# Would you trade Zach to Bulls?



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

With the Bulls struggling so badly the talk is starting to heat up about them needing a trade. Of course KG's name is the first player mentioned, but I have read about Zach being an option also. The Bulls definetly have a lot of young players and draft picks to package together, along with the 8 million PJ Brown expiring contract. What package would temp you to trade Zach away? The Bulls haven't made bad moves lately, except signing Ben Wallace for that much money, so its not like we are dealing with Danny Ainge, so it will have to be a fair trade, haha. I am not sure if I want to trade Zach now, but for the right package I would.


----------



## ODiggity (Feb 23, 2005)

yeah for Heinrich, Deng and NY's 1st rounder. The Bulls would say "NO!"


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

There are a few types of trades you try to avoid. One is trading a star player for a bunch of crap. 

1. We don't need Salary cap relief. Jamaal Magloire and now that he is hurt, Darius Miles will come off the books this year. When that happens the Blazers will easily be under the cap. 

2. The only player who is of high enough level to be a good trade (Heinrich) is "Untouchable". 

3. I would never want PJ Brown or Hack a Ben Wallace on the team at this point of their careers. PJ Brown is on the down side of his career. Ben Wallace has been a detriment every since teams have figured out they can just foul him and he shoots so badly from the line that they can get back into games.

Top it off with the fact that earlier this week, Ben Wallace had a game where he got 0 rebounds. Does that sound like a Ben Wallace you would want? I bet its why they are looking for a trade now.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Zach is in the best shape of his career, the team chemistry is sky high, And NOW you wanna trade him away? Heck I wouldn't trade him for KG now.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

No, trading Zach right now would be very stupid. We've got young talent at every position, and there isn't a more dominant threat in the low post right now. 

Have you ever seen a player draw more double teams every night than Zach?


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

I think they can put together more then a bunch of crap. I just don't think they would give up that many young pieces/ draft picks to get him. Also how is Darius coming off our books at the end of the year?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> 1. We don't need Salary cap relief. Jamaal Magloire and now that he is hurt, Darius Miles will come off the books this year. When that happens the Blazers will easily be under the cap.


Just so we're all clear, Darius Miles will NOT come off the books this year unless he is traded. Absolutely impossible by CBA rules for him to come off just because of his injury. Whoever told you that he will come off the books is either ignorant or a liar.

Also, just to be clear, even if the Blazers were to let Magloire walk and somehow, miraculously, were able to trade Miles straight up for an expiring contract, they would NOT be under the cap - not unless the cap somehow rises to over $60 million next season.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Now, as for this whole issue of trading Zach, I say pull the trigger if the deal is right.

1) His stock has never been higher. 6 months ago, other teams would only see him in terms of his long term salary and his injury. Now, I believe they see him in terms of his production on the court.

2) My feelings about Zach remain unchanged - and are well chronicled on this board. He will never be a leader that we want others to follow. His off-the-court behavior shows a history of continued poor decision-making and it is only a matter of time before he makes another mistake, then another, then another.....

3) Zach will never be the interior defender that I would like to see on this team. He will never be the athletic type of player that will be a true superstar for the team can build around. However, not only does Aldridge have the potential to be that kind of player, there are guys that are probably going to be selected high in this next draft that also have that kind of potential. So if Pritchard is truly an evaluation genius, why not let him work his magic?

4) Zach is doing a better job of passing out of the double team this year and is doing a much, much, much better job of playing down low. However, the offensive flow still stymies when he touches the ball. That's the player he is and always will be. I'm not concerned with a single player's stats, I'm concerned with this team having the best possible execution on the floor, and I am convinced that the bar can be potentially much higher without him.


Is it a huge risk to trade him now? Absolutely! You'd be putting a lot of faith in Aldridge and (potentially) in one or two draft picks from next summer. But what it comes down to me is this - with Zach as the focus of this team on offense, I think the team could make the playoffs and perhaps get into the 2nd round. I don't see a team built around Zach advancing to the Finals, much less winning them. Which tells me that the team needs to look in a different direction.

A package to Chicago for their unprotected draft pick (which whether it turns out to be their own or NY's does indeed look to be in the lottery), an expiring contract like Brown (which doesn't put the team under the cap but does give some $ relief that can be used strategically to pick up a veteran using the MLE if necessary - and still allow the team to stay under the luxury tax threshhold), and one of their young players (perhaps either Deng or Nocioni since such a trade would probably move Tyrus Thomas' future to SF) is not unthinkable to me at this point. At the same time, I wouldn't expect either team to make such a trade for at least another month.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> ..Also, just to be clear, even if the Blazers were to let Magloire walk and somehow, miraculously, were able to trade Miles straight up for an expiring contract, they would NOT be under the cap - not unless the cap somehow rises to over $60 million next season.


Wow, I don't get it, with Magloire AND Miles off the books, we would still be over the cap?!? In that scenario, Z-Bo would be our only 'high-ticket item", correct? (Oh, and I guess Raef. Forgot about him...but still...)

I mean, with that being said, which team WOULDN"T be under the cap?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

ABM said:


> Wow, I don't get it, with Magloire AND Miles off the books, we would still be over the cap?!? In that scenario, Z-Bo would be our only 'high-ticket item", correct? (Oh, and I guess Raef. Forgot about him...but still...)


Zach at $13.3 million
LaFrentz at $11.8 million
Joel at $5.8 million
LaMarcus at $4.3 million
Martell at $3.0 million
Dixon at $2.9 million
Roy at $2.9 million
Dickau at $2.8 million
Jack at $1.2 million
Sergio at $1.0 million

That's $49.0 million for 10 players. Now add cap holds for Outlaw ($2.7 million when the team makes him a qualifying offer), for Freeland ($0.7 million) and for their 1st round draft pick (Let's say $2 million although it could be a bit lower and could be quite higher). That brings the team salary to $54.4 million, which is more than $1 million higher than the current cap. 

So, let's say the cap goes up $2 million to $55.1 million. Would the Blazers be under the cap? No, because they would be crazy to renounce their MLE of $5+ million in order to get less than $1 million in cap room. So realistically, the cap would have to be higher than $60 million to make it worthwhile for the Blazers to renounce their MLE and truly be under the cap. And I don't see that happening.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

The Bulls could provide some outside scoring, but if we lose Zach, we don't have a reliable inside presence who can score consistently. So ... no.

