# Zach traded????



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

*Zach traded!!!!!*

well maybe...speculation over at ESPN has zach sitting out tonites game due to a pending trade invovling him and others...it was said that zach was injured but why would he have to fly to portland just doesnt make sense (an urgent flight for bone spurs...no way) the only way we would trade zbo is for KG and if that happens WOW!!!! we all would be eating our words for bashing Nash's first couple of weeks...PURE SPECULATION but somehting just isnt right....a guy that went to all the portland RMR games said that zach was REALLY upset after Tuesday's game and was seen talking to MO in disgust as they got onto the bus....this is what the guy saw..and the next thing zach is flown back home...if not for KG then its a horrible mistake, and even if for KG one person that will be pissed is Q seeing as he is zach best friend on the team...but we'll have to wait and see


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

he probably sat out because 1 more game isn't going to make or break their summer, and they might have wanted some of the players who stand no chance at making the team, to play decent minutes.

btw, Salt Lake to Portland isn't that far.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I was watching SC and didn't hear anything on this. What ESPN source did you hear this?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

You certainly found a good piece of bait to lure people into your topic, and that's about all I can say about this.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*that would explain his lackluster play last night*

I believe the bone spur theory.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Umm...KG for Zach Randolph...? :nonono: You have your sights set way to high if you think that trade is fair...

He probably is just injured...:whoknows:


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Yeah.... right.... :laugh: 

Well... I think we know Zach... while a decent player.... is more a Gary Trent than a Kevin Garnett. Undersized.... loves garbage points... woefully overmatched against WC PF... Minny wouldn't trade KG for our entire roster.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

lol I dont see Zach getting traded , Zach will be a superstar , he is a million times better than Gary trent


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Are you sure it is not disciplinary action?*

It seems odd to me that both him and Q did not dress or play. That means one of two things: 1) The management team did not want to play them so they could get a look at other talent, or 2) They did something wrong and were disciplined. Beats me we will probably find out more tomorrow.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

They didn't really go into details of why ZR went back to PDX during the Blazers/Bulls broadcast. It was a bit interesting that he wasn't there, but Qyntel was (hanging out court side with Mo Cheeks).

I don't think there's anything to ZR being traded, but the best I can say is that if he ever IS traded we can expect a nice haul coming back (not KG-level nice, though!).

Ed O.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

The Timberwolves won't be trading Garnett right after they got Sprewell, Cassell and Olowakandi to help him.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

Let me just say that Zach is not as good as Garnett but is far superior to Trent.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I see Espn message board , a bunch of false rumors


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Dude, someone lock this topic...quick!! lol


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerbraindamage</b>!
> Let me just say that Zach is not as good as Garnett but is far superior to Trent.


I'm not sure about that second part at this point in ZR's career. Trent was/is a bit shorter, had a surlier attitude, and was injury-prone, but the man was at LEAST as good on the offensive blocks as ZR and he might have been his equal as a rebounder, too.

Of course, I'm comparing 2nd-year Gary Trent (3 years of college) with 2nd-year ZR (1 year of college), and Trent didn't get noticeably better after his second year (he averaged 16/7.8 in more minutes for Dallas, but he shot a career-high 53.6% from the field in his second year with the Blazers).

Ed O.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

Dude whatever....Zach is a young and rising star and Trent is a has been and isn't rising anywhere in this league.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I have seen Zach Dominate games , game vs memphis some players in their whole time in the nba dont put up those kind of numbers. Zach will be a star , I bet Kg cant bang with Zbo in the paint


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Who said Zach would be like Trent? Whomever did needs a check up , from the neck up!!!!


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

lol , Zach game a mix from elton brand and hes a scoring machine like kg


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Who said Zach would be like Trent? Whomever did needs a check up , from the neck up!!!!


I think that I probably came the closest to saying that, because if one compares Trent's career after his second year with the Blazers to ZR's second year with the Blazers, there isn't really that much of a difference. Trent had actually played more and better basketball (although not with quite the high points that ZR has done) in the same 2 years.

Trent was actually a higher draft pick and was more advanced, but that might have been because of 2 extra years in college.

