# Randolph to Boston Rumor



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

http://www.sigdomain.com/draftexpress_1.mp3

Boston Gets: Zach Randolph

Portland Gets: #5 pick, Theo Ratliff


on that link it's a little ways in. it's an audio.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I'd be shocked if Boston deals us another lottery pick but I'd be happy with that trade.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

They need to throw in Gomes as well.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I would and I wouldn't Mr' Pierce isn't gonna want to gamble on a draft pick and likely demand a trade if they don't get a legit vet in to help him right now. Another thing is Ainge might actually be on the hotseat and feeling the pressure now.

PG West
SG Wally
SF Pierce
PF Randolph
C Jefferson

That team could win some games in the east....Probably much more likely than taking Yi.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Another rumor from DraftExpress...

Josh Smith
#3 pick

for

Jack
Aldridge


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> They need to throw in Gomes as well.


Zach & Webster
for
#5, Theo, & Gomes

:biggrin:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Another rumor from DraftExpress...
> 
> Josh Smith
> #3 pick
> ...


:lol:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Another rumor from DraftExpress...
> 
> Josh Smith
> #3 pick
> ...


I would cry if we did that...LMA is part of our core, we can't move him. Oden/Zach frontcourt wouldn't be as appealing....mike conley is not worth that much....


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I dont like the idea of Josh Smith and Zach on the same team.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

If all we are sending outis Zach then we'd be luck to get #5 let alone trying to have them toss in a good young player.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Zach for #5 and Theo would be a steal for Portland. 


Aldridge and Jack for #3 and Smith would not be so good. I like Smith a lot, but Aldridge showed he is the real deal last season. Pair him with Oden and you have the best C/PF combo of any team in the league within 2 years.

I'm sorry, but Conley is just not that good. It would anger me more if Portland did trade Aldridge for #3 and picked Conley. Maybe if they picked B. Wright that would make it sort of ok.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

What if both rumors were true. 

Conley
Roy
Josh Smith
B. Wright
Oden

That's a nasty looking lineup.


----------



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

how is a prospect and a vet who will play 5 games good value for 20pts 10rebs from a 25 yr old??
this deal has to include gerald green or i dont even return the call


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> What if both rumors were true.
> 
> Conley
> Roy
> ...


I'd stil prefer
Sergio
Roy
Brewer/Julian(assuming zach to boston)
LMA
Oden

I like BW, but LMA is already proven he can be legit in this league on both ends of the court.


----------



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

also what is it with conley? he isnt even that good. he is an average defender, poor outside shooter. he drives and kicks it out, how is that good for a team with no legitimate outside shooter?


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I'd consider it if we could pull off both deals.

A lot hinges on how high KP is on Conley though.


----------



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

Spoolie Gee said:


> What if both rumors were true.
> 
> Conley
> Roy
> ...


Actually, I'd prefer to just do the Boston deal and draft Brewer at 5. Smith is a bit of tweener, a horrible 3-point shooter and not known as a good locker room guy. Smith blocks a lot of shots, but with Oden and Aldridge patrolling the paint, I think a good perimeter defender like Brewer (who can also hit an open 3-pointer) would be a better fit. Brewer is also more of a team player and a proven winner at the college level. After three years in Atlanta, Josh Smith lacks the "culture of winning" Pritchard is always talking about. He seems like a bit of a malcontent and is prone to sulking. I think Conley is going to be decent in a couple years, but picking him at 3 in THIS draft is a serious reach. I love the line-up of:

Jack
Roy
Brewer
Aldridge
Oden

That's a GREAT defensive unit, with balanced inside/outside scoring. If you want to push the tempo, substitute Sergio for Jack.

BNM


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> Zach & Webster
> for
> #5, Theo, & Gomes
> 
> :biggrin:


I think too many people are underrating Webster. Kid is 20 and even if he never improved much, his value would be so much higher playing with Aldridge and Oden and getting open looks from three. He's not a throw in and I wouldn't do that deal. I would say Zach for Gomes, Theo, and the 5th depending on who the Blazers wanted with the 5th.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Another rumor from DraftExpress...
> 
> Josh Smith
> #3 pick
> ...


