Zach Possibilities

by Dave on May 25, 2007 2:26 AM PDT in News

In the midst of the Zach discussion yesterday somebody asked for a rundown of the possibilities for trades. I've gone through the entire NBA looking for options. Obviously it's impossible to list them all since the permutations for multi-team, multi-player deals are virtually endless. I mostly limited myself to trades involving one or two players per team and only two teams. You can mix and match some of these if you want to start creating your own multi-team deals. I tried to make only broad allowances for realism. Obviously a Zach for LeBron deal is out (even if the salaries matched) so you won't see anything like that. Neither will you see complete junk coming our way. But I tried to run the gamut of ups and downs. I was pretty scrupulous in making sure salaries match and the trades are all realistic in that way. These guys for the most part don't have trade kickers or BYC designations to make things complicated either. Almost every exchange on here you can run through the trade checker as-is and it will go through successfully. As I said, that doesn't mean that either team would necessarily pull the trigger so don't come back at me with, "I can't believe you listed that!" You want to know the range of what's available in June, 2007 for Zach? This is it.

Quick note: This isn't exactly the ideal time to do this as a lot of guys have options to exercise before they can be traded. Also everyone's salary will change in July. Suffice it to say things could look different at the end of the summer. Most of these should still be in the ballpark though.

Where appropriate I made a few comments on the trade.

Atlanta
Zach for Joe Johnson-- This trade works and fills needs for both teams but given what Atlanta gave up for JJ it's hard for me to see them moving him for anything less than a sure thing.

Boston
Zach and Martell for Paul Pierce-- The C's might be ready to move Pierce. I almost think they could get more for him and I almost think we'd need him to be younger but he'd sure make a splash. I don't really find this realistic but Ainge is such a wild card...who knows?

Zach for Theo Ratliff and Brian Scalabrine OR
Zach for Wally Szczerbiak and Brian Scalabrine-- Both of these work if you want them. They'd be a total dump either way. Ratliff would provide more cap relief, Wally more usable skill. Yuck.

Charlotte
They don't have any big contracts to make a realistic move.

Chicago
Zach for a re-signed Andres Nocioni and Chris Duhon-- This is one of the few trades you can't run through a checker because Nocioni isn't signed. There's a fair amount of offensive talent there but my sense is this would be more likely as part of a three way than straight up. I do mention it because it's in people's consciousness.

Cleveland
Zach for Larry Hughes-- I don't think Hughes shoots well enough for our needs in the backcourt and I don't think Cleveland needs Zach and Drew Gooden but the salaries work.

Dallas
Zach and Martell for Dirk Nowitzki-- Ha ha ha ha ha! Good luck.

Denver
Zach for Nene Hilario and Reggie Evans-- Not sure Denver would do it. You could also trade Zach for Kenyon Martin and change if you were stupid enough to do that.

Detroit
Zach for Sheed works straight up.

Golden State
Zach and Joel for Jason Richardson and Adonal Foyle-- This might actually be one of the more intriguing trades if Monta Ellis steps up for Golden State and if we could move Brandon to the point.

Houston
Only T-Mac and Yao are in the salary ballpark. As we said with Dirk... Ha ha ha ha ha! Good luck.

Indiana
Zach and Joel for Jermaine O'Neal-- I don't see Indiana doing this one.
Zach and Joel for Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy-- They might do this though.

Los Angeles Clippers
The presence of Elton Brand snuffs every possible trade with them. They wouldn't trade Brand for Zach and they wouldn't want Zach with Brand still on the team.

Los Angeles Lakers
Zach for Lamar Odom and Maurice Evans-- Odom is necessary for the salaries to work and they're not giving up Odom and Bynum for Zach so this is it.

Memphis
Zach for Pau Gasol works but I don't think either team would do it.

Miami
Zach for Antoine Walker and Udonis Haslem-- Meh.

Milwaukee
Zach and Martell for Michael Redd-- Would be nice for us but fat chance.
Zach for Bobby Simmons and Dan Gadzuric-- They might consider this if they figure Bogut will never be a dominant offensive force in the post.

Minnesota
Zach, Lamarcus, Martell, and Jarrett Jack for Kevin Garnett-- Throw in next year's first rounder and...they still wouldn't do it.

New Jersey
For some change you can have Jason Kidd for Zach. He's too old.
If you can re-sign Vince Carter for a matching salary you can have him for Zach. He's old and also fading.
Zach for Richard Jefferson works straight up, as-is. Discuss away.

New Orleans
Zach for Tyson Chandler and Rasual Butler-- They love Chandler, so no. But if we drafted Durant instead of Oden we might take a longing look at this kind of trade.

New York
You could trade some combination of Zach plus Joel or Martell or a re-signed Travis for either Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis. But if you want to I'm going to ban you from this site on general principle.

Orlando
They have no salaries to make it match. Can you believe some teams pay nobody in double digits?

Philadelphia
Zach for Samuel Delambert and Kyle Korver-- I don't know why this doesn't intrigue me one bit, but it doesn't.

Phoenix
Zach and Martell for Shawn Marion-- If Phoenix were willing we'd at least have to look.

Sacramento
Zach for Ron Artest and Shareef Abdur-Rahim-- We'd sure solve our small forward problem. It's just a guess, but I'd say Artest might not fit KP's culture.

San Antonio
We complete the Texas trifecta by saying: Ha ha ha ha ha! Good luck! We just can't touch anybody in the Lone Star state.

Seattle
Zach for a re-signed Rashard Lewis is the hot item of the month.
Zach for Chris Wilcox and Earl Watson works also.

Toronto
Another tight-wallet team who doesn't pay anybody anything. Must be nice.

Utah
Zach for Andre Kirilenko works straight up. I don't see how Zach and Boozer fit together so it'd probably have to involve somebody else. Also Kirilenko's contract is worse than Zach's and his production is a lot lower.

Washington
Zach and Joel for Antawn Jamison-- If you were so inclined I think the Wizards might go for this. I'm not so inclined.
Zach for Caron Butler and Etan Thomas-- With the season Butler had...I don't know.

That's a pretty good sampling. As has always been the case, trades that involve the right salaries and the right amount of talent are pretty rare. This is one reason to watch what you pay people, because if you cross a certain line they're yours for life. I don't think Zach is that way necessarily but it's a good lesson anyway. I'm looking at you, Isiah.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 74 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

New Jersey

I've long been intrigued with a 'Zach for Jefferson' deal. They could use a strong post player and it would get Zach out of the West. Jefferson is a solid veteran who is used to a Kidd-type distributor (Sergio?). His temperment fits the "culture". I think he would fit right in at that 3 spot at this level of our team's development. With Carter, he's learned to play a more supporting role which would allow us to continue to focus on Roy and Aldridge. Plays decent defense and has a knack for drawing fouls. Has good range and not afraid to penetrate. Seems to have recovered nicely from his injury. We lose a little scoring and rebounding but gain in assists and speed. I like this one.

"...though you may fail...aim at something high." Henry David Thoreau

by Dr Dave on May 25, 2007 3:38 AM PDT reply actions

Wiz

I think the Wizards might move Jamison. He's a solid 'culture' guy, and has been a consistant guy in DC. He might take to leading the second unit in Portland, especially if he thinks it's his chance to be on a team building to a championship level. The Wiz have plateaued in their current form - even with Arenas and Butler healthy, how far would they have gone in the Eastern playoffs this year.

by skyman375 on May 25, 2007 3:50 AM PDT reply actions

No Offense (and I saw the point)

Don't like those trades for Zach. I will admit I think he has little value on the open market. Just a hunch but I think Pau Gasol is in the same position.

by pookeyguru on May 25, 2007 5:19 AM PDT reply actions

But you do like dumping Zach for nothing?

You're here posting on thread after thread long, long posts that Zach's contract is a threat to the Blazers franchise who must be dumped for nothing immediately, but you're shown a whole page of potential trades to get back some value for Zach, and you can't find anything you like?

Something isn't adding up.

by Blazers Nation on May 25, 2007 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions

See My new Diary Post

Not the greatest idea around, but Mags is better than most of the stiffs that fit.

by blazerprophet on May 25, 2007 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Actually BN

It's not about what I like. It's about value in a marketplace. If you want the honest truth I'd rather the Blazers keep Zach. I think he legitmately bogs down the franchise in a number of ways that would in a couple of years make it harder to trade him. Salaries, due to the recent trend, are going down. That's why I think teams like Memphis, with Gasol, and the Blazers with Zach, have to consider this aspect. There are teams that very much could use their talents, and I think Gasol has quite a bit more value if only because he hasn't had the multiple injuries zach has had. Equating Gasol demanding a trade to the much larger issue that Zach displayed publicly going to that strip club in March. It wasn't going to the strip club that was the big deal. It was doing after being granted bereavement leave, something the Blazers didnt have to do, and then showing a very poor lack of class. This may not matter to you or me even BN, but if you think that won't factor into any deal with Charlotte you would be fooling yourself. Charlotte has to sell tickets and has a problem doing so. They're a bad team. Spending money is a problem for them too as they've been reluctant (although understandably) to spend money. If you think they have a choice between Vince Carter and Zach Randolph who do you think they'll take? Carter because he doesn't have the poor image problem Zach realistically does. Zach has done quite a few stupid things, some excusable due to youth, and some in-excusable regardless of any age.

I know Zach's microfracture surgery isn't a huge issue. He wasn't a leaper or anything but still teams are afraid of guys who get repeatedly hurt. The biggest issue hurting Zach is his up & down production over the course otf the year and the fact that he did have that hand surgery.

BN, I know you think I have this bias against Zach. I just think what the team needs to be more successful with him is harder to obtain than what it would take with Rashard. That's really the point more than anything.

You may think that his 20/10 is too valuable that not getting the most value out of is a major issue. My theory is if he was that valuable trading him wouldn't be an issue. Finding teams that will be willing to take him (and I think it's difficult to imagine Chicago taking on that salary just for low post play). In fact if he was that valuable the Blazers would probably simply focus on Aldridge being a SF. My point has been all along, that trading Zach, while creating a hole, doesn't create 1 that in the context in the nba is that difficult to fill. It's an easy thing to find guys who can score in this league. It's very hard to find guys who can do that and bring other things to the table. That's the problem here. Low post play is fine and every team needs it. But there are plenty of examples of losing teams with low post players who can score. I think Zach very much reminds me of Wayman Tisdale , character issues, not withstanding.

