Redd Is Becoming The New Ray Allen For Me

[daboywonder2002]

first of all, let me say that you can build your team around a 20ppg shooting guard. its about getting the right pieces around him. lets look at teams that were succesful building around a 2 guard. pacers w/miller, pistons with hamilton. both had defensive small forwards(d.mckey and tayshawn prince). the bucks have freakin villaneuva, bobby simmons, and desmond(no jumper) mason. next, you need a low post scorer. (aka rasheed wallace and rik smits) i dont get to see too many bucks games. but seems like bogut is legit for you guys. next you need a double double enforcer(aka ben wallace, dale davis). you guys have NO ONE. its a bunch of soft offensive minded players. maybe you guys need to make a choice,either build around redd or yi. not both!!!

[Nebula1]

Europa,

What SF do you think a Mo/Bobby package could fetch?

I'd like to see what Ramon can do.

[xTitan]

-= original quote snipped =-



One could argue that, but one would be an idiot.

Agreed

[InsideOut]

first of all, let me say that you can build your team around a 20ppg shooting guard. its about getting the right pieces around him. lets look at teams that were succesful building around a 2 guard. pacers w/miller, pistons with hamilton. both had defensive small forwards(d.mckey and tayshawn prince). the bucks have freakin villaneuva, bobby simmons, and desmond(no jumper) mason. next, you need a low post scorer. (aka rasheed wallace and rik smits) i dont get to see too many bucks games. but seems like bogut is legit for you guys. next you need a double double enforcer(aka ben wallace, dale davis). you guys have NO ONE. its a bunch of soft offensive minded players. maybe you guys need to make a choice,either build around redd or yi. not both!!!

The trouble is getting all those other guys. Rip makes roughly 9, 10, and 11 million the next 3 years. Redd is at roughly 14, 16, 17 and 18 million. Redd will be making only 3.5 million less than what Hamilton and Prince make combined. Next season Wallace, Billups, Rip and Prince will average 11 million a piece. Redd will be making 16 million. The Pistons are smart in that if you want to build a great team without a super-star then you can't give max dollars to one piece of the puzzle.

[-Jragon-]

-= original quote snipped =-




but having redd play a reggie miller like role in the offense is going to amount to primarily spot up shooting. take the ball out of his hands and the number of drives is going to go way down

Wrong. Drives go way up. If Redd gets the ball with about 10 seconds on the shot clock and is spotting up and hitting shots, defenders have to run at him allowing for pump fakes and easier/better drives.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



Agreed

Not sure I do. Ray's Sonics made more lottery trips in the same time period than Redd's Bucks. Ray's Sonics had a better winning percentage but it's not like that team, with Ray as its best player, accomplished all that much. I don't think three trips in four years to the lottery is anything to brag about.

And neb, I'm not sure who the Bucks could get for Redd and Simmons. That's a lot of money to give to another team. Unless this was a multi-team deal, I don't know if one team would want to take on all that much salary in one trade. I think the best hope to deal Simmons would be to pair him with a team that really wanted Mo, Villanueva or maybe both.

[EastSideBucksFan]

Honestly, I'm still pissed we didn't try to play Ray and Redd together in the starting lineup.

Sure, we would've been a defensive sieve, not any different than where we are right now.


But we would've had two of the best three point shooters in the league together.

We should've tried it for at least one year.

[-Jragon-]

Honestly, I'm still pissed we didn't try to play Ray and Redd together in the starting lineup.

Sure, we would've been a defensive sieve, not any different than where we are right now.


But we would've had two of the best three point shooters in the league together.

We should've tried it for at least one year.

That might have been fun.

[Sigra]

If I understad it corectly, europa would like Redd from first half of last game. But in that half Redd WAS spot up shooter. Maybe you like to call it "played in the flow of offense" but that's it basicly. Not forcing and waiting for the ball and shoot. It is perfect role for Redd but it is not max contract player especially if we consider his pathetic defense.

