# Dont be shocked if ZACH is traded...think about it!



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

if the Blazers were offered a great SG like Paul pierce...the Blazers would do it in a heartbeat and now with the trade for Rahim and the recent play of Miles...its looking like a real possibility that the blazers make a play for a SG like PP!

Damon-PG/cook/dickau
Pierce-SG/DA
Miles-SF/Patterson
Rahim-PF/Davis
Ratliff-C/Davis/Stepania

not a bad starting 5 anddecent bench...although DA's back would start hurting agin Im sure!

Its also clear as crystal zach benefited from sheed!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I will say this about Zach. I like what he brings, but he absolutely needs to have good players around him for him to be successful. He cannot carry this team on his own. In fact his production offensively is extremely limited unless there is a second legit threat on the floor. Paul Pierce with SAR and Miles makes this team a HC advantage team for next season IMO.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I think it's pretty obvious that the one move Portland should make right now would involve Z-Bo. His stock is inflated, and the Blazers could acquire some very high level talent for the guy. 

I am not sold on Z-Bo. He cannot create his own shot. He doesn't play defense. Simply put, he's a very good garbage player. If Portland could land a high quality SG or PG by dealing Z-Bo, I think it would have to be a no brainer of a decision for Nash to pull the trigger.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> Simply put, he's a very good garbage player.


Well, this "garbage player" you are describing is averaging over 21 points per game and over 11 rebounds per game. How many other players are getting that? Zach is a talented player. To say that he is a garbage player is a joke IMHO.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> I think it's pretty obvious that the one move Portland should make right now would involve Z-Bo. His stock is inflated, and the Blazers could acquire some very high level talent for the guy.
> 
> I am not sold on Z-Bo. He cannot create his own shot. He doesn't play defense. Simply put, he's a very good garbage player. If Portland could land a high quality SG or PG by dealing Z-Bo, I think it would have to be a no brainer of a decision for Nash to pull the trigger.


not too many 22 year olds can 'create' their own shots.

So instead of giving up on him already (he's already proven to be more of a player than Jermaine was in Portland) how about we let him grow up first?


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Jamison for Zach



(wishful thinking)

Zach would do good in Dallas just because there are so many other scoring threats he could just make his check off their missed shots and doubt teams.

If it wasn't for Jamison's contract this deal might be a litte more realistic. :sigh:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Yep, let's unload this bum.

He is past his prime and has too many flaws in his game. He is a weed smoking, lazy, underachiever. If you surround him with 4 guys from the local YMCA, he will never carry the team to a title. He is a cancer in the lockerroom and doesn't care about the fans. He is a racist who won't have sex with Jason Quick. He eats babies and sacrifices virgins under the full moon. 

 Have I missed anything?:whatever:


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> If it wasn't for Jamison's contract this deal might be a litte more realistic. :sigh:


Maybe. But I really doubt it. I would rather have Z-Bo at this time for numerous reasons. Yes, his contract is one. Portland would not do a deal like this. Jamison is a good player but he's not worth Z-Bo to Portland.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> Yep, let's unload this bum.
> 
> He is past his prime and has too many flaws in his game. He is a weed smoking, lazy, underachiever. If you surround him with 4 guys from the local YMCA, he will never carry the team to a title. He is a cancer in the lockerroom and doesn't care about the fans. He is a racist who won't have sex with Jason Quick. He eats babies and sacrifices virgins under the full moon.
> ...


Sounds like some other Blazers I know....

:laugh:


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> Yep, let's unload this bum.
> 
> He is past his prime and has too many flaws in his game. He is a weed smoking, lazy, underachiever. If you surround him with 4 guys from the local YMCA, he will never carry the team to a title. He is a cancer in the lockerroom and doesn't care about the fans. He is a racist who won't have sex with Jason Quick. He eats babies and sacrifices virgins under the full moon.
> ...


I like this one...:laugh:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Once people figure out his game, his stock will drop quickly.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> Once people figure out his game, his stock will drop quickly.


