RealGM

Wayne was hosting sports central tonight on 620am. For those of you who don't know, Wayne has done Bulls games on TV for years in addition to his Packer duties.

Wayne had on Michael Hunt to talk about his column today. Hunt wasn't really bringing it very hard against Kohl nor was Wayne, but they did talk about the problems that multiple coaches, GM's and players have not been able to solve over the last 20-years. And Hunt did talk about the lack of a strong leader in the front office or the coaching staff and the void left by George Karl.

Said it was clear to him that Porter and Stotts were easily outmatched for the job of NBA headcoach (Note to Epi....it's mhunt@jsonline.com) and because of the dysfunction with Kohl, Stotts was hired over Larry's objections.

Then a caller got on and said that he thinks that given the Bucks personnel, he doesn't like the Larry K. grind it down offense. Thinks we need to run. Wayne laughed and said emphatically... "No....this Bucks team isn't talented enough to be a running team"

I loved that part because it tracked with the line of thought that the team sucks and bringing back the Stotts offense won't solve anything.

Then Larrivee took out after Michael Redd. I'm paraphrasing but it was along the lines of this:

"The NBA is all about chemistry....and finding the right mix. As long as the Bucks have Michael Redd as their best player, they'll have problems. Michael Redd refuses to play defense. He refuses to give effort on that end of the court. All these other players see that bad example and feed off it......Larry K. can talk defense all he wants, but until he gets his best player to play defense, it will be a lost cause"


Wayne didn't come out and say trade Redd, but essentially said Larry K. knows what problems he has, but he has to deal with the roster he's dealt.

that's not exactly a revelation that Wayne put on the table there.

kebzach wrote:that's not exactly a revelation that Wayne put on the table there.

No....but the fact it was said on the flagship station is.

And it brings up the point about whether you can win with Redd given his defense.

Props to Wayne,I wish I had known he would be on talking Bucks or I would have tuned in.

paulpressey25 wrote:Wayne was hosting sports central tonight on 620am. For those of you who don't know, Wayne has done Bulls games on TV for years in addition to his Packer duties.

Wayne had on Michael Hunt to talk about his column today. Hunt wasn't really bringing it very hard against Kohl nor was Wayne, but they did talk about the problems that multiple coaches, GM's and players have not been able to solve over the last 20-years. And Hunt did talk about the lack of a strong leader in the front office or the coaching staff and the void left by George Karl.

Said it was clear to him that Porter and Stotts were easily outmatched for the job of NBA headcoach (Note to Epi....it's mhunt@jsonline.com) and because of the dysfunction with Kohl, Stotts was hired over Larry's objections.

Then a caller got on and said that he thinks that given the Bucks personnel, he doesn't like the Larry K. grind it down offense. Thinks we need to run. Wayne laughed and said emphatically... "No....this Bucks team isn't talented enough to be a running team"

I loved that part because it tracked with the line of thought that the team sucks and bringing back the Stotts offense won't solve anything.

Then Larrivee took out after Michael Redd. I'm paraphrasing but it was along the lines of this:

"The NBA is all about chemistry....and finding the right mix. As long as the Bucks have Michael Redd as their best player, they'll have problems. Michael Redd refuses to play defense. He refuses to give effort on that end of the court. All these other players see that bad example and feed off it......Larry K. can talk defense all he wants, but until he gets his best player to play defense, it will be a lost cause"


Wayne didn't come out and say trade Redd, but essentially said Larry K. knows what problems he has, but he has to deal with the roster he's dealt.

I used to harp on that fact time and time again. Players take on the personality of their best player.

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I used to harp on that fact time and time again. Players take on the personality of their best player.

We can all debate about Redd on the court. But he plays hard, doesn't complain and doesn't cause problems in the locker room. I wish the other turds on the team would take on that personality.

Redd might play hard but he plays hard for himself not for his team.

Personal glory is more important than winning basketball games to Michael Redd,you can see that when you watch him play.

Larry Harris on coming back after the All-Star break: "A lot of people say why don't we just stay in Cancun or whatever. Our guys are going to come back and play...we are still mathematically in this thing."

rilamann wrote:Redd might play hard but he plays hard for himself not for his team.

Personal glory is more important than winning basketball games to Michael Redd,you can see that when you watch him play.

Yeah, that's probably why they not only selected him for Team USA, but praised him on every given opportunity about his all around game.

Captain Erv 40 wrote:Larry Harris on coming back after the All-Star break: "A lot of people say why don't we just stay in Cancun or whatever. Our guys are going to come back and play...we are still mathematically in this thing."

Haha plus we still have to bring in 8,000 fans about 17 more times, or we really won't be able to even pretend we're a pro team any more.

jeremyd236 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah, that's probably why they not only selected him for Team USA, but praised him on every given opportunity about his all around game.

My bad Redd is the man,we better not trade him or this team is going to suck.

Captain Erv 40 wrote:Our guys are going to come back and play...we are still mathematically in this thing."

Of course they are, the real season doesn't start until April.

MickeyDavis wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



We can all debate about Redd on the court. But he plays hard, doesn't complain and doesn't cause problems in the locker room. I wish the other turds on the team would take on that personality.

Um, they have. They work hard on one end of the court. Wasn't Mo's lack of defense a big source of the Tony Brown argument?

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Um, they have. They work hard on one end of the court. Wasn't Mo's lack of defense a big source of the Tony Brown argument?