Besides that, Zach's been unreal this year. The Blazers haven't had a cornerstone for a very long time.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ABM said:


> Wow, I don't get it, with Magloire AND Miles off the books, we would still be over the cap?!? In that scenario, Z-Bo would be our only 'high-ticket item", correct? (Oh, and I guess Raef. Forgot about him...but still...)
> 
> I mean, with that being said, which team WOULDN"T be under the cap?


here's a website I stumbled across which might answer some of your questions

http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/06-07salaries.htm



Storyteller said:


> A package to Chicago for their unprotected draft pick (which whether it turns out to be their own or NY's does indeed look to be in the lottery), an expiring contract like Brown (which doesn't put the team under the cap but does give some $ relief that can be used strategically to pick up a veteran using the MLE if necessary - and still allow the team to stay under the luxury tax threshhold), and one of their young players (perhaps either Deng or Nocioni since such a trade would probably move Tyrus Thomas' future to SF) is not unthinkable to me at this point. At the same time, I wouldn't expect either team to make such a trade for at least another month.


Agreed with all of that... a Deng, Brown, NY#1 sure would temp me. Deng is showing a lot this season and looking like he's going to be a better then average 3 for years to come.

I somewhat disagree with your assessment of Portland's chances with ZR though. Like you I don't see them competing for a championship if he's their lead player... but I do hold out hope that improving the talent around him could have him being a key part of a contending team. I don't ever expect he'll be smoothly passing out of doubles for big assist numbers or being a presense on D, but better guard/wing play could have his half court role reduced to more of an offensive board monster (where I happen to think he's most effective). Cutting his role/minutes down might produce some gripes, but winning is usually an effective balm for that. Since I believe that SF is probably the most talent rich position in the league where quality players can be had for a MLE or selected with a low lotto/mid 1st selection, I'd be hesitant to move Zach right now... then again maybe he's given management more then enough reason to be exploring their options.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> The Bulls could provide some outside scoring, but if we lose Zach, we don't have a reliable inside presence who can score consistently. So ... no.
> 
> Besides that, Zach's been unreal this year. The Blazers haven't had a cornerstone for a very long time.


Zach isn't a cornerstone either.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> Just so we're all clear, Darius Miles will NOT come off the books this year unless he is traded. Absolutely impossible by CBA rules for him to come off just because of his injury. Whoever told you that he will come off the books is either ignorant or a liar.
> 
> Also, just to be clear, even if the Blazers were to let Magloire walk and somehow, miraculously, were able to trade Miles straight up for an expiring contract, they would NOT be under the cap - not unless the cap somehow rises to over $60 million next season.



Look in the CBA again and look at Allan Houston in NY. If a player does not play at least 41 games during a season, the team can cut him in the new CBA. NY did it with Allen Houston, we can do it here. 

By the way nobody told me anything. Just so were clear on this.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Look in the CBA again and look at Allan Houston in NY. If a player does not play at least 41 games during a season, the team can cut him in the new CBA. NY did it with Allen Houston, we can do it here.


You are incorrect (as was the idiot Canzano, when he tried to imply it). The 41 game thing was Canzano trying to make something out to be something it's not. Larry **** (who's forgotten more about the CBA than Canzano knows) basically told me directly that there is no such "41 game" loop hole where the team can take Darius off the salary cap. If there's ANYTHING that has a "41" game thing in it, it's that an insurance company might pickup the salary, but it still counts against the cap. For anything to be CBA related, it takes a lot longer than 41 games to be started. First he has to miss a year, then the team has to apply with the league. And even then, it's not a given that the team will get anything.

There's a injured player salary exemption, but thats basically it.

Houston did not cut Houston, as he still counts on the Knicks salary cap see


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Zach isn't a cornerstone either.


He was seen stoned on the corner, once, though.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

While I agree with those who worry about our ability to score the ball without ZR I still fall firmly on the side of trading him while we can. I look at it as a step back so we can take three steps forward. 

Aldridge will one day be effective offensively from the 4 spot and while ZR is a great talent the blazers owe him 17 million dollars in the 2010-2011 season. Does anyone really think Zach is worth 17 million? I sure don't. I think we could obtain two good players about about 8-9 million each that would be very effective.

If we could pick up a package that included NY and perhaps Chicago's draft picks for 2007 I would seriously consider it. I wouldn't want to take on any other long term contracts in return. Brown would be a nice stop gap and plays really good defense. Deng would be a nice throw in. If we could also figure out a way to dump Mile's contract I wouldn't care that in the end we end up with two 2007 unprotected draft picks.

Keep in mind that the salary cap relief would likely allow us to go shopping in free agency so the net result would likely be much more than two rookies. I wouldn't be so interested if the 2007 draft wasn't so strong.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> If we could pick up a package that included NY and perhaps Chicago's draft picks for 2007 I would seriously consider it. I wouldn't want to take on any other long term contracts in return. Brown would be a nice stop gap and plays really good defense. Deng would be a nice throw in. If we could also figure out a way to dump Mile's contract I wouldn't care that in the end we end up with two 2007 unprotected draft picks.


do you think they might throw in that cool statue of MJ too??? I'd say you're really overestimating ZR's trade. Averaging 18 pts on 56% shooting and stats across the board, Deng is hardly a throw in... http://www.nba.com/playerfile/luol_deng/ ...and they're supposed to give up both their firsts in this massively hyped draft as well???

STOMP


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

Well that is an interesting point. What is fair value for ZR? If we give him up for expiring contracts, Deng, and a first round pick is that enough? I would probably still be interested but I think most people would wonder why we're giving up one of four players in the NBA to average 20/10 for a good player in Deng and an unknown rookie. 

Draft picks have unknown value. ZR has proven his worth.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

We deal Zach, we can throw away this season and the confidence our young guys have had through winning. NY's pick isn't even going to be that good this year...maybe in the late lotto...we don't need Deng we have Outlaw/Webster who hold the 3 spot and potentially our draft pick. There is no one in this draft who cna match Zach's interior scoring. Oden's knock is his offensive game and Durant is a wing player, Brandan Wright is a few years away as he is skinnier then Outlaw and Noah will be more of a garbage player.....it's just not that best of packages.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

As I see it, the reasons to consider trading Zach at this point, despite his great start this season, would be to 

1. Commit to Aldridge
2. Trade Zach while his value is at a high point and before that can fizzle away with another dumb off-court issue.
3. Pick up pieces that we need for the rebuild.
4. Ensure that we suck this season so that we get a good shot at Oden.

I don't see a Chicago trade that offers enough of item 3 to make it worth doing at this point. I'd be more in favor of shopping Zach for a better deal near the deadline.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> If we could pick up a package that included NY and perhaps Chicago's draft picks for 2007 I would seriously consider it.


Can't be done. Chicago has the right to trade picks with NY in 2007. They don't own both their own pick and NY's.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well zbo is the leader of this team like it or not


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> Zach isn't a cornerstone either.


