Woelfel on trade rumors (Redd on block)

[jeremyd236]

But do you realize what you just posted? Top 30 in the NBA in FGA/game? No ****. There's 30 teams in the NBA....I'd bet that around 26 teams have a player in the top 30 in FGA/game. He's our leading scorer and he takes the most shots per game on our team. I'd only make sense that he's top 30 in the league, thanks.

Ahhh the good ole' PPG argument with absolutely no consideration for efficiency. Allen Iverson must be one of the best players of all time in your opinion, eh?

Okay now seriously, I'm beginning to question your reading and comprehension abilities. I'm going to lay this out for you nice and easy now.

There are 30 teams in the NBA. Your "stat" to show that Redd is "killing us" is that he's 26th in the NBA in FGA/game. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT REDD IS NOT KILLING US. He's the leading scorer on our team, and there are 30 teams in the NBA. Now I'm not saying that every team in the NBA has one of the top 30 FGA/game players in the NBA, but it's pretty close. 26th in the NBA in FGA/game and leading your team in scoring MIGHT go hand in hand. THINK ABOUT IT.

I am arguing that that is a STUPID stat to use. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT REDD IS GOOD. Do you understand this now? Please get it. I don't know how else to lay this out for you dude. No matter what I say you seem to think that I am saying Redd is a good player. I'm saying that that stat does not mean anything, but he is still playing very badly this year.

I'm not sure where you're coming with Allen Iverson...?? I don't get how that has anything to do with what we're talking about, but if that's how you intpreted it then I can't do anything about it.

[Joana]

And thanks for calling only me out when half the board was going crazy over Ridnour, by the way.

LOL. I'm sorry, it's nothing personal. You were the one I caught applying the same reasoning to Redd.

Let's see how he is shooting a few more games from now. He has been shooting 45-45% a lot lately, if he regresses back to his career average of 40%, that isn't going to be good, and he will deserve criticism again.

Oh, I'm pretty confident he'll regress to something around his career average. A little bit higher, a little bit lower. Let's hope for the former.

Again, to be clear, never said Redd wouldn't improve his fg%, but if you don't expect me to bitch after our "elite" scorer is officially shooting below 40% on the season, you should probably put me on ignore. When he does well, he will get praise from me.

Calling a player out for sucking over a specific period of time, and then praising them when they do well is not flip flopping or being wrong, its calling it as I see it.

Yeah, maybe I was just criticizing the "bitching". Saying that "Its possible that he's already un-movable at this point!!!!" strikes me as silly. Coaches and GMs don't take decisions like that: Skiles wouldn't bench Ridnour because his shot wasn't falling, Hammond won't make a panic move because Redd's shot is well bellow his career average.

[emunney]

jeremy: Stop getting angry that you don't understand his argument. It's the combination of the two things that's hurting us so badly: 1) he's shooting a very low percentage, and 2) he's taking a lot of shots. If either of those things were not true, he would not be killing us.

[InsideOut]

Don't bother Reddzone...the rest of us know what you are saying. Redd shoots a lot and misses a lot. That is a bad combo and hurts the teams.

[REDDzone]

Jeremy: so angry yet so ineffective, as usual.

There are 30 teams in the NBA. Your "stat" to show that Redd is "killing us" is that he's 26th in the NBA in FGA/game. He's the leading scorer on our team, and there are 30 teams in the NBA. Now I'm not saying that every team in the NBA has one of the top 30 FGA/game players in the NBA, but it's pretty close. 26th in the NBA in FGA/game and leading your team in scoring MIGHT go hand in hand. THINK ABOUT IT.

I don't even know what this has to do with anything. I don't care. I never challenged this at all. Are you feeling okay?

I am arguing that that is a STUPID stat to use. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT REDD IS GOOD. Do you understand this now? Please get it. I don't know how else to lay this out for you dude. No matter what I say you seem to think that I am saying Redd is a good player. I'm saying that that stat does not mean anything, but he is still playing very badly this year.

