HOWIE

Ding, ding, ding......we have a winner! Portland moved the talented player because they were moving in a different direction, sure Randolph can put up numbers, but he is stat motivated, he doesn't make the team better. I think that teams that want to win are going to start moving away from players like Randolph and start building a team, but there are sill teams and GM's out there looking to make a splash, those are the teams and GM's that will take a chance on players like Randolph.

A lot of people thought that Portland was going to lose a ton of games this season after moving Randolph, but the team is doing just fine without him, he is a total stat machine, but he isn't that final piece of the puzzle like Zake thought.

__________________

TwinkieFoot

For one thing, the Bobcats were focused on acquiring Jason Richardson. After giving up that $10 million trade exception, a deal involving Zach Randolph may have not been feasible from the Blazers perspective (who were interested in some financial flexibility). Another possibility may be the fact that the Bobcats did not realize the need for a player like Randolph until they started losing this season; I'm pretty sure they expected better results from the Richardson deal.

Although it is a common practice that I don't believe in, teams have shown that they prefer to move big stars out of their conference. The supposed rationale is that they do not want to have that same player play them 4 times a year and potentially make the franchise look bad. Most usually refer to Moses Malone and what happened after he was traded during the twilight of his career. We've seen this sort of rationale used a bunch of times including the Shaq trade, Garnett trade and McGrady trade. None of their former teams had expected to be winning anytime soon after moving them either.


A Vince Carter playing half-assed ball is still better than any of the players they recieved. While the Raptors were losing, I doubt they expected to win anytime soon from the package of players they recieved. From that standpoint, I do not really see the situations being any different.



I never said they can't pay Wallace. What I did say is that they are not going to be able to do so if they don't generate enough interest in their team to have fans come to the games. That is just common sense. Randolph is a big enough star and fit to help do that and win more games. The Bobcats are currently 21st in the league in offensive production; there is only a 2-3ppg average that seperates them from dead last. You really think a guy like Zach Randolph could not help bolster their offensive game especially when they already have some solid perimeter shooters?

P.S. just for the record, Randolph, Balkman and Morris works cap wise for Wallace and Mohammed. In that sense, especially considering that Wallace just signed a new deal, the Bobcats would not be losing money (they very well would be saving it).


Would it really though? Like I said, this is a game of fits and I don't think one person questioned whether you could play both Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph on the same team; even I thought early on that it just wouldn't work.

Boris Diaw might have been out of shape but his game is predecated on skill moreso than athletic ability. With his physique and the system the Suns run, I doubt he'd have a hard time taking advantage of slower 4's and 5's. I think a more limited role was more key.


I've never questioned Wallace's defensive ability. Without a doubt, he's the best perimeter defender they got but the question is really whether they can be a good defensive team without him. I definately believe so because the Bobcat team is capable of really good defense with the players that they have. What the really need are scorers and no kind of player could make more of a difference in that sense than a post scorer who in turn provides opportunities for himself and his teammates by stretching the defense. You just can't get more integral than that.

TwinkieFoot

Okafor has been guarding guys bigger than him from his days in UConn and was still recognized as a solid defender. Apparently you don't appreciate his skills but I highly doubt that you could name me 10 big men currently averaging a double double in the league right now. His rugged play would work fine next to Randolph.

Funny, alot of people said the same thing about Allen Iverson until he started winning and about Baron Davis until he turned the Warriors into one of the best teams in the league.

TwinkieFoot

He may not be the final piece of the puzzle but he is certainly a piece that may help. I think people forget the fact that this guy is only 25 years old and still learning the nuisances of the game. He may not be the most court savvy player out there but he can undeniably change a game in a positive way with his play. People use to say the same thing about Antawn Walker during his days with the Celtics and with the Heat, I think he helped prove he could contribute to a winner. The same thing could by said about Zach Randolph.

