Is Mike Miller a long-term keeper?
by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2009 2:22 PM EDT
in Player Analysis
Email
PrintI'm at work, so this post won't have the ordinary depth that most of the front-page posts have on here, but a nagging question has been bugging me all day.
Did we acquire Mike Miller to trade him, or does he have a long-term future with this team?
I'm pretty confident that Ernie Grunfeld traded for Randy Foye to keep him. Obviously, that's contingent on whether he wins the shooting guard death match (copyright 2009) with Nick Young, or whether there's even a death match between the two in the first place, but Foye fits the Grunfeld profile of players who were misfits on previous teams that are now trying to be reclamation projects of sorts (see Butler, Caron and Jamison, Antawn). There will always be a possible trade that comes up where Foye might have to go, but I imagine Ernie likes his potential enough where he isn't going to actively try to deal him.
However, I'm less sold on whether Miller's a part of the team's long-term plans. My mind is buzzing with points and counterpoints to myself, so I'm just going to lay them out there.
Why he is in the team's long-term plans:
- His offensive game meshes really well with Gilbert Arenas'. To review from a post I made before draft day, the ideal shooting guard next to Gil should a) be an above-average ball-handler and passer for his position and b) be a strong spot-up outside shooter. Mike Miller? Check and check. (We'll ignore that Miller falls short on the third quality of a perfect shooting guard next to Gil: defense).
- He's mentioned more in conversations I've had with people close to the team. Ernie Grunfeld mentioned his name before Randy Foye's in our interview, while Antawn Jamison took time to praise what Miller will bring to the team without doing the same for Foye.
- He fits the team's timeline better than Foye -- guy in his mid-prime who is ready to win now.
- While Foye's the best fit for the Grunfeld model of player acquisitions, Miller's a bit of a reclamation project as well after a year in Minnesota where he lost (or voluntarily took away) his shooting confidence and had a terrible year.
Why he isn't in the team's long-term plans:
- Of the Wizards' three 2010 free agents (Miller, Haywood, Foye), Miller provides the least upside as far as re-signing. Haywood's a necessity, while Foye is younger. The Wizards may not be able to sign all three
- He has a nine million dollar expiring contract. That's big because he can be traded for two purposes: either he can help a contender that's looking to stay afloat in the playoff picture without taking on long-term money, or he can be a way for a bad or mediocre team to get out of a high-priced but better players' salary.
- At a certain point, the Wizards are going to need to do something to address their perimeter defense. Miller's a helpful player, but if he can be traded to do that (Shane Battier, for example), then I'd hope he'd be traded.
- The obvious answer: There's a logjam at the 2/3 positions, and somebody is going to have to go there.
I'm conflicted here, so I'll pose this to you guys. Should Mike Miller be in this team's long-term plans? Do you think he actually is in the team's long-term plans?
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Miller Time
If Mike proves to be the type of extraordinary sixth man, kick-out long bomber, buzzer beater ete etc that he has been in the past, then it would be hard not to keep him. And in today’s market he might be re-signable for 4 years at the mid-level, who knows?
Yeah, I would exchange him for Battier in a minute, but that possibility is at present a figment of our collective imaginations.
Mike and gang, there are so many ifs and buts at this point that it is really all pure conjecture. This team has a number of interesting pieces, the big question is: Which of these pieces in combination will yield a team that is greater than the sum of its parts. We just don’t know, but at least we are in a position where it is reasonably likely that some of the pieces could mesh very nicely indeed.
Of course it's conjecture
And guessing. That’s why we blog about it and you guys talk about it.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
In the past
Miller has frequently frustrated me when I watched him play the Wizards. That to me is a very good sign. I think the guy has a little Tough Juice in him, he doesn’t back down.
I think I’m going to have to see a few months of game play with all the pieces before I can vote on this one, but I hope he sticks.
yup
Not gonna vote until I see him play.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Jul 28, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
3 pieces
The Wiz got three things in that trade. Mike Miller, Randy Foye, and Mike Miller’s Expiring Contract. EG will have to play it by ear with what is available during the year and what the team’s needs look like and decide whether MM or MMEC creates more value in 09-10.
