# SI: Knicks Reject Clippers Offer For Randolph:



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

> The Knicks have rejected a proposal from the Clippers to trade power forward Zach Randolph, league sources told SI.com.
> 
> Terms of any proposal were not known, but the Clippers have enough salary-cap space to accept Randolph's contract without having to give the Knicks equal salaries in return. The Clippers, seeking to replace the departed Elton Brand, were trying to take Randolph off the Knicks' hands while offering little more than cap relief to New York, the sources said. Randolph will make $14.7 million next season, and he has three years and $48 million left on his contract.


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

If this is true, then wow.


----------



## matador1238 (May 3, 2006)

I cant believe Dunleavy tried to get Zach Randolph...that guy doesnt play D.


----------



## Free Arsenal (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm glad the Knicks rejected the offer, no way in hell do I want Randolph on the team. Besides, the only reason why the Clippers went after Randolph in my opinion was because they thought they could get him cheap.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

thank you knicks.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Phew. Dodged a bullet there. If there's any truth to that rumor it doesn't bode well for this team acquiring either Smith or Okafor. How desperate must they have been to attempt to trade for Zach Randolph?


----------



## matador1238 (May 3, 2006)

Restricted free agents are hard to sign....unless we throw everything at them including the kitchen sink.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Id take him if hit was a straight up deal for Tim Thomas. Then wed still have cap room to sign someone else.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Dang. And Tim Thomas is proven to work well with d'antoni's system. 

Thomas and mobley for crawford and randolph. 

We can hate on randolph all we want. but at the end of the day he will give you twice the points and rebounds that thomas will. And Crawford is a big upgrade over mobley as well. 

Not to mention still have what, 6-8 million dollars to spend?


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

why do you guys want to get rid of tim thomas, hes the only good 3 pt shooter we have had since....??????????????
PIke Q Ross? ? 
i especially wouldnt get rid of him to get someone like randolph


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

I would love to have Crawford, but I just don't like Zebo very much. His numbers are solid, but he's just not a "winner" in my opinion.


----------



## joe shmoe (Dec 16, 2005)

Randolph and Tim Thomas is a push(tie)


----------



## nauticazn25 (Aug 27, 2006)

matador1238 said:


> I cant believe Dunleavy tried to get Zach Randolph...that guy doesnt play D.


lol yeah he only had 16 blocks last year... thats 0.2 per game....he must be the worst defensive forward in the league


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Still better than tim thomas though. Im not saying trade baron davis for him, just tim thomas. I dont know if id trdae just a draft pick for him. I wouldnt want to absorb all his contract. But if we rid our selves of thomas contract that softens the blow and still allow sus to go get someone. 

Imagine... Kaman/randolph/Thornton/Crawford/Davis With then another solid SF signed or traded for, plus gordon. I think that team would have been better if brand stayed, capped us out, and then we just had scrubs to fill out the roster.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

ElMarroAfamado said:


> why do you guys want to get rid of tim thomas, hes the only good 3 pt shooter we have had since....??????????????
> PIke Q Ross? ?


Eric Gordon


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

PacersguyUSA said:


> Eric Gordon


Yep. EG has some serious 3 point range. I've heard the Mitch Richmond comparisons more than once, and I think they might be right on the money. He may not get enough PT this year to really show what he can do, but a couple of years down the line I think he's going to be a 20 ppg scorer in this league.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

nauticazn25 said:


> lol yeah he only had 16 blocks last year... thats 0.2 per game....he must be the worst defensive forward in the league


Carlos Boozer, a guy capable of playing some pretty good defense, had just 0.5 bpg last year so obviously bpg is not a mark of a player capable of d-ing up. And to think that Boozer can actually get up off the ground as opposed to Randolph.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> Dang. And Tim Thomas is proven to work well with d'antoni's system.
> 
> Thomas and mobley for crawford and randolph.
> 
> ...


You were hardpressed to get Zach Randolph for Tim Thomas and Cuttino Mobley. No way your getting Crawford included in the deal especially when he figures to be a player ideal for Mike D'Antoni's system.

Cuttino Mobley, a future protected first round pick, 2 2nd round picks and $2 million cash sounds fine to me. As a Knick fan, I still would prefer to hold onto Randolph because his trade value only has one way to go, up. There's always a market for a 20 and 10 big man that's 25 years old, which is evident through this proposed trade.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Carlos Boozer, a guy capable of playing some pretty good defense, had just 0.5 bpg last year so obviously bpg is not a mark of a player capable of d-ing up. And to think that Boozer can actually get up off the ground as opposed to Randolph.


