# Leandrinho Barbosa



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Barbosa scored 27 points tonight on 11-18 shooting, taking over for Starbury in Phoenix.

I'm sure glad Portland got Travis Outlaw. Portland doesn't need a talented point guard...


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

omg...i just posted a topic JUST like this


LOL


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

yeah.. I was screaming his name last draft day... potential he has... he has not shown too much thought until this game

I think we could have made a similar trade to the Spurs for him too after we passed on him for Travis. Travis has potential too. He is just a long project. But he has hops


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

As good as Whitset did with Randolph and J O'Neil he did eaqaully as poor with Woods and Outlaw! Barbosa was exactly what this team needed. I was chanting his name as draft time!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Woods is hard to tell on.

Outlaw, though, I think was Patterson's (was Nash in place yet?).

Outlaw didn't strike me as a Whitsitt pick. It was a reach. Lampe would have been a Whitsitt pick. Go for a possibly undervalued commodity.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Outlaw could obviously still pan out, but Portland could have had Travis AND Barbosa... remember, Phoenix traded with San Antonio for Barbosa, sending a future first rounder. Portland could have sent, say, a future first and a future second, or a first + cash and taken the dude.

It seems Portland was relying on signing Payton... or relying on Damon. I don't know which position would have been less wise.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Seemed like no one wanted to take the credit/blame for this year's pick. Everyone sort of passed the buck ... either it wasn't fully Whitsitt's job anymore or Nash hadn't been in place long enough to assert his choices. Ended up being the most ho-hum pick imaginable. I *hope* it really was Whitsitt's pick, otherwise we might be sorely disappointed by the draft this summer.

Dan


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

What a name... Outlaw... :laugh:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

yes SacKings384... it sure is a new funny to have an Outlaw on our team. He is a very good kid... comes from a good family it seems. And he has talent.. long term talent we all hope.




> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Seemed like no one wanted to take the credit/blame for this year's pick. Everyone sort of passed the buck ... either it wasn't fully Whitsitt's job anymore or Nash hadn't been in place long enough to assert his choices. Ended up being the most ho-hum pick imaginable. I *hope* it really was Whitsitt's pick, otherwise we might be sorely disappointed by the draft this summer.
> 
> Dan


Nash was not hired until late summer... Patterson, Mo and company called the shots at draft time. Even Patterson had only been ther for about a week or so. But theire were comments made by Travis weeks before.. it seems if he was still available when we got to draft we would take him... and we did!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> What a name... Outlaw... :laugh:


Wow. That joke is so summer of 2003.


----------



## Medvedenko4Life (Dec 29, 2003)

Barbosa will prolly not even start in phoenix.....damn that charlie ward.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Cute. The Suns are going to release Charlie Ward.


----------



## Medvedenko4Life (Dec 29, 2003)

oh,well thats good, but still, damn that Howard eisley


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Its just been one game and Outlaw hasn't played a lick, lets not all go out and say that he sucks. Things are pretty rough right now for this team and one of the last players who should be criticized is Outlaw. People would be saying the exact same thing if you were to switch the names around... "Why didn't we draft the kid who can touch the top of the backboard who was on that one SC highlight last night?" I realize that we could have used a PG, but seriously, give him some time.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Barbosa scored 27 points tonight on 11-18 shooting, taking over for Starbury in Phoenix.
> 
> I'm sure glad Portland got Travis Outlaw. Portland doesn't need a talented point guard...


Oh my god! 

One game means everything!

Why did we ever cut Tracy Murry?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

He dropped 50 points one night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Who freaking cares? Guy had one good game. Get a grip folks.


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Cute. The Suns are going to release Charlie Ward.


tsk tsk tsk minstrel thats not like u, not to do ur homework.

If they release charlie, they will have to pay him for this year and next. Ward has a team buy out option at the end of this year. His contract will be negotiated and bought out at the end of the season.

why? cap space for next season, next step off load jahidi and we can then offer kobe a max (which he wont take)


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Nash was not hired until late summer... Patterson, Mo and company called the shots at draft time.


Sorry, I flip flopped them. Now you know why I refer to the group as Natterpeeks... Since none of them really seem to do anything, it's easier than trying to figure out who does what and when. They're all nice guys, at least.  

