# Zach Randolph Love from Memphis



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I didn't put this as off topic because it mentions the Blazers, Kevin Pritchard and Brandon Roy throughout the article. I'm sure a mod who plays favorites will though.


http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/10/dont-do-it/


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

How much of that column was pure BS? We'll never know.

I DO know that he calls Zach "fat", which demonstrates little to no knowledge of the actual Zach Randolph.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I'm wondering if they are kicking themselves for trading Gasol for Kwame Brown now. 

Their lineup would be AWESOME with Gasol in there.....


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I would say that Memphis would never do this deal, but then I remembered that their GM is the same guy who gave away Pau Gasol and cemented LA's Finals run. So anything's possible.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Xericx said:


> I'm wondering if they are kicking themselves for trading Gasol for Kwame Brown now.
> 
> Their lineup would be AWESOME with Gasol in there.....


Don't quit your day job on the OT board. 

You don't know the first thing about the Grizzlies' past or current situation, and I'll explain why if you're interested.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Don't quit your day job on the OT board.
> 
> You don't know the first thing about the Grizzlies' past or current situation, and I'll explain why if you're interested.


Ok. Please explain. Do you think OJ Mayo is NOT going to bolt to New York or LA when his rookie contract is over?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Xericx said:


> Ok. Please explain. Do you think OJ Mayo is NOT going to bolt to New York or LA when his rookie contract is over?


What does that have to do with Randolph being an extremely negative influence on a young Grizzlies team if he's traded there?

RANDOLPH CAN: Score, rebound
RANDOLPH CANNOT: Play defense, behave, think of the team over himself, pass the basketball (willingly or physically), block shots, help a young team finding its way.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

ppl change


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> What does that have to do with Randolph being an extremely negative influence on a young Grizzlies team if he's traded there?
> 
> RANDOLPH CAN: Score, rebound
> RANDOLPH CANNOT: Play defense, behave, think of the team over himself, pass the basketball (willingly or physically), block shots, help a young team finding its way.


He asked about the Grizzly's current situation, which I don't know much about apparantly. 

What do the Grizzlies need?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Blue Magic said:


> ppl change


They do. But Randolph has not and likely will not.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Xericx said:


> He asked about the Grizzly's current situation, which I don't know much about apparantly.
> 
> What do the Grizzlies need?


Sorry if my post was a little undue then. :clown:

Anyway, the Grizzlies could use a little interior scoring, but a cancer like Randolph who is also useless on the defensive end is definitely not what they need.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Sorry if my post was a little undue then. :clown:
> 
> Anyway, the Grizzlies could use a little interior scoring, but a cancer like Randolph who is also useless on the defensive end is definitely not what they need.


With a good point guard, he could probably be decent. Someone who controls the offense..not letting ZBO dictate what the offense is going to be.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Ok. Please explain.


First, Gasol didn't want to be in Memphis anymore. Period. His numbers were down from the previous season, he was sitting out for ticky-tack injuries (notice how his back problems and sore foot mysteriously vanished once he got to LA), the fan base had completely turned against him, he's on a max contract, and (maybe you've read) the team was awful. It was time (for all parties involved) to go in a different direction.

To say Memphis just "traded Pau for Kwame Brown" is disingenuous and, if you think the Grizzlies were interested in Kwame's talent, you don't have the first bit of understanding as to why the trade was made. The Grizzlies just went out and found the biggest expiring contract they could find and picked up a couple decent prospects in the process. Look for other examples of unhappy ex-All Stars getting dealt and more often than not, the return isn't too far off from what Memphis received. The only thing Memphis fans regret is that Brian Cardinal wasn't involved in the deal.

Memphis got what it wanted -- out from under Pau's max contract, three prospects (Crittenton, Marc Gasol and what eventually turned into Darrell Arthur) and another on the way in 2010. Maybe could've gotten more, but it was apparently better than what had been out there. Gasol had pretty publicly been on the trade block for over a year. The team gained some financial flexibility and may make a big free agent move in the 2009 offseason.

The two main reasons Memphis was bashed so hard was because of 1) Kwame Brown's stigma and name value; 2a) he got traded to an already-good team; and 2b) that team happened to be the Los Angeles Lakers. If Memphis traded him to Milwaukee (for argument's sake) for a huge expiring contract and prospects, no one would have cared.

Pau Gasol being on this year's team wouldn't improve it by all that much, and saying Memphis would be AWESOME is a huge leap of faith. There's no way they'd make the playoffs this year with Pau. The only significant thing that's changed on this current Grizzlies roster is that Mike Miller has been swapped for OJ Mayo. 

I have no doubts that Mayo will soon be a better player than Miller, but it probably won't be this year, and even so, he'll have to be a whole lot BETTER than Mike Miller to make these Grizzlies AWESOME. Conley would have to take major steps in his second year. Even with Pau, they're just too young. You're spoiled by cheering for the Blazers, but there's a reason why what the Blazers did last year is so rare. And they didn't even make the playoffs.

And then there's the matter of Pau still being the longest-tenured and highest-paid player on the team, making him the de facto leader. And we've all seen what Pau's capable of as the leader of an NBA franchise -- nothing all too significant.



> Do you think OJ Mayo is NOT going to bolt to New York or LA when his rookie contract is over?


As you so love to do in your other threads, I'll advise you here to stay on topic, which I had already laid out as Memphis' past and current situations, rather than future.

I don't know what's going to happen four years from now. From my experiences with Mayo, he's a good, affable kid with an intense work ethic. I think his decision in free agency will be based on the team situation rather than the prestige. If the Grizzlies are still going 22-60, he'll be out of here. If the Knicks are still going 23-59, I doubt he goes there. And that's not even going into the team's leverages and options when it comes to restricted free agency. It's not as if Deron Williams, Chris Paul or Brandon Roy are jetting out of their small markets when they take their supporting casts and team success into account. They're all signing (or will sign) extensions when the time comes.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

So which prospect did they get for Kwame's capspace? 

Mayo-Gasol-Gay

that's a pretty good trio to build around. Now they are going to do what?

From what I've seen here in LA when Mayo was at USC, he's a self-absorbed glory hound who wants to be in a major market.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Xericx said:


> So which prospect did they get for Kwame's capspace?


See above. Crittenton, Marc Gasol, Darrell Arthur and the Lakers' (late) first rounder in 2010. Gasol and Arthur should be starters in the league eventually, while the jury's still out on Crittenton, who was the fifth-youngest player in the NBA last year.



> Mayo-Gasol-Gay
> 
> that's a pretty good trio to build around. Now they are going to do what?


Build around Gay, Mayo and Conley, (hopefully) adding more pieces in the coming years. I'm no Randolph fan, but getting him and maybe even a protected first rounder for scraps like Milicic and Jaric would be a big improvement, and it still wouldn't cut into the team's cap room in 2009.

And like I said in that long post, I'm not planning on Mayo being an All Star-caliber player this season. If he's slightly below Miller's offensive output while playing much better defense, I'll be satisfied with that for now. Rudy's in the same boat. He's a tremendous scoring talent, but he also needs to improve in some areas to reach All Star status. Gasol, through his effort, had made it clear that he wasn't going to wait any longer for that to happen. By the time Memphis' young pieces develop, he'll be somewhat long in the tooth.

Of course, Gasol's probably going to make the All-Star Game this year by virtue of more exposure in LA, making a title run last season and for playing for a winner. None of that was happening in Memphis anytime soon.



> From what I've seen here in LA when Mayo was at USC, he's a self-absorbed glory hound who wants to be in a major market.


Speaking from first-hand experience, the rumors of his prima donna attitude have been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Well, I'm a ZBO fan...so I would be following Memphis more closely if he goes there. I like Gay...Mayo has always bugged me...not sure...he seemed like he went to USC because Pink Floyd was a coach he could walk over and he wanted to be in LA...that's what the rumors were about him.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> What does that have to do with Randolph being an extremely negative influence on a young Grizzlies team if he's traded there?
> 
> RANDOLPH CAN: Score, rebound
> RANDOLPH CANNOT: Play defense, behave, think of the team over himself, pass the basketball (willingly or physically), block shots, help a young team finding its way.


More like:

Randolph can: score, rebound
Randolph can't: defend, pass

The rest is subjective and not terribly relevant to his team's fortunes. The Blazers weren't bad due to Randolph, they were bad due to low overall team talent. He's played on Blazers teams that were either a mess or in transition, or on Knicks teams that were a mess. That's really no reflection on him.

Randolph clearly has major flaws as a player. He also has clear strengths. I think he definitely helps teams win games, overall.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> More like:
> 
> Randolph can: score, rebound
> Randolph can't: defend, pass
> ...


agreed. i think he needs to play with a decent point guard or second scoring option...something he really has never played with.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> He's played on Blazers teams that were either a mess or in transition, or on Knicks teams that were a mess. That's really no reflection on him.


