# Should the Blazers be shopping randolph?



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I think the should while his value is still at an all time high and look for a all star type PG or a really good SF. You have a guy in Aldridge in witch I think will be the next Tim Duncan\KG type player. He will be better than ZBo all around.:yay: :worthy: :cheers:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

just for giggles.... who would you want/take at SF to satisfy your wish?


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I don't want to put players out thare becouse peaple will just run off with it. It is just a question. Whos to say that Zacks trade value wont go down in years to come? Aldridge is only going to get better. I just don't want to make a another mistake.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

You should absolutely be shopping Zach. Try to land a big time SF for him, and maybe a draft pick. Like you said, Aldridge is only going to get better, and so is Outlaw it appears. LaMarcus and Travis give us what we used to have at PF... A long athletic big man who got his hands on a lot of loose balls (insert joke here). Zach can score on just about anyone, but that's really all he can do. Travis right now, and LaMarcus in a year or so will be very good shot blockers. They both run the floor well, and are at least willing to play defense.

What I wouldn't mind doing is trading Zach and our pick for a superstar type that's still young. I won't throw out any names either for the sake of argument.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I would probably take less than most, because I factor the defense that is lacking from Zachs play. I also factor what I perceive to be a trying to do it all himself factor, which to me is actually detracting from the teams overall efficiency. Just look at the teams and opponents fg% with him in vs with him out.

So to me if we can increase our defense and our balance on the offensive end that's what I'd like to see. 

As well as Jack has been doing and also the emergence of Sergio, I don't think we need a PG, especially when Roy comes back and can kinda run the point from the 2. A legit 3 is what I think we really need.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



mediocre man said:


> What I wouldn't mind doing is trading Zach and our pick for a superstar type that's still young. I won't throw out any names either for the sake of argument.


Teams don't trade young superstars unless they demand a trade, generally if you want one you have to hope you get lucky through the draft. I could see us shopping Zach for a high lottery pick + filler, but that leaves a lot up to chance.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

No.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Verro said:


> Teams don't trade young superstars unless they demand a trade, generally if you want one you have to hope you get lucky through the draft. I could see us shopping Zach for a high lottery pick + filler, but that leaves a lot up to chance.


Zachs not a superstar.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

If the right trade comes up, then that's one thing, but I would not be shopping Zach at this point. He has only been playing well for a short period of time so his value is not nearly as high as if he plays the rest of the year at a 20/10+ clip. I although don't think that Aldridge or Outlaw will be ready to take on the offensive load needed for quite a while.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Verro said:


> Teams don't trade young superstars unless they demand a trade, generally if you want one you have to hope you get lucky through the draft. I could see us shopping Zach for a high lottery pick + filler, but that leaves a lot up to chance.



Agreed, and that's what I was thinking. Getting a player that has an expiring contract that doesn't really want to re-sign with his current team or something like that.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I would be somewhat concerned about the message of trading Zach sends to the team. 

"Hey, he's our best player and his value is at an all-time high so we're trading him!".

Message: If you are doing really good, don't count on staying in Portland.

However, if we could land both some key players as well as a high pick or two, I'd probably pull the trigger. A key for me would be the high pick(s).

Gramps...


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I think you always listen and keep an open mind. I like Zach and he is the only thing keeping this teem from being winless this season. However, if you could pry away a relatively solid scoring SF prospect (Rashard, Deng, Ammo :biggrin: . . . .) and not take too much dead weight back, then you consider it. I think you would have to get someone that scores at least 17 pts/game by creating their own shot or the offense will really suffer.

My only reasons for considering moving Zach are his defense and his indiscretions. His defense is better, but he really fell asleep a few times last game and gave up some easy scores. I also think his next brush with the law is just a summer away. His passing has improved, but he still is too slow, resulting in getting trapped and turning over the ball.

Would we have any shot at Carter? Zach would look pretty good to a team that has some issues scoring in the post.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



GrandpaBlaze said:


> I would be somewhat concerned about the message of trading Zach sends to the team.
> 
> "Hey, he's our best player and his value is at an all-time high so we're trading him!".
> 
> ...



Or more likely.....

If you have multiple run ins with the police you will not be here any more.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Schilly said:


> Zachs not a superstar.


Never said he was, MM was saying we should trade him for a young superstar. 

I consider young "superstars" to be:

Lebron/Wade/Mello/Yao/Dwight


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Verro said:


> Never said he was, MM was saying we should trade him for a young superstar.
> 
> I consider young "superstars" to be:
> 
> Lebron/Wade/Mello/Yao/Dwight




I actually said superstar type..... I would add

Redd
Lewis 
Bosh


And players like that as well.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



mediocre man said:


> Or more likely.....
> 
> If you have multiple run ins with the police you will not be here any more.


I agree with this. I think the message would be clear. I don't have a good feel for how the rest of the team views Zach. I get the feeling they don't care about the off-the-court stuff. I would like to know if they think the offense would flow better with someone who was less of a focal point for the offense.

