McMillan and Miller: What Happened and What's Next?
by Ben Golliver on Jan 7, 2010 10:18 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintThe earlier post regarding a verbal confrontation between Nate McMillan and Andre Miller at the end of this morning's practice was getting a bit unwieldy. First, the latest updates. Then, my thoughts below.
Jason Quick of The Oregonian checks in with Miller's side.
On Thursday, the normally quiet and introverted Miller erupted. Shortly after leaving the team's practice facility, Miller sent a text message to his agent, Andy Miller, the agent said.
When reached by phone, Andy Miller said he had yet to speak with Andre, but when he heard an account of the day's events, Miller didn't sound that surprised.
Click through above for Andre Miller's agent's statements.
Brian T. Smith of The Columbian with his column-length take on this morning's action.
Thursday, the broken communication between McMillan and Miller was loud enough for the whole world to hear. And as the coach and player drifted farther apart, it was clear that the only thing uniting them was their division.
John Canzano of The Oregonian blames Kevin Pritchard...
Miller doesn't fit with Portland. He'll never fit. You know it. I know it. The Blazers players know it. And even though Miller's been successful on the court in spurts, and played lots of minutes, all along this Miller-Blazers marriage was headed toward a blow-up encounter that was fueled by mutual frustration.
...
What's true is that general manager Kevin Pritchard, who made so many good decisions before the strange signing of Miller, caused this crisis and must now fix it.
There are plenty of angles to this story that provide cause for concern but none that should necessarily inspire panic. For perspective, let's state the important obviouses. Fights happen among professional athletes and coaches from time to time. Usually the media is not privy to them until after the fact. Fights can serve either to unite a team in the wake of open lines of communication or to drive a team apart in the wake of hurtful comments or perceived slights. One could fairly argue that this specific situation could still go either way. We won't know until we see how the team, and Miller in particular, respond to the challenge over the next week or two.
Here are some major issues that could potentially linger as we go forward.
First, a lack of communication between McMillan and some of his players has been an underlying problem for months, if not years. Multiple players on this team have complained about a lack of clarity as to their roles and similar complaints were raised last season, particularly among role players. At the same time, though, McMillan's rotations have been fairly clear all along to the media. So either McMillan is more effectively communicating with the media than with his players, or his players are disagreeing with or refusing to hear his message. Kevin Pritchard seemed to indirectly acknowledge this tension when he spoke about seeking "calm waters" earlier this season. Even if this morning's argument hadn't taken place, a lack of clarity regarding roles caused by a breakdown in communication between coach and players will continue to impact on-court performance if not addressed.
Second, Miller's timing and method in raising the issues has to be frustrating for both his coaches and management, regardless of their comments this morning. Considering all of the circumstances, the confrontation is downright galling. Really, it's difficult to call what went down this morning a true practice. Miller, Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Steve Blake all did not practice due to injury. Shavlik Randolph was waived. Only seven players wound up participating in 3 on 3 and assorted other drills. The most anticipated game of the year is set for tomorrow night. The team had been given a full day off on Wednesday to rest and collect its thoughts after arguably the most frustrating, disappointing loss of the year. It's fair to call the team's situation, even prior to the outburst this morning, as close to a crisis as this level-headed group gets.
Miller plays the single leadership position on a basketball team, is a veteran and claims to be a professional. His fundamental grievances involve increasing his playing time and receiving respect. Surely going head-to-head, yell-to-yell with his coach, in front of a group of mostly younger players, including multiple rookies, is not the message a team needs from a player in his position, no matter how legitimately frustrated. Miller must find a different, better way to communicate his frustrations and he has to find a different, better time to do that. Period. Even if he was 100% correct on every issue he raised this morning, he was dead wrong.
Third, we've been down this road before and more recently than you might think. While all sorts of comparisons are being drawn to previous practice confrontations between Blazers coaches and players, this situation could not be more similar to the one facing Sergio Rodriguez last year. A fundamental rift in offensive philosophy and a distance and difference in personalities combined with the aforementioned lack of communication to create a very real potential for damaging discord that could carry on indefinitely if not resolved. We saw how the last one ended and it wasn't very pretty or productive.
Rodriguez was, like Miller is currently, difficult to trade because he struggled to bring back fair value in return. Pritchard waited and waited and hoped. And eventually he literally paid for Rodriguez to move along to Sacramento. That's doing it wrong.
Moving Miller, especially considering his advancing age and the money owed to him next year, will be a similarly difficult challenge. Indeed, one could argue that even a healthy, happy Andre Miller at $7 million dollars is a below-average value on today's market.
Could the Blazers just admit that last summer was a complete mistake and undo the signing by swapping Miller for an expiring contract? Given their cap situation next season, an expiring contract wouldn't do much good except save the money owed to Miller in 2010-2011. That's something but not very much. You would essentially be dealing him just so you didn't have to deal with him. That's a last resort.
