Jefferson, #17 for Randolph, Dickau, 2nd rounder. Now there aren't any official rumors or anything like that, but I have seen this trade idea in a couple of Blazers and Nets forums. If we do decide to trade Jefferson, then perhaps this isn't such a bad offer. My only beef is the fact that we would give up our first rounder, and just thinking about that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Could we possibly find a better deal than one that includes us getting Randolph for Jefferson?
No. If we don't give the draft pick, I'd consider it, but no way should we give up the 17th pick for Randolph. If you think about it, it'd be like giving up Jefferson and a shot at Crittenton, McRoberts, Acie Law and maybe even Thaddeus Young, Julian Wright for Randolph and garbage. It's too much. Zach is a really disgusting human being after reading all his past history with the law. I don't really think he warrants all that much in trades.
<div class="quote_poster">nextlevelgame Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No. If we don't give the draft pick, I'd consider it, but no way should we give up the 17th pick for Randolph. If you think about it, it'd be like giving up Jefferson and a shot at Crittenton, McRoberts, Acie Law and maybe even Thaddeus Young, Julian Wright for Randolph and garbage. It's too much. Zach is a really disgusting human being after reading all his past history with the law. I don't really think he warrants all that much in trades.</div> Wait a minute, a disgusting human being? He's just a product of his environment, but he has a good heart. It's one thing to be a rich kid who finds himself invovled with guns and whatnot, but Randolph grew up in Gary, Indiana and doesn't have much in the way of formal education. Granted he's immature and has shown bad judgement, I don't think it's right to condemn him for his past mistakes to the point that you think he's a disgusting human being. If the Nets are not looking to destroy their current nucleus, then this would be a move that would be a real improvement for them in the short-term. Maybe Crittenton will be a hell of a player three years from now, but he wouldn't see the light of day until Kidd retired. Randolph will step right in and give the Nets the presence on the glass they sorely need.
It's not just the gun possession. I don't really combat that cause that's on the Bill of rights. I'm talking about Rape.
<div class="quote_poster">nextlevelgame Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's not just the gun possession. I don't really combat that cause that's on the Bill of rights. I'm talking about Rape. </div> He was a witness, not a suspect. His name just got dragged through the mud because of his reputation. At the end of the day, he never raped anyone.
His personal problems aside, Zach Randolph would finally give this team a sense of direction, IMO. He's exactly what the team needs, if they really do intend to win with Jason Kidd and Vince Carter. He's an excellent rebounder and inside scorer. Couple that with their already good guards and suddenly the Nets have one of the better starting lineups in the East.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">He was a witness, not a suspect. His name just got dragged through the mud because of his reputation. At the end of the day, he never raped anyone.</div> According to the police report, he forced himself onto the woman after she performed a sexual act for his friend. He tried to go 'backdoor'. While no evidence of force entry was found, the fact that he was to pay them to simulate sexual acts is enough for me to believe it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If the Nets are not looking to destroy their current nucleus, then this would be a move that would be a real improvement for them in the short-term. Maybe Crittenton will be a hell of a player three years from now, but he wouldn't see the light of day until Kidd retired. Randolph will step right in and give the Nets the presence on the glass they sorely need.</div> This doesn't even matter. Having Zach does not guarantee us to get past the Bulls, Cavs, or even the Heat. Why throw away a good piece plus a potential good piece for one guy? Three years from now, we look back at this trade, see that we gave up two very valuable players for a guy that didn't get us past the ECF. End of the day, that's not worth it.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">His personal problems aside, Zach Randolph would finally give this team a sense of direction, IMO. He's exactly what the team needs, if they really do intend to win with Jason Kidd and Vince Carter. He's an excellent rebounder and inside scorer. Couple that with their already good guards and suddenly the Nets have one of the better starting lineups in the East.</div> I agree completely. Randolph is our missing piece of the puzzle and we need a guy like him on this team to take us to the next level. I don't like giving up a first round pick either in this deep draft, but if Thorn wants to "win now" this would be the right thing to do rather than draft and big man and wait for him to get better when Kidd and Carter are getting older.