Really? Because that's not what many were predicting when Zach went to NY. Many in fact thought Zach was going into a better situation and would be playoff contenders in the east. It's not until now, when the Knicks have been shamed and the the Zach deal has proved to be inconsequential, if not a negative that people are saying the Knicks were in a mess before Zach got there. I'm a fan of Zach to a certain extent, but let's be honest with the way the deal was portrayed by many and how everyone thought the Knicks made out like bandits. They were a talented team before Zach and they remain a talented team with him, but clearly Zach Randolph has not helped the situation since joining the Knicks, he has however helped the Blazers since leaving them. 



> I think he definitely helps teams win games, overall.


I haven't seen evidence of this, despite his talent. There weren't THAT many significant changes to the season after when Zach was gone and the Blazers were a 500 team. I like the guy and thought he was often made the scapegoat, but I don't think he's anyone's answer to a team trying to *win*.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Really? Because that's not what many were predicting when Zach went to NY. Many in fact thought Zach was going into a better situation and would be playoff contenders in the east.


Many have said that after every deal Thomas made. Just because "many" thought, incorrectly, that New York was about to turn the corner and become a playoff contender doesn't make it a reality. Most people recognize that the Knicks have been a mess for nearly a decade. Scott Layden's disaster was inherited by Isaiah Thomas, who simply continued it.

Thomas managed to create a team of remarkably poor fit, as abilities were duplicated and weaknesses were addressed by no one. No player on the Knicks played defense. It was such an atrocious defensive team, that alone probably made it impossible to contend seriously, even if they had Showtime Lakers offensive flow. However, on offense, Marbury's strengths were duplicated by Jamal Crawford. Eddy Curry's strengths were duplicated by Randolph's. Thus, Randolph either had little effect or caused Curry to have little effect.



> I haven't seen evidence of this, despite his talent.


Sure you have. He was a very good contributor to the only Blazer team that had stability, the one that reached the playoffs and almost knocked off the Mavericks in the first round in Pippen's final season with the team. With Pippen, Wallace and Sabonis, the team's cornerstones on offense and defense, Randolph was a valuable force that helped the team win. So much so, he was actually a fan favourite at the time. Then Pippen left, Sabonis left, Wallace left and the team was in shambles. Randolph was the best player on a gutted team. Then he got hurt and came back and took a couple of seasons to regain form. In the meantime, he was given all the blame for the worst period in Blazers history, when the blame should have fallen on the team awful overall team talent (and its architect, PatterNash).

I have no idea how he'll do on a young team. I certainly think he can be a valuable player on a stable team that doesn't count on him to carry the team (and has players around Randolph who play good defense).


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Sambonius said:


> Really? Because that's not what many were predicting when Zach went to NY. Many in fact thought Zach was going into a better situation and would be playoff contenders in the east. It's not until now, when the Knicks have been shamed and the the Zach deal has proved to be inconsequential, if not a negative that people are saying the Knicks were in a mess before Zach got there. I'm a fan of Zach to a certain extent, but let's be honest with the way the deal was portrayed by many and how everyone thought the Knicks made out like bandits. They were a talented team before Zach and they remain a talented team with him, but clearly Zach Randolph has not helped the situation since joining the Knicks, he has however helped the Blazers since leaving them.


I'm glad someone else remembers that. This forum was filled with people predicting playoffs for the knicks and an all-star game for zach. Also, that portland would have trouble replacing him and would be worse because of the trade.

It didn't quite work out that way.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Many have said that after every deal Thomas made. Just because "many" thought, incorrectly, that New York was about to turn the corner and become a playoff contender doesn't make it a reality. Most people recognize that the Knicks have been a mess for nearly a decade. Scott Layden's disaster was inherited by Isaiah Thomas, who simply continued it.


No arguments here. Thomas did continue it, and Zach was part of that continuation. 



> No player on the Knicks played defense. It was such an atrocious defensive team, that alone probably made it impossible to contend seriously, even if they had Showtime Lakers offensive flow.


That's pushing it. The Mavericks are a pretty atrocious defensive team but they seem to contend in a much tougher conference. 



> However, on offense, Marbury's strengths were duplicated by Jamal Crawford. Eddy Curry's strengths were duplicated by Randolph's. Thus, Randolph either had little effect or caused Curry to have little effect.


Agreed. David Lee and even Channing Frye would have been a much better fit for the Knicks than Zach Randolph. 



> Sure you have. He was a very good contributor to the only Blazer team that had stability, the one that reached the playoffs and almost knocked off the Mavericks in the first round in Pippen's final season with the team. With Pippen, Wallace and Sabonis, the team's cornerstones on offense and defense, Randolph was a valuable force that helped the team win. So much so, he was actually a fan favourite at the time.


This is the Andrew Bynum argument. Zach played very well and actually WON in a seven game series, that's it. No other time can anyone point to Zach being part of a run. A seven game series isn't sufficient enough to say whether a player can be in a winning atmosphere, I think the rest of his career speaks otherwise. 



> Then Pippen left, Sabonis left, Wallace left and the team was in shambles. Randolph was the best player on a gutted team. Then he got hurt and came back and took a couple of seasons to regain form. In the meantime, he was given all the blame for the worst period in Blazers history, when the blame should have fallen on the team awful overall team talent (and its architect, PatterNash).


You do know that he DID play with Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge right? The same Brandon Roy who was an all-star the season after Zach's departure, the same LaMarcus Aldridge who put up phenomenol numbers for a second year power forward. Sure the team added Steve Blake and James Jones, but these guys are career backups on any other team. The dynamics of the team didn't change that drastically for Zach to lead the Blazers to a horrendous record and the second he leaves, they go on to make a push for the playoffs. 



> I have no idea how he'll do on a young team.


I think you do. I think everyone does. Will Zach put up good numbers? Absolutely, he did so with the Knicks as well. That isn't the argument. The argument is if he can help the Grizz win some games, and with the upgrade in talent I'd sure like to think so. With a volatile guy like Mayo, I don't think adding Randolph is the best long term solution. Just my opinion though.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Test . . . I think I've been banned

maybe not . . . sorry for the interuption.

Go Blazers!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> That's pushing it. The Mavericks are a pretty atrocious defensive team but they seem to contend in a much tougher conference.


Yes, I was exaggerating a bit, but the Mavericks are not nearly as bad a defensive group as the Knicks. Howard plays good defense. Herris played good defense until he was traded for Kidd, who's lost a step but still retains the effort and instincts that made him a top defender. As a team they have a defensive ethic that the Knicks don't have. I think it's pushing it a lot to compare the Mavericks to the Knicks defensively.



> Agreed. David Lee and even Channing Frye would have been a much better fit for the Knicks than Zach Randolph.


Better fit, yes. Having essentially two of the same player makes it hard to leverage those two players effectively.



> This is the Andrew Bynum argument. Zach played very well and actually WON in a seven game series, that's it. No other time can anyone point to Zach being part of a run. A seven game series isn't sufficient enough to say whether a player can be in a winning atmosphere, I think the rest of his career speaks otherwise.


The rest of his career shows that he can't carry bad teams to success, yes. If you remove his first couple of years as evidence, due to being too small a sample, then I'd say his career is entirely inconclusive. He's played on teams weak in overall talent and those teams have lost.



> You do know that he DID play with Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge right? The same Brandon Roy who was an all-star the season after Zach's departure, the same LaMarcus Aldridge who put up phenomenol numbers for a second year power forward.


Right. Amazing that Roy and Aldridge improved a ton from their rookie seasons to their second seasons. That never happens. It must have been Randolph holding them back in their rookie seasons.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Right. Amazing that Roy and Aldridge improved a ton from their rookie seasons to their second seasons. That never happens. It must have been Randolph holding them back in their rookie seasons.


Sure Aldridge and Roy improved, but what else? Simple improvements to players shouldn't make your team win significantly more like it did for the Blazers the season after. Steve Blake and James Jones were the reasons we won so much more? Why did our record improve dramatically? This is something to ask yourself.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Sure Aldridge and Roy improved, but what else? Simple improvements to players shouldn't make your team win significantly more like it did for the Blazers the season after. Steve Blake and James Jones were the reasons we won so much more? Why did our record improve dramatically? This is something to ask yourself.


Why wouldn't "simple improvement" make a team win significantly more? Roy and Aldridge went from average and sub-average players to All-Star and near All-Star players. That's a massive upgrade right there. Travis Outlaw contributed significantly more than in seasons past. Blake replaced Jarret Jack as the primary point guard. James Jones replaced Ime Udoka. While the last two developments aren't huge in isolation, we're talking about improvements ranging from large to small across the board from 2006-07 to 2007-08. Adding it all up, it doesn't seem surprising at all that the team increased its win total a lot. 

