Is Zach worth it??
Hey everyone, I dont know how much truth there is to this but I heard on some blazer fansites that they are trying to move Zach Randolph. My question to everyone out there is would you take the lost post scoring skills of Zach knowing that you get the bagage of his bad attitude and questionable behavior off court? I can remember Randolph torching us in years past. Just putting this out there as an idea I'm not so sure I would do it myself. Last season he went for 18ppg and 8rpg. A trade of MDJ and Foyle for Randolph and Juan Dixon works money wise but I dont know how willing the blazers would be to make a deal involving other players. Randolph is also another big contract at 12 million a year for 5 years
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
40 comments
Comments
Definitely!
PG: Baron
SG: JRich
SF: DMiles
PF: Randolph
C: Anyone!
That's a playoff team as long as Monty doesn't coach them for more than 30 seconds.
Besides, Zack's been frequenting Jenny Craig!
http://slamonline.com/online/2006/07/checking-the-blogs/
http://blazerthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/07/zach-pics.html


93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 28, 2006 8:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
business casual?
by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 28, 2006 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
by opposite you mean...
by jae on Jul 31, 2006 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice coat
by FoyledAgain on Jul 28, 2006 11:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
who would make this trade?
- from Portland's POV would I want to replace Randolph with Foyle and Dixon with Dunleavy?
- from GS POV should I take a risk on a low post scorer who's a questionable character with an even bigger contract for my two choir boys? Well, ya!
by hardcore on Jul 28, 2006 12:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hello?
by John Patrick on Jul 28, 2006 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Then give them Ike
by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 28, 2006 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well think about this...
by John Patrick on Jul 29, 2006 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't need a power forward?
Randolph is not the best teammate, but I think with his talent he's worth a chance.
by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 30, 2006 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rich and Randolph

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 30, 2006 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we can only pray
by hardcore on Aug 4, 2006 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True that we have a weak interior...
Now Ike not be as good as Randolph right now, but having all solid offensive threats across the court is a lot harder to defend then a couple good threats. Plus two, Randolph isn't in good enough shape for our run'n'gun offense. And while Randolph may be good, I'd rather trade for a good player who fills a need (Odom, Maggette, any center other than Foyle).
by John Patrick on Jul 30, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
As for the SF, i would love to have maggette. But look at it this way, if we trade for maggette, now we have Ike and our 3 headed center down low. Ike has been in foul trouble constantly and has had trouble rebounding. So realistically, how many minutes can you expect from him if he started? Basically, I like Dunleavy/Pietrus and Randolph with Ike rotating in at center better than the Ike and Maggette/Dun with the 3 centers because it gives us a proven post presence versus another perimeter player.
i'm also not sold that randolph will be out of shape. i bet he'll come to play next year since he's being challenged by lamarcus aldridge coming in. or if he was traded here, he'd want to run with baron and jrich.
Maybe i'm just not sold on Ike yet. He's shown me flashes, but right now it's all hype and potential. Quite frankly, i'm tired of potential, give me someone who can ball. If Ike stays here, I really hope that he turns out to be a 18-8, 18-10 guy soon.
mullin just needs to improve this team. and if that's by trading for maggette or randolph, then i'm all for it, but i'd rather have the big man down low.
by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 30, 2006 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make good points...
by John Patrick on Jul 31, 2006 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph at Center
by hardcore on Aug 4, 2006 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whole lotta love
just lookin for some proven low post scoring and possibly not waiting another 12 years ...
by hardcore on Jul 28, 2006 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What he said...
Another thing I'm wondering, what is the deal with Dunleavy's contract? I've read places that he can't/won't be traded this year because he has some poison pill clause in his deal. I have no idea what that means but people around here keep throwing out deals involving Dunleavy. Can someone with more understanding of NBA contracts explain what the deal is with that?
by Googs on Jul 28, 2006 1:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ike = 5'9"?
