# Odom for Zach



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

odom for Zach/Patterson/Filler

good or bad fit?

Blazers:
SAR PF
Odom SF, PF
Miles SF

Lakers:
Zach PF
Divac C
Grant PF, C


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> odom for Zach/Patterson/Filler
> 
> good or bad fit?
> ...


Sorry, but the Blazers have already hit their quota for stoners in this century, as allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Not to mention it would be a horrible deal for the Blazers. Zach has ridiculously more talent than Lamor Smokesom. And why would the Blazers trade away one of their frontcourt players for another quasi-backcourt player?

Makes no sense. Back to the drawing board, Laker.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> odom for Zach/Patterson/Filler
> 
> good or bad fit?
> ...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

with Woods, Outlaw, the two Russians AND Miles all wanting the starting SF job in Portland, do we really need Odom? 

if Portland were to trade Randolph, it would have to involve a premiere shooting guard. LA has only one of those, and he's worth far more than anything we can offer. 

on second thought, we probably could make an offer of Zach, Telfair, a russky, a draft pick and a big expiring contract for Kobe Bryant and a bad contract. 

LA would not take it right now, but if at the trade deadline the Lakers are not a playoff team it might become more attractive. it's certainly more than Orlando got for McGrady.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

actually, that's an interesting idea....

LA would have a solid base for the future at PF/PG/SF in Randolph, Telfair and Odom. a young run-and-gun team still needing to fill in some holes. 

Portland would easily be a contender with Damon/Bryant/Miles/SAR/Ratliff. still have a horrid bench though. 

eh, something to think about when there's nothing going on in the NBA....


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

thumbs down dude You gotta be kidding me


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> thumbs down dude You gotta be kidding me


lopside to ......?


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> thumbs down dude You gotta be kidding me


I hope you're not talking about the Kobe deal...

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised :uhoh:.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> 
> 
> I hope you're not talking about the Kobe deal...
> ...




Im talking about the Odom deal


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Hate to break it to you guys but Odom is better than Randolph and probaly has more potential. Also, Odom can play PF. Although his history is scary, I think investing big money into Zach is just as risky.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Hate to break it to you guys but Odom is better than Randolph and probaly has more potential. Also, Odom can play PF. Although his history is scary, I think investing big money into Zach is just as risky.


I think Zach is better fit for Lakers, natural position: PF


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Hate to break it to you guys but Odom is better than Randolph and probaly has more potential. Also, Odom can play PF. Although his history is scary, I think investing big money into Zach is just as risky.




dude what planet are you on , Odom is a big time underachiever


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I dont think its a nba soul who belives that Honestly , They are two different players but Zbo has more upside


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I don't know what to think of the deal. 

Lamar can play both SF and SG, and has done so. 

I think Lamar has more team talent than Randolph, but Randolph has more scoring/me-related talent. 

I can't convince myself that it is a bad trade, but I can't convince myself that it is good either.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> I dont think its a nba soul who belives that Honestly , They are two different players but Zbo has more upside


Randolph has a very LIMITED upside by all accounts. He doesn't have the athleticism to have a huge upside. He can get better, but that is tempered with how far his body will let him go. 

Lamar sees the floor better, is a better team player and understands the game better. He is also physically superior to Randolph. 

I'm not saying the move is good or bad, but to discredit Odom is silly. 

Play.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Randolph has a very LIMITED upside by all accounts. He doesn't have the athleticism to have a huge upside. He can get better, but that is tempered with how far his body will let him go.
> ...


Lakers future: (Buss likes young team)
Kobe, Zach and Butler, young enough.

For Blazers, if they can't trade SAR, they need to trade Zach.


----------



## Kuskid (Aug 18, 2004)

*Re: Re: Odom for Zach*



> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> Zach has ridiculously more talent than Lamor Smokesom.
> -Pop


Still waiting on that cheerful "April Fools!"


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Pass. Odom is a natural SF. We are loaded at the 3. Also, though it's been a few years, but do we really need another player who's admitted to being "addicted" to weed?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

you guys all think Lakers are great inside, no need to upgrade PF and C.

Grant is 45 yrs old
Divac is 70.

the future of Lakers is Brian Cook and Slava.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Also, this is the LAKERS! In no way, shape or form do you help them out. :upset:


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Hate to break it to you guys but Odom is better than Randolph and probaly has more potential. Also, Odom can play PF. Although his history is scary, I think investing big money into Zach is just as risky.


Exactly. No way I would do this trade. Vlade is our starting C and we aren't going to trade him, anyway.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> Also, this is the LAKERS! In no way, shape or form do you help them out. :upset:


No, It help both team out.

SAR and Zach can't co-exist.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> 
> 
> No, It help both team out.
> ...


 Then we wait to trade SAR at the deadline. Much like we did with Wallace.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

zach is the better post player, lamar is the better overall player. Whatever is more important to you is what you go with. But PF at this moment in time is the most talented position in the league right now, Zach is great in the post, he rebounds and he scores but not alot of systems are going to work with zach randolph from my take on him in the last 3 years. A guy like odom has the potential to score whenever he gets the ball because of his physical advantages and if you help out on him he is willing to get the ball to the best option. He had alot to do with miamis turn around last year. I can see why the blazers wouldn't want to do this trade but quit doggin odom for pot when zach does the same thing and beleive it or not odom is the better player in alot of peoples minds.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottVdub</b>!
> zach is the better post player, lamar is the better overall player. Whatever is more important to you is what you go with. But PF at this moment in time is the most talented position in the league right now, Zach is great in the post, he rebounds and he scores but not alot of systems are going to work with zach randolph from my take on him in the last 3 years. A guy like odom has the potential to score whenever he gets the ball because of his physical advantages and if you help out on him he is willing to get the ball to the best option. He had alot to do with miamis turn around last year. I can see why the blazers wouldn't want to do this trade but quit doggin odom for pot when zach does the same thing and beleive it or not odom is the better player in alot of peoples minds.


good points.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

I think this deal could benefit both teams:

L.A. Lakers trades: SF Lamar Odom (17.1 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 4.1 apg in 37.5 minutes) 
SF Devean George (7.4 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.4 apg in 23.8 minutes) 
PG Chucky Atkins (8.4 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 3.5 apg in 24.1 minutes) 
PF Chris Mihm (6.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.3 apg in 17.5 minutes) 
L.A. Lakers receives: SG Richie Frahm (3.4 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.4 apg in 8.6 minutes) 
PG Damon Stoudamire (13.4 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 6.1 apg in 38.0 minutes) 
SG Ruben Patterson (7.0 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 1.9 apg in 22.6 minutes) 
PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 37.9 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +4.7 ppg, -1.6 rpg, and +1.1 apg. 

Portland trades: SG Richie Frahm (3.4 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.4 apg in 8.6 minutes) 
PG Damon Stoudamire (13.4 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 6.1 apg in 38.0 minutes) 
SG Ruben Patterson (7.0 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 1.9 apg in 22.6 minutes) 
PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 37.9 minutes) 
Portland receives: SF Lamar Odom (17.1 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 4.1 apg in 80 games) 
SF Devean George (7.4 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.4 apg in 82 games) 
PG Chucky Atkins (8.4 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 3.5 apg in 64 games) 
PF Chris Mihm (6.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.3 apg in 76 games) 
Change in team outlook: -4.7 ppg, +1.6 rpg, and -1.1 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

Lakers:
PG- Stoudamire, Vujacic
SG- Bryant, Rush
SF- Butler, Patterson, Walton
PF- Randolph, Grant, Cook
C- Divac, Medvedenko

IR: Frahm, Bobbitt, Jones

All of a sudden the Lakers have a manageable situation at the swing positions and a true low post threat. The center position looks a little shaky but Grant will get plenty of minutes at the 5, so it's okay. Stoudamire is a huge expiring contract who also is an upgrade at the point.

Blazers:
PG- Van Exel, Atkins, Telfair
SG- Anderson, George
SF- Odom, Miles
PF- Abdur-Rahim, Mihm
C- Ratliff, Przybilla, Stepania 

IL: Outlaw, Woods, Khryapa

The SAR-Randolph debacle is solved with this trade. The Blazers get rid of Patterson, which is a big plus for them. They get a solid backup point guard behind Nick and some depth with the bigs. George gives them a solid outside shooter that they need.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

The most important position in the West right now is PF! I could care less if the Lakers need to upgrade that spot. Zach wont be traded for a wingplayer, plain and simple.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> The most important position in the West right now is PF! I could care less if the Lakers need to upgrade that spot. Zach wont be traded for a wingplayer, plain and simple.


You guys still have SAR there, he's not much of a drop off at all.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> 
> 
> You guys still have SAR there, he's not much of a drop off at all.



Yes, we would solve our PF problem and then create a SF problem with Miles and Odom AND help out the Lakers.. 


hmmm.. NO!


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Odom 28 minutes in SF

part time PF


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Miles is no where near as good as Odom, so this isn't like SAR and Randolph where they are both relatively equal talents. Like Ballscientist said Odom could get the backup minutes at the 4, clearing plenty of time for Miles. Forget about helping the Lakers, this trade really helps your team.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Guys,

You will never convince the Zach Randolph fans and most Portlanders that moving Zach for anything short of the entire Bulls lineup would help the team.

Basketball sense would dictate that a floor with Reef/Odom is better than Zach/Reef or Zach/Miles. But, you're asking for people to THINK rather then get emotionally attached to a player.

Play.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Captain Obvious</b>!
> 
> 
> Miles is no where near as good as Odom, so this isn't like SAR and Randolph where they are both relatively equal talents. Like Ballscientist said Odom could get the backup minutes at the 4, clearing plenty of time for Miles. Forget about helping the Lakers, this trade really helps your team.


I didn't say Miles was as good as Odom. I just think with both of them on the same team, that creates a problem. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have Odom on this team, but only if we didn't have Miles. I think having both of them creates a problem. 

We were told Miles couldn't shoot before we got him. Now, he isn't out answer for an outside playmaker, but his shot has been a lot better than previously advertised. I also don't think his potential is tapped out. So, if he still improves, Odom and Miles would be fighting for minutes. 



> Guys,
> 
> You will never convince the Zach Randolph fans and most Portlanders that moving Zach for anything short of the entire Bulls lineup would help the team.
> 
> ...


Well, I'm a Zach fan, but I wouldn't want most of the Bulls lineup. Maybe only 2 or 3. Would a Reef/Odom be better than a Zach/Miles lineup? Who knows... I guess if they played two on two they could split games. I don't see it as a clear winner and Reef/Odom would take them to school. 

I'm not opposed to trading Zach, but I admit, I'd rather stand pat on my team than help the Lakers. I live in the middle of LakerLand, and it would literally make me sick to live with the people down here if it helped them. I'm really looking forward to a mediocre year for the lakers.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

anything that makes the lakers better-NO!


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

When was the last time the Blazers and Lakers made a trade with one another? No really, I would like to know. :whoknows:

Odom isn't enough for Randolph. I just don't see Portland making any moves until after the season starts. Come trade deadline time we are going to be so busy on this board it isn't going to be funny.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> When was the last time the Blazers and Lakers made a trade with one another? No really, I would like to know. :whoknows:
> 
> Odom isn't enough for Randolph. I just don't see Portland making any moves until after the season starts. Come trade deadline time we are going to be so busy on this board it isn't going to be funny.


I know we sold them Pat Riley, and traded them LeRoy Ellis..and Jim Brewer (for a draft choice that turned out to be Jerome Kersey)..

In essence, the Blazers traded for Clyde Drexler and Jerome Kersey, in the same year, 1980. Also in 1980, they got Darnel Valentine (and therefore, Sabonis)..and also, as a result of trades, Terry Porter. (The Blazers traded for the rights to Kelvin Ransey, and a pick (darnel Valentine)...traded Ransey for Wayne Cooper and a pick (which turned into Terry Porter) and Valentine for a pick (which turned into Sabonis).

WHat do Terry Porters pick and Sabonis's pick both have in common (besides the Kelvin Ransey and Darnell Valentine connection)?


They were both originally Boston Celtic picks.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

This will never happen. The team's future is Randolph, Miles, Outlaw, Russians, Telfair. The team just gave a bunch of money to Miles. Why would they want to trade their best player for Odom?. At least the Randolph/SAR logjam is only a one year problem. They could easily solve the problem. It won't be for value, but trade SAR to NJ for Aaron Williams and a couple draft picks. NJ has a salary exception and can take on the extra payroll. The payroll for Portland is reduced this year and they get draft picks. Odom/Miles is a multiple year problem. 

Odom is a problem waiting to happen in Oregon. Him and Woods will be at 7-11 every night looking for munchies. Trading Zach is an idea, but we need a SG, not a SF/PF.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Odom, what you see is what you get. A fringe All-star callibur player. He's been in the NBA for what.. 5-6 years? Imo, Zach Randolph has more room to improve. He only had one year of playing 30+ mpg. No way would Nash trade Randolph for another wingplayer.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I know we sold them Pat Riley, and traded them LeRoy Ellis..and Jim Brewer (for a draft choice that turned out to be Jerome Kersey)..
> ...


Good job Hap, I knew that I could count on you for the answer to my question. :greatjob:


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> Odom isn't enough for Randolph.


some people disgree.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Lamar Odom to me is another Tim Thomas all star type player . How did hs value get so high now since hes a Laker????????


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Zach in his first year of getting playing time joined a great class of big men only 5 guys in the league avg 20/10 I like L . Odom but Zach has more value


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Zybot</b>!
> The team's future is Randolph, Miles, Outlaw, Russians, Telfair.


If that REALLY is the Blazer's future - then they are in some deep dirt.

Play.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Heat make the P, Blazers does not.
Odom is a key factor. How about Zach?

Do you think Blazers are a better team than Heat?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

The Heat are in the East


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> If that REALLY is the Blazer's future - then they are in some deep dirt.
> ...


 A little early for judgment. Only Randolph has proved he's an NBA player, who knows, out of that bunch Telfair or even Miles could turn out to be our best player. Who knows, we gotta let them develope

...And I bet you were one of them fans beggin' Trader Bob to trade Jermaine Oneal because he didn't show much his 1st few years.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> The Heat are in the East


That whole EAST vs. WEST thing has got to stop. 

Didn't the east just win the NBA championship AND the All-Star game?

Reef's stats went down a smidgeon when he went from the West to the East. Go figure.

The talent isn't THAT different that one can say Randolph is this God because he plays in the West. 

Let Randolph have another great season - but right now, let's be honest - he isn't all that special or unique. His 20/10 come at a cost. He does a lot of poor basketball things to get these numbers. I know you love him Cim, but be realistic - the guy isn't about to walk on water. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakota_Blazer</b>!
> ...And I bet you were one of them fans beggin' Trader Bob to trade Jermaine Oneal because he didn't show much his 1st few years.


No, I wasn't and am not a Blazer fan. I had no opinion on the trade.

As it stands, after the fact, sure the Blazers got killed. But, let's not pretend that O'Neal is anything but an ESPN-made superstar. He isn't any better than Reef or Randolph. 

Play.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


didn't


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> didn't


Well, the all-star game means nothing anyhow.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> That whole EAST vs. WEST thing has got to stop.
> ...



I look at it as there in the east, so we're not competing with them for a playoff spot, so it only matters for two games.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I wouldn't be very happy with trading Odom for Zach. Granted their pasts have both been a bit iffy, Odom just doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would make a huge difference on any given team. I was once a fan of his, but he hasn't really lived up to his Scottie Pippen like potential. Not to mention, we'd have basically the same log jam at the 3-4 that we have now. Thumbs down on this one.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I know we sold them Pat Riley, and traded them LeRoy Ellis..and Jim Brewer (for a draft choice that turned out to be Jerome Kersey)..


I can't believe we traded Jim Brewer and only got back Kersey!


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SheedSoNasty</b>!
> 
> 
> I can't believe we traded Jim Brewer and only got back Kersey!


#1 K-Mart was traded for 3 Jeysey!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> 
> 
> #1 K-Mart was traded for 3 Jeysey!


Nevermind


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

come on mitch kupcheck isnt that stupid


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SoCalfan21</b>!
> come on mitch kupcheck isnt that stupid



Dude get real Zach is better than Odom


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SheedSoNasty</b>!
> I wouldn't be very happy with trading Odom for Zach. Granted their pasts have both been a bit iffy, Odom just doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would make a huge difference on any given team.


Odom = Brand = can't win in the West?

Zach can win in the west?


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Dude get real Zach is better than Odom


I still havent seen you refute what was stated earlier in this thread about what Odom has done and why hes the better player. How about you show why Zach is better, besides him being the better low post scorer oh yeah and better rebounder but dont forget the fact that he only outrebonds LO by a little over half a rebound.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Let's get back to the original question:



> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> odom for Zach/Patterson/Filler
> 
> good or bad fit?
> ...



It gets a little old bickering over who's better, Zach or Odom. They're both good players, but who's the better fit for the Blazers? Myself and other say Zach is, so why argue who's better. There's a logjam at PF with Zach and SAR now, but doing that trade will make the SF position even more logjammed. So, it's better to just stand pat, IMO.

Is Odom a good player? Yes
Is Zach a good player? Yes
etc, etc, etc.. 

Comparing Odom to Brand(not sure how we got there) and asking if they won in the west, blah, blah, blah... 


Ok, I forgot it's still the offseason. Go ahead with the Odom/Zach squable..


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Bottom line is Zach put up 20/10 in the west and Odom couldnt do that in the East


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Bottom line is Zach put up 20/10 in the west and Odom couldnt do that in the East


Different positions. 

I never saw Jordan put up 20/10 either, but you won't pursuade me that he isn't better than BOTH those guys.

It's hard to compare them as players. They play completely different games.

Zach is a ME player. He scores - no matter what it does for the rest of the team or chemistry. He doesn't play defense. He clogs the lane to get offensive boards. He'll get great stats ... but at a cost. Even still ... if he weren't selfish ... he'd still get good numbers in scoring and rebounds.

Odom is a TEAM player. He passes the ball. He distributes. He's a point forward. He isn't going to score in droves on most nights and he isn't going to get a ton of rebounds. He doesn't play statistic basketball. Most of Odom's skills aren't shown on a stat sheet.

It is VERY hard to compare who is better than the other.

Play.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Bottom line is Zach put up 20/10 in the west and Odom couldnt do that in the East


him great retort:no:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> him great retort:no:


Beez, 

Don't expect a great dialogue with Cimalee. He's stuck with one line responses with ZERO factual or statistical backing.

Play.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Beez,
> ...



Dude youre just a hater and the only person on the Internet who believes Shareef is better than Zach , I will give you a stat you cant deal that your boy is buried on the bench because hes just not got as our starter


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

You want more stats look at the numbers head to head buddy Zach vs Reef , Zach outplayed him everytime


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Anybody remember that double overtime game in Atlanta 2 years ago a Young Zach Randolph outshined Shareef


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I got all the games on tape If you want any more stats , I mean Dude I like Shareef and Dont hate me or others because we know Zach is better


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Case Closed :laugh:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Dude youre just a hater


A "hater" is that even appropriately used?



> and the only person on the Internet who believes Shareef is better than Zach


I would doubt that. Especially considering that today is Sept 28, 2004 ... there are a LOT of people online. 

Heck, at the very least I'd have the entire Abdur-Rahim family including Reef that agree... or are they not part of Cimalee's census?



> I will give you a stat you cant deal that your boy is buried on the bench


It's obvious that you aren't used to giving stats, because you didn't give me one. What you gave me was a fact. There is no statistical anything in the simple fact that Shareef is not starting.



> because hes just not got as our starter


Again with your opinion. Sorry, but that does not qualify as fact.

Cim, you need to ease back - the simple fact is that you say some absurd things. What's worse is that you do nothing to verify or back-up your boneheaded statements.

I'm just here to point it out.

Play.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

You cant deal with it :laugh: 



Why do you defend Reef so much are you related to him , I like Reefs game hes solid but hes where you should be on the Blazers on the bench because hes not better than Randolph .

Later on I will post the stats Zach vs Reef head to Head so how you will like that


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Anybody remember that double overtime game in Atlanta 2 years ago a Young Zach Randolph outshined Shareef


No. What is your point?



> I got all the games on tape If you want any more stats


You've yet to state a "stat". Sorry.



> I mean Dude I like Shareef and Dont hate me or others because we know Zach is better


Dude does not need to be capitalized. It is not my name. 

Look Cim, your OPINION is that Randolph is better than Reef. There is little to no evidence to support it one way or the other. Sorry, there just isn't.



> You want more stats look at the numbers head to head buddy Zach vs Reef , Zach outplayed him everytime


First, Zach has RARELY played against Shareef. Shareef has always been defended by Wallace when he plays Portland... and usually more than JUST Wallace. They usually put two to three players on him. 

Second, Reef has also outplayed Garnett and Duncan more often than not in head-to-head matchups... but I would highly doubt that it is because he is more talented than both of them. 

Head-to-head does nothing to prove who is the better all-around basketball player. 

Pull your head out of Zach's rear long enough to realize that he isn't far better than Reef and it is arguable that he is better at all. It doesn't mean that he isn't or won't be ... but right now it is hard to argue that he is a superior basketball player. Heck, you even have dissention among Portland fans ... much less the entire league. 

Get a grip.

Play.

PS - Did you really need 3 threads to say the same thing? 

PPS - Sorry 4 threads.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> You cant deal with it :laugh:


I can't deal with what? 

I have no issue with anything except the simple fact that you say some really dumb stuff with little to no backing. 



> Why do you defend Reef so much are you related to him


Is that a question?



> I like Reefs game hes solid but hes where you should be on the Blazers on the bench because hes not better than Randolph


In your opinion. 



> Later on I will post the stats Zach vs Reef head to Head so how you will like that


Refer to my prior post - head-to-head matchups rarely prove anything. 

Heck, last year Yao beat Shaq ... but he's FAR from being Shaq's equal.

Play.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Yo play I like Shareef and hopefully he will have a good season with us . I undertsnad I have my opinion and you have yours


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Sorry to interfere here, but cimalee, maybe you'd be taken a little more seriously by people if you didn't just randomly throw in a one line comment about how all the Blazers are awesome and untouchable or how great Zach is, and if you looked at things objectively, or at least backed your opinion up and put some substance into your posts. I've seen PlayMaker argue with you a lot on here, and while I might not always agree with him, he presents a much better argument than you every single time. He doesn't just say "SAR is better", or "Yes, trade Zach for Odom". Just my two cents...


----------

