# It's time to say goodbye to Miles AND Zach



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think both of these guys are quitters, and that both are severly lacking in inner toughness\fortitude....

I have been increasingly dismayed by both players recent performances...and IMO Zach's attitud\play is MORE upsetting to me than Miles is....

I know a lot of people here gave up on Miles awhile ago, but I said at the beginning of the year that (IMO) this year was a crucial year for him. I wanted to see how he would perform getting starter's minutes, what his attitude would be like, and would he improve on his frustratingly inconsistent play...

Inconsistency...I think that is a word that sums up Miles best...Specifically, inconsistent PLAY and inconsistent EFFORT...

I will say that I do think Miles is a BETTER player than he was last year, and potential-wise (that bitter word I will always associate with Miles)...he is CLEARLY the most talented player on the team, but as optimistic as I am, and as many times I tell myself "He is only 24", I keep coming back to the fact that he has been given AMPLE opportunity (PT and in # of years) to prove himself, and I just don't believe he will ever get appreciably better in POR...and that is the key here..IN PORTLAND...

I do buy into the theory\rumours that he doesn't want to be here...and I don't think he is happy with being "The Man"...unlike his misguided frontcourt companion Zach...The irony here to me is, that given that the "stars align" with Miles he has the potential to be such a player, where Zach, although he badly wants it, will NEVER be that player IMO...

If POR was a veteran team, just looking for a player who could come in and provide some spark play here and there, then I would say hold onto Miles...But given that he this team is so young, and so bad, I think the team is better off jettisoning him. 

The same goes with Zach, who should have at least more value "trade wise" than Miles does. I don't like the fact that he has quit in games, that he easily loses focus, that he is quick to give up team play to go 1 on 1, and w\o the results that other...more talented players get...It is one thing to go 1 on 2...3..4...and score...is it quite another to do that with poor results...Zach fits squarely in the latter category.....

IF POR could get a Top5-10 draft pick for Zach in this year's draft (or in 07') then I say they should deal him...Look, the team sucks with him, and I don't think the team gets much worse w\o him....I just don't think Zach will ever be a major part in a "top tier" playoff caliber team...he is just too "me" focused and IMO doesn't have the mental make-up to excel when things go bad...

I see a lot of people here blaming Telfair\Webster or Outlaw for their lack of progress, and yes there growth has been slow (some (Outlaw) more than others)...but the bottom line is the main reason POR has been so awful this year lies directly on the shoulders of Zach and Miles...2 players who were being counted on to take that "next step" and clearly haven't....

Miles took a sidestep and Zach took a step backward IMO, and if thier play at the tail end of a miserable season is any indication of their makeup or future here in Portland, then I for one want no part of them, and niether should Blazer management.

POR has just about reached the lowest of lows...IMO they should complete the rebuilding..admit their mistakes (with Zach in particular) and move forward WITHOUT either of these guys.....

Seriously, could a team with Adam Morrison and Shelden Williams perform any worse next year? I don't think they would....


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

we already blew it up once, now we need to blow it up again!

cant believe we chose to build around two guys like zach and darius, you get what you deserve patternash and allen


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

Easier said than done....even if Portland wanted to unload them, who's going to take them, their bad knees and long term contracts? Get used to them, they're going to be around a while. (at least until the team moves to Boise)


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

It's a great theory, and I think that's what Nate is trying to show management, as he said in the paper about a week ago. "We have to show the organization what they have." Make no mistake, he knows they are loafing on the court, and he wants to get rid of them.

Unfortunately, the decisions are made by Allen and the board of Vulcan, and for some reason Allen is enamored with Randolph and Miles, so if he's still the owner when the offseason hits, I wouldn't expect any major changes.

-Pop


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

Theo, Zach, Darius, Telfair. All gone if I was GM

Theo: Old and breaking. Not worth what we are paying him for. He would fit better on an established team and as a PF

Zach: Case of diminishing returns, will not live up to max contract, cannot be counted on to lead team (ie Rasheed)

Darius: Heart just isn't in it. Not a leader. Poor example for rookies. Can produce on the offensive end, can defend when he tries. He just just doesn't try often enough. 

