# Zach headed to the Bucks? [merged]



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> --- NBA source told me via telephone on Wednesday night that Zach Randolph is on the trading block, and that he's likely to end up in Milwaukee. Keep an eye on that, if you need a sideshow. I don't know about you, but when I think of Z-Bo going to Milwaukee, I keep seeing the Hoops Family going down the street, headed to the Shotz Brewery, arms linked, doing the "schlemiel-schlamazel" while singing, "There is nothing we won't try, never heard the word impossible..."


Is it possible that Isiah Thomas (that astute judge of talent) has finally realized what Portland already knew--that you can't really build a "team" around Randolph?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/johncanzano/2008/01/nellie_to_the_rose_city_we_did.html


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Why would Milwaukee want him?


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

You can't have it both ways. Either Nash was a genius and all the
great pieces he assembled couldn't help Zach, or Nash sucked - didn't
give Zach the pieces he needed.

Zach has some holes in his game, but place Oden, Roy, and LMA around
him and you'd have a great team. We opted against that, and for good
reason. Zach really hasn't gotten a chance on the court to play with
really good players. Give him a break.

If this rumor is true, then I say good for Milwaukie and good for Zach.
It would be another mistake by IT. Zach's not the one they need to
get rid of, it's Curry. Neither Curry nor Zach play much defense, but
Zach is an excellent rebounder - Curry... not so much.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



wizmentor said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either Nash was a genius and all the
> great pieces he assembled couldn't help Zach, or Nash sucked - didn't
> give Zach the pieces he needed.
> 
> ...


Are you kidding me? NY has TONS of good players. Zach is a parasite. He ruins teams.
Watch him go to the Bucks and watch the Bucks become the worst team in the league, as was Portland when we had Zach, and as is NY when they have Zach. 

Get off his tip man...


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Resume said:


> Are you kidding me? NY has TONS of good players. Zach is a parasite. He ruins teams.
> Watch him go to the Bucks and watch the Bucks become the worst team in the league, as was Portland when we had Zach, and as is NY when they have Zach.
> 
> Get off his tip man...


lol, they sure were a dominant playoff team before Zach dragged them down :biggrin:


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Resume said:


> Are you kidding me? NY has TONS of good players. Zach is a parasite. He ruins teams.
> Watch him go to the Bucks and watch the Bucks become the worst team in the league, as was Portland when we had Zach, and as is NY when they have Zach.
> 
> Get off his tip man...


NY was a mess before Zach got there and they'll STAY a mess until Isiah is gone. You can't blame the Knicks on Randolph. Plus, it's not like they gave up a ton to get him either. They have a long history of terrible draft picks, horrible trades, and poor overall coaching and management. Isiah gave Larry Brown ONE year to turn around that sinking ship and then he fired him. If that's not piss poor management I don't know what is.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

If Zach goes to Milwaukee, or any other team in the NBA, he has to see that as deliverance.

Feel sorry for whoever the Knicks get back.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

really the only way i see milwaukie take ZBO is if they can unload bobby simmons and dan gadzuric onto the knicks. which will actually make the knicks worse imo. if thats possible.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



crandc said:


> Feel sorry for whoever the Knicks get back.


great observation. not only will they be arriving on a bad Knicks team with even less talent, odds are the players in exchange won't be very good anyway. 

if the best we could get for Randolph at the end of a great statistical year was Frye, a trade exception and Francis (who was cut), imagine what his value is at now. 

somebody is going to get a really nice bargain for Randolph.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

lets make it a three team deal and unload Miles on someone... hell if we only get back one of the teams water boy for D Miles I would be happy.


----------



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

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

One thing I can't figure out in the Knicks/Bucks trade talks... Exactly which team is having the fire sale? It seems like both are looking to dump players/salary and re-load. How can they both accomplish the same thing without involving a third team?

So, the great Zack/Eddy experiment lasted a whole 34 games. Of course, everyone not named Isiah saw that train wreck coming before the trains left the station. But, another problem with the original Zach trade is that the Knicks two most productive players (Zach and David Lee) play the same position. So, not only do Zach and Eddy get in each others way, David Lee's PT is down since Zach arrived in NY. While you can't blame the Knick problems on Zach (Isiah deserves the blame in ALL of NY's woes), he is simply not a good fit on their roster - but we all knew that BEFORE the trade. Sending him to the Bucks for their table scraps won't turn the Kicks season around (it may even make them worse - if that's possible), but it will help correct the roster conflicts created when Isiah acquired Zach. 

Frankly, the Knicks have so many other problems, I don't think trading or keeping Zach will make a bit of difference in the big picture. Isiah the coach is on the hot seat right now, with his team at 9-25. So, Isiah the GM is desperate to make a move - even if it's just one to undo the last one he made. That can't be a good thing of you're a Knicks fan. Isiah makes bad decisions/trades when he not panicking. Imagine the doozy he'll pull off this time.

BNM


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Resume said:


> Are you kidding me? NY has TONS of good players. Zach is a parasite. He ruins teams.
> Watch him go to the Bucks and watch the Bucks become the worst team in the league, as was Portland when we had Zach, and as is NY when they have Zach.
> 
> Get off his tip man...


Yes. New York has a lot of good players. 

Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Hideki Matsui...oh you're talking about the knicks? EDIT: No personal attacks please. sa1177


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Boob-No-More said:


> One thing I can't figure out in the Knicks/Bucks trade talks... Exactly which team is having the fire sale? It seems like both are looking to dump players/salary and re-load. How can they both accomplish the same thing without involving a third team?
> 
> So, the great Zack/Eddy experiment lasted a whole 34 games. Of course, everyone not named Isiah saw that train wreck coming before the trains left the station. But, another problem with the original Zach trade is that the Knicks two most productive players (Zach and David Lee) play the same position. So, not only do Zach and Eddy get in each others way, Davis Lee's PT is down since Zach arrived in NY. While you can't blame the Knick problems on Zach (Isiah deserves the blame in ALL of NY's woes), he is simply not a good fit on their roster - but we all knew that BEFORE the trade. Sending him to the Bucks for their table scraps won't turn the Kicks season around (it may even make them worse - if that's possible), but it will help correct the roster conflicts created when Isiah acquired Zach.
> 
> ...




