Young SF to perhaps throw our exception at!!

[Marqui]

Mike Miller does fit the Cs because he can shoot and play defense, but at this point they probably should try to get younger and more athletic, not older and slower. But that's just me.

[More Banners]

Mike Miller does fit the Cs because he can shoot and play defense, but at this point they probably should try to get younger and more athletic, not older and slower. But that's just me.

He's not "old" now, but he'll probably want (and get) a longer deal than the C's would be wise to give him.

[Who]

Mike Miller does fit the Cs because he can shoot and play defense, but at this point they probably should try to get younger and more athletic, not older and slower. But that's just me.

He's not "old" now, but he'll probably want (and get) a longer deal than the C's would be wise to give him.

Yep, that is a major concern with Mike Miller.

An MLE deal that stretches beyond 2012 + a Paul Pierce contract extension + a Perk contract extension ... and suddenly the Celtics have given away a large chunk of their cap flexibility.

[Smitty77]

Mike Miller is 30.  That is not young.  Maybe by our current Celtic standard.

Also, is Miller really a good defender???  I never really viewed him in that manner.  He is long, but slow.

Smitty77

[Roy Hobbs]

Mike Miller is 30.  That is not young.  Maybe by our current Celtic standard.

Also, is Miller really a good defender???  I never really viewed him in that manner.  He is long, but slow.

Smitty77

Miller fits more into the category of "effort defender".  Right now, he's decent; in the right system, he'd be excellent (see, Ray Allen).  He's not *that* slow; I mean, he's 6'8" and can play SG adequately.

No, he's not young.  It's a philosophical choice, choice.  Do we pick up somebody young with some potential who may not be ready to contribute to a contender, or do we go with a guy who is a better fit and who can immediately play in our rotation, but who is a little older?

The only concern with a guy like Miller is whether his signing works under our current plan to have cap space in 2012.  However, it's similarly doubtful that guys like Travis Outlaw will agree to a shorter contract, and there's absolutely no guarantee that whoever we do sign among the younger guys would actually be worth the money in 2012.  My thought, then, is that if we're going to have to spend into 2012 anyway, we may as well do it for a guy who upgrades the team.

In other words, now is not the time for a repeat of the POB experiment.  We need contributors, not projects.

[snively]

Mike Miller is 30.  That is not young.  Maybe by our current Celtic standard.

Also, is Miller really a good defender???  I never really viewed him in that manner.  He is long, but slow.

Smitty77

Miller fits more into the category of "effort defender".  Right now, he's decent; in the right system, he'd be excellent (see, Ray Allen).  He's not *that* slow; I mean, he's 6'8" and can play SG adequately.

No, he's not young.  It's a philosophical choice, choice.  Do we pick up somebody young with some potential who may not be ready to contribute to a contender, or do we go with a guy who is a better fit and who can immediately play in our rotation, but who is a little older?

The only concern with a guy like Miller is whether his signing works under our current plan to have cap space in 2012.  However, it's similarly doubtful that guys like Travis Outlaw will agree to a shorter contract, and there's absolutely no guarantee that whoever we do sign among the younger guys would actually be worth the money in 2012.  My thought, then, is that if we're going to have to spend into 2012 anyway, we may as well do it for a guy who upgrades the team.

In other words, now is not the time for a repeat of the POB experiment.  We need contributors, not projects.

And Miller would be a heck of a contributor.  His presence would allow us to duplicate Ray's presence on the floor, not only to give Ray more rest, but to help make up for the inevitable decline in Ray's game.  His plus rebounding would also be a big boost to a bench that has been so anemic on the boards.  Finally his playmaking ability affords the luxury of trotting out a 2-guard at the back-up 1 spot, without the spacing issues (and a bizarre spell of passivity) that doomed Daniels in a similar role this year.

The key to signing him beyong 2012 would be the status of the other contracts on the roster.  Pierce is the one I'm worried most about.  If ownership shells out a lengthy and generous contract to their favorite player, then we need to be very careful with our extraneous contracts to avoid wasting Rondo's prime like we did Pierce's (as Vin Baker, Raef LaFrentz and Mark Blount occupied the salary slot that should have paid for an all-star big, so too could an aging Paul Pierce and Mike Miller crowd out an all-star wing). 

[Smitty77]

Roy,

I completely agree with you regarding Miller and bringing in a ready to contribute player rather than a young player with good to great future potential.  We can do that more cheaply through the draft this year.  I do like his game, but I have never viewed him an above average defender.  Hopefully, Mike is motivated by wanting to challenge for a World Championship, as he has made a pretty good living in the NBA thus far.

Smitty77