Do teams take on the identity of their best player?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I've heard this stated before, but never really dug deeper to see if it is true. Do all of the Spurs role players take on Duncan's attitude? Do the Lakers role players copy Kobe's work ethic? I'm not trying to make a point here - I'm asking because I really am not sure.

But if it is true, I think trading Redd should be priority #1 this summer. I'm not sure whether Bogut or Redd is our best player right now, but if the role players are going to take on one of thier attitudes and approaches to the game, we need to remove the one who is the wrong choice.

Redd doesn't buckle down on D. He doesn't dive for lose balls. He doesn't sacrifice his body to stop a bucket. He doesn't throw up half court buzzer beaters just for the 1% chance that it might go in. Does all of this have an influence on guys like Villanueva, Simmons, Bell, and Yi who don't have a strong identity of their own?

If Bogut were the clear-cut best player on the team next season, would role players be more likely to scrap a little more? Or is that just a journalistic cliche? I'm curious what you guys think.

[ReasonablySober]

They absolutely do.

[bigkurty]

I am not sure either. I would imagine they would look at Redd and think "**** he got paid the big bucks so all I have to do is score points and shoot all the time" and that might contribute to this teams me first attitude. Plus Redd never gets fired up and tries to actually lead the team. However Garnett has been one of the all time great vocal leaders and he hustles and what has he won? Of course the talent level he has had to work with hasn't been ideal until this year either. Over all I have mixed feeling I guess about whether it is true but I am sure it is at least half true so yeah I agree, trading Redd should be a top priority unless you can somehow trade enough pieces to get a better superstar next to him who does hustle or else a player close to his level at least who is a hard nosed defender and a vocal leader. Or if you could get Rose somehow someway and maybe by his second year, he will become the alpha dog.

[fam3381]

I think it works both ways. I don't think KG was a different player in Minnesota, but in Boston he got a fresh start and they put some good vets and hungry young guys around him, too. Kobe's rep as a leader/teammate has been in constant flux it seems, and IMO it's largely been a function of the quality of players around him IMO.

I think what's so amazing about the Spurs is how they've created such consistency across the organization. It started with a character guy like Robsinon allowing Duncan to become the star, and Duncan's been the consummate pro the entire time. But Popovich has had a ton to do with that as well. And in turn when you build an organization around two stars and a strong-minded coach, you can bring in role players like Horry and Bowen because you're not trying to develop young players all the time. And the young guys you do bring in (Parker/Ginobili) are more likely to conform to what the team wants to do, because it's been proven to work.

I think it's obvious that Redd as the Bucks' best player is not going to take you all that far. It certainly seems like the Redd era has run its course, with the problem being that I don't know if you can simply change up the game plan and make him the second option. With this group he'll always be the leading scorer because he's the best scorer we have. But to me the question then becomes OK, can Bogut step up enough that he really does become the team's leader? And can Redd accept being the leading scorer but not the default best player on the team? We don't know the answer. But I'm not optimistic there's going to be a magical change, as there's so much history and baggage to it all.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I created this thread while wondering if going with Bogut/Sessions/Mason and two draft picks who hustle their tails off could change the character of the team, but then thought that no amount of hustling young players can impact how Redd approaches the game at this stage of his career. It may be more likely that he influences them. Would I rather have less talent on the team if it meant they would play harder? I think so.

[fam3381]

I would love to know how Bogut and Sessions view Redd...Bogut because he's played with him for three years and is unofficially competing with him to be the team's MVP. And Sessions because he just got here and is trying to figure out how to stick around in this league.

Redd's tough to figure out because he's a good guy who still has a bit of an ego on the court. Obviously it's tough to find scorers who don't have a bit of that mindset, but on a losing team it's harder to take. He talks about leadership and is the default guy who should be a leader on the team, but clearly he's not the sort of guy who's going to rally the troops and hold a team together.

[ReasonablySober]

Like I mentioned a few weeks ago, look at the Nugs. Their two best players are incredibly talented, but neither plays a lick of defense. How can Karl get that team to play D when their two big stars won't? If this was Iverson circa 2001, my guess is that team is a favorite in the Western Conf. Iverson was a warrior and a force on both ends.

[paul]

I have no doubt this happens, and I have no doubt it's happened to us. You need look no further than a guy like Mo, an up and coming guy who really could be a star with some serious effort on defense and a bit of an attitude adjustment. But for the past couple of years while he's been the young guy he's seen the star of the team receive plaudits and an absolutely massive contract for essentially creating his own shot, waving off teammates and playing like there is only one end of the court a lot of the time. So Mo is naturally a scorer, and sees that Redd is lauded for his 20+ ppg and receives very little criticism for not playing D, what do we expect him to do?
The difference however is that Redd is a quiet guy off the court and Mo seems to be more naturally extroverted, and he perhaps carried that on-court persona a little too far off the court this season, which has created friction with a few guys and namely Bogut who has pretty much the exact opposite attitude to basketball.