Aldridge went from a backup quality player to a player of the same caliber as Randolph, when you factor in defense, completely replacing that value. That leaves Roy's big improvement, Outlaw's modest improvement and Blake's and Jones' small additions as net gains over the year before.

I think the difference in wins can be quite easily explained in terms of talent/ability. A narrative about chemistry, cancer and production that hurts the team's chances of winning isn't necessary to explain the difference.


----------



## slickyseenis (Aug 27, 2008)

randolph's only value to the grizzlies is the same as his value to the knicks: trade value

it's a buy low sell higher opportunity for memphis

the only team he'd have any value to as a player is a contender who needs what he brings and can afford him


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

Blue Magic said:


> ppl change


No they don't. People always stay the same.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> How much of that column was pure BS? We'll never know.
> 
> I DO know that he calls Zach "fat", which demonstrates little to no knowledge of the actual Zach Randolph.


no doubt, there were several telltale signs that this columnist is their Canzano blowing another article out his bleep


Sambonius said:


> Sure Aldridge and Roy improved, but what else? Simple improvements to players shouldn't make your team win significantly more like it did for the Blazers the season after. Steve Blake and James Jones were the reasons we won so much more? Why did our record improve dramatically? This is something to ask yourself.


Minstrel touched on internal improvements of young players, but they also significantly changed their offensive chemistry with the Zach move. ZR has proven he can be an effective part of a good team (don't forget the NCAA championship), but he's not good enough to be the focus. I've always contended that playing him off the ball working the offensive boards is where he's best. Thats a limited role for a max contract guy, but he's really a load in that capacity. Being the primary focus of an attack like he was on those pathetic Blazer teams bogs an offense down especially when the team lacks outside threats. Portland trading him opened up the middle for Brandon to drive to the hole and kick out to shooters, most of whom they'd either just acquired or who were starting to come into their own. If this deal goes through, the Griz will have significantly better outside threats then Portland did... geez, and how many of us predicted Knicks struggles given their lack of inside outside balance? I know I was one.

Where Zach truly hurts a team is on the other end... his lack of explosiveness is probably the biggest culprit. The only suggestion I'd have on how to use him best is to limit his minutes/role and tell him to go all out and use all 6.

STOMP


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> The only significant thing that's changed on this current Grizzlies roster is that Mike Miller has been swapped for OJ Mayo.


well, actually, memphis swapped Kevin Love in the deal as well, and took on Jaric's contract(which is much worse than cardianls).


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^Yeah, but Love never played for them. HE wasn't ever part of the team, so its not like they lost anything there.

I think he was just showing the difference between last years and this years team.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> How much of that column was pure BS? We'll never know.
> 
> I DO know that he calls Zach "fat", which demonstrates little to no knowledge of the actual Zach Randolph.
> 
> Ed O.


So out of this paragraph: 

Or maybe the Knicks do not want to appear too eager. Although, why wouldn’t they be eager to get rid of a fat, shoot-first power forward who destroys locker rooms, disdains defense, regularly shows up in police reports and will make $48 million over the next three years?

Fat is the only word you disagreed with? Just curious. Because I would agree with the other descriptors too.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> Randolph clearly has major flaws as a player. He also has clear strengths. *I think he definitely helps teams win games, overall.*


Yeah, he *clearly* proved that with the Blazers and the Knicks.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> So out of this paragraph:
> 
> Or maybe the Knicks do not want to appear too eager. Although, why wouldn’t they be eager to get rid of a fat, shoot-first power forward who destroys locker rooms, disdains defense, regularly shows up in police reports and will make $48 million over the next three years?
> 
> Fat is the only word you disagreed with? Just curious. Because I would agree with the other descriptors too.


Heh. No. I disagree with more than just "fat", but "fat" is so clearly wrong that I don't see how anyone paying attention could deny it.

Other things from the column are more difficult to argue against, simply because they are presented as fact but I have no first-hand evidence to the contrary:

-- Roy demanded Zach be traded after a specific loss
-- The Clippers declined a deal for Zach recently
-- The Knicks called the Grizzlies about trading them Zach

The second and third things, in particular, are contrary to other reports. The first one is very insightful, but it strikes me as odd that a Memphis columnist would know so many specifics about an event that doesn't seem well documented even in Portland.

That he calls Zach "fat" seems so inaccurate and so lazy that I doubt the veracity of ANY part of the column.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

World B. Free said:


> Yeah, he *clearly* proved that with the Blazers and the Knicks.


Yes, he did, his first 2-3 years in the league. After that he was on the awful Blazers and awful Knicks. Michael Jordan couldn't have led either team to contention and Randolph is no Jordan.

I'm glad we agree.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Fork said:


> So out of this paragraph:
> 
> Or maybe the Knicks do not want to appear too eager. Although, why wouldn’t they be eager to get rid of a fat, shoot-first power forward who destroys locker rooms, disdains defense, regularly shows up in police reports and will make $48 million over the next three years?
> 
> Fat is the only word you disagreed with? Just curious. Because I would agree with the other descriptors too.


you agree that he destroys locker rooms? While he did show up in the police blotter/was hardly a model citizen, at the very least this is overstating things just a tad. I've read/heard many quotes from the players to the contrary. The only player we actually are privy to knowing he had issues with is Rube... sort of obvious why the writer left Patterson's name out of his flame article. 

That he quotes Roy when no quote or record exists of him saying this is pretty Canzano-esk as well. I'm sure he has his sources though 

STOMP


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

How long has it been since Zach had a run-in with the law? I'm just curious. I can't think of the last incident off the top of my head. 

Zach never struck me as a jerk in the locker room. Kind of happy-go-lucky, maybe a little self centered, but he was never an ego maniac like some of the other players. I had the honor of interviewing guys like Derek Anderson and Bonzi Wells. If you think Zach was bad in the locker room, you should have seen those guys. Zach was always very nice, and though I didn't know him outside of the locker room, I never got the impression that he was this cancerous growth. I may be wrong.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Why wouldn't "simple improvement" make a team win significantly more? Roy and Aldridge went from average and sub-average players to All-Star and near All-Star players. That's a massive upgrade right there. Travis Outlaw contributed significantly more than in seasons past. Blake replaced Jarret Jack as the primary point guard. James Jones replaced Ime Udoka. While the last two developments aren't huge in isolation, we're talking about improvements ranging from large to small across the board from 2006-07 to 2007-08. Adding it all up, it doesn't seem surprising at all that the team increased its win total a lot.


I wish somebody would have predicted the Blazers record then, and nobody did. I would argue that Roy and Aldridge were much better than average players. Sure they improved, but to what extent? Aldridge finally got an opportunity to contribute with Randolph gone. The fact remains that on paper, nobody would have guessed the Blazers to improve as much as they did by taking a downgrade in talent and everybody and their mother predicted the Knicks would improve immensely with the Randolph acquisition. 



> I think the difference in wins can be quite easily explained in terms of talent/ability. A narrative about chemistry, cancer and production that hurts the team's chances of winning isn't necessary to explain the difference.


We just have a difference of opinion. Zach is a guy who is extremely talented but his fate is amongst the same as Stephon Marbury. So many argued that he could win and contribute to a winning team, there is no concrete evidence that this has happened, a seven game series isn't substantial enough either.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I wish somebody would have predicted the Blazers record then, and nobody did. I would argue that Roy and Aldridge were much better than average players. Sure they improved, but to what extent? Aldridge finally got an opportunity to contribute with Randolph gone. The fact remains that on paper, nobody would have guessed the Blazers to improve as much as they did by taking a downgrade in talent and everybody and their mother predicted the Knicks would improve immensely with the Randolph acquisition.
> 
> 
> 
> We just have a difference of opinion. Zach is a guy who is extremely talented but his fate is amongst the same as Stephon Marbury. So many argued that he could win and contribute to a winning team, there is no concrete evidence that this has happened, a seven game series isn't substantial enough either.


well, Steph did have a nice run with the Suns, but that was about it.

Randolph was at his best when he was a garbage man. I remember he used to amaze me with his rebounds and putbacks. Originally the Blazers didn't need to run offensive sets for Randolph. He'd get his points on his own. I miss that Zach. He was truly fun to watch. After Sheed left, Zach became the focal point of the offense. That's when things started going downhill.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> but he's not good enough to be the focus.


Try telling him that. You really think he's going to take a back seat? Good luck. 



> I've always contended that playing him off the ball working the offensive boards is where he's best.


I agree, but chances are he won't go for it. Since the Mavericks series, he only knows how to play for himself rather than the team. He has shown that he wants an infinite amount of shots and doesn't want to be the garbage man, which would be a great role for him. 



> and how many of us predicted Knicks struggles given their lack of inside outside balance? I know I was one.


I'm surprised, but you're in the minority as far as what was predicted in the win column. 



