# Batum our best wing defender?



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/121574310374440.xml&coll=7

Did I read this correctly?



> "[summer league player Bernard Robinson is] an *athletic wing defender*, and if you want to take your team to the highest level in this league, *you have to have at least one of those guys*," Pritchard said. "*If (Batum) isn't ready for that, we'd like to have a veteran to do that.*"


That sounds to me like KP is saying Batum has a better shot at doing that than Webster or Outlaw and that KP doesn't think the incumbents are capable of becoming solid defenders. Am I over-reading this?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Reep said:


> That sounds to me like KP is saying Batum has a better shot at doing that than Webster or Outlaw and that KP doesn't think the incumbents are capable of becoming solid defenders. Am I over-reading this?


Should put some mustard on the entire "You have not been watching how good Webster was a defense last year" argument.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/121574310374440.xml&coll=7
> 
> Did I read this correctly?
> 
> ...





Please refer to every single one of my posts about Outlaw not being able to guard 3's

As for Webster, I don't think he will be here when training camp starts, and certainly not past the trade deadline.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I guess I found it surprising that KP thinks a 19-year old skinny kid who has never played in the NBA may be a better wing defender than two athletic guys with lots of experience. It almost sounds like he is giving up on both of them for the future. 

MM may be right about one or both being gone. You could see a package of Raef+Webster/Outlaw going out and getting back a solid defensive SF, with Batum being the young backup.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> I guess I found it surprising that KP thinks a 19-year old skinny kid who has never played in the NBA may be a better wing defender than two athletic guys with lots of experience. It almost sounds like he is giving up on both of them for the future.
> 
> MM may be right about one or both being gone. You could see a package of Raef+Webster/Outlaw going out and getting back a solid defensive SF, with Batum being the young backup.



I don't really think Outlaw will be traded this season. 

Webster and Joel are my two guesses.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> As for Webster, I don't think he will be here when training camp starts, and certainly not past the trade deadline.


Agreed. I think it'll be by the trade deadline.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Please refer to every single one of my posts about Outlaw not being able to guard 3's
> 
> As for Webster, I don't think he will be here when training camp starts, and certainly not past the trade deadline.


Really? You think Webster will be traded? I would think we'd trade Outlaw before Martel. Webster is a better defender and I think he's still has a lot of room to develop and get better, but we're seeing about all we're going to get out of Outlaw (which is still pretty good).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Let me ask you guys a question.... Does a player having played or not having played in the NBA make their ability different? Does being young make a guy not capable? Does a guy being skinny limit his ability?

The answer to all of those questions is certainly no. People are falling into the trap of assuming that all of those above mean he isn't ready.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

After listening to Monty Williams last night on courtside, I was surprised to hear him talk about Batum's intuitive feel for the game. I know Nicolas is seen as a project (and I don't doubt that he has a long way to go), but from the sounds of things, I got the impression that his athleticism, incredible wingspan and highly evolved feel for the game are going to take him far, and give him all of the tools necessary to become a good if not outstanding perimeter defender.

As for Webster getting moved over the summer I think that might be a little too soon, as the team doesn't exactly know if there's anybody on the roster besides him who can fill that "James Jones", spot up 3 point shooter role (Maybe Travis, Maybe Rudy?). However I agree Martell is on the short list of players most likely to be moved between now and next off-season, unless he really breaks out this year and sets the world on fire with improvement in his defense, rebounding, and driving to the hoop.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> After listening to Monty Williams last night on courtside, I was surprised to hear him talk about Batum's intuitive feel for the game. I know Nicolas is seen as a project (and I don't doubt that he has a long way to go), but from the sounds of things, I got the impression that his athleticism, incredible wingspan and highly evolved feel for the game are going to take him far, and give him all of the tools necessary to become a good if not outstanding perimeter defender.
> 
> As for Webster getting moved over the summer I think that might be a little too soon, as the team doesn't exactly know if there's anybody on the roster besides him who can fill that "James Jones", spot up 3 point shooter role (Maybe Travis, Maybe Rudy?). However I agree Martell is on the short list of players most likely to be moved between now and next off-season, unless he really breaks out this year and sets the world on fire with improvement in his defense, rebounding, and driving to the hoop.



I don't think Webster needs to really "break out". His role was redefined last year to play better defense (which he has) and to score more in a complimentary role. If he continues to play good defense and averages 14/6, I think he won't go anywhere.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Really? You think Webster will be traded? I would think we'd trade Outlaw before Martel. Webster is a better defender and I think he's still has a lot of room to develop and get better, but we're seeing about all we're going to get out of Outlaw (which is still pretty good).


I think if you pay attention to the interviews with the coaches and GM you keep hearing the names Oden, Aldridge, Roy and Outlaw. Outlaw is in town working out. We are supposedly sending a assistant with him back to Mississippi, KP talks about Rudy using his passing abilities to find Aldridge and Outlaw... Martel has hardly been mentioned by anyone at all. 

Yes Martel is a better on the ball defender, but which of the 2 had a bigger overall impact on the game? Which player did they have in late game situations last year? Who had better shooting percentages last year? Answer to all of the above is Outlaw. 

