Under which hypothetical conditions would Michael Redd be an asset for the Bulls?

The MLB has their hot stove and this year's NBA has a microwave. Expect rumors to be more ridiculous and in great bulk. The Bulls reported interest in Michael Redd is a primary example.

The Journal Times (some paper in Racine, WI) reports (h/t: PBT):

Redd, an unrestricted free agent, is a cinch to join another team when the signing period begins Dec. 9. Redd, who has had two major knee surgeries in recent years, is drawing keen interest from a slew of teams, including some NBA-title contenders.

According to some league officials, Chicago, Boston, New York and Miami all have Redd on their radar.

Boston, New York, and Miami may be in financial situations where Redd as a potential 8th or 9th man in their rotations isn't beyond the realm of possibility. And their top-heavy scoring distribution among multiple stars allows for the low risk.

Are the Bulls interested? Likely not. Philosophically, the actions of this particular front office seems only willing to take risks on the aging when health isn't a high risk and the player has size as an asset.

That said, Redd has "old man skills". He's a mid-sized two-guard with a jump shot and will get great catch n' shoot looks as a minority scoring option off the bench. You can't count on him to guard anyone, so wherever he is on the Bulls "radar", assume it's on the periphery. As in as a potential 12th man, with the 10th and 11th being better defenders.

Would it be a surprise if Redd came back to become a 65-game, 1,000-minute, 38% long-range sniper off of someone's bench? Not really, but he'll never be able to contribute to any team nearly as much as, say, Grant Hill did for the Suns last season.

So I ask -- and feel free to be creative -- Redd would be an asset to the Bulls under which conditions?