# Finding a starting SF



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Travis plays great off the bench and that is where I'd like to keep him. Looking around the League, only a few out there stick out. 

Shane Battier is a perfect fit for his game and leadership. I just think Houston will ask for A LOT in return. 

Josh Childress is a RFA, he would fit in nicely as well. However, Atlanta said they will match any offer for him.

That brings me to a SF who could be had and not nearly as expensive as Battier or JChill. Thabo Sefolosha of the Bulls is a versatile SF who can shoot, play defense, and rebound. As a starter, he put up solid numbers:

22 games
31.7 mpg
11.9 ppg
5.7 rpg
2.5 apg
1.4 spg


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

??? NO!!! Thabo is not the answer to our SF problem. I would rather have Martell then him. I would almost rather have Martell then Battier.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Battier > Webster

And it's not close. Battier brings intangibles that Webster cannot. Battier is a better defender, passer, rebounder. Shane's leadership is what our young team needs.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'd rather roll with Outlaw, Webster, and Rudy as our SF this season.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

World B. Free said:


> ??? NO!!! Thabo is not the answer to our SF problem. I would rather have Martell then him. I would almost rather have Martell then Battier.


Martell over Battier is the homer in you talking. 

Battier brings a lot to the table. Leadership, proffesionalism, defense, another coach on the floor. 


If we could get him without giving up Travis we should do it. If we could get him with having to give up Travis we should probably do it. 

I like Childress too, but I'm not sure he's really better than what we have.... at least not that much better

Sefolosha wouldn't get into the game on our roster. Maybe if we could get him along with Deng or Hinrich, but by himself makes no sense. 



I really think we will see a lot of 3 guard line ups this season. Roy and Rudy could both slide up to the SF possition on offense, and on defense we will probably play a lot of zone because of Oden and LMA backing people up. I also wouldn't be too surprised if we trapped more because we are more athletic and we have a scary 7' 280lb center waiting at the rim in case you break the press or trap


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

We don't need all-stars at all 5 positions. KP and PA are not going to blow the salary cap this year. They specifically stated this in several interviews. So put a lid on crazy trade ideas this year because IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> I'd rather roll with Outlaw, Webster, and Rudy as our SF this season.


Roy being much bigger than Rudy makes more sense at the 3.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

How about Andres Nocioni?


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Sonny-Canzano said:


> Travis plays great off the bench and that is where I'd like to keep him. Looking around the League, only a few out there stick out.
> 
> Shane Battier is a perfect fit for his game and leadership. I just think Houston will ask for A LOT in return.
> 
> ...


why? both of our current S.F.'s are better in fewer minutes in almost all catagories. 
i don't get it.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I have no problem trading Martell now that we have another prospect waiting in the wings in Nicolas Batum. We can afford to go for a older player like Battier, because Trav is still young and Batum is what 19?!


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

That's what I was thinking. Battier still has a lot of years left. When Shane starts to decline Batum could be ready to takeover. Batum will also have a great mentor to learn from too.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I definitely like our SFs better.

I also see a bunch of 3 guard rotations next year with Greg and LMA playing behind. A Bayless, Rudy, Roy, LMA, Oden lineup would be sick and very, very offensively potent, and defensively solid because of our big guys down low.

Childress and Battier are good picks. They are realistic and they have what we need at that position. Intangibles, defense, etc... 

But honestly, i'm perfectly content with our roster. We will see how Webster performs as the starting SF next season. His contract is up after next year (i think) so we can work from there.

edit - Batum is somebody that REALLY intrigues me. I really love his potential. I can see a future Rudy Gay or a Pippen lite potential. If he can get defense down to an art and polish his offensive game, i think this guy is going to be perfect for us. 

I think him and Outlaw will be best friends because they are like practically the same person, imo.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

MAS RipCity said:


> I have no problem trading Martell now that we have another prospect waiting in the wings in Nicolas Batum. We can afford to go for a older player like Battier, because Trav is still young and Batum is what 19?!


Webster is arguably our best pure shooter. With Jones being gone, we can't afford to lose him unless we can get a pure shooter back. Rudy has not proven anything yet in the NBA.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Balian said:


> Webster is arguably our best pure shooter. With Jones being gone, we can't afford to lose him unless we can get a pure shooter back. Rudy has not proven anything yet in the NBA.


I always find this statement funny because both Travis and Steve Blake shot a better % from 3


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Balian said:


> We don't need all-stars at all 5 positions. KP and PA are not going to blow the salary cap this year. They specifically stated this in several interviews. So put a lid on crazy trade ideas this year because IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.


Battier doesn't even earn enough to impact the cap plan severely..........