If he keeps up the way he's playing right now, what separates him from Garnett or Duncan? The numbers are there, the work ethic is there, the leadership is there, the hustle is there.

I'm not saying he is there YET. But if he continues at this pace and keeps up what he's doing right NOW, he's a cornerstone.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Zach is playing amazing basketball this year -- much better than I ever thought he would play in his life. I am loving watching this young team play ball, and I can't deny that Z-Bo is acting as their leader out there. So I would have to think long and hard about trading him away right now.

That said, if the Bulls made an offer the Blazers can't refuse... well, they shouldn't refuse. There *is* a certain logic to trading Zach now. His value has never been higher. He may well still be a ticking time bomb when it comes to off-the-court incidents that the Blazers are looking to put behind them. His post-microfracture knee looks great now but who knows how it will hold up years into the future. And while his defense has improved, he may never be good enough on that end to be a championship-winning superstar.

So, while I certainly wouldn't be trying to "dump" him if I were the Blazers, I'd listen to trade offers if they were good ones.

For example, if the Bulls came in offering PJ Brown (expiring contract to match salaries and make the deal work), Luol Deng (great young player at SF, a major position of need), and two unprotected first rounders (their own and New York's), I would be sorely tempted to make that trade.

Yes, it would set us back in the short run, but it would allow us to develop Aldridge at his natural 4 spot and give us three possible lotto picks (our own, New York's, and Chicago's) in the best draft in many, many years. 

Chicago would have to be desparate to offer so much for Z-Bo, but considering that they are built to win a championship NOW and they've started the season 3-9, mainly due to a complete lack of inside scoring... well, maybe they are that desparate.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

wastro said:


> If he keeps up the way he's playing right now, what separates him from Garnett or Duncan?


Defense.

(Not trying to knock Zach, but he just isn't as good on that end of the floor.)

Stepping Razor


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

Zach isn't the athlete that a true cornerstone is (like Duncan for example). Duncan is such a physical presence that he'll be able to play well into his mid 30's or even beyond. Zach is only going to be effective like he is now for about 5 years. As he slows down he will drift more and more to the perimeter (much like last year). I believe Bob Mcadoo (sp?), was that way in his later years but he was old when I was young so maybe somone else will remember.

I didn't realize that Chicago only has the right to swap picks so that only leaves one pick to choose from regardless. 

e_blazer1 makes a good point. Maybe Chicago isn't the best team to trade with? I do think ZR would fit very well with that Chicago team though.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Look in the CBA again and look at Allan Houston in NY. If a player does not play at least 41 games during a season, the team can cut him in the new CBA. NY did it with Allen Houston, we can do it here.
> 
> By the way nobody told me anything. Just so were clear on this.


OK, I just looked at the CBA. I can't find anything there about this '41 game rule'. I do see this, however (which explains Allan Houston's situation):

From Article 7, Section 4 of the CBA



> h) Long-Term Injuries. Any player who suffers a career-ending injury or illness, and whose contract is terminated by the Team in accordance with the NBA waiver procedure, will be excluded from his Team’s Team Salary as follows:
> 
> (1) Beginning on the first anniversary of the injury or illness, the Team may apply to the NBA to have the player’s Salary for each remaining Salary Cap Year covered by the Contract excluded from Team Salary.
> 
> ...


In Allan Houston's case, he played his last game on 1/19/05. It's my understanding that the Knicks waited until this past summer to apply for this cap relief, because they both wanted and needed to make sure that his injury was indeed career-ending. After applying, the NBA and the Player's Association jointly appointed a doctor to make an evaluation, the doctor concluded that the injury was career-ending, and then Houston's salary stopped counting against the cap for NY (although Houston is still drawing a salary from the team and/or insurance).

This clause does not apply to Darius Miles - not yet, at least.

If you are aware of another clause in the CBA that applies to Miles, please provide a link. Seriously, if such a clause exists in the CBA, I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Zach Randolph, Travis Outlaw
for
Deng, Brown, #1 Pick.

Bulls get a SF prospect back and get a franchise 4 out of an expiring player.

Portland gets their SF of the future, expiring money in Brown, and another Oden lottery ticket.

I think it's too rich for Chicago's blood. I could see them trading Nocioni, but not Deng. And they're probably clutching that pick harder than anything.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Zach Randolph, Travis Outlaw
> for
> Deng, Brown, #1 Pick.
> 
> ...



Well I can't speak for the front office but I would say that it would be extremely unlikely that Portland would agree to that deal. That's way too in favor of the Bulls unless that pick is a top 3 pick and there's no guarantee of that being the case. ZR averages 20/10 and he's a low post threat. How many low post threats are there in the league? Not many.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I can't help thinking that a three-way trade with Minnesota would work better for all concerned. Minny sends Garnett to Chicago and gets Zach back along with other goodies. We give up Zach and get some good stuff from Chicago. Minny gets younger but retains a solid scorer, we get more minutes for our good players and get a better shot at the top of the lottery. Zach is at peak value, and is still a bozo, so get the best deal we can!

This one works:



ESPN Trade Machine said:


> *Chicago Bulls*
> Incoming Players
> Kevin Garnett
> Salary: $21,000,000 Years Remaining: 3
> ...


Throw in NY's pick, and Bob's your uncle!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

just trade magliore


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> Well I can't speak for the front office but I would say that it would be extremely unlikely that Portland would agree to that deal. That's way too in favor of the Bulls unless that pick is a top 3 pick and there's no guarantee of that being the case. ZR averages 20/10 and he's a low post threat. How many low post threats are there in the league? Not many.


Portland could do this trade in February when the NY pick is looking better.

Zach Randolph is having a good year, but Luol Deng is about to come into his own at the SF position. And he's Outlaw plus basketball IQ. This would solve Portland's problems from 1-3 for the future, give Aldridge the reigns at the 4, and give them another year of 2 possible top 10 picks.

You gotta remember that their could be 3-4 bigtime prospects in the top 10 this year. That's worth moving Zach for, IMO.

Buy low, sell high.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Yeah, lets trade a 20 and 10 guy who is 25 years old for more draft picks. It would all be nice if it was as easy as trading him away for Oden or Durant type lottery picks, but anybody who would trade us there picks would obviously be top 3 protected. I don't think any team is dumb enough to trade away an unprotected pick for Zach.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK, time for a grumpy reality check.

Trading Zach and having 2 high lotto picks sounds tempting. It sounded tempting to the Bulls when they traded Brand and drafted Chandler/Curry to be the twin cornerstones of a great team.

