Clippers-Knicks

howiezbt · Post #1 » by **howiezbt** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:42 pm

I really think that Brand is going to opt out of his deal this summer, so how about the Clippers trade Brand to the Knicks for Zack Randolph. It clears up the big mistake for the Knicks and starts a change there. The Clippers actually get value for Brand before he leaves.

If the Clips feel they can get Brand back on a long term deal, then no way this happens.

Also, Brand probably just sits out this season and rehabs.

supertruck97 · Post #2 » by **supertruck97** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:51 pm

Clips might lose Brand so they should take Zach and his terrible contract, poor conditioning, and cancerous attitude instead???

livingston2kaman · Post #3 » by **livingston2kaman** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:27 pm

I LOL'd.

DanTown8587 · Post #4 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:00 pm

Zach Randolph and Stephon Marbury are the same players, they both can get 17-20 ppg that doesn't help you win, 7 RPG that don't help you on the glass and 7APG that dont make your teammates better.

Post #5 » by **moocow007** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:08 pm

supertruck97 wrote:Clips might lose Brand so they should take Zach and his terrible contract, poor conditioning, and cancerous attitude instead???

Randolph is no Brand and he's got issue but conditioning hasn't been one of them. Randolph is widely acknowledged as an extremely hard worker on and off the court but just is a selfish knucklehead. Why does he have poor conditioning? Because he looks rolly polly-ish? Does that mean Brand is also poorly conditioned?

#1knickfan · Post #6 » by **#1knickfan** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:22 pm

supertruck97 wrote:Clips might lose Brand so they should take Zach and his terrible contract, poor conditioning, and cancerous attitude instead???

Randolph

supertruck97 · Post #7 » by **supertruck97** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:38 pm

Zach on the season:

51 Ast
22 Stls
4 Blks
TOTAL Good: 77

TurnOvers: 88

All the points and Rebounds mean nothing if he's throwing the ball away more often than he is contributing in other areas.

Zach puts up HOLLOW numbers on BAD teams and is a turnstyle on Defense. Brand is a beast both offensively and defensively.

The Pts and Reb may be close for comparison, but the rest simply aren't.

supertruck97 · Post #8 » by **supertruck97** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:40 pm

BTW, I think the most telling number there is the blocks. 4! 4 Blocks in nearly half a season for a guy who is 6'9" and plays 30 + MPG. That's downright pathetic.

Oh, and I couldn't care less about the Knicks. My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that he plays for NY and everything to do with the fact that he's a terrible player on a long, bloated contract.

howiezbt · Post #9 » by **howiezbt** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:47 pm

supertruck97 wrote:Zach on the season:

51 Ast
22 Stls
4 Blks
TOTAL Good: 77

TurnOvers: 88

All the points and Rebounds mean nothing if he's throwing the ball away more often than he is contributing in other areas.

Zach puts up HOLLOW numbers on BAD teams and is a turnstyle on Defense. Brand is a beast both offensively and defensively.

The Pts and Reb may be close for comparison, but the rest simply aren't.

No question Brand is better. This is more of if you are going to lose Brand anyway, might as well get some value.

If you think Randolph has negative value, then that is your opinion. I think he could thrive with the right people around him.

supertruck97 · Post #10 » by **supertruck97** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 8:55 pm

How about this:

Zach was traded for Channing Frye and the right to pay Francis $30 Mil to NOT play.

He has done NOTHING to increase his value to that of Brand. As far as I am concerned, yes, he has negative value.

Post #11 » by **nate33** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 9:02 pm

supertruck97 wrote:How about this:

Zach was traded for Channing Frye and the right to pay Francis $30 Mil to NOT play.

He has done NOTHING to increase his value to that of Brand. As far as I am concerned, yes, he has negative value.

/thread

#1knickfan · Post #12 » by **#1knickfan** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 10:11 pm

supertruck97 wrote:Zach on the season:

51 Ast
22 Stls
4 Blks
TOTAL Good: 77

TurnOvers: 88

All the points and Rebounds mean nothing if he's throwing the ball away more often than he is contributing in other areas.

Zach puts up HOLLOW numbers on BAD teams and is a turnstyle on Defense. Brand is a beast both offensively and defensively.

The Pts and Reb may be close for comparison, but the rest simply aren't.

Brand on the season:

0 Ast
0 Stls
0 Blks
TOTAL Good:0

TurnOvers: 0

On top of that he is recovering from an injury that will keep him out of most if not the entire season.

#1knickfan · Post #13 » by **#1knickfan** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 10:13 pm

supertruck97 wrote:How about this:

Zach was traded for Channing Frye and the right to pay Francis $30 Mil to NOT play.

He has done NOTHING to increase his value to that of Brand. As far as I am concerned, yes, he has negative value.

How about this:

Zach was traded for at least $30 million dollars in cap savings, a decent and a cheap young big man in order to ensure Aldridge and Oden (b4 the injury was discovered) COULD play.

He has done NOTHING to decrease his value and yes as far as I am concerned he has value.

Post #14 » by **moocow007** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 10:39 pm

supertruck97 wrote:Zach on the season:

51 Ast
22 Stls
4 Blks
TOTAL Good: 77

TurnOvers: 88

All the points and Rebounds mean nothing if he's throwing the ball away more often than he is contributing in other areas.

Zach puts up HOLLOW numbers on BAD teams and is a turnstyle on Defense. Brand is a beast both offensively and defensively.

The Pts and Reb may be close for comparison, but the rest simply aren't.

Thank you for being more specific and too the point with this post than the generalizations in the previous one.