And, really, are the Blazers better off without Miller than with him? I don't believe so. And, from his behavior and attitude today, I don't believe that Pritchard believes so either. Miller has made valuable contributions this season, although not as valuably and not as frequently as everyone expected. But even with a healthy Rudy Fernandez and Nicolas Batum -- as the Blazers expect to have in as soon as three weeks, still prior to the trade deadline -- this team remains better with Miller if only because he has been healthy all season (until today, coincidentally).
When McMillan spoke about himself as a player earlier this fall, the picture he painted was of the model teammate, a player willing to change positions and sacrifice his own minutes and touches for the betterment of his group. As he well knows, not every player approaches the NBA the same way. McMillan did the right things without needing to be told to do them. Since the summer, there's a fair body of evidence that suggests Miller does not comport himself in this same manner.
The onus, therefore, falls on McMillan to do everything in his considerable power to avoid a Rodriguez rerun. To admit that his personality management style has not been as successful as his on-court strategy and that this time it's happening to a potentially key player -- one who is quite difficult to jettison -- rather than a role player who will be quickly forgotten. Adjusting that management style does not necessarily mean altering his gameplans or rotations. But it does mean being more proactive in addressing questions of roles, team needs and, let's face it, egos. The "My Door is Open" philosophy needs to shift to, in certain situations, "Hey, man, how's it going? Got a minute?"
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
just what we needed
777777777777----7777777---777777--77777---------77777--77777777777777------
77777777777-----77777777--777777---77777-------77777--77777777777777-------
-------- 77777----77777-777 777-7777--77777------77777--77777-------77777-------
--------77777-----77777--77777--7777---77777----77777--7777777777777----------
-------77777-----77777---7777--77777----77777--77777---77777----------------------
------77777------77777---7777---77777-----777777777----77777-----------------------
#52
#5
#88
#25
nice analysis Ben
Your conclusion is the same as mine. No matter where you fall on the issue of who is right, wrong, respected or dissed, Andre is here. It is time for him to do his talking on the court.
RoadBlazer
He really sucked the last two games
Like really, really sucked…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
I blame Tom
"Oden is a man among cub scouts."
by Tyrusmancrush on Nov 23, 2009 9:08 PM PST
by Sabonis4Ever on Jan 7, 2010 10:32 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Good point
and you’ve laid out your argument magnificently.
#5 #10 #52 #88
He beats out most of the other people ...
… around here who like to point fingers and assign blame. It’s as if BE was infested with a bunch of Canzano clones.
Or should that be clowns?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Well, I disagree with one point
Indeed, one could argue that even a healthy, happy Andre Miller at $7 million dollars is a below-average value on today’s market.
Miller made $10 million last year and wasn’t considered a bad contract, as I recall. Assuming a healthy, happy Miller can still play roughly as well now as he did last year, $7 million for only 2 years is a fair deal.
The problem is, the only teams aside from us with the capacity to give him a $7 million per deal each had their own issues. Minny had Flynn and Rubio in the pipeline, OKC had Westbrook, Toronto had Calderon, Memphis had a cheap owner, NY refused to commit any cap space beyond the summer, Philly had the cap crushing Brand, Dalembert, Iggy contract trifecta, Detroit loved Gordon. Beyond that, who knows how the other 22 teams in the league valued Miller, especially since they probably couldn’t even convince Philly to S&T because the Sixers couldn’t take back salary.
Now, who knows whether Miller’s on a fair deal or not?
#52
In a market economy ...
… value is determined by what someone is willing to pay for something.
If a gas station owner puts the price of a gallon of gas at $3.25 because last year it sold for $4.25 and the customer is still getting the same level of performance from that gallon, he’s likely going to find his business drop off when the going price of gas is $2.75.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
And in NBA economics 101
you learn that distortions in the market can lead to irrational pricing. Calling NBA FA a free market is a joke. You have 30 consumers of free agents and almost all of them have sever restrictions on what they’re able to offer players in any given offseason. Maybe Miami or Cleveland liked Andre so much that they were willing to give him $9 million a year, but because of salary cap rules, they were unable to. As I said, Philly couldn’t take on salary, so these players were completely shut out of the market, but now that we’ve already signed him and are on the hook for salary anyways, it’s feasible for the other 22 teams that I didn’t mention to now look at acquiring him. Even if they deemed it a fair price, they were shut out of the market.
Not to mention that there’s pricing uncertainty. With your gas station example, gas is a commodity. Gas I buy from one station will be identical to gas I buy from another station, and there are lots of gas stations, so I know can check out like 8 different gas stations and see what they’re charging if I don’t know what I should pay for gas. There aren’t 8 different Andre Millers out there, to compare contracts on, and even if we look at different players, it’s wildly divergent. Does a good PG deserve a Devin Harris-level deal (~$9 million/year) or a Baron Davis-level deal (~$13 million/year), or maybe they deserve a Mont Ellis level deal (~$11 million/year). I’d say each of those guys could be considered within roughly the same cohort as Andre Miller, and they’re all priced very differently. Not to mention that teams will value their own guys differently from others, and there are factors like future FA that will affect teams’ financial dealings.
