PDA

View Full Version : In retrospect; The Silence



able
03-25-2004, 06:58 AM
Up and until the All Star break, Brad had a fabulous season with the Kings.

This caused many, many, maniacally many, posts about the stupidity of the Front office, The people that agreed with the decision and those that wanted to see and were in principle agreeing on the economics.

The All Star game came and went (with Brad on it just like in the year he played here) and low and behold;

Then I read this on a thread on this board;

Quoting anthem

Well, the Kings just pulled their starters and put in their scrubs. This one's done.

This game was interesting. I kept watching Brad and Brad only, and I didn't miss him. Everybody has off nights, but this was bad. When somebody named Slava is making you look silly...

Seriously, I always thought the money was beside the point. I thought that Bird, who admitted that he didn't watch the regular season, was unimpressed with Brad's conditioning and demeanor in the playoffs and lowballed him.

The demeanor was on full display tonight.

And you know what makes it even weirder?

I read this yesterday on ESPN:

quote Marc Stein;

Brad Miller got hurt in the All-Star Game and really hasn't been the same since, as if the Kings didn't already have to wait forever to bring Chris Webber back.


And since I did not yet have my quota of coffee whilst setting up some puters I build last night my mind finally made the connection.....

"Brad Miller got hurt in the All-Star Game and really hasn't been the same since"

Haven't I heard that before ????


As the French say: l'histoire ce repete

"history repeats itself"

Oh yeah; and of course he "showed" for the P's game, but if he could show here? then why is he not showing elsewhere?

Kings playoff success != Brad Miller

The jury has reconvened.



:stupid:

ROCislandWarrior
03-25-2004, 09:17 AM
:applaud:

I have always felt that the reason we tanked so bad last season was an injured and nonproductive Brad Miller.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt though and thought it was a fluke and he would finish strong this season.

I looks like he won't and yes, without him the kings will not advance to the NBA Finals.

What if he was tanking for us again???

Ragnar
03-25-2004, 09:42 AM
I think its more the writer saying that to explain why the Kings lost. If you look at the box scores or would have watched a lot of the other games you would see that he has in fact been playing very well. He simply had a bad night last night. Most games he not Vlade finnishes the games because he is more valuable to them.

For example in the loss to the Bucks Brad played 30 minutes scoring 14 points on 4-7 shooting ang grabed 8 rebounds. Vlade only played 17 minutes. If you will recall he grabed 13 rebounds against us and shot 6-9. Against the Spurs 19 points and 13 rebounds. (I am only pointing out the games that I have seen it may be that he played worse in other games)

That does not seem to me to be the play of someone who is not pulling his weight. I know a lot of people would rather he fall on his face so that they can say see its better not to have him because he is injured.

It is so much better to have Pollard who sucks and Kenny Anderson who does not play than to have a guy who can only score 19 points and get 13 rebounds in 30 minutes. :rolleyes:

able
03-25-2004, 10:53 AM
Since playoffs:

Feb 17 DNP
Feb 19 DNP
Feb 20 DNP
Feb 22 DNP
Feb 24 DNP
Feb 26 DNP
Feb 27 DNP
Feb 29 10 (R) 2 (As) 16 (pt) 34 (min)
Mar 2 9 3 23 34
Mar 4 7 2 19 32
Mar 6 11 2 8 32
Mar 7 13 3 22 42
Mar 9 10 5 7 30
Mar 11 16 3 21 35
Mar 12 7 1 8 34
Mar 14 13 4 19 34
Mar 16 6 4 12 25
Mar 17 8 6 14 36
Mar 19 13 5 12 37 (pacers)
Mar 21 3 1 2 18
Mar 23 8 4 14 30
Mar 24 7 5 2 27

Average over the total period since AS:

9.7 Rb 3.3 Ast 13.2 Pt 32 min

season avg
10.5 4.4 14.6 36.8

Avg since Mar 12

8.1 3.75 10.4 30.2


avg before AS:

11.3 5.5 16


quite a decline from whatever perspective you look at.

Still it is an observation, not a standpoint.

Nonetheless is the trend downward, where it should be upward, I only said the jury is out again, because if the downward spiral continues, then there is reason to believe there is more to it then meets the eye, 2 years in a row establishes a pattern and no, to much work to look up older years.

Slick Pinkham
03-25-2004, 10:59 AM
It's not just the all-star foot injury, he's now bothered by "acute bursitis in his right elbow" according to a game report from a few days ago.

