Is Zach worth it??

by FoyledAgain on Jul 28, 2006 12:53 AM PDT

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

Poll

Should the Warriors even attempt to acquire Zach Randolph

Yes

11 votes

No

11 votes

Only if we can dump some bad contracts

19 votes

41 votes | Poll has closed

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!

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Definitely!

His low post game would fit in well here. It's the opposite of Troy Murphy's. The Blazers want to get rid of him and Darius Miles big time. I say take a chance on these too young talented malcontents. At least the Warriors would be talented and athletic for a change.

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

business casual?

i didn't know wearing a dead animal was business casual. haha.

by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 28, 2006 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

by opposite you mean...

Randolph is a power forward who misses shots down low while Murphy is a power forward who misses shots from the perimeter? While the adjective 'athletic' may be more applicable to Randolph, in terms of results, I'm reluctant to call them all that different. Murphy's a better rebounder. Randolph is marginally a better scorer per minute, but slightly less efficient in terms of points per shot attempt. If Randolph makes a defensive impact, it wasn't signficant enough to make Portland anything other than sucky.

by jae on Jul 31, 2006 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Nice coat

Wow hes looking fly in that picture, not only would we up our talent, but our fashion sense as well

Well theres always next year x12

by FoyledAgain on Jul 28, 2006 11:00 AM PDT reply actions

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!

But Blazers wouldn't.

by hardcore on Jul 28, 2006 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

Hello?

Why are we wanting to acquire big name PF's? Not only will we be throwing roadblocks in front of Ike, we'll be locked up with either Zack or KMart financially and be unable TO SIGN Ike or Monta. Now, which would you rather have?

by John Patrick on Jul 28, 2006 12:34 PM PDT reply actions

Then give them Ike

Look at Randolph's numbers the past few years, 18-8, 19-10, 20-11. Think Ike will average those numbers anytime soon? I don't. Think Ike will ever average those numbers? Possibly. Trading for Randolph is like getting the Ike of 3 years from now, but we get him right now.

by Fantasy Junkie on Jul 28, 2006 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Well think about this...

Even though Randolph is the "Ike of the future", we don't need a PF. Period. We DO need a center and SF, so wouldn't it be smarter to give our trading pieces for one of those to patch up a glaring hole, or fill a position we don't necessarily need improved?

by John Patrick on Jul 29, 2006 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't need a power forward?

A big part of the problem last year was the interior, i.e. the center, power forward, and small forward. It's true power forward is the the strongest position of the three, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make improvements there. Randolph is an established and proven back to the basket, post up player. None of which we currently have. I think that improves our team dramatically if you have a guy who can draw double teams in the post. Murphy and Ike can't do that. It would make a dramatic difference if teams had to double down on the post to free up the perimeter for open jumpers (not that we always make them, but in theory...) or create more driving and cutting lanes.

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

Rich and Randolph

The Blazer media makes Randolph out to be a bad teammate, but I wonder if he and JRich are buddies from their Michigan State days. Randolph might be a better teammate if he's surrounded with friends.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 30, 2006 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

we can only pray

Mully is smart enough to ask his star ...

by hardcore on Aug 4, 2006 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions

True that we have a weak interior...

...but if our center and small forward are an embarrassment, why trade for a very good (NOT superstar) PF? Having solid players across the court spreads the defense, and if we acquire Randolph, then other teams will have no problem putting Foyle's man on him, since he is... well Foyle. Saying that will clear up open jumpers or lanes for Baron and JRich is not true.

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

well...

you're right, let's try to improve the team. i think trading for randolph improves the team dramaticaly because we're a perimeter oriented team and we need the post presence badly. murphy and randolph are both high paid PF's, but i think randolph is a better fit.

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

You make good points...

If we trade for Randolph, I propose we start him at center and Ike at PF. No way Ike is at center. Now I'd like to trade for Lamar Odom, he is my first choice. But even if we trade for Randolph, we should wait til mid-season just to look at Ike and come to a conclusion. What I'm saying is wait to see if he is something special before clogging up his position (Randolph will take a lot of minutes). If not, I give the go-ahead on Randolph or any other PF.

by John Patrick on Jul 31, 2006 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Randolph at Center

makes so much sense - can he defend opponent centers? If we moved one of the big contracts, he might be worth it

by hardcore on Aug 4, 2006 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions

whole lotta love

out there for Ike and Monta

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

What he said...

I'm with John Patrick on this one. Why do we keep discussing these grumpy, expensive power forwards? Are people down on Ike or just not completely sold on him? I'm a big Ike fan so I'd like to see him get as much playing time as possible.

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

I love Ike

but he's like 5'9.

by Jeremy Belvins on Jul 30, 2006 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions

BH

That would make Byron Houston 5'3".

by Googs on Jul 31, 2006 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Ike = 5'9"?

If the league was that small, I would be a power forward.

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

BYC

base year compensation basically means the cap number for the contract is higher than the actual salary paid, "poisoning" the team's cap space that trades ... making it harder to trade players who've been given big raises by their team after their rookie contracts - - harder, but not impossible (as the trade machine illuminates for us wanna-be GMs). Every team has some bad contracts.

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

Re: BYC

Thanks for the explanation on Suckleavy's contract.

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

BYC

Actually, BYC means that the salary the Warriors can take back is not as great as the salary that Dunleavy is paid but the salary counts for its real dollar value to the team taking him. The team taking him has to give up essentially what they take on but we can't absorb all of that because of the BYC. Since trades between two capped teams have to be more or less the same, it means that trading him requires some special math where 4 and 8 are less 25% different from each other.

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

JAE for GM!

anyone with that intimate knowledge certainly can clean up the Woes mess! What's your first trade?

by hardcore on Jul 31, 2006 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions

My moves

Move #1: Pietrus goes. I hope to swindle someone who is still fooled by the potential of someone who is 'athletic' but seems impervious to his lousy shooting, inept rebounding and ball-handling and the fact that his defensive ability has gone significantly south as he's tried to score his way into a contract. I ignore non-substantive adjectives like athletic if over three years they haven't been accompanied by any actual improvement in overall game and aren't attached to a human-turnover machine who seems unhappy with his 25+ ill-deserved minutes that seem reasonable only because his principle competition is likewise near-totally unproductive on the court.

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

Krups

will be easier to negotiate with: 1-800-526-5377

by hardcore on Jul 31, 2006 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Whoa!

Pietrus had a terrible season, but he's not that bad. If he had as many chances and as much playing time as Dunleavy, he wouldn't have struggled as much.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 31, 2006 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Pietrus is that bad

No, Pietrus is that bad. The game of basketball comes down to what you do with your possessions. At the end of each possession no matter what, the other team gets the ball. If you score, the possession is good. If you don't, you're giving your opponents a chance to score unanswered. Possessions are basically equal in number between teams in a game. If you score more points in your possessions than your opponents, you win.

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

MP2

Was he as bad the year before? The perception is that he really regressed last year but if that's the case then there would be reason to hope he could turn it around this season.

by Googs on Aug 1, 2006 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Pietrus sucks and always has.

Pietrus was marginally more effective on defense the year before but it wasn't monumental. His defensive impact slipped between years 1 and 2 statistically and hasn't rebounded. His offense, which wasn't great to begin with, slipped between years 2 and 3. His overall game did drop last year, but it wasn't like it was all that much to begin with. If he returns to what he once was, he'd still be garbage. He came into the league as a marginal shooter, marginal rebounder, and lousy assist man who had a problem turning the ball over too much and that's still what he is. In three years, he hasn't really markedly improved any aspect of his game. He needs to do more than "turn it around." He needs to 'turn it around' and then blast right past where he was. That three years out he's increased his scoring average by merely by taking more shots doesn't reflect any improvement and players who don't improve over 3 years and actually regress are not assets you want to keep around.

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

Fair Analysis and Fair Chances

I think you're analysis of MP2 is pretty fair. The reason why I contend that he hasn't had a fair chance is that his playing time has always been so sporadic irrespective of how well he plays. One night it's 7 minutes, another night 15, and another night 25. It doesn't seem to correlate with how well he's playing and sends mixed signals. Dunleavy got to start 150+ games even though he struggled mightily. Pietrus got 10 games or so and then was sent back to the bench.

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

followed up elsewhere

I'll follow this up in a new diary titled "you be the GM"

by jae on Aug 1, 2006 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Chaos

This trade proposal for Randolph reminds me that we're a badly balanced team but could be worse off.

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

True!

If we trade away Diogu and Monta it will come back to haunt us. They could be the same as Randolph, or they could be a lot better. Plus two, Randolph is out of shape and will cause problems.

by John Patrick on Jul 28, 2006 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions

different "realism"

Obviously, today, Randolph (18 ppg, 8 rpg, $12m) is the best scorer and low post threat among Ike, TM, Wilcox, Magloire, etc. and could instantly put a stamp on the Ws offense in multiple ways (maybe even tip the balance into the playoffs) but who or what would Portland take in return? Even though Blzrs need a PG after the Magloire trade they'd not want BD (but don't worry Monta-lovers, that isn't gonna happen either), and with all their bigs not TM, nor Dun. And we can't take on $12m & 5 yr w/o moving one/two of those three. Before the Magloire trade, maybe we had a chance at him for Murphy ... not now ... same with Seattle/Wilcox: no match ... Unless - we get some third team involved.

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

cool fact

jb, if that last fact is true then why are we even considering randolf. im with you guys. our sf position may be the worst in the league. we shouls be chasing any other starting sf in the league

by mydedgerbil555 on Jul 31, 2006 5:21 AM PDT reply actions

Amen

our sf position may be the worst in the league. we shouls be chasing any other starting sf in the league

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

Randolph? No thanks.

Randolph is vastly overrated and overcompensated. His points per-game is deceptive. For an interior player, his fg% isn't very good and he isn't particularly effective at getting to the line. He takes far too many shots, costing far too many possessions to get his 20 points and doesn't supply enough rebounding force (he's bringing down fewer rebounds than Murphy while playing more minutes). I doubt he adds any wins to the team at all and may actually cost the team wins. He sure as hell hasn't provided many wins for Portland recently.

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

Z's blazing

ZR's staying with the Blazers - trading Telfair (to Boston) was part of Port's plan to slow it down and use him more: ``We had to make a decision," said McMillan. ``In our minds, Sebastian was the future, but did the combination of Sebastian and Zach Randolph work? And do the players we have fit the style of play that Sebastian brings to the floor? They don't. ... We had to make a decision: build around Sebastian or build around Zach. And the decision was to build around Zach." Boston Globe

by hardcore on Aug 6, 2006 2:42 PM PDT reply actions