# Between Martell and Outlaw...



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

The Blazers may be faced with this decision a few years down the road. Who do you keep?


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

martell

travis' ceiling is higher and he is closer to it


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Martell. I can see him being the leading scorer on this team. Outlaw may be a Jerome Kersey type though.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

This is EXTREMELY hard. But I would have to take Martell over Outlaw. I just think Martell has a better chance at becoming a better player. I like shooters. He is a better shooter then Travis. Although Travis is not that bad...

Wow this is actually really hard to choose.


----------



## Weav (Mar 5, 2007)

Me too. I see Martell maturing into a good 18 point option once he can get another season under his belt. He is streaky, but once he gets his groove he is on. I really like TO, but I don't ever see him being much better than he is now.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

BlazerFan22 said:


> As of now which player do you see as to haveing a bigger role on the Blazers in the future?


Hopefully this doesn't confuse the poll, since your post and your poll are asking the opposite question.

I clicked on Travis Outlaw, meaning I pick Martell to have the larger role in the future.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Hopefully this doesn't confuse the poll, since your post and your poll are asking the opposite question.
> 
> I clicked on Travis Outlaw, meaning I pick Martell to have the larger role in the future.


Good point. I clicked Martell. But I meant to say I would keep Martell.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I like them both - but I think it is easier to find good long-range shooters like Martell than out of this world athletes that can create their own shot. I would keep Travis.


----------



## Blazers2121 (Oct 5, 2006)

What's up with the opposite questions? I'd rather keep Webster though.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I'd keep Martell so I voted Outlaw.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

you keep both, somehow.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

it was a lot easier before that third quarter against Utah. 

I still go with Outlaw. he's just so damned athletic. 

but Webster--I wonder about him. the way he was just assassinating the Jazz off screens was an even better impersonation of Reggie Miller than Rip Hamilton can do. 

if Webster were given the same opportunity Al Jefferson is getting this year to be the undisputed number one option on an incredibly bad team, he might drop 22 a night. 

but then I think Outlaw might too.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

deanwoof said:


> you keep both, somehow.


If KP can pull it off and Nate can keep everyone happy with the minutes they are going to get, they should. We will see how it plays out.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Travis is perhaps the team's best off the ball defender and he rebounds OK for his size. He can also get off a shot almost anytime he wants.

Webster seems limited in explosiveness. I'm not sure I've ever seen him take the ball and attack the hoop during a game.

So I'd keep Outlaw.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

BlazerFan22 said:


> The Blazers may be faced with this decision a few years down the road. Who do you keep?


This question is still the opposite of the other question.

Try this:

The Blazers may be faced with this decision a few years down the road. Who do you trade?

PapaG... I thought Webster had a reverse dunk yesterday. I know he's had a couple like that.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

BlazerCaravan said:


> This question is still the opposite of the other question.
> 
> Try this:
> 
> ...


Off of a baseline cut. That's how he gets his dunks. I've yet to see him put the ball on the floor and attack the rim. I realize part of that is because Nate has him coming off of screens, but I worry about his offensive limitations.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

This decision should never be made. I choose to abstain.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd keep Martell. Although both have surpassed expectations this year already, Martell's abilities are more valuable than Travis'. But not by much.

I like how versatile Webster is on offense, he can heat up and can grab rebounds. Much more athletic than he's given credit for.

However, the same can be said for Outlaw...

It's close, but I'll still go Webster.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I'm a bit suprised at how tight this pole is not to mention Outlaw is winning by 2 votes. I like Outlaw but I thought Martell would win by a landslide.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I'm a bit suprised at how tight this pole is not to mention Outlaw is winning by 2 votes. I like Outlaw but I thought Martell would win by a landslide.


Huh??? Martell's ability is to bury an open jumper is his greatest attribute. Travis has repeatedly shown the ability to get a good look and convert when it matters. One takes whats given, the other delivers when it's needed. TO's taller, longer, and a whole lot more explosive. While both are still young developing players, I see Travis as having much more upside then MW. 