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't get why people like Battier. See Battier is like Bruce Bowen. The only reason Bruce Bowen is useful on San Antonio is because San Antonio has enough studs that all it has to ask him to do is shoot 3 pointers from 2 different spots on the court. The reason I say it is, I have watched Battier in the playoffs the last few seasons. When the game is on the line, the opposing coaches force the offense through him, because they would rather have him take shots than somebody else. You know what else? It works. Battier has played horrible when the defense has made him the scorer, instead of the defender. 

Secondly, I will be hardly surprised if Martell or Outlaw, or both, are not better than him by the time this year ends. 

So, it goes without saying, that I believe out starting SF is already on the team.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

mediocre man said:


> I always find this statement funny because both Travis and Steve Blake shot a better % from 3


What is so funny? Yes, Blake and Travis had a better percentage from 3pt range LAST YEAR. I am well aware of that fact and thus the word *arguably*. It doesn't mean they are better pure shooters than Webster

Webster has a better and quicker release. His shooting fundamentals are better. His potential as a shooter, is vastly higher than the other two. Each and every year, his shooting percentage has improved. He is a volume shooter from the outside. He is a pure shooter. That is his forte.

Travis can hit from 3pt range but his forte is the midrange jumpers to long range 2 pointers. Blake is a point guard and can hit the outside shots if open.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Balian said:


> Webster is arguably our best pure shooter. With Jones being gone, we can't afford to lose him unless we can get a pure shooter back. Rudy has not proven anything yet in the NBA.


If you can shoot, you can shoot and Rudy and Bayless are both great long range shooters, something that isn't likely to change ... Martell doesn't exactly set the world on fire with his pull-up jumpers, he's much more of a catch and shoot guy.

I know Battier is getting on in years, but I fully agree with Sonny; I think Battier's style of play is conducive to him having at least 3 or 4 more really productive years, and his ability to act like a player-coach (much as Jones did last year) would be really invaluable, not to mention guys like Batum and Travis would have basically the ideal teacher to try and learn from in practice.

I don't hate Martell, but unless KP is planning on trading him before February or renouncing him at the end of next season, his caphold is really going to suck as we try to go out on the free agent market.

A SF rotation of Battier/Outlaw/Batum combination would be not only solid, but downright perfectly spaced in age 29/24/19.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> We don't need all-stars at all 5 positions. KP and PA are not going to blow the salary cap this year. They specifically stated this in several interviews. So put a lid on crazy trade ideas this year because IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.


The names Battier, Childress and Thabo are being discussed and compared to Outlaw and Webster and you are complaining about 5 all-stars.

What all-star Small Forwards are in this discussion?

I will answer for you - NONE.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

OK, Battier I get due to the whole leadership, experience, intangellibles thing. He would definitely help this team win more games THIS year than Webster. However, Wesbter is still only 21 and has SO much more upside and will peak at the same time as the rest of our core. So, I'm reluctant to give him up.

Sefolosha??????????????????????????? You've GOT to be kidding. Where the heck did that come from? How is a 6'5" guard going to be a better small forward than the 6'9" Webster? Again, I get the urge to replace Webster with a more experienced, more proven talent like Battier, but Sefolosha, in spite of being 2.5 years older than Webster has less than 1/2 as much NBA experience. 

Webster:
DOB - 12/4/86
Height 6'9"
Career Minutes - 4961
Games/Games Started - 218/115
PER Season/Career PER - 12.0/11.2

Sefolosha:
DOB - 5/2/84
Height 6'5"
Career Minutes - 2304
Games/Games Started - 140/26
PER Season/Career PER - 11.4/10.3

So, he puts up worse numbers as a back-up than Webster does as a starter, he's 4" shorter, 2.5 years older, less experienced and just flat not as good. How, exactly is that an "upgrade". He gives us ZERO of the advantages Battier would and is an inferior player and an inferior prospect to the guy we've already got.

NO THANKS!

BNM


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Masbee said:


> The names Battier, Childress and Thabo are being discussed and compared to Outlaw and Webster and you are complaining about 5 all-stars.
> 
> What all-star Small Forwards are in this discussion?
> 
> I will answer for you - NONE.


If you are not discussing all star small forwards, then what is wrong with Outlaw/Webster/Batum? Oh, and we don't have to do anything!


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I agree with the consensus of not making any major moves this season until the trade deadline. Lets see how Webster and Outlaw pan out- we may have our small forward already. I think Webster can become a very good defender- he showed glimpses of this last season. We may also end up having needs that we don't anticipate now.

Eventually, we will probably end up having to get rid of one or two of our caphold guys (i.e. Martell, Diogu, or Frye) if we can't resign them cheaply, but I think we can afford to wait until the trading deadline to further evaluate our talent.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Balian said:


> If you are not discussing all star small forwards, then what is wrong with Outlaw/Webster/Batum? Oh, and we don't have to do anything!


