What's new
By:

Why does everyone think Milsap will accept a bench role?

Lets look at it. Milsap struggled when he played more than 30 minutes per game, he struggled against taller/longer competiton, he is too slow of foot to gaurd sf on the perimeter,he was the 8th worst defender in the nba, he was a locker room problem when Boozer came back from injury and Milsap insisted he was still the starter, Al Jefferson and Favours are both pf not centers.

Further he is overpaid for his position-- an undersized pf makes about 4-5 million per season, is easy to replace ( Maxiel, Bass, Landry, Hayes, ) and there are several skilled undersized pf in every draft.
 
Millsap has a hard time scoring and rebounding against skilled length. He can't keep his energy level up with starter's minutes.

Most other competitive teams would bring him off the bench too.
 
If Millsap really said he would not accept a bench role, I'd be disappointed in his putting himself above the team winning. That's very surprising from a hard-working blue-collar guy like him; in which case he should be traded. OTOH, I have noted him whining way too much at refs late this season. Maybe his ego's gotten the best of him; surprising...
 
I think we re not being creative enough here.

One potential scenario that addresses the issues...

Millsap starts at the three, with Favors and Big Al.

First substitution is a three coming in for either Favors or Al. Millsap moves to the four.

Second substitution is Favors or Al coming back in for the other...

Third, is Big Al and Favors together with Millsap getting a rest.

Fourth is Millsap back in at the three.

That way Millsap is a starter... at the three, but plays most of his minutes at the four, backing up Favors and Big Al.

I would not see Millsap having a problem with that. He would get 30-36 minutes per game, (starter minutes), 20-22 as a four, and 10-14 as a three.

It gives him the respect he has earned, allows them to manipulate the match-ups a bit and provides great depth in the front court.

This does not have to be the dilemma some of you want it to be.
 
Starting Millsap at the three then subbing three minutes into the game will not allow two players to get into a rhythm to start a game. You are giving the other team too big of an advantage by doing that. Why don't you just start Favors and Al, and after 8 minutes bring Millsap in for 8 mins and so on. At halftime you have Favors with 16 minutes, Al with 16 mins, and Millsap with 16 mins (I think). Do the same for the second half. Favors and Al to start the second half. Then, for the last 8 minutes, go with matchups which may include Millsap at the three. Starting Millsap at the three just to start him and then subbing three minutes into the game is not a good idea.
 
This argument is silly. You've got 144 minutes a game at front line positions. With the current team, play Millsap , Jefferson, Favors, and Kirilenko 30 minutes each. I don't want any of those guys guaranteed 38 minutes. Let's see what they do with 30 minutes first.

That leaves 24 minutes for guys like Fes or Evans or Miles to see some court time as well. (Miles will also see time at SG.) It doesn't matter who starts, tell the players to focus on winning the game with their 30 minutes. If they are more concerned with whether they are starting , than whether they are doing everything they can to win for the team and improve their effectiveness during the minutes they spend on the court, then start Fes, Favors, and Evans.

The team's problem is finding 7 guys who can play 30 minutes well enough to be a winning team. Guaranteeing the guys who can't rebound and play defense for 30 minutes isn't going to be solved by giving those same guys a guaranteed 38 minutes and a guaranteed starting spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top