# Time For Outlaw Trade Ideas!!!



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade...radeid=4763276

Travis Outlaw for Marc Gasol.

If Memphis wont do it, throw in a 1st round draft pick and even some 2nd rounders if they need. I don't really care about drafting anymore. We have our team.

Why I think this is good.

1. Travis is ready to blossom somewhere else.
2. Frees up shots for our new, better shooters.
3. Frees up minutes for our new, better players.
4. Marc already has great chemistry with Sergio and Rudy.
5. He has a big body to bang up with Oden and Joel in practice.
6. Good player in case Oden or Joel get injured. (better then Raef, Olympic quality.)

Lineup would be something like...

Blake\Bayless
Roy\Rudy
Webster (Roy, Rudy, Frye or Batum could all play some backup 3)
Aldridge\Frye
Oden\Joel

Gasol, Sergio, Ike and Raef ride the pine or play when someone gets injured. If they cry about it who cares we let them walk. As long as we keep the above players... who cares about the last 4 on the bench.

Tell me you can find a better deal then that? If not, please tell me why this isn't the best trade we should do.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I'm sorry, but this trade doesn't fly at all. 

We'll trade an up-and-coming SF for an unproven PF/C who would have a hard time cracking the rotation? All so Joel and Greg have someone to practice with? And because he's got great chemistry with our third-string PG and a back-up SG who has yet to play a minute in the NBA? And our depth chart at SF would be one inconsistent starter and backup-by-committee? I don't think so. 

Last year's line-up was so effective because of the defined roles and set rotations. The backup-SF-by-committee idea would not work for that reason. Channing is too slow to hang with SFs defensively. Rudy isn't a good enough defender. Batum is light years from contributing. MAYBE you slide Roy over there for a few minutes alongside Rudy and Bayless, but you can't pin your hopes on that.

I think all of these "Trade Travis" ideas are premature. He hasn't asked for a trade. The Blazers haven't shopped him. He's making very little money and is playing very well. That adds up to a lot of value for a player of his caliber. If the Blazers were going to trade him, and I really really really doubt they will, they could do much better than Marc Gasol.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

To be honest, Gasol is probably going to start for Memphis next year. And Channing can't play SF (do YOU think he can guard LeBron? Pierce, etc.)

We don't need any more bigs. If anything, a PG or SF upgrade, but even then I think it's unrealistic to ask for it. There won't be any major trades until well into the season IMO, if at all. Probably they will involve Raef for contract reasons.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

My main point was not to get him to play him, just to free up minutes and shots for our players who really need them. I don't think the backup-by-committee is a bad idea, just depends on who we are playing. If we are playing a team that has a big 3 in, we can have Frye guard him. If we are playing the Cavs, Roy can guard LeBron.

But you guys sometimes forget that ANYONE in the league is going to have a hard time against LeBron and high caliber players like that. Even a LeBron clone would have a hard time with LeBron.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I think we should wait to see how this team looks together before worrying about freeing up minutes and shots for players who need them. Who's to say the team, as constructed, won't be a good fit?

But if Travis is better than Bayless or Rudy or Martell, he'll get more minutes. Simple as that. Nate is going to play the players who give the team the best chance to win. If Travis is one of those players - and he certainly was last season - then Nate will get him playing time and shots.


----------



## dreamcloud (Aug 8, 2008)

Wow, you should never make trades again. Probably the worst idea I've heard all day for both sides.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

dreamcloud said:


> Wow, you should never make trades again. Probably the worst idea I've heard all day for both sides.


+1

And, Roy doesn't really have the size to guard LeBron.

Danny Granger would still be pretty much the perfect fit at SF on this team (though I realize it will never happen, just like getting Prince won't either).


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

In my opinion we should go into the season with what we have and see how everyone fits, and how the accept their roles, and go from there.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Maybe we should just start Outlaw!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BenDavis503 said:


> Maybe we should just start Outlaw!


Poor defense and passing, mediocre rebounding, not hugely efficient scoring.

He's a nice luxury off the bench for some scoring punch from a player who can create his own shot, but he's not great starting material.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Poor defense and passing, mediocre rebounding, not hugely efficient scoring.
> 
> He's a nice luxury off the bench for some scoring punch from a player who can create his own shot, but he's not great starting material.


Unfortunately all the same things can be said about Webster... except the part about being able to create his own shot.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not opposed to trading Outlaw, and I tend to prefer Webster longer-term to Outlaw.

But... this trade idea makes NO sense.

