Perception towards Redd shifting?

[Nebula1]

Redd would be a 6th man somewhere? Um okay. I guess he's not even a starting caliber guard anymore.

I didn't realize Herb Kohl and all his leprechaun magic could alter History. That's impressive.

[InsideOut]

If you hang on to Ray and Sam as long as you can, MIchael Redd never becomes Michael REdd.. This is important because "Michael Redd" was never supposed to happen. Terry Porter was very much opposed to it and said so in interviews from back then. It was the same "rely on your teammates more" stuff r.e. Redd we've heard too many times. Michael Redd's life in Milwaukee has been so charmed w/ the injuries, timing of his contract, etc., that it sounds more like fiction than fact. In the end it's just a joke on Bucks fans.

Even if you take Ray out of the equation and let that one go, the decision to trade Sam and EJ for Joe Smith (which was a horrible deal, even before you look in hindsight at the fact that Sam 2nd Team all-pro in 2004 and the T-Wolves were contending for a title) and think that a rookie point guard (TJ Ford) could run the team stands as the worst decision of all. That was the significant Bucks decision that created "Michael." If Sam's still here and we draft, say, David West or Josh Howard or Boris Diaw or Kendrick Perkins or Leandro Barbosa or Luke Ridnour INSTEAD, there is no Michael Redd, max contract problem.

Bingo...Well done. You are one of the few who understands the dynamics that led to where we are today. Truth be told, this should not even be a topic being discussed. If things would have played out the way they should have, Mike Redd would be a 6th man somewhere in the NBA, making about 6 - 7 mil/yr. and no one would even care.

Leave it to the Bucks organization (under Herb Kohl) to royally f**k up the course of history.

Pretty much agree with both you guys.

How many contenders have we seen being lead by a nonspecial SG?

How many contenders (especially in a small market) had a guy making the max that wasn't worth it?

Now how many contenders have you seen that were lead by a nonspecial SG making the max?

On the other hand, how many contenders can you name where a nonspecial SG being paid fairly helped lead the team. I can think of Rip in Detroit, Reggie with Indiana, Gino with the Spurs.

But he's Michael Redd so we should keep trying to do what hasn't been done before?! I don't get that logic. SG might be the least valuable position in the game so why build around on? Giving a guy the max when he isn't close to being worth it has killed teams in the past. In fact, I can't think of a time when it ever worked out to giving a nonspecial player the max. But it's a good idea for the Bucks to keep a nonspecial SG making the max? I guess if you live in bazzaro world where you're trying to lose it makes sense. If that's the case the plan is working perfectly in Milwaukee.

Note, this isn't a knock on Redd. It's on any management that thinks trying to build a contender this way is a good idea.If the name is MJ, Kobe or Wade then go for it. If the name is Rip, Houston, Hamilton, Finley, Gino, Richmond, Miller, Redd...then don't do it.

[power4wardjinx]

If you hang on to Ray and Sam as long as you can, MIchael Redd never becomes Michael REdd.. This is important because "Michael Redd" was never supposed to happen. Terry Porter was very much opposed to it and said so in interviews from back then. It was the same "rely on your teammates more" stuff r.e. Redd we've heard too many times. Michael Redd's life in Milwaukee has been so charmed w/ the injuries, timing of his contract, etc., that it sounds more like fiction than fact. In the end it's just a joke on Bucks fans.

Even if you take Ray out of the equation and let that one go, the decision to trade Sam and EJ for Joe Smith (which was a horrible deal, even before you look in hindsight at the fact that Sam 2nd Team all-pro in 2004 and the T-Wolves were contending for a title) and believe that a rookie point guard (TJ Ford) could run the team stands as the worst decision of all. That was the significant Bucks decision that created "Michael." If Sam's still here and we draft, say, David West or Josh Howard or Boris Diaw or Kendrick Perkins or Leandro Barbosa or Luke Ridnour INSTEAD, there is no Michael Redd, max contract problem.

Bingo...Well done. You are one of the few who understands the dynamics that led to where we are today. Truth be told, this should not even be a topic being discussed. If things would have played out the way they should have, Mike Redd would be a 6th man somewhere in the NBA, making about 6 - 7 mil/yr. and no one would even care.

Leave it to the Bucks organization (under Herb Kohl) to royally f**k up the course of history.