The Knicks guards are worse than the Blazer guards when Zach was here (pre-Roy of course). Jamaal Crawford, Starbury, Nate Robinson? 

Very frustrating to watch. 

If the Bucks keep Michael Redd and add Zach, they should have some nice inside/outside game but they're looking to dump Redd I guess....Zach will provide low post scoring and rebounding....Charlie Villanueva is exposed as not the elite player many hyped him up to be after a season...I guess they're building around Yi and Bogut.....if they can somehow jettison Redd's contract then they can probably acquire Zach.....Michael Redd on the Knicks would be a good move in the right direction......


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

IMO it's pretty clear Zbo will never lead a team to anywhere near a championship. The Blazers are clearly better sans Zach regardless of who we got in return for him.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:










:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



wizmentor said:


> Zach has some holes in his game, but place Oden, Roy, and LMA around
> him and you'd have a great team. We opted against that, and for good
> reason. Zach really hasn't gotten a chance on the court to play with
> really good players. Give him a break.


I sort of agree that if Zach were here, we'd still be a good team but I don't think we'd be as good as we are right now.
All the ball movement, the free flowing offense and seeing a different guy contribute in a big way every night is partly a testament to Zach not being here, and holding the ball in the post.

I still think though Zach can be a contributor on a playoff team, I don't think he's a Shareef Abdur-Rahim type player who gets numbers but can't win. He's played in a rebuilding era in Portland, and he's playing for idiots and with idiots in New York.

Going to Milwaukee could be interesting for him.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Sounds perfect. Zach makes a lot of bucks. They have a lot in common.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



alext42083 said:


> I sort of agree that if Zach were here, we'd still be a good team but I don't think we'd be as good as we are right now.
> All the ball movement, the free flowing offense and seeing a different guy contribute in a big way every night is partly a testament to Zach not being here, and holding the ball in the post.
> 
> I still think though Zach can be a contributor on a playoff team, I don't think he's a Shareef Abdur-Rahim type player who gets numbers but can't win. He's played in a rebuilding era in Portland, and he's playing for idiots and with idiots in New York.
> ...



You can say if Dirk Nowitzki was here, we'd still be a good team but probably not as good as we are right now. And this is last year's MVP. Its hard to be better than we are right now...at least chemistry wise.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



alext42083 said:


> I sort of agree that if Zach were here, we'd still be a good team but I don't think we'd be as good as we are right now.
> All the ball movement, the free flowing offense and seeing a different guy contribute in a big way every night is partly a testament to Zach not being here, and holding the ball in the post.
> 
> I still think though Zach can be a contributor on a playoff team, I don't think he's a Shareef Abdur-Rahim type player who gets numbers but can't win. He's played in a rebuilding era in Portland, and he's playing for idiots and with idiots in New York.
> ...



I don't agree at all, and I am sure to all of you it is not a surprise. The whole reason the Blazers are better this year, is that Zbo is not here. Everything you talk about Zbo doing that would weaken the Blazers game, are the things he did before when the team wasn't successful, and is the exact opposite of what is occuring now with the team. Brandon Roy can't be Brandon Roy unless he dominates the ball, not Zbo. I don't know about you, but a guy who dominates the ball and comes just short of a triple double each night is more effective then a guy who is a ballhog and who doesn't pass the ball, and takes questionable shot selection. Ball movememnt which is present every posession now, and makes all the players on the team better, is non existent in a Zbo offense. If you don't make Zbo the focus of the offense, he becomes a total detriment on the floor. The Blazers get back on defense now, did Zbo ever run back on defense? There was nothing more frustrating then watching Zbo jaw with a ref about a non call while the opposing PF is dunking on the other end. 

Zbo IMO, is similar to Harvey Grant. He is a guy who can score the ball on a bad team, but he will never be part of a good winning team. 

Milwaukee is very bad defensivly already. If they did this trade, they would sink to the bottom of the league.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> You can say if Dirk Nowitzki was here, we'd still be a good team but probably not as good as we are right now. And this is last year's MVP. Its hard to be better than we are right now...at least chemistry wise.


True. I just wanted to make a point that I think Zach can be a contributor on a playoff team, BUT we're way better off without him.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



alext42083 said:


> True. I just wanted to make a point that I think Zach can be a contributor on a playoff team, BUT we're way better off without him.


Which I think is true. Surround him in a decent system with good players, I think he'll contribute. He's never been in a good system with good players. Last year was one of the first and he played less selfishly than in the past.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



hasoos said:


> I don't agree at all, and I am sure to all of you it is not a surprise. The whole reason the Blazers are better this year, is that Zbo is not here. Everything you talk about Zbo doing that would weaken the Blazers game, are the things he did before when the team wasn't successful, and is the exact opposite of what is occuring now with the team. Brandon Roy can't be Brandon Roy unless he dominates the ball, not Zbo. I don't know about you, but a guy who dominates the ball and comes just short of a triple double each night is more effective then a guy who is a ballhog and who doesn't pass the ball, and takes questionable shot selection. Ball movememnt which is present every posession now, and makes all the players on the team better, is non existent in a Zbo offense. If you don't make Zbo the focus of the offense, he becomes a total detriment on the floor. The Blazers get back on defense now, did Zbo ever run back on defense? There was nothing more frustrating then watching Zbo jaw with a ref about a non call while the opposing PF is dunking on the other end.
> 
> Zbo IMO, is similar to Harvey Grant. He is a guy who can score the ball on a bad team, but he will never be part of a good winning team.
> 
> Milwaukee is very bad defensivly already. If they did this trade, they would sink to the bottom of the league.


The reason the blazers are good this year is not because Zach is not here. Its because Roy is playing out of his mind, Travis Outlaw and Martell Webster have matured and grown and we have a young team that is growing. We have a real center unlike last year with Joel Pryzbilla and a solid point guard in Steve Blake. Sergio Rodriguez is getting more NBA burn time and Jarrett Jack is playing SG instead of PG. 

But of course, if you want to discount all of that and blame Zach and not give proper respect to our player's development, then so be it.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



hasoos said:


> I don't agree at all, and I am sure to all of you it is not a surprise. The whole reason the Blazers are better this year, is that Zbo is not here. Everything you talk about Zbo doing that would weaken the Blazers game, are the things he did before when the team wasn't successful, and is the exact opposite of what is occuring now with the team. Brandon Roy can't be Brandon Roy unless he dominates the ball, not Zbo. I don't know about you, but a guy who dominates the ball and comes just short of a triple double each night is more effective then a guy who is a ballhog and who doesn't pass the ball, and takes questionable shot selection. Ball movememnt which is present every posession now, and makes all the players on the team better, is non existent in a Zbo offense. If you don't make Zbo the focus of the offense, he becomes a total detriment on the floor. The Blazers get back on defense now, did Zbo ever run back on defense? There was nothing more frustrating then watching Zbo jaw with a ref about a non call while the opposing PF is dunking on the other end.
> 
> Zbo IMO, is similar to Harvey Grant. He is a guy who can score the ball on a bad team, but he will never be part of a good winning team.
> 
> Milwaukee is very bad defensivly already. If they did this trade, they would sink to the bottom of the league.


Which part are you disagreeing with me on? I'm assuming the one where I said Zach can be a contributor on a playoff team because I said what you said, that all the ball movement that's going on with our offense and a different guy stepping up every night is partly attributed to Zach not being here.

I think if Zach were in Chicago and provided that team with a badly needed low-post presence, they'd be a playoff team. And Zach's defensive mistakes would be covered up by Ben Wallace.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



alext42083 said:


> I think if Zach were in Chicago and provided that team with a badly needed low-post presence, they'd be a playoff team. And Zach's defensive mistakes would be covered up by Ben Wallace.


I agree.


----------



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

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

I just love this quote from our old pal Chuck Swirsky:



The Chuckster said:


> "A writer who covers the Blazers is reporting Zach Randolph could be traded to the Bucks. I can tell you this... the majority of scouts I've spoken to are of the belief the Randolph - Curry experiment isn't working."


Uh Chuck, you don't need to poll NBA scouts to reach that conclusion. In case the 9-25 record isn't a big enough clue, consider that the majority of people with a pulse knew the Zach/Eddy experiment was doomed to fail the instant the trade was announced. It seems Isiah Thomas and Chuck Swirsky are the only ones who needed 34 games to realize the inevitable.

BNM


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> The reason the blazers are good this year is not because Zach is not here. Its because Roy is playing out of his mind, Travis Outlaw and Martell Webster have matured and grown and we have a young team that is growing. We have a real center unlike last year with Joel Pryzbilla and a solid point guard in Steve Blake. Sergio Rodriguez is getting more NBA burn time and Jarrett Jack is playing SG instead of PG.
> 
> But of course, if you want to discount all of that and blame Zach and not give proper respect to our player's development, then so be it.


All true...but would those players you listed above be getting the opportunities to contribute that they are currently getting if Zach was still here taking 25-30 shots a game? I just don't see Zach as a part of the new offense we are running. Or the new defense schemes for that matter.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rYY338_JgvI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rYY338_JgvI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:biggrin:


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



NateBishop3 said:


> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rYY338_JgvI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rYY338_JgvI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
> 
> :biggrin:


Go post that in the knicks forum lol


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



sa1177 said:


> All true...but would those players you listed above be getting the opportunities to contribute that they are currently getting if Zach was still here taking 25-30 shots a game? I just don't see Zach as a part of the new offense we are running. Or the new defense schemes for that matter.


I think Zach was a ballhog out of necessity, not nature. If he had good players surrounding him, he would feel more comfortable passing out. This happened more last year than in previous years....when he's back on a bad team that needs a guy to hoist up shot after shot, he will. I don't say he's the consummate team player but with this squad I don't think Zach would get 25-30 shots a game.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Ah.. can't forget that classic Stephon video. hahaha

"We got a younger, youthier, per... player, within.. with uh... Zach Randolph"


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> I think Zach was a ballhog out of necessity, not nature. If he had good players surrounding him, he would feel more comfortable passing out. This happened more last year than in previous years....when he's back on a bad team that needs a guy to hoist up shot after shot, he will. I don't say he's the consummate team player but with this squad I don't think Zach would get 25-30 shots a game.


You may be right, but I wonder how Zbo would feel about going from being option #1 to being option #3. We would also have a logjam at PF with him and Lamarcus as it is prety clear Lamarcu cannot play center for long stretches.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Zach is like Randy Moss..he really needs to go to a team like the Spurs who won't play him unless he figures out how to share the ball and play team defense. I do feel for the guy though..gets dealt and then sees us having the season of a lifetime so far.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Enough, both of you. -sa1177


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Resume said:


> Are you kidding me? NY has TONS of good players. Zach is a parasite. He ruins teams.
> Watch him go to the Bucks and watch the Bucks become the worst team in the league, as was Portland when we had Zach, and as is NY when they have Zach.
> 
> Get off his tip man...


Yes, New York was just in such fine shape with Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, and Eddy Curry beforehand.