If the OP thought Gasol would add value to the team, then an argument COULD be made. Since even in the original post, Gasol's not even in the rotation... the deal just makes no sense. It's an "addition by subtraction" deal, which is almost always a bad way to approach a deal.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Unfortunately all the same things can be said about Webster... except the part about being able to create his own shot.
> 
> STOMP


I agree. I don't think Portland *has* a starting-caliber small forward.

I should be more clear: considering the personnel we have, Outlaw can start...I have no issues with that. What I was trying to convey is that starting Outlaw is not a "solution," which is the tone I got from the post I was responding to. It's picking arguably the better of two sub-optimal choices.

I think small forward has to be addressed sometime in the next year or two. Until it is, Outlaw or Webster can start. It doesn't matter much to me. Whichever one Oden, Aldridge and Roy have a greater comfort level with, I guess.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I have been in favor of dealing Outlaw for some time now. He isnt starting material and is a one trick pony who black holes every time he gets the rock. 

We really should go after a Battier, Prince or AK47. Or, maby wait for JChill next summer.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I have been in favor of dealing Outlaw for some time now. He isnt starting material and is a one trick pony who black holes every time he gets the rock.
> 
> We really should go after a Battier, Prince or AK47. Or, maby wait for JChill next summer.


Depending on the price I think Childress could be a really nice "glue guy" addition to the team; someone who wouldn't demand tons of shots, is a good perimeter defender, is a good rebounder, passer, and generally a well rounded player -- his age is a good fit too.

Hopefully he gets tired of eating souvlaki, tzatziki, hummus, and gyros and actually wants to come back to the U.S.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Unfortunately all the same things can be said about Webster... except the part about being able to create his own shot.
> 
> STOMP


I disagree. I think Webster is a better pure shooter (and yes, I know Outlaw shot a better percentage from 3 this last season), better defender man-to-man and team), and better ball-handler. I don't think he's hugely better in those categories, but better nonetheless. I also think he's less interested in his own shots, which isn't a bad quality on a team starting Roy, Aldridge, and Oden.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Josh Childress would be a fantastic addition. Not a star, but a top-tier role-player and a near perfect fit on this team, in my opinion. The only flaw is that he doesn't shoot the three-ball extremely well. But everything else is perfect.

I'm coming around on Kirilenko. If Portland could swing a deal for him giving up only Outlaw and expiring deals like LaFrentz, I'd do it. His all-court defensive ability is hugely tempting, he can defend both forward positions, he can rebound, pass and score at moderate levels.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I still like Kirk Hinrich for this team and no one brings him up at all. Hinrich is going to be available and would fit in very nice.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I'm coming around on Kirilenko. If Portland could swing a deal for him giving up only Outlaw and expiring deals like LaFrentz, I'd do it. His all-court defensive ability is hugely tempting, he can defend both forward positions, he can rebound, pass and score at moderate levels.


I'd almost forgotten about Kirilenko. He's not the shooter one might normally want from the SF position, but putting him on the floor with Aldridge and/or Frye would offset that. Then he gets to be a slasher and rebounder on offense and, iirc, he's also a pretty decent ball-handler for his size.

And at least according to RealGM, the numbers work. Given that Sloan and Kirilenko have had issues, it might work. And AK's still only 27 -- he'd be a senior member but still relatively young.

That said, I expect Pritchard would want more back than Kirilenko for both Outlaw and LaFrentz -- that LaFrentz contract is money in the bank and Outlaw's a pretty decent piece. Likewise, I'm not sure Sloan would look at Outlaw say "there's my kind of player," but maybe. It's certainly an interesting idea.

Of course, then there's trying to figure out how to get Boris Diaw....


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I still like Kirk Hinrich for this team and no one brings him up at all. Hinrich is going to be available and would fit in very nice.


_If_ Pritchard and company really want to add a PG, Hinrich seems like the best likely candidate. Still, I'm more concerned about SF than I am PG, even knowing that it's easier to find guys like Udoka and Jones to cover pretty well in a pinch for SF than for PG -- I think a rotation of Blake, Bayless, Fernandez and Roy should be fine and I'm still pretty excited about Koponen down the line.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I still like Kirk Hinrich for this team *and no one brings him up at all*. Hinrich is going to be available and would fit in very nice.


I proposed a Frye/Outlaw/Sergio deal that worked perfectly under the CBA for Hinrich.

http://www.basketballforum.com/5666157-post225.html


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> That said, I expect Pritchard would want more back than Kirilenko for both Outlaw and LaFrentz -- that LaFrentz contract is money in the bank and Outlaw's a pretty decent piece.


