According to Marc Stein, the Blazers have inquired about Brad Miller. With Greg Oden and Joel Przybilla out for the year, the Blazers may look to trade for a big man with an expiring contract to fill that void.

But it makes little sense on the Bulls end. As I’ve touched on previously, the Bulls are looking to trade either Kirk Hinrich of John Salmons to get further under the salary cap in order to go after two big-name free agents this offseason. Miller has an expiring contract. So even if the Bulls traded him to the Blazers for expiring contracts, what sense does expiring for expiring make, especially when, as Stein notes, Miller pumped in 25 points against Houston this past weekend, and the Bulls have played great in the month of January?

The only way I could see the Bulls going for this is if Hinrich was also involved. The Blazers are rumored to be dangling Steve Blake as well, and his contract is expiring. So he could fill the guard void left by Hinrich, and if they send back all expiring in return, the Bulls might bite. But that’s an impossible prospect. If you put in all the expiring deals on Portland, it totals up to almost $9 million. Hinrich and Miller are making almost $22 million this year. So that trade wouldn’t work.

Stein notes Miller could be involved in a deal if the Bulls trade for Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire. If that’s the case, then it makes more sense, as these two would be one of the guys the Bulls will potentially target in the offseason anyway.

But Brad Miller will likely continue to be a Bull until further notice.

Things I think I know: With instant replay, if a call is to be overturned, there has to be conclusive evidence that the call made was wrong. In the above scenario, that would mean this: the refs had to, without a shadow of a doubt, see that the ball was still in Brad Miller’s hands when the red light went off. If not, their ruling of the shot being good stands. And if it’s too close to call, hence no “conclusive” evidence? You go with the ruling on the court, too.

Things I think I saw: Contrary to what every single Bulls fan I follow on Twitter was saying, I think the ball was still on the tip of Miller’s fingers when he released the shot. Yes, it was ridiculously close. Yes, I wish the call had gone the other way. Yes, I agree there’s certainly a case to be made that since it was so close, there wasn’t conclusive evidence, and the ruling the refs made of the shot being good should stand. But I guess I just kept waiting to see the replay where I was like “A-ha, he got it off, Bulls win!” I never saw that, though. Every replay I saw I had a sinking feeling it was going to be overturned because it ever so slightly looked like it was still on his fingertips. I’m probably in the minority here, but so be it.

Conclusion: Here’s where it gets tricky. I will agree that the Bulls got jobbed. When you’re at home, it’s that close, and the refs called it good from the get-go, one would assume the call stands. But I think the refs huddled around the monitor and were like: “OK, dudes, even though we called it good, can we really justify that still, now that we’re looking at the multiple replays that aren’t really telling us that? I don’t think we can.”

The reason I’m so jaded about this? I’ve seen Indiana end up on the wrong side of these calls too many times this football season.

When I think of rest and relaxation — the old R and R — I think of grabbing a blanket, chilling out on a comfy couch, watching a movie, playing video games, throwing the tennis ball to my dog. That sort of thing. Chilling out. Taking it easy. Marinatin’. You get the drift. When Brad Miller thinks of resting and relaxing, he apparently thinks of traveling around the world and firing high-powered weapons at animals of varying sizes. This is what I’ve come to know this morning:

“Obviously, you approach the offseasons a little differently now because you’re looking more just to stay healthy,” Miller said. “You don’t recover as much as the young guys. So a lot more Advil, more time icing and just maintaining your body. Or hunting.”

I feel like hunting isn’t necessarily the best way to maintain your body. I know very little about the sport, but doesn’t it at least require the ability to walk around in the outdoors a whole bunch? And, like, root around in bushes and trees and forest for hours on end? And also don’t you have to shoot rifles, which kick back, and maybe aren’t the best thing for your shoulder? I don’t know. I’m honestly asking. But this doesn’t sound like rest or relaxation to me. You’re telling me there’s no TV involved?

Actually, there is. The reason Miller was hunting so much this offseason — and the past three offseasons — is that he’s been filming a show called “Country Boys Outdoors,” a The Sportsman’s Channel joint he’s co-hosting and which premieres this month. In case you don’t watch much Bulls basketball, and don’t already get your fill of Millerocrity already. Tune in! Sounds like fun!

