# Dear Randolph Supporters



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.


Why? Because we're beating one of the worst teams in the NBA (without Bosh, they're probably THE worst team in the league.)

The fact that we're winning this ONE game means nothing, it certainly doesn't mean Zach is a liability. 26 and 10 per night is NOT a liability. Was he a liability when he basically single handedly beat Detroit the other night?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.



Im not sure if 1 game is enough of a "sign", but so far they've played great without him.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Winning today really is more telling about how terrible the Raptors played. Their crowd has been booing them the last few minutes.

I'm still for trading Zbo, but I'd be of that mindset even if we lost. With Nate's "dump it into Zbo every possession" strategy, Jack/Martell/Outlaw/LaMarcus will never reach their potential.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I agree that Zach should be shopped. But, dont overestimate Toronto. They are easily the worst team in the league when they dont have Bosh.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Why? Because we're beating one of the worst teams in the NBA (without Bosh, they're probably THE worst team in the league.)


they still have a better record than us, and it still IS a road game where Toronto is 5-2 at home.

plus, them without Bosh, at home, should be better than us without Zach on the road.


> The fact that we're winning this ONE game means nothing, it certainly doesn't mean Zach is a liability. 26 and 10 per night is NOT a liability. Was he a liability when he basically single handedly beat Detroit the other night?


Defensively is where he's a liability.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> defensively is where he's a liability.


Points per 48.

Zach Randolph at PF: 32.2
His collective opponents at PF: 19.4

So...he's NOT a liability.

thanks 82games.com


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

Did you even watch the game? It was more of how bad the Raptors played then how good the Blazers played. Great game by the Blazers, but it's 1 game, not near enough to say were better with or without Zach. The Raptor fans were booing them all game. The Raptors just flat out played bad.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Points per 48.
> 
> Zach Randolph at PF: 32.2
> His collective opponents at PF: 19.4
> ...


there is more to what makes a player a defensive liability than how many points per game his opponents score. First off, we have to go based on what their averages are. Is 19 per 48 above or below their average per 48?

I find it hard to believe that the average PF scores 19 per 48.

Also, you have to take into account how often he needs "help" on defense, which to leads open shots for the opponent. 

Also, his defensive liability is shown when the opponent knows he's not going to block shots, so they can drive around him and not have to worry about it (and thats not just power forwards there).

So quoting how many ppg the opponents power forward gets, is really just a small segment of the big picture, and really not the best way to make a claim about him not being a defensive liability.

because if you're going to point out a stat from 82games.com, I'd point out that the team scores more when he's out, and gives up less when he's out.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

The one deciding factor is what we can get in return for Zach. I think their are only a few teams that could facilitate a fair trade with us. Chicago is the best trading partner out there. But Luol Deng would be our main target(IMO) and I cant see them dealing him. Their pick would be nice, but not enough to get the deal done, if they are willing to deal the pick in the first place. Charlotte is another good trading partner, but I am not sure if they would take on such a large salary. Gerald Wallace would look great in a Blazer uniform though. Seattle is also a decent partner.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

are you guys even watching the Blazer games?

We're not losing primarily becase of Zach's supposed defensive inabillities, we're losing because of turnovers from our guard play....its been a problem and has to do more with inexperience than anything. sheesh.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

In the Fourth Quarter, especially the last 5min, the Blazers played not to lose, instead of trying to win. They tried to milk the clock on every posession, and didn't have a scorer to go to. Jack and Martell were awesome today, but they can do little down low, to spread to offense. We need Zach.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

This argument is so damn dishonest it is unbelievable.

If the the team won today: "We won without Zach so that proves he is a liability!"

If the team lost today: "This proves that Zach is a liability since he caused us to lose by missing the game!"


I can understand liking or disliking a player......but this level of animosity is sick!

:wahmbulance: :rocket:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> This argument is so damn dishonest it is unbelievable.
> 
> If the the team won today: "We won without Zach so that proves he is a liability!"


no one said that.


> If the team lost today: "This proves that Zach is a liability since he caused us to lose by missing the game!"


well, I doubt anyone was going to make that actual argument.

As I said yesterday, 1 game wouldn't prove anything either way. If the team lost it didn't prove that they can't trade zach. if they won, it doesn't prove they should trade zach. 



> I can understand liking or disliking a player......but this level of animosity is sick!
> 
> :wahmbulance: :rocket:



both sides are arguing about something and acting like the other side isn't capable of understanding what they're arguing. Some are in the mindset of "scoring is proof" whereas others take note of the production of the team when he's out vs in. 

Both have their valid points, but one isn't being denied (no one denies that he's a good scorer) but the other one is (people deny that his defensive liability IS a detriment to the team).


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

The Raptors just flat out sucked today. If Zach had played we would have won by thirty.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Xericx said:


> are you guys even watching the Blazer games?
> 
> We're not losing primarily becase of Zach's supposed defensive inabillities, we're losing because of turnovers from our guard play....its been a problem and has to do more with inexperience than anything. sheesh.


Did you watch today's game?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Zach is a super player. Teams often win when a star goes down; there is a temporary "high" before the team falls back to earth. The Blazers are not a better team without Zach -- but we might be a better team in 2 years if we got Chicago's NY pick and drafted an Oden or Durant.

I am not opposed to trading anyone for the right price. I don't think Zach is irreplaceable, but I also don't feel Jack, Martell, etc. all will be superstars if only Zach gave them a chance to shine. Superstars have a way of rising to the top regardless of circumstance, and so do very good players. 

I think we are seeing that Jack is going to be a very solid point guard. That is true whether Zach stays or leaves. 

Webster is already a super 3 point threat -- when standing still. When teams guard him, he'll need some new tricks. 

Aldridge looks like he'll be a solid player for years to come. He seems to lack the temperament to become a stud.

Sergio is dripping potential, and the Jack/Sergio contrast is going to be wonderful to watch, if Nate lightens up enough to let Sergio play.

And Roy, of course, will be superb.

But no team wins a championship without a real low post threat and rebounding force. Zach fits the bill. So would Oden, of course. 

iWatas


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

edit: didnt realize the game was aready played.


...they didnt have chris bosh either though, so i consider it an even matchup.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> from zach supporters: i too, present tonights game as an example of why this team is nothing without zach.
> 
> we lose by double digits, im guessing 15 or so.
> 
> ...


I'm confused.

The game is over, and Portland won.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006121028


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> The game is over, and Portland won.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006121028


yep, i edited it. didnt realize we played already.

i got sonned, essentially. but sonned for a good cause, we won, so its ok i guess.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Dear Zach Haters,

Merry Christmas!

Love,
Drexlersdad


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Hap said:


> no one said that.
> 
> 
> well, I doubt anyone was going to make that actual argument.
> ...


Actually, that was the whole point of the original post.

BTW, it isn't just about scoring. Last year, when Zach was playing on one leg and settling for mid-range shots, there was truth in the claim that he was a low efficiency scorer.
This season, he is getting position in the post, getting good looks at the basket, drawing contact, and sinking his FTs.

If you don't buy that it makes a difference, look at the top 10 scorers in the league. Compare their ratio of points per FG attempt.

The outliers are Hamilton at 1.27 and Dirk at 1.54.

The other top 10 scorers, including Zach, are all within
a range of 1.33 to 1.43.

In this "points/ball-hogging" metric, Zach isn't any different than most top scorers.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Dear Zach Haters*

I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why LaMarcus Aldridge is not ready to replace Zach as the starting PF.

19 mins, 1-6 FG, 3pts, 3rebs, 0 blks, 0 stls, 2 TOs and 5 fouls against perhaps the weakest frontcourt in the league (w/o Bosh it's just Bargnani, Nesterovic, Garbajosa).

