Why didn't you guys ship out Miller too?

Ripp · Post #1 » by **Ripp** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:00 pm

You could probably have sent him to a contender for for some youngish talent or future picks. Right now, I see a huge logjam at the perimeter.

Or was it because you guys don't trust the PG abilities of Foye/Boykins and wants Miller for this reason?

GhostsOfGil · Post #2 » by **GhostsOfGil** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:17 pm

i think ernie grundie is the only one who knows the answer to thsi question.
o ya IBTL

JWizmentality · Post #3 » by **JWizmentality** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:28 pm

What logjam? I don't see a logjam. You see a logjam? Yeah, I bet a lot of teams would've loved us to ship a dead weight like Miller.

Ripp · Post #4 » by **Ripp** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:44 pm

JWizmentality wrote:What logjam? I don't see a logjam. You see a logjam? Yeah, I bet a lot of teams would've loved us to ship a dead weight like Miller.

Are you being sarcastic? You have 6 wings..there are only 96 minutes.

Miller is an expiring, but could possibly have netted you a good asset. Not like it'd hurt the season much more if he were gone.

Gilfanatic123 · Post #5 » by **Gilfanatic123** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:49 pm

I kind of like Mike Miller. I think he just wasn't shooting that much earlier in the season. I think he trusts his shot more now, and, he's launching the 3s a bit more. And it's really helping. I wouldn't want to trade him. But I'm not Ernie Grunfield. That's just me speaking.

Ripp · Post #6 » by **Ripp** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:53 pm

But he is expiring this year. Won't he likely sign as a free agent with a contender anyway, meaning you lose him in the offseason? What difference would it have made whether he were traded or not, in terms of wins? Should have parlayed him into a second rounder, at the very least.

Post #7 » by **LyricalRico** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:09 pm

The "logjam" you speak of is temporary. Josh Howard's option will be declined, Nick Young will be trade bait this summer, and Quentin Ross is a fringe player who doesn't need minutes. Thornton is the only guy currently on the roster who would get big minutes next season.

Unless the Wizards draft Evan Turner, I fully expect the organization to consider Mike Miller as our starting SG next season. Of course he'll have to agree to re-sign but I think the organization is planning to keep him around.

Dat2U · Post #8 » by **Dat2U** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:20 pm

snitches don't have trade value.

DaRealHibachi · Post #9 » by **DaRealHibachi** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:25 pm

Dat2U wrote:snitches don't have trade value.

Post #10 » by **Ruzious** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:29 pm

I love watching Mike Miller being an integral part of the team, but... keeping him was a long-term mistake, imo. I think we have to rebuild, and he doesn't fit into a rebuilding plan. And I find it hard to believe that no team would offer something of value for him. He should be playing for a contender.

Joe_Wiz · Post #11 » by **Joe_Wiz** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:10 pm

The short answer is we probably didn't get a good enough offer. I think re-signing Miller is and should be an option under consideration. A lot depends on what we have to pay him. Is there likely to be a contender in a position to pay him more than the MLE? Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think we could and should keep him by paying just enough above the MLE to persuade him to stay.

Post #12 » by **Ruzious** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:28 pm

Joe_Wiz wrote:The short answer is we probably didn't get a good enough offer. I think re-signing Miller is and should be an option under consideration. A lot depends on what we have to pay him. Is there likely to be a contender in a position to pay him more than the MLE? Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think we could and should keep him by paying just enough above the MLE to persuade him to stay.

I think it should come down to having a plan. If we are rebuilding, the 3 easiest ways to build up to championship talent are through the draft, through free agency, and through trades. Keeping him makes the team better in the short-run, while pushing them closer to a solid .500 record - which has the effect of lowering the value of the draft pick. And giving him a multi-year contract above the MLE likely decreases the chances of signing a top free agent. Again, if we were in position to compete for a championship - by all means sign him. But if we're not, then keeping him likely hurts our ability to improve the talent level long-term - needed to compete for a championship. Because we're not competing now, long-term benefits should be considered more important than short-term benes.

JWizmentality · Post #13 » by **JWizmentality** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:35 pm

Dat2U wrote:snitches don't have trade value.

Oh noes! Dat with elbow from the sky!! :lol:

Joe_Wiz · Post #14 » by **Joe_Wiz** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:41 pm

^ I hear you, Ruzious. A lot depends on what we see from our players the rest of this season and who we end up drafting. We don't want to lower the value of our picks, but we also don't want to give up a good player for another decade or two of struggling to get and keep good players in the draft and stinking so bad no top-notch FA's want to come here.

Post #15 » by **miller31time** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Please use our stickied trade thread for all trade discussion.