putiger78 wrote:I think Jefferies and Rose for Miller is in our favor, and Nate and Jefferies and Rose and Miller is in their favor. I would like to come up with a middle ground, but I am not sure there is one.
Agreed.
Without Nate, the deal isn't worth it for them, because JJ's contract runs a year longer than Miller's. They would save on the $12.3 million owed to Miller next year, but then have to pay JJ a total of $13.3 million for next season and the season after that.
If we throw in Nate, we are trading a young player at his peak value and an expiring contract just to get Jeffries off the books for 2010. It's not worth it, especially considering how weak we are in the backcourt right now -- Duhon would be left as our only reliable guard.
The only deal that
might make sense would be Nate, Malik, and Jeffires for Miller and Salmons, but I'm not a huge fan of this either. Salmons has a contract that runs the same length as Jeffries, and his production wouldn't be any better than Nate's. So we're basically using an expiring deal to take on an extra year of salary in Miller. I'd rather just trade Malik for Miller straight-up then, and even then I'd want a pick out of it or something.
