Brad to Wolves?

[Spanish_King]

Perhaps you'll recall this tip from one team exec in the season's first Weekend Dime: "Keep your eyes on the Millers. They will be traded if their teams start slowly." The Millers in question: Sacramento's Brad Miller and Minnesota's Mike Miller. The Wolves just made a coaching change, so Mike Miller's name hasn't surfaced yet, but Brad is generating some trade buzz ... depending on who you talk to. Some teams have been rebuffed in their attempt to open Miller talks with the Kings, who are assumed to be interested in a combo of cap relief and at least one promising young forward in exchange for a veteran big man whose contract ($11.4 million this season, $12.3 million next season) expires before the free-agent bonanza of 2010. Other teams believe Sacramento is more than willing to move the 32-year-old. We will continue to investigate.

From hoopshype.com

For example: Brad Miller + Quincy Douby / Mike Miller + ¿Sebastian Telfair? + Calvin Booth (his salary)

Good option?

 

[Entity]

I am not sure. With Garcia, Martin, Salmons, Greene. Where would we use Mike Miller?
maybe a 3 team trade with us sending Mike somewhere for an expiring.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Um, I think this wasn't implying that the Millers would be traded for each other necessarily, more that they're both getting interest from teams. And considering the Wolves are even more in rebuilding than we are, doubt they'd have any interest in Brad.

That said, why the heck are we "rebuffing" talks about Brad???

 

[AriesMar27]

^^^ thats what i was thinking...

 

[DocHolliday]

Um, I think this wasn't implying that the Millers would be traded for each other necessarily, more that they're both getting interest from teams. And considering the Wolves are even more in rebuilding than we are, doubt they'd have any interest in Brad.

That said, why the heck are we "rebuffing" talks about Brad???

Well if I was Geoff the only talks I would consider for Brad would be something that made salary come off by the end of this season.

If the salary doesn't come off at the end of this season, then it HAS to come off at the end of next season. And if that's the case will the person coming in somehow truly help us and be better than Brad in the next season and a half +? If not then why make the move?

If the salary coming in goes past the end of next season then absolutely NO DEAL unless the person coming in is a rookie, or a palyer with only a season or two in the league, that has the potential to be a VERY solid contributer or future all-star, at a position that we need.

That's why... in my opinion.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Well if I was Geoff the only talks I would consider for Brad would be something that made salary come off by the end of this season.

If the salary doesn't come off at the end of this season, then it HAS to come off at the end of next season. And if that's the case will the person coming in somehow truly help us and be better than Brad in the next season and a half +? If not then why make the move?

If the salary coming in goes past the end of next season then absolutely NO DEAL unless the person coming in is a rookie, or a palyer with only a season or two in the league, that has the potential to be a VERY solid contributer or future all-star, at a position that we need.

That's why... in my opinion.

That's not the point. The point is to be better in the next 2-10 years. Spencer is ready. He's starting now... out of position at PF. Which means Mikki isn't the only problem for Jason's PT, it's also Brad. We don't need an upgrade at center. We need more pieces for the future.

While I agree that we should be looking for a similar package to Bibby and Artest (expiring+picks and/or prospects), there's no reason not to listen. If we take on a longer deal (a Gerald Wallace, for example) then that's fine, because we're then set at SF and at about the same price it would cost to get one on the market in 2010 (unless one has LeBronian delusions of grandeur). By all indications, Wallace is very much on the block, and I'm sure we could get a deal with Chicago (for Hughes and a kid) done if we really wanted to.

Finally, other than opening up more room for the kids, moving Brad sooner rather than later makes sense because he has value now because he both 1. will give a wanna-be playoff team or contender looking for the last piece a boost for the next year in a half and 2. expires in 2010. If we wait til next year, he'll only have value as an expiring. Yes, teams may be more desperate to clear space then, but the jockeying has already begun (see Iverson to Detriot). There's also a big risk that Brad's production may fall off by then. The time to deal Brad is now.

 

[Bricklayer]

That said, why the heck are we "rebuffing" talks about Brad???

Because Geoff is a softie shooting big man loving Princeton idiot? And our coach is Brad's new hick buddy, as he desperately needs somebody as an ally?