Thank you. The decisions to give Sam away and move on with a rookie point guard were made during the transition of Ernie G to Larry Harris, so that direction was the first move of the new regime along w/ hiring Porter. What it did was leave Redd responsible for his game with nobody on the court to reel him in - that was left to Porter who continually tried to tether him to the team concept. By the time Harris realized his mistake and traded TJ, it was too late: Redd had commandeered the offense under Stotts. What a mess.

Sam played in a lot of playoff games after he left Milwaukee. When he was back last year w/ the Clips a reporter asked him what was wrong with the Bucks: "It's leadership," he said. "They don't seem to know their roles." That's been a problem since Sam left town.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Very interesting thread. I tend to think that Redd has value as a high-efficiency scorer in the low 20s and as an occasional zone-buster to shake up the opposition's D with both his shooting and iso skills. As a volume scorer, his game DOESN'T have the sort of consistency that the team needs. When he's on, he's a ridiculously pretty player to watch, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of his shots-selection and offensive choices are DUMB, and when his shot's not falling, he kills his own team's O rather than the other team's D. Skiles seems to have a handle on that (for the most part) and is trying to play Redd within his limitations. If Redd can warm to that role I think he'll prosper. If he continues to take the team's offensive weight on his shoulders for the ENTIRE game, he'll soon find himself out of favour (and maybe whooping it up with Mo in Cleveland. )

You make some excellent points.

Redd's shots are dumb when they are not in the flow of the offense and he tries to take things upon himself and takes bad shots at the end of the shot clock and after dribbling in place for 12+ seconds.

Redd's shots at that left-handed angle is also hard to follow and are pretty if they go in, but if they don't hit bottom, then his shot comes off long and at weird angles and has everyone out of position trying to read it off his hand if they are not expecting it, and it triggers the other teams fastbreak.

This has everyone out of position like Kobe's early years and pisses everyone off when he surprises them jacking up stupid shots. This is hurful in a team concept,when he iso's and freelances on his own when no one knows what the hell he is doing! ESPECIALLY IF IT IS NOT A SET PLAY

Redd is best on a team with a structured offense like Utah or a team like the Suns, Spurs, and the Magic where he can come off screens and off set plays and where his teamates know how to pass and move and they know what he is going do and is supposed to do.

Or he is best on a team where he is not the only option but is one of several who spread the floor for a dominnting big man. Or even a team that just runs and guns and he can just catch and shoot...He is not a guy who can carry a team by himself because of this!

I have a hard time too when I am playing on a team with a lefty shooter. It is just a weird deal if you play the game with one that takes some getting used to. There are not many really great ones. It is just different to play with a lefty gunner. Especially a lefty who is a ball hog or a guy who dribbles alot.

This always makes it hard for the Bucks' and our bigs' to get back on transition defense if he misses, or goes in a long drought which makes the Bucks' easy to run on and predictiable to play as teams get high percentage shots on them easily!

This aspect is a big glaring weakness with our team due to one player (Redd) on a team like our's with no dominant low post guy besides Bogut to go to. And when you couple the streak shooting volume guy in Redd with another chucker Charlie Villanueva who never goes inside you got big problems!

I've said this for years...Redd is a lefty whose shot is hard and has a funky trajectory like a wicked knuckleball. And if he misses and is cold, teams easily trigger their fastbreaks on his bricks if he is not hot and get high percentage shots everytime.

This is especially detrimental late in games when Redd loses his legs. As a streak shooter the Bucks play better defense and can keep guards in front of them if they are hitting shots...off of passes when they can keep the defense moving laterally instead of at a standstill!

But if Mo and Redd shoot jump shots and don't get to the lane and the basket to get to the free throw line then the other team rebounds the ball and beats our big's and them both back down the court. This is plain as day to see...

This is when Bogut get upset and just simply quits playing when Redd and Mo used to freelance and jack up shots and not feed the post and play through him and off of his passes. If Redd had stuck to his catch and shoot when we had TJ Ford in the flow of the offense, this would have been a better team!

But if he is your so called 'go to man' and best player you are not winning jack crap on a two guard gunner! I'm sorry....nothing against he but this is a proven fact, and he does not do anything else in his game that can offset or help the team if he is not hitting his shot!

Other guys or max players can go to 'other things' and still be a factor like defending, rebounding, and assisting or playmaking. He does not and cannot...and at times will not committ to doing it.

