# A Note To Blazers Fans re Randolph



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

Let me preface this by saying that I like the blazers. I am from Boston and am a celtics fan, but I live in Portland and enjoy the blazers team (although I am only a true fan of the Cs).

I believe that as a result of years of bad luck ending with one stroke of good fortune you are being a tiny bit unrealistic. By which I mean, ludicrously unrealistic. Every team's fans will overrate their own players, but let me put it to you this way:

Zach Randolph does not play defense. He is a locker room CANCER. He makes over 12 million per. He turns the ball over 3+ times per game. He can certainly score. He is not worth a top player like Josh Howard or a hall of famer like Paul Pierce. He is not worth a lottery pick.

For Randolph, you can expect to pick up a pick in the early to mid 20s OR a rotation player (possibly even a fifth starter a la Sasha Pavlovic or Greg Buckner). It sucks because Randolph is better than Pavlovic and Buckner, but no team will ever win an NBA championship with Zach Randolph and NBA GMs know this. 

So have fun, propose whatever you want to, but don't get your hopes up too high. 

And for god's sake I love Oden too, but remember his foul trouble in the NCAA Tournament, he is not perfect.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Let me preface this by saying that I like the blazers. I am from Boston and am a celtics fan,


i got to admit i stopped reading after this. i figured it was just BS.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

i'm not a blazers fan but i think the fans here are being fairly realistic. I haven't heard anyone demand riches in return.

Randolph is sort of a funny one to gauge because he's an unusual trade piece. Usually it's guys like this that are on the downslide of their careers (Jermaine O'Neal, for example) while Randolph is still on the upswing. He does have a few faults, mostly the defense and contract, but most of the times these trade pieces only have 1 good quality (like Eddy Curry's offense, for example), while Randolph is both a superb low-post scorer (rare in the NBA today) and very good rebounder (somewhat rare, unfortunately). I think Blazers fans have been realistic about what they have wanted for him. What scenarios did you see that were unrealistic?


----------



## DamDweller (Jun 7, 2007)

> Silverpaw1786 posted
> For Randolph, you can expect to pick up a pick in the early to mid 20s OR a rotation player


Silverpaw I would have to agree with you up until you said that. I know that Z-Bo is not worth the world, but that has to one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Someone who puts up 20 and 10 is definitely worth more than that. That would be beyond selling ourselves short and any GM who would take that for Z-Bo would be worse than Danny Ainge.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Let me preface this by saying that I like the blazers. I am from Boston and am a celtics fan, but I live in Portland and enjoy the blazers team (although I am only a true fan of the Cs).
> 
> I believe that as a result of years of bad luck ending with one stroke of good fortune you are being a tiny bit unrealistic. By which I mean, ludicrously unrealistic. Every team's fans will overrate their own players, but let me put it to you this way:
> 
> ...


:laugh: A mid 20 pick, or Greg Buckner? Jesus christ dude. He's 23/10 and GM's saw improvement, we aren't expecting a Top 5 pick, but Greg Buckner? 

I'd stick to the Celtics.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Paul Pierce? Hall of Fame? Talk about overvaluing players on your favorite team. Let's be honest dude...What has Paul Pierce led the Celtics to? He led you to the lottery and still couldn't even get you a Top 2 pick.

That being said, I don't think Randolph is some top-tier stud, but he's definitely one of the top few inside scorers. And as had been said a million times now, he's not going to garner full value in the trade market because he's selfish on the court and a headcase off of it. And you're right, he doesn't play a whole lot of defense. But not because he can't, I've seen him make some big defensive plays when needed. He's lazy on defense, but be honest, so is 96% of the players in the league.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Being realistic, if Portland is smart and doesn't rush into any deal, someone will give us something of good value for Randolph. Portland played it smart and waited for someone to bite on a deal with Telfair and Ratliff, and I'd say it worked out quite well for Portland.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

The best we could get for Zach is Greg Buckner? lol...

That's got to be one of the funniest, most ridiculous things I've ever heard. And the fact that you said that Zach could "possibly" net a player like Buckner... wow.