MagicRat
03-25-2004, 11:02 AM
You can't ignore Webber's return on March 2 as a reason for any stats decline......

ROCislandWarrior
03-25-2004, 02:11 PM
when I shut down Tim Duncan

When you shut him down?

Scot...is that you??? ;)

MagicRat
03-25-2004, 02:13 PM
...in the SA game when I shut down Tim Duncan, the reigning MVP.

I hope they remember to put you on the playoff roster, just in case we run into the Spurs in the Finals....... :P

naptownmenace
03-25-2004, 02:26 PM
Able, I think you're working with some pretty near-sighted reasoning on this one.

Before the Pacers game, they were talking about whether or not Brad Miller would even play against the Lakers because of his injured elbow. Since you watched him closely throughout the game, I'm sure you noticed his heavily bandaged right elbow (which just so happens to be his shooting arm). I wouldn't judge him to harshly in from that Lakers game because the entire team stunk - especially Doug Christie and he's their best defender!

The guy got hurt in the AS game when someone landed on his ankle and had to miss seven games. That's a legit injury, not anything to scoff at. Granted it is a coincidence that he got hurt two years in a row in the second half of the season but he still has been a contributing factor in several of the Kings wins. And if you ask me, the return of Chris Webber to the lineup has effected his production more than the injuries.

It was still a lopsided trade in Sacramento's favor. Luckily, the Pacers haven't been hurt much by it. Why can't we just leave it at that?

able
03-25-2004, 02:41 PM
Able, I think you're working with some pretty near-sighted reasoning on this one.

Before the Pacers game, they were talking about whether or not Brad Miller would even play against the Lakers because of his injured elbow. Since you watched him closely throughout the game, I'm sure you noticed his heavily bandaged right elbow (which just so happens to be his shooting arm). I wouldn't judge him to harshly in from that Lakers game because the entire team stunk - especially Doug Christie and he's their best defender!

The guy got hurt in the AS game when someone landed on his ankle and had to miss seven games. That's a legit injury, not anything to scoff at. Granted it is a coincidence that he got hurt two years in a row in the second half of the season but he still has been a contributing factor in several of the Kings wins. And if you ask me, the return of Chris Webber to the lineup has effected his production more than the injuries.

It was still a lopsided trade in Sacramento's favor. Luckily, the Pacers haven't been hurt much by it. Why can't we just leave it at that?


YO HO HO HO ho horsie;..........


1. H ave said clearly I was not judging, merely observing.
2. I can only hear and read, I am not in a position to be even allowed to pay for seeing the games, unless I fly a average of 5 thousand miles one way per game, with all cost attached.
3. I still think that it was nothing of a trade, it was getting $ 10 for scrapping the car instead of paying the the tow truck H could have signed elsewhere and we woulf have been left emptyhanded.
4. I appreciate what Brad has done in Indy, I appreciate his agent making the most, i accept Pacers org being unwilling and unable to participate in the dollar war.
5. I appreciate that Pollie has turned out less then we had hoped, though I appreciate what he does for us (see TD stop)
6. I pointed to a comment made in a thread (quoted the poster) and a newspaper/website (quoted the poster)
7. I have no problem with other opinions, as long as they make clear they are opinions and not science, those still calling this a trade are threading on thin ice in that aspect and should consider that a sign and trade is something totally different then a trade, in the first case you have little say so about the outcme, in the latter all.

I don't care one way or another, I hope for Brad he is successfull the rest of his career, may it last long and prosperous.
This does not mean that I share the opinion of some that I personally think that someone who says he wanted to stay and next blames his agent for going bananas has little sense of reality, I do not blame him for the fact, just for the lack of honesty, he had a payday, God bless him, but don't hide from that fact.

P's could not would not pay the same, God bless them for a sane business mind and tightly held wallet.

Kings won, We won, heck we're leading the league and have been in a two way battle with them all season for that position, I would say both parties did not really suffer from this sign and trade.

:D

:stupid:

Ragnar
03-25-2004, 03:24 PM
Um guys that was not Pollard who did a good job on Duncan it was Foster. I know a lot of us like to remember things differently (Brad sucks, Strick was a good pg, Best was a good pg......) But come on that was not very long ago.