Travis still looks to me to have quite a bit of room to grow, as at times he is virtually unstoppable. Martel to me hasn't shown (aside from 1 quarter) the pure tools to get significantly better. I think at best he'll be a decent defender who averages 12-13ppg, 5rpg and shoots around 38% from 3. Travis is probably about the same on rebounding and 3pt% but IMO can be closer to a 18-20ppg player.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I think if you pay attention to the interviews with the coaches and GM you keep hearing the names Oden, Aldridge, Roy and Outlaw. Outlaw is in town working out. We are supposedly sending a assistant with him back to Mississippi, KP talks about Rudy using his passing abilities to find Aldridge and Outlaw... Martel has hardly been mentioned by anyone at all.
> 
> Yes Martel is a better on the ball defender, but which of the 2 had a bigger overall impact on the game? Which player did they have in late game situations last year? Who had better shooting percentages last year? Answer to all of the above is Outlaw.
> 
> Travis still looks to me to have quite a bit of room to grow, as at times he is virtually unstoppable. Martel to me hasn't shown (aside from 1 quarter) the pure tools to get significantly better. I think at best he'll be a decent defender who averages 12-13ppg, 5rpg and shoots around 38% from 3. Travis is probably about the same on rebounding and 3pt% but IMO can be closer to a 18-20ppg player.



I guess that's the thing. I _have_ been listening- avidly. And I keep hearing that Martel is going to start, Martel has the upper hand at SF... it just doesn't sound like a team getting ready to dump him. 

That said, Outlaw could always take the starting role away from him, but for now I read it's Martel's to lose.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

blah blah blah Webster will be traded soon. I hear this over and over and over. The people that post it, are speculating over and over and over. He is still here, and from what I see, management does not agree with you. The same thing with Travis. 

I think KP is just letting the cake bake, just like he said.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

hasoos said:


> blah blah blah Webster will be traded soon. I hear this over and over and over. The people that post it, are speculating over and over and over. He is still here, and from what I see, management does not agree with you. The same thing with Travis.
> 
> I think KP is just letting the cake bake, just like he said.



Well said.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

If KP is concerned about wing defense and wants to bring in a vet, then I can seem him using whichever player it takes to get it done. 

Names that come to mind are Childress, an less-likely candidates Granger, Gay, Deng, G. Wallace?

Wallace is probably the best defender, but his outside shot isn't as good as Outlaw. Wallace is also injured a lot. I remember him having some pretty solid games against Portland though. If the Bobcats lose Okafor I could see them being interested in a package that contained a center (Joel?) and a replacement small forward (Outlaw/Webster).


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> If KP is concerned about wing defense and wants to bring in a vet, then I can seem him using whichever player it takes to get it done.
> 
> Names that come to mind are Childress, an less-likely candidates Granger, Gay, Deng, G. Wallace?
> 
> Wallace is probably the best defender, but his outside shot isn't as good as Outlaw. Wallace is also injured a lot. I remember him having some pretty solid games against Portland though. If the Bobcats lose Okafor I could see them being interested in a package that contained a center (Joel?) and a replacement small forward (Outlaw/Webster).




You forgot a name or two by the way


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> *I don't think Webster needs to really "break out".* His role was redefined last year to play better defense (which he has) and to score more in a complimentary role. *If he continues to play good defense and averages 14/6, I think he won't go anywhere.*


I'm not trying to be argumentative, but those bolded statements really seem to be contradictory to me. Martell as a starter, with starter's minutes last year was an "adequate" man defender, who had trouble rotating on defense, and unless he was matched up against an elite player often seemed to lose focus on the defensive end.

Martell averaged 10.7 points and 3.9 rebounds per game last year with a PER of 12.07 and to go from that to 14 points and 6 rebounds would be a huge jump in production and efficiency for him.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Nate is saying Webster is going to start because he started last year the only change Nate has made is that he says Oden will start. Nate has no real clue who is going to start on opening day... How could he other than basing things off of what he did for the last game?

KP is the guy who hasn't mentioned Martel. I think KP is the guy to pay attention to when it comes to determining who is or will be on the team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Nate is saying Webster is going to start because he started last year the only change Nate has made is that he says Oden will start. Nate has no real clue who is going to start on opening day... How could he other than basing things off of what he did for the last game?
> 
> KP is the guy who hasn't mentioned Martel. I think KP is the guy to pay attention to when it comes to determining who is or will be on the team.


You're wrong Schilly. KP did mention Martell. When asked about him playing more KP said he needs to get better. 

Blah, blah. Blah aside, and you are right that this is just speculation, Martell is the most likely Blazer traded for several reasons.

1. Redundancy
2. Contract
3. Inconsistant
4. Coachability


----------



## rtg (Aug 17, 2006)

Looking at the +/- numbers its hard to deny that Webster and Outlaw and very bad at D. Webster happens to be even worse. I would say keep Outlaw and ship out Webster but it just so happens that Outlaw is also a chucker. He has a low pps and puts up more shots per min than any other Blazer. I would be fine shipping both Webster and Outlaw out and getting a vet who can play some D and does not need to score a lot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

nikolokolus said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but those bolded statements really seem to be contradictory to me. Martell as a starter, with starter's minutes last year was an "adequate" man defender, who had trouble rotating on defense, and unless he was matched up against an elite player often seemed to lose focus on the defensive end.
> 
> Martell averaged 10.7 points and 3.9 rebounds per game last year with a PER of 12.07 and to go from that to 14 points and 6 rebounds would be a huge jump in production and efficiency for him.


Especially when his production has shown very little change per minute over his career.

