More Brad Miller Rumblings
The Bobcats' ongoing attempts to acquire a true big man to partner with Emeka Okafor have led them to propose the return of Gerald Wallace to the Kings, according to NBA front office sources.
The Bobcats, sources said, want Brad Miller in return. But the Kings, I'm told, are highly unlikely to bite. They've had some interest in recent years in reacquiring Wallace -- who has blossomed into a versatile, productive swingman at both ends since he was claimed by Charlotte in the 2004 expansion draft -- but they also have a surplus of wing players at present … too many to take on the four years and nearly $40 million left on Wallace's contract after this season.
While Wallace is available for the right player in return, I'm told from a source close to the Bobcats that Miller does not fit that bill if it's up to Larry Brown. ... If it's up to Brown, though, he wants a more traditional big who can bang and do damage in the post. On the other side, the Kings aren't looking to take on the $38 million remaining over the next four seasons on Wallace's contract when wing players are far from a problem on their roster. I'd be more inclined to keep an eye on the Chicago situation in which Miller could go there and the Kings would likely have their eyes on Drew Gooden, Joakim Noah, and perhaps Tyrus Thomas.
Amick then makes the case for the plausibility of a Chicago deal centering on Gooden and one of the kids, which includes Jason Levien's ties to the Bulls franchise. (Levien got Luol Deng his $70 million contract this summer.)
Elsewhere in Stein's column, Noah is considered unlikely to be traded and Thomas is said to be less likely to be traded than we'd think.
For what it's worth, Wallace makes $9.5 million per year through 2013. He's only a year older than Kevin Martin, and despite having a rough year-and-a-half he's a stud. You'd have to flip John Salmons almost immediately (or as soon as Martin returns from injury), but I would absolutely support a Wallace acquisition. A perfect complement to Martin, and he'll be better than Salmons every year from here on out. Solid scorer, amazing defender, stud rebounder, decent ball handler and passer.
1 recs |
54 comments
|
Comments
I had read Stein's dime piece
And didn’t find that to be too surprising. I do, find, Gerald Wallace to be surprising. But, that’s me. I don’t think Wallace should return, and I can only say that so many times.
As far as what Amick says about Chicago, and the connectino Levien has to the Bulls, I find it hard to imagine that the Bulls want to deal directly with Levien, and I find it even more difficult to imagine that they would willingly give up Thomas, without forcing the Kings to take back Larry Hughes. So with that being said, In order to get Gooden & Thomas, I think the Kings need to take on Hughes, while probably giving up Shelden Williams & Brad Miller, along with maybe Quincy Douby, so that both sides can be satisfied with the deal. Hudson, among others, have said it before, but I think Matt’s points about the Bulls aversion to paying lux tax is important to remember. If the Bulls take on Miller, they’re likely to have to shed a big contract in the process, and for that to happen, it makes the most amount of sense for the Bulls, if they’re giving up Tyrus Thomas (which I doubt happens), to also shed Larry Hughes contract too.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 20, 2008 1:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well said
I think the main component for us in this trade would be Thomas. For the Bulls, losing both Thomas and Gooden (who has been productive) is kind of a double negative. However, losing Thomas (a negative) and getting rid of Hughes’ contract (a positive) would even it out a little for the Bulls.
Plus, I don’t want Gooden. Yes, he’s good, and he’s not super old (older than we’d like though). Since we’re basically turning this season into one big chance for the youngsters Gooden would either go to waste or take someone else’s PT. Hughes on the other hand can be thrown to the bench behind our other wings. Plus adding Hughes gives us another really great fan site.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 20, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thomas and Thompson up front would be unfair.
No, by all means, hog all the young, athletic power forwards in the league. That’s cool. Go right ahead.
Jerks.
by Ben Q Rock on Dec 20, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You really want to complain about us potentially having an unfair advantage due to our young big men when your team has the best young big man in the league, if not the world? Fine, how bout this:
Miller to Chicago
Thomas, Thompson, Salmons, my left foot to Orlando
Howard, Hughes to Sac
Would you take that?
