# Zach for KMart?



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

> Portland could be willing to make a trade for forward Zach Randolph, a tough post player who averaged 18 points and eight rebounds this past season. Randolph is expected to be expendable after numerous run-ins with coach Nate McMillan. And his salary ($12 million next season) matches.
> 
> Nuggets assistant general manager Mark Warkentien drafted Randolph for Portland with the 19th overall pick in 2001 and the two are still close. Randolph's sucker punch in practice of Ruben Patterson, who is now with Denver, is a thing of the past. "Why not for Zach Randolph?" one Eastern Conference executive said. "They owe him the same amount of money."


Hoopshype.com 

K-Mart-4 years (5th Year Player Option): $11,818,182/$13,000,000/$14,181,818/$15,363,636/ $16,545,454

Zach Randolph-5 years: $12,000,000/$13,333,333/$14,666,666/$16,000,000/$17,333,333 

Player Option


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Zach has more talent for the same $$. No thanks to K-Mart.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Zach has more talent for the same $$. No thanks to K-Mart.


What he said.:cheers: 

K-Mart is more headcase for the $$, too.

Go Blazers


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

This will work after July 1st

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=125~1713~1017&teams=22~22~7


Zach for Nene and Camby.....

Nene would need to be resigned and traded


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

What about Zach and Dixon (or Skinner since we wouldn't need him) for Kmart and Nene?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'd be all for it if Nene was involved, but I doubt Denver would even consider it.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ukrainefan said:


> What about Zach and Dixon (or Skinner since we wouldn't need him) for Kmart and Nene?


KMart is bad news.... that is why I said Nene and Camby.... but I doubt very much Denver does that...

I would keep Skinner... until we know if Joel stays or not.

A front line of Nene and Skinner at PF, and Camby and Theo at C would be nice if they all stay healthy. If Joel leaves Camby can play C


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

No thanks. In the words of Rainman, Kmart sucks.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

The Zach for Martin idea is interesting. Martin is everything that Zach is not. He plays defense he's not a ball hog and he gives consistant effort. But you don't want him shooting the ball that much.

With Martin my biggest concern is his knees. If he can really play I wouldn't be opposed to a swap. But if he is going to be in and out most of his career and be limited in what he can do because of knee troubles I'd pass.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> This will work after July 1st
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=125~1713~1017&teams=22~22~7
> Zach for Nene and Camby.....
> Nene would need to be resigned and traded


Denver gets fleeced. I love it! 

I wouldn't trade Zach for Kmart. I don't like Kmart. Sure, Kmart is a much better defensive player. Zach is better on offense. Kmart is at least as much or more of a problem child than Zach at this point. At least Zach is basically a pretty good guy (with bad decision making skills). I think Zach could still come around. And his overall game can still improve.

Now, Zach for Nene is something I'd strongly consider if it could be worked out.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ratliff and Dixon for KMart? Then make another trade?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> Ratliff and Dixon for KMart? Then make another trade?


I'm not sure why Denver would want Ratliff, considering they have Camby, except maybe for health insurance. But I'd do that. Just our luck, Ratliff would become healthy and Kmart would have chronic knee problems. :biggrin:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

No to K Mart.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

only if its kmart and nene then we trade kmart and miles for someone else like pierce or KG!


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Ukrainefan said:


> What about Zach and Dixon (or Skinner since we wouldn't need him) for Kmart and Nene?


Skinner is likely our starting center next season after game 6. Keep him please. Joel is most likely to leave for greener pastures folks. Theo is still an injury away from sitting out half the season.

Any trade that nets us Nene is a good trade for our team.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Skinner is likely our starting center next season after game 6.




no, bargnani will play center and pull other team's bigs away from hoop so telfair can drive! :banana:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Denver gets fleeced. I love it!
> 
> I wouldn't trade Zach for Kmart.  I don't like Kmart. Sure, Kmart is a much better defensive player. Zach is better on offense. Kmart is at least as much or more of a problem child than Zach at this point. At least Zach is basically a pretty good guy (with bad decision making skills). I think Zach could still come around. And his overall game can still improve.
> 
> Now, Zach for Nene is something I'd strongly consider if it could be worked out.


I agree we fleece them.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

My guess is that Blazer management likes the trade . . . afterall it would save money. :biggrin:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I would rather take a chance on nene.Kmart remember the blow up against george carl instant cancer even more then zach if we want just remove miles and get zach a pretty good vet leader and he will follow like sheed.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

No thanks.....