I would agree to this trade if I were the Nets. Sure, we toss away a first rounder, but is there really one guy who we can draft this year that you can look at and say ,"Wow, that guy is going to help us out FOR SURE"? McRoberts has question marks all over him, Crittenton and Law may not even be as good as Marcus Williams in a few years, etc. Would one of those guys change this team THAT much? Randolph is extremely underrated IMO and is one of the better power forwards in this league (25 and 10 averages). He really can change this team for the better. As for parting with RJ, well, he's been very good for the team, but a chance at getting an all-star caliber big man for him and a draft pick is too good to pass up. IMO, draft picks have become overappreciated. People forget that even if you draft a huge talent, he probably (with a few exceptions, of course, who usually go pick 1-7) won't be a big factor on your team for his first 1-3 years (especially on a rather deep team like the Nets). Look at our starting lineup if we get Randolph: Jason Kidd Vince Carter (who will DEFINENTLY be resigned if this trade goes through) Boki Nachbar (who has proven to be starter material) Zach Randolph Nenad Krstic With Williams, Boone, Adams, Blatche (if we manage to sign him) and Wright forming a more than exciting young core on the bench and veteran help from Collins, Moore, Cliff (if he stays) and a new player or two who we can sign in the offseason. If that's not a ECF contending lineup, I don't know what is. That lineup can match up with Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit (who are falling apart rapidly), Miami and even Chicago. The one thing we were missing against Cleveland was a big man who we could give the ball in the post to score, who could get Cleveland's big men in foul trouble, and who could grab those incredibly-important rebounds. If we had this lineup with a healthy Krstic in the playoffs, I guarantee we would make the conference finals and probably beat Detroit as well. When you have arguably the best PG in the league, a top 10 shooting guard and a top 10 big man with a sharpshooting SF and a top 10 center in you starting lineup to go along with a very good bench, you have yourself a very good team. We can't keep losing in the 1st/2nd round every year, pick up solid players in the draft and hope for the best. Kidd and Carter are aging quickly and we have at MOST a 2 season window for reaching the finals with them as our core. We either break up the Big Three, get a good big man (Randolph, Jermaine O'Neal, Garnett) and go for the title, or start rebuilding, trade Kidd and let Carter go. Right now, we're stuck in between, and a decision has to be made. If Thorn wants to win now like he says he does, DO THIS TRADE or a similiar one.
Zach Randolph is one of the poorest defenders I've seen. Not only that, his "post offense" really is a set of jumpers, and last year he added shooting the three, which he's horrible at. As a power forward he shoots 47%, which is not very good. Granted this may go up playing with Kidd, but to me it seems like he's another perimeter shooter masquerading as a power forward. They say Elton Brand is not a great winner, but he's still light years ahead of Zach and there is reason why Zach cannot win. Richard Jefferson and a first rounder, on the other hand, still has more value. I'll agree for RJ for Zach straight up, but asking for a first rounder in one of the deeper drafts of this decade? Please, no thank you. I don't care if Crittenton, Young, Wright, McRoberts takes time to develop, at the end of the next two years I don't want to look back at this trade and shake my head. A lot of you don't seem to realize that Zach doesn't bring us any further than we already been. We're still going to be worse than Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Miami. We're about the same level as the Wizards. I'm sorry, but RJ and our future is not worth that. If we're going to trade RJ it should be a big move that puts us over the top. RJ, Marcus, Nenad, 1st rounder, for KG or Elton Brand type player. Zach Randolph? Forget about it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">top 10 big man</div> Big Men better (in no order): Tim Duncan Kevin Garnett Amare Stoudemire Yao Ming Shaq Dwight Howard Dirk Nowitzki Elton Brand Carlos Boozer Pau Gasol Chris Bosh This doesn't even include guys like Al Jefferson, Emeka Okafor, Marcus Camby and maybe even Ben Wallace who, when push came to shove, I'd take over him.
