Redd being called an all-star

[ssssssnake]

He's in the upper 33% of that list, but it's very hard for me to say he doesn't belong on that list. He fits right in iwth many of those names.


The Bucks are very young at a lot of positions. The only cure to the mess is to let it ride out and not compound the mistake. The instinct is to go out and fix it all this off season. Well, that's not going to happen. If every team could just fix it like that, there would be 30 champions. The point I'm trying to make is that good teams are built iwth good decisions over time.

If we're lucky we'll draft a superstar and then not screw it up by blowing our money on average players when Redd, Gadz and Bobby come off the books. Once you get the star, have patience. Good things will come to those who are patient but oppertunistic. Bad things come to GMs that force the issue.

[paulpressey25]

If the player and owner agree verbally on a future contract that both will sign after the player becomes a free agent, but the player goes back on his word once a free agent, that is indeed a "Boozer". The key element being that said player and owner are prohibited from putting anything in writing per the CBA at the time of the verbal agreement.

I'm not sure how you see it any differently. If Redd went back on his word to Kohl and signed with Cleveland, he would have Boozered Kohl.

If Gund knew he would get Boozered, he never would have let Boozer become a free agent. If Kohl knew Redd wouldn't give his word on the max deal with the Bucks, he would have traded him before he became a FA that summer.

Both owners took a chance. Redd honored his deal. Boozer did not. That is the only substantive difference here.

[ReasonablySober]

No, the substantive difference here is that Redd was going to be a free agent regardless of whether or not they talked about a potential deal. Boozer on the otherhand was set to make under $1 million dollars and the Cavs decided that as a show of good faith they would decline the option on his contract. They essentially gave Boozer the chance to make six times his salary.

Every year you have teams make the choice of whether or not to trade a guy before he becomes a free agent, or risk he bolts. I'm 100% sure that there are discussions about what may or may not be on the table in the offseason, but when it comes right down to it, the team is always taking a chance.

But to call this a Boozer situation when the two have nothing in common is ridiculous.

[paulpressey25]

But to call this a Boozer situation when the two have nothing in common is ridiculous.

I'm at a loss on this. In both instances a player and an old man owner made a handshake verbal deal on a contract to come in the future after said player became a free agent. Both deals were verbal because if written they would have violated the CBA (even the verbal deal probably violated the CBA) One player kept his word (Redd)....One player didn't (Boozer)

Now I suppose Kohl isn't physically blind like Gordon Gund but the same exact concept took place. Noting that because one guy was granted FA (boozer) and the other guy opted out (redd) is a meaningless technical detail that doesn't impact the point being made.

And to bring it full circle, that point being made is that Redd verbally agreeing with Kohl on a contract in February was the #1 building block that set in motion the events of 2005 player moves.

Right after Redd signed off, the team immediately then traded 2 of its top 7 rotation guys for nothing (Mike James and KVH) in order to set up the salary cap for the summer. Then the tanking began for the high lotto pick.

The Bucks were 8-4 in February of 2005, so it was an extremely blatant team restructuring. We gave up the season in February. And none of it would have happened if Redd and Kohl hadn't come to that agreement. The reason being that there was conventional wisdom that Redd wouldn't want to hang around a tanking team that would indicate a weak franchise and might hurt his market value come that summer. But once Redd and Kohl agreed to a verbal deal (ala Boozer and Gund) the team makeover could start.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm at a loss on this. In both instances a player and an old man owner made a handshake verbal deal on a contract to come in the future after said player became a free agent. Both deals were verbal because if written they would have violated the CBA (even the verbal deal probably violated the CBA) One player kept his word (Redd)....One player didn't (Boozer)

Now I suppose Kohl isn't physically blind like Gordon Gund but the same exact concept took place. Noting that because one guy was granted FA (boozer) and the other guy opted out (redd) is a meaningless technical detail that doesn't impact the point being made.

And to bring it full circle, that point being made is that Redd verbally agreeing with Kohl on a contract in February was the #1 building block that set in motion the events of 2005 player moves.

Right after Redd signed off, the team immediately then traded 2 of its top 7 rotation guys for nothing (Mike James and KVH) in order to set up the salary cap for the summer. Then the tanking began for the high lotto pick.

The Bucks were 8-4 in February of 2005, so it was an extremely blatant team restructuring. We gave up the season in February. And none of it would have happened if Redd and Kohl hadn't come to that agreement. The reason being that there was conventional wisdom that Redd wouldn't want to hang around a tanking team that would indicate a weak franchise and might hurt his market value come that summer. But once Redd and Kohl agreed to a verbal deal (ala Boozer and Gund) the team makeover could start.

I'm at a loss as to how you can find a parallel with the situation in Cleveland and the situation that happened between Redd and Kohl.

The single reason that Boozer is universally considered a royal douche-bag is because Cleveland had no obligation, nor was it a smart business decision, to decline Boozer's option before the deal was up. The whole reason that teams include team options, as I'm sure you know, is to get productive players for less than market value. Boozer's situation was a GM's dream! They could have had Boozer in 2005 for just $695,000 and retained bird rights in 2006. But they were nice, if not really **** naive. When he screwed the Cavs to go to Utah, he left Cleveland with no option. They couldn't match and Boozer, like anyone with a brain, left to go with 30 million more.

Cleveland did Boozer a favor that you never see in sports and he completely screwed them. Had they done things by the book, Boozer is in Cleveland right now, making the max and are now the favorites in the conference.

Milwaukee did no such favor. Redd was going to be a free agent, regardless. Kohl could have said he was going to offer the max and Redd could have said that he was going to accept, but where's the difference between that and what happens in free agency in any sport, any year. Every team wants to keep their players under their terms and they always get that 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge' assurance but when another team in a better situation comes up, **** happens. It happens every single year.

The major difference, again, for the cheap seats...is that the Cavs paid Boozer a kindness to the tune of almost five million dollars and he screwed them.

Amazingly, I fall on the side of Boozer. The Cavs weren't going to sign him to a one year deal. They wanted to lock CB up to a long term deal at the MLE, somehow completely oblivious to his value on the open market and the lure of a max deal.

I don't think it was ethical, what Boozer did. But I think it was pretty smart.

[DH34Phan]

[quote="DrugBust"][/quote]
God I wish Michael would have "agreed" to re-sign with us, and actually would have gone to Cleveland.

This franchise would be much different, if not better if that was the case.

[DH34Phan]

But to call this a Boozer situation when the two have nothing in common is ridiculous.

Yes they do.

PP is saying our chain of events changed the moment we knew Redd was going to re-sign with us, which they did.

Cleveland probably had a whole chain of events thinking they had Boozer locked up.

Boozer instead screwed the Cavs, while Michael kept his word (when he didn't have to) and stayed with us.

If Redd bolts, like Boozer bolted, our chain of events could have been much different like they were in Cleveland.

[ReasonablySober]

There was a point of no return though with Cleveland and Boozer, however. As soon as they declined his option, the banked on him signing a deal that was far less than market value. Any team with the cap space could have come in and offered almost double what Cleveland was offering.

Milwaukee, on the other hand, was offering millions more than the next closest team could.

How often do you see a player in the NBA turning down tens of millions of dollars to go somewhere else?

There's absolutely no comparison.