this is from espn.com:
The Bucks, according to sources, have commited to paying the 25-year-old an estimated $80-90 million over the next six seasons. Exact figures won't be available until July 22...but what is known now is that Milwaukee's offer will indeed be $20-plus million higher than anyone else's.
That includes the Cleveland Cavaliers, who've made Redd their No. 1 target in free agency by offering a five-year max deal worth an estimated $60-70 million.
Redd would stun most league observers if he leaves that lucrative extra year on the table.
seriously, is there a difference between $70 million and $90 million? what monetary value do you have to hit where you're just not gonna be able to spend it all anyway? i know that mike tyson and michael jackson have completely outspent themselves, but among the sane, how much can you really spend? do you get anything special with that extra $20 million?
and when you say the words "extra $20 million", doesn't that just mean that the "extra $20 million" just doesn't matter anyway? if you have $1 million, there's no such thing as "an extra $20 million". it's just $21 million.
i guess here's my point:
for $90 million, he gets to play six years carrying a team that's gonna be bogged down by andrew bogut, a seven foot clumsy center from australia who, at best, will be vlade divac but may very well be jason collier.
or, for $70 million, he gets to play five years with this guy,
who is further along in his career than this guy was,
and who probably needs a guy like this,
to win at least one of these.
but for an extra $20 million, you could just buy a whole bunch of them. winning them is just too hard.