Even if he stays through the year, though, it is hard to see him being back for 10-11. Given the team’s payroll, I can’t believe that if he plays well enough that they want to resign him he wouldn’t be able to get more $ somewhere else.
That is a VERY insghtful way of looking at it....
There is Miller and there is Miller’s contract. A $9 million expiring contract is a lot of cheese independent of what Mike does or does not bring on court.
But MR’s point is equally compelling, we have watched this guy kill us often enough, wouldn’t it be nce if he could kill FOR us??
Is it possible we dont sign Haywood and keep both Foye and Miller
Now clearly this needs a lot more thought, but it was something I was thinking about while reading the “McGee’s Ceiling” post. Blatche may continue to improve, but regardless he has proved to me a more than adequate back up center. But what if McGee makes a huge leap this year and shows the talent to be our starting center and we let Haywood walk, and sign both Foye and Miller, draft and sign back up bigs….Not saying I want to let Haywood walk. This blog more than anywhere else respects his talents and contributions to the team, but that does not mean that McGee will not be better. Clearly McGee’s “ceiling” (however that is defined) is higher than Haywoods, but isnt it possible that he would be a better player by 2011? and signing Haywood would only take away his minutes….
Just a thought, and clearly not thought through yet, but I am curious as to others opinions
Even if McGee improves so much by 2011, it seems we need a strong backup center too
Which Haywood can be. And presumably, Haywood’s value will go down on the open market if McGee improves enough to steal a lot of his minutes.
Just my read.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I would love to have Haywood as out back-up
But at 30, would he accept that role? and the big question what does he sign for? Many on this blog have said he would get close to $10M per. Clearly we cant sign him for that, does he take less than $5M to be a back-up?
Clearly this is just a dream that McGee dominates this year, but lets not just assume that Haywood is a must sign next year. It is even possible that by the end of the year, Blatche is our best center. not likely, but possible
McGee maturing would be amazing for the Wiz
I’ve also been thinking about this lately. Between the post about his ceiling and his performance during the Team USA practices. He has the talent to be a dominating force and shows flashes, but he’s inconsistent and needs to improve his basketball IQ. I don’t think that he needs to show that he’s better than Haywood to replace him, but rather that he can be steady and not such a huge liability while he’s developing as a starter.
If he shows that, then Haywood becomes expendable. I think Haywood is an great contributor and would love for him to be on the team long term, but I’m concerned about his new contract hindering McGee. If Haywood gets this deal, he will become a cancer if McGee passes him on the depth chart. And we shouldn’t start him just because of his contract. It’s a tough call, but a good problem to have.
I really hope that Flip can quickly develop McGee into a competent player so that we can justify starting him. He has the talent to be a much better center than Haywood and possibly an all-time great. I know he would have growing pains, but do we really want to stunt his growth by making him a reserve for the next 5 years?
To be honest, I wonder if instead of letting Haywood walk, should we maybe include him in the “all in” move?
Why is Haywood going to become a cancer if he doesn't start?
Because of his past history with Etan?
1. I think he’s beyond that
2. His annoyance with Etan was that Etan wasn’t as good as him and yet was being used to “check” his maturity. JaVale’s going to be better than him if and when he passes Brendan on the depth chart.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Yeah, it was pretty much based on that situation
I know that I’d personally be peeved at the Wiz. To sit him early in his career when he was the better player and then to sit him again when he is in his prime. I came to that conclusion under the circumstance that Haywood re-signs a 4 or 5 year deal. I would imagine that scenario would lead him to believe that he will be a starter and if McGee takes his spot a year into the deal, he will be pissed and likely try to get out of town to start someplace else because he is definitely a starting caliber center.
Miller will help us get a pretty good player during the season
And and between Foye and Young I think the Wizards can make up for whatever we might miss in Miller’s 3-point shooting (at least I hope they can).
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jul 28, 2009 3:25 PM EDT reply actions
Good teams always need a good shooter ....
Of course it depends on a lot of factors, but I say try to keep him.
Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.
I think a big part of it
is the fact that we have an option for Foye. It’s like 4-5 million right? I mean if Foye plays a role for this team that would be a very good price for him. While who knows what Haywood or Miller would fetch on the market but we know we can lock up Foye for one more year. Plus if we do have a 2 year window we know we can keep Foye for both those years(this and the next) at a reasonable cost without having to lock him up long term. I also this Arenas, NY, Foye, AJ can help pick up the shooting slack if we have to let Miller go though I believe Miller brings more to the table than shooting.
It's a qualifying offer, not an option
Here’s more on the effects of taking the qualifying offer from Larry Coon.
The qualifying offer is not a viable way to retain a player long-term. Here’s a great Blogabull post about the QO from last year.
According to the post, only four players (five now that you include Ben Gordon) have taken the QO since the new CBA was agreed upon after the 1999 lockout. All five have gone on to different teams. You also effectively can’t trade the player the next year, because he would have to waive his Larry Bird Rights, and nobody is going to volunteer to do that. You have to get a players’ consent to be traded if you’re on the QO, and doing that causes them to lose their Bird Rights.
Not re-signing Foye effectively means he’s gone after 2010/11.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I'm confused
So if we give him the QO after this season what does that mean for next season? Would that mean we get him for the 2010-2011 season. If we decide he’s an important part of the team but don’t wanna lock him up long term can we give him the QO and have him next season? Thanks for setting me straight Prada.
If we don't re-sign him after 2009/10 and he comes back on the QO, it's very unlikely we'll sign him to a long-term deal beyond 2010/11
So we’re basically wasting a roster spot on someone who has no future with the team. Chicago really paid for having Ben Gordon on the QO … they eventually lost him for nothing this offseason.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
And yes, we get him for 2010/11
But here’s the thing about the QO: it assumes that no other team will offer him a contract. So if Foye signs an offer sheet with someone in the 2010 offseason, the only way we keep him is to match the offer sheet. The QO only happens when a) nobody signs Foye to an offer sheet and b) we don’t work out an extension with him
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Simple answer
If Miller shaves his head and grows a weird beard, we keep him around. I can’t look at that hair do for more than half a season.
by Unselds on Jul 28, 2009 5:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I'd like to keep him, but...
we won’t be able to afford him. As it is, it’ll be difficult to impossible to keep Haywood and have enough flexibility down the road to re-sign McGee, Butler, and either Young or Foye. Miller’s great, but he’s a luxury for us. That said, I think we’ll get good value for him this year, since even his lackluster defense is probably overly criticized, since his length and size probably makes life at least a little bit difficult for opposing players. I mean, he’s obviously not good or anything, but it’s a lot easier to shoot over a 6’5 guy who doesn’t play defense than it is a 6’8 guy.
Miller ia a wiz
I think Caron Butler is the one who will be traded wih Foye taking over as shooting guard and Young Miller at the small forwasd with MacGee moving to the the 4 position and Haywood remaining. The bench will be miller, Jamison, Blatche, MacGuire and Critterton,
James and Stevenson will be gone and the wizards will trade Butler for a mix of veterns, draft picks and cash. The fact is the wiz dont really need Butler. He offers the most in a trade and Miller is willing to ride the bench, something I don’t think Butler will do. And Butler is going to command a lot more money in the long run. I see a Saunders lineup with Arenas, foye and Young at the 123 spots. I see teams loving to have Butler as a complimentary player and I can Saunders focusing more on shooters. Foye, Miller, Arenas, Young., Jamison and rebounders with MacGee. Haywood, Blatche and MacGuire. Critterton is a tall young backup who knows what Saunders wants and plays a solid game. This is your future.
by therunninghamster on Jul 28, 2009 8:39 PM EDT reply actions
You win craziest post of the day
Congratulations on your prize – $100 store credit at Pets.com and a real live unicorn.
