism. This move won’t give the Blazers any more “culture” cred around the league nor should it within the organization.

AK1984 nails it. jscot’s conjecture is purely that. Its baseless and the Blazers made plenty of errors here, so lets not try to excuse that just cuz the Blazers are our team.

by neilan on Oct 22, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We didn't treat Collins and Udoka with professionalism?

How can you possibly back that up? We brought them both in to compete for the 15th and final roster spot. They both knew that when they signed on to come here. So if we had given the spot to Udoka and cut Collins, would you still be saying we didn’t treat Collins with professionalism? Because it’s the exact same situation as what actually happened.

Do you have anything substantial to support your claim that we didn’t treat them professionally? Just because in the end we went a different route, doesn’t mean we were unprofessional about it.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 22, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They came in to compete for a spot that apparently wasn't available.

What’s so hard to understand?

Udoka and Collins are good enough players to garner spots on NBA rosters this season. By signing them and bringing them into camp, you are telling them they have an opportunity to fill a roster spot. The decision to not retain them was likely not based on the play of Udoka or Collins, but rather based on Mills potential (or whatever) that was already there (well before Udoka and Collins came to town).

Collins and Udoka chose to come to Portland, because they likely wanted to play in Portland. Now, when looking for open roster spots (if there are any for Udoka?), they may have to settle for places where they may not want to play.

One of Udoka or Collins would be in this situation regardless, which seems to be your point. But, IMO, if you tell someone there is an opportunity where there isn’t one, then you are acting disingenuously and unprofessionally. Mills certainly didn’t outcompete Collins and Udoka, so the opportunity to compete for a position was actually not there.

by neilan on Oct 22, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but it WAS available when they came in

the opportunity was there. At the start, they both knew that the other one could get the spot, so not getting it was ALWAYS a possibility for both of them. As it turns out, neither did.

No dishonesty, no subterfuge, no lack of professionalism. That’s just the way it worked out.

Oh, and Collins and Udoka didn’t come here because they “wanted to play in Portland”, they came here because they were given a training camp invite, and likely had few, if any, other NBA options at the time.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 22, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the opportunity WAS there when they signed on.

You act as though the Mills thing was set in stone before either of these guys signed on. Yet all available evidence points to the exact opposite – that we fully intended to sign one of the two of them to the final spot, until Mills through a monkey wrench in those plans by accepting the required tender.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 22, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Precisely

And Collins and Udoka got a chance to play and show what they can still do. They haven’t been harmed here.

Not to mention that there was always the possibility of a trade opening up an additional roster spot. Every year guys try out for teams that everyone knows they aren’t really going to make. But the exhibition season gives them a chance to show their stuff and maybe generate interest elsewhere, or get on with the same team later during the season when something changes.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

General Managers know each other and must have a pretty good idea of each other's needs.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if KP, for example, knowing he is going to cut Ime and Jarron, gets on the phone to other GMs looking to fill-out their roster, and lets them know the two players are available and how they’re looking on the court.

It’s not a stretch to think that KP and other GMs try to help players whenever possible.

by MiledAnimal on Oct 23, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would have to agree. This is not a "oh we feel bad for him, so let's be good people and keep him" move.

You might argue the Blazers passed on Blair because KP had seen enough knee issues with Miles and Oden. But that doesn’t pass the smell test.

"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard

by Norsktroll on Oct 22, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm starting to hate this meme

that the Blazers front office is making decisions based on altruism and “fairness” rather than simply what’s best for the franchise and team. Concern for Darius Miles’ well-being certainly wasn’t the driving force behind us seeking a medical retirement for him, and neither is it here with Mills. Patty is simply a player with a microcosm of upside, as opposed to Ime and Collins who have none at this point.

Given that none of the three is going to be playing more than garbage time at all this year, why not take the guy with a small (miniscule, actually) chance to become a contributor instead of the older guys? This type of “Blazer exceptionalism”, though, is what drove the ridiculous notions this summer about LA and Roy accepting below market deals to help the team win, which clearly wasn’t the case. I love the Blazers, but the franchise is run in 95% the same way as any other franchise. That’s not a bad thing, but it hardly makes us the Mother Teresa of the NBA.

by Royster on Oct 22, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Patty is simply a player with a microcosm of upside, as opposed to Ime and Collins who have none at this point.

Then why not just leave the 15th roster spot “open” and see who gets cut by another team, this weekend?

Someone had to want Mills on the roster, and it doens’t appear that the “someone” was KP or Nate

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yep

I would also take issue with the notion that “taking care of” a player equals paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn’t earn. If altruism or the desire to “take care of” Mills played any role in the decision to retain him, then he’s getting a huge paycheck that his play/potential does not warrent – and there’s nothing warm and fuzzy about that.

Mills is not a sympathetic figure. He’s an elite professional athlete who attracts interest from teams based on his on court potential – and for no other reason. Whether the Blazers cut him tomorrow or keep him for five years, he will make millions of dollars over the course of his professional basketball career (whether in the States or elsewhere). The Blazers do not “owe” Mills anything because he got hurt at their summer league practice, and Mills does not need a hand out.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Oct 22, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I sort of thought the same thing.

There seems to be a little bit of damage control this summer over the idea floating around the league that Portland thinks of it’s players only as assets.

The Darius Miles situation got a little sticky because people had a hard time believing KP was sincere when he said he wouldn’t play someone who might risk sever health problems down the road. A few months latter Pritchard passes on the “perfect” backup PF in the draft who happens to risk sever knee issues down the road. Coincidence or strategic marketing strategy?

Now Patty Mills and Jeff Pendergraph both get injured and the Blazers treat their situations as gently as can be. Deep down you know KP would probably burn someone’s house down if he thought it would improve the team, and yet here he is, making shaky basketball decisions because it’s the “right” thing to do.

Sergio Rodriguez is a much, much, much, much better PG than Patty Mills, and I am not a Sergio fan, at all. If they don’t need Sergio, then they certainly don’t need Mills, especially now that they signed Andre. It would have made more sense to just keep Sergio around another year rather than PAYING someone to take him. If they really wanted this much PG depth Mills Sergio would still be here. There really wasn’t any need from a basketball standpoint to get rid of him except that it built good will. Spanish players like Sacramento for some reason and Pritchard seemed determined to send him to a better situation. The only person who really benefited from that trade was Sergio.

It’s almost like KP is trying to say, " Hey look at me, I don’t think about players like they’re objects! They’re people damn-it and I want what’s best for them. Look at all the humanitarian work I’ve done this summer. I paid for Sergio’s new home. I signed Pendergraph when I didn’t have to. I signed Mills even though he’s really terrible, doesn’t fit, and has a gimpy foot. I passed on Blair because I truly do care about my player’s knees. I’m a stand up guy. I have a heart."

Pritchard could have drafted Blair and cemented his status as a draft day guru. You know it, I know, and he certainly knew it. He would have been a media darling for the next two months. Portland would have received an A+ on it’s off-season moves in ever single article on the planet. But he risked coming off as insincere and arrogant. He just made a big stink about retiring Miles for knee problems that aren’t nearly as worrisome as Blair’s. Teams have reportedly been less willing to deal with Portland, partly because of Pritchard’s perceived Golden boy status.

Maybe, just maybe, this is about repairing Portland’s reputation as cold calculating, emotionless, Vulcans.

 

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 4:22 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

You make sense if you ignore this:

Is Sergio better than Dante Cunningham AND Patrick Mills? If we keep Rodriguez, we lose Cunningham and probably get someone completely different (Jon Brockman was our traded pick…)

With Andre Miller and Steve Blake, Sergio loses all his minutes and, having a history of whining to the media, would cause major problems with the team. Patrick Mills, as a rookie, was never going to get minutes anyways. Now he’s injured. We’re up a Dante, and down a whiner… and it’s likely that as it is now, no other changes, we’d be just over the cap with Sergio.

But here’s my (bogus) theory: Patty Mills became good friends with LaMarcus Aldridge over the summer, and LA said “sign Patty or I wait for RFA next summer”

We won’t know why they signed Mills over everyone else, unless they tell us….

Bring the bling to Rip City, Natch'

Trade John Canzano!

by richardb on Oct 22, 2009 4:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's a very bogus theory indeed :)

Sergio could have whined till the cows come home, and it wouldn’t have meant a thing to this team. By the time we signed Andre, he would have been fourth on the depth chart at PG this year, because Bayless is a threat to score.

