# Zach rejects new contract offer



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

According to folks on the O-Live forum, 1080 is reporting breaking news RE: Zach and SAR.

It's probably nothing, but we'll see. They are at commercial right now.


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

Sounds like Portland has upped their offer to Zach and he's rejected it. 

6 years/$75 million


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

Now they're saying Rahim for Kidd may happen.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Do it already.

I'm sick of Zach Randolph. 

Unfortunately for Reef, people will again say he can't win ... and there is little chance that team has at doing just that.

Still makes more sense to go for Wally.

Play.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Kidd would make us a better regular-season team, but not a better half-court playoff team!

Hold out for someone with a better fit.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RedHot&Rolling</b>!
> NOOOOOOOOOOO!
> 
> Kidd would make us a better regular-season team, but not a better half-court playoff team!
> ...



Lets hold out for someone with a better knee!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I wonder if it's Zach instead of SAR who might be traded for Jason Kidd, once his contract is signed?

Or would he be a "base salary compensation" player?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Yes... anything above 120% makes him BYC.....

but that would be his extension... next year

if he is traded now, this years salary of $1.8 mil is what we match it up to the other player coming back


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

they still need a PG...

Damon + Zach for Kidd + Mourning works


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> I wonder if it's Zach instead of SAR who might be traded for Jason Kidd, once his contract is signed?
> 
> Or would he be a "base salary compensation" player?


I think that is wishful thinking.

The Blazer Brass have hitched their pony to Randolph. It's too bad too ... Kidd/Reef would have been stellar.

Play.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>go_robot</b>!
> Sounds like Portland has upped their offer to Zach and he's rejected it.
> 
> 6 years/$75 million


:naughty: ridiculous....

PRIDE

does he remember before he was drafted, just how much money that is


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Yes... anything above 120% makes him BYC.....
> 
> but that would be his extension... next year
> ...


Damon + Zach for Kidd + 1st round pick(s)?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

too much for KIDD IMHO

Kidd does nto want to come to PDX... he said so recently


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I wouldn't put too much stock into the Kidd doesn't want to play for POR. I have no doubt that it isn't on his "wish" list, but he really has to weigh the prospects of playing in N J with the team they currently have or going to POR. Which situation is a better one for him?

Playing alonside Jefferson, Mercer, Collins and Williams?

or

Playing alonside Damon\NVE, Miles, Zach and Theo?

BTW, if you thought Jefferson excelled when playing next to Kidd, just wait and see what playiong alongside Kidd would do for Darius. 

It is a risk for POR, but if it is a deal for SAR, then I think it is a risk worth taking. IF Kidd was 100% healty I just don't think there is a chance in hell that this deal happens. It is only b\c of his injury and his desire to be out of NJ, sooner rather than later IMO that this is even being considered. The surgery performed on Kidd was not exactly the same as performed on Penny, I don't think it will have the same negative effects on Kidd as it did on Penny.

Also, I think you could see an Alonzo Mourning and one of NJ trade exceptions included for Damon Stoudamire (likely) or NVE. This would give NJ a TON of expiring cap relief, which could help speed up their rebuilding process and I think Mourning in a b\u role in POR would be fantastic.

POR trades SAR, Damon and Stepania

NJ trades KIdd, Mourning and uses a TE to make up the difference (IF I understand how they worj correctly)

This would make the sudden change in talks b\t Zach and POR mgmt IMO, and usually what is the most obvious reason, is in fact the case.

Kidd's game has never revolved around his speed, his on court IQ is off the charts and that is something that will not decline as he ages IMO. This is waht the POR doctors get paid for, to assess his ability to return, and if they give him a clearance sign, you pull the trigger, no questions asked.

I still don't think Zach is worth the max, just b\c, IMO MEM and UTA overpaid doesn't justify that POR should, but the only logical reason that I can see for the sudden reversal in upping their offer is if SAR is on his way out the door. I would not be adverse to seeing this deal happen at all. Althoughj, I maintain serious reservations about Zach's ability to live up to (on and off the court) a franchise player\"max level" contract. He is good, just not THAT good IMO.

BTW, I would LOVE to see POR pry Keith Bogans out of ORL. 

Bogans and change for Qyntel Woods?

Please??

Heck, or a Dajuan Wagner for Woods, Wagner could play alonside a Kidd (just like a Damon or NVE would) or for that matter a DA as well (not preferable, but it could work). Having a 6'5 PG, opene up the possibilities or makes it a lot more palatable to have a smaller (6'1-6'3) SG.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

After all this talk about Zach wanting the max and what-not, my appreciation for SAR has been raised significantly. Zach is obviously an immature child who thinks he's all that. I say screw him. Trade him for a kick-A PG/SG who can dish, _a la_ Kidd or Allen.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

im sorry but some of these trades are absurd!

how do we go from trade Zach for Redd to trade Zach for KIDD
yea real good deal, we get a broken Kidd who MAY NEVER play to his full potential again which odds are against him , who is 31 and ending prime. Id do the Sar for Kidd but trading Zach for him is a joke.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

This really makes me wonder if the Portland brass knows jack squat about hoops. Trader Bob knew big deals and jack squat about hoops and it seems that our new GM might be just as challanged. 

We need a shooting guard! Not a broken down PG with an attitude. 

I swear this whole board could run this team better than the overpaid jerk offs we have now.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

For the record, this "broken-down" PG is coming off a season when he was on the All-NBA First Team for the fifth time in the past six years. If that makes him broken down, just about every other player in the league must be broken down too.

Let's at least give Jason Kidd a chance to come back from this injury before we call him "done." I have a feeling that when he comes back in January or February and shows that he can still play, other teams will be offering a lot more than Shareef Abdur-Rahim for him.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

30 years old and no outside shot with and enormous contract and a bad wheel. I think it's okay to pass on him, Lord knows the rest of the league isn't beating down the Nets door for him. Otherwise why would they be entertaining SAR only for Kidd? 

A year ago this trade would not have been even laughed at. Something must be very wrong with Kidd to go that cheap for a back up PF on our team.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I think a lot of you are failing to see the big picture here. Randolph is looking at a contract that should put him into his 30's... This is his one chance to cash in. If he were to sign a crappy deal now, he'd have to live with it for most of his career.

Let's say eventually he goes on to average 25 and 12.... And I think some of you forget that he was VERY close to averaging numbers like that last season. Name one player in the league putting up numbers like that who ISN'T making max numbers? I can't believe how quickly some of you are willing to get rid of Randolph after you *****ed and moaned about Jermaine O'Neal....

Personally, I hope Zach gets his money....


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

lets Weigh the pros and cons of jason kidd

Kidd pros 1) maybe the best passer in the world at this point in time 2)Basketball IQ is as high as the force in Darth Vader:starwars: 3)i think that his knee will heal nicely 4)could be the best teacher avalible for telfair along with Nick Damon and Moe 4)Will grow miles game to LEGENDARY level 5)manymore to many to think of

Cons 1) Huge contract 2)May not come back to the old jason Kidd
3)Damon Stoudamire would probably go in the trade and we would probably get Mourning who will never play again4)NO jumper what so ever

I say pull the trigger on this deal befor NJ comes to there senses


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 30 years old and no outside shot with and enormous contract and a bad wheel. I think it's okay to pass on him, Lord knows the rest of the league isn't beating down the Nets door for him. Otherwise why would they be entertaining SAR only for Kidd?


Geez when are you ever going to stop passing off the rumors we're privy to as whats actually going down. We don't know jack about whats really being spoken of as evidenced by not having a clue on 99% of the trades that go down. 

Kidd btw, has been cleared for non-contact drills and supposively is working out like a mad man. 

STOMP


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> Let's say eventually he goes on to average 25 and 12.... And I think some of you forget that he was VERY close to averaging numbers like that last season.


Huh?

Are you insane?

He's as close to averaging 25/12 as a guy who averaged 15/8 was to 20/10.

Truth is, that guy is nowhere NEAR 20/10 and Zach is nowhere near 25/12.

Play.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Well Stomp, things to think about. 

Kidd can't shoot, sure he can pass but isn't that what Telfair is for? Kidd has a huge ego and got his last coach fired and beat his wife. All very attractive bonuses to bring him to Portland a kinder gentler team that fans can support. 

If that's not enough, how about that enormous contract and the fact that Telfair will not want to sit the bench for the next four years behind him.

What other teams have you heard that have made a big push for Kidd? I've not heard of one. 

BTW- Stomp, DA was also cleared to contact drills for the last three years, that's seemed to work out well!:laugh:


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

A deal for Michael Redd has never sounded better. As much as I like Zach and his potential to grow, potential shouldn't warrant the type of deal he's demanding. The last thing I'd like to see is us locking up an untradable player for a ton of money who doesn't make this team better... if he doesn't improve on his glaring weaknesses, of course.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

just two words everyone

SHAWN KEMP

remember how much of an effect his contract had on our team payroll............. these are Kemp type deals


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

That's what I'm saying !!!!!! On top of that Kemp in his prime was way better as a team player than Zach. 

