# OT: Knicks decline Randolph trade (This is seriously funny)



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/07/11/randolph.clippers/index.html



> While the Knicks are known to be interested in clearing cap space by 2010 to make a run at LeBron James or other potential free agents, the sources said *New York wanted more than simple cap relief *in exchange for Randolph. The Knicks appear to *believe that Randolph will provide a highly productive season under new coach Mike D'Antoni*, which could raise his value much higher than it is today. That's why the Knicks were not interested in nearly giving away Randolph's contract, according to the sources.


I can't tell who fails more, the Clippers for giving an offer, or the Knicks for declining.:lol:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I wouldn't trade Randolph for nothing but cap relief either.

I realize he's hated here, but he's still a valuable player on the court. He's still one of the better post scorers in the league and a good rebounder. Sure, his defense stinks and he's not a good passer. That's why he's no superstar. That doesn't make him worthless.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

In hindsight, it does appear that, at least in this case, Pritchard managed to "sell high" really quite well.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> I wouldn't trade Randolph for nothing but cap relief either.
> 
> I realize he's hated here, but he's still a valuable player on the court. He's still one of the better post scorers in the league and a good rebounder. Sure, his defense stinks and he's not a good passer. That's why he's no superstar. That doesn't make him worthless.


Considering the fact that we basically traded him for cap-space, and the fact that he's coming off an worse season, why wouldn't you trade him for cap-space? He's a ballhog, has no defense, sucks at passing, and scored less in the post this season.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I wouldn't trade Randolph for nothing but cap relief either.
> 
> I realize he's hated here, but he's still a valuable player on the court. He's still one of the better post scorers in the league and a good rebounder. Sure, his defense stinks and he's not a good passer. That's why he's no superstar. That doesn't make him worthless.


Are you considering the huge contract he makes when you say that? Or are you completely discounting the fact he has this huge contract hanging over his head? 

If I were the Knicks, what I would do is bite the bullett this season, plan on getting pounded, and make Zbo the total focus of the offense in order to increase his value, and then ship him. The problem is, the Knicks get more coverage than a lot of teams, so folks can actually see what Zbo does on the floor, so it might not work out. We were fortunate that Portlands media market is very small, and because of that, we would swindle somebody into taking him.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I would have loved it if Zach ended up in LA. We would have scored 200 points against them.


Really dumb move by the Knicks I think. They need to rebuild, and they have the ability to attract some good FA's because of their market. They should look to clear cap space, and not HAVE to take back something they really don't want for a player who has no value around the league


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> Considering the fact that we basically traded him for cap-space, and the fact that he's coming off an worse season, why wouldn't you trade him for cap-space? He's a ballhog, has no defense, sucks at passing, and scored less in the post this season.


So Channing Frye and A trade Exception used to lease James Jones and Buy Rudy Fernandez is nothing.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I agree with Minstrel that Randolph still has value on the court. My concern from the Knicks' perspective is whether or not he's a good enough fit at the offensive end for his new coach (running the floor, passing, getting shots off inside of seven seconds, etc.). He's certainly a fit on the defensive side, though, so maybe they're half way there.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Schilly said:


> So Channing Frye and A trade Exception used to lease James Jones and Buy Rudy Fernandez is nothing.


You really consider Channing Frye good value?

You can leave the TE out of it. What we did with the exception is not included in the value of the trade. That's just your GM being smart.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

The Knicks should have taken whatever 1-2mil contract needed in return to trade Randolph to the Clippers along with a future 1st from LA and ran away before the Clippers realized the horrible mistake they had made...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> You really consider Channing Frye good value?
> 
> You can leave the TE out of it. What we did with the exception is not included in the value of the trade. That's just your GM being smart.


Channing is not cap space. Prove me wrong on that one, trple dog dare ya!

And as I understand it hte Blazers restructured the NY deal last minute in order to get the TE as they already had the deal lined up with Phoenix and needed the TE to make it work. If acquiring the TE was a reaction to the other deal being made then IMO the value counts in the trade.

Regardless you said we traded ach for cap space... We got a backup PF that played really well for at the end of the season and factors to be an important piece this year, and we also landed other assets that were used. If you want to ignore what we used them for, fine be stubborn, but the fact is we got the Assets and used them. 

We traded Zach for Cap space, Channign Frye and a TE.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Wow.

The animosity towards Zach is really sad.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

It might just be posturing to get a better deal. When push comes to shove, the Knicks will trade Zach.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Shocking... Zach is a good player and all but if you're the Knicks and you can get cap relief FAST and unload him, YOU DO IT.
I think it'll be extremely hard to get cap relief AND a nice player in return for Zach at this point. The Knicks prove again to be dumb.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Schilly said:


> Channing is not cap space. Prove me wrong on that one, trple dog dare ya!
> 
> And as I understand it hte Blazers restructured the NY deal last minute in order to get the TE as they already had the deal lined up with Phoenix and needed the TE to make it work. If acquiring the TE was a reaction to the other deal being made then IMO the value counts in the trade.
> 
> ...


He's not, but Zach was coming off his best season, 23/10. This season, he's coming off 17/10.

Let's say Rudy is a complete bust, would the trade value be worse then?

Under your logic, a back-up PF that plays well for 5 games is worth a PF putting up 20/10 right?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Zach playing and succeeding for D'Antoni? It's not outside the realm of possibility. It's not like he'll be expected to play defense or anything, and he's still probably going to get his 20 and 10.

I'm not a Zach fan by any stretch, but if I were the Knicks I'd at least try to put his fat butt on the court and see what he can do in an actual offense -- hell it's the Least-ern conference, D'Antoni alone should probably net them at least 10+ wins over what they had last year under Thomas.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

And I don't know who the Knicks would want in return.. the Clippers only have seven players under contract according to hoopshype.
No way they give up Gordon or Thornton. And I don't see why the Knicks would want Mobley or Tim Thomas -- as both expire in 2010.. My guess would be Mobley is who they wanted but why.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> He's not, but Zach was coming off his best season, 23/10. This season, he's coming off 17/10.
> 
> Let's say Rudy is a complete bust, would the trade value be worse then?
> 
> Under your logic, a back-up PF that plays well for 5 games is worth a PF putting up 20/10 right?


He's not nothing which is what the Clippers were offering. You said all we got for Zach is Cap Space. You are completely wrong about that fact. Wether what we got is what Zachs value is irrelevant to misidentifying what we did in fact get. The people sputing his 23/10 are still just ticked we didn't get more regardless of the fact that the Knicks are actually getting less in offers for him now.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Schilly said:


> He's not nothing which is what the Clippers were offering. You said all we got for Zach is Cap Space. You are completely wrong about that fact. Wether what we got is what Zachs value is irrelevant to misidentifying what we did in fact get. The people sputing his 23/10 are still just ticked we didn't get more regardless of the fact that the Knicks are actually getting less in offers for him now.


To be honest, the Knicks are trying to cut capspace right now, so whether or not we got more value for him is irrelevant. Besides, Steve Francis's contract isn't exactly a straight up expiring, so it's not like we got straight up cap-space for him anyways.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Portland arguably got LESS than cap space... while I love that we got Rudy, I would bet that we could have acquired him another way. We got a year of Jones as part of that deal that we otherwise would not have, and we got Frye.

