Remind me what we got for Zach Randolph.

[jwhoops11]

Well this had to be KP's worst move. Just think about the championships he just GAVE New York. Clearly, this was worse than the "Gasol" Trade.

Or, the way he was able to lead all the young talent of the Memphis Grizzlies to the playoffs this year.

Zach Randolph is the Cedric Ceballos of Power Forwards, but with less redeeming qualites.

 

[RoyToy]

Got rid of the worst contract in the NBA. Pretty easy.

Zach wasn't worth anymore because of his contract + he was a headache and the Blazers simply took the highest offer. Zach wasn't worth keeping around.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, if you judge success by wins, which I do, then clearly the "addition by subtraction" approach did work. Z-RO still hasn't played in a non-Blazer playoff game; we just enjoyed our 2nd consecutive 50-win season. Zach is Shareef Abdur-Rahim on steroids.

No, that was "addition by addition." We added an improved Roy, improved Aldridge, in addition to wholly new players like Oden, Batum (later), etc.

The fact that those players helped Portland win more in no way shows that getting rid of Randolph, who wasn't part of getting any of them, made Portland better.

I agree with Ed, it was a terrible deal. As a major fan of Pritchard, that's one of the main disappointments in his body of work to me.

 

[OddEnormous]

It was a classic attempt of "addition by subtraction"... which almost never works, and certainly didn't this time.

It didn't work?

Based on what?

 

[OddEnormous]

No, that was "addition by addition." We added an improved Roy, improved Aldridge, in addition to wholly new players like Oden, Batum (later), etc.

The fact that those players helped Portland win more in no way shows that getting rid of Randolph, who wasn't part of getting any of them, made Portland better.

I agree with Ed, it was a terrible deal. As a major fan of Pritchard, that's one of the main disappointments in his body of work to me.

Why would you want a guy like that to be around the rookies and young players who are your future core? Get that guy the fuck outta here before he's teaching them the ropes on AND off the court AND after all the shit we had just put up with.

This thread is a big giant "We're about to go out of the playoffs, OH NO'S!!!!!!!! PANIC PANIC, we never should have gotten rid of (Insert former player)" thread.

Not surprised who started it. We can't keep everyone we've ever had. I've noticed a sharp down turn in the "we never should have let Von Wafer go" threads this year.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We got an improved Aldridge who learned to rebound and play inside, something that ZBO was blocking him from doing.

 

[e_blazer]

The Blazers got their reputation back and they got the fans who had grown sick of the Jailblazers era back. I understand that to some of you who are only concerned with what happens on the court, that those things don't matter. I can understand why, if that's your starting place, then you think the deal was a crappy deal.

I think, bottom line, that both parties benefitted. It cleaned the slate for the Blazers and allowed them to work at building the current version of the team without the constant distraction of Zach's off-court issues. For Zach, it only took Portland, the Clippers, and NY giving up on him and trading him for next to nothing to come to the realization that maybe he ought to grow up. He seems to be finally hitting his stride in Memphis and, as far as I know, is keeping his nose clean (or at least his off-court business out of the press). Good for him.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Stat-Bo is the very definition of fool's gold. Bad in the locker room, bad in practice, bad for wins, good for your Fantasy Team.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Stat-Bo is the very definition of fool's gold. Bad in the locker room, bad in practice, bad for wins, good for your Fantasy Team.

He's poor as a first option because he'll have to do too much. As a second option with some help defensively from the centers (like a Marcus Camby), he would be a fantastic player. Rebounds and scores in high volume.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

He's poor as a first option because he'll have to do too much. As a second option with some help defensively from the centers (like a Marcus Camby), he would be a fantastic player. Rebounds and scores in high volume.

Rk  	Player  	From  	To  	G  	MP  	PER  	TS%  	eFG%  	ORB%  	DRB%  	TRB%  	AST%  	STL%  	BLK%  	TOV%  	USG%  	ORtg  	DRtg  	OWS  	DWS  	WS  	WS/48
1 	LaMarcus  	2007 	2010 	298 	9967 	18.4 	.529 	.491 	9.6 	16.5 	13.0 	8.5 	1.2 	2.3 	8.0 	23.3 	112 	108 	17.6 	10.4 	28.0 	0.135
2 	Zach  	  	2002 	2010 	587 	18231 	19.6 	.524 	.475 	10.4 	23.0 	16.7 	10.4 	1.3 	0.7 	11.8 	27.7 	105 	108 	22.9 	15.2 	38.1 	0.100

I want to highlight Win Shares per 48 minutes (WS/48), Offensive Rating (ORtg), Turnover Percentage (TOV%), effective and true Shooting Percentages (eFG%, TS%), and BLock % (BLK%). Also, total Win Shares. Remember that Aldridge has played half the minutes of Zach over the course of his career, but has racked up only 10 fewer wins total in cumulative Win Shares. All while having a lower usage rate than Zach.

