A Plan For The Future ... Without Miller
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 13, 2009 5:40 PM PST
Email
Print
It’s time to face the reality of our sad situation and think about the future.
First let’s review the Goals and 2009/10 Objectives we had (or should have had) at the start of this year. That leads directly to my proposed Plan for the Future.
GOALS
- Become a championship contending team next year, the 2010/11 season. (i.e. have a reasonable expectation of reaching the conference finals)
- This year (2009/10), win our division, win in the first round of the playoffs, and contend in the second round of the playoffs.
2009/10 OBJECTIVES
Develop Greg Oden (top priority), develop and assess of our young players, resolve the PG position, and decide what to do with Travis Outlaw.
A. Greg Oden – Develop and Integrate
- Oden reduces his fouls so he can consistently play 28 or more minutes every night.
- Oden further develops his offensive moves and reduces turnovers so he is a reliable option on offense (in addition to scoring on rebounds, lobs, and broken plays).
- Integrate Oden into the offense, which means everyone learns to play with Greg (but primarily Roy, LMA, and the PGs).
Status:
Incomplete and delayed an entire year.
(1) Greg was making progress on fouls, but I think it would take most of the year before he could consistently play at least 28 minutes.
(2) His offensive abilities are a long-term project. There was good improvement, but a long way to go to achieve reliability.
(3) We didn’t fully accomplish working him into the offense, partly because he is not yet a reliable option on offense.
Best case - Greg returns with his conditioning and physical abilities fully restored to the level they were prior to his latest injury. Even so, we will need all of next year to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish this year.
Worst case – don’t even think about it.
B. Batum, Webster, Rudy – Develop and Assess their Future with Blazers
- Assess Webster’s health and ability to be a key contributor to a championship team either as a starter or a consistent defender and scoring threat off the bench.
- Assess Rudy’s improvement in defense, creating his own shot, and playmaking. Determine if there is a role for him on a future championship team.
- Develop Batum’s offensive skills with the expectation he can play a major role as a starter or key backup on a championship contender.
Status:
(1) Webster appears to have fully recovered physically, but his overall performance has been inconsistent, and sometimes disappointing. (Was it ever anything else?)
(2) Rudy showed signs of improvement on defense and creating his own shot, but that has been inconsistent. He may have been hampered by his back injury. Rudy should return in time to still make a reasonable assessment of his future with the Blazers by this summer.
(3) Batum should return to continue his development this year.
C. Point Guards – Integrate, Develop, Assess
- Introduce Andre Miller into the offense and adjust to a traditional PG.
- Develop and assess Bayless as a future starter or primary backup PG.
- Assess Blake’s future with the Blazers (to re-sign or not in summer of 2010).
Status:
(1) There is still plenty of time to integrate Miller and Roy’s games, but I suspect we would benefit more from Miller’s individual scoring skills than other parts of his game.
(2) Although Blake and Miller are healthy, the depletion of the roster due to injuries should continue to make minutes for Bayless until Rudy and Batum return. His performance as a combo guard has been encouraging, and if he continues to show improvement he will build confidence to take on a larger roll because of his “fit” with Roy’s game, even though he has not shown traditional PG skills.
(3) Blake is what he is. Nate and KP like him and will re-sign him next summer because he is inexpensive and can always play backup PG.
D. Travis Outlaw – Develop and Assess
- Assess Oulaw’s value and ability to improve his defense and rebounding skills. Assess Outlaw’s future as a Blazer. Determine whether to re-sign or not in summer of 2010, or possibly trade this year for a tougher backup PF.
- Develop Pendergraph and Cunningham, which could influence the decision to retain Outlaw.
Status:
(1) I doubt we will see Outlaw again this year. Had he played poorly, but the team otherwise played well, he might have been traded before the deadline for a backup PF/C. Ironically, his injury makes it more likely he will be re-signed this summer, since the team has not performed well and his instant offense is highly valued. However, Outlaw could still be traded (sign-and-trade this summer or an early season trade) if more offense is added somewhere else on the roster. i.e. he stays for now, but he will always be on trading block if we don’t need his offense.
(2) Cunningham and Pendergraph (when he returns) may get more development minutes than expected because of the depleted roster, but it seems unlikely that either will play well enough to affect re-signing Outlaw.
2009/10 Summary:
Outlaw’s immediate future with the Blazers was resolved by his injury and the team’s poor play. He will be re-signed this summer. The Miller/Blake PG situation has been disappointing so far, but Bayless is getting some (still limited) opportunity to make a case to remain and receive primary backup PG minutes. There’s not enough SF/3-guard minutes for Batum, Webster, Rudy, and Outlaw, so one (or two) of them will eventually have to go. Batum is a safe bet to return because of his age, progress in Europe, and defense. We need to see more of Rudy later this year, and thus far Webster has been inconsistent and sometimes disappointing.
Our highest priority this year was to develop Greg Oden, and that is now delayed a year. He only made minimal progress in solving his foul problems, his reliability as a primary offensive option still needs a lot of work, and we barely scratched the surface of integrating Greg into the offense. Hence, I believe we have essentially lost this year toward our GOAL of becoming a championship contender.
I believe we will be fortunate to just squeak into one of the final playoff spots this year, and then we would be quickly eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.
Our goal for next year will be essentially what it was for this year, and our Window will now not crack open until the 2011/12 season.
