What If Woelful's Right?

[midranger]

Do we ever win any games anymore?

Whatever "elite" skill Redd brings, it sure as hell doesn't translate to wins.

A team this bad shouldn't be paying any of it's players 30% of the salary cap.

[Chapter29]

Only a player a LBJ can single handedly win you games over any length of time.

Redd is but one player on a team. Team. A terrible dysfunctional team.

I don't care one bit about how we haven't won anything with him. Put better players with better team chemistry and all of a sudden Redd will look quite effective.

[emunney]

I for one think Boston would be better with Redd instead of Allen, just because Redd is so much better than Allen in the post. They'd have three guys who could post up their man and hit jumpers. Allen is pretty much just a shooter now.

[midranger]

Only a player a LBJ can single handedly win you games over any length of time.

Redd is but one player on a team. Team. A terrible dysfunctional team.

I don't care one bit about how we haven't won anything with him. Put better players with better team chemistry and all of a sudden Redd will look quite effective.

Put great players around me and I'll look effective too. The point is, you can't get these guys when you're paying 17 million to Michael Redd.

[kukoc2gadz]

-= original quote snipped =-

Great post. Redd haters on this board ALWAYS try to discount his value as a scorer by arguing that he's inefficient. But they never seem to provide meaningful comparisons to other elite scorers at the SG position. Well, it's because the numbers just don't support their "chucker" caricature.

This is why Redd has been labled as an elite scorer. It wasn't true this season but it has been true in seasons past. Some people here like to make fun of that comment but it doesn't change its truth. There have been numerous statistics provided to support it. You have just provided more. The numbers when it comes to Redd's ability to score do not lie no matter how badly some people want to diminish their meaning.

When many people look at Redd's scoring in this forum, they tend to just look at the total points and inevitably ignore the varied ways Redd gets his points. There was a stat last season, for example, which showed Redd ranked as one of the league's best in FTA/FGA. That's impressive because it showed Redd wasn't just someone who chucks away, but he got his points by getting to the line as well - which had the twofold benefit of not only getting points for his team but also drawing fouls on the opposition. Now this season, Redd getting to the line in the fourth quarter didn't seem to help the Bucks all that much - but that's another issue entirely.

It can certainly be argued that Redd only does one thing extremely well. However, that one thing he does well he's done as well as anybody in this league in seasons past. So replacing it may not be as easy as some in this forum believe it to be. That's not to say Redd is so damn good at scoring he can never be replaced. It simply means that the player who does replace Redd may not be as good as he is when it comes to putting the ball in the hoop. So if you're going to get rid of that guy, you better make damn sure you get quality value for him.

[Chapter29]

Put great players around me and I'll look effective too. The point is, you can't get these guys when you're paying 17 million to Michael Redd.

And I said great players, where? I said better players. Better not even necessarily in pure talent, but perhaps just in how they compliment him and the team.

Lets be very clear, I could put you on TeamUSA and you would look like a Special Ed player out there. Not effective unless laughter is the goal.

Redd, his salary and how it affects the team is a concern, but it isn't the whole conversation. We have an owner willing to ride the cusp of the Luxury Tax, so that's good. Our salary concerns imo revolve around Gadz and Simmons more so then Redd.

[midranger]

You're the guy still trying to form a winning team by finding non-great players to compliment Michael Redd. I think I'd leave the Special Ed insults alone.

[Chapter29]

Nope, I wont. If you are going to make a completely (Please Use More Appropriate Word) comment like that the reply will be appropriate. Comparing yourself to a pro ball player, let alone one of the best scorers in the league is well Special Ed worthy.

We can form a winning team with Redd on it. I would love to add great players to this team, but that really is not much of an option, though I do hold out hope.

[midranger]

No one is arguing you could form a winning team with Redd on it. But, give me Paul, Kobe, Garnett, and Duncan and I could be the member of a winning team too.

When you're paid the MAX you should make your team a winning team. Michael Redd is completely incapable of this. We keep finishing in last. That has something to do with our "best player" being one of the 3-5 worst best players in the NBA. As Hunt said, we could finish last without Michael Redd.