LOL. Still better than Eddy (call me Maurice Taylor because I hate to rebound) Curry who averaged only 0.49 bpg as a starting center. I can live with my PF not blocking a ton of shots if he's compensating in other categories, but to have a center who averages less than 1 block and 5 rpg is just plain mindblowing!


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Showtime87 said:


> I would love to have Crawford, but I just don't like Zebo very much. His numbers are solid, but he's just not a "winner" in my opinion.


History should have taught us by now that there is no such thing as not being a "winner." How many times have players that are not "winners" been traded to teams and made the difference for their title contention? The list includes RASHEED WALLACE, VINCE CARTER, Antawn Walker, Jason Williams, James Posey (surprisingly so), Jason Terry, KOBE BRYANT, etc. In Randolph's particular case, he needs a structured system with capable veterans that have an established winning and defensive culture. It's kind of unfair to ask a then 21-24 year old kid to carry a franchise when he's still focusing on developing his own game. Randolph, however, is the kind of player that can make you a championship caliber team or reinvigorate your title contending status. The Pistons or Spurs are two teams that Randolph could bolster there championship aspirations. Next to Baron Davis and Chris Kaman, Randolph could put you into the playoffs; with a few pieces, maybe even a championship contender status.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Showtime87 said:


> LOL. Still better than Eddy (call me Maurice Taylor because I hate to rebound) Curry who averaged only 0.49 bpg as a starting center. I can live with my PF not blocking a ton of shots if he's compensating in other categories, but to have a center who averages less than 1 block and 5 rpg is just plain mindblowing!


Funny, but I thought this conversation was about Zach Randolph...

Still not sure what you said has anything to do with the fact that bpg is not a determinate of good defense.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

P.S., Kaman gets about 3bpg and has been billed as a good defender. So has Davis, Mobley and Thornton hustles enough to be considered one as well. Why would defense be such a preoccupation with you? Pau Gasol is every bit a bad defender as Randolph and still managed to be a productive game changer. Why can't Randolph? And I always thought the purpose of a team is to mask their collective weakness' as a whole. Why are you worried about Randolph's defense when you clearly have guys capable of erasing some of those problems within a team defensive scheme? If your going to knock his defense, you should knock the offense of every other player on that team besides Davis, since none of them are scorers that can carry a team.


----------



## hutcht02 (Sep 22, 2006)

Call me crazy, but I think the deal for Randolph would have been a good one. Not the ones involving trading them Gordon, but the original trade proposal that was basically us taking him off of their hands was a good one for both sides. NewYork is trying ot clear up cap room for LeBron in 2 years, and Randolph is a good contract to get rid of to help do that. Plus, regardless of whether they get LeBron or not, their cap issues are a disaster, and they should jump at any proposal to help clear them up.

As for our side, Randolph is a proven player who could regain All-Star status if he's given the role and focus we could offer him. Smith and Okafor aren't that much better, if better at all, plus they're a long-shot to get in the first place, and even if we did get either of them, money wise, Randolph would be the better deal.

I would love to have Randolph on this team. I remember 2 years ago, towards the end of the season, we played Portland, and Brand just got abused by Randolph in every way. Z-Bo still has it in him, I know he does. Get him over here if it's a straight up swap without Gordon.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

hutcht02 said:


> Call me crazy, but I think the deal for Randolph would have been a good one. Not the ones involving trading them Gordon, but the original trade proposal that was basically us taking him off of their hands was a good one for both sides. NewYork is trying ot clear up cap room for LeBron in 2 years, and Randolph is a good contract to get rid of to help do that. Plus, regardless of whether they get LeBron or not, their cap issues are a disaster, and they should jump at any proposal to help clear them up.
> 
> As for our side, Randolph is a proven player who could regain All-Star status if he's given the role and focus we could offer him. Smith and Okafor aren't that much better, if better at all, plus they're a long-shot to get in the first place, and even if we did get either of them, money wise, Randolph would be the better deal.
> 
> I would love to have Randolph on this team. I remember 2 years ago, towards the end of the season, we played Portland, and Brand just got abused by Randolph in every way. Z-Bo still has it in him, I know he does. Get him over here if it's a straight up swap without Gordon.


I hated the trade that brought Randolph to the Knicks, not because I felt he wasn't a good player but because I thought he was poor fit. I was right. Which is why not too long after we started losing, I strongly felt we should dump him if it meant clearing room financially. 

Randolph, however, is the kind of talent you just don't dump. It may appear as though thats what the Blazers did when they sent him here to the Knicks but just because they made a bad trade does not mean the Knicks should either. As much as they improved in the win column, they could have been in the playoffs with Randolph. They fact of the matter is that he is still a 20 and 10 big man that's just 25 years old and could likely help a team win big if he's not the one carrying them. 

With the Clippers, Davis would carry the team and Dunleavy would be there to discipline him and give him the sort of structure a young player like him needs. Realistically, he could get you into the playoffs so considering how many holes the Knicks currently have, we need a package worth taking. That doesn't mean Gordon or Thorton necessarily (although I like Al; I think Gordon's a bust waiting to happen). That does mean a draft pick(s). We're losing one of our draft picks to the Jazz in either 2009 or 2010 (and are rebuilding) so draft picks are critical to this deal IN ADDITION to some sort of financial flexibility. I'd personally want Cuttino Mobley back since Jamal Crawford is our only legit 2 guard, you have no use for him and the fact that Mobley's contract expires a year before Randolph's. Mobley, a protected first round pick, 2 future 2nd round picks for Randolph and cash is a doer for me (and that is a low figure considering what Gasol got for the Grizzlies).


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

So.. does this mean they aren't targetting Josh and Emeka? Or they are their back-up plan..


----------



## hutcht02 (Sep 22, 2006)

TheATLien said:


> So.. does this mean they aren't targetting Josh and Emeka? Or they are their back-up plan..


I think we're still going after both of them, but Dunleavy is a smart guy. He realizes how hard it is to steal a restricted FA, and chances are bleak we land one of them. He's just firing on all cylinders to make sure we fill the position. Nothing wrong with that. You have to admire how fast his response was, especially to think of such a solid replacement and get a respectable offer ready on such short notice.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

The last thing any team in the NBA needs right now is to deal for Zach Randolph and bail out the Knicks.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Funny, but I thought this conversation was about Zach Randolph...
> 
> Still not sure what you said has anything to do with the fact that bpg is not a determinate of good defense.


Well, I sincerely apologize for upsetting you by going so far off-topic. Your knowledge of Zach Randolph and his defensive abilities, or lack thereof is obviously superior to any of us in this forum, so please, continue to expound further. Please school us on exactly what is determinate of good defense, since that is the title of this thread...? 

Tell you what: keep your snide, condescending attitude to yourself and I will agree to never again offend your delicate sensibilities.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> It may appear as though thats what the Blazers did when they sent him here to the Knicks but just because they made a bad trade does not mean the Knicks should either.



LOL at bad trade.

The Blazers basically traded Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau and Fred Jones for Channing Frye, Steve Francis and a trade exception.

They then used the trade exception to get James Jones from Phoenix only if they would sell us their 1st round pick. They did and Portland drafted Rudy Fernandez. They then waived Francis saving themselves around 10 million and giving them around 25 million in cap space next off season. They also saved 30 or so million in salary because Francis' contract was shorter than Zach's. They also cleared up PT for a promising young player named LaMarcus Aldridge who responded by putting up 18/7 in his second season, and played something called defense.

So.... Randolph, Dickau and F Jones for Frye, Fernandez, J Jones and a but load of cap space and money savings is a bad trade? I'd also like to point out the records of both Portland and NY with the subtraction and subsequent addition of Zach


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Showtime87 said:


> Well, I sincerely apologize for upsetting you by going so far off-topic. Your knowledge of Zach Randolph and his defensive abilities, or lack thereof is obviously superior to any of us in this forum, so please, continue to expound further. Please school us on exactly what is determinate of good defense, since that is the title of this thread...?
> 
> Tell you what: keep your snide, condescending attitude to yourself and I will agree to never again offend your delicate sensibilities.



Trust me, I'm neither upset or care for/need an apology; it was not that serious. I was just curious what Eddy Curry had to do with the discussion. There was no malice (at least none intended) by my comment but apparently you were offended so maybe I should extend an apology. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you.

As for defense, we all also know that Zach Randolph is not a good defender but him not being a shot blocker has nothing to do with it. Shot-blocking is something that can not be taught because it is based more on instinct rather than skill. Carlos Boozer is a guy that most would imagine being a shot blocking because of his aggressive defense and leaping ability; that's why I used him as an example. Randolph is vertically challenged and has slow reflexes, so he would naturally be a poor shot blocker. He will also likely be a poor defender as well but it is possible that he can develop his defensive game since a large portion of playing good defense is based on proper positioning and posture on the floor. He'll never be Bruce Bowen but he could develop to the point where he is not a liability on the floor; it worked for Juwon Howard before he fell off the map.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> LOL at bad trade.
> 
> The Blazers basically traded Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau and Fred Jones for Channing Frye, Steve Francis and a trade exception.
> 
> ...