How'd that work out for them?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Exactly..its like we finally have an MVP type guy....but let's trade him for something else...lets all be happy we have a guy like Zach.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, time for a grumpy reality check.
> 
> Trading Zach and having 2 high lotto picks sounds tempting. It sounded tempting to the Bulls when they traded Brand and drafted Chandler/Curry to be the twin cornerstones of a great team.
> 
> How'd that work out for them?


Curry and Chandler were never EVER the prospects and potential stars that are in the 07 draft.


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

Hap said:


> Curry and Chandler were never EVER the prospects and potential stars that are in the 07 draft.


And who are those potential stars, besides Greg Oden and Durant? And think about the chances we get those "potential stars" as you say. It's just to risky, we just had a great draft, with LA, Roy and Sergio. We have the pieces in place now. I'm happy about the future.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

It is simple. Sell at the top. Zach although a good player is having a carrier year. There is now way we can get any more for him then right now. P.J. Brown and an unprotected NY draft pick +Victor back ( his #'s are awful right now) I would do that in a hearth beat. We have to face it Zach can only take us this far. Around .500 maybe a little better. This would work for them and it could work for us. Who knows we could trade an expiring contract of P.J./Magliore for another draft pick or two. Bundle it and if we feel Oden is that good get the #1 next year. Or Noah or Durant.

Sg-Roy
PG-Jack
C-Oden
PF-Aldridge
SF-Outlaw

Bench-Miles, Sergio, Raef 

We would be in the playoffs in 2 years with potential to win it a few times for the next 10.
I would role the dice on that.
of course Chicago have to agree:biggrin:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Exactly..its like we finally have an MVP type guy....but let's trade him for something else...lets all be happy we have a guy like Zach.


I've a better idea... lets accept that we bring different viewpoints and not tell each other what we need to think. 

Personally if I'm building around players currently on the roster, I'm more inclined to go with Roy then anyone else. Zach's lack of D and lack of team play on O continues to detract from his value in my eyes. Guys who lead their teams to championships (and go on to win MVP awards) are usually guys make those around them better. 

STOMP


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

You need smart players to contend, players that know how to pass the ball out of double and triple teams, who understand clock managment, and play at least decent defense. I highly doubt we'll ever get there with Zach as our "cornerstone".

I'd do the (Deng + filler + NY pick) in a second.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> If he keeps up the way he's playing right now, what separates him from Garnett or Duncan? The numbers are there, the work ethic is there, the leadership is there, the hustle is there.


Defense, passing, shot blocking, and height.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Please do this trade! I'll be in Chicago next year and I'll buy season tickets! :clap2:


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

"Zach Randolph is the poor man's Carlos Boozer" - discuss.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Zach is actually a potential MVP -- more likely he is just one level below a true MVP. Close enough -- Zach Randolph is a superstar. 

But if the right deal comes along, you do it.

A top-3 pick in the draft + one promising player (like a Deng) would work nicely. This year's draft is special indeed, and a Durant or Oden would make it worthwhile.

Buy low, sell high. 

iWatas


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> Defense, passing, shot blocking, and height.


His defense has improved drastically...His passing ability has as well. If we have a legitimate Center we can have them guard those KG and Duncan guys. On the other side of the spectrum none of those guys can stop Zach. 

I might be a huge Zach apologist, but the guy has been a beast this year and for the first time in his career I can say that he's trying hard on both sides of the court. At 25, we still haven't seen the finished product. Whether he can stay out of trouble, that remains to be seen, but as of now it would take a pretty good trade to let go of Randolph.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

meru said:


> "Zach Randolph is the poor man's Carlos Boozer" - discuss.


Given Boozer's history of milking injuries, particularly when his team was struggling, what's to discuss? If even half the rumors are true, Sloan would dump the guy for a sack of dirty socks.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> His defense has improved drastically...His passing ability has as well. If we have a legitimate Center we can have them guard those KG and Duncan guys. On the other side of the spectrum none of those guys can stop Zach.


his defense has improved greatly, but it's not up to par with Duncan or KG.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Hap said:


> Defense, passing, shot blocking, and height.


Which of these things is not like the others?

The only item on that list Zach can control is his passing - which is showing signs of improvement. He will never be as tall as KG/Duncan, or have the explosive leaping ability of Brand......ergo there are limits to how good he can be defending those guys or blocking shots.

OTOH, there have been plenty of all-stars, even HOFers, who were/are far better on offense than on defense. If Zach sticks with his current style of play, he is a highly valuable commodity.

I will go on record right now: in 2-3 years, LaMarcus will be the best player on the team, and one of the top 3 centers in the Western conference. That is how much faith I have in his talent, skill, and versatility. *Despite* that, I would still keep Zach - his game seems to compliment LaMarcus' very well.

Don't get me wrong - your basic point is correct. Zach is not a Tim Duncan level star. Of course, Roy is not as good as Wade......but I am not rushing to trade him either! :biggrin:


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

I wouldn't trade Zach right now, period. The way he's played this year and the fact he's still young, I'm amazed people still want to trade him. His attitude is so much better now that he's not around Darius Miles.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Given Boozer's history of milking injuries, particularly when his team was struggling, what's to discuss? If even half the rumors are true, Sloan would dump the guy for a sack of dirty socks.


And if we ignore rumors and focus on his actual play (shocking idea!) we see that he is putting up better numbers than Zach as the best player on the best team in the country. Plus he can play defense. Yet strangely enough, I don't see anyone comparing him to Garnett or Duncan. Let's cool it with the MVP talk for Zach. He's not even going to make the All-Star team if things continue as they are (including his stellar play). He won't get in ahead of Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki for certain, and Boozer deserves to get in ahead of him.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, time for a grumpy reality check.
> 
> Trading Zach and having 2 high lotto picks sounds tempting. It sounded tempting to the Bulls when they traded Brand and drafted Chandler/Curry to be the twin cornerstones of a great team.
> 
> How'd that work out for them?


Atlanta were much more sensible: they traded a lottery pick (that was WASTED on some Spanish guy) for a hometown guy who was a perennial 20-10 machine. Some guy called Shareef.

How'd that work out for them?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

No Blazer can be labeled untouchabel, all have their price. But, it would take alot to get Zach. PJ Brown, Deng, Viktor and both of Chicago's 07' 1st rounders for Zach. Thats the deal.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> No Blazer can be labeled untouchabel, all have their price. But, it would take alot to get Zach. PJ Brown, Deng, Viktor and both of Chicago's 07' 1st rounders for Zach. Thats the deal.


Read the thread: Chicago doesn't have two picks to give.

