# This is why we traded ZBO



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nb...lt=AnGaZWTJb0LVglVB.dGDqU2kvLYF?urn=nba,56742

no
defence
period

look at how many guards are on that list. Click western conference and u will see steve blake's name :lol:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

The reasons we traded Zach Randolph had little if anything to do with his play on the court. I would even go so far as to say that Channing Frye is an equal if not worse man on man defender as Zach.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Still doesn't make sense that we got so little for him.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

How does it not make sense? The league knows this guys value. He is a MAX paid player with a terrible BBall IQ, no sence of team play and absolutley zero leadership skills. We honestly could not have gotten more for him. Look at him right now. He is a absolute trainwreck on a sinking team. I think his value right now is completley negative. Stats are not the whole picture, and GM's other than Isah Thomas know that.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Omg 25 Pts Per Game Best Player Wow The Blazers Are Dumb


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

NathanLane said:


> Still doesn't make sense that we got so little for him.


James Jones and Rudy F. 

Rudy will be better than Zach Randolph in the long run. Rudy is a top ten pick that slipped to us because of the buy out issue.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

c_note said:


> Omg 25 Pts Per Game Best Player Wow The Blazers Are Dumb



Zbo was never anywhere near 25 a game player. Who is dumb now?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Something isn't worth what the seller thinks it's worth.It's worth what the buyer thinks it's worth.There simply was not a market for Zach Randolph or else POrtland would have been able to get more for him.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Diable said:


> Something isn't worth what the seller thinks it's worth.It's worth what the buyer thinks it's worth.There simply was not a market for Zach Randolph or else POrtland would have been able to get more for him.


#1. nobody is arguing that Zach is a better fit for our team than Aldridge or Oden. 

#2. nobody is even arguing that we didn't get the best deal available *at the time* for Randolph. we got what the market would tolerate. 

many people, including me, argue that we decided to sell at a very bad time. 

I see lots of people on this board making straw man arguments against #1 and #2. they are very easy arguments to make. but they are basically arguments where there is no opposition. utterly pointless. 

if you want to actually convince people like me that the Randolph trade was a good one, try arguing that we couldn't get more for Zach if we decided to trade him *today *instead of last summer. 

I have yet to see a convincing argument for that. but I'd definitely be interested in reading it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Did anyone find out why Zach only played 14 minutes?


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

i think we got a good deal out of it...jones, fernadez, and capspace!


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Diable said:


> Something isn't worth what the seller thinks it's worth.It's worth what the buyer thinks it's worth.There simply was not a market for Zach Randolph or else POrtland would have been able to get more for him.


You ignore the possibility that the buyer was untalented at arranging a better deal. John Nash waited out the pressure from Blazer fans to trade Sheed. Finally, the midseason trade deadline forced some desperate team to improve their offer. It was Atlanta who yielded to Nash and coughed up Shareef Abdul-Rahim and Theo Ratliff. Pritchard should have been as strong in resisting hometown pressure until a better offer appeared.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> #1. nobody is arguing that Zach is a better fit for our team than Aldridge or Oden.
> 
> #2. nobody is even arguing that we didn't get the best deal available *at the time* for Randolph. we got what the market would tolerate.
> 
> many people, including me, argue that we decided to sell at a very bad time.


KP has said several times that management decided to sell when they'd had enough of his bleep and thats *the* reason he was dealt. He has stated that Zach had demonstrated additional severe errors in judgement to the many us mere fans already know about. He has stated he couldn't trust him. I'd guess that there had been many face to face discussions/ultimatums before management came to the conclusion they needed to turn the page on one of their better players.

Like any tradable commodity, of course a player's value fluctuates as time goes along, but thats an irrelevant argument to make. Zach was essentially shown the door like a fired employee. Reportedly KP informed Zach more then a week before he was dealt that he would be moved. 

More then the moment being wrong to receive optimal value back for ZR, it was that the team openly offered him up to the highest bidder alla ebay. Taking this sort of bargaining position is not a good way to extract the max value from any asset, yet they did get get value... especially down the line value. From that perspective, they did very well. 

We'll be in much better position to judge exactly how well (or poorly) they did next year when Rudy arrives. KP called him a "tremendous prospect" and spoke to the potencial of him starting next season with Brandon when the deal was made, which makes it seem (to me) like he's probably the main component of the move. That cap space could be a key asset as well. But again, I think you're making a straw man argument and not addressing the reason he was dealt... in the judgement of those who are paid to make these sorts of calls, dude had burnt bridges and had to go.

