The Honeymoon is Over!

by knickfan on Dec 1, 2007 11:24 PM PST Comment 16 comments

Here in Blazerland, it seems the jury has returned and returned its unanimous verdict on Portland's blockuster trade of Draft Day '07:

When judged purely from the standpoint of talent (and NOT its salary cap implications) the trade of Zach Randolph for Channing Frye has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster for the Blazers.

Now that Frye finds himself buried at the end of Portland's bench, with two consecutive DNP-CDs following a series of disspirited, mistake-prone outings, many a Blazer fan is wondering:

"Shouldn't KP have gotten something more for a bona-fide 20-10 player than this?"

Yes, Frye's play has been stunningly awful thus far. And, no - his subpar sophomore year notwithstanding - I don't think anyone could have realistically anticipated just how gawdawful it would be. In fact, shortly after the trade, I posted a diary proclaiming my belief that Frye was a very nice pickup for the Blazers.

Oh well; at least I can console myself with the knowledge that my evaluation of Frye's talent wasn't all that far off from Pritchard's.

Meanwhile, 3,000 miles to the east, Zach has picked up where he left off in Portland, averaging a very respectable 17.9 pts & 11.3 boards per game. Surely, Knick fans must still be doing cartwheels over the deal that allowed Z-Bo to prowl the floors of both Madison Square Garden and many of Gotham's finer gentlemen's clubs on a regular basis.

Umm, not so fast. It seems that despite his gaudy numbers, many of my fellow Knick fans apparently already have the same low regard for Randolph that the denizens of this site have developed for Frye. Just check out this comment thread on my favorite Knicks blog, Knickerblogger.net

Written shortly after the 50-point massacre at the hands of the Hated C*lt*cs (we Knickfans equivalent of the L*k*rs), most of the comments are predictably dripping with contempt for the team in general - and for Zach in particular.

Here are some of the highlights:

Top priority needs to be trading Randolph, so we can have cap (or trade) flexibility in the summer of 2010. The ridiculously self-proclaimed "Starbury," Curry, and Randolph are literally worthless inasmuch as the Knicks couldn't give them away for anything other than the required salaries back. Pawn off Randolph on anybody who will take him. "Pawn off Randolph on anybody who will take him."

We were the "anybody who will take him."

In short, my brethren back in NY have quickly come to the same conclusion that many of you here in Portland had reached one or two years ago. Namely, those 20 point and 10 rebound averages by Zach are nice but - they also come at the expense of offensive fluidity, salary cap flexibility and strip club security.

So count your blessings, Blazerfan. Consider this my belated Thanksgiving gift to all of you here at Blazer's Edge.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thank you for sharing knickfan

and, I'm sorry.

by drawingjeremy on Dec 2, 2007 1:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

haha

But without Zach we are all having trouble finding someone to blame for our often misserable play!

Besides Portland has the most 'gentlemans clubs' per square mile in the country, so I bet Zach is mighty bored these days.

What a sadly tragic romantic tale.

by Outlaw is Rejector on Dec 2, 2007 4:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Tragicomedy.

If memory serves, the Knicks' spin doc submitted: "The Knicks BOUNCE BACK and beat....the Milwaukie Bucks, 91-88. Not eaxctly considered a trouncing, in my book, even if the Bucks' record is slightly better than ours.

We're going to WIN...in RIP CITY! Well, the lights are bright! In the town tonight!

by patrickroy on Dec 2, 2007 5:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Zach who?

My condolences, man.

by sergioFTW on Dec 2, 2007 7:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Many Here Knew

that the celebration in NY for the Randolph trade would change to something sour when NY got familiar with zach's game. And the idea of randolph, curry, and marbury on the floor at the same time was easily seen as an impending debacle.

Zach helped portland as far as rebounding, but he took as much from the portland offense as he gave. So labeling the 'talent' aspect of the trade an "unmitigated disaster" is well off the mark.