As much as I love Smith's game, I wouldn't do it. Aldridge is a proven big man who will fit wonderfully next to Oden on the high block. Just do the Celtics deal and draft Brewer to stick at the 3 spot with Gomes being a backup at the 4.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> I'd stil prefer
> Sergio
> Roy
> Brewer/Julian(assuming zach to boston)
> ...


I'd vote for this one too. We'd also still have Jack to start or be the backup PG as well. I doubt Boston goes for it though.


----------



## glazeduck (Mar 20, 2007)

What if we did the Boston trade, netting us the 5th pick and put that in aldridge's place? ATL essentially trades back 2 spots and swaps out a SF (which they have too many of) for a hometown PG, and is no longer in the position of forcing a draft pick for need like last year or taking the best available player (Yi, Horford, or BWright)???

Essentially trading Jack and Randolph for Ratliff, Conley and Josh Smith.


----------



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

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> also what is it with conley? he isnt even that good. he is an average defender, poor outside shooter. he drives and kicks it out, how is that good for a team with no legitimate outside shooter?


can someone answer this i really dont get it?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, I'd prefer to just do the Boston deal and draft Brewer at 5. Smith is a bit of tweener, a horrible 3-point shooter and not known as a good locker room guy. Smith blocks a lot of shots, but with Oden and Aldridge patrolling the paint, I think a good perimeter defender like Brewer (who can also hit an open 3-pointer) would be a better fit. Brewer is also more of a team player and a proven winner at the college level. After three years in Atlanta, Josh Smith lacks the "culture of winning" Pritchard is always talking about. He seems like a bit of a malcontent and is prone to sulking. I think Conley is going to be decent in a couple years, but picking him at 3 in THIS draft is a serious reach. I love the line-up of:
> 
> Jack
> Roy
> ...


This is what I prefer as well. Zach our and Brewer in makes a very good defensive team and saves us millions by not going for Rashard


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> can someone answer this i really dont get it?


I think all the Conley talk is a smokescreen by Pritchard to appease Oden and his agent. It's enough to make it look like you're really after Conley when you're actually not.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> I think all the Conley talk is a smokescreen by Pritchard to appease Oden and his agent. It's enough to make it look like you're really after Conley when you're actually not.


I agree and also think he is trying to smokescreen the other teams as well. If they think he is after Conley when actually after Brewer would be great for Portland.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> can someone answer this i really dont get it?


What "answer" is there?

You're wrong?

Is that an answer? If so, you're answered.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Rumor has it that Conley _is_ a decent defender -- if true, he might be the best defensive PG this team's seen since, oh... Daniels or perhaps even Anthony. Again, I'm not taking an opinion so much as relating things I've been hearing. He also is said to accel at breaking down defenses, both while running (like Rodriguez) and from the half-court (which we've seen less from Rodriguez but that might just be time), though the point remains that kicking it out to guys who can't hit open shots is an issue (though an issue ideally solved, with or without Conley, by getting guys who _can_ hit open shots).

I'll confess he intrigues me. That said, I wouldn't be willing to give up a whole lot to add him.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

RoyToy said:


> Boston Gets: Zach Randolph
> 
> Portland Gets: #5 pick, Theo Ratliff


The Good...




B_&_B said:


> Zach & Webster
> for
> #5, Theo, & Gomes
> 
> :biggrin:


The mediocre (don't give up on Webster)...




Spoolie Gee said:


> Another rumor from DraftExpress...
> 
> Josh Smith
> #3 pick
> ...


And the ugly...


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

yeah Zach for 5 and Theo is awesome!


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Danny Ainge would have to be taking retard pills to do that trade. Not so much that it's a bad deal for them. Cause it's not. It's just trading your lottery pick to Portland a year after getting burned so so so badly by the Telfair trade.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

i would do that boston trade in a heartbeat, with or without green. gomes would be ideal. i'd even take powe. put in as many 2nd rounders as we can, since ainge seems to be really good at finding gems.

we'd be so stocked at bigs it's not even funny.

pryz, raef, theo, lma, oden. bring shaq back west!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Another rumor from DraftExpress...
> 
> Josh Smith
> #3 pick
> ...


I can't believe Portland would do this. There's no one at #3 in this draft who is as good as Aldridge. I'm sick of this Mike Conley business. There is no way in hell we should start messing with the core of this team just to add some little point guard who is a buddy of Oden's.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Spoolie Gee said:


> What if both rumors were true.
> 
> Conley
> Roy
> ...