Their team really isn't very good, and it's not only because of him. Saying they have tons of good players is one of the biggest exaggerations I've ever heard.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



LameR said:


> Yes, New York was just in such fine shape with Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, and Eddy Curry beforehand.
> 
> Their team really isn't very good, and it's not only because of him. Saying they have tons of good players is one of the biggest exaggerations I've ever heard.



Maybe if you inserted the words "over rated" in there it could work. Talk about a team filled with low percentage volume shooters who don't defend. There is nothing worse for a team.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Resume said:


> How cute... I hurt Xericx feelings.


see above -sa1177


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that Crapzano made this up just to get attention.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

I hope Zach ends up in a better situation where he can thrive. I don't understand the hatred. Obviously it was time for the Blazers to cut ties but I still give him credit for almost single handedly beating Dallas in that last play off series the Blazers were in. 

He worked his butt off here and wanted to stay here. So he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I don't think he's a bad guy at all and I wish him the best.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> The reason the blazers are good this year is not because Zach is not here. Its because Roy is playing out of his mind, Travis Outlaw and Martell Webster have matured and grown and we have a young team that is growing.


That's not the whole story. Zach was a black hole on offense. When he got the ball, the rest of the players literally stopped moving. The MOA was stand around, stand around, stand around while Zach did his thing.

This year's offense is structured completely differently, and it stresses ball movement and finding the open man (and the hot man!). That's a real sea change, and it wouldn't have been possible without getting rid of Zach.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



hasoos said:


> The whole reason the Blazers are better this year, is that Zbo is not here.


so we could've won 17 of 18 games last year too, if only Zach hadn't held us back? 

I doubt you'll find many on this board who'd agree with that idea.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> The reason the blazers are good this year is not because Zach is not here. Its because Roy is playing out of his mind, Travis Outlaw and Martell Webster have matured and grown and we have a young team that is growing. We have a real center unlike last year with Joel Pryzbilla and a solid point guard in Steve Blake. Sergio Rodriguez is getting more NBA burn time and Jarrett Jack is playing SG instead of PG.
> 
> *But of course, if you want to discount all of that and blame Zach and not give proper respect to our player's development, then so be it.*


Our players have been given a chance to develop because of Zach being gone. When you don't get opportunities because you have a black-hole on offense constantly dribbling the ball and not looking for open teammates, it hinders a young players growth.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



mook said:


> so we could've won 17 of 18 games last year too, if only Zach hadn't held us back?
> 
> I doubt you'll find many on this board who'd agree with that idea.


Good try to twist my words. 

You don't have to win 17 out of 18 games to be better than last years team. They only won 32 games. In case you have problem with the math, here is a link to a calculator site.

http://www.calculator.com/calcs/calc_sci.html

All you have to do is put in 32, and add 1. There I think you should have it now. Glad to help you out. :biggrin:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



zagsfan20 said:


> Our players have been given a chance to develop because of Zach being gone. When you don't get opportunities because you have a black-hole on offense constantly dribbling the ball and not looking for open teammates, it hinders a young players growth.


So you're saying they are incapable of developing on their own? And you think Zach would be dribbling the ball when Roy and Blake are running the offense? They pass him the ball. With better players around him, it'll be easier to pass up shots. IF people around him are totally green, then he'll have to take shots to keep the points coming.


----------



## Weav (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

I like Zach. I am glad he's not a Blazer, but I'll be cheering for him when he comes to town.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

So you are saying that if we held onto Zach this year, we'd have pretty much the same record we had last year? 

That seems equally absurd.

I'm not trying to twist your words. I'm just trying to test your incredibly bad theory.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



hasoos said:


> Good try to twist my words.
> 
> You don't have to win 17 out of 18 games to be better than last years team. They only won 32 games. In case you have problem with the math, here is a link to a calculator site.
> 
> ...


you said that the reason the Blazers are better is because Zach's gone. I simply tested your conclusion. with your reasoning, if he weren't gone, we'd be in the exact same situation we were in last year because nothing else (according to you) has changed much that wasn't directly related to Zach.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> So you're saying they are incapable of developing on their own? And you think Zach would be dribbling the ball when Roy and Blake are running the offense? They pass him the ball. With better players around him, it'll be easier to pass up shots. IF people around him are totally green, then he'll have to take shots to keep the points coming.


I'm saying Zach hinders the process when you feed him inside and you never get it back with an opportunity to find an open shot. The reason this winning streak is happening is because of outstanding ball movement. You didn't see that with Zach, it just doesn't happen. He gets the ball on the low block, dribbles, dribbles some more and then shoots. Or he would do his typical receive a pass, not look at anything but the basket, one dribble huck up a jump shot. Sure, he was a volume scorer, but it came at the expense of the team and our record signified that. Roy is dominate with the ball in his hands, but he looks pass first, if not he'll pull up and pop, or put the ball on the floor and create opportunities for his teammates or himself. Roy gets it. Randolph didn't/doesn't.

The better players around him thing is a load of BS too. All Zach cares about is his stats and thats well documented. Sure if his teams win its a bonus for him, but if not, oh well. He cares about All-Star games and personal glory. The polar opposite of what this current team is all about.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



zagsfan20 said:


> I'm saying Zach hinders the process when you feed him inside and you never get it back with an opportunity to find an open shot. The reason this winning streak is happening is because of outstanding ball movement. You didn't see that with Zach, it just doesn't happen. He gets the ball on the low block, dribbles, dribbles some more and then shoots. Or he would do his typical receive a pass, not look at anything but the basket, one dribble huck up a jump shot. Sure, he was a volume scorer, but it came at the expense of the team and our record signified that. Roy is dominate with the ball in his hands, but he looks pass first, if not he'll pull up and pop, or put the ball on the floor and create opportunities for his teammates or himself. Roy gets it. Randolph didn't/doesn't.
> 
> The better players around him thing is a load of BS too. All Zach cares about is his stats and thats well documented. Sure if his teams win its a bonus for him, but if not, oh well. He cares about All-Star games and personal glory. The polar opposite of what this current team is all about.