Money in the bank, yes, but only for this coming off-season and there seems like there won't be anything to buy this off-season. Kirilenko is a better player than Outlaw in absolute terms, as far as I'm concerned...offering them salary relief (but not so much that they can buy a major free agent) is the equalizer. Unless there's another expensive player that is better and will be available, I could easily see this being the best way to "cash in" LaFrentz.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

PapaG said:


> I proposed a Frye/Outlaw/Sergio deal that worked perfectly under the CBA for Hinrich.
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/5666157-post225.html


Wow, maybe I'm undervaluing Hinrich (or overvaluing the current Blazers) but giving up Frye _and_ Outlaw seems like a lot, even before including Rodriguez who _might_ have just suffered a sophomore slump. If it were me, I'd hold out to see how Bayless and Fernandez fit with Roy and Blake before making a move like that. If there's clearly a need before the trade deadline and Hinrich is still there, then _maybe_... but wow that seems like a lot.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Money in the bank, yes, but only for this coming off-season and there seems like there won't be anything to buy this off-season. Kirilenko is a better player than Outlaw in absolute terms, as far as I'm concerned...offering them salary relief (but not so much that they can buy a major free agent) is the equalizer. Unless there's another expensive player that is better and will be available, I could easily see this being the best way to "cash in" LaFrentz.


LaFrentz seems destined to end up in either New York or New Jersey, it seems to me, as both teams are trying hard to free up cap space for James -- trying hard enough that his contract being up a year too early may not be looked at as an issue. Still, try as I might, there isn't anyone from either team who seems like a good match for the Blazers when all is said and done.

Thus, I could see either a three team trade or perhaps a situation where Utah moves him themselves very quickly -- picking up both Outlaw and LaFrentz, keeping Outlaw, and then moving LaFrentz for someone else right away (unless Miller's excited about the salary relief).

I agree, though, that a move like that might make a lot of sense. Of course, then the depth chart / rotation looks something like:

PG -- Blake, Bayless, (Rodriguez)
SG -- Roy, Fernandez 
SF -- Kirilenko, Webster, (Batum)
PF -- Aldridge, Frye, (Diogu)
C -- Oden, Przybilla 

That's still 10 guys looking for minutes and we know Kirilenko's occasionally been grumpy about both minutes and his role in the offense (specifically number of shots) in Utah -- even while the team was winning. So that's the worry I'd have. Still, Kirilenko may be a better fit than, say, Marion, who's three years older. Kirilenko also leads Marion in assists and blocks per game, while playing fewer minutes. (I bring that last point up only because it surprised me.)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> LaFrentz seems destined to end up in either New York or New Jersey, it seems to me, as both teams are trying hard to free up cap space for James -- trying hard enough that his contract being up a year too early may not be looked at as an issue. Still, try as I might, there isn't anyone from either team who seems like a good match for the Blazers when all is said and done.


I have a bit of a fancrush on Devin Harris, but I can't imagine New Jersey would give him up, not for all the cap space in China.

It would be rather insane to get him, though. And then Childress in the off-season. Wow. Well, one can dream.

PG: Devin Harris / Jerryd Bayless
SG: Brandon Roy / Rudy Fernandez
SF: Josh Childress / Martell Webster / Nicholas Batum
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Ike Diogu
C: Greg Oden / Joel Przybilla

(Frye assumed lost in the Harris deal or let go for cap space to sign Childress.)

Perhaps Harris could be had if Bayless were thrown in too? I'd do Outlaw, Bayless, LaFrentz for Harris and a balancing contract. But I guess it would be impossible to get Childress then, as it would eat up the off-season cap space. Darn.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

If we trade Outlaw we should sign that guy Darius Miles. I hear he's pretty good now and he'd practically be playing for us for FREE!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Don't trade Travis!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Unfortunately all the same things can be said about Webster... except the part about being able to create his own shot.
> 
> STOMP


Martell is a better long distance shooter, a better man to man defender, a better team defender, a better passer.

Martell was last year, and will likely this year be a better fit in the starting lineup.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

KingSpeed said:


> Don't trade Travis!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why not? He dosen't really fit this team anymore. I would put Travis in a package deal for Hinrich. Kirk would fit this team better.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Martell is a better long distance shooter, a better man to man defender, a better team defender, a better passer.


Calling Martell a better long range shooter when in fact he shot a lower percentage from long range is at best a push. Calling him a better passer when his assists and TO rate is just about the same crappy level as Travis's is another push. Better man defender??? Is that why Nate puts Travis on Kobe and Carmelo in the 4th? 

You're entitled to your opinion and all, but nothing definitive can be pointed to on any of these points. Sorry.


> Martell was last year, and will likely this year be a better fit in the starting lineup.


