I think Brad Miller will be traded!

The fact that people are even trying to defend Brad Millers defense (or lack there of) is hiliarious. Brad will be 30 this year, and only seems to be getting worse with age, instead of better. Instead of 27-32 being his prime years, he peaked at 28, and has gone down immensely since his leg injury. But how about we talk about Brad Miller the person, not just about Brad Miller the player. When some players are working on their games, working out getting stronger, adding new moves, or improving athleticisim, Brad is in Indiana riding quads, hunting, drinking lots of beer, and lifting 5lb dumbells bc as he said(I like definition over bulk). I am sorry when you are the 2nd highest paid player on the team, and you make no concentrated effort to get better what so ever, that shows me you are not dedicated and committed to being a good basketball player, and rather just rest on being a slow as molasses 7footer. I see kevin, Artest, Garcia, and countless other players in the NBA who care about improving, and not being lazy, but not brad. He averaged a career high in minutes 37.0, and lowest rebounding average 7.8 since 00-01' when he averaged 7.4 but in only 25.2 minutes a game. He also averaged under 2 offensive rebounds per game 1.5, when he was over 2.0 in every other season b4 this past one.

So wow he averages 4.7assts a game, guess what people we don't need a point center. The princeton offense where Brad was suited for is gone, and as a result Brad no longer fits what we are trying to do. Since you all claim he is a top 10 center, and since centers are so hard to come by, and I am more than sure that we could get comparable talent. What does Brad do when people get in the lane? He sits there and just puts two hands up, which doesn't intimdate anybody, nor did it stop the Spurs and every other team we played from doing layup drills. I watched every game last seasons, and in seasons past, so I know what I see in Brads deteriation as a player.
 
Brick I left this thread after I posted something I usually do...

By your posts I don't get your position... Do you want Brad or not..?
 
Brick I left this thread after I posted something I usually do...

By your posts I don't get your position... Do you want Brad or not..?

I think both sides are too extreme.

1) Brad ain't all that. He is to centers what Richard Simmons is to men in general. And he's a complete and utter failure in the playoffs when/where theoretically we would like to make a deep run.

2) Brad Miller is still better than Francisco Elson, Justin Williams, Saer Sene or whatever other scrub of the week people want to raise.

Those claiming we cannot win a title withOUT Brad Miller have very little to back their claim. Brad is not all that, and is notoriously pathetic in exactly the way that title winning big men rarely if ever are. Those who are claiming we cannot win a title WITH Brad Miller, that he absolutely positively has to go even if its just in a salary dump for 2 scrubs and a ham sandwich are equally off base. You can probably win a title with Brad Miller on your roster, but he has to be minimized, concealed, minutes cut back, and not relied upon. (You cannot however even sniff the backside of a title with Brad and SAR as your starters together).

Either way he remains an asset with value. You don't dump assets with value for nothing in return. You don't dump them for scrubs. You don't dump them for capspace. You don't dump them so that you can keep your favorite buttersoft non-rebounding non-shotblocking PF in the starting lineup. You either get something nice for them back in return, or you make a move to get some very good complimentary players around them. But in either case Brad is not a necessity to have or not have. He should absolutley be on the table in an attempt to get us a top player. He should be pulled off the table in any other case.
 
I think both sides are too extreme.

1) Brad ain't all that. He is to centers what Richard Simmons is to men in general. And he's a complete and utter failure in the playoffs when/where theoretically we would like to make a deep run.

2) Brad Miller is still better than Francisco Elson, Justin Williams, Saer Sene or whatever other scrub of the week people want to raise.

Those claiming we cannot win a title withOUT Brad Miller have very little to back their claim. Brad is not all that, and is notoriously pathetic in exactly the way that title winning big men rarely if ever are. Those who are claiming we cannot win a title WITH Brad Miller, that he absolutely positively has to go even if its just in a salary dump for 2 scrubs and a ham sandwich are equally off base. You can probably win a title with Brad Miller on your roster, but he has to be minimized, concealed, minutes cut back, and not relied upon. (You cannot however even sniff the backside of a title with Brad and SAR as your starters together).