I guess I'm on a roll today with poor word choice. I don't necessarily mean the trade was a bad move necessarily for the Blazers. What I did mean is that they did not max out the potential assets they could get in return. 

Realistically, they could have afforded to hold out for a package similar to the one that the Grizzlies got for Gasol. The Blazers were in a good enough situation, however, where they did not necessarily need immediate expiring contracts or draft picks and could afford to deal him East in a package of less value (on the market); Oden, Roy and Aldridge already served as the 3 building blocks and the team still had some pretty impressive role players. Most other teams in the league would have required and gotten more in return but that is because they never had a LaMarcus Aldridge in the wings and Greg Oden on their team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I guess I'm on a roll today with poor word choice. I don't necessarily mean the trade was a bad move necessarily for the Blazers. What I did mean is that they did not max out the potential assets they could get in return.
> 
> Realistically, they could have afforded to hold out for a package similar to the one that the Grizzlies got for Gasol. The Blazers were in a good enough situation, however, where they did not necessarily need immediate expiring contracts or draft picks and could afford to deal him East in a package of less value (on the market); Oden, Roy and Aldridge already served as the 3 building blocks and the team still had some pretty impressive role players. Most other teams in the league would have required and gotten more in return but that is because they never had a LaMarcus Aldridge in the wings and Greg Oden on their team.



Well let's see.

Gasol for Kwame Brown, Crittenton, McKey (retired), an 08' and 10' pick, rights to Marc Gasol

It's a two parter, but it was all because of the Randolph trade

Randolph, Dickau, F Jones for Francis, Frye, Fernandez, J Jones


To me it seems the Blazers did get a similar package for him. 

Also keep in mind that Gasol has a ton more value around the league than Zach does.


----------



## nets1fan102290 (Apr 16, 2007)

you just got lucky randolph is a cancer


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Trust me, I'm neither upset or care for/need an apology; it was not that serious. I was just curious what Eddy Curry had to do with the discussion. There was no malice (at least none intended) by my comment but apparently you were offended so maybe I should extend an apology. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you.
> 
> As for defense, we all also know that Zach Randolph is not a good defender but him not being a shot blocker has nothing to do with it. Shot-blocking is something that can not be taught because it is based more on instinct rather than skill. Carlos Boozer is a guy that most would imagine being a shot blocking because of his aggressive defense and leaping ability; that's why I used him as an example. Randolph is vertically challenged and has slow reflexes, so he would naturally be a poor shot blocker. He will also likely be a poor defender as well but it is possible that he can develop his defensive game since a large portion of playing good defense is based on proper positioning and posture on the floor. He'll never be Bruce Bowen but he could develop to the point where he is not a liability on the floor; it worked for Juwon Howard before he fell off the map.


It's cool, I think I'm just a little touchy these days based on some of the recent developments in Clipperland. Your points are very valid and I actually agree with most of what you said, I was just attempting (albeit poorly) to inject a bit of humor with my previous post about Curry. But I do agree that blocked shots are not always the determining factor when it comes to good defense. Sometimes blocks are simply a product of a poor perimeter defense, hence the fact that two of the worst defensive teams in the league led in BPG last season.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

...to be honest, I really feel for you guys. This is why I kinda felt bad after rereading my post and seeing different ways it could be interrupted. I'm glad we could clear everything up.

In the meantime, I think you guys should also look into Andre Igoudala. He has not signed with the Sixers for whatever reason, and fills a legit need for your team at the 3 spot. As much as Tim Thomas is nothing more than a role player, he could be a steady stand-in at the 4 spot. Do you remember what he did with the Suns in an uptempo game? That could essentially be the Clippers and you'd still have Al Thorton off the bench capable of playing both forward spots and Igoudala at the 3. It certainly isn't a championship caliber front-court but it could certainly keep you competitive. Besides, if you have to overpay on a FA it might as well be Igoudala who IMO is the best available. 

I still, however, believe your best option at this point is to trade for Zach Randolph. More than anything, I'd be trying to give up Cuttino Mobley's contract (since it's fairly hefty) and a few assets in return for Zach. Contrary to popular belief it makes a ton of sense financially and personnel wise. You'd essentially be filling a need with a guy who just a few years ago was regarded a franchise player (and is still 25 years old) in exchange for a 32 year old SG WITH A SIMILAR CONTRACT(who is nothing more than a role player at this point) and maybe a protected first round draft pick, which the Baylor has been poorly utilizing anyway. *It would give you the option of also adding a free agent on the market since you'd still have about $8-$9 million of cap space to work with. To be perfectly honest, I do not think any of the guys left in free agency are worth much more than $8-$9 million.* Even if they could get more money somewhere else, you are still far enough under the cap to be a bidder for their services. That free money, Eric Gordon and Tim Thomas could realistically land you an Igoudala, a Deng or a Smith in a sign and trade if their talks with their current teams go sour. Also remember that guys like JR Smith, James Posey, etc are still in play and could also be signed after this trade which would not be the option if you did not get Zach (who makes you better anyway).


