# Zach to Atlanta



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

This is in the ESPN rumor section today;

"The Hawks, perennially inept on draft day, also are said to be considering a deal for Portland's Zach Randolph."

I wonder what deal the teams could be considering?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Chad Ford also mentioned it on the Sportscenter draft special that's airing right now.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

#3? or #11 and Josh Smith? I really would love Smoove on this team. He could make me forget about Durant with his D and Dunks.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Orrrr...if we trade Zach for #3, take Horford it sets up if we draft Durant as well...I am so comfrumbled.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think the two 'hands off' guys on the Hawks are Smith and Johnson. Everyone else has a price tag.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I hope they do trade for a veteran big, but just not Zach.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

If we deal Zach to Atlanta... I want M.Williams, Childress and the #11 for Zach, Jack and a few 2nd rounders... or Childress and the #3 for Zach, Jack, and a few 2nd rounders.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Hmmm the #11 would possibly taking a shot at Acie Law..something I am highly in favor of.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Atlanta is under the cap, but not enough to absorb all of Zach's salary for just a pick. How about this trade:

Zach and Jack for either the #3, or the #3 and #11 and
Speedy Claxton (just under $7M, 4 years left) and Anthony Johnson ($2.6M, 4 years left) 

? Doesn't seem too unfair to Atlanta, but I know people think we can do better for Zach.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

What about:

Zach, Jack and 2 2nd round picks
for
Childress, #3, #11, and Claxton

Altanta fills 2 immediate needs with an excellent PF and a reliable young PG.
Starting lineup:
Jack
Johnson
Smith
Zach
S. Williams

I included Speedy because he seems to be often-injured and he has the 2nd largest contract after JJ. With Zach scoring in the middle and JJ on the perimeter, they'd be a much better team than last year. The 2 lotto picks are a steep price, but they have a lot of young talent still developing. A proven vet like Zach will be much more valuable than another rookie.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

this will be my third try to post: Zach, Jack, Przbilla for Childress, #3, #11 and Claxton, Lorenzen 
Wright and Anthony Johnson needed for filler.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I'm okay with Jack for the 11th pick, but I want no part of Zach. That includes no trading two lottery picks and Josh Childress for him. I don't think Atlanta would bite either. Zach is a good talent, but I don't think he would play nice with Joe and Smoove.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

SLAM said:


> What about:
> 
> Zach, Jack and 2 2nd round picks
> for
> ...


Let's break it down.

Zach for #3. Hm, maybe. I think they could get more value out of this pick packaged with a guy like Childress or Williams. Gasol?

Jack for #11. A very real possibility, and it makes sense for both teams.

Childress for two 2nd rounders. I don't think they'll just give him away.

Claxton is just salary.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

OK, to add on, I think Atlanta should go for this because they get three fairly young guys who can all start in their three positions of need, they become instantly credible.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> but I don't think he would play nice with Joe and Smoove.


What makes you say that?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> I'm okay with Jack for the 11th pick...


Okay, but Jack for the 11th pick and who? Salaries still have to match and picks don't come with any salary (though I don't quite understand why that's the case, as it's all slotted).


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

SLAM said:


> What about:
> 
> Zach, Jack and 2 2nd round picks
> for
> Childress, #3, #11, and Claxton


That trade would be *amazing* for Portland -- much better than Jefferson and the 17, IMO.

I suspect Atlanta would demand more, but it *is* Atlanta so who knows? If I were KP, I would probably toss in a top-2 protected first rounder in next year's draft, too, if necessary to make that happen.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Let's break it down.
> Claxton is just salary.


You answered your own question of sorts

There is a price to take on Claxton's contract.... his value per $ is very low with his injuries

Gettng Marvin, or Childress or picks compensates for that.

We are giving them a PF who is rare in scoring and rebounding in the league. Even though he is no all-star in the west.. he very well may be in the east. They can get a lot of mileage out of him.

After years of mediocre drafts they need an impact player to get fan interest Joe Johnson and Zach can do that


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

double post


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Lol at any Eastern Team not wanting Zach. If he can do work to the lines of 24 and 10 in the West, he'd be a total stud in the East and instantly bring whoever received him to Eastern supremecy.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Okay, but Jack for the 11th pick and who? Salaries still have to match and picks don't come with any salary (though I don't quite understand why that's the case, as it's all slotted).


I don't think that's true: they only have to match if Atlanta is over the cap, and it's enough under to absorb Jack's salary. So Jack for the #11 works as is.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Lol at any Eastern Team not wanting Zach. If he can do work to the lines of 24 and 10 in the West, he'd be a total stud in the East and instantly bring whoever received him to Eastern supremecy.


Eastern Supremacy. Is that kind of like not making the playoffs in the west?:yay:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

No, its more along the lines of being just good enough to make the Finals, but falling on your face when you actually get there


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> I'm okay with Jack for the 11th pick, but I want no part of Zach. That includes no trading two lottery picks and Josh Childress for him. I don't think Atlanta would bite either. Zach is a good talent, but I don't think he would play nice with Joe and Smoove.


By "play nice" do you mean that he's a half-court player and they're fast-break types? But hey, Duncan works fine with Ginobili and Parker. The Showtime Lakers ran like crazy, despite 40-year-old Kareem practically walking up the court. It can be done! Everybody thinks of the Mavs as a fast-breaking team, despite their star being (in his buddy Steve Nash's words) "a lumbering carthorse".


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

A Pachulia/Randolph frontcourt would be by far the worst defensive unit in the NBA. That team wouldn't even make the playoffs, and you just got a whole lot older and gave a top three pick to Greg Oden, Lamarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy's team. No thx.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

meru said:


> By "play nice" do you mean that he's a half-court player and they're fast-break types? But hey, Duncan works fine with Ginobili and Parker. The Showtime Lakers ran like crazy, despite 40-year-old Kareem practically walking up the court. It can be done! Everybody thinks of the Mavs as a fast-breaking team, despite their star being (in his buddy Steve Nash's words) "a lumbering carthorse".