A Plan for the Future:
- Do not make any short term band-aid moves to try to “salvage” this season. Do not bring in a D-League player, an out-of-the-league free agent, or make a trade for a marginal player (using our rookies, euro-draft rights, or future draft picks) just to survive this season. Just cutting Patty Mills and bringing in a D-League player, or another Juwan Howard type free agent, will do nothing to make us a better team in the future.
- Make every effort possible by the February trading deadline to trade for a player that can significantly help us become a championship contender starting in 2011/12, regardless of any negative effects it may have this season. Use this opportunity to add another piece to our championship roster even if reduces our now marginal chances to make the playoffs this year. We no longer have to worry about making a big deal in the middle of the year and screwing up the team chemistry or our playoff chances. We can now afford to make a move for the future that we would have avoided in trying to make the second round of the playoffs this year.
- Miller ($6.7M) is the obvious choice to trade because he is far more likely to return a player of value than Blake ($4M). Miller could make a difference to a contending team with injuries or a weak backup PG, and his salary provides more trading room for a better player in return. No one doubts his PG skills are superior to Blake’s. If we could magically get someone excellent trading Blake, that’s fine too, but it isn't going to happen. This isn’t about Blake versus Miller. We aren’t winning a championship starting either of them three seasons from now.
- Trading Miller makes sense. The start of our Window has been pushed back a year to Miller’s team-option year. Miller will end the 2011-2012 regular season as a 36-year old PG. We aren’t likely to win a championship with the defense of a 36-year PG, and that’s just the first year of our Window. Miller’s trade value is the highest it will be right now before the Feb trading deadline. His poor play this year can still be blamed on the PG mess in PDX, and some team should need him by Feb to fix their immediate PG woes. By summer teams will be looking for long term solutions to their problems and Miller’s trade value will have diminished because he will be “a year older” and not helped by his Blazers "experience".
- Trading Miller by the trade deadline will completely free Bayless to develop and finally show if he can become Roy’s running mate in a year or so. We will still have Blake next year, plus probably a new PG this summer (see below), and if Bayless fails as a PG we can trade him as a combo guard next year.
- KP should attempt to trade Miller for a high-quality starting small forward. He should look for veteran that can start at least this year and next. He can battle Batum for the starting spot in subsequent years when Batum is ready to play significant minutes. We need someone that can score reliably and needs to be defended, particularly in the not unlikely event that we lose Oden for periods in the future. Although our immediate need is a backup big (PF/C) it is difficult to trade a small for a big, and we can add a backup big this summer. We need to use this rare opportunity based on Miller’s salary room and his ability to immediately help a contending team to secure another key player (reliable scorer and defender) for our future.
- We should be willing to include Webster in the deal. If we trade Miller ($6.7M) plus Webster ($4.3), KP could take back up to $13.9M ($11M * 125% + 0.1M) in salaries. That should provide enough flexibility to get a top-quality SF and perhaps take back a bad contract if necessary to make a deal. Obviously, we need a trading partner that needs a PG more than their SF, but we would also be able to provide Webster as a fill-in or backup SF for them. We could also include a 3rd team with a SF to facilitate a deal.
- I don’t have a particular target player in mind. I’m not into proposing specific trades. It’s KP’s job to find and negotiate deals. I’m proposing a strategy.
Completing the Roster
- Trading Miller plus Webster for a small forward (and filler if necessary) likely makes us worse this year. So what? We would be lucky to make the playoffs anyway, and if we get worse we will just get a better lottery pick. KP knows how to deal lottery picks. By the draft we should also decide to trade Rudy, Blake, or sign-and-trade Outlaw. Imagine what KP could do draft day packaging a lottery pick with Rudy or Outlaw. He could probably convert it into an excellent PG (or a PF/C) by either moving up in the draft or trading for a veteran.
- Use the MLE (mid-level exception) this summer to bring over Freeland, or use it to sign a free agent PF/C (or PG, whichever we didn’t get on draft day). We could also try to bring over Claver, but that could be more difficult on the rookie scale and I don't know if he would be a solution at PF/C (is he more of a SF/PF?).
Potential 2010/11 Roster
C – Oden, Przy (re-sign if he opts out this summer - a no brainer)
PF – LMA, Freeland or a FA for MLE, Pendergraph, Cunningham
SF – Veteran (for Miller+Webster), Batum
Guards – Roy, Bayless, Blake, PG (Veteran or Lottery Pick) for Lottery Pick plus Outlaw or Rudy
SG/SF Rudy or PF/SF Outlaw
Ok, that's my plan. Let the flaming begin, but please remember this isn't about Miller vs Blake. It's about taking advantage of our now delayed Window as a contender, and converting a valuable asset with a limited shelf life into an even stronger team for the future.
57 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very nice post...
Well thought out.
A. This sucks, what can you do? Oden shows so much potential you cant help but plan him long term.
B. Batum- we sorely need his defense. He also isn’t the worst shooter which makes him good to spread the floor. Hang onto him please.
Rudy- Either way. We can get a good deal on him (provided he stays healthy) or we could most def. use him as backup or even starter. If he doesn’t earn the starter he is an excellent man for the second unit. If someone out preforms him for starter its a shame because he will likely trade teams, but until he does he at least adds a lot of scoring potential to any rotation.
Webster: He has alot of potential, but is too inconsistent to be our ‘starter’. We could probably trade him (with others) to get a good deal for us or at least use him in second unit if Rudy leaves.