I'm not against trading Zach, but right now he gives us post offense and a primary scorer, and neither of those things can be effectively replaced by anyone else on our roster. If we could get another player or players to do those things, then Zach becomes less important to us, but right now there's nobody who even comes close.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If you don't buy that it makes a difference, look at the top 10 scorers in the league. Compare their ratio of points per FG attempt.
> 
> The outliers are Hamilton at 1.27 and Dirk at 1.54.
> 
> ...


thats a very limited "metric" to go on. Actually, thats a really bad way to decipher anything, points per fg ratio.

Thats scoring EFFICIENCY, which is not the same as how often he passes, or "hogs" the ball. You can be super efficient, and still a ball hog.

It helps to take into account how many assists they get makes a difference too. Zach is actually averaging FEWER assists this year, than last year. Dirk is over twice the # of assists, as is Hamilton.

And of the top 14 scorers, he's DEAD LAST in assists. And thats not just because we're a young team, it's because he doesn't pass out as much.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.



I present your post as exhibit "A" as to why you know nothing about basketball. Toronto flat-out sucked today. Our play was not good (17 to's, 42.5% fgs), we tried to give the game away, they just didn't want it. 

How can the only guy in the LEAGUE averaging over 25 and ten be that bad? 

If this games 'proves' we're better without Zach, we must also be better without Roy. And if you then point to all our losses we've had without Roy, I'll point you to last year when we were 0-8 without Zach... I'll present those as exhibits "A-H".

If you don't like the guy, just say you don't like the guy. But saying we're better without him is ridiculous.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

I don't think this game proves we're better without Zach, but it may support that'd we'd be better with a player that played more within a team offense. That gave others a chance to establish themselves.

But I'm not about just getting rid of Zach, I'd prefer we get a player that can produce (maybe not as much offensively, but is a good defensive player) back.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Hap said:


> thats a very limited "metric" to go on. Actually, thats a really bad way to decipher anything, points per fg ratio.
> 
> Thats scoring EFFICIENCY, which is not the same as how often he passes, or "hogs" the ball. You can be super efficient, and still a ball hog.
> 
> ...



Assists only prove how good your team-mates are. They can't measure when a player passes the ball, and the result is either no shot, or a miss. All of which is outside the scope of my argument.

Just to be clear, this isn't about specific numbers either. I did this last week so these numbers may well have changed a bit. This is about *perception*.

If player "A" averages 20 pts on 12 FG attempts, and player "B" averages 20 on 20 FG attempts, we can safely stake a claim as to who is the better team player. In reality, such wide deviations *don't exist*! All top scorers land in a very narrow range. 

If a player is an efficient scorer, why would you want him to not shoot? How is it desirable for KG to put up 18 shots, but selfish for Zach to do so, even though their efficiency is nearly identical?

Does that clarify my point, or just add to the fog? :biggrin:


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I suspect Zach's future with the Blazers will be largely based on this year's draft. If we ended up with Oden or possibly B. Wright, it's quite possible Zach could be shipped for a SF. However, if we ended up with say Durant we'd still need a presense in the post, which Zach would supply.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Assists only prove how good your team-mates are. They can't measure when a player passes the ball, and the result is either no shot, or a miss. All of which is outside the scope of my argument.


thats the biggest pile of crappola on a stick. If it's only how good your teammates are, why is it that Nash makes players around him a LOT better? And that Sergio (and Jack to a lesser degree) are making the teammates better?



> Just to be clear, this isn't about specific numbers either. I did this last week so these numbers may well have changed a bit. This is about *perception*.
> 
> If player "A" averages 20 pts on 12 FG attempts, and player "B" averages 20 on 20 FG attempts, we can safely stake a claim as to who is the better team player. In reality, such wide deviations *don't exist*! All top scorers land in a very narrow range.


efficiency isn't the same as making the team better. Ruben was incredibly efficient when it scored. But he sure as hell didn't make the team better.



> If a player is an efficient scorer, why would you want him to not shoot?


see above.



> How is it desirable for KG to put up 18 shots, but selfish for Zach to do so, even though their efficiency is nearly identical?


because KG makes his teammates *BETTER*. Zach doesn't.

KG also plays MUCH better defense. Zach doesn't.

KG also can block shots. Zach can't.



> Does that clarify my point, or just add to the fog? :biggrin:


it shows that you're trying to make an apple into a cantelope.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

ProZach said:


> How can the only guy in the LEAGUE averaging over 25 and ten be that bad?
> 
> If you don't like the guy, just say you don't like the guy. But saying we're better without him is ridiculous.


"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." 

25/10 is thrown around way too often as a reason to keep Zbo. Are we running an NBA team or fantasy basketball team? Here is a list of reasons why he's HIGHLY overrated:

- He defense is awful

- He doesn't run the floor fast enough on the break to be of any use in an uptemo game

- He's too slow getting back on defense. Even slower when he's arguing a call with a ref while the opposing team runs the ball down our throat on a 5-on-4 break

- He doesn't block shots

- He doen't have the elevation to alleyoop or avoid some easy shot blocks

- Doesn't pass well, if at all, out of the double team

- Oh yea. He speeds with loaded guns, is accused of rape, flips off fans, was with his brother when his brother shot up a club and sucker punched a teammate in practice

For every point he scores, he gives up easy buckets on the other end and generally kills the offensive flow of this team. He's fool's gold that needs to be traded while teams are enamored with his offense.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> thats the biggest pile of crappola on a stick. If it's only how good your teammates are, why is it that Nash makes players around him a LOT better? And that Sergio (and Jack to a lesser degree) are making the teammates better?



I agree to a point. But Dwight Howard, like Zach, is averaging 1.5 assists. Are you going to argue he doesn't make those around him better? Last year in the playoffs Shaq only averaged 1.9 assists and they won the championship. These are low post players, they're simply not going to put up big assists numbers. 

You're basically comparing him to Nash as a play maker. In what world is that fair? How about you compare him to Phoenix's PF, Amare? In case you were wondering, he's averaging .6 apg.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

craigehlo said:


> 25/10 is thrown around way too often as a reason to keep Zbo. Are we running an NBA team or fantasy basketball team?


So you're just going to choose to ignore statistics all together when they don't tell you what you want to hear? Obviously it doesn't tell the whole story, but it definitely means something.. The fact he's the only one in the NBA putting up those numbers IS noteworthy, whether you want to admit it or not.

As for your list, I can give a similar list for everyone on Portlands roster. They're young, inexperienced, and not very good yet. So let's just trade them all.



craigehlo said:


> - Oh yea. He speeds with loaded guns, is accused of rape, flips off fans, was with his brother when his brother shot up a club and sucker punched a teammate in practice


This has nothing to do with basketball and making those around him better. This is about you not liking him, which I can totally understand, but it doesn't make us a better team without him.

I'm not totally against trading him by any means if the price is right, I just can't stand it when people think we're better without him.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.





ProZach said:


> I present your post as exhibit "A" as to why you know nothing about basketball.


seconded


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ProZach said:


> How about you compare him to Phoenix's PF, Amare? In case you were wondering, he's averaging .6 apg.


I would also like to see the people who are complaining about Zach not making his teammates better answer this question. Should Phoenix trade Amare because he doesn't pass or make his teammates better? I mean, he plays poor D as well and blocks few shots, basically all he does is score and rebound.

How about Michael Redd? He doesn't pass, defend or rebound, he just scores.

Kevin Martin?

Chris Bosh?

Rashard Lewis?

