I think there are a lot of issues to consider when looking at Zach and his future on this team, because that's what this discussion is really about, not whether or not we are better with him, the real question is how are we best in the long run.

Might Zach be a net loss?  (My take, in the past yes or at least no where close to the net gain he may look like on paper, in the last couple of months I think he's rarely been close to a net-loss status, he has been a team player as of late and I respect that).

Regardless, I think the larger over-riding issue is where is this team headed and whether or not Zach is naturally suited for the style of play.  He has proven that he can work with others and it would not be necessary to move him and still have many players advance and grow.  But, are we forcing a team around Zach as opposed to building a team with all options on the table including moving Zach and which would net the better results in the end?  (I am of the belief that we are doing both, exploring a team without Zach while still molding a team around him right now, that is fine, but at a certain point it may not make sense and that point may be approaching.)

I also wonder if the team that is developing may be better off without an offense running through the same person over and over again... we may not be there yet, but we are piling up a lot of offensive talent that can actually work well without always having the ball.  (Spare Sergio - who is not ready yet - but his D is not that much worse than Jarrett's, I think once he has some language lessons and summer league the boy may be seriously competing for the starting spot.  Once Sergio is ready, yes he'll need the ball a lot, but he takes care of it well and a PG is the person you'd like to see having the most time with the ball in his hands so long as he is dishing it out as appropriate.)  Lamarcus and Roy could both do very well away from the ball, or with out Zach ball time.  If Martell is long for this team he just needs to be opened up alla Sergio to be effective offensively.  

I also think that Joel is a big and under-discussed piece of this whole equation, but also the biggest mystery.  I haven't a clue what was going on with him this year.  Even when the Pryzbillas weren't sore he just was never really the player we signed on for.  However I can't help but think that he had a major problem with Zach, but signed with us anyhow.  I know that he publicly had major issues with Zach one year ago.  Was a backroom agreement struck?  Was he under the impression that Zach would not be on the team this year and now feels tricked?  I hope not, but can't understand his play this season, the fouls in particular.  If Joel returns as his former self what does that mean to the team?  I personally think that his return to the starting line-up would add some much needed D and that with Brandon and Lamarcus getting serious attention, Joel may be left alone under the basket a lot.  He has never been an offensive force, but if the dude was regularly open under the hoop and we shared (and I belive the squad I'm talking about would) he may start to stack up a whole lot of double doubles... while keeping other teams more honest on their defense of our current future who at minimum is Brandon and Lamarcus.  Zach may be deemed an extremely expensive portion of the team that doesn't make sense in the starting line-up for defensive reasons in the near future.

I do think that we are too hard on Zach, but I also do think that if he could be moved outside of a pennies on the dollar trade (I'd seriously consider about a $0.70+ on the dollar return) that we should really think about it, especially if we could pick up another veteran shooter who can play adequate D, I'd also be after expiring contracts, or shortish contracts so if we don't get just what we want we will have FA options in the near future.  The nice thing is that I no longer think that we need to move Zach, hopefully this understanding spreads through the league and teams who are making offers get serious about what would be a fair or at least close to fair trade.