Offhand I'd say defense and savvy are sorely lacking between Outlaw and Webster.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I don't get why people like Battier.


Look at the records of Memphis and Houston for Battier's last season in Memphis. Then look at them again when Battier goes to Houston. THAT'S what people see in Battier.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Boob-No-More said:


> OK, Battier I get due to the whole leadership, experience, intangellibles thing. He would definitely help this team win more games THIS year than Webster. However, Wesbter is still only 21 and has SO much more upside and will peak at the same time as the rest of our core. So, I'm reluctant to give him up.
> 
> Sefolosha??????????????????????????? You've GOT to be kidding. Where the heck did that come from? How is a 6'5" guard going to be a better small forward than the 6'9" Webster? Again, I get the urge to replace Webster with a more experienced, more proven talent like Battier, but Sefolosha, in spite of being 2.5 years older than Webster has less than 1/2 as much NBA experience.
> 
> ...


Webster is not 6'9'


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I always find this statement funny because both Travis and Steve Blake shot a better % from 3


Maybe he's called a 'pure three point shooter' because that's about all he does well?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I do not see any reason to go after Sefalosha - I see no reason to think he will be a better prospect that either Webster or Outlaw (or even Batum, given time).

A Childress over Webster is probably an upgrade, if we assume that Rudy/Bayless can take the long-range scoring role (which I suspect they will). Battier or Prince over Webster are clearly an upgrade - but either will be expensive to get.

I doubt anything is done before the start of the season - but I am not going to be surprised to see something happen before the trade deadline along with Raef's expiring contract.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

B-Roy said:


> Webster is not 6'9'


That's what he's listed at on basketball-reference.com. Say he's actually only 6'7.5", that's still 2.5" taller (and more athletic) than Sefolosha.

BNM


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Fork said:


> Maybe he's called a 'pure three point shooter' because that's about all he does well?


Then I guess we can call Outlaw a 'pure mid-range shooter' as proportionally he takes more mid range shots than Webster takes 3s. Except of course the EFG% of Outlaw's mid range shots is about 15% less than Webster's 3s


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> That's what he's listed at on basketball-reference.com. Say he's actually only 6'7.5", that's still 2.5" taller (and more athletic) than Sefolosha.
> 
> BNM


According to his measurements a predraft, Webster was 6'6" without shoes, 6'7.5" with shoes. link 
I certainly don't want Sefolosha over Webster, but I thought I would provide the the height.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

GOD said:


> According to his measurements a predraft, Webster was 6'6" without shoes, 6'7.5" with shoes. link
> I certainly don't want Sefolosha over Webster, but I thought I would provide the the height.


His predraft measurments are interesting in that while he measured 6'6" without shoes, his 8'10" standing reach (according to DX's own database) is well above the norm for his barefoot height and would put him more along the lines of 6'7" - 6'8" barefoot.

Can't find any measurements for Thabo, though physically he seems much more suited to the SG position when I've seen him play.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Jayps15 said:


> His predraft measurments are interesting in that while he measured 6'6" without shoes, his 8'10" standing reach (according to DX's own database) is well above the norm for his barefoot height and would put him more along the lines of 6'7" - 6'8" barefoot.
> 
> Can't find any measurements for Thabo, though physically he seems much more suited to the SG position when I've seen him play.


Webster has a pretty good (not great) wingspan of 6'11" which is more than enough. He is no James Jones, who has a 7'2.5" wingspan, but it is certainly enough to provide good height and length. Outlaw was not listed, I was interested in seeing how they compared. 

On a side note, for those who mention Roy as a possibility at SF, his 6'8" wingspan is tiny for a SF. Take a look at listed SF wingspans. The only SF's of any note that have as short or shorter of wingspan as Roy are Joey Graham, Trenton Hassell, Matt Carroll and Jason Kapono. Every other SF of any note has a greater wingspan. This is the main reason that I think that for any extended minutes, Roy and Rudy can not hold down the SF spot. I don't know about Rudy's wingspan, but he is a little shorter than Roy and feather light.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Martell over Battier is the homer in you talking.
> 
> Battier brings a lot to the table. Leadership, proffesionalism, defense, another coach on the floor.


Right now he does... but Battier is 30 in Sept. By the time the Blazers hit the window they will most likely competing for NBA titles, Battier will have physically declined so much due to age, Webster will be outperforming Battier.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'm in the Battier camp as well. He'd be a tremendous lockdown defender with Roy on the perimeter. And he can spot up ala James Jones and hit the 3 in the corners.

But I'd like to see how this team fares with the current group. You don't know what you need until you start playing, and this year, we found out our needs were point guard and rebounding.
We got Bayless, and hopefully Diogu can kind of fill that rebounding void though I don't know much PT he'll get.

