Bucks Diary

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Should we really get rid of Michael Redd?


You know a thought came into my head the other day (it occasionally happens). If the Bucks are just going to trade Michael Redd to trade him, wouldn't they essentially be making the same mistake Kevin McHale is kicking himself for making?

McHale got back some decent players in the Garnett deal, but he sure didn't get back equal value. And in an honest moment I'll bet he'd tell you the only reason he traded Garnett was to quiet the media's "he deserves to be traded to a winner" whining (which is ALWAYS followed a year later by "that was a stupid trade!" rebukes. Yet GMs fall for it all the time).

Wouldn't it be more prudent to hold onto Redd, and see if Scott Skiles can mold him back into the all-around offensive and aggressive defensive player that he once was?

After all, what will we realistically get in return for Redd? I can't find any really mouthwatering cap friendly deals. And what sense does it make to just dump him? And I don't want to hear about "cap room" either because cap room is useless for a team like the Bucks because free agents don't want to play here (its the old horse to water problem).

In my mind, Danny Ainge did it the right way. You build a winner by hanging onto your best players and trying to lure in an All-Star that has rode his course with another team.

To do that, you dangle guys the superstar would make redundant (like Al Jefferson), guys that have "eyeball value" but no real talent (Telfair, Gerald Green), and then maybe a decent player or two that you probably want to keep but will grudgingly part with (Gomes).

That's how you put together a winner. Not by casting talent off. You make some clever deals to bring it in.

And the Bucks have the right kind of "semi-valuable" players to make that kind of deal appealing to a desperate GM, too. I can think of a few players on the Bucks roster who might have what I call "overvalue" in the trading market. (Last year I suggested who some of these Tier 2 candidates were and everyone went ballistic. So I'm keeping quiet this time.) But I'm telling you, that's how you build a winner. You give as little as you can and get back as much as someone will offer. Trading Redd would be doing things the other way around.

2 Comments:

At June 14, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Anonymous paulpressey25 said...

I think the obvious guys available are any of the Pistons, Marion, Brand, Josh Howard.

I'm ok with trying for those guys. But I think you have to also hang onto Bogut.

Yi however is the guy we'd have to part with IMO to get the type of guy you want, along with pick #8.

 
At June 14, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, let's not trade Michael Redd for the sake of simply mkaing a trade. However, the team needs leadership and Redd is NOT the answer; will he bow out of that role gracefully? And perhaps let Bogut take the reigns? Secondly, I've heard Michael Redd's name used in the same sentance as Kevin Garnett too many times and though I understand you are simply making a comparison of the trades and not the players, let's please leave their names out of the same topic of conversation.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home