Oden would foul out on a regular basis as B. Wright cannot defend in the post (see Georgetown game v. Jeff Green) and we really have no go-to scoring option.

Aldridge/Oden takes us farther than B. Wright/Oden. Alridge works the mid range game and Oden cleans up the offensive glass.


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

RoyToy said:


> http://www.sigdomain.com/draftexpress_1.mp3
> 
> Boston Gets: Zach Randolph
> 
> ...



Funny....i started a thread the other day that projected this and everyone rejected this idea.


I shall bring it back!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> how is a prospect and a vet who will play 5 games good value for 20pts 10rebs from a 25 yr old??



when the 20/10 guy is owed 60 million and doesn't fit the direction you want your offense to go, and the vet who will play 5 games has an 11.6 mil expiring contract with potential re-trade value. i'd do that deal in a heartbeat - not sure why boston would - zach + AJ = clogged paint. i'd expect boston to ask for a significant throw-in if this is gonna happen.

not sure why we would do the other deal. if he had stayed in, aldridge would probably BE the #3 pick in this draft. also smith is a restricted FA in 08 and will definitely get some decent offers. he would likely be pretty expensive to keep beyond this coming season.


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

crowTrobot said:


> when the 20/10 guy is owed 60 million and doesn't fit the direction you want your offense to go, and the vet who will play 5 games has an 11.6 mil expiring contract with potential re-trade value. i'd do that deal in a heartbeat - not sure why boston would. zach + RJ clogged paint. i'd expect boston to ask for a significant throw-in if this is gonna happen.
> 
> not sure why we would do the other deal. if he had stayed in, aldridge would probably BE the #3 pick in this draft. also smith is a restricted FA in 08 and will definitely get some decent offers.



You mean Al Jefferson?

you could move Al to the Center spot and start randolph at PF. Just a thought, although that looks pretty weak defensively.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ebott said:


> Danny Ainge would have to be taking retard pills to do that trade. Not so much that it's a bad deal for them. Cause it's not. It's just trading your lottery pick to Portland a year after getting burned so so so badly by the Telfair trade.


Go to any casino and you'll eventually spot a guy who is spending the remainder of his life savings trying to recover the first half of his life savings. 

Our hosing him over for Roy AND our getting the pick he thought he would has set him up for the perfect bend-over trifecta. 

If Boston does nothing more drastic this summer than use that pick, they will have another miserable season and Ainge will be fired by Christmas. Probably around a month before Paul Pierce demands a trade. 

This deal is probably Ainge's best chance at keeping his job. And it's a fantastic way for us to solidify our SF position with Brewer.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

cokeplease said:


> You mean Al Jefferson?
> 
> you could move Al to the Center spot and start randolph at PF. Just a thought, although that looks pretty weak defensively.



yes typo lol. not sure why al and zach wouldn't have the same compatability problems magloire and zach did.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

this should be merged with Cokes thread he started on 5/26


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

Trader Bob said:


> this should be merged with Cokes thread he started on 5/26


I think its LameR that started it, but we talked about it together online first. :wink:


----------



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

I guess Danny Ainge didn't notice Portland was the worst team in the league just over a year ago. That being the case, I'm more than happy to help him continue to relocate the 2005-2006 Trailblazers to the east coast in exchange for his high lottery picks.

Seriously, Boston was REALLY counting on getting a top 2 pick in this draft. They deliberately tanked in a desperate attempt to improve their odds and it bit them. Paul Pierce has been grumbling for years about not wanting to be part of yet another rebuilding project. So, they either need to bring in some proven veterans and try to make the play-offs now, or look at trading Pierce and going totally with the youth movement. 

Problem is, if they do that they'll be lucky to win 15 games - even with the 5th pick. Mook is right. Ainge is desperate to keep his job and that means they need to win more games NOW. After losing out in the lottery the Boston fans and ownership have lost their patience with all the losing. Sinking further than they already have is sure to get Ainge fired. Zach won't lead them to a championship, but Zach inside and Pierce outside would help them win more games THIS COMING SEASON than any rookie they could get at the 5th pick. That combination, plus actually trying to win some games, could be enough to get them into the play-offs in the very weak east - where three teams made the play-offs this year with 0.500 or worse records. 

