Sam Smith: Andre Miller to Blazers

So how many pass first PG have won championships over the last 20 years? I see 1, and he split time with Antonio Daniels, and even then, any guard that could get the ball up the floor and hand it to Tim Duncan and David Robinson would have won. A few others have been fortunate enough to make it to the finals and not win (Stockton, Kidd). But overall, if you look at history, pass first PG have not had a lot of success getting a ring.

 

I do not see what the issue with championships is and scoring/pass first points is - The real issue for championship winners is defense - and Miller will improve our perimeter defense. This is where his value will be for Portland. It will also solve our backup Pg problem if we can slot Blake there instead of wasting time on Sergio and his 38% win ratio...

Miller helps our perimeter defense, he helps our setup off the dribble situation - and in this regard - he is a lot like Rondo was for the Celtics - (but Rondo is better than Miller).

I absolutely agree that having a pass-first PG is not a requirement for championship - but the point I showed was that the big fall at the early 30s for PGs is more for scoring points like Marbury/Francis - less so for pass-first points - so I do not see Miller's age as such a huge problem.

Again, the issue is - where are our biggest problems?

1. Perimeter defense, especially from the PG position
2. Pick and roll offense in the low-post for our post beasts (mostly Oden)
3. Overall PG play from the backup PG point
4. Backup banger big (4th behind LMA/Oden/Joel) to replace Frye.

Adding Miller while keeping Blake solves problems 1,2 and 3 with one move. What's not to love?

 

The 3 point shooting percentage.

 

That's why we need to keep Blake. We play the one that we need based on our need for the 3 to fall. Brilliant!

 

I actually think the Blazers can get Miller without overpaying. In fact, I think it will be a buyer's market this summer.

Due to Millers' age, only teams in a "win now" mode needing to upgrade at starting PG will be in the running. There really aren't many of those. Specifically:

Cleveland - doesn't need him (Mo Williams)
Boston - doesn't need him (Rondo)
Orlando - doesn't need him (Nelson/Alston)
Lakers - not really (Fisher)
Denver - doesn't need him (Billups)
Houston - doesn't need him (Brooks/Lowry)
Dallas - doesn't need him (assuming they re-sign Kidd)
Utah - doesn't need him (Williams)
New Orleans - doesn't need him (Paul)
San Antonio - doesn't need him (Parker)
Portland - Needs Him - Ding, ding, ding

Second - the economy. Revenues are down league wide. The cap and luxury tax threshold will both be down. Cash strapped owners won't be willing to commit big bucks to anyone - especially a 33-year old.

Third - the Summer of LeBron. Many teams are saving cap space for the summer of 2010. Yes, LeBron is the big prize, but there will be a ton of top notch free agents that summer (Wade, Bosh, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Nash, Shaq, Manu, and possibly Dirk, Amare, Yao Ming, Pierce, etc.).

Yes, Miller is old. But he stays in great shape and has played at least 80 games in every one of his 10 NBA seasons.

So, I don't think there will be much of a bidding war for his services. I think the Blazers will be able to get him for less than many expect, and I think something like 2 (or maybe 3) years guaranteed with an additional year at the team's option is possible.

BNM

 

If the Lakers don't need him due to Fisher, no one needs him. Blake is no worse than Fisher, even on the defensive end. As Hollinger said, Fisher's suspension from Game 3 may have cost Houston the series considering how Brooks was abusing him.

The Lakers could definitely use Miller. However, they won't have the cap room, especially if they have any desire to keep Odom or Ariza.

 

With the triangle offense, the Lakers don't need a conventional (or even good) PG. Fisher is fine in their system and he has a year left on his contract. They could offer Miller a deal starting at the full MLE, but that would push them deeper into luxury tax territory, unless...

Kobe opts out of the last two years and $47 million of his contract. If Kobe opts out (very unlikely), they will probably also let Odom walk and go into total rebuilding mode. In which case, 33-year old Andre Miller won't be on their radar.

BNM

 

I agree with your points about teams looking to 2010, and the penny pinching along with the lowered cap causing problems for free agents this summer.

I am not so sure about the "contenders" are only interesting in a decent, but older point guard. Teams that are looking to spend on a player that they assume will improve their team are projecting a best case scenario. "With what we have in place, if we add this guy, and this guy stays healthy, if we just add a decent veteran point guard we could make noise in the playoffs". Teams thinking like that only need to build from a base of .500 ball.

Thus, I would add some teams to your list, without consideration for team finances that do not allow free agent signings:

Philadelphia: Duh. Miller is their starting PG. They are the biggest threat to sign him.

Chicago: Rose - Don't need him.

Atlanta: Bibby is a free agent. If they lose Bibby, they may lunge after Miller.

Miami: Chalmers. A young point with promise. Miller is better. Do they try to bring in good players now, or save cap space for 2010?

Phoenix: Nash. No need for Miller. We assume they are planning for flexibility in 2010. But, what if they blow it up this summer and try for a quick rebuild? If they trade Nash, they need a PG.


Lakers: Fisher. Fish is fading fast. Miller is an upgrade and is from LA. He might really want to go there for all we know.