> Where Zach truly hurts a team is on the other end... his lack of explosiveness is probably the biggest culprit. The only suggestion I'd have on how to use him best is to limit his minutes/role and tell him to go all out and use all 6.


I think we can agree that Zach's best role for a team is the garbage man type role and getting put backs but there's no way that'll happen. It'll be interesting if the Grizz acquire him, I'd be willing to bet that Randolph's shots per game will be top 1 or 2 on the Grizzlies young team. 
STOMP[/QUOTE]


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> well, Steph did have a nice run with the Suns, but that was about it.


Exactly. One "nice run" doesn't make a career. Stephon hasn't had success in winning, neither has Zach despite his Mavericks series. That isn't enough. I'm willing to side with the rest of his career rather than one playoff series.



> Randolph was at his best when he was a garbage man. I remember he used to amaze me with his rebounds and putbacks. Originally the Blazers didn't need to run offensive sets for Randolph. He'd get his points on his own. I miss that Zach. He was truly fun to watch. After Sheed left, Zach became the focal point of the offense. That's when things started going downhill.


He was most effective in this garbage man role, but does anyone in their right mind think Zach is going to revert back to that role for any team he goes to? Everyone took a back seat to Zach when he came to New York, even Eddy Curry.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I wish somebody would have predicted the Blazers record then, and nobody did. I would argue that Roy and Aldridge were much better than average players. Sure they improved, but to what extent? Aldridge finally got an opportunity to contribute with Randolph gone. The fact remains that on paper, nobody would have guessed the Blazers to improve as much as they did by taking a downgrade in talent and everybody and their mother predicted the Knicks would improve immensely with the Randolph acquisition.


I recall a thread prior to Greg's injury where mook Talkhard and I were predicting at least 50 wins. I can't speak for the others but I certainly wasn't predicting a 20 game improvement based on Greg alone. I'm sure posters predicted 500 in one of those pre-season poll threads too. Also, I predicted the Knicks to improve marginally if at all as ZR was obviously a terrible fit with what they already had. There were many others who saw the Zach and Eddy tandem as uncomplimentry on both ends of the court.

If you need proof, these threads can be dug up.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I recall a thread prior to Greg's injury where mook Talkhard and I were predicting at least 50 wins. I can't speak for the others but I certainly wasn't predicting a 20 game improvement based on Greg alone. I'm sure posters predicted 500 in one of those pre-season poll threads too. Also, I predicted the Knicks to improve marginally if at all as ZR was obviously a terrible fit with what they already had. There were many others who saw the Zach and Eddy tandem as uncomplimentry on both ends of the court.
> 
> If you need proof that these threads can be dug up.
> 
> STOMP


Re-read what I wrote. I said that you were in the minority. Nobody said that there wasn't anyone that thought the Blazers would improve or that the Knicks would continue to be horrible, we are talking about a minority who thought the above. The majority thought the Blazers got taken in the deal, that they would do horribly after it was announced Oden wasn't coming back, and that the Knicks would flourish.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> I wish somebody would have predicted the Blazers record then, and nobody did.


I'm not sure why you use predictions as implicit evidence of reality. Predictions are routinely wrong.



> I would argue that Roy and Aldridge were much better than average players. Sure they improved, but to what extent?


They both improved their PER and their minutes, leading to fairly large gains in win shares.

Roy went from 4.6 win shares to 7.6 win shares and Aldridge went from 3.3 win shares to 5.9 win shares. Those are very large percentage gains.

Predictions are a poor measure because no one knew how much Roy and Aldridge would improve (and Outlaw, who had the best season of his career). People also failed to properly account for the fact that Randolph was redundant with Eddy Curry. They both have the same offensive games and both have the same offensive and defensive deficiencies.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> The majority thought the Blazers got taken in the deal


I still think it was a bad deal, but that's not mutually exclusive. The trade could have downgraded the team *and* the team could have improved overall. That simply means the team would have been even better had the trade not happened.

I think Randolph is much better than Frye. Had the Blazers brought Randolph off the bench, last season, instead of Frye, I think the team would have been much more dangerous and won more games.

If the salary flexibility that Pritchard has put Portland in line for turns into a very good, young player, I'll definitely agree that the deal was good, for the cap space. But since I am (and have always been) skeptical that that cap space will be used to snare a player they couldn't otherwise have gotten, I think the deal was a poor one.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Had the Blazers brought Randolph off the bench, last season, instead of Frye, I think the team would have been much more dangerous and won more games.


You actually think Randolph would have come off the bench and not made a peep? I want some of what you're smoking. 



> I think the deal was a poor one.


Really? We won more games. We got a wonderful big man backup who is fine with being a backup and doesn't complain, a great rental shooter who was clutch for us, cap space, and a great standout from Spain by the name of Rudy Fernandez. I think the deal worked out pretty darn well, as well as any deal could.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> You actually think Randolph would have come off the bench and not made a peep?


Yes, I think he would have come off the bench, due to lack of choice. Whether he made a peep or not, I think he would have been more productive than Frye.



> Really? We won more games.


For unrelated reasons.



> We got a wonderful big man backup


Worse than the player we sent out.



> cap space


I addressed this. We'll see if that cap space turns into anything major. My guess is that it won't.



> and a great standout from Spain by the name of Rudy Fernandez


Completely unrelated. Allen and Pritchard bought the draft pick used to get Fernandez from Phoenix.

James Jones was a good pick-up, but Randolph would have given Portland more than Jones and Frye, in my opinion.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, I think he would have come off the bench, due to lack of choice. Whether he made a peep or not, I think he would have been more productive than Frye.


That worked well with Stephon Marbury, wait no it didn't. He sulked and went to the bench and said it was due to an injury. There's a reason why Zach was traded besides his inability to stay out of trouble, it was because he wasn't willing to decrease the number of shot attempts and play more of a team game. If he wasn't willing to do that, you think he would go to the bench? Fat chance. 



> For unrelated reasons.


Yes, because Aldridge getting Zach's minutes is unrelated. 



> Worse than the player we sent out.


We got multiple players in the deal for Zach, and the team improved. One could suggest that Frye is less talented, that is fine. I'd suggest that while Zach is talented, he has no concept of a team game and is the reason he hasn't won in this league. 



> I addressed this. We'll see if that cap space turns into anything major. My guess is that it won't.


Perhaps not, but it's Paul Allen's money and if he wants to save some millions to put in his pocket then by all means, do it. With Oden, Roy, Aldridge, and the rest, I don't think having Zach Randolph on the team would have been a productive thing despite his overall talent. 




> Completely unrelated. Allen and Pritchard bought the draft pick used to get Fernandez from Phoenix.


Ummm no. Not according to Tom Penn. The trade exception acquired from New York was used to acquire both James Jones and Rudy Fernandez. 



> The new assistant general manager, in his third week on the job, suggested making a deal in which the Blazers added Fred Jones in the New York trade in order to receive a $3 million trade exception. That trade exception, in turn, could be used to relieve Phoenix of James Jones' $3 million salary in addition to acquiring the 24th pick.
> 
> "And the way we looked at it, from a talent standpoint, we were trading Zach for Channing, James Jones and Rudy Fernandez, plus cap flexibility in two years (Steve Francis buyout).''


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

drexlersdad said:


> well, actually, memphis swapped Kevin Love in the deal as well, and took on Jaric's contract(which is much worse than cardianls).


I'm only talking about the pure on-court product, guys who were on the team last year compared to guys who are on the team this year.

Love isn't taken into account because he wasn't on the 2007-08 roster, and Jaric-for-Cardinal is hardly what I would call significant.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> it was because he wasn't willing to decrease the number of shot attempts and play more of a team game. If he wasn't willing to do that, you think he would go to the bench?


You can't control what a player does on the floor. You can control _when_ that player is on the floor. So, I really don't see your point here. His game didn't mesh with the starters; so you bring him off the bench and let him be the focal point for your B-team.



> Yes, because Aldridge getting Zach's minutes is unrelated.


It is. Aldridge could have those minutes whether you trade Randolph or not. 



> Perhaps not, but it's Paul Allen's money and if he wants to save some millions to put in his pocket then by all means, do it.


Certainly he has that right. It simply has no bearing on the value of the deal to me, since it doesn't have anything to do with team quality.



> Ummm no. Not according to Tom Penn. The trade exception acquired from New York was used to acquire both James Jones and Rudy Fernandez.


That doesn't mean anything to me unless it is explained how one has anything to do with the other. James Jones I agree is connected...Portland needed the trade exception generated from the Randolph deal to add Jones' salary. Buying draft picks is a pure cash deal that doesn't require cap room or sending a matching salary/exception. There's no rule that I know of that would have prevented Portland from buying that draft pick, even had they not made the Randolph deal.