Do all of those guys hurt their teams more than they help them?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProZach said:


> I agree to a point. But Dwight Howard, like Zach, is averaging 1.5 assists. Are you going to argue he doesn't make those around him better? Last year in the playoffs Shaq only averaged 1.9 assists and they won the championship. These are low post players, they're simply not going to put up big assists numbers.


well, for starters, Shaq doesn't need to have players come down and help him on defense. Shaq also is a much much much much much much much much MUCH better passer than Zach is. He's also a better defender (well, in his prime esp).

Not only that, Howard averages 6 times as many blocks. And shoots a WHOLE lot better, and shoots a WHOLE lot less. 10 vs 19.

So, really..thats not a fair comparison. If Zach shot 10 times, he'd average a WHOLE lot less (26 vs barely 18).

Think we'd be all "oh yah! he's doing great!"? **** no.


> You're basically comparing him to Nash as a play maker. In what world is that fair? How about you compare him to Phoenix's PF, Amare? In case you were wondering, he's averaging .6 apg.


I'm not comparing him to Nash as a play maker (never did). As for Amare, he is averaging just over 9 shots a game (thats basically HALF as many as Zach does). So they're obviously not going to Amare very often, are they? Even when Amare had his great season (2 years ago) he didn't shoot as much as Zach does now.

So, um...care to try to come up with another argument?

because when people bring up efficiency as tho that validates him as not being a ball-hog (or stalling the offense), and then try to compare his assist #'s to people who shoot less than him (and therefore, don't the ball in their hands nearly as much), well...it just seems to be grasping at straws now.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> I would also like to see the people who are complaining about Zach not making his teammates better answer this question. Should Phoenix trade Amare because he doesn't pass or make his teammates better?


1. Amare doesn't get the ball as much as Zach does.

2. Amare isn't the Suns best player. We're talking about the "best player" on the Blazers. And the best player on the Suns is Nash. And yes, he makes the team better.



> I mean, he plays poor D as well and blocks few shots, basically all he does is score and rebound.


Amare plays better defense than Zach does. Don't be silly about that.


> How about Michael Redd? He doesn't pass, defend or rebound, he just scores.


if he was on our team and thats all he did, and he was taking away shot opportunities (or clogging the paint) I'd complain too. And who DOESN'T consider Redd a 1 dimensional player, who doesn't play defense, etc?



> Kevin Martin?
> Chris Bosh?


Im not terribly impressed with either of those guys to be honest.


> Rashard Lewis?
> 
> Do all of those guys hurt their teams more than they help them?


did we say that zach hurts his team more than he helps? Nope. So why do you act like someone did?

It's that he doesn't make the team good enough, to put up with his deficiencies. 

His defense is horrible, his inability to understand he doesn't have to shoot into double and triple teams is known league wide. Apparently only Portland fans can't see that. 

He doesn't pass smart, he doesn't block shots, and like the rest of the guys you listed, with the possible exception of Amare, he's not going to lead his team to a title anytime soon. And he doesn't do enough on both ends of the court.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

ProZach said:


> craigehlo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yea. He speeds with loaded guns, is accused of rape, flips off fans, was with his brother when his brother shot up a club and sucker punched a teammate in practice
> ...


So you'd be just fine going back to the "Jailblazers" era, huh? I hope you'll console yourself when you are the only one in the Rose Garden watching the games.

Someone else put Zach Randolph in perfect perspective earlier in this thread: he's "Fool's Gold".


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> Amare isn't the Suns best player. We're talking about the "best player" on the Blazers. And the best player on the Suns is Nash. And yes, he makes the team better.


Dwight Howard is the best player on Orlando. He makes the team better in ways other than dishing out assists, so does Zach. Bosh is the best player on Toronto, he shoots over 15 shots a game, has only slightly more assists than Zach, and he makes them better as evidenced by todays game. 



Hap said:


> Amare plays better defense than Zach does. Don't be silly about that.


Zach plays better offense than Amare does. Don't be silly about that. And before you start pointing at FG%, Zach has to be a playmaker and often create his own shots. Amare cleans up near the rim and dunks. 



Hap said:


> did we say that zach hurts his team more than he helps? Nope. So why do you act like someone did?


Please reread the original post in this thread... If you need a definition for 'liability' I'd be happy to give you one.



Hap said:


> and like the rest of the guys you listed, with the possible exception of Amare, he's not going to lead his team to a title anytime soon.


Listen, Zach may be just a two-dimensional player, but there are a lot of stars like that. It's how good those dimensions are that make them good. There are very few players with no glaring weaknesses. Not every team is going to have a Wade or Kobe. His strengths more than make up for his deficiencies. Since you think they don't, then we disagree. But I'd love to know what you think we'll get in return for Zach that will 'lead us to a tile anytime soon' as you put it..


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

chris_in_pdx said:


> So you'd be just fine going back to the "Jailblazers" era, huh? I hope you'll console yourself when you are the only one in the Rose Garden watching the games.


All I said was that had nothing to do with basketball and making people around him better. For some reason you decided to leave out my next sentence, which was "This is about you not liking him, *which I can totally understand*, but it doesn't make us a better team without him." 

Second, the Rose garden was MUCH more full when we had talent in the Jailblazer era than it is now, so once again you don't know what you're talking about. 

History is on my side. People rather see their city win. Only when the jailblazers started to lose did the city suddenly become self-righteous.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I can't wait til we get a player who's even better than Zach so everyone will scream about trading the new guy because his great play is hurting the team.

Until that time, I guess Zach is it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I can't wait til we get a player who's even better than Zach so everyone will scream about trading the new guy because his great play is hurting the team.


interesting. I can't wait till we get a player who BECAUSE he plays better than Zach (meaning he, god forbid, plays defense) people stop pulling this tired line out every time they feel they have to defend the "best player" on the team.



> Until that time, I guess Zach is it.


you know, if the next "best" player the team gets has as many holes in his game as Zach does, he deserves to be chastised.

and if he's as dumb as zach is? well ****..what the hell do they expect fans to do? put up with players who don't make their teammates better, don't pass that smart, don't play defense, and make the game harder for the rest of the guys?

Is that what you honestly want?

and is that what you've come to accept from our best player?

Really?

Sorry I have some standards of what our "best" player is supposed to be like.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I can't wait til we get a player who's even better than Zach so everyone will scream about trading the new guy because his great play is hurting the team.
> 
> Until that time, I guess Zach is it.


Preach on brother!

Sometimes Portland fans have no sense of perspective.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> So you'd be just fine going back to the "Jailblazers" era, huh? I hope you'll console yourself when you are the only one in the Rose Garden watching the games.
> 
> Someone else put Zach Randolph in perfect perspective earlier in this thread: he's "Fool's Gold".


No, more like Sterling Silver.......which means nothing if you refuse to see any gradiation between "Gold" and "Horse****".


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

lets see how we would play agianst say the magic or dallas without zbo!


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> I can't wait til we get a player who's even better than Zach


I think we have that player in Jack. And no, we shouldn't trade him.

"Better" is a very subjective term. A better scorer, there isn't one now on the team. There are better defenders, rebounders and team players on the Blazer squad already.

If Zach were an amazing franchise player, we wouldn't have the crap record we have now. Duncan, Dirk, KG, Amare, Dwight Howard and Brand are PFs that lift their teams. They make the smart play on offense (ie know when to pass) and don't absolutely blow on defense.

Zbo is much too one-dimensional to really be an franchise corner stone. Let's trade him for a player that brings somewhat less scoring, but isn't as brutal on defense.


----------



## fugo (Dec 8, 2006)

Hello everyone, I have been dropping by this forum for about a year and have enjoyed many of the posts. Thank you.:clap2: 

I think there are valid reasons for wanting to trade Zach and silly excuses for wanting to trade Zach. The two reasons to want to trade Zach is if you a) believe Zach will return a superior talent, or b) if you don't trust that Zach will continue to play well or are worried that he will do something stupid off court, therefore killing his trade value.