BN this is a semantic debate we are having about trade value. My theory has always been most fans, I'm not absolving you of this however you are quite knowledgable, is that their passion can often lead to difficulty in assessing trade value of a player. In this case it's Zach but what about say Jermaine O'neal in Indiana? Should the pacers trade him(and tinsley) for Ratliff,Szczerbiak,Rondo and the 5th pick? Yes, I think they should because I feel they should rebuild. The best way I think to rebuild is go in extreme youth and lose alot for a couple of years. Then find veterans to augment there games and move forward your franchise that way. That's the real mistake Danny Ainge has made the past several years. If he doesn't try to get that deal done he would be foolish. If the pacers are worried about equal value well it would be pointless to ask that. What IS equal value? That's the whole point of this. Equal value doesn't exist and that's the problem. Value has, and needs to be realistically kept in context of, the other team's needs that will allow them to do what's in their best interest. That's why trades don't get done. Not because team's wouldn't be realistically willing to improve.

I'm a kings fan and someday I would like to see them win a championship. With the Blazers building a potential dynasty (and in my opinion the lynchpin has to be moving Zach, for the on court stuff really not anything else) that makes this whole conversation interesting. So I will say this about the whole thing.

Every team has debates on how you should go about it. I remember when Brian Grant signed up here. Geoff Petrie took a hard line with Grant's value only because he was worried about overpaying. Like Rashard, however, Grant was a secondary value type of player, whom unlike Rashard if he was to play for the Blazers next year, was on a team with an older veteran core. When Grant left alot of kings fans were saying the kings were stupid. In the interim it hurt and alot of people were angry. In the long run it led being able to make the trade for Chris Webber. In retrospect I think Geoff had targeted Chris and tried to make plays for him earlier, and was worried if that he overpayed Brian Grant, any package of Mitch Richmond/Grant wouldn't have worked if Grant was overpaid. The difference that Petrie and Grant's agent were getting over was 10 million dollars in total salary.

Okay BN i can see you glazing over. You would probably will like this answer better (i feel it's complicated and want to give the total reasons but here's the short but sweet version). If you had a 13 million dollar shooter ,who only shot 3's and shot FT's well, how valuable is that? Along the same lines Zach being a low post player by itself isnt THAT valuable unless the right situation present's itself. Which is why I've mentioned Charlotte repeatedly. The reality is that his personal actions won't help it either. Dumping him off the cap would have to be (and should be) considered a major coup for KP.

by pookeyguru on May 26, 2007 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions

An addition to my last point

Value has, and needs to be realistically kept in context of, the other team's needs that will allow them to do what's in their best interest. That's why trades don't get done. Not because team's wouldn't be realistically willing to improve.

Teams are competitive. They don't want to help another team make a potential move at making a championship. Why is that a realistic fear I dont know. But it is. I think alot of it has fans unrealistic expectations that A player should have been doing what he was for the other team on our team.

by pookeyguru on May 26, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions

no excited

Am I the only one not really tempted by much out there?

I like Marion, but the reason the Suns would get rid of Marion isn't because they don't want him, but because they don't want to pay him. Trading for Randolph's contract doesn't make sense for them.

I suppose the most obvious thing to do is swing a trade (probably with a 3rd team) for Rashard Lewis, but as I've said before I'm worried about signing him to a long term, max deal. How do we resign Roy, Aldridge, and Oden? I expect all of them to be better than Lewis. With a maxed Lewis, where are we in 2010 when we're 20 million over the cap and trying to keep Oden?

My favorite is picking up a number of role-players and gaining contract flexibility. Chicago makes the most sense for this, taking their two bench players (Duhon and Nocioni).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. If so, could someone explain to me what happens if we sign Rashard, B. Roy, and L. Aldridge all to max deals? Is it possible to sign Oden to a max, too, when his rookie contract expires one year after Roy's and Aldridge's? And how do we possibly have any depth with those contracts?

I'm really in the "Just Say No To Superstars" camp. We don't need one, and it could really screw up our ability to keep our own, better players.

by matthewcc on May 25, 2007 5:35 AM PDT reply actions

no way in hell dude is

anyone is getting a max deal but aldridge,roy, oden that's it period.....

by fatty on May 25, 2007 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions

I hope not

But Lewis is going to demand max money, or close enough to it that it has the same effect.

At 28 years old, hold long a contract does he want? He probably wants five or six years.

I do not want to be giving him 20 million when he's 34.

by matthewcc on May 25, 2007 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Paul Allen

Paul Allen is the owner of the team. You an afford to max out Lewis, Oden, Aldridge and Roy. Especially when we're winning championships. I'd go hard after Marion and Lewis... Line up of

G Jack
G Roy
F Marion/Lewis
F Aldridge
C Oden

Bench
Webster, Outlaw, Udoka, Pryzbilla, Rodriguez.
That's a very strong bench if we can keep them all.

by seattleblazer on May 25, 2007 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Not the way it works

Yes, we can theoretically sign all four to max deals, its true.

But in a few years we'd be about $10-15 million over the cap, with those contracts locked in for a long, long time, without even getting to our starting point guard or bench players. Rashard Lewis or Shawn Marion are going to be about 35 years old and making $18 million at the end of their contracts, if we give them want they want. And someone is probably going to give them what they want, and if we wanted them, we'd have to match it.

The way the cap works, you can't just sign whoever you want and pay the extra tax. Once you're over, you become severely restricted by the rules with regards to signing free agents. What if it turns out Jack and Sergio aren't that good? Well, too bad because we wouldn't be able to get any decent PG for the mid-level exception. We wouldn't be able to make any moves of significance at all. We'd be where the Knicks are now. We'd have better players than they do, but we'd still be trying to make moves with our feet set in concrete. There's a reason its called salary cap hell. Not because it costs extra money, but because you have to play with both hands tied behind your back.

