# OT: Spilled Milk.... The LAC Trade



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Every now and again, I feel the need to ***** about things that we no longer have any control over; a little something I like to call crying over spilled milk. In this week's session (lol) of "crying over spilled milk," I'd look to take a closer at the Clippers trade we made earlier this season for Tim Thomas and the now retired Cuttino Mobley. I know the deal was a salary dump but from a talent standpoint, we got hosed....BADLY. 

Zach Randolph is balling right now for the Clippers and Mardy Collins has become a solid player in their rotation. Although the trade has not paid immediate dividends for the Clippers in the win column, they certainly are looking much better and much more competitive. On the flip side of things, the Knicks really haven't shown as much promise. I personally like Tim Thomas as a player but his performance thus far has been lackluster at best. Cuttino Mobley isn't even apart of the equation anymore. One would have to ask whether we could not withhold Mardy Collins from the deal or at the very least bring back multiple second round picks. If we don't land this supposed superstar in 2010, we could chalk this up as a bad trade; we could have landed a better package in a deal for those players if we would have been a little more patient.

Al Thorton is a Clipper that I will keep an eye on. He's been extremely impressive this season (a player I pegged as a solid pick during his draft) and a guy that would be an excellent fit in our system. I wish we could have exchanged him for Wilson Chandler, who I am not nearly as high on. As much as Chandler has the better IQ and all-around game, Thorton brings the sort of hustle intangibles that do not show up on a stat sheet. In terms of scoring the ball Thorton is a superior player to Chandler as well, having showed an assortment of inside and outside moves with an uncanny ability to finish while absorbing contact. In terms of rebounding and defense, I give Thorton the nod as well. His shortcomings, however stem from his poor passing ability, which I believe is somewhat related to his poor ability to handle the ball outside of drives to the basket. In spite of that, he'd be the more valuable player to us since we lack go-to guys and his length defensively at the 3 spot.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

P.S., has anyone really been keeping a close eye on OJ Mayo? All I got to say about him is All-Star, guaranteed. I can't wait to see what Danilo can do but I think if we had the opportunity to nab Mayo, we should have taken it because it does not get much better than him. I definitely think he is quality spilled milk to cry over and I certainly have done so with our 2 guard spot extremely thin in the talent and depth department. Maybe we could start clearing out cap space for when he becomes a free agent, LOL (had to take a stab at Knick management even though I respect the results they are getting and the job they are doing).


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

You coming around Twinkie, _once_ in a while that is. That Zach Randolph trade was a complete and utter joke. Yes, I underrstand what Walsh is doing in terms of the salary cap and getting us in a position to be major players for once in our lives in 2010. At the same time, you don't basically deal a guy who is beasting right now, night after friggin night, and don't get a draft pick, or better yet Jordan included in the deal. Also, if he would have waited just a bit longer, Zach would have continued to ball, and we would have got a_ way_ better deal from a another team who is in desperate need of someone of his skill set. Who's to say we don't get the Bulls syndrome and clear all this cap space and the majority of the superstars go somewhere else, nothing is guranteed. We aren't just competing with one or two teams, their are a lot of teams involved that have enough space to get some things done as well. Knicks fans better be more nervous in 2010 than confident. 

Lastly, the Crawford trade I agree with, just that I was sad to see him go. I actually wish we could have kept him, and used someone else to get Harrington.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*We had NO SHOT at Mayo.*