Dan


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

actually ward can be bought out on the 10th


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

You can't judge Outlaw yet... that is silly. By the same token, J. O'neal was a horrid pick because he stunk for a few years. Give him time. In 4-5 years let me know what you think of Outlaw, would you rather have him or someone that actually expected to play sitting on the bench?


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

*Barbosa*

I watched Barbosa 2-3 times in the preseason and although his jumpshot is very awkward, I was mightily impressed by his poise, defense, and athleticism. I am not surprised at all that he did so well. I think Ward was insurance in the deal because I believe that Phoenix's brass think hat Leandro is the Sun's future PG.

I don't understand the Antonio McDyess thing though... they already have huge stars at the 3&4 with Soudemire and Marion.

Stuart


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Outlaw was Bob's last pick, but of course his decision had major imput from many of the same scouts who are now working for Nash. While Nash came on after the draft, Patterson made comments at the time saying that he would have chosen someone else (he gave no insight as to who that might have been). Like the Piston's with Darko, Travis wasn't picked to be depended on this season but for his potencial down the road. Leandrinho had to sit on the bench behind vets in Phoenix, and likely would have been buried on the Blazer bench behind Damon and McInnis this season had Portland selected him. It seems to me that a quality point prospect or two slips through the lottery nearly every year, so maybe this next draft will be the year Portland selects their point of the future. With both Damon and Jeff having only one more season after this under contract, it would seem like a good situation to bring in someone to carry bags and clap for a year while acclimating to the league. 

IMO, last draft Portland should have drafted the prospect with the most upside regardless of position. Maybe in a couple of years they will look foolish in passing on Leandrinho, Josh Howard (my guy) or ???, but for right now I'm just hoping that Travis will pan out the way that they project him to. Physically the guy at 19 has the size and length of Scottie Pippen, and of course he can jump out of the gym. The grass isn't always greener...

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> I don't understand the Antonio McDyess thing though... they already have huge stars at the 3&4 with Soudemire and Marion.


Cap relief, his deal is up after this season.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Outlaw has length and athleticism. Great. Have we heard anything yet about his skills? The CBA if full of phenomenol athletes who don't possess the skills to compete in the NBA. Pogo sticks don't create motion on offense and made shots when the defense collapses in the lane... Skills can be developed, but usually, there needs to be at least a modest skill level to build upon. My impression of Outlaw's scouting report is that no one outside our organization thought he possesses that.

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Outlaw has length and athleticism.


...plus size, youth, character (supposively), and a last name the easily amused can make fun of.



> Pogo sticks don't create motion on offense and made shots when the defense collapses in the lane... Skills can be developed, but usually, there needs to be at least a modest skill level to build upon. My impression of Outlaw's scouting report is that no one outside our organization thought he possesses that.


No one? I don't know if you somehow have access to what everyone else is thinking, but this seems to be an overstatement of things to me. If Portland's scouts/braintrust think he's a talent worth selecting over the others, their track record is good enough for me to be patient while he matures. Like you said, skills can be developed.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I said length instead of size, because he really doesn't have any size to speak of. Unless, of course, the idea was to draft a complimentary player to Nedzad so he wouldn't look so skinny in comparison...

If Outlaw adds 30 pounds of muscle, then I'll grant him the size moniker. Until then, he's just long.

"*My impression* of Outlaw's scouting report is that no one outside our organization thought he possesses that."

No, I don't know what everyone else thought. All I know is no reports I saw from anyone other than the Blazers indicated he was a legit 1st round pick with any skills to speak of. Even the Blazers weren't unanymous in their interest for him, as evidenced by Patterson's statement.

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh my god!
> ...


Now, now, Fork. Instead of showing off the fact that you can be sarcastic about a point no one has made, why not actually try to add to the conversation in a civil manner?

I didn't say one good game meant everything. But having a fabulous performance in a real (not exhibition) NBA game *in his first game* (as opposed to some random game among hundreds played) suggests some talent.

Talent that the Blazers could use at point guard.

