Milwaukee Bucks Thread 2008–2009 (part 2)

[valpocrewsader]

C'mon. Love? Really?

[trwi7]

C'mon. Love? Really?

Dominant rebounder and a pretty good scorer and passer as well.

[valpocrewsader]

C'mon. Love? Really?

Dominant rebounder and a pretty good scorer and passer as well.

I might be a bit biased because I absolutely hated the guy -- and the Lopez bros -- in college and haven't paid the slightest attention to his (their) NBA game, but seriously you're saying Love's rookie year ability to stand in the lane like an oaf and grab a few boards and dish the ball a bit in the paint rivals Redd's immense and repeated talent for quick catch & shoot jumpers and his ability to be absolutely lights out from the outside?

[trwi7]

Redd isn't even close to being lights out from outside. He's was actually below average in 2 point jump shots this year at 38.4% (for reference, Love shot 36.1% on 2 point jump shots), he was below average in 3 point percentage as well.

 

http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT2.HTM

 

And he doesn't just stand in the lane like an oaf. He was the second best player in the NBA in offensive rebounding percentage and 10th in defensive rebounding percentage as a rookie. That's a talent, especially when you aren't as athletic as 99% of your opponents.

 

http://www.82games.com/0809/RESORT14.HTM

[homer]

Redd is a top 30 player. He's very underrated by Milwaukee fans because of his contract (and the fact that they've sucked). The guy shoots well and gets to the line frequently - two of the most important factors to sucess in the NBA.

[bbrauch2000]

For those who think Michael Redd doesn't crack the top 30 or 50 players in the league, this is the way that I would look at it. Could a team make the playoffs with Michael Redd as it's dominant player? Factoring the better teams in the west, I'd say Redd couldnt lead a team to the top 20 in the league. What about Redd as a second fiddle? Redd as the second best player on a team would be a title contender.

 

Looking at that list above, think about how successful a team with some of these guys as their #1 dog would be. Kevin Love as the #1 option on a team would win 8-12 games. Same for Prince, Hamilton, Manu, Biedrins, Aldridge, Nene, Millsap would have the same result.

 

Michael Redd as the best player on a crappy bucks team could lead to 26-34 wins at least if he's healthy

[LouisEly]

Because Garnett is 10x the player Redd is.

 

Ray Allen didn't until he got put into a defensive juggernaut along side KG and PP in Boston.

 

Kevin Garnett never won a title until he was on the same team as Ray Allen and Paul Pierce.

 

When did the Timberwolves become a bad team? In 2005-2006 when they lost Cassell and Sprewell, yet Garnett was still there.

 

You have to have a scorer to be a playoff team.

[trwi7]

Yeah, but you don't pay a player who's just a scorer (like Redd) a max contract. John Salmons makes $6 million a year and he's just as good of a scorer as Redd.

[Oldcity]

Yeah, but that's not the argument they're making. In fact, it kind of proves their point because they're saying people let Redd's bad contract affect how they see him as a player. Nobody said Redd was worth the money he's getting, just that he's still a good player.

[trwi7]

Right, but when evaluating players in the NBA you can't just look past salary because of the salary cap.

[Oldcity]

Yes, I understand, and I'd love for them to somehow get rid of that contract (just don't see it happening). But you said nobody ranks Redd as a top 50 player, which just isn't true. Obviously you don't, but there seem to be many here who do. You named a little over 30 and there's already a couple on the last who I'm not sure I'd take over Redd talent-wise. I don't think you could come up with 50 and get very many people to agree they're all better than Redd.

[JJHardy7]

Nobody ranks Redd as a top 50 player. Off the top of my head, players that are better.

 

We've played this game before. Go back some pages and look at some links that were posted by homer and sam. It ranks Redd as a top 20 player. You're opinion is your opinion. It just doesn't exactly match what links were posted. You can pull whatever 'numbers' you want for you opinion, but your opinion isn't the normal rationale, which is fine. There is much more support stating that Redd is a top player than mentioning a long list of players and saying that they're better than Redd.

