DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

I've Moved On, Have They?

deepsixersuede on May 28 at 8:53

I will try to be E.S.!s lawyer in "the bring A.Miller back " case.After watching tons of film he feels at #17 that a]he won!t get a starter quality player b]the shooters at #17 are higher quality than the p.g.!s probably available c]he won!t move any of his young core to move up.Three things about this years playoffs weigh on his mind; 1]Detroit!s utter collapse after losing their veteran p.g. 2]Orlando possibly winning the title [are we close?] 3]Billups affect on Anthony and rest of Nuggets.L.Will.,L.Will.,L.Will.;With Iggy becoming the starting s.g. and 96 min. available at the 2/3 per game he needs L.Will. to be a p.g. so he can add a 24 min.shooter as a backup at the s.g. position.A.Miller!s work with L.Will. isn!t finished and E.S. feels this is VERY important for this teams future.Economic issues limit what is available as far as getting a veteren p.g.;Sessions either stays at Milwaukee or wants more than we have available and guys like Conley aren!t gettable.Any m.l.e. guys he could acquire aren!t capable of being the 2nd best player on this team, as A.Miller was and lastly,with the small sample size he got last year of the NEW starting lineup,strengthening the bench is all that is needed.

bebopdeluxe on May 28 at 9:00

I fully agree, Brian...the only difference between you and me is I would have tried AGGRESSIVELY to trade Miller at thge deadline for whatever assets we could have gotten (a swap of Hinrich for Miller's expiring would have been #1 on my list, if CHI would have listened).

I would think that a basketball lifer like Stefanski recognizes that two of the biggest issues this team has are shooting from distance and perimeter defense/stopping dribble penetration, and Miller is at the epicenter of both of these critical issues. I thank Miller for his 2 1/2 years of class and professionalism at the point, but it is time to move on.

Be BOLD, Eddie...

(why do I have the feeling that we are witnessing Brad Greenberg redux?)

I've been advocating moving Miller for a couple years so I won't be sorry to see him go. I think you're over rating 'brand' being brought to Philadelphia because of Miller, but that's just me.

You don't have to go back to greenberg, re-signing Miller cause you think you're almost there is a Billy King like move.

deepsixersuede on May 28 at 9:31

Guys, I hope he is bold also but I could see him having the above mindset also.If the future p.g. is brought in now he should be ready by the time we clear the "three stooges" money and challenge for a title.

A source close to Van Gundy said he would be surprised if Van Gundy landed in Philly, adding that Van Gundy generally wants input on player personnel decisions. Philadelphia Inquirer

This comment from the Inquirer bothers me...maybe not anyone else, but if that's the direction the front office thinks it needs to go with its coach, I'm bummed.

Sean reply to John on May 28 at 10:06

But to me, they have not qualified what "input" means. I think every GM should listen to their coach's opinion, but that is entirely different than having a veto, which is almost what is being implied. In effect, by hiring such a person with that power, you are hiring your boss. I don't think JVG's record warrants that much respect. If it were Pop or Phil Jackson, somebody like that, then I could see it, but not JVG.

Well, they said a source close to Van Gundy. That's a little different than a Sixers' source saying the front office doesn't want a coach who will want input in player decisions.

john reply to Brian on May 28 at 10:46

hence the equivocation in my post - if its true it's bothersome to me - again it's all just spin one way or another

Honestly, Stefanski doesn't strike me as the type of guy who would dismiss any idea completely, plus, talking about how much you want to keep him helps his value if you do try a S&T. I think if he can get Miller for a bargain, he might do it.

Stefanski has already openly said the coach doesn't need to be involved with player decisions. Just saying that suggests he doesn't want a coach actively involved in those decisions or discussions. I am actually already reserved to the belief Stefanski doesn't think the coach needs input and wouldn't want a head strong coach that demands or at the least actively gets involved with the front office regarding player personnel decisions.

I could be wrong but so far I feel like Stefanski wants all the power and control and the coach is somewhat of a lap dog or puppet.