Sergio just wasn’t going to succeed here. That which he can do well was not a fit in Nate’s system, and he wasn’t good enough to give Nate incentive to change.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 4:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think any of the players making a scene

would be a major distraction for the team, and any distraction when every win counts must be eliminated.

Bring the bling to Rip City, Natch'

Trade John Canzano!

by richardb on Oct 22, 2009 5:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Although I’m not sure you are right about Blair. Ben posted that he had rock solid information that Blair wouldn’t have been drafted even if his knees were fine. There’s another factor there that hasn’t been made public.

But the rest of what you are saying fits the pattern completely.

We’re talking fringe roster spots with Mills and Pendergraph, remember. Giving these guys a contract likely has zero impact on the ultimate goal. We aren’t going to burn our chance at a championship just so KP can be a nice guy — remember Fred Jones. But when we can do stuff like this without hindering the goal, I think we’ll see it.

Remember that KP has also said he likes to send guys to places that are a good fit for them. He sent Sergio off to a place where he’d have a chance to compete for playing time.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He sent Sergio off to a place where he’d have a chance to compete for playing time.

Well, sort of. Tyreke Evans had already been drafted by the Kings when the Sergio deal went down later in the day. And Sac-town had already Udrich signed to big bucks as well

Latteral move at best for El Chacho, re: the depth chart. The PGs he’s playing behind now are younger than if he had just stayed put

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Beno has been BAD

Kings fans think he only gets PT if they think they have to play him because of his contract. And Evans is not really a PG.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Free agents have other reasons to be wary of signing with the Trail Blazers, too.

Rasheed, Bonzi, Darius, Zach, and the rest of the Jail Blazers no doubt have said unkind things about Paul Allen and the Trail Blazers over the years. The small market, limited endorsement deals, the location in the far Northwest, and the cool, rainy weather in Portland don’t help either.

The Blazers do have a first-class facility, a solid coaching staff, a generous owner, an enthusiastic fan base, and a winning team and tradition. They need to do whatever else they can to make Portland an attractive destination. If signing Mills helps, I’m all for it.

by MiledAnimal on Oct 22, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do we even want players who listen to those four?

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 22, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

someone tainted your koolaid?

Really, Sergio sucked it up real bad, played no defense and shot more bricks than a catapult at a brickyard. Sure, a couple flashy passes and the Spanish Armada, but really, I could make those passes and probably half the ballers I known could have too. Not really that difficult. Moving on.

Patty Mills is not worse than that, at least when he’s motivated. He was able to breakdown Team USA. So throw in some crappy college games and suddenly the guy’s an albatross? Roy never had a crappy college game? Hmm. I’m sure I could find 4 crappy games in college from almost every allstar in the NBA.

About Miles…. What team is he on now? Yeah, nuff said. About Blair, how do you sign him after that letter about Miles and retain any semblence of morals? You don’t. Besides, it’s not like we were the only team that thought Blair wasn’t worth the top 30 something picks. You can rub that in my face at the end of the season if I’m wrong. I vaguely remember a Blazer that tore up summer league, but so what? We all know that summer league means…. it’s just summer league. Even I can beat up the kids in the sandbox. Moving on.

It’s nice to know when they fire KP we can count on you to fill the golden boy shoes. lol.

There seems to be a lot of opinion based on nothing around this subject. It would be nice to see some facts in the mix and not a bunch of Jason Quick BS, regurgitated as some kind of Machiavellian gospel.

It’s really just the 15th roster spot, not the second coming of JC.

btw, it’s nothing personal, just my opinion that maybe people should include some facts to back up their positions, not just ramble about 20/20 vison in the back of their collective heads.

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Oct 22, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Here's some facts

Mills literally had the worst shooting % among point guards in his draft class. He was also the worst at drawing fouls (5%).

He’s also 3 inches shorter than Sergio, plays worse defense (yes he does) and doesn’t pass the ball very well. Scouts have been worried about his ability to play the point for a while now. He chucked 3.5 contested threes a game during college, again the most of any PG in his draft class. There is nothing Mills does better than Sergio except running quickly in a straight line.

just my opinion that maybe people should include some facts to back up their positions, not just ramble about 20/20 vison in the back of their collective heads.

There you go. By the way, you misinterpreted my entire post. Your reading comprehension needs some work. I wasn’t being critical of KP at all. I don’t think we should have signed Blair and I think it was right to retire Darius. My point was on how OTHER general managers in the league perceive Pritchard, not me.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In sports terminology:

Fast = Ability to cover ground quickly, like on the fast break.
Quick = Ability to change direction quickly, as when breaking your defender’s ankles.

I would think Mills is quick but not necessarily fast. You’ve seen him play, what do you think?

by MiledAnimal on Oct 22, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's fast.

He basically out-sprints people down the court with the basketball. End to end with the ball I can’t remember seeing a faster player. It’s pretty amazing, but I don’t know how that translates to the NBA.

I can’t imagine that would work super well with the Blazers, although maybe Miller would benefit his game some.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Johnny Davis
I can’t remember seeing a faster player

“Rocket” Rod Foster

there may have been a few others

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point...

and I suppose that Johnny Davis “jet” factor does hold a certain fascination with me, particularly we do have some other fast guys to go with him.

by Berkeley on Oct 22, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah. "Pritchard could have drafted Blair and cemented his status as a draft day guru."

That’s a good start. So you must be Nastradamus, becuase I haven’t seen Mills play one since NBA game, and I know I never saw Sergio in college. How you can compare apples to oranges and make lemonade is real amazing. Perhaps it’s not me who needs the “reading is fundamental” program.

Notice how you just had to bag on me at the very end. Real professional. Good Job. Maybe you can get a job with the big “O”.

So, somehow, Mill is the worst point guard we could pick up, Sergio is somehow “better” and I apparently can’t decipher your interpretation of the 15th roster spot having something to do with other general managers and how they perceive us.

WOW. I must be the only one who thought we were talking about Mills here and not the rest of the GM’s in the NBA.

This is what we had a choice on. Just so you don’t get confused Simple Jack;

1. Ime
2. Collins
3. Mills
4. no one

That’s the deal, not the rest of the nba, it’s GM’s, or what could have happened in the past. There’s no Schrödinger’s cat here, so cool the jets genius.

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Oct 25, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ouch

tell us what you really think.

I'm going to come up with the best line here ever, something really clever.

by musicdaniel on Oct 22, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here is another possible scenario. Close your eyes if you are a Blake fan.

Portland has two expiring contracts: Blake and Trout. What if these two were packaged with the extra cap space for another quality big man? I can see the following benefits:

1) Maximize team assets. Rather than letting Blake and Trout walk next summer, we get full trade value for them now.

2) Provide a fourth quality big man. I am thinking that Blake + Trout + cap space = approx $9 mil. Given the desire for cap space for next summer and the fact that both Blake and Trout are proven role players. I think there is a good chance that we could land a very solid big to fill the back-up 4 spot and emergency 5 spot minutes.

3) Remove the logjam at the PG position. Miller would become the unquestioned quarterback of the team. Roy and everyone else would have to adapt and deal with it. Bayless would get regular minutes to develop his PG skills. Nate could also experiment with Rudy/Bayless backcourt were Rudy handles a lot of the playmaking, but Bayless defends the point.

4) Mills would be the emergency back-up PG in case of injury. He would also give us an alternative for trying to defend the uber-quick little PGs in the league. Portland would now have two candidates for the “PG of the future” role.

This scenario obviously depends on your opinion of Blake and Bayless. While I appreciate the importance of Blake’s shooting to the teams success last year, I am not a big Blake fan. When his shots don’t fall, which has been often this pre-season, he doesn’t contribute much. He rarely gets to the rim and seldom gets to the foul line. He struggles defensively against PGs who can penetrate, as the other night against D Will, once again demonstrated.

Bayless is a gamble, no doubt about it. He has not consistently shown an ability to efficiently lead the team. Giving him the back-up position will likely lead to some rough patches in some games. But both Rudy and Roy are capable of helping carry the playmaking responsibilities when Miller is not on the floor. Bayless clearly stresses defenses with his ability to get to the rim and the line. He has also shown an ability to generate far more on ball pressure on defense than either Miller or Blake. He makes a lot of mistakes, gets burned and commits silly fouls, but to my eyes he shows far more potential to become a decent PG defender, something that the team desperately needs.