However, in a technical sense, players aren't traded...their contracts are. So attempting to seperate that fundamental aspect of the trade and disregarding it doesn't fly. And it should be noted, that the addition of James Jones is an integral part of the trade. Furthermore, reports are that Phoenix wouldn't sell portland the draft pick without some extra incentive, so in a very real sense, Rudy Fernandez was also part of the return to portland on the trade.

And of course, the 30million+ difference between the randolph contract and the francis contract has to be factored in (perhaps pimarily in Paul Allen's mind). And finally, it's possibe the cap space in 2009 will yield a good addition as well.

Portland misses zach's rebounding this season, but only because of Oden's injury. Everything else about zach, the Knicks are welcome too. Enjoy his 61 million dollar, 4 year visit!

by moldorf on Dec 2, 2007 8:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I get that

in a technical sense, players aren't traded...their contracts are. So attempting to seperate that fundamental aspect of the trade and disregarding it doesn't fly

I realize that the minute Nash signed Zach to that max deal, his value in the eyes of most NBA GMs was downgraded to something akin to the proverbial "bag of dirty socks."

Such are the peculiarities of today's NBA, that a washed up stiff like Raef LaFrentz is considered a valuable commodity because he's in the waning years of a huge contract that can soon be taken off the books and converted into much coveted "cap space."

Yes, I understand all that and recognize that these were the Blazers' primary considerations in sending Zach to the Knicks. But to further argue that the trade was not an unmitigated disaster from a talent standpoint is - at this point in time - more than a wee bit Pollyannish.

Try and imagine that the players involved in the Randolph deal played in a schoolyard league in which none of the participants are paid. Or in the old Soviet Union in which all of the ballplayers were employees of the state earning a civil servant's wage. Basically, in any situation in which salary is not a consideration, Zach would have a far greater value than any of the players he was traded for.

I'm sorry, but a player that can reliably be counted on for roughly 20 points and 10 rebounds a game has more value than a package consisting of (1) a player averaging 6 pts and 4 rebs a game (Frye); (2) a mediocre journeyman with a mysterious knee ailment (Jones); and (3) a player who may never even suit up for your squad (Rudy F.)

Zach may not be a good fit for the Aldridge/Roy Blazers or the Curry/Marbury Knicks but believe me, there are plenty of teams that would happily avail themselves of his services (the Bulls come readily to mind) if he didn't come anchored to that albatross of a contract.

by knickfan on Dec 2, 2007 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Wouldn't the Bulls come to the same conclusion after playing with him for a few games? Their outside shooters would think:

"Neat, a low-post presence who can draw the double team and kick it out for an open shot...I'm open...I'm open...why is he jabstepping?...I'm open...oh, he is shooting... ok he made that one...I'm open...I'm open...ok he is jabstepping and holding the ball...I'm open...He missed that one... ok get back on D...wait, why was that guy open?...Oh, Zach is talking to the ref at the other end...wow, maybe I won't get any shots and now I have to work harder to cover his a** on defense???"

My theory is the only place he would really fit in is with a guy he respects that can put him in his place and a strong coach he respects that would do the same. Maybe LA with Kobe and Phil? Miami with Shaq and Riley? SA with Duncan and Pop?
Not that these teams would be able to pay him but if somehow it worked out.

by tssbro on Dec 2, 2007 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're still overrating Zach

While it's true that Frye has been a disappointment (so far), I feel you're still overrating Zach. Stats can be very misleading; there's a reason Zach was dubbed "Statbo."

For instance, at least three of Zach's rebounds per game are of his own misses. So amend that "20/10" number to 20/8. Then note that Zach's rebounding number is STILL inflated. That's because Zach (like Rodman late in his career) doesn't defend his man--let alone help out on penetration--so that he can always be in position to pad his rebound numbers. In other words, many of Zach's rebounds come at the cost of points scored for the opposition. Not a good tradeoff.

But how about Zach's offensive production? 20 ppg is an pretty impressive number, right? Well, not really, in that Zach hogs the ball, forces bad shots, surrenders turnovers, and reduces the productivity of his teammates. When Zach does pass the ball out of double teams, his passes lack crispness and timeliness. As a result, his teammate is often forced to pass the ball back to Zach, or--if there's no time for that--to force up a shot against the shot clock.

