RealGM

I don't really understand why there is such a huge gap in value between Zach Randolph and Michael Redd. You can throw any jab at Zach and it would stick to Redd, IMO. Black hole? Check. No defense? Check. Empty stats on a bad team? Check. Massive contract? Check. I'm not saying that Zach is a better or even equal player to Redd, but I'm curious to find out why is there such a massive gap in value between the two.

I am not sure about a massive gap but I think Redd's more useful to a team because his shooting is more valuable than anything Randolph does.

Randolph was a headcase in both Portland and New York, whereas Redd never really had a "break-out" incident prior to this season. Redd needs a fresh start elsewhere in this league.

there really isn't a massive gape between them. the gap, however, probably comes from something u didn't mention, randolph's off court trouble.

Redd = Randolph is an idea that seems to have originated on the NY boards by some disgruntled fans who were upset that the Bucks wouldn't trade their three worst contracts for Randolph. They've since been spouting Redd = Randolph to make themselves feel better about the rejection.

Redd isn't Randolph. Redd is a much higher efficiency scorer. Redd isn't a good defender, but he does occasionally defend. Redd is not anywhere near as unfit as Randolph. Redd isn't an offcourt cancer like Randolph. The only similarities is that they're high-volume shooters, although Redd has far more range, far greater repertoire, and higher efficiency.

Personally, I think the better comparison is Redd - Jefferson. Or maybe Redd-Martin. Offensively minded, defensively challenged players.

Dags wrote:Personally, I think the better comparison is Redd - Jefferson. Or maybe Redd-Martin. Offensively minded, defensively challenged players.

>.> thats zach.

knicksh20b wrote:

Dags wrote:Personally, I think the better comparison is Redd - Jefferson. Or maybe Redd-Martin. Offensively minded, defensively challenged players.

>.> thats zach.

Only if you replace "challenged" with "(Please Use More Appropriate Word)" and "offensively minded" with "offensively inefficient". You've taken the last line from my post and ignored everything I said before it.

Zach is the worse offensive, worse defensive, worse demeanor version of Redd, Jefferson, Martin. To his credit though, he's a decent rebounder.

Was Randolph names to the USA Olympic team?
yea NO

Dags wrote:

knicksh20b wrote:

Dags wrote:Personally, I think the better comparison is Redd - Jefferson. Or maybe Redd-Martin. Offensively minded, defensively challenged players.

>.> thats zach.

Only if you replace "challenged" with "(Please Use More Appropriate Word)" and "offensively minded" with "offensively inefficient". You've taken the last line from my post and ignored everything I said before it.

Zach is the worse offensive, worse defensive, worse demeanor version of Redd, Jefferson, Martin. To his credit though, he's a decent rebounder.

Alright, I'll answer then. Redd is a better efficiency scorer, but it doesn't mean Zach can't match him in other ways. For one, he's not a decent rebounder-he's a good rebounder, maybe great depending on your opinion. He's a double double guy. Zach also has versatility offensively. He has three point range, he can post, he can drive, he can take the mid range shot. He's not afraid to be the one taking the last shot in the game. I will cede that Redd has more range...he should or else this conversation wouldn't exist. Zach will never be a good defender in my opinion. But I've watched him and he will occasionally defend (much like your point with Redd). Randolph is also not unfit. Randolph has ability but his problem is his mind. He can do it all. He just chooses not to. He can pass. He just chooses not to.

My point is simple. Two players who can score. Two players who don't have the greatest defense. Two players who don't have the prettiest contracts ever. Two players who haven't led their teams anywhere where they want to be.