Houston: Brooks. Brooks is a below average PG. Miller is an upgrade. Houston needs to try something to win while Yao is in his prime.

Dallas: Kidd. Free Agent. What if Kidd goes somewhere else? They need a PG.

Teams over the cap could offer a 5 year MLE contract to Miller. That is about $30mil, right?

You want to pay Miller (guaranteed) for 2 or 3 years when we have $7 to $8 mil in cap space. That would be a $15 or $23mil contract. We could be outbid by teams without cap space.

I am not so sure there are as few teams that might want Miller as you think. I am not so sure we could obtain his services for a bargain price.

 

Miller will cost more than a max MLE deal.

 

Do you really think any team will offer the 33-year old Miller a 5-year contract? Because oi his age, the over-36 rule would apply to the final two years of a 5-year contract. That means the salary for those final two seasons would be considered "deferred compensation" and would actually count against the team's cap (and I believe luxury tax) during the first 3 years of the contract.

And, here's the killer, due to the over-36 rule, teams over the cap would not be able to offer Miller the full MLE. The amount they can offer him in starting salary would be reduced by the amount of deferred compensation (final two years of salary) divided over the first 3 years of the contract. So, in effect, a team over the cap can only offer Miller a 5-year contract at a starting salary of about 60% of the full MLE.

The over-36 rule is complex. You can read the details here.

BNM

 

congratulations on your raise, Mr. Penn.

 

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what percentage of Sam Smith's predictions/prophecies have come true?

 

Didn't know about that. Thanks for the info.

That blunts the ability and interest in many teams offering him more than a 3 year deal.

I still feel that my point about there being more teams interested in Miller than you originally listed is valid.

Their ability and willingness to pay the man is a different issue entirely.

As for the Blazers being in the catbird seat and being able to snatch Miller for a guaranteed 2 year $15 mil contract as you suggest, I still find to be unlikely. If Miller would sign for $15mil with us, he could sign for the same money over 3 years for most any team using the MLE - Lakers, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami. Philly who has his bird rights, can pay him more or construct a sign-and-trade that we aren't even considering. You don't think Philly would pay more than $15mil to keep Miller around?

I don't think Miller comes here if the Blazers try to lowball him or get him dirt cheap (ie, 3 yrs $15mil). He will have too many alternatives if that is all we offer him. Not offering him more when we easily could have, will send him the message that we don't want him all that much. Based on your info, it seems the Blazers would have to present him with a guaranteed 3 year deal starting at appx $7mil per (whatever their "easy" cap space is). Hopefully, the market is down enough so that deal will be enough.

 

Looks like Miller wants to kick it in South Beach.
http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/columnists/barry-jackson/story/1056431.html

 

My original suggestion was a 2 (or 3) year deal with an additional team option year - whichever it takes to get it done. The over-36 rule also plays a part in how much the Blazers can offer him as anything beyond 3 years is considered deferred compensation and counts against the cap during the first three years. So, the starting salary goes down as the length of the contract goes up. It may actually work out better for Miller to take a shorter guraranteed deal at a larger starting salary than to angle for a longer term deal that would limit his salary during the first three years of the contract.

Since the Blazers will have cap space, they can still offer him more money (both starting and long term) than teams that are over the cap. That's a big advantage in their favor.

Actually, I don't think the 76ers are likely to offer Miller a significant contract in either dollars or length. One reason - Elton Brand. That huge contract Brand signed last off season really kills the 76ers ability to re-sign Miller. With just nine players under contract, not counting Miller, the 76ers are already slightly above the projecte salary cap for 2009-2010. Re-signing Miller, plus enough other bodies to fill out their roster, could push them over the luxury tax threshold. And re-signing Miller to a multi-year deal will impact their ability to re-sign some of their younger players (Thad Young, Speights, Jason Smith) that are still on rookie contracts. Brand is owned over $65 million over the next 4 years. Iguodala is owed $67 million over the next five years. That really limits how much they can spend on re-signing Miller. Sure, they hold his Bird rights and can go over the cap to re-sign him, but are they willing to go into luxury tax territory to do so?

I'm not suggesting the Blazers lowball him, just that there won't be many other teams that could beat our offer. So, no need to go to drastic measures or overpay him. A 3-year deal starting at about $7 million seems doable and probably more than Miller would get elsewhere. It would also allow the Blazers to use their other assets (young, cheap players like Outlaw and Webster, the trade exception, etc.) to address other needs.

BNM

 

I want Andre Miller (signed) or Steve Nash with either:

Ricky Rubio or Brandon Jennings along with Peterri Koponen behind one of them.

For the next year we can rely heavily on Miller/Rudy/Roy then slowly phase out Miller or Nash.

The way I see it we've got Outlaw and Bayless as the main bait to dangle.

 

We're not getting Rubio and we're not getting Jennings. Fugedaboutit.

 

jennings is telfair v 2.0

 

There is no way we are getting the two best players in the draft, that would be impossible. Roy and Aldridge cannot both end up in Portland.

 

lol hes got a point! but why get both rubio and jennings id be happy with either or!