Where is it documented that all Zach cares about is his stats? I would think it would be hard to find a quote by him that states "screw winning I just want to score". Please show me a link that states that all he cares about is all star games and personal glory. You said it is WELL documented, well provide proof then.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



zagsfan20 said:


> I'm saying Zach hinders the process when you feed him inside and you never get it back with an opportunity to find an open shot. The reason this winning streak is happening is because of outstanding ball movement. You didn't see that with Zach, it just doesn't happen. He gets the ball on the low block, dribbles, dribbles some more and then shoots. Or he would do his typical receive a pass, not look at anything but the basket, one dribble huck up a jump shot. Sure, he was a volume scorer, but it came at the expense of the team and our record signified that. Roy is dominate with the ball in his hands, but he looks pass first, if not he'll pull up and pop, or put the ball on the floor and create opportunities for his teammates or himself. Roy gets it. Randolph didn't/doesn't.


Zach was passing out of the double teams much better. With more confidence in the wings, he should have likely continued this progress. If you have no one else on the team who can score, would you rather have a Derek Anderson or Damon Stoudamire or Juan Dixon just launch up shots? They got their shots in the past with Zach in the offense, didn't they? They got a lot of shots when they wanted to. This thing about Zach taking away all of the shots in the offense is BS. DA and DAMON, even when Zach was the leading scorer on the team took ALOT (too many in fact) shots.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

ZACH IS GONE!

You can argue one way or another. There is no alternate universe, we don't know how many games this team would have won with Zach as opposed to without. They are doing pretty damn good, wouldn't you say? I mean, am I the only one who gets tired of endlessly rehashing the same things? People who like Zach will say the team would be better with him, people who don't say the team is better because he's not here. No one knows. We just know he's gone, he's not our problem or our solution. Can't we just enjoy the team we have?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

I don't start these threads. I merely correct the inaccuracies that are posted and respond to statements I believe are false.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Not sure if this has been posted or if any of you have seen this...

Rumor Shot Down

I Thomas shot down a report by The Oregonian that Zach Randolph is on the trading block and rumored to be dealt to the Bucks. -- New York Daily News


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

ITs just crapzano being crapzano.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

this is interesting too... I love the posts at the end! Nothing like seeing NY fans ***** and moan.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2008/01/05/2008-01-05_zach_randolph_trailing_blazers-2.html


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



duckworthstolemylunch said:


> this is interesting too... I love the posts at the end! Nothing like seeing NY fans ***** and moan.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2008/01/05/2008-01-05_zach_randolph_trailing_blazers-2.html



to be honest, i really feel sorry for him. i understand why he was dealt and I think it has ended up good for this team, but anytime a player is forced to New York and Zeke's brainless approach, I really feel sorry for the player. it's got to be tough to be a Knick and be constantly tied down by your organization.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Hilarious how that forum blocks the word "ball" or "balls". How do you discuss basketball without the ball? Sheesh, some people's minds!


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



crandc said:


> Hilarious how that forum blocks the word "ball" or "balls". How do you discuss basketball without the ball? Sheesh, some people's minds!



that really is silly. 

whereas here i can talk about going to a game and enjoying a sack of salted nuts while appreciating some fine ball handling.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



drexlersdad said:


> that really is silly.
> 
> whereas here i can talk about going to a game and enjoying a sack of salted nuts while appreciating some fine ball handling.


EDITED BY: DUCKWORTHSTOLEMYLUNCH

where** here i can talk about going to a game and enjoying a **** of salted **** while appreciating some fine **** handling.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> Where is it documented that all Zach cares about is his stats? I would think it would be hard to find a quote by him that states "screw winning I just want to score". Please show me a link that states that all he cares about is all star games and personal glory. You said it is WELL documented, well provide proof then.


Asked what his stats were by a reporter once, Randolph could recite his statistics verbatim. 

Read todays column by Canzano. Its not the first nor the last time I've heard it either.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



zagsfan20 said:


> Asked what his stats were by a reporter once, Randolph could recite his statistics verbatim.
> 
> Read todays column by Canzano. Its not the first nor the last time I've heard it either.



That's "well documented" that all Zach cares about is his stats? 

That quote (or lack therefore of) or some phantom article states that all he cares about is all star games and personal glory?

Because he knows how many points he scores per game, rebounds, assists, FG%, etc., that dictates that all he cares about are All Star games? 

Are NBA players NOT supposed to know their statistics?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> That's "well documented" that all Zach cares about is his stats?
> 
> That quote (or lack therefore of) or some phantom article states that all he cares about is all star games and personal glory?
> 
> ...


A player who pays attention to his stats all the way down to the decimal point must pay a lot of attention to his stats. A player who pays that much attention to his stats is a selfish player who doesn't care about the team, just about getting his.

Look, Randolph is obviously a good/great scorer. But, my argument is that he will never be on a winning team (unless he understands that he doesn't have to control the game by not passing out of double teams) and his selfish ball hog style of play deflected some of the progress we could have made away from the younger guys.

I would way rather have Aldridge down on the blocks then Randolph any day. Even Aldridge as a second year player. Our record and the Knicks record should be all the evidence needed.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



zagsfan20 said:


> A player who pays attention to his stats all the way down to the decimal point must pay a lot of attention to his stats. A player who pays that much attention to his stats is a selfish player who doesn't care about the team, just about getting his.
> 
> Look, Randolph is obviously a good/great scorer. But, my argument is that he will never be on a winning team (unless he understands that he doesn't have to control the game by not passing out of double teams) and his selfish ball hog style of play deflected some of the progress we could have made away from the younger guys.
> 
> I would way rather have Aldridge down on the blocks then Randolph any day. Even Aldridge as a second year player. Our record and the Knicks record should be all the evidence needed.