I doubt that Nate would be happy about this scenario as he seems to be in the habit of relying on Blake. But this scenario would really clarify roles on the squad, bring us a needed big man, and move us forward in terms of trying to sort out our long range options at the point.

by upper left corner on Oct 22, 2009 4:33 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

If that were the plan

I don’t think we’d be hearing that it was for “non-basketball reasons”. We’d be hearing that we like the flexibility he brings us, yada, yada, yada. :)

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 4:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would be hesitant to read too much into Quick's comment

All I’m saying is that having Mills on the roster makes it slightly more likely that the team makes a move involving Blake or slightly less likely that they will resign Blake next summer.

by upper left corner on Oct 22, 2009 5:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If he comes back and shows he can play at NBA level

then that is true.

But he’s a late second rounder, and a lot of those guys never pan out.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 6:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He was a first rounder

in some mock drafts before he got injured. I am not at all saying he will be an instant success in this league, but he could potentially be an Aaron Brooks type player with some NBA-type player development. I like the risk/reward that comes with Mills more than I do with players such as Ime and Jarron.

by 2dVs4u on Oct 22, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

MIlls would replace nothing that Portland would lose at PG, if Blake isn't resigned

Unless Paul Allen is ordering KP to deal Blake because Steve isn’t “exciting” enough, I don’t see Steve being dealt (again) by Kevin. Pritchard has said that his “greatest regret” since he took over as GM was dealing SB away to Milwaukee. Nate likes SB’s low ATO. I think at this point only Steve can make the decision to leave PDX, if he wants to play somewhere else, next year.

KP would have to get his socks blown off by a deal that must include Blake to trade him away again

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Blake is an expiring contract.

Even if Mills isn’t the answer, I see KP looking for another upgrade over Blake. I love Blake and what he has done for this team, I just do not for any reason think he will be with the team next year. Serviceable yeah, get us over the hump….no.

by 2dVs4u on Oct 22, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

not to mention, Brandon likes playing alongside Steve

to the extent that Andre freaking Miller is being considered as a bench player by Roy’s coach

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, premature post.

Portland now has 4 PGs (five if you count Koponen).

1) Miller is clearly the best and is going to play the most minutes for the next couple of years regardless of who starts.

2) Blake is a competent back-up although I think he is a poor fit with our bench group, by which I mean his shooting ability is redundant with Martell and Rudy. Blake could be our back-up for several years, but he is not going to get significantly better and he is not a candidate to replace Miller when his time is done. Blake clearly stands in the way of any of our 3 young PGs, Bayless, Mills, or Koponen. Blake would also be in the way of any other young PG that we might bring in.

The normal way that good teams develops a young player is to have them take the regular back-up minutes behind the veteran starter. Keeping Blake as a long term starter creates a huge roadblock to developing a long term replacement to Miller. The only alternative is to give Miller’s position to a totally underdeveloped young player and hope for the best just as you are entering the heart of our championship window, or to trade for another proven starter which is likely to be extremely expensive.

No matter how much Nate may appreciate Blake’s game, there is no easy way around the conclusion that Blake is in the way.

by upper left corner on Oct 22, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How about this?

KP likes Blake
Nate likes Blake
Brandon likes Blake
Blake likes Portland

You don’t see Blake like KP, Nate and Brandon do.

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't.

Maybe they don’t see Miller like I do? I like this quote from some random ESPN writer.


If Nate McMillan starts Steve Blake over Andre Miller, he’s not the coach I thought he was. That’s no disrespect to Blake, but Miller could have a Billups-like effect if given the reins. Either way, it’s tme for the Blazers to graduate from being known as that rising young team in the West.-Jemele Hill

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it's all about Brandon, really

he feels comfortable with Steve, like we feel comfortable wearing an old sweatshirt or “broken in” sneakers

Nate has no objection starting Blake, because it’s worked in the past and Steve takes care of the ball

The national scouts and writers are scratching their heads over Portland’s decision to not start Miller. Blazer fans will “back” Roy and Nate to the hilt, until negative results prove otherwise

For me, I saw enough in the Houston series to request a starting PG upgrade. I like Steve fine as a backup and don’t really want to see him traded, but I also don’t want to see him “cost” the teams any wins, especially in the post season

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd

These are my feelings on Blake as well. He is a great backup, but he was exposed – badly – in the Houston series. Brooks torched him and Steve’s decision making/performance in the clutch was sorely lacking. Other guys had poor series as well, but Blake was a huge red flag.

However, Steve does provide a shooting touch that our other PGs lack, and it’s been made clear that the brain trust/Brandon love the guy, so as long as he’s in a support role, keep him. But long term, I don’t think he’s the answer as the primary PG if this is going to be a championship team.

I hate Comcast.
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
I believe in Greg Oden

by blazeraddict on Oct 22, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is nothing Miller does defensively

that would have made one bit of difference against Aaron Brooks.

by MiledAnimal on Oct 23, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He would have killed him on offense.

Brooks would have spent a ton more energy getting pushed around by Miller in the post which would have possibly lowered his output on offense.

Also Miller does a better job in some respects. Fighting through screens, calling out instructions on defense. It might not have been much, but probably a better effort overall.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 23, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know

It’s not as if we had a way to pull Yao out of the paint. Pretty hard to post up a PG when Yao is in there.

Fact is, though, if Miller only played 20 mpg and Blake 28, that would have been enough of an upgrade over what we had that we would have won that series. And it probably would have been Miller more like 30 mpg.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 23, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

I think everything will work itself out and Miller will be starting soon enough, so I don’t want to jump into this argument. But, I had to say that even if I agreed 100% with Jemele Hill on a subject, I would never use her as a reference to support my argument. She makes a lot of snap judgments based on incomplete information.

by tominhawaii on Oct 23, 2009 3:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right, why go to Jemele Hill for snap judgments

based on incomplete information when you can get all that and more here at Blazersedge?

by MiledAnimal on Oct 23, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

Quoting Jemele Hill would be like quoting MiledAnimal.

Ha Ha!

by tominhawaii on Oct 23, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If some "random ESPN writer" thinks that Andre Miller...

…brings the same things to the table as Chauncey Billups I don’t see him ever being anything BUT a random writer. That’s not an Apples to Oranges comparison…it’s a 1st Round of the Playoffs to Champion comparison.

I can admit I don’t see Andre as many of you on here do… Dude hasn’t shown me much yet and his past accomplishments mean very little to me.

by Ilikeemall on Oct 23, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Read my post just above

Blake is clearly in the way of our ability to develop any young PG. Do you not see this problem? What is your solution?

by upper left corner on Oct 22, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

where's the rush?

The Blazers have been trying to develop a young PG sinceTelfair (before then, even) but none of them could beat out Blake. Now, Portland will be drafting in the 20s every June, so the opportunity to acquire a young PG is going to be iffy. Miller will be around for 2-3 more years, and Steve wil probably be extended for the same time period. There’s no need to develop a young PG. Nate has had his fill of it, during the last years. The team is going to be in contenion, not developmental mode. And when Andre and Steve get too old, KP can acquire “younger” veteran PGs via trades or MLEs

The need for the Blazers to develop a young PG just isn’t there, anymore. Time to move on to another topic

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Rec!

gotta agree with the line of thinking. For the next 5+ years, we have exactly ZERO time to develop a young PG into a starter. We can draft guys in the mid to late first round and hope to have them develop into a backup point guard for us, or maybe get really lucky in that range, but as far as starters go, we are pretty much going to have to run with Miller, Blake, and veteran proven PGs acquired via trade or free agency.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 22, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So basically you are proposing the ostrich approach to our biggest roster problem.....

…..for the sake of a one-dimensional, low risk/low reward guy who is a below average defender?

That doesn’t make sense to me. Blake is a nice guy and a competent player, but his utility does not outweigh the fact that he is in the way. If you keep Blake as the back-up, you might as well go ahead and trade Bayless and Mills, because both are “maybes” who will never become anything without time on the court. Wait two years and we will have a 35 year old Miller and a 32 year old Blake. PG defense is already an oozing sore on this team, in two years it will be a gangrene infected mess ready for amputation.