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 20, 2008 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was funny Ben
Thanks for that.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 20, 2008 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While I’m not entirely sure about taking Wallace back (as talented a player as he is), I’m pleasantly surprised by all the interest there has been in Miller. It gives me a lot of confidence that we’ll be able to pull off a trade beneficial to the Kings.
by jeremy548 on Dec 20, 2008 1:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well said
I agree about the interest in Miller. That is a wonderful thing for a team rebuilding to be able to trade one of it’s veterans for value.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 20, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine it'd be pretty easy to find a taker for Salmons
The Raptors need help on the wings and nearly signed him a few years ago, right?
by Ben Q Rock on Dec 20, 2008 1:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but I don't think it's that simple Ben
The raps are so close to the lux tax that they might not do a deal that puts them over for sure.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 20, 2008 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True
Damn, the Raps are in a bad way.
by Ben Q Rock on Dec 20, 2008 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember the chants of "Wallace" @ Arco?
Reminded me of a scene from braveheart.
by avishai on Dec 20, 2008 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You mean the scene when they chanted "Wallace"?
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Dec 20, 2008 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miller for Wallace
Immediate yes from my end. The contract doesn’t bother me, as he’d immediately solve our SF need for the long term. And I think he’d invigorate the fan base, as avishai notes above. Yes, you’d have to trade Salmons soon, but his value is sky high right now and I’m sure we could get a pretty good return.
If Brown wants a more “traditional big man,” there’s always the possibility of adding NY to the deal (who would like Brad’s 2010 ender status) and sending Eddy Curry to the Cats. Talk about Gooden/Thomas all you want, but I don’t see the Bulls pulling the trigger.
by LPKingsFan on Dec 20, 2008 2:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You underestimate the power of Jedi Petrie.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Dec 20, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This got me thinking...
Obviously there are many ways to do this, but a 3-team deal might be beneficial, especially if sending Miller to NY for Curry would net the Kings a little something extra.
Looking at this deal, Lee might be the only deal-breaker, assuming the Kings would be interested in Wallace (which is what we’re doing to begin with).
Salmons would need to be traded (maybe for a backup C or an upgrade at PG), but this is what we’re looking at going forward:
Udrih/Brown
Martin/Garcia
Wallace/Greene
Lee/Thompson
Hawes/?
Alternatively, if Charlotte wants a replacement SF, we could include Salmons and take back Felton, which also works.
To go another step further (it’s out of control!), if Bell isn’t part of the plans in Charlotte, a separate Bell for Udrih deal would also work, giving them a PG to back up Augustin at a reasonable rate. Obviously the first question becomes “Why would Sac/Charlotte basically just swap half of their starting lineups?” . . . but as most of you know, the Trade Machine makes it FAR too easy to let things get crazy.
Starters: Felton, Martin, Wallace, Lee, Hawes
Bench Mob: Brown, Garcia, Greene, Thompson
I’m not sure that Wallace/Felton are the answer in Sacramento, and if a deal like this would be made that’s pretty much what we’d be watching as the core (unless Felton is not re-signed), but LPKF’s comment just got me thinking. I knew the contracts involved were close enough that it just might work, and sure enough, there it is.
by smgmatt on Dec 21, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really like that first trade
I would just leave it at that. I really don’t want Bell or Felton. The only issue is getting David Lee. Do the Knicks really want to give up David Lee to get rid of Eddy Curry? Brad Miller is a decent big man for them with his passing and shooting, but he’s a little slow for D’Antoni’s system. We might have to throw in something extra to get Lee, which might have to be either a pick or maybe even Donte.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 21, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Back of Rocks for B Mill
Nothing made me happier than seeing this on yahoo this morning. I want to get rid of Brad Miller soooooooooooo bad that I was talking myself into Drew Gooden or Larry Hughes. If the Kings can get back my favorite player not in a Kings Uni then I would do backflips off of Arco. And to give Spencer the starting job! Petrie Pleeeaaase pull the trigger!!!!