I don't even care about the stat. I get it. I don't know what made you think I didn't get it. You think the stat is stupid, sweet.

I'm not sure where you're coming with Allen Iverson...?? I don't get how that has anything to do with what we're talking about, but if that's how you intpreted it then I can't do anything about it.

I brought up Iverson in reference to you calling Redd our leading scorer. My point is, he is our leading scorer in terms of PPG only. But he isn't our best or most efficient scorer at the moment. That's where the Iverson comment came in (just the first inefficient, volume scorer I thought of off the top of my head). You justify it like he is our leading scorer so of course he gets more shots; when in reality he gets more shots, so he is our leading scorer. See the difference?

Its ironic that you continue to insult me and talk down to me despite the fact that it is you who doesn't understand the argument.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT REDD IS NOT KILLING US.

The universe may end soon. Jeremyd just admitted Redd is killing the Bucks. Congrats man. I forgive you for the insults.

[REDDzone]

"Yeah, maybe I was just criticizing the "bitching". Saying that "Its possible that he's already un-movable at this point!!!!" strikes me as silly. Coaches and GMs don't take decisions like that: Skiles wouldn't bench Ridnour because his shot wasn't falling, Hammond won't make a panic move because Redd's shot is well bellow his career average."

Listen, I thought we were getting a cheap Carl Landry for an expiring CV, I have a right to bitch, okay?



And I don't think Redd is "un-movable", in the literal sense. With that said, I don't think his value was ever THAT high, and its at an all time low right now. I doubt if we could get a good prospect and an expiring for Redd at this point is what I meant.

To join both discussions, hopefully Ridnour keeps up his shooting pace, Redd reverts back to his '06 pace (assuming no trade), and we steal a few games in the playoffs.

[jeremyd236]

jeremy: Stop getting angry that you don't understand his argument. It's the combination of the two things that's hurting us so badly: 1) he's shooting a very low percentage, and 2) he's taking a lot of shots. If either of those things were not true, he would not be killing us.

No, I understand completely that it was the combination that Redd takes the most shots on our team and that he shoots a bad %. I get that.

But what I also get is the Bucks record this year when Redd plays compared to when he doesn't play. I know we shoot a higher % as a team when Redd plays. I know we shoot a higher 3 pt% when Redd plays. I know we average more PPG.

So, explain that. Yes, I know Redd is shooting poorly. But is it possible that a player can impact a game beyond his direct stats? It must possible, because there's got to be a way the way the Bucks have played this season with and without Redd. Of course it may be coincidence, and I can pretty much guarantee that that's what the Redd haters will say.

And no I won't admit that the Redd is killing the Bucks until they have a better record without him than with him and until we shoot a higher % in games that he doesn't play.

Because I think it's exactly like Skiles says. Even when Redd plays poorly (which he has almost every game this season), he impacts the Bucks in more ways than any direct stat towards him would indicate. Where is the stat that indicates the spacing provided to the Bucks when he simply steps on the court? Where's the stat that shows how many double teams he draws ever single possession?

Now I'm not defending Redd. He has played very badly and if we get a good offer, I want to pull the trigger. But you just can't say he's "killing" the Bucks. He isn't killing the Bucks more than anyone else except probably Bogut. The fact remains that we have a higher win % when he plays. I don't see the killing in that.

[emunney]

Essentially what you're saying is that Redd is better than Charlie Bell. Great?

[REDDzone]

A solid post Jeremy, not sure why you couldn't have said all that from the start, as opposed to hurling personal attacks and dissing stats (although you agreed with what the stats were meant to convey, which was confusing).

I admit I have been kind of emotional about Redd lately (you and Joana have both helped me see that). I don't mean he is literally killing this team. You know I am a big believer in winscores and all that jazz, so you know my judgments are similarly linked to them due to the value I place on efficiency, turnovers, etc. Based on that, Redd isn't even a negative contributor. He is probably one of our worst investments dollar wise per production, but still, he is just a below average player.

