# How would Randolph look in purple and black



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Think of it, Zach Randolph would be great with SACtown, he dominates offensively around the rim, he hits the mid-range jumper, has a passion for the game, bring the guy to Sacramento!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

TheBigDonut said:


> Think of it, Zach Randolph would be great with SACtown, he dominates offensively around the rim, he hits the mid-range jumper, has a passion for the game, bring the guy to Sacramento!


who do you suggest the Kings trade FOR Randolph?

he has a fairly hefty contract (albeit, byc for a while..but the kings aren't sniffing the cap anytime soon) and I really doubt there's anyone that the Blazers would want (that the Kings would give).


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

bad contract, bad attitude, not a character guy, plays no D, not much of an upgrade over SAR

actually considering contracts, hes not an upgrade over SAR


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dodigago said:


> bad contract, bad attitude, not a character guy, plays no D, not much of an upgrade over SAR
> 
> actually considering contracts, hes not an upgrade over SAR


Thats funny, because he and SAR used to play together and he played over SAR. Strange isnt it?


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Thats funny, because he and SAR used to play together and he played over SAR. Strange isnt it?


with SAR we get more bang for our buck, Randolph has franchise player salary and the only place he can lead a franchise is to the lottery

hes a bad character guy, plays no D, 


id rather pay $5 mill for SAR's 16-8 then $14 mill for Randolph's crappy attitude and his 19-9


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dodigago said:


> with SAR we get more bang for our buck, Randolph has franchise player salary and the only place he can lead a franchise is to the lottery
> 
> hes a bad character guy, plays no D,
> 
> ...



Not arguing over the salaries. Its obvious which player is the better deal. SAR plays weak D as well though, not sure why your forgeting that.


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Not arguing over the salaries. Its obvious which player is the better deal. SAR plays weak D as well though, not sure why your forgeting that.


im just saying that we would be better of with SAR becaue we would have to match salaries and he is a very minimal upgrade and Id rather have Reef anyways, Randolph's attitude is horrible and so is salary

he is also one of the worst passers even for big man standards


so Randolph would look DISGUSTING in purple and black


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Randolph is about as athletic as Vlade. The last thing Sac is looking for is another unathletic player. Right now sacramento doesn't have many players who play "above" the rim


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

we need to move K9 and give SKinner more PT backing up the 4 and the 5


----------



## devi (Nov 15, 2005)

TheBigDonut said:


> Think of it, Zach Randolph would be great with SACtown, he dominates offensively around the rim, he hits the mid-range jumper, has a passion for the game, bring the guy to Sacramento!


Dear...god...NO!!!!!!!
The only passion that guy has is for himself. 
Bring him to Sacramento and watch the rest of your season go down the drain.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Dodigago said:


> with SAR we get more bang for our buck, Randolph has franchise player salary and the only place he can lead a franchise is to the lottery
> 
> hes a bad character guy, plays no D,
> 
> ...


actually, zachs "attitude" is more media creation, than reality. Is he a great attitude player? nope, but most of the players in the NBA aren't, it's just they have better "pr" guys.

as for the only place Zach can lead a team to is the lottery, where exactly has Shareef lead teams to? If you're going to make such a (wrong) blanket statement about Zach, a response about Shareef is to be expected.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Hap said:


> actually, zachs "attitude" is more media creation, than reality. Is he a great attitude player? nope, but most of the players in the NBA aren't, it's just they have better "pr" guys.
> 
> as for the only place Zach can lead a team to is the lottery, where exactly has Shareef lead teams to? If you're going to make such a (wrong) blanket statement about Zach, a response about Shareef is to be expected.


How much money does Shareef make as opposed to Randolph? Hint: One more than doubles the other.

As for attitude...he wants his shots, plain and simple. If you get him his shots he won't be a problem, which isn't always a bad thing. He is a good scorer on most nights. I remember him complaining about not getting the ball enough, to which Van Exel responded something like...what the heck is he thinking, we go to him every time. He was also thrown out of a practice in late October for mouthing off to Nate. Granted, Nate is hard on him for not doing enough working out in the offseason and for coming in poorly conditioned. While not huge, those kinds of things do affect team chemistry.


