# Zach Randolph Trade Idea?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

If the Bucks deal doesn't work, how about we focus on moving Zach to a team in need of low post scoring. The Bobcats as good as they are defensively seem to lack offensive punch. This might be a long shot but what about Zach Randolph, Ronaldo Balkman and Randolph Morris to the Bobcats for Gerald Wallace and Nazr Mohammed? 

We'd be overpaying a bit in the deal but I believe it would be a trade that interests both teams. The Bobcats get more of a focal point offensively that may be able to open up the perimeter games of guys like Jason Richardson, Matt Carroll, Raymond Felton and forgotten lottery pick Adam Morrison. The Knicks get a young SF that is excellent as a defender (help and man), rebounds, steals and blocks shots along with a backup center for Eddy. Financially, the trade is mute on both ends since contracts on both sides are equally lengthy. Both teams are horrendous right now, so why not? Opinions?


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Bobcats won't take this deal, because both Wallace and JRich are their actual two best players.

I keep my trade idea: Randolph and QRich for Hughes and Gooden.

Maybe try to work something with Houston, like Randolph for Battier and Mike James, for an example.


Indiana? Randolph and filler for JO? (Jermaine O'Neal likes Isiah a lot and isn't working well this season with Indiana)

Just for thoughts...


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

um, Gerald Wallace is their best player, and Nazr has a bigger impact there than Balkman or Morris would combined.

A deal for someone like Hughes+Gooden's probably the best you're gona get.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> um, Gerald Wallace is their best player, and Nazr has a bigger impact there than Balkman or Morris would combined.
> 
> A deal for someone like Hughes+Gooden's probably the best you're gona get.


Even that's a crap deal. trade him straight up for Kwame Brown and Milos Vujacic and if any picks can be obtained in the process just be happy. Otherwise, cut payroll.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Sasha Vujacic. :biggrin:

Randolph's virtually untradeable, unfortunately.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> um, Gerald Wallace is their best player, and Nazr has a bigger impact there than Balkman or Morris would combined.
> 
> A deal for someone like Hughes+Gooden's probably the best you're gona get.



...And Zach Randolph would easily be the most talented player involved in the deal and easily more of a game changer than Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace due to his post scoring skills and rebounding ability. I think people forget that earlier in the season, Randolph was averaging more than 11rpg easy and still was limited offensively. A key reason why it's just not working in New York is because of Eddy Curry whose game does not compliment Randolph's as our offensive and defensive schemes are currently constructed. In Charlotte there would not be such a problem because of the excellent defensive skills of Emeka Okafor; the ying to Randolph's yang.

Needless to say that you need playing time to make "a big impact." As Knick fans, we have all seen the all-around hustle oriented game that Balkman brings to the table. Unfortunately, his main problem at the moment is his inconsistent jump shot and a host of equally talented players. On the Bobcats, however, he would be one of the best backups on the team and help replace some of the game that Wallace provides. We all know what Nazr brings which is an excellent production but certainly not starter material on a playoff team. To me, the decision is an easy one to make for the Bobcats.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Even that's a crap deal. trade him straight up for Kwame Brown and Milos Vujacic and if any picks can be obtained in the process just be happy. Otherwise, cut payroll.


Question, why would the Lakers want to break up what they have now when they've been playing excellent basketball? In addition to that, both their centers (Chris Mihm and Andrew Bynum) are out with injuries right now so I doubt they'd be willing to give up the last healthy one they have left in the middle of a playoff race.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

narrator said:


> Sasha Vujacic. :biggrin:
> 
> Randolph's virtually untradeable, unfortunately.


Then how did he wind up with the Knicks and how were other teams interested in him prior to Portland trading him?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Zuca said:


> Bobcats won't take this deal, because both Wallace and JRich are their actual two best players.
> 
> I keep my trade idea: Randolph and QRich for Hughes and Gooden.
> 
> ...



I don't think those are bad ideas necessarily but we'd just be adding more of the same players we have been adding the past couple of years. I personally love Hughes and Gooden's game but I do feel, however, that those two are not the proper fits on a team with an offensive focal point and is still loaded with offensive players. Gerald Wallace on the other hand brings so much more to the table at a high level of play. In addition to that, he'd help to solidify a relatively weak position for us at the 3 position and open up time for guys like David Lee and Wilson Chandler at the 3/4 positions. None of your trades really provide that aside from maybe the Rockets deal which I believe is unrealistic because of Adelman and the Rockets uptempo system that wouldn't mesh with Randolph.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> ...And Zach Randolph would easily be the most talented player involved in the deal and easily more of a game changer than Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace due to his post scoring skills and rebounding ability. I think people forget that earlier in the season, Randolph was averaging more than 11rpg easy and still was limited offensively. A key reason why it's just not working in New York is because of Eddy Curry whose game does not compliment Randolph's as our offensive and defensive schemes are currently constructed. In Charlotte there would not be such a problem because of the excellent defensive skills of Emeka Okafor; the ying to Randolph's yang.


Don't see Randolph changing any games in NY and any guarantees that he would be changing games else where, for the good of the team anyway.

That's not to say that Gerald Wallace is a winner, but at least he doesn't come with nearly as baggage personality wise or salary wise.

The only likely scenario that I see is Zach Randolph for Ben Wallace + fillers or Zach Randolph for Kwame + Radmanovic + fillers. You are not going to get a potential allstar like Gerald Wallace in a deal simply because of Randolph's value.

The Lakers deal is unlikely because if I'm LA I wouldn't want Randolph in there messing up Bynum's development. If I'm Chicago I would take a chance because I'm desperate for interior scoring.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> Don't see Randolph changing any games in NY and any guarantees that he would be changing games else where, for the good of the team anyway.
> 
> That's not to say that Gerald Wallace is a winner, but at least he doesn't come with nearly as baggage personality wise or salary wise.
> 
> ...



As much as you can say things about Gerald Wallace being a "potential all-star," Zach Randolph is an all-star caliber player. He is a particular player you can build your offensive attack around with his talent, which does not come along very often. Yes he does come with some baggage but Wallace's game is not near as much as Randolph without it. You do take a chance bringing in Randolph but is there really a significant loss considering it's much easier to find a Gerald Wallace? With the right players around him, Randolph can win games which was evident when he actually helped Portland to the playoffs early in his career and nearly defeat the Mavericks.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Would Jermaine O'neal work with Eddy Curry in the post?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

TwinkieFoot said:


> ...And Zach Randolph would easily be the most talented player involved in the deal and easily more of a game changer than Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace due to his post scoring skills and rebounding ability. I think people forget that earlier in the season, Randolph was averaging more than 11rpg easy and still was limited offensively. A key reason why it's just not working in New York is because of Eddy Curry whose game does not compliment Randolph's as our offensive and defensive schemes are currently constructed. In Charlotte there would not be such a problem because of the excellent defensive skills of Emeka Okafor; the ying to Randolph's yang.
> 
> Needless to say that you need playing time to make "a big impact." As Knick fans, we have all seen the all-around hustle oriented game that Balkman brings to the table. Unfortunately, his main problem at the moment is his inconsistent jump shot and a host of equally talented players. On the Bobcats, however, he would be one of the best backups on the team and help replace some of the game that Wallace provides. We all know what Nazr brings which is an excellent production but certainly not starter material on a playoff team. To me, the decision is an easy one to make for the Bobcats.


Ok well just about every single Bobcats fan and I'm sure there management also, would be against bringing Zach Randolph in, let alone giving up their best player and defender in Gerald Wallace. Yes Randolph can probably average more points and rebounds - doesn't mean he's helping his team win. He has a history of holding personal achievement over team achievement because of his lack of passing, inability to pass out of double-teams, and horrible awareness. Not to mention his non-existent defence and hes even a horrible team defender, opposed to Wallace who can average 2 steals and 2 blocks a game for a whole season while playing excellent man- and team-defence aswell.