If you dump Zach for an expiring contract, I think the team would resent it. But, if you get a solid scorer with a good attitude it probably wouldn't take the team long to adapt.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



GrandpaBlaze said:


> I would be somewhat concerned about the message of trading Zach sends to the team.
> 
> "Hey, he's our best player and his value is at an all-time high so we're trading him!".
> 
> ...


what does it say to them that if they play bad defense they get removed from the game and if he plays bad defense he gets rewarded with more shots? (how many times did he just let a guy drive past him as he's "defending" him? the knee injury excuse made it semi acceptable last year..but thats just being lazy on D).


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



BlazerFan22 said:


> I think the should while his value is still at an all time high and look for a all star type PG or a really good SF. You have a guy in Aldridge in witch I think will be the next Tim Duncan\KG type player. He will be better than ZBo all around.:yay: :worthy: :cheers:


Actively shopping? No way.

Quietly listening? You bet.

How do you sometimes get the very best price for something? Act like you AREN'T selling.

GM: Hey, is Zach on the block?

Blazers: Oh, no way. He is a beast now. Our only post scorer, best rebounder, only guy who demands a double - actually triple teams, team captain. Heck, we would be lost without him. Can't trade him now. .......... What's on your mind?

All last season with the endless calls for Zach to be traded, dumped really, I was against it.

Now, as his trade value increases, it might be worth doing around the trade deadline. If a good deal comes along, I am all for moving Zach.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Nate McVillain said:


> If the right trade comes up, then that's one thing, but I would not be shopping Zach at this point. He has only been playing well for a short period of time so his value is not nearly as high as if he plays the rest of the year at a 20/10+ clip. I although don't think that Aldridge or Outlaw will be ready to take on the offensive load needed for quite a while.


If our offense gets balanced and our defense improves, they wouldn't have to shoulder a huge offensive burden.

:idea:

PBF


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

Would you do Ranolph + cash? for Lewis and filler and Seattle's draft pick this year?


PG Jack, Rodriquez, Dickau
SG Roy, Webster, Dixon, Graham
SF Lewis, Outlaw, Udoka, Miles
PF Aldridge, Magloire
C Przybilla, LeFrentz

Maybe Seattle pick translates to a top pick


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Masbee said:


> Now, as his trade value increases, it might be worth doing around the trade deadline. If a good deal comes along, I am all for moving Zach.


Me too. Zach is playing well for us, and we can certainly continue to build around him (just not run the _entire_ offense _through_ him). Heck, if he keeps playing the way he's been playing so far this season, he could play out his career here in Portland, IMO.

BUT, if some other team approaches us with a deal that actually makes us a better team (i.e., a top-level SF, as others here have indicated), then we'd be silly not to do it.

I don't think we should be actively shopping Zach. He IS our best player, life preserver, captain, veteran, leader, franchise player, etc... But we should be listening - at all times - for any deal that makes us better.

PBF


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Trader Bob said:


> Would you do Ranolph + cash? for Lewis and filler and Seattle's draft pick this year?
> 
> 
> PG Jack, Rodriquez, Dickau
> ...


No. If we're trading Zach we need a young player that could be very good in the future, not a player who is going to opt out and not resign.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Trader Bob said:


> Would you do Ranolph + cash? for Lewis and filler and Seattle's draft pick this year?
> 
> 
> PG Jack, Rodriquez, Dickau
> ...


As a basketball fan, the thought of Wilcox and Randolph in the same lineup makes me shudder.


----------



## UOSean (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I'm sure someone's mentioned this but:

1) the Bulls desperately need a low post scorer.
2) Lamarcus is more of a PF than a C.
3) Prizz just passes for a starting C.
4) Next years draft looks to be busting full of star centers.
5) This team is not ready to make a run in the playoffs yet.
6) ZBO is a bonehead, he will not change.
7) Lamarcus is a far better character to have on this team than Zach and has the drive, potential and talent to surpass him in ability especially considering he's a far superior better defender.

We could trade zach to the bulls for brown's expiring contract, along with Khryapa (they don't seem to be using him) and maybe one of thier SFs Deng/Nocioni. The key to this trade would be the draft pick, we should look at NY's pick.

Next years lineup would look like:

Jack / Rodriguez
Roy / Webster
Deng / Outlaw
Aldridge / Khryapa
DRAFT C / Prizz

This team would be set to rock the league for years. We'd have to do something about Miles and we'd be set.

Whether the Bulls or Blazers would move on this deal is another topic.

Cheers


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

The one trade proposal that's striking me is the one with CHI for Deng, Brown, and maybe the NY pick. However, I'm still confused about whether or not to let go of Zach, especially to a team in the division (SEA). 

Deng is an up-and coming star in the league, and is having a breakout year, Brown's contract will expire next season, and the pick will bolster our chances of hitting a home-run again in the draft. I doubt the Chicago would do that though. I conversed with some Bulls fans on their board, and they mentioned that they would be hard-pressed to give up Deng or the pick.

Man, why couldn't we trade with NY and Isaiah!

*Edited*... Dang, UOSean.. beat me to it.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Blazer Freak said:


> No. If we're trading Zach we need a young player that could be very good in the future, not a player who is going to opt out and not resign.


