# Rumors



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

A few posters on realgm have heard some rumors as of late.

First one came from 1080 yesterday saying that there has been a lot of interest in Sergio Rodriguez and the Blazers have been recieving some "incredible" offers for him. As to what "incredible" means, that's all up to interpretation.

Another poster overheard from someone that Zach/Jack have been rumored to go to Chicago for Brown/Gordon/Nocioni. However, this is one of those "someone overheard some 'reliable' source talking about it" sort of thing so take it for what it's worth.

Discuss.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I'd do the Chicago trade if they threw in the NYC pick.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I would take the Chicago deal in a heartbeat. That would transform this team overnight, IMO -- even without the NY pick.

As for Sergio .... he's not going anywhere.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Portland would be crazy to trade Sergio, and I pray to God they don't do it. This guy is our future.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Post-Chicago Deal:

PG: Brandon Roy
SG: Ben Gordon
SF: Andres Nocioni
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge
C: Joel Przybilla

PG: Sergio Rodriguez
SG: Juan Dixon
SF: Martell Webster
PF: Travis Outlaw
C: Raef LaFrentz

hmm...


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Another poster overheard from someone that Zach/Jack have been rumored to go to Chicago for Brown/Gordon/Nocioni. However, this is one of those "someone overheard some 'reliable' source talking about it" sort of thing so take it for what it's worth.


I'd make that trade yesterday.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I doubt Chicago does it, but it does make sense for them if you think about it. They would be trading two bench players and an expiring contract for a solid (big) PG and what would be one of the top PFs in the East. Portland would suffer in the short term, but long term that team could be very interesting.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

If we did that Chicago trade I think we'd slide roy over to SF and start Sergio at PG. Then Niconi would be a 6th man. I wouldn't be too concerned with losing Jack though.

If Portland made this deal, we'd better home Aldridge develops fast, because we'd have no inside scoring presense. We've had it for so long we take it for granted.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Sergio goes nowhere and I don't think I would do the Chicago deal either. Getting an undersized SG such as Ben Gordon just doesn't interest me that much considering Zach is one of the best if not the best interior scoring presences in the NBA. And throw in Jack? I don't think I like it very much at all, even with the pick. The deal would cause a log jam in the backcourt big time forcing players to play out of position. I like what we have now better than the Chicago deal.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Sergio stays here.

The supposed Chicago trade is in their favor, IMO.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> If we did that Chicago trade I think we'd slide roy over to SF and start Sergio at PG. Then Niconi would be a 6th man. I wouldn't be too concerned with losing Jack though.
> 
> If Portland made this deal, we'd better home Aldridge develops fast, because we'd have no inside scoring presense. We've had it for so long we take it for granted.


Another big problem with this deal is, it wouldn't be guaranteed that Portland could re-sign Nocioni. He becomes an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season. 

Anyone know if Portland would have bird rights with Nocioni?


Nocioni
2006: 3,950,000
2007: expired

Gordon
2006: 3,862,080 
2007: 4,881,669
2008: 6,404,750	(qualifying offer)


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I'm sooooooooooo tired of hearing about how great Nocioni is.

Face it. If he wasn't caucasian, few posters here would even know who he was.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

So it would essentially be Gordon for Zach and Jack in the end? There's no way Portland does that deal. The number 1 from New York would have to be involved and what if it's not a lottery pick?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm sooooooooooo tired of hearing about how great Nocioni is.
> 
> Face it. If he wasn't caucasian, few posters here would even know who he was.


Face it. That's a racist comment.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm sooooooooooo tired of hearing about how great Nocioni is.
> 
> Face it. If he wasn't caucasian, few posters here would even know who he was.


No need for the race card.

Part of his appeal is that he was tough as nails in last year's playoffs. He's a good shooter.

Overall, he's just a very GOOD player. Race has nothing to do with this.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

wastro said:


> Overall, he's just a very GOOD player.


What troubles me is the fact that ESPN lists him as a PF. 

The guy is 6-7, 210 pounds, so there's no way Portland would use him (save for in a backup role) at the PF position. Is he good enough as a 3 to compete in the Western Conference?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3uCGctho10o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3uCGctho10o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

No, Maris is right. Guys like Nash, Nowitski, Gasol, and Rodriguez are only in the NBA because they are white. It's been proven time and again that black athletes don't appeal to white America. When is the last time you saw a black athlete get a shoe endorsment? It's just a plain fact that white americans will not support professional sport teams if the majority if their players are black.

This racism sickens me, when will we ever change?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> No, Maris is right. Guys like Nash, Nowitski, Gasol, and Rodriguez are only in the NBA because they are white. It's been proven time and again that black athletes don't appeal to white America. When is the last time you saw a black athlete get a shoe endorsment? It's just a plain fact that white americans will not support professional sport teams if the majority if their players are black.
> 
> This racism sickens me, when will we ever change?


Agreed. It's such a fraud that Nash won the MVP award two years in a row. The NBA is a black man's game and everyone knows it. Stop the charade! Nash sucks!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Another problem with Nocioni is his age. Though he's not 'old', he turns 28 this year, which means he would be 31-32 when Portland began making their big playoff runs.

Does that make sense for a team like Portland?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Race has nothing to do with it. Nocioni is just a very good role player. The deal is bad for the Blazers, I'm surprised at how many of you like the deal, maybe just blind hatred for Z-Bo. I'm willing to trade Zach, but not for this crappy deal.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> No, Maris is right. Guys like Nash, Nowitski, Gasol, and Rodriguez are only in the NBA because they are white. It's been proven time and again that black athletes don't appeal to white America. When is the last time you saw a black athlete get a shoe endorsment? It's just a plain fact that white americans will not support professional sport teams if the majority if their players are black.
> 
> This racism sickens me, when will we ever change?


Puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

You're comparing Nocioni to the likes of Nash, Nowitski, Gasol, and Rodriguez?

Since the ONLY thing he has in common with that group is skin color, thanks for proving my point, which was NOT that white players are in the NBA because they are white. Obviously they all, including Nocioni, have talent, or they'd never get there.

But Nocioni, and to a much lesser extent Gasol, get exagerrated accolades from white fans simply because they are white. Nocioni is an average role player at best, and a pretty inconsistent defender.

He'd never find a solid spot in our rotation.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> But Nocioni, and to a much lesser extent Gasol, get exagerrated accolades from white fans simply because they are white.


