Andre Miller

[sixerswillrule]

We've all noticed how well Iguodala has been playing lately. But Miller's improved play has gone under the rader. He's had some huge games and has been pretty consistent through most of December up until now. My question is, what will be the effects of all of this? Do we look to trade him and possibly get even more value in return than we thought possible? Or do we choose to keep him, extending his contract for perhaps another two years. What should happen? What will happen? Only time will tell...

[Cru Thik]

He has played well I think we end up keeping him. We will be in a position to get into the playoffs when Brand gets back so we are going to see this team try to make a playoff run. This will put us in a tough position because I would think Ed would want him back for 2-3 more yrs. But does Miller want to be back with this team? Has he ever said he really likes being on this team or the city or anything like that? Wasn't he pissed to be in Philly to begin with but he has been a pro about it? All things considered I think we keep him make a playoff push if we are out at the deadline we trade him. ButI doubt we will be since the East sucks then at the end of the year Miller walks to a contender out West and we get nothing and a draft pick in the middle teens.

[sixerswillrule]

That's exactly what I don't want to happen. If we're going to lose him for nothing this off-season, then we need to trade him before the deadline. We need to get something valuable in return for him, which I'm sure is possible.

[geiger]

We can't let him walk for nothing. At the same time, he will be 33 this season and much better PGs than Miller - in fact, nearly all PGs, begin a rather rapid decline by the time they hit 35. That included Stockton, Payton, and includes Nash and Kidd. Miller and his agent haven't really approached the Sixers about an extension, which is pretty telling that he's not in love with Philly - sure, he'd stay if we gave him a good offer, but he's also someone who wants to look around. I don't buy that the fact that he doesn't rely on his speed will mean that he will avoid the decline. He's a guy who while not fast end to end, has a great first step and dribble stutter step. If he loses a bit of that, he will be Eric Snow. So we are in position where it's very risky to give him anything more than a two year deal and he will all but certainly will want more than the MLE. Someone out there will give him good money for 3-4 years and pay on the tail end. He's also not a great fit with Brand, which we have to consider, or a guy who keeps himself in great shape.

At the same time, he's been playing very well and we can't just trade him for the sake of trading him. It has to be a deal that makes sense for our future. I still firmly believe he's the most likely to be moved by the deadline. Could we do a deal with Cleveland for example where we move Dalembert, Miller and Rush for West and the expiring contracts of Wally World and Snow? Cleveland needs to do all they can to keep Bron Bron, are in great danger of losing Varejao this off-season, and have Wallace come off the books in 2010. Z also has injury issues. Dalembert can be a back up big man at C and PF for them and Miller allows Bron to take on more of a scoring role, gives them a better player at the point, and allows Williams and/or Gibson to spot up more. Would Portland move Blake, Webster and Frye to us for Miller and Rush? Webster would be the back up SG and SF and our shooter - he's young and has a long term contract at market value. Blake is a serviceable PG who can run the pick and roll with Brand and stick the 3 and has one year left at reasonable coin - maybe we can get a pick from Portland as well in a PG heavy draft or the rights to Kopponen, who seems like a promising young PG who can stay overseas for one more season.

A lot will depend on what is out there, but doing nothing this season and then letting Miller walk for nothing would be an absolute disaster for this team.

[dond]

Couple of things ....

He has trade value because of 2 things ... 1 - he is good. So he is valuable to a team that feels they have a good team with an average or worse point guard. 2 - His contract expires at the end of this year. So he is valuable to a team wishing to clear out some cap space in order to grab a free agent somewhere.

Well, he is valuable to the Sixers for those same reasons. 1. he is good. So he is valuable to the Sixers IF they think they have a good team and wish to have a good point guard for a run in the playoffs. However, if they think they are a few years away yet (heaven forbid with Brand getting older) then he is not as valuable and they will probably trade him for a younger player.
2. His contract expires at the end of this year. So he is valuable to the Sixers if they wish to clear some cap space and attempt to sign a free agent somewhere. Now, if they can trade him for a better player than they think they can get on the free-agent market, well ... then go for that instead. I guess my point here is that IF HE WALKS at the end of this year, the Sixers did not LOSE him, they decided to let him go and sign someone else. That is not necessarily a loss. It could be a gain.

[geiger]

Sixers can't clear cap space to sign a free agent by allowing Miller to walk. If he walks, they don't have $10 million on the cap he takes up now, they will have only about $2 to $3 and will not be able to find anyone close to comparable at that salary.

So if he walks at year's end for nothing, there is no one on the free agent market we can get who is even remotely comparable and if there is at the salary we would be able to pay, MLE or $2 million, than we should still trade him now and get value AND add another player at season's end, because the goal is to win a title and no one believes it's remotely achievable for Sixers this season.