Production per 40 minutes
Rookie 15pts 4.8reb 
2nd 13pts 5.4reb
3rd 15pts 5.9reb

The thing with Webster is I haven't seen him do anything really that indicates to me that he will get much better. Ohh sure once eery 5 games or so he'll make a move that makes you say "Wow if he did that all the time" but after 3 years he should be getting one move like that a game.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> I guess that's the thing. I _have_ been listening- avidly. And I keep hearing that Martel is going to start, Martel has the upper hand at SF... it just doesn't sound like a team getting ready to dump him.
> 
> That said, Outlaw could always take the starting role away from him, but for now I read it's Martel's to lose.


Yes, but the reason Martell is going to start is that Travis is a much better scorer and they don't think he will get as many touches in the starting role with Roy, Aldridge and Oden taking the shots. I get the impression that they all believe Travis is the better SF--they just think he adds more value to the second unit. 

I was down on Travis a year or so ago because I didn't think he would ever be quick enough to be really good. He can jump and he is fast, but not quick. This last year he added the ability to get down low and beat his man off the drive. He also showed momments of solid interior defense. Travis was slow to develop, but I see him making more consistant progress than Martell. 

The team does talk highly of Travis, but at the same time he is there most valuable trade asset. I could see the team really trying to keep his value up because he may be the piece they need to get a SF who can score, but also play solid defense. I'm hoping that they don't do anything until the trade deadline, because they really need to see how these guys progress after this summer.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but those bolded statements really seem to be contradictory to me. Martell as a starter, with starter's minutes last year was an "adequate" man defender, who had trouble rotating on defense, and unless he was matched up against an elite player often seemed to lose focus on the defensive end.
> 
> Martell averaged 10.7 points and 3.9 rebounds per game last year with a PER of 12.07 and to go from that to 14 points and 6 rebounds would be a huge jump in production and efficiency for him.



Let me expand on my thoughts. 

We have our "big 3" in place now in Oden, Roy & Aldridge. The rest of the team will play more of a complimentary role to them. Not to say they won't have their monments in the sun, but we have amassed our main cogs. Now, with respect to Webster, Nate wants him to play solid defense (which he pretty much does and I think continue to improve), be enough of a scoring threat to garner some attention (I think that is also pretty much acomplished as I don't see teams ignoring him) and snag a few rebounds. That seems to be the definition of his "complimetary contribution". Therefore, since he's close to being what Nate wants him to be AND he fits the team culture, I just fail to see why some people think he's on the cusp of being traded as if he's a failure.


----------



## gogreen (May 24, 2006)

hasoos said:


> blah blah blah Webster will be traded soon. I hear this over and over and over. The people that post it, are speculating over and over and over. He is still here, and from what I see, management does not agree with you. The same thing with Travis.
> 
> I think KP is just letting the cake bake, just like he said.


Here is what I don't get. Everyone says we are gonna trade X,Y and Z for A or B. Who is available in a trade that fits the A or B ? Danny Granger is not coming here for Raef, Webster, Sergio, etc. Why would any team trade with us and what player fits who we think/ want ? I don't get it.

So, if we traded everybody but the big Three, who would be the perfect fit ?

I think Webster because he is a natural Three and matches up better with the starters. Outlaw, what is he? Three a Four ? 

I think if we bring in a FA we will have to overpay in the free market and the whole pay structure will be based on someone we think might fit in. Take Deng as an example. Let's say we sign him for 12 mil. That means the big Three are worth 12M + . 

The cake is in the oven but i doubt it will get this "Icing" that KP thinks he will spread on so smooth.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> I guess I found it surprising that KP thinks a 19-year old skinny kid who has never played in the NBA may be a better wing defender than two athletic guys with lots of experience.


Well, why is it surprising that he "may be?" Pritchard isn't saying he *is* a better defender, and in fact underscored that by saying "if he isn't, then..."

You can rephrase what you said and it would sound less unsurprising: An athletic 19-year old player recognized for his defensive ability in Europe may be a better wing defender than two players with low basketball intelligence and little consistency who have never been good defenders in their NBA careers.

I think one of Webster or Outlaw is at high risk of being dealt. Webster is clearly the inferior player, but that means Outlaw would bring back more in trade. Pritchard seems to really like Batum, so I think he may envision Batum as the team's future solution at the small forward position or, at least, part of the small forward rotation.

If Pritchard could turn Outlaw and/or Webster into a savvy, good player like Childress or Battier, I'd actually be fine with leaving Batum as the primary small forward reserve, as raw as he is. You can always limit his exposure a bit by going to a "small ball" Blake-Roy-Fernandez or Bayless-Roy-Fernandez lineup from time to time. 

But letting Batum take his lumps and develop as the primary back up, this season, would be fine by me. I think Batum is an excellent talent and should be given that sort of chance to develop in an exciting but non-contending year.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Let me expand on my thoughts.
> 
> We have our "big 3" in place now in Oden, Roy & Aldridge. The rest of the team will play more of a complimentary role to them. Not to say they won't have their monments in the sun, but we have amassed our main cogs. Now, with respect to Webster, Nate wants him to play solid defense (which he pretty much does and I think continue to improve), be enough of a scoring threat to garner some attention (I think that is also pretty much acomplished as I don't see teams ignoring him) and snag a few rebounds. That seems to be the definition of his "complimetary contribution". Therefore, since he's close to being what Nate wants him to be AND he fits the team culture, I just fail to see why some people think he's on the cusp of being traded as if he's a failure.


