Remind me what we got for Zach Randolph.

[OddEnormous]

You mean 3 awfully-run NBA teams.

That only further proves my point.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Right no, rush, other than to attempt to hit rock bottom earlier, and begin the long, slow climb up. I believe the point of blowing up a team is to get rid of players. That's why it's called blowing it up. And that's what we did. We traded ZBo to save ourselves 30 million dollars or more on his deal, and improved as a team in the process.

We would have been fine either way. When you blow up a team, a competent GM would get useful players in return. We got imaginary cap space which was never used.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

That only further proves my point.

what. that Pritchard is in the same class of GMs as the Knicks and the Clippers? Seeing that we're on the verge of 2 straight 1st round exits...may be right...considering when Drafting Oden we were, by many accounts, going to be a Dynasty. The ZBO trade was a major fuckup. Oooh, we improved 10 fucking games after Brandon Roy and LMA's rookie season.

 

[STOMP]

And then they improved by 10 games.

yup without both Zach or Griffin and trading Camby with 1/3rd of the season left they still improved significantly this past year

The Clips actions sure didn't seem to place much value on Zach... neither did the trade market for the umpteenth time.

STOMP

 

[RR7]

We would have been fine either way. When you blow up a team, a competent GM would get useful players in return. We got imaginary cap space which was never used.

Proof? Do you have any proof we would be fine either way? I'll wait for this proof Zach would fit in well off the bench here and that we would be the same team. How many competent GMs are there in the league , IYO? That have gone through major rebuilding periods. Also, who was going to give up ANYTHING of value for Zach?
We signed Andre Miller with our cap space. We used it, so you can stop with your stupid played out "imaginary cap space" schtick.

 

[OddEnormous]

The point of blowing up a team is not to simply get rid of players,

Actually sometimes it is.

 

[LittleAlex]

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.

How about this.

Defense wins championships. Zach Randolph is one of the worst, if not the single worst, low post defender in the NBA.

Therefore, Zach Randolph is not a useful player on a team that is looking to win a title.

I don't care about his off court antics.
I do care about his effect on the locker room (so bad B-Roy wanted him gone).
More importantly, I care a great deal about effort. Zach never gave it and it sickened me to watch him fuck around during the game.

You want to win a title, you cannot afford to have a Zach Randolph type player on your team.

Therefore, Z-Bo is not a useful player on a team that values winning.
He is valuable on a team trying to fool it's fan base into thinking they value winning.

Makes him a fine fit in Memphis.

 

[OddEnormous]

what. that Pritchard is in the same class of GMs as the Knicks and the Clippers? Seeing that we're on the verge of 2 straight 1st round exits...may be right...considering when Drafting Oden we were, by many accounts, going to be a Dynasty. The ZBO trade was a major fuckup. Oooh, we improved 10 fucking games after Brandon Roy and LMA's rookie season.

No, that 3 teams desperate for any kind of player still didn't want him.

And being facetious about Pritchard doesn't help your argument by the way. It's just a twist of words that doesn't have anything to do with what either of us are talking about.

How was the Zbo trade a major fuck up?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Proof? Do you have any proof we would be fine either way? I'll wait for this proof Zach would fit in well off the bench here and that we would be the same team. How many competent GMs are there in the league , IYO? That have gone through major rebuilding periods. Also, who was going to give up ANYTHING of value for Zach?
We signed Andre Miller with our cap space. We used it, so you can stop with your stupid played out "imaginary cap space" schtick.

The cap space was over-hyped. It was imaginary because we did not know the free agent market at the time and the Blazers financial situation. For trading a player with ZBOs stats and skills for essentailly zilch and only having $7 million of available cap space is nothing short of laughable, considering we had a "cap genius". It was told at the time of the trade by many on these boards trading Zach would open a HUUUUUGGEEE amount of cap flexibility and we could sign all-star caliber players.

As for proof, its impossible to prove since KP got too fucking cocky about his own abilities and decided to trade ZBO for nothing.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No, that 3 teams desperate for any kind of player still didn't want him.

And being facetious about Pritchard doesn't help your argument by the way. It's just a twist of words that doesn't have anything to do with what either of us are talking about.

How was the Zbo trade a major fuck up?

It was a fuck-up because we got nothing for it.

What did we get? The ability to sign a $7 million dollar contract 2 years in the future? woop-de-doo.

 

[RR7]

Over-hyped doesn't make it imaginary.

Thanks for the proof. I'll hold on to my proof of succeessive 50 win seasons, and improvement since Zach has beeen gone. And the playoffs.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It was a fuck-up because we got nothing for it.

What did we get? The ability to sign a $7 million dollar contract 2 years in the future? woop-de-doo.

We traded a high-risk, high-reward player for three high-risk, high-reward players (in the end). That none of the three worked out sucks, but that's life.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Over-hyped doesn't make it imaginary.

Thanks for the proof. I'll hold on to my proof of succeessive 50 win seasons, and improvement since Zach has beeen gone. And the playoffs.

Its imaginary because until we know what the market is like, we don't know how valuable it is. We were backed into Miller as a 2nd/3rd choice after being rebuffed by Hedo.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We traded a high-risk, high-reward player for three high-risk, high-reward players (in the end). That none of the three worked out sucks, but that's life.

Who were the 3 high risk , hi reward players?

 

[RR7]

Not knowing the value doesn't make it imaginary. I find a diamond in a mine. I don't know how many carats it is, so I don't know the value. But it is there. It's not imaginary.
We had cap space. We didn't know who we could get for it, but it existed.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Not knowing the value doesn't make it imaginary. I find a diamond in a mine. I don't know how many carats it is, so I don't know the value. But it is there. It's not imaginary.
We had cap space. We didn't know who we could get for it, but it existed.

There was cap space but if we couldn't use it, its imaginary. Until it actually exists, it doesn't.

 

[OddEnormous]

It was a fuck-up because we got nothing for it.

What did we get? The ability to sign a $7 million dollar contract 2 years in the future? woop-de-doo.

Do you think Pritchard took the 24th best offer or the best?

If he had any value around the league, he wouldn't have gone for nothing. If he was the magic ingredient, other teams would have given us at least a bag of basketballs on top of what we traded him for.

The whole point for us was to get rid of him. The whole point for everyone else in the league sans the New York Knicks was to NOT get him.

 

[STOMP]

Its imaginary because until we know what the market is like, we don't know how valuable it is. We were backed into Miller as a 2nd/3rd choice after being rebuffed by Hedo.

thats one way of looking at this past offseasons happenings... another would be that as the last team standing with above MLE level $$$, it's pretty likely that Miller lowered his asking price to our available money.

STOMP

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Do you think Pritchard took the 24th best offer or the best?

If he had any value around the league, he wouldn't have gone for nothing. If he was the magic ingredient, other teams would have given us at least a bag of basketballs on top of what we traded him for.

The whole point for us was to get rid of him. The whole point for everyone else in the league sans the New York Knicks was to NOT get him.

trade was extremely rushed. no idea what the market could have been like in the years before he became a free agent. even if, having scoring and rebounding off the bench would be pretty sweet.

 

[mook]

In some alternate universe, we drafted Zach and Outlaw this last year. They enter the league on a team with an established defensive work ethic and a clear #1 option. Outlaw spends years developing into a defensive shot blocker/rebounder type with the occasional three pointer, and Zach is our super-sub go-to scorer/rebounder off the bench. Because Zach is coming off the bench for 3 or so years, he never racks up the massive stats that garner him a franchise-level contract, and instead lives quite comfortably with a Paul Milsap-type deal. Zach still has an off-court transgression or two, but Roy, Nate and the other vets get him in line. This is a much nicer universe.

The way Randolph and Outlaw play now are directly related to how they were used in the piss-poor teams they played on in their formative years here. I try to keep that in mind when I think to myself that guys like Bayless and Batum should have longer leashes.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Who were the 3 high risk , hi reward players?

Channing Frye - had a great rookie year, was down on his luck when we picked him up. Could have possibly returned to form and been a great 6th man for us, or a starter if LMA bombed out.

James Jones - Streaky 3-point shooter, could have made himself essential as a Glen Rice figure.

(and why I said "in the end")

Rudy Fernandez - El Mago in Spain. Looked to be incredible, but with big-time risks (will he even come to the NBA?). This one is tenuous, obviously. So if you want to call it two players, that's fine.

 

[STOMP]

trade was extremely rushed. no idea what the market could have been like in the years before he became a free agent.

of course it was rushed. KP announced Zach had worn out his welcome with the club and that interested teams should submit their best offer as he would be dealt shortly. Less then a week later he was traded. Pritchard stated that there'd been additional incidents that hadn't gone public and the trust between Zach and the club had reached a breaking point... they wanted him gonzo

STOMP

 

[OddEnormous]

trade was extremely rushed. no idea what the market could have been like in the years before he became a free agent.

Oh dear...

So you hold onto a guy you feel is disruptive and not in your future plans, who has no value around the league, because he might have some in 2 years?

Yeah, OK.

 

[RR7]

Channing Frye - had a great rookie year, was down on his luck when we picked him up. Could have possibly returned to form and been a great 6th man for us, or a starter if LMA bombed out.

James Jones - Streaky 3-point shooter, could have made himself essential as a Glen Rice figure.

(and why I said "in the end")

Rudy Fernandez - El Mago in Spain. Looked to be incredible, but with big-time risks (will he even come to the NBA?). This one is tenuous, obviously. So if you want to call it two players, that's fine.

Hmm, since Rudy wasn't here yet, I think that makes him an imaginary player.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

of course it was rushed. KP announced Zach had worn out his welcome and that the club and that interested teams should submit their best offer as he would be dealt shortly. Less then a week later he was traded. Pritchard stated that there'd been additional incidents that hadn't gone public and the trust between Zach and the club had reached a breaking point... they wanted him gonzo

STOMP

ah yes, the imaginary incidents that no one can find anything about fabricated by Jason Quick. forgot about those.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Hmm, since Rudy wasn't here yet, I think that makes him an imaginary player.

bought for cash.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Oh dear...

So you hold onto a guy you feel is disruptive and not in your future plans, who has no value around the league, because he might have some in 2 years?

Yeah, OK.

all-star Zach Randolph?

 

[STOMP]

ah yes, the imaginary incidents that no one can find anything about fabricated by Jason Quick. forgot about those.

apparently they weren't imaginary to Blazer management they just chose not to specify what they were... why should they?

STOMP

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

apparently they weren't imaginary to Blazer management they just chose not to specify what they were... why should they?

STOMP

did they actually state that? or was it reported by a 3rd party as such (i.e. Jason Quick speculation).

 

[STOMP]

I recall statements... I generally avoid reading (let alone trusting) anything Quick writes, for obvious reasons

STOMP