Wednesday, July 06, 2005
In the Redd
As some of you NBA followers might know, Michael Redd is a free agent shooting guard who is deciding between contract offers between the Bucks and the Cavaliers. Seeing how he played for the Bucks, the team was allowed to offer him a maximum contract extension in the range of $90+ million over 6 years. The Cavs have offered him the maximum amount they can throw his way: 5 years at roughly $70 million. Basically, Redd needs to make a decision - does he want to show his loyalty while picking up $20+ million more than any team can offer him, or does he want to return to his home state and play with a premiere talent in LeBron James? This is a valid question and is one that is being brought up by sports journalists across the country. Unfortunately, it is not being handled very well outside of the above explanation, if you ask me.
I have witnessed on numerous sports programs and in various sports articles that state Redd would be crazy not to play in Cleveland, despite leaving $20+ million on the table. This is indeed personal opinion, and while I might not agree with said opinion, I can respect that. What I can't respect are some of these sports journalists' reasons for suggesting this. As the Cavs collapsed over the 2nd half of the season, we were treated to, on a daily basis, an overabundance of "LBJ will be leaving Cleveland for NYC, Chicago, or LA" talk because he would receive a lot more money via his endorsements (perhaps in the $20+ million range, coincidentally?) if he did so. So basically, after repeatedly pounding this "LBJ is leaving Cleveland when his contract is up" talk into the public, we are being told by many of these SAME WRITERS that Michael Redd should join the Cavs to play with LeBron. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? Why would Redd commit to a long term contract based on the prospect of being Pippen to LBJ's Jordan if James is just going to leave the franchise in a couple of years? How does this make any sense? I have no problem with this argument being made if there wasn't all of this rubbish about LBJ leaving. But for some of these journalists to suggest this after spending so much time focusing on LBJ's eventual departure seems hypocritical, irresponsible and moronic. But I guess this is to be expected nowadays with the talent in sports journalism that is out there.
I have witnessed on numerous sports programs and in various sports articles that state Redd would be crazy not to play in Cleveland, despite leaving $20+ million on the table. This is indeed personal opinion, and while I might not agree with said opinion, I can respect that. What I can't respect are some of these sports journalists' reasons for suggesting this. As the Cavs collapsed over the 2nd half of the season, we were treated to, on a daily basis, an overabundance of "LBJ will be leaving Cleveland for NYC, Chicago, or LA" talk because he would receive a lot more money via his endorsements (perhaps in the $20+ million range, coincidentally?) if he did so. So basically, after repeatedly pounding this "LBJ is leaving Cleveland when his contract is up" talk into the public, we are being told by many of these SAME WRITERS that Michael Redd should join the Cavs to play with LeBron. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? Why would Redd commit to a long term contract based on the prospect of being Pippen to LBJ's Jordan if James is just going to leave the franchise in a couple of years? How does this make any sense? I have no problem with this argument being made if there wasn't all of this rubbish about LBJ leaving. But for some of these journalists to suggest this after spending so much time focusing on LBJ's eventual departure seems hypocritical, irresponsible and moronic. But I guess this is to be expected nowadays with the talent in sports journalism that is out there.