I think the deciding factor in who starts and comes off the bench between these two is Travis's ability to create his own shot. He comes off the bench because he can be the focus of the 2nd unit's attack where as Martell has shown little ability to do anything productive offensively besides camp out at the 3 point line and wait for an uncontested look.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I have a bit of a fancrush on Devin Harris, but I can't imagine New Jersey would give him up, not for all the cap space in China.
> 
> It would be rather insane to get him, though. And then Childress in the off-season. Wow. Well, one can dream.
> 
> ...


I'm right there with you regarding Harris. That said, (and may the homer in me be dammed), I really think Bayless becomes the same sort of player, at least in terms of defense and ability to bring the ball up the court and finish. He may even become a better shooter, though I'll give you that he's unlikely to distribute as well any time soon, if ever. Regardless, Harris is as good as Harris now while Bayless has as least some work to do to get there.

All that said, I'm still more concerned about SF than I am PG. Looking over the SFs in the league, though, there aren't a lot that get me super excited. Kirilenko is at least intriging, though, and at this point I _might_ rather go that way than Harris, figuring that Kirilenko could be had for something like LaFrentz and Outlaw while Harris would mean giving up more.

The other think I keep coming back to is that Pritchard keeps talking as if he's got some truly hammer player he's intending to pull out Raef LaFrentz's hat. Someone like Williams, Paul, Bryant, or the like, though at least Williams and Paul seem out of reach and Bryant seems too unlikely. Still, I'm not sure Pritchard is ready to give up on that dream. And the same time, maybe I'm making too much of this -- Pritchard also (apparently) considers James Jones an "acclaimed" player. :whoknows:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Calling Martell a better long range shooter when in fact he shot a lower percentage from long range is at best a push. Calling him a better passer when his assists and TO rate is just about the same crappy level as Travis's is another push. Better man defender??? Is that why Nate puts Travis on Kobe and Carmelo in the 4th?
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and all, but nothing definitive can be pointed to on any of these points. Sorry.
> 
> ...


Which is a better fit for the starting lineup. Thank you for adding support to my assertion.

As for Travis shooting percentage - that stat is mostly bunk. Here are more useful stats:

Travis True Shooting Percentage: .500
Martell True Shooting Percentage: .548

Travis 3 pointers made: 40
Martel 3 pointers made: 123

Travis high percentage on 3's made is nullified by his not taking the shot. What does it matter how high a percentage he makes on threes when he constantly takes a step inside the line and launches LONG twos? Answer: Very little.

Travis gets more assists than Martell (106 to 90) not because he is a better passer (to my eye - yes I know, my opinion) but because he has the ball in his hand a lot as a primary scoring option. Martell on the first unit has the ball far less. Different roles account the assits numbers.

Last season they both had different jobs and roles: Martell main role on offense was to help spread the floor for the first unit, to be a threat from the outside. He did that role ok, but not great. Travis role was to be a gunner off the bench. He did that role ok, but not great. Neither one set the world on fire.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Last season they both had different jobs and roles: Martell main role on offense was to help spread the floor for the first unit, to be a threat from the outside. He did that role ok, but not great. Travis role was to be a gunner off the bench. He did that role ok, but not great. Neither one set the world on fire.


James Jones actually did pretty well, it seems to me, with being that outside threat. Even when injured, if he was on the floor it seemed like teams weren't very inclined to leave him, just on his reputation -- a reputation Webster has yet to develop.

As for Webster and Outlaw, while I agree neither stood out that significantly, I think Outlaw had more success with his role. Even with all the "Bo" Outlaw confusion, he was getting talked about in the national media more, was at least in the running for 6th man of the year, etc. Webster? He got some praise from opposing coaches and he had that monster game against Utah, but for the most part he played pretty quietly.

That said, I still feel better about Webster than I do Outlaw when I think about this team long-term.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> As for Webster and Outlaw, while I agree neither stood out that significantly, I think Outlaw had more success with his role. Even with all the "Bo" Outlaw confusion, he was getting talked about in the national media more, was at least in the running for 6th man of the year, etc.


I think the majority of the difference between them in perceptions can be explained by Outlaw's game-winners. Which he deserves credit for, but I don't think a handful of big shots (that he got the opportunity to shoot and Webster didn't) change much in terms of appraisal of their quality as players.

Granted, Outlaw is better equipped to shoot those game-winners, being better at creating his shot. But he also scores less efficiently. As overall players, I think they both did their jobs similarly well, but Outlaw had the highlight shots.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Which is a better fit for the starting lineup. Thank you for adding support to my assertion.


I did nothing of the sort... I said TO's better for the reserves as he can actually lead the attack. Martell has a more limited skill set so he plays a limited/much easier role. 