Of course, all of this is moot since the market is so small among NBA teams that irrational individual actions take precedence. If the Warriors hand out a stupid contract (cough Maggette), that doesn’t mean the other 29 teams consider it a fair deal. They may have valued him at that price, but if they’re the only team willing to pay him that, it wouldn’t be considered a good deal. The NBA is littered with contracts like this (Troy Murphy, Baron Davis, Jerome James, James Posey, Emeka Okafor, Luol Deng, Rip Hamilton), so just because a player agrees on a deal with a team doesn’t mean it should be considered good value for that player.
#52
Good post
1. Due to salary cap considerations, it isn’t a free market, as you’ve pointed out. Teams that could trade for Andre and might want to were unable to sign him for more than MLE (though they could have done a sign and trade, if Philly were willing). Some didn’t even have their MLE available.
2. NBA salaries are a very inefficient market, because there are a limited number of buyers and sellers.
So you are right, in general. However, Ben’s original comment said “on today’s market”. Because “today’s market” includes all those restrictions/inefficiencies, and because there were few if any bidders, a case could certainly be made that the team could have offered even less, or only guaranteed one year with a second year team option. What would Andre have done? He had no where else to go, arguably — so perhaps, given that market, we did overpay.
We would certainly be in a better position right now if next year was a team option. If we are looking to move Andre, his contract would be much more appealing if his new team had the choice to keep him next year or not.
#5 #10 #52 #88
I'll just note that I never said "free" market.
The NBA FA market is still a market economy.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
You're right, in that really, who knows?
The difference being, now the consumer base has been expanded from 6 teams to 22 teams. A greater consumer base will tend to drive up the price of goods as the likelihood that a consumer is willing to pay more for a good.
#52
Only if the quantity of goods was fixed in the first place.
As demand goes up, the pressure to find or produce more goods increases. If they can’t, then prices rise. If they do, depending on how much they do, prices can remain steady, increase, although at a slower rate, or decrease.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Obviously there are other factors
But all things considered, there’s only one Andre Miller, and as you increase the number of potential consumers of his basketball talent, you increase the potential demand and the price will theoretically go up. It’s not like teams can suddenly start producing more proven NBA point guards to keep the price down.
#52
Actually
teams do keep producing proven NBA point guards. Except Portland, of course.
Denver and New Orleans appear on their way to having two of them, Memphis appears to be producing one in Conley, etc, etc, etc.
#5 #10 #52 #88
I think of us more as an exporter
of PGs with Sergio and Jack. We’re like a southeast Asian sweatshop. Maybe the quality isn’t as great, but we produce them cheaply.
#52
Where are you trying to go with this?
The last word maybe?
You have now defined a niche market. Yes, there is only one Andre Miller. Which means that to maximize his value you need to find a team that needs Andre Miller specifically and not just a PG. Rather than increasing the pool of potential customers, you are now shrinking it.
Lets assume that the league were to suddenly add two new teams. Does Miller’s value increase? Possibily, as it is likely at least one of those two would value having a veteran PG of Miller’s caliber and theoretically would have the money to spend. But that isn’t the case, is it?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Of course it's a niche market
I don’t see what’s hard to understand here. Before, 6 teams were the only ones who were able to pay Andre Miller. Because he fills a niche, only 1 or 2 of those teams really had a use for him, as I originally explained about OKC, Toronto, etc.
Now, 29 teams have a chance to acquire Andre Miller. Because he’s still a niche, maybe 20 of those teams have no desire for him, but you’re still increasing the pool of potential consumers to 10. Those numbers obviously aren’t exact, but that’s the principle here.
#52
Ok, I'm clearer on the point you are trying to make.
I would note that of those 10 teams, many could still be operating under salary restrictions that are not directly tied to the CBA.
Miami sounds like it would fit in your 10 team scenerio. But for it to do so would mean something has changed since this summer regarding their plan cap wise for 2010. They could use a PG. Miller’s deal at $7 million a year, with only next year guaranteed, is very reasonable in relation to what Miller brings. But if $7 million may also be too high a number to fit within Miami’s plan. In that case it doesn’t matter how good a value his deal is.
I’m not arguiing that Miller’s contract is a poor one. I’m only saying that when it comes to finding a trade partner, it is only as good as it is at matching up with what someone is willing to pay.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
I don't see the point of saying ...
… Miami or Cleveland may have been willing to pay Andre $9 mil but couldn’t because of salary cap issues. Salary cap restrictions are part of what define the market. How is this any different from saying I really want to buy a case of wine for $200 that I think is good value, but can’t because my wife has me on a $100 a week budget? As far as the wine seller is concerned, I’m not in the market.
(btw – I’ll tell you the difference. The second is true while the first is speculation.)
That Miller’s contract is fair and may even offer good value to others as well as to Portland does not necessarily matter. That case of wine is a very good deal, an excellent wine that at $25 a bottle is a steal compared to similar quality wines that start at $30 or higher. And at $200 for the case price it is even a better deal. I still can’t buy it if it doesn’t fit the budget. To get that case I’d have to convince my wife that she wanted to celibrate her upcoming birthday with a dinner party for a few of our friends. One where she wouldn’t have to do anything to prepare. Then maybe I have a chance of going out of budget for that wine, because we’ll need wine for the dinner.