Is Zach their saviour? Oh heck no, but he might be just enough to let Danny keep his job for another year.

And look at it this way, at least whoever the Blazers end up picking 5th this year won't really have any chance to win ROY. So, this trade can't possibly look as bad as last year's Telfair trade. If anything, Boston fans will notice that Danny's trading ability has improved since last June.

BNM


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

Spoolie Gee said:


> What if both rumors were true.
> 
> Conley
> Roy
> ...



That lineup is poop to me.

especially when you can have

Jack/Roy/ PRACTICALLY ANY SF /Aldridge/Oden


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

cokeplease said:


> That lineup is poop to me.


Give me a break. You might not like trading Aldridge but that lineup would be one of the most talented in the league.


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Give me a break. You might not like trading Aldridge but that lineup would be one of the most talented in the league.


I would not dump Aldridge. I think thats a huge mistake. He can become a Tim Duncan like player with his mid-range shot and defensive abilities.

Quite possibly with more of an athletic stature too.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I would not want to see the Blazers do this. I'm looking for a trade that will bring an experienced SF instead of a rookie . . . the Blazers are young enough and there will be enough rookie/sophmore mistakes going on.

Let's win next year . . . and the year after that . . . and the year after that . . .


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

cokeplease said:


> I would not dump Aldridge. I think thats a huge mistake. He can become a Tim Duncan like player with his mid-range shot and defensive abilities.
> 
> Quite possibly with more of an athletic stature too.


I dont want to trade Aldridge either but that doesnt mean a lineup of lottery picks would be "poop".


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> And look at it this way, at least whoever the Blazers end up picking 5th this year won't really have any chance to win ROY.


assuming durant is 100% the whole season maybe. otherwise i wouldn't say no chance. oden is unlikely to have dominant numbers, and somebody with offensive skills (like yi) could emerge.


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

Spoolie Gee said:


> I dont want to trade Aldridge either but that doesnt mean a lineup of lottery picks would be "poop".


Your roster also banks on Conley being a star...which i dont like either. Not to mention Brandon Wright isn't impressing me compared to some other scenarios.

Obviously it isnt POOP in relation to most teams, but it IS poop in comparison to other opportunities that are available to the blazers this offseason IMHO.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

cokeplease said:


> You mean Al Jefferson?
> 
> you could move Al to the Center spot and start randolph at PF. Just a thought, although that looks pretty weak defensively.


Yeah but, look how many teams play w/o a true Center - some of them are even successfull!! How many Centers in the East would really abuse an Al Jeff/K. Perkins Center combo? If you're just talking about on-the-court, this trade makes the Celtics better next year than keeping the #5 and picking Yi or whoever. It's unlikely Ainge will deal for Randolph though, and I agree with those who think it's partly (or largely) due to the Telfair deal last year. He doesn't want to go down as the guy who set Celtic basketball back 10 years and in the process made Portland A Champion. Even aside from the Telfair deal, Zach's off-the-court trouble, history of injuries, and HUGE contract make him risky - especially to a guy who already has a reputation of making some bad deals. On the other hand, maybe he's vulnerable? Maybe we could catch him "grasping at straws" as it were. If he thinks Zbo can get the Celts back into the playoffs, maybe he'll talk himself into believing Zach's problems are in the past. I mean, we are talking about Zach Randolph - not Shawn Kemp. The same guy many of us were arguing was done a disservice by being left off the all star roster last year.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

So many things to say.

I don't like Conely as a player. He does not even make my top ten in this years draft.

I like the trade of Zach for 5th and theo for PDX, but I don't see it for the following reasons
1) Jefferson and Zach would not play well together and both are true PF's, not Centers
2) Ainge would likely not want to deal with portland
3) After the last deal with PDX, the jailblazer Telfair ended up acting the bafoon and the Celts no longer want him. With all the baggage that Zach has, I doubt they would want to risk another blowup.
4) They have a lot of young trading pieces that if they look around with the pick and the youngsters, I have no doubt they could get players with better fit for the team

The reason why the Celts might do this trade
Ainge is a moron



As for the Aldridge trade, no way in hell. Aldridge is going to be one heck of a player, likely the best player in last years draft, and most likely better then anyone outside of Durant and Oden this year. Oden and Aldridge will make such a great duo, complementing eachother in almost every way.