Right NOW, Trent might be as good as ZR, too. But considering ZR's like 7 years younger, he's worth tons more to any team.

Ed O.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> I bet Kg cant bang with Zbo in the paint


Even if ZR can bang in the paint better than KG, he has a long way to go before he is anything close to the player KG is... 

KG: 23.0ppg, 13.4rpg, 6apg, 1.57bpg.
ZR: 8.4ppg, 4.5rpg, 0.5apg, 0.18bpg.

Maybe in a few years, Zach will be a really good PF....but, at the moment he can't touch KG.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

That's okay KG's numbers will decline since he finally has teammates.

Zach's will increase.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*I bet*

That Zbo can eat more then KG.....so that makes Zach better right???


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Randolph is good and all but at best I see him as similar to Charles Barkley. Currently I'd say the Gary Trent parallel is fitting though Zach being so much younger he's got room to grow well beyond where Trent is now.

However, comparing Randolph to Garnett.... :nonono: Honestly I just don't see it unless you're only comparing potential popularity or something, like comparing Karl Malone to, say.... John Stockton. Malone and Stockton had similar support, could both take over a game in different ways, and I suppose both shot free throws fairly well. Beyond that....

I can't see Randolph ever coming close to Garnett in terms of assists, steals, ability to play (or at least defend) three or even four positions....heck, Garnett is practically a point.

All that said, while I with Damian that it seems awfully unlikely that the Wolves would pick now to trade Garnett, I could see a trade being in the works that'd include Z-bo. If so, I'd say it'd almost certainly be a package deal where someone like Damon is being moved as well. Also, back to KG, if the combination of talent in Minnesota doesn't seem to be coming together quickly enough, I could see KG getting traded before the trading deadline.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PorterIn2004</b>!
> I could see KG getting traded before the trading deadline.


Hmm...I guess if the Wolves were losing and Garnett said "I'm not gonna resign with you, no matter what"...That was the reason why GP got traded from Seattle.

I wouldn't do the trade for KG unless he promised to resign at the end of the year though...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm...I guess if the Wolves were losing and Garnett said "I'm not gonna resign with you, no matter what"...That was the reason why GP got traded from Seattle.
> ...


There are rumors that he's already set his price and that Minnesota isn't excited about meeting it. That said, a lot can change in a year, particularly if they go deep into the playoffs. Mostly, though, I agree with you. As good as Duncan was this year, I think KG got jobbed. Take Duncan off of last year's Spurs and they're not a great team anymore. Take Garnett off of last year's Wolves and the team's looking up to see the ground. Also, Garnett is capable of doing more on the court than Duncan is. Really, I can't think of another player I'd rather go into the next decade of NBA basketball with than Garnett.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

By the way, riehldeal, in the future when starting a thread like this one, far better to title it something like "Zach traded?????" rather than go with the "Zach traded!!!!! -- well...maybe" approach. It's a bit like calling wolf.

-Porter


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PorterIn2004</b>!
> There are rumors that he's already set his price and that Minnesota isn't excited about meeting it. That said, a lot can change in a year, particularly if they go deep into the playoffs. Mostly, though, I agree with you. As good as Duncan was this year, I think KG got jobbed. Take Duncan off of last year's Spurs and they're not a great team anymore. Take Garnett off of last year's Wolves and the team's looking up to see the ground. Also, Garnett is capable of doing more on the court than Duncan is. Really, I can't think of another player I'd rather go into the next decade of NBA basketball with than Garnett.


Hmm...as a GM, you're kind of a tough position with KG... 

Do you pay him a huge contract and get eliminated in the first round every year, or do you trade him for more talent ? If the owner isn't willing to pay luxury tax, then you have no shot at winning with KG on a huge contract and average roleplayers (ala T-Wolves in '02-'03)...

Although, having said that...I think I would still love to have KG on my team


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PorterIn2004</b>!
> By the way, riehldeal, in the future when starting a thread like this one, far better to title it something like "Zach traded?????"


I agree. Done deal....


