# Zach: "All or nothing." (merged)



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Zach: "All or nothing."*

From today's Oregonian:

Zach's Demands 

I choose, "nothing".

Zach may well be worth a max contract at some point in his career. He may well be better than Gasol. He may well become a franchise player. But he's not there yet.

Add to that concerns about continuing off-court incidents of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and I think it would be absurd for the Blazers to cave in on his demands. Trade him now while we still have Shareef. If we can get Redd for him, great.

Zach, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Then again, you do have a propensity for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

*Zach wont resign with portland if he doesnt get extended by Sunday! LINK!*

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1098878785100850.xml


Well at least now we know we will suck for a while!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

This really doesn't bother me. He will be a *restricted* free agent, meaning we can match any offer made to him. I say the Blazers should just wait him out. If we match an offer made by another team it isn't as if he won't play for us.


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

*This whole Woods thing has pissed him off!*

read the article and youll see that zach anticipates the Blazers doing that......and at that point he said he would play out 20005-2006 and then become a 25 yr old free agent!

I think hes serious!

However io dont think that if the Blazers offer him the max.....he will be able to turn it down.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Yawn.

Anyone remember Rashard Lewis threatening to leave Seattle unless he got a max contract? He ended up with a 7 year, 65 million dollar deal, and he's not even living up to that!

The Blazers will most likely ignore Zach's threats, as they should. No need to plaster the board with trade proposals for Zach, just keep him and put off the negotiations until next summer.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I am not sure I understand why he will not be a restricted FA with us having the ability to match any contract from another team?

StoryTeller, Schilly, Ed O., anyone know?


I must be overlooking something. They say he can sign with anyone next summer, if he does not sign an extension by Sunday? if I am reading and understanding it right


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I'll choose "nothing" also... 

I guess these so called athletes will never learn to conduct business behind closed doors and stop mouthing off to the media...

Also, if I was Nash or the GM of the Jazz, I'd call Mr. West and give him a few words about maxing out the unworthy Gasol.. Zach can ***** all he wants and say he's better than Gasol, but then I'd say he's not as good as other Max guys.

Zach will regret not signing the offer after the new CBA..


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

*if your read the article*

zach threatens that if he doesnt get signed before oct 31st...then he will play ouit the final 2 years on his deal and then become a FREE AGENT and go elsewhere!


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

*Re: if your read the article*



> Originally posted by <b>mixum</b>!
> zach threatens that if he doesnt get signed before oct 31st...then he will play ouit the final 2 years on his deal and then become a FREE AGENT and go elsewhere!


Who cares?? It's a threat about 1 1/2 years to early. Remember Miles made the same threat and look what happened..


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

Whoever started the trend of 100 million dollar contracts should be held responsible for ruining the NBA....I think Zach just needs to keep his mouth shut and do his job....What ever Portland is offering is more then most of us combined will see in our life time..:upset:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: if your read the article*



> Originally posted by <b>mixum</b>!
> zach threatens that if he doesnt get signed before oct 31st...then he will play ouit the final 2 years on his deal and then become a FREE AGENT and go elsewhere!



I did read it... this is what I do not understand fully, so maybe you can spell it out for me

He can not just go elsewhere... he is a restricted FA




> _If an extension is not accomplished by Sunday, Randolph will become a restricted free agent after this season, during which the Blazers have the opportunity to match any offer made by another team.
> 
> However, Randolph intimated Tuesday that if he is not extended at the maximum amount, he will not re-sign with the Blazers after the 2005-06 season. _



If for example... Zach gets a 6 year offer from someone for whatever amount and we match it... we do not loose him in 2 years at all, but retain him this year and then 6 years later...

I understand... he can get someone to make him a 1 year offer, or will only sign a 1 year offer from us (at least threaten too)....

but we can offer him a 7 year deal... is he seriously thinking of turning down a 7 year deal??? if he does, I am not so sure we want him on the team with that mentality...

dumb and dumber... :banghead:


he still is not proven FULLY... I would wait until after this to resign him

if he continues his threat.... you seriously look to trade him :wave:

and extend Rahim


----------



## Stallion (Apr 23, 2003)

Zach's actions are contradicting themselves. He's says all he'll accept is the max, but in order guarantee this happens he'd have to be willing to play out a one year qualifying offer of about 2 million next year.

My point is that if he wants big money so bad then there's no way he'll have the patience to play another year for cheap. He's not going anywhere because he'll end up taking the best he can get as a restricted free agent this summer whether we match or not.

In addition, Zach's agent is no fool and must know that at anytime Zach could do something very foolish off the court to significantly lower his value. If I were his agent I would get him guaranteed money as soon as possible.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: if your read the article*



> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> I did read it... this is what I do not understand fully, so maybe you can spell it out for me
> 
> He can not just go elsewhere... he is a restricted FA


He can't go anywhere THIS summer (04-05) because he's a restricted FA, but if he signs a one year tender he'd become an unrestricted FA and go wherever he wants.

That's the threat he seems to be making and, to be fair to him, it's one of two pieces of leverage he has... and, compared to dogging it on the court, it's a far less destructive one for both parties.

I don't think that it's something he'd really follow through on, though, because with the collective bargaining uncertainty, it's entirely possible that the years or even maximum contract amount might be more severely limited.

On the other hand, it's possible that restricted free agency might be removed (again) and ZR would emerge in the new CBA as an unrestricted FA next summer.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

IMO Zach is smoking some killer bud. Dude doesn't seem to realize he's not in a position to make demands right now. He's got some very serious question-marks next to his name, not the least of which include his penchant for making stupid decisions both on and off the court. Aside from that, he'll still only be a _restricted_ free agent at the _end_ of this season. The Blazers can match any offers from other teams that come in after that and keep him. Oh, and lets not forget that _other_ starting PF we have on the roster right now.

Yeah, keep telling yourself you're all that and a bag of chips, Zach. You really haven't proven anything to me yet...