 

There aren't a lot of shooting guards or small forwards I would trade straight up in order to 'get rid' of Redd. Is he a number 1 guy? I think he could be. He just can't be the #1 guy on a crappy team...and that goes with a lot of players. He's not LeBron or Kobe, but that doesn't mean he sucks. There is also no way Love is better than Redd.

[Zycho32]

So what does a Top-20 player get you as a Top Banana?

 

Well, fringe contention for the last playoff spots, for one thing.

 

Essentially, Redd as the #1 option is good for about 40 wins give or take, good enough to sneak into the playoffs in the East, but comparatively mediocre and fairly uninteresting. For a guy paid like a true #1, that's pretty dissapointing.

 

It also places the team in perpetual limbo- never advancing past the first round, rarely striking gold in the lottery.

[JJHardy7]

Essentially, Redd as the #1 option is good for about 40 wins give or take, good enough to sneak into the playoffs in the East, but comparatively mediocre and fairly uninteresting. For a guy paid like a true #1, that's pretty dissapointing.

 

Quick -- name the great players Redd has played with in his career as a starter...uhhhh...well...hmmmm. At least that's my initial reaction. He hasn't played with scrubs, but Milwaukee has failed to bring in another player or two. When the 'Big 3' were crushing teams...they had 3 all-star level players. It's rare for guards/forwards to carry a team (I know it can happen), but it's exactly what those three did. Redd has never played with anyone as talented as the 'Big 3'. I'm not saying he's played with crappy players. They just haven't found the right mix. RJ might be the most talented player he's played with. I loved TJ, but injuries and such didn't help his career in Milwaukee. Maybe I'm missing someone, but they've really struggled to get another PG or SF to play with Redd over the years that is at an all-star level. And it's not because of his contract. I guess I just don't see how an Olympian, All-Star, etc. is such a bad guy or player to have on your team. I know it's a max contract. You can sign a lot of Top 20 guys, but if you don't have the right players around them it won't matter. Again, you put Redd and Billups on the same team my guess is the current roster + Billups gets home court. Redd can get this team close to the playoffs most years, but I do agree in order to win a championship he does need help. There are only a handful of players in the league that will have great seasons with mediocre talent. Those are probably top 5 players and Redd is not that.

 

How is it so bad that Redd gets the team to 40 wins or so? It'd be bad if he had other talent around him like I mentioned, but he just hasn't. Mo Williams wasn't a good fit. Again, the 'Big 3' had the right formula in a way. I haven't seen anything close to that in terms of talent at the 1, 2, and 3 spots.

 

It also places the team in perpetual limbo- never advancing past the first round, rarely striking gold in the lottery.

 

Since/when Redd has become a starter (2003): TJ Ford 2003 (#6 overall), Bogut 2005 (#1), Yi 2007 (#6), and Joe Alexander 2008 (#8) have been the first round picks. None of those have help Redd in the backcourt and trading picks doesn't help. I don't see how that is Redd's fault that the Bucks have not drafted correctly or have traded too many frist round picks. I would imagine the bigger problem is that Redd has only had 4 first round picks during his career as a starter. Kind of hard to call that being 'in limbo'.

 

I really like Bogut and at the time can't argue against that pick. I would say though that if the Bucks took Chris Paul I don't think there would be any discussion of how Redd 'sucks'.

[LouisEly]

If the Bucks didn't sign Redd to a max contract, someone else would have (or come darned close to), and they would have lost him for nothing. And then they would be a much worse team. Well... maybe they would be better because they would have two or three more top-3 picks on the team besides Bogut. Maybe they are a better team because they might have Derrick Rose... but that would mean being the worst team in the league or darned close to in order to get the #1 overall pick. As I posted before, they were 17-16 with him last year, 17-32 without. That says everything I need to know.

 

John Salmons makes $6 million a year and he's just as good of a scorer as Redd.

