# Delay Randolph trade a year



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Indulge me just for a moment: this summer, Zach Randolph is coming off one of his worst seasons. His worst, I'd say, since he became the team's starting power forward. It was also his first after having major surgery on his knee. In my estimation, if you combine Randolph's bad season with his very hefty contract, his only attraction to other teams is if they can dump an even worse contract on the Blazers or a more horrendously overpaid player, or someone with problems... 

Add to that, the fact that LaMarcus Aldridge is not ready to be the Blazers' starting power forward. 

Combine those two, and I think that the Blazers ought to keep Randolph, and not make a priority of trading him this season - unless someone comes a-knockin' with something that will actually improve the team financially, competitively, and attitudinally (is that a word?). 

If all goes well, the Blazers will have better options - a Zach Randolph who averaged close to 20 and 10, with a field goal percentage again reaching toward 50%. Meanwhile, LaMarcus Aldridge will have put on a few pounds of muscle, learned the NBA game, and could be a realistic option at the 4, if not also the 5. Then, the Blazers will be negotiating from a position of strength, rather than a position of desperation. 

With Miles, I think there's little alternative to tossing him out on his ear for whatever they can get, unfortunately. I just have little optimism that his very low value will change in a year here.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

A lot of people think Z-bo is still salvageable without Darius around. Zach doesn't have to be the #1 option - he can put up 20/10 on 'garbage' possessions - put-backs, tip-ins, rebounds and the occasional "play designed for Zach." So he doesn't need to be the #1 scoring option or team leader when you have guys like Brandon Roy, Martell Webster and Jarrett Jack trying to lead the team.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the team should hold off trading Zach until they could see how he develops or flourishes without Darius around. Another 20/10 season from him would only increase his trade value, anyway.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

I'm giving Zach one more year to show that he can still play in the post. The last thing we need this year his him jacking up jumpshots (although many did go in) all year long.

Darius, on the other hand had his chance and threw it away with such haste rarely seen in the NBA.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

This would be a very bad year to give up on Zach, IMO. Like you mentioned, PD, unless we can get a great deal for him, he's worth keeping around at this point in time. 

Ideally, Zach returns to his 2003-2004 form, Aldridge bulks up to play center and we have a great tandem down low for the next decade. I don't know how realistic of an expectation that is, but it's worth at least waiting one more year.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

These are two very good points.



wastro said:


> A lot of people think Z-bo is still salvageable without Darius around.


I agree that from the excitement I've heard from Zach (contrasted with the negative statements from D-Miles), I think there's a chance Randolph can come around. If so, it maybe that after a year, the Blazers will have a dilemma - Randolph returns to form, Aldridge begins coming into his own, meanwhile, Przybilla is holding down the fort with his continued solid play at the 5. Might Raef LaFrentz be feeling a little neglected...? I think that's the kind of problem I'd love to see the team wrestle with. 



> Zach doesn't have to be the #1 option - he can put up 20/10 on 'garbage' possessions - put-backs, tip-ins, rebounds and the occasional "play designed for Zach."


"My favorite Zach Randolph" was the one you're describing from a couple years ago, when he was scoring off of broken plays and offensive rebounds. He's not as good in a stagnant offense where the whole defense collapses on him (like last season). If Nate can get the team to execute a more varied attack - maybe forcing teams into zone defenses, for instance - we might see a more potent Zach Randolph and Blazers' offense.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Add me to the ones who agree. I'm not sure Zach is a good long term solution for many reasons. But, I would keep him until something better comes along. There is no reason to sell low now. Keep him until Aldridge comes along, we get someone good in the draft, or can aquire a good PF. In the mean time his value has nowhere to go but up.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

I agree, we shouldn't trade Zach at this point.

We've done a LOT of work to get players who will help to magnify Zach's strengths while minimizing his weaknesses. Now would NOT be the right time to trade him. Roy, Webster, Blake and Dixon can all shoot from the perimeter, allowing Zach to work inside without triple teams collapsing on him. If Webster develops into our starting small forward, or if we aquire a SF who can shoot AND play some defense, I think Zach's game will improve even more. Now is not the time to trade him. And frankly, I wouldn't want us to trade him at this point next season either.

But Blazers fans are probably the most fickle in all of the NBA, so I guess I understand why some people still want him traded immediately.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

wastro said:


> A lot of people think Z-bo is still salvageable without Darius around. Zach doesn't have to be the #1 option - he can put up 20/10 on 'garbage' possessions - put-backs, tip-ins, rebounds and the occasional "play designed for Zach." So he doesn't need to be the #1 scoring option or team leader when you have guys like Brandon Roy, Martell Webster and Jarrett Jack trying to lead the team.
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is that the team should hold off trading Zach until they could see how he develops or flourishes without Darius around. Another 20/10 season from him would only increase his trade value, anyway.



The problem with your theory is that Zach thinks he needs to be the number 1 option.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> The problem with your theory is that Zach thinks he needs to be the number 1 option.


Have you talked to Zach lately? I mean, what else could you be basing that on?

He was clearly our best player last year, even when he was hurt. He wanted to take big shots (and a lot of shots) because he was usually the best option we had to score. Dude scored nearly 20% of our points, it makes sense he thought he was the number one option on last year's team. 

But Zach has shown a history of deferring to more talented players, such as when Rasheed was still on the team. There's nothing to indicate that Zach would still put up 18 bas shots per night if Jack, Roy and Webster develop into legit scoring options.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Have you talked to Zach lately? I mean, what else could you be basing that on?
> 
> He was clearly our best player last year, even when he was hurt. He wanted to take big shots (and a lot of shots) because he was usually the best option we had to score. Dude scored nearly 20% of our points, it makes sense he thought he was the number one option on last year's team.
> 
> But Zach has shown a history of deferring to more talented players, such as when Rasheed was still on the team. There's nothing to indicate that Zach would still put up 18 bas shots per night if Jack, Roy and Webster develop into legit scoring options.



Zach pisses and moans everytime the ball doesn't go though him, and then when he touches it he launches up 3 pointers.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

The only trade I want the Blazers to make is 08's pick Miles, 2nd round picks for an 07 lotto.

Even if they dont score Oden walking away with Noah and Durant would save the queen.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Zach pisses and moans everytime the ball doesn't go though him, and then when he touches it he launches up 3 pointers.


Zach does want the ball a lot (which any good player should), but he showed a much greater tendancy to pass out when he knew it would come back to him. That is why he heaped such high praise on Blake last year. He knew Blake would come down and look for him. I'm not sure he believed the same of Telfair. I think when Zach is part of the normal offense, and gets the ball regularly, he will not be as much of a black hole as he was previously. I doubt he will ever be a great passing big man (although he could if he wanted), but he will do better when he knows he's getting the ball and knows if he passes out, there are guys there who can hit the shot.

I still don't see him as a part of a championship team in Portland. Mainly because of questionable off court decision making and pot use. Most of the frequent pot users in the NBA lack motivation to be really good (Damon before AZ, Odem, Qyntel, Rasheed, etc.). If someone can point me to a pot-smoking world class athlete with motivation who has been successful, I would love to hear about it.


----------



## majic_sean (Dec 22, 2004)

I don't know how to do links but Kareem was pot smoker of the month and was smoking thoughout his NBA career

Anyone old enough to have read Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's autobiography? (Came out probably early 80's). He admitted to smoking a ton of weed throughout his NBA career...
www.sportsfilter.com/comments.cfm/4350


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I didn't see it mentioned in this thread, but I can add another reason to wait...

Next year will have tons of great FA's, and maybe a team who already knew they were going to lose their player would do a S&T with Zach to minimize the damage.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> The problem with your theory is that Zach thinks he needs to be the number 1 option.


On this team he's not wrong. Our level of talent after our #1 player is arguably the worst in the NBA. When another scorer develops on this team, then I expect you'll see Zach going back to being a garbage man. He can easily be an 18-20 point and 9-12 rebound a night player in that role.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Zach pisses and moans everytime the ball doesn't go though him, and then when he touches it he launches up 3 pointers.


Zach didn't piss and moan when he had actual NBA players around him. When he does get actual NBA-level talent around him, I believe his game will change back to a clean up, post-oriented game. He's really, really good at that and most people like to do what they're good at.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Zach pisses and moans everytime the ball doesn't go though him, and then when he touches it he launches up 3 pointers.


Ridiculous.

He only shot 55 three pointers in 74 games last year. You're just making **** up.