And as far as NBA teams are concerned, they are still operating under the same budget restrictions as last summer. Unless there is a coach or GM out there that convince management that Miller is worth going out of budget for because he’s the missing piece for a shot at the playoffs or even a title this season, then like that case of wine, Miller stays where he is.
Of course in the NBA there is one other possibility. You can do a trade that is budget neutral. Maybe I should try that. I have a set of custom made office furniture that came out of my wife’s old house. It’s currently taking up space in our garage because we don’t have room for it in the new place (and has me parking out on the street). I think it cost around $5,000 when new. I’m open to trading or selling it so I can buy my wine. Any interested parties?
(Looks like Andre and I are in the same boat.)
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
The difference is
that the NBA has a soft cap. If I can’t afford something, then that factors into my pricing, but that’s not the restriction. NBA teams are operating under. Teams can pay as much as they want in salary to players as long as they satisfy the Draconian restrictions about player acquisitions. Even if any one of those teams wanted to go over budget to acquire him, they couldn’t. It’s not like the Bobcats can go petition the NBA for a salary cap exception to sign Andre Miller like you can ask your wife for more money.
You simply can’t just throw out these convoluted analogies and expect them to mean much in such a uniquely regulated market with as many idiosyncrasies as NBA free agents.
#52
Sure I can.
In fact, just for you I’m going to commit to throwing out as many of them as I can think up.
You can get as specific or detailed as you want in trying to differentiate the NBA from other markets. And end up doing the same thing professional economists do, which is pretty much disagree all the time.
Yes, a team can go over the cap, which was what I was referring to above. (I never said anything about petitioning the league.) Which is not any different from me saying to my wife that I’m going to buy the case of wine, even though it doesn’t fit the budget. (It’s not that we can’t afford it afterall. We just want to say money for other things. My wife really, really wants Dwayne Wade. Thinks he’ll be the handyman around the house that I’m not.)
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
I have to admit I'm confused by your series of posts
Are you arguing that it may be hard for the Blazers to trade Andre Miller because it is possible that no teams want to give us fair value at his salary? I think we can all agree that is a possibility. Or are you taking it a step further by saying that because no teams will give him full value at that salary, that he is not worth that salary?
Royster disagrees with Ben's comment about ...
… Miller’s contract making him “below average value”. If I understood his reasoning correctly, he thinks that Miller’s contract is fair (no argument there from me) and that because it is fair, working a deal for him shouldn’t be a problem.
I think he’s using faulty reasoning by referring to what Andre earned last season. I simply stated that in a market economy, value is ultimately determined by what someone is will to pay for something. The rest of it seems to be Royster trying to disprove that point.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
so basically that we can't trade him for good enough players
I basically agree with this. However, I disagree that if no other team wanted to pay 7 mil for Andre over the summer, he is a bad value at that price for us. There is no way of knowing if we could have procured his services at a lesser rate. It is possible that he did not want to play for us and would have taken a mid-level contract elsewhere had we not gone to 7 million. It is also possible he would have taken a one-year contract elsewhere in hopes of playing himself into more money the following year (when more teams have cap space).
Not exactly that.
I honestly don’t know whether we can or not. It was Ben’s point that he may be below average value in this sense. If I had to opine, I’d lean toward Ben’s point of view.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
They can only go over the cap in specific ways
The only ways you’re allowed to go over the cap is through re-signing your own FA (Bird Rights), or through an MLE (although because of the 125% rule there’s some wiggle room with trades, too). So if a player and a team value that player at over the MLE, they’re shut out from making a deal for him.
The difference is, you can ask your wife to spend more money on wine. NBA teams can’t ask anyone for more money to spend on players.
#52
But how is the end result different?
Those teams that can’t spend on FA’s are not in the market. The reason why a party participates or does not participates in a market is not relevant.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Because we're talking about his value in the larger context
of the NBA as a whole. If 29 GMs value a guy at, say, $40 million over 4 years, but the 30th GM values him at $30 million over 5 years, but he’s the only one with cap space, that player is out of luck, he’s going to sign the $30 million contract, regardless of the consensus. If that guy then becomes available to the other 29 GMs, they won’t hesitate to acquire him if it means paying him that contract because they were willing to pay more originally.
Because the market in any given year is so limited and distorted, what a player receives in that market has almost no bearing on whether it’s “fair value” or not according to the rest of the league, because 80% of the league was shut out of that market.
#52
I think you are trying to compare the NBA market to a free market.
Nowhere have I argued that this is the case.