Again with the racism. Please cut it out. You're suggesting that white fans would rather cheer for white players, and are blinded to the shorcomings of such players because they are white. Surely you can see that that's a racist assumption.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

id do the chicago deal in a heartbeat, i love gordon so i dont care if we get to keep him for longer but roy might have to play the 3 next year


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Again with the racism. Please cut it out. You're suggesting that white fans would rather cheer for white players, and are blinded to the shorcomings of such players because they are white. Surely you can see that that's a racist assumption.


I'd say it's a pretty accurate portrayal of the opinions in this thread, where posters are suggesting a Zach for Nocioni trade.

If you think that's a fair trade based solely on the talent and skills of each player then all I can say is I need some change. Could you give me 2 ten dollar bills for a five?

To suggest that white, black, or asian fans don't identify more with players with similarities to them is disingenious.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Again with the racism. Please cut it out. You're suggesting that white fans would rather cheer for white players, and are blinded to the shorcomings of such players because they are white. Surely you can see that that's a racist assumption.


While I completely agree it's a racist assumption, it's possible, even likely, that he's right for at least a percentage of NBA fans. My hope is that it'd be a very small percentage. 

Also, the kids I teach every day are nearly all white split roughly 50/50 by gender, and I'd guess that 2/3s of the boys follow college and/or pro basketball and at least a 1/4 of the girls do as well. The players they speak of idolizing don't seem to particularly follow trends of skin color, for what it's worth.

While there'll probably always be racism, hopefully in another generation or two conversations like this will have de/evolved such that they either don't exist or sound very different.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I'd say it's a pretty accurate portrayal of the opinions in this thread, where posters are suggesting a Zach for Nocioni trade.
> 
> If you think that's a fair trade based solely on the talent and skills of each player then all I can say is I need some change.


Right or wrong, (and I don't think we can know which yet), some fans are of the opinion that Zach's short-comings come close to outweighing his longer-comings, to the point that some would argue moving him for that same folding chair Patterson once wanted for Damon wouldn't be a bad idea. It's Zach's presence that keeps Nate focused on slowing the tempo, it's Zach's lack of defense that keeps the other bigs in foul trouble, it's Zach's presence that's keeping Aldridge (supposedly already Zach's superior in defense and soon to be on offense as well) from developing, etc. 

Regardless of the degree of accurateness these opinions have, surely you can see there are sufficient reasons to think along these lines that you don't have to turn to something like race?

Anyway, for those of us at the extreme, having Zach come down with a head cold that lasts for a week or two might well be a fine thing -- get him out of the way and see how the team does without him. For those who already firmly believe that just having him gone would be an improvement, getting a guy like Nicioni back would be a pretty grand bonus -- most of us seem to be in agreement that SF and outside shooting is a problem. And even if Nocioni's no better a defender than Zach, at least when his man starts going off Ime or Brandon could be moved to cover. Right now, when Zach's guy is lighting it up the options are LaMarcus and.... Travis? Joel?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> A few posters on realgm have heard some rumors as of late.
> 
> First one came from 1080 yesterday saying that there has been a lot of interest in Sergio Rodriguez and the Blazers have been recieving some "incredible" offers for him. As to what "incredible" means, that's all up to interpretation.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't do it. Gordon is another undersized scoring guard. I've never been a fan of that type of player. I also hate the idea of moving Brandon Roy out of his natural position. Brandon is playing great. Let's not mess with that.

I also would rather not go big to small if we trade Zach. At the very least I would trade him for a small forward, not a guard. Andrei Kirilenko would be ideal. I don't care if AK is scoring 20 a game. His defense would more than make up for any lack of scoring. 

How mean would a lineup of: 

Sergio
Roy
Kirilenko
Aldridge
Przybilla

What if it was a threeway. Zach to Chicago, Gordon/Nocioni to Utah, Kirilenko to Portland. I think I'd do that deal.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (Jun 29, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> I'd say it's a pretty accurate portrayal of the opinions in this thread, where posters are suggesting a Zach for Nocioni trade.
> 
> If you think that's a fair trade based solely on the talent and skills of each player then all I can say is I need some change. Could you give me 2 ten dollar bills for a five?
> 
> To suggest that white, black, or asian fans don't identify more with players with similarities to them is disingenious.


That's crap - Speak for yourself. Nobody's suggesting Nocioni is equal to Zach. The fact is, Zach is a max $$ player with a history of off-the-court problems who has some signigant holes in his game. Namely, defense and spreading the ball around. Plus, it looks like we have another future stud PF in LA. I'm a white male and I can tell you honestly that I'll "Identify" with whatever racial make-up we have on the roster that wins games, conducts themselves professionally, and plays hard. End of story.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> I wouldn't do it. Gordon is another undersized scoring guard. I've never been a fan of that type of player. I also hate the idea of moving Brandon Roy out of his natural position. Brandon is playing great. Let's not mess with that.
> 
> I also would rather not go big to small if we trade Zach. At the very least I would trade him for a small forward, not a guard. Andrei Kirilenko would be ideal. I don't care if AK is scoring 20 a game. His defense would more than make up for any lack of scoring.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't do it either. Gordon, while a pretty good scorer, doesn't strike me as the kind of difference maker that would put us over the hump.

Aside from that, we already have our future at the 2 in Brandon Roy. If anything, I'd rather get back Loul Deng than Ben Gordon.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

NateBishop3 said:


> I wouldn't do it. Gordon is another undersized scoring guard. I've never been a fan of that type of player. I also hate the idea of moving Brandon Roy out of his natural position. Brandon is playing great. Let's not mess with that.
> 
> I also would rather not go big to small if we trade Zach. At the very least I would trade him for a small forward, not a guard. Andrei Kirilenko would be ideal. I don't care if AK is scoring 20 a game. His defense would more than make up for any lack of scoring.
> 
> ...


i'd do that in a second.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I'd say it's a pretty accurate portrayal of the opinions in this thread, where posters are suggesting a Zach for Nocioni trade.
> 
> If you think that's a fair trade based solely on the talent and skills of each player then all I can say is I need some change.


A few questions for you, MARIS61.

1. Do you think that eventually, either Roy or Aldridge will be max-money types of players?

2. Is Zach Randolph good enough to build the team around?

3. Do you think Randolph is capable of being a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option once the kids grow up?

4. Is a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option type of player worth 13-17 million per year over the next 4 years?

Because while management has a ton of financial resources at its disposal, it must structure the payroll with a degree of sense. 

I'm not saying that we should dump Zach's salary, I'm just not sure he'll be as important in the years to come, with Roy, Aldridge (and maybe Martell or our pick) being the heavy producers for the team.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Yes, yes, yes, and yes.