Buckner 06-07: 4.0 points, 2.1 rebounds, .9 assists
Randolph 06-07: 23.6 points, 10.1 rebounds, 2.2 assists

This isn't Jon Barry, is it?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

A lot of fans wildly overrate their team's players, and there are plenty of said fans in this forum. Silverpaw reacts by wildly underrating Zach.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

The unrealistic part about some of the proposals floating around is the other teams involved in any Randolph trade, not so much what they'd be getting in return.

There's little chance of a rebuilding team (Memphis, Atlanta) trading for Zach given his contract and off-court problems since opposition GM's have seen that he's not really capable of carrying a franchise on his own.

However he could really help out a team that is in contention by possibly putting them over the top. If he went to Chicago for example, he could focus more on rebounding and inside scoring than having to put up every shot since he wouldn't necessarily be the main offensive option.

I think the #9 and a player is decent value given the circumstances.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Boy is he going to be bummed out when Boston trades their pick for Randolph. Let's make sure and bump this thread then. Maybe even send a link to Simmons to add to his post draft comments.



> He is a locker room CANCER.


This is the one I hear repeated over and over again. What evidence does anyone have that Zach is a cancer in the locker room? I agree he doesn't play good defense and hogs the ball a lot, but cancer? Other than sucker-punching Rube (who likely deserved it) for abusing his friend, there haven't been any other issues.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Let me preface this by saying that I like the blazers. I am from Boston and am a celtics fan, but I live in Portland and enjoy the blazers team (although I am only a true fan of the Cs).
> 
> I believe that as a result of years of bad luck ending with one stroke of good fortune you are being a tiny bit unrealistic. By which I mean, ludicrously unrealistic. Every team's fans will overrate their own players, but let me put it to you this way:
> 
> ...


Thanks, man. I appreciate you adding some highly-objective common sense to this forum.

BTW, I'm a Portland fan but I really like the Celtics, so you know you can trust me when I say:

-Al Jefferson will never help a team win a title. GMs know this. You may be able to get, say, four second round picks for him or a disappointing prospect like Martell Webster.

-Paul Pierce is a locker room CANCER who keeps demanding trades. He's pretty productive, but not worth more than, say, Jamaal Magloire. Any NBA GM would agree with me on this.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Thanks, man. I appreciate you adding some highly-objective common sense to this forum.
> 
> BTW, I'm a Portland fan but I really like the Celtics, so you know you can trust me when I say:
> 
> ...


 I concur.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> i got to admit i stopped reading after this. i figured it was just BS.


I stuck with it until:



> He is a locker room CANCER.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

silverpaw1786 said:


> He is not worth a top player like Josh Howard or a hall of famer like Paul Pierce. He is not worth a lottery pick.


LOL?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

silverpaw1786 said:


> He is a locker room CANCER.


This is absolutely true. Zach was born on July 16th, which makes him a CANCER. 

LaMarcus Aldridge is also a CANCER. 

barfo


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Let me preface this by saying that I like the blazers. I am from Boston and am a celtics fan, but I live in Portland and enjoy the blazers team (although I am only a true fan of the Cs).
> 
> I believe that as a result of years of bad luck ending with one stroke of good fortune you are being a tiny bit unrealistic. By which I mean, ludicrously unrealistic. Every team's fans will overrate their own players, but let me put it to you this way:
> 
> ...


Meh. Troll.

Just wait and see what will happen this summer and you can eat your words. Oden is going to be devestating... and hopefully Zach will be traded for a lot more than Greg Buckunworthy.....


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

It's funny that fans make the same mistake in undervaluing Randolph that teams made years ago with Rasheed Wallace - that lockerroom problems meant he'd "never win a championship." First off, Randolph is not the unstable force that Wallace is/was, and secondly, the Pistons proved that with the right combination of players, even a guy like Wallace can win a ring. Neither McMillan nor Cheeks has ever expressed a problem with Randolph in the lockerroom - on the court, they'd like him to play better D and make better decisions, but they've never complained about his effect on other players (other than the occasional positive effect, by supporting aspiring leaders like Brandon Roy and Jarrett Jack). 