If you think we are going to get a proven starter for the MLE, you are dreaming. We were lucky to get a 33 year old Miller at $7 mil per year. You are basically setting us up to “have to” trade for a starter which is going to be extremely expensive. IMHO, Blake isn’t worth that. Get what you can for him now, meaning by the trade deadline.

by upper left corner on Oct 23, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you're assuming the Blazers can successfully develop a young point guard

and I can take a 5 second check back at Blazer history and find that they haven’t developed one since Terry Porter. Even though they’ve drafted a young PG just about every year that Paul Allen has been the owner. During the past 5 years, none of these youngsters has been able to outperform Steve Blake

So…after considering all of this young PG drafting/coaching futility? Yes, I recommend the Blazers continue to acquire veteran PGs via trade or free agency. There’s no immediate need to do so. If KP continues to draft “wing and post” players well, he can deal from his excess at those positions to upgrade/replace the PG

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 23, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here is my problem with your position

“Because we have failed in the past, we shouldn’t try in the present” doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy.

I think Bayless is a coin flip, if he plays. Meaning there is a about a 50% chance he could become enough of an efficient scorer, defender, and modest supplemental distributor to play alongside Roy and Rudy. If he sits beyond this year, his chance of developing into an adequate starter by the time Dre needs to be replaced declines substantially.

Is is it worth giving up on Bayless to keep a limited journeyman like Blake? Absolutely not. I don’t think there is a GM in the league who would trade 30 year old Blake for 21 year old Bayless, not a one. Essentially that is what you are proposing.

Blake is in the way. Right now, he has some utility to the team as we try to integrate Miller and as Bayless tries to learn how to quit pressing so much, but Blake’s utility will decrease as those changes take place and as Webster gets his stroke back and Rudy gets more acclimated. Extending his contract next summer which will effectively take minutes from Rudy and Bayless makes no sense. Rather than letting him walk next summer, doesn’t it make sense to trade him before the deadline?

by upper left corner on Oct 23, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Blake isnt in anyone's way

If Jerryd wants Steve’s job, he has the opportunity to take it

But I don’t think it will be easy. Because KP, Nate and Brandon really like Blake’s game. Here’s the money quote from the coach re: Steve:

“He plays hard every possession and I don’t care what anybody says,” McMillan said. “If you get your team to play that way, then you’re going to win some games. He helps start and set the tone for how we want to play. He gets us to play hard … and our guys follow that. And that is important.”
Added Roy: “He sets the tone for everything we do. That’s what he brings.”

I left Bayless out of my discussion about “how the Blazers haven’t developed a PG…” earlier, because I think that that debate is pretty much over, or at least on hold for a few years. If Rex gets into the game now, it’s not going to be to run the show (unless it’s duing garbage time, or if Blake/Miller are hurt) Jerryd is a penetrating/scoring guard who isn’t adept at making his teammates better. That doesn’t mean he’s not valuable, he’ll create a lot of havoc and get to the FT line at a high rate, just like Andre. But there’s no immediate reason to develop his PG skills, the team has two veteran PGs and I expect Blake to be back next year and for years to come.

Why? Winning.

If the Blazers were at the end of their “window” and the front office was getting ready to rebuild I could see an argument for dealing Blake and giving a young PG the chance to develop. But he Blazers are on the opposite “side” of that scenario. They’re entering their championship window. They need veterans—that’s why Miller and Howard were signed. They need guys like Blake and Przy who are all about making personal sacrifices and accepting roles and doing whatever it takes to drive their teammates to greatness. Intensity. Desire. Never taking a play off. That’s what Steve and Joel bring to the ballclub, and it’s why they’ll be Blazers as long as they want to be in Portland

Brandon, Nate and KP will see to it

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 23, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think Bayless has a chance to take Steve's job

No matter how he plays. From all reports he was one of the surprises of training camp, has played as well as any guard during preseason and was complimented on his scrappy play and yet there is no indication he will see any regular minutes.

Up until the last game of preseason Blake did everything possible to play his way out of minutes while Bayless did everything asked of him in order to gain minutes. I would be extremely frustrated if I was in his position because whether he is the pg of the future or even a pg at all he was told, like all players, that quality of play would determine minutes.

My thinking over summer was that we had three basic options regarding our pg problems:
- Package Blake in a trade for a similar style of player without less obvious deficiencies – ie. the Kirk Hinrich Theory
- Package Bayless for a young pg who better fills our needs now and is less of a question mark then have him compete with Blake – ie. the Mike Conley Jr Theory
- Use capspace or trade for a veteren as a stopgap if Bayless if considered pgotf material (getting rid of Blake in the process or in a subsequent trade) – ie the Kidd/Miller/Nash Theory

I never considered keeping the status quo, leaving Blake pretty much in an unchanged role and using a veteran like Miller as a backup. It doesn’t make sense to me in the longterm. Blake won’t, and shouldn’t, be the starting pg on this team for the duration of its championship window. Why keep him in the same role when it simultaneously pushes a better player into an unfamiliar role and limits any chance to see what we have in Bayless.

I was an advocate for doing something and at this point it seems there has been a whole lotta fanfare in order to make a very limited change with absolutely no consideration for the future. Its just perplexing to me personally – I don’t think it is by any means disastrous to the team this year, it may result in more wins than a Miller/Bayless, Hinrich/Bayless or Conley/Blake rotation would have but it does seem very short-sighted and I think this indecision could come back to haunt us periodically over the next few seasons.

by MadBlaze on Oct 24, 2009 5:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can understand your frustration

but i think that if you don’t like the way that Blake is being used by Nate, then your real beef is with the way that McMillian visualizes the role of the PG in his offense, and with the kind of PG that plays well alongside Roy

We agree that Miller should be the starter, not Blake. I expect that this will eventually be the lineup, but it will take time for Brandon and Andre to mesh (Roy said words to this effect in Quick’s artilce re: Miller, yesterday) But, even if Blake is eventually “beaten out” by Miller for the starting job, Nate/Roy/KP will still value Steve’s contribution and he’ll still have a role, for around 18-19 mpg

Rudy is the guy who’s really “blocking” Bayless, because Jerryd isn’t a PG at this point in his development, at least not for a contending team. Rex is the right size for a PG, and he needs to defend PGs, but he doesn’t have the mentality or the skills to run a playoff team, and should only be used in that capacity in case of emergency. What we saw this preseason was how well Bayless played alongside Miller. When Jerryd had a real PG set him up, he was free to attack the baseket without having to make any “decisions” about the other Blazers on the court. He excels in this “drive first, ask questions later” role. Bayless will force the defense to foul him or give up a lay-in, and unless he turns the ball over or slams his way into an offensive foul, most of Jerryd’s penetrations, will be rewarded with FTs. This is a valuable skill but it doesn’t make him a “PG” that makes his teammates better.

So, Blake will be kept around for his shooting, his savvy, his intensity, and because he plays well alongside Roy. Only Steve “becoming frustrated with his role” and opting to sign with another team will next summer will get him out of PDX. I do not expect KP to trade him, unless a deal that is too good to pass up comes along and Blake is “required” by the other GM

I’d put the odds of that happening at less than 5%

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 24, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I really hope Blake doesn't resign here for the good of the team

But I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that he will – Nate wants it, KP wants it and he seems happy here.

I’m ok with how Nate sees the role of pg and I’m even fine with Brandon not meshing with a traditional ball-dominant pg. Its just clear to me that even with these conditions Blake is a sub standard option. Hinrich could have played Blake’s role plus added in some pick and roll savvy and a good helping of defense. Conley would have been able to fill Blakes role this year, plus add speed and better defense, with the likelihood of further improvement in the next couple of years.

Miller can’t play pg this way and he shouldn’t try to. He can’t shoot 3’s and is far better with ball in hand guiding the offense. I’m not sure that Miller should start at this point because Nate is very set in the type of offense he wants to run and Miller has already expressed reservations of his ‘control from the sidelines’. What I do know is that we should have a better option than Steve Blake as our starting pg after this was a clear weakness last year.

As for Jerryd, I agree he is in no way a traditional pg. He’s not really a sg either which leaves him in that awkward tweener bracket. Normally that is death for a player but next to Brandon I see it as possibly ideal. He gives us a second player able to drive to the rim, draw ft’s and should make a decent percentage on 3’s once he figures his stroke out. In addition if he can figure out how to drive and dish without turning it over every second time then he could be dynamite. Does he need refinement? Absolutely, but he also needs time in which to do this and I’m disappointed he’s not getting it because of the discombobulated situation at present.