...other than you're a dumb-***.

PBF


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> Yawn.
> 
> Anyone remember Rashard Lewis threatening to leave Seattle unless he got a max contract?


Rashad Lewis and every other quality FA... 

With a lack of teams having cap space in 2 years and Portland's ability to match any offer Zach might get, Nash has the deck heavily stacked in his favor. There is no compelling reason for the team to max Zach out at this time. The main motivation to get a deal done would be his, insuring himself against possible injury in the next 2 years.

If the figures are to be believed, Portland has offered him 81% of the max. I don't see the market driving his price all that much higher... and until he signs his next deal he is that much easier to deal if the right player(s) are offered. Since I'm much more of a Trailblazer fan then any individual player, I'm fine with Nash choosing not to up that offer/nothing at this time... it keeps his options open. 

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I guess that is why I question his threat......

as an average (the numbers vary).... $86 mil/7 = $12.28 mil

he will make about $2.25 mil with the qualifier...

meanign he will loose about $10 mil playing under the qualifier....

its reported to be a $72 mil offer from us... which is $14 mil diff

loosing $10 ml to get $14 mil and burning bridges does not seem to smart to me

and he can not even do that.. other teams under the current CBA can only offer him a 6 year deal... not 7

but then again.. I am not use to these kind of numbers for being employed for a year either


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I wonder where Cimalee is with his one line comment about how LOYAL Zach is to Portland.

BAH!

What did I say to EVERYONE here ...

I said Zach is going to want the max and he will go where ever he can get it. He doesn't care about Portland, the team or anyone other than himself.

It shows in his game, his personality and his decision making skills. 

As I've said - I wouldn't hitch my wagon to this horse. 

Play.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Anything said before the deadline is likely just posturing by the parties. I think Trader Bob makes some good points as to the uncertainty of what will happen under the new CBA. The last time the players got hosed, and (due to lack of sympathy from the fans, including me) I think they will be hurting again. I think Blazers will likely up to somewhere in the mid low 70s at the deadline and Zach will sign it, or he will leave money on the table. If he doesn't sign, he will take the chance that his value will go down next year (highly possible), he gets injured (less likely) or when he hits free agency, he realizes that people don't see him as the next Tim Duncan and the offers coming in are the same or less than the Blazers offered originally. 

Sign now Zach. It is more money than you will likely know what to constructively do with anyway. Don't let pride/ego get in the way.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> If the figures are to be believed, Portland has offered him 81% of the max. I don't see the market driving his price all that much higher...


Especially with the question-marks surrounding him right now, both on and off the court. He's got a lot to prove in both arenas right now, to _anyone_ who might be interested in him.



> and until he signs his next deal he is that much easier to deal if the right player(s) are offered. Since I'm much more of a Trailblazer fan then any individual player, I'm fine with Nash choosing not to up that offer/nothing at this time... it keeps his options open.


Agreed. 100%.

PBF


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> "Gasol got $86 million, and he isn't better than me," Randolph said. "I feel like if I'm going to be the franchise player of this team -- and that's what they say -- then they should show it. If they are going to build around me, then treat me like it."


Boy, he has an inflated self-worth. 

Besides, he isn't a franchise player -- and if he were -- he ought to act like it. If that means signing for a little less than so be it. That way they CAN build around you ... you arrogant *****.



> "Money is a big part of our league, but I think there are players who love to play for the sake of playing," Cheeks said. "And I think Zach is an example of that. I think he will try to get 20 points and 10 rebounds no matter what."


Yeah, Zach will do what it takes to get 20/10 ... even if it means hurting the team. That's for sure.

He only wants 20/10 for his PERSONAL scorecard. That's it. If the team wins, loses, dies ... he doesn't care. As long as he gets 20/10.

Play.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Trade his silly butt asap.



PBF


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Ahh, trade Zach for Michael Redd already! Now we'll regret not offering him for McGrady.

Our future lineup:

Telfair
Redd
Ratliff
Rahim
Miles

You've got a legit passing PG, a great shooter, a defensive enforcer at center, a good all round post player, and a slasher! What a well balanced team.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>CelticPagan</b>!
> Ahh, trade Zach for Michael Redd already! Now we'll regret not offering him for McGrady.
> 
> Our future lineup:
> ...


HECK yeah!

:greatjob: 

PBF


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>CelticPagan</b>!
> Ahh, trade Zach for Michael Redd already! Now we'll regret not offering him for McGrady.


Or for O'Neal when they offered him.

With O'Neal, this team would have become a FA haven! 

If I were the Blazer's I would ask Reef if he'd sign now ... for an extension and ship Zach off with Patterson.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Zach has absolutely 0 leverage here. In all reality, we don't know what the CBA agreement will be like when he can become an UFA..

He needs to realize that 1 good season doesn't make him better than someone who's done it for 3 seasons. Nor does it make him better than AK47, who's put up a lot more SOLID #'s, and plays on both ends of the court.

Zach is just posturing, and trying to scare the Blazers. The Blazers, just like they did with Darius, hold every card in this game of bluff. If he refuses to sign an extention, they should just trade him for a player who suits the team better.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> If I were the Blazer's I would ask Reef if he'd sign now ... for an extension and ship Zach off with Patterson.


I agree... 

Hey Play, can you give SAR a call for us and have him drop a hint to the Blazers management that he's willing.. :yes: 


Taking some tips from college football fans and the Fire Zook websites, how about a TradeZachNow website. BWT, TradeZachNow.com is available.. :grinning:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> Hey Play, can you give SAR a call for us and have him drop a hint to the Blazers management that he's willing.. :yes:


From what I understand on Reef's end, he doesn't dislike Portland in the least. He loves the fans and is used to the weather. He's got friends in Seattle and Vancouver - so he fits right in to Portland just fine.

His real issue was the treatment he got from some of the players and the way he was handled over the summer.