STOMP


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

why draft day? made no sense, it just made the knicks look like bandits on national TV. Don't see the rush as I don't see that trade going away anytime since Frye was worthless to them and they've been trying to get rid of Francis anyways and his bad contract. 

I still think we could have acquired Rudy Fernandez in other ways outside of the Zach trade. He required a buy-out and a year lag before he came. We are one of the few teams that can afford to do both.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Hap said:


> Did anyone find out why Zach only played 14 minutes?


http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix1210,0,961491.story



> Randolph fully expected to check back in. He never did. The seventh-year pro was glued to the bench for the rest of the second half, watching the calamity from the sideline.
> 
> "I wanted to play," Randolph said after practice at the MSG Training Center Sunday. "I want to be out there every minute. I want to play. Whatever I can do to go out and help the team. I don't like sitting on the bench."
> 
> ...


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

I thought he has a bad attitude and is lazy? Could it be that we were wrong?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> KP has said several times that management decided to sell when they'd had enough of his bleep and thats *the* reason he was dealt. He has stated that Zach had demonstrated additional severe errors in judgement to the many us mere fans already know about. He has stated he couldn't trust him. I'd guess that there had been many face to face discussions/ultimatums before management came to the conclusion they needed to turn the page on one of their better players.
> 
> Like any tradable commodity, of course a player's value fluctuates as time goes along, but thats an irrelevant argument to make. Zach was essentially shown the door like a fired employee. Reportedly KP informed Zach more then a week before he was dealt that he would be moved.
> 
> ...


well, I guess I just disagree with the idea that an $80 million power forward who averages his kind of statistics should be "shown the door like a fired employee." that's a luxury a good GM just doesn't have. he's just too rare and valuable of a commodity. 

had the organization just waited three months it wouldn't have killed them. it wouldn't have made much difference in the long-term development of Aldridge, Roy or Oden. the odds that Randolph would do something so mind-numbingly stupid that his value would've completely vanished weren't that great. 

the way you portray it, management made the decision based on their own personal frustration with very little regard to what Randolph could be worth a few months down the road. I don't see how anyone can view that as a smart business decision. I didn't address this argument because I find it pathetic and weak-willed, and I'd like to think our management is smarter and stronger than that.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Hector said:


> I thought he has a bad attitude and is lazy? Could it be that we were wrong?


Yes. 

Zach always wants to win and is a competitive person. He was usually very humble in his interviews and wanted to work hard. He worked his butt off after his microfracture surgery and I think many fans overlooked that. 

Off the court it might be he makes some bad decisions, in the eyes of some. But on the court, I have no problem with his attitude.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Then why would the local newspaper lead us astray? Everything I read says he's a bad guy. He's always getting his posse to do horrible things, like get a speeding ticket once every few years in his car, while he sneakily stays at home watching TV, pretending he doesn't know what's going on.


----------



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

mook said:


> if you want to actually convince people like me that the Randolph trade was a good one, try arguing that we couldn't get more for Zach if we decided to trade him *today *instead of last summer.
> 
> I have yet to see a convincing argument for that. but I'd definitely be interested in reading it.


Last June: Zach had just come off his best season ever, by a considerable margin. He averaged 23.6 PPG (career high), 10.1 RPG, EFF = 22.4 (career high) and PER = 22.8 (career high). He came into camp in the best shape of his life, proved he had fully recovered from his microfracture surgery, helped lead a very young, inexperienced team to more victories than the previous year, and carried the team when Brandon Roy was out with his heal injury. His on court performance, and therefore, his trade value, was at an all-time high.

Today: He's having his worse season since he became a starter. His scoring average is down to 16.6 PPG. That's a full 7 points lower than it was last season and the lowest since 2002-03 when he was a second year player coming of the bench. His rebounding is also down (9.9 RPG) as his efficiency (15.45) and his PER of 15.52 is a career low. He is having, by a wide margin, the worst season he's had as a starter. He's had some really awful games lately, including his 2 point, 2 rebound effort Saturday in a 28-point blow out loss at home to the 76ers and his 4 point (on 1-10 shooting), 3 rebound line in the 45-point blow out loss to Boston last week. I didn't think it was possible, but the Knicks are actually worse this year than last. Their record is identical so far, but they are getting constantly blown out - even by bad teams. They aren't even competitive in most games. It wouldn't be fair (or accurate) to blame Zach for all of the Knicks problems, but the ONLY significant change is Zach in their starting line-up in place of Channing Frye. Same other starters, same key reserves, same coach, yet they are worse on the court this year than last year. And, it's not like he's surrounded by a bunch of young, inexperienced players like he was in Portland. He's part of a starting line-up that averages over 7 years of NBA experience. So, instead of leading a young, inexperienced team to an improved performance, he's a key part of a veteran team that has gotten worse since his addition.