I won't even get into his off-court and locker-room problems.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Question, why would the Lakers want to break up what they have now when they've been playing excellent basketball? In addition to that, both their centers (Chris Mihm and Andrew Bynum) are out with injuries right now so I doubt they'd be willing to give up the last healthy one they have left in the middle of a playoff race.


well you're forgetting the key point that Kwame sucks. But yea, they still wouldn't do the trade coz Kwame is still better than Randolph at center, and when Bynum comes back Randolph's gona screw his development.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Then how did he wind up with the Knicks and how were other teams interested in him prior to Portland trading him?


Isiah Thomas. I don't know if any _other teams_ were interested in him like you said, but if they were I'm sure they arn't now. Why would the same teams be interested after he was acquired and trashed repetitively?



TwinkieFoot said:


> I don't think those are bad ideas necessarily but we'd just be adding more of the same players we have been adding the past couple of years. I personally love Hughes and Gooden's game but I do feel, however, that those two are not the proper fits on a team with an offensive focal point and is still loaded with offensive players. Gerald Wallace on the other hand brings so much more to the table at a high level of play. In addition to that, he'd help to solidify a relatively weak position for us at the 3 position and open up time for guys like David Lee and Wilson Chandler at the 3/4 positions. None of your trades really provide that aside from maybe the Rockets deal which I believe is unrealistic because of Adelman and the Rockets uptempo system that wouldn't mesh with Randolph.


I don't think you understand, *Zach Randolph will not get you value.* If you want to get rid of him, you're gona have to settle for equally disruptive and thick-headed players, or some sort of expiring. You'll be lucky to find 5 teams in the league that want Randolph and none of them will give up value equal to Randolph's individual "talent".


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

TwinkieFoot said:


> As much as you can say things about Gerald Wallace being a "potential all-star," Zach Randolph is an all-star caliber player. He is a particular player you can build your offensive attack around with his talent, which does not come along very often. Yes he does come with some baggage but Wallace's game is not near as much as Randolph without it. You do take a chance bringing in Randolph but is there really a significant loss considering it's much easier to find a Gerald Wallace? With the right players around him, Randolph can win games which was evident when he actually helped Portland to the playoffs early in his career and nearly defeat the Mavericks.


WTF you can't build an offence around Zach Randolph.. He's not an all-star caliber player either, unless you're considering only by stats.

And what does it matter who's harder to find between a Zach Randolph and Gerald Wallace? A more important question would be whos gona help you win, and thats Gerald Wallace by far, as we've seen in the past and with NY.

But seeing as you mentioned it, who exactly are these players that do exactly what Gerald Wallace does? I don't see many with his talents but according to you they're much easier to find.

And I'm sure if you surveyed every team in the league, 30 out of 30 would take Gerald Wallace before Randolph, even disregarding his horrible contract.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> WTF you can't build an offence around Zach Randolph.. He's not an all-star caliber player either, unless you're considering only by stats.
> 
> And what does it matter who's harder to find between a Zach Randolph and Gerald Wallace? A more important question would be whos gona help you win, and thats Gerald Wallace by far, as we've seen in the past and with NY.
> 
> ...


You can't build an offense around Zach Randolph? Portland did it for several years and recieved varying results during that time. Unfortunately, they were never able to really surround him with veterans to help him win during their rebuilding process. 

By the way, stats are how you make the all-star game obviously. It's how guys like Ron Artest and Bruce Bowen change the game so drastically on the defensive end of the floor yet seldom recieve all-star bids. Offensive players are what people want in the all-star game which is why offensive stats usually help earn you a bid. Name me one player that did not have impressive numbers who did.

Funny thing is that you want to label Zach a loser but on that note, what has Gerald Wallace won? What teams has Wallace lead?

The players that rank favorably to Gerald Wallace are Josh Howard (30th pick in the draft), Andre Igoudala, Caron Butler, Loul Deng, Josh Smith, Larry Hughes and Richard Jefferson to name a few; by that I mean multi-faceted defensive oriented small forwards. Even poor man versions of Wallace can be found across the league with guys such as Matt Barnes, Mikael Pietrus, James Posey, Ronaldo Balkman, Bobby Simmons (when healthy) and DeShawn Stevenson. Although those guys certainly aren't Wallace's level, with playing time, they can make the same kind of impact but not as consistently or effectively. There appears to be a Gerald Wallace found almost in every draft.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> Ok well just about every single Bobcats fan and I'm sure there management also, would be against bringing Zach Randolph in, let alone giving up their best player and defender in Gerald Wallace. Yes Randolph can probably average more points and rebounds - doesn't mean he's helping his team win. He has a history of holding personal achievement over team achievement because of his lack of passing, inability to pass out of double-teams, and horrible awareness. Not to mention his non-existent defence and hes even a horrible team defender, opposed to Wallace who can average 2 steals and 2 blocks a game for a whole season while playing excellent man- and team-defence as well.


I've always wanted to work for a NBA front office. Do you mind putting in a good word for me since you apparently have connections with the Bobcat front office? While your at it, ask them if there is any validity to the rumors posted in the past about them wanting a low post presence to compliment Okafor, which oddly matches Randolph's M.O.



> I won't even get into his off-court and locker-room problems.


Then don't because it obviously does not necessarily effect the game. Rasheed Wallace is considered one of the biggest douche-bag's, of all time yet happened to build a contender and win a title with the Pistons. 

Baron Davis before going to the Warriors was considered a locker room cancer as was Paul Pierce; both of whom built terrible reps with the USA Basketball Team officials (a reason why they were never invited back. Ironically both happen to head two of the most successfully NBA teams in the league this season. 

And let's not forget the greatest player of all-time Michael Jordan. He was another player considered to be an arrogant, insensitive, a-hole who even made one of his teammates cry due to the inhumane punishment he had practiced on him (Kwame Brown). He's had physical altercations WITH TEAMMATES such as Pete Myer's and Steve Kerr. Mike was also caught up in issues with gambling and alleged built a debt so deep that it has been rumored to have been the cause of the death of his father. Somehow that did not keep the Bulls from being one of the most successful franchises of all-time.




> well you're forgetting the key point that Kwame sucks. But yea, they still wouldn't do the trade coz Kwame is still better than Randolph at center, and when Bynum comes back Randolph's gona screw his development.


So then why waste both our team and propose something you don't believe can happen?





> Isiah Thomas. I don't know if any _other teams_ were interested in him like you said, but if they were I'm sure they arn't now. Why would the same teams be interested after he was acquired and trashed repetitively?


It was in the papers that several Western Conference teams were interested in Randolph but the Blazers wanted him out of the Conference.





> I don't think you understand, *Zach Randolph will not get you value.* If you want to get rid of him, you're gona have to settle for equally disruptive and thick-headed players, or some sort of expiring. You'll be lucky to find 5 teams in the league that want Randolph and none of them will give up value equal to Randolph's individual "talent".


[/QUOTE]

That's nothing but pure conjecture founded upon what you supposedly heard from contacts with various NBA franchises. There is always a market for talented players which has been evident through trades that included malcontent players as JASON RICHARDSON, Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Sam Cassell, Glen Robinson, etc. Randolph is actually a young player in this particular case which only helps to bolster his appeal to other teams. The Bobcats have even taken risks before on players with character issues such as JEFF MCINNIS AND JASON RICHARDSON who not so long ago was accussed of battery against a young woman and attempting to dodge child support.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

TwinkieFoot said:


> You can't build an offense around Zach Randolph? Portland did it for several years and recieved varying results during that time. Unfortunately, they were never able to really surround him with veterans to help him win during their rebuilding process.


Ask any Portland fan, about 90% will say Zach WAS the problem. How can you build an offence around a guy that doesn't/can't pass? Teams just double-team him and he throws up a shot regardless or turns the ball over.



TwinkieFoot said:


> By the way, stats are how you make the all-star game obviously. It's how guys like Ron Artest and Bruce Bowen change the game so drastically on the defensive end of the floor yet seldom recieve all-star bids. Offensive players are what people want in the all-star game which is why offensive stats usually help earn you a bid. Name me one player that did not have impressive numbers who did.


You said All-star caliber. That means X player is good enough to be an all-star, or he's a capable all-star by talent. But if you were saying he's a player capable of making the All-Star Team because he has good stats, I don't see how that helps your argument. But ok, one player who didn't have impressive offensive stats, like Ben Wallace? Gerald Wallace will make an All-Star game before Zach does again imo.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Funny thing is that you want to label Zach a loser but on that note, what has Gerald Wallace won? What teams has Wallace lead?


When exactly has he been given a chance to lead a team, except maybe now? Zach is a proven loser, or if thats too harsh, he's not a guy necessary to a contending team and you definately don't build a team around him. Any championship/contending team would love to have Gerald Wallace, I'm sure close to none would be willing to take on Zach Randolph, even disregarding his contract.



TwinkieFoot said:


> The players that rank favorably to Gerald Wallace are Josh Howard (30th pick in the draft), Andre Igoudala, Caron Butler, Loul Deng, Josh Smith, Larry Hughes and Richard Jefferson to name a few; by that I mean multi-faceted defensive oriented small forwards. Even poor man versions of Wallace can be found across the league with guys such as Matt Barnes, Mikael Pietrus, James Posey, Ronaldo Balkman, Bobby Simmons (when healthy) and DeShawn Stevenson. Although those guys certainly aren't Wallace's level, with playing time, they can make the same kind of impact but not as consistently or effectively. There appears to be a Gerald Wallace found almost in every draft.


Yes, there appears to be a Gerald Wallace in every draft, doesn't mean they're as good as him.

Iguodala? Well they're both athletic, Iggy's a better offensive player while Gerald's a better defensive and rebounder.
Caron? Comparable but again, Gerald's defence is just better.
Deng? What the.. Gerald's defence is much better than Deng's, and Deng is very inconsistent.
Josh Smith? I guess.
Larry Hughes? No. He can defend the guard, Gerald can defend the 2-4 and occasionally even the point. Hughes can't block shots and he's much more injury-prone and inconsistent.
RJ? His defence doesn't even compare to Gerald's..


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> Ask any Portland fan, about 90% will say Zach WAS the problem. How can you build an offence around a guy that doesn't/can't pass? Teams just double-team him and he throws up a shot regardless or turns the ball over.


90% probably would say that Rasheed Wallace WAS the problem as well. Doesn't seem to be much of that with the Pistons anymore now does he? Teams have been building offenses around guys who can't pass for years. One of the greatest centers of all-time, Hakeem Olajuwon, was regarded as a ball hog his first few years in the league. By 93-94, however, Olajuwon began seeing the game better and helped turn the Rockets into title contenders. His game was far more advanced than Randolph but you should note that post players are not nearly as readily available now as they were then. Besides, Randolph is still young enough to improve the holes in his game and ironically around the same age Olajuwon began improving his passing skills. 



> You said All-star caliber. That means X player is good enough to be an all-star, or he's a capable all-star by talent. But if you were saying he's a player capable of making the All-Star Team because he has good stats, I don't see how that helps your argument. But ok, one player who didn't have impressive offensive stats, like Ben Wallace? Gerald Wallace will make an All-Star game before Zach does again imo.


Ben Wallace was the league leader in rebounds and block shots for many years and the only relevant center in the Eastern Conference at the time. Out West, that might have been a different story but I guess I'll accept that answer even though Wallace was much more than just a defensive player. LOL, I don't even know how your complaining about Zach not being an all-star caliber player when he's already made the team and just averaged career highs last year. I don't see the rationale in your argument.




> When exactly has he been given a chance to lead a team, except maybe now? Zach is a proven loser, or if thats too harsh, he's not a guy necessary to a contending team and you definately don't build a team around him. Any championship/contending team would love to have Gerald Wallace, I'm sure close to none would be willing to take on Zach Randolph, even disregarding his contract.


Now? Now has been about 4 seasons since the Bobcats were started. Even now there is room for him to step into the role of being the franchise player/leader of that team and has not be able to fill that role. Again, help me with those contacts you got because they definately should come in handy. If you got none then your just making empty statements.


Yes, there appears to be a Gerald Wallace in every draft, doesn't mean they're as good as him.



> Iguodala? Well they're both athletic, Iggy's a better offensive player while Gerald's a better defensive and rebounder.
> Caron? Comparable but again, Gerald's defence is just better.
> Deng? What the.. Gerald's defence is much better than Deng's, and Deng is very inconsistent.
> Josh Smith? I guess.
> ...


Also, inform me when the government actually okay's human cloning because apparently that is what your looking for in this discussion. Once again, DEFENSIVE ORIENTED SMALL FORWARDS, is who we were referring too. That fits quite a number of players as you can see but obviously no two players are almost identically alike. My earlier statement still stands.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

:sigh:



If you still believe so firmly Randolph is better for a team than Gerald Wallace (particularly a young up-coming one), then theres no point in trying to convince you. I (and every Charlotte fan) can also pretty much guarantee that Charlotte would never do Gerald for Randolph but according to you it doesn't matter unless theres factual evidence. Shaq for KG is also _possible_, doesn't mean it's gona happen.

You know just about everyone would agree that Charlotte would want Gerald more than Zach (you can ask any Charlotte fan or even the general board if you want), so I don't see why you're trying to argue otherwise..


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> :sigh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...Because the majority does not gaurantee factuality. Alot of people thought the world was flat at one point, alot of people think that evolution is not credible despite mounting evidence otherwise, alot of people thought going into Iraq was a good idea, alot of people think leaving Iraq right now is a good idea. Like I said earlier, the majority does not mean anything...only facts do.

P.S., Shaq for KG is possible but ludcrious simply because of the talent drop off from KG to Shaq. In this trade, you'd be acquiring productive players for productive players; the Knicks just happen to be losing the most productive one in the trade.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I don't think those are bad ideas necessarily but we'd just be adding more of the same players we have been adding the past couple of years. I personally love Hughes and Gooden's game but I do feel, however, that those two are not the proper fits on a team with an offensive focal point and is still loaded with offensive players. Gerald Wallace on the other hand brings so much more to the table at a high level of play. In addition to that, he'd help to solidify a relatively weak position for us at the 3 position and open up time for guys like David Lee and Wilson Chandler at the 3/4 positions. None of your trades really provide that aside from maybe the Rockets deal which I believe is unrealistic because of Adelman and the Rockets uptempo system that wouldn't mesh with Randolph.


I firmly believe that Gooden is a way better fit with his defensive mind to play with Curry than Randolph. And I believe that Randolph is a way better fit to Adelman system than Battier (who was a JVG type of player)


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

TwinkieFoot said:


> You can't build an offense around Zach Randolph? Portland did it for several years and recieved varying results during that time. Unfortunately, they were never able to really surround him with veterans to help him win during their rebuilding process.


Then how come we got rid of Zach, got even YOUNGER players (meaning NO veterans) and now our team is one of the best in the league?

Face it. You got stole on this deal. Zach = Team Killer


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> As much as you can say things about Gerald Wallace being a "potential all-star," Zach Randolph is an all-star caliber player. He is a particular player you can build your offensive attack around with his talent, which does not come along very often. Yes he does come with some baggage but Wallace's game is not near as much as Randolph without it. You do take a chance bringing in Randolph but is there really a significant loss considering it's much easier to find a Gerald Wallace? With the right players around him, Randolph can win games which was evident when he actually helped Portland to the playoffs early in his career and nearly defeat the Mavericks.


I'm not saying that Zach isn't an "all-star" caliber player, I'm saying that you won't get a potential all-star in return for him. Just remember who you gave up to get Randolph, Steve Francis and Channing Fyre, no allstars there. If Randolph was worth that much 6 months ago, what exactly did he do in the past 6 months to elevate his trade value? Just imagine this, 6 months ago, Portland's GM already called every other GM asking if they are interested in trading for Randolph and the Knicks trade was the best they could come up with. Now, 6 months later, what makes you think that now with a desperate Isiah on the phone, a GM that's the joke of the league, people would suddenly be more interested in Zach than 6 months ago? It's unlikely, and moreover if some sucker indeed purpose a better offer, the obvious question would be why didn't you get Randolph for cheap 6 months ago and why are you now getting taken advantaged by a retard. It doesn't look good, in fact, it looks pretty darn moronic, or should I say "Isiah-esque".

The need for the Blazers to trade Randolph 6 months ago is at least comparable with the need that the Knicks need to get rid of Randolph. It's not like NY is all of a sudden on higher trading grounds because their team is satisfied with or without the trade. Zach and Eddy do not fit on the same team, it's not working now and it's not going to work later. They need to get rid of Zach, everyone in the league knows it. With the recent locker room fiasco, I would say that Randolph might worth less than when he was in Portland. The fact that the Blazers made the drastic improvement this year with basically the same team as last year -Randolph would make him seems even less worthy of his gigantic contract. 

I still stand by my statement earlier. Only way that a team would want Randolph is if the team is either in need of short term fix/has injury problems/mediocre and has other overpaid/expiring/misfitting players. They might roll the dice and gamble on someone like Randolph. Otherwise, nobody is going to trade an integral piece of a franchise for someone like him. Some Knicks homer might disagree, but this isn't NBA-Live and GMs aren't idiots, at least GMs outside NY aren't. In a video game you'd trade a 86 rating guy and get a 86 back, but this isn't a game.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Zuca said:


> I firmly believe that Gooden is a way better fit with his defensive mind to play with Curry than Randolph. And I believe that Randolph is a way better fit to Adelman system than Battier (who was a JVG type of player)


I definately don't disagree that Gooden is a better fit than Randolph. I actually believe he's a pretty good fit to Eddy Curry period. I just don't think that Randolph is a fit next to Ming for the same reason he isn't a fit next to Eddy.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Resume said:


> Then how come we got rid of Zach, got even YOUNGER players (meaning NO veterans) and now our team is one of the best in the league?
> 
> Face it. You got stole on this deal. Zach = Team Killer


The same thing basically happened with the Hornets after they got rid of Baron Davis and drafted Chris Paul. This is a game of fits and sometimes there can be such a thing as being too talented in a particular system. As you can see, Baron and the Warriors are playing very well right now as a result of ech other.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> I'm not saying that Zach isn't an "all-star" caliber player, I'm saying that you won't get a potential all-star in return for him. Just remember who you gave up to get Randolph, Steve Francis and Channing Fyre, no allstars there. If Randolph was worth that much 6 months ago, what exactly did he do in the past 6 months to elevate his trade value? Just imagine this, 6 months ago, Portland's GM already called every other GM asking if they are interested in trading for Randolph and the Knicks trade was the best they could come up with. Now, 6 months later, what makes you think that now with a desperate Isiah on the phone, a GM that's the joke of the league, people would suddenly be more interested in Zach than 6 months ago? It's unlikely, and moreover if some sucker indeed purpose a better offer, the obvious question would be why didn't you get Randolph for cheap 6 months ago and why are you now getting taken advantaged by a retard. It doesn't look good, in fact, it looks pretty darn moronic, or should I say "Isiah-esque".


The Nets got Vince Carter for Eric Williams, Aaron Williams, Alonzo Mourning (who made it clear he would not play for Toronto) and some first round picks. Vince has made the all-star game every season since. Baron Davis was traded for Speedy Claxton (who the Warriors let go soon thereafter) and Dale Davis (an expiring contract).*Hell, Wilt Chamberlain was traded in his prime for a bunch of guys whose names no one really remember. Moral of the story is that the players you are traded for, especially in the world of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and salary cap's, do not determine your worth as a player.*

Portland had two things on its agenda if they moved Randolph: cap flexibility and/or young players. Months leading up to the draft, it focused much of it's energy moving Randolph for the 3rd pick to select Mike Conley Jr. but failed. With him being unavailable, they went to the next best option that also kept Randolph out of the Western Conference. That happened to be the package the Knicks had.

The Knicks have a different agenda on their list when they attempt to move Randolph. I personally believe it will be for a compliment to Eddy Curry which Gerald Wallace certainly is. As we've seen in the past, teams are alway willing to take a chance on young productive talent so I think the Bobcats pull the trigger.



> The need for the Blazers to trade Randolph 6 months ago is at least comparable with the need that the Knicks need to get rid of Randolph. It's not like NY is all of a sudden on higher trading grounds because their team is satisfied with or without the trade. Zach and Eddy do not fit on the same team, it's not working now and it's not going to work later. They need to get rid of Zach, everyone in the league knows it. With the recent locker room fiasco, I would say that Randolph might worth less than when he was in Portland. *The fact that the Blazers made the drastic improvement this year with basically the same team as last year -Randolph would make him seems even less worthy of his gigantic contract. *


Just because your talented does not mean you will be a perfect fit in any given system. We've guys in very similar positions to Randolph lose in certain situations but be the main reason behind the teams success in others. The list includes Baron Davis, Rasheed Wallace, Jason Terry, etc.



> I still stand by my statement earlier. Only way that a team would want Randolph is if the team is either in need of short term fix/has injury problems/mediocre and has other overpaid/expiring/misfitting players. They might roll the dice and gamble on someone like Randolph. Otherwise, nobody is going to trade an integral piece of a franchise for someone like him. Some Knicks homer might disagree, but this isn't NBA-Live and GMs aren't idiots, at least GMs outside NY aren't. In a video game you'd trade a 86 rating guy and get a 86 back, but this isn't a game.


Funny thing is that at 17-26 (Knicks are 14-28), I think it's safe to say that the Bobcats fit your description. I don't think they just gave up a lottery pick for Jason Richardson to win later. Unfortunately for them, they are not good enough at the moment to do so and likely would be willing to make a move for a young player who has not seen his best game yet.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> The Nets got Vince Carter for Eric Williams, Aaron Williams, Alonzo Mourning (who made it clear he would not play for Toronto) and some first round picks. Vince has made the all-star game every season since. Baron Davis was traded for Speedy Claxton (who the Warriors let go soon thereafter) and Dale Davis (an expiring contract).*Hell, Wilt Chamberlain was traded in his prime for a bunch of guys whose names no one really remember. Moral of the story is that the players you are traded for, especially in the world of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and salary cap's, do not determine your worth as a player.*


I don't think you understood what I said. Zach Randolph was shopped around just 6 months ago by the Blazers and nobody wanted him. Why would his value suddenly go from rags to riches in just 6 months? He did nothing with NY to boost his trade value, in fact, some would argue that teams might be more reluctant to trade for him after seeing how the Blazers have done after he left and how the Knicks have done after they got him.

All those other trades don't fit this description, and frankly if you look at it logically they aren't even comparable. Toronto was *in need* of trading VC and that's why they got scrubs for him. The Knicks are *in need* of trading Zach. So in this case Knicks = Toronto. Now why would the Knicks be on the beneficiary end of the trade all of a sudden? Bringing Wilt into the mix just makes no sense. Back then teams traded people away on the basis of simply not being able to pay the guy. The Bobcats can pay Gerald Wallace, and even if they can't getting Randolph wouldn't help the situation. You need to get your logic straight imo.



> Just because your talented does not mean you will be a perfect fit in any given system. We've guys in very similar positions to Randolph lose in certain situations but be the main reason behind the teams success in others. The list includes Baron Davis, Rasheed Wallace, Jason Terry, etc.


When a player has trouble fitting in 2 places, one has to feel suspicious about whether he'll fit in a 3rd place. In fact, a reasonable person would question whether the player is just a hard fit anywhere. As I said, nobody can conclude without a doubt that Zach was the problem, but looking at the state of the Knicks and Blazers, one certainly has the right to suspect that Zach was the problem. And GMs make moves base on analysis of the unknown. If everything was written in black and white, then teams wouldn't pay big bucks for people to make difficult decisions.



> Funny thing is that at 17-26 (Knicks are 14-28), I think it's safe to say that the Bobcats fit your description. I don't think they just gave up a lottery pick for Jason Richardson to win later. Unfortunately for them, they are not good enough at the moment to do so and likely would be willing to make a move for a young player who has not seen his best game yet.


You missed the part where I said that teams will not trade an integral part of their team for Zach. Gerald Wallace is arguably their franchise player if they fail to keep Okafor because of his unreasonable demands. This goes back to the part where I said that Zach's value just isn't that high as it was proven 6 months ago.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> I don't think you understood what I said. Zach Randolph was shopped around just 6 months ago by the Blazers and nobody wanted him. Why would his value suddenly go from rags to riches in just 6 months? He did nothing with NY to boost his trade value, in fact, some would argue that teams might be more reluctant to trade for him after seeing how the Blazers have done after he left and how the Knicks have done after they got him.


I don't actually think you understand what I said. Zach was shopped but it was reported that the best offers were all from Western Conference teams. On the Eastern front, the Knicks presented the best offer that gave the Blazers some financial flexibility and a young big man that could start for you if used correctly. This was reported in newspapers. 

Things have not worked out ideally in New York but we all knew that this was a possibility with Eddy and Zach playing such similar games. That does not mean it takes away from the fact that Zach is a 20 and 10 big man (17 and 10 now), which is few and far in the league. The Knicks not being much better than they were last year also does not seem to mean very much because it was not like we were running through the East before he got here.




> All those other trades don't fit this description, and frankly if you look at it logically they aren't even comparable. Toronto was *in need* of trading VC and that's why they got scrubs for him. The Knicks are *in need* of trading Zach. So in this case Knicks = Toronto. Now why would the Knicks be on the beneficiary end of the trade all of a sudden? Bringing Wilt into the mix just makes no sense. Back then teams traded people away on the basis of simply not being able to pay the guy. The Bobcats can pay Gerald Wallace, and even if they can't getting Randolph wouldn't help the situation. You need to get your logic straight imo.


Funny thing is that it actually does. Toronto by no means was "in need" of trading VC. Just because a player demands a trade does not mean that you have to give them one. Have you been monitoring the Kobe Bryant situation in Los Angeles? 

I'm also confused about how Wilt as an example is not relevant? *People traded away others back then on the basis of simply not being able to pay the guy?* Teams do that now if you haven't been paying attention. It's how trades like Baron Davis have been made, how Joe Johnson was sent to the Hawks, how Kurt Thomas was sent to the Sonics and how the Clippers lost every major player they had prior to the past 3 or so seasons. My statement still stands. Although the Bobcats may be able to pay Wallace (although they've been losing money as a result of such poor attendance), they can't continue to do so by not winning and putting fans in the seats. Randolph is player that can definately do that.




> When a player has trouble fitting in 2 places, one has to feel suspicious about whether he'll fit in a 3rd place. In fact, a reasonable person would question whether the player is just a hard fit anywhere. As I said, nobody can conclude without a doubt that Zach was the problem, but looking at the state of the Knicks and Blazers, one certainly has the right to suspect that Zach was the problem. And GMs make moves base on analysis of the unknown. If everything was written in black and white, then teams wouldn't pay big bucks for people to make difficult decisions.


Once again, the Knicks were not much better last season than this season so I feel your point is mute. In addition to that, certain players can only perform under certain systems with certain personnel. Boris Diaw was not nearly as effective with the Hawks as he is now and not nearly as effective with Amare playing than without Amare; you just have to look at his production. The Bobcats as currently constructed could benefit significantly from a post player spreading the floor and are tough enough defensively too cover Randolph's defensive flaws.




> You missed the part where I said that teams will not trade an integral part of their team for Zach. Gerald Wallace is arguably their franchise player if they fail to keep Okafor because of his unreasonable demands. This goes back to the part where I said that Zach's value just isn't that high as it was proven 6 months ago


.

Thing is that the Bobcats have not failed to keep Okafor yet and he is still on the team. Defensively, he represents the backbone of that team; offensively Jason Richardson represents their strongest asset. As currently constructed and as well as they play defense, they can afford to give up a Gerald Wallace for an elite scorer like Randolph.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I don't actually think you understand what I said. Zach was shopped but it was reported that the best offers were all from Western Conference teams. On the Eastern front, the Knicks presented the best offer that gave the Blazers some financial flexibility and a young big man that could start for you if used correctly. This was reported in newspapers.


I am not following the logic. So 6 months ago, the best offer out of the Eastern conference was Channing Fyre and Francis. But somehow another Eastern Conference team is willing to trade Gerald Wallace for him now? *You do know that Charlotte is in the East right?* The fact was nobody is sure that trading Zach out of the Western conference was even on Blazers's agenda. They weren't expecting to contend at least in the first couple of years upon Oden's arrival, it is a bit of a stretch to say that actually cared about another team in the West get in their way with Randolph. To add to that, the West is so loaded anyway, with or without Randolph it would've been a hell of a path to get to the finals.



> Funny thing is that it actually does. Toronto by no means was "in need" of trading VC. Just because a player demands a trade does not mean that you have to give them one. Have you been monitoring the Kobe Bryant situation in Los Angeles?


The need is really a comparative term. The urgency that Toronto had to trade VC was comparable to the Knicks right now. Vince was tanking his own performance on purpose (somewhat admitted by vince himself on TNT) and he was making all sort of off court news that was hurting the team's image. Kobe's situation again is different than Zach's case. The Lakers are winning, the Knicks and Raptors aren't/weren't. If you are suggesting the Knicks tough this out and let Zach led the team back to prominence, then by all means.



> I'm also confused about how Wilt as an example is not relevant? People traded away others back then on the basis of simply not being able to pay the guy? Teams do that now if you haven't been paying attention. It's how trades like Baron Davis have been made, how Joe Johnson was sent to the Hawks, how Kurt Thomas was sent to the Sonics and how the Clippers lost every major player they had prior to the past 3 or so seasons. My statement still stands. Although the Bobcats may be able to pay Wallace (although they've been losing money as a result of such poor attendance), they can't continue to do so by not winning and putting fans in the seats. Randolph is player that can definately do that.


If they can't pay Wallace, how can they pay Randolph who costs more. Again, Zach hasn't won anything anywhere. Sure that Wallace has been a loser as well. But why would you commit that much money for another loser? The risk vs. return just isn't good in this investment.



> Once again, the Knicks were not much better last season than this season so I feel your point is mute. In addition to that, certain players can only perform under certain systems with certain personnel. Boris Diaw was not nearly as effective with the Hawks as he is now and not nearly as effective with Amare playing than without Amare; you just have to look at his production. The Bobcats as currently constructed could benefit significantly from a post player spreading the floor and are tough enough defensively too cover Randolph's defensive flaws.


One would argue that the Knicks were better last season. But the idea of them not improving after getting Randolph would still raise a sign regarding whether Randolph can help a team win. Boris Diaw also came into camp out of shape the year Amare returned. You really have to question whether it was Amare or it was being paid that led to his regression.



> Thing is that the Bobcats have not failed to keep Okafor yet and he is still on the team. Defensively, he represents the backbone of that team; offensively Jason Richardson represents their strongest asset. As currently constructed and as well as they play defense, they can afford to give up a Gerald Wallace for an elite scorer like Randolph.


If you watch the Bobcats, you would see that Gerald Wallace is their best defender on the perimeter and is their 2nd best defender overall. Either way, franchise player or not, he is an integral part of their franchise. As I said repeatedly, I just don't think any team would trade an important piece of their team for someone like Randolph.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Randolph is not a compliment to Okafor. Okafor is not suited to the 5 spot- he has trouble guarding players bigger than him. Their frontcourt would be severely outmatched by even the average NBA team, at 6'8 and 6'9-10.

Wallace is the best player on the Bobcats. He is their best defender and their most athletic player. Okafor's 10/10 production is on a Udonis Haslem role player level.

Randolph has never proven that he can play within anything but a iso system ever since he's reached stardom. He is the PF version of Steve Francis. Talented, but you can't win like that.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Chan said:


> Randolph is not a compliment to Okafor. Okafor is not suited to the 5 spot- he has trouble guarding players bigger than him. Their frontcourt would be severely outmatched by even the average NBA team, at 6'8 and 6'9-10.
> 
> Wallace is the best player on the Bobcats. He is their best defender and their most athletic player. Okafor's 10/10 production is on a Udonis Haslem role player level.
> 
> *Randolph has never proven that he can play within anything but a iso system ever since he's reached stardom. He is the PF version of Steve Francis. Talented, but you can't win like that*.



Ding, ding, ding......we have a winner! Portland moved the talented player because they were moving in a different direction, sure Randolph can put up numbers, but he is stat motivated, he doesn't make the team better. I think that teams that want to win are going to start moving away from players like Randolph and start building a team, but there are sill teams and GM's out there looking to make a splash, those are the teams and GM's that will take a chance on players like Randolph.

A lot of people thought that Portland was going to lose a ton of games this season after moving Randolph, but the *team* is doing just fine without him, he is a total stat machine, but he isn't that final piece of the puzzle like Zake thought.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> I am not following the logic. So 6 months ago, the best offer out of the Eastern conference was Channing Fyre and Francis. But somehow another Eastern Conference team is willing to trade Gerald Wallace for him now? *You do know that Charlotte is in the East right?* The fact was nobody is sure that trading Zach out of the Western conference was even on Blazers's agenda. They weren't expecting to contend at least in the first couple of years upon Oden's arrival, it is a bit of a stretch to say that actually cared about another team in the West get in their way with Randolph. To add to that, the West is so loaded anyway, with or without Randolph it would've been a hell of a path to get to the finals.


For one thing, the Bobcats were focused on acquiring Jason Richardson. After giving up that $10 million trade exception, a deal involving Zach Randolph may have not been feasible from the Blazers perspective (who were interested in some financial flexibility). Another possibility may be the fact that the Bobcats did not realize the need for a player like Randolph until they started losing this season; I'm pretty sure they expected better results from the Richardson deal.

Although it is a common practice that I don't believe in, teams have shown that they prefer to move big stars out of their conference. The supposed rationale is that they do not want to have that same player play them 4 times a year and potentially make the franchise look bad. Most usually refer to Moses Malone and what happened after he was traded during the twilight of his career. We've seen this sort of rationale used a bunch of times including the Shaq trade, Garnett trade and McGrady trade. *None of their former teams had expected to be winning anytime soon after moving them either.*




> The need is really a comparative term. The urgency that Toronto had to trade VC was comparable to the Knicks right now. Vince was tanking his own performance on purpose (somewhat admitted by vince himself on TNT) and he was making all sort of off court news that was hurting the team's image. Kobe's situation again is different than Zach's case. The Lakers are winning, the Knicks and Raptors aren't/weren't. If you are suggesting the Knicks tough this out and let Zach led the team back to prominence, then by all means.


A Vince Carter playing half-assed ball is still better than any of the players they recieved. While the Raptors were losing, I doubt they expected to win anytime soon from the package of players they recieved. From that standpoint, I do not really see the situations being any different.





> If they can't pay Wallace, how can they pay Randolph who costs more. Again, Zach hasn't won anything anywhere. Sure that Wallace has been a loser as well. But why would you commit that much money for another loser? The risk vs. return just isn't good in this investment.


I never said they can't pay Wallace. What I did say is that they are not going to be able to do so if they don't generate enough interest in their team to have fans come to the games. That is just common sense. Randolph is a big enough star and fit to help do that and win more games. The Bobcats are currently 21st in the league in offensive production; there is only a 2-3ppg average that seperates them from dead last. You really think a guy like Zach Randolph could not help bolster their offensive game especially when they already have some solid perimeter shooters?

*P.S. just for the record, Randolph, Balkman and Morris works cap wise for Wallace and Mohammed.* In that sense, especially considering that Wallace just signed a new deal, the Bobcats would not be losing money (they very well would be saving it).




> One would argue that the Knicks were better last season. But the idea of them not improving after getting Randolph would still raise a sign regarding whether Randolph can help a team win. Boris Diaw also came into camp out of shape the year Amare returned. You really have to question whether it was Amare or it was being paid that led to his regression.


Would it really though? Like I said, this is a game of fits and I don't think one person questioned whether you could play both Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph on the same team; even I thought early on that it just wouldn't work.

Boris Diaw might have been out of shape but his game is predecated on skill moreso than athletic ability. With his physique and the system the Suns run, I doubt he'd have a hard time taking advantage of slower 4's and 5's. I think a more limited role was more key.




> If you watch the Bobcats, you would see that Gerald Wallace is their best defender on the perimeter and is their 2nd best defender overall. Either way, franchise player or not, he is an integral part of their franchise. As I said repeatedly, I just don't think any team would trade an important piece of their team for someone like Randolph.


I've never questioned Wallace's defensive ability. Without a doubt, he's the best perimeter defender they got but the question is really whether they can be a good defensive team without him. I definately believe so because the Bobcat team is capable of really good defense with the players that they have. What the really need are scorers and no kind of player could make more of a difference in that sense than a post scorer who in turn provides opportunities for himself and his teammates by stretching the defense. You just can't get more integral than that.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Chan said:


> Randolph is not a compliment to Okafor. Okafor is not suited to the 5 spot- he has trouble guarding players bigger than him. Their frontcourt would be severely outmatched by even the average NBA team, at 6'8 and 6'9-10.
> 
> Wallace is the best player on the Bobcats. He is their best defender and their most athletic player. Okafor's 10/10 production is on a Udonis Haslem role player level.
> 
> Randolph has never proven that he can play within anything but a iso system ever since he's reached stardom. He is the PF version of Steve Francis. Talented, but you can't win like that.


Okafor has been guarding guys bigger than him from his days in UConn and was still recognized as a solid defender. Apparently you don't appreciate his skills but I highly doubt that you could name me 10 big men currently averaging a double double in the league right now. His rugged play would work fine next to Randolph. 

Funny, alot of people said the same thing about Allen Iverson until he started winning and about Baron Davis until he turned the Warriors into one of the best teams in the league.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

HOWIE said:


> Ding, ding, ding......we have a winner! Portland moved the talented player because they were moving in a different direction, sure Randolph can put up numbers, but he is stat motivated, he doesn't make the team better. I think that teams that want to win are going to start moving away from players like Randolph and start building a team, but there are sill teams and GM's out there looking to make a splash, those are the teams and GM's that will take a chance on players like Randolph.
> 
> A lot of people thought that Portland was going to lose a ton of games this season after moving Randolph, but the *team* is doing just fine without him, he is a total stat machine, but he isn't that final piece of the puzzle like Zake thought.


