Trading Redd Is Not The Way

carmelbrownqueen · Post #61 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:21 pm

adamcz wrote:WRau, I never said that Redd was the 50th best player in the NBA; I said that he was top-50. The reason I chose 50 is pretty arbitrary, and was just a response to people calling Redd top 30 or top 35 or whatever.

He's probably in the top 35-40 currently in terms of skill level, but his value is lower than that because he's paid 50% more than he's worth, and his age doesn't enhance his value. There is a misconception that because he's the best player on our team, and there are 30 teams, that makes him top-30, ignoring of course that some teams have 3 players who are better than Redd.

CBQ, it is nearly factual that we could have signed Wallace, because every player in the NBA signs wherever they get offered the most money. Chapter29 tried arguing this last night, but was unable to name any players who turned down higher valued contracts (unless they are in the final year or two of their career, chasing a ring). Can you do better?

Gerald Wallace was being pursued by some of the top teams in the NBA and turned them down. Michael Redd wasn't the hinderance to us getting him.. it's ridiculous that a few months into the season fans have forgotten that even the Spurs were trying to grab him and he turned them down.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #62 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:25 pm

adamcz wrote:I didn't know about Dampier turning down a larger contract. Can anyone confirm that a larger contract was actually offered to him than the one he accepted?

Ray Allen doesn't count because it's purely theoretical.

SAR I don't believe is a true story. Simmons accepted first, so our offer to SAR was withdrawn.

Ray Allen loves Milwaukee, and was very very interested in coming back. Dampier was offered a much larger contract and turned them down. And yes, the SAR contract thing is very true.. it's been confirmed a ton of times by our insiders.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #63 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:27 pm

europa wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No, it's clearly time to trade Redd for crap and expirings. Would it just kill you to keep up, sis? Sheesh.

Yeah, I just don't get it.. or at least that has been what I have been told on this board a million times lately.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #64 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:27 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Gerald Wallace was being pursued by some of the top teams in the NBA and turned them down. Michael Redd wasn't the hinderance to us getting him.. it's ridiculous that a few months into the season fans have forgotten that even the Spurs were trying to grab him and he turned them down.

How is this a relevant response to anything I've said? I said players always accept the most money. What do the Spurs have to do with that? They didn't have cap space to offer him the most money. The Bobcats offered the most money, and that's what he accepted.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #65 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:29 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote: it's been confirmed a ton of times by our insiders.

By who? We have so many "insiders" here that it's hard to keep track of them all. GAD said that it was we who withdrew the offer, and we did his agent a favor by allowing them to act like it was SAR who turned it down. So which of our "insiders" overrides that?

WRau1 · Post #66 » by **WRau1** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:30 pm

Didn't the Nuggets offer Manu more money?

europa · Post #67 » by **europa** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:32 pm

The fact is the Bucks made Mo their No. 1 free agent priority last summer. That meant they viewed him as being more important than making a run at Wallace (which was little more than cursory) or Billups (which was nothing short of insulting to him) and any other FA on the market. Mo was their top choice and they had money - quite a bit as it turned out - set aside in order to keep him. So it was the decision to re-sign Mo and not Redd's contract that prevented the Bucks from making a strong run at someone like Billups or Wallace. Mo was the big-name FA the team was going to sign last summer.

It's also possible that because Kohl and/or his cronies knew they were going to pay upwards of $9M a year it was a factor in the decision to turn down the Suns' offer of Marion for Yi and Simmons. One could argue they placed a higher value on paying Mo than they did the fact they would have brought in a Top 20 player. That's pure speculation on my part but it fits with the facts at hand.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #68 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:33 pm

europa wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I think the time has come to bring him up and work him into the mix. I'm not sure I see any downside. It's not like he could be any worse than Bell has been. Like I said in another thread a few days ago, I don't think it's humanly possible for a PG to be any worse than Bell has been.

Absolutely. Bell hasn't been giving us much as a backup PG, but maybe having Sessions "learn" as the backup PG, while Ivey and Bell handle the back up SG position would help.. All I know is that we need something.

WRau1 · Post #69 » by **WRau1** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:33 pm

Jon Amechi turned down more money to stay with Orl

carmelbrownqueen · Post #70 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:36 pm

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

How is this a relevant response to anything I've said? I said players always accept the most money. What do the Spurs have to do with that? They didn't have cap space to offer him the most money. The Bobcats offered the most money, and that's what he accepted.

There is no such thing as what a player ALWAYS does when it comes to signing a contract.. My point to you was that Gerald Wallace wasn't easily obtainable if we had more money to give him. Players at times will take less to win more.. other times if they really like where they are at the will stay for the money. It depends on the player. Your basic premise has been off from the start..

Gerald Wallace wanted to stay with his team regardless.. he wasn't trying to move. It wasn't just the money from everything that I have been told from insiders and what has been published.

Simulack · Post #71 » by **Simulack** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:38 pm

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

How is this a relevant response to anything I've said? I said players always accept the most money. What do the Spurs have to do with that? They didn't have cap space to offer him the most money. The Bobcats offered the most money, and that's what he accepted.

Must be hard to argue with people who won't even respond to the questions you explicitly asked.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #72 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:38 pm

Europa, do you believe that if the Bucks had renounced Mo, they could have made the highest offer for Billups? If not, how is any of that relevant? Billups like all players, would have accepted the highest offer. But it's not like we could have offered him a Michael Redd contract that the Pistons wouldn't have matched.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #73 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:41 pm

adamcz wrote:Europa, do you believe that if the Bucks had renounced Mo, they could have made the highest offer for Billups? If not, how is any of that relevant? Billups like all players, would have accepted the highest offer. But it's not like we could have offered him a Michael Redd contract that the Pistons wouldn't have matched.

