This doesn't make sense

On Jul 12, 10:19 am, Pablo <pab....TakeThisOut@stwing.spmBGone.org> wrote:

> I think I can see the thinking behind rejecting this deal, if the Knicks
> think they can raise Randolph's trade value by playing him early in the
> season.  But I would have done this trade (perhaps foolishly) in a second.

Me too. Let's hope they're not done talking.
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Noah
<dontsendmeyerspam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jul 12, 10:19 am, Pablo <pab....TakeThisOut@stwing.spmBGone.org> wrote:
>
>> I think I can see the thinking behind rejecting this deal, if the Knicks
>> think they can raise Randolph's trade value by playing him early in the
>> season.  But I would have done this trade (perhaps foolishly) in a second.
>
>Me too. Let's hope they're not done talking.

Then both of you are foolish. Walsh knows he has a chip that the
Clippers are desperately need and so he's holding back for more.
Especially considering the Clippers have NO POST and NO SCORER on
their current roster.
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Jul 12, 1:53 pm, Doctor Chen <drc....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:


How can anyone say that they would or would not have taken the deal
when they haven't published what players and what contracts were
offered?
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Jul 12, 8:36 pm, Frank Rizzo <champ91....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 1:53 pm, Doctor Chen <drc....TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> How can anyone say that they would or would not have taken the deal
> when they haven't published what players and what contracts were
> offered?

I think the general feeling is that we should take whatever is offered
to dump these contracts as long as they don't extend past 2010. A
second round pick qualifies, but I personally would not be dropping
everything to run after this deal. I have seen Zach mentioned as a top
ten PF on a number of NBA sites.
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Greenstein
<lexa695 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 12, 8:36 pm, Frank Rizzo <champ91... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 1:53 pm, Doctor Chen <drc... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> How can anyone say that they would or would not have taken the deal
>> when they haven't published what players and what contracts were
>> offered?
>
>I think the general feeling is that we should take whatever is offered
>to dump these contracts as long as they don't extend past 2010. A
>second round pick qualifies, but I personally would not be dropping
>everything to run after this deal. I have seen Zach mentioned as a top
>ten PF on a number of NBA sites.

The only foolish thing to do is to trade Zach for only a 2nd rounder.
Here is a guy that can put up 20-10 numbers if coached right, and as I
recalled he pretty much behave himself during his Knick tenure. Sure
he got lazy and disinterested in the game after he became a Knick, but
the question is who isn't under Zeke?
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Jul 13, 4:46 pm, Dan Gaters <dan.gat... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> Pablo:
>
> > If he believes D'Antoni can get Zach to play well in his system
>
> Zach doesn't run. He can't shoot 3s (.266). He's about avg in FT (.774). His
> rebounding (8.1) is mostly of the offensive type.
>
> D's system is often started with steals or defensive rebounds, fast running
> and being able to shoot from anywhere, not a half-court or post game.
>
> With Curry and Zach (neither of whom does any defensive rebounding or
> running), Knicks will be playing no defense and 3-on-5 basketball then.
>
> Should be exciting.
>
> DG

So second chance rebounding is a bad thing in D's system?
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

Doctor Chen wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Greenstein
><lexa695 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 12, 8:36 pm, Frank Rizzo <champ91... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 1:53 pm, Doctor Chen <drc... RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> How can anyone say that they would or would not have taken the deal
>>> when they haven't published what players and what contracts were
>>> offered?
>>
>>I think the general feeling is that we should take whatever is offered
>>to dump these contracts as long as they don't extend past 2010. A
>>second round pick qualifies, but I personally would not be dropping
>>everything to run after this deal. I have seen Zach mentioned as a top
>>ten PF on a number of NBA sites.
>
> The only foolish thing to do is to trade Zach for only a 2nd rounder.
> Here is a guy that can put up 20-10 numbers if coached right, and as I
> recalled he pretty much behave himself during his Knick tenure. Sure
> he got lazy and disinterested in the game after he became a Knick, but
> the question is who isn't under Zeke?

I think that's the strategy Walsh is trying. If he believes D'Antoni can
get Zach to play well in his system, it would make sense to play him and
raise his future trade value. The Clippers are offering next to nothing
(it was reported today that they only offered a second round pick in
exchange) outside of a pure salary dump, so you could argue that holding
out for something better is the way to go. If your intention is to get
under the cap by 2010, you have until February of that year to trade him
for an expiring and picks. But this could backfire, especially
considering Zach's lack of effort last season. Blame it on Thomas if you
want (and I do), but putting up an effort is ultimately on the player
himself.

=p=
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

Pablo:

> If he believes D'Antoni can get Zach to play well in his system

Zach doesn't run. He can't shoot 3s (.266). He's about avg in FT (.774). His
rebounding (8.1) is mostly of the offensive type.