Guys, Wallace is very versatile. He can play the 4 as well as 3 and a little 2. I would love top see a combo of GWall/JT/Green at the 4 with Sheldon/JT backing up Hawes.
Even though he is an injury risk it would acceptable because of the young talent that could step in were he to be out for some time. This season with Kevin/Cisco/Beno struggling with injuries the balance would work quite well. It would also allow Petrie to trade Salmons in the offseason to a team that could best utilize his skills.
I can say with certainty that Wallace would average 18/8/4/2/2 without taking away from any other players. I think he would work extremely well with Hawes/Cisco/Brown and would give the Kings a great shot blocker and help defender and can guard the Kobe/Melos as well as Salmons if not better.
Do it!!!!!
by Doubl3Dos3 on Dec 20, 2008 3:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wallace
is over rated. I’m sorry. He is an excellent player, but completely overrated. Sure, he’s had a rough year and a half, but whose to say it won’t last longer?
Let’s be objective about this. The reason he looks so good to us is because after we gave him up in the expansion draft he went on to become really good. He’s the one that got away. We need to get over it already. Let go of the past.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 20, 2008 3:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Although
This does not mean I am completely against trading for Wallace. I think he’d fit well as part of our young core. I’d just rather have Thomas so that we have a really solid, if not great, front court for years.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 20, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
The reason he looks good is because he is good.
Last season, Wallace’s worst since leaving Sacramento, his PER was 17.5. This has been Salmons’ best season ever, and Salmons’ PER is … 17.2. Wallace has had a 21 PER and 19.8 PER already. And he’s three years younger. He’ll turn 30 during the final year of his contract (which is a player option).
Yes, he makes more money. ($9.5 million every season, versus $5 million through ‘10 or ’11 for Salmons.) But you’d have Martin and Wallace locked up through ‘13 at $21 million total. That’s two 20 PER players … and two-thirds the way to having a trio of stars.
by Ziller on Dec 20, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is tough for me
I like the guy, I really do. But he’s become concussion prone and has even been nicknamed Crash for it. What happens when his head’s so messed up that he dunks on the wrong basket
But… it could be so much fun to watch.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 20, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Put me on the "No" side of the G Wallace vote
Wallace was deemed expendable for the expansion draft because he is a wonderful talent but not a good basketball player. He has skills and athletecism that I can not even get within more than a dreams’ reach. Oh, and I like his speaking voice. But -
he is, for lack of a better term, wild. Anthony Bonner with game. I don’t think he is very coachable (Adelman and now LBrown) and I would put his BBall IQ as below average. How else do you explain his tradability? (If he is so great, PER aside, why trade him?) Further, his contract is not good, and I do not want to have him in the rehab room with our other almost All-Star KMart trading “I wish I was playing” stories.
and yes, I would take Salmons over Wallace any day except for a slam dunk contest or a game of HORSE
by betweentheeyes on Dec 20, 2008 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You prefer John Salmons to Gerald Wallace?
by Ben Q Rock on Dec 20, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
I like the idea of having a really solid three man front court rotation. Shock and Hawes are two parts of that. Thomas would be the third. Meanwhile, Salmons is doing just fine at the SF position. Wallace would be an upgrade but we wouldn’t have that front court rotation. I think the need for that 3rd young big outweighs our need for an upgrade at SF
But, like I said, I would definitely not be against Wallace coming back here
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 20, 2008 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Salmons and young Mr. Greene and Cisco I like better than Wallace
I would love to get a solid back court player – one who can defend and score – yes a KMart who is not injured and/or a young frontcourt – preferably a young center who rebounds and takes up space if we are collecting Xmas lists.
by betweentheeyes on Dec 20, 2008 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would prefer Salmons
If for no other reason than salary.
by m-W on Dec 20, 2008 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To play Devil's Advocate
Salmons can opt out after next season (and would likely get a decent raise), so that salary difference might not be so much of a factor.
by smgmatt on Dec 21, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do
But I’m probably alone in that. Salmons isn’t as injured as often, and is cheaper. He’s also easily expendable when the time comes, and Wallace wouldn’t be as easy to move. Wallace never topped out for his potential here, and that’s where i suspect the yearning comes from. But even with that said, Wallace isn’t a smart, or useful, fit for this team overall.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 20, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
another thing...