I'm certainly glad you're not in charge of the Blazers.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

We'd still have our playoff string going if I was.

I guess you like losing.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> I wouldn't do it. Gordon is another undersized scoring guard. I've never been a fan of that type of player.


Um, better change your Avatar then. Unless it's ironic.

However, I agree that short SGs are not ideal, although I wouldn't say no to either of Wade or Arenas (tonight's game notwithstanding). And didn't Gordon lead the league in 4th quarter scoring in his rookie year? I think, overall, I WOULD do that deal. Nocioni was great against Miami in the playoffs last year. (In six games he shot 56%, scored 22.3 ppg and averaged 8.8 rbs. His season averages were 46%, 13 ppg and 6.1 rpg.) But perhaps it would be nice to have a trade for Gordon lined up.



> I also hate the idea of moving Brandon Roy out of his natural position. Brandon is playing great. Let's not mess with that.


Agreed, although he does handle the ball a lot. I say have Gordon come off the bench. He's used to it, after all, and we want Sergio to start.



> I also would rather not go big to small if we trade Zach. At the very least I would trade him for a small forward, not a guard. Andrei Kirilenko would be ideal. I don't care if AK is scoring 20 a game. His defense would more than make up for any lack of scoring.


Hmm - I guess you regard Nocioni as a "throw in". He's actually a SF who can play PF when called on because he's TOUGH. I share your love of AK47 - both as a player and as a person (apparently he worked out for himself that Amaechi was gay when he was teammates with him and let him know he was totally okay with it - plus there's the whole reading novels thing) but there's no way Utah touches Zach, and besides, AK is worryingly brittle.



> What if it was a threeway. Zach to Chicago, Gordon/Nocioni to Utah, Kirilenko to Portland. I think I'd do that deal.


Remember that Jack is supposed to be part of it. I guess I'd do the deal you suggest too, but mainly because I think getting rid of Zach is addition by subtraction. Think of the alleys that Sergio could oop to Kirilenko...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

The more I think about this the more interesting it becomes to me. Nocioni is _not_ the defender that AK is, but he'd fill a great need -- outside shooting. The Bird rights would be important but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't transfer and starting on a young and improving time might well be attractive to him.

As for Gordon, he could move into Dixon's role of first guard off the bench -- he and Roy could play together at least as well as Roy and Dixon are, I'd guess, and even those not excited about Gordon would be crazy to claim Dixon's the better player of the two.

HQ would have some work to do to strengthen the front line for next year -- Aldridge and Przybilla could start together and there'd be Outlaw, LaFrentz, and maaaaybe Miles who could play some 4 (if he ever plays again for the Blazers or otherwise) but having a team built for speed with a guard rotation of Rodriguez, Roy, and Gordon and small forwards of Nocioni, Webster, and Udoka would be pretty fun.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

take Jack out of the deal.... and its ok

Zach for Brown/Nocioni or Deng is fine

and we need Jack more than we need Gordan

Roy is a SG... not a PG....

A Sergio and Jack combo is better than getting Gordan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> The Bird rights would be important but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't transfer and starting on a young and improving time might well be attractive to him.


This is his 3rd season w/ Chicago, so whoever has him after the trading deadline this year will have bird rights this summer.

barfo


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> ...we already have our future at the 2 in Brandon Roy. If anything, I'd rather get back Loul Deng than Ben Gordon.


:banana:


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would demand the NYK 1st round pick, since we are giving up Jarrett Jack along with ZBo. Maby expand the deal to....

Zach Randolph+Jarrett Jack+Travis Outlaw for PJ Brown+Ben Gordon+Andris Nocoini+Viktor Khryapa+NYK 1st round pick...


PG- Brandon Roy
SG- Ben Gordon
SF- Andris Nocoini
PF- LaMarcus Aldridge
C- Joel Pryzbilla

PG- Sergio Rodriguez
SG- Ime Udoka
SF- Martell Webster
F- Viktor Khryapa
PF/C- PJ Brown

Along with 2 picks in the lotto and 3 2nd rounders.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If Chicago were really willing to give us Nocioni and Gordon I'd try to make it a three way that results in us getting Pau Gasol.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Im pretty sure if that package could get Gasol, Chicago would just cut us out.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I would demand the NYK 1st round pick, since we are giving up Jarrett Jack along with ZBo. Maby expand the deal to....
> 
> Zach Randolph+Jarrett Jack+Travis Outlaw for PJ Brown+Ben Gordon+Andris Nocoini+Viktor Khryapa+NYK 1st round pick...
> 
> ...


I would prefer....
PG-Sergio Rodriguez
SG-Brandon Roy
SF-Martell Webster
PF-LaMarcus Aldridge
C- Joel Przybilla

Bench
PG-Ben Gordon
SG-Ime Udoka
SF-Andres Noccioni
PF-Travis Outlaw(I wouldn't add him in the deal)
C-PJ Brown(or draft/fa pickup)

Our bench would be SICK. plus Gordon,Roy can both play combo guard and Martell could be a 2 as well. We'd haev a lot of versitility.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i'd trade randolph because of what the cap relief might mean in the future towards signing our young players, but i don't consider jack a throw in. wouldn't want to underestimate jack's potential - he has showed several flashes of brilliance this year, had an off game against the bobcats and still looked like a better, quicker player than felton, and could easily be a year or two's worth of experience & confidence away from being a more valuable all-around player than anyone we'd get back from the bulls, including gordon. i really like the potential future of a roy/sergio/jack 3 man rotation getting most/all of the guard minutes.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

meru said:


> Um, better change your Avatar then. Unless it's ironic.
> 
> However, I agree that short SGs are not ideal, although I wouldn't say no to either of Wade or Arenas (tonight's game notwithstanding). And didn't Gordon lead the league in 4th quarter scoring in his rookie year? I think, overall, I WOULD do that deal. Nocioni was great against Miami in the playoffs last year. (In six games he shot 56%, scored 22.3 ppg and averaged 8.8 rbs. His season averages were 46%, 13 ppg and 6.1 rpg.) But perhaps it would be nice to have a trade for Gordon lined up.
> 
> ...


The avatar is actually two years old. Just never changed it. And Bassy is still my boy, not because of the type of player he is but because of the person he is. Really cool guy. I miss talking to him.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> ...
> 
> 4. Is a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option type of player worth 13-17 million per year over the next 4 years?
> 
> ...


Take a look at the team salaries around the league, and it's uncommon for a good team to not have more than one 8 figure player. Phoenix and NJ have three each.

