# What would it take to get Z?



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Blazers need a center. Could Dale Davis, Bonzi Wells for Z and Miles work out?

What would u want


----------



## CavsTalk (Jun 10, 2003)

It wouldn't take much in real life probably, because his large contract.

If you sent Randolph and someone else with a large salary that ended soon....you could get Z.

As for us on the board, I will take Wallace anyday. But I really like Randolph too.


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

*...*

Hi Blazer fan...

I see nobody has responded yet, so I'll give it a shot. First, I gotta say that Portland has a better team than Clev. But, I do not think Port and Clev would be good trading partners because your team doesn't have much that can help us, in my opinion. Let me explain. (And this has nothing to do with salary cap issues)

Z may not be the best center, but he is one of the top true centers, and everyone knows that.... including our GM and coach. Mihm is not a center, Diop is not ready to be a starter.

Portland has no center, and nobody they could give to us to make up the loss of Z. Davis is an old 32/33, and I am not a believer in just sticking a big power forward in the center position just because we are in the Eastern Conference. Davis is a PF. He isn't even that good of a PF. At times he has played center, but he is not a good center. I would try to start Diop at center before I did Davis.

Boumtje is raw. Who else do you have at C? Nobody. That is why you are asking about Z.

Your best player is Rasheed. Not sure he is a good fit with our current youthful mix. Too volatile... and we already got one of those.

Bonzi is good, but he duplicates our deepest position.

D.A. was here once, I haven't heard anyone clamoring to get him back.

Zach is good, but not as good as Boozer. Talk about potential if you want, Boozer is better right now and that is what we need.

Stoudemire... too expensive. McInnis, we already have 3 new PGs. Woods... still a project, and we have tons of them.

Who else do you have? Again, as a team, your TEAM is good... clearly better than ours. But you don't have any individual that would mesh well or seem to bode well for our future.

Davis and Bonzi for Z and Darius might work cap-wise, but we're getting ripped bigtime there. You may disagree, but a healthy Z (and he is healthy) is probably one of the most asked about players between GMs. I bet Dallas and Miami and Sacramento (pre-Brad Miller) and Utah and Portland etc have called Paxson NUMEROUS times asking what we want for Z. I don't think Paxson is gonna take any deal for Z that isn't clearly in Clev's advantage.... why? Because he can wait. Z has never said he wants to play anywhere else than here, and Clev stuck by him through all his rehab. Clev might NOT match all offers for Z in free agency... but then again, they just might. If Brad Miller can get 8-9 mil, Z is a max contract for sure. That may be too rich for us, and Z might indeed get traded because of that, but until that time, Paxson won't take anything less than a killer trade for Z, and again, I don't think Portland has the right mix of players to offer (and we certainly don't need more first round picks to sweeten the pot). At least that is how one Cavs fans sees it.

I think you'd have a better chance trying to get Raef LaFrentz from the Mavs. Cuban might take on some of your higher salary cap players (Stoudemire) along with some youth (Randolph) in some sort of package for LaFrentz. LaFrentz is a better center than anyone else you have on your roster.


----------



## Cam*Ron (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> Blazers need a center. Could Dale Davis, Bonzi Wells for Z and Miles work out?
> 
> What would u want


If we give up our center we won't get a center back or atleast someone who could produce as much. Diop isn't ready to step in and play yet. If we give up Z we need a quality center in return but that won't happen because if someone already has a quality center they wouldn't be trying to trade him anyway.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Zach can play 5. I really like him


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FanOfAll8472</b>!
> Zach can play 5.


No, I don't think so. He's not that big, and he's not strong enough. He needs to work exclusively at PF first and only.


----------



## BEEWILL (Apr 13, 2003)

Who wants Z?


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Boozer better than Randolph?!?!?! lmao!!!!!!

Boozer is a 6'7 (yes, 6'7) , undersized overachiever. 

He nowhere near, or ever will be near Zach Randolph imho Cav homer.


----------



## CavsTalk (Jun 10, 2003)

Boozer is 6'9''.

Randolph has been in the league for two years and you almost have to put his first two year stats together to match Boozers rookie year stats.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Let's see, Zach avg more pts/rebs as a starter than Boozer. Not to mention he avg. 21 pts and 11 rebs per game in the playoffs. Boozer is solid at best, but to say he's anywhere near Zach Randolph is funny!


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

I really do believe that it is you that is being the homer. While like Randolph he is not any better than Boozer. In addition they are he same height so I don't see how you can call Boozer short without doing the same to Randolph. While Randolph is arguably the better offensive player, all else goes to Boozer.


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Let's see, Zach avg more pts/rebs as a starter than Boozer. Not to mention he avg. 21 pts and 11 rebs per game in the playoffs. Boozer is solid at best, but to say he's anywhere near Zach Randolph is funny!


lol, I just love when posters from other teams try to come in here and share their "basketball I.Q."! Hmmm.... where should I start to prove this goofball wrong.....?

How about career numbers. And I'll even give your boy Zach one EXTRA year! He's been in the NBA two seasons, Boozer only one.

(Following stats from NBA.com)

Career FG%: Zach .502 FG%, Carlos .536 FG%

Career total number of rebounds: Zach - 412 rbs, Carlos - 609 rbs

Total number of points scored in career: Zach - 764 pts, Carlos - 810 pts.

You get an extra year, and still lose. So now, you can come back and make the excuses that Zach is playing on a better team, playing behind better talent, not getting the minutes, blah, blah, blah. The point is, you said Zach is better. I disagree and the stats, as they are, support me. They are what they are, and it is impossible to prove a point by saying, "Yeah well but, if my guy...blah, blah, blah..." He didn't. He's on the team he is on, with the team-mates he has, and he put up the stats that are recorded.

Oh, and undersized? According to NBA.com (and I'm sure the weight is not 100% accurate for both players)

Zach 6'9 270 lbs, Boozer 6'9 260 lbs.

Let's see what else.... how about I use Zach's 2nd season numbers (ignore his terrible rookie numbers), and compare those to Boozer's ROOKIE numbers.... did you get that.... his ROOKIE numbers dude. That means he will likely IMPROVE his numbers (barring injuries) for the next couple of seasons.

Zach- .513 Fg%, .758 FT%, 4.5 rbs per game, 8.4 pts per game
Carlos- .536 Fg%, .771 FT %, 7.5 rbs per game AS A ROOKIE, 10.0 pts per game

Verdict- You're wrong, you are a homer for your team (as you should be), but either don't check your facts before you speak, or you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong.

My take... Zach IS good. He could be real good. He is NOT the focus on your team. As long as he stays on talent-laden Portland, his individual numbers might not rise as high as they could.

Boozer was REALLY good as a rookie. He has the right attitude and work ethic to continue to improve. He was NOT the focus on the Cavs. As the Cavs find an identity, and with LeBron dishing dimes, Boozer's scoring will increase. Silas is an exPF who knew how to board. Boozer will absorb Silas's insight like a sponge and improve even faster.

If I had to choose between Zach and Carlos right now, I would take Carlos 10 out of 10 times and not even doubt it a bit. I would NOT trade you Boozer for Randolph straight up... you'd have to give me more.

Speaking of that.... what is Randolph's salary? Which round was he picked? Boozer was a 2nd round pick. His salary is NBA dirt cheap (for now). Just another IMPORTANT point, considering the Blazer's are apparently trying to cut cap, and the Cavs are doing quite well cap-wise thankyouverymuch.


----------



## hitokiri (May 22, 2003)

Cleveland trades: C Michael Stewart (0.8 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.1 apg in 5.3 minutes) 
C Zydrunas Illgauskas (17.2 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 30.1 minutes) 
Cleveland receives: PF Dale Davis (7.4 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 1.2 apg in 29.3 minutes) 
C Arvydas Sabonis (6.1 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.8 apg in 15.5 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -4.5 ppg, +2.8 rpg, and +1.3 apg. 

Portland trades: PF Dale Davis (7.4 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 1.2 apg in 29.3 minutes) 
C Arvydas Sabonis (6.1 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.8 apg in 15.5 minutes) 
Portland receives: C Michael Stewart (0.8 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.1 apg in 47 games) 
C Zydrunas Illgauskas (17.2 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 81 games) 
Change in team outlook: +4.5 ppg, -2.8 rpg, and -1.3 apg. 

Cavs lose both their huge contract and their big unwanted for a contract that comes off right away and one that comes off after the 2004-2005 season.


----------



## CavsTalk (Jun 10, 2003)

To make you look even more stupid...

Randolph avg. 13 PPG in the playoffs with 8 RPG. A far cry from the crap you tried to say he avg.

Booz is still better.....bottom line


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Stats are MOOT. You guys do not seem to understand that, in this situation. Boozer played on a horrible team as one of the only true PF's. Randolph played behind Rasheed Wallace on a good team in the Western Confrence. 

No way to compare the two really. Cavs fans are gonna say Boozer is better, Blazers fans will go with Zach.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

the official sizes for each are
randolph:6-9, 253
boozer:6-9, 258

an important factor in seeing who is better is to see how much pt they got 
boozer in his career has played 2049 minutes to zachs only 1539. in his rookie season zach only got to play 238 minutes. in about 10 more mintues a game carlos averaged only 2 pts and 3 boards more than randolph. also randolph, when on the floor was a 3rd or 4th option comparing to boozers status as a 2nd or 3rd option(behind ricky davis and sometimes Z). this makes a huge difference in production but you could still justify boozer being better by saying that zach didnt deserve the extra minutes. but boozer didnt earn his starting spot, it fell on him cuz the cavs had no one else to man the position. then we also have evidence that zach can produce like a star(playoffs) when he gets the minutes averaging, i believe, over a double double against top WEST competition in Dallas and being able to do a better than average job at defending either lafrentz or nowitski. i assure you if randolph were a cav he would start. be the second option and put up numbers along the lines of 17 and 7 but if boozer were with the blazers in the west playing as a backup with 15minutes a game he would probably avg 5 n 5. also boozer has chronic foot problem that have hampered his athletiscism. im sure any gm would take randolph over boozer 10 times out of 10 without a second thought. also you said u didnt need potential u needed winning now but that is an untrue statement as you well know as a cavs fan. the cavs arent near having a winning ball club this year even with lebron. he is only a rookie and wont turn u from the worst franchise to a playoff team. seeking randolph for the future(2yrs down when he produces massivley and thre is no arguement against him vs boozer) would be a great move as it will take AT LEAST two years for lebron to become a semi star in terms of talent and producing


----------



## EddyCurry4MVP (Jun 1, 2003)

Mongomike, you posted all the good stats but you might want to post the minutes per game and or total minutes too so we can see who got more minutes because im pretty sure boozer got more of them and obviously its easier to score more points and grab more boards if you are playing more.


----------



## EddyCurry4MVP (Jun 1, 2003)

nevermind texan did that for us, thanks texan


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

If you look at 48 min stats yes Randolph is the better scorer but rebounding etc the advantage is to Boozer as I said earlier.


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>texan</b>!
> the official sizes for each are
> randolph:6-9, 253
> boozer:6-9, 258
> ...


That's a good post Texan, but I still say shoulda, woulda, coulda. What I mean is that your arguement is mostly opinion. Unless Boozer and Zach actually switched teams, what you say cannot be proven. It's the same arguement as saying, "Well, if Wilt played today, he'd get pounded." Or "Shaq is a better center than Jabbar". Those are opinions. They can NEVER EVER be proven. Stats are a proof that can be used to compare players of similiar eras, but even stats fall short comparing one player from the 60's vs another player from the 90's. 

I also disagree with you inferring that if Boozer played for the TB's instead of Zach, that he would put up 5 and 5. Even that tho, is my opinion and yours. Stats are the most stable and reliable way to compare these two players.

Any arguement that Karl Malone (who I don't like by the way), will NOT make the Hall of Fame? No, of course not. Even peeps who don't like him (me), gotta admit he will and probably should be in the HoF. So what if I say, "yeah, but if he didn't play with Stockton, he wouldn't have gotten all the easy assists".... or "if he would've played his whole career with the Clips, he would've never put up the same numbers." That is simply opinion. It can't be proved. And make no doubt, Malone IS getting into the HoF based on his stats. He has no rings. He made All-Star teams based on his stats. Is he a great player, or a product of the right team at the right time? We will never know. But.... Karl DOES have the stats, and that is enough to label him a future HoFer.

Boozer's stats AS A ROOKIE, and on an inferior team, are clearly better than Zachs. I would still take Boozer 10 out of 10 times over Zach. And his cheaper salary makes it a slam dunk. Besides, Boozer is a much more aggressive offensive player, and I like that alot. And again, the stats and salary are un-arguable. My opinion that he is more aggressive IS arguable... but it is still my opinion. At this point, barring a trade, Zach is not good enough to be your starting PF. And if the rumors about a trade for KMart are true, your team management does not feel Zach is good enough to be the starting PF on the TB's. The Cavs do feel Boozer is good enough to be a starting PF in the NBA.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Most if not all non-Blazer/Cav fans would take Zach Randolph over Boozer. It's easy to put up decent numbers on a horrible team, a perfect example.... Ron Mercer avg 20+ppg for the Bulls, and now he avg a 1/4 of that on a good team. Boozer has no O, he's like a poor mans Antonio Davis at best imho. While Zach on the other hand, he can score on just about anybody. As a starter for a playoff calibur team, he puts up 15 ppg. One of the most memerable Randolph games was against Memphis where he had 32 pts 21 rebs. No knock on Boozer, but he's not even in the same league as Randolph.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

By the way Boozer was not the 2nd or 3rd option on offense. Frankly the way that the Cavs played offense they really couldn't have told you who the options were last year. I know that Boozer got his points without anyone trying to get him the ball in a place that he could do something with it. Boozer hustled to get his points, thats what I liked about the way he played. But it is your right to think that Randolph is better. I just say that Boozer is a perfect fit for most teams and this one in particular.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Boozer is a better fit on most teams? He's an average defender at best, little O. Classic garbage man. Think Antonio Davis at best. I think Boozer is a very solid player. But come on, Comparing him to Randolph is comical.


----------



## Cam*Ron (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Boozer is a better fit on most teams? He's an average defender at best, little O. Classic garbage man. Think Antonio Davis at best. I think Boozer is a very solid player. But come on, Comparing him to Randolph is comical.


It's comical?

Randolph isn't as good as a defender as Boozer so there goes that point. Boozer is a solid big man and his game developed well later in the season. Randolph hasn't even put up numbers that Boozer has, and this will be Randolph's third year. 

And you say Boozer is only a garbage man, that's the only way he could get the ball the way the offense was going. Randolph has made his career by cleaning the garbage.

Boozer only played 9 minutes more in choppy minutes. If you watch the games he gets sat early constantly. Give him whole quarters and his numbers go up.

I think Boozer will be the better player and have the better career because he has the better mind-set.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Yes. It is VERY comical.


----------



## Mongolmike (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Yes. It is VERY comical.


Sioux, it ain't gonna work. There is no way you will be able to come into a Cavs forum and convince us Randolph is better than Boozer. We don't buy it. 99% of Blazer fans would disagree if I came into your forum with my view. R-Star tried to do the same thing supporting Pacer players. It don't work.

Time will tell, but when you say Booz is an average offensive player, that just tells me you never saw him play in the pros. He is not the same player as he was in Duke. Boozer is and will be a better player than Randolph. This season, with all the offensive options Clev has (Z, LbJ, Miles, Ricky, DaJaun, etc) Boozer will AGAIN put up better numbers than Zach.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

What ever floats your boat bud lol. Mercer avg. more pts when he was with the bulls than Kobe and Tmac, does that make him better? LMAO. Boozer aint nada. He'll be nothing more than a poor mans A.Davis.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

I dont know if this has been mentioned but when you are talkin about yrs of experience you have to remember that Boozer came out as a junior and Randolph as a Freshman i think. Randolph is the better of the two and you guys would be lucky to get him.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongolmike</b>!
> R-Star tried to do the same thing supporting Pacer players. It don't work.


Hahaha. That one was funny.

I've been saying that all the time, RoyWilliams. Plus, the Blazers are a deeper team...


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Mercer avg. more pts when he was with the bulls than Kobe and Tmac, does that make him better?


Mercer did not average more points with the Bulls than Kobe or Tracy were at that time. 

Ron Mercer played 2 seasons with Chicago, averaging a career high of 19.7 ppg in 2001 and his averaged fell a little in 2002 to 16.7 ppg. During 2001, Tracy averaged 26.8 ppg and his average fell slightly the next year to 25.6 ppg. Kobe Bryant averaged 28.5 and 25.2 ppg during the years Mercer was in Chicago.

I am baffled as to how you thought Mercer was outscoring Tracy or Kobe. You are misinformed.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

The biggest thing to remember is Boozer played in the weak East while Randolph played in the big league of big men in the West, put Zach over here in the East and he is a monster. Boozer wasnt buried behind anyone either while Zach was behind a good team.


----------