Telfair: Will be good somewhere else. Needs a run-gun offense to fourish. Talented and cheap but not a good fit for the team nor Nate's offense. Good trade bait to move the other large contracts on the team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Telfair: Will be good somewhere else. Needs a run-gun offense to fourish. Talented and cheap but not a good fit for the team nor Nate's offense. Good trade bait to move the other large contracts on the team.



Yes, God forbid this team run and bring back some fun the the Rose Garden.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

If we can get a supporting cast in that can run then by all means lets do it. But we don't Theo can't run, Zach isn't that fast, Miles woudl fit but the problem is transition D when you run you have to get back quick on defense. If we move the people I mentioned above maybe we could sling it. But to move those pieces it is going to take some grease (Telfair)


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I hate to chime in because posters know how I feel about Miles, but my thought is what could Miles and Zach do with an all star around them. Miles isn't the all star but could be a great role player where he gives offense at times and makes big plays. Posters want so much from Miles while allowing the youngins to develop. If Miles just puts up the numbers he does now, but has someone else on the team who puts up the big numbers, that could be productive. Instead Miles is expected to do so much more given the weak roster and maybe he just isn't capable of that. (Just because someone is athletic doesn't mean they can automatically put up big numbers every night. Consistency is more mental.) Let's get someone to be the consistent go to guy every night and let Miles play his role without always wanting more from him.

OK here we go . . . I don't mind all the posts telling me how wrong I am, but some posters just want to take cheap shots at me, which really is not fun on my side. Personally I think it is good to have someone on the board to take the other perspective . . . but if it is all Miles hate I understand and will stick to just reading the threads about Miles.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> IF POR could get a Top5-10 draft pick for Zach in this year's draft (or in 07') then I say they should deal him...


It's doubful we're going to get that. 

The only way we'll be able to deal Randolph is if we take back a few players similar attitudinal issues or another player undeserving of a max contract. The first violates the new team philosophy (25 points), as does the second (the fiscally responsible mandate). 

I also disagree with your supposition that Randolph has more value. I think Miles does: his contract (although large by some standards), is much more reasonable than Randolph's deal. 

If the Blazers decide Randolph isn't in their future, they need to wait at *least *one more year to get rid of him. As it stands, Randolph is a PF:
- recovering from an injury 
- whose RPG, PPG, and FG% have gone down each of the last 3 years that the team has gotten worse. Usually it would go up.

For a team to pick him up with his price tag, Randolph needs to be all-star (or all-star caliber) next year. Otherwise, no one will want him. It's too bad Frye seems to be panning out for the Knicks; they seem like the only team that would take a guy like Randolph.

___

Miles, on the other hand, is a lot more tradeable simply because his stats have gone *up* each of the last four years. The downside, of course, is that most teams have a serviceable option at SF already. I think if you're dealing Miles this offseason, you'll need to include someone else too (Blake, Dixon, etc).

If Portland does move Miles, it'll probably be for Przybilla's replacement at center, or another Voshon Lenard type. 

I'm not convinced Miles has peaked yet, however.  Portland would be best served hanging onto him for one more year as his value rises.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Goodbye Darius and Zach. You don't put in the effort, that is why you are leaving. Go away!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

for those arguing we need to dump our best and second best players, please select one:

A) we should trade them for absolute dreck (because that's all we'd get for them, given their injuries/contracts). I can't wait to get me some Steve Francis.

B) we need to trade them for decent players, but package in youngsters (aka, Patterson + Monia for Skinner) to make it somewhat palateable. to get somebody to eat Randolph's deal we'd probably have to give up Webster. or maybe this year's pick. that sounds dandy to me. 

any way you move them, at best you go laterally (in deal A). at worst, you set the youth movement back even more (in deal B). 

we're stuck with them for a while, folks. and it wouldn't really be so bad if we just had some healthy centers and a young superstar guard of the Chris Paul variety.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Trade them for what? Other seriously flawed players for us to ***** about? 