I agree that Martell and Wing position aren't being counted on to carry the team, but at this point it's still pretty debatable about how effective Martell is as a defender and his FG % of 42 is still pretty inefficient, suggesting that he needs a higher volume of shots to get his points than you would like to see -- of course his primary role is to be a 3 pt shooter so his actual true shooting % isn't bad, but I still think Martell is going to need to see substantial improvement in a lot of areas this next season (well above his progression rate so far) to be considered a long term solution. If he meets those progression goals I'd be happy to see the team keep him.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

I dont know why anyone is surprised with Batum. The M.O. on Batum was that he had all-around talent on both offense and defense along with the tools and the fundamentals to be a defensive stopper. Before the Trail Blazers scored the top pick I wanted Batum and Noah. The knock on Batum was that he didnt take over the game often enough. He was on a lousy team and he was 19. If thats the knock talk to me when he is 23. 

With Webster we are talking about a 22 year off coming off a 10/4 season putting up three point stats that more than rival what many of the best shooters of all time were stroking. The team obviously needs someone to stretch the floor, so why trade Webster.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Pritchard seems to really like Batum, so I think he may envision Batum as the team's future solution at the small forward position or, at least, part of the small forward rotation.
> 
> If Pritchard could turn Outlaw and/or Webster into a savvy, good player like Childress or Battier, I'd actually be fine with leaving Batum as the primary small forward reserve, as raw as he is. You can always limit his exposure a bit by going to a "small ball" Blake-Roy-Fernandez or Bayless-Roy-Fernandez lineup from time to time.


This was my point. I thought KP had more faith in Webster and Outlaw as future starters. I know SF was a weak point, but it sounds like the Blazers are ready to punt on both--at least in terms of a starting SF. 

If that is the case, then Childress or Battier may be very good choices. They are both solid players that don't take the spotlight. 

Here's a quote from Batum that maybe shows why they like him:


> "In France, I was an offensive player -- I would score 16, 17 points," said Batum, who hit several midrange jumpers and put-backs after rebounds at practice this week. "I just try to be aggressive. *But guarding somebody is the best part of the game. If you fear me, I think I win.*"


If he can defend and hit the open three you could see him fitting in very nicely.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

gogreen said:


> Here is what I don't get. Everyone says we are gonna trade X,Y and Z for A or B. Who is available in a trade that fits the A or B ? Danny Granger is not coming here for Raef, Webster, Sergio, etc. Why would any team trade with us and what player fits who we think/ want ? I don't get it.
> 
> So, if we traded everybody but the big Three, who would be the perfect fit ?
> 
> ...



You make a lot of great points. IF we make a trade, I think it will involve a team that is in one of a couple of situations. I will be naming players below that are purely hypothetical

1. Trying to get out from a big contract like Michael Redd or Richard Jefferson
2. Trying to trade a player that doesn't want to be there anymore like Marion 
3. Trying to rebuld and getting multiple players and a pick for one player like Prince, McGrady or even Battier
4. Trying to trade someone before they become a RFA and eat up all of your cap space like Webster, Frye or Diogu


I'm not saying any of these are overwhelmingly realistic, but you never know. I mean there are a lot of different reasons teams make trades. Look at Memphis.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Let me ask you guys a question.... Does a player having played or not having played in the NBA make their ability different?


Unless I am misunderstanding your question... YES, it does make their ability different. The player can have all the athleticism in the world but they still have to learn how to defend in the NBA. We have seen it with many ultra-athletic players. Pippen was still a great defender when he got older because he knew the game so well, and understood defense. Batum, never having played a game in the NBA, will not have that ability right away. 



Schilly said:


> Does being young make a guy not capable?


Not necessarily, but name a few very young players that were great defenders immediately upon entering the NBA. 



Schilly said:


> Does a guy being skinny limit his ability?


Not necessarily, but if he doesn't learn the tricks of playing defense in the NBA, his lack of strength and size WILL limit his defensive ability.




Schilly said:


> The answer to all of those questions is certainly no.


The answer to those questions is definitely NOT "certainly no". The answer too all of those questions is "possibly", or "it depends on his defensive basketball IQ".


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Why would we trade Webster rather than Outlaw? Contract, contract, contract!

With Webster, Frye, and I believe Diogu, the clock is ticking. The Blazers have to either sign them to an extension (for reasonable $$) within the next few months, trade them, or have them become a "cap hold". Since the amount of the cap hold will exceed their actual value by a considerable margin, that really isn't much of an option! (besides, it would mean admitting that the "cap space in 09" plan was never serious)

Will Webster and/or Frye be willing to re-sign in the $4 million range? If not, the team really has no choice other than a trade.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Reep said:


> This was my point. I thought KP had more faith in Webster and Outlaw as future starters. I know SF was a weak point, but it sounds like the Blazers are ready to punt on both--at least in terms of a starting SF.
> 
> If that is the case, then Childress or Battier may be very good choices. They are both solid players that don't take the spotlight.
> 
> ...


So you obviously weren't watching last year in the playoffs when to beat Houston, Utah just made Battier the focus of the offense and it came to a grinding halt. No thanks. 
:biggrin:


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

> But guarding somebody is the best part of the game. If you fear me, I think I win."


