# Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies?



## TwinkieFoot

> One predominant trade rumor that's out there is a little bit anachronistic, failing to take into account the radical change of direction in the Knicks' front office. This one has Zach Randolph, who truly is on the table, going to Memphis for Darko Milicic and Marko Jaric. No, it's not that Serbs are simply unpopular in Memphis, it's that neither Darko nor Marko are likely to be huge impact players next season.
> 
> Milicic has yet to live up to the hype that comes along with being a number two overall pick. Part of that has to do with his not getting an opportunity to play early on, and part of it is he's always asked to play out of position. He's not a center, and has no idea what to do with the ball when he catches it with his back to the basket. I suppose the logic here is that Mike D'Antoni could use him like he used Amare Stoudemire - more of a catch-and-shoot type of offense. Sadly, Milicic will never be close to as good as Amare.
> 
> As for Jaric, he's a solid bench player who can drill the three, handle the ball some, and create offense. The problem is, put these two guys together and it's crazy to trade Zach Randolph for them. Randolph is 20 and 10 waiting to happen, and with the right leaders around him he could be an All-Star. It's easy to see why Memphis would do this, but the Knicks? This is no longer the all-Isiah team, with the end game seemingly just to acquire as many bad contracts and underachieving players as possible.
> 
> Don't line up for your Randolph jerseys just yet, Grizzlies fans.


http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9742

Sounds like someone understands.


----------



## knicksfan

One bad contract for two? No Thanks. Unless for some freak reason D'Antoni sees Darko as the answer at the 4, but we already have Danilo who he saw as the answer at the 4 so, yeah, not sure.


----------



## thaKEAF

No.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

knicksfan said:


> One bad contract for two? No Thanks. Unless for some freak reason D'Antoni sees Darko as the answer at the 4, but we already have Danilo who he saw as the answer at the 4 so, yeah, not sure.


Milicic could be a legit 5. Although he can not play exclusively with his back to the basket, he does have moves there, along with a face up game. I actually think he is also a better defender than people give him credit for and an underrated passer. Will he live up to being the no.2 pick in a draft that includes LeBron, Wade, Melo and Bosh? I do not know and highly doubt it but that does not change the fact that he is a good player with room for growth. Do I want him starting ahead of Curry? I'm not sure but I would entertain the thought of bringing him in.

P.S., Milicic has just one more year after this upcoming season. He is far from being a bad contract. I also feel Jaric is reasonable within a particular system and depending on who we'd give up. In either case, the deal would save us a **** load of cash so from a financial aspect, it is a doer.


----------



## Ruff Draft

I feel so bad for Memphis fans.


----------



## CharcoalF

If the Knicks turned down anything the Clippers could have offered for Zach Randolph, how is Darko and Jaric any better?

Not a Zach Randolph fan and would have taken the Clipper deal personally, but agree that Memphis fans should not get excited.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

lol, I actually think Randolph is a poor fit for the Grizzlies as well. Talent wise, he is everything they need but he falls short in the maturity/character department. Randolph needs structure from veteran influences to make his contributions on the court worth wild, so I think it would be in the best interest for the Grizzlies to pass.


----------



## Da Grinch

I'm in favor of the trade personally , D'Antoni needs guys that will buy in to the system more than he needs the talents of Randolph.

Darko is talented ...but soft where it counts , he doesn't set a tone defnsively , he is big agile and athletic and can block shots and is not good enough offensively to give the ball to much .

marko is just a sound bench player who is 6'7 and can play both guard spots...both are overpaid and i believe both come off the books in 2010.


----------



## NewAgeBaller

thaKEAF said:


> No.


:rofl2:


----------



## knicksfan

If both come off the books in 2010, we should do it just for that reason, and stick Darko in as a starter. I actually would like to see what D'Antoni does with him.


----------



## odenisgod

This is coming straight from a blazer fan. If you can get rid of Z-BO do it!!! I dont care what you get in return. Addition by subtraction trust me!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Zuca

Like some said, talent wise he is a good fit for Memphis, but Grizzlies actually are not a good fit for him. I still think that Indiana would be a good place for him actually. Jim O'Brien can bring the best from him, more than D'Antoni, in my opinion.


----------



## Kiyaman

odenisgod said:


> This is coming straight from a blazer fan. If you can get rid of Z-BO do it!!! I dont care what you get in return. Addition by subtraction trust me!!!!!!!!!!!





> If the Knicks turned down anything the Clippers could have offered for Zach Randolph, how is Darko and Jaric any better?
> 
> Not a Zach Randolph fan and would have taken the Clipper deal personally, but agree that Memphis fans should not get excited.


I have to agree whole heartedly with both of the two Posters above after watching Zach Randolph performance since Rasheed Wallace left Portland. 

Here's another Poster from another Knick Forum:



> *Why is a 20-10 Zach Randolph so hard to trade for equal value????? *
> His contract is under $50 million this offseason.
> Why would a team expect a first round pick in a package with Zach Randolph in a trade?
> dont they know that Zach is a career 20-10 player.
> 
> *Can someone answer these questions?*


These are the reasons why I believe that Owner Dolan has did it again in hiring some more incompetent (Big Name) people to run this Knick Team like Laydumb, Isiah, and now Walsh & D'Antoni.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

As of 8/25/08


> *While the Griz were courting Smith they also had trade discussions regarding New York Knicks power forward Zach Randolph. Those discussions — mostly internal – are still ongoing as Randolph has been made available.
> *
> *The Griz are willing to part with Darko Milicic (last year’s big free agent signing) in a package that wouldn’t require a core player (OJ Mayo, Rudy Gay, Mike Conley, etc). What the brain trust seems to be debating is whether Randolph fits the Grizzlies’ style on and off the court.
> *
> Randolph is a bonafide low-post scorer who can shoot along the perimeter and rebound. But he doesn’t offer much on defense, something the Griz desperately want to upgrade and Randolph’s character issues may present a problem.
> 
> That said, the Griz need talent. *Randolph would beef up a thin power forward corps of Hakim Warrick and rookie Darrell Arthur. They’ve got a group of “nice guys” so adding one knucklehead in Randolph shouldn’t be a big deal.* Although second-year head coach Marc Iavaroni struggled at times effectively communicating with players, he is credited with helping Phoenix big man Amare Stoudemire take his game to the next level.


http://www.thememphisedge.com/2008/08/25/griz-moves-on-the-horizon/


----------



## Zuca

USSKittyHawk said:


> As of 8/25/08
> 
> 
> http://www.thememphisedge.com/2008/08/25/griz-moves-on-the-horizon/


Well... Kevin O'Neill could also help him improving his defensive game. But they would be stupid if they trade for him without including Jaric AND Buckner and his bad contracts.


----------



## mynetsforlife

I'd feel terrible for Memphis fans. Z-Bo sucks. He can rebound and shoot. He can't pass, he can't play defense. He can't create for teammates (well, I guess teams do double him. He just doesn't pass out). If you can get Darko and Lima for him, you do it.


----------



## Zuca

Updated talks:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3571031


----------



## MemphisX

Zuca said:


> Well... Kevin O'Neill could also help him improving his defensive game. But they would be stupid if they trade for him without including Jaric AND Buckner and his bad contracts.


Buckner is not guaranteed after this season. Jaric and Darko are trash and the same cost as Z Bo.


----------



## nikolokolus

Zuca said:


> Well... *Kevin O'Neill could also help him improving his defensive game*. But they would be stupid if they trade for him without including Jaric AND Buckner and his bad contracts.


As a Blazers fan I can tell you that the notion of a coach being able to coax out a defensive commitment from Z-Bo is less likely than the probability that you'll spontaneously combust in the next 30 seconds. It's not that Z-Bo *can't* it's that he *won't*; Nate McMillan, one of the most defensive minded coaches in the league could barely get him to run back and cover a man on defense. I'll give Zach credit, he's a talented scorer and has a nose for collecting boards, but he absolutely kills ball movement, and is only interested in "getting his." 

I can't believe Memphis would be seriously interested in this bum, and I find it even more unbelievable that Walsh didn't pull the trigger 2 seconds after this deal was offered.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

nikolokolus said:


> As a Blazers fan I can tell you that the notion of a coach being able to coax out a defensive commitment from Z-Bo is less likely than the probability that you'll spontaneously combust in the next 30 seconds. It's not that Z-Bo *can't* it's that he *won't*; Nate McMillan, one of the most defensive minded coaches in the league could barely get him to run back and cover a man on defense. I'll give Zach credit, he's a talented scorer and has a nose for collecting boards, but he absolutely kills ball movement, and is only interested in "getting his."
> 
> I can't believe Memphis would be seriously interested in this bum, and I find it even more unbelievable that Walsh didn't pull the trigger 2 seconds after this deal was offered.


So basically what your saying is that we should give up a 25 year old star because of the fact that he has a stars mentality? I'm not trying to excuse Randolph as a player, person or human being. All I'm saying is that he clearly is a talented individual and has flaws like any other star: thinking they can win games on their own offensively and not giving their best effort defensively. That doesn't mean we should give him up for cents on the dollar and doesn't necessarily make him unsalvagable.


----------



## nieman

TwinkieFoot said:


> So basically what your saying is that we should give up a 25 year old star because of the fact that he has a stars mentality? I'm not trying to excuse Randolph as a player, person or human being. All I'm saying is that he clearly is a talented individual and has flaws like any other star: thinking they can win games on their own offensively and not giving their best effort defensively. That doesn't mean we should give him up for cents on the dollar and doesn't necessarily make him unsalvagable.


I agree. Where are your heads, he's a 20 & 10 player. OK, he can't pass and doesn't play defense but there are a total of what, 4-5 PFs that do? Why is he any different? You don't trade talent for non-talent. He hasn't even gotten in trouble in NY yet.


----------



## seifer0406

nieman said:


> I agree. Where are your heads, he's a 20 & 10 player. OK, he can't pass and doesn't play defense but there are a total of what, 4-5 PFs that do? Why is he any different? You don't trade talent for non-talent. He hasn't even gotten in trouble in NY yet.


I probably know more than 4-5 pfs that can pass and play defense, but I only know 1 PF in the NBA that can do this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3j1q6osDAEc&hl=zh_TW&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3j1q6osDAEc&hl=zh_TW&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Zuca

MemphisX said:


> Buckner is not guaranteed after this season. Jaric and Darko are trash and the same cost as Z Bo.


Darko have one less year in his contract. That's why including Buckner makes sense.

Well... I saw in Hoopshype that Buckner contract is guaranteed until the end of next season, and he still have a PLAYER option in the 10/11 season... http://hoopshype.com/salaries/memphis.htm

And I read (I guess it was in ESPN, but I can't give absolute certainty now) that Buckner have at least 8 millions guaranteed in his contract (with a buyout clause in his last year, in case that he exercises his player option). Correct-me if I'm wrong.


----------



## thatsnotgross

Star mentality can do this....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWT8OF2p_TQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWT8OF2p_TQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

haha sometimes i'm ashamed to be associated with certain knick fans. just because we have a 20-10 player doesn't mean he is a star. Also, if thats the case, how come many NBA execs are creaming themselves to get his service?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> I probably know more than 4-5 pfs that can pass and play defense, but I only know 1 PF in the NBA that can do this
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3j1q6osDAEc&hl=zh_TW&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3j1q6osDAEc&hl=zh_TW&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


So your telling me, you never seen an elite level PF make a bone-headed play?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Zuca said:


> Darko have one less year in his contract. That's why including Buckner makes sense.
> 
> Well... I saw in Hoopshype that Buckner contract is guaranteed until the end of next season, and he still have a PLAYER option in the 10/11 season... http://hoopshype.com/salaries/memphis.htm
> 
> And I read (I guess it was in ESPN, but I can't give absolute certainty now) that Buckner have at least 8 millions guaranteed in his contract (with a buyout clause in his last year, in case that he exercises his player option). Correct-me if I'm wrong.


I like Buckner as a role player but certainly not at his price tag. The only way I'd ever consider taking him is if it's in exchange for Jared Jefferies' contract. I think your forgetting the fact that we'd be doing the Grizzlies a favor by giving them a 20-10, 25 year old project (with payments picked up) in exchange for role players as it already is. They stand to sweeten the deal for us and not the other way around.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

thatsnotgross said:


> Star mentality can do this....
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWT8OF2p_TQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWT8OF2p_TQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
> 
> haha sometimes i'm ashamed to be associated with certain knick fans. just because we have a 20-10 player doesn't mean he is a star. Also, if thats the case, how come many NBA execs are creaming themselves to get his service?


*Ok let's see some other examples of bad decisions made by stars on the floor:*

Latrell Sprewell chocking his coach....

Rasheed Wallace throwing a basketball hard enough at a teammmate (Ruben Boutmje-Boutmje) to give him a concussion; among all his other episodes with technique fouls on the floor...

Ron Artest being the center piece of a brawl involving players and fans....

Marcus Camby accidently clipping Jeff Van Gundy in the head while attempting to fight Danny Ferry....

Carmelo Anthony punching Mardy Collins and then running away like a little *****....

Would you like me to go on? Some people **** up. Others become recognized as purely being ****-ups. A lot of the guys on that list are plain ol' ****-ups. The difference between some is the fact that they can get over themselves and perform at a high level; sometimes high enough to win a title ala Rasheed Wallace. 

Randolph is a ****-up but is one of those guys that can in fact play at a high level. The fact he is a ****-up though, does not necessarily mean that his skill and talent should be discarded because he's a big na-na-na-boo-boo face; it never really happened with those other players, so why him? Put him in the right situation and he could make you a contender. I'm amazed by the fact about how people easily forgot about how he was the main reason why the Blazers were so competitive against the Mavericks the last time they made the playoffs.

P.S., if being one of the best scorers and rebounders in the league at 25 years old doesn't make you a star, then what does? That's kind of a rhetorical question but feel free to answer it.


----------



## Zuca

TwinkieFoot said:


> I like Buckner as a role player but certainly not at his price tag. The only way I'd ever consider taking him is if it's in exchange for Jared Jefferies' contract. I think your forgetting the fact that we'd be doing the Grizzlies a favor by giving them a 20-10, 25 year old project (with payments picked up) in exchange for role players as it already is. They stand to sweeten the deal for us and not the other way around.


And we'd be also doing Knicks a favor by clearing cap space for 2010 (since Darko contract expires after next season). If Zach improve his attitude and at least try on defensive side it can be great for us, but I'm still concerned about it. As for Jeffries contract, it's better to keep Buckner, who is cheaper than Jared.

By the way... Darko would welcome trade to Knicks:

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54301/20080906/darko_would_welcome_trade_to_knicks/


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Zuca said:


> And we'd be also doing Knicks a favor by clearing cap space for 2010 (since Darko contract expires after next season). If Zach improve his attitude and at least try on defensive side it can be great for us, but I'm still concerned about it. As for Jeffries contract, it's better to keep Buckner, who is cheaper than Jared.


All the Grizzlies would be doing is taking on a fraction of the additional $7.2 million they owe Milicic if they traded for Randolph. That is chump change in the NBA especially when the name your getting in return is already good for at least 20 points and 10 rebounds but is just 25 years old. The Grizzlies, like many other rebuilding teams with money, are not going to get players to sign for them unless they overpay; a quick ticket to making disastrous moves. Trades are really the only viable option for them to add personnel and improve the team aside from draft picks. Trading them a caliber of player as Randolph is more than they'd ever get skill/talent wise in any trade they'd recieve currently on the market, so I do believe we are the ones doing them a favor and not the other way around. 

You said it yourself, if "Zach improves his attitude and at least try's on the defensive side it can be great for us." Those are issues that can easily be fixed and have a borderline all-star. The best this trade will ever be for the Knicks is good and even then would never have the potential rewards of having that sort of talent that FITS (which Zach does not with us) in our system. Again, even if Jared Jefferies is included in exchange for Buckner, the Grizzlies win this trade especially considering that Jefferies is still young and has the same length of contract as Buckner.


----------



## nieman

thatsnotgross said:


> Star mentality can do this....
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWT8OF2p_TQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWT8OF2p_TQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
> 
> haha sometimes i'm ashamed to be associated with certain knick fans. just because we have a 20-10 player doesn't mean he is a star. Also, if thats the case, how come many NBA execs are creaming themselves to get his service?


You know how hard a 20 & 10 player is to come by? There are about 6 bigs that avg 20 & 10 consistently, and only about 3 of them play def and pass. You may not want him as the leader of your team, but he'll be a great sidekick to superstar. You just don't give up talent for nothing (Darko & Marko). Seriously all they need to do is trade Curry (who gets outrebounded by 5'7 Gs) and get one of those freelancing active 7' to patrol the paint.....you know, do what Diop does. Then Zach would appear as a better defender


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> So your telling me, you never seen an elite level PF make a bone-headed play?


this is beyond bone-headed, more like no headed. Boneheaded means the guy made a mistake, this is a guy who doesn't care about a 3 point game.

I've seen some stupid plays, but as far as selfishness and absolutely no respect for the game goes, this is the on the top tier of that list.


----------



## Wick3d Jester

If you can get rid of Zach Randolph, you do it immediately! That shouldn't even be discussed. He's a bum.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> All the Grizzlies would be doing is taking on a fraction of the additional $7.2 million they owe Milicic if they traded for Randolph. That is chump change in the NBA especially when the name your getting in return is already good for at least 20 points and 10 rebounds but is just 25 years old. The Grizzlies, like many other rebuilding teams with money, are not going to get players to sign for them unless they overpay; a quick ticket to making disastrous moves. Trades are really the only viable option for them to add personnel and improve the team aside from draft picks. Trading them a caliber of player as Randolph is more than they'd ever get skill/talent wise in any trade they'd recieve currently on the market, so I do believe we are the ones doing them a favor and not the other way around.