 

That's because Salmons was a sixth man until this year. He was drafted higher than Redd and took longer to develop than Redd. And when his contract is up he will get a lot more than $6M. Every team in the NBA wouldn't have blinked at giving Redd $6M per year as a free agent, thus why he signed for a lot more than that. Please compare Redd to another player who was a star prior to his contract coming up. And don't compare him to Kobe or Lebron because those are two of perhaps the 10 best players in NBA history and the only reason they aren't signed to bigger contracts is because of the max contract limit.

 

On another tangent... the NBA needs to change its free agent rules if they are ever going to prevent mediocre teams from overpaying their own free agents. Basically with guys like Redd it is either sign them and possibly overpay them a bit or risk losing them with nothing in return (and no guarantee of a top 3 pick because of the lottery). If the NBA made it like baseball where if a team signs a "type-A" free agent the team that loses the player gets that teams #1 pick that would be a lot more fair. That way teams can let a good but not great player go if someone else overpays them and not risk getting nothing in return.

[trwi7]

If the Bucks didn't sign Redd to a max contract, someone else would have (or come darned close to), and they would have lost him for nothing.

 

So? You don't sign players like Redd to max contracts unless you have a player like Dwight Howard or Dwyane Wade or Chris Paul. Trying to build around Redd as your best player leads you exactly where the Bucks have been since he signed that contract. Bad with a chance to be mediocre if everything goes right.

 

but that would mean being the worst team in the league or darned close to in order to get the #1 overall pick.

 

Since we signed Redd to that extension, we've averaged 32 wins. The teams who have gotten the #1 pick since Redd signed his extension have averaged 28 wins. So no, you don't have to be the worst team in the league to get the #1 pick and we've been one of the worst teams in the league since Redd signed that contract.

 

And when his contract is up he will get a lot more than $6M.

But will he get a max contract like Redd got?

 

Please compare Redd to another player who was a star prior to his contract coming up.

I'm not going to compare him to stars, because Redd is not a star. Joe Johnson signed a 5 year $70 million contract, he's better than Redd. Kevin Martin signed a 5 year $55 million contract, Josh Howard signed a 4 year $40 million contract, Rip Hamilton signed a 3 year $34 million extension, Stephen Jackson signed a 4 year $35 million extension, Danny Granger signed a 5 year $60 million contract. Those players are all comparable to or better than Redd and signed for much less.

 

Either way, contracts aren't going to matter until the Bucks start drafting better. That's why they need to fire Dave Babcock. He's been on the job for four years I believe and he's gotten us Bogut, Yi and Alexander in the lottery. That's awful.

[davego]

The Bucks (or rather, George Karl) sort of made the choice between Ray and Redd. Now, I'd take Ray any day of the week...but I don't think the results on the court over the past few years would have been all that different given the same surrounding cast. Ray is better at the skills that Redd brings to the game, but the gap isn't that great. Redd playing the #2 guard for Boston last year would have also won a title (IMO).

 

Now, if we might move back to the draft/FA discussion. Would it be worth it to not bring back CV or Sessions and save that coin? One more season and RJ comes off the books. Just a thought; would be a way to really get out of the salary cap tred-mill they have been on.

[Oldcity]

Everything I've read shows it's pretty impossible to bring back CV, Sessions and sign a first rounder. I figure Villanueva is gone. He's a nice player to have, but he's not really a building block so it's not the end of the world. As has been mentioned, the Bucks simply have to start drafting better.

[JJHardy7]

I'm not going to compare him to stars, because Redd is not a star. Joe Johnson signed a 5 year $70 million contract, he's better than Redd. Kevin Martin signed a 5 year $55 million contract, Josh Howard signed a 4 year $40 million contract, Rip Hamilton signed a 3 year $34 million extension, Stephen Jackson signed a 4 year $35 million extension, Danny Granger signed a 5 year $60 million contract. Those players are all comparable to or better than Redd and signed for much less.

