RealGM

adamcz wrote:What is your basis for this? Why do you not believe that FA's go to the team that offers the most money? I know that Karl Malone once signed at a discount to finish his career with one last shot at a ring, but 99.9% of FA's follow the money.

Since you're saying that these other factors play a big role, I think you owe some examples of players who passed up more money to sign for good weather.

Bell would have played in Miami for less. Mo was very close to playing for less.

Money matters, but your obviously missing the point. Big market matters. This often equals more money for the player. Lime light matters. Weather matters. Role on the team matters. Winning matters. Perhaps not as much as money but combined they are a factor.

The Bucks overpaying for every player also matters.

The big names wont come here, often for some these reasons and of course Bird rights. Impact players will not likely be signed via free agency by our current Bucks team.

So that leaves us to try and outbid for a role player or 2 via FA. OK. We can do that. Been doing that and it hasn't resulted in much, but ok I am down that. But guys like Jake and Mason? backup players that are closer to being the 10th man on the team then breaking into the starting line up. Not that great and we overpaid for both of them.

If the money is even close most other teams are going to win out.

So. I fail to see how liquidating Redd into expiring contracts and say a pick or something, makes much sense. So with our 10M in FA we could wind up with something close to a Mason and a Jake. That is not worth the risk.

This town generally doesn't do well attracting FA's. We've had a couple decent ones and like I said we can still try and do a FA or 2, but I am not going to bank on that. This team needs talent and the best way to do it is swing a deal. Or keep the team relatively intact and let it develop.

Nowak008 wrote:That doesn't mean he should be a bench player. Mo is a starter in this league. Period.

Exclamation point.

Mo is a starter on maybe 1/2 the teams in this league and not a good fit next to Redd.

You do realize he is a poor defender right?

I like Mo and think he is playing very good ball for us. He could certainly be a starter on this team if we put the right player or 2 on the wing with him. Still sucks to have your PG a poor defender as that is often the point of attack.

I would guess that there are quite a few coaches that wouldn't start Mo based on defense alone.

I also think of being a 6th man as playing to Mo's strengths and hardly an insult. Putting Mo in a position as a scorer is a very good thing. And as a backup 1-2 he would also run the team for some odd 15 minutes.

Chapter29, that was a long post, but you failed to give any examples of players who passed up more money. Why should I take your word for it?

Nowak008 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Still on that huh? Backing up who? Nash? Paul?

Mo is averaging 16.2/7.1/3.8 on 48%FG 52%eFG 18.9 PER

Yeah no kidding, I believe Mo is a better starting PG right now than Bogut is as a starting center, at least until the Bogut magic kicks in like we've all been waiting. But since the point position has its skill set and there aren't that many very talented big men, no one ever considers what a great 2nd center Bogut would make.

Edit: although I would love if we were built like the 1960s Celtics and Mo had a better point guard ahead of him somehow.

Chapter29 wrote:
This town generally doesn't do well attracting FA's. We've had a couple decent ones and like I said we can still try and do a FA or 2, but I am not going to bank on that. This team needs talent and the best way to do it is swing a deal. Or keep the team relatively intact and let it develop.

I agree with letting the team come together. But, weather, and the city, and all that other crap doesnt matter. It comes down if the FA likes what he see's in the team that is going after him. Does he want to play with"those guys"... Do i have a chance to win there.... thats what it comes down to.

The real question is, does particular FA want to come to Milwaukee and play with these guys the way is season is going?

adamcz wrote:We all know both Mo and Redd are poor defenders. That's why one of them should be moved for a defensive upgrade. I think it should be Redd, but I can understand why others think it should be Mo.

I am not sure I fall into that category.

I see no reason to try and rid the team of either player. I just don't want them starting together. Which may mean one has to go. Which one? That all depends on the deal offered.

BrewersGM wrote:I agree with letting the team come together. But, weather, and the city, and all that other crap doesnt matter. It comes down if the FA likes what he see's in the team that is going after him. Does he want to play with"those guys"... Do i have a chance to win there.... thats what it comes down to.

The real question is, does particular FA want to come to Milwaukee and play with these guys the way is season is going?

I recall mentioning winning. And yes, sorry these things most certainly matter to a player. Not every issue matters equally to a given player. Many also consider their families, whether it be their wives or kids or the proximity to their hometown. One of the reasons Simmons chose Milwaukee was it was close to his hometown in Illinois. I think he even asked for a trade kicker to stay close for this reason.

In all money does matter the most of course.

Not sure its the real question, but it is a valid question. Again winning matters.

8 of the first 9 threads on the trade board are Redd trades right now.

Simulack wrote:8 of the first 9 threads on the trade board are Redd trades right now.