If you or someone else knows a reason why the Randolph deal was necessary to buy that draft pick, I'll concede the point and agree that the deal was a good one, because Fernandez drastically changes the equation. Absent that, I'm pretty sure Portland could have bought that pick whether or not they traded Randolph.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You can't control what a player does on the floor. You can control _when_ that player is on the floor. So, I really don't see your point here. His game didn't mesh with the starters; so you bring him off the bench and let him be the focal point for your B-team.


I guess you and I differ in that you have an optimistic feel for what Zach could have brought in a backup role, I don't think there was any way in hell that Zach would have accepted such a role. I think there is a better chance that the state of California grants Michael Jackson and R. Kelly a license to run a daycare center. I think Zach would have bickered and eventually sat out a number of games which would have decreased his value even more and the Blazers would have been stuck with an overpaid guy who doesn't even play. By the time the Blazers were to trade him, they would have taken back negative value. Just my opinion though. 



> It is. Aldridge could have those minutes whether you trade Randolph or not.


Again, you're quite the optimist in thinking Zach would have come off the bench. Quite the optimist indeed. 



> That doesn't mean anything to me unless it is explained how one has anything to do with the other.


What don't you understand? The Trade Exception was worth 3 million, the Suns gave us Jones and the rights to Fernandez for it. It can't get much clearer than that. 



> There's no rule that I know of that would have prevented Portland from buying that draft pick, even had they not made the Randolph deal.


Of course not, but that has nothing to do with whether Rudy was a product of the New York deal, he *WAS*. Could the Blazers have acquired Rudy without the Trade Exception? Probably, but again that has no barring on anything. The Blazers still acquired the trade exception from New York and traded it to Phoenix for the rights to Fernandez and Jones. 



> If you or someone else knows a reason why the Randolph deal was necessary to buy that draft pick, I'll concede the point and agree that the deal was a good one, because Fernandez drastically changes the equation.


It depends on your definition of buy. A lot of the language used during the Fernandez/Jones deal was a bit ambiguous. The Blazers didn't buy the Fernandez pick, the trade exception was worth 3 mil and in turn gave it to Phoenix for the rights to Jones and Fernandez. Semantics aren't important, knowing the trade exception brought Jones and Fernandez to Portland is however. 



> Absent that, I'm pretty sure Portland could have bought that pick whether or not the traded Randolph.


Again, you're probably right but it has no barring on the trade that was done. The New York deal brought us the trade exception which we exchange with Phoenix for James Jones and the rights to Rudy Fernandez.


----------



## slickyseenis (Aug 27, 2008)

team wouldve been better last season with randolph unless he caused chemistry problems

but trading him was good (versus not trading him; maybe they couldve gotten more in return)

he's human trash and needed to be treated like it

the team has a 10 year window not a 1-2 year window

their moves have been well-directed


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

[Unresolvable opinions on whether Randolph could have been a useful backup snipped.]




Sambonius said:


> What don't you understand? The Trade Exception was worth 3 million, the Suns gave us Jones and the rights to Fernandez for it. It can't get much clearer than that.


I don't think that's accurate. The deal has always been reported as Jones and the draft pick being acquired from the Suns for "cash considerations." League CBA rules require that player salary be matched, either with another player salary or a trade exception. So Portland had to swing the Knicks deal to get Jones. Had they not done that, they could still have completed the draft pick portion of the deal. Just as they did the year before, when they purchased the draft pick from Phoenix that they used to select Sergio Rodriguez.

This is the first time I've heard anyone say that Fernandez was a part of the Randolph deal. I don't personally think it's accurate or a motivation of the Randolph deal. Based on how the deal was reported and based on the rules of the CBA, my impression is that Portland was going to buy the draft pick either way and needed the Randolph deal completed in order to get James Jones.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If Zach wasn't so overpaid, I have the feeling most of this animosity would just dry up and blow away. As a player, Zach is certainly no less productive than Joel or Travis, but the fans seems to accept them!

Zach was never going to be Tim Duncan, and giving him a max contract wasn't going to change that. That mistake is on John Nash.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> [Unresolvable opinions on whether Randolph could have been a useful backup snipped.]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IIRC, the Blazers paid $3 million cash for the pick. The supposed catch, was that the Suns wouldn't make the deal unless we also took Jones off their hands without them having to take a player back. That's where to trade exception came in. The deal allowed them to pocket the cash and save Jone's salary (x2) because of the luxury tax. 

Given that the Suns were pretty desperate to shed salary, I would bet KP could have found another method to make that deal work.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> [Unresolvable opinions on whether Randolph could have been a useful backup snipped.]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, I just provided you a link with the specifics of the deal, if you don't like the source Tom Penn who is the guy who engineered the deal then I don't know what to tell you. You can't get a better source than that. Cash considerations can mean anything, for you to assume it was 3 million dollars is pure assumption. It was the trade exception that lead to the acquisition of James Jones and Fernandez. 



> League CBA rules require that player salary be matched, either with another player salary or a trade exception. So Portland had to swing the Knicks deal to get Jones. Had they not done that, they could still have completed the draft pick portion of the deal.


Wait, are you implying that the Blazers went out of their way to acquire Jones? That's quite naive. The Blazers wouldn't have touched Jones if they didn't have to, he was the price they had to pay to acquire Rudy Fernandez. Anyway you look at it, the trade exception was an integral part of acquiring Rudy Fernandez. You can't get around it. 



> This is the first time I've heard anyone say that Fernandez was a part of the Randolph deal. I don't personally think it's accurate or a motivation of the Randolph deal. Based on how the deal was reported and based on the rules of the CBA, my impression is that Portland was going to buy the draft pick either way and needed the Randolph deal completed in order to get James Jones.


I don't know what you're talking about, that's the way the deal was always reported. "Cash considerations" is code for something ambiguous but there's no doubt that the Suns wanted to shed salary and told the Blazers they'll give them the pick if they take Jones off their books. That was the price the Blazers had to pay for getting Fernandez. You actually think they went out of their way to acquire Jones? Sheesh.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> IIRC, the Blazers paid $3 million cash for the pick. The supposed catch, was that the Suns wouldn't make the deal unless we also took Jones off their hands without them having to take a player back.


I really don't buy that either. Rudy was the 24th pick, look at the going cost for a late 1st round pick in recent drafts. Three million right? Not six, which it would have if the Blazers gave *BOTH* the trade exception and 3 million. That's not consistent with the value in recent drafts. The Suns saved *DOUBLE* Jones' salary due to the luxury cap tax, plus the 24th pick's salary and double that due to luxury tax. That's a lot of money actually and no way in hell would any team be paying that much for a late 1st round pick. I put money on it Phoenix saying take Jones off our hands and we'll give you the 24th pick, that's what happened. Don't take my word for it though, Tom Penn is a pretty good source. 



> Given that the Suns were pretty desperate to shed salary, I would bet KP could have found another method to make that deal work.


Even if what you were to say was correct and Tom Penn was wrong, Fernandez is still a product of the Zach Randolph trade. Anyway you look at it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Dude, I just provided you a link with the specifics of the deal, if you don't like the source Tom Penn who is the guy who engineered the deal then I don't know what to tell you.


It didn't have any "specifics." It has Penn loosely associating the two assets Portland got from Phoenix. 



> Wait, are you implying that the Blazers went out of their way to acquire Jones? That's quite naive. The Blazers wouldn't have touched Jones if they didn't have to


This is a player you, several posts ago, touted as point in favour of the Randolph deal. If you think he's something the Blazers had no interest in, why are you presenting him as a strength of the deal?

Jones was the player Pritchard referred to as an "acclaimed player," suggesting he did want him. If Tom Penn speaking off the cuff is such a great source about this, surely Pritchard doing the same is a great source about how Portland valued Jones?

I don't think Jones was a necessary part of the deal at all. "Shedding salary" is about money. Giving Phoenix $3 million in cash is virtually identical to Phoenix as taking a $3 million salary off their hands, considering Jones only had one year remaining. In both cases, Phoenix gains $3 million. Taking Jones back was not necessary, logically. Therefore, I am not currently willing to believe that the draft pick purchase wouldn't have happened without Jones being taken by Portland (thereby necessitating the Randolph deal).


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> This is a player you, several posts ago, touted as point in favour of the Randolph deal. If you think he's something the Blazers had no interest in, why are you presenting him as a strength of the deal?


When did I mention him to be a strength of the deal? I didn't. I mentioned that he was one of of many other assetts involved in the trade. Nowhere did I say he was a strength, he's not even on the team so that doesn't make sense. 



> Jones was the player Pritchard referred to as an "acclaimed player," suggesting he did want him. If Tom Penn speaking off the cuff is such a great source about this, surely Pritchard doing the same is a great source about how Portland valued Jones?


The same Pritchard who said so many positives about Francis? When a team acquires new players, their job is to talk them up, that means nothing. Pritchard valued Jones so much that he didn't even offer him a new contract after he opted out. Yea... Pritchard sure valued him, just as the Suns valued him when they offered the Blazers to take their pick just to take him off their hands. Sure. 



> I don't think Jones was a necessary part of the deal at all. "Shedding salary" is about money. Giving Phoenix $3 million in cash is virtually identical to Phoenix as taking a $3 million salary off their hands, considering Jones only had one year remaining.


Ever heard of luxury tax? Three million dollars given to Phoenix is clearly inferior than taking a player who makes three million dollars off their cap. That player who makes three million dollars is actually costing the Suns 6 million when they are over the cap, which they were. So again, you're wrong on that point. 



> In both cases, Phoenix gains $3 million.


Just no. The difference between giving the Suns 3 million dollars and taking back James Jones is 3 million dollars. That's quite a bit of a difference.

To the Suns
3 million dollars = 3 million dollars
James Jones = 6 million dollars (If he due 3 million dollars for one season)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> When did I mention him to be a strength of the deal? I didn't. I mentioned that he was one of of many other assetts involved in the trade. Nowhere did I say he was a strength, he's not even on the team so that doesn't make sense.


You did. Here:



> Really? We won more games. We got a wonderful big man backup who is fine with being a backup and doesn't complain, *a great rental shooter who was clutch for us*, cap space, and a great standout from Spain by the name of Rudy Fernandez. I think the deal worked out pretty darn well, as well as any deal could.


This was your reasoning for why the trade was a good one. Prominent in it is James Jones, unless you meant another "rental shooter."



> Ever heard of luxury tax? Three million dollars given to Phoenix is clearly inferior than taking a player who makes three million dollars off their cap.


Yes, that's a good point. So I agree that taking Jones back was an important part and thus required the Randolph trade. If Portland couldn't/wouldn't have acquired that pick without the Randolph deal (through some other means), then I agree that the Randolph deal was a good one. If Pritchard would have found another way to acquire that draft pick, then I'm not willing to ascribe it to the Randolph deal.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You did. Here:
> 
> This was your reasoning for why the trade was a good one. Prominent in it is James Jones, unless you meant another "rental shooter."


James Jones is inconsequential for why the trade was a good one. He helped the Blazers win some games last season but he's probably the last reason I would note for the trade being a success. He is what he is, a great rental shooter. Doesn't mean he's a commodity that the league wanted before last year's performance. I don't think stating James Jones is a "great rental shooter" means he was a strength of the trade, I think it means he was an assett that helped us win some games last season and was never thought to be here for long. If it wasn't for Fernandez, we would have never had acquired him. 



> Yes, that's a good point. So I agree that taking Jones back was an important part and thus required the Randolph trade. If Portland couldn't/wouldn't have acquired that pick without the Randolph deal (through some other means), then I agree that the Randolph deal was a good one. If Pritchard would have found another way to acquire that draft pick, then I'm not willing to ascribe it to the Randolph deal.


Look, I'm with you, I think it's entirely possible that Rudy could have been acquired in a different way without the trade exception but I don't think that has any barring on the actual deal. I'm sure we could have acquired LaMarcus or Roy differently, but I don't look at that. I look at the actual deal and if it was a success, I think getting Rudy Fernandez as a consequence of the Knicks deal is great and am happy that we were able to pull it off, regardless of the other possibilities. As we know now though, it was Zach, Freddy Jones, and Dickau for Channing Frye, 1 year of Jones, cap space, and Rudy Fernandez. I think it's fair when comparing production on the basketball court and in the win columns, and it's even more of a bonus if the Blazers could do something positive with the cap space.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Look, I'm with you, I think it's entirely possible that Rudy could have been acquired in a different way without the trade exception but I don't think that has any barring on the actual deal. I'm sure we could have acquired LaMarcus or Roy differently, but I don't look at that. I look at the actual deal


Except Fernandez wasn't a part of the actual deal for Randolph. He was part of a separate deal, involving an asset acquired in the Randolph deal. Separate deals that interconnect make evaluating single trades difficult. To me, it's basically subjective how you choose to ascribe value between the deals. If a connected deal seems like it simply could not (or would not) have happened without the first deal, I'll ascribe it's value to the first deal. If it seems like the connected deal likely would have happened whether or not the first deal happened, I won't ascribe it's value to the first deal.

This one I classify as the latter. Since Phoenix was only interested in money, I feel quite sure Pritchard would have found another way to satisfy Phoenix even if they hadn't had the trade exception. Assuming Pritchard placed a great deal of value on the pick, I don't think he'd have let an extra $3 million (difference between a lump sum of $3 million and relieving Phoenix of a luxury taxed $3 million deal) stand in the way. Had the deal with Phoenix involved giving Phoenix a player that Phoenix coveted and Portland could only have due to the Randolph deal, it would be another matter. (Relatively) small sums of money aren't that hard to make work.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Except Fernandez wasn't a part of the actual deal for Randolph. He was part of a separate deal, involving an asset acquired in the Randolph deal. Separate deals that interconnect make evaluating single trades difficult.


Was Sebastian Telfair traded for Brandon Roy? No, not technically but he was a component as to why we acquired Brandon Roy. There's no way to tell the Suns' mood but the trade exception was the reason we got Rudy Fernandez. There might have been other possibilities but it's impossible to tell what they were. The only thing known is that the trade exception was the only thing that was going to give the Suns immediate relief, nothing else would have. Like Tom Penn said, he saw trading Zach, Dickau, and F. Jones as a way to acquire Frye, James Jones, cap space, and Rudy Fernandez. That's the way I see it as well since the trade exception was responsible in acquiring Rudy Fernandez.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Was Sebastian Telfair traded for Brandon Roy? No, not technically but he was a component as to why we acquired Brandon Roy.


What else was traded with Telfair, for that pick? In any case, this falls under the former classification...the trade could not have happened without Telfair, because Ainge wanted Telfair specifically. Not just any small, unproductive point guard.

This is exceedingly different from the Phoenix situation, where all they wanted was money. One dollar is as good as another. The way Portland swung it involved the exception from the Randolph deal, but had that not been available, there were likely myriad other ways that Pritchard could have gotten the Suns the cash they required. It didn't have to be in the form of salary relief if the cash ended up the same.

Clearly, you evaluate trades differently, ascribing all the value from connected trades to the "main deal." I don't. To me, it's a case-by-case basis, based on how much it seemed that the main deal was crucial in allowing the follow-on deal.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Don't quit your day job on the OT board.
> 
> You don't know the first thing about the Grizzlies' past or current situation, and I'll explain why if you're interested.


TOS


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> What else was traded with Telfair, for that pick? In any case, this falls under the former classification...the trade could not have happened without Telfair, because Ainge wanted Telfair specifically. Not just any small, unproductive point guard.


Don't forget Theo Ratliff was an integral part of the deal as Ainge wanted cap relief, which ended up a valuable piece to McHale in the Garnett deal. 

[/QUOTE]
This is exceedingly different from the Phoenix situation, where all they wanted was money. One dollar is as good as another. The way Portland swung it involved the exception from the Randolph deal, but had that not been available, there were likely myriad other ways that Pritchard could have gotten the Suns the cash they required. It didn't have to be in the form of salary relief if the cash ended up the same.[/QUOTE]

There is a limit to how much you can give a team. James Jones alone would have cost the Suns at least 6 million and Rudy would have been roughly 3-4 million. That's about 10 mil in 2 players. Tell me how you could have gotten that off their payroll that season? The best you can do is trade them a player that was expiring, but the trade exception was an immediate cap relief that they didn't have to wait a season for. 



> Clearly, you evaluate trades differently


Clearly, I evaluate trades based on how much the team improves in the win column. I'm also not naive to think that the Blazers voluntarily wanted to take on James Jones and pay a whole 'nother price for Rudy F.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

PapaG said:


> TOS


Ah, the ol' TOS card. If only I violated the TOS in my post.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> There is a limit to how much you can give a team. James Jones alone would have cost the Suns at least 6 million and Rudy would have been roughly 3-4 million. That's about 10 mil in 2 players.


That's a bit nonsensical, adding in Rudy's salary. Portland saved Phoenix that money by taking the pick. It wasn't additional money that Phoenix required. The $6 million is what was required. I don't know what the maximum sum of cash that can change hands is, but it is at least $3-4 million. So finding an extra $2-3 million, at most, is quite do-able.



> Clearly, I evaluate trades based on how much the team improves in the win column.


Right, which is simplistic in the extreme, since we know lots of other factors also affect the team's quality, not just the one trade.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

15 months later, with the knicks looking to dump randolph, and still a few blazer fans refusing to acknowlege that trading zach was a good deal for the blazers. It's simply foolish to argue otherwise.