Fine, if you want to be that specific, he's a top 13 big man in the league. I wouldn't take Big Ben or Okafor over him, and maybe not even Jefferson (we're talking about the present, not the future). If you've ever watched him play, you'll know Zach is a post player with a jumper, not a jumpshooting big man. He has good footwork in the post, he has an arsenal of pump fakes and he can also drive to the rim. Plus, he'll really help us on the boards (10 rpg). Sure, he isn't a good defender, and a sub-par passer out of the post, too. But you can't say that he won't help this team next season more than Richard Jefferson and a rookie. Trading away a 1st round pick is not trading away the team's future. It's ONE player, and it's not like any of the guys who'll be left on the board by the 17th pick will be able to lead the Nets to a title in the future or anything. Losing a 17th pick in any draft, especially one this deep, is a blow, but it doesn't affect the team as much as many people believe. Looking back at the Nets' draft history since 2000, only Kenyon Martin (who was a #1 overall pick), Jefferson (who the Nets traded Eddie Griffin for) and Nenad Krstic have really helped this team out. And as a first overall pick, Martin was EXPECTED TO HELP LEAD THE TEAM. Anything less than near-all star status/great numbers/leading the team is considered dissapointing for a pick that high. Krstic was a lucky pick (can you count the number of euro big men who were picked in the last decade and didn't turn out to be busts? The answer: very few). The other 1st round picks are Planinic (#22, out of the league), Khryapa (#22, traded to the Blazers and has done nothing), Wright (#15, done nothing so far expect good defense in this year's playoffs) and this year's crop (Boone and Williams) who I can't fairly rank yet. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that a 17th overall pick doesn't usually affect a team THAT much. Obviously, getting KG for the trade you mentioned above is better for the present. But aren't you trading away your "future" right there too? Your future center (Krstic), point guard (Williams) and the "oh so precious" 1st rounder. Is that what you want? "Ruining" the future without the promise that a lineup of Kidd, KG, Carter, Moore and Nachbar with a weak bench will get you a title in the next two seasons? I prefer keeping Krstic and Williams and trading "just" Jefferson and #17 for a 23 and 10 , 26 year old big man with an 18 foot jumper, good post moves and a knack for grabbing rebounds than Jefferson, #17, our future point guard and a great, young center for a 31 year old big man who can score about as much as Randolph, is slightly better than him at rebouding and gives better defense than him. I have nothing against KG (in fact he's my fav. player), and I would be happy to see him in a Nets jersey, but if the oppurtunity arises to trade for a younger guy who can rebound and score on the same level as Garnett and who can be attained+a player+a 2nd round pick for just one player and one draft pick rather than 3 players and a draft pick for Garnett, I think that's just the better option for the Nets. Why do you think Randolph is a loser? Because he's been stuck on a terrible team for his whole career? You can say the same about both Brand and Garnett. Why ignore that fact when you propose to trade for them instead? You said there's a reason Randolph can't win. You're right: his team sucks. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A lot of you don't seem to realize that Zach doesn't bring us any further than we already been. We're still going to be worse than Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Miami. We're about the same level as the Wizards. I'm sorry, but RJ and our future is not worth that.</div> With Randolph, we'd be better than Miami (who are falling apart), Cleveland (who we would've beaten or at least taken to 7 games with Randolph instead of Jefferson) and on the same level as Detroit and Chicago, who aren't that amazing themselves. Washington wouldn't even touch us. They are on our level WITHOUT Randloph, not with him. Oh, and BTW, one #17 pick isn't "our future". On the other hand, that same pick, Marcus Williams and Krstic is a big chunk of it, but you don't mind losing that, do you?
<div class="quote_poster">kobimel Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> He has good footwork in the post, he has an arsenal of pump fakes and he can also drive to the rim. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> That's not enough for Jefferson and a first round pick. Zach shot 48 3s in under 70 games this year. Know what percentage he shot? Just above 20%. Guy is a jump shooter. If you look at his hot zones it's mostly from midrange than close. Guy is a shooter. He was a post player in college and when he first entered the league but since then he's been a jump shooter. He's Jermaine O'Neal without the defense.
