RealGM

I want to hear from you about the C we should target if it's a MLE signed player.
We are not talking about a better C we could get from bigger deal.

Basically, we know the positives and negatives things from Shaq, but there's something I did not think about at first regarding Miller, even when I thought we could trade last year Marvin+Zaza+Speedy for Miller+Salmons :
Miller allows to use Josh at SF when needed, without having him on the 3pts line.
I don't like Josh at SF, but depending on the matchups, it can help sometimes.

Why ?
Because unlike Shaq, his has a good mid-range game and shot, he can even create and pass from there, and all this game can easily allow Josh to stay on the floor with Al at PF, and still be near the basket as Larry Drew wants.

Shaq, and lots of other C don't allow that at all.
Miller is not young too, but he knows the game, and even in defense, he's boxing out a lot, and would help Al and Josh to get rebound, and since Josh was often not good at this work, better get a C that can do that job.


We can even imagine getting both if we can sign one, and get the other by a sign-&-trade and send Zaza or Marvin or Childress (by double sign-&-trade) as main piece.
I don't see it as necessary, but maybe some people will think that interesting, so I add this option.

Think about all the points because Shaq for example can be a cool thing in ATL and bring some money by selling more tickets, something Miller won't, or indirectly if him and maybe other new guys bring enough to see that the team is clearly on the next level.

I start and my choice is Brad Miller, mainly for the game which seems to fit ATL and add new possibilities, the fact that he has no problem coming from the bench.
I also have some doubts about getting Haywood with the MLE, or he could cost too much by sign-&-trade, without bringing what Miller can.

Heck, why not both??

SAUCERY_SWEET wrote:Heck, why not both??

It would certainly help, offering more possibilities, but it would also cost us a player being a potential add-on in a trade, if we had the chance to get one guy at 15M for Crawford+Zaza.

Is it more important to get a "overload" of big guys, or get one and keep players to do a potential big trade.

Get Gortat for Al Horford

JMagic3 wrote:Get Gortat for Al Horford

At least the other are older but cost less, we can keep Al to get them

Miller isn't a good 3 point shooter, he even not shoot many so he don't allows to use Josh at SF, a big who would allows to use Josh at SF is Troy Murphy!

JMagic3 wrote:Get Gortat for Al Horford

Spoken like a Magic fan.

kobyz wrote:Miller isn't a good 3 point shooter, he even not shoot many so he don't allows to use Josh at SF, a big who would allows to use Josh at SF is Troy Murphy!

Not sure if you did read all the post.
The goal is not to set Josh Smith at SF for the wall game, just a point that Miller could allow it for some minutes if it was needed.
Sure Murphy can shoot the 3s, but does he create from mid-range like Miller, does he box-out like Miller, he's he ready to receive Howard in the face, I seriously doubt.
And he's not a player we can get with the MLE, and since he's making 11,968,253, it would need more than trading a player like Zaza or Marvin which was the only condition of this thread, and not start to talk also of bigger trade possibilities.

The REAL question will be chemistry on the court.

Shaq would clog the middle on defense (a good thing and something we need), help us with defensive rebounds and - for short periods of time - he will post his man up effectively on offense.

Miller would be a threat in pick-and-pops, where he screens for a shooter and then rolls off for the return pass and takes a jump shot. In Drew's new offense - which I haven't seen yet - maybe Miller's talent will be more valuable.

The answer is obviously Shaq. Miller does nothing that Smith or Horford don't already do. He'd never play crunch time minutes because of this.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:The answer is obviously Shaq. Miller does nothing that Smith or Horford don't already do. He'd never play crunch time minutes because of this.

Shaq doesn't play crunch time minutes either.

evildallas wrote:

HoopsGuru25 wrote:The answer is obviously Shaq. Miller does nothing that Smith or Horford don't already do. He'd never play crunch time minutes because of this.

Shaq doesn't play crunch time minutes either.

I'm talking about what their role would be on the Hawks. Shaq provides a completely different skillset than any other player on our roster. Miller just replicates what we already have in Horford and Smith.

Shaq has a very entertaining personality as well. He will be good for our team chemistry. He's a respected veteran and obviously a champ. He will get people excited about Hawks basketball. He would legitimize our entire franchise.

Miller does none of those things and the few things he does better to me don't outweigh the benefit of a Shaq signing.