> As for Travis shooting percentage - that stat is mostly bunk. Here are more useful stats:
> 
> Travis True Shooting Percentage: .500
> Martell True Shooting Percentage: .548
> ...


Like I said, nothing definitive. Claiming that True Percentage is the better metric for guaging this is an opinion and one that I'd definitely take issue with. Comparing the shots of these two is an apples to oranges dynamic. Last year a huge percentage of Martell's shots came as a result of camping out at the 3 point line and shooting only when left wide open. Travis's shots usually came off the dribble and under duress as the clock wound down. Despite a much higher degree of difficulty, he shot higher percentages from both the 3 point line and field (FTs too!). Only when you factor in the sheer volume of outside shots that Martell took from 3 point land does he take a percentage lead. Its hard to see how TO's % drops off if he were to take over Martell's much easier role of corner shooter/wide open relief valve.

I think my push claim on who is the better outside shooter is being generous


> Last season they both had different jobs and roles: Martell main role on offense was to help spread the floor for the first unit, to be a threat from the outside. He did that role ok, but not great. Travis role was to be a gunner off the bench. He did that role ok, but not great. Neither one set the world on fire.


that was my original point that you took issue with

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I think the majority of the difference between them in perceptions can be explained by Outlaw's game-winners. Which he deserves credit for, but I don't think a handful of big shots (that he got the opportunity to shoot and Webster didn't) change much in terms of appraisal of their quality as players.
> 
> Granted, Outlaw is better equipped to shoot those game-winners, being better at creating his shot. But he also scores less efficiently. As overall players, I think they both did their jobs similarly well, *but Outlaw had the highlight shots.*


...and significantly higher rates of steals, blocks, and rebounds.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> ...and significantly higher rates of steals, blocks, and rebounds.


I don't count steals and blocks apart from defense. In terms of overall defense, Outlaw isn't better than Webster and may be worse.

He does rebound better, that's true. Webster handles the ball better and, observationally, passes better. Assist rates, as Masbee noted, are dependent on who gets to handle the ball more. Outlaw would handle the ball less if he played as much with Roy and Blake as Webster did.

I think McMillan's giving the two pretty similar minutes (Webster slightly more) suggests that his appraisal also is that they aren't very dissimilar in overall ability.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

In regard to rebounding, remember that Travis played PF much more often and hence was more likley to be in a position to grab a board.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't count steals and blocks apart from defense. In terms of overall defense, Outlaw isn't better than Webster and may be worse...


in your opinion. I was truly disappointed with how ineffective Martell was on the defensive end last year. He's just plain bad at man and team D. Travis is nothing great at man D either, but his steals/blocks rate is excellent... and those often turn into fastbreaks. Overall I'd rate them about the same though... bad.


> He does rebound better, that's true. Webster handles the ball better and, observationally, passes better. Assist rates, as Masbee noted, are dependent on who gets to handle the ball more. Outlaw would handle the ball less if he played as much with Roy and Blake as Webster did.


To claim one is better then the other at ball handling and passing, when both are clearly well below average for a starting SF is splitting hairs over very little. 


> I think McMillan's giving the two pretty similar minutes (Webster slightly more) suggests that his appraisal also is that they aren't very dissimilar in overall ability.


kind of echos my original response to you eh?

something else to consider is that Nate might have been giving Webster extra burn because the timetable to evaluate him (contract wise) is shorter then it is for Travis. If Martell isn't resigned soon, I put the chances of them retaining him well below 50%... his caphold is huge.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> in your opinion.


Of course. All I'm purporting to present is my opinions. 



> kind of echos my original response to you eh?


Yes, a response I agreed with.



> something else to consider is that Nate might have been giving Webster extra burn because the timetable to evaluate him (contract wise) is shorter then it is for Travis. If Martell isn't resigned soon, I put the chances of them retaining him well below 50%... his caphold is huge.


Possible. Also a thing to consider is that Webster is likely a more intelligent player. This is not to venerate Webster as a Pippen/Rodman/Jordan type of basketball IQ, but Outlaw is considered fairly low basketball IQ by nearly everyone. Webster is probably about average (he doesn't seem to be particularly good or bad in his decision-making). It's hard to quantify the value of greater on-court smarts, but it does matter and McMillan probably values it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Possible. Also a thing to consider is that Webster is likely a more intelligent player. This is not to venerate Webster as a Pippen/Rodman/Jordan type of basketball IQ, but Outlaw is considered fairly low basketball IQ by nearly everyone. Webster is probably about average (he doesn't seem to be particularly good or bad in his decision-making). It's hard to quantify the value of greater on-court smarts, but it does matter and McMillan probably values it.