LMA is a better offensive player than Zach, which makes up for his iffy defense (as bad as Zach's). A PF that can block shots a bit and not turn the ball over as much is nice. I'd trade his better block rate, win shares per 48 minutes, and scoring per 100 possessions for a lower rebounding rate. These all confirm what I knew: LMA is a better all-round player than Zach, and while Zach is a volume scorer, he is fool's gold for actually winning games, which is what matters.

 

[Minstrel]

He's poor as a first option because he'll have to do too much. As a second option with some help defensively from the centers (like a Marcus Camby), he would be a fantastic player. Rebounds and scores in high volume.

I agree. I think people are implicitly using a false dichotomy: either Randolph is a franchise player or else he's garbage. Is he a franchise player? No? Well, then, see, he's garbage!

Randolph is bad at a couple of important aspects of the game, creating for others and defense. He's good at a couple of important aspects of the game, scoring and rebounding. All in all, it makes him a productive front court player with poor defense. He's not going to the best player on a title-worthy team, but that's true of the vast majority of players. He's a perfectly good second or third guy. You need to have other players on the team who make up for his deficiencies, which is why he's not a franchise player. That doesn't make him valueless.

If you didn't want him on the team because you didn't like him as a person, and that's one of the major things that's important to you in rooting for a team, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to place importance on whatever they want. I've yet to see a compelling argument that he's not a useful player, though. And what the players do on the court is all that's important to me when it comes to rooting for a team.

 

[Wheels]

Congrats to him for seemingly getting his life in order. If he was still here being enabled (which would have probably had to happen if he was still here) Then I doubt he would have grown into the person that he has seemingly grown into. Good for him and his career and his image. Time to move on, just like I'm sure he has.

(I say seemingly on the person he has become, not because I doubt he has become a better person or anything... but moreso cause I dont know him at all so I cant guess)

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I agree. I think people are implicitly using a false dichotomy: either Randolph is a franchise player or else he's garbage. Is he a franchise player? No? Well, then, see, he's garbage!

Why can't we set up the same false dichotomy for Zach that people set up for LMA? Let's judge them both by the same (horribly unfair) rules! LMA can't be a "first option" therefore he can't be a second option? Remember that bullshit? That's what drives threads like "Why didn't we keep Zach?!" It's all bullshit.

LMA is a better all-round player than Zach. Yet people here are ready to give up on LMA because he can't be the "Backup First Option" on a championship team. It's ALL bullshit, from both angles!

 

[RR7]

I really question whether Zach would have been the same player he is today if he a) doesn't get traded three times in 2 years for nothing, and b) is coming off the bench behind Aldridge and Oden, and goes from being a cornerstone of the franchise to, after the hype of Roy and Aldridge and then adding Oden, completely forgotten about.

 

[Minstrel]

Why can't we set up the same false dichotomy for Zach that people set up for LMA?

I don't use that for Aldridge, either. So I agree with you...it's bullshit in both cases. Some people are doing it with Aldridge..and did it with Randolph...and did it with Sheed. Each of those two players was dealt away for a lot less than they were worth on the court, IMO.

The difference is that Aldridge is more likeable...but even that may not save him, because as much as people talk about wanting character, perceptions of character tend change somewhat with on-court success. I remember last year when Aldridge was struggling, people accusing him of being aloof, not caring, etc.

Let's remember one thing: Randolph used to be a huge fan favourite. In his first few seasons, when he was not the #1 guy and playing either off the bench or alongside Sheed, fans loved Randolph for his nose for the ball and uncanny ability to get the ball in the hoop despite seeming to have a big size disadvantage inside. He was even compared to Charles Barkley by a number of Portland fans. Then he got a huge contract, got injured, came back at lesser effectiveness after his micro-fracture surgery and sentiment about him turned sharply. Does Randolph bear any responsibility for that turn in perception? Absolutely...he did some stupid things. But I'm pretty certain that had he never become overpaid and forced to be the best player on a horrible team (and thus, forced to take ALL the blame for the shitty talent of that team) and limited by recovery from injury, sentiment wouldn't have turned as sharply as it did.

In any case...Aldridge probably will never be on a team as devoid of talent as that. He is overpaid now, though. He's failing to fulfill fans' expectations of his "true talent" level. He has a personality that can be painted poorly if one wants. He probably won't do the silly things Sheed and Randolph did, though, so hopefully that's enough to prevent him from being ridden out on a rail.