To me it's odd that there would be any question if somehow faced with a one or the other choice.

STOMP


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

So the question is who do you give up and the post is who do you keep....

I'd keep Martell and give up Outlaw. Outlaw looks like a player who would be good on a really bad team and I think Martell has much more room for growth. Outlaw doesn't shoot very efficiently mostly from poor shot selection, he has a number of holes in his game (defense, passing, rebounding.) Outlaw can cause matchup problems, but it is a double edged sword. When Travis is playing PF he is quicker than the opposing big man and can get his shot off with ease, but he has trouble guarding a physical player and gives up a lot of rebounds which really hurts our second unit. When Travis is on a smaller defender he can post them up and shoot over them but he has trouble guarding quick players and leaves our offense with a mediocre 3pt shooter who can't pass or dribble very well.

I can see Martell becoming a well rounded player in a few years, but I think Outlaw will always have some major weaknesses when he is on the floor.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Draco said:


> So the question is who do you give up and the post is who do you keep....
> 
> I'd keep Martell and give up Outlaw. Outlaw looks like a player who would be good on a really bad team and I think Martell has much more room for growth. Outlaw doesn't shoot very efficiently mostly from poor shot selection, he has a number of holes in his game (defense, passing, rebounding.) Outlaw can cause matchup problems, but it is a double edged sword. When Travis is playing PF he is quicker than the opposing big man and can get his shot off with ease, but he has trouble guarding a physical player and gives up a lot of rebounds which really hurts our second unit. When Travis is on a smaller defender he can post them up and shoot over them but he has trouble guarding quick players and leaves our offense with a mediocre 3pt shooter who can't pass or dribble very well.
> 
> I can see Martell becoming a well rounded player in a few years, but I think Outlaw will always have some major weaknesses when he is on the floor.


are you aware that Outlaw outrebounds MW in less minutes? Or that he shoots a higher percentage? That he's shooting a whole 4% less from 3pnt range? That his passing results in the same amount of assists and TO's. That he gets about double the amount of blocks and almost does that in steals as well? 

http://www.nba.com/blazers/stats/

I don't see anything that points to only Martell improving while Travis's game gets somehow stuck in the mud... but then I don't see him having major weaknesses right now either. Heck I think he looks like a really good player on a really good team as well.

STOMP


----------



## ROY4MVP (Dec 26, 2007)

How about we keep them both? Trout can easily swing at SF/PF, while martell could swing SF/3G. So there is no battle for a position, why trade one of them. If I were to trade anyone it would jack, he just doesn't fit with this team, AT ALL.


----------



## DucRider (Dec 22, 2007)

STOMP said:


> Martell's ability is to bury an open jumper is his greatest attribute. Travis has repeatedly shown the ability to get a good look and convert when it matters. One takes whats given, the other delivers when it's needed...


Exactly. 
Travis' role reminds me of Robert Horry. Normally the 3rd or 4th offensive option, but when you need a shot, or a defensive play (even if it is throwing the opposing pg into the stands), he's there, makes it, content with his role and counting his rings.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

My vote depends on whether or not we can keep Jones, and Blake. If we can't keep those guys we have no other perimeter threats and teams would just collapse on us. Martell would keep the defences honest. I am still leaning towards keeping Webster though.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Draco said:


> I'd keep Martell and give up Outlaw. Outlaw looks like a player who would be good on a really bad team and I think Martell has much more room for growth. Outlaw doesn't shoot very efficiently mostly from poor shot selection, he has a number of holes in his game (defense, passing, rebounding.) Outlaw can cause matchup problems, but it is a double edged sword. When Travis is playing PF he is quicker than the opposing big man and can get his shot off with ease, but he has trouble guarding a physical player and gives up a lot of rebounds which really hurts our second unit. When Travis is on a smaller defender he can post them up and shoot over them but he has trouble guarding quick players and leaves our offense with a mediocre 3pt shooter who can't pass or dribble very well.
> 
> I can see Martell becoming a well rounded player in a few years, but I think Outlaw will always have some major weaknesses when he is on the floor.


