# Would you have done the deal KP rejected?



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Outlaw + #13 pick + filler
for 
Miller

Wheels said it was proposed and rejected by KP.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

KP made the right choice; we'd still have a huge logjam at the SF spot doing that deal, and we'd be no closer to being able to deal for a legit PG.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Nope. I don't see how Miller makes enough of a difference.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Nope. Travis + Second rounders? Yes, without a doubt, but I wouldn't include #13.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I am glad KP said no, but I would be interested in Miller. I wonder if there will be a counter offer of Miller for Outlaw and a second rounder. If so, that would be a bit closer.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Good decision by KP, IMHO. Why did the Grizzlies give Gasol away, but want us to overpay for Miller?


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

I would bet that KP let this idea leak to raise value of both 13 and TO.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sure they didn't want Greg included too? I wouldn't want to trade Outlaw for Miller strait up let alone with the pick thrown in. 

STOMP


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Other GM's know KP likes to trade, so they are going to throw out crazy trades to him left and right hoping he'll bite. Glad he said NO!


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I wonder if that was a first proposal or if there was some negotiation. I wouldn't do it but I'd listen to what Memphis had to finally offer before ending talks.

Chris Wallace is an idiot, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to get something more out of them. Two first-rounders with no lottery protection sounds good to me!


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

No I wouldn't even have to think about that offer and glad KP rejected the trade. I like Miller but not enough to give up Outlaw and our 13th pick. I wouldn't trade Outlaw straight across for Miller. I know there will be some posters on here that don't think Outlaw is better then Miller for the Blazers. He is way more important for the Blazers then getting Miller IMO. I would trade Jack or possibly even Martel and the 13th for Miller plus something. If it was Martel I would want something that would help us not just a filler.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> sure they didn't want Greg included too? I wouldn't want to trade Outlaw for Miller strait up let alone with the pick thrown in.
> 
> STOMP


That's cause you are a homer.

Miller > Outlaw


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Darkwebs said:


> Good decision by KP, IMHO. Why didn't the Grizzlies give Gasol away, but want us to overpay for Miller?


Yah, how about we trade then Raef, and tell them to suck it?


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Miller for Outlaw _AND_ the pick? Miller's a good shooter, but that knee thing is a big concern for me, and Travis has all-around game. I think Miller's injury concerns (averaged 69 games per season over last 7 seasons) make him a candidate for a team that wants to contend now, and not for a team that's still growing.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

we will need defense from the SF spot more than scoring. miller isn't the right guy.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

HELL NO!
Plus I am anti-guys wearing those girly headbands because their hair is too long


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> That's cause you are a homer.
> 
> Miller > Outlaw


No way that Miller is better for the Blazers then Miller. Many of the posters on this forum overrate the Blazers in trades but you way under rate them especially Outlaw.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

Good move by Pritchard. Miller aint worth it.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

I don't like including the 13th, but Outlaw + filler and maybe a future 1st or our high 2nd rounders for Miller would be great.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> we will need defense from the SF spot more than scoring. miller isn't the right guy.


Right on, I agree. We won't need a star at small forward, just a guy who can D up the opponent's best perimeter player and has the ability to shoot the 3. Although Ime fits that bill, I don't know if he was good enough to start every game.

If Martell can only get more consistent with his 3 and continue to improve defensively, he'd be great.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Having Oden, LMA and Outlaw in the frontcourt is going to be a very athletic, shot blocking frontcourt.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

I posted this in the other thread, but I guess it belongs here.

I wonder if Memphis is trying to trade down in the draft. 
Outlaw + 13 + Raef's contract + Sergio/Webster/Frye/Jack etc. for Miller, the #5, and Cardinal's contract. Favors the Blazers too much though.
 trade machine link  (just assume that Aldridge, Blake, and Oden represent Raef's contract)


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Miller with Conley, but not just Miller


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

outlaw would score 20 ppg for the grizz and miller would go for maybe 15 here, and we would all be hating it big time.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Would you have done Outlaw+13 for Conley though?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> That's cause you are a homer.
> 
> Miller > Outlaw


we rarely agree on player evaluations... Should I call you a degrading name now?

