# We didn't get enough in the Zach trade



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

I'm just sayin.

Go Blazers


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

frye jones frenandez isnt badd


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

actually right now its bad, hopefully fernandez is as good as labeled


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

If Jones barely plays this season and Rudy stinks when he comes over next season, I'll agree. Didn't James Jones take a physical before he came over? I don't get how we made a deal for a player who is this injured. I like Rudy, but we could have demanded a different, healthy player from the Suns.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I have to admit I was a huge supporter of the Randolf trade but now that I've watched Frye play basketball, I'm second guessing the deal too. I keep telling myself that there will ultimately be a lot cap relief because of it (and that will pay off). However, I would feel a whole lot better if Frye would at least pretend to have talent.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

there is going to be a lot more cap room because of us buyin out stevie franchise


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

My goodness. A Naysayer. I am shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> I have to admit I was a huge supporter of the *Randolf* trade


Really? Come on now...


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I think we will have to wait till next year to say that but as of this year just watching Frye your right. I believe pritcherd when he said it's the best deal Portland had on the table Zach really didn't have that much value to begin with outside of Portland. If Fernandez is as good as the hype it will be worth it not to mention James Jones.:yay:


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

ehizzy3 said:


> there is going to be a lot more cap room because of us buyin out stevie franchise


There's no guarantee that we'll get anyone good with that cap room. Zach had 23 & 10 last year. Only a few players did that. We should've gotten more than a couple Knick scrubs for that. Point blank.

Go Blazers


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

i've always hated frye. but i'd still rather have him than z-dolt anytime.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I remember people thinking Channing Frye was anything but garbage. LOL. Good times.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

HKF said:


> I remember people thinking Channing Frye was anything but garbage. LOL. Good times.


not i. i said at the time of the trade that we got a knicks scrub. great deal for us!


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

HKF said:


> I remember people thinking Channing Frye was anything but garbage. LOL. Good times.


I don't think he is garbage. Infact I think he could be a vary good asset of the bench someday. He's just not a vary good asset on this team the way it's set up. I think if Oden was playing at starting C and Frye was backing up Aldridge I think he could do better.:cheers:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So you think he'd be better if he only played say 5-10 minutes. C'mon man, he sucks. You know it.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

_I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay
$50 and pick up the garbage." _

Arlo Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Actually, Frye outplayed and contributed more than Aldridge tonight. Played quite steady it seems. Maybe he will be better than Aldridge. Probably not???

Give the team time, they have a whole lot of new players to the team players this year and they need to get to know each other's games to get better. 

We have two players that have not played yet. Well Jones did but he is still injured. Can't really expect him to contribute yet, can we? 

I am more worried about Roy, he hasn't yet really gotten his shot back. 
Missed too much time in pre-season???

Worried about Blake too, he hasn't been able to shoot since he got back here??

gatorpops


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

We should have at LEAST gotten NY's pick, #20 or whatever it was.

I wish I knew what the other deals were, obviously KP thought this was the best but that doesnt mean it really was. John Nash thought giving Theo, Miles, ZBo huge extensions was smart. Those deals are still hampering the franchise, making us trade away $.40 on the $1 as a result.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

gatorpops said:


> Worried about Blake too, he hasn't been able to shoot since he got back here??
> 
> gatorpops



Wasn't he 5-8 tonight, 4-5 from 3? He's been up and down this year. He started off well, had 3 or 4 poor games, and now came back like this. I'm hoping he, along with the rest of the team will simply grow more consistent over the season.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

gatorpops said:


> Actually, Frye outplayed and contributed more than Aldridge tonight. Played quite steady it seems. Maybe he will be better than Aldridge.



my head just exploded


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Fry has been pretty consistent w/his J. He just has no business playing Center, and thats why he's suffering right now.
He's probably not happy about it.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I would have felt so much better about the trade if we got NY's 2008 1st round draft pick in the deal.

I thought it was a bad deal then and I still think it was a bad deal today.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Nightfly said:


> I thought it was a bad deal then and I still think it was a bad deal today.


Me, too. I still hold out hope it will be decent (or even better) in the long run, but in the short run? It blows.

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

HKF said:


> So you think he'd be better if he only played say 5-10 minutes. C'mon man, he sucks. You know it.


If Oden was able to play Aldridge and Oden would start and Joel and Frye would be on the 2nd unit. Not to take anything away from Aldridge I just think this could benefit Frye much better playing with someone like Przybilla.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not going to pretend that right now we look like we got jobbed, but I am pretty sure that the trade was about 5% talent and 95% other things. We may like to complain about it because all we really care about is the talent on the floor, but the organization has a lot more concerns than that one thing. Of Course we haven't gotten anything out of Jones, I belive due to his injury. THere si a glimmer og hope though....

Rudy F.
5 games 
23mpg
16.4ppg
2.4rpg
3.8apg
42% 3pt
19 for 19 from the stripe


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

we dont need any more young players so taking on ny's pick would have been crazy too. 

we've got 14 people on the roster now that we all love (depending on if we lose, it dwindles down to 12), and we still have rudy, joel and koponen. add on our own 1st and 2nd rounders. 

if anything, we should have pushed for some*one* better than frye and jones if we were going to get "nothing" out of the deal. but we cant change the past. move on .


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I'm not going to pretend that right now we look like we got jobbed, but I am pretty sure that the trade was about 5% talent and 95% other things. We may like to complain about it because all we really care about is the talent on the floor, but the organization has a lot more concerns than that one thing. Of Course we haven't gotten anything out of Jones, I belive due to his injury. THere si a glimmer og hope though....
> 
> Rudy F.
> 5 games
> ...



No doubt about it, the Dickau/F. Jones for Rudy part of the deal was fair.

