Andre Miller anyone?
by olympicmike on Jul 16, 2009 9:32 PM PDT
74 comments
So today I was poking around on RealGM and I read this:
Donnie Walsh is close to delivering Andre Miller a formal offer for the one-year, $5.8 million midlevel exception, feeling there is a chance of stealing him. The Sixers will not offer Miller more than a one-year deal.
Now I know we supposedly have too many guards on this team, but this is the same Andre Miller that many people here were drooling over (albeit a version that's a year older, now 33) as a very good complement to Monta in the backcourt. With his ability to pretend to guard the SG he could really help our defense.
Seriously though, that seems like a very good price for a player of his caliber, and he would instantly be our best option at PG. Would he stunt the development of Monta and Curry, with Nelson likely to hand over the lion's share of the PG minutes to the veteran? Yeah, probably. Is that a big problem? I'm not so sure...
via www.nba.com
So first let's just be honest and say that if he is thinking about re-signing with Philly for one year, or going to the Knicks for one year, chances are that we will have to pony up two years at the full MLE to spark some interest (no guarantee he would come play here, but it's not that often that players turn down double what they could make elsewhere so we'd have a shot). I'm not sure if that's a wise investment at this point in his career, but let's take a look at some of the numbers and see if we can't come up with a consensus here.
Here are his per 36 stats from his rookie year to last season.
Per 36 Minutes
| MP | FG | FGA | FG% | 3P | 3PA | 3P% | FT | FTA | FT% | ORB | DRB | TRB | AST | STL | BLK | TOV | PF | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2093 | 5.8 | 13.0 | .449 | 0.2 | 0.8 | .204 | 3.9 | 5.0 | .774 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 4.8 | 8.2 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 15.7 |
| 2848 | 5.7 | 12.6 | .452 | 0.2 | 0.8 | .266 | 4.7 | 5.7 | .833 | 1.2 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 8.3 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 16.4 |
| 3023 | 5.6 | 12.4 | .454 | 0.3 | 1.0 | .253 | 4.3 | 5.3 | .817 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 4.5 | 10.5 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 15.9 |
| 2913 | 4.7 | 11.5 | .406 | 0.3 | 1.3 | .213 | 3.8 | 4.8 | .795 | 1.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 13.4 |
| 2838 | 5.5 | 11.9 | .457 | 0.2 | 0.8 | .185 | 4.3 | 5.2 | .832 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 6.4 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 15.4 |
| 2852 | 5.4 | 11.3 | .477 | 0.1 | 0.5 | .154 | 3.2 | 3.8 | .838 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 7.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 14.0 |
| 2937 | 5.0 | 10.7 | .463 | 0.1 | 0.3 | .185 | 3.8 | 5.2 | .738 | 1.1 | 3.2 | 4.3 | 8.3 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 13.8 |
| 2966 | 5.1 | 11.0 | .466 | 0.1 | 0.4 | .143 | 2.7 | 3.4 | .784 | 1.2 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 7.6 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 13.0 |
| 3016 | 6.8 | 13.8 | .492 | 0.0 | 0.4 | .088 | 3.1 | 4.0 | .772 | 1.1 | 2.7 | 3.9 | 6.7 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 16.7 |
| 2976 | 6.0 | 12.6 | .473 | 0.2 | 0.6 | .283 | 4.1 | 4.9 | .826 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 6.5 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 16.2 |
I hope that worked...
So it looks like the guy can score at a decent rate with about average efficiency (TS%54.8 last season) despite not having a 3pt shot, thanks to his ability to get to the line and convert at a high percentage. He rebounds very well for a PG, actually above average for a SG, if you go by Jae's average rebounding rates by position. His assists have been up and down through his career, leading the league at one point, but recently they have been in decline (though still respectable). Still he is more talented as a distributer than anyone else we have on the roster.
I honestly haven't seen the guy play all that much the last couple of years, so I'm curious if someone who's caught more of his games could share a little insight into how he seems to be aging (defense, quickness etc.).
I like him as a player. He's definitely on the downside of his career but I don't think it's crazy to think he has a couple more years left in the tank. The real question is whether or not he makes sense on this team right now. Every option we have at PG is a question mark right now. It seems to me like a solid veteran for two years at the MLE could do a lot to secure the position for us. Yeah, it takes minutes away from Curry, Marco and possibly Morrow, but it could also be the difference between the last pick in the lottery and another trip to the playoffs (if we catch a few breaks).