I can see Martell becoming a well rounded player as well - but other than an occasional blip - I do not see him taking over games. Travis, on the other hand - is a closer. He takes these hard shots because he has to - the team goes to him when there is a need and his athletic gifts allow him to take the crazy shots.

As I said, if you can keep both - you do, but if I have to choose, Travis stays. His game is more unique and his skill set is harder to replace.

This year it is obviously a no contest, Webster is a sub-par NBA starter (using PER), and Travis is an above par NBA starter (using the same formula).


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Outlaw is taller, can create his own shot, has more athleticism, is a better help defender and an equal man defender, and is a better midrange shooter. Webster is a better perimeter shooter. 

aside from all that (which is quite a bit), Outlaw has demonstrated the ability to drastically improve over time. Webster might show that capacity for growth, but he might not.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

mook said:


> Outlaw is taller, can create his own shot, has more athleticism, is a better help defender and an equal man defender, and is a better midrange shooter. Webster is a better perimeter shooter.
> 
> aside from all that (which is quite a bit), Outlaw has demonstrated the ability to drastically improve over time. Webster might show that capacity for growth, but he might not.



I believe you have left out the context of development, and experience. Martell is much further along than Outlaw was at this point of his career. He is averaging in the teens already in a year where Travis barely touched the floor during that part of his career. 

To say that Martell cannot get his own shot anymore is wrong. He cannot get as many good looks as Travis can at this point, but if you have been watching, you will note that over the last few weeks one of the improvements in the Blazers game is that Martell has developed a post up game and Martell has developed the ability to get off a mid range shot with a change of pace move. 

Now that being said, I say you keep both if you can because they are versatile enough to play multiple positions and both be on the floor contributing. 

The other thing I often think about with these 2 players development is that a large part of their careers were under Cheeks. I often wonder if those years weren't just as close to doing nothing and that if they had a different coach, they would have developed quicker.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

hasoos said:


> The other thing I often think about with these 2 players development is that a large part of their careers were under Cheeks. I often wonder if those years weren't just as close to doing nothing and that if they had a different coach, they would have developed quicker.


I think only Outlaw was under Cheeks. Webster came the same year Nate did.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

andalusian said:


> I think only Outlaw was under Cheeks. Webster came the same year Nate did.


Martell played under Cheeks, and then KP his rookie year.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

mook said:


> Outlaw is taller, can create his own shot, has more athleticism, is a better help defender and an equal man defender, and is a better midrange shooter. Webster is a better perimeter shooter.
> 
> aside from all that (which is quite a bit), Outlaw has demonstrated the ability to drastically improve over time. Webster might show that capacity for growth, but he might not.


Outlaw didn't display the ability to "drastically improve" until this year probably, I'd argue Martell has grown much more in his third year and become much more of a viable option at 21 than Travis ever was! You have to compare Travis' third year to Martell's, not Travis' fifth year to Martell's third.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

ROY4MVP said:


> How about we keep them both? Trout can easily swing at SF/PF, while martell could swing SF/3G. So there is no battle for a position, why trade one of them. If I were to trade anyone it would jack, he just doesn't fit with this team, AT ALL.


Something we should all be able to agree to.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

hasoos said:


> The other thing I often think about with these 2 players development is that a large part of their careers were under Cheeks. I often wonder if those years weren't just as close to doing nothing and that if they had a different coach, they would have developed quicker.


TIM GRGURICH


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I am just really blown away by how tight this poll is I'm just blown. I love TLaw and I do hope we could keep them both. I picked Webster though I see him haveing a bigger upside on offence and Outlaw haveing a bigger upside on defence. For this team though I see Webster haveing the bigger role though.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

cpt.napalm said:


> My vote depends on whether or not we can keep Jones, and Blake. If we can't keep those guys we have no other perimeter threats and teams would just collapse on us.


