RealGM

Ed Stefanski was a guest on CSN's "Monday Night Live" with Ron Burke and Ike Reese and answered some basic fluff questions about the upcoming season. For the most part, the conversation was extremely light with Ed saying how excited he is about the upcoming season. Here's a quick recap...

- Said he believes this team will only go as far as Lou and Thad can take them. He said that if the two of them keep improving that this team could be very dangerous

- He's impressed with how consistent Elton's shot is from 17 feet

- He didn't expect to get much out of Speights until Jan or Feb but said that he's playing amazing ball and looks ready to contribute now

- Told Ike that he needs a guy to come in and hand out 6 hard fouls. Ike said that he was offered a spot on Michigan State's squad back in the day by Tom Izzo

- He believes Andre Miller is going to play this season out and then make a decision about his future. Ed said that he believes Andre loves what he's seen from the team this off-season and that Andre is very excited to play with the team. He also said that he's spoken once to Miller's new agent but that while talks were very friendly nothing moved along.

- He added that he's a big time Phillies fan and while he's wants to see the Phils win, he thinks everyone should just enjoy the Series and relax.

I think that's about as exciting an interview that you're going to get on October 20th.

The Guilty Party wrote:
- He believes Andre Miller is going to play this season out and then make a decision about his future. Ed said that he believes Andre loves what he's seen from the team this off-season and that Andre is very excited to play with the team. He also said that he's spoken once to Miller's new agent but that while talks were very friendly nothing moved along.

I hope that is not Ed's plan. If Miller walks the Sixers get potential future tax relief, but no real cap relief- since they will only have the MLE whether they resign Miller or not. They need some sort of commitment before the summer.

On the other hand, I can see how it would be hard to trade him away midseason if they look to be a good team.

I agree with Stefanski. AI2, Brand, Miller and Dalembert make them a good, mid-level playoff team. Green, Rush, Ivey, Evans, Marshall, and Ratliff are solid filler. Thad, Lou and Speights are the X-factors talent-wise that can make this a great team over time.

He would be foolish to re-sign Miller now, without seeing how he plays with this team and how he blends with Brand, how his body is holding up, and whether he can come close to last season's performance. At the same time, if the team is a top 2 or 3 team in the East and is looking good, he will have a hard time moving Miller before the trade deadline and will take on a lot of risk with him entering the off-season. These things tend to work themselves out though. I'm fine with a wait and see approach for the time being.

Looks like the Bulls are still struggling with figuring out what to do at SG...Hinrich is penciled in there, but is shooting like crap. Gotta think that either Thabo or Gordon will eventually get those minutes...which means that the Bulls might be up for swapping Hinrich for Miller (and the cap relief that he would provide) at the deadline - particularly if that would allow them to resign Gordon.

I would play Lou as many minutes as possible at PG to assess whether he could eventually handle the job next season...and if he can't, then - as much as I recognize the danger of trading Miller midseason if things are going well - I would consider trading him by the deadline.

Hinrich works for many reasons- can shoot, can play next to Lou and guard SG's. declining salary.

The big problem is that he is just not nearly as good a player as Miller is right now.

tk:

I agree...for the upcoming season, Hinrich is not as good a player as Miller. The question is, however: 1) will he be as good or a better player than Miller over the following 2-3 seasons, and 2) given that we will be over the cap (and therefore unable to add anything more than an MLE player when Miller's contract expires), would Hinrich be better than either any availble PG this summer for the MLE, or better than any other PG (for this team) that we could get in a trade for Miller?

That is the question...unless you all want to start up the ol' "AI for the MLE" bandwagon again...

I also think the Bulls can probably do better than just getting cap relief for Hinrich. There are a number of teams out there who could use a 6-3 PG who is a solid defender, is still in his prime, and is signed to a long term contract. And Miller doesn't at all fit in Chicago, where Rose is their PG of the future, so they would essentially be doing this solely for long term cap relief, which they don't much need anyway. Can't see that deal without a third team involved.

