The Arguments against Redd explained through the use of stupid analogies
People are misunderstanding my argument against Michael Redd. Let me try to lay it out with odd analogies.
The "Perceived Value versus Real Value" argument against Redd
My brother had a Saab. He paid a relatively high amount for it. When it ran, it was okay, he got some head nods from passersby, not a lot. But the damn thing never ran. He also had a Ford Focus (I'm making all this up). Didnt pay alot for it. It ran beautifully, was pretty reliable, but had absolutely no cache.
One day my brother asked himself, was that little bit of cache he was getting from the Saab worth the price he was paying for it. It never ran... it didn't get the CENTRAL job done that a car must do to be worthwhile ( in my story cache is meant to be analagous to Redd's scoring numbers while the 'never running' part is meant to be analagous to his lack of 'Win Scoring'... Geez I'm explaining the analogys... I aint exactly Sir Winston Churchill.)
Now, my brother says to himself... there's alot of suckers out there who will pay too much for my Saab, but would probably only give me market value for my Focus. Hmmm, perhaps I can sell the Saab (ie "his overvalued asset") to some sucker who would be willing to give me something more than it is worth. Gee, I would be much better off. I will have cut ties with my expensive, OVERVALUED ASSET, and gained some productive assets... assets that can help the Bucks win a Championship.
That's why I want to trade Redd. I like driving him around on Friday night, but geez I can't pay through the nose for that little return. And, alot of people think Saab's are sweet, so they may be dumb enough to give me too much back (in terms of Win Production) for him.
Hell, the Pistons traded one of the NBA's best Win Contributors, for like 4 seasons running, for a mediocre Win Contributor who basically volume scores and runs his mouth and I guess doesn't like to practice.
So opportunites are there. Oh, one final point.
Even if we only get market value back for Redd... and this is actually a HUGE POINT, he plays a position that's pretty easy to replace with a pretty decent player... so EVEN IF WE BLOW THE TRADE... no big whoop... PLUS... Redd's monster contract is off the books.
The "Distribution of Basketball Talent" argument against Redd
Let's say there's a ton of electricians in the area and most of them are slightly below average, average, or slightly above average, with some being supertalented (Kobe) and some not so good (Ben Gordon). Meaning there is a low standard distribution (am I saying that right? I actually avoided statistics in college... i'm self taught -- like Lincoln... or, ... not like Lincoln). On the other hand, there's just slightly less plumbers in the area, but they vary wildly in talent, with few being average, many being way below average, a handful being above average and then a few being superb. Meaning there's a high standard deviation. Just play along with me, I know its dumb.
Who's more valuable? A slightly above average electrician or a slightly above average plumber? The plumber, obviously, because if you lose him you risk getting stuck with something horrible. Whereas if you lose the slightly above average electrician, you can replace him with someone who can do a reasonably good job.
Redd and his fellow perimeter players are the electricians. Big men and point guards are the plumbers. Why in the world would you offer a slightly above average electrician a maximum contract? Yeah, he'll do a nice job, but your distribution of resources is f%%d.