Outlaw doesn't strike anyone as Bird-esk in his ability to see the game unfolding but he also doesn't seem to have problems focusing, getting down on himself, and with the yips the way Martell does. The little insight we've been privy to as far as personally getting along with teammates doesn't favor Martell over Travis either. 

Sorry but I don't agree with your guess here either... the mental side is my biggest concern about MW's game. 

STOMP


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

I respect Outlaws desire to better himself and have goals as a player, but I was a little disappointed with Travis' remarks the other day about the amount of shots he wants to take this year, and how if Portland has too many scorers then maybe he needs to move on. If his goals revolve around the amount of shots he gets, instead of other aspects of his game, then maybe he does need to move. I don't like hearing that from anyone, much less a bench player. Saying that publicly just makes things ackward with the team, the coach, and even the GM. One of the many things I've liked about Travis is that he never remotely did this type of thing, until now. 

I've long been saying that I think this upcoming season will be Martells breakout season, much like last year was Outlaws. I think Martell has all the tools necessary to be a good fit at the starting SF position for several years to come. 

But I still really like Outlaw and would just as soon start the season with the guys we have and take it from there, unless someone starts whining about shots or playing time. Despite what he said I don't think Outlaw is a cancer, or will ever be a cancer, and seems like a genuinely nice guy. 

I will say that we're going to need a SF who plays defense well, so both Martell & Outlaw need to step it up on that end, not in their volume of shot attempts.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

So throughout this whole discussion on Webster and Outlaw, pretty much everyone's in agreement that neither is particularly strong defensively. For that matter, neither are very good ball-handlers and neither create very well for others, save as threats.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er, back a few weeks ago, there was a conversation about the "All-Time best starting five." There were lots of different ideas, of course, but one point I liked that I think Minstrel made is that all five guys need to play defense every time down the floor but that that's not necessarily true on offense -- it's great to have options but with the Bulls, options one and two were Jordan, three and four were Pippen, and five was the PG of the year in the corner for 3. Pretty much the whole rest of the team got their points without plays being run for them.

Bringing this back to the Blazers, I'm not sure this team needs scoring from the SF position but it certainly needs things like defense, rebounding, and it might be nice to have a touch more ball-handling in the starting line-up -- a Buck Williams or Joel Przybilla but in SF form (at least for defense and rebounding).

Given that Roy (and potentially Fernandez) can at least occasionally provide offense from the SF spot when needed, I'm increasingly thinking it _might_ even be worth packaging _both_ Webster and Outlaw (presumably along with LaFrentz) to land such a SF. Sadly, nice as that package might be (potentially made even sweeter with cash and/or picks) I can't think of a reasonable player to go after. What I'm thinking of is someone who is pretty much the opposite of Carmello Anthony and they just don't seem to make 'em that way anymore. Anyone?


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> *He does rebound better*, that's true. Webster handles the ball better and, observationally, passes better. Assist rates, as Masbee noted, are dependent on who gets to handle the ball more. Outlaw would handle the ball less if he played as much with Roy and Blake as Webster did.


It's been said over and over, but Outlaw is a bad rebounder for his size and jumping ability. I'm not saying Webster is much better for his size, but Outlaw should be able to get significantly more rebounds.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Here's another way to think about it all -- to whatever extent this is a "who should we keep" conversation, I don't think it matters. They're similar enough players and neither should really be starting. Target the SF you want, at the team that has him who'd they prefer (along with LaFrentz, presumably) and go from there.

As for the rebounding... meh. Maybe Outlaw is worse for his size and someone made the argument that he's been closer to the basket as a PF, but at the same time, he's been more directly competing with the Big Boys for rebounds and really, I don't care about much beyond comparing Webster and Outlaw as "purely" as possible -- one of the two of them should be getting 20 some minutes a game backing up some other SF. Arguing that Outlaw is worse than Webster by size is something like Rasheed is worse than Luke Jackson based on attitude. I'll take Rasheed at 80% effort over Jackson's 100% effort.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Outlaw had so much time at PF last year where he had a built in mismatch that arguing the competition for minutes at SF based on the entirety of what they did last season doesn't seem right. Take 82games breakdown of production by position for instance and the argument becomes different. Taking their overall minutes

Overall (everything is per 48 minutes)