Ed O.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

All of the sudden, Zach was the best player on the team, and I don't think he was ready for the responsibility of leading them. With the emergence of Martell, Joel, and the rookies, he might realize that there is plenty of talent to make some serious noise in a year or two, and begin a renaissance
in his game and his career. Trade miles for draft picks.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

wastro said:


> A lot of people think Z-bo is still salvageable without Darius around. Zach doesn't have to be the #1 option - he can put up 20/10 on 'garbage' possessions - put-backs, tip-ins, rebounds and the occasional "play designed for Zach." So he doesn't need to be the #1 scoring option or team leader when you have guys like Brandon Roy, Martell Webster and Jarrett Jack trying to lead the team.
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is that the team should hold off trading Zach until they could see how he develops or flourishes without Darius around. Another 20/10 season from him would only increase his trade value, anyway.


I agree 100%! Zach can get HIS from simple hustle, hitting the boards and hitting the occasional open jumper. He was much more efficient when he had other scoring options on the floor. This year, with Roy, Webster, LaMarcus and Raef, his assists should double and his scoring opportunities should improve.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> I agree 100%! Zach can get HIS from simple hustle, hitting the boards and hitting the occasional open jumper. He was much more efficient when he had other scoring options on the floor. This year, with Roy, Webster, LaMarcus and Raef, his assists should double and his scoring opportunities should improve.


Not just that, but Raef (40% from beyond the arc) will help spread the floor and let Zach operate inside.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

when people talk about Randolph going back to doing what he does best, they seem to forget one major fact: when he was a low post rebounding and scoring maniac he was also busy destroying his knee. 

he's a little older now. he's recovered from micrfacture surgery, one of the more dreaded medical treatments in the NBA. 

it's quite possible that he spends most of the rest of his career as a 7-8 rebound per game, 15 foot jump shooter just to prolong his career. fans will want to attribute this playing style to stupidity or laziness, but maybe he's just being realistic. 

he's going to make $80 mil anyway. would you rather he do it hustling and going like crazy for a season or two, and then completely breaking down, or would you rather he last ten more seasons, never getting close to All-Star level, but at least able to go out there, spread the floor and rebound a little?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

mook, you're suggesting that Zach basically resign himself to Juwan Howard status, on the expectation that playing inside will destroy his knee. I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I'm not a doctor, and I don't know what damaged his knee, but there are players who are able to return to doing virtually the same kinds of thing that they did pre-microfracture surgery that they did before (Jason Kidd) and others who can't do much of anything (Jamal Mashburn). I'm assuming that Zach can play the way he used to with minimal risk of re-injury. If that's not the case, and you're correct that Zach will never be the inside player he once was, then the Blazers should keep that fact as quiet as possible for next season, give Aldridge all the playing time they can, and trade Randolph next summer.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> mook, you're suggesting that Zach basically resign himself to Juwan Howard status, on the expectation that playing inside will destroy his knee. I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I'm not a doctor, and I don't know what damaged his knee, but there are players who are able to return to doing virtually the same kinds of thing that they did pre-microfracture surgery that they did before (Jason Kidd) and others who can't do much of anything (Jamal Mashburn). I'm assuming that Zach can play the way he used to with minimal risk of re-injury. If that's not the case, and you're correct that Zach will never be the inside player he once was, then the Blazers should keep that fact as quiet as possible for next season, give Aldridge all the playing time they can, and trade Randolph next summer.


I'm not necessarily sure it's true either. I'm speculating. it seems a reasonable speculation, though, given that he had a fantastic on-court work ethic before the injury and a really questionable ethic afterwards. and if it were really the case we wouldn't know for sure, because the Blazers would probably keep this as secret as possible. 

I know Jason Kidd came back from a similar injury, but Jason Kidd also doesn't weigh 260 pounds. Randolph does, and that weight is carried on chicken legs. 

I really hope I'm wrong. it may be that he's just tentative, and that as he gains confidence more and more of his old game will come back to him. I was Zach's biggest fan for the first two seasons of his career, and I'd love to see that Zach come back.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mook said:


> when people talk about Randolph going back to doing what he does best, they seem to forget one major fact: when he was a low post rebounding and scoring maniac he was also busy destroying his knee.
> 
> he's a little older now. he's recovered from micrfacture surgery, one of the more dreaded medical treatments in the NBA.
> 
> ...


Hmm. The long term affects of microfracture have nothing to do with leg stability--those are the ligament injuries. Zach's leg weakness is caused by him recovering from having his leg immobilized for approximately six weeks. That's why microfractures take two years from which to recover. First you have to build the strength back in your legs, and then you have to learn to trust the joint again. 

The likely worst case scenario of a failed microfracture (aside from any post op infections) is basically having a knee with bone-on-bone contact. It's painful, but not career ending.

Zach went outside for two reasons. First, he didn't trust his leg. The quick jumping his did in the post caused discomfort in the joint. Second, and more importantly, teams packed the paint on us like red meat packed John Wayne's colon. Of course he went outside to shoot. He was doubled and tripled in the post.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mook said:


> I'm not necessarily sure it's true either. I'm speculating. it seems a reasonable speculation, though, given that he had a fantastic on-court work ethic before the injury and a really questionable ethic afterwards.


I question your thesis. The primary reason Zach was able to come back and play most of the season five months after having surgery was precisely because he had a terrific work ethic. I live in Denver, and saw what K-Mart did after his surgery. He didn't rehab and now he can barely play 25 minutes without having to sit out the next game. Amare came back for ONE game eight months after surgery and had to shut it down as he experienced pain in the repaired leg and required surgery in the other.

As someone who will be undergoing the procedure, I hope my recovery is as smooth as Zach's.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I had concerns about the Aldridge draft pick at the 2nd spot. Not saying anything bad, but there were college experts who expressed concerns and after the draft pick I heard the same concerns from non-experts. But bringing up Zach's injury reminds me the desparate need the Blazers have for another big man.

In the back of my mind I wondered if the Blazers could have ended up with Morrison and Roy. But Zach, at the very best I figure, can return to the Zach of old (inside game) but not for extended minutes.

Just commenting that bringing up Zach's injury comforts me more about the Aldridge pick . . . but don't expect him to contribute right away, he has his work cut out for him.

(Dissapointed that the #2 pick couldn't even make all star 2nd team in SL)


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep-
let's be optimistic and say Zach completely recovers from his injury. Zach still has to do some simple math in his head. "I played my butt off in the post for two seasons as a starter and one as a reserve. Half way through the fourth season, when I was only 23, I blew out my knee and had to have microfracture surgery.

"Now it's two years later and I'm two years older. I'm less likely to heal quickly then I was back then. In three years from now I'll be even slower at healing. If I play the same way I used to play on a knee that already has been surgically repaired once, how long until it goes out again? At that rate, what are the odds that I'm forced to retire by 30? And is it worth it to do that for a lottery team?" 

seems to me that anyone going through such a major surgery so early in his career has got to at least ask himself that question. 

as a sports fan, you always want your team's players to play their hardest. but Zach might decide that it's just not in his best interest to do so.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> I question your thesis. The primary reason Zach was able to come back and play most of the season five months after having surgery was precisely because he had a terrific work ethic.


I probably should've chosen a better term. 

I was referring to his on-court work ethic, particularly his willingness to scrap underneath for offensive rebounds. It wasn't just that he couldn't jump anymore because of injury--his game was never about jumping. He just seemed to stop battling under the basket for offensive rebounds, which used to be a huge part of his game. 

I agree that his off-court work ethic has always been impressive. The rate of his recovery has been a testament to that.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

mook, I'm just not sure that once you require microfracture surgery in a knee that it goes without saying that chances are you'll need it again, on the same knee or the other one, in the future, if you continue the same kinds of activity. There are other questions to ask, such as - what if Randolph can improve his leg strength - does that relieve pressure on the knees? Are there better ways to jump or land that can address the problems? Are there early signs that Zach and the trainers should look out for that can indicate problems in advance and allow them to alleviate them before they become serious? 

People make a big deal about "prevention" in medicine these days, and for the Blazers, that's pretty much Jay Jensen's job - so I would hope there's already recognition of the possibilities you're talking about, and steps being taken to address them.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Ridiculous.
> 
> He only shot 55 three pointers in 74 games last year. You're just making **** up.
> 
> Ed O.



No I am not. You aren't taking into account that Zach wasn't shooting those shots early in the season. I'd like to see the stats of when he actually started shooting them as to how many per game he took.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

maxiep said:


> Zach didn't piss and moan when he had actual NBA players around him. When he does get actual NBA-level talent around him, I believe his game will change back to a clean up, post-oriented game. He's really, really good at that and most people like to do what they're good at.