TwinkieFoot

...Let me ask you guys this, would Zach Randolph and filler like Fred Jones for Jermaine O'neal be an appropriate deal since Wallace is an unfair one in your opinion?

seifer0406

You're really stretching the possible circumstances. As I said, the fact that is laid out there in front of us is that out of 29 teams, the best the Blazers could come up with is Channing Fyre and a 20+ million buyout of Steve Francis. If you really want to push it, let's just say that Jordan and the rest of the FO were out golfing the day the Blazers called and that's why they didn't hook up on Randolph. I mean, seriously, if 28 teams had close to no interest for Randolph, it's just more likely for my scenario to be the case instead of yours.

I do not think you followed the Raptors situation as closely as I did. Vince was giving plays away during the game and was benched before he was traded. The Raptors FO did not want VC to jeopardize the already dwindling attendance and the development of Chris Bosh. Trading him was quite urgent, it wasn't something that could be dealt with after the season.

Zach Randolph being a fan attraction is quite an unusual opinion. You should post this in the Blazers board and wait for their reaction. Also the idea of a high flyer like Gerald Wallace not being able to draw more fans than Randolph, whose public image has been less than friendly just seems ridiculous. If you are banking on Randolph being able to win more games, as I said, he hasn't proved that he can win more games anywhere. In fact, the team he just left has drastically improved both in wins and attendance, and the team that he just joined gets booed in the first quarter of every game. I don't know about you, it sounds pretty darn retarded if I'm bringing in Randolph for the sake of increasing attendance.

Diaw's speed and agility is the reason why he's a mismatch for opposing 4s and 5s. You move slower when you're fat, that's common knowledge no? You also have less stamina when you're out of shape, either way you cut it it's bad for your performance. I'd think for someone who watches Curry and Randolph every game you should understand this better than I do.

Wait what? If you take away the best perimeter defender of a team, you would wonder whether or not their defense would be as good? I'm not following this lol? You take away a team's best defender and expects them to be a good defensive team. By that same logic, shouldn't you take away a team's post scoring to make them a good post scoring team? Are we playing the everything opposite game lol?

Just for the sake of this awkward argument, the depth chart at SF for the Bobcats is Matt Carroll and Jared Dudley. It is debatable whether a player would have an easier time scoring getting doubled team by those 2 than getting single coverage by Wallace. If Adam Morrison makes it back from his injury, he might see some time at F but he's about the last place I'll go to find defense at the 2/3/4.

You should really draw up another trade scenario. This discussion is frankly moving in the direction of ridicule and humor rather than reality.

seifer0406

It would. But considering that Jermaine O'neal is likely out for the rest of the season and the likelihood of him being completely healthy when he comes back is close to nil. You're talking about a Jermaine O'neal that's on pace to miss 131 games from 04' to the end of this season. When he played this year he was a shell of his former self averaging 15/7 showing limited lift and mobility while he was out there. He is turning 30 and has 44 million owed the next 2 seasons. Basically you've just went from a one-sided trade for the Knicks to a potentially apocalyptic trade for the same team. I'd say if you trade for O'neal, you're probably looking at a front court of David Lee and Eddy Curry (if he stays on the Knicks) for this season and perhaps the a good portion of next season. If the Knicks are better with that lineup, then I guess it's not that bad of a trade.

TwinkieFoot

Correction, the best of 15 teams, a majority of whom did not have the salaries necessary to make the deal attractive to a team looking to gain some financial flexibility. I say 15 teams because it was splattered throughout newspapers that the Blazers had better offers on the table but rejected them because they were from Western Conference teams.



I followed the Raptors situation closely enough before Carter got traded. If you may recall correctly, we had quite a bit of interest in him but balked at the opportunity when the Raptors demanded either Stephon Marbury or a combination of both Jamal Crawford and Nazr Mohammed. We eventually bowed out right around the time he supposedly told an opposing player the particular play the Raptors were running; I believe it was a flare involving Morris Peterson. I'll agree with your point that these two circumstances are different, however, I still believe that teams truely have the power when it comes to situations such as this one. Had the Raptors truly wanted to play hardball, they could have easily began to fine Carter for his insubordination and possibly terminate his contract which in retrospect was better than what they did.




I kind of thought this was common sense but winning games usually leads to better attendance. Even the Nets who have had poor attendance during the Kidd era saw better attendance than their Marbury days. I still think Zach can help a team win, in particular the Bobcats who don't have low post scoring. He may have not proven that but neither has Gerald. In either case, he's still young enough and good enough to not have seen enough time to prove otherwise.


I'm not disputing the fact that he was out of shape. What I am disputing is that he lost his physical advantage on the offensive end of the floor. Even in the particular shape he was in, he still caused mismatches. I think he hurt his stamina but at the same time, fat isn't necessarily an inhibitor for your game. I'd think someone like you who has seen guys like Shaq, Barkley and company would understand something like that.


Reading properly truely is essential in this conversation. Please, go back and point out to me where I suggest that the Bobcats would be as good defensively with Wallace as without him. What I did in fact say was that they can STILL be a good defensive team. When the Pacers lost Ron Artest, they were not as good a defensive team as they were with him but they still played well on that end of the floor. The same thing can be said about the Pistons and Ben Wallace. So I guess we're not playing the everything opposite game and I got to wonder if the same can be said about common sense.

That's what Ronaldo Balkman is for. Besides, you could shift Jason Richardson and his 6-7 frame to the SF position and play Matt Carroll extended minutes at the 2. It's not like their not use to playing him key minutes down the stretch.

...At least we agree on something but somehow I don't think we have exactly the same thing in mind.

Chan

Any how many of those bigger guys were NBA talent? Sure, he gets that 10/10, but so does a guy like Udonis Haslem or David Lee. He's not good enough to be that everyday defensive anchor. No team has ever won with that much of a deficiency in the big man spots.

AI and Davis? You're just speculating. What about Steve Francis? Stephon Marbury?

__________________
I know I contradicted myself/look I don't need that now.

seifer0406

Find me some articles where it suggested this scenario from happening. The reality was not many teams were that interested in Randolph to begin with and that was why not many trade rumors surfaced in the media. Again, go find some articles where it proves that this isn't the case.

There isn't a rule in the contracts that limits a player from not playing to his ability. He can throw the ball out of bounds every play and there would be nothing the Raptors can do other than bench him. Again, the situation was not going to get better, what was the point of stretching it out and jeopardize all the things that I've mentioned? You also have to remember that Carter was consistently injured before he was traded as well. People were also suspecting that those weren't real injuries. The list just goes on and on.

Gerald Wallace is a year younger so your potential card doesn't really apply here. Both players are losers up to this point of their career, the difference is Randolph has shown plenty of personality baggage either with coaches, offcourt, and fans. I don't understand what you're saying with Kidd. Are you saying they have better attendance than when they have Marbury or less? If you're saying more, Kidd is a HOFer and a bigger draw than Marbury. I don't see what's the point of bringing those 2 into this discussion.

I have no idea what you're disputing then. He was fat and did not have the same advantage that he once had the year before. Add that to the lack of stamina and you have the makings of a statistical set back. Fat is a inhibitor of your game, muscle isn't. If Shaq and Barkley had been slimmer but had the same strength, both would be better players. Muscles and fat are totally different things. Moreover, those 2 players relied on their strength, Diaw relies on speed, so your points is moot.

The Bobcats aren't a good defensive team right now, in fact, they are 5th worst in opposing FG%. If you take Gerald Wallace out of the team, I simply don't see how you would feel that they will suddenly become good at defense.

Jason Richardson is a very generous 6-6. Even if you slide him to the 3 you are still wide open at the 2. Gerald Wallace is someone that can effectively guard players at 2/3/4, the Bobcats just don't have anyone comparable to him at the wing positions, w/ w/o Balkman. And about Ronaldo Balkman, he is not starter material, at least he hasn't proved himself to be even close to one. The likely case is that he will be stuck on the bench fighting for minutes with another energy player in Dudley. Either way, not a solution to the problems we are discussing.