It's the Zach+$30 million for Frye and J. Jones part that...:azdaja:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

At the end of the day, we traded Zach for the hope that Rudy will be an impact player. Frye and Jones are fungible bench players. I won't even bother with another rant about the whole chasing cap space myth. :sadbanana:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

deanwoof said:


> we dont need any more young players so taking on ny's pick would have been crazy too.
> 
> we've got 14 people on the roster now that we all love (depending on if we lose, it dwindles down to 12), and we still have rudy, joel and koponen. add on our own 1st and 2nd rounders.
> 
> if anything, we should have pushed for some*one* better than frye and jones if we were going to get "nothing" out of the deal. but we cant change the past. move on .


If we would have gotten NY's #1 pick (which I believe was #23) we could have used it to draft Rudy instead of having to take on James Jones. We'd have one more roster spot open, which we could use on a guy like Joel Freeland, who is getting no run this year for Gran Canaria.

What I wanted more than their #23 pick was including Darius for Malik Rose. Rose is almost as worthless, but his contract expires in 08-09.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

i am of the oppinion that the move was made to: 

*create playing time for Lamarcus* 
With ZBO still on the team LMA gets maybe 20 mpg instead of 35, though i bet he would be playing a lot of center

*make the defense better*
ZBO was a well known defensive liability, and thus reduced his value considerably. LMA, though young, has much better length/hustle/speed/athleticism/character? 

*cut some long term salary*
the salary cap figures are well documented 09/10 blah blah

*create the trade exception*
this was, i believe, a crucial part of the deals appeal. it was used to...

*acquire Rudy and JJones*
While James Jones is likely never better than a quality backup, many think Rudy has a chance to be a star in this league. If that happens, or he can come in and play significant minutes, I'm very happy. 

and last and maybe least...

*acquire Channing Frye*
Channing Frye has looked completely lost in the games Ive seen, and judging by the box scores, he is not exactly lighting the world on fire. If he pans out as more than a 7th or 8th man this year, i will be pleasantly suprised and happy for him and the team.

now the negatives to the deal are obvious. ZBO is gonna put up 23/10 all year and we will all look longingly as he wins a few games with 12 point 4th quarters and clutch free throws. 

i liked ZBO, he won a lot of games for us last year, and i was sad to see him go without us getting David Lee.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> At the end of the day, we traded Zach for the hope that Rudy will be an impact player. Frye and Jones are fungible bench players. I won't even bother with another rant about the whole chasing cap space myth. :sadbanana:


Myth? That is the only thing that makes that deal make any sense whatsoever. And I hate Randolph too.

Noone could possibly be stupid enough to have made a trade like that without the idea of cap space...unless...hmm, maybe it _was_ Nate running the phones after all?


----------



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

The thing that bugs me about the trade is that KP said one of the main reasons they made the move was to make room for Aldridge. L.A.'s development may be a side benefit, but I've always had the feeling we justified getting garbage in return for Zach because we could give Aldridge more minutes - but they are two completely independent things! We could have traded Zach for a point guard, for example, or we simply could have kept Zach and benched him in favor of Aldridge.

That said, I am very glad Zach is gone. I just remain shocked at how little we got for him.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I hated the trade all along, but I'm tired of *****ing about it. 

so here's a little bright side:

this season Randolph is only averaging 19 ppg/14rpg. that sounds pretty good--especially the rebounding--until you notice that he's only shooting 40% so far and he has over 3.1 turnovers. 

add that to his crummy defense, and it's not like we're missing out on the next Tim Duncan. 

Frye still sucks a lot more than Zach, but when you couple Zach's early performances with the possibilities this trade made down the line, this trade may not be a complete disaster.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

That and we have a better record than the Knicks too.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> Myth? That is the only thing that makes that deal make any sense whatsoever. And I hate Randolph too.
> 
> Noone could possibly be stupid enough to have made a trade like that without the idea of cap space...unless...hmm, maybe it _was_ Nate running the phones after all?


http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/368139-myth-cap-relief-2-years.html

dunno how well those numbers pan out....but its a theory. Cap Space is a fluid concept....we very well may make more moves that bring back longer contracts....when you're planning for cap space 2 seasons from now, its kind of a misnomer....most moves for cap relief are made for contracts that expire that season, not in 2 years. Lots of things could have happened. 

BUT, in summary....that thread was not necessary at that point in time. Anything short of an immediate indictment of Zach Randolph in organized dog fighting or something would not change my mind about that (some people actually used that as a justification for this trade back then!) 

Right now, I'm sure a struggling team like the Bulls could give us something like a Nocioni + others for Zach Randolph (esp. since Kobe seems way out of the picture). Just an example, not saying it is going to happen but to only get Channing Frye back (I still contend there were other likely ways to acquire Rudy if we needed to)....

But the past is the past. We can only hope that Frye plays better ball and improves. He's living up to what I've seen of him the past few years, which is unfortunate. I think he could improve and be a contributer in the longer term....but people had very unrealistic expectations of him. 


Summary: 
We could have gotten more for Zach had we waited. 

We probably could have found a way to get Rudy by targeting an earlier 20's draft pick or buying for cash. 

I still wonder what made Pritch desire Frye, who is basically LaMarcus Aldridge light. 

We're still paying Steve Francis 14 million dollars this year and next. 

Our interior defense doesn't seem to have improved, and our rebounding is atrocious. 

Long term- waiting 1/2 season to trade Zach near the deadline would probably NOT affect LMA's long term growth in this league...

those are just my opinions on this matter.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Summary:
> We could have gotten more for Zach had we waited.
> 
> We probably could have found a way to get Rudy by targeting an earlier 20's draft pick or buying for cash.
> ...


pretty much right on all accounts. 

and you bring up a really interesting point about Chicago. if we still had Zach, you just know they'd be willing to put together a decent package. 

their GM has to be absolutely desperate for low post scoring. a paring of Randolph/Ben Wallace seems a perfect combination. a stud on offense and a stud on defense. 

and it's not like Randolph would've really retarded Aldridge's growth. we've just replaced one power forward (Randolph) for another (Frye). 

man, I wish we hadn't done that trade. 