Gerald Wallace had a serious history of concussions. And as a lot of us here recall, last year vs the Kings he sustained a scary, Grade 3 concussion that put him down on the floor for 15 minutes and landed him in the hospital. A couple of seasons prior Gerald was hospitalized from a concussion he received in practice. All together he’s had four concussion incidents.
People who suffer concussions become more susceptible to them, and each one creates a greater possibility of doing real damage.
I’m not trying to be an alarmist, and I had a lot of fun watching Gerald fly up and down the court when he was here in Sacramento, but the guy could be one errant elbow away from being done as an NBA player.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Dec 20, 2008 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
…but weren’t we all talking about bringing in TJ Ford this past off-season, and he’s at least as much of a risk, no?
I’m not advocating for Wallace, btw, just throwing that out there.
by smgmatt on Dec 21, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I felt the same way about TJ
and I’m pretty sure I raised the same concerns on the old Sactown website.
Anyway, I’d really like to see the Kings get tougher inside with any deal involving Miller.
Man, I hope something gets done… I’ve been pushing the idea of trading Brad for two years now, and this really is the optimum time to do it. The combination of his salary vs his age is a drag on the rebuilding process, and between now and the trade deadline is as high as his value is gonna get.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Dec 21, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think his value/tradability goes up or down as the deadline approaches?
more teams getting closer to playoff run or less teams wanting to bother to give something up worthwhile?
by betweentheeyes on Dec 21, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm, good question.
his value could go up as the deadline gets closer. Solid big men are a valuable commodity in the NBA and playoff teams always need them.
On the other hand, there are only a a handful of teams that are definitely out of the playoff picture right now, and the Kings are one of them. Once a few other teams throw in the towel the market will become a little more congested with tradable players. That could hurt Brad’s value.
The other thing is, Brad is playing pretty well right now, but a month from now, who knows?
I’m not saying the Kings should take just any deal that’s offered, but if something comes along that seems reasonable (i.e.: helps the franchise towards rebuilding long term); we should jump on it.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Dec 21, 2008 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple things
Wallace has improved his shooting dramatically, but still is not a good jump shooter. Geoff Petrie HATES players who can’t shoot. There have been very, VERY few non-jump shooters who have gotten significant minutes in the Sacramento Kings era (Scot Pollard and…?).
Wallace still relies a tremendous amount on his (amazing) athleticism to be effective. That can’t last forever. He’s also injury prone, and there was talk of forced retirement last time he had a concussion.
Wallace is a tremendously entertaining and talented player, but I wouldn’t have signed him to a 4 year, $40 million deal before this season. I won’t be pissed if Petrie trades for him, but I wouldn’t make that trade myself.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Dec 20, 2008 4:50 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Rec'd
I think this probably sums it up for me as well (emphasis mine):
Wallace is a tremendously entertaining and talented player, but I wouldn’t have signed him to a 4 year, $40 million deal before this season. I won’t be pissed if Petrie trades for him, but I wouldn’t make that trade myself.
by smgmatt on Dec 21, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really sorry
for not having enough time to check what’s going on around here last week (except of recommending what strikes me in the haste), so I probably missed this, but –
Why exactly should be Bulls (a.k.a. a team that seems to be rebuilding in some way) willing to acquire Brad Miller? How should he contribute there?
Apart from that, and related to Ziller’s point – to take Gerald Wallace does not seems so bad idea to me. Yes, he is more expensive and more injury-prone player than Salmons, but he is younger and Salmons is quite soon to be a free agent. Nevertheless, I am not saying to take him as he is clearly not the main step to take Kings to the basketball heaven. In other words, the main step should lie somewhere else (draft, FA) and depending on what the priorities and hopes of Petrie are, there the choice of whether Wallace is a perfect fit for Kings in a particular context is or not should be undertaken.