Not true. There are few on Portland's roster who aren't decent shooters from the perimeter... I'd only list Oden, Joel, and Sergio as non threats and Rudy is clearly going to be very good from deep. Kaponen is supposed to be pretty lights out from the outside as well though time will tell if he's able to step in for Blake when his contract is up after next season. 

With the addition of Greg and Rudy, Portland's frontcourt rotation should become a little more traditionally defined with a starter and a main backup at that position. Joel will be backing up Greg, Frye behind Aldridge... so who gets the 48 minutes a night at SF? Thats too few minutes for 3 guys. I think we've the wrong two guys in this poll as it's Jones and Martell with the similar games of hanging out on the perimeter.

Travis's ability to create his own shot is a major plus in his favor IMO. Open looks are great, but when the 24 second clock is running down or it's late in the 4th quarter, the D steps up and getting an open look is far from a given. The value of TO's ability to separate can't be overstated... Roy and Aldridge can both do this pretty well, but I think Travis is the best on the club at it.

James Jones just turned 27 a few months back. Obviously he's scorching the nets this year and is a major threat from the outside. He's not been the healthiest though... maybe thats a legit concern? So is what sort of offers he might fetch this upcoming summer... but then so is Webster the following year. I really don't want to see Portland tie up too much cash in players who're mainly deep threats. It seems there are always decent shooters available for a MLE... heck just look at the guys that the Spurs have picked up over the years with theirs (Bowen, Barry, Finley). 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Outlaw didn't display the ability to "drastically improve" until this year probably, I'd argue Martell has grown much more in his third year and become much more of a viable option at 21 than Travis ever was! *You have to compare Travis' third year to Martell's, not Travis' fifth year to Martell's third*.


No you don't. Martell was better then Travis his rookie year through his 3rd year sure, but it doesn't equate that this discrepancy will continue. Travis has progressed leaps and bounds from those days and is just starting to tap into his enormous physical gifts. Mostly because Martell will never ever have Travis's hops, size, or length, I don't think he has the same sort of potential. 

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

hasoos said:


> Martell played under Cheeks, and then KP his rookie year.


No he has not. This is his 3rd year, same as Nate's.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Martell didn't play under Cheeks he was drafted the same year that Nate was brought in.:cheers:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Outlaw didn't display the ability to "drastically improve" until this year probably, I'd argue Martell has grown much more in his third year and become much more of a viable option at 21 than Travis ever was! You have to compare Travis' third year to Martell's, not Travis' fifth year to Martell's third.


If I were buying stocks, would I go with the stock that's steadily had small, incremental gains over three years (Webster), or the one that did nothing for four years and then suddenly shot through the roof (Outlaw)? 

I'm putting my money on the stock that has shown massive recent growth. You may disagree and say that I shouldn't because in its third year that stock was performing worse than the other, but I doubt you'd convince me. 

Stocks and pro sports are all about "what have you done lately." The reason why has something to do with what a climatology professor I had once said: "If you aren't sure what the weather will be like tomorrow, guess that it'll be the same as today. 60% of the time you'll be right."

I'm guessing Outlaw and Webster both continue to grow at their current rates. That makes Outlaw the much better gamble.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

mook said:


> If I were buying stocks, would I go with the stock that's steadily had small, incremental gains over three years (Webster), or the one that did nothing for four years and then suddenly shot through the roof (Outlaw)?
> 
> I'm putting my money on the stock that has shown massive recent growth. You may disagree and say that I shouldn't because in its third year that stock was performing worse than the other, but I doubt you'd convince me.
> 
> ...


So you probably loved the extensions to Darius and Ratliff, hated the Zach deal, and don't like Lamarcus Aldridge at all right now (hasn't improved much lately). Stop being so fickle, open your eyes. and I'd argue Martell has made significant gains since he's come into the league, and a big step this year. Martell is younger and less experienced and I think his potential to be a steady ballhandler and smarter player who moves well w/o the ball in incrementally higher than Outlaw, who does have more track star potential!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Martell is younger and less experienced and I think his potential to be a steady ballhandler and smarter player who moves well w/o the ball in incrementally higher than Outlaw, who does have more track star potential!


huh?

