# I think we are all jsut mad we couldn't get more for Zach



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Our bench now looks sick
PG-Sergio
SG-Rudy
SF-Webster
PF-Trav
C-Frye
And we will cut 30 mill in cap space in 2 years. I am pissed we couldn't get more for Zach...but there was no way Zach Oden LMA could have worked out.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I'm mad that we got hosed with a bad contract and reputed chemistry killing chucker and a tweener backup.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

francis wont be on the team

and the best offseason to sign fa is next year so thats good


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> I think we are all jsut mad we couldn't get more for Zach



Uh, duh. 

It's not just that we basically gave him away, we even made Isiah Thomas look good to New York Fans... Think about that... We made him look good..!!!! MY GOD!!!


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

i agree with you mas i think francis contract is the thing that makes me wanna puke


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

A bad trade would have been getting nothing for Zach. This deal went way beyond that. It makes the team worse. 

Doing nothing would have been a far superior option. I keep trying to tell people - once you decide you "must" trade a player, you are setting yourselves up to get shafted.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> And we will cut 30 mill in cap space in 2 years.


Where does this number come from? You're the second person to quote it and it's TOTALLY wrong.

Zach makes $16m the year after Francis's contract expires. So it's a MAXIMUM of $16m in salary cap savings.

That doesn't mean we'll be under the cap by $16m. Just that we'll be $16m lower.

And that, of course, assumes that we just let Channing walk. The thing is that the Blazers will probably make the qualifying offer at $4.26m... and they might sign him to a bigger, long-term deal.

In other words, it's about $11.5m in cap savings. 

Ed O.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

The Zach deal was HORRIBLE but it's not the end of the world. We're all overracting a little right now. Our future is JUST as bright was it was a few hours ago.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Spoolie Gee said:


> The Zach deal was HORRIBLE but it's not the end of the world. We're all overracting a little right now. Our future is JUST as bright was it was a few hours ago.


How is that possible?

A bad deal makes the future less bright.

This was a bad, bad deal.

Ed O.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Where does this number come from? You're the second person to quote it and it's TOTALLY wrong.
> 
> Zach makes $16m the year after Francis's contract expires. So it's a MAXIMUM of $16m in salary cap savings.
> 
> ...


Maybe assuming we're over the cap and get the luxury tax included in that savings?


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Ed O said:


> How is that possible?
> 
> A bad deal makes the future less bright.
> 
> ...


Getting Rudy helps. Im not going to argue that the deal wasnt horrible. I HATE it and am pissed as hell. But our future is still bright. I dont think this Zach deal is going to hinder our chances at a title in 4 or 5 years is all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Getting Rudy helps. Im not going to argue that the deal wasnt horrible. I HATE it and am pissed as hell. But our future is still bright. I dont think this Zach deal is going to hinder our chances at a title in 4 or 5 years is all.


OK, I get it. I will agree that our future is still bright.

But if Paul Allen burns a million dollars cash one night, he's still rich. Doesn't mean that he's just as rich as he was before.

Ed O.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Ed O said:


> OK, I get it. I will agree that our future is still bright.
> 
> But if Paul Allen burns a million dollars cash one night, he's still rich. Doesn't mean that he's just as rich as he was before.
> 
> Ed O.


I just dont understand why they felt like they HAD to trade Zach. And if they cut Francis before he even gets a chance to play for us Im really going to hate this deal even more, if thats possible. :azdaja:


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

Put me in with the 'Doing nothing was far, far superior to this trade.' At least, if that's all there is to it. 

Hope people are right that Francis will be bought out, but what should give me any confidence that that will happen? They haven't bought out Miles.

What a damper on what should have been one of the happiest nights in Blazers history. Why the hell did they announce this tonight, anyway?

Go Blazers


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

So is the Zach deal official? I haven't seen Stern announce it yet.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Most Blazer fans had unrealistic expectations of what Zach would get u in return, which is what posters from other teams have been saying all along. If there was a better deal out there they would have taken it.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

This was bad. Very, very bad.

I just hope that Steve Francis will not ever see a Blazer uni.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

bmac said:


> Most Blazer fans had unrealistic expectations of what Zach would get u in return, which is what posters from other teams have been saying all along. If there was a better deal out there they would have taken it.



nothing would have been better than this.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

bmac said:


> Most Blazer fans had unrealistic expectations of what Zach would get u in return, which is what posters from other teams have been saying all along. If there was a better deal out there they would have taken it.