But we also had to pay Francis over $20m ($25m? What was the buyout for? Storyteller has it for $30m) ... for nothing.

I don't blame the Clippers for making the offer to the Knicks, and I don't blame NY for declining.

The trade of Zach was one I considered horrible at the time, and even if I've tempered my opinion since then I still think that it was a bad move from a value perspective.

Ed O.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

The Knicks should have made the deal if they are sure they can make a run at James otherwise you dont give away a 17/10 man. Next to the right talent Randolph can still help. Next to Curry it will never work.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

The knicks would be lucky to get what we got for Zach. And now, who cares?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> Considering the fact that we basically traded him for cap-space, and the fact that he's coming off an worse season, why wouldn't you trade him for cap-space?


Because I thought Portland's trade of Randolph was a poor move.

And cap space is quite overrated. It's almost never leveraged to acquire a difference-maker. Cleaning up the books may "feel good" but outside of saving the owner some money, I don't see any particular benefit to it.



> He's a ballhog, has no defense, sucks at passing, and scored less in the post this season.


Yes, as I said, those weaknesses are why he's not a superstar. Those weaknesses don't make him useless, let alone of negative value to a team.

As for his scoring dropping this season, he's clearly a bad fit on the Knicks. He basically overlaps with Curry almost 100% (though he's a superior rebounder to Curry) and the team has no distributors. Being a bad fit, though, doesn't mean they should simply downgrade their roster talent for "cap space" (of which they'd still have zero, even with Randolph's salary done).


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rYY338_JgvI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rYY338_JgvI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

hahahaha! *WORD MARBURY* -- *WORD!!!*


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

> Because I thought Portland's trade of Randolph was a poor move.
> 
> And cap space is quite overrated. It's almost never leveraged to acquire a difference-maker. Cleaning up the books may "feel good" but outside of saving the owner some money, I don't see any particular benefit to it.


It's not in this case. If the Knicks want to make that run at LeBron, they better unload Randolphs horrid contract. Obviously, no one's ponying up anything more than capspace, so they should just accept.




> Yes, as I said, those weaknesses are why he's not a superstar. Those weaknesses don't make him useless, let alone of negative value to a team.


Character issues. 



> As for his scoring dropping this season, he's clearly a bad fit on the Knicks. He basically overlaps with Curry almost 100% (though he's a superior rebounder to Curry) and the team has no distributors. Being a bad fit, though, doesn't mean they should simply downgrade their roster talent for "cap space" (of which they'd still have zero, even with Randolph's salary done).


So an ideal situation for him would be a situation where he takes all the shots right? Kind of like how he was in Portland.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Because I thought Portland's trade of Randolph was a poor move.
> 
> And cap space is quite overrated. It's almost never leveraged to acquire a difference-maker. Cleaning up the books may "feel good" but outside of saving the owner some money, I don't see any particular benefit to it.


Value is whatever you can actually get for a player, not what we fans may think the player is worth. The problem is that we're operating without the information that KP had as to how other teams valued a guy like Zach. Sure, it would have been nice to get more for him than we did, but I'm willing to accept at face value KP's statements at the time that this was the best deal available. The decision had been made to move Zach in order to open up PT for Aldridge last season. Given the progress LA made by getting the PT, I think it was a smart move to dump Zach.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

cap space > randolph imo.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Channing is not cap space. Prove me wrong on that one, trple dog dare ya!
> 
> *And as I understand it hte Blazers restructured the NY deal last minute in order to get the TE as they already had the deal lined up with Phoenix and needed the TE to make it work. If acquiring the TE was a reaction to the other deal being made then IMO the value counts in the trade.*
> 
> ...


You are correct. Tom Penn discovered that if they pulled Webster out of the NY deal it would create enough of a TPE to get Jones and the rights to Rudy. My question is why was Webster ever a part of the NY deal? But because he was pulled out of the deal for the sole purpose of creating the TPE makes Jones/Rudy part of the Zach trade, and actually the better part of it.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't believe this rumor at all. I think the Knicks would trade Randolph for cap space in a heartbeat. I thought at the time we possibly could have gotten more but now after looking back I think it was a great trade.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> It's not in this case. If the Knicks want to make that run at LeBron, they better unload Randolphs horrid contract.


That's much-discussed among the fans and media, but I'm skeptical about whether the Knicks really could land James. James keeps talking about Brooklyn, and the Nets are way ahead of the Knicks in terms of having a solid young team to surround James. If James really bolts Cleveland (which I'll believe only when it happens), I think he'd go to the Nets.



> Character issues.


Extremely overrated, IMO. Randolph is clearly no great guy, but nothing leads me to believe he's a cancer who makes teams win less due to his personality.



> So an ideal situation for him would be a situation where he takes all the shots right? Kind of like how he was in Portland.


Well, no, an ideal situation would be a team that had good defenders around him, had a bonafide distributor to run the team and get him the ball at the right times and needed front court scoring and rebounding. That would be ideal. I think he could be useful in other situations, too. The Knicks might well be the worst fit for him.

As for how he was with Portland, he was actually a great asset when the team had good defenders around him and a real quarterback in Pippen. In Randolph's first few seasons with Portland, he was extremely well-liked by fans. The mess of a team that PatterNash created forced Randolph to carry the team, a role he was ill-suited to. Fans have unduly dumped the on-court blame on Randolph, as they are in New York, when the truth is that he's not a saviour for a terribly constructed team and was never billed as a saviour. He's a very useful piece of a properly constructed team.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

idk. the facts kinda point that he is a cancer who makes his team worse.

Our team got rid of him and got better, NY got him and got worse (i think? Maybe they got a little better, im not sure, but they stunk it up either way).


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't think Zbo is a bad guy or a cancer in the locker room but I couldn't stand his defense. I watched games where he wouldn't run back on defense 5 possessions in a row. He stood there are argued with the ref will the Blazers played 5 on 4. I would have no use for him on my team and would dump him for anything.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow.
> 
> The animosity towards Zach is really sad.



Why? He's a pig- both on & off the court. His 365 days per year hotel room where women are abused, his thug posse intimidating and beating up people, his near pure selfishness on the court.......

I'm not inclined to flower his name with love.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Zbo and Maggetteee ohhh yeah


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Value is whatever you can actually get for a player, not what we fans may think the player is worth.


That's true, but GMs make mistakes, right?

Do you think that Telfair was really worth a mid-lottery pick? For the Celtics... they clearly overpaid. They made a mistake.

From the Blazers' perspective, Telfair was worth that, but not from the Celtics'.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> Our team got rid of him and got better,


I think Roy and Aldridge improving and playing more had a lot to do with that. Aldridge, at this point, is at least as good as Randolph. He wasn't in his rookie season and missed a lot of the season.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> That's true, but GMs make mistakes, right?
> 
> Do you think that Telfair was really worth a mid-lottery pick? For the Celtics... they clearly overpaid. They made a mistake.
> 
> From the Blazers' perspective, Telfair was worth that, but not from the Celtics'.


The Celtics got to ship Raef for Ratliff's shorter contract as part of Bassy's trade. This, in turn, allowed them to include him with Al Jeff in the KG trade. This proved to be good enough for a ring.