First, zach's contract is no longer portland's problem, it's NY's. Portland has an opportunity for major cap-space that they wouldn't have if the trade hadn't occured. It's worth noting that the only rumored trade that NY may have for zach is one that brings in contracts as bad if not worse then his.

Second, the idea that it would be a good, workable idea to have a guy making 14 million a year playing 10 minutes a night as Aldridge's backup is ludicrous. I'll point out that the time zach would have been hogging is time that saw Travis Outlaw flourish as a backup PF. In other words, zach's absence allowed both Aldridge and Outlaw to develop; both very positive occurences. Of course, it goes without saying...I guess it really doesn't since I'm going to say it...that Portland and it's fans don't have to be subjected to Zach's ball-hogging, offense-stopping, don't-give-a-damn-about-defense game. In other words, Portland is a better team.

The deal saved the blazers (paul allen) around 30 million dollars in the difference between the francis buyout and zach's contract. That make it easier (as if it wasn't seasy enough) for paul allen to accept plunking down 3 million for a draft pick.

And Sambonius is correct: the narrative coming directly out of the blazer front office was that Phoenix wasn't willing to part with the draft pick (Rudy) until portland presented them with a trade exception as well. Arguing that portland could have landed the pick another way is irrelevant. For one thing, nobody knows that to be true. For another, it didn't happen that way...it was welded to the zach trade and that's a fact.

It should also be pointed out that the 2nd round pick from the knicks in this last draft...a direct product of the trade...has now been converted into three 2nd round picks. The trade keeps getting better and better...as if not having zach in a blazer uniform wasn't good enough (it is)

And anybody still believing it was a bad trade saying "the cap-space won't yield anything" is simply talking from their bias. They can't know that, but if we've learned anything to this point, it is that KP thinks ahead and is fairly adept at trading. The odds are pretty good that the cap-space will yield something, rather then nothing. And that will be due to KP's decision to dump zach.

It was a good trade, and what the current NY situation confirms, is KP's statement that the trade he executed was the best that he could get.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> That's a bit nonsensical, adding in Rudy's salary. Portland saved Phoenix that money by taking the pick. It wasn't additional money that Phoenix required. The $6 million is what was required. I don't know what the maximum sum of cash that can change hands is, but it is at least $3-4 million. So finding an extra $2-3 million, at most, is quite do-able.


The maximum cash that can be exchanged in a transaction is 3 million

Phoenix management talked about that trade at the time...they had to since Suns' fans were rather upset about it.

The GM justified it by talking about a 2 year window, not just last season. The Suns has 2 years in the luxury tax. Two years of the Jones contract (they didn't know he would opt-out) was around 12 million. A first round pick has a guaranteed contract and 2 years of that was going to be over 2 million. And then they got 3 million from Allen.

Phoenix talked about saving 17 million over 2 years as justification for making the trade. It made sense I suppose for a team willing to add a 1st round pick to Kurt Thomas and trade away his 8 million expiring for a 2nd round pick.

It doesn't matter how many times one says Phoenix could have done it another way. That can't be known unless you can travel through alternate universes. What matters is they did it the way they did...with Portland. And that was a direct result of the zach randolph trade.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Minstrel, just stop posting. You're making yourself look ridiculous.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> Minstrel, just stop posting. You're making yourself look ridiculous.


That would sting, if it came from someone with basketball knowledge or a grasp of logic. Those tend to be your weaknesses.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> And anybody still believing it was a bad trade saying "the cap-space won't yield anything" is simply talking from their bias.


I don't feel like re-hashing all the points you've repeated from Sambonis, but I'll comment on this. I'm not saying it *won't* yield anything, I'm saying it is, and always was, *unlikely* to yield anything. The only bias in that belief is the bias of reality. Cap space very rarely is converted into a major player. Teams and fans talk about cap space a lot and it rarely gets converted into something substantial.

If Pritchard turns it into something impressive, that's great. He's a smart enough GM that I've always seen it as possible. I simply deem it unlikely, and I think history has shown that it is.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't feel like re-hashing all the points you've repeated from Sambonis, but I'll comment on this. I'm not saying it *won't* yield anything, I'm saying it is, and always was, *unlikely* to yield anything. The only bias in that belief is the bias of reality. Cap space very rarely is converted into a major player. Teams and fans talk about cap space a lot and it rarely gets converted into something substantial.
> 
> If Pritchard turns it into something impressive, that's great. He's a smart enough GM that I've always seen it as possible. I simply deem it unlikely, and I think history has shown that it is.


There are various ways that the cap space could be utilized but the most likely use has always been in an imbalanced trade where Portland receives back more salary then they're sending out. The Blazers roster is overflowing with young/cheap players with upside that I doubt many of history's examples compare to. Heres guessing that some team(s) will be considering roster overhauls during 2008/9 and that with desirable assets and the ability to absorb a big contract, KP has the club positioned to take advantage if the right opportunity arises.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> There are various ways that the cap space could be utilized but the most likely use has always been in an imbalanced trade where Portland receives back more salary then they're sending out. The Blazers roster is overflowing with young/cheap players with upside that I doubt many of history's examples compare to. Heres guessing that some team(s) will be considering roster overhauls during 2008/9 and that with desirable assets and the ability to absorb a big contract, KP has the club positioned to take advantage if the right opportunity arises.


Yes, I know that an imbalanced trade was a more likely use than a free agent signing, but do you see players who seem like a possible fit? Forgetting whether they are actually available, do you see any players who are both the type that a team would be willing to jettison for cap space and a young player and a player who would be a good fit for this team? Vince Carter seems like he could be available, but most people don't think he'd be a good addition. Kirilenko is someone I'd like to add. Beyond that, the trade possibilities seem slim.

That is part of why I don't expect the cap space to be used to add a player they couldn't have otherwise acquired.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> I don't feel like re-hashing all the points you've repeated from Sambonis, but I'll comment on this. I'm not saying it *won't* yield anything, I'm saying it is, and always was, *unlikely* to yield anything. The only bias in that belief is the bias of reality. Cap space very rarely is converted into a major player. Teams and fans talk about cap space a lot and it rarely gets converted into something substantial.
> 
> If Pritchard turns it into something impressive, that's great. He's a smart enough GM that I've always seen it as possible. I simply deem it unlikely, and I think history has shown that it is.


I'll dispute your term "unlikely", mainly because you have no way of measuring Kevin Pritchard's ability to leverage cap-space into "anything". He was "unlikely" to land Rudy Fernandez with only one 1st round pick. He was unlikely to land Bayless and Batum with only the 13th pick. 

And times are changing in the NBA, Cap space 2 or 3 years ago wasn't yielding much, niether were expiring contracts for that matter. But the luxury tax is changing that and the value of cap-space has been increasing. Next summer, several teams will be maneuvering to try and create cap-space for the Lebron/Wade sweepstakes in 2010. Cap-space will be attractive leverage to have then.

What is "unlikely" is that KP, sitting on top of 15-22 million in cap space next summer, would be unable to convert that space into 'something'.

In any event, Zach Randolph's salary is 16 million next season, and that's salary the blazers won't have to pay and it is "likely" to also be 16 million in cap-space the Blazers wouldn't have if they still had Zach Randolph parked on their roster.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Hedo may be on the block....Dont know if they're would be any interest in him from u guys, but Outlaw & Rodriguez would intrigue me alot from the Magics perspective.....Or maybe guys like Webster or Diogu or Frye in some kind of package with something else....


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, I know that an imbalanced trade was a more likely use than a free agent signing, but do you see players who seem like a possible fit? Forgetting whether they are actually available, do you see any players who are both the type that a team would be willing to jettison for cap space and a young player and a player who would be a good fit for this team? Vince Carter seems like he could be available, but most people don't think he'd be a good addition. Kirilenko is someone I'd like to add. Beyond that, the trade possibilities seem slim.
> 
> That is part of why I don't expect the cap space to be used to add a player they couldn't have otherwise acquired.



there are a ton of possibilities. 

Chicago wants cap-space for 2010. Maybe they'd be willing to swap Kirk Hinrich for Steve Blake straight up. It would give them 6 million more in space.

Charlotte also has made some noise about 2010. Maybe Jason Richardson for space.

Or maybe KP will take on a bad contract AND a high 1st round pick with the cap-space. Or 2 picks.

Maybe Turkoglu, or Varajao, or Kyle Korver, or Carlos Boozer, or Al Harrington, or Richard Hamilton opt out and Portland signs one.

The point is that anything could actually happen with that cap-space and it would change the equation of the Zach trade that you were maintaining wasn't "likely" to be affected by cap-space.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> The point is that anything could actually happen with that cap-space and it would change the equation of the Zach trade that you were maintaining wasn't "likely" to be affected by cap-space.