So, you think the 16.6 PPG, 9.9 RPG, EFF = 15.45, PER = 15.52 Zach Randolph has more trade value than the Zach of last June that just came off a 23.6 PPG, 10.1 RPH, EFF = 22.8, PER = 22.8 season - the best season of his career?

Of course, there's no way to know what Zach's numbers would be right now playing on the Blazers, but that's sort of the point. We had no idea Oden would be injured when we made the trade, either. Even if we would have kept Zach, his role (and therefore his stats) would have been down with the emergence of LaMarcus Aldridge. And don't say the Blazers did fine with Zach starting next to LaMarcus last season. I already proved that wasn't true (4-13 record = 0.236 won-loss percentage) in another post. Playing next to Eddie Curry in NY, it's obvious he has trouble playing next to a center who does most of his scoring in the low post. He would have been a poor fit next to Oden. With or without Oden, his role, his stats and his trade value would have all decreased.

Finally, draft day is THE day to make a trade. Look it up, over the last five years there have been FAR more trades made on draft day than at the trading deadline (or any other time of the year). There are simply more able and willing trade partners on draft day than any other time of the year. So, you're going to get more offers to choose from than at any other time of the year. Teams are actively seeking ways to improve their rosters, either through the draft, or by trading their draft picks for proven players, or by trading their players to move up in the draft. It is also right before free agency kicks in, which means decisions are being made about going after available free agents (and dumping salary to do so), re-signing their own free agents, possible sign-and-trade deals etc. In short, it's the one time of the year when there are the most potential trades and most potential trading partners available. In spite of all the trade "rumors" and trade "proposals" floated on message boards, very few NBA trades happen at the trade deadline, and fewer still at any other time during the regular season. You're much more likely to get multiple trade offers in June than in December. More offers = better offers to choose from.

But, what's done is done. Yes, some people thought the trade was bad at the time, but you still can't undo it, and you can't prove we could have gotten more for Zach of we'd waited. I mean seriously, he'd just come off the best season of his career, how much higher could his trade value get than that? If the goal was to sell high, that sure seems like the ideal time to me. The fact that what we got from the Knicks was the best offer available at the time tells me just how low Zach was valued by other teams around the league (and that was when he was a 23.6/10.1 guy). Why would they suddenly find him more valuable today? Certainly not his his performance so far this season.

As others have said repeatedly, we won't know the true outcome of this trade for a couple more years. As it stands, we haven't gotten any worse (one game better, actually) than at this time last year and the Knicks haven't gotten any better (same record, but getting blown out big time). So, in terms of actual results, the trade seems like a wash to me - and we just recently started to get contributions from James Jones (who we would not have gotten without the trade exception from the Knicks) and have yet to see Rudy in a Blazer uniform - and then there's that potential cap space in the summer of '09. Yeah, we could have used Zach's rebounding, but his scoring has been replaced and we still have a LOT of upside (Rudy, potential cap space) to look forward to as a result of this trade.

BNM


----------



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

mook said:


> well, I guess I just disagree with the idea that an $80 million power forward who averages his kind of statistics should be "shown the door like a fired employee." that's a luxury a good GM just doesn't have. he's just too rare and valuable of a commodity.


If he was such a valuable commodity, why didn't we get any better offers than what we got from the Knicks? Could it be that every other team in the league thought he was worth even less? If they thought he was worth more, why didn't they come forward with a better offer? If he was such a hot commodity why weren't the other 28 teams beating down our doors with great trade offers?



mook said:


> had the organization just waited three months it wouldn't have killed them. it wouldn't have made much difference in the long-term development of Aldridge, Roy or Oden. the odds that Randolph would do something so mind-numbingly stupid that his value would've completely vanished weren't that great.


We would not have gotten the trade exception from the Knicks to be able to give the Suns the luxury tax relief they required in the James Jones + Rudy Fernandez deal. We won't know for a while if Rudy was worth it, but so far Kevin Pritchard has a shown a pretty good eye for picking young talent. He seems pretty high on Rudy. So, I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

BNM


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> We won't know for a while if Rudy was worth it, but so far Kevin Pritchard has a shown a pretty good eye for picking young talent. He seems pretty high on Rudy. So, I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.


What draftee below the Roy level has Pritchard allowed into the NBA? We have no experience upon which to judge Pritchard's later picks. It's easy to have an eye for talent down to pick no. 6. And Rudy Fernandez will certainly take as long as Sergio to adjust.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Hector said:


> What draftee below the Roy level has Pritchard allowed into the NBA? We have no experience upon which to judge Pritchard's later picks. It's easy to have an eye for talent down to pick no. 6. And Rudy Fernandez will certainly take as long as Sergio to adjust.