I've gone back and forth on this one a bit. I'd like to hand Monta the keys and see what he can do this year. Having said that, I'd be lying if I said I was comfortable with our PG situation right now. So with me unable to make up my mind on the issue, I turn to the mighty GSoM. Do you think this would be a wise use of the MLE?
Vote, let your voice be heard!!!
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
7 recs |
74 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'll say this about Andre Miller
He’s a very good passer, and he can run the fastbreak.
It is the shoes!!!
by LighTz707OuT on Jul 16, 2009 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll say this about Andre Miller
he looks like richard Pryor. Ever set himself on fire?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 16, 2009 9:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
wow, 1 year at the midlevel? I’m a little shocked at that. I’m definitely for this, he fills a huge need for us. The need for better players.
Oh and I rec’d this but not because it was interesting, discussion worthy, well thought out, well researched, or well organized……just because you’ve got “rock star status.”
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 16, 2009 9:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I rec’d it because I started reading it thinking oh no, not olympicmike too – how many fanposts have we already had about Miller? but then, because of his rock star status, I read the post and it was good, so good he started changing my mind about getting miller
then I came to my senses, we’re not getting miller for rock bottom dollar and paying more or longer probably isn’t a good decision
by hardcore on Jul 17, 2009 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a rock star!!!
Thanks guys. It’s time to break out the tight leather pants!!
On a serious note…
I read the post and it was good, so good he started changing my mind about getting miller
First of all, thanks. Second, I’m curious, does it really read as though I’m arguing for signing Miller? I didn’t really intend to argue one side or the other, I was just trying to present what I saw as the more obvious pros and cons. I’m still not sure if it’s a good idea or not. Though I guess if his health looked good, and you put the papers in front of me I’d probably go ahead and sign off on Miller for two years at the MLE. Maybe my subconscious bias was showing through. Hmm….
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 17, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Were you annoyed? I never mentioned you, hell I never mentioned anyone, but you really seem to be taking this to heart.
This post has original insight and is not just basically rehashing information. Therefore, it is deserving of a rec. Sleepy’s was basically a thread dedicated to loving Anthony Randolph. I get it, cause I’m in the same state of mind right now myself. Content wise, it was undeserving. He said so himself, probably because he understands that I wasn’t attacking him at all. That doesn’t mean that everything he posts is wack. I thought his “Amare and Sharing” was an excellent FanPost. I think you understand that, but I can never be sure with you. If you guys want to pretend that there are barely any quality FanPosts that’s fine, but I think there is a pretty realistic ratio of quality FanPosts to average/poor FanPosts, so I’m not going to artificially inflate an average/poor FanPost content-wise just because it has excellent formatting (again, excellent formatting Sleepy). Sleepy should be proud that he has written enough consistently great fanposts/comments that he has gained that status.
I don’t see why it’s such a big deal that you guys have to turn it into an inside joke that you can use to bolster your small sense of belonging with other regulars on the site.
Besides, it was addressed to Sleepy, who didn’t seem to take offense, so hopefully we can keep it as if you don’t mention it I don’t mention it. If not, that’s too bad.
by belilaugh on Jul 17, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All in good fun...
I don’t think anybody took what you said personally. It’s actually funny because there is probably some truth to it. We can disagree with what we consider a rec worthy post, but I don’t think you should be offended if someone uses your “rock star” comment as an opportunity for some good natured ribbing among friendly GSoMers.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 17, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like O.M. said, I didn’t take it personally at all. I just think “rock star status on GSoM” sounds really funny. I do think there is a bit of truth in your earlier point too, I just didn’t particularly agree that Sleepy’s last fanpost was a great example of it. I apologize if you took my rock star references to be a form of mocking you and the point you were making, thats not how it was intended.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 18, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s exactly how I took it. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. It’s just that in context with the few responses I got on the other post that seemed defensive (which I was perfectly willing to let go because I figured I’d let you guys have your say and that would be that), it seemed like overkill at my expense. But if you want to use it and don’t mean anything by it, go ahead. I couldn’t care less. I barely ever rec posts anyway, unless they are incredible (like that Robert Rowell behind the scenes one, or most of Jae’s), I want to push out bad FanPosts (which will inevitably happen as the summer progresses), or someone like Atma asks for it.