Not sure what happened to Hinrich, but he's looked pretty terrible for over a year now. His shot, never particularly stellar, looks down right poor. His previously solid defense has been sub-par, and his decision making at the point leaves a lot to be desired. He is still young enough to rebound, but I wonder whether there is some sort of injury or other problem we are not aware of (drugs, alcohol, depression, family trouble, etc.).

Geiger:

If they want to sign Gordon to a long-term deal without paying a chunk of tax, getting Hinrich's contract off the books will surely help.

I don't think this is a deal that happens now...it happens at the deadline, when the Bulls are 10 games under .500 and Hinrich is the league's highest paid backup PG. Hard to see how he keeps the starting SG position over Gordon or Sefalosha...and Hinrich's salary will be much easier to move than Hughes'. I think that - by Feburary - the cap relief that Miller provides this summer will look pretty good to some teams (including Chicago).

I tend to agree with geiger on this one. If Chicago does decide to move Hinrich this season, I do think that they will either try to unload him for an expiring and some picks or BPA. I'm not saying that a deal can't be done that involves us sending out Miller and taking back Captain Kirk but it would probably have to be a 3-way.

Also... in taking a look at Chicago's cap situation, moving Hinrich for just an expiring doesn't help them all that much. If they could somehow move Hughes in a deal that relieves of some portion of that deal... then you might be onto something.

Bebop, I agree with you in theory, especially under the scenario you pose, but look at it the other way as well - from our end. If we are playing well and Miller is leading the charge, and Hinrich has been playing poorly for the Bulls and ends up a bit player off the bench, with a pretty hefty contract, do we trade Miller for him at that point and then plug him into the starting line-up in a middle of a competitive season to boot?

In theory, if Miller's game is slipping, we lack shooting, and Miller and Brand aren't meshing all that great, while Hinrich is at least showing that his defense and his shooting stroke are fine and he's playing relatively well, then yes, I'd like to make that deal at the deadline or earlier. On the other hand, a lot of things would have to fall into place for that to happen.

I guess this is something that we can keep our eyes on as the season progresses to see both where we and the Bulls stand and how Miller and Hinrich are performing.

Agreed with geiger that if Miller is playing well and meshing with Brand, we won't trade him. I also believe that Miller is the only thing Chicago would want from our team that we'd be willing to trade (You could make an argument that they may want Evans, but I don't see it).

For Chicago, Gooden, Gordon, Nichols and Gray expire at the end of 2008-09 and Hughes in 2009-10. They have a number of players still on rookie deals (Rose, Noah, Thomas, Sefolosha and Simmons) whom they can choose not to resign if they don't want to. In other words, the only players they currently have on non-rookie-deal contracts after 09-10 are Deng, Hinrich and Nocioni. That's it, and those three will only cost the Bulls $27 million in both 2010-11 and 2011-12. They are looking great for future cap space and thus I can't see more cap room as the only reasoning for them to make a trade.

The only reason that I can see why Chicago would deal him is if the Bulls determine that Hinrich and Rose are poor fits for each other... and that having Hinrich around is slowing Rose's growth. In doing that, they decide to trade him for an expiring in Miller? They can do better than that. Would Ed throw in a first-rounder in 09 or 10? Not sure that would be a good trade for the Sixers.

In any three-way deal, almost every team would prefer Hinrich to Miller and would cut Philly out of it.

So, while I think Hinrich would be perfect for this team (would compliment Lou and Igoudala very well, and would also give good defense at the PG spot)... I just don't see it.

shadowterp:

In a 3-way deal, why can't the 3rd team want a $10 million expiring over Hinrich and his 3 year/$27+ million contract?

A $10 million expiring is SOMETHING...isn't it?

And with everybody trying to clear the deck for the motherload in the summer of 2010, I'm not exactly sure that people are going to want another $18 million of Kirk Hinrich. Heck, I'm not sure that I want $27 million of Kirk Hinrich...but with Miller expiring and the Sixers being over the cap, Hinrich looks like the only thing that makes sense to me.