And what makes you think either Roy or Aldridge can replace Zach's production on offense? Roy is pretty good, and as a guard he could possibly be option 1a with Zach, as he is now, but he can't do it alone. And Aldridge is mostly just a jump shooter and a garbage guy. I can't say he won't ever be capable of being a first or option player, but I also don't see any good reason to expect it. So far he projects to be more like a Marcus Camby type, who plays good defense, moves well, hits open jumpers and is capable of scoring, but doesn't initiate the offense and probably couldn't be counted on to do so if we wanted.

What that type of player is good at though is complimenting a more offensively capable and perhaps defensively challenged big man, like oh ... Zach Randolph. He's the only guy on the team who commands double teams and has _any_ post moves, so unless there is some other really major personnel move that changes, the things he does can't be replicated by the other guys presently on our roster.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Take a look at the team salaries around the league, and it's uncommon for a good team to not have more than one 8 figure player. Phoenix and NJ have three each.
> 
> And what makes you think either Roy or Aldridge can replace Zach's production on offense? Roy is pretty good, and as a guard he could possibly be option 1a with Zach, as he is now, but he can't do it alone. And Aldridge is mostly just a jump shooter and a garbage guy. I can't say he won't ever be capable of being a first or option player, but I also don't see any good reason to expect it. So far he projects to be more like a Marcus Camby type, who plays good defense, moves well, hits open jumpers and is capable of scoring, but doesn't initiate the offense and probably couldn't be counted on to do so if we wanted.
> 
> What that type of player is good at though is complimenting a more offensively capable and perhaps defensively challenged big man, like oh ... Zach Randolph. He's the only guy on the team who commands double teams and has _any_ post moves, so unless there is some other really major personnel move that changes, the things he does can't be replicated by the other guys presently on our roster.


QFT


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Take a look at the team salaries around the league, and it's uncommon for a good team to not have more than one 8 figure player. Phoenix and NJ have three each.
> 
> And what makes you think either Roy or Aldridge can replace Zach's production on offense? Roy is pretty good, and as a guard he could possibly be option 1a with Zach, as he is now, but he can't do it alone. And Aldridge is mostly just a jump shooter and a garbage guy. I can't say he won't ever be capable of being a first or option player, but I also don't see any good reason to expect it. So far he projects to be more like a Marcus Camby type, who plays good defense, moves well, hits open jumpers and is capable of scoring, but doesn't initiate the offense and probably couldn't be counted on to do so if we wanted.
> 
> What that type of player is good at though is complimenting a more offensively capable and perhaps defensively challenged big man, like oh ... Zach Randolph. He's the only guy on the team who commands double teams and has _any_ post moves, so unless there is some other really major personnel move that changes, the things he does can't be replicated by the other guys presently on our roster.


In a nutshell. :worthy:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> And what makes you think either Roy or Aldridge can replace Zach's production on offense?


No offense (and I hate phrasing things like this), but what makes you think that they can't? Both Roy and Aldridge have surpassed my expectations this year. 



dudleysghost said:


> Roy is pretty good, and as a guard he could possibly be option 1a with Zach, as he is now, but he can't do it alone. And Aldridge is mostly just a jump shooter and a garbage guy.


I think eventually, the combo of Roy and Aldridge might be. Remember, they said the same things about Randolph (re: garbage putbacks) when he first started playing minutes in '03. 



dudleysghost said:


> I can't say he won't ever be capable of being a first or option player, but I also don't see any good reason to expect it. So far he projects to be more like a Marcus Camby type, who plays good defense, moves well, hits open jumpers and is capable of scoring, but doesn't initiate the offense and probably couldn't be counted on to do so if we wanted.


At the same time, Portland has done very little to involve LaMarcus Aldridge in the offense. It's like asking a moon to break free of an orbit when it's rotating a gigantic planet (in this case Randupiter). When Aldridge has played with Zach, it was his game. When Aldridge has played with Sergio, it was his game. The guy is a little rough around the edges, but big men take 1-2 years to really blossom, and the things we've already seen from LaMarcus have been encouraging. 

A knack for rebounding? 
Check. 
A jumper? 
Check (range out to 20!)
Ability to finish around the rim?
Check.

I know you want to see that killer instinct, and maybe a scowl, but we're just not there yet with him. I don't have any reason to believe we won't see a lot more of what we've already seen, though. He projects well. 

HS Coach who coached he and Bosh: He'll be better than Bosh.

Bobby Medina: He'll add weight better/quicker than Jermaine.

That's good stuff.



dudleysghost said:


> What that type of player is good at though is complimenting a more offensively capable and perhaps defensively challenged big man, like oh ... Zach Randolph. He's the only guy on the team who commands double teams and has _any_ post moves, so unless there is some other really major personnel move that changes, the things he does can't be replicated by the other guys presently on our roster.


I agree with that, but it's really hard to say what we have in Roy and Aldridge until we plug them into a system that's less Zach-centric. Right now we're seeing Zach as a #1. And he's pretty good. His production, replicated another season, will make him an all-star. 

But the question remains: Zach may be able to get his, but can he ever be apart of a system bigger than he? Do we still want to build around this guy? Can he ever increase his efficiency to the point where he's making the people around him *significantly* better?

That remains to be seen.

My initial comments, BTW, were more related to salaries. I don't think we need to necessarily do a salary dump with Zach, but will Portland be getting 15m worth of player down the road?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> In a nutshell. :worthy:


Dudley's making a good argument -- I'll be interested to see how people counter it. In the meantime, one might note that the argument is made entirely without reference to skin color.

Myself, I see your point, Dudley but at risk of sounding like MM, I'm thinking I'd still rather see Zach moved _if_ the move brings back a sufficient amount of: outside shooting; speed; defense; and ball-handling. Ignoring the draft for a moment, as that's such a long shot, I'd think that AK (if he can be had) and Aldridge will, two or three years from now, be a better starting forward combination than Zach and Udoka or Webster. Now, there are, of course, other ways of improving the roster, including trades that don't involve Zach. But he's the most valuable player on the roster that I, personally, would be willing to move outside of some knock-all-our-socks-off deal.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> I would prefer....
> PG-Sergio Rodriguez
> SG-Brandon Roy
> SF-Martell Webster
> ...