Yep, guess I shouldn't have let the cat out of the bag

I'm with Adam in that players go where they are offered the most money. Bobby Simmons is an example. I am sure LA offered him something to stay but he chose money and Milwaukee over LA.

The only thing that Adam seems to be ignoring is the list of free agents that the Bucks have signed. Also my list of good/great trades and picks we have made when compared to our free agent list.

I'll say it again. This team is better at drafting and trading then signing free agents and the history of the Kohl era strongly supports this. So why oh why would you want to trade for cap space.

Touching on one more thing, if we get rid of Gadz and Simmons in a Redd deal for expirings thats a great thing. In the trade you proposed earlier you included neither Gadz or Simmons and you took pack two expirings and a crappy prospect. Getting rid of Simmons and Gadz would be a great way to get rid of crappy salaries. My only concern is that it will turn into more crappy contracts.

I don't really follow Redd that much. I know the Mavs had an interest in him several years ago (and might still), but I'm curious about his playing style. Personally, I think the Mavs need a SG who can score but can handle the ball and pass well enough to run the offense some and create easy shot opportunities for teammates. Does Redd even remotely fall into that category, or is he still primarily a shooter?

DDansby123 wrote:I don't really follow Redd that much. I know the Mavs had an interest in him several years ago (and might still), but I'm curious about his playing style. Personally, I think the Mavs need a SG who can score but can handle the ball and pass well enough to run the offense some and create easy shot opportunities for teammates. Does Redd even remotely fall into that category, or is he still primarily a shooter?

Definitely not just a shooter anymore. Offensively his game is lot more diverse. He gets to the basket a lot more than he used to and is always around 7-8 ft attempts per game.

Redd's passing has improved and he doesn't turn the ball over a lot but no... he is still not anywhere near a player who can run an offense.

DDansby123 wrote:I don't really follow Redd that much. I know the Mavs had an interest in him several years ago (and might still), but I'm curious about his playing style. Personally, I think the Mavs need a SG who can score but can handle the ball and pass well enough to run the offense some and create easy shot opportunities for teammates. Does Redd even remotely fall into that category, or is he still primarily a shooter?

He has gotten better at passing this year, but he isn't a great assist man. He is good for 3 or 4 a game with an occasional 7 or 8 assist game.

One thing about Redd that is a misconception. He is not a shooter. He is a scorer. He can shoot long range, mid range, take it to the hoop, finish with contact and get to the line frequently. He can score from anywhere on the floor with or without defenders on him.

2ss wrote:Touching on one more thing, if we get rid of Gadz and Simmons in a Redd deal for expirings thats a great thing. In the trade you proposed earlier you included neither Gadz or Simmons and you took pack two expirings and a crappy prospect.

I assume you're talking to me still... but I did include Gadz in my trade.

2ss2ls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
One thing about Redd that is a misconception. He is not a shooter. He is a scorer. He can shoot long range, mid range, take it to the hoop, finish with contact and get to the line frequently. He can score from anywhere on the floor with or without defenders on him.

Just FYI, I knew that. Interesting fact: as a percentage of FGAs, Redd shoots fewer jumpers than virtually all the Mavs' scorers besides Devin Harris.

I don't think there's any deal between these two teams, but I was curious. Thanks for the info.

I think a trade with Memphis , we are not going to get Gasol because where would he play with out taking minutes off Yi or Bogut they will trade him else where but they will need a scorer so they get Redd
and we get players like Juan Carlos Navarro, Hakim Warrick and a first rounder

Chapter29 wrote:
Losing team. Bad weather. Small market. Not a good formula for attracting Free Agents.

And yet all of that doesn't metter at all. Free agents still sign for more money period. Open your eyes. If they didn't sign for Bucks that is because of money. Nothing else really.

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I assume you're talking to me still... but I did include Gadz in my trade.

My bad... I still think we can get a better deal somewhere. But that's mainly due to my dislike of Brewer.

If we trade Redd I want the main return to be talent that can be put on the court right away. if we can get rid of Gadz and/or Simmons that's great to but I think getting actual talent is what matters. Not cap space.

DDansby123 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Just FYI, I knew that. Interesting fact: as a percentage of FGAs, Redd shoots fewer jumpers than virtually all the Mavs' scorers besides Devin Harris.

I don't think there's any deal between these two teams, but I was curious. Thanks for the info.

Definatley wasn't talking down to you. I just assume people know nothing about Redd seeing as he is hardly on TV outside the local market.

Chapter29 wrote:Bell would have played in Miami for less. Mo was very close to playing for less

Boy are you naive. Mo used Miami to get better deal. Bell used Miami to get better deal. At the end of day they all signed for most money. All free agents do that unless they are at end of career and want ring more than anything (payton, Malone). Money = Love in NBA