C. Neither Blake nor Miller has inspired enough confidence to want them to start our championship team. If they could stop whining either would make a great leader for the second unit, with the ability to step up for a few games if something happens to one of our starting guards. Does it not make sense to let Roy/LA/Oden dominate the first rotation (with some outside shooters (webster,rudy,bayless whoever is making them in practice) to spread things out) and then have a well oiled, well lead, second rotation to clean up after?
D. Personally I think Cunningham brings everything Trout does, but with better grasp of the fundamentals of basketball. If there is a decision between the two I would pick Cunningham as he seems like the type of player to keep growing, whereas Outlaw seems the type to plateau out. Outlaw is worth more at the moment so I would probably be thinking most about a trade with him.
I have been thinking much the same thing
except I don’t like keeping Blake and trading Miller. I think Blake needs to go just to challenge Roy and Nate to think outside the box. There is only so far isolation plays can take you …even with the iso being Roy. If you substitute Blake for Miller in the above scenario you probably have a more functional Roy, Aldridge, Oden combo even next year.
The second reason I want Blake gone is his complete lack of D on the pick and roll. Not only in his own performance but his lack of leadership on the defensive end as well. Remember Blake is a 8 year vet. He has likely peaked in all aspects.
Another chip in a trade is Travis Outlaws expiring contract. Blake, Web, and Outlaw could yield a pretty good SF. The receiving Team would be able to let Blake and Outlaw go for a cap space gain 10 million a year and Web is a serviceable SF/SG .
I think Rudy needs to stay. He has the unique skills of moving without the ball and playing the passing lanes on D. Plus his shooting, passing, and even rebounding are all above or near average for a SG. SO many options…but will Pritchard finally pull the trigger?
O.R.
Miller's the most tradeable asset.
He’s a talented starter-level player with veteran experience that could help a contending team that has a PG problem (due to injury or whatever). In the right situation he (plus Webster to help backfill the other team’s small forward depth) could get us a high-quality starting small forward. We aren’t going to get anything close to that for Blake, Webster, or Outlaw alone or together. Teams rarely trade a high quality starter for a combination of bench players. (Webster is not a starter at this point in his career).
We need to get something really good for Miller while we can (which represents our $7M of salary cap space last summer – from the RLEC) that will help our championship hopes down the road. Miller is too old to help our championship hopes now, which just moved out a year (he probably always was too old but we had to use the cap space or lose it). His highest trade value is now, and most of that opportunity will disappear by next summer.
We need to just forget about the Blake vs Miller debate. It’s a short term distraction that has no relevance to our future. Neither will be our starting PG on a contending team. Blake could be our backup SG, but I suspect he won’t be two years from now in 2011/12. Move Miller now to get a SF we need for the future. That gives Bayless a full tryout for the rest of the year. This summer we pickup a new PG on draft day (use Rudy, Blake, or even Outlaw with our lottery pick to move up in the draft or trade for veteran PG). That will fix the PG problem, with that new PG, Bayless, and Blake (if still needed).
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 13, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions
I think whether Blake, or Miller, is the more tradable asset is a highly debatable question.
Blake has an expiring contract on the eve of the biggest free agent bonanza in league history. Blake is also three years younger. Andre is clearly a better player, but Blake would make a competent back-up for the next three + years. Furthermore, Blake could be packaged with a huge array of other assets from Trout, to Webster, to Euros, to picks, to cash.
The bottom line is more tradable to whom, for what player? It depends on the trading partner and their situation.
This is an interesting post. I can tell you put a lot of thought and effort into it, but I disagree with many of your conclusions:
*I would much prefer to keep Miller and trade Blake.
*I would prefer to trade for a quality back-up 4-5 than a SF. We already have Batum, Webster, Roy and maybe even Cunningham, if we were to package Trout with Blake. I think Batum is the long term starter at this position. We need a top quality perimeter defender in our starting unit.
*Bayless is hopefully the long term starter at PG, giving us a starting unit of Bayless, Roy, Batum, LMA, and Oden. We package Blake and Trout for a back-up 4-5. Our backups are Pryz at the 5. New guy at 4-5, Cunningham at 3-4. Webster at 3, Rudy at 2, Miller at 1.
by upper left corner on Dec 15, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
When do you expect Bayless to be ready to start?
Because in terms of contention, this year is gone.
I wavered in recent months, but I’m back to where I was before — he’ll be our starter by the start of his third year. I know there are people who will still laugh at that, but the kid has made a lot more progress than the scoffers thought he would even two months ago.
If I’m right, then the Blake/Miller question changes somewhat. Remember, against some PGs, especially backup PGs, Rudy can play some point, too. I wouldn’t have any hesitation putting Rudy at the point defensively against Blake, or Fisher, for example. So I can see us wanting to run Rudy at the point for 5 mpg, on average, maybe more.
If that happens, and Jerryd gives us 30-35 mpg at the point, then our backup PG is a relatively minor role player.
Now obviously, Andre would be better in that role than Steve, and would perhaps take some of those minutes from Jerryd, and would perhaps all of those minutes from Rudy. Let’s look at two PG minutes allocation scenarios:
1. Jerryd 28 mpg, Andre 20 mpg.
2. Jerryd 33 mpg, Rudy 5 mpg, Steve 10 mpg.
Scenario #1 is better, right? But how much better? (Remember, this is under the assumption that Bayless is enough better, re: talent/fit, to take the starting role next year.)
Does it matter how much better scenario #1 is? It depends on what deals are on the table. If we can get the right player for Andre, but not for Steve, then scenario #2 could be much better for us.