Like them or not, but Damon, DA, Joel/Theo, Miles are actual NBA players. There used to be all kinds of talk that Zach was pissing and moaning that he didn't get the ball enough....which I tend to believe with Damon and DA in charge. 

We can not continue to give players 1 more year. Zach has shown an unwillingness to play defense, an unwillingness to pass out of double teams or simply to pass out and repost, and the inability to stay out of the news in a negative way.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> No I am not. You aren't taking into account that Zach wasn't shooting those shots early in the season. I'd like to see the stats of when he actually started shooting them as to how many per game he took.


Very confusing post. Are you saying he took more outside shots as he gained strength in his knee and less when he was just off the injury?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Very confusing post. Are you saying he took more outside shots as he gained strength in his knee and less when he was just off the injury?



Well considering Zach virtually never took 3 point shots before his injury I am not saying that at all.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mook said:


> maxiep-
> let's be optimistic and say Zach completely recovers from his injury. Zach still has to do some simple math in his head. "I played my butt off in the post for two seasons as a starter and one as a reserve. Half way through the fourth season, when I was only 23, I blew out my knee and had to have microfracture surgery.
> 
> "Now it's two years later and I'm two years older. I'm less likely to heal quickly then I was back then. In three years from now I'll be even slower at healing. If I play the same way I used to play on a knee that already has been surgically repaired once, how long until it goes out again? At that rate, what are the odds that I'm forced to retire by 30? And is it worth it to do that for a lottery team?"
> ...


But he didn't "blow out" his knee. I've blown out my knee, and microfracture doesn't address that problem. He had a small part of his knee joint where the cartilage had worn down. Rather than live with the swelling, fluid buildup and soreness for the rest of his career, he had the problem nipped in the bud--one step back, two steps forward.

It really seems as there is an incredible misunderstanding of both microfracture and which area Zach had repaired. 

I guess we'll just agree to disagree and see how Zach plays. I could be wrong about his motivations to get back low to do what he does best.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mook said:


> I probably should've chosen a better term.
> 
> I was referring to his on-court work ethic, particularly his willingness to scrap underneath for offensive rebounds. It wasn't just that he couldn't jump anymore because of injury--his game was never about jumping. He just seemed to stop battling under the basket for offensive rebounds, which used to be a huge part of his game.
> 
> I agree that his off-court work ethic has always been impressive. The rate of his recovery has been a testament to that.


Fair enough. I really do think that Zach moved outside because: a) the paint was packed against us because Khryapa, Joel, Skinner, Theo and Ha weren't offensive threats; and b) because Zach spent the time when his leg was immobilized shooting jumpers and that part of his game improved.

What's cool about Zach (and why microfracture isn't as big of a deal for him) is that he's not a high jumper, but he's a quick one. His role on the team changed this past year with us losing all of our offensive firepower. At least that is my opinion. I could be wrong.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Like them or not, but Damon, DA, Joel/Theo, Miles are actual NBA players. There used to be all kinds of talk that Zach was pissing and moaning that he didn't get the ball enough....which I tend to believe with Damon and DA in charge.


Damon perhaps is an NBA player, but was a bigger ballhog than Zach. I would complain too if Damon dribbled around for 20-22 seconds trying to find a shot for himself then passed it to me to do something with it.

DA used to be an NBA player. Now he's a punchline with a ring.

Joel and Theo are not offensive players. 

Do not forget that when Miles was healthy, he was our leading scorer, not Zach. That fact should be encouraging to those that think Z-Bo will continue to dominate the ball.



> We can not continue to give players 1 more year. Zach has shown an unwillingness to play defense, an unwillingness to pass out of double teams or simply to pass out and repost, and the inability to stay out of the news in a negative way.


It seems as if you are down on Zach. That's fine; he's given plenty of ammo to those that want him gone. You just need to decide what you're willing to get back in value for him.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Zach's contract is the single largest problem this team has. As long as Zach's contract is on the Blazers books they will not be truely competitive. Going into next offseason with Zach still on the books would signal the Blazer will not be competitive any time soon. 

Zebo is not a part of this teams future and will never contribute on a Championship level team. Passing up on next years free agent class because you want to keep Zebo would be one of the worst decisions in this franchise's history.

Zebo is just another in a long line of players NW fans drastically overrate.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Zach has a work ethic? Are you people drunk? I've never seen such a fat, lazy, out of shape basketball player get paid so much in my life.

If Zach even had an average work ethic he wouldn't be one of the fattest players in the NBA.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Blazed said:


> Zach has a work ethic? Are you people drunk? I've never seen such a fat, lazy, out of shape basketball player get paid so much in my life.
> 
> If Zach even had an average work ethic he wouldn't be one of the fattest players in the NBA.


Congrats! It is only July, and you have won "Ignorant Post of the Year" award.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Congrats! It is only July, and you have won "Ignorant Post of the Year" award.


Whenever a post include: "Are you smoking crack?"

"Are you high?"

"Are you drunk?"

It seems to follow that the poster using such language should be asking themselves.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Congrats! It is only July, and you have won "Ignorant Post of the Year" award.


Haha...nice to throw out insults without having any point to make yourself. I think that makes you "Stupid F*cking Idiot of the Year."


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Oh that makes two of you. Actually I'll give you the edge as you have Scottie Pippen as your avatar. The only thing Pippen is known for is being Jordan's ***** (a player neither Jordan or Phil Jackson liked) and throwing towel's on the ground after getting owned by the Lakers.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Blazed said:


> Haha...nice to throw out insults without having any point to make yourself. I think that makes you "Stupid F*cking Idiot of the Year."


But what if his point was that your post was ignorant? Would you have to take that award back?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

maxiep said:


> Damon perhaps is an NBA player, but was a bigger ballhog than Zach. I would complain too if Damon dribbled around for 20-22 seconds trying to find a shot for himself then passed it to me to do something with it.
> 
> DA used to be an NBA player. Now he's a punchline with a ring.
> 
> ...



I am a big believer in cap space. I really think the Blazers could get right back in the thick of things if they unloaded Zach, Darius and Raef for expiring contracts. Now I also realize that's not going to happen with all of them, but any of them would be a start. They are simply addition by subtraction to me. I know that our team would suffer greatly from their loss, but seriously it would mean 20 wins instead of 27.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I am a big believer in cap space. I really think the Blazers could get right back in the thick of things if they unloaded Zach, Darius and Raef for expiring contracts. Now I also realize that's not going to happen with all of them, but any of them would be a start. They are simply addition by subtraction to me. I know that our team would suffer greatly from their loss, but seriously it would mean 20 wins instead of 27.


Cap space is the Holy Grail to me as well. Not so much to sign free agents, because they often come at a premium, but rather to engage in lopsided salary trades. To get enough cap space to really have some fun, we would need to trade two of those three contracts. Of the three, only Zach plays at a level that comes close to his salary, so he's third on my list.

I like really good players. If we can swing a trade for Zach that would net us a really good player, or a pick that could be really good in the future, I'd be all for it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

maxiep said:


> Cap space is the Holy Grail to me as well. Not so much to sign free agents, because they often come at a premium, but rather to engage in lopsided salary trades. To get enough cap space to really have some fun, we would need to trade two of those three contracts. Of the three, only Zach plays at a level that comes close to his salary, so he's third on my list.
> 
> I like really good players. If we can swing a trade for Zach that would net us a really good player, or a pick that could be really good in the future, I'd be all for it.



To me Zach puts up stats close to his salary level, but doesn't play at it. I'd like to see how many rebounds the guy gets that aren't from FT's or his own misses. Zach gets a lot of his rebounds off of his own shots that were blocked and easy FT rebounds. I would like to see him grab more offensive boards off misses by other players, or tough defensive rebounds. Zach simply isn't built to get those kinds of rebounds.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Blazed said:


> Oh that makes two of you. Actually I'll give you the edge as you have Scottie Pippen as your avatar. The only thing Pippen is known for is being Jordan's ***** (a player neither Jordan or Phil Jackson liked) and throwing towel's on the ground after getting owned by the Lakers.



LOL man you crack me up


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Cap space sounds nice, but I haven't seen it do much ever since the first CBA got signed...

Prove me wrong though... show me a contending team that got built through going way under the cap and picking up free agents.

I can think of a few examples, but not great ones...

Orlando - picked up Hill and McGrady, but immediately lost Hill to injuries.

Denver - went WAY under the cap, but used up all their cap space on Andre Miller and Kenyon Martin... they got better, but mostly because of their draft pick - Carmello.