STOMP


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> So you probably loved the extensions to Darius and Ratliff, hated the Zach deal, and don't like Lamarcus Aldridge at all right now (hasn't improved much lately). Stop being so fickle, open your eyes. and I'd argue Martell has made significant gains since he's come into the league, and a big step this year.


I don't think you got his comparison. He was comparing years, and Aldridge has significantly improved from last year.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I am just really blown away by how tight this poll is I'm just blown. I love TLaw and I do hope we could keep them both. I picked Webster though I see him haveing a bigger upside on offence and Outlaw haveing a bigger upside on defence. For this team though I see Webster haveing the bigger role though.


It's probably because the poll question and your question contradict each other.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I think Nate would choose to keep Outlaw over Webster right now Nate seems really high on outlaw. Webster is the smarter player moves better without the ball and can shoot the ball better. Outlaw is more exposive and the better defender. I think alot of it depends on Jones if he stays Martell is out if Jones goes Outlaw is out. I just don't see how we can keep all these players in a fews years down the road They will want bigger contracs. I hope I'm wrong but I think the Blazers will be forced with some sort of a decision.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

As Draco and others have said, I think there's plenty of room for them both.

As for their roles on the team in the future, I can easily imagine Outlaw being the more productive player of the two, as long as he's coming off the bench. He's a match-up nightmare for second string PFs and, as others have said, can pretty much get his shot anytime he wants it.

Webster, otoh, seems like a potentially ideal starting SF for this team -- his defense is improving and having a "pure shooter" in the starting line-up seems like a Really Good Idea, just to keep opposing starting units honest. I realize that Outlaw isn't far behind Webster in terms of shooting percentage right now.... I'll be interested to see how that shakes out over the season. His shot isn't nearly as pretty as Webster's but then Drexler's shot was kinda ugly (especially from deep) but was remarkably effective.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I realize that Outlaw isn't far behind Webster in terms of shooting percentage right now.... I'll be interested to see how that shakes out over the season.


facts to the rescue

right now Travis is shooting a higher FG% then Martell... 0.443 vs 0.431

on 3's he's trailing 0.375 vs 0.385

Maybe it's the beautiful form on Martell's J that causes posters to think he's doing better then he is, but it's a myth that he's shooting better then Travis this year. The rest of the major stats are either even or well in TO's favor despite Martell averaging 2 more minutes per game. 

check it out

STOMP


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

STOMP said:


> facts to the rescue
> 
> right now Travis is shooting a higher FG% then Martell... 0.443 vs 0.431
> 
> ...


I beleive it has Martell avg. 3 more minutes a game. If Martell would put the ball on the floor more and take it inside that FG% would go up also.:cheers:


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

T law i love this kid


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

darkhelmit54 said:


> So you probably loved the extensions to Darius and Ratliff, hated the Zach deal, and don't like Lamarcus Aldridge at all right now (hasn't improved much lately). Stop being so fickle, open your eyes. and I'd argue Martell has made significant gains since he's come into the league, and a big step this year. Martell is younger and less experienced and I think his potential to be a steady ballhandler and smarter player who moves well w/o the ball in incrementally higher than Outlaw, who does have more track star potential!


I'm comparing year-to-year, not month-to-month or week-to-week. 

Aldridge has had a nice growth curve since the day we drafted him. So I love having him on the team. But if he tops out right where he is now, he's still a great guy to have on our team. 

Ratliff was a proven veteran who was doing what he always did (when healthy), so my analogy of growth doesn't even apply. 

I didn't hate the Zach deal, but I wasn't wildly enthusiastic. He was so good right from the beginning that personal growth didn't factor much into my thinking. I just wasn't sure he was worth that much money. 

Darius is an interesting case, and is a valid example of where the growth just didn't continue to happen. I didn't say my philosophy of chasing recent growth was 100% fool proof. Of course, we'll never know if he might've continued to improve with better coaching over his career and better health. 

