Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by colorfl1:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by colorfl1:

I cannot believe everyone is taking Lee if he is getting the same absurd salary as Crawford and Randolph.

Lee' s appeal has a lot to do with the fact that he is a value when equating contribution to salary...

Now, I too believe that Randolph has a lot to learn about playing TEAM basketball in the year 2008 but...
If LEE and Randoph had the same salary; you would have to be insane to take Lee!

Who here would not take Randolph at 2 million a year???
This poll is ridiculous --- there is not an honest man amongst you.

What are the *reasons* why you would take fat Zach over Lee? All you've done is attack those who would take Lee without giving one reason why you wouldn't.

I love what Lee brings to each game, lots of hustle and heart...
but people are drinking way to much hateraide when it concerns Zach.
Randolph has a great knack for rebounding and is a talented passer (when he chooses to pass), and unlike Lee, Zach brings an elite offensive arsenal,

Now, Zach's in an immensely immature player,,, hence the ball hogging,,, but when he is surrounded with a reliable environment, his game demeanor changes for the better.
The reason why the league wants nothing to do with him is because his contract is an albatross... he is insanely overpaid...

But if you take salaries out of the equation...
meaning Lee is no longer the bargain he is now salary-wise, and Zach's salary is more manageable..,

Once salary is negated from the equation; all the "experts" on this board would have to admit that Zach has far more skills than Lee, and is more likely to become a perennial all-star.

Zach is not a better rebounder than Lee and he's a better passer than Lee only if you ignore turnovers.

have you been watching these games???
Lee makes his share of really bad passes each game.

Randolph needs to pass more, but he is a very good passer out of the box.

If you think Lee is a better rebounder... than you must be basing your opinion on last year, because Zach has had multiple 17 rebound games this season, while Lee is pulling down 12-14 on his better games. it is not even close. there is an exceptional bias against Randolph because of his horrible salary.
If Zach was making 2.5 million a year he would be recognized as the player to build around...

Obviously Eddy Curry. There is no one in this year's draft, or next that I would take above him.

Posted by kam77:

If David Lee and Zach Randolph both made the same $5 mil per year, you still go with Lee because he still has potential to improve, will hustle for loose balls, is younger, is a team player, and will be a leader in the locker room. Zach Randolph is not a team player, has no more upside, and will probably get in some kind of trouble in his time on your team.

I disagree with this. Randolph's offensive game needs to major tweeking mainly being able to show patience when a good shot opportunity doesn't present itself but other then that he can score inside outside and has great hands. I think he could improve offensively because we're not talking about a ton of adjustments he needs to make in his game because fundamentally its all there just needs to be re-focused. Saying that he will get in trouble even if that was true there are players on very good teams that are no stranger to off the court trouble.

Posted by kam77:

If i was starting a franchise i'd be wary of guys who have a legal history.
I'd also know that a guy called a 'black hole' who is known for getting his on bad teams is a risky proposition. He won't change his stripes... he is too set in his ways for that to happen. He is accustomed to being THE MAN.

He's not the man here and it doesn't seem to be a huge issue for him. He doesn't try to pass himself off as some kind of savior or franchise player. Now I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors but I don't see him yapping to the papers that he should be getting a more shots or how his teammates aren't getting him the ball enough. Even though Randolph shouldn't be "the man" he still should be an intergral part of the offense. With these Knicks who would you rather see taking a 15ft him or Jared Jefferies, Fred Jones, Balkman?

Posted by kam77:

If David Lee and Zach Randolph both made the same $5 mil per year, you still go with Lee because he still has potential to improve, will hustle for loose balls, is younger, is a team player, and will be a leader in the locker room. Zach Randolph is not a team player, has no more upside, and will probably get in some kind of trouble in his time on your team.

Zach is 25 years old... how could you say he has no upside???
That is just an asinine statement.

By the way, asinine is saying someone is 25 years old as your only point. He has been in the league 7 years already. Whatever upside he had, he has pretty much realized. The rest is in that head of his.

Posted by colorfl1:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by colorfl1:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by colorfl1:

I cannot believe everyone is taking Lee if he is getting the same absurd salary as Crawford and Randolph.

Lee' s appeal has a lot to do with the fact that he is a value when equating contribution to salary...

Now, I too believe that Randolph has a lot to learn about playing TEAM basketball in the year 2008 but...
If LEE and Randoph had the same salary; you would have to be insane to take Lee!

Who here would not take Randolph at 2 million a year???
This poll is ridiculous --- there is not an honest man amongst you.

What are the *reasons* why you would take fat Zach over Lee? All you've done is attack those who would take Lee without giving one reason why you wouldn't.

I love what Lee brings to each game, lots of hustle and heart...
but people are drinking way to much hateraide when it concerns Zach.
Randolph has a great knack for rebounding and is a talented passer (when he chooses to pass), and unlike Lee, Zach brings an elite offensive arsenal,

Now, Zach's in an immensely immature player,,, hence the ball hogging,,, but when he is surrounded with a reliable environment, his game demeanor changes for the better.
The reason why the league wants nothing to do with him is because his contract is an albatross... he is insanely overpaid...

But if you take salaries out of the equation...
meaning Lee is no longer the bargain he is now salary-wise, and Zach's salary is more manageable..,

Once salary is negated from the equation; all the "experts" on this board would have to admit that Zach has far more skills than Lee, and is more likely to become a perennial all-star.

Zach is not a better rebounder than Lee and he's a better passer than Lee only if you ignore turnovers.

have you been watching these games???
Lee makes his share of really bad passes each game.

Randolph needs to pass more, but he is a very good passer out of the box.

If you think Lee is a better rebounder... than you must be basing your opinion on last year, because Zach has had multiple 17 rebound games this season, while Lee is pulling down 12-14 on his better games. it is not even close. there is an exceptional bias against Randolph because of his horrible salary.
If Zach was making 2.5 million a year he would be recognized as the player to build around...

the notion that Zach is a better rebounder than Lee isn't necessarily true... given similar minutes Lee is as good a rebounder as Zach... their per 48 stats point to this, both at 14-15 a game... Zach is unquestionably the more talented scorer overall, but Lee shoots a much higher percentage w/his offensive putbacks & finishing on fastbreak & off guard penetration into the lane, which are things Zach doesn't really do (or hasn't done since he's been here) since half the time he's parked on the perimeter looking to shoot a long range jumper... both are horrible defenders... Lee is much better running the break & a better outlet passer, Zach is more of a pick & roll half court style player... Lee has the much better team oriented attitude, Zach is a me-first type of player in my view... Lee comes with no off the court baggage, Zach comes with loads of it... Lee is a coach's dream, Zach wants the ball & wants to be the go to guy in the post, not necessarily a bad thing, but if he doesn't get the ball he becomes a hard guy to deal with in the lockerroom... you will never get that from Lee.

i think that's as fair an assessment you'll get about these 2 players & maybe now you'll see some reasons why people around here would want Lee on their team over Zach irregardless of the dollars they were making.

Posted by colorfl1:

[b]Posted by kam77:

By the way, asinine is saying someone is 25 years old as your only point. He has been in the league 7 years already. Whatever upside he had, he has pretty much realized. The rest is in that head of his.

A player hits his prime between the ages of 29-31...

According to what criteria?

Those days players did 4 years of college. Now players are breaking down by their tenth season (around age 30). I can't think of more than a couple of current examples where a players significantly improved after the mid 20s.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-03-2008 06:18 AM]