And you could get away with that when we had the 'Big Three' when you can hide him...but not on this team

[paulpressey25]

Redd had commandeered the offense under Stotts. What a mess.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Interestingly enough, Ilhan, thousands of miles away in Bosnia, first picked up on this 2-3 years ago when he started calling Redd the Godfather. But I don't blame Redd, he is the player he is. We let a lot of organizational dysfunction screw these guys up during the 2004-2008 period. So I think Hammond and Skiles are cleaning that up. The only downside is that as a result of decisions made from 2005 up through today, we've continually put a ton of chips on Redd and Bogut to be cornerstones of the team. That may prove out to be a massive mistake or it may not. We'll see how these two guys do the next 30-60 days as the team is finally 100% healthy.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

If you hang on to Ray and Sam as long as you can, MIchael Redd never becomes Michael REdd.. This is important because "Michael Redd" was never supposed to happen. Terry Porter was very much opposed to it and said so in interviews from back then. It was the same "rely on your teammates more" stuff r.e. Redd we've heard too many times. Michael Redd's life in Milwaukee has been so charmed w/ the injuries, timing of his contract, etc., that it sounds more like fiction than fact. In the end it's just a joke on Bucks fans.

Even if you take Ray out of the equation and let that one go, the decision to trade Sam and EJ for Joe Smith (which was a horrible deal, even before you look in hindsight at the fact that Sam 2nd Team all-pro in 2004 and the T-Wolves were contending for a title) and believe that a rookie point guard (TJ Ford) could run the team stands as the worst decision of all. That was the significant Bucks decision that created "Michael." If Sam's still here and we draft, say, David West or Josh Howard or Boris Diaw or Kendrick Perkins or Leandro Barbosa or Luke Ridnour INSTEAD, there is no Michael Redd, max contract problem.

No no no...there was nothing wrong with giving the job to another PG. The problems started by not selling the team to Michael Jordan IN BETWEN them trading Ray Allen which even Senator Kohl did not like and it got Grunfeld and Karl eventually fired!

THAT WAS THE BEGINING OF THE END RIGHT THERE! Karl did not think Ray was tough and could win a title when it was Ray Allen who was the Milwaukee Bucks, and he got it done this past June didn't he in Boston?

There was a mistake in drafting TJ, but there was another mistake in not trading Redd when he was set to be maxed out. Kohl wanted to resign a character guy instead of a winner! And so he did and we are where we are today.

I've been the most consistent one on the board saying Redd should go in the Hall of Fame as a 6th man! That is all he is ideally...on a title winning team. It is the role he did best when Karl was here and he excelled in.

He is a glorfied Ben Gordon....
Bingo...Well done. You are one of the few who understands the dynamics that led to where we are today. Truth be told, this should not even be a topic being discussed. If things would have played out the way they should have, Mike Redd would be a 6th man somewhere in the NBA, making about 6 - 7 mil/yr. and no one would even care.

Leave it to the Bucks organization (under Herb Kohl) to royally f**k up the course of history.

Thank you. The decisions to give Sam away and move on with a rookie point guard were made during the transition of Ernie G to Larry Harris, so that direction was the first move of the new regime along w/ hiring Porter. What it did was leave Redd responsible for his game with nobody on the court to reel him in - that was left to Porter who continually tried to tether him to the team concept. By the time Harris realized his mistake and traded TJ, it was too late: Redd had commandeered the offense under Stotts. What a mess.

Sam played in a lot of playoff games after he left Milwaukee. When he was back last year w/ the Clips a reporter asked him what was wrong with the Bucks: "It's leadership," he said. "They don't seem to know their roles." That's been a problem since Sam left town.

[europa]

If things would have played out the way they should have, Mike Redd would be a 6th man somewhere in the NBA, making about 6 - 7 mil/yr. and no one would even care.

This is an excellent example of the comments made about Redd in this forum that are nothing short of bizarre. Say what you want about Redd, but he has clearly proven to be a quality starter in this league and he's been one of the best SGs in the league since he became a starter. Saying Redd would be a sixth man is nothing short of ridiculous. Comments like this remove all credibility from everything else being said because it completely ignores the realities about Michael Redd.

Again, even those of us who like Redd are keenly aware of his flaws. However, when comments like this are made in this forum - and comments like this are made in this forum on a regular basis with regard to Redd - it's clear Redd is being set up to fail by many people here and he will be judged or evaluated fairly.