And as for Sefolosha... yuck.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Balian said:


> We don't need all-stars at all 5 positions. KP and PA are not going to blow the salary cap this year. They specifically stated this in several interviews. So put a lid on crazy trade ideas this year because IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.


rant

J-C, AMEN.

Seriously you guys call yourselves Blazer fans? Really get a grip and have some faith in your developing young players. The kid (martel) came out of HIGHSCHOOL. wtf were you guys doing out of Highschool? Petroleum Transfer technicians? Burger makers? come on.... give him at least as much time as we have given, and are continuing to give Outlaw.

/rant


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

blue32 said:


> rant
> 
> J-C, AMEN.
> 
> ...


You really need to go read this blog entry at blazersedge.com:
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/6/23/556872/why-you-will-see-blazers-t

When you consider that Martell, Ike Diogu, and Channing are all due qualifying offers, and will represent a caphold of 300% of their respective salaries, keeping Martell past the February trading deadline means that he will represent 12 million dollars in cap-space until he is either renounced, given a qualifying offer, or signs an offer sheet and he would be in no hurry to do so (if he has a smart agent). If the whole plan is to chase veteran free agents next summer, or be able to trade players whose salaries don't exactly match then it's a given that probably 2 of the 3 players I listed will need to be moved either this summer or before next winter's trade deadline.

When people talk about trading Martell vs. Outlaw for a veteran part of the reason is because Martell's contract is about to get a whole helluva lot less attractive than Travis', and isn't just "hating" on him.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

blue32 said:


> Seriously you guys call yourselves Blazer fans?


No. I call myself a "Blazers enthusiast."



> Really get a grip and have some faith in your developing young players.


Like Telfair? Where's your faith, man? Telfair could still be our point guard of the future. Right?



> The kid (martel) came out of HIGHSCHOOL.


And now is old enough to have his Ph.D. and even has a lot of professional experience. By now, he should have quite a few published papers.



> wtf were you guys doing out of Highschool? Petroleum Transfer technicians? Burger makers?


Well, I actually finished high school two years early, spent a year in the Peace Corp, while working on an aerospace degree at MIT from overseas and then spent a year on an internship with NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs. So, at 18, I was working as a junior aerospace engineer while finishing my degree at MIT.

Thanks for asking. What were you up to?



> come on.... give him at least as much time as we have given, and are continuing to give Outlaw.


Well, I'm cool with trading him, too. I'm not playing favourites with our uninspiring small forwards.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Throw me in the Battier camp, and I am a huge WEBSTER fan. I think he is going to be very good. But, I think adding Battier to a core of Outlaw and Batum is going to, in the long run, end up better than Webster/Outlaw/Batum. Shane is the type of guy who doesn't only make the players on court better than normal, but will help tremendously to develop Outlaw and especially Batum (Who, IMO, has more potential than Travis). 

Find some sort of 2 way where we send ut Webster, Diogu, Rodrigurz and a future protected 1st (Which is essentially as important as a high 2nd for us considering how stacked/crowded our roster is) for Battier. 

Get us Battier as a starting SF, let Rudy and Bayless be a above average rookies (Combine for around 20-22ppg) and have Oden not Bowie on us and this team is 54-58 wins next season.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

nikolokolus said:


> You really need to go read this blog entry at blazersedge.com:
> http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/6/23/556872/why-you-will-see-blazers-t


I read that a few days ago. I'm absolutely certain there's nothing in that Blazersedge.com article that Tom Penn didn't make Kevin Pritchard completely aware of months/years ago.




nikolokolus said:


> When you consider that Martell, Ike Diogu, and Channing are all due qualifying offers, and will represent a caphold of 300% of their respective salaries, keeping Martell past the February trading deadline means that he will represent 12 million dollars in cap-space until he is either renounced, given a qualifying offer, or signs an offer sheet and he would be in no hurry to do so (if he has a smart agent).


So what?



nikolokolus said:


> If the whole plan is to chase veteran free agents next summer, or be able to trade players whose salaries don't exactly match then it's a given that probably 2 of the 3 players I listed will need to be moved either this summer or before next winter's trade deadline.
> 
> When people talk about trading Martell vs. Outlaw for a veteran part of the reason is because Martell's contract is about to get a whole helluva lot less attractive than Travis', and isn't just "hating" on him.


No. Not hardly. You know how easy the process of giving qualifying offers is?

It's this easy...

"Jun 25 2008 2:06PM
The Miami HEAT announced today they have made qualifying offers to Dorell Wright, Chris Quinn and Kasib Powell, making them restricted free agents"

Philly did the same thing the day before the draft...