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=262123


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Zidane said:


> I would rather take a chance on nene.Kmart remember the blow up against george carl instant cancer even more then zach if we want just remove miles and get zach a pretty good vet leader and he will follow like sheed.


While I don't really endorse Zach for Kmart (at least straight across, if they sweeten the pot I would consider it), I don't agree with the cancer comment. Karl has a history of not getting along with a lot of his players. As a matter of fact, I suspect he's only got maybe another year before he has enough problems with them that he needs to be replaced. It's been his MO in both Seattle and Milwaukee already.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

lord no! are people out of thier minds? this isnt the spoon fed kidd version this is the broken worse mouthed version of zbo!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

How is Martin a "version of zbo?" They are entirely different in skills and style of play.

I would definitely consider such a trade. Randolph may be marginally better on offense but, if so, it's not a large edge anymore. It was three years ago, but now he's a go-to player who scores at very low efficiency for an inside player. Martin scores less but on _far_ higher efficiency. He's not a go-to player, but he's an offensive asset when he shoots, whereas Randolph arguably is not.

And, of course, on defense it isn't close. Martin is light years better than Randolph and capable of all-court defensive plays. There are highlights of him smothering a guy on one side of the court and then racing over to the other side of the court to block the shot of another guy after the ball was swung around.

The two are pretty similar rebounders at this point, once you adjust for pace and rebound chances.

I would say that Martin, despite his drop-offs without Kidd, is still probably the more valuable player overall. His defense would be invaluable to a team that needs a real defensive presence. Granted that the team will need offense, too, but there's reason to hope that Telfair, Webster and their 2006 draft pick will provide offense down the line. None (unless that draft pick is inexplicably Brandon Roy, which would be a massive reach) are projected to be real defensive presences.

The worry with Martin is injury. It's a very legitimate worry, which is why I wouldn't pull the trigger without hesitation. Both are massively overpaid.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

martin is almost done plus a version of zbo i ment that he is a trouble maker, K-mart is a jail blazer!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> How is Martin a "version of zbo?" They are entirely different in skills and style of play.
> 
> I would definitely consider such a trade. Randolph may be marginally better on offense but, if so, it's not a large edge anymore. It was three years ago, but now he's a go-to player who scores at very low efficiency for an inside player. Martin scores less but on _far_ higher efficiency. He's not a go-to player, but he's an offensive asset when he shoots, whereas Randolph arguably is not.
> 
> ...


great post. exactly my thoughts, although the injury issue seems to be a wash to me. after all, Randolph is probably at least as likely to see future problems with his microfracture surgery as Martin. Randolph is the one with chicken legs propping up a 260+ lb body. 

anyway, sometimes it's just good to reshuffle problem children, if only to take them out of the current climate and stick them in someplace new with a different culture. 

if Telfair and Webster really are our future, then we are planning on the majority of our scoring coming from the guard positions. if we draft Morrison (or Outlaw/Khryapa mature into a decent third option), again we'll be adding another scorer, with decent scoring out of Jack off the bench too. 

we could really start resembling the Sonics of a year ago:
PG: Fast, score-first guard (Telfair/Ridnour), but also a decent passer, with a more defense-oriented combo guard on the bench (Jack/Daniels)
SG: Lights-out long range shooter (Webster/Allen) with a scorer off the bench (Dixon/Murray)
SF: Another lights-out long range shooter (Morrison/Lewis) 
PF: Bruising defender (Martin/James and Booth)
C: Bruising defender (Przybilla or Ratliff/Radmanovich) [well, maybe this one doesn't work.]
Coach: Nate McMillan

could be a fun, up-tempo team, at least after a couple of years when Nate gives up on trying to keep it at a snails pace.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> martin is almost done plus a version of zbo i ment that he is a trouble maker, K-mart is a jail blazer!


zzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Good post, theWanker. I've long advocated getting a tough defensive-minded PF. In Blazerland, we still honor our past heros: Luke and Buck. There is no doubt a player like Kmart would help anchor our defense, and along side Joel would be a big improvement in that area. My concern with Kenyan Martin is his attitude and the health of his legs. Of course, there is always concern with Zach's legs and his attitude as well, and for good reason. It does seem kind of like a natural swap. I really like Nene better, though, as an all-around player, but again, who knows about his health? Crap, can't this team find a good big man without injury problems?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Crap, can't this team find a good big man without injury problems?


