# let's trade Zach.



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

why does it seem as though Zach has become completely untouchable this offseason? 

McGrady, Kidd, Carter, Pierce, Allen, Peja--there have been several really, really big names at the guard positions mentioned in trades this summer. 

yet whenever Portland is mentioned, it's always "SAR and change." 

why is Zach untouchable? yeah, he's five years younger, but he's also not likely to be THAT much better than SAR already is. he's more likely to be the next Juwon Howard than the next Karl Malone. 

Zach's value (given his cheap contract, his steady performance and his youth) is never going to be higher than it is right now. 

SAR's value (largely failing off the bench, complaining) is the lowest it's ever been. two years ago most NBA fans (IMO, wrongly) thought of him as light years better than Sheed. now he's viewed as "an expiring deal who can put up some points." 

anybody who has worked with any kind of investment knows you buy low, sell high. judging by the Portland chatter, we are doing the exact opposite--trying to sell SAR when nobody wants him, yet clinging to Zach like he's the second coming of Shaq. 

I say we unload Zach and go after a superstar. we use Damon's expiring deal to make numbers match. in the deal we also get an unprotected draft pick. 

we still get to keep Miles as our starting SF. we still keep a proven 20/9 power forward. we maximize the athleticism of Ratliff now, before he starts to decline. and the pick keeps us in great shape for the future. 

look at two potential lineups, and tell me which you'd rather see this fall: 

if we trade SAR:
PG: Damon, NVE, Telfair
SG: Wally, SA
SF: Miles, Woods
PF: Randolph, Outlaw
C: Ratlff, Ervin Johnson, Stepania

if we trade Zach: 
PG: NVE, Telfair
SG: Ray Allen or Paul Pierce, DA
SF: Miles, Woods
PF: SAR, Outlaw
C: Ratliff, Stepania

throw in the fact that we get a draft pick, and I take that second lineup without thinking about it. no lousy contract, flexible, built on winning right now. especially if it were Allen, I'd be all over it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

My thoughts on Zach are that if they are going to trade him they will wait until the season starts. Rumors have it that Zach has lost all of his baby fat and looks lean and mean. Worked his *** off all summer on a perimiter shot and lateral foot work.....ie. defense. I think they could get more for him when teams see how dedicated he is to work. That being said I hope they don't trade him. 

Also the people you mentioned as tradable although all star calliber players none of them are "big men" I think portland in particular would be gun shy trading an up and coming "big man"

There was this one guy named jermain something or other and I've heard he is pretty decent right now.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

no trading zach :no:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> There was this one guy named jermain something or other and I've heard he is pretty decent right now.


Jermaine O'Neal is HIGHLY overrated.

His defense looks great because he has PHENOMINAL defenders around him. 

Artest is the heart and soul of that team.

Look at O'Neal ... in the East ... shooting 42%. He rebounds alright. 

This kid is *NOT* a superstar. People give him the status, but he's done NOTHING to deserve it.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> no trading zach :no:


Wow! A one line reply from Cimalee that follows the typical:

"Me No Want To Trade Zach" mentality.

Go figure.

Play.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

that's true, MM, but I'm not suggesting we dump Zach for a role playing power forward. I'm saying we trade him for a guy who is a proven NBA stud. 

we'll see. I agree that we shouldn't be in a huge hurry to make the deal. there's plenty of time before we are forced to trade, and the values of both Zach and SAR really aren't going to drop between now and then. 

man, I hope we don't do that Wallyworld deal.


----------



## crimsonice (Feb 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Jermaine O'Neal is HIGHLY overrated.
> ...


I have to agree with you here... a Pacer team without JO is better than a Pacer team without Artest. 

I think he's a bit overated at this point. I don't see how he's that much better than a player like Martin.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

Should we have shipped Jermaine? In retrospect, no. 

But...Is he a superstar? Again, no.

Will Zach be as heralded of a player as Jermaine? Probably not.

Should the Blazers keep Zach and work on rebuilding around him? Well...yes.


Keep Zach (unless we get a bona fide stud), and work on building a better, younger Blazer team that will take the title in '06-'07! (Probably not, but I can dream, right?)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

To me, things haven't changed since the end of the season: it depends on what we can get for each of them.

I guess that's just common sense, but if we can't get anyone who's a long-term asset (considering contract, ability, and age) for SAR, then we need to look long and hard at trading Zach.

It's just hard to say what we could get for ZR...

Ed O.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow! A one line reply from Cimalee that follows the typical:
> ...


Yea we would MUCH rather keep a whiny PF who prefers to play for losing teams and DOES not want to be here. 

So unless you bring us another PF and Guard for zach and they bring the potential zach has then sure lets do it, but 
TO many people forget.. 

SAR DOES NOT WANT TO BE WITH THIS ORGANIZATION.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Let's trade the player that has busted his butt for us and has the drive to be the best, in favor of a guy who has never led a team past 20 wins, and doesn't want to be in Portland. Nah.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> 
> 
> Yea we would MUCH rather keep a whiny PF who prefers to play for losing teams and DOES not want to be here.
> ...



Bingo, bango, bongo! :yes: 

The whole Zach vs SAR argument is based on the notion that SAR would magically do a 180 and *want to stay* just because Zach was dealt.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that bridge!


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I whole heartedly agree that we should look into the idea of trading Zach for all of the reasons theWanker menitons at the start of this thread. If we could get pierce or ray allen for him (and perhaps damon or some sort of filler) we would be fools to turn it down. I don't understand why Zach is everyone's golden boy. He is a great scorer and rebounder, but he also has serious flaws in his games such as defense (which is HALF the game), and passing. It wouldn't be the end of the world to trade him. I would love to hear an intelligent reply other than "No trading Zach" or spinning it off as being out of our hands because "SAR doesnt want to be with this organization." 

From the Oregonian:

_ "My problem with that is if you started Darius at small forward all of last year -- and Darius is supposed to be a big part of the Blazers' future -- and now I'm going to start there?" Abdur-Rahim said. "That's creating a crazy situation. What is Darius supposed to think about that? And for the team? That's not good. I don't want to be in a situation where it's uncomfortable.

"And last season, I didn't even split time at the four, and now all of a sudden you want to start me at the three and have me back up at the four? I just want to know what is really going on. Are they trying to keep me to save luxury tax dollars the next season, or what? I just want to sit down and get some straight talk."

The crux of the dispute is that Abdur-Rahim, 27, thinks he is still in his prime and should play extensive minutes at his natural, power forward position. Blazers officials indicate he is not better than Randolph, a blossoming power forward who won the NBA's Most Improved Player Award, and thus should be his backup. _

Sounds to me like if we sat him down and told him we traded Zach and he will get to start at the 4 he would stay. 

-Mr. Chuck Taylor


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Zach is only 22 and is already way better than Shareef


----------



## samLouie (Jul 29, 2004)

I say dont trade him......just because he is a power forward. It is easy to find a good swingman every once in awhile.


----------



## mackthedj (Feb 7, 2004)

Portland trades: 
PG Damon Stoudamire 
SG Derek Anderson 
PF Zach Randolph 
SG Richie Frahm 

Portland receives: 
C Raef LaFrentz 
C Al Jefferson 
C Kendrick Perkins 
SG Paul Pierce 

Van Exal
Pierce
Miles
SAR
Theo

I don't want the Blazers to trade Zach, but I could live with watching this team.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The key ingredient is looking beyond birth certificates and actually opening ones eyes to the possibility that a Trade of Zach coulld yield a more established top noth player than a trade of Shareef would, and essentially make the Blazers as a whole a better team.

Not Saying we should trade him, I am saying though to be closed to the idea is akin to being closed to the good of the team in favor of the individual.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Zach is only 22 and is already way better than Shareef


good god...another well thought out, one sentence argument. We are not debating Zach's age or if he is better than SAR (he is, but not "way better"). The issue here is who we should trade based on what we can receive in return. Here are the 2 rosters theWanker lists:

if we trade SAR:
PG: Damon, NVE, Telfair
SG: Wally, SA
SF: Miles, Woods
PF: Randolph, Outlaw
C: Ratlff, Ervin Johnson, Stepania

if we trade Zach: 
PG: NVE, Telfair
SG: Ray Allen or Paul Pierce, DA
SF: Miles, Woods
PF: SAR, Outlaw
C: Ratliff, Stepania

Which one would you rather have? Why? List reasons. 

-Mr. Chuck Taylor


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

dude with shareef as our starting pf we wont do anything


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> dude with shareef as our starting pf we wont do anything


AHHH!!! Now I understand where you are coming from! Thanks for the insight! Nice reasoning.

-Mr. Chuck Taylor


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

By the way, I'm not sure what you consider "not doing anything", but with Zach as our starting 4 last year we didn't make the playoffs, and most people project our current lineup to once again not make the cut.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mr. Chuck Taylor</b>!
> By the way, I'm not sure what you consider "not doing anything", but with Zach as our starting 4 last year we didn't make the playoffs, and most people project our current lineup to once again not make the cut.



Well considering the players Zach had around him what do you expect I mean he did his part for the team unlike people who could not contribute: SAR, DA, DAMON 50% Of The Time, Etc..

I mean the Celtic have pierce but they have went no where so he must suck, or Tracy mcgrady's led magic team I mean he didnt make the playoffs either so he just cant cut it. 

Open your eyes its all about supporting casts and PORTLAND DOES NOT HAVE ONE. We have a group of guards who have to be forced to pass it inside, one center who cant guard a man one on one, and a bunch of SF's who cant shoot but one can dunk. 

This team needs a trade like SAR for wally just to give Zach and Co. a nice supporting cast. I mean I dont like wally but we need something like that.

Finally how many years has SAR started on teams? How many playoff apperances does he have?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Preach 



Ps Reef does not have the passion Zach has , Zach has flaws just like any other young player but he will get so much better and people will still have some negative thing to say


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

You know what I like about Z-Bo? Last year, we asked who was the leader of this team? With Pippen gone, who was going to step up and lead? Zach stood up and said I got this one. I know he punched RP in the nose (haven't you ever wanted to do the same thing?) The guy wants to be a leader and wants to compete. Every winning team has a guy (s) like that. If you trade him, you better get someone like him in return (personality)


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

And how many playoffs has Zach lead teams to as the starting PF? That's right the same number as Shareef has for his career...0


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Okay, *BLAZERFAN* which is it?

Is it:




> Well considering the players Zach had around him what do you expect I mean he did his part for the team unlike people who could not contribute
> 
> *Open your eyes its all about supporting casts and PORTLAND DOES NOT HAVE ONE.*



Or is it:



> Finally how many years has SAR started on teams? How many playoff apperances does he have?


Reef has never had a supporting cast either. So, which is it ... it's a team game and you need a supporting cast or is it that one player should will a team to the playoffs?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Preach


Ah, the one line brilliance of Cimalee. 



> Reef does not have the passion Zach has


I'm sorry, you guys look through these rose colored glasses.

The one thing I did NOT see in Randolph was PASSION! You can rag Reef for demanding a trade, but his game and character speak volumes .... I saw nothing but selfishness from Zach. This is in regards to minutes, shots, passing, etc.



> but he will get so much better


This is what one typically refers to a bluster or a 'prediction'. I predict that he won't get much better.

Who's right? Who knows.

Play.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

> And how many playoffs has Zach lead teams to as the starting PF? That's right the same number as Shareef has for his career...0



Ouch. The truth hurts. I tell you what else is the truth--there aren't many players who (in terms of trades) are "untouchable". Guys like Kobe, Shaq, TD, KG . . . are guys that, unless they demand a trade, are truly "untouchable"--you just can't trade them and expect to get equal value in return. However, the term "untouchable" is thrown out there too often in the NBA. If Zack is untouchable, let me ask you this--would you trade him for KG?? (forget salary cap for a minute) Mr. Duncan?? Nowitski? Most people would say yes, I assume, to those trades. Therefore, he isn't an "untouchable" player. If the right trade came about, you have to look at moving him. That being said, it better be the RIGHT move--he's a young, talented, & motivated to get better kind of player with leadership qualities. If you move him . . . you better get a stud in return.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Ah, the one line brilliance of Cimalee.
> ...





Yea you are the only one in the world with glasses who thinks reef is better than Zach :laugh:


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Amen kaydow

My problem with the pro-trade Zach crew is that some of them are willing to part with him in some lateral move for an aging borderline all-star. Come on fellas, he's the go-to-guy we haven't had since Drexler. Show some love.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

exactly everybody complained about Rasheed not wanting the ball we finally have a guy who wants tohe ball and wants to get better


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Reef has never had a supporting cast either.


Bibby, Ratliff, Terry, S. Jackson, Big Dog. He had enough talent around him at times that Babcock thought it prudent to guarantee a spot in the playoffs... I know SAR can never be the one to blame in your eyes, but he ain't exactly the solution, either.

Dan


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> Amen kaydow
> My problem with the pro-trade Zach crew is that some of them are willing to part with him in some lateral move for an aging borderline all-star.


not me. I specifically listed Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Jason Kidd and Peja. Kidd is getting older, but NOT ONE of them is a lateral move for a borderline all-star. 

these guys are ALL better than any player we've had on our team since Drexler and Porter left. (well, you might argue that Sabas was on par on a per minute basis, but you get what I mean.)

nobody is suggesting we dump Zach for Wallyworld. my point is that we trade Zach so we can AVOID trades involving guys like Wally (ie, lateral move, border-line all-stars).


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

> exactly everybody complained about Rasheed not wanting the ball we finally have a guy who wants tohe ball and wants to get better



You're right. I WAS one of the guys who said "Sheed needs to shoot more . . . " Now, I'm not going to criticize Zach (as some have) for shooting too much. I like the fact the he wants/needs the ball. Hey, Kobe Bryant likes to throw the rock up too--would you not want him on your team? (don't say no--i know you do) Sure, once in a while Zack will throw up something with 3 guys around him, but I never want that guy to lose his aggresiveness--he wouldn't be as good a player w/o it. When I hear that Z-bo has spent the offseason working his a__ off, getting in shape, and trying to improve his midrange game--I love it, it gets me fired up. People who criticize Z-bo are being too picky, imo.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Bibby


Extremely overrated. He's on a godsend team for a PG. 



> Ratliff


Who is the first to admit it isn't Reef's problem that they had:



> Terry, Big Dog


Terry - who had no coaching and all the skill in the world ... but no idea how to use it. Leagues worse than Stoudamire.

Big Dog - the one trick pony with worse defense than Randolph or Wally ever thought of playing. This is a guy who wouldn't even run to the defensive end. 



> Jackson


Please - this guy is the best of the bunch, but only a roleplayer. 

You also forget that Reef has a BRAND new coach every year. Every year but one was a coach that was completely unproven or worthless.

There is a difference between TALENT and a team. Reef may have had a bit of talent around him -- but never did he have a team. I'd also argue that he had much talent to work with.

Can he Time Duncan a team to the playoffs? No. But, it isn't like Randolph could either.


Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> exactly everybody complained about Rasheed not wanting the ball we finally have a guy who wants tohe ball and wants to get better


There is a difference between WANTING the ball and being a ball hog.

Rasheed could have been a tad more aggressive.

Randolph could be loads less selfish.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Play, like I said, in your eyes, it's always someone else's fault other than Shareef's. Unfortunately, he's the one constant in all the losing. No matter how you try to justify it, there's no avoiding that issue.

Those players had a lot more success on other teams than they did with Shareef... Yeah, it's all their fault.  

Dan


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Play, like I said, in your eyes, it's always someone else's fault other than Shareef's.


No, Reef isn't capable of being Duncan. I've never said otherwise.

But to lay the blame on Reef's bed is silly. 



> Those players had a lot more success on other teams than they did with Shareef... Yeah, it's all their fault.


Oh yeah, that's a difficult task when the success was caused by:

Bibby - Webber, Peja, Christie.
HUGE upswing in talent compared to Dickerson, Country, Reef.

Big Dog - Ray Allen, good coach, youth.
HUGE upswing in talent and his skillset, desire and ability.

Jackson - Duncan.
The guy played with the best in the game. I could have subbed in and looked good.

Terry - Ummm ... no, he was never good. He played on talented teams that got traded around ... and was never good.

Ratliff - He did okay. Nothing special.

There were severe DIFFERENCES in talent levels on respective teams. Also, the whole NO COACH or TEAM philosophy thing killed any chance of winning or forming a real team.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Keep making excuses... Fact of the matter is, Reef has done nothing but lose and all his supposedly vastly over rated and under talented teammates have been well received elsewhere.

You'd be hard pressed to construct a weaker argument if you tried.

Dan


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

this dude is a comedian , keep making excuses for Reef hes solid but hes not good zbo has outplayed in everytime anybody remember Zach starting his 2nd game when Rasheed was suspended game in Atlanta double overtime game and Zach young Zach outplayed Reef and had a double double


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> And how many playoffs has Zach lead teams to as the starting PF? That's right the same number as Shareef has for his career...0


Well how many years has Zach been in the league? and SAR?

Zach has already almost took us to the second round um Dallas and that was after sitting the bench all season he came in and showed us what he can do..

So far Zach 1 SAR 0


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Okay, *BLAZERFAN* which is it?
> 
> Is it:
> ...



Um, SAR has been around a supporting cast and the year he was they were all inked in to go to the playoffs but guess what THEY DIDNT.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

First...I love Cimalee's one-liners. They're short, and to the point. And he's no more adamant about keeping Zach than Playmaker is about keeping SAR.

Second...Playmaker bashes everyone for hating on SAR, yet whenever someone argues with him, he resorts to personal attacks. Why? Because he has no real arugment! Everyone knows I can't stand SAR, but at least I'm not all over his jock.

Third...Shareef is stupid for wanting out of POR. This is the best shot he's ever had, and he's too proud to take a role on a team and admit that he's not the star anymore.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> this dude is a comedian , keep making excuses for Reef hes solid but hes not good zbo has outplayed in everytime anybody remember Zach starting his 2nd game when Rasheed was suspended game in Atlanta double overtime game and Zach young Zach outplayed Reef and had a double double


Is this english?

Play.

PS - I am proud of you for trying to write more than one line at a time. I understand now why you usually don't.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> I'm sorry, you guys look through these rose colored glasses.


Are those darker or lighter than Reef colored glasses?



> The one thing I did NOT see in Randolph was PASSION!


I'd say that about Reef, myself. I remember him sitting on the bench looking like he was thinking about his taxes when everyone else on the bench was cheering.



> You can rag Reef for demanding a trade, but his game and character speak volumes ....


Didn't hear his game say much of anything during the season, and whatever his character might have to say, it is being drowned out by the volumes that he and his agent are speaking.

barfo


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> Um, SAR has been around a supporting cast and the year he was they were all inked in to go to the playoffs but guess what THEY DIDNT.


Jeez ... I guess Reef should have done more than 20/10. I mean, he should have single handedly made Robinson play defense. He should have turned Theo Ratliff into an offensive force. He should have molded Terry into some semblance of a decent basketball player.

What was he thinking?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>4-For-Snapper</b>!
> First...I love Cimalee's one-liners.


Good for you. I think they are pointless and unfounded/supported.



> They're short, and to the point.


So is your ... sorry ... had to make the joke reference.



> And he's no more adamant about keeping Zach than Playmaker is about keeping SAR.


God, you've got Playmaker confused. Playmaker wants nothing more than Reef to LEAVE. He wants the Blazers to vest themself up in Randolph and watch as he isn't able to lead them anywhere.

Randolph is just like Reef. He's a great player - but not someone who can dominate at a level that forces his team to win. Those guys are few and far between. Garnett, Duncan, MJ. Randolph and Reef are a fry cry to being able to do that. 



> Second...Playmaker bashes everyone for hating on SAR, yet whenever someone argues with him, he resorts to personal attacks. Why? Because he has no real arugment!


I always argue straight up. In fact, I don't usually cast the first stone. I may be cocky and a bit harsh in my wording - but I hardly ever dabble outside of verifiable fact unless it is noted.



> Third...Shareef is stupid for wanting out of POR. This is the best shot he's ever had, and he's too proud to take a role on a team and admit that he's not the star anymore.


Portland has about as much a shot as reaching the playoffs as the Atlanta Hawks. This team is garbage and they are headed downward. 

I know that will come across bad to most Portland fans - and I'm sorry - but that's the way I see it.

I can't wait for Reef to leave this god forsaken basketball purgatory. 

Play.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> So is your ... sorry ... had to make the joke reference.


I actually laughed at this one. Seriously.



> Portland has about as much a shot as reaching the playoffs as the Atlanta Hawks. This team is garbage and they are headed downward.


Tell us how you really feel. While I agree that the Blazers may not make the playoffs (depending on what further changes are made in the offseason), I wouldn't stoop so low as to compare them to the Hawks. I mean, come on. 



> I can't wait for Reef to leave this god forsaken basketball purgatory.


I stand corrected. But losing seems to follow SAR wherever he goes, so it looks as though he'll always be stuck in a "God-forsaken basketball purgatory."


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Portland has about as much a shot as reaching the playoffs as the Atlanta Hawks. This team is garbage and they are headed downward.
> 
> I know that will come across bad to most Portland fans - and I'm sorry - but that's the way I see it.
> ...


Didya say that about the Grizzlies and Hawks too? Because by any reasonable standard those are/were worse teams. 

Blazers were middle-of-the-pack last year. More or less the same team this year suggests they'll be more-or-less the same quality this year. I don't guess the loss of DD, DD, and Eddie Gill is really going to make them much worse, do you?

barfo


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> not me. I specifically listed Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Jason Kidd and Peja. Kidd is getting older, but NOT ONE of them is a lateral move for a borderline all-star.


I would rather have Zach than any of those guys. If those teams want Zach instead of Shareef, then that should tell us something about which one of them we should keep.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Are those darker or lighter than Reef colored glasses?


I make no bones about my bias. But, I'm also pretty even-keeled about it. 

I don't over-value him to any great extent. I don't think he's worth more on the open market than he is. 

About the only thing you could fault me on is defending his win/loss record and saying he's better than Randolph. I just do it vehemently.



> I'd say that about Reef, myself. I remember him sitting on the bench looking like he was thinking about his taxes when everyone else on the bench was cheering.


Actually, he was thinking: "What in the name of Allah did I do to deserve this wretched place"... but that's neither here nor there.

I don't think Reef is an overly passionate player. I've said it numerous times in the past. I said that was one of the main reasons that he couldn't come off the bench and be extremely productive --- his lack of spark and emotion. (also, remember, I was told I was wrong ... but now that I'm proven right, people seem to be looking for other reasons ... I predicted it the first night)



> Didn't hear his game say much of anything during the season


Oh, I guess you missed the first half where he averaged almost 20/10.



> whatever his character might have to say, it is being drowned out by the volumes that he and his agent are speaking.


And you think there is a SINGLE player in the league that would play their cards differently in this situation? (don't pull out scrubs... I mean legit top players)

Heck, you people are so two-faced about your emotions it's sickening. Reef is the anti-christ because he demands a trade. But, Peja does it because Webber said a few words ... and "let's get him". Carter does it because he wants out ... and "let's get him". 

I may be biased ... but at least I can see it. 

Play.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> I don't over-value him to any great extent.


Some would say claiming he's a top 5 PF would qualify as over-valuing to a great extent. 



> Actually, he was thinking: "What in the name of Allah did I do to deserve this wretched place"... but that's neither here nor there.


And what's so wretched about it? That he didn't get to be 'The Man'?



> Oh, I guess you missed the first half where he averaged almost 20/10.


In fact, I did. He was playing in some basketball purgatory at the time.



> And you think there is a SINGLE player in the league that would play their cards differently in this situation? (don't pull out scrubs... I mean legit top players)


Yes, I think there is more than one way to skin this cat.



> Heck, you people are so two-faced about your emotions it's sickening. Reef is the anti-christ because he demands a trade. But, Peja does it because Webber said a few words ... and "let's get him". Carter does it because he wants out ... and "let's get him".


That's not being two-faced. I'm a blazer fan, not a Reef (or a Zach, for that matter) fan. If I was a Kings fan I'd be annoyed with Peja for wanting to jump ship. But I'm not a Kings fan, so why should I care if he leaves cowtown?

barfo


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> I make no bones about my bias. But, I'm also pretty even-keeled about it.
> ...


So...how is this any different from being biased and *not* seeing it? The fact is, whether you see it or not, bias is bias, plain and simple.

Does this mean that your bias carries more weight because you can see it?


----------



## rawzzy (Aug 3, 2004)

wow I cant believe some of you Blazers fans are still upset over Indy robbing you of Jermaine O'Neal!
Not a superstar my ***!
20+!
10+!
almost 3 blocks a game!
NBA All-Star Starter!
ALL-NBA 2nd Team!
Dream Team!
3rd in MVP Race!
Led his team to the best record in the league! Led his team to within 2 games of the NBA Finals!
And he did all this while playing hurt!
Sure his rebounding was down slightly and his FG% was down considerably, but that can be attributed to playing hurt most of the season and having to settle for 15 footers because he couldny elevate in the post.
He'll bring his rebounding and fg% back up next season, 22 ppg 11 rpg 3 bpg 48% is about right for a 100% healthy JO.
Dont haterize on a Superstar just because your team kinda sucks!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rawzzy</b>!
> wow I cant believe some of you Blazers fans are still upset over Indy robbing you of Jermaine O'Neal!
> Not a superstar my ***!
> Dont haterize on a Superstar just because your team kinda sucks!


Congratulations on your first post, but I think you are making some incorrect assumptions about posters. I think it is safe to say Play, who brought up JO in the first place, is definitely not a Blazer fan at this point. And crimsonice, I'm not sure about, but he doesn't hang out here. Of the 3 posters who dared say JO is not a superstar, only 4-fer is clearly a blazer fan.

barfo


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rawzzy</b>!
> wow I cant believe some of you Blazers fans are still upset over Indy robbing you of Jermaine O'Neal!
> Not a superstar my ***!
> 20+!
> ...


Since this is your first post, I will cut you some slack.

Jermaine O'neal is *not* a superstar. He's a great player, to be sure, but not what any rational fan would consider "superstar" quality. 

And we're not "still upset" about his leaving. 99% of us have moved on. And the ones that haven't don't paint an accurate picture of a sane Blazer fan.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Heck, you people are so two-faced about your emotions it's sickening. Reef is the anti-christ because he demands a trade. But, Peja does it because Webber said a few words ... and "let's get him". Carter does it because he wants out ... and "let's get him".


At least Peja and Vince contributed to their teams. Another superb, irrelevant comparison, courtesy of Play.

Dan


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

> The one thing I did NOT see in Randolph was PASSION!


I don't know what Randolph you're watching, but the one I saw from my seats at the Rose Garden brought a lot more passion to the game than the rest of the players. A 22-year old that has put up the numbers he has is simply a better player than Reef. There's no question Zach has some areas of his game that need work (namely defense) - but all things considered I'm more than comfortable rebuilding the franchise around him.

SAR has burned his bridges - the sooner he gets out of town, the better. I'd rather have him sit out than appease him at this point.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> And how many playoffs has Zach lead teams to as the starting PF? That's right the same number as Shareef has for his career...0



I'd expect a better argument from you Schilly.....very dissapointed:sigh:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

First off, if we deal Zach, the season will be the least anticipated in recent memory for myself. I love atching Zach hustle on the court. You can see it in his eyes how badly he wants to win. He never gives up when he rebounds, he is relentless in getting post position and yes his defense continued to improve throughout the course of the year. The guy is 22, obviously he is going to have some flaws, the kid ain't God. Hell, Jordan,KG, Kobe,T-Mac all had flaws in their respected games when they were a full-time starter for the first time. It is like some of you expect him to be the best at his position in such a short period of time, and that is just not possible. In 3 years he will be, but right now he is continuing to gain muscle mass and work on his game. I mean what ELSE do you want from this kid? Some of you pissed and moaned at Rasheed for not wanting to be "The Man" and posting up on the blocks, and then we finally got a guy who not only wants to be "The Man",but wants to be the best in the game. He loves playing down low and lives for taking the clutch shots. Will some of you ever be happy? Trading Zach for a Vince or Ray Allen solves ZERO. We lose a lot of youth and still won't be contenders with Reef playing the 4. If we are smart, we let Zach to keep progressing into the superstar he is/will be, put the right pieces around him(Bassy was a marvelous move,Zach should take Telfair out to eat every night). Let's face it, unless we can deal Reef and change for a Allen or Carter, we won't be a title contender...so why not just build around a 22 yeard old stud? Are we that impatient as a fan base? I mean we are still a playoff team, an exciting team, and a fan-friendly team.Bottom line, unless LeBron is offered, do not trade Zach.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> I make no bones about my bias. But, I'm also pretty even-keeled about it.
> ...


Oh uh huh... yes, you are totally right... I agree with everthing you say, playmaker. Awsome points. SAR is a top 5 PF... I totally agree... You can see everything in its true light, yes, I know... You understand your biases. Great. Please, fill us in, oh wise one as us "people are so two-faced about [our] emotions it's sickening". Generalizations can really put you in a bind in terms of credibility.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>SheedSoNasty</b>!
> Oh uh huh... yes, you are totally right... I agree with everthing you say, playmaker.


It is about time someone saw the light.



> Awsome points.


I know.



> SAR is a top 5 PF... I totally agree


Dude - you are so getting the butt kissing award ... keep it coming.



> You can see everything in its true light, yes, I know





> You understand your biases.


I do, don't I.



> Please, fill us in, oh wise one as us "people are so two-faced about [our] emotions it's sickening".


Wait ... was all this sarcasm? 



> Generalizations can really put you in a bind in terms of credibility.


If you could see my face - you'd see the angst. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> At least Peja and Vince contributed to their teams. Another superb, irrelevant comparison, courtesy of Play.


If anything was irrelevant ... it was your comment about their contributions.

Who cares about their contributions?

Everyone jumped up and down, stamped their feet and called Reef a "whiner" because he demanded a trade. These guys do it -- and I can hear the mass orgies being planned to get off to potentially getting one of them.

My point was that they are doing the same thing Reef did ... yet Reef gets flack from you all. Those guys do it ... and you are lining up to get them.

So, the contribution factor has very little to do with the conversation. Thus, the verbatum definition of "irrelevant".

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Some would say claiming he's a top 5 PF would qualify as over-valuing to a great extent.


Possibly overvalued - but not to a great extent.



> And what's so wretched about it? That he didn't get to be 'The Man'?


He doesn't care if he is 'The Man' or not. That is Portland putting words and thoughts into his mind. 

You are acting like the thought police on this one. 

If you want to look at the issue of PT. then yes, he just wants to play. He deserves to play. He deserves to start. 

But, he'd humbly accept being a second option. He'd be extremely excited to go to the TWolves.



> In fact, I did. He was playing in some basketball purgatory at the time.


I'm sure more players would rather START on a pathetic team than sit the bench on a mediocre team.



> Yes, I think there is more than one way to skin this cat.


Yet you explored none of them.



> That's not being two-faced.


Than what is it? 

Maybe I should say 'double standards'. Unless you have the same amount of animosity for another player for doing the same thing - then you have no room to bash the first. It would be different if Reef pouted when he was first traded or because of one game (Allen Iverson, anyone?) --- but this is not the case.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> If anything was irrelevant ... it was your comment about their contributions.
> 
> Who cares about their contributions?


Wow, now I see what it takes to be a SAR fan.  Where do I sign up to be a card carrying loser???

Contribution has _everything_ to do with it. Fair or not, SAR is a career loser. It's up to him to prove otherwise. He goes to the first situation that offers a good chance to do so and reinforces the perception of a loser, then trumps it by playing the whiner card. Smooth move. And you get your panties all up in a bunch because fans have the audacity to be less than impressed with SAR?

He hasn't contributed squat and apparently does not want to be here. Of course we'll be less than enthused with SAR the person or player.

Now, Vince and Peja are a completely different story. They were the faces of their franchises. Fan favorites. Bonafide all-stars. Ticket sellers. Winners. All things foreign to SAR's vocabulary... It should come as no surprise that we'd love to get players like that when they become available! 

A player seeking to be traded does not mean the same thing in all situations, although your limited vision world does not seem to accept that possibility... Personality conflicts, style of play, regional preferences, desire for change, etc. Being a career loser is an entirely separate matter.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> You are acting like the thought police on this one.


I've no idea what you mean by that. Whose thoughts am I policing? 



> I'm sure more players would rather START on a pathetic team than sit the bench on a mediocre team.


Hmm... I'm thinking of a word for such players, starts with "L"...



> Maybe I should say 'double standards'. Unless you have the same amount of animosity for another player for doing the same thing - then you have no room to bash the first. It would be different if Reef pouted when he was first traded or because of one game (Allen Iverson, anyone?) --- but this is not the case.


No, your argument just doesn't make sense. 

If my wife leaves me, then probably I'm bitter about it. If your wife leaves you, well, stuff happens - maybe you should have been nicer to her. I guess that means she's available - what's her phone number?

barfo


----------