That's kind of what I was thinking, although I'd prefer to have Nocioni starting over Martell for this season at least. The problem is, with this scenario, it seems as if Nocioni isn't given a very large role. If we're trading Jack and Zach for Gordon (who I agree, should come off the bench as a spark and so Sergio can start), and to give Noc a reduced role, it almost seems as if we're just inheriting Gordon out of it after a couple of years. We already have players that can be role players at SF (Outlaw, Martell, Udoka). I don't know how I feel about this. I love getting Gordon, but I'm a bit hesitant looking down the road.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Even if Noc leavs us, we take a huge salary dump by getting rid of Mags,PJ,Zach,Jack, Nocc and only taking on Ben Gordon.....not too bad.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> Even if Noc leavs us, we take a huge salary dump by getting rid of Mags,PJ,Zach,Jack, Nocc and only taking on Ben Gordon.....not too bad.


True. I guess I'm just a wimp when it comes to looking down the road.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Even if Noc leavs us, we take a huge salary dump by getting rid of Mags,PJ,Zach,Jack, Nocc and only taking on Ben Gordon.....not too bad.


I'm not convinced a huge salary dump helps that much. Even in the height of the Drexler era, who joined the team via free agency? Ainge maybe? While I wouldn't mind moving Zach, I don't want to just clear his salary either. 

And really, Zach's a rare player who's both good enough to bring something significant back and who's got enough issues and/or is enough out of sync. with the potential of the rest of the team that I'd not shed a tear over losing him. So all that said, if I were GM for a day (or season or two) I'd look for a trade that'd bring back someone (or someones, but ideally a single player) who really looks like a missing piece. I'd be okay with losing some value... that's gonna happen. But I'd look for someone who could really be a difference maker, nonetheless.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

For those reading this thread way in the future, the Blazers won their last two games before this thread.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

I'm sorry, but I would hate this trade.

Portland trades - Randolph, Jack

Chicago trades - Gordon, Nocioni, Brown

We trade two of our three most effective starters. We receive an undersized SG (Roy's best position), a decent 28 year old SF who is eligible for FA, and an expiring deal.

Blech.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah

the draft has several good sf and many good pfs


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

How about  this  idea? Portland would obviously waive a few players. I wanted to send out Stephen Jackson instead of Richardson (because Golden State would have too many SGs), but that wouldn't work. Maybe New York sends the Warriors a pick?

Or the  simple  version, but that leaves the Warriors with a bit of a scoring guard logjam.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

#10 said:


> How about  this  idea? Portland would obviously waive a few players. I wanted to send out Stephen Jackson instead of Richardson (because Golden State would have too many SGs), but that wouldn't work. Maybe New York sends the Warriors a pick?
> 
> Or the  simple  version, but that leaves the Warriors with a bit of a scoring guard logjam.



I'm a huge Biedrins fan but I don't think the deal provides enough to the Blazers. I think if Portland can get Biedrins along with another nice peice such as a top 8 pick they would listen close. Biedrins is a young underrated player that I'd love to acquire.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I see a lot of people complaining about this not being a fair trade for Portland. I'd like to point out the 76ers. They traded a bona fide superstar. One who dominated the ball, shot a ton, and was the focal point of the offense. Since the trade they have been playing better as a team, most of their other players have become better as a result of his absence, and the team is in a better financial possition.


I'm not saying this will happen for Portland, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. 


The Wizards board had a game thread and a few idiots were bashing Portland about the jailblazer image. Trading Zach would make these dumb comments go away. It has taken this frnachise a long time to rid itself of an image that a few individuals caused. Right or wrong getting rid of Zach helps propelthis franchise forward in the eyes of the NBA world.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I see a lot of people complaining about this not being a fair trade for Portland. I'd like to point out the 76ers. They traded a bona fide superstar. One who dominated the ball, shot a ton, and was the focal point of the offense. Since the trade they have been playing better as a team, most of their other players have become better as a result of his absence, and the team is in a better financial possition.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying this will happen for Portland, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.
> ...


Philly got much more talent in their trade than is being suggested for us here. And they traded a guy at the end of his street.

And except for, as you called them, *a few idiots*, literally nobody talks about the Jailblazers anymore. Ancient history as far as the NBA is concerned.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Philly got much more talent in their trade than is being suggested for us here. And they traded a guy at the end of his street.
> 
> And except for, as you called them, *a few idiots*, literally nobody talks about the Jailblazers anymore. Ancient history as far as the NBA is concerned.



Nocioni and Gordon are easily better value than Andre Miller and Joe Smith. They also traded a guy without the rap sheet Zach has. 


It isn't just a few idiots by the way. Almost daily you can read some reporter referring to us as the Jailblazers. To all of us it is old news, but to the rest of the country there is still that perseption. people here in Houston still refer to them as the Jailblazers as well. Which is great because I remind them that Bonzi was a big reason for that


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> No offense (and I hate phrasing things like this), but what makes you think that they can't? Both Roy and Aldridge have surpassed my expectations this year.
> 
> I think eventually, the combo of Roy and Aldridge might be. Remember, they said the same things about Randolph (re: garbage putbacks) when he first started playing minutes in '03.
> 
> ...


It isn't killer instinct or scowl I want to see from Aldridge. To appoint him as a future first option type guy, he needs a lot more than the stuff you mentioned. He needs to be able to hold post position. Then he needs some post moves, like a sweeping hook, spin moves finishing with both hands, a turnaround jumper ... stuff like that. In addition, or instead, he could develop a face-up game, with a high release jumper and the ability to put the ball on the floor and drive to the hoop. Also, if he is really going to be a primary guy, he needs to draw double teams, recognize them, and pass out of them or split them and finish with efficiency.

Right now, Zach does almost all those things pretty well, and except the nice jumper/turnaround jumper, Aldridge does none of them that I've seen. You asked what makes me think he won't develop into a guy who can replace Zach's offense ... and I said before that I don't think he _can't_, but I haven't seen nearly enough to believe that he _will_, or will even come close. We can project any future we want onto an athletic young prospect, but think about how rare it is for a player to realize potential that is projected so high. There are maybe 10 guys in the NBA with post games even comparable to Zach's, out of all the promising young prospects who entered the league in the last 12 years or so. It could happen to Aldridge, but we really can't count those chickens before they've hatched.

Now, you also asked about Roy too, and I think Roy is really good and will continue to get better, but no matter how good he is I don't think that alone makes Zach expendable. Roy is a guard, and Zach's a big man, and having a great one of each makes an offense really deadly. If Roy continues to increase his production, I don't see that as replacing Zach, I see it as complimenting it. If we could get another big man who drew double teams and still could score in bunches, _then_ we'd have a replacement for Zach (and then I'd have no problem at all with a Zach trade for value), but none of our other big men look anything like that right now. Not even close really.



Samuel said:


> I agree with that, but it's really hard to say what we have in Roy and Aldridge until we plug them into a system that's less Zach-centric.