Moving players just for the sake of getting rid of them usually ends up in significantly less talent coming back. Do you really think we can afford to take back less talent?

I'm all for trading them if you can find a deal that improves our team. But trading them for the sake of getting rid of them is preposterous.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

Zach + Telfair 

Miles + Ratliff + late first

If neccessary throw in Outlaw as a spoonful of sugar.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> Trade them for what? Other seriously flawed players for us to ***** about?
> 
> Moving players just for the sake of getting rid of them usually ends up in significantly less talent coming back. Do you really think we can afford to take back less talent?
> 
> I'm all for trading them if you can find a deal that improves our team. But trading them for the sake of getting rid of them is preposterous.



there's probably a bigger market for these guys than we fans realize. I'm not saying that the Clippers would be offering Elton Brand or something like that, but I'm sure we'd be surprised IF the team ends up trading them.

Trading them for something as minimal as a pick and no players..I wouldn't be too wild about that. Unless it's a lotto pick this year (top 5) in addition to our pick..

Even then it's a huge risk. But than again, I'm not convinced that Miles or Zach have it in them to become more than what they are, or that they both want to be in Portland.

One thing is for sure tho, they'll end up blaming the media for making it impossible for them to be loved/thrive when they leave (as will the fans of the two of them).


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Here's a trade that works, and would actually be fairly likely to happen:

Zach and Miles for Jalen Rose.

Why do it? Simply because Zach has 5 more years, Miles 4 and Rose only 1.

You could dream and hope that NY throws in a pick or Channing Frye, but that ain't happening (Isiah would be tarred and feathered, and I think even he knows it).


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

meru said:


> Here's a trade that works, and would actually be fairly likely to happen:
> 
> Zach and Miles for Jalen Rose.
> 
> ...


Very intersting...... It is just crazy enough to work.

What if we add telfair in to get him back to NY? Think that is enough to pry away Frye, maybe Nate Robinson.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

meru-

I agree--that's probably a pretty typical deal for what we could get. we would absolutely suck, but we'd only have to pay Rose for next season and we're done. 

you'd have a starting lineup next season of Blake, Webster, Outlaw, Skinner, Ratliff (maybe Przybilla), plus Khryapa and whomever we draft coming off the bench. 

we'd be lucky to put up 85 points a game. it'd definitely put us in even better Oden contention.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

meru said:


> Here's a trade that works, and would actually be fairly likely to happen:
> 
> Zach and Miles for Jalen Rose.


thats almost laughable...umm, ill pass. 

we would win about 4 games next year. true story. if thats the best we could do, ill keep them.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

ryanjend22 said:


> thats almost laughable...umm, ill pass.
> 
> we would win about 4 games next year. true story. if thats the best we could do, ill keep them.


But that would be a good thing remember next year is the Greg Oden lottery. Plus there will be a lot of big name free agents in 2007 

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_13008.shtml

Chauncey Billups, Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, Kirk Hinrich, LeBron James, Rashard Lewis, Vince Carter


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would do that deal. Miles and Zach are simply loosers. They have instilled a culture of loosing, not caring and loafing. Neither are leaders by any means, both are not playing to their potential and never will in Portland. Zach had one good year, when he was Wallaces Robin. Miles hads never come close to realizing his talent. It was the same thing in cleveland, he was playing alongside LBJ but still could not get it together, he isnt even a second option.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

If the Blazers want to turn things around quickly, there needs to be some thought given to packaging one of these guys with our pick for an established super-star level talent. I've never been a fan of rebuilding through the draft and I'm less than thrilled at the prospect of waiting for another guy to get five years of experience before he develops into a dominant player.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I think we'll be able to deal Theo fairly easily this off-season. I also expect Miles to be gone, but I don't think we'll be able to dumb Zach on anyone. 

I kinda like the idea of being a player in the '07 free agent market, but if I'm a FA and Nash and Paul Allen are here, I'd have to get a ton of cash to come into this mess.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> Trade them for what? Other seriously flawed players for us to ***** about?
> 
> Moving players just for the sake of getting rid of them usually ends up in significantly less talent coming back. Do you really think we can afford to take back less talent?
> 
> I'm all for trading them if you can find a deal that improves our team. But trading them for the sake of getting rid of them is preposterous.


