Remind me what we got for Zach Randolph.

Over-hyped doesn't make it imaginary.

Thanks for the proof. I'll hold on to my proof of succeessive 50 win seasons, and improvement since Zach has beeen gone. And the playoffs.

 

We traded a high-risk, high-reward player for three high-risk, high-reward players (in the end). That none of the three worked out sucks, but that's life.

 

Its imaginary because until we know what the market is like, we don't know how valuable it is. We were backed into Miller as a 2nd/3rd choice after being rebuffed by Hedo.

 

Who were the 3 high risk , hi reward players?

 

Not knowing the value doesn't make it imaginary. I find a diamond in a mine. I don't know how many carats it is, so I don't know the value. But it is there. It's not imaginary.
We had cap space. We didn't know who we could get for it, but it existed.

 

There was cap space but if we couldn't use it, its imaginary. Until it actually exists, it doesn't.

 

Do you think Pritchard took the 24th best offer or the best?

If he had any value around the league, he wouldn't have gone for nothing. If he was the magic ingredient, other teams would have given us at least a bag of basketballs on top of what we traded him for.

The whole point for us was to get rid of him. The whole point for everyone else in the league sans the New York Knicks was to NOT get him.

 

thats one way of looking at this past offseasons happenings... another would be that as the last team standing with above MLE level $$$, it's pretty likely that Miller lowered his asking price to our available money.

STOMP

 

trade was extremely rushed. no idea what the market could have been like in the years before he became a free agent. even if, having scoring and rebounding off the bench would be pretty sweet.

 

In some alternate universe, we drafted Zach and Outlaw this last year. They enter the league on a team with an established defensive work ethic and a clear #1 option. Outlaw spends years developing into a defensive shot blocker/rebounder type with the occasional three pointer, and Zach is our super-sub go-to scorer/rebounder off the bench. Because Zach is coming off the bench for 3 or so years, he never racks up the massive stats that garner him a franchise-level contract, and instead lives quite comfortably with a Paul Milsap-type deal. Zach still has an off-court transgression or two, but Roy, Nate and the other vets get him in line. This is a much nicer universe.

The way Randolph and Outlaw play now are directly related to how they were used in the piss-poor teams they played on in their formative years here. I try to keep that in mind when I think to myself that guys like Bayless and Batum should have longer leashes.

 

Channing Frye - had a great rookie year, was down on his luck when we picked him up. Could have possibly returned to form and been a great 6th man for us, or a starter if LMA bombed out.

James Jones - Streaky 3-point shooter, could have made himself essential as a Glen Rice figure.

(and why I said "in the end")

Rudy Fernandez - El Mago in Spain. Looked to be incredible, but with big-time risks (will he even come to the NBA?). This one is tenuous, obviously. So if you want to call it two players, that's fine.

 

of course it was rushed. KP announced Zach had worn out his welcome with the club and that interested teams should submit their best offer as he would be dealt shortly. Less then a week later he was traded. Pritchard stated that there'd been additional incidents that hadn't gone public and the trust between Zach and the club had reached a breaking point... they wanted him gonzo

STOMP

 

Oh dear...

So you hold onto a guy you feel is disruptive and not in your future plans, who has no value around the league, because he might have some in 2 years?

Yeah, OK.

 

Hmm, since Rudy wasn't here yet, I think that makes him an imaginary player.

 

ah yes, the imaginary incidents that no one can find anything about fabricated by Jason Quick. forgot about those.

 

bought for cash.

 

all-star Zach Randolph?

 

apparently they weren't imaginary to Blazer management they just chose not to specify what they were... why should they?

STOMP

 

did they actually state that? or was it reported by a 3rd party as such (i.e. Jason Quick speculation).

 

I recall statements... I generally avoid reading (let alone trusting) anything Quick writes, for obvious reasons

STOMP