Atlanta - grossly overpaid Joe Johnson, not sure who else they have picked up with their crazy capspace... Al Harrington? Anyway, they're still awful unless their draft picks improve a lot.

Chicago - have had capspace for years, but never seem to be able to put it to good use... I recall one offseason, they missed out on McGrady and Hill - turned around and way overpaid for Ron Mercer and Eddie Robinson... lately, they've handed $15M/year to Ben Wallace. They're a lot better these days, but it seems to have a lot more to do with their drafting and trading than their cap work.

Phoenix - probably the best example in that they signed Nash and QRich a couple years ago and improved a lot. Of course, they were so grossly underachieving previously - part of that due to Marbury and the capspace clearing moves. However, they already had JJohnson (acquired through trade), Shawn Marion (draft), and most importantly the emerging Amare Stoudemire (draft).

Any more?

I'm just not that sold on capspace being a major franchise goal. Sure, it's nice to be in the mix for the free agents, but the problem is - to get a major free agent away from their current team, you have to have a great situation already (which is hard to have when you've traded all your talent away for capspace), and overpay the player to win the bidding war. Most teams though with capspace in a given year end up watching as the top free agents take top dollar to stay where they are or go to some other team. 

Then you're left with a bunch of caproom and a crappy team and a serious temptation to overpay for mediocre talent. Looking back, you probably traded better players away for capspace.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Cap space sounds nice, but I haven't seen it do much ever since the first CBA got signed...
> 
> Prove me wrong though... show me a contending team that got built through going way under the cap and picking up free agents.
> 
> ...



OK, now you. Quickly name the teams that have won the NBA title without getting lucky in the draft with the exception of Detroit. There are two ways to build. 1 is through the draft, and the other is through free agency. The drafting of Roy, Aldridge, Webster and Jack might be enough in 5 years or so, but so might replacing Zach, Miles and LaFrentz with a perenial all star or two. 


You left out the Lakers also by the way. They signed Shaq.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Any more?


You mean besides the obvious names you left of your list like L.A. or Detroit? You know...those teams that have dominated the Championships for the last several years.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> OK, now you. Quickly name the teams that have won the NBA title without getting lucky in the draft with the exception of Detroit. There are two ways to build. 1 is through the draft, and the other is through free agency. The drafting of Roy, Aldridge, Webster and Jack might be enough in 5 years or so, but so might replacing Zach, Miles and LaFrentz with a perenial all star or two.
> 
> 
> You left out the Lakers also by the way. They signed Shaq.


I was using post-CBA, because it has changed everything. 

Previous to the first CBA, there were no limits on what you could spend on a free-agent, and there wasn't even a salary cap as far as I know... so it sort of makes the "cap space" argument moot. Unless, I have a poor understanding of the pre-CBA NBA.

As far as championship teams and great draft picks, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot. That's the point - the best way to acquire superstar talent is through the draft. Since the CBA came about, I can't think of a single superstar who has switched teams through free agency.

No fair saying I can't use the Detroit example. They built that team mostly through shrewd trading for players that other teams had given up on (Hamilton, Both Wallaces, Billups) and great coaching. I can't think of any noise that they made in free agency beyond MLE signings.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to have success in the free agent market, but I just haven't been seeing it. I think good drafting (we're getting some high picks these days!), good trades, and good coaching have proven to be the most successful ways to build since the CBA came to be...

You see a lot of teams dump their best players for capspace, and then get into a bidding war for the free agent of the day... they end up with that player, and then two offseasons later that that hot commodity is considered massively overpaid and they are trying to dump them for expiring contracts!

Think Kenyon Martin.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Blazed said:


> You mean besides the obvious names you left of your list like L.A. or Detroit? You know...those teams that have dominated the Championships for the last several years.


What high profile free agents did Detroit pick up with capspace?

And LA was post-CBA.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Whenever a post include: "Are you smoking crack?"
> 
> "Are you high?"
> 
> ...



Which is why I usually avoid such language - but there are limits to everything.

Have we (the collective "we") sunk to the point that we are bashing players over body type? Miles is skinny, so I guess he is the hardest working guy on the team! Oh.....wait......

Sorry, but IMHO this kind of childish player bashing is out of hand. How can people call themselves a "fan" of the team, when they have this kind of irrational hostility to the players? From the day Zach hurt his knee, some posters here have been acting as if he did it just to spite them personally! 

We are *all* frustrated the team has fallen on hard times. Not everyone uses that as an excuse to hate on the players.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> What high profile free agents did Detroit pick up with capspace?
> 
> And LA was post-CBA.


Shaq was grandfathered, and thus, LA was able to sign Shaq for just as much money as Orlando.

In fact, LA offerered more than Orlando did. That cannot happen under the current CBA. This change in the rules, makes SuperStars leaving in free agency far less likely.

Even in Shaq's case, IMO, he was never a "free agent" in the sense that any team with monster cap space could have made a run at him. Either he was going to re-sign with Orlando, or go to the Lakers (Hollywood). He was not about to leave Orlando for the Pacers or the Sonics.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Shaq was grandfathered, and thus, LA was able to sign Shaq for just as much money as Orlando.
> 
> In fact, LA offerered more than Orlando did. That cannot happen under the current CBA. This change in the rules, makes SuperStars leaving in free agency far less likely.
> 
> Even in Shaq's case, IMO, he was never a "free agent" in the sense that any team with monster cap space could have made a run at him. Either he was going to re-sign with Orlando, or go to the Lakers (Hollywood). He was not about to leave Orlando for the Pacers or the Sonics.


The biggest FA signing that I recall Portland having in recent years (pre-CBA when capspace didn't matter) was Brian Grant. Sure, a nice pickup but he ended up being a role-playing bigman. 

That tells me that the higher profile free agents didn't want to come to Portland, because when P Allen had all that money to spend, a playoff team and no cap restrictions, the best the team could do was Brian Grant. So why would it be different now? 

Perennial all-stars? I just don't see it.


----------



## Unbelieveable (Jul 16, 2006)

Okay well I think we should keep Zach around for another year just to balance out our offesive game, it can't be just souly shot creators like Roy, Jack and Blake. They can get the ball to you with good scoring oppertunitys but that doesn't mean a thing if you can't get the basketball in the hoop. Zach can do that. Plus I'm kindof excited to see how they can do that two man game with he and Raef that should create matchup problems like mad. Now Zach will have to only get his shot over one big man.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I was using post-CBA, because it has changed everything.
> 
> Previous to the first CBA, there were no limits on what you could spend on a free-agent, and there wasn't even a salary cap as far as I know... so it sort of makes the "cap space" argument moot. Unless, I have a poor understanding of the pre-CBA NBA.
> 
> ...



So then clearing talent for cap room accomplishes that as well. By clearing talent you get worse allowing you yo have a shot at least at a difference maker. Cleveland, Detroit, Denver, Toronto, Miami, LAC, Chicago and Milwaukee all sucked bad enough to get high draft picks in 2003..( a very good draft) Now those teams are all play off teams and one just won the title. So did Detroit, but certanly not because of Darko. Miami added a free agent named Shaq something or other and the others all added pieces around their budding stars. Getting really bad for a few years is the way to go and I don't understand the people that want to stay average.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> So then clearing talent for cap room accomplishes that as well. By clearing talent you get worse allowing you yo have a shot at least at a difference maker. Cleveland, Detroit, Denver, Toronto, Miami, LAC, Chicago and Milwaukee all sucked bad enough to get high draft picks in 2003..( a very good draft) Now those teams are all play off teams and one just won the title. So did Detroit, but certanly not because of Darko. Miami added a free agent named Shaq something or other and the others all added pieces around their budding stars. Getting really bad for a few years is the way to go and I don't understand the people that want to stay average.


Not sure what "staying average" means. We're the worst team in the league. BTW, Miami picked up Shaq through trade, not free agency. Free agency is important to pick up pieces to get you to the next level, but I have yet to see it be the major component of a successful rags to riches tale. It just seems like it's usually a big trade or draft pick that tends to get teams out of the cellar - that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Getting back to the original topic for a moment.

For all the Zach bashers, here is something to ponder. Call this guy "Player X".

PPG RPG APG
15.8 7.4 .8
18.1 8 .8
16.2 6.2 1.1
15.8 6.6 1.1
10.7 6.1 1.2
9.9 5.2 .9

Now Zach.
PPG RPG APG
20.1 10.5 2
18.9 9.6 1.9
18 8 1.9

Who is "Player X"???? Care to guess? (scroll down)










The much beloved, 2 time all-star, Kevin Duckworth. He was "fat" too. 