Where in the world did you come up with that one? Is that like saying when people figure out Tim Duncan's game that his stock will drop quickly? Z-Bo has talent and you don't put up averages like he has this year without it. He may never be a KG but he is already playing very good b-ball at age 22 and has to be considered one of the better PF's in the game.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> Well, this "garbage player" you are describing is averaging over 21 points per game and over 11 rebounds per game. How many other players are getting that? Zach is a talented player. To say that he is a garbage player is a joke IMHO.


I couldn't agree more, some fans are soo freaking greedy. There is only about 4-5 players in the L averaging over 20 and 10 and Zach is the YOUNGEST! Quit taking him for granted guys.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe. But I really doubt it. I would rather have Z-Bo at this time for numerous reasons. Yes, his contract is one. Portland would not do a deal like this. Jamison is a good player but he's not worth Z-Bo to Portland.


I wouldn't do this trade, Finley to PDX.
He's playing better now that hes healthy. He also fits the bill of improving the image of the team too.

Not too many young bigs around the leauge getting 20 and 10... but hell if you want to get rid of him I'm sure people will take em


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Once people figure out his game, his stock will drop quickly


This is a misinformed statement IMO. First and most importantly, GM's, or anyone worth his job WOULD and SHOULD know all about a player like Zach. His strengths, his weaknesses, almost all GM's would know these. I HIGHLY doubt the value of a player fluctautes as much as it does in message boards like these. Add that to the fact he is still very young @ 22, and is a HARD worker, his upside potential is still very good. I don't see POR eager to trade him at all.

Here is an idea, why don't we wait and see how Rahim and Zach play togther before we cut one of them loose? It's not like either of them are going anywhere, and Zach's value isn't going to diminish significantly, unless he has a series of severe off court misteps b\t now and the end of the season, and I find that unlikely.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Guys, I love Zach and think he could be better than Sir Charles one day but if Pierce is offered we take that deal and run. Paul would be a deadly outside force for us plus he can create his own shot and SAR would be in his normal spot. 

I don't think Boston would do this but if they do, sprint not run to that deal.

Pierce would solve a lot of the problems on this team.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Guys, I love Zach and think he could be better than Sir Charles one day but if Pierce is offered we take that deal and run. Paul would be a deadly outside force for us plus he can create his own shot and SAR would be in his normal spot.
> 
> I don't think Boston would do this but if they do, sprint not run to that deal.
> ...


I like Pierce too, but realistically, I can only see one way Boston trades him: if it is the ONLY way they can off-load Baker's contract. If they can void the deal, even work a decent buy-out, my bet is that Pierce stays put.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey, I agree, I don't think we are in sniffing distance of getting Pierce but if we are, do it and let Vin rot on the bench behind, DALE and Theo.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> Well, this "garbage player" you are describing is averaging over 21 points per game and over 11 rebounds per game. How many other players are getting that? Zach is a talented player. To say that he is a garbage player is a joke IMHO.



When I say "garbage player" I don't mean Zach is garbage. What I mean is he's very opportunistic around the hoop, and has incredible touch close in. He also relies upon those skills to produce good numbers. He can't play defense, he can't post up, he can't really beat guys off the dribble, he cannot create. Nor do I see him creating in the future. He's good - I'm not saying he isn't. But if Portland could land Pierce or even Crawford, I'd do it in a heart beat. Ensuring Rahim AND Miles stay in the starting lineup is, IMO, incredibly important. If that means Portland ships Zach for a player they absolutely NEED, it's a no brainer. Just thinking about Miles/Shareef/Ratliff in the starting lineup with a great PG or great SG gets me foaming at the mouth....


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> When I say "garbage player" I don't mean Zach is garbage. What I mean is he's very opportunistic around the hoop, and has incredible touch close in. He also relies upon those skills to produce good numbers. He can't play defense, he can't post up, he can't really beat guys off the dribble, he cannot create. Nor do I see him creating in the future. He's good - I'm not saying he isn't. But if Portland could land Pierce or even Crawford, I'd do it in a heart beat. Ensuring Rahim AND Miles stay in the starting lineup is, IMO, incredibly important. If that means Portland ships Zach for a player they absolutely NEED, it's a no brainer. Just thinking about Miles/Shareef/Ratliff in the starting lineup with a great PG or great SG gets me foaming at the mouth....


I disagree. I think it's great that he is opportunistic around the hoop...very few players in the NBA have his energy and drive around the basket. He will improve defensively. Yes, he can post up...that's what he does every night. I would definitely not dump Z-Bo for Crawford...not a chance. Pierce could be another story but I just don't know.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so you don't like Zach's game..but like Crawfords?

a guy who's a career 40% shooter? who's shooting 38% this year?

Why is Crawford ok to get, when he has his own problems as a player?

I'm confused as to why you think Crawford can improve but Zach can't/won't.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Why is Crawford ok to get, when he has his own problems as a player?
> 
> I'm confused as to why you think Crawford can improve but Zach can't/won't.


I think ZR is far more valuable than Crawford, but I can see why someone would think that ZR's upside is more limited than Crawford's...

Jamal is a player who can play the PG spot, and he's got excellent size for that position. Zach's limited to the 4 spot, and he's not particularly tall nor long for an interior player. Jamal's athletic and has a good looking shot as well as the ability to put the ball on the floor. ZR's not athletic and he's not a very intimidating defensive presence.

Again: I would MUCH rather have ZR than Crawford, but in terms of who's got more room for improvement, I'd go with Jamal.

As far as moving Zach: it has to be for something very good at a position other than the 4, and preferably not at the 3, either. Paul Pierce (if we think he could man the 2 spot), Ray Allen, Steve Francis... that's the calibre of young, very good player that I think is the sole type of player to consider moving ZR.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I think ZR is far more valuable than Crawford, but I can see why someone would think that ZR's upside is more limited than Crawford's...
> ...


but Ed...Crawford is older....and we all know your theory about ages making a huge difference...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> but Ed...Crawford is older....and we all know your theory about ages making a huge difference...


Age DOES make a huge difference, but Crawford's only 16 months older than Zach and considering the rest of the differences I list I don't think that age differential negates the other positives he has relative to ZR.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Paul Pierce (if we think he could man the 2 spot), Ray Allen, Steve Francis... that's the calibre of young, very good player that I think is the sole type of player to consider moving ZR.


Steve Francis? You don't particularly like Stackhouse or Iverson, but you consider Francis a young, *very good* player on the order of Allen and Pierce?

I wouldn't put him remotely on that level. First, I would dispute he's a superior NBA-level point guard. He's not averaging as many as 6 assists this season and has *never* averaged as many as 7 assists in his NBA career, which is in it's fifth year.

He's not a Marbury, a great scoring point guard, equally adept at play-making. To me, he's an undersized shooting guard who's been placed at point guard.

So, evaluating him as a shooting guard: Well, he's shooting under 40% this season and that's with better teammates around him than ever before, with a more seasoned Ming and Cuttino Mobley. He actually has a top big man to play off, which not many can say. He shot well in his first two seasons, 44% and 45%, but has been significantly worse since, shooting 41%, 43% and now 39%.

I wouldn't chuck him aside for nothing, he is a pretty good player, but I wouldn't deal ZR for him, nor would I place him in the level of Pierce or Allen or Marbury.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Steve Francis? You don't particularly like Stackhouse or Iverson, but you consider Francis a young, *very good* player on the order of Allen and Pierce?


He's not quite as good, but he can play the PG spot, so from a position scarcity perspective, I would definitely put him at that level. He shoots well from the field (including from 3), handles the ball pretty well, gets to the free throw line a lot and rebounds very well.



> I wouldn't put him remotely on that level. First, I would dispute he's a superior NBA-level point guard. He's not averaging as many as 6 assists this season and has *never* averaged as many as 7 assists in his NBA career, which is in it's fifth year.


His assist numbers are not great. True. I think that he can play the PG spot, though, and whether he's a pass-first PG or a "lead guard", either way he's a good player who can play the 1.



> He's not a Marbury, a great scoring point guard, equally adept at play-making. To me, he's an undersized shooting guard who's been placed at point guard.


I think he's Marbury's equal. He doesn't pass quite as well as Stephon but he's a superior rebounder and shooter.



> So, evaluating him as a shooting guard: Well, he's shooting under 40% this season and that's with better teammates around him than ever before, with a more seasoned Ming and Cuttino Mobley. He actually has a top big man to play off, which not many can say. He shot well in his first two seasons, 44% and 45%, but has been significantly worse since, shooting 41%, 43% and now 39%.


