# Should POR deal Zach for Webber?



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think they should consider it...IF it were an option....

I don't think Webber is a long term answer for POR, nor do I think he wants to go to POR, nor do I think it is a fair talent exchange at this stage of Webber's career...

I do think that POR would need to expand the deal to make it more beneficial for them now and more importantly in the future...

I really like John Salmons, and think he is at the stage of his career where he is ready to take off as a player....He is 26yrs old and coming off his best year in the NBA....I think getting him in this deal as part of a S&T would be good....

Why Webber? 

Well 1st, he is a better player than Zach is, even at the age of 33...The guy averaged 20.2 ppg, 9.9 rpg & 3.4 apg last year....

2nd....He has two years left on his deal, compared to Zach's 5 years left....and IMO POR can turn around and deal him (and they would) either at the trade deadline this year (or next) to a team looking for a player to put them over the top, but not having to absorb a long term deal (an important aspect) in the process

OR next year when his contract is expiring....A lot of that would depend on when Aldridge is ready to start....and while Zach may be a younger player...He comes with a LOT more baggage at this point.....both the size and length of his contract and his off court escapades make dealing him a little difficult IMO...whereas Webber may be getting long in the tooth, the bottom line is he still produces and his contract at this point is rather short...and I am sure he wants to win a title, and I am also sure that a playoff team would take a shot on him...b\c of his ability....and b\c of his "short" contract

and like I stated above, I do think POR could get a few other players or a pick in the deal...and POR could also help clean out some of their overstuffed roster in the process by orchestrating a 2 for 3 or 2 for 4 type of deal...

My proposal would be Zach, Skinner and Dixon for Webber & S&T Salmons...OR

Zach, Skinner and Dixon for Webber and Korver

Just a thought....


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Zach, Miles, Dixon, and Skinner for Webber, Salmons, and Korver?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Very intrigueing idea...I like it, but I'm not sure about Webbers attitude at this stage, though it's probably better than Zachs.


----------



## m_que01 (Jun 25, 2003)

I wouldn't mind a swap of Zach for Webber. Webber's contract has become reasonable and has become more of an asset now that it only has 2 years left on it. If possibly I would do the deal without Korver's long contract. A resigned Salmon and Webber would work out for me. I wonder If Zach was ever on good terms with Coach Cheeks, maybe Cheeks can make a push for Zach.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Simple and expected answer from me 


YES!!!!!!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

JUST SAY no to C Webb...

BUT

the idea of a salary dump intrigues me.... but I think there are better offers out there for Zach than this

if the deal can be Zach, Raef, Darius, Juan and Dickau...... for C Webb and ? then maybe we do it... we get rid of the 2x most expensive contracts + Darius, and Juan and Dan who I do not think have a role on this team in the long run


Zach, Darius, Juan, Dan and Raef for Webber and Dalembert


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Webber is a gimp now. We would have to get other talent in return for sure, which IMO would have to be a SF.


----------



## TallBottom (May 24, 2006)

Only if we get rid of Miles in the same trade!!


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

sure.. but theres no way that zbo and miles would be reunited with mo cheeks. theres a better chance of jennifer aniston starring in a good movie.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

No thanks. Webber sucks now. Zach still has the possibility of being good. It depends on the condition of his knee.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I wouldn't do it. Webber makes $43m over 2 years and Zach makes $73m over 5 years... dumping Zach to get out from under his salary isn't something I want to do at this point.

If he has a good year, and actually acquires some trade value? I'd be more interested in moving him. But not just to be rid of him, as in this kind of trade.

Ed O.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

deanwoof said:


> sure.. but theres no way that zbo and miles would be reunited with mo cheeks. theres a better chance of jennifer aniston starring in a good movie.


ever seen office space?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

deanwoof said:


> sure.. but theres no way that zbo and miles would be reunited with mo cheeks. theres a better chance of jennifer aniston starring in a good movie.


She was in Office Space

D;oh posted before i read the whole thread.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> No thanks. Webber sucks now.