And just in case you missed the start of this post - Conely sucks (from a basketball standpoint. He does seem like a nice guy)


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> The reason why the Celts might do this trade
> Ainge is a moron


A desperate moron at that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not sure Ainge is a moron, but whether he is or not: Zach is a very good player. He's a guy who has a great chance of being an all-star in the East. And he makes the Celtics significantly better than anyone who will be sitting there at #5.

Jefferson can play the 5, as he demonstrated this year. Zach's offensive game has evolved to the point where he can hit perimeter shots as well as beat people on the blocks and get to the line. He'd fit in just fine with Jefferson and Pierce and Wally and Green and West Rondo and Perkins and whatever other key pieces the Celtics have.

Would it be an act of desperation? Perhaps... but what they've been doing isn't working, and adding a lottery project that plays the same position as one of its best players (either the small forward in Pierce or the 4 in Jefferson) doesn't help them in the near term at all.

From the Blazers' side of things: I could live with it. I wouldn't be overjoyed, given we were able to get the same pick, essentially, for Telfair last year... but if the team is resigned to moving Zach, I can't imagine us doing that much better than this.

Ed O.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I would definitely consider that the #5 and Theo for Zach trade, but I think we would have to make a couple other moves to make it work. 

Firstly, I like Brewer, but trading Zach leaves us kind of thin at power forward. Who would take over as the primary backup to Aldridge? Would we play LaFrentz there? Or would we look at drafting a power forward like Horford? 

I think we could benefit from getting a veteran to play small forward. Maybe we move Theo and his expiring contract for a small forward.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> I would definitely consider that the #5 and Theo for Zach trade, but I think we would have to make a couple other moves to make it work.
> 
> Firstly, I like Brewer, but trading Zach leaves us kind of thin at power forward. Who would take over as the primary backup to Aldridge? Would we play LaFrentz there? Or would we look at drafting a power forward like Horford?
> 
> I think we could benefit from getting a veteran to play small forward. Maybe we move Theo and his expiring contract for a small forward.


The primary backup at PF would be a re-signed Outlaw who showed last year that PF is his best position. I do agree that another PF might be useful, but not totally needed.

PF: Aldridge / Outlaw / Raef
C: Oden / Joel / Raef

EDIT: Also, if Miles comes back, all 712lbs of him could play some PF in a pinch.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

actually, if Ainge is scrambling as much as I suspect he will be this summer, acquiring Zach means they could trade Al Jefferson for a pretty darned nice asset. I realize he's popular and has tons of upside, but if he was that great then why did Boston have the second worst record in the NBA? 

Paul Pierce, Zach Randolph and another proven veteran at SG or PG could really do some damage in the East.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> The primary backup at PF would be a re-signed Outlaw who showed last year that PF is his best position. I do agree that another PF might be useful, but not totally needed.
> 
> PF: Aldridge / Outlaw / Raef
> C: Oden / Joel / Raef
> ...


I think Outlaw could play some time at power forward, but he's comfortable on the perimeter, not in the paint. I would love to add a guy like Briant Grant who could rebound, mix it up in the post, and serve as somewhat of an enforcer for this team. Not sure who we could get like that, but if we're going to go into the playoffs, we need to get tougher. 

Magloire was the only guy on our team that I would classify as an enforcer, and he'll be gone next season.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> I think Outlaw could play some time at power forward, but he's comfortable on the perimeter, not in the paint. I would love to add a guy like Briant Grant who could rebound, mix it up in the post, and serve as somewhat of an enforcer for this team. Not sure who we could get like that, but if we're going to go into the playoffs, we need to get tougher.
> 
> Magloire was the only guy on our team that I would classify as an enforcer, and he'll be gone next season.


If Joel is healthy, he played the enforcer role the year before. Hopefully he will do it again this year as Odens backup C.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> 1) Jefferson and Zach would not play well together and both are true PF's, not Centers


Jefferson plays in the Eastern Conference, so who cares. Brezec. Pachulia. Collins. Ben Wallace. Chris Webber. Jefferson would do fine against that lot.



> 2) Ainge would likely not want to deal with portland


Maybe. But if Boston is looking to get value from that #5 pick, Zach Randolph is absolutely the best it gets. They might even shake a guy like Webster loose.