I have just watched the Bucks go through a couple of horrible offensive performances lately, performances that I had (probably irrationally) convinced myself shouldn't be quite as bad once Redd returned, due to his elite eliteness (smile). But I'm just seeing too many horrible shooting nights. 7-25, 5-13, 7-20, 2-13, 5-12 in his last 5, that's a tough pill to swallow for a guy supposedly designated as our offensive weapon and paid a max contract to be so.

As for why we play so much more poorly with Redd off the court, well I suspect it has something to do with his replacement, Charlie Bell, being absurdly horrible (a negative contributor, an example of someone who literally does kill the team if given enough minutes).

[Ill-yasova]

No, you were wrong by saying that Sessions was much better, that Ridnour should be benched, that he was an horrific player, etc. To sum it up, you were wrong by drawing too many conclusions from a very small sample of a single aspect of a player's game. Every time a player shoots badly that's bad for the team; however coaches can't just sitting every body who has bad shooting periods - as long as it's only a slump.

A year and 15-20 games is quite a long time for a slump, no? And thanks for calling only me out when half the board was going crazy over Ridnour, by the way.

One shouldn't talk about players that one doesn't even know.

Ridnour was terrible at the beginning of the season and deserved to be called out for it. I don't blame you at all.

[BDUB_30]

No, you were wrong by saying that Sessions was much better, that Ridnour should be benched, that he was an horrific player, etc. To sum it up, you were wrong by drawing too many conclusions from a very small sample of a single aspect of a player's game. Every time a player shoots badly that's bad for the team; however coaches can't just sitting every body who has bad shooting periods - as long as it's only a slump.

A year and 15-20 games is quite a long time for a slump, no? And thanks for calling only me out when half the board was going crazy over Ridnour, by the way.

One shouldn't talk about players that one doesn't even know.

Ridnour was terrible at the beginning of the season and deserved to be called out for it. I don't blame you at all.

a guy playing injured doesnt deserved to be called out ...get some perspective .


luke was coming out of the games and going to lay down on the court ...the guy had tears in his eyes a few times ...


maybe the bucks never get good players because when we do get guys that work hard we " call them out " for playing injured .


and save the " IF HES OUT THERE PLAYING THEN HES NOT INJURED " rhetoric ...taking into concideration the backup situation ,its not like we had much of a choice .. turns out sessions makes a better shooting guard then he does a pg .

[Ill-yasova]

Maybe the injury was his only problem. Then again his stats last year were very consistent with what he did at the beginning of this year. That said, I like the way he has played recently and look forward to seeing him continue this level of play.

[trwi7]

And no I won't admit that the Redd is killing the Bucks until they have a better record without him than with him and until we shoot a higher % in games that he doesn't play.

I don't buy this argument. You have to look at which other teams we have played with and without Redd and how good/bad those teams were. You also have to look to see if any of our other key players were missing. For example, we lost two games where we were without Redd, but also without Bogut. It's likely we were going to lose those games unless we were playing Oklahoma City or Minnesota or someone like that.

Just look at our opponents winning percentage in games where Redd played (.456) compared to when he hasn't played (.602) and it's easy to see why we're 9-8 with Redd and 5-9 without him.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

A solid post Jeremy, not sure why you couldn't have said all that from the start, as opposed to hurling personal attacks and dissing stats (although you agreed with what the stats were meant to convey, which was confusing).

I admit I have been kind of emotional about Redd lately (you and Joana have both helped me see that). I don't mean he is literally killing this team. You know I am a big believer in winscores and all that jazz, so you know my judgments are similarly linked to them due to the value I place on efficiency, turnovers, etc. Based on that, Redd isn't even a negative contributor. He is probably one of our worst investments dollar wise per production, but still, he is just a below average player.