The market is the market. What matters are the actions of those who are participating in it. If only 1 team has cap space to sign a player at a certain price, then that sets his market value. It doesn’t matter whether 29 or 290 other actors consider the commodity as having an intrinsic value greater than that established by the one party willing to enter the market. Now it could matter at a later date, assuming the situation of those other parties changes. If they now find that they can enter the market, then they could reasonably be expected to want to pay the first party the same amount originally paid for Miller, as they feel it is below his intrinsic value.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
We're talking about how those 29 other actors value said deal
I’m not saying he should get $40 million, but whether other GMs see his deal as a bargain or a ripoff has very little to do with what the consensus valuation of it is in the trade market.
Two completely separate markets, neither one resembling anything close to a set of rational actors with complete information, so the idea that either one will do very well at determining fair value as in the gas station example is a fallacy.
#52
We should take into account that the team (players and coaches) might be a little exhausted right now.
Dave and Ben both wondered about that set against Memphis were LA snagged offensive rebounds and kept throwing back to Roy up top who would hold the ball for most of the clock. Yeah, at that point in the game we needed to score instead of hold the ball. It didnt make any sense until you realize that the team is pretty exhausted right now. Well, i think this explains a little bit the timing for this blow -up. The team is a little low in the tank mentally, physically, and emotionally too, probably.
"Those 'Tank the Season' posts should be flagged after this game" -RecordTOs
I was thinking the same thing
When I heard about this today. I think the healthy guys are tired and while there might be underlying communication and respect issues going down, the free throw thing just sparked something with these guys being tired and Andre’s underlying frustration.
And Ben:
Great analysis of this situation from all angles. Thanks.
Considering this is all just based on what was overheard through a door
How can we continue to speculate on the motives and actions of both sides? Did anyone in the media room hear the context that the argument escalated under?
Too much benefit of the doubt is given to management and the coach by the media (and sadly this site) because of the last couple years. I understand that. From day one, virtually no one in the media gave Miller the benefit of the doubt based on his years of performance.
This double standard, which has helped form the views of many, has to be frustrating to someone like Miller. I’ve got a couple of friends in Philly who wonder what the hell we did to this guy? Can we acknowledge that we jerked him around? Can we acknowledge that management and coaching blamed him for not being a fit by their actions? Can we acknowledge that the coaching at the end of games has been perplexing and one of the reasons why we seem to run out of gas at the end of games?
We’re going to feel foolish when we trade this guy away for pennies. When that happens and Miller flourishes again, maybe we can all be a little more skeptical of coaches and management. Until then, based on speculation of context in a media room away from much of the conversation though, we just get to assume that again, like always, it is Miller only problem.
by thelance on Jan 7, 2010 11:01 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
I'll rec for the lead in line ...
… even though I disagree completely with the premise that McMillan and management have gotten all the benefit of doubt, at least on this site.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
If nothing else
and 2 days later…I would have to think that both Nate and Miller, should be quite embarrassed by the whole incident.
But your right, even after some information has come forward in the last couple days, people are still tossing around opinions based on very loose information…. Many just jump in to use it to bolster how they think it is or how it should play out..
….And most of that has been from quite a broad range of speculation…I mean, at many points during this thread, I thought there were some disguised GM’s in here, looking to take over for KP……
The one thing I hope does come about, is a better and mutual understanding between coach and Miller….I think many will agree, that although Miller has been a tough fit, he still is a player that can contribute to this team….We should also be able to agree, that Miller as the player that he is, should also not bear the full responsibility on this seemingly, bad fit.
I am totally blown away, about how difficult this transition has been. It makes you want to blame someone…and so that’s what people do…..
Ben...Im well aware you do not comment on heresay. But I would like your's and Dave opinion
and Jason Quicks recent reportings and tweets. He seems to be like a Edward Furlong after Terminator 2 getting credit for being the lesser of the show thinking he is a main part of the story. Calming winds need to be brought forth on these recent turbulent winds brewing in the storm called Quick.
Quick
Quick’s fighting for relevance as Brian Smith breaks more stories and gets more interviews, and more and more true Blazers fans come here for better writing and better analysis.
This is spot-on
Both Smith and BE have been light years of Quick this season in their particular roles. I’m guessing the access he’s gotten with the Blazers the past couple seasons has been curtailed quite a bit, and he doesn’t have the journalistic chops to compensate.
I think he's not getting the new guys to open up
As he got Roy and LMA to open up when they were younger. Quick’s gotten the vets in trouble a time or two, and I’m sure they passed that on to the rooks and new guys.
And Quick seems to have some vendetta against Miller, which is sure to get him nothing from Miller.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jan 8, 2010 1:07 AM PST up reply actions
second that
Quick has gotten on my last nerve all season….ever watch him sit next to KP at courtside before the game>?….I have….for all the conversation he and KP have, Brian T Smith seems to step over him in commentary.
He talks about passive agressive Miller….Quick has enough of it going on when on 95.5….he trashes Miller constantly, but then says “But I don’t want to make this conversation about talking bad about Miller”….yarite…
Portland Trail Blazers - where injuries and people come together"
But Quick seems to have the inside ear as far as " Behind the Back Door " pun intended, and his
recent tweets today seemed to express he was speaking of behalf of not only McMillian but the team in a whole as well which I do not believe to be the case.