I reject that he's an undersized shooting guard.

Looking at his shooting percentage, though, it's more than acceptable for a SG (including the slump he's currently in, which I consider to be a result of coaching upheaval rather than loss of skill):

Career FG%/3pt %:

Francis: 43.2/35.0
Marbury: 43.2/31.9
Iverson: 41.4/31.0
Stackhouse: 41.0/30.4

In spite of having the worst year of his career, Francis is still well ahead of Iverson and Stackhouse in terms of overall FG%. He has a signficant lead in 3 point shooting, and in terms of rebounding he dominates all of these guys (6.2 for Francis career; 3.1, 4.1 and 3.7, respectively, for the other 3).



> I wouldn't chuck him aside for nothing, he is a pretty good player, but I wouldn't deal ZR for him, nor would I place him in the level of Pierce or Allen or Marbury.


If I were convinced he were only an undersized shooting guard, I would probably agree with you. I do not, though, so I do not 

I'd put him right at the level of Marbury, and maybe even a smidge ahead because of his superior perimeter shooting and youth (1 day younger than Stephon! That one's for Hap!  )

Ed O.


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

> Zach's limited to the 4 spot,



Wasn't there a couple of games when he was playing the five?


----------



## Dakota (Aug 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by *mixum*!
> Damon-PG/cook/dickau


Just one question. Why do you have Cook above Dickau in the depth chart?? Dickau is the better point guard and the better overall player then Cook. Heck, Cook hasn't even been in the league the past two years, but Dickau on the other hand has. They both declared the same year, but only Dickau was drafting. Am I right?? I'm not completely sure if Cook was drafted in the second round. Needless to say that even if Cook was drafted, he did not stick around because he was found in the NBDL soon after pre-season started 2 years ago. 

I'm just wondering really. Do all of you really think Cook is a better point guard than Dickau??


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C-MO 22 LD</b>!
> 
> I'm just wondering really. Do all of you really think Cook is a better point guard than Dickau??


I do. I think that the only reason Dickau's still in the league is because he has a guaranteed contract. Omar Cook's 3 years younger and is more of a distributor than Dan is.

Hopefully he proves me wrong, and he turns out to be worth having on the roster, but based on his poor play in limited minutes for terrible Atlanta teams I don't expect much.

Ed O.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Hey ya'll!

Love following everyone's thoughts on the team.

Would any of you move Randolph for Steve Nash, if Dallas was willing? What about Barry?

Randolph's a very talented player. SAR is too. Unfortunately, they both bring similar talents to the team. IMO, one will need to be moved if Portland's to serious compete in the West. That excess of talent has to be displaced to the backcourt!

Love the idea about Pierce, but I think Ainge wouldn't have the guts to do this (nor would I, if I was in his shoes). Pierce is too valuable, especially on the business side.

Allen would be a perfect upgrade at shooting guard, but I don't see why another team would take on Anderson's contract, and no way would the team want to push DA to the bench, with the chance of becoming a disruption.

Besides, this team has loaded up on point guards for a reason. I bet Stouds and Randolph are headed out with a package for NASH. That's my hope anyway.

Otherwise, likely that Barry would be pursued. 

Whatcha all think?

Point guards


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KIDBLAZE</b>!
> 
> Wasn't there a couple of games when he was playing the five?


Maybe he guarded centers who weren't offensive threats while Rasheed was guarding the best scoring frontcourt guy (with Dale sliding over onto a 4, for example)... and there have been games where Zach's guarded by the opposing center.

I guess if those things happened in the same game, he could have been considered "playing center" but I don't think he's been considered the center for any game...

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Crimson the Cat</b>!
> Hey ya'll!


Crimson!



> Would any of you move Randolph for Steve Nash, if Dallas was willing? What about Barry?


Nash? No. He's a good player but he is 30 (as of last week) and he's going to want a big contract this summer. I don't think he's worth ZR.

Barry is even further removed. He's going to be a guy Portland can probably acquire for the MLE this summer if they're really interested... no reason to trade our best young player for him.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hey Crimson--good to see you back. 