If we max Zach, we can kiss goodbye smart basketball in Portland for the next 7 years. 

First round and out if we are lucky.

Really dumb!


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I think a lot of you are failing to see the big picture here. Randolph is looking at a contract that should put him into his 30's... This is his one chance to cash in. If he were to sign a crappy deal now, he'd have to live with it for most of his career.


Who says _all_ contracts have to be 6-7 years?  Give him a 3 year deal at $7M per as an intermediate step and see if he warrants something bigger after that. If he does and decides to bolt, oh well, at least we got a few more years...



> Kidd has a huge ego and got his last coach fired


Uh, isn't that exactly what we've been begging for the past 2 years?

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> What other teams have you heard that have made a big push for Kidd? I've not heard of one.


Thats my point. You, like me, probably are privy to next to nothing of whats actually going down. Wild geese flying out of rumorville are not necessarily actual trade proposals sitting on some GM's desk awaiting his signature.

To answere your other stuff...

-Everyone would probably want to see how Jason's health is before trading for him, so I don't think anything is likely to happen in the short term. 

-ST can sit for a few more years while he fills out.

-Kidd does have possible character concerns... I figure Nash has a pretty good handle on how he is and I'm just assuming a possitive assessment for discussions sake.

I wish the DA joke was funny.

STOMP


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I'm not talking for a full season Play, I'm saying Randolph was averaging darn near 25 and 12 for part of last season.... I think he had 24 and 11.5..... That was for the first half of the season. That's not a fluke.

wait.... let me read that again...... nowhere near 20 and 10?!?!?!

Go check his stats dude... 

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/zach_randolph/index.html?nav=page

20.1 points and 10.5 rebounds for last season. 

Seriously man.... sometimes your man-crush on Reef goes too far.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> I think he had 24 and 11.5..... That was for the first half of the season. That's not a fluke.


Nor was it a fluke that his stats all but went under 19/10 after Wallace was traded.

Nor was it a fluke that after the all-star break teams adjusted to him a little more.



> wait.... let me read that again...... nowhere near 20 and 10?!?!?!


Yes, nowhere near 25/12. Are you daft. Read it a third time.

The "he" I was referring to was the mythical he that scored 15/8. That guy was no where near 20/10 .... I don't care if that guy scored 29/17 through half a season.



> Seriously man.... sometimes your man-crush on Reef goes too far.


No - it had nothing to do with Reef - Zach was not even close to 25/12. Not close in the least.

Play.


----------



## Focus (Feb 13, 2004)

Let see...
Reef for Kidd.

Blazer starter will looks like.

Kidd - 5 yrs left MAX 
DA - 3yrs left
Miles - 7yrs(?) left close to 10
Zach - 7yrs left MAX 
Theo - 4 yrs left 10

That will be ur starting 5 for the next 3yrs, I am too lazy to do the math but average age will be around 30 and take up all ur cap space for sure. Isn't Blazer want to cut cost, build young and good image?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

The fact remains that Zach Randolph AVERAGED 20 points and 10 rebounds for the 2003-2004 season. You can't take that away from him. Yes, he went through a slump towards the end of the season, but he adjusted, and he picked up his scoring to close out the year. 

By the way, his dip in points co-insided directly with the acquiring of Shareef. It's obvious these two can't play together. Everyone knows it. Yet somehow it's Randolph's fault. 

I'm sure there have been times in Shareef's career where he went through slumps, but rebounded and boosted his numbers again...

And no, I'm not "daft".... You said "He was nowhere NEAR 20/10."

Maybe you should have CLARIFIED that statement instead of assuming we knew what you were talking about... 

Fact is, there was a period of time last year, an EXTENDED period of time, where Randolph was putting up HUGE numbers. He has done it before, and he can do it again. Randolph is only 23 years old. Do you think this is as good as he's going to get?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> 
> Personally, I hope Zach gets his money....


I hope he gets his money too, just not the max(at least from the Blazers). Oustside of what Gasol and AK got, Zach isn't worth the Max. Either is Gasol or AK. 

Zach has the skills and ability to be worth a max contract on the court, but off the court he takes a hit. It's like giving an injury prone player a max contract. You don't know how much they'll be around. With Zach, you don't really know if he'll be personally involved in the next shooting. Or what financial liabilty he'll have with the Blazers marketing. At least with AK and Gasol, they haven't showed any problems to portray an PR problems.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Yes... anything above 120% makes him BYC.....
> 
> but that would be his extension... next year
> ...


Correct on the first part - he'll be BYC next year (starting on July 1st) if he signs an extension.

However, his salary (for the purpose of matching for a trade) this year will only be $1.8 million if he does NOT sign an extension. Once he signs an extension off of his rookie scale deal, his "trade salary" is the average of this year's salary plus every year of the extension.

So, say he signs a max extension ($86.4 million for 6 years). His salary for trade purposes in 2004-05 would be a whopping $12.6 million! ($86.4 + $1.8 = $88.2. $88.2/7 = $12.6) This is known as a "poison pill" and is designed to prevent teams from giving players huge extensions and then immediately trading them. Note - this is only for players signing extensions off of their rookie deals.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> Do you think this is as good as he's going to get?


To put it succinctly - yes.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

DUPE.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> The fact remains that Zach Randolph AVERAGED 20 points and 10 rebounds for the 2003-2004 season. You can't take that away from him.


Actually, I'd have an easier time taking that away from a guy who did it for one year than a guy who has done it for 8.

Yet, it seems like a lot of Blazers fans think it is easy to assume that a guy will make a leap from 20/10 to 25/12 if he has one year of proving he can barely hold 20/10 and to assume that a guy who averaged 20/9 for eight years will fall to 11/6.

You want to talk about taking things away from someone.



> Yes, he went through a slump towards the end of the season, but he adjusted, and he picked up his scoring to close out the year.


I don't believe it was a slump.



> It's obvious these two can't play together. Everyone knows it. Yet somehow it's Randolph's fault.


It is. He refuses to play team ball. He's the one who spent the final weeks of the season complaining. He's the one who made the transition difficult... not Reef.



> I'm sure there have been times in Shareef's career where he went through slumps, but rebounded and boosted his numbers again...


Not for half a season.



> Do you think this is as good as he's going to get?


Just to belabor the point - yes. In fact, I think he overachieved due to poor coaching. He played outside the team concept. If he were forced to play team basketball, I think his stats (especially the rebounding) would suffer.

Play.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Zach's numbers fell off, without a doubt. That is a fact that can't be disputed. Why they fell off is more of the debate here. Some choose to call it a "slump" which has no tangible evidence, at least no more than a "curse" or a "jinx". I have to say that I think it had more to do with defenses figuring out what he was about and actually talking about how to rattle his game. He came out took the league by surprise and they made seccond half adjustments. Now it's his turn, can he respond? We'll see, but right now I'd have to say Playmaker holds the evidence based arguements.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

At end of the day, my question would be, why would anyone want Shareef Abdur-Rahim over Zach Randolph if winning basketball games is a priority? Shareef's going to take a significant paycut after this year. Maybe in excess of 6-8 million and deservedly so.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> At end of the day, my question would be, why would anyone want Shareef Abdur-Rahim over Zach Randolph if winning basketball games is a priority?


Because Zach Randolph hasn't proven he can win either. He's had a much more stable environment with much more talented players and still missed the playoffs.

When you say things like this - I have to wonder how much organized sports you've actually participated in on a decent level.

Unless it is a PG or a statistical schlub starter, there is no way to fault a single player for losses. I don't care how many they've been a part of.

Again - how many Vancouver Grizzlies went on to success? 



> Shareef's going to take a significant paycut after this year. Maybe in excess of 6-8 million and deservedly so.


Not a chance. He'll be a 9MM guy.

Play.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Mike Bibby went on to success, most of the others got hurt in Reeves and Dickerson. 

Yes, I played organized hoops (although, I'm not sure, what this has to do with what we're discussing) and Abdur-Rahim has been paid like a superstar for a few years now, but he doesn't deliver like one. That Atlanta team with Terry, Theo and Big Dog, was supposed to be a playoff team, but they stunk. 

Oh it's not Reef's fault though right, cause he's getting his numbers. The captain goes down with the ship. The guy has never played on a winner in 8 years. He's not going to be one, if he gets traded to the Nets this year either. Although, he is paid 14.6 million, so you would think he could make them a winner, no of course not. 

I would rather hitch my wagon to Randolph rather than Abdur-Rahim, I tell you that much. If he was so good and helped a team so much, people wouldn't be always trying to deal him. 

Think Memphis wants Reef back for Gasol, or Atlanta wants him back, and now Portland will ship him out. 

Your friendship with him has clouded your judgment in regards to his value. His value is great, in a fantasy league.

Also what team will pay him 9 million dollars a year, after proving for going on 9 years, that he is nothing more than a 3rd option at best. He's Juwan Howard all over again.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Mike Bibby went on to success, most of the others got hurt in Reeves and Dickerson.