By "play nice" I mean getting along with the coaches and players, not being a distraction off the court, etc.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

More rumors with regard to Atlanta:

"In a lot of ways, the NBA draft doesn't start until the Atlanta Hawks make their choice at No. 3. Whatever the public pressure to take a point guard, rest assured this: They won't be drafting Mike Conley Jr. that high. 

After watching him toss brick after brick in Monday's workout with Al Horford and Noah, Atlanta officials had no reason to re-visit a decision they made weeks ago. It isn't that they're not intrigued with Conley, but forget making him the third overall selection. In fact, the Hawks are hoping that if Conley slips past Memphis at No. 4 and Minnesota at No. 7, he will drop down to them at No. 11. 

If Conley doesn't make it that far, several league sources said Billy Knight's infatuation with Luke Ridnour will result with the 11th pick being traded to Seattle for the Sonics point guard. 

"A lot of the staff there likes Acie Law," one rival executive said, "but Billy has never been sold." 

For now, Horford, the 6-foot-10 forward, is expected to be Atlanta's choice at No. 3, but the Hawks will be entertaining trade offers through Thursday's draft. One trade possibility that was discussed but never came together, two league sources said, was Golden State's suggestion that point guard Monta Ellis could be available in a package for the third overall choice"


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TheATLien said:


> A Pachulia/Randolph frontcourt would be by far the worst defensive unit in the NBA.


No offense, but why is Pachulia that relevant? He's never going to be a starter on a good team, and he'll be replaced as soon as they can do so.



> That team wouldn't even make the playoffs, and you just got a whole lot older


Zach is 25. The person you draft is probably going to be 20-22. Is that getting older? Sure. Is it a "whole lot" older? No.

As for whether Atlanta makes the playoffs or not: I'm not sure. With Johnson, Smith and Zach, though, they'd definitely be in the hunt.



> and gave a top three pick to Greg Oden, Lamarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy's team. No thx.


Are you trying to make the Hawks better or not improve other teams? Presumably the Hawks wouldn't care if they handed the Blazers a championship, as long as the Atlanta team is better off.

Ed O.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> A Pachulia/Randolph frontcourt would be by far the worst defensive unit in the NBA. That team wouldn't even make the playoffs, and you just got a whole lot older and gave a top three pick to Greg Oden, Lamarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy's team. No thx.


We're also giving up a guy who has averaged over 20 and 10 in the league and we're getting back an unknown commodity in return. 

Let's be fair, there's no guarantees with a draft pick. At least not outside of Greg Oden and Kevin Durant. We're giving up someone who has put up All-Star quality numbers for most of his career.


----------



## adotjames (Jun 21, 2005)

Zach is easily the most unathletic player in the NBA; or the PGA for that matter. He is not worth a lotto pick, especially in this draft. I think the real question we need to be asking is what are we going to give up to unload him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

adotjames said:


> I think the real question we need to be asking is what are we going to give up to unload him.


I think the real question is what planet are you living on.

Ed O.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

What if Portland could land the #3 from ATL and parlay that in to a deal with Seattle for the #2? If Seattle and Portland could come to an agreement before Portland pulled the trigger on the ATL deal, Portland would be happy to get robbed by ATL. But there's a caveat....the only way I could see Seattle/Portland agreeing to a deal before Portland makes a deal for #3 with ATL is if Brandon Roy was headed to Seattle. That could single handily keep the team in Seattle and would land us Durant. I'd do it in a heartbeat, though I LOVE Roy.

Portland trades to Atlanta:
Zach Randolph (PF)
Jarret Jack (PG)
#37 pick
#42 pick

Atlanta trades to Portland:
Sheldon Williams (PF)
Speedy Claxton (PG)
#3 pick 

(works)

Portland would then have to trade the #3 and B-Roy and whatever else they can (minus Aldridge) to get the #2 and whatever else. I tried to find something that worked on the realgm trade checker but I got stumped. I couldn't figure out how to put Joel in the deal. I thought about Joel/Roy for any thing and the #2. I'd do just about any thing (minus trading Roy AND Aldridge...or just Aldridge) to land Oden and Durant.


----------



## Superblaze (Aug 6, 2006)

I think its Randolph, Jack and two draft picks to ATL for M. Williams and the 11th.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

ATLien

glad you venture to our boards and give us thoughts on ATL

whats your thought son Marvin being dealt? maybe in a deal with POR


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Superblaze said:


> I think its Randolph, Jack and two draft picks to ATL for M. Williams and the 11th.


I think that is too high a price for us

plus it does not work CBA wise


----------



## adotjames (Jun 21, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I think the real question is what planet are you living on.
> 
> Ed O.


Just ask yourself this. If you were Atlanta, would you trade the 3rd pick for Zach? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

adotjames said:


> Just ask yourself this. If you were Atlanta, would you trade the 3rd pick for Zach? I know I wouldn't.


I think it would also include Jack. Zach + Jack is worth it... and you will need to provide filler too

Where in the top 3-30 picks are you going to get a PF who will average 20 and 10 in the WEST conf?


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

This isn't gonna happen, you guys are wasting your time talking about it. Why would Atlanta trade for Zach's big contract, when they can get Horford for a much cheaper price, sure Horford isn't on Zach's level NOW, but I rather have Smith and Horford, rather than just Zach big contract.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

adotjames said:


> Just ask yourself this. If you were Atlanta, would you trade the 3rd pick for Zach? I know I wouldn't.


Even assuming you are correct that Atlanta would not do that, does it logically follows that the "real question" is how much Portland has to give up to get rid of Zach?

That makes no freaking sense.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I think the real question is what planet are you living on.
> 
> Ed O.



I live on the evil version of earth, which of course is on the opposite side of the sun so we never see it. On that alter ego universe, the Blazers pick Kevin Durant, and hire JR Rider as their coach.:biggrin:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Can we just get this through our heads? We aren't trading for the #2 pick, and we aren't trading for Marvin Williams. I've seen 100 posts on this, and there isn't one chance to get either.


----------



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

adotjames said:


> Zach is easily the most unathletic player in the NBA; or the PGA for that matter. He is not worth a lotto pick, especially in this draft. I think the real question we need to be asking is what are we going to give up to unload him.