1. Zach Randolph is more of a rebouding threat than Richard Jefferson. You can't just look at RJ's 7 rpg average and Zach's 10 rpg average and say that the difference between them on the boards is minimal because of their averages. You can say the same about Kidd and Randolph (Kidd averages 7 rpg too). Who would you rather have as your best rebounder? KG would be better than Randolph on the boards, as well. But they're both big men, and rebounding is their job, so it's not the same as comparing Randolph to RJ (whose job doesn't include rebouding that much). Oh, and if you had watched, say, the end of Game 1 against Cleveland, you'd see that the rebounds had a VERY big influence on the game. Very big. 2. Zach shoots threes. He misses threes (a lot, too). Nobody is saying he's perfect offensively. But he is a threat in the post, whether you admit it or not. Believe me, if Frank wants Randolph getting balls in the post for a back to the basket iso play, Randolph will do the job very well. The fact that he has a mid-range shot is just a plus to his offensive game. It doesn't mean that he's JUST a jumpshooter. 3. There have been worse teams to reach the NBA Finals than a trio of Kidd, Carter and Randolph with two excellent role players and a strong bench. I'm not saying that a team like that will definently win the championship, but will probably give a decent fight at the least. Obviously, a team with Garnett will be a better contender despite a weaker bench and a weaker future. But that's not a title team for sure either. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we can make the Finals with Randolph and with KG. But it's not a sure championship with either one of them, since the Suns, Mavs and Spurs are all better than any of the teams the Nets can assemble right now. The Nets will need luck with Randolph, and they'll need luck with Garnett. At the end of the day, you can get swept with Randolph or lose in 6 games with Garnett in the Finals, but whether you're out in 4 or out in 6 doesn't matter because you didn't win a championship. Obviously, the chances of reaching the Finals with Garnett are higher than the chances of reaching them with Randolph. But IMO, you can reach them with either. So if you get Randolph and things don't work out in the next 2 seasons, he can be a big part of your future lineup as he's still young and you also have Williams and Krstic. But if you get KG and things don't work out, you're basically screwed with three 33+ year old guys whose contracts you need to dump, and no future (since you traded it for Garnett). 4. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One last time, we trade "our future" if it's going to make us head and shoulders better. Trading for Zach Randolph makes us marginally better, not amazingly better. No one will look at our team and be "wow this is a finals contending team," as much as "they're better, but not great and they gave too many parts up." </div> As I've said, one 17th pick in one draft isn't "our future". So if you're trading for Randolph, you aren't trading "our future" you're trading "a small part of our future". Williams and Krstic are a much bigger part of our future than one mid-round pick. Trading them without knowing for sure that we'll definently be able to win a title isn't worth it. 5. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Randolph being stuck on terrible teams? He's had nothing but the best coaches in the NBA and talented teammates since he came into the league. Nate McMillian, Mauricie Cheeks, Dunleavy coupled with Scottie Pippen, Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudemire, Bonzi Wells, Rueben Patterson, etc. What NBA do you watch?</div> For the last four season, the Blazers have been bad-terrible(41-41 in 03-04, 27-55 in 04-05, 21-61 in 05-06, 32-50 in 06-07). The great Blazer era ended in 02-03. Randolph was a part of good Blazer teams in just his first 2 seasons in the league. After that, the players surrounding him got worse and worse. In 03-04: Pippen: gone. Sheed: traded. Stoudamire: washed up. Wells+Patterson: nut jobs. All gone by now, replaced by youngsters who need to grow a lot. Randolph can't lead a team with terrible players. Maybe he can't lead a team at all. So what? Look at the Clippers and Brand. Brand couldn't lead them to the playoffs. He needed Cassell, who's the team's REAL leader. Garnett needed Sprewell and Cassell in Minnesota to get somewhere. Look at him now. Bad players, no playoffs. Same as Randolph. Same as Gasol (did you see the Grizz this year?), and even same as Amare (pre-Nash). Dwight Howard can't lead the Magic to the playoffs alone. He needs help too. If you switched Randolph with Howard, Stoudamire, Bosh, Gasol, Brand, Camby, Okafor, Wallace, O'Neal, Boozer or Jefferson, they still wouldn't have made the playoffs or even gotten close IMO. Thing is, on the Nets Randolph wouldn't have to lead the team. He has Kidd at his side to do that. 6. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Like I said, you need to start understanding my points before you go mouthing off some arbitrary assumptions. I don't care who starts at the 2 and 5, Kidd, Carter, KG will win 50 games and challenge teams for the finals. Look who represented the East this year in the finals. The Cleveland Cavaliers. LeBron + scrubs. It's even sadder to think that even with Zach we won't be able to beat LeBron...but having a strong bench is not necessary to get into the finals. But having an overwhelming starting line is able to erase that. </div> Maybe you can reach the Finals without a great bench in the weak east, but in order to win a title, you need a deep team. It's a fact. You need great role players, no matter how many stars you have. The Lakers dynasty was built around Kobe and Shaq, but without guys like Robert Horry, Kendall Gill, Rick Fox, etc. they wouldn't have won 3 titles. The Spurs? Same. Pistons in 04? Heat in 06? Same, same, same. They all had at least two "superstars" who led the team, but they had great role players who were the real keys to their respective championships. If you want to win a title, you need a bench. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Having coached basketball recreationally, I've come to discover that building a winning team takes the right parts, not what's available.</div> There, you said it yourself. You need the right parts, and that means role players, not just stars. You can't just ignore that fact and say that with Garnett and no bench, we'll win the title. That's why I don't think we'll win a title, even with KG, and that's the main reason I don't want to give up some much for him. 7. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This is a very stupid comment. Cant you count the number of college players that were busts in the last decade? (The Answer: Very many). You can't just throw out a random generalization and expect that to be a point for you. It's like me saying "How many white lottery players have proven themselves?" The entire statement is egregious. Both the Suns and San Antonio coveted Krstic and we got him. It's not a lucky pick, it was a smart one.</div> You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying Krstic wasn't a smart pick. I was just saying that usually, gambling on an international big man doesn't work out. And Krstic did. So we did get a little lucky, whether you want to admit it or not. You need luck with unknown Europeans, no matter how well you know their skills. 9. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know how long you've bandwagoned with the Nets, but any Shaq-led team destroys us. Dwyane Wade has our number in the playoffs and fact remains that the only guy who can half-defend him is Jefferson. Not Carter, not Boki, not even Kidd. Without Jefferson, Wade is going off for 40 a game. Cleveland just made the playoffs and for anyone to think that Randolph can put us in contention with them as LeBron improves so much each year, is ridiculous. They're better than us. That's plain and simple. Same level as Detroit and Chicago? Granted Chicago hasn't won in New Jersey since 2001, but that's going to change very soon with the way they mature. Detroit, I just don't believe. They've had their playoff troubles, but so have we. In a seven game series, they beat us. </div> Say what you want, but I still believe the Nets with Randolph will be able to contend with anyone in the east. We'll be able to beat Cleveland, whether LeBron averages 25 ppg or 40 ppg. We'll be able to beat Washington, who you are overrating heavily. Remember, they're like the Nets this past season: Big 3 (Arenas, Butler, Jamison) with around the same level of bench support. That team won't be able to handle the Nets with Randolph. Miami are becoming a one man team. They're no longer considered a "Shaq-led" team. Wade can score 60 points if he wants, as long as the other players aren't factors (and most of them aren't), the Nets will win. They're like the Lakers of the east. As for Detroit and Chicago, it'll be tough, but there have to be some good teams in the east or else the league will really suck. The Nets will be able to beat both of 'em IMO. What I'm trying to say is that Garnett or Randolph, the Nets will probably be Eastern Conference contenders with an underdog chance at winning the title. Garnett is the more secure choice, and if he does help us reach the Finals, we'll have a SLIGHTLY better chance of winning the Finals with him and no bench than with Randolph and a bench. But if Garnett doesn't work out, as I've stressed before, we'll have no Plan B, no future. Randolph is the less secure choice, and if we reach the Finals with him we'll have a slightly worse chance at winning than with Garnett, but we'll still have a bench, a future and a chance at winning the title (small as it'll be).