I would say the Celts got more than their money's worth when they traded for Bassy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> It's not in this case. If the Knicks want to make that run at LeBron, they better unload Randolphs horrid contract. Obviously, no one's ponying up anything more than capspace, so they should just accept.


You're operating under a couple of false premises, IMO.

First of all, you're claiming that Zach's contract is horrid. It is CLEARLY not. Raef's contract has been horrid. Francis's was horrid. Those guys can barely play in the NBA now, and yet they're making similar money to what Zach, who's a borderline 20/10 guy, does. 

Secondly, Zach's contract actually gets MORE appealing as it gets shorter. Even if he doesn't have a year as good as he had this past one, as long as he can still contribute to a team the worst aspect of his contract (its length) will be ameliorated.

Finally, the Knicks don't need to make a move NOW. They have a couple of years, if they so choose, to prepare for a run at LeBron, and dumping one of their best players for cap space the first chance they get probably doesn't make much sense.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> The Celtics got to ship Raef for Ratliff's shorter contract as part of Bassy's trade. This, in turn, allowed them to include him with Al Jeff in the KG trade. This proved to be good enough for a ring.
> 
> I would say the Celts got more than their money's worth when they traded for Bassy.


So you're arguing that the horrible trade where they gave up the rights to get a future All-star in Brandon Roy (assuming they were astute enough to make the Foy move) is the REASON that they won the championship?

Man. That's like arguing that Webster was a good pick over Paul and Williams because we have Oden now.

Oh, wait. People make that argument, too.

Ed O.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> So you're arguing that the horrible trade where they gave up the rights to get a future All-star in Brandon Roy (assuming they were astute enough to make the Foy move) is the REASON that they won the championship?


Well, they made the trade because they did not think they could get Rondo where he fell to them and needed a PG to rebuild. The trade was not that bad for them because they did get to either cut salary quickly or make a good trade because of the expiring contract of Ratliff.

Sometimes, a single trade should not be judged as a single trade - but in the entire context of what it does for the team's ability to rebuild/change their fortunes.

The same can be said for several of Portland's trades, including the "lopsided" talent fleecing of sending Randolph for a malcontent Francis that was cut, a trade exception and a salary filler in Frye.

It was clear that Ainge was willing to give value (the #7 pick, turned into Randy Foye) for money and talent, and he was smart enough to take advantage of this money saving (Ratliff) in a subsequent trade.

The Webster instead of Deron/CP3 decision had nothing to do with getting Oden other than getting more ping-pong balls, so a lot of luck was in there. The chain of events in the Celtics situation is far more deterministic than that - and if you can not follow it - the problem is not with me or my suggestion...

You can judge a single trade in vacuum all you want - but there was more at play here and Ainge either had a grand pland or made lemonade from lemons with it - either way, he salvaged the situation and got a good return for his money.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

lol, everyone in the main forum agrees that the Knicks are just stupid.

Cap space for Randolph would be an awesome trade (for NY).



> I think Roy and Aldridge improving and playing more had a lot to do with that. Aldridge, at this point, is at least as good as Randolph. He wasn't in his rookie season and missed a lot of the season.


yep, there is always variables. You can never get a good read on that. But if we are trying to look for some proof of Zach making his team/teammates worse, i guess that is the one thing you can go on. That and maybe the stats of teammates? idk.

I know that NY fans were thrilled with the trade when it happened, and now they absolutely despise Randolph.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> That's true, but GMs make mistakes, right?
> 
> Do you think that Telfair was really worth a mid-lottery pick? For the Celtics... they clearly overpaid. They made a mistake.
> 
> ...


Sure, GMs make mistakes, but absent any information that would indicate that Zach was held in higher value by other teams than what the Knicks actually offered, what basis is there to assume that a mistake was made? Certainly the Clippers' current offer would seem to indicate that they still don't think there's much value around the league associated with Zach's services.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sure, GMs make mistakes, but absent any information that would indicate that Zach was held in higher value by other teams than what the Knicks actually offered, what basis is there to assume that a mistake was made? Certainly the Clippers' current offer would seem to indicate that they still don't think there's much value around the league associated with Zach's services.


There is the value of keeping him. If we knew that the team HAD to trade him, then we would have nothing to compare the deal to except rumor or speculation. Since we know what Zach is worth to a team when he plays, getting less than that makes it a bad deal.

Ed O.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

> First of all, you're claiming that Zach's contract is horrid. It is CLEARLY not. Raef's contract has been horrid. Francis's was horrid. Those guys can barely play in the NBA now, and yet they're making similar money to what Zach, who's a borderline 20/10 guy, does.


Right, but if they're contracts are so much worse, how come all we could get for Randolph was Francis? The guy is just not appealing to teams.



> Secondly, Zach's contract actually gets MORE appealing as it gets shorter. Even if he doesn't have a year as good as he had this past one, as long as he can still contribute to a team the worst aspect of his contract (its length) will be ameliorated.
> 
> Finally, the Knicks don't need to make a move NOW. They have a couple of years, if they so choose, to prepare for a run at LeBron, and dumping one of their best players for cap space the first chance they get probably doesn't make much sense.


As of right now, the Knicks aren't good enough to even sniff the playoffs, so why try? If LeBron is their target, they should start losing and acquiring top picks. It makes sense to just lose (badly) for the next two years, since they have no chance of competing anyways.

IIRC, the Knicks have been trying to shop Randolph for quite awhile now. How come he isn't gone yet? The best they can do is cap-relief.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> You can judge a single trade in vacuum all you want - but there was more at play here and Ainge either had a grand pland or made lemonade from lemons with it - either way, he salvaged the situation and got a good return for his money.


And YOU can create threads that allow the ends to justify the means all you want - but there are times when GMs make mistakes and I can't believe that anyone would deny that.

Was the extension we gave Theo a bad move? By your logic, it was not. Without that extension we would not have had the contract to trade for Roy, so the signing can't be viewed in a vacuum.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> Right, but if they're contracts are so much worse, how come all we could get for Randolph was Francis? The guy is just not appealing to teams.


We only got what we did because we decided to trade him no matter what... even if the return we got on him was not very good.



> As of right now, the Knicks aren't good enough to even sniff the playoffs, so why try? If LeBron is their target, they should start losing and acquiring top picks. It makes sense to just lose (badly) for the next two years, since they have no chance of competing anyways.


And LeBron is going to want to come to a team that is non-competitive... why? 

He's going to have his choice of any team in the league. A franchise that's demonstrated a willingness to go into the tank for him will remind him of... Cleveland. He's had to carry that team on his back since he's been there and, presumably, he would prefer to be with a franchise that has a bit more imagination than "lose early and often" as a strategy.



> IIRC, the Knicks have been trying to shop Randolph for quite awhile now. How come he isn't gone yet? The best they can do is cap-relief.


I don't think that it's accurate that they've been trying to shop Zach for "quite awhile". They've only had him on their roster for a year, and trades have only become possible in the last month or so.

Zach-bashers can't believe that the Knicks are passing up on instant cap relief because it doesn't coexist, logically, with the world view that Zach is worthless.

Ed O.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Was the extension we gave Theo a bad move? By your logic, it was not. Without that extension we would not have had the contract to trade for Roy, so the signing can't be viewed in a vacuum.


Given that it was not the same person that was responsible for both events - I think it is very easy to make a distinction between a mistake and a set of moves that worked.

