Zach Randolph last 6 games

DH34Phan · Post #1 » by **DH34Phan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:11 am

From around the time "The Trade" was going to happen until today:

19.8 ppg
11 rpg
2.3 apg
47.8% FG

While CV and Yi have given us a combined (their last 6 games):

17 ppg
8.9 rpg
2.2 apg
37.6% FG

So Zach has outproduced both CV and Yi by himself, while averaging 35 mpg (which is a lot). I think that even if we brought him in, and gave him 30 mpg, his production would be well worth it, while giving Yi 15 minutes at the backup PF, and giving CV more minutes at the SF (where we need him), and the team will be much better as a result.

It also makes our backcourt feed the post, so Andrew and Zach can get 15 touches each a game.

stellation · Post #2 » by **stellation** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:15 am

We wouldn't have Yi and CV if we brought him in. Would we?

DH34Phan · Post #3 » by **DH34Phan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:17 am

stellation wrote:We wouldn't have Yi and CV if we brought him in. Would we?

Good point. Yes, we'd still have Yi. If we were getting Balkman also, then we wouldn't have CV.

Even it was Balkman instead of CV, he probably would be the best SF we have.

stellation · Post #4 » by **stellation** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:19 am

I just couldn't remember the deal and obviously navigating with my mouse was harder than typing

You're right, Balkman instead of CV in those SF minutes is arguably an upgrade.

skones · Post #5 » by **skones** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:20 am

Is that production really worth stunting the development of our young bigs? Is it that production really worth the headaches in the locker room? It it worth the headaches on the floor? The answer is no.

Simulack · Post #6 » by **Simulack** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:22 am

Knicks are 4-2 during that period too. But 6 games are probably not going to change anyone's mind.

IMO its a good trade if you think it isn't going to stunt Bogut/Yi's development. Since we control Zach's minute instead of him, I am not as worried about that possibility of others.

Balkman is probably a little overrated by some (like Hollinger) but it still would be nice having a defensive minded 3.

xTitan · Post #7 » by **xTitan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:23 am

Try watching Randolph play then get back to me...numbers are really pretty but the commentators made a comment about how the offense bogs down and the Knicks become totally selfish and one on one when Randolph gets the ball...sound familiar? You should use your energy and try to find and athletic wing and a long athletic PG the Bucks could find to start hellping stop dribble penetration and facilitate offense.

paul · Post #8 » by **paul** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:23 am

IF we're going to show stats let's show a few more.

The five games before that -

8.4 ppg
9 rpg (including one 22 rebound game)
1 assist pg
3.4 turnovers pg
0 blocks pg
38% FG

And he brings no defense, a bad attitude, a massive contract and, oh yeah no defense.

Fight the Tank · Post #9 » by **Fight the Tank** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:24 am

Who's to say that Bobby Simmons, Gadzuric and Villanueva aren't worse in the locker room....Those guys are probably all more diseased than Randolph. That being said I don't want Randolph and his contract on my team. I do think this may be a good idea....A 3 teamer with the Bulls...What do you think?

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/t ... &te=&cash=

xTitan · Post #10 » by **xTitan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:25 am

I am also really missing the whole Balkman phenomenon...is it his 2.5 ppg, 2.8 rpg, or perhaps his .05 assists per game, that make him such a valueable commodity.

DH34Phan · Post #11 » by **DH34Phan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:26 am

skones wrote:Is that production really worth stunting the development of our young bigs? Is it that production really worth the headaches in the locker room? It it worth the headaches on the floor? The answer is no.

Is giving Yi 25-30 miuntes while watching him struggle helping his development?

This month he is averaging 8/5 while being given 26 mpg. His confidence is probably hurt, aswell.

Giving him 15 mpg off the bench this year, and even next year IMO, would be the best way to develop him.

If we still gave Bogut 13-16 FG attempts a game with Randolph, that would make for a very good frontline, both offensively and defensively.

Basically, getting Randolph would cut down Redd and Mo's shots, which can be argued is a good thing.

Simulack · Post #12 » by **Simulack** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:27 am

Knicks are averaging nearly 100 points during that stretch which is way above their season average of 94.5. At least during this stretch, his number aren't coming at the expense of the teams overall point production.

paul wrote:And he brings no defense, a bad attitude, a massive contract and, oh yeah no defense.

So are the guys he is being traded for. At least he is a great rebounder and much better offensively.