by belilaugh on Jul 18, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's good but won't be the best use of the MLE
A big old guy would be better than a small one. We have potential at the pg spot so there’s no way we give him a long term offer, and he wouldn’t wanna be a dub anyway.
by T-Money on Jul 16, 2009 9:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
who would be a better use of the MLE?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 16, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed, but do you think there’s a chance the Bucks wouldn’t match?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 16, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+111111111111111111111 for Sessions, at MLE he would be a great complimentary player and is really a stud.....
by warriorbum on Jul 22, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think that Sessions would compliment other players? For all we know he’s stone cold silent about his teammates.
by jae on Jul 22, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
riley's thoughts on the m.l.e.?
we know he wants a reserve to back up the four and five (or possibly a starter there, via a mega deal like the stoudemire rumor). in terms of trading for one, the players most likely in demand are the ones he’s probably reluctant to give away, biedrins, turiaf, even wright to a degree, randolph removed from the discussion. the players he’s more inclined to deal would go farther for a ‘glue’ type of reserve to bolster the perimeter d and ball handling, the other priorities for improvement. put another way, what kind of quality 4/5 could one expect for guys like law, claxton, azubuike, belinelli, if m’gette gets rejected because of his heavy contract? riley might be holding the m.l.e. for that ‘boeuf’ he keeps mentioning.
by the.monk on Jul 17, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Potential, is just that, potential. Some one needs to step up for the time being.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jul 16, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
except dubs are probably playing for the future, not the present. and Miller is move for the present. dubs are more in need of vets who don’t play, but can teach the youngsters the little tricks of the NBA game. they’re especially in need of an experienced big who can teach them the nuances of post defense & position play. even Ronny has a lot to learn in this area.
by homer simpson on Jul 16, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we should match and guarantee him a starting spot
This would allow us to move Monta, Jax, and/or Maggz. Maybe even Biedrins. If we get a good 3, 5, and/or salary relief, I’d make our last 3 off-seasons and drafts one of the best we’ve had since the TMC era.
Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.
Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
by ejdacanay on Jul 16, 2009 10:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Pg- Miller, Curry
sg- Ellis, Morrow , trade Marco for cash or a draft pick
sf- Jackson, Buike, Maggs
pf- Randolph, Wright (or trade him for cash), Scrub
c- Well you know who ( Beans and Ronny)
But where will the playing time go?
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
by dubzfan on Jul 16, 2009 10:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we already have 4 good point guards
monta, curry, don’t forget about watson who is a STUD, and AC Law seems solid
by Agent Zero on Jul 16, 2009 10:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Watson is a free agent. Law seems solid?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 16, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Word on the street is that Watson was signed.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on Jul 16, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
u deserve a hammerdance
Stop.......... Hammertime!!!!!
by MR. Bigshot 123 on Jul 17, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing I saw was that his agent met with Riley yesterday to discuss CJ’s future.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 17, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like CJ
but with Ellis, Curry and Marco, he’s just anther shot first guy, with point guard size, but not the ability to run a team. He’s not a good fit. But I’m guessing, the Warriors are keeping an eye on his status, in case they make a trade and need him for back-up PG. I would also guess that Watson will get an offer form another team and the Warriors will then decide whether or not to match it.
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 17, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Per interview with Rowell yesterday:
Warriors will offer Watson the QO.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on Jul 17, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it would literally be a qualifying offer
Those are only part of 1st round rookie contracts. CJ’s a restricted FA, the same as Azubuike was last season. I would think the Warriors would wait until CJ gets another offer and then decide whether or not to match.
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 17, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is literally a qualifying offer, as it was with Azubuike last year. Qualifying offers are not just a part of the 1st round rookie deals. Any restricted FA has to be tendered a qualifying offer of 125% of his last salary unless the amount is specified for those coming off the rookie deals. The player can accept it for a one year deal at any time. This is a necessary pre-req to have the right to match contracts, meaning that if he didn’t get and accept an offer, he could come back to the Warriors for a guaranteed salary for a year. If they didn’t give him the qualifying offer first, they couldn’t match. Essentially, without the QO, he would be an unrestricted free agent.
