# Zach Randolph?



## Boki3 (May 18, 2007)

Obviously this ideas been tossed around for a while but with Oden, many people believe Zach may be out the door. I don't relaly understand why cause Oden's defense replaces Randolphs lack of D.

Everyone on other sites are liking Randolph for RJ

I think more realisticly it should be Randolph and 1 or 2 seconds for RJ and Cliff

I'm not for or agaisnt the idea. just throwing it around.


----------



## Kidd Karma (Oct 30, 2003)

I'd rather send VC out there for Randolph. But Portland and VC would have to reach some sort of contract agreement.


----------



## mynetsforlife (Dec 27, 2006)

Huh, then Vince could play his natural SF
If this was a video game, then sure, but he seems "kinda" shaky as a person


----------



## Boki3 (May 18, 2007)

If say this did go down, Mikki is probably all but gone. The nets draft a swingman such as Thaddeus, Nick Young, or Byars.

Then go out and sign a shooter in FA and a vet bigman to take cliffs spot.

Just throwing it out there.


----------



## Boki3 (May 18, 2007)

Yah I really dont like his personality at all, his talent may be great enough to overlook it. If he comes cliff deffitnly has to get out and not influence him. HOping he won't revert Marcus to what he did.


----------



## da1nonly (May 8, 2006)

Yes. Sign and trade VC for Zach, so VC gets his 20 mil. Or just trade.


----------



## Boki3 (May 18, 2007)

With Oden going to Portland, is it out of the realm (Sp?) that Vince would want not mind going there?

They would have a pretty sick team with Oden, Aldridge, Vince, Roy, Jack with some nice young players on the bench with some vets mixed in. A PG would be nice.


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

Trade RJ, Collins, Wright, and a second round pick for Randolph, Udoka, and Jarrett Jack.

Resign Eddie House and Mikki Moore 

Sign Morris Peterson 

Resign Vince Carter

LINEUP:

Kidd
Carter
Peterson
Randolph
Krstic

Williams
House/Jack
Nachbar/ Udoka
Boone
Moore

no way to beat around the fact, vince carter is offense and its ridiculous how people say that he isnt good. We honestly need vince. RJ probably has a higher trade value anyway. Adding Randolph gives kidd the low post scorer that we have been lacking, udoka gives us a solid defender, and jarret jack would be nice offense to spell time for carter or peterson. Morris is a very good three man to replace rj. He has solid defense, a sweet stroke, and is good friends with vc. it would be a very good match.


----------



## MaxaMillion711 (Sep 6, 2005)

Vince in Portland would be great. He needs to play with a great big man and have help on his team.


----------



## Boki3 (May 18, 2007)

Udoka is a FA isnt he? And we cant trade Collins, hes our defense inside, Zach although great on offense is a poor defender and we need Collins to offset that at times.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

NO ZBO! That would be awful. We don't need a blackhole that plays no defense with character issues, making a ****load of money.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> Trade RJ, Collins, Wright, and a second round pick for Randolph, Udoka, and Jarrett Jack.


Replace RJ with Vince, take Wright and Udoka out of equation (Blazers can't really trade Udoka) and Blazers send us two 2nd round picks instead of Nets sending Blazers a 2nd round pick.

That trade I might do


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Yup Portland would just love to have a 30 year old shooting guard on their roster. You do know Z-bo is younger than RJ, I can see a RJ deal but never in a million years will they agree to a trade for Vince.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

HB said:


> Yup Portland would just love to have a 30 year old shooting guard on their roster. You do know Z-bo is younger than RJ, I can see a RJ deal but never in a million years will they agree to a trade for Vince.


And if Thorn is smart, he'd never trade RJ for Zach, and leave the Nets stuck with a dog like Vince.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

If we try to get zBO, I think its safe to say bye to RJ.


My trade scenario:

Cliffy, RJ, B.Robinson, 09 2nd round pick for ZBO+cash. 


We need to keep Collins. ZBO doesnt play defense and we need Collins to make up for that.


Kidd
VC
Boki
ZBO
Collins

Not a bad starting 5, and a possible Krstic/Boone duo off the bench is damn enticing. And imagine during anytime during a game, we can use a krstic/ZBO frontcourt. Nice. I just hope that ZBo doesnt go crazy!:biggrin:


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Astral Dragon said:


> If we try to get zBO, I think its safe to say bye to RJ.
> 
> 
> My trade scenario:
> ...


Horrible, horrible trade


----------



## Boki3 (May 18, 2007)

Astral in that lineup, I'd think we need to start Wright. With RJ gone we need a good perimeter defender. Our defense would let up so many points with that lineup. 

Also it should be that we get a 2nd rounder not give.


----------



## dg12x (Oct 31, 2005)

I would definitely take Randolph on this team. I think with a guy like Kidd, his character issue would be less of a deal. He is a star PF, who can put up major points...just what the Nets need. Would be tough to give up RJ, but I would have to consider it. If we could someone package Vince with a future draft pick...I would jump on that deal.


----------



## GM3 (May 5, 2005)

Thorn will be building a powerhouse...in Portland.

The only thing Portland is missing now is a veteran with playoff experience to help that young team through some rough patches, giving them RJ is dumb for the league.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

dg12x said:


> I would definitely take Randolph on this team. I think with a guy like Kidd, his character issue would be less of a deal. He is a star PF, who can put up major points...just what the Nets need. Would be tough to give up RJ, but I would have to consider it. If we could someone package Vince with a future draft pick...I would jump on that deal.


What leads you to believe Kidd would make Randolph's character issues less of a deal?

Kidd couldn't make Carter's lack of heart less of an issue.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

A number of problems with Zach Randolph to the Nets.

1. They'd want one of the big 3

2. He's a headcase. Plain and simple. There was a report that said that while he was on leave from the team to attend a cousin's funeral, he was found at a strip club instead.

3. What if he gets into trouble while he is here? What affect will he have on the Nets' locker room chemistry?

These are the main concerns among other things. I just can't see him coming here.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Real said:


> A number of problems with Zach Randolph to the Nets.
> 
> 1. They'd want one of the big 3
> 
> ...


He did attend his cousins funeral


----------



## NJ Grand NJ (Feb 22, 2005)

I think VC for ZBo would work for both teams. Both teams would have the chance to win now without giving up any of their young talent. Unless Portland wants to see how ZBo and Oden work(with Aldridge, I'm not sure why they'd slow their future down) - these seems pretty logical for both teams. 

Yeah, ZBo has some character issues and shot selection issues(to be fair, look at the teams he's had - not too many offensive threats). He's still a weapon offensively(shooting and low post) and is a double-double guy every night. In the West, that's an impressive feat. 

Pair him up with Kidd, RJ, Krstic - we might have ourselves a solid(and more balanced) squad. In that case, we'd NEED to draft a swingman.


----------



## RJ24VC15 (Nov 25, 2006)

Randloph for RJ would give us the worst defensive frontcourt in basketball.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

RJ24VC15 said:


> Randloph for RJ would give us the worst defensive frontcourt in basketball.


Randolph wouldn't start over Collins:yay:


----------



## Cormegadadon (May 1, 2006)

i'll do it Zach at one time was scoring 25 plus and 10 boards a game.


----------



## Netted (Mar 31, 2005)

Real said:


> A number of problems with Zach Randolph to the Nets.
> 
> 1. They'd want one of the big 3
> 
> ...


We each mourn in our own way.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Cormegadadon said:


> i'll do it Zach at one time was scoring 25 plus and 10 boards a game.


Too bad that's all he does. He plays no defense, doesn't pass, and has issues. Not worth it. SAY NO TO ZBO.


----------



## jirohkanzaki (Aug 4, 2005)

let's offer any of our players except jkidd for boston's al jefferson...maybe someone will fit in danny ainge's brain typing who knows?


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

kweli109 said:


> Too bad that's all he does. *He plays no defense, doesn't pass*, and has issues. Not worth it. SAY NO TO ZBO.


Same with Krstic. How many bigs capable of putting 25/10 are good passers and can play on both ends of the floor?


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Aurelino said:


> Randolph wouldn't start over Collins:yay:


Then Collins must be 'sent on a long vacation', Soprano style


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Aurelino said:


> Same with Krstic. How many bigs capable of putting 25/10 are good passers and can play on both ends of the floor?


I didn't say he's not a good passer. I said he doesn't pass, hence ZBO averaging over a turnover more per game than Nenad, and shooting a much lower percentage.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I think you guys would really like Zach . . . I would say love, but he does have some defensive issues. He is actually an OK man on man defender, but his rotations and help defense gives him his legit rep.

BUt here is what is good about Zach: he has serious offensive skills (23 pts/game), knows the game, uses his body well (10 reb/game), is committed to working hard and doesn't have to be the star on the team. Forget about all the off court stuff you hear, he is a good lockerroom guy and teammates love him.

He is another Sheed type situation waiting to happen. Put him on the right team where he has a role and can do his thing, and he can be a piece of championship contending team. He is a knucklehead off the court, but so what, he also doesn't demand to be the star . . . just let him do his thing and you will learn to like this guy.

I would love to see what Z-bo could do with Oden, but the Blazers have Aldridge waiting in the wings and he has shown a lot in very little time. Blazers need a SF and have two quality PF . . . I'm hoping for Rasard Lewis but Sonics are content with Wilcox. RJ for Zach makes sense.

Net fans worry about Zach's defense . . . Blazer fans worry if RJ is injury prone and if he still the same player after being so dinged up.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

I'd rather have Jeff McInnis than Zach Randolph on the Nets and anyone that has been around for a couple of years knows how I feel about McInnis.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> I'd rather have Jeff McInnis than Zach Randolph on the Nets and anyone that has been around for a couple of years knows how I feel about McInnis.



Well I guess that is like me saying I would rather have Bonzi Wells than Cater on the Blazers . . . and anyone who has heard of Bonzi Wells knows what to think of him.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> I'd rather have Jeff McInnis than Zach Randolph on the Nets and anyone that has been around for a couple of years knows how I feel about McInnis.


Well, McInnis is a free agent and the Nets could use a veteran PG.

Not a bad idea, cpawfan!


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Well, McInnis is a free agent and the Nets could use a veteran PG.
> 
> Not a bad idea, cpawfan!


----------



## reganomics813 (Sep 2, 2005)

I in no way shape or form like Randolph's game whatsoever. If we did acquire him I would root for him being a Net but it would take alot from him to make me do so genuinely.


----------



## Krakista (Apr 13, 2005)

Blazers should try to workout a 3-way trade.

Something like Z-Bo for J.O and send J.O to us and we send them VC.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

Is there a way for us to get Randolph without giving up Carter or Jefferson? I would sure do it.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

eddymac said:


> Is there a way for us to get Randolph without giving up Carter or Jefferson? I would sure do it.


Not a chance, we need a 3 man.

I really don't see Portland wanting VC either, because he is 30, and most of our players are younger. RJ is just young enough to make us interested.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

I wouldn't mind having Zach on this team.


----------



## elsaic15 (May 24, 2006)

i dont see how we can be so picky. we HAVE NO FRONTCOURT. randolph is a 20-10 player, who cares if he plays no d, is a headcase, and is likely to end up in jail. id do rj for randolph in a heartbeat, and i hate randolph


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

elsaic15 said:


> i dont see how we can be so picky. we HAVE NO FRONTCOURT. randolph is a 20-10 player, who cares if he plays no d, is a headcase, and is likely to end up in jail. id do rj for randolph in a heartbeat, and i hate randolph



Agreed to the last point. It's funny, if we somehow do get Randolph, these guys will start rooting for him and jump on the bandwagon and these posts about him being a bad citizen will just vanish. These guys are always looking for the perfect guy and just complain about Zach being a miscrient but if Thorn was offered a 20/10 POWER FORWARD for one of our wings, he has to look into it.

Could you imagine a 4/5 tandem of Zach and krstic? With Mikki, Boone, and Collins as backups?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> I didn't say he's not a good passer. I said he doesn't pass, hence ZBO averaging over a turnover more per game than Nenad, and shooting a much lower percentage.



