# Randolph Available in Trade?



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

According to Hoopsworld he is being shopped and "very available."

Link; http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_20588.shtml

I think it is Patterson/Pritch's responsibility to explore all trade options to always guage what is available and what value his players hold.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I really wouldn't be suprised to see him moved on or before the trade deadline.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think they want to get rid of him period. I mean seriously, what does he do that is of value to the overall organization? 

He scores a lot
Rebounds well


That's it.

Here's what is bad about Zach

He doesn't play defense
doesn't pass 
Takes away any flow our offense has
Can't stay out of trouble
Has way too may years of way too many millions left on his contract
Keep in mind that we drafted his successor this last year in Aldridge. At some point he'll have to be moved. His value will never be higher, so why not now?


Hearing what I've heard, the Blazers want him out of town.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I think they want to get rid of him period. I mean seriously, what does he do that is of value to the overall organization?
> 
> He scores a lot
> Rebounds well



Is that all? 

I think we'll be able to say that about Aldridge in a couple more years. :biggrin:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Interesting, but the way I look at it, there are only a couple of Blazers who are untouchable at this point, probably Roy, Aldridge, and maybe Sergio.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

and also the best way to move Miles. Zach + Miles. Even though its probably impossible to move Miles now.

If we better ourselves by moving Zach we do it.... the summer trades we had give me hope we can better ourselves. Pritcherson did well this last summer. Keep it up


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Is that all?
> 
> I think we'll be able to say that about Aldridge in a couple more years. :biggrin:



LOL don't get me wrong, those are very valuable things. His points and rebounds will be eaten up by the other members of the team along with whoever they get for him. 

Zach scores at 24ish ppg. Hypotheticaly if we were to trade him for Nocioni we would be adding 16 ppg. That only leaves 8 more points that we would have to make up. If each player on the roster were to make that up it's only about .70 of a point per player. 

Rebounds is even less. 

Obviously Zach is a better offensive player right now than Aldridge, but will he still be in two years when this team will actually matter again?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Interesting, but the way I look at it, there are only a couple of Blazers who are untouchable at this point, probably Roy, Aldridge, and maybe Sergio.


Nobody is really untouchable in the NBA, it all depends on the price. That being said, I would say Roy is the one that is closest to untouchable, followed by Aldridge and Sergio equally. But who knows.

I like Zach and don't want to dump him, but I am glad that the brass is looking to improve, and if they find the right trade they should go with it. But don't force a trade. 

The one statement I hear a lot o these boards is that Randolph will never be worth more then he is right now, and I think that's bullspit. Randolph has worked real hard on improving his game and seems to advance his game very well. I think if the Blazers kept him till summer or perhaps one more year you will see his value continue to rise. As Randolph continues to improve on his shortcomings and stays out of trouble, he will become wanted. The only things in my mind that will get in the way of increased value are off-court trouble and injury. I personally believe that he has matured and will hopefully not put himself in a position to get in trouble. 

Trading Zach now is a safeguard agains off-court problems and injury, although it seems like Zach is no more likely to be injured then any other player, he seems to really have bounced back from surgery and his play is not based on being a top notch athlete.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> Nobody is really untouchable in the NBA, it all depends on the price. That being said, I would say Roy is the one that is closest to untouchable, followed by Aldridge and Sergio equally. But who knows.
> 
> I like Zach and don't want to dump him, but I am glad that the brass is looking to improve, and if they find the right trade they should go with it. But don't force a trade.
> 
> ...



It's the off court crap that reduces his value. That and his utter lack of defensive effort


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I think Nate hit it.

There are maybe 20 guys in the NBA who are absolutely NOT available for trade. Nash, Nowitzki, Gilbert Arenas, Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Dwyane Wade, Chauncy Billups maybe. A few more. 

Nearly everyone else would be available for the right price. Whether they are being actively shopped or whether a team will get what they want for the player is a horse of another color.

I am sure if someone called with a deal for ZBo that Patterson would listen. Be dumb not to. But I see no evidence, aside from the usual internet rumors and informed sources like Vecsey who have a perfect record of being 100% wrong all the time, that the team is actively looking to trade Zach at this time.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> It's the off court crap that reduces his value. That and his utter lack of defensive effort


True that those things *have* lowered his value but without another off-court situation his value will slowly rise. The more time without issues, the more likely that Zach is a changed man in the eyes of GM's I would think. 

Same goes for D. As Zach improves his D over time and becomes closer to an average defender, his value will rise. 

Value is dynamic. Zach grows and value increases. Zach regresses and value lessens. You may believe that Zach will get caught knifing a prostitute next month, and if that is the case then we should trade him now. I believe that Zach is turning the corner and will not be getting into trouble. So it is my belief that his value will increase.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I think it's very likely that Zach will be moved, and here's why:

* Sergio ("Surge") has blown the socks off the Blazer organization and he's built for a running game. Randolph is not.
* Buy low and sell high means this is the best time to ship Zach out
* Zach is the ticket to another high draft pick, which the Blazers want
* Blazer brass fears that Zach will eventually screw up off the court, thus lowering his trade value immensely

There's another reason why they're willing to trade Zach and his name is Pritchard. The guy outfoxed the entire NBA with his 3 picks in 2006, and in the process earned the trust of Allen and Patterson. They're hoping that he can pull off another "heist" when he trades Randolph.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> True that those things *have* lowered his value but without another off-court situation his value will slowly rise. The more time without issues, the more likely that Zach is a changed man in the eyes of GM's I would think.
> 
> Same goes for D. As Zach improves his D over time and becomes closer to an average defender, his value will rise.
> 
> Value is dynamic. Zach grows and value increases. Zach regresses and value lessens. You may believe that Zach will get caught knifing a prostitute next month, and if that is the case then we should trade him now. I believe that Zach is turning the corner and will not be getting into trouble. So it is my belief that his value will increase.