For the Warriors, there’s really no reason not to offer it. It winds up being only slightly more than the vet minimum. If they could keep him for that, it’s a no-brainer.
by jae on Jul 17, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks JAE
It’s odd that’s not more well known. I ‘ve never heard it mentioned before. So, Watson is now an offical restricted FA and the Warriors can decide whether or not to match the Magic’s offer (if there is one).
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 17, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DUBs should pick him up!!!
we dont have a TRUE point gaurd..monte is a 2, curry is a 2 converting to 1 but very good court vision, cj watson cant play defense if his life depended on it..(no offense), ac is unpredictable due to barely any playing time in ATL… Dubs really need a vet point guard someone of BDs caliper… i dont want to watch JAX point fowarding this season because he led the league in turnovers last season, which basically says that we are in need of a TRUE pt and maybe we can get that 8th spot…i think there should be a wildcard in NBA does anyone else???? reminder of the 07 season..wtf?
DUBfan4life!!!!
by BayAreaKidd650 on Jul 16, 2009 11:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
YES YES YES YES YES.
he would put us in the playoffs.
by arsunik on Jul 17, 2009 1:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Sessions
But think the Bucks will match any MLE offer. As far as I’m concerned the Warriors don’t have any point guards. Neither Monte or Curry is an NBA point guard, Law isn’t good enough to make an NBA rotation and Watson, who is a shoot first PG anyway, isn’t signed.
Miller makes sense. He’s the correct size to play with Ellis, and he’s a real PG who can take the ball out of Jackson’s hand, and cut down on our turnovers. I’d prefer a one year contract, if possible.
And I think Nelson, Riley and the Warriors are as interested in winning this year as much as ever. That’s why they almost traded for Stoudemire. Nelson doesn’t have the patience nor desire for another year of teaching.
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 17, 2009 8:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see any harm in at least making an offer to Sessions. Worst case scenario is the Bucks match and end up paying him $5+ mil instead of his $1mil QO.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Jul 17, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worst case is the Bucks take the full 7 days and then match, and in the meantime the Warriors lose out on another player because they can’t make an offer while the Sessions sheet is pending.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 17, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But is there anyone out there for the MLE who’s remotely as appealing as Sessions? Sessions is already (roughly) Miller’s equal as a player, but is entering his prime rather than leaving it.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 18, 2009 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not now, maybe, but the risk of tying yourself up is that there may be a player who can’t get what he wants, then is suddenly available at the MLE (as it seemed Marion would be before the highly intricate 4 team swap materialized).
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 18, 2009 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
true, but is there anyone else out there who you’d really rather have than Sessions? Felton? I’d rather have the big upside of Sessions. Childress announced he’s staying overseas, no? Kleiza? I’ll pass. Marvin Williams? Atlanta seems even more likely to match a Williams offer than the Bucks would be to match Sessions. Nate Robinson? I’m not convinced he makes his team better. Moon, Warrick or Barnes? meh, seems likely one of them will still be around later. Lee and Odom seem like the only FA’s available that are probably better and with Odom already getting a big offer from the Heat and Lee likely to receive a bigger than the MLE offer from Portland I don’t see a huge downside to making a long term MLE offer to Sessions soon. Honestly, I only wish it had been done sooner….like before someone had offered Watson a contract so we could have that as a bit of a backup plan.
It also seems like we probably don’t have nearly as much trade flexibility now as we will in about 45 more days when we can deal Claxton and Law as part of a bigger package. I’m all for signing Sessions now and trying to trade some package of Belinelli, Wright, Maggette, Jackson, Azubuike, Turiaf, Claxton and Law for a 3/4 or a 4/5 type of guy.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 18, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
If Miller would actually sign with us then it could be a big problem. I could be wrong, but I think the reason that Sessions hasn’t signed an offer sheet at this point is because everyone expects the Bucks to match. If we can get him to sign, but lose out on Miller while the Bucks take their time matching then that would be a pretty significant consequence.
Then again, there is a very good chance that the W’s front office isn’t even looking at any of these guys because they see Monta and Curry as the “PG’s of the future”.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 18, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, I found this part of Chad Ford’s top remaining free agents kinda encouraging. He didn’t have the Warriors among the interested teams for anyone else, including Miller.