I don't follow why we would load up on PG's if we were trying to get Nash, though. 

why would we want Nash, anyway? he's getting older, and a team of Nash, Miles and SAR isn't even as good as Dallas, let alone championship-caliber. nor does it really set us up for being at that level eventually. 

I'd rather see SAR and Zach do their work together. hell, I'd like to see them play out the season before we do ANYTHING with either (barring the Ray Allen deal). 

we have the opportunity to play two of the most efficient, highest scoring and best rebounding players in the league together right now. let's give them the ballance of the season to show us what they can do.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> so you don't like Zach's game..but like Crawfords?
> 
> a guy who's a career 40% shooter? who's shooting 38% this year?
> ...



Ed responded to your post better than I could, and I pretty much agree with him. 

For me additionally, it's about balance. Portland is terribly unbalanced right now, and I have the feeling that Rahim won't work out at the 3. I don't know if he's going to be able to defensively handle the position. For balance and potential sake (and a chance to relegate Damon to the bench), I WOULD trade Zach for Crawford.


Crawford
DA
Miles
Rahim
Ratliff

That's one hell of a line up to me. And very balanced. Great chemistry and excitement could come from a lineup like that.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Crimson the Cat</b>!
> Hey ya'll!
> 
> Love following everyone's thoughts on the team.
> ...


*IN A HEARTBEAT*

Nash would be so awesome on this team.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so the answer to the problem is to trade Zach?

I don't see it. We've already paid for giving up on a player to soon. And Zach is young, and can develop other parts of his game. No player is perfect in his first full season as a starter.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> so the answer to the problem is to trade Zach?
> ...


Trading Zach would be a gamble, no doubt. We'd all hate to have another Jerm on our hands. But what I fear even more than that is another unbalanced, overly talented Trail Blazer team. I don't like log jams. I like balance. You look at all the great teams and they have balance. With SAR and Z-Bo on the same team, I see chemistry problems. In fact, if Portland doesn't deal one or the other before the deadline, I have a very strong feeling Portland will miss the playoffs this season. 

However, it's clear to me that this deal wasn't made for this season, and I understand that, and even agree with it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Trading Zach would be a gamble, no doubt. We'd all hate to have another Jerm on our hands. But what I fear even more than that is another unbalanced, overly talented Trail Blazer team. I don't like log jams. I like balance. You look at all the great teams and they have balance. With SAR and Z-Bo on the same team, I see chemistry problems. In fact, if Portland doesn't deal one or the other before the deadline, I have a very strong feeling Portland will miss the playoffs this season.
> ...


SAR can play more than 1 position, and he's easier to trade, and more logical to trade. He's older than Zach, and his contract ends this up-comping season. He's the one who're more logical to trade to clear up the abundance of SF's (and lack of SG's) on this team.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> SAR can play more than 1 position, and he's easier to trade, and more logical to trade. He's older than Zach, and his contract ends this up-comping season. He's the one who're more logical to trade to clear up the abundance of SF's (and lack of SG's) on this team.


Hap, I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm guessing you're a big Z-Bo fan?


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

<b>Ed O</b> - Nash would be stellar on the offensive end, not so hot on defense. However, a backcourt led by Nash, with SAR in the front is far superior to Stouds and ZR. Don't you agree?

Talented bigs are usually more valuable than talented guards, but in this case, we can afford to make this kind of deal.

Maybe even SAR could be dangled in place of ZR?

We have legit players in place in the frontcourt. The logical step is to shore up the guard position. 

Francis or Davis would be interesting, but offensively, the poor shooting efficiency of a DA/Francis(or Davis) tandem worries me.

Kidd, Marbury, and Payton aren't going anywhere.

Maybe Tony Parker?

I don't know. Nash seems to me to be the most attractive option out there. His outside shot, playmaking, and leadership is desperately needed.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Crimson the Cat</b>!
> <b>Ed O</b> - Nash would be stellar on the offensive end, not so hot on defense. However, a backcourt led by Nash, with SAR in the front is far superior to Stouds and ZR. Don't you agree?


