I read the other day that Michael Redd was seriously considering joining the Cavs in the off season, when he will be an unrestricted free agent. On first thought, I thought this would be a great signing for the Cavs. They really need a legit 2 (no offense, Snow and Ira) that can shoot the 3. Everyone knows this. But, I realized that I have some concerns about this. 1, I am not convinced that Redd is a max player. I think GMs are too liberal in giving out max contracts. Since there is no "Supermax" contract, this would in essense mean that Redd is in the same league as TMac, Kobe, and other "max" players. The problem for Cleveland is, if they don't offer the max, someone else will. Maybe Redd will want to play in Cleveland bad enough that he's willing to take a paycut. But in today's L, I doubt it. If they are able to sign Z to a reasonable contract (8 mil range), they can offer Redd the max. Problem is, if they do that, they don't have the $ to re-sign McInnis. I think he is a key player on this team, and it would really hurt them to lose him. So, should they still pursue Redd, or someone like Joe Johnson? JJ is also free at the end of the season, and he is shooting 51% from 3. He is also young and athletic, and would mesh well with Lebron and Gooden, they could really run up and down the floor. He won't command a max like Redd, and that would allow them to sign Z (8mil), JJ (7-8mil), and McInnis (remaining 5 mil). Doesn't this sound like a better option? McInnis, JJ, Lebron, Gooden, and Z is not a bad starting 5.
to me this seems a little hard to discuss not knowing what each players reaction will be to a certain contract that cleveland could offer. I mean i think players should just get the neccesity caliber contract. and by that a contract that is legitimate and will allow them to be financially stable enough to provide for their family. I mean that way teams could have a legitimate chance of building a good team, alla the pistons. And if the staff of the bobcats stick to their plan of not maxing anyone contracts they could be very good also. i think teams should stand up to these players and just let these players know that they are interested in their talents but they are not about to give them ridicolous contracts to make them feel good. and just let those same players go sign with crappy teams that will remain crappy with an overpaid superstar if that player decides to play on another team. i mean i think players will eventually start realizing how much those huge contracts hurt their teams in the longrun i mean especially considering how all these guys supposedly want to get a ring. One person can't win games all by themselves just ask allen iverson. And a perfect example of a team that is hurt by huge contracts would be the Knicks. so peace be easy, Quickness
Well this is how I see it.. We can pick up Z's contract next year but we will lose McInnis for Redd. But having Redd is a lot more valueable then having McInnis because we still have Snow. But then you said about Redd taking Max.. he is not a max player and I dont think he would get it. He may get it from a sucky team but he made it clear he wants to be on a winning team. I like JJ, if we can't get Redd then I say we go for him. But we just have to wait and see because a lot of stuff can happen.
I like Redd, but he's not worth the max if that's what he wants. Ray Allen, now he might be worth it.
Considering the contracts that have been handed out lately, any player you're going to get will be getting a lot of money.
I think they should go after Joe Johnson, rather then Redd. The first reason is, Redd is an all-star player, so he will likely request all-star money. If the Cavs sign him to a big contract then that leaves the little cap room to sign their other current players. On the other hand the Cavs should be able to sign Johnson to a cheaper contract because he isn?t all-star level, yet. Not to mention if you think about Johnson is a better all around player, he can do a little bit of everything and is a hardworking player.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Quickness:</div><div class="quote_post"> I mean i think players should just get the neccesity caliber contract. and by that a contract that is legitimate and will allow them to be financially stable enough to provide for their family. I mean that way teams could have a legitimate chance of building a good team, alla the pistons. And if the staff of the bobcats stick to their plan of not maxing anyone contracts they could be very good also. i think teams should stand up to these players and just let these players know that they are interested in their talents but they are not about to give them ridicolous contracts to make them feel good. i mean i think players will eventually start realizing how much those huge contracts hurt their teams in the longrun i mean especially considering how all these guys supposedly want to get a ring. One person can't win games all by themselves just ask allen iverson. And a perfect example of a team that is hurt by huge contracts would be the Knicks. </div> 1. A necessity calliber contract? you have GOT to be kidding me. you want superstar basketball players to take a pay cut to the point where they can 'provide for their families'...first of all...if a basketball player is LUCKY...he can play for 10 years. so even a player making a million dollars a year for a period of 10 years, isnt in great shape to be able to provide for his family for the rest of his life. keep in mind, these players have paid staff...their agents, their lawyers, their pr people, the list goes on and on... 2. Are you feeling bad for the owners here? Last year, Sterling profited over 30 million dollars as the owner of the Clippers. That is more than any NBA player was paid last season AND that was after he had already paid off all his staff. This is a business, don't ever think that the NBA is still 'a game'. It is a profit driven business. Owners pay these players because doing so, makes them money, not because it makes the players feel good. 3. The bobcats will not be good if they stick to their plan of never maxing anyone. Ask the Clippers. They will be profitable, but not good. Unless you get lucky and have a rookie lead your team to a championship ala. Tim Duncan, you won't be good without maxing players. 