Ben, I do believe you post is wrong on all fronts.
by Emperor_Doom on Jan 7, 2010 11:12 PM PST reply actions
Either way
Even though we have “Days of Our Lives: Blazers Edition” flying around, I am going to be pissed if Andre is booed.
He’s a Blazer, love him or hate him, who’s last name isn’t Wallace or Wells.
Just use sense please.
well, 'Dre did say his favorite team was the L*kers
I am going to be pissed if Andre is booed.
So if the fans yell “BEAT L*A!!!” tonight he’ll be guilty by association
I’d like to think Miller won’t take it personally, but I think we all know better by now
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Sorry but communication breakdown was in Las Vegas not in Portland
It seems very clear that KP and Nate heard a different Andre Miller than speaks today. It seems very clear to me that Nate has established his system and it is on every player to fit himself into that system. It is not reasonable to expect Nate to become a players coach for Andre and still keep the amazing balance and discipline he does with the young players. It is unreasonable for Nate to change his whole offense to suit a player nearly everyone agrees will not be here more than 2-3 years. A different coach just creates fractures that will not be healed within the team.
Andre has admitted in at least two interviews that he does not go to talk with Nate even though Nate has invited him (and every player) to do so. The team had wonderful chemistry and subtracted Sergio (the lone dissenter last year) and Channing and added Andre and Juwan and three rookies. But the chemistry was lacking this year from the beginning. It does not appear that Juwan has been anything but a terrific positive influence. It does not appear that the rookies are anything but dedicated and committed. That leaves Andre as the lone dissenter and the one out of place.
Whatever was discussed in Las Vegas last summer was not consistent with the results. No blame. Just move on with whatever we can salvage from moving Andre.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
by lee3022 on Jan 7, 2010 11:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
subtracted Sergio (the lone dissenter last year)
Actually, there was a non-publicisized situation where Rudy was unhappy with his 3-point shooter-only role and asked to be traded if he wasn’t going to be made a bigger part of the offense
Portland had a deal in place, but the Blazer’s brain trust voted (narrowly) to keep Fernandez. Shortly thereafter, Rudy began to receive more ball-handling responsibilities
believe it, or don’t
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I remember that report. And Rudy did establish that he could do more than stand in the corner and shoot 3's
But I did not see that coming out from Rudy to the press. The team’s chemistry remained strong (my main point).
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
I think it wasn´t Rudy alone.
I remember Batum talking about “doing a Portland” when he´s left in the corner to shoot the three and nothing more in offense. And Batum was only 18 y.o., maybe a little young to start to complain. This year Bayless has complained about his playing time too. Then Miller.
I recall that as well but those are little jabs not bitter complaints
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
if i recall correctly
that was a sensationalized story from the spanish media that was soon discredited. maybe not though
I believe you are on the mark.
Does anyone here recall that part about Andre being the one to sell himself to the Blazers? How both Pritchard and Nate commented afterward that what impressed them with Andre was that it appeared he had done his homework? According to the reports, Andre appeared very knowledgeable of the Blazer offense.
So what happened? For starters, I don’t assume like so many peoiple here are doing, that McMillan and Pritchard lied or mislead Miller. Rather, I believe that both parties were looking at the same thing, but seeing different visions. Because they were talking about the same thing, it is reasonable that both thought they were looking at it in the same light.
Disagreeing slightly here with Ben’s comments, I don’t believe Andre’s problem is minutes. I think it is something deeper than that. At the risk of doing what I’ve said we shouldn’t (i.e. try to read into something), I have the feeling that Andre came here thinking that good things were going to happen with him at the helm of sleek, powerful ship like the Blazers. Only he’s found that on this ship that captain determines course and speed, not the helmsman.
Maybe it’s because I’m old fashioned or simply a former sailor (who has driven more than one class of vessel), but I believe that when the skipper and the helmsman disagree on how and where to steer the boat, there should only be one outcome, regardless of who is “right”.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
I think you've nailed it here
Disagreeing slightly here with Ben’s comments, I don’t believe Andre’s problem is minutes. I think it is something deeper than that. At the risk of doing what I’ve said we shouldn’t (i.e. try to read into something), I have the feeling that Andre came here thinking that good things were going to happen with him at the helm of sleek, powerful ship like the Blazers. Only he’s found that on this ship that captain determines course and speed, not the helmsman.
I don’t really think it was about money on Andre’s part, and I think Quick is probably off-base on that. It was this. I could be wrong, but this fits everything I read. And that’s why Andre was unhappy when not starting but finishing, and is now unhappy when starting but not finishing. He’s not running the ship.
Again, I could be wrong, but it fits the evidence.
#5 #10 #52 #88
Speaking of running ships ...
… I’m still interested in either the SecNav or Admiral of the Fleet positions when you get around to running things.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Really?
I think you’d been given that position at one point, and resigned or something, earning my undying enmity. I wish I weren’t getting senile, I’d remember what it was.
#5 #10 #52 #88
Nope.