*sigh*


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

yeah, Noah and Tyrus aren't exactly cutting it.......

plus they doule up at the 3 with Deng and Nocioni


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

maxiep said:


> If we would have gotten NY's #1 pick (which I believe was #23) we could have used it to draft Rudy instead of having to take on James Jones. We'd have one more roster spot open, which we could use on a guy like Joel Freeland, who is getting no run this year for Gran Canaria.
> 
> What I wanted more than their #23 pick was including Darius for Malik Rose. Rose is almost as worthless, but his contract expires in 08-09.



Joel Freeland is a few years away from playing in the NBA...he would be another HA minus the endearing smile.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mook said:


> pretty much right on all accounts.
> 
> and you bring up a really interesting point about Chicago. if we still had Zach, you just know they'd be willing to put together a decent package.
> 
> ...


So your saying we would have played Zach at Center?  Talk about non-existant interior defense. Neither Zach nor Lamarcus is a starting center so IMO it would have been dificult to have them on the floor at the same time.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

ehizzy3 said:


> frye jones frenandez isnt badd


Yup, gotta remember Rudy was a part of this deal. Also remember Frye doesn't need to be a star next year when we get Greg. He only has to be a good backup.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

"Blazer fans are never satisfied"

We could have got Kevin Garnett for Zach and still not be happy.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Resume said:


> "Blazer fans are never satisfied"
> 
> We could have got Kevin Garnett for Zach and still not be happy.


Not true. Many of the detractors of this trade knew we had to trade Zach. The urgency was puzzling to many of us and the returns. We had the luxury to wait and see. Instead most of us were shocked and disappointed in this trade.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Resume said:


> Yup, gotta remember Rudy was a part of this deal. Also remember Frye doesn't need to be a star next year when we get Greg. He only has to be a good backup.


What we need Frye to be is a tough PF and rebounder. Hope that happens.

And I still think we could have wheeled and dealed more if we really wanted Rudy that badly. We've bought draft picks in the past and have a bunch of younger guys that we could dangle as trade bait as well as future picks. Don't think this was the ONLY avenue to do this....the trade really brought in James Jones since we used NY's Trade Exception to acquire him????? Rudy was probably a buyout of the draft pick that may or may not have hinged on this trade? Maybe someone can correct me on this.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It is not like ZBo is tearing it up these days, shooting 39% from the field. Plus is it any coincidence that when Zbo shows up the lunatics start running the asylum in NY?


I actually miss Fred Jones way more then Zbo. :biggrin:


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Resume said:


> Yup, gotta remember Rudy was a part of this deal. Also remember Frye doesn't need to be a star next year when we get Greg. He only has to be a good backup.


Yes, but you have to remember that KP was going to do the trade even without
the Suns involved. Since they were going to do the deal anyway, KP's capologist
pointed out how they could get the slot (forgot name now) that could be traded.
They traded it to the Suns to get Rudy, and as part of the trade we HAD TO take
James Jones.

The trade was always terrible. Only with the injury to Oden (and JJ) are many coming
to see what a disaster it has become.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

hasoos said:


> It is not like ZBo is tearing it up these days, shooting 39% from the field. Plus is it any coincidence that when Zbo shows up the lunatics start running the asylum in NY?


You can't be serious, can you? NY has been like that for a few years now. Going back to the Larry Brown debacle...maybe even further than that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> So your saying we would have played Zach at Center?  Talk about non-existant interior defense. Neither Zach nor Lamarcus is a starting center so IMO it would have been dificult to have them on the floor at the same time.


And Frye IS a starting center?

Aldridge could have played the 5 this year without any issues. With Oden around, LA would have come off the bench behind Zach and GO, but he's young enough that it probably wouldn't have hurt him at all in the long run.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Resume said:


> "Blazer fans are never satisfied"
> 
> We could have got Kevin Garnett for Zach and still not be happy.


Ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> And Frye IS a starting center?
> 
> Aldridge could have played the 5 this year without any issues. With Oden around, LA would have come off the bench behind Zach and GO, but he's young enough that it probably wouldn't have hurt him at all in the long run.
> 
> Ed O.


No Frye isn't but he's a much bettter option then Zbo or Lamarcus...Why would you want to put Lamarcus at center where he would be less effective? Taking your rising star away from his natural position would seem to be detrimental to his growth IMO.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> No Frye isn't but he's a much bettter option then Zbo or Lamarcus...Why would you want to put Lamarcus at center where he would be less effective? Taking your rising star away from his natural position would seem to be detrimental to his growth IMO.


While Aldridge would not be as productive, perhaps, at the 5 as he is at the 4, he would be more productive than Frye is at the 5. And Zach would be more productive than Aldridge at the 4. So it all adds up to more production.

I agree with you that Aldridge at the 5 is not optimal for his present production, but I think that playing alongside a guy who consistently draws double-teams would help him more in the long run than what he's currently going through is.

LaMarcus is only 22 years old. Having him play out of position for another year or two (and/or back up two positions) would not have hurt him.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> While Aldridge would not be as productive, perhaps, at the 5 as he is at the 4, he would be more productive than Frye is at the 5. And Zach would be more productive than Aldridge at the 4. *So it all adds up to more production.*
> I agree with you that Aldridge at the 5 is not optimal for his present production, but I think that playing alongside a guy who consistently draws double-teams would help him more in the long run than what he's currently going through is.
> 
> LaMarcus is only 22 years old. Having him play out of position for another year or two (and/or back up two positions) would not have hurt him.
> ...


On the offensive end I would agree with your assessment...I still believe the improvements in defense, style of play, and team character outweigh this loss in production. I agree that this scenario probably would not have hurt Lamarcus but it certainly would not have helped him much either...we aren't going to win championships with Zach Randolph so why hinder the development of a key player and our team as a whole by keeping him around. It's not like he was a good role model or mentor to these younger players.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> On the offensive end I would agree with your assessment...I still believe the improvements in defense, style of play, and team character outweigh this loss in production. I agree that this scenario probably would not have hurt Lamarcus but it certainly would not have helped him much either...we aren't going to win championships with Zach Randolph so why hinder the development of a key player and our team as a whole by keeping him around. It's not like he was a good role model or mentor to these younger players.


