[ESPN] Redd Agrees to re-sign with Bucks for 6 years

where is the drama. We need someone to rock the boat.

 

I don't think he is worth a max deal. Good player, but max deal...?

 

This is bad news. Now Cleveland will go after Simmons, SAR & Daniels. Dever get Mobley. NJ gets Marshall. Atlanta get Swift. NY gets Walker.

Houston gets no one

 

Man, these fools are getting some serious cash...

Even the scrubs are getting paid:

Scalabrine from the Nets

 

Man, that is totally wacked! $96 million??
I think the Bucks front office has officially gone completely 'round the bend. Just insane!

 

Definitely hurts the SG market this offseason. Now that Allen and Redd are gone teams are going to turn to Simmons, Mobley, and Hughes. And they're probably going to get overpaid.

If that is the case, I'd rather the Rockets stick with Wesley for another year, unless they find someone under the radar that will fit. I'd rather have Wesley than Finley or Spreewell, personally.

 

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. $96million for Michael Redd is a joke. But you can't really fault the Bucks. What are they supposed to do? They can't just let their best player go for nothing. It really is an unavoidable vicious cycle. There are only a few players in the league truly worthy of max dollars, so this poses a serious dilemma. Do you just stay in the vicious cycle of rebuilding while hoping to land a max-worthy player or do you overpay to keep your guys and then risk future mediocrity? It's almost impossible to build a team of quality players with less than max deals such as Detroit because most of these guys don't settle for anything less than the max. This is why Houston is so fortunate to have two max-worthy players.

2. I think fans really overrate the "playing for a winning team" or "playing with Lebron James." Though the losing can take a toll on you, it's just a job. At the end of the day, would you really turn down an extra $20 million? With that said...

3. I'm disappointed by this signing. As a fan of the NBA, I'm a fan of Lebron. He's got a great head on his shoulders and it's in the NBA's best interests that he succeed. With their top two targets down, the Cavs will probably now waste their money on some unworthy player like SAR who won't help much.

4. Is there any doubt that David Stern is the best commissioner in sports? He absolutely stepped in and SAVED the league almost 10 years ago after Garnett's record deal. Do you really think a team like Milwaukee would have any chance to keep its guy under the old rules? Now, unless a team and a player disagree on his value (such as Stromile Swift last year), every team has the opportunity to keep its guys.

 

HAHAHA 96 MILLION... HAHHAA LMAO!!! 96 MILLION FOR REDD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

23 points, 4.2 rebounds and 2.3 assists Gets you 96 MILLION??? I guess Cat should be up there in a few years too...

BTW, great post thacabbage..

 

Is there any other career that is better than a Pro Sports player? You get the glory, the bucks, the Ladies, and you work less time than a school teacher.

Good for Redd. I never understood why people hate on a player who gets paid. He may not be worth it, market-wise, but he got his.

J

 

Redd definitely got the Bucks.

 

And at 30 years of age, Ray Allen got a 5 year $85 million deal.

23.9 ppg, 4.4 rpg, & 3.7 apg

These apparently are the kind of numbers being given out this year.

Maybe, Mobley was smarter than he's being given credit for by opt'ing out of his contract.

 

That is crazy. We knew it would happen, but that's CRA-zy, CRA-zy.

He'll make $20,000,000 five years from now, and unless Milwaukee can trade him in a few years before he hits that number, the Bucks are going to bemoan that contract.

Not that free agents want to go there, but still.

 

Bad news all around.

Bad for the Bucks because Redd's a good player but not good enough to build a team around. Now, they've locked up a lot of their money in him and won't be able to add much after Bogut (from whom I'm not expecting a whole lot).

Bad for Redd because even though he got his money, he's trapped on a team that will be mediocre for a long time. He could have made big bucks (though not as big) playing for a team that could actually become pretty good.

Bad for Cleveland because even though Redd isn't good enough to carry a team, he'd be great as a second option next to James, who can certainly carry a team. They can still get someone good, but Redd was the ideal fit.

Bad for Houston, because it puts Cleveland on the FA market with a lot of money to spend and a decent reputation to help draw players. It'll make CD's work that much harder. If Redd had bolted, Milwaukee would have had money to offer, but FAs wouldn't be as attracted to them as they'd be to Cleveland. Plus, Cleveland has more space under the cap than Milwaukee does.

 

Sportscenter showed the results of an ESPN Sports Nation poll question the other day about Redd either staying with Milwaukee for $92 mil, or playing for $70 mil in Cleveland with Lebron. They broke it down by state and every state in the US other than Wisconsin had a majority voting for Redd to go play with Lebron for less money. I laughed out loud when I saw that, knowing very well that if the voters were in Redd's shoes, at least 80% of people would take the $92 mil contract over the $70 mil contract + James. It's easy for us to tell someone else to take less money so that they can be on a better team, but when you are young and have an opportunity to sign your first big money contract at $92 mil or $70 mil... you take the $92 mil.

 

just another factor that will ultimately see Lebron in a jersey other than Cleveland's when he's able to test the market.

 

The sad part is that Redd and Bogut is probably the third best center/guard combo in the East after Miami and Detroit!

 

Agreed. Cleveland can now do what they should have in the first place: pursue Simmons, Stromile....hopefully Hughes, et al.