PER
Outlaw: 15.7
Webster: 12.0

Opponent PER allowed
Outlaw: 19.7
Webster: 16.9

PTS 
Outlaw: 24.0
Webster: 18.0

FGA 
Outlaw: 21.2
Webster: 14.8

FTA
Outlaw: 6.4
Webster: 3.7

EFG%
Outlaw: 45.4%
Webster: 51.6%

REB
Outlaw: 8.2
Webster: 6.7

AST
Outlaw: 2.3
Webster: 2.0

TO
Outlaw: 2.4
Webster: 1.9

BLKS
Outlaw: 1.3
Webster: 0.7

+/- 
Outlaw: -2.4
Webster: -1.9

But going just by what they did while getting minutes at SF

Time at SF

PER
Outlaw:13.7
Webster:13.9

Opponent PER allowed
Outlaw:19.3
Webster:16.6

PTS
Outlaw: 20.8
Webster: 18.2

FGA
Outlaw: 19.7
Webster: 14.8

FTA
Outlaw: 4.5
Webster: 3.7

EFG%
Outlaw: 43.7%
Webster: 52.2%

REB
Outlaw: 7.2
Webster: 6.7

AST
Outlaw: 1.8
Webster: 2.1

TO
Outlaw: 2.0
Webster: 1.9

BLKS
Outlaw: 0.6
Webster: 0.6

+/-
Outlaw: -4.4
Webster: -2.5

In every single category but turnovers per 48 minutes Webster either makes significant gains, overtakes Outlaws leads, or further increases his own leads.

Maybe it shouldn't be a Webster vs Outlaw debate but instead a debate over who should be getting minutes at SF along with Webster and whether or not Outlaw should be a full time PF, in which case it's Frye vs Outlaw.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Great post Jayps15. I continually agree with the argument that Outlaw is a incredibly inefficient SF. Simply put, his foot speed is plain terrible. He has great hops, but even as one of the 'older' players on this team he literally trips over his own feet when he attempts to run or defend. The kid is Hakim Warrick with a bit better speed and J. 

I will continue to beat my dead horse and lobby that the Blazers should lure JChill back to the states. He is literally the perfect SF fit for us. A defensive specialist that has never taken more than 9 shots a game on average over a season, never EVER forces his game offensivley and wont complain. Give him 8-10M a year and he is ours, and his ideal skill set is worth overpaying for. If we sign him, I would perfer to trade Outlaw to some team for a future 1st rounder(Try and pull a Otis Thorpe type deal to a bad team), and use Webster as our new James Jones off the bench(Granted his 3 gets more efficient which is almost a given, given that he hit 40+ % last year as a 20 year old). We can afford to loose the black hole, as we will have a more efficient and well rounded 6th man in Rudy. Look at it like the Spurs. JChill becomes our 'Bowen'. Rudy becomes our 'Manu'. Webster becomes our 'Barry/Finley'. Now thats a rough comparison, but you get what I mean.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Martell is a better long distance shooter, a better man to man defender, a better team defender, a better passer.
> 
> Martell was last year, and will likely this year be a better fit in the starting lineup.


Outlaw's the better three point shooter. Check the numbers.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Why not? He dosen't really fit this team anymore. I would put Travis in a package deal for Hinrich. Kirk would fit this team better.


Doesn't fit this team? There was a period of time last season where he was the 2nd best player on our team! As Coach Demopoulos said, he's one of the great clutch shooters in the league and it's true. Outlaw won a bunch of games for us last season. He's a keeper!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I think the majority of the difference between them in perceptions can be explained by Outlaw's game-winners. Which he deserves credit for, but I don't think a handful of big shots (that he got the opportunity to shoot and Webster didn't) change much in terms of appraisal of their quality as players.
> 
> Granted, Outlaw is better equipped to shoot those game-winners, being better at creating his shot. But he also scores less efficiently. As overall players, I think they both did their jobs similarly well, but Outlaw had the highlight shots.


It wasn't just the "highlight" shots though. Outlaw seemingly hit every clutch shot in the 4th quarter of every game when we were winning. And so we went back to him more and more. Outlaw earned late game playing time based on how he was playing.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Outlaw's the better three point shooter. Check the numbers.


Thing is about that, Webster _made_ more 3s that Outlaw even _attempted_. Outlaw doesn't even rank among the best 3pt shooters because he hasn't shot enough of them to qualify. I don't think you can judge until we see him shoot more than 1 every 2 games.



> he's one of the great clutch shooters in the league


One of the great _young_ clutch shooters in the league he said, my friend.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

KingSpeed said:


> Outlaw's the better three point shooter. Check the numbers.


He was last year, on a percentage basis, slightly. Last year, his three point shooting percentage was also very out-of-step with the two years before that.