Yeah, that's why New York fans are ecstatic right now, because Zach is over-rated... Get real.

Remind me again, how many 24-10 guys are in the NBA???

The reason a lot of people don't want him is because of his contract. If no-one wanted the contract then keep him, don't just give him away.


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

I believe that Zach would have had more value around the trade deadline than he did now. What was the hurry and why settle for anything?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

bmac said:


> Most Blazer fans had unrealistic expectations of what Zach would get u in return, which is what posters from other teams have been saying all along. If there was a better deal out there they would have taken it.


Then they should have walked away and not made ANY trade.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

bmac said:


> Most Blazer fans had unrealistic expectations of what Zach would get u in return, which is what posters from other teams have been saying all along. If there was a better deal out there they would have taken it.


I know what he was worth to the Blazers, and that's a lot more than CF and SF bring to the team. 

KP just pissed away a ton of talent. There's a whole summer ahead, KP, what the hell was the hurry to get so little?

Doing nothing would be much better.

Go Blazers


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

KP thinks Channing Frye is really good, and KP realized that no one was biting on Randolph.

Blech. Hopefully he's right about Frye to take the sting away.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, I truly can't understand why we made this trade. Zach/Oden/LA is a much better big lineup. The only thing I can think of is because we shaved a little bit of salary or at least lose it faster through this deal. I've never liked Frye as a player and am suprised he's done as well as he has after seeing him play in the Pac-10. If the pick was included, or next year's first rounder, then it wouldn't be so insulting, but damn..


It's like we gave up a dominant post player (offensively) for nothing...why? This is like Jermaine all over again.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

ProZach said:


> Yeah, that's why New York fans are ecstatic right now, because Zach is over-rated... Get real.
> 
> Remind me again, how many 24-10 guys are in the NBA???


If Zach is so great, why is this the best deal u could get?

Fact is, there's not exactly a huge market for out of shape, unathletic big guys who can't/don't pass or play any defense. Especially one with a massive contract and a history of off-court problems.

Now even i thought u would get more than this, but some of the expectations i've read on here recently have been ridiculous to say the least.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I don't believe that Channing Frye is really good; a guy who in his second year couldn't start for one of the worse teams in the league? A guy who seems really soft, how is he gonna fit on a Nate team? A guy who seems to be going downhill, not improving? If we're gonna be buying out Francis, why not try to buy out Randolph? As much as I worried that Randolph's future behavior might lead to him becoming valueless, I would never have made this trade. I can't believe we couldn't have least got NY's 23rd pick. I am disappointed in KP's negotiating skills.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Yeah Frye regressed quite a bit last season for whatever reason after a promising rookie year. I think he turns it around playing alongside Oden, Aldridge and Roy though.

Either way u guys have a hell of a bright future ahead.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

bmac said:


> If Zach is so great, why is this the best deal u could get?


Arrgh! You may be right, but Steve Franchise? Nothing is better than him. I like everything else they've done today, I just hope they are able to buy him out and get a good SF free agent this year, not next year.

I'm just mad I need a new screenname.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Don't worry, i definitely see what you're saying. But i think this boosts Aldridge's development since he's now locked in as the starter at PF. So in the long run maybe the deal makes more sense.

Also, Zach obviously wouldn't like coming off the bench behind Aldridge, whereas Frye will no doubt have less of a problem with it.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Ukrainefan said:


> If we're gonna be buying out Francis, why not try to buy out Randolph?



because a zach buyout would be at least 30 mil more and he would still count against the cap for 4 years instead of 2 for francis.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

bmac said:


> If Zach is so great, why is this the best deal u could get?


By that logic, no trade could EVER be bad.

If Brandon Roy was that great, why did the Wolves only get Foye for him? If Charles Barkley was that great, why could Philly only get Perry/Hornacek/Lang for him?

Heck... we could extend it to any decision. If Jordan is that great, why did the Blazers take Bowie?

Sometimes teams make bad decisions. This was a bad basketball decision.

Ed O.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

I for one like the trade. Time to bring LA to the forefront, and start youth movement #2.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Sometimes teams make bad decisions. This was a bad basketball decision.
> 
> Ed O.


Whatever. Zach was a log jam that needed a stick of dynamite. Its is a GREAT basketball move. Who cares what we got for him?


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Ed O said:


> By that logic, no trade could EVER be bad.
> 
> If Brandon Roy was that great, why did the Wolves only get Foye for him? If Charles Barkley was that great, why could Philly only get Perry/Hornacek/Lang for him?
> 
> ...