He may not be the final piece of the puzzle but he is certainly a piece that may help. I think people forget the fact that this guy is only 25 years old and still learning the nuisances of the game. He may not be the most court savvy player out there but he can undeniably change a game in a positive way with his play. People use to say the same thing about Antawn Walker during his days with the Celtics and with the Heat, I think he helped prove he could contribute to a winner. The same thing could by said about Zach Randolph.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

...Let me ask you guys this, would Zach Randolph and filler like Fred Jones for Jermaine O'neal be an appropriate deal since Wallace is an unfair one in your opinion?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> For one thing, the Bobcats were focused on acquiring Jason Richardson. After giving up that $10 million trade exception, a deal involving Zach Randolph may have not been feasible from the Blazers perspective (who were interested in some financial flexibility). Another possibility may be the fact that the Bobcats did not realize the need for a player like Randolph until they started losing this season; I'm pretty sure they expected better results from the Richardson deal.


You're really stretching the possible circumstances. As I said, the fact that is laid out there in front of us is that out of 29 teams, the best the Blazers could come up with is Channing Fyre and a 20+ million buyout of Steve Francis. If you really want to push it, let's just say that Jordan and the rest of the FO were out golfing the day the Blazers called and that's why they didn't hook up on Randolph. I mean, seriously, if 28 teams had close to no interest for Randolph, it's just more likely for my scenario to be the case instead of yours.



> A Vince Carter playing half-assed ball is still better than any of the players they recieved. While the Raptors were losing, I doubt they expected to win anytime soon from the package of players they recieved. From that standpoint, I do not really see the situations being any different.


I do not think you followed the Raptors situation as closely as I did. Vince was giving plays away during the game and was benched before he was traded. The Raptors FO did not want VC to jeopardize the already dwindling attendance and the development of Chris Bosh. Trading him was quite urgent, it wasn't something that could be dealt with after the season.



> I never said they can't pay Wallace. What I did say is that they are not going to be able to do so if they don't generate enough interest in their team to have fans come to the games. That is just common sense. Randolph is a big enough star and fit to help do that and win more games. The Bobcats are currently 21st in the league in offensive production; there is only a 2-3ppg average that seperates them from dead last. You really think a guy like Zach Randolph could not help bolster their offensive game especially when they already have some solid perimeter shooters?


Zach Randolph being a fan attraction is quite an unusual opinion. You should post this in the Blazers board and wait for their reaction. Also the idea of a high flyer like Gerald Wallace not being able to draw more fans than Randolph, whose public image has been less than friendly just seems ridiculous. If you are banking on Randolph being able to win more games, as I said, he hasn't proved that he can win more games anywhere. In fact, the team he just left has drastically improved both in wins and attendance, and the team that he just joined gets booed in the first quarter of every game. I don't know about you, it sounds pretty darn retarded if I'm bringing in Randolph for the sake of increasing attendance.



> Boris Diaw might have been out of shape but his game is predecated on skill moreso than athletic ability. With his physique and the system the Suns run, I doubt he'd have a hard time taking advantage of slower 4's and 5's. I think a more limited role was more key.


Diaw's speed and agility is the reason why he's a mismatch for opposing 4s and 5s. You move slower when you're fat, that's common knowledge no? You also have less stamina when you're out of shape, either way you cut it it's bad for your performance. I'd think for someone who watches Curry and Randolph every game you should understand this better than I do.



> I've never questioned Wallace's defensive ability. Without a doubt, he's the best perimeter defender they got but the question is really whether they can be a good defensive team without him. I definately believe so because the Bobcat team is capable of really good defense with the players that they have. What the really need are scorers and no kind of player could make more of a difference in that sense than a post scorer who in turn provides opportunities for himself and his teammates by stretching the defense. You just can't get more integral than that.


Wait what? If you take away the best perimeter defender of a team, you would wonder whether or not their defense would be as good? I'm not following this lol? You take away a team's best defender and expects them to be a good defensive team. By that same logic, shouldn't you take away a team's post scoring to make them a good post scoring team? Are we playing the everything opposite game lol?

Just for the sake of this awkward argument, the depth chart at SF for the Bobcats is Matt Carroll and Jared Dudley. It is debatable whether a player would have an easier time scoring getting doubled team by those 2 than getting single coverage by Wallace. If Adam Morrison makes it back from his injury, he might see some time at F but he's about the last place I'll go to find defense at the 2/3/4. 

You should really draw up another trade scenario. This discussion is frankly moving in the direction of ridicule and humor rather than reality.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> ...Let me ask you guys this, would Zach Randolph and filler like Fred Jones for Jermaine O'neal be an appropriate deal since Wallace is an unfair one in your opinion?


It would. But considering that Jermaine O'neal is likely out for the rest of the season and the likelihood of him being completely healthy when he comes back is close to nil. You're talking about a Jermaine O'neal that's on pace to miss 131 games from 04' to the end of this season. When he played this year he was a shell of his former self averaging 15/7 showing limited lift and mobility while he was out there. He is turning 30 and has 44 million owed the next 2 seasons. Basically you've just went from a one-sided trade for the Knicks to a potentially apocalyptic trade for the same team. I'd say if you trade for O'neal, you're probably looking at a front court of David Lee and Eddy Curry (if he stays on the Knicks) for this season and perhaps the a good portion of next season. If the Knicks are better with that lineup, then I guess it's not that bad of a trade.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> You're really stretching the possible circumstances. As I said, the fact that is laid out there in front of us is that out of 29 teams, the best the Blazers could come up with is Channing Fyre and a 20+ million buyout of Steve Francis. If you really want to push it, let's just say that Jordan and the rest of the FO were out golfing the day the Blazers called and that's why they didn't hook up on Randolph. I mean, seriously, if 28 teams had close to no interest for Randolph, it's just more likely for my scenario to be the case instead of yours.


Correction, the best of 15 teams, a majority of whom did not have the salaries necessary to make the deal attractive to a team looking to gain some financial flexibility. I say 15 teams because it was splattered throughout newspapers that the Blazers had better offers on the table but rejected them because they were from Western Conference teams.





> I do not think you followed the Raptors situation as closely as I did. Vince was giving plays away during the game and was benched before he was traded. The Raptors FO did not want VC to jeopardize the already dwindling attendance and the development of Chris Bosh. Trading him was quite urgent, it wasn't something that could be dealt with after the season.


I followed the Raptors situation closely enough before Carter got traded. If you may recall correctly, we had quite a bit of interest in him but balked at the opportunity when the Raptors demanded either Stephon Marbury or a combination of both Jamal Crawford and Nazr Mohammed. We eventually bowed out right around the time he supposedly told an opposing player the particular play the Raptors were running; I believe it was a flare involving Morris Peterson. I'll agree with your point that these two circumstances are different, however, I still believe that teams truely have the power when it comes to situations such as this one. Had the Raptors truly wanted to play hardball, they could have easily began to fine Carter for his insubordination and possibly terminate his contract which in retrospect was better than what they did.






> Zach Randolph being a fan attraction is quite an unusual opinion. You should post this in the Blazers board and wait for their reaction. Also the idea of a high flyer like Gerald Wallace not being able to draw more fans than Randolph, whose public image has been less than friendly just seems ridiculous. If you are banking on Randolph being able to win more games, as I said, he hasn't proved that he can win more games anywhere. In fact, the team he just left has drastically improved both in wins and attendance, and the team that he just joined gets booed in the first quarter of every game. I don't know about you, it sounds pretty darn retarded if I'm bringing in Randolph for the sake of increasing attendance.


I kind of thought this was common sense but winning games usually leads to better attendance. Even the Nets who have had poor attendance during the Kidd era saw better attendance than their Marbury days. I still think Zach can help a team win, in particular the Bobcats who don't have low post scoring. He may have not proven that but neither has Gerald. In either case, he's still young enough and good enough to not have seen enough time to prove otherwise.