Randolph would oblierate everything they're building down there in Memphis. He is a poison and a hindrance to any team that is stupid enough to acquire him (of course the Knicks were already pitiful when they acquired him so the effects weren't that noticable). The guy plays no defense, is a black hole for your offense, and is about as disrespectful as they make 'em. So tell me, _how in the hell_ does Memphis benefit from that trade? They take on a slug like Randolph AND piss away valuable cap space for nothing. From the Grizzlies' perspective I would hope, no _pray_ that this purely speculation.



TwinkieFoot said:


> You said it yourself, if "Zach improves his attitude and at least try's on the defensive side it can be great for us." Those are issues that can easily be fixed and have a borderline all-star. The best this trade will ever be for the Knicks is good and even then would never have the potential rewards of having that sort of talent that FITS (which Zach does not with us) in our system. Again, even if Jared Jefferies is included in exchange for Buckner, the Grizzlies win this trade especially considering that Jefferies is still young and has the same length of contract as Buckner.


If they are so fixable, how come they have not been fixed yet, sir? Because Randolph is not fixable and that's been proven time and time again during his NBA tenure. The Grizzlies lose this trade pretty much anyway you draw it up if Randolph is heading their way. Unfortunately, stupid GMs of stupid teams keep lining up for this guy.


----------



## Kiyaman

The best player in this Memphis deal happen to be Marko Jaric. 
If you have a scoring PG you would put Jaric as his SG.
If you have a scoring SG you would put Jaric as his SF. 
If you have a scoring SF you would put Jaric as his SG. 

Marko Jaric quick hands on defense and superb passing skillz at the SF or SG position makes him the best player in this trade. 
He is more athletic than Q.Rich & Jefferies at the SF, and a more disaplint player than Crawford at the SG. 

This Zach to Memphis trade should've went down on Draft night in a 3 team trade with the Wolves.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> this is beyond bone-headed, more like no headed. Boneheaded means the guy made a mistake, this is a guy who doesn't care about a 3 point game.
> 
> I've seen some stupid plays, but as far as selfishness and absolutely no respect for the game goes, this is the on the top tier of that list.


Let's review, he ran an isolation play, lost the ball and had to hoist up a bad quick shot because of the waning shot clock. Your telling me that you've never seen players do that?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Randolph would oblierate everything they're building down there in Memphis. He is a poison and a hindrance to any team that is stupid enough to acquire him (of course the Knicks were already pitiful when they acquired him so the effects weren't that noticable). The guy plays no defense, is a black hole for your offense, and is about as disrespectful as they make 'em. So tell me, _how in the hell_ does Memphis benefit from that trade? They take on a slug like Randolph AND piss away valuable cap space for nothing. From the Grizzlies' perspective I would hope, no _pray_ that this purely speculation.


I've commented on multiple occassions that Randolph from a character perspective might not be what the Grizzlies need. Apparently, Grizzly management disagrees although I do see the potent threat. Aside from that, there really is nothing about his game that would suggest he be a bad fit or poor player. People have criticized him for the past few years because he's been on bad teams that have not won, while making piss poor life decisions. I find it how ironic people forget how the guy earned his current contract (which he's worth) and how he's improved his game significantly since coming into the league. Yes, we all know that his defense is not good and does not recognize proper passing sets but that doesn't disqualify the fact that he's a 25 year old still learning the game and still one of the best scorers and rebounders in the entire friggin league. *It's like knocking a vaccine that cures AIDS because it gives you morning sickness; which would you prefer AIDS or the morning sickness?*


And remind me of when cap space has ever been valuable to a team like the Grizzlies? All cap space gives you is the ability to sign a player; it doesn't give you them wrapped up niftfully in basket. No one is going to sign with a rebuilding team unless they overpay them, which would throw the Grizzlies right back into a bad situation. Trades are the way to go and like I said, Randolph only really costs them $7 million more.



Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> *If they are so fixable, how come they have not been fixed yet, sir?* Because Randolph is not fixable and that's been proven time and time again during his NBA tenure. The Grizzlies lose this trade pretty much anyway you draw it up if Randolph is heading their way. Unfortunately, stupid GMs of stupid teams keep lining up for this guy.


Maybe because he's 25 years old and with that sometimes comes immaturity. His game also lacks a little discipline because of the fact that he's still a young student of the game. You send him to Detriot and he makes them a legit contender again.


----------



## Da Grinch

*the zach randolph hurts your team with his play is very over exaggerated.*

the knicks were 0-13 in the games he didn't play in and 0-14 in the games he didn't start.

he is a very good player , he just isn't a team 1st guy.

last year the knicks system sucked under thomas , it was basically "Jamal do your thing and every1 else get what you can."

with curry mired in a bad year , marbury exiled , every1 else is essentially a role player and no one else was good enough to really help jamal win games on any kind of consistent basis.

Zach can play


but he has to be on a team that can maximize his talents , the grizzlies could be that team, long athletic defnsive minded players who dont need to have and hold the ball to be effective...the knicks were all wrong for him and even so he avg. 17 and 10 in 32 minutes , but him and curry are a horrible match and not good enough defnsively to make up for his relative indiffernce to team defense....at worst he provides the team with a consistent scoring threat in the paint to play off gay,mayo and conley they really should be able to put up points with this deal.

the knicks need people who will fit in with D'Antoni's style of ball, marko and darko should fit the bill , they learned the game in europe playing a similar style of ball.

it should be a win-win.


----------



## Floods

*Re: the zach randolph hurts your team with his play is very over exaggerated.*



TwinkieFoot said:


> I've commented on multiple occassions that Randolph from a character perspective might not be what the Grizzlies need. Apparently, Grizzly management disagrees although I do see the potent threat. Aside from that, there really is nothing about his game that would suggest he be a bad fit or poor player. People have criticized him for the past few years because he's been on bad teams that have not won, while making piss poor life decisions. I find it how ironic people forget how the guy earned his current contract (which he's worth) and how he's improved his game significantly since coming into the league. Yes, we all know that his defense is not good and does not recognize proper passing sets but that doesn't disqualify the fact that he's a 25 year old still learning the game and still one of the best scorers and rebounders in the entire friggin league. *It's like knocking a vaccine that cures AIDS because it gives you morning sickness; which would you prefer AIDS or the morning sickness? *


Randolph is a big reason, if not *the* reason, the teams don't win! He is a *black hole* for a team's offense. He's selfish, he's trigger-happy for shots well outside his range, and just is not a smart basketball player. He won't pass the ball under any circumstances and he completely stalls the flow and ball movement for a team's offense. You already mentioned that he is useless on defense. What does that leave you with? A quality rebounder yet selfish scorer that plays no defense. Combine all that with his bad attitude and you have a player who is just counter-productive, especially to a young team still finding its bearings.



TwinkieFoot said:


> And remind me of when cap space has ever been valuable to a team like the Grizzlies? All cap space gives you is the ability to sign a player; it doesn't give you them wrapped up niftfully in basket. No one is going to sign with a rebuilding team unless they overpay them, which would throw the Grizzlies right back into a bad situation. Trades are the way to go and like I said, Randolph only really costs them $7 million more.


It would help to have plenty of cap room set aside when its time for Rudy Gay, Kyle Lowry, and eventually O.J. Mayo to get paid. Wouldn't retaining those players comfortably be a good idea?




TwinkieFoot said:


> Maybe because he's 25 years old and with that sometimes comes immaturity. His game also lacks a little discipline because of the fact that he's still a young student of the game. You send him to Detriot and he makes them a legit contender again.


Randolph is actually 27 and will be entering his 8th season in the league. When you're tenured as long he has been, you pretty much are what you are, and once 'maturity' and 'discipline' finally set in, if at all, it will be a little too late. Detroit has a couple of guys on their team that may be able to get him in line, but that would be a huge risk on their part (but probably a calculated one since Detroit is starting to look like they're on the way down).



Da Grinch said:


> the knicks were 0-13 in the games he didn't play in and 0-14 in the games he didn't start.


With the team they had last year, the Knicks could have gone 0-14 for any rhyme or reason (or none at all) other than Randolph's absence.



Da Grinch said:


> he is a very good player , he just isn't a team 1st guy.


Translation - a skilled yet selfish player who would be counter-productive to a contending team trying to win now and a cancer to a rebuilding team trying to improve and find its way.



Da Grinch said:


> last year the knicks system sucked under thomas , it was basically "Jamal do your thing and every1 else get what you can."


When hasn't the Knicks style sucked under Thomas? That's nothing new.


Da Grinch said:


> but he has to be on a team that can maximize his talents , the grizzlies could be that team, long athletic defnsive minded players who dont need to have and hold the ball to be effective...the knicks were all wrong for him and even so he avg. 17 and 10 in 32 minutes , but him and curry are a horrible match and not good enough defnsively to make up for his relative indiffernce to team defense....at worst he provides the team with a consistent scoring threat in the paint to play off gay,mayo and conley they really should be able to put up points with this deal.


Any smart GM wouldn't let Randolph near promising young players like Gay, Conley, Lowry, and Mayo. Throw the chemistry issues aside for a minute. The 17 points he averaged was a product of him just being a ball-hog. The only suitable place for someone like Randolph is the bench, where a team can bring him into the game for a little more scoring punch. But of course Randolph's attitude would never allow that to work.


----------



## Da Grinch

I always laugh to myself at the thought of how 1 guy plays basketball, can ruin several others career in the sport , its easily one of the craziest notions that run rampant on sports boards.

you know the cancer theory

i also take jacob ellisbury to be some1 who didn't really watch the knicks last season because your posts are filled with conjecture and poor perceptions.

Zach didn't stop the knicks from winning , nor did he stop the blazer beforehand ...in fact the blazers traded rasheed wallace so that randolph would be their 4 of the future without distraction and tried to find better fits around him.

if he were a problem with winning , the knicks would have won when he wasn't there, its really that simple...to disagree makes no sense ...especially if your best response to why they didn't was "they could have gone 0-14 for any ryhme or reason" which in essense showing you are conflicted because your 1st sentence in the post stated you thought Zach was *the* reason the knicks were losing.


----------



## Wick3d Jester

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvYf08X6tc


----------



## JFizzleRaider

Da Grinch said:


> I always laugh to myself at the thought of how 1 guy plays basketball, can ruin several others career in the sport , its easily one of the craziest notions that run rampant on sports boards.
> 
> you know the cancer theory
> 
> i also take jacob ellisbury to be some1 who didn't really watch the knicks last season because your posts are filled with conjecture and poor perceptions.
> 
> Zach didn't stop the knicks from winning , nor did he stop the blazer beforehand ...in fact the blazers traded rasheed wallace so that randolph would be their 4 of the future without distraction and tried to find better fits around him.
> 
> if he were a problem with winning , the knicks would have won when he wasn't there, its really that simple...to disagree makes no sense ...especially if your best response to why they didn't was "they could have gone 0-14 for any ryhme or reason" which in essense showing you are conflicted because your 1st sentence in the post stated you thought Zach was *the* reason the knicks were losing.


Ya I mean, when the Blazers best player asks for Randolph to be traded from the team, it probably means nothing.

And obviously trading Sheed (which he pretty much whined about wanting out constantly) to open up the 4 spot for Z-Bo worked out so well for the Blazers


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> Let's review, he ran an isolation play, lost the ball and had to hoist up a bad quick shot because of the waning shot clock. Your telling me that you've never seen players do that?


A PF who had no handles trying to globetrotte behind the 3pt line? No I have not seen that before. I feel sorry for you if you cannot differentiate between an iso play and some guy playing around with a ball. First of all, it is only a "play" if it is either practiced by the team or something that's drawn up by the coach. I honest doubt Isiah drawn that up and the only place Zach practiced that is probably his backyard because that was flatout ugly. That was no play, that was an act of "I don't give a ****".

It's one thing to say that it's just one instance, it's another to actually defend what he did. Perhaps you haven't seen enough of Zach Randolph and maybe another year of him would convince you of what type of cancer he is to any team.


----------



## Floods

Da Grinch said:


> I always laugh to myself at the thought of how 1 guy plays basketball, can ruin several others career in the sport , its easily one of the craziest notions that run rampant on sports boards.


He doesn't ruin careers, he ruins the team. When did I mention other guys' careers going down because of this guy?



> i also take jacob ellisbury to be some1 who didn't really watch the knicks last season because your posts are filled with conjecture and poor perceptions.


Jacob*y* Ellsbury. Learn to spell, please, especially considering my username is right in front of you. And just because I'm a Sox fan doesn't mean I'm not qualified to be commenting your team and its players. I've seen plenty of Randolph over the years, including last season, and not a thing has changed with him. But because you're the [strike]prototypical homer[/strike] Knicks fan, you keep making foolish arguments to defend a guy who obviously can't be defended.


> Zach didn't stop the knicks from winning , nor did he stop the blazer beforehand ...in fact the blazers traded rasheed wallace so that randolph would be their 4 of the future without distraction and tried to find better fits around him.


Yeah!! How'd that work out? The Blazers didn't see the postseason once after they made Randolph their franchise player. The Knicks didn't improve one bit after they acquired him. But its always someone else's fault, right? Anyone but Zach.


> if he were a problem with winning , the knicks would have won when he wasn't there, its really that simple...to disagree makes no sense ...especially if your best response to why they didn't was "they could have gone 0-14 for any ryhme or reason" which in essense showing you are conflicted because your 1st sentence in the post stated you thought Zach was *the* reason the knicks were losing.


:lol: Incredible. This stuff just goes right through you. Zach doesn't help teams win, he's a selfish punk, he plays zero defense. None of his teams have won a thing. He's hasn't seen the playoffs since 03, when he was in a minor role. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about this.

Calling someone a homer isn't allowed. Keep it civil please.
-USSKittyHawk


----------



## Floods

JFizzleRaider said:


> Ya I mean, when the Blazers best player asks for Randolph to be traded from the team, it probably means nothing.
> 
> And obviously trading Sheed (which he pretty much whined about wanting out constantly) to open up the 4 spot for Z-Bo worked out so well for the Blazers


No no no, it be Martell Websters fault, not Zach's!!! RANDOLPH = GOD!!!!!


----------



## Floods

seifer0406 said:


> A PF who had no handles trying to globetrotte behind the 3pt line? No I have not seen that before. I feel sorry for you if you cannot differentiate between an iso play and some guy playing around with a ball. First of all, it is only a "play" if it is either practiced by the team or something that's drawn up by the coach. I honest doubt Isiah drawn that up and the only place Zach practiced that is probably his backyard because that was flatout ugly. That was no play, that was an act of "I don't give a ****".
> 
> It's one thing to say that it's just one instance, it's another to actually defend what he did. Perhaps you haven't seen enough of Zach Randolph and maybe another year of him would convince you of what type of cancer he is to any team.


Anyone who hasn't been convinced already cannot be convinced. Its pointless Seif


----------



## Da Grinch

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Anyone who hasn't been convinced already cannot be convinced. Its pointless Seif



funny , I was thinking the same about you.


----------



## Da Grinch

*back on topic.*

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/blog/



> Memphis Has Demands: So here is the latest on the Knicks and Grizzlies trade talks. The Grizzlies have agreed to the frame work of a deal that would send Darko Milicic and Marko Jaric to the Knicks in exchange for Zach Randolph and a future first round draft pick. The Knicks are reported to have countered with Zach Randolph and cash going to Memphis. Memphis seems interested in the deal, but is pushing hard for a future first round draft pick. The Knicks have made it clear that the only way they'd send out a future first, is if they got a promising young player in return. The Grizz reportedly put Javaris Crittenton on the table; the Knicks seem luke warm on JCritt. It's been suggested by sources close to the Knicks talks, that the Knicks would send a protected future first if it returned Hakim Warrick or Kyle Lowry. The Grizzlies seem less than interested in that combination. League sources contend this deal is squarely in the Knicks hands, and that neither side has put a timetable on this deal. Both teams would like to resolve their business before training camps open, meaning this thing could drag on for several more days.
> 
> Crittenton would be a nice addition because he's another guard who can defend, but for a first-round pick? You make the call.
> 
> This thing has sprung many leaks at this point.
> 
> Stay tuned .


----------



## Floods

Da Grinch said:


> funny , I was thinking the same about you.


:laugh: Me, the guy who has already figured it out that Zach Randolph will hinder any team he is traded to? Randolph is a cancer for the thousandth time. I understand this already, I got it with little trouble. You, on the other hand, are looking at the world through orange glasses and have adopted the NJ forum's habit of horribly overrating your team's players, and this particular case, their effect on the locker room.


Everyone else understands. You don't. Get with it.


----------



## Da Grinch

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> :laugh: Me, the guy who has already figured it out that Zach Randolph will hinder any team he is traded to? Randolph is a cancer for the thousandth time. I understand this already, I got it with little trouble. You, on the other hand, are looking at the world through orange glasses and have adopted the NJ forum's habit of horribly overrating your team's players, and this particular case, their effect on the locker room.
> 
> 
> Everyone else understands. You don't. Get with it.


yeah you , you figured out something professional GM's dont seem to see , hence the trade rumor that this thread is about.

you are delusional if you think nba execs have nothing better to do than pay Zach 17 mil. a season if all he can do is hurt a team , that would be like paying you to play for them.

also reading is fundamental, if you read the thread or really any of my posts on zach randolph you would know i actually want him dealt away, so its not me overrating him, its you being delusional.

get with that.


----------



## JFizzleRaider

What has Chris Wallace proven? He's the guy that gave away Pau Gasol, if anything he has a horrible track record. The only one who had one worse was Thomas.


----------



## seifer0406

Da Grinch said:


> yeah you , you figured out something professional GM's dont seem to see , hence the trade rumor that this thread is about.
> 
> you are delusional if you think nba execs have nothing better to do than pay Zach 17 mil. a season if all he can do is hurt a team , that would be like paying you to play for them.


It's not that they have nothing better to do, they have nothing they *can* do. I'm sure if you ask Isiah if he rather not pay Jerome James 4 mil a year his answer would be the same as mine. But why do they do it? Read on!

Execs make mistakes all the time. (was that so hard to understand) And the point of this trade from both sides is damage control. The 2 teams are basically switching their mistakes hoping that the grass is indeed greener on the other side(or in this case, something stinks less), which a lot of us think that it isn't. Not exactly guys looking for big things out of either player(s).