> 3) After the last deal with PDX, the jailblazer Telfair ended up acting the bafoon and the Celts no longer want him. With all the baggage that Zach has, I doubt they would want to risk another blowup.


Good point. And Randolph likes his guns. When they think about Zach, they have to think about 4 seasons of Zach. I think he'll be fine, though. 



> 4) They have a lot of young trading pieces that if they look around with the pick and the youngsters, I have no doubt they could get players with better fit for the team


Like who?


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

There is no reason to trade LMA for a draft pick. None. He is better than anything you would get in return, and Smith is so easily interchangeable.

Now if you could swap Z Bo for an expiring contract AND the #5, why would you even hesitate. I dont even think Ainge is that desperate though.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Why would this be an act of desperation? Zach has 4 years left on his deal and is coming off a 23/10 season. Pencil that into a lineup next to Jefferson, Rondo, Pierce and Wally (is he ever going to be healthy?), and you're a lock for the playoffs next season.

Also, there's no reason why Zach wouldn't make the playoffs in the east. None. Trading a #5 pick for a 26yo all-star isn't desperation. Not in the least.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

If we did this Boston deal it would cut a ton of salary off the books. In the summer of '09 Lafrentzs deal would be up, Miles may be off the books for medical retirement. The only contracts we would have is rookie scale deals and Przybillas $6.8mil.
The Blazers need to be very careful in what contracts they take on for aging veterans or for mediocre talent in the meantime as it could cost them an opportunity to pick up a good max contract free agent or two in '09.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Why would this be an act of desperation? Zach has 4 years left on his deal and is coming off a 23/10 season. Pencil that into a lineup next to Jefferson, Rondo, Pierce and Wally (is he ever going to be healthy?), and you're a lock for the playoffs next season.
> 
> Also, there's no reason why Zach wouldn't make the playoffs in the east. None. Trading a #5 pick for a 26yo all-star isn't desperation. Not in the least.



Sure there is. Its the same reason Shareef Abdur Rahim didn't make the playoffs for so long. Its called doing what is necessary to win the game. Playing defense. Running the floor. Until Zbo starts doing those things, or starts playing for a team that can overcome his lack of effort on one end of the floor, he won't make the playoffs.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Draco said:


> If we did this Boston deal it would cut a ton of salary off the books. In the summer of '09 Lafrentzs deal would be up, Miles may be off the books for medical retirement. The only contracts we would have is rookie scale deals and Przybillas $6.8mil.
> The Blazers need to be very careful in what contracts they take on for aging veterans or for mediocre talent in the meantime as it could cost them an opportunity to pick up a good max contract free agent or two in '09.


There is no reasonable way the Blazers can arrange the team so they have cap room for a MAX free agent.

Because of this, you will not see the Blazers bother. The only issue is staying below the Luxury Tax threshold until Paul Allen decides it is worth it to him to lose tens of millions of dollars financing his hobby.

So, the Blazers will NOT collect overpriced would be stars like the Knicks, but, they also won't be trading genuine talent for less value, just to make "cap" room. There is no cap room to get.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Sure there is. Its the same reason Shareef Abdur Rahim didn't make the playoffs for so long. Its called doing what is necessary to win the game. Playing defense. Running the floor. Until Zbo starts doing those things, or starts playing for a team that can overcome his lack of effort on one end of the floor, he won't make the playoffs.


Silly.

That SAR's failure to do the "little things" had much of anything to do with his teams repeatedly failing to make the playoffs is laughable. Little things DO make a player more valuable, but they don't make that big of a deal when there are 8 or 9 other guys playing big minutes.

The quality of teammates is FAR more important than "doing what is necessary to win the game".

Ed O.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I'd also like to see Zach on a team with a player the caliber of Paul Pierce that he'd willingly defer to. A real leader that he'd follow. Zach could be what the Celtics envisioned Antoine Walker being when they decided that their franchise would be built around Walker and Pierce.