I have just watched the Bucks go through a couple of horrible offensive performances lately, performances that I had (probably irrationally) convinced myself shouldn't be quite as bad once Redd returned, due to his elite eliteness (smile). But I'm just seeing too many horrible shooting nights. 7-25, 5-13, 7-20, 2-13, 5-12 in his last 5, that's a tough pill to swallow for a guy supposedly designated as our offensive weapon and paid a max contract to be so.

As for why we play so much more poorly with Redd off the court, well I suspect it has something to do with his replacement, Charlie Bell, being absurdly horrible (a negative contributor, an example of someone who literally does kill the team if given enough minutes).

I told you all that he is on the decline a long time ago.

The Bucks are the only franchise who pay the wrong players and then hold onto them too long, or get rid of the wrong ones (Ray Allen) and then go and keep the ones they should launch!

They stand pat in a draft when they should move down, or keep the pick when they should trade the pick, and trade the pick when they should keep it (Traylor/Nowitzki pre-arranged deal).

But the apologists tried to convince themselves things would not get better once Redd came back and they got healthy and the schedule got better...It has not. They are what they are.

Once teams learn what they are doing and learn how to prepare for them and match their pay and flip a switch at the right time like detriot they will beat them like a drum when it will come down to talent...

You can get by and fool teams for 5-10 games or so....but sooner or later all that evens out. A team should look at Ridnour, a rookie Moute and Redd and lick their chops every night!

You must upgrade the level level and get better players or just completely break the team down now...and do it over while I am still mildly interested...

[InsideOut]

jeremy: Stop getting angry that you don't understand his argument. It's the combination of the two things that's hurting us so badly: 1) he's shooting a very low percentage, and 2) he's taking a lot of shots. If either of those things were not true, he would not be killing us.

No, I understand completely that it was the combination that Redd takes the most shots on our team and that he shoots a bad %. I get that.

But what I also get is the Bucks record this year when Redd plays compared to when he doesn't play. I know we shoot a higher % as a team when Redd plays. I know we shoot a higher 3 pt% when Redd plays. I know we average more PPG.

So, explain that. Yes, I know Redd is shooting poorly. But is it possible that a player can impact a game beyond his direct stats? It must possible, because there's got to be a way the way the Bucks have played this season with and without Redd. Of course it may be coincidence, and I can pretty much guarantee that that's what the Redd haters will say.

And no I won't admit that the Redd is killing the Bucks until they have a better record without him than with him and until we shoot a higher % in games that he doesn't play.

Because I think it's exactly like Skiles says. Even when Redd plays poorly (which he has almost every game this season), he impacts the Bucks in more ways than any direct stat towards him would indicate. Where is the stat that indicates the spacing provided to the Bucks when he simply steps on the court? Where's the stat that shows how many double teams he draws ever single possession?

Now I'm not defending Redd. He has played very badly and if we get a good offer, I want to pull the trigger. But you just can't say he's "killing" the Bucks. He isn't killing the Bucks more than anyone else except probably Bogut. The fact remains that we have a higher win % when he plays. I don't see the killing in that.

You are absolutely hilarious and the biggest flip-flopper ever. A few weeks back I said the Bucks were better off without Redd. I pointed out the Bucks had a better winning percentage without Redd from the start of last season until 20ish games into this season You said my argument was stupid. You said the sample size of 1.25 seasons was way too small. You also said I needed to look at all easy teams we beat without Redd. Now here you are 2 weeks later using the same argument you called stupid only you're using an even smaller sample size. Please explain why you now using the same argument you labeled stupid two weeks ago doesn't make you the biggest flip-flopper here. I'd love to hear your answer to this but my guess is you'll ignore it and hope it goes away. As far as why your point hold no water, emunney and Trwi7 have it covered.

[xTitan]

And no I won't admit that the Redd is killing the Bucks until they have a better record without him than with him and until we shoot a higher % in games that he doesn't play.