The greatest thing about Randolph is his ability to put up big numbers when you're not running plays for him. Before the team's overall talent level dropped precipitously a few years ago, the Blazers used Randolph strictly as a "garbage points" guy, like Ruben Patterson. He lived off the offensive boards, or as an outlet shooter from 15 feet out, or, if it got late in the shot clock, you could pass to Randolph inside, and he'd manufacture something with his combination of quickness and touch around the basket. Only when the Blazers got rid of all their talent did the Blazers start to run everything through Zach and force him to evaluate defenses. Not his strong suit. 

If teams could get back to using Randolph in situation where you know he'll be defended one-on-one, or just have him attack the boards, he'll put up good numbers, and not commit as many turnovers or force as many shots. 

On defense, sure, Randolph is not good. But he's not pathetic, either.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

This dude is just jealous that we got Oden.










How you like 'dem apples?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Recent history has shown that NOBODY anywhere over-values Blazers players more than Danny Ainge.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

silverpaw1786 said:


> He is a locker room CANCER.


Says who? You, an uninformed, biased Celtics fan? Certainly not his coach or any of his teammates. Yes, Zach has problems with strip clubs and the crowd he hangs out with is bad news, but it has nothing to do with anything that goes on in the locker room. You do understand the difference. Zach is an extremely hard worker. He plays hard in practice and came back from microfracture surgery in the best shape of his life to have the best season of his career. Please explain how that makes him a locker room cancer.



silverpaw1786 said:


> He makes over 12 million per.


OK, name ONE other player in the league who makes less than $12 million and puts up 23/10. Can't do it? OK try one other player who makes less than $20 million and puts up 23/10. Still can't do it, try $100 million. OK, how about a billion. Still can't do it, can you.

Yet there are tons of guys making more thn Zach who don't even play on a regular basis, let alone actually contribute anything close to what he does.



silverpaw1786 said:


> He turns the ball over 3+ times per game. He can certainly score. He is not worth a top player like Josh Howard or a hall of famer like Paul Pierce.


I got news for you, we don't want your "Hall of Famer" Pierce. He's old, overpaid and overrated. BTW, he turns the ball over more than Zach. 3.1 TO/G career average compared to 2.1 TO/G for Zach.



silverpaw1786 said:


> He is not worth a lottery pick.


Depends on what you need. Want to win now? Randolph is a proven 20/10. Outside of possibly Greg Oden there isn't a player in this draft who will give you that next season and all but one or two others will NEVER give you that.



silverpaw1786 said:


> For Randolph, you can expect to pick up a pick in the early to mid 20s OR a rotation player (possibly even a fifth starter a la Sasha Pavlovic or Greg Buckner).


Yeah, right. We all know those 20/10 guys are a dime a dozen, but guys like Pavlovic and Buckner are hard to find. Even if Randolph scored 0 PPG, his 10 RPG alone are worth more than anything Pavlovic or Buckner contribute.



silverpaw1786 said:


> but no team will ever win an NBA championship with Zach Randolph and NBA GMs know this.


That's strange, last I checked it was a complete lack of inside scoring that kept Chicago from getting to the finals this year. Play-off basketball is much slower and more half-court oriented than the regular season when teams like Dallas and Phoenix post great records, but get bumped in the post season becuase they are soft inside and lack a reliable half-court low post scorer. 



silverpaw1786 said:


> And for god's sake I love Oden too, but remember his foul trouble in the NCAA Tournament, he is not perfect.


Yeah, he's no Paul Pierce is he?

BNM


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

OVER








FOR


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)




----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)




----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Randolph is certainly worth a pick, but here is the problem. Take a look at nbadraft.net 

If you look at the top 13 picks every player except Julian Wright is either a greater potential talent than you would normally see at that draft position or a seductive need. Wright is the only non need because the Bulls already have Deng. I could see a Wright Randolph trade but you have to ask yourself is Wright equal value to Randolph? Is Randolph a good fit for Chicago? Can the Bulls lump the salary difference?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

silverpaw1786 said:


> For Randolph, you can expect to pick up a pick in the early to mid 20s OR a rotation player (possibly even a fifth starter a la Sasha Pavlovic or Greg Buckner).