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

I was sooo happy to hear that this was rejected. I don't think Randolph will fit in here, he is too slow for the new uptempo offense that should take up make. Plus he is a cancer. I am really surprised though that the Knicks rejected it, I don't think they will get a better offer to be honest.


----------



## nauticazn25 (Aug 27, 2006)

i wish clippers management would read these boards to see how we react as fans...if they were to let us give a say in this ..im sure most of us would say a resounding NO to this trade, even if it is for nothing....if this were the last year of his contract then this wouldnt be a bad deal, but his contract will kill any chance of us getting someone better for the next 3 years....josh smith would be perfect for our team (maybe even a better sign then brand)... he is ONLY 22 and is probably the top 5 athletic players in the nba...if he develops a consistent jump shot, watch out...we'd also probably have the most athletic team in the nba with our starting five

baron davis
eric gordon 
al thornton
josh smith
chris kaman

we'd get a ton of blocks, steals, rebounds with that starting 5...and if eric gordon develops into a great shooter, we'd have the top 5 team in the nba no doubt


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

nauticazn25 said:


> i wish clippers management would read these boards to see how we react as fans...if they were to let us give a say in this ..im sure most of us would say a resounding NO to this trade, even if it is for nothing....if this were the last year of his contract then this wouldnt be a bad deal, but his contract will kill any chance of us getting someone better for the next 3 years....josh smith would be perfect for our team (maybe even a better sign then brand)... he is ONLY 22 and is probably the top 5 athletic players in the nba...if he develops a consistent jump shot, watch out...we'd also probably have the most athletic team in the nba with our starting five
> 
> baron davis
> eric gordon
> ...



To be perfectly honest, the Warriors currently have a better supporting cast than the Clippers do with Baron Davis and they did not make the playoffs last year and the Clippers likely will try to do what they did offensively. Even the Hawks last year had a better supporting cast than the Clippers do now and they struggled to get a .500 record. 

Josh Smith is going to do little to change that. Randolph may not do much better but TRADING for him at least gives you the option of adding a 20 and 10 big man AND STILL be in the running to acquire a restricted free agent. You'd be maximizing your assets doing so because no one on the current team is as good or can change a game as much as Randolph. He is ALSS arguably as good as any of the current free agents available including Deng, Igoudala, and Smith. The only difference is that he brings baggage with. Combining Randolph with any of those guys along with Baron Davis and still being able to utilize your MLE could transform your team into a playoff team immediately.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Weasel said:


> I was sooo happy to hear that this was rejected. I don't think Randolph will fit in here, he is too slow for the new uptempo offense that should take up make. Plus he is a cancer. I am really surprised though that the Knicks rejected it, I don't think they will get a better offer to be honest.


Slower in the "new uptempo offense" than Elton Brand would have been? Don't think so.

Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Walker and Jason Williams were cancers. 3 of those 4 guys have rings and Carter is one title contender away from turning that list into 4 for 4.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Slower in the "new uptempo offense" than Elton Brand would have been? Don't think so.
> 
> Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Walker and Jason Williams were cancers. 3 of those 4 guys have rings and Carter is one title contender away from turning that list into 4 for 4.


I think so and believe so. EB was fairly quick and a lot quicker than Randolph. I don't see why you would think otherwise. And yes, some C=cancers do win but that doesn't mean all of them win and it doesn't mean a cancer will help a team win. They are labeled as such because their antics hurt the team in some shape or form.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Weasel said:


> I think so and believe so. EB was fairly quick and a lot quicker than Randolph. I don't see why you would think otherwise. And yes, some C=cancers do win but that doesn't mean all of them win and it doesn't mean a cancer will help a team win. They are labeled as such because their antics hurt the team in some shape or form.


You obviously have not seen Randolph play recently. The last time he played Brand, he murdered him with his speed. Brand is a signficantly better defender though but Randolph trumps him in every other category outside of passing ability. 

Some cancers do win, so whose to say that Randolph is not a guy with baggage that does? People have very short term memories because most touted him as a gem just a few years ago. He clearly helped that Portland time nearly beat Dallas in that first round series way back when and is better than ever. He just needs some structure and a coach capable of harnessing his gifts.


----------