BUT --

I don't think it would proclude him from being a part of the team permanently ... if that role were to materialize. He wanted out because he didn't want to waste away on the bench during his prime. Something I sympathize with. 

In no way has Reef intimated that he wouldn't work WITH Portland. 

His main beef was with Randolph. Period. If that cancer were removed, I don't think Reef would have issues.

I also think it would be to the benefit of the team for this to happen.



> Taking some tips from college football fans and the Fire Zook websites, how about a TradeZachNow website. BWT, TradeZachNow.com is available.. :grinning:


I'll bite. How much?

Play.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Playmaker, I'm 100% with you on this. I've always been leery of giving Zach the "franchise player" moniker. He showed some promise in his rookie season, then gradually worked his way into legit starting status over the next 2 seasons. But during that time, the flaws in his game (defense, passing, decision-making) have become ever more apparent and I can't say I've seen much improvement in any of those areas. He just doesn't have much basketball IQ beyond being a pretty good "finisher". And that doesn't even begin to touch on the bad decisions he still makes off the court.

IMO, Zach is NOT a "franchise player", and I really doubt he ever will be. In my mind, a "franchise player" exercises an intelligence - both on and off the court - that Zach just doesn't seem to possess. Clyde was a legitimate "franchise player" (the last true "franchise player" we had), and to think that Zach can hold a candle to him is, frankly, laughable.

Reef probably isn't a "franchise player" either, but at least he has no delusions of being so. IMO, he's every bit as good a finisher as Zach, and he seems to understand the game MUCH better at both ends of the court than Zach does. I agree with you that the team would fare much better with Reef than with Zach.

Hmmm...

Portland trades:
SG Derek Anderson (13.6 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in 35.5 minutes)
PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 37.9 minutes) 

Portland receives:
PF Joe Smith (10.9 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 1.0 apg in 29.7 minutes)
SG Michael Redd (21.7 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 2.3 apg in 36.8 minutes) 

Change in team outlook:
-1.1 ppg, -0.6 rpg, and -3.2 apg. 

Milwaukee trades:
PF Joe Smith (10.9 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 1.0 apg in 29.7 minutes)
SG Michael Redd (21.7 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 2.3 apg in 36.8 minutes) 

Milwaukee receives:
SG Derek Anderson (13.6 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in 51 games)
PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 81 games) 

Change in team outlook:
+1.1 ppg, +0.6 rpg, and +3.2 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

:whoknows:

PBF


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> From what I understand on Reef's end, he doesn't dislike Portland in the least. He loves the fans and is used to the weather. He's got friends in Seattle and Vancouver - so he fits right in to Portland just fine.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insight, Play.. 



> I'll bite. How much?


Depends on where you purchase the domain at.. First site I checked, $15.. Web hosting service, about $40-60/yr.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> Thanks for the insight, Play..


No problem.

But, I think at this point the Blazers would NEED to explain their long term intention of making Reef the focal point or one of the focal points. 

My guesstimation is that you could have Reef from 8.5-11MM/year. Which is about right. I would figure Reef would push upwards of 11, but would settle at around 9-9.5MM. I think that is what he is worth right now.



> Depends on where you purchase the domain at.. First site I checked, $15.. Web hosting service, about $40-60/yr.


It's just unfortunate that I don't think they would. 

I think they are FIRMLY committed to Zach Randolph, regardless of his off-the-court antics or his threats.

The smart move for the Blazers would be to put him in his place -- FOR THE FIRST TIME. Remember last year when he whined and snivled about his PT and shots ... they gave him more minutes and shots. You can't cave. So - I'd bench his *** a couple times ... maybe tonight and say "We're trying to see how Reef functions at the 4." Send a damn message.

Play.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blaze_Rocks</b>!
> Whoever started the trend of 100 million dollar contracts should be held responsible for ruining the NBA....I think Zach just needs to keep his mouth shut and do his job....What ever Portland is offering is more then most of us combined will see in our life time..:upset:


Glenn Taylor (Garnett), Charles Dolan (Houston) or Jerry Buss (Shaq). Take your pick.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Milwaukee trades:* 

SG Michael Redd (21.7 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 2.3 apg in 36.8 minutes) 

*Milwaukee receives:* 

PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 81 games) 
SF Qyntel Woods (3.6 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 62 games)  

Change in team outlook: +2.0 ppg, +7.7 rpg, and +0.4 apg. 

*TRADE ACCEPTED*


Woof! :evil:


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> So - I'd bench his *** a couple times ... maybe tonight and say "We're trying to see how Reef functions at the 4." Send a damn message.


Yep. That's what I've been thinking. They use the preseason to check out the rookies, young talent, what lineups work, etc.. If I were Mo, I'd run a regular game rotation, but use SAR as the starting 4 for a few games, then Zach for a few games. Then make your decision. SAR has proven stats over many years, so it would just be check how he works with Miles and Theo who seem to be in the Blazers long term plans.. 

Unfortunately, most athletes feelings are fragile and they wont do it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Glenn Taylor (Garnett), Charles Dolan (Houston) or Jerry Buss (Shaq). Take your pick.


What about going back to Glenn Robinson entering the league as a rookie demanding a 100MM contract.

What a joke.

It's time the owners collude and start paying these idiots what they are worth. It is really starting to alienate fans. Especially when the package is as poor as the NBA has become. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Scout226</b>!
> Unfortunately, most athletes feelings are fragile and they wont do it.


Of course they won't do it. They don't have the gall.

Not just that, but Reef would certainly underperform. I know him well enough to know he wouldn't like being a pawn used against someone. 

I can honestly and sincerely say:
Reef is really the kind of guy you'd have a hard time disliking.

Play.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why would Milwaukee trade Michael Redd? They have done all they could to clean up that locker room with great team guys and then you throw them Zach and Qyntel? Ick.

Also paying Abdur-Rahim 8-11 million dollars is akin to telling your fanbase, you want to miss the playoffs for every single year he is paid that much money. The guy is not a winner on this level. He wasn't a winner at Cal either, when Iowa State smacked his team up and down the court in Dallas in the NCAA's. 

I would tell him, for what he has proven he is worth the MLE same as Juwan Howard was worth.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> What about going back to Glenn Robinson entering the league as a rookie demanding a 100MM contract.
> ...


The rookie scale is fine. The NBA made their bed, by underpaying the stars of the 80's. Since they did that, the stars of today are reeping the benefits of that. 

Also, you should be paid according to what you bring in. So if fans come to see you play, you could justify a lot of guys salaries. However, you can't collude anyway, because most owners bid against themselves to keep their own players. Charles Dolan has been known to do this on many occasions. 

As for Glenn Robinson, he will be out of the league after this season anyway, so it doesn't matter. This is his swan song.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Not just that, but Reef would certainly underperform. I know him well enough to know he wouldn't like being a pawn used against someone.


I wouldn't look at it like that. Players are always saying it's a business and if they can get the money, then so be it. Well, the Blazers are a business and they have to make decisions based on the team.

Mo could play it off and say they're playing like crap, so today SAR is starting and Zach comes off the bench. Just state like most fans do, "It's just preseason and stats don't count".. :grinning: 



> I can honestly and sincerely say:
> Reef is really the kind of guy you'd have a hard time disliking.


I agree. He's also a guy the Blazers and fans would not have to worry about having his name show up on a police blotter..


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Also paying Abdur-Rahim 8-11 million dollars is akin to telling your fanbase, you want to miss the playoffs for every single year he is paid that much money. The guy is not a winner on this level.


How can you say that? 

He's never even had a half-solid team around him. Ever. 

I can't imagine one player in the league right now, save O'Neal that could have truly made those teams win. 

Each team had a rookie coach (save Vancouver with Brian Hill). Each team had scrub players and no bench. 

It had nothing to do with REEF and all to do with team dynamics, poor talent and poor coaching.

Look what happened to McGrady when you took away his talent, look what happened to Paul Pierce when you took away his talent, look what happened to Vince Carter when you took away his talent. They couldn't go anywhere. 

I'm not talking about having another superstar on your team either. I am talking about solid contributers. People that don't make many mistakes and cost you games. Role players. 

Only people that don't understand team sports pin losing on ONE player, unless their stats should indicate it. Which, in this case, they don't.



> He wasn't a winner at Cal either, when Iowa State smacked his team up and down the court in Dallas in the NCAA's.


Yeah, what a wuss Reef was in his rookie year. He was such a loser. The second best player on the team was forced to sit out the year because of misconduct and Reef still led them places ... as a 17 year old. 

What a loser.



> I would tell him, for what he has proven he is worth the MLE same as Juwan Howard was worth.


Except he brings FAR more than Juwan Howard. That's like saying Zach Randolph is worth the MLE because he hasn't won. Or telling Brand he's MLE because he hasn't won. 

Or how about our very own Darius Miles, who has NEVER won or had a decent season under his belt.

Play.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Why would Milwaukee trade Michael Redd? They have done all they could to clean up that locker room with great team guys and then you throw them Zach and Qyntel? Ick.


personality wise.. yes... but their has been noise that Redd will do what Zach is doing... but Redd is on his second contract, if I recall correctly. He was a 2nd round pick... and he can walk unrestricted... so Milwaikee does have a ligit concern about loosing him outright.. thus possibly being forced to trade him... maybe even for Zach


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

A couple of things:

-- the Blazers HAVE been very public in saying they were hitching their franchise to Zach. If that isn't an indication that he's worth the max, what kind of player WOULD be worth the max?

I'm not saying I think that Zach should get the max, and I understand the Blazers should negotiate and not just hand him a blank checkbook. But PatterNash made a big mistake in making public comments about how critical Zach is to them, and now they run the risk of looking like hypocrites and/or hurting the feelings of our best player.

-- I don't know what else Zach should be saying. Maybe he should be totally quiet, but he's got a chance now to flex whatever little leverage muscle he has, and failing to do so wouldn't seem to be wise.

Finally, trading Zach for Redd would be a mistake... Redd's just not that good (he had one excellent year and backslid last year... I'm not convinced that he'll rebound) and he'd want just as much money as Zach does, probably, after being so underpaid the last few years.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Randolph makes it very difficult to like him...

I guess Sheed was the same way with a lot of people, but he just had so many more redeeming qualities, IMO... better defender, better team player, better all-around player, more exciting to watch, etc - even as a youngster.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Hey, Zach, get a clue. 

Pao Gasol isn't just an excellent player, he's also a class act and a great representative of the team. He never sucker-punched a teammate, or got involved in a bar shooting, or lied to the police. 

That's why he's worth more than you, sucker.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> A couple of things:
> 
> -- the Blazers HAVE been very public in saying they were hitching their franchise to Zach. If that isn't an indication that he's worth the max, what kind of player WOULD be worth the max?
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the article. Couldn't agree more about PatterNash making a mistake on this one.



> Finally, trading Zach for Redd would be a mistake... Redd's just not that good (he had one excellent year and backslid last year... I'm not convinced that he'll rebound) and he'd want just as much money as Zach does, probably, after being so underpaid the last few years.


It's risky, for sure. Say the Blazers make the trade. Redd will almost certainly be an UFA next summer with the Blazers holding his Bird rights. But no chance of matching - and he cannot have his contract extended between now and then.

Balance that with the fact that Zach (if he doesn't sign an extension this week) will be a RFA next summer - a much less risky scenario.

However, if I had the chance to trade Zach and Woods for Redd, I'd probably do it. There won't be that many teams with cap space next summer. Still, it's taking a risk....


BTW, the article has its dates wrong. Here's what Quick writes:

_In essence, Randolph is issuing a veiled threat that, if he is not extended, he will sign a perfunctory tender from the Blazers -- an estimated 25 percent raise from his $1.805 million salary this season -- then play for another team in the 2005-06 season._

This is wrong. As I understand the situation, Randolph is threatening to sign the qualifying offer next summer, play for the Blazers in 2005-06 and then play for another team (signing as an UFA) in the 2006-07 season. And, as has been said already, a lot can happen in the 2 full years before this threat could materialize fully.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Storyteller</b>!
> ....It's risky, for sure. Say the Blazers make the trade. Redd will almost certainly be an UFA next summer with the Blazers holding his Bird rights. But no chance of matching - and he cannot have his contract extended between now and then....


Why not match? We would have Bird rights? Why can he not have his contract extended before March 1 like the other vet contracts?

Is he on his 2nd contract?

I apologize with this possibly been covered, but I am not knowing right now!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Back on Zach

I thought it would be a 7 year deal by us... not 6
and 6 years, if others were making him an offer next summer

with 12.5% raises

7 years $86 mil is $8.94, $10.06, $11.18, $12.29, $13.41, $14.53, and $15.65


6 years $86.05 mil is $10.93, $12.30, $13.66, $15.03, $16.40, and $17.76


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> Why not match? We would Bird rights?


Sure, the Blazers could offer more money than anyone. But since Redd would be an UFA, the Blazers would hold no right of first refusal in 2005. Whereas they WOULD have right of first refusal with Zach in 2005, since Zach would be a RFA.




> Why can he not have his contract extended before March 1 like the other vet contracts?


Only contracts that were originally signed for 6 or 7 seasons can be extended, and then only after at least 4 years have passed. Redd's deal was too short (3 years) to qualify for an extension.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Back on Zach
> 
> I thought it would be a 7 year deal by us... not 6
> ...


A player can only have 7 years total (or less) on the books.

Extending Zach now (when he still has one year left on the books) limits the Blazers to a 6 year offer.

Signing him next summer to a FA contract (when he has no more years on the books) would enable them to offer a 7 year contract.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Thank you....


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 6 years $86.05 mil is $10.93, $12.30, $13.66, $15.03, $16.40, and $17.76


WOW :naughty:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> trading Zach for Redd would be a mistake... Redd's just not that good (he had one excellent year and backslid last year... I'm not convinced that he'll rebound) and he'd want just as much money as Zach does, probably, after being so underpaid the last few years.


Hey I want to be paid the max too... but until then I'm entertaining offers  

I'm not sure how Redd "backslid" last year... He was named to an All-NBA team (3rd) last year for the first time... of course that came with an increase in his role and playing time.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/michael_redd/

looks pretty much like up up up to me...perhaps you mistook his career averages for last years stats?

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> looks pretty much like up up up to me...perhaps you mistook his career averages for last years stats?


Nope. Take a look at what I mean:

*FG%:* down from 46.9 to 44.0
*3pt %:* down from 43.8 to 35.0
*Rebounds:* Up from 4.5 to 5.0, but that's an 11% increase in spite of a 30% increase in MPG.
*Steals:* down from 1.22 to .99
*Blocks:* down from .16 to .07
*Turnovers:* up from .9 to 1.41 (56% increase in that 30% increase in MPG)

He improved his FT%, his assists (64%) and he increased his scoring (43%) in that 30% bump in MPG, but other than that he took steps backwards.

I'd take the production of the 2002-03 Redd over the 2003-04 Redd any day of the week... 

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I am leaning more and more to the lets trade Zach group and here is why.

First of all, I do not believe he is worth a max level contract, for several reasons. I think his off court escapades the last few years ARE and SHOULD BE to POR mgmt, a SERIOUS concern, particularly when you are basically placing the future of your franchise for the next 6-7 years or so to this guy. Being a "franchise" player means more than putting up 20 & 10 and being the best player on your team. A franchise player for good or bad IS the face of your franchise, and Zach's actions to date do NOT reflect good on this franchise. 

But more importantly IMO, Zach's play is not indicitive IMO of a franchise player. Can he score? yes....Can he rebound? yes....But the MOST important element\question you can ask of a franchise player IMO is DOES HE MAKE HIS TEAMATES BETTER?...and that is a resounding NO when it comes to Zach. Look, given the opportunities Zach will put up numbers, and that ability is important, but it does NOT necessarily make your team a SUCCESSFUL one nor does it translate into wins. In the case of Zach, this is VERY apparent IMO.

When Zach is on the floor, he is ALWAYS looking to score first, he ALWAYS has his hands out demanding the ball. When he has the ball, he is ALWAYS thinking score, he is ALWAYS oblivious to his teamates around him. Will he pass out of a double team?....yeah, sometimes when he is totally stonewalled on a move, he will look to "bail out", but then his hands are right back out demanding the ball again. IMO, a CRUCIAL requisite of being a team's franchise player, is that players ability to see MORE going on in the game than just how HE can score. It is more than just putting up 20 & 10 numbers. Numbers are nice, but WINS are what matter most. 

Also, I do not believe that Zach has the requisite off court or more importantly ON COURT IQ to be the team's franchise player. 
Is he aware of situations in the game? Does he actively look to lead\direct the team on the floor? Or is he just looking to set himself up? B\c as good\great as ANY particular player is or can be, a team's success is DEPENDENT upon its star player making those who play around him better, & creating or putting them is situations that maximize their strengths. Intangibles are what make a great team. Jordan realized this, Kobe has yet to, and I don't think Zach would even have a CLUE what I am talking about. 

That is why, based on Zach's shortcomings on court, of which I do not see any hint of improvement in, the troubling off court activities that seem to surround him and the lack of the requisite IQ\Intangibles a team NEEDS from their best\franchise player, I think POR, in essence, putting the hopes of the franchise on the shoulders of Zach is a BIG mistake.

Furthermore, given the fact that POR has another PF already on the roster, A player who has averaged 20 & 8 for his career to date, a player who could easily (IMO) replace Zach's presence in the lineup & put up the numbers that Zach is currently, a player whose trade value right\wrong is at a low point, a player who is still fairly young at age 27, and is only 3-4 years older than Zach. Given the fact that Zach's trade value is at\or near an all time high, and who is still currently under his rookie deal, and will only be a RFA next year. Given all these things, I think it IS in POR best interest to at minimum look and see what they could get for Zach, and IMO trade him THIS YEAR.

Michael Redd? maybe...

But what about an Al Jefferson and Jiri Welsch from BOS?

and if POR could, an exchange of Michael Stewart (and his expiring deal) for Ruben Pattersen? and\or one of the multiple draft picks BOS has for 2005?

BOS could pair Paul Pierce and Zach Randolph together and significantly improve thier chances in the EC.

POR could move SAR into the starting spot, with little loss in production IMO, and have a young promising, BUT UNPROVEN player in Jefferson as his (hopeful) replacement in a few years (or sooner?), along with a nice developing (and impressive IMO) SG in Welsch.

I would do that trade STRAIGHT UP if I were POR, but if POR could somehow manage to incorporate a Ruben\Stewart and\or pry a 2005 draft pick out of the deal, it would be even better,

The point is that SAR is still good and young enough to fill in the short term if we trade Zach away. POR could always trade for\draft a young PF prospect to play behind SAR. I really believe that this is the best way for POR to go. LET ZACH GO, I like him as a player, I love his work ethic, but his shortcomings both ON (SPECIFICALLY) & OFF the court, his contract demands and what he could net POR in trade make this a fairly easy decision to make. 

Bottom Line....He is not the guy to lead this franchise in the future & if Nash\Pattersen place him in that position & pay him like he is, then both they & WE will come to regret it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I agree wholeheartedly except for this:



> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Given the fact that Zach's trade value is at\or near an all time high


I think Zach's value is dwindling by the day. Declaring this stuff to the media has only one effect, as Reef recently learned ...

Play.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I disagree with that Play.

Zach is only 23?/24? years old. He is putting up very good numbers. He is STILL under his rookie deal this year and will be a RFA next year. So he would be fairly easy to trade for, monetarily, and he wouls still be ridiculously cheap for the team that acquires him, for at least this year, and possibly next. But I do think his value is higher right now than it would be next summer\year if he was a RFA who accepted a tender offer ands was going to be a UFA. Now is the time to trade Zach IMO, he has some off court concerns, but not major ones, he is still young, he is a good player who will put up numbers wherever he goes, and he is not (yet) overpaid.

If a team, like BOS for instance, who already has a "franchise" player in Paul Pierce, were to trade for Zach, he would be a great 2nd option. Yes, his game does have weaknesses, but the results don't lie, he can put up numbers, I just don't think that if you are POR you want him to be the focus\franchise player of your team.

I think you underestimate his trade value. As for his recent comments, I don't think they have NEAR the effect that SAR did (and I would argue that SAR lack of playing time last year and to some extent the value that Nash places upon SAR in terms of trade value has more to do with SAR not be traded to date). SAR will be a UFA, Zach still has this year and the team that trades fior him gets RFA rights on him, so 1-1/2 years before he would be a UFA. I think that is a substantial difference.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

it'd be really nice if we could go through a pre-season/season without all this crappola on a stick..


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

KMUrph's intriguing idea

can not take place until Dec 15



Portland trades: C Vladimir Stepania (2.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.6 apg in 10.8 minutes) 
PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 37.9 minutes) 
SG Ruben Patterson (7.0 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 1.9 apg in 22.6 minutes) 
Portland receives: SG Al Jefferson (7.0 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 1.9 apg in 22.6 minutes) 
SG Jiri Welsch (9.2 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 2.3 apg in 26.9 minutes) 
C Michael Stewart (0.5 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.0 apg in 5.9 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -20.0 ppg, -12.4 rpg, and -2.2 apg. 

Boston trades: SG Al Jefferson (7.0 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 1.9 apg in 22.6 minutes) 
SG Jiri Welsch (9.2 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 2.3 apg in 26.9 minutes) 
C Michael Stewart (0.5 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.0 apg in 5.9 minutes) 
Boston receives: C Vladimir Stepania (2.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.6 apg in 42 games) 
PF Zach Randolph (20.1 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 81 games) 
SG Ruben Patterson (7.0 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 1.9 apg in 73 games) 
Change in team outlook: +20.0 ppg, +12.4 rpg, and +2.2 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


I added Stepania in it to keep our number of players the same


PG Stoudamire, NVE, Telfair
SG DA, Welsch, Frahm, *Woods
SF Miles, Outlaw, *Khryapa
PF Rahim, Jefferson
C Ratliff, Pryzbilla or *Stewart

*IR

Interesting idea...


If Rahim does end up leaving... we got Jefferson to play PF


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> it'd be really nice if we could go through a pre-season/season without all this crappola on a stick..


What are you referring to Hap?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> it'd be really nice if we could go through a pre-season/season without all this crappola on a stick..


What are you talking about ... this gives us something to do during the LOOOOONG days before Reef plays.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> What are you referring to Hap?


while this year is tamer than in years past (altho it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be, to a degree) this years fun surrounds potential dog fighting, someone complaining about his lack of playing time and suggesting the team won't win as many games w/out him, and the teams starting PF who's demanding a whole lot more money than he's worth and threatening to not re-sign wth the team if they don't up the ante.

For once, it'd be nice if that wasn't what we were hearing about.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ... this gives us something to do during the LOOOOONG days before Reef plays.


im going to be honest here. For a long time, I wanted the team to trade SAR just so you'd go with him. Well, for about a week I mean. Thats not the case anymore.

Now I kind of want him to stay, and Zach go away. 

Or at least, if SAR is traded, you continue to dope slap those of us who deserve it. 8)

but you are right, it does give us something to do during the more boring segments of this, the 2004-2005 NBA season.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

ah, I concur completely.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> im going to be honest here. For a long time, I wanted the team to trade SAR just so you'd go with him.


Really. I'm so un-lov-ed.

I'm going to the garden to eat worms. Long ones, fat ones, little itty bitty ones ... fuzzy wuzzy itty bitty worms.



> Well, for about a week I mean. Thats not the case anymore.


Awwww, thanks. I'm blushing. HEHE.



> Now I kind of want him to stay, and Zach go away.


I'm sure those feeling will dissapate as he rolls his way to 20/10.



> Or at least, if SAR is traded, you continue to dope slap those of us who deserve it. 8)


Do I really do that much dope slapping?



> but you are right, it does give us something to do during the more boring segments of this, the 2004-2005 NBA season.


That's right. It's the drama, baby! Who needs the TNT network to bring you drama ... we gots it in droves!

Not just that, but anything and everything beats ridiculous trades that will never ever, ever, ever happen. 

Play.

PS - I never knew you hated me when I first came here. I always figured you were one of the ones that thought I half-way knew what I was talking about.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> I disagree with that Play.


I think that his trade value is high. But, I think it was much higher at the end of last season and around the time of the draft.

Since then - he's gotten his name mentioned (rightly or wrongly, it was mentioned in connection to these events) in a gun shooting, misleading and lying to the police, dog fighting and finally threatening some guy with Q. 

Other GMs will see that as a potential problem, just as we do. 

Regardless of his age or potential or work ethic ... they will see the same things we are talking about on the boards. And whether they think it will be a real issue or not ... they will push down his value to get a steal.

Play.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Play -

Yeah I agree that could have some effect. Though, don't you think that his trade value is a LOT higher than SAR (right\wrong of what you\I think his value SHOULD be) right now? B\c I think Zach could net POR FAR more in trade than SAR, and quite frankly like I stated above, I really think SAR is more than capable of replacing Zach's numbers.

I really think a core trade of Al Jefferson\Jiri Welsch for Zach Randolph would be a very good trade for POR (and for BOS), exchanging Ruben for Stewart and\or netting an additional 1st round pick would be icing on the cake. I think that is very much in the realm of possibility.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> I'm going to the garden to eat worms. Long ones, fat ones, little itty bitty ones ... fuzzy wuzzy itty bitty worms.


for the strangest reason, I want to play pinochle now (another "worm" related saying tho). 


> I'm sure those feeling will dissapate as he rolls his way to 20/10.


I don't know, if the team plays like crap still, it's crap 20-10. 


> Do I really do that much dope slapping?


somewhat, but in a metaphysical sense.



> PS - I never knew you hated me when I first came here. I always figured you were one of the ones that thought I half-way knew what I was talking about.


oh, I didn't hate you. I don't hate anyone (thats a self serving comment if there ever was one, aint it?). It just felt odd to have someone come in the fashion you did. Then I realized "oh wait, I don't care. Play on play!"

I'm telling you, we're a weird paranoid, self dellusional, self grandizing, self important, selfish and other self'ism's, fan base.

now you're one of us, even if you don't want to admit it. 

like I told my (probably soon to be future sister in law)..."you're one of us now. whether you like it or not."


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

It's Paul Allen's money, so why do you guys care if he wants a lot of it? I never understood why fans care so much about a player wanting a lot of money. 

That said, I don't know if I would max him out yet. He's only had one full season to prove himself. But after this year if he shows improvement in the areas he needs to them I'm all for it. I certainly wouldn't hitch my wagon to Shareef. It has been proven that you can't build a succesfull team around him.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Yeah I agree that could have some effect. Though, don't you think that his trade value is a LOT higher than SAR (right\wrong of what you\I think his value SHOULD be) right now?


There is NO QUESTION you could get more with Randolph than Reef right now. Plus, with a Randolph trade you could unload some of those nasty contracts.

I just think that if they are going to do it ... they better hurry. I think he's bound to screw it up further.

But, I've been wrong.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> It's Paul Allen's money, so why do you guys care if he wants a lot of it?


See - there is this thing called a salary cap. It is a mystical, unseen force. Basically, it sets a limit to the amount of money available at any given time. Thus, if the pot were $3.00 and Jack took out $2.75 - there is only .25 left for Sally. Nes pas?

When a team, let's call them the "Trailblazers", spends too much money over a long period of time on a single (undeserving) resource, there is no room left over for additional resources. 

Example - Damon Stoudamire.



> I certainly wouldn't hitch my wagon to Shareef. It has been proven that you can't build a succesfull team around him.


Name one team that really tried? 

Reef gets a really bum rap for not winning, yet those teams were teams that couldn't win. I don't care if they had MJ. Those teams were so poorly strung together and so poorly coached and managed that NO ONE could have salvaged them. (save one Shaquille O'Neal)

Do you REALLY feel that Zach could have made ANY of those Vancouver Grizzly teams win? 

Let's see how many successful players Reef has been with .... ummmm... ONE. Bibby, and he's more a product of having 4 other guys that can light it up rather than a good player. I'd equate him with Stoudamire.

Sorry, this argument is just tired. It's constantly harped on by unoriginal sports writers that don't know what else to write.

That isn't to say I think Reef is Tim Duncan. but I don't think he's gotten a fair shake.

Play.


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

Back to Zach. 

Who was the last player to actually take the qualifying offer, play out his 4th season, become an unrestricted free agent and sign elsewhere the next year? Has it ever happened?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> KMUrph's intriguing idea
> 
> can not take place until Dec 15
> ...


Trader Bob, Patterson and Randolph? Need another one. They are not going to take Patterson. No one wants him.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

in order for them to take Randolph.. they need to take one of our bad contracts.... or give us talent in return... none of the three we get from them is especially all star bound, but none the less are some decent talent. taking on Patterson is the price they need to pay to combine Zach with Pierce


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>go_robot</b>!
> Back to Zach.
> 
> Who was the last player to actually take the qualifying offer, play out his 4th season, become an unrestricted free agent and sign elsewhere the next year? Has it ever happened?


Michael Olowokandi and Rasho Nesterovic each played 5 years with the team that drafted them (3 years + option year + qualifying offer year) and then signed elsewhere as an UFA.

Those are the two that come off the top of my head.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Oh lord..
you take the toughness in the paint away from this team and I
believe they could be the runnning for the 
worst team in the Western Conference.

No backcourt,no tenacious player in the paint.

Might as well fold the tents.

Zach deserves a ton of praise for his willingness to stay in there
and try and finish the play.

Portland has a glaring weakness at the finishing type player.

No Jerome Kersey,No Buck Williams.
Zach is a work in progress and a darn good player.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Just to muddy the waters a little bit further....

ESPN is reporting that Kirilenko got the max $86 million 

This would seem to strengthen Zach's claim for the max. If Andrei had settled for lless than the max, Zach might have seen that "the market" was setting his price below the max as well.

But now, I predict a stalemate. Portland's not going to give him the max this week (IMO) - not without another year for him to prove himself.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

You are right storyteller. Zach will not hold fast. So, the Blazers will either decide to overpay, as did Utah and Memphis, or wait and see what the new CBA looks like. My guess is that the new CBA will have shorter term max contracts, so Zach will end up with the same yearly numbers, but for only 4-5 years. It's a shame, but I don't think Zach's pride or his agent will let him sign for any less than the max at this point.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard! Let's max a kid who in two years has been in trouble with the law multiple times and even broken the eye socket of one of his teamates with a cheap shot. I'm not talking about MIP's here, I'm talking gun play and assualt. 

Portland is making a huge character mistake and this kid will get in more trouble trust me!


He's a punk who also happens to know how to make a basket. The punk side will win out. Problems just follow this kid.

Outside of his personal life he doesn't make this team better as a group and we need a freaking #2 guard! We've got a 20/10 guy in SAR who knows how to pass the ball, Miles can then start at the 3 and we can get a shooter we so badly need.

Zach needs to go if this team ever wants to change its image and now while his stock is high we can get a guard and our team all around will be better.

Maxing this punk guarantees SAR will be unhappy, Miles will be unhappy and we will not get a 2 guard. This is all around stupid!


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

Sam Mitchell thinks that Z-bo is better than Kenyon Martin after last nights game:

While veterans such as Rose and Peterson have secure jobs and likely found it hard to get motivated for exhibition game No. 6, there was no reason for Woods to be sleepwalking. 

"This is the NBA, and I have a news flash for (my players)," Mitchell said. "The left-handed guy, Zach Randolph (of the Blazers), is just as good, if not better, than Kenyon Martin." 

Link 

Now if Kenyon can get a MAX deal, do people think that Zach will be able to get a MAX deal next year? I think that has a great chance of happening.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I sure hope Portland will like paying him 70 million dollars while he's sitting in jail. That's where this kid will end up, it's just a matter of when.

For everything he could bring to the game he'll still be the guy at the wrong place at the wrong time. His short history here has shown that.

Bad Move!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sheed30</b>!
> This is the NBA, and I have a news flash for (my players)," Mitchell said. "The left-handed guy, Zach Randolph (of the Blazers), is just as good, if not better, than Kenyon Martin."


This comparison is completely ridiculous. Kenyon Martin doesn't have half the offensive talent Randolph does and Randolph doesn't have one iota of the defensive intensity of Martin.

They are COMPLETELY different players. There is nothing similar about their strengths. 

That's like saying - you better watch out, Brad Miller is just as good, if not better than Theo Ratliff. They play the position so completely different that they aren't comparible. 

Miller is an offensive threat, Theo a defensive threat.

Same with Randolph and Martin.

Stupid comparison.

Play.


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

That wasn't the point I was making Play. Of course there different players. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, there as different players as you can get. The question I asked was if Kenyon Martin was able to go out and get a MAX contract from 2 teams when Rod Thron didn't think he could command a MAX deal. If Z-bo plays out this year and become a restricted free agent next year, do you guys think he will get a MAX offer from other teams that have the cap?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope. Take a look at what I mean:
> ...


How many players production per minute goes up in minutes 29-37? I'd guess not too many would see across the board bumps playing that much. This last year was Redd's first as a starter. Instead of competing against the other teams backups, he was the main focus of the Bucks offensive attack and so was the focus of the opponent's defense. No more doubling off him when Joe Smith gets the ball on the block.

Some of his main stats went down, some stayed relatively the same, some key offensive stats went up outpacing his minutes increase... and he was recognised as having had the 3rd best season of all off-guards by the league. I find it pretty funny that in support of your opinion that he "backslid" you list his declining prowess as a shotblocker and left off that his FTA went up 138%! Seems to me the ability to get to the line is much more in his role then blocking shots.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here as I'm not swayed at all.

STOMP


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sheed30</b>!
> That wasn't the point I was making Play.


I know that. I was commenting on the stupidity of the original statement ... not your post.



> If Z-bo plays out this year and become a restricted free agent next year, do you guys think he will get a MAX offer from other teams that have the cap?


There is no question some team will offer him the max.

Play.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> There is no question some team will offer him the max.


As a RFA, Portland has the option to match any offer he might get, thats how the Clips handled Brand. They let the market determine his rate and choose to match. Knowing this and keeping in mind who Portland's owner is, other teams may not bother to go after Zach.

By his UFA offseason, it may be just the Clips with the caproom availble to offer a max deal. With Brand and Wilcox already on board, and Donald Sterling as their owner, your statement above seems pretty offbase to me. Nash has the power in this game of chicken.

STOMP


----------