I think that it IS superior, but the Stouds/SAR/ZR combo is preferable to me than the Nash/Stouds/SAR combo.

In other words: I think that Stoudamire is closer as a player and in value to Nash than to Zach.

I agree with you that using either SAR or ZR to get an upgrade at a guard position makes sense. I just don't think Nash is the way to go because of his age.

Ed O.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

<b>theWanker</b> - Good to be back. Thanks!

I find it odd that the team has now four "points". Could Nash be adding a few capable guards in the hopes that he could send out Stouds, ZR, and another point? This way Cheeks wouldn't have a depleted stockpile of playmakers.

Why couldn't Nash, DA, Miles, SAR (or ZR), and Ratliff turn into championship-caliber team?

Dallas doesn't have the defensive presence that Ratliff and DD will provide us. Dallas doesn't have the low-post offensive weapon that we'd have in either SAR or ZR.

Seems like a sweet direction to go.

Odds are that SAR and Zach will NOT work well together. They both thrive in the post. Offensively, this team would be better off dealing one of them to improve our backcourt. Two great 4's are cool, but a great 4 and a great 1 would be even better.

Allen would be awesome, but I doubt another team would ever want DA's contract, so Portland would be stuck with DA and Allen. Chemistry-wise, we'd be asking for trouble. 

Nash needs to use the card up his sleeve for point.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

This thread is making me ill. Why are you people so eager to deal Zach? What has happened to good Blazer fans? 

I can understand the speculation if it's for a top level player like Mcgrady, but Crawford, Nash, Steve Francis? You don't trade big for small unless the small is drastically better, which none of those guys are. 

Zach is 22 guys. This is his first year as a starter and you're acting like he's peaked already. Are you that eager to have another Jermaine O'neil situation?

You need a good big man to go far into the playoffs. SAR isn't that kind of player. If you trade Zach you leave us without a consistent inside threat. All of these trade scenerios make our lineup too small. 

Shareef played SF for most of his career and I'm sure he can do it again.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> This thread is making me ill. Why are you people so eager to deal Zach? What has happened to good Blazer fans?


To answer your first question, you can check out this thread

To answer your second question: what kind of question is that?



> You need a good big man to go far into the playoffs. SAR isn't that kind of player. If you trade Zach you leave us without a consistent inside threat. All of these trade scenerios make our lineup too small.


SAR's as big as Zach. Francis and Nash are bigger than Damon. Pierce is bigger than Ray Allen. 

I don't see any circumstances where the Blazers end up smaller. Maybe I'm missing something.



> Shareef played SF for most of his career and I'm sure he can do it again.


SAR has been in the NBA for 7+ years. He hasn't played the SF spot for significant minutes since he was in Vancouver (2000-01) and even when he was in Vancouver he played the 4 as often as he did the 3. It's possible that he's blend in seamlessly with ZR at the 3 spot, but the odds of that seem slim... and if we could move ZR or SAR to improve another spot MORE it's something we should look at doing.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Crimson the Cat</b>!
> <b>theWanker</b> - Good to be back. Thanks!
> Why couldn't Nash, DA, Miles, SAR (or ZR), and Ratliff turn into championship-caliber team?


because the current Mavs aren't a championship caliber team, and they're a better team than the one you list. 

PG: Nash = Nash

SG: Finley is much better than DA

SF: Howard and Miles are probably a wash. 

PF: Walker is the one area where have a clear advantage with Zach or SAR

C: Dirk outclasses not only any center we have, but any player we have

on top of that, they've got Antawn Jamison on their bench. we have Dale Davis. 

so what's the point in adding an older PG who won't be the difference maker in opening a championship window? we do need to add a quality guard, and ideally a quality point guard. 

if we're giving up SAR, though, he better be younger and a better defender than Steve Nash.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Hap, I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm guessing you're a big Z-Bo fan?


actually no I'm not. I think he's far too offensively minded, doesn't pass well (or often enough) and often times shoots stupid shots. 

But I'm not going to give up on him and trade him because we have a log-jam.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I think he's Marbury's equal. He doesn't pass quite as well as Stephon but he's a superior rebounder and shooter.