For a 24 pt. and 10 rebound guy?? Nonsense. If we're overvaluing Randolph, you are severely undervaluing him.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Zach a locker room cancer? We all know he has issues off the court, but I've never read that he caused any issues within the team (besides punching Ruben Patterson many years ago in practice). I've always got the impression that Zach was well liked by his teammates.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

oh come on. if we could get brandoy roy for telfair, we could surely at least get future hall of shamer paul pierce.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

I think if Pierce ever ends up a Trail Blazer, it'll be four years down the road when his contract is up and he ends up taking less because he wants to get one championship in before he retires.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

hahahahahahahahaha what a crock of ****. Boston is the worst team in the league.Name a team that is worse. I dare you. Al jefferson on his best day is ZBO every day. You think Al jeff plays D? and Pierce? No way we trade ZBO for him. He is a whiner. 
BTW how is that Joe Johnson for Rodney Rodgers deal working out? Or telfair for Roy? Or Chauncy Billups for Kenny Anderson? Or Joe Forte? hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Boston fans wear green for a reason....









Telfair for Roy
Roy gets rookie of the year, Telfair gets his locker nameplate removed... Blazers for the Win!

Boston expects #1 or #2 in the draft
Boston gets #5 and #1 goes to us... Blazers for the Win!


Stay green sucker.


----------



## Blazer4ever (Feb 1, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> The greatest thing about Randolph is his ability to put up big numbers when you're not running plays for him. Before the team's overall talent level dropped precipitously a few years ago, the Blazers used Randolph strictly as a "garbage points" guy, like Ruben Patterson. He lived off the offensive boards, or as an outlet shooter from 15 feet out, or, if it got late in the shot clock, you could pass to Randolph inside, and he'd manufacture something with his combination of quickness and touch around the basket. Only when the Blazers got rid of all their talent did the Blazers start to run everything through Zach and force him to evaluate defenses. Not his strong suit.
> 
> If teams could get back to using Randolph in situation where you know he'll be defended one-on-one, or just have him attack the boards, he'll put up good numbers, and not commit as many turnovers or force as many shots.


And now that we're talented again, doesn't it mean keeping Zach?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

silverpaw1786 said:


> He is a locker room CANCER.


As someone who has worked in the Blazers locker room, I can honestly say that this is the most laughable remark I've ever heard. I've been around superstars, I've been around perceived superstars (at least in their own minds) and I've been around regular guys like Joel or Viktor. I've seen a cancer in the locker room and Zach isn't one of them. He's engaging with his teammates, he jokes around, and he is very approachable. 



> And for god's sake I love Oden too, but remember his foul trouble in the NCAA Tournament, he is not perfect.


Just keep telling yourself that. 



> For Randolph, you can expect to pick up a pick in the early to mid 20s OR a rotation player (possibly even a fifth starter a la Sasha Pavlovic or Greg Buckner).


This should be my new sig.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I'm sincerely puzzled as to why a Celtics fan suddenly knows more, at least in his/her mind, than Portland's GM. Based on the success of your team? Your genuine concern for the Blazers? Your ability, as reflected by your team's GM, to correctly evaluate talent?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Blazer4ever said:


> And now that we're talented again, doesn't it mean keeping Zach?


That's an interesting question, and honestly, I don't have a big problem with keeping Zach. The only problem is that at least some of our "talent" is at the same position as Zach (namely, LaMarcus Aldridge). However, I could totally see lineups with both Aldridge and Randolph on the floor together, or Oden with Randolph, where plays are run for Z-Bo's frontcourt partner, and Randolph is going to be able to get points off of outlet passes at 15 feet, or by crashing the boards. 

The Blazers have been down the road of arguably having "too much talent" at certain positions. In some cases, it's worked out fine, in others, it hasn't. I don't think I'm saying anything anyone doesn't already know by concluding that the key has been wins and losses. A guy like Randolph might not mind seeing his minutes diminish, or even coming off the bench, if the Blazers are at or above .500. But if the team goes on a long slide, I could certainly see some players who are getting squeezed on playing time getting antsy (a la Magloire from last season).


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Top 5 reasons for this thread's existence.

