# Zach Randolph



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

What do you think about going after Zach Randolph?

The trade would be something like Wallace, Wally and another expiring for Randolph and some combination of Richardson/James/Jeffries.

You would get another legitimate offensive threat to put next to LeBron. He's a poor defender and he's not a great passer, but he can score from the block and hit the mid-range jumper.

The downside is that it would clear capspace for the Knicks to go after LeBron.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I don't think what you gain in offense makes up for in defense that Randolph brings. He's a pretty bad defender


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

If the Knicks are willing to part with their 1st rounder in the deal, I'd be for it.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Benedict_Boozer said:


> If the Knicks are willing to part with their 1st rounder in the deal, I'd be for it.


That's the only way I could ever accept Randolph. Like a hot pile of garbage with a cherry on top.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Benedict_Boozer said:


> If the Knicks are willing to part with their 1st rounder in the deal, I'd be for it.


Remind me how does giving up a 20 and 10 big man that is 25 years old along with a top 5 pick make sense? 

As many problems as Randolph has, he could be worth the gamble. Mike Brown has proven to be something of defensive minded hard *** that might get Randolph too at least show some effort there. He is just 25 years old and might benefit from a no nonsense kind of coach like how Mark Aguire did when he was traded from Dallas to the Pistons. Considering all your giving up were unproductive role players assigned huge contracts, I think the deal is at least workable. Defense should be one of the last things your worried about because your already a good defensive team and one guy can do very little to change that. Defense is a team achievement which is evident from the Celtics and what they did this year without having a slew of talented defensive players.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Remind me how does giving up a 20 and 10 big man that is 25 years old along with a top 5 pick make sense?
> 
> As many problems as Randolph has, he could be worth the gamble. Mike Brown has proven to be something of defensive minded hard *** that might get Randolph too at least show some effort there. He is just 25 years old and might benefit from a no nonsense kind of coach like how Mark Aguire did when he was traded from Dallas to the Pistons. Considering all your giving up were unproductive role players assigned huge contracts, I think the deal is at least workable. Defense should be one of the last things your worried about because your already a good defensive team and one guy can do very little to change that. Defense is a team achievement which is evident from the Celtics and what they did this year without having a slew of talented defensive players.


I sense he was being sarcastic. If there is team out there that could get Randolph and not be totally screwed, one of them would be Cleveland.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Ruff Draft said:


> I sense he was being sarcastic. If there is team out there that could get Randolph and not be totally screwed, one of them would be Cleveland.


What's up fellow insomnaic? 

I know he was being sarcastic but I felt he really was trying to hint at the Knicks needing to include more in such a deal. It is why I focused on Randolph throughout the discussion. Randolph could be what they need to be taken more seriously with the Pistons and Celtics of the East.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I wouldn't openly accept a player like Randolph, but if it worked out I would back off of my words 

Yeah...Insomnia...


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Ruff Draft said:


> I wouldn't openly accept a player like Randolph, but if it worked out I would back off of my words
> 
> Yeah...Insomnia...


From a PR standpoint, the Cavs need a trade like this. I know PR and Zach Randolph normally do not mix in the same sentence but after bailing on a talented young PF like Drew Gooden, the Cavs need to show something to justify the trade. They brought in all these aging veterans to help beat teams like the Celtics and none of them really showed up when they did play the Celtics. Danny Ferry should definately be on the hotseat. I always thought he sucked as a GM (how hard is it to build a team around LeBron James?) and I think his job might not be so secure after these moves. Randolph at least buys him time and allows him to spin the "we're in this for the long haul" spiel most GM's do when their job is on the line. Who knows, Randolph might actually help LeBron win.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I'd be willing to ship Randolph out for Joe Smith (sign and trade) and Wally Szcerzbiak. If you want to include Ben Wallace, we could include Jared Jefferies or Quentin Richardson (whose basically Wally-esque but can defend).


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

no one wants randolph. the knicks will have to give up something of value for any other team to consider taking him off their hands.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> no one wants randolph. the knicks will have to give up something of value for any other team to consider taking him off their hands.


LOL, no one wants anyone on the Cavs outside LeBron right now so I guess we're stuck in the same boat. Randolph at least can be considered a game changer. Whether it be in a positive or negative way really depends on how deep you can reach him. One thing is for sure, if I had the 2nd best player in the league, I'd much rather have a 25 year old that can give me 20 and 10 than a bunch of 30 year olds that are not getting any better and still have a lot of money owed to them. We've heard of redemption stories of guys like Rasheed Wallace, Vince Carter, etc. There are no many of aging players.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> LOL, no one wants anyone on the Cavs outside LeBron right now so I guess we're stuck in the same boat. Randolph at least can be considered a game changer. Whether it be in a positive or negative way really depends on how deep you can reach him. One thing is for sure, if I had the 2nd best player in the league, I'd much rather have a 25 year old that can give me 20 and 10 than a bunch of 30 year olds that are not getting any better and still have a lot of money owed to them. We've heard of redemption stories of guys like Rasheed Wallace, Vince Carter, etc. There are no many of aging players.


randpolh is a negative. there is a reason portland was willing to trade him for francis and frye last offseason.

and no, i would much rather have the players that the cavs do who actually play defense, know their role on the team, and pass the ball than have randolph. i wouldn't even trade ben wallace for him straight up.

and randolph has more money owed to him than anyone on the cavs.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> randpolh is a negative. there is a reason portland was willing to trade him for francis and frye last offseason.
> 
> and no, i would much rather have the players that the cavs do who actually play defense, know their role on the team, and pass the ball than have randolph. i wouldn't even trade ben wallace for him straight up.
> 
> and randolph has more money owed to him than anyone on the cavs.


When it comes to moving the basketball, the Cavs are actually one of the worst passing teams in the league, evident by their low APG. Their entire offense centers around LeBron driving and kicking or LeBron scoring. Well what happens when LeBron can not do either like in the Celtics series? You scrap through some home games by virtue of the Celtics being so inept there but lose every other time? That certainly is not going to get you through the Eastern Conference let alone a championship. 

Randolph is not going to hurt the Cavs passing game more than it already is. He likely is not going to effect their defense to significantly considering that their are no serious scoring PF's in the East and because the Cavs defense is that good. What he likely will do for you is give you an established no.2 scorer, which LeBron has never had, and a player that can actually take over offensively for you. Does not sound like a bad gamble at all, gambles being all your team has taken recently to improve their roster.

P.S., both LeBron and Wallace make more money per year than Randolph does.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> P.S., both LeBron and Wallace make more money per year than Randolph does.


ps, you are wrong.

lebron james made $13,041,250 this season.
zach randolph made $13,333,333 this season.
ben wallace made $15,500,000 this season.

at no point on their current contracts will lebron make more than zach randolph. and though ben wallace makes more than randolph this season, his contract declines so he will be making less than randolph next season and he has one less year on his deal meaning he is owed something like 17-18 million less than zach randolph over the course of his contract.

and we'll see how much luck the knicks have moving randolph. i find it very hard to believe they'll be able to trade him at all much less get something with value for him(and that includes even a role player along the lines of joe smith).


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> ps, you are wrong.
> 
> lebron james made $13,041,250 this season.
> zach randolph made $13,333,333 this season.
> ...


LOL, well my mistake for not taking into account a couple thousand of dollars per year when we're talking about 10's of millions. Big mistake there. As much as Randolph might cost more than a Ben Wallace, who do you think will be more valuable during the 2009-2010 season after Randolph (who'd be 28 years old) has more opportunities to fine tune his game? Besides, when did making more than someone gaurantee you'd be a better player than them? Shaq is making about $20 million on his team, $6 million a year more than Amare and $8.5 million more than Steve Nash yet Shaq might not even be the 3rd best player on his team. Even more importantly, what about the Cavs taking on 10's of millions of dollars financially this trade deadline suggests they are looking to be frugal with cash in the near future? I think they are ****ting bricks at the moment because they only have a limited amount of time to get it right before LeBron becomes a free agent and have failed with a bunch of overpaid has-beens. Randolph should be a welcomed addition because of what he could bring. If he doesn't work, he could not be anymore worse than holding onto Ben Wallace or Wally Szerzbiak at this point.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

I've thought since before they were eliminated that the Cavs should target NY and try to get some offense to help Lebron, and that the Knicks biggest need is to just dump as much salary as possible while trying to pick up draft picks. Randolph could seriously work on the Cavs because of thier slow offensive scheme and the defense that others could bring around him. But the Knicks would have to give up more because of his almost negative value right now.

I think a Randolph/Crawford/Jeffries for Szczerbiak/Snow/Jones(Damon)/1st round pick would be a plus for both franchises.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> LOL, well my mistake for not taking into account a couple thousand of dollars per year when we're talking about 10's of millions. Big mistake there.


yes it is your mistake for being wrong. you've made a lot of statements in this thread with what seems like no knowledge of the situation.



> As much as Randolph might cost more than a Ben Wallace, who do you think will be more valuable during the 2009-2010 season after Randolph (who'd be 28 years old) has more opportunities to fine tune his game? If he doesn't work, he could not be anymore worse than holding onto Ben Wallace or Wally Szerzbiak at this point.


in 2009/2010, i would much rather have ben wallace's expiring contract as a trading piece that have zach randolph on my team. and wally is an expiring next season.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

cmon zach randolph aint THAT bad.

hes a 20/10 big man and hes no worse on defense then amare.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> yes it is your mistake for being wrong. you've made a lot of statements in this thread with what seems like no knowledge of the situation.
> 
> 
> in 2009/2010, i would much rather have ben wallace's expiring contract as a trading piece that have zach randolph on my team. and wally is an expiring next season.


If I've made any statement that has demonstrated I have no knowledge of the situation, you've done very little to point them out. You rather divert attention away from the major points at hand to minute details such as Randolph not being a good fit for the Cavs because he makes about $250,000 more than LeBron this year. For that matter, you've justified very little when you countered any of my points. I'd actually like you to answer the questions I posed to you in previous posts.

As for the 2009-2010 situation, I guess it's your opinion but when Ben Wallace is 36 years old, I doubt people would be willing to give up anything of value for him with an expiring contract that large. His game has fallen off significantly every year.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

No thank you.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

If the Knicks really want to dump salary then they're going to have to add something to make Randolph and whatever other contracts they want more valuable. Randolph doesn't fit into Ferry's mold of a straight shooter nor Brown's preference for players who can play at least somehwat mediocre defense. I think Benedict hit the nail on the hand, I do think the Cavs would be willing to take Randolphs and Q-Rich bloated deals off but they'll have to give up that 1st rounder. Posters might like Randolph's number but his reputation in the league is reaching D-Miles territory


----------



## TheBowski (Jun 12, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> If I've made any statement that has demonstrated I have no knowledge of the situation, you've done very little to point them out. You rather divert attention away from the major points at hand to minute details such as Randolph not being a good fit for the Cavs because he makes about $250,000 more than LeBron this year. For that matter, you've justified very little when you countered any of my points. I'd actually like you to answer the questions I posed to you in previous posts.
> 
> As for the 2009-2010 situation, I guess it's your opinion but when Ben Wallace is 36 years old, I doubt people would be willing to give up anything of value for him with an expiring contract that large. His game has fallen off significantly every year.


Theo Ratliff was a major bargaining chip when it came to trading for Garnett. Without his massive expiring contract, that deal probably wouldn't have gotten done.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

TheBowski said:


> Theo Ratliff was a major bargaining chip when it came to trading for Garnett. Without his massive expiring contract, that deal probably wouldn't have gotten done.


Myself along with several other NBA execs around the league believe Garnett was gift-wrapped by McHale as a favor to his former teammate and friend Danny Ainge. Even so, the Celtics gave up almost every single player of value to do so.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> If the Knicks really want to dump salary then they're going to have to add something to make Randolph and whatever other contracts they want more valuable. Randolph doesn't fit into Ferry's mold of a straight shooter nor Brown's preference for players who can play at least somehwat mediocre defense. I think Benedict hit the nail on the hand, I do think the Cavs would be willing to take Randolphs and Q-Rich bloated deals off but they'll have to give up that 1st rounder. Posters might like Randolph's number but his reputation in the league is reaching D-Miles territory


If we're going by the Cavs preference then it is trading or signing for overpaid veterans that they want to move soon after. Examples include every veteran aside from Joe Smith they acquired in their most recent trade, Donyell Marshall, Damon Jones, Eric Snow, etc. Randolph at the very least gives them talent. There is no way your getting our draft pick and no need to. Considering the players you have around LeBron, you'd be lucky to get Randolph; expiring contracts are the only that would have us interested.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

TwinkieFoot said:


> If we're going by the Cavs preference then it is trading or signing for overpaid veterans that they want to move soon after. Examples include every veteran aside from Joe Smith they acquired in their most recent trade, Donyell Marshall, Damon Jones, Eric Snow, etc. Randolph at the very least gives them talent. There is no way your getting our draft pick and no need to. Considering the players you have around LeBron, you'd be lucky to get Randolph; expiring contracts are the only that would have us interested.


This post doesn't make a lot of sense. You have to overpay for FA's: none of those players like Marshall were traded for. The Cavs in the Ferry era have NOT dumped talent to save money.


----------



## TheBowski (Jun 12, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Myself along with several other NBA execs around the league believe Garnett was gift-wrapped by McHale as a favor to his former teammate and friend Danny Ainge. Even so, the Celtics gave up almost every single player of value to do so.


You're an NBA executive? Impressive.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Randolph is not a player who would make the Cavs that much better. He would be a waste of valuable assets to aquire.

Which means Danny Ferry will no doubt get him.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Randolph is not a player who would make the Cavs that much better. He would be a waste of valuable assets to aquire.
> 
> Which means Danny Ferry will no doubt get him.


That's why the only deal I do for Randolph is Ben Wallace + Filler for Randolph + NYK 1st rounder.

They want to dump Randolph and clear some cap, that's the price of doing business.

Now if the Knicks want to throw in David Lee, then I would consider giving up some other expirings or taking out the 1st rounder. Lee would drop 20 a game off passes from LBJ with his ability to finish.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

the knicks are not throwing in their 1st rounder lol.

people underrate zach. yeah he sucks on D but so do alot of players but the cavs NEED a 20 ppg scorer. specially when hes a good rebounder as well.

everyone just has a bad outlook on him likes hes a waste but how many 20/10 big men are there in the nba?


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

I'll take every single person on the knicks if we can get OJ MAYO with that 5th pick


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

^Cavs fans had a bad experience with PF's who put up hollow numbers (e.g. Drew Gooden)

Randolph is a black hole, plays no D, brings no intangibles, etc. There is a reason the Blazers gave him away for free and the Knicks are trying to dump him.

Can he turn it around? Maybe, but you have to compensate the Cavs for the risk and the horribleness of his contract.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

SamTheMan67 said:


> I'll take every single person on the knicks if we can get OJ MAYO with that 5th pick


That's a pretty convincing point. I wonder if we would swap picks with them, or keep the pick we have?


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> That's a pretty convincing point. I wonder if we would swap picks with them, or keep the pick we have?


If we could someone get OJ mayo i would be happy for years. OJ mayo and lebron would be the most unstoppable duo in the nba, plus the most marketable haha


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

SamTheMan67 said:


> If we could someone get OJ mayo i would be happy for years. OJ mayo and lebron would be the most unstoppable duo in the nba, plus the most marketable haha


mayo will probably be the 3rd pick in the draft though.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i'm a fan of a straight wallace for zach swap ...the cavs do need another offensive guy to go to. its basically been proven that when the cavs falter in the playoffs its because some team slows lebron and they have no one else good enough to go to.zach's an ok defender on his man, sometimes he is pretty good, he doesn't like to be scored on , he isn't much of a help defnder at all.

being an offensive player is nice but at that level(deep in the playoffs) you need an elite offensive guy zach can easily be that.

he's no gooden you can run offense through him and get results he requires a double team, that alone makes him worth it to the cavs ...the knicks dont need him his presence made curry suck for some reason but even a declining wallace would provide some much needed defense for them.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

Benedict_Boozer said:


> ^Cavs fans had a bad experience with PF's who put up hollow numbers (e.g. Drew Gooden)
> 
> Randolph is a black hole, plays no D, brings no intangibles, etc. There is a reason the Blazers gave him away for free and the Knicks are trying to dump him.
> 
> Can he turn it around? Maybe, but you have to compensate the Cavs for the risk and the horribleness of his contract.


right now the cavs need points. they dont have time to be picky. they actually made it to the finals off of goodens good inside scoring in the playoffs which they got NOTHING this year from their front court offensively.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Randolph is not an efficent scorer. His TS% has been lower then Lebron's each of the last few years. You want the opposite kind of player with Lebron: you want someone who is effecient and not going to score by mostly taking the ball away from teammates


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> being an offensive player is nice but at that level(deep in the playoffs) you need an elite offensive guy zach can easily be that.


if zach was an elite offensive player portland wouldn't have given him away, the knicks wouldn't be trying to trade him, and no one in their right mind would swap him straight up for ben wallace.

but zach is definitely not an elite offensive player.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> if zach was an elite offensive player portland wouldn't have given him away, the knicks wouldn't be trying to trade him, and no one in their right mind would swap him straight up for ben wallace.
> 
> but zach is definitely not an elite offensive player.


Yup. Randolph is a big name, sort of like Larry Hughes was. But the on court impact doesn't measure up...


----------