But the silly excuses are to claim that Zach is more of a hindrance then a benefit to the team. He scores more then 1/4 of the teams points and grabs more then 1/4 of the rebounds. His defense is a little below average, but by no means is it terrible. He has improved his defense this year and has shown improvement in every category of each year except when injured. He is still only 25 and will continue to improve. 

Now if a better player is offered then that is a reason to make a trade, but don't argue that Zach sucks because that is just plain old false.

I think the Blazers would be best served to keep Zach all season and let his stock continue to rise. Then, after we know what lotto pick we get and what player we will likely select, then we consider putting Zach on the block. Until then, listen to offers, but say no unless something truly great is offered.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

ProZach said:


> So you're just going to choose to ignore statistics all together when they don't tell you what you want to hear?


The straight up box score stats are an incomplete picture when it comes to his game.

I wish the box score reflected how many times an opposing player blew past Zbo for an easy bucket. Or how stagnant an offense can get when it's running through him every time down the floor.

Hell, if it's all about stats, we should hang up the phone when the Clippers offer to trade us Brand for him. The box score tells me that Brand is an inferior player.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Hap said:


> thats the biggest pile of crappola on a stick. If it's only how good your teammates are, why is it that Nash makes players around him a LOT better? And that Sergio (and Jack to a lesser degree) are making the teammates better?
> 
> 
> 
> efficiency isn't the same as making the team better. Ruben was incredibly efficient when it scored. But he sure as hell didn't make the team better.



OK Hap, now you are just trying to bait me.

Assists are like RBIs in Baseball. They tell you more about the team than they do about the individual. That is why JJ is both smart and unselfish, and his assist totals are still nothing to brag about. You know damn well that is true.

I will admit that an elite playmaker can make it easier for his team-mates to score. I will admit that an elite help defender can cover up for team-mates mistakes. That is about it......and it is an overstatement to call even that "making his team-mates better players." More like covering for their weaknesses!

When you say "Zach doesn't make his team-mates better on offense", what you are really saying is that he is not an elite playmaker....despite your denial, you are asking him to be Steve Nash (or at least Larry Bird). Whether you want to admit it or not, you are holding him to an unreasonable standard.

On defense, you have a point. Zach is neither big nor super athletic. Name me an elite help defender who isn't at least one of those things? Zach will never be a good help defender, no matter how hard he tries. The only real difference in our positions, is how far we are willing to go to sacrifice offense for defense.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK Hap, now you are just trying to bait me.
> 
> Assists are like RBIs in Baseball. They tell you more about the team than they do about the individual. That is why JJ is both smart and unselfish, and his assist totals are still nothing to brag about. You know damn well that is true.
> 
> ...




What Zach fails to do IMO is pass well out of the low post. What I mean by that is not just passing to the open guy 5 feet away from him, but passing across the court or to the top of the key to get the defense off balance. That is why Zach doesn't make his teammates better on offense.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK Hap, now you are just trying to bait me.
> 
> I will admit that an elite playmaker can make it easier for his team-mates to score. I will admit that an elite help defender can cover up for team-mates mistakes. That is about it......and it is an overstatement to call even that "making his team-mates better players." More like covering for their weaknesses!


Sheed was good at covering Zach's weakness.



> When you say "Zach doesn't make his team-mates better on offense", what you are really saying is that he is not an elite playmaker....despite your denial, you are asking him to be Steve Nash (or at least Larry Bird).


uh..no. Duncan makes his teammates better, and he's not a play maker. 

If you have to rely on your teammates for help defense, it makes their jobs harder to play. If they have to cover for your weaknesses, it makes their jobs harder.



> Whether you want to admit it or not, you are holding him to an unreasonable standard.


it's unreasonable for a player to play defense?

If anything, it's unreasonable for people to label him as the "best" player, in a manner that you can't be critical of him, or god forbid, talk about trading him.



> On defense, you have a point. Zach is neither big nor super athletic. Name me an elite help defender who isn't at least one of those things?


Brian wasn't exactly big or super athletic. Sure, he was muscular, but he wasn't super athletic. But Zach's physical limitations doesn't mean much, since it's not like I'm thinking he CAN be a Ben Wallace defender, and he's deciding not to. I'm saying he's not and it hurts our team. 



> Zach will never be a good help defender, no matter how hard he tries. The only real difference in our positions, is how far we are willing to go to sacrifice offense for defense.


I'd be willing to sacrifice about 5-7 ppg of offense, if it meant that we had a better starting SF, or a PF who was better defensively.

To me, altho I don't think it's likely, a starting lineup of:

Roy
Jack
Carter
Aldridge
Joel

is better than

Roy
Jack
Webster
Zach
Joel

The defense of the PF and the C is better, and the scoring from the SF spot + the PF spot is probably equal to what we have now from the SF and PF spot. 

I think Carter would take too many shots tho, but at least he know how to pass out of a double team. He wouldn't be perfect for the team, but he'd be better.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

craigehlo said:


> The straight up box score stats are an incomplete picture when it comes to his game.
> 
> I wish the box score reflected how many times an opposing player blew past Zbo for an easy bucket. Or how stagnant an offense can get when it's running through him every time down the floor.
> 
> Hell, if it's all about stats, we should hang up the phone when the Clippers offer to trade us Brand for him. The box score tells me that Brand is an inferior player.



Again, you people seem to want to only cut and paste one sentence and then completely ignore my other sentences. Immediately following "the chosen sentence", I wrote, *"Obviously it doesn't tell the whole story, but it definitely means something.. The fact he's the only one in the NBA putting up those numbers IS noteworthy, whether you want to admit it or not."*

I've made it in bold so maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to grasp what I'm saying. I believe in you, you can do it.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> uh..no. Duncan makes his teammates better, and he's not a play maker.
> 
> If you have to rely on your teammates for help defense, it makes their jobs harder to play. If they have to cover for your weaknesses, it makes their jobs harder.


I didn't want to keep arguing with you hap, I really didn't, but c'mon. Nash, the guy you keep pointing to, relies on his teammates for help defense and still makes his teammates better. Come to think of it, does anyone on Phoenix play defense?



Hap said:


> If anything, it's unreasonable for people to label him as the "best" player, in a manner that you can't be critical of him, or god forbid, talk about trading him.


Totally agree. But some people seem to go out of their way to find faults in his game and at the same time overlook his contributions. Also, I'll once again ask the question, what 'franchise player' do you expect to get in return? *It's easy to find faults in people, it's much harder to come up with an alternative solution.*




Hap said:


> But Zach's physical limitations doesn't mean much, since it's not like I'm thinking he CAN be a Ben Wallace defender, and he's deciding not to. I'm saying he's not and it hurts our team.


The Blazers as a team are among the worst at gaurding the fast break. Our gaurds can't stop penetration and nobody stops the ball when the opposing team is running. This is not all Zachs fault. Obviously he's not an elite defender, but he is by no means the only problem we have on defense. If that's the reason you want to trade him, let's trade 90% of the team while we're at it.



Hap said:


> I think Carter would take too many shots tho, but at least he know how to pass out of a double team. He wouldn't be perfect for the team, but he'd be better.


I honestly don't where to start. You don't like Zach because he doesn't make his teammates better and doesn't play defense, and yet you want Vince Carter instead... I'm speachless..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

because Carter at the SF spot, would mean we have a different PF, and thats our glaring hole defensively.

I dont think Carter is nearly as bad defensively as Zach is, nor is as tunnel visioned as Zach is offensively.


----------



## fugo (Dec 8, 2006)

fugo said:


> Hello everyone, I have been dropping by this forum for about a year and have enjoyed many of the posts. Thank you.:clap2:
> 
> I think ...