So does Zach have ANY value? Actually, he does. Zach has a nose for the ball and a knack for putting it in the hole. What he is is a great "garbage man" (ala Cedric Maxwell on the Larry Bird Celtics team). If you don't run plays for Zach and just let him grab offensive rebounds and score off putbacks, he's valuable. That's how he started out with the Blazers.

Unfortunately, they subsequently made Zach the focal point of the offense and paid him "franchise player" money. That was their mistake. Falling for the fool's gold of that 20/10 number and taking on that same egregious contract was the Knicks' mistake. If East coast basketball "experts" bothered to TiVo west coast games, they'd have known better.

by hurryup09 on Dec 2, 2007 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, no

I don't think I overrate Zach's talent level at all. Count me among the growing legions of Knick fans that have been less than underwhelmed by his contributions in blue and orange thus far.

Yes, he's a black hole on offense and non-existent on defense. But it was never my point to characterize Randolph as an All-Star. I merely began my diary with what seems to me an irrefutable observation - that judged strictly from a talent perspective, Z-Bo for Frye/Jones/Rudy is at this point in time lopsided in New York's favor.

Nor do I think I'm alone in this assessment. I'd venture to guess that it's shared by many of the regulars on this site, judging by the nature of some of the comments that I've read in this diary or this one.

by knickfan on Dec 2, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Zach

Agree. Zach gets a bit of a bad rap, given that great stats equal a great contract and a great contract equals high expectations. Zach is what he is and has a role somewhere. That role is not as a first option on a winning team.

So far, Channing Frye has been Zach minus the scoring and rebounding, so it's tough to say Portland got the better end from a purely TALENT standpoint.

by Engineering Problem on Dec 2, 2007 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

I don't think Zach DOES have a role somewhere--at least for the duration of his current contract. Zach would make a great "instant offense" role player coming off the bench. That's the role he originally played behind 'sheed, and he could have played the same role behind LMA. But no team can afford to pay that kind of money for a role player. That's why no one would touch him except for gullible Isiah.

As for Knickfans' statement that he DOESN'T overrate Zack from a strictly basketball aspect, I was going off of this statement: "...to further argue that the trade was not an unmitigated disaster from a talent standpoint is - at this point in time - more than a wee bit Pollyannish."

As I explained above, Zach's true contributions are extremely limited. Ultimately, he's best utilized as a "garbage man"--if a very good one. I'd argue that trading a garbage man for a soft but versatile 6-11 power forward (Frye), a pure shooting, good defending small forward (Jones), and arguably the best young player in the Spanish league (Fernandez) is no "unmitigated disaster"--even from a pure talent perspective. Keep in mind that some of Frye's struggles certainly stem from him being under pressure to perform--often out of postion--on a new team. Also, Jones has been sidelined by an injury that now appears to be healed. Finally, we haven't even seen Fernandez yet, but many feel he could be the next Ginobli.

So while I wish KP had gotten more for Zach, ultimately I think he got about what Zach was worth. There's a REASON that no one offered more. Add the value of unloading that huge contract and freeing up LMA and the rest of the team to develop minus the Black Hole, and the trade was rock-solid IMO.

by hurryup09 on Dec 2, 2007 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's funny

I think this whole comment thread makes an excellent case study in the unique psychology of online discourse.

I began by posting a diary whose essential point was that despite Channing Frye's awful play in Portland and Zach's usual gaudy stats in NY, Knick fans are not happy with the trade!

In the course of making this point, I began with the premise that the talent disparity in the trade greatly favored NY. If one was to judge simply by the two key players oncourt production up to this point, this seems a pretty non-controversial assertion. Yet, one of the commenters obejected to it, I took the bait, a spirited back and forth ensued, and soon the original point of the diary became obscured by a secondary dispute over Zach's talent or lack thereof.