I disagree that he was not a good role model. He worked incredibly hard on his game and came back from a serious knee injury. That sort of dedication has a lot of value, and hopefully Oden can do it, too.

As for hindering Aldridge: I'm not sure he's not hindered now. Losing sucks. Being the go-to guy at age 22 when you're clearly not ready for it sucks. Having to focus on defense and offense and everything else all at once is difficult. I think it might have been better to let him grow into a starting spot (and stardom) rather than handing it to/forcing it on him. Even if it DID hinder him, though, there are two reasons why it might have been worth it:

1. The team wins more games. Losing is getting old for fans. I expect losses, and we will be better off with the current roster if we lose a lot this year (and add another great prospect)... but having a Blazers team that wins games is more interesting.

2. Getting more value for Zach. We got almost nothing for Zach. The primary negative with Randolph seems to have been his contract. People on this board ***** about his game, but I don't think that many NBA teams would decline a player of Zach's ability and production. His attitude/offcourt stuff is not ideal by any stretch, but in comparison to many players his issues are insignificant. Where his value was seriously impaired was the MASSIVE deal that Nash handed him... and that problem goes away over time. Another season or two and suddenly Zach's deal seems more manageable in the long run, and maybe some team other than the Knicks would be willing to give us something for him.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?STORY_ID=6084

Sounds familiar?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I've yet to see any evidence that LaMarcus is a better defender than Zach, or even as good for that matter.

He certainly pales to Zach in rebounding and boxing out.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

hasoos said:


> http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?STORY_ID=6084
> 
> Sounds familiar?


Yeah, the current Bulls sound a lot like the Blazers team we blew up to create this soft, directionless team we have now.

That's what you meant, right?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I've yet to see any evidence that LaMarcus is a better defender than Zach, or even as good for that matter.
> 
> He certainly pales to Zach in rebounding and boxing out.



Somewhere along the line, many fans stopped caring about rebounding. I'm old school - the best defense is to control the boards!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I've yet to see any evidence that LaMarcus is a better defender than Zach, or even as good for that matter.
> 
> He certainly pales to Zach in rebounding and boxing out.


He's definitely a better shot blocker, but I agree that the seemingly common wisdom that he's a better defender than ZR doesn't seem to have much solid support... while Zach's rebounding work (which is at least arguably an important part of defense) is clearly superior.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I disagree that he was not a good role model.


Who knows the players better? You from your couch or management which personally interacts with the guys daily?

Pritchard has claimed Zach's foul ups off the court were the reason he was shipped out. He has clearly differenciated between his on court work ethic (which he praised) and his off court blunders. He claimed that there were additional incidents in the past year which didn't hit the press that demonstrated that he just couldn't be trusted. 

He has also stated that once the decision was made that ZR was gonzo, NY's offer was "by far" the best package for Portland that the trade market was offering up. 

For me anyway, this is one of those situations that I just have to trust that management is doing what is right. Zach publically demonstrated his stupidity enough times for me to think that maybe the guy really did need to go.

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I disagree that he was not a good role model. He worked incredibly hard on his game and came back from a serious knee injury. That sort of dedication has a lot of value, and hopefully Oden can do it, too.


IMO We want someone who is a role model in all aspects of life not just in practice. Do I really need to list all of Zach's run-in's with the Law? After all that behavior I can't blame the Blazers for wanting this guy as far from Oden and Co. as possible. 



> As for hindering Aldridge: I'm not sure he's not hindered now. Losing sucks. Being the go-to guy at age 22 when you're clearly not ready for it sucks. Having to focus on defense and offense and everything else all at once is difficult. I think it might have been better to let him grow into a starting spot (and stardom) rather than handing it to/forcing it on him. Even if it DID hinder him, though, there are two reasons why it might have been worth it:


I disagree...IMO a great player will rise to the challenge, it may take him awhile so patience it required. Losing games in the meantime is to be expected. 



> 1. The team wins more games. Losing is getting old for fans. I expect losses, and we will be better off with the current roster if we lose a lot this year (and add another great prospect)... but having a Blazers team that wins games is more interesting.


What is our goal? To satisfy the inpatient fans by winning 40-45 games right now or to develop a young team and win a championship 5 years down the road? Zach Randolph wasn't leading this team anywhere near a championship. 



> 2. Getting more value for Zach. We got almost nothing for Zach. The primary negative with Randolph seems to have been his contract. People on this board ***** about his game, but I don't think that many NBA teams would decline a player of Zach's ability and production. His attitude/offcourt stuff is not ideal by any stretch, but in comparison to many players his issues are insignificant. Where his value was seriously impaired was the MASSIVE deal that Nash handed him... and that problem goes away over time. Another season or two and suddenly Zach's deal seems more manageable in the long run, and maybe some team other than the Knicks would be willing to give us something for him.


IMO you grossly underestimate the damage that Zach did to his own value by engaging in the off court antics that he chose to engage in. I certainly do not consider these issue to be "insignifcant" compared to those of other players. Certainly they aren't the most major nor are they they most minor. I do agree that the deal Nash gave him was certainly a major factor as well but am not convinced it was the primary factor which drove down his value. Teams don't want players with bad character, they've seen where that leads using our very own "JailBlazers" as the prime example. 

It simply comes down to the question; Did we have more to lose or to gain by keeping Zach for another year or two and hoping his value increased? IMO the answer is clearly the former.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> He's definitely a better shot blocker, but I agree that the seemingly common wisdom that he's a better defender than ZR doesn't seem to have much solid support... while Zach's rebounding work (which is at least arguably an important part of defense) is clearly superior.
> 
> Ed O.


It's very clear to me that Lamarcus far superior at team defense and help defense then Zach. Lamarcus actually rotates to help cover the paint.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Yeah, the current Bulls sound a lot like the Blazers team we blew up to create this soft, directionless team we have now.
> 
> That's what you meant, right?