CV: no defense, supposedly asked to be traded, attitude/effort questions since declaring for the draft initially as a high schooler then at UConn
Simmons: massive contract, mediocre defender, supposedly unhappy that he wasn't starting, off-court problems
Gadz: massive contract, no basketball skills

Put your criticisms of Randolph in the context of the guys you are trading for him.

DH34Phan · Post #13 » by **DH34Phan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:28 am

xTitan wrote:I am also really missing the whole Balkman phenomenon...is it his 2.5 ppg, 2.8 rpg, or perhaps his .05 assists per game, that make him such a valueable commodity.

He is getting that in 12 minutes a game. Give him Bobby's 23 mpg, and I am sure he'd be able to at least match his 7/3/1 output.

Oh yeah, Balkman is on a small Rookie contract (23rd overall I think) while Bobby makes 9 million this year.

Comet · Post #14 » by **Comet** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:30 am

This isn't fantasy basketball. If it was Kohl would've let the Randolph trade go through.

Randolph is a cancer. He'd (perhaps permanently) screw up Bogut's, Yi's, and CV's development. He's an ass in the locker room. He's had some legal problems.

Besides the baggage, he never blocks any shots and is just a crappy defender overall. He's also had some weight problems.

Just stay away from him.

paul · Post #15 » by **paul** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:31 am

[quote="DH34Phan"][/quote]

Dude, Bogut can't get 16 shots per game consistently now, your honestly trying to sell this trade by saying 'if we keep bogut getting 13-16 shots'? So we've got Randolph shooting 15 times per game, Redd 20, Mo 15, Yi 10 and that leaves how many for Bogut? Of course it won't hold up his progress.

Simulack · Post #16 » by **Simulack** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:31 am

Bogutneedsball wrote:That being said I don't want Randolph and his contract on my team.

We already do essentially have his contract on our team - its just divided between Simmons and Gadz. That's exactly why this trade is possible under the CBA.

DH34Phan · Post #17 » by **DH34Phan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:32 am

Comet wrote:This isn't fantasy basketball. If it was Kohl would've let the Randolph trade go through.

I am sure glad he pulled the trigger on Boozer, though. Boozer was looked at as a possible cancer, while playing no defense either.

Yes, Randolph has had legal problems, but besides punching out Ruben (who wouldn't want to do that), I haven't really heard that he is a locker room problem.

DH34Phan · Post #18 » by **DH34Phan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:34 am

paul wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Dude, Bogut can't get 16 shots per game consistently now, your honestly trying to sell this trade by saying 'if we keep bogut getting 13-16 shots'? So we've got Randolph shooting 15 times per game, Redd 20, Mo 15, Yi 10 and that leaves how many for Bogut? Of course it won't hold up his progress.

Well, like I said, if we brought it Zach, and he and Bogut still got 15 shots per game, the only players that get less shots are Mo and Redd, which can be argued is a GOOD thing. Maybe let them focus on playing a role on offense (feeding the paint, passing in general) and worry about defense.

paul · Post #19 » by **paul** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:34 am

Simulack wrote:Knicks are averaging nearly 100 points during that stretch which is way above their season average of 94.5. At least during this stretch, his number aren't coming at the expense of the teams overall point production.

-= original quote snipped =-

So are the guys he is being traded for. At least he is a great rebounder and much better offensively.

CV: no defense, supposedly asked to be traded, attitude/effort questions since declaring for the draft initially as a high schooler then at UConn
Simmons: massive contract, mediocre defender, supposedly unhappy that he wasn't starting, off-court problems
Gadz: massive contract, no basketball skills

Put your criticisms of Randolph in the context of the guys you are trading for him.

Let's be clear about this, I'm not saying don't make a trade, but why is it that we have to settle for a guy who brings back as many problems, if not more, than he takes away? I'm not saying don't trade, I'm saying don't under any circumstances settle for Zach Randolph.

paul · Post #20 » by **paul** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:37 am

DH34Phan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Well, like I said, if we brought it Zach, and he and Bogut still got 15 shots per game, the only players that get less shots are Mo and Redd, which can be argued is a GOOD thing. Maybe let them focus on playing a role on offense (feeding the paint, passing in general) and worry about defense.

So by adding 15 extra shots to the low post that Bogut isn't taking, he's still going to get his 15 from there as well? We're going to get 30 shots night in night out from the low post, whilst still having two chucking guards as our starting backcourt?