Ed and the 3 year plan

[tk76]

Now on our recent schedule induced upswing, lets reassess where we all stand on the Sixer's rebuilding.

Reading Ed's most recent interview, he is either blowing smoke, or drinking a bit of BK's 3year plan cool-aide.

Now that we are starting to routinely beat up on the other dregs of the league, and Thad's recent spark as starting PF- do you buy into the three year plan? Or should we realize we need to continue to tear down for a better shot at a real star?

[tk76]

I lean toward option #2, but would hold onto Miller until he can be used as part of a big trade for a star sometime in the next 12 months.

If we can land a big name player without moving him I would not mind keeping him- and even resigning him to a lower salary after next season. All really good teams have a mix of youth and veterans.

[LieCheatSteal]

Personally, I'm torn.

On one hand, this team is not very good. Iggy I still don't feel is a franchise player. Miller's not a long term asset. There are some bad contracts on this team ie Evans and Green. Dalembert is the only player I like on this team. I feel like this team needs to be blown up and start afresh.

On the other hand, this team is a hard working, likeable group of guys. No real attitude. They make do with what they have and play solid team defense. This team deserves to be in the playoffs.

So, I don't know. For now, let's just shoot for the playoffs. Maybe this team would catch fire and surprise teams in the playoffs. Look at the Warriors last year.

[UptownPhilly]

I chose option #2.

We should keep Miller until we can get another PG to replace him, or a star PF like Gasol through trade.

IMO Evans/Green are expendable.

If we have to move Iguodala/Dalembert for that Franchise Player I'm all for it, but they should be built around, although I see neither one as #1 or #2 options.

[The Guilty Party]

I took option #1 by default since I don't believe moving Miller is "the answer" to becoming a better team. What franchise has gone with almost an entire roster of players under the age of 25 and matured into a championship team? Has this worked for the Bulls or the Hawks? I'm not saying it can't be done but having a veteran PG isn't the worst thing in the world. I'm also not saying that I would keep Miller at all costs. If a trade like the Gasol deal popped up, I would move Miller in a second.

Option 3 is too extreme so that's out and so I'm left with option 1. Keep Miller for now and try to get the best playoff spot available.

[tk76]

I had specific posters in mind when I came up with the options (both here and at the Philaphans board.) I think all of the options have some merit if your goal is to be more than an average team.

[The Guilty Party]

I think all of the options have some merit if your goal is to be more than an average team.

The subject of the thread mentions "3 years" but option 1 only covers between now and the end of next season. In 3 years time I don't Miller as the PG of this team but for the next year and a half... why not. We would have cap space in the summer of '09 and that's not a bad thing.

[Salvistine24]

i guess my issue is this...what team and package could get u a star player for andre miller...a rebuilding team (other than us) wouldnt trade a star for a pg like andre miller imo...they would likely want back young talent for their star and picks and after seeing how miller kept us mediocre, i dont think a rebuilding team would want to make the same mistake (i consider it a mistake while others might consider it moving forward...thats not for here nor there)

then if a team is trying to win now (the ideal place for miller) they likely wouldnt trade a star for him (esp after seeing iverson and melo struggle without a real pg)...its tough but i dont see miller and a pick getting you a star which is i think the scenario which the op was leading towards

to get the star, its gotta be thru the draft, fa's, or hoping a large te and picks can land him...i still think its gotta happen through the draft based on this teams age and realistic title chances (somewhere around 2011ish)...i just still go back and wish we couldve gotten a young player for iverson to atleast have as a future starter if not a star instead of dre miller and late picks...that trade while OK value wise was not what this franchise needed in the long run and it has us stuck in an even worse limbo than with AI here

[bebopdeluxe]

I discussed my viewpoint in the Stefanski interview thread...we should be adding two solid pieces this summer (or, if we can combine them, perhaps one GREAT piece)...I think I keep the resrt of it together and see what happens. The worst that happens is that we have a $10 mill expiring contract after next season, which isn't such a bad thing.

[tk76]

-= original quote snipped =-



The subject of the thread mentions "3 years"

Sorry for the confusion. I was referencing BK's "3 year plan" which starts last year with the AI trade and carries on to next summer, when Miller's contract expires.

BK saw us being built for future success by the end of next Summer. I think Ed may be on the same page. I am not sure- with our lacking a top flight star- that I agree with this view.

We have a good shot at being a young, exciting, competitive playoff team in after next summer (or even after this summer if we get a stud FA) but I don't see us being a contender anytime soon.

I'm actually O.K. with this. If we are young and good we should have a big window of opportunity to make a bold trade to make the next step sometime in the next 2-4 years. Meanwhile we will have an exciting team to watch- even if they are a step below the Celtics, Spurs and Pistons of the league.

[The Guilty Party]

I agree with you on this, tk. The best thing about a young team is that what you see ISN'T what you get. If we were talking about a group of guys who are in their late 20s... well then we're probably going to remain as good or as bad as we currently are unless we make a big move.

However, our roster is flooded with guys under the 25 who have a chance to really improve their games each summer so that alone should help this team improve.

[tk76]

I agree. We may lack a real star, but with Iguodala, Sam, Young and Williams we have a number of potential impact players. We might as well give them a few years to see how good they can become.

No reason why they can't eventually parlay some of them for a real star in a few years, or maybe we'll be surprised and one of them will actually develop into that star.

[UptownPhilly]

I think we'll hit a Joe Dumars in the next 4-5 years, when our young guys are in their prime, and make a trade for a Rasheed impact type player.

[tk76]

i just still go back and wish we couldve gotten a young player for iverson to atleast have as a future starter if not a star instead of dre miller and late picks...that trade while OK value wise was not what this franchise needed in the long run and it has us stuck in an even worse limbo than with AI here

I'm with you. If we could have either gotten young talent (the Boozer/pick Boston trade) or at least all expirings/better picks last year we would have either been in better shape now with either a real PF, or had a legit shot at a top 3 pick last year- and been further along in our rebuild.

We did seem to get lucky/smart in getting Young. he really has a chance to be something- which is pretty rare for a #12 pick.

[The Guilty Party]

I'll keep this lovefest going 'cause I'm with you on that. We have a lot of good things going on with this franchise with the one missing piece being the "go to" player that most teams have. That "go to" guy doesn't have to be a superstar as Detroit has shown. Billups has developed into an All-Star guard but I doubt that anyone would list him as a superstar on the level as Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, and others. We just have to hope that our guys continue to develop into solid NBA players and then get that "killer instinct" guy.

[tk76]

get that "killer instinct" guy.

Lou in 2 years...burp*@#

Drinkin too much