I don't buy this argument. You have to look at which other teams we have played with and without Redd and how good/bad those teams were. You also have to look to see if any of our other key players were missing. For example, we lost two games where we were without Redd, but also without Bogut. It's likely we were going to lose those games unless we were playing Oklahoma City or Minnesota or someone like that.

Just look at our opponents winning percentage in games where Redd played (.456) compared to when he hasn't played (.602) and it's easy to see why we're 9-8 with Redd and 5-9 without him.

You are actually missing the biggest point, if Redd is gone there will be at least one and maybe 2 players taking his place, who knows how good they would be and what they might bring to the table. They would have some talent because the Senator is not blowing this up again and starting from scratch, if that is done this franchise won't survive in Milwaukee.

[SupremeHustle]

UPDATE: Mihm says he'd rather be a practice player in LA than play any minutes in Milwaukee.

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_11326918

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

If Redd were simply dumped for expiring contracts, it wouldn't neccesarily mean starting from scratch. It would mean that for the next five months we'd be without our 4th best player (or whatever Redd is), but in this coming off-season we could use the MLE to immediatly replace some of what we lost (and still save money overall).

On the other hand, if we don't trade Redd for expiring deals, it might mean that we don't have funds to re-sign Sessions this summer for the $5+ million that he will likely command.

I could see it going either way, but it's at least possible that dumping Redd is as much a win-now (now meaning next year) move as not dumping him.

[trwi7]

You are actually missing the biggest point, if Redd is gone there will be at least one and maybe 2 players taking his place, who knows how good they would be and what they might bring to the table. They would have some talent because the Senator is not blowing this up again and starting from scratch, if that is done this franchise won't survive in Milwaukee.

True. I've made that point before, but I was mainly going for the rebuttal on jeremy's post and the point I made made the most sense to counter his argument.

But yeah, also, getting out from under Redd's salary would be huge and getting replacements would be as well. Especially since we weren't getting blown out by 30 when Redd was out and with players we hypothetically would acquire for Redd, we would have more depth to use if a player is having an off night so we wouldn't have to play him as much.

[jeremyd236]

A solid post Jeremy, not sure why you couldn't have said all that from the start, as opposed to hurling personal attacks and dissing stats (although you agreed with what the stats were meant to convey, which was confusing).

I admit I have been kind of emotional about Redd lately (you and Joana have both helped me see that). I don't mean he is literally killing this team. You know I am a big believer in winscores and all that jazz, so you know my judgments are similarly linked to them due to the value I place on efficiency, turnovers, etc. Based on that, Redd isn't even a negative contributor. He is probably one of our worst investments dollar wise per production, but still, he is just a below average player.

I have just watched the Bucks go through a couple of horrible offensive performances lately, performances that I had (probably irrationally) convinced myself shouldn't be quite as bad once Redd returned, due to his elite eliteness (smile). But I'm just seeing too many horrible shooting nights. 7-25, 5-13, 7-20, 2-13, 5-12 in his last 5, that's a tough pill to swallow for a guy supposedly designated as our offensive weapon and paid a max contract to be so.

As for why we play so much more poorly with Redd off the court, well I suspect it has something to do with his replacement, Charlie Bell, being absurdly horrible (a negative contributor, an example of someone who literally does kill the team if given enough minutes).

I didn't mean to get personal, just having a bad day yesterday.

But anyways, I like your post and agree. It seems like every single night Redd is shooting very poorly. Even when we win and he leads us in scoring, he shoots under 50% which doesn't directly benefit our team.

But I just feel like Redd spaces out the court and leaves a lot of guys with open looks. I think we all know this.

And I don't think it's fair to judge Redd based on just his stats because players can bring more to the game than just what the stats show. We brought RJ in here for leadership and toughness, not just his 20 ppg.

But I still think Redd should go when we get the right offer. Realistically, I think Redd could be traded for somebody that can help the Bucks this season (or maybe just expirings/pick). I don't know if his value is as low as what somebody on here are thinking. Hopefully it isnt.