Exactly. Thats why I would listen to a Deng trade if it had New Yorks first in the deal. Even if the pick ends up 8-14 we still get a damn good player there this year. Zach is great, and is having a great year, and I really like his game, and he can score on anyone, and he COMMANDS a double or triple team, BUT he is signed for huge money for 5 more years. when he is 30 i don't want to be stuck in a Alan Houston situation. 

All that being said, we shouldnt trade him for anything less than two great young prospects, or one and a lottery pick.


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Hap said:


> what does it say to them that if they play bad defense they get removed from the game and if he plays bad defense he gets rewarded with more shots? (how many times did he just let a guy drive past him as he's "defending" him? the knee injury excuse made it semi acceptable last year..but thats just being lazy on D).


So he let the guy drive right by him, and Zach was the only one who did that right? Come on. Sergio, Martell, Travis, L.A., Dixon, I could name a few others that let their guy go right by them. And by far, Martell is the worst defender, and help defender we have. He doesn't know the meaning of help defense. I'm not saying Zach is a good defender, but to make it seem like he was the only one, and how much Zach does on the offense end, doesn't make it right to single out just Zach. It's a team thing. Hap sounds like the Oregonian to be honest


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

zbo for kobi! 

openly shopping someone is a crap way to do business but i would love to ask patterson off the record lips closed if he has been hearing offers for zbo.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



drexlersdad said:


> Exactly. Thats why I would listen to a Deng trade if it had New Yorks first in the deal. Even if the pick ends up 8-14 we still get a damn good player there this year. Zach is great, and is having a great year, and I really like his game, and he can score on anyone, and he COMMANDS a double or triple team, BUT he is signed for huge money for 5 more years. when he is 30 i don't want to be stuck in a Alan Houston situation.
> 
> All that being said, we shouldnt trade him for anything less than two great young prospects, or one and a lottery pick.


When ZBo's contract expires he'll be 30, and I don't know how you would be in a Houston type situation. A 17 million dollar expiring contract could be pretty decent. Zach's knees aren't even 1/4th as bad as Houston's were. 

We aren't getting the NY pick with Deng and Brown, Chicago would never do it. Other than that type of deal I don't see me wanting to trade Zach.

And by the way, the team has said mulitple times they are building aroun ZBo, and with these players we have now around him, I think we can tell they are serious about it.

Zach isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



BlazerFan22 said:


> I think the should while his value is still at an all time high and look for a all star type PG or a really good SF. You have a guy in Aldridge in witch I think will be the next Tim Duncan\KG type player. He will be better than ZBo all around.


Dude! this has already been talked about in these following threads....
*11/25/06: "Would you trade Zack to Bulls?"*: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=319472
*11/25/06: "Poll: Zach Randolph"*: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=319550
*11/13/06: "Is it time to trade Zack now?"*: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=316569
*11/08/06: Z-Bo's Trade Value.."*:http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=315315
Why does Portland wanna trade a player that is doing well now? Is he being booed? Are kids still wanting autographs from him? I think most of us can answer these questions in a positive note on his behalf.
Portland needs this star player to hold the fort down (RG) and keep people buying tickets/season tickets. Its obvious that he is being concistant. Why would we want two mediocre players that are scoring less than 15 ppg each where he is scoring over 25.4 ppg?
Why don't we pick on the players that aren't doing well offensively/defensively?
Martell Webster is in a FUNK right now (0-6 FG in the last game)
Dan Dickau is hardly worth his $$...
I think I made a point......


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Nate Dogg said:


> Dude! this has already been talked about in these following threads....
> *11/25/06: "Would you trade Zack to Bulls?"*: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=319472
> *11/25/06: "Poll: Zach Randolph"*: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=319550
> *11/13/06: "Is it time to trade Zack now?"*: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=316569
> ...


my guess is that after 5 years in the league (or is it 6 now?) he's still not consistent with his defensive effort. He's better, no doubt, but he still plays matador defense when a guy drives against him. (so does the rest of the team tho, but they're not being paid 15 million and our "best" player).



> Is he being booed? Are kids still wanting autographs from him? I think most of us can answer these questions in a positive note on his behalf.


Is he being sued? Is the team still worried that he'll do something incredibly stupid and distract the team and fans from whats happening? I think most of us can answer these questions in a negative note on his behalf.



> Portland needs this star player to hold the fort down (RG) and keep people buying tickets/season tickets.


that guy isn't Zach. He might be the leading scorer, but he's not whats best for this franchise.



> Its obvious that he is being concistant. Why would we want two mediocre players that are scoring less than 15 ppg each where he is scoring over 25.4 ppg?


because 15+15 = 30? and if they're better defensive players, they can make up for the difference. Plus, you open up more time for LaMarcus, who's taller, quicker, more athletic, smarter, and already a better defender than Zach is. 



> Why don't we pick on the players that aren't doing well offensively/defensively?


fans need a scapegoat, but I don't think Zach is the scapegoat here. A scapegoat usually doesn't deserve the blame or the anger thats directed at him. Zach (sorta like Rasheed) was made into something he's not by the team. He's not a superstar, he's not even a star. He's really good scrappy player, who's not someone you build around.



