Monday, September 8, 2008

About that Zach for Darko/Marko Deal . . .

by Lee Eric Smith

Lots of linkety-links, mostly from NY Media . . .

Newsday: Darko would welcome a trade.
TheKnicksBlog: Grizz want a first rounder.
RealGM Message Boards (via translation): Darko's "99 percent sure" he'll be a Knick by Friday.
Newsday Blog: Zach expects to be with Grizzlies this fall.

I know we're just Memphis, smallest NBA market, dealing with NY, the NBA's Biggest, but all I keep hearing about is why NY wants to unload Zach. . . . kind of an addition by subtraction thing.

What I haven't heard is: Why are we doing this trade?

I get it, Zach is a veteran 20-10 guy, a complete bull in the post, and we need somebody we can throw the ball to when the game slows down. And maybe that's all that needs to be said. But somehow, that doesn't seem like enough.

Upgrade? Look at it this way: NBA analysts all over the net are considering Darko a mild UPGRADE in New York, or at least a better fit. Now think about how the consensus on Darko is that he's a bust, and maybe you understand my concern. Why would Donnie Walsh trade a proven 20-10 guy for a promising, but still unproven Darko? Who's really getting fleeced here?

If Zach Don't Fit in NY: Given that Iavaroni wants to run just as much as D'Antoni in NY, and Z-Bo "doesn't fit" in D'Antoni's system, it begs the question of how Z would fit in Memphis.

Defense. Zach's not known for it; Kevin O'Neill will DEMAND IT. If we're trying to IMPROVE defense, why trade our best shot blocker? And do you think there would be chaos in the locker room if O'Neill jumped down Z-Bo's throat for missing an assignment? What would that do to chemistry? Would Zach run over Iavaroni?

What do we already have? Granted Hak is skinny and 'Toine is older, but Hak put up respectable numbers at the 4 in about 23 minutes, as did 'Toine in 19. I'm not saying that either of them is as good as Zach, but together, their production could conceivably add up to Z-Bo's -- without giving up an improving big man in Darko. Besides, if neither Zach nor Hak (hey, a rhyme) are going to play defense at the 4, I'd rather go with the young gun, who probably fits better with our running, swarming style (I hope . . . for both the style and Hak's fit).

The Knucklehead Factor. It's been said that both Zach and 'Toine can be knuckleheads. If that's true, in my mind, the tie goes to the one with the ring: Antoine Walker. He won a championship with Miami in 2006, and has more playoff wins than Zach. Plus, he's adapting to his now-and-future role as an aging player: backup to the younger players -- Hak and Darrell.

Paper. Ah yes, the money. Z-Bo's contract is the same as Pau's was, even expires at the same time (I think). Granted Z is tougher and meaner than Pau, no question, but I'm not sure how he fits the 3YP.

Proposed deal makes SOME basketball sense, little financial sense (unless they hold out for the draft pick), and almost NO "chemistry" sense. . . . to me, anyway. So . . .

Why are we doing this again?

If you got answers, please explain below . . .


Chip Crain said...

Why are we doing this?

The reason the Grizzlies could be interested in Zach is obvious. He is a name player that could sell tickets and he would dramatically improve the rebounding on the Grizzlies roster. He brings experience and a veteran voice to a very young team as well. Zach is capable of averaging 20 pts and 10 rebounds a game and when motivated and focused is a load for any opponent to contain.

Big Griz Fan 0 said...

Hey, let's NOT do it! As was stated earlier, "he's been injury-prone, a potential problem in the locker room, he's expensive." Anyway we have three guys who can play the 4 spot and two of them need some PT so they can further develop. We need a backup for Rudy! Say, what happened to that guy from the summer league from Texas? Tucker?

Akram said...

I think he fits the 3YP just fine. After 2 years, our young guns should be ready to role, if Randolph has been a stud, keep him. If he's been a bum, hes a HUGE expiring contract some team would take on. If they throw in that 1st round pick, you do the deal without question, even if it requires giving them say JCritt in return for the pick.

Little Rock said...

I agree that he actually fits the
3y plan quite well. And he is a stud. And I think giving up just Darko and Marco would, on paper, be a great deal. But I really don't like adding a bad apple. Maybe Chris Wallacde knows something about him that we don't. Did Maurice Cheeks, who coached him in Portland, want him in Philadelphia?

zack said...

how does trading darko and jaric for zbo make little financial sense?

10 million dollars 3 years from now is that much of a problem?

Lee Eric Smith said...

So apparently, this deal is a no-brainer, and I'm the one with no brain. It's happened before.

Like I said, his beastly production of 20-10 a night may be all we need to know. It just seems rather odd that nobody's talking about the benefits to the Grizzlies.

As for the name brand of Zach, I don't know how many more people buy tickets because of Zach himself--maybe what he represents (20-10), but not him. But I guess as long as butts are in seats. . .

As for financial sense, I've lost track, with all the transactions we've made. But given that we would basically be getting Pau's salary back, does that tie us up for next offseason as far as FAs are concerned?

I'm not against this trade, I'm just not 100 percent sold yet, that's all.