Perhaps you should get a grip. Such unfocused vitriol can't be good for your system.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shazha</b>!
> actually ward can be bought out on the 10th


Fine, bought out and released. I apologize for not "researching" Charlie Ward (I know fascinating a subject he is  ), but I knew the Suns were expected to be rid of him soon.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

And now, courtesy of SoCal's Handy-Dandy Way Back Machine, let's go back two years to January of 2002 and see what Blazer fans were saying then about their #1 draft pick:



> In case you missed it, Jamaal Tinsley is averaging 8.8 assists per game and 1.78 steals per game. And we passed him over for Zach Randolph in the draft - a brilliant move. The Blazers need a good point guard and one was available, but we took another power forward. It's absolutely mind blowing. Trader Bob will never hear the end of this one.


And the moral of the story, my dear Sherman, is that you cannot adequately judge a draft pick by one game, one month, or even one year. It takes time.


Someone else can do a Fractured Fairy Tale.....


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> And now, courtesy of SoCal's Handy-Dandy Way Back Machine...


Thats a neat little machine you got there SoCal, does it make chocolates? I likey chocolates.

STuart


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

SoCal, point well taken. However, with defference to comparisons to picks like Zach and Jermaine (and even Qyntel), both of them had obvious upside besides just being young. They were players projected to do well and had positive buzz around them in practice. I've yet to see any such thing surrounding Outlaw.

If he's got the goods, then it's safe to say Travis is the best kept secret in the NBA, 'cause no one is talking about him other than as a tasteless punchline.

In hindsight, it would've been nice to trade last year's #1 to some team's #1 this year. Having 3 or more #1's in a year surely could net something could. I'm far from convinced (at this point) that Outlaw will ever fit that bill. I'd like to be proven wrong, of course.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I didn't say one good game meant everything. But having a fabulous performance in a real (not exhibition) NBA game *in his first game* (as opposed to some random game among hundreds played) suggests some talent.


Flip Murray?

"I'm sure glad Portland got Travis Outlaw. Portland doesn't need a talented point guard..."

I guess I wasn't meant to take this literally? 

I guess I just don't see the need to talk **** about Travis Outlaw. He hasn't gotten a chance to show his stuff yet, which is not his fault. 

Sure we could use point guard talent, but if you decide to bring up every good performance by every player we _could_ have drafted, you'll be making a LOT of posts at the expense of our current players. 

We could have had Raul Lopez, Jamaal Tinsley or Tony Parker instead of Zach Randolph. Sure, they're good players, but I think I'll stick with what we have.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Im not saying Outlaw isnt gonna be good. IMO in any other draft he would have been a top 20 pick, but last year was the stronges draft in possible 10-25 years. 

We should have taken Barbosa...maby even Lampe. 



IMO Outlaw will become a career 6th or 7th man and put up 8-10 points and 5-6 rebounds by the time e is 22 or 23.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Flip Murray?


And Flip Murray doesn't have some reasonable talent? I definitely think he does. Maybe not at the level of how he seemed early, but then, I never said that Barbosa is going to be a 27 ppg scorer. Only that he seems talented.



> I guess I wasn't meant to take this literally?


You were. You just weren't supposed to add in extra meaning that wasn't offered. Like that Outlaw is going to be terrible and Barbosa a superstar.



> I guess I just don't see the need to talk **** about Travis Outlaw. He hasn't gotten a chance to show his stuff yet, which is not his fault.


All fine. I wasn't "talking ****" about Outlaw. My point was that the team is in bigger need of a talented point guard rather than an athletic freak who may or may not have any real basketball skill. Most scouting reports I read of Outlaw said he was a brilliant athlete but possessed no basketball skills.



> We could have had Raul Lopez, Jamaal Tinsley or Tony Parker instead of Zach Randolph. Sure, they're good players, but I think I'll stick with what we have.


Sure, but Randolph had skills (and little athleticism, actually, making him the anti-Travis) which made him a better bet in my opinion. Plus he's a big man (insofar as he plays a "big man" position in the NBA). Outlaw projects to a small forward. While a small forward is a need, point guard is more necessary and Barbosa, in my opinion, has more skill than Outlaw, making him a superior bet to succeed.