What do you mean, the Wizards don't need Butler
Wha wha what? Butler’s not up for a new deal until after 10/11.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I'm still
trying to get an explanation of this.
He fits the team’s timeline better than Foye — guy in his mid-prime who is ready to win now.
I’ve asked this a number of times, but haven’t received an answer. Maybe I’m the only one, but I don’t feel like we have a “win-now” timeline. Sure, Jamison is old (for the NBA). But who else? Oberto? That’s it. The rest of the pieces are either in their prime or haven’t reached it yet. I don’t even know if ARENAS has reached his prime yet. Jamison does a lot for us, but he’s not irreplaceable. When he goes away, we will be able to find someone to fill his shoes. Maybe even someone who’s a better fit.
I look at teams like Boston, San Antonio, maybe L.A., as “win-now” teams. They have multiple “core” players over 30. I don’t know what our average age is, but last year it was like 26 or 27. I think we got younger this year, and will get even more younger if we trade James. Or even if he sits.
Now don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying I don’t WANT us to win now. I’m just saying we’re not really in that type of situation. Maybe Ernie is. Maybe even Butler and/or Jamison. But the TEAM? No, I think we have the pieces to compete for a while.
I think the win now push for me
is mostly because Jamison and Arenas’s contracts are ballooning meaning we will soon begin having trouble keeping guys we want to keep and might even have to go into a straight rebuilding push. It’s not so much that the big 3 are old so much as it’s gonna be incresingly tougher to keep quality guys around them. I think from a purely basketball sense our best shot to win it all is 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 but from a contractual sense we have this year(and the next possibly) before having to make some serious calls on whether to keep the team together or not.
by BayAreaBullet on Jul 28, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Why are we "win now"? Who is old?
It’s Abe.
Now please stop asking.
by MR on Jul 28, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
As
I’ve said before, I hate to be the one to say this, but we can’t focus on just that. The REALITY is we most likely won’t WIN NOW. Col hard facts. There are at least 5 or 6 teams that are clearly better than us right now. So, I’m sorry, I won’t stop asking. After watching this team flounder for 3 decades, I want to see us stay relevant. Which means “win now mode” doesn’t apply. If that’s offensive to you, I’m sorry. I respect Abe Pollin a ton. But I’m going to keep following the team after he’s gone.
I'm not taking a position on this
Who are you asking? Why keep asking? I’ve told you why. It’s not offensive to me. I’m just answering you. Whether someone here thinks Abe deserves a shot at a championship in his old age or not, it doesn’t change the facts. I’m not making this decision. It’s clear why the organization is pointing the way it is. It’s not really relevant how any of us react. He’s the owner. It’s his business. He’s run it forever. He’s still running it. I’m just saying “please stop asking” because the answer is clear and we should move on. This fact is not changing.
I think you're
misunderstanding me. Or the situation maybe. What I’m saying is that we, meaning the team, is NOT built to win now. It is built for the long run. Sure, you can play ‘what if’ with Arenas’ escalating contract, Butler’s upcoming free agency, etc, etc. But, to me at least, this looks like a deep, young team built to contend for the playoffs, and maybe a championship at some point, for years to come. NOT just now. That’s my point.
Who are you asking? Why keep asking?
I’ve asked this same question on a number of different posts. I ask it not because of what the TEAM is doing, but because of what people say on here. I, personally, don’t think Ernie is putting all of his eggs in this year’s basket. Or even next year’s for that matter. Does that mean if we flop embarrassingly he won’t blow the whole thing up? No. But if the team gets, say, past the 2nd round, I believe the team, for the most part, will be kept intact. Of course, there is always the possibility of blockbuster trade that you can’t pass up. But, short of that, I stand by what I said.
By "fitting the timeline"
I’m mostly talking about someone they don’t need to develop at all. Miller is what he is and that’s what the organization seems to want.