Thanks for making me feel part of your forum and welcoming me. I won't be returning.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

fugo said:


> Thanks for making me feel part of your forum and welcoming me. I won't be returning.


you might want to give it a little more than one hour for a response before you complain and tell everyone you're leaving.

It's not like the board is super busy.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> because Carter at the SF spot, would mean we have a different PF, and thats our glaring hole defensively.



I went through and got the average score of every power forward we've faced so far this year. Whenever there were two guys that are interchangeable (such as New Jersey with Collins and Krstic) I picked the one who scored *more.*

The average score was 15.05 ppg. Zach's is 25.9.

I'm not an expert, but I'd say PF is NOT OUR PROBLEM. Remember that game when Zach dominated Brand, scoring 35 when Brand got 8. I do.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

fugo said:


> Hello everyone, I have been dropping by this forum for about a year and have enjoyed many of the posts. Thank you.:clap2:
> 
> I think there are valid reasons for wanting to trade Zach and silly excuses for wanting to trade Zach. The two reasons to want to trade Zach is if you a) believe Zach will return a superior talent, or b) if you don't trust that Zach will continue to play well or are worried that he will do something stupid off court, therefore killing his trade value.
> 
> ...


Hey, fugo. I couldn't have said it better myself, and I didn't. 

Good post and welcome. Hope you come back.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Hap said:


> 1. Amare doesn't get the ball as much as Zach does.
> 
> 2. Amare isn't the Suns best player. We're talking about the "best player" on the Blazers. And the best player on the Suns is Nash. And yes, he makes the team better.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a great explanation of why we should get more talent here to go along with Zach. Like Amare, I think Zach would be a successful contributor to a team with strong guard play.


----------



## fugo (Dec 8, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> Sounds like a great explanation of why we should get more talent here to go along with Zach. Like Amare, I think Zach would be a successful contributor to a team with strong guard play.


Thank you. I was too quick to get pissy. Sorry. bad day.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

craigehlo said:


> If Zach were an amazing franchise player, we wouldn't have the crap record we have now. Duncan, Dirk, KG, Amare, Dwight Howard and Brand are PFs that lift their teams. They make the smart play on offense (ie know when to pass) and don't absolutely blow on defense.


The list you provided is great evidence AGAINST what you are trying to say. Two of those six PFs have played on teams as bad or worst than ours now (Brand and Amare). Dwight Howard hasn't been on a winning team in his short career. Garnett has never lead his team out of the first round of the playoffs except once in his longer career, and usually hasn't even come close. Dirk and Duncan have lead their teams to greatness, but they are two of the best players in the league. The fact that you used the best players in the league as a basis for comparison says your standards are impossibly high.

You also listed 3 PFs, Howard, Brand and Amare, who don't pass, don't "make their teammates better", but still get lots of touches on offense because they can score. Their teams are led by skilled guards who control the ball, and I also think that the Blazers need that, in addition to a great scoring big man, to ever be very successful.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

fugo said:


> Thanks for making me feel part of your forum and welcoming me. I won't be returning.


Fugo,

Sometimes if nobody replies to your post, it's a good thing. It can mean that you made your point in a way that nobody can really argue with. 

And for what it's worth, I added to your rep immediately after reading it.

Keep posting!


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

okjbiughluh


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.


zach's value is high? i don't think so. we'd get crap back. i mean, zach is a liability on a crappy team. what kind of value does a player like that really has? surely, if you can see that, GMs around the league can see it too. they won't give us anything but crap back.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

fugo said:


> Hello everyone, I have been dropping by this forum for about a year and have enjoyed many of the posts. Thank you.:clap2:
> 
> I think there are valid reasons for wanting to trade Zach and silly excuses for wanting to trade Zach. The two reasons to want to trade Zach is if you a) believe Zach will return a superior talent, or b) if you don't trust that Zach will continue to play well or are worried that he will do something stupid off court, therefore killing his trade value.
> 
> ...


hey, great post, and welcome. it irks me the extend in which the zach haters goes to to discredit zach's game. just unbelievable lunacy.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Without reading through all these posts, I just wanted to throw in my opinion on Zach and defense and improvement. Right now, I don't think he plays BAD defense, in the sense that he is giving up points without trying, or has some horrible speed or technique. I do believe that his team defense and his IQ on that part of the court could improve. I've noticed that probably half the fast break points we give up (which seems to be a lot without looking at the numbers) are because Zach gets back, but doesn't seem to have a clue where he's supposed to be. While he's spinning in circles trying to figure it out, someone runs right behind his back and scores.

Zach IMO will never be a great low post defender. He's short compared to the other star PF's (Duncan, Garnett, Sheed, That dude in Orlando who's name escapes me at the moment, etc) and his body type and style of play keeps him planted really close to the ground. I mean, that's why the guy gets so many garbage points because he's not still in the air on his shot attempts or block attempts and is able to quick hop and get the ball. Great thing for a skilled scorer like him, but it means the extent of his physical ability on defense is probably to stand there with his arms up and pray. Zach will never be a good shot blocker, or shot affecter like we see from Przy or Outlaw. He can take up space, and get the occasional poke away (actually I notice he pokes the ball away a lot and gets steals for his team mates).

In short, if Zach goes to defense school, maybe spends a summer or something working with some defensive specialists and/or coaches, and watches lots of tape and makes that improvement in his head, he can be a decent defender. I don't think he's physically capable of being a good or great defender at his position however.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Hap said:


> no one said that.


damn, dude. read the original post by the person that started this thread. are you doing this on purpose?



> both sides are arguing about something and acting like the other side isn't capable of understanding what they're arguing.


the "zach supporters," which i don't know if i'd qualify, have been consistently acknowledged that zach is not a good defender, and that if the team can replace him with a better player/s, they should do it.

the zach haters have been adament in wanting to trade him. their reasons are that zach doesn't make his teammates better, doesn't make the team better, is a bad character. 

the zach supporters would gladly trade zach for the right reasons, just not the reasons stated by the zach haters.

am i wrong?



> Both have their valid points, but one isn't being denied (no one denies that he's a good scorer) but the other one is (people deny that his defensive liability IS a detriment to the team).


why are you making stuffs up again?

first, the zach haters won't outright deny that zach is a good scorer, but they have repeatedly suggested that his scoring is not good for the team. 

i don't know about you, but if a guy scores and it is clear that when he tries to score he's hurting his team, i'd say he's a crappy scorer. being good at something means getting good results. in a team game, getting good results mean getting good results for the team, not the individual. the numbers and the games i have watched, tells me this is zach's been providing for his team. zach is a good scorer, and his offense is a positive for the team.

second, did anyone really claimed that zach's defense isn't a detriment to the team? once again, i think you're twisting what people said to suit your argument. what i, and a few other "zach supporters" have said is that zach's offensive contribution to the team outweighs his defensive liability. yes, zach is a poor defender. but he more than makes it up by being great at the offensive end. add his (positive) offense and (negative) defense up, and he still comes out as a positive contributor to the team.



> Thats scoring EFFICIENCY, which is not the same as how often he passes, or "hogs" the ball. You can be super efficient, and still a ball hog.


absolutely. if you are super efficient on offense, you've better be a ball hog. michael jordan was the ultimate ball hog. so is kobe, iverson, tmac, and most of all the great perimeter players.



> And of the top 14 scorers, he's DEAD LAST in assists. And thats not just because we're a young team, it's because he doesn't pass out as much.


damn, dude. it's comical. i can't believe that you even brought this up. :laugh:

take a look at that list of the top 14 scorers again. among those 14 players, how many are interior players? that's right, 2. yao and zach. dirk is a big that plays mostly on the perimeter. perimeter players often average more assists than interior players. they have the ball from the outside and are often looked at to setup the team's offense. they will, more often than not, average more assists than players that plays inside. 

and take a second look at that list again. most of those guys are counted on as being both the scorer and playermaker for their team. they will naturally average more assists. 

zach doesn't pass out enough has little to nothing to do with him being dead last on that list. if he passes out more, sure, he'd probably average a little more assists. but his primary role is to look to score, then look to score again, and then pass out. he does this very well. and contrary to what the zach haters think, he does help the team by doing this.



> thats the biggest pile of crappola on a stick. If it's only how good your teammates are, why is it that Nash makes players around him a LOT better? And that Sergio (and Jack to a lesser degree) are making the teammates better?


no, what you've been saying is crappola. again with this "making your teammates better" ****.

how do you define "making your teammates better?" give them the ball at good positions that it makes it easier for them to score? on defense, covering for your teammates defensive mistakes? if those are your definitions, then nash qualifies for the former but not the latter. 

nash, and a lot of the great playmakers does have the tendency to pass the ball in spots that allows their teammates to score easier. but that's why they are great at playmaking. and that's why their primary role is to setup their team's offense.

zach's primary role is to score. probably his secondary role too.



> efficiency isn't the same as making the team better.


right. because offense is only half the game. but being efficient on offense does make the team's offense better. if your offense is great, you only need to be average on defense and still win a lot of games.



> Ruben was incredibly efficient when it scored. But he sure as hell didn't make the team better.


for as crappy as a roster we had last season, ruben was a positive contributor to the team on the floor. ruben might not be an average starter in the league, but discounting age, potential, and attitude, he was better than a lot of the players we had on the team last season.

and ruben is not on the same level as zach, offensively. not even close.



> because KG makes his teammates *BETTER*. Zach doesn't.


KG is a better passer than zach. he's also a better player.



> KG also plays MUCH better defense. Zach doesn't.


KG is a better defender than zach. he's also a better player.



> KG also can block shots. Zach can't.


KG is a better shot blocker than zach. he's also a better player.

let me just make it short: KG is a better player than zach, because he's better at many more facets of the game than zach.

KG is a former MVP and is still arguably a top 5 player in the league.

so we have zach as the best player on the team rather than KG, boo hoo.



> *Oldmangrouch asked:* "How is it desirable for KG to put up 18 shots, but selfish for Zach to do so, even though their efficiency is nearly identical?"
> 
> *Hap replied:* "because KG makes his teammates *BETTER*. Zach doesn't.
> 
> ...


sorry, i had to go back. something just doesn't click here.

KG deserves as much shots/game as zach because he magically makes his teammates better? oookay, i might buy that.

KG deserves as much shots/game as zach because KG is a better defender? great logic. i think ben wallace could use that logic.

KG deserves as much shots/game as zach because KG is a better shot blocker? mutombo could use that logic too.



> Not only that, Howard averages 6 times as many blocks. And shoots a WHOLE lot better, and shoots a WHOLE lot less. 10 vs 19.


are you saying somehow Howard shooting less than zach that Howard makes his teammates better than zach does?

howard being a great shot blocker, rebounder, and defender help makes his team better. howard shooting 10 shots/game doesn't necessarily helps his team better. he could make his team even better by shooting more. or it could go the other way.

btw, ask magic fans, and i'd bet you a lot of them thinks howard should be shooting more.



> As for Amare, he is averaging just over 9 shots a game (thats basically HALF as many as Zach does). So they're obviously not going to Amare very often, are they? Even when Amare had his great season (2 years ago) he didn't shoot as much as Zach does now.


the suns have many excellent scoring options. we don't. we have zach, and that's basically it.

tell me you're not serious.



> because when people bring up efficiency as tho that validates him as not being a ball-hog


okay, let me clear this for you. zach _is_ a ball hog. a damn good ball hog. he makes our team better by being a ball hog.



> *dudleysghost asked:* "Should Phoenix trade Amare because he doesn't pass or make his teammates better?"
> 
> *Hap replied:* "1. Amare doesn't get the ball as much as Zach does.
> 
> 2. Amare isn't the Suns best player. We're talking about the "best player" on the Blazers. And the best player on the Suns is Nash. And yes, he makes the team better.


are you answering dudleysghost's question or just came up with some randoms thoughts?

Amare doesn't get the ball as much as zach does, therefore amare doesn't get as many opportunities to create for his teammates (or to make his teammates better, if you like). okay, this would be a sound argument, and would make the question irrelevant.

amare not being the best player on his team has nothing to do with whether or not he does or does not make his teammates/team better. if the suns don't feel that amare makes their team better (or the way i'd put it, be a positive contributor), they should trade him regardless.

zach being the best player on our team has no relevancy on whether we should trade him more than the suns should trade amare.

discounting age, potential, salary, and attitude, you trade a player if you think it brings you back better player/s, period. all of the players on your team are trade assets, it doesn't matter if they're the best or worst. it does make it easier to trade your better players, though.



> And who DOESN'T consider Redd a 1 dimensional player, who doesn't play defense, etc?


and who would deny that redd is a good player, or a player that helps his team wins?



> did we say that zach hurts his team more than he helps? Nope. So why do you act like someone did?


so what have you been *****ing about all along?

zach is a bad defender? umm yeah.

zach should be traded? if we can get player/s that will help us more than zach does in the long term, sure.

what the zach haters also repeatedly trying to point out is how zach doesn't make his team better, which is simply false. they'd go to great exaggeration and just make things up to prove their points, too.



> It's that he doesn't make the team good enough, to put up with his deficiencies.


say i give you $10,000, but you'd have to file a tax claim. since you won't get all of the $10,000 i give you, you'd rather not have it to have to go through the hassle of filing a tax claim?

zach is a poor defender, but he's also a damn good offensive player. his positives outweighs his nagetives. this is what the zach haters won't accept.



> He doesn't pass smart, he doesn't block shots, and like the rest of the guys you listed, with the possible exception of Amare, he's not going to lead his team to a title anytime soon. And he doesn't do enough on both ends of the court.


all valid points.

i wouldn't bet on him leading us to a title, but i'd bet on him being apart of a team with better players that can challenge fo a title.



> I can't wait till we get a player who BECAUSE he plays better than Zach (meaning he, god forbid, plays defense)


i can't wait either. and if he plays defense too, awesome.



> you know, if the next "best" player the team gets has as many holes in his game as Zach does, he deserves to be chastised.


yes, it won't end. let's trade every positive best players we get until we find that absolute best one with as few holes in his game as possible.

you can hold your breathe. i won't.



> what the hell do they expect fans to do? put up with players who don't make their teammates better, don't pass that smart, don't play defense, and make the game harder for the rest of the guys?


please don't trade dan dickau away. i'd miss his wife too much.

wait, you were talking about zach? well damn, if zach is like what you just described, i hope we can fool some GM into taking zach off of our hands. there goes deng, maggette, and pierce i was thinking we could get for zach.



> Is that what you honestly want?
> 
> and is that what you've come to accept from our best player?


you mean a guy that's one of the best low post threat in the game? and he can also pull down rebounds with the best of them? hell yeah i want that guy on my team. 

oh, but he's a crappy defender. i'd still take him if his positives outweighs his negatives. 

do i think he can lead my team to a title? probably not. but why not add better players to play alongside him?



> Sorry I have some standards of what our "best" player is supposed to be like.


in the meantime, ***** away.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

fugo said:


> Hello everyone, I have been dropping by this forum for about a year and have enjoyed many of the posts. Thank you.:clap2:
> 
> I think there are valid reasons for wanting to trade Zach and silly excuses for wanting to trade Zach. The two reasons to want to trade Zach is if you a) believe Zach will return a superior talent, or b) if you don't trust that Zach will continue to play well or are worried that he will do something stupid off court, therefore killing his trade value.
> 
> ...