This is absolutely the best quote I've heard about Batum. I'm very excited. The Second Coming of Pip.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> This is absolutely the best quote I've heard about Batum. I'm very excited. The Second Coming of Pip.


When he hurtles a 6'10" power forward and power dunks, and screams in his face, then that is when he is equal to Pippen. Lets not get ahead of yourself here.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Why would we trade Webster rather than Outlaw? Contract, contract, contract!
> 
> With Webster, Frye, and I believe Diogu, the clock is ticking. The Blazers have to either sign them to an extension (for reasonable $$) within the next few months, trade them, or have them become a "cap hold". Since the amount of the cap hold will exceed their actual value by a considerable margin, that really isn't much of an option! (besides, it would mean admitting that the "cap space in 09" plan was never serious)
> 
> Will Webster and/or Frye be willing to re-sign in the $4 million range? If not, the team really has no choice other than a trade.


You are right on target here OMG. IIRC Websters cap hold is to be 300% of this years salary or about $11.3mil


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

hasoos said:


> So you obviously weren't watching last year in the playoffs when to beat Houston, Utah just made Battier the focus of the offense and it came to a grinding halt. No thanks.
> :biggrin:


And it had nothing to do with Ming being out? And Houston only having one legitimate scoring threat? Childress would be a better option, but having Battier would provide solid leadership and a vet SF until Batum could potentially take over. On Houston, Battier had to be the second option. On Portland Battier would be the 4th or 5th option.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> When he hurtles a 6'10" power forward and power dunks, and screams in his face, then that is when he is equal to Pippen. Lets not get ahead of yourself here.


Or a seven-foot center.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> You are right on target here OMG. IIRC Websters cap hold is to be 300% of this years salary or about $11.3mil


Aren't all cap holds at 300%?

One thing grouch left off was they could let them walk without an offer. 

I would imagine a trade is in order for at least two of them. My guesses would be Martell, and then maybe Ike. Although I think if Ike doesn't play really well they will just let him walk next summer


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

cap holds for 1st rounders are. As long as tehir previous years salary was under the league Minimum.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Reep said:


> And it had nothing to do with Ming being out? And Houston only having one legitimate scoring threat? Childress would be a better option, but having Battier would provide solid leadership and a vet SF until Batum could potentially take over. On Houston, Battier had to be the second option. On Portland Battier would be the 4th or 5th option.


No it wasn't. Rafer Alston was playing excellent at the end of the year , Tmac is Tmac. Greg Landry was averaging double figures at the end of the season. The series turned when they decided Battier was going to be the main scorer. What is there to explain about sagging off him on D, and letting him take wide open shot after wide open shot, and him choking. It was flat out ugly, and the series was over. Houston had plenty of offense. Battier was ineffective at making open shots, and was ineffective at being able to find team mates. Once the shots were obviously not falling, all Utah had to do was double team until he got the ball, and then sag off.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

No not all capholds are 300%, and not all 1st rounders are 300% either. If they make less than the MLE in their final season then their cap hold is 300%, if more then it's 250%. Raef's cap hold will be over 18 million dollars next offseason, 150% of the final year of his contract.

Capholds are not a good enough reason to ship someone out because all it takes is one piece of paper to the league office and they're gone. I'd like at least one example of a guy being traded specifically for that reason before I believe it will happen.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

hasoos said:


> No it wasn't. Rafer Alston was playing excellent at the end of the year , Tmac is Tmac. Greg Landry was averaging double figures at the end of the season. The series turned when they decided Battier was going to be the main scorer. What is there to explain about sagging off him on D, and letting him take wide open shot after wide open shot, and him choking. It was flat out ugly, and the series was over. Houston had plenty of offense. Battier was ineffective at making open shots, and was ineffective at being able to find team mates. Once the shots were obviously not falling, all Utah had to do was double team until he got the ball, and then sag off.


W

Battier is a 39% three point shooter who is a very good defender and has a great attitude. He is not my first choice, but I could see him doing very well if KP decided to go after him.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Reep said:


> W
> 
> Battier is a 39% three point shooter who is a very good defender and has a great attitude. He is not my first choice, but I could see him doing very well if KP decided to go after him.


Sure you make that choice. But I can tell you from my experience watching the NBA you don't take guys who choke when given an opportunity. He did. The reason? I can guarantee you any team worth a damn is going to have scouted the hell out of your team, and your players playoff performances to see what bothered them, what worked, and what did not. That would come shooting right to the surface and a exploit. Just like hack a shaq, hack a ben, or letting Deshawn Stevenson of the Wizards shoot to his hearts content. Force it through the weak link. Your chances just went way up for a win.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> When he hurtles a 6'10" power forward and power dunks, and screams in his face, then that is when he is equal to Pippen. Lets not get ahead of yourself here.


I've been waiting for Portland to get a defensive forward for an eternity. I'll begin indulging in this fantasy of mine if I want to. You're not the boss of me. :biggrin:

BTW, did you have trouble sleeping last night with visions of Ha's running through your head?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Or a seven-foot center.
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



Yea I was thinking more of when he hurdled Charles Oakley. He put the pain on both those guys a lot.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Or a seven-foot center.
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Sick.