As far as “win now,” the phrase is clearly open to interpretation. It seems the Wizards have delayed their “all in” move (unless Foye/Miller was their “all in” move, which would be stupid from a team-building perspective), but it’s also clear they aren’t thinking too far down the road here, otherwise they would have begun rebuilding or reloading. So the answer to the question really is a matter of how one interprets “win now.” I don’t think anyone here will really be able to give an answer that satisfies all parties.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
understandable
but my personal opinion of a “win now” team is a team like San Antonio, with all of their core players either well into, or past their prime. I wouldn’t even say the Lakers are in ‘win now’, since Kobe has at least 4 or 5 years left, and Gasol does as well.
Sorry if I misunderstood
I think we are in “2-3 year window” mode. Folks can interpret that as “now” or not.
Here is the situation as I see it: Abe thinks he personally has a 2-3 year window and he wants to bring a championship to DC. He also wants to leave the team in a position that isn’t crippling either to winning after that window or to getting a good price for the team should it be sold. He also doesn’t want to sacrifice his estate to win the championship.
I think Ernie has done a great job under the circumstances. He’s built a team that has a very good shot at a championship in the next few years, that has some potential young stars once this older core has run its course, and he has maintained a lot of flexibility should we choose to make a huge move soon or start with a fairly clean slate in a few years.
then we're
pretty much on the same page. This is similar to how I feel. I say 3-4 year window, which may be splitting hairs. As long as you’re flexible on the Jamison issue. Caron, if he’s here, may be a backup at 33. I’d take that. Gilbert (bare with me here) could be better. If, as was alluded to before, Flip somehow transforms him into a Chauncey Billups with more offense, then the experience and savvy will improve his game. The young guys (whoever remains) will be in their prime, and there will most likely be one or two more difference makers added.
I know, I know. This is a LOT of conjecture. Maybe even bordering on blind homerism. But I feel more than justified doing so after enduring the past 20+ years of this team as a fan.
I say two-year window
Until Caron’s contract runs out. Then, it’s time to make tough decisions on the team’s future.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
We definitely have to make an "all in" move
Hate to say it, but Abe is down to his last chips. I know everyone wants to build a long term team, but Abe may not have a 2-3 year window. It’s more of a 1-2 year window. Hopefully he lives longer, but his condition seems to make that unlikely.
I think people also forget that if Abe goes, there are no guarantees for Ernie either. Maybe Leonsis takes over or maybe its someone else, but who says that they keep Ernie. As far as luxury taxes, team costs, etc. go, if Abe only expects to be around for a couple of years and the team to belong to someone else, then doesn’t that somewhat make longterm finances irrelevant too?
The more I think about it, Mike Miller probably is gone. He will likely be a part of an “all in” package. To be honest, I’m not counting on us re-signing any of our 3 free agents because I could see any or all of them being a part of this package. As I noted above, if we see enough out of McGee as a reserve, we might move Haywood as part of a deal. With the big boys reloading, it doesn’t make sense for us to re-up a bunch of players that make us middle of the pack.
I see 5 players as untouchable on our team. Gil, Caron, Antawn, McGee and McGuire. I don’t think the big 3 are available because moving any of them would not give us a big jump in terms of talent. McGee will be here because he’s a freakish big man a la Shaq, Dwight, etc. And McGuire is just such a good, versatile player for so cheap and probably has little trade value because he’s not a scorer. That’s it. Don’t get attached to anyone else on the team because if you like the player, then it’s likely that other teams in the league also covet him.
McGuire is an untouchable?
I say four untouchables. Should be 5 becaue I think re-signing Haywood is a major priority.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I wouldn't
go that far. I don’t really look at any of the players as “untouchable.” Unlikely to be moved? Sure. But I think you can count the number of “untouchable” players in the league on less than one hand. If the Lakers were even contemplating shopping Kobe, then you can’t convince me any of our guys are untouchable.
So again it depends how one defines untouchable
I’ll tell you this; the organization is only going to trade Gil/Caron/Antawn/JaVale for a max salary guy.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I think McGuire is untouchable too
But for an opposite reason. He is a very promising player that probably doesn’t have much trade value and I think the Wiz would rather throw someone else in a trade filler. He’s not the make or break piece in a trade so the Wiz could probably make a trade partner more happy by sending one of our other youngsters.