The fact of the matter is that Brad is doing very well in Sacramento and they are very happy to have him. Yes his conditioning could be better so that he does not get injures unlike our very own Jon Bender :unimpressed:

He did not play well against the Lakers the other night but no one did. He played very well against the Spurs the other night before the elbow injury and I believe he will be fine again soon.

Saying it was better to trade him than let him get away for nothing is wrong for a couple of reasons.

1) We could have kept him for less than he left for. He has said this repeatedly. Bird or Walsh decided to let him go they decided to not to re sign him. We had offers to take Al they chose Al and Bender (see his extension) over Brad no two ways about it.

2) If we would have let him go instead of taking on Pollard we could have traded Mercer's ending deal for a player we could use rather than Pollard and we would not have helped the Kings land a player that could help them get over the hump and make the Finals.

MagicRat
03-25-2004, 03:30 PM
we would not have helped the Kings land a player that could help them get over the hump and make the Finals.

I said in a similar thread that I would rather play against Brad in the Finals with our current roster than play Shaq with Brad still on our roster. I still stand by that. Let them deal with the Lakers.

That said, judging from last night's LA-SAC game, the point is moot......

Unclebuck
03-25-2004, 04:15 PM
Ragnar: Pollard did defend Tim Duncan very well. Pollard is a decent low post defender.

Peck
03-25-2004, 04:27 PM
I don't have time right now to respond to this like I would like to.

All I'm going to say is that you guys are talking about the all-star break, which reminds me of the all-star game.

You know the one Brad wasn't going to play in in the west. :dance:

bulletproof
03-25-2004, 04:47 PM
But aren't you coming around to saying that it wasn't simply the Pacers didn't have enough money or any options for Brad, but rather that they saw him as overpriced and as such weren't going to even bother to make any needed moves or sacrifices in trying to sign him? They thought they saw a flaw (I assume that it is mid-season drop-off that they see as habitual altho maybe it is more or other than that) in his game. That's what I thought all along (it was more than just the money alone) when it got obvious they were not very interested in keeping BMiller.

Here's why it matters to me:

If they let Brad go because they perceived a critical flaw in his game or something that may be a problem in waiting for the team then fine. We can all see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. OTOH, if it was all about the money then it makes me wonder if we're always destined to be a piece or two away... competitive but just not quite 'there'. Always to have a question mark/hole because the team will not spend to get past a certain level if they see that level as 'good enough' to maintain a certain status quo at the box office.

bball, :rolleyes: isn't that what I've been saying all along? Go back and read my posts regarding this subject. I think I've been pretty clear. Or have you not really been reading them?

From what I've gathered, and I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, it was primarily about the money with extenuating circumstances. Things are never as cut and dried as we'd like them to be. I know as humans we like to sort things out in our brain that way—put things in tidy little boxes. It makes it easy for us to understand why something may have happened. But that's rarely the case. That's why seven months after Brad's departure, we still discuss and debate it. We're still (well, not me) trying to wrap our brains around it. I, on the other hand, think I have enough answers to let it rest.

I honestly believe had Walsh thought Brad was worth what he was commanding, he most likely would have at least tried to make a case to the Simons to bite the bullet and cough up the dough. But based on Brad's history down the stretch—his lack of toughness and intensity when it matters most—he didn't think it would be the responsible thing to do. He couldn't justify in his own mind that Brad was worth it, much less to the owners who entrusted him to be a stewart of their money.

From the look of things right now, I'd say he was right. The guy is injured— as if almost on cue—right after the all-star break. Although, like you said, we will ultimately see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. Which brings up another point. I like what sixthman said sometime ago regarding this: GMs make decisions in real time. Not in hindsight.

Honestly, I hope this puts this to rest. Ragnar, if you want to discuss this further, PM me. Peck, what more can I say? bball? Shame on you for making me repeat myself. ;)

MagicRat
03-25-2004, 04:56 PM
I don't have time right now to respond to this like I would like to.

Since Peck doesn't have the time, I've assembled his reply....



However we are light years away from ever being able to consider Scott Pollard making me forget Granville Waiters let alone Brad Miller.

Stop acting like Brad was just a one side of the court player. It doesn't play out any better than when you kept telling me Brad Miller wasn't an all-star . I'm not saying that Brad is a defensive stopper, but the fact is that he blocks 1.25 shots a game & steals .95 times a game. Jeff gives you .95 steals a game & blocks it .37 times a game.