Either way he remains an asset with value. You don't dump assets with value for nothing in return. You don't dump them for scrubs. You don't dump them for capspace. You don't dump them so that you can keep your favorite buttersoft non-rebounding non-shotblocking PF in the starting lineup. You either get something nice for them back in return, or you make a move to get some very good complimentary players around them. But in either case Brad is not a necessity to have or not have. He should absolutley be on the table in an attempt to get us a top player. He should be pulled off the table in any other case.
Bingo!!!!!!
 
defense

Because that would be how you win in the NBA.

Name the "Top 10" jumpshooting soft on the galss and defensively center who has won a title?


While you are working on that, I can run off name after name of guys who coudln't do much else but block a shot and board who have won one. Why? because interior defense is the single most important trait a "big man" can provide. It is in fact the entire point and purpose of having a "big man". There is no special reason to have a slow footed tall jumpshooter on the floor. Might as well have a smaller, quicker one. But only a big man, a TRUE big man, can provide shotblocking and intimidation around the hoop. And without that ability to protect the basket, history says all the perimeter skills in the world are fools gold.

Which doesn't mean we dump Brad, a player of value, for nothing. That's juat a dumb move from a talent pool standpoint. But it is an open recognition that Erick Dampier, limited though he be, looks a helluva lot more like a title winning center than Brad Miller does, and indeed has been much closer to the top of the mountain.

Its true, Brad has his weaknesses, but as far understanding the game, having court vision, and passing skills, Dampier's not even in the same league with him. I suspect Dallas would gotten just as far as they did with Brad there instead of Dampier. My problem with Brad is he just doesn't seem to bring it every night. However, the same thing could be said of Dampier. Now if you could place Brad's skills into Dampier's body, then you'd have something.
 
Its true, Brad has his weaknesses, but as far understanding the game, having court vision, and passing skills, Dampier's not even in the same league with him. I suspect Dallas would gotten just as far as they did with Brad there instead of Dampier. My problem with Brad is he just doesn't seem to bring it every night. However, the same thing could be said of Dampier. Now if you could place Brad's skills into Dampier's body, then you'd have something.

I'd add in a pinch of Corliss' work ethic.

:)
 
Well, I don't think you can say that Brad would equal Dampier for Dallas. Simply because of how he played in the playoffs. Brad had an absolute garbage series against the Spurs, he didn't even bring intangibles, defense, or hustle (like Tyson Chandler did vs. Shaq for 4-5 games), he had one good scoring with 19 pts in Game 3. Dampier also was a presence in the paint with Dallas.
 
Its true, Brad has his weaknesses, but as far understanding the game, having court vision, and passing skills, Dampier's not even in the same league with him. I suspect Dallas would gotten just as far as they did with Brad there instead of Dampier.


Nope, and therein remains the consistent Brad myth from the pro-Brad side. Just being "better" isn't the key thing. Its HOW you are better. WHAT you are better at. Dampier is "better" at the things you absolutely need to be better at -- clogging the lane, taking care of the glass. Brad is "better" at the things that are nice to have in ADDITION to the things you absolutely need, but having them without the basics is just...weak.

Its no coincidence that Dallas ended up in the title game at the same time that they got big, strong, primitive inside, loaded up on big brutes who block shots, bang and rebound. And no, having Brad is not the same thing. Having Brad would be old Mavs -- second round and out softie Mavs. New Mavs have figured it out. Bout time we do as well.
 
Last edited:
Nope, and therein remains the consistent Brad myth from the pro-Brad side. Just being "better" isn't the key thing. Its HOW you are better. WHAT you are better at. Dampier is "better" at the things you absolutely need to be better at -- clogging the lane, taking care of the glass. Brad is "better" at the things that are nice to have in ADDITION to the things you absolutely need, but having them without the basics is just...weak.

Its no coincidence that Dallas ended up in the title game at the same time that they got big, strong, primitive inside, loaded up on big brutes who block shots, bang and rebound. And no, having Brad is not the same thing. Having Brad would be old Mavs -- second round and out softie Mavs. New Mavs have figured it out. Bout time we do as well.
But Damiper and Diop complement Dirk better than Brad would have. However, pair Brad with a Dwight Howard type or a someone else who does the things that are Brad's weaknesses and Brad does things to complement Howard then you could go just as far.