Finally, I believe Outlaw was a reach. Many teams had him as a second-round talent. It's possible the Blazers could have drafted Barbosa and then acquired Outlaw on the cheap...second-round picks aren't highly valued in general.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> And Flip Murray doesn't have some reasonable talent? I definitely think he does. Maybe not at the level of how he seemed early, but then, I never said that Barbosa is going to be a 27 ppg scorer. Only that he seems talented.


Sure, Murray is okay. But if you judged him based on his first game, you'd be VASTLY overrating his value, just as you are with Barbosa. One game doesn't make a career. You make this mad jump to the conclusion that Outlaw was a bad selection and that Barbosa should have been the guy we took based on the 7 minutes Outlaw has gotten this season. 



> You were. You just weren't supposed to add in extra meaning that wasn't offered. Like that Outlaw is going to be terrible and Barbosa a superstar.


Text:"I'm sure glad we got Travis Outlaw"
Subtext:  This guy sucks!

Text:"Portland doesn't need a talented point guard..."
Subtext:"This Barbosa guy could totally start for us, right now!"

You inferred that Outlaw was a poor selection and you also inferred that Barbosa would be a great fit on our team. In the present tense, Outlaw doesn't have much value to us, true, but then again neither does Barbosa. A shoot first, pass maybe later PG is something that we have pretty much locked down at the time being. Frankly, it's obvious that Cheeks isn't planning to bench Stoudamire anytime this season. Barring another arrest, he's firmly entrenched in the PG spot. Why would Barbosa be any better on this team? Next year, the situation won't be any different. He'd still be a shoot first pass second PG with limited defensive abilities.



> Sure, but Randolph had skills (and little athleticism, actually, making him the anti-Travis) which made him a better bet in my opinion. Plus he's a big man (insofar as he plays a "big man" position in the NBA). Outlaw projects to a small forward. While a small forward is a need, point guard is more necessary and Barbosa, in my opinion, has more skill than Outlaw, making him a superior bet to succeed.


Sounds like you're engaging in some Monday morning quarterbacking. When Zach Randolph was drafted in 2001, PF was a clear position of strength on our team. Easily our strongest position in fact. Rasheed Wallace was coming off of two years as an all star at the position, averaging a career high 19.2 ppg, and we were still in our championship window. Our PG position was actually more tenuous at that time than it is now. Anthony was leaving. Pippen was getting old. We didn't have McInnis. So why did we pick a PF? Because the guy making the pick saw something that told him that Zach Randolph was the guy with the most upside and would have the most value to the team. But that first year when Zach was barely playing and Tony Parker was putting up numbers...plenty of people were jumping the gun and crying out that we should have drafted Tony Parker. 

I don't understand how the Travis Outlaw selection could be viewed as any different. He has a lot of potential and one game of early success for another player, even if he is at a position where we're weak, doesn't mean Outlaw was a bad selection. 



> Finally, I believe Outlaw was a reach. Many teams had him as a second-round talent. It's possible the Blazers could have drafted Barbosa and then acquired Outlaw on the cheap...second-round picks aren't highly valued in general.


I never saw a single mock draft that had him in the 2nd round, nor did I hear of any team that believed he'd be around in the 2nd round.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure, Murray is okay. But if you judged him based on his first game, you'd be VASTLY overrating his value, just as you are with Barbosa. One game doesn't make a career.


Again, you're simply inventing things in your head. Unless you can stick to what's said, you're not adding much to discussion.

Otherwise, I can "infer" that you think Barbosa is crap and Outlaw is a future superstar. You didn't say that, and probably don't mean it, so have I increased the level of dialogue by creating my own inferances and stuffing them in your mouth?



> You make this mad jump to the conclusion that Outlaw was a bad selection and that Barbosa should have been the guy we took based on the 7 minutes Outlaw has gotten this season.


Quite incorrect. I wasn't even aware Outlaw had gotten 7 minutes. I told you, already, what I'm basing it on. Scouting reports by those who actually watched him far more exhaustively than you or I, need and possibility of Outlaw being a reach.



> Text:"I'm sure glad we got Travis Outlaw"
> Subtext:  This guy sucks!
> 
> Text:"Portland doesn't need a talented point guard..."
> Subtext:"This Barbosa guy could totally start for us, right now!"