If Duck were a Blazer today, I am sure he would be hated by many of you......while he was a useful player, he couldn't carry the team on his back. My, how perspectives change. There was a time this team had fans who didn't spit on every player who wasn't a superduperstar. 

Zach can be just as useful to a winning team as Duck was to some great Blazer teams in the 90s.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Getting really bad for a few years is the way to go and I don't understand the people that want to stay average.


The Blazers have been "really bad" for two years now. Free agents and perennial all stars are attracted by the possibility of winning and a quality franchise. Shaq would not have left for Miami had D. Wade been included in the LA trade. 

The Blazers, with two quality drafts, an excellent coach and a GM (in training) who knows what he's doing, have put the Blazers in a position to turn the corner and begin the climb to respectability. The idea is to build on what we have, not to tear it apart in the hopes that the ping pong balls bounce our way and we snag Greg Oden. The difference between Oden and #2 is huge.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I want Oden, but I could live with Noah. LaMarcus and Noah would be a incredibly athletic, smart and versatile frontcourt.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Getting back to the original topic for a moment.
> 
> For all the Zach bashers, here is something to ponder. Call this guy "Player X".
> 
> ...


I don't agree with that. Khryapa was a fan favorite for a lot and everybody realized that he wasn't ever going to be anything more than a 6th man...Pryzbilla doesn't put up great numbers either and he is a fan favorite as well...I think Portland fans just grasps themselves to players who play hard all the time and show a will to win...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> The Blazers have been "really bad" for two years now. Free agents and perennial all stars are attracted by the possibility of winning and a quality franchise. Shaq would not have left for Miami had D. Wade been included in the LA trade.
> 
> The Blazers, with two quality drafts, an excellent coach and a GM (in training) who knows what he's doing, have put the Blazers in a position to turn the corner and begin the climb to respectability. The idea is to build on what we have, not to tear it apart in the hopes that the ping pong balls bounce our way and we snag Greg Oden. The difference between Oden and #2 is huge.



Free agents and perenial all stars are attracted by money. Phoenix was bad when Nash joined them. He turned the franchise around and now they can attract other free agents. 

The difference between Lebron and D Wade was huge as well, but look who has a title.

Portland needs to rid itself of non star players making star money. Zach and LaFrentz make way too much for what they give a team, and Miles would make too much if he played for free. 

All I'm saying is it would be a better move by Portland to tray and ship players like Zach and Darius off and replace them with allstars making the same money. 

There are players that are tired of the situation they are in and if Portland could give them virtually the same money they might jump at it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Getting back to the original topic for a moment.
> 
> For all the Zach bashers, here is something to ponder. Call this guy "Player X".
> 
> ...



There were a lot of people back in the day that thought Duck was a waste. I would also like to point out that to the best of my knoweldge Duck was never pulled over for suspicion of drugs, or in a nightclub with his brother who shot someone and then tried to cover it up, or smelling like weed at a ornament giveaway, or was the passenger in his own car racing his other car in downtown at a reiculous hour, or punched a teammate in the eye while he was being held by other teammates.


He was also a 2nd round pick by the Spurs that we got for trading our 1st round loser bust Walter Berry for. Anything we got from him was a bonus. That being said I wish Sabas had been willing to come over during that time because we would have a couple more trophies.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> There were a lot of people back in the day that thought Duck was a waste. I would also like to point out that to the best of my knoweldge Duck was never pulled over for suspicion of drugs, or in a nightclub with his brother who shot someone and then tried to cover it up, or smelling like weed at a ornament giveaway, or was the passenger in his own car racing his other car in downtown at a reiculous hour, or punched a teammate in the eye while he was being held by other teammates.
> .



Dwight Jaynes has claimed that that sort of stuff DID happen, but back then the Goryonion wouldn't write about it. (Fine with me - 90% of that stuff is just white noise anyway.)

Duck was a lousy passer, a weak defender, and a so-so rebounder. (he didn't grab many boards, but he did clear out space for his team-mates to grab them) Worst of all, he was too damn nice for his own good. If he had put Lamebeer in a wheelchair, the team would have at least one more title (not to mention the gratitude of NBA fans everywhere).

What Duck was, was a very effective 3rd option on a strong team. If Adelman could turn Duck into an all-star, what's Nate's excuse with Zach?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Dwight Jaynes has claimed that that sort of stuff DID happen, but back then the Goryonion wouldn't write about it. (Fine with me - 90% of that stuff is just white noise anyway.)
> 
> Duck was a lousy passer, a weak defender, and a so-so rebounder. (he didn't grab many boards, but he did clear out space for his team-mates to grab them) Worst of all, he was too damn nice for his own good. If he had put Lamebeer in a wheelchair, the team would have at least one more title (not to mention the gratitude of NBA fans everywhere).
> 
> What Duck was, was a very effective 3rd option on a strong team. If Adelman could turn Duck into an all-star, what's Nate's excuse with Zach?



Nate's not 1/2 the coach Adelman is, that's why.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Nate's not 1/2 the coach Adelman is, that's why.



Damn MM, all you do is bash the blazers, between you're issues w/whose drafted, whose traded, Nate, his ability to coach, and Pryz's signing celebration, I have a hard time believing this is the right forum for you......... Is there something you ARE happy with, in regards to the Blazers? jeeze man... you're depressing! no offense of course, just noticing your thread replies lately.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blue32 said:


> Damn MM, all you do is bash the blazers, between you're issues w/whose drafted, whose traded, Nate, his ability to coach, and Pryz's signing celebration, I have a hard time believing this is the right forum for you......... Is there something you ARE happy with, in regards to the Blazers? jeeze man... you're depressing! no offense of course, just noticing your thread replies lately.


I loved the draft. I think Roy and Aldridge will be very good players. I also think Jack and Webster will be good players. I would have rather had Morrison, but Roy has proved me wrong in many areas. 

Nate was a dumb hire IMO. He proved that last year when, in a rebuilding situation, continued to play guys like Dixon, Lenard and Blake. He wasn't that good of a coach in Seattle either. The Blazers trying to reconnect with the fans had the oportunity to do that when TP wanted to coach the team. The Blazers daid no thank you and hired Mr. Sonic instead, praising him as a great choice when in reality he didn't do all that much in Seattle. 

I have had zero problem with whom the Blazers have traded recently either. I do think Telfair is a very good player and will make the Blazers regret trading him however.

Joel is a career journeyman center. The team has decided to spin to the lemmings of Portland that he is a savior of sorts. The guy has only played a full season twice in his career, and averaged 7 and 6 as a Blazer. He can't stay out of foul trouble either. Am I happy he's a Blazer still, yes, but I still think they overpayed him. 

Zach is a great numbers guy, but a team like ours will never win anything with him as our number one option, and that's what Zach has said he views himself as. He is overpaid for what he actually brings to the team on the floor as well. Trading him would be a very good move by the team going forward. 

If the team is losing every game I will still be first in line to enter the Rose Garden as long as they are developing the talent they have drafted. I hate paying to see Juan Dixon and Steve Blake play when I know they are not going to be here when the team is ready to destroy people. That's what I loved about the old Blazers. It was fun to watch the players develop before our eyes. They got close, added a piece (Buck Williams) and destroyed people. Juan Dixon and Steve Blake don't excite me, and neither does miles for that matter. The guy is a bum and a waste of skin. 

Because I am not a "Blazers can do no wrong" type of fan doesn't mean I don't love the team, it means I'm a realist and see things without rose garden colored glasses on.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> All I'm saying is it would be a better move by Portland to tray and ship players like Zach and Darius off and replace them with allstars making the same money.


Trading Zach and Darius for Allstars would be wonderful, too bad that is extremely unrealistic. Miles at best would fetch a Jaric or Brent Barry.

Zach, if packaged with a couple of picks, and/or Webster, could bring back a Richard Jefferson, which would be the best possible scenario.

Zach simply does not have All-star value. Straight up deals for Zach would be for other problems, like Kenyon Martin or Carlos Boozer. I'd prefer to keep Zach and let Denver and Utah choke on those contracts. At least Zach produces more for the same salary.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Trading Zach and Darius for Allstars would be wonderful, too bad that is extremely unrealistic. Miles at best would fetch a Jaric or Brent Barry.
> 
> Zach, if packaged with a couple of picks, and/or Webster, could bring back a Richard Jefferson, which would be the best possible scenario.
> 
> Zach simply does not have All-star value. Straight up deals for Zach would be for other problems, like Kenyon Martin or Carlos Boozer. I'd prefer to keep Zach and let Denver and Utah choke on those contracts. At least Zach produces more for the same salary.