 

Well compare top 20 players then. Again, these players are all better in your opinion. That doesn't make it a fact.

 

I don't see why people whine about his contract. At that point and time things were different. Teams were spending money like it was on fire. That's not the case now. Given how the NBA works they would've lost Redd for nothing or kept him at the max deal. I like how some argue that it's so 'obvious' they shouldn't have done that. Why? Because he's a top 20 player based on actual metrics? Given the circumstances I sign Redd to that deal 100 out of 100 times. There's much more to whine about with Danny G, Bobby Simmons, Mo Williams, and some bad trades. Redd is on the bottom of the list of things to whine about in regard to the Bucks. There is evidence that he's a Top 20 player. I don't know what there is to whine about in that regard.

 

To be a Top 20 player in the league with the point guards Redd has played with, is really saying something IMO. Redd was luck his contract came up when it did and he's lucky that the Bucks HAD to give him that contract because other teams would've or came close. IIRC the Cavs came as close as they could to matching, but given the salary cap and such couldn't. Again, you get Redd or nothing. I'd take Redd.

[LouisEly]

So no, you don't have to be the worst team in the league to get the #1 pick and we've been one of the worst teams in the league since Redd signed that contract.

 

That's because of the lottery. Even if they were the worst team in the league it is no guarantee they get the #1 overall pick. Or even in the top three - see Sacramento this year.

 

I'm not going to compare him to stars, because Redd is not a star.

 

Redd has averaged over 20ppg for his career, including 21.2, 22.7, 26.7, 25.4, 23.0, and 21.7 the last six years. If that's not a star I don't know what is. Half of the guys you mentioned are not better than Redd, and are only in the picture because they are on teams with stars who make them look better and/or opponents focus on more leaving them more opportunities. Hamilton signed an extension for less than market in hopes of winning a championship with Detriot. Stephen Jackson is a big character risk, and has a much lower shooting % - there's a reason he's played for six teams. Josh Howard plays on a team with Dirk Nowitzkie, Jason Terry, and Jason Kidd. I'll give you Granger and Martin, but if you think Redd is injury prone, Martin is just as bad - he has only started 57 and 46 games the last two years. Martin compared to Redd is a wash. As JJ said though, the economy is different now than when Redd signed.

 

As has been mentioned, the Bucks simply have to start drafting better.

 

They haven't done poorly though either. In 2002 very few players picked after Haislip turned out to be anything more than a bench player; Prince, Kristic (when healthy), Salmons (he took a while to develop), and Boozer were the few who became starters, and Scola and Navarro didn't play for four or five years after they were drafted. They made one of the best picks in the 2nd round with Murray but traded him. In 2003, David West and Josh Howard are the only players drafted after TJ Ford that could be considered to be a better player - it was injuries, not ability, that derailed Ford. In 2004 the problem was not having a pick. In 2005 one could say that Deron Williams and Chris Paul were a better pick than Bogut (no one had Granger on their radar), but Bogut was not a bad pick at all. In 2006 they didn't have a pick; David Noel wasn't a good pick but again, few players picked after him were any better. In 2007 maybe Al Thornton so far is the only one picked after Yi that could be considered to be significantly better, but it's too early to tell, and Sessions might be one of the 10 best players picked after Yi. I'd say the only bad pick was passing on Brook Lopez and Jason Thompson for Joe Alexander, but again they made perhaps the best pick of the 2nd round who so far has looked better than a number of first round picks.

 

Like someone else said, the problem has been bad trades (Gary Payton) and bad contracts to role players (Simmons, Gadzuirc), not drafting and resigning Redd.

[danzig6767]

If the Bucks didn't sign Redd to a max contract, someone else would have (or come darned close to), and they would have lost him for nothing. And then they would be a much worse team. Well... maybe they would be better because they would have two or three more top-3 picks on the team besides Bogut. Maybe they are a better team because they might have Derrick Rose... but that would mean being the worst team in the league or darned close to in order to get the #1 overall pick.

Exactly. If the Bucks hadn't been stupid enough to pay a one dimensional scorer at SG that provides zero leadership to a max contract, they may not have wasted multiple seasons chasing an 7th/8th seed at best and then first round playoffs beatdown by not accepting you can't ever be a legit contender with a Michael Redd like player as your alpha dog. Now maybe if the Bucks would have done the smart thing by letting Redd walk and trying to rebuild properly, they could still have struggled to build a contender. History has shown that rebuilding via the lottery won't always work, but history has also shown that teams trying to become a legit contender with a one dimensional scorer at SG as your best player is nearly a futile exersise.

As I posted before, they were 17-16 with him last year, 17-32 without. That says everything I need to know.

The year prior the Bucks were 2-14 with Mo Williams out injured, does that make him a star also. Obviously when a team as poorly talented overall as the Bucks have been for awhile, when the only quality players like Redd, Mo, and/or Bogut miss games via injury, the team will struggle badly. That said, it doesn't automatically make any of those three guys a sprecial player or a star because none of them are. Until the Bucks can actually acquire a real star somehow, they'll just be spinning their wheels as a franchise with a limited ceiling of late seed playoff team that the true contenders with real stars dispose of easily in the playoffs.

Redd has averaged over 20ppg for his career, including 21.2, 22.7, 26.7, 25.4, 23.0, and 21.7 the last six years. If that's not a star I don't know what is.

It's that line of thinking that allowed the Bucks to talk themselves into giving Redd his franchise crippling contract. Believing that a great scorer equals a great player when that's just not the case. Kevin Martin of the Kings is a very similar player to Redd besides the fact he's not ridiculously overpaid like Redd is. While both guys aren't responsible for the fact that their management hasn't built better teams around them, both are a great example of how limited an impact that soft one dimensional scorers with no leadership skills can have on their teams when they are the best player. Both are quality NBA players who can score a lot of points, but aren't close to being stars either. Put them though next to a real star like say what happened with Mo in Cleveland or a Rashard Lewis next to D. Howard, then yea they can be valuable pieces on a team with asperations beyond hoping to win about 40-45 games if things go perfectly.

 

Giving Redd that huge contract not only has handcuffed the team some over the years, it gave the team the false belief that they already had their franchise player to build the team around. The Bucks made the mistake with Redd that many other teams in the NBA have done, especially non-glamour franchises. They have a quality, but non-special player who is becoming a free agent. They don't want to lose the guy for nothing so they often overpay by quite a bit in a long term deal and then a year or two later they realize their mistake, but by then that players contract becomes an albatross that's hard to move or they are afraid of fan backlash to trade the guy for expiring contracts if it's offered by a contender needing a quality 2nd/3rd option to their team. That though is where teams with good management separate themselves from teams with lesser quality management. Those with a smart GM would know that regardless if Redd was your best player at the time, he was nowhere near good enough to be worth paying a long term max contract to and making him your franchise player. Having the backbone to take the PR hit in letting Redd walk because you know Redd is only a quality second banana, not a star so don't saddle the franchise long term by paying him like a real star. Paying Redd was the easy way out at the time, but it came with bad long term concequences as we've seen and now we're still stuck with Redd eating up way to much financial flexibility and to make matters worse, the team added a second overpaid non-special wing player in Jefferson to further eat up financial flexibility.

 

I just hope that when Redd is FINALLY off the Bucks cap, along with Jeffersons bad contract, whoever is running the Bucks will have learned the lesson about players like those two. You don't sign non-special wings to huge money contracts or trade for them unless you have a star in place to then have a legit shot to contend. They simply aren't skilled enough to lead a team anywhere if they are your best player/players.

[jjfanec]

Nobody ranks Redd as a top 50 player. Off the top of my head, players that are better.

 

Wade

LeBron

Prince

Hamilton

Bogut

Pierce

Allen

Garnett

Carter

Harris

Butler

Howard

Duncan

Parker

Ginobili

Nash

Kidd

Dirk

Bryant

Gasol

Biedrins

Jefferson

Love

Roy

Aldridge

Durant

Carmelo

Billups

Nene

Deron Williams

Boozer

Millsap

Paul

 

That's 30+ players off the top of my head that are better than Redd.

Nene, Kidd, Prince, Milsap, Love are not better than Redd. Love racked up decent stats on a terrible team. Nene is a career 11 point 6 reb player. Kidd is washed-up. Prince is a good team player but I would not trade him for Redd any day (if contracts are similar), Milsap is a good player and in the future will be better than Redd.

I am pretty sure Redd could do what Ray Allen did for Boston the past two years with Garnett and Pierce. Rip Hamilton is not the same player he used to be.

 

That said Redd still is not in the top 20 players in the league right now. Redd is overpaid but he is still a very good player

[trwi7]

Nene, Kidd, Prince, Milsap, Love are not better than Redd. Love racked up decent stats on a terrible team. Nene is a career 11 point 6 reb player. Kidd is washed-up. Prince is a good team player but I would not trade him for Redd any day (if contracts are similar), Milsap is a good player and in the future will be better than Redd.

Kidd is easily better than Redd, as is Millsap and Prince. Nene is incredibly efficient on offense and a much better defender than Redd. Fine, you may not agree on Love, I disagree. He's a monster rebounder as a rookie and as he gets older, he should improve his shooting.

 

Although I find your reason for Love not being as good as Redd hilarious. Love racked up decent stats on a terrible team as opposed to Redd who racked up decent stats on terrible teams.

[davego]

Some of these comparisons are difficult as the roles that players take on a team vary so much. Espically in the NBA where 'player-fit' seems to be so important.

 

If you have a good #2 guard you would want Kidd. But, if you have the point covered, obviously you would value Redd more as you need a shooter. Fun debate, but pretty subjective.

[jjfanec]

Nene, Kidd, Prince, Milsap, Love are not better than Redd. Love racked up decent stats on a terrible team. Nene is a career 11 point 6 reb player. Kidd is washed-up. Prince is a good team player but I would not trade him for Redd any day (if contracts are similar), Milsap is a good player and in the future will be better than Redd.

Kidd is easily better than Redd, as is Millsap and Prince. Nene is incredibly efficient on offense and a much better defender than Redd. Fine, you may not agree on Love, I disagree. He's a monster rebounder as a rookie and as he gets older, he should improve his shooting.

 

Although I find your reason for Love not being as good as Redd hilarious. Love racked up decent stats on a terrible team as opposed to Redd who racked up decent stats on terrible teams.

Your argument for Nene is weak. He is efficient on offense because he is a big guys whose job is to clean up the glass and and get rebounds. Their efficiency rankings are actually pretty similar.

 

Kidd is not easily better. He is as bad on defense and cannot shoot at all anymore. His assist numbers are good still but they are not in the elite level they used to be.

 

As for Love 11 points, 9 boards, 1 assist compared to 20 points 4 boards, 3 assists are not all that similar of numbers. Those are Redd's career numbers and his past few years have had a higher point total. I do think being on a bad team helps aid your stats and that is part of the reason Redd has had good numbers, but he put up much better numbers. This is why I say being on a bad team helped Loves numbers so much. They actually have similar shooting percentages which should not be the case for a guard against a low post player. For comparison Bogut's FG % was a full tenth of a point higher than Love's. That is a huge difference and points to a guy who is not a great offensive player getting more shot than he really should in my mind.

 

I could be way off but from the just watching the few games I do with these players that is my opinion, but like someone said in this thread these comparisons like a shooting guard to a forward are tough. I just think a lot of Bucks fans cannot stand Redd because of his contract and think he is not good because he is overpaid, but I think he is a very good (but not great and he is getting paid like a great player) player.