1. The Telfair Trade. If I was a Celtics fan that would give me cause enough to hate the Blazers forever.

2. WE GOT THE #1 PICK!!!!!! This is yet another Tim Duncan like situation. The Celtics thought they were gonna get the top pick and a a sure fire HOFer. And yet again it didn't happen.

3. East coast bias

4. The Zach for Theo and #5 rumor. We didn't come up with it. We didn't go around to the Celtics board and spout it as gospel. It just happened. And some Celtics fans were thinking "that might not be so bad" and when that thought hit their collective heads they realized just how much they sucked and were likely to continue to suck for another 10 years and they had to take their aggression out somewhere.

5. The Redsox resent slide. Much like the realization of the Celtic's present and future suckyness this is an anger that needs to be re-directed. Our board is as good a target as anything else.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Extra special post: we should make this the dominant thread until MM's deal finally comes through. Then all the JO's like silverpaw1786 will see what we got back for Zach and stand in amazement as our future great team becomes a great team right now.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Zach Randolph does not play defense. He is a locker room CANCER. He makes over 12 million per. He turns the ball over 3+ times per game. He can certainly score. He is not worth a top player like Josh Howard or a hall of famer like Paul Pierce. He is not worth a lottery pick.


Since when is Paul Pierce a hall of famer and since when did paul pierce or Josh Howard average a Double Double? Zach is worth more than you are giving him credit for...although, you are a Celtics homer so what can i expect. PP isnt HOF material no matter what way you look at it.

Never made it to the finals, and hasnt had a whole lot of success is a perennially weak division.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Basketball-reference puts Pierce's HoF chances at 77.3%. It will be interesting to see if he gets in, and the people who are discounting the possibility entirely clearly haven't been paying attention.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Basketball-reference puts Pierce's HoF chances at 77.3%. It will be interesting to see if he gets in, and the people who are discounting the possibility entirely clearly haven't been paying attention.


I think it's backlash against the OP.

That said, I think Pierce is a Hall of Famer. Over his career, he's been just a step behind Kobe and McGrady in terms of perimeter players. Both Kobe and McGrady, from a production standpoint, are highly deserving Hall of Famers. I think Pierce is a lower-tier Hall of Famer.


----------



## DamDweller (Jun 7, 2007)

> Originally posted by *Public Defender*
> _If teams could get back to using Randolph in situation where you know he'll be defended one-on-one, or just have him attack the boards, he'll put up good numbers, and not commit as many turnovers or force as many shots. _


You are exactly right. Z-Bo is great when people don't focus on him and that is how he should be used for the most part. I do feel that you need to run plays through different players on occasion, but Z-Bo's best asset is his crazy rebounding and quickness around the basket and his ability to draw a double team followed by kicking the ball out. If the double doesn't come then go Z-Bo go!


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Al Jefferson is a poor man's Zach Randolph. He put up 16/11, but wait until he faces the type of defense Zach sees EVERY game. I never understood the hype behind Jefferson, he's developing into a black hole on offense, his post game is far from smooth, he never looks to pass. He's IQ, let's just say he's not the brightest crayon in the box. He has a hard enough time speaking a complete sentence. His defense is mediocre at best.

Outside the aging Paul Pierce you don't have a player on that roster who '=' Zach Randolph. When you do, then you can talk.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

DamDweller said:


> ... his ability to draw a double team followed by kicking the ball out. If the double doesn't come then go Z-Bo go!


However, I would argue that the recognition of double-teams is one of the key differences between All-NBA players like Tim Duncan and borderline All-Stars like Zach Randolph. Duncan has learned to anticipate double teams before they come and can score before they arrive, or make the right pass as they come. Randolph is still learning that part of the game, and his turnovers and reputation for being a "black hole" on offense come - I would say - almost completely from his still having some learning to do.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

QRICH said:


> Al Jefferson is a poor man's Zach Randolph. He put up 16/11, but wait until he faces the type of defense Zach sees EVERY game. I never understood the hype behind Jefferson, he's developing into a black hole on offense, his post game is far from smooth, he never looks to pass. He's IQ, let's just say he's not the brightest crayon in the box. He has a hard enough time speaking a complete sentence. His defense is mediocre at best.
> 
> Outside the aging Paul Pierce you don't have a player on that roster who '=' Zach Randolph. When you do, then you can talk.


