I'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?