That would be nice, I could post up Ike one game, and then go D up KG in another. I can always dream.
by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 31, 2006 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BYC
As to your first question, since I think it is pointed more or less at fans like me I'll take a stab at it ... Ike may or may not be the answer to GSW low post needs, I count myself as "not sold" since he is young and undersized. Ditto Monta. More to the point, waiting for all these young guys to mature means more of the same and that's intolerable (to some of us). The alternative is to shake things up, try to trade your undesirables but to do that we'd have to take risks, small or big, to change the chemistry and raise the talent level. I don't think trading Murphy is all that brilliant a move, but realize we have few desireable pieces. I like the Maggette idea, tho he could be gone in a year (at least Dun's contract would be gone), Randolph is a proven scorer but a risk, and KMart is a bigger risk, but we just can't keep taking it in the shorts with the current cast. There is no one in the locker room standing up to BD to play the way the team needs - adding a strong vet might challenge him. I'm just impatient for Mully to make a move. I challenge everyone to put out some solutions (other than wait); we have lots of critics but few realistic proposals.
by hardcore on Jul 28, 2006 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: BYC
I hear what you're saying about wanting to shake things up. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I'd much rather upgrade at SF or C rather than at PF where I think we should at least give Ike one year as a starter. So I'd be much more interested in getting Magette or Magloire.
by Googs on Jul 29, 2006 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BYC
The easiest way to get around this is to deal with a team that isn't capped out since the restrictions only apply to trades where the teams are over the cap. The next easiest way is to make it into a multiple player deal where the total salaries the Warriors send out exceeds 16 million and they bring back about 12 million in salary. A third way is to get the value of contracts exchanged to exceed the 16 million and involve multiple teams. All this makes deals more complicated. Not impossible, but significantly more complicated and usually means that dollars are equated much more than talent, usually meaning the team trying to move the BYC player gets screwed for purpose of trying to unload their mistake so early.
by jae on Jul 31, 2006 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JAE for GM!
by hardcore on Jul 31, 2006 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My moves
I hope to use Pietrus to move Foyle, hoping for a serviceable shooter to fit in behind Richardson or take over at the 3 and backup pointguard realizing we're a predictable Baron injury away from one of the stiffs we acquired from Utah getting significant playing time. I don't mind the Utah deal, done in order to essentially retroactively make Fisher's deal into a reasonable 2 year deal. (Fisher wasn't a bad contract at the intial price, but it was too long and Mullin was wise to get out of the bad part of the deal when Fisher will make more as an over-the-hill-undersized-combo-guard.) I doubt that I'll be able to move Foyle though at the time and think more about the Feb deadline when suckers show up who think that a 'defensive minded bigman' will help them and don't seem to realize that this 'defensive minded bigman' hasn't helped us, but 'preparing for the playoffs' make rich owners and GMs do dumb things. I hope that Pietrus's athleticism and potential and a "defensive minded bigman" sound appealing to someone who doesn't have to watch them every damn game and as such may not realize how totally ineffective they can be.
If possible, I try to get Wilcox. While I'm not convinced he's going to be significantly more of an impact than Murphy, Murphy seems to have some rather silent statistics and stats bear out that he's a defensive-liability. If I can manage a swap with him going out and about the same salary coming back for CW, I do it and I package Pietrus for a broken toaster if need be. Wilcox does things that help teams win: he hits the majority of his shots and he rebounds reasonably well ergo he doesn't waste possessions. He was more or less neutral to Seattle's defense, but I've got to be a sucker for 'potential' in some guys and I like him as a combo two headed PF with Ike more than I like Murphy in that role. I don't go significantly more in dollar value than Murphy's salary though.
Did I mention that I'd do whatever it took to make sure that we stopped pretending like Pietrus was anything other than a detriment to the team?
I bite down hard and realize that Dunleavy's deal was bad. I show game films to the coaching staff that indicates that Dunleavy played well when he played "out of position" and had to step up and compete inside at the 4 in the "small" lineup or had to sub for an injured Richardson or Baron in the backcourt. Since he was a high school pg who played pf in college, it's not surprising that he'd be a 1-2-4 'tweener' who seems inept at his "natural" position. I bring him off the bench to sub at these three positions as it seems to bring out the competitive spark that sticking him at wing forward brings out less often than Benitez has an easy time in the 9th. If the coach doesn't listen, I fire him and insult his family pet in the process. In a year, maybe Dunleavy can bring back value but right now making the BYC work means finding a bigger sucker than presently exists.
I call up every GM in the league and ask about their coffee maker. If it's working, I see if they're willing to give it to me for Pietrus. If it's not, I see if they've got a second round pick that they'd toss in to sweeten the deal, but they can still have Pietrus for the coffee maker. I resign myself to not care if Pietrus develops knowing that here he'd ask for a bunch of money to continue to dribble off his foot more often than he grabs rebounds or makes effective passes.
I worry about Baron's health and conditioning, but I do not panic, recalling the second and third rate PGs we've suffered through before him and how hard it was when people on boards wondered if Vonteego Cummings or Dean Oliver, not the stats consultant and author for the Sonics would be improvements over the has been Mookie and the never really was Bimbo Coles. I see if I can trade Pietrus for some sessions with a sports psychologist for Baron to make him realize that fewer long range shots would help the team.
I get on the phones and try to move Pietrus, and, barring that, see if I can get his visa taken away while he's overseas for the world championships.
by jae on Jul 31, 2006 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa!

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 31, 2006 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pietrus is that bad
There are a number of bad things you can do: Missed shots mean a possession wasted unless your team grabs an offensive rebound. Turnovers mean a wasted possession. Fouls mean you extend your opponents possession. Pietrus missed too many shots, fouled too often, and turned the ball over too often.
The good things you can do as a team are to make a basket or pick up a foul or, on defense, to force a turnover or get a steal, force a bad shot, block a shot, or grabbing a defensive rebound (which means your opponent wasted a possession). Offensive rebounds are good because they extend a possession, negating a missed shot, but if you didn't miss the shot, you wouldn't need the rebound. Pietrus didn't help his team make more baskets. When he was in, the team's fg% dropped. He doesn't rebound well.
Some of these things don't show up in an individual's stat line, but forcing bad shots should be reflected by lowering the opponent's fg% while you're in. Pietrus didn't do this. If he plays defense, there's no actual evidence that it was markedly different from what the team did without him in the game.
If there's something good that Pietrus did for the team, I'm missing it. Too long I've heard people write about his 'athleticism' but seem to ignore the results. Too long I've heard the big lie repeated that he can play defense, though there's no evidence that the Warriors are really all that different defensively when he's in the game. His "contributions" helped the Warriors lose games and his particular skills don't indicate that he's going to rapidly turn the corner and all of a sudden rebound better or shoot for a higher percentage or turn the ball over less often or foul less often or do any of the things that will help teams win.
by jae on Aug 1, 2006 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MP2
by Googs on Aug 1, 2006 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pietrus sucks and always has.
I don't see any way to argue that it's that he hasn't had a chance either. He got more than 20mpg last year. Those are pretty significant minutes, putting him 7th on the team for the games he played in. It's not like he was buried or only saw garbage time. If he cannot show something as a first option off the bench, I do not understand why anyone would give him more unearned minutes. I suspect it's the disgust with Dunleavy, who also hasn't done much of anything, but Dunleavy's ineffective play doesn't make Pietrus any better. It means they both suck.
by jae on Aug 1, 2006 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair Analysis and Fair Chances
Dunleavy's poor play has been about a lack of talent and an unwillingness to accept and adapt to his role. Pietrus' poor play has not been about lacking talent or lack of enthusiasm. It's about poor coaching and failure to have a good grasp of the game.
Also check out MP2's report card if you haven't already:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2006/7/13/22628/3416
And since this is a Zack Randolph trade thread- Let's get him! He might be able to be acquired for 50 cents on the dollar. Randolph doesn't want to play in Portland and they don't seen too enamored with him either.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 1, 2006 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
followed up elsewhere
by jae on Aug 1, 2006 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chaos
We finished last season ahead of Portland.
Folks, Portland has a letigimate NBA Coach who isn't able to control Randolph and Miles. Monty would come unglued with either one of these knuckleheads.
by joe sez on Jul 28, 2006 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
True!
by John Patrick on Jul 28, 2006 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
different "realism"
ps. the Murphy-Diogu combo averages 21ppg/12 rpg, for roughly $12m yr
by hardcore on Jul 30, 2006 11:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
cool fact
by mydedgerbil555 on Jul 31, 2006 5:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Amen
SF is one of the easiest positions to fill in the NBA which makes that Dunleavy 44mil signing that much more ridiculous.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 31, 2006 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph? No thanks.
Power forward who struggles to hit 44% of his shots (and in Randolph's case, this isn't mitigated by some of them being 3's) and whose team is better defensively when he's out? No thanks. We've got one of those already and he's cheaper.
by jae on Jul 31, 2006 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Z's blazing
by hardcore on Aug 6, 2006 2:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
True Hooping

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 7, 2006 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