Last time I checked, Sergio hasn't won any major honors in Europe like Rudy has.

BNM, I love your posts. I get a few lines in, think to myself,"Who is this?!" and it's almost always you haha. Great stuff.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

You caught me on Sergio, Pritchard's only later pick who has played. You also caught me on my last post tonight. I thought, I'll look at this one last one and call it a night.


----------



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

Hector said:


> It's easy to have an eye for talent down to pick no. 6.


Is it? Tell that to Toronto, Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta and Minnesota. Are the players they ended up with in last year's draft better than Brandon Roy? No, not a single one of them is close. In fact, the only second year players close to Brandon Roy are Rudy Gay and Roy's teammate LaMarcus Aldridge - who the Raptors passed on for Andrea Bargnani and the Bulls gave us for Tyrus Thomas. If it was so easy to spot Roy's, (and Aldridge's) superior talent, how'd we get him with the 7th pick in the draft (and Aldridge with the 4th pick)?

BNM


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Hector said:


> What draftee below the Roy level has Pritchard allowed into the NBA? We have no experience upon which to judge Pritchard's later picks. It's easy to have an eye for talent down to pick no. 6. And Rudy Fernandez will certainly take as long as Sergio to adjust.


Your idea makes general sense in theory, but it doesn't apply to this specific situation. There were MANY players that could have gone at that spot, and most people didn't even have Brandon ranked quite that high. He was the most NBA ready, but obviously noone knew the extent of it. 

I remember Houston was trying to target him possibly, but who knows.

Pritchard did a great job of sifting through the crop in order to snatch Brandon.

Bottom line, unless its Oden/Durant caliber players, it is difficult to "hit" with high accuracy on players, even high in the lottery. Just ask Michael Jordan, the Clippers, Atlanta, the list goes on and on.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> well, I guess I just disagree with the idea that an $80 million power forward who averages his kind of statistics should be "shown the door like a fired employee." that's a luxury a good GM just doesn't have. he's just too rare and valuable of a commodity.


I disagree that he such a rare and valuable commodity. IMO he's a solid starter talent wise with both real strengths and weaknesses which he brings to the floor. Obviously, they've replaced him and are doing about the same as last year... the Knicks acquired him and are doing about the same as last year. Maybe you should reexamine this premise?

Also, I disagree that they dealt him at "a very bad time." Dude was coming off of back to back productive seasons following his knee surgery absence. They'd featured him in their sets for the whole season prior. The grieving strippergate incident was one of his lessor public faceplants. I can think of many points during Zach's Blazer tenure that would have been far worse. 



> had the organization just waited three months it wouldn't have killed them. it wouldn't have made much difference in the long-term development of Aldridge, Roy or Oden. the odds that Randolph would do something so mind-numbingly stupid that his value would've completely vanished weren't that great.
> 
> the way you portray it, management made the decision based on their own personal frustration with very little regard to what Randolph could be worth a few months down the road. I don't see how anyone can view that as a smart business decision. I didn't address this argument because I find it pathetic and weak-willed, and I'd like to think our management is smarter and stronger than that.


The way I portrait it??? I largely take them at their word, especially when they've repeatedly stated the same thing. Like I said before, KP has alluded to additional severe misdeeds on Zach's part happening recently outside of our view and of course they know what he's like to be around as a teammate far better then we do. 

I guess you (and others) will just have to come to terms with the fact that many here can fathom how this was potentially a smart business decision... personally I'm getting beyond tired of the "mind-numbingly stupid" crap that you're throwing towards those who disagree with you... come on mook, you're better then that.

STOMP


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

As BNM wisely said, what's done is done. 

Frankly, I'm actually feeling a tad sorry for Zach, as much as I can for any young healthy person who is paid millions to play a game. Compare Blazers and Knicks, who has the better future and the better present? His play is down, his minutes are down, the fans and media are bashing the team nonstop. In Portland the team is starting to come together, fans are back, media are finally realizing there is something to cheer for and Greg Oden is waiting in the wings.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

To me, its obvious. We traded Zach because Aldridge is a better overall player... and is a MUCH better guy off the court. Zach's contract also factored in.





> Dec 9 - Randolph scored a season-low two points in Saturday's 105-77 loss to Philadelphia. Randolph, acquired in a draft day trade, was coming off a four-point performance against the 76ers on Friday. He is averaging 16.6 points and 9.9 rebounds.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I agree with B&B, we traded Zach because of Aldridge.