I don't disagree with the conclusion of your comment, necessarily, but from what I've read, I more get the feeling that he wants a coach who understands what he's doing w/ the roster and is on board with that direction. Meaning, he doesn't want a guy to come in and say "You need to get rid of Iguodala," or "I can't win with this roster."

I read that as well. But that is now, all talk, before the games are played when you really find out about the roster when it matters. What coach in their right mind would even interview for a position with a team they don't believe in AND would have no power to sculpt it a bit?

If you bring in a smart coach that does know he is doing and he comes to the conclusion after coaching the team in real games for an ample amount of time to really get a gauge that there indeed needs to be major roster move to get to the next level will Stefanski seriously listen? Or be head strong with his own personal vision and loyalty to current players even if it proves to be slow moving and/or ineffective? Towards the only goal there is - contender/champion.

There comes a point when you go through multiple coaches that clearly screams it isn't the coach it's the roster. It isn't good enough and/or doesn't connect well enough time to make a big move.

I don't think we are there yet but my assumption is that point is where I believe "Van Gundy's people" or any coach for that matter would hold their concern in dealing with Stefanski.

I don't think it needs to be a situation where coaches are negotiating with players and making all the decision and things of that sort.

"I read that as well. But that is now, all talk, before the games are played when you really find out about the roster when it matters. What coach in their right mind would even interview for a position with a team they don't believe in AND would have no power to sculpt it a bit?"

Probably all the guys they've already interviewed except Jay Wright. Although I'm not sure that's the case in Philly, yet.

All we really know is who he's interviewed. And all we really know about his thoughts on the roster is that he envisioned Brand as a perfect piece, he valued Iguodala enough to give him a big contract and he thought Lou was worthy of near MLE compensation. Everything else is supposition at this point. Let's wait and see who he decides on as coach and what he does with the roster this Summer before we decide if he's an egomaniac or pigheaded.

john reply to Brian on May 28 at 12:11

Well you can read into it that most of his interviews have been guys who are out of work and hungry to get back in to the league - collins, johnson, even JVG, they all have jobs and would have to be enticed back in...

bebopdeluxe on May 28 at 11:21

There is a difference between LB (in the BK era) having input on player personnel decisions and other, less intrusive levels of input. For example, if Coach X interviews for the job and says to ES "if you hire me, you have to trade Iguodala, 'cause he can't be a 2", that would constitute too much input...but if, for example, Thibodeau comes in and says, "I like Iggy, Thad and Brand at the 2, 3 and 4...I think I can make that work with the right PG...so, can you go get Hinrich?", I don't view that as over-the-top personnel input.

The coach has a vision for the team and how he wants to set things up. I don't think that ANY coach worth his salt is going to come in and have Stefanski say to him, "yeah, I want you to coach my team...install your offensive and defensive philosophies - the philosophies, by the way, that have led you to your success - but I will have 100% say on EVERY roster decision...you will coach the players that I DEMAND that you coach...you will have ZERO input on who will execute your system...

"...and you will like it."

I am sure that there are a LOT of assistant coaches that would agree to that, but why the @#$% would somebody like JVG agree to something like that?

Answer - they wouldn't.

With every day that goes by...with every tidbit that comes out...I trust Stefanski less and less...

deepsixersuede on May 28 at 11:25

His control philosophy allows him to seem interested in the bigger names knowing they won!t come, thus getting his coach without people saying he didn!t go after the big fish. I would hope Thibodeax would at least be able to speak his piece as far as wanting a defensive p.g. up top to make his way work.How do the current playoff team front offices work?

I'm not sure there really is a model front office. Some people would point to Portland, but they seem to be unwilling to pull the trigger on deals. Possibly why they didn't get out of the first round. San Antonio has done a great job competing, but they've made questionable decisions (letting Scola walk for nothing?) but I guess that's more about money than anything.

The Lakers lucked into Gasol, nothing brilliant there. Cleveland, well, I guess the jury is out on them. Orlando has made questionable decisions. Detroit traded Chauncey for AI.