I don't think Chicago wants Zach. I really can't see Skiles going for his game - it would screw up everything they've worked to create.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

meru said:


> I really can't see Skiles going for his game - it would screw up everything they've worked to create.












It's just upgrading Sweetney. If he can integrate Sweetney into the Bulls, he can surely integrate a much better version of him.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

The questioned posed by this post is "Would you trade Zach to Bulls?"

Well that depends. 

Who are they giving up?? It better be a lot, because if the Blazers can make the playoffs or close, we are looking at having a genuine MVP candidate in ZBO.

A pick would be nice but if it ends up 6-30 we end up with someone who simply will not be able to contribute like Zach and we rebuild for another year. THE TIME IS NOW!!!

Obviously if the deal was in the blazers favor, you do it. If not.....you don't.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

I agree with drexlers dad. If you're talking about trading Zach to the Bulls, or any team, for a draft pick and filler, the question you have to ask yourself is how many players in the draft you would would over Zach. If you would take 5 (or 10) and the pick we would get would likely be 6 (or 11) or below, don't do it.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

meru said:


> And if we ignore rumors and focus on his actual play (shocking idea!) we see that he is putting up better numbers than Zach as the best player on the best team in the country. Plus he can play defense. Yet strangely enough, I don't see anyone comparing him to Garnett or Duncan. Let's cool it with the MVP talk for Zach. He's not even going to make the All-Star team if things continue as they are (including his stellar play). He won't get in ahead of Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki for certain, and Boozer deserves to get in ahead of him.



Fine, I admit I am biased.

After putting up with guys like Theo and DA, I just flat do not want another "I-can't-play-I-have-a-hangnail" type player.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

wastro said:


> If he keeps up the way he's playing right now, what separates him from Garnett or Duncan?


DEFENSE? SIZE? REBOUNDING? SCORING? PASSING? ATHLETICISM? DOMINANCE?

Seriously...are you ******* joking?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Actually...The question is how bad os NY really going to be this year? b\c CHi has the right to swap picks with them...

Yes, I think it is a risk for POR...but if they can get Deng, PJ Brown (expiring) and CHI pick for Zach...anytime in the near future....I say do it....

Deng can move into the starting SF role...Aldridge can slide into the PF spot, and you have Magliore, LaFrentz, PJ Brown and even Outlaw who are all capable of playing there as well...

and I am willing to bet NY ends up as one of the worst teams, as they did last year...and POR would give themselve TWO shots not only at Oden, but Durant & Joakim Noah....and I would take any of those guys AND Deng over Zach...

and whose to say POR wouldn't deal the expiring contracts of Brown or Magliore at the trade deadline either?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

wow magolire there is a stud lol


----------



## blzr610 (May 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> and I am willing to bet NY ends up as one of the worst teams, as they did last year...and POR would give themselve TWO shots not only at Oden, but Durant & Joakim Noah....and I would take any of those guys AND Deng over Zach...


Don't look now, but New York has the 11th worst record after benching Francis and attempting to develop a reliable rotation. The chances of getting Oden or Durant with the New York pick or even our own pick are so low that it's absurdly unrealistic to depend on that trade. 
Anyone who's obsessed with draft picks in November has obviously given up on their team, and that's the kind of lotto team mindset that accepts mediocrity. A trade like this would tank the season, stunting our team's development and make us the worst rebounders in the league. The Blazers belong in the playoffs, and I'd rather see them make a push to qualify after the all-star break when Roy and Przybilla return.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Who is relying on that trade?

and Luol Deng if you haven't noticed is a pretty damm good player...

POR HAS Aldridge, the #2 pick in the draft remember? and plenty of other options at PF to back him up...including Outlaw, LaFrentz, Magliore and PJ Brown (if he was part of the deal)...I don't think POR would miss him as much as you and some others think they would....

And where exactly did you think this team was going this year? To the playoffs? Your dreaming....

I am glad Zach is playing well, but it doesn't change the fact that he is one bad decision away from going back to persona non grata around the league...

and I don't see many teams being worse than the NY Knicks come the end of the season...

Like I said, I'd take a top 10 pick in next year's draft (if your pessemistic) and Luol Deng over Zach Randolph ANY DAY....

The Blazers MAY have a chance to escape from a poor contract choice (Zach max)...they should take advantage of it.....and if Miles retires in another year or so (one can only hope)...then they will have finally thrown off the anchor that those two poorly given contracts have weighed down this franchise with....This would be one step in the RIGHT (forward) direction...not backwards....

Sorry, but I don't see POR mild success this year as a result of Zach's "inspired" play...but rather, more the effect of a much better and harder working "supporting" class...Namely Roy (when he was healthy), Aldridge, an improved Jack, Udoka & an improved Outlaw


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

blzr610 said:


> The chances of getting Oden or Durant with the New York pick or even our own pick are so low that it's absurdly unrealistic to depend on that trade.


The odds are pretty low that _anyone_ gets Durant or Oden. But an extra pick helps a lot.



blzr610 said:


> Anyone who's obsessed with draft picks in November has obviously given up on their team, and that's the kind of lotto team mindset that accepts mediocrity.


Well, there are several Blazers employees whose sole purpose is to watch these prospects. It has nothing to do with a 'lotto team mindset' and everything to do with preparedness.

Now, if the _players_ were the ones focusing on draft picks in November I'd agree with you. But we're just fans posting on an internet forum, not team decision makers. 



blzr610 said:


> A trade like this would tank the season, stunting our team's development and make us the worst rebounders in the league.


If Zach is traded this season (and I think he will be), Portland has the likes of Jamaal Magloire, Raef LaFrentz, Joel Przybilla, LaMarcus Aldridge and Travis Outlaw to fill in. That's not a great slew of replacements, but it's formidable. 3 of those guys started last year, one is a rookie of the year candidate, and the other is in a contract year. I'll take it.



blzr610 said:


> The Blazers belong in the playoffs, and I'd rather see them make a push to qualify after the all-star break when Roy and Przybilla return.


There's a difference between modest success in the beginning of the season and modest success after the All-Star break. Even with Zach Randolph and everyone healthy, it's very unlikely that Portland gets within striking distance of the playoffs, much less makes it.

Doesn't a part of you want to see what this team can do with Brandon Roy as the #1 option?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Actually...The question is how bad os NY really going to be this year? b\c CHi has the right to swap picks with them...
> 
> Yes, I think it is a risk for POR...but if they can get Deng, PJ Brown (expiring) and CHI pick for Zach...anytime in the near future....I say do it....
> 
> ...