I'll grant you that he's a better rebounder, but I think he's a much worse passer and I'd contest that he's a better shooter. But I'll substantiate my opinion on his shooting in the next segment. On top of that, Marbury is a better defender, in my opinon.



> Looking at his shooting percentage, though, it's more than acceptable for a SG (including the slump he's currently in, which I consider to be a result of coaching upheaval rather than loss of skill):
> 
> Career FG%/3pt %:
> 
> ...


He may be having the worst shooting season of his career, but none of his past two seasons (and, of course, this season) are up to the level of his first two seasons. I think three seasons can re-define one's current skill level (whether it's an actual decline in pure shooting skill or he simply doesn't have good shot selection).

In those three seasons (this one included), he's shot about 41%.

For Marbury, the inverse is true. His first few seasons were terrible shooting seasons. Since then, he's picked up his shooting a lot. He's shooting 44% this season and 44% the last *three* full seasons, going all the way back to New Jersey.

I think current level approximations are more valid for predictive power (since we don't care about prior career value...we care what he'd do in the future, for us) than career averages. The Marbury one gets now is not the same as the Timberwolves had.

Current levels, I'd say Francis is a barely adequate 41% shooter and Marbury is a quite excellent 44% shooter.

When you combine that difference with Marbury's much better passing skill and his debatably better defense, I don't think Franchise really compares.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Crimson the Cat</b>!
> 
> I don't know. Nash seems to me to be the most attractive option out there. His outside shot, playmaking, and leadership is desperately needed.


Hey, welcome back, Crimson! I've missed your viewpoint around here.

I like Nash quite a bit, but I think he doesn't fit with what Nash and Patterson are trying to do. Nash is a veteran point guard, great for a "win now" team. It seems Natterson are trying to build a young, promising team that will grow into contention in a few years.

Will Nash be a championship-caliber point in a few years, when he's already 30? Maybe, but it would be a risk.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Trades 101.

You have to weigh both what you are getting and what you are *giving*.

At this point, we don't know what we would be giving up, for 2 reasons. First, we aren't sure how good Zach will be. Second, we are presently clueless as to whether a forward rotation of Zach/SAR/Miles will be effective.

I'm sure we could find a taker for either Zach or SAR. We might even get good value for them. Making a deal NOW, however, would be foolish (IMHO). 

We aren't going anywhere this season, so let's take the second half to find out how the current pieces fit together. Potential deals will still be there in the off-season.....maybe more so, since SAR will be an expiring contract. At least we won't be making deals based on guess-work!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> He may be having the worst shooting season of his career, but none of his past two seasons (and, of course, this season) are up to the level of his first two seasons. I think three seasons can re-define one's current skill level (whether it's an actual decline in pure shooting skill or he simply doesn't have good shot selection).


He's actually shooting right at 42% coming into tonight the last three years (41.9967%, if my calculator entry skills are correct). Not that there's a HUGE difference between 41 and 42%, but just wanted to throw that out there.

A couple more 9-11's from the field and my position will be easier to defend 

Of course, a couple more 9-11's with big wins on national TV, and Francis will be untouchable in Houston...

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Isn't Steve Francis the guy who skipped a game the other day to watch the superbowl?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Isn't Steve Francis the guy who skipped a game the other day to watch the superbowl?


I don't know; it depends on who you believe. Who cares?

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> .... Potential deals will still be there in the off-season.....maybe more so, since SAR will be an expiring contract. ......


alright OMG... quite throwing logic at us... :naughty: lets us have our fun.. I want Ray Allen NOW!!!!!!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> A couple more 9-11's from the field and my position will be easier to defend
> 
> Of course, a couple more 9-11's with big wins on national TV, and Francis will be untouchable in Houston...





> Marbury recorded a season-high 42 points on an unconscious 15-of-20 from the field to go along with eight assists Sunday versus the Clippers.


Marbury can make *my* position easier with more games like this.  But unfortunately, this is all moot since I'm sure Marbury is quite untouchable in New York. 

We'll see if Francis drags his shooting percentage back up.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I don't know; it depends on who you believe. Who cares?
> 
> Ed O.