 

[OddEnormous]

I agree. I think people are implicitly using a false dichotomy: either Randolph is a franchise player or else he's garbage. Is he a franchise player? No? Well, then, see, he's garbage!

Randolph is bad at a couple of important aspects of the game, creating for others and defense. He's good at a couple of important aspects of the game, scoring and rebounding. All in all, it makes him a productive front court player with poor defense. He's not going to the best player on a title-worthy team, but that's true of the vast majority of players. He's a perfectly good second or third guy. You need to have other players on the team who make up for his deficiencies, which is why he's not a franchise player. That doesn't make him valueless.

If you didn't want him on the team because you didn't like him as a person, and that's one of the major things that's important to you in rooting for a team, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to place importance on whatever they want. I've yet to see a compelling argument that he's not a useful player, though. And what the players do on the court is all that's important to me when it comes to rooting for a team.

That's ridiculous.

It's also silly to assume that those of us that wanted this particular player out of there "Need good guys to root for a team."

It's not either or. There's a million different layers to every story and fan and situation.

It was time to start over. Terrible person and a selfish player in a time when we were trying to build from the ground up and get away from both of these things.

Like the other chap said. 3 teams told him to get fucked. And none of them were exactly smashing teams when they did.

 

[Minstrel]

That's ridiculous.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's ridiculous.

It's also silly to assume that those of us that wanted this particular player out of there "Need good guys to root for a team."

I didn't assume that. I said if that describes you, I can understand that.

 

[maxiep]

I want to go on record as saying I think we ruined Zach Randolph's career. Not from a financial perspective, but from a basketball one. For a period of three years he was arguably the only legitimate NBA starter on this team. We turned a guy who could have been a rich man's Paul Millsap into Stat-Bo simply because we needed someone to score. Everyone bitched about Rasheed not living up to his contract; Zach has a thimbleful of Sheed's talent, but worked his ass off to try to carry this team. Mo needed him to score, so he let his shit defense go. Zach has quick hands, long arms, a wide body and moves his feet well. There's no reason he couldn't have been made a very good defensive player.

In an ideal world, he should have been an elite double-double garbageman, either off the bench or starting; a third or fourth option. If he would have had that role with us, he would have concentrated on defense, rather than saving all his energy for offense. We didn't focus on his all around game because we needed him to score.

I loved the Zach Randolph we saw in the 2003 POR/DAL series. THAT's the player we should have turned him into instead of Antoine Walker. The off-court stuff was on him. After we ruined his game, we had no choice but to trade him. Zach wasn't going to change for Sarge.

 

[Minstrel]

I want to go on record as saying I think we ruined Zach Randolph's career. Not from a financial perspective, but from a basketball one. For a period of three years he was arguably the only legitimate NBA starter on this team. We turned a guy who could have been a rich man's Paul Millsap into Stat-Bo simply because we needed someone to score. Everyone bitched about Rasheed not living up to his contract; Zach has a thimbleful of Sheed's talent, but worked his ass off to try to carry this team. Mo needed him to score, so he let his shit defense go. Zach has quick hands, long arms, a wide body and moves his feet well. There's no reason he couldn't have been made a very good defensive player.

In an ideal world, he should have been an elite double-double garbageman, either off the bench or starting; a third or fourth option. If he would have had that role with us, he would have concentrated on defense, rather than saving all his energy for offense. We didn't focus on his all around game because we needed him to score.

I pretty much agree with you entirely. Pushed into the lead role, he couldn't cope, because his game didn't lend itself to that role. I don't think he's a selfish basketball personality...but he was paid as a franchise player and told to be one, by the team and by fans. And so he tried to mold himself into a dominant basketball personality. If you have the ability of a superstar, no one considers that attitude selfish. If you don't, then you are considered selfish. But the role is what was asked of him, not something he tried to forcibly take.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, though, that he had to be traded in the end. He was under contract, he didn't have a lot of choices. If he couldn't adapt back to his old game as a starter, the team could have brought him off the bench. There's been no time since he was traded that the team's bench was so good that Randolph, even in lead dog mentality, wouldn't have improved it. Even as flawed as he is, his scoring and rebounding would have been tremendously useful when the team's best players were resting. And players like Przybilla, Oden and Camby would have helped cover for his defensive issues.

 

[OddEnormous]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's ridiculous.



I didn't assume that. I said if that describes you, I can understand that.

SEMANTICS WAR!!!!!!!