If we trade away Zach for Deng and Brown along with their pick, (which I doubt Chicago would do) where would we get our scoring from? Deng is a decent scorer but him and PJ Brown are not going to light it up, without Zach we have no go to scorer who we can rely on. If we could get that pick from them and everything falls in place and we get a guy like Durant it could be a big plus, but thats a lot of if's and but's. 

BTW, I usually always agree with you dead on about prospects (and were nearly always right), but if we were to get Noah it would be a horrible move. Darrell Arthur, Kansas' freshman schooled him last night. Granted he is a good shot blocker, but so are a lot of bigs. His offense is basically chippy baskets and he even struggles doing that against teams with big bodies downlow. In the NBA I think he's at best a tad bit better version of Anderson Varejao (and i'm not just saying that because they look alike).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> If we trade away Zach for Deng and Brown along with their pick, (which I doubt Chicago would do) where would we get our scoring from? Deng is a decent scorer but him and PJ Brown are not going to light it up, without Zach we have no go to scorer who we can rely on.


18 pts on 56% is only decent? Seems a quite a bit better then that to me. I'm reasonably positive that LA would score a lot more with the extra minutes and opprotunities. I'd also expect that a front line of Deng, Aldridge, and Joel would defend better then the current mix. I actually think that trade would leave Portland with about the same level of ability/talent. 



> If we could get that pick from them and everything falls in place and we get a guy like Durant it could be a big plus, but thats a lot of if's and but's.


If the team could land Deng you'd still be banking on landing Durant??? There are others I'd be more interested in.

STOMP


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Actually...The question is how bad os NY really going to be this year? b\c CHi has the right to swap picks with them...
> 
> Yes, I think it is a risk for POR...but if they can get Deng, PJ Brown (expiring) and CHI pick for Zach...anytime in the near future....I say do it....
> 
> ...



Looks to me as if NYK are going to finish better than CHI as of now. CHI can't score the ball with two non-offensive minded frontcourters (PJ & Ben). CHI might even be a lottery team if things continue.

At this point I would wait until draft night to do anything with Zach. If we get Oden then I'd trade him, if not Oden then we probably want to keep him, Aldridge and the SF we draft.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Chicago makes the playoffs so they end up better than NY. 

To me, Deng, Brown and The chicago pick (NY swap) I do right now. Deng is a vast improvement at the 3 for us. Aldridge will be more of a focus too, between the 2 we make up the socoring and probably the rebounding too.

Now we look to the draft. There are any number of talented bigs in the draft. Oden and Durant are absolutely sick talents, the dynasty defining types of talents ( when matched with good teammates) We are basically guranteed 2 picks in the top 8 of a loaded draft. That also means we have 6 shots at a top 3 pick (2 at each slot) or if Chicago misses the playoffs too ,we wnd up with 9 shots at a top 3.

We aren't making the playoffs, if we do make them we don't go far anyway. Let's keep the ultimate goal of a championship n mind and use these pieces 1 last time and really realistically start talking playoffs next year, when we as a team truely are ready.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Let's just say that the pices and circumstances are there for Portland and Chicago to be discussing a deal. I have found it interesting that Portland hasn't played Zach in the 4th quarter in either of the last 2 games too. Maybe seeing how we can look in the pinch without him.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Let's just say that the pices and circumstances are there for Portland and Chicago to be discussing a deal. I have found it interesting that Portland hasn't played Zach in the 4th quarter in either of the last 2 games too. Maybe seeing how we can look in the pinch without him.


I think it's more likely to give him a rest in a blow out. If it had got close enough I'm sure they would have put him in quick enough. Of course it wouldn't be the first time that Nate would go with the horses that got him back in it so maybe not.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

If you can send Zach for Brown's expiring contract, Deng and the rights to swap Chicago-NY's pick then you do it.

Deng will be our SF with Travis to back him up.

You still have Magloire's expiring contract, and you are off loading Randolphs yet adding Deng's salary.. a big change in money

You get a top pick in addition to ours.... its a borderline no brainer deal....

Brown and Magloire ONCE had a awesome rebounding tandem with the Hornets... it was hard to baord against them on the floor. Too bad they can not reinact it.

You DO NOT trade Travis and Martel right now.... you kep them. Lots of potential still


A PF/C core of LAMarcus, Brown, Magloire, Przybilla and LeFrentz should be able to get ur done... and still have a bit of scoring


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> BTW, I usually always agree with you dead on about prospects (and were nearly always right), but if we were to get Noah it would be a horrible move


I think Noah is better than you think he is, but I would agree that he would not be my #1 choice....Oden, Durant IMO are clearly #1 & #1A....After that it gets a little hazy with Noah, Splitter, Brandan Wright, Rush, J.Wright & possibly Bill Walker....plus potentially a few others....I think Noah is #3 out of those guys...



> Deng will be our SF with Travis to back him up.


Actually, I think playing Outlaw at PF has been part of the reason for his improved play.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> You DO NOT trade Travis and Martel right now.... you kep them. Lots of potential still


Why would Chicago do that? All we're giving up is Randolph. They're giving up PJ Brown (whom they traded Chandler for), Deng, and their 1st round pick. 

This trade idea works capwise, but I think Chicago would want some decent value in return. If Outlaw is the sticking point, you do it every time.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Let's just say that the pices and circumstances are there for Portland and Chicago to be discussing a deal. I have found it interesting that Portland hasn't played Zach in the 4th quarter in either of the last 2 games too. Maybe seeing how we can look in the pinch without him.


Against Sacramento, Zach and Jack were rested for the second half of the back-to-back.

There was a play against Phoenix where Zach forcefully high-bounce-passed the ball to Zach in the backcourt during live play. At the next deadball, Nate sentenced Zach to the end of the bench.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> possibly Bill Walker


I think he's coming out in '08.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Samuel - 

He could potentially come out in 07', he will be old enough to do so...and there were some rumours he was toying with doing that...

I agree...that if POR needs to throw something back to CHI to seal the deal then they should do it...I would even go as far as just trading for the option to switch picks with NY...or POR gets the best pick out of the three, CHI gets the 2nd best pick and NY ends up with the worst one....

It still gives POR two good chances at getting in the top 3 (Their own pick and NY)...

Outlaw has improved this year, I would throw him in the deal as a last resort, but I don't think POR will have to do that...Say what you will about Zach, but he can score, and he is a hard worker.....CHI needs a low post scoring presence, and there window is now IMO...and I don't forsee many other post players of Zach's caliber available on the market...

but yeah anyone outside of Roy, Aldridge, Jack, Webster, Pryz...and IMO Rodriguez could be dangled

Maybe the rights to Freeland? 