[-Jragon-]

If I understad it corectly, europa would like Redd from first half of last game. But in that half Redd WAS spot up shooter. Maybe you like to call it "played in the flow of offense" but that's it basicly. Not forcing and waiting for the ball and shoot. It is perfect role for Redd but it is not max contract player especially if we consider his pathetic defense.

So does the fact that he is a max player mean that we should ask Redd to do a Lebron James impression every night at the expense of the rest of the team that also gets paid money? Doing that would only be to prove to ourselves that he is really worth the money; just as he likely tries to dominate the game to prove to himself and others that he is worth the money....Enough of that garbage..... He played well in his contract year and got a raise. He has improved every year since then. Now to get his team to the next level, a playoff run, he has to learn how to defer to his teammates in a similar way that T-Mac, Pierce, Anthony, etc had to defer to their teammates for the sake of winning games. Those players now do less of everything, but more of what they do well. In Redd's case, that means more catch and shoot and getting to the free throw line with less dribbling and trying to get assists. This does not make him less valuable as a player, but a more player because he will be more effective at what he does and he'll be helping lead us out of the damn lottery.

[TheMachine]

Redd is the anti Reggie Miller.

Reggie was clutch while Redd is anti clutch.

Reggie was a high energy fired up leader while Redd is the anti high energy fired up leader.

When I think of Reggie I think of a competitive SOB that would win at all costs...even if it meant coming to blows with MJ. Those two had some all out wars. Redd...well he's a really nice guy.

As the main man Redd's never been a winner or a leader. He shows up every other game and as often as he wins us a game he'll kill us in the 4th and cost us a game. Many feel, and I agree, he is hurting the development of our young guys. Now factor in the fact he makes over $90,000,000.00. I've said it from day one. For the Bucks to win Redd needs to be a second or third best player. But then that means in two years (if ever) we're paying him $90 million to hang out at the 3-point line and hit open jumpers when Yi or Bogut gets doubled. Now if Bogut and Yi end up better than Redd (which we need to be winners) then how are we going to pay them when Redd is then making 17 and 18 million a season?

I can't see any upside in keeping Redd. If he is hurting our player development and he remains our best player, we'll continue stinking. Now if the young guys do bust out were stuck paying a max deal to a guy who's our 2nd or 3rd option who still can't defend and who's only job is to hit an open 3. At that point he'd be exactly what we need at $10 million a season. Kind of like a Kevin Martin who in 28 minutes last night was 14-16 / 9-11 for 39 points.

Bingo!

Excellent summation.
Most people agree that Redd would be excellent as a third option and maybe in some cases even a second. He needs to be in a situation where not only is he the third banana on the court, but also the third banana in terms of the totem pole (heirarchy) for him to maximize his talents.

I believe that he is kind of like a basketball equivalent of the law of diminishing returns. Where up to a certain point he can be very effective (like in a subordinate 2nd or 3rd role on a good team) After that point, if he tries to do too much, things go down hill and it starts to affect the team negatively. That is why he will probably make a good role player on the US team.

The problem is that not many teams (and definitely not the Bucks), can afford to pay 15 mil - 18 mil/year for a third banana. That is where it gets dicey. I believe he is tradeable, but it will not be easy to do. My guess is it will take place in the offseason, after the draft, and after the initial free agent signings. Probably have to be a multi-team trade also. I somehow feel that Dallas may be his eventual destination.

Just my guess.

[ReasonablySober]

Redd is the anti Reggie Miller.

Reggie was clutch while Redd is anti clutch.

Reggie was a high energy fired up leader while Redd is the anti high energy fired up leader.

When I think of Reggie I think of a competitive SOB that would win at all costs...even if it meant coming to blows with MJ. Those two had some all out wars. Redd...well he's a really nice guy.

As the main man Redd's never been a winner or a leader. He shows up every other game and as often as he wins us a game he'll kill us in the 4th and cost us a game. Many feel, and I agree, he is hurting the development of our young guys. Now factor in the fact he makes over $90,000,000.00. I've said it from day one. For the Bucks to win Redd needs to be a second or third best player. But then that means in two years (if ever) we're paying him $90 million to hang out at the 3-point line and hit open jumpers when Yi or Bogut gets doubled. Now if Bogut and Yi end up better than Redd (which we need to be winners) then how are we going to pay them when Redd is then making 17 and 18 million a season?