This notion that you can't win with Brad as you C is very far fetched. It depends entirely on who you have next to him at PF. If you have SAR, you are miles away. If you have someone who complements Brad then you are just as much chance as you are with the other combination.
 
But Damiper and Diop complement Dirk better than Brad would have. However, pair Brad with a Dwight Howard type or a someone else who does the things that are Brad's weaknesses and Brad does things to complement Howard then you could go just as far.

This notion that you can't win with Brad as you C is very far fetched. It depends entirely on who you have next to him at PF. If you have SAR, you are miles away. If you have someone who complements Brad then you are just as much chance as you are with the other combination.


That has to be one helluva stud in those aspects -- a Ben Wallace type -- because Brad doesn't even take care of his own business let alone anybody else's. It has to be a stud of such proportions that he can rebound and block shots for 2 players, stop penetration more or less singlehanded, and then have to spin around and stop Adonal Foyle as he works over Brad. A single roleplayer won't do it.
 
That has to be one helluva stud in those aspects -- a Ben Wallace type -- because Brad doesn't even take care of his own business let alone anybody else's. It has to be a stud of such proportions that he can rebound and block shots for 2 players, stop penetration more or less singlehanded, and then have to spin around and stop Adonal Foyle as he works over Brad. A single roleplayer won't do it.

He'd have to be Super Man to make up for Brad's softness. Or maybe Neo in the Matrix if he could bend time in order to do all this :D
 
It just drives me crazy when Brad has a wide open look (well within his proven range) and he just dithers and won't take it.
 
dampier is garbage and would have been even worse for us than brad was.... all dampier was to the mavs was 6 fouls.... especially in the finals.... there were times when shaq would leave to help out on dirk and there was nothing for dampier to do... same goes for diop... dirk was putting up insane numbers and they were losing because they got nothing from their centers but fouls....

brad has his faults, but he would have been a lot more helpful for the mavs than dampier.... plus they both get 6 fouls.... i'd much rather get a good back up and trade thomas than trade brad....
 
dampier is garbage and would have been even worse for us than brad was.... all dampier was to the mavs was 6 fouls.... especially in the finals.... there were times when shaq would leave to help out on dirk and there was nothing for dampier to do... same goes for diop... dirk was putting up insane numbers and they were losing because they got nothing from their centers but fouls....

brad has his faults, but he would have been a lot more helpful for the mavs than dampier.... plus they both get 6 fouls.... i'd much rather get a good back up and trade thomas than trade brad....

Dampier isn't garbage defensively and intangibly.

Diop isn't garbage defensively and intangibly.

Did you even watch any significant amount of the Mavs playoff games and not see how they were valuable to the Mavs in getting to the finals?

Dampier would of at least been an interior presence for us. Brad was absolute garbage in the Spurs series outside of one good scoring game in Game 3 with 19 pts.

Brad wouldn't of been better than Dampier for the Mavs, because of how Brad disappeared for 5 games scoring-wise, 6 games everything else. Dampier actually showed up most of the time from what I saw (basically every game), and did what was he supposed to do - provide rebounding and size in the paint. Even if Avery got Brad back to hustling and all that like in 03-04 and before, it wouldn't be better than what Dampier brings defensively. Also, how effective and consistent would that be now? (On a side note, I wonder about that last sentence for us, and would it be worth waiting out....)

Dirk is the one who does the scoring, while naturally getting boards and blocks (Avery has definitely been a factor there).
 
Last edited:
dampier is garbage and would have been even worse for us than brad was.... all dampier was to the mavs was 6 fouls.... especially in the finals.... there were times when shaq would leave to help out on dirk and there was nothing for dampier to do... same goes for diop... dirk was putting up insane numbers and they were losing because they got nothing from their centers but fouls....

brad has his faults, but he would have been a lot more helpful for the mavs than dampier.... plus they both get 6 fouls.... i'd much rather get a good back up and trade thomas than trade brad....

Lol. I agree.
 
dampier is garbage and would have been even worse for us than brad was.... all dampier was to the mavs was 6 fouls....
Absolutely, I remember all the folks talking him up after his "contract year", but thankfully not everyone was fooled. He's no one I'd ever want to be an option on the Kings.

I diss Brad at times, but I'd keep him in a heartbeat over a loser like Dampier.
 
I think both sides are too extreme.

1) Brad ain't all that. He is to centers what Richard Simmons is to men in general. And he's a complete and utter failure in the playoffs when/where theoretically we would like to make a deep run.

2) Brad Miller is still better than Francisco Elson, Justin Williams, Saer Sene or whatever other scrub of the week people want to raise.

Those claiming we cannot win a title withOUT Brad Miller have very little to back their claim. Brad is not all that, and is notoriously pathetic in exactly the way that title winning big men rarely if ever are. Those who are claiming we cannot win a title WITH Brad Miller, that he absolutely positively has to go even if its just in a salary dump for 2 scrubs and a ham sandwich are equally off base. You can probably win a title with Brad Miller on your roster, but he has to be minimized, concealed, minutes cut back, and not relied upon. (You cannot however even sniff the backside of a title with Brad and SAR as your starters together).

Either way he remains an asset with value. You don't dump assets with value for nothing in return. You don't dump them for scrubs. You don't dump them for capspace. You don't dump them so that you can keep your favorite buttersoft non-rebounding non-shotblocking PF in the starting lineup. You either get something nice for them back in return, or you make a move to get some very good complimentary players around them. But in either case Brad is not a necessity to have or not have. He should absolutley be on the table in an attempt to get us a top player. He should be pulled off the table in any other case.


Thats pretty much were I fall. I am not one that wants to trade Brad. I think if lets say we get a real PF it could compliment Brad. IF we are looking to win the "DETRIOT TEAM" way that's how it almost has to be done. Brad is a unique center in that he can score. Thats what I don't want to lose. I am not sold on Defense only mentality. We still need to get points and if your center can grab you 20 a night....

Brad is a strange cat hard to figure out where his head is

And I agree we don't give up Brad for scraps especially considering how much C's are needed.
 
Magloire isn't all defense. He's an effective, solid offensive player also. In Milwaukee he had Bogut with him as a main focus, Magloire was not a main option there, and didn't fit into the Bucks system. So his numbers were down a bit.
 
funny, because a couple of days ago i went into a sports fan-attic store at the mall. there was a rack called the "traded players", where jerseys of traded players were discounted. in that rack were, webber jerseys, peja jerseys, b-jax jerseys, and a bunch of brad miller jerseys. this was in fairfield, CA, btw, so its kinda like kings territory
 
Dampier isn't garbage defensively and intangibly.

Diop isn't garbage defensively and intangibly.

Did you even watch any significant amount of the Mavs playoff games and not see how they were valuable to the Mavs in getting to the finals?

Dampier would of at least been an interior presence for us. Brad was absolute garbage in the Spurs series outside of one good scoring game in Game 3 with 19 pts.

Brad wouldn't of been better than Dampier for the Mavs, because of how Brad disappeared for 5 games scoring-wise, 6 games everything else. Dampier actually showed up most of the time from what I saw (basically every game), and did what was he supposed to do - provide rebounding and size in the paint. Even if Avery got Brad back to hustling and all that like in 03-04 and before, it wouldn't be better than what Dampier brings defensively. Also, how effective and consistent would that be now? (On a side note, I wonder about that last sentence for us, and would it be worth waiting out....)

Dirk is the one who does the scoring, while naturally getting boards and blocks (Avery has definitely been a factor there).

yeah cause dampier, diop, van horn and devin harris fouling shaq with 15 seconds on the shot clock is great defense.... and without one botched jumpball the spurs would have been playing in the finals.....
 
Which is hack-a-shaq, and one thing that Diop/Dampier did out of the whole playoffs. Which was ordered by Avery Johnson a few times in the finals.