Yes, it would change the equation. I still think finding a good use for that cap space is unlikely, but I'm hopeful.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Blue Magic said:


> Hedo may be on the block....Dont know if they're would be any interest in him from u guys, but Outlaw & Rodriguez would intrigue me alot from the Magics perspective.....Or maybe guys like Webster or Diogu or Frye in some kind of package with something else....


the problem is that Portland just doesn't have any real mid-level filler contracts. Outlaw and rodriguez would not be enough salary and adding another player gets into the realm ov overpaying on portland's part.

I'd consider webster and diogu for Hedo, but I'm not a big fan of webster like many here are. I'm also not convinced that Hedo can maintain the level he reached last season. Was he a one-season wonder?...that's a pertinent question. And will Hedo opt out making the trade a 1 year rental for portland?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, I know that an imbalanced trade was a more likely use than a free agent signing, but do you see players who seem like a possible fit? Forgetting whether they are actually available, do you see any players who are both the type that a team would be willing to jettison for cap space and a young player and a player who would be a good fit for this team? Vince Carter seems like he could be available, but most people don't think he'd be a good addition. Kirilenko is someone I'd like to add. Beyond that, the trade possibilities seem slim.
> 
> That is part of why I don't expect the cap space to be used to add a player they couldn't have otherwise acquired.


did Pau Gasol look like he was going to be moved for prospects and expiring contracts last off season? I doubt KP is targeting specific players at this point but just to throw a name out... Tayshawn would be nice. 

Another possibility is that a FA to be guy who has been glued to the bench or injured or (for whatever reason) off the NBA radar comes on. Half way through my first cup o Jo I'll site Stephen Jackson and Bruce Bowen as _who'd have thunk it_ examples. 

Basically I disagree with you that the cap space is unlikely to yield anything because though we don't have the guy in the crosshairs right now, I expect that with the way the club is positioned and the cyclical build it up/tear it down nature of building an NBA club, KP will likely have good opportunities to use it.

STOMP


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> I'm only talking about the pure on-court product, guys who were on the team last year compared to guys who are on the team this year.
> 
> Love isn't taken into account because he wasn't on the 2007-08 roster, and Jaric-for-Cardinal is hardly what I would call significant.


ummm ok? thats a perspective one could take.

maybe you could trade a couple #1's in the zach deal then, it would still make you better right?


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I don't feel like re-hashing all the points you've repeated from Sambonis, but I'll comment on this. I'm not saying it *won't* yield anything, I'm saying it is, and always was, *unlikely* to yield anything. The only bias in that belief is the bias of reality. Cap space very rarely is converted into a major player. *Teams and fans talk about cap space a lot and it rarely gets converted into something substantial*.
> 
> If Pritchard turns it into something impressive, that's great. He's a smart enough GM that I've always seen it as possible. I simply deem it unlikely, and I think history has shown that it is.


seattle/okc got three #1's out of cap space, just for taking kurt thomas.
charlotte got richardson for cap space.
clippers got camby for cap space.
clippers got baron davis for cap space.
igoudala/deng/josh smith, all could have been likely attained with cap space.
i really could go on and on.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

drexlersdad said:


> ummm ok? thats a perspective one could take.
> 
> maybe you could trade a couple #1's in the zach deal then, it would still make you better right?


That's not the argument at all. You're making this more complicated than it actually is.

Xericx said the Grizzlies would be "awesome" THIS YEAR with a Conley/Mayo/Gay/Gasol/Milicic lineup had we, hypothetically, not made the Gasol trade.

My counter was that we were horrible with a Conley/Miller/Gay/Gasol/Milicic lineup last year and that Mayo (in his rookie year) probably won't be as good as Mike Miller was last season. In his hypothetical scenario, Mayo would have to be much, much better than Miller was in 2007-08 for us to be "awesome," especially since our 2008-09 bench is not significantly changed from our 2007-08 bench.

That's all the conversation is. Why would THIS team:

Conley/Mayo/Gay/Gasol/Milicic (Lowry, Warrick and scrubs off the bench)

...be AWESOME *this year* when THIS team:

Conley/Miller/Gay/Gasol/Milicic (Lowry, Warrick and scrubs off the bench)

...was one of the worst teams in the NBA *last year*?

Kevin Love and future picks don't play into the equation. Love wasn't on the 2007-08 team, and the future No. 1 picks aren't on the 2008-09 team.

(And of course, this is ignoring an obvious logical flaw -- would the Grizzlies still have gotten the fifth overall pick had they NOT traded Pau to the Lakers?)


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> That's all the conversation is. Why would THIS team:
> 
> Conley/Mayo/Gay/Gasol/Milicic (Lowry, Warrick and scrubs off the bench)
> 
> ...


good point. both teams are horrible. i didnt mean to be construed as arguing his point, as i couldnt disagree more. that team would NOT NOT NOT be "awesome".

can i ask you a question though? what do you think happened to the grizz? they were in the playoffs a few years, and then out of nowhere, one of the worst teams in the league. was it trading battier?gay is a far superior player.

the additions of marc gasol and darrell arthur should help a bit though. there is alot of young talent there.

conley
lowry
critt
mayo
gay
arthur
warrick
marc
and darko i guess

are all nice pieces to have.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

drexlersdad said:


> seattle/okc got three #1's out of cap space, just for taking kurt thomas.
> charlotte got richardson for cap space.
> clippers got camby for cap space.
> clippers got baron davis for cap space.


For the number of years (over a decade) that cap space has been an issue, and for all the teams that have had cap space, this isn't an impressively long list. I didn't say cap space is never used, I said it rarely gets converted into significant players.

So, I'm well-aware that examples of cap space being used (Shaq to the Lakers, Nash to the Suns are more examples) exist. I am saying that that's not the typical result of having cap space.



> igoudala/deng/josh smith, all could have been likely attained with cap space.


None of them "likely could have been" because they were all restricted free agents and would have been matched. Memphis had cap space, made an offer to Smith, and Atlanta matched. So no. None could have been attained with cap space.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

drexlersdad said:


> good point. both teams are horrible. i didnt mean to be construed as arguing his point, as i couldnt disagree more. that team would NOT NOT NOT be "awesome".
> 
> can i ask you a question though? what do you think happened to the grizz? they were in the playoffs a few years, and then out of nowhere, one of the worst teams in the league. was it trading battier?gay is a far superior player.
> 
> ...


The Grizzlies playoff teams had some very good role players who played defense and did the dirty work. Posey, Battier, Lorenzen Wright (who was nothing special but, four years ago, was a solid "dirty work" guy). To a lesser degree, guys like Earl Watson who never took plays off. Long story short, the roster had a really good balance between defensive players and offensive players, and for the most part, they were all guys in their primes.

Unfortunately, most of those players who were traded off had beefs with the coaching staffs. Posey hated Hubie. Bonzi and Jason Williams hated Fratello. The guys we wound up trading them for -- Eddie Jones and Bobby Jackson -- just flat out mailed it in and faked it the second they got to Memphis.

The reason those teams didn't win in the playoffs is because they didn't have a guy who could play BOTH offense and defense. Everyone was pretty much one or the other. Offensively, we were pretty soft and one-dimensional.

Now we have a ton of young talent with offensive firepower. But no balance at all. We have no legitimate defensive players (outside of Lowry, who is a bulldog, and possibly Mayo, who's undersized and will be guarding the toughest position in the league) and we have no quality veterans (Antoine Walker and Marko Jaric could care less, and Greg Buckner won't see the court).

I think, looking throughout the league, good teams are all about offensive-defensive balance and chemistry. Memphis has squat when it comes to that these days, but hopefully it'll improve. But that all depends on whether the owner wants to open his wallet or not.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> That would sting, if it came from someone with basketball knowledge or a grasp of logic. Those tend to be your weaknesses.


Looool, please point out to me ONE post where I was wrong on these boards. Because so far, I've been right about everything.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> Looool, please point out to me ONE post where I was wrong on these boards. Because so far, I've been right about everything.


How can you be wrong about any basketball issues when all you post is "i only reed this board for posted article... ever1 is stupid lol"?


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> How can you be wrong about any basketball issues when all you post is "i only reed this board for posted article... ever1 is stupid lol"?


Sorry to anger you so much. But saying Zach Randolph didn't hurt the team at all and would only help the current team is ludicrous. It should be 100% evident to everyone by now, but I guess there's still 5% of you out there...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> Sorry to anger you so much.


You don't anger me. You're the emo-kid who makes most of his posts "lol i think ur stupid" or "lol i think this board is stupid." You might examine your own anger issues. 



> But saying Zach Randolph didn't hurt the team at all and would only help the current team is ludicrous.


I didn't say that. Chalk up reading comprehension as a skill you've failed to demonstrate. I said he helps more than he hurts and has very obvious flaws.

In any case, I'm not terribly interested in getting into a flame war with someone who has no actual opinions on basketball outside of "lol." So you can respond as you like, but I'll leave your assuredly witty reply alone.


----------

