Why would Zach's value be less in NY than in Portland?

richardhutnik · Post #1 » by **richardhutnik** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:38 pm

When Zach was with Portland, they sucked (same as in NY). He had a rep of having off the court issues, that he has not shown in NY. He stats dipped a bit, playing next to Curry (point wise). In light of all this, can anyone explain why his trade value now would be less than it was in Portland? In what ways has he regressed?

If he value hasn't decreased, they why is he "untradable"? Or why would you just give him away now? My main interest here is to understand why his value would be less than it was in Portland.

- Rich

Post #2 » by **rsavaj** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:40 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvYf08X6tc

As ridiculous as it sounds, I think whenever people think of Zach Randolph with the Knicks, they think of that sequence. And only that sequence.

gavran · Post #3 » by **gavran** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:41 pm

Because morons on the General board say so.

god shammgod · Post #4 » by **god shammgod** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:50 pm

i wonder if people realize getting rid of zach for just a 2nd rounder would be a better deal then portland got. they've still to got to pay francis's contract next year. taking zach for one year and trading him away for an exception would mean we did a lot better.

-Phenom- · Post #5 » by **-Phenom-** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:06 pm

rsavaj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvYf08X6tc

As ridiculous as it sounds, I think whenever people think of Zach Randolph with the Knicks, they think of that sequence. And only that sequence.

lol. I remember only because I was pissed that Isiah Thomas was not mad about it. smh

Zach is always going to have a bad rep, so the longer he plays ball, I think the more his value will decrease.

GuyverADL · Post #6 » by **GuyverADL** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:26 pm

god shammgod wrote:i wonder if people realize getting rid of zach for just a 2nd rounder would be a better deal then portland got. they've still to got to pay francis's contract next year. taking zach for one year and trading him away for an exception would mean we did a lot better.

Some people just don't get it.

bowen · Post #7 » by **bowen** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:58 pm

I don't see how he would have any value to begin with. I wouldn't want him for the vet min.

BlazertheGreek · Post #8 » by **BlazertheGreek** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:11 pm

optimusADL wrote:
god shammgod wrote:i wonder if people realize getting rid of zach for just a 2nd rounder would be a better deal then portland got. they've still to got to pay francis's contract next year. taking zach for one year and trading him away for an exception would mean we did a lot better.

Some people just don't get it.

The fact that the Blazers found someone dumb enough to take Zach (Isiah Thomas) was good enough for me. The Blazers traded him to develop Aldridge (we know how that turned out) and we got a decent back up in Frye. We got rid of a guy who just sits there with the ball pump fakes and then shoots a bad shot, in return we got to develop a stud power forward, got a good character guy and decent backup in Frye. I think the Blazers improved their team by leaps and bounds by subtracting Randolph. If the Knicks get rid of him for just a second rounder, how can you say the Knicks got better value than the Blazers? I hope the Knicks can find someone dumb enough to take "The Black Hole."

BBALLER4FR · Post #9 » by **BBALLER4FR** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:20 pm

rsavaj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvYf08X6tc

As ridiculous as it sounds, I think whenever people think of Zach Randolph with the Knicks, they think of that sequence. And only that sequence.

Uh, as ridiculous as it sounds, I think whenever people post that 1 play of his (I'm not saying you...just sayin' "poeple"), I think of them as really really really stupid, biased, morons. And only those people.

BBALLER4FR · Post #10 » by **BBALLER4FR** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:26 pm

BlazertheGreek wrote:
optimusADL wrote:
god shammgod wrote:i wonder if people realize getting rid of zach for just a 2nd rounder would be a better deal then portland got. they've still to got to pay francis's contract next year. taking zach for one year and trading him away for an exception would mean we did a lot better.

Some people just don't get it.

The fact that the Blazers found someone dumb enough to take Zach (Isiah Thomas) was good enough for me. The Blazers traded him to develop Aldridge (we know how that turned out) and we got a decent back up in Frye. We got rid of a guy who just sits there with the ball pump fakes and then shoots a bad shot, in return we got to develop a stud power forward, got a good character guy and decent backup in Frye. I think the Blazers improved their team by leaps and bounds by subtracting Randolph. If the Knicks get rid of him for just a second rounder, how can you say the Knicks got better value than the Blazers? I hope the Knicks can find someone dumb enough to take "The Black Hole."