I have often said that blocks don't equal good defense. But I have watched both players & I still say the same thing. Brad is better defending centers & strong 4's while Jeff is better at the quicker big men.

Why would we miss Brad's rebounding if Jeff is here?

To the Brad thing, there was more to it than what has been reported here. They did marvel that the team had a better record & did allude to the fact that we were so deep & our defense was so good. But they also said that it was not something they would have done. Also they called it a trade


Oh yes, before I go so Btown won't be dissapointed I want to make sure I bring up the name Brad Miller.

Again I want to point out the number of people who were on here yesterday that were bemoaning the fact that the Pacers needed a big man & a player who could hit from the outside.

I just always will point out that we had a player who could do both & tossed him out like so much old fruit. But hey, at least the Simons don't have to pay the luxuary tax. You know the one that as of right now doesn't even exist.

From our point of view the entire Brad Miller thing is a seminal moment in Pacers history. I'm not kidding about that. I think it is a blunder that will adversely affect this team in years to come.

First Scot Pollard would make us forget Brad Miller. That didn't work so then it became, Brad Miller is not really an all-ster. Oops, ok then it must be the Pacers decided to keep Al Harrington over Brad because he would be more valuable to the team. Hmm, lots of people unhappy with Al so next. Well, then it must be that Donnie new from back in April that he was going to fire Isiah, so this was the reason. They had to get rid of Brad because they knew they needed the money to fire the coach & hire the coach of another team who had yet to be fired. BTW, I say April because according to the young Maloof brother (owner of the Kings) that is when they began to discuss this deal with Indiana

Oh, btw just so I don't dissapoint Btown.

The Brad Miller trade sucked.

No, I'm not looking for you to say that the Brad Miller trade was a mistake. It was btw

Brad Miller was a legitimate center in size & he also had an outside shot to open up the middle for Jermaine.

Not to mention, he's an All-star. You can't even deny that anymore.

So at face value Brad Miller (all-star) for Scot Pollard (3rd string center, remember J.O. plays center with A.H. & R.A.) is the worst trade we have ever made & I really can't think of anything that would even come close to being as bad as that.

God d@mn the more I think on this today the more pissed I get about that whole Brad Miller thing. Not like I wasn't pissed before.

BTW, just so we don't have post counts go up without Btown able to make sure I don't mention it. I would like to point out that your desired need of a big man who can hit an outside shot was traded away last summer.

That was why some of us were just astounded by the supposed "shock" of Brad Miller being offered large sums of money.

An all-star big man (btw, this can no longer even be questioned) will be overpaid.

The irony of this is that you used Brad getting his shot blocked so often as one of the weaknesses & one of the justifications for the move.

Brad had/has an uncanny knack for drawing fouls, almost Reggie like.

If at any time in those seven years we start to lose & can specifically point to the center spot & Brad is still playing well in that time frame, then yes I beleive that we have a justification for our complaining.

Last night was the prime example of why I always thought the Brad Miller trade was horrid.

We got nothing from our center spot. Whether it was Foster, Pollard or Croshere. None of them played worth a crap.

Whenever you post the name Brad Miller from now till the all-star game of 05 you must put the words All-star in bold letters in front of his name.

I wish we had an all-star center who could have helped out in the paint last night

Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

But if we fail & we can pinpoint that failure on center play then it was a horrid horrid trade. From a basketball standpoint. .

fwpacerfan
03-25-2004, 04:58 PM
I'm glad Brad is doing well in Sac town I really am. I've been a fan of his since Purdue. But I said it last year and I'll say it now - Brad Miller will never play a full season. Brad Miller will almost always be injured at the end of the year. Not because of his conditioning but because of how he plays and the position he plays. Brad is a bruiser a banger and he isn't afraid to tangle with guys much bigger than he is (see Shaq). That being said the constant banging will catch up to him and it looks like it's starting to.

Ragnar
03-25-2004, 05:27 PM
Ragnar: Pollard did defend Tim Duncan very well. Pollard is a decent low post defender.

EXACTLY. Pollard had Duncan for a big chunk of the game, and refused to give up any position.

While 15 minutes does feel like a huge chunk of the game when Pollard is on the floor it isnt actually a huge chunk of the game.

I seem to remember that part of that time was with Duncan on the bench and the rest Duncan did much better with Pollard on him than when Foster was on him. Duncan was praising Foster for what a great job he did on him.

I dont remember him saying wow that Pollard really had me for a few minutes there I sure am glad they pulled him in favor of Foster.

Now I will give Scot some credit. He did get 4 rebounds which is pretty good for him.

PaceBalls
03-25-2004, 06:08 PM
I still like Jeff more for this team. If Jeff starts hittin that mid range jumper consistantly he would be a better player than brad imo.

it is Tough losing an all star center, but it's a pleasure to watch Jeff Foster emerge.

I just can't get any warm feelings about trading off Brad for Pollard because he "shut down duncan" for a brief moment in time and space when the sun, all the planets and their moons were in perfect alignment with the center of the galaxy.
He sits on the bench and gets DNPs... hard to imagine him having any big role on the team in the season, the playoffs, or anything except some kinda trade when he is in the last year of his deal... like 3 years from now or something. Too bad we didn't keep Hedo instead and gave Pollard to SA. /ramble off

Anthem
03-26-2004, 01:36 AM
Hmm.... I'll throw in since it was my post that started this whole thing.

I agree with bball. I don't see it as being about the money. I don't think Bird really wanted to keep Brad.

I think that a big reason for that is Brad's tendency to whine. He'll bounce the ball off his foot, then look at the ref like he's about to cry. Watching the Lakers game reminded me of watching Brad complain the entire time he was on the court in the Boston series.

That's what I was talking about when I mentioned his demeanor. I honestly wonder if we didn't keep Brad because Bird thought he whined too much.

mmxx
03-26-2004, 04:17 AM
I've alway thought there is One Factor which has never been mentioned here when it comes to the topic of why Pacers let go Brad Miller. Now this is brought up again so i will let it out:
(it could be just pure speculation, or it could be true)


Brad Miller's agent is Mark Bartelstein.

Ron Artest's agent is Mark Bartelstein, too.

When Ron ('s agent) was negotiating extension with Donnie Walsh the summer before last season started, I remember clearly it was not a easy negotiation and Walsh had been quoted as saying it almost didn't get done "due to exuberant demand" (peter vecsey) afterwards.

But somehow it got done and turned out to be a very reasonable contract. Many people said it was a bargain (and everyone now starts to see it's indeed a big one).

It was obvious who won and who lost the battle between Walsh and Bartelstein.

If your client is widely considered "underpaid", as a player agent you know you have failed and you'll have harder time attracting future clients, if this happens again.


Then came Battle Round II. Less than 10 months later.

Donnie Walsh vs Bartelstein, again.

this time it's All-Star Free Agent Brad Miller (who also happens to be a good friend of Ron Artest)


what happened this time:

Brad was shopped around everywhere, Utah, Denver, though he was widely believed to be hometown boy and did not want to leave Indy (which was true);

Walsh was quoted being unhappy "Brad's agent's hunting for the highest bidder...", and "he came to us with a larger number than (brad eventually got)" ;

Brad was quoted saying to Walsh "i wanted to stay but my agent went crazy" (i believe he meant exactly that when he said it);


It's not hard to see that, after getting robbed on Ron's contract Bartelstein was very much determined to "win" this one, to get even, so to speak.

Of course Donnie Walsh knew that too. He knew he got good with Ron and now the same agent's trying to make up for it on Brad.

What'd you do if you were Walsh


Also, Have it ever occurred to anybody that, had Pacers gone over the LT and signed Brad that huge contract, what would Ron Artest think? Would he think Pacers had lowballed him bad?

Think about it when he made "exuberant demands" Walsh could have well said that we can't go over LT and we won't go over for anyone so you have to lower the bar or u r not getting the extension. Now 10 months later he ate his words and did it for Brad? (remember they have the same agent)

I know If I were Ron I would have felt alot worse than what I feel now that I know Pacers management were at least consistent in their stance: Brad were gone when he (actually his agent) didn't back down the $$$.

I do think this could be a factor in Walsh's decision on Brad.

wintermute
03-26-2004, 06:19 AM
that was pretty good reasoning. you've convinced me it's possible anyway :cool:

best of all, it's something new in the brad miller wars :D all the old stuff flying back and forth was getting boring...

Peck
03-26-2004, 07:17 AM
I've alway thought there is One Factor which has never been mentioned here when it comes to the topic of why Pacers let go Brad Miller. Now this is brought up again so i will let it out:
(it could be just pure speculation, or it could be true)


Brad Miller's agent is Mark Bartelstein.