I'm sorry, but he's had one every year. I'm done with waiting. Zach has shown me nothing to change my mind about him. He is putting up great numbers, and so far has been out of trouble...although his car and a friend were in the news a few short weeks ago. He has started to complain ever so slightly about his knee hurting as well. I say do it now before he is untradable.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Magloire will be moved by the trade deadline, while Zach will be moved after the draft. 

Randolph is a big pill to swallow, and there are only so many teams that would be willing to take him in 'during the season'. After the season, however, the market is a bit larger.

We'll have to wait and see about Magloire right up until the trading deadline. I'm sure there are a few offers out there, but it's a matter of who blinks first. 

Also as other offers get put together, Portland could end up as a 3rd or 4th player in a bigger trade.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Magloire will be moved by the trade deadline, while Zach will be moved after the draft.
> 
> Randolph is a big pill to swallow, and there are only so many teams that would be willing to take him in 'during the season'. After the season, however, the market is a bit larger.
> 
> ...


I think you are correct. The only way Zach gets traded during the season is to a playoff team who needs an inside game to get over the top. I would be shocked if Chicago and Portland haven't been talking.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> There's another reason why they're willing to trade Zach and his name is Pritchard. The guy outfoxed the entire NBA with his 3 picks in 2006, and in the process earned the trust of Allen and Patterson. They're hoping that he can pull off another "heist" when he trades Randolph.


However, according to Pritchard, he does the draft and Patterson does the trades.

barfo


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Reep said:


> I think you are correct. The only way Zach gets traded during the season is to a playoff team who needs an inside game to get over the top. I would be shocked if Chicago and Portland haven't been talking.


One team I have not seen any Zach rumors about that I think should be interested are the Rockets. With Yao and T-Mac always getting injured, I think they could use another scorer. Also, the rest of the team is good defenders and Yao could make up for Zachs D issues. They are also a slower, grind it out team, so that would fit well with Zach. And with how well Zach shoots and how good of a scorer he is, it would make doubling T-Mac or Yao impossible. The three of them would be a killer trio who I think could win it all. The problem is I don't know what kind of a package they could come up with that would interest the Blazers. Their pick will be low and they don't have any good young talent to throw in. If anyone can come up with a three team trade or something interesting, I would love to see it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

My gut is they will trade Zach and let Magloire walk, unless they get a no brainer offer for Magloire...as in way mor ethan he's worth on the floor.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

The Blazers want to build a team for the future. If some team is willing to take a player who is very good now (Zach) and give back some assets that will be great in a few years, then the Blazers will do it. I have no doubt they'd be willing to trade Zach, and would listen intently and even solicit offers from some teams. His one-dimensional game and PR problems make him not untouchable.

That said, an actual trade isn't going to happen before the deadline. Does anyone want to bet me? I'll give you 3-1 odds even, because it's not going to happen. There are only a few teams that might sacrifice some future for present gain who need a low post scorer who doesn't help on defense. Those would be Chicago, New Jersey, Houston and maybe Washington and Cleveland. New Jersey, Washington, Houston and Cleveland have nothing available that we'd really want (as in, outside of Yao, Butler or LeBron). Chicago could potentially put together a viable package if they chose, but if they aren't willing to offer enough to get Gasol from Memphis, then they aren't going to be offering enough to get Zach either.


Zach's talents are scoring and rebounding, and while he has plenty of drawbacks, what some fail to realize is that those are probably the most important talents in the game of basketball. If you think Aldridge can replace Zach's offense, you're smoking too much of Zach's stash. Aldridge will _never_ be a 24 ppg player. He probably won't even come close unless he plays for a team like Phoenix that has a vastly higher pace factor. Right now, nobody on the Blazers can replace Zach as a viable primary scoring option in the NBA, and teams that don't have one usually are really bad. That's why the Blazers may be willing to trade Zach, but they have no desperation whatsoever.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> If you think Aldridge can replace Zach's offense, you're smoking too much of Zach's stash.



This pretty much says it all about Zach and why we should trade him. You wouldn't make those comments about Roy, Aldridge, Webster, Jack, Sergio, Joel, Magloire.....well anyone else on the team other than he or Miles. Neither one of them might not smoke it either, but the perception is there. 


The other thing to remember is that if Aldridge only became a 16-18 point player we'd still be better because he wouldn't give up the points Zach does on defense.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I really doubt Zach will be traded this year for anything other than a high-pick in the upcoming draft - and even then there is a good chance Portland will be screwed (there are a lot of high-potential guys but not many 25 y/o low-block offensive juggernauts that have improved their game every year they were healthy).