Sure we can, we just have to draft them.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I would say that Martin, despite his drop-offs without Kidd, is still probably the more valuable player overall. His defense would be invaluable to a team that needs a real defensive presence. Granted that the team will need offense, too, but there's reason to hope that Telfair, Webster and their 2006 draft pick will provide offense down the line. None (unless that draft pick is inexplicably Brandon Roy, which would be a massive reach) are projected to be real defensive presences.
> 
> The worry with Martin is injury. It's a very legitimate worry, which is why I wouldn't pull the trigger without hesitation. Both are massively overpaid.


I'm not sure if Martin is right for this team.

In 2 seasons, when this team is old enough to be mediocre-good, Martin will be a 30-year-old player who's already underwent surgery a few times. 

We're also going to be really bad next season and save for a few poor seasons in NJ, he's been a winner his whole life. Would he even want to play for Portland? Voshon Lenard is the only guy since we've gotten awful with a 10.0+ career PPG.

Unless the player is unproven, it's extremely difficult getting a decent player to come to the worst team in the league. 

Give Randolph another year.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

One word: Tendinitis. 

Thumbs down.

:clown:


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> No thanks. In the words of Rainman, Kmart sucks.


:laugh:

Definitely, definitely....


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

ok ok if they make it one of these I'll do it....but I am not settling for a regular one. :curse:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Crap, can't this team find a good big man without injury problems?


we did.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> ok ok if they make it one of these I'll do it....but I am not settling for a regular one. :curse:


Maybe Martin should talk to Barry Bonds about that.


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

I could see this happening easily, I see K-Mart being upset with the Blazers game in the future but will average over 20 ppg. Someone said adding Skinner and Nene damn that would be amazing for the Blazers then.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

kmart is like rolling rubin and zbo into one blanket smashing them together in terms of health age and ATTITUDE! he is broken if he cant improve the nuggets and gets booted what will he do on this team? yack! no thanks!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

theWanker said:


> we did.


injured in the head...somehow somewhere.


----------



## BlazerWookie (Mar 20, 2006)

You couldn't pay me enough to want Kenyon Martin to come to the Blazers. No thanks.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

theWanker said:


> we did.


 :yes:


----------



## BlazerWookie (Mar 20, 2006)

Blazer Bert said:


> :yes:


 :no:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

BlazerWookie said:


> :no:


 :banana:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> injured in the head...somehow somewhere.


Ahhhhhhhh, so that's what the pigmentation is! :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BlazerWookie said:


> You couldn't pay me enough to want Kenyon Martin to come to the Blazers. No thanks.


 Come on BW, every wookie has a price. :biggrin:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Come on BW, every wookie has a price. :biggrin:













+++++++++++++


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

...And we're off into geekland once again. _This_ is what happens when you don't make the playoffs.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Samuel said:


> ...And we're off into geekland once again. _This_ is what happens when you don't make the playoffs.


true....nah mostly I am just having fun with google image search. :biggrin: 

No worries we'll have the draft lottery to talk about in a couple weeks.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

I would GLADLY take KMART for Zbo.....KMART is a great defensive player, Joel would be more likely to sign since KMART will give effort at least. This also would allow us to draft Morrison to pick up the scoring and only have 1 defensive liability at the forward spot


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Screw it, I'd do it...

They're both injury prone, both questionable attitude, both way overpaid...

But if you want to trade Zach for somebody with no question marks, then you're going to get someone who is unquestionably worthless.

I think I'd rather have K-Mart at his best than Zach at his best... Martin has more heart, is more athletic and is a much better defender.

If we're gonna suck, let's at least change it up right?


----------



## BlazerWookie (Mar 20, 2006)

Zidane said:


> :banana:


 :naughty: :whofarted :sour: :krazy: :upset:  :curse:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Screw it, I'd do it...
> 
> They're both injury prone, both questionable attitude, both way overpaid...
> 
> ...


When Martin expires, he'll be 32; When Randolph expires, he'll be 28. It'd be one thing if the Martin deal was a salary dump, but it isn't. 

Can you use the word "upside" in a statement about Kenyon Martin anymore? I don't think so. He probably has 2 more solid seasons left before he becomes a defensive skill guy and nothing more.

I will say this though: he'd make the Blazers a lot better next year.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I'll pass. KMart was a pretty good Defender. With his injuries, I haven't seen to much of the old Kmart lately. I'll keep Zach and his Offense. We already have a decent defender with injury problems(Theo).


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd rather see if Zach can get his act together this coming year without Darius Miles around. Granted that I'm assuming that Miles will be gone this summer, but Zach was the biggest thing since sliced bread not too long ago. Maybe he'll turn the corner without the little devil on his shoulder (Darius) telling him what to do.

I'd rather go that route than taking a big gamble on Kenyon Martin. At least there you know that he's been a dip **** on two different teams.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

can you really use the word "upside" with Randolph anymore either? he might develop better shooting range and better passing, but his days of being an 11 rebound a night guy are over. 

I'll grant that the age difference is concerning, but Martin has played only one more NBA season. both guys average about 34 mpg. Randolph's missed 50 games in the past 4 seasons. Kmart's missed 60. 

Randolph will probably age better than Martin, given that Martin relies so much more on his athleticism. a broken down Zach Randolph could still play an Portland Shawn Kemp kind of role (big body with good range and lousy D), while a broken down Martin really has nothing going for him. but it's not like the Portland version of Shawn Kemp was that hot a commodity. 

in 5 years, odds are both guys will be the 9th or 12th man on some (probably bad) team's bench. 

it's all really just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. but if the deck chair you are sitting in has a tired cushion, you might as well swap it for another chair that has a busted leg. 

btw--sign me up for practically any reasonable deal with Chicago. I think we're dreaming if we think we can steal their pick for just Randolph, but I'd throw in Outlaw or Khryapa to get that one done.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

As long as Kmart doesn't go out of business after the trade is made. :biggrin: 

:clown: 

:banana:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> When Martin expires, he'll be 32; When Randolph expires, he'll be 28. It'd be one thing if the Martin deal was a salary dump, but it isn't.
> 
> Can you use the word "upside" in a statement about Kenyon Martin anymore?


I don't personally think you can use "upside" in a statement about Randolph, either, unless that statement is, "Randolph is unlikely to have any upside at this point because he's been declining for three years now."

It doesn't bother me that Martin will be 32 when his contract expires. 27-32 is roughly a player's prime, give or take. Martin's contract will expire right around when he should be expected to start really declining. That works for me.

Randolph will still be in his prime, but I don't think he's any great shakes, so that also doesn't matter greatly to me.

I think Martin's defensive presence will be a major boon to a young team, that currently projects to give up points faster than virginity is given up after a debutante ball.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> Randolph will probably age better than Martin, given that Martin relies so much more on his athleticism. a broken down Zach Randolph could still play an Portland Shawn Kemp kind of role (big body with good range and lousy D), while a broken down Martin really has nothing going for him. but it's not like the Portland version of Shawn Kemp was that hot a commodity.


In baseball, an empirical study has shown that athletic players age better than non-athletic ones...big, slow guys break down quicker, on average. I'm don't know if the same would hold true in basketball, but I wouldn't be surprised. Athletic bodies are in better shape and less prone to total breakdown. I can very easily imagine Randolph's weight becoming a problem for him.

All in all, I don't like how either guy projects as they age, but I think Martin has the better chance of being the more valuable player in the meantime, and neither player is signed beyond their effective prime.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

No way. This event wasn't even the first time this year K-Mart has been in trouble with his team. The last thing we need is a bigger headache (Zach still has time to grow and mature -- we all know what we're getting with Martin).

And who cares if it makes the team better in the short-term? It won't make the Blazers playoff-worthy by any stretch.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> *can you really use the word "upside" with Randolph anymore either? he might develop better shooting range and better passing, but his days of being an 11 rebound a night guy are over.
> *
> I'll grant that the age difference is concerning, but Martin has played only one more NBA season. both guys average about 34 mpg. Randolph's missed 50 games in the past 4 seasons. Kmart's missed 60.
> 
> ...


No, but you can argue that he will get healthy again and work for offensive rebounds like a vacuum like the Z-Bo of old, but maybe thats just wishful thinking...


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

I'd pass... Knee problems, conflicts with his coach, horrible contract..