I don't want to keep Zach on the team cause I think we're just better off with Aldridge at the 4. But I would like to see Zach do well. If the Celtics did that deal I think Zach would do well there.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ebott said:


> Zach could be what the Celtics envisioned Antoine Walker being


Literally.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Draco said:


> If we did this Boston deal it would cut a ton of salary off the books. In the summer of '09 Lafrentzs deal would be up, Miles may be off the books for medical retirement. The only contracts we would have is rookie scale deals and Przybillas $6.8mil.
> The Blazers need to be very careful in what contracts they take on for aging veterans or for mediocre talent in the meantime as it could cost them an opportunity to pick up a good max contract free agent or two in '09.



Dont forget that in a few years, you guys are going to be handing out MAX deal extensions to the collection of young talent. The Blazers are going to have either a very unselfish team (unlikely) or they are going to have to move/drop good players because they will ask for too much money. I mean lets be realistic, in 4 years ( or whenever the first extension kicks in) Oden is going to be earning 17+ mil a season and Roy/LMA are going to want to get paid too.


----------



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

elcap15 said:


> Dont forget that in a few years, you guys are going to be handing out MAX deal extensions to the collection of young talent. The Blazers are going to have either a very unselfish team (unlikely) or they are going to have to move/drop good players because they will ask for too much money. I mean lets be realistic, in 4 years ( or whenever the first extension kicks in) Oden is going to be earning 17+ mil a season and Roy/LMA are going to want to get paid too.


So? What's your point? We have the richest owner in sports and will have Bird rights to all our young talent. Our rich owner will simply open his checkbook and pay them what they are worth, perhaps even a tad more, and they will be happy. Honestly, I don't see what you're getting at. We won't need to move or get rid of any good players. As long as those players truly are good, I don't see Paul Allen batting an eye at paying them what they are worth.

BNM


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> So? What's your point? We have the richest owner in sports and will have Bird rights to all our young talent. Our rich owner will simply open his checkbook and pay them what they are worth, perhaps even a tad more, and they will be happy. Honestly, I don't see what you're getting at. We won't need to move or get rid of any good players. As long as those players truly are good, I don't see Paul Allen batting an eye at paying them what they are worth.
> 
> BNM



My point was in response to the post I quoted. He mentioned clearing cap space for a Max free agent, This seems highly improbably seeing as how in a few years you are going to have a couple of max (or close to it) contract players already on the team. The luxury tax is really no big deal if you have a team that winning, but it does prevent you from picking up max free agents.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Masbee said:


> There is no reasonable way the Blazers can arrange the team so they have cap room for a MAX free agent.
> 
> Because of this, you will not see the Blazers bother. The only issue is staying below the Luxury Tax threshold until Paul Allen decides it is worth it to him to lose tens of millions of dollars financing his hobby.
> 
> So, the Blazers will NOT collect overpriced would be stars like the Knicks, but, they also won't be trading genuine talent for less value, just to make "cap" room. There is no cap room to get.


It the following were to happen:
1. Trade Zach for expiring contract (or even 2 yr deal)
2. Miles retirees and comes off the cap
Then it is *possible *the Blazers would have enough cap room in summer of '09 (2 years from now) to offer a max Free Agent contract. These would be the contracts on the books:

Joel Przybilla 6,857,725
LaMarcus Aldridge	5,844,827 
Brandon Roy 3,910,816
Sergio Rodriguez	1,576,696

Total = 18.19 million

Then you'll have to add the following:

A. Oden will get ~5mil
B. Outlaw and Ime may have contracts
C. Jack and webster would be restricted free agents or already have extensions signed
D. MLE or other possible FA/trade additions

Even if the blazers have another 20 million invested that is only $38million. If the salary cap is ~$60million there is way more than enough room for a max free agent.

I'm not saying the Blazers absolutly will have that amount of cap room, I'm just saying if Zbo is traded for a contract with 2 or less years on it then Blazers managment should keep cap considerations is mind as a FA addition may be possible.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> My point was in response to the post I quoted. He mentioned clearing cap space for a Max free agent, This seems highly improbably seeing as how in a few years you are going to have a couple of max (or close to it) contract players already on the team. The luxury tax is really no big deal if you have a team that winning, but it does prevent you from picking up max free agents.


Oden/Aldridge/Roy will still be on their rookie deals in the summer of '09. 

After that offseason I agree with you, it would only be a one year FA window.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Draco said:


> It the following were to happen:
> 1. Trade Zach for expiring contract (or even 2 yr deal)
> 2. Miles retirees and comes off the cap


Oops. Step 2 is your first big problem right there. Even if Miles retires, the league rarely takes the salary off the cap. Usually they just offer up an injured player exception, which is like getting another MLE. Whoopie.