And that bench is not strong at all. Its terrible, at least if you're comparing it to championship-level teams. Thats three SFs, a erratic and unknown quantity at PG, and a oft-injured C. Where's our backup PF? You want Webster as your backup SG? Really? 39% from the floor?

Where's ANYONE who can shoot? Seriously, no one on that bench can put the ball in the basket. That bench would get outscored 5-to-1 every game.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I think bringing in Marion or Lewis for contracts longer than 3 years would make us better sooner, but really come back to bite us.

The Blazers don't need to win next year, or even the year after. And Lewis isn't going to take Portland to the promise land this year or next anyway, so whats the hurry?

by matthewcc on May 25, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions

If you build team from within, it's not barrier

There's nothing in the salary cap rules that keep a team from signing players they draft and keep resigning the players they draft and trade for.

If a team drafts well, there will be no need to make major free agent acquisitions. Just sign the players you draft, resign the players you own the right to, and trade to fill minor holes.

by Blazers Nation on May 25, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Still have options

Mid level exception. Veteran exception. and you can always make trades that match up to 75% of salaries. So if you have no creativity, then you can't make it work.

by seattleblazer on May 25, 2007 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions

'creativity' can't save you from the Grant Hills

Teams keep getting burned, and fans keep wanting to play with fire.

"Creativity" and all the money in the world aren't going to save you if you're way over the cap and get slammed by injuries or some other kind of bad luck. Pritchard had a good draft last year, but he's not a wizard, and we LUCKED into the #1 pick. Building plans based on the premise that this string of fortunte continues is foolish. Why push it when we don't need to?

For example, what if Lewis signs a maxed out contract for 6 years then promptly blows out his legs and turns into Grant Hill redux? We'd have severely crippled our teams chances of being champions because we wouldn't bring in the needed QUALITY depth. And Pritchard can land good talent picking in the top 5, but what about 15th or 16th pick?

All I'm saying is all good plans need to be able to absord the inevitable stroke of misfortunate, the inevitable MISS on talent or character evaluation. Overloading on huge contracts makes the team that much more vulnerable to bad fortune.

The thing that gets me worked up is WE DON'T NEED IT. There's no reason to blow past the cap. We can hover right around it and be a great team.

We're not one superstar away. We'll have three potential superstars, why not build around them with good depth, good role-players, and make sure we're in a position to that if we ARE one superstar away, we can make it happen in 2 or 3 years when we really know what we have and what we need.

Our Blazers, at this point, need the Jeff Hornaceks and Toni Kukocs of the world, not the Paul Pierces and Rashard Lewis'.

by matthewcc on May 25, 2007 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

I know you won't agree

Injuries happen and stuff. That's the risk you take with anybody regardless of any injury history.

by pookeyguru on May 25, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I think you're missing the point

Of course injuries happen. But a team built right leaves enough wiggle room to recover.

A team with four max contracts (plus crap like Pryzbilla and Miles) could find itself in a real bind. Why put yourself if that situation, exposing yourslef to an inordinate amount of risk, when you're already super talented?

Its not like Rashard is the last star SF that will ever hit the market.

I'm just nervous that in 2010, when Roy, Aldridge, and Oden are really ready to hammer down the door, we won't be able to put the pieces (GOOD backups so they can rest without the game falling apart) around them to win championships because we're tied down by bad, untradable contracts. Lewis is going to want a max contract that runs through 2013, when he's 34 years old. I just don't see the need to make that kind of long-term comitment to him.

Look, if Lewis is swapped for Randolph, its because Pritchard and McMillan think its doable and good for the long-term, and I'm totally happy because I more than trust their judgement. It will be the most exciting year since 2000 or even 1992. That would truly be an awesome team. I've said more than enough on it, and it all applies to Marion as well, so I'll shut up about it.

by matthewcc on May 25, 2007 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Was Grant Hill a mistake?

Well the reality of Hill was that he had a severe ankle injury. Just because John Gabriel, and the organization at that time and still may be perhaps, didn't handle it right doesn't mean that making a big money deal can't help. Value is relative to the marketplace. Not prior difficult circumstances that look worse in hindsight.

by pookeyguru on May 26, 2007 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

dave i've been saying this one for a year

zbo*martell for marion is perfect for us and them also their's rumblings about a 3 way between chicago*suns*t-wolves-amare to chicago,k.g.to suns ,and deng*duhon knicks*suns pick to t*wolves also p.j.brown to wolves too.but marion for zbo*martell do it now...

by fatty on May 25, 2007 7:28 AM PDT reply actions

Zach to Phoenix = no way

Why would Phoenix want Zach?

They play a wide open game and they want a player who is the exact opposite of that???! Marion is ten times the player Zach is anyway. No way Phoenix does that deal.

You have to look at addition by subtraction. Zach isn't going to be THE MAN next year which almost certainly means his stats are going to decrease. Do you have confidence Zach can deal with that? This is an immature guy who is obsessed with being an All-Star, especially after last year. Do you want to see an offense of throw the ball into Zach and stand around or do you want to see a young team pushing the ball up and down the court? And Zach is the last link to the Jailblazer days, remember that. THE LAST ONE. Are you tired of the Jailblazer jokes, still, to this very day? I am.