The ironic thing is that the point of my original diary essentially concurs with the above post by hurryup'09 in which he states that the trade was a solid one for the Blazers. Of course, this point would not need to be made if Channing Frye's play had even attained the level of the mediocre. Nor would it need to be made if James Jones had been a prodcutive asset thus far, or if Rudy was a lock to jump to the NBA next year. Since none of those things have happened, the trade thus far (from a talent standpoint) looks like a swap between a 17 pt, 11 rebound forward who plays no "D" for a 6 pt, 4 reb. forward who plays no "D."

Of course, in three, six, or twelve months time the world may look back at this trade and see it as an absolute steal for the Blazers. But, judging by the numbers right now, it appears on the surface to be steal for the Knicks. But the problem for us Knick fans is that most of us don't see it as a steal at all.

by knickfan on Dec 2, 2007 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's no dispute

I just felt that you understated what a bad trade this was for the Knicks because you still hadn't grasped the full extent of Zach's drawbacks as a ballplayer. I realize we're basically on the same page. But at the risk of stirring things up again, I think you--and other Knicks fans--may still be experiencing a bit of denial about who Zach really is as a player.

As I put it above, he's "fools gold." I feel that, in general, stats are way over-valued in evaluating talent. What counts is to what extent a player helps you win games. I know it's hard to accept, but that 20/10 number is almost meaningless.

Then again, we Blazer fans may still be in some denial about Frye and Jones' limitations. No doubt they're both on the soft side. But we may end up concluding that they're downright squishy!

by hurryup09 on Dec 2, 2007 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

knickfan

I really enjoy your posts on here. Despite all the negative about Zach, he is really a great offensive talent. The guy can flat out score. On the right team, and with the right role, he could be awesome. Unfortunatly for you,that team is not the Knicks. And too bad for us Frye seems like a bust here.

by Clint on Dec 2, 2007 12:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

VAAAAT ?????

" Namely, those 20 point and 10 rebound
averages by Zach are nice but - they come at the expense of offensive fluidity, salary cap fluidity
and strip club security."
VAAAAT ? As Sabas would say. Why is this even a topic on BLAZERS EDGE ? All of the real
Blazers fans know Zach's strengths and weaknesses.
You are arguing that the talent is unequal and
in this case perhaps in your mind it is slanted
towards Zbo. I would argue that Zbo does have
talent, even tremendous talent. It's how he
chooses to use that talent that matters.
I will break it down for you like I did this
last summer.
Strengths:

Great shooting touch and handle for a 260lb PF.
Almost unstoppable scorer, even when doubled.
Good FT shooter for PF.
Good rebounder, Very good offensive rebounder ?
Never met a shot he wouldn't take.
Almost unlimited $ for strip clubbing, street

racing and dog fighting.
7. Hoops family a formidable crew for 3 am four
wheeler partying, collecting skanks and
witness intimo.
Weaknesses:
1. Great shooting touch and handles it too much
for a 260lb PF.
2. Will continue to TRY to score when doubled and
triple teamed.
3. Minimal vertical leap for rebounding and (Gulp)
defense.
4. Minimal defense. Can't guard his own man or
help on defense.
5. Argues with the referees several times a game
while everyone else running back on defense.
6. Plays Ole' defense. (Moving aside to help
offensive driver)
7. Horrible passer. Often waits to long to pass
out of double team. When we does choose to
pass, usually at shooters feet or TO.
8. Slows down offensive flow for team, while
dribbling, ... and dribbling, and ...
9. Among the league leaders in getting their shot
blocked, every year.
10. Not a leader in any way, except in # 6. See
strengths.

Hoops family. See # 7 under stregths.
Slow to run, slow to understand that character

matters !!!

I hope Blazer fans will understand that patience is the only remedy for this young team.
We have played one of the toughest schedules to
this date and these young guys have a long way
to GO. NBA teams do not turn around losing fortunes in one or two years, especially with
soft, young players. LMA, BRoy, Frye, etc, need
to work and learn how to battle and compete.

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Dec 2, 2007 3:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs