# Zach Randolph



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

32/24 last night. 26/16 a couple of nights before. Averaging 19/10 on the season.

:wtf:


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

Amazing Zach...unbelivable... But I remember you that he scores more than 20 points and 10 rebounds since 2005, but nobody talk about him. Now he's also the best player in NBA for offensive rebounds, he's an All Star player


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

Zach79 said:


> Amazing Zach...unbelivable... But I remember you that he scores more than 20 points and 10 rebounds since 2005, but nobody talk about him. Now he's also the best player in NBA for offensive rebounds, he's an All Star player


Z-Bo? Is that you?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Zach79 said:


> Amazing Zach...unbelivable... But I remember you that he scores more than 20 points and 10 rebounds since 2005, but nobody talk about him. Now he's also the best player in NBA for offensive rebounds, he's an All Star player


Untrue, heck most of the time I find myself defending the guy on this darn board. He seems to have a lot of haters, but notice when he's staying out of trouble and helping his young team win, they all happen to have faded into the thin air.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

FX™ said:


> 32/24 last night. 26/16 a couple of nights before. Averaging 19/10 on the season.
> 
> :wtf:


Why are you shocked about this? He does this every year.

He has a lot of illogical haters that would rather have Reggie Evans on their teams though.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Zach is a risk because he does have off the court problems that become distractions, and on the court he has some obvious flaws. He is just a terrible defender, and he used to be a black hole, I'm not sure if he is this year. 

Regardless, if he is staying out of trouble and you have a situation where you can hide his defense, then he is a pretty damn useful player.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Better yet, he's actually trying on the defensive end, which is an enormous improvement for him. After the 1-8 start the Grizz have righted the ship and have won 11/18. If they can keep this up they'll hit the high end of my estimate for them (I had them chalked in for 38-44 wins, if they keep up the .600 ball they'll hit 44-45 wins).


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

When was the last time Zach got into a off court situation?


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Randolph is a tremendous basketball player. I kind of wish New York was able to keep him, but it really did not work out for both parties.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

The most disturbing thing that needs to be pointed out is that the Grizzlies would be the 6th seeded team in the East if the Playoffs began today. I guess all of those offseason threads about the EC not only being equal to the WC but superior to it can officially be drained down the toilet.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh2fn01cngg


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

eddymac said:


> When was the last time Zach got into a off court situation?


He got a DUI in April of this year.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

In defense he's improving a lot, he's not the disaster of last year, and he's not a problem for his team anymore. He has changed mentality, he's helping his younger team-mates like Thabeet,OJ Mayo and Gay to mature. If this is not a great player...well, let's continue to exalt media phenomenons like Arenas or McGrady.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

^Are you the same Zach fan from the Blazers board a couple years back?


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

I'm talking about this Zach Randolph, the one of Memphis. I think he has changed mentality and he's an All star player, that's my opinion.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

He doesn't have a changed mentality. The only differences are that this season he is fully healthy and is the first option on offense.

Zach Randolph is one of the best in the league at creating his shot. He is also an excellent rebounder, and the past three years has developed into a decent passer.

His biggest problems are that he is not an efficient scorer (doesn't get to the line enough, likes that long jumper a little too much), and that he cannot function at anywhere near his potential unless he is the first option on offense.

You can build a playoff team around him. It'd be tough to build a contender unless he played for a good defensive coach with quality defenders around him. But a playoff team, definitely.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

He's re-writing Memphis' media guide and having his best season in several years. I've come around on him.

Averaging 29 points, 20 rebounds, three assists and two blocks in his last two games.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> He doesn't have a changed mentality. The only differences are that this season he is fully healthy and is the first option on offense.
> 
> Zach Randolph is one of the best in the league at creating his shot. He is also an excellent rebounder, and the past three years has developed into a decent passer.
> 
> His biggest problems are that he is not an efficient scorer (doesn't get to the line enough, likes that long jumper a little too much), and that he cannot function at anywhere near his potential unless he is the first option on offense.


He isn't the first offensive option in Memphis (Rudy gay) and his TS% is the best since his 2nd year in the league (55%)

And while he probably won't ever be an elite defender at least he has been trying this season. Great trade for Memphis!


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

ZBo is not the number one option, not even number two.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh2fn01cngg


Classic.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> He's re-writing Memphis' media guide and having his best season in several years. I've come around on him.


Probably has a lot to do with him playing on your favorite team.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Probably has a lot to do with him playing on your favorite team.


Which means that I get to see him play on a regular basis.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

carlos710 said:


> He isn't the first offensive option in Memphis (Rudy gay)


He's the first option in the same way Shaq was the first option in LA in '02 and '03 and at least for most of the regular season in '04. Other players (Kobe) may have taken as many / slightly more shots and have controlled the ball more and created more plays, but on the majority of possessions the Lakers were first looking at the suitability of Shaq's position on the low block.

Though Randolph actually takes the most shots on the team per minute and has the highest usage rate. Apart from when someone breaks the offense (not all that uncommon here, tbh), if Randolph gets position they are usually looking to him.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> He's the first option in the same way Shaq was the first option in LA in '02 and '03 and at least for most of the regular season in '04. Other players (Kobe) may have taken as many / slightly more shots and have controlled the ball more and created more plays, but on the majority of possessions the Lakers were first looking at the suitability of Shaq's position on the low block.
> 
> Though Randolph actually takes the most shots on the team per minute and has the highest usage rate. Apart from when someone breaks the offense (not all that uncommon here, tbh), if Randolph gets position they are usually looking to him.


I don't really want to argue about something like this, I just will suggest you to watch some grizzlies games (or ask any grizzlie fan, altho pretty much all the grizzlies fans on this site including me already told you that you are wrong) and let's see if you think that Randolph is the first offensive option on this team or that how he is used remotely resembles how shaq was used in those years

The truth is out there.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I still feel that this is just the honeymoon period for randolph in memphis. 

This is what I think will happen in the near future. Memphis misses the playoffs but hits .500 for the first time in years. In the off season Randolph asks for an extension but the Grizz either low balls him or refuses to give him an extension because of the money needed to sign Mayo/Gay/Gasol/Conley. Randolph becomes unhappy and starts doing the things that he's known for, and the Grizz either trades his expiring contract at the deadline or let him walk at the end of the season.

Of course, it is possible that the Grizz signs the guy like how they signed Milicic. In that case Grizz fans should pray that Randolph's mind holds up and continue to be the solid player that he is right now.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Which means that I get to see him play on a regular basis.


That would be a big reason, but not the only reason.

I never understood why he gets more flack than a guy like David West. Again a lot of his haters are illogical. I don't see the Clippers or Knicks any better off without him.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

33/18 tonight


----------



## MrChibbs (Jan 16, 2004)

20 and 10


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> I never understood why he gets more flack than a guy like David West. Again a lot of his haters are illogical. I don't see the Clippers or Knicks any better off without him.


David West started out as an underrated player who people only knew for his money baseline jumper. Then, once the Hornets started getting more attention because of Paul, he was in the spotlight. Everyone loves players they feel are underrated or relatively obscure. It's the triumphant I-was-into-them-when-they-were-underground thing. Plus, respect is always gained when a player's team is successful, and the Hornets were contenders one year.

Randolph on the other hand has been well known for several years, only becoming underrated after he had earned a reputation as a cancer (the worst possible tag for an NBA player -- worse than "soft", worse than "lazy", worse than "headcase", worse even than "choker"). It didn't help that he was a fat and often injured headcase. He has never in his career started on a winning team. He was the leader of the Jailblazers, probably the most disliked team of the past 20 years, who over two seasons lost something like a combined 120 games.

With all that, people forget that Randolph can score on pretty much anyone, and that West doesn't rebound, and that he (West) is only a slightly better defender and actually a slightly worse passer than Randolph.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

Another amazing performance by Zach Randolph, 33 points and 18 rebouns...what I can say...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Actually Hakeem Randolph was an underrated player. He worked his butt off to become as good a player as he is now. Instead of being praised for actually improving his game despite microfracture surgery, guy gets called a cancer. Very weird. On the other hand Mr I cant keep my word in Utah, a very similar player not only gets to go to All star games, he was on the Olympic team too.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

HB said:


> Actually Hakeem Randolph was an underrated player. He worked his butt off to become as good a player as he is now. Instead of being praised for actually improving his game despite microfracture surgery, guy gets called a cancer. Very weird. On the other hand Mr I cant keep my word in Utah, a very similar player not only gets to go to All star games, he was on the Olympic team too.


Last I checked, Carlos Boozer didn't show up on MTV Cribs with a bunch of murderers. Last I checked, Carlos Boozer didn't sucker punch a teammate in the face and break his eye socket.

Randolph has never lacked talent. His problem is that he is lazy and he's an idiot. A brutal combination. He will always inevitably want to shoot jumpers because he is a lazy and you can't tell him anything because he won't listen to you and is uncoachable because he is an idiot.

I hope that Memphis makes the playoffs then we can actually have a real discussion about his value. None of these games matter to the Randolph argument. The fact remains he hasn't won anything in this league.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Murderers? I didnt know about that, but hey Zach's never been accused of killing anyone, why should he be responsible for their crimes?

As for Booz not sucker punching a teammate and breaking his eye socket, yup thats extreme, but you know what Booz did, lol he deceived a blind man, thats almost if not more dubious.

Third paragraph is also crap, how many people win anything worthwhile when playing with crappy teammates? What have the Clippers and the Knicks done since trading Zbo? Oh I know, lotto bound.

Your second paragraph makes ZERO SENSE. ZERO!!!! Some guys just wont be great defenders, they dont have the physical abilities. How many people call Nash lazy for not playing a lick of defense? Come to think about it, dude is lazy, because he doesn't even try at times. Boozer plays no defense, is he lazy? Zach Randolph didnt suddenly just learn how to shoot from 20 feet out, he didnt just learn how to operate in the post by being lazy? He most especially can't be lazy, bouncing back from microfracture surgery and in that same season putting up 20/10. The guy worked his butt off on his game, there were articles written on how he spent most of his time in the gym.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Even if Randolph becomes a better player now his past as being a cancer to his team still remains the same. Just because he may be helping his team now doesn't mean he didn't ruin the teams before.

The most you can say about him is that he has matured and is a changed man. This has to be the 4th or 5th debate we've had on these boards about whether Randolph is wrongfully criticized. The fact of the matter is he is the only 20/10 big man that gets traded for the expiring contracts of Steve Francis and an overpaid, overweight chucker named Quentin Richardson. Unless teams and GMs are out of their minds, they wouldn't trade a normal 20/10 guy for trash.

I don't know why Boozer is being dragged into this. He has been helping teams win since he was in College. It's not his fault that Cleveland tried to lowball him.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

HB said:


> Murderers? I didnt know about that, but hey Zach's never been accused of killing anyone, why should he be responsible for their crimes?


He only carries loaded weapons and gets arrested for smoking weed in his car, while keeping company with felons.



> As for Booz not sucker punching a teammate and breaking his eye socket, yup thats extreme, but you know what Booz did, lol he deceived a blind man, thats almost if not more dubious.


No, it's not.



> Third paragraph is also crap, how many people win anything worthwhile when playing with crappy teammates? What have the Clippers and the Knicks done since trading Zbo? Oh I know, lotto bound.


He plays zero defense, has an unimpressive career PER, and is a terrible teammate. It's not a coincidence that he doesn't win. Don't act like this is some unique thought that a big man can lead his team to victory. What impactful PF/C has never even led a team to the playoffs? It's not possible in a game where there's only 5 people on a team on the floor that a superior talented big man cannot lead his team to at least the playoffs. His teams suck and it's not coincidence that they suck. The guy has no work ethic. He takes games off and he smokes weed. These are facts.



> Your second paragraph makes ZERO SENSE. ZERO!!!! Some guys just wont be great defenders, they dont have the physical abilities. How many people call Nash lazy for not playing a lick of defense? Come to think about it, dude is lazy, because he doesn't even try at times. Boozer plays no defense, is he lazy? Zach Randolph didnt suddenly just learn how to shoot from 20 feet out, he didnt just learn how to operate in the post by being lazy? He most especially can't be lazy, bouncing back from microfracture surgery and in that same season putting up 20/10. The guy worked his butt off on his game, there were articles written on how he spent most of his time in the gym.


When he wins something call me.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I think the funniest thing out of this is that the Grizz are still 2 games below .500. While it is certainly an improvement for a young team it's hardly an amazing feat. The fact that people are praising Zach Randolph has more to do with him not ****ing up a team for once.

This is kind of like how people were surprised when they saw Mike Tyson cry when his daughter died. Every normal human being would cry when something like that happens to them, but the fact that Mike Tyson actually has a normal side shocks us.

Praise Randolph all you want, but at the same time realize that we are measuring him using a different scale. If today it's Carlos Boozer or Amare or David West in Memphis and the team is winning there likely wouldn't be a thread about them.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

We've done this before, his defense is no worse than Boozer at the same point or Steve Nash for that matter. They just dont have the physical abilities. Its weird that most of his teammates seem to like the guy, maybe you know something I dont. Zach Randolph has been IN THE PLAYOFFS and was the BEST PLAYER on that team, we are not talking SAR here. Keep beating the guy has no work ethic drum, it only makes you look like a blind hater. I just told you he worked his *** off to get in shape after microfracture surgery. Seriously do you know how hard it is to put up 20/10? What you are saying is that this guy is coasting out there and still able to put up those type numbers? Wouldnt that make him one of the most talented 
players ever if he actually had a work ethic. You are making zero sense man.



> I think the funniest thing out of this is that the Grizz are still 2 games below .500. While it is certainly an improvement for a young team it's hardly an amazing feat. The fact that people are praising Zach Randolph has more to do with him not ****ing up a team for once.


So Zach ****ed up the Knicks and the Clips? Again how are those teams faring without him?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> So Zach ****ed up the Knicks and the Clips? Again how are those teams faring without him?


Then why did those teams give him away for nothing? He clearly was a problem when he was there and they realized they couldn't win with him. The fact that he had no value even to a losing team just shows what kind of player he was.

Like I said, this is not the first time Zach has been discussed in these boards and everytime we do this nobody can explain why he got traded for trash if he was such a good player. There is obviously something wrong with him. Also if it is so easy to get a 20/10 player, why hasn't any contenders jump on this? He has a big contract but if all you need to do to get him is present the equal amount of contract why hasn't anyone done it besides these teams that have nowhere to go but up?

You can drool over his stats but the fact is his 20/10 just doesn't compare to Amare or Boozer's 20/10. Try offering trash to Phoenix for Amare and let's see how that ends up. If someone can explain this phenomenon perhaps we can end this discussion once and for all.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> Then why did those teams give him away for nothing? He clearly was a problem when he was there and they realized they couldn't win with him. The fact that he had no value even to a losing team just shows what kind of player he was.


Umm ****ty management, everyone knows NY was clearing up cap space, as for the clippers, who the heck knows what they are doing, didnt make sense having Griffin and Zach though. 

There's no drooling over his stats, its just the ridiculous notion that we should dismiss a guy putting up those numbers because of some weird notion that he is a bad guy. His career isn't over, who knows if he will ever play for a contender? Boozer has been on the market for a while now, why havent any contenders picked him up?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> . He was the leader of the Jailblazers, probably the most disliked team of the past 20 years, who over two seasons lost something like a combined 120 games.


lol...you sir have no idea what you are posting about.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Umm ****ty management, everyone knows NY was clearing up cap space, as for the clippers, who the heck knows what they are doing, didnt make sense having Griffin and Zach though.
> 
> There's no drooling over his stats, its just the ridiculous notion that we should dismiss a guy putting up those numbers because of some weird notion that he is a bad guy. His career isn't over, who knows if he will ever play for a contender?


How about Portland? They signed him to that contract and then gave up on him a couple years into it. Also which 20/10 player who is in his mid 20s gets traded for expiring contracts? Tell me one player in the past 20 years that wasn't a cancer and got that treatment. You're the one that's saying that people think it is easy to get 20/10, why the hell did his teams just give him away if that was such a major accomplishment?

Nobody is dismissing the fact that Zach Randolph is having a good season but it doesn't change what he was before, which was a cancer that can help *NO TEAM*. As I said, the only reason why he's getting a thread like this *is* because that he ****ed up everywhere he went and suddenly he isn't doing something retarded. Good for him and I'm happy for fans of Memphis especially when their team is paying the guy 16 mil a year. However, it is really a joke when someone try to compare Randolph to a player such as Boozer or David West. The fact that no team in their right mind would even trade their 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th best player for Randolph just shows what type of value Randolph has in the league.



> Boozer has been on the market for a while now, why havent any contenders picked him up?


I don't know Einstein, maybe because Utah isn't trading him away for trash :lol: ? I really don't understand why you even ask this, it is always difficult to trade an allstar caliber player because there are going to be a lot of value exchanged. This isn't exactly your pop cans for pennies type of deal and unlike Randolph when he was on those teams, Boozer can actually help the Jazz while he is still there.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> How about Portland? They signed him to that contract and then gave up on him a couple years into it. Also which 20/10 player who is in his mid 20s gets traded for expiring contracts? Tell me one player in the past 20 years that wasn't a cancer and got that treatment. You're the one that's saying that people think it is easy to get 20/10, why the hell did his teams just give him away if that was such a major accomplishment?


Portland had image issues and yes Zach wasn't helping his case getting in trouble, they had to move in another direction. You keep bringing up this teams gave him up for nothing thing, okay how well are those teams doing now? I mean isn't that a legit question, if he had little to no value with them, how is that helping those teams now? Meanwhile the team he is on is doing better than expected. 

P.S. when Boozer gets traded also its not like he is going to be bringing in some value to the Jazz, most likely it will be for expiring contracts too.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Portland had image issues and yes Zach wasn't helping his case getting in trouble, they had to move in another direction.


Good job stepping on your own argument.




> You keep bringing up this teams gave him up for nothing thing, okay how well are those teams doing now? I mean isn't that a legit question, if he had little to no value with them, how is that helping those teams now? Meanwhile the team he is on is doing better than expected.


Just because you get rid of a problem on your team that doesn't mean your team will be without problems or that it will stop making new problems. Using your logic, it isn't possible for any player to be considered a cancer if they are playing for the Nets because the Nets are a horrible team. All it shows is that Randolph is such a headcase that even a team that is going nowhere can't take it. The fact that he couldn't get along with the coach or his teammates and did random stuff on the court are all evidence of him being cancer.



> P.S. when Boozer gets traded also its not like he is going to be bringing in some value to the Jazz, most likely it will be for expiring contracts too.


Boozer is an expiring contract himself so I don't see the Jazz trading him for a Steve Francis type player. Boozer's situation is also different from Randolph due to his contract being up at the end of the year and Utah not having enough money to keep him. In Randolph's case he was already signed and the team that signed him pretty much gave him away and the team that got him did the same thing.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

What argument? I didnt mention anything about Portland. I have kept referring to the Knicks and Clips, they were his last two teams. He played for Portland how many years ago?

Second paragraph, how about we just cut the bull and call a spade a spade. NY and LAC are two of the worst managed teams in the league. Its not Randolph's fault those teams dont know what the heck they are doing. He's not the one responsible for the talent he plays with, neither is he responsible for who comes in and out. Can you please elaborate on Randolph not getting along with his coach and teammates? When did this happen or are you just making stuff up now?

If you were a GM and you had a guy making so much money wouldn't you also give him away to get the contract off the books? What all star did the Grizz get back when they traded Gasol away?


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> Even if Randolph becomes a better player now his past as being a cancer to his team still remains the same. Just because he may be helping his team now doesn't mean he didn't ruin the teams before.
> 
> The most you can say about him is that he has matured and is a changed man. This has to be the 4th or 5th debate we've had on these boards about whether Randolph is wrongfully criticized. The fact of the matter is he is the only 20/10 big man that gets traded for the expiring contracts of Steve Francis and an overpaid, overweight chucker named Quentin Richardson. Unless teams and GMs are out of their minds, they wouldn't trade a normal 20/10 guy for trash.
> 
> I don't know why Boozer is being dragged into this. He has been helping teams win since he was in College. It's not his fault that Cleveland tried to lowball him.


The only 20/10 guy who gets traded for expiring contracts? You can't be that dumb.

And Zach is a better player than either Boozer or West; your defense of the former is just a sign of your own bias.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

HB said:


> Zach Randolph has been IN THE PLAYOFFS and was the BEST PLAYER on that team, we are not talking SAR here.


I said he never led his team to the playoffs. He has never been the best player on a playoff team. He made the playoffs as a reserve and that's it. They traded Rasheed to start him and they never made the playoffs after that. At least get your facts straight.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Adam said:


> I said he never led his team to the playoffs. * He has never been the best player on a playoff team. He made the playoffs as a reserve and that's it.* They traded Rasheed to start him and they never made the playoffs after that. At least get your facts straight.



Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Yes he was a reserve player the year the Blazers were in the playoffs, but he thoroughly outplayed Rasheed, that would count as being their best player no? At least for that playoff series he was their best player which was why shipping Rasheed out was a no brainer.

As for not leading teams to the playoffs, well thats mainly because he has played on ****ty teams man. The Blazers were in the lottery for a reason. The West isn't some cupcake conference man. Hopefully you dont think the Knicks and Clippers were good enough to make the playoffs when he was with them?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Sliccat said:


> The only 20/10 guy who gets traded for expiring contracts? You can't be that dumb.
> 
> And Zach is a better player than either Boozer or West; your defense of the former is just a sign of your own bias.


Read the whole thing if you're going to say something.

The only 20/10 guy who is in his mid 20s, 24 years old to be exact to be given away for expiring contracts.

Seriously, go ahead and find me somebody.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Huh how many 24 year old players are putting up 20/10 that got traded recently? Thats just a very dicey way to put it. How about comparing players capable of putting up similar numbers? Who was Pau Gasol traded for? Why was there so much outrage about it?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

HB said:


> Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Yes he was a reserve player the year the Blazers were in the playoffs, but he thoroughly outplayed Rasheed, that would count as being their best player no? At least for that playoff series he was their best player which was why shipping Rasheed out was a no brainer.


He didn't lead them to the playoffs. He hardly played during the season. You saying that he was the best player in the playoffs is a separate argument and a wrong one. Sheed played better and he played more games. That can't even be debated. Zach only got in at the end because Pippen was injured.



> As for not leading teams to the playoffs, well thats mainly because he has played on ****ty teams man. The Blazers were in the lottery for a reason. The West isn't some cupcake conference man. Hopefully you dont think the Knicks and Clippers were good enough to make the playoffs when he was with them?


We're talking about making the playoffs. We're not taking about winning a championship. Even Pau Gasol could lead garbage to the playoffs. Zach Randolph has not ever won anything. Period. That's fact.

If your argument is that he is a superior talent that makes up for his behavior then you're wrong. He isn't a superstar and his win loss record proves that. If you admit that he is only a decent player, as the facts show, then you should recognize that he deserves the criticism he gets. Better players than him get ripped for the kinds of things he does. This shouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Decent players dont put up 20/10 sorry, I am not buying that. If it were that easy, every Tom, Dick and Harry would be doing that. I guess you do have a point in that he's never really lead a team to the playoffs, but he's been there, and he proved his worth. 

Now he's still in his 20s, so his still got a lot more game left in him, if he does make the playoffs this year, I guess the whole hasn't really won anything argument goes outside the window. Someone mentioned Boozer has been proving his worth since he got in the league, come on now, dude has played on some of the most talented teams in the league. You really think Bron couldn't play with Z-bo and get the team into the playoffs?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> What argument? I didnt mention anything about Portland. I have kept referring to the Knicks and Clips, they were his last two teams. He played for Portland how many years ago?
> 
> Second paragraph, how about we just cut the bull and call a spade a spade. NY and LAC are two of the worst managed teams in the league. Its not Randolph's fault those teams dont know what the heck they are doing. He's not the one responsible for the talent he plays with, neither is he responsible for who comes in and out. Can you please elaborate on Randolph not getting along with his coach and teammates? When did this happen or are you just making stuff up now?
> 
> If you were a GM and you had a guy making so much money wouldn't you also give him away to get the contract off the books? What all star did the Grizz get back when they traded Gasol away?


That Zach Randolph has always been a cancer to his team? You are defending his past and then admits he was a problem in Portland, that is contradicting.

As for Gasol, not only was he never a 20/10 player even in his days in Memphis, he was demanding a trade. I don't recall Randolph ever asking to be traded, his teams threw him out. If you don't know the difference between the two I really don't feel like going into it here.

I thought Zach Randolph's bench fight with Nate Robinson was well documented or did you miss that. I can't imagine anyone being thrilled playing with such a blackhole on offense and I can't imagine any coach being impressed with Randolph throwing up random shots. If you are telling me that you can't see why almost every Knick fan hated Randolph I really can't do much for you rather than just tell you that he was a negative influence to that team.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

well, I stand corrected, Gasol did put up 20 and 9.8 in the year where he played 58 games. Anyway, I don't see him being relevant to this discussion since he was asking to be traded.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

There are articles from his days in Portland where his teammates were talking about how good a teammate he was. Same goes for the Knicks and the Clips, but hey what do I know. Dude NBA players go at it all the time, this is not news. How many fights do you think Kmart has gotten into? No one's calling him a bad teammate. I dont even think Nate is a good example, considering the guy cant get any playing time on the Knicks for continually acting up. That guy is too volatile.

You can't imagine any coach being thrilled with Randolph throwing up random shots? Dude what's he doing any differently in Memphis than with the Knicks and Clips? Knicks fans hated Randolph? Really? They hated one of their most productive players when there are tons of guys on that team just collecting pay checks for nothing. I must really be out of the loop OR you are making things up.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> well, I stand corrected, Gasol did put up 20 and 9.8 in the year where he played 58 games. Anyway, I don't see him being relevant to this discussion since he was asking to be traded.


Oh so him demanding a trade was the reason why he was traded for crap? Gotcha!


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Huh how many 24 year old players are putting up 20/10 that got traded recently? Thats just a very dicey way to put it. How about comparing players capable of putting up similar numbers? Who was Pau Gasol traded for? Why was there so much outrage about it?


I don't see what's dicey about it. It's a really simple logic to be honest. If you are a good player then your trade value shouldn't be trash. I don't see how anyone can argue that his value wasn't low when he got traded for trash repeatedly.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't see what's dicey about it. It's a really simple logic to be honest. *If you are a good player then your trade value shouldn't be trash.* I don't see how anyone can argue that his value wasn't low when he got traded for trash repeatedly.


Huh? What world do you live in? The last big name player that was traded for somewhat equal value was Jason Kidd. If Bosh is traded, you can bet some big name player isnt going the other way. Teams dont do that anymore.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Oh so him demanding a trade was the reason why he was traded for crap? Gotcha!


I would think being a Net fan you would know better considering that's what happened to Vince Carter when he got traded from Toronto. When a player asks to be traded his trade value decreases because theres a need for the team to trade him. If Randolph was helping the Knicks or the Blazers theres no reason for them to trade him because he wanted to be there.

The Pau Gasol trade was also labeled as one of the most one-sided trade in the history of modern NBA.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> I would think being a Net fan you would know better considering that's what happened to Vince Carter when he got traded from Toronto. When a player asks to be traded his trade value decreases because theres a need for the team to trade him. If Randolph was helping the Knicks or the Blazers theres no reason for them to trade him because he wanted to be there.
> 
> *The Pau Gasol trade was also labeled as one of the most one-sided trade in the history of modern NBA*.


Precisely and its not just because he demanded a trade. Did KG not ask out of Minny? Kidd from the Nets? And we are talking about players in their 30s where their teams got back some decent players. Gasol was still in his 20s and it was pretty obvious to anyone watching him that he could contribute.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Huh? What world do you live in? The last big name player that was traded for somewhat equal value was Jason Kidd. If Bosh is traded, you can bet some big name player isnt going the other way. Teams dont do that anymore.


#1. We have already discussed how players with expiring contracts are different than players without expiring contracts due to the fear that the guy will walk away for nothing. If Bosh is already signed to a long term contract you don't think his trade value will be a lot higher than what it is right now? If he has another 4 years on his contract and your team had a Steve Francis like player, do you think the Raptors will trade you Chris Bosh?

#2. I am not saying that expiring contracts aren't valuable. However, no team would trade a young player in his mid 20s that is putting up 20/10 for that if he isn't causing some sort of problem to his team. And yes, demanding a trade would be considered one of the many possible problems.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Precisely and its not just because he demanded a trade. Did KG not ask out of Minny? Kidd from the Nets? And we are talking about players in their 30s where their teams got back some decent players. Gasol was still in his 20s and it was pretty obvious to anyone watching him that he could contribute.


And how is this related to Zach Randolph? Both sides were content with the trade eventhough he was traded for trash. The only plausible explanation is that that is what he is worth.

In Gasol's case not only was he asking to be traded, after his trade almost everyone felt that it was an one-sided trade. Almost everyone felt Zach was traded for exactly what he was worth. The Knicks were happy that they got rid of him just like how the Blazers were glad that he left. Do you not see the difference here?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> #1. We have already discussed how players with expiring contracts are different than players without expiring contracts due to the fear that the guy will walk away for nothing. If Bosh is already signed to a long term contract you don't think his trade value will be a lot higher than what it is right now? If he has another 4 years on his contract and your team had a Steve Francis like player, do you think the Raptors will trade you Chris Bosh?
> 
> #2. I am not saying that expiring contracts aren't valuable. However, no team would trade a young player in his mid 20s that is putting up 20/10 if he isn't causing some sort of problem to his team. And yes, demanding a trade would be consider one of the many possible problems.



No I dont think Bosh's value will be higher if signed to a long term contract, matter of fact it makes him harder to get rid of. Bottom line I dont think teams are dealing the way you think they are, they aren't giving up their stars for other stars anymore.

And point number 2 is absolutely bull. Zach wasn't causing any problems to the Knicks and Clips, heck you could argue he was their most productive player. Knicks got rid of him because they supposedly were gearing towards 2010, how that turns out is anyone's guess? Clips did so because they wanted to give Griffin PT. Both teams are worse off.



> In Gasol's case not only was he asking to be traded, after his trade almost everyone felt that it was an one-sided trade. Almost everyone felt Zach was traded for exactly what he was worth. The Knicks were happy that they got rid of him just like how the Blazers were glad that he left. Do you not see the difference here?


Who is almost everyone? Because I recall lots of media pundits asking what the heck they were doing up in New York?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> No I dont think Bosh's value will be higher if signed to a long term contract, matter of fact it makes him harder to get rid of.


:sigh:

I really don't know what more there is to say. Are you really that thick?



> And point number 2 is absolutely bull. Zach wasn't causing any problems to the Knicks and Clips, heck you could argue he was their most productive player. Knicks got rid of him because they supposedly were gearing towards 2010, how that turns out is anyone's guess? Clips did so because they wanted to give Griffin PT. Both teams are worse off.


I am just going to leave with the same thing I've been asking before. Find me a guy who is putting up 20/10, who's in his mid 20s, that got traded for trash. Don't give me anyone who got traded because he was asking to be traded. And don't give me somebody whose contract is expiring and is likely going to leave.

I'm just going to leave it at that. I'm tired of arguing the same thing over and over again as this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've done so regarding Zach Randolph. Like I said, just wait until his honeymoon period with the Grizz is over and they throw him out just like how his previous teams threw him out.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Who is almost everyone? Because I recall lots of media pundits asking what the heck they were doing up in New York?


Find me one article that says the Knicks were getting ripped by trading Randolph for Mobley. I can give you about 30 about how Gasol to the Lakers was an one sided trade.

The point is those are completely different scenarios and really does nothing to help your argument. But like I said, I'm done here.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

HB said:


> No I dont think Bosh's value will be higher if signed to a long term contract, matter of fact it makes him harder to get rid of.


I'm just jumping into this thread so this may be out of context, but why would you be trying to get rid of Bosh? The point is to get players of his caliber, not trade them away.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> I am just going to leave with the same thing I've been asking before. Find me a guy who is putting up 20/10, who's in his mid 20s, that got traded for trash. Don't give me anyone who got traded because he was asking to be traded. And don't give me somebody whose contract is expiring and is likely going to leave.


I am saying this is a bull**** point because there arent many guys to go back, how do you say find me one, when Zach might as well be the only guy in that category?

Unfortunately there's no way I can videos of Mark Jackson on ESPN questioning what the heck the Knicks were doing when they traded Zach. Maybe you can help with that. But gasp I did stumble upon this thread from Knicks fans on here though.



> I really don't know what more there is to say. Are you really that thick?


No but maybe you havent realized that if you do lock the guy to a long term contract and continue to field disappointing teams, you have yourself one ticked off superstar. How do you move a guy like that with a bloated contract?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

myst said:


> I'm just jumping into this thread so this may be out of context, but why would you be trying to get rid of Bosh? The point is to get players of his caliber, not trade them away.


Bosh is going to demand a trade sooner than later, the writing is on the wall. Team cant keep losing and expect him not to want out.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> I am saying this is a bull**** point because there arent many guys to go back, how do you say find me one, when Zach might as well be the only guy in that category?
> 
> Unfortunately there's no way I can videos of Mark Jackson on ESPN questioning what the heck the Knicks were doing when they traded Zach. Maybe you can help with that. But gasp I did stumble upon this thread from Knicks fans on here though.
> 
> ...


You should look up on Twinkiefoot and the ridiculous things that he post on a daily basis. I really don't know what you're trying to prove anyway. Are you suggesting that Zach Randolph for Mobley trade is as close as being one-sided as the Gasol trade? Eventhough I don't see how the Knicks are getting ripped I don't feel like arguing about this point as it has nothing to do with the topic.

As for Bosh I think the other guy just explained it for me. If a team isn't going to trade somebody it will be harder to convince them to trade you that player, thus it will take more value for the trade to occur. Is this so difficult to understand?

I am really at a lost of words here. I am really surprise that you don't understand when theres a possibility that a player will walk away for nothing at the end of the season, his trade value will be lower than someone who isn't going to leave. We're talking about productive players here, not cancers. There are just so many reasons to why that is, I'll ask one more time if you want me to spell it out for you because I really don't feel like I need to waste my time like this.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Huh what are you talking about dude? You said Knicks fans loved the trade, I put up an article that says otherwise. Besides your point is flawed, if the Knicks intention was to dump salary, why do they need to get back anything of value? Its not Zach's fault that they found takers for his salary, he did his part, he was their best player.