Maybe "untouchable" is bad word choice
I should say the 5 least likely to be traded. I think that Haywood is a trade option if McGee has somewhat of a breakthrough. And this isn’t because Haywood isn’t good, but moreso because his price tag might not match his future value. So better to trade him than let him walk. This is only if McGee takes a big step.
Fair enough
I bet McGuire doesn’t get re-signed after this year, to be honest.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Why wouldn't we sign McGuire?
He’s shown more on the court than any of the youngsters. He does all the things that no one else on this team can or is willing to do. He’s multi-talented and can play multiple positions. He’s also cheap. To me, he’s the classic “glue guy”.
Because with us so close to the tax
We might cut around the ends to save money, and assuming he doesn’t get much playing time this year, he’s a luxury.
I’m with you. I’m just saying I wouldn’t be surprised to see him just get axed.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I don’ think Abe wants to leave the team in a bad place. I don’t expect him to mortgage the future for a possibility of winning now. He has too much pride for that.
I don't think he'll leave it in a bad place
but i think that Prada made a good point. The end of butler’s contract is the end of the big 3 era. It doesn’t make sense to move Jamison until that offseason because we won’t get fair trade value, but that offseason he will be like a $15 million expiring contract.
We have a 2 year window. That’s the reality of this situation based on Abe’s health and the big 3. We have to consolidate talent. We aren’t just gonna let the youngsters sit for 5 years. I don’t think Abe will put the team in a bad position at all.
If we make an “all in” move for the next two years, we will come out on the other side with Arenas, a developed McGee, said “all in player”, Jamison’s expiring contract, plus whoever else sticks around.
but Abe
writes the checks. You don’t. You can’t make moves in an alternate universe. We make the moves to acquire veterans because our owner has a truly terrible medical condition and would like to see a title before he goes. But he won’t spend Orlando or NY money, because his net worth isn’t in the same league, and he probably wants to pass some of it down to his family and to the community.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
To the original question
This team does have a shrinking window. Jamison doesn’t have a lot of prime years left (if any — we shouldn’t be too surprised if he takes a significant step back this year), and Butler and Haywood turn 30 this year. So you have this year, maybe next year, then you have 3 of your core players in decline (players’ best years are usually in the 26-30 age range). At the very least, the current core isn’t going to get better. Thus, win with what we have now, or change that core.
That said, I agree with you that the team is set up well to compete in the future. It just won’t be on the backs of Jamison, Butler and Haywood for much longer.
I think it depends on NY does
I think Miller may be worth keeping past this season provided he’d be okay with a backup role. We’ll have to see what happens in training camp, of course, but for now I foresee Miller starting at SG and Young being the first guard off the bench, but hopefully (hopefully) Young is ready to start next year with Miller being the backup at SG and SF (also assuming the Wizards hang on to both players). If Miller would be amenable to that, then why not keep him. But, if he feels like he’s nothing less than a starter, then his presence would only cause problems.
Ridiculous Upside, where the D-League is better than your favorite team, as objectively determined by Summer League.
I would say, the better Miller plays this year, the higher that price-tag goes up.
Miller is a 2010 free-agent right? The better this guy plays the more he’ll command. It’s become fairly cliche to say, but I would think Miller is playing for a contract and do we want to pay a guy of that skill-set the kind of money he will be asking for on the open market.
To think a guy is willing to take a pay cut in his free agency year is quite a leap of faith. That’s not to say it’s never been done, it probably has, but could you see paying an unrestricted free-agent the kind of money you’d pay a bench guy and having that guy agree to the deal?
President of the Chris Whitney fan-club
It might not be up to him
I agree that Miller will be looking for a nice contract, but we have no idea what the market’s going to be like or what the cap number will be, especially for a player like Miller who’s just past his peak and won’t be in the top tier of free agents (and possibly not in the second tier either). I agree that the Wizards shouldn’t overpay him if he has a good season and is willing to move to the bench, but they also may not have to.