I agree that even if you find a substandard deal for some role players, you take it. Zach's value just isn't as great outside Portland as it is here, that's a fact. There are a bunch of 16 and 10 players who play defense who are arguably more valuable than Zach. Portlanders homer over Zach and we need to get over that in order to encourage KP to make the team better by trading him. Most of the national publications have a Zach trade as a done deal.

by leeroyjenkins on May 25, 2007 7:53 AM PDT reply actions

Considering you claim

There are a bunch of 16 and 10 players who play defense who are arguably more valuable than Zach.

Last year (2006-2007) there were nine players who averaged 10 or more rebounds. Of those nine, 5 players averaged 16 or more points, of those five, 3 averaged .90 blocks or more, of those three, 3 averaged .5 steals per game: Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan and Dwight Howard. All three are arguably more valuable than Zach. However only Kevin Garnett is rumored to be available and the cost may be way too high for Portland to trade (assuming Minnesota would want Zach). Not much question that all three are more valuable than Zach. For the rest of the list (over 10 rebounds) only Marcus Camby is likely to be available and he will be costly in a sign and trade with Denver.

Here is the whole list:

Name TRB PTS Blk STL

Kevin Garnett 12.8 22.4 1.66 1.17
Tyson Chandler 12.4 9.5 1.77 0.51
Dwight Howard 12.3 17.6 1.90 0.85
Carlos Boozer 11.7 20.9 0.28 0.95
Marcus Camby 11.7 11.2 3.30 1.24
Ben Wallace 10.7 6.4 2.03 1.44
Tim Duncan 10.6 20.0 2.38 0.82
David Lee 10.4 10.7 0.40 0.83
Zach Randolph 10.1 23.6 0.22 0.78

Top 50 > 6.7 17.0 0.90 1.17

by lee3022 on May 28, 2007 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Zach off bench?

In most recent years Zach's "development" has been dictated by Zach since there hasn't been much choice than to play him. With Aldridge's emergence the Blazers have more leverage. If Zach doesn't buy into the team concept and doesn't put out the effort on both ends, Nate is in a much better position to park him on the bench. As has been mentioned already, Zach wants to be an All-Star. He now will have to earn it on his own team in addition to earning the respect of the other coaches.

Granted, with his salary he should be playing, but by the same standard so should Raef LaFrenz. Zach would be an excellent player to have off the bench assuming the Blazers can't get good value for him in a trade.

by bbfred on May 25, 2007 8:29 AM PDT reply actions

No contracts in Charlotte?

I'm not saying we should want to trade Zach for Gerald Wallace, but he'll probably have a decent-sized contract when he's signed. Something like Zach for Wallace + change could end up working. But like most scenarios, Wallace will probably make more money than we want to pay, long-term....

by HarryManback on May 25, 2007 8:49 AM PDT reply actions

I believe

Gerald Wallace's max is around 12 mill. He's worth pretty close to that, maybe a bit less when you consider his injury history. Not that far off though. With a player like Wallace, I'd worry more about the length of contract than the dollar amount per year, since a high flier like him has a pretty high chance of crippling injury.

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Again

for the most part I avoided using speculative, unsigned numbers...except for Rashard Lewis because he's already out there and maybe throwing in Outlaw a couple times for fun. The situation will look different at the end of the summer with a couple new possibilities opening and some closing.

I don't know if Charlotte gives up Wallace though.

--Dave

by Dave on May 25, 2007 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Already out there...

I guess I would just include Wallace because you know he's going to get signed by somebody, and you know that his contract, while maybe not at Randolph's level, will likely be close enough that a Randolph-Wallace + change kind of trade could be done.

I would think that any unrestricted free agent that "fits our bill" (is a small forward...especially a young one), ought to be considered to some extent. Really...if Rashard or Wallace or any other unrestricted free agent thinks they're getting a bum deal, they're going to look to force a sign-and-trade. And while the market for Zach might be weak, are you going to let your guy walk when you could get one of the top young PFs in the league instead? Even with his baggage, I think GMs would have a hard time letting a player walk at that point.

by HarryManback on May 25, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions

zach to boston

thanks for the rundown, dave.

at this point paul pierce is probably as available as ever, but having lived in boston and followed this celtics team closely for the past four seasons, i can say with some authority that zach would be a terrible fit here. he wouldn't play well alongside jefferson and would render rondo practically useless. you're right that ainge can make some unexpected roster moves, but i'd sure like to see zach well away from both of my favorite teams.

lewis, nocioni, and richard jefferson seem like pretty natural fits in portland, assuming none of them bust the long-term budget. maybe for chicago the third chubby big man (curry/sweetney/zach) is the charm?

by game sink on May 25, 2007 9:37 AM PDT reply actions

Altlanta only need to return approx 7 MIL for Zach

Atlanta is $4,703,227 under the cap. As long as a trade completes with Atlanta still a dollar under the cap, Atlanta only has to return about 7 MIL to the Blazers in a Zach trade.

Makes a Josh Childress trade much more doable

by Blazers Nation on May 25, 2007 9:39 AM PDT reply actions

Very funny Dave.

Everyone knows who that Dirk HA HA HA remark was aimed at. You know me though. I ain't givin' up that easy.

And if Dirk gets traded anywhere in the next 2 years, I think you should owe me an Edge t-shirt or something:)

by JMblazerfan on May 25, 2007 10:13 AM PDT reply actions

Sorry JM

I had completely forgotten you had championed this. It was just my assessment, nothing more. You know me...if I know it will involve someone's cherished cause I tend to ease up, not bear down.

That said, I still think there's no way Dallas gives up Dirk for anything south of Roy, Zach, and Oden.

--Dave

by Dave on May 25, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions

No need to apoligize.

It's all in good humor.

I know I'm alone in my opinion that Cuban will trade Dirk. And that's fine with me.

But seriously. What about the bet??? Blazer's Edge T-shirt for JM if he's right?

by JMblazerfan on May 25, 2007 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll do better than that

If Dirk is traded this summer I'll hand the blog over to you for a day. All yours to post whatever you want.

--Dave

by Dave on May 25, 2007 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Including

of course, "I told you so!"

--Dave

by Dave on May 25, 2007 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions

We have enough generals,

we need some sergeants. Zach Randolph for Shane Battier and Juwan Howard is the sort of level of trade we should look to, and we might need to add something to it to make it happen.

by EnglandDan on May 25, 2007 10:35 AM PDT reply actions

yeah

I would do that deal in a heart beat

by seattleblazer on May 25, 2007 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

I like Shane Battier, but...

... I won't take Juwan Howard to get Shane Battier. Juwan Howard is awful. Howard was abused by the Jazz. The Jazz abusing Howard and Hayes is the primary reason the Rockets have gone fishin'.

by Blazers Nation on May 25, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Juwan Howard's contract expires when Raef's does,

that's over $20 million off the cap in the summer of 2009, just when we look to make the final move. Battier is the next Bruce Bowen, and you have to have someone to lock down a perimeter scorer in the playoffs. Battier comes really cheap and Houston absolutely loves him..

by EnglandDan on May 25, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Battier is the next Bruce Bowen

I thought the blazers already have the next Bruce Bowen. His name is Ime Udoka.

I like the idea of Randolph to Chicago. I think he would help the Bulls. Only I'd suggest getting Khryapa back, PJ Brown resigned to a one-year deal (to help tutor Oden & Aldridge) and Chicago's pick at #9. We can include a couple of our picks in the second round and a future 1st rounder. Might have to take back at least one other body as well to make it work dollar wise.

by timg56 on May 25, 2007 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Howard

you dont have to play howard,and Battier would be an outstanding addition. If salaries matched I would do Zach for Shane straight up. But if we had to throw howard in there to, I'd still do it

by seattleblazer on May 25, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Juwon looks completely

washed up. Not sure why Houston would want another low post scorer either. I doubt we'd need to add something, Zbo has significantly higher value than Shane Battier does, that would be a jack by the Rockets.

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Zach can score out to 17 feet,

Adelman is going to try to outscore people. Houston have no-one at the 4, and this gets them the best 4 they could get. I'd give them Webster as well to make it happen.

by EnglandDan on May 25, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions

I may have been unclear

Zbo is worth a hell of a lot more than Shane Battier in the open market. I would laugh at that offer straight up; giving them Webster as well and taking Juwon off their hands makes it even more imbalanced.

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, it makes us a better team.

I'd do that trade for sure.

by EnglandDan on May 25, 2007 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Then no offense, but I'm glad

you're not the one making those decisions. That's a huge and imbalanced talent giveaway. Shane has somehow gone from being a slightly underrated roleplayer who plays decent defense to being wildly overrated all over the interwebs as being some kind of god of glue guys.

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Z-Bo

Is barely worth a bucket of spit on the open market

by seattleblazer on May 25, 2007 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions

If that were true

I'd just keep him. An unstoppable post scorer makes the difference in a number of wins each season, and I'm happy to have a scorer/rebounder like zbo on the team.

For the record, I don't believe you're right about his value; I think his off-court issues diminishes his value by a little bit, but not that much. Maybe 10% of his trade value or something, not 50%+ like you'd have to assume to give him away for Battier.

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Keep in mind

Opposing GMs (and occasionally press who cover opposing teams) will often denigrate players on other teams that are rumored to be on the market. This is often done to depress the market and lower the price. Often this is done anonymously through a local reporter ("an anonymous source within the Bulls says no way do they trade for a fat lazy slob like Randolph"), so when they DO acquire Randolph there's nobody in particular he or his agent can be angry at.

And of course, there are many GMs who will happily make idiotic trades. For some reason, quite a few of them used to play for Boston...

by EngineerScotty on May 25, 2007 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

lol

Scotty didn't you get the memo from forbes? Kevin Mchale is the best GM in the NBA. (rotflmao at that)

by pookeyguru on May 25, 2007 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions

So my question is . . .

Are we building a team the "damn way we please" or are we building a team that looks to beat the Spurs and Pistons? There's a difference.

by eknpdx on May 25, 2007 10:49 AM PDT reply actions

Actually we'll be looking to beat

Phoenix, Utah, Cleveland and Toronto. Our championship run will be in three years, not next season. Probably four of our starting five will never have played a playoff game in the NBA when we make it the first time.

by EnglandDan on May 25, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

no superstars!

I agree with "matthewcc". We will have superstars on our team in a short time. Why would we sign Rashard or Marion to long term deals while we absolutely have to keep Roy, Aldridge, and our #1 pick for the majority of their careers? They are going to both want long term $$$$ deals. Like I read before, we do not need an allstar team. We need a team that works well with our future all stars. If we move Zack, we should be looking to get a couple of vets (with expiring contracts in 2-3 years) plus maybe another 1st round pick. I still feel Outlaw has not even started to show what he can do. Remember he is still a little younger than Roy.

my signature

by clonigro on May 25, 2007 11:33 AM PDT reply actions

Now that we have the #1 pick

I would look for picks and role players as well as star players. I mean, if KP manages to get Rashard or Gerald (if we go Oden), I'd be happy, but it may be easier to look for package deals of picks and role players, which are things we definitely could also use.

Trades that I like are packages like Nocioni/Duhon/#9 pick from the Bulls (if we go Oden) or Haywood/Daniels/#16 + future first round pick off the Wizards (if we go Durant). Or maybe Andre Miller/#12 + future picks and cap filler for Zbo + Jack.

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

i think the best deal mentioned

is zach for antawn jamison. he can hit some 3s, he can run, hes supposedly a good locker room presence. and zach makes some sense for the wizards.

ignacio

by ignacio on May 25, 2007 12:07 PM PDT reply actions

i thought so too

but the guys gonna be 31 in june. what's his contract look like?

by ssa400 on May 25, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions

One year at just over $16 million

It's Zach for a salary dump.

by EnglandDan on May 25, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't see much reason

to trade Zbo for any other starting PFs. Isn't the whole point to free up the position for LMA, and to fill either the C gap if we get Durant or the SF gap if we get Oden?

by howlingfantods on May 25, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Antawn

He can play PF, but I think he's more a SF.

He has one monster year ($16m) left on his contract, so its pretty manageable.

by matthewcc on May 25, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Jamison is a worse defender than Zach

It's why Jamison good locker room presence hasn't spared him from being bounced all over the league.

by Blazers Nation on May 25, 2007 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions

it's so nice to look through the comments

and not see any retarded trade ideas. I think i saw one in the diaries a while back (not sure if the guy was serious or not) that had our lineup for next year looking like:

billups
Roy/Gordon
Marion
Aldridge
Oden

I think the proposed trade for Marion was PJ Brown and Sergio Rodriguez. Sorry i'm reposting here, i thought people would find that hilarious and get a good laugh.

by ssa400 on May 25, 2007 12:09 PM PDT reply actions

also

can't we have lewis sign a deal that's front loaded. So that he gets paid less as he gets older, but the total amount will still be the same? I think kirk hinrich signed a deal like that.

by ssa400 on May 25, 2007 12:13 PM PDT reply actions

dudes

#1 k.pricthard said they will be trades on draft night and i know you guys are getting giddy but remember the guys who did'nt produce like webster and outlaw and dickau these guys will be gone for real role players on draft night.as for zbo i love the idea of getting battier*head for zbo because defensively it'll be real scary roy,shane,big al, and the frnchise mr.oden.and as for max players we have them already in roy,big al,and mr.oden.every body else "know your roles or shut your mouth"...

by fatty on May 25, 2007 12:24 PM PDT reply actions

i didnt realize

jamison was 31. well, back to rashard lewis. we're going to need some people who can rain in 3s, which lewis can certainly do.

ignacio

by ignacio on May 25, 2007 12:39 PM PDT reply actions

philly trade

This has been mentioned elsewhere I know, but somehow intrigues me.

Zach for Kyle Korver and Andre Miller. You get your shooting SF for relatively cheap, and a vet pass first PG w/ a couple years left on a contract. Sergio (or JJ) will be ready to take over full time after that (assuming one would be traded eventually to fill other needs).

I think that lineup makes the playoffs next year (w/ Oden), and doesn't sacrafice anything longterm.

Anyway, not my idea, but I like it.

by ljm on May 25, 2007 1:37 PM PDT reply actions

I like this one a lot

Andre holds down the pg position till JJ develops into Chauncey Billups (I wish!)

Korver would get open looks all day with LaMarucs and Oden drawing double teams, not to mention probably Roy too

by BlazerBandit on May 25, 2007 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Phily

That trade intrigues me a little. Solid Veteran PG and great shooter, sounds like two big needs.

by seattleblazer on May 25, 2007 1:44 PM PDT reply actions

Like Blazer Nation says

Any team under the cap does not have to match salaries exactly. According to RealGM right now only Atlanta and Toronto are under the cap. Toronto already has Chris Bosh, so no go there. Atlanta would be extremely difficult to do a deal with due to their ownership situation. If we eliminate getting a PF back (assuming LA starts and TO backs him up like last season), that leaves Boston, Chicago, Denver, Golden State, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Seattle, Utah, and Washington as the most likely candidates. If you also eliminate the teams that probably wouldn't trade with us because of recent history or inter-division (Seattle, Boston, Denver, Utah) we're down to Chicago, GS, NJ, Philly, and Washington.

Chicago, despite we most here would like to think, is not interested in Zach. Trying to keep all those good young players means salary cap issues and they have been in a notoriously thrifty mode. Add in Zach's off-the-court issues and Paxson and Skile's hard work ethic and a trade with Portland is unrealistic - not impossible, but unlikely.

GS is intriguing, but alot depends on whether or not Nellie comes back. If he does, they'll definitely keep Richardson and play small ball. If not they may be interested in Zach.

NJ - would they do Jefferson for Zach? Who knows?

Philly - like Dave says, these players don't seem appealing at all.

Washington - the Princeton offense has no place for Zach.

So that makes GS and NJ the best possibilities for straight up 2 team trades, unless we trade with an inter-division rival, or we'd have to swing a 3+ team deal. Take that for what it's worth...

by Blazerholic on May 25, 2007 2:39 PM PDT reply actions

Why not Kidd

Sure he's old, but just basically averaged a triple double in a plyoff series. He pushes the ball hard, plays defense, has two years left on his contract, would be stellar at teaching Rodriguez how to win, and is probably available. What's not to like? We would need to trade Jack for a draft pick in order to get a SF. Maybe Atlanta at #11 (#3 is too high to dream) or Milwaukee at #6. Otherwise best bet is of course Zach for Lewis, but is he or Roy sufficient in leadership?

by moved away on May 25, 2007 4:47 PM PDT reply actions

zach's value

i want the blazers to trade zach, but I have to admit he's unreal. he's a beast. he lit up detroit and killed the suns. we should not accept anything less than the best for him. no fire sale. no expiring contracts... it has to be for quality players or picks... i still like the rashard sign and trade senario. you add webster to that trade and they should go for it... who cares that they have collison and wilcox. zach pisses on those guys and they could easily be traded... I've been hearing the blazers want conley jr too... if thats true then my wish would be to trade jarret jack and z-bo to memphis for their 4th pick, miller and damon... the contacts work. maybe the 4th pick is too much for z-bo. depends on way you look at it. the way I look at it is, there is not one player after the top 2 picks that will be better than z-bo. there maybe a couple that have good years and a good career. but no one will be as good as randolph who is about 3 years from entering his prime. but we'll see... but whatever happens, I'm confident KP will make some sick moves.

by kristos22 on May 25, 2007 6:48 PM PDT reply actions

Latest rumor - Zach for Antawn

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-070524smith,1,4014144,print.colum n?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Should be taken with a grain of salt, but rumors are rumors.

by DonkeyShins on May 25, 2007 8:23 PM PDT reply actions

Nobody wants Zach

I know Portlanders think nobody else in the world knows they exist, and that may be largely true, but NBA execs know. And sorry guys, but Zach's the c-word around the league. If he was signed for three years at 7 mil/year or something, someone would take the chance. But, he's not. I don't think even Pritchard can get out of that mess.

So what are the options? Washington is the only possibility I can see, because they're historically so bone-headed they might swap Zach "Double-cheeseburger with drugs in the glove compartment" Randolph for Antawn "Tweener" Jamison. Paxson's not going to do it, because he's basically not a meth freak. I love how the solution is always a "3-way deal," which conveniently lets the trade proposer off the pointy hook of coming up with some non-laughable possibility.

So do you want Zach, Oden, and Aldridge fighting for minutes for the next three years, or do you draft Durant? Kind of an interesting dilemma.

by BillyChav on May 26, 2007 12:27 AM PDT reply actions

Another Trade Possibility

How about Zach for Mike Miller and Damon Stoudemire? I think the numbers work. Memphis gets a low post scorer and rebounding. Blazers get a shooter and a mentor for the kids. No, really I think Damon would be fine without the old boyz around.

by Brewer on May 26, 2007 12:54 AM PDT reply actions

agreed

i like the zach for damon and miller trade. the numbers do work. i think memphis is still getting the better of the deal though. maybe they might give up the 4th pick too if we add in sergio and webster... zach, sergio and webster is more than fair for miller damon and #4 pick... no way will memphis find anyone who can put up zach's numbers with that pick. zach and gasol will be an unreal front line... plus sergio, webster and gay will be killer on the break too... lets see what KP can do

by kristos22 on May 26, 2007 8:38 PM PDT reply actions

I really dont know why Seattle would do this BUT

Maybe a 3 way between Cleveland,Seattle and Portland involving Zach, Shard & Zydrunas Ilgauskas. I'm not sure if Seattle would want to take on that big salary though. I dont think the money quite works from the cleveland end either complicating things.

by pookeyguru on May 27, 2007 12:55 PM PDT reply actions

3 way with seattle & LAC?

Los Angeles Clippers
The presence of Elton Brand snuffs every possible trade with them. They wouldn't trade Brand for Zach and they wouldn't want Zach with Brand still on the team.

On the surface this makes very much alot of sense. On the other hand I think the Clippers taking on Zach, moving Brand to seattle while Rashard in a s&t in Portland would work also.

Truthfully it would make the Clippers very interesting if Zach could find a way to stay motivated a whole season. Also it may lead to a dealing of a spare part the Blazers have like say Jarret Jack in order to accomplish it. Honestly the Clippers don't have a championship group with Elton Brand. No amount of manipulation, and I do mean no amount, can anybody say that Brand is more valuable, than Kobe for instance, because he's a 20/10 guy. Sure Brand does that but the range of his game and the impact it brings is nothing comparable to Kobe. Kobe was a borderline all star his 2nd year in the league. Brand took years to even break into the game. Which I think has alot to do with that there was alot of talent in the West but also that maybe he isn't quite the top tier talent. I like Brand and as a character guy goes I like him that much more. I think he made a bad business decision after his 4th season. That doesn't mean I dont think the Sonics shouldn't make a play for Brand. That would be worth keeping Ray Allen I think. Just for good measure Portland could throw in a couple 2nd rounders.

by pookeyguru on May 27, 2007 2:49 PM PDT reply actions