I think the question lies in three factors:
1. How optimistic we are about Jerryd’s progress by next year.
2. How optimistic we are about Rudy’s ability to play some PG for us, even if only in spot minutes. (Related to this is the whole question of whether we are going to try to find Rudy enough minutes to keep him.)
3. Which of the two PGs is more attractive to the team trying to move a player we want.
#52
Really interesting thought exercise, Jscot.
1) When will Bayless be ready to start?: I think this is a very speculative question. I’m not sure we have enough information to make a well informed guesstimate. Lots of variables: how quickly does Jerryd’s outside shot come around? How quickly do Roy and Bayless mesh on the floor? Last night was one of the few times we have seen them on the floor together for extended minutes. Will Roy be comfortable and effective having the ball in his hands A LOT? I’m guessing that initially Roy is going to have to take the lion’s share of the playmaking responsibilities in order to keep the offense from bogging down. How will Batum coming back affect the team?
In general, I agree with your guess. It sounds about right. Give Roy and Bayless all of fall camp and pre-season to work on their feel for each other. Bayless has come a long way in a relatively short time. I think that is a testament to his talent, his work ethic, and his brains. I would speculate that part of the reason he has been able to reduce his TOs so much is that he learns from his mistakes. I hope that the same will be true of his defense. He will need to get the foul problem under control if he is going to start. He is also going to need to continue to develop his court awareness on defense. I feel like you can almost watch him improve before your eyes. If that continues, I could see him being ready by the start of next season.
Regarding the Miller or Blake question, you raise a lot of good and thoughtful points. However, the basic bottom-line reason that I favor trading Blake has to do with fit on the second team. Miller is a creator, literally a “playmaker.” Blake is a competent passer and a heady player, but he is far less adept, IMO, at actually initiating the offense. Furthermore, Steve’s primary weapon is the three point shot which repeats Rudy and Webster’s best skill. I strongly believe we need an up-tempo, penetrating, playmaker to balance out the second unit.
In addition, I suspect that Miller is much better suited as a mentor to Bayless than Blake. Miller is older and knows his days are numbered and probably wouldn’t mind teaching all his little tricks to Bayless. Miller’s game has a lot of similarities to Bayless’ in terms of tempo and penetration. On the other hand, Blake’s game has almost nothing in common with Bayless’ and I think that makes it hard to imagine him being an effective mentor.
by upper left corner on Dec 16, 2009 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
Re Miller as a creator
Actually, that ties into my factor #2. For Blake to play 10-15 backup PG minutes, he needs to be paired with a guard who can fill that role. If Rudy is going to take some PG minutes, he has to improve at creating with the ball, I believe. Well, either that or we need a completely new offense….
If Rudy steps up in this area, then having Blake play off him could be effective, at least for limited minutes against opposing backups.
But you are right that we need someone to make things happen on that second unit.
No doubt that Miller is better suited to mentor Bayless, on a lot of things, anyway. Blake is (IMO) as good a mentor at team defense, but as far as offensively, there is no contest. The question is whether Miller is so inclined, and is enough of a communicator to be skilled at mentoring.
#52
Again, I think your position is reasonable
I just come down on the other side of the fence.
If we can get a great 4-5 back-up by trading Miller, but can’t get the right guy by trading Blake, I suppose we should do it. More emphasis should be placed on who is coming back than who is going out. If Steve can get his stroke back, he could also be a nice situational weapon coming off the bench.
I noticed a funny look in Steve’s eye last night after Bayless had his big run at the end. I may be projecting, but he looked like a guy who was resigned to his fate. Like a guy who had been fighting a long up hill battle and was coming to the recognition that he wasn’t going to prevail.
Being in Steve’s kicks must be a tough place to be. He vanquished Jack and Sergio. He has held off Miller and Bayless. It probably feels like he is always fighting for his job. Bayless is a physical freak. That block last night was amazing, a 6’3" guy with his head up to the rim. Can you imagine how dominant he would be with his strength and hops combined with Batum’s length?: Anyway, Blake looked like a guy who was thinking “I can’t hold this kid off much longer.”
by upper left corner on Dec 16, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure which side of the fence I come down on
as to what should be done. I suppose your statement, that who is coming back matters more, is accurate (assuming we are right about Bayless, which isn’t certain).
I’m pretty sure I know what KP and Nate want to do. They want to keep Blake. I don’t know that they want to trade Andre, either, not yet anyway, but they’d like Blake to be around, even if as a third PG/injury cover, for the championship run. That doesn’t mean he will be around, they’ll do what they need to do. But I think it is more likely than not that he’ll be here one way or another.
#52
I think the need for a 4-5 is screamingly obvious.
Both for the short term and probably for the long term. An injury to GO, Pryz, or LMA, and our team is just flat out exposed.
Perhaps the team can limp along until Pendergraph comes back, although I have no idea if he will be any more effective than Howard and Cunningham. Or perhaps, we can bring Freeland or Claver over for next year, but again who knows if either is ready to contribute. From where I am sitting, based on what I know, I think we need to go shopping before the deadline and probably sooner.
I think Nate and KP like Steve, but at some point they know that he has to play better. It is a business after all, and their own jobs and reputations are ultimately on the line. I read giving the last roster spot to Mills as a sign that they are less settled on Steve being resigned. It may have been entirely up to PA, but I doubt he would be that hellbent on signing Mills if he thought he was never going to be given a chance. Portland has been abused by uber-fast PGs for the past several seasons. Bayless is fast, but he is a good sized guy, and even he has trouble staying up with the water bugs. I think they are keeping Mills because they want to have a change of pace guy on the bench.