This part I just disagree with. Yes, Zach is the main focus of the offense, but there are still plenty of opportunities for other players to produce. By my count (and yes, I did actually count), Zach plays roughly 3/4ths of each game, he touches the ball on about 2/5ths of the plays when he's in, and ends up shooting 1/3rd of the time, for a total of 1/4th of the team's total shots. What that means is that 3/4ths of the shots come from other players, and on 7/10ths of the team's possessions _he doesn't even touch the ball_. If Aldridge isn't showing any post skills, it isn't Zach's fault, although LMA seems like his overall development is going well. Anyway, if LMA wants to be a primary cog in the offense, he needs to work on those skills I mentioned previously _in practice_. And Roy seems to play great with Zach, so I don't think Zach is holding him back either.



Samuel said:


> But the question remains: Zach may be able to get his, but can he ever be apart of a system bigger than he? Do we still want to build around this guy? Can he ever increase his efficiency to the point where he's making the people around him *significantly* better?
> 
> That remains to be seen.


I agree, there is uncertainty. While you give the young guys the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to develop into stars, I give Zach the same regarding his ability to be a good part of a bigger better system, although I'm not 100% certain. Zach did play pretty well with guys like Pippin controlling the ball, and Sabonis in the high post. His 20-10 year was playing with 4 other double digit scorers most of the year. He had and still has major holes in his game, but he's worked on them and made huge improvement in every year he's been in the league except the one after his knee went out. Zach has a lot to work on; making quicker decisions/moves when he receives the ball, passing out of double teams to guys so they are in a position to score, keeping up the defensive energy when his shot isn't falling or if he isn't getting touches, setting better screens ...

But it does remain to be seen. Will Zach learn to do those things? Can any other big man be a primary scorer? Can Aldridge bulk up enough to play starting C? Which of our many young guys will develop into real rotation players, and what positions will they be best at? Is Sergio so good that it makes sense to make this a running team that Zach can't fit in? Is Sergio not good enough to learn to execute in a half-court style that utilizes Zach? These are all unknowns at this point, in my mind, and I don't think we should send out a rare talent like Zach unless we are getting something really great in return.

Right now, the team is gelling and the roster is such that the young guys are getting a good amount of minutes in roles they are well-suited to fill. It just makes the most sense to me to stand pat and see how they develop, so we know what we really have and how it fits together. It seems premature to try to jigger the roster to make things fit together better when we don't even know what kind of players the many young guys we have will eventually be.



Samuel said:


> My initial comments, BTW, were more related to salaries. I don't think we need to necessarily do a salary dump with Zach, but will Portland be getting 15m worth of player down the road?


This is a fair question. I don't think we'll ever be under the salary cap, but we probably do have to stay under the lux tax, so salary is an issue, and Zach makes a lot. Keep in mind though, that the NBA rate of inflation has been something like 6-8% per year, so Zach's 17 mil in 2010 is not the same as 17 mil today. Still, he is expensive, and he is fairly one (or two) dimensional. Is he worth it? Maybe. It depends on how well he fits with the team around him, and as I said before, it's hard to know that when the young guys around him haven't really solidfied what kind of players they will be. Right now though, he's our only dominant big man on offense, so I'm content to stand pat.

Kevin Pritchard was on Quick chat last week and said essentially the same thing about Zach and about sticking with the team we have, so I expect that to be the actual strategy of Blazers management as well.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I see a lot of people complaining about this not being a fair trade for Portland. I'd like to point out the 76ers. They traded a bona fide superstar. One who dominated the ball, shot a ton, and was the focal point of the offense. Since the trade they have been playing better as a team, most of their other players have become better as a result of his absence, and the team is in a better financial possition.
> 
> I'm not saying this will happen for Portland, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.


I think that is the sentiment of many people in here, who want Zach traded, but I disagree that the team gets better without Zach. There are some big differences between the two situations.

The main one is position. Zach is a big man, and Iverson is a guard. Guards are the ones who mainly control the ball and the flow of the offense. As I said in the above post, Zach only touches the ball on 3 out of 10 possessions for the team. Can anyone really blame Zach if a player then doesn't develop? By contrast, Iverson plays and amazing 43 mpg, and touches the ball on almost _every possession_. He controlls something like 8 or 9 of every 10 possessions. It's a lot more frustrating playing with a black-hole point guard than a black-hole post player, because you can control the touches of the post player by choosing when to pass to him.

Also, Philly clearly had guys who were being stifled by playing with Iverson, particularly Andre Igoudala. AI and AI2 are both the kind of players who function best by controlling the ball, and they couldn't share it well. Looking at the Blazers, I just don't see that. Zach doesn't dominate the ball anything like AI does (3/10ths << 8/10ths), and as far as I can see, all our young guys do seem to be in roles that suit their abilities and their stages of development.

Who's role would really change with Zach out? Aldridge is about the only one, but he just isn't ready to assume that post-scorer and starting PF role that Zach currently fills, so it doesn't seem like a beneficial change. Right now Aldridge can play C and some backup PF, focusing on defense, rebounding and scoring opportunistically in games, and if he develops some real post moves or ability to score face-up in isolation, then he still has time to show it even with Zach on the team.



mediocre man said:


> The Wizards board had a game thread and a few idiots were bashing Portland about the jailblazer image. Trading Zach would make these dumb comments go away. It has taken this frnachise a long time to rid itself of an image that a few individuals caused. Right or wrong getting rid of Zach helps propelthis franchise forward in the eyes of the NBA world.


How many Blazers games do you think those guys on the Wizards board, b-ball fans in Houston, or even the sportswriters you mentioned actually watch? I can tell you, it's not many, if any. People talk about the JailBlazers because that's all they know about the Blazers, because they haven't paid attention to them since that time. I hope and believe that Blazers management gives zero weight to the voices of those who don't pay to see the team and don't know anything about them.

The rep of the team is important, because the fans at home have to like the team to buy tickets, but with the surge in ticket sales they have seen this season, I don't think that's a problem. Zach is a risk to do something dumb and get bad press and piss off fans, but losing games pisses off the fans even more, so I'm betting management isn't going to move Zach unless he gets in some real trouble or if they get a really great offer.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> I think that is the sentiment of many people in here, who want Zach traded, but I disagree that the team gets better without Zach. There are some big differences between the two situations.
> 
> The main one is position. Zach is a big man, and Iverson is a guard. Guards are the ones who mainly control the ball and the flow of the offense. As I said in the above post, Zach only touches the ball on 3 out of 10 possessions for the team. Can anyone really blame Zach if a player then doesn't develop? By contrast, Iverson plays and amazing 43 mpg, and touches the ball on almost _every possession_. He controlls something like 8 or 9 of every 10 possessions. It's a lot more frustrating playing with a black-hole point guard than a black-hole post player, because you can control the touches of the post player by choosing when to pass to him.
> 
> ...