Simple, irrefutable logic. Couldn't have said it better myself if I cleaned up my english and tried all day to out do you. :biggrin: 

Like someone else said, when there are those who rail on and on the same stupid line and someone from the outside chimes in with clarity, their brains lock up and they just skip your post and continue arguing with those who will give them something to argue about. Welcome to the board, and I'll definitely be repping you for that post :clap2:


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Funny how the Zach haters are the same people who railed on Sheed for years for not being a ball hog and being the go to guy on offense. Sheed was a poor player not realizing his potential because he WAS TOO UNSELFISH... Sound familiar? Jesus. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with some of these fans.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yup i have to agree


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Two of those six PFs have played on teams as bad or worst than ours now (Brand and Amare).


But both those guys had the defense and upside to turn their teams into winners. Amare runs the break, has huge hops and plays solid defense. Brand isn't as fast as Amare, but is always around the top of the NBA in shot blocking.

I think the real issues here is that for the money we have tied up in Zbo's Kemp-like contract, he'll not be worth the investment. If you were going draw a line down a piece of paper and write positives on one side and negatives on the other.

Pros: 
- Leading scorer on an 8-win team
- Solid rebounder

Negatives:
- Bad footwork on defense
- Mediocre passing out of double teams, if he passes at all
- Not much elevation means no blocks and his shot is easier to block. See the 1st Indiana game as a perfect example of his struggles against a larger defender.
- Too slow to run fast break
- Tendinitis on a surgically repaired knee
- Max contract ties up huge portion of the salary cap
- Off court issues a distraction

The question isn't simple "are we better with him on this team," it's "HOW much better are we?" I say not all that much. He's the anchor of a predictable offense that is easy to shut down and a defense that's far too easy to score on.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Amare is a very good passer, being a great passer and getting assists are two entirely different things and getting assists also is a matter of how your team plays and how your team utilizes you.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately a liability for this team and should be traded immediately while his value is high.


If exhibit "A" is all you got, is going to be an easy verdit as to whether Zach is a liablity for this team.

But maybe we can trade Zach for Kobe since the Lakers are 3-0 this year without Kobe . . . trade one liability for another.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

This thread is just plain wearing me out, so I will exit with one final thought:

The scoreboard neither knows nor cares who takes the shot. It only knows "make" or "miss". 

I don't buy the "defense over offense" POV, but I can understand it. Being critical of Zach's defense is perfectly understandable as well. OTOH, there is no way having a high efficiency scorer hurts your team on offense. Please keep it above the belt!


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> ........................................


BuckW4GM, you are my hero. Best post of the season.:clap:


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

BuckW4GM, will you please sign my yearbook?







:yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I guess some people will never be able to understand what Zach does for this team, and will twist their brains in all sorts of directions to avoid recognizing it.

I'll just take comfort in the fact that Patterson and Pritchard aren't among the similarly confused, and enjoy watching him help us win games for the forseeable future. I'm confident they won't trade Zach unless a really great offer comes along, so I guess if people want to continue to complain and be unhappy about it, that's their problem...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> I guess some people will never be able to understand what Zach does for this team, and will twist their brains in all sorts of directions to avoid recognizing it.
> 
> I'll just take comfort in the fact that Patterson and Pritchard aren't among the similarly confused, and enjoy watching him help us win games for the forseeable future. I'm confident they won't trade Zach unless a really great offer comes along, so I guess if people want to continue to complain and be unhappy about it, that's their problem...




Zach does one thing really well FOR this team, scores and another thing pretty well FOR this team, rebounds. That however doesn't begin to make up for the things he does TO this team however. Zach is a God aweful defensive player that forces us to double team and scramble on defense. He is a very bad passer out of the low post. He slows our team down on both ends of the floor. He comands the ball on every possesion getting our perimeter players out of sinc. And lastly he gets into trouble every year. 

Keep in mind however that without him against Toronto we had a season high in rebounds because without him it forced the rest of the team to put forth a little more effort. That's not Zach's fault, just a fact. 

Zach isn't a bad player, and most teams in the league would like to have him. Here in Portland we have a player in LaMarcus Aldridge that although right now isn't near the player Zach is, has shown that he will be a very good player, and was drafted as our PF of the future. We should trade Zach while he is at his peak in value. He's had sore knees and flipped someone off already this season. That's why we should trade Zach


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

I don't have the time to read this thread right now, but you're kidding right? Chris, you thought Mo Cheeks was a good coach too didn't you?


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> I guess some people will never be able to understand what Zach does for this team, and will twist their brains in all sorts of directions to avoid recognizing it.


The win/loss record with Zbo as the franchise player is simply disappointing. I don't care if a dude score 25 points if we keep losing the games by double digits season after season. 

This team need more than one-dimensional play and no defense out of the cornerstone player. The Blazers overpaid for Zbo and really should use this opportunity to rid themselves of his contract and build a team that plays BOTH end of the court. Simple as that.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Zach does one thing really well FOR this team, scores and another thing pretty well FOR this team, rebounds. That however doesn't begin to make up for the things he does TO this team however. Zach is a God aweful defensive player that forces us to double team and scramble on defense. He is a very bad passer out of the low post. He slows our team down on both ends of the floor. He comands the ball on every possesion getting our perimeter players out of sinc. And lastly he gets into trouble every year.
> 
> Keep in mind however that without him against Toronto we had a season high in rebounds because without him it forced the rest of the team to put forth a little more effort. That's not Zach's fault, just a fact.
> 
> Zach isn't a bad player, and most teams in the league would like to have him. Here in Portland we have a player in LaMarcus Aldridge that although right now isn't near the player Zach is, has shown that he will be a very good player, and was drafted as our PF of the future. We should trade Zach while he is at his peak in value. He's had sore knees and flipped someone off already this season. That's why we should trade Zach


Did you see how Aldridge played against the Raptors? You think he is ready to start? Why don't you go ahead and take a look at his stat line for that night, keeping in mind that Bargnani/Garbajosa/Nesterovic is probably the weakest frontcourt in the league.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Did you see how Aldridge played against the Raptors? You think he is ready to start? Why don't you go ahead and take a look at his stat line for that night, keeping in mind that Bargnani/Garbajosa/Nesterovic is probably the weakest frontcourt in the league.



He had a bad game. He has played great in others, and good in most. No, I don't think he should start over Zach. I do think however that going FORWARD the franchise would be better off taking it's lumps this season with Aldridge at the 4 and a player like Deng at the 3. Again, going FORWARD this team is probably better with a line up of

Jack
Roy
Deng
Aldridge
Joel

than 

Jack
Roy
Udoka
Zach
Joel

What a lot of you don't get is that it's not about this season. Portland is building for the future, and although Zach is a better scorer and rebounder right now, LaMarcus Aldridge is better at passing, running the floor, defense, blocking shots, steals, and is about as good of a shooter. 


IT'S ABOUT NEXT YEAR, AND THE YEAR AFTER, AND THE YEAR AFTER. That's why we should trade Zach, because his value will never be higher, nor will his game ever get better defensively. He will also only continue to break down as he gets older. 