GMs make mistakes - but in the big picture, the Celtics did not make a huge mistake giving what turned into Randy Foye and Raef for Bassy and Ratliff - at worst it would have been a lateral move with money saving. In hind-sight, it enabled a championship team.

Spin it as you wish - but this was not a bad trade for the Celts.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

This thread got tired in a hurry.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

> We only got what we did because we decided to trade him no matter what... even if the return we got on him was not very good.


So he has terrible trade value? Knicks won't get more than capspace.


> And LeBron is going to want to come to a team that is non-competitive... why?
> 
> He's going to have his choice of any team in the league. A franchise that's demonstrated a willingness to go into the tank for him will remind him of... Cleveland. He's had to carry that team on his back since he's been there and, presumably, he would prefer to be with a franchise that has a bit more imagination than "lose early and often" as a strategy.


Because by then, they'll have enough pieces (good draft picks).




> I don't think that it's accurate that they've been trying to shop Zach for "quite awhile". They've only had him on their roster for a year, and trades have only become possible in the last month or so.
> 
> Zach-bashers can't believe that the Knicks are passing up on instant cap relief because it doesn't coexist, logically, with the world view that Zach is worthless.


Walsh has been trying to shop him and Curry. 
Didn't you admit he has bad value?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Spin it as you wish - but this was not a bad trade for the Celts.


Uh. OK.

What WAS a bad trade, in your mind? Has any title-winning team made a bad trade in NBA history? 

Any bad trade you offer up by a team that wins a championship within three years will be, by your line of reasoning, instantly forgiven because it arguably somehow, some way contributed to the title.

I reject that glossing-over of scrutiny, but if you want to do it... go for it.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm still pissed about the Kiki trade damnit let's argue it!!!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Lest people forget, the Randolph trade netted Francis (who's contract might help land Pritchard's Big Free Agent), Frye (who seems like a solid rotation guy on this roster and would likely start on at least a handful of teams), and a trade exception that went on to net both James Jones and Rudy Fernandez. It also cleared the PF spot to get Aldridge more development time. In the end, I'm pretty happy.

That said, I _do_ sometimes wonder if Pritchard had regrets about that trade once Oden was down and how different last season would have been. On the whole, while I think the Blazers _might_ have won another game or two (and potentially made the playoffs -- ouch), I _think_ I'd still wish for the season we had. I suspect Jones' influence in the locker room, even just for that one year, will have lasting impact. More than that, though, I'm excited about how the rotation looks with Frye and Fernandez in there.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

People want to ignor the coulds and lead to's.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> So he has terrible trade value?


What?



> Knicks won't get more than capspace.


You keep making conclusory statements as if they are some sort of fact or evidence.

You saying that they won't get more than capspace is your opinion, but it's not a fact. I hate to guess about your mindset, but I bet if I had asked you yesterday if the Knicks could get instant cap relief for Zach you'd have said "no".

It appears that that (hypothetical) opinion has been proven incorrect. I believe that your latest "they will get nothing more than capspace" prediction will prove inaccurate, as well.



> Because by then, they'll have enough pieces (good draft picks).


Two lottery picks is enough to lure LeBron? Wow. Too bad you didn't tell the Clippers. They'd have like a dozen LeBrons by now.



> Walsh has been trying to shop him and Curry.


I think that the team has been looking to make a lot of changes. Whether Zach has been more actively shopped than most other players (David Lee, for example) is unclear to me.



> Didn't you admit he has bad value?


Where did I admit he has bad value? He's a good player and his play sets a baseline for his value to a team... as a good player he has value.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> This thread got tired in a hurry.



Agreed. Some of us will likely never see eye to eye on a variety of these moves.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

and arguing them a year after the fact seems so futile.... TRhough I will pont out we got 10 games better and the knicks got 10 games worse..... I knwo totally unrelated Zach had Nothing to do with it, We woulda won 51 with Zach and the Knicks would won 11 without him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Agreed. Some of us will likely never see eye to eye on a variety of these moves.


Fortunately there are about 100,000 other threads that would allow those of you who do not care to read about reevaluating the Randolph trade to leave the rest of us alone.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I wouldn't trade Randolph for nothing but cap relief either.
> 
> I realize he's hated here, but he's still a valuable player on the court. He's still one of the better post scorers in the league and a good rebounder. Sure, his defense stinks and he's not a good passer. That's why he's no superstar. That doesn't make him worthless.


In retrospect, Minstrel, Z-Bo is _exactly_ a player I would trade to another team within my own division.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Fortunately there are about 100,000 other threads that would allow those of you who do not care to read about reevaluating the Randolph trade to leave the rest of us alone.
> 
> Ed O.


Let's talk Bonzi Wells.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Let's talk Bonzi Wells.


THAT would be interesting.

Seriously, though... I don't go into the ridiculous "NEW UNIFORMZ!!!" threads and start talking about what a stupid topic that is.

I've been tempted, trust me.

I restrain myself, though, because I know that (for some reason) people LOVE to talk about hypothetical uniforms and rumored alternative St. Patrick's Day road versions.

Similarly, some of us like to reevalute and rehash old arguments with new data... and this IS new data. Having people ***** about us doing that is kinda lame.

Ed O.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

> You keep making conclusory statements as if they are some sort of fact or evidence.
> 
> You saying that they won't get more than capspace is your opinion, but it's not a fact. I hate to guess about your mindset, but I bet if I had asked you yesterday if the Knicks could get instant cap relief for Zach you'd have said "no".
> 
> It appears that that (hypothetical) opinion has been proven incorrect. I believe that your latest "they will get nothing more than capspace" prediction will prove inaccurate, as well.


If Portland couldn't get more than what they got for 23/10 Randolph, what makes you think the Knicks can get more for 17/10 Randolph?



> Two lottery picks is enough to lure LeBron? Wow. Too bad you didn't tell the Clippers. They'd have like a dozen LeBrons by now.


The thought of LeBron joining the Knicks is stupid anyways imo, with or without Randolph. If they're dead set on getting him, this is the direction I'd go. Besides, they won't be able to offer LeBron the amount of money he needs if Randolph doesn't leave by then.




> Where did I admit he has bad value? He's a good player and his play sets a baseline for his value to a team... as a good player he has value.


You reasoning as to why Portland couldn't get more value was because we were dead set on trading him. That doesn't really make sense to me. You would think a 23/10 PF could net more than a broken down Steve Francis, Channing Frye, and a TE.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> ...as a good player he has value.
> 
> Ed O.


IMO, As a good *player*, he has _perceived_ value, perhaps. As a good *teammate*?, he probably has a lot less than that.

Hence, the GM dilemma. Dare I trade for this guy? Is he "really" a cancer"? If so, is my team strong enough to withstand that aspect?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Uh. OK.
> 
> What WAS a bad trade, in your mind? Has any title-winning team made a bad trade in NBA history?


Many, in my opinion, including, and not limited to, the Randolph trade for Francis/Frye from NY's POV. 

Even if the Bassy/Ratliff for #7/Raef trade did not directly impact the ability to get KG one year after that trade happened - it was still not a bad trade, at worst a lateral move.

Foye/Raef for Bassy/Ratliff/$12m (or whatever the difference in salaries for Theo's earlier expiring is) is not a bad trade.