> Diaw's speed and agility is the reason why he's a mismatch for opposing 4s and 5s. You move slower when you're fat, that's common knowledge no? You also have less stamina when you're out of shape, either way you cut it it's bad for your performance. I'd think for someone who watches Curry and Randolph every game you should understand this better than I do.


I'm not disputing the fact that he was out of shape. What I am disputing is that he lost his physical advantage on the offensive end of the floor. Even in the particular shape he was in, he still caused mismatches. I think he hurt his stamina but at the same time, fat isn't necessarily an inhibitor for your game. I'd think someone like you who has seen guys like Shaq, Barkley and company would understand something like that.




> Wait what? If you take away the best perimeter defender of a team, you would wonder whether or not their defense would be as good? I'm not following this lol? You take away a team's best defender and expects them to be a good defensive team. By that same logic, shouldn't you take away a team's post scoring to make them a good post scoring team? Are we playing the everything opposite game lol?


Reading properly truely is essential in this conversation. Please, go back and point out to me where I suggest that the Bobcats would be as good defensively with Wallace as without him. What I did in fact say was that they can STILL be a good defensive team. When the Pacers lost Ron Artest, they were not as good a defensive team as they were with him but they still played well on that end of the floor. The same thing can be said about the Pistons and Ben Wallace. So I guess we're not playing the everything opposite game and I got to wonder if the same can be said about common sense.



> Just for the sake of this awkward argument, the depth chart at SF for the Bobcats is Matt Carroll and Jared Dudley. It is debatable whether a player would have an easier time scoring getting doubled team by those 2 than getting single coverage by Wallace. If Adam Morrison makes it back from his injury, he might see some time at F but he's about the last place I'll go to find defense at the 2/3/4.


That's what Ronaldo Balkman is for. Besides, you could shift Jason Richardson and his 6-7 frame to the SF position and play Matt Carroll extended minutes at the 2. It's not like their not use to playing him key minutes down the stretch. 



> You should really draw up another trade scenario. This discussion is frankly moving in the direction of ridicule and humor rather than reality.


...At least we agree on something but somehow I don't think we have exactly the same thing in mind.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Okafor has been guarding guys bigger than him from his days in UConn and was still recognized as a solid defender. Apparently you don't appreciate his skills but I highly doubt that you could name me 10 big men currently averaging a double double in the league right now. His rugged play would work fine next to Randolph.
> 
> Funny, alot of people said the same thing about Allen Iverson until he started winning and about Baron Davis until he turned the Warriors into one of the best teams in the league.


Any how many of those bigger guys were NBA talent? Sure, he gets that 10/10, but so does a guy like Udonis Haslem or David Lee. He's not good enough to be that everyday defensive anchor. No team has ever won with that much of a deficiency in the big man spots.

AI and Davis? You're just speculating. What about Steve Francis? Stephon Marbury?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Correction, the best of 15 teams, a majority of whom did not have the salaries necessary to make the deal attractive to a team looking to gain some financial flexibility. I say 15 teams because it was splattered throughout newspapers that the Blazers had better offers on the table but rejected them because they were from Western Conference teams.


Find me some articles where it suggested this scenario from happening. The reality was not many teams were that interested in Randolph to begin with and that was why not many trade rumors surfaced in the media. Again, go find some articles where it proves that this isn't the case.



> Had the Raptors truly wanted to play hardball, they could have easily began to fine Carter for his insubordination and possibly terminate his contract which in retrospect was better than what they did.


There isn't a rule in the contracts that limits a player from not playing to his ability. He can throw the ball out of bounds every play and there would be nothing the Raptors can do other than bench him. Again, the situation was not going to get better, what was the point of stretching it out and jeopardize all the things that I've mentioned? You also have to remember that Carter was consistently injured before he was traded as well. People were also suspecting that those weren't real injuries. The list just goes on and on.



> I kind of thought this was common sense but winning games usually leads to better attendance. Even the Nets who have had poor attendance during the Kidd era saw better attendance than their Marbury days. I still think Zach can help a team win, in particular the Bobcats who don't have low post scoring. He may have not proven that but neither has Gerald. In either case, he's still young enough and good enough to not have seen enough time to prove otherwise.


Gerald Wallace is a year younger so your potential card doesn't really apply here. Both players are losers up to this point of their career, the difference is Randolph has shown plenty of personality baggage either with coaches, offcourt, and fans. I don't understand what you're saying with Kidd. Are you saying they have better attendance than when they have Marbury or less? If you're saying more, Kidd is a HOFer and a bigger draw than Marbury. I don't see what's the point of bringing those 2 into this discussion.



> I'm not disputing the fact that he was out of shape. What I am disputing is that he lost his physical advantage on the offensive end of the floor. Even in the particular shape he was in, he still caused mismatches. I think he hurt his stamina but at the same time, fat isn't necessarily an inhibitor for your game. I'd think someone like you who has seen guys like Shaq, Barkley and company would understand something like that.


I have no idea what you're disputing then. He was fat and did not have the same advantage that he once had the year before. Add that to the lack of stamina and you have the makings of a statistical set back. Fat is a inhibitor of your game, muscle isn't. If Shaq and Barkley had been slimmer but had the same strength, both would be better players. Muscles and fat are totally different things. Moreover, those 2 players relied on their strength, Diaw relies on speed, so your points is moot.



> Reading properly truely is essential in this conversation. Please, go back and point out to me where I suggest that the Bobcats would be as good defensively with Wallace as without him. What I did in fact say was that they can STILL be a good defensive team. When the Pacers lost Ron Artest, they were not as good a defensive team as they were with him but they still played well on that end of the floor. The same thing can be said about the Pistons and Ben Wallace. So I guess we're not playing the everything opposite game and I got to wonder if the same can be said about common sense.


The Bobcats aren't a good defensive team right now, in fact, they are 5th worst in opposing FG%. If you take Gerald Wallace out of the team, I simply don't see how you would feel that they will suddenly become good at defense.



> That's what Ronaldo Balkman is for. Besides, you could shift Jason Richardson and his 6-7 frame to the SF position and play Matt Carroll extended minutes at the 2. It's not like their not use to playing him key minutes down the stretch.


Jason Richardson is a very generous 6-6. Even if you slide him to the 3 you are still wide open at the 2. Gerald Wallace is someone that can effectively guard players at 2/3/4, the Bobcats just don't have anyone comparable to him at the wing positions, w/ w/o Balkman. And about Ronaldo Balkman, he is not starter material, at least he hasn't proved himself to be even close to one. The likely case is that he will be stuck on the bench fighting for minutes with another energy player in Dudley. Either way, not a solution to the problems we are discussing.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Good luck. When we (Portland) made the trade I feared that we got too little for him. I mean, Steve Francis and Channing Frye? Really? Anyways, looking at how Portland has blossomed without him, it was clearly the right move that needed to be made. 

Furthermore, without the NY trade we wouldn't have had the trade exception that we used to land James Jones and the draft pick that turned into Rudy Fernandez. So, if you look that we got Jones, Frye, Fernandez (and Francis) for Randolph, we actually made out like bandits. Good luck pulling that trick on anyone else though...unless he really changes I think you might be stuck with his contract for a while.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Right now O'Neal would be decent value for Randolph with how JO has digressed. Probably shake things up for both teams, though I doubt that it goes down. It'd be interesting to see it happen though..


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Yea I'd say Jermaine O'Neal is good (equal) value to Randolph right now.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Atleast with O'Neal you'd be getting an All Star in return of Randolph. Randolph would love that trade sending him home, New York would get a big that might be able to play with Curry, everyone wins. I think that both Indy and NY are looking to make a splash, this would be more of a canonball in the shallow end, but it would make things interesting. :biggrin:


----------