> Then it is *possible *the Blazers would have enough cap room in summer of '09 (2 years from now) to offer a max Free Agent contract. These would be the contracts on the books:
> 
> Joel Przybilla 6,857,725
> LaMarcus Aldridge	5,844,827
> ...


So you have 6 other players under contract for 20 mil, average of 3.33 million. Oops. There is your second problem. Oden, Outlaw extended, Ime resigned, Jack extended, Webster extended and an MLE free agent signed will NOT average 3.33 million in salaries. The only guy of those making 3 mil per year would be Ime. Everybody else is making more. For those players you list try total salaries of at least $30 million and probably totaling $40 million - not "around" $20 million.

So you had 4 players under contract, plus 6 other players which you have as $20 million, when it would be $30 to $40 million. That is only 10 players under contract. If you want cap room, you can't have those 10 players. The only way to make it work is to trade for more ending contracts, let Outlaw walk as a free agent, do not sign any decent (read: expensive) free agents., etc.

You also forgot to include the high lotto pick you traded Zach for. You also forgot Joel Freeland. You also forgot any other draft picks signed by the team. You also forgot that when computing cap room the league puts in place holders for roster spots. It isn't as much cap room as you think. You also are assuming a $60 million cap. Where do you get that? Link please.

What your plan really entails, is stripping the roster down, trading Zach for expiring, making no committments to players past summer 09 that would mess up the cap, praying the the league takes a retired Darius off the cap, filling the roster with a buch of rookies and min sal guys, and not even trying to field a seriously competitive team.

I guarantee you that Pritchard and McMillan and Allen do NOT want that.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Bird Rights are a beautiful thing.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Spoolie Gee said:


> What if both rumors were true.
> 
> Conley
> Roy
> ...


3 rookies, a second-year player, and 21 year-old 'veteran' Josh Smith?

This team would be one of the five worst in the NBA next season.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Silly.
> 
> That SAR's failure to do the "little things" had much of anything to do with his teams repeatedly failing to make the playoffs is laughable. Little things DO make a player more valuable, but they don't make that big of a deal when there are 8 or 9 other guys playing big minutes.
> 
> ...


Not true. You may not believe in the poison pill player, the player that when he shows up, his attitude and work ethic rub off on the rest of the team, effecting it as a whole. I do. I also believe that with more effort, that the Blazers could have easily been much closer to the playoffs last year. 

Secondly, Shareef Abdur Rahim has missed the playoffs on teams that should have easily made the playoffs. It is because his attitude and effort rub off on the rest of the team. He has had an abundance of talent around him the last 2 seasons, yet last year, the Kings barely make the playoffs, and this year, they don't even near make it in. I watched a lot of Kings games. When the coach puts Kenny Thomas in front of you because of your effort, there is a problem. When you come into the game and other players pick up fouls because you didn't run the floor and sat in the back jawing with the refs trying to get respect you dont' deserve, that is a problem. When you don't play hard when you don't get touches on the ball, that is a problem. All the same with Zbo. 

Lastly you seem to have a short memory. You fail to remember guys like Brian Grant, who with their effort, and the little things they did, injected a whole team with energy, bringing the whole intensity level of the team up. The Blazer teams of the late 80's/early 90's and late 90's would not have made the pushes they made without the guys who brought the infusion of energy, effort, and positive attitude to the teams. Grant. Williams. Kersey. Robinson. None of those guys were great scorers while they were here. None of them averaged what Zbo and Shareef do for the most part. But they played hard, ran the floor, got back on defense, and rebounded on both sides of the floor. You may argue, it was about the guys around them, but the Blazers of the early 80's did not reach their level of play until they got the effort guys, and getting Brian Grant was really the piece which started to turn the late 90's Blazers around. The pattern is eerily similar. 

I can't for the life of me think of one game where Zbo or Shareef came in for their team, and I thought "Things are going to turn around now." Because you know in the back of your mind, that all they are concerned with is scoring, you aren't going to get any stops, and you will be lucky if they get back on defense at all. You know every player out there who is playing with them, is thinking that as well.


----------