Just throwing the possibility out there.

 

[nbrans]

Well, either that or we're rebuffing crap offers.

 

[Warhawk]

Well, either that or we're rebuffing crap offers.

My thought too.

And I agree with DocHolliday, as Brad's salary comes off in 1.5 years. The returning player(s) need to have the same time frame or shorter unless they are very cheap.

LPKingsFan, I see your point, but think that we are actually on the same page here. Either it is an expiring, or someone cheap who can help us in the future. Unless it is a REALLY good offer, I don't see us bringing in someone with a relatively sizeable contract at all right now.

 

[bajaden]

Here's a question. Salmons is our current starting SF. Would you rather have Salmons or Miller? I've always been a big fan of Mike Miller. Don't particularly like his hair stylist, but he can score the basketball. He's a terrific outside shooter, shooting over 40% from 3pt range for the last 4 or 5 years. He's only 27 years old and I believe that John is 29. He's not the defender that John is but he's not a bad defender, and he doesn't dominate the ball the way John does.

To me, if you can trade Miller for Miller, then you open up making a trade with Salmons, and maybe thats where you pick up a young player for the future. If Miller doesn't work out his contract is up in 2010. Same as Brad's.

 

[DocHolliday]

That's not the point. The point is to be better in the next 2-10 years. Spencer is ready. He's starting now... out of position at PF. Which means Mikki isn't the only problem for Jason's PT, it's also Brad. We don't need an upgrade at center. We need more pieces for the future.

While I agree that we should be looking for a similar package to Bibby and Artest (expiring+picks and/or prospects), there's no reason not to listen. If we take on a longer deal (a Gerald Wallace, for example) then that's fine, because we're then set at SF and at about the same price it would cost to get one on the market in 2010 (unless one has LeBronian delusions of grandeur). By all indications, Wallace is very much on the block, and I'm sure we could get a deal with Chicago (for Hughes and a kid) done if we really wanted to.

Finally, other than opening up more room for the kids, moving Brad sooner rather than later makes sense because he has value now because he both 1. will give a wanna-be playoff team or contender looking for the last piece a boost for the next year in a half and 2. expires in 2010. If we wait til next year, he'll only have value as an expiring. Yes, teams may be more desperate to clear space then, but the jockeying has already begun (see Iverson to Detriot). There's also a big risk that Brad's production may fall off by then. The time to deal Brad is now.

I don't completely agree with what you're saying. The free agent market is in 2010 and there is more than Lebron that's going to be available.

How on earth do you think a deal including Brad Miller is going to bring Gerald Wallace back? He's an average player, but very athletic, and you're going to bring back a very unathletic player nearing the end of his ride?

In my mind I do care about the next year and a half. I understand we want to get better for the long term, btu if we can't in a deal then you don't do it and save your cap space. If somehow you can bring Gerlad Wallace back that creates a log jam at SF, but if you can make it work then off course do it. I covered that when I said if you could bring back a younger guy, although he's about mid career, that will be a contributor for the future then do it.

Oh and if the team was that concerned about starting Spencer out of position then we should bring Brad off the Benc and start Spencer. The coach not finding that beneficial is reason to trade him. The coach should do what needs to be done IF that will make us better. But, I'm guessing Reggie knows a bit more about this, and the team, then ANY of us armchair quarterbacks.

 

[Bricklayer]

Here's a question. Salmons is our current starting SF. Would you rather have Salmons or Miller? I've always been a big fan of Mike Miller. Don't particularly like his hair stylist, but he can score the basketball. He's a terrific outside shooter, shooting over 40% from 3pt range for the last 4 or 5 years. He's only 27 years old and I believe that John is 29. He's not the defender that John is but he's not a bad defender, and he doesn't dominate the ball the way John does.

To me, if you can trade Miller for Miller, then you open up making a trade with Salmons, and maybe thats where you pick up a young player for the future. If Miller doesn't work out his contract is up in 2010. Same as Brad's.

We really don't need Mike Miller unless we intened to just be soft forever. I can only imagine the joy of watching he, Kevin and Beno trying to guard the perimeter spots. We'd have to draft 3 Thabeet's just to keep it under 120.