Well Zach faces more double teams then Nenad and only shot 4 less percentage of shots made points then Nenad.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

elsaic15 said:


> i dont see how we can be so picky. we HAVE NO FRONTCOURT. randolph is a 20-10 player, who cares if he plays no d, is a headcase, and is likely to end up in jail. id do rj for randolph in a heartbeat, and i hate randolph


Are the Nets going to win an NBA Championship by paying an outrageous amount of money to a player with the characteristics you describe?


----------



## Kidd Karma (Oct 30, 2003)

boy the rasheed comparison is intriguing, if we can find a Tayshaun to play the 3 when we give up RJ.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> Agreed to the last point. It's funny, if we somehow do get Randolph, these guys will start rooting for him and jump on the bandwagon and these posts about him being a bad citizen will just vanish. These guys are always looking for the perfect guy and just complain about Zach being a miscrient but if Thorn was offered a 20/10 POWER FORWARD for one of our wings, he has to look into it.


Apparently you don't remember the summer of McInnis. There will be plenty of people not jumping on the Zach bandwagon.

On the bright side, I wouldn't have to make a thread predicting that he won't be on the playoff roster


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Are the Nets going to win an NBA Championship by paying an outrageous amount of money to a player with the characteristics you describe?


LMAO @ the ""who cares if he plays no d, is a headcase, and is likely to end up in jail"

Welcome to the Land of No Expectations: Population Now 2


----------



## reganomics813 (Sep 2, 2005)

Randolph coming for one of our 3 stars isn't exactly a 'Sheed situation. I don't remember Detroit giving up much for Rasheed at all (Sura, Rebraca, and a #1), not to mention Sheed is a much more verstaile player and one with worlds more experience at the time of the trade, and a damn fine defender. Not quite sure where this comparison is coming from. Other than both having a 'bad boy image' and both having played for Portland there's not much else to compare.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Are the Nets going to win an NBA Championship by paying an outrageous amount of money to a player with the characteristics you describe?



Are they winning a championship now?


----------



## kdub (Feb 11, 2005)

I wouldn't mind Randolph on this team. How many years does he have left?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> Apparently you don't remember the summer of McInnis. There will be plenty of people not jumping on the Zach bandwagon.
> 
> On the bright side, I wouldn't have to make a thread predicting that he won't be on the playoff roster



Ummm...yes I do. There were threads on how Mcinnis was the greatest backup PG we've had in the Kidd era. And please, Cpaw, enough with this Mcinnis thing. As we all know, you were the only one who preidcted Mcinnis to be a bust while we fell in love with the guy, only you.

And yes, people on here would jump all over the bandwagon as soon as the Nets won there first game with Zach. We won 41 games with Mikki Moore starting for us yet some of you think we'll be worse off with Randolph.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Are they winning a championship now?


That's not an answer to the question.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kdub said:


> I wouldn't mind Randolph on this team. How many years does he have left?



He's signed until 2011, same year RJ's contract expires.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> That's not an answer to the question.



No way to answer your question until Z-BO is in a Nets Jersey and playing for the Nets, Ghoti.


----------



## kdub (Feb 11, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> He's signed until 2011, same year RJ's contract expires.


That's a kind of a bummer, but at least he's really young. Would have him until his prime. Wonder if Ratner would want him opening up Brooklyn?


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> No way to answer your question until Z-BO is in a Nets Jersey and playing for the Nets, Ghoti.


Then we should shut down BBF, because 99% of the posts here involve speculation of some kind.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Then we should shut down BBF, because 99% of the posts here involve speculation of some kind.



Actually, 99% of what is here is just opinion. And to answer your question with my own opinion, yes, I think the Nets can win with having Z-Bo on this team.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kdub said:


> That's a kind of a bummer, but at least he's really young. Would have him until his prime. Wonder if Ratner would want him opening up Brooklyn?



Vince will still be on the team if RJ is traded.


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

Jizzy said:


> No way to answer your question until Z-BO is in a Nets Jersey and playing for the Nets, Ghoti.


Well Jizzy, its impossible to answer this question



Jizzy said:


> Are they winning a championship now?


Untill Krstic comes back. Before he left there was talk that he had the potential to be all-star talent. We don't need to trade ANYBODY to get a bigman next year.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Actually, 99% of what is here is just opinion. And to answer your question with my own opinion, yes, I think the Nets can win with having Z-Bo on this team.


And you have so much conviction in that opinion, you chose to answer with "Are they winning a championship now?" rather than "ZBo is the missing piece! The Nets would be blessed to pay him a boatload of cash! They'll win a title for sure!"


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

ghoti said:


> And you have so much conviction in that opinion, you chose to answer with "Are they winning a championship now?" rather than "ZBo is the missing piece! The Nets would be blessed to pay him a boatload of cash! They'll win a title for sure!"


You don't think ZBO is that player to put us over the edge? Are you retarded? Defense? shiiiiiit, who needs that.


----------



## PetroToZoran (Jul 2, 2003)

ghoti said:


> And you have so much conviction in that opinion, you chose to answer with "Are they winning a championship now?" rather than "ZBo is the missing piece! The Nets would be blessed to pay him a boatload of cash! They'll win a title for sure!"


No need for exaggerating Jizzy's words, he's just saying (and I agree) Randolph for Jefferson would improve our team. And as all Nets fans already believe, this team with a healthy Krstic can be or is an elite team. So improving an elite team, by logic alone, pushes us closer to a championship level team. That's it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I do not like Zach Randolph. That being said, please hear me out.


I think he would fit with your team pretty well. What Zach is more than anything else is a follower. He, IMO, would thrive with some solid veteran players around him. Does he play great defense....no, but his man defense isn't horible. It's his transition and help defense that are bad. He is also a guy that can score inside and out. He is not a good passer from the low block, but does actually try. His assists are low because he didn't have anyone to pass the ball to until this year when Brandon Roy showed up. And the one thing no one knows from other cities is that Zach diferred the offence to Roy. 


Like I said, I hope he is traded, and I really do think he would help your team. All I know is that he will help some team in the east next year, and if it's not you, you need to ask yourself who on your team is going to guard the second best low post scorer in the game for an entire series.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

PetroToZoran said:


> No need for exaggerating Jizzy's words, he's just saying (and I agree) Randolph for Jefferson would improve our team. And as all Nets fans already believe, this team with a healthy Krstic can be or is an elite team. So improving an elite team, by logic alone, pushes us closer to a championship level team. That's it.


If Nets are looking for an elite cancer, Zach is their man


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> And you have so much conviction in that opinion, you chose to answer with "Are they winning a championship now?" rather than "ZBo is the missing piece! The Nets would be blessed to pay him a boatload of cash! They'll win a title for sure!"



I don''t know where you're getting at nor did I say that we would win a title with Zach, I just said that this team would have a better chances with a Zach over RJ. No need to get so aggressive.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Mr.Montross said:


> If Nets are looking for an elite cancer, Zach is their man



That cancer has ruined Portland.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> That cancer has ruined Portland.


How?


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> That cancer has ruined Portland.


Cancers spread


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Zach's not a cancer you idiots. His teammates adore him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

As usual those that only pay attention to what goes on in the tristate area have shown themselves again


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

HB said:


> As usual those that only pay attention
> to what goes on in the tristate area have shown themselves again


Do you have positive things to say about that POS Zach Randolph?


----------



## Krakista (Apr 13, 2005)

From our local board's resident Blazers fanboy:


> 2. Contrary to popular belief, Z-Bo will actually benefit the most if the Blazers pick Oden. One knack against Z-Bo is that he gives little effort on the defensive end. With Oden waiting in the middle, all the more can Z-Bo afford to be beaten on defense. And don't forget, Randolph is "only" 26 and more than capable of a 25-10 season. Anyone who has followed the Blazers this season has to admit the significant strides under McMillan.
> 
> 3. Picture this: Brandon Roy gets the ball at the top of the key, with Z-Bo popping up to set up the pick-and-roll. Roy can either drive it strong to the hoop, pass it to Z-Bo for a sweet 18-footer, swing it Jack/Webster/Udoka for a corner three, or lob it to Oden for a dunk. That'd be insane to handle for the opposing team. I see Pritchard and McMillan try and test this combo for at least one year before deciding on Randolph.
> 
> ...


So how about Nachbar and #17 for LaMarcus Aldridge? Nachbar's shooting complements the inside presence of Z-Bo and G.O.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Aldrigde would be a top 5 pick in this year's draft, potentially I think he is right on par with Brandan Wright, no way they trade him for a guy like Nachbar. Heck they probably wouldnt even trade him for RJ or Vince


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

HB said:


> How?



Sarcasm, HB. I tried to use Montross' call against him.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

And where has Collins gone in this? Collins would be a great defensive back behind Zach. We'd have a great offense-defense substitution between Zach and Collins.

It's funny how most of you complain about Zach's defense yet we have Mikki, who is transparent on defense and rebounding. Guess you guys just want a guy who yells alot.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Zach's not a cancer you idiots. His teammates adore him.



I know that apparently the older Nets fans think otherwise.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> And where has Collins gone in this? Collins would be a great defensive back behind Zach. We'd have a great offense-defense substitution between Zach and Collins.
> 
> It's funny how most of you complain about Zach's defense yet we have Mikki, who is transparent on defense and rebounding. Guess you guys just want a guy who yells alot.


You want to compare Mikki's & Zach's salaries? Or rap sheets?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> Sarcasm, HB. I tried to use Montross' call against him.


My bad Jizzy. 

Regarding Zach, I am still not sure where I stand on the Nets trading for him.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

PetroToZoran said:


> No need for exaggerating Jizzy's words, he's just saying (and I agree) Randolph for Jefferson would improve our team. And as all Nets fans already believe, this team with a healthy Krstic can be or is an elite team. So improving an elite team, by logic alone, pushes us closer to a championship level team. That's it.


I quoted him exactly, so I didn't exaggerate anything.

You obviously have some conviction about Randolph. If you would like to address his character issues, lack of defense, and overall history of playing selfish, losing basketball you would be one step ahead of anyone else in this thread.

Jizzy's responses tell me he is more frustrated with the lack of a solution than excited about getting Randolph.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

PetroToZoran said:


> And as all Nets fans already believe, this team with a healthy Krstic can be or is an elite team.


Obviously you aren't reading enough of the posts around here



> So improving an elite team, by logic alone, pushes us closer to a championship level team. That's it.


Zach doesn't improve the team


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Zach's not a cancer you idiots. His teammates adore him.


Well he does know all the strippers and pays for his friends to have gang bangs. What isn't there to love


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

It's my opinion that if you replaced Zach Randolph with nobody, the Blazers would win at least five more games right off the bat - with no other changes.

That guy has no idea how to play within a framework of a team. The more stats he puts up, the more his team loses.

Can you teach a talented guy to change and learn to play winning basketball? That strategy works approximately zero percent of the time.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> It's my opinion that if you replaced Zach Randolph with nobody, the Blazers would win at least five more games right off the bat - with no other changes.
> 
> That guy has no idea how to play within a framework of a team. The more stats he puts up, the more his team loses.
> 
> Can you teach a talented guy to change and learn to play winning basketball? That strategy works approximately zero percent of the time.


Gotta agree with that post


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Mr.Montross said:


> You want to compare Mikki's & Zach's salaries? Or rap sheets?



How about there on court performance?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> It's my opinion that if you replaced Zach Randolph with nobody, the Blazers would win at least five more games right off the bat - with no other changes.
> 
> That guy has no idea how to play within a framework of a team. The more stats he puts up, the more his team loses.
> 
> Can you teach a talented guy to change and learn to play winning basketball? That strategy works approximately zero percent of the time.


I disagree with everything you just said but whatever.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> I disagree with everything you just said but whatever.


Based on what?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> I quoted him exactly, so I didn't exaggerate anything.
> 
> You obviously have some conviction about Randolph. If you would like to address his character issues, lack of defense, and overall history of playing selfish, losing basketball you would be one step ahead of anyone else in this thread.
> 
> Jizzy's responses tell me he is more frustrated with the lack of a solution than excited about getting Randolph.



You didn't quote me exactly, Ghoti. You tried to blow my statement out of proportion. Half of those issues reflect on Vince Carter yet he is still on the team.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> I quoted him exactly, so I didn't exaggerate anything.
> 
> You obviously have some conviction about Randolph. If you would like to address his character issues, lack of defense, and overall history of playing selfish, losing basketball you would be one step ahead of anyone else in this thread.
> 
> Jizzy's responses tell me he is more frustrated with the lack of a solution than excited about getting Randolph.