There is a third reason Miller might be valuable for someone - he got a lot of money up front. His contract might count for $10 million against the cap, because it averages out the years, but he is actually getting less, so someone looking to pocket some change would also have that benefit as well. Not a huge thing, but with the tough financial times, there could be some teams out there whose owners wouldn't mind having a $2 million advantage.

[dond]

Sixers can't clear cap space to sign a free agent by allowing Miller to walk. If he walks, they don't have $10 million on the cap he takes up now, they will have only about $2 to $3

I guess I don't understand something about the CAP then. Can you explain why that is ?

[sixerswillrule]

We have 57 million in salary right now for next season. We would need to trade Evans and Green, or Dalembert, for expirings to get some legitimate cap space.

[geiger]

There are guys much more versed in the cap than me, namely DBodner, who really understands the stuff so my explanation might need tinckering, but as far as I understand, we just re-signed Iggy and Williams to new contracts - they were restricted and we had their Bird rights so we could do it (we were also under the cap after Iverson trade and Webber coming off the books). By next season, when Miller comes off, Iggy's and Williams and their new, larger contracts kick in and with Brand and some other guys having contracts that go up in value, including Dalembert, Evans, Green, etc., we won't have the cap space to sign someone to the $10 million Miller counts against the cap this season.

To make things worse, because of the economic downturn, everyone seems to be of the opinion that the salary cap will actually shrink for the first time ever, or stay the same, but not grow. Presuming there is the same cap next season as next season - the middle ground on the issue - here is a link to contracts we'll have on the books:

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/philadelphia.htm

That is over 57.2 million and doesn't include the $1.3 or so we'll have to pay our first round pick, taking us to about 58.5 for next season for 10 players. The minimum you can have on the roster is 13, but most, including the Sixers, keep 14 (some even keep the maxium of 15). It's a long season and injuries happen. The current salary cap is about $55.5. Even presuming we trade away our first rounder for a future pick and the cap goes up by as much as 5 million, which is very unlikely in this economic climate, that will still leave us no more than $3 million for siging a free agent. Of course, irrespective of anything, we'll have the MLE, which is about $5.5 to $6, but we will have that regardless of what happens with Miller.

That is why it would be particularly disastrous long term if we don't move Miller this year and he walks away for nothing. Instead of having a solid player and a pick, we'll have nothing and will likely only have the MLE to use on finding a replacement in a bad PG year:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/stor ... ents-09-10

You can never depend on getting a restricted free agent for only the MLE as teams are likely to match, so I doubt the Bucks or Bobcats, if they like Sessions and Felton, let those guys walk for nothing by not matching - they'd be better off trading them. Bibby will likely command more than the MLE and if he signs for the MLE, likely will want 5 years and might want to play for more of an immediate contender. Same deal with Jason Kidd and Allen Iverson (presuming someone actually views him as a PG). You might be forced into looking at someone like Stephon Marbury, or being forced into taking a PG with the first round pick whether or not that's the best player on the board at the time you are picking - a sure fire recipie for disaster. It's also a year when some decent shooters will likely be on the market we might be able to sign for the MLE and likely won't have that shot if we have to use the MLE on a PG. Or we'll be trading for Jamaal Tinsley or some other relatively undesireable player.

[Skates]

There is no use in trading Miller unless we get value back. Like Geiger I think a trade with Portland would be ideal for both teams. Letting Miller walk this summer does nothing for us cap-wise unless we move Dalembert for expirings also. Signing Miller scares me to death if it is for more than a year or two. He is playing well offensively, but he can't guard a good point guard with quickness (neither can Lou). One of the reasons our three point defense stinks is that Miller plays way off his man, plus he and Lou allow so much dribble penetration that the defense collapses to cover and we get beat by a lot of kick-out threes. Miller can guard some slower PG's and less athletic SG's like Redd, but defensively he is not very good man to man.

If we somehow moved Sammy for expirings we would have about $46+ million in salary next year if we let Miller walk. The cap is about $58 million this year. Assume any increase in the cap is taken up by our first rounder and I would out us at about $10-11 million under the cap next summer. In that case, keeping Miller and letting him walk would make more sense.

[geiger]

If Miller is available, there will be approximately 12 teams who are interested. Some have the goods to make it work, others would have to get a third team involved. There will be teams out there who can make us decent offers other than Portland. Whether they will be good enough remains to be seen. I also highly doubt that with the economy, the threat of the cap and luxury tax going down, and with the 2010 bonanza, that someone would take Dalembert for an expiring contract straight up. If that happens, it changes our equation a bit, no doubt.

[dond]

Well, I guess I know why I do not understand it. It is way too complicated and I will just fall back on my basic premise ... leave it to Sixer management to do that stuff. They will do what they think is best and that will have to suffice. They made a fantastic move when they got Miller and they will probably handle things fine from here also.