Zach touches the ball on 3 out of every 10 possessions? The Blazers average possessions per game is one of the lowest in the NBA, and Zach's shots per game along with FT's per game are one of the highest in the NBA.....This doesn't really make a lot of sense. 

Aldridge isn't the only player who would benefit either. Roy, Jack, Martell, Sergio, Outlaw, Joel....all players would because the ball movement would be so much better.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Zach touches the ball on 3 out of every 10 possessions? The Blazers average possessions per game is one of the lowest in the NBA, and Zach's shots per game along with FT's per game are one of the highest in the NBA.....This doesn't really make a lot of sense.
> 
> Aldridge isn't the only player who would benefit either. Roy, Jack, Martell, Sergio, Outlaw, Joel....all players would because the ball movement would be so much better.


I know, it's interesting, isn't it? With all the talk about how Zach dominates the offense in here and nobody else can do anything, you'd think it was actually true. But it's amazing the things you learn, the factual things, when you sit down with a pen and paper, making categorized tally marks for each possession, and watch a few games.

From doing that, I learned that Zach even touches the ball on less than half of the possessions when he's in the game, and ends up shooting or turning the ball over on only 1 out of every 3 team possessions in that time (which is just under 3/4ths of the total game time).

It's kind of amusing that you have a hard time believing it though, but it shouldn't be that hard. Think about this: have you noticed that Zach shoots the ball on the vast majority of possessions where he touches it? Yes he sure does. Now look at the stat sheet. His total FGA are 1/4th of the team's total, meaning if he shoots most of the time he touches it, he _can't possibly_ be getting the ball on most of the team's possessions. If you really don't believe me though, count for yourself, and prepare to be surprised.

Which is exactly why I think the theory that Zach is holding everyone back is bogus. If our other guys really did have that much offensive ability, they have ample regular opportunities to show it. If they don't, they can't really blame Zach.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> I know, it's interesting, isn't it? With all the talk about how Zach dominates the offense in here and nobody else can do anything, you'd think it was actually true. But it's amazing the things you learn, the factual things, when you sit down with a pen and paper, making categorized tally marks for each possession, and watch a few games.
> 
> From doing that, I learned that Zach even touches the ball on less than half of the possessions when he's in the game, and ends up shooting or turning the ball over on only 1 out of every 3 team possessions in that time (which is just under 3/4ths of the total game time).
> 
> ...



Zach shoots the ball about 19 1/2 times per game. This doesn't include FT's either, or that number would be much higher. Remember a shot doesn't count if it's missed and the player is fouled. The Blazers as a team shoot less than 80 times per game. To me that's dominating the ball. So he shoots about every 1 1/2 minutes when he's on the floor. The next closest player to Zach is Brandon Roy who shoots about every 3 minutes he's on the floor. Even Juan on 5 Dixon averages a shot every 3 minutes. Zach absolutely dominates the ball.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Zach shoots the ball about 19 1/2 times per game. This doesn't include FT's either, or that number would be much higher. Remember a shot doesn't count if it's missed and the player is fouled. The Blazers as a team shoot less than 80 times per game. To me that's dominating the ball. So he shoots about every 1 1/2 minutes when he's on the floor. The next closest player to Zach is Brandon Roy who shoots about every 3 minutes he's on the floor. Even Juan on 5 Dixon averages a shot every 3 minutes. Zach absolutely dominates the ball.


Yeah, Zach is our primary scoring option, and the next ones are far behind.

But that doesn't change the fact that Zach _doesn't even touch the ball on 7 out of every 10 possessions_. Is that "dominating the ball"?

Call it what you will, but the point is, which you don't seem to deny or acknowledge, is that the rest of the team has plenty of chances to do things on offense. Zach doesn't control every possession. 7 out of 10 possessions are not Zach at all. Can Zach dominate the ball without touching it somehow?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> I would prefer....
> PG-Sergio Rodriguez
> SG-Brandon Roy
> SF-Martell Webster
> ...


I don't think you can even consider trading Zach until LaMarcus has developed a low post game or Joel has proven the ability to be effective in more than 15 min/game.

I think Gordon and Nocioni are a bad fit for this current Blazer team. I would stand pat over taking that deal.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, Zach is our primary scoring option, and the next ones are far behind.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that Zach _doesn't even touch the ball on 7 out of every 10 possessions_. Is that "dominating the ball"?
> 
> Call it what you will, but the point is, which you don't seem to deny or acknowledge, is that the rest of the team has plenty of chances to do things on offense. Zach doesn't control every possession. 7 out of 10 possessions are not Zach at all. Can Zach dominate the ball without touching it somehow?



Zach shoots the ball nearly 30% of the time, and certainly that much when he's on the floor. Since he doesn't shoot every time down the floor, he must touch the ball on more than 30% of the possessions....minus fast breaks because he is too slow to touch the ball on those.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> I don't think you can even consider trading Zach until LaMarcus has developed a low post game or Joel has proven the ability to be effective in more than 15 min/game.
> 
> I think Gordon and Nocioni are a bad fit for this current Blazer team. I would stand pat over taking that deal.



Are they a bad fit because they are both good shooters, solid citizens, or smart ball players?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Zach shoots the ball nearly 30% of the time, and certainly that much when he's on the floor. Since he doesn't shoot every time down the floor, he must touch the ball on more than 30% of the possessions....minus fast breaks because he is too slow to touch the ball on those.



Zach does shoot the ball better than anyone else on the team . . . and half the time he is double or triple teamed.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Zach does shoot the ball better than anyone else on the team . . . and half the time he is double or triple teamed.




You won't get any argument from me there. He is a very good shooter and scorer


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

meanwhile.. back at the ranch...

any good rumors????


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Trader Bob said:


> meanwhile.. back at the ranch...
> 
> any good rumors????



Kidd going to LA . . .


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Zach shoots the ball nearly 30% of the time, and certainly that much when he's on the floor. Since he doesn't shoot every time down the floor, he must touch the ball on more than 30% of the possessions....minus fast breaks because he is too slow to touch the ball on those.