DP.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Based on what?


Nothing really, just disagreed with every sentence of that post. I think you're going a little over the edge on the whole replace Randolph with any guy thing and about the whole winning baskatball thing. It sounds to me as if you're trying to pin the Blazer struggles on him which is what I disagree with the most. He hasn't had any serious help around him until Brandon Roy and Aldridge showed up, there two rookies.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> Well he does know all the strippers and pays for his friends to have gang bangs. What isn't there to love



Yes, like he is the only NBA player who involves in that type of activity and still plays for his team.

Honeslty, his offcourt issues have nothing to do with his on court play if he can produce. Did Kidd's public divorce take away from his game?


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Nothing really, just disagreed with every sentence of that post. I think you're going a little over the edge on the whole replace Randolph with any guy thing and about the whole winning baskatball thing. It sounds to me as if you're trying to pin the Blazer struggles on him which is what I disagree with the most. He hasn't had any serious help around him until Brandon Roy and Aldridge showed up, there two rookies.


You criticize Vince Carter for being a stat compiler who doesn't run or play defense and has lapses in intensity.

Well let me tell you something, everything you hate about Carter is ten times worse in Randolph.

Carter is freaking Magic Johnson compared to Randolph.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> You criticize Vince Carter for being a stat compiler who doesn't run or play defense and has lapses in intensity.
> 
> Well let me tell you something, everything you hate about Carter is ten times worse in Randolph.
> 
> Carter is freaking Magic Johnson compared to Randolph.



Sigh, this isn't going to change. If we're going to have two of the same players, I'd rather have the frontcourt piece.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Sigh, this isn't going to change. If we're going to have two of the same players, I'd rather have the frontcourt piece.


But why does it have to be Randolph? Because he's damaged goods that someone is willing to get rid of?

He is an ugly person that causes his team to play ugly, stagnant basketball.

I'm as frustrated as anyone about the lack of a replacement for KMart so many years later, but you just can't bring a guy in here based on his stats. 

Randolph, for too many reasons to count, is a terrible fit.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> Honeslty, his offcourt issues have nothing to do with his on court play if he can produce. Did Kidd's public divorce take away from his game?


Not only was Kidd's play impacted for a portion of the season, RJ was also impacted by what was going on in Kidd's life


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

Jizzy said:


> I'd rather have the frontcourt piece.


Nenad Krstic?


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

VC for Adonal Foyle? Or is he a stat stuffer too?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> But why does it have to be Randolph? Because he's damaged goods that someone is willing to get rid of?
> 
> He is an ugly person that causes his team to play ugly, stagnant basketball.
> 
> ...



Guess I could see it your way but I still stand by my opinion. Who knows, maybe we'll never know how this team would be with Z-Bo on it.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> Not only was Kidd's play impacted for a portion of the season, RJ was also impacted by what was going on in Kidd's life



I don't think so.

You actually think RJ was affected by the gay rumors? So his ankle surgery had nothing to do with his inconsistency?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

GMJigga said:


> Nenad Krstic?



Yeah sure.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> How about there on court performance?


Mikki played in more playoff games this year than Zach has played in his career.

That's what Zach's on court performance has produced thus far


----------



## jarkid (Jun 30, 2005)

No, thanks.

we already have Krstic, Thorn won't do this deal.

in the offensive end, Krstic could do it all with Mikki if he is Re-signed with Nets.

And what we need is a defensive Big man and could grab the rebounds.

So No Thanks. This deal won't happen.


----------



## jarkid (Jun 30, 2005)

But if RJ is traded to Portland, I think Portland would be a great team in the Western.

Oden
Aldridge
Jefferson
Roy
Jack

what a strong team.

If I am the GM of Blazers, I'd do this. But I doubt Thorn would do that.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

We are talking Reggie Jefferson for Zach. Reggie Jefferson . . . he is a gamble in of itself. You seriously don't think Zach would help the team. He has been the best Blazer for the past three years. (Of course he wouldn't be the best Net, but he doesn't want to be.)

For the past few seasons, Zach has played with starters Telfair, Juan Dixon, Joel Priz at center and Miles. Even superman wouldn't take that team to the playoffs . . . and can you blame Zach for hangging at strip clubs with a starting line up like that.

Bring in a couple of rookies, Zach shares the ball, the team improves by 11 games and Zach puts up huge numbers . . . while being double teamed every night. If Roy doesn't miss 25 games (Aldridge a bunch), Blazers might make the playoffs.

Would he help the Nets, no doubt (pencil him in at PF spot for 30-35 mins a night (20/10)) Would he lead them to a championship? No . . . but he may follow them to one.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> We are talking Reggie Jefferson for Zach. Reggie Jefferson . . . he is a gamble in of itself. You seriously don't think Zach would help the team. He has been the best Blazer for the past three years. (Of course he wouldn't be the best Net, but he doesn't want to be.)
> 
> For the past few seasons, Zach has played with starters Telfair, Juan Dixon, Joel Priz at center and Miles. Even superman wouldn't take that team to the playoffs . . . and can you blame Zach for hangging at strip clubs with a starting line up like that.
> 
> ...


We'll take the gamble with Reggie Jefferson (who?), and you can keep your superstar who wants to share the ball with the rookies and lead you to the playoffs.


----------



## jerkstore (Nov 3, 2006)

I wouldn't mind an ugly guy, with an ugly personality as long as he can get it done ugly.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

jerkstore said:


> I wouldn't mind an ugly guy, with an ugly personality as long as he can get it done ugly.


Get what done? Dribble and jab step for 15 seconds while everyone else stands around then chuck?


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

You'd be a fool to actually want a thug like Zach Randolph on your team. He is a horrible person, a team cancer, and a monumental loser. Have you watched him play? He's pathetic. Jason Collins can probably score 30 on him, and Jason Collins probably can't score 30 in an empty gym. That's how bad of a defender he is. On offense he holds the ball for the entire shot clock and then launches a step back jumper. Once you dump the ball to him in the post, it doesn't come back out. Ever. I don't think he knows what a pass is. He moves like a snail and would be a horrible fit with Kidd. Just thinking about him in a Nets uniform makes me want to vomit.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> You'd be a fool to actually want a thug like Zach Randolph on your team. He is a horrible person, a team cancer, and a monumental loser. Have you watched him play? He's pathetic. Jason Collins can probably score 30 on him, and Jason Collins probably can't score 30 in an empty gym. That's how bad of a defender he is. On offense he holds the ball for the entire shot clock and then launches a step back jumper. Once you dump the ball to him in the post, it doesn't come back out. Ever. I don't think he knows what a pass is. He moves like a snail and would be a horrible fit with Kidd. Just thinking about him in a Nets uniform makes me want to vomit.


This is pretty much untrue. Collins couldnt score 10 points on anyone even if his life depended on it. Yes Zach is a bad defender, but we arent talking about the worst defender in the league. Also you do know that Zach actually plays in the post, we are talking about the best low post scorer in the game not named Tim Duncan here. Yes a lot of you dont like him because you have heard about his offcourt issues from a few years ago, but this season besides the stripper incident I dont think he has been in any trouble. Last I checked, patronizing strip clubs isnt against the law.

You are right though, I dont really see how he would fit with the Nets considering he is pretty much a half court player but lets not act like Z-bo is the cause of Portland's woes. The guy has been on successful Blazer teams, maybe you want to check what he did to Dallas in the playoffs a few years back, or the fact he averaged 18, 9 on a bum leg last year. How about his 20, 10 this year a season where he dedicated himself to coming into camp in shape and giving his team his all. This guy is better than anything the Nets have ever had at PF

Oh regarding the black hole thing, maybe he would actually pass the ball if he had more reliable shooters.


----------



## elsaic15 (May 24, 2006)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> You'd be a fool to actually want a thug like Zach Randolph on your team. He is a horrible person, a team cancer, and a monumental loser. Have you watched him play? He's pathetic. Jason Collins can probably score 30 on him, and Jason Collins probably can't score 30 in an empty gym. That's how bad of a defender he is. On offense he holds the ball for the entire shot clock and then launches a step back jumper. Once you dump the ball to him in the post, it doesn't come back out. Ever. I don't think he knows what a pass is. He moves like a snail and would be a horrible fit with Kidd. Just thinking about him in a Nets uniform makes me want to vomit.


they managed to beat us both times this year and make it look easy


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Alot of overexaggerated comments and plain overreaction in this thread.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Get what done? Dribble and jab step for 15 seconds while everyone else stands around then chuck?



This play seems oh so familiar.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> We are talking Reggie Jefferson for Zach. Reggie Jefferson . . . he is a gamble in of itself. You seriously don't think Zach would help the team. He has been the best Blazer for the past three years. (Of course he wouldn't be the best Net, but he doesn't want to be.)
> 
> For the past few seasons, Zach has played with starters Telfair, Juan Dixon, Joel Priz at center and Miles. Even superman wouldn't take that team to the playoffs . . . and can you blame Zach for hangging at strip clubs with a starting line up like that.
> 
> ...


Don't even bother. Some of us agree with you. Most here had there minds made up from the start.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> We'll take the gamble with Reggie Jefferson (who?), and you can keep your superstar who wants to share the ball with the rookies and lead you to the playoffs.



You were the same guy that was raving about Z-Bo at the start of the season and when you drafted him to your fantasy team and saying how he has dedicated himself.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Anyways, I'd rather have the guy with the offcourt issues who has produced for his team rather then a guy who cries during interviews if nothing is going his way.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> You were the same guy that was raving about Z-Bo at the start of the season and when you drafted him to your fantasy team and saying how he has dedicated himself.


Took him to my GM draft team where STATS only matter. He couldn't destroy my team then, and I didn't say he was dedicated, only that he had lost weight and put up numbers, which he did.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> Took him to my GM draft team where STATS only matter. He couldn't destroy my team then, and I didn't say he was dedicated, only that he had lost weight and put up numbers, which he did.



Yes you did. You said to Petey I beleive that watch out for Zach this year, he's lost weight and has a mean streak in him or something like that.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Yes you did. You said to Petey I beleive that watch out for Zach this year, he's lost weight and has a mean streak in him or something like that.


Which = him putting numbers up again. IRL, defense and team chemistry matters. In fantasy/gm teams, they don't.


----------



## TheMo (Aug 10, 2005)

Zach Randolph doesn't run the break much or am I mistaken? I personally am not a big fan of his game. IMHO I think we need to focus on improving our defense/running game. Z-Bo does neither and thus I cannot support trading RJ for him.

-TheMo


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

TheMo said:


> Zach Randolph doesn't run the break much or am I mistaken? I personally am not a big fan of his game. IMHO I think we need to focus on improving our defense/running game. Z-Bo does neither and thus I cannot support trading RJ for him.
> 
> -TheMo



His rebounding would improve our running game.


----------



## Kidd Karma (Oct 30, 2003)

True Kidd can be half way to halfcourt while Randolph is snagging the board....rather than sitting in the paint fighting for the board.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Kidd Karma said:


> True Kidd can be half way to halfcourt while Randolph is snagging the board....rather than sitting in the paint fighting for the board.




And something that hasn't been mentioned yet, Randolph improves our halfcourt game with his tremendous post game. We'll finally have a guy who we can throw the ball to in the post and attract double teams for out shooters.

God I hope Pritchard lets up on Z-Bo. He might have to with Oden and Aldridge in the same frontcourt.


----------



## TheMo (Aug 10, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> His rebounding would improve our running game.


But who will finish once Kidd gets the ball? VC? hell no. Z-Bo? not that athletic and he is the one who just got the rebound. Krstic? Again not crazy athletic so he won't be running and gunning up the court consistently. Maybe Wright, Adams, and Moore. But not many in the starting line up. Seriously if you have an idea feel free to correct me, I have no problem in accepting new ideas/admitting I was wrong.