This is why transforming what's actually said into something you'd like to hear and scream about is considered poor debating style. Just as when you magically "inferred" that I thought Kobe was a rapist just because I said Kobe had already done worse (adultary, which I said at the time) than Wallace.

You make insane, paranoid leaps from actual text to new, wild, fantastic statements that are easier for you to be outraged at.



> I don't understand how the Travis Outlaw selection could be viewed as any different.


I've already told you how the Outlaw selection could be viewed as different from the Zach Randolph selection. In my opinion, skills are much more projectable into success than raw athleticism. Randolph had skills at draft time. Outlaw, according to scouts, had none.

Big difference.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*

Again, who were these scouts that had Outlaw as projected as a 2nd rounder? And please post links to all the scouting reports you found on Barbosa, I'd love to read the ones that you read. The ones I read said he was basically highly athletic with no outside shot and questionable decision making skills. 

I fail to see how that would have been a better selection for us over Outlaw. Neither would have contributed this season.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

From what it looks like AI is not happy in Phili, maybe Sheed for AI, then we'll have a PG and Sheed can go home!


----------



## guilherme.rcf (Mar 4, 2003)

Barbosa made everybody see what he can do. He did the same things that he used to do in Brazil in his first true game in the NBA. That means something. He is talented. And he will get even better, game after game. In some weeks there will be people saying that he is the steal of the past draft. Lucky Suns.

* I'm brazilian but I have been in Portland once. Very nice and beautiful city. The university's campus is great, I went to a party in there. I also liked that rose garden, nice place to take a girl to.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Again, who were these scouts that had Outlaw as projected as a 2nd rounder?


I didn't say scouts had him as a second rounder. I referenced scouts as saying Outlaw had no skills. Barbosa was listed as having a weak jumper, but I never read any scouts report saying he had no basketball skills.

The part about Outlaw being a second-rounder on many teams' boards was something I heard during draft day coverage. It's also something I recall others also mentioning, on this board, that they had heard that day.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>guilherme.rcf</b>!
> I also liked that rose garden, nice place to take a girl to.


Well, if she likes basketball, anyway...

barfo


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> ...I believe Outlaw was a reach. Many teams had him as a second-round talent.





> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I didn't say scouts had him as a second rounder. I referenced scouts as saying Outlaw had no skills.


Those two statements seem to be contradictory. Maybe I'm making an "insane, paranoid leap" and possibly even "inventing things in my head."


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Those two statements seem to be contradictory. Maybe I'm making an "insane, paranoid leap" and possibly even "inventing things in my head."


Maybe. Or maybe you just don't have the attention span to read what we like to call "Paragraph *2*" before you resort to sarcasm.

Here it is again for you (again, it was paragraph 2...not too hard to find, same size print as paragraph 1):



> The part about Outlaw being a second-rounder on many teams' boards was something I heard during draft day coverage. It's also something I recall others also mentioning, on this board, that they had heard that day.


All clear now? The part about Outlaw being second-round material was from what draft day analyzers were saying during the coverage and not from scouting reports.

Exciting Tidbit for Everyone: Post #4000. Glad it came on the Portland board and not in any post-padding fashion.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Maybe. Or maybe you just don't have the attention span to read what we like to call "Paragraph *2*" before you resort to sarcasm.
> 
> ...




Whether you heard it from a scouting report or from a commentator makes no difference. Where do you figure the commentators get their information? Maybe from a scouting report?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are you trying to argue? You asked me where I heard it, I told you.

First I said I felt Outlaw was a reach because I heard that many teams had him as a second-round prospect.

You said you saw no scouting reports saying that.

I said, I didn't get it from scouting reports. Evidently unbeknownst to you, I said I heard it from draft day commentators.

You said, gosh, you're contradicting yourself...you said you heard he was second round material and now you're saying you didn't!

I noted that I never said I didn't, I simply didn't get it from scouting reports. I didn't contradict myself at all.

So your response is: Uh....okay....but uh....where do you think commentators get it? 

Commentators may get their draft board information from team sources. In fact, that's precisely where I'd expect *draft day* information to come from.

