Posted by martin:

Posted by bobs3304:

^ Link.

google.com

Posted by nyk4ever:

Guys like Zach don't win very often in this league. I know everyone wants to point out Rasheed Wallace, but it hardly ever works out like it did for Rasheed and the Pistons. Wallace actually plays defense and he's an unselfish EFFICIENT offensive player. Zach could not be more of the opposite. He plays no defense and he's a very selfish and uneffecient offensive player who demands the ball. Great combo.

Our goal going forward should be to avoid guys like Zach at all costs. We can watch other teams that are desperate and need to take a chance on a guy like that and watch those teams implode when they get him, much like the Knicks will if Zach is here very long.

Posted by VDesai:


HELLO? Rasheed Wallace is a more efficient offensive player than Zach? By what measure? The guy shoots like 44% or less every year, takes way too many 3's, NEVER gets to the free throw line and doesn't rebound that well. Unselfish? With his two assists per game and poor shot selection. PLEASE. Rasheed Wallace went to a winning team and all of a sudden he became a team player and a good piece. He hangs around the perimeter and rarely battles inside to be more efficient.

Zach Randolph had all the talent traded out from under him. He was an emerging young player averaging 20 and shooting 48% when he still had vets. And then they were all gone and he was playing with nothing. What do you think he's gonna do.

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by VDesai:


HELLO? Rasheed Wallace is a more efficient offensive player than Zach? By what measure? The guy shoots like 44% or less every year, takes way too many 3's, NEVER gets to the free throw line and doesn't rebound that well. Unselfish? With his two assists per game and poor shot selection. PLEASE. Rasheed Wallace went to a winning team and all of a sudden he became a team player and a good piece. He hangs around the perimeter and rarely battles inside to be more efficient.

Zach Randolph had all the talent traded out from under him. He was an emerging young player averaging 20 and shooting 48% when he still had vets. And then they were all gone and he was playing with nothing. What do you think he's gonna do.

HELLO VDESAI

So becuase all the talent was traded away, that means Zach can act like a pompous ass and do whatever he wants?

The point of the whole Sheed comment is that everyone wants to say it worked out so well for Sheed, but that RARELY happens.

I hardly consider Zach to be a more efficient player just because he plays inside. His shooting %(46% a number that has decreased the last 5 seasons)is nothign to write home about, especially when you consider he does most of his work midrange and in. Factor in 3X more turnovers a game than Sheed and I don't think you are getting any efficiency. And oh yeah, he gives up just as many points defensively as he scores. Efficient player my butt.

Dude doesn't want to play D and he never will play D and he's a black hole offensively. You want that kind of guy on your team? Fine, but it's the same crap that we've dealt with by getting guys like Marbury, Crawford, Curry.

BYE VDESAI.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 11-16-2007 11:41 AM]

Posted by VDesai:


Rasheed misses a lot of shots and takes bad shots. That makes up for the turnovers. He doesn't do anything else offensively to make up for the huge advantage in pts Zach has. He is a much better defensive player. You made the point that he was much more efficient offensive player. That is patently false. Zach on the other hand is a good offensive player. That's why he was acquired

For whatever his off the field antics, Zach isn't dogging it out on the court. I think he's putting out a solid effort out there. Look he's not a good athlete. He's not gonna block shots or stick with mobile guys. We know that. Curry can't do that either. We should've added a guy who could be an interiort defender. I said that earlier. But that's another issue- that's not Zach.

From pretty much any perspective, Zach was Zeke's best acquisition by trade by a substantial margin. That doesn't correct his other trades. That doesn't make up for all the help this team needed. This team wasn't gonna solve anything with one move and needs MAJOR changes in many areas. A lot of that has nothing to do with Zach, but Zach being the newest guy is the newest scapegoat, but why?

He's a good player. He's not the answer. But he can help. Did we give up the future to get him? Absolutely not.

Look, I never wanted Zach. I wanted a interior defender. That is what this team needs. I'm not making Zach the scapegoat, because I know he's not the PROBLEM, but he's certainly not the answer either. I don't like the way he plays offense. I don't like his shot-selection. I don't like the fact that he's a blackhole and I don't like the fact that he sucks defensively. I don't want players with these attributes on the Knicks. Is it Zach's fault that he was traded here? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I have to like what he does when I don't think it is conducive to winning basketball.

And you're right, we gave up nothign for him, which is why the deal isn't a backbreaker, but one more blowup from Zach and his value nosedives and it becomes a back-breaker.

My opinion is that it's going to take some real good complimentary players to make that happen.