-TheMo


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

TheMo said:


> But who will finish once Kidd gets the ball? VC? hell no. Z-Bo? not that athletic and he is the one who just got the rebound. Krstic? Again not crazy athletic so he won't be running and gunning up the court consistently. Maybe Wright, Adams, and Moore. But not many in the starting line up. Seriously if you have an idea feel free to correct me, I have no problem in accepting new ideas/admitting I was wrong.
> 
> -TheMo



The running game with Zach would improve over then what we have now. Who do you think has the greater odds of running the floor faster, Collins or Z-Bo?

With Zach, we wouldn't even need to rely on our running game as much. We would finally have a halfcourt PF. As of now, our only consistent way of scoring is to run since we lack frontcourt production.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Anyways, I'd rather have the guy with the offcourt issues who has produced for his team rather then a guy who cries during interviews if nothing is going his way.


The difference is one guy produces stats for himself and makes his team worse, and the other makes his team better in every way, whether he has big numbers or not.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> The difference is one guy produces stats for himself and makes his team worse, and the other makes his team better in every way, whether he has big numbers or not.



Yes that is why Kirilenko hasn't played in late game situations until recently and was called out by his GM for not producing. We're taking offcourt issues into account aren't we now? 

Sorry Ghoti, I'd rather depend on a 20-10 frontcourt player who has terrible teammates to a guy who is emotionally unstable and you don't what you're going to get out of him and his max contract surrounded by the likes of Boozer, Deron Williams, Okur and Millsap.

BTW, Ghoti, where was Kirlilenko exactly leading them before they signed Boozer and Okur?


----------



## TheMo (Aug 10, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> The running game with Zach would improve over then what we have now. Who do you think has the greater odds of running the floor faster, Collins or Z-Bo?
> 
> With Zach, we wouldn't even need to rely on our running game as much. We would finally have a halfcourt PF. As of now, our only consistent way of scoring is to run since we lack frontcourt production.


But if you are going to go halfcourt JKidd is not nearly as good. In fact I would say he is somewhat of a liability with his lack of shooting ability. Definitely agree with you that Z-Bo would help our rebounding game a lot more than Collins.

-TheMo


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

TheMo said:


> But if you are going to go halfcourt JKidd is not nearly as good. In fact I would say he is somewhat of a liability with his lack of shooting ability. Definitely agree with you that Z-Bo would help our rebounding game a lot more than Collins.
> 
> -TheMo



We played a lot more halfcourt this year with no post player and we did ALRIGHT. With a tandem of Krstic/Zach, our halfcourt sets would be great. Let's face it, we're not a running team anymore. We get out occasionally and run but we just don't have the horses. 3/5ths of our starting unit already can't run. We have to adapt to a halfcourt style if we're going to keep Vince.


----------



## BDB (Dec 19, 2006)

Jizzy said:


> We played a lot more halfcourt this year with no post player and we did ALRIGHT. With a tandem of Krstic/Zach, our halfcourt sets would be great. Let's face it, we're not a running team anymore. We get out occasionally and run but we just don't have the horses. 3/5ths of our starting unit already can't run. We have to adapt to a halfcourt style if we're going to keep Vince.


I agree if they're going to trade RJ the fastbreak days are over. 
Getting a low post scorer would be great. He'd be an Allstar in the east.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

How can you argue that ZBO would improve our running game and then say we are not a running team and we need to adapt to a half court offense in the same breath? Quit flip-flopping, John Kerry.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> How can you argue that ZBO would improve our running game and then say we are not a running team and we need to adapt to a half court offense in the same breath? Quit flip-flopping, John Kerry.



You're the flip-flopper. I know how you feel about Randolph. And yes, he WOULD improve our running game with is rebounding but that was to those who still beleive this team is a running team. The second part was the reality of the situation.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with years of experience."


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with years of experience."



Stop mooching gimmicks off of T-Shirts.

Anyways, I'm sorry if my opinion pains you this deeply. You have my pity now go work on that fantasy team.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Yes that is why Kirilenko hasn't played in late game situations until recently and was called out by his GM for not producing. We're taking offcourt issues into account aren't we now?
> 
> Sorry Ghoti, I'd rather depend on a 20-10 frontcourt player who has terrible teammates to a guy who is emotionally unstable and you don't what you're going to get out of him and his max contract surrounded by the likes of Boozer, Deron Williams, Okur and Millsap.
> 
> BTW, Ghoti, where was Kirlilenko exactly leading them before they signed Boozer and Okur?


Ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with how these players would benefit the Nets, I'd point out that the 2003-04 Jazz finished one game better than this year's Nets with a far worse roster than any Blazers team for which Randolph has played.

Those teams get a bit of a pass, however, considering they were handicapped by relying so heavily on such a one-dimensional losing player.


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

OT: I am a huge idiot and cannot see how Z-BO = Zach Randolph

Z = Zach, obviously
Bo = not found in his last name???

heh, someone wanna help me out? :whoknows:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

GMJigga said:


> OT: I am a huge idiot and cannot see how Z-BO = Zach Randolph
> 
> Z = Zach, obviously
> Bo = not found in his last name???
> ...




His Grandmother...(I believe) gave him the name when he was little


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

^^^ WRONG

Rani. Ron (Canada): Who gave you the nick name Z-bo? 

Zach Randolph: I had that nickname since I was youngster in 7th and 8th grade. I had a buddy who gave everyone nicknames one day, and mine just stuck.

http://www.nba.com/blazers/chat/randolph_transcript_022806.html


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

ghoti said:


> It's my opinion that if you replaced Zach Randolph with nobody, the Blazers would win at least five more games right off the bat - with no other changes.
> 
> That guy has no idea how to play within a framework of a team. The more stats he puts up, the more his team loses.
> 
> Can you teach a talented guy to change and learn to play winning basketball? That strategy works approximately zero percent of the time.


We have a winner.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Actually that is wrong also


----------



## jerkstore (Nov 3, 2006)

I thought Z-Bo was after Debo from the movie Friday?


----------



## TheMo (Aug 10, 2005)

jerkstore said:


> I thought Z-Bo was after Debo from the movie Friday?


I leave for two seconds and this is what happens to the thread? lol just kiddin guys but for those who say we are going more towards halfcourt cause of VC my stance on that situation is that we ship out VC soooo that's a little bit of a conundrum. I can definitely see both sides of the argument. But in my opinion I think we should keep JKidd, ship carter and look to reestablish the defense/run oriented team of old. But again I respect the halfcourt opinion, I just disagree that it is the best, most efficient way to a championship.

-TheMo


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

TheMo said:


> I leave for two seconds and this is what happens to the thread? lol just kiddin guys but for those who say we are going more towards halfcourt cause of VC my stance on that situation is that we ship out VC soooo that's a little bit of a conundrum. I can definitely see both sides of the argument. But in my opinion I think we should keep JKidd, ship carter and look to reestablish the defense/run oriented team of old. But again I respect the halfcourt opinion, I just disagree that it is the best, most efficient way to a championship.
> 
> -TheMo


No run and gun team has won the championship in the last 10 years.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

HB said:


> No run and gun team has won the championship in the last 10 years.


And every one of them played stifling half-court defense.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> And every one of them played stifling half-court defense.


And you think by trading RJ for Zach, we totally give up on defense and Frank just develops offensive schemes. You think that Kidd will just abandon defense.

Wouldn't really call Miami a stifling halfcourt defensive team either. All of the title contenders also have a strong post presence.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I understand all the concerns about Z-Bo's game on the court. I think a lot of them are blown out of proportion, but I get that there is a concern about his defense and ability to get up and down the court fast.

But it is the cancer in the lockerroom and off court stuff that I think some of you are way off. I've been a Blazer fan for awhile (yea it's been a tough 4 years) and saw the exact same comments about Sheed . . . a cancer in the lockerroom and a thug off and on the court. I was preaching Sheed wouldn't be a problem back then . . . I don't see too many Detroit fans complaining about Sheed in the lockerroom or what he does off the court . . . and Zach is tame compared to what Sheed was doing with the Blazers.

When a team is losing, press and fans love to focus on that stuff. When the team is winning . . . it's all good.

With Zach, it is slowly turning into all good. Besides the rumor I heard about Zach for RJ, there are also rumors of Zach to Chicago, Memephis and now my favorite, to Atlanta for one of their multiple SFs.

I hope NJ doesn't break up the Kidd/Cater combo . . . I would love to see Kidd get a ring before he retires.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> And you think by trading RJ for Zach, we totally give up on defense and Frank just develops offensive schemes. You think that Kidd will just abandon defense.
> 
> Wouldn't really call Miami a stifling halfcourt defensive team either. All of the title contenders also have a strong post presence.


So now you are comparing Randolph's ''post presence'' to Shaq and Duncan?

That dude is lazy and selfish. He won't run or play defense.

He will get his numbers, though. That you can count on come hell or high water.

If the Nets stupidly trade for this guy, I give you about a week to start *****ing about how terrible he is.

He is an awful player to watch and a hard guy to root for.

Just ugly.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ghoti said:


> So now you are comparing Randolph's ''post presence'' to Shaq and Duncan?
> 
> That dude is lazy and selfish. He won't run or play defense.
> 
> ...


But how can he be lazy and selfish when he dedicated himself to coming into camp in tiptop shape. There are many players that get a nice contract and just stop trying, most especially when they can blame it on a risky surgery like the one he underwent two seasons ago. 

There's not really much I can say about his defense, people have limitations, Nash's lack of defense isnt stopping him from being a damn effective player. If I recall last year, Zach was pretty damn efficent, one of the league leaders in efficiency and PER ratings. The reason why Zach might look like a black hole out there is simply because the team needs him to put up big numbers to have a chance at winning, most especially when Roy missed significant time.

I honestly think a lot of Nets fans are giving this guy the raw end of the deal, like Kiss My Darius said, everyone called Sheed a headache before he went to the Pistons.

Oh by the way, Zach is the best low post scorer in the game not named Duncan


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ghoti said:


> That dude is lazy and selfish. He won't run or play defense.
> 
> He will get his numbers, though. That you can count on come hell or high water.



The dude comes back less than a year after having micro-fracture surgery and averages 10 rebounds a game and he is lazy?

Thank god you can count on him getting his rebound numbers come hell or high water . . . isn't that the exact type of rebounder you want on a team where your leading rebounder is a PG . . . do the Nets have a big man who even averages half the rebounds Zach does . . . I say bring on hell and high water :biggrin:


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> The dude comes back less than a year after having micro-fracture surgery and averages 10 rebounds a game and he is lazy?
> 
> Thank god you can count on him getting his rebound numbers come hell or high water . . . isn't that the exact type of rebounder you want on a team where your leading rebounder is a PG . . . do the Nets have a big man who even averages half the rebounds Zach does . . . I say bring on hell and high water :biggrin:


Great! You are welcome to keep him.

I'm glad you are happy he's on your team.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

If he's so good, why don't the Blazers trade us Aldridge instead?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

kweli109 said:


> If he's so good, why don't the Blazers trade us Aldridge instead?


For Jason Kidd, sure!


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

HB said:


> For Jason Kidd, sure!



So we could get ZBO for less, when he's incredibly dedicated, a rebounding monster, and the best low post scorer after Duncan? Sounds like a great deal!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

kweli109 said:


> So we could get ZBO for less, when he's incredibly dedicated, a rebounding monster, and the best low post scorer after Duncan? Sounds like a great deal!


FWIW I am not entirely convinced that Zbo would be a good fit on the Nets, but dont get it confused teams like Indiana, SA, Chicago and Memphis would love a guy with his talents. Its not like he doesnt have suitors out there if he is put on the trading block.

And as to your original statement, the Blazers getting the number 1 pick makes him expendable, they wont be winning a championship anytime soon, why not truly go into rebuilding and develop the young'ns.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> So we could get ZBO for less, when he's incredibly dedicated, a rebounding monster, and the best low post scorer after Duncan? Sounds like a great deal!



I guess that's my point . . . not saying Z-Bo is going to lead the Nets to a championship. But if the Nets are looking for an inside game, and rumor is they would be willing to trade RJ, Zbo could help and would fit.

But Nets fans obviously think they can do better than Zach (some Blazer fans think they can do better than RJ) . . . it should be an intersting summer.

Zach will likely be traded because of the log jam of big men (I admit I might be overvaluing him because I'm a BLazer fan) . . . so we will see what his trade value bring. Likewise will be intersting to see what Nets get for RJ (if they trade him) . . .