Defense, defense, defense, that's all I keep hearing about Batum, and that's all I keep hearing Nate trying to get Outlaw and Webster to do. I think, if Batum is as good of a defender as they're making him out to be, and he has the IQ of an NBA player - the writing is on the wall.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Schilly said:


> I think if you pay attention to the interviews with the coaches and GM you keep hearing the names Oden, Aldridge, Roy and Outlaw. Outlaw is in town working out. We are supposedly sending a assistant with him back to Mississippi, KP talks about Rudy using his passing abilities to find Aldridge and Outlaw... Martel has hardly been mentioned by anyone at all.
> 
> Yes Martel is a better on the ball defender, but which of the 2 had a bigger overall impact on the game? Which player did they have in late game situations last year? Who had better shooting percentages last year? Answer to all of the above is Outlaw.
> 
> Travis still looks to me to have quite a bit of room to grow, as at times he is virtually unstoppable. Martel to me hasn't shown (aside from 1 quarter) the pure tools to get significantly better. I think at best he'll be a decent defender who averages 12-13ppg, 5rpg and shoots around 38% from 3. Travis is probably about the same on rebounding and 3pt% but IMO can be closer to a 18-20ppg player.



Now that I think about it, I have noticed that there is more of an emphisis about Outlaw than Webster. I did hear Quick speculate that Martell works better with the big three because of the need for a pure 3 point shooter, but I have heard many praises about Outlaw . . . even the subtle maybe Batum will turn into another Travis (so they must be happy with Travis)

I could still see Outlaw being traded over Webster (if one is traded) because it also sounds like Travis has more trade value and maybe Webster turns into the three point specialist the Blazers need?????


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Or a seven-foot center.
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SLkzLgZ5wdY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:clap:

I miss Pip.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Jayps15 said:


> No not all capholds are 300%, and not all 1st rounders are 300% either. If they make less than the MLE in their final season then their cap hold is 300%, if more then it's 250%. Raef's cap hold will be over 18 million dollars next offseason, 150% of the final year of his contract.
> 
> Capholds are not a good enough reason to ship someone out because all it takes is one piece of paper to the league office and they're gone. I'd like at least one example of a guy being traded specifically for that reason before I believe it will happen.


Well while you are right that slip of paper leaves you with nothing in return. If you are trading Webster at 3.7 mil you can take back between 2.96mil and 4.7mil in return. That would be additional cap space of between 7mil and 9.3mil. 

I don't know for a fact that any team has ever traded a player to avoid cap hold issues, but I am sure it has happened.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

An interesting discussion. It has sort of been mentioned that KP is looking to fill out the team. It was stated months ago that he saw the need for a PG and a wing who could defend really well. I believe what both Nate and KP have been saying this week, to the young players, and to the public, is that they hope/want Bayless and Batum to be take these "roles" for the team. They do not have to become "superstars". What management wants is for them to play these roles really well. The Big Three are in place, this is about developing solid players around them, and having some "specialists" for particular duties -- spot 3 pt shooting, defensive specialists, a rebounder/enforcer to take some of that load, at times, off GOden.

What has also been said for more than a year, is that management wants to see how everyone plays with Oden before making big changes. I doubt any big changes will be made before the trade deadline at the earliest. It will take at least that long to see how the parts mesh. Probably, it will actually take into the 2010 season, but circumstances with the cap space/Raef contract will force a decision sooner.

I think the team is very pleased with drafting Bayless, but it does push having a skilled PG back a bit. This coming year, besides seeing how Greg and Rudy develop, will be about assessing whether or not Bayless can really fill the role long term, of defending the PG spot and integrating well with Roy. If he can, then the cake can bake pretty much for a couple more years. If not, then the cap space/Raef contract opening probably has to be targeted at filling the PG spot. Personally, I think Bayless has a good chance of fulfilling the role. Time will tell, and I'm really looking forward to watching the team to see how thing turn out.

I think it may take a couple of years to determine whether or not Batum is really that good of defender. If Bayless looks capable of handling the PG role, then the focus goes to the SF. However, I see the SF as clearly secondary.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Nice. I would love to have Batum in the rotation. That is the ONLY reason i'd be ok with one of our SFs being traded, because i think Batum, in a couple years, will be the best out of all of them.

Its all about the defense. Find the right role players. Start Batum and bring Travis off the bench for a shot in the arm with instant scoring. Thats what i would do, if Rudy and Bayless and Blake are hittin' the threes nicely, and Travis improved again.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

What I think would be a good move would be to use Martel and a combination Joel or Raef and Maybe Sergio to get a More veteran SF that will be an upgrade at the starting 3, and give us about 2 years of starting giving Travis 2 more years off the bench and Batum 2 years as 3rd string.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I will be really surprised to see Joel moved, I suspect that if there is a move that involves Webster - Raef will be the big contract going out with him.

Time will tell.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

nikolokolus said:


> I agree that Martell and Wing position aren't being counted on to carry the team, but at this point it's still pretty debatable about how effective Martell is as a defender *and his FG % of 42 is still pretty inefficient, suggesting that he needs a higher volume of shots to get his points than you would like to see* -- of course his primary role is to be a 3 pt shooter so his actual true shooting % isn't bad, but I still think Martell is going to need to see substantial improvement in a lot of areas this next season (well above his progression rate so far) to be considered a long term solution. If he meets those progression goals I'd be happy to see the team keep him.


Of all the players on our roster who have played one minute of NBA ball Martell is 2nd only to Joel in points per field goal attempt.


----------



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

That would be rad if Batum beat out Webster AND Outlaw!!!


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Schilly said:


> What I think would be a good move would be to use Martel and a combination Joel or Raef and M


I didn't know M was on our roster.









But of course, we wouldn't have known would we.

[you have a character after the M that is preventing the rest of your post from being seen]


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Why would we trade Webster rather than Outlaw? Contract, contract, contract!
> 
> With Webster, Frye, and I believe Diogu, the clock is ticking. The Blazers have to either sign them to an extension (for reasonable $$) within the next few months, trade them, or have them become a "cap hold". Since the amount of the cap hold will exceed their actual value by a considerable margin, that really isn't much of an option! (besides, it would mean admitting that the "cap space in 09" plan was never serious)
> 
> Will Webster and/or Frye be willing to re-sign in the $4 million range? If not, the team really has no choice other than a trade.


I just spend something like 20 minutes reading through this thread and was amazed I had to get to the third page before finding the above point.

I can see Pritchard choosing to wait a bit longer, in case Webster comes in and fires at something like a 60% clip or something, but unless he _really_ impresses (and perhaps even then) I think Webster's gone by the trading deadline.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Jayps15 said:


> Of all the players on our roster who have played one minute of NBA ball Martell is 2nd only to Joel in points per field goal attempt.


That's an interesting fact, and a fine example of how statistics can "lie" (or at least fib a little). If I'm to follow the logic you use, Martell and Joel are our most efficient (ie. good) offensive players eh? My eyes tell me something different. Joel takes so few shots and is usually no more than 3-5 feet away from the hoop -- you would hope his FG% would be high, but that doesn't change the fact that Joel is a huge liability on the offensive end. As for Martell I concede that his primary role has been to hit 3 point shots, but the simple fact is, that for a specialist 3pt shooter his averages are pretty mundane. 35%, 36% and 39% in each of his years in the league (career average of 37%).

I'm not hating on Martell, but the fact is that he's still a below average starting small forward (both defensively and and offensively), whose got a ways to go before I'd say the team should feel comfortable with him as the long run solution at the 3.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I just spend something like 20 minutes reading through this thread and was amazed I had to get to the third page before finding the above point.
> 
> I can see Pritchard choosing to wait a bit longer, in case Webster comes in and fires at something like a 60% clip or something, but unless he _really_ impresses (and perhaps even then) I think Webster's gone by the trading deadline.


Do you think Webster knows this? You would think his Agent should.

From Martell's perspective, I guess you work as hard as you can if you want to stay. If you want a change of scenery then just keep doing what you're doing and wait for it to happen.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

nikolokolus said:


> That's an interesting fact, and a fine example of how statistics can "lie" (or at least fib a little). If I'm to follow the logic you use, Martell and Joel are our most efficient (ie. good) offensive players eh? My eyes tell me something different. Joel takes so few shots and is usually no more than 3-5 feet away from the hoop -- you would hope his FG% would be high, but that doesn't change the fact that Joel is a huge liability on the offensive end. As for Martell I concede that his primary role has been to hit 3 point shots, but the simple fact is, that for a specialist 3pt shooter his averages are pretty mundane. 35%, 36% and 39% in each of his years in the league (career average of 37%).
> 
> I'm not hating on Martell, but the fact is that he's still a below average starting small forward (both defensively and and offensively), whose got a ways to go before I'd say the team should feel comfortable with him as the long run solution at the 3.


Oh I'm not saying he's an above average starting SF, the Blazers don't have one on the roster yet and I'm all for getting one in a trade, I'm just correcting an inaccuracy.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Joel 1.49
Martel 1.22
Roy 1.21
Lamarcus 1.16
Jack 1.31
Jones 1.42
McRoberts 2.9


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Batum our best wing defender? a 2nd rounder? give me a break.... lol
He'll get torched his first year in the league, just like the rest of em...


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

blue32 said:


> Batum our best wing defender? a 2nd rounder? give me a break.... lol
> He'll get torched his first year in the league, just like the rest of em...


Batum was a first rounder. I don't think Batum is about this year, he is about 2-3 years down the road. If he places emphasis on his defense, then why couldn't he be good in that time?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

blue32 said:


> Batum our best wing defender? a 2nd rounder? give me a break.... lol
> He'll get torched his first year in the league, just like the rest of em...


Well let's talk about a few things wrong with this post.... Soemtiomes even 2nd rounders are significant contributors, see Gilbert Arenas, michael Redd, Dennis Rodman... Etc...etc....

And the main thing is Batum wasn't a 2nd rounder, he was the 25th pick in the 1st round.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Joel 1.49
> Martel 1.22
> Roy 1.21
> Lamarcus 1.16
> ...


Crap, we just traded away two of our most efficient scorers and let another one walk away.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

YEah it's a real vital stat isn't it?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> YEah it's a real vital stat isn't it?


Well, it is vital, it just doesn't tell you everything. It tells you tons when you compare players with similar roles in an offense or similar volume of shots.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Well, it is vital, it just doesn't tell you everything. It tells you tons when you compare players with similar roles in an offense or similar volume of shots.


It is also helpful if you are watching the same player over time. You can see if an increase in PPG is real, or is accompanied by a drop in efficiency (becoming more of a chucker).


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

^ oops thought he was a 2nd rounder my bad. But my point still stands! he's not going to come into the NBA 1st year and beat out our starters b/c of his defense..
maybe next year, or in his third...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

blue32 said:


> ^ oops thought he was a 2nd rounder my bad. But my point still stands! he's not going to come into the NBA 1st year and beat out our starters b/c of his defense..
> maybe next year, or in his third...