That is ridiculous....He averaged 20ppg 9.9 boards and like 3-1/2 assists last year...If that sucks...then just about the entire league sucks

and Webber is CLEARLY a better player than Zach is...even at the ripe old age of 33


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

IMO, just say no to Webber. He's hobbled, and aging. I rather give Zach another year to show how he can play after he has time to heal from is surgery.

As far as C-Web having less baggage....I'm not so sure:
He has two MJ charges, and he copped a plea to avoid perjury charges for lying to a grand jury. If the star witness had not died just before the perjury trail, CW could very likely have spent some time in jail.

Go Blazers


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Zach fits the youth movement better.


----------



## BlazerBeav (Jul 31, 2003)

It might be important to note that one of your pieces in the deal, John Salmons, now plays for the Toronto Raptors.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

miles and randolph for webber and bobby jones


we get a huge contract in webber but he is a leader and can come in and lead these young cats....and he only has 1 year left on his contract...so 06-07 and 07-08...while randolph has 4 left and miles has 3 left

we get rid of miles and randolph and their contracts

we get a young defender at the 3....bobby jones...we would be thin at the 3 but him and outlaw could backup webster at the 3


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> That is ridiculous....He averaged 20ppg 9.9 boards and like 3-1/2 assists last year...If that sucks...then just about the entire league sucks
> 
> and Webber is CLEARLY a better player than Zach is...even at the ripe old age of 33


He sucks. I don't what numbers he puts up. All you have to do is watch a Sixers game and you can see he sucks. Webber was not clearly better than Zach last season. Zach's FG and 3pt percentages were higher, and he had less turnovers and fouls. This is even as Zach is struggling to regain his pre injury form. Zach at least has a chance to get better, CWebb does not.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

A thousand times NO on that one!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

tlong said:


> He sucks. I don't what numbers he puts up. All you have to do is watch a Sixers game and you can see he sucks. Webber was not clearly better than Zach last season. Zach's FG and 3pt percentages were higher, and he had less turnovers and fouls. This is even as Zach is struggling to regain his pre injury form. Zach at least has a chance to get better, CWebb does not.



Wow...What games are you watching? Seriously...Zach Randolph isn't half the player Chris Webber was, nor is he as good as Webber is now.....nice way to take a nosedive on the credibility meter...

I don't care if you don't like him or don't want POR to trade for him b\c you don't like him....I understand that....but when you post a comment like "he sucks" after the guy averaged 20 pts 10 boards and 3 assists...then clueless is a word that comes to mind.....

and your point on their FG%...that is a joke right? Webber shot 43.4% and Zach shot 43.6%...and the last thing I want to see is Zach jacking up 3pt shots....and BTW Webber had a better FG%...more assists...more steals..more blocks and a better assist to TO ratio......lol

But your right...he sucks...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

dwood615 said:


> miles and randolph for webber and bobby jones
> 
> 
> we get a huge contract in webber but he is a leader and can come in and lead these young cats....and he only has 1 year left on his contract...so 06-07 and 07-08...while randolph has 4 left and miles has 3 left
> ...


I'd do this trade. I think Webber is pretty overrated. Even with 20-10-3.5 numbers, he played on a pretty fact pace team and got lots of touches, but certainly wasn't an efficient scorer (19FGA/gm), and is a bad defender. However, except for the part about playing on a fast pace team, that pretty much describes Randolph as well. I think Randolph will be the better player going forward, as his knee heals, while Webber will continues to decline. They are both way overpaid, so the advantage in my mind goes to the one with the shorter contract, especially if we would supposedly dump Miles in the process. Jones would just be a nice add in.

For the same reasons though that it works for Portland, I don't think Philly would do it. They already have a team full of bloated long term contracts, so I can't imagine them wanting to add another two just to dump Webber. It saves them little money in the short run, it costs them lots of money in the long run spent on overpriced players with questionable character, and they get no other incentives. I don't think they'd do it, even if we wanted to.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Before you make this deal, you have to stop and ask yourself: we would be his *5th* NBA team. Why does a guy get traded that often? 

The guy has a history of alienating coaches and team-mates. 

(Correction. Strictly speaking, we would be his *6th* team. Orlando drafted him and traded him the same day.)


