# Suggested trade



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Suggested by me, that is.

How about: Zach, Martell and Travis for Grant Hill? (It works salary wise.)

I was prompted to thinking about this because of the annual round of "Grant Hill looks totally recovered" pieces (here for example), but also because his enormous salary finally runs out at the end of this year. So:

PROS:
We get rid of Zach.
We clear up a BUNCH of salary room at the end of the year.
Hill is a great locker-room guy and the kind of "class act" the franchise wants.
If he can play a little (claims to have played Vince Carter recently and "held his own") that would be a bonus. He could play SF and Miles and Magloire could split time at PF.

CONS:
We lose our leading scorer.
We lose two young guys. (I'd be sorrier about Webster, but I have my doubts he'll ever be more than an average player. And you have to sweeten the deal to get rid of Zach, particularly as the Magic will probably get a lot of offers from teams wanting to dump salary)

I'd do it if the Magic would. Trouble is, with Howard and Milicic they're sort of loaded at the power positions (although Zach is a better scorer than either, and Milicic is another guy who I think is currently overrated). However, they don't have much at the SG position, so I'm guessing they might find Webster intriguing.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

All it really accomplishes is clearing cap space. You'd also really have to hope that Webster doesn't become a good player with that trade. 

To me anyway....Losing Zach is not that big of a deal. If you could get rid of Zach and Miles for Hill and filler then go for it. 

The one real possitive about Hill is that since he can barely walk he fits right in to Nate's slow down offense....(just kidding)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> Suggested by me, that is.
> 
> How about: Zach, Martell and Travis for Grant Hill? (It works salary wise.)
> 
> ...



why in the blue, white, red and purple hell would we trade Zach, Travis AND Martell for a guy who's basically 3 minutes from being retired?

seriously, what the hell are you on?

why the hell would would they *include* Martell (let alone Travis) for a player who's most likely retiring soon, and not even remotely depenedable anymore??


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I don't think I'd even do it for Zach straight up... he's probably going to have a big year and will be worth a lot more than that later on.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> why in the blue, white, red and purple hell would we trade Zach, Travis AND Martell for a guy who's basically 3 minutes from being retired?


I believe I spelled out my reasons Hap. What you mean is "I reject your reasons!"



> seriously, what the hell are you on?


Extra-strong English Breakfast. What the hell are you doing up at this time of the morning?



> why the hell would would they *include* Martell (let alone Travis) for a player who's most likely retiring soon, and not even remotely depenedable anymore??


Once again, I refer you to the text above. It's not going to improve the team in the short-term, except perhaps by freeing up minutes for Brandon Roy and Aldridge. And *including* young players is the only way that other teams would accept Zach, given all his baggage. (Have you read THIS yet?)

Finally, I really don't think either Travis or Martell will amount to much. One can jump, the other can shoot. Put 'em together and you still wouldn't have someone who can dribble.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

So you're assessing Martell's abilities after just one year of decent basketball? You might need to be reminded that he's only 19 or 20 and has yet to be given big minutes. No way on God's green earth would I ever trade Webster for Hill, let alone throwing Zach and Travis in there.

Bad... BAD idea.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> I believe I spelled out my reasons Hap. What you mean is "I reject your reasons!"


""I reject your reality and substitute my own." Adam Savage.



> Extra-strong English Breakfast. What the hell are you doing up at this time of the morning?


waiting to go to cracker city.


> Once again, I refer you to the text above. It's not going to improve the team in the short-term, except perhaps by freeing up minutes for Brandon Roy and Aldridge. And *including* young players is the only way that other teams would accept Zach, given all his baggage. (Have you read THIS yet?)
> 
> Finally, I really don't think either Travis or Martell will amount to much. One can jump, the other can shoot. Put 'em together and you still wouldn't have someone who can dribble.


well, people who do this for a living would tend to disagree with you (about martel at least). I'll take their word for it over yours.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> well, people who do this for a living would tend to disagree with you (about martel at least)


I presume you mean assessing NBA Talent rather than bull****ting online, but even if so, at least one is a lot nastier than I would ever be:



> “[Martell Webster] may have been the worst pick in the entire draft last year and [Gerald] Green wasn’t far behind.” He continued, “Both are millenniums away from contributing at this level. If they had played in college this (past) season, everyone would have seen that.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

No thanks on the trade. Just because the team HAS cap space doesn't mean it has the same ability of much larger markers and more stable franchises to sign players.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

meru said:


> Suggested by me, that is.
> 
> How about: Zach, Martell and Travis for Grant Hill? (It works salary wise.)
> 
> ...


I would probably say no to this trade, too.

Cap space is way overrated, and I think teams are figuring that out now. If you want to build a winner, it's through the draft and trades.

And even if the Blazers did get the cap space with that trade, they sure wouldn't be able to sign anyone the caliber of the players they'd be giving up, particulary Martell who is going to be a good one.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Nope. Trading two prospects and our best player for cap space is NOT the way to improve a team.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> I presume you mean assessing NBA Talent rather than bull****ting online, but even if so, at least one is a lot nastier than I would ever be:


considering martel already contributed *last year* in games, I think that pretty much shows that "scout" is a ****ing moron.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> considering martel already contributed *last year* in games, I think that pretty much shows that "scout" is a ****ing moron.


Two words: Fran Vazquez


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

i like how nobody's even looked at it from Orlando's perspective

orlando already has dwight howard and darko. a young combo upfront for the next 6-7 years (assuming both resign). where would zach fit in? add that to the fact that orlando has nearly 15 players under contract and they're adding 2 more extra players.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

meru said:


> I believe I spelled out my reasons Hap. What you mean is "I reject your reasons!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For this reason alone I would say no. By most accounts Aldridge is a couple years away just as Bosh and Howard were when they were drafted. Coming off injury and sub-par stats I expect Zach to be a force if he stays in the block and lets our long range shooters shoot. No way to throwing in Martell, I see him as our 2-3 swing guy. I have given up on Travis. As another poster wrote: Fran Vasquez.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

deanwoof said:


> i like how nobody's even looked at it from Orlando's perspective
> 
> orlando already has dwight howard and darko. a young combo upfront for the next 6-7 years (assuming both resign). where would zach fit in? add that to the fact that orlando has nearly 15 players under contract and they're adding 2 more extra players.


If Portland wouldn't do it, why even bother looking at it from Orlando's perspective? If anything, they would be salivating over the possibility of getting a guy like Webster on thier squad.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I'm afraid I would have to say Hell No! Not even Martell for Grant straight up. Cap room would be great, but not giving up our best player and Martell. Sorry. For Dwight Howard, I might think about it.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I'm afraid I would have to say Hell No! Not even Martell for Grant straight up. Cap room would be great, but not giving up our best player and Martell. Sorry. For Dwight Howard, I might think about it.


dont lie. you know you'd dump everyone on the roster to orlando for dwight howard if you could, sans dickau


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

This is absolutely one of the most horrible trades I have ever seen.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

hasoos said:


> This is absolutely one of the most horrible trades I have ever seen.


That in itself is an achievement I can be proud of, I guess. I think the difference between me and, well, everybody else (at least who's bothered to post on this thread) must be some combination of the following:

1. The thought of having Zach on the roster after reading some of the stuff that's coming out about him (see my link to Truehoop above) makes me queasy. I never felt right with Patterson on the roster either.

2. I have always felt about Zach that he's a "mirage" kind of player - looks good, but there's nothing there. Yes, he puts up points and rebounds, but so does the shell-of-a-player-called-Chris-Webber, and you can bet that if Philly were told his salary would come off their books if they waived him, they'd do it in about .00005 of a second. Zach's one claim to fame is that we came back against Dallas in that one series when we started playing him more. Well, (1) that was before microfracture surgery, and (2) that was when we had Rasheed Wallace covering up his defensive mistakes. Something Rasheed got mighty sick of doing, as, by most accounts, do all big men who play with Zach. In sum: Zach hogs the ball on offense, is the reason we don't run more, and plays zero defense. I'd rather spread his shots around, frankly.

3. Because of 1 and 2, the primary motivation for my suggestion was dumping Zach, realizing, as all but some of us Portland fans have realized, that he is less than worthless around the league. That doesn't give us many options. MAYBE a team about to lose a high priced player (out of whom they never got much for their money) might take a flyer on Zach. Doubtful, without extra incentive, which brings us to...

4. Webster just isn't looking like he's going to explode. Normally stars emerge because of realizing potential. Name me one player who was an average athlete but great shooter who emerged into a force. Glen Rice? He had a more complete game than Martell. A lot of little things bother me about him: the fact that he has one great game in summer league, then a bunch of average-to-crappy ones. That suggests that he can only score when he's open, and the minute teams work that out, he's containable. The fact that everyone around the Blazers has heaped praise on Roy and Jack, and to a lesser extent Aldridge, but have been, at best, lukewarm about Martell, alarms me. I love his attitude and work ethic, I just wonder if it's doing anything. I don't doubt he's got an NBA career, but I see it closer to Dennis Scott than Glen Rice.
If I'm right, this will become more and more evident the longer we hang on to him, so we might as well dump him now.

5. If you still think Outlaw's going to amount to anything, you probably foresee a great comeback for Shawn Kemp.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I'd do it if we could toss in Canzano or just trade newspaper staffs...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Cap room would be great, but not giving up our best player and Martell.


You really think Zach is our best player? Leading scorer, I will accept, but "best player" just depresses me.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

If the idea is just to get rid of Zach, then it has been reported that Denver would be interested in trading us Kenyon Martin for Zach. I am not sure if that is a good idea with Martin's contract but it seems it would be better than giving up two young guys just to get rid of Zach.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

would you rather have zbo or grant as our best player? think about that really quick.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

meru said:


> You really think Zach is our best player? Leading scorer, I will accept, but "best player" just depresses me.


Best...........Most productive..........Best..............Most productive.......?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

A) Giving away talent for "Cap Space" is like hunting Sasquatch..........sure, IF you find him you will be rich and famous........but what are the odds? Kobe Bryant isn't coming here as a free agent folks! 

Which leads us to -

B) Zach did NOT rape anybody!!!!!! What part of "did not" do some of you not understand? 

I love the way the goal posts keep moving. "We need to get rid of Zach because he is a sexual predator, like Patterson" has now morphed into "We need to get rid of Zach because he isn't celibate."

I'm sorry, but there is no diplomatic way to put this: if a player's personal life upsets you, try a heaping helping of MYOB! 

:soapbox:


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

deanwoof said:


> i like how nobody's even looked at it from Orlando's perspective
> 
> orlando already has dwight howard and darko. a young combo upfront for the next 6-7 years (assuming both resign). where would zach fit in? add that to the fact that orlando has nearly 15 players under contract and they're adding 2 more extra players.



Orlando would be _crazy_ to not take that trade. They could probably get a better player than Zach if they waited until the trade deadline, but if they wait until then Grant might get injured again. Right now he's an expiring contract _and_ a potential starter. 

Not that I would want him as a Blazer, and I sure wouldn't give up Webster for him.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> 4. Webster just isn't looking like he's going to explode. Normally stars emerge because of realizing potential. Name me one player who was an average athlete but great shooter who emerged into a force. Glen Rice? He had a more complete game than Martell. A lot of little things bother me about him: the fact that he has one great game in summer league, then a bunch of average-to-crappy ones. That suggests that he can only score when he's open, and the minute teams work that out, he's containable. The fact that everyone around the Blazers has heaped praise on Roy and Jack, and to a lesser extent Aldridge, but have been, at best, lukewarm about Martell, alarms me. I love his attitude and work ethic, I just wonder if it's doing anything. I don't doubt he's got an NBA career, but I see it closer to Dennis Scott than Glen Rice.
> If I'm right, this will become more and more evident the longer we hang on to him, so we might as well dump him now.


I really want to know how you can justify this sentiment after only one year. Kobe Bryant didn't look like too much of a superstar during his first year. If fact, I thought he looked terrible.

One year and you already say that he's not realizing his potential. Why? First year players generally don't make All-Star calibur splashes. They don't get the playing time they need. They don't make the big plays. Rookies go through a developmental stage where their game progresses as they grow older and wiser.

Giving him up for nothing would be a monumental mistake.


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

This trade is ridiculous once we even think of including MW. To answer your question I don't think Bird was an athlete, but a great shooter, he was a pretty good force (by the way I am not comparing Bird and MW, you just said to name an average athlete who was a force and I think he fits this description). How about if you name 1 player except Lebron who has come right from HS and was a force his 1st year.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

meru said:


> 4. Webster just isn't looking like he's going to explode. Normally stars emerge because of realizing potential. Name me one player who was an average athlete but great shooter who emerged into a force. Glen Rice? He had a more complete game than Martell. A lot of little things bother me about him: the fact that he has one great game in summer league, then a bunch of average-to-crappy ones. That suggests that he can only score when he's open, and the minute teams work that out, he's containable. The fact that everyone around the Blazers has heaped praise on Roy and Jack, and to a lesser extent Aldridge, but have been, at best, lukewarm about Martell, alarms me. I love his attitude and work ethic, I just wonder if it's doing anything. I don't doubt he's got an NBA career, but I see it closer to Dennis Scott than Glen Rice.
> If I'm right, this will become more and more evident the longer we hang on to him, so we might as well dump him now.


You don't trade a #6 pick away for nothing just because you don't think he's going to explode. 

Whether you think he's going to be a great player or not doesn't really play into whether or not this is a good trade simply because his value as a commodity is much higher than a throw-in in a cap clearing trade.

As for Zach, I think a straight up trade Zach for Hill would be a rip-off for Portland right now, and will be laughably so as the season continues and Zach increases his value. It's really never been lower due to surgery and contract. If we wait, we will be capable of doing much better than a salary dump.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

azsun18 said:


> This trade is ridiculous once we even think of including MW. To answer your question I don't think Bird was an athlete, but a great shooter, he was a pretty good force (by the way I am not comparing Bird and MW, you just said to name an average athlete who was a force and I think he fits this description). How about if you name 1 player except Lebron who has come right from HS and was a force his 1st year.


Devil's advocate says Amare Stoudemire.

That said, I agree with you that the trade is very bad. Martell Webster does not have to turn into a star player for him to be worth keeping around.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Devil's advocate says Amare Stoudemire.


I'd say Dwight Howard as well. Aside from them, it's slim pickin's.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

azsun18 said:


> How about if you name 1 player except Lebron who has come right from HS and was a force his 1st year.


Garnett wasn't horrible, and Moses Malone was damned impressive.

Still- the point is that potential sometimes takes time, and that's true.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Best...........Most productive..........Best..............Most productive.......?


You are talking about Canzano columns when you say most productive, right?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I really want to know how you can justify this sentiment after only one year. Kobe Bryant didn't look like too much of a superstar during his first year. If fact, I thought he looked terrible.


Oh come on. Everybody and their uncle was drooling over Bryant after one year. Besides, he was rated as the best guard coming out of high school in years. He was only picked low because nobody had ever drafted a guard out of HS. Martell, on the other hand, wasn't even top rated SG in a down year for high school players.



> One year and you already say that he's not realizing his potential. Why?


Um, because I'm not actually saying that? Sadly, I think he IS realizing his potential.



> First year players generally don't make All-Star calibur splashes.


Is that so? Fascinating! And I said that they do where exactly?



> They don't get the playing time they need. They don't make the big plays. Rookies go through a developmental stage where their game progresses as they grow older and wiser.


Sage wisdom, greybeard. I never noticed players actually improving as time goes by. Once again, however, I fail to see how you are responding to what I said.



> Giving him up for nothing would be a monumental mistake.


Hardly monumental, I contend. And this isn't for nothing. I count getting rid of Zach as worth a lot.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

zach seems to be puttin in some big pre-season effort , i think he deserves the benefit of the doubt in regards to his dedication for this season and is definately worth keeping at this stage. 

but yeah, giving up martell and outlaw as well? pass. 3 guys who can play - 2 guys who will definately play major minutes... for a guy who very likely wont see stuff all court-time? i dont think we can afford to fall any lower to be honest - we have to start moving upwards again!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> B) Zach did NOT rape anybody!!!!!! What part of "did not" do some of you not understand?


While we're numbering things:
1. Did I say he did?
2. Oh, you were there, were you? Did you like this part:



> After the show, she said, she had consensual sex with Randolph's friend and then fell asleep or "passed out." She claimed she awoke and found Randolph trying to have anal sex with her. She told investigators she awoke and "slapped" Randolph away twice. Ultimately, she told police that Randolph lifted her onto a table and had sex with her while she shook her head "no," the memo says.


But that's all hearsay. Zach's buddy was too busy trying to "get his laptop to play music" to confirm or deny it.



> I'm sorry, but there is no diplomatic way to put this: if a player's personal life upsets you, try a heaping helping of MYOB!


Let me ask you a question:
why do you follow a team? Is it just because of the pretty colored uniforms? Is it because they always win? Or is it because you actually care a little about the players on the team? How do you feel about Qyntel Woods? I hope you were rallying to his defense, too.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

meru that trade stinks, no logic to it and you are unwilling to admit that the trade is horrible for portland.

Grant for zbo martell and outlaw? maybe pre injureS grant but not the frankenstien grant


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

How slow is it that we have put together 39 posts on a trade that if brought up in the middle of December wouldn't get 1 response. Let's move on! Next trade scenerio please!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> How slow is it that we have put together 39 posts on a trade that if brought up in the middle of December wouldn't get 1 response. Let's move on! Next trade scenerio please!


 Kobe for Zach.

Do I really need to explain why this trade would be of equal value? :biggrin:


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> Oh come on. Everybody and their uncle was drooling over Bryant after one year. Besides, he was rated as the best guard coming out of high school in years. He was only picked low because nobody had ever drafted a guard out of HS. Martell, on the other hand, wasn't even top rated SG in a down year for high school players.


I highly doubt that most people felt that Kobe would be as good as he is now after judging his first two years in the league. You might think differently.




> Um, because I'm not actually saying that? Sadly, I think he IS realizing his potential.


"Webster just isn't looking like he's going to explode". How do you know? Just based off of the one year of experience and summer league play?




> Is that so? Fascinating! And I said that they do where exactly?


Saying that Webster has not shown you much in one year leads me to believe that you have little patience in waiting for him to blossom. Especially when evaluating a lopsided trade like this one.




> Sage wisdom, greybeard. I never noticed players actually improving as time goes by. Once again, however, I fail to see how you are responding to what I said.


Oh Mighty Lord of Sarcasm, it's called drawing an inference . If you notice this, then why not apply it and give him a chance before sending him off for cap space?




> Hardly monumental, I contend. And this isn't for nothing. I count getting rid of Zach as worth a lot.


Zach for Chris Webber... maybe. Zach and anything of value for cap space? Not for me.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

meru said:


> Let me ask you a question:
> why do you follow a team? Is it just because of the pretty colored uniforms? Is it because they always win? Or is it because you actually care a little about the players on the team? How do you feel about Qyntel Woods? I hope you were rallying to his defense, too.


My position on Woods was simple: innocent until proven guilty. Turns out he *was* guilty, and I am perfectly happy to see him (and Patterson) gone. 

For the record, my post wasn't aimed just at you.......but since we are having this discussion, allow me to ask you a question: How would you rank the following behavior? A) Brian Grant cheats on his wife. B) Shawn Kemp doesn't financially support his kids. C) Jerome Kersey boffs underage girls. D) Zach has consensual sex with another single adult.


Seriously, given the "sins" of some past Blazers, what is the big deal here? I considered Jerome's actions vile - but it never influenced my attitude toward the team. When the authorities decided that prosecution wasn't warranted, I put it behind me and still cheered when he helped the team win.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am always left in bewilderment by the people who call Martell not athletic. He may not have Outlaw hops, but the dude has a 36" vertical from what I have read. Also last year I saw Martell having no problems with the speed of the game. His biggest liability was that he had a hard time putting the ball on the floor, or that he just didn't do it enough. The dude shot .356 from the 3 point line, 39% from the field which isn't great, except for the fact you look and most of his shots were indeed 3 pointers, so its no wonder the stats are close. He has a solid basketball IQ and will only get better. I thought for a rookie getting limited minutes, he scored in the teens at a pretty good clip. 

I could care less about Zbo and Outlaw, but I don't think you dump them just for cash, especially Zbo. Grant isn't even a salvageable player at this point of his career, and the Blazers need every bit of scoring they can get.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

meru said:


> That in itself is an achievement I can be proud of, I guess. I think the difference between me and, well, everybody else (at least who's bothered to post on this thread) must be some combination of the following:
> 
> 1. The thought of having Zach on the roster after reading some of the stuff that's coming out about him (see my link to Truehoop above) makes me queasy. I never felt right with Patterson on the roster either.
> 
> ...


I would say average athlete/ great shooter- you guys already said Dennis Scott and Glenn Rice. What about Dale Ellis and Mitch Richmond? I think Martell is very athletic. At New Jersey last season, we got our butts handed to us, but Martell had a couple dunks that game that I never saw any of the above player do in there whole career. And to judge his game after one season is crazy! I excited to watch him and Roy play together!


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

If this trade was proposed by an Orlando fan I could justify it as coming from an overly optomistic homer, coming from a Portland fan though it just leaves me bewildered. It's almost on par with Roy and Aldridge for Jerome James.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

No.

I don't want to trade Webster, our potential future or at least a decent contributer (now and in the future), for someone who won't play for us for more than a year or two. Toss in the other two players you mentioned, and it just becomes less appealing.

EDIT: More thoughts...

Why would we get rid of two of our prospects while we're rebuilding for an aging player whos best days are behind him (although they were some great days).


----------



## M3M (Jun 19, 2006)

Basically that idea is dumb, why on earth would you trade martell. Zbo for Hill wouldnt even be a good trade. Grant Hill will retire in like one year. It would be throwing part of our rebuilding process down the drain.


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

GottahaveyourPAUGASOL said:


> Basically that idea is dumb, why on earth would you trade martell. Zbo for Hill wouldnt even be a good trade. Grant Hill will retire in like one year. It would be throwing part of our rebuilding process down the drain.



Seconded. It's not as though Portland need the cap space to be major players in the free agency.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Easily, the most stupid trade proposal I've ever seen.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Wow. I share the amazement at the amount of posts this thread produced. I'm not wedded to the trade by any respect, but am surprised at the amount of vitriol against it. I'll make this my last half-hearted defense (mainly because nobody bothers to comment on the points I actually make).



LameR said:


> No.
> I don't want to trade Webster, our potential future or at least a decent contributer (now and in the future), for someone who won't play for us for more than a year or two. Toss in the other two players you mentioned, and it just becomes less appealing.


That's backwards. The real trade is Zach for nobody. Because there is one sense in which nobody is better than Zach. Webster is a throw in to get another team to take Zach. I don't know why people can't see how worthless Zach is. Yes he can score and rebound - but it doesn't seem to help us win, does it? And there's a reason for that: he can't play a team offense, and he doesn't defend. As I said before, spread Zach's shots around and you have a much happier and more cohesive team. If I had to play with Zach, I'd get pissed off pretty quick that he gets to take so many shots without doing anything much to deserve them.

Here's the basic point: a team with Zach as a major player will never be better than mediocre. Getting rid of Zach IS the rebuilding plan. And it's not just me that thinks that - just about every writer who mentions Portland agrees. (Would Zach be useful if he wasn't the main guy? Maybe, but he'd never be happy with that.)



> EDIT: More thoughts...
> 
> Why would we get rid of two of our prospects while we're rebuilding for an aging player whos best days are behind him (although they were some great days).


Hill's game is beside the point. He's useful (1) for his expiring contract, and (2) for his good influence in the lockerroom. He's a smart, good guy, who knows more about basketball than Zach ever will. I think all the people who've responded on this thread vastly overrate the importance of the numbers Zach puts up and vastly underrate the importance of team chemistry (ooh, there's a word to set Ed O. off). If somebody can be bothered to go to 82games.com and show me that Zach helps us win lots of games, then I'll shut up. Well, I'll shut up anyway, since this debate is kind of pointless.

One last point: a lot of people don't care about cap space because they don't think we'll sign any free agents anyway. Even if that's true (and I'm not sure it is: Portland has managed in the past to attract players like Brian Grant (good) and Derek Anderson (bad - but at the time it looked good)), that's not the only value of cap space. Cap space allows you to be comfortable at re-signing your own players, so you're not put in the position Phoenix will be in soon - talking about ditching Marion because they need to sign Diaw, and it also gives you a lot more flexibility in trades. And trades are very important to building better teams - just look at Detroit.

It's kind of charming to see the faith us Blazer fans have in our players. Makes you kind of wonder why we suck so much. I certainly hope that Martell does turn out to be better than I think (particularly because we chose him over Paul) - we'll have to wait and see.

[That's not to say that I don't think any of our young players will be good: I have very high hopes for Jack and in particular, Roy. But if Roy is good, then Webster better be able to play SF.]


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

So Zach was a black hole last year, I agree with that. But I wonder how few of points we would have scored if he wasnt a black hole. The Blazers were a pathetic offensive team last year. When Darius was hurt, both physically and at the end of the year mentally, they had no one who could score consistently. i think we will see zachs numbers down this year since we will have better scorers around him. Then we can start the why isnt zach getting 20 and 10 every night thread.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm surprised no one else said this (or if they did, forgive me. I skimmed through most of this crap).

This trade would officially make us forget about the Jermaine O'neal for Dale Davis trade.

cept that unlike Dale Davis, Grant Hill actually won't be playing 3 years from now.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

AArgh! Stop posting to this thread! I can't help myself from responding.

Hap: what an asinine comparison. The O'Neal trade was one that most Blazer fans welcomed, because they didn't know that he could be as good as he turned out. I think, on the other hand, we know perfectly well what Zach can do. The O'Neal trade was to get a player, "the last piece" to push us over the top. The trade I suggest is primarily to DUMP a player, because (I maintain) the best he can do is slow the development of the players who are going to put us over the top to our glorious title of about 2012.

Here's a better comparison: The Orlando Magic trading Penny Hardaway to Phoenix for loose change. Don't see many Magic fans crying over that one any more, do you? You even have the similarity that both major players (I'm not counting Grant Hill as a major player any more, although he could surprise) had supposedly completely recovered from knee surgery.

(That's another point that I haven't stressed: you're all assuming that Zach is going to kick *** and take names this year. Why should we assume that? How many players who've had his surgery ever do that? Chris Webber is a shell of his former self, and I'm willing to bet that Amare Stoudamire will never be the player he was for that one glorious season.)

In fact, the more people comment, the better this trade looks to me. So HAH! Nertz to you ALL.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> AArgh! Stop posting to this thread! I can't help myself from responding.
> 
> Hap: what an asinine comparison. The O'Neal trade was one that most Blazer fans welcomed, because they didn't know that he could be as good as he turned out.


link? 



> I think, on the other hand, we know perfectly well what Zach can do. The O'Neal trade was to get a player, "the last piece" to push us over the top. The trade I suggest is primarily to DUMP a player, because (I maintain) the best he can do is slow the development of the players who are going to put us over the top to our glorious title of about 2012.


it's not Zach that Im making the comparison to. It's martel. TRading him undert he guise that he won't "explode" or whatever nonesense you gave, is just as short sighted and stupid as trading Jermaine ended up being.

cept that unlike Jermaine, Martel isn't dumber than a font.


> Here's a better comparison: The Orlando Magic trading Penny Hardaway to Phoenix for loose change. Don't see many Magic fans crying over that one any more, do you?


Again, it's about trading MARTEL that I have the issue with. Take him out, and I dont think your trade is that bad. And I'd bet more fans would be willing to accept the trade under those circumstances.



> You even have the similarity that both major players (I'm not counting Grant Hill as a major player any more, although he could surprise) had supposedly completely recovered from knee surgery.
> 
> (That's another point that I haven't stressed: you're all assuming that Zach is going to kick *** and take names this year. Why should we assume that? How many players who've had his surgery ever do that? Chris Webber is a shell of his former self, and I'm willing to bet that Amare Stoudamire will never be the player he was for that one glorious season.)


don't assume all of us are. Im not. I think Zach will be the same defensive siv he's always been. And he'll still act like he's the guy who can do it all and gets upset when someone dare shoots instead of him. He won't "return" to 20-10, because the guy who basically MADE it so he could get 20-10 doesn't play here anymore (take note that he didn't average 20-10 *after* Rasheed was traded). 

I dont think that the chances of Zach getting any better than he is now, are that good. 



> In fact, the more people comment, the better this trade looks to me. So HAH! Nertz to you ALL.


take out martel, and I think you could make the argument that the trade doesn't completely suck.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> take out martel, and I think you could make the argument that the trade doesn't completely suck.


Agreed, and try to pick up additional value, like some picks or prospects. I'm not sure from a league-wide point of view that Zach is someone that you have to throw in a bunch of value to trade for cap-space... I think his current value, and his potential value at the trade deadline is being seriously underestimated with this trade proposal.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> (mainly because nobody bothers to comment on the points I actually make).
> 
> 
> 
> That's backwards. The real trade is Zach for nobody. Because there is one sense in which nobody is better than Zach. Webster is a throw in to get another team to take Zach. I don't know why people can't see how worthless Zach is.


No. It's not. Look at your original proposal. Webster certainly isn't a "nobody" and is widely considered as being more than a throw in. I don't know why you can't see how much worth Webster has.

This whole thing isn't about Zach as much as it is about Martell. I don't understand why you don't get that... do you see where I'm going with this? It's simply a matter of opinion and different points of view, and several posters have actually responded to what you have written, it's just that they don't agree with it.

Getting rid of Zach isn't worth it if we have to give up the other two players just to recieve Grant Hill. Others apparently don't agree that Zach is so bad that we have to make a move like that. That's the whole point.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> (That's another point that I haven't stressed: you're all assuming that Zach is going to kick *** and take names this year.


All of us? Where did I say that Zach was going to kick *** this year? Show me?

Hey, if we're going to get ticky tacky when it comes to phrasing, I think that I can get into the action too.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Ok. Vote count for YES on this trade-1
Vote count for NO on this trade - 654

Post #39 was me begging that we stop talking about such a horrible trade. Please!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> No. It's not. Look at your original proposal. Webster certainly isn't a "nobody" and is widely considered as being more than a throw in. I don't know why you can't see how much worth Webster has.


Where did I say Webster was a "nobody"? And if I said he was a "throw in" I didn't mean to imply it was just to make salaries match (the usual meaning) but rather to get Orlando to take a risk on Zach. To be honest, if the Blazers were to ignore the screams of all but me on this thread and offer the Magic this trade, I think they'd turn it down, if anything because they pride themselves on being a squeaky-clean franchise, and Zach is all icky at the moment. So that makes precisely me in the entire universe remotely in favor of this trade. Oh, and maybe Canzano, but that's hardly encouraging company.



> This whole thing isn't about Zach as much as it is about Martell. I don't understand why you don't get that... do you see where I'm going with this? It's simply a matter of opinion and different points of view, and several posters have actually responded to what you have written, it's just that they don't agree with it.


..and are thus WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I have said what I thought about Martell. I will concede that it's too soon to tell for sure on him, and I hope to be proved wrong, both about his all-round atheticism and his all-round game. The Blazers are putting him on billboards, so I bet he won't be leaving soon. I just have a bad feeling he's never going to be more than average at anything but shooting, and even then, only when he's open enough.



> Getting rid of Zach isn't worth it if we have to give up the other two players just to recieve Grant Hill. Others apparently don't agree that Zach is so bad that we have to make a move like that. That's the whole point.


So if it was Grant Hill for Zach straight up, wouldja do it? (I am 99% certain the Magic wouldn't, but let's be hypothetical.)


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> All of us? Where did I say that Zach was going to kick *** this year? Show me?


Easy:



SheedSoNasty said:


> --- -- --- ----- --- - --- ---- *Zach was going to kick *** this year*


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Post #39 was me begging that we stop talking about such a horrible trade. Please!


Oh, the irony.


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

Um I cant stop either. Orlando is not squecky clean. They just drafted JR who got a DUI just this year. Also if I remember right I think Bo Outlaw was in some trouble a fews back, that could be totally wrong though.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

You're quite the little stinker, meru... 

When you say it's basically Zach for Hill, you're saying that Webster is just a trade filler.

And if it were Zach for Hill straight up, I'd definitely consider it.


----------