so you're telling me al jefferson is drew gooden? 

i dont see why paul pierce would ever be mentioned as an hall of famer candidate. he's put up some numbers on a crummy team. the only time they went anywhere is when they had a second fiddle (antoine walker). he's comparable to what... jerry stackhouse's early career?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not a Zach fan, I don't like him on this team, I want him gone....all that said, he is by no means a locker room cancer, and he is still our best player.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Paul Pierce is no Hall of Famer. If he is, that just discredits the guys who are in the Hall of Fame.
Boston hasn't made the playoffs the past two years in a really bad conference, Pierce hasn't been an All-NBA member in four years. He puts up 25 points per game, but does that mean you're a Hall of Famer now?

He's a good player and all, I wouldn't mind him on the Blazers, but man.. Hall of Famer at this point? What happened to having credentials for being honored as one of the best in the history.

To me, Hall of Famers or who will eventually be there and are still playing are LeBron, Dirk, Kobe, Shaq, Payton, KG, Iverson, Nash and Duncan.
I'd even put Robert Horry in the HoF before Pierce.

Guys like Carmelo, McGrady, Ray Allen and Pierce, they're all really good players but no way should be mentioned in the same breath as Kareem, Cousy, Clyde, Dr. J, Bird, etc.
Hall of Famers should have redefined an era, been the best at their position. Not exactly what I think of when I see Paul Pierce.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

zBO will net a lottery pick + fillers and/or a proven starting SF + fillers
______________________________________________________________________________________
His defense, if you can even call it that, is beyond HORRENDOUS...

His POOR FG% is a concern for his position...

His offensive rebounding success has a lot to do with getting his own misses...

His SUBPAR basketball IQ was essentially maxed out years ago...

His ball handling is shaky at best...

His hustle is generally at turtle's pace [he even looks like Donatello from TMNT]...

ALL IN ALL...zBO MUST GO!!!


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

deanwoof said:


> so you're telling me al jefferson is drew gooden?
> 
> i dont see why paul pierce would ever be mentioned as an hall of famer candidate. he's put up some numbers on a crummy team. the only time they went anywhere is when they had a second fiddle (antoine walker). he's comparable to what... jerry stackhouse's early career?


*gasp* you mean the only time his team did well is when there was another "talented" player on the team?


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

oh, and as far as Paul P. deserving this "HOF" tag, you can not deny his stats:

[scroll down and you may be retracting your words before you know it]
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html

I don't see him being a first ballot HOFer, unless he wins a ring of course, but he will be more than deserving when his time is up...


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

ebott said:


> 4. The Zach for Theo and #5 rumor. We didn't come up with it. We didn't go around to the Celtics board and spout it as gospel. It just happened. And some Celtics fans were thinking "that might not be so bad" and when that thought hit their collective heads they realized just how much they sucked and were likely to continue to suck for another 10 years and they had to take their aggression out somewhere.


Sorry to toot my own horn, but I actually did come up with this a few days before it was reported...

http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/360568-trade-idea-boston.html

Sorry for possibly inviting stupidity to our forum.


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

Hey, hey take it easy on the Celtics,

at least the sense of humor isn't gone.

Celtics slogan for the next 10 years, well there's always next year...


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

HAAK72 said:


> oh, and as far as Paul P. deserving this "HOF" tag, you can not deny his stats:
> 
> [scroll down and you may be retracting your words before you know it]
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html
> ...


Well then how about this...

If Zach stays with the blazers and maintains a solid 20/10 average for a few more years and the blazers (with Oden or Durant) win a couple of NBA titles, consider Z-Bo a HOF candidate.

Zach would put up solid(NBA elite) numbers for a good portion of his career - much like pierce- and would have a few rings to go with it! Thats more than what pierce has to show if you ask me.


BUT WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CONSIDER ZACH for the HOF? Pierce is a no-go in my book.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Five5even said:


> BUT WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CONSIDER ZACH for the HOF? Pierce is a no-go in my book.


I would, if he put up 23/10 for the better part of a decade and made a half-dozen all-star games and won a couple of championships.

Who *wouldn't*?

Ed O.


----------