"Philadelphia extends qualifying offers to Andre Iguodala and Lou Williams, making them restricted free agents." 

http://www.nba.com/transactions/jun2008_transactions.html

June 25th was the day before the draft. That means the cap holds were in effect for Andre Iguodala, Lou Williams, Dorell Wright, Chris Quinn, and Kasib Powell from February until June 25th, the day before the NBA draft.

All this talk about cap-holds is much ado about nothing. Teams do very little transactions wise much from February until a couple of days before the draft anyway. Making qualifying offers to restricted free agent candidate players is a routine pre-draft activity. 

The cap hold's primary function is to prevent teams from gaming the free agent system by delaying making qualifying offers to a teams restricted free agent candidates until a couple of weeks after the free agent period starts when all the significant unrestricted free agent are signed.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> That's what he's listed at on basketball-reference.com. Say he's actually only 6'7.5", that's still 2.5" taller (and more athletic) than Sefolosha.
> 
> BNM


Thabo is not 6'5. Have you ever seen him? Just by looking at him you know he isn't 6'5.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Unless you can somehow manage to get a guy like Josh Smith, Iggy, Gay or Granger, you're better off sticking with Outlaw/Webster. Especially since you'd almost certainly have to give up one of Roy/Aldridge/Oden to get it done.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

nikolokolus said:


> You really need to go read this blog entry at blazersedge.com:
> http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/6/23/556872/why-you-will-see-blazers-t
> 
> When you consider that Martell, Ike Diogu, and Channing are all due qualifying offers, and will represent a caphold of 300% of their respective salaries, keeping Martell past the February trading deadline means that he will represent 12 million dollars in cap-space until he is either renounced, given a qualifying offer, or signs an offer sheet and he would be in no hurry to do so (if he has a smart agent). If the whole plan is to chase veteran free agents next summer, or be able to trade players whose salaries don't exactly match then it's a given that probably 2 of the 3 players I listed will need to be moved either this summer or before next winter's trade deadline.
> ...


Every team in the free agent market this year is dealing with capholds, and teams are still getting verbal agreements/negotiations underway with free agents despite that fact. The Clippers and Warriors in particular come to mind, going into free agency both teams were well over the cap when you combine their actual salary with the cap hold totals of their free agents, yet one was able to get a verbal agreement done and the other has a huge offer out to a free agent. 

That article is well written, but it doesn't cover all the possibilities when it comes to working around the cap holds of our free agents next year. Raef's cap hold alone will be over 18 million, but there's never any mention because it's really not that hard to get around.


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Throw me in the Battier camp, and I am a huge WEBSTER fan. I think he is going to be very good. But, I think adding Battier to a core of Outlaw and Batum is going to, in the long run, end up better than Webster/Outlaw/Batum. Shane is the type of guy who doesn't only make the players on court better than normal, but will help tremendously to develop Outlaw and especially Batum (Who, IMO, has more potential than Travis).
> 
> Find some sort of 2 way where we send ut Webster, Diogu, Rodrigurz and a future protected 1st (Which is essentially as important as a high 2nd for us considering how stacked/crowded our roster is) for Battier.
> 
> Get us Battier as a starting SF, let Rudy and Bayless be a above average rookies (Combine for around 20-22ppg) and have Oden not Bowie on us and this team is 54-58 wins next season.


If Oden is the dominant power in the middle that most people think he will be, and if Rudy and Bayless are above average rookies, they will be combining for more like 22-30 ppg. And as long as we are speculating on improvement let's grant some to Martel and let him average 16-18 ppg. It then becomes obvious that a 54-58 win season can be accomplished without Battier who is going to drop off the radar scope before Martel even reaches his peak.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

JAFO said:


> If Oden is the dominant power in the middle that most people think he will be, and if Rudy and Bayless are above average rookies, they will be combining for more like 22-30 ppg. And as long as we are speculating on improvement let's grant some to Martel and let him average 16-18 ppg. It then becomes obvious that a 54-58 win season can be accomplished without Battier who is going to drop off the radar scope before Martel even reaches his peak.


58 wins is pretty optimistic for a team with so many rookies currently on the roster. I think Oden has a solid, Dalembert-type season his first year (10 pts, 10 reb, 2.5 blk). Martell isn't going to average 18 ppg unless he plays all 48 minutes, he's simply not an efficient scorer. 

Hornets, Jazz, Rockets, Mavs, Lakers and Spurs seem to be playoff locks right now. That means the Blazers will probably be fighting for the last two spots with Suns, Nuggs and the much improved Clippers and Kings (who ended last season strong). I'm not optimistic about playoff chances if we stand pat with so many rookies.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I still say that Webster, Joel and Sergio may find new homes this summer. We must sign/trade/waive Webster before the season starts.

Otherwise, no cap space!! Period.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

...


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Well, to alleviate the cap issue, I say sign Marty to a small multi-year deal, something that doesnt inpact our big three. If he doesnt improve this year or regresses perhaps hes a bust, but this year should be the best year for him with all of the improvements in personel that we have.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

nikolokolus said:


> Brand didn't have a caphold, and neither did Davis; their contracts expired due to opting out of the last year of their deal at the conclusion of the season. Raef has no caphold either, capholds are for players operating under a rookie scale contract, period.
> 
> So comparing the two situations is completely inaccurate especially when you consider that our young players (like Martell, Diogu, and Frye) have yet to get their big "payday" second contract, meaning they would foolish to quickly accept an offer sheet from the blazers next off-season, and simply extending them a qualifying offer means you are essentially renting them for a year, as they are then unrestricted free agents.


Wow, you're completely wrong about cap holds.

I suggest you read: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#30

Until their teams renounce their Bird Rights Brand, Davis, and Maggette have cap holds of approx 22mil, 25mil, and 14mil respectively. Once Raef expires next year he'll have a cap hold of over 18mil, or 150% of his final year at over 12mil.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

there's a huge unknown on our own team, and it's really McMillan's fault. it's amazing to me that Travis Outlaw only started 6 games last season. Outlaw has never been handed 20+ games to get a real feel for the starting SF job, so we don't really know how good he could be there. we all assume that because he was an effective 6th man, that this is destiny. 

the real shame is that we could've experimented with it last year after we were out of serious playoff contention without really risking anything (other than possibly Martel's fragile psyche). 

however, if we try starting Outlaw early this coming season and it fails, it could blow up on us and cost us the playoffs. in addition, we're going to have three other new rotation players (Oden, Rudy, Bayless), so it's going to make it that much harder to put all the pieces together. 

the really annoying thing is that you could see this lost opportunity coming 9 months ago. it's not like it's any kind of shock that Greg Oden is coming in and there won't be any minutes this season for Outlaw at backup PF. everybody knew Frye would slide back to his natural PF position. yet Nate groomed Outlaw as our backup PF all last season--effectively preparing him for a job he'd never have once we were actually in the playoff hunt. 

instead, we know that Martel Webster as a starting SF can give us:
11 points, 40% shooting in November 2007 in 15 starts
9 points, 44% shooting in December 2007 in 15 starts
9 points, 37% shooting in January 2008 in 14 starts
10 points, 40% shooting in February 2008 in 9 starts
10 points, 41% shooting in March 2008 in 15 starts

and we know that in 6 games as a starter, Outlaw can give us 18 points and 39% shooting. 

which sample size are you more comfortable with? 

can Outlaw be effective as our starting SF next year? I don't know. and nobody really does, because we've never really even see him try it.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

craigehlo said:


> 58 wins is pretty optimistic for a team with so many rookies currently on the roster. I think Oden has a solid, Dalembert-type season his first year (10 pts, 10 reb, 2.5 blk). *Martell isn't going to average 18 ppg unless he plays all 48 minutes, he's simply not an efficient scorer. *
> 
> Hornets, Jazz, Rockets, Mavs, Lakers and Spurs seem to be playoff locks right now. That means the Blazers will probably be fighting for the last two spots with Suns, Nuggs and the much improved Clippers and Kings (who ended last season strong). I'm not optimistic about playoff chances if we stand pat with so many rookies.


I don't think you meant to say 'efficient' here, maybe prolific, but Webster was one of our most efficient rotation players.


```
Player           Pos  Ht  Wt     TS%  eFG% 
1          James Jones   F  6-8 225    .625 .576 
2       Joel Przybilla   C  7-1 255    .615 .581 
3       Josh McRoberts   F 6-10 240    .600 .600 
4         Jarrett Jack   G  6-3 202    .557 .482 
5      Martell Webster G-F  6-9 210    .548 .516  
6          Brandon Roy   G  6-6 215    .531 .485 
7        Channing Frye F-C 6-11 248    .529 .491 
8    LaMarcus Aldridge   F 6-11 240    .522 .484 
9          Steve Blake   G  6-3 172    .518 .502 
10       Travis Outlaw   F  6-9 210    .500 .454 
11       Raef LaFrentz F-C 6-11 240    .469 .443
12       Taurean Green   G  6-0 177    .435 .281 
13    Sergio Rodriguez   G  6-3 168    .423 .395 
14           Von Wafer   G  6-5 210    .384 .370
```


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

JAFO said:


> It then becomes obvious that a 54-58 win season can be accomplished without Battier who is going to drop off the radar scope before Martel even reaches his peak.