Your logic is faulty. You jump to conclusions that appear to come out of left field. From a player knowing his current statistics to the decimal point alluding to the fact that all that player cares about is pumping his stats and getting to the allstar game is simply ludicrous. I would advise you to attempt to explain yourself as your conclusions make absolotely no logical sense whatsoever. 

You still have not answered my questions and I await how you arrived at your conclusion.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

My logic makes perfect sense. Reread my post if you can't understand it clearly.

The bottom line is, Zach Randolph is not a team player and he cares more about his statistics than the only statistic that really matters in a team game, the W. Sure, he might be collecting hefty paychecks, but you won't see him with finger bling any time soon.



> You still have not answered my questions and I await how you arrived at your conclusion.


Ok.



> That's "well documented" that all Zach cares about is his stats?


Yep, read Canzano's blog from Friday. Its also in an article of Quick's last year. Asked about his stats and he could read them off like he had a stat sheet in his hand. He realized how stupid he sounded and changed his tone.



> That quote (or lack therefore of) or some phantom article states that all he cares about is all star games and personal glory?


Because it doesn't go along with your argument doesn't make it 'phantom'. I'm not the type to sit around and quote Canzano, mainly because a lot of what he says is hogwash. But, he is the second person who has brought up that story and its not just an opinion. Its factual. 



> Because he knows how many points he scores per game, rebounds, assists, FG%, etc., that dictates that all he cares about are All Star games?


Yes.



> Are NBA players NOT supposed to know their statistics?


I highly doubt you'll find too many players in the league who can recite you their exact statistics. I bet a lot of players couldn't even tell you their teams win/loss record.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Resume said:


> Are you kidding me? NY has TONS of good players. Zach is a parasite. He ruins teams.
> Watch him go to the Bucks and watch the Bucks become the worst team in the league, as was Portland when we had Zach, and as is NY when they have Zach.
> 
> Get off his tip man...


We were not the worst team in the league last season. In fact, if you look at the games in which Roy, LMA, and Zach were healthy and in the lineup, I bet we were at least .500. We played some good basketball last season. Also-- Zach was the difference in 2003 when we came back and won three playoff games in a row vs Dallas. You're way to hard on Zach.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



hasoos said:


> I don't agree at all, and I am sure to all of you it is not a surprise. The whole reason the Blazers are better this year, is that Zbo is not here. Everything you talk about Zbo doing that would weaken the Blazers game, are the things he did before when the team wasn't successful, and is the exact opposite of what is occuring now with the team. Brandon Roy can't be Brandon Roy unless he dominates the ball, not Zbo. I don't know about you, but a guy who dominates the ball and comes just short of a triple double each night is more effective then a guy who is a ballhog and who doesn't pass the ball, and takes questionable shot selection. Ball movememnt which is present every posession now, and makes all the players on the team better, is non existent in a Zbo offense. If you don't make Zbo the focus of the offense, he becomes a total detriment on the floor. The Blazers get back on defense now, did Zbo ever run back on defense? There was nothing more frustrating then watching Zbo jaw with a ref about a non call while the opposing PF is dunking on the other end.
> 
> Zbo IMO, is similar to Harvey Grant. He is a guy who can score the ball on a bad team, but he will never be part of a good winning team.
> 
> Milwaukee is very bad defensivly already. If they did this trade, they would sink to the bottom of the league.


Oh please, to say that the the whole reason that the Blazers are good this year is because Zach is gone is to not give any credit to our players. Roy is improved, LMA is improved, Outlaw & Webster are improved, we have Blake, and we have Jones. Those are the reasons we are better this season.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Spud147 said:


> I hope Zach ends up in a better situation where he can thrive. I don't understand the hatred. Obviously it was time for the Blazers to cut ties but I still give him credit for almost single handedly beating Dallas in that last play off series the Blazers were in.
> 
> He worked his butt off here and wanted to stay here. So he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I don't think he's a bad guy at all and I wish him the best.


Yes, and during that Dallas series, we hardly ran any plays for him. He got his numbers with hustle and offensive rebounding. He can absolutely be a part of a winning team.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Talkhard said:


> That's not the whole story. Zach was a black hole on offense. When he got the ball, the rest of the players literally stopped moving. The MOA was stand around, stand around, stand around while Zach did his thing.
> 
> This year's offense is structured completely differently, and it stresses ball movement and finding the open man (and the hot man!). That's a real sea change, and it wouldn't have been possible without getting rid of Zach.


With all the improved players on our team, we wouldn't have had to dump the ball into him and stand around. We could've played more as a team while Zack grabbed offensive (not to mention defensive-- our weakness this season) rebounds and scored hustle baskets. That kind of player would be GREAT for us this season.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



Xericx said:


> That's "well documented" that all Zach cares about is his stats?
> 
> That quote (or lack therefore of) or some phantom article states that all he cares about is all star games and personal glory?
> 
> ...



You are claiming that "StatBo" didn't care about his stats. What/who is your source to the contrary? It was a running joke here in Portland.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



crandc said:


> ZACH IS GONE!
> 
> You can argue one way or another. There is no alternate universe, we don't know how many games this team would have won with Zach as opposed to without. They are doing pretty damn good, wouldn't you say? I mean, am I the only one who gets tired of endlessly rehashing the same things? People who like Zach will say the team would be better with him, people who don't say the team is better because he's not here. No one knows. We just know he's gone, he's not our problem or our solution. Can't we just enjoy the team we have?


I LOVE our team this season and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just hate the Zach bashing. He doesn't deserve it.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



NathanLane said:


> With all the improved players on our team, we wouldn't have had to dump the ball into him and stand around. We could've played more as a team while Zack grabbed offensive (not to mention defensive-- our weakness this season) rebounds and scored hustle baskets. That kind of player would be GREAT for us this season.