If there is a good chance of getting one of the big 3 in the upcoming draft - it is something to think about - otherwise it is probably a bad idea.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

People are falling into a Whitsitonian error of thinking a players output must be replaced in a trade. Factor in many other things...Defense for one, bith individual and team. Think of a how the player fits with his teammates on the floor.

It's isn't a fantasy league where simple stats are the end all.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> One team I have not seen any Zach rumors about that I think should be interested are the Rockets. With Yao and T-Mac always getting injured, I think they could use another scorer. Also, the rest of the team is good defenders and Yao could make up for Zachs D issues. They are also a slower, grind it out team, so that would fit well with Zach. And with how well Zach shoots and how good of a scorer he is, it would make doubling T-Mac or Yao impossible. The three of them would be a killer trio who I think could win it all. The problem is I don't know what kind of a package they could come up with that would interest the Blazers. Their pick will be low and they don't have any good young talent to throw in. If anyone can come up with a three team trade or something interesting, I would love to see it.


I don't think Houston would do it, but the obvious, and somewhat fair trade would be Zbo for Battier and Howard. Battier is a great defender with a nice three-point shot and is the ultimate NBA citizen, and veteran leader the team needs. Howard is just a throw in. 

Houston does this because they could use the scoring and a T-Mac, Yao, Zbo lineup would be very hard to defend--if Zbo and Yao could coexist in the lane. 

Portland gets the leader they've been looking for and a starting SF. They also dump a little salary as Howard's agreement doesn't last as long.

1) Jack, Sergio, Dickau
2) Roy, Webster, Dixon
3) Battier, Udoka, Outlaw, (Webster)
4) Aldridge, Howard, (Outlaw)
5) Joel, Raef, (Aldridge) [Magloire walks]

That could be a very nice defensive team as well. I don't know if Houston would do it, given they traded Gay for Battier, but I would.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

An example of an affect on the game that doesn't show up in stats, altered shots. How many shots does Zach alter in a game that then result in misses? How about Aldridge? Isn't an altered shot as affective as a block in that regard?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I know it will never happen, but I would love to get Caron Butler or Kevin Martin in a Zach deal.


----------



## upstate blazer (May 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> Zach's talents are scoring and rebounding, and while he has plenty of drawbacks, what some fail to realize is that those are probably the most important talents in the game of basketball. If you think Aldridge can replace Zach's offense, you're smoking too much of Zach's stash. Aldridge will _never_ be a 24 ppg player. He probably won't even come close unless he plays for a team like Phoenix that has a vastly higher pace factor. Right now, nobody on the Blazers can replace Zach as a viable primary scoring option in the NBA, and teams that don't have one usually are really bad. That's why the Blazers may be willing to trade Zach, but they have no desperation whatsoever.



Thank you Dudleysghost, I was beginning to think that everyone thought the same way about Zach and Aldridge. Aldridge may very well be a great low post scorer in the future but he's not going to be replacing Zach in the low-post any time soon. Christ the guy makes a few turn around jumpers and people want to annoit him as the next great superstar. Let's let Aldridge prove first that he can handle the load down low, which includes a game that actually attacks the basket, gets to the foul line, warrants a consistent double team that opens the court for the rest of our offense, etc. . .

Are people really that down on Zach that they've gone completely blind on what he actaully brings to the court? what it means to have a consistent 23 and 10 post player that opens up the court for his teammates? was it not Brandon Roy (the golden child himself) who has given praise to Zach for opening up the driving lanes for him. Could Roy produce if defenses always keyed on him with no Zach around? 

Let's say we do trade Zach for someone like Nocioni, are people prepared to see a team with nothing but jump shooters and (Gulp!) Joel or Mags? Are you kidding me, talk about fast track to the lotto. (which maybe is your goal, I for one have enjoyed watching the progression we've made this season.) And here's a hypothetical for you, if the Blazers were lucky enough and did land Durant, would you be more tolerant of his one on one domninant game than Zach's? 

The thing is, I hate having to stick up for Zach, I wish we could get rid of him and improve the team at the same time, but as long as I keep hearing ridiculous trade scenerios I'll keep sticking up for him from an organizational standpoint. Just as it's hard to root for the Mariner's when they bring in guys like Jose Vidro and Horacio Ramirez as their "big free agent signings," it would be even harder to root for the blazers after having gotten rid of a young potential all-star (who is still only 25 by the way) for B list players.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

upstate blazer said:


> Christ the guy makes a few turn around jumpers and people want to annoit him as the next great superstar. Let's let Aldridge prove first that he can handle the load down low, which includes a game that actually attacks the basket, gets to the foul line, warrants a consistent double team that opens the court for the rest of our offense, etc. . .


Welcome to the board. It's tough as I felt the same way with Webster. I root for the guy and want him to be successful, but when he had a couple of good games, posters were ready to annoit him the next Ray Allen. I said let's wait to see and got blasted. 

Next thing you know you'll get labeled as an Aldridge hater . . . when, as a Blazer fan, I'm sure you are rooting for Aldridge, just not ready to say he is a 20/10 career guy yet.

Feel the same way about Zach . . . I'm for trading him if it helps the team, but feel the need to stick up for him when the arguments are made on a daily basis that he hurts the team.