I seriously don't know if I'd say any front office is really doing a great job right now.

john reply to Brian on May 28 at 11:56

San ANtonio - even with the luck of the 'irish' getting Duncan, they seem to have a solid front office and good approach be it europe or free agency or whatever...

deepsixersuede on May 28 at 11:50

When Mo was involved with the draft workouts, I wonder whose opinion carried the most weight.Didn!t B.K. have a commitee of 3 [King,Brown,Deleo]

I don't know why so many are so sanguine about letting Andre Miller go, particularly if he wants to come back. The Sixers might be a flawed team but they are not a team without some of the ingredients to be a serious contender. One of those key ingredients is Andre Miller. During the past two years, the Sixers have at times played some of their best basketball since the 2001 season. The biggest reasons are the two Andres.

This disappointing season cannot be at all blamed on Miller. The past two years were two of the best of his career. The Sixers underperformed because:

1) Brand was hurt through most of the year and never really became very well integrated into the team's playing style;

2) Dalembert and Williams had subpar years but still played lots of minutes;

3) The Sixers still (whether by choice or necessity) give too many minutes to Green and, maybe to a lesser extent, Evans.

4) They still don't have reliable 3 point shooting (but they knew that going into the year and might have been able to surmount that if not for #1-#3).

If the Sixers traded Dalembert they might lose something but they have a fair chance of finding a post combination that might provide comparable, even if dissimilar, value. I simply cannot see any way that the team could get any rookie point guard who could approach Miller's capability for at least two to three years. Even a veteran like Heinrich couldn't match Miller's play making abilities.

If Miller wants to return and the Sixers can resign him for 8-11 million per year for three years, I think they should do it. Sometimes I think Sixers' fans are just too restless with the players they have and feel that it's always sunnier OUTSIDE of Philadelphia.

I'm not blaming Miller for anything. I just think it's crazy to sign him, completely hamstring the team financially, and expect the team to be appreciably better without addressing the team's biggest weakness.

Miller was great for this team for the time he was here, and hopefully he has helped mold the younger guys a little bit, but I think holding on to him at this point limits what this team can do going forward. They need to address shooting, they need to address perimeter defense (probably in that order). I don't think they can do either if they tie up money in re-signing Miller.

bebopdeluxe on May 28 at 15:01


Many of us who are advocating the end of the Andre Miller era in Philly still like him as a player...we just don't think he's the right fit.

Two questions, if you will:

1) Do you believe - as I do - that two of the biggest problems facing this team are shooting from the perimeter and perimeter defense (which includes stopping dribble penetration)?

2) If you agree with the above statement - that we are a terrible perimeter shooting team (the numbers simply don't lie here) and our perimeter/dribble penetration defense is horrific, how will re-signing Andre Miller to a 3 year, $30 million contract help to address those two critical issues?


I agree that three point shooting and perimeter defense are problems but I think the team has possibly a far bigger problem if it lets Miller go. Mostly, I think their perimeter defense is weak because of their interior help defense style. I don't think their offensive dribble penetration is so bad at all.

OK, they could use a reliable 3 point shooter, but they had that in Kyle Korver and they were a better team after he left. I could see the wisdom of a good three point shooter taking the place of Green or Williams and maybe even cutting into Young's minutes, but Miller is too valuable for the other things he does. And he is a good mid-range shooter. He isn't the most athletic guy in the world but he gets the job done. Look at how much ball handling Turkoglu does for Orlando and how effective he is at it, but he's hardly one of the NBA'a premier athletes.

How would you suggest the 3 point problem be solved if miller is re-signed and thus comcast won't allow any more money to be spent?

Cause it's a huge problem

Miller is on the wrong side of 30, slowing down defensively as the league moves towards more athletic point guards that miller can't keep up with.

I wanted miller gone since the day he got here - the team didn't 'underperofmr' this year - they're a mediocre roster as constructed in my opinion even with brand healthy - so they have to improve

The sixers aren't going to improve vastly by trading sam dalembert, they're just ging to make him someone elses problem

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment