# The Randolph trade was a big mistake by Pritchard



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

It didn't make sense at the time and it makes even less sense right now. Pritchard made the move simply for the sake of making the move. That's pretty much the biggest mistake a GM can make. If Pritchard would have had patience Portland would likely be able to have their pick of any of Chicago's players. Even the previously untouchable Heinrich would likely be available. Hopefully Pritchard is the type of person that quickly learns from their mistakes instead of the kind who's ego prevents them from seeing their mistakes.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

its all about rudy baby


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

the randolph move was more for making room for LMA and not much about randolph.

and no we still probably wouldnt have gotten hinrich because "pritchard is so dumb". oh and we'd be blasting kp for trading midseason and bringing in more players. 

damned if we do, damned if we dont.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

It was a marketing move plain and simple. I don't put this one on Pritchard as much as I put it on Miller. Miller is a Nike guy with a marketing focus. He wanted our story to be about Oden only and that we'd turned the page completely. That meant we put a deadline on moving Zach of draft night. Zeke was smart enough to realize it and squeezed us, just less than other teams. We received crap value for him and are now paying the price.

As for the idea that Rudy Fernandez had anything to do with this move, I guess I have more faith in Tom Penn than that. There were clearly other avenues to get a trade exception or to funnel more money to Phoenix than going through NY. Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Milwaukee and even Detroit had trade options that could have been created without having to trade a major player. We could have paid Phoenix $3MM for a future 2nd round pick.

The only thing that makes me happy about this Randolph fiasco is that before Penn got the TE by inserting Dickau and Jones, we were going to send Webs to NY as part of the deal. Now THAT would have been as disaster.

As it appears, we may have been jobbed worse than JO and Joe Kleine for Dale Davis.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

deanwoof said:


> the randolph move was more for making room for LMA and not much about randolph.
> 
> and no we still probably wouldnt have gotten hinrich because "pritchard is so dumb". oh and we'd be blasting kp for trading midseason and bringing in more players.
> 
> damned if we do, damned if we dont.


So, is your argument that we trade starters to make room for their backups? Bottom line, a three man rotation of LMA, Zach and Oden would have worked pretty well together. That's 96 minutes for three players, or 32 minutes a game. It gives you a nice combo of high post/low post that we're missing now. Without Oden, the case to keep him becomes even more compelling.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

maxiep said:


> It was a marketing move plain and simple. I don't put this one on Pritchard as much as I put it on Miller. Miller is a Nike guy with a marketing focus. He wanted our story to be about Oden only and that we'd turned the page completely. That meant we put a deadline on moving Zach of draft night.


I don't buy that. Miller was hired only 1 week before the trade. Seems hard to believe he'd be *that* eager to put his stamp on the team.

barfo


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

barfo said:


> I don't buy that. Miller was hired only 1 week before the trade. Seems hard to believe he'd be *that* eager to put his stamp on the team.
> 
> barfo


He was hired a week before, but he was interviewing long before that. He supplied Nike marketing stats and Randolph's numbers were horrendous. Ask anyone on the Blazers that saw that presentation and they'll tell you Miller hit the ground running with a specific idea of what he wanted to do with this team. Getting the #1 pick only accelerated that process.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I have nothing to add to this thread.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

maxiep said:


> He was hired a week before, but he was interviewing long before that. He supplied Nike marketing stats and Randolph's numbers were horrendous. Ask anyone on the Blazers that saw that presentation and they'll tell you Miller hit the ground running with a specific idea of what he wanted to do with this team. Getting the #1 pick only accelerated that process.


That's interesting. Do you mean that Nike had stats on the marketing draw of Zach (vs. other players presumably)? I suppose they would, since they'd be pretty interested in that for their own purposes.

I can't ask anyone who saw the presentation since I don't know any of them. But I'll take your word that it happened they way you said unless/until I hear otherwise.

barfo


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

barfo said:


> That's interesting. Do you mean that Nike had stats on the marketing draw of Zach (vs. other players presumably)? I suppose they would, since they'd be pretty interested in that for their own purposes.
> 
> I can't ask anyone who saw the presentation since I don't know any of them. But I'll take your word that it happened they way you said unless/until I hear otherwise.
> 
> barfo


Nationally, Zach's marketing #s weren't bad at all, but locally they were the worst on the team, even worse than Darius'.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

maxiep said:


> Nationally, Zach's marketing #s weren't bad at all, but locally they were the worst on the team, even worse than Darius'.


I have no trouble believing that. Of course, there are still two ways to go, if you are a marketing guy - you can punt, or you can try to rehabilitate him. 

While Portland hated Zach, Portland is also pretty forgiving. A talented marketing guy could have, with a lot of effort and a little luck, remade him into a fan favorite. 

But hey, everyone loves Channing. 

barfo


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

The concept of trading Zach to make room for LMA at starting power forward was a fine one. The problem is that we got nothing back in the deal. When we got the #1 pick, I kept hearing about how we could get Rashard Lewis or Joe Johnson or Richard Jefferson or Shawn Marion or even Tayshaun Prince for Randolph. I would have been 100% behind trading him for any of those players. And if we HAD brought in any of those players, we would definitely be making the playoffs this season and we would very likely be winning championships in three years or so. As it is, we certainly have an awful lot riding on this Oden kid, not to mention this Rudy guy.

The Zach trade was a horrible deal.

Go Blazers


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'm thinking KP and the gang expected the backlash from the Zach trade considering the full effect of the trade won't be felt until Rudy comes over and we sign that "coveted" free agent in the class of 2009.

Although I'm sure KP expected more out of Channing right now, his long-term plan I'm guessing probably lasted more than 15 games into the season.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You got rid of a bad attitude player from the team. Portlands been trying to rebuild their image, and have been doing a pretty good job. I dont know why all of the sudden people forget that. And no one knew Oden was going to get injured, so who would have been coming off the bench? LMA? Thats a waste from seeing him this year. Zach? Yea, he wouldnt have had any problems with that now would he?

Yea, it would have been nice to get more, but Zach had to go, and he had to go before the season. Portland made the right move, and I dont buy that it was a secret plot by Nike to get it done.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

maxiep said:


> So, is your argument that we trade starters to make room for their backups?


Well, YES. If the backup is better. Are you telling me you would rather have Z-Ro then LMA playing for us right now?

This playing time LMA is getting will make him SO much better next year when we get Oden then it would if he got garbage minutes next to a ball hog.

I'm getting tired of all the complaining on this forum. With all this negative energy we put on our team, it's no wonder they are losing all the time. Their fans hate them.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I wanted Zach gone and really didn't like his game at all. The only complaint I have is not getting more for him. If you include Rudy in the trade then it might still turn out ok. I also think we needed to get LMA as much time as possible as our go to guy. I think LMA has done better then I thought he would this early. I do think this experience will really help him next year to go with Oden.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

maxiep said:


> Bottom line, a three man rotation of LMA, Zach and Oden would have worked pretty well together.



the evidence, both from here last year and so far from NY, clearly indicates otherwise. zach playing with another low-post threat = hopelessly clogged middle. our problem is that oden is injured - not that zach is not here. if oden were healthy i suspect threads lamenting the zach trade would be few and far between. 

we certainly should have got more out of him, but zach had to go one way or another. if oden were healthy zach would just be getting in the way of this team's and particularly LA's development right now. LA is our PF - for practical purposes he is already a more effective all-around player than zach, and isn't remotely close to his ceiling. zach is not a SF. neither would be happy coming off the bench. i am disappointed in what we got, but very glad zach is gone.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Xericx said:


> I have nothing to add to this thread.


While I added my 2 cents to the umpteen other Zach trade threads, it's amazing to me to see the same posters posting the same exact sentiments and asking the same questions that have already been countered/answered umpteen times before. 

Nothing has changed folks! According to management, Zach burned his bridges here far worse then we are aware. Dude had to go and we've only seen 1 of the 4 players that will eventually suit up in Red and Black. The benefits of this move are definitely not going to be fully realized this year... keep stuffing your head in the sand and pretending otherwise if it suits you, but I'll truly judge the move from a talent perspective once Portland's end of the deal arrives.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

maxiep said:


> It was a marketing move plain and simple.


No, it wasn't. Last season provided ample evidence that the offense flowed better when Randolph was on the bench. I'm sure all of the Blazer brass took note of this. The Blazers wanted to run more this year, as well, and Randolph is not particularly fast up and down the court. Finally, the Randolph trade was made with the idea of having Oden anchoring the middle. If Oden were playing this year, there wouldn't be any complaints about the Randolph trade.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think what a lot of people either don't want to think about, or forget about is this.

KP has a plan....at least he says he does. That plan consists of us having some major cap room in 09' to sign a significant FA. Trading Zach for pieces that enable us to do that will probably help this franchise more long term than Zach's inability to play defense. 

Right now the trade is pretty much Zach, Jones and DD for Rudy, Frye and Jones. Now while Frye doesn't seem to be the player we all hoped he was, and Jones has been hampered by a knee, Rudy by all accounts is the real deal. 

Hypothetically speaking this trade could seriously end up being something like Zach for Rudy and CP3 or Williams. Heck even a veteran stud PG instead. 


We all know Zach puts up better numbers than Frye. But people need to remember that this isn't about numbers, it's about winning games. IMO Rudy and a player like CP3 will help us win more games than Zach


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I think what a lot of people either don't want to think about, or forget about is this.
> 
> KP has a plan....at least he says he does. That plan consists of us having some major cap room in 09' to sign a significant FA. Trading Zach for pieces that enable us to do that will probably help this franchise more long term than Zach's inability to play defense.
> 
> ...




i agree with everything you said except it's insane to think paul or deron will be available as FA's. not sure why people keep mentioning them.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You got rid of a bad attitude player from the team. Portland's been trying to rebuild their image, and have been doing a pretty good job. I dont know why all of the sudden people forget that. And no one knew Oden was going to get injured, so who would have been coming off the bench? LMA? That's a waste from seeing him this year. Zach? Yea, he wouldnt have had any problems with that now would he?


What exactly was Zach's "bad attitude"? Did he rip on his teammates? Nope. Everything Zach did wrong had to do with his off the court stuff. When he was asked to take more of the load, he did so. When he was asked to let Roy take more of the burden, he did that too. This year with the Knicks, he's shooting less and rebounding more. 

As for who comes off the bench, what does it matter if you get your minutes? Rasheed used to come off the bench when we had Brian Grant, then BG came off the bench when Sheed surpassed him. Best players play and nothing encourages good play like competition.



> Yea, it would have been nice to get more, but Zach had to go, and he had to go before the season. Portland made the right move, and I dont buy that it was a secret plot by Nike to get it done.


You and I disagree on the assumption that Zach HAD to go. I'm a believer We gave him away, so there was little harm in keeping him over the summer to see what we could get for him. The worst that could happen is that he raised a stink about his role here and we'd have to take garbage in return today instead of on draft day. 

Right now, I bet LMA and Roy still wish we had Zach. Their games are suffering because they're being focused on by the defense. Sure LMA's points are way up, but he simply can't hold the low post. Roy is getting worn down to a nub. Channing Frye is giving them no help and without chucking Darius, significant cap space in 2009 is a myth. If Oden would have been healthy this year, he would have liked what Zach brought on offense too, as that's the part of his game that's developing.

As for a "secret plot by Nike", now you're talking like Yega1979. Put all the words in my mouth you'd like, but Larry Miller hit the ground running with this team, and it was no secret if I heard about it.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> Well, YES. If the backup is better. Are you telling me you would rather have Z-Ro then LMA playing for us right now?


Best players play. If it's Zach, it's Zach. If it's LaMarcus, then Zach comes off the bench. BTW, they can also play together.



> This playing time LMA is getting will make him SO much better next year when we get Oden then it would if he got garbage minutes next to a ball hog.


Why would all of LMA's minutes next to Zach be "garbage time"? Is Roy a ball hog? He dominates the ball too. There's a fundamental assumption that Zach wouldn't have changed his game. It's an assumption I categorically reject. Zach could have gotten his numbers with this team by occupying the low post and crashing the boards.



> I'm getting tired of all the complaining on this forum. With all this negative energy we put on our team, it's no wonder they are losing all the time. Their fans hate them.


Who's complaining? I love this team, and have loved them since my dad took me to my first Blazer game back in 1970. I have no problem with moves made for a basketball reason. I do have problems with moves made more marketing reasons. And this move was made to signal to the fans that management has "turned the page" on the Jail Blazers.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I think what a lot of people either don't want to think about, or forget about is this.
> 
> KP has a plan....at least he says he does. That plan consists of us having some major cap room in 09' to sign a significant FA. Trading Zach for pieces that enable us to do that will probably help this franchise more long term than Zach's inability to play defense.
> 
> ...


There are also those of us that understand the cap ramifications just fine, and also realize that without Miles being included in the Zach deal, that cap space is a myth. Assuming that those of us that weren't pleased with the return on this deal are ignorant is flat-out arrogance. 

Also, don't kid yourself, getting Jones was the price we paid for getting Rudy Fernandez, he's no asset. The Suns wanted him off their cap because Sarver won't go over the luxury cap. 

And you're forgetting two pieces of that deal, Nichols for a 2008 2nd round pick (which may turn to our advantage) and the $33M we paid to Francis and Phoenix, which is appalling even if you're not paying the check. If the goal was to simply dump cap space, we could have done a lot better or insisted that Miles for Rose be added onto the deal. If it was to get Rudy, we should have either demanded the Knicks #23 pick or have gotten the TE somewhere else or purchased a Phoenix 2nd round pick for $3MM.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

OK so now it is all on Rudy. I wonder if someone could pull up an old thread when the trade happened. Rudy was a piece, but Frye was just as important. As Frye disappoints and JJ remains injured, it seems the argument in favor of the trade is it will all be justified by Rudy.

Rudy . . . the #23 pick in the draft, which 22 other teams passed on and Phoenix sold to us. 

I hope Rudy is all that . . . as always, I'll guess we will have to wait till next year.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> No, it wasn't. Last season provided ample evidence that the offense flowed better when Randolph was on the bench. I'm sure all of the Blazer brass took note of this. The Blazers wanted to run more this year, as well, and Randolph is not particularly fast up and down the court. Finally, the Randolph trade was made with the idea of having Oden anchoring the middle. If Oden were playing this year, there wouldn't be any complaints about the Randolph trade.


That's funny because the numbers don't support your assertion. Zach is supposedly the ballhog and doesn't share the ball, but he averaged 2.2 assists last year while LMA averages 0.7 assists. We're supposedly playing at a faster pace this year, but our shot attempts are a bit lower than last year (from 78.0 down to 77.3). Furthermore, because we lack a defensive rebounder, our opponents are averaging three more boards and 4.8 more shot attempts. You wonder why we're losing these games? We're giving our opponents second and third shots.

Finally, Zach doesn't need to be fast up the court. You need three or four players to trigger a fast break. As Nate said in yesterday's Trib, "You can't run if the ball is going through the hoop." What you really need to trigger a fast break is a rebound. Well, the 6th leading rebounder in the league is now 3,000 miles away.

However, we're getting away from the point. The point isn't whether or not Zach should still be on this team. Anyone could see that he was being phased out, and I was more than fine with that. What I will continue to be unhappy about is that we gave him away to sell a team to a supposed "fan" base, who is more fickle than Laker fans.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Zach hasn't exactly made the Knicks a juggernaut, has he?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

I don't call a difference of 5-7 wins a "big mistake." Zach Randolph wasn't going to lead this team anywhere good. Has he been the savior NY thought he would be?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

maxiep said:


> However, we're getting away from the point. The point isn't whether or not Zach should still be on this team. Anyone could see that he was being phased out, and I was more than fine with that. *What I will continue to be unhappy about is that we gave him away to sell a team to a supposed "fan" base, who is more fickle than Laker fans*.


Considering we had serious concerns about the team being moved, sold, etc last year I find it difficult to criticize any move which helped to preserve the Blazers as a sucessfull franchise in Portland.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Last I remember, the Blazers hadn't lost any games by 50 since he left, unlike the Knicks. :biggrin:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

TLo said:


> Zach hasn't exactly made the Knicks a juggernaut, has he?


I don't get this argument. Did KG make the TWolves a juggernaut last year? Is Wade returning making the Heat a juggernaut this year? Is Pau Gasol making the Grizz a juggernaut this year? Are either LMA or Roy making us a juggernaut this year? All of those players I listed are better than Zach, yet Randolph is supposed to do something those more talented players cannot.

Zach isn't a "savior". He isn't even a first option. He's an elite garbageman, a 2nd or 3rd option who was asked to carry this team when we barely had NBA talent. Unlike Rasheed (who has five times the ability of Zach), Zach took the burden of carrying this team. I'm not going to rip a guy for assuming responsibility.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Considering we had serious concerns about the team being moved, sold, etc last year I find it difficult to criticize any move which helped to preserve the Blazers as a sucessfull franchise in Portland.


That's a disingenuous comment and worse yet, you know it. And let's be clear, it wasn't last season that we had those concerns. The drafting of Roy and Aldridge turned the corner for this team, not trading Zach. Allen has admitted in his SI article that his thoughts of selling were fleeting at best. Bottom line, he was posturing in an attempt to repurchase the Rose Garden.

As someone who used to work for the team, you know better than to bring up the idea that the team could have been moved. The lease nor the agreement with the City is up for 22 years. 

As for me, this forum is a place to exchange ideas. Any move that I believe makes our team worse in BOTH the short and long term I will criticize. Trading Zach was an inevitability; giving him away was a choice.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Some interesting comments on the Knicks (and Randolph) over at ESPN: Here's what a few posters had to say:



> How can the team with the highest payroll be this bad? *I wouldn't want a single Knick player on my team . . . *
> 
> The players on this team have a lot of talent but *no clue as to how they should be playing or how to play . . .*
> 
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-071130


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

"Isiah Thomas drafts players that would go later, but somehow those players live up their their billing. He trades away great upside(channing frye) for huge contracts(Zack Randolph) . . ."

I hope this poster is right about Frye having great upside. At least if people think this we might be able to trade him later for something decent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK so now it is all on Rudy. I wonder if someone could pull up an old thread when the trade happened. Rudy was a piece, but Frye was just as important. As Frye disappoints and JJ remains injured, it seems the argument in favor of the trade is it will all be justified by Rudy.
> 
> Rudy . . . the #23 pick in the draft, which 22 other teams passed on and Phoenix sold to us.
> 
> I hope Rudy is all that . . . as always, I'll guess we will have to wait till next year.


Yep. People who were hyping Frye are now falling back on Rudy (and Jones! haha) and the "cap space" of 2009.

If Rudy is slow to develop or something less than special, we'll hear about the cap space of 2009.

If we just use that 2009 money to re-sign our existing players, I'm not sure what people will use to justify the trade... but I'm sure they'll think of something.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

maxiep said:


> I don't get this argument. Did KG make the TWolves a juggernaut last year? Is Wade returning making the Heat a juggernaut this year? Is Pau Gasol making the Grizz a juggernaut this year? Are either LMA or Roy making us a juggernaut this year? All of those players I listed are better than Zach, yet Randolph is supposed to do something those more talented players cannot.
> 
> Zach isn't a "savior". He isn't even a first option. He's an elite garbageman, a 2nd or 3rd option who was asked to carry this team when we barely had NBA talent. Unlike Rasheed (who has five times the ability of Zach), Zach took the burden of carrying this team. I'm not going to rip a guy for assuming responsibility.


There are 2 camps. Those who thinkg it was a mistake, and those who don't. Those who don't, most of us don't like Zbo. You aren't going to change my mind, you are not going to agree with me. You guys can post your "The Zbo trae was a mitake" thread 8 times a week, and it still will never change my mind. There are just some situations in sports where you need to get rid of a player. Sometimes that player goes on and performs well elsewhere. Sometimes not. What is important though is, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that the Blazers achieve their long term goals, and are not judged on 15 games after he played. 

Do you know how Rudy will pan out? No you don't. 

Do you know that if Frye doesn't work out he won't get packaged for something that does? No you don't. 

Do you know that the Blazers won't pull off a winning streak at some point, playing better without him by the end of the season? No, you don't. 

Neither do I. So how can you deem it a failure, until the hand is completely dealt?


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Yep. People who were hyping Frye are now falling back on Rudy (and Jones! haha) and the "cap space" of 2009.
> 
> If Rudy is slow to develop or something less than special, we'll hear about the cap space of 2009.
> 
> ...


I was high on Rudy the entire time, but if hypothetically he fails, Frye fails, and the capspace doesn't do anything great for us, I really doubt I'd complain. I'm glad to be rid of Zach. He doesn't work well with an offense, and doesn't know how to work on defense. Maybe we got 60 cents on the dollar for him. 

Better to do it now, while we're not competing, and learn from it (in order to fix the problem before we're competing), and then have the problem fixed in time for later.

I think it's ultimately a good move regardless. Maybe it wasn't a fair turn in talent at the time, but in terms of the future, it was a good move.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> There are 2 camps. Those who thinkg it was a mistake, and those who don't.  Those who don't, most of us don't like Zbo. You aren't going to change my mind, you are not going to agree with me.


That's a difference between the two sides: at least with me (and, as I suspect, with most people who weren't fans of the deal)... I'm more concerned about basketball than personalities. I don't "like" Zach. You don't, either, but you actively DISLIKE him. Your dislike for him clouds your judgment, but you don't admit (most of the time) that it's pure emotion, rather than winning and losing.

Another difference: I WOULD admit that the trade was a good one. If Frye had siezed the starting job with both hands, or if the team was (as most of you had claimed) better without Zach, or if Randolph had been terrible in NY... those things are pieces of evidence that go into my decision. I don't have a gut-level reaction to a deal based on whether I "like" a player or not.

It's just a different way of looking at things. You're entitled to your way, of course, but just as I don't try to argue about who you should like (because I'm not concerned about liking a player) maybe you should avoid arguing about what it takes for a team to succeed (since you appear to be less concerned about that).

Haha.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

maxiep said:


> That's funny because the numbers don't support your assertion. Zach is supposedly the ballhog and doesn't share the ball, but he averaged 2.2 assists last year while LMA averages 0.7 assists.


That's a vast oversimplification. In last year's offense, Zach had the ball in his hands 90% of the time. It's no wonder he got 2.2 assists per game. He really should have had more. 

In this year's offense, the ball moves around more and more players touch it. That means *everybody* on the team gets more chances for assists. Aldridge doesn't get as many assists as Zach did, but our guards and other players are probably getting more due to Randolph's absence and the new offensive system. 



> Furthermore, because we lack a defensive rebounder, our opponents are averaging three more boards and 4.8 more shot attempts. You wonder why we're losing these games? We're giving our opponents second and third shots.


I'll give you that one. Randolph's rebounding prowess was supposed to be replaced by Oden, but we all know what happened.



> Finally, Zach doesn't need to be fast up the court. You need three or four players to trigger a fast break.


Again, Oden was supposed to replace Zach in this role.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

LameR said:


> I think it's ultimately a good move regardless. Maybe it wasn't a fair turn in talent at the time, but in terms of the future, it was a good move.


How would it be "good" in that situation? I can think of two potential areas of where you might argue:

-- Zach not "infecting" the young players, and
-- The team's continued losing adding more lottery picks to the talent pool.

Are there any other alleged benefits?

And wouldn't you rather have a team that can actually compete for a playoff spot than to keep hoping for success three or four years down the road?

Ed O.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> That's a vast oversimplification. In last year's offense, Zach had the ball in his hands 90% of the time. It's no wonder he got 2.2 assists per game. He really should have had more.
> 
> 
> > 90% of the time? Do you have a link for that? I recall DudleysGhost posting that Zach *touched* the ball on fewer than 30% of our offensive sets. He ran though the numbers, so I'll choose to believe the data rather than believe your assumption.
> ...


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

maxiep said:


> I don't get this argument. Did KG make the TWolves a juggernaut last year? Is Wade returning making the Heat a juggernaut this year? Is Pau Gasol making the Grizz a juggernaut this year? Are either LMA or Roy making us a juggernaut this year? All of those players I listed are better than Zach, yet Randolph is supposed to do something those more talented players cannot.
> 
> Zach isn't a "savior". He isn't even a first option. He's an elite garbageman, a 2nd or 3rd option who was asked to carry this team when we barely had NBA talent. Unlike Rasheed (who has five times the ability of Zach), Zach took the burden of carrying this team. I'm not going to rip a guy for assuming responsibility.



The point I am making is...

A) I doubt if Zach's trade value was very high around the NBA, and

B) The Blazers would not have a much better record if he were still here.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

TLo said:


> The point I am making is...
> 
> A) I doubt if Zach's trade value was very high around the NBA, and
> 
> B) The Blazers would not have a much better record if he were still here.


I celebrate your right to have these opinions.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Yep. People who were hyping Frye are now falling back on Rudy (and Jones! haha) and the "cap space" of 2009.
> 
> If Rudy is slow to develop or something less than special, we'll hear about the cap space of 2009.
> 
> ...


Its a delay tactic. We could have found other ways to clear cap space NEXT year trading for immeditately expiring contracts and we probably could have found a trading partner willing to give up their pick for Rudy Fernandez. Doesn't mean we had to get absolutely hosed down in the process. 

I find it funny what some people are clinging too. The "genius" of Tom Penn in exploiting salary cap room (which from a previous thread appears to be vastly overrate). The "vision" of Kevin Pritchard in seeing something magical in Channing Frye (seriously, with certain "good" teams struggling a little patience would have helped). The Jason Quick "report" that a blazer demanded that Zach to be traded. I've even heard of completely ridiculous things like the Blazers had knowledge of Zach being implicated in Vick's Dogfighting case or that there was a hush hush future trade involving Darius Miles. 

Most of these are either pipe or crack pipe dreams. 

Realism is that: 

Channing Frye is still soft. 

We got Rudy Fernandez because we have the luxury of waiting for him a year or two AND had the financial backing of Paul Allen to easily buy him out of his Euro-contract. 

Zach Randolph, while he is not going to save the knicks, is an upgrade over Frye AND helped the knicks get rid of Steve Francis' bad contract. 

Zach Randolph was not a bad attitude player on the team. Off the court he had his indiscretions. on the court, he seemed fine to me. He wanted to win. That's all. 

If we did wait, we could have VERY LIKELY gotten more back from another team, especially ones struggling like the HEAT or the BULLS. 

I'm still absolutely horrified that we had the luxury of not jumping the gun on any trades but we still did. LaMarcus still would have gotten his burn even next to ZBO. ZBO was not a part of the future of the Blazers after we got the first pick in the draft, but we could have easily waited 6 months until the trading deadline for borderline playoff teams. 



I know I said I had nothing to add but this is not all news here. Its the same repetition that I've been harping on since this trade went down.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

TLo said:


> The point I am making is...
> 
> A) I doubt if Zach's trade value was very high around the NBA, and
> 
> B) The Blazers would not have a much better record if he were still here.


A: A team like the Chicago bulls would VERY LIKELY trade someone like Nocioni for Zach right now. There were rumbles of that over the summer.....perhaps now even DENG is expendable now that Kobe is veto'ing trades that involve him. They need to change. That's just an example of why waiting could have increased the trade Value. Back in the summer, sure it probably wasn't too high...the finals just got over and it was draft season....probably the WORST time to trade big number players. 

B: I think the blazers would probably get more 2nd chance points if ZBO were here. That's beside my point, my advocacy FOR a Zach trade is what we get back, not if he will help us win games this year.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Xericx said:


> A: *A team like the Chicago bulls would VERY LIKELY trade someone like Nocioni for Zach right now. There were rumbles of that over the summer.....perhaps now even DENG is expendable now that Kobe is veto'ing trades that involve him. They need to change. That's just an example of why waiting could have increased the trade Value. Back in the summer, sure it probably wasn't too high...the finals just got over and it was draft season....probably the WORST time to trade big number players.*
> 
> B: I think the blazers would probably get more 2nd chance points if ZBO were here. That's beside my point, my advocacy FOR a Zach trade is what we get back, not if he will help us win games this year.




That's easy to say, but difficult to prove. We _might _have been able to get a little more for Zach in a trade had we waited. However, I think management's primary motivation was to "keep Zach away from Oden."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TLo said:


> That's easy to say, but difficult to prove. We _might _have been able to get a little more for Zach in a trade had we waited. However, I think management's primary motivation was to "keep Zach away from Oden."


Did teams like the Bulls and Lakers and Celtics trade players in efforts to get them away from Jordan, Magic, and Bird? Maybe they did, I dunno.

It seems insulting to Greg to think that he's somehow going to go from a great guy to warped merely because of Zach's presence.

Ed O.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Did teams like the Bulls and Lakers and Celtics trade players in efforts to get them away from Jordan, Magic, and Bird? Maybe they did, I dunno.
> 
> It seems insulting to Greg to think that he's somehow going to go from a great guy to warped merely because of Zach's presence.
> 
> Ed O.


Jordan, Magic, and Bird were all older than Greg when they entered the league.

Perhaps none of the teams had character on their roster like Zach either?

Are you saying that keeping Zach away from Greg was not the Blazers primary motivation?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Xericx said:


> A: A team like the Chicago bulls would VERY LIKELY trade someone like Nocioni for Zach right now. There were rumbles of that over the summer.....perhaps now even DENG is expendable now that Kobe is veto'ing trades that involve him. They need to change. That's just an example of why waiting could have increased the trade Value. Back in the summer, sure it probably wasn't too high...the finals just got over and it was draft season....probably the WORST time to trade big number players.
> 
> B: I think the blazers would probably get more 2nd chance points if ZBO were here. That's beside my point, my advocacy FOR a Zach trade is what we get back, not if he will help us win games this year.


This post is dead-on. It's a copout to paint those of us who didn't like the trade as "Zach lovers". Frankly, I'm a buttoned-down guy who longs for the days of Ramsayball. I didn't like Zach's game nor did I like the way he lived his life off the court. However, I can separate my personal feeling from his value as an asset.

The thing is, the minute we got the chance to draft Oden, the stakes went WAY up. Suddenly, this wasn't a team that was going to annually be in the playoffs, this was a team that was poised to be a potential dynasty. 

As we learned in the early and late 90's, the line between Champion and also ran is awfully close. We need to maximize the value of our assets because it could mean being having a ring or going home early. We chose marketing and PR over maximizing talent by setting an artifical deadline on which to trade him. 

Say what you will about Zach, but even the people that dislike him the most have to admit he was worth more than a backup PF. We didn't even trade him for a position of need. In just dumping him, my fear is that the discount we gave the Knicks may cost us a championship in the future.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

TLo said:


> Jordan, Magic, and Bird were all older than Greg when they entered the league.
> 
> Perhaps none of the teams had character on their roster like Zach either?
> 
> Are you saying that keeping Zach away from Greg was not the Blazers primary motivation?


I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of Greg Oden. Also, I didn't know Zach was such a Svengali. We'd better trade Aldridge, Roy and Webster, because clearly they've been poisoned too.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

TLo said:


> That's easy to say, but difficult to prove. We _might _have been able to get a little more for Zach in a trade had we waited. However, I think management's primary motivation was to "keep Zach away from Oden."


Personally, I would have taken that chance rather than get hosed on a bad trade.


----------



## Nate4Prez (Jun 3, 2007)

maxiep said:


> He was hired a week before, but he was interviewing long before that. He supplied Nike marketing stats and Randolph's numbers were horrendous. Ask anyone on the Blazers that saw that presentation and they'll tell you Miller hit the ground running with a specific idea of what he wanted to do with this team. Getting the #1 pick only accelerated that process.


I don't understand what Nike would be running marketing numbers for on Zach, or any other player. Nike cant legal make any product for an NBA team or player because Adidas has all the rights to the NBA team jerseys, t-shirts, hats, and player names.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Obviously, KP wouldn't have done the Zach trade if he had known that Oden was going to get hurt. The fact that Greg is out for the year amplifies the impact of the net talent loss that the team suffered in the near term from trading Zach. The fact that one of the pieces that will come to us as a result of the trade, Rudy Fernandez, won't be here until next year, makes the trade look even worse. Add to that the fact that James Jones has been injured and hasn't played a lick this season and the deal really stinks. Then there's the fact that losing two years of Zach's salary helps the cap situation in 2009.

All of which is to say that the true measure of this trade won't be known for a couple of years. Right now, the Blazers are hurting from a lack of experienced talent, especially on offense and in rebounding...Zach's strengths. The Monday morning quarterbacking about hypothetical trades that we might have gotten for Zach are nothing more than pure speculation.


----------



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

In a nutshell, with or without Oden, Zach would have helped the Blazers win more games this year. Without Oden, his absence is hugely amplified.

I said it before the trade, the day of the trade and I'll say it again now: *Zach's rebounding will be missed more than his scoring*. His scoring is easy enough to replace. A starting front court of Oden and Aldridge would easily score more than last year's Przybilla/Randolph combo. Even without Oden, Aldridge combined with increased offensive output from guys like Webster, have largely replaced Zach's scoring. But, we're getting killed on the boards. Obviously, that wouldn't have been as much of an issue with a healthy Oden in the middle (and Przybilla coming off the bench improves the second unit rebounding as well).

Zach would not have fit in long term. No doubt about that. So, the issue comes down to the timing of the trade and what we got back. Zach just came off his best season ever. So, his trade value was probably at, or near it's peak. Yet, we weren't offered anything better than what we got for the Knicks in return. Why is that? Why weren't the other 28 teams lining up to beat the Knicks low ball offer for a 23/10 player. Could it be that Zach isn't as good of a player as his stats indicate? Did he put up big numbers because he played on a bad team? Did his poor defense and other issues/limitations significantly reduce his trade value in the eyes of other GMs? I think all those things are true. 

But, with Oden out, we could have definitely used his inside scoring and especially his rebounding. It would have meant playing LaMarcus out of position all year at center, but that combination worked pretty well last March and would have definitely helped us win more games this year. However, that's all 20/20 hindsight. This year's team would have missed Zach a lot less (not at all, IMHO) had Oden not gotten injured.

For those who say we should have waited, again, that's 20/20 hindsight. Just like nobody could have predicted Oden's injury, nobody here (or anywhere that I've read) predicted Chicago would ben this bad right now. I was a HUGE proponent of trying to trade Zach to Chicago for Nocioni and PJ Brown (or other filler to make the salaries match), since it seemed to help both teams address areas of need, but even I didn't see Chicago being this bad.

What's done is done. Time to move on. Besides, Pritchard's biggest mistake was not the Zach trade, it was passing not once, but thrice, on Paul Millsap in the 2006 draft. He'd look mighty good in a Blazers uniform right now wouldn't he? But hey, we got a British grocery bagger instead (would you like paper or plastic?). Millsap would certainly give us the toughness and rebounding we currently lack. And even with a healthy Oden, he would have made a great back-up for Aldridge. And, before you say it, that's NOT 20/20 hindsight. I wanted the Blazers to draft Millsap at 30/31 and said so many times prior to the 2006 draft.

BNM


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

> All of which is to say that the true measure of this trade won't be known for a couple of years. Right now, the Blazers are hurting from a lack of experienced talent, especially on offense and in rebounding...Zach's strengths. The Monday morning quarterbacking about hypothetical trades that we might have gotten for Zach are nothing more than pure speculation.


as are the future benefits of this and what we can and can't do with this imaginary cap space.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TLo said:


> Jordan, Magic, and Bird were all older than Greg when they entered the league.


Bird (23) definitely was significantly older... Jordan was 21 and Magic was 20. I'm not sure that a year or two justifies giving away a player.



> Perhaps none of the teams had character on their roster like Zach either?


Perhaps not.



> Are you saying that keeping Zach away from Greg was not the Blazers primary motivation?


You might be right, but if it IS? It's a weak-*** reason. Greg Oden is a young man that would be surrounded by Aldridge and Roy and Nate and other high-character guys... I find it unfathomable that Zach was going to bring all that crashing down.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> For those who say we should have waited, again, that's 20/20 hindsight. Just like nobody could have predicted Oden's injury, nobody here (or anywhere that I've read) predicted Chicago would ben this bad right now. I was a HUGE proponent of trying to trade Zach to Chicago for Nocioni and PJ Brown (or other filler to make the salaries match), since it seemed to help both teams address areas of need, but even I didn't see Chicago being this bad.



It wasn't 20/20 hindsight. Most of the anti-trade peeps said the trade appeared to be rushed and we should have waited at or near the trading deadline for teams that were not performing as good as expected. Look it up.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Nate4Prez said:


> I don't understand what Nike would be running marketing numbers for on Zach, or any other player. Nike cant legal make any product for an NBA team or player because Adidas has all the rights to the NBA team jerseys, t-shirts, hats, and player names.


Shoes and apparrel. Nike invested something like $90MM in LeBron James, you don't think they did research beforehand? Every single decent player in the league has a shoe contract. Those aren't entered into lightly. 

Does anyone in here work for Nike and Adidas that can comment on the level of marketing research done on athletes better than I can? I'd like to give Nate4Prez a more substantive answer to his question.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> What's done is done. Time to move on.


It's been fewer than twenty regular season games... we're not supposed to discuss it?



> Besides, Pritchard's biggest mistake was not the Zach trade, it was passing not once, but thrice, on Paul Millsap in the 2006 draft. He'd look mighty good in a Blazers uniform right now wouldn't he? But hey, we got a British grocery bagger instead (would you like paper or plastic?). Millsap would certainly give us the toughness and rebounding we currently lack. And even with a healthy Oden, he would have made a great back-up for Aldridge. And, before you say it, that's NOT 20/20 hindsight. I wanted the Blazers to draft Millsap at 30/31 and said so many times prior to the 2006 draft.


That's a good call at draft time... and Millsap is a stud. But how is it a bigger mistake passing on a backup power forward (which is what Millsap would be, behind Aldridge) than giving away a 20/10 guy like Zach? Both are mistakes, but I think that giving away Zach is a larger error.

Ed O.


----------



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

Nate4Prez said:


> I don't understand what Nike would be running marketing numbers for on Zach, or any other player. Nike cant legal make any product for an NBA team or player because Adidas has all the rights to the NBA team jerseys, t-shirts, hats, and player names.


Because Nike can and does offer NBA players multi million dollar shoe deals. And the more marketable those players are, the more Nike is will to spend to get them to endorse Nike footwear. Given that glorified, overpriced sneakers are still Nike's bread and butter, I'd be shocked if they didn't have that kind of marketing data on each and every NBA player AND each and every college and high school prospect and many international players who I've never heard of and couldn't pronounce, let alone spell, their names if I had. That very data is the core of Nike's multi billion dollar business. To not have such data would be just downright stupid.

To use that data to influence the trading of a player is another question altogether, but I have no doubt such data exists. 

BNM


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Obviously, KP wouldn't have done the Zach trade if he had known that Oden was going to get hurt.


Everything I've heard from people in the league tell me we would have done EXACTLY the same thing. This deal had little if anything to do with on-court issues, but to create a consistent marketing message of turning the page with new, young, good character Blazers.

By all measures but on the court, this deal has been great for the Blazers. No one calls us the Jail Blazers anymore. Everyone feels great about the team. Sponsors have flocked back. Season ticket sales are way up. We save two years and roughly $30MM on his contract.

Of course, none of that matters to me. I stupidly care about basketball.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Zach brought 2 things to the table that many fans ignore: rebounding and a knack for getting to the line. Drawing fouls is a double whammy - it gives your team easy points, and it handicaps the other team. Against the Pacers, we had what....9 points from the line? That is pathetic.

At least some people are being honest: we gave Zach away because some fans didn't like him. I can understand when fans dislike an underachiever like Darius or Frye...I can't understand why they would hate an OVERACHIEVER like Zach???


----------



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

Ed O said:


> That's a good call at draft time... and Millsap is a stud. But how is it a bigger mistake passing on a backup power forward (which is what Millsap would be, behind Aldridge) than giving away a 20/10 guy like Zach? Both are mistakes, but I think that giving away Zach is a larger error.


Because, we still don't know the long term benefits of the Zach trade, only the short term consequences. If Rudy turns out to be a good player, the Zach trade might not look so bad a year or two don the road. Even if we didn't get equal value for Zach, we didn't "give him away".

Millsap would have cost us NOTHING and has already proven to be a valuable bench player (and an adequate spot starter when Boozer was injured) on a very good team. Heck we had both the 30 and 31 picks. We could have taken the grocery bagger AND Millsap. With or without Oden, Millsap could have helped this team. We could use his toughness and rebounding RIGHT now and next year he would have made the perfect back-up power forward behind Aldridge. Zach didnt' fit into this teams long term plans, Millsap would have. And, if we had his toughness and rebounding right now, I doubt if we'd miss Zach as much as we do. Zach's scoring has largely been replaced, His rebounding hasn't and that's costing us games. Millsap would have helped in that area.

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> I think what a lot of people either don't want to think about, or forget about is this.
> 
> KP has a plan....at least he says he does.


And if it is a long term plan, then there was no need to panic and dump a productive player in a fire-sale.



> That plan consists of us having some major cap room in 09' to sign a significant FA. Trading Zach for pieces that enable us to do that will probably help this franchise more long term than Zach's inability to play defense.


And despite racking our collective brains, none of us here can figure out who this great 09 free agent could possibly be. As of now, and as of the time of the trade, there are no obvious targets that make much sense. Though it is possible there is some hidden contract secret that only a handful know about, and KP has this secret target in mind, I wouldn't bet money on it.



> Right now the trade is pretty much Zach, Jones and DD for Rudy, Frye and Jones. Now while Frye doesn't seem to be the player we all hoped he was, and Jones has been hampered by a knee, Rudy by all accounts is the real deal.


....In Europe. I am excited about Rudy - really am. I think he could be good. But the chances of him struggling to translate into a good NBA player are higher than the chances he is the next cross between Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili.

Frye has been a disaster. Thanks for downplaying that fact. KP traded for a player he scouted and had this fantasy he was the rookie Frye - who looked decent, but not great - instead of the sophmore Frye - who sucked balls. Looking like KP blew it on Frye.



> Hypothetically speaking this trade could seriously end up being something like Zach for Rudy and CP3 or Williams. Heck even a veteran stud PG instead.


Not if you think that the Blazers could have bought Phoenix's pick some other way, had they wanted. Remember, the original deal did not include Rudy. We were actually going to ship out Zach without getting Rudy back. Rudy was a THROW IN!

As for CP3 or Williams - absolutely not going to happen. They both are SUPERSTUDS this season. Look at their numbers. The only way it maybe, very low odds, might have had a slim chance was: They struggled this season, and got a bad injury this season, and team sucked this season, and team was in turmoil this season, and ownership was messed up.

All of that wasn't going to happen to the durable Deron and well managed Jazz. But, this summer I posted that it was plausable with the bad ownership, lack of fans in New Orleans and all that was needed was a poor showing by Paul, coupled with a season ending injury. That has not played out.

No - this deal could turn out to be Zach for......... Nothing. That's right. If we don't spend more than the MLE on an 09 free agent (plausible scenario), let Frye go as a free agent or dump him in a consolidation trade (plausible), and figure we could have got Rudy from Phoenix some other way, and kept Ime instead of Jones, that leaves us with Zach for....


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Xericx said:


> It wasn't 20/20 hindsight. Most of the anti-trade peeps said the trade appeared to be rushed and we should have waited at or near the trading deadline for teams that were not performing as good as expected. Look it up.


Perfectly true, but sadly irrelevant. 

Most of the pro-trade folks would have taken the deal even if they had known for a fact that waiting 6 months would get a better deal. They will tell you that getting a better deal with patience is "speculation", but that is a red herring. They simply *didn't care* whether it was a good trade.

At the risk of sounding petty, I can't wait until the summer of 09 to remind people that some of us tried to warn people that this whole "cap-space" thing was a boondoggle! :biggrin:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

maxiep said:


> That's a disingenuous comment and worse yet, you know it. And let's be clear, it wasn't last season that we had those concerns. The drafting of Roy and Aldridge turned the corner for this team, not trading Zach. Allen has admitted in his SI article that his thoughts of selling were fleeting at best. Bottom line, he was posturing in an attempt to repurchase the Rose Garden.
> 
> As someone who used to work for the team, you know better than to bring up the idea that the team could have been moved. The lease nor the agreement with the City is up for 22 years.
> 
> As for me, this forum is a place to exchange ideas. Any move that I believe makes our team worse in BOTH the short and long term I will criticize. Trading Zach was an inevitability; giving him away was a choice.


Ok I'll agree that the likelihood of the team moving was low but there is no denying that the Blazers financial model was completely broken. Lows in ticket sales, sponorship dollars, market ventures etc...I am also not one who believes that the RG lease is a ironclad barrier to the team being moved. Had the Blazers continued along that path I do think relocation would have been a possibility. Trading away the PR and marketing nightmare that was Zach Randolph was simply a step in steering away from that path of financial ruin. Having worked for the team during some of the bad years I can tell you my perception is exactly the opposite from what you have assumed...the failing business model of OAC and the Blazers was abundantly clear to me during that period. 

Of course you have every right to criticize moves made by management...however I do not agree that this move makes our team worse in the "long term." I also believe that you and many others have vastly overrated Zach's value in the trade market. I simply see no indication that their was or where going to be substantially better deals out there for him. Could we have gotten a little more for him, perhaps but not enough to satisfy your perceived conception of his worth. I know this is a matter we'll just have to agree to disagree on.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Masbee said:


> And if it is a long term plan, then there was no need to panic and dump a productive player in a fire-sale.
> 
> 
> And despite racking our collective brains, none of us here can figure out who this great 09 free agent could possibly be. As of now, and as of the time of the trade, there are no obvious targets that make much sense. Though it is possible there is some hidden contract secret that only a handful know about, and KP has this secret target in mind, I wouldn't bet money on it.
> ...




:worthy::worthy::worthy:

Somebody ought to sticky this post!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Zach brought 2 things to the table that many fans ignore: rebounding and a knack for getting to the line. Drawing fouls is a double whammy - it gives your team easy points, and it handicaps the other team. Against the Pacers, we had what....9 points from the line? That is pathetic.
> 
> At least some people are being honest: we gave Zach away because some fans didn't like him. I can understand when fans dislike an underachiever like Darius or Frye...I can't understand why they would hate an OVERACHIEVER like Zach???


How can you call a player who only played hard on one end of the floor a overachiever?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> How can you call a player who only played hard on one end of the floor a overachiever?


All those defensive rebounds just fell into his lap because he was jogging back after complaining about a non-call? Give me a break.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> All those defensive rebounds just fell into his lap because he was jogging back after complaining about a non-call? Give me a break.
> 
> Ed O.



"Give me a break"...defensive rebounding is only a small part of the defensive aspect of the game. I would love for anyone to attempt to make a case that Zach Randolph ever did a thing to improve his defense. If he did it was obviously very minimal...IMO that simply isn't being a "overachiever."


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> How can you call a player who only played hard on one end of the floor a overachiever?



In terms of raw physical talent, Zach is in the bottom 3rd of the NBA. He isn't tall for his position, isn't fast, and isn't an explosive leaper. When he was drafted, the experts projected him as an 8 pt/4 rb reserve. 

His offensive production and rebounding are the result of hard work in developing his game. His defensive liabilities are the direct result of his physical limitations. No amount of hard work is going to make him as tall as Duncan or make him a great leaper like Brand.

I never said Zach was perfect - but he is a far better player anyone could have reasonably projected. By definition, that makes him an overachiever.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> "Give me a break"...defensive rebounding is only a small part of the defensive aspect of the game. I would love for anyone to attempt to make a case that Zach Randolph ever did a thing to improve his defense. If he did it was obviously very minimal...IMO that simply isn't being a "overachiever."


Did he work hard to get defensive rebounds or not?

Are defensive rebounds gathered at the offensive end or not?

Was your statement that he only works hard at one end of the floor true or not?

It astounds me how much mental gymnastics Zach-bashers are willing to do to justify their positions when they're so clearly at odds with reality.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> In terms of raw physical talent, Zach is in the bottom 3rd of the NBA. He isn't tall for his position, isn't fast, and isn't an explosive leaper. When he was drafted, the experts projected him as an 8 pt/4 rb reserve.
> 
> His offensive production and rebounding are the result of hard work in developing his game. *His defensive liabilities are the direct result of his physical limitations. No amount of hard work is going to make him as tall as Duncan or make him a great leaper like Brand.*
> 
> I never said Zach was perfect - but he is a far better player anyone could have reasonably projected. By definition, that makes him an overachiever.



I don't expect him to be a Duncan or Brand but I do expect him to make a effort to learn. His defense could have been vastly improved had he invested the time and effort to learn positioning, defensive rotation etc. I will definetly agree he was a vast overachiever on the offensive end but would argue that he was a underachiever on the defensive end.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

maxiep said:


> Everything I've heard from people in the league tell me we would have done EXACTLY the same thing. This deal had little if anything to do with on-court issues, but to create a consistent marketing message of turning the page with new, young, good character Blazers.


Forgive me, maxiep, but posts that quote phantom "people in the league" leave me a bit dubious. How, exactly, would people around the league have any way of climbing inside KP's head in a hypothetical situation where he learns the extent of Oden's knee injury prior to making the deal for Zach? I don't doubt that the deal was about getting Zach out of town, but I have a real doubt about anybody saying KP wouldn't think twice about trading away his most experienced frontline player if he knows Oden is out for the year.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Did he work hard to get defensive rebounds or not?
> 
> Are defensive rebounds gathered at the offensive end or not?
> 
> ...



It "astounds" me how Zach-homers point to a single aspect of a huge piece of the game and claim that being good at that one aspect makes him good at the entire piece. There simply is no argument to be made that Zach is a even average NBA defender. "Reality" is that Zach is a below average defensive player at best.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> "Give me a break"...defensive rebounding is only a small part of the defensive aspect of the game. I would love for anyone to attempt to make a case that Zach Randolph ever did a thing to improve his defense. If he did it was obviously very minimal...IMO that simply isn't being a "overachiever."


Rebounding is "only a small part" of defense? You don't really believe that, do you? Rebounding is the single most important aspect of defense! 

As for the argument that Zach never did anything to improve - that is disingenious.

The human body is like a rubberband. If you have 2 identical rubberbands, and apply unequal ammounts of force, one will stretch more than the other. 

OTOH, there is a physical limit to how far that rubberband can stretch. No degree of force will cause it to stretch beyond a certain point - only break. No matter how hard a player works, they can only develop the talent they were born with - they cannot create something out of nothing.

Put it this way - Frye has far more raw talent than Zach, and he stinks on both ends of the court. What's his excuse?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> How can you call a player who only played hard on one end of the floor a overachiever?


Excellent point. No one else is remembering how awful Randolph was on defense. He could score and rebound, but he cared very little about stopping his man from doing the same.

And the notion that Zach didn't have the "physical tools" to be a great defensive player is hogwash. You don't have to jump out of the gym or be as tall as Chamberlain to be good at defense--you just have to WANT to stop your man. It's all about desire. Randolph was super quick around the basket on offense and had long arms. He could have used those same "physical tools" to lock down his man on defense if he had really wanted to.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Rebounding is "only a small part" of defense? You don't really believe that, do you? Rebounding is the single most important aspect of defense!


Ok I will agree using the word "small" may be inaccurate but my point was that defensive rebounding is only a single piece of the entire pie that is being a good defensive player. I would argue that denying the offensive team a high % scoring opportunity is the "single most important aspect of defense."



> As for the argument that Zach never did anything to improve - that is disingenious.
> 
> The human body is like a rubberband. If you have 2 identical rubberbands, and apply unequal ammounts of force, one will stretch more than the other.
> 
> OTOH, there is a physical limit to how far that rubberband can stretch. No degree of force will cause it to stretch beyond a certain point - only break. No matter how hard a player works, they can only develop the talent they were born with - they cannot create something out of nothing.


Sure of course their is a limit to his potential defensive abilities, but unlike you I don't believe he came even close to reaching that limit.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I thought Zach played better D last year than the two previous years.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Rebounding is the single most important aspect of defense!


Huh? Rebounding only matters when a shot has been missed. It's more important to prevent your man from shooting in the first place, or to at least have a hand in his face. That's where true defense really starts.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Xericx said:


> I thought Zach played better D last year than the two previous years.


I'm not sure about Zach playing better D last year. I know it is only one game but the only game I went to last year Zach didn't even run back on defense at least 4-5 times. He was to busy worrying about some foul calls which were not even bad calls IMO. I just think Zach was a very lazy defensive player.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Xericx said:


> I thought Zach played better D last year than the two previous years.


Really? I don't agree with that asessment at all. Perhaps minimal improvement, still a glaring weakness IMO.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Excellent point. No one else is remembering how awful Randolph was on defense. He could score and rebound, but he cared very little about stopping his man from doing the same.
> 
> And the notion that Zach didn't have the "physical tools" to be a great defensive player is hogwash. You don't have to jump out of the gym or be as tall as Chamberlain to be good at defense--you just have to WANT to stop your man. It's all about desire. Randolph was super quick around the basket on offense and had long arms. He could have used those same "physical tools" to lock down his man on defense if he had really wanted to.


Pretty much agreed although I think you've gone a bit to far in saying he could be a lock down defender. IMO he could have been much improved by running the court harder, understanding the concept of team defense better, rotating in the post, filling the lane and taking charges etc. He often shied away from contact on the defensive end leaving the paint wide open.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> It "astounds" me how Zach-homers point to a single aspect of a huge piece of the game and claim that being good at that one aspect makes him good at the entire piece. There simply is no argument to be made that Zach is a even average NBA defender. "Reality" is that Zach is a below average defensive player at best.


So what? You said that he only worked hard on one end of the floor. That's wrong. Now you're creating a straw man, apparently, where some of us are saying that Zach is or was a good defender... and I don't think anyone's said that.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Coming tomorrow, a really really new and original thread on the topic of "The Blazers made a mistake by not drafting Chris Paul".

And coming next week, an even more newsworthy and original thread on the topic of "Why didn't the Blazers draft Michael Jordan?"

In other words, agree or disagree with the premise, but haven't we beaten this subject to death and beyond? How many times can we all repeat ourselves (don't answer that)?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> Coming tomorrow, a really really new and original thread on the topic of "The Blazers made a mistake by not drafting Chris Paul".
> 
> And coming next week, an even more newsworthy and original thread on the topic of "Why didn't the Blazers draft Michael Jordan?"
> 
> In other words, agree or disagree with the premise, but haven't we beaten this subject to death and beyond? How many times can we all repeat ourselves (don't answer that)?


Hi my name is hasoos. I work for the Redundancy department of redundancy, photocopy division. :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> In other words, agree or disagree with the premise, but haven't we beaten this subject to death and beyond? How many times can we all repeat ourselves (don't answer that)?


I don't think so. There's been about 29 combined regular season games for the two teams. We've seen how each team has functioned after the trade and we've seen how Zach and Frye have played.

People argued over the summer based on assumptions. Assumptions of how Channing and Aldridge would fill in for Zach and how Zach would fit in with Curry.

We have early returns on those assumptions now, and it's interesting to see the argument revisited given the new data.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> So what? You said that he only worked hard on one end of the floor. That's wrong. Now you're creating a straw man, apparently, where some of us are saying that Zach is or was a good defender... and I don't think anyone's said that.
> 
> Ed O.


Working hard at 25% of your job doesn't make you a hardworker IMO.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't think so. There's been about 29 combined regular season games for the two teams. We've seen how each team has functioned after the trade and we've seen how Zach and Frye have played.
> 
> People argued over the summer based on assumptions. Assumptions of how Channing and Aldridge would fill in for Zach and how Zach would fit in with Curry.
> 
> ...


New Data = What have the Portland TrailBlazers done lately. :biggrin:

If they have won, everything is great.

If they have been losing, the sky is F'n falling.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

It is interesting to revisit that trade a month into the season. What have we learned?

1. Zach can't carry a team. He can put up decent numbers, but teams on which he is a major piece are terrible. (Can't say that's all his fault, but he's clearly not capable of lifting a team out of suckiness.) I wonder if Z-Bo will end up being the next Shareef.

2. Channing Frye is just bad. Might be the softest big man I've ever seen. Our team gets killed when he's in.

3. James Jones is injured. Impossible to say whether he has any value at this point.

4. LaMarcus Aldridge is a very good player, but he still has to learn how to be the man on offense (something Zach, for better or worse, already learned). IMO the team seems to play better as a whole, on both ends of the floor, with Aldridge as the 4 than with Randolph. Would Z-Bo staying have slowed LMA's development? Probably.

5. We better hope Rudy Fernandez is a stud when he gets over here. If he is, we "won" that deal. If he's not, it's just another case of alleged "addition by subtraction," which hasn't worked out too well for us in case after case after case since about 2003.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Working hard at 25% of your job doesn't make you a hardworker IMO.


Where did 25% come from?

How is your point supposed to hold any meaning when you pull arbitrary numbers out of your butt?

Does Zach work hard on offense? Yes.

Does Zach work hard on the defensive glass? Yes.

Did Zach work hard coming back from microfracture surgery? It appears so.

Where does that 25% come from, then?

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Where did 25% come from?
> 
> How is your point supposed to hold any meaning when you pull arbitrary numbers out of your butt?
> 
> ...


25% is my estimation of the percentage that defensive rebounding is to defense overall. If you'd like to contribute your own estimation then go right ahead.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

The trade was horrible. With Oden injured it's been a team-wide disaster...
from a basketball point of view.

But, ticket sales are up. People around the state are talking about the
Blazers more. It is (finally) understood league-wide that the Jailblazers
era is completely over. The Blazers are considered by many to be "the next big
thing". Certainly, Oden, LMA, and Brandon have a lot to do with that, but
IMHO, so did the Zach trade. 

Maybe that was KPs thinking.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wizmentor said:


> The trade was horrible. With Oden injured it's been a team-wide disaster...
> from a basketball point of view.
> 
> But, ticket sales are up. People around the state are talking about the
> ...


The Zach trade increased ticket sales? 

Ticket sales was LIKELY 90% Oden coming to the blazers.

Too look at it another way: If we DID NOT get Oden (or even Durant) AND we traded Zach for Channing Frye, Rudy and Imaginary cap space.....would that cause someone to say to themselves...HMMM...I've got to buy blazer season tickets now! 

I doubt it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> 25% is my estimation of the percentage that defensive rebounding is to defense overall. If you'd like to contribute your own estimation then go right ahead.


Is his job to play defense, or to play basketball?

Because there's certainly more to the game of basketball than defense.

As for the percentage: maybe it's 25% of defense. Maybe it's 50%. I dunno.

Ed O.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Rebounding is a key part of defense, I'd say 50%, especially if you have a dominant rebounder. Considering getting a rebound guarantees the team a possession, its not something to be looked down upon.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Is his job to play defense, or to play basketball?
> 
> Because there's certainly more to the game of basketball than defense.
> 
> ...


True but when you are talking about achievement in the game of basketball then defense is definetly a part of that. You don't play defense then you're not achieving much in terms of being a overall basketball player IMO. 

As I said earlier...overachiever on offense, underachiver on defense IMO...overall that makes him neither IMO.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Xericx said:


> I thought Zach played better D last year than the two previous years.


I agree. Zach gets bashed for defense, IMO, because there are times he won't run back but instead argue or stare down a ref. But his man on man defense is decent, his help defense is weak. 

Just easy if your going to bash Zach to say he is the worst defensive player, he is a black hole, he hurts the team. But to me it can't be any clearer this year that he didn't hurt the team that much on defense and his points and rebounds have not been easily replaced as others had predicted.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

HB said:


> Rebounding is a key part of defense, I'd say 50%, especially if you have a dominant rebounder. Considering getting a rebound guarantees the team a possession, its not something to be looked down upon.


Not looking down on it at all...just saying that being a good rebounder doesn't make you a good defender.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

What? Nobody saying Zbo's assist numbers are great? What the hell???:biggrin:

:azdaja:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I agree. Zach gets bashed for defense, IMO, because there are times he won't run back but instead argue or stare down a ref. But his man on man defense is decent, his help defense is weak.
> 
> Just easy if your going to bash Zach to say he is the worst defensive player, he is a black hole, he hurts the team. But to me it can't be any clearer this year that he didn't hurt the team that much on defense and *his points and rebounds have not been easily replaced as others had predict*ed.


FYI...we are currently averaging a little less then 2 points under what we did last year and are averaging almost the exact same amount of rebounds. (.2 difference)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams...7&season=2&sort=pts&order=true&avg=pg&split=0


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> FYI...we are currently averaging a little less then 2 points under what we did last year and are averaging almost the exact same amount of rebounds. (.2 difference)
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams...7&season=2&sort=pts&order=true&avg=pg&split=0


That is interesting. Watching the games, especially the last five or so, I'm surprised they are averaging the same number of rebounds and points.

I'm not a stat monger, so maybe the Blazer team as a whole does makes up for Zach's loss. But from watching the games, I feel, the Blazers are soft, weak on the boards, lack that banger down low and do not have a go to guy when they need a basket. All things I thought Zach contributed to.

I'm in the camp where Zach probably had to be moved to develop Aldridge. I just didn't see the need to rush that move and I think the Blazers made the wrong call on moving him so fast.

KP is a great evaluator and a good GM . . . but it doesn't mean every move he makes is a good one.

But even if the stats say the team doesn't miss Zach, I still feel watching the games, that the team could use Zach.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Speaking of KP's moves . . . and for as good evaluator as he is, I've noticed a high percentage of his draft picks don't play the entire season.

Probably just a run of bad luck, but Roy, Aldridge and Oden have all had injury issues. Not his fault, just wierd.

In fact is there a draft pick in the last two years that has played over 80% of the games?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> But even if the stats say the team doesn't miss Zach, I still feel watching the games, that the team could use Zach.


The stats are pretty limited so far, so we can't put much weight on them at this point, but the team HAS seen its scoring drop 2 ppg... which isn't massive but is still over 2.1% of last year's total.

And while our total rebounds per game have held steady, note that last year we actually outrebounded our opponents, while this year we're getting outboarded by 3.5 ppg.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Not looking down on it at all...just saying that being a good rebounder doesn't make you a good defender.


I agree. I also agree that he is a terrible help defender - I just think his limitations outweighed any perceived lack of effort.

Was he a lousy man defender? I'm inclined to say he was just mediocre. The only way to stop a skilled low-post scorer, is to prevent them getting the ball in their comfort zone. Remember the games last season where Zach lit up Elton Brand and KG? It wasn't because those guys were playing bad "D", it was because their guards were letting JJ set Zach up.

If you will pardon the football analogy - I believe that the last several seasons the Blazer big men have been like DBs on a team with no pass rush. Since Pip retired, Blake has been the only PG we have had who even tried to prevent his man from making the entry pass.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey what do you know. After 7 pages I still think Zbo was a lazy pile of crap. Amazing. :biggrin:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Hey what do you know. After 7 pages I still think Zbo was a lazy pile of crap. Amazing. :biggrin:


You said a mouthful there. That's a perfect description of why reams and reams of "evidence" often don't change someone's mind. We tend to trust our own impressions more than anything else, and perhaps rightly so.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> You said a mouthful there. That's a perfect description of why reams and reams of "evidence" often don't change someone's mind. We tend to trust our own impressions more than anything else, and perhaps rightly so.


An interesting thesis, but if one person thinks Zach is a lazy pile of crap, and another thinks he isn't, are they both right to trust their own impressions? Can Zach simultaneously be a lazy pile of crap and not a lazy pile of crap? If not, isn't one of the two people wrong to trust their own impressions? 

barfo


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I have no respect for any poster who claims Zach Randolph is a lazy pile of crap. 

How many big men recovered as quickly and as fully as he did from microfracture surgery? 

How many people with his physique have dropped 40 points or nabbed 20 rebounds in NBA games? 

Call him a lousy defender. Call him a knucklehead. You'd be right on both counts. 

But calling him a "lazy pile of crap" is not only a gross disservice to the man, but a disservice to competitive sports. You don't have to like him, but you have to acknowledge he got where he is today entirely on his own will power. If you can't see that, you just don't understand one of the cornerstones of competitive sports. And life.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> You said a mouthful there. That's a perfect description of why reams and reams of "evidence" often don't change someone's mind. We tend to trust our own impressions more than anything else, and perhaps rightly so.


Aren't folks who trust their "impressions" lazy piles of crap?

I mean, it is lazy to trust an impression as opposed to going to the work of gathering and analyzing evidence.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

mook said:


> I have no respect for any poster who claims Zach Randolph is a lazy pile of crap.
> 
> How many big men recovered as quickly and as fully as he did from microfracture surgery?
> 
> ...


Darius Miles is a lazy pile of crap. 

Zach Randolph is not. He plays hard and wants to win.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> An interesting thesis, but if one person thinks Zach is a lazy pile of crap, and another thinks he isn't, are they both right to trust their own impressions? Can Zach simultaneously be a lazy pile of crap and not a lazy pile of crap? If not, isn't one of the two people wrong to trust their own impressions?
> 
> barfo


I think you just explained the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

This thread calls for a can-can of multi-colored bananas.

:banana::vbanana::wbanana::dpepper::banana:
:rbanana::gbanana::bbanana::cbanana::banana:
:vbanana::wbanana::dpepper::banana::rbanana:
:gbanana::bbanana::cbanana:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Zach is dominating again tonight...crap he would have been awesome insurance this year..i hated the trade pre-oden injury and i hate it even more now. We could have shipped Zach for a lotto pick in 08, or hell got something great from chicago or another team.
i also disagree about he hindering LA's progress as they both could've started this year..stupid,stupid trade. I am also pretty sure we could've found another way to get rudy instead of this deal.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Forgive me, maxiep, but posts that quote phantom "people in the league" leave me a bit dubious. How, exactly, would people around the league have any way of climbing inside KP's head in a hypothetical situation where he learns the extent of Oden's knee injury prior to making the deal for Zach? I don't doubt that the deal was about getting Zach out of town, but I have a real doubt about anybody saying KP wouldn't think twice about trading away his most experienced frontline player if he knows Oden is out for the year.


You don't have to believe me for the point to still be correct. This trade had very little to do with what we did on the court and almost everything to do with marketing and PR.

Bottom line, the Blazer brass were willing to give Zach away to get him off the roster before Oden came to Portland to sign his contract, no matter what we got in return for him.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

GOD, how much are you people going to ***** about this? FOR THE LAST TIME, the trade was made with the expectancy that ODEN would BE PLAYING. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Ok I'll agree that the likelihood of the team moving was low but there is no denying that the Blazers financial model was completely broken. Lows in ticket sales, sponorship dollars, market ventures etc...I am also not one who believes that the RG lease is a ironclad barrier to the team being moved. Had the Blazers continued along that path I do think relocation would have been a possibility. Trading away the PR and marketing nightmare that was Zach Randolph was simply a step in steering away from that path of financial ruin. Having worked for the team during some of the bad years I can tell you my perception is exactly the opposite from what you have assumed...the failing business model of OAC and the Blazers was abundantly clear to me during that period.
> 
> Of course you have every right to criticize moves made by management...however I do not agree that this move makes our team worse in the "long term." I also believe that you and many others have vastly overrated Zach's value in the trade market. I simply see no indication that their was or where going to be substantially better deals out there for him. Could we have gotten a little more for him, perhaps but not enough to satisfy your perceived conception of his worth. I know this is a matter we'll just have to agree to disagree on.


Sall, you used to work for the Blazers, so you have one perspective. I formerly worked for Prudential Capital Group. In that capacity, I sat on the Pru Rose Garden audit committee. Believe me when I say (having read every document pertaining to the Blazers and their lease with the RG) that the lease was ironclad and highly punative.

The Blazers weren't going anywhere, regardless of their self-inflicted "broken" financial model.

As for better deals, we were offered one at the trade deadline in February and we turned it down. Nocioni and PJ Brown for Zach. Both contracts expired at the end of 06-07. That means no $30MM payout for Steve Francis. That means we actually get a starting quality SF who does the little things that help the team win.

We absolutely traded Zach hastily.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Ed O said:


> All those defensive rebounds just fell into his lap because he was jogging back after complaining about a non-call? Give me a break.
> 
> Ed O.


There's a poster on O-Live named BendBlazer22. He claims that Zach is a terrible rebounder, but just very lucky. I'm serious.

It's amazing what people will tell themselves to match their impression of a player with reality.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> Zach is dominating again tonight



not to quibble but i wouldn't really characterize 10-16 with 8 rebounds in 40 minutes & 4 turnovers as dominating. good certainly, but not dominating. LA was 9-15 with 12 rebounds and 5 blocks - a little closer maybe.



> i also disagree about he hindering LA's progress as they both could've started this year..



how if oden were healthy? you want zach standing outside shooting 3 pointers and trying to defend small forwards? you want oden coming off the bench for 15 minutes a game?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> "Give me a break"...defensive rebounding is only a small part of the defensive aspect of the game. I would love for anyone to attempt to make a case that Zach Randolph ever did a thing to improve his defense. If he did it was obviously very minimal...IMO that simply isn't being a "overachiever."


Sa11, did you really just post that? Have you watched Blazer games the past four years? 

1. Defensive rebounding is a HUGE part of the game. Defensive rebounding keeps opponents from getting second and third shots, something that has KILLED us this year. Defensive rebounding triggers the fast break, which we want to do but can't because we can't get a rebound.

2. Zach wasn't a terrible defender, he was a mediocre one. In 06-07, Zach kept his man 1.8 points below his scoring average. His help defense was average. He had quick hands and quick feet. Where he absolutely sucked was with help defense. And because our perimeter defense has been among the worst in the league for the past three or four years, those quick guards made him look even worse. Also, Zach can't jump over a twig, so he didn't block any shots.

3. Zach did a number of things to improve his defense over the years. He learned how to use his body, how to stay in front of his man and how to use his long arms to dislodge the ball. Am I going to argue that he didn't give more effort on offense than defense? Not a chance. He knew where his bread was buttered and where he was expected to perform.

As for being an overachiever, you and I will have to disagree. If you showed me Zach Randolph's skill set as a rookie, I'd say you had a less talented Mark Bryant. The fact he'll go down as one of the most productive players in Blazer history despite a knee injury that has sidelined the careers of others tells me that he must have done some work somewhere.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

c_note said:


> GOD, how much are you people going to ***** about this? FOR THE LAST TIME, the trade was made with the expectancy that ODEN would BE PLAYING. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?


because oden was a rookie, and not ready to have an nba franchise handed to him. how hard is that for you to understand?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Excellent point. No one else is remembering how awful Randolph was on defense. He could score and rebound, but he cared very little about stopping his man from doing the same.
> 
> And the notion that Zach didn't have the "physical tools" to be a great defensive player is hogwash. You don't have to jump out of the gym or be as tall as Chamberlain to be good at defense--you just have to WANT to stop your man. It's all about desire. Randolph was super quick around the basket on offense and had long arms. He could have used those same "physical tools" to lock down his man on defense if he had really wanted to.


I remember well how Zach played defense for us and plays it for the Knicks. Brandon Roy is a crap defender and no one says word one about him. Same with Jarrett Jack. Those two have better tools at their positions to be shutdown defenders, but all we ever hear about is how bad Zach is.

Did Zach give 100% on defense? Absolutely not. Was it still an advantage to have him on the court? Of that there's no question. 

If you're going to say that if you don't give 100% on defense you shouldn't be on this team, then here's who needs to be traded: Jarrett Jack, Brandon Roy, Sergio Rodriguez, James Jones, Josh McRoberts, Travis Outlaw, Channing Frye and LaMarcus Aldridge.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> FYI...we are currently averaging a little less then 2 points under what we did last year and are averaging almost the exact same amount of rebounds. (.2 difference)
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams...7&season=2&sort=pts&order=true&avg=pg&split=0


It's not our rebounds you should look at. It's the opponent's rebounds. They've gone up by almost four rebounds, or more than 10%. That's statistically significant.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

c_note said:


> GOD, how much are you people going to ***** about this? FOR THE LAST TIME, the trade was made with the expectancy that ODEN would BE PLAYING. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?


I understand your point and still reject your assumption.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

c_note said:


> GOD, how much are you people going to ***** about this? FOR THE LAST TIME, the trade was made with the expectancy that ODEN would BE PLAYING. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?


:clap:

Check out Aldridge and Zach's #'s tonight, the 5 blocks that Aldridge had compared to Zach's 1 pretty much sums it up for me.

and the fact that we wont have the off court issues with Aldridge that we had with Zach.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> :clap:
> 
> Check out Aldridge and Zach's #'s tonight, the 5 blocks that Aldridge had compared to Zach's 1 pretty much sums it up for me.
> 
> and the fact that we wont have the off court issues with Aldridge that we had with Zach.


Better yet, check out Zach's #'s tonight vs. Channing Frye's.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

maxiep said:


> Better yet, check out Zach's #'s tonight vs. Channing Frye's.


better yet, check out Zach's contract vs. Channing Frye's.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> better yet, check out Zach's contract vs. Channing Frye's.


Zach making $13.3MM this year is better value than Channing Frye making $2.5MM. When you add it the $13MM we're paying Steve Francis NOT to be here, the comparison is not even close.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

factor in what we are paying Aldridge to put up better overall #'s than Zach.

correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Francis's contract have less remaining years than Zach's? wasnt the deal for cap purposes?!?!?

this issue has been debated over and over and over and over on this board. let the dead horse die in peace. :biggrin:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> factor in what we are paying Aldridge to put up better overall #'s than Zach.
> 
> correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Francis's contract have less remaining years than Zach's? wasnt the deal for cap purposes?!?!?
> 
> this issue has been debated over and over and over and over on this board. let the dead horse die in peace. :biggrin:


This point always confuses me: why are Zach and LMA mutually exclusive? Let's say Oden did play this season. A three man rotation of LMA, Zach and Oden would have been just fine--96 minutes for three players or 32 minutes each. LMA is such a great player he can play both the four and five very well. Last year, he and Zach were a nice tandem.