Ed O said:


> Any bad trade you offer up by a team that wins a championship within three years will be, by your line of reasoning, instantly forgiven because it arguably somehow, some way contributed to the title.


Sure, why not change the facts and make it 3 years instead of 1 year, which is what happened with this trade... - this trade enabled the KG trade within 1 year (and a month, to be exact), not 2 years, not 2 years, 4 months and 12 minutes nor 3 years.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> If Portland couldn't get more than what they got for 23/10 Randolph, what makes you think the Knicks can get more for 17/10 Randolph?


#1: they don't have to get more. They can just let him play as a Knick until/unless a good deal comes along.

#2: the Blazers didn't get a good deal. They made a mistake by moving Zach for what they did, and that the Knicks won't compound that mistake should not be a strike against them.

#3: the primary component of Zach's trade value is his contract. His contract is now a year shorter, and so the negative that is attached to him is becoming less with time, which will increase his trade value.



> You reasoning as to why Portland couldn't get more value was because we were dead set on trading him. That doesn't really make sense to me. You would think a 23/10 PF could net more than a broken down Steve Francis, Channing Frye, and a TE.


Would YOU think that? Or would I think that?

I certainly would think it, but I would also think that the team and franchise would have been best served to let him keep playing and producing as a Blazer until we got a better offer. We could have brought Aldridge along more slowly, like we did with the best Blazer-produced players of times past (with Bonzi playing behind established vets and Zach behind Rasheed).

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Many, in my opinion, including, and not limited to, the Randolph trade for Francis/Frye from NY's POV.
> 
> Even if the Bassy/Ratliff for #7/Raef trade did not directly impact the ability to get KG one year after that trade happened - it was still not a bad trade, at worst a lateral move.
> 
> Foye/Raef for Bassy/Ratliff/$12m (or whatever the difference in salaries for Theo's earlier expiring is) is not a bad trade.


You're ignoring how easily Boston could have parlayed Foye into Roy. Doing that makes the trade look less offensive, of course, which is why you're doing it.



> Sure, why not change the facts and make it 3 years instead of 1 year, which is what happened with this trade... - this trade enabled the KG trade within 1 year (and a month, to be exact), not 2 years, not 2 years, 4 months and 12 minutes nor 3 years.


It was two years after the trade. One year before the KG deal and one year after it. They did not win a championship within one year of making the deal, so it therefore cannot be a single year.

I made it three because I am challenging you to come up with a bad trade within three years that I can't strain the same way that you have with the terrible Bassy deal.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> There is the value of keeping him. If we knew that the team HAD to trade him, then we would have nothing to compare the deal to except rumor or speculation. *Since we know what Zach is worth to a team when he plays, getting less than that makes it a bad deal.*
> 
> Ed O.


Unlike some, I agree that Zach has value as a player. In the right situation, the guy is close to a 20-10 player. There are certainly negatives to his game that, even absent his off-court issues, would argue that he's not the kind of player that you want to build around at the PF spot. That said, I agree with you that he has value.

From the standpoint of a basketball GM in KP's position, there are two ways of looking an asset like Zach:

1. The guy has value and you're not going to trade him until you get equivalent or better talent.

2. You believe that Aldridge is the future and that he needs to start playing in a starting role with the other core players in order to develop the nucleus of a contending team. Given that Zach has starting-level talent and isn't likely to relish the role of a bench player, it's better to move him, even without equivalent talent in return, for the longterm betterment of the team.

I get that you believe that 1. is the correct management strategy. I think that time will prove that 2. was the more effective decision.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

> #1: they don't have to get more. They can just let him play as a Knick until/unless a good deal comes along.


His deal runs past 2010. If they want Lebron, he must go. (Or just about every other player will have to) You would expect him to be gone if a good deal has already come up, no? So what makes you think he's going to increase his value in the next few years? Especially playing under a new coach and a new system.



> #2: the Blazers didn't get a good deal. They made a mistake by moving Zach for what they did, and that the Knicks won't compound that mistake should not be a strike against them.


Alright, that's your opinion I guess. I wasn't a fan of the trade when it happened, but it made us better, so whatever.


> #3: the primary component of Zach's trade value is his contract. His contract is now a year shorter, and so the negative that is attached to him is becoming less with time, which will increase his trade value.


3 years/ 48 million isn't a good contract no matter how you look at it.



> I certainly would think it, but I would also think that the team and franchise would have been best served to let him keep playing and producing as a Blazer until we got a better offer. We could have brought Aldridge along more slowly, like we did with the best Blazer-produced players of times past (with Bonzi playing behind established vets and Zach behind Rasheed).


The Blazers were heavily shopping him. If there was more value on the table, we would have taken it, but there wasn't. Hence the bad trade value.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> You're ignoring how easily Boston could have parlayed Foye into Roy. Doing that makes the trade look less offensive, of course, which is why you're doing it.


Please, what you are doing now is trivializing how much work KP and his crew put into this, knowing of the proposed deal between Houston and the Wolves and having the balls to go for it anyway to force a deal.

This was not an easy move by KP - and we have no idea how close it was for Portland to end with Foye/Aldridge instead of Roy/Aldridge.



Ed O said:


> It was two years after the trade. One year before the KG deal and one year after it. They did not win a championship within one year of making the deal, so it therefore cannot be a single year.


Well, the move that put them over the top was one year and one month after thw first deal - and even if Boston were to lose to the Lakers - it was still a good move. One deal enabled another deal thanks to the very specific issue of expiring contracts. The fact that they actually had to play for a year after the move was made really should not be judged in the context you are trying to present it. 

I think I am done with this specific discussion, however. I still can not see how it was a bad deal for the Celts. You might disagree, which is OK - but I do not think there is any reason to go around out tails any more with this subject.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> So what makes you think he's going to increase his value in the next few years?


I feel like I'm caught in a weird loop here. You keep asking the same question different ways.

How many times do you want me to answer it, really?

Ed O.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

The hate for Zach on this board is crazy. I certainly would not trade him for just cap space. The dude can be a ball hog, but he can also play. Use him a right situation with the right coach, and he's a handful. Just watch him next year with D'Antoni.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Why? He's a pig- both on & off the court. His 365 days per year hotel room where women are abused, his thug posse intimidating and beating up people, his near pure selfishness on the court.......
> 
> I'm not inclined to flower his name with love.


"Pure selfishness"?? Can you say "hyperbole"?

As for the rest of your comments - you have no clue if there is *any* truth to any of that crap. Why would you even say stuff like that? That kind of hate toward a random stranger is unhealthy. Seriously.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> "Pure selfishness"?? Can you say "hyperbole"?
> 
> As for the rest of your comments - you have no clue if there is *any* truth to any of that crap. Why would you even say stuff like that? That kind of hate toward a random stranger is unhealthy. Seriously.


My gosh, man, quit being a grumpy pragmatist.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> You reasoning as to why Portland couldn't get more value was because we were dead set on trading him. That doesn't really make sense to me. You would think a 23/10 PF could net more than a broken down Steve Francis, Channing Frye, and a TE.


Think about it. In almost any negotiation, the winner is the party that was willing to be the first to walk away from the table. 

As soon as other teams sensed KP was desperate to trade Zach ASAP, he might as well have just bent over and grabbed his ankles. His lack of patience cost him any leverage.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

The hoop family.... 
nuff said...