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

ED O,
so are you saying, that if you had to pick either Trent or Zach for one season, and one season only, that you would pick Trent?????
wow, very interesting. i have a feeling you would be one of the very few. 
Trent is just as good now as he ever has been, and to me there is no comparison. Zach is a far superior player.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> ED O,
> so are you saying, that if you had to pick either Trent or Zach for one season, and one season only, that you would pick Trent?????
> wow, very interesting. i have a feeling you would be one of the very few.
> Trent is just as good now as he ever has been, and to me there is no comparison. Zach is a far superior player.


Where did I say that? Can you please quote language where I said anything of the sort?

The closest *I* can find is this:



> Right NOW, Trent might be as good as ZR, too. But considering ZR's like 7 years younger, he's worth tons more to any team.


Why on Earth would I pick a guy who "might" be as good as the other guy, and whom I think is worth substantially less?

Ed O.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Where did I say that? Can you please quote language where I said anything of the sort?
> ...



that is exactly what i'm asking. since i said "for one year, and one year only", that would imply that age is NOT a concern. 

So, as you put it right NOW, they are pretty much equivalent? right NOW, i would still pick Zach way ahead of Trent. even for one year, and age aside.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

"Zach... while a decent player.... is more a Gary Trent than a Kevin Garnett"

Umm... there are Blazer fans that disagree with this? 

I didn't say he 'was as good as' Gary Trent... but he is certainly closer to a Gary Trent calibar of player than a Kevin Garnett caliber of player.

Until I see Zach matched up with some of the better PFs, I will have a big Q mark about him.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

Hmmm, Zack Randolph for Kevin Garnett. You didn't actually
propose that with a straight face.

You may need psychiatric help if you think that could happen
in this World. Maybe in Bizarro world.

Oh well, I guess I will assume that was a joke.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Umm...KG for Zach Randolph...? :nonono: You have your sights set way to high if you think that trade is fair...
> 
> :whoknows:








WTF is this guy thinking? You are right Scinos, damn. KG for him? He's not even cLose 2 KG's LeveL.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>CeLtZ in 04</b>!
> WTF is this guy thinking? You are right Scinos, damn. KG for him? He's not even cLose 2 KG's LeveL.


OK...OK...we get the point. You opinion has been expressed over and over now. Everybody can have dreams right? I'm sure the intention here was a deal involving those two...meaning more players would have to be involved. Just speculation on my part. Let's not crucify the guy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> 
> that is exactly what i'm asking. since i said "for one year, and one year only", that would imply that age is NOT a concern.
> 
> So, as you put it right NOW, they are pretty much equivalent? right NOW, i would still pick Zach way ahead of Trent. even for one year, and age aside.


Age is always a concern. All other things being equal, young players tend not to get injured, and young players bring back more in trade.

In terms of skills and/or what a player can do in a single game, I think that Trent might be as good as ZR. But that's not a news flash, considering ZR's only 22 and hasn't played that much in the NBA, while Trent is almost 29 and a long-time veteran that has a lot more experience.

Ed O.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Age is always a concern. All other things being equal, young players tend not to get injured, and young players bring back more in trade.
> ...



I think you missed the point.... but oh well. I must have not been clear. :sigh:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> 
> I think you missed the point.... but oh well. I must have not been clear. :sigh:


I think I got the point, but the point was without relevance as far as I could tell.

A similarly irrelevant point would be asking if Damon would be an all-star if the NBA lowered the rims to 9 feet.

Just like height is an omnipresent concern in the NBA when evaluating players, age is one, too, and normalizing for age _when comparing the current abilities of players_ renders the question worthless to me.

Normalizing for age and experience DOES have value generally and I'd already said that ZR and Trent were at similar spots (in terms of ability and production) in their careers after their second seasons.

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Gary Trent has been injured his entire career*

why are we even talking about him?
At one time,I predicted he would be the next Chas. Barkley.
But injuries have really changed all that.

Comparing them as kids out of school,I would give the edge to
Trent.He was far more polished as a player.
He was so muscular,not an ounce of fat.

I remember watching a tv game of him in college,and it was the 
1st time his dad got to watch him play,he had just been released
from prison.
Gary seemed so sweet and it was an emotional day for him.