To be revisited in February...

Make no mistake about this, while I'm not 100% certain that Chicago would have interest in Miller and his expiring deal, there will be any number of teams out there who will be interested in Miller's expiring contract. A $10 million expiring deal of a still good and productive player at a premium position has a good deal of value in today's NBA.

geiger makes my point.

I'm not saying a $10 million expiring doesn't have value. I'm saying it won't have value to a team in Chicago that only has around $27-33 million committed two years out when the big free agent push happens. Unless, they determine that having roughly $9 million more in cap space (by letting Hinrich go) really benefits them.

I just don't see it. If he's underperforming by that much... why would we want him?

shadowterp:

Because the Bulls are trying to make Hinrich a shooting guard...which is simply not his best position. Skiles had serious man-love for Duhon last season, and Rose is clearly the PG of the future for the Bulls now (and he basically WENT OFF in the 4th quarter tonight). Hinrich has been Reinsdorf's boy...so they are trying to find some way to have him earn his $10 million this season - and they think that playing him at SG ahead of Ben Gordon (which makes no freaking sense) is the best way of doing that. My call is that - by midseason - Del Negro will have a revolt on his hands if he keeps playing Hinrich over Gordon...and Kirk becomes one hell of an expensive backup PG.

Look - I have no idea if trading for Hinrich makes sense...but if you think (as I do) that signing Miller to an extension makes no sense, then how are you going to replace him in the starting lineup next season with only the MLE to work with?

(AI for the MLE...AI for the MLE...AI for the MLE...)

Hinrich is an option that I would consider if it is offered...you think that the Bulls can get more than a $10 million expiring for him, and that's fine.

For the Sixers, on paper, Hinrich seems like a better fit than Miller in the half court (on both offense and defense)... He provides good passing and outside shooting (well, better than Miller at long-range shooting... Miller probably has the better mid-range game) and his defense would fit our style well. The question I have is the transition game: Miller is perfect for the Sixers in transition, both in decision making and passing. I don't know enough about Hinrich's game to say whether he'd do similarly well in that phase. He did run the "secondary break" at Kansas, so you'd think he'd be at least decent at it.

Considering that's still the #1 strength of our team... I'd hate to lose that advantage.

I wouldn't have a problem with resigning Miller for two years, assuming things go well this year (and Miller is playing at a level similar to last season). It would cause Dalembert, Evans, Green and Miller to all expire at the end of 2010-2011. We're not in play for any of the free agent class of 2010 anyway, and it would give us a chance to (a) develop of point guard we draft in '09, (b) allow us plenty of $$$ to resign Young and Speights for future long term deals (we're committed to roughly $31 Million in 2011 currently) and (c) give us a number of expirings for trades that year.

The problem for Ed is that Miller will want a longer deal than two years... and that negotiation will be tricky. If Miller plays well this season and Ed manages to sign him to a two-year deal which keeps the Sixers below the luxury tax enough to sign some vets to minimum deals... Ed will have earned a huge raise. If he signs Miller to a four- or five-year deal, we'll be stuck with him.

And I agree with you that resigning Miller for that long makes no sense.

shadowTerp:

I agree with that post 100%. If we could sign Miller to a two-year extension (with a 3rd year team option/buyout...are buyouts doable under the CBA?), that would be fine with me...but you are right - I think he will want a longer deal.

Hinrich is actually a bit of a combo guard. He's not a great PG and is not great in running the offense. Never has been. He is fairly solid though. He doesn't turn the ball over much, doesn't try to over pass. Makes the simple pass. Not a true floor general like Miller and not great at making the outlet pass, but good enough if he can play solid defense and hit the 3 with any consistency.

As for Miller, I don't think he accepts a new deal for only two years and I don't think it's worth the gamble, considering history of PGs, to sign him for 3 or 4 years, taking him past his 35th b-day.

Ed was also wearing a Phillies hat that looks like it was bought from a thrift store for one dollar.