Remind me what we got for Zach Randolph.

I agree. I think people are implicitly using a false dichotomy: either Randolph is a franchise player or else he's garbage. Is he a franchise player? No? Well, then, see, he's garbage!

Randolph is bad at a couple of important aspects of the game, creating for others and defense. He's good at a couple of important aspects of the game, scoring and rebounding. All in all, it makes him a productive front court player with poor defense. He's not going to the best player on a title-worthy team, but that's true of the vast majority of players. He's a perfectly good second or third guy. You need to have other players on the team who make up for his deficiencies, which is why he's not a franchise player. That doesn't make him valueless.

If you didn't want him on the team because you didn't like him as a person, and that's one of the major things that's important to you in rooting for a team, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to place importance on whatever they want. I've yet to see a compelling argument that he's not a useful player, though. And what the players do on the court is all that's important to me when it comes to rooting for a team.

 

Why can't we set up the same false dichotomy for Zach that people set up for LMA? Let's judge them both by the same (horribly unfair) rules! LMA can't be a "first option" therefore he can't be a second option? Remember that bullshit? That's what drives threads like "Why didn't we keep Zach?!" It's all bullshit.

LMA is a better all-round player than Zach. Yet people here are ready to give up on LMA because he can't be the "Backup First Option" on a championship team. It's ALL bullshit, from both angles!

 

I really question whether Zach would have been the same player he is today if he a) doesn't get traded three times in 2 years for nothing, and b) is coming off the bench behind Aldridge and Oden, and goes from being a cornerstone of the franchise to, after the hype of Roy and Aldridge and then adding Oden, completely forgotten about.

 

I don't use that for Aldridge, either. So I agree with you...it's bullshit in both cases. Some people are doing it with Aldridge..and did it with Randolph...and did it with Sheed. Each of those two players was dealt away for a lot less than they were worth on the court, IMO.

The difference is that Aldridge is more likeable...but even that may not save him, because as much as people talk about wanting character, perceptions of character tend change somewhat with on-court success. I remember last year when Aldridge was struggling, people accusing him of being aloof, not caring, etc.

Let's remember one thing: Randolph used to be a huge fan favourite. In his first few seasons, when he was not the #1 guy and playing either off the bench or alongside Sheed, fans loved Randolph for his nose for the ball and uncanny ability to get the ball in the hoop despite seeming to have a big size disadvantage inside. He was even compared to Charles Barkley by a number of Portland fans. Then he got a huge contract, got injured, came back at lesser effectiveness after his micro-fracture surgery and sentiment about him turned sharply. Does Randolph bear any responsibility for that turn in perception? Absolutely...he did some stupid things. But I'm pretty certain that had he never become overpaid and forced to be the best player on a horrible team (and thus, forced to take ALL the blame for the shitty talent of that team) and limited by recovery from injury, sentiment wouldn't have turned as sharply as it did.

In any case...Aldridge probably will never be on a team as devoid of talent as that. He is overpaid now, though. He's failing to fulfill fans' expectations of his "true talent" level. He has a personality that can be painted poorly if one wants. He probably won't do the silly things Sheed and Randolph did, though, so hopefully that's enough to prevent him from being ridden out on a rail.

 

That's ridiculous.

It's also silly to assume that those of us that wanted this particular player out of there "Need good guys to root for a team."

It's not either or. There's a million different layers to every story and fan and situation.

It was time to start over. Terrible person and a selfish player in a time when we were trying to build from the ground up and get away from both of these things.

Like the other chap said. 3 teams told him to get fucked. And none of them were exactly smashing teams when they did.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's ridiculous.

I didn't assume that. I said if that describes you, I can understand that.

 

I want to go on record as saying I think we ruined Zach Randolph's career. Not from a financial perspective, but from a basketball one. For a period of three years he was arguably the only legitimate NBA starter on this team. We turned a guy who could have been a rich man's Paul Millsap into Stat-Bo simply because we needed someone to score. Everyone bitched about Rasheed not living up to his contract; Zach has a thimbleful of Sheed's talent, but worked his ass off to try to carry this team. Mo needed him to score, so he let his shit defense go. Zach has quick hands, long arms, a wide body and moves his feet well. There's no reason he couldn't have been made a very good defensive player.