> Martell Webster is in a FUNK right now (0-6 FG in the last game)
> Dan Dickau is hardly worth his $$...
> I think I made a point......


The best point you made was the one about Dickau.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



> fans need a scapegoat, but I don't think Zach is the scapegoat here. A scapegoat usually doesn't deserve the blame or the anger thats directed at him. Zach (sorta like Rasheed) was made into something he's not by the team. He's not a superstar, he's not even a star. He's really good scrappy player, who's not someone you build around.


Zach might not be a "star", but it certainly isn't because of his play, its because of his public image and also the fact that he gets overlooked in a small market that hasn't won much since he's been on top of his game. If he played anywhere else and had a couple less police investigations in his background he would definitely be considered a star. 25 points and 10 rebounds a game while shooting 48% from the field are star #'s no matter how you slice it.

I cringe at the thought of where this years team would be without him. We would probably have a winning percentage of .000


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



> Is he being sued? Is the team still worried that he'll do something incredibly stupid and distract the team and fans from whats happening? I think most of us can answer these questions in a negative note on his behalf. that guy isn't Zach. He might be the leading scorer, but he's not whats best for this franchise.


.
Are people holding up signs and hollering that he should be traded because of his recent off the court antics? I think fans are just excited that hes being aggressive and doing 20+ ppg.


> because 15+15 = 30? and if they're better defensive players, they can make up for the difference. Plus, you open up more time for LaMarcus, who's taller, quicker, more athletic, smarter, and already a better defender than Zach is.


You think the management is willing to risk that when Jared Jack in his second year in the league is really stepping it up? Juan Dixon is at least concistant but LaMarcus is still adjusting in the league.


> He's not a superstar, he's not even a star. He's really good scrappy player, who's not someone you build around.


Well Zack has done a lot better over Outlaw with overall productivity in the last 2 years with the team and its not until Outlaws fourth year that hes in double digits in scoring (espn). And where is Webster in his second year in the NBA at this point? Things are not looking up and his back must be affecting his game shot.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Sheed30 said:


> So he let the guy drive right by him, and Zach was the only one who did that right? Come on. Sergio, Martell, Travis, L.A., Dixon, I could name a few others that let their guy go right by them. And by far, Martell is the worst defender, and help defender we have. He doesn't know the meaning of help defense. I'm not saying Zach is a good defender, but to make it seem like he was the only one, and how much Zach does on the offense end, doesn't make it right to single out just Zach. It's a team thing. Hap sounds like the Oregonian to be honest



Sergio is a rookie, Martell is in his 2nd year and doesn't get as many minutes, and no one tries to claim that the others are the 'best player' on our team.


----------



## sports4life (Nov 19, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I believe in so many ways Zach is having a year he should have had about 3 years ago. His own attitude and work ethics have kept him from maturing in his own personal life and his basketball skills. He is not a team leader but one that would benefit from being with a team with the attitudes this team has. He has made some real stupid decisions in his personal life and none of that has impressed me..........Zach is more important to the Blazers than he is to the rest of the league at this time. He needs to show the league he COULD BE a ALL-Star not tell us. He still does not have the self discipline to work on both ends of the court. This is the year that we will find out if Zach is willing to go to any length to be the player he can be. He is his worst enemy as he seems to always sabotage his reputation with his inability to make smart decisions off the court which distract him on the court.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

While Zach will likely never be the defender that say, KG has been, everyone agrees his defense has improved, even in the face of the defense being so bad across the team. I'm guessing that when health allows guys like Roy and Pryzbilla to be playing meaningful minutes again, things will improve a great deal with Zach. I can easily see him thinking something like, "if no one else is playing defense, why should I?" But a line-up of Jack, Roy, Udoka, Randolph, and Pryzbilla would be relatively sound defensively and decent offensively. And Dixon playing along side Roy is much better defensively, at least in part because he gets to defend the PGs. LMA is a decent defender and _might_ develop into a KG-like defender over the next few years.

So while I'd consider moving Zach if the "right deal" came along, I think this isn't a great time to get an accurate read of either him or this team. Or maybe I'm just in a glass 1/4 full kind of mood, but those amazing comebacks that happened earlier in the year included some decent defense.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



sports4life said:


> I believe in so many ways Zach is having a year he should have had about 3 years ago. His own attitude and work ethics have kept him from maturing in his own personal life and his basketball skills.


Yeah, that and a massive knee injury.

Anyone who questions Zach's work ethic has no clue what a work ethic is.

Do you have any idea how hard he had to work to get to the NBA with as little athleticism as he has? Or to rebound to all star level from an injury that could have easily ended his career?


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Blazer Freak said:


> And by the way, the team has said mulitple times they are building aroun ZBo, and with these players we have now around him, I think we can tell they are serious about it.
> 
> Zach isn't going anywhere.