I beg to differ. Playing next to Jamaal Magloire last year it was clear Zach wasn't even the most unathletic player on his own team. Besides, Larry Bird wasn't exactly athletic. He was very smart, very talented and very driven. Zach has proven he's two of those three. So, he's not Larry Bird, but you can't be lacking in talent and post 23.6/10.1 against the best players in the world (aka: the Western Conference). 

With the lack of quality big men and inside scoring in the Eastern Conference, he could easily help a team like Atlanta leapfrog several teams and make the play-offs - and even win a series once there. His inside scoring and rebounding could also greatly improve Chicago's, New Jersey's or Washington's chances in the slower, half-court oriented style that dominates the post season.

BNM


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

Horford could end up being a Zach Randolph type without the baggage, in a couple of year, I much rather wait on him, plus he's MUCH cheaper.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> We're also giving up a guy who has averaged over 20 and 10 in the league and we're getting back an unknown commodity in return.
> 
> Let's be fair, there's no guarantees with a draft pick. At least not outside of Greg Oden and Kevin Durant. We're giving up someone who has put up All-Star quality numbers for most of his career.


If he's so good then don't trade him.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Blazer Freak said:


> Can we just get this through our heads? We aren't trading for the #2 pick, and we aren't trading for Marvin Williams. I've seen 100 posts on this, and there isn't one chance to get either.


I agree about the #2 - but Atlanta needs to move some of these forwards to balance the roster - especially if they take Horford with the #3. Williams, Smith, the other Williams or Chills should be available. Which one it would be depends on what they get in return.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Trader Ed said:


> ATLien
> 
> glad you venture to our boards and give us thoughts on ATL
> 
> whats your thought son Marvin being dealt? maybe in a deal with POR


I would definately trade Marvin. I'm not really impressed by him, I think Josh Childress is a better player. But I think Marvin is more unlikely to be traded just because NBA GM's have ego's and don't like to admit mistakes.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

andalusian said:


> I agree about the #2 - but Atlanta needs to move some of these forwards to balance the roster - especially if they take Horford with the #3. Williams, Smith, the other Williams or Chills should be available. Which one it would be depends on what they get in return.


Oh, they definitely do. But Marvin is like Martell, people forget they are only 20 years old. If I was ATL I'd keep Marvin and JSmoove and trade Shelden and Childress.

Marvin can still become something, but I'd look to deal him in a year or two if he doesn't start becoming very very good. 

Marvin and Smith just have too much potential and youth to be traded for a player like Zach or anyone else on our team besides Oden, Aldridge, Roy.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> I would definately trade Marvin. I'm not really impressed by him, I think Josh Childress is a better player. But I think Marvin is more unlikely to be traded just because NBA GM's have ego's and don't like to admit mistakes.


Bingo. 

I would much rather have Childress than Williams. The only thing worse than taking a player with a high pick that doesn't work out, is then trading that player and watch him blossom on another team. I think Atlanta is "all in" on M. Williams.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I would argue that Zach and #11 for Marvin is enough - he might become something - but he might never be anything more than a 15ppg SF - while with Zach they get a proven 23/10 guy that will work very well next to the big Gator - a front line of Zach and Horford with Smith, the Atlanta JJ and a PG (any PG) would do some real damage in the east. If you add our JJ to the mix (a real good prospect PG - I suspect he will have as good as career as Marvin to be honest with you and would hate to see him go) - no questions should be made about moving Marvin - Zach and JJ are proven talent and they have to give talent to receive talent.

Do you think Portland will not move Webster as part of a deal that gets a value small forward? They would - and Atlanta should do the same since they have Chills and Smith on the roster as well - if they get real talent in return.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> If he's so good then don't trade him.


We wouldn't be trading him if we didn't have a better prospect in Aldridge. It's not that Zach isn't a good player, it's that Aldridge is better. What Zach has done is still very impressive. He is a legit NBA scorer. He can put up points against double and triple teams, and that's nothing to cough at. I've watched more of Zach Randolph than most, and I can honestly say that he's not nearly the headcase that people make him out to be. I don't think he's among the NBA elite, but he's still one of the best post players in the league. I don't understand why everyone lowballs his talent.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> We wouldn't be trading him if we didn't have a better prospect in Aldridge. It's not that Zach isn't a good player, it's that Aldridge is better. What Zach has done is still very impressive. He is a legit NBA scorer. He can put up points against double and triple teams, and that's nothing to cough at. I've watched more of Zach Randolph than most, and I can honestly say that he's not nearly the headcase that people make him out to be. I don't think he's among the NBA elite, but he's still one of the best post players in the league. I don't understand why everyone lowballs his talent.


That, and I also think he gets along with team mates better then it gets made out to be. He is constantly being named the funniest guy on the team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TheATLien said:


> I would definately trade Marvin. I'm not really impressed by him, I think Josh Childress is a better player. But I think Marvin is more unlikely to be traded just because NBA GM's have ego's and don't like to admit mistakes.



Two words.... Sebastian Telfair. If we can admit a mistake so can you guys


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

If Atlanta truly wants Zach, it will cost them the #3 pick and help from another team with a better player than anyone the Hawks have.

KP wasn't born yesterday.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Two words.... Sebastian Telfair. If we can admit a mistake so can you guys


It is easier to trade a guy you invested a high draft pick in when you only invested the #13 and another team offers you the #7 than if you took a player at #2.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> If Atlanta truly wants Zach, it will cost them the #3 pick and help from another team with a better player than anyone the Hawks have.
> 
> KP wasn't born yesterday.


Better than Joe Johnson? Good look with that.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

gambitnut said:


> It is easier to trade a guy you invested a high draft pick in when you only invested the #13 and another team offers you the #7 than if you took a player at #2.