This is why above all else I would love, love, love Mike Conley for this team. He doesn’t seem like he is going to become a star and thus need star level salary to keep, but he combines the strengths of Blake (3pt shooting, low turnovers) and Bayless (speed, driving, defensive potential). He would be the perfect pg for this team over the next 10 years. The Greg thing would just be gravy.

I could write a dissertation on this topic with the stats and reading I’ve done on this topic over the summer but if I were to grade KP on resolving the pg problem in both the short and long term I’d give him a C and that grade is likely to fall unless Bayless can force himself into some developmental minutes.

by MadBlaze on Oct 24, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if I were to grade KP on resolving the pg problem in both the short and long term I’d give him a C

I think that’s fair. From where we sat a year ago, with RLEC in hand, and heading into the trading deadline, and coming out of the draft and FA period using all 4 draft choices and signing just Miller and Howard, I think giving KP a “C” is generous on your part. Kevin’s going to have to step his game up for the Blazers to make/win the finals, he can’t just sit back and rest on his 2006-2007 “laurels” for the next 5 years

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 25, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t think there is a GM in the league who would trade 30 year old Blake for 21 year old Bayless

RC Buford would. Mike Warkentein ad Daryl Morley might, as well. GMs of contending teams would value Blake as a PG more than Jerryd because of the experience Steve would bring to their bench.

I’m not down on Bayless, I think he has a future in the NBA, it just might not be wth the Blazers. I think he’ll learn a lot from Andre and Steve about how to play PG and play “off” of Brandon. If Bayless can be patient and learn his lessons well, then he could be able to step in and play a regular role when Miller retires—whether that wiil be starting or not, who knows?

My original pint was this: there’s no need for KP to trade for a younger PG right now. I’m sure KP will continue to draft them, to make Paul happy if nothing else. But I don’t really expect any of them to pan out. Maybe one guy in 10 years will be a keeper—that’s just how things have worked in Portland—as long as Allen has owned the team, at least.

Some teams and coaches can develop quarterbacks, some can’t. If you can’t, then you better trade for one if you want to win (like the Vikings signed Favre, etc) There’s nothing wrong with doing what you do best, and realizing what you don’t do well isn’t working. It’s like the old definition for insanity “doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result” I don’t expect Portland to develop a young PG, so they better keep the two veterans they have who should make a pretty good tag team

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 23, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like it.

Except Mills isn’t very good. If you think Blake struggles on defense then you will hate everything about Mills on that end of the floor. He’s not much better on offense either.

  • He had the worst shooting % of any PG in his draft class.
  • He was the worst at drawing fouls of any PG in his draft class. He was fouled on measly 5% of his possessions. In the NBA, Bayless for instance draws fouls on 18% of his possessions.
  • He is a poor passer and not a true PG.
  • He didn’t improved statistically in college. He scored more points his second season based on minutes and usage, not efficiency.
  • He has one of the worst shot selections for players in his draft class. He takes twice as many jumpers from the outside compared to inside shots, which is bad for someone who is a poor shooter. He took an unbelievable 3.3 contested looks from the outside per game which is the most for any PG in his draft class.

The last thing we need is an undersized version of Bayless jacking up contested threes. I do like his speed and ball-handling though. It’s possible that he could improve his shooting and become a spark plug off the bench for someone. I sincerely doubt his sticks in the NBA, but I’m rooting for him and I would love to see him succeed.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 5:03 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The scenario I laid out is more based on Miller and Bayless rather than Mills

I am simply seeing Mills as an emergency back-up for the second half of the season.

Opinions about Mills potential seem to be spread over a pretty wide range. You are definitely on the pessimistic side. It seems that those who rely on on stats and Draft Express have a pretty low opinion. A lot of people who primarily saw him in the Olympics have a pretty positive evaluation. Personally, I have not seen him enough to have a firm impression.

by upper left corner on Oct 22, 2009 5:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I liked him in the Olympics.

I saw the game against team USA twice. I watched it a second time to try and specifically watch Mills and get a better opinion of his game. I was a little disappointed. He is fast and has a good handle, but the rest of his game seems thin. A lot of the stuff he did just doesn’t see super repeatable in the NBA. He didn’t look much like a PG at all to me. He looked like a pure scorer, but his low shooting percentage in college is really worrisome. The fact that he can’t draw fouls with his quickness is insane. There’s a reason he slipped so far in the draft.

But wow, he is fast. I can understand why people would see some potential in that. I could see him pulling a Monta Ellis type comeback from the second round. If he finds a midrange jumper and a three point shot then he could, maybe, possibly, be something special.

As far as him being a third string PG on the Blazers, I just don’t see it. Wouldn’t Koponen be a better solution if that’s really what they wanted? At this point Mills probably wouldn’t play even if Blake was traded and Bayless was injured. The Blazers would be better off with Roy or Rudy trying to fill in at PG for stretches.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Monta Ellis and Louis Williams comparisons drawn by Jerryd Bayless aren't even ...

appropriate for Patty Mills due to his inability to drive to the hole and draw a foul or finish at the cup. Williams’ Philadelphia 76ers teammate, Willie Green, is a way better comparison in that regard — as well as concerning inefficient shooting and poor defense — although he’s a few inches taller than Mills. Regarding players just under 6’0" with a skill set similar to Mills, Jose Barea and Chucky Atkins — who both went undrafted out of college — keep coming to mind.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know that DraftExpress went with Aaron Brooks and Dee Brown, but I think that ...

Brooks — who I’m not even really high on like the homeristic Oregon fans around here — is substantially better than Patty Mills. Brown, who can barely keep a job in the NBA, nevertheless works as a worst-case comparison for the Aussie.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quickness

can disrupt a teams defense. If he learns to break down defenses and distribute the ball to our many viable options it will not be such a bad thing. Besides, with some strength and conditioning coaching and some player development from Billy Bayno this kid could turn some heads. I think he is a stud, maybe not a starter, but a pretty good backup worst case scenario. WE won’t need him to prove it for 2-3yrs anyway, there is just too many ballhandlers on this team already.

by 2dVs4u on Oct 22, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Keeping Mills really does seem like a move where you wait for the other shoe to drop

His other value, less cap hold, is also a boon towards a trade once the Euroholds are gone.

If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer

by Clevelander among roses on Oct 22, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree...

I wrote in one of the other posts that I think Blake and Trout’s expiring contracts are the bait for us to secure a backup PF.

by Visionary2 on Oct 22, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like you line of reasoning here

But I am more pleased with this move because it doesn’t give Nate the temptation to play Ime. I would rather that time go to Martell, Rudy, Batum, etc… And you know Nate would use Ime. You know it.

"I saw him in the face" Sergio's quote on the latest alley-oop to Rudy.

by blazermaniac32 on Oct 22, 2009 7:50 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

WOW! Now we know.
But as a human being, I like retaining Patty Mills, and I would like my team’s management a little less if they hadn’t done so.

[Emphasis added.]

by CatMan2 on Oct 22, 2009 8:06 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

No independent confirmation, I should mention

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL uh, jscot this is your dumbest fan post ever.

its because he leaves the most cap space.

this isn’t a conspiracy theory.

Blazersedge.com is going nuts

S

The Princess of Blazersedge

It just takes an iron fist to keep the riff raff under control and her princess hand is mad strong- Idoltime

by BlazerFan1 on Oct 22, 2009 9:51 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Like most decisions, there are probably multiple reasons.

Cap space being #1, perception being #2, and PA’s PG fetish being #3.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 22, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sorry but your theory is also dumb

not signing anyone would leave the most capspace.
The dumbest idea I don´t know, maybe we should make a poll.

Disclaimer: this is not an ad-hominem attack, it´s al in good fun.

by Falcao on Oct 22, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

youre not attacking me but my post this is not ad hom so it's fine

kp stated that they would fill every roster spot

w/ that as his goal they sign the player with least impact on the dollars..

that makes sense?
s

The Princess of Blazersedge

It just takes an iron fist to keep the riff raff under control and her princess hand is mad strong- Idoltime

by BlazerFan1 on Oct 22, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, still doesn't make sense

You don’t just sign a player and pay him just so you have the goal of filling every roster spot.

KP: “Oh, Nate, we have this problem. Our goal is to have all 15 roster spots filled, and we only have 14 guaranteed. So will give that last spot to Mills because he’s cheaper and it gives us more cap room.”