Yeah, all of this talk about Z-Bo being traded is just a dream for some people.
As much as those who don't want him want him out, the Blazers are not trading Z-Bo anytime soon or at all.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



alext42083 said:


> Yeah, all of this talk about Z-Bo being traded is just a dream for some people.
> As much as those who don't want him want him out, the Blazers are not trading Z-Bo anytime soon or at all.


while it's possible they won't end up trading him, to think that they won't trade him anytime soon or at all, is naive. If they could get out of his contract, and get a player on his level who fits into the teams goals better (he is not a superstar, so we don't need to act like we "have" to get one in return) they'd trade him without flinching. If they were able to garner a high lotto pick (I won't hold my breath) in addition? they'd do it yesterday.

My guess is they want a pick and a player (not unreasonable, considering his is averaging 25-11 and his flaws can be hidden by a team with an older group of players) and are just waiting for teams to crack. To act as tho they aren't trying to trade Zach is denying a simple premise. They didn't promote him at all this summer, and you barely hear much about him other then fluffing him up. And there was a reason why they didn't promote him and aren't promoting him much at all.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

Would you trade Zach for Deng, PJ Brown, and the New York Pick lottery protected next year? I don't think anyone is willing to give up a top 3 pick next year.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



ZBoFanatic said:


> Would you trade Zach for Deng, PJ Brown, and the New York Pick lottery protected next year? I don't think anyone is willing to give up a top 3 pick next year.


I would trade Zach for Deng and PJ...Period. Of course I would want the pick too, but I don't really think we would need it. If you add Deng we have locked up essentially our core at the 1-4 (Jack, Roy, Deng, Aldridge) We also have a very capable 5 in Joel, and 3 backups who are very young and as they develop more will contribute a lot (Sergio, Martel, Travis). 

Our team is in a very very good position and they by no means should be limiting themselves by saying Zach is untoucahble, because there are potential deals that could make Portland better, laterally similar, but better down the road.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



ZBoFanatic said:


> Would you trade Zach for Deng, PJ Brown, and the New York Pick lottery protected next year? I don't think anyone is willing to give up a top 3 pick next year.


I would, without flinching. And chicago *MIGHT* if a few things happen. They might want to win now (to justify spending 15 million on Wallace)...and maybe we swap out our pick with theirs. As in, if our pick is higher, we keep it and they give us theirs (if ours is higher, it means they aren't getting THE big prize). If their picks i higher, we get theirs and we we give them ours. 

Something like that, maybe.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Hap said:


> while it's possible they won't end up trading him, to think that they won't trade him anytime soon or at all, is naive. If they could get out of his contract, and get a player on his level who fits into the teams goals better (he is not a superstar, so we don't need to act like we "have" to get one in return) they'd trade him without flinching. If they were able to garner a high lotto pick (I won't hold my breath) in addition? they'd do it yesterday.
> 
> My guess is they want a pick and a player (not unreasonable, considering his is averaging 25-11 and his flaws can be hidden by a team with an older group of players) and are just waiting for teams to crack. To act as tho they aren't trying to trade Zach is denying a simple premise. They didn't promote him at all this summer, and you barely hear much about him other then fluffing him up. And there was a reason why they didn't promote him and aren't promoting him much at all.


The team probably decided all that promotion stuff over the summer when Z-Bo's situation was unclear with that hotel "incident."
But he's playing the best ball in his career, and you're starting to see more features about Zach during halftime and such.
Heck, go over to Blazers.com and the lead story is the cover of Rip City Magazine which features Zach, entitled, *Zach Randolph: FOCUSED*
He's getting national pub, and just giving up now would be foolish and tell the players the team is giving up again and rebuilding once again. I understand if there was some absurd deal that'd be offered, and you take it, such as some superstar or some high draft pick, but really, the Bulls aren't going to trade the NY pick for Z-Bo.
He's not going anywhere soon unless he does something drastic criminally and the team would be forced to give him up.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Schilly said:


> I would trade Zach for Deng and PJ...Period. Of course I would want the pick too, but I don't really think we would need it. If you add Deng we have locked up essentially our core at the 1-4 (Jack, Roy, Deng, Aldridge) We also have a very capable 5 in Joel, and 3 backups who are very young and as they develop more will contribute a lot (Sergio, Martel, Travis).
> 
> Our team is in a very very good position and they by no means should be limiting themselves by saying Zach is untoucahble, because there are potential deals that could make Portland better, laterally similar, but better down the road.


I know you would! I think it would be a great trade for the bulls and a pretty even trade for the blazers if the pick becomes a 4-6.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Hap said:


> I would, without flinching. And chicago *MIGHT* if a few things happen. They might want to win now (to justify spending 15 million on Wallace)...and maybe we swap out our pick with theirs. As in, if our pick is higher, we keep it and they give us theirs (if ours is higher, it means they aren't getting THE big prize). If their picks i higher, we get theirs and we we give them ours.
> 
> Something like that, maybe.


Well, with all due respect. THat trade picks clause makes the trade weaker for the Blazers because you'll only end up with one pick instead of 2. Furthermore, the Portland pick becomes a lot stronger if you trade Zach.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



alext42083 said:


> The team probably decided all that promotion stuff over the summer when Z-Bo's situation was unclear with that hotel "incident."
> But he's playing the best ball in his career, and you're starting to see more features about Zach during halftime and such.
> Heck, go over to Blazers.com and the lead story is the cover of Rip City Magazine which features Zach, entitled, *Zach Randolph: FOCUSED*


gee, blazers.com has a feature on one of their players? well slap me silly, and call me uncle mo, that must mean they're keeping him.