Duh, because we too could develop our youngsters (Lee and Gallinari) BUT we wouldn't even need to buy out a player to accomplish it, like the Blazers did with Francis. Instead we'd have a HUGE TPE to use on a player. To boot, IF (and that's a big if) that 2nd rounder was DeAndre Jordon, I would say we got better value in the "young player received" dept as well. But alas, it hasn't happened. Stay tuned.

KOA · Post #11 » by **KOA** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:44 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT0_Q1fc ... re=related

Seriously, the hate Zach Randolph receives on this board is outlandish. I mean he has only been in NY for 1 season and he get bashed more than Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry combined...

camillepd · Post #12 » by **camillepd** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:04 pm

KOA wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT0_Q1fcKyA&feature=related

Seriously, the hate Zach Randolph receives on this board is outlandish. I mean he has only been in NY for 1 season and he get bashed more than Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry combined...

And that is why I ignore the idiocy of most posters on the Knicks board. A 23/10 guy who is 26 years old has no value if you listen to them. None of the knicks players have any value if you listen to them. That is why I ignore these rubes!!

StutterStep · Post #13 » by **StutterStep** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:19 pm

KOA wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT0_Q1fcKyA&feature=related

Seriously, the hate Zach Randolph receives on this board is outlandish. I mean he has only been in NY for 1 season and he get bashed more than Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry combined...

Except for TKF, who actually watches/knows basketball, most of these other posters have (had) no idea about Zach's game. They just hated it because it was an Isiah trade. They hate it because they honestly cannot say that Lee should start in front of Zach at PF... those are just the above-board reasons...

Post #14 » by **Luv those Knicks** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:33 pm

One valid argument why Zach's value has gone down is because Portland got better replacing Zach with Bench player Frye and giving Sophmore Aldridge the starting spot,

and NY went from a 33 win team to a 23 win team when they added Zach.

One could argue that this is just circumstancial, but like the Marbury/Kidd trade - when Kidd brought the Nets to the Finals and when Marbury (OK, he had one good playoff run in Phoenix), but When Marbury was leading Phoenix to mediocrity - that helped define the careers of those 2 players.

If You add Zach to a 33 win team and you get a 23 win team, some people are gunna say that Zach translates into loosing, especially when you take Zach away from a 20(something) win team and they get close to 40 wins without him.

I think every Gm in the league knows that Zach has talent, but it's one thing to be the best player on a bad team, it's another thing to seem to Carry a 20 win season with you wherever you go. GMs are going to be cautious taking on Zach because it didn't work out for NY.

NyKnicks1714 · Post #15 » by **NyKnicks1714** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:36 pm

StutterStep wrote:
KOA wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT0_Q1fcKyA&feature=related

Seriously, the hate Zach Randolph receives on this board is outlandish. I mean he has only been in NY for 1 season and he get bashed more than Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry combined...

Except for TKF, who actually watches/knows basketball, most of these other posters have (had) no idea about Zach's game. They just hated it because it was an Isiah trade. They hate it because they honestly cannot say that Lee should start in front of Zach at PF... those are just the above-board reasons...

I hated Zach's game long before he was a Knick, long before I began to dislike Isiah. Don't act like you know what's going on in everyone's head.

StutterStep · Post #16 » by **StutterStep** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:40 pm

Luv those Knicks wrote:
I think every Gm in the league knows that Zach has talent, but it's one thing to be the best player on a bad team, it's another thing to seem to Carry a 20 win season with you wherever you go. GMs are going to be cautious taking on Zach because it didn't work out for NY.

To the first part of your post that I didn't quote, it is circumstantial. And, the most it could mean is that they had a replacement in line at PF -- the reason the Clips are scrambling to fill the PF spot is that they don't have a sophomore in line to take that position. Sort of like when we got Crawford to be the 6th man, and H20 never came back from injury. We haven't had a SG since.