I can't see any upside in keeping Redd. If he is hurting our player development and he remains our best player, we'll continue stinking. Now if the young guys do bust out were stuck paying a max deal to a guy who's our 2nd or 3rd option who still can't defend and who's only job is to hit an open 3. At that point he'd be exactly what we need at $10 million a season. Kind of like a Kevin Martin who in 28 minutes last night was 14-16 / 9-11 for 39 points.

Bingo!

Excellent summation.
Most people agree that Redd would be excellent as a third option and maybe in some cases even a second. He needs to be in a situation where not only is he the third banana on the court, but also the third banana in terms of the totem pole (heirarchy) for him to maximize his talents.

I believe that he is kind of like a basketball equivalent of the law of diminishing returns. Where up to a certain point he can be very effective (like in a subordinate 2nd or 3rd role on a good team) After that point, if he tries to do too much, things go down hill and it starts to affect the team negatively. That is why he will probably make a good role player on the US team.

The problem is that not many teams (and definitely not the Bucks), can afford to pay 15 mil - 18 mil/year for a third banana. That is where it gets dicey. I believe he is tradeable, but it will not be easy to do. My guess is it will take place in the offseason, after the draft, and after the initial free agent signings. Probably have to be a multi-team trade also. I somehow feel that Dallas may be his eventual destination.

Just my guess.

These two guys hit the nail on the head.

[jeremyd236]

-= original quote snipped =-



One could argue that, but one would be an idiot.

Okay, they won the Division and did what? They lost in the 2nd round.

Redd lead a team with Dan Gadzuric as the starting Center and went to the playoffs. Granted we were the 8 seed, we don't get anything for it. All we did was miss out on the lottery. Same as the Sonics.

Let's not forget Allen DID have Rashard Lewis (a PROVEN player). Redd has never had one of those.

[smauss]

Europa, here is what ticks me off about last night. Bogut was ripping the Jazz up in the first half. The Jazz adjusted in the second half, doubling Bogut. Bogut made some pretty good decisions on passing out of the double, did make some mistakes but I thought handled the double better than I thought he would. I've read posts on this board at nausium ripping Bogut because he can't command a double so when he does, the two players that SHOULD absolutely know how to make a team pay for a double decides to go one on one and chuck. Smart teams make teams that double pay for it by finding the open man. Your PG and your team leader must be smarter than that. If you get the ball to the open guy and he just can't convert, thats one thing, but dribble down maybe making one pass and jacking up a three is absurd basketball IMHO.

[europa]

Europa, here is what ticks me off about last night. Bogut was ripping the Jazz up in the first half. The Jazz adjusted in the second half, doubling Bogut. Bogut made some pretty good decisions on passing out of the double, did make some mistakes but I thought handled the double better than I thought he would. I've read posts on this board at nausium ripping Bogut because he can't command a double so when he does, the two players that SHOULD absolutely know how to make a team pay for a double decides to go one on one and chuck. Smart teams make teams that double pay for it by finding the open man. Your PG and your team leader must be smarter than that. If you get the ball to the open guy and he just can't convert, thats one thing, but dribble down maybe making one pass and jacking up a three is absurd basketball IMHO.

No argument. That's why I said it was the lack of basketball intelligence displayed by Mo and Redd which cost the Bucks the game.

Back to Redd, in theory he would be a sensational No. 2 option if paired with either a strong post player or a dynamic PG (preferably both). The Bucks have neither although Bogut has shown signs of late he could be the former. If what we're seeing now from Bogut is something he can maintain, a Bogut-Redd combination should, in theory, be a strong foundation for a contending team. But in order for that to happen, Redd needs to be smarter and he needs to be willing to be put into a system which asks him to do less for the good of the team.

Can all that happen? I believe it can but for the first time I have to admit I'm starting to have a few questions about that.