That people still think we did is nuts. He was #1 on the draft board after the obvious 1 and 2 picks (at the time). I can't believe that people think the proposed trade to Memphis with Lee was going to get Mayo. One of the posters on Realgm did a nice job of clarifying that. He was simply not going to be there for us, no matter what. He was my pick, too, after Rose and Beasely. I'd say he the clear #1 now. Twinkie, I'm not sure what part of Thortons games you think is superiot to Chandlers but I disagree. The are the d=same height but I think Chandler is actually longer. Chandler is a better shooter from everywhere. Similar rebounders and shotblockers. I find it hard to believe he hustles more than Chandler. Did you see him play defense on Kobe? Kobe was great but they were TOUGH shots. Plus he had a fantastic one on one block on a Kobe drive. How many others can do that? I know you love to "make trades" but this one would be a turkey. Get me a Roy or a Mayo for the 2 or a nice athletic 5 with a mid range J who will stop the easy crap inside (MaGee). Until then just pick up a shooter for the 2.....even a rent-a-shooter.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> You coming around Twinkie, _once_ in a while that is. That Zach Randolph trade was a complete and utter joke. Yes, I underrstand what Walsh is doing in terms of the salary cap and getting us in a position to be major players for once in our lives in 2010. At the same time, you don't basically deal a guy who is beasting right now, night after friggin night, and don't get a draft pick, or better yet Jordan included in the deal. Also, if he would have waited just a bit longer, Zach would have continued to ball, and we would have got a_ way_ better deal from a another team who is in desperate need of someone of his skill set. Who's to say we don't get the Bulls syndrome and clear all this cap space and the majority of the superstars go somewhere else, nothing is guranteed. We aren't just competing with one or two teams, their are a lot of teams involved that have enough space to get some things done as well. Knicks fans better be more nervous in 2010 than confident.
> 
> Lastly, the Crawford trade I agree with, just that I was sad to see him go. I actually wish we could have kept him, and used someone else to get Harrington.


I don't know if you could consider me to be coming around when I never was a particular fan of the trade (or trades for that matter). To be honest, I've been skeptical of this whole 2010 plan since the get go but have had my reservations tempered with D'Antoni's coaching and the teams solid play. In addition to this, Walsh is a man that has forgotten more basketball than I could ever know and has built connections I could only fathom of so I trust what he is doing (albeit it being blind trust). This is why I can't knock his free agent plan completely but a bad trade is a bad trade especially if he does not have insider information we assume him to have. Cap space does not win you games, talent does; and that is how I measure trades. I guess that's why I'm not a GM but if your not getting more immediate talent in a trade, you should at least get prospects that might balance things out inevitably. The Knicks did not and that can not happen when we might not have anything definite to show for it in terms of a LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, etc. 

Like I mentioned earlier, I did not agree with the Crawford trade either. He had a legitimate shot at being an all-star and a penchant for taking and makings big shots. Jamal had also matured into a player that was the glue of the team and served as a mediating force in the locker room. Harrington at the time was not even in the Warriors rotation. There were also rumors about him not being the best presence to have in a locker room and him having a me-first scorer personality. I think there is no secret of who the better player is, so given all those other factors, I felt the Knicks at least deserved a draft pick or Marco Bellineli. Like I said, I think Walsh has done an excellent job thus far but I am skeptical about his plan if we do not get one of the aforementioned superstars/stars. It kind of makes me wonder why we would give up this much talent and wait this long to improve if they are not options for us during the 2010 offseason.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: We had NO SHOT at Mayo.*



alphaorange said:


> That people still think we did is nuts. He was #1 on the draft board after the obvious 1 and 2 picks (at the time). I can't believe that people think the proposed trade to Memphis with Lee was going to get Mayo. One of the posters on Realgm did a nice job of clarifying that. He was simply not going to be there for us, no matter what. He was my pick, too, after Rose and Beasely. I'd say he the clear #1 now. Twinkie, I'm not sure what part of Thortons games you think is superiot to Chandlers but I disagree. The are the d=same height but I think Chandler is actually longer. Chandler is a better shooter from everywhere. Similar rebounders and shotblockers. I find it hard to believe he hustles more than Chandler. Did you see him play defense on Kobe? Kobe was great but they were TOUGH shots. Plus he had a fantastic one on one block on a Kobe drive. How many others can do that? I know you love to "make trades" but this one would be a turkey. Get me a Roy or a Mayo for the 2 or a nice athletic 5 with a mid range J who will stop the easy crap inside (MaGee). Until then just pick up a shooter for the 2.....even a rent-a-shooter.


I don't recall there being any reports about there not being any option to trade up for Mayo. I do recall there being a trade on the table for Lee, the 6th for Memphis' 5th and filler. Had that filler been Mike Miller, would it have been so far-fetch'd to imagine us bringing Mayo in for the same package that the Grizzlies did? All this is in retrospect so I won't comment further but the mind can't help but wonder. I do think that Walsh probably tried his best to move up under reasonable circumstances, so this is more me venting at the fact that we never had a high enough pick in the first place to get Mayo or Rose.

I just do not think I'm a fan of Chandler and his prospects of being a key player to our team. Although Chandler and Thorton are listed at the same height, Thorton has longer arms IMO making him lengthier. Chandler is a better shooter but Thorton is the better scorer IMO because he gets to where he wants and gets the shots that he wants. Chandler does not. 

I still think Thorton is the better rebounder in spite of what the numbers indicate. The Clippers are one of the best rebounding teams in the league, featuring 3 of the top 6 rebounders in the league and one of the best rebounding PG's in the league in Baron Davis. Had Thorton been on the Knicks, I think you'd notie what I'm talking about-his verocity and ability to get to where the ball is. 

I also think Thornton's longer arms and better lateral quickness makes him the better defender. This isn't to say that Chandler isn't a good defender (I didn't see the job he did against Kobe but I did hear it was pretty good). I think Chandler is the smarter defender but I think Thornton's physical gifts and aggressiveness makes up for this difference.

I think a rent-a-shooter might be the easiest way to better our situation but I think there are other ways of improving this team.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I really can't comment...*

with authority on Thornton as I have not really seen him. Longer than Chandler? I have to see the numbers since that was one of the reasons he was picked (Chandler). The numbers say that Chandler is a more efficient scorer with better range. He has a better handle and can even play some 2. If you cannot hit the three with some regularity, there is not really a place in this offensive scheme for you. Chandler wasn't good against Kobe....he was great. I cannot see where Thornton is an improvement in any way and I see Chandler as a future allstar. The trade was lopsided talent wise but we all knew it was going to be. If we keep the roster we have, minus the expirings and Curry and possibly the JJ brothers, we will still have a nice team and the ability to sign a stud(because of the trade). Forgot another 1st as well.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I really can't comment...*



alphaorange said:


> with authority on Thornton as I have not really seen him. Longer than Chandler? I have to see the numbers since that was one of the reasons he was picked (Chandler). The numbers say that Chandler is a more efficient scorer with better range. He has a better handle and can even play some 2. If you cannot hit the three with some regularity, there is not really a place in this offensive scheme for you. Chandler wasn't good against Kobe....he was great. I cannot see where Thornton is an improvement in any way and I see Chandler as a future allstar. The trade was lopsided talent wise but we all knew it was going to be. If we keep the roster we have, minus the expirings and Curry and possibly the JJ brothers, we will still have a nice team and the ability to sign a stud(because of the trade). Forgot another 1st as well.


I already said that Chandler has the better range of the two. I disagree, however, that that should be a reason to disqualify Thronton as being a fit for this offense. The Suns featured both Shawn Marion and Boris Diaw in their offense for nearly a full season and did just fine despite neither being solid 3point shooters. I know you'll point to Marion shooting between 32%-35% from the 3 with the Suns but with the Heat, without someone feeding him the ball and outside an offensive geared game, Marion has shot a piss poor 23%. Did he forget to shoot the ball? I doubt it but I do think him getting the number of looks he did, jacked up his shooting numbers much better than they were. I think Thronton could have a similar effect in our offense since he does not have a poor shooters touch.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

You are simply overstating Thornton and understating Chandler. Why do you think Chandler is so limited and why do you think Thornton will be better. Can Thornton play the 2? Can he defend Kobe?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

I'm alright with the trade. Where would Zach Randolph take us? Not very far. I like the guy and what he can do, but he's become a stats without impact guy; we didn't have that second guy needed to be the leader of the team. We may not land a superstar or two in 2010, but I like the fact that the possibility is there.

All I ever asked for was that we have guys who come to play every night, and I think we have that now. This is finally a true rebuilding process. I just wish we still had our 2010 pick


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You know, Tradgedy......*

I'm thinking we are not really as far away as I thought we were. Things that seem not only possible but are almost probable are these: Nate may become an allstar, Chandler is likely to be no less than a very solid starter with the potential to be much more, Lee is a solid starter or main cog off the bench, Harrington is MUCH better in this offense than anywhere else he has played and is putting up near allstar numbers. Duhon is a great leader and solid PG. D'Antoni will be coach of the year and Walsh will be exec of the year. I never thought we would be this good this soon. If Gallinari is as good as I think he is, we might be very close to being a great team in a year. Get me Rudy F and McGee and I think we scare the crap out of people in a year, even without a master blaster FA.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

alphaorange said:


> You are simply overstating Thornton and understating Chandler. Why do you think Chandler is so limited and why do you think Thornton will be better. Can Thornton play the 2? Can he defend Kobe?


How am I understating Chandler? I said he was the better all-around player but simply feel that Thorton changes the game more with what he does on the floor.

Andre Igoudala can play both the 2 and 3 but that does not mean I'm taking him over Carmelo Anthony even though Andre Igoudala can defend Kobe better as well.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Tragedy said:


> I'm alright with the trade. Where would Zach Randolph take us? Not very far. I like the guy and what he can do, but he's become a stats without impact guy; we didn't have that second guy needed to be the leader of the team. We may not land a superstar or two in 2010, but I like the fact that the possibility is there.
> 
> All I ever asked for was that we have guys who come to play every night, and I think we have that now. This is finally a true rebuilding process. I just wish we still had our 2010 pick


The trade really comes down to whether you feel comfortable about the 2010 plan and I won't argue with you about that. I just can't see though how a guaranteed 20 and 10 basketball player fails to make an impact on the floor; it just does not happen. Randolph isn't the kind of player to carry your team and create looks for guys but he certainly makes an impact on the floor by simply forcing double teams and securing positions for your team by rebounding.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: You know, Tradgedy......*



alphaorange said:


> I'm thinking we are not really as far away as I thought we were. Things that seem not only possible but are almost probable are these: Nate may become an allstar, Chandler is likely to be no less than a very solid starter with the potential to be much more, Lee is a solid starter or main cog off the bench, Harrington is MUCH better in this offense than anywhere else he has played and is putting up near allstar numbers. Duhon is a great leader and solid PG. D'Antoni will be coach of the year and Walsh will be exec of the year. I never thought we would be this good this soon. If Gallinari is as good as I think he is, we might be very close to being a great team in a year. Get me Rudy F and McGee and I think we scare the crap out of people in a year, even without a master blaster FA.


The Blazers are not giving up Rudy Fernandez and if their smart, they'll start him soon and just move Roy over to the 3 spot. McGee might be a different story because he's a project player with tons of potential on a team looking to win. I still suggest trading Marbury and Roberson for their contracts and McGee. They were looking to ditch McGee's pick during the draft because of the amount of money they knew they'd commit to Arenas and Jamison; they should be interested in a $20 million expirer that can also play the point in place of Arenas at a similarly high level. Mike James (who we should cut immediately), Darius Songalia, Etan Thomas (who I like but should cut) and JaVale McGee sounds fair to me.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> How am I understating Chandler? I said he was the better all-around player but simply feel that Thorton changes the game more with what he does on the floor.
> 
> Andre Igoudala can play both the 2 and 3 but that does not mean I'm taking him over Carmelo Anthony even though Andre Igoudala can defend Kobe better as well.



i actually agree with that thorton is more impactful...but he is also a 25 yr. old 2nd year player , while chandler is 21 ...i have faith that chandler when he learns to use his gifts better will surpass thorton.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Hey guys...serious question*

How is he more impactful, exactly? He doesn't appear to be better at any facet and, as you said, he is much older and less likely to improve as much as Chandler. I guess I'll agree to disagree on this one.

While Roy can play the 3, he is more effective at the 2, both offensively and defensively. The problem with being as deep as Portland is, is that sooner or later, most very good players want to play big minutes. They will lose some players....maybe not Rudy but they will lose somebody. We will have a draft pick we can't trade outright, but we can draft FOR somebody and then trade. If you look at our roster, we are pretty talented 1-7 (counting Gallo, who I believe in). Add another #1 and a major FA and we could be loaded. Being able to get a guy like Rudy is not beyond the realm of possibility.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> i actually agree with that thorton is more impactful...but he is also a 25 yr. old 2nd year player , while chandler is 21 ...i have faith that chandler when he learns to use his gifts better will surpass thorton.