But it really makes no difference where they get it. That's where I heard it.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Commentators may get their draft board information from team sources. In fact, that's precisely where I'd expect *draft day* information to come from.


That may very well be. 

I was actually trying to get you to post a link so that I can read where teams/scouts/commentators believed Outlaw was a 2nd round talent.

Evidently no such link exists. Fine.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leandrinho Barbosa*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> I was actually trying to get you to post a link so that I can read where teams/scouts/commentators believed Outlaw was a 2nd round talent.
> 
> Evidently no such link exists. Fine.


Ah, okay. Yes, no such link exists. It was on television.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I'm pretty sure I read articles saying such, but I doubt it would be easy to scrounge up links at this point. Many news sites don't keep dynamic content around that long, regardless of if it's even searchable.

But more importantly, in my opinion, there's been no evidence _since_ the draft of Outlaw being better than 2nd round material. Jermaine, Zach, and Qyntel all had a buzz around them (don't go there!); talk of them dominating practice and the sky being the limit. Travis is surrounded by complete silence... Not a word about his skills, progress, or potential. How promising is that?

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> please post links to all the scouting reports you found on Barbosa, I'd love to read the ones that you read. The ones I read said he was basically highly athletic with no outside shot and questionable decision making skills.


I think we've all refered to NBAdraft.net a few times, here's their take on Leandrinho pre-draft...

http://nbadraft.net/profiles/leandrobarbosa.htm

Seems to me that they call him a capable outside shooter (when his feet are set), and are certainly not claiming that he doesn't have one...

BTW, in their posted 2003 mock, they have Outlaw projected in the first round and claim that he has dramatically improved his jump shot (a skill right?) since his soph year. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Heres another nbadraft.net link rating the prospects and not taking into account team needs... check out #10 

http://nbadraft.net/2003prospects.htm

STOMP


----------



## guilherme.rcf (Mar 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if she likes basketball, anyway...
> ...


im talking about a garden of roses located in portland.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>guilherme.rcf</b>!
> 
> 
> im talking about a garden of roses located in portland.


Yeah, I was just kidding you. I agree the Rose Garden (with the roses) is quite a nice place. Glad you liked our city, come back and visit us again sometime.

barfo


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

That's certainly a high projection for Outlaw, but...



> Still very unskilled, but has shown continued development. Inside sources say he's likely coming, and a late lotto/mid first round pick. His long term skills would benefit from a year or two in college.


Reading between the lines there, it sure sounds like he was completely devoid of any skill. Continued development to the point of still being very unskilled? That's a heckuva compliment!  

Too bad we'll never know if that year or two of college would have helped... We'll probably keep him around just long enough to get back to that point of development, then he'll jump ship like Jermaine and we'll be left wondering why we're a farm team for HS'ers that aren't ready to contribute.

Dan


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

p.s. STOMP, in your private message, you mentioned Outlaw weighing in at pre-draft at 220. Note that the bio linked to the prospects page you gave shows him at 195, which is much more in line with what I was figuring (from footage shown of him around draft time) when I said he needs to put on 30 pounds of muscle to have a chance.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I think we need to accept that we are not going anywhere anytime soon. Makes sense to take gambles on players like Outlaw... we already have two mediocre NBA point guards.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

That 195 was presumably his weight at the start of his final high school season, the 220 was a year later fully clothed (he might have had a few rolls of quarters in his pockets though  ). I don't think it should come as a great surprise that this string bean added more weight in the year prior to the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if after spending the last 6 months with Blazer trainers and nutritionists, that he's added even more.

We're down to splitting hairs on the skills angle, but saying he's improved his skills (specifically his shooting stroke) implys that he has skills, which some here were claiming he didn't have at all. Obviously he's got a ways to go, but it's nice to know that he apparently has a whole lot going for him already. I'm sure that everyone here has only high hopes for Travis's developement.

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*I think that one thing that is missed here*

Is the fact that the management team in Phoenix has a long established history of putting good teams on the floor, they have had a tough run the last few years, but over the long haul (20 years plus), they have tended to put good teams out on the floor, makes me think that they have a pretty good shot at evaluating current talent. With the team struggling this year, and them having a better chance to evaluate Barbosa up close then any of us, tends to make me think they probably know what they are doing in the long run.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

You guys notice that in that top 10 prospects list that Anderson Varejo, Hakinm Warick and Emeka Okafur are rated 7, 8 and 9? So in the list of who was actually drafted, Outlaw would rank in at #7.