So then, who is Zach replacing late in games in your scenario?


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



zagsfan20 said:


> A player who pays attention to his stats all the way down to the decimal point must pay a lot of attention to his stats. A player who pays that much attention to his stats is a selfish player who doesn't care about the team, just about getting his.
> 
> Look, Randolph is obviously a good/great scorer. But, my argument is that he will never be on a winning team


Randolph was on the last Blazers team that went to the playoffs. And we were down 0-3 vs the Mavs when we decided to start Zach. With that move, we won three straight games. He was clearly the difference. And the following season, when we got Miles and moved Sheed to center, we won 8 of 10 games before trading Sheed. Zach was a part of winning.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



PapaG said:


> So then, who is Zach replacing late in games in your scenario?


I don't want to replace anyone. I love our team as is. I'm just saying that Zach CAN be a part of a winning situation.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

Let's see if in one more post, I can sum up my points.

I love our team as it is. I wouldn't change a thing about. The absence of Zach has allowed other players, especially LMA, to blossom, though the absence of Zach is hardly the #1 reason we are better this season. That said, I refute the idea that Zach can't be a part of a winner. He won with us in 03 and he won with us last year when everyone was healthy. And he could win with us this season though, like I said, I like our team better the way it is.... without Zach.

Go Blazers


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*



NathanLane said:


> I don't want to replace anyone. I love our team as is. I'm just saying that Zach CAN be a part of a winning situation.


History says otherwise regarding Zach as a leader on a winner, and until his contract is over, I doubt he'll play with someone good enough to make up for Zach's weaknesses.

I can see him helping someone off of the bench in a few years when he is at a more reasonable contract.

To me, he is one of the more overvalued players in the NBA. Clearly GMs see his low value, but I am continually astonished by how some people on this board view him.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Zach headed to the Bucks?*

It was amusing to see Zach confiding with Juan Dixon last night after the Knicks' loss to Toronto last night, when they were walking back to the locker room.
His situation is getting worse and worse. 10 mins, 0-2, 0 points. OUCH. He needs to go somewhere else.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*guess it was true...*

From ESPN... I know we already had a thread about this but I couldn't find it so here is an update on the zbo trade rumors. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Knicks Initiated Trade Call

Contrary to Isiah Thomas' denial, GM Glen Grunwald initiated a trade call last week to Bucks GM Larry Harris in an effort to trade Zach Randolph.

The word got out when Harris called his Trail Blazers counterpart, Kevin Pritchard, to check out Randolph, whom the Knicks acquired from Portland last June on draft night, and someone in their organization leaked it to a reporter for The Oregonian.

By that time, the Bucks had summarily rejected the Knicks' proposal: Randolph and Renaldo Balkman for Charlie Villanueva, Bobby Simmons and Dan Gadzuric. -- New York Post 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

*Re: guess it was true...*

Man, i'm sure Zach is praying for this to be done. He hates it over there. I'd feel bad for Villenueva, simmons, and gadzuric...


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: guess it was true...*

Nice to see Isiah being dishonest again, and just becoming a joke over there. It's a shame what he's doing to himself since he was a great player.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: guess it was true...*

mod merge?

http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/389286-zach-headed-bucks-3.html


----------



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

*Re: guess it was true...*

Sheesh, what's with Canzano's personal vendetta against Zach. He helped run him out of town and got him exiled to hell. Now, he's bound and determined to do everything in his power to keep him there for eternity. Yeah, Zach has his faults, on and off the court, but he did his best while he was here. It wasn't perfect, and obviously not good enough to measure up to Canzano's holier than thou standards, but he's gone already. Leave the guy alone for Pete's sake. Let him suffer in peace. Isn't it enough to enjoy our own success, or do we need to take joy in the suffering of others as well? 

BNM


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: guess it was true...*



Boob-No-More said:


> Sheesh, what's with Canzano's personal vendetta against Zach. He helped run him out of town and got him exiled to hell. Now, he's bound and determined to do everything in his power to keep him there for eternity. Yeah, Zach has his faults, on and off the court, but he did his best while he was here. It wasn't perfect, and obviously not good enough to measure up to Canzano's holier than thou standards, but he's gone already. Leave the guy alone for Pete's sake. Let him suffer in peace. Isn't it enough to enjoy our own success, or do we need to take joy in the suffering of others as well?
> 
> BNM


What did Canzano say now other than reporting how the Knicks shopped him to the Bucks? Did he say something else?


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

thanks for the merge...


----------



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

*Re: guess it was true...*



alext42083 said:


> What did Canzano say now other than reporting how the Knicks shopped him to the Bucks? Did he say something else?


Since you asked, here's his exact words:



Canzano said:


> NBA source told me via telephone on Wednesday night that Zach Randolph is on the trading block, and that he's likely to end up in Milwaukee. Keep an eye on that, if you need a sideshow. I don't know about you, but when I think of Z-Bo going to Milwaukee, I keep seeing the Hoops Family going down the street, headed to the Shotz Brewery, arms linked, doing the "schlemiel-schlamazel" while singing, "There is nothing we won't try, never heard the word impossible..."


It's not so much that he said anything particularly bad about Randolph, but by leaking this trade rumor it further weakens Zach's already strained relationship with his coach - who is also his GM and had denied that he was shopping Randolph. Zach and Isiah are already butting heads, with Isiah benching him and removing him from the starting line-up (like it's Zach's fault he's not a good fit with Eddy Curry). Spreading trade rumors about Zach does nothing to help the situation and just gives Zach another reason to not trust his coach.

Zach's gone. He doesn't play here anymore. He's not part of this team or this community. So, why does our local columnist feel it necessary to become a rumor monger ala Peter Vescey (aka assflake)? It's not like he's keeping us abreast of other potential trades around the league. He's doing it because he hates Zach and will do absolutely anything he possibly can to make Zach's life miserable.

Like I said above, I'd rather spend my time reveling in our current team than rehashing and rebashing our former players. Hey Canzano, it's a slow sports day. Time to go cruise the cancer ward at Doernbecker to see if you can find another sick kid to exploit to fill up your "sports" column and sell a few papers.

BNM


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: guess it was true...*



Boob-No-More said:


> Sheesh, what's with Canzano's personal vendetta against Zach. He helped run him out of town and got him exiled to hell. Now, he's bound and determined to do everything in his power to keep him there for eternity. Yeah, Zach has his faults, on and off the court, but he did his best while he was here. It wasn't perfect, and obviously not good enough to measure up to Canzano's holier than thou standards, but he's gone already. Leave the guy alone for Pete's sake. Let him suffer in peace. Isn't it enough to enjoy our own success, or do we need to take joy in the suffering of others as well?
> 
> BNM


How about some sappy music to go along with this? :boohoo:


----------



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

*Re: guess it was true...*



hasoos said:


> How about some sappy music to go along with this? :boohoo:


Sure, why not? I guess I fail to see the point of endlessly discussing our former players and their on and off court shortcomings. Don't we have better things to talk about, or have we (collectively) come to actually enjoy picking at these old scabs?

BNM


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: guess it was true...*



Boob-No-More said:


> It's not so much that he said anything particularly bad about Randolph, but by leaking this trade rumor it further weakens Zach's already strained relationship with his coach - who is also his GM and had denied that he was shopping Randolph. Zach and Isiah are already butting heads, with Isiah benching him and removing him from the starting line-up (like it's Zach's fault he's not a good fit with Eddy Curry). Spreading trade rumors about Zach does nothing to help the situation and just gives Zach another reason to not trust his coach.
> 
> BNM


While I agree with you that Canzano did go a little too far with Zach when he was here, it's not Canzano's fault that Zach and Isiah don't get along. They haven't gotten along all season long as you pointed out.

And it looks like the trade rumor was actually true and the Bucks GM apparently called KP to talk about Zach. That's how Canzano got ahold of it.
It's no secret that Zach is not working out in NY. Just take a look at the NY papers every single day. Just think of having Canzano times 100 in the biggest media market on your case every day.



> Time to go cruise the cancer ward at Doernbecker to see if you can find another sick kid to exploit to fill up your "sports" column and sell a few papers.


Ouch... seems a little harsh.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: guess it was true...*



alext42083 said:


> Just take a look at the NY papers every single day.


Bunch of crap I tell ya... So are a lot of the fans of NY teams. Not to get to off topic but remember at the beginning of the NFL season when Chad Pennington got hurt and the Jets put in Kellen Clemens and the fans Cheered? Yeah well I was at the last game of the Jets season in NY and the fans were chanting we want Chad so anything the NY media or fans say is a load of crap. They were so excited to get Zbo and thought this one guy was going to change the team when its the Coach and GM who should have been changed.


----------



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

*Re: guess it was true...*



alext42083 said:


> While I agree with you that Canzano did go a little too far with Zach when he was here, it's not Canzano's fault that Zach and Isiah don't get along. They haven't gotten along all season long as you pointed out.
> 
> And it looks like the trade rumor was actually true and the Bucks GM apparently called KP to talk about Zach. That's how Canzano got ahold of it.
> It's no secret that Zach is not working out in NY. Just take a look at the NY papers every single day. Just think of having Canzano times 100 in the biggest media market on your case every day.


Yes, the rumor appears to have been legit (although we don't know for SURE, it doesn't really matter, it's a RUMOR, idle gossip to fill column space). However, you will notice it wasn't reported in the NY media. Canzano was the one who broke the story. Why? Does he cover the Knicks now? Does he suddenly want to be Peter Vescey and dig up and make up all sorts of trade "rumors". Is that his job now, or is he still the Oregonian's sports columnist? How about commenting on sports that actually take place IN Oregon. Zach doesn't play for the Blazers, the rumor didn't involve the potential trade of any Blazer players. Other than his (alleged) source working for the team, the rumor had nothing to do with the Blazers. Canzona leaked it just to be spiteful and further undermine Zach's relationship with his coach/GM.

Yes, Zach's relationship with Isiah has been strained, which is exactly why this leak makes an already bad situation for Zach even worse. Now Zach's concern that his coach wants to get rid of him is confirmed. His coach is also exposed as a liar after denying he's shopping Zach. So now, Zach KNOWS his coach wants to get rid of him and is lying about it.

I'm no Zach apologist, I just don't understand the need to kick him when he's down. Evidently, Canzano considers that his job (or at least a "perk"), but I disagree. I'd rather open my local paper/website/blog and read about news about OUR team, not somebody else's problems.



alext42083 said:


> Ouch... seems a little harsh.


It was meant to be. The "tearjerker" is a standard Canzano ploy that he resorts to frequently when he can't dig up a reason to bash anyone on the local sports scene. The Blazers have a great bunch of upstanding young men who are winning games and doing it with character. Nothing there. The Ducks football season is over. Can't bash Belotti today. The Ducks basketball team is winning. The Beavs aren't, but that's expected. So, look for a tearjerker coming soon to a sports column near you.

BNM


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

Wonder is Zbo is included here?

FROM ESPN...

Will Offers Be Reconsidered?

If Isiah Thomas is fired as team president, it is believed the Knicks would reconsider various offers Thomas has recently rebuffed.

Among them are scenarios that include guard Jamal Crawford leaving town, and another -- according to a source -- that would have put New Jersey shooting guard Vince Carter in a Knicks uniform. -- Sacramento Bee


----------