It's funny because I knew that Chandler came out when he was a sopohmore and Thorton a senior the same year but I never thought the age gap between the two was so big. Knowing that, I would nix the trade and give Chandler the advantage in terms of value. Thorton may very well be close to a finishing product.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Hey guys...serious question*



alphaorange said:


> How is he more impactful, exactly? He doesn't appear to be better at any facet and, as you said, he is much older and less likely to improve as much as Chandler. I guess I'll agree to disagree on this one.
> 
> While Roy can play the 3, he is more effective at the 2, both offensively and defensively. The problem with being as deep as Portland is, is that sooner or later, most very good players want to play big minutes. They will lose some players....maybe not Rudy but they will lose somebody. We will have a draft pick we can't trade outright, but we can draft FOR somebody and then trade. If you look at our roster, we are pretty talented 1-7 (counting Gallo, who I believe in). Add another #1 and a major FA and we could be loaded. Being able to get a guy like Rudy is not beyond the realm of possibility.


As for Thorton, just reread my previous posts; I mentioned exactly how he's more impactful than Chandler. I think that is negated by the age difference which I did not believe was nearly as big. Chandler gets the nod from me.

I really haven't noticed a difference between Roy at the 2 as opposed to the 3 but then again I have not really seen him play any position besides the 2 and some point. I'll take your word for it but his game operates very much like a modern day 3 in the sense that he can score the ball in multiple fashions and is big enough to defend the position. I think Fernandez is looking way to good to keep on the bench especially to start Nicolas Batum.

As for our roster, I always felt we were pretty talented under the Isiah Thomas era so I'm not surprised in the slightest that they are doing what they are doing (although their was doubt on my part that they could do it collectively as one unit). I think we're a superstar away from being a contender but that is no small hole to plug. I feel we're already a good team though and could bring in a few stopgaps here and their to be in the middle of the pack for the playoffs. I'm not sure that is what Walsh wants to do and I get the feeling he'd like to end up in the lottery to see if he can get that one major building block before bringing in those stop gaps.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I really appreciate guys like yoou, grinch, and Tru...etc.*

I spend some time on Realgm and those guys are morons...no real ability to analyze anything. Its all just knee-jerk crap. I did see something that backed up what i thought was possible though. What if the plan is not just '10 but also '11? With a few tweaks, we can still sign a big star like say.....LeBron and still keep Lee and/or Harrington and Nate if they don't get crazy. Know who can opt out in '11? Dwight Howard. At least as far as I can ascertain. Take a moment and dream.....I'm just typing as I think , so I haven't really thought this through. I think we need 9 good guys in this system plus some low end guys. If we had LJ and Howard, what would that likely leave for salary for the rest of the team? Can we exceed the cap to resign our own guys? It seems like if we sign Nate and Lee to one year contracts, we can use the Bird rule to resign them and go over. Harrington could as be re-signed in'11 using the same thing (I believe it is 3 years with the same team continuously).

Seems like we could keep Duhon, Nate, Lee, Chandler, and Al, plus Gallo, and this years pick. That would make 9 solid players. Add some others like Ew2and a couple of appropriate guards and bingo. Not likely, but this IS possible, right? Pick it apart..I'd like to know the possibilities.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Ideally speaking, Lebron and Dwight Howard is the best case scenario for us. Of the potential guys we've talked about, Howard is the only guy that can be himself and play at the level he is now with LeBron. I'm skeptical about our ability to lure him from Orlando because he seems to be a very simply guy that isn't drawn to money, controversy or attention. Still LeBron and Howard should be the two guys we pursue. And we can exceed the salary cap to resign our own guys, so it does work financially.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I agree about Howard BUT...*

Everybody wants to win and if James is in NY, Orlando isn't going anywhere. PLUS, he has played for D'Antoni and I'm sure the way players have come out and said how much they LOVE playing for him and his style, can be a real persuasive argument. By all accounts, NY has great guys now...a great coach...a great front office with an up and coming Born-again executive(Howard I believe is the son of a minister and H2O could be a factor), possibly James, and of course the money. The lure of winning in NY and being part of a dynasty (yeah, I said it) while playing with/for good guys and making a load of dough would be hard to pass up. Get Walsh on the horn.....