> He's getting national pub, and just giving up now would be foolish and tell the players the team is giving up again and rebuilding once again.


how is that "giving up" considering Deng ain't that bad, and it's kinda clear they're not expecting zach to be here long term with the drafting of LaMarcus? Oh, I know, he's a "4/5".



> I understand if there was some absurd deal that'd be offered, and you take it, such as some superstar or some high draft pick, but really, the Bulls aren't going to trade the NY pick for Z-Bo.
> He's not going anywhere soon unless he does something drastic criminally and the team would be forced to give him up.


thats what you think, and you have no reason to believe me, but they are trying to trade him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



ZBoFanatic said:


> Well, with all due respect. THat trade picks clause makes the trade weaker for the Blazers because you'll only end up with one pick instead of 2. Furthermore, the Portland pick becomes a lot stronger if you trade Zach.


we don't know if we'd become weaker by trading Zach. Who knows if LaMarcus getting minutes won't pull a Zach. Who knows if the teams defense won't improve because they have a better defensively minded PF? Or that the offense won't improve because they have a SF who you can actually count on being able to score 18-20 ppg? Or that the offense won't flow better because it's just not dump it into Zach and not have any decent scorer besides him (a lot of thats due to Brandon being out)?

And as for the picks, If we want Chicagos pick (via ny) we need to entice them. They're not going to just give away the pick if they don't get one at least in return (barring both of them being in the 8-12 range of course). If they give up the #1 or #2 pick (I doubt they would, but eh..) wouldn't you think they'd WANT our pick? It's only fair.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Hap said:


> we don't know if we'd become weaker by trading Zach. Who knows if LaMarcus getting minutes won't pull a Zach. Who knows if the teams defense won't improve because they have a better defensively minded PF? Or that the offense won't improve because they have a SF who you can actually count on being able to score 18-20 ppg? Or that the offense won't flow better because it's just not dump it into Zach and not have any decent scorer besides him (a lot of thats due to Brandon being out)?
> 
> And as for the picks, If we want Chicagos pick (via ny) we need to entice them. They're not going to just give away the pick if they don't get one at least in return (barring both of them being in the 8-12 range of course). If they give up the #1 or #2 pick (I doubt they would, but eh..) wouldn't you think they'd WANT our pick? It's only fair.


Yes I think they'd want it, but I also think Zach is worth a whole lot more than Deng, but speculatively equal to a lottery protected pick plus Deng. So I think that the Blazers would be too generous to offer the pick also. On the other hand, if the NY pick wasn't lottery protected, then there's a better case.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I think we're on different pages Hap, I said lottery protected from the get go! If it's unprotected, then yes, there has to be a better pick clause or something of that nature like you said.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



ZBoFanatic said:


> Yes I think they'd want it, but I also think Zach is worth a whole lot more than Deng,


Really?

Keep in mind, Deng came out after just a year of college. His first and second years he showed promise, but he's really blossomed into something special this season as a 21-year old. 

18 points, 6 rebounds, a steal and a block per night, all on 7-12 shooting.

That's damn good. 

Zach may be performing at a higher level now, but he also gets more shots. I think Deng will eventually pass Zach as far as player value is concerned.

He's almost worth a swap, straight across... without the pick.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Samuel said:


> Really?
> 
> Keep in mind, Deng came out after just a year of college. His first and second years he showed promise, but he's really blossomed into something special this season as a 21-year old.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more with this. Zach for Deng and PJ Brown is a very even swap.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Samuel said:


> Really?


Yes



Samuel said:


> Keep in mind, Deng came out after just a year of college. His first and second years he showed promise, but he's really blossomed into something special this season as a 21-year old.
> 
> 18 points, 6 rebounds, a steal and a block per night, all on 7-12 shooting.
> 
> ...


That's good, but Zach isn't at his peak yet either and he's doing 25pts 10reb 1 stl while his knee isn't 100% and not much help until Brandon comes back. Deng may end up better, but do you have that much faith in Deng? I'd be hesitant to bank on it. A pick and Deng sounds about right in my OPINION. Both teams would fill needs....Portland (SF and more potentially youth), Chicago (low post scoring presence). Chicago would do it to make a push in the next couple of years and they wouldn't value a lottery protected pick all that much like Portland would. It'd be a great trade IMO.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



ZBoFanatic said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> That's good, but Zach isn't at his peak yet either and he's doing 25pts 10reb 1 stl while his knee isn't 100% and not much help until Brandon comes back. Deng may end up better, but do you have that much faith in Deng? I'd be hesitant to bank on it. A pick and Deng sounds about right in my OPINION. Both teams would fill needs....Portland (SF and more potentially youth), Chicago (low post scoring presence). Chicago would do it to make a push in the next couple of years and they wouldn't value a lottery protected pick all that much like Portland would. It'd be a great trade IMO.


It'd be a great trade for Portland. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

But I don't think Paxson would bite. The 2007 draft class is too potent. They'd be giving up their leading scorer who hasn't reached his peak AND a shot at another stud in the draft.