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Wow...What games are you watching? Seriously...Zach Randolph isn't half the player Chris Webber was, nor is he as good as Webber is now.....nice way to take a nosedive on the credibility meter...
> 
> I don't care if you don't like him or don't want POR to trade for him b\c you don't like him....I understand that....but when you post a comment like "he sucks" after the guy averaged 20 pts 10 boards and 3 assists...then clueless is a word that comes to mind.....
> 
> ...


Do you watch *any * NBA games? If you did you would clearly see that CWebb has got *nothing*! How did Webber have a better FG%? You just cited the stats that show he didn't! CWebb *used * to be a great player. Now he's a cripple. You really need to stop and think something like this through before you recommend this kind of ridiculous trade! :LOL


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

tlong said:


> Do you watch *any * NBA games? If you did you would clearly see that CWebb has got *nothing*! How did Webber have a better FG%? You just cited the stats that show he didn't! CWebb *used * to be a great player. Now he's a cripple. You really need to stop and think something like this through before you recommend this kind of ridiculous trade! :LOL


I pretty much agree. There are only two things he still has going for him: he is a good standstill jump shooter and he is a good passer. Other than that, he has lost almost all of his athleticism- which takes away his inside game and makes his defense even worse than it was to begin with


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I love Zach Randolph. How dare you suggest that he should be traded!!!!!



Kmurph said:


> Webber is CLEARLY a better player than Zach is...even at the ripe old age of 33


Webber was clearly better than Zach when Zach was coming off of knee surgery and had basically no offensive support. Webber was playing on a good team where the opposing team was focusing most of its defensive attention toward Allen Iverson.

If we did trade Zach for Webber I guarantee you that Zach would clearly do better than Webber next season.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> He sucks. I don't what numbers he puts up. All you have to do is watch a Sixers game and you can see he sucks. Webber was not clearly better than Zach last season. *Zach's FG* and 3pt *percentages were higher*, and he had less turnovers and fouls. This is even as Zach is struggling to regain his pre injury form. Zach at least has a chance to get better, CWebb does not.


So Zach has a better fg%....OK



tlong said:


> Do you watch any NBA games? If you did you would clearly see that CWebb has got nothing! *How did Webber have a better FG%? You just cited the stats that show he didn't!* CWebb used to be a great player. Now he's a cripple. You really need to stop and think something like this through before you recommend this kind of ridiculous trade! :LOL


Derrr Hullooo!!

You said it, he countered it now you are challenging saying that his numbers don't state that Cwebbs FG% is higher..well they definately don't support you'r claim that Zachs FG% is higher....Unless .2% is worth banking on.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

To me it is not a distinction in ability to put shots in, but in the ability for the players to be active on the floor. Cwebs mobility is gone. That pretty much limits his shots to only wide open shots that are mostly set shots these days. He also cannot react defensively at all, its not like Zach is any good defensively either, but at least he can move. Zbo still has the ability to generate his own shot if the crap hits the fan. I don't think Weber can do that anymore, he is only the recipient of open looks from others creating.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You said it, he countered it now you are challenging saying that his numbers don't state that Cwebbs FG% is higher..well they definately don't support you'r claim that Zachs FG% is higher....Unless .2% is worth banking on.


My point exactly....I thought tlong would have understood the point I was making...that saying Zach had a better FG% b\c he was .2% higher, while technically correct, is nevertheless a RIDICULOUS point to make....

I should have known better.....

As for do I watch games? Yeah...and I have the NBA League Pass and watch a lot of other teams well...and I saw Webber play several times...and while I would agree he isn't the same player he was, he was still better than Zach was for POR this year....limited mobility and all...and you are apparently GREATLY overating Zach's "mobility" and conveniently forgetting his transition to a jump shooter as well, and blind? to his horrible "Ole!" defense....

I know what I saw from both players....I seriously question whether or not you did....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Webber took about 200 more shots than Zach during the course of the season....Prorating out the %diff we are looking at

Webber
617 of 1422

Zach (would have)
620 of 1422

ewwww 3 more makes during the course of the season.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

Z Bo is almost 10 years younger. He has a chance to recover from his surgery, Webber has no such chance. He does what he can with no athleticism. I'm actually fairly impressed that Webber can still put up the #s he does on one leg


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

yuck are you serious


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

I think Philly has pretty much decided to rebuild. I don't see them trading Cwebb. I think AI is on the move for young players and they will wait for Cwebb's contract to expire. They might trade his expiring deal for an allstar in return, but i'm not Randolph would be the player they are looking for. Cheeks and Randolph and/or Miles reunion would be funny,.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Do you post on the O-Live board, KMurph?