He has freakish athleticism, which is something that cannot be taught.

BTW they also have Dwayne Wade ranked as #17.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> He has freakish athleticism, which is something that cannot be taught.


How many freakish athletes devoid of skills can you name that have succeeded in the NBA? That's a recipe for HS, College, and CBA success, not the NBA. I've long believed that the absolute best athletes are playing at the low levels, because they don't have the skills necessary to compete with the big boys.

Until Outlaw develops some skills -- and I'm not saying he can't, just that there's no sign yet that he has -- his athleticism means next to nothing in the context of the NBA.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> How many freakish athletes devoid of skills can you name that have succeeded in the NBA? That's a recipe for HS, College, and CBA success, not the NBA. I've long believed that the absolute best athletes are playing at the low levels, because they don't have the skills necessary to compete with the big boys.
> 
> ...


Probably not even close to half as many as there are highly skilled guys who have little to no athletic ability who can't make it in the NBA.

You can teach Travis Outlaw to dribble and shoot, but you'll never be able to teach Matt Carrol to jump out of the gym.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I don't agree with that. Bird, Magic, and even Isaiah were not exceptional athletes (in terms of jumping ability and blazing speed). Their skill level is what separated them from the rest. Hornacek, Mullin, Reggie Miller? Even Jordan was at his best when he relied less on his athleticism and more on his skills. Shaq was not dominant until he developed the skills to compliment his physical gifts.

Again, name one player who has made it at this level without basketball skills? And I don't mean just making a roster. Actually contributing.

At this point, I consider Carroll a better prospect than Outlaw. Outlaw might have more potential, but potential has to be realized before it means anything.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> At this point, I consider Carroll a better prospect than Outlaw. Outlaw might have more potential, but potential has to be realized before it means anything.


Potential, even unrealized, has a present value. 

In my opinion, when you measure a prospect you're looking at a combination of present ability/efficacy, how good that player COULD be if things go perfectly, and how likely things are to go perfectly.

Matt Carroll will never, even under ideal circumstances, be a better-than-average player. He shoots the ball pretty well, but he lacks quickness, jumping ability and everything else that we bundle up as "athleticism". He's also 23 years old: pretty advanced in age for someone who wasn't good enough to be drafted.

Travis Outlaw, on the other hand, has excellent athleticism. He has an "NBA body" that promises to let him add additional bulk and strength. If things go perfectly for Outlaw, he will be a HoF-level player. The odds on that happening are slim, but an all-star level career is certainly easily visualized for someone with Outlaw's tools.

Add in that he's 19 (over 4 years younger than Carroll) and there's no WAY that Carroll's half the prospect that Outlaw is.

With all of this said, there's no guarantee that Outlaw won't fail to develop and be out of the NBA after his rookie contract. While I'd rather the Blazers have picked Barbosa or Lampe, there's always that "wash out" possibility when you pick late in the first round.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> You guys notice that in that top 10 prospects list that Anderson Varejo, Hakim Warick and Emeka Okafur are rated 7, 8 and 9? So in the list of who was actually drafted, Outlaw would rank in at #7. He has freakish athleticism, which is something that cannot be taught. BTW they also have Dwayne Wade ranked as #17.


Well the list was made on 3/3/03 so things obviously moved around a bit, but I also think it's important to note the profile of what this is exactly a list of...

"This list is not an indication of where players are projected to be drafted, but a projection of how they will end up in the NBA." 

Basically this is a long term gamble/pick like Jermaine was (another raw, strait from HS player who had to work on his game/body)... all in favor of hastily dismissing Travis from the good ship Trailblazers please jump off the plank to your right .

How about getting him a mentor this upcoming offseason like UFA Brian Cardinal to show him how to play the game without freakish athletism? He'll be both available and (IMO) a very good addition with his defense, hustle, and spot up shooting. 

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> In my opinion, when you measure a prospect you're looking at a combination of present ability/efficacy, how good that player COULD be if things go perfectly, and how likely things are to go perfectly.