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

The bottom line for me is this- I'm happy the trade fell through because the Clippers would be better if they got Zach Randolph. Kaman/Randolph/Thornton/Gordon/Davis isn't a truly awful lineup because they have decent scoring and rebounding at every position. Not much D...so hopefully still not a threat, but I like the chances of beating this team better without Zach's 20/10.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> In hindsight, it does appear that, at least in this case, Pritchard managed to "sell high" really quite well.


Yeah, I thought KP must have been high when he made that bonehead giveaway too. :azdaja:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> The bottom line for me is this- I'm happy the trade fell through because the Clippers would be better if they got Zach Randolph. Kaman/Randolph/Thornton/Gordon/Davis isn't a truly awful lineup because they have decent scoring and rebounding at every position. Not much D...so hopefully still not a threat, but I like the chances of beating this team better without Zach's 20/10.


Excellent post, and one I think most people would agree with if they could get beyond the Randolph hostility. 

It's exactly the same reason why I'm crossing my fingers that Ron Artest doesn't go to LA. 

Both Randolph and Artest are deeply flawed human beings, but both guys are scary if you put them in the right position to succeed. 

And that's why New York was wise to pass on this deal. Somebody else is bound to come along and realize that too.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow.
> 
> The animosity towards Zach is really sad.


I agree. Lay off the guy. He's a good player. 17 & 10 last season. And considering he had to share the post with Curry, that's pretty darn good. Plus- why all the bashing of his passing? He averaged 2 assists and less than 1 turnover a game. That's not bad at all.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Zach playing and succeeding for D'Antoni? It's not outside the realm of possibility. It's not like he'll be expected to play defense or anything, and he's still probably going to get his 20 and 10.
> 
> I'm not a Zach fan by any stretch, but if I were the Knicks I'd at least try to put his fat butt on the court and see what he can do in an actual offense -- hell it's the Least-ern conference,


Leastern conference?? You mean the conference that has won 3 of the last 5 championships?


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

KingSpeed said:


> Leastern conference?? You mean the conference that has won 3 of the last 5 championships?


Who cares. West has a bunch of good teams. East has the best team, and a bunch of mediocre ones too.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

KingSpeed said:


> Leastern conference?? You mean the conference that has won 3 of the last 5 championships?


Yes the *Least-ern* Conference; where over the course of a season Zach plays against more weak competition than he would if he were in the west.

Is this the place where I say checkmate?


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> As for how he was with Portland, he was actually a great asset when the team had good defenders around him and a real quarterback in Pippen. In Randolph's first few seasons with Portland, he was extremely well-liked by fans. The mess of a team that PatterNash created forced Randolph to carry the team, a role he was ill-suited to.


Thank you! Need I remind anyone that our last three playoff victories were because of Zach's placement in the starting line-up?


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> idk. the facts kinda point that he is a cancer who makes his team worse.
> 
> Our team got rid of him and got better, NY got him and got worse (i think? Maybe they got a little better, im not sure, but they stunk it up either way).


I think that was more of a coincidence. We had a ton of injury issues in 06-07 and still won 32 games. In 07-08, the games of Webster, Roy, Outlaw, & LMA all improved. We would've won at least 41 games if Zach had stayed. I'm sure of it.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Why? He's a pig- both on & off the court. His 365 days per year hotel room where women are abused, his thug posse intimidating and beating up people, his near pure selfishness on the court.......
> 
> I'm not inclined to flower his name with love.


tell me more about this hotel room. where did you hear all of that?


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Let's talk Bonzi Wells.


Record: Most Points Scored EVER by a Blazer in the playoffs


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Yes the *Least-ern* Conference; where over the course of a season Zach plays against more weak competition than he would if he were in the west.
> 
> Is this the place where I say checkmate?


Hawks beat the Celtics three times.

Lakers beat em twice.

Checkmate.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

KingSpeed said:


> Record: Most Points Scored EVER by a Blazer in the playoffs


Big deal, Billy Ray Bates went nuts in a playoff series once too..doesn't mean squat years later, does it?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Billy who?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

You know, if we're going to bring up the Zach trade, I'm going to bring up the Drexler trade.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

ok heres the thing, ZBo is hated in Portland everyone knows he didn't do well last season but in hindsight who really wanted to play under Isiah Thomas? I think Zach will do well under Mike D'antoni. He's still a 20\10 player.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Dan said:


> You know, if we're going to bring up the Zach trade, I'm going to bring up the Drexler trade.


Now _that_ was awful, save for what it did for Drexler. Wow that was bad. The team is arguably still recovering from that one.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Dan said:


> Big deal, Billy Ray Bates went nuts in a playoff series once too..doesn't mean squat years later, does it?


Bonzi Wells was offered up for discussion so I thought I'd mention his place in the Blazers' record books.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

> Hawks beat the Celtics three times.
> 
> Lakers beat em twice.
> 
> Checkmate.





> Leastern conference?? You mean the conference that has won 3 of the last 5 championships?


Atlanta had a record of 37-45 and made the playoffs in the east. Goldenstate had a record of 48-34 and didn't make the playoffs in the west. 

Checkmate.

The west had 8 teams with over 50 wins, the East had 3.

Checkmate.

The East had a win total of 582. The west had 648. Considering non-conference opponents only play each other twice a season, that's a staggering difference.

Checkmate.

Or 2006-2007 if you prefer... The East had two teams with over 50 wins, and a total of 583 wins. The West had 647 total and five teams over 50.

2005-2006: East had 588 wins, the West had 642.

2004-2005: East had 584, the West had 646.

2003-2004: East had 559, the West had 630.

2002-2003: East had 575, the West had 614.

In fact, the last time the East actually had more wins was 1999-2000. That's not a coincidence, that's not a trend, that's a habit. That's so far back most of us had never heard of Osama Bin Laden. That's so far back gas costed $1.70/gallon. 

At the present time, anyone who would actually argue that the West is not a better/tougher conference is a moron. I surely wouldn't want my post edited by the awesome moderators because I name-called a specific poster, so I'll just say, "You know who you are." And so does everybody else.

Checkmate.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

KingSpeed said:


> Hawks beat the Celtics three times.
> 
> Lakers beat em twice.
> 
> Checkmate.


That's your argument for the East's supremacy over the West? Good god.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

KingSpeed said:


> Bonzi Wells was offered up for discussion so I thought I'd mention his place in the Blazers' record books.


I was thinking of Billy Ray Bates, and offered up his place in the record books.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

this thread is hilarious...a deja-vu rehashing of the Randolph trade from over a year ago.

And what's funny is I see some of the same people making the same argument, just with some different accessories.

Last year, people were saying that Zach was going to be an all-star in the eastern conference...that he was going to propel the Knicks into the playoffs.

Well he wasn't and he didn't, and as a matter of fact, he was a prime contributor to the implosion of the team.

Now the same people are saying zach will thrive under d'antoni...all zach needs is another coach...another system...another chance.

Maybe it's possible that zach's game is what it is and nothing more. And that zach's game simply won't mesh well with any team basketball. He needs his touches and he needs his shots to be effective. And the nature of his ball-pounding, shot-clock-eating, offensive game is such that the rest of a team's offense stagnates with zach as the focus. That's what happened in portland to be sure. And if he's not the focus, he's not effective. And in this case, 'effective' becomes a very relative term. And of course, he's a major defensive liability.