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> actually, zachs "attitude" is more media creation, than reality. Is he a great attitude player? nope, but most of the players in the NBA aren't, it's just they have better "pr" guys.
> 
> as for the only place Zach can lead a team to is the lottery, where exactly has Shareef lead teams to? If you're going to make such a (wrong) blanket statement about Zach, a response about Shareef is to be expected.


again I stated that SAR is NOT better than Randolph

but

SAR makes role player $ while Randolph makes franchise player $ and there diffrence @ the court isnt that big

yea, the media must of created his attitude, him punching his teamate in the face, being involved in a shooting, flaming teamates, not showing up for practice..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> How much money does Shareef make as opposed to Randolph? Hint: One more than doubles the other.


I don't disagree with that, he is overpaid.



> As for attitude...he wants his shots, plain and simple. If you get him his shots he won't be a problem, which isn't always a bad thing. He is a good scorer on most nights. I remember him complaining about not getting the ball enough, to which Van Exel responded something like...what the heck is he thinking, we go to him every time. He was also thrown out of a practice in late October for mouthing off to Nate. Granted, Nate is hard on him for not doing enough working out in the offseason and for coming in poorly conditioned. While not huge, those kinds of things do affect team chemistry.


a lot of players get throw out of practice, and mouth off to coaches. If we were to go by a person whining about his contract, whining about his shots and being late to (and all together SKIPPING) practices as signs of a bad player, Clyde Drexler fits the bill.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Dodigago said:


> again I stated that SAR is NOT better than Randolph
> 
> but
> 
> SAR makes role player $ while Randolph makes franchise player $ and there diffrence @ the court isnt that big


agree'd. didn't say different.



> yea, the media must of created his attitude, him punching his teamate in the face, being involved in a shooting, flaming teamates, not showing up for practice..


do you know why he punched his teammate in the face? After a teammate of his harrassed one of his friends (qyntel) to the point where Zach (and other teammates) got tired of it. 

btw, do you know that jordan punched a teammate in the face (several times)? that KG does it often? And Kobe has done it too?

Now showing up for practices? care to provide a link?

how was he "involved" in a shooting? because the guy who shot the gun was his brother? 

Zach ain't a saint, but it's not like Shareef is exactly leading you guys anywhere great right now.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Hap said:


> a lot of players get throw out of practice, and mouth off to coaches. If we were to go by a person whining about his contract, whining about his shots and being late to practices as signs of a bad player, Clyde Drexler fits the bill.


And that is why I mentioned that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Zach wants more shots. Shaq wants more shots too, and he should get them. The reason Zach got out of shape was due to his injury. But when he didn't put in the work over the offseason, according to Nate, to be ready for the season...that's bigger than just being late to practice. Questionable work ethic and therefore not leading by example when you are supposed to be the team go-to-guy are issues that have to be talked about when thinking of taking on a player, and I just don't think Sacramento needs that right now.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> And that is why I mentioned that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Zach wants more shots. Shaq wants more shots too, and he should get them. The reason Zach got out of shape was due to his injury. But when he didn't put in the work over the offseason, according to Nate, to be ready for the season...that's bigger than just being late to practice.



actually, that was another thing blown out of porportion. What Nate said was that he wasn't in game shape, and he was dissapointed. But considering he couldn't actually PLAY any form of basketball till September, how exactly was he supposed to get "game shape"?



> Questionable work ethic and therefore not leading by example when you are supposed to be the team go-to-guy are issues that have to be talked about when thinking of taking on a player, and I just don't think Sacramento needs that right now.


no one who actually knows anything about zach questions his work ethic. The guy came back earlier than most expected from the surgery. If Amare comes back from (the same) surgery in under 6 months, will people question his work ethic? The fact that every year he's been in Portland, he's come into training camp IN shape (and each year he is in better shape than the year before)..and he spent all summer re-habbing...

where's any proof that he has a "questionable work ethic"?

Also, you guys already have a player who doesn't lead by example, Bonzi Wells. IF (for whatever reason) the Kings did want Zach, Bonzi is a player you'd want to keep as far away from him as possible.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Hap said:


> who do you suggest the Kings trade FOR Randolph?
> 
> he has a fairly hefty contract (albeit, byc for a while..but the kings aren't sniffing the cap anytime soon) and I really doubt there's anyone that the Blazers would want (that the Kings would give).


Well Portland's management is looking to deal their starting front line (Miles, Randolph, Ratliff). I say offer up Kenny Thomas and Ronnie Price, keep SKinner they need him to trade for Earl Watson


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

okay lets not let this turn into the Zach Randolph thread


I don't think any kings fans would want Zach Randolph if that is what this thread was about..