Did u actually read what else i wrote? I said i thought u could have gotten more, so yes this isn't a GREAT trade for u guys.

With that said, my point was that Zach ISN'T that great, so a deal like this to a non-biased fan isn't as shocking as it is to Blazer fans.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

AudieNorris said:


> Whatever. Zach was a log jam that needed a stick of dynamite. Its is a GREAT basketball move. Who cares what we got for him?


Yes, addition by subtraction worked SO well on the floor a couple of years ago when we gave away (or let walk) all our best players.

I can't believe people still believe that sort of drivel.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

bmac said:


> Did u actually read what else i wrote? I said i thought u could have gotten more, so yes this isn't a GREAT trade for u guys.


You started babbling about out-of-shape players and I think that it's evident you really don't know what you were talking about re: Zach, so I didn't pay much attention past the first sentence.

Ed O.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> I for one like the trade. Time to bring LA to the forefront, and start youth movement #2.





AudieNorris said:


> Whatever. Zach was a log jam that needed a stick of dynamite. Its is a GREAT basketball move. Who cares what we got for him?


Finally some realistic Blazer fans show up.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

ProZach said:


> Uh, duh.
> 
> It's not just that we basically gave him away, we even made Isiah Thomas look good to New York Fans... Think about that... We made him look good..!!!! MY GOD!!!


Clearly this is the price we had to pay to win the lottery ---- help out the Knicks.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Ed O said:


> You started babbling about out-of-shape players and I think that it's evident you really don't know what you were talking about re: Zach, so I didn't pay much attention past the first sentence.
> 
> Ed O.


Of all the things i bagged Randolph about u defend his physical condition?!?! Are u serious?! If u stopped crying for a second maybe u could see things clearly.

Maybe if he worked himself into better shape he might be able to get off the ground and increase his career 0.3 block average.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

bmac said:


> Of all the things i bagged Randolph about u defend his physical condition?!?! Are u serious?! If u stopped crying for a second maybe u could see things clearly.
> 
> Maybe if he worked himself into better shape he might be able to get off the ground and increase his career 0.3 block average.



OK, you have now passed into ignoramus territory.

You were right when you said Zach was unathletic. In terms of raw physical ability, he is probably in the bottom 3rd of the league. He has become a productive player precisely because he works his butt off and gets the absolute max possible out of his talent.

Let me guess.....you think Miles must have a great work ethic and is in great shape because he is skinny? :lol:


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Have u not actually SEEN him?!? The guy's a marshmallow.

He's listed at about 260 pounds, and even that is generous. If he worked himself down to about 240 he would be a much better player.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

bmac said:


> Of all the things i bagged Randolph about u defend his physical condition?!?! Are u serious?! If u stopped crying for a second maybe u could see things clearly.
> 
> Maybe if he worked himself into better shape he might be able to get off the ground and increase his career 0.3 block average.


Maybe you should quit posting and let other, more well-informed people bash Randolph. You're now hurting your cause.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Which part of my post was incorrect???

Anyone who claims he isn't out-of-shape is out of their mind.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

bmac said:


> Which part of my post was incorrect???
> 
> *Anyone who claims he isn't out-of-shape is out of their mind. *


You just answered your own question. He's not out of shape. He's not the most athletic, the skinniest, the most cut player you'll ever see, but he's worked his butt off and he's not out of shape.


----------



## BeaverMaz (Jan 6, 2003)

While I am not sure about the trade yet, I am sure that I am glad Zach is off of the team. He is one strip club visit away from being the NBA's Pacman Jones. I am glad to get rid of him.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

The thought of Zach playing in New York is quite lovely. How long until he has his first run-in with the law?

But the thought of only getting Frye in return is not as lovely.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

bmac said:


> Which part of my post was incorrect???
> 
> Anyone who claims he isn't out-of-shape is out of their mind.


How many times have you watched him in the last, say, three years.

Is it over 150?

Not that watching a player a lot often matters... but in THIS case, where you're (a) asserting he's out of shape based on how he looks, and (b) asking me if I've seen him... I'll tell you that I've watched him play over 150 games (in their entirety) over the last three years.

Ed O.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

I usually only need one look at someone to realise they're overweight.