I don't know zach, so I can't really speak to his character. He may be a good guy. But his on court behaviour is selfish and lazy. Trading him was a great move for portland, and it would have been if they got almost nothing in return.

But Portland got a lot more then almost nothing. And it baffles me that people don't recognize that Paul Allen may have been the biggest proponent of this particular trade. Allen owed zach 62 million dollars for the balance of his contract. Francis was bought out for 30 million, and when he signed with Houston, 50% of that contract's amount was deducted from the 30 million buyout. So by exchanging the zach's contract for francis's contract, Allen saved somewhere around 33 million dollars. They probably made him more willing to send the 3 million to Phoenix that gained Rudy Fernandez, the 2 million to Philidelphia that gained Kaponen, and 3 million to New orleans that gained Batum.

So by making the zach trade, the blazers gained 30 million+ on the exchange of primary contracts; channing frye; a 2nd round pick; the TPE that landed James Jones (and both KP and Tom Penn have said...more then once, that without the TPE, Phoenix was unlikely to sell the pick that was used on Rudy); and the opportunity for cap-space next summer.

That is great value for randolph, especially when considering how randolph's absence from the blazer rotation opened PT for LMA.

And by the way, about that 2nd round pick that the knicks sent: KP used it to draft Asik and then traded him to chicago for Three 2nd round picks.

Finally, about the rumored zach to LA 'deal'. If true, the knicks were foolish to turn it down. But then the Clippers were foolish to offer. If they did, I suspect it was right after Brand defected and they were still in shock. I have a hard time believing they did though because of Sterling's penny-pinching ways and the reality of zach's contract.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

moldorf said:


> this thread is hilarious...a deja-vu rehashing of the Randolph trade from over a year ago.
> 
> And what's funny is I see some of the same people making the same argument, just with some different accessories.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with what you posted. The only other thing I could add is you can't win with a player that doesn't even try to play defense. I realize he isn't a good defender but I could live with that if he at least tried to play defense. It seems it is always the same people defending Zbo. I also don't believe the Clippers will give up anything of value for Zbo. If the Knicks think they can get Gordon for Zbo they are crazy. I guess we are talking about the Clippers but even they are not that dumb.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

How is D'antoni better for Zach's game?!


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Zach's perceived value is much higher than we think IMO because he was a 20/10 guy on a bad team.

We all thought we could've gotten that elusive elite SF for this team with him, ie Rashard Lewis. But in the end, it seemed like that was a dream.

Zach can play, but we don't know what offers we had for him. It's easy to say we could've gotten more for Zach, but really, it's possible that a capable backup PF in Frye/an expiring contract in Francis/a trade exception was as good as it got.

And now the best thing NY can get for him is seemingly just cap space, equal to just a Francis contract. The Knicks want more, but won't get it.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

1.)I'm a Knick fan that initially questioned why Donnie Walsh would reject the deal. I think I now understand his rationale. Anyway you want to cut it, Zach Randolph is a 20 and 10 player and is only 25 years old. He has his flaws but those flaws can be worked on at his age. If not, he is still a 20 and 10 player who could have his flaws masked within a teams offense. Contrary to popular belief, Randolph can make you a title contender on the proper team. He needs to go to an organization with an established system of winning, defensive players and veteran leadership (on and off the bench). Those are the type of teams that could harness his skills and cushion him from having to carry the entire burden of the team; the Pistons and Spurs would work well. Don't trade him for any and everything.

2.)One bad trade does not deserve another. The Blazers did not get nearly as much value as they should have in the Randolph trade. Even with his baggage, he is a game changer in the right system. Them messing up, should not mean we should settle on a similar package. After all, we do not have LaMarcus Aldridge waiting in the wings. Financial flexibility and draft picks are musts in this trade.

3.)Randolph's trade value has no where to go but up. He had one of his worst seasons last year but everyone knows that is because he does not fit. Even then, he still put up about 17 points and 10 rebounds a game. It's no secret he could contribute more to the game statistically than just that. If we hold onto him, we'll be dealing from a position of strength rather than weakness. His value would only increase from having one less year on his contract and still being young enough to return to his 20 and 10 form. With many of the former titans of the league beginning to go on a decline, I think the market for a player with his gifts only increase so until then, keep him as long as we need to until we get proper value. One thing is gauranteed and that is the fact that he'll have some pretty nice stats that could only help to inflate his value even further as teams get more desperate as the season progresses.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> 1.)I'm a Knick fan that initially questioned why Donnie Walsh would reject the deal. I think I now understand his rationale. Anyway you want to cut it, Zach Randolph is a 20 and 10 player and is only 25 years old. He has his flaws but those flaws can be worked on at his age. If not, he is still a 20 and 10 player who could have his flaws masked within a teams offense. Contrary to popular belief, Randolph can make you a title contender on the proper team. He needs to go to an organization with an established system of winning, defensive players and veteran leadership (on and off the bench). Those are the type of teams that could harness his skills and cushion him from having to carry the entire burden of the team; the Pistons and Spurs would work well. Don't trade him for any and everything.
> 
> 2.)One bad trade does not deserve another. The Blazers did not get nearly as much value as they should have in the Randolph trade. Even with his baggage, he is a game changer in the right system. Them messing up, should not mean we should settle on a similar package. After all, we do not have LaMarcus Aldridge waiting in the wings. Financial flexibility and draft picks are musts in this trade.
> 
> 3.)Randolph's trade value has no where to go but up. He had one of his worst seasons last year but everyone knows that is because he does not fit. Even then, he still put up about 17 points and 10 rebounds a game. It's no secret he could contribute more to the game statistically than just that. If we hold onto him, we'll be dealing from a position of strength rather than weakness. His value would only increase from having one less year on his contract and still being young enough to return to his 20 and 10 form. With many of the former titans of the league beginning to go on a decline, I think the market for a player with his gifts only increase so until then, keep him as long as we need to until we get proper value. One thing is gauranteed and that is the fact that he'll have some pretty nice stats that could only help to inflate his value even further as teams get more desperate as the season progresses.


P.S., I'm a Knick fan that H-A-T-E-D the trade when it was initially made because I felt it was overkill...and it turned out to be just that. I still thought that the Blazers completely screwed up trading him for so little but then again they did not need to get very much in return since they had all their building block and role players in place. 

When the trade was first made we were stuck in a period where there were no expiring contracts large enough to exchange for Randolph. You also already had more than enough young talent where draft picks were not a priority. The next best option was a contract like Francis and a rotation player or players, which is essentially what you got (when you factor in exemptions and cash for James Jones, Rudy Fernandez and Kopanenon). You already had Aldridge on the bench (a clear starter in this league) and Greg Oden (who will be a superior player to Randolph), so all you really had to do was keep Randolph out of the West to avoid any negative PR. You may have not gotten proper value for a player of his skill, age and position but you did get the kind of value most necessary/valued for your team.