I love what LaMarcus brings, but we'd be better off this year with Zach. We don't need to worry about cap space until 2009, and I would have taken the chance we could have found an expiring contract to dump him for before then.

As for beating a dead horse, there's a perfectly good reason: It tenderizes the meat.:yay:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

c_note said:


> GOD, how much are you people going to ***** about this? FOR THE LAST TIME, the trade was made with the expectancy that ODEN would BE PLAYING. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?



What we don't understand is why some people consider this argument in any way relevant.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I have a good idea... Let's take an already frustrating season and sprinkle in a daily dose of complaining about the Zach trade... THat will undo the trade and make the team successful right now. Maybe if we start now we can get the Clyde for Otis Thorpe trade undone too!!! Anyone for a side of Fat Lever?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I have a good idea... Let's take an already frustrating season and sprinkle in a daily dose of complaining about the Zach trade... THat will undo the trade and make the team successful right now. Maybe if we start now we can get the Clyde for Otis Thorpe trade undone too!!! Anyone for a side of Fat Lever?


Uh oh. It sounds like someone needs a little Comcast Sports Northwest in their life [running away quickly]

:cheers:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I have a good idea... Let's take an already frustrating season and sprinkle in a daily dose of complaining about the Zach trade... THat will undo the trade and make the team successful right now. Maybe if we start now we can get the Clyde for Otis Thorpe trade undone too!!! Anyone for a side of Fat Lever?


Fair point. Let's move this discussion in another direction.

The team stinks. LaMarcus is our best player. Ergo, LaMarcus is to blame for all our ills. Trade the bum now!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I agree if we weigh the entire Zach trade on the factg that we bought out Francis and aren't even using Frye now then it is disappointing. But it really doesn't matter, it's done. Besides that you can't ignore that the Trade exception we used to get Zach was then used to bring in Jones, who I know hasn't done much for us yet this year, and also Rudy Fernandez. People will try and say we could have gotten rudy another way and what not, but the bottom line is we traded Zac, Dan and Fred for Francis, Frye, Fernadez and Jones. IF Rudy comes over and is a flop then I'll accept and admit that it was a bad trade.


----------



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

maxiep said:


> As for better deals, we were offered one at the trade deadline in February and we turned it down. Nocioni and PJ Brown for Zach. Both contracts expired at the end of 06-07. That means no $30MM payout for Steve Francis. That means we actually get a starting quality SF who does the little things that help the team win.
> 
> We absolutely traded Zach hastily.


If we were indeed offered that trade at the deadline, we didn't trade Zach hastily, we waited too long.

Of course, last February we had no idea we were getting Oden, so this is yet another example of 20/20 hindsight (on my part, not yours).

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I have a good idea... Let's take an already frustrating season and sprinkle in a daily dose of complaining about the Zach trade... THat will undo the trade and make the team successful right now. Maybe if we start now we can get the Clyde for Otis Thorpe trade undone too!!! Anyone for a side of Fat Lever?


I'm less motivated to continue to complain about it than to remain flabbergasted that, in spite of so much evidence to the contrary, some people on this board still think (as of right NOW) the deal was a good one.

Ed O.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> What we don't understand is why some people consider this argument in any way relevant.


Believe it or not, this argument is EXACTLY why the trade was made. To give Oden and Aldridge 35 minutes per game playing together and not have Randolph crying on the sidelines with his 13 million per year.

Oden is not just "some rookie". He was the most hyped player since Lebron. Of course they are going to "hand him the franchise". Get Zach the !#%% out of town.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

c_note said:


> Believe it or not, this argument is EXACTLY why the trade was made. To give Oden and Aldridge 35 minutes per game playing together and not have Randolph crying on the sidelines with his 13 million per year.
> 
> Oden is not just "some rookie". He was the most hyped player since Lebron. Of course they are going to "hand him the franchise". Get Zach the !#%% out of town.


That's a super-lame reason to trade Zach. Maybe the single worst reason I've heard.

If Aldridge wasn't good enough to earn minutes over Zach, then why should he get them at the expense of giving away our best player?

Given the injury history of both Aldridge and Oden, and the propensity of big guys to get into foul trouble, a three man rotation of Oden and Zach with LA backing up both spots could easily have worked... and that's 32 minutes a game on average for all three.

There was simply no pressing reason to trade Zach to get Oden playing time.

If Zach was seen as a poison/cancer? Or if they really liked Frye/Rudy? Or if they wanted to save tens of millions of dollars down the line by dumping Zach? These are all reasons that have their flaws, IMO, but each are stronger than the one you claim to be the most important.

Ed O.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

I loved this thread. There was so much to cover. I have read pages 1-3 and the last page, 10. It's the secret to speed reading. I learned my reading skills in school.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Ed O said:


> If Aldridge wasn't good enough to earn minutes over Zach, then why should he get them at the expense of giving away our best player?


where has anyone said that(i've only read the last page of this thread but the post you quoted doesn't mention it)?

aldridge is better than randolph and is good enough to earn minutes over him. oden too. the probably is with them both getting 36ish minutes a night, there are only 24 minutes for randolph and he wouldn't accept that, thus hurting the team. makes perfect sense.

and the fact that they see randolph as a cancer/doesn't fit in with the team and style they are trying to play and the trade makes perfect sense still today even though oden got hurt and the team has struggled.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK so now it is all on Rudy. I wonder if someone could pull up an old thread when the trade happened. Rudy was a piece, but Frye was just as important. As Frye disappoints and JJ remains injured, it seems the argument in favor of the trade is it will all be justified by Rudy.
> 
> Rudy . . . the #23 pick in the draft, *which 22 other teams passed on* and Phoenix sold to us.
> 
> I hope Rudy is all that . . . as always, I'll guess we will have to wait till next year.


of course having to wait a year for their first rounder to arrive is something an NBA GM might have a good reason to avoid... guys can and do get fired in this league based on short term results. If a team struggles, fickle fans get restless and want someone to blame. Newspapers don't sell and the Canzano's of the world start calling for heads to roll. Even with a future as bright as Portland's, this board is bristling over the club struggling at a rate right around where most of us predicted post Oden injury.

Larry Bird, Kirilenko, Manu, and Peja are examples of this sort of dynamic. I'm not saying he is all that as I've seen only highlights and don't really know enough to do more then just repeat what I've heard/read about him, but their have been some very glowing reports. Heck KP himself has projected him as a starter beside Roy. 

The promise of next year has never burned so brightly for me

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

. . .


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

people aren't mad we dealt zach, we are mad we got NOTHING in return for him and had a target on our backs saying..TAKE ADVANTAGE OF US..we need to get rid of this guy now..of course we got low-balled by Isiah..I can't believe we couldn't even get Lee or make them take back Darius. If you can't get good value, than just hold onto your asset later.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm going to throw a big "if" out there, one I think is very viable. If Rudy comes over and is as good as I and many others believe he is.... ANd based on his stats in Spain he is as good as I think he is.... THen People will be crediting KP for getting him with the TE we got in the Zach trade.

BTW a big reason 22 other teams passed on Rudy is because they knew he wouldn't be coming over this year. It happens with Euro players pretty often.


----------



## Elton (May 26, 2007)

Schilly said:


> BTW a big reason 22 other teams passed on Rudy is because they knew he wouldn't be coming over this year. It happens with Euro players pretty often.


And it'll probably be more common in the future too--after all, they're making Euros. 

FWIW, I'm much happier to see Aldridge rapidly developing as a PF, instead of doing more time at center, which would be the case if Zach was still here. We'd probably be competing better (given Oden's absence) but still not breaking through to the playoffs. 

I'm willing to take the lumps this year and yet enjoy Aldridge's emergence, which would've been held back to some degree with Zach around.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

You know what? On message boards of bad teams, there are two kinds of posters

1. Those who complain.
2. Those who constantly complain about the complainers.

At least group #1 is talking about baskeball and not trying to turn the board into a soap opera.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> You know what? On message boards of bad teams, there are two kinds of posters
> 
> 1. Those who complain.
> 2. Those who constantly complain about the complainers.
> ...


you forgot about those who only post about ridiculous conspiracy theories.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

it was about opening the middle for growth for oden and la and also bring ing money off the books in 2 years


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Right now, I bet LMA and Roy still wish we had Zach.


Naturally. Oden went down.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Xericx said:


> The Zach trade increased ticket sales?
> 
> Ticket sales was LIKELY 90% Oden coming to the blazers.
> 
> ...


Mostly speculation based on things I've heard: In some people's eyes, 
Blazers + Zach = Jailblazers = Won't Buy Season Tickets
Blazers - Zach = Bright Future = Will Buy Season Tickets

Zach was a factor, not just in ticket sales directly, but indirectly
as well. With Zach leaving, so goes the Jailblazer image and Blazer fan's
satisfaction with the team increases. This leads to future ticket sales,
Jersey sales, Comcast subscriptions,....

You can still doubt it, but that's what I think.
peace,
wiz


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> you forgot about those who only post about ridiculous conspiracy theories.


I don't know of anyone on this board who only talks about the official goverment "conspiracy theory".


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i just read through most of this thread. as expected, the same posters showed how well they can twist and dance their way to argue it was a good trade. whatever.

my rant from the day we traded zach left no doubt how much i hated the deal. since i've been a blazers fan, it's the worst mistake that i thought a portland gm had made in a trade. even worst than nash. i don't think trading zach will negatively impact our franchise as much as the o'neal's trade. but even with that trade, it wasn't nearly as obvious to me how bad we got screwed.

having said that, i'm looking at the brighter side and move on. yes, i do believe there is a brighter side to this. with zach on the team, we would win a few more games this year, but still out of the playoffs. i continue to believe that the worst position for a franchise to be in is mediocrity. we will be bad, really bad this year. we will get a high lotto pick, with rose gordon, mayo, beasely at our choosing. i can wait this year out.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

wizmentor said:


> Mostly speculation based on things I've heard: In some people's eyes,
> Blazers + Zach = Jailblazers = Won't Buy Season Tickets
> Blazers - Zach = Bright Future = Will Buy Season Tickets
> 
> ...


You left out a huge factor IMO...sponsorship dollars...who is going to want to sponsor a team whose best player could be arrested for doing something boneheaded and illegal at any moment.


----------