Nate: “KP, don’t be an idiot. Our goal is to win games, not fill a roster. If the only reason to keep Mills is to have more cap room, dump him and you’ve got even more. I can’t play him anyway, he’s injured.”

KP: “Nate, don’t call me an idiot, or I’ll fire you.”

Nate: “KP, if you are going to be an idiot, I’ll call you one, and if you fire me, you would just prove my point. So stop being one.”

KP: “Paul, Natey is being mean to me.”

Paul: “Then stop being an idiot, and only fill the stupid roster spot if there is a reason to do so. Now shape up, or I’ll have Larry send you an email.”

The end.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions   4 recs

Oh a wise guy, eh?

(nyuck nyuck nyuck!)

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

not really

“I never forget a face, but in your case I’ll be glad to make an exception.”

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I sent the club a wire stating,

PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION.
I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB
THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER.

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 22, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

don’t all minimum scale contracts have the same cap footprint?

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Oct 22, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

no mills signing leaves the blazers w/ like 1/2 a mil more in cap room

The Princess of Blazersedge

It just takes an iron fist to keep the riff raff under control and her princess hand is mad strong- Idoltime

by BlazerFan1 on Oct 22, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, only for players who have at least 2 years in the NBA

The league would have paid a portion of the minimum veteran salary for either Collins or Udoka.
Any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. Ime has 5 years, so his minimum salary in 2009-10 would have been $959,111. Collins has 8 years, for him it would have been $1,181,803. The minimum salary for a two-year vet is $825,497, and the league would have reimbursed the difference. Also only the two-year minimum salary would have been included for salary cap purposes (the number Ben stated in his post).

"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard

by Norsktroll on Oct 22, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dearest Sophia

Please understand:
1. This is not my dumbest fanpost ever. Not even remotely close. Believe me, or do the research (if you can stand it). I can really, really do dumb.
2. The best way to leave the most cap space was to, you know, cut them all. All three of them. If that is the goal, why burn some of the cap space to keep a guy who is injured and will be out most of the season?
3. Just as this was not my dumbest fanpost ever, this was not your dumbest comment ever. Congratulations. :P

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well now dear

i highly doubt this is my dumbest comment ever, u only have 2 scroll through your own comment list on your profile to find that out.

Also, as I noted above the team stated they want 2 fill ever roster spot.

the end

The Princess of Blazersedge

It just takes an iron fist to keep the riff raff under control and her princess hand is mad strong- Idoltime

by BlazerFan1 on Oct 22, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL, I agree, I said it WASN'T your dumbest comment ever

We agree on something. See how easy that was?

Peace is breaking out all over the world. Undoubtedly Obama’s doing. No wonder they gave him that peace prize, he changed the space-time continuum in such a way that jscot and BlazerFan1 would actually agree on something.

Next thing you know they’ll be supporting the same team, too.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

im pretty sure we support the same team

The Princess of Blazersedge

It just takes an iron fist to keep the riff raff under control and her princess hand is mad strong- Idoltime

by BlazerFan1 on Oct 23, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

she's picking up her cues

Without you out there, we're nowhere here

by 22baylor on Oct 23, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

Before long, I’ll have her agreeing to join me in hating the L@kers. Baby steps, baby steps.

One small step for a woman, one giant step for womankind.

By the time I rule the world, she’ll be my most ardent supporter. I’ll appoint her to head my “Anti-Political Correctness” squadron. She’ll be perfect for it. There are none so dedicated as those who have left the dark side to come into the light. We’d welcome her with open arms, but it might make my legions of admirers of the feminine persuasion jealous. She’ll understand, and just be grateful to hear the words of wisdom that drop from my lips, and to gaze from afar.

Anyone want to bet she creates five brand new identities just so she can flag me five times? :) Probably not, not worth the trouble.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 23, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll fix one thing there
Blazersedge.com is going nuts

Perfect.

by idoltime on Oct 22, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

It's not about cap space; otherwise, that 15th roster spot would've been left open to start the season.

Patty Mills making the Portland Trail Blazers roster is, in all likelihood, about Paul Allen wielding control in personnel matters.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or maybe your crystal ball needs wiping polishing

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 22, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"wiping"

i laughed

The Princess of Blazersedge

It just takes an iron fist to keep the riff raff under control and her princess hand is mad strong- Idoltime

by BlazerFan1 on Oct 23, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the Blazers are thinking about the luxury tax.

Next year Oden will get a max contract.
Roy: 15+
LA: 13+
Oden 15+.
Three players more than 43 millions.

Next season Bayless, Rudy and Nick could cost about 18 millions, IMO.

We´re talking about 6 players costing more than 60 millions.

And the Blazers still need to fill the roster with 9 players, at least 3 or 4 reliable ones if they want to contend for the title, and the cheaper way is finding something out of the draft. That´s why they have 3 rookies this season and Claver, Koponen and Freeland in Europe.

by amlmart1 on Oct 22, 2009 9:54 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Next season Bayless, Rudy and Nic will cost $4.736 million combined. They are still on their rookie scale deals, and their pay day comes in the summer of 2012. They are stashing cheap talent, but eventually PA will have to pay the luxury tax or they won’t be able to keep that roster together. But not yet.

"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard

by Norsktroll on Oct 22, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My bad, I was "thinking" about the year they sign their contracts.

I see now that I wrote “Next season Bayless, Rudy and Nick could cost about 18 millions”.

by amlmart1 on Oct 22, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

All of these players were on one year contracts

So I don’t think that is really an issue. Whoever got the spot has a good chance of being replaced by a first round draft pick next year, or even a MLE free agent (think backup PF, perhaps Freeland).

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK.

So I only was practising English then ;)

by amlmart1 on Oct 22, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

I don’t even think about you being Spanish when I read your comments anymore. Occasionally something pops up that reminds me, but very rarely.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It has occurred to me that more than one person uses the amlmart1 account.

As a human/cat hybrid I’m entitled to speculate about Bedgers with multiple personalities.

by CatMan2 on Oct 22, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i think its the fact we don't need any of those guys

whoever is the 15th man is unlikely to play a lot if any, so you might as well take the person with the most long term potential, or at least someone who can someday make an impact. plus as dave said, the 15th man is the GM pick, and that will definitely be the guy KP drafted.

by StocktonNEP on Oct 22, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Hmm....

We drafted Mills, albeit with a late second rounder. We invited him to camp. So before all this happened somebody liked him.

One thing you can say for certain with what has happened with Pendergraph, Cuningham and now Mills, and even going back last season with Batum, is The Blazers have a lot of confidence in their scouting and talent evaluation. If we draft a guy, there’s a reason we drafted him, even if he’s a deep second rounder.

So we gave our last roster spot to Mills, injured and without the benefit of being able to see him compete in pre-season.

For Mills as they say, “Somebody up there likes him” be it KP, McMillan or Allen. I’m guessing unless this REALLY irks McMillan, eventually we will get a sanitized comment from KP concerning the signing of Mills over Udoka and Collins. I’m sure someone named Quick will ask, sometype of answer will be forthcoming. Ultimately it seems The Blazer protocal in situations like this is to argue and debate behind the scenes but eventually show an united front. We may never get anything but No Comment from McMillan and a Press release like statement from KP if this was a last minute end run overide by Mr. Paul Allen.

I’d like to think it was as nice as your speculation. That it was all The Blazers doing the “right thing” but I don’t buy it. Somebody (probably Allen) really wants to keep Mills. Plus as far as reputation being helped throughout the league and with agents? You could look at the flip side and say this is damaging. Up to the last moment, it really sounded like this was a active competition for the 15th spot between an active Udoka and Collins. The mantra was that their play would determine who got the spot, Well it certainly wasn’t Mills “play” that earned him the spot. In the future, if I’m the agent of a marginal, fringe role player type of guy, do I recommend he competes on The Blazer Pre-Season roster for a spot? How could I look at the guy and say, “Well you’ve got a chance to make the roster if you can impress McMillan and Kevin Pritchard” when the history is that evidently the guy you need to make sure is on your side is Paul Allen?

Allen has every right encumbent as an owner to make whatever decisions he wants to make. Plus his history has been as an involved and active owner, but not one that interferes to the point of detriment. In the past the feeling expressed was that Allen has become over the many years a pretty sharp basketball mind and worked in concert with his management, not inspite of his hired management.