Say Rashard Lewis becomes available today, do you really think teams will be fighting for his services with that bloated contract despite the fact he's a productive player? Thats my point, Bosh signing an extension and being a disgruntled start in Toronto will make it harder for the Raps to get a deal they'll like. Whats so hard about that? His value is only high to the Raps, not to the other teams in the league thinking of adding a long term contract to their payroll.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Huh what are you talking about dude? You said Knicks fans loved the trade, I put up an article that says otherwise. Besides your point is flawed, if the Knicks intention was to dump salary, why do they need to get back anything of value? Its not Zach's fault that they found takers for his salary, he did his part, he was their best player.


They didn't get Zach Randolph in order to dump salary. They traded Steve Francis for him hoping that Randolph could help them and since he obviously couldn't they traded him away. Getting Cuttino Mobley who can't even play anymore was the best they could've gotten for Randolph.



> Thats my point, Bosh signing an extension and being a disgruntled start in Toronto will make it harder for the Raps to get a deal they'll like. Whats so hard about that? His value is only high to the Raps, not to the other teams in the league thinking of adding a long term contract to their payroll.


I still don't see how Bosh being disgruntled has anything to do with this. He isn't disgruntled now and it isn't certain that he will ever be if he stays in Toronto. Moreover, whether he is disgruntled or not in the future doesn't change the fact that the Raptors could get more for him now if his contract isn't expiring at the end of the season. Why? Because he is an allstar big man that averages 20/10, those are rare and theres a big market for those. That's how 20/10 big man should be, and that's why Randolph is special.

The funny thing is all this still doesn't explain how a player who is in his mid 20s and averaging a glorious (according to HB) 20/10 gets traded for Steve Francis and then Cuttino Mobley. You can keep pulling up players with situations that are completely different from Randolph's and we can waste another couple pages. The fact remains that he is the only young big man that's averaging 20/10 that teams keep chucking out due to him being a bad fit.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Bad fit? Dude it was a salary dump, it had nothing to do with him being a bad fit.

The Knicks thread I put up pretty much answers your question, but hey you said Twinkiefoot makes ridiculous post funny that the other threads I found on there, Kitty was correcting you on a couple of points you made about the Zach trade. Is she also a ridiculous poster?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Bad fit? Dude it was a salary dump, it had nothing to do with him being a bad fit.
> 
> The Knicks thread I put up pretty much answers your question, but hey you said Twinkiefoot makes ridiculous post funny that the other threads I found on there, Kitty was correcting you on a couple of points you made about the Zach trade. Is she also a ridiculous poster?


The Knicks traded for Randolph with hopes of him helping their team. They couldn't win with Randolph and thus they moved him for expiring contracts. The fact that the Knicks didn't improve after they got Randolph shows that he is a bad fit there. It does not have to be one way or the other. Randolph in New York wasn't working out and they got expiring contracts for him because that's the market for someone like him. No picks, no young talents, just expiring contracts. It is exactly what happened to Randolph when he was in Portland, that team traded him for expiring contracts because he wasn't part of their future. Like I said, find me another player in his mid 20s that's a 20/10 who gets that sort of treatment.

This discussion about Knicks fans originated from me saying that Pau Gasol trade was an one sided trade. I asked if you feel that the Zach Randolph trade is anywhere close to being one sided as the Pau Gasol trade and you've yet to answer me. I really don't see how any of this got anything to do with the fact that he is the only 20/10 guy that gets tossed around like this. I have never had a discussion on these boards where a guy can go off several tangents without progressing his original point. So whenever you are ready, go ahead and go back to my original question. Find me that guy.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Speaking of Randolphs, his brother Anthony had 6 blocks in the first quarter after getting the start at C.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dude how are you sure the Knicks didn't go after Randolph so as to be able to help that cap situation in 2010? I mean with the way that team was constructed, one would have to question if their intentions was ever to make the playoffs. Randolph's contract off their books helps them in 2010. He was a rental. As for being the only 20/10 guy to get tossed around that way, dude has only played for 4 teams, its not like he is changing zip codes every season. And I already told you, you pretty much handicapped your question by saying name any guy in his mid 20s, who is putting up 20/10 and gets traded that way. How many guys at the age of 24, 25 can even put up 20/10? So yes I guess that makes Zach the only guy in that bracket. And I guess the Gasol trade was one more sided looking at the results today.



> Speaking of Randolphs, his brother Anthony had 6 blocks in the first quarter after getting the start at C.


Thats his brother????


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> And I already told you, you pretty much handicapped your question by saying name any guy in his mid 20s, who is putting up 20/10 and gets traded that way. How many guys at the age of 24, 25 can even put up 20/10? So yes I guess that makes Zach the only guy in that bracket.


BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET TRADED AWAY. TEAMS WANT PLAYERS LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE VALUABLE.

Jesus f'ing christ, if I didn't have more respect for this forum I would say something about your intelligence. You don't see Amare getting traded for trash, you don't see Bosh before his contract issues gets traded for trash, you don't see Elton Brand get traded for trash, and you surely didn't see Boozer gets traded for trash. That's why when I see someone like Randolph gets traded for trash, chances are that's what he is.

That was my entire point from the very beginning. Why is it that someone who is supposedly 20/10 and is young and relatively healthy gets tossed around 3 times if he doesn't have baggage. When half of the teams out there are looking for big man to build around, nobody is looking to build around Zach Randolph.

I apologize for anyone reading this thing. I feel like we all took a step back on the intellectual level.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

HB said:


> Thats his brother????


I didn't mean "brother" that they have the same parents, I meant it in the way that black people use the term, which is more meaningful I think.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

You bring up Gasol when in fact the only reason the Grizz traded him was because he wanted out. You bring up Bosh when in fact the only reason the Raptors want to trade him is because they fear he may walk at the end of the season. None of those teams initiated the need to trade. Portland traded Randolph because he wasn't in their plans. Knicks traded Randolph because he wasn't in their plans. The Clippers traded Randolph because he wasn't in their plans. How does a 20/10 big man that's in his prime keeps getting himself in these situations when in fact nobody else who's of similar age (just reaching his prime) are avoided by so many teams? Enlighten me.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Because the teams he has been on dont need him. The Knicks werent looking to build around Zach, that was never their intention. The contract man, how many times will I mention the contract? That was why they got him in the first place. The Clippers had Blake Griffin coming in, how many big men can they have on one roster. There's no way the keep Zach with all the bigs they had. Zach's no feature player I get that. But he's a decent second or third option, who said anything about building around him? Its not his fault that he gets traded to teams that don't have him in their long term plans. 

As for Boozer, lets be patient and see how the whole thing plays out.



> You bring up Gasol when in fact the only reason the Grizz traded him was because he wanted out. You bring up Bosh when in fact the only reason the Raptors want to trade him is because they fear he may walk at the end of the season. None of those teams initiated the need to trade. Portland traded Randolph because he wasn't in their plans. Knicks traded Randolph because he wasn't in their plans. The Clippers traded Randolph because he wasn't in their plans. How does a 20/10 big man that's in his prime keeps getting himself in these situations? Enlighten me.


Portland had the whole image problem, they had to trade Zach. The Knicks need the cap space, thats the reason why they took on all the bloated contracts. Dont tell me you didnt notice they've been acquiring large contracts for a while now. As for the Clippers I figure he was in their plans till they won the lottery. How is it Zach's fault that this teams trade him? He didnt pick who he wants to play for.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Because the teams he has been on dont need him. The Knicks werent looking to build around Zach, that was never their intention. The contract man, how many times will I mention the contract. That was why they got him in the first place. The Clippers had Blake Griffin coming in, how many big men can they have on one roster. There's no way the keep Zach with all the bigs they had. Zach's no feature player I get that. But he's a decent second or third option, who said anything about building around him? Its not his fault that he gets traded to teams that don't have him in their long term plans.
> 
> As for Boozer, lets be patient and see how the whole thing plays out.


When Portland signed Randolph to that huge contract they were planning on building a team with Randolph being one of the cornerstones. That did not work out. When New York traded Steve Francis for Zach Randolph they were not looking to dump salary, they were looking for someone who fits their team. That didn't work out and that's why they traded him and dumping salary was just the aftermath. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the Clippers as they didn't know they would be getting the 1st pick when they got Randolph. But to be honest, even if they didn't get Griffin, I seriously doubt Randolph would last there as by the end of his tenure he started doing random things that drove Dunleevy crazy. Youtube the clip of Randolph launchin an airball 3 at the end of game and look at Dunleevy's expression, that's the sort of thing that was going on in Clipperland.

Any team would want a 20/10 power forward as one of their building blocks. You are not convincing anybody when so many teams pass on him and the teams that had him gave him up to look for another potential 20/10 power forward. He was a cancer, period. I hope he works out in Memphis, but it is as obvious as black and white of what he did in the past.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Portland had the whole image problem, they had to trade Zach. The Knicks need the cap space, thats the reason why they took on all the bloated contracts. Dont tell me you didnt notice they've been acquiring large contracts for a while now. As for the Clippers I figure he was in their plans till they won the lottery. How is it Zach's fault that this teams trade him? He didnt pick who he wants to play for.