I don't even get why I try to argue with you when you clearly have no understanding of anything I write. Furthermore, your ability to assume my position off of few lines without really them is incredible. How anyone can assume reading "trading our future" after I proposed a trade of "Marcus Williams, Richard Jefferson, Nenad Krstic, and the 17th pick for KG" as only "the 17th pick" is beyond me. It's clear as day by when I say "future" I meant all those people, not just the 17th pick. Either you start reading my posts fully or just stop replying all together. You're the type of person that'll read something, think it means something contradictory and then argue it, when it pertains nothing to what I wrote at all. Then you'll ignore the hypocrisy of your own writing. I never accused you of saying Krstic wasn't a smart pick. Only little voices in your head could've inferred that. I accused you of being biased. The good picks we did you called "lucky" cause they did not fill your criteria. It's like calling LeBron lucky in game 5 of the ECF. Give the management much deserved credit. Lastly, Kendall Gill never played for the Lakers' championship teams. Get your facts straight.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One last time, we trade "our future" if it's going to make us head and shoulders better. Trading for Zach Randolph makes us marginally better, not amazingly better.</div> There you go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, you don't want to trade "our future" for Zach Randonlph because it makes us only marginally better. You want to trade our future only if it improves us greatly. What I've been trying to say for a LONG time is that if you trade for Randonlph, you ARENT TRADING THE FUTURE, so the argument doesn't even apply to a trade for him. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Lastly, Kendall Gill never played for the Lakers' championship teams. Get your facts straight.</div> My bad, I remembered him being on the 99-00 team for some reason (he was on the Nets...). Anyway, that's beyond my point that without role players, you won't win a championship.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> There you go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, you don't want to trade "our future" for Zach Randonlph because it makes us only marginally better. You want to trade our future only if it improves us greatly. What I've been trying to say for a LONG time is that if you trade for Randonlph, you ARENT TRADING THE FUTURE, so the argument doesn't even apply to a trade for him. </div> I think you tried to equate KG and Zach Randolph in there. Now I'm just confused as to how bright you are. Regardless of that each draft pick is precious. You think the Knicks don't regret trading their draft pick? If the Hawks got the 4th or below you think they wouldn't regret that Joe Johnson trade? Granted those are future draft picks, but each one is useful. Cleveland is desperately trying to get a first rounder this year, even if it's 24. Indiana lost their draft pick to the Hawks. Every draft pick counts. When you have a draft that is as deep as this one, the 17th pick is good as a 12th or 11th pick in other years. That's lottery. I mean the prospect that Julian Wright can go outside the lottery tells you how deep this draft is. He's a top 3 talent, but might fall just because most teams are going to draft need based. What about Thaddeus Young--last year, next year he'd be lottery. This year? Probably won't be in it. So giving up Jefferson for Randolph, ok. But giving up Jefferson and possibly Julian Wright? Get out of here. Realistically Jefferson and McRoberts? Josh is a lot better than Boone. People on this board smack him mainly because they don't really watch college ball. For real. Guy will be solid in the future. I guarantee you if we make this trade and look back five years later, we'll regret it. Just like how Nets fan sulk about passing up the Camby for Jason Collins trade years back when Marcus sat out for two seasons. Randolph won't take us anywhere we haven't already gotten to or already close at. Will he get us to the Finals? No. Will he guarantee us ECF? Probably not if we have to face Detroit, Cleveland, or Chicago in the second round. Maybe we can sneak by the Cavs, but why gamble like that? Why gamble two players for one? Realistically, the trade should be Jefferson for Randolph straight up. They need a small forward on that team badly. They can't expect to get anything higher than market value.