Maybe we can find a GM (or owner, however you want to look at who makes the decisions) as dumb as ours who think that they're valuable players and we could get a lot in return since they have such massive salaries. :biggrin: 

I remember seeing an ESPN list of top ten worst GMs in the league (which Nash was on of course!), let's start calling those guys up!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Here's another one: Zach and Ratliff for Webber. (I don't like this one so much, because we're stuck with Webber for 2 years and he's one of my least favourite players.)

Or how about:

Zach, Miles, Travis and Telfair for... Kevin Garnett!

(It does work _in theory_ (in a Homer Simpson voice). Seriously, though, if the 'Wolves do miss the playoffs, they've got to think of shipping out Garnett. But if they did, I would think a Garnett-for-Nowitzki trade makes more sense (and is nicer to KG).


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Just another fun fact about how much Zach doesn't care about the team, or winning, or anything for that matter: anyone who sits in section 120 or 121, which is behind the Portland bench, can clearly see Zach talking to his friends and family in the stands. This can happen at any point before the game, during the game, during timeouts whether he's in or not. I personally think it's just fantastic to see how very focused he is on the game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

bballchik said:


> Just another fun fact about how much Zach doesn't care about the team, or winning, or anything for that matter: anyone who sits in section 120 or 121, which is behind the Portland bench, can clearly see Zach talking to his friends and family in the stands. This can happen at any point before the game, during the game, during timeouts whether he's in or not. I personally think it's just fantastic to see how very focused he is on the game.


haha yea, sometimes I'm behind the bench and I see this a lot...His posse comes to all the games and he always looks back at them sporadically during the game...I'm not sure if thats an indicator that he doesn't care about the game though...


----------



## BigDtoPDX (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree with SodaPop on page 1...Nate knows all and well what is going on out on the court. Now perhaps a rookie coach, or a coach who just came up from college would be in a losing battle and kind of let Zach and Miles do what they want. But Nate is certainly not like this. I believe that Nate feels that he has done all that he could with these two and now its put-up or shut-up time.

I think they get rid of Zach in the offseason and keep Miles around b/c can still be involved with a good team if around other good players. I dont know if its the same with Zach, he needs his shots and I highly doubt Nate tells him to shoot 3/4 of the time from outside, his style, effort, etc. I think is a drain on the team.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> haha yea, sometimes I'm behind the bench and I see this a lot...His posse comes to all the games and he always looks back at them sporadically during the game...I'm not sure if thats an indicator that he doesn't care about the game though...


well it's sure not professional, appropriate, focused, or anything i want to see out of our highest paid player.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I often wonder if Zach is going to be remembered as a poor man's Moses Malone. I remember Moses changing teams a few times over the course of his career and the main criticism seemed to be that he was always looking to pad his stats. He always had good rebounding numbers and could put up points but was never considered much of a defensive stopper. I just remember people being critical of him because it seemed like his stats did not come within the flow of a team game. 

Zach may get his numbers the majority of the time but may not be a starting player on a championship team.

As for Miles, I just have a bias against him. I don't know if it's his perceived lack of effort, lack of heart, or just the fact that he is illiterate when he talks. Not that I couldn't stand to clean up my own grammar (and interview skills), but it makes me downright uncomfortable thinking of him doing interviews as a representative of Oregon. I keep telling myself to give the kid a break but I'm struggling.

On a positive note I really, really like Jarret Jack and Martell Webster and feel that it's too early to give up on Telfair and outlaw.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'm surprised about the dislike for Zach. It's not time to give up on another 24-yr-old who averages 20-10. It's Nash's job to surround Zach with good players, and obviously he hasn't done that. Giving up on Zach would probably bite us in the butt again for the next 10 yrs like Jermaine.

As for Miles, yeah, get rid of him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

alext42083 said:


> I'm surprised about the dislike for Zach. It's not time to give up on another 24-yr-old who averages 20-10. It's Nash's job to surround Zach with good players, and obviously he hasn't done that. Giving up on Zach would probably bite us in the butt again for the next 10 yrs like Jermaine.
> 
> As for Miles, yeah, get rid of him.



we gave up on another 24 year old who averaged 20-10? Who was the first 24 year old who averaged 20-10 who we gave up on?

maybe if Zach averaged 20-10, or at least wouldn't take games off, I might be more interested in keeping him as a fan.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Hap said:


> we gave up on another 24 year odl who averaged 20-10?
> 
> maybe if Zach averaged 20-10, or at least wouldn't take games off, I might be more interested in keeping him as a fan.


Well, OK, Jermaine wasn't 24 or averaged 20-10 when we got rid of him, but it's giving up another young big man who can play which would hurt if the Blazers traded him. You don't give up guys like that, who can post, shoot jumpers and lately has shown the ability to hit the 3, especially giving him up for someone like Jalen Rose who I think was mentioned earlier.. ugh.
Sure, Zach can't play defense all too well, but who else would fill the void of being our low post scorer? If you keep getting rid of the young guys, and continue rebuilding and rebuilding, that won't get you anywhere. Zach's a core player, and you need to surround him with good players.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Zach is nowhere near Jermaine. He has had a chance to prove himself, and itsbovious he is nothing but a selfish player that simply doesnt have the heart to win games. He is nowhere as athletic or talented as JO. Heck, Jermaine doesnt have much heart but he sure has more than Zach.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

this is a boring thread like most of them lately

go blazers


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

What is fair value for Zach?

I mean in today's NBA that is all so relative...

Steve Francis gets dealt for Hardaway's deal and no nothing player Trevor Ariza...I don't like Francis as a player, but he is worth more than that IMO....

If POR wants a "top 5" pick in this year's draft for example, I think this is probably the type of deal they would be looking at...I really think CHI would be the type of team, that COULD have interest....The have TWO top 10 picks...NY pick could probably be #1 or top 3 (What a stupid stupid trade by Thomas BTW)...CHI pick (#8-#10) could be another option.

But if not CHI, what about TOR? or ATL? 

The bottom line IMO is whether or not trading Zach is worth getting a guy like Tyrus Thomas/Josh McRoberts/Shelden Williams...and either out from the remainder of his deal (by trading him for an expiring deal) or adding rotation another player (to make salaries match)?

Personally I think Zach is full of hollow stats, he reminds me very much...production wise mind you, of Cliff Robinson at a younger age...He can put up numbers on a given night and dissapear the next, and he rarely shows up in "clutch time"...Sound familiar?

Where did Cliff Robinson LEAD this team? When HE was the "man" on the team?....and yet POR is PAYING Zach to be that "clutch" player, to be that "leader"...much moreso than they ever did Cliffy, and they cut loose Cliff eventually (and the team had a better record when he was here..."leading" the team as well)

I thought mgmt made a HUGE mistake when they gave Zach this deal (MUCH moreso than the Miles deal...by a longshot)...and I sincerely hope that they have the fortitude to admit they made a mistake (or that McMillan can show them the error of their ways) and pull the plug on this guy...

Would POR really miss Zach's production? 

Seriously.... 

Ask yourself that, b\c I don't think they would....Look at Brian Skinner whom POR just picked up, he has averaged 8.6pts & 7.2 boards since his arrival here (and he only averages 7 attemps per game)...Zach averages 18pts & 8.5 boards (and he takes 16.5 shots a game)...Now can Skinner replace Zach's production? No, not totally, but he could in part...He is as good or better of a rebounder, and he is a MUCH better intangibles player (talking to teamates, active on defense, setting picks on offense, staying within his game)....

But Skinner isn't the only benefit of Zach departing, yes his production would probably go up, but POR would also have another young PF to groom, and possibly another player or a "dead weight" (ie expiring) contract that would free POR of over 52 million or part of that.... 

Zach will make 12mil...13.3mil...14.5mil...16mil and 17mil over the next 5 seasons..

Miles, whose contract many here claim is horrible will make 6.8mil...7.6mil...8.3mil...9mil and 10mil over the next 5 seasons...

Is Miles overpaid? Of course he is, and I do agree that POR overbid themselves on him, HOWEVER, I was then and am now willing to live with his deal more than Zach's b\c I maintain that it was worth seeing if the light could ever "turn on" for Miles...I have come to the conclusion that it won't...

If POR dealt Zach (whom I would try to deal 1st...and whom I do think holds more "trade" value than Miles, and I don't think it is close b\t the two), then they could "try" and find a deal for Miles, or wait until the deadline and deal him and\or Theo...

I think it would be possible to get NY pick form CHI for Zach...IF that was the case POR could get a shot at LaMarcus Aldridge


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

It'd be ironic if Chicago, who had traded Elton Brand for a high lottery pick, were to trade away a high lottery pick for another proven power forward. Kind of a big circle. 

Anyway, I think that trade of Brand for Chandler demonstrates the folly of dumping a proven valuable commodity for a pick you one day hope will be as good as the guy you dumped.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> this is a boring thread like most of them lately
> 
> go blazers


not sure if you are referring to topic or content but either way please enlighten us and start a more exciting one or write something exciting in this one. i'll be waiting breathlessly :biggrin:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> What is fair value for Zach?
> 
> I mean in today's NBA that is all so relative...
> 
> ...


No way. 

Why would Chicago do that? Do you honestly think that they'd spend all that time working their payroll down only to leap back over the salary cap by taking on Randolph? I don't think so. 

A team offers maximum deals to players they plan on building the franchise around. Chicago would have to make a conscious decision to do so. By hanging onto Randolph for just one more year, there's a pretty good chance that he gets healthier and the players around him become more effective His value will go up, and there's a chance that he might buy into Nate's system. 

Dealing him now would arguably make us worse, and bring back a guy with lesser value and similarly huge contract (he's a BYC guy). We've dealt enought guys out of desperation. We'd be better off keeping him around, having him put up some sick numbers for a year, THEN trading him. I will agree that every year it will get harder to trade him, but if he pumps up his stats next year, someone will be a lot more willing to bite on a deal than if we just dump him now.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Miles has proven time and time again that he will not put in the effort to merge his superstar talent with superstar effort to reach his potential.

Zach, while having less talent, works harder on his game and has developed into a pretty decent passer this year. Zach, while not in the Elton Brand class, is producing more than K Mart and Boozer are for similar $$ and can continue to be an effective player.

Surrounding Zach with the right talent: Jack, Webster, Morrison, Joel will allow him to reach his full potential. 

Miles simply does not have the outside game necessary to spread the floor and allow the offense to flow effectively. Outlaw has the range, but has not developed the basketball IQ yet. Morrison will bring both.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

has anyone come up with a realistic trade scenario where we get rid of:

A: Miles

B: Zach

C: Zach and Miles


?

I can't seem to put any out there that make any sense (outside of giving them away).

but what can the team get back in return?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Getting rid of Zach just to be rid of him would be silly. We need to add MORE good players, not get rid of one of the few ones we have left.

The team messed up by signing him to such a massive extension, but they shouldn't get rid of him just to be out from under the deal. And I don't see any other team being willing to give good value for the pleasure of having him.

As for Miles: I don't care one way or the other. I've never seen the superstar potential that so many have... I don't think it's effort, I just don't think that he's quick enough to dominate at the 3 or big and strong enough to play the 4. Add in his shaky perimeter game and you have a player who's a starter but not an all-star.

I still think that Webster will end up landing at the small forward spot, and if he doesn't the odds of whomever we take in the lottery this year doing so are good. So if we can get something for Miles and be out from under his contract, I'd be interested in doing it.

But Zach? No, I think he's definitely a keeper.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

theWanker said:


> It'd be ironic if Chicago, who had traded Elton Brand for a high lottery pick, were to trade away a high lottery pick for another proven power forward. Kind of a big circle.
> 
> Anyway, I think that trade of Brand for Chandler demonstrates the folly of dumping a proven valuable commodity for a pick you one day hope will be as good as the guy you dumped.



Nice to know that not everyone on here has lost their minds.

Where have we heard this ****e before? Zach has a big game (33 and 8) and he is "selfish". If he has *less* than 30 points, he "doesn't care".

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy around here makes me uke:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Nice to know that not everyone on here has lost their minds.
> 
> Where have we heard this ****e before? Zach has a big game (33 and 8) and he is "selfish". If he has *less* than 30 points, he "doesn't care".
> 
> I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy around here makes me uke:


The funny this is that you, more than anyone else from my recollection, totally saw this coming, OMG. IIRC, you knew that the torch would be passed to Zach. That as soon as he became the best player fans would blame him for whatever failures the team had, would pick apart his game, and would want to ship him out on the next train to anywhereelseville.

OK. Maybe you didn't phrase it like that. But I wanted to give you the benefit of an "I told you so" without you having to say it 

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

trade miles keep zbo


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

theWanker said:


> It'd be ironic if Chicago, who had traded Elton Brand for a high lottery pick, were to trade away a high lottery pick for another proven power forward. Kind of a big circle.
> 
> Anyway, I think that trade of Brand for Chandler demonstrates the folly of dumping a proven valuable commodity for a pick you one day hope will be as good as the guy you dumped.


Couldn't agree more. Trading Zach or giving him away because of his contract would be a huge mistake. The guy is our most talented offensive player. I would hate to end up like Chicago was a few years ago, as they kept on rebuilding and rebuilding and never got anywhere


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I also don't think we should trade Zach and i believe the best way to keep him motivated is to have a young big strong guy with heart waiting on the bench in case Nate doesn't think Zach is giving the effort. LaMarcus Aldrige or Tiago Splitter or someone else similar.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ukrainefan said:


> I also don't think we should trade Zach and i believe the best way to keep him motivated is to have a young big strong guy with heart waiting on the bench in case Nate doesn't think Zach is giving the effort. David Aldrige or Tiago Splitter or someone else similar.



Who is David Aldrige? Do you mean Lamarcus Aldridge? 

I think Zach would be fine if we had someone on the team that wouldn't let him slack like MJ or Bird. If Morrison is that guy so be it, but that's what Zach needs.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

yeh, sorry, i don't know why i always say david.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The funny this is that you, more than anyone else from my recollection, totally saw this coming, OMG. IIRC, you knew that the torch would be passed to Zach. That as soon as he became the best player fans would blame him for whatever failures the team had, would pick apart his game, and would want to ship him out on the next train to anywhereelseville.
> 
> OK. Maybe you didn't phrase it like that. But I wanted to give you the benefit of an "I told you so" without you having to say it
> 
> Ed O.



Thank you!

Being grouchy and prophetic can be so hard some days. :wink:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Why would Chicago do that? Do you honestly think that they'd spend all that time working their payroll down only to leap back over the salary cap by taking on Randolph? I don't think so.


Uh...CHI has been here before....remember?

They traded Elton Brand for the rights to Tyson Chandler.....I would think all things being considered they would prefer to have Brand back, don't you?

and cap space? lol 

Cap space is not as useful if your team sucks...Let's see....How did all that cap space work out for CHI before?

Well they signed Eddie Robinson, Ron Mercer and Brad Miller (whom they subsequently traded)....

You don't really think they are going to get a player of Zach's caliber in free agency do you?

I couldn't disagree more with your assumptions. We can debate whether or not trading Zach is a good idea for POR, but CHI dealing a pick to acquire him is not far fetched or a bad idea for them at all....

I think it will all depend on where the NY pick lands IMO, I think if CHI could get their hands on Aldridge, or that pick is a #1, then I think chances are they don't deal it...

As for dealing Zach, yeah I'd do it for a top draft pick and either expiring deals or another player\s....

I don't think Zach will ever lead this team anywhere...not with his type of attitude...Wow he scored 33pts last night, and POR lost, and just a week? ago he scored 2pts......He isn't a cornerstone player, nor will he ever be, and he won't ever be a team player either...pull the plug on him and start over...it can't get any lower without him than it already is WITH him...


----------