I'm not saying for a minute you could trade them for all stars....LOL who am I traderbob?....What I am saying is trade them for cap relief so you could sign an all star making the the money they do.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Nate's not 1/2 the coach Adelman is, that's why.



Touche'!

IMHO, Adelman rarely got the credit he deserved.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I'm not saying for a minute you could trade them for all stars....LOL who am I traderbob?....What I am saying is trade them for cap relief so you could sign an all star making the the money they do.


I understand your point MM - I just don't agree with it.

With the MLE, you can pick up useful, complimentary players. With lots of cap space......you usually wind up overpaying for a guy his old team no longer wants.

Who got the better deal - the Suns signing Banks for 5 yrs/21 mil, or Orlando giving the player formerly known as Peja 5 yrs/70+ mil? When you factor in the loss of Chandler, even the Big Ben signing in Chicago looks like a bad deal. (at least over the long haul)

You have to keep in mind that NBA rules are deliberatly structured to supress free agent movement or major trades.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I understand your point MM - I just don't agree with it.
> 
> With the MLE, you can pick up useful, complimentary players. With lots of cap space......you usually wind up overpaying for a guy his old team no longer wants.
> 
> ...



I can give you Steve Nash as a great example though. 

I'm certainly not saying it's a sure fire way to change the course of a team, but it's not like Randolph, Lafrentz or Miles is going to do that either. With high risk comes high reward. When NJ traded Buck williams to us they took back Petro. He really hadn't shown he could ba an all star with us, but with playing time he was. Jernaine is the same way. Indiana saw a future superstar and let go of an all star for him. 

Drafting the players we did the last two years shows that Portland has a clue once again. Now they need to add a big piece to those young guys and this team is right back in it.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I can give you Steve Nash as a great example though.


The more I think about it though, he seems like the only good example. Maybe he's the exception that proves the rule?

And if you look at the team that they had in place before he arrived - they had a whole lot of talent. To attract top free agents, you need to not only show them the money, but also give them a chance to win. Trading away our best players for squat won't attract top free agents so long is there is another team with cap space on the market. They'll see Portland, and they'll see the worst team in the league... look at the free agent histories of teams in similar situations like Chicago (5 years ago when they were terrible), Atlanta, LAClippers... it's not a good place to be.



> With high risk comes high reward. When NJ traded Buck williams to us they took back Petro. He really hadn't shown he could ba an all star with us, but with playing time he was. Jernaine is the same way. Indiana saw a future superstar and let go of an all star for him.


Again, these are trades though - you look at the entire post CBA period (something like 5-6 years) and Nash looks like the only great example of a top free agent helping to push a team into contention. I want to believe, but I just don't see it.

Again, I'm not saying it's possible.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I'm certainly not saying it's a sure fire way to change the course of a team, but it's not like Randolph, Lafrentz or Miles is going to do that either. With high risk comes high reward. When NJ traded Buck williams to us they took back Petro. He really hadn't shown he could ba an all star with us, but with playing time he was. Jernaine is the same way. Indiana saw a future superstar and let go of an all star for him.
> 
> Drafting the players we did the last two years shows that Portland has a clue once again. Now they need to add a big piece to those young guys and this team is right back in it.


FYI: Sam Bowie went to NJ in the Buck Williams deal. 

Petro was here with Buck until 1991 when the Blazers traded him to NJ through Denver and the Blazers ended up with Walter Davis. I was upset with the Blazers over that deal. Petro could have been very effective off the bench, but was stuck behind Terry, Clyde and Danny Ainge.

Jermaine had big time potential but could not produce here. Miles doesn't seem to have the desire to produce and does not appear to have the potential to improve based on his career to date.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I loved the draft. I think Roy and Aldridge will be very good players. I also think Jack and Webster will be good players. I would have rather had Morrison, but Roy has proved me wrong in many areas.
> 
> Nate was a dumb hire IMO. He proved that last year when, in a rebuilding situation, continued to play guys like Dixon, Lenard and Blake. He wasn't that good of a coach in Seattle either. The Blazers trying to reconnect with the fans had the oportunity to do that when TP wanted to coach the team. The Blazers daid no thank you and hired Mr. Sonic instead, praising him as a great choice when in reality he didn't do all that much in Seattle.
> 
> ...


 Man, do you have a sense of reality? Dixon & Blake have been winners and CHAMPIONS everywhere they've been. They are also relatively young players.

The reason Nate played them was because they out-played and out-hustled their respective teammates and (when everyone was healthy) won a good percentage of their games as starters, including 4 in a row at one point.

In his 3rd season, Dixon put up 35 points in playoff victory with the Wizards - how many other Blazer players can claim that? Both Blake & Dixon have shown great dedication to the team, including training locally, even though they're from the east coast. So, do not assume they are not part of the future.

I'm not saying Dixon and/or Blake are THE long-term solution. However, to spite them because they're taking minutes from lesser performing teammates is simply a cop-out. You want to develop players? There is college and/or the NBDL. In the pros, the #1 goal is to win - and, that's exactly why Nate is a great coach. He coaches to win - not babysit players who "may" amount to something 4-6 years from now.

Finally, I think Nate has been more than generous if giving the "young" guys plenty of opportunities to play last year. That stats bear that out.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

southnc said:


> Man, do you have a sense of reality? Dixon & Blake have been winners and CHAMPIONS everywhere they've been. They are also relatively young players.
> 
> The reason Nate played them was because they out-played and out-hustled their respective teammates and (when everyone was healthy) won a good percentage of their games as starters, including 4 in a row at one point.
> 
> ...



:clap: well put.... I agree, considering the top two scorers on the team were recovering from injury last year, I think it's safe to assume that this year is going to be way different.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

southnc said:


> Man, do you have a sense of reality? Dixon & Blake have been winners and CHAMPIONS everywhere they've been. They are also relatively young players.
> 
> You want to develop players? There is college and/or the NBDL. In the pros, the #1 goal is to win - and, that's exactly why Nate is a great coach. He coaches to win - not babysit players who "may" amount to something 4-6 years from now.
> 
> Finally, I think Nate has been more than generous if giving the "young" guys plenty of opportunities to play last year. That stats bear that out.


"Winners and CHAMPIONS everywhere they've been." Everywhere but the NBA, that is.  

As for your 2nd point - that is the kind of logic that cost this team Jermaine. If Nate gives all the center minutes to Joel and Raef, he *might* win 3-5 extra games next season. By not playing LaMarcus, it could COST the team 10 wins the year after. It took Jermaine "4-6 years" to develop because the team didn't have patience/foresight to let him PLAY!

Every minute Jack/Roy/Webster/Aldridge aren't on the floor is a minute wasted!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> "Every minute Jack/Roy/Webster/Aldridge aren't on the floor is a minute wasted!


I disagree. While players certainly need playing time to develop, I thnk there is a lot that they can learn from being benched at the right time and coached.

If these young players are going to develop, they need to be rewarded when they're putting in the work with solid playing time - but also, the opposite should be true. Don't hand them the reigns until they earn it, otherwise they might never push themselves hard enough to get to the next level.

I think there needs to be a healthy balance there. There's nothing that suggests to me that Nate had a serious problem with this last season. By playing Dixon, the message was loud and clear to Martell - hey you're good, but this guy can play in the NBA and you can't yet... keep working!

By playing Blake, I think he was saying the same to Telfair and Jack.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

southnc said:


> Man, do you have a sense of reality? Dixon & Blake have been winners and CHAMPIONS everywhere they've been. They are also relatively young players.
> 
> The reason Nate played them was because they out-played and out-hustled their respective teammates and (when everyone was healthy) won a good percentage of their games as starters, including 4 in a row at one point.
> 
> ...



Agree. 

Some posters think Webster should have just been handed over the starting position. Funny, becuase he even admitted that going to the developmental league was good for him as it put things in perspective and gave him confidence back.

The assumption is if you give them NBA minutes they automatically develop. I don't think it is that easy . . . they may never gain confidence and don't develop the work ethic it takes to earn the minutes. Webster is a good example.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> "Winners and CHAMPIONS everywhere they've been." Everywhere but the NBA, that is.
> 
> As for your 2nd point - that is the kind of logic that cost this team Jermaine. If Nate gives all the center minutes to Joel and Raef, he *might* win 3-5 extra games next season. By not playing LaMarcus, it could COST the team 10 wins the year after. It took Jermaine "4-6 years" to develop because the team didn't have patience/foresight to let him PLAY!
> 
> Every minute Jack/Roy/Webster/Aldridge aren't on the floor is a minute wasted!