....Hmm, sounds odddly familiar with the player we are trying to trade for him. Trade one problem for another.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I'd hold onto Zach, his stock should go up next season if he stays healthy. Then we can trade him before the deadline.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

QRICH said:


> I'd pass... Knee problems, conflicts with his coach, horrible contract..
> 
> ....Hmm, sounds odddly familiar with the player we are trying to trade for him. Trade one problem for another.


yep, that's pretty much the idea. lots of guys who are perceived as problem players see a 180 change in outlook on a new team. Artest, Wells, Sheed, Carter, just off the top of my head. the hope here is Martin would be one of them. 

obviously, there's also a chance that Martin could just blow up again. lots of examples where that's also happened. no sure things in life but death and taxes. but it seems to me there are far more instances where a player has turned himself around on a new team than where a player has turned himself around on the same team he's been playing on for five years.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think if someone would take the time to do a direct historical comparison of Zach's on/off-court incidents vs. Kenyon's, they would find that Zach has done far worse past and present...

The nice thing about this deal would be that we might not really need to wait for Zach's value to rise to get value since Kenyon is at his lowest.

I would be curious when it came down to it, which team would need to include more to get the deal done. Realistically, who would that be?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> I would be curious when it came down to it, which team would need to include more to get the deal done. Realistically, who would that be?


i really don't think either team has to throw in much to make it work. it's close enough that at most one team or the other could argue for a second round pick. 

Randolph has demanded a trade, driving his value down. Martin has basically been kicked off a team in the middle of the playoffs (a pretty darned rare event), which is probably even worse. 

this deal is really reminiscent of the Cleveland/Seattle deal for Vin Baker and Shawn Kemp. much was made of it at the time, but history pretty much shows that it was basically two vastly overpaid washout power forwards switching places for the sake of new scenery. 

neither team got a fantastic bargain or really "won" in the trade more than the other. in the long run, it probably helped both teams to do the deal just so they could clear the air and focus their teams in new directions. 

that's pretty much how I'd view this trade for us.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

theWanker said:


> Randolph has demanded a trade, driving his value down.


He did? Last I heard he wanted to stay.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> He did? Last I heard he wanted to stay.


I stand corrected. had a brain fart and lumped Miles and Randolph together for some reason. 

Randolph hasn't demanded a trade. he's shown up late for practices, he's gimpy, he's demanded a trade, but he most definitely isn't a communist.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> can you really use the word "upside" with Randolph anymore either? he might develop better shooting range and better passing, but his days of being an 11 rebound a night guy are over.


Yes.

Zach Randolph
Dwayne Wade
Luke Ridnour
Chris Kaman
Caron Butler
Jared Jeffries
Mike Sweetney
Darius Miles
Jarvis Hayes
Boris Diaw
Chris Wilcox
Jameer Nelson
Marcus Banks
Mickaël Pietrus
DeShawn Stevenson 
Eddie Griffin
Gerald Wallace

Those guys are all about Zach's age. I still think most of the above players have upside, don't you?

Remember, Zach came out as a freshman.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Those guys are all about Zach's age. I still think most of the above players have upside, don't you?


I think most of them _don't_ have upside. Most of them are pretty close to what they're going to be in their NBA careers. I'd say that Pietrus and Nelson are the only ones that may have significant upside remaining.

Randolph's lack of athleticism or all-around skills is a major "upside" limiter. Also, he's declined for three consecutive years. That's not a trend that engenders belief that significantly better years are still ahead of him. More like, his knee injury short-circuited what seemed like a fairly promising career and he'll probably float through the rest of his career as an undersized, low efficiency scorer who can't or won't play defense.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I think most of them _don't_ have upside. Most of them are pretty close to what they're going to be in their NBA careers. I'd say that Pietrus and Nelson are the only ones that may have significant upside remaining.
> 
> Randolph's lack of athleticism or all-around skills is a major "upside" limiter. Also, he's declined for three consecutive years. That's not a trend that engenders belief that significantly better years are still ahead of him. More like, his knee injury short-circuited what seemed like a fairly promising career and he'll probably float through the rest of his career as an undersized, low efficiency scorer who can't or won't play defense.


It's easy to be cynical about Zach, but let's step back for a minute.

I'll give Zach a free pass for last season because of his injury.

Zach didn't play a full season a year before that, so you can't really fault him for that, either.

I think next year is the first year you can really, conclusively, pass judgement on him. Portland will have another offensive weapon either via the draft or trade, and Telfair/Jack/Webster will have improved. One of the 3 might blow up. Nate has a year under his belt, so the feelings of 'transition' will be over when player roles emerge. 

If things aren't working by midseason, THEN you move him. I'm not sure his value can get any lower than it is right now, and that's never a good strategy when it comes to trades.

Without Miles around, Zach won't have any more excuses. Time to get healthy and play or move on.


----------