7. Ramon Sessions, Bucks (RFA)
Teams interested: Bucks, Warriors, Heat, Blazers, Pacers, Rockets
Salary range: $4-6 million per year
Teams are always in pursuit of point guards, especially ones who won’t break the bank, and Sessions has caught the eye of a number of teams. With the Bucks struggling financially, they may not be able to match an offer.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 18, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is encouraging
I, like everyone else, would love to land Sessions. You have to wonder though, with Monta and Curry on the roster if the FO might think it would be better (well, not better but make more “sense”) to add a veteran on a shorter deal.
I have no clue what they are thinking with respect to the PG position, but if it were me I think it would be the second thing on my list, right behind trying to land a top talent (which should always be #1 on any lottery team GM’s list).
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 18, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about a sign and trade for Sessions?
I think we all agree, that Milwaukee is waiting to match an MLE offer for Sessions. They cleared up space, by letting Villeneuva go, to specifically sign Sessions. However, the question remains if a team could offer more than the MLE, would they match? That’s a moot point, because nobody interested in Sessions can go beyond the MLE.
But what about using a sign and trade to go above the MLE? The Warriors could offer Wright, Belinelli and Law, which comes out to about $6.5 million in salary. Then they could sign Session to something like a 4 year $30 million contract.
From the Bucks point of view, they already have Ridnour and Brandon Jennings at PG and this way they get a replacement for Villaneuva in Wright. Belinelli gives them another rotation player and they can get rid of Law’s contract in a year (as can the Warriors now). Generally, this gives the Bucks a more flexible salary structure than signing Sessions.
The Warriors, of course, get their PG of the future who should fit Nellie’s system. If this could be done, the question would be is Sessions worth that type of contractual commitment? Also, do the Warriors want to save key trading pieces as Wright and Belinelli for a bigger deal down the line?
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 18, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
S&T...
As Jae always points out sign and trades are so complicated that they are generally not worth discussing. I think that would be something to look into though.
One small point, Law can’t be combined with other players for a while longer, so he couldn’t be part of the deal.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 18, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Law can't be combined for 45 days?
Do you know why that is?
Yes, I’m waiting for JAE to weigh in on this S & T proposal. I’m sure there are all sorts of techincal reasons why it can’t be done.
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 18, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
when you trade for a guy he can’t be re-traded in a package of players for 60 days. He can be traded alone before that time, but not with anyone else. I don’t know when the Crawford deal was finalized so if you got that 45 days thing from me be aware that its only a guesstimation.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 18, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*looks like the Crawford deal was finalized on June 25th meaning we’ve got abut 37 more days to go
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 18, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The main reason is that he would become a base year compensation player. The long and short of it is that you would need to get a 3rd team involved which was below the salary cap, otherwise there’s no way to get it done.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 18, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With a small enough deal and another player or two involved heading this way, it’s possible to swing the deal as a two team trade, though it makes it less and less attractive to Milwaukee in that case. Since the real reason they wouldn’t keep him is because of fears of the tax though, sign-and-trade where they have to get salary back to make numbers work on our end really doesn’t serve them at all. May as well just let him walk rather than take back our contracts to help us out.
by jae on Jul 18, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
However, the question remains if a team could offer more than the MLE, would they match?
Teams can’t offer more than the MLE. He’s covered by the Arenas provision which, except for some unusual circumstances that no one really has the ability to use this year, prevents teams from offering more than the MLE. Further, the Bucks cannot sign Sessions for more than the MLE because the have neither full Bird rights nor the cap space to do it. They cannot sign Sessions to a contract that starts at more than the MLE.
A sign and trade (oh how I hate those words, almost as much as saying that Nellie has a “system”) doesn’t make sense.
Here’s the basics.
1. Sessions is a good player. Milwaukee knows it and would like to keep him if possible. While they still have Ridnour, I doubt he fits into their long term plans. While they drafted Jennings, until he shows he can actually play, Sessions is a returning young vet who produced while playing considerable time last year. They aren’t jettisoning him to make space for an unknown and to keep Ridnour happy.
2. Milwaukee isn’t a very good team, and doesn’t want to pay lux tax to be a not very good team. This is a reasonable decision. They’re close to the threshold and the contracts due for Jennings would mean that the MLE for Sessions would get them close. If it puts them over (and I don’t know exactly if it would) this is the only reason Sessions might be available.
3. A sign-and-trade means that they take back essentially as much money as Sessions signs for. Milwaukee has a full roster under contract without Sessions. A sign and trade for multiple players coming back from us defeats the one reason that they might have to let him go: keep payroll down. It also means that they’d be cutting some of the players coming back or cutting guys on their roster already signed since they’re holding 13 or 14 contracts (depending on their decision about Bowen), getting a handful from us means that they’re going to pay a few players to play elsewhere once they’re cut. All around it’s a lousy financial decision for them.
They either keep him or they let him walk. They won’t want to take on other contracts, especially for multiple players. It completely defeats the one reason why they might let him go in the first place.
by jae on Jul 18, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for clearing that up...
In the case that Sessions is staying with the Bucks, what do you think about going after Miller for two years at the MLE?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 18, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Miller a few years ago. He had something left in the tank last year, but he’s at a point where declines can happen fast. What’s the upside? A real point guard will probably make it easier to bring Curry/Monta along slowly as a point or hold one/both of them out of that position altogether. If anything it will benefit guys in the front court who can expect to see better passes come to them and may hasten their development. But over two years, it’s still not going to get us “there” (wherever there is). I’m not against it, but can’t get that excited about it either. It probably makes us better, but not necessarily good.
Frankly, I don’t think the “Monta at point guard” experiment will really work out, a real training camp or finally a real chance for a whole season notwithstanding. It just doesn’t appear to me that he’s got whatever it is that you have to have, but that’s somewhat subjective. There haven’t been a whole lot of guys who didn’t play point before hitting the NBA who moved to the position with success. I suspect that there’s a reason for this. I also suspect that Miller around would mean that we’d not really ever see the attempt to find out. This may or may not be a good thing.
If Curry had put up similar numbers to what he did last year the year before, he wouldn’t be judged as a “combo guard”. There would have been far, far fewer questions about his future as a real point guard. He did exactly what was asked to show that he had potential to run the point in the NBA. Like all draftees taken around his spot in the draft, it’s a coin toss if he’ll be an asset or a “who was that guy we drafted in 2009 again?”, but I’d give him reasonable odds of being able to handle the job.
by jae on Jul 18, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I’m not against it, but can’t get that excited about it either. It probably makes us better, but not necessarily good.
Agreed. It seemed like an interesting thought (thus the fanpost) but it’s not the type of exciting move I’m hoping for.
Frankly, I don’t think the "Monta at point guard" experiment will really work out, a real training camp or finally a real chance for a whole season notwithstanding. It just doesn’t appear to me that he’s got whatever it is that you have to have, but that’s somewhat subjective.
I’ve been trying to reserve judgment and stay optimistic about Monta at PG, but I can’t help but agree with what you wrote here. I’d still like to give him a chance but I’m not feeling all that great about his prospects.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 18, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...
It also seems like we probably don’t have nearly as much trade flexibility now as we will in about 45 more days when we can deal Claxton and Law as part of a bigger package. I’m all for signing Sessions now and trying to trade some package of Belinelli, Wright, Maggette, Jackson, Azubuike, Turiaf, Claxton and Law for a 3/4 or a 4/5 type of guy.
Yeah, I’m getting excited about the trade deadline this year. We should have a lot of options once we can package those expiring contracts together. If a legit star becomes available we might even have enough pieces to get in the conversation. At worst we should be able to grab someone like AK47 without giving up too much in terms of on court production.
The only thing I’m still worried about is the possibility that they made the Crawford trade with the intention of just letting them expire and pocketing the savings.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 18, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
more rosterbating
If a legit star becomes available we might even have enough pieces to get in the conversation. At worst we should be able to grab someone like AK47 without giving up too much in terms of on court production.
I was thinking the other day about how, if the Jazz are willing to wait another 6 weeks, we might actually have the kind of pieces necessary to get a 3 way deal done with a team like OKC or Memphis that can still take on some money under the cap. Obviously those teams wouldn’t just absorb a bad contract or two, but with our depth of young talent we could probably give them a couple of moderately priced useful young guys (Wright and Buike with Claxton’s contract?) send Utah some value and a ton of cap relief (Maggette, Belinelli, Turiaf and Law?) and get both Boozer and Kirilenko. Throw in a Sessions MLE signing and you’ve got-
Sessions/Curry
Monta/Morrow
Jackson/Kirlenko
Boozer/Randolph/Kirilenko
Biedrins/Randolph/Boozer
I’d probably find a way to shell out to split some season tickets with some friends if they entered next year with that team.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 18, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I'd like an NBA-ready PG
I’d rather let Monta and Scurry try it out for a year or two. if they seem to be destined for 2-guard-dom, than get a PG.
by bradyk2 on Jul 17, 2009 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure Nelson agrees with you
I’m also not sure how much playing team Curry will get with the Warriors this season.
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 17, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone realize, since Baron left and Monta was giving the starting PG job, we haven’t even GIVEN HIM A CHANCE YET?! Need I remind you that he was injured for the majority of last season? And although it was ALL his fault, you have to give this Monta at PG experiment a chance, give him a full training camp/preseason to play the PG role and watch him over 25-40 games to see if it’s even possible to convert him to a PG. And if not, THEN look for another answer.
And by the way. Ramon Sessions >>>> Andre Miller. Miller would only be a win now move, which us warriors fans are all too familiar with. If I were to choose, I’d rather take the younger Ramon Sessions and have him grow with the rest of our squad. But for now, I’d keep the roster intact and see what they can do in the first half of the season and if anything, trade for someone else by the trade deadline. HAVE SOME FAITH IN MONTA!
WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...
by JustSomeName on Jul 17, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope....
He simply does not have the BBall IQ or Court vision to become a true PG. Stand in yes, combo yes, but not our first choice for PG….
Have you listened to the guy interview? It’s all about “Me” and what he thinks HE thinks he should be doing. That’s simply not “floor general material”.
HOWEVER…… if with experience and maturity he begins to understand his role, then he may just have a career turnaround like Jackson where he is perceived as a different player the older and wiser he gets, so there is a chance he may become PG material but I suspect it will be as he gets older and slows down a little possibly 27 years old and upwards??? Just a thought…
It's about heart, It's about fight, It's about being a Warrior!
by BritWarriorGSW on Jul 17, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume you’re talking about Monta?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 17, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta's is coming into his 5th season
and is nowhere near being a PG. The Warriors tried to make him a PG his rookie season under Montgomery. Nelson saw that the best way to get him playing time was to pair him with a big PG like Baron.
It’s not just that he doesn’t have PG instincts, but playing PG takes away the best aspects of his game. His ability to leak out on the fast break, as opposed to have to go back to get the ball after a defensive rebound. Also, his quick hitting one on one drives to the basket, where he takes it to the hole and rarely passes. He can’t do those things with regularity if he is PG.
Warriors need a real PG. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s Curry, plus Curry and Monta will be a scary defensive combo.
by San Francisco Slim on Jul 17, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point...
It’s not just that he doesn’t have PG instincts, but playing PG takes away the best aspects of his game. His ability to leak out on the fast break, as opposed to have to go back to get the ball after a defensive rebound.
Seeing him banged up and trying to play point guard I think a lot of us have already started to forget how effective this part of his game was. Leading the league in fast break points did a lot to help his FG% that year.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 17, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol..come on guys whoever doesnt want a veteran point guard as good as andre miller is trippin! he would instantly be our starting pg…monta and curry arent true points you buffoons…i dont why know why we havent tried to get him yet…wait a minute i forgot this is the warriors we’re talking…move along nothing to see over here.
A true friend stabs you in the front
by G-statewarrior on Jul 17, 2009 6:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
exactly how much money do we have to spend this summer?
by vinchenzy on Jul 18, 2009 4:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Under the cap? We have nothing. We have the MLE that essentially all team have.
by jae on Jul 18, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the per 36 minute stats
but can he really run in nelly’s system for 36 minutes without having severe respiratory problems?
by livingthedream on Jul 19, 2009 1:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nelly’s system is a little dated. Seriously, how long can you survive with songs about either partying or partying naked?
by jae on Jul 19, 2009 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
monta is only 23
and have not given him a chance to run the point for one whole healthy season, its not like were in a win-now-mode so why would we sign him, to lets curry,morrow,and marco to get less playing time,i mean alot of these guys are still unproven and its not like were ganna make playoffs anytime soon, so theres no need in signing him, just a waste of cap space
by Mannybeatsfranny on Jul 20, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