D's system is often started with steals or defensive rebounds, fast running
and being able to shoot from anywhere, not a half-court or post game.

With Curry and Zach (neither of whom does any defensive rebounding or
running), Knicks will be playing no defense and 3-on-5 basketball then.

Should be exciting.

DG
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

Glenn Greenstein:

> So second chance rebounding is a bad thing in D's system?

Generally, if two of your five players don't even make it to the paint area
in under 7 secs, they are not collecting many second-chance balls in his
system. Ask D' how the Shaq trade worked out.

DG
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Jul 13, 10:46 am, Pablo <pab....DeleteThis@stwing.spmBGone.org> wrote:

> I think that's the strategy Walsh is trying. If he believes D'Antoni can
> get Zach to play well in his system, it would make sense to play him and
> raise his future trade value.

That's an awful big gamble. It assumes D'Antoni has a "system" that
actually works with this roster (doubt it -- again, we've never seen
the D'Antoni "system" without Steve Nash, who also ran the "D'Antoni
system" under Don Nelson in Dallas before meeting D') and that
Randolph can fit into it. He ain't exactly Shawn Marion.

If he doesn't (most likely) and the Knicks lose most of their games,
regardless of whatever individual numbers he puts up, his value will
continue to plummet rather than rise, and we'll be stuck with him for
the duration.

Teams are not going to be lining up to pay Zach Randolph $48M until
2011. The current panic in Clipperland from Elton Brand bailing is
the perfect opportunity to take advantage of -- no other bad contracts
to take back and be saddled with. I have my doubts as to whether or
not that opportunity will come again.
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Jul 14, 8:56 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack....TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Zach can run if he is motivated and in shape.

That's a big if, that he hasn't very consistently made good on yet in
many years. Not here and not in Portland.
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

On Jul 12, 10:19 am, Pablo <pab....TakeThisOut@stwing.spmBGone.org> wrote:
> SI reported yesterday that Donnie Walsh rejected an offer from the
> Clippers to take Randolph off the Knicks' hands. Since the Clips are way
> under the cap, they're not required to send back matching contracts in a
> trade.
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/07/11/randolph.c...
>
> Alan Hahn reports that Walsh was trying to get Eric Gordon out of the
> deal, but the Clips said no:
>
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix125761451jul...
>
> I think I can see the thinking behind rejecting this deal, if the Knicks
> think they can raise Randolph's trade value by playing him early in the
> season. But I would have done this trade (perhaps foolishly) in a second.
>
> =p=

From today's Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2008/07/13/2008-07..._danilo

Walsh rejected a deal that would have sent Zach Randolph to the L.A.
Clippers, who recently lost Elton Brand to free agency. But there is a
good chance the trade could be revisited within the next two months.

---------

So hopefully he'll come back to this deal if there's not another one
he likes better. Or maybe he can finagle a little more out of the
Clips since they're already the ones asking.

Walsh hasn't typically gone for straight salary dumps... part of the
reason why Stern saw him as a good fit for Dolan, I suspect. He looks
for role players or young studs while keeping the financial situation
manageable. I suspect he's looking to do the same here.
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense 

Noah wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:46 am, Pablo <pab... RemoveThis @stwing.spmBGone.org> wrote:
>
>> I think that's the strategy Walsh is trying. If he believes D'Antoni can
>> get Zach to play well in his system, it would make sense to play him and
>> raise his future trade value.
>
> That's an awful big gamble. It assumes D'Antoni has a "system" that
> actually works with this roster (doubt it -- again, we've never seen
> the D'Antoni "system" without Steve Nash, who also ran the "D'Antoni
> system" under Don Nelson in Dallas before meeting D') and that
> Randolph can fit into it. He ain't exactly Shawn Marion.
>
> If he doesn't (most likely) and the Knicks lose most of their games,
> regardless of whatever individual numbers he puts up, his value will
> continue to plummet rather than rise, and we'll be stuck with him for
> the duration.
>
> Teams are not going to be lining up to pay Zach Randolph $48M until
> 2011. The current panic in Clipperland from Elton Brand bailing is
> the perfect opportunity to take advantage of -- no other bad contracts
> to take back and be saddled with. I have my doubts as to whether or
> not that opportunity will come again.

i gotta agree.

if the goal is salary dump for 2010...you take the 2nd rounder and call
it a day. what would you guys hold out for? an unprotected 1st? a
lotto protected 1st? do the clips have any player worth taking back?

it would seem to me that both teams think they have the edge over the
other. NY thinks the clips are desperate for a scorer, and LA think NY
is desperate to move zach.

i'm not sure if either team could really get a much better deal. but
the chance to dump randolph without throwing in lee.....you gotta admit,
thinking big picture, thats not a bad deal.

lee
 >> Stay informed about: This doesn't make sense