Zach didn't carry a 20-win season with him. He had back to back 30+ win seasons in Portland. One year due to tons of injuries and clearing of vets off the roster. Then in his last year there, Roy was injured for 14 games to start the season; and Zach missed the last 10 games. They still ended up with 32 wins, one less than we had that year.

They've gotten top 5 picks not because of 20 win seasons, but because of the way the lotto balls fell. If anything being on the Knicks this past season has hurt Zach's value.

StutterStep · Post #17 » by **StutterStep** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:43 pm

NyKnicks1714 wrote:
I hated Zach's game long before he was a Knick, long before I began to dislike Isiah. Don't act like you know what's going on in everyone's head.

I think you just hate period; that doesn't mean you know/understand basketball.

NyKnicks1714 · Post #18 » by **NyKnicks1714** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:48 pm

StutterStep wrote:
NyKnicks1714 wrote:
I hated Zach's game long before he was a Knick, long before I began to dislike Isiah. Don't act like you know what's going on in everyone's head.

I think you just hate period; that doesn't mean you know/understand basketball.

Yes, I hate every player on every team. :roll:

After the original hype about Randolph (Several years ago) settled down, it became apparent to me that he was just putting up empty statistics. You've never been able to rebut the fact that he makes an offense terribly stagnant. Your only defense is "well, it's not like it was great before he got here".

StutterStep · Post #19 » by **StutterStep** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:54 pm

NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Yes, I hate every player on every team. After the original hype about Randolph (Several years ago) settled down, it became apparent to me that he was just putting up empty statistics. You've never been able to rebut the fact that he makes an offense terribly stagnant. Your only defense is "well, it's not like it was great before he got here".

Why do I need to rebut that he made our offense stagnant, when for the past 2 (or 3) years, our offense consisted of dumping the ball to Curry then wait for him to pass out of the double team? So, you're saying that Zach came in and moved us from an uptempo, motion offense to what we saw last year, which was actually an improvement over the previous year's pace?

Also, do you recall that after IT experimented with bringing him off the bench and making the guards (Craw and Nate) the first option, that Zach started moving the ball much more? Look at his assist numbers from later in the season.

Also, if your memory serves you well, who do you think hit more passes to cutters (Lee, Jeffries) or from the high post to Curry and Lee this past year? I think Zach. Do you want to rebut that?

NyKnicks1714 · Post #20 » by **NyKnicks1714** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:13 am

StutterStep wrote:
NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Yes, I hate every player on every team. After the original hype about Randolph (Several years ago) settled down, it became apparent to me that he was just putting up empty statistics. You've never been able to rebut the fact that he makes an offense terribly stagnant. Your only defense is "well, it's not like it was great before he got here".

Why do I need to rebut that he made our offense stagnant, when for the past 2 (or 3) years, our offense consisted of dumping the ball to Curry then wait for him to pass out of the double team? So, you're saying that Zach came in and moved us from an uptempo, motion offense to what we saw last year, which was actually an improvement over the previous year's pace?

Also, do you recall that after IT experimented with bringing him off the bench and making the guards (Craw and Nate) the first option, that Zach started moving the ball much more? Look at his assist numbers from later in the season.

Also, if your memory serves you well, who do you think hit more passes to cutters (Lee, Jeffries) or from the high post to Curry and Lee this past year? I think Zach. Do you want to rebut that?

Last season we were dead last in assists, the season before we were 3rd to last. Our offense was just as horribly stagnant last year as it was the year before . There was certainly no improvement. I'm definitely not blaming Zach for a 10 game drop-off but it was there and there weren't any other major changes to the team. All I'm saying.

And yes, I saw him hit cutters from time to time. I never said Zach was a terrible passer (average at best), but that really doesn't change anything. When Zach gets the ball, the play is over. He's doing 1 of 3 things:

1. Shooting.
2. Turning the ball over
3. Finishing the play with an assist

He may work hard, but he plays for himself, I don't think you can argue that.

Also, the guy is a supposed low-post beast, yet he scores more points on jumpers than he does in the paint. That doesn't bother you at all?

By the way, I feel nearly the same way about Jermaine O'neal offensively.