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> That's cause you are a homer.
> 
> Miller > Outlaw


100% of Miller is a better passer than Outlaw, and a much more consistent shooter. The question then becomes why Memphis wants to make this deal?

It may just be his salary.....but I am too much of a cynic to discount the possibility that the condition of his knee is the real issue.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Maybe their GM wants to make up some ground for that Laker trade.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Oldmangrouch said:


> 100% of Miller is a better passer than Outlaw, and a much more consistent shooter. The question then becomes why Memphis wants to make this deal?
> 
> It may just be his salary.....but I am too much of a cynic to discount the possibility that the condition of his knee is the real issue.


Because they get a younger player and a late lotto pick?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> 100% of Miller is a better passer than Outlaw, and a much more consistent shooter. The question then becomes why Memphis wants to make this deal?
> 
> It may just be his salary.....but I am too much of a cynic to discount the possibility that the condition of his knee is the real issue.


dude is 27, makes a huge salary, and Griz don't look to be contending in the near future. Plus he has both the knee and a history of being dinged... plus he's one of the worst SF defenders I can think of (very lazy). 

You don't have to be a cynic to understand why they'd want to make this deal.

STOMP


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

There's no way Miller is more valuable that Outlaw at this stage. I wouldn't do the deal straight up either. Thankfully KP is our GM.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> That's cause you are a homer.
> 
> Miller > Outlaw


Miller is a better pg than what we have. But does he help the team more than Travis? In the long run shouldn't our PG be able to shoot from long distance? When BROY has the ball what exactly will Miller be doing? That is my concern.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

chairman said:


> Miller is a better pg than what we have. But does he help the team more than Travis? In the long run shouldn't our PG be able to shoot from long distance? When BROY has the ball what exactly will Miller be doing? That is my concern.


Mike Miller isn't a PG, I think you're thinking of Andre Miller. Andre is a 76er, not a Grizz.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Miller's girly-look this season kinda creeped me out.

I prefer Outlaw by a wide margin.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

MARIS61 said:


> Miller's girly-look this season kinda creeped me out.
> 
> I prefer Outlaw by a wide margin.


Looks aside I hate Miller's shaky knees and utter lack of D, not too mention that Outlaw is has ice water in his veins and comes at a much cheaper cost.

In KP I we trust.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Dan said:


> Mike Miller isn't a PG, I think you're thinking of Andre Miller. Andre is a 76er, not a Grizz.




OOOPs. Thanks. I did think we were talking about Andre. Mike Miller is better.......but is too much a duplicate of what I feel Martel will eventually surpass. T.O gives us a different dimension. No trade.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

So Travis Outlaw is better than Mike Miller now? It's amazing you guys only finished .500 with all of these stars on the team.


----------



## PDXshelbyGT (May 24, 2007)

Webster + Jack + 13th pick + 33rd pick

to Bobcats for

Morrison + 9th pick + filler



Then use the 9th pick + Raef's expiring + Outlaw

to Indiana for

Granger



Blake/Sergio
Roy/Rudy
Granger/Morrison
Aldridge/Frye
Oden/Pryz


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Dornado said:


> So Travis Outlaw is better than Mike Miller now? It's amazing you guys only finished .500 with all of these stars on the team.


Few, if any, Portland fans are saying Outlaw is better than Miller. But Miller has his problems and we're also giving a late lotto pick. Outlaw is younger and the team has chemistry with him. More people would prefer to keep Outlaw rather than making a change.

And for the last time, if Indiana wanted to deal Granger, they can get a much better deal than what we're offering. Unless we give one of our big 3.....


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I definitely wouldn't do it. I wouldn't even consider it. I would have to think a little about it if it were Webster instead of Outlaw.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of having a spot up shooter like Webster in the starting unit to be part of the more organized offense and a more creative one on one guy like Outlaw off the bench. If we were talking about trading an unproven spot up shooter like Webster for a more proven spot up shooter like Miller I might consider it. 