Perhaps a better example was Jermaine O'Neal. Didn't show anything here, but once in Indiana he took off. He was a fantastic investment after his first year in Indiana. Meanwhile, Jonathin Bender had shown steady and slow improvements, and wound up leveling off much quicker and was a bad investment. 

There was a time when Amare Stoudemire and Randolph were equally productive on the court. Amare had gotten to that point much quicker, though, and his rapid growth as a player continued for quite a while. He was clearly the better investment at the time when their on-court productivity was equal. 

Pretty much every Most Improved Player award winner is an example of somebody with sudden, surprising growth from out of nowhere. Very rarely do you see those guys traded immediately after winning the award for a player like Jarret Jack or Martell Webster who are slowly getting better. 

It's not "being fickle." It's recognizing inertia. A player who is growing rapidly will tend to continue to grow rapidly. A player growing slowly will tend to continue to grow slowly. If you have a choice between the two and all else is equal (in this case it's not--Travis is far superior at most things), go with the guy growing rapidly.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Both have their ups and downs....it's too bad you can't combine their talents into one player. If Travis has Webster's fire I'd surely pick him, however if Webster had a cool player introduction (like Outlaw's) I'd surely pick him.

I say trade both and get an all star as I can not and will not pick either.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Webster needs to put the ball on the floor more though. If he did this he could be really good and an explosive offensive player with decent defence and passing skills.


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

If I'm judging between today's Webs and today's TLaw, I'm picking TLaw. I like his personality better, and I think he's more clutch. He's also great fun to watch...


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I beleive it has Martell avg. 3 more minutes a game. *If Martell would put the ball on the floor more and take it inside that FG% would go up also.*:cheers:


What have you seen in Martell that tells you he has that ability? Every shot he takes is off of a set play at this point. I think a big weakness of his is creating his own shot, and clearly Nate thinks the same thing due to the lack of letting him do it in a game. If he could, he would be allowed to do it.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

PapaG said:


> What have you seen in Martell that tells you he has that ability? Every shot he takes is off of a set play at this point. I think a big weakness of his is creating his own shot, and clearly Nate thinks the same thing due to the lack of letting him do it in a game. If he could, he would be allowed to do it.


How do you know Nate thinks the same thing? We have all seen alittle bit of Martell putting the ball on the floor getting to the rim and either drowing the foul or dunking the ball. He does have the ability he just dosen't do it enough. Maybe Nate just likes his 3 point shooting and his ability to come off of screens. I just think Martell has alot more in his arsenal than what he shows and we will see it in time. He is still learning. :cheers:


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Nate McMillian in todays Oregonian has said that Martell is definitely a keeper while he said that Outlaw is just a keeper. Purhaps while Travis might be growing faster Nate might see a higher ceiling in Martell?:cheers:


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Nate McMillian in todays Oregonian has said that Martell is definitely a keeper while he said that Outlaw is just a keeper. Purhaps while Travis might be growing faster Nate might see a higher ceiling in Martell?:cheers:


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

What do people think now?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

BlazerFan22 said:


> What do people think now?


now? i've always liked outlaw more than webster. i'm surprised that there are actually those out there that thinks webster is better.

if nate actually places more value in webster than he does outlaw - which i really don't think he is - then my respect for his knowledge just went down another notch.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> now? i've always liked outlaw more than webster. i'm surprised that there are actually those out there that thinks webster is better.
> 
> if nate actually places more value in webster than he does outlaw - which i really don't think he is - then my respect for his knowledge just went down another notch.


*
i'm surprised that there are actually those out there that thinks webster is better.* _Ya it kinda shocked me as well._:cheers:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I voted for Outlaw then, and I would vote for Outlaw now.