Ron Artest's agent is Mark Bartelstein, too.

When Ron ('s agent) was negotiating extension with Donnie Walsh the summer before last season started, I remember clearly it was not a easy negotiation and Walsh had been quoted as saying it almost didn't get done "due to exuberant demand" (peter vecsey) afterwards.

But somehow it got done and turned out to be a very reasonable contract. Many people said it was a bargain (and everyone now starts to see it's indeed a big one).

It was obvious who won and who lost the battle between Walsh and Bartelstein.

If your client is widely considered "underpaid", as a player agent you know you have failed and you'll have harder time attracting future clients, if this happens again.


Then came Battle Round II. Less than 10 months later.

Donnie Walsh vs Bartelstein, again.

this time it's All-Star Free Agent Brad Miller (who also happens to be a good friend of Ron Artest)


what happened this time:

Brad was shopped around everywhere, Utah, Denver, though he was widely believed to be hometown boy and did not want to leave Indy (which was true);

Walsh was quoted being unhappy "Brad's agent's hunting for the highest bidder...", and "he came to us with a larger number than (brad eventually got)" ;

Brad was quoted saying to Walsh "i wanted to stay but my agent went crazy" (i believe he meant exactly that when he said it);


It's not hard to see that, after getting robbed on Ron's contract Bartelstein was very much determined to "win" this one, to get even, so to speak.

Of course Donnie Walsh knew that too. He knew he got good with Ron and now the same agent's trying to make up for it on Brad.

What'd you do if you were Walsh


Also, Have it ever occurred to anybody that, had Pacers gone over the LT and signed Brad that huge contract, what would Ron Artest think? Would he think Pacers had lowballed him bad?

Think about it when he made "exuberant demands" Walsh could have well said that we can't go over LT and we won't go over for anyone so you have to lower the bar or u r not getting the extension. Now 10 months later he ate his words and did it for Brad? (remember they have the same agent)

I know If I were Ron I would have felt alot worse than what I feel now that I know Pacers management were at least consistent in their stance: Brad were gone when he (actually his agent) didn't back down the $$$.

I do think this could be a factor in Walsh's decision on Brad.

Sounds about like the best reasoning I've heard so far.

I've been told that things go on behind the lockerroom doors that we don't know about, which I beleive.

I see no reason as to why what you have said would not have played heavily into anything I've heard so far.

Unclebuck
03-26-2004, 07:58 AM
All I'm going to say is that you guys are talking about the all-star break, which reminds me of the all-star game.

You know the one Brad wasn't going to play in in the west. :dance:

Peck, you have made me hate the allstar game

able
03-26-2004, 08:06 AM
This confirms my thinking and reasoning, but mine was less eloquent. (and perhaps not a soul understands what I mean anyway....(after all I am just a bloody foreigner[I am Dutch])

Anyway, those quotes are of major importance in the unrevelling of the truth, since Donnie is also quoted to say that he never got an offer out for the reason of the agent coming with exurbitant demands (If you want to buy something valued at 500 and they are asking 2500 making an offer is only insulting and a total waste of time).

Now at least the "he would have signed for less" advocates lost their momentum in the everlasting discussion, IF Brad had wanted to play for "less" then he would have simply instructed his agent to do so, that is the power a client holds over his agent, the agent might not agree, but in the end has to do what the client wants.

If the agent came to the P's with a demand for a bigger contract then gotten that would lead to believe that we are talking about starting at say 8 mil or worse, more, which also leads to believe that the "I would have signed for less" was either not fully comprehended by the agent in question or never even discussed at all.

When an agent and client sit down before demands are made and offers received, they decide on a strategy, they decide on a target and they decide on additional circumstances such as "where would you like to live/fish/eat" and "would you really play for the P's for just 5 mil ???"

and the most important question: say we can get 7 mil from the Kings and no more then 6 from the P's, what do you want to do?


If those stating that Brad would have played for less are under the impression that the agent has free reign, then either I misundertand a complete business model, or they do in a sense.

The agent's role is prefectly described above and was also confirmed by P management and Brad during the "talks" and subsequent signing.

The "additional" information that Ron has the same agent makes it all the more complete, I did not know that, but am for 100% behind the explanation above. Yes that is a situation where the agent can also "convince" the client that it is better to move on.

As for Pollie? I like the fella, just hopes he gets into the swing of things here and will become a regualar contributor, he can never be as bad as he is showing now, or has shown here until now, maybe he is just one of those guys that need a year to settle in, make friends, feel at home nad then start producing.

Another (well hidden til now) thought in my dark mind is that he is not showing it all because he A. does not have to and B. is kept for specific tasks in the playoffs that most of us overlook.

ah well, was fun to read :)

Will Galen
03-26-2004, 08:50 AM
I agree with Wintermute and Peck, that was very good reasoning!

The thing about the Pacers (trading) Brad that has always bugged me is it doesn't make sense. Centers are hard to come by and Walsh knows this. So why does he let a legitimate center go when he has one? He's said the Simon's would let him go over the cap if he asked them to. So why wouldn't he ask to go over the cap for an all star center?

You've given a plausible reason why. Good post!

Ragnar
03-26-2004, 09:54 AM
Able the only problem I have with your post is that in an interview with Brad he stated that as soon as Bird was hired he stopped getting calls. Brad was on a fishing trip when the deal was announced and he did not want to come in and sign the contract or take the physical. He calls it a trade because he wanted to stay. He said recently that being back in Indiana makes the trade suck that much more.

These do not sign like the words of someone who was totaly in favor of what happend. I am sure his agent told him to let him handle things and that all would work out fine and he would be a Pacer. Donnie had said that he would re-sign Brad and that he would go over the LT if need be to do it.

DisplacedKnick
03-26-2004, 10:01 AM
I only saw one mention on this and it didn't get much play so I'll throw it out again.

Everyone on the planet knew that once Webber came back Brad's production would go down. Anything else was pretty impossible - unless you think that Sacto was going to keep running the offense through him and Vlade.

Now granted, 2 of his last 3 games have been absolutely lousy and if that keeps up I'd be willing to re-think this, but the guy's still averaging close to a double-double since he's been coming off the bench.

You might as well talk about how horribly Vlade's played. I didn't bother to crunch numbers but in 50 games before the all-star break he had 31 double-digit scoring games. Since the break, in 22 games, he's had double digits in 7.

Anyone think Chris Webber might just be a slight factor?

able
03-26-2004, 10:55 AM
I only saw one mention on this and it didn't get much play so I'll throw it out again.

Everyone on the planet knew that once Webber came back Brad's production would go down. Anything else was pretty impossible - unless you think that Sacto was going to keep running the offense through him and Vlade.

Now granted, 2 of his last 3 games have been absolutely lousy and if that keeps up I'd be willing to re-think this, but the guy's still averaging close to a double-double since he's been coming off the bench.

You might as well talk about how horribly Vlade's played. I didn't bother to crunch numbers but in 50 games before the all-star break he had 31 double-digit scoring games. Since the break, in 22 games, he's had double digits in 7.

Anyone think Chris Webber might just be a slight factor?

Yes undoubtedly and a BIG one at that. as for Vlad, tell me about it, he is my starting C on my fantasy team and wrecking my chances in the conf final!

hrmph

et encore: I was pointing to posts, not venting my opinion.

bulletproof
03-26-2004, 10:56 AM
:rolleyes: Blah, blah, blah...read my previous post. There really is nothing more to say about it. Of course Bartelstein figured into it, but what it essentially came down to is that Donnie did not think Brad was worth what he was commanding. How do I know this? Oh, I know.

able
03-26-2004, 10:58 AM
Able the only problem I have with your post is that in an interview with Brad he stated that as soon as Bird was hired he stopped getting calls. Brad was on a fishing trip when the deal was announced and he did not want to come in and sign the contract or take the physical. He calls it a trade because he wanted to stay. He said recently that being back in Indiana makes the trade suck that much more.

These do not sign like the words of someone who was totaly in favor of what happend. I am sure his agent told him to let him handle things and that all would work out fine and he would be a Pacer. Donnie had said that he would re-sign Brad and that he would go over the LT if need be to do it.

I have not read that interview, but your first quote puts a lot of that blame then with Larry Bird.
Also, I find it very hard to believe that an agent can or will make a deal against the wish of the client, I can understand the Pacers saying no to the curent contract, but what if anything less was Brad willing to accept? in order to get that, you have to propose it, no one can guess and if his agent came to Donny wanting more then he got now, while he had this on the table (nad the other offers) then there was no reason whatsoever for the P's to offer anything. henceforth, either the agent has the power to place the client wherever he makes the most (the agent that is) or the client is the boss, in the latter case he is also responsible for the outcome.

