Reply With Quote
He's one of the best, if not the best, player on their team. We'd have to give up a lot before they considered trading him. Unrealistic trade at the moment.
Redd is a dead-eye shooter and a class act.
Scott Skiles is getting him to be more defensive minded this season.
The Bucks will probably be in a "sell mode" again at the deadline.
Do we have anything -- talent, expiring contracts, picks -- to give to Milwaukee to bring this steady shooter in?
He's one of the best, if not the best, player on their team. We'd have to give up a lot before they considered trading him. Unrealistic trade at the moment.
I don't see getting him for anyone outside of the Big Three.
In which case, not worth it.
The guys contract is friggin huge.....i would love to have him, great at ude, spurs kinda guy, but his contract is ridiculous.
He is actually owed 15 Million this year alone
C'mon man. Too much money. What's with all the knee-jerk acquisition possibilities?
THINK
Yeah, Redd's got almost 3 full years left on a deal that paid him $90 million over 6 years. He'll be in the $17 million - $18 million per season range in 09-10 and 10-11.
I wouldn't spend that amount of money on Redd in the summer of 2010. I've always thought the Bucks errored by giving him a max contract, when he's no where near being a max player. Fantastic shooter, but not a max player by any means. Good luck with that contract.
What would it take to get rid of dumb suggestions like this?
we would have to send out a minimum of ~12.6 mil in contracts to make it work. not feasible.
It would take Tony Parker.
First off, fvck you guys who criticize my question.
A suggestion is saying we should do it.
A question is asking "What would it take to get Michael Redd?"
Thank you to the few who answered intelligently.
Based on his contract alone, you are right in saying it would not be in the Spurs' best interest.
And Redd may be the best player on the Bucks, but he'd be the 3rd or 4th best on the Spurs.
This is why the Bucks aren't that good.
other than the fact that we can't get him..what player are you guys watching?..
Redd is one of the bigger ball-hogs in the NBA, doesn't play defense, and has been known as being a team cancer on the court with his shot selection and ball-hogging..
Ghost, apologies if you took offense to the retort. It's just that you're a knowledgeable poster. And it's obvious that you follow the NBA closely. I would just be surprised if you didn't already know that Redd was a max player. A player making about the same amout of jack as Wade, LeBron and others. A player who, while coveted, is too expensive for the Spurs roster.
Um, no.
That is not true.
Redd may be overpaid, but he's not a ball-hog or a jerk.
I don't think he's a jerk..I meant he's a team cancer on the court, which a lot of Bucks fans have told me..he IS a ball-hog though, I don't see how that's arguable..he also takes very questionable shots..of course he's talented enough to make a lot of these questionable shots, but Redd has still yet to buy into a team concept..it'll be interesting to see if he can under a new coach, but he looked like the same guy vs. Chicago in the opening game..
It's tough though, Heat37, because he is a gunner by nature and Redd has really no one besides R-Jeff to defer to on offense.
He requires a lot of shots, much like R. Miller or R. Allen in their primes.
I envision Redd someday as Ray Allen on the Celtics... he would not need to chuck up so many shots on a better team.
Outside of his shooting, Redd doesn't do much else in terms of affecting the game. It would help him if he played with a legitimate post player - just not our post player.
Senor, points taken.
Can I be considered "knee jerk" if I have been desperate for outside help for 15 years now?
Maybe just call me a "jerk."
I knew Redd's contract was big, but wasn't sure how many years. He is not worthy of a max contract in my opinion.
But he's a fine shooter and I think he'd be a valuable piece as a secondary star in the right situation.
I'll narrow my focus to the Daniel Gibson types.
Redd is good, better then good. But what help is he gonna do Timmy. Thats where we lose games in the 4th quarters if we stay around long enough. Why do people keep wanting to see our smalls get better when its Timmy who really needs the help. If your gonna go for a small then lets put Tony at the 2 and start looking for point guard. TP is great but 32points 5assits. That doesnt make your team better. It does bring alot of points. Dang its pretty simple what our needs are. Someone next to Timmy.
You already have the next best thing. He is RMJ. Look at the numbers and based on averages they are very similar in many ways.
The Bucks love to overpay people. They gave Bogut over 70 million....
Nah no attacks or name-calling here, my friend.
I've got no use for the misfits. The SGs in PGs bodies. I don't like guys like Damon Jones or Daniel Gibson. They're good shooters, but can't do much else. Specialists are fine, but me personally, I like guys that a bit more well-rounded. Guys that have other skills to fall back on - namely guys that have offense, yet can either defend or rebound or both. That's just me. I'm a bit surprised that Pop has made exceptions for the Finley's, the Stoudamires, the Van Exels of the world.
I think Pop makes the exceptions, because beggars can't be choosers.
It's difficult to find jack-of-all trades like James Posey.
I'd like to acquire Gerald Wallace in a few years, when he's tired of toiling for crappy teams and will be much more affordable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