What peak? To reach a "peak," one needs to improve, which Webster hasn't been. His raw stats have gone up a bit with more minutes, but his per-minute efficiency, a measure of whether the player has actually become a better player as opposed to simply given more minutes, has barely improved at all since his rookie season.

The idea that Webster is ascending isn't really true. Just because he's young doesn't mean he's improving or will improve. Telfair really hasn't. And Webster, while very slightly better, is following suit.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Webster has improved.

His stats have gone up only a little, yes. And his PER has gone up only a little, yes. (BTW, both of those are IMPROVING), but he learned the lesson of how to contribute without scoring. His defense is improving also. 

I also heard something about his attitude has become much more coachable this last year, which will hopefully pay off soon.

I believe Outlaw really broke out in his 4th (i think) year. Well this upcoming season is Martell's 4th year (the kid came out of high school and is only like 21 years old). Lets see what happens. Martell definitley has potential and has shown glimpses of some really awesome stuff like that 24 point QTR vs Utah.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> What peak? To reach a "peak," one needs to improve, which Webster hasn't been. His raw stats have gone up a bit with more minutes, but his per-minute efficiency, a measure of whether the player has actually become a better player as opposed to simply given more minutes, has barely improved at all since his rookie season.
> 
> The idea that Webster is ascending isn't really true. Just because he's young doesn't mean he's improving or will improve. Telfair really hasn't. And Webster, while very slightly better, is following suit.




I disagree. Webster clearly has the tools to improve over the Telfair comparison. Evident by his 24 point explosion in the third quarter. OF course one could argue, one game doesn't clearly prove that he's super-man, however it does prove that Webster is an up and coming role-player that will fit the need of the Blazers in the future.

You cant have a team loaded with all-star type talent at every position, I'm not saying Battier is an All*, but you get my point. You need to have role-players to compliment your stars on the team.

Roy, LMA, and Oden = our stars

Rudy, Martell, Travis, Bayless = our role players, etc.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> What peak? To reach a "peak," one needs to improve, which Webster hasn't been. His raw stats have gone up a bit with more minutes, but his per-minute efficiency, a measure of whether the player has actually become a better player as opposed to simply given more minutes, has barely improved at all since his rookie season.
> 
> The idea that Webster is ascending isn't really true. Just because he's young doesn't mean he's improving or will improve. Telfair really hasn't. And Webster, while very slightly better, is following suit.


His Win Score per 40 minutes went from 4.0 in his rookie season to 4.3 to 5.5 last year. Up 28% last year alone and up 37.5% in just 2 years...that's a significant increase. He's improved his shooting, rebounding and passing per40 pace adjusted. In my opinion, he's also improved his defense, though his steals and blocks stats have not improved. 

For reference, Brandon Roy improved 12.5% last year. Aldridge, 2.5%. 

I don't even like Webster as a player. I hope we have a better long term solution, but he HAS improved and he's improved a lot.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Martell-Webster-279/stats/


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> And his PER has gone up only a little, yes. (BTW, both of those are IMPROVING)


His PER has gone imperceptibly since his rookie season. Three years in the league and less than a point increase, during what should be his biggest developmental years, counts as no improvement, in my opinion.



blue32 said:


> I disagree. Webster clearly has the tools to improve over the Telfair comparison. Evident by his 24 point explosion in the third quarter. OF course one could argue, one game doesn't clearly prove that he's super-man, however it does prove that Webster is an up and coming role-player


This doesn't separate him from Telfar. Telfair also had some huge games, both scoring and assists. Almost all NBA players have big games occasionally. They don't illustrate anything, really. Their overall production shows their caliber.



Fork said:


> I don't even like Webster as a player. I hope we have a better long term solution, but he HAS improved and he's improved a lot.


I disagree. I like PER as an overall measure of production. Here are his PERs, by season:

2005-06: 11.6
2006-07: 9.9
2007-08: 12.0

Is there an online definition of Win Score? I'd be interested to see it's conceptual underpinnings.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> His PER has gone imperceptibly since his rookie season. Three years in the league and less than a point increase, during what should be his biggest developmental years, counts as no improvement, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was Outlaw's PER each of his seasons thus far?


----------



## axs31 (Jul 5, 2006)

Sambonius said:


> What was Outlaw's PER each of his seasons thus far?