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

HB said:


> But how can he be lazy and selfish when he dedicated himself to coming into camp in tiptop shape. There are many players that get a nice contract and just stop trying, most especially when they can blame it on a risky surgery like the one he underwent two seasons ago.
> 
> There's not really much I can say about his defense, people have limitations, Nash's lack of defense isnt stopping him from being a damn effective player. If I recall last year, Zach was pretty damn efficent, one of the league leaders in efficiency and PER ratings. The reason why Zach might look like a black hole out there is simply because the team needs him to put up big numbers to have a chance at winning, most especially when Roy missed significant time.
> 
> ...


He looks like a black hole because he is a black hole.

Of course they ''need'' him, they foolishly built their whole team around him.

Why do you think they want to trade him? Now they want to win instead.

He won't ''fit in'' with the new, talented Blazers. He'll detract from everyone else's strengths.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ghoti said:


> He looks like a black hole because he is a black hole.
> 
> Of course they ''need'' him, they foolishly built their whole team around him.
> 
> ...



You really have no idea what you are talking about . . . I guess I should of picked up on this earlier.

Good luck to the Nets . . . with Carter and Kidd you guys are just another player away from the championship series.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ghoti said:


> He looks like a black hole because he is a black hole.
> 
> Of course they ''need'' him, they foolishly built their whole team around him.
> 
> ...


Foolishly? What other options did they have, they had to clean house with all the bad rep Sheed and co were causing. Zach was the bright spot on that team up till now that is.

Caught a few Blazer games this season and I think he gets an unfair rap on being a black hole. His teammates just arent that good at putting the ball in the hole, why do you think they are going after Rashard?

The only reason why the Blazers are trading Zach is because off his offcourt issues. Personally I think they should stick with him considering Oden will cover up a lot of his defensive deficiencies. 

Wait till they trade Z-bo to a team like the Bulls or pair him up with a JO, Gasol or TD type player and everyone is going to start singing his praises just like they did when Sheed went to the Pistons


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

HB said:


> Its not like he doesnt have suitors out there if he is put on the trading block.


There is no if. Zach was offered to every team at the deadline


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> If he's so good, why don't the Blazers trade us Aldridge instead?



Anyways.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You really have no idea what you are talking about . . . I guess I should of picked up on this earlier.
> 
> *Good luck to the Nets . . . with Carter and Kidd you guys are just another player away from the championship series.*



Get real. We're stuck with two overpaid wing players and no frontcourt at all. We're not even close to championship contention.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> There is no if. Zach was offered to every team at the deadline



I'd really like to read up on that.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

kweli109 said:


> So we could get ZBO for less, when he's incredibly dedicated, a rebounding monster, and the best low post scorer after Duncan? Sounds like a great deal!



What's with the sarcasm? Everything you just said was right about Zach Randolph.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You really have no idea what you are talking about . . . I guess I should of picked up on this earlier.
> 
> Good luck to the Nets . . . with Carter and Kidd you guys are just another player away from the championship series.


You keep saying this guy can fit in and play as part of a team, and I am telling you that is completely wrong.

He isn't a missing piece for any team. If you have him, that's your style. You are a plodding half court team with inferior interior defense.

What the hell else can he do? Nothing. You can't see that the Blazers would be better playing another style? 

Obviously the management feels that way.


----------



## kdub (Feb 11, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with how these players would benefit the Nets, I'd point out that the 2003-04 Jazz finished one game better than this year's Nets with a far worse roster than any Blazers team for which Randolph has played.
> 
> Those teams get a bit of a pass, however, considering they were handicapped by relying so heavily on such a one-dimensional losing player.


And who was the Jazz's coach at the time? Who was the Blazer's coach? That difference alone gives the Jazz at least 10 more won games.


----------



## Netted (Mar 31, 2005)

I say Chicago grabs Conley at #9 and sends him and a re-signed Nocioni to Portland for Randolph.

Jack/Conley/Rodriguez
Roy/Jones
Nocioni/Udoka
Aldridge/Outlaw
Oden/Pryzilla

Hell of a defensive front line.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Wow. I have 2 comments about this discussion.

First, some of you need to stop being so naive and believing the venom being vomitted out by the Portland area media. They hate the Blazer organization and will say anything to discredit the team. Randolph may not be a "great" player, but a lot of the negativity here is way over-the-top.

Second, you folks really don't appreciate what you have in Jason Kidd. There are damn few players who can honestly claim to "make his team-mates better", and Kidd is one of them!

Mentally, Randolp will always be a follower, not a leader. Put him next to Kidd, and he becomes a much better player. 

Conversely, playing next to Kidd has really inflated Jefferson's value. Take him away from Kidd (and put him next to a merely average PG) and his offensive stats take a serious hit.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow. I have 2 comments about this discussion.
> 
> First, some of you need to stop being so naive and believing the venom being vomitted out by the Portland area media. They hate the Blazer organization and will say anything to discredit the team. Randolph may not be a "great" player, but a lot of the negativity here is way over-the-top.
> 
> ...


Don't bother being rational. Some of us only follow what happens in Nets land and live by stories.

I agree with everything you said, BTW.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

And actually Ghoti, the 03-04 TrailBlazers finished one game behind the Jazz in terms of record. Z-Bo averaged 20/10 and was one vote behing in the Most Improved player of the year award.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> And actually Ghoti, the 03-04 TrailBlazers finished one game behind the Jazz in terms of record. Z-Bo averaged 20/10 and was one vote behing in the Most Improved player of the year award.


Blazers roster was _much _better.

"Improved" means he scored a bunch of points. I never said he wasn't good at that. That's the problem with him.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Blazers roster was _much _better.
> 
> "Improved" means he scored a bunch of points. I never said he wasn't good at that. That's the problem with him.



Much better? There roster consisted of Mcinnis, Stoudamire, SAR, Ruben Patterson. It's amazing how such a poorly constructed roster with me-first players was even in the playoff hunt. That was the first year of there rebuilding mode as well. Z-Bo also had the highest +per of that team and his present team as well.

The Jazz had the roster of Arroyo, Raja Bell, Mo Williams, Giricek, Harpring, Keon Clark and Kirilenko. His +per was second highest for that team, As of right now, his +per is 4 highest on the Jazz behind Boozer, Milsapp, and Harping.

Neither Andrei nor Zach had great rosters in 03-04 but to say the Jazz's roster was worse in reality isn't fair at all.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Much better? There roster consisted of Mcinnis, Stoudamire, SAR, Ruben Patterson.
> 
> The Jazz had the roster of Arroyo, Raja Bell, Mo Williams, Giricek, Harpring, Keon Clark and Kirilenko.
> 
> Neither Andrei nor Zach had great rosters in 03-04 but to say the Jazz's roster was worse in reality isn't fair at all.


Read those lists again.

This was not last year, it was 2003.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Much better? There roster consisted of Mcinnis, Stoudamire, SAR, Ruben Patterson.
> 
> The Jazz had the roster of Arroyo, Raja Bell, Mo Williams, Giricek, Harpring, Keon Clark and Kirilenko.
> 
> Neither Andrei nor Zach had great rosters in 03-04 but to say the Jazz's roster was worse in reality isn't fair at all.


Read those lists again. 

This was not last year, it was 2003.

Rasheed Wallace? Dale Davis?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Read those lists again.
> 
> This was not last year, it was 2003.



I know. Those are some key players in 03-04 for both teams.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Read those lists again.
> 
> This was not last year, it was 2003.
> 
> *Rasheed Wallace? Dale Davis*?



That was 02-03. I named the rosters for 03-04 but if you want to get on the 02-03, that's fine by me. Z-Bo didn't even start for Blazers in 02-03 and they did make the playoffs.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> That was 02-03. I named the rosters for 03-04 but if you want to get on the 02-03, that's fine by me. Z-Bo didn't even start for Blazers in 02-03 and they did make the playoffs.


Huh?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> Huh?



You were originally comparing the 03-04 rosters for the Jazz and Blazers.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> That was 02-03. I named the rosters for 03-04 but if you want to get on the 02-03, that's fine by me. *Z-Bo didn't even start for Blazers in 02-03 and they did make the playoffs*.


Thus supporting Ghoti's argument that the less a team plays zBo, the better off they are.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Astral Dragon said:


> Thus supporting Ghoti's argument that the less a team plays zBo, the better off they are.



That's BS. He was still a young guy in the league and he was playing behind seasoned veterans when they were trying to make a title run. Jermaine O' Neal was buried on the bench in Portland before Zach, does that make him a bad player?


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> That's BS. He was still a young guy in the league and he was playing behind seasoned veterans when they were trying to make a title run. Jermaine O' Neal was buried on the bench in Portland before Zach, does that make him a bad player?


Zach is a high-scoring, good rebounding cancer. Woe to whichever team he plays for.

I would trade Carter for him, however.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Anyways, while we can agree Randolphs's defense is not good, let's not make it seem much worse then it is. Get this, the opponents PF position was the second least productive position for the Blazers against opposing teams meaning that there defended opposing PFs well and positions 1-3 scored more points against the Blazers 1-3.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Mr.Montross said:


> Zach is a high-scoring, good rebounding cancer. Woe to whichever team he plays for.
> 
> I would trade Carter for him, however.



Again, no proof of him being a cancer. His teammates love him, you're just living by his past. That's like some uninformed fan coming in here and looking at Kidd's divorce and thinking he's a wife beating *****.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> You were originally comparing the 03-04 rosters for the Jazz and Blazers.


That's why I said "huh?".


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

ghoti said:


> That's why I said "huh?".


Sorry, I don't follow.

Oh ok, I think i know where you're getting at. They had Sheed for half of the year in 03-04.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Again, no proof of him being a cancer. His teammates love him, you're just living by his past. That's like some uninformed fan coming in here and looking at Kidd's divorce and thinking he's a wife beating *****.


Where is the proof that his teammates love him? Does Zach put that in his statements when he's arrested?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow. I have 2 comments about this discussion.
> 
> First, some of you need to stop being so naive and believing the venom being vomitted out by the Portland area media. They hate the Blazer organization and will say anything to discredit the team. Randolph may not be a "great" player, but a lot of the negativity here is way over-the-top.
> 
> ...


Thank you sir. Like I said earlier in this post, a lot of Nets fans dont pay attention to anything outside the tristate area. When you read comments like Collins could score 30 on Z-bo, or Z-bo is lazy and selfish its quite disheartening. I'd personally like to know how many Portland games some of this guys saw before making their conclusion, I am quite sure most are judging him by what they read on the internet and in the media


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

HB said:


> Thank you sir. Like I said earlier in this post, a lot of Nets fans dont pay attention to anything outside the tristate area. When you read comments like Collins could score 30 on Z-bo, or Z-bo is lazy and selfish its quite disheartening. I'd personally like to know how many Portland games some of this guys saw before making their conclusion, I am quite sure most are judging him by what they read on the internet and in the media


Zach is a cancer. If Nets trade for Zach, they deserve him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mr.Montross said:


> Zach is a cancer. If Nets trade for Zach, they deserve him.


Is Sheed a cancer also? How about Patterson? Did he poison the Bucks lockerroom yet?

BTW you do know Zach's teammates like him right?

And as to whomever said you cant win with Zach, remember the 03-04 playoffs when Sheed went incognito. Zach's superb play was the biggest reason as to why Sheed was moved.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Mr.Montross said:


> Where is the proof that his teammates love him? Does Zach put that in his statements when he's arrested?



http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/360543-zach-randoph.html


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

HB said:


> Thank you sir. Like I said earlier in this post, a* lot of Nets fans dont pay attention to anything outside the tristate area. When you read comments like Collins could score 30 on Z-bo, or Z-bo is lazy and selfish its quite disheartening*. I'd personally like to know how many Portland games some of this guys saw before making their conclusion, I am quite sure most are judging him by what they read on the internet and in the media



Not just disheartening, an embarrasment and gives the Nets fans of BBF there title of being the most homeristic fans.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

20.9ppg 11.7rpg 3.0apg
23.6ppg 10rpg 2.2apg
20.5ppg 9.3rpg 2.9apg
20 ppg 10.6rpg 3.4apg

Those are the stats of the four best PF's in the West. Any of those guys put on the Nets would be miles better than what they have there right now. So can anyone tell me why one guy is deemed lazy, selfish and a black hole when his numbers arent that much different than 3 other guys that you guys would be drooling to have on this team.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

HB said:


> 20.9ppg 11.7rpg 3.0apg
> 23.6ppg 10rpg 2.2apg
> 20.5ppg 9.3rpg 2.9apg
> 20 ppg 10.6rpg 3.4apg
> ...