Agreed.



> Matt Carroll will never, even under ideal circumstances, be a better-than-average player. He shoots the ball pretty well, but he lacks quickness, jumping ability and everything else that we bundle up as "athleticism". He's also 23 years old: pretty advanced in age for someone who wasn't good enough to be drafted.


That I cannot agree with. Hornacek is the perfect example of someone no more physically gifted than Carroll (smaller and quite possibly less athletic) and with a similar skill set. Also a late bloomer (college walk-on; under-appreciated until late in his NBA career). When all was said and done, he was one of the most deadly perimeter players in the league and a perennial playoff contributor. Not too shabby for a guy with very limited potential by your equation.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I don't agree with that. Bird, Magic, and even Isaiah were not exceptional athletes (in terms of jumping ability and blazing speed). Their skill level is what separated them from the rest.


Isiah Thomas was an exceptional athlete. That point aside, those are three of the most highly skilled players in the history of the game. I'm not saying you can teach Outlaw to get to that level. Guys like that are exceedingly rare and they clearly have skills that can't be taught. To expect any player to rise to that level...even Lebron James...is to have unrealistic expectations. 



> Hornacek, Mullin, Reggie Miller?


Probably three of the better shooters of the 80's and 90's. I'm not saying Outlaw can learn to shoot that well. But he's not going to be expected to be a three point specialist. He's a forward. His best position will probably be PF, so he's not going to need to be Chris Mullin to be a good player in the league. His skills will be rebounding, running the break, playing tough defense and hitting mid range jump shots.



> Even Jordan was at his best when he relied less on his athleticism and more on his skills. Shaq was not dominant until he developed the skills to compliment his physical gifts.


Well, I would say that they enjoyed their greatest *team* success when they were put on teams with other highly skilled players. They still relied on athleticism in their primes. In my opinion, Shaq has never developed his skills much since he's been in the league, but he was forced to play better team basketball with Kobe Bryant on his team helping him to dominate in the paint. Check his stats. Similar in ballhandling. Similar horrid free throw shooting. 



> Again, name one player who has made it at this level without basketball skills? And I don't mean just making a roster. Actually contributing.


I never said Outlaw would 'make it' in the league with zero skills. But he's only 18-19 years old. He isn't expected to be a Chris Mullin type shooter or a Kevin Garnett type rebounder or a Sam Cassell type ball handler. He's just a baby. He's still developing his skills. In three years, if he still has developed zero skills, then I'm sure he'll be out of the league. But that's a huge assumption. 

Jermaine O'Neal had little to no skills. He's now an all star. High schoolers aren't expected to come into the league and have NBA skills yet. 



> At this point, I consider Carroll a better prospect than Outlaw. Outlaw might have more potential, but potential has to be realized before it means anything.
> 
> Dan


I'd agree that we know more closely what Carroll can do in the league, but he's certainly not a better prospect. He's probably 90% of capacity right now with little room to improve. That's why he got cut and nobody's picked him up.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> That I cannot agree with. Hornacek is the perfect example of someone no more physically gifted than Carroll (smaller and quite possibly less athletic) and with a similar skill set. Also a late bloomer (college walk-on; under-appreciated until late in his NBA career). When all was said and done, he was one of the most deadly perimeter players in the league and a perennial playoff contributor. Not too shabby for a guy with very limited potential by your equation.


Jeff Hornacek was drafted in the second round in 1996... which was an indication that at least one team thought enough of him to invest a draft pick. Hornacek was picked #46 and actually started his career as a PG for the Suns. Matt Carroll would not in a million years be used as a PG as far as I can tell... Horny was a different type of player than Carroll.

I might have overstated that Carroll will NEVER be more than an above-average player; he certainly might be. But if Hornacek is the one excellent shooting, low athletcisim player who's done it, I don't like Carroll's chances.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> His skills will be rebounding, running the break, playing tough defense and hitting mid range jump shots.


If he gets to that point, then I suppose he would end up being a decent use of the draft pick. But given the team's much greater needs at other positions that were available, even that possible roof to Outlaw's contribution potential seems a bit underwhelming.

Dan


----------