Who cares? I believe that missing a game to watch the superbowl shows a horrible attitude and a lack of a commitment to win. Is that what we want in a point guard?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I care. Francis has a huge ego problem and I would not want him on this team. The draft day fiasco, the super bowl thing, the shooting... I'll pass if it involves giving up any big name player.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> 
> alright OMG... quite throwing logic at us... :naughty: lets us have our fun.. I want Ray Allen NOW!!!!!!


I'm sorry, my "cold medication" must have worn off. :cheers: I will now return to my normal bizarre ranting.:buddies: 


:bsmile:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SheedSoNasty</b>!
> I care. Francis has a huge ego problem and I would not want him on this team. The draft day fiasco, the super bowl thing, the shooting... I'll pass if it involves giving up any big name player.


The draft day "fiasco"? You mean that he didn't want to play for the Grizzlies? What HORROR!

Why didn't anyone bring up that for Keith Van Horn? It's not like Francis was ahead of his time by not wanting to play basketball for Vancouver... 

Maybe I missed the "shooting" incident you're talking about. Can you refresh my memory? Or are you talking about his career 43% FG percentage, including 35% from 3 point range?

About the Super Bowl: unless you guys know something I don't, there's no clear story about what happened. The Rockets aren't too concerned about it (he played 42 minutes last night in spite of an injury that flared up right before tipoff) and it's crazy to me that we would be.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> ....Why didn't anyone bring up that for Keith Van Horn? It's not like Francis was ahead of his time by not wanting to play basketball for Vancouver...


Hmmmmm......I seem to recall some guy named Kiki.........


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Who cares? I believe that missing a game to watch the superbowl shows a horrible attitude and a lack of a commitment to win. Is that what we want in a point guard?


By the way, in case you didn't read this article, you might want to check it out:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/2388580

No one contends that Francis missed a game to go to the Super Bowl. JVG claims that Francis told him on the phone that he was going to miss the team flight on Sunday for the Super Bowl... that's about the most damning take on the facts that have been alleged.

The game, of course, was not until Monday, and Francis planned on chartering a flight to make it to Phoenix in time. JVG decided to suspend him a game and told him not to make the flight, instead.

Given this set of facts (and not giving Francis the benefit of the doubt that he was just running 15 minutes late, or that, as his agent claims, he had a family matter he had to attend to), I can see some criticism coming Steve's way, but it's *far* from a fair characterization to claim, as you did, he "skipped a game the other day to watch the superbowl."

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> By the way, in case you didn't read this article, you might want to check it out:
> 
> ...


Wow. That article makes Steve Francis look even more selfish and stupid than I had though possible.

I guess I'd respect the guy even more if he went to the superbowl and didn't lie about it. With Steve Francis, you never know. I was in the parking lot. I was at home. I had personal problems. I was running late. I had breakfast with Jeff Van Gundy this morning. No I didn't. Al the while, he's still not taking any sort of responsibility that he did anything wrong. "I don't feel like I let the team down." Well guess what Stevie...you did let the team down and you have nobody to blame but yourself. 

Doesn't sound like much of a leader to me.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

No, Francis isn't a leader. He's a pretty good player, but no leader.

However, Damon is neither a good player or leader.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> I guess I'd respect the guy even more if he went to the superbowl and didn't lie about it. With Steve Francis, you never know. I was in the parking lot. I was at home. I had personal problems. I was running late. I had breakfast with Jeff Van Gundy this morning. No I didn't. Al the while, he's still not taking any sort of responsibility that he did anything wrong. "I don't feel like I let the team down." Well guess what Stevie...you did let the team down and you have nobody to blame but yourself.


He unilaterally missed _a team flight_. He did not miss a game purely through his own decisions. It was the team's choice to suspend him. Whether they were justified or not is irrelevant; it's certainly their decision, but their decision was important in regards to him missing the game.

Based on his reaction, though, it seems like he had no idea he'd be suspended for missing a flight that took place like 30 hours before game time. Since he already has a charter service, it seems that it might be common for him to fly himself to games. I might be wrong, but it's unclear.



> Doesn't sound like much of a leader to me.


So what?

Ed O.


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> No, Francis isn't a leader. He's a pretty good player, but no leader.
> 
> However, Damon is neither a good player or leader.



Of course not, He's a lead guard.


----------