A total of 8 career NBA playoff games.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/360543-zach-randoph.html


LOL!!!! Your proof is from a Blazers' fan forum? Very funny.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mr.Montross said:


> A total of 8 career NBA playoff games.


Have you seen the Blazers roster since the 03-04 season? Do you know the Blazers play in the Western conference? Do you know how difficult it is to make the playoffs in the West with teams that have little to no experience


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Mr.Montross said:


> LOL!!!! Your proof is from a Blazers' fan forum? Very funny.


They would know better about Zach than a bunch of people that have never watched a Blazer game all season


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Mr.Montross said:


> LOL!!!! Your proof is from a Blazers' fan forum? Very funny.



Honestly, I think a Blazers fans is better suited to answer that question then a bunch Nets fans who keep their eyes on one team.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

I have stated my opinions on Zach Randolph.

Neither mine nor your opinion mean anything regarding what will happen with Nets and with Zach.

I will just state again that if the Nets trade for Zach they deserve him.

I am done posting on the subject of Zach.

But remember that I was correct about Vince being a dog.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lol the great Montross has spoken without backing up anything as usual


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

HB said:


> Lol the great Montross has spoken without backing up anything as usual


Vince backed up my statements about him, and Zach will back up my statements about Zach.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

I think a Nets fan who watches Blazers games is the most qualified person to give an opinion on whether he is a good acquisition for the Nets, not a Blazers fan.

The people in this thread arguing so strenuously for making Randolph a Net are thinking only about the player, not how the Nets will win with him on the roster.

This guy is not a role player and he doesn't make role player money. He is a #1 option offensively and no coach is going to make him anything else.

You would think a Nets fan would learn that having a scorer who offers little else is not the foundation for success.

This team made the finals with a roster where nobody averaged 15 ppg. Randolph represents the polar opposite of that philosophy, and the results would be the opposite as well.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ghoti said:


> I think a Nets fan who watches Blazers games is the most qualified person to give an opinion on whether he is a good acquisition for the Nets, not a Blazers fan.
> 
> The people in this thread arguing so strenuously for making Randolph a Net are thinking only about the player, not how the Nets will win with him on the roster.
> 
> ...


Well ghoti to be honest I dont think Zach would fit the Nets well, because they have no guy on the inside that will cover up adequately for his defensive woes. On the other hand, Zach Randolph is a damn good player and people saying he is lazy, selfish and a black hole simply have no clue of his game. Pair him with JO, Camby, TD, Big Ben or Pau and we are talking about something special. To average 24 and 10 playing against the Elite PF's in the West is no easy feat to accomplish.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

HB said:


> Well ghoti to be honest I dont think Zach would fit the Nets well, because they have no guy on the inside that will cover up adequately for his defensive woes. On the other hand, Zach Randolph is a damn good player and people saying he is lazy, selfish and a black hole simply have no clue of his game. Pair him with JO, Camby, TD, Big Ben or Pau and we are talking about something special. To average 24 and 10 playing against the Elite PF's in the West is no easy feat to accomplish.


You mean like how Boozer and Okur wouldn't be winners if Kirilenko wasn't around?

So we agree. Zach has to play with an elite big man to be effective. The Blazers are better without him and the Nets should stay far away.

(I guess Duncan wouldn't mind if Zach didn't play defense or run the court or pass since he would be thrilled to work extra, extra hard for the privilege of having Zach Randolph as a teammate.)


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ghoti said:


> You mean like how Boozer and Okur wouldn't be winners if Kirilenko wasn't around?
> 
> So we agree. Zach has to play with an elite big man to be effective. The Blazers are better without him and the Nets should stay far away.
> 
> (I guess Duncan wouldn't mind if Zach didn't play defense or run the court or pass since he would be thrilled to work extra, extra hard for the privilege of having Zach Randolph as a teammate.)


But now the Blazers have Oden who is going to be one of the best defensive big men in the league next year even as a rookie. I dont think Trail Blazer fans are going to be crying if they dont trade Zach at the end of the season. Its hard to replace a 20, 10 option most especially when its a low post player.

And Zach does pass, its common misconception that he doesn't. I watched a fair amount of Blazer games this season because LA is one of my favorite players. 

Zach did average 2.2 apg after all. With that said, he is younger than RJ, a coach like Pop would demand the best from him. Would you consider guys like Boozer, Brand and TD selfish players?


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

HB said:


> But now the Blazers have Oden who is going to be one of the best defensive big men in the league next year even as a rookie. I dont think Trail Blazer fans are going to be crying if they dont trade Zach at the end of the season. Its hard to replace a 20, 10 option most especially when its a low post player.
> 
> And Zach does pass, its common misconception that he doesn't. I watched a fair amount of Blazer games this season because LA is one of my favorite players.
> 
> Zach did average 2.2 apg after all. With that said, he is younger than RJ, a coach like Pop would demand the best from him. Would you consider guys like Boozer, Brand and TD selfish players?


Boozer is not a player I would build anything around. He's in a situation where he is effective.

Duncan and Brand are elite defensive players, so comparing them to Randolph is a joke.

I also don't see those guys holding the ball for the entire clock as if their teammates had the plague.

Of course Zach passes out of double-teams. He is a talented post scorer. I never said he wasn't. If you are telling me passing is a strength of his, that's hilarious.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ghoti said:


> Boozer is not a player I would build anything around. He's in a situation where he is effective.
> 
> Duncan and Brand are elite defensive players, so comparing them to Randolph is a joke.
> 
> ...


Let me go through this again, Zach Randolph averaged 24 and 10 last season, last I checked rebounding is also an aspect of defense. Why shouldnt he be compared to guys who put up similar numbers? There were only a handful of players in the league that accomplished that feat last year.

Let me put it this way, besides Roy and Zbo, would you want any players on the Blazers squad from last season to start on your team. That should answer why he has to be a ball hog at times.

He did average 2.2 apg, I'd say 3apg is the norm for talented big men. He wasnt too far off from those numbers.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Hopefully my last statement on this, I dont think Zbo would fit well with the Nets but I think he is a pretty good player that gets a bad rap mostly because of his offcourt problems.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Ruben Patterson loved Zach when they were teammates..and how about this Blazers fan's blog:



> Leave it to Zach Randolph to screw up any progress the Portland Trailblazers have made in winning back its fanbase during the offseason. The Oregonian reports the Mr. Randolph is "maybe a witness" or "maybe a suspect" in a sexual assault case. Z-bo, as he is called, has retained high profile defense attorney Stephen Houze who as defended other Blazer luminaries such as Damon Stoudamire. I'm pretty sure most of the Blazers probably have Mr. Houze on retainer, who is rumored not to accept clients unless they can pay a $100,000 retainer fee.
> 
> Let me just say it now. Get rid of Randolph! The kid is a disease on the team and blackhole on court (and no that isn't a racial comment). Oh, and get rid of Darius Miles too. I don't care what it takes now and I don't really care what we get in return as long as they aren't cancerous like these two.


Now let's take a look at the good Mr. Randolph's rap sheet, shall we?

•1995. Thirty days in juvenile detention for shoplifting.

•High school years: Thirty days of house arrest for battery.

•Thirty days in juvenile detention for receiving stolen property, a gun.

•2002. Underage drinking arrest in Marion, Ind., his hometown.

•2003. Team suspension by the Trail Blazers for sucker-punching teammate Ruben Patterson in practice and breaking his eye socket.

•2003. Arrested in Portland for driving under the influence of intoxicants and marijuana.

•2004. Accused by police of lying in an investigation of his brother shooting three men in an Indiana nightclub.

•2006. Suspended by the Trail Blazers for making obscene gestures to fans after a game in Indiana.

•2006. Sued by a Portland woman for sexual assault, though prosecutors didn't file criminal charges.

•2007. Left a strip club without paying the bill while he was on bereavement leave from the team and missed three games after the death of his girlfriend's cousin.

•2007. Earlier this month, police were called to the parking lot of a strip club where Randolph and teammate Darius Miles were part of a gathering and a gunshot was fired.

Man, this guy is a winner! It would be an honor to have such a generous and respectable person as Zach Randolph playing for our team. Man, just thinking about him suiting up in a Nets uniform makes me giddy! And this isn't even taking into account his amazing on the court contributions! How exciting would it be to have such a brilliant scorer on our team! We haven't had a scorer at the 4 like that since DC! Who needs things like defense, or passing, or team chemistry. These things are over-rated. Man, I am super duper excited to have such a magnificent ball stopper and such a lazy defender on our team. Who wouldn't be?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Unbeleivable. Just a sad day for all if we have to hear about Ruben Patterson's feelings toward a teammate.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Ghoti, you said in the other thread that no teams wins without legit stars yet you pick on Z-Bo for not maiking the playoffs with that roster.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

In a game where nothing is more valuable, why do you think Portland is so eager to rid themselves of a 23-10 low post scoring big man? Is it because they have someone who is younger, cheaper, and better? Sure. Is it because he is a cancer and they realize they can never go anywhere as long as he is on the team? Absolutely. Is it because he is a slow, plodding black hole that stops the ball and doesn't defend anything other than his marijuana and assault charges? Sure is! The guy is a bum. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> In a game where nothing is more valuable, why do you think Portland is so eager to rid themselves of a 23-10 low post scoring big man? Is it because they have someone who is younger, cheaper, and better? Sure. Is it because he is a cancer and they realize they can never go anywhere as long as he is on the team? Absolutely. Is it because he is a slow, plodding black hole that stops the ball and doesn't defend anything other than his marijuana and assault charges? Sure is! The guy is a bum. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.


They said the exact same things about Rasheed Wallace, how did that turnout again?


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

HB said:


> Let me go through this again, Zach Randolph averaged 24 and 10 last season, last I checked rebounding is also an aspect of defense. Why shouldnt he be compared to guys who put up similar numbers? There were only a handful of players in the league that accomplished that feat last year.
> 
> Let me put it this way, besides Roy and Zbo, would you want any players on the Blazers squad from last season to start on your team. That should answer why he has to be a ball hog at times.
> 
> He did average 2.2 apg, I'd say 3apg is the norm for talented big men. He wasnt too far off from those numbers.


The fact that both you and he think Zach has to hog the ball to make his team better is why I dont want him here and why this discussion will never end.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

HB said:


> They said the exact same things about Rasheed Wallace, how did that turnout again?


Now Sheed and Randolph are the same player?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ghoti said:


> Now Sheed and Randolph are the same player?


Nope, but people said virtually the same things about them based on their off court issues. I can remember vividly Walton on national TV calling Rasheed a despicable person and a waste of talent.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> Ghoti, you said in the other thread that no teams wins without legit stars yet you pick on Z-Bo for not maiking the playoffs with that roster.


Paying Randolph like a cornerstone star is worse than not having one.

The Knicks are paying several players worse than Randolph that kind of money.


----------



## cokeplease (Jun 3, 2006)

For all of you who are still questioning Zach Randolph's legitimacy as a player to be considered for a trade to NJ:

I've lived in Salem, Oregon for the last 17 years and i can tell you this about Randolph....

He has had numerous off court issues, however this doesnt seem to effect his performance. He has had to carry the bulk of the scoring for the blazers the last few years, which reflects his 20+ ppg in the last few seasons. Concerning his own personal motivations, Randolph is a very feisty player. He will fight and scrap for his team IF he is motivated.

This year Zach was highly motivated to see his team improve for the first half or so of the year. The year prior he was not. If your coach/players can get randolph to be as effective as he was this year I know he will perform well.

Part of the issue for Randolph situation is the fact that he is in Portland. I dont think he is a leader of a team. His off court issues reflect that. However, he is a great talent that Kidd and Carter could harness far better than anyone on the blazers.

I have no doubts that he would perform magnificently in New JErsey, however he probably wouldnt put up as big of numbers unless Carters numbers drop.

