What's the deal with Zack Randolph?

basketballwacko2 · Post #1 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 4:59 pm

Ok I'm normally up on the news and can remember most of the stupid things some of these guys do and have done. But I can't seem to remember exactly what it is Zack has done to get himself such a bad rep. Seems like I remember something about him driving fast and having pot on him? And I think there was some other stuff, someone clue me in on the Zack problem. I know the Knicks are looking to dump him. There's been a lot of speculation kicked around and some have said he might do well with the Pacers since he played his HS ball up in Marion. Does anyone here think he'd work out as a Pacer? Could he play in O'Briens system? Could he stay out of trouble? What if we could move Murphy and/or Tinsley in a deal. Something like Murphy, JO and JT for Randolph, Marbury, Lee and the #6 pick.

Is Randolph so Toxic that he makes JT look like Lemonaide? Would it be worth it to take a chance on him to save some money and get the #6 pick that might be Eric Gordon? And save this team about $20 million in 2009-10? :dontknow:

Post #2 » by **count55** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 5:24 pm

I can't speak specifically about his off-court stuff. It seems to me that it's been a combination of just dumb stuff and "run with bad crowd" type of stuff.

What worries me more are the rumblings I've heard about him just being an awful teammate. It seems to me that he had the rep of a me-first stat guy. Didn't get that in NY, but that may have been because basically all of those guys were.

You might post this same question on the Portland board...maybe NY, too, but I bet Portland would give a good perspective because their experience with a franchise they loved so much was frighteningly similar to what we've gone through recently.

Post #3 » by **APerna** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 5:27 pm

I recommend going to Portland first, then the New York board.

I could be completely wrong, but I'd also be hesitant about him as a Pacer because of his home roots. The more unscrupulous characters around him, the more likely guys like him are to get in trouble.

basketballwacko2 · Post #4 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:12 pm

So you guys are saying that the risk of Zack's negatives is greater than the 2009-10 savings and the #6 pick if a deal like the one I laid out was available, not that it is but who knows?

Post #5 » by **count55** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:52 pm

Well, if we got out from under JT & Murphy, then it'd probably be worth the risk, but I really don't see New York (particularly with Donnie) basically re-building the Pacers in MSG and giving up that kind of cap flexibility.

I think that having Randolph here would be a negative from both an on-court and a fan-relation perspective, but, in the deal you proposed, clearing tons of debt could help the long-term financial viability of the organization.

Post #6 » by **APerna** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 7:10 pm

Count hit it on the head. There's no way we can bite the bullet on Randolph and his contract without getting rid of some of our current bad deals...

basketballwacko2 · Post #7 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 7:33 pm

What I had in mind was a deal that would allow us to move JO, JT and Murph to them and get Marbury for his exp deal and take Randolph off their hands getting paid the #6 and maybe Lee for our trouble.

I agree I don't really see Donnie doing it, unless he has been told by his boss to move Zack at all cost. And then there's the risk of Zack doing some bad deed or having a meltdown, or just being a selfish jerk. Worst case is we'd give him one yr and if he didn't straighten up find a taker for him next summer when he is down to 2 yrs remaining.

cdash · Post #8 » by **cdash** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 8:49 pm

There are plenty of deals we can make that dont involve us taking on a questionable character guy. I say we explore those avenues before we utter names like "Zach Randolph".

Post #9 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 8:54 pm

basketballwacko2 wrote: Worst case is we'd give him one yr and if he didn't straighten up find a taker for him next summer when he is down to 2 yrs remaining.

Nah, the worst case scenario is that if he didn't play straight next year, we'd have to buy him out. Nobody was willing to take him on last year except Isiah Thomas, and that was mostly because all it cost him was HIS worst contract on the books in Steve Francis, and an exposed prospect in Channing Frye. This off-season, the Knicks are likely to try and GIVE Zach away much like they were trying to do so during the season, but no one is willing to take him on.

If he doesn't click in ANOTHER city next season, he's essentially burning up any chance of him playing anywhere in the NBA for a big money deal in the future.

basketballwacko2 · Post #10 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:29 pm

You know what I was doing was working on that idea that popped up the other day, that we'd pay the #11 pick to move JO for exp. contracts. I was thinking that Zack is a huge risk for any team so what would it take to get us to take him. Moving out 2 bad contracts and getting a high draft pick, is not enough when Zacks contract is just as bad as the two (Murph/JT) we give. I works out to be JT an Murph for Zack, Lee and #6. Then you add in Marbury for JO which is risky for both teams as Marbury is a bit of a headcase and a huge contract one year shorter than JO, so basically we save JO's final year about $23 million.

Looking at it that way it might not be enough for what we give up and the risks involved. Randolph makes as nearly as much as Murph and JT put together so we're getting "paid" the #6 and Lee to take Zack and his baggage, all we're getting out of JO is Marbury and the savings of 2009 salary, doesn't seem to be enough I like a little more than just Marbury for JO. Maybe if Zack had only 2 years remaining we could risk it? But prob. not for 3 and the big money he is owed. Maybe the Knicks kick in a pile of cash. Still might not be enough.

Post #11 » by **Charcoal Filtered** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:48 pm

There is no way the Pacers can say they are trying to clean the team up if they take Zach, no matter what is involved. In addition to being a stat stuffer while playing absolutely zero defense, the guy just does not get it off the court.

The Blazers got rid of him so that they could allow kids and wifes in the lockerroom without them being harrassed by his groupies known as the Hoop Family. Zach has not forgotten about his gang roots and is very proud of them. Feel free to look up all of the off the court problems he had in Portland. I have recited the list far too many times.

basketballwacko2 · Post #12 » by **basketballwacko2** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:58 am

Yeah I'm with you I've come to the conclusion that the Knicks can't pay enough to make it worth our while.

Post #13 » by **PR07** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:32 am

I'd rather have Eddy Curry, even if he is lazy.

Mr. Kite · Post #14 » by **Mr. Kite** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:51 am

I'd be surprised if NY would do that deal with Curry instead of Z-Bo. But that would be a great deal for Indiana if you can make it happen.

And don't forget to send thanks to Donnie Walsh.

Post #15 » by **Charcoal Filtered** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:01 pm

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/s ... 3042930300

Another Zach run in with the law, FYI.

Post #16 » by **Grang33r** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:29 pm

Charcoal Filtered wrote:http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=121338293042930300

Another Zach run in with the law, FYI.

This guy is unbelievable. Well we may as well end this thread, no way we'd even consider him.

joew8302 · Post #17 » by **joew8302** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:56 pm

Zach Randolph having a run in with the law is about as shocking as waking up and noticing my front lawn is the color green.