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Hap said:


> actually, that was another thing blown out of porportion. What Nate said was that he wasn't in game shape, and he was dissapointed. But considering he couldn't actually PLAY any form of basketball till September, how exactly was he supposed to get "game shape"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, Sacramento is not "my team", so I won't comment on Bonzi. I thought that was a bad trade. He was fined by the team for not working on his conditioning while rehabbing his knee. Now, if he couldn't work on conditioning because he was rehabbing his knee, then the Portland organization would be very stupid to have fined him. So naturally NBA fans assume that the Portland organization knows more about it than we do.

I like Zach as a player, so don't think I'm trying to rag on him. And maybe it's from being young, but there are character issues that have been there that cannot be denied.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

TheBigDonut said:


> Well Portland's management is looking to deal their starting front line (Miles, Randolph, Ratliff). I say offer up Kenny Thomas and Ronnie Price, keep SKinner they need him to trade for Earl Watson



actually, they're not looking to deal the starting front line, fans (and some media) are throwing out rumors because thats what they do.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

But He Gives Sac The Low-post Guy They Lost With Webber


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> Well, Sacramento is not "my team", so I won't comment on Bonzi. I thought that was a bad trade. He was fined by the team for not working on his conditioning while rehabbing his knee.


I think it was more of a "i'm the boss" sorta fine. And considering he's played major minutes in every game, and they haven't even activated a guy who COULD play backup PF..they must not be too dissapointed in his "conditioning".



> Now, if he couldn't work on conditioning because he was rehabbing his knee, then the Portland organization would be very stupid to have fined him. So naturally NBA fans assume that the Portland organization knows more about it than we do.
> 
> I like Zach as a player, so don't think I'm trying to rag on him. And maybe it's from being young, but there are character issues that have been there that cannot be denied.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Hap said:


> I think it was more of a "i'm the boss" sorta fine. And considering he's played major minutes in every game, and they haven't even activated a guy who COULD play backup PF..they must not be too dissapointed in his "conditioning".


We'll see. Playing time is not an indicator of the kind of conditioning Nate wants. He could be conditioned to play, but not to play as well as he could. He is about conditioning and timing. If you don't have enough conditioning, you can't have the timing needed to play at the highest level. I don't pay enough attention to know for sure, but I'll change my opinion if Zach wins the hearts of his coaching staff throughout the season.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Hap said:


> actually, they're not looking to deal the starting front line, fans (and some media) are throwing out rumors because thats what they do.


Really...OK let's look at the scoreboard - Miles ran MCheeks out of town, therefore f*cking his team over. Randolph wants a trade because he feels management has no confidence in him with Martell Webster and Sebastian Telfair selections (crazy i know). Ratliff has a huge contract, and it is tough to rebuild with a bad contract chewing up money, he could go to the Knicks.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

TheBigDonut said:


> But He Gives Sac The Low-post Guy They Lost With Webber


Webber is hardly a "low post" guy.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

R-Star said:


> SAR plays weak D as well though, not sure why your forgeting that.


Randolph may make the all-piss-poor-defensive team. 

He's awful.

Reef compared to Zach defensively is like comparing Duncan and Dirk.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

TheBigDonut said:


> Really...OK let's look at the scoreboard - Miles ran MCheeks out of town, therefore f*cking his team over. Randolph wants a trade because he feels management has no confidence in him with Martell Webster and Sebastian Telfair selections (crazy i know). Ratliff has a huge contract, and it is tough to rebuild with a bad contract chewing up money, he could go to the Knicks.


Cheeks is a terrible coach. I, along with most Blazer fans am happy he is gone. Miles had little to do with it. Randolph has not asked for a trade to my knowledge, don't know where you got that (perhaps you are thinking of Patterson?). Ratliff could be dumped if they decide to do so, however just dumping him wouldn't get us under the cap so really is irrelevant. Was a bad signing though, no doubt.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

TheBigDonut said:


> Really...OK let's look at the scoreboard - Miles ran MCheeks out of town, therefore f*cking his team over. Randolph wants a trade because he feels management has no confidence in him with Martell Webster and Sebastian Telfair selections (crazy i know). Ratliff has a huge contract, and it is tough to rebuild with a bad contract chewing up money, he could go to the Knicks.


so far I think telfairs selection has proven to be a good one. Unknown about Websters..

but Maurice Cheeks ran Maurice Cheeks out of town.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Ther good selections, just Zach don't seem to like it. Wants to be the main man


----------