Both Tom and I were angling for it and I seem to recall you told us both you had someone else in mind.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Now I know you're lying
Tom has always been angling for either Court Jester or Harem Manager.
#5 #10 #52 #88
It's interesting that the Oregonian has two "professional" journalist covering the Blazers
and yet, Ben and Dave, the two bloggers, gives the most unbiased coverage. Ah, the irony…
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
Ben and Dave are passionate fans
And they aren’t fighting to keep their jobs in a tough market. I’m not defending Quick, I’ve never liked the guy since he wrote for the Columbian in the mid 90’s. I, in fact, agree with you that Ben and Dave offer the best coverage.
No doubt Miller could have picked a better time, place, and mode of communication
to express his frustrations, but:
1. This situation is not at all similar to that involving Sergio last year. Or did Sergio and Nate get into some knockdown dragout screaming argument in the middle of a practice session that went unreported?
2. Why do people assume that a player who is dissatisfied with his role is consequently more difficult to trade? I suspect that regardless of remarks made for the press or the public, GMs know that basketball players are — except for their remarkable athletic qualities and bank accounts — just like the rest of us. Sure, we’ll subjugate our own career goals to those of the team or company for a while, or until we feel that we’re not in a mutually beneficial situation, but ultimately we’re working for ourselves and our families. I think a GM just wants a guy who has skills and cares enough to be competitive.
2b. Why do people think that openly discussing their dissatisfactions in a work environment causes problems for others? Practically everywhere I’ve worked there have been people who were unhappy with their jobs and not shy about mentioning it. A few times I was one of those people. Big deal. (Random detail: I once worked for a public sector organization where my supervisor bragged about making people cry in meetings, and openly called others by racist and sexist epithets.)
#52
2.
my understanding of it is that if other teams know a player is dissatisfied, wants to be moved and is placing pressure on the management for a trade they are less likely to offer a player of equal value. if a seller is desperate they won’t get as much for what their selling. that’s my thought on it at least.
Sure, but I bet all the GMs know who wants out regardless of any overtly public statements or incidents.
People talk. Other people repeat things.
#52
Ben this is great stuff
And I agree with your take on the go forward scenario. At this point this is on Nate’s shoulders. Irrespective on how we got here, at this point it’s Nate’s job to ensure Andre understands what he wants and what he expects, while at the same time listening to his veteran point guard and guiding andre’s expectation appropriately. This may require some extra communication, but so be it. Nate (like it or not for some of us old school athletes) has to have differing communication styles with each of his players. Nate it’s time for you to step up!
#52
This is kind of dumb at this point
Talking about it is not going to resolve the style problem. There is no happy ending here. There is a reason Nate signed a 1 year deal (and why management let him). When Nate left Seattle it “seemed” like a shocker, but behind the scenes the same issues were present as they are here. He likes “his” players, and he doesn’t have the ability to play other styles. However, if he does have the players that suit him and his system, he can run a playoff team – but not a championship team. Pritchard needs to make the tough call this off-season. Let Nate go. Let Miller go too – aging pre-madonna. This team can get “fast” in a hurry. The players are there – just need the coach.
For the record...
I think the term you were looking for is ‘Prima Donna’. I don’t think that Miller will evolve into a “Material Girl” anytime soon.
Ben and Dave vs Quick and Freeman
As the BIG “O” loses more relevance the more desperate position reporters like Jason Quick and Joel Freeman are put into needing that breaking story. Their bosses see the Agent “Zero” story and want some “Drama” to report on with the Trailblazers. This was heard through a door, which is another example of "create the story at all costs journalism "that has become the staple of the media. Great Job Ben and Dave ! "Video killed the radio star", and bloggers are killing the newspaper sports reports.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." Winston Churchill
Nice reporting and commentary.
However I am not ready to believe that this is any sort of crisis for the Blazers.
I also don’t think any “onus” falls on Nate. While I’ll agree that it might be a good idea for him to consider taking the initiative in his communication with Miller, in the end, it is still Andre’s responsibility to play to his best abilities under any given situation (one of the definitions of being professional) and to fit in as best he can.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Do you not think Andre has played to the best of his abilities?
Do you think he has been dogging it? I don’t think he has but maybe you are seeing something that I am not. Not talking about the off court stuff (which has been non professional in my opinion), but rather on the court.
#52
by blazermaniac32 on Jan 8, 2010 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
Onus on Nate
I disagree with you here.
A leader’s job is to do the best he can to get the best out of his people. If Andre can’t seem to handle the “my door is open if you want to talk” approach, then even if Nate shouldn’t have to, his responsibility is to initiate that conversation with Andre, rather than let it boil over into unprofessional outbursts.
If Nate is the Sarge, Andre as an experienced pro and starting PG is one of the corporals. Nate needs to either court martial the corporal and get another one, or get the corporal on board however he can.
#5 #10 #52 #88
My comment said nothing either way about how Andre ...
.. has been playing. It addresses what he should do going forward.
