Tom Moore 2.0

tmoore · Post #281 » by **tmoore** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:05 pm

It's a grey area because they're supposedly offering a little more than the MLE. But I think Miller would end up taking the MLE from somebody else instead of the Sixers, unless a sign-and-trade materializes from somewhere.

Pretty obvious that the Sixers are moving in another direction.

sixerfan1976 · Post #282 » by **sixerfan1976** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:05 pm

we are cheapskates arent we? miller is worth more than 1/6...but not 3/30

why cant we just move on and forget sign and trades...ask when are we gonna get a new player(s)? LOL

i havent been posting much lately..cuz there is literally nothing new. they arent doing anything but sittnig out free agency right now.

Westbrook36ptII · Post #283 » by **Westbrook36ptII** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:07 pm

If this is the route they are going, and I agree with it, then Brand has to be traded. No point in keeping him aboard.

Gsraider · Post #284 » by **Gsraider** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:08 pm

tmoore wrote:Understand the offer to Miller has been one year and roughly $6 mill since July 1. Had been told it originally was two years, but that's apparently incorrect.

Tom, do you get a sense that if this is the type of salary that Miller is forced to accept, he would be more inclined to take it with another team than Philly at this point? This does not seem overly amicable at the moment.

sixerfan1976 · Post #285 » by **sixerfan1976** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:08 pm

tmoore wrote:It's a grey area because they're supposedly offering a little more than the MLE. But I think Miller would end up taking the MLE from somebody else instead of the Sixers, unless a sign-and-trade materializes from somewhere.

Pretty obvious that the Sixers are moving in another direction.

well they arent moving..they are sitting on their hands and annointing a guy who has never played PG....the starting PG...with a vet guy who has no business starting....brought in to share PG.

they are punting this year....for salary reasons.....there i said it..i feel better now.

say adios miller..forget the sign and trade..we will use the mle split 3 ways to get 3 solid..possible rotation guys..thats what i would do.

sixerfan1976 · Post #286 » by **sixerfan1976** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:10 pm

yeah...i agree..we are going young..dont need aging miller.

ok..why did you sign brand then?

he cant answer that question...guaranteed.

tmoore · Post #287 » by **tmoore** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:13 pm

I don't think they're going to use the MLE at all -- think it'll be three veterans minimum guys.

Westbrook36ptII · Post #288 » by **Westbrook36ptII** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:18 pm

sixerfan1976 wrote:yeah...i agree..we are going young..dont need aging miller.

ok..why did you sign brand then?

he cant answer that question...guaranteed.

I think last year he legitimately thought they could contend by adding Brand. That hope was crushed in less than a year. Not Stefanski is grasping at straws.

sixerfan1976 · Post #289 » by **sixerfan1976** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:19 pm

even cheaper than my plan.

its all about the luxury tax and avoiding it.

the only guy of the 3 they sign that will ever see the court is the PG...cuz they want to bring Jrue along slowly...the other two(SF and C)....will only play due to injury or foul trouble

PG Lou/Vet PG/Jrue
SG Iguodala/Green
SF Thad/Kapono/vet SF
PF Brand/Speights
C Dalembert/Smith/vet C

that has 41 win team written all over it.

sixerfan1976 · Post #290 » by **sixerfan1976** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:20 pm

tom...are you hearing any vet min names at PG or SF?

the center guy will probably be a collins/foyle/magliore type guy.

tmoore · Post #291 » by **tmoore** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:31 pm

SF, sounds like they can't get Price or C.J. Watson for the minimums and don't know that they're willing to use some of the MLE. Not sure Brevin Knight interests them.

Like your names at C.

tmoore · Post #292 » by **tmoore** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:33 pm

As for SF, only heard Carney as interesting them.

tmoore · Post #293 » by **tmoore** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:37 pm

As for why the Sixers didn't trade Miller at the deadline, was told "there was nothing (decent available)" and "that's why (the Sixers) went for the playoffs."

sixerfan1976 · Post #294 » by **sixerfan1976** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:38 pm

haha...this is funny....we want some of these guys but we cant give you anything more than the min...who wants to sign here? whaddya mean you arent interested? lol

you can get kevin ollie for the min..they need to lower their expectatations if thats all they will pay

same for SF...not carney....maybe Kurz.

Course they could use the bi annual and splerge and get a PG or SF that way.

I am disgusted..sorry...rare form today.

tmoore · Post #295 » by **tmoore** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:44 pm

It's possible Kurz or Christmas could be the 14th (and final) man on the roster.

Dedicated_76ers_fan · Post #296 » by **Dedicated_76ers_fan** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:49 pm

This is pathetic, at least Billy King would have signed something.

For better or worse, he would've signed something.

Sundown · Post #297 » by **Sundown** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:51 pm

I don't know, I think a lot of free agents are going to find themselves signing for the vet minimum given the salary cap/luxury tax thresholds for this season and the projections for next.

There are only 9 teams with payrolls lower than the Sixers right now and many of them have free agents they are trying to resign. I think the market for guys like Carney could be very very weak. We might get guys for that vet minimum that you would rarely get in other years. Things are tough all over.

Johnny Broad-Street · Post #298 » by **Johnny Broad-Street** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:55 pm

I agree....wait this out and I bet the weak market pushes a guy down that didn't think he'd have to settle

sixerswillrule · Post #299 » by **sixerswillrule** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 9:15 pm

tmoore wrote:SF, sounds like they can't get Price or C.J. Watson for the minimums and don't know that they're willing to use some of the MLE. Not sure Brevin Knight interests them.

They can't offer 1 year partial MLE deals?

Post #300 » by **tk76** » Thu Jul 9, 2009 9:17 pm

Explain to me why they won't use the MLE for a nice one year deal? They are not close to the tax this year. They could land a good player if they are willing to use the part or all of the MLE- even just for a 1 year deal.

They must be wanting to store up their acorns for the coming winter.