In any case, if they are seriously considering not bringing Steve back, that would be a significant reason to shop his expiring contract rather than Miller’s.
by upper left corner on Dec 16, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
Getting a 4-5 for Blake might be hard, though
I don’t know about the urgency this year. This summer, we have an MLE. If we don’t use it to bring Freeland over (I expect we will), we’ll use it on the open market to grab someone.
The main reason Freeland said he didn’t want to come over this year was because he wanted a role. Oden’s injury will serve as a reminder to him that the lack of a major role at the start of the season doesn’t prove anything — players get hurt.
Also, there is the other Joel. His contract has one more year. Freeland needs to come over for a year to show that he can play at a high level, or we’ll automatically re-sign Przybilla, and he’ll not get a chance for at least three more years.
#52
the thought
of losing Outlaw makes me cringe. This team needs Outlaw BADLY
I think that is an open question.
We need Trout because our offense is often extremely stagnant and Trout can manufacture shots. But Trout is not efficient offensively and he is a very inconsistent defender and a lousy rebounder.
If we had a more dynamic offensive scheme, we might not miss Trout as much, and might have the option of filling his spot with a much better defender and rebounder.
by upper left corner on Dec 15, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Miller should stay Blake should go
Miller is a crafty veteran who is smart enough to get points either at the free throw line, post up move that he has or to pass it to others for an easy shot. The only reason he hasnt done a better job in Portland is his lack of starting, lack of time on the court and Nate’s no confidence in him. I think the last plays a bigger role then the other two. I think that if we could trade Miller for a great starting point guard that would be one thing. However another outside shooter we dont need. We have enough of those. Almost the whole team is an outside shooting team. The only reason Oden got the ball and showed any confidence in his play this year was because of Andre Miller. If not for Miller we see another Oden of last year.
The coach is afraid to making waves right now and its hurting the team. Miller’s output has been very good this year compared to Blakes and more important it has been steady. If we had another Miller style player all of these close games we keep on losing we win. I think if we go and trade Miller then we take another step back from this team getting any better. Miller is a smart point guard. He is one of the few Blazers playing that I can see what he is trying to do. The others including Blake look lost and confused half the time on the court.
It's not about Miller vs Blake.
This is about trading Miller because we can get something we need for him, and we can’t do that with Blake. Neither Miller or Blake is going to be here when we finally have a contending team, especially now with this lost season. So I could care less about the Miller vs Blake debate. It is a short-term distraction that has nothing to do with our future. Everyone just needs to get over it, and focus on building the team we need to contend in the future. We have a short term opportunity to still salvage something good for that $7M in cap space we had to spend on Miller last summer (or lose it). That opportunity will be gone by this summer.
I never said anything about adding another outside shooter. I said a reliable scoring SF that people will have to defend (and can defend himself).
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 13, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions
Disagree. It depends on the trading partner.
Blake and Miller have different values for different types of teams…
If a championship level team needs a point guard, then of course Miller has a higher value. And you might indeed be able to get a reasonable return, but I would argue the short and long-term need (echoed by Nate and KP) is to get another banger. An experienced vet at the 4-5, hopefully with more game than Howard. But then you lose everything Miller can add to this team: penetrating guard, able to feed the post, create some movement in our stagnant offense).
If you’re talking about a non-contending team that wants to play in the FA 2010 sweepstakes, then Blake clearly has more value to them than Miller. Miller you’d pretty much have to keep at 7 Mil, whereas Blake is playing at a level that clearly will make him expendable to any club in the NBA, (except Portland, who continues to overvalue him tremendously). In fact, I believe we could package Blake and Outlaw’s expiring contracts, and in return gt a $9M / year player (a backup 4/5 would definitely be achievable for that amount). (Blake $4M, Trout 3.6M, cap space of 1.4M, gives us 9M.)
If we trade Blake, then we improve our ball movement by starting Dre, and we get Bayless some burn to figure out if he is the long-term answer or not.
And a critical point I haven’t seen discussed here anywhere: if we trade Blake and Outlaw EC’s to a team that just wants to dump their salary to make space for LeBron, e.g…. then they will be free agents, and KP could resign one or both of them at MLE or lower next summer!
I'm with you
It entirely depends on the trading partner and on what other assets you package with Blake.
by upper left corner on Dec 15, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
who wants Miller?
Like you said “some team should need him by Feb to fix their immediate PG woes.” I’d add that it should be a championship contender this season. That leaves us pretty much only one possibility – Orlando Magic. However I can’t find any player in that roster that could help us in the long term.
A trade could involve a 3rd team.
Blazers – send Miller to Team 2, receives SF from Team 3
Team 2 – sends Player_X to team 3, receives Miller from Blazers
Team 3 – sends SF to Blazers, receives Player_X from Team 2
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 14, 2009 11:59 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, Miller's contract is worth more $ than Blake's. And he is not the "future" per se.
However, if he stays here and STARTS, he could very well teach the future. He would be a great mentor for Bayless. Great. He has skills Bayless needs to develop. Under Miller, Bayless could become phenomenal. He is already fearless, high energy..needs work with learning not to foul (Miller is EXCELLENT at drawing fouls) and with passing…hmmm..I THINK Miller is fairly good at this. Also I think Miller understands the pick and roll and plays fluidly. Both Bayless and Cunningham will continue to be able to use what they’ve learned from past coaching…
Miller would also continue to Make LAs game grow…BRoy will eventually see that he can make easy baskets with Miller’s style of play and may thus have more ENERGY to run…And I believe Greg Oden benifitted from his limited playing time with Andre.