Zach shoots the ball or turns it over on about 25% of the team's possessions, and he shoots the ball or turns it over on the vast majority of times he touches the ball. Overall he touches the ball on about 30% of the team's total possessions, as much as you hate to accect it. I could be a little off though, with a small sample size, maybe it's a whole 35%. 

But the point is, whether you are able to acknowledge it or not (and it seems not), that Zach doesn't even touch the ball on most of the Blazers possessions, so there are many opportunities for other players to do things in our supposed Zach-centric offense. That's nowhere comparable to a guy playing with a guy like Iverson, who probably touches the ball on 80-90% of his team's possessions. If players have the ability to score, they have the chances, even playing on the same team with Zach.

Continue to deny it if you wish, but if you are really curious, go ahead and count for yourself and prepare to be startled by the result.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

30% of the total teams "touches", or 30% when he's not in the game?

Because I'd bet that if you took Juan (shot a minute) Dixons overall %, it'd be disproportionate to the % amount when he's in the game.

In that the % in the game might be an issue vs when he's out. I don't know if Zach's minute distribution makes a difference here. What is the rest of the teams %'s?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Hap said:


> 30% of the total teams "touches", or 30% when he's not in the game?
> 
> Because I'd bet that if you took Juan (shot a minute) Dixons overall %, it'd be disproportionate to the % amount when he's in the game.
> 
> In that the % in the game might be an issue vs when he's out. I don't know if Zach's minute distribution makes a difference here. What is the rest of the teams %'s?


I didn't really follow your question, but I'll explain what I meant.

Zach touches the ball on about 30% of the team's total possessions.

Multiple players can and usually do touch the ball on any given possession. Every time the team gets the ball (from a opp made FG, rebound, steal or whatever), whether Zach is in or out, that's one possession.

I just recorded whether or not, in a simple yes or no, Zach touched the ball on any given possession for most of three games. If the ball touches his hand at any given time during the possession, that's a yes for that possession, whether he ends up shooting, turning it over, passing it off for an assist or not, whatever, it just counts as yes. If he touches the ball twice during a possession, it still counts as a single yes. I didn't count total touches, I just counted whether he touched it during a possession.

From my count, Zach touches the ball on 4 out of every 10 possessions when he is on the court. 6 out of every 10 possessions when his is on the court, the ball doesn't even go to him.

I didn't get an accurate count of the total team possessions in a game, but I think it's valid to extrapolate his fraction of touches per total team possessions based on his minutes played. Zach plays almost exactly 3/4ths of the total minutes. Multiplying that by the 4/10ths of team possessions Zach touches when he IS in the game, we get the convenient calculation (that's why I expressed it in fractions) of Zach touching 3/10ths of the team possessions. I think this extrapolation is valid because I'm assuming the pace of the game, in possessions per minute, is at least as high when Zach is out as when he is in. Even if it isn't, the final number won't be that much different.

I got the fact that Zach takes 1/4th of the team's shots from the stat sheet, since he has just under 1/4th of the total FGA. Of course, the FGA stat doesn't show when a player gets fouled and misses the shot. But again, we can estimate and extrapolate. Some free throws are two shot fouls, and some are and-1's, so it's difficult to get an true number for attempts. But of all the guys on the team, does anyone get a higher proportion of their free throws off and-1's than Zach? I doubt it, and if so, it isn't enough to make a huge difference in number like percentage of total team shot attempts. And Zach takes only 29% of the team's free throws, so the proportion there isn't much different anyways.


The point of all this, the reason I made the count, was to show that the other guys on the team do have opportunities to be part of the offense. When Zach does get the ball, he dominates it. Most of the time he touches it he eventually shoots it or turns it over. But Zach sits out 1/4th of each game, and he doesn't even touch the ball on 6/10ths of all possessions when he is in the game. How does he possibly dominate the ball and stifle the offensive development of the team when he doesn't even touch the ball? Even assuming that it were true that nobody can possibly function when Zach has the ball, most of the time he doesn't, so how could he possibly be such a hinderance?

edit: and sorry Hap, I didn't record the touches for other guys. That would have been way to many tallies to do at once...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Nocioni and Gordon are easily better value than Andre Miller and Joe Smith. They also traded a guy without the rap sheet Zach has.
> 
> 
> It isn't just a few idiots by the way. Almost daily you can read some reporter referring to us as the Jailblazers. To all of us it is old news, but to the rest of the country there is still that perseption. people here in Houston still refer to them as the Jailblazers as well. Which is great because I remind them that Bonzi was a big reason for that


Miller's the best of the 4 by far. So I'd say it's pretty close 2 on 2, although I'd give the edge to Philly on "D".

Rap sheet?

How about an arrest for menacing, b and e, assault, robbery, and concealed weapons charges at his gal's pad?

And then there was that great rap cd where he attacks gays.

Just tryin' to feed his family?

Houston must be a bit behind the times. I haven't read or heard a Jailblazers reference in over a year unless it included the words "former" or "used to be".


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> and sorry Hap, I didn't record the touches for other guys. That would have been way to many tallies to do at once...


I'm going way out on a limb here and guess Jarrett touches the ball nearly every single possession.

What a friggin' ballhog!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm going way out on a limb here and guess Jarrett touches the ball nearly every single possession.
> 
> What a friggin' ballhog!


It shouldn't be that hard to believe that Zach doesn't touch the ball on most possessions, but oh well.

But yeah, point guards are the guys who do have the ball in their hands. Jack doesn't play the whole game, and at some times when he is in either Roy or Sergio runs the point, so Jack probably does have a part in maybe 70% of the team's possessions (I'm just guessing here). It has nothing to do with FGA, it's just about who puts their mitts on the ball any possession.

I think it's a lot harder to play with a ball hogging point guard than a ball-hogging big man. No matter what the coach does, he can't limit the touches of a guy like Iverson, Stephon Mebury or Baron Davis. They are the point guards, and they can't be controlled unless they choose to control themselves. A big man, OTOH, has to be fed by a guard after he has set up position. That's why I've long maintained that the key to breaking the offense out of it's "Zach-centric" ways isn't trading Zach for some mediocre player, it's getting better guards who do a better job of controlling the ball. Ones who can score for themselves of the jumper or driving, and who can hit Zach right when he has that seam so he can make quick high percentage moves. I also don't like seeing us use Zach isolated in the post so much, but to get better shots we need guards who can take the pressure off him with their own scoring and who make better entry passes.

I really like our young guards, but they are just still so young. As scrubby as they were overall, veteran guys like Nick Van Exel and Wesley Person at least knew how to throw really good entry passes. It's just another of the zillion aspects of a player's game that generally improves as they get more experience.


----------