It's too bad really because some of you are missing out on a guy who happens to be a pretty good player.

[Newz]

Every team in the NBA would pay Redd a lot more than 7 million dollars to be on there team and he would be the 6th man on very few teams, considering he is close to (or is) a top 5 player at his position in the league.

Redd is worth 12ish million a year, but was paid 15 million a year. He was overpaid, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a very good player.

[power4wardjinx]

Redd had commandeered the offense under Stotts. What a mess.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Interestingly enough, Ilhan, thousands of miles away in Bosnia, first picked up on this 2-3 years ago when he started calling Redd the Godfather. But I don't blame Redd, he is the player he is. We let a lot of organizational dysfunction screw these guys up during the 2004-2008 period. So I think Hammond and Skiles are cleaning that up. The only downside is that as a result of decisions made from 2005 up through today, we've continually put a ton of chips on Redd and Bogut to be cornerstones of the team. That may prove out to be a massive mistake or it may not. We'll see how these two guys do the next 30-60 days as the team is finally 100% healthy.

There was some leadlerless and very selfish basketball being played in Milwaukee from the start of the Harris era. Sure, the rookie point guard was a big part of it, Porter was trying to pry the ball of his hands 2003-04. The pill was not moving and "bad chemistry" was always blamed on other players, beginning with Timmy. Yes, Harris kept betting the chips on "the Godfather" but it's difficult to hold Redd harmless when teammates who didn't kiss the ring were labelled "chemistry problems" and shipped out of town.

[europa]

Every team in the NBA would pay Redd a lot more than 7 million dollars to be on there team and he would be the 6th man on very few teams, considering he is close to (or is) a top 5 player at his position in the league.

Redd is worth 12ish million a year, but was paid 15 million a year. He was overpaid, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a very good player.

Sorry Luke, but common sense will get you nowhere in this thread.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

I do hold Redd accountable for the things he deserves to be held accountable for and I've never been reluctant to criticize him when he deserves to be criticized. Where I disagree with so many in this forum is when he is blamed for things that are beyond his control and when people ignore the things he does well. Thus far this season I think Redd has done a very good job of incorporating his game into what Skiles wants. Yet we rarely hear anyone here give Redd an ounce of praise for that or pretty much anything he does when he does things well. I've long since stopped trying to make sense of it because I don't think it makes a lick of sense.

I am going to spell this out to you nice and slow....ly so you understand.
Redd gets the blame because he is paid the most and has been here the most and has not taken it upon himself to improve this team...at all!

There is no such thing as being 'beyond his control.' EVERYTHING IS WITHIN HIS CONTROL! And he has not incorporated anything europa ....

REDD HAS ONLY PLAYED IN 4 GAMES MAN! How has he incorporated anything Skiles wants? He has been benched every game he has played for Skiles for stretches for bad passing and not finding his man!

Stop licking his feet! A loser like Redd both individually and team wise does not deserve any praise just because he is a Bucks player!

He only does one thing well...shoot and score. But he does not win and is not coachable...having been through 3-4 coaches in 4 years!

There is nothing not in his control! He is in control of making his game more team conducive and to be more of a leader on a winning team!

When he chose to stay here rather then go to Cleveland which I wish he did so we could bring back Ray Allen, he chose to win! He has not...for that he is totally responsible!

[power4wardjinx]

If things would have played out the way they should have, Mike Redd would be a 6th man somewhere in the NBA, making about 6 - 7 mil/yr. and no one would even care.

Comments like this remove all credibility from everything else being said because it completely ignores the realities about Michael Redd.

Well that's convenient: Ignore "everything else" being said because TheMachine said something speculative ... not even that bizarre, really. How do you know Redd's career path doesn't become like Tim Thomas'? You don't. I don't. Maybe he fits in differently somewhere else. At the root of what the TheMachine is agreeing with there is that Redd's development path here becomes quite different. I'm sure he manages to make more than $7mill, and he is pretty good at figuring how to get his, so ... $11 mill at least? Sounds about right.

[europa]

How do you know Redd's career path doesn't become like Tim Thomas'?

Because there's nothing in Redd's career that suggests he'll be a massive underachiever who will fail to live up to his talent. There's also the matter of Thomas getting a Max contract and seriously regressing whereas Redd has remained one of the game's best SGs since signing his deal. So you have two players - one regarded by everyone around the league as being one of the best players at his position and one of the best scorers in the game and the other who ... well ... isn't.

