RealGM

I like Michael Redd as a player but in no way do I think he fits. Personally I would rather get Mike Miller( Plays better D,rebounds better, and creates offense for himself besides others ~4ast). I think he fits at the 2 better than any other player. Redd is a volume shooter who will cost us more(1st rd pick) unless we take on one of their long contracts(3yrl) while at most we will have to swap picks and drop in the draft(#28 ) or take Brian Cardinal(2yrl) who is their worst contract. We can possibly get Charlie Villanueva(SF/PF) as a throw in but in Memphis we can possibly get Darko Milicic(C/PF) who would fill a need(both are 23).

So last point is Redd is the focal point and I cant see him being a #2 while Miller has played along side T-Mac and Gasol but when either was injured he has carried teams as much as he could. I think the chemistry would be good and we would still have the assets to make another big trade for a post player. Oh and besides the fact that he can move to the SF unlike Redd when Lebron needs a rest or Boobie comes in the game.

The problem with targetting Miller is that Memphis has already turned down Miller for expirings from other teams and aside from someone like Anderson and our pick (which you dont want to give up) we dont have a lot else to offer. On top of that there was a recent article where their GM admits the Gasol trade was bad and you've gotta think he isn't going to trade the teams current best player without getting one heck of a package in return.

Now maybe midway through the season they decide to trade him for expirings to dump some salary etc... but who knows what can happen between now and then.

Wally for Miller + Cardinal so we clear more than just Miller's salary. maybe throw in something else like a second round pick.

^^Memphis will not even consider that one.

As for the topic, I sure don't mind having Miller on the Cavs roster as long as we aren't giving too much. But, I am still all in for trying to obtain Redd.

I like that. Now what if we took all their big cap space by taking Darko and their #28 for AV and next years 1st(likely high pick) that way we can use next years 2nd rders to move back in the 1st rd.

Are we willing to do that?

I think we need to forget about Redd unless Mil wants to package him with other bad contracts for expirings. I don't see their new GM/coach doing that. They appear to want to win now. Skiles isn't exactly the 'rebuilding' type of coach.

Personally, I don't see the Bucks being super successful if Redd is their 'Franchise' player but whatever. Redd would probably be a good fit here as a 2nd option to LeBron but frankly the Cavaliers need to overhaul their offense which will have a bigger impact than adding any individual player. Anyone have a comment about the triangle offense article in today's PD?

mg wrote:I think we need to forget about Redd unless Mil wants to package him with other bad contracts for expirings. I don't see their new GM/coach doing that. They appear to want to win now. Skiles isn't exactly the 'rebuilding' type of coach.

Personally, I don't see the Bucks being super successful if Redd is their 'Franchise' player but whatever. Redd would probably be a good fit here as a 2nd option to LeBron but frankly the Cavaliers need to overhaul their offense which will have a bigger impact than adding any individual player. Anyone have a comment about the triangle offense article in today's PD?

I'ma have to side with Mike Fratello on this one. While it would be major upgrade to the most rediculous offense I've seen in my life, ultimately you need the players to run that kind of offense. We maybe could've ran it when Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden was still here. I think then we would have won the championship that year if we ran it.

Redd or Miller, who cares? Both would be tramendous help for the Cavs and most likely we won't get either one, especially not in this offseason..so yeah, I don't know why we're still debating this.

Eh, they'd probably both forget how to shoot as is the tradition among Cavalier acquisitions. Next thing you know people would be blaming LeBron from making them worse by causing them to be left wide open.

eyejayem wrote:I like Michael Redd as a player but in no way do I think he fits.

First off your right; why are we debating this? Redd is the superior player by a mile.

eyejayem wrote:( Plays better D,

Mike Miller

'06-07

Defensive +/- = +0.5
SG Opponent PER = 15.9
SF Opponent PER = 16.5
PTS Allowed while at SG = 106.4
PTS Allowed while at SF = 103.4

'07-08

Defensive +/- = +1.6
SG Opponent PER = 17
SF Opponent PER = 16.2
PTS Allowed while at SG = 106
PTS Allowed while at SF = 107

Michael Redd

'06-07

Defensive +/- = -2.4
SG Opponent PER = 15.5
SF Opponent PER = 16.5
PTS Allowed while at SG = 101
PTS Allowed while at SF = 103.7

'07-08

Defensive +/- = +4.6
SG Opponent PER = 15.4
SF Opponent PER = 15.9
PTS Allowed while at SG = 103.7
PTS Allowed while at SF = 112

I agree that Miller is the better defender, but he isn't the great defender that people make him out to be. And there isn't as huge of a difference that people make it out to be, either. If Redd is a bad defender, then Miller is below average. It's not like they are at two ends of the spectrum. They're closer to each other than people think.

eyejayem wrote:rebounds better,

He rebounds better, but what does that matter? The Cavs were one of the top rebounding teams in the league last year, so it's not like either one of them is going to help or hurt our rebounding prowess. We'll still be a good rebounding team whether they are on our team or not. But just for comparison's sake:

Mike Miller

'06-07

OFF Rebounding Net = -3.5%
DEF Rebounding Net = -1.2%
Total Rebounding Net = -2.3%
R/40 = 5.5

'07-08

OFF Rebounding Net = -2.1
DEF Rebounding Net = -0.2%
Total Rebounding Net = -1.1%
R/40 = 7.5

Michael Redd

'06-07
OFF Rebounding Net = -0.5
DEF Rebounding Net = +3%
Total Rebounding Net = +1.3%
R/40 = 3.8

'07-08
OFF Rebounding Net = +0.7%
DEF Rebounding Net = +1.2%
Total Rebounding Net = +1%
R/40 = 4.6

I agree that Miller is the better rebounder but, once again, it's not the disparity that people think. While Miller may be the better individual rebounder, the Bucks rebounded better when he was on the floor. Then compare that to Miller and the Grizzlies, where they rebounded worse when he was on the floor.

eyejayem wrote:and creates offense for himself besides others ~4ast).