Now we've got Sessions in a very similar position to what Mo was a couple of seasons back, as well as Yi, do we want to run the risk of the same thing happening again? I'm not blaming Redd for all the teams ills by any stretch, but I do think the attitude of the backcourt has been horrible all year and has been a major contributing factor to the melt down we have witnessed. I know we won't move them both, but imo that would definitely be the best thing for the young guys on the roster, and for the team in general.

[REDDzone]

I think teams do.

I have been arguing forever that Redd's most detrimental effect on the team is not his salary as so many seem to think, but his "leadership" by example is actually inhibitive.

He doesn't run back for defense if he thinks he is fouled, he doesn't dive for loose balls, he has his fourth quarter selfish fits, etc, etc.

He played good defense twice this year, but I just don't think its enough.

[bigkurty]

I wonder if the bulls would take Redd in exchange for Hughes and and their #1 draft pick. They are talking about blowing it up.

They get a SG upgrade and could trade Ben Gordon for something else. We get a serviceable player who is overpaid but his deal is shorter than Redd's by a year and doesn't become a complete albatross at the end of the deal like Redd's deal does. We also get a decent draft pick out of the deal. I would do that trade but I have grown to despise Redd so maybe some others wouldn't.

[drew881]

I wonder if the bulls would take Redd in exchange for Hughes and and their #1 draft pick. They are talking about blowing it up.

.

If they are blowing it up they don't start rebuilding with Redd, they probably restart building with that draft pick.

We need to trade Redd to a team who is on the verge of winning and needs a second scorer. We have to find a team who despite being good, has some decent expiring pieces, and or a high draft pick. Are there any right now? Trying to think of what decent teams have high acquired draft picks (a la Pistons taking Darko at 2 despite being a playoff team).

Otherwise, I think teams like Cleveland (in the offseason), Dallas, Houston, Indiana (if they want to try one last ditch effort with JO) would be decent trading partners.

Or Miami for Mo but we have enough of these threads.

How about Redd, CV, and Gadz, for Marquis Daniels, Dunleavy and Troy Murphy?

Mo, Sessions
Daniels, Bell
Dunleavy, Mason, Simmons
Murphy, Yi
Bogut

[Baddy Chuck]

-= original quote snipped =-



If they are blowing it up they don't start rebuilding with Redd, they probably restart building with that draft pick.

We need to trade Redd to a team who is on the verge of winning and needs a second scorer. We have to find a team who despite being good, has some decent expiring pieces, and or a high draft pick. Are there any right now? Trying to think of what decent teams have high acquired draft picks (a la Pistons taking Darko at 2 despite being a playoff team).

Otherwise, I think teams like Cleveland (in the offseason), Dallas, Houston, Indiana (if they want to try one last ditch effort with JO) would be decent trading partners.

Or Miami for Mo but we have enough of these threads.

How about Redd, CV, and Gadz, for Marquis Daniels, Dunleavy and Troy Murphy?

Mo, Sessions
Daniels, Bell
Dunleavy, Mason, Simmons
Murphy, Yi
Bogut

We dont save much with that deal and it foeesnt make us better so Id definitly pass.

[ClassicJack]

I think it's more that teams take on the identity of the leader and the leader isn't always necessarily the best player. I think the teams in the early part of this decade were Sam Cassells team but I don't know if you would argue he was the teams best player.

This particular Bucks team has no leader therefore it has no identity.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

What teams in the NBA right now have a leader who isn't their best player? I've got to think that's an extremely rare occurance for some role player to command that much respect.

[bigkurty]

What teams in the NBA right now have a leader who isn't their best player? I've got to think that's an extremely rare occurance for some role player to command that much respect.

I can't think of one team honestly.

I also think some teams have their coach as their primary leader more than anything as well. Guys Like Popovich and Sloan command respect and get it. Other teams have players who I think are really the primary leader such as Lebron and Chauncey. As a side note, how good does Flip Saunders have it. Seriously I could coach the Pistons and they would be a 50 win team with the work ethic and leadership they have in that locker room.

[midranger]

The Bucks have an easy decision this summer. Should they continue to build a team around Michael Redd and his 16-18 million dollar contract, or should they not?

Of course, I expect them to botch it.

We've seen the results of the former. Not good.

For those who say, we wouldn't be building around Redd, or whatever, I'd argue that it's untrue. Redd's contract is like the sun. Sure, we have a Jupiter or two, but alot of what this team does player movement/dollar wise revolves around the fact that Herb Kohl is locked into paying Michael Redd in excess of 51 million dollars over the next 3 years.

It's time to start fresh. Move Redd for the best deal going (I really like the Hughes/pick idea or any +Gadz/Simmons deal for Marbury ), and then make other trades accordingly.

[dunhill]

Of course they do. Lets look a some older teams as well. Joe Dumars by all reports is a nice guy, with the Pistons he pretty much beat up on Jordan and other guards regularly. Without a doubt Isaiah Thomas was the man on that team and from what I see and read not having met the guy is he's a complete prick

Lets look at the modern day Pistons, Chauncey Billups is the best player and he was a cast off, same with everybody else on that team. Everyone on that team has/had something to prove.