I do think however it is a fair deal as proposed


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> I think Noah is better than you think he is, but I would agree that he would not be my #1 choice....Oden, Durant IMO are clearly #1 & #1A....After that it gets a little hazy with Noah, Splitter, Brandan Wright, Rush, J.Wright & possibly Bill Walker....plus potentially a few others....I think Noah is #3 out of those guys...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think playing Outlaw at PF has been part of the reason for his improved play.


I have Budinger, Julian Wright, Jeff Green and Stuckey all ahead of Noah, Splitter and Rush. Wright is an interesting prospect, he kind of reminds me of Chris Bosh, without the outside dimension to his game yet.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

2007/08 Blazers???

PG Jack, Rodriquez, Dickau
SG Roy, Webster, Dixon
SF Deng, Mason MLE, Outlaw
PF Aldridge, Blazers 2007 draft pick, LeFrentz
C Oden, Przybilla, ?


Unknown = Udoka, Graham, Miles

and probably very financially responsible even with Raef's contract

Very nice lineup :woot:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> 2007/08 Blazers???
> 
> PG Jack, Rodriquez, Dickau
> SG Roy, Webster, Dixon
> ...


Waive Dickau, pick Blake back up. Resign Udoka, he's a scrub that doesn't hurt you when he comes in.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Waive Dickau, pick Blake back up. Resign Udoka, he's a scrub that doesn't hurt you when he comes in.



Honestly, Blake is really no better than Dickau. What's the point?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Honestly, Blake is really no better than Dickau. What's the point?


I think he fits in with Nate's style of play better than Dickau. He's expiring, he's cheap, and he was successful within this system last year. Why not do it?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I think he fits in with Nate's style of play better than Dickau. He's expiring, he's cheap, and he was successful within this system last year. Why not do it?




I guess I'm tired of all the also rans and never were's on our team.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I think he fits in with Nate's style of play better than Dickau. He's expiring, he's cheap, and he was successful within this system last year. Why not do it?


Because I want someone better. He was successful last year only to the point that the team won 21 games. I think Jack is better and Sergio is/will be better soon. Blake is a nice guy and I hope he finds his game again, but the Blazers need more talent. I don't like Dickau because he is not skilled enough and I don't believe Blake is much better.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I'd do that trade. 

There is something to be said about selling high, and I can't remember when Zach's trade value was higher than it was now. With all his improvements on the court, he has shown me zero in improving off the court. If we get fair value, a trade would be very wise.

I remember making this same argument last year at this time when Darius was scoring 20 a game and rumors were flying. Look at his value now. 

Also....there are rumors floating around that gasol might be available...if that's true I'd get on the phone with the Grizz and see if they have any interest...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> I think he fits in with Nate's style of play better than Dickau. He's expiring, he's cheap, and he was successful within this system last year. Why not do it?


The only reason not to would be if we could get someone else the same or better. Jack will someday be a better player, likely within the year, but is about the same right now. Sergio will be as well, but isn't yet either. He plays well controlling the ball in a Steve Nash way, but Nate doesn't like to play that way. In Nate's system, Sergio is going to take quite a while to learn to fit in, if he ever does, while we already know Blake fits in it very well. Dickau is not as good as Blake, no matter what people in here say. Roy is better, for sure, but his primary job is being the SG.

We'll have a draft pick, the MLE and some trade possibilities to work with next offseason. The draft doesn't look very PG rich in the lotto range, and I doubt we'd want a young PG anyway at this point, so it seems unlikely we will get a better PG that way. The MLE might get us one. I don't know who is available, but we also might choose to use it on a player at a different position. Or, we might not have room to even use it under the lux tax threshold. We might get a nice PG in trade somehow, but it's tough to predict.

Basically, if Jack, Sergio and Dickau are still our only PGs next season, then we are still thin at the position. Blake might be available for a two or three year contract at the bi-annual exception, and he would give us a 3rd or even 2nd string PG who brings a veteran presence and is capable in and familiar with Nate's system for a low price.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

WARNING! This post will be going off on a bit of a tangent.

For several years now, all I have heard is how weak the NBA draft is. Every year, I hear people calling the draft one of the worst in history. 

OTOH, mention the 07 draft, and people cream their jeans. Somehow, this draft is going to be the *best* in history! 

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Players like Chris Paul and LaMarcus (to cite just 2 examples) were bad-mouthed to death and grossly under-rated. This time around, the reverse seems to be happening. I may be a minority of 1, but I consider Oden the most over-hyped prospect in years. At this point, declaring him the next Duncan makes no more sense than declaring he is going to be the next Diop or Kwame Brown! You can't rationally make that kind of prediction based on a high-school career.

I can kind of see the enthusiasm over Durant. He has decided that if the rules require him to play at least 1 year of college ball, then he is going to make the most of it. He is showing a level of drive and pride.

Oden? Maybe he is really hurt. Maybe he is just pouting over having to go to school for 1 more year. Maybe he is afraid of being exposed if he steps on the court against tougher competition. None of those explanations make me all warm and fuzzy towards the guy.

In no case am I willing to gamble everything on the forlorn hope that we actually have the lotto balls fall our way, and that the player we draft actually is a future HOFer.

I will now take a :chill: and go away. :wahmbulance:


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

ODiggity said:


> yeah for Heinrich, Deng and NY's 1st rounder. The Bulls would say "NO!"


For PJ Brown, Deng, Thomas and Knicks 2007 first rounder.

Wallace/Brown/2007 first rounder/Thomas

for

Zack and Miles


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> WARNING! This post will be going off on a bit of a tangent.
> 
> For several years now, all I have heard is how weak the NBA draft is. Every year, I hear people calling the draft one of the worst in history.
> 
> ...


I suggest you do some watching and reading.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> With all his improvements on the court, he has shown me zero in improving off the court.


really. and what does zach need to do off the court to show you that he's improving? i saw he helped an old lady across the street a few days ago. all right, i lied. but maybe you know him personally that you can tell if he's been behaving according to your standards? 

to answer the main topic question, yes i'd trade zach for the right deal. the proposed deal in this thread with the bulls i'd do in a sec. if i'm paxon, i wouldn't do it.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Oden? Maybe he is really hurt. Maybe he is just pouting over having to go to school for 1 more year. Maybe he is afraid of being exposed if he steps on the court against tougher competition. None of those explanations make me all warm and fuzzy towards the guy.


maybe you should check up on him. he broke his wrist before the season started. he might be able to play with one hand, but i kind of doubt his coach want him to. he'll be back in 4 to 6 weeks, i think.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> maybe you should check up on him. he broke his wrist before the season started. he might be able to play with one hand, but i kind of doubt his coach want him to. he'll be back in 4 to 6 weeks, i think.