Do u not think that he would be a more productive player if he was lighter on his feet?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

he's very fast under the basket..or moves efficiently enough to score.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

bmac said:


> I usually only need one look at someone to realise they're overweight.
> 
> Do u not think that he would be a more productive player if he was lighter on his feet?



When you looked at Barkley play what did you see?


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

In regards to the 20/10 comments,

There's a lot more to evaluating a player's contribution than generic stats. If that wasn't the case Kobe would have a lot more MVP's and Nash would have none. Unfortunately GM's realize this and fans don't.

Zach has a rare combination of traits for any player not in the D-League. He stagnates his team's offense, shoots poor percentages for a bigman, and improves the opposing team offensively with his horrendous defense. The only thing keeping him from hitting the anti-intangible trifecta, is a high turnover rate. In short, Zach's 20/10 are the most hollow in league history


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

unlike Frye and Francis, who are great players that will fit in to our team? 

yeah right. 

Zach is money on the block and has won us quite a few games in the clutch last year. To think he's only worth Steve Franchise-killer and Channing Frye is ludicrous.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

bmac said:


> I usually only need one look at someone to realise they're overweight.


Then please go ahead and take a look. This is from last summer. Marshmellow, you say? Would you now like to revise that statement?


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

ProZach said:


> When you looked at Barkley play what did you see?


Please tell me u didn't just compare Zach to one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history.

I understand u love Zach and think the trade was rubbish, i get it. But how can u honestly sit there and argue that for a professional athlete with a multi-million dollar contract he's not overweight?


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

yeah the guy is a workhorse honestly. He needed to go, but for more than Channing ****ing Frye for gods sake.

oh well, guess Pritchard evened out his draft record.


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

I know I wil get bashed for this, but I like the trade. Francis of course would not be my first choice, but i guess that means zach was not going to get us an AS SF. Zach leaving is what I wanted. All this 23 and 10 stats does not make sense. All bad teams have a players whose stats look great because they r on a bad team. How easy would zach be to trade when he is only getting 15 and 8 this year. Roy, LA and GO would cut into his numbers badly this year. A max player with no defense and 15 points a game would be tough to trade. I am stillon the fence about Francis and a buyout. If SF comes into camp wanting to prove everybody wrong we have an incredible line up with Oden, LA, Roy, SF and a small forward.

Let the beatings begin.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Then please go ahead and take a look. This is from last summer. Marshmellow, you say? Would you now like to revise that statement?


This is from this summer, PA looks like he's in better shape. :biggrin:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I thought Zbo was in great shape. The problem was the effort. Effort running the floor. Effort rebounding defensivly. Effort getting back on defense. Not the shape he was in. He was never a tremendous athlete. He was smart,crafty, and had an excellent shooting touch. He just never did the little things needed to win a game. That is why I basically was willing to trade him for a box of pop corn.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

WHO EFFING CARES? WE HATE ZACH DON'T YOU ALL REMEMBER? You guys are crybabies at best anyone not happy with this draft.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> Then please go ahead and take a look. This is from last summer. Marshmellow, you say? Would you now like to revise that statement?


Looks like Verro proved my point perfectly.



Verro said:


> This is from this summer, PA looks like he's in better shape. :biggrin:


What an athlete!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

bmac said:


> Looks like Verro proved my point perfectly.
> 
> 
> What an athlete!


Yeah, great picture that shows very little, as opposed to mine with a clear view of his physique. Nice proof. How long after Zach put up 43-17 on Memphis was that last photo taken?


----------



## Pontius (May 12, 2004)

"Please tell me u didn't just compare Zach to one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history."

Are you really this dense? Or did you forget the point you were trying to make? I can't decide. Either way, you are clueless.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> WHO EFFING CARES? WE HATE ZACH DON'T YOU ALL REMEMBER? You guys are crybabies at best anyone not happy with this draft.



A) Speak for yourself. Many of us don't have any personal animosity towards Zach.

B) This isn't about the draft, this is about a trade that had ZERO to do with the draft.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, great picture that shows very little, as opposed to mine with a clear view of his physique. Nice proof. How long after Zach put up 43-17 on Memphis was that last photo taken?


Your photo is from a year ago. While admittedly he looked good there,, the one Verro posted shows he has regained a lot of that weight.

It'd be like if i posted a photo of Shaq from his college days and claimed he was in awesome shape now. Doesn't make sense.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Pontius said:


> "Please tell me u didn't just compare Zach to one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history."
> 
> Are you really this dense? Or did you forget the point you were trying to make? I can't decide. Either way, you are clueless.