That's a hefty price.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

Humbug.

The future of this team is neither Zach nor Roy.....it is LaMarcus. I have already gone on record (out on a limb?) that I believe LaMarcus is going to be something special.

LaMarcus' greatest value is at center, not PF.

Ergo the first and foremost question is: do Zach and LaMarcus mesh well together.

When and IF experience shows that the 2 do not compliment each other, THEN you move Zach. The same goes for Roy, JJ, and everyone else.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Schilly said:


> I would trade Zach for Deng and PJ...Period. Of course I would want the pick too, but I don't really think we would need it. If you add Deng we have locked up essentially our core at the 1-4 (Jack, Roy, Deng, Aldridge) We also have a very capable 5 in Joel, and 3 backups who are very young and as they develop more will contribute a lot (Sergio, Martel, Travis).
> 
> Our team is in a very very good position and they by no means should be limiting themselves by saying Zach is untoucahble, because there are potential deals that could make Portland better, laterally similar, but better down the road.


Zach for Deng/Brown would be sweet... for all the rasons everyone has mentioned. A contract liek Browns is needed to make the deal work since both teams are over the cap. Zach's $12 mil requires a return of $9.5 mil in contracts. Browns expiring $8 mil + Dengs $2.6 mil fit that mold..... others do too... Randolph + Gordan + Hinrich.... money wise

I think I would do it for Deng and the pick if it would go CBA wise but it does not.... having 2x top picks is very intriguiing

We could do a Brown + Deng + the rights to take the best pick of NY/CHI and Portland  leaving Chicago with the worst of the 2 picks


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Oldmangrouch said:


> Ergo the first and foremost question is: do Zach and LaMarcus mesh well together.


IMHO, Zach doesn't mesh well with any front court player unless the other player is simply a complimentary player on offense and a great help defender on defense eg...Joel Przybilla, Ben Wallace type players.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

How about to make things interesting...2 options from Chicago

Deng and Brown
or
Nocioni, Brown and their Pick (NY Swap rights).

Hmmmm....


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

I don't get the logic here- we're finally sniffing the road back to respectability and everyone seems to want to trade our potential all-star for prospects? Thus making this team even younger? Not to mention taking away our post scorer.

Personally, I'd move in the other direction. We could use another veteran. I'm in the minority, but I'd trade next years pick and a salary if I could get a top 20 player back (so long as he wasn't a power forward).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Anonymous Gambler said:


> I don't get the logic here- we're finally sniffing the road back to respectability and everyone seems to want to trade our potential all-star for prospects? Thus making this team even younger? Not to mention taking away our post scorer.
> 
> Personally, I'd move in the other direction. We could use another veteran. I'm in the minority, but I'd trade next years pick and a salary if I could get a top 20 player back (so long as he wasn't a power forward).


I think you've got a valid point. My contention on that angle is this. We have lot's of young prospects, but they are still that...Prospects. Yes they are looking very solid and look like they are going to develop, but at this point it's too early to make that decision quite yet. 

To Add to it we need to look at feasability. The contracts we have that would be large enough to garner a top 20ish player are, Jamaal, Raef, Darius and Zach. Would another team trade a top 20 player for 

Jamaal and a pick. Jamaal could very well walk leaving just the pick which with portland adding a top 20 player is likely no higher than 10, and could be out of the lottery alltogether.

Raef, at this point a bench filler with a long big contract...Factor the improvement of Portland here too.

Darius, Microfracture enough said.

That leaves Zach.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

PORTLAND (AP) -- Portland Trailblazers forward Zach Randolph broke his left ankle at practice Thursday and was taken by ambulance to a hospital.

Randolph was playing defense when he landed on the foot of Martell Webster.

"I saw players just running around and screaming," Portland coach Nate McMillan said. "It was something bad. I've never seen anything like it in my life."

Randolph has averaged 22.1 points and 10.4 rebounds in what has been considered a career year for the young forward.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*

Just for some info top 20 players in efficiency

1 Kevin Garnett , MIN
2 Dirk Nowitzki , DAL
3 Carlos Boozer , UTA
4 Dwyane Wade , MIA
5 Ming Yao , HOU
6 LeBron James , CLE
7 Carmelo Anthony , DEN
8 Tim Duncan , SAS
9 Paul Pierce , BOS
10 Zach Randolph , POR
11 Dwight Howard , ORL
12 Michael Redd , MIL
13 Allen Iverson , PHI
14 Chris Bosh , TOR
15 Joe Johnson , ATL
16 Steve Nash , PHX
17 Emeka Okafor , CHA
18 Vince Carter , NJN
19 Shawn Marion , PHX
20 Jermaine O'Neal , IND 

I really only see 2 players on that list that could be had withou adding Zach randolph to the mix. Allen Iverson and Paul Pierce. Both would likely require our Pick, Jamaal and probably Roy. If you match either of those 2 with our current roster minus Roy we make the playoffs and our pick has little value, that's why they need Roy to make it work.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Hap said:


> gee, blazers.com has a feature on one of their players? well slap me silly, and call me uncle mo, that must mean they're keeping him.