I’ll give Paul Allen this one, because A-I have no choice, B-He is a great owner and deserves it, and C-Maybe we might all find out he was right about Mills.

But I’d like to know how upset McMillan may or maynot be about this, McMillan has a lot of pride and if memory serves me right he left Seattle inpart because he felt a disconnect between himself, ownership and management. Have we kept Mills at the cost of alienating McMIllan?

I suspect KP is too much of a company man for us to ever hear if he really was for or against keeping Mills. In the end, he will make the statement most politically correct for the franchise.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Oct 22, 2009 11:00 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

When Ime and Collins were signed

Mills hadn’t signed his contract, and there was still hope he would go to Europe. I don’t see how this was treating them badly. They got a chance to show what they can still do on court.

I agree that Paul Allen has the right to do this, if it was his choice. What I can’t reconcile is it being his choice with the statement that it wasn’t for basketball reasons. I don’t see them talking that way about a PA decision.

If Nate is that upset over a 15th man, after the group of players management has assembled for him to work with, he needs to grow up and be professional. Nate is a consummate professional. He isn’t going to throw a fit over this. A disagreement on 15th man does not a disconnect and alienation make.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think..

…with a lot of this we may never know the real story. Basketball is business and both Collins and Udoka knew, even with Mills out of the equation, that at least one of them wasn’t making the team. The suprise is that neither of them are making the team. It’s business so it isn’t necessarily treating them badly. Did I ever say in my post that we were treating them badly? Even Udoka has since been quoted as saying he isn’t mad at the team.

We are getting one interpretation, based on comments mostly from Jason Quick. I’d be curious to hear more from McMillan, more from KP about this, from them directly.

Too much speculation really happening. Do we really know how much of a group decison this was? A lot of people are just taking it for granted that Canzano is right, and this is a personal OVERIDE of McMillan and KP by Allen himself. This may or maynot be true. If true, it’s not something typical or common with a Paul Allen owned Trail Blazers, so I personally can let it go.

All we have heard as of yet from Quick is that “some people” are unhappy about this decision. This also might be true or untrue, but too much information left out. Unhappy is pretty vague.

McMillan has a lot of pride. I can speculate that if this was an override of developing plans to either keep Udoka or Collins he could (maybe) be pretty upset. It’s not just about the immediate reality of being over rode on a decision concerning the roster, but also about the reality of authority. McMillan must maintain that he is in charge. If he say’s results on the court will determine playing time and roles, then he can’t afford even the illusion that he is not in charge. That somebody else might be influencing that reality, be it KP or Allen.

I’m not saying that is the case in this particular event, 2 days from now hopefully we wont be talking about this at all. But since we are talking about it now, I do think it is a possibilty.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Oct 22, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Nate thinks "in control"

means choosing the roster, he’s got another think coming. If KP tells him to play somebody to showcase them for a trade, or because Paul Allen likes the guy and wants to see him play, that’s one thing.

But on player personnel, it isn’t the coach’s decision, it’s the GM’s. If this was a mandate coming down from above, it isn’t Nate who got his toes stepped on, it’s KP. And both of them need to look at the fact that Paul Allen has splashed out $150 million over the last couple months to keep the core of this team together for a long, long time, and cool their jets, if they are getting in a huff over that.

You didn’t say that Udoka and Collins had been treated badly, but you implied that agents won’t encourage marginal players to try out for the team because of this, which is ultimately the same thing. I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in the South of France in August that players and agents turn down a chance to try out for the Blazers.

If either of those guys had made a compelling case that they were going to be more than on the bench in street clothes all year, they probably get the spot. Since it was clear that no one was going to be any more than that this year, they gave the spot to the guy who A) has some kind of potential upside and B) got injured in our camp and has no other prospects for the year.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in the South of France in August that players and agents turn down a chance to try out for the Blazers.

That depends on the caliber of the FA. I doubt KP had a prayer in attracting Brandon Bass or Antonio McDyess this summer. Not because Portland didn’t have the resources, but because they had a young starting PF and two centers. If the veteran player doesn’t see a significant “role” already gift-wrapped for him, he’ll look elsewhere.

Unless Paul Allen overpays for the player, which was almost done with Hedo

The same thing with the draft. If Portland is picking in the 20s, good luck getting a “lottery bound” draftee to work out at your PF (DeJuan Blair, etc)

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 23, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

1. We were talking about borderline guys here. A borderline guy will go wherever he might have a chance at #15. If it is a class organization, all the better. At worst, it’s a pay day for a few weeks in training camp before going D League.
2. Antonio McDyess, perhaps. He’s getting old enough that it might happen. But we weren’t spending on Antonio this year. We were looking for someone of a higher quality. Next year, we’ll have MLE, and will be looking for a guy on that level. It won’t be a young guy, but a guy who is just past his prime might settle for 12-15 mpg and a ring.

Draft? I don’t know, KP has a reputation for trading up, and has assets with which to do so. If the rumors are flying that we’re looking to trade up, some of those lottery guys might come. We had guys come in that were going to go long before we picked this year, and we were in the 20s this year.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 23, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hansbrough

That’s the main guy you’re referring to. Wheels said on draft day that KP tried to trade up, with the intention of drafting Psycho T. So, maybe Tyler’s agent was “tipped off” about this, or maybe they weren’t sure if Hansbrough would be drafted as high as he was, at the time of the workouts.

One thing’s for sure, they couldn’t get DeJuan Blair to come to Portland for a workout. And I don’t think Bayless made a visit the year before.

KP’s roster is deep, and he’s gettng the reputation that he doesn’t want to part with any of his players, unless someone is willing to overpay for them. This depth and “low roster turnover” is going to affect the agents of FAs and make them look elsewhere for jobs for their client. I think we also saw evidence of this in the sorry summer league roster that Prunty and Born were “able” to assemble around Bayless and the rookies.

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 24, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Lawson came in, too

I don’t remember who else.

If the word gets around that we’re looking to trade up, rookies will come. And we’ve moved up in each of the last two drafts, a year ago by trading two of our players. KP may be getting the reputation that he doesn’t want to party with any of his players on some corners of Bedge, but the facts don’t bear it out, and agents are going to be interested in facts before they limit their clients’ opportunities.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 26, 2009 1:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well yeah, he traded Jack and McBob

Jarrett was at the end of his rookie contract and KP had to “make room” for Rudy. JJ and Roy weren’t exactly “meshing” as a backcourt and Jack wasn’t keeping his feelings to himself re: how he was being used (backup SG) being different than what he thought his role should be (starting PG)

and this past year KP traded Sergio and Diogu. Nothing earth-shattering there. Sergio was similar to Jarrett—unhappy with his role, looking for more PT elsewhere. See ya

I think Rodriguez and McBob and Taurean Green are the only players that KP has drafted that he’s turned around and dealt (other than draft day deals, to move up) OTOH, Outlaw is the only remaining draftee from the Nash/Patterson regime.

What I haven’t seen out of KP yet is that roster-defining deal, like Kupchack made for Gasol or Warkentine made for Billups. Until he puts something like that together, he’s just a glorified draft analyst who dabbles at being a trader of established talent. Maybe he can win a championship that way, but most title-winning teams eventually brought in their “finishing pieces” via trades (or key FA signings) to reinforce the youngsters that they had previously drafted.

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 26, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's a different matter

No, KP hasn’t made the blockbuster. But we were discussing whether agents would keep players from coming because KP isn’t willing to give up players to trade up.

Facts don’t support that. KP is willing to give up players to trade up, and agents know that, and won’t keep their players away based on a “won’t make a move” perception.

If anything, the perception out there is that we are one of the most likely teams to make a move in the draft.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 27, 2009 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am unclear how Brandon Bass is more 'veteran player' than Paul Millsap?