Correct!!!!! Every minute those guys aren't playing is a wasted minute. I seem to remember a football team in the 90's that started a rookie QB and got their tails whipped that year. They only one one game. Because of his on the job training however the team ended up better quicker. Portland will lose no matter who they play this season. They will will sooner than later if the players that have the talent and not the experience play ahead of the players with the experience and not the talent.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Agree.
> 
> Some posters think Webster should have just been handed over the starting position. Funny, becuase he even admitted that going to the developmental league was good for him as it put things in perspective and gave him confidence back.
> 
> The assumption is if you give them NBA minutes they automatically develop. I don't think it is that easy . . . they may never gain confidence and don't develop the work ethic it takes to earn the minutes. Webster is a good example.



He also said that his confidence was lacking because of his lack of playing time. He was working hard and couldn't get regular minutes.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> He also said that his confidence was lacking because of his lack of playing time. He was working hard and couldn't get regular minutes.



That's not what I remember. I remember Webster admitting he wasn't working hard enough prior to going to developmental league and that D-league was good for him for the reasons I already stated.

But whatever. We are both pretty clear about what we think. You want the youngins to get as many minutes as possible to develop despite their performance. I want the youngins to have to earn their minutes as I think this will help them develop. We both want the youngins to develop, just different philosophies which hopefully will end up merging at some point. I hope you realize that there are two different schools of thought about this.

In the end, what the coach thinks is the only thing that really matters.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Point of clarification:

There is a difference between benching a player because they are slacking off, and benching them because you are impatient with rookie mistakes.

It is the latter that the team cannot afford.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Point of clarification:
> 
> There is a difference between benching a player because they are slacking off, and benching them because you are impatient with rookie mistakes.
> 
> It is the latter that the team cannot afford.


I didn't think anyone was taking the extreme position that yougins get minutes no matter what. If there is attitude problems, I think even MM would say bench them to teach them a lesson.

My position is also not as extreme as pulling them for each rookie mistake. But if there is a better player on the team, that person deserves the start. Of course if you have a young player with potential you look to get them in the game and let them run longer perhaps longer than a vet with equal skills. But I don't think you just hand them the starting gig and give them 30+ minutes a game to develop. 

That doesn't breed the "culture of winning" that I think the Blazer oraganization is trying to acomplish, IMO.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Correct!!!!! Every minute those guys aren't playing is a wasted minute. I seem to remember a football team in the 90's that started a rookie QB and got their tails whipped that year. They only one one game. Because of his on the job training however the team ended up better quicker. Portland will lose no matter who they play this season. They will will sooner than later if the players that have the talent and not the experience play ahead of the players with the experience and not the talent.


You must be referring to my beloved Cowboys right?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

ColoradoBlazerFan said:


> You must be referring to my beloved Cowboys right?


I couldn't decide if he was refering to Aikman/Cowboys, Montana/49ers, or even Farve/GB.

Heck, anyone of them works for me. :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I couldn't decide if he was refering to Aikman/Cowboys, Montana/49ers, or even Farve/GB.
> 
> Heck, anyone of them works for me. :biggrin:



Football QB is obviously different in that you don't substitute like basketball. Eventually you have to give an inexperienced QB a start. But isn't that a position where more often than not they make even the QBs with the highest potential learn on the sidelines. 

Just off the top of my head I can think of several #1 QB draft picks that didn't start their first year.

But QB has to be the most unique postion in all of sports.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I didn't think anyone was taking the extreme position that yougins get minutes no matter what. If there is attitude problems, I think even MM would say bench them to teach them a lesson.
> 
> My position is also not as extreme as pulling them for each rookie mistake. But if there is a better player on the team, that person deserves the start. Of course if you have a young player with potential you look to get them in the game and let them run longer perhaps longer than a vet with equal skills. But I don't think you just hand them the starting gig and give them 30+ minutes a game to develop.
> 
> That doesn't breed the "culture of winning" that I think the Blazer oraganization is trying to acomplish, IMO.



But that's exactly what Nate did. Telfair stared, did well, got hurt and lost his job when he came back because a player in his place was steadier than he....not better in any way, but steadier and only for a short period. Juan Dixon had no business whatsoever playing as many minutes as he did. Our 6th pick in the draft had no business missing the rookie game as he did.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> But that's exactly what Nate did. Telfair stared, did well, got hurt and lost his job when he came back because a player in his place was steadier than he....not better in any way, but steadier and only for a short period. Juan Dixon had no business whatsoever playing as many minutes as he did. Our 6th pick in the draft had no business missing the rookie game as he did.


 I think it is just an interpretation of what doing well means. Telfair has flash, promise and everything else. But I'm guessing to Nate, at the PG postion, steady=well. Personally I didn't see Telfair or Webster doing particularly well. I don't think Webster makes the rookie game even if Nate gave him 30+ minutes a game, but we will never know . . . which I guess is your point.

-Do you give Nate some credit for spotting Roy . . . remebered you were harsh on Roy being a Nate guy.

-You accuse some fans of wearing rose colored glasses which is probably true (defeinetly me for Joel). Would you admit you might have those same glasses when viewing the Webster and Telfair. :biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I think it is just an interpretation of what doing well means. Telfair has flash, promise and everything else. But I'm guessing to Nate, at the PG postion, steady=well. Personally I didn't see Telfair or Webster doing particularly well. I don't think Webster makes the rookie game even if Nate gave him 30+ minutes a game, but we will never know . . . which I guess is your point.
> 
> -Do you give Nate some credit for spotting Roy . . . remebered you were harsh on Roy being a Nate guy.
> 
> -You accuse some fans of wearing rose colored glasses which is probably true (defeinetly me for Joel). Would you admit you might have those same glasses when viewing the Webster and Telfair. :biggrin:


I can say unequivocably that to me Telfair and Webster did not look like they played well last season until near the end. Blake won and kept the staring PG spot by outplaying his competition, until Telfair and Jack were given the starting spot back at the end of the season for "evaluation". If anything, Blake was probably the one unfairly held back, since he was considered a lowly million-dollar insurance player competing with our annointed draft picks.

Similarly, at the SG position Dixon was our best guy. It seemed clear that Nate was unhappy with his practice habits and defense, and even tried starting Charles Smith, Monia and Webster at various times, but came back to Dixon because none of them played better. Webster's play was so bad they sent him to the D-league even. Now, by the end of the season both Webster and Telfair seemed to have made major strides in their development (sort of damaging the idea that players need loads of PT to develop), but for most of the year, Blake and Dixon were clearly our best guards. This year, I won't be surprised at all if Blake still beats out Jack for the starting job, although I will be surprised if Dixon starts over Roy on opening day. In any case, I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that Nate will start whoever he thinks will play best, and make anyone who wants minutes earn them in practice. That's not a bad thing.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> I can say unequivocably that to me Telfair and Webster did not look like they played well last season until near the end. Blake won and kept the staring PG spot by outplaying his competition, until Telfair and Jack were given the starting spot back at the end of the season for "evaluation". If anything, Blake was probably the one unfairly held back, since he was considered a lowly million-dollar insurance player competing with our annointed draft picks.
> 
> Similarly, at the SG position Dixon was our best guy. It seemed clear that Nate was unhappy with his practice habits and defense, and even tried starting Charles Smith, Monia and Webster at various times, but came back to Dixon because none of them played better. Webster's play was so bad they sent him to the D-league even. Now, by the end of the season both Webster and Telfair seemed to have made major strides in their development (sort of damaging the idea that players need loads of PT to develop), but for most of the year, Blake and Dixon were clearly our best guards. This year, I won't be surprised at all if Blake still beats out Jack for the starting job, although I will be surprised if Dixon starts over Roy on opening day. In any case, I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that Nate will start whoever he thinks will play best, and make anyone who wants minutes earn them in practice. That's not a bad thing.


Blake and Dixon were, unfortunately, the best guard tandem the Blazers had last year, which is what led to the horrible record.

Dixon is a good 3rd/4th guard off the bench, but can be posted up at will by most NBA 2 guards, which forced Nate to use Blake to guard the opponent's SG much of last year. With Roy on hand, that will not be necessary.

Also, a healthy Jack should be able to wrest the starting PG spot away from Blake. Jack was pretty good at 75-80% last year and has proven the ability to defend both the 1 and 2 spots.