Well I was just responding to what you said about the Blazers not promoting him, which you said meant they were going to trade him.
I was just showing an example of how they were in fact promoting him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Samuel said:


> PORTLAND (AP) -- Portland Trailblazers forward Zach Randolph broke his left ankle at practice Thursday and was taken by ambulance to a hospital.
> 
> Randolph was playing defense when he landed on the foot of Martell Webster.
> 
> ...


crap, parallel universe zach's #'s are worse than ours! take that slider zach!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



alext42083 said:


> Hap said:
> 
> 
> > gee, blazers.com has a feature on one of their players? well slap me silly, and call me uncle mo, that must mean they're keeping him.
> ...


----------



## UOSean (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Anonymous Gambler said:


> I don't get the logic here- we're finally sniffing the road back to respectability and everyone seems to want to trade our potential all-star for prospects? Thus making this team even younger? Not to mention taking away our post scorer.
> 
> Personally, I'd move in the other direction. We could use another veteran. I'm in the minority, but I'd trade next years pick and a salary if I could get a top 20 player back (so long as he wasn't a power forward).


Here's the deal, we shouldn't want just to "sniff the road to respectability" or want just the respectability. We should want a team that could go DEEP into the playoffs year after year making runs at the championship consistently.

I know this is a cliche but: DEFENSE wins championships. We all know it but we worship the scorers more than the tough defenders. Check it, 
Jack: Good D, 
Roy: Good D, 
Outlaw/Deng: Good D, 
RANDOLPH: Poor D, 
Aldridge: good D, 
Prizz/ODEN/Noah: good D. 

We could potentially have a solid 5-7 man rotation that plays tough D. Think about that.

Cheers


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Anonymous Gambler said:


> Personally, I'd move in the other direction. We could use another veteran. I'm in the minority, but I'd trade next years pick and a salary if I could get a top 20 player back (so long as he wasn't a power forward).


I agree with you that this team needs a few veterans at the right positions, but I don't think we're ready for that type of infusion. Veterans mean more money, and probably a year at the end of the contract where they aren't worth what they make.

If Outlaw and Martell and Aldridge are still a year or two away from being productive players (as well as Sergio), might as well get one more plum picking from the draft.

I think next year would be a better time to upgrade with a vet.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Samuel said:


> PORTLAND (AP) -- Portland Trailblazers forward Zach Randolph broke his left ankle at practice Thursday and was taken by ambulance to a hospital.
> 
> Randolph was playing defense when he landed on the foot of Martell Webster.
> 
> ...


This can't be true, it implies Zach was playing defense.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



UOSean said:


> Here's the deal, we shouldn't want just to "sniff the road to respectability" or want just the respectability. We should want a team that could go DEEP into the playoffs year after year making runs at the championship consistently.
> 
> I know this is a cliche but: DEFENSE wins championships. We all know it but we worship the scorers more than the tough defenders. Check it,
> Jack: Good D,
> ...


I don't know if you are talking about the present or the future. In the future, I think all those young guys listed have the potential to be good defensive players. The only guys on our team now that I'd call good defenders though are Joel, Roy and Ime. Since we are building a team for the future though, I think your point still stands.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



UOSean said:


> Here's the deal, we shouldn't want just to "sniff the road to respectability" or want just the respectability. We should want a team that could go DEEP into the playoffs year after year making runs at the championship consistently.
> 
> I know this is a cliche but: DEFENSE wins championships. We all know it but we worship the scorers more than the tough defenders. Check it,
> Jack: Good D,
> ...


Sports cliche. Some truth to it, but it's not truth.

Shaq no longer plays D.
Wade is not a great defender.

Champions.

Yes, the Pistons and Spurs are very good defensive teams. But, just as important, they can score on you too. Pistons and Spurs have been in the hunt because they were AC/DC. They go both ways. Well rounded. Sound. Fundamental.

And you can get to the Conference Finals and play ZERO defense whatsoever (Phoenix, Dallas 03).

The reverse (ZERO offense, great defense) is not true.

Filter all this through the recent rule changes to make defense harder, filter again through the hyped players the NBA is pushing - LeBron, Wade, etc, filter again through the trend of run-and-gun systems becoming more popular, and assuming the "truth" (if it ever was) of last decade, will be repeated in the future, seems an overly limiting constraint.

I have always thought that good team defense can easily hide one bad defender or two a little less than bad. What you need is good TEAM defense, which is not exactly the same as a team filled with good defenders. Depends on the system and how the players compliment each other.

By the way, Jack and Outlaw are not good defenders.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Should the Blazers be shoping randolph?*



Samuel said:


> PORTLAND (AP) -- Portland Trailblazers forward Zach Randolph broke his left ankle at practice Thursday and was taken by ambulance to a hospital.
> 
> Randolph was playing defense when he landed on the foot of Martell Webster.
> 
> ...


I briefly saw the headline "76er's Randolph breaks ankle in practice" and my brain only processed the words "Randolph, breaks, ankle," and I nearly spit my cheerios onto my monitor.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

LA might suck..in the last few games, he's looked like a Keith Van Horn with no jump shot.


----------