Reeves never got hurt. Nor was he ever that good.

And Bibby - yeah, Bibby had it rough. He only went to the most talented team in the league. Bibby is pretty much is an average PG on a spectacular team. He still only gets 4-6 assists a game on a team of dead-eye shooters. 




> Yes, I played organized hoops (although, I'm not sure, what this has to do with what we're discussing)


Because being on a team makes you realize how it is a TEAM and not a single man competition. Jordan himself couldn't have willed the Grizzlies to victory.



> That Atlanta team with Terry, Theo and Big Dog, was supposed to be a playoff team, but they stunk.


Big Dog was one of the biggest reasons for this. Heck, talk to Theo about it. Since then, Big Dog has been relegated to the bench on scrub teams. People have realized he's a ball hog who refuses to pass and turns it over at a record pace.

But why? Jason Terry isn't a PG. Everyone wants him to be ... but he isn't. Heck, the Mavs have put him on the bench in favor of a rookie PG. That's awful.

Then take a decent look at their bench. 

Theo and Reef were the only players on that team. 

Yeah, I'm sure I wasn't the only one that predicted this team wouldn't go very far.



> The guy has never played on a winner in 8 years. He's not going to be one, if he gets traded to the Nets this year either.


On two completely mismanaged teams. Yeah, it's his fault that the Grizz signed Big Country to a HUGE contract and he fattened up in the off-season. That strapped them financially. It's Reef's fault they drafted Steve Francis (who promised that he would NOT play in Vancouver) instead of Lamar Odom (who promised he would). It's Reef's fault that the year they could have had the number one pick in the draft (Tim Duncan) the NBA had rules in place that forced them to pick second.

Then in Atlanta, I guess it is Reef's fault that they had a PG who couldn't run the point for a HS team. They had a ball hog at the 3. That they had a rookie head coach - twice.



> If he was so good and helped a team so much, people wouldn't be always trying to deal him.


Wow. Traded twice. Whoo-hoo! I guess Jason Kidd sucks too. 

Go ahead. Keep parroting the junk you read in ESPN The Mag or Inside Hoops or whatever unoriginal journalisitc publication you choose to read.

Play.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Look, you obviously hang at the sac of your God Shareef, but sorry to say, he is paid like a superstar and he doesn't play like one. If you can't see that, then you are too blinded in your man crush for him. 

The guy is not that good and you're hyping him up, like he is some perennial all-star. The guy is an above average starter who gets points, so he is a fantasy sports dream. 

This off-season Portland dangled him in front of everyone, yet no one wants him, except the Nets (for nothing more than an expiring contract). What does that tell you about him? Juwan Howard Part Deux. 

You're not a NBA fan, you're a Reef fan. Well that's terrific. Soon enough, he will be gone from the league and so will you.

And I don't buy basketball mags. I've been watching college and pro games religiously since 88. There's not much I don't know about the game.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Look, you obviously hang at the sac of your God Shareef, but sorry to say, he is paid like a superstar and he doesn't play like one. If you can't see that, then you are too blinded in your man crush for him.


No, I don't think he has earned this contract.

He was given this contract by Vancouver based on potential ... just as Zach wants his contract based on the same thing.

But, 9MM is not all-star pay. That is realistic pay for what Reef brings, even just statistically, to the table. 



> There's not much I don't know about the game.


Except there are usually 5 guys on the court at once, and each of those 5 guys are responsible for the whole team. Not one guy, regardless of the cash he makes.

Play.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Except there are usually 5 guys on the court at once, and each of those 5 guys are responsible for the whole team. Not one guy, regardless of the cash he makes.
> 
> Play.


When you are paid like a star, you get most of the blame. Note, no one cares, when you're highly paid and you win. If you lose with one of the highest contracts in the league, you get branded a loser.

If Shareef was a stock, he would have bottomed out long ago. If the amount of money they made, didn't matter, why not give everyone max contracts? Since no one is to blame, while making all that money. 

I mean where does Shareef rank in the pecking order of PF's in the NBA.

KG, Duncan, O'Neal, Brand, Gasol, Stoudemire, Martin, Rasheed

He's going to be Juwan Howard soon enough. I'm surprised being that your a Bama grad, that you don't discuss Spree or Horry at all.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> I'm surprised being that your a Bama grad, that you don't discuss Spree or Horry at all.


I don't know them. Plus, I'm ashamed of Spree as an alum of the University.

I know McDyess a little, I played him a few times. I got swatted by McDyess. That was exciting. 

Play.


----------