Zach was part of that image problem which is also why they didn't want him. That portland franchise was also losing games and was going nowhere with Randolph on the team. I don't see how that supports your point.

I already said that the Knicks traded for him because they wanted him and it didn't work. If they wanted to dump salary they could've just let Francis's contract run out. You are acting like the Knicks have been plotting 2010 forever. They have been trying to win for years and they couldn't do it and Randolph was one of the reasons why they couldn't. Just because they ended up trading him for expiring contracts doesn't mean he was a good fit there.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

No New York definitely got him for the contract, though they probably also thought he could contribute. But seriously, do you think New York would ever dream of pairing Lebron or Wade with Zach Randolph. Come on now! Lol I sorta chuckled at the Dunleavy part, not that I doubt Zbo took that shot. He has his imperfections, but Dunleavy is a ****ty coach himself, have you watched how the Clippers play, with or without Randolph?



> Any team would want a 20/10 power forward as one of their building blocks. You are not convincing anybody when so many teams pass on him and the teams that had him gave him up to look for another potential 20/10 power forward. He was a cancer, period. I hope he works out in Memphis, but it is as obvious as black and white of what he did in the past


Any team? Are you serious? Zach's not a feature player. He's just a piece to a puzzle. He can put up his 20/10 whilst being a 2nd or 3rd fiddle. You keep saying this cancer thing like its supposed to be true.I keep telling you, his teammates say good things about him. Why's that so?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> No New York definitely got him for the contract, though they probably also thought he could contribute. But seriously, do you think New York would ever dream of pairing Lebron or Wade with Zach Randolph. Come on now! Lol I sorta chuckled at the Dunleavy part, not that I doubt Zbo took that shot. He has his imperfections, but Dunleavy is a ****ty coach himself, have you watched how the Clippers play, with or without Randolph?


It doesn't matter if your coach is any good. If he draws up a play you are suppose to follow it and not just throw up a random shot that's beyond your range.

You are telling me that New York traded Steve Francis for Zach Randolph because they wanted Zach Randolph's contract? They wanted to build a team with Randolph as one of their pieces and it failed. 


> Any team? Are you serious? Zach's not a feature player. He's just a piece to a puzzle. He can put up his 20/10


Tell me a team out there that wouldn't want their power forward giving them 20/10 every night. Heck, weren't you the one who's praising Zach's ability to put up that stat?

Zach Randolph may be a piece of a puzzle, but so far he is a bad fit everywhere he's been to.


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

Is he still a blackhole?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

So you haven't noticed that New York was piling up all those large contracts for a reason? Everyone and their mother knows that the Knicks have had Lebron in their sights for a while now. Did you really think they were thinking of pairing him up with Zach? Come on man, his contract is going to help reach their 2010 FA goal.

For a while the Pacers were quite satisfied with their 20/10 guy in JO, till they realized it wasn't working. Boozer's pretty much dispensable with Utah. Big Al aint winning much. Same goes for your star player. The moral of the story is that most of this guys arent cornerstones, they are well suited to plaaying next to a more dominant scorer. Even KG was struggling with the Wolves. Zach's not a cornerstone, he's a very solid second or third option.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> So you haven't noticed that New York was piling up all those large contracts for a reason? Everyone and their mother knows that the Knicks have had Lebron in their sights for a while now. Did you really think they were thinking of pairing him up with Zach? Come on man, his contract is going to help reach their 2010 FA goal.


Sure, tell me why wouldn't they pair Lebron with Randolph? Lebron doesn't play power forward and he has been looking for a second scorer for most of his career. Why wouldn't he want a low post presence like Randolph? :funny: I mean heck, Cleveland wanted to pair Lebron up with Boozer until Boozer bailed on them. According to you isn't Randolph just as good if not better?

Your logic makes no sense. The Knicks were so far over the cap that it didn't matter whether they had Randolph's contract or not. The fact was they tried to win with Randolph/Curry/Marbury and the mob. They failed, and now they are rebuilding with Lebron being the main target. It doesn't change what happened, which was they gave up garbage to get Randolph and got garbage in return.

I am not going back to the whole players with expiring contract thing. You seem to have a short memory so I suggest you go back a few post and read it over.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You've watched the way Bron plays, you've watched the way Zach, now ask yourself, does that sound like a logical pairing? Unless of course you are just being difficult on purpose. 

Carlos Boozer can actually play off the ball, and when he was on the Cavs, from what I remember dude was getting a lot of garbage points, sorta like what David Lee does. Zach dominates the ball. This is a waste of time, you know darn well the Knicks have no intention of pairing both players up. The Knicks were trying to clear cap space up, thats always been their intention. Being over the cap wasn't their long term goal, they were going to get rid of those contracts, that was the Nolan's mandate.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> You've watched the way Bron plays, you've watched the way Zach, now ask yourself, does that sound like a logical pairing? Unless of course you are just being difficult on purpose.
> 
> Carlos Boozer can actually play off the ball, and when he was on the Cavs, from what I remember dude was getting a lot of garbage points, sorta like what David Lee does. Zach dominates the ball. This is a waste of time, you know darn well the Knicks have no intention of pairing both players up. The Knicks were trying to clear cap space up, thats always been their intention. Being over the cap wasn't their long term goal, they were going to get rid of those contracts, that was the Nolan's mandate.


Oh you mean him being a black hole on offense? Is that what you're saying? Let's just say there isn't a line out there of players that likes to play with Zach Randolph. If I'm the Knicks I wouldn't want him on the team to scare Lebron away. There is no reason why Randolph can't be effective playing off Lebron. If you've followed him you would know that he has one of the better jump shots for a big man as well as being a good finisher inside the paint. The reason why it would be hard for him to play off the ball is because he doesn't like to pass and has a tendency to break up offense and take random shots.

Like I said, trading someone with a shorter contract for someone with a longer contract in order to shed salary makes absolutely no sense. However, I will agree that we are both wasting our time here and if you are willing I would rather we just end it here. This isn't going anywhere and you sure aren't convincing me about anything with the way you've presented your points.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> lol...you sir have no idea what you are posting about.


Love the whole "I know too much about this topic to lower myself to actually participating in a meaningful way so instead will offer one-line putdowns with no explanation whatsoever" attitude. 

Randolph was clearly the franchise player for the worse half of the Jailblazer era, and was the only guy to have been on every one of those teams (unless you count the era as starting with the meltdown midway through the '01 season).


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

Zach is the most underrated player, followed by Michael Redd and David Lee. I'm sure about it


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Watching the Grizz play the Wiz, wow Zach's like a different player. Totally surprised me. He's playing passing lanes, actually moving his feet on defense, looking to pass, and running the break. Sounds too good to be true, but thats what I see on court. Maybe its one game, but dude's making an impact out there.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> Watching the Grizz play the Wiz, wow Zach's like a different player. Totally surprised me. He's playing passing lanes, actually moving his feet on defense, looking to pass, and running the break. Sounds too good to be true, but thats what I see on court. Maybe its one game, but dude's making an impact out there.


It's been like that all season (mostly). Grizzlies fans like me that actually watch them play have said so countless times but most people on this forum prefer to say random things than checking the facts.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

This team should be in the playoffs this year or next, lots of good young players. Carroll at his size will be a defensive nightmare, and his mid range J is already solid. Marc and Zach are a really good front court and Conley is a nice point guard, heck even Tinlsey still has some game. Wonder why they wanted AI in the first place.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> Say Rashard Lewis becomes available today, do you really think teams will be fighting for his services with that bloated contract despite the fact he's a productive player? Thats my point, Bosh signing an extension and being a disgruntled start in Toronto will make it harder for the Raps to get a deal they'll like. Whats so hard about that? His value is only high to the Raps, not to the other teams in the league thinking of adding a long term contract to their payroll.


Your point is valid if you're talking about roleplayers/fringe All Stars. 

However, if you're talking about a player like Chris Bosh, you're talking about a legit NBA superstar. He's a max contract kind of guy. He is a guy that you build around, so that means you would rather have him locked up for a handful of years than not. 

Think about it like this. Remember when the Brewers traded a couple young pieces for CC Sabthia and then he dipped at the end of the season? It was essentially a half season rental. NBA teams aren't looking to do something like that, I could all but promise you that if a team did decide to make a trade for Bosh a contract extension would probably be worked out before the deal was made. If not before, directly afterward. It's not hard logic to follow.

PS - @Zach79 Did you just say Michael Redd was underrated? Dude has like a 20 million dollar contract and all he can do is shoot threes.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Chris Bosh is not a superstar. Superstars don't have their teams sniffing .500 every single year (especially big men).


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

If Superstars can't play on .500 teams, does that mean Dwayne Wade isn't a superstar? The Heat are habitually mediocre in terms of regular season records. How about Chris Paul and the Hornets? 

Chris Bosh puts up superstar stats, good luck arguing against 23.5 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 1.1 bpg with a 51.5% FG%. It's not completely his fault that defense isn't in his teams culture. He showed not only the willingness, but the ability to play defense on Team USA.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Stop playing fantasy sports. Does Miami have better talent than Toronto? That team is 16-12, Toronto is 15-17. Some of you guys will never realize that great numbers outside of wins isn't impressive.

Chris Paul missed 10 games with an injury and has two seasons where he lead his team to 56 and 49 wins respectively, in a tougher conference. Bosh may put up numbers, but a superstar he is not. If he's a superstar, so is Al Jefferson.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Toronto has talent, but it's all misplaced. 

Question - Do you consider Kevin Durant a superstar?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Durant is 21. Bosh has been in the league for 7 years.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Please don't patronize me, I'm aware of their ages. Answer the question.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

23 points and 19 rebounds and shot 9-of-9 from the free throw line tonight, none bigger than the two free throws he nailed with 0.3 seconds left to send the game into overtime.

Averaging 28.2 points and 18.2 rebounds in the last five games. 

Averaging 23.3 points and 14.3 rebounds in 12 games this month, while shooting 51.4 FG%, 37.5 3FG% and 90.3 FT%. 

Averaging 20.0 points and a career-high 11.4 rebounds this season.

If O.J. Mayo didn't have 28/7/6 tonight, I might change my username right now. Randolph's a stud, and he and Marc Gasol are perfect for each other.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

HB said:


> Watching the Grizz play the Wiz, wow Zach's like a different player. Totally surprised me. He's playing passing lanes, actually moving his feet on defense, looking to pass, and running the break. Sounds too good to be true, but thats what I see on court. Maybe its one game, but dude's making an impact out there.


He's been a decent passer since his first season in New York.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

GregOden said:


> Please don't patronize me, I'm aware of their ages. Answer the question.


Durant is not a superstar. You don't become a superstar until you do it in the playoffs. Regular season stats are meaningless.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

HKF said:


> Durant is not a superstar. You don't become a superstar until you do it in the playoffs. Regular season stats are meaningless.


How far into the playoffs does it start counting? First round?


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

GregOden said:


> If Superstars can't play on .500 teams, does that mean Dwayne Wade isn't a superstar? The Heat are habitually mediocre in terms of regular season records. How about Chris Paul and the Hornets?


You again?

Number of wins since Wade has made it to the NBA.

03- 42
04- 59
05- 52
06- 44
07- 15
08- 43
09- (On pace for about 42-48 wins)

He has made it to the playoffs 5-6 seasons, and PAST the first round 3 times (including a championship)

Bosh
03- 33
04- 33
05- 27
06- 47
07- 41
08- 33
09- (On pace for about 34-41 wins)

He has made it to the playoffs 2-6 seasons, and PAST the first round 0 times.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> How far into the playoffs does it start counting? First round?


Superstars lead their teams to the playoffs and then play big when it matters. Bosh has not proven that yet. Not even close.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> 23 points and 19 rebounds and shot 9-of-9 from the free throw line tonight, none bigger than the two free throws he nailed with 0.3 seconds left to send the game into overtime.
> 
> Averaging 28.2 points and 18.2 rebounds in the last five games.
> 
> ...


OJ Mayo damm near blew that game away with the silly shots he was taking towards the end of the game. Just lucky that game went OT.

The guys on NBATV said that two game stretch were Zach had like back to back 30pt, 18-20 reb games, was the second time in NBA history where a player had put up that many points and rebounds. Wilt's the only guy to have done it.

Why isn't this guy going to the all star game? Oh I know some knuckle heads believe the guy's image is bad for the league.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

Simply put, the West is too deep for everyone to make the All-Star game. The West has guys like Durant, Melo, Dirk, Duncan and Gasol who are putting up the stats and the wins at the forward positions then some guys like Boozer, Landry and Aldridge and good competitors for Z-Bo for that spot if there is some sort of injury. But I hope Z-BO makes it. He's one of only 2 guys to be averaging a 20-10 in points and rebounds (Tim Duncan is close) and the Grizzlies are almost at 500.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Zach Randolph has to be in any discussion about best PF in the league now.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Landry in the all star discussion? Really?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

myst said:


> You again?
> 
> Number of wins since Wade has made it to the NBA.
> 
> ...


You took what I said too personally. It wasn't mean to be a pot shot at the Heat, the point I was trying to make is that you can be a superstar on a team that doesn't regularly win 60+ games.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

myst said:


> You again?
> 
> Number of wins since Wade has made it to the NBA.
> 
> ...



Teammates Wade has had during this strech:
Shaq
Caron Butler
Lamar Odom
Antoine Walker
Michael Beasley
Udionos Haslem
Eddie Jones


Notable teammates that Durant has had:
Russell Westbrook
Jeff Green


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

HB said:


> OJ Mayo damm near blew that game away with the silly shots he was taking towards the end of the game. Just lucky that game went OT.
> 
> The guys on NBATV said that two game stretch were Zach had like back to back 30pt, 18-20 reb games, was the second time in NBA history where a player had put up that many points and rebounds. Wilt's the only guy to have done it.
> 
> Why isn't this guy going to the all star game? Oh I know some knuckle heads believe the guy's image is bad for the league.


Had 64 points and 42 rebounds from Dec. 20-22. First guy to have that many points and rebounds over a two-game stretch since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from Feb. 1-3, 1978. I'm sure several others (Wilt, Russell, etc.) accomplished that before Kareem.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Had 64 points and 42 rebounds from Dec. 20-22. First guy to have that many points and rebounds over a two-game stretch since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from Feb. 1-3, 1978. I'm sure several others (Wilt, Russell, etc.) accomplished that before Kareem.


Shaq did it twice.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

It seems like he should be 35...not 28. He is kind of a Moses Malone type player. I honestly thought he was going to start sliding and he proved me wrong.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Shaq did it twice.


He combined to get 83 points and 43 rebounds in the first two games of the 2000 NBA finals I know that.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Shaq did it twice.


Well then the Elias Sports Bureau f'd up.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Zach79 said:


> Zach is the most underrated player, followed by *Michael Redd* and David Lee. I'm sure about it


Ummm...Nope.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Grizz are .500 tonight, just put a hurting on the Suns.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Kobe Bryant is the only thing standing in Z-Bo's way for Western Conference Player of the Month. There aren't any other legit candidates.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

B Roy has been a beast also in December.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Kobe Bryant is the only thing standing in Z-Bo's way for Western Conference Player of the Month. There aren't any other legit candidates.


As crazy as it is, I have to agree. Seeing Zbo these last few years has just made my lose all faith in the guy. But this year, somehow he has really stepped it up. For how long? I dont know. But you simply cant argue with the results. 

For a player who essentially has been a punch line for almost every NBA joke out there, the guy is flat out playing good basketball right now.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

OneBadLT123 said:


> As crazy as it is, I have to agree. Seeing Zbo these last few years has just made my lose all faith in the guy. But this year, somehow he has really stepped it up. For how long? I dont know. But you simply cant argue with the results.
> 
> For a player who essentially has been a punch line for almost every NBA joke out there, the guy is flat out playing good basketball right now.


Again I ask, what is he doing so differently this year? Could it be that like many other people you were quick to clown him in the past instead of looking at his production objectively?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> B Roy has been a beast also in December.


Portland has just a .500 record for the month though. Regardless of Portland's injuries, the league only gives these awards out to guys whose teams win.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

Winning ball games, shooting above .500

That's what he's doing different.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

He's a Spartan


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

gi0rdun said:


> Winning ball games, shooting above .500
> 
> That's what he's doing different.


He's played on some bad teams that are no better off without him. Not really his fault. He's not a franchise player obviously (and still isn't).

And I looked it up and he's a career .469 percent shooter. Not a drastic enough increase for people to go from calling him garbage to arguably the league's best PF.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again I ask, what is he doing so differently this year?


He's lost 15 pounds and gotten in shape this season, which has allowed him to play on the block more this season than in years past, when he'd lazily hoist up perimeter shots. 

Also leading the league in offensive rebounding and shooting over 50 percent.

His production is basically the same, actually a small uptick, but he's been doing it more efficiently.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

He truly is one of the most skilled basketball players in the league. I truly believe the only reason people think Elton Brand was better than him was because Elton was a nice guy.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

HKF said:


> He truly is one of the most skilled basketball players in the league. I truly believe the only reason people think Elton Brand was better than him was because Elton was a nice guy.


Elton Brand and Jermaine O'Neal were two of the most overrated players of this past decade. I remember the endless debates about JO and Brand vs. Dirk and how they were on the level of Duncan and Garnett. JO was even 3rd in MVP voting one year shooting an embarrassing 43% from the field.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again I ask, what is he doing so differently this year? Could it be that like many other people you were quick to clown him in the past instead of looking at his production objectively?