No, I sure hope you were joking. I was referring to more of this:

Last night against Denver, the Knicks dumped it inside, stood around and watched. No hard cuts, no aggressive screening action, no crisp passing, no attacking the basket. They just passed the ball into Zach Randolph who shot, and shot, and shot his way to 8 for 23 from the field. :biggrin:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> What is our goal? To satisfy the inpatient fans by winning 40-45 games right now or to develop a young team and win a championship 5 years down the road?


Uh, that was our goal 5 years ago when they started blowing up the team.

Not turning out as advertised at all so far.

FYI, 45 games usually gets you a shot at the title.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

hasoos said:


> No, I sure hope you were joking. I was referring to more of this:
> 
> Last night against Denver, the Knicks dumped it inside, stood around and watched. No hard cuts, no aggressive screening action, no crisp passing, no attacking the basket. They just passed the ball into Zach Randolph who shot, and shot, and shot his way to 8 for 23 from the field. :biggrin:


No hard cuts, no aggressive screening action, no crisp passing, no attacking the basket. Hmmm...

So the knicks are pretty much like we are this year except they at least can get the ball to a guy who scores like we did last year.

Joel is still the only Blazer not afraid to set a hard pick.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

How is Rudy Fernandez part of the Knicks trade? Am I forgetting something here?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

knicksfan said:


> How is Rudy Fernandez part of the Knicks trade? Am I forgetting something here?


Blazers used the trade exception created by the Knicks trade to help Phoenix dump James Jones salary on us, for which they rewarded us by letting us buy the pick that got us Rudy Fernandez. It's complicated, but basically it was one large transaction.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Uh, that was our goal 5 years ago when they started blowing up the team.
> 
> Not turning out as advertised at all so far.


So what's your point other then the fact that you have a unrealistic timeline for what it takes to rebuild a team? 



> FYI, 45 games usually gets you a shot at the title.


A #8 seed in the west and Zach Randolph as your best player does not "get you a shot at the title."


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I hated the Zach deal when I first heard it, couldn't believe my eyes.

But the thing is, a Blazer told KP to do it. We all think it has to be ROY. Haven't you guys had an idiot at work that while viewed individually has ok 'stats', just brings everyone down? Zach was a frustrating teammate, I like watching the best talent on the court but it is very different if you have to live with the guy 100hours a week. I can see where he might wear on you. Zach had to go, this is a players league and even a rookie like ROY when it comes down to it has more impact on the team then a general manager like Kevin Pritchard.

So saying Zach could have fit with LMA this season or whatnot it besides the point. He had to go and KP had to take the best offer he could get. Could the offers have increased if we waited half a year or longer? Sure its possible, but I think it's similarly likely that offers could have decreased as well, just like when we held onto Abdur-Rahim for 2 years waiting for the big beneficial trade that never came. We were showcasing SAR at the 3 while Miles was clearly better for the team, hoping that a willing buyer would come along.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> A #8 seed in the west and Zach Randolph as your best player does not "get you a shot at the title."


Sure it does. Much more than sitting at home during the playoffs.

In any case, do you think that Roy and Aldridge and Sergio and Travis and all our other guys would get anything out of a playoff experience, even if it was a first round elimination? 

I would think they would.

An argument could definitely be made that a team of players in their prime that can only earn a one-and-out is just treading water, and it would therefore be better to blow it up (although I'm not sure I believe that). For a YOUNG team to get playoff experience? I would argue that's far superior to adding another late lottery pick (although a top lottery pick might make missing the playoffs worthwhile during a rebuilding effort...)

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Draco said:


> But the thing is, a Blazer told KP to do it. We all think it has to be ROY.


We don't all think that. I don't think we know who it was at all, or even exactly what they said. Somewhere on this board someone said they read about how Jamal Crawford had talked to Roy and he wasn't that excited about the trade. I don't know if it's true or not, but I certainly don't think Quick's brief blog post mention means we had to trade Zach immediately.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

I always assumed LMA asked for Zach's departure. I dunno about you, but #2 Pick In The Draft and Prominent do go together pretty well. LMA was hardly sad to see him go, and has expressed this sentiment in interviews during the home stand.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Sure it does. Much more than sitting at home during the playoffs.
> 
> In any case, do you think that Roy and Aldridge and Sergio and Travis and all our other guys would get anything out of a playoff experience, even if it was a first round elimination?
> 
> ...


Good point, playoff expierience for our youngsters would be valuable. We tried to get there with Zach Randolph at the helm and failed...trying the same this year would simply be banging our heads against a wall that isn't going to break IMO. Simply not worth the risk of having Zach around our young guys etc.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> No Frye isn't but he's a much bettter option then Zbo or Lamarcus...Why would you want to put Lamarcus at center where he would be less effective? Taking your rising star away from his natural position would seem to be detrimental to his growth IMO.


Natural Position? Shrug. He played center at Texas. I agree that PF is his
best position, but he did spend time guarding Yao when we played Houston (and
was our best defender against him - maybe center is his best position!)


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> Good point, playoff expierience for our youngsters would be valuable. We tried to get there with Zach Randolph at the helm and failed...trying the same this year would simply be banging our heads against a wall that isn't going to break IMO. Simply not worth the risk of having Zach around our young guys etc.


Trying the same this year would have worked, because we would have had more talent around Zach than at any time previously. 2007-2008 edition Roy/Webs/LMA/Joel is better than anything we've had in a while. It's really really not Zach's fault we haven't been to the playoffs recently, because he didn't construct the rosters. Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Elton Brand, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace ... good players on bad teams happens all the time.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Trying the same this year would have worked, because we would have had more talent around Zach than at any time previously. 2007-2008 edition Roy/Webs/LMA/Joel is better than anything we've had in a while. It's really really not Zach's fault we haven't been to the playoffs recently, because he didn't construct the rosters. Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Elton Brand, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace ... good players on bad teams happens all the time.


Yes but in order to construct a different offense and have a more cohesive team Zach had to go...I think Roy or whoever the "prominent player" was made that abundantly clear.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

wizmentor said:


> Natural Position? Shrug. He played center at Texas. I agree that PF is his
> best position, but he did spend time guarding Yao when we played Houston (and
> was our best defender against him - maybe center is his best position!)


The PF and C positions are somewhat flexible, but it's more about roles and matchups. It helps if we have some combination at PF/C who can shoot, post up, slash and grab O-rebs on offense, and guard both big tough guys and small quick guys on defense. Traditionally the C is the bigger stronger rebounding post up guy and the PF is the dynamic shooting scoring quicker guy, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so, IMO. I think LMA looks ok at center next to a guy like Zach, but less so with a guy like Frye, but that's just my opinion...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> Yes but in order to construct a different offense and have a more cohesive team Zach had to go...I think Roy or whoever the "prominent player" was made that abundantly clear.


Well, I guess I'm not willing to put that much certainty into an unattributed and unspecified comment in Quick's blog. I'm surprised people think we should.

edit: actually, I'm not surprised. I know that cognitive dissonance makes people want to believe with certainty that the guy they disliked personally "had to go", but I don't see much evidence to support that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Yes but in order to construct a different offense and have a more cohesive team Zach had to go...I think Roy or whoever the "prominent player" was made that abundantly clear.


Seriously? How do Roy or Aldridge know anything about constructing a more cohesive team?

Aldridge, in particular, had a very good reason to want to get Zach out of the way. He is in a position to earn a lot more money down the road if he gets more minutes now.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Seriously? How do Roy or Aldridge know anything about constructing a more cohesive team?
> 
> Aldridge, in particular, had a very good reason to want to get Zach out of the way. He is in a position to earn a lot more money down the road if he gets more minutes now.
> 
> Ed O.


I would think the countless hours they both have spent with teamates in practice, games, on planes, buses etc would go a long way to helping them assess the makings of a cohesive team with that bunch of guys. 

And to suggest Aldridge requsted Zach be moved so he could make more $$ is just silly.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Well, I guess I'm not willing to put that much certainty into an unattributed and unspecified comment in Quick's blog. I'm surprised people think we should.
> 
> edit: actually, I'm not surprised. I know that cognitive dissonance makes people want to believe with certainty that the guy they disliked personally "had to go", but I don't see much evidence to support that.



And I don't understand how people can continue to think that Zach Randolph could and should fit into the direction this team is trying to go in. We can agree to disagree on this one I think.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

The bottom line is that the trade was fine. We were expecting Oden to hold down the middle for 35 minutes per game. 

Obviously, with Oden out, we are really struggling with our interior and now everyone is deeming the trade horrible from the start. That's not true. 

It would have worked out fine, as the intent was to get rid of Randolph's non-basketball issues and try to compensate his game with Oden.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

c_note said:


> The bottom line is that the trade was fine. We were expecting Oden to hold down the middle for 35 minutes per game.
> 
> Obviously, with Oden out, we are really struggling with our interior and now everyone is deeming the trade horrible from the start. That's not true.
> 
> It would have worked out fine, as the intent was to get rid of Randolph's non-basketball issues and try to compensate his game with Oden.


Great great point...I suspect the complaints would be alot fewer and far between if Greg was healthy and playing for us this season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

c_note said:


> The bottom line is that the trade was fine. We were expecting Oden to hold down the middle for 35 minutes per game.


It was a bad trade at the time in many of our opinions... I don't know of anyone on this board who thinks that it's a bad deal BECAUSE Oden got hurt.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> I would think the countless hours they both have spent with teamates in practice, games, on planes, buses etc would go a long way to helping them assess the makings of a cohesive team with that bunch of guys.
> 
> And to suggest Aldridge requsted Zach be moved so he could make more $$ is just silly.


Is it any more silly than suggesting two guys who've never approached .500 in their NBA careers would have the first clue as to what it takes to build a winning basketball team?

Is it any more silly than Aldridge's seeming preference for "fun" guys (if I remember his interviews correctly, when talking about the offseason changes)?

Players don't know what's good for the team in my opinion. Even many veterans have (justifiably or not) come under fire for trying to dictate what teams should do--who they should sign, who they should give minutes to, and who they should trade.

With many Blazers fans there's a honeymoon period with Roy and Aldridge because they've got a lot of potential and because they seem like genuinely nice guys... neither of those things have much correlation with an ability to build a good NBA basketball team.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Is it any more silly than suggesting two guys who've never approached .500 in their NBA careers would have the first clue as to what it takes to build a winning basketball team?


Considering them having been playing basketball most of their lives I disagree with this statement. The concepts of teamwork as they are applicable to being sucessful extend across all levels of the sport IMO. Both played on very sucessful teams in college. 



> Is it any more silly than Aldridge's seeming preference for "fun" guys (if I remember his interviews correctly, when talking about the offseason changes)?


Who wouldn't prefer someone who is fun? 



> Players don't know what's good for the team in my opinion. Even many veterans have (justifiably or not) come under fire for trying to dictate what teams should do--who they should sign, who they should give minutes to, and who they should trade.


Some do and some don't IMO...Zach clearly didn't or he wouldn't have been engaging in all the shenagins that he engaged in.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> to suggest Aldridge requsted Zach be moved so he could make more $$ is just silly.


Maybe I've read different articles then others here or something, but the stuff I've read from LA on Zach being moved gave me the clear impression that he was really excited to have his role on the club expanded. A player wants PT and shots??? Go figure. 

I doubt he's all that concerned about dough at this point... he's got 2 more guarenteed years after this and talented young bigs like him command a premium because of supply and demand.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Considering them having been playing basketball most of their lives I disagree with this statement. The concepts of teamwork as they are applicable to being sucessful extend across all levels of the sport IMO. Both played on very sucessful teams in college.


Rasheed has played on successful teams at every level... should the Pistons dictate their personnel moves?



> Who wouldn't prefer someone who is fun?


Very few people. But fun doesn't seem to have much to do with winning NBA basketball games.

Ed O.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

We got killed in the Zach trade.

That said, Channing Frye is playing out of position and may pan out to be better.

We have yet to see much from Jones- maybe he'll be Ime-like.

I think the Spanish shooting guard= Rudy- is something of a pipe dream.

So, I'm just hoping we sign someone with the cap space. If we sign CP3 or Deron, then I'll happily take back what I said about the trade.

The way things are going it's not out of the question that we could get a top 3 pick and pick up Rose or Mayo.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

There was a part of me that was very excited about the Oden/LMA/ZBo frontline. I wanted to see what they could do partly because all three players have such diverse complementary skills, and partly because all have had injuries. It sucks we never got to see it.

I wonder what will happen if the Blazers get a top5 type of draft pick and there are no prospects that fit perfectly into the PG/SF position. Will they take the best talent available, even if it's a PF/C? I sure hope so but I fear we may see talent sacrificed for fit again just as in the Zach trade and in the Webster drafting (PG was full.)

If you actually think of the number of players that stay with a team 5+ years... its so small. Adding another top pick big man would be fun, it would ease injury concerns, it would allow a triple towers with LMA at the 3 for 20mpg ala sheed. Most likely, all 3 would not stay with the team for many years anyways, just like Brain Grant, Jermaine Oneal, and Abdur-Rahim left. I just don't want to take some PG at #5 because thats the position we want filled.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Well, I guess I'm not willing to put that much certainty into an unattributed and unspecified comment in Quick's blog. I'm surprised people think we should.
> 
> edit: actually, I'm not surprised. I know that cognitive dissonance makes people want to believe with certainty that the guy they disliked personally "had to go", but I don't see much evidence to support that.



Bingo. If the situation had been reversed, if Zach had called for a team-mate to be traded, some people would be having the exact opposite reaction. They would spin the argument 180 degrees so Zach was (again) the villian.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Great great point...I suspect the complaints would be alot fewer and far between if Greg was healthy and playing for us this season.



That's true - in the sense that someone who both contracts leprosy AND wins the lotto is happier than someone who ONLY contracts leprosy. 

Sorry, but whether or not this was a good trade (and it wasn't) has diddly to do with Oden.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> whether or not this was a good trade (and it wasn't) has diddly to do with Oden.


True on Oden, but that doesn't change the fact that moving ZR was a decision that management felt they had to do. Sad that Zach burned his bridges, but he did. I don't see what the point of denying this as reality as management has stated this (in so many words) repeatedly. 

Given this, I think they made out amazingly well as it's hard to get value when you have to make a deal. Rudy and the top flight FA to be named later are whats in it for Portland... it seems like Zach's defenders here want to pretend Channing and Jones are all they recieved back. 

Sorry Oldmangrouch, but I see it as a very good move on Portland's part... especially considering the circumstances.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The negative influence that Zach could have had on the youth is a far bigger issue than the loss of production on the court. When you have the caliber of talent that the Blazers have and with it being so young, you want to be as sure as you can be about ridding the team of negative influences. Was the value received for Zach equal? Probably not, but it depends on how you determine value. If you're talking about talent than no, if you're talking about a future FA, positive influences that insures the youth of this team to not turn Bonzi Wells or Qyntel on us then yes. I find the latter far more important than the production we get on the basketball court this season. There is too much at stake to worry about a minimal loss of talent.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> So what's your point other then the fact that you have a unrealistic timeline for what it takes to rebuild a team?


Hardly.

The Blazers rebuilt their team and WON the title pretty much all in the same year in 1976/1977.

But my point should have been obvious. Don't say it'll take 5 years and then say it again 5 years later.

Be honest and either say it'll take ten or admit you were wrong about 5 and it's unfortunately going to take 5 more.

It's like listening to Bush tell us we're winning the war in Iraq over and over.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> The negative influence that Zach could have had on the youth is a far bigger issue than the loss of production on the court. When you have the caliber of talent that the Blazers have and with it being so young, you want to be as sure as you can be about ridding the team of negative influences. Was the value received for Zach equal? Probably not, but it depends on how you determine value. If you're talking about talent than no, if you're talking about a future FA, positive influences that insures the youth of this team to not turn Bonzi Wells or Qyntel on us then yes. I find the latter far more important than the production we get on the basketball court this season. There is too much at stake to worry about a minimal loss of talent.


My view is that anyone who can be influenced to do something wrong is either weak-willed, or just naturally amenable to doing wrong.

I seriously doubt Zach could "turn anyone to the dark side" against their wishes.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> The negative influence that Zach could have had on the youth is a far bigger issue than the loss of production on the court. When you have the caliber of talent that the Blazers have and with it being so young, you want to be as sure as you can be about ridding the team of negative influences. Was the value received for Zach equal? Probably not, but it depends on how you determine value. If you're talking about talent than no, if you're talking about a future FA, positive influences that insures the youth of this team to not turn Bonzi Wells or Qyntel on us then yes. I find the latter far more important than the production we get on the basketball court this season. There is too much at stake to worry about a minimal loss of talent.





MARIS61 said:


> My view is that anyone who can be influenced to do something wrong is either weak-willed, or just naturally amenable to doing wrong.
> 
> I seriously doubt Zach could "turn anyone to the dark side" against their wishes.


At 32 years old sure, I agree. At 21 or 22 years old? Your views are completely simple minded. You've never been influenced to do something by an older person?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> At 32 years old sure, I agree. At 21 or 22 years old? Your views are completely simple minded. You've never been influenced to do something by an older person?


Not anything wrong, no, never.

And if you don't know the difference between right and wrong by the time you're 21 or 22 I'm at a loss to explain why that would be.

Most people figure it out before their teens.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

They say Zach is bad at defense, and just gets rebounds. The best defense is to get the rebound. Then you don't have to play defense because you're now on offense.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Not anything wrong, no, never.
> 
> And if you don't know the difference between right and wrong by the time you're 21 or 22 I'm at a loss to explain why that would be.
> 
> Most people figure it out before their teens.


But what's right and wrong? It's not clear to everyone. Can smoking weed be called wrong? How about going to the club to pick up on multiple chicks? To some maybe, not to others. You're making it far too simple than it actually is, advanced psychology courses could change that however.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Xericx said:


> What we need Frye to be is a tough PF and rebounder. Hope that happens.
> 
> And I still think we could have wheeled and dealed more if we really wanted Rudy that badly. We've bought draft picks in the past and have a bunch of younger guys that we could dangle as trade bait as well as future picks. Don't think this was the ONLY avenue to do this....the trade really brought in James Jones since we used NY's Trade Exception to acquire him????? Rudy was probably a buyout of the draft pick that may or may not have hinged on this trade? Maybe someone can correct me on this.


This season, but I think Resume is still right in that we'll have Oden as our enforcer and Joel as our backup enforcer at C and Aldridge as our shooter at PF and Frye might just be needed for our backup shooter at PF. If so, we won't mind him so much next season, we just have to get through this one first.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

maxiep said:


> If we would have gotten NY's #1 pick (which I believe was #23) we could have used it to draft Rudy instead of having to take on James Jones. We'd have one more roster spot open, which we could use on a guy like Joel Freeland, who is getting no run this year for Gran Canaria.
> 
> What I wanted more than their #23 pick was including Darius for Malik Rose. Rose is almost as worthless, but his contract expires in 08-09.


As long as we had already traded Zach for Frye, I would still have traded for the 24th pick, then use one on Rudy and the other on Splitter, as long as the Spurs wouldn't have turned around and picked Koponen.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

ehizzy3 said:


> there is going to be a lot more cap room because of us buyin out stevie franchise


Nope. Buying Stevie Franchise didn't get us any more cap space, at least not when it counts. Paul Allen get some real dollar savings the next two years, but I don't think it translates to cap space and the real cap space comes after Stevie's contract comes off the books, and that number doesn't change, 2009. Buying out Stevie is my only real problem with this thing, I didn't mind the actual trade too much.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

First of all- I love myself for starting this thread with just one sentence.

Second of all--- oh boy.... Here are my many thoughts:

* As it has been stated by Hector, Old Man Grouch, and others, REBOUNDING is the key to defense. Zach is grabbing 14 rebounds a game this season. We lost these last 4 games because every time we played "good defense" and the opponent missed a shot, they got the ball back and got as many shots as they wanted before they finally scored. Yes, with Oden, most likely, our rebounding will improve greatly. But the idea that getting rid of Zach for nothing was good for our defense, Mook & drexlersdad, just doesn't hold water.

* Mr Chuck Taylor gets it. Why couldn't we have traded Zach for a PG? Or maybe a SF? Zach got 23 & 10 last season, dang it. He was a very very valuable commodity. Whether or not you liked Zach, it still doesn't change the fact that he got stolen away from us for nothing. I was all for trading Zach (with Oden coming in and LMA moving to PF), BUT I thought we'd get Joe Johnson or Rashard Lewis or Tayshaun Prince or Richard Jefferson or Shawn Marion. 

* As for Rudy, we have no idea what kind of NBA player he will turn out to be. Judging players overseas is tough to do. Darko Milicic was picked ahead of Wade, Melo, and Bosh. (For that matter, it's taboo to say, but we still have no idea what kind of NBA player Oden will turn into)

* On the subject of Frye ultimately being a good back up for LMA, I still then question why we traded a player as good as ZBo for nothing more than a backup.

* Cap space- Someone please explain to me how the Francis buyout is going to free cap room for us to get someone like Deron or CP3. Won't we need to save that cap space to keep Roy, LMA, and Oden on our team when their contracts expire?

* Money- Um, STOMP and sall77.... it's all about money. Of course, LMA cares about money. My making it into the NBA, all these players have the chance to hit the lotto and make big time money that will secure their future, the future of their family, and perhaps an ongoing legacy that will last after their dead. Money is a big deal. More than winning. And any player in the NBA who has ever taken paycuts to win, it's because they already got paid bigtime. It's not silly to say tha LMA wants to make money. All we fans care about is winning, but we hae to remember these are real people who have a chance of a lifetime and they don't want to blow it. Put yourself in their position. You would want minutes and the chance to cash in, right?

* Playoffs- I personally think that we could've made the playoffs last year if Roy had played the whole season and if ZBo, LMA, and Ime didn't sit out the end of the season (which they wouldn't have done if we had been in the playoff race.) I loved last year's team so much that I believed we would make the playoffs this year even before we got Oden. And I think many people in here agreed. So to those of you who think we couldn't have made the playoffs with ZBo, I say that I disagree. After all, it was the shift of ZBo into the starting lineup that led to us winning three of our last 4 playoff games.

* The Dark Side- I'm with MARIS. These are adults. They should know what's right and wrong by the time they're 18-22.

* Rooting for the new guy (aka trashing the old guy)-- This is a very bad pattern in Portland and I fear it may continue. The Portland Trail Blazer fans hate the old guy, love the new guy, only to then hate the new guy and love the newer guy. There was some game in like Zach's second year where he got to start and got 30 pts and 20 rebounds. Most fans immediately anointed him the new savior and wanted Sheed gone. They were sick of Sheed and loved Zach's hustle and work ethic. Zach is consistent, they would proclaim. Now those fans hate ZBo and adore LMA. It's an amazing pattern to watch and I fear it will continue. As the fans get to know LMA more and watch him lose games and make mistakes (as ALL players do), the fans will turn on LMA too, once they see some new guy who they believe is better. I'm not quite making my point very clearly, but do you understand? I remember how much everyone loved Bonzi when he was hardly playing.

* That's it.

Go Blazers


----------



## emus (Jul 1, 2007)

As a funny side note, I found this on another basketball forum site:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=732146

anything sound familiar?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Randolph has double-doubles in all seven games, the longest streak by a Knicks player since Charles Oakley had nine in a row to open the 1989-90 campaign.


----------