On the flip side, value to the Knicks is much different than that for the Blazers last year. We're going to look for the best trade possible since we're looking for as many assets to utilize in preparation for 2010. We probably will pursue the more popular package of draft picks and immediate expiring contracts (since they are some available) and should get it. I think a Pau Gasol package (draft picks, a prospect and financial flexibility; a fair trade IMO between the Lakers and Grizzlies) is what the Knicks are going to get.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

TwinkieFoot good luck trying to build up Zbo trade value. If and when you trade Zbo I will be really surpised if you get anything of value for him. There are very few teams that would even consider trading for him and the few teams that might trade for him wouldn't give much in value. The only reason if the Clippers really did make a trade offer to the Knicks is they thought they could get him for nothing and it is the Clippers. Zbo is a black hole on offense and a terrible defender that doesn't even try on defense. Good luck!


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

TwinkieFoot said:


> P.S., I'm a Knick fan that H-A-T-E-D the trade when it was initially made because I felt it was overkill...and it turned out to be just that. I still thought that the Blazers completely screwed up trading him for so little but then again they did not need to get very much in return since they had all their building block and role players in place.
> 
> When the trade was first made we were stuck in a period where there were no expiring contracts large enough to exchange for Randolph. You also already had more than enough young talent where draft picks were not a priority. The next best option was a contract like Francis and a rotation player or players, which is essentially what you got (when you factor in exemptions and cash for James Jones, Rudy Fernandez and Kopanenon). You already had Aldridge on the bench (a clear starter in this league) and Greg Oden (who will be a superior player to Randolph), so all you really had to do was keep Randolph out of the West to avoid any negative PR. You may have not gotten proper value for a player of his skill, age and position but you did get the kind of value most necessary/valued for your team.
> 
> On the flip side, value to the Knicks is much different than that for the Blazers last year. We're going to look for the best trade possible since we're looking for as many assets to utilize in preparation for 2010. We probably will pursue the more popular package of draft picks and immediate expiring contracts (since they are some available) and should get it. I think a Pau Gasol package (draft picks, a prospect and financial flexibility; a fair trade IMO between the Lakers and Grizzlies) is what the Knicks are going to get.


just because you make 2 consecutive posts telling blazer fans how "little" portland got in the trade, and how much portland "screwed up" by trading zach, it's not persuasive, Primarily because it isn't accurate.

In my 'longwinded' post I listed the benefits portland received from the randolph trade: over 32 million in salary savings; the option for cap-space in 2009; channing frye; the TPE that netted James Jones AND (according to the blazer FO) rudy fernandez; a 2nd round pick that has now become THREE 2nd round picks; major playing time for LaMarcus Aldridge; and finally, a more efficient team-oriented offense.

I know people like to go all lawyer-like and assert that technically, all those assets weren't part of the trade. But it's a practical world, and practically speaking, all those assets and benefits have directly flowed from the trade.

In other words, it was an excellent trade for portland, and the 'last but not least' benefit is because what to do with zach and his cap-killing contract is now NY's problem, not portland's.

Keep telling yourself that all zach needs is a different system and a different coach and he'll be better and more valuable. Forget about the fact that he's had at least 3 coaches and systems, and his game hasn't changed. It's still the ball-pounding, shot-clock-burning, offense-stifling, eye-rolling, get-rid-of-him mess it's always been.

And good luck getting a "pau-gasol-trade-like" return for him. If the Clippers actually offered cap-space for him and the Knicks turned it down, I know of at least 2 stupid GM's.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Dan said:


> How is D'antoni better for Zach's game?!


Well, he can coach both ends and utilize/integrate the individual and varied talents of his players for one thing, so that's an enormous improvement over WeakCheeks, Nate, and Thomas.

*ENORMOUS.*

Zach will become the Beast of the East.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

moldorf said:


> just because you make 2 consecutive posts telling blazer fans how "little" portland got in the trade, and how much portland "screwed up" by trading zach, it's not persuasive, Primarily because it isn't accurate.
> 
> In my 'longwinded' post I listed the benefits portland received from the randolph trade: over 32 million in salary savings; the option for cap-space in 2009; channing frye; the TPE that netted James Jones AND (according to the blazer FO) rudy fernandez; a 2nd round pick that has now become THREE 2nd round picks; major playing time for LaMarcus Aldridge; and finally, a more efficient team-oriented offense.
> 
> ...



If I gave others the impression that I thought the Randolph trade was just bad, then let me clarify. I DO feel the Blazers could have brought in more assets ie draft picks, prospects, etc. Did the Blazers need this kind of package? Not at all. What you needed, you got in financial flexibility with Francis' contract (the only available contract that did do this at the time) and Channing Frye, a guy capable of starting and rotation player, not to mention a trade exception that brought in a player whose game I love (James Jones) and the money available to buy the draft picks you guys recently got. You didn't really need more since you already had the foundation of the team in place (Roy,Oden and Aldridge) and some pretty good role players from previous trades and drafts. On the open NBA market though, you could demand much more for Randolph. Hopefully this makes sense to you.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I respect your opinion TF, and you know i do, and i like ya, but i don't agree with your assessment of Randolph. I would definitely have traded him for cap space mainly because of the situation the Knicks are in.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

ProZach said:


> Atlanta had a record of 37-45 and made the playoffs in the east. Goldenstate had a record of 48-34 and didn't make the playoffs in the west.
> 
> Checkmate.
> 
> ...



It's easy to win more games in the easy Western Conference.

Checkmate.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Well, he can coach both ends and utilize/integrate the individual and varied talents of his players for one thing, so that's an enormous improvement over WeakCheeks, Nate, and Thomas.
> 
> *ENORMOUS.*
> 
> Zach will become the Beast of the East.


Why diss Cheeks? He did pretty well with us. Along with Zach in the starting line up, he coached us to our last three playoff wins. And look at what he did last season! Philly was 5-13 but he kept the team focused and they made the playoffs and took two games from Detroit and was very close to going up 3-1.

Go Blazers


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

KingSpeed said:


> Why diss Cheeks? He did pretty well with us. Along with Zach in the starting line up, he coached us to our last three playoff wins. And look at what he did last season! Philly was 5-13 but he kept the team focused and they made the playoffs and took two games from Detroit and was very close to going up 3-1.
> 
> Go Blazers


Nice guy, and he's apparently learning a lot from his mistakes.

He wasn't ready to be a head coach when we got him and it was clear we had no real offensive plan from night to night. The players didn't listen to him or obey him and our young guys got no real direction from him.

In my book, he and Lenny Wilkens are the 2 classiest guys to ever coach in this league, and I wish him success in Philly.:clap:

I look forward to meeting, and beating, Philly in the finals soon.:biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Cheeks is a nice guy, but a terrible coach. He did fine in Portland when he had a guy like Pippen to run things on the floor. When he handed the keys to Damon, everything went to hell, and he had no answers. Much of his success in Philly is thanks to Miller. Take him out of the equation, and the 76ers would not have made the play-offs. Now he has Miller AND Brand to cover for his weaknesses as an in game coach.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Well, he can coach both ends and utilize/integrate the individual and varied talents of his players for one thing, so that's an enormous improvement over WeakCheeks, Nate, and Thomas.
> 
> *ENORMOUS.*
> 
> Zach will become the Beast of the East.


What planet does D'antoni coach defense on?


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

KingSpeed said:


> It's easy to win more games in the easy Western Conference.
> 
> Checkmate.


hahaha. Eric's back to his old antics.

Jarrett Jack >>>> Devin Harris.

Checkmate.


----------