[REDDzone]

When you're paid the MAX you should make your team a winning team. Michael Redd is completely incapable of this. We keep finishing in last. That has something to do with our "best player" being one of the 3-5 worst best players in the NBA. As Hunt said, we could finish last without Michael Redd.

Don't forget the fact that several teams have three players better than our "best" player Michael Redd.

When a guy has a max contract, their team should never be as horrible as the Bucks have been, because if a guy is worthy of the max, he should be good enough to at least partially carry a team.

[Chapter29]

No one is arguing you could form a winning team with Redd on it. But, give me Paul, Kobe, Garnett, and Duncan and I could be the member of a winning team too.

When you're paid the MAX you should make your team a winning team. Michael Redd is completely incapable of this. We keep finishing in last. That has something to do with our "best player" being one of the 3-5 worst best players in the NBA. As Hunt said, we could finish last without Michael Redd.

I agree that Redd is overpaid. The problem is that is likely the best we can do unless we draft a star in the making or get better and become a more attractive destination, though that of course is a chicken and egg situation.

We are unlikely to be able to move Redd for a better player, so dealing with the fact that Redd is overpaid may be our best alternative.

We just have to be a bit sharper with our remaining dollars. You cannot both overpay Redd and blunder on deals like Gadz and Simmons. At least Redd give you something for his 15M, Gadz and Simmons gave us nothing for their ~15M.

[DonHutson]

Any thoughts on Redd & Simmons to the Knicks for Marbury, Jeffries, and #6?

Knicks get a good player in exchange for their biggest headache.

Bucks add a high pick and dump Simmons salary. I'd be inclined to tell Marbury to take his $19M and stay home. We'd be stuck with Jeffries salary for a few years, but he makes considerably less than Simmons.

Say you do the Yi trade with Golden State. Down the road you could have a lineup of Mo Williams/Russell Westbrook (#8 ), Eric Gordon (#6), Donte Green (#14), Charlie Villanueva & Brandon Wright, and Andrew Bogut. Plus you have cap room coming, and you can still deal Mo Williams at some point.

[LUKE23]

Any thoughts on Redd & Simmons to the Knicks for Marbury, Jeffries, and #6?

Knicks get a good player in exchange for their biggest headache.

Bucks add a high pick and dump Simmons salary. I'd be inclined to tell Marbury to take his $19M and stay home. We'd be stuck with Jeffries salary for a few years, but he makes considerably less than Simmons.

Say you do the Yi trade with Golden State. Down the road you could have a lineup of Mo Williams/Russell Westbrook (#8 ), Eric Gordon (#6), Donte Green (#14), Charlie Villanueva & Brandon Wright, and Andrew Bogut. Plus you have cap room coming, and you can still deal Mo Williams at some point.

Absolutely a done deal.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I don't think the Knicks would do that trade, but if they're that dumb, it's a great deal.

[DonHutson]

I don't think the Knicks would do that trade, but if they're that dumb, it's a great deal.

The Knicks didn't get the roster they have by being smart. But fair enough. Is there a way to tweak it to make it more palatable for NY? Throw in Sessions, or the rights to Ilyasova? More? I don't know.

[DonHutson]

OK. Redd and Gadzuric for Marbury and #6 gets a green light from the trade checker as well.

This seems like a better trade for both teams. Knicks dump their biggest, most expensive headcase. They take back Gadz, but at a much lower salary than Simmons. They also add a borderline all-star with some much needed character and morals.

Bucks add a high pick, and clear out a ton of salary starting next year. While Simmons remains on the roster, in this version they aren't saddled with Jeffries. Simmons v. Gadz and Jeffries, it's approx. $10M worth of useless either way. All incoming salary is off the books after next year.

Again, with #6 and #8 you can likely add Gordon and Westbrook giving you a top notch defensive backcourt for years to come. Yi, Charlie V., and Mo remain as either building blocks or further trading chips. The money saved can be used to start locking up some of the young guys, starting with Bogut.

[trwi7]

Knicks dump their biggest, most expensive headcase.

That biggest, most expensive headcase is expiring. They can get more with their huge expiring and the 6th pick than an "all-star" SG and a **** contract.