And no, I don’t think he has been dogging it. He might feel that he’s not doing his best because he’s been shackled. He may even be correct on that score. But I doubt that he’s not going out every night and trying to play his best.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
If there could be a positive to this,
it might be that the last time there was such a notable outbreak of hostility on this team, noted for its harmony, there were shoving matches during practice, Blake threw a chair (I believe more than once), and the Blazers launched into a 13 game winning streak….
One thing is clear Miller has everyones attention now.
He has been putting up good numbers so he can use his play to audition for additional duties with this team or another team. I liked Ben’s take on the situation. Essentially, the team is overachieving and there are minutes for everybody. Why would Miller choose now to melt down in front of the team? He is starting and he is playing big minutes. If he is going to change the coaches call on a play during crunch time it better work or he is going to get an earfull.
I love the relative lack of ego from the current stars of this team. Roy, Aldridge, and Oden are special in terms of talent and mental make up. Miller not so much. I’m in favor of trying to move Miller but it has to be to the Eastern conference because the dude will absolutely torch the Blazers when he plays them. He seems to run on anger.
Miller time
First player/management relations.
Players are contract employees not hourly wage workers. Management and players negotiate salary and years of service. Players can easily be discarded. Happens all the time and feelings of the player or managements feelings of regret are irrelevant. So, Blazer fans, don’t get so pissy at the players because they don’t want to kiss ass. The players know their careers can be over in an instant and the players know that management won’t hesitate to throw them to the curb. That’s why you gotta love Bret Farve. He negotiated like management does and it ticked off the traditionalist in the NFL who don’t want players playing hardball.
It’s hard to understand what McMillan is doing. With all the injuries he’s got the cover to do other things to help his team win games and preserve player health. Yet he works Roy and Aldridge like dogs and then still controls Bayless and the other young players rather than let them play and teach them through the playing time. It’s not like the Blazers are going to get out of the first round if they make the playoffs.
McMillan has got to trust all of his players tand stop putting so much pressure on Roy and Aldridge to win every game.
Agree & disagree
On player management relations, you aren’t quite right. NBA contracts are guaranteed, so players cannot be easily discarded. Look how hard it was to get rid of Darius Miles and Raef LaFraentz. You don’t want to voluntarily be carrying huge amounts of payroll for guys that aren’t contributing to the team. So, yes, management doesn’t want its players sulking and underperforming because they feel disrespected. Furthermore, players see how one player is treated, and are smart enough to know that it could just as easily be them. The only guy here that doesn’t need to worry is Roy.
I completely agree with you on McMillan. On the one hand, I think he is doing some of his best coaching this year, to keep this team competitive despite the fact that they are one more injury away from having to suit up some of the Blazer dancers. On the other hand, this year is exposing some of his weaknesses. He has been forced to be flexible and creative with his lineups, but still tries to control the team too much from the bench.
I say that when you have a guy like Miller on your team, you give him some room to make calls on the floor. They did it once or twice earlier this season, and Miller got the team running, and the ball was moving, and they were having success. Not sure why Nate didn’t stick to that, unless it was ego (which is what I suspect, but don’t know for sure).
I think some of the problems with Miller go back to preseason, when Nate didn’t have a set rotation, so players could focus on learning their roles and adjusting to them. Instead, he took the entire preseason to set that, so that Miller really has had to use the regular season to learn to fit in. Nate and KP and Roy and Miller surely are not stupid people: surely they knew there would be an adjustment. So why didn’t they expend more energy early on trying to figure out how to get their star and their new $21 million point guard to play well together?
When Miller was signed, KP talked about a dinner meeting between Nate, KP and Miller at which Miller apparently had very specific ideas as to how he could make the team and particular players better. KP didn’t provide those specifics, but where are they now? Why didn’t Nate make sure those got brought to the floor? Was Miller wrong? Have other players but unwilling to learn from Miller? Or have a lot of egos gotten in the way?
Kudos to the Blazers for doing really well in the face of tremendous adversity, but personally, I believe that if this team is still trying to find its way by the end of the year, KP needs to take a long, hard look at his coach. Is Nate McMillan a guy who can manage the diverse personalities and egos of an NBA team? Can he learn to trust his best and smartest players to make the right decisions, or does he need to have his thumb on everything from the sideline? Is he a guy that can adapt to all situations during a game? Is he a guy that can take a good team to the next level?
McMillan has
weaknesses. He doesn’t coach big men who can score well. Pryz is easy because Mac doesn’t have to do an offensive adj. for him. But LA and Oden complicate his guard oriented mind set.
But that’s the problem: Mac sees it as either/or rather than both.
Walton used to pass into traffic to cutting players (esp the guards) so that he could turn and face the other center. If the blazers did this LA would be a more effective player. As a coach you just can’t be risk adverse it you’re trying to win and develop players at the same time.
McMillan wants instant success, as most of coaches do, and that may hurt Blazers development sometimes.
For example, I know Pryz has butter hands but the Blazers should find him from time to time, specially when his man is making help defense. Nobody wants to play against a team which center can play help defense freely.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