He's actually in a cast.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> He's actually in a cast.


yes, i knew that. i can't wait to see he and cook together.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I guess this a bit off topic as it isn't related to the Bulls, but Gasol seems to be unhappy with Memphis' direction. If he really was pushing to be traded I'd love to somehow trade Zach for him, possibly:

Randolf + Magloire + 2nd 

for 

Gasol + Cardinal

Cardinal's contract is horrible and he'd basically just occupy the end of the bench alongside Raef, but Memphis would need some additional incentive as even injured Gasol has more trade value. We'd lose a little rebounding, however the rest of Pau's game (passing/defense/BBIQ) is just much more refined than Zach's.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Verro said:


> I guess this a bit off topic as it isn't related to the Bulls, but Gasol seems to be unhappy with Memphis' direction. If he really was pushing to be traded I'd love to somehow trade Zach for him, possibly:
> 
> Randolf + Magloire + 2nd
> 
> ...


i'd take that deal. getting rid of cardinal's contract might tempt the grizz into doing that deal. i'd be much more comfortable with a frontline of Aldridge and Gasol on both ends than a frontline of Zach/Aldridge.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Verro said:


> I guess this a bit off topic as it isn't related to the Bulls, but Gasol seems to be unhappy with Memphis' direction. If he really was pushing to be traded I'd love to somehow trade Zach for him, possibly:
> 
> Randolf + Magloire + 2nd
> 
> ...


That would be great for us, but I don't think the ability to dumb Cardinal's MLE contract is enough incentive for Memphis to do it. It gives them some extra cap space, but I think if they are going to give up Gasol, that means they are going into full rebuilding mode. They are going to want space, and a combination of cheap young studs and/or great picks.

Thinking about possible deals with Zach going to Chicago or Memphis, it seems to me that it makes more sense for both of those teams to just trade with each other. Gasol would probably fill Chicago's need for a post player and make them a contender, if he comes back healthy. Memphis would benefit from the pile of salary efficient young assets Chicago could send them, which would include their pick swap rights. They would still be eating Cardinal's contract unless they could get the Bulls to take him, but they could probably easily dump Mike Miller and Damon's contracts for cap space without having to give up anything. That would allow them to tank this season and get two great picks in the draft, and they would still also have Gay, Warrick and whatever other young player Chicago would send them, to go along with mountains of future cap flexibility.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I suggest you do some watching and reading.



I may be old and cynical sonny, but I can still read. :wink: 

I have heard all the hype about Oden. I have heard him compared to everyone from Duncan to Hakeem. I have heard that he is going to be better than Amare or Dwight Howard. IMHO, that is a silly bunch of comparisons for someone who hasn't played a single game beyond the high-school level. Expectations are so high it would be a minor miracle if he could live up to them. 

If the kid somehow winds up a Blazer and if he is as good as, say, Amare - I would be quite happy with that. No reason to treat the kid like the second coming.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> That would be great for us, but I don't think the ability to dumb Cardinal's MLE contract is enough incentive for Memphis to do it.


Yeah I thought the deal was a bit too much in our favor when I was writing it. If Memphis did have interest in Zach though, I'd also include either Webster or Outlaw in the original deal while taking back Tsakalidis to match salaries.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

I agree about the hype of Oden until he proves he can do it agianst college level players he is just the over-hyped HS player ever!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I may be old and cynical sonny, but I can still read. :wink:
> 
> I have heard all the hype about Oden. I have heard him compared to everyone from Duncan to Hakeem. I have heard that he is going to be better than Amare or Dwight Howard. IMHO, that is a silly bunch of comparisons for someone who hasn't played a single game beyond the high-school level. Expectations are so high it would be a minor miracle if he could live up to them.


I'm definitely one of those _Don't believe the hype_ types. I generally form my opinions just from watching guys play. That said, in the last two drafts I'm on record wanting Chris Paul (despite Telfair being on board) and hoping the club would be lucky enough to choose between Aldridge and Roy at #4. 

I've only seen Oden play 6 minutes at the McDonald's game, but that was enough to make me a full believer in his talents and future stardom. He runs at least as well as LaMarcus, and is clearly much bigger and more athletic... dude moves like a bigger Hakeem. In those 6 minutes he blocked 5 shots. I think it was in that game that he reaggravated the wrist injury (detached tendon?) that has him laid up right now. His team was on a fast break when a ally-oop was thrown up for Slam Dunk champ Gerald Henderson (the son of former NBA player GH who will be a frosh at Duke this coming year). Henderson grabbed the ball going up to throw down a monster slam, but Oden also had eyes for that ball. He took it out of GH's hands in midair, collided with him, and still finished with a throwdown that brought his wrist down sideways hard across the rim. It was an unbelievably athletic play for anyone let alone a 7 footer on a full sprint. Supposively he played with that injury through much of his Sr. season.

When he starts playing at Ohio State (Jan. projected) I don't think it going to take you long to become a believer in how physically superior a player he is.

STOMP


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> I agree about the hype of Oden until he proves he can do it agianst college level players he is just the over-hyped HS player ever!


Yeah, just like Lebron!


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> really. and what does zach need to do off the court to show you that he's improving? i saw he helped an old lady across the street a few days ago. all right, i lied. but maybe you know him personally that you can tell if he's been behaving according to your standards?
> 
> to answer the main topic question, yes i'd trade zach for the right deal. the proposed deal in this thread with the bulls i'd do in a sec. if i'm paxon, i wouldn't do it.


When you have a rap sheet as long, and with so many recent additions as Zach's, it takes longer than a month of good behavior (or not getting caught) for me to think he is making progress.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> 2007/08 Blazers???
> 
> PG Jack, Rodriquez, Dickau
> SG Roy, Webster, Dixon
> ...


Stilll with the Chicago trade ideas

UPDATED.... with the Chicago/NY pick.. we get 2x shots at the lottery
maybe even get Oden and Durant :gopray:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Verro said:


> Cardinal's contract is horrible and he'd basically just occupy the end of the bench alongside Raef...


I'm not so sure about that. I'd expect that Portland could use a SF like BC. He's a solid outside threat (career 40% 3 pt shooter... this year 47%!) and a hustling defender. Dude is averaging over a steal a game in only 12 minutes. He might give all 6 of his fouls in under 20 minutes, but from the many times I've seen him play I know he's productive. His lack of minutes may be more a product of Memphis having too many SFs then him not being an effective player and I think he'd be an upgrade on Ime.

btw... you're correct in noting that Brian has a long and lucrative contract. He'd be a commitment.

STOMP


----------