On the other hand, I would TOTALLY want Brendan Haywood over Shaq because I think he does everything better at this point in Shaq's career to where it would outweigh the other benefits listed above for Shaq. However, I doubt he'll only get MLE (seriously doubt)...given that Mavs will probably give like 8-10 per year (guessing).

HoopsGuru25 wrote:The answer is obviously Shaq. Miller does nothing that Smith or Horford don't already do. He'd never play crunch time minutes because of this.

If Josh Smith could be ready to do the dirty job and boxing-out, and have a mid-range shot, maybe I would agree.
And more over than that, Miller is OK to start on the bench, something that need to be heard from Shaq, and I think it will be the main reason of him not coming here, if he doesn't come.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:The answer is obviously Shaq. Miller does nothing that Smith or Horford don't already do. He'd never play crunch time minutes because of this.

Actually Miller is more crafty around the basket and can shoot the 3 rather well for a big. Something Horford and Smith struggle at.

JMagic3 wrote:Get Gortat for Al Horford

Sure as long as you get Zaza for D.Howard.

SAUCERY_SWEET wrote:

HoopsGuru25 wrote:The answer is obviously Shaq. Miller does nothing that Smith or Horford don't already do. He'd never play crunch time minutes because of this.

Actually Miller is more crafty around the basket and can shoot the 3 rather well for a big. Something Horford and Smith struggle at.

Wondering where this misconception comes from. Brad Miller is not a good or even decent 3 PT shooter. He's been over 32% from 3 2x in his career when he's had > 10 attempts. There are some very good attributes that Miller brings (one of the elite passing big men in the NBA, decent FT shooter, very solid in just about every other phase of the game), but deep range is not one of them. If range is strictly what you're looking for, then trying to find a way to swing a trade for Mehmet Okur or possibly even signing Zydrunas Ilgaukas would be better options than Miller.

As far as this discussion, I'd have to go with Shaq. I've just always wanted a huge big to put directly in the middle of our O and D to see let the athletes loose - kind of like having a dominant OL in FB so that the RBs and WRs can run free. Even putting what is currently a shell of the player who was Shaq in the middle could open up parts of the floor that we simply haven't been able to exploit. For me, if it's strictly between Miller and Shaq, then it's Shaq.

theatlfan wrote:If range is strictly what you're looking for, then trying to find a way to swing a trade for Mehmet Okur or possibly even signing Zydrunas Ilgaukas would be better options than Miller

We could include Ilgauskas, I agree, but if you end on Okur, it's because you are out of the limit of this thread.
We talk about MLE player, or sign-&-trade for only one player of this range of price like Zaza or Marvin, so it's all comes down to one word : relativity.
And in this case, Brad Miller is one of the best mid-range or even long-range shooter you can find, for that price range.

Now back to Ilgauskas, he have a better shot that Miller, maybe more from the corner 3pts and mid-range, but Miller seems better at all the other aspects of the game, especially the dirty job.

^^^Not sure where you're going here. In this thread (I know it wasn't you, but I did quote the one it was...), Miller was being sold as a 35+% 3 PT shooter or something - he's not, not even close. If you're looking for a good 3 PT shooter out of a big, the only name that came to mind is Okur - hence, why I brought him up. Ilgauskas is OK, but really isn't great either (his age and dip in production last year scare me a little here). I guess you're word for the day - "relativity" - works though: compared to Shaq, Miller is a long range bomber; compared to Okur, Miller's range is nothing. He's simply not someone I'd place @ the 3PT line and let him spot up jumpers all night.

Look, I'm not against bringing in Miller by any stretch. If we got Miller, Shaq, Big Z, Haywood, or anyone other "true C" @ the MLE for a reasonable length of time, then I think we've upgraded in the front court. Zaza is a very good 4th big but seems a little outclassed as the 3rd big. As stated, I'd prefer to see what someone with Shaq's type of game would bring to our team over someone who'd just be a role playing part who's brought in for versatility, but if that doesn't happen, I wouldn't be mad or anything... as long as we got someone.

Miller and Ilgauskas are solid long 2 shooters. They have range to draw a defender out. They don't necessarily need to camp out beyond the 3 pt line to affect the defense. It'd be nice as the shots are worth more, but just getting a C away from the basket helps.