16.4
15.4
12.9
15.3
15.7

I guess he didn't show any improvement, either. PER is a good measurement, but doesn't tell the whole story in Outlaw's case... Why should we measure Webster solely on that?
After those first 2 years, no wonder Hollinger was touting Outlaw to break out in his third season, but his efficiency regressed quite a bit before getting back to his earlier level in more minutes.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> OK, Battier I get due to the whole leadership, experience, intangellibles thing. He would definitely help this team win more games THIS year than Webster. However, Wesbter is still only 21 and has SO much more upside and will peak at the same time as the rest of our core. So, I'm reluctant to give him up.
> 
> Sefolosha??????????????????????????? You've GOT to be kidding. Where the heck did that come from? How is a 6'5" guard going to be a better small forward than the 6'9" Webster?


speaking of where the heck did that come from, since when is Martell 6'9? Dude measured 6'6 even at his combine and his NBA listing is 6'7. Thabo didn't attend a combine, but is also listed at 6'7... also like Webster he has played both swing positions

nice distortions

STOMP


----------



## axs31 (Jul 5, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I disagree. I like PER as an overall measure of production. Here are his PERs, by season:
> 
> 2005-06: 11.6
> 2006-07: 9.9
> 2007-08: 12.0


I think you can pretty much throw out the first year, because he played very little, just like Outlaw in his first two years. Webster started getting more minutes in his second season, and he DID improve 2 points in one year. I think it is not out of the realm of possibility he can suprass the league average even next year.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I disagree. I like PER as an overall measure of production. Here are his PERs, by season:
> 
> 2005-06: 11.6
> 2006-07: 9.9
> ...


Win score is a variation of PER.

WIN SCORE: Points + Rebounds + Steals + 1/2 Assists + 1/2 Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers - 1/2 Free Throw Attempts - 1/2 Personal Fouls

And I think that POSSIBLY that PER number does show some improvement. His rookie minutes usually came against 2nd units, often late in blowouts. The last two seasons, Webster has started more and gone against 1st units more often. It's possible that an 11.6 PER against 2nd units might translate to 8 against 1st units. Also, Webster's rookie season, ALL he did was stand at the arc and wait for a pass so he could jack up a shot. Since that's his strength, it bouyed his PER stat a little bit. As his game has developed, he's gotten away from that comfort zone and I think that even if the numbers show meager improvement, the real improvement has been greater.


----------



## axs31 (Jul 5, 2006)

axs31 said:


> I think you can pretty much throw out the first year, because he played very little


Ok, scratch that, he appeared in 61 games averaging 17 MPG...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

It's possible that Webster has improved more than his PER scores suggest. I think Outlaw has improved a fair amount since he entered the league. But in Outlaw's case, I feel he's observably better. I don't get that feeling with Webster, so I am more willing to believe what his PER scores say.

However, even then, I think Outlaw's "breakout" has been a bit overrated. He wasn't a bad player when he entered the league, just very inconsistent. He's still inconsistent, but less so, so he appears visibly quite different. Even if Webster has improved, I don't think it has been by enough that he forecasts to have a valuable peak.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> Win score is a variation of PER.
> 
> WIN SCORE: Points + Rebounds + Steals + 1/2 Assists + 1/2 Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers - 1/2 Free Throw Attempts - 1/2 Personal Fouls
> 
> And I think that POSSIBLY that PER number does show some improvement. His rookie minutes usually came against 2nd units, often late in blowouts. The last two seasons, Webster has started more and gone against 1st units more often. It's possible that an 11.6 PER against 2nd units might translate to 8 against 1st units. Also, Webster's rookie season, ALL he did was stand at the arc and wait for a pass so he could jack up a shot. Since that's his strength, it bouyed his PER stat a little bit. As his game has developed, he's gotten away from that comfort zone and I think that even if the numbers show meager improvement, the real improvement has been greater.


I agree with these thoughts.

Just based on watching the games, Martell is a much better basketball player than he was his first two seasons.

And yet, his PER score is essentially identical from his rookie year. How to reconcile that problem? You make a good start.

I would also add that he is overall more active, has fewer "frozen" moments, and his defense has improved a lot.

Is he a budding star? No. Not even close.

Is he a budding valuable role player? Maybe.

Because of that, I won't be sad if he is traded. Nor, will I be upset if the team decides to keep him for another year to see if he can make further improvements in his defense, up his 3pt shooting percentage into the elite category, and become a valuable role player that may be worth keeping.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Is he a budding star? No. Not even close.
> 
> Is he a budding valuable role player? Maybe.
> 
> Because of that, I won't be sad if he is traded. Nor, will I be upset if the team decides to keep him for another year to see if he can make further improvements in his defense, up his 3pt shooting percentage into the elite category, and become a valuable role player that may be worth keeping.


I think this is right on the money. I suspect that the Jones free agency pretty much forced KP to keep Webster until we know that either Bayless or Rudy can offer the long-ball punch we will miss, and it gives him a chance to see if Webster can become an elite shooter with defenses collapsing on Oden or Roy.

I still think he is the most likely to be traded. I guess he was lucky that the Pacers already had Granger at SF and really needed a semi-reliable backup PG with Tinsley on his way out in some way and shape and TJ being a health risk.


----------