NewYawk
03-26-2004, 11:09 AM
I agree with Wintermute and Peck, that was very good reasoning!

The thing about the Pacers (trading) Brad that has always bugged me is it doesn't make sense. Centers are hard to come by and Walsh knows this. So why does he let a legitimate center go when he has one? He's said the Simon's would let him go over the cap if he asked them to. So why wouldn't he ask to go over the cap for an all star center?

You've given a plausible reason why. Good post!

What Brad Miller is making NOW is very reasonable and very much what he is worth. HOWEVER, what Brad Miller will make in two years is Jermaine O'Neal max money. A team simply cannot afford to have two players on the team making THAT kind of money and expect to be able to keep players like Ron Artest, Al Harrington, and Reggie Miller.

THAT is why Brad Miller wasn't re-signed. It's not what he's making now; it's what he's making 2 years from now, 3 years from now. Stuff like that doesn't put the franchise a little over the cap, it puts a franchise in NY Knicks territory. Does Croshere's contract hurt Indy in this regard? Yes, but EVEN WITHOUT CROSHERE'S CONTRACT, Brad is still way, way too expensive 2 or 3 years from now.

Also, let's be honest, Brad has a tendency to disappear in crunch time. He's either hurt, whining, or both. I like Brad and would prefer he played for my team, but the Pacers had a choice: re-sign JO or Brad. They chose JO, a better player and a BETTER CENTER than Brad, IMHO.

Bball
03-26-2004, 06:08 PM
:rolleyes: Blah, blah, blah...read my previous post. There really is nothing more to say about it. Of course Bartelstein figured into it, but what it essentially came down to is that Donnie did not think Brad was worth what he was commanding. How do I know this? Oh, I know.


... does he still believe that? Has time reinforced his thoughts or would he do things differently if he had it to do over? Blah Blah Blah.... if only the Pacers were winning... errrrr what? Hey! Wait a minute.... ;)



-Bball

ChicagoJ
03-26-2004, 06:15 PM
I like Brad and would prefer he played for my team, but the Pacers had a choice: re-sign JO or Brad. They chose JO, a better player and a BETTER CENTER than Brad, IMHO.


Now that's something I agree with 100%.

:dance:

Bball
03-26-2004, 06:42 PM
I've alway thought there is One Factor which has never been mentioned here when it comes to the topic of why Pacers let go Brad Miller. Now this is brought up again so i will let it out:
(it could be just pure speculation, or it could be true)


Brad Miller's agent is Mark Bartelstein.

Ron Artest's agent is Mark Bartelstein, too.

When Ron ('s agent) was negotiating extension with Donnie Walsh the summer before last season started, I remember clearly it was not a easy negotiation and Walsh had been quoted as saying it almost didn't get done "due to exuberant demand" (peter vecsey) afterwards.

But somehow it got done and turned out to be a very reasonable contract. Many people said it was a bargain (and everyone now starts to see it's indeed a big one).



Interesting theory mmxx.

Let's look at it another way. I think the Zapruder film is in the lab as we speak. Possibly Artest's reasonable contract is because Walsh and Bartelstein had a bit of an acknowledgement on what it would take to get Brad re-signed in the summer. Artest has been known to have 'issues' and maybe they felt that reasonable contract was fair to everyone (knowing what the summer would bring).

Then something changed. Walsh cooled on BMiller. Whatever thoughts Bartelstein had on what Walsh could/would offer weren't fulfilled. Walsh offered nothing. Meanwhile, Bartelstein thinks BMiller's stock should be UP not down. So he tries to strongarm DW. DW has been down this road before with Croshere and wants no part of these kind of negotiations. He sours on BMiller even more.

He already had his plan B (or maybe plan A) in his briefcase all along. At the 11th hr he calls the Kings.

-----

Or wild theory #2....

Bartelstein made the Artest deal assuming he and Donnie were on the same page as what that would leave BMiller to be paid. For whatever reason, whether he assumed wrong or Donnie had cooled on BMiller by the spring, Donnie wasn't going there now. Then the scenario plays the same as above... Bartelstein tries to strongarm DW... DW balks.... 11th hr DW calls the Kings and says "I think I am willing to talk about that deal we talked of earlier with Brad"

-BBall :idea: