Mike Miller (again)

[captain_cheapseats]

A few weeks back, there was a thread asking if people here think it'd be a good idea to trade for Mike Miller. The general consensus (myself included) was "no." The common reasons seemed to either be (a) the team is doing well so no need rock the boat by making major deals, or (b) he would be too expensive, and doesn't really fit what we need.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm starting to change my mind. When I said "no" in the first thread I assumed the price for Miller would be much higher than it apparently is.** I still don't think he's a great fit for the Celts, but when a good player with no off the court/attitude issues is essentially being given away, don't you at least have to throw your hat in the ring and try to get the guy? Even if only so you can just trade him away later?

**In case anyone missed the wire-tap piece, apparently Memphis is likely to trade Miller to Indy for Daniels and Digou. I mean no offense to those players btw (I think Daniels especially is a very useful reserve), it's just that they aren't exactly great trade chips relative to Miller.

[greenbeans]

what do we have that we could offer without seriously altering our rotation or depth??

[Barry Lird]

This brings to mind a rule that the NBA made to keep moronic owners from doing stupid trades; the Ted Stepien rule that kept owners from trading first round draft picks in successive years.

They're gonna have to come up with a stupid GM rule, and call it the Chris Wallace rule if this goes through. He was a disaster with the Celts and he apparently is an even bigger one at Memphis. I haven't checked the Memphis board, but they must be just going nuts over there.

[The Rondo Show]

Mike Miller is a stud and would be a huge addition. Our bench has been very solid, but we do lack an offensive threat who can create for himself and get you 12-15 points every night.

Miller could be that guy, and be that guy while being one of the most efficient players in the NBA. He also can rebound a bit, pass a bit and while not great defensively, he is not as bad as some make him out to be and is passable.

Unfortunately, I just don't think we have the pieces to get him. I highly doubt he gets traded for that Pacers package and probably goes for a price higher than we can afford. What would be our best possible offer without gutting the team? 'Kandi, TA and Pruitt? I don't think we can trade a 1st rounder (well, can trade rights on draft day..but that's it) until what; 2013?

[Datruth345]

i don't think we have the assets to swing a deal

and the money is always an issue

[rambo_ortega]

tony allen, big baby and pollard?

[ArmstrongInGreen]

uhhh yeah ray allen is way better than mike miller and i wouldn't want to lose someone like posey and big baby to land mikey mike....i think danny would agree

[Fencer reregistered]

As I've said in other threads, we lack the assets -- picks, contracts, whatever -- for any but the most minor of talent upgrades.

Via trade, at least.

[MaxwellSmart]

41-9....chemistry...No trades....Cassell signing would be the only move we should make,unless a good big becomes available...Miller is awesome-but he would upset our rotation...TA plays lock down defense when we need it,wouldn't want him traded right now.

[Jammer]

The Celtics won't trade for Mike Miller for several reasons.

One, he can't defend worth sh*t.

Ray Allen and Tony Allen are much better at shooting guard, and Pierce and Posey are much better at small forward. There are several reasons Memphis had a worse record than the Celtics in 2007, Mike Miller's (and the team's defense) figure prominently.

Defense aside, it would gut into what I think is a protected core.

Given the team's success, I have to believe that the starters, plus Posey, House, Tony Allen and yes Scot Pollard, are unavailable, plus one power forward (probably Powe).

Trying to match up with Miller's salary requires, at a minimum,

$ 6,620,194.20 in outgoing salary.

To get there:

$ 3,000,000 Scalabrine leaves you $ 3,620,194.2 short.

There is no way the Celtics add Tony Allen, Pollard and Pruitt for No-D Mike. The only minutes that he could get are from Pierce or Ray Allen, but whatever improvement he might offer over Tony Allen on offense would be negated by his inability to defend premier shooting guards, and the same could be said when comparing his performance as a backup small forward to Posey.

The trade makes no sense.

Given the Celtics success, when considering a trade at this point, the first question to ask is what superior skills that the Celtics need (minutes factor in here) does the player offer, AFTER ESTABLISHING SAID PLAYER IS A PREMIER DEFENDER FOR HIS POSITION.

Because with this team's goals, anyone who is not a premier defender must have a skill the team needs badly. When House is subbed in for Rondo, he offers superlative shooting at a position and skill of need, and fast hands to disrupt opponents. Miller doesn't similarly complement Tony Allen and Posey, so Mike Miller is a bad fit on the Celtics. Miller needs to go to a team in desperate need of outside shooting. Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Eddie House and James Posey have pretty much closed him out of that department. And Tony Allen has been surprisingly effective since Tony learned the difference between a good shot and a bad shot, as well as only shooting on days when he is on.

[kmgarnett21]

like all the other teams seem to be doing, why dont we sign a "semi-retired" player to a contract to make the salaries match???

vernon maxwell anyone? whats cedric ceballos up to?

seriously tho, i wish we could get miller, he'd be HUGE off the bench, but for us, it is impossible.

[greenbeans]

Kandi and a 2nd anyone??

[John Locke]

I agree that the prize for Mike Miller makes him an intruiging option. But we don't have enough players to make a 2-1 or 3-1 trade, unless we go out and sign some minimum wage guys, that don't help at all.

And I think that we cannot afford to lose Tony Allen. He will be very useful if we play against the Pistons in the playoffs. Only for that assignment, I would not be willing to do trade him for Miller.

But Miller is a household favorite. My Dad would love him on the team, and he is always talking about his college years. But still, we aren't able to do this...

[Scalamental]

tony allen, big baby and pollard?

The Celtics are over the cap, and their incoming salaries are greater than 125% plus $100,000 of their outgoing salaries. They need to cut $4,443,802 from the incoming trade value to make this trade.

There's no way we can get Miller unless we trade our biggest "tradable" contracts. Miller is making 8 mill a year for three years. Besides our big three, the only players who are making more than 2 mil for more than 2 years are: Perk and Scal. You'd have to pair them with either Tony Allen (something I wouldn't want to do) or eddie house (something I'd be more willing to do).

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/t ... &te=&cash=

Memphis doesn't want 3 and 4 year contracts, they want money, draft picks, and contracts that are over at the end of this season. We don't have enough of those things to account for Millers contract.

Does this sound right?

EDIT: If so, SHUT UP ABOUT MILLER CUZ WE AINT GETTIN HIM!

[I love heinsohn]

Kandi and a 2nd anyone??

Although doable, the owners are not adding $16 million to the payroll this year (including the cap hit) for Mike Miller. Jammer mentioned most of those reasons above, but here is another good one: the Celtics have the best record in the NBA. They have a real shot to win the title as is and probably an even better shot if Cassell gets bought out and they add a guy like Justin Williams.

At the end of this season, management is going to sit down and re-examine what went wrong if the Celtics do not come away with the brass ring. At that point, I'd expect to see another infusion of cash (full MLE, re-sign Posey and maybe House, extend or S&T Tony Allen) if Danny thinks there are moves out there this summer to get the team over the top. Trading for Miller now would severely limit those options and doesn't guarantee anything in the postseason...

[captain_cheapseats]

As I've said in other threads, we lack the assets -- picks, contracts, whatever -- for any but the most minor of talent upgrades.

Via trade, at least.

You don't think we could put together a package that would match/exceed Daniels and Digou? I guess you either think more of those guys, or less of our bench, than I do.

[captain_cheapseats]

uhhh yeah ray allen is way better than mike miller

Obviously the idea would be to have him back-up both Allen and Pierce, not replace them.

[Rocky5000]

According to
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-3 ... raded.html
We can sign new contracts for Roshown McLeod, Dana Barros, and Grant Long in order to make a big trade.
The Twolves could sign and trade Sam Mitchell! They could also use Spreewell's whopping contract.

BUT, we don't need Mike Miller, we need a C and a pg, Miller isn't either one.

[threrf23]

Mike Miller's passable defensively but isn't as consistent offensively as he may get credit for. I said it in a previous thread, I wouldn't trade TA straight up for him if salaries matched - TA as long as he stays healthy brings at the very least about as much to the table in different ways (including energy), has more upside, and is part of our existing chemistry.

I feel Diogu/Daniels isn't that bad, especially if a pick or two are added. Daniels isn't that bad, and Diogu has had the unfortunate circumstance of playing for Don Nelson and Jim O'Brien in consecutive years, hence his value is lower than it should be. Daniels' contract kinda sucks, but it comes off the books after next season, and until then Memphis can benefit from being worse.

[The Rondo Show]

Mike Miller's passable defensively but isn't as consistent offensively as he may get credit for.

He's shooting 51% from the field while hitting 2.2 3's a game and has a TS% of 63, so he must be pretty consistent since you don't post those numbers by having lots of 3-14 and 4-15 games.