I check it out once in a blue moon, and I saw this exact scenario posted there.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

No, Wait a year until Webber is in the Final Year of his deal.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

As a Sixers fan, there's no chance in hell that I would do this trade. I really see no positives in the deal for them.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> ever seen office space?


Yes I know. But I also said STARS in. She was nothing more than a complimentary character. And she had nothing to do with the movie being good. It was all Michael Bolton


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

...and watch his *** hobble around on a bad leg shooting jumpshots?

no thank you.

i like webber, hes cool.


but zach is a smarter choice from a basketball standpoint. they both blaze trees, so its not like your shedding the bad boy of the team.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

BlazerBeav said:


> It might be important to note that one of your pieces in the deal, John Salmons, now plays for the Toronto Raptors.


No, he regrets it on TO, and Philadelphia rescinded his qualifying offer, so he is a unrestricted FA now.


----------



## Captain Chaos (Dec 1, 2004)

Coatesvillain said:


> As a Sixers fan, there's no chance in hell that I would do this trade. I really see no positives in the deal for them.


Other than getting a much younger player...no positives huh? I would say a "HELL NO" to this deal as a Blazer fan. Webber is on his final leg (literally) and Z-bo is the better player right now.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Captain Chaos said:


> Other than getting a much younger player...no positives huh? I would say a "HELL NO" to this deal as a Blazer fan. Webber is on his final leg (literally) and Z-bo is the better player right now.


Well what's Z-Bo really going to do for the Sixers? I'd rather keep Webber's contract and let him come off the books in two years than get a hobbled black hole who doesn't play defense in Randolph.


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

Exactly, I'm sure not too many GMs are rushing to Portland trying to steal ZBo from the Blazers. He has shown that he can play well, but after last season his stock dropped and his off-court issues make him even less valuable. That's why I wrote Philly will most likely wait out the last two years of that deal, and then have a lot of cap room to work with.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I think a case can be made for either side of this trade.

To begin with, Zach is worth more than Weber, though both are overpriced.

Weber 42 mil for 2 years

Zach some 70 mil for 5 years

If price was no object, Zach is a better player at this stage in their careers- Weber's numbers are a bit empty in my opinion, and they will only go down. Zach is a good bet to return to 20/10.

Weber is a bigger discontent than Zach.

I'd say on the free agent market, Zach would fetch close to 10 million and Weber close to 7 or 8 mil- so Zach is less overpriced.

Given all that, however, Weber is not a huge drop off from Randolph in the next 2 years and would offer some salary cap room much sooner.

He could ease the transition into Aldridge pretty well if he kept his head on straight.

An interesting trade.

If Philly was willing to throw in Igoudola, I"d take it.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> If price was no object, Zach is a better player at this stage in their careers- Weber's numbers are a bit empty in my opinion, and they will only go down. Zach is a good bet to return to 20/10.


I'm not a Webber fan at all, but how would Zach's 20 and 10 be any less empty than Webber's? Both are low percentage shooting four men, who struggle defensively.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Coatesvillain said:


> I'm not a Webber fan at all, but how would Zach's 20 and 10 be any less empty than Webber's? Both are low percentage shooting four men, who struggle defensively.


Here's my reasoning:

Zach's shooting percentage is not that bad- even while dogged by injuries the last couple years, he averaged about 44% from the field. And this figures to improve as he plays injury free in his 5th season. He was about 48% before the injury (numbers that Weber used to have).

Webber's numbers, in my opinion, are empty- because 1) he's only played in about 60% of his team's games over the last 4 years- so you can't count on those numbers on a consistent basis and 2) his field goal percentage is heading way down.

Also, this is subjective, but I see Zach as better on defense.

BTW, in the interest of fairness, I should say that Weber's assist numbers are great for a big guy- about 4 apg.


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

Why would Philly throw in Igoudala. I don't think they would do this straight up. I agree with you that if salaries didn't matter, Randolph is the better player (mostly because of his youth). I think Philly wouldn't take a chance on trading all there cap relief coming up in the future for Zach Randolph, there will be better player to sign to a max deal than ZBO.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

On one hand, I wouldn't mind the trade --- Portland would save money in a couple of years.

On the other hand, the trade wouldn't make Portland any better right now, and I don't see Webber as the wise sage of a veteran who would lead this team to the top (not that Zach is, though).

So, no thanks.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

wastro said:


> On one hand, I wouldn't mind the trade --- Portland would save money in a couple of years.
> 
> On the other hand, the trade wouldn't make Portland any better right now, and I don't see Webber as the wise sage of a veteran who would lead this team to the top (not that Zach is, though).
> 
> So, no thanks.



I don't get it wastro. You made an argument for why you would like the trade, then couldn't for why you wouldn't want the trade and still said no thanks?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Here's my reasoning:
> 
> Zach's shooting percentage is not that bad- even while dogged by injuries the last couple years, he averaged about 44% from the field. And this figures to improve as he plays injury free in his 5th season. He was about 48% before the injury (numbers that Weber used to have).
> 
> ...



Zach's injury is important, but I don't think it's the primary factor holding down his FG%. Last season Zach was the focus of an offense without any viable secondary scoring options and that was pretty poorly structured (due to many factors). When Miles was healthy at the start of the season, Zach shot 48%. Without having that second option, Zach probably shot closer to 42%, which is a pretty huge difference. With guys like Rasheed, Sabonis and Damon on the 2003 team, Zach was a 48% shooter and a 1.2 PPS player. I think Zach's low FG% last year was due to him not having other guys around who can score and effectively setup an offense. Zach's partly to blame for not being willing or able to involve his teammates enough, but most of the blame is on the roster itself.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I don't get it wastro. You made an argument for why you would like the trade, then couldn't for why you wouldn't want the trade and still said no thanks?


Yeah, maybe I wasn't clear.

I think my point is that the team wouldn't get enough in return --- Webber isn't going to be an upgrade from Zach at all, so he wouldn't make the team better. 

Not only that, but we aren't trading one follower for a proven leader, so in that respect, the trade wouldn't make sense either.

The only way the trade works is as a salary dump, and I couldn't get behind that.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I think a case can be made for either side of this trade.
> 
> To begin with, Zach is worth more than Weber, though both are overpriced.
> 
> ...


You don't know Iguodala's value.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

WTChan said:


> You don't know Iguodala's value.


I'd say that you don't know what Zach is worth- the odds of signing someone as good as him on the open market once Weber breaks down is minimal. You don't really see many all-star or near all-star players signed as free agent any more unless they are ridiculously overpaid like Ben Wallace.

Given that, it's only worth it if we get some decent talent as a sweetener.

That's Igoudola- a good defender/poor scorer at the 2/3 spot. A starter on a bad team, or a good reserve on a playoff team.

If he were a free agent today, what would he command? In my opinion, 7 mil. He's not in the class of an Al Harrington, for example.


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

Webber was very much a malcontent early in his career,after being dealt from Orlando to Golden State for Penny Hardaway on draft night, he fueded with Don Nelson so badly and publically that he was traded after only one year. 



> The saga began when Webber, the 1993-94 NBA Rookie of the Year, refused to report to training camp with Golden State, citing a personality conflict with Warriors Coach Don Nelson and asking for a trade. Webber also exercised a clause in his contract that allowed him to become a restricted free agent...When differences between Webber and Nelson couldn t be settled, the Warriors traded the young player to Washington on November 17 in exchange for forward Tom Gugliotta and three first-round draft picks.


Source:http://www.nba.com/playerfile/chris_webber/bio.html

First two years in Washington,injuries. In 95-96, the team featured Sheed,Webber,and Howard.Third season, playoff sweep by Bulls after trading Sheed for Rod Strickland to provide decent perimeter play.

Became an MVP candidate after his trade to the Kings. FT % rose from 45-55% to the middle 70's. In 00-01 averages 27/11/4 to finish 4th in voting behind AI,Shaq,and ???. He always averaged 1.5 blocks a game until his knee injury. He seemed to like Rick Adelman, who allowed him to be the main option although it can be argued that Bibby carried the team with clutch play in the infamous 02-03 playoffs when they lost the game 7 to the Lakers Dynasty because Webber/Peja shot about 30 percentage points lower than normal at the line. The next year Webber lost his best shot at a title blowing out his knee against a then downy soft Mavericks team.

Following the trade to Philly, he fueded with Jim O'Brien over touches with the basketball.(but then again besides Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker who else liked his offensive systems?) Then Cheeks was brought in and you all witnessed the hit or miss games of C-Webb. 31/13 (11-26 fg,8-11 FT)in 51 min against BOS (125-124 OT win)on 1/13 followed by 9/3 (4-16 fg,1-1 ft) in 20 minutes (lost 76-114 to WAS,ouch) 12/27, 32/15/7 against DEN, 27/21 on 12/27. Depends on the team and the way he feels...it is too much of a gamble. His passing would help the offense immensely, but on the other hand, I still remember when he got torched by KWAME BROWN for 30/19. Nate and CWebb would not get along at all which would not be a good thing for a young team to be exposed to.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Zach's shooting percentage is not that bad- even while dogged by injuries the last couple years, he averaged about 44% from the field.


Zach Randolph was a .966 PPS (points per shot) player last season. Webber was at .964 PPS. That's as close to dead even as it gets. Webber, however, took significantly more shots, and it's more difficult to keep your PPS up the more shots you take. Therefore, between two players with equal PPS, the player who took more shots was actually the more able scorer.

On top of that, there's the passing. Randolph is a clear and obvious black hole. Webber is one of the better passing power forwards in the league. He's not as good as once was (when he was one of the best passing big men ever), but still much better than Randolph.

Overall, Webber is clearly better on the offensive end.



> And this figures to improve as he plays injury free in his 5th season.


Considering Randolph's scoring efficiency has fallen three consecutive seasons (including before his injury), I'd say it's very unlikely that he'll improve significantly. He may slightly increase or remain stagnant, but there's also a very good chance he'll continue to fall off.



> Webber's numbers, in my opinion, are empty- because 1) he's only played in about 60% of his team's games over the last 4 years- so you can't count on those numbers on a consistent basis and 2) his field goal percentage is heading way down.


Being hurt doesn't make a player's numbers "empty." Durability is always something one has to consider, but it doesn't delegitimize the production the player is good for when healthy. And with a major injury on his resume, Randolph is not exactly the model of durability.

As far as (2), Randolph's field goal percentage has also been trending down---three straight seasons.



> Also, this is subjective, but I see Zach as better on defense.


Neither is good, but Randolph doesn't have an edge on _any_ NBA player in defense. He's quite awful.

Finally, there's rebounding. No matter how you slice this (rebounds per game, rebounds per 40 minutes, Rebound Rate), Webber comes out ahead.

Webber is still pretty clearly a better player than Randolph. _If_ Randolph ever approaches his 2003 season again, he'll have an argument for being better than Webber. But he's so far removed from it, it's not the likeliest case that he will. It's far more appropriate to use Randolph's current production, which puts him clearly behind Webber.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Chris Webber will not give you the low-post scoring or passing your thinking off, warn John Nash now that he is NO-WHERE NEAR what he once was. He's a jumpshooter, a PF's clone of what everyone thinks Iverson is. A SCUM. But sure, we'll take Zach Randolph and say thank you. Want Dalembert too?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> Chris Webber will not give you the low-post scoring or passing your thinking off, warn John Nash now that he is NO-WHERE NEAR what he once was. He's a jumpshooter, a PF's clone of what everyone thinks Iverson is. A SCUM. But sure, we'll take Zach Randolph and say thank you. Want Dalembert too?


Not sure it would do us any good to warn John Nash about anything these days.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Zach Randolph was a .966 PPS (points per shot) player last season. Webber was at .964 PPS. That's as close to dead even as it gets. Webber, however, took significantly more shots, and it's more difficult to keep your PPS up the more shots you take. Therefore, between two players with equal PPS, the player who took more shots was actually the more able scorer.
> 
> On top of that, there's the passing. Randolph is a clear and obvious black hole. Webber is one of the better passing power forwards in the league. He's not as good as once was (when he was one of the best passing big men ever), but still much better than Randolph.
> 
> ...



Of course, being hurt, makes a player's numbers empty. If you don't have a player for half the games- then he's not giving you his 20/10 for half the games. Put it this way, let's say you have a choice between a worker at your factory that can build 20 widgets/day and another that can build 19 widgets/day- both are paid a yearly salary, but one only works half the time. Which worker do you pick?

Weber's numbers are empty because you can only rely on them occasionally to help your team win- there's a good chance that you won't have him for 35 games in a given season.

Regarding field goal percentage (or the stat that you used)- I think it's fair to use Zach's numbers before his injury. You don't think this is fair. Given that we only have 4 seasons to work with- this is an impasse between us.

Webber is a better rebounder and passer- Zach is younger, more durable, and a more efficient scorer. Zach also works hard at his game and will likely get better.

I think he's worth more to a team.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Of course, being hurt, makes a player's numbers empty. If you don't have a player for half the games- then he's not giving you his 20/10 for half the games. Put it this way, let's say you have a choice between a worker at your factory that can build 20 widgets/day and another that can build 19 widgets/day- both are paid a yearly salary, but one only works half the time. Which worker do you pick?


I just said durabiltiy is an issue you have to consider. Implying a player's production is completely worthless because he didn't play every game is absurd.

Let's put it this way: Webber is clearly better than Randolph in any game he plays. Webber played 1 more game than Randolph last year. Pretty open and shut case.



> Regarding field goal percentage (or the stat that you used)- I think it's fair to use Zach's numbers before his injury. You don't think this is fair.


Okay. Let's also only use Webber's numbers before his injury. Injuries clearly have no long-term impact, right?



> Webber is a better rebounder and passer- Zach is younger, more durable, and a more efficient scorer.


Zach is younger. He's not more efficient. More durable is questionable: both missed a lot of games returning from a serious injury and Webber played one more game than Randolph last season.



> Zach also works hard at his game and will likely get better.


Both Webber and Randolph seem to no longer be the players they were before injury. A player who has declined three straight seasons (and the decline started *before* his injury) is not particularly likely to significantly improve.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Zach gets off scott free whenever he gets pulled over, Cwebb always gets busted! :biggrin: 

:clown: 

:banana:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I'd say that you don't know what Zach is worth- the odds of signing someone as good as him on the open market once Weber breaks down is minimal. You don't really see many all-star or near all-star players signed as free agent any more unless they are ridiculously overpaid like Ben Wallace.
> 
> Given that, it's only worth it if we get some decent talent as a sweetener.
> 
> ...


Zach and Webber are 'undesirble' players right now. Their defensive deficiencies, along with expensive contract, is not something most teams would like to acquire. Iguodala, however, is a young (I realize Zach isn't that old, but he doesn't seem to be getting better), up-and-coming player that doesn't have a huge contract. An underrated, all-around player with star potential. Iguodala is a cornerstone of that franchise.


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

It wouldnt work salary wise.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Neither is good, but Randolph doesn't have an edge on _any_ NBA player in defense. He's quite awful.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Really, none at all? I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm simply not.

But no one has ever gone through the time and effort to take a look at just how well players do when defended by Zach. And seeing as it would involve a lot of time and effort to prove that Zach is a bad defender I, being the ridiculous Zach homer that I am, will continue to say that Zach is not nearly as bad on defense as people say he is.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I just said durabiltiy is an issue you have to consider. Implying a player's production is completely worthless because he didn't play every game is absurd.
> 
> Let's put it this way: Webber is clearly better than Randolph in any game he plays. Webber played 1 more game than Randolph last year. Pretty open and shut case.
> 
> ...



A player coming off an injury filled career in his mid 30's is much different than a player coming off one injury at 25. 

Look at their average games played over the last few years and tell me who you bet on being more durable. 

Weber- 54 games, 67 games, 44 games, 46 games, 75 games
Zach- 77 games, 81 games, 46 games, 74 games

It's not a question of Weber's production being completely worthless- I'd say his numbers are worth about 60% of those of a mythically healthy Webber. Or maybe, charitably, 70% worth having Zach for an average one of his seasons.

You want to use only Weber's numbers before his injury- which of the 5 or 6 injuries? You aren't seriously arguing comparable durability here, are you.

Maybe you could take Grant Hill's stats over a 30 game season and say he's better than Carmelo, but most people would see the flaws in your logic.

There are similar flaws in comparing Weber to Zach.


One final point- the three year decline you talk about includes a season where Zach was playing hurt and another season where he was coming back from surgery. Not the fairest analysis?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

This would be a terrible and short sighted deal. Zach has the ability to be a 20/10 scorer, and is only 25 years old. Im not a fan of him at all, but strongly believe we need to see a fully recovered Zach for a year before offloading him for salary room that we will then need to waste on another big man who we will most certainly over pay also. Look at Nene's contract. In this day and age nearly every half talented big man is overpaid. I am not a believer in ZBo being a multiple all-star like I once was, but he is easily our best offensive player and a true low post scoring presence(when he wants to be).


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Here's some uptodate info on Zach from Mike Barret's blog; if it's true it seems it might be good to keep Zach.

"Zach is apparently looking very, very good, and that's one of the big reasons we're going down to the Dirty South. Bayno, who's known as one of the best player development coaches in the business, has been thrilled with Zach's progress. I'll have a first-hand account for you."


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> "Zach is apparently looking very, very good, and that's one of the big reasons we're going down to the Dirty South. Bayno, who's known as one of the best player development coaches in the business, has been thrilled with Zach's progress. I'll have a first-hand account for you."


This has been the same refrain about Zach for the last few summers...If only it were true...but it isn't....

Look, I am not sure I favor the deal either, but the reason for the deal IMO...isn't about getting Webber...It is in opening a spot for Aldridge and giving him a year or two to develop into it, divesting POR of a rather large and sorry POR fans, difficult contract to deal at this juncture, along with dumping a few other uneeded contracts (like Dixon, Dickau, Skinner), and netting POR a few other quality pieces for the future....

Webber, IMO could bridge the gap for a year, or less, if Aldridge shows he is ready or a good deal comes a knockin'...but NEXT year when Webber's contract is a massive expiring one, my guess is that Webber would have more value, either as a "no risk" player to add to a playoff team,, b\c of his expiring contract or as a massive salary dump to a team looking to get under the cap....and maybe that team could even be POR? if they were somehow able to dump Miles for an expiring or 2yr contract this year...

Maybe Salmons isn't enticing, maybe Korver is, or maybe POR could get a draft, heck or wait a month or two and try and get Carney....Iguodala is a pipe dream...Philly would never include him in a package for Zach, and for good reason, he is one of the few young players with potential Philly has....

Anyway...it was just an idea to throw out there...glad it generated so much opinion and thought...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ebott said:


> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
> 
> Really, none at all? I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm simply not.


Why would that be surprising? There are no good defensive metrics. There are some approaches to quantifying defense, but none that are all that satisfying. In the end, defense comes down to observation and opinion.

I never said that my opinion Randolph's defense is proveable or conclusive. But his defense is observeably so poor, it's hard to imagine any NBA regular, at least, that Randolph is clearly better than, defensively.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I don't see the point - if he was expiring this year, maybe... 

But potentially two years of a disgruntled (he'll be losing A LOT), injured, jump shooting Webber is just not worth it.

Why not just let our good PF play and raise his value to either stay or net us something much better?

If you're going to bring in a massively overpaid, injury-prone has-been, at least get a guy with a good attitude - like Grant Hill. Otherwise, keep your overpaid young scoring PF.

LaMarcus has plenty of people that he should be able to beat out for frontcourt minutes. If he can't win minutes away from LaFrentz, Skinner and Joel, than there's no way we sould just be giving talent away for his benefit.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Part of this debate is based on a false premise.

It has not been established that LaMarcus can't play center at the NBA level. If he can, a team with LaMarcus at the 5 and Zach at the 4 is simply better than a Joel/LaMarcus alignment.


----------

