RealGM

Per Screamin A Smith, just thought I'd pass it on. 500k less than skiles, fully guaranteed

Having a former MVP on your roster along with an $80mm payroll can even things out.

Having Cuban sitting behind you screaming in your ear every game - priceless.

Is Redd the kind of player that Carlisle would want on his roster?

Redd is the kind of player that Scott Skiles won't have on his roster

miggs0721 wrote:Redd is the kind of player that Scott Skiles won't have on his roster

Interesting. That's not necesarily the impression I received, since Redd wa the first guy that Skiles called after he was hired.

I didn't know that, but if that's the case, he said"As long as you want to be a Buck, you are gonna play so mother f****** defense."

I would trade you Howard and Stack for Redd in a heartbeat. Howard may have just run his ass out of town with the way he dogged it in the playoffs. Carlisle teams have always had a very good shooter on the court with Miller and Rip. I would think that he would love Redd. Plus, his contract is up the same year that Dirk's is up. We will be over the cap until that year anyway, so he won't hurt our roster flexibility.

Maverick Junkie wrote:I would trade you Howard and Stack for Redd in a heartbeat. Howard may have just run his ass out of town with the way he dogged it in the playoffs. Carlisle teams have always had a very good shooter on the court with Miller and Rip. I would think that he would love Redd. Plus, his contract is up the same year that Dirk's is up. We will be over the cap until that year anyway, so he won't hurt our roster flexibility.

Just one of the many reasons why I don't like this Redd for Howard/Stack trade. One of the other reasons, is that Stack is pretty much done as a contributor. [/b]

I'll take the weed smoker and stack anyday for redd

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Just one of the many reasons why I don't like this Redd for Howard/Stack trade. One of the other reasons, is that Stack is pretty much done as a contributor. [/b]

Well, Redd pretty much has run himself out of Milwaukee with his no D, horrible shot selection, no defense, no passing self as well. As you can see both have flaws. I'd take the younger, cheaper, more versatile player over Max any day of the week.

To me, the Stack/Howard for Redd trade was one where I felt we were fleecing the Mavericks. Howard is arguably a better player than Redd, and Stackhouse is instrumental to their rotation.

Now I see the trade as more of a win-win trade. The Mavericks are ready to run Howard out of town, and Stackhouse is probably on his last legs. Redd has really gotten to the point where fans are starting to turn on him for his selfish play and awful defense. I think that this is one of those deals where it benefits both teams.

17.5 mil for Carlisle. 24 or 30 for D'Antoni. Damn. Why this teams pay so much for coach? Don't they know that coach is not important at all? It is all about players. Damn. This teams should have talk with our very own Epicurus. He would set them straight.

miggs0721 wrote:I didn't know that, but if that's the case, he said"As long as you want to be a Buck, you are gonna play so mother f****** defense."

Was that a famous quote from LK???

Sigra wrote:17.5 mil for Carlisle. 24 or 30 for D'Antoni. Damn. Why this teams pay so much for coach? Don't they know that coach is not important at all? It is all about players. Damn. This teams should have talk with our very own Epicurus. He would set them straight.

I thought you read English better than the above would imply. My mistake. "Not important at all?" Nope, never said or implied. Very bad paraphrase.

Yeah. But you know, the freedom for me to make a point and all. And the point stay. Coaches are around 20 million dollars important this days. That is shock for me because I already buyed your definition of coaching importance.

bigzy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Was that a famous quote from LK???

Touche. I would contend, however, bigzy that Skiles has several factors in his favor that Krystkowiak lacked. First and foremost, he has the complete support of management. Secondly (and just as important in my opinion), he is a proven winner in this league. The players may not like him, but unlike his predecessor he can back up his tough talk with proven results. And third (also important), he has a history of sitting players who won't fall in line. He isn't afraid to make tough decisions with his rotation to get the results his team needs.

Unlike Krystkowiak, I don't think Skiles will wilt and allow the players to have free reign. And unlike Krystkowiak, I think the players will know they need to get in line or else they will be the ones to suffer - not the head coach.

Sigra wrote:Yeah. But you know, the freedom for me to make a point and all. And the point stay. Coaches are around 20 million dollars important this days. That is shock for me because I already buyed your definition of coaching importance.

Let's see $60,000,000 for players (I'm guessing, would appreciate correction) and 5,00,000 for head coach. That sounds about what I've been saying about the proportion of contribution to wins. 1:14

Epicurus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Let's see $60,000,000 for players (I'm guessing, would appreciate correction) and 5,00,000 for head coach. That sounds about what I've been saying about the proportion of contribution to wins. 1:14

Sure. If you look how one person get and compare that to all other employees than it will look like that one person is not as important as all other employees together. Every owner of NBA team has to pay following people (his employees):

1) player #1
2) player #2
3) player #3
4) player #4
5) player #5
6) player #6
7) player #7
player #8
9) player #9
10) player #10
11) player #11
12) player #12
13) player #13
14) player #14
15) player #15
16) GM
17) assistent GM
18) head coach
19) assistent head coach #1
20) assistent head coach #2
21) assistent head coach #3
22) direrector of scouting
23) scout #1
24) scout #2
25) scout #3
26-100) other people who works for team

When head coach gets around 20 million dollars then he is one of the most payed emplyees in the organisation. Top 3 in most cases. That show how important is head coach for NBA team.

I may be the most important employee in my firm with best salary but if you compare my salary with a sum of salaries of all other employees (and you just did something as idiotic as that) there is no doubt that my salary will be a lot less that sum of all other salaries. Still it is clear how important I am to my organisation because my boss gave me all that money.

Shifting sands argument. You enter this challenging my claims regarding the relative merit of players to head coach regarding contributions to wins (or at least that is what I have been discussing for three years, maybe you still don't understand). Then you asserted head coach's pay, as showing my assertion to severely underminned the contributions of the head coach. I put it into a context related to the two factors under discussion. Now you wish to throw in other factors. Also what head coach is getting 20 million per year anyway?

So I don't forget my own position, responding to these irrelevancies---players' talents and health are far more important contributors to team wins than anything else, including head coaching talents. As a corollary: Salary structures appear to reflect such.