Also..and this is fairly important. Miller has only played NBA basketball since he was 23 or so…so even though he is 33, his body has not seem the same abuse and is not the SAME 33 as a player who joined the NBA when 18.
Am just reading another comment that was posted after I started writing this…I agree. Miller should stay and Blake should go. He is a competent back up PG. Andre is a STARTER.
McMillan ….man I wish coaches could be traded. And I use the term “coach” here loosely.
Miller's teaching value is not worth the $7M in salary space he represents.
Get some new coaches for that (there’s no cap limit on coaches salaries). We need to get a starter on our future contending team for that $7M in salary space that Miller occupies.
Miller should stay and Blake should go. He is a competent back up PG. Andre is a STARTER.
Neither will be a starter on a Blazer team that can contend for a championship. Blake doesn’t have the talent and Miller will be too old. So this entire Miller vs Blake debate is now irrelevant (probably always was). We can spend time worrying now about who starts on this year’s lottery team, or we can use Miller’s short term value to get another starter for our contending team of the future.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 13, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Disagree..
We have a third year option on Dre. So I hope he WILL be here for our first championship, in 2011 or 2012…
Chances are high
he’ll be slowing down. We don’t know, of course, but that’s why the third year was an option.
#52
They have been saying that for the past 4 years.
For some reason Miller hasn’t slowed down really. He’s had his best years after thirty. Maybe it has something to do with him never jumping.
by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
I'm sure I saw his feet leave the floor a couple times going for a rebound
He has to slow down sometime, and by 35, you expect it any time.
#52
I am all for dropping Miller
…and it isn’t just for the cap space.
I think he is just too elderly to learn a new role and needs to play on a team more immediately ready to utilize everything he could bring to the table.
Bayless is instant offense. I love him. But he is nothing like the point guard Nate envisions for this team.
Bayless is an attack first, pass later type of PG and that is just something that seems foreign and alien to Nate’s playbook. I worry that he is going to be our Damon Stoudemire 2.0. Damon was a whirlwind of points and a rookie sensation for the Raptors but when we brought him here and tried to make him a “true” PG, his game suffered mightily for years. I fear that this is Bayless future with us.
I want him badly to stay, but I want him AS IS. This means actually integrating him not just letting him dribble across the time line and pass to LTrian for the mid range jumper.
Blake. Blake, Blake, Blake.
I have tried to be Blakes champion through his early season shooting woes but I am now worrying that these woes are becoming habits. I think at bare minimum he would benefit from a demotion to back-up. Maybe it would light a fire under his butt.
Start Bayless.
we can still win........
I don't even know where to begin to fix this team. We are an absolute mess.
I would not want to be KP right now.
Oden fan for life
Blake is not cheap
$4 million a year. He isn’t worth it.
#52. Get well soon.
by Eat Politicians on Dec 13, 2009 10:54 PM PST reply actions
Nice post
Rec for good thoughts well developed.
In general, I agree with the strategic outline, and many of your points.
Minor quibbles:
1. Sounds like you are in effect giving up on Webster. It might be too early for that, he’s still shaking off the rust, but by the trade deadline, we’ll know more.
2. I do not think Miller’s trade value declines this summer. Right now, he’s a player who could help a contender. This summer, he still will be — but he’ll also be an expiring contract, which adds value. So he may have just as much value this summer — an expiring contract who will still almost certainly be good enough to help a team quite a bit. You don’t pass up a good deal thinking he’s going to increase in value, but I don’t see a rush to deal him, either.
3. You don’t use the MLE to bring over Claver, he’ll be on rookie scale if he comes over.
Larger question I have:
1. Is a starting SF really what we’re looking for? Would that not stunt Nic’s growth?
#52
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
1. As much as I like Webster’s new team-first attitude I don’t think we can afford to develop so many young players at once (especially both Webster and Batum at the same position amongst so many others). I think we need another key veteran player in the starting lineup that can defend and score reliably without dominating the ball. I think that player is optimally a small forward. So for me it comes down to choosing to keep Batum or Webster to develop for the future. It’s more a case of choosing Batum than giving up on Martell.
2. I do think Miller’s trade value declines significantly this summer. His value is highest when someone needs him the most. That time is during the season when a contender is short an experienced, starting quality PG, and feels a need to do something about it quickly. During the summer teams look for longer term solutions, there are free agents available as contracts end, and the draft makes other veterans available for trade. So there is a much larger supply of quality players available at the end of the season, plus Miller will be considered a year older (for next season) than he is now (to finish this season). He may or may not be tainted by the Blazer situation. We tend to think our coaching staff is entirely at fault, but I’d guess that not every GM and coach in the league thinks Nate is an idiot or can’t communicate with his players. There is at least some previous evidence to the contrary and unless the Miller/Nate dynamic turns around dramatically there could be some doubt about his willingness to fit in with other teams under less than ideal circumstances.
3. You are right of course about Claver. I was trying to cover all the potential PF/C possibilities and shouldn’t have lumped him into the MLE options. I’ll fix the original posting.