[tk76]

Sorry this is so lengthy. I posted this on DeBodner's blog... You guys have all made some good points. There has been lots of speculation on if and where Andre Miller will be traded. The NBA is a business, and I'm sure management is looking at cap and tax implications regarding Miller.

This year the Tax is at 71M and the Cap is 58.7M (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3479183). The Sixers, like most teams, want to avoid the tax unless they are a contender.

If Miller walks, they will be at about 59M with their #1 pick. Simply stated, if you have less than the MLE value in cap space, or are over the cap, you are allowed to sign a player for the MLE. Barring another move where they clear 5M more of cap space, they will only be able to offer a player the MLE regardless of whether Miller walks or is traded. So they will not be able to offer more than the MLE unless they move another contract like Sam or Evans- which is like moving a mountain with your bare hands.

The tax is another issue. If they trade Miller and take back 10M in contracts that go into next year, they will be at 69M this summer (Tax at 71M this year.) That means no MLE signing, unless they are willing to go over the tax- which only a handful of teams are.

Min contracts like Rush, Ratliff and vey are league subsidized, so they do not cost the tax, but a MLE signing would cost double. I could see them signing a vet star (like an AI) for the MLE, but I seriously doubt they would be willing to go over the tax for a Korver or Posey type MLE signing.

Don't be surprised if the Sixers are willing to just let Miller walk. It will anger the fans, but financially it will allow them to make a MLE signing this summer without being near the tax- and it will be a buyers market.

They only will trade Miller if what they get back is better then what they think they can get for the MLE, because I doubt they take on a Miler like salary in a trade and then use the MLE this summer for an additional player and go over the tax. Of course if they can unload some of Sam or Evans' cap space the story changes, but that is easier said than done.

The last possibility is extending Miller. If the tax remains at 71M, any contract 6M or over would put them at or above the tax if they sign Miller + use the MLE on a 2nd player. This really complicates things, given the team desperately needs a PG and a shooter heading into next year.

[geiger]

You're leaving out one very important scenario - if they trade Miller, they don't necessarily have to take $10 million in long term contracts back - they can get a combination of player/s and pick/s with expiring contracts. For example, if they deal him to Cleveland for West and Snow's expiring contract, they are in the same cap and luxury tax position and can still use the MLE AND would have a decent young PG. If they move him to Portland for Blake, Webster and Frye, they don't need to use the MLE because they both add a PG and a shooter. There are any number of moves they can and should make rather than just letting Miller walk for nothing.

[tk76]

I didn't want t make my confusing, long winded post even more so

That would be an ideal scenario- allowing them to get a PG and use the MLE. They need to clear at least 4M of his 10M contract in order to use the full MLE and still not go over the tax.

[geiger]

I think they'll have some deals out there where they could do that, but the scenario you put out basically eliminates the possibility of for example, a Miller/Rush for Baron Davis trade. So their options as far as financial flexiblity are more limited. Or they would have to do a deal where they take similar money back, but get multiple players where they no longer have to use the MLE to plug a hole. The NBA sure doesn't make it easy on their GMs. Good post. That's certainly a point that we have to keep in mind when discussing possible trades.

[SouthJersey]

Portland and LA seem like the two most likely destinations for Miller. LA is probably the best team in the league and upgrading Farmar and Fisher to Miller would put them at a higher level. I'm not sure what LA's cap is like, but I know they're losing Odom, so I'd think they can afford to resign Miller.Portland is good because that team falls under the category of "too many indians and not enough chiefs". Miller would really help that team out and give them a more balanced offense, not too mention the sixers could get some good young players back.

[tk76]

That's certainly a point that we have to keep in mind when discussing possible trades.

To make it really simple:

In a Miller trade the Sixers have to get back at least 4M in expiring contracts in order to be able to still use the full MLE this summer and stay under the Tax.

[dbodner]

Keep in mind the luxury tax typically goes up 2-3 million per year. Even with the economy, most BRI has already been determined (RE: tv deals), so it's likely the luxury tax next year will be 73-74 million (likewise, the cap should be $60-$61 million).

[geiger]

I think the luxury tax is tied in with the salary cap. So if the cap goes down, so does the luxury tax limit. Everyone I've been reading seems to be predicting that the cap and the luxury tax will both go down, if not by next season, by 2010, ostensibly the worst time for all those teams hoping to strike gold in the free agency bonanza.

I'm not so sure that the cap will go up by 10% next season over this season - the attendance figures are down, discretionary television spending on adds is down, sales of merchandise are down, so I'm not as optimistic that by year's end, with the salaries up, that the 57% due to the players will grow in numbers by 10% unless there is a rebound in the real economy, and people start spending more cash.