Anyway: Your move, Kerby.

It’s weird. I was not out on the United Center’s court last night. I was not screaming in the stadium. I was not coaching either team, having to mentally be in every play.

I was just sitting at a table at a bar in Lincoln Park. And yet, by the time the third overtime came to a close and the Bulls had pulled out an incredible victory, I was tired. I was spent. I just wanted to go home. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that it’s been a long week, but part of me, as a fan, was just flat out exhausted. I wanted the Bulls to win, of course. But I just wanted it to end, too. The game was exhausting. Tiring. Thrilling. Frustrating. Exhilarating. Awesome. Fantastic. Maddening. It was just about every emotion you can dream up.

When this series was tied at 1-1 and Bill Simmons was asking you to strap it in and get ready to go on a historic ride, I agreed. But, it’s surpassed even what I thought it could be. The last three games have gone into overtime. There has been out-of-this-world play from the likes of Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Rajon Rondo, Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon.

Keep reading →

If it seems like we’ve been writing a lot about Rajon Rondo’s foul on Brad Miller today, it’s because we have. But, it is time to speculate no more: The NBA got all official on us today, and told us to quit our whining. It wasn’t flagrant:

An NBA spokesman confirmed on Wednesday that the league office reviewed Rajon Rondo’s foul on Brad Miller with two seconds remaining in overtime but declined to reclassify it as a flagrant-one foul.

Shoals might have the best interpretation:

Shoals just doesn’t care about the foul. Rondo couldn’t reach a play on the ball, but it wasn’t a play on the face. The intent was the ball.

Perhaps the league thought the same thing here: Sure, he smacked him right in the face, but that wasn’t the intent.

Which, coincidentally, is the same excuse I used in that fight I got in with a hobo last week. I was actually going for his balls, not his face.

Have a good evening and keep your hands to yourself.

This morning I argued the refs were not to blame for the Bulls’ loss last evening. Namely, because I hate when fans blame the refs for a team’s loss. But after Eamonn sent over Henry Abbott’s take on the matter, there seemed to be reason to bring it back up again. So we did just that.

Eamonn: I think we might be able to complain about the referees.

Ryan: I mean, I guess I didn’t think about the Bulls getting to pick the shooter if it was a flagrant. But the point remains: They lost an 11-point lead. The game didn’t hinge on the Miller play.

Eamonn: At that point, yeah it did.

Ryan: How many times do you see a flagrant called to end a game?

Eamonn: Just because the refs don’t have the sack to call it doesn’t make it right. And just because the Bulls lost an 11-point lead doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to the appropriate call in that situation.

Ryan: I guess one of my pet peeves is people saying: “Oh, if the refs would have called it this way, x team would have won.” There are countless other scenarios and situations throughout a game you can look at that if they went the other way, the Bulls would have won.

Keep reading →

And it’s not just because Kevin Garnett is hurt.

No, it’s because the Bulls have sneakily become kind of good lately. I wrote about this at NBC earlier today. It’s only partially related to Garnett. No, somehow, Chicago has won 14 out of their last 20 games. They’ve played especially well at home. Exactly 82 games after Vinny Del Negro took over the team, they still do stupid stuff all the time — Del Coacho is still objectively bad at his job — but they somehow end up winning games. It’s kind of weird.

Derrick Rose is good. John Salmons (if healthy, which is questionable right now) is a legitimate scorer. So is Ben Gordon. Tim Thomas hits three pointers sometimes. Brad Miller pushes people around and seems to enjoy it. Then he grimaces and looks angry, and then he smiles. Brad Miller is awesome.

Anyway, the point of all this is that the Bulls can give Boston a series. They might not win. They probably won’t. And they certainly won’t win the NBA title, because this isn’t Major League Baseball. But my whole anti-playoffs crusade the beginning of the year has receded; I actually want to watch the Bulls play competitive basketball now. I am encouraged by this success. That’s far much more than I could say at the beginning of the year and, you know, that’s not so bad. I like it. I’ll take it, anyway.