But to give up a spark plug guy like Outlaw and end up with another spot up shooter doesn't seem like a good idea. Especially because we've also got James Jones.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Dornado said:


> So Travis Outlaw is better than Mike Miller now? It's amazing you guys only finished .500 with all of these stars on the team.


And mike Miller has won what? Wasn't he traded once for Giricek? That speaks volumes. He is a decent player, but certainly nothing special.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Dornado said:


> So Travis Outlaw is better than Mike Miller now? It's amazing you guys only finished .500 with all of these stars on the team.


It's amazing that the Grizzlies did so poorly considering how good Mike Miller is.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

chairman said:


> *And mike Miller has won what?* Wasn't he traded once for Giricek? That speaks volumes. He is a decent player, but certainly nothing special.


Rookie of the year.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

chairman said:


> And mike Miller has won what? Wasn't he traded once for Giricek? That speaks volumes. He is a decent player, but certainly nothing special.


I don't know, a few playoff games? That wasn't exactly the point.

The point was that Travis Outlaw wasn't better... I guess I'll just file it away with the Jarrett Jack = Devin Harris argument from the PG thread...

Edit to add: Mike Miller was traded for Gordon Giricek _and _a young Drew Gooden, who had some value back in the day.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Dornado said:


> I don't know, a few playoff games? That wasn't exactly the point.
> 
> The point was that Travis Outlaw wasn't better... I guess I'll just file it away with the Jarrett Jack = Devin Harris argument from the PG thread...
> 
> Edit to add: Mike Miller was traded for Gordon Giricek _and _a young Drew Gooden, who had some value back in the day.


Just because one or two posters around here seriously overvalue a player or two and/or undervalue other players around the league doesn't mean the majority of posters fall into that category.

You really need to pay more attention to what people are actually saying and clean your ****ing glasses; The point isn't that Outlaw is a superior 3 vs. Miller, trading Miller for Outlaw makes no sense because it only further duplicates the skill sets of the SFs this team already has on its roster and upgrading at SF isn't what I would call a "critical" need (yet) for this team.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Dornado said:


> I don't know, a few playoff games? That wasn't exactly the point.
> 
> The point was that Travis Outlaw wasn't better... I guess I'll just file it away with the Jarrett Jack = Devin Harris argument from the PG thread...
> 
> Edit to add: Mike Miller was traded for Gordon Giricek _and _a young Drew Gooden, who had some value back in the day.




When exactly did Memphis ever win a playoff game? Haven't they been swept every time? But you are right that is not the point. My point is Martel IMO will be as good as Miller and Travis does add some flexibilty to the roster. I would rather keep them both. (plus the pick)


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Dornado said:


> I don't know, a few playoff games? That wasn't exactly the point.
> 
> The point was that Travis Outlaw wasn't better... I guess I'll just file it away with the Jarrett Jack = Devin Harris argument from the PG thread...
> 
> Edit to add: Mike Miller was traded for Gordon Giricek _and _a young Drew Gooden, who had some value back in the day.


I really doubt there were more than one or two arguing that Jack is as valuable as Harris... the rest of us know that Harris is much much better.
And while M. Miller is overall a better player than Outlaw, factor in: their respective contracts, ages, and, given that both are essentially role players, roles with their team. Most Blazer fans would take the guy without the bad defense and injury problems.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

Darkwebs said:


> Good decision by KP, IMHO. Why did the Grizzlies give Gasol away, but want us to overpay for Miller?


...because Jerry West isn't involved with the Blazers...and because Stern/the NBA didn't coax a backdoor firesale to create the nostalgic Boston vs. L.A. rivalry!!!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

chairman said:


> *When exactly did Memphis ever win a playoff game? *Haven't they been swept every time? But you are right that is not the point. My point is Martel IMO will be as good as Miller and Travis does add some flexibilty to the roster. I would rather keep them both. (plus the pick)


Mike Miller won two playoff games with the magic... though I know that really isn't the issue at hand.

The rest of your argument is fine, I just think in a direct comparison Miller is better than Outlaw. If Webster keeps raising the FG% and becomes more efficient offensively, then its certainly reasonable to say he could be as good, if not better, than Miller. Hell, it's not unreasonable to say the Outlaw may be better down the road either... but as it stands right now, Miller is the better player.

Anyway, if the Blazers go after a Grizzlie, it should be Mike Conley Jr.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Dornado said:


> So Travis Outlaw is better than Mike Miller now? It's amazing you guys only finished .500 with all of these stars on the team.


Clearly, Miller is the better player. But I think most people in this thread are arguing about value. Outlaw is on a cheap contract relative to his production while Miller is the opposite. Outlaw hasn't reached his prime yet, but Miller has. Outlaw has been very durable while Miller has been less so. 

Therefore, in most Blazer fans' mind Outlaw is more valuable than Miller.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Plugging Miller in at the 3 next year makes us better. Maybe a lot better. The guy has good handles and has shot over 40% from three point range (with a large number of attempts) in each of the last four seasons... and he's shot over 43% in two of those four years.

The guy is a borderline great shooter, and he'd help us space the floor tremendously. 

But...

Outlaw and the 13th are a couple of pieces that I'd rather use for a guy without the health concerns... and without the contract that would chew up most of whatever cap space we were hoping to have.

So to sum up: I like Mike Miller and he'd make the team better, but the price is too high.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm glad to see Pritchard setting his sites a little higher than that. Miller's a good player, but I'm hoping for a deal where we clear out a lot of mediocre players (any our second rounders, Webster, Jack, Rodriguez, our 13th pick, maybe Outlaw, maybe Frye) and get back one real stud (and filler) in exchange. I'm hoping for a home run, and this sounds more like a base hit.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

chairman said:


> And mike Miller has won what? Wasn't he traded once for Giricek? That speaks volumes. He is a decent player, but certainly nothing special.


And Scottie Pippen was traded once for Olden Polynice, and Clyde Drexler was traded once for Otis Thorpe, and Bonzi Wells was traded for Randolph Childress, and Rasheed Wallace was traded for Harvey Grant, and Pau Gasol was traded for Kwame Brown.

I don't get your point on that one.

That said, Mike Miller is a solid player. Certainly has had a better career than Outlaw has so far. But Outlaw is younger, cheaper, fits in with our core, knows and accepts his role and hasn't been a problem at all. People have to remember that Outlaw is still young and isn't a finished product yet.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Other GM's know KP likes to trade, so they are going to throw out crazy trades to him left and right hoping he'll bite. Glad he said NO!


Really? Since taking over more than a year ago, Pritchard has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to make changes. He wants to let the current roster "grow." It's in an oven and he wants to let it cook. Etc., etc.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Hector said:


> Really? Since taking over more than a year ago, Pritchard has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to make changes. He wants to let the current roster "grow." It's in an oven and he wants to let it cook. Etc., etc.


Repeatedly said....since AFTER we drafted Oden. I think he's referring to the fact that he made what, 6 transactions on draft day 2006, not to mention numerous deals over the next year or so.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Plugging Miller in at the 3 next year makes us better. Maybe a lot better. The guy has good handles and has shot over 40% from three point range (with a large number of attempts) in each of the last four seasons... and he's shot over 43% in two of those four years.
> 
> The guy is a borderline great shooter, and he'd help us space the floor tremendously.
> 
> ...


I'd agree Mike Miller would make us better next year, but I like to think long term.

I don't think Miller would be a good move/fit for our team, at least if we have to give up either Outlaw or Webster. I know KP wants to acquire some veterans, but really, what the hell would Mike Miller bring to the table besides some outside shooting? He has no noteworthy leadership skills, he's never been in a tough playoff series....he doesn't exactly possess the traits you look for in a vet.

He's got maybe 6 years left before he loses his athleticism and becomes nearly worthless. Why not find a vet who can actually show our guys a thing or two and be a leader? I don't see any of that in Miller.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

c_note said:


> I'd agree Mike Miller would make us better next year, but I like to think long term.
> 
> I don't think Miller would be a good move/fit for our team, at least if we have to give up either Outlaw or Webster. I know KP wants to acquire some veterans, but really, what the hell would Mike Miller bring to the table besides some outside shooting? He has no noteworthy leadership skills, he's never been in a tough playoff series....he doesn't exactly possess the traits you look for in a vet.
> 
> *He's got maybe 6 years left before he loses his athleticism and becomes nearly worthless.* Why not find a vet who can actually show our guys a thing or two and be a leader? I don't see any of that in Miller.


Miller might not have the vet qualities for a leader but Miller's offensive game is not predicated on his athleticism, he's one of the top 10 shooters in the NBA and that kind of skill can go on and on. He's an all around upgrade offensively to Outlaw; ballhandling, distributing, shooting, getting to the rim, and he's a better rebounder at the SF position to boot.

I wouldn't do the 1st deal listed, but if you could negotiate something where Outlaw was the principle piece for Miller without giving up the 13th the offensive upgrade Miller brings would outweigh what he gives up defensively, and I think that would hold true for a while.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

STOMP said:


> dude is 27, makes a huge salary, and Griz don't look to be contending in the near future. Plus he has both the knee and a history of being dinged... plus he's one of the worst SF defenders I can think of (very lazy). *<==== This is not true*
> 
> You don't have to be a cynic to understand why they'd want to make this deal.
> 
> STOMP


eace:


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Ed O said:


> So to sum up: I like Mike Miller and he'd make the team better, but the price is too high.
> 
> Ed O.


Agreed. To much from the PTB point of view.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> eace:


are you disagreeing with the lazy or the worst part or both?

His D is pretty universally described as poor and I've seen enough of his games to put my own lazy spin on it... it's certainly doesn't seem to be the focus of his efforts.

With Roy, Rudy, LA, and Greg, I'm not worried about the team being able to score... 3 of those 4 guys spread the court already and Greg is going to be a load on the low block. If the club is going to scrap the '09 cap space on a vet SF, I think a stud wing defender would round out the club a lot better. Besides if Portland wants a sharpshooting vet SF with knee problems they could just reup James Jones at half the price and use Travis and the pick more judiciously. 

STOMP


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

the thread is 4 pages long and nobody has touched on a very important point: Just what the filler would be from Portland.

The Blazers would have to send out 6.6 million in salary to meet the CBA guidlines for Miller's salary. Outlaw and Jack don't do it. Niether does outlaw + jack + sergio + mcroberts. What does work is Outlaw + Frye + McRoberts. Then include the 13th as well? Far too high a price.

The trade would have to be expanded to include Lafrentz and Jason Collins. That would mean portland would be giving up their 3 biggest "touchable" trading chips...lafrentz's expiring, outlaw, the 13th pick...for a player who plays a position that is not a position of need for portland.

It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

moldorf said:


> the thread is 4 pages long and nobody has touched on a very important point: Just what the filler would be from Portland.
> 
> The Blazers would have to send out 6.6 million in salary to meet the CBA guidlines for Miller's salary. Outlaw and Jack don't do it. *Niether does outlaw + jack + sergio + mcroberts.* What does work is Outlaw + Frye + McRoberts. Then include the 13th as well? Far too high a price.
> 
> ...


2008/09 salaries:
Miller $9,000,000

Outlaw $4,000,000
Jack $2,002,623
Rodriquez $1,048,800
McRoberts $442,114(minimum salary)

All together that would be $7,493,537 Outgoing for Portland, times 125% + 100K = $9,466,921, enough for Mike Miller.

That filler would be near useless to Memphis because they already have a crunch at PG, but money wise it works.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

I am VERY glad he didn't do this trade. That trade is terrible.


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

The trade seems pretty pricey for Miller. It was the right move to decline, as the Blazer priority is for a vet PG. All trade assets should be encumbered until either a vet PG is acquired, or all quality PGs are off the market.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

God in heaven, no! And it's not because I'm a huge fan of Outlaw. It's just that Miller is one of those "mirage" players (who go by the collective noun "Shareefs") who put up great numbers without actually contributing anything. Clearly Gasol is a good player, and most people seem to just love Rudy Gay, and Conley's supposed to be up and coming - and yet Memphis sucked hugely even before the Gasol trade. Something ain't right. Plus he is universally known as a horrible defender. He's a good shooter and ball-handler, and while those are needs from our SF position, he's not worth it. I would sooner give up Outlaw and the pick for NOTHING in return (give the minutes to Jones and Webster) than get Miller back.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Jayps15 said:


> 2008/09 salaries:
> Miller $9,000,000
> 
> Outlaw $4,000,000
> ...



yeah, that would work then mainly because of Jack's big bump in pay. Of course then portland would be left with Blake as the only PG.

KP will be a lot more inclined to trade Webster then Outlaw, so if he had any interest in this trade, that's probably how he would have worked it.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> That's cause you are a homer.
> 
> Miller > Outlaw


When teams trade players, the on court play is only one element in the equation.

On-Court play: Miller > Outlaw
Contract: Outlaw > Miller
Age: Outlaw > Miller
Fan Favorite: Outlaw > Miller
Team Favorite: Outlaw > Miller


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

moldorf said:


> yeah, that would work then mainly because of Jack's big bump in pay. Of course then portland would be left with Blake as the only PG.


KP and Nate say Roy is slated to play PG beside SG Rudy at least part of the game next season and I've my fingers crossed that Petteri is legit. 

STOMP


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

STOMP said:


> KP and Nate say Roy is slated to play PG beside SG Rudy at least part of the game next season and I've my fingers crossed that Petteri is legit.
> 
> STOMP


maybe, But a 3 guard rotation of Roy, the un-dynamic blake, and the unproven Fernandez, would be a scary way to enter the season


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Toss me in with the majority.

NOW WAY I make that deal if I am KP. That's a laughable offer. I doubt any GM in the league would make that deal.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

oops


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

moldorf said:


> maybe, But a 3 guard rotation of Roy, the un-dynamic blake, and the unproven Fernandez, would be a scary way to enter the season


not for me it wouldn't be. Thats actually what I'm hoping/expecting to be the main guard rotation and I'm thinking it will be very effective. Blake may not be the quickest/most dynamic, but he has great length, plays smart team ball on both ends of the court, and was absolutely deadly from downtown. His 40% 3pt stroke should become even more of a weapon with the addition of a true low post threat (GO). I'm also pretty sure that Rudy will be an upgrade over Jack. I thought the back court at least held it's own last year and didn't see Jack and Sergio as the main reasons why. I'd be more scared if Jack was to be counted on for big minutes again as that would make me start questioning KP's judgement.

Of the lotto projected guards, I could see only Rose, Mayo, and maybe Bayless carving out more then 10 minutes a game out of Rudy Roy and Blake's PT next season, but even those guys wouldn't likely get more then 20 minutes per game. 

STOMP


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

No chance would I make such a deal. Although if I am KP I still hold interest and come back with a counter offer for Miller. Miller would still fit in vary nice.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I really like Miller for what he is. A good shooter with all-around skills that can hold his own defensively at the 3.

Like many others have said though, I can't imagine giving the draft pick AND Outlaw for him without getting another quality player in return.

I say no!


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

The overwhelming sentiment is clearly that this trade as proposed is something we should decline. But if I were KP I'd consider making a counter proposal. Something such as;

Outlaw, #13, Jarrett Jack, Channing Frye, 2009 first-rounder for
Mike Miller and Mike Conley 

There could be some salary filler such as a Raef/Collins contract swap to make it work CBA wise.