The Shaq of the MAC !

Zach looks more like the Tank of the West !!


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

Trent is basically your stud out of college who played in a weak conference. Rarely do these guys flourish in the NBA. The majority of the real good players in the league are very good players in strong conferences or high school studs ala Kobe, McGrady, KG, etc. Trent is a nobody in my book.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> Yeah.... right.... :laugh:
> 
> Well... I think we know Zach... while a decent player.... is more a Gary Trent than a Kevin Garnett. Undersized.... loves garbage points... woefully overmatched against WC PF... Minny wouldn't trade KG for our entire roster.


Tell me, exactly what are garbage points? Zach Randolph takes his man in the post and scores regularly, something Trent couldn't do. And Zach being an inch or two shorter than the tall PF's in the WC does NOT make him under-sized, it makes him average sized and not woefully overmatched. Other PF's in this league can't handle Zach in the post, so who is overmatched? 

And who the heck says Zach is a Kevin Garnett type player? They have tottally different styles, but Zach is still going to be a very good player.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Re: Zach traded!!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>riehldeal</b>!
> well maybe...speculation over at ESPN has zach sitting out tonites game due to a pending trade invovling him and others...it was said that zach was injured but why would he have to fly to portland just doesnt make sense (an urgent flight for bone spurs...no way) the only way we would trade zbo is for KG and if that happens WOW!!!! we all would be eating our words for bashing Nash's first couple of weeks...PURE SPECULATION but somehting just isnt right....a guy that went to all the portland RMR games said that zach was REALLY upset after Tuesday's game and was seen talking to MO in disgust as they got onto the bus....this is what the guy saw..and the next thing zach is flown back home...if not for KG then its a horrible mistake, and even if for KG one person that will be pissed is Q seeing as he is zach best friend on the team...but we'll have to wait and see


Please don't post crap like this on here. Zach is going absolutely NO WHERE but Portland.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> 
> 
> Please don't post crap like this on here. Zach is going absolutely NO WHERE but Portland.


:sigh: 

Mas, I hope one day you can take yourself a bit less seriously. Unless you're actually Paul Allen, (or *maybe* Nash or Patterson) you don't have any grounds for making "absolute" statements like this, particularly when you might be scaring off a rookie poster. I'll give you that you included a "please" but, from my perspective, your reaction is both over-the-top and, well.... wrong. If Nash had somehow worked out a deal that'd bring in someone like KG for many of the pieces we're trying to get rid of (Damon, RP, DA/Wells, etc.) and Randolph were the one significant piece going out, are you telling me you'd kill the deal if it were you? I sure wouldn't if it were me and I doubt that Nash or Allen would. Consider something like:

PG Stoudamire / McInnis
SG Wells / Woods
SF Garnett / Woods
PF Wallace / Garnett
C Davis / Wallace / RBB

Granted that seems hugely unlikely but not, IMO, out of the realm of possibility. Okay, maybe it *is* outside with KG but you get the idea, I hope: All of these players are basically pieces to be moved in a effort to make the team as a whole better either now or down the road (unless you're the Clippers). I'd say that not even the guys like Shaq or Duncan are completely off the market. Looking over the history of the NBA, there are top-flight trades getting made fairly regularly, most recently Kidd. For a guy like Randolph who's good but hardly a top 50 at this point, they get traded all the time, however much you might not want such a trade to happen. It's almost as if you're afraid that someone posting about the possibility would suggest the idea to Nash. 
:grinning: 

Anyway, welcome in, riehldeal and feel free to share your thoughts, whatever they might be (though again, you might be careful with your titles).

Thanks all.

-Porter


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Call me a moron or what not but I'd be skeptical to trade Zach for Kevin Garnett. I would much rahter trade Sheed for KG.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I'll leave the namecalling to you MAS  , but I don't know how you can even debate hesitating on a trade where Zack and KG are the primary players swapped. It's completely lopsided. 

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Call me a moron or what not but I'd be skeptical to trade Zach for Kevin Garnett. I would much rahter trade Sheed for KG.


The question wasn't who you'd choose to send if you had the choice between Zach and 'Sheed but whether you'd do it with Zach. That said, it seems to me we may have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> 
> Zach Randolph takes his man in the post and scores regularly, something Trent couldn't do.


This is just inaccurate. Gary Trent was the best low-post played on the Blazers for at least one year, and maybe two. He was at LEAST as good on the blocks as ZR is at this point, and maybe better.

Ed O.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

By garbage points I mean he gets a lot of putbacks, quick short chippie shots, but if a decent and good sized defender is well positioned, (which by the way, Zach hasn't played against to much yet) he has a much harder time getting his shot off. In fact, he must have led the Blazers in getting stuffed last year.

It seems Zach is trying to increase his range and hit some outside shots in summer league... which by adding another facet to his game, might really help open up his inside game.
It is obviously too early to write the book on Randolph.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Gary Trent*

This guy was fabulous under the basket and strictly a paint 
man..
If I wasn't at work,I would spend more time to figure out why and
where he went.

I was very excited he came to Portland.
A shorter version of Buck Wiliams..


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MAS RipCity</b>!
> Call me a moron or what not but I'd be skeptical to trade Zach for Kevin Garnett. I would much rahter trade Sheed for KG.


Skeptical? You'd be skeptical to adding a top 5 player to your team?


Incredible!


Lets take a look at the previous championships:

Spurs: Duncan, Parker
Lakers: Bryant, O'Neal
Lakers: Bryant, O'Neal
Lakers: Bryant, O'Neal
Spurs: Duncan, Robinson
Bulls: Jordan, Pippen
Bulls: Jordan, Pippen
Bulls: Jordan, Pippen
Rockets: Olajuwon, Drexler
Rockets: Olajuwon, Drexler
Bulls: Jordan, Pippen
Bulls: Jordan, Pippen
Bulls: Jordan, Pippen

Notice a trend? On each of those teams, there was at least one top 5 player on their respective teams. Most of those had 2.

No one on the Blazers is a top 5 talent. Adding Garnett gives you that. 

Take a look at the Spurs this year. They won with a top 5 talent(Duncan) and several key players(Parker, Jackson, Bowen, Ginobili, Rose, and Robinson).

If the Blazers traded ZR, a 1st, Damon(cap reasons), and DA(cap) for KG for example(and I dont care if this works cap wise, I am just throwing out a random trade), they'd have:

A top 5 talent in KG, as did the Spurs.
But they'd also have Rasheed. No one other than Duncan was as good as Rasheed last year.
Plus, they'd still have Woods, Patterson, McInnis, Wells, and Davis on the bench/starting. Thats a better surrounding cast than what Duncan had. Now, Id consider Duncan the better player between him and KG, but still...........the Blazers would have to be very strong contenders for a ring. Plus, they'd have the better surrounding cast.

How in the hell could you be "skeptical" about that?

ZR has potential, yes. He will be a good offensive player. But so is KG. KG will probably always be the better rebounder/defender, and will most likely always be the better player. 

The odds of ZR ever being a top 5 player are slim. Its hard to crack the top 5. KG already is. And he still is a young star to build around.

-------------------

And don't come back with the lame *** "Your a Bulls fan" type of response and refer back to when the KG/Chandler rumors were circulating, and many Bulls fans said they wouldn't do it.

I for one, would have loved to see it happen. For the same reasons I gave above. Of course, I doubted we ever had the chance to complete that deal........but I would have been estatic if we did, because I know that the odds Chandler and Curry ever becoming top 5 players are slim to none as well.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

I think what Ed is saying is that, if you absolutely needed to win one game, he'd rather have Gary Trent for that one game. Reason being he is a veteran, and more polished.

What he is NOT saying is that he'd rather have Trent for the franchise to build around/keep. Obviously, ZR has more trade demand/potential. He knows all of this. And there is no way he'd trade ZR for Trent. 

But if you absolutely had to win one game.......


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> Skeptical? You'd be skeptical to adding a top 5 player to your team?
> ...



um...Drexler was in Portland that year.....


----------