True, but Telfair got a slightly higher pick (#7) and still cost one year of Raef's slary where the proposed deal gives Atlanta proven talent in Zach.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> We wouldn't be trading him if we didn't have a better prospect in Aldridge. It's not that Zach isn't a good player, it's that Aldridge is better. What Zach has done is still very impressive. He is a legit NBA scorer. He can put up points against double and triple teams, and that's nothing to cough at. I've watched more of Zach Randolph than most, and I can honestly say that he's not nearly the headcase that people make him out to be. I don't think he's among the NBA elite, but he's still one of the best post players in the league. I don't understand why everyone lowballs his talent.


This was a good post and I haven't exactly watched many Portland games, but what makes Aldrdige a better player if Zach has been putting up 20 and 10 against double and triple teams in The Big Bad West? His rookie numbers (9 ppg, 5 rpg) don't exactly jump out at you and I know he had trouble staying healthy when he was at Texas. Someone please inform me.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

TheATLien said:


> This was a good post and I haven't exactly watched many Portland games, but what makes Aldrdige a better player if Zach has been putting up 20 and 10 against double and triple teams in The Big Bad West? His rookie numbers (9 ppg, 5 rpg) don't exactly jump out at you and I know he had trouble staying healthy when he was at Texas. Someone please inform me.


I really like LMA and I think in a couple years will be the best player out of last years draft. His numbers are only 9 ppg 5 rb because he was Zach's backup for most of the year. He can defend, great shot blocker, scored great when he did start and with Oden is going to be the twin towers like Robinson and Duncan in a couple years. I can't remember Portland's record when LMA started but it was a good. I think most people that watched him play especially when he was starting knows he is going to be a star in this league. Even with Oden and Roy I'm pretty sure LMA is going to be a 20-10 guy with a lot of blocks.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Aldridge started the year on the IL - did not get to really participate in camp and ended the year on the IL. He was also buried in the depth chart behind Zach, Joel and Jamal and played a lot at the #5 position instead of his natural power forward position - when he got minutes while healthy (the month of March) he was the best rookie in the league - better even than his team-mate Roy - and when he started at the PF position with Zach out he averaged 21 and 9 while playing better defense than Zach.

He is a rookie and will take a bit of time to develop - but he has the tools, work ethic and smarts to be a better player than Zach when all is said and done.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> If Atlanta truly wants Zach, it will cost them the #3 pick and help from another team with a better player than anyone the Hawks have.
> 
> KP wasn't born yesterday.


hah. Now Randolph has higher trade value than KG?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> Better than Joe Johnson? Good luck with that.


Don't sweat Maris too much. He doesn't seem to pay much attention to teams beyond the Blazers.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> We wouldn't be trading him if we didn't have a better prospect in Aldridge.


I agree with that, so much so that I'm increasingly hesitant to move Randolph. I think he, Aldridge, and Oden would be a pretty incredible rotation at the 4/5, and there are SF solutions that can be found without moving Zach.

In fact, I'm not in any particular rush to make a move for a small forward at all -- I'd be content with Udoka and Webster getting most of those minutes again this year.

Another move I'd consider, _if_ the Blazers think they can resign Blake, is moving Jack (perhaps with picks and/or cash) for a draft pick. I like him a lot, but he's a smallish combo guard and the Blazers already have a very good combo guard in Roy and a decent combo guard in Jones. Thus, I could see moving Jack for BPA, whomever that might be at the time, and seeing what comes.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

lol and here all along i thought maris was a chick.
lol
my bad.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Zach could help Atlanta, and I don't think ATL fans have seen enough of him to appreciate what he can do (who outside of Blazer fans has had a reason to watched Blazer games the last 3 years?)...

... but there's no way we get the #3 pick for him, and considering they could and seem likely to get Horford at #3, they don't need Zach. If they really do decide to take Conley at #3, which seems farfetched, then perhaps a deal could be constructed using other pieces (Williams, Childress, #11) for Zach that possibly makes sense.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I agree with that, so much so that I'm increasingly hesitant to move Randolph. I think he, Aldridge, and Oden would be a pretty incredible rotation at the 4/5, and there are SF solutions that can be found without moving Zach.
> 
> In fact, I'm not in any particular rush to make a move for a small forward at all -- I'd be content with Udoka and Webster getting most of those minutes again this year.
> 
> Another move I'd consider, _if_ the Blazers think they can resign Blake, is moving Jack (perhaps with picks and/or cash) for a draft pick. I like him a lot, but he's a smallish combo guard and the Blazers already have a very good combo guard in Roy and a decent combo guard in Jones. Thus, I could see moving Jack for BPA, whomever that might be at the time, and seeing what comes.


Agreed on all fronts. I'm not a huge Ime fan, but I would be more than happy to see Webster step into the small forward role.

Ed O.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Agreed on all fronts. I'm not a huge Ime fan, but I would be more than happy to see Webster step into the small forward role.
> 
> Ed O.


Webster does have the tools to be the perfect fit at that role. He has shown the ability to become a decent defender, and that he can take it to the hoop (when he wants to), and he can certainly shoot and rebound. It's just a matter of getting his mind right so he can be more consistant. If Webster could put it all together I don't think there is another (realistic) SF I would rather have.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

TheATLien said:


> This was a good post and I haven't exactly watched many Portland games, but what makes Aldrdige a better player if Zach has been putting up 20 and 10 against double and triple teams in The Big Bad West? His rookie numbers (9 ppg, 5 rpg) don't exactly jump out at you and I know he had trouble staying healthy when he was at Texas. Someone please inform me.


As others have said, LMA's year long stats don't tell the whole story. He was injured and missed training camp, he was stuck behind some veteran big men and Coach Nate's offense is complex and demanding. What gets everyone high on Aldridge though is how quickly he did improve and show solid production after his slow start. He was a 15-8 player on >50% shooting in the final month of the season, and his offense is still raw. He scores on putbacks sweet-looking jumpshots, with only a nascent post game, but he is working on it and will develop some go to moves. He has also already shown amazing defensive footwork and help defense, which may never show up in the stats but which makes him a very valuable player.

Zach's a very different player. His help defense is bad, but he is stronger and can guard strong players in the post. He also, unlike Aldridge, is one of the top post players in the league and can score efficiently when isolated and double-teamed. Both players are solid rebounders on both ends.

Zach also likes guns, stripclubs and hanging out with his posse. In Portland we've been hypersensitized to that stuff by years of "Jailblazers" issues, but honestly I don't think that stuff would be significantly important in most other cities. Even with that, and even though LMA's natural position is PF, I think if we hadn't lucked into Oden we'd be talking about having a starting frontline of Zach and Aldridge together, one providing the dominant post presence, and the other one spreading the defense with his great midrange shot and providing the great help-defense.

Some posters in here hate Zach on a very personal level, because he does dumb stuff and has been our main player during some bad years, but the fact is he can play and has some pretty rare skills. His teammates and coach seem to genuinely like him, and he works hard on improving his game and wants to win. We may trade him because we can't have three starting big men forever, but we won't give him away for nothing because he does have real value.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

I'd love to see Webster and Ime rotate the 3 this year. Leave LMA and Oden as the twin towers, and let Blake(if we get him) and Roy to do the other-work


----------



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

TheATLien said:


> This was a good post and I haven't exactly watched many Portland games, but what makes Aldrdige a better player if Zach has been putting up 20 and 10 against double and triple teams in The Big Bad West? His rookie numbers (9 ppg, 5 rpg) don't exactly jump out at you and I know he had trouble staying healthy when he was at Texas. Someone please inform me.


I love Aldridge's game, but he is NOT better than Zach today. He does have the potential to be better. Not a better scorer, but a better all around player.

Most importantly, and the reason Zach is being shopped, is Aldridge is a much better fit next to Oden. Zach and Oden both need the ball down on the blocks to be effective offensively. Playing both together will result in congestion in the paint as they both get in each other's way. We saw that this year when Nate tried to play Magloire and Zach at the same time. It made both players less effective.

Aldridge is more of a face-the-basket player with a great midrange jumper. Rather than get in Oden's way, he will actually open things up to allow Oden to operate effectively down low. In short, he's a much better fit offensively with Oden than Zach would be - and that's why Zach is available.

BNM


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Thanks.  Quality responses.

I think you guys got an awesome group of posters on the Portland forum.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Reep said:


> If Webster could put it all together I don't think there is another (realistic) SF I would rather have.


That's a very big "if" . . . The only thing Webster has proven so far is that he can occasionally hit a sweet-looking jump shot and then miss six in a row.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> That's a very big "if" . . . The only thing Webster has proven so far is that he can occasionally hit a sweet-looking jump shot and then miss six in a row.


It is a huge "if", no doubt. But as far as cost/benefit goes... it's cheap to hang onto him, and there's still a decent chance of him becoming a good+ starter. The kid is still only 20... only about a year older than Oden.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I love Aldridge's game, but he is NOT better than Zach today. He does have the potential to be better. Not a better scorer, but a better all around player.
> 
> Most importantly, and the reason Zach is being shopped, is Aldridge is a much better fit next to Oden. Zach and Oden both need the ball down on the blocks to be effective offensively. Playing both together will result in congestion in the paint as they both get in each other's way. We saw that this year when Nate tried to play Magloire and Zach at the same time. It made both players less effective.
> 
> ...



Why wouldn't he have a chance at being a better scorer? I disagree with you on many counts. First of all, Aldridge has excellent range, not just mid range. He often ends up with mid range shots because they are there for him in the offense (Sergio especially likes to find him at the top of the key), but last year the guy showed he can face up or post up. I remember several times where in the post he used drop step moves to get dunks on guys, and literally had them out of their shoes. I also believe his shot is much harder to stop, as he has better extension, better ability to elevate. He just needs a little time to round out his game, and he will be a better offensive player then Zbo, if for no other reason then he will be more efficient. Zbo is a volume shooter, and his game is more representive of that every year.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> Horford could end up being a Zach Randolph type without the baggage, in a couple of year, I much rather wait on him, plus he's MUCH cheaper.


I think Horford will be good, but Zach put up 23/10 at 25, and still has a good chunk of his prime to come. Do you really expect Horford to do that?

And to the random guy with 60 posts, why do you even bother if all you post is just going to be garbage?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> That's a very big "if" . . . The only thing Webster has proven so far is that he can occasionally hit a sweet-looking jump shot and then miss six in a row.


Most of us will agree that last year seemed like not a very good one for Webster. That said, take a look at his shooting percentages -- they're really pretty good. And he was absolutely on fire for the first ten games or so, before he got hurt -- I think he was leading the entire NBA in 3pt shooting percentage.

If I recall correctly, one of Nate's main complaints about him, and part of why he didn't get more PT, was his defense. Even with Zach still playing big minutes, it'll make a huge difference having Oden and/or Aldridge (who'll almost certainly be playing more than last year even with Zach still on board) -- defensive mistakes from wing players won't matter as much as they did last year.

What's the most pressing need for this team? Most people would say outside shooting and even after cooling off some in the latter part of the season, he ended up at 36.4 for the year, up from 35.7 the year before.

Clearly there's lots of room for Webster to improve, but he still might (as Ed says, he's still only 20) and even if he doesn't, Randolph can always be moved later. In fact, his value is likely to only rise, presuming he plays reasonably well with Oden and company -- the **** about best player on a bad team will disappear and he'll simply be viewed as a good player on a good team.

Then there's always the possibility of Jack, picks, and cash bringing in a SF who'll be a pleasant surprise. Really, I don't think there's _any reason_ to look to move Randolph, short of a too-good-to-pass-up offer for him.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

hasoos said:


> Why wouldn't he have a chance at being a better scorer? I disagree with you on many counts. First of all, Aldridge has excellent range, not just mid range. He often ends up with mid range shots because they are there for him in the offense (Sergio especially likes to find him at the top of the key), but last year the guy showed he can face up or post up. I remember several times where in the post he used drop step moves to get dunks on guys, and literally had them out of their shoes. I also believe his shot is much harder to stop, as he has better extension, better ability to elevate. He just needs a little time to round out his game, and he will be a better offensive player then Zbo, if for no other reason then he will be more efficient. Zbo is a volume shooter, and his game is more representive of that every year.


By "several times", you must mean less than 10 all year, because that's all Aldridge showed us. He had a turnaround jumper that was easily bothered by a strong defender and some very rare displays of an actual post move. Basically, he has very little in the way of post skills and no ability to drive by anyone while facing up. Maybe he got by a couple people all season just by surprising them, but it seems like people describe Aldridge extremely generously while denigrating when Zach does those things 10x better night in and night out against double teams. LMA faces single coverage and scores off garbage points, Zach faces constant doubles and creates his own scoring opportunities. If you put them in the same role to make an apples to apples comparison, I think many people would be surprised by how efficient Zach can be and how tough his job has been carrying the offense for awful teams the last couple years.


----------



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

hasoos said:


> He just needs a little time to round out his game, and he will be a better offensive player then Zbo, if for no other reason then he will be more efficient.


I should have chosen my words more carefully. What I meant is I don't think Aldridge will score as much as Zach - not that he wouldn't be a better, more efficient offensive player - someday. 

So, why won't he score as much? He won't be the No. 1 option on offense - like Zach has been for the last three or four years. He won't have a play run for him almost every time down the court and won't pout when he doesn't get his "touches". He won't dominate the ball and look to score every time he touches it. He will be sharing the post with Oden. I agree he will likely be a more efficient scorer than Zach, but I don't think he will score more points - and that's not a knock on LaMarcus, just how I see his role on this team evolving. 

And I do think he'll be a much better all around player than Zach - eventually. He'll be more efficient and a better fit next to Oden on offense, and far better defensively. Tim Duncan has never lead the league in scoring (his best is 5th) and scored 3.6 less PPG than Zach this year, but there is no doubt who is the better player. I view Aldridge the same way. He'll score more than enough to help his team win, but that will only be one part of his total contributions.

BNM


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> Horford could end up being a Zach Randolph type without the baggage, in a couple of year, I much rather wait on him, plus he's MUCH cheaper.




I think the biggest reason you are okay to do this is because your franchise is so used to losing... does winning not even appeal to you guys anymore?


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I think we all want Atlanta to win. But there's a lot of uneasiness because the last time we traded the #3 pick for a veteran PF it didn't work out. Trading top pick for veteran is not always a sure thing.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Ok, everyone wants to win, however I feel Atlanta just seems so accustomed to their losing tradition that they keep waiting for their potential young players to pan out without much desire to push their franchise to win and make the playoffs again.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

OntheRocks said:


> Ok, everyone wants to win, however I feel Atlanta just seems so accustomed to their losing tradition that they keep waiting for their potential young players to pan out without much desire to push their franchise to win and make the playoffs again.



whens the last time, the Blazers won anything? fact is, we(hawks fan) know this team, much more than you guys do, and we know what deal make sense, and what deal doesn't make sense.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

With as many swing players and small forwards that Atlanta has, I don't see anything working out unless it involves one of Williams, Smith, or Childress. I know that there's been a lot of talk about them trading away the #3, but if they do, it'll probably be for a point guard or good center.

Zach seems a little overpriced for them. But who knows... apparently we all will in a few days!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> whens the last time, the Blazers won anything?


While I really appreciate you posting on these boards, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Historically, the Blazers have been a much more successful franchise than Atlanta. Even you would have to agree on that.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> While I really appreciate you posting on these boards, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Historically, the Blazers have been a much more successful franchise than Atlanta. Even you would have to agree on that.


:clap:

as Kelso on "That 70's Show" used to say... "BURN!" :biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

OntheRocks said:


> Ok, everyone wants to win, however I feel Atlanta just seems so accustomed to their losing tradition that they keep waiting for their potential young players to pan out without much desire to push their franchise to win and make the playoffs again.


Part of that has to be the previous ownership group, which was very cheap. It's not that ATL fans necessarily wanted to wait for youth, but if your team's owners wants to keep salary way down, then there isn't much choice but to build through the draft. Even if we knew for 100% fact that picking Horford at #3 would not help the Hawks as much as Zach would in the near or long-term (which of course we don't know), the fact that Horford makes so much less money over the next 5 years is a real concern for a team that doesn't have an owner willing to spend.

I don't know how much salary the new majority Hawks owner wants to shell out, but improving the Hawks will be harder than improving the Blazers. Our GM basically just has to worry about getting the most talent on our team. Their GM has to worry about both maximizing talent and doing so within a fixed and possibly strict budget, which makes it a lot more difficult. Buying a late draft pick for $3 mil? Taking on $12 mil in extra salary to get another lotto pick? Not every GM can get those kind of moves approved.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> whens the last time, the Blazers won anything?


May 22, 2007.

You live in a cave or something? :lol:


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Part of that has to be the previous ownership group, which was very cheap. It's not that ATL fans necessarily wanted to wait for youth, but if your team's owners wants to keep salary way down, then there isn't much choice but to build through the draft. Even if we knew for 100% fact that picking Horford at #3 would not help the Hawks as much as Zach would in the near or long-term (which of course we don't know), the fact that Horford makes so much less money over the next 5 years is a real concern for a team that doesn't have an owner willing to spend.
> 
> I don't know how much salary the new majority Hawks owner wants to shell out, but improving the Hawks will be harder than improving the Blazers. Our GM basically just has to worry about getting the most talent on our team. Their GM has to worry about both maximizing talent and doing so within a fixed and possibly strict budget, which makes it a lot more difficult. Buying a late draft pick for $3 mil? Taking on $12 mil in extra salary to get another lotto pick? Not every GM can get those kind of moves approved.


I don't believe that money is an issue for the Hawks. Atlanta spent the big bucks to sign Joe Johnson and has been active in free agency since then. They won't go over the salary cap sure, but I don't think money is their biggest problem. The people in management are lacking intelligence. That is the main thing that is hurting Atlanta. They have had a lot of bad drafts.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> whens the last time, the Blazers won anything? fact is, we(hawks fan) know this team, much more than you guys do, and we know what deal make sense, and what deal doesn't make sense.


:laugh: That's good coming from a Hawks fan. Pretty sure we had a streak of 23 consecutive years in the Playoffs. Last time you made the playoffs?

Exactly. And we(Blazer Fans) know this team. So I'm saying this nicely. Stick to you're forum and we'll stick to ours. You're becoming a troll around these boards because you don't like any trade ideas. It's an idea and you come in here thrashing us and our team. So just back off, jesus christ.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Zach seems a little overpriced for them. But who knows... apparently we all will in a few days!


Maybe, maybe not. The rumours will continue even after draft night.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

adotjames said:


> Just ask yourself this. If you were Atlanta, would you trade the 3rd pick for Zach? I know I wouldn't.


Out of the last 10 #3 picks, Carmelo is the only player that clearly surpasses Zach, 4 of them are about equal and then you have the other 50% that is clearly worse. If Atlanta really wants a good low post scorer, it wouldn't be an unwise move to take Zach.

Adam Morrison, Deron Williams, Ben Gordon, Mello, Mike Dunleavey, Paul Gasol, Darius Miles, Baron Davis, Raef LaFrentz, Chauncey Billups


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Yega1979 said:


> Out of the last 10 #3 picks, Carmelo is the only player that clearly surpasses Zach, 4 of them are about equal and then you have the other 50% that is clearly worse. If Atlanta really wants a good low post scorer, it wouldn't be an unwise move to take Zach.
> 
> Adam Morrison, Deron Williams, Ben Gordon, Mello, Mike Dunleavey, Paul Gasol, Darius Miles, Baron Davis, Raef LaFrentz, Chauncey Billups


I'd rather have williams, gordon, gasol, davis, billups OVER z-bo.

but thats just me.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Five5even said:


> I'd rather have williams, gordon, gasol, davis, billups OVER z-bo.
> 
> but thats just me.


No, it's not just you, (though I'm not sure Gordon makes my cut).


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I'm dumbfounded. Are Atlanta Hawk fans really on our board talking smak about the last time the Blazers "won anything?"

Am I reading this correctly? I have had a P-town Micro Brew or 8 tonight, so maybe I don't have my wits.....hard to tell...but I'm hedging my bets.

ATL fans talking smak to Blazer fans? Just....doesn't....feel.....right....


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

TheATLien said:


> I don't believe that money is an issue for the Hawks. Atlanta spent the big bucks to sign Joe Johnson and has been active in free agency since then. They won't go over the salary cap sure, but I don't think money is their biggest problem. The people in management are lacking intelligence. That is the main thing that is hurting Atlanta. They have had a lot of bad drafts.


Atlanta spent the right amount of money to get Joe Johnson, which was a lot, but he is the only guy they spend on. Being "active in free agency since then" mostly amounts to giving $6m/year to Speedy Claxton, which is overpaying, but wasn't enough to make them more than the second lowest salary in the league (above only the Charlotte Bobcats, who were briefly in danger of falling below the league's minimum salary threshold). Besides those two, the whole team is constructed from rookie scale contracts and cheap free agents.

You're saying money isn't an issue but you acknowledge they won't go over the salary cap. You should know though that the NBA's salary cap is a soft cap, and the teams generally don't go over the cap only when they are either trying to leave space to sign a free agent in the near term, or they have really cheap owners. The Hawks have been under the cap consistently, meaning each year (except when they signed JJ) they have passed up the opportunity to truly be players in the free agent market and improve the team. Money is absolutely an issue for them.

But that's no to say bad management wasn't also a problem. They have made some consistently bad picks and trades over the years, but their unwillingness to spend money has also certainly helped keep them from climbing out.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

As much as i'd love to think we could get the #3 for anyone not including roy/aldridge etc i just find it all highly unlikely. 

Putting myself into ATL's shoes, it's pretty clear cut what I'd do - take Horford and hope Acie Law is there at 11. That word about trading 11 to seattle for ridnour..... YUCK. horrible horrible idea.. 

If Law isnt there at 11 , id look at Hawes (brand new frontcourt right there)or Crittenton. hell, id be looking at thad young and fernandez too.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Five5even said:


> I'd rather have williams, gordon, gasol, davis, billups OVER z-bo.
> 
> but thats just me.


Right and we need a PG. Other teams need a dominant low post scorer.

I'm not sure why you'd take Gasol over Randolph though. They are both strictly scorers, Randolph is much better at it though.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Yega1979 said:


> Right and we need a PG. Other teams need a dominant low post scorer.
> 
> I'm not sure why you'd take Gasol over Randolph though. They are both strictly scorers, Randolph is much better at it though.


As evidenced by his sub 47% career FG shooting compared to Gasol's 51%.

Not only that, Gasol is a better defender and a MUCH better passer. Any talk of Randolph being better than Gasol is ridiculous.


----------



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

bmac said:


> As evidenced by his sub 47% career FG shooting compared to Gasol's 51%.
> 
> Not only that, Gasol is a better defender


No he's not. He blocks more shots, but he's an absolutely horrible man-to-man defender. The last two times they've gone head-to-head Zach has scored career highs againt Pau. Here's their lines from their last game against each other.

Zach: 40 MIN, 43 PTS, 17 REB, 5 ASSISTS, 16-26 FG, 11-16 FT, 2 BLK, 2 TO
Pau: 40 MIN, 17 PTS, 8 REB, 3 ASSISTS, 5-14 FG, 7-8 FT, 1 BLK, 2 TO

Oh, and Zach broke his hand in that game and still totally dominated Pau. I was at the game and was amazed by what a poor defender Pau is. Zach totally abused him from start to finish. Pau failed to box Zach out on numerous occasions allowing him to grab 7 offensive rebounds and score many easy baskets. He's actually a lot like Zach - good offense, good rebounder, poor defense. Pau is a year older. Zach has off court issues and Pau whines about wanting to be traded. Frankly, either one would be a good second fiddle on a play-off team, but I wouldn't want to build my team around either.

BNM


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

I wasn't claiming Gasol was an outstanding defender, merely that he's better than Zach. And i stand by it.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

bmac said:


> I wasn't claiming Gasol was an outstanding defender, merely that he's better than Zach. And i stand by it.



You can stand by it all you want, but he really isn't that much better.... I'd say right now that it's a pretty even push.


----------



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

bmac said:


> I wasn't claiming Gasol was an outstanding defender, merely that he's better than Zach. And i stand by it.


Stand anywhere you like. That doesn't make it true. When it comes to defense Pau and Zach are equally bad these days. Pau may have been a better defender a couple years ago, but last season Pau's defensive rating of 109.3 was actually worse than Zach's 108.5.

BNM


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

The fact that Gasol actually blocks a few shots gives him the edge in my view. Randolph has a little more than 100 blocks in his 6 year career. Pretty pathetic for someone 6'9.

Even if for arguments sake we say defense is a wash, Gasol is still the better player, which was my original point.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> No he's not. He blocks more shots, but he's an absolutely horrible man-to-man defender. The last two times they've gone head-to-head Zach has scored career highs againt Pau. Here's their lines from their last game against each other.
> 
> Zach: 40 MIN, 43 PTS, 17 REB, 5 ASSISTS, 16-26 FG, 11-16 FT, 2 BLK, 2 TO
> Pau: 40 MIN, 17 PTS, 8 REB, 3 ASSISTS, 5-14 FG, 7-8 FT, 1 BLK, 2 TO
> ...



Hmm. This raises an interesting question...How many points would Zach score against Zach?


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Atlanta spent the right amount of money to get Joe Johnson, which was a lot, but he is the only guy they spend on. Being "active in free agency since then" mostly amounts to giving $6m/year to Speedy Claxton, which is overpaying, but wasn't enough to make them more than the second lowest salary in the league (above only the Charlotte Bobcats, who were briefly in danger of falling below the league's minimum salary threshold). Besides those two, the whole team is constructed from rookie scale contracts and cheap free agents.
> 
> You're saying money isn't an issue but you acknowledge they won't go over the salary cap. You should know though that the NBA's salary cap is a soft cap, and the teams generally don't go over the cap only when they are either trying to leave space to sign a free agent in the near term, or they have really cheap owners. The Hawks have been under the cap consistently, meaning each year (except when they signed JJ) they have passed up the opportunity to truly be players in the free agent market and improve the team. Money is absolutely an issue for them.
> 
> But that's no to say bad management wasn't also a problem. They have made some consistently bad picks and trades over the years, but their unwillingness to spend money has also certainly helped keep them from climbing out.


Yes, but can't this also be seen as a positive? You want to spend your money wisely. The New York Knicks are fairly good example of this. Isn't it better to not spend at all than to throw away long contracts to older players on the decline? If you are a contending team, then okay it makes sense. But if you've been in the lottery, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to weigh you down in cap hell.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

The problem with trading for draft picks is that they are typically over valued. It's the 'what is behind door #3 syndrome?' If your team is really bad that hope is the only thing you have to hold on to... like spending your last dollar on a lottery ticket. The unknown commodity has the 'potential' to be better. Look at the Clippers. They were in the top of the lottery for decades it seems... and never had a winning season. It is a hard hole to pull out of... and usually takes a stroke of luck, like getting the Duncan or Oden. =)


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Paxil said:


> The problem with trading for draft picks is that they are typically over valued. It's the 'what is behind door #3 syndrome?' If your team is really bad that hope is the only thing you have to hold on to... like spending your last dollar on a lottery ticket. The unknown commodity has the 'potential' to be better. Look at the Clippers. They were in the top of the lottery for decades it seems... and never had a winning season. It is a hard hole to pull out of... and usually takes a stroke of luck, like getting the Duncan or Oden. =)


...or it takes a genius draft where you pull out Roy, Aldridge and Rodriguez. this draft will have more impact on our team, but last year's draft was truly an astonishing peace of work. despite years of bad lottery teams, Chicago, Atlanta and the Clippers never once had a draft like that where they so thoroughly owned the league. 

every bad lotto team dreams of pulling off a stunt like Pritchard did last year. it's why picks are often so overvalued.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

SLAM said:


> Hmm. This raises an interesting question...How many points would Zach score against Zach?


Hmm..., that's a good question. The opposite of it is of course - if Gasol is a better defender than Zach, how many bricks will he throw against himself using the same original stat-line as a starting point?


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

That's a good point Mook... are argues against what I was trying to say so I am glad someone else did. =) Last year really was an amazing draft. I have always been amazed also at how some really good teams pick up players late in the first round and they turn out to be stars. Some of this is because you tend to look better if your team is good... but there still have been a lot of steals.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Hmm..., that's a good question. The opposite of it is of course - if Gasol is a better defender than Zach, how many bricks will he throw against himself using the same original stat-line as a starting point?


Zach is not a bad one on one defender. His problem is with team defense.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Over on hoopshype I read a clip of one article where teams were saying Portland was asking too much for Zbo, but it doesn't really say how many teams, or who said that. It could all be posturing as well.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

TheATLien said:


> Yes, but can't this also be seen as a positive? You want to spend your money wisely. The New York Knicks are fairly good example of this. Isn't it better to not spend at all than to throw away long contracts to older players on the decline? If you are a contending team, then okay it makes sense. But if you've been in the lottery, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to weigh you down in cap hell.


I think "cap hell" is a misnomer. In any given year, the large majority of teams don't have any cap space at all. What people usually mean when they say that is the team is constrained from adding salary by the luxury tax, is unable to make trades because their players are overpaid, as well as not having any real prospect of getting cap space in the near future. But the fact is, most teams get by year to year without ever having cap space.

Going young and getting cheap, to mine the lotto for a few years and eventually be players in free agency is a fine rebuilding strategy. That's what the Bulls have done. You build up a stable of young talent on cheap rookie contracts, add some top level free agents just before the rookies are due for extensions, and then being willing to spend on those extensions.

OTOH, if a team isn't willing to spend, it won't be able to acquire and keep talent. It's as simple as that. That's the way the Clippers were until very recently, cheap and bad, year to year. The Hawks have also been a team that spends way less than most of the others for a while now. The question is if that's all part of a long term rebuilding plan, whereby the owners will eventually allow the salary number to increase, or if they are just cheap. Time will tell I guess.


----------