Conley didn't have that great of a year but he is still the most valuable piece in that trade. We've all been saying the team needs to do a consolidation trade to trim the rotation. We give up a lot, but none of those pieces are prime long-term assets. We don't have a pressing need for a draft pick this year or next, but Memphis is in a total rebuild mode so those draft picks with their cheap contracts are more valuable to them.

I like this trade idea in that we get the current best player of the group in Miller and the best long-term prospect in Conley.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Of the lotto projected guards, I could see only Rose, Mayo, and maybe Bayless carving out more then 10 minutes a game out of Rudy Roy and Blake's PT next season, but even those guys wouldn't likely get more then 20 minutes per game.
> 
> STOMP


I disagree.

Rose would be a starter at PG from the get go and would definitely get more than 20 minutes a game.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I think Prichard wants to test the waters first before dealing off the #13 and Outlaw.

But Prichard might thing twice about this trade. Miller shot the 3 almost as well as James Jones last season, and he's a very good rebounder(something that gave us problems at the 3 last year), and he's a very good ball handler(something none of our 3s are)

Biggest concern with Miller is his history of injuries.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

*Chris Wallace (Memphis GM) denies making Miller for Outlaw + 13 offer*

Not sure if we should believe this , but I found this link from a Grizzlies forum of an interview with Chris Wallace, who said at the 4:00 mark (about Wheels' trade rumor):

_"That's not true. I don't like discussing trade rumors, but we have not made that offer." _


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Interesting.

Well, someone's lying.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Wow, that was a straight up - we have not made that offer. 

Who's lying?


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

*Re: Chris Wallace (Memphis GM) denies making Miller for Outlaw + 13 offer*



yuyuza1 said:


> Not sure if we should believe this , but I found this link from a Grizzlies forum of an interview with Chris Wallace, who said at the 4:00 mark (about Wheels' trade rumor):
> 
> _"That's not true. I don't like discussing trade rumors, but we have not made that offer." _


And the plot thickens. 

It would be hilarious if Wheeler made up that deal just for ratings. I wish we could find out who's lying. My gut says Chris Wallace, but I'm not unbiased.


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

If the offer was never made, then KP had nothing to reject. So I am glad that he didn't reject it. I am also very glad that he didn't accept it. I wouldn't have accepted it either. I also wouldn't have rejected it because the offer was never made and rejecting an offer that was never made might lead to some embarassing questions.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

JAFO said:


> If the offer was never made, then KP had nothing to reject. So I am glad that he didn't reject it. I am also very glad that he didn't accept it. I wouldn't have accepted it either. I also wouldn't have rejected it because the offer was never made and rejecting an offer that was never made might lead to some embarassing questions.




Joe Dumars: "Hello"

KP: "Hi Joe, just calling to say I have decided to reject your offer."

JD: "Uh.....we didn't make an offer."

KP: "Love to chat, but I have 28 more GMs to call before lunch. TTFN!"

:biggrin:


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Wallace was asked if the Grizz made a Miller for Outlaw +13 and he said "no, they did not make that offer" it very well could have been a *slightly different offer.* Like maybe Miller + 2nd round pick for Outlaw and our 13th.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Jayps15 said:


> 2008/09 salaries:
> Miller $9,000,000


Interesting . . . would you rather have Miller or Hinrich (their contracts are similar)?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

It's_GO_Time said:


> Interesting . . . would you rather have Miller or Hinrich (their contracts are similar)?


I'd easily take Miller if we had the option between the two and the cost was the same.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Draco said:


> I'd easily take Miller if we had the option between the two and the cost was the same.


I should have put my vote up there on the question, but me too.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

It's_GO_Time said:


> Interesting . . . would you rather have Miller or Hinrich (their contracts are similar)?



Miller.

But then, I would take Mo Williams over Hinrich.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

:lol: Wheels is going after Wallace now for lying about not making the offer.


----------