But please, let's give Webster and Jack yet another year to see if they can be average :dead:


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

STOMP said:


> facts to the rescue
> 
> right now Travis is shooting a higher FG% then Martell... 0.443 vs 0.431
> 
> ...


where are you getting those shooting percentages?

on FG's Martell is .411 for the season and .403 for career
on FG's Outlaw is *.448 *for the season and *.449 *for career

on 3pt FG's Martell is .370 for the season and *.364 *for career
on 3pt FG's Outlaw is *.380 *for the season and .322 for career

on FT's Martell is .713 for the season and *.740 *for career
on FT's Outlaw is *.725 *for the season and .730 for career

I agree that Martell's shooting form seems to convince some people he is a better shooter then he is.

The fact is that Martell is NOT a good shooter. He's not even an average shooter. And it becomes even worse when you consider that Martell almost certainly get more open shots then any other blazer. Travis is a much better shooter and this season Travis has become a primary focus of defenses and has still improved his percentages.

I think Martell supporters are going to be disappointed. KP has already shown he's willing to trade webster when he originally included him in the zach to NY trade. Add that to Travis's remarkable improvement this year and to how much better portland is with James Jones on the floor then Martell and the evidence mounts. Then factor in the impending playing time squeeze at SF with the addition of Oden at C and Fernandez at SG. And finally there is the status of Martell's contract versus KP's stated goal of 2009 cap-space. We could all vote to keep Martell, but I suspect KP won't vote the same...and his vote trumps all.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Nate McMillian in todays Oregonian has said that Martell is definitely a keeper while he said that Outlaw is just a keeper. Purhaps while Travis might be growing faster Nate might see a higher ceiling in Martell?:cheers:


I wouldn't spend much time paying attention to interview fodder when you have much more compelling evidence of how Nate views the 2 players: who plays the most in the 4th quarter and down the stretch? how many last possession shots have been designed for Travis...and have any been designed for Martell?

I'd also suggest that the final say on 'who's a keeper' doesn't belong to Nate...it belongs to KP. And KP already decided to trade Martell once this summer when he was originally included in the NY trade. KP thought so poorly of webster that he was only worth filler in dumping zach. If Martell keeps disappearing in about every other game for the rest of this season, KP will be thinking of shipping Martell out this summer, and his thoughts seem to translate into action quite often.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I voted to keep Martell, but I have a different agenda than "who I think is better" I'd rather keep Martell, because I still think he has something to show us, and I think Travis is a highly tradeable asset that will allow the team to go out and consolidate the PG postition with a proven performer.

I still want to see Martell get his head sorted out completely


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

I am shocked at the votes!!! I would think that it would have been like 80\20 to drop martell.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

BenDavis503 said:


> I am shocked at the votes!!! I would think that it would have been like 80\20 to drop martell.


"potential" is like catnip to a lot of fans


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

BenDavis503 said:


> I am shocked at the votes!!! I would think that it would have been like 80\20 to drop martell.


The question in the poll and the question in the initial post kind of contradict each other. That's why I'm guessing.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

moldorf said:


> where are you getting those shooting percentages?


Those were TO's & MW's stats as of Jan 17th... this is an old thread that was bumped.

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I think if we started it now, again, it would be 70/30 for Outlaw.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

STOMP said:


> Those were TO's & MW's stats as of Jan 17th... this is an old thread that was bumped.
> 
> STOMP


ahh...slapping forehead now


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I like Outlaw alot but I'm still leaning towerd Matell on this one.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If I had to choose one, I would still prefer to keep Outlaw. The catch is, I suspect Outlaw has the higher trade value.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If I had to choose one, I would still prefer to keep Outlaw. The catch is, I suspect Outlaw has the higher trade value.


I just see something in Martell I don't want to trade him. Not that Outlaw is not but I just think Martell is a great chemistry guy. The type of character that every championship team needs.


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

BlazerFan22 said:


> The Blazers may be faced with this decision a few years down the road. Who do you keep?


First, since the team "may be faced with this decision", this is all hypothetical.
Second, I am quite willing to wait until the "few years down the road" have passed to allow time for both these young players to develop and improve their potential. The trade of either or both these players can be negotiated at a much later date. I think it is still too early to assess their full worth.

JAFO


----------