Other than that, yeah I guess the similarities are incredibly striking between Redd and Thomas.

[power4wardjinx]

Timmy was productive here, pretty much in the same boat (as Redd) on Karl's teams, though he was a more important piece. His problems really begin the first year he and Redd are starting under Porter. I completely disagree that Redd has remained one of the games best SG's -- he's not anymore.

However, there is one big difference between the two players: Timmy was traded out of Milwaukee; Redd was not.

[InsideOut]

Every team in the NBA would pay Redd a lot more than 7 million dollars to be on there team and he would be the 6th man on very few teams, considering he is close to (or is) a top 5 player at his position in the league.

Redd is worth 12ish million a year, but was paid 15 million a year. He was overpaid, but that doesn't change the fact that he is still a very good player.

Sorry Luke, but common sense will get you nowhere in this thread.

Remember when you got all pissy and threatened to leave because posters were picking on you? In case you haven't figured it out yet it's post like this that are the reason posters go out of their way to point out your errors more than any other poster. If Redd is going to take the max he should be able to handle the heat that comes with it. If you're going to make tons of posts for no other reason than to be a dick then maybe you shouldn't have such thin skin when you get called out.

[europa]

Thomas was traded because he was a dog who didn't have any heart and didn't want to improve. Redd is the complete opposite of Tim Thomas. He's worked his ass off to become a good player and he's become one of the game's top SGs and has been throughout his tenure as a starter. Comparing Thomas to Redd is insulting to Redd. If you want to compare Thomas to anybody, compare him to Charlie Villanueva. Those two guys have a helluva lot in common.

Unfortunately for the Bucks.

[power4wardjinx]

Thomas was traded because he was a dog who didn't have any heart and didn't want to improve. Redd is the complete opposite of Tim Thomas. He's worked his ass off to become a good player and he's become one of the game's top SGs and has been throughout his tenure as a starter. Comparing Thomas to Redd is insulting to Redd. If you want to compare Thomas to anybody, compare him to Charlie Villanueva. Those two guys have a helluva lot in common.

Unfortunately for the Bucks.

I think it had more to do with Timmy's stomach turning - he wasn't thriving with the lack of ball movement on the 2003-04 Bucks (an ugly team to watch) and he was none too happy. A situation developed here where as a franchise we played to the strengths of ONE player, Redd, and told other players to go do other things on the court, regardless of their strengths. The premise here is that a wiser team keeps its veteran point guard and let's things develop differently. In that scenario, maybe fans aren't dumping on everybody NOT named Michael Redd.

[europa]

Thomas didn't thrive because it wasn't in his nature to work hard. That's why Larry Brown got rid of him; it's why the Bucks got rid of him and it's why he failed to amount to much in the NBA despite his great talent. What you ignore is Thomas was traded during a season in which the Bucks greatly exceeded expectations. One of the main reasons for that was Redd's play.

Blaming Redd for Thomas failing to live up to his potential is silly. Thomas failed all on his own. It wasn't in his nature to be great. He didn't want it bad enough. That had nothing to do with Michael Redd.

But I guess we can now add Tim Thomas' failure as an NBA player to the lengthy list of things this forum blames Michael Redd for. It's amusing if not close to being legitimate.

[LUKE23]

Thomas and Redd have zero similarities, and to say so is absolutely asinine.

Thomas was a hyped, athletic player with a lot of talent that coasted through his entire career, save a few playoff series, with which his entire career money was earned.

Redd was a 2nd round afterthought because of lack of athleticism AND lack of a consistent jumpshot coming out of college, who worked his tail off to become a great all-around scorer.

A lot of you need to think before you type something.

[power4wardjinx]

I know, I know, Michael Redd can't be held responsible for ANYTHING that has happened in Milwaukee since he became a starter. Timmy's just the first example. There are quite a few casualties, players who didn't want to be here, were perceived as malcontents or worse, or who made some pretty strong statements on their way out.

That 2003-04 team was an ugly bunch to watch, and their lack of team play cost them the 4th seed in the playoffs (in addition to Mike shooting 19-51 in the last three games, all losses). That year was probably the lowest ebb for the East - 42 wins netted the 4 seed for the Heat.