The guy above me nailed it on the head. Chris Wallace has a horrible track record. If you want to pick one particular GM in the league and say that a fan could do a better job, you would be making a coin flip between Chris Wallace and Kevin Mchale since Isiah is now gone.

Most debates in this thread are not about whether or not Zach should be traded, but rather his value right now in the league. Some people tend to see him as a 20/10 player, while other feel that he is a cancer and should be avoided unless your team has another cancer that's making more money.


----------



## Floods

Da Grinch said:


> you are delusional if you think nba execs have nothing better to do than pay Zach 17 mil. a season if all he can do is hurt a team , that would be like paying you to play for them.


Really, I'm delusional? What has he done for any team he's been on and what have they accomplished? He hasn't seen the playoffs as a prominent player, the only time he did see the playoffs was when he was still young and being used off the bench. That should be telling you something. Defense, character, and selflessness are vital parts to successful teams. Zach plays no defense, is a horrific locker room presence, and the iso-show he put on in the Toronto game last season should be a good indicator of his selflessness. Its not a coincidence that this guy doesn't win. Any GM who takes him on their team at this point is a fool. Though you guys may be in luck, there are plenty of fools who hold GM positions around the NBA. Last few seasons proved that pretty good.



> also reading is fundamental, if you read the thread or really any of my posts on zach randolph you would know i actually want him dealt away, so its not me overrating him, its you being delusional.


So you're defending him foolishly in this thread because you want him traded? That makes perfect sense. You sound ready to split the atom.


----------



## Da Grinch

seifer0406 said:


> It's not that they have nothing better to do, they have nothing they *can* do. I'm sure if you ask Isiah if he rather not pay Jerome James 4 mil a year his answer would be the same as mine. But why do they do it? Read on!
> 
> Execs make mistakes all the time. (was that so hard to understand) And the point of this trade from both sides is damage control. The 2 teams are basically switching their mistakes hoping that the grass is indeed greener on the other side(or in this case, something stinks less), which a lot of us think that it isn't. Not exactly guys looking for big things out of either player(s).
> 
> The guy above me nailed it on the head. Chris Wallace has a horrible track record. If you want to pick one particular GM in the league and say that a fan could do a better job, you would be making a coin flip between Chris Wallace and Kevin Mchale since Isiah is now gone.
> 
> Most debates in this thread are not about whether or not Zach should be traded, but rather his value right now in the league. Some people tend to see him as a 20/10 player, while other feel that he is a cancer and should be avoided unless your team has another cancer that's making more money.


GM's make mistakes i agree.

the thing thats different between zach and jerome james, when jerome's play wasn't good enough Thomas benched him...zach did get benched this past season a few times , but he played alot of minutes for a reason.

the knicks were 0-13 in the games he didn't play this past season. as much as the guy you are agreeing with wants to complain about him , i've yet to hear a good reason for the knicks being unable to win a game, if zach wasn't playing ...but zach was the big reason the knicks were losing.

i personally dont care for his game but to say he was *the* big problem for the knicks is illogical.


----------



## Da Grinch

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Really, I'm delusional? What has he done for any team he's been on and what have they accomplished? He hasn't seen the playoffs as a prominent player, the only time he did see the playoffs was when he was still young and being used off the bench. That should be telling you something. Defense, character, and selflessness are vital parts to successful teams. Zach plays no defense, is a horrific locker room presence, and the iso-show he put on in the Toronto game last season should be a good indicator of his selflessness. Its not a coincidence that this guy doesn't win. Any GM who takes him on their team at this point is a fool. Though you guys may be in luck, there are plenty of fools who hold GM positions around the NBA. Last few seasons proved that pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're defending him foolishly in this thread because you want him traded? That makes perfect sense. You sound ready to split the atom.


the quick and simple answer is yes you are still delusional .

you still haven't made a decent post on this thread , but hope springs eternal.


----------



## Floods

Da Grinch said:


> the quick and simple answer is yes you are still delusional


:lol:



Da Grinch said:


> you still haven't made a decent post on this thread , but hope springs eternal.


My posts have been fine. Its your pathetic responses that need work.


----------



## Floods

Da Grinch said:


> the thing thats different between zach and jerome james, when jerome's play wasn't good enough Thomas benched him...zach did get benched this past season a few times , but he played alot of minutes for a reason.


Because if they reduce his minutes significantly, he'll cause big (or is 'bigger' appropriate?) problems in the locker room and **** things up even more. But they played him, and his no-defense *** killed their offensive rhythm. Pick your poison.



> the knicks were 0-13 in the games he didn't play this past season. as much as the guy you are agreeing with wants to complain about him , i've yet to hear a good reason for the knicks being unable to win a game, if zach wasn't playing ...but zach was the big reason the knicks were losing.


I'm not necessarily complaining, I'd love for Zach to stay on the Knicks for as long as possible so he, Steph, and Curry can keep crippling your team and your team's financial/locker room situation, which would allow the Celtics and pretty much every other team in the league to keep kicking your *** every single night. I'd love nothing more, believe me.

Randolph is not the reason they were 0-13 when he didn't play. As I said before, the Knicks were (and probably still are) bad enough where they could lose 13 random games for no reason at all other than incompetence.



> i personally dont care for his game but to say he was *the* big problem for the knicks is illogical.


OK fine, he and Curry, Marbury, and Jerome James are all the big problems and all need to leave (which is true).


----------



## seifer0406

Da Grinch said:


> GM's make mistakes i agree.
> 
> the thing thats different between zach and jerome james, when jerome's play wasn't good enough Thomas benched him...zach did get benched this past season a few times , but he played alot of minutes for a reason.


I was not comparing the minutes between James and Randolph. The point I'm making was that neither deserved their contracts and it leads to my point that GMs make mistakes, which you agreed on.



Da Grinch said:


> the knicks were 0-13 in the games he didn't play this past season. as much as the guy you are agreeing with wants to complain about him , i've yet to hear a good reason for the knicks being unable to win a game, if zach wasn't playing ...but zach was the big reason the knicks were losing.


The Knicks was pretty bad last year with or without Randolph. A better example would be the Blazers, who had a much better year after Randolph was traded. I'm not saying Zach is the main reason for their success, but if we want to use the records to indicate his value, you can't use the Knicks record without taking Zach's former team (that kept pretty much the same roster) into account.



Da Grinch said:


> i personally dont care for his game but to say he was *the* big problem for the knicks is illogical.


The Knicks last year had problems from top to bottom. On a team like that, even Zach's problem wasn't big enough to stand out in that wreck. Therefore I got to agree with you on that point on the basis that he was a part of the bigger problem. However, I still think that he cannot make any team better and that his value is a lot less than his numbers indicate.


----------



## Da Grinch

seifer0406 said:


> The Knicks was pretty bad last year with or without Randolph. A better example would be the Blazers, who had a much better year after Randolph was traded. I'm not saying Zach is the main reason for their success, but if we want to use the records to indicate his value, you can't use the Knicks record without taking Zach's former team (that kept pretty much the same roster) into account.


a quick look at the blazers roster tells me their were 9 games better from 32 to 41 wins....then i looked at games played ....their top 10 scorers missed 64 games total so their top 10 guys played an avg.75.6 games this past season , 21 games missed out of their top 5 scorers ....the zach led squad's top 10 scorers missed 169, top 5 guys missed 78 games(brandon roy missed 25 alone).

think that might have been a factor?





> The Knicks last year had problems from top to bottom. On a team like that, even Zach's problem wasn't big enough to stand out in that wreck. Therefore I got to agree with you on that point on the basis that he was a part of the bigger problem. However, I still think that he cannot make any team better and that his value is a lot less than his numbers indicate.



i never said he wasn't a problem, i'd be the 1st to admit he was an issue among many the knicks had...but there is a big differnce between being a problem and being a guy who sabotages your chance to win a game which is what you and the other poster were basically writing, and thats far from the truth.


----------



## seifer0406

Da Grinch said:


> a quick look at the blazers roster tells me their were 9 games better from 32 to 41 wins....then i looked at games played ....their top 10 scorers missed 64 games total so their top 10 guys played an avg.75.6 games this past season , 21 games missed out of their top 5 scorers ....the zach led squad's top 10 scorers missed 169, top 5 guys missed 78 games(brandon roy missed 25 alone).
> 
> think that might have been a factor?


I never said that Zach was the main reason, I'm simply stating that the Blazers last year did not have Zach Randolph and was the better team. There is no way for anyone to determine whether it is because of his departure that caused the improvement or the fact that they are healthier. Perhaps both played a role, but to what ratio is anyone's guess. Not to mention had they kept Zach around he may have hindered the development of guys like Aldridge and Roy.

The same applies to the Knicks. Isiah's rotation last year was so unstable that it is difficult to judge Zach's value by looking at its win/loss column. Whether the Knicks lost those games because they were missing Zach or because of other factors is also anyone's guess.








Da Grinch said:


> i never said he wasn't a problem, i'd be the 1st to admit he was an issue among many the knicks had...but there is a big differnce between being a problem and being a guy who sabotages your chance to win a game which is what you and the other poster were basically writing, and thats far from the truth.


We're really spliting hairs here. In my books, a guy who not only doesn't help a team win but also causes problems to the team is the same as someone who sabotages a team's chance to win a game. To put it plainly, a team is not going to become better by adding Zach Randolph. I don't see the point to argue how much worse he would make a team. whether he causes a team to lose or makes them less likely to win is more or less the same thing. Or for the interest of an internet forum, not something that can be determined by discussion.


----------



## thaKEAF

I'm not sure what all these pages are about. I just know I don't want him on the team.


----------



## Floods

Uh-oh, someone seems to understand.


----------



## JFizzleRaider

This article sums up Randolph quite well.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/10/dont-do-it/


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> A PF who had no handles trying to globetrotte behind the 3pt line? No I have not seen that before. I feel sorry for you if you cannot differentiate between an iso play and some guy playing around with a ball. First of all, it is only a "play" if it is either practiced by the team or something that's drawn up by the coach. I honest doubt Isiah drawn that up and the only place Zach practiced that is probably his backyard because that was flatout ugly. That was no play, that was an act of "I don't give a ****".
> 
> It's one thing to say that it's just one instance, it's another to actually defend what he did. Perhaps you haven't seen enough of Zach Randolph and maybe another year of him would convince you of what type of cancer he is to any team.


I think this just shows a general lack of knowledge of what Zach is capable of doing. His game very well extends out to just inside of the 3 point line. There were several sets that we played him in throughout the year where he was damn near the 3 point line and scored. This has not been something that is new to his career either. A simple trip to youtube eliminates this fact. Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRRz81hQQgU

Between 0:57 and 1:03, you see Zach receive the ball just inside the 3 point line, fakes left, reverse pivots to the right and shoots the basketball within 15 ft. 

He further demonstrates that face up game and handles at 2:45 receiving the ball outside the 3 point line, putting the ball on the floor, driving (with his left hand), and gets by 3 defenders for a layup. Coincidence? Don't think so.

At 1:19 you see him take and make a jumper from about 23 ft away, the same jumper he took in your clip. He generally can take and make a great deal of long range jump shots.

Here's another video that's even better than the last one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv2Pr7Z1D0M&feature=related

At 0:33 Zach pops out to the top of the key (similar area to where he is in your video), power steps and drives (with his right hand; his off hand), stops and spins about 10 ft away from the basket avoiding an incoming trap from 3 players, and takes a baby hook with his left hand about 5 ft away from the basket. Does a similar move at 3:35.

At 0:39 seconds, he recieves the ball about 25 ft away from the basket, spins to his left and gets by Tayshuan Prince (one of the best perimeter defenders in the league and a guy much quicker than Randolph) and scores on a layup.

At 0:46 seconds, Zach takes a flares to the top of the arch, taking a 3 from where he took it in your video and makes it. Does so again at 1:00.

From 2:00 on is just a parade of him recieving the ball on the perimeter and managing to score the ball, so I won't bother to continue to critique each play thereafter.

*Needless to say, I made my point that he was not really playing outside of his capabilities in the video you posted. You would know that if you paid close attention to the guy and the way he plays. This isn't to say that the particular set run in your video was not a bone-headed play because it was. But then again, do you suggest him running an actual play involving ball movement with 5 seconds left on the shot clock? Doesn't make any sense right.*


----------



## TwinkieFoot

JFizzleRaider said:


> Ya I mean, when the Blazers best player asks for Randolph to be traded from the team, it probably means nothing.
> 
> And obviously trading Sheed (which he pretty much whined about wanting out constantly) to open up the 4 spot for Z-Bo worked out so well for the Blazers


When did Brandon Roy become the Pope? He very well and likely has a prima-dona attitude like most lottery picks. While the two may butt heads, it does not mean it's Randolph's fault.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> :laugh: Me, the guy who has already figured it out that Zach Randolph will hinder any team he is traded to? Randolph is a cancer for the thousandth time. I understand this already, I got it with little trouble. You, on the other hand, are looking at the world through orange glasses and have adopted the NJ forum's habit of horribly overrating your team's players, and this particular case, their effect on the locker room.
> 
> 
> Everyone else understands. You don't. Get with it.



When are you going to get over this cancer nonsense? How many guys have been called cancers during their career and then later go on to either win a title or be a significant player on a contender? The immediate list includes Vince Carter, Laterell Sprwell, Dennis Rodman, Sam Cassell, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Walker, Jason Terry, Baron Davis, Paul Pierce, etc. Of the guys I just mentioned only Baron Davis and Paul Pierce are clear cut better players than Zach Randolph is. So really, what are you talking about?

And no one is looking through any sort of glasses. If you were actually fimilar with this board, you'd realize that both DaGrinch and myself (along with all other Knick fans) support trading Randolph. At the same time, we object to some of the nonsense put out their of what his market value is.


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> *Needless to say, I made my point that he was not really playing outside of his capabilities in the video you posted. You would know that if you paid close attention to the guy and the way he plays. This isn't to say that the particular set run in your video was not a bone-headed play because it was. But then again, do you suggest him running an actual play involving ball movement with 5 seconds left on the shot clock? Doesn't make any sense right.*


First of all, in those videos you posted, the moves were much more conventional than the move that Zach did in that game at Toronto. If you cannot tell the difference between a spinmove/drop step(which are legitimate moves for a somewhat mobile PF) and a PF doing between the legs and behind the back dribbles which are normally done by guards and small forwards. It was pretty obvious even to the commentators that were at the game that Zach was doing something that he shouldn't be doing. Perhaps he was taunted by an opposing player and he tried to drop a fancy one back at them or perhaps he was showboating to the fans, but to say that he uses those dribble moves on a regular basis is just absurd.

And no, the only reason why there was 5 seconds left on the clock to begin with was because Zach lost his mind and made a fool of himself for the 5-10 seconds prior to that. Even then, when he gathered the ball there was still about 5 seconds left on the clock for him to give the ball up to his teammate so that they can get a better shot than the one he ended up taking.

I don't know if you actually watched that particular game. The Knicks actually had the momentum at the time after they had narrowed the lead to 3. For Randolph to do this at such a crucial time of the game just shows that he does not care about the team or winning in general. If you still want to argue about the play, I suggest you load up the game tape and watch the entire 3rd quarter.(If I remember correctly it was the 3rd)


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> When are you going to get over this cancer nonsense? How many guys have been called cancers during their career and then later go on to either win a title or be a significant player on a contender? The immediate list includes Vince Carter, Laterell Sprwell, Dennis Rodman, Sam Cassell, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Walker, Jason Terry, Baron Davis, Paul Pierce, etc. Of the guys I just mentioned only Baron Davis and Paul Pierce are clear cut better players than Zach Randolph is. So really, what are you talking about?


:lol:

Are you serious?

Vince Carter was never called the "Cancer" of the team. He had a fallout with the organization in Toronto and caused drama on his way out, but by then the Raptors team was already on its way down. This point is also moot because he has never played on a contender since the furthest he has ever gotten in the playoffs is the 2nd round.

Sprewell? The choking incident was well documented but you're talking about a Warriors team that perhaps made the most mistakes roster wise in the 90s. For all the negatives I've heard about Spree I haven't heard anyone putting the blame of the Warriors failures on him.

Dennis Rodman - A very good role player and not really a superstar. But sure, you could say that he is a team cancer unless you have a character like MJ on the team. If Zach Randolph had MJ leading him I'm sure he'll be alright too.

Sam Cassell - A proven winner since his rookie days. I don't know where he got that label posted on him. Was it in Milwaukee?

Rasheed Wallace - I don't know, the Blazers were 8 minutes away from the Finals with Wallace being their best player. Out of all the jailblazers, I don't recall Rasheed having any run-ins with the law himself. Also it took the Blazers about 8 years to get back to being respectable after they lost Sheed.

Antoine Walker - Cancer? Never heard of it. Horrible shot selection and being overrated early on in his career is pretty much the most drama he has ever created. That and failing Riley's fat test.

Paul Pierce? lol, I'm not even going to go there.

Jason Terry was the cancer to what team? The Hawks? The Hawks sucked because they had a group of idiots running the team. How is Jason Terry to blame?

Your post has to be the most ridiculous one out of the entire thread. I honest don't know what league you have been watching because it sure isn't the one that this board is interested in.


----------



## JFizzleRaider

TwinkieFoot said:


> When did Brandon Roy become the Pope? He very well and likely has a prima-dona attitude like most lottery picks. While the two may butt heads, it does not mean it's Randolph's fault.



puhhlease, Randolph was calling out his teammates in a loss, not exactly the way to go about bringing up team morale. I bet you in those games Randolph wasn't guarding anyone like usual too. Dude is a blackhole and is one of the most selfish players in the game. I bet you all 30 GM's in the league would take Roy over Randolph btw.