Glad you're the kind of guy that would cheer for a racist, rapist as long as your team is winning.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I do agree that, if Zach had been a rookie at the same time as LMA and Roy, he'd be 6th Man of the Year and we'd be way up on this series against Phoenix. Though, Zach couldn't pass out of a double-team either so maybe not... But anyway, by the time our new team arrived, he'd poisoned the well off the court, and had grown to like scoring a ton of points and being The Man. I gotta agree that this wasn't his fault. Just bad timing, I guess.

 

[hasoos]

Fuck Zbo. Why don't you come back and see how he is doing in a non contract year? Did he play well last year? Nope. The year before? Nope. Amazing how a contract year comes up, and he has a career year.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Contract Year = Expiring the next.

ZREC could have been HUGE!

 

[OddEnormous]

I want to go on record as saying I think we ruined Zach Randolph's career. Not from a financial perspective, but from a basketball one. For a period of three years he was arguably the only legitimate NBA starter on this team. We turned a guy who could have been a rich man's Paul Millsap into Stat-Bo simply because we needed someone to score. Everyone bitched about Rasheed not living up to his contract; Zach has a thimbleful of Sheed's talent, but worked his ass off to try to carry this team. Mo needed him to score, so he let his shit defense go. Zach has quick hands, long arms, a wide body and moves his feet well. There's no reason he couldn't have been made a very good defensive player.

In an ideal world, he should have been an elite double-double garbageman, either off the bench or starting; a third or fourth option. If he would have had that role with us, he would have concentrated on defense, rather than saving all his energy for offense. We didn't focus on his all around game because we needed him to score.

I loved the Zach Randolph we saw in the 2003 POR/DAL series. THAT's the player we should have turned him into instead of Antoine Walker. The off-court stuff was on him. After we ruined his game, we had no choice but to trade him. Zach wasn't going to change for Sarge.

3 really bad teams have told him to do one.

That should tell you all you need to know.

 

[Minstrel]

SEMANTICS WAR!!!!!!!

How so? I didn't assume anything, I said that I understand a certain outlook, the character-based one. If that doesn't describe you, it doesn't apply to you.

Glad you're the kind of guy that would cheer for a racist, rapist as long as your team is winning.

Yup. I'm not choosing friends or personal acquaintances when I root for a team. Who they are as people is a matter for themselves, their friends and family and, if need be, the police. My only connection to them is watching them play basketball.

 

[OddEnormous]

How so? I didn't assume anything, I said that I understand a certain outlook, the character-based one. If that doesn't describe you, it doesn't apply to you.

So this is a semantics war then. From now on you have to claim it's a semantics war from the start.

You saw what happened when 1 or 2 dickheads poisoned a room. It went cancer and it almost destroyed the franchise.

It was time to start over. The guy couldn't stay out of trouble and we had a roster full of young kids who didn't need to be brought up in that environment.

You people don't actually want Z. You just want his numbers in a vacuum tomorrow night in the Rose Garden.

That's not how it works.

Bad characters bring unnecessary distractions to a team. I thought most of us learned our lesson...

 

[RR7]

I figured most of us learned our lesson.

The lessons learned are short lived. When those who hate Aldridge and want him gone get his replacement, it'll be a year until they pine for Aldridge again.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

You people don't actually want Z. You just want his numbers in a vacuum tomorrow night in the Rose Garden.

Good point.

 

[Minstrel]

So this is a semantics war then. From now on you have to claim it's a semantics war from the start.

No, you were just wrong about me saying that everyone who wanted Randolph gone "wanted to root for nice guys." I didn't say that or think that. Simply clarifying that for you. That's all. You incorrectly reading what I said isn't the same as a semantic war. There's a significant logical difference between what I said and what you claimed I said.

You saw what happened when 1 or 2 dickheads poisoned a room. It went cancer and it almost destroyed the franchise.

It was time to start over. The guy couldn't stay out of trouble and we had a roster full of young kids who didn't need to be brought up in that environment.

They weren't kids, though. I know fans enjoy calling young players "kids," but they're adults and not nearly as impressionable as fans imagine, in my opinion. If you feel that Roy, Aldridge and others were just lumps of clay to be molded by Randolph, then I see why you wanted him gone. I don't think that that was remotely true, though.

 

[BGrantFan]

No, that was "addition by addition." We added an improved Roy, improved Aldridge, in addition to wholly new players like Oden, Batum (later), etc.

The fact that those players helped Portland win more in no way shows that getting rid of Randolph, who wasn't part of getting any of them, made Portland better.

I agree with Ed, it was a terrible deal. As a major fan of Pritchard, that's one of the main disappointments in his body of work to me.

You can call it what you want, but the results show that Portland got the better of that deal.