So far for now, hope to see you soon again
by KingsFanfromCentralEurope on Dec 20, 2008 9:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wallace
is one year and five months younger than Salmons, though as a result of his multiple concussions he may have less time left in his career.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 21, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question #1
Does he have at least 4 years left?
by smgmatt on Dec 21, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Err
It’s 2-1/2 years, actually. Wallace born July ’82 and Salmons in Dec ’79.
by Ziller on Dec 21, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right you are
Yet another reason that I was a journalism major – my sterling math skills.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Dec 21, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, at least we're not talking about your
Sterling maht skils.
Because then you’d have a real problem on your hands.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Dec 21, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch
I’m a month older than Salmons. I knew I was getting old, but yikes!
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 21, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Bulls are not rebuilding
at least not in my opinion. These guys were contenders just a few years ago. They had a very strong core of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, and Wallace with a good mix of youngsters and vets. The completely tuned out Skiles last year and totally underperformed. Even worse, they somehow managed to get the first pick in the draft. Completely unfair. They really should be a playoff team.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Dec 21, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon Bass
He’s not getting a lot of burn in Dallas because they have a lot of bodies up front. He played 13 minutes the other night.
I have the feeling that if he were playing for Utah instead of Millsap, maybe people would be singing his praises a little more. He’s pretty physical.
Anyway, any possibility of sending Miller and Salmons to Dallas and getting Bass and some expirings and possibly a pick coming back? I haven’t played trade machine and maybe it would need to be a three-way deal. Maybe we can convince them that Salmons is as good as Jason Terry (he isn’t) and get Terry back in such a deal.
I like the idea of adding another young big to Hawes and JT, but I am not sure Tyrus Thomas fits that bill.
I think Dallas fits that template of a team that is a marginal playoff contender and needs to upgrade their roster to make a better run at things, particularly if they think they are going to do it while Kidd is around,
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 20, 2008 11:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Worked the trade machine and
something like Bass and stacks for Salmons and Douby would work. But I don’t see why the Mavs would want Salmons when they have Howard. Plus, the other options just don’t make any sense. Terry is getting paid 9 mil a year which seems way too much and where does he fit? Mavs have a weird team and players to trade
On a side note: they have some horrible contracts in D town. Dampier- 11 mil, seriously? Diop – MLE, damn! I knew they had some bad contracts but on paper it looks even worse
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 21, 2008 2:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a bit surprising, The Cubes has mucho dinero and is a bright guy
but he is a bit too anxious and much to willing to change and probably is guilty of not letting his basketball guys make more decisions. He too is a fan and acts like one – very proactive and impatient. I don’t know if it is chicken/egg but he hangs with the Maloofs occassionally – who’s influencing who is unknown but they have similiarities.
Brandon Bass for Salmons? Your most productive starter for a backup? NFW.
by betweentheeyes on Dec 21, 2008 7:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at it this way
How many minutes would Salmons play for Dallas? Honestly. Probably somewhere in the 20s if he was lucky.
How many minutes would Bass play for us? Definitely somewhere in the 20s. He’d immediately be our most bruising, ahtletic big man. And he’s 23, not 29.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 21, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That makes sense
Especially if you eliminate Gerald Wallace out of the picture.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 21, 2008 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would LOVE a Brad Miller trade back to Chicago...
…and with the exception of Derrick Rose, I would most certainly offer up numerous combinations of deals to get Miller and one or two other productive players that are interested in putting forth some effort. Take your pick. Everyone on the Bulls is under performing, and lazy. You want Noah or Thomas? By all means, take them off of Vinny Del Negro’s hands! They do not produce or put forth and effort. Drew Gooden? Take him too. Hughes’ over-paid behind? Suuuuure. (Sorry, if I sound bitter, but I’m from Chicago, and I am just sick to heck of seeing everyone of the above mentioned players under-perform on a nightly basis.)
"It's not how you enter your sport, it's how you exit." - Dr. J
http://myspace.com/eme0916
by dfjmed on Dec 21, 2008 8:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 
