And saying Brandon Roy may have a prima-donna attitude shows you your ignorance about him.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> When are you going to get over this cancer nonsense? How many guys have been called cancers during their career and then later go on to either win a title or be a significant player on a contender? The immediate list includes Vince Carter, Laterell Sprwell, Dennis Rodman, Sam Cassell, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Walker, Jason Terry, Baron Davis, Paul Pierce, etc. Of the guys I just mentioned only Baron Davis and Paul Pierce are clear cut better players than Zach Randolph is. So really, what are you talking about?


I had a very nice response set up for this ludicrous statement (or statements), but my laptop went out on me mid-way and I lost the post. So I'll keep this one short: None of those guys except for Sprewell (who was definitely not the reason Minny traveled to the conference finals) were cancers on the level of Randolph. Actually most of them, like Carter, Cassell, Walker, Terry, Davis, and Pierce were not cancers at all. All they did was voice displeasure with their situation at the time. Come to think of it, Cassell and Walker have never done a thing to remotely qualify them as a team cancer. So, sir, what the HELL are you talking about? 



> And no one is looking through any sort of glasses. If you were actually fimilar with this board, you'd realize that both DaGrinch and myself (along with all other Knick fans) support trading Randolph. At the same time, we object to some of the nonsense put out their of what his market value is.


So you're saying that you and the other guys want him traded, yet you continue to throw out these moronic ideas that he's a positive influence to a team he plays on? You and Grinch just keep getting more and more foolish. By all means, keep it coming.


----------



## Floods

JFizzleRaider said:


> puhhlease, Randolph was calling out his teammates in a loss, not exactly the way to go about bringing up team morale. I bet you in those games Randolph wasn't guarding anyone like usual too. Dude is a blackhole and is one of the most selfish players in the game. I bet you all 30 GM's in the league would take Roy over Randolph btw.
> 
> And saying Brandon Roy may have a prima-donna attitude shows you your ignorance about him.


Anyone who knows a thing about basketball knows that Brandon Roy is about as far from a prima donna as there is in the NBA. Yet another epic fail for the Randolph supporters.


----------



## Da Grinch

seifer0406 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Vince Carter was never called the "Cancer" of the team. He had a fallout with the organization in Toronto and caused drama on his way out, but by then the Raptors team was already on its way down. This point is also moot because he has never played on a contender since the furthest he has ever gotten in the playoffs is the 2nd round.
> 
> Sprewell? The choking incident was well documented but you're talking about a Warriors team that perhaps made the most mistakes roster wise in the 90s. For all the negatives I've heard about Spree I haven't heard anyone putting the blame of the Warriors failures on him.
> 
> Dennis Rodman - A very good role player and not really a superstar. But sure, you could say that he is a team cancer unless you have a character like MJ on the team. If Zach Randolph had MJ leading him I'm sure he'll be alright too.
> 
> Sam Cassell - A proven winner since his rookie days. I don't know where he got that label posted on him. Was it in Milwaukee?
> 
> Rasheed Wallace - I don't know, the Blazers were 8 minutes away from the Finals with Wallace being their best player. Out of all the jailblazers, I don't recall Rasheed having any run-ins with the law himself. Also it took the Blazers about 8 years to get back to being respectable after they lost Sheed.
> 
> Antoine Walker - Cancer? Never heard of it. Horrible shot selection and being overrated early on in his career is pretty much the most drama he has ever created. That and failing Riley's fat test.
> 
> Paul Pierce? lol, I'm not even going to go there.
> 
> Jason Terry was the cancer to what team? The Hawks? The Hawks sucked because they had a group of idiots running the team. How is Jason Terry to blame?
> 
> Your post has to be the most ridiculous one out of the entire thread. I honest don't know what league you have been watching because it sure isn't the one that this board is interested in.


. its very rare a player is known as a cancer to the point people are actually putting it in his name (vince cancer)

in one game vince was telling the guy defending him what plays were being called and what was about to happen.

http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/8009536/2

here is a story on his trade from cbs.



> Toronto giving up Carter cheap? Please. It finally gets rid of its *cancer* and helped itself for the rest of the season and the foreseeable future. The two Williamses will be an asset to a team that seems to be at it's best when scrappy. Rumors are that Mourning, Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall may head to Miami for Udonis Haslem, Eddie Jones and promising prospect Dorell Wright, a 19-year old who Shaquille O'Neal has predicted will one day be a star.


you are trying to say these guys weren't called cancers when they were , Twinkiefoot is the correct one here . and his point is pretty valid .

also when do you call out players for poor play after you win a game by 15?

its almost always done after a loss.

and when jacoby can give a better response to why the knicks didn't win a game without Randolph playing it than "i dunno"

maybe it will look like he's actually watched the games...because if you haven't watched the games your opinion is worthless.


----------



## Floods

Da Grinch said:


> *and when jacoby can give a better response to why the knicks didn't win a game without Randolph playing it than "i dunno"*
> 
> *maybe it will look like he's actually watched the games*...because if you haven't watched the games your opinion is worthless.


What does this even mean?


----------



## Truknicksfan

All I know is that I dont want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of zach.


----------



## Kiyaman

*For those of you members who want Zach Randolph on this team next season and think we should not have grabbed the first or any of the offers for Zbo.......need to know.... Nobody wants to be Zbo teammate!*

Later for all that "RHETORIC" get Zach off this Knick roster so we could see a Bigman lineup of C-Curry, PF/SF-Lee, SF-Chandler, and PF/SF-Gallo receive the majority of bigmen playingtime this 2008-9 season. 
We know we are not going to the playoffs but we can start developing players that want to win together. 

The Knicks supposed to be working on future players like whether to re-sign David Lee to a decent contract if he perform well alongside of Gallo & Chandler. 
Curry is worth keeping for another season to raise his stock plus no team this offseason is asking for a first round pick (also) to take Curry. 
Getting rid of Zach Randolph will make Lee a double-double player and give Curry the chance to become the 20/6 performer downlow again. 
Damn this is so easy to see. 
Get rid of Zach and then concentrate on adding a defensive Bigman after that.

*This is still Isiah Thomas Team if Walsh refuse to let go of Isiah's 7 cancer players on the roster. You can say what you want but these are still Isiah's players on the roster. 
And Zach is the worst Cancer-Player of them all. 
Even Marbury cant top Zbo cancer.* 

Stop the foolish Bloodclod justification of Donnie Walsh stupidness for not taking the Clippers first offer and Memphis first offer. 
*Donnie Walsh is too old for this Knick job!* not learning nothing from his slowness on the Clippers deal, and doing the samething on the Memphis deal. 
*Now Memphis want a first rounder along with Zach Randolph, because of Walsh slow thinking in negotiation.* 

*Only a fool could say Zach Randolph is a good player or a decent player to have on a team.* 
Zach Randolph couldnt win games with Ratliff or Magloire defensive presence helping him. 
Zbo is PURE-Cancer to his teammates.....there is only one thing to do with a player like Zbo. Give up the future first round pick (2012 or something) to get this 20/10 loser off the team.

I'm sure coach McMillian gave coach Dantoni the 411 on Zach Randolph on the USA Olympic Team. 
What is wrong with Donnie Walsh...... when Dantoni had Jaric working out with Knick players in New York before the deffered payments were added to the offer...


----------



## Floods

Truknicksfan said:


> All I know is that I dont want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of zach.


At least that's a somewhat fair statement, considering the Knicks owe one to somebody every other year till 2080.


----------



## Floods

Kiyaman said:


> *For those of you members who want Zach Randolph on this team next season and think we should not have grabbed the first or any of the offers for Zbo.......need to know.... Nobody wants to be Zbo teammate!*
> 
> Later for all that "RHETORIC" get Zach off this Knick roster so we could see a Bigman lineup of C-Curry, PF/SF-Lee, SF-Chandler, and PF/SF-Gallo receive the majority of bigmen playingtime this 2008-9 season.
> We know we are not going to the playoffs but we can start developing players that want to win together.
> 
> The Knicks supposed to be working on future players like whether to re-sign David Lee to a decent contract if he perform well alongside of Gallo & Chandler.
> Curry is worth keeping for another season to raise his stock plus no team this offseason is asking for a first round pick (also) to take Curry.
> Getting rid of Zach Randolph will make Lee a double-double player and give Curry the chance to become the 20/6 performer downlow again.
> Damn this is so easy to see.
> Get rid of Zach and then concentrate on adding a defensive Bigman after that.
> 
> *This is still Isiah Thomas Team if Walsh refuse to let go of Isiah's 7 cancer players on the roster. You can say what you want but these are still Isiah's players on the roster.
> And Zach is the worst Cancer-Player of them all.
> Even Marbury cant top Zbo cancer.*
> 
> Stop the foolish Bloodclod justification of Donnie Walsh stupidness for not taking the Clippers first offer and Memphis first offer.
> *Donnie Walsh is too old for this Knick job!* not learning nothing from his slowness on the Clippers deal, and doing the samething on the Memphis deal.
> *Now Memphis want a first rounder along with Zach Randolph, because of Walsh slow thinking in negotiation.*
> 
> *Only a fool could say Zach Randolph is a good player or a decent player to have on a team.*
> Zach Randolph couldnt win games with Ratliff or Magloire defensive presence helping him.
> Zbo is PURE-Cancer to his teammates.....there is only one thing to do with a player like Zbo. Give up the future first round pick (2012 or something) to get this 20/10 loser off the team.
> 
> I'm sure coach McMillian gave coach Dantoni the 411 on Zach Randolph on the USA Olympic Team.
> What is wrong with Donnie Walsh...... when Dantoni had Jaric working out with Knick players in New York before the deffered payments were added to the offer...


Ho-ly crap... I agree with Kiyaman. :biggrin:


----------



## seifer0406

Da Grinch said:


> . its very rare a player is known as a cancer to the point people are actually putting it in his name (vince cancer)
> 
> in one game vince was telling the guy defending him what plays were being called and what was about to happen.
> 
> http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/8009536/2
> 
> here is a story on his trade from cbs.
> 
> 
> 
> you are trying to say these guys weren't called cancers when they were , Twinkiefoot is the correct one here . and his point is pretty valid .


Vince has been called plenty of nick names, Wince Carter, Half-man half a season, just to name a few. To use a couple reporters's article just doesn't justify the cancer label especially if you look back at the entire Toronto situation in the last few VC years. Vince was hampered by injuries and compounded by some bad management decisions by the Raptors F.O. essentially brought the team down. I do feel that Vince was unprofessional during the last 6 month in TO, but by then the damage was already done with him being injured and the Raptors roster going through the transition period of guys like Antonio Davis, Jalen Rose to Bosh.

Not to mention that the fact that Vince never played on a true contender. The Nets never got past the 2nd round after they got Vince and by the looks of things in NJ it doesn't look like they'll get past any teams in the playoffs anytime soon. Since you preach reading comprehension, go back and read your friend Twinky's post saying that Vince is one of those players who got labelled as cancer and went on to *win a championship or being on a contender*. Sorry, it just didn't work out for Vince and 2 wrongs for Twinkie just doesn't make a right either.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Truknicksfan said:


> All I know is that I dont want to give up a first round pick just to get rid of zach.


Exactly why give up a 1st rounder, for what? If you can't move him let his *** rot on the bench (if he continues to be a black hole and not pass the ball), the Knicks are rich, it's not like this is the first time they have had guys on this team who have been paid a zillion dollars and didn't exactly fit the mold as team players and it won't be the last. Just go with the young guys if Zach does not change his style of play, until a team makes an offer that will exclude a first rounder. I still think Walsh blew it with the Clippers move. His lack of maneuvers thus far, has been fairly disappointing and we will have the same sorry team we had last year.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> At least that's a somewhat fair statement, considering the Knicks owe one to somebody every other year till 2080.


Erroneous statement, please try again.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Da Grinch said:


> . its very rare a player is known as a cancer to the point people are actually putting it in his name (vince cancer)
> 
> in one game vince was telling the guy defending him what plays were being called and what was about to happen.
> 
> http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/8009536/2
> 
> here is a story on his trade from cbs.
> 
> 
> 
> you are trying to say these guys weren't called cancers when they were , Twinkiefoot is the correct one here . and his point is pretty valid .
> 
> also when do you call out players for poor play after you win a game by 15?
> 
> its almost always done after a loss.
> 
> and when jacoby can give a better response to why the knicks didn't win a game without Randolph playing it than "i dunno"
> 
> maybe it will look like he's actually watched the games...because if you haven't watched the games your opinion is worthless.


I like Vince, and I believe your post is correct, he was acting a fool especially around the time he was with the Raptors and then got traded to the Nets. Just because he was beefing with management does not mean you don't give a 100 percent while you are on the floor. That is what professional players are paid to do. The fact he was giving opposing teams and idea on what plays were coming was very unprofessional and detrimental to the team and it shows no class. Lastly, I don't understand why people think that Randolph has been the _only_ guy to ever been called a cancer, that shouldn't even be up for debate it's been well documented that players in every era has had some sort of issues where they were detrimental to the team.


----------



## eddymac

Kiyaman said:


> *For those of you members who want Zach Randolph on this team next season and think we should not have grabbed the first or any of the offers for Zbo.......need to know.... Nobody wants to be Zbo teammate!*
> 
> Later for all that "RHETORIC" get Zach off this Knick roster so we could see a Bigman lineup of C-Curry, PF/SF-Lee, SF-Chandler, and PF/SF-Gallo receive the majority of bigmen playingtime this 2008-9 season.
> We know we are not going to the playoffs but we can start developing players that want to win together.
> 
> The Knicks supposed to be working on future players like whether to re-sign David Lee to a decent contract if he perform well alongside of Gallo & Chandler.
> Curry is worth keeping for another season to raise his stock plus no team this offseason is asking for a first round pick (also) to take Curry.
> Getting rid of Zach Randolph will make Lee a double-double player and give Curry the chance to become the 20/6 performer downlow again.
> Damn this is so easy to see.
> Get rid of Zach and then concentrate on adding a defensive Bigman after that.
> 
> *This is still Isiah Thomas Team if Walsh refuse to let go of Isiah's 7 cancer players on the roster. You can say what you want but these are still Isiah's players on the roster.
> And Zach is the worst Cancer-Player of them all.
> Even Marbury cant top Zbo cancer.*
> 
> Stop the foolish Bloodclod justification of Donnie Walsh stupidness for not taking the Clippers first offer and Memphis first offer.
> *Donnie Walsh is too old for this Knick job!* not learning nothing from his slowness on the Clippers deal, and doing the samething on the Memphis deal.
> *Now Memphis want a first rounder along with Zach Randolph, because of Walsh slow thinking in negotiation.*
> 
> *Only a fool could say Zach Randolph is a good player or a decent player to have on a team.*
> Zach Randolph couldnt win games with Ratliff or Magloire defensive presence helping him.
> Zbo is PURE-Cancer to his teammates.....there is only one thing to do with a player like Zbo. Give up the future first round pick (2012 or something) to get this 20/10 loser off the team.
> 
> I'm sure coach McMillian gave coach Dantoni the 411 on Zach Randolph on the USA Olympic Team.
> What is wrong with Donnie Walsh...... when Dantoni had Jaric working out with Knick players in New York before the deffered payments were added to the offer...



Honestly you can win with anyone on the Knicks current roster, you just need to put them in the right situation and they can be huge factors. Take Randoplh for instance a big man that can rebound and score with his back to the basket or shoot the 10-15 ft jump shot, can be an asset to any team. For example look at Eddy Curry in the last season with the Bulls, he was able to flourish in that system and help get that team to the playoffs. Put Zach up front with a defensive minded big man like Diop or Mutumbo who can play off he other and it can work.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

JFizzleRaider said:


> What has Chris Wallace proven? He's the guy that gave away Pau Gasol, if anything he has a horrible track record. The only one who had one worse was Thomas.



Your obviously not familiar with Chris Wallace and the Grizzlies management then because they have laid a fairly impressive foundation for the future. I like how in posts you mention that guys like Randolph shouldn't be allowed around up and coming players like Mayo, Conley, Gay, Warrick, Lowry, etc but fail to give the man responsible for bringing them in any credit. That Pau Gasol trade was exactly what they needed and they actually got market value for him if you follow the league trades closely enough.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Really, I'm delusional? What has he done for any team he's been on and what have they accomplished? *He hasn't seen the playoffs as a prominent player, the only time he did see the playoffs was when he was still young and being used off the bench. That should be telling you something.* Defense, character, and selflessness are vital parts to successful teams. Zach plays no defense, is a horrific locker room presence, and the iso-show he put on in the Toronto game last season should be a good indicator of his selflessness. Its not a coincidence that this guy doesn't win. Any GM who takes him on their team at this point is a fool. Though you guys may be in luck, there are plenty of fools who hold GM positions around the NBA. Last few seasons proved that pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're defending him foolishly in this thread because you want him traded? That makes perfect sense. You sound ready to split the atom.


Well clearly we have different definitions of a bench player because Randolph *started* 4 of the 7 games the Blazers played against thee Mavericks during the 2002-2003 season. He may have not been playing on an all-star level during that point but he certainly was the reason a Blazer team clearly not as good as the Mavericks, managed to play 7 games. During that stint he averaged 14ppg, 9rpg and 2apg in 30mpg.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Because if they reduce his minutes significantly, he'll cause big (or is 'bigger' appropriate?) problems in the locker room and **** things up even more. But they played him, and his no-defense *** killed their offensive rhythm. Pick your poison.
> 
> 
> I'm not necessarily complaining, I'd love for Zach to stay on the Knicks for as long as possible so he, Steph, and Curry can keep crippling your team and your team's financial/locker room situation, which would allow the Celtics and pretty much every other team in the league to keep kicking your *** every single night. I'd love nothing more, believe me.
> 
> Randolph is not the reason they were 0-13 when he didn't play. As I said before, the Knicks were (and probably still are) bad enough where they could lose 13 random games for no reason at all other than incompetence.
> 
> 
> OK fine, he and Curry, Marbury, and Jerome James are all the big problems and all need to leave (which is true).


Well we benched Marbury, and later helped banish him for the year. Whose to say we wouldn't do that with Randolph if he was as bad as you say he was?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> The Knicks was pretty bad last year with or without Randolph. A better example would be the Blazers, who had a much better year after Randolph was traded. I'm not saying Zach is the main reason for their success, but if we want to use the records to indicate his value, you can't use the Knicks record without taking Zach's former team (that kept pretty much the same roster) into account.


...And I guess you can't factor in the experience and the fact that young players (which is basically everything the Blazers are) usally get better and not worse as they develop, as being the increase in the Blazers win total. If I do recall correctly, the Blazers were not quite healthy either: Brandon Roy played just 56 games and Randolph about 67 for example. They also made several key additions that factored in big to their rotation with James Jones (league's best perimeter shooter IMO), Steve Blake who became their starting PG and Channing Frye. Whose to say the Blazers would not have been better this year with Randolph on the team and with all the new additions?


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> Well clearly we have different definitions of a bench player because Randolph *started* 4 of the 7 games the Blazers played against thee Mavericks during the 2002-2003 season. He may have not been playing on an all-star level during that point but he certainly was the reason a Blazer team clearly not as good as the Mavericks, managed to play 7 games. During that stint he averaged 14ppg, 9rpg and 2apg in 30mpg.


So I was incorrect about his playoff minutes/role. But that doesn't change the fact Randolph was not the prominent player or leader on that team, it was clearly Sheed and Bonzi's show. Randolph helped them stay in that series, but he wasn't the reason they played Dallas to seven.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> Well we benched Marbury, and later helped banish him for the year. Whose to say we wouldn't do that with Randolph if he was as bad as you say he was?


It might work, it might not. Thing is, not all cancers are the same. Some will handle a benching differently than others, with varying results.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> First of all, in those videos you posted, the moves were much more conventional than the move that Zach did in that game at Toronto. If you cannot tell the difference between a spinmove/drop step(which are legitimate moves for a somewhat mobile PF) and a PF doing between the legs and behind the back dribbles which are normally done by guards and small forwards. It was pretty obvious even to the commentators that were at the game that Zach was doing something that he shouldn't be doing. Perhaps he was taunted by an opposing player and he tried to drop a fancy one back at them or perhaps he was showboating to the fans, but to say that he uses those dribble moves on a regular basis is just absurd.
> 
> And no, the only reason why there was 5 seconds left on the clock to begin with was because Zach lost his mind and made a fool of himself for the 5-10 seconds prior to that. Even then, when he gathered the ball there was still about 5 seconds left on the clock for him to give the ball up to his teammate so that they can get a better shot than the one he ended up taking.
> 
> I don't know if you actually watched that particular game. The Knicks actually had the momentum at the time after they had narrowed the lead to 3. For Randolph to do this at such a crucial time of the game just shows that he does not care about the team or winning in general. If you still want to argue about the play, I suggest you load up the game tape and watch the entire 3rd quarter.(If I remember correctly it was the 3rd)



Let's review. Conventional, formed by agreement or compact. If you take a close look at the video, you'd notice that the Knicks are actually spacing the floor. Why would you space the floor? To give whoever has the ball enough operating room to avoid pressure from the defense. Why do this? The only reason I could think of is to give the man with the ball a better and easier shot. It was an iso play, plain and simple, and everyone on the floor seemed to notice that. 

And yes, the excessive dribbling was bone-headed as I alluded to earlier. When he began making his move (a penetration), he saw Calderon (a pesky guy with quick hands) hesitate over for help, which caused him to stop his drive and reevaluate his attack by dribbling. At that point he should have dished out to someone, get closer to the basket, get the ball back and start his attack again but he didn't. What he did do was force the issue, resulting in him losing the ball and forcing up a bad shot because of the shot clock. Again, I don't necessarily see anything he did as being outside his comfort zone but he certainly made poor decisions in the process. So poor that it should be posted about basketball forums as evidence why he shouldn't be in the league? No, that's just stupid.


----------



## Da Grinch

seifer0406 said:


> Vince has been called plenty of nick names, Wince Carter, Half-man half a season, just to name a few. To use a couple reporters's article just doesn't justify the cancer label especially if you look back at the entire Toronto situation in the last few VC years. Vince was hampered by injuries and compounded by some bad management decisions by the Raptors F.O. essentially brought the team down. I do feel that Vince was unprofessional during the last 6 month in TO, but by then the damage was already done with him being injured and the Raptors roster going through the transition period of guys like Antonio Davis, Jalen Rose to Bosh.
> 
> Not to mention that the fact that Vince never played on a true contender. The Nets never got past the 2nd round after they got Vince and by the looks of things in NJ it doesn't look like they'll get past any teams in the playoffs anytime soon. Since you preach reading comprehension, go back and read your friend Twinky's post saying that Vince is one of those players who got labelled as cancer and went on to *win a championship or being on a contender*. Sorry, it just didn't work out for Vince and 2 wrongs for Twinkie just doesn't make a right either.


actually it does make him a cancer as the term goes according to you .

no response on him giving away plays in a game(he denied it but 3 players from the other teamsaid he did) , if that doesn't make you cancer nothing does

http://hroman.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/the-raptors-vs-vince-carter/


> In fact, some Seattle Sonics hinted that Vince was sabotaging the Raptors by subtly mentioning the plays Toronto was running


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2004/12/19/cartertip041219.html



> Before the play began, he said directly to the Seattle bench, "It's a flare. It's a flare."
> 
> The Raptors then ran a flare play.
> 
> Three members of the Sonics confirmed Carter tried to tip them off.
> 
> In the play, Raptors Matt Bonner sets a screen for Carter, who then runs toward the opposite corner. In this instance, Carter didn't handle the ball cleanly and passed the ball to Bonner, who hit a 22-foot shot from the top of the key.
> 
> Sonics forward Ray Allen was guarding Carter in the game.
> 
> "I didn't hear it, but that's what those other guys were saying (after the game) " Allen told the News Tribune. "But all I said was, 'Why would he do that?' I don't know why he would do that."


 , talk about zach all you want , no one has ever questioned his desire to win a game , they may question how zach goes about winning , 

people have questioned that about vince quite a bit especially towards the end of his tenure in toronto.

the truth is you will rarely see a guy going out of his way to hurt his team , simply because he would either get benched immediately or get beaten up in the locker room...when the story broke carter was traded 2 days later for pennies on the dollar.

when you have something like this on randolph you can talk...i dont think anything like this exists about any other player in the nba though.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Vince Carter was never called the "Cancer" of the team. He had a fallout with the organization in Toronto and caused drama on his way out, but by then the Raptors team was already on its way down. This point is also moot because he has never played on a contender since the furthest he has ever gotten in the playoffs is the 2nd round.


Your a nutty fellow if you never heard of Carter being called a "cancer." The Raptors decline was much longer than one season and the fans recognized every bit of it. They noticed that Carter was not nearly as aggressive as he could be, often settling for jumpers and booed him mercilessly for it. Then his bouts with "injuries" around that time also were occuring and people started questioning his toughness and willingness to play hard. I think this whole movement was started by Charles Oakley, who criticized Carter often in the papers as not being a leader, which shows you how long this went on for since Oakley was off that team by the start of the 2001-2002 season. *Carter certainly didn't help his case by acting a fool and dancing on stage at a concert while supposedly too injuried to play for the Raptors. Then who could forget him telling opponents his teams play and him hauling *** for a season and a half?* Someone certainly has on, some rosey colored glasses and it certainly ain't me. There's a reason why none of the guys he got traded for ever amounted to anything in the Raptors rotation and it wasn't because he was a stellar player or individual at the time.

P.S., I think people also forget the fact that the reason the Raptors were on their way down was because of Carter's insistance to keep many of their aging players at gross prices. *Let's also not forget that he *****ed about the Raptors drafting Chris Bosh and not trading the pick for a veteran because he was too impatient to wait for him to develop. Character guy that Carter; ALWAYS PUTS HIS TEAM FIRST.*



seifer0406 said:


> Sprewell? The choking incident was well documented but you're talking about a Warriors team that perhaps made the most mistakes roster wise in the 90s. For all the negatives I've heard about Spree I haven't heard anyone putting the blame of the Warriors failures on him.


Really? That's kind of funny because I recall that team being pretty talented for it's day. They had a healthy Jim Jackson averaging 18ppg and 6rpg. They had a Donyell Marshall averaging 16ppg, 9rpg, 1bpg and 1spg. They had Erick Dampier averaging 12ppg, 9rpg and 2bpg. They had Jason Caffey and Tony Delk, two of the best bench players of their day. They had Clearance Weatherspoon not to far removed from his 20 and 10 days with the Sixers. They also had an older but still efffect Muggsby Bogues. Lack of personnel certainly was not their problem but the leader of the team chocking the coach of that team certainly could be.

Let's also turn our eye to the Knicks and Sprewell's infamous battle with Dolan that resulted in him getting traded. Let's also recall him supposedly helping stray Marcus Camby away, that supposedly resulted in him being shipped out. Let's recall Sprewell cursing Dolan out with his kid and wife right next to him. Let's recall Sprewell mysteriously getting injuried in a boating accident with the Wolves that he never properly explain. *But lest us not forget of Sprewell not being able to feed his family on a $12 million a year salary; certainly a team first guy putting money before his team and their interest for success.*




seifer0406 said:


> ennis Rodman - A very good role player and not really a superstar. But sure, you could say that he is a team cancer unless you have a character like MJ on the team. If Zach Randolph had MJ leading him I'm sure he'll be alright too.


Dennis Rodman had friggin Shaq on the lacks who is one of the most intimidating individuals in the league even today and still acted a fool. What makes you think MJ had as much as an influence as you say? Besides, it's interesting when a guy like Randolph gets in his teammates face about their play that he is called a bad guy. When Jordan does it, he becomes a "character." Gotta love the double standard.





seifer0406 said:


> :Sam Cassell - A proven winner since his rookie days. I don't know where he got that label posted on him. Was it in Milwaukee?


A proven winner? He was a rookie on a contender team. Hard to **** that up when you got either Clyde Drexler or Hakeem Olajuwon on your team. 

In Milwaukee he was most certainly considered a cancer. That team was at its best during the 2000-2001 season winning 52 games and considered to be a Finals contender. The next year, they didn't even make the playoffs and then the finger pointing began. Ray Allen vs George Karl calling him out to be a pretty boy more interested in making movies than playing defense. Tim Thomas vs every damn body on the team. Glen Robinson being a complete ******* more interested in his next contract. 

And then their was Sam Cassell who most people singled out. Since he was a scoring PG, a lot of people accused him of being selfish and not distributing the basketball properly to the teams better scorers. Cassell was even blamed for hindering Tim Thomas' growth as a player (many at the time still thought of Timmy as an up and comer). Couple that, with his apparent arrogance and you got what people perceive as a cancer. *There's a reason why during the following season the Bucks traded for Gary Payton and Desmond Mason.* I'll certainly tell you that it was not because they thought Cassell was doing an outstanding job and wanted to take the risk on Payton who could walk (and did walk) away in free agency at the end of the season.





seifer0406 said:


> :Rasheed Wallace - I don't know, the Blazers were 8 minutes away from the Finals with Wallace being their best player. Out of all the jailblazers, I don't recall Rasheed having any run-ins with the law himself. Also it took the Blazers about 8 years to get back to being respectable after they lost Sheed.


So? They were called the "JailBlazers" for a reason and Rasheed was without a doubt a big part of that. As talented and as deep as those teams were, they should have had a few titles to show for it. Most, including myself, were very disappointed by their inability to live up to their potential.





seifer0406 said:


> :Antoine Walker - Cancer? Never heard of it. Horrible shot selection and being overrated early on in his career is pretty much the most drama he has ever created. That and failing Riley's fat test.


How about him not playing defense? How about him coming in horribly out of shape every year? How about him, in the process of jacking up those horrendous shots, breaking plays in the process and chucking his teammates out of the ball? Those are the same exact reasons your criticize Randolph for being a bad player and Walker gets off scott-free? I should discontinue this conversation right now because of how ridiculous you sound.





seifer0406 said:


> aul Pierce? lol, I'm not even going to go there.


You shouldn't because you clearly have no damn idea of what your talking about. Paul Pierce has been black-listed from Olympic play because of his piss poor behavior throughout the World Championships where we finished 6th. I heard on several occassions that he'd refuse to run particular plays because he didn't get the ball. Don't you think its a bit odd that the self-annointed "best player in the world" hasn't been invited to play for the best team in the world? Me thinky that someone is an arrogant *****. 





seifer0406 said:


> :Jason Terry was the cancer to what team? The Hawks? The Hawks sucked because they had a group of idiots running the team. How is Jason Terry to blame?


Idiots running the team? Really? Funny that those idiots managed to put together a team that included stars like Theo Ratliff, Glen Robinson, Shareef Abdur-Rahim in addition to Jason Terry and excellent role players like Nazr Mohammed. That team should have had no problem making the playoffs in the East and certainly should have had multiple all-star berths each year. Jason Terry, rightfully or not, was seen as one of the big contributors to this team not reaching its potential because he was it's PG. As its PG, people felt that Terry failed because he was moreso a scoring guard than an actual orchestrator. He also had a few episodes of frustration with management and the team that was not taken so well in the papers and earned him recognition of being a cancer.




seifer0406 said:


> :Your post has to be the most ridiculous one out of the entire thread. I honest don't know what league you have been watching because it sure isn't the one that this board is interested in.


LOL, I'd take what you said a step further and say that your the most ridiculous thing of this entire thread. A lot of what I just mentioned has been well documented throughout the past few seasons. I don't know if you live in a bubble or choose to ignore these occurances because you were one of the foolish fans that labeled those guys as players that couldn't win....and then won. I'm hoping you use the information in this post to get yourself up to speed. Maybe then you could actually entertain me with an educated discussion about the NBA.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

JFizzleRaider said:


> puhhlease, Randolph was calling out his teammates in a loss, not exactly the way to go about bringing up team morale. I bet you in those games Randolph wasn't guarding anyone like usual too. Dude is a blackhole and is one of the most selfish players in the game. I bet you all 30 GM's in the league would take Roy over Randolph btw.
> 
> And saying Brandon Roy may have a prima-donna attitude shows you your ignorance about him.


Dude, just because you put on a nice smile or even do nice things, does not mean you don't have a prima-donna attitude. In either case he's no angel and is capable of being in the wrong. It's bad posture to automatically assume what the situation was because when you do that you make an "***" out of "u" but not so much "me," lol.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> I had a very nice response set up for this ludicrous statement (or statements), but my laptop went out on me mid-way and I lost the post. So I'll keep this one short: None of those guys except for Sprewell (who was definitely not the reason Minny traveled to the conference finals) were cancers on the level of Randolph. Actually most of them, like Carter, Cassell, Walker, Terry, Davis, and Pierce were not cancers at all. All they did was voice displeasure with their situation at the time. Come to think of it, Cassell and Walker have never done a thing to remotely qualify them as a team cancer. So, sir, what the HELL are you talking about?


Well, I guess you should thank your laptop for helping you save face and not make a fool out of yourself. I guess you don't appreciate divine intervention and feel the need to continue to put your foot in your mouth. I really don't feel the need like rehashing everything I just said, so I'll tell you to look at my last response to seifer to allow you to gain some sort of clarification on the topic. Like I told him, get yourself up to speed and then we might be able to have an educated discussion here. 



Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> So you're saying that you and the other guys want him traded, yet you continue to throw out these moronic ideas that he's a positive influence to a team he plays on? You and Grinch just keep getting more and more foolish. By all means, keep it coming.


I never implied this guy is Mother Theresea. This is why DaGrinch stresses the importance of reading comprehension. I even suggested that from a character standpoint, that Randolph could be a bad influence on a young Grizzly team. The discussion we're having here is about his merits as a player; the fact that he can help a team win and signficantly better than your giving him credit for. Once again, reading is fundamental, I go to college because of this ****.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Anyone who knows a thing about basketball knows that Brandon Roy is about as far from a prima donna as there is in the NBA. Yet another epic fail for the Randolph supporters.


Anyone who has a shread of common sense realizes that even the nicest guys in the league can be in the wrong.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> Vince has been called plenty of nick names, Wince Carter, Half-man half a season, just to name a few. To use a couple reporters's article just doesn't justify the cancer label especially if you look back at the entire Toronto situation in the last few VC years. Vince was hampered by injuries and compounded by some bad management decisions by the Raptors F.O. essentially brought the team down. I do feel that Vince was unprofessional during the last 6 month in TO, but by then the damage was already done with him being injured and the Raptors roster going through the transition period of guys like Antonio Davis, Jalen Rose to Bosh.


I'm not going to discussion this again, so I'll ask that you reread my previous reponse addressed to you.




seifer0406 said:


> Not to mention that the fact that Vince never played on a true contender. The Nets never got past the 2nd round after they got Vince and by the looks of things in NJ it doesn't look like they'll get past any teams in the playoffs anytime soon. Since you preach reading comprehension, go back and read your friend Twinky's post saying that Vince is one of those players who got labelled as cancer and went on to *win a championship or being on a contender*. Sorry, it just didn't work out for Vince and 2 wrongs for Twinkie just doesn't make a right either.


Funny thing but in the Eastern Conference where teams that have sub .500 records get into the playoffs, a .600 Nets team during the 2004-2005 season qualifies as a contender regardless. The Cavs were eliminated this year in the 2nd round. Does that mean they were not title contenders this year? I guess maybe what DaGrinch and I should have be teaching here beyond just reading comprehension is common sense.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> So I was incorrect about his playoff minutes/role. But that doesn't change the fact Randolph was not the prominent player or leader on that team, it was clearly Sheed and Bonzi's show. Randolph helped them stay in that series, but he wasn't the reason they played Dallas to seven.


Well, I guess it wouldn't be the first time you were seriously wrong about something pertaining to basketball. I also think you need to clarify what you mean by prominent. Because in terms of production per minute, Randolph clearly outproduced Rasheed and Bonzi Wells. Worse case scenario, is Randolph being the 3rd tier player on that playoff team but that would qualify him as a prominent player in my book since his contributions clearly make a signficant difference on the floor. He was the reason they played Dallas to seven and what prompted the Blazers to think of a team post-Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> It might work, it might not. Thing is, not all cancers are the same. Some will handle a benching differently than others, with varying results.


There's nothing he can do if we bench him because we're rich enough and deep enough to have a competitive team on the floor in his absence.


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> Again, I don't necessarily see anything he did as being outside his comfort zone


If that's what you see, I have nothing else to add regarding that play. If a Knick fan can watch that and feel good about the play, why should I bother.



> Your a nutty fellow if you never heard of Carter being called a "cancer." The Raptors decline was much longer than one season and the fans recognized every bit of it. They noticed that Carter was not nearly as aggressive as he could be, often settling for jumpers and booed him mercilessly for it. Then his bouts with "injuries" around that time also were occuring and people started questioning his toughness and willingness to play hard. I think this whole movement was started by Charles Oakley, who criticized Carter often in the papers as not being a leader, which shows you how long this went on for since Oakley was off that team by the start of the 2001-2002 season. Carter certainly didn't help his case by acting a fool and dancing on stage at a concert while supposedly too injuried to play for the Raptors. Then who could forget him telling opponents his teams play and him hauling *** for a season and a half? Someone certainly has on, some rosey colored glasses and it certainly ain't me. There's a reason why none of the guys he got traded for ever amounted to anything in the Raptors rotation and it wasn't because he was a stellar player or individual at the time.


It is true that VC wasn't the toughest player in the league, but that is far from being labelled as "cancer". For someone that uses such lenient standards on Zach Randolph, you seem to be quick to strike on players from other teams. People have questioned Dirk for his toughness, but nobody has ever called him the cancer of his team. Until the last 6 month of VC's stay in Toronto, there have been very limited drama associated with the guy. He was injured and his game went downhill, but until the last year and half or so, the Raptors were still winning games and was still competitive, not something you can say about Zach Randolph's teams.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Let's also not forget that he *****ed about the Raptors drafting Chris Bosh and not trading the pick for a veteran because he was too impatient to wait for him to develop. Character guy that Carter; ALWAYS PUTS HIS TEAM FIRST.


For something that's bolded it sure made little sense. VC wanted to trade the pick for a veteran because he wants to win now. How does that make him a selfish player? He did not know that Bosh would be such a good player, but that doesn't make him selfish. It means that he probably won't be a good GM after his playing days are over, but as far as proving your point goes, it's a swing and a miss.



> Dennis Rodman had friggin Shaq on the lacks who is one of the most intimidating individuals in the league even today and still acted a fool. What makes you think MJ had as much as an influence as you say? Besides, it's interesting when a guy like Randolph gets in his teammates face about their play that he is called a bad guy. When Jordan does it, he becomes a "character." Gotta love the double standard.


I said that Rodman is someone that you can considered to be a cancer but he was under control under the likes of Jordan and Phil Jackson. It's quite hilarious how you compared MJ to Zach Randolph. It's called leading by examples. If Zach plays like that play I showed you earlier, what position is he in to call out his team mates? Now *that's* a double standard.



> A proven winner? He was a rookie on a contender team. Hard to **** that up when you got either Clyde Drexler or Hakeem Olajuwon on your team.
> 
> In Milwaukee he was most certainly considered a cancer. That team was at its best during the 2000-2001 season winning 52 games and considered to be a Finals contender. The next year, they didn't even make the playoffs and then the finger pointing began. Ray Allen vs George Karl calling him out to be a pretty boy more interested in making movies than playing defense. Tim Thomas vs every damn body on the team. Glen Robinson being a complete ******* more interested in his next contract.


I don't know if you were watching the games back then, but Sam Cassell was a key bench player during the Rockets championship run. Say what you want about him, but he has taken teams to the playoffs everywhere he went. Just because a player wishes to get a decent contract does not make him a "cancer" to the team. The fact that he was underrated for most of his career which led to being an underpaid isn't something that he should be responsible for.



> So? They were called the "JailBlazers" for a reason and Rasheed was without a doubt a big part of that. As talented and as deep as those teams were, they should have had a few titles to show for it. Most, including myself, were very disappointed by their inability to live up to their potential.


Yes, guys on that team were busted for marijuana, gun possession, and even dog fighting but it's not their fault. It's Sheed that is the cancer of that team, not the people that were breaking the law. What were you saying about common sense again?



> How about him not playing defense? How about him coming in horribly out of shape every year? How about him, in the process of jacking up those horrendous shots, breaking plays in the process and chucking his teammates out of the ball? Those are the same exact reasons your criticize Randolph for being a bad player and Walker gets off scott-free? I should discontinue this conversation right now because of how ridiculous you sound.


How about him and Paul Pierce(another player you labelled as cancer in the early part(would be this part) of his career) taking the Celtics to the conference finals? You should discontinue posting in this thread, you haven't made any sense since 3 posts ago and by the look of things it's not going to start any time soon.



> Idiots running the team? Really? Funny that those idiots managed to put together a team that included stars like Theo Ratliff, Glen Robinson, Shareef Abdur-Rahim in addition to Jason Terry and excellent role players like Nazr Mohammed. That team should have had no problem making the playoffs in the East and certainly should have had multiple all-star berths each year. Jason Terry, rightfully or not, was seen as one of the big contributors to this team not reaching its potential because he was it's PG. As its PG, people felt that Terry failed because he was moreso a scoring guard than an actual orchestrator. He also had a few episodes of frustration with management and the team that was not taken so well in the papers and earned him recognition of being a cancer.


Anyone with some knowledge of these players would recognize SAR as the obvious cancer. I'll give you a hint, go look up the active player list for most games played without any playoff appearance. And how about the way they got SAR? They traded this fella by the name of Pau Gasol to get him. You don't call those people idiots? Well, then I don't feel right calling you that either.



> LOL, I'd take what you said a step further and say that your the most ridiculous thing of this entire thread. A lot of what I just mentioned has been well documented throughout the past few seasons. I don't know if you live in a bubble or choose to ignore these occurances because you were one of the foolish fans that labeled those guys as players that couldn't win....and then won. I'm hoping you use the information in this post to get yourself up to speed. Maybe then you could actually entertain me with an educated discussion about the NBA.


lol, I don't even know what to say to that. You can post this in the main forums and perhaps the hundreds of people reading there can help burst your bubble. I certainly have never seen someone with such a slanted view on some of the most well-known events/players in the past decade or so.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> Anyone who has a shread of common sense realizes that even the nicest guys in the league can be in the wrong.


And exactly where do you get the theory that Brandon Roy's a prima donna?


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> Well, I guess it wouldn't be the first time you were seriously wrong about something pertaining to basketball. I also think you need to clarify what you mean by prominent. Because in terms of production per minute, Randolph clearly outproduced Rasheed and Bonzi Wells. Worse case scenario, is Randolph being the 3rd tier player on that playoff team but that would qualify him as a prominent player in my book since his contributions clearly make a signficant difference on the floor. He was the reason they played Dallas to seven and what prompted the Blazers to think of a team post-Rasheed Wallace.


What prompted the Blazers to think about a post-Sheed future was their goal (or so they say) for a team that represents the community better. I guess the only logical explanation why they kept Randolph (assuming that was their goal) was that his bad-egg antics hadn't really got going yet.

Remember, Its not me suggesting that the Blazers were going for a cleaner image, its the teams' management at the time that stated that as their goal. So don't try to turn that around somehow.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> There's nothing he can do if we bench him because we're rich enough and deep enough to have a competitive team on the floor in his absence.


Rich and deep enough, huh?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I hate to break the news, but the NBA has a salary cap, has had one for some time now. And even if the league didn't have a salary cap, your Knicks haven't shown the faintest hint that they know how to spend money on players wisely.

Where is this depth? Your roster, aside from maybe New Jersey or OKC, is the most incompetent in the NBA, full of untalented and uncouth players that most teams would never want anything to do with. Your team has no depth.

What a moronic statement. [strike]I know you're not the sharpest tack in the box but that one just blindsided me. Wow.[/strike]


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> Well, I guess you should thank your laptop for helping you save face and not make a fool out of yourself. I guess you don't appreciate divine intervention and feel the need to continue to put your foot in your mouth. I really don't feel the need like rehashing everything I just said, so I'll tell you to look at my last response to seifer to allow you to gain some sort of clarification on the topic. Like I told him, get yourself up to speed and then we might be able to have an educated discussion here.


This conversation would be infinitely more educated if I was talking with truknicksfan, Kitty, bball2223, Knick_Killer, I guess Kiyaman, you know, Knicks fan who have shown me that they at least know _something_. But instead I have to deal with a stubborn mule like you who, besides calling himself 'TwinkieFoot', is stupid enough that he just can't process that fact that he's dead wrong despite having all the facts and all the evidence right there in front of him. The reason I keep asking you the same questions is because you still haven't picked up on the fact you and Grinch are dead wrong about Zach Randolph and he will never win anything over the course of his career. He's a cancer and an unwelcome hindrance to whatever team's doorstep he lands on.

I suggest that you get this through your granite-hard skull. For your sake, so you look somewhat smarter (maybe). I personally don't give a **** if you don't understand, more fun for me embarrassing you time and time again.



TwinkieFoot said:


> I never implied this guy is Mother Theresea. This is why DaGrinch stresses the importance of reading comprehension. I even suggested that from a character standpoint, that Randolph could be a bad influence on a young Grizzly team. The discussion we're having here is about his merits as a player; the fact that he can help a team win and signficantly better than your giving him credit for. Once again, reading is fundamental, I go to college because of this ****.


As a player, he can score, yes. Yes, he can rebound. But we've already gone over his two most crippling attributes that kill teams he plays for. I'll explain them again, in hopes that maybe you'll understand:

1) He plays no defense, and couldn't if he tried - Randolph is a ****ty defender, end of story. Defense is an essential part of any team's hopes of winning a fair amount of basketball games and going deep into the playoffs. Say what you want about 'surrounding him with help defenders', but the big men are the last line of a team's defense, and having Ron Artest and D.J. Strawberry on the perimeter won't help his deficincies. Sorry.

2) He is black hole on offense - Yeah sure, he can score. But he's selfish, and he never passes. He kills ball movement. Ball movement is also important for any team with hopes of doing damage in their conference/league. He stalls everything, and I'm gonna say a fair bit of his points come from him just hogging the ball so much. Why do you think the Knicks were 21st in the league in scoring last year, with supposedly so much 'talent', and won so few games? This isn't rocket science.


Good to see that you finally seem to be getting it about his character. [strike] Its comforting to know that you're only partially retarded as opposed to completely.[/strike]


----------



## Floods

seifer0406 said:


> lol, I don't even know what to say to that. You can post this in the main forums and perhaps the hundreds of people reading there can help burst your bubble. I certainly have never seen someone with such a slanted view on some of the most well-known events/players in the past decade or so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHbEzBhQAA


----------



## JFizzleRaider

TwinkieFoot said:


> Your obviously not familiar with Chris Wallace and the Grizzlies management then because they have laid a fairly impressive foundation for the future. I like how in posts you mention that guys like Randolph shouldn't be allowed around up and coming players like Mayo, Conley, Gay, Warrick, Lowry, etc but fail to give the man responsible for bringing them in any credit. That Pau Gasol trade was exactly what they needed and they actually got market value for him if you follow the league trades closely enough.


wow, I'm speechless, theres no point in arguing with you.


----------



## Wick3d Jester

I can't believe someone is actually arguing pro-Randolph. That's just unbelievable. He is trash and I'm absolutely stunned that some Knicks fan actually believe he's worth anything. Sure he puts up 20 and 10, but let's not forget all the negative aspects around his game and attitude. It's sad enough you got Curry in the mix...but shoot both of them please. Getting rid of Randolph and Marbury is a blessing.


----------



## seifer0406

I'm just looking forward to him posting more shocking insights about the league. We should have a special section somewhere around these boards and call it "The World of NBA through the eyes of Twinkie." This column will surely put ESPN's page 2 out of business and may even propel bbf ahead of realxx as the biggest basketball forum on the internet.


----------



## alphaorange

*Antagonistic morons.....*

Those of you that have turned something simple into something so convoluted it doesn't even begin to resemble the original thoughts. Twinkiefoot and Grinch have very clearly explained that they wish Randolph gone. They have also explained that some teams that may be better with him than without him, ergo, there is a market for him. When he is traded (and he will be), will all of you [strike]arrogant buffoons return to admit your lack of mental capacity?[/strike] Somehow, I doubt it. I do expect, however, more vague and irrelevant responses. Go have at it.

-UssKittyHawk


----------



## Floods

*Re: Antagonistic morons.....*



alphaorange said:


> Those of you that have turned something simple into something so convoluted it doesn't even begin to resemble the original thoughts. Twinkiefoot and Grinch have very clearly explained that they wish Randolph gone. They have also explained that some teams that may be better with him than without him, ergo, there is a market for him. When he is traded (and he will be), [strike]will all of you arrogant buffoons return to admit your lack of mental capacity?[/strike] Somehow, I doubt it. I do expect, however, more vague and irrelevant responses. Go have at it.


:lol:

You better hope he's traded, for the good of your poor excuse for the NBA team. NY bias rears its ugly head again. Damn, it is so fun making people like you look foolish.


----------



## Floods

FWIW my name is not Jacob.


----------



## Da Grinch

USSKittyHawk said:


> I like Vince, and I believe your post is correct, he was acting a fool especially around the time he was with the Raptors and then got traded to the Nets. Just because he was beefing with management does not mean you don't give a 100 percent while you are on the floor. That is what professional players are paid to do. The fact he was giving opposing teams and idea on what plays were coming was very unprofessional and detrimental to the team and it shows no class. Lastly, I don't understand why people think that Randolph has been the _only_ guy to ever been called a cancer, that shouldn't even be up for debate it's been well documented that players in every era has had some sort of issues where they were detrimental to the team.


I dont know either , it happens alot from big shot bob horry when he threw that towel in Ainge's face to Qyntel Woods, some1 getting called a cancer doesn't make it so , also it doesn't mean if it was ever warranted it stays that way.

I personally dont care for the term, it belittles a disease that kills thousands a year by comparing it to what is in most cases a millionaire(s) unhappy with his/her work enviroment.


----------



## Floods

*Re: E-thug.....I like it*

I can argue with class at will. At this particular moment in this particular thread, i'm choosing to be a *edit* to help get the message across.

I'm all for a bet, but what does 'If Zach gets traded' have to do with any of this? If Zach is traded, it only shows how either desperate or stupid Memphis is. I never made a prediction to say that he will or will not be traded, I said that any team willing to bring him in would be doing themselves a big disservice.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> If that's what you see, I have nothing else to add regarding that play. If a Knick fan can watch that and feel good about the play, why should I bother.


I never said I felt good about the play. If I do recall correctly, I clearly stated it was a bone-headed move. All I'm trying to say is that that play certainly should not be used as evidence of him being some one man team wrecking crew.



seifer0406 said:


> It is true that VC wasn't the toughest player in the league, but that is far from being labelled as "cancer". For someone that uses such lenient standards on Zach Randolph, you seem to be quick to strike on players from other teams. People have questioned Dirk for his toughness, but nobody has ever called him the cancer of his team. Until the last 6 month of VC's stay in Toronto, there have been very limited drama associated with the guy. *He was injured and his game went downhill, but until the last year and half or so, the Raptors were still winning games and was still competitive*, not something you can say about Zach Randolph's teams.


There's a difference between being soft and reportedly not giving your all or milking injuries. Once again, the guy went to a concert and was dancing on stage when he was reportedly too hurt to play. Big difference there.

I also think you have either a very short or selective memory. Carter was booed extensively the year that the Raptors got Olajuwon because of his reluctance to take the ball to the hole. That booing continued infrequently from that point on and till this day with him as a Net, by Raptor fans. *And if by competitive, you mean a 24-58 record during the 2002-2003 season and a 33-49 record during the 2003-2004 season then by all means feel so.* If that's the case, then the Knicks were title contenders the past few years. What's even more pathetic about the situation is that the Raptors posted the same 33-49 record AFTER Carter go traded. 





seifer0406 said:


> For something that's bolded it sure made little sense. VC wanted to trade the pick for a veteran because he wants to win now. How does that make him a selfish player? He did not know that Bosh would be such a good player, but that doesn't make him selfish. It means that he probably won't be a good GM after his playing days are over, but as far as proving your point goes, it's a swing and a miss.


I don't believe there is anything wrong with wanting to win. I just believe there was something seriously wrong about the way Carter did it, and I'm not alone in this sentiment. He was being handsomely rewarded for a reason and that was to be the leader of the team. Rather than being a man and accepting those responsibilities, he *****ed and moaned about his situation despite him helping to deliver the Raptors into it in the first place. He was the one that strongly encouraged the Raptors resign many of the veterans that were already on a rapid decline and he himself became very timid in his play; I also sometimes wonder about the McGrady situation and how could your best-friend/cousin run to a different team when it was abundantly clear they were the next up and comers. In either case, Carter had no ground to carry on with his childish antics given the luxuries the Raptors afforded him; had he shut up long enough to let management do their job, he could have formed a pretty impressive duo with Bosh and had a competitive team.



seifer0406 said:


> I said that Rodman is someone that you can considered to be a cancer but he was under control under the likes of Jordan and Phil Jackson. It's quite hilarious how you compared MJ to Zach Randolph. It's called leading by examples. If Zach plays like that play I showed you earlier, what position is he in to call out his team mates? Now *that's* a double standard.


Funny thing is that Phil Jackson was with the Lakers when Rodman was acting up, so where are you going with this? What's even more ridiculous is the fact that you misconstrued what I said as Randolph being equal to Jordan as a player. All I said is that Jordan consistently called players out and was never criticized for it. Why should Randolph be? That particular play you pointed out was 7 seconds out of a career that has seen 13,423 minutes and then some in the league.



seifer0406 said:


> I don't know if you were watching the games back then, but Sam Cassell was a key bench player during the Rockets championship run. Say what you want about him, but he has taken teams to the playoffs everywhere he went. Just because a player wishes to get a decent contract does not make him a "cancer" to the team. The fact that he was underrated for most of his career which led to being an underpaid isn't something that he should be responsible for.


Cassell was a solid bench player...keyword being bench. At the same time, however, I'm not trying to say the cancer term was merited. I am trying to say that it has been associated with particular parts of his career, justified or not. I personally don't buy the whole cancer nonsense because I think success is often circumstantial.





seifer0406 said:


> Yes, guys on that team were busted for marijuana, gun possession, and even dog fighting but it's not their fault. It's Sheed that is the cancer of that team, not the people that were breaking the law. What were you saying about common sense again?


When did I say that other members of that Portland team were angels? All I'm saying is that Rasheed certainly was one of the worst character guys on the team.



seifer0406 said:


> How about him and Paul Pierce(another player you labelled as cancer in the early part(would be this part) of his career) taking the Celtics to the conference finals? You should discontinue posting in this thread, you haven't made any sense since 3 posts ago and by the look of things it's not going to start any time soon.


Your obviously missing the point. Once again, reading is fundamental. I'm not a supporter of this whole "cancer" philosophy simply because I've seen far too many players with that tag at one point of their career, win big elsewhere. Your ignorance of Walker's career is not an issue for me. Perhaps you should take a trip over to the Celtics board and discuss with them their opinions of him. While your at it, go over to the Miami Heat board and have a little chat as well. I've also heard some pretty negative things from Grizzly fans that just got him (although it's all based on the perception of his previous stops).



seifer0406 said:


> Anyone with some knowledge of these players would recognize SAR as the obvious cancer. I'll give you a hint, go look up the active player list for most games played without any playoff appearance. And how about the way they got SAR? They traded this fella by the name of Pau Gasol to get him. You don't call those people idiots? Well, then I don't feel right calling you that either.


Yeah, I'm sure. This is the kind of stupidity that shouldn't be aired in public. Maybe SAR not making the playoffs had a little something to do with his teams completely sucking. None of them get immediately better after he left, now did they?



seifer0406 said:


> lol, I don't even know what to say to that. You can post this in the main forums and perhaps the hundreds of people reading there can help burst your bubble. I certainly have never seen someone with such a slanted view on some of the most well-known events/players in the past decade or so.


You mean the stupidity gets worse than you?


----------



## seifer0406

*Re: E-thug.....I like it*

I don't recall anyone here claiming that Randolph will never be traded. Even horrible players with horrible contracts can get traded for players of similar kind, just look at Larry Hughes and Ben Wallace. The entire debate here is his value. Certain individuals feel that he should be valued as a 20/10 player, while most people feel that he is not nearly worth that much as he does not help any team win ball games. If you have a hard time following the thread, instead of issuing duels online perhaps you should take some time reading the thing over and not make a fool of yourself.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> And exactly where do you get the theory that Brandon Roy's a prima donna?


Maybe the common sense part of the equation that tells me nothing is absolute. Roy may very well be a nice guy, I think so, but that doesn't mean he can never be in the wrong. Maybe Randolph had a point in the squabble they had. Maybe he didn't. You don't know because you were not there. Therefore, I find it difficult for you to draw the sort of conclusions you've arrived at because its based on nothing but assumption.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> What prompted the Blazers to think about a post-Sheed future was their goal (or so they say) for a team that represents the community better. I guess the only logical explanation why they kept Randolph (assuming that was their goal) was that his bad-egg antics hadn't really got going yet.
> 
> Remember, Its not me suggesting that the Blazers were going for a cleaner image, its the teams' management at the time that stated that as their goal. So don't try to turn that around somehow.


The Blazers management without a doubt set out on a mission to clean up their players act. The funny thing is that that was not an issue when they were actually considered contenders. By the time they started thinking post-Sheed, a majority of the players they had had fallen off significantly (Shawn Kemp anyone?) and were in desperate need of a make-over. Randolph's play just helped expediate Sheed's departure from the team. In either case, Randolph was a major contributor on that playoff team and outperformed several prominent players.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Rich and deep enough, huh?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> I hate to break the news, but the NBA has a salary cap, has had one for some time now. And even if the league didn't have a salary cap, your Knicks haven't shown the faintest hint that they know how to spend money on players wisely.
> 
> Where is this depth? Your roster, aside from maybe New Jersey or OKC, is the most incompetent in the NBA, full of untalented and uncouth players that most teams would never want anything to do with. Your team has no depth.
> 
> What a moronic statement. I know you're not the sharpest tack in the box but that one just blindsided me. Wow.


Could you possibly inform yourself before you respond to my posts? The Knicks for the past several years have handedly spent more money on their roster than any other team in the league and demonstrated they are willing to bite the bullet on bad contracts. We sent Marbury home, we bought out Larry Brown Jalen Rose and Maurice Taylor, along with Shandon Anderson, etc. If we really wanted Randolph gone, we would do the same or at the very least send him home or away from the team like Marbury. 

Right behind Randolph, we have David Lee who is one of the best rebounders in the league and one of the best at converting the looks he gets on the floor. He easily can log significant minutes with us and still have Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallarni looking for scrap minutes. We'd be pretty good at the 4 spot in Randolph's absence. So once again, we are both deep enough and wealthy enough for Randolph to take an extended leave from the team.

So please, do yourself a favor and go read a book about something before you decide to continue to make a fool out of yourself.


----------



## alphaorange

*Are you really this dense?*

Nobody is saying anything other than Randolph has substantial value. What that value is, can be legitimately argued, however, anything you have posted has no real basis in fact, which would be considered vitally important to winning any argument. Twinkie is anal about using statistical and historical facts.

I also don't recall anyone saying we should get a whole bunch back in value....only that we shouldn't give up too much more, such as an additional 1st. In fact, Kman was in favor of sacrificing the pick, as well. Bottom line is this: there will always be a team willing to take a chance on a talented player and history has proven it time and again. Most of us feel we should find one of those teams.

And to young Jacob: The Celts were an absolute train wreck until Ainge got his buddy to help. They'll soon be back there too...and for a long time.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> This conversation would be infinitely more educated if I was talking with truknicksfan, Kitty, bball2223, Knick_Killer, I guess Kiyaman, you know, Knicks fan who have shown me that they at least know _something_. But instead I have to deal with a stubborn mule like you who, besides calling himself 'TwinkieFoot', is stupid enough that he just can't process that fact that he's dead wrong despite having all the facts and all the evidence right there in front of him. The reason I keep asking you the same questions is because you still haven't picked up on the fact you and Grinch are dead wrong about Zach Randolph and he will never win anything over the course of his career. He's a cancer and an unwelcome hindrance to whatever team's doorstep he lands on.
> 
> I suggest that you get this through your granite-hard skull. For your sake, so you look somewhat smarter (maybe). I personally don't give a **** if you don't understand, more fun for me embarrassing you time and time again.


That's nice, lovely even....




Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> As a player, he can score, yes. Yes, he can rebound. But we've already gone over his two most crippling attributes that kill teams he plays for. I'll explain them again, in hopes that maybe you'll understand:
> 
> 1) He plays no defense, and couldn't if he tried - Randolph is a ****ty defender, end of story. Defense is an essential part of any team's hopes of winning a fair amount of basketball games and going deep into the playoffs. Say what you want about 'surrounding him with help defenders', but the big men are the last line of a team's defense, and having Ron Artest and D.J. Strawberry on the perimeter won't help his deficincies. Sorry.
> 
> 2) He is black hole on offense - Yeah sure, he can score. But he's selfish, and he never passes. He kills ball movement. Ball movement is also important for any team with hopes of doing damage in their conference/league. He stalls everything, and I'm gonna say a fair bit of his points come from him just hogging the ball so much. Why do you think the Knicks were 21st in the league in scoring last year, with supposedly so much 'talent', and won so few games? This isn't rocket science.
> 
> 
> Good to see that you finally seem to be getting it about his character. Its comforting to know that you're only partially retarded as opposed to completely.


And once again, I'll address your ridiculous comments for a 3rd time.

1.) Randolph isn't a good defender. So are alot of guys that put up close to 20 and 10. It generally happens often with franchise players around the league. That doesn't mean it diminishes what he does on the court because what he does do is not easily accomplished by one player. Like any player, he has his flaws but the purpose of having a supporting cast in the first place is to cover one another's flaws. Randolph, particularly covers quite a few flaws by himself so putting a shot-blocker next to him is bargain basement. And yes, your CENTER IS THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. Randolph generally doesn't have very many help assignments because he usually has to cover a position that includes some of the best scorers in the league. It's the guy playing next to him in the post, to help him out.

2.) At the rate he converts shots and where he gets them, he should be getting the ball more than his teammates on average. That's generally called being a scorer and wanting to win by playing to your strong suits on the floor. Can his passing improve? Certainly. Does he make poor decisions with the ball sometimes? Definately. Can those things be improved given his age and experience? Most certainly.

The Knicks also had no legitimate series of plays run during the course of last season. We also had poor distributors at the guard position that was even accussed by Isiah Thomas of not distributing the ball correctly. That's why we were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> I never said I felt good about the play. If I do recall correctly, I clearly stated it was a bone-headed move. All I'm trying to say is that that play certainly should not be used as evidence of him being some one man team wrecking crew.


It shouldn't? How many other power forwards in the NBA (quality character or not) have pulled something like that? That's one of the biggest signs, of many, that he's trouble.



> There's a difference between being soft and reportedly not giving your all or milking injuries. Once again, the guy went to a concert and was dancing on stage when he was reportedly too hurt to play. Big difference there.
> I also think you have either a very short or selective memory. Carter was booed extensively the year that the Raptors got Olajuwon because of his reluctance to take the ball to the hole. That booing continued infrequently from that point on and till this day with him as a Net, by Raptor fans. And if by competitive, you mean a 24-58 record during the 2002-2003 season and a 33-49 record during the 2003-2004 season then by all means feel so. If that's the case, then the Knicks were title contenders the past few years. *What's even more pathetic about the situation is that the Raptors posted the same 33-49 record AFTER Carter go traded*.


Gee, I wonder why that is. Is it because they traded him for one decent player and two or three scrubs, while the decent player refused to report to the team? Or because Chris Bosh hadn't come into his own yet? Is it because Toronto didn't much of anything on that team even before they traded Carter?

The correct answer is, all of the above.



> Funny thing is that Phil Jackson was with the Lakers when Rodman was acting up, so where are you going with this? What's even more ridiculous is the fact that you misconstrued what I said as Randolph being equal to Jordan as a player. *All I said is that Jordan consistently called players out and was never criticized for it. Why should Randolph be?* That particular play you pointed out was 7 seconds out of a career that has seen 13,423 minutes and then some in the league.


So now you're comparing Randolph to Jordan?

Jordan could get away with critiquing his own players because he was a known champion at heart and desperately wanted to win. He had a competitive drive like no other. When he called out teammates it was for the best.

Your friend Randolph, on the other hand, for the millionth time, has been nothing but problems since his time in the NBA. When he calls guys out, there's a fair chance he's just pissed off and looking for someone to blame.

BTW that 7 seconds told an awful lot about the player you keep foolishly defending.



> When did I say that other members of that Portland team were angels? All I'm saying is that Rasheed certainly was one of the worst character guys on the team.


I think if you ask guys that have played with Sheed about his team attitude, you won't get too many bad reports. The only thing Sheed is guilty of is constantly going after the refs and racking up technical fouls. Also, can you point out any run-in's with the law Sheed may have had?





> Your obviously missing the point. Once again, reading is fundamental. I'm not a supporter of this whole "cancer" philosophy simply because I've seen far too many players with that tag at one point of their career, win big elsewhere. Your ignorance of Walker's career is not an issue for me. Perhaps you should take a trip over to the Celtics board and discuss with them their opinions of him. While your at it, go over to the Miami Heat board and have a little chat as well. I've also heard some pretty negative things from Grizzly fans that just got him (although it's all based on the perception of his previous stops).


Yeah, I've been a Celtics' fan since Walker first arrived in Boston, and I can tell you that he wasn't a cancer. He butted heads with Paul Pierce during one game and they smoothed it over. That's it.


----------



## Floods

*Re: Are you really this dense?*



alphaorange said:


> Nobody is saying anything other than Randolph has substantial value. What that value is, can be legitimately argued, however, anything you have posted has no real basis in fact, which would be considered vitally important to winning any argument. Twinkie is anal about using statistical and historical facts.
> 
> I also don't recall anyone saying we should get a whole bunch back in value....only that we shouldn't give up too much more, such as an additional 1st. In fact, Kman was in favor of sacrificing the pick, as well. Bottom line is this: there will always be a team willing to take a chance on a talented player and history has proven it time and again. Most of us feel we should find one of those teams.
> 
> And to young Jacob: The Celts were an absolute train wreck until Ainge got his buddy to help. They'll soon be back there too...and for a long time.


Ooooooooooh.


We have these funny things called building blocks, outside of the big 3. You know, like Rondo and Perkins (and quite possibly Bill Walker). So when Pierce, KG, and Allen are no longer effective or just gone, we have guys ready to step in and keep us afloat.

So have fun continuing to look up at us for the forseeable future. [strike]Your team will be garbage for the next 5 years at least and probably very mediocre beyond that.[/strike]

Obey the rules, no baiting.
-UssKittyHawk


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> I never said I felt good about the play. If I do recall correctly, I clearly stated it was a bone-headed move. All I'm trying to say is that that play certainly should not be used as evidence of him being some one man team wrecking crew.


Why shouldn't it be used as evidence of what type of player he is? Most people criticize him for his selfishness on offense and that was exactly what happened on that play. It showed that he didn't give a **** about a 3 point game and was more interested in showing his displeasure during the period of time when Isiah gave him limited minutes. And for someone who apparently didn't feel good about the play, you sure exert a lot of effort trying to rationalize what Zach was doing. Give me a break.



> I also think you have either a very short or selective memory. Carter was booed extensively the year that the Raptors got Olajuwon because of his reluctance to take the ball to the hole. That booing continued infrequently from that point on and till this day with him as a Net, by Raptor fans. And if by competitive, you mean a 24-58 record during the 2002-2003 season and a 33-49 record during the 2003-2004 season then by all means feel so. If that's the case, then the Knicks were title contenders the past few years. What's even more pathetic about the situation is that the Raptors posted the same 33-49 record AFTER Carter go traded.


And guess who was injured during those season? It was VC. Before those 2 seasons, the Raptors made the playoffs in 3 straight years.

And to wrap this up, this entire discussion about Carter started because you said he was a cancer that went on to turn his career around playing for another team. Not only did the Nets went from a team that made multiple final appearances to not being able to get out of the 2nd round after they got VC, their team has been on a steady downhill ride since he got there. We can turn this into a VC discussion if you feel like but it still has no relevance to your original point. 



> I don't believe there is anything wrong with wanting to win. I just believe there was something seriously wrong about the way Carter did it, and I'm not alone in this sentiment.


Your sentiment is quite interesting, but I'll say again regarding your original post, for something that was bolded it sure made little sense proving your point. The fact that he wanted to win doesn't make him a team cancer. Kobe wanted to trade Andrew Bynum for Jason Kidd because he wants to win now. What a horrible trade that would've been. Do you consider Kobe as the cancer of LA because he didn't know how good a player is? Another swing and miss Twinkie, go grow a mustache like Giambi and perhaps you'll improve your post accuracy average.



> Funny thing is that Phil Jackson was with the Lakers when Rodman was acting up, so where are you going with this? What's even more ridiculous is the fact that you misconstrued what I said as Randolph being equal to Jordan as a player. All I said is that Jordan consistently called players out and was never criticized for it. Why should Randolph be? That particular play you pointed out was 7 seconds out of a career that has seen 13,423 minutes and then some in the league.


MJ *and* Phil Jackson. Someone needs to go back to elementary and learn the difference between and/or. And for the love of god stop comparing Zach freaking Randolph with MJ. Theres no need to bring a legend into such retardation.



> Cassell was a solid bench player...keyword being bench. At the same time, however, I'm not trying to say the cancer term was merited. I am trying to say that it has been associated with particular parts of his career, justified or not. I personally don't buy the whole cancer nonsense because I think success is often circumstantial.


I don't really know where you're going with this. You labelled a bunch of random players as team cancers and now you're backtracking because you realize you're dead wrong?

And success is circumstantial unless someone always happen to be in winning circumstances. When the Clippers posted their best record in god knows how long, Cassell was there. When KG had his best season (team-wise) prior to joining the Celtics, Cassell was there. If you can bring the LA freaking Clippers back to the playoffs, that counts for something.



> When did I say that other members of that Portland team were angels? All I'm saying is that Rasheed certainly was one of the worst character guys on the team.


If you haven't understood the term "Team cancer", perhaps it's best that you not use it. When you have a team full of guys breaking rules and being immature teenage millionaires, the guy that's holding his own shouldn't be considered as the "cancer" of the team. Could Sheed played better when he was with the Blazers? Sure. But as far as their nick name the Jailblazers go, Sheed had nothing to do with those morons breaking laws and it's not right for you to expect him to be the babysitter of the team.



> Your obviously missing the point. Once again, reading is fundamental. I'm not a supporter of this whole "cancer" philosophy simply because I've seen far too many players with that tag at one point of their career, win big elsewhere. Your ignorance of Walker's career is not an issue for me. Perhaps you should take a trip over to the Celtics board and discuss with them their opinions of him. While your at it, go over to the Miami Heat board and have a little chat as well. I've also heard some pretty negative things from Grizzly fans that just got him (although it's all based on the perception of his previous stops).


Just point out the part of your post that I misread. All I am saying is the fact that the 2 of them brought the Celtics to the conference finals means that they are at least doing something right. I don't even know if you understand the term cancer well enough to decide whether to support or not. If a team is winning, then its leaders are not cancers. Isn't that simple enough? Again, what were you saying about common sense? Because you desperately need a dose of that right about now.



> Yeah, I'm sure. This is the kind of stupidity that shouldn't be aired in public. Maybe SAR not making the playoffs had a little something to do with his teams completely sucking. None of them get immediately better after he left, now did they?


Another epic fail. The Grizz got *Pau Gasol*, does that not ring a bell? The Grizz made a 22 game turnaround (The same number of games they won 2 years before SAR was traded) 2 years after they made the deal. They also won 45 and 49 games the years after that while the SAR performed his usual 3 good quarters 1 disappearing 4th in Atlanta. Let me repeat, he currently holds the record for most games played without a playoff appearance in *NBA HISTORY*. When you can hold a record of any kind in a league that's over 60 years you know that it's not just a coincidence. 



> You mean the stupidity gets worse than you?


Apparently it does. But by all means continue, it is quite entertaining.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> Could you possibly inform yourself before you respond to my posts? The Knicks for the past several years have handedly spent more money on their roster than any other team in the league and demonstrated they are willing to bite the bullet on bad contracts. We sent Marbury home, we bought out Larry Brown Jalen Rose and Maurice Taylor, along with Shandon Anderson, etc. If we really wanted Randolph gone, we would do the same or at the very least send him home or away from the team like Marbury.


So explain how your team will suddenly be competitive after that. Basically, you have the money to send guys away, but can't just spend money to make your team relevant.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Right behind Randolph, we have David Lee who is one of the best rebounders in the league and one of the best at converting the looks he gets on the floor. He easily can log significant minutes with us and still have Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallarni looking for scrap minutes. We'd be pretty good at the 4 spot in Randolph's absence. So once again, we are both deep enough and wealthy enough for Randolph to take an extended leave from the team.


David Lee's been a bench player his entire time in the NBA, and its anyone's guess if he'll pan out in a full-time starting role. Chandler and Gallinari backing him up is far from 'depth' at the PF spot.


TwinkieFoot said:


> So please, do yourself a favor and go read a book about something before you decide to continue to make a fool out of yourself.


I commend you for being thick enough to call me and seifer fools while you've embarrassing yourself this whole thread. [strike]You're almost on ballscientist's level as far as stupid, dense, and clueless go. Cheers.[/strike]

You guys are killing me, I'm tired as it is, play by the rules. 
-UssKittyHawk


----------



## TwinkieFoot

*Re: E-thug.....I like it*



seifer0406 said:


> Perhaps Rocky here has had one too many blows to the head.
> 
> I don't recall anyone here claiming that Randolph will never be traded. Even horrible players with horrible contracts can get traded for players of similar kind, just look at Larry Hughes and Ben Wallace. The entire debate here is his value. Certain individuals feel that he should be valued as a 20/10 player, while most people feel that he is not nearly worth that much as he does not help any team win ball games. If you have a hard time following the thread, instead of issuing duels online perhaps you should take some time reading the thing over and not make a fool of yourself.



Funny thing but all you and your friend have done is submit opinion based with little reasoning and absolutely no fact. To that extent, you were called out largely because of the lack of class displayed throughout the thread. The bet simply was a way of setting things straight since this conversation really won't have any significance until Zach is moved and can show what he can really do. So, leave alpha alone and continue the topic if you feel like you have any unresolved questions you need help with.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

*Re: Are you really this dense?*



Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Ooooooooooh.
> 
> 
> We have these funny things called building blocks, outside of the big 3. You know, like Rondo and Perkins (and quite possibly Bill Walker). So when Pierce, KG, and Allen are no longer effective or just gone, we have guys ready to step in and keep us afloat.
> 
> So have fun continuing to look up at us for the forseeable future. Your team will be garbage for the next 5 years at least and probably very mediocre beyond that.


LOL, when either Rondo or Perkins can actually not ride the coattails of 3 stars, then get back to me. At this point, they were nothing more than role players that were in an excellent situation. Neither of them can score or do much of anything outside of playing defense. There's a reason why you guys were one of the top 3 worse teams in the league last season and it wasn't because these guys are "ready to step in and keep (the Celtics) afloat.


----------



## Floods

TwinkieFoot said:


> That's nice, lovely even....


Thanks


TwinkieFoot said:


> And once again, I'll address your ridiculous comments for a 3rd time.


Please do. These are always great...


TwinkieFoot said:


> 1.) Randolph isn't a good defender. So are alot of guys that put up close to 20 and 10. It generally happens often with franchise players around the league. That doesn't mean it diminishes what he does on the court because what he does do is not easily accomplished by one player.


So if someone is a good offensive player yet a bad defensive player, the latter should not be held against them? Do you even know one thing about basketball?

And you're saying that most 20 and 10 guys are ****ty defenders. So out of KG, Tim Duncan, Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, Pau Gasol, and Yao Ming, pick out the ****ty defenders please.


TwinkieFoot said:


> Like any player, he has his flaws but the purpose of having a supporting cast in the first place is to cover one another's flaws. Randolph, particularly covers quite a few flaws by himself so putting a shot-blocker next to him is bargain basement. And yes, your CENTER IS THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. Randolph generally doesn't have very many help assignments because he usually has to cover a position that includes some of the best scorers in the league. It's the guy playing next to him in the post, to help him out.


So Randolph is fault-free because he never played with a shot-blocker? Don't you understand that if one of your featured players is as useless on defense as he is, its not a good thing?



TwinkieFoot said:


> 2.) At the rate he converts shots and where he gets them, he should be getting the ball more than his teammates on average. That's generally called being a scorer and wanting to win by playing to your strong suits on the floor. Can his passing improve? Certainly. Does he make poor decisions with the ball sometimes? Definately. Can those things be improved given his age and experience? Most certainly.


In****ingcredible. There's a difference between being a 'scorer' and being a self-absorbed ball-hogging cancer (I said it!!). Randolph refuses to pass the ball. He kills ball movement. He makes poor decisions more than 'sometimes', chief.

You can't make Randolph into a passer at this point in his career. He's been around 8 years, we've seen what he brings to the table. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.



TwinkieFoot said:


> The Knicks also had no legitimate series of plays run during the course of last season. We also had poor distributors at the guard position that was even accussed by Isiah Thomas of not distributing the ball correctly. That's why we were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league.


So you're blaming the team's lack of distributors for Randolph's selfishness? Classic.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

*Re: E-thug.....I like it*



seifer0406 said:


> :lol:
> 
> I thought you said reading is fundamental? Go back and see who started calling people "arrogant baffons" and threatened (on the interweb no less) to beat people to a pulp. I don't know about others but I stopped taking that clown seriously after he made his E-thug impression.
> 
> By the way, acting like a E-Thug is real classy. It's quite a throwback to the late 90s as I haven't seen one of those for a long long time. Heres a picture just to celebrate his effort.


You okay? Take a moment...breathe...gather yourself...how do you feel? Are you fine? Alright...good thing I don't care so let's proceed. The name calling all started with your buddy and continued to be pretty one-sided throughout the rest of this "debate (and I do use the term loosely)." Alpha just simply pointed out this fact in his post.


----------



## Floods

*Re: Are you really this dense?*



TwinkieFoot said:


> LOL, when either Rondo or Perkins can actually not ride the coattails of 3 stars, then get back to me. At this point, they were nothing more than role players that were in an excellent situation. Neither of them can score or do much of anything outside of playing defense. There's a reason why you guys were one of the top 3 worse teams in the league last season and it wasn't because these guys are "ready to step in and keep (the Celtics) afloat.


Actually last season, we won the NBA championship. [strike]So once again, you're an idiot.[/strike]

-UssKittyHawk

Oh BTW their ability to play defense alone puts them far ahead of anything you Knicks fans have to brag about on your excuse for a team.


----------



## seifer0406

*Re: E-thug.....I like it*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Take moment...breathe...gather yourself...how do you feel? Are you fine? Alright...good thing I don't care so let's proceed. The name calling all started with your buddy and continued to be pretty one-sided throughout the rest of this "debate (and I do use the term loosely)." Alpha just simply pointed out this fact in his post.


[strike]Well, you don't expect me to watch 2 clowns make an absolute fool of themselves[/strike] while defending Zach Randolph (A clown in his own rights) and not laugh myself out of breath.

And I'm all for keeping things civil. But your friend there apparently wants to make people eat out of straws because of their opinion. What is more odd is that their opinions are quite similar to those of the general public. In fact, post this in the main forums and you would have a ship full of people ridiculing the 2 of you. Now that I think of it, I feel guilty of hoarding the pleasure all to myself and a few others.

-UssKittyHawk


----------



## Floods

*Re: (sigh)......you truly are a gem...*

Its all about facts huh? That's what I say to you people in reference to Zach Randolph.

You're pissed off because the two of us completely oblierated the two of you, and I think a stranger reading this thread will say that me and seifer's basketball knowledge is about 10 times greater than you or TwinkieFoot.


----------



## MemphisX

WTF?

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Can either side debate peacefully? I can't leave this forum alone for a minute! I'm closing this until I can finish editing the non-sense. Once I open it back up, warning points will be issue for personal attacks, trolling, and baiting. Have a great day. 

-UssKittyHawk


----------



## Wick3d Jester

Orange hurts my eyes.


----------



## mynetsforlife

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-...t-zach-randolph-your-team-contract-all-3.html

They're demanding that you give a first, and Zach, for a defensive center and Jaric. How much value can he have? Clearly not as much as any other 20/10 guy.


----------



## JFizzleRaider

All we got for him was Steve Francis and Channing Frye. Your not going to get that much for him. Darko at least is intriguing and provides you guys defense. Also allows David Lee to start


----------



## nikolokolus

Wawaweewa. I have to admit I kind of stopped paying attention to everything that was said after "Brandon Roy" and "Prima Donna" were mentioned in the same sentence, because if there's one thing you always hear about Brandon Roy it's that he's a selfish "me first" kind of guy.

Hey if you Knicks fans think Zach is a near all-star and want to keep him, then by all means I hope you get your wish, but I will say this, if Z-Bo is such a stud why is that the year after the Blazers traded him away for essentially a mediocre backup power forward and with Greg Oden out for the entire year, how is that they somehow managed to go from 32 wins with Zach to 41 without him, while simultaneously becoming the 3rd youngest roster in league history? Maybe it was just coincidence, but my theory is that the ball actually started to move around the floor with him gone; in fact it was a regular occurrence to see the ball go through 3-4 people before a shot would be attempted whereas when the ball went into Zach there was only one place it went after that and that was toward the hoop -- no matter how bad the shot or how many defenders were on him, there was almost no chance that the ball would come out to an open man.

However I won't completely denigrate Zach, because he is a talented low post scorer and rebounder, but those pluses don't really outweigh the liabilities he presents on the other end of the court; Zach isn't "worthless", but he certainly isn't worth his current deal; he's easily overpaid by about 5-6 million per year (at least).

But hey, what do I know? The Zach and Eddy show probably just needs a couple more seasons to work out all of the kinks.


----------



## Zuca

Seems that Grizzlies won't trade for Randolph anymore...

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54461/20080920/grizzlies_pass_on_randolph/


----------



## Da Grinch

My guess is that this is just posturing by both sides.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

^ He is going to have to prove his value all over again Grinch, by performing on the floor. It's going to be an interesting season.


----------



## Zuca

Chris Wallace: Randolph deal unlikely for now:

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54520/20080924/wallace_randolph_deal_dead_for_now/


----------



## Floods

Grizzlies fans luck out, Wallace finds his sanity.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Grizzlies fans luck out, Wallace finds his sanity.


Knicks luck out because Randolph is now putting up 20ppg and 13rpg.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

I'm not going to reread all these posts. I just remember the nature of the conversation and the amount of ignorance that went on during the duration of its debate. I recall particular individuals claiming that the Knicks were stuck with a cancerous ball-hog in Randolph, who could never contribute to any kind of winning team because:

1.) He doesn't play defense
2.) Has poor passing skills
3.) Got traded for pennies on the dollar, indicating he is not very good

....Fast-forward a few months and the Knicks are currently one of the better teams in the East in the early going and seem to be getting better game by game. The season is still young and alot can happen before its end but it appears as though this Knick team is poised to continue to play winning basketball....with a cancer, Randolph, leading the charge. When this happens, I'll be sure to be around, along with alphaorange and DaGrinch. We'd certainly hope for you all to attend the crow-eating party thats being planned for you guys. Like we said, for all his flaws, Randolph can play this game at a very high level and contribute to a winning effort. Take with that what you will.


----------



## HB

You dont know how many times I have argued on behalf of Randolph on these boards. Probably one reason why I want the Knicks to succeed is to prove to those nay sayers that there is no such thing as putting up gaudy stats yet playing loosing basketball. Every player can contribute if used properly.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

We could have definitely used you earlier in this debate because it got out of control with people that don't seem to realize how this game really works. I think if things go as planned, the Knicks will be one of the darlings in the East (which is far from what I ever predicted before the season began).


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Says the folks who wanted Z-Bo gone BEFORE Curry, who has been a waste of space since he got here.


----------



## Da Grinch

TwinkieFoot said:


> I'm not going to reread all these posts. I just remember the nature of the conversation and the amount of ignorance that went on during the duration of its debate. I recall particular individuals claiming that the Knicks were stuck with a cancerous ball-hog in Randolph, who could never contribute to any kind of winning team because:
> 
> 1.) He doesn't play defense
> 2.) Has poor passing skills
> 3.) Got traded for pennies on the dollar, indicating he is not very good
> 
> ....Fast-forward a few months and the Knicks are currently one of the better teams in the East in the early going and seem to be getting better game by game. The season is still young and alot can happen before its end but it appears as though this Knick team is poised to continue to play winning basketball....with a cancer, Randolph, leading the charge. When this happens, I'll be sure to be around, along with alphaorange and DaGrinch. We'd certainly hope for you all to attend the crow-eating party thats being planned for you guys. Like we said, for all his flaws, Randolph can play this game at a very high level and contribute to a winning effort. Take with that what you will.


I'll admit some crow right now and happy to do it , he has been a far better teammates than i expected him to be , which has always been my big beef with him, that he has been a very poor teammate.

he could always play, and when the mood strikes him a good man defnder, not so much of a team defender ever though. he could always pass and handle the ball, he just choose not to pass much and use his handle only to get himself shots.

truthfully i am more pleased with his hustle plays than anything else though.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

I'm not sure whether it's deserved or not but I'll eat crow for wanting Randolph gone before Curry. I felt Curry was a better fit with the players we had but still had my doubts about him all off-season. For that, I'll take my share of crow and leave the rest to "folks" that thought the Knicks would be one of the worst teams in the league, thought this roster needed drastic changes to win, thought we had multiple "cancers" who happen now to be the focal point of our success, to people who thought D'Antoni was a bad fit for this team and the people that still bash Danilo.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

D'Antoni is a bad fit for the team if you THINK you going to win a championship with the guy, that's what was said. He is a rental, and nothing more. All offense, but couldn't get the Suns a ring, because guess what? They thought they could out gun everyone especially in the playoffs, where something called DEFENSE actually exists in the NBA. Let me know how many rings D'Antoni has before we start beating our font chest, like we know what we talking about. The thought of Popvich in the building makes him nervous. I also will continue to bash Danillo for being pick, never wanted the guy in the first place, and so do a lot of Knick fans.


----------



## knicksfan

D'Antoni is a GREAT fit for OUR team. Let me explain why. Like Kitty said, the man is a RENTAL to teach our offensive guys how to play unselfish beautiful offense, get us far and then hand it over to a defensive coach to finish the job. I think D'Antoni will definetly exceed expectations this year for the Knicks, and he is a really good coach. He's not a championship coach though. Like I told a friend of mine (You know who you are) gimme half a D'Antoni and half a Jeff Van Gundy and you have a legit championship coach. Unfortunately this is impossible, therefore neither has or will ever take their team to THE ultimate promised land.


----------



## alphaorange

*You're both nuts*

First D'Antoni is a great coach. The fact that he didn't get a ring with the Suns has more to do with facing the Spurs than anything else. SA has been one of the best team is the history of the game. Compare the rosters. Not only that but the NBA game is a game of match ups. Look how far he took that team without Amare..

Check out Rileys record without Shaq...or Jacksons record without MJ or a combo of Shaq AND Kobe. D'Antoni is a great coach. Seems to me the Suns were healthy and together one year and they STILL didn't have the talent of the opponents. While Marion is having an OK year, he is not remotely close to an allstar. SOOOOOO.....did the players make D'Antoni, or did D'Antoni and his system make the players? Anybody REALLY believe NASH is this good in a different system? Doesn't look it. Buy some big spoons, people.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

USSKittyHawk said:


> D'Antoni is a bad fit for the team if you THINK you going to win a championship with the guy, that's what was said. He is a rental, and nothing more. All offense, but couldn't get the Suns a ring, because guess what? They thought they could out gun everyone especially in the playoffs, where something called DEFENSE actually exists in the NBA. Let me know how many rings D'Antoni has before we start beating our font chest, like we know what we talking about. The thought of Popvich in the building makes him nervous. I also will continue to bash Danillo for being pick, never wanted the guy in the first place, and so do a lot of Knick fans.


Seems like you took my comments a bit personnel. Considering that we were not exactly on a fast track to winning a championship, I could live...even support D'Antoni. You got to actually be competitive in order to even think about winning a title and that is what Mike is doing for us right now. I think that D'Antoni not winning a championship had a little something to do with injuries (Amare and Co.), suspensions (Amare) and a cheap skate franchise that preferred pinching pennies out of every dollar rather than bringing in the kind of personnel to win (letting Joe Johnson and Tim Thomas go). Time can only tell, so I'll wait and see if he can win a championship with this system. I suppose naysayers have to have something negative to cling to though.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

I don't take anything personal on a message board, if that's the case then I wouldn't be on this boad battling Dog everyday. made a comment to "everyone" general....get over yourself.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

USSKittyHawk said:


> I don't take anything personal on a message board, if that's the case then I wouldn't be on this boad battling Dog everyday. made a comment to "everyone" general....get over yourself.


I'm sure...


----------