4. Winning a ring. Yup, its nice. But these players have to keep their financial interests in mind. Guys like Karl Malone, pursued a ring in teh right way. Made sure his financial interests were taken care of in his pursuit of a ring in Utah. Then when it became clear it wasnt going to happen, took a monster pay cut to try and win one in LA. Hopefully he'll give it another shot in SA this year. That's acceptable. He can still contribute to a squad, but not be the lead guy anymore. But while he was still capable of being a lead guy...why would he play for a million bucks a year? that would be plain stupid. 5. The knicks are not a team that is hurt by huge contracts. The Knicks were mainly hurt by the restructuring of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. Get your facts straight. They are still feeling the ill effects of maxing out so many players when you could still give ridiculous contracts at will. Now, because of salary cap restriction restructuring, they are left up the creek without a paddle. The knicks were hurt more by a restructuring of the rules then by their big contracts, because when those big contracts were signed, they werent gonna damage the team in the long run. 6. Like i said before, the NBA is a BUSINESS. the players are their key employees. the players are the ones who bring in all the revenue. they deserve to be paid accordingly. like any business, if you want the top calliber people in your organization, you have to be willing to pay them what they're worth (and that should be based around how much money they are bringing in to the company). I get tired of people bitching about how and why other people are making so much money. People say Wal-Mart is awful and their big shots up top screw everyone and anyone to make billions of dollars for themselves. Well shut up and stop shopping there then. If everyone was willing to pay the extra 4 cents for whateverz at their local mom and pop shop, wal-mart wouldnt exist. Bottom line is...Wal-Mart provides a convenient place to shop with the best prices and have one of the most amazing infrastructures and distribution systems in the world. Starbucks, you have a problem with them putting the local coffee shops out of business...dont buy your coffee there...same story...just like wal-mart, and your local mom and pop shops...they started with one store. Basketball players. If you don't like what they are getting paid, and you don't like their contract demands...then heres a simple suggestion for you...stop going to their games, stop buying their jerseys, stop buying their shoes, stop buying the products they endorse, stop talking about them on the internet, stop watching them on tv...because as long as you continue to do all those things, they are bringing in revenue for the NBA and their owners...and they are earning every penny they are being paid.
Well SC Brian just summed it up, I still find it funny that some people still don't realize the NBA is all a business though, I mean what do you think an owner would rather have, a team that is always in playoff contention and always looks like they'll go that extra mile, and attract fans etc, but never win, or a team that wins one year and 2 years later sucks? The Owners care more about profit than championships, championships are a bonus for them because it brings more money, but whenever they talk about "being dedicated to winning" etc, it obviously just to make the fans happy. Seriously some owners could care less if they lose for 14 years straight, but people keep coming to watch the games and buy jersey's etc.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SCBrian:</div><div class="quote_post"> 1. A necessity calliber contract? you have GOT to be kidding me. you want superstar basketball players to take a pay cut to the point where they can 'provide for their families'...first of all...if a basketball player is LUCKY...he can play for 10 years. so even a player making a million dollars a year for a period of 10 years, isnt in great shape to be able to provide for his family for the rest of his life. keep in mind, these players have paid staff...their agents, their lawyers, their pr people, the list goes on and on... </div> First of all the average salary in the NBA is around 4.9 million, so if they were to play for 10 years, that is 49 million. Lets say that they play for 5 years, then that would be about 25 mill. If they were to retire at that point in time, they could live off anual interest, at 4% they would make a million. If the contracts were smaller though, it would increase competitiveness to stay in the league, and if you weren't performing up to expectations they could dump buy out your contract and get a new player. Just to respond to Quickness, you can win with a couple of great players. Shaq and Kobe did it three times. and the Knicks gave massive contracts out to anybody before the new collective bargaining agreement, then they got screwed.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">First of all the average salary in the NBA is around 4.9 million, so if they were to play for 10 years, that is 49 million. Lets say that they play for 5 years, then that would be about 25 mill. If they were to retire at that point in time, they could live off anual interest, at 4% they would make a million. If the contracts were smaller though, it would increase competitiveness to stay in the league, and if you weren't performing up to expectations they could dump buy out your contract and get a new player. Just to respond to Quickness, you can win with a couple of great players. Shaq and Kobe did it three times. and the Knicks gave massive contracts out to anybody before the new collective bargaining agreement, then they got screwed.</div> If you can't live off of 10 million in your life then you f'ing stupid. Put the shit in the bank and you will get about 300,000 a year in INTEREST!!! YOU CAN LIVE OFF OF THAT!!..
Yeah but with millions of dollars come the cars, jewelry, houses, clothes. You have to understand that's how young superstars are built, it's a status thing. On the other hand, losing McInnis and getting Redd? The Cavaliers wouldn't be half as good as they are right now without McInnis, I'd rather have him on the roster than adding Redd. Even though Redd would instantly change this team into contenders, I'd still keep McInnis. Without someone as strong as him running the point, you'll never win big games. I think the Cavaliers should re-sign McInnis, forget Redd and get Z locked down and put an offer on the table for Joe Johnson.