Anyways, good post and nice to see others with the same perspective as me.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I'm not sure that it is so much that Aldridge would replace Zach's numbers as that the team as a whole would produce better numbers with Aldridge in place of Zach. Ball movement would be better, the lane would clear out for cutters. I'm not sure you need a dominant low post presence. Phoenix has only Amare, and he gets a lot of his points of motion and receiving the ball deep. A backcourt of Sergio and Brandon could probably find people in the paint so well that you would end up with the same ability to score in the paint. 

The main thing I would miss about Zach leaving would be his rebounding. That would be more difficult to replace.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok let's have a little bit of fun here.... Zach accounts for 24ppg(rounded) and 10rpg(rounded) in 35mpg. Say we trade Zach for a SF that would bring us 15ppg and 5rpg. That leaves 9ppg and 5rpg. Unaccounted for. Lamarcus goes from 19mpg to 33mpg. Which brings his scoring and rebounding based on scurrent per minute numbers to 12ppg and 6rpg...Basically shaving another 5ppg and 2rpg off what is lacking from not having Zach, leaving 4ppg and 3rpg to make up for the Lack of Zach.

Now Still on Lamarcus. Lamarcus bumps his shot pblocing up by .7bpf by the additional minutes. which we will wound down and say is another 1ppg accounted for. So 3 and 3 left. How hard would it be for Roy and Jack to make up that 3 ppg considering they each will get increased looks without Zach in the mix? Seriously we wouldn't get less shots overall as a team, unless our offensive rebounding took a major hit.

Now seriously are numbers that hard to replace?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Ok let's have a little bit of fun here.... Zach accounts for 24ppg(rounded) and 10rpg(rounded) in 35mpg. Say we trade Zach for a SF that would bring us 15ppg and 5rpg. That leaves 9ppg and 5rpg. Unaccounted for. Lamarcus goes from 19mpg to 33mpg. Which brings his scoring and rebounding based on scurrent per minute numbers to 12ppg and 6rpg...Basically shaving another 5ppg and 2rpg off what is lacking from not having Zach, leaving 4ppg and 3rpg to make up for the Lack of Zach.
> 
> Now Still on Lamarcus. Lamarcus bumps his shot pblocing up by .7bpf by the additional minutes. which we will wound down and say is another 1ppg accounted for. So 3 and 3 left. How hard would it be for Roy and Jack to make up that 3 ppg considering they each will get increased looks without Zach in the mix? Seriously we wouldn't get less shots overall as a team, unless our offensive rebounding took a major hit.
> 
> Now seriously are numbers that hard to replace?


As I mentioned above, I don't think the points would be that hard to replace. Just giving Sergio more minutes would take care of much of that. Has anyone else noticed how much better Magloire looks when Sergio is in the game? You take Zach's shot attempts and spread them out through the rest of the team, and then note that there will likely be more shot attempts and fewer turnovers (Zach's passes out of double teams) and I think you get more shot attempts, which *could *lead to more scoring.

The trouble comes on the rebounding side. I'm not sure Aldridge will ever be a 10+ rebounder. You can't just make up for rebounds like you can scoring. You could say that Aldridge will have more chances to rebound balls that Zach now gets, but I still think you would be -2 boards a game unless someone steps up their rebounding.

On the other side though, you have to take away a bunch of points for the times that the other team drives around Zach, or Zach doesn't get back to cover his man. 

This is all speculation, but isn't that really what we are all here for anyway?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Reep said:


> You take Zach's shot attempts and spread them out through the rest of the team, and then note that there will likely be more shot attempts and fewer turnovers (Zach's passes out of double teams) and I think you get more shot attempts, which *could *lead to more scoring.


Isn't that assuming that others will shoot at the same shooting percentage as Zach? I think Zach leads the team in FG% . . . so it is not just a matter of distributing his shots, but finding others who can score in the NBA the way he can . . . and then can they score the way he can as other teams focus on shutting them down . . .


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Isn't that assuming that others will shoot at the same shooting percentage as Zach? I think Zach leads the team in FG% . . . so it is not just a matter of distributing his shots, but finding others who can score in the NBA the way he can . . . and then can they score the way he can as other teams focus on shutting them down . . .


Zach currently shoots 46 percent. The rest of the starters shoot 44-45 percent. In a game, that could be about 2-4 points a game just based on percent. I think Zach's absence on defense would make up 2-4 points a game. I also think the team would get more shots. If Zach was shooting 50+% then maybe, but he's not.

Zach also averages 3 turnovers a game. Jack is second at just above 2. My guess is you would drop 1-2 turnovers a game, which would be about 2 of your point differential.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Ok let's have a little bit of fun here.... Zach accounts for 24ppg(rounded) and 10rpg(rounded) in 35mpg. Say we trade Zach for a SF that would bring us 15ppg and 5rpg. That leaves 9ppg and 5rpg. Unaccounted for. Lamarcus goes from 19mpg to 33mpg. Which brings his scoring and rebounding based on scurrent per minute numbers to 12ppg and 6rpg...Basically shaving another 5ppg and 2rpg off what is lacking from not having Zach, leaving 4ppg and 3rpg to make up for the Lack of Zach.
> 
> Now Still on Lamarcus. Lamarcus bumps his shot pblocing up by .7bpf by the additional minutes. which we will wound down and say is another 1ppg accounted for. So 3 and 3 left. How hard would it be for Roy and Jack to make up that 3 ppg considering they each will get increased looks without Zach in the mix? Seriously we wouldn't get less shots overall as a team, unless our offensive rebounding took a major hit.
> 
> Now seriously are numbers that hard to replace?


all of this assumes that our other players improve offensively after we get rid of one of (if not the most) dominant low post scorers in the league. 

I can't think of any examples where a team gave up a quality low post scorer and improved offensively. 

the Bulls and Brand. LA and Shaq. Philly and Barkley. Utah and Malone. all of them took pretty bad tumbles afterward. 

Cavaliers and Boozer? Boozer wasn't that good when he left them. I'm probably missing somebody--feel free to test my theory with your own examples. 

I'm not saying it's impossible, Schilly, but I remember hearing (and buying into) somewhat similar reasoning when so many were clamoring to trade Rasheed. 

what SF would we trade for that could get us 15 pts, 5 rebs? Shane Battier (11 pts, 4 rebs this season) and Andre Kirelenko (9 pts, 5 rebs), are the only two I've seen mentioned lately. both are producing stats well below your SF. 

I might be convinced on Kirelenko. I haven't watched enough of the Jazz to see what's caused his statistical plummet. he used to be Udoka, except better in every possible way but three point shooting. 

but even if we got Kirelenko, I have no illusions that a lack of a bona fide low post scorer will make it tougher for our offense to produce. 

Udoka gets wide open threes because of the attention Zach draws. Roy and Jack get giant lanes created by the other team focusing their defense on Zach. those opportunities just aren't going to be easily replaced.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Reep said:


> Zach currently shoots 46 percent. The rest of the starters shoot 44-45 percent. In a game, that could be about 2-4 points a game just based on percent. I think Zach's absence on defense would make up 2-4 points a game. I also think the team would get more shots. If Zach was shooting 50+% then maybe, but he's not.
> 
> Zach also averages 3 turnovers a game. Jack is second at just above 2. My guess is you would drop 1-2 turnovers a game, which would be about 2 of your point differential.



That is Zach's % while on a nightly basis teams try to figure out how to shut him down. I wonder if the others can shoot that % under the same circumstances.

Maybe it is all made up on the defensive end (I don't think the turnovers are a difference maker as others would handle the ball more and the TO will come from someone else IMO).

My main concern is giving up a big time scorer in hopes that the other players will fill his role . . . I'm under the impression that teams are usually looking for the proven scorer . . . but on paper what you are saying makes sense.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Schilly said:


> People are falling into a Whitsitonian error of thinking a players output must be replaced in a trade. Factor in many other things...Defense for one, bith individual and team. Think of a how the player fits with his teammates on the floor.
> 
> It's isn't a fantasy league where simple stats are the end all.


Absolutely right. Though I love Zach's low-post offense, I think Aldridge, Roy, et al, can help fill that gap once he leaves. And there's a very good chance the player we get in return for Zach will bring things to the table that he doesn't.

Also, if the Blazers become more of a running team, as they should, the low-post scoring is not as important.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> My main concern is giving up a big time scorer in hopes that the other players will fill his role . . . I'm under the impression that teams are usually looking for the proven scorer . . . but on paper what you are saying makes sense.


that is pretty much what I'm thinking. about 75% of the time (at least) the team that acquires the single best player in the trade comes out best from the trade. 

in pretty much all the realistic trade scenarios I've seen, we give up the best player (Randolph). 

I'd prefer we hold onto him for now, and perhaps by next summer his value will have risen to the point where we can trade him for commensurate talent. 

I'd rather get a guy in return who is just as good (or at least almost as good) as Zach, than a guy much less good.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mook said:


> all of this assumes that our other players improve offensively after we get rid of one of (if not the most) dominant low post scorers in the league.
> 
> I can't think of any examples where a team gave up a quality low post scorer and improved offensively.
> 
> ...


You may be right, but it is hard to compare. Shaq and Malone were better defenders, so their departures left holes on both ends of the court. They were also both better passers, so lack of ball movement wasn't as much of an issue. Philly didn't seem to have that much success with or without Barkley. The Bulls traded Brand and received no help in return, so it's hard to measure. Chandler and Curry didn't do much when they first came into the league. I think you could argue that Aldridge is much more ready to contribute than either of them.

I think the reason Zach is different from the examples you list is that Shaq, Malone and Barkley were all better passers than Zach, and each fit into the team offense better. Also, Shaq and Malone were better defenders. Zach is difficult to evaluate because he is very good in the post and rebounding. However, his defense and passing (although he is trying) are much worse.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> I think the reason Zach is different from the examples you list is that Shaq, Malone and Barkley were all better passers than Zach, and each fit into the team offense better.


I realized that they weren't completely comparable even as I was typing it. they were the only ones I could think of. 

let's follow our old buddy, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. the Vancouver Grizzlies had a 28% win record before trading Rahim. the following season they also had a 28% record. although it was also the year the moved to Memphis, so who knows. 

in '02-03, Atlanta had a 42% win record. they dumped Rahim, and the next year they had a 34% win record. haven't been better than that since then. 

I'm not trying to cherry pick big men. again, please feel free to cite any example that disproves my point.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

perhaps Chris Webber, who wasn't really a dominant post player at that point, but still might be an example. 

final season with Kings: won 61% of the time. 
following season without Webber: 53%.

Artest has a great low post game. 
the last year Artest played 70+ games for Indiana was '03-04. 74% wins. season after the trade? 54%.

you can come up with a "yeah, but..." for every example I cite. that's the nature of examples. nothing is ever exactly the same. 

the interesting question is can you come up with a single example that disproves my point?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> I realized that they weren't completely comparable even as I was typing it. they were the only ones I could think of.
> 
> let's follow our old buddy, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. the Vancouver Grizzlies had a 28% win record before trading Rahim. the following season they also had a 28% record. although it was also the year the moved to Memphis, so who knows.
> 
> ...


They also got nothing in return for Rahim. They traded Rasheed after 1 game, for expiring contracts, in fact they traded their starting frontcourt, Rahim and Ratliff, for nothing, or did thye get a draft pick they used to select Josh Smith.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I have my doubts about more shots for the other players being equal to Zach's production. Several reasons for that:

1. As mentioned - without someone for the defense to focus on - the times our perimeter offense is open will be reduced significantly. This will immediatly bring diown the scoring percentage of the outside shooters - even if they are comprable to Zach now - they will not be without him to distract the defense.

2. At this point in time Zach and Mags are the only low-post / inside scoring threats that Blazers really have. Until Lamarcus can actually go inside with his back to the basket - he is more like the outside perimeter only aging Sheed - no real inside game. A team with no real interior offense, even if it is run by an MVP like Nash does not seem to have what is needed to go all the way (see last year's Phoenix as an example).

3. In clutch situation the team goes from two people that can break the defense (Roy / Zach) to one only - making close game situations much harder to deal with.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> They also got nothing in return for Rahim. They traded Rasheed after 1 game, for expiring contracts, in fact they traded their starting frontcourt, Rahim and Ratliff, for nothing, or did thye get a draft pick they used to select Josh Smith.


ok, I've now come up with 8 different examples that seem to prove that no team ever improved by trading a dominant (or even pretty good) low post scorer. you can quibble all you like with the details, but at least I've presented evidence. 

all I'm asking for is one or two examples from you.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

the funny thing is that I didn't really go into this thread terribly convinced of my own argument. I actually did think Randolph was fairly expendable, and I actually do want to see a more uptempo team. the Suns are my second favorite team, and they are completely anti-Randolph. 

I *want *to be convinced I'm wrong on this. the more I look at history, though, the less convinced I am that trading Zach for anything less than another quality low post scorer is a good idea.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler. Houston went on to repeat as champions.

Edit: Oops I meant to respond to Mook's question of when trading a low post scorer actually helped a team get better. How about when Washington traded three low post scorers (Sheed, Webber, and Howard) and then was terrible until MJ returned for a season or two and humiliated Kwame Brown. Washington finally became respectable when they acquired Arenas and Jamison.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mook said:


> I realized that they weren't completely comparable even as I was typing it. they were the only ones I could think of.
> 
> let's follow our old buddy, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. the Vancouver Grizzlies had a 28% win record before trading Rahim. the following season they also had a 28% record. although it was also the year the moved to Memphis, so who knows.
> 
> ...


There aren't any really good examples. You could add Chris Webber to your list. When the Wiz traded him for Mitch R, they dropped from 54% down to 36% wins. Webber was averaging 22 pts and 9.5 boards at the time. Richmond had an awful time in Washington, but the facts remain. 

I submit to your superior evidence. Maybe the Blazers would be better off keeping Zach, unless they can get a real ringer, which isn't going to happen.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

andalusian said:


> I have my doubts about more shots for the other players being equal to Zach's production. Several reasons for that:
> 
> 1. As mentioned - without someone for the defense to focus on - the times our perimeter offense is open will be reduced significantly. This will immediatly bring diown the scoring percentage of the outside shooters - even if they are comprable to Zach now - they will not be without him to distract the defense.


You may be right, but Phoenix, with or without Amare, didn't seem to have a problem with this. I would say the same for the Detroit championship team.

On a side note, this must not be my day. In this thread I have managed to land on the dreaded and often unread last post of the page on all of the first three pages. What are the odds? I guess I won't go ask for that raise today.


----------



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

Reep said:


> The trouble comes on the rebounding side. I'm not sure Aldridge will ever be a 10+ rebounder. You can't just make up for rebounds like you can scoring. You could say that Aldridge will have more chances to rebound balls that Zach now gets, but I still think you would be -2 boards a game unless someone steps up their rebounding.


Bingo! I said it the last time the trade Zach rumors came up - replacing his rebounding will be much harder, and is more critical to the team's success, than replacing his scoring. There are a lot of guys in the league who can and do score (currently 26 that score >20 PPG), but only about 1/2 as many great rebounders (currently 14 > 10 PPG). And, rebounding has a direct correlation to winning. It's no coincidence that the Blazers were dead last in the league in rebounding last season and also had the league's worst record. Ask coaches at any level and they'll tell you rebounding wins games. It gives your team more scoring opportunities and limits your opponents scoring chances.

Zach is by a significant margin the Blazers best rebounder. If you trade him and don't get a excellent rebounder in return the Blazers winning percentage will suffer.

Finally... pet peeve alert. I swear the next time someone refers to Zach as a "one dimensional player" I will go postal. Repeat after me: 

*1 + 1 = 2

scoring + rebounding = 2 dimensional player*

Zach may be far from perfect, but he does *TWO* things very well. If you insist on faulting him for his shortcomings, at least give him credit for the things he does well.

That said, if the right deal came along (say, something like Zach and Magloire for Gasol and Miller), I'd do it in a heartbeat. However, I wouldn't just trade him to make a trade or to "get him out of town".

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Zybot said:


> Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler. Houston went on to repeat as champions.


Thorpe was averaging about 13 ppg in the 2 and a half seasons before Houston traded him. hardly dominating, or even pretty good, low post scoring.

man that trade sucked. whenever I think about how little we got for Sheed, it's nice to look back on that deal and get some perspective on just how lousy a deal can get.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Bingo! I said it the last time the trade Zach rumors came up - replacing his rebounding will be much harder, and is more critical to the team's success, than replacing his scoring. There are a lot of guys in the league who can and do score (currently 26 that score >20 PPG), but only about 1/2 as many great rebounders (currently 14 > 10 PPG). And, rebounding has a direct correlation to winning. It's no coincidence that the Blazers were dead last in the league in rebounding last season and also had the league's worst record. Ask coaches at any level and they'll tell you rebounding wins games. It gives your team more scoring opportunities and limits your opponents scoring chances.
> 
> Zach is by a significant margin the Blazers best rebounder. If you trade him and don't get a excellent rebounder in return the Blazers winning percentage will suffer.
> 
> ...



Zach does one thing really well, and he rebounds well. I wish I could find a stat that listed rebounds in traffic. Zach get's a lot of his own put backs and missed free throw rebounds. Not his fault, but he's not a dominating rebounder like he is a scorer.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Zach does one thing really well, and he rebounds well. I wish I could find a stat that listed rebounds in traffic. Zach get's a lot of his own put backs and missed free throw rebounds. Not his fault, but he's not a dominating rebounder like he is a scorer.


Fine, but hes still 2-D. 

You don't have to have equivalent skill at everything you do to be considered multi-talented.


----------



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

mediocre man said:


> Zach does one thing really well, and he rebounds well. I wish I could find a stat that listed rebounds in traffic. Zach get's a lot of his own put backs and missed free throw rebounds. Not his fault, but he's not a dominating rebounder like he is a scorer.


So, who exactly do you consider a dominating rebounder? Keep in mind, Zach gets more rebounds per game than Ben Wallace, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitski, Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire and Elton Brand.

BNM


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, who exactly do you consider a dominating rebounder? Keep in mind, Zach gets more rebounds per game than Ben Wallace, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitski, Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire and Elton Brand.
> 
> BNM



Not really sure. I think Boozer is, Maybe Tyson Chandler. Also, if you look at stats at all.....Both Amare and Ben Wallace are better per 40 minutes that Zach. 

But to me it's not about the numbers. I remember watching Rodman and thinking he was such a dominant rebounder because he pulled down a lot of tough rebounds. Don't get me wrong, Zach is a good rebounder, but I'll bet if you put him on Kaman's team like Brand is Zach's rebounds would go down. Or if God forbid Nate played Magloire more I'll bet Zach's rebounds would go down. 

I've always said that Zach brings two things to the team. One is scoring and the other is rebounding.


----------



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

mediocre man said:


> I've always said that Zach brings two things to the team. One is scoring and the other is rebounding.


Which was exactly my point and why I go ape**** when somone calls him one dimensional.

BNM


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Which was exactly my point and why I go ape**** when somone calls him one dimensional.
> 
> BNM


He's actually three dimensional, even moreso before he lost weight :biggrin:


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Nate McVillain said:


> He's actually three dimensional, even moreso before he lost weight :biggrin:



:lol:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, who exactly do you consider a dominating rebounder? BNM


Chamberlain, Russell, Walton (1978 only)


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> He's actually three dimensional, even moreso before he lost weight :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

PhilK said:


> :lol:


Laghed trhe guy with teh Shaq Avatar, LOLMORE


----------



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

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Chamberlain, Russell, Walton (1978 only)


You forgot Jerry Lucas and Bob Pettit - the only guys not named Wilt to ever average 20/20.

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Zach is 10th this season in Rebounding Rate:

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_REB.htm

Some of those guys ahead of him are rebounding (and possibly defensive) specialists. The scorers who also rebound that compare to Zach are: Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, and Kevin Garnett. Tim Duncan has the same rebounding rate and less scoring as Zach this season. Of course, we all know he defends too.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I think they want to get rid of him period. I mean seriously, what does he do that is of value to the overall organization?
> 
> He scores a lot
> Rebounds well
> ...


agreed. however, i dont see us getting back a player of zach's talent in return. other GM's know his weaknesses. im all for shipping zach out but i dont know what kind of deals we will be offered. my guess is we will be low-balled and he will remian in a blazer uni.

...the future is sergio. im convinced of this, and i think management knows it too (although being quiet about it). zach just doesnt fit with this team, even though i personally like him/his game.

we shall see. i have no trouble believing the man is being actively shopped, but im not so sure anyone will bite. are there any teams anyone can think of who plays a slow offense and may be interested?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> This pretty much says it all about Zach and why we should trade him.


Actually I don't care if Zach smokes pot, because I'm not a Puritan and I don't look to professional athletes for examples of character and morality, because that would be dumb. Barkley was right when he said don't let athletes raise your kids.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Schilly said:


> Ok let's have a little bit of fun here.... Zach accounts for 24ppg(rounded) and 10rpg(rounded) in 35mpg. Say we trade Zach for a SF that would bring us 15ppg and 5rpg. That leaves 9ppg and 5rpg. Unaccounted for. Lamarcus goes from 19mpg to 33mpg. Which brings his scoring and rebounding based on scurrent per minute numbers to 12ppg and 6rpg...Basically shaving another 5ppg and 2rpg off what is lacking from not having Zach, leaving 4ppg and 3rpg to make up for the Lack of Zach.
> 
> Now Still on Lamarcus. Lamarcus bumps his shot pblocing up by .7bpf by the additional minutes. which we will wound down and say is another 1ppg accounted for. So 3 and 3 left. How hard would it be for Roy and Jack to make up that 3 ppg considering they each will get increased looks without Zach in the mix? Seriously we wouldn't get less shots overall as a team, unless our offensive rebounding took a major hit.
> 
> Now seriously are numbers that hard to replace?


This math leaves a lot out. You are adding a SF who gets 15 and 5, but doesn't anyone lose minutes if you do that? He would presumably take 32-35 mpg, mostly from IMe and Webster, which cuts your total by about 9 or 10 ppg and 4 rpg. Ooops.

Then you have to add more turnovers. If Aldridge doubles his minutes, he gets more turnovers. If Roy and Jack or whoever have to add 3 and 3 (actually more like 13 and 7), they are going to get more turnovers and shoot a lower percentage. We'd have better defense, but that is a lot to make up.

But you're right, it isn't a fantasy league. You can't just add up the numbers. Guaging the effect of personnel changes is fuzzy. Moving Zach for a guy like Nocioni, for example, would give us better defense and more balanced scoring (which isn't necessarily good). It would also leave us without a single guy who can command a double team, and possibly leave us as the worst rebounding team in the league, again. Our offense would be relying on a bunch of young guys, none of whom has any real exceptional scoring ability, to produce night in and night out. We would have more ball movement, by necessity, because nobody we'd have can score in isolation.

Like someone said, if we wanted to tank the season and get a better draft pick, this would be the way to do it. But I think managment knows they have built up some excitement equity for the team, which would be lost if they go on yet another late season tanking session. That's why Zach won't be traded.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

We would have been blown out by 25 if not for Zach tonight. He scored 20 pts on 10 of 22 while Roy and Dixon were having nasty shooting nights. He also grabbed 13 boards and dished out 4 assists. He had 2 steals and a block. He continues to improve and his value is rising.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

I don't see Zach being traded either for basically the same reasons stated in the above posts...no reason to repeat.

Peace


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

roy was having a nasty shooting night???????


the bad nasty?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

rose garden pimp said:


> roy was having a nasty shooting night???????
> 
> 
> the bad nasty?


He shot like ****!. He shot 37%.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Actually I don't care if Zach smokes pot, because I'm not a Puritan and I don't look to professional athletes for examples of character and morality, because that would be dumb. Barkley was right when he said don't let athletes raise your kids.


i dont know where pot was discussed in this thread as a reason to trade zach, as i dont want to dig through this *****, but definately.

weed does NOT deter a players game. in moderation, obviously.

i used to smoke everyday, and to be honest, i dont think it affected my game at all. and i played/work out everyday. now, smoking cigarettes? this a different issue. but its all an issue of morality with marijuana IMO...either you demonize it of accept it as a normal way of medicating yourself or relieving stress. your decision as to how you want to take it.

i dont remember who said it, but some player a few years back said over half of the league smokes weed and it does not surprise me one bit.

i would rather a player smoke weed and chill at his house than a have a player who goes out to the club and gets drunk. ok...you smoke a blunt, go to sleep and wake up feeling 100% normal. you go get drunk and wake up messed up and hurling in your toilet. forget about working out that day.

sorry for the rant, but when people get mad about a player smoking weed i just laugh. its stupid, and certainly not a reason to think a person is not capable of performing at a high level.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ryanjend22 said:


> i dont know where pot was discussed in this thread as a reason to trade zach, as i dont want to dig through this *****, but definately.
> 
> weed does NOT deter a players game. in moderation, obviously.
> 
> ...




I'm currious. How many studies and after school specials do pot heads need to see before they understand that it can effect you? If 1/2 the players do it then those 1/2 the players in the NBA are stupid. Not as stupid as Zach getting pulled over in his car and getting cited for dwii. Not as stupid as Zach being pointed out by parents and kids at a Blazer ornament drive that he smelled like pot.


----------