Blazers have said publically for years they are trying to shed the jailblazer image and get character guys. But they only decide to give away Zach this summer . . . when Aldridge is ready to take the starting PF position.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Is it? Tell that to Toronto, Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta and Minnesota. Are the players they ended up with in last year's draft better than Brandon Roy? No, not a single one of them is close. In fact, the only second year players close to Brandon Roy are Rudy Gay and Roy's teammate LaMarcus Aldridge - who the Raptors passed on for Andrea Bargnani and the Bulls gave us for Tyrus Thomas. If it was so easy to spot Roy's, (and Aldridge's) superior talent, how'd we get him with the 7th pick in the draft (and Aldridge with the 4th pick)?
> 
> BNM


Homerism to the max.

They are all players of similar levels of talent, just different areas of expertise.

Their progress depends greatly on the team and coach situations they were drafted into.

Roy and Aldridge came to the worst team in the league so it's pretty hard NOTto shine by comparison.

Ultimately, they may have been better picks for their teams than Roy or Aldridge are for ours.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

If LMA was better than Aldridge, then he should have done what most players do, beat him out of the rotation. No real reason to rush that trade. "Shedding" the jailblazer image is a weak excuse. We had essentially done that anyways. Oh, so we don't get an extra diss by Bill Simmons on ESPN.com. Big whoop.


----------



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

MARIS61 said:


> Homerism to the max.


No it isn't. My comments are based entirely on on-court performance. Look it up. Aldridge, Gay and Roy are currently significantly out producing the other top draftees from the class of 2006. They are the top three in scoring and top three in EFF, both by significant margins over the rest of their draft class. That's not homerism, it's an easily verifiable fact. Yes, Morrison, Foye and Bargnani are all out with injuries, but in spite of battling injuries last season, Roy and Aldridge still out played them all last year, too. 

Let's make this simple. Here's the EFF numbers for the top eight draft picks from the 2006 draft - both last year and this year:


```
2006-2007:
Brandon Roy       16.51
LaMarcus Aldridge 10.84
Rudy Gay          10.30
Andrea Bargnani   10.02
Randy Foye         9.57
Shelden Williams   8.46
Adam Morrison      7.38
Tyrus Thomas       6.86

2007-2008:
LaMarcus Aldridge 19.10
Rudy Gay          17.85
Brandon Roy       17.50
Andrea Bargnani   10.18
Tyrus Thomas       8.00
Shelden Williams   3.61
Randy Foye           NA
Adam Morrison        NA
```
I think it's pretty obvious who has been, and continues to be the most productive players from this draft. For starting the day with the No. 4 and No. 7 picks, I'd say the Blazers did pretty darn good.

And if you think I'm being a homer (why'd I include Rudy Gay???) go to the Raptors, Bulls, Bobcats, Hawks and Timerwolves boards and ask them who they'd rather have today - LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay or the guys they took. Even with their own built-in homerism, I bet fans of those teams would rather have LaMarcus Aldridge than Andrea Bargnani or Tryus Thomas and Brandon Roy (or Rudy Gay) than Adam Morrison, Shelden Williams and Randy Foye.



MARIS61 said:


> They are all players of similar levels of talent, just different areas of expertise.


No they aren't. Ask any GM in the league who has more talent, LaMarcus Aldridge or Shelden Willimas and see what 30 of 30 GMs say. Ditto for Brandon Roy (or Rudy Gay) vs. Adam Morrison.



MARIS61 said:


> Their progress depends greatly on the team and coach situations they were drafted into.


Oh, I see. So now Nate is suddenly the best coach in the league for developing young talent. Interesting.



MARIS61 said:


> Roy and Aldridge came to the worst team in the league so it's pretty hard NOTto shine by comparison.


And the other teams picking at the top of the 2006 draft (other than the Bulls who got the Knicks pick) also stunk the prior year. That's why they were picking at the top of the draft. Your argument is a complete red herring. LaMarcus Aldridge came in playing the same position as our best player - a guy who averaged 23.6PPG and 10.1 RPG. Yet he still managed to carve out a role and EARN minutes last season and showed enough actual ability (not potential, but actual on-court, honest-to-goodness performance) that the team was willing to trade their best scorer and rebounder to give him an even bigger role. Brandon Roy was the most NBA ready player in that draft and would have also started on most the other teams drafting in the top 8. He wasn't GIVEN his minutes, he EARNED them with his on-court performance.



MARIS61 said:


> Ultimately, they may have been better picks for their teams than Roy or Aldridge are for ours.


OK, so now were back top dreaming of potential and mythical "upside" over actual performance. Fine, if that's the world you live in, more power to you. I prefer the world where ACTUAL performance is more important than pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Last June: Zach had just come off his best season ever, by a considerable margin. He averaged 23.6 PPG (career high), 10.1 RPG, EFF = 22.4 (career high) and PER = 22.8 (career high). He came into camp in the best shape of his life, proved he had fully recovered from his microfracture surgery, helped lead a very young, inexperienced team to more victories than the previous year, and carried the team when Brandon Roy was out with his heal injury. His on court performance, and therefore, his trade value, was at an all-time high.
> 
> Today: He's having his worse season since he became a starter. His scoring average is down to 16.6 PPG. That's a full 7 points lower than it was last season and the lowest since 2002-03 when he was a second year player coming of the bench. His rebounding is also down (9.9 RPG) as his efficiency (15.45) and his PER of 15.52 is a career low. He is having, by a wide margin, the worst season he's had as a starter. He's had some really awful games lately, including his 2 point, 2 rebound effort Saturday in a 28-point blow out loss at home to the 76ers and his 4 point (on 1-10 shooting), 3 rebound line in the 45-point blow out loss to Boston last week. I didn't think it was possible, but the Knicks are actually worse this year than last. Their record is identical so far, but they are getting constantly blown out - even by bad teams. They aren't even competitive in most games. It wouldn't be fair (or accurate) to blame Zach for all of the Knicks problems, but the ONLY significant change is Zach in their starting line-up in place of Channing Frye. Same other starters, same key reserves, same coach, yet they are worse on the court this year than last year. And, it's not like he's surrounded by a bunch of young, inexperienced players like he was in Portland. He's part of a starting line-up that averages over 7 years of NBA experience. So, instead of leading a young, inexperienced team to an improved performance, he's a key part of a veteran team that has gotten worse since his addition.
> 
> ...


really good post, BNM. very well constructed argument. 

the main hole I see is that you assume Randolph's trade value would likely fall this year playing beside Oden and Aldridge in Portland because that's what happened playing beside Eddy Curry in New York. I believe Randolph's stats are the consequence of the Knicks and Curry, not Randolph's inability to play with quality big men. 

time and time again, high "statistics" players like Francis, Marbury and Crawford have seen their numbers plummet upon reaching New York. it just seems to be a place where box scores go to die, mostly thanks to Isiah Thomas' incredible incompetence at trading for pieces that actually fit together, and the crowd of egos that always accompany high stat players. 

on top of that, they they already had the same player in Randolph in Eddy Curry. Zach has proven he's a rotten teammate to have when his talent is duplicated by another low post player (as happened with Rahim). he's proven to be much more effective playing beside a good midrange perimeter player (Rasheed Wallace) or a shot-blocking banging center (Przybilla, Ratliff). 

Aldridge's game is very similar to Rasheed's, and Oden (at least in his rookie year) projected to be a monster shot blocking defensive presence but less of an offensive player. 

I wasn't aware we went 4-13 with an Aldridge/Randolph tandem. definitely not a good sign. but I'd want to look a little more closely at those games to see if there were any mitigating factors. were they evenly home and away games? were the opponents pretty typical? was Roy playing? if you know the answers, I'd be interested in hearing about it. if not, that's cool. I'll try to look into it myself some time. 

anyway, it's all conjecture, but I think there are a lot of good reasons to think we win more games than we have so far and Zach puts up equally good numbers this year as he did last year if we don't trade him. 

like I said, though, you make a lot of excellent points and it's given me some things to think about.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> personally I'm getting beyond tired of the "mind-numbingly stupid" crap that you're throwing towards those who disagree with you... come on mook, you're better then that.
> 
> STOMP


huh? where did I say that? I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading what I wrote. I was referencing Zach Randolph when I talked about "mind-numbingly stupid." it's hardly controversial to say Zach could do something mind-numbingly stupid.


----------



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

mook said:


> I wasn't aware we went 4-13 with an Aldridge/Randolph tandem. definitely not a good sign. but I'd want to look a little more closely at those games to see if there were any mitigating factors. were they evenly home and away games? were the opponents pretty typical? was Roy playing? if you know the answers, I'd be interested in hearing about it. if not, that's cool. I'll try to look into it myself some time.


I don't have the complete break down off the top of my head (and no time to look it up right now), but I know they went 2-4 when LaMarcus started in November (when Joel was out with his bowling ball size nads) - Roy was also out then. And they went 2-9 with LaMarcus and Zach starting in March. Roy was healthy then, but the Chicago game he missed for the birth of his son might have been in there somewhere. I also know that the Blazers went 3-1 with LaMarcus starting at power forward alongside MaGloire at center during the middle of that stretch when Zach missed some games for bereavnment leave. In fact the only game the Blazers lost during that 4-game stretch was a 2-point (I think) loss to Minnesota AFTER Zach returned to the team. Nate still went with LMA and Magloire as starters (perhaps as an informal punishment for strippergate), but Zach came off the bench and played a lot more minutes than Magloire - and thus ended the Blazers mini 3-game winning streak they enjoyed in his absence. I seem to recall it was against some pretty weak competition (Knicks and Hawks were in there, I think), but they were road wins without our "best player".

My point wasn't that LaMarcus and Zach couldn't co-exist, it was that it's a myth that the the team had great success when they started together last year. Individually, that was LaRmarcus' best stretch of the season, but it was also the only time he was healthy and playing big, regular minutes. I seem to recall Zach's overall scoring a rebounding were down a little, but his assists were way up (all, a result I think of playing next to another big man who was an actual scoring threat). Offensively, they seemed to fit OK, but I do think it made the Blazers vulnerable defensively. LaMarcus seemed to do OK playing head to head against most other centers, but he is definitely better suited to guarding other power forwards. With him at the 5 and Zach at he 4, it left the Blazers a bit undersized at both spots and left the team's interior defense a bit weak. LaMarcus is a good off-the-ball shot blocker, but in terms of an inside physical presence at the center spot, Oden will be far better (and so is Joel for that matter). And, of course, Zach's defensive short comings are well known.


BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> huh? where did I say that? I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading what I wrote. I was referencing Zach Randolph when I talked about "mind-numbingly stupid." it's hardly controversial to say Zach could do something mind-numbingly stupid.


I guess I messed up the insults you were directing towards Zach and which you were directing towards management's decision making process which I happen to support. Substitute "pathetic", "weak-willed", and "don't see how see how can anyone view that as a smart business decision" for "mind-numbingly stupid" and my point stands. You are being pretty insulting towards those (like me) who agree with management's right to make the call that they did. 

btw... Zach repeatedly having done many mind numbingly stupid acts that we know about, makes it pretty hard to ignore the strong possibility that he'd continue to do so, especially when management said that there were even more. If say managemnet was aware that he was continuing to drive wasted, putting his health in jepardy wouldn't that be a good reason for them to come to the conclusion that enough is enough? What about if they were aware that he was involved yet another shooting/gun incident that didn't hit the press? 

Stupid is as stupid does, and maybe it's not so stupid to let a max contract idiot walk.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I guess I messed up the insults you were directing towards Zach and which you were directing towards management's decision making process which I happen to support. Substitute "pathetic", "weak-willed", and "don't see how see how can anyone view that as a smart business decision" for "mind-numbingly stupid" and my point stands. You are being pretty insulting towards those (like me) who agree with management's right to make the call that they did.


It doesn't take a terribly strong willed or smart manager to fire somebody. Any idiot in a management position can walk up to an employee and say, "You are fired." The smart and strong-willed manager knows *when *to fire somebody. 

Put it in terms of The Godfather. Who was the better mob boss--Sonny or Micheal Corleone? Clearly, Micheal. Because he picked his opportunities. He kept his friends close and his enemies closer. He didn't make a move until he had every contingency lined up and it was to maximize his benefit. That's a smart, strong-willed manager who can look past the nuisances and minor humiliations because he didn't get emotionally involved in things. 

The way you described it seemed much more of a "Sonny" mentality, which I do find pathetic and short-sighted. "This guy annoys me. I'll fire him. Screw it if there might be a better opportunity down the road." That, to me, is bad management. 

You may have a different interpretation of how to manage people. Certainly your perogative. That doesn't mean I think you are dumb or weak. That just means I think you subscribe to a management style that I find dumb and weak.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> It doesn't take a terribly strong willed or smart manager to fire somebody. Any idiot in a management position can walk up to an employee and say, "You are fired." The smart and strong-willed manager knows *when *to fire somebody.
> 
> Put it in terms of The Godfather. Who was the better mob boss--Sonny or Micheal Corleone? Clearly, Micheal. Because he picked his opportunities. He kept his friends close and his enemies closer. He didn't make a move until he had every contingency lined up and it was to maximize his benefit. That's a smart, strong-willed manager who can look past the nuisances and minor humiliations because he didn't get emotionally involved in things.
> 
> ...


You think Sonny would have given one his crew the 2nd chances Zach had? If one of his Capos brought 1/10th the bad pub towards the family that Zach did to the Blazer he'd have been sleeping with the fishes the next morning. At the very least he would have received a garbage lid face full. Zach had sitdown after sitdown, and was given pass after pass. Eventually he was dealt at a time when teams traditionally do a lot of business... and thats all it was, business. KP had no choice but to turn his back on him.

Sorry but your Corleone analogy doesn't fit this situation at all. 

STOMP


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> If he was such a valuable commodity, why didn't we get any better offers than what we got from the Knicks? Could it be that every other team in the league thought he was worth even less? If they thought he was worth more, why didn't they come forward with a better offer? If he was such a hot commodity why weren't the other 28 teams beating down our doors with great trade offers?


it is my opinion that pritchard simply overvalued frye. in either the quick's chat or an interview on the radio after draft day, it was mentioned that pritchard was really high on frye and had targetted frye in the previous draft.

like you, i regret that we didn't drafted millsap when we had chances to draft him, but i've liked all of pritchard's drafting so far. if it's true that pritchard was so high on frye (which i believe to be true) and frye was the main reason to trade zach, then it was a major error on pritchard's part.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> it is my opinion that pritchard simply overvalued frye. in either the quick's chat or an interview on the radio after draft day, it was mentioned that pritchard was really high on frye and had targetted frye in the previous draft.
> 
> like you, i regret that we didn't drafted millsap when we had chances to draft him, but i've liked all of pritchard's drafting so far. if it's true that pritchard was so high on frye (which i believe to be true) and frye was the main reason to trade zach, then it was a major error on pritchard's part.


Have any of you ever considered how hard it is to trade a player that makes that much money, and how much easier it is to trade players with lower valued contracts? It is much easier when you have a variety of salary ranges to work with. It's not all about talent and such folks. Sometimes it is about managing the cap, and giving the team flexibility.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Have any of you ever considered how hard it is to trade a player that makes that much money, and how much easier it is to trade players with lower valued contracts?


yes.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

I'm trying to learn. In summary, Zach's two recent bad Knick games do not mean that he would suddenly have gone bad had he remained a Blazer. Pritchard traded Zach because he thought it would be easy for Aldridge to quickly duplicate Zach's low post skills. Pritchard rushed the trade because he likes to do things on draft day. Pritchard got too little because he was in love with Frye. Did I miss anything?


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> If LMA was better than Aldridge, then he should have done what most players do, beat him out of the rotation. No real reason to rush that trade. .


Personally I think we should have traded BR for Brandon Roy also... :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Hector said:


> I'm trying to learn. In summary, Zach's two recent bad Knick games do not mean that he would suddenly have gone bad had he remained a Blazer. Pritchard traded Zach because he thought it would be easy for Aldridge to quickly duplicate Zach's low post skills. Pritchard rushed the trade because he likes to do things on draft day. Pritchard got too little because he was in love with Frye. Did I miss anything?



Only the part about people who fanatically hate the guy for reasons that make perfect sense - but only to them.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Hector said:


> Pritchard traded Zach because he thought it would be easy for Aldridge to quickly duplicate Zach's low post skills. Pritchard rushed the trade because he likes to do things on draft day. Pritchard got too little because he was in love with Frye. Did I miss anything?


KP assumed that the combination of Oden/Aldridge will be able to duplicate Zach's low-post skills while playing better defense and staying away from off-court issues, combined with $30m savings and the ability to close a deal that will bring Rudy Fernandez (a potential X-Factor and possibly Portland's best guard in the near future). Frye was a throw-in and there were rumors that KP preferred Lee. Say what you want about Isiah, at least he knows to choose between Frye and Lee.

With that in mind, there was an opportunity to achieve all that while taking small risks on Frye (not a success so far) and Jones (Looks better, so far).

This is where it starts and this is where it ends. When all is said and done, Zach, despite his fantastic statistics - was over-paid and not in great demand around the association. I wish we would stop these Zach is awful / We did not get enough for Zach threads. Zach is who he is - and while I never hated him - I would say that so far, KP's moves, pretty much proved to be right on the money. Until Zach becomes a consistent All-Star/Impact player for a winning team - I do not see any reason to question this move.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Hector said:


> I'm trying to learn. In summary, Zach's two recent bad Knick games do not mean that he would suddenly have gone bad had he remained a Blazer. Pritchard traded Zach because he thought it would be easy for Aldridge to quickly duplicate Zach's low post skills. Pritchard rushed the trade because he likes to do things on draft day. Pritchard got too little because he was in love with Frye. Did I miss anything?



Hell I hope he doesn't duplicate Zbo's post skills. Dribbling out 3/4 of the shot clock and throwing up some crap is hardly something I want Aldridge to do.


----------