The point i was making is that he's overweight. Take a look at Verro's photo and tell me i'm wrong.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

bmac said:


> The point i was making is that he's overweight. Take a look at Verro's photo and tell me i'm wrong.



No * sherlock. The point he, and I, and many others were making is that HE'S NOT. YOU ARE WRONG. I compared Zach to Barkley in no way except that the round mound of rebound, Barkley, also had the appearance of looking overweight, to ignorant people such as yourself...

I guess you had to continue to prove your clueless by thinking I was comparing their body of work, their talent. NASA couldn't make that leap.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

I definitely agree with those who say we could've gotten more for Zach. Almost seems like Portland was giving him away. This trade looks really bad to me right now... Steve Francis?! He better be able to play and be productive next year, or else...


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I supposed we should be flattered. 

People are so angry and bitter we got Oden, they can't resist coming in here and trolling us when things go to ****. Heck, we got one here all the way from Australia!


----------



## Pontius (May 12, 2004)

"The point i was making is that he's overweight."

No kidding. Which he then responded by using Charles Barkley as an example of a player looking overweight yet being in shape. 

"Please tell me u didn't just compare Zach to one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history."

So, because he is one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history he cannot be part of your litmus test on player's fitness level that's based on outward appearance?


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

ProZach said:


> No * sherlock. The point he, and I, and many others were making is that HE'S NOT. YOU ARE WRONG. I compared Zach to Barkley in no way except that the round mound of rebound, Barkley, also had the appearance of looking overweight, to ignorant people such as yourself...
> 
> I guess you had to continue to prove your clueless by thinking I was comparing their body of work, their talent. NASA couldn't make that leap.


Compared to the vast majority of players in the NBA, Zach Randolph IS overweight.

If he got himself into the kind of shape that Tim Duncan or Elton Brand are in then i think he would be EVEN MORE productive. I'm not saying he's crap, just that he could be better if he shed some pounds. Same with Barkley back in the day.



Oldmangrouch said:


> I supposed we should be flattered.
> 
> People are so angry and bitter we got Oden, they can't resist coming in here and trolling us when things go to ****. Heck, we got one here all the way from Australia!


I'm not angry or bitter at all. I think Pritchard and his staff have done a fantastic job of assembling arguably the best young crop of talent in the league and i wish them every success.

I was originally just stating why i thought Randolph was overrated by Portland fans on here, and suddenly everyone freaks out about it. From the somewhat meager return he got u, it seems opposing GM's shared my sentiment.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Listen up!!!!

Pritchard released some interesting stuff at his Press Conference.

I stayed for the Press Conference and Pritchard inadvertently released some very intriguing information.

1. A trade for a SF is going down within the next 7-10 days. This trade cannot happen until the zach deal to NY is finished. This means that whoever we have lined up wants frye or Francis. McMillan and Pritchard mention the word "blockbuster" several times during this slip up. As soon as KP realized he released too much information he said: "oops, im going to get fined for saying that".

Dont get me wrong, that zach deal looks terrible on paper. When i saw it coming to a forefront i instantly thought KP MUST have something lined up behind the scenes that noone is telling us.

THIS IS THE CASE

2. Francis, if he is a blazer, will be expiring in 2 years. Lafraentz expires in 2 years too.

thats 30 million in free cap space in 2 years.

This means that we will be able to sign Roy, LMA to long term deals, and potentially sign a Free agent like Lebron, Wade, Carmelo as their contracts all expire at the same time.

We are stacked at PG now, so playing francis isnt likely going to happen. KP knows what he is doing. I talked to him briefly as he left, shook his hand, etc. He knows something BIG is going down, but he was unable to disclose this information at this time.

A SF trade is in the works, so hang tight.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Five5even said:


> Listen up!!!!
> 
> Pritchard released some interesting stuff at his Press Conference.
> 
> ...


The "trade" that's going down is the trade exception (from NY) for James Jones.

Also, no way PDX signs Oden, LMA, Roy and LeBron/Wade/Carmelo. THat's just crazy talk.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

wastro said:


> The "trade" that's going down is the trade exception (from NY) for James Jones.
> 
> Also, no way PDX signs Oden, LMA, Roy and LeBron/Wade/Carmelo. THat's just crazy talk.


Don't forget our 1st rounders in 08 and 09. Or the *other* first rounders from 06 and 07. Or Jack and Webster. This whole "cap space" argument is an opium dream.


----------