In an ideal world, he should have been an elite double-double garbageman, either off the bench or starting; a third or fourth option. If he would have had that role with us, he would have concentrated on defense, rather than saving all his energy for offense. We didn't focus on his all around game because we needed him to score.

I loved the Zach Randolph we saw in the 2003 POR/DAL series. THAT's the player we should have turned him into instead of Antoine Walker. The off-court stuff was on him. After we ruined his game, we had no choice but to trade him. Zach wasn't going to change for Sarge.

 

I pretty much agree with you entirely. Pushed into the lead role, he couldn't cope, because his game didn't lend itself to that role. I don't think he's a selfish basketball personality...but he was paid as a franchise player and told to be one, by the team and by fans. And so he tried to mold himself into a dominant basketball personality. If you have the ability of a superstar, no one considers that attitude selfish. If you don't, then you are considered selfish. But the role is what was asked of him, not something he tried to forcibly take.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, though, that he had to be traded in the end. He was under contract, he didn't have a lot of choices. If he couldn't adapt back to his old game as a starter, the team could have brought him off the bench. There's been no time since he was traded that the team's bench was so good that Randolph, even in lead dog mentality, wouldn't have improved it. Even as flawed as he is, his scoring and rebounding would have been tremendously useful when the team's best players were resting. And players like Przybilla, Oden and Camby would have helped cover for his defensive issues.

 

SEMANTICS WAR!!!!!!!

Glad you're the kind of guy that would cheer for a racist, rapist as long as your team is winning.

 

I do agree that, if Zach had been a rookie at the same time as LMA and Roy, he'd be 6th Man of the Year and we'd be way up on this series against Phoenix. Though, Zach couldn't pass out of a double-team either so maybe not... But anyway, by the time our new team arrived, he'd poisoned the well off the court, and had grown to like scoring a ton of points and being The Man. I gotta agree that this wasn't his fault. Just bad timing, I guess.

 

Fuck Zbo. Why don't you come back and see how he is doing in a non contract year? Did he play well last year? Nope. The year before? Nope. Amazing how a contract year comes up, and he has a career year.

 

Contract Year = Expiring the next.

ZREC could have been HUGE!

 

3 really bad teams have told him to do one.

That should tell you all you need to know.

 

How so? I didn't assume anything, I said that I understand a certain outlook, the character-based one. If that doesn't describe you, it doesn't apply to you.

Yup. I'm not choosing friends or personal acquaintances when I root for a team. Who they are as people is a matter for themselves, their friends and family and, if need be, the police. My only connection to them is watching them play basketball.

 

So this is a semantics war then. From now on you have to claim it's a semantics war from the start.

You saw what happened when 1 or 2 dickheads poisoned a room. It went cancer and it almost destroyed the franchise.

It was time to start over. The guy couldn't stay out of trouble and we had a roster full of young kids who didn't need to be brought up in that environment.

You people don't actually want Z. You just want his numbers in a vacuum tomorrow night in the Rose Garden.

That's not how it works.

Bad characters bring unnecessary distractions to a team. I thought most of us learned our lesson...

 

The lessons learned are short lived. When those who hate Aldridge and want him gone get his replacement, it'll be a year until they pine for Aldridge again.

 

Good point.

 

No, you were just wrong about me saying that everyone who wanted Randolph gone "wanted to root for nice guys." I didn't say that or think that. Simply clarifying that for you. That's all. You incorrectly reading what I said isn't the same as a semantic war. There's a significant logical difference between what I said and what you claimed I said.

They weren't kids, though. I know fans enjoy calling young players "kids," but they're adults and not nearly as impressionable as fans imagine, in my opinion. If you feel that Roy, Aldridge and others were just lumps of clay to be molded by Randolph, then I see why you wanted him gone. I don't think that that was remotely true, though.

 

You can call it what you want, but the results show that Portland got the better of that deal.