I don't think anyone has said he would... but I have to ask you why couldn't he? Until all the players step on the floor who can say with any certainty?


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Reep said:


> It is also helpful if you are watching the same player over time. You can see if an increase in PPG is real, or is accompanied by a drop in efficiency (becoming more of a chucker).


Well you didn't ask, but here's everyone on our roster:

Roy: Rook-1.25, 2nd-1.21

LMA: Rook-1.18, 2nd-1.16

Outlaw: Rook-1.14, 2nd-1.19, 3rd-1.09, 4th-1.14, 5th-1.13

Webster: Rook-1.16, 2nd-1.17, 3rd-1.22

Blake: Rook-1.09, 2nd-1.03, 3rd-1.19, 4th-1.04, 5th-1.08

Channing: Rook-1.25, 2nd-0.99, 3rd-1.17

Pryz: Rook-0.77, 2nd-1.34, 3rd-1.04, 4th-0.98, 5th-1.47, 6th-1.44, 7th-1.08, 8th-1.50

Sergio: Rook-1.03, 2nd-0.92

Raef: Rook-1.29, 2nd-1.14, 3rd-1.24, 4th-1.14, 5th-1.24, 6th-1.06, 7th-1.28, 8th-1.16, 9th-0.98, 10th-1.07

Diogu: Rook- 1.46, 2nd-1.38, 3rd-1.25 

And I stand corrected, Martell's 3rd behind Joel and Ike on our roster for pts per FGA last season(BB-R didn't have Ike listed).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Jayps15 said:


> Sergio: Rook-1.03, *2nd-0.92*


Brutal, especially for a guy who doesn't get a high volume of shots.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

seems to me that Batum and Outlaw play the same way with Batum being the better natural defender.....so a batum/webster combo would be better than an batum/outlaw...


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Do you guys think that maybe Batum is the player that can be our future starting SF?

He seems perfect imo. He is so young he will continue to improve. And to be where he is at, at the age of 19 is awesome. His defensive mentality is awesome also. I think we really got a gem with this guy.

I could def see him being the future starter for this team.

Bayless, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden is what i would think the line-up would be 3 years from now.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

i could see him starting but then do you want outlaw coming off the bench...kinda the same player as batum or webster who will hopefully be consistent with his shot by the time batum is ready to start


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Do you guys think that maybe Batum is the player that can be our future starting SF?
> 
> He seems perfect imo. He is so young he will continue to improve. And to be where he is at, at the age of 19 is awesome. His defensive mentality is awesome also. I think we really got a gem with this guy.
> 
> ...



It is way too early to tell if he can get there, but he has the tools and desire to be a defense oriented three point shooter. He also appears to be a good passer with a decent baskeball IQ. If he develops properly, he certainly could be that starter. The fact that he doesn't take over (one of the criticisms on him) could make him a great fit. You then keep Outlaw coming off the bench as the eternal sixth man and trade Webster, who is going to mess up your '09 plans anyway (unless he blows up this year in which case you wouldn't care).


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

ehizzy3 said:


> i could see him starting but then do you want outlaw coming off the bench...kinda the same player as batum or webster who will hopefully be consistent with his shot by the time batum is ready to start


Yes and no. Outlaw is not a defense oriented player. Outlaw also struggles with ball movement (although he has improved). Outlaw also seems to excel in volume scoring (better for second unit), where Batum may be a better opportunistic scorer (better to mesh with Roy, Aldridge, Oden).


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think Batum has more potential than our other 2 SF's, and have been a big fan of his for about 2 years. His passive offensive play will fit VERY well as a future starter, as he will be the 5th offensive option. He has lockdown potential, and a developing spot up 3 point shot. 

I think we can afford to trade for a veteran SF now because Batum is the future starting SF. Something like Webster, Rodriguez, Diogu, 2010 1st for Battier in a 3 way. By the time Battier is ending his contract, at about age 33, Batum will have had 3 seasons of tutoroing from Shane and be about 23 years old. 

In short, Batum possesses an ideal future skill set for our starting SF and we should bring in a veteran to both help us win now and help Nicolas develop his unique skill set.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think Batum has more potential than our other 2 SF's, and have been a big fan of his for about 2 years.


Since you've seen him play much more than I have (at least I assume), do you think he'll be more Boris Diaw or more Rudy Gay?

I picture him as being more Diaw. Is that a fair assessment? Who would you compare him to?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

He is much more Diaw than Gay, but Diaw is a combo F(More of a PF than SF, IMO) and Batum is a pure SF. Think a more athletic Battier with far less BBall IQ. By that, I mean he is very unselfish, passive almost to a fault, a good-with the potential to be great-defender, above average passing skills, bad handles, nice spot up 3, wont take it to the rime as much as he will eventually be capable of type guy. 

The only thing that will keep him from being a amazing role player are his BBall IQ and J consistency. At worst he will be similar to Matt Barnes. At best, a elite defender and uber' role player in the mold of Battier/Prince/Bowen.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Since you've seen him play much more than I have (at least I assume), do you think he'll be more Boris Diaw or more Rudy Gay?
> 
> I picture him as being more Diaw. Is that a fair assessment? Who would you compare him to?


Until I see him play against pro's, he's a pipe dream. Maybe the next Sergio, maybe the next who knows who...


----------