Aries said:
yeah cause

You're still being ignorant towards how Dampier and Diop were valuable to Dallas through-out basically the whole playoffs because of their size and intangibles. Either that, or you didn't watch much of Dallas in the playoffs, chap.
 
what intangibles are you talking about? dirk led that team in rebounds during the playoffs....

for example.....

dampier had 6pts, 3reb, 1blk and 6fouls in game 7 against the spurs... dirk had 37pts, 15reb and 1blk.....

what intangibles are you refering to in the playoffs? dirk averaged 5 more rebounds per game than dampier... and 0.7 more than dampier and diop combined..... dirk averaged 22pts more than dampier and 20 more than dampier and diop combined.....

please explain how no show brad would be anyworse for dallas than dampier.... when in the kings-spurs series brad averaged 2 less rebounds but 4 more points.....
 
what intangibles are you talking about? dirk led that team in rebounds during the playoffs....

for example.....

dampier had 6pts, 3reb, 1blk and 6fouls in game 7 against the spurs... dirk had 37pts, 15reb and 1blk.....

what intangibles are you refering to in the playoffs? dirk averaged 5 more rebounds per game than dampier... and 0.7 more than dampier and diop combined..... dirk averaged 22pts more than dampier and 20 more than dampier and diop combined.....

please explain how no show brad would be anyworse for dallas than dampier.... when in the kings-spurs series brad averaged 2 less rebounds but 4 more points.....

Intangibles - they're things and contributions to the game that don't show up in the stat sheet. Tyson Chandler's series vs. the Heat a perfect example, he didn't put up good stats and was facing Shaq, but had a solid series because of the other things he brought all series long. Same for Jason Collins in a number of games vs. the Heat, just that Collins is Mr. Intangible, and never has put up above average stats, like Chandler has.

Like tipping loose balls and rebounds, taking charges, picks, screens, playing defense (contesting shots and post-defense), boxing out, changing shots because of size and being a presence in the paint, hustle points (they of course show up, but most don't really think about them). They're little things, and most of the time they're not noticeable, but they win games. Dampier and Diop provided that consistently through-out the playoffs for Dallas.

And of course, they provided rebounds and shotblocks.

I already explained how Brad would be worse than Dampier for Dallas three posts ago.

Of course Dirk led the team in rebounding, I already explained why he did, and of course gets more minutes than either Dampier/Diop. Just getting rebounds and blocks isn't just what Dampier/Diop's role is, where as with Dirk, those are his other things to do outside of scoring.
 
Last edited:
what intangibles are you talking about? dirk led that team in rebounds during the playoffs....

for example.....

dampier had 6pts, 3reb, 1blk and 6fouls in game 7 against the spurs... dirk had 37pts, 15reb and 1blk.....

what intangibles are you refering to in the playoffs? dirk averaged 5 more rebounds per game than dampier... and 0.7 more than dampier and diop combined..... dirk averaged 22pts more than dampier and 20 more than dampier and diop combined.....

please explain how no show brad would be anyworse for dallas than dampier.... when in the kings-spurs series brad averaged 2 less rebounds but 4 more points.....

Not everything is about stats. It is like Ron's defense, he doesn't have to get a steal, his tenacity on the defensive end brought our team out of the cemetery last season. It didn't show up on the stat sheet, but we were suddenly in the playoffs.
 
yeah but that does show in the stats..... ron is guarding manu.... manu scores 9 points and shoots 3-15.... rons defense is the reason why.... manu averaged 15pts against the kings then 21 against the mavs.... dirk, dampier and diop guard duncan and duncan still scores 30+ points..... duncan average 18pts against the kings and 32 against the mavs.... where are the intangibles?

that botched jumpball and amares injury were the only intangibles that got dallas to the finals....

tony parker scored 20 pts and went 0-3 3pt..... dampier and diop didnt stop him....
steve nash scored 20pts against dallas and like 30 the year before.... dampier wasnt altering jack.... and diaw..... 24pts a game and only hit 1 3pt the entire series.....

lests not get started with the heat..... wade posterized the entire mavs team..... how many of his shots were altered?
 
Back
Top