This is the biggest fallacy. Ever. When will people start looking things up before making absurd statements? And when do we look at assists when talking about creating? Assists don't count the many times players set other players up for open looks that don't convert. They also don't count the "hockey assist", too.

Let's take a look at each players Usage Rate the past two years, which basically measures the ability for a player to create for himself. The past two years Mike Miller has posted Usg rates of 19.8 and 18.5. Both of those aren't even good enough to crack the top 100! Now what about Michael Redd? He's posted Usg rates of 26.7 and 25.8. This year, he was 11th in the league, in Usg rates. That's ahead of guys like Chauncey Billups, Brandon Roy, Allen Iverson, etc. So really, when it comes down to it, Miller doesn't come close to matching the ability to create for himself. Even though Redd doesn't have the reputation of it, the stats sure do prove it. And they do it well.

eyejayem wrote: I think he fits at the 2 better than any other player.

Based on what?

eyejayem wrote: Redd is a volume shooter

Volume shooter? I didn't know shooting was considered shooting 44% from the field, 36% from 3 and 82% from the line. And only getting around 17 shots from the field and 6 from the line, on average. On top of that, only 2 other players (out of the top 10 perimeter scorers) attempted less field goals per game.

eyejayem wrote:who will cost us more(1st rd pick) unless we take on one of their long contracts(3yrl) while at most we will have to swap picks and drop in the draft(#28 ) or take Brian Cardinal(2yrl) who is their worst contract. We can possibly get Charlie Villanueva(SF/PF) as a throw in but in Memphis we can possibly get Darko Milicic(C/PF) who would fill a need(both are 23).

You're well aware that the Grizzlies were asking for the #13 pick and Travis Outlaw from the Blazers, for just Mike Miller? Right? Yeah, that's what I thought. The Grizzlies aren't going to give him away for cheap either and if we're going to give up a lot for Miller anyway, not give up a little more and go for the far superior player?

eyejayem wrote:So last point is Redd is the focal point and I cant see him being a #2 while

Why? That's what Bucks fans wish he were because they realize that he isn't a #1, but rather a #2. And I totally agree with them. Michael Redd isn't a #1 option and will never be. But what he will be, is a terrific sidekick to whatever #1 option needs one.

eyejayem wrote: Miller has played along side T-Mac and Gasol but when either was injured he has carried teams as much as he could.

And your point is?

eyejayem wrote: I think the chemistry would be good and we would still have the assets to make another big trade for a post player

Not true, but... okay!

eyejayem wrote:Oh and besides the fact that he can move to the SF unlike Redd when Lebron needs a rest or Boobie comes in the game.

You do realize that Michael Redd has played SF the last two years with the Bucks (actually played the majority of his minutes at SF two years ago w/ them) and played it pretty well?

The thing with Michael Redd isn't so much about stats or looking good, or else Miller would win it all the way. The deciding factor is what Redd brings outside of the stats.

Redd has the ability to carry a team by himself and there is a reason why he is considered a star by anybody and why Miller is considered a role player by everybody. Miller doesn't draw the attentions of defenses like Redd does. Miller doesn't have the ability to take over games like Redd does (Redd, who BTW, was 6th in 4th quarter points last year and was a top 10 clutch player last year). Miller doesn't have that enigma of a star or a player that can help carry a team. Redd has that "it" factor that separates role players from star players. It's something that is unteachable and just comes natural to players. Yeah Miller is a good player but Redd is just in a whole different world and just his presence would do us better than Miller himself.

Oh BTW.... What happened to the durability questions? I mean Mike Miller has never played a 82 game season since his rookie year and the last 3 years he's missed 32 games total, while Redd has played 2 82 games seasons and played a 80 game season 3 years back. Not to mention, Redd has missed 41 games the last 3 years despite missing 29 games due to an surgery.

Like I said... It's Redd and it's not even close. Period.

Outstanding post Smooth.. You took the words right out of my mouth.

IMO contributing to helping your team win counts as well. Which is why this isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it. While Memphis has fallen on hard times, fact is, Miller was a cog on those good Memphis teams. Redd on the other hand has never really been a contributor on any particularly good teams (well unless you want to argue that 40-42 team a couple years ago was good).

Miller was a contributor to those good teams, because he had good talent around him. Look at Redd and his teams...who did he have? No one and that's why they didn't get anywhere. And it just goes to prove he's not a #1, but rather a #2.

And Miller may have been a contributor, but he wasn't a factor in those games like Redd is capable of doing.