# Trading up in the draft?



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

Similar to what the bulls did on draft day to trade Brand away for #2 pick Chandler (hopefully with better results than that trade)

How does Zbo for orlando's #1 pick sound?? 

Espn is saying Dwight Howard is where Duncan was at in this stage of his career. 

Okafor could be the next Ben Wallace (with more offense).

Zbo is good, but we all know his limitations (defense, height, fastbreak). For Orlando, adding a 20-10 would entice Tmac in to staying , and Zbo would be pretty darn good in the east. They would definitely be playoff bound in the east IMO.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

pre-draft hype is nothing to get excited about.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> pre-draft hype is nothing to get excited about.



Agreed 100%.

If you look at the top 10 projected picks on NBA Draft.net, 3 are highschoolers and 4 are young euros. In other words, 7 of the top 10 picks will be taken as long-term projects! That is pretty pathetic.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed.

Sure seems like every team these days is building for about 5-7 years down the road...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Great small man matchup tonight in the Wake v St Joes game. I'm a big Demon Deacons fan and think a whole lot of freshman Chris Paul, and Jameer Nelson is an All-American. I'd trade up for Paul if he were to come out, but I'm massively biased 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney04/news/story?page=nelson/paul 

STOMP


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> Similar to what the bulls did on draft day to trade Brand away for #2 pick Chandler (hopefully with better results than that trade)
> 
> How does Zbo for orlando's #1 pick sound??
> ...


Sounds pretty terrible to me.

Zach is already getting 20 and 10. Okafor will never get 20 and 10 as long as his career lasts. He's just not a good scorer. He'll block some shots in the NBA, but who was the last truly prolific 6'9" shotblocking center in the NBA? Has there ever been one?

Dwight Howard is just as likely to be the next Joe Smith or Kwame Brown as the next Tim Duncan. 

Zach's proven. Unless we get a proven star for him, I say don't trade him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Trading up in the draft?*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Zach is already getting 20 and 10. Okafor will never get 20 and 10 as long as his career lasts. He's just not a good scorer. He'll block some shots in the NBA, but who was the last truly prolific 6'9" shotblocking center in the NBA? Has there ever been one?


Ben Wallace.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Trading up in the draft?*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty terrible to me.
> ...


Isn't Ben Wallace about 6'9"? I could be wrong on that. But if so, he's a pretty darn good shot blocker.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

He's probably listed at 6'10" but when I see him standing next to Billups, it looks like he's not taller than 6'8"


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Undersized players grow an inch every year if they are liked by the media...

Ben Wallace was 6'7 when he first got famous...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Most People say Ben is no taller than 6'7" some even say 6'6". Against Portalnd he was standing next to Rueben Patterson and there was very little difference in height..


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> Similar to what the bulls did on draft day to trade Brand away for #2 pick Chandler (hopefully with better results than that trade)
> 
> How does Zbo for orlando's #1 pick sound??


Well, you've already pointed out with your example how that deal worked for the Bulls, so you don't really make a good case for Portland dealing Zach.

Secondly, Zach for Orlando's #1 couldn't happen because of cap rules. Chicago could trade Brand for a draft pick because the Clippers had enough cap room to absorb Brand's contract. Draft picks have no $$$ value for trade purposes until a selection has been made.

Orlando has no cap room, thus couldn't take on Zach's contract while only giving up a draft pick.

If the teams waited until after the draft, then the pick WOULD have $$$ value for trade purposes - equal to the rookie scale. However, this would probably be much more than the $1.8 million that Zach makes next year, meaning that PORTLAND couldn't make the trade because they'd be taking back more contract than they give up.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Okay, Ben Wallace is pretty good. No offense...but a good defender. 

Still, we've already got a guy who is getting 20 and 10, and we're going to trade him for a guy who, at best, will be a Ben Wallace type sometime in the future? And to top it off, Okafor is only one year younger than Zach. If Zach were coming out in this year's draft, he'd be a top 1-3 pick. So why make this trade? We've already got the sure (more likely at any rate) thing. Why trade him on the possibility that we could get a guy who's maybe as good/maybe a better defender in a few years? 

I still say no thanks.


----------



## Charlotte_______ (May 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> Similar to what the bulls did on draft day to trade Brand away for #2 pick Chandler (hopefully with better results than that trade)
> 
> How does Zbo for orlando's #1 pick sound??
> ...


Why exactly does Orlandio need ANOTHER PF? They need a center, a true C, I hope they get Pavel, just to block up the lane and grab rebounds. Trade down if they have to, and get a quality PG


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

*Re: Re: Trading up in the draft?*



> Originally posted by <b>Charlotte_______</b>!
> 
> 
> Why exactly does Orlandio need ANOTHER PF? They need a center, a true C, I hope they get Pavel, just to block up the lane and grab rebounds. Trade down if they have to, and get a quality PG



They don't NEED another PF, but they do need a second offensive threat. Teams can't triple team TMAC anymore if ZBO is laying in the low post.

Secondly, the last thing Orlando needs is a rookie, someone that need sdevelopment time, I don't think tmac is going to sit and wait around for the rook (potentially a high school kid) to develop.


We may be taking a huge gamble with Dwight Howard, BUT I think if he pans out to be the player he is tauted to be ( the next amare stoudemire, or TD??)... it will be sad to have missed the opportunity if we had one... likewise, if he turns out to be the next jonathan bender.. then I will eat my words.

Zbo thinks he's our franchise player (and John Nash may have been a part of that)... but his athleticism and height will always be his limitations.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I agree with the general sentiments that have been expressed: don't put too much stock in pre-draft hype and don't move ZR unless it's for a legit all-star (if not MVP candidate).

I'm not opposed to adding a top pick... Howard or Okafor would be sweet to get... but at the cost of Zach? Even IF it paid off, it would be a couple of years away and I don't think that waiting around for that kind of payoff would be a good idea.

Now, I guess if the Blazers are simply unable to get value for SAR, trading Zach for a high pick (plus filler, as needed) might make some sense... I'd rather have either SAR or Zach plus a super-prospect than both of them. I'd rather have either SAR or Zach plus a stud at another position, though, than either of those choices.

Ed O.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

I agree..and I think you're seeing it my way more than not.. Why have two of the same player, when we can trade away one of them for a high draft pick? But of course, if we could trade Zach + Theo for Tmac, I would much prefer that obviously. 

Zach's value is falling IMO.. without a player like sheed, he will probably never put up the numbers he put up the first half of this season. 

I am guilty of jumping on the pre-draft bandwagon... but hey, these scouts have to know something... 


This is just an option we could consider, if they top picks don't look good come draft time, then don't consider it.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Alonzo Mourning was 6'9 but was listed at 6'10 for effect. He was pretty good i think:grinning:


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Here is the reason we dont trade Zach for a draft pick, no matter how high..........



Tyson Chandler for Elton Brand






Jerry Krause fell in love with Chandlers "potential" and traded away a undersized young PF who was putting up 20/10 for Tyson. Hasnt worked out that well so far.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> 
> Jerry Krause fell in love with Chandlers "potential" and traded away a undersized young PF who was putting up 20/10 for Tyson. Hasnt worked out that well so far.


No matter what trade idea is thrown out there, there's ALWAYS a situation where a similar deal has blown up in the face of one or both of the teams involved.

The Bulls are as bad now as they were with Brand, and that's in SPITE of making the bad Jalen Rose trade. Brand, meanwhile, has continued to put up good numbers on lotter teams... probably the same thing he would have done in Chicago.

The deal certainly didn't work out for Chicago (nor, really, for the Clippers at this point) but I don't think that should preclude Portland from looking to deal Zach for a top prospect if the scouts have confidence in the guy they'd get for him... also, Chicago didn't have SAR (or a player near his ability level) backing up Brand when they traded him, so the chances of a failure at the level of the Bulls' seems minimal.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

If the Blazers traded up for a guy like Luol Deng, that would be interesting and maybe worthwhile. Deng was compared to James, as a versatile, skilled, athletic player with that kind of size.

I would hate to deal Randolph to get Okafor. Okafor reminds me of a Ben Wallace, as others have noted, or as a power forward version of Dikembe Mutombo. To me, that's not a franchise cornerstone. A franchise cornerstone should be capable of first-option scoring ability, which Randolph has.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

The only trade for a draft pick that I'd do is our two first rounders for a higher first rounder. We have a couple of projects already, and drafting two more wouldn't help much. One better prospect would be more desireable, but I don't know if any lowly team would be willing to trade for our two draft picks, because they probably have enough projects too.


----------



## DariusMiles23 (Aug 29, 2003)

We don't need to trade up people. The only person we should trade up for is Jameer Nelson. But other than that, you got Kirk Synder, and other people. Who knows Nelson might fall down to our pick.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Minstrel --- I tend to disagree with your comments on Okafor. He has some offensive skill in the low post. Commentators have called his low post game the best in the country. He also averages close to 20ppg. 

Without searching for the numbers, I highly doubt Mutumbo or Ben Wallace averaged anything close to 20ppg in NCAA.

With his smarts,active hustle and some nba coaching; I really cannot see him being a horrible offensive player at the next level like most believe he will end up being.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

If we make the playoffs we will likley have the 19th pick and the 23rd pick. 

We will definatley draft a PG. That is a given. 

The harder choice is whether to draft a C to replace Dale as the backup and eventually take over as the starter....OR draft a SG who can shoot. 



IMO we should go for a big man. SG is a weak spot in our starting lineup and we should try and trade DA and SAR for a bad *** shooting guard. 


With the 19th pick, their wont be any top PG prospects on the draft board. Nelson, Telfair, Livingston, Gordon and Harris will be long gone. 

We will have to look overseas. 

Here are 3 PG's that will be avaliable after pick 18. 

Roko-Leni Ukic will likley be avaliable. He is a 6'5 PG who is still only 19. He is averaging 3.3 assists a game. But in many euro leagues assists are counted in wierd ways, so he very well could average more. We would have to take him with our #19 pick. 

Sasha Vuljanic is much like Roko. He is 6'7 but more of a pass second player. He may be too slow and IMO is more or a SG or maby even a SF than a PG. We would have to take him with our #19 pick. 

Luke Jackson. Yes, i think he could become a point guard. He is deceptivly quick and could guard SG's on defense. If the PG experiment fails, we could use him as a SG/SF...but i really think if Brent Barry can play point, Luke certinally could. We could take Luke at Memphis's pick, #23. 



Here are some center prospects that will be avaliable after pick #18. 

Ha Seung-Jin. Just say no. This guy will be a bust. 

Rafael Araujo is a nice player. I would not pick both Araujo and Luke because both are quite old for a rookie. But, Rafael looks to becoms a real C in this league. 

Robert Swift is a 7'1 high schooler. He is my choice. He is athletic and could develop behind Theo and Dale. Could learn alot about defense from Dale, but is already a great shot blocker.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

It looks like the Bobcats will go for Livingston at #4, They are very very high on the HS pg. Shaun imo is the best PG prospect in the draft, so I'd package our picks (if needed) to move up for the next best prospects in Jameer Nelson or Sabastian Telfair (whom the Blazers are reportedly interested in) Both are playmakers, undersized? maybe a little at 6'0" but that's not bad! considering our PG is only 5'8". 

I'd love to add Okafor! He may not be the scorer Zach is, but he's a pretty good low post scorer, possibly the best low post player in the country. Okafor is a great post defender and will be a Theo Ratliff type of shotblocker. If you could trade Zach for Okafor (#1-2 pick) I think you should do it.

Pg : Jameer
Sf: Darius Miles / Travis Outlaw
Pf: Emeka Okafor


We would have a very nice young core to build around.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well it all depends on who comes out this year, I think until then nobody really knows who is worth trading up for. I don't think either Okafor or Howard are guaranteed to be better than Zach is now, so I don't see the point in doing such a trade. But, if our scouts felt differently, I could see it. I really think Abdur-Rahim is the likely one to be traded draft day. Zach being 22yrs old, and the whole history with Jermaine, I think mgmt (particularly Allen) will be gun shy in dealing him, especailly for an unproven p[layer at this point.

But enough about that...did anyone just see Jarret Jack?.....drools....WOW. Now that is a guy I PRAY comes out, and if he does POR should jump all over him. Man he tore up Miles today, and he is only a sophmore too! I like Chris Paul a lot too, but Jack is going to be a very good NBA PG. Here is to hoping he declares.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoseCity</b>!
> Minstrel --- I tend to disagree with your comments on Okafor. He has some offensive skill in the low post. Commentators have called his low post game the best in the country. He also averages close to 20ppg.


Fair enough, but the comparison I'd offer is to Marcus Camby. Camby was also a dominant player in college, on both ends, and got more acclaim while in college, as I recall, than Tim Duncan.

The college and pro games offer different challenges, and some players look excellent in college on the offensive end, but it's all due to athleticism, not a lot due to skill.

Of course, I think Okafor will be a stronger, better individual defender than Camby, so the comparison isn't meant to be total (that Okafor is the next Camby), but I think they both lack essential skill on the offensive end that will manifest at the next level against guys who are all awesome athletes.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Fair enough, but the comparison I'd offer is to Marcus Camby. Camby was also a dominant player in college, on both ends, and got more acclaim while in college, as I recall, than Tim Duncan.


Wow, a rare chance to disagree with Min... granted Camby starred in the media heavy NE right near ESPN headquarters and recieved a whole lotta hype... but Golden State's GM Dave Twardzic practically begged TD to come out and be the #1 overall pick following his soph year. Pat Croce of the 6ers did the same the following year before embracing/accepting AI as the best remaining option. In doing so he passed on the chance to select Marcus who went #2 to Toronto. Timmy might not have starred in college near the bright lights of NY, but he recieved plenty of praise for distinguishing himself as the best amoung a talented class of bigs in the ACC. 

Outside of the big guy starring in the NE similarities, I'm not really sure why you went for the Camby/Okafor comparison. Camby always struck me as an elite talent who didn't work hard enough on his game or body to become the elite player he could have been. Okafor seems like a much more solid guy who has improved his game considerably. Their bodytypes are quite different too. If the injury bug can give him a break and he measures out to a legit/barefoot 6'9 in the pre-draft, I think he'll meet with a lot of success in the league. He should be a solid banger/inside guy able to slide between guarding 4s and 5s from the get go. I see him as more of a Alonzo Mourning type (minus the roid rage). JMHO

STOMP


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> Here is the reason we dont trade Zach for a draft pick, no matter how high..........
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed, I only see Zach being move for a player already in the league. Maybe even for a big name that has worn out his welcome in their current NBA city. Who? I have no idea!


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

If not Camby, how's about Joe Smith as a comparison?

Okafor _looks_ like a Dale Davis type banger, but he plays quite a bit more dynamic.

Dan


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> Similar to what the bulls did on draft day to trade Brand away for #2 pick Chandler (hopefully with better results than that trade)
> 
> How does Zbo for orlando's #1 pick sound??
> ...


ZBo for a number one pick.....uh how about let's not and say we did. He is so good at so young,why trade him for an unproven player when we already have one?!?!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> He is so good at so young,why trade him for an unproven player when we already have one?!?!


I'm not endorsing this tact, as I don't know much about many of the top incoming talents (like Howard), but to play devil's advocate... there could be some legit reasons to trade Zach from Blazer management's perspective. Character might be a concern of theirs. I'm sure they are much more privy to how he is off the court then we are and we've seen a few red flags. SAR is a similar player with many good years ahead of him, and seems to be a boy scout in the character department. Perhaps Nash and Co project a player as a can't miss prospect who'll fit in better with their other talent. 

I forget if it was Nash or Patterson who said it's likely that in this coming offseason they'll move one of their three main forwards (Zach, Darius, SAR). I'd imagine that their decision could be influenced by whats offered for each guy. Maybe a package deal for Zach and another Blazer for a proven player and a high pick would entice them... just for a hypothetical example Zach+DA+their 1st for Ray Allen + Seattle's 1st. Who knows whats going to be available, but I do think the team needs to be open to reshuffling their talent if they are to get back in the championship mix.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> Wow, a rare chance to disagree with Min... granted Camby starred in the media heavy NE right near ESPN headquarters and recieved a whole lotta hype... but Golden State's GM Dave Twardzic practically begged TD to come out and be the #1 overall pick following his soph year. Pat Croce of the 6ers did the same the following year before embracing/accepting AI as the best remaining option. In doing so he passed on the chance to select Marcus who went #2 to Toronto. Timmy might not have starred in college near the bright lights of NY, but he recieved plenty of praise for distinguishing himself as the best amoung a talented class of bigs in the ACC.


I agree with all of that, but you've mistaken what I mean. I didn't mean that Camby was seen as the better NBA prospect. I mean that he was talked up and praised more than Duncan by college analysts during college.

Camby and U.Mass were in the spotlight much more than Duncan and Wake, in my recollection.

I would compare it to Danny Wuerffal and Peyton Manning, if you follow college and pro football. Wuerffal was televised more, talked up more and walked away with the Heisman. Manning was drafted #1 and Wuerffal went in, like, the seventh round.

Praise and acclaim are not the same as who's considered the better pro prospect. I was talking about the former, not the latter.



> Outside of the big guy starring in the NE similarities, I'm not really sure why you went for the Camby/Okafor comparison.


Bear in mind, I said I was only comparing them in terms of players who might star offensively in college and not necessarily do so in the pros. I said that I'm not comparing them overall, I'm not trying to say Okafor is the next Camby. Okafor is, as you said, a different, much more powerful body type and I think that will allow him to be a much better individual defender, while Camby is just a good weak-side help defender.

I disagree with you that Camby was merely done in by lack of effort. I never felt that Camby had a polished offensive game. I felt he got by on athleticism and that ended when he ended up in a league full of great athletes. I feel Okafor also does well on offense mostly on athleticism, rather than on skill.

Duncan, meanwhile, was incredibly polished. Rasheed Wallace also had a very polished offensive game, compared to Camby and Okafor. Both those guys I felt would be excellent offensive players at the NBA level.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Zach punches one guy and his character is all of a sudden a question, I wish some of you were around basketball when Jordan hit Steve Kerr, I'm sure some of you would ship him out on the first plane out because of his character riiiight??


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: Re: Trading up in the draft?*



> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> ZBo for a number one pick.....uh how about let's not and say we did. He is so good at so young,why trade him for an unproven player when we already have one?!?!


I am not a fan of Zach, but there would be no gain in this years draft from doing this. 

The team can get a proven talent or two by shipping Zach off ... but the draft is too risky.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Zach punches one guy and his character is all of a sudden a question, I wish some of you were around basketball when Jordan hit Steve Kerr, I'm sure some of you would ship him out on the first plane out because of his character riiiight??


Plus -- he's a whiner. He's selfish. He's lazy. (sure, he works his offense, but other than that... he's lazy)

Randolph is the kind of guy that would let the team fail then give up his shots.

If he can continue to play like he did in Seattle, I might be tempted to agree that the selfish part can leave ... but it takes more than one game.

Play.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Bear in mind, I said I was only comparing them in terms of players who might star offensively in college and not necessarily do so in the pros.


I think we're pretty much in full agreement on Okafor then... I don't see him being a 20 point scorer in the league anytime soon. I doubt he'd be able to be the featured guy on the block his rookie year... probably more of a Nene type of banger who thrives on putbacks and the occational quick post move who gets 12-15 pts per game. He's got pretty good hands and seems to have the type of worker bee attitude that should keep him improving. If he's healthy, I see him being a very effective player on D and the boards from the get go.

STOMP


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Calling Zach lazy has to be the most ludacrous statement I have ever read on any board of any kind. The kid has a passion for this game,he has a tremendous work ethic,and has the desire to the best in the game. So Zach is a whiner because he does not want to come out of games, since when was this considered a problem? I for one lovep layers who don't want to step off of the hardwood. It shows their love for the game. Zach is not selfish, I can't think of many games where he shoots more then 20 shots, on ave. he'll take 15 and is very efficient in those 15....oh ya...btw who had the game tieing hook against Seattle in the clutch........who did.......oh that's right it was Zach.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Calling Zach lazy has to be the most ludacrous statement I have ever read on any board of any kind. The kid has a passion for this game,he has a tremendous work ethic,and has the desire to the best in the game.


On the defensive end I put on more of a sweat WATCHING the game then Zach does playing it. 

I said he has a good work ethic on offense, or do you carefully select what words you chose to reply to?



> So Zach is a whiner because he does not want to come out of games, since when was this considered a problem? I for one lovep layers who don't want to step off of the hardwood. It shows their love for the game.


It would be a REAL problem if Reef wasn't wanting to come out of games and being the same headache Zach is. Zach sits for 2 minutes and he whines. 

Would you feel so strongly about this "not being a problem" if Reef was raising a stink about not playing much?



> Zach is not selfish, I can't think of many games where he shoots more then 20 shots, on ave. he'll take 15 and is very efficient in those 15


Doesn't mean he isn't selfish. His selfishness is indicative of his style of play. Clogging the middle while people drive. Refusing to relinquish post position, even though the play calls for another player to be in that spot. 

Selfishness isn't always shots. 



> ....oh ya...btw who had the game tieing hook against Seattle in the clutch........who did.......oh that's right it was Zach.


Who also missed the shot that allowed the overtime ... oh yeah... Zach. That shot is HARDLY something to write home about. It doesn't establish ANYTHING. I've seen MORE games where Zach misses clutch shots or turns it over then I have games where Zach scored. 

Play.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Just for argument's sake, I could see a Randolph for Dwight Howard deal making sense.

Howard projects to an offensivel powerhouse like Randolph, but with better size and athleticism. I agree that Okafor doesn't, if I were the Blazers, I wouldn't trade away Randolph to get him. If I really fell in love with Howard, however, I might because:

1) Howard would appear to have a higher ceiling and thus to bring everything that ZBo does and more. I'd have to be convinced that howard was actually going to fufill his potential, but he could be worth it.

2) ZBo and SAR don't appear to be all that compatible. SAR's trade value is relatively low, while ZBo's is clearly very high. ZBo is good but not quite a franchise player, I'd say. If you think Howard will be, it looks like a good time to cash in on ZBo.

3) With SAR under contract for one more year, it lets Howard come along in a lower pressure environment, but also provides a natural means to let him grow into the bigger role. If he looks ready, you just jettison SAR at season's end.

4) Coincidentally, this also facilitates the Blazers making a FA splash if they play their cards right. With SAR and Damon both coming off the books, they'll have cap room. However, that is also the summer Randolph will be a RFA and due a raise. Without getting into the gritty details, it might not be possible for the Blazers to both make a max offer to ZBo and a legit offer to someone like TMac or anyone in the 2001 draft class if they become available. If they trade ZBo for Howard now, though, they'd have him locked up for a couple more years on a rookie deal, letting them make more and better free agent offers.

Now I'm not saying this is the best strategy in the world, but it's at least somewhat interesting for the Blazers.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Just for argument's sake, I could see a Randolph for Dwight Howard deal making sense.
> 
> Howard projects to an offensivel powerhouse like Randolph, but with better size and athleticism. I agree that Okafor doesn't, if I were the Blazers, I wouldn't trade away Randolph to get him. If I really fell in love with Howard, however, I might because:
> ...


Sounds like the scouting report on Kwame Brown from a few years back.

And who knows, Kwame Brown may yet be the next Jermaine O'neal...but I don't want to trade a guy who gets 20 and 10 NOW for a guy who might get 20 and 10 in 3 or 4 years. We're not rebuilding in a Chicago Bulls, ground-up way. We need a couple pieces here and there to get back to contending. 

Realistically, guards are what we need. I don't want to trade a solid big man for an unproven/useless (for 3 years) big man. I'd trade Zach, but only for a proven all star/emerging star. A Ray Allen type player.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Zach punches one guy and his character is all of a sudden a question, I wish some of you were around basketball when Jordan hit Steve Kerr, I'm sure some of you would ship him out on the first plane out because of his character riiiight??


First off, he's had a few more red flags then just coldcocking a restrained teammate... but feel free to respond to what I actually wrote... 

_I'm not endorsing this tact, as I don't know much about many of the top incoming talents (like Howard), but to play devil's advocate... there could be some legit reasons to trade Zach from Blazer management's perspective. Character *might* be a concern of theirs. I'm sure they are much more privy to how he is off the court then we are and we've seen a few red flags._

I thought I was pretty clear in saying that things could be going on that management knows about that we as mere fans don't. For all I know Zach is a consumate professional who will someday win a nobel peace prize, or he might be smoking rock daily. I am open to the possibility that things might be going on with a player that aren't reported in Jason Quick's collumn. I hope/trust management has a much better handle on all of their players then we do.

Like just about everyone else, I recognize that he is a talent. Since he is young and on his rookie deal, he would have great value if management chose to trade him because of...

A. personal shortcomings 
B. an overwhelming offer that would improve the club's talent and/or chemistry

Talking about this possibility doesn't mean I'm in favor of it necessarily, I'm just open to the possibility that senerios could exist where they might trade him. We're just a bunch of fans who won't be consulted on upcoming deals anyways so whatever... it's just talk. Sorry that I dared to suggest the Blazers might possibly have reasons to consider trading your guy on a chatsite 

STOMP


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds like the scouting report on Kwame Brown from a few years back.
> ...


That's not at all a bad idea, but will Seattle be down with it? I don't think so, but I've been wrong before. If the Blazers could get a hold of a guy like Allen or TMac for Randolph, wouldn't they have pulled the trigger by now?


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Ray Allen is looking for the Max extention at age 28-29. I WOULDN"T trade Zach for Allen. Zach/Theo/pics for TMac i would. Tracy is only 2 years older, and a better player then Ray-Ray. I say you hold out for a guy like Tmac, and NOT for a Ray Allen.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

ZBo and Theo + pics for MAc...no thanks...we lose our interior presence on both ends of the court.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Dwight Howard will be one of the biggest busts ever if taken top 3.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Mike DC - 

I like your thinking....I only wish some of the players listed to be waiting for 2005 (namely Nemanja Aleksandrov) were there instead of Okafor and Howard. but like you said it all boils down to what the guys who are paid to make these calls feel about Howard (in particular). IF...POR scouts, whom I think are pretty darn good, thought that Howard could be a much better player AND (more importantly) could reach that goal, then yes POR should seriously consider such a move. Having Rahim makes it even better IMO, as easing Howard into the NBA as a backup to Rahim is an excellent idea. Then use the other two picks to fill in other holes (Jarret Jack...please declare!...and Luke Jackson?). Plus depending on who has the pick (ORL, CHI, ATL, WAS?) you may be able to get another role type player in the deal WITH the pick (ORL\Pachulia, WAS\Haywood?). It's not such a far fetched scenario IMO, and certainly not worth dismissing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> And who knows, Kwame Brown may yet be the next Jermaine O'neal...but I don't want to trade a guy who gets 20 and 10 NOW for a guy who might get 20 and 10 in 3 or 4 years. We're not rebuilding in a Chicago Bulls, ground-up way. We need a couple pieces here and there to get back to contending.


We've got a 20-10 guy to replace Zach: SAR. With Zach around, SAR's just being wasted. The Bulls weren't trading a Jermaine O'Neal because they had Rasheed Wallace... they were trading Elton Brand in SPITE of not having an option that was almost as good, and since Chandler's taking a while to develop it's blown up on them.



> Realistically, guards are what we need. I don't want to trade a solid big man for an unproven/useless (for 3 years) big man. I'd trade Zach, but only for a proven all star/emerging star. A Ray Allen type player.


I hear what you're saying, and I would prefer to get an all-star/borderline MVP candidate if I can, but I'm not sure it's going to be possible and having ZR and SAR at the same time doesn't make sense.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

So Ed, would you consider dealing Zach for a guy like Howard? Would a team outside ATL even consider it, is a better question? I think someone like ORL would, possibly CHI). I just don't know enough about Howard to say "confidently" that he could, giben time, put up Zach's numbers. I like Zach, but I don't think he is a franchise player, and I do have concerns over his bball IQ, but he is only 22. I guess the real question IMO is, and one that our scouts\Nash\Pattersen need to answer is whether or not Howard is anmd WILL be (not can be) a better player than Zach. That's not a easy question to answer. I just don't know enough about Howard to know, but I do think if POR wants to deal Zach or Rahim to ove up into the top 3, this is the year to do it. I think those picks can be had.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

Yes, if we can get a proven all-star player instead who is 24-28 years old and NOT a 6'9" Power Forward, then definitely pull the trigger. Preferably a center or shooting guard

But if not, I think we should explore the option of moving up in the draft for Dwight Howard (first choice), Okafor (2nd)

We can afford to take the gamble IMO.

1) Zach will be asking for a MAX contract after next season. I wouldn't give him one just yet. We get a draft pick, and potentially get an Amare Stoudamire type player with a rookie contract. This all makes sense from financial standpoint.

2) While there is a lot of pre-draft hype, most of it is NOT unsubstatiated. I'm sure the scouts know bball bettter than any of us. While they're not 100%, they've been pretty good with #1 picks (minus Kandi man, and kwame is looking better) If this kid Howard has talent and good work ethic, then its up to the Blazers coaching staff to make the most of it.

3) Zach is limited in everything besides his offense. He's undersized at the 4, he is not athletic, he doesn't play defense, not a shot blocker, I've said this many times. Yes he's young, but chris webber, Duncan at this age were showing WAY more of an all-around game, A guy like this is NOT franchise player material.. wake up. He is a VERY good 2nd option. Which he would be in Orlando.

4) SAR = Zach Randolph. We could, in effect trade SAR for this pick... but we would probably have to take some bad contracts in return.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> If the Blazers could get a hold of a guy like Allen or TMac for Randolph, wouldn't they have pulled the trigger by now?


Yes, but things change... the Sonics and Magic are each in worse shape now than they were at the trade deadline, and Portland's arguably in better shape.

In Orlando, McGrady's calling for new teammates and missing games left and right in a lost season. In Seattle, the Sonics are going to miss the playoffs again, are probably going to be losing Barry to free agency, and will almost certainly hear more complaints about the direction of their team from Ray Allen and Seattle fans.

In Portland, the Blazers have to be pleasantly surprised with Theo, and are in a great position to move either SAR or Zach to the highest bidder. They're making a playoff run and so should be in a less panic-filled state than they might otherwise have been.

I'm not sure that McGrady's achievable, but I think Ray Allen is a guy Portland might target this summer.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> We've got a 20-10 guy to replace Zach: SAR. With Zach around, SAR's just being wasted. The Bulls weren't trading a Jermaine O'Neal because they had Rasheed Wallace... they were trading Elton Brand in SPITE of not having an option that was almost as good, and since Chandler's taking a while to develop it's blown up on them.
> 
> Ed O.


I understand that point, but I feel like if we get rid of Zach for a pick, we're still basically the same also ran team competing for a 6/7/8 seed. I want improved guard play so we can compete for the 1/2/3 seed. I don't see us competing for that with a Zach for top three pick. 

Clearly, a PF has to go. Zach or SAR. I think we can actually get what we need with a Shareef for somebody trade. (Ray Allen perhaps?)

Who knows. I trust Mark Warkentein. If he believes Okafor is primed to be the real deal very very soon, or that Howard is a guaranteed can't miss star...I'd definitely accept a Zach for top 3 pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> So Ed, would you consider dealing Zach for a guy like Howard?


I just dunno... Howard certainly seems like a can't-miss, but I don't think I've read much that says he's on the Darko-Anthony level of a prospect.

It seems like the top of the draft this year has several good players, but in terms of long-term prospects there are several Ints that should be available at 7, 8, or 9 that could pay off big-time down the road.

If Portland can't get prime value for SAR, and we could move ZR for the top pick, I wouldn't be against it. Like Fork, I think I'd just have to put my faith in Warkentien and the rest of the staff to figure out just how good of a prospect we could get if we are considering moving ZR for a pick.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

seems to me the Grizzlies and Hawks have tried for years to build through the draft while keeping SAR as their cornerstone. is this really the strategy we want to emulate? 

I'm all for trading Zach, but just for a nice draft pick? no thanks. not unless there's a Carmello/LeBron level guard at the top of the draft, which I doubt. 

we've got to hold out for Pierce, Ray Allen, or McGrady. anything less than that and we should probably try to trade SAR instead.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> seems to me the Grizzlies and Hawks have tried for years to build through the draft while keeping SAR as their cornerstone. is this really the strategy we want to emulate?


The Hawks actually didn't use a lottery pick while SAR was on Atlanta. 

The Grizzlies drafted:

2000: Stromile Swift
1999: None (gave away Steve Francis)
1998: Mike Bibby
1997: Antonio Daniels

Not exactly stocking the cupboards there. And remember SAR was only 24 when the Grizzlies traded him, so it's not like they really stuck to a plan (which, considering how poorly they drafted, isn't surprising).

Does Portland NEED to get lottery picks to be a playoff contender, even if ZR is traded? No. But if they get a high lottery pick and get a future stud, the team will be a lot better off than trading SAR for pennies on the dollar or leaving him backing up ZR at the 4.



> we've got to hold out for Pierce, Ray Allen, or McGrady. anything less than that and we should probably try to trade SAR instead.


It's hard to argue with you there; I think that SAR should be the guy we look to trade first, but it all depends on what we can get for each. 

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well it all depends doesn't it? On what our scouts project the ceiling of Howard to be? I remember before Zach broke out, there was a rumour of POR trading him to move up and draft Amare Stoudamire. Hindsight would you have made that move? I sure would have. But of course our scouts don't have that luxury, it would be a hell of a ballsy move, that;s for sure, but if Howard turned out to be a better player than Zach, then we would look great, a big IF there of course, But POR DOES have the luxury of having Abdur Rahim, so having to rely on a young kid right away is not necessary. I just don't know......


I don't think Zach is a "franchise player" though, I think he is an overachiever with some limitations, and I question his oncourt intelligence, and I don't know if that will improve or not. But POR staff knows better than I what his ceiling and limitations are, and I am sure they are comparing him to other players in this years draft, it would be prudent IMO to do so.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If Orlando is foolish enough to trade us their pick for Randolph we should do it. Dwight Howard is going to be a monster. What, you might ask, am I basing this oppinion on? Absolutely nothing. 

Anybody know how big Dwight's hands are? His comparison is Kwame Brown, who had small hands. One of Rasheed's limiting factors is his small hands. If Dwight has the game everybody says he does and has big hands I'd take him over Randolph.

But I'm starting to sour on Randolph. I never thought his lack of defense was that big of a problem before tonight. Unfortunately tonight it cost us the game and possibly the playoffs.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I have seen Dwight Howard play this year, not impressive at all,wasn't even the best player on the court,let alone his own team.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> Zach's value is falling IMO.. without a player like sheed, he will probably never put up the numbers he put up the first half of this season.


I agree that 'Sheed and Zach were a fine pair in many ways. That said, I think Theo is a "player like 'Sheed" in terms of helping cover the defensive issues. Really good team defenders at smaller positions would likely make a similar difference. The other nice thing about 'Sheed is that he helped spread the opposing defense out but, if you've got a couple reasonably good shooters on the outside, things are great. Picture Zach on any of the following teams: Spurs; Grizzlies; Pistons; Lakers; Rockets; Warriors; Pacers; or Jazz. Sure, some would be better fits than others there but, I think all those teams would make fine use of his strengths without his short-comings becoming too great an issue. Not to slight guys like Ben Wallace and Theo but, I'm thinking it's easier to find players like them than it is players like Zach. Then get yourselves a couple guys who can shoot even as well as a Jim Jackson and you've got at least an Eastern Conference play-off team. Build from there.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I tuned into the McDonalds HS game for the 2nd half ... man Howard has a smooth shot.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> The Grizzlies drafted:
> 
> 2000: Stromile Swift
> ...


yup. good call on Atlanta, but we could be buying ourselves into the exact same kind of futility that the Grizzlies faced for years in the draft. 

I don't think we'll be trading SAR for pennies on the dollar. he's been a guy I've been drooling over for years, and I doubt I'm the only one. you plug him into at least 18 teams in the NBA, and he's back to 20/9 production. and everybody knows it. 

I am very, very confident that we get some very good value for SAR or Randolph this offseason, and it need not involve a lottery crapshoot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> I am very, very confident that we get some very good value for SAR or Randolph this offseason, and it need not involve a lottery crapshoot.


I tend to agree, and I hope we're right 

Ed O.


----------