His energy level has been much, much better than usual, he's focusing more on his inside shot, and he's moving the ball around more. Besides that, a 3% improvement in FG% is very nice.

Funny, though. I don't see all those people who were clowning him before the season. Almost like they disappeared.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

hahahha Z-Bo so lazy and fat ahahhaha.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

- against Indiana: 26 points and 16 rebounds (Memphis won the game)
- against Denver: 32 points and 24 rebounds (Memphis won the game)
- against Golden State: 33 points and 18 rebounds (Memphis won the game)
- against Dallas: 27 points and 14 rebounds (Memphis lost the game by 5)
- against Washington: 23 points and 19 rebounds (Memphis won the game)
- against Indiana: 28 points and 13 rebounds (Memphis won the game)
- against Phoenix (last game): 18 points and 11 rebounds (Memphis won by 25)
Zach is playing as one of the best players


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXKeLpknvksp


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sliccat said:


> His energy level has been much, much better than usual, he's focusing more on his inside shot, and he's moving the ball around more. Besides that, a 3% improvement in FG% is very nice.
> 
> Funny, though. I don't see all those people who were clowning him before the season. Almost like they disappeared.


A lot of people on this board just dont know what the heck they are talking about. Someone in this thread said the guy is lazy. How the heck does he keep adding so much to his game? How's he lazy and dedicates himself to keeping in shape? Oh and its not brian by the way. Me thinks the Spurs should think of getting this guy, but unfortunately they don't have much that would interest the Grizz.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

HB said:


> A lot of people on this board just dont know what the heck they are talking about. Someone in this thread said the guy is lazy. How the heck does he keep adding so much to his game? How's he lazy and dedicates himself to keeping in shape? Oh and its not brian by the way. Me thinks the Spurs should think of getting this guy, but unfortunately they don't have much that would interest the Grizz.


Zach and Jamal got shafted by the debacle that was the NY knicks. They never were as bad as people made them out to be, but their flaws were accentuated by being on the worst possible team for their talents. 

Now that they're on better teams, people are starting to wake up, though.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ Randolph, yes. But Jamal Crawford had free reign in NY for a while. The Knicks weren't holding him back. It was entirely his fault that he needed to be around better players have a more specialised role to really succeed.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

27/14 also for the victory against Portland. What a player Zach is...


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> ^ Randolph, yes. But Jamal Crawford had free reign in NY for a while. The Knicks weren't holding him back. It was entirely his fault that he needed to be around better players have a more specialised role to really succeed.


So would every player in the league. Jamal was one of the few constants on that team, and he never had any real locker room or off-the-court issues. I never said he was an MVP player, he's just a good player who people made a demon out of.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

As one of the people who (loudly) doubted the Randolph trade this summer, I figure I should chime in. I always stated that with Randolph it's been a matter of attitude and not of talent, at no point did I say he wasn't capable of doing this, just that he's generally crazy and it tends to bring his teams down. However, chalk it up to calming down with age, the embarrassment of being dumped for nothing by three separate teams, or just going into contract mode a season early, but this year he's dialed in and playing hard. 

I fully expected him to hover somewhere around 20-10, like he's done in the past, and the Grizz to be a dysfunctional mess with not enough shots to go around, but only the first half of my prediction has proven true. I think Memphis should ride Randolph through this season and next and possibly get one or two playoff appearances out of it, but you have to really think about whether it's a good idea to re-sign him in the summer of 2011. He'll be 30 years old that summer, and assuming he posts two years of 20-12 with good behavior he'll likely command a huge deal in a weak free-agent class. The question becomes do you want to be paying a 34-year old Randolph 20 million a few years out?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

After the new CBA, there is no way Zach Randolph commands anywhere near $20 million.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Even if Randolph plays this way for two years, he's not getting a new contract that averages higher than $10m per year.

I gotta hand it to him, though. He's playing well. I'm cheering for him.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Admittedly, 20 million was an exaggeration on my part, but Randolph is still going to get well north of 10 million a year if he keeps playing like this. Keep in mind that the free agent class two years from now is pretty bare, and Randolph could wind up one of if not the best player to change teams that summer, he's going to get overpaid by someone. The issue is how likely is he to stay sane and productive with a huge contract in his early thirties.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Even if Randolph plays this way for two years, he's not getting a new contract that averages higher than $10m per year.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The man's posted 21.4/12 numbers on .523/1.145 shooting since the Grizz sent Iverson home. It's a pity they ever brought him in, Z-Bo's posting MVP numbers now.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

^I said he was MVP in that MVP thread.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I liked the Randolph trade until they brought in Iverson, at which point I took back my confident prediction that they'd make the playoffs, the CF potential was too high. Good thing they figured it out quickly and gave AI the gas. If they keep up this pace they should hit 46-48 wins.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Thing is, Randolph has put up these kinda numbers before and hasnt gotten much respect...its just that I guess now he's doing it more efficiently on a team which is starting to really play some good ball.

I remember a while back someone saying Randolph was Boozer's equal and getting laughed at on here, but they really are pretty similar players.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Sliccat said:


> So would every player in the league. Jamal was one of the few constants on that team, and he never had any real locker room or off-the-court issues. I never said he was an MVP player, he's just a good player who people made a demon out of.


The majority of perimeter players in this league who can create their own shot would increase their production if given greater freedom. Crawford didn't, partly because he is not a good decision-maker. While his emotional stability may have been a constant, his shot certainly wasn't.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

23 and 15 against the Spurs, he's playing very well. Anyway, I didn't say he's an MVP player because currently he's not, but he's one of the best forwards in the entire league. He deserves the All star games. 
Look at this http://www.nba.com/video/teams/grizzlies/2010/01/13/randolph100108mp4-1183034/index.html


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Would Z-Bo be a more convincing MVP candidate if Memphis were in the East? There's no denying the votes favour the better teams, and give them the same record in the East, they'd be the 5th seed. You're not getting recognition by not being in the play-offs at the moment.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

I've never seen such a dedicated Zach Randolph fan before (Zach79)...


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

That's not a fan, it's the actual Zach Randolf. He's just lonely.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

briaN37 said:


> I've never seen such a dedicated Zach Randolph fan before (Zach79)...


Yes, because most of people talk about players like Iverson, McGrady, O'Neal (the one of Phoenix, Cavs and so on, not the one of LA), players who never play but earn much more than Z-Bo, David Lee, Michael Redd, Kaman...and I think that's not fair


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The guys on NBATV like bringing him in for interviews, and the one thing that strikes me is that he ALWAYS gives credit to the guy he plays with. For a supposedly 'me first' guy, he sure doesnt like to take credit for his teams' wins and rightfully so. They asked him about what the allstar game would mean to him and his face brightened, said he worked hard this off season and would love to be an allstar and represent....wait for it...HIS ORGANIZATION!


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

I said in another thread that there should be a campaign for Zach to get into the playoffs. The dude is flat out balling this season, and the man deserves his props!


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

23AJ said:


> I said in another thread that there should be a campaign for Zach to get into the playoffs. The dude is flat out balling this season, and the man deserves his props!


You mean All-Star game. It would be a shame if he didn't get in.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Randolph would be on my ballot.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Basel said:


> You mean All-Star game. It would be a shame if he didn't get in.


This.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Zach will be an All-Star. There's absolutely no reason he shouldn't be, and it's going to happen.

For some reason, dumbasses like Kenny Smith keep saying Rudy Gay or Aaron Brooks are more deserving. Dumbass Kenny Smith is going to be wrong.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

If Zach isn't an all-star I hope someone gives me a very good reason why, because he's just as good as any power forward in that Western Conference right now.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)




----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Swishhhhhh, nice.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> For some reason, dumbasses like Kenny Smith keep saying Rudy Gay or Aaron Brooks are more deserving. Dumbass Kenny Smith is going to be wrong.


To be fair, at least some of that is because the TNT crew needs things to argue about to make the show entertaining. If they all agreed on their ballots they wouldn't have too much to talk about, but when they can go back and forth riding each other for questionable picks it's much easier to keep the show funny while filling time. It's the same principle that keeps Skip Bayless employed by ESPN. I'm not convinced he actually thinks all the things that he argues, but rather that he's the networks' professional contrarian.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> CA reports Zach Randolph will be named to the All-Star team. thank goodness. it would have been a travesty if he did not. - Chris Vernon


I feel like bumping all those Zbo threads were BBF posters were spewing ignorant nonsense

*This works also*


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Hurrah.


----------



## Zach79 (May 26, 2009)

And now I want to see how he plays against Duncan and the Spurs.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

:funny:


Zach79 said:


> And now I want to see how he plays against Duncan and the Spurs.


We already have beaten the Spurs twice I think...


----------