Don't trade zach because he's not good....because he is very good. Trade him because going forward this team would be better off with an all-star caliber SF that wasn't a defensive liability instead.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Jack
> Roy
> Deng
> Aldridge
> Joel


That's a great lineup going forward. Plus Deng shoots a nice percentage (55%) along with LaMarcus's (52%). That a nice efficient frontcourt. Sure we'll take our lumps, but we already are with Zbo in the lineup this season.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

craigehlo said:


> If you were going draw a line down a piece of paper and write positives on one side and negatives on the other.
> 
> Pros:
> - Leading scorer on an 8-win team
> ...


well, ****. if you can make a list of suppose "pros and cons" and just overlook the pros while focusing hard on the cons, let me see if i can attempt to do the same. only, i'll do the opposite.

pros:
* excellent post player, among the very best in the league
* commands double team
* great offensive rebounder
* good range out to 20ft
* can hit the 3pt shot better than a lot of bigs
* excellent footwork in the post
* can create his own shot better than a lot of bigs
* only player in the league to average 25/10
* one of only very few players to have come back strong from a very serious injury
* only 25 year old

cons:
* bad defender
* a little overpaid
* had a major surgery, but worked hard to come back even better than before the injury

that was easy.



> The question isn't simple "are we better with him on this team,"


so are we or are we not? the zach haters keep avoiding this question, it seems. some have outright stated that we aren't better with him.



> it's "HOW much better are we?" I say not all that much.


i don't agree with this, but i can understand it.

i think zach helps us a great deal, but not to the extend that we are paying him. if he keeps up his great play this season though, then he's worth his contract.

bottom line for me is, i don't want to be trading players that i view as positive assets to the team, unless we absolutely have to trade them to get better assets.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Amare is a very good passer, being a great passer and getting assists are two entirely different things and getting assists also is a matter of how your team plays and how your team utilizes you.


i agree completely. damon stoudamire, when he was with the raptors, is a perfect example of a player that's mediocre at playmaking with high assists number. he controlled the ball at all times, and only passes when one of his teammates had good opportunities to score.

having said that, i think being a good passer will usually correlates with higher assists number.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> will twist their brains in all sorts of directions to avoid recognizing it.


bless my mother, but that's her in a nutshell. when she chooses to hate someone, no matter how obvious their good characters are, she'll spin it anyway to make herself convinced that they're bad.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

I don't think pointing out that he has tremendous footwork on the offensive side is going to help your case, since he doesn't translate that to the defensive side. That shows a lack of either focus or effort.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

The Sebastian Express said:


> I don't think pointing out that he has tremendous footwork on the offensive side is going to help your case, since he doesn't translate that to the defensive side. That shows a lack of either focus or effort.


if having bad footwork on defense is listed as a con, then having good footwork on offense can be list as a pro.

you can speculate that it only shows zach's lack of an effort on defense if you want, but i won't buy it. footwork on offense is different from (usually lateral) footwork on defense.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Doesn't this thread have more to do with Zach's perceived trade value than anything else?

A lot of the people suggesting we trade him while his value is high, seem to be expecting an unrealistic return such as Deng + NY's #1. Meanwhile those supporting Zach seem to think we'd just be dumping his salary.

Is there a Zach supporter who'd actually be opposed to Deng + NY's pick for Zach... or a Zach detractor who'd trade Zach for nothing more than expiring contracts? 

I guess there might be a few with those extreme stances, but they'd be the exceptions.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Verro said:


> A lot of the people suggesting we trade him while his value is high, seem to be expecting an unrealistic return such as Deng + NY's #1. Meanwhile those supporting Zach seem to think we'd just be dumping his salary.


what made you think this?

a lot of the people who are pushing for a zach trade are the same people who continually claims that zach doesn't make his team better. i can only assume that if they think zach can't even help a crappy team, then they values him very low. it would be contradictory for them to say he's no good even for a crappy team like our and expecting to get good values in a trade for him.

the "zach supporters," or those that argues the "zach haters," don't want to trade zach if the talent returns is not equal or nears it.



> Is there a Zach supporter who'd actually be opposed to Deng + NY's pick for Zach...


not me. i think that would be too much for zach, and the bulls would be stupid to make that trade.

it looks like NY's pick is going to be high, and Deng is quickly establishing himself to be a very good young player.

i think a trade of zach for Deng + brown would be more fair for both teams. i'd definately consider that deal.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I would take Deng and NY's first round pick for Zach, and I'm a huge Zach fan.

The biggest improvement this season has been that Zach isn't a liability down the stretch in the 4th quarter. I won't go so far as to say he's "clutch," but look at the evidence:

He hit the game-winner tonight.

He hit the go-ahead bucket in Detroit.

He hit the go-ahead bucket against New Jersey.

He hit the game-winning free throw against NO/OKC.

He had 6 down the stretch against Seattle to erase a 9-point deficit in the 4th quarter.

Out of the team's 9 wins so far, Zach has been instrumental in 5 of them. He didn't play in one victory (Toronto), two other victories were by 10 or more (Lakers and Nets), and Dixon made the game-winner against the Wolves.

I'm not saying he's perfect, because he's not. I'm not opposed to trading him, but when fans hear about the need for a "go-to guy," they already have one.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

BuckW4GM said:


> what made you think this?
> 
> a lot of the people who are pushing for a zach trade are the same people who continually claims that zach doesn't make his team better. i can only assume that if they think zach can't even help a crappy team, then they values him very low. it would be contradictory for them to say he's no good even for a crappy team like our and expecting to get good values in a trade for him.


The anti-Zach contingent seemed to be saying that Zach's value is at it's "peak". However, his value to the Blazers for various reasons (defense, passing, etc.), is not as high as his perceived value at the moment throughout the league. The fact that people are calling to trade him "while his value is high", implies that they believe he has a reasonably high trade value.



BuckW4GM said:


> the "zach supporters," or those that argues the "zach haters," don't want to trade zach if the talent returns is not equal or nears it.


That's exactly my point the Zach supporters don't believe that we'd recieve back equal value in a trade.



BuckW4GM said:


> not me. i think that would be too much for zach, and the bulls would be stupid to make that trade.
> 
> it looks like NY's pick is going to be high, and Deng is quickly establishing himself to be a very good young player.


Which is why I used it as an extreme in my example.



> i think a trade of zach for Deng + brown would be more fair for both teams.


I'm sure the Zach detractors would agree with you completely. I'd venture that that's exactly the type of trade they're asking for. I think this is more of a case of "is the glass half full or half empty", than a disagreement on what direction the team should take.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Verro said:


> The anti-Zach contingent seemed to be saying that Zach's value is at it's "peak". However, his value to the Blazers for various reasons (defense, passing, etc.), is not as high as his perceived value at the moment throughout the league.


i can agree with that.



> The fact that people are calling to trade him "while his value is high", implies that they believe he has a reasonably high trade value.


i don't agree with this. not with the reasons they stated as wanting to trade him.

i mean, if you don't think a guy can help a crappy team, how is it that you think he has any kind of a positive value? it's not like we are back in the stone age. there are scouts for every team. informations are passed on easily. it's not like you can hold a player's value as a secret.

if the zach haters think that zach doesn't make his team any better, and they think they are right in that assessment, couldn't they comprehend that other GMs aren't stupid and can see the same thing as what they sees with zach?

or is it their arrogance that they think they know more than other gms and scouts around the league? well, ****. i know a player on my team sucks on defense, can't pass, and doesn't make my crappy team better, but i think i can trade him for some good players.



> That's exactly my point the Zach supporters don't believe that we'd recieve back equal value in a trade.


i don't think that's true. i think we can get equal value for him.

this is my whole stance on whether to trade zach or any player: for short or long term, get back at least equal values.

some of the zach haters' stance seems to be to trade zach because he's not good enough (because of all the deficiencies in his game) to lead his team to a title. 

this, i finds to be ridiculous. yes, i might agree that zach is not good enough to be the best player on a title contending team. but i reject the notion that you need to trade your best player because he can't be the best player on a title contending team.


----------