Larger question :
1) I think the #1 priority now is to assemble a contending team. We need to improve at starting SF, starting PG (assuming Miller will be too old by the time we are ready to start contending in 2011/12, and backup PF/C. I think a Miller+Webster trade for a SF makes the most sense because it would be more difficult to give up a starting PG and get a starting PG in return. We will have other resources (probably most likely a lottery draft pick + Rudy [ouch] + filler to balance salaries) to get a quality PG this summer. We have other means (the MLE for Freeland or FA) to fill the backup PF/C position.
So I say we go after a high quality starting SF now. I am extremely high on Batum’s potential (maybe too high) but he is very young and isn’t ready for that position yet. I don’t see Batum as our starting forward (and playing 28 or more minutes) for a couple of years (Batum started last year but only played 18 minutes a game and was very inconsistent offensively) and was completely over his head in the playoffs (only played 10 minutes a game). I think he would develop just fine for another year or two playing 20 minutes or so a game off the bench. He may even get more than that given Nate’s love for going small (assuming Nate is still around). Plus we all know how injuries can dramatically increase those minutes.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 14, 2009 4:16 AM PST up reply actions
Who would want Andre right now
and has anyone we would want?
#52
The 76'ers would love Miller right now.
:)
by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 7:46 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
and I’d gladly take Iggy for him. Think they’d go for that?
#52
I would throw in anyone besides Roy.
Anyone. Even you.
by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
You wouldn't have to worry much
about salary matching.
#52
I agree with Jscot about point 2. If anything, Miller's value goes UP after this year.
He is effectively an expiring contract at that point with team option on ‘11-’12. Basically, a team can test drive him for a year and see if they want to keep him for another year. Even in worst case scenario, he is an EC! Have you not seen some of the trades that teams have made last several years just using EC?
Unless there is a piece out there makes us significantly better (like someone that replaces LA as our #2 player), I’d rather move our expiring contracts than move Dre. We can still trade him next year (and for likely higher value) if things don’t work out.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
I agree that sometimes expiring contracts are good trade bait, but not always.
We had the mother-of-all-expiring contacts (RLEC) to trade last year and couldn’t find a good deal for it.
If a team that needs Miller to finish out this year trades for him they also benefit next year from his “EC” status in 2010/11, so that EC also increases his value even now. Maybe the EC status attracts more interested teams this summer but when I’m selling something rare and expensive I would usually rather have one or two “very needy” buyers than more “interested” buyers. But you really can’t predict this with any certainty. The circumstances of the specific buyers will ultimately determine whether you can get more for him before Feb or this summer.
It’s rather a moot point anyway. The point of my original post is that KP should get aggressive now to find a good deal for Miller that returns a player that will help us be a contending team in the future, and if he finds one then pull the trigger and don’t be afraid to throw Webster in if it’s necessary to complete the deal. He shouldn’t worry a hoot about what that would/could do to this year’s finish. On the other hand, if he can’t find such a deal by Feb, then he has to wait until summer anyway. (Remember I said #1, don’t make any deals now for a short term only gain.) So in that sense, it doesn’t really matter if Miller’s value goes up or down over this year.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 14, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
If it makes us better and fills a need, I have no problem dealing Dre, either.
Still, I find the whole point about we couldn’t find a good deal for RLEC dubious. I think lot of Blazer fans bought this line from KP hook, line, and sinker. While this organization told us things like “Oh, we couldn’t trade from G. Wallace or R. Jefferson because they wanted Batum/Rudy along with RLEC”, all the other media/inside sources said that they could have been had with RLEC straight up. I don’t know about you, but when two sides tell a different story, I tend to go with the story where the source had nothing/least to gain from not being truthful.
Now, ask yourself this: which side has the most to gain from not telling the truth about what happened with RLEC? Is it KP/Blazers management for letting an important asset go to waste or all other media/team sources whom, at best, has a nice sidebar of a story? As for me, it’s really hard to give credence to Blazers’ story when they have the motivation to be deceptive, especially when we see the Bucks trade away Jefferson for nothing but expiring contracts 6 months later.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
I don't know if KP was offered a "good deal" or not for the RLEC.
Instead of saying we “couldn’t find a good deal for it”, I actually meant “we couldn’t find a deal that KP thought was good for it”. Any deal (the RLEC, a Miller trade, or whatever) only gets done if KP believes it is a “good deal”. He eventually got Miller because of the cap space remaining by not trading the RLEC.
As fans we can offer our opinions about whether a deal was good or not after it is done, but we rarely (if ever) know the real details about rumored trades that may have been possible but weren’t done. I don’t have any opinion about whether we really could have got G. Wallace or R. Jefferson for the RLEC straight-up. We didn’t. That’s all I know for sure. It doesn’t matter how many people repeat a rumor. We never know the information validity or motivation of their sources. A false story never becomes true by repeating it more often – but it can become a legend.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 14, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
Fixed it for you
We had the mother-of-all-expiring contacts (RLEC) to trade last year and couldn’t find a perfect, spotless, slap-happy deal for it.
The next two months are critical. Right now Portland has 4 guards so a G-F trade is extremely unlikely. Perhaps when Mills is healthy but more likely not until Rudy is back will KP pull the trigger and deal away one of his veteran PGs. In the meantime, will there be a playoff team who loses their starting PG to injury and has a desperate need for an experienced replacement? That’s what Blazer fans should be “rooting” for…we’ve had enough bad karma to go around, it’s time for some other NBA team to get snakebit
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I don't think that's an issue.
