Sam Smith: Andre Miller to Blazers

[Rastapopoulos]

Apparently that's "the talk".

 

[Nikolokolus]

Hehe, Sam Smith loves to speculate.

 

[Chuck Taylor]

If we could just sign him as a FA, and give up nothing, it would be pretty hard to turn down.

 

[BlazersBlood]

I like "the talk." Then if we could land Dejuan Blair in the draft, we'd be rock solid.

 

[RoyToy]

Miller is such a no brainer they should just let the Blazers sign him now. It's going to happen.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I like "the talk." Then if we could land Dejuan Blair in the draft, we'd be rock solid.

Or "DuJuan" as Smith calls him in that same piece, somewhat hurting his credibility. (If he has any left to hurt.)

 

[SheedSoNasty]

'Dre Miller would be very nice and would be perfect in terms of his age if we're planning on developing Bayless into the permanent point guard of the future. Ideally, he will be.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I've wanted him here for the past 4+ years.

 

[BlazerBeliever]

I would really love to see this happen.

 

[oldguy]

Interesting that he acts like it's a given that Hinrich is gone, but doesn't connect him with Portland.

Meh, consider the source.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Interesting that he acts like it's a given that Hinrich is gone, but doesn't connect him with Portland.

Actually, he did...

"I’ve long thought the deal that made the most sense for both teams with Hinrich was with Portland. Their GM is a Kansas guy like Hinrich and Steve Blake would be an ideal and cheaper backup combo guard."

BNM

 

[oldguy]

Actually, he did...

"I’ve long thought the deal that made the most sense for both teams with Hinrich was with Portland. Their GM is a Kansas guy like Hinrich and Steve Blake would be an ideal and cheaper backup combo guard."

BNM

You are right. I took what he said to mean that he aways thought Hinrich to PDX was a good match (as in the past), but that it is no longer a happening thing. I don't know that it's out of the question that KH could end up here.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are right. I took what he said to mean that he aways thought Hinrich to PDX was a good match (as in the past), but that it is no longer a happening thing. I don't know that it's out of the question that KH could end up here.

The scenario where Hinrich ends up in Portland is a deal where the Bulls take back 75% of his salary.

If the Bulls trade Hinrich, they'd be looking for enough cap space to resign Ben Gordon.

If the Bulls lose Gordon to free agency, I don't see the Bulls trading Hinrich at all.

 

[hasoos]

Well it looks to be that it is back to the "Blazers are involved in every deal that could possibly be imagined." mode.

 

[Wheels]

The scenario where Hinrich ends up in Portland is a deal where the Bulls take back 75% of his salary.

If the Bulls trade Hinrich, they'd be looking for enough cap space to resign Ben Gordon.

If the Bulls lose Gordon to free agency, I don't see the Bulls trading Hinrich at all.

fine we will settle for Rose.. but we demand cash compensation

 

[EPIC FAIL GILDERHUS]

Do I sense KP winding up for an EPIC Pritchslap?

 

[Nikolokolus]

The scenario where Hinrich ends up in Portland is a deal where the Bulls take back 75% of his salary.

If the Bulls trade Hinrich, they'd be looking for enough cap space to resign Ben Gordon.

If the Bulls lose Gordon to free agency, I don't see the Bulls trading Hinrich at all.

Not really. Blake is due 4 million (un-guaranteed) next season, Hinrich is set to make 9.5 million, that sure looks like 58% to me.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/blazers.jsp
http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/08-09salaries.htm

I'm not sure what the Bulls cap situation looks like, but if they were really committed to freeing up all of the money associated with a trade for Steve Blake (and if the trade happened at the draft) then they could simply decline to pick up his contract; this would effectively mean Hinrich was traded in a pure a salary dump, which I can't see happening.

Personally, I don't see the deal happening because I don't think the Ben Gordon situation will get resolved until later in the summer, and I think the Blazers won't want to drag things out much beyond the draft or the start of free agency.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

This is actually ridiculous. The "talk" he's referring to can only be hunches from himself or his sources.

So much can happen at this point. And, to be honest Portland would have to turn down a multitude of options first just to have the chance (albeit a good chance) at signing Andre Miller. All this for a player that very well could begin declining in performance.

I don't think so. I would bet Portland improves the team through the draft and trades. I question whether they'll even use the damn cap space in any other way other than via a lopsided trade.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

This is Andre's last chance at a big contract. I'm sure winning is important to him . . . but it will hard for him to pass up the team that offers him the biggest long term contract (financial secuirty for the rest of his life)

I'm not as big on Miller as many here, so I don't want to see the Blazers overpay for Miller or offer a 4-5 yr contract. If he comes at the right price (based on knowledable posters here) I guess he sounds like a good fit. But PGs seem to fall faster than other postions (thinking of Francis, Maurbury off top of my head) and I would hate to be paying 8-10 mil/yr 3-4 years from now for a PG who has slowed down.

If KP/Penn can do his thing . . . maybe a shorter contract but worth more each year than what he can get on the open market . . .

 

[andalusian]

I'm not as big on Miller as many here, so I don't want to see the Blazers overpay for Miller or offer a 4-5 yr contract. If he comes at the right price (based on knowledable posters here) I guess he sounds like a good fit. But PGs seem to fall faster than other postions (thinking of Francis, Maurbury off top of my head) and I would hate to be paying 8-10 mil/yr 3-4 years from now for a PG who has slowed down.

Marbury/Francis were more combo/scoring point-guards than real pass-first points. If anything - Miller's pass-first mentality seems to put him in the Nash/Kidd/Stockton mold more than these score-first points - and these guys played into their mid-30s...

Personally, I would only want to see Miller if Blake is still around - we can not trust JB's long-ball yet - and it would be a big problem if we did not have another good ball-handler with long-ball ability to put next to Roy. For all of Miller's attributes - shooting the long-ball is not one of them.

 

[hasoos]

Marbury/Francis were more combo/scoring point-guards than real pass-first points. If anything - Miller's pass-first mentality seems to put him in the Nash/Kidd/Stockton mold more than these score-first points - and these guys played into their mid-30s...

Personally, I would only want to see Miller if Blake is still around - we can not trust JB's long-ball yet - and it would be a big problem if we did not have another good ball-handler with long-ball ability to put next to Roy. For all of Miller's attributes - shooting the long-ball is not one of them.

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.

 

[andalusian]

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?

 

[hasoos]

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.

 

[andalusian]

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!

 

[Boob-No-More]

I'm not as big on Miller as many here, so I don't want to see the Blazers overpay for Miller or offer a 4-5 yr contract. If he comes at the right price (based on knowledable posters here) I guess he sounds like a good fit. But PGs seem to fall faster than other postions (thinking of Francis, Maurbury off top of my head) and I would hate to be paying 8-10 mil/yr 3-4 years from now for a PG who has slowed down.

If KP/Penn can do his thing . . . maybe a shorter contract but worth more each year than what he can get on the open market . . .

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

 

[Minstrel]

Lakers - not really (Fisher)

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.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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

 

[Masbee]

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

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.

 

[Draco]

Miller will cost more than a max MLE deal.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

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