Ridiculous Upside, where the D-League is better than your favorite team, as objectively determined by Summer League.
Come again?
Who hacked onto your SB Nation account tonight, Jordan?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I never expected more than a 1 yr rental
Miller can stretch the defense with his 3 pt shooting. But he’s an overvalued player based on his age and CV and I don’t see any reason to keep him more than this year at the cost you’d have to shell out. We can find a decent player of his skillset next offseason, providing no player we already have fits that bill.
Miller is a nice player. Chances are we win 5-10 games on his skills alone. But to pay that guy money to stick around is insane.
President of the Chris Whitney fan-club
“…to pay that guy the money he is going to command on the open market to stick around would be insane.”
Sorry. Wanted to clarify my original thought.
President of the Chris Whitney fan-club
Haywood, Miller, and Foye are all hitting a loaded free agent market. The majority of the money will be spent resigning the top free agents. How many teams ready to contend will have dollars ready for these guys. If Odom and Artest can’t get more than the MLE this year what makes everyone so sure that Foye and Miller will be able to get deals for more next year?
by forthepeople on Jul 29, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Because Artest is certifiably insane
And it seems like he knows this and thus doesn’t require a lot of money to sign. Odom is going back and forth with the Lakers on whether it will be 9 million a year or 6.5 million a year. There are a bunch of teams that are waiting for the 2010 class of free agents and not every one will make out the way they had hoped so they will spend their money on players that they hope will satisfy their fans. We cannot afford to pay all three of those players what they would make on the open market.
President of the Chris Whitney fan-club
My fault
I came off a little too “F you” in my response. I believe that there’s no way we could pay all three guys what they could command on the open market next year and I’m terrified the Wiz will overpay for Haywood. But I do stand by the idea that not every team is going to make the splash they anticipate in the free agent pool next year and will be looking to alleviate fans’ concerns with whoever they can grag.
President of the Chris Whitney fan-club
I realize the salary cap is shrinking
but alot of teams have spent most of the last 2 years shedding salary in anticipation of getting a top FA next summer. If they don’t get their top target they are going to have to make a move to pacify the fan base. I call this the Corey Maggete effect. A team feels jilted and has to make a move with their space. Plus Haywood is a legit 7 foot center. Those guys ALWAYS get overpaid. I call this the Dampier effect. If Haywood has a solid year (30 min a game 10-12 point 8-9 rebounds 2 blocks) which isn’t unreasonable he could pull down a contract of 10mil a year or more. I realize this is all supposition but in past history of this league it’s very concievable. Plus Odom and guys like him are struggling this year mostly due to the fact that there are only a handful of teams under the cap. About half the teams project to be under the cap next summer. You could see some guys getting wildly overpaid next summer.
by BayAreaBullet on Jul 29, 2009 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
plus I heard the Clippers are looking at a payroll of only 35 mil. next year
so you know they’re overpaying guys.
by BayAreaBullet on Jul 29, 2009 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm voting Foye for now.
Because he’s younger, cheaper and is (probably) a better perimeter defender. I reserve the right to completely change my opinion and develop a Mike Miller man crush once I actually get a chance to see these guys play.
The Washington Wizards: providing career scoring nights for unknown opposing bench players since 2004.
Like the Zen Master said
“we’ll see”. Surely the Wiz braintrust wants to see if Miller can return to form or not before deciding if he’s long-term or not. If you look at the the 4 previous seasons to last year, he’s got some pretty nice #’s and a high FG%. A guard/forward with skills and with McGrady-like size is a rarity
Blow up the team after next season.
Get what we can for Jamison, Haywood and Butler after next season, we’re stuck with Arenas and then build around the young guys.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Exclusive footage of the puppy Air Bud
- Video: Isaiah Thomas destroys Wesley Matthews with a block
- Ryan Gomes’ wife gets needlessly trolled on Twitter
- Jerry West wants teams with upset, trade-demanding stars to ‘call their bluff’
- Karl Malone had to buy a scalped ticket to see his former team play
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