Even if we traded Miller or Blake we still have 3 guards that can handle the ball well (Roy, Bayless and Blake/Miller). That’s a good 3-guard rotation and if trade Miller + Webster we will have a roster spot to either take back a filler PG or pick up a PG on a couple 10-day contracts for an emergency until Rudy is back. If we don’t trade Webster then he could play a few emergency minutes at the backup 2 if necessary. Plus I think Mills will be ready to play emergency minutes within 2 weeks, although we could probably pick up a better veteran on a 10-day contract.
And if all that isn’t enough, the next two months aren’t critical to me. I’m worried about the next 2 years after this one, not trying to slip into the 8th playoff spot to get demolished by the Lakers in the first round this year. If we can get a good deal anytime before February, then just do it.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 15, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
do you drive long distances without a spare tire?
I doubt that KP will, especially after all of this season’s “blowouts”
Patty Mills as a 4th guard barely qualifies as a “donut” (the lug holes probably don’t even match the wheels…)
No G-F trades until Rudy is back healthy. Unless KP gets blown away with a slap-happy deal that he can’t “wait” on…like a contending team who’s coach/GM is suddenly in desperate need of a starting PG?
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I don't think that we are going to need to
trade up in the draft to get a PG. Mainly cause there isn’t one good enough this year. Sure its a little early in the College season to predict accurately about who will go in the Lottery but as of now there will only be John Wall going as a PG. And he’s more a SG like Wade! Personally I like Kemba Walker from UConn. He’s quick and strong, very good defensively and can shoot the 3 quite well. He’s not certain to declare this summer so we can’t expect him to be available to draft.
For SF we could trade for Posey or Peja, Jared Dudley, Al Thornton and the like. Not a very good bunch is it? The are clearly role players that can do 1 or 2 things well but they aren’t good starters anymore. Miller and Webster will not get us Gerald Wallace or Tayshaun Prince!
What we can do in the draft is get a backup PF/C. We could trade up for Cole Aldrich or just stay put and pick up Greg Monroe, Ed Davis or Gani Lawal.
To solve our PG dilema, we need to see Bayless play PG this season and not SG with Miller/ Blake at PG. Blake should not be resigned at all. My proposal is to trade both Blake and Miller before the start of 2010/2011 season.
Thanks for commenting.
If KP goes into draft day with a lottery pick and a willingness to trade another of our assets (particularly Rudy) I think he can convert that into either a veteran starting PG or a higher lottery pick PG if someone promising becomes available. A key to my proposed plan is to make plenty of minutes available for Bayless the remainder of this year. By draft day we should have decided to keep him or include him in potential trades.
There is really no telling which SF’s could become available by the trade deadline without the kind of inside player and financial information that only KP or other GMs can know. That’s why I don’t speculate on trades, only strategy. It’s very possible a 3-team deal would be necessary, with Miller going to contender and a SF coming back to us from another team. i.e. a team wanting Miller may not want to part with a SF that we would want, but may be willing to trade something of value to another team with the SF we want.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 14, 2009 4:56 AM PST up reply actions
without Greg*
Expecting Greg to come back and be the same player he could’ve been is naive
Blazer Fan
Great post.
This is generally very well thought out. Here are two key follow-up questions. 1) Who’s on the list of potential SFs that would fit our needs and could be acquired for Miller? 2) Who’s on the list of potential PGs that could be realistically available and would fit our system? Those lists need to be ironed out before speculation about whether Miller or Blake would be more likely to net one of those players we need.
I don’t think there are any easy answers to these questions. At SF, Butler and Wallace and commonly discussed as potential options. Personally, I don’t see how Butler is an upgrade for us. He’s basically a jump-shooter (without much range!) who doesn’t create particularly well or play much D. That’s not what we need. Wallace is certainly interesting. He does things none of our 3’s really do. He attacks the hoop with reckless abandon and gets a lot of FTs. He gets a lot of blocks and steals. And he rebounds REALLY well. But he can’t shoot the 3, nor is he a creator, two things we would like in a starting 3. I would love to have a 3 now, but honestly, our best bet might be to wait on Batum.
At PG, I could see Parker being available if Tim goes down with a serious injury. But I’m not sure he would fit with Roy any better than Miller has. People often talk about Devin Harris, but again, it’s not clear he fits with Roy.
I think it will be VERY difficult for KP to pick up any clear solutions at either position. I sure hope I’m wrong =)
if we trade rudy....
the spanish connection will be all but gone, with only trace remnants of our shipotle flavor left in roy’s aggravating yelps as he gets ‘fouled’ and outlaw’s impossible to understand mumbo-jumbo gibberish in interviews where we all nervously laugh, assuming he’s being modest and funny.
see: my account name
by rudy fernandez forever on Dec 14, 2009 11:39 PM PST reply actions
Claver, but that could be more difficult on the rookie scale and I don’t know if he would be a solution at PF/C (is he more of a SF/PF?).
Victor has been compared to Mike Dunleavy Jr. Claver could “grow into” a PF’s body, but currently he’s closer to a Travis Outlaw in regards to physique (but not athleticism, and hopefully not BBIQ…)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yeah, that's what I understood too.
I’ve only seen him play a little over the internet so I don’t know much about him from first hand observations. I didn’t think he would really want to come over on a rookie contract anyway. Most likely he would want to wait out his 3 years and then sign for the MLE (or some portion of it).
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Dec 15, 2009 10:52 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blazer's Edge
Related FanShots on Blazer's Edge
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
