Andre Miller, Ramon Sessions, or Steve Blake

Let's look at a few basic stats for each player (last 20 games):

Andre Miller 16.2 Pts/game, 5 Reb/game, 6.2 Assists/game, 2.6 Turnovers/game

Ramon Sessions  13.4 Pts/game, 4.4 Reb/game, 8.2 Assists/game, 2.3 Turnovers/game

Steve Blake  11.6 Pts/game, 2.9 Reb/game, 5.5 Assists/game, 1.7 Turnovers/game

Obviously, you can often make numbers say whatever you want them to but these numbers speak to me. I can understand people who are of the opinion that Blake is a better fit next to Roy than Miller or Sessions. I can understand the opinion that Hinrich is a better option next to Roy than Miller or Sessions. Perimeter shooting ability is a nice skill to posssess. However, I completely fail to understand people who think Miller is the right option. Sessions and Miller possess nearly the identical skill set currently. Miller is at an age that his skills will almost certainly decline over the next few years. Sessions is at an age that his skill set should improve noticeably AND THEY ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME PLAYER RIGHT NOW! The Bucks have the right to match any offer to Sessions, but they also drafted a PG with their pick at #10. I'm not sure what their breaking point for matching an offer is, but they are very unlikely to match an offer large enough to land Andre Miller. Jason Kidd is off our list now (reportedly has come to terms with the Mavs). Can we cross Miller off the list also?

Assuming Harris is unavailable, our options at PG should be Hinrich, Sessions or Blake. It seems the general consensus is that a decision to go with Blake is a decision to hope that Bayless develops... or a decision to hope that the rest of the team develops enough (ie Oden) that having an "adequate PG" is good enough. I've also read how Sessions would duplicate Bayless' skills. Bayless' strength may be penetrating to the basket, but to those people who think Sessions duplicates Bayless... please looks at Sessions stats again. I won't bother to show the gory details of Bayless' stats over the last 20 games. I have a lot of faith in Bayless. If it turns out we get Sessions and Bayless develops then we'll have the fortunate problem of having 2 "starting quality" PGs. I'm afraid if we go with Blake and Bayless and Bayless doesn't develop as we hope, we'll end up with 2 "backup quality" PGs. That would be a shame!

Can somebody please make a case for Miller that makes sense? I honestly think it can be done. It will probably emphasize experience and readiness to burst open that title window. I doubt I'll agree with it, but at least maybe I'll understand better.