It's not just that, if you're going to throw a max contract at a player, you should want/expect that guy to be the leader on your team or at the very least, one of the leaders.

I just don't ever see that being possible from Redd and that's a problem. The Bucks not only have severe talent short comings, the team is a rudderless ship. What's Redd going to do if he sees guys not playing any defense?

It's not Redd's fault the Bucks handed him a max contract and never brought in a guy better than him that could take the leader role, but it is what it is. We sit here with a terrible team and our max contract guy that's supposed to be our best player looks to have little to no standing among his teammates.

Mix in a rookie coach that the players don't seem to respect, it's no surprise there is not just losing, but turmoil also.

paulpressey25 wrote:Then a caller got on and said that he thinks that given the Bucks personnel, he doesn't like the Larry K. grind it down offense. Thinks we need to run. Wayne laughed and said emphatically... "No....this Bucks team isn't talented enough to be a running team"

I agree with this. I don't think the Bucks have the personnel to push tempo consistently. They have to be one of the league's worst teams when it comes to athletic ability and while Mo can push the ball up the court, his decision making in transition often leaves a lot to be desired. You don't have to have five gazelles running up and down the court to be a good transition team (the Celtics of the 80s certainly proved that) but if you lack athleticism you need to have smart decision makers with the ball. The Bucks are sorely lacking in the Basketball IQ department. So they aren't athletic and they tend to have a lot of dumb players. That's hardly a good combination for a running team.

MickeyDavis wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



We can all debate about Redd on the court. But he plays hard, doesn't complain and doesn't cause problems in the locker room. I wish the other turds on the team would take on that personality.

I always assumed that as well, but it is apparently not really the case.
He doesn't cause problems in the locker room in the more traditional/direct fashion, but he does cause team chemistry problems that end up materializing as locker room problems (even if you want to say this would be indirectly rather than directly).

And every time I hear from people who deal with Redd in non-public situations, they tend to complain about him actually being kind of a jerk to them. It is rather strange.

People that dealt with him during his time with Team USA didn't have any of these negative things to say though, so perhaps Redd is affected (not saying this excuses it) by the environment he is in and some bad chemistry with teammates.

I agree GAD. I'm a Redd fan but there's no question he's a big source of the problem in the locker room this season. Is that all on him? No. And one can certainly question whether players who aren't near as good as Redd or accomplished anything close to what he's accomplished should have serious issues with him but the bottom line is they do.

That's one of the biggest problems this team faces in my opinion. Would removing Redd make this team better in terms of the chemistry or will it simply mean the Bucks now are even worse because they're still stuck with a large number of players who aren't very good? Or do you keep Redd and remove the less-talented players and hope that by adding better players the chemistry issues with Redd will go away?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question and I don't know what I'd do if I was in Kohl's situation. One day it looks like removing Redd might be the way to go; the next day it looks like keeping him and trying to get better talent to join him is the way to go.

The problem for me is that our big dollar guys don't collectively earn their paychecks.

Michael Redd SG $14.5m
Bobby Simmons PF $9.3m
Mo Williams PG $7.75m
Des Mason SF $5m
Dan Gadzuric C $5.75m
(Total $42.3m)

Would that team get beaten over a series by the below unit of 3 guys on rookie contracts plus the undrafted Bell and the unheralded Ivey?

Andrew Bogut C $5m
Charlie Bell SG $3.1m
Yi Jianlian SF $2.8m
Charlie Villanueva PF $2.7m
Royal Ivey PG $0.8m
(Total $14.4m)

You could throw in Jake Voskuhl ($3m) to help the expensive team with size and put the cheaper Michael Ruffin ($1m) on the young team. Either way - even though the positions don't match up very well - our expensive unit doesn't have much, if anything, over our young and cheap unit.

All the players in that expensive 5 can go. Whatever we get back may as well bolster our younger guys.

MickeyDavis wrote:We can all debate about Redd on the court. But he plays hard,

For 47 feet he does.

Stopshere2 wrote:The problem for me is that our big dollar guys don't collectively earn their paychecks.

Michael Redd SG $14.5m
Bobby Simmons PF $9.3m
Mo Williams PG $7.75m
Des Mason SF $5m
Dan Gadzuric C $5.75m
(Total $42.3m)

Would that team get beaten over a series by the below unit of 3 guys on rookie contracts plus the undrafted Bell and the unheralded Ivey?

Andrew Bogut C $5m
Charlie Bell SG $3.1m
Yi Jianlian SF $2.8m
Charlie Villanueva PF $2.7m
Royal Ivey PG $0.8m
(Total $14.4m)

You could throw in Jake Voskuhl ($3m) to help the expensive team with size and put the cheaper Michael Ruffin ($1m) on the young team. Either way - even though the positions don't match up very well - our expensive unit doesn't have much, if anything, over our young and cheap unit.

All the players in that expensive 5 can go. Whatever we get back may as well bolster our younger guys.

I completely agree. I actually like that breakdown you did of salaries and then dividing them up into teams based on how much they make. I would really like to see a starting lineup of Ivey, Bell, Villanueva, Yi, and Bogut. Honestly, I would feel more comfortable having those guys playing over the guys making the big bucks. They would provide more effort, energy and b-ball IQ than the other unit. I think money has really corrupted the mentality of b-ball players today...instead of playing for the game, they play for the money. It's a shame really.