Webster will get some PT at SG, but should get 20-25 min/game at the SF spot.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Portland will lose no matter who they play this season.


Incorrect.

The Blazers will win 10-15 more games this year than last. The talent level is balanced, all positions are well-stocked and once Miles is traded, distractions are a minimum.

In fact, Portland could be in for the kind of turnaround that the Bulls had in 04-05, and could contend for the playoffs. 

There is a good mix of youth and veteran talent on this team.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Blazer Maven said:


> In fact, Portland could be in for the kind of turnaround that the Bulls had in 04-05, and could contend for the playoffs.
> QUOTE]
> 
> :jawdrop:
> ...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> The Blazers will win 10-15 more games this year than last. The talent level is balanced, all positions are well-stocked and once Miles is traded, distractions are a minimum.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but by my math that is still losing. Blazers won 22 games, so giving you the benefit of the doubt the Blazers would win 37 games, miss the playoffs, miss any realistic chance in hell of Greg Oden and accomplish nothing going forward. Great plan


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Sorry, but by my math that is still losing. Blazers won 22 games, so giving you the benefit of the doubt the Blazers would win 37 games, miss the playoffs, miss any realistic chance in hell of Greg Oden and accomplish nothing going forward. Great plan



Other plan being tank the season, have the worst record in the league for a second year in a row, decrease fan and players morale . . . all so the Blazers get a 25% chance at Oden. . . . leaving a 75% chance of the organization going into the tank with no hope in sight. Great plan.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Other plan being tank the season, have the worst record in the league for a second year in a row, decrease fan and players morale . . . all so the Blazers get a 25% chance at Oden. . . . leaving a 75% chance of the organization going into the tank with no hope in sight. Great plan.




Playing the future of our franchise, Aldridge, Roy, Jack and Webster, extensive minutes is anything but tanking the season. 

Playing average NBA players over young players with more skill but less experience is a waste. 

All I'm saying is either way we won't make the playoffs this season, so why not let the guys with an actual chance to be special NBA players play more than the guys that are average players or malcontents.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Playing the future of our franchise, Aldridge, Roy, Jack and Webster, extensive minutes is anything but tanking the season.
> 
> Playing average NBA players over young players with more skill but less experience is a waste.
> 
> All I'm saying is either way we won't make the playoffs this season, so why not let the guys with an actual chance to be special NBA players play more than the guys that are average players or malcontents.


 From a coaches prospective, by not playing the best players you don't create insentive for players to try their hardest to be the best. The young players will feel like they don't have to earn their minutes, verterans will be upset a lesser talented player is getting their minutes, and the coach generally will lose respect from all parties down the future.

If every players #1 goal was to do what's best for the franchise, this idea would be perfect. However, in the NBA, everyone looks out for themselves (a lot like in the real world), and this strategy wouldn't work.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Tince said:


> From a coaches prospective, by not playing the best players you don't create insentive for players to try their hardest to be the best. The young players will feel like they don't have to earn their minutes, verterans will be upset a lesser talented player is getting their minutes, and the coach generally will lose respect from all parties down the future.
> 
> If every players #1 goal was to do what's best for the franchise, this idea would be perfect. However, in the NBA, everyone looks out for themselves (a lot like in the real world), and this strategy wouldn't work.



I agree, the youngsters have to earn their minutes. Just because they were drafted what 2 and 6 respectively, doesn't mean squat. Make them earn it through their play, via training camp, practices, and what minutes they do get.

As a fan, I'd rather the newbies get developed at a pace where they don't tank the season, because I hate going to losing Blazer games and so do most people.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Tince said:


> From a coaches prospective, by not playing the best players you don't create insentive for players to try their hardest to be the best. The young players will feel like they don't have to earn their minutes, verterans will be upset a lesser talented player is getting their minutes, and the coach generally will lose respect from all parties down the future.
> 
> If every players #1 goal was to do what's best for the franchise, this idea would be perfect. However, in the NBA, everyone looks out for themselves (a lot like in the real world), and this strategy wouldn't work.



Earning your minutes is fine, but there were games last year where Webster didn't even play, or played absolute garbage time. That should be unacceptable to all of you. He was the 6th pick for crying out loud. he wasn't in the rookie game because of it either. Nate said he had the work ethic, but was still learning how to work and play defense. Instead he played Dixon who plays zero defense.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Earning your minutes is fine, but there were games last year where Webster didn't even play, or played absolute garbage time. That should be unacceptable to all of you. He was the 6th pick for crying out loud. he wasn't in the rookie game because of it either. Nate said he had the work ethic, but was still learning how to work and play defense. Instead he played Dixon who plays zero defense.


in the few games we won last year, Webster played 11.8 minutes. in the many games we lost last year, he played 19 minutes. 

he had a +/- of -3.9 according to 82games.com. 

he just wasn't that good out there. I wish he would've got more minutes, but I wish it was because he earned them. 

let's face it: if you are good in the NBA, even if you're incredibly young, you'll get your minutes on a crappy team like ours. Bonzi Wells was logging decent minutes by his second season in the league, and that was for a contending team behind a still very good Steve Smith. Randolph forced his way into quality minutes in his second year, even with an All-Star reserve in Rasheed Wallace already manning his position. 

if Webster can't beat out a mediocre bench guard like Juan Dixon for a starters job at SG, it ain't going to be because Nate isn't doing a good job of coaching. if he can't beat out a slacker headcase like Miles for the starting SF position, again, don't blame Nate. 

Webster is one year removed from worrying about his high school prom. he may just need another year or two in practice before he really produces at the NBA level. most high schoolers do.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I agree that players should earn their minutes, in the sense that they should work hard. 

OTOH, some coaches need to learn the difference between "experience" and "seniority".

If your team is contending for a play-off spot, experience is an asset. A consistent vet is more useful than an erratic rookie. If the team is in rebuilding mode, experience means much less. You have to play the most talented people, and live with their growing pains. (EG giving Jack minutes over Blake)

Seniority isn't, or shouldn't be, relevant. Playing x number of years in the league doesn't entitle you to minutes anymore than being a high draft pick does. (EG you don't leave LaMarcus on the bench just to protect Joel's feelings!)


Can you say "balancing act?" :biggrin:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

true enough. Cheeks used to frustrate the hell out of me by playing Stoudamire over Telfair, when there wasn't much difference between the two in quality. 

if Webster is able to give us 95% of the production of Miles, then sure, you start him over Miles even if he's slightly inferior. the difference isn't all that great, and you hope he makes up that difference over time. but if he's only giving you 50-60% of Miles' productivity, which was the case last year, you have to bench him.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

In case you still want to trade both Zach and Miles:

Sacramento trade Kenny Thomas, Williamson, Potapenko and their 1st rounder next season to Portland;
Portland trade Zach Randolph to Sacramento and Darius Miles to Minnesota;
Minnesota trade Marko Jaric to Portland and Mark Madsen to Sacramento;

It can make sense to Portland, since while being a useful player, Williamson still have an expiring contract. And you can resign him next season for a cheaper price. Kenny Thomas is a good backup that can also play both forward positions, and it free up some minutes for LaMarcus Aldridge. Potapenko have an expiring contract and is the Ha replacement :biggrin:


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Zuca said:



> ...Portland trade Zach Randolph to Sacramento...


Then the Shareef Abdur-Rahim/Zach Randolph debacle just gets passed on to another team. That situation didn't work out so well in Portland, it probably won't in Sacto. I don't see this working out for the Kings.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Sorry, but by my math that is still losing. Blazers won 22 games, so giving you the benefit of the doubt the Blazers would win 37 games, miss the playoffs, miss any realistic chance in hell of Greg Oden and accomplish nothing going forward. Great plan


I don't see winning 37 games as accomplishing nothing. That just means our players improved, and should be expected to step it up even more the following year (which would likely mean playoffs). Tanking for a 75% (or more) at not getting Oden isn't worth it. Oh, and good points by Tince and blue32.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

LameR said:


> I don't see winning 37 games as accomplishing nothing. That just means our players improved, and should be expected to step it up even more the following year (which would likely mean playoffs). Tanking for a 75% (or more) at not getting Oden isn't worth it. Oh, and good points by Tince and blue32.




You have to stop using the word tank. Tanking is finding ways to lose on purpose. Playing guys like JJ, Roy, Webster and Aldridge is simply bulding for the future. Here are some other great "tank" jobs

Houston when they got Hakeem and Sampson
San Antonio when they got Robinson and Duncan

Maybe you are right, those teams sucked bad after that.


----------