I like Bass but do not agree that he is clearly better than Millsap, will start in Orlando ahead of Lewis (when he returns from suspension) or was preferred by the Blazers over Millsap. As for veteran:

Bass 210 games 5 starts 3561 minutes PER 16.4 eFG% .496 TRB% 13.4

Millsap 240 games 41 starts 5464 minutes PER 18.6 eFG% .576 TRB% 17.0

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 24, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Millsap is the better player

but Bass was an unrestricted FA and wasn’t having any trouble getting offers from teams where he could expect a starting job. Millsap, OTOH, was trying to get another team to “bid against” the Jazz, and was willing to accept (in principle) a backup role in Portland. Paul and Nate never met during this courtship, but Millsap’s agent said the coach and the RFA spoke together at length about his hypothetical Blazer role, over the phone

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 24, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What the heck

why not keep Mills? We are talkin’ Michael Ruffin/Ike Diogu/Shavlick Randolph position here…whomever fills the spot WILL NOT PLAY unless we are getting blown out, or are facilitating a blow out. May as well save the money and keep the player with the most upside. I love Ime, but he really would be a locker room presence only, and we now have Juwan and Andre for that.

"These are my new shoes. They're good shoes. They won't make you rich like me, they won't make you rebound like me, they definitely won't make you handsome like me. They'll only make you have shoes like me. That's it." - Charles Barkley

~BFD

by BlazerFanDave on Oct 22, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

they won't even play in a blowout

since they will be sitting there in strett clothes – we are talking about the 15th man, and only 12 dress for games.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 22, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

you definately aren’t going to dress Udoka or Collins over Bayles or Howard, and your probably aren’t dressing them over Cunningham either. That’s 13 guys ahead of them right there.

WAY too much angst over a roster spot that is vituallly meaningless.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 22, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

good call

yeah, I don’t understand the fury

"These are my new shoes. They're good shoes. They won't make you rich like me, they won't make you rebound like me, they definitely won't make you handsome like me. They'll only make you have shoes like me. That's it." - Charles Barkley

~BFD

by BlazerFanDave on Oct 22, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They would never do that

This organization does things right. Didn’t you read the fanpost?

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 23, 2009 4:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's about Money

The Blazers signed him because they can sell jerseys to and get other revenue from Australians. I think this is the simplest explanation.

$$$$$$

Somebody better help them pay for Aldrige and Roy.

by Bradthey on Oct 22, 2009 7:07 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The basketball merchandise market in Australia is immense, no doubt

And Mills is more likely to catch the fancy of Australians than a guy like Bogut who actually plays, too. :)

Sorry, the likelihood of this generating any noticeable revenue from Australia is pretty low.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 22, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

KP is a former PG, Nate is a former PG, and Paul Allen has been quoted as saying he likes to watch young PGs...

So what is the mystery? The Blazers are the fricking Minnesota Timberwolves and need an intervention.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Oct 22, 2009 10:51 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

On the plus side of the equation, they can always cut Mills later if they need the roster spot. Not like they're on the hook for big bucks to him...

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Oct 22, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Patty Mills isn't the type of point guard who Nate McMillan fawns over, which is due to many reasons.

If anything, Mills probably reminds McMillan of his former teammate in Seattle, Dana Barros, who was an undersized gunslinger from deep just like the Aussie. Like Barros, though, Mills isn’t a true floor general.

If you want my guess, I’d wager McMillan wanted Ime Udoka, Kevin Pritchard wanted Jarron Collins, and Paul Allen wanted Mills. Thus, when push came to shove, the man who pays the bills made the final call.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 22, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As he should

"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder

by jamon51 on Oct 23, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Patty Mills actually reminds Nate of someone who used to tease him at school.

Jake “Speedy” McAlister was that kid. Diminutive in stature but fleet of foot, he would dart around making mischief for Nate and the other lads in first form.

Speedy would come up behind Nate and tap him on the right shoulder. Then, as Nate spun around to see who it was, he would zip lickety prindle around and tap the other shoulder.

Oftentimes, at lunch, Nate would be all set to dig in to the delicious chicken salad sandwich his mom had made for him when Speedy would whoosh by and deftly substitute his seal blubber and back bacon sandwich.

But Nate, even at that age, was not somebody you could just toy with indefinitely. One day after school he went to the general store, a year’s worth of his allowance jingling in his pocket. He bought the following items: twine, duct tape, a length of copper pipe, a bag of 10-penny nails, jars of sulfur and potassium nitrate, a box of replacement charcoal filters for an air purifying system, epoxy glue, bulk rat poison, and a wagon load of industrial bleach.

Nobody ever saw Speedy again.

by CatMan2 on Oct 23, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

rec

for seal blubber and back bacon sandwich – Elgin

Without you out there, we're nowhere here

by 22baylor on Oct 23, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

NIce comparison
Mills probably reminds McMillan of his former teammate in Seattle, Dana Barros

Nate is a defensive-minded coach. The last thing he wants to do is put (another) player on the floor that the opposing coach can immediately exploit with a mismatch

I’m sure Nate would play Steve Nash, Tony Partker or CP3 (as if) But Patty Mills’ offensive skillset isn’t worth all the defensive “help” that he would have to be given (like the other Blazers had to rotate over to help out Damon Stoudamire when he got posted up by a PG)

Tiny guards don’t win championships. At least not since the ’60s. Try to find one smaller than Isiah Thomas (or Rajon Rondo) who played a significant role on a title winning team

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 23, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The 15th spot people

Wow I think this is going a little overboard for the 15TH ROSTER SPOT.

by DB Cooper00 on Oct 23, 2009 6:58 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Patty Mills signing

I figured all along he would be kept even before Ime and Jason were playing in camp. The blazers brought him here to check on the surgery and I felt they would want to sign him because he was hurt playing for Portland.

Thanks for posting it!!

by behindpaul on Oct 23, 2009 3:20 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't buy it

The Blazer organization are such bleeding hearts that they would sign the 55th pick in the draft to the roster simply because the guy injured himself in practice?

I don’t buy it. Plus, if that were the basis for signing Mills it would set a dangerous precedent.

No, I think it is because Mills is a very highly regarded player that just happened to still be available at the 55 pick on account of circumstances, and they don’t want to miss out on the rights to a guy who may very well be good enough to be their starting point guard a couple years down the road.

by lsjogren on Oct 25, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

To fill a 15th spot

when the other guys competing haven’t showed that they can really help the team, yes, I could see that being a big factor. Bleeding hearts? How about a sense of responsibility?

Dangerous precedent? No.

Your last paragraph indicates you completely discard the statement that it “wasn’t for basketball reasons”. That’s fine, if you choose not to accept that.

But if it is a true statement, and this really wasn’t for basketball reasons, perhaps you need to come up with an alternative explanation as to what those reasons were.

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 26, 2009 1:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hm

By the way: Would “ironic” be the right word for the fact that the technogeek owner made the right decision from a basketball standpoint while basketball guys Nate and KP would have made the wrong one?

by lsjogren on Oct 25, 2009 2:10 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I just wish Paul Allen had a jones for

DeJuan Blair, instead of quick-midget shooting guards. That would’ve come in handy

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 25, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs


User Tools

A site by Blazer fans, for Blazer fans
Start posting about the Trail Blazers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Un_bohemien_small
Is Roy a Good Teammate?
Kpavatar2_small
Just Another Junk In The Wall:  11-18-09
Terryporter_small
Blazers Edge Community Podcast Episode 008
Small
Why is the Blazers’ offense bad this year? Why is the defense so good?
P1010399_small
Photos from the Hawks game, 11/16/2009

Recent FanPosts

Imported_photos_00004_small
The Blazer Guards
Small
Portland and the summer of Lebron
Copy_of_dcp_2180_small
Tough act to follow junk Nov.19
Small
Nate? Avery? Adelman?
Small
How would Ellis fit?
Nike_orangemen_3_small
Oden's minutes compared with other centers in the last 25 years
Img_0529_small
Prayers are with you P. A.
Small
A Game for Jerryd
Small
November schedule - with Poll

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

A modest proposal: Fire Mike Rice and Antonio Harvey!
For Ann, and Travis.
FREE GREG ODEN
"It's been good for us," Oden said. "We're going to stick with it. We have...

Recent FanShots

Andre Miller is tough
Michael Jordan says "don't retire my number"
Charles Oakley to the Blazers? He says there are talks
Lamarcus: The King Cobra?
Surprising Stats from Basketball-Reference
Oden #5 and Rudy #9 ranked soph espn.com
NYT: The Pick-And-Roll is the NBA's Old Reliable
At this point, what the Blazers want most is rebounding. That was an...
Question - if Outlaw misses half the season (41 games) how much if any of...

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Ben_small Ben.

Moderators

Pict1126_small -ken

Polar_bear_small jorga

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Jesus_icon_i_small T Darkstar

Wallpaper_small geoffm