From what I was told before the end of the season the Bucks were sending out a lot of feelers in Billups direction to see how "open" he was to moving to a new team if the money was right. Like Wallace, Billups just wanted offers to help him drive up what his current team was willing to offer him and was never ever interested in leaving regardless of who was offering. Part of the let's make Mo Williams the No. 1 priority strategy was based on the belief that neither of these two players would come to Milwaukee regardless.

europa · Post #74 » by **europa** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:42 pm

adamcz wrote:Europa, do you believe that if the Bucks had renounced Mo, they could have made the highest offer for Billups? If not, how is any of that relevant? Billups like all players, would have accepted the highest offer. But it's not like we could have offered him a Michael Redd contract that the Pistons wouldn't have matched.

They could have offered him a contract the Pistons didn't want to match or exceed - similar to how the Bulls got Ben Wallace. The concern, of course, is that overpaying for Billups would have resulted in the Bucks ending up in a similar situation with Billups that the Bulls are now in with Wallace (though frankly I don't see Billups' game falling off as quickly as Wallace's has). Despite my reservations about re-signing Mo for a big deal, I wasn't in favor of overpaying for Billups last summer. As it turned out, I think the Bucks might have been smart to do that. Billups' leadership, defense and smarts would be a godsend on this team and even if he didn't sign with the Bucks, you put the Pistons in a tougher spot under the cap then they wanted to be.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #75 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:42 pm

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

By who? We have so many "insiders" here that it's hard to keep track of them all. GAD said that it was we who withdrew the offer, and we did his agent a favor by allowing them to act like it was SAR who turned it down. So which of our "insiders" overrides that?

Look it up.. there were plenty of posts that confirmed all this stuff.

cam2win · Post #76 » by **cam2win** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:42 pm

First to answer about the 2 original trades by the topic starter...

Both are horrible. We get schooled on the first one. You don't trade a top 10-15 PG for a role player. Charlotte isn't giving us Felton for Mason...same thing.

Second trade, Toronto laughs at you before you even finish saying Villanueva. Not even worth trying to ask for it.

Now to some of the Redd conversation. Look I'm a HUGE Redd fan. I've defended him hundreds of times, not only on here but to all my friends and co-workers. But this past month I've changed my tone.

I don't want to lose my favorite player (probably all time favorite Buck) but I think it would benefit the team. The only way Redd should stay is if we do a Celtic blow up of the young core...and yes that Andrew, Yi and Mo ALL, I repeat ALL gone for a couple of all stars. Not one of our other 3 assets works well at all with Mike and the team will continue to be hindered by that until either Mike goes...or some other veterans that Mike will trust are brought in.

Mo defers to much and his game is limited when him and Mike play together. Mike and Andrew have no connection IMO. And Yi will be hindered in his growth (We only have a 30 game sample so far but I don't see Mike making Yi better at all right now).

Sure Mike commands double teams and makes the game easier on offense for everyone else. But with useful team players brought back in return I think the games of our other 3 worth while players will all increase. Sure last night sucked without him, as did the 3-17 without him last year...but if Mike is gone there is someone coming back and a different mind set amongst the players stil here.

Since Mike has been here I've seen him play hard consistent defense for 1, and only 1 five game stretch. That was the Piston series 2 years ago. He'll have a game or 2 here and there but he is our worst defender by far.

I love Mike and what he has become...but I love the Bucks way more. Now I don't want to just give him away, but for the right deal, I think the time has come.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #77 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:43 pm

Billups is a better player than Redd. Why is it good for our team to overpay for Redd, but bad to overpay for Billups?

europa · Post #78 » by **europa** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:47 pm

adamcz wrote:Billups is a better player than Redd. Why is it good for our team to overpay for Redd, but bad to overpay for Billups?

Because he's older than Redd was at the time of his signing. Simple as that. I wasn't sure offering a mega deal for Billups at the age of 31 was the way to go. Now, I don't believe for a second Billups would've signed with the Bucks. I think at the end of the day the Pistons would have kept him. He's far too important to their team. But I do think in retrospect (and yes I'm using 20-20 hindsight here) the Bucks should have at least pursued him harder and forced the Pistons to pay more to keep Billups than they wanted to.

msiris · Post #79 » by **msiris** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:05 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
We need help! I just disagree with who we need to move at the moment. Redd shouldn't be our object of scorn at the moment. And I just can't understand the perspective that guys on this board aren't daily making up trade scenerios that involve moving CV, Simmons, Bell, Gadzuric for a wad of chewing gum... because they hurt us more than anyone else.

I agree with you. But who wants any of these guys? CV is maybe the only guy with any kind of value. No its not Redd fault that is is surrounded with no talent. I started a fire Harris thread and people kind of laughed at me.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #80 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:12 pm

msiris wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I agree with you. But who wants any of these guys? CV is maybe the only guy with any kind of value. No its not Redd fault that is is surrounded with no talent. I started a fire Harris thread and people kind of laughed at me.

I know we won't get much if anything for these guys..but I want to try and move them maybe for a aging vet or something that can help in the short term.

I didn't believe that Larry Harris could convince anyone to talke KVH, but he was able to do it.. I'm hoping he can sweat it out and at least get something for CV & Gadzuric. Or CV & Simmons. Or CV & Bell..