I know for a fact that the blazer organization doesnt want to take Carter. They would only be interested in acquiring RJ.

But even at that i think there are better options out there than RJ. The management has expressed interest in Gerald Wallace as well as Rashard Lewis. But RJ still remains a top prospect.

You also have to remember. If the blazers traded for RJ, you could likely acquire a player like Webster or 1 of 4 second round picks that the blazers have this year.


Personally i think the whole blazer scenario could go something like this...

Draft Oden at #1. Trade Randolph and 2nd round pick to Boston for #5 (Brewer, Julian Wright, Conley) and Theo Ratliff.

Lineup looks like this:

Jack
Roy
Brewer/Wright
Aldridge
Oden

As for randolph...he can be cryptonite or dynamite. You just have to be careful with him.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

A little perspective to delusional Nets fans.

Zach was an under-rated player when he was first drafted because of his height and stature. However, he was stuck behind a stacked front court of Sheed, Dale Davis, and Sabonis, thus rarely got playing time. Yet facing elimination in a playoff series against Dallas while down 3-0, Mo Cheeks inserted Zach into the starting lineup, and just saw an amazing burst of talent and the series went to seven games. The Mavs absolutely had no answer for his unstoppable post moves, and mid-range jumper. Management felt that he was ready to take the reigns full time, and got rid of Sheed, yet made some other questionable moves to end up with a pathetic lineup, leading to all the losing. 

IMO, he is the second most prolific offensive post player in the league behind Duncan. His overall game has improved by leaps and bounds from '04, and actually passes the ball to open teammates, and is passionate about getting others involved. His off the court actions do bring a bad reputation to himself and his team, but never do they affect his performance on the court. Some of the incidents are grossly exaggerated by local media as they have only one sports franchise on which to focus. I mean being present in the parking lot of a club where someone heard a shot go off was news. 

As for why the Blazers want to trade him, one aspect to considere is that he clogs the lineup. LaMarcus is good enough to be a starter, and most feel that he'll be better than Zach. Oden is definitely going to be better. Zach will most likely not be willing to come off the bench to accomodate for a rookie or a second year player, so an option of trading him presents itself. However, there is no question that he has passion for the game and wants to improve.

Hope this helps. There are some pretty uninformed generalizations made here.


----------



## kdub (Feb 11, 2005)

Thanks for the insight, Portland natives and fans. Personally I'd trade RJ for Zach, then trade Krstic for a defensive big man, and keep Mikki Moore for jumpers and Collins for low post team D.


----------



## kdub (Feb 11, 2005)

On second thought, I wouldn't mind keeping Krstic, and hoping for the increased development of Boone.


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

HB said:


> Let me go through this again, Zach Randolph averaged 24 and 10 last season, last I checked rebounding is also an aspect of defense


Not really. TEAM defensive rebounding rate--that is, measured as a percentage of opportunities--is a measure of TEAM defense. INDIVIDUAL defensive rebounding rate doesn't really mean much to me. It could mean that there were a lot of rebounding opportunities because the team commits a ****load of turnovers or gives up a lot of offensive rebounds, or that the team just plays at a very fast pace, and thus there are more shots taken by each team over the course of a game. It could mean that the player doesn't box out one whit, but goes after every rebound, and as a result if he doesn't get it, his teammates are unlikely to, either. Or, it could mean that the team defense is structured so that he is INTENDED to get most of the rebounds, so that number just means that he isn't incompetant.

You need CONTEXT. You can't make a general statement that a guy is a "good rebounder" simply by looking at the sum total.

Individual OFFENSIVE rebounding rates is where you really can separate rebounding skill among different players.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ghoti said:


> I think a Nets fan who watches Blazers games is the most qualified person to give an opinion on whether he is a good acquisition for the Nets, not a Blazers fan.
> 
> The people in this thread arguing so strenuously for making Randolph a Net are thinking only about the player, not how the Nets will win with him on the roster.
> 
> ...


Now this I understand. I really don't know how Zach would fit in with the Nets, because I don't know enough about the Nets. If the Nets need a defesnive big man or at least a defensive minded PF, than Zach is not the player. If Nets are concerned about the salary cap and don't want to overpay a player, than Zach is not the right player. If the whole philosophy of Nets ball starts on the defnesive side, Zach is not the right player.

Where many posters have Zach pegged wrong is he is a bad teammate, he is lazy, or doesn't know how to win (he has been a contributor on winning rosters) . . . he has been a workhorse on a very bad team up until last year. When good but young players were brought in, Zach's ego didn't get hurt, he passed the tourch to Roy and did his thing putting up big numbers while defenses focused on stopping him.

Zach may not be the right player for Nets, but like Sheed, Zach will play a key role on the right team.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Zach doesn't help the Nets win and put in the NYC metro area is a ticking time bomb for an ugly off the court incident.


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> Zach doesn't help the Nets win and put in the NYC metro area is a ticking time bomb for an ugly off the court incident.


This is a good point that I haven't thought of yet. New York is a far different place than Portland.

I take a little pride in knowing that our franchise is made up of fine characters (except for the occasional trip to Toys R Us), Zach really stands out among guys like RJ, Kidd, Collins...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

GMJigga said:


> This is a good point that I haven't thought of yet. New York is a far different place than Portland.
> 
> I take a little pride in knowing that our franchise is made up of fine characters (except for the occasional trip to Toys R Us), Zach really stands out among guys like RJ, Kidd, Collins...




Is there a different Kidd on your team, or are you refering to the one that had a domestic violence charge against him?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> A little perspective to delusional Nets fans.
> 
> Zach was an under-rated player when he was first drafted because of his height and stature. However, he was stuck behind a stacked front court of Sheed, Dale Davis, and Sabonis, thus rarely got playing time. Yet facing elimination in a playoff series against Dallas while down 3-0, Mo Cheeks inserted Zach into the starting lineup, and just saw an amazing burst of talent and the series went to seven games. The Mavs absolutely had no answer for his unstoppable post moves, and mid-range jumper. Management felt that he was ready to take the reigns full time, and got rid of Sheed, yet made some other questionable moves to end up with a pathetic lineup, leading to all the losing.
> 
> ...


You summed up my thoughts pretty nicely


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dumpy said:


> Not really. TEAM defensive rebounding rate--that is, measured as a percentage of opportunities--is a measure of TEAM defense. INDIVIDUAL defensive rebounding rate doesn't really mean much to me. It could mean that there were a lot of rebounding opportunities because the team commits a ****load of turnovers or gives up a lot of offensive rebounds, or that the team just plays at a very fast pace, and thus there are more shots taken by each team over the course of a game. It could mean that the player doesn't box out one whit, but goes after every rebound, and as a result if he doesn't get it, his teammates are unlikely to, either. Or, it could mean that the team defense is structured so that he is INTENDED to get most of the rebounds, so that number just means that he isn't incompetant.
> 
> You need CONTEXT. You can't make a general statement that a guy is a "good rebounder" simply by looking at the sum total.
> 
> Individual OFFENSIVE rebounding rates is where you really can separate rebounding skill among different players.


True, but I do think Zach is a pretty good offensive rebounder.


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Is there a different Kidd on your team, or are you refering to the one that had a domestic violence charge against him?



Ah ha! That happened in Phoenix it doesn't count! :biggrin: And I'm applying a double standard here because Kidd's incident was a single one, whereas Bo face has more of a history


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

HB said:


> True, but I do think Zach is a pretty good offensive rebounder.



3.4 offensive rebounds per game.


----------



## Krakista (Apr 13, 2005)

Can Zach Randolph run, run, run???


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

HB said:


> True, but I do think Zach is a pretty good offensive rebounder.


Perhaps. But how much does he contribute on the defensive boards? that's not some snide comment; I don't know. Look at Jason Collins: He's a below-average rebounder, but over the last few years, when he has been in the game, the Nets have been a better rebounding team than Ben Wallace's teams, when Wallace has been on the court (among other rebounders). To sum up: Would the Nets' TEAM rebounding stats decline if they added Zach to the team? Or would they improve?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dumpy said:


> Perhaps. But how much does he contribute on the defensive boards? that's not some snide comment; I don't know. Look at Jason Collins: He's a below-average rebounder, but over the last few years, when he has been in the game, the Nets have been a better rebounding team than Ben Wallace's teams, when Wallace has been on the court (among other rebounders). To sum up: Would the Nets' TEAM rebounding stats decline if they added Zach to the team? Or would they improve?


Well although I dont think Zach is what the Nets are looking for, I think he do just fine getting rebounds if he played alongside Collins. That should help Kidd instead of have him battling in the paint for rebounds


----------



## NetIncome (Jan 24, 2004)

Anyone post this...I am too bored to go through all this detritius.

•Junior High: Thirty days in juvenile detention for shoplifting.

•High school: Thirty days of house arrest for battery.

•High School: Thirty days in juvenile detention for receiving stolen property, a gun.

•2002. Underage drinking arrest in Marion, Ind., his hometown.

•2003. Team suspension by the Trail Blazers for sucker-punching teammate Ruben Patterson in practice and breaking his eye socket.

•2003. Arrested in Portland for driving under the influence of intoxicants and marijuana.

•2004. Accused by police of lying in an investigation of his brother shooting three men in an Indiana nightclub.

•2006. Suspended by the Trail Blazers for making obscene gestures to fans after a game in Indiana.

•2006. Sued by a Portland woman for sexual assault, though prosecutors didn't file criminal charges.

•2007. Left a strip club without paying the bill while he was on bereavement leave from the team and missed three games after the death of his girlfriend's cousin.

•2007. Earlier this month, police were called to the parking lot of a strip club where Randolph and teammate Darius Miles were part of a gathering and a gunshot was fired.

--thanks to Sam Smith of Chi Tribune.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Yup. I posted that, but obviously those fans that want him in a Nets uniform will continue to ignore all his baggage and flaws. There is absolutely nothing in Zach Randolph's game that is conducive to winning basketball. Absolutely nothing. He is not Rasheed Wallace. He is a cancerous thug, and the further we stay away from him the better.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

NetIncome said:


> Anyone post this...I am too bored to go through all this detritius.
> 
> •Junior High: Thirty days in juvenile detention for shoplifting.
> 
> ...



If you really look at that list you will note that since 2003 Zach hasn't done anything illegal. He put himself in a lot of stupid situations, but didn't do anything illegal. Even in 2003 he was never convicted of the DUII, and sucker punched Ruben Patterson because Patterson was going after another teammate. He and Ruben have been friends ever since by the way, even attending one anothers house on holidays. 



Like I've said a lot in this thread. Zach isn't the best character guy, but he isn't as bad as a lot of people make him out to be...including myself. Put him with some veterans and he would be fin I think. He doesn't play help or transition defense though. That is something you would have to deal with in exchange for 23/10


----------



## NetIncome (Jan 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> If you really look at that list you will note that since 2003 Zach hasn't done anything illegal. He put himself in a lot of stupid situations, but didn't do anything illegal. Even in 2003 he was never convicted of the DUII, and sucker punched Ruben Patterson because Patterson was going after another teammate. He and Ruben have been friends ever since by the way, even attending one anothers house on holidays.


Yippie...nothing illegal. He "hasn't done anything illegal"??? HE HASNT BEEN CAUGHT!!! Tell me this...are you for real??? I mean do you believe this ****? I mean really.



mediocre man said:


> Like I've said a lot in this thread. Zach isn't the best character guy, but he isn't as bad as a lot of people make him out to be...including myself. Put him with some veterans and he would be fin I think. He doesn't play help or transition defense though. That is something you would have to deal with in exchange for 23/10


HE'S WORSE. THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT A GUY WHO IS A SOCIOPATH. GET IT. HIS BEHAVIOR HAS NOT CHANGED.


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

LOL seriously. I mean the guy was given time to attend a funeral and spends the time at a strip club


...and then doesn't pay the tab I mean _that_ is where I draw the line, sirs


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

That's tremendous. 

"Zach Randolph: No illegal activity since 2003."

Why not just: "No Accidents For 1000 Days."


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Leaving a strip club without paying your tab is legal???? 


*runs to nearest strip club*


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

Let's acquire Ron Artest also.


----------



## GMJigga (May 23, 2006)

And bring back Jeff McInnis along with signing Jay 'shot gun' Williams?


