http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wi...090501/miller_remains_noncommittal_to_sixers/ I'm not sure what he's expecting at 33 and in this economy, but it sure sounds like he's ready to return to the West coast.
I'm really torn on this, and i'd rather have plenty of other PGs (well maybe not plentry) before Miller, but out of the available PGs Miller is probably in the top 5 depending on how much money he wants. I'd much rather have Sessions. Should be an interesting off-season.
I'd jump all over Miller for MLE. Don't know if Miller would, and I don't know if KP would depending on the years.
Miller would be a great pick-up, IMO. He's clearly not going to be a long-term solution, but as a smart, talented veteran point guard to hold down the position until (hopefully) Bayless is ready to take over, he'd make a lot of sense. He doesn't have the outside shot, but he's great otherwise...he's a good defender, a very good distributor, good at getting to the hoop, even a good rebounder for his position.
I like Miller, but it depends on how big (and even more so, how long) of a contract he wants. He's still effective, but he's getting up in age enough that I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal unless it was like a vet's minimum (which clearly, he can do better than). However, a bigger deal for just 2-3 years would be reasonable I think. So really, it just depends all on what he's asking.
i think Miller is a really nice player but only for the MLE or a VERY reasonable contract. he'd be a nice piece, but we'd still be groaning at times saying we need a prime PG to go against the likes of Parker, Deron Williams, CP, etc. the guy is a career .210% shooter from 3. that's beyond horrendous. i'd like a PG who can step up and drill some shots, not one who'll cower away from the open look.
Have you ever watched Andre Miller? The dude is a great finisher in the lane, has a very good mid-range game and is probably the best post-up point guard in the game. Three point shooting is nice, but I'd rather have a point guard kicking it out to your three point shooters (Martell, Rudy, Roy) than have a point guard who can't penetrate and instead plays spot up shooter because your shooting guard is required to run the offense for long stretches of the game.
well yea, i said he's a nice player. but i dont think he'd get portland over any hump. what would Andre Miller do in a series against Houston where they had the entire lane completely locked down pretty much all series (aside from some acrobatic layups from Roy)? drive and dish? sounds nice, but doesnt mean Andre Miller is going to solve all worries. they were goading Portland to shoot from the outside and that's how you beat them. Martell? are you serious? how can fans be counting on a guy who never even put together back-to-back decent games?
Do you know how many open shots Portland would've had this series with Brooks and Lowry trying to guard Miller's post ups? Just think about how ridiculous of a mismatch Brooks being posted up by Miller would be.
Since I didn't claim Miller would solve all worries (we still desperately need some offense from the small forward spot and some toughness and rebounding from the backup four) I guess we can leave it at that -- he'd be a nice addition to the team, somebody who could take some pressure off of Brandon and would be capable of running the offense at a high level (ie. get our bigs more involved). Secondly, I didn't say you could count on Martell, but he does have a pretty decent stroke for a wing. As for Houston's plan of packing the paint and daring you to shoot from outside I completely disagree. Houston has always played the perimeter very well, contesting almost every three we hoisted up that didn't come off of Brandon driving into the lane and kicking out to an open shooter like Blake and Travis. Miller would have abused Brooks in this series by post-ups and blowing past him into the lane, and he seemed to do pretty well against Orlando's monster shot blocker, frequently driving the lane to finish or dish. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=557 check for yourself
That's because they've all been end of shot clock situations, when he actually starting taking them this year it rose dramatically. He's just good at recognizing what works well in his game and playing w/in his limitations which are . This is the same thing Steve Blake is good at (recognizing limitations), but oddly his only strength is shooting so he refuses to run the break, get guys open buckets, or drive to the hole.
I agree it is a tough call. Miller played great this year. He could help us for a couple years. IMO it comes down to Bayless. Do they think he is the "future"? If they do then i think Miller is a good call until he is ready. If they don't think he is, then I would make a "bigger/better" move than Miller.
Yeah, he's probably due at minimum a 7 million a year deal (you do have to account for his age) it would all depend on the structure of his contract. If for instance a team signed him to a de-escalating deal that paid 8 million the first year and stepped down a million every year for 4 years with a team option for the fourth that would probably be a fair price ... but who knows what the competition for his services will be like.
The problem for him is that not a lot of teams will have the cap space to offer over a MLE deal. Of the team who will have sizeable cap space, how many need a point guard? (Actual question...I'm not actually certain which teams will have cap space in excess of the MLE.) So, since most teams won't be able to bid on him (over the MLE), that will limit how much he can demand. I think a deal slightly over the MLE might get it done.
Yea, I'm shocked at how little people expect him to make. Let's not forget the absurd contracts guys like Maggette and BDiddy got last summer. The economy is worse off, but he'll make at least $9 mil per year. With Jason Kidd balling well at age 36 in the playoffs, I don't think Miller is too old for us.
He's an improvement, but dang it not really the move I'm wanting. I know I don't want Steve Blake starting next season. My ideal target is Sessions, but that seems like a stretch. Miller seems like a double and I'm holding out for a home run.
You guys are gonna hate this, but what if KP let it bake one more season.....that is, until Miles comes off the books, then goes after a top-tier PG in 2010? Isn't that when the pickin's will be much sweeter?
I don't believe we will have any cap space. I think this year is the last chance with the Free Agency for a long while.
I don't think this is true. If we trade our picks this year and don't sign any major pieces we could have a lot of cap room if we do not resign Blake, Trout or Serg. Pryz has a player option, but I don't think he would pick it up. Frankly, I sort of like this strategy. It gives us another year to evaluate and see how some of these players bounce back. Problem is that other than Steve Nash or Earl Watson, I don't see any good prospects at PG who are FA's in 2010. I like Koponen's size and I think that he might fit this team better than our current PG's. I wouldn't mind seeing a trade that sends out some of our current PG's for a good veteran PG who can manage the team until Koponnen is ready to take the reins.