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Oh yeah...and about Bosh...*

If that guy is whining about being booed by Canadians, he would never survive in NY. Scratch him off the list....


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Oh yeah...and about Bosh...*



alphaorange said:


> If that guy is whining about being booed by Canadians, he would never survive in NY. Scratch him off the list....


LOL, even when whining he's putting up MVP-like numbers so put him back on that list. Besides, he might be the most likely to go of any of the free agents just because of how bad the Raptors are right now; not to mention he appears visibly frustrated. I do not suspect he'll be booed anytime soon in New York with what he could do in this system.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I don't know if you could consider me to be coming around when I never was a particular fan of the trade (or trades for that matter). To be honest, I've been skeptical of this whole 2010 plan since the get go but have had my reservations tempered with D'Antoni's coaching and the teams solid play. In addition to this, Walsh is a man that has forgotten more basketball than I could ever know and has built connections I could only fathom of so I trust what he is doing (albeit it being blind trust). This is why I can't knock his free agent plan completely but a bad trade is a bad trade especially if he does not have insider information we assume him to have. Cap space does not win you games, talent does; and that is how I measure trades. I guess that's why I'm not a GM but if your not getting more immediate talent in a trade, you should at least get prospects that might balance things out inevitably. The Knicks did not and that can not happen when we might not have anything definite to show for it in terms of a LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, etc.
> 
> Like I mentioned earlier, I did not agree with the Crawford trade either. He had a legitimate shot at being an all-star and a penchant for taking and makings big shots. Jamal had also matured into a player that was the glue of the team and served as a mediating force in the locker room. Harrington at the time was not even in the Warriors rotation. There were also rumors about him not being the best presence to have in a locker room and him having a me-first scorer personality. I think there is no secret of who the better player is, so given all those other factors, I felt the Knicks at least deserved a draft pick or Marco Bellineli. Like I said, I think Walsh has done an excellent job thus far but I am skeptical about his plan if we do not get one of the aforementioned superstars/stars. It kind of makes me wonder why we would give up this much talent and wait this long to improve if they are not options for us during the 2010 offseason.


and _if _Lebron signs that contract extension this summer that's one option blowned up in our faces (and the rest of the teams who are making salary cap moves). The more I watch these Knicks games, the more pist off I'm getting that we allow a guy of Z-Bo's skill set to walk for nothing. This was a horrid move by Walsh this season, and rather inexcusable. As for the Harrington trade, he is balling right now and already rumors that he may get an All-Star nod, but at the same time I wish we could have kept Crawford because it's almost unfair that he won't be part of the team _if_ they get better in terms of talent 2010 since he had to endure the drama since he signed with us. Crawford is also balling, drop 50 I forgot what team he did it against. I wish we could have suckered Mullin into taking someone else, like Quentin Richardson, lmao. You right in a way, looking back at that second trade also raises eyebrows, but you need cap space to sign free agents, and Crawford would have prevented that as well, since his contract is longer. At least Harrington received player of the week recognition by the league which was unheard of by a Knick for a long time. Now I'm getting pist now coming into to this thread thinking about Crawford.....


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Oh yeah...JC been ballin'*

Averaging 18.7 over the last 10...wow! How could we replace that? Toss in a couple of 4 point outbursts and a 6 point explosion in the same time span and man....we got took. Maybe it's the 13 out of 51 from three that made you wish we had him back...I know I miss a 27% shooter from deep. Maybe I'm overlooking his "quiet" leadership that has led the Warriors to a 3-7 record in that same time....nah.

Zach is doing his thing....roughly 23/10.5. Nice numbers but no different than what we were seeing. EVERYBODY was willing to trade his 20/12 but 23/10.5 is supposed to make us wistful for him? It was a good trade, regardless of what he does. 

I have no idea if we get LJ or not but what do you expect him to say at this point? That he is going to become a FA not matter what? This is nothing unexpected. I know you love to criticize management but you are making an assumption you have no way of knowing would be true. And that is that Zach would have continued to produce big numbers here and we would continue to overachieve..and that Zach would be a great soldier. If ANY of those failed to happen, we're back to square one. I'll ask you the same thing I ask all the haters. What deal were you expecting for these guys? What do you think we could have fetched?


----------