[Sigra]

-= original quote snipped =-



So does the fact that he is a max player mean that we should ask Redd to do a Lebron James impression every night at the expense of the rest of the team that also gets paid money? Doing that would only be to prove to ourselves that he is really worth the money; just as he likely tries to dominate the game to prove to himself and others that he is worth the money....Enough of that garbage..... He played well in his contract year and got a raise. He has improved every year since then. Now to get his team to the next level, a playoff run, he has to learn how to defer to his teammates in a similar way that T-Mac, Pierce, Anthony, etc had to defer to their teammates for the sake of winning games. Those players now do less of everything, but more of what they do well. In Redd's case, that means more catch and shoot and getting to the free throw line with less dribbling and trying to get assists. This does not make him less valuable as a player, but a more player because he will be more effective at what he does and he'll be helping lead us out of the damn lottery.

It looks like you don't understand my point. Redd is scorer and nothing else. He is not defender or playmaker. He is scorer and he is paid that much to be socrer. If Redd doesn't score at least 22 points per game than he is thief of the year because he get 18 millions for year to score only 21 points and not do anything else. Is that more clear now?

So my point is that you eather use Redd as alpha dog and centerpiece of your offense or you trade him to some team that will use him that way. If you use Redd any other way then he is WAY WAY WAY WAY overpaid. He is overpaid anyway but in that case he is much more overpaid.

It should be clear that I don't want Redd to be alpha dog so it should be also clear that I want to trade him. I want it very very much.

[smauss]

-= original quote snipped =-



No argument. That's why I said it was the lack of basketball intelligence displayed by Mo and Redd which cost the Bucks the game.

Back to Redd, in theory he would be a sensational No. 2 option if paired with either a strong post player or a dynamic PG (preferably both). The Bucks have neither although Bogut has shown signs of late he could be the former. If what we're seeing now from Bogut is something he can maintain, a Bogut-Redd combination should, in theory, be a strong foundation for a contending team. But in order for that to happen, Redd needs to be smarter and he needs to be willing to be put into a system which asks him to do less for the good of the team.

Can all that happen? I believe it can but for the first time I have to admit I'm starting to have a few questions about that.

I think your premise is right on target. For a long while I thought a Bogut-Redd with a playmaking PG would be a very good combination but I'm starting to be concerned that neither of our back-court players will ever make that happen. I don't want to sound like I'm some sort of expert, because I know I'm not, but, I do know this, if either of our back court players had the right instincts for their positions or understood the game well enough, what happened in the 4th quarter wouldn't have happened.

I'm definitely ready to blow this back court apart........

[-Jragon-]

-= original quote snipped =-



It looks like you don't understand my point. Redd is scorer and nothing else. He is not defender or playmaker. He is scorer and he is paid that much to be socrer. If Redd doesn't score at least 22 points per game than he is thief of the year because he get 18 millions for year to score only 21 points and not do anything else. Is that more clear now?

So my point is that you eather use Redd as alpha dog and centerpiece of your offense or you trade him to some team that will use him that way. If you use Redd any other way then he is WAY WAY WAY WAY overpaid. He is overpaid anyway but in that case he is much more overpaid.

It should be clear that I don't want Redd to be alpha dog so it should be also clear that I want to trade him. I want it very very much.

Sorry, I did miss your point. I want a team that plays better defense, so I would trade Redd in the right scenerio also. However, I do not want to trade him for worse players just for the sake of making a change, because I feel that Redd can still be very valuable in the role mentioned. I'm torn because I also feel that there are many players that we can get for him that also will not fulfill what they are paid to produce. I hope that if we do make a trade, that Larry can sniff out a great trade for the Bucks.

[jeremyd236]

Sorry to get into the middle of this, but I think I need clarification.

I've always thought that Redd signed a 6 year/$91 million contract. Is there some other money he's getting that I don't know about?

Why do people keep saying he's getting 18 million per year? I know you're just trying to make a point, but his deal averages to just over $15 million per year according to my calculation.

[europa]

Redd has three years, $51M (or $17M a year) remaining on the contract he signed. He'll top $18M in the final year of the deal.