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

GMJigga said:


> And bring back Jeff McInnis along with signing Jay 'shot gun' Williams?


All of those other guys are upstanding role models compared to that lowlife piece of garbage Jayson Williams.


----------



## GM3 (May 5, 2005)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=321847



> The Bulls would probably be willing to take a chance on Randolph and his troubled past if the price is reasonable. But if the Blazers are asking for Hinrich, Gordon or Deng, nothing is going to happen. Obviously, the Bulls are hoping the price comes down this summer, *though one popular rumor has Randolph headed to New Jersey for Richard Jefferson*.


----------



## Cormegadadon (May 1, 2006)

GM3 said:


> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=321847



looks like this might happen. would hate to see this happen but it's time for a change. the whole trio experiment is not working.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Cormegadadon said:


> looks like this might happen. would hate to see this happen but it's time for a change. the whole trio experiment is not working.


It would just be another horrible day in Nets' history


----------



## Drew (Feb 28, 2005)

For those that are for trading Richard Jefferson for Randolph, what do you plan on doing w/ Jason Kidd? He will never touch the ball on the offensive end, and the Nets will not be a fast break team. Jason Kidd does no good on a team w/ Vince Carter and Zach Randolph holding the ball for 23 of the 24 seconds in the shot clock EVERYTIME DOWN THE FLOOR.

Trading the one guy that can consistently run w/ Kidd for a half court player means you ain't runnin. And Kidd would be worth about as much as Jacque Vaughn. Not good for a guy making 20 million bucks who is the captain of your team.


----------



## Cormegadadon (May 1, 2006)

Mr.Montross said:


> It would just be another horrible day in Nets' history




I think many people are judging Zach off his attitude and what goes on off the court and figure "this guy is nothing but trouble"

wait didn't the nets add a point guard who was know to have problems with both of his coaches in Dallas and PHX. He would later butt heads with Byron Scott. Lets not mention the incident with his wife and locker room distraction??? Toni Braxton anyone?? How about this year distraction.

Now what if the nets would have factor all of that before taking a chance on Kidd.

What about VC. I will not even go there. All i will say is give the kid a chance then see what happens.

He was the only player scoring 25 plus and pulling 10 rebounds early this season .

Name the last time you seen a nets player do that. Give it a chance it's not like what we have now is excatly working.


----------



## Netted (Mar 31, 2005)

Cormegadadon said:


> *I think many people are judging Zach off his attitude and what goes on off the court and figure "this guy is nothing but trouble"*
> 
> wait didn't the nets add a point guard who was know to have problems with both of his coaches in Dallas and PHX. He would later butt heads with Byron Scott. Lets not mention the incident with his wife and locker room distraction??? Toni Braxton anyone?? How about this year distraction.
> 
> ...


No, a lot of people are basing there opinion on mutiple things. He sucks defensivley, has no running game, rarely gives the ball up and has a history of making stupid decisions off the court. It's not just due to one thing that people don't want him here. 

Most of the people that do want him here is because he does one thing: scores in the post.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

Mr.Montross said:


> What leads you to believe Kidd would make Randolph's character issues less of a deal?
> 
> Kidd couldn't make Carter's lack of heart less of an issue.


Wow youv been asleep these past few years havent you.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

Zach is payed way to much. I guess for RJ and 2 2nd round picks and w give thm Illic. I dont know of they want to many mor young players with those picks. Send Illic back to Europe and s if he can ver play. We draft 2 decent backups and get something in the low post.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

You know what else what good is RJ if we never hav him. He hasnt stayd halthy for the ntir season for 3 years.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

Immortal Technique said:


> You know what else what good is RJ if we never hav him. He hasnt stayd halthy for the ntir season for 3 years.


He played 78 games last year. Why don't you sit a few plays out there, champ?


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

jmk said:


> He played 78 games last year. Why don't you sit a few plays out there, champ?


Was he halthy when it mattered most? When we were going up against Miami and just won game 1 in Miami he had to hurt his ankle.


----------



## jirohkanzaki (Aug 4, 2005)

Immortal Technique said:


> Was he halthy when it mattered most? When we were going up against Miami and just won game 1 in Miami he had to hurt his ankle.


yeah...rj should time his injuries better...


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

Im not saying its really his fault. Hs just gets injured to much. Vince may suck sometimes but at least hes there.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Immortal Technique said:


> Zach is payed way to much. I guess for RJ and 2 2nd round picks and w give thm Illic. I dont know of they want to many mor young players with those picks. Send Illic back to Europe and s if he can ver play. We draft 2 decent backups and get something in the low post.



Blazer fan here.

You can say that Zach's a bad defensive player, you can say that his baggage is exorbidant. But, you can't claim that he's overpaid....especially when he and RJ have almost identical contracts. Over the next four years of both players' respective contractual agreements, Zach is paid a TOTAL of about $6MM more. 

I really think you're underestimating Zach's value by the way.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

Immortal Technique said:


> Im not saying its really his fault. Hs just gets injured to much. Vince may suck sometimes but at least hes there.


RJ has had 1 major injury, and that was the cause of a dirty undercut. Anything else has just been an offshoot of that. He has really only had one real injury throughout his career, and he has played a whole lot of games with that injury. He was never given the proper time to heal, because he cares about the team and always wants to play, regardless of his own well-being. 

RJ "is there" even when he is hurt. What you're saying is just foolish.


----------



## jirohkanzaki (Aug 4, 2005)

Immortal Technique said:


> Im not saying its really his fault. Hs just gets injured to much. Vince may suck sometimes but at least hes there.


i wonder when the stars will line up for the nets where jkidd will have a relatively good shooting year, vc decides to tear up the league once more, rj will be healthy, krstic will have his breakout year, the nets find a gem in the draft and in free agency plus have a bench to boot...


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

yuyuza1 said:


> Blazer fan here.
> 
> You can say that Zach's a bad defensive player, you can say that his baggage is exorbidant. But, you can't claim that he's overpaid....especially when he and RJ have almost identical contracts. Over the next four years of both players' respective contractual agreements, Zach is paid a TOTAL of about $6MM more.
> 
> I really think you're underestimating Zach's value by the way.


And RJ is btter than Zach. He plays well on both sides of the floor.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

jmk said:


> RJ has had 1 major injury, and that was the cause of a dirty undercut. Anything else has just been an offshoot of that. He has really only had one real injury throughout his career, and he has played a whole lot of games with that injury. He was never given the proper time to heal, because he cares about the team and always wants to play, regardless of his own well-being.
> 
> RJ "is there" even when he is hurt. What you're saying is just foolish.


What about this year? You really think we would have gone for 41 if we had RJ?


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

jirohkanzaki said:


> i wonder when the stars will line up for the nets where jkidd will have a relatively good shooting year, vc decides to tear up the league once more, rj will be healthy, krstic will have his breakout year, the nets find a gem in the draft and in free agency plus have a bench to boot...


J-Kidd will definetly have a good shooting year. And I love how people think that 
Vince just decides one day that he feels like he wants to play and try today. Vince just isnt consistent. He cant be that player. He cant be that lone offensive option and he needs a big man. Kristic already had his breakout year. We are never finding a gem in the draft.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Immortal Technique said:


> Wow youv been asleep these past few years havent you.


Can you attempt to explain those, for a lack of a better description, words?


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

Mr.Montross said:


> Can you attempt to explain those, for a lack of a better description, words?


Remember when Vince first came here? Rmember when Vince wasnt playing that well last year and Kidd askd him to play better.Remember his awesome stretch this year. Vince doesnt choose to play badly. 
Why would he? If he could be that 30 ppg per gam player and lead th Nets to the finals he would have gotten his 3 year 20 mill extension. Vince just isnt that player.


----------



## jirohkanzaki (Aug 4, 2005)

Immortal Technique said:


> J-Kidd will definetly have a good shooting year. And I love how people think that Vince just decides one day that he feels like he wants to play and try today. Vince just isnt consistent. He cant be that player. He cant be that lone offensive option and he needs a big man. Kristic already had his breakout year. We are never finding a gem in the draft.


you spew out a lot of stuff without saying why it is so...so yeah...i believe you...


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

jirohkanzaki said:


> you spew out a lot of stuff without saying why it is so...so yeah...i believe you...


Yes. I am also convinced


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

I would love to have Zach here with the Nets, but at the same time I would not want to give up or core to get him. He could be the extra piece we need to take us to the championship, even though I would prefer a runner to play on our team.

Possible lineup

C- Nenad Krstic
PF- Zach Randoplh
SF- Richard Jefferson
SG- Vince Carter
PG- Jason Kidd

I figured Portland would trade Zach for salary cap reasons. We would trade Nachbar, Collins, Bernard Robinson and a 2008 first round draft pick. We would then resign Miiki Moore to come off the bench.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

eddymac said:


> I would love to have Zach here with the Nets, but at the same time I would not want to give up or core to get him. He could be the extra piece we need to take us to the championship, even though I would prefer a runner to play on our team.
> 
> Possible lineup
> 
> ...



Despite Zach's shortcomings, you do realize that he is the only player in the league that averaged 23/10 right? While I certainly don't think the Blazers will get = value, I don't think they'll get 1 cent on the dollar either.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Despite Zach's shortcomings, you do realize that he is the only player in the league that averaged 23/10 right? While I certainly don't think the Blazers will get = value, I don't think they'll get 1 cent on the dollar either.


What does that stat really mean? He put up 23/10 playing with who? There are players that put up similar numbers on teams with better players fighting for touches and numbers.

-Petey


----------



## Netted (Mar 31, 2005)

Petey said:


> What does that stat really mean? He put up 23/10 playing with who? There are players that put up similar numbers on teams with better players fighting for touches and numbers.
> 
> -Petey


Exactly. He's got a post game. That's the only thing that seperates him from the pack a little. If he didn't get the touches he gets on that team he wouldn't be thought of as highly as some do. 

He's still defensively challenged, slow and makes stupid decisions in life.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Petey said:


> What does that stat really mean? He put up 23/10 playing with who? There are players that put up similar numbers on teams with better players fighting for touches and numbers.
> 
> -Petey


Like who?

And going by the same logic, wouldnt it make it easier for defenses to key in on him if he is the best player on the team, which should make it harder for him to put up those numbers


----------



## Netted (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> Like who?
> 
> And going by the same logic, wouldnt it make it easier for defenses to key in on him if he is the best player on the team, which should make it harder for him to put up those numbers


Didn't say he isn't talented at scoring. It's everything else that's the problem.

And defenses did key on him. Portland's 32-50 record and the fact that they scored the 2nd fewest points in the league proves it was an effective strategy. They were also last in assists.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Apr 1, 2007)

I think Kidd has improvd his shooting so he will have a good shooting yar. Kristic had his breakout year in 05-06. I dont think there is much at 17 in the draft.


----------



## reganomics813 (Sep 2, 2005)

Immortal Technique said:


> I think Kidd has improvd his shooting so he will have a good shooting yar. Kristic had his breakout year in 05-06. I dont think there is much at 17 in the draft.


Let me tell ya one thing about Kidd. Never ever build a team on the premise he's gonna become a good shooter all of a sudden. Especially if he's gonna be playing all summer for team USA too. I love the optimism but it's not exactly the best premise to go off of.


----------



## spork65 (Jul 6, 2006)

How about this:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=883~1006~1017&teams=17~22~8


----------



## reganomics813 (Sep 2, 2005)

spork65 said:


> How about this:
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=883~1006~1017&teams=17~22~8


Now that I would love if we do have to trade RJ. Detroit probably not so much.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

spork65 said:


> How about this:
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=883~1006~1017&teams=17~22~8




As a foundation, that seems like a decent trade for all teams. Portland would probably have to add something to Detroit though.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

spork65 said:


> How about this:
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=883~1006~1017&teams=17~22~8


Dumars would never trade Rasheed to NJ. Arguably the reason Rasheed was acquired by the Pistons was to beat us. 

But it sure would be ironic.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

Real said:


> Dumars would never trade Rasheed to NJ. Arguably the reason Rasheed was acquired by the Pistons was to beat us.
> 
> But it sure would be ironic.


It would be like a no smoking sign on your cigarette break.


----------