2005-06: .264
2006-07: .270
2007-08: .396

I'm not at all convinced Outlaw will be as good a three-point shooter this year, as he seems like a major regression to the mean candidate in that aspect. And when you factor in the number of attempts, I definitely don't think he's Webster's caliber of shooter.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> So throughout this whole discussion on Webster and Outlaw, pretty much everyone's in agreement that neither is particularly strong defensively. For that matter, neither are very good ball-handlers and neither create very well for others, save as threats.
> 
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er, back a few weeks ago, there was a conversation about the "All-Time best starting five." There were lots of different ideas, of course, but one point I liked that I think Minstrel made is that all five guys need to play defense every time down the floor but that that's not necessarily true on offense -- it's great to have options but with the Bulls, options one and two were Jordan, three and four were Pippen, and five was the PG of the year in the corner for 3. Pretty much the whole rest of the team got their points without plays being run for them.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you are describing Josh Childress. Since he was available, I assume that KP isn't looking for that type of player just yet.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> What I'm thinking of is someone who is pretty much the opposite of Carmello Anthony and they just don't seem to make 'em that way anymore. Anyone?


like a young Bruce Bowen type??? is that what you're getting at?

I think thats the hope for Batum... thats my hope anyway

STOMP


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

STOMP said:


> like a young Bruce Bowen type??? is that what you're getting at?
> 
> I think thats the hope for Batum... thats my hope anyway
> 
> STOMP


So I couldn't help but click the video on your link and it was pretty intense. I was hoping for more blood and guts though. You've seen the Battle at Kruger vid, right? Crazyy.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> like a young Bruce Bowen type??? is that what you're getting at?
> 
> I think thats the hope for Batum... thats my hope anyway
> 
> STOMP



Yeah, Bowen, Childress, or best of all, a young Pippen. While I think Outlaw's desire for more shots has been overblown, I'd love a starting SF who was content to not have plays run for him. That's part of why I lean slightly more toward Webster, who seems content (for now) with trying for the role McMillan painted for him -- defensive stopper and assassin from 3, much like Bowen.

The trouble I see is that there don't seem to be a lot of guys like that around the league that are both attainable and roughly the right age (24 to maybe 27 or 28). The two best that come to mind are Kirilenko and Diaw, but even there I'm not totally sold and I'm not sure they're available for a price Pritchard would like -- probably Kirilenko is more available than Diaw but he comes with more issues, too.


----------



## gogreen (May 24, 2006)

After reading Quicks' article I have come to the conclusion that I think TO has fallen in love with the J. That is fine, a lot of players have done that. Example Sheed, I always thought when he posted up in the low block and did the turn a round fade, It was unstopable. I think If TO is at the 3 he is a tough match offensively. I think it will be intersting to see him with GO, LMA and him playing together. That could be a ridiclous, long line-up. I guess in that situation he would have to play offense on the perimeter. I think that is the big problem. I don't the he is a great passer. I think if he wasn't hoisting up J's I dooubt he would be happy and in-turn, effective.

With Oden out, and Pryz in I think TO will have a much harder time guarding 3's. 

Because of his contract, age, maybe attitude ( Which has been great so far ). I think come trade deadline time, he will be shipped. 

I think the player KP will go after hard will be Battier. I think SB would be a awesome fit to this team. First he would bring leadership. Second, with so many offensive weapons, his defense would fit perfect with what Nate wants and how the team would be balanced. Yes, he is 31 I believe but he could back up Martel for the next 5 years or more. 

This is where I am not sure because I don't have enough time to poke around and see. I am curious what type of value Houston thinks he has. If you think about it, two, three months into the season, they may think that Artest and SB have simillar skill sets and adding a bit of youth ( TO ) maybe what they need.

Would Houston do a TO for Battier deal ? 

I really think we may have to much youth and not enough leadership. I think SB would be that "Icing on the cake " .

What do you guys who know more than me think ? I'm just excited to watch Rudy, Rudy, Rudy all year. Kersey was my all-time fav Blazer. I like the Elbino Kersey phrase, I think energy wise it may be spot on.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

At days from 30, I think Battier is further outside the age window than Pritchard is likely to pull the trigger on. I agree, though, that he wouldn't be a bad fit, otherwise.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

It's all about Josh Childress next off-season. That's my somewhat realistic hope.

If Portland can sign Childress, then they can afford to keep Outlaw as a late-game shot-creator and general scorer off the bench. That's really a luxury item, a Vinnie Johnson type, but it's a luxury Portland can afford if they have a solid starter locked in at the position.

And really, if they get Childress...what need can they really address with an Outlaw deal? They'll have their starting front court for many years in Oden/Aldridge/Childress. They'll have their backcourt for as many years in Roy/Bayless/Fernandez. They have quality big men on the bench. They'll have a quality guard on the bench (either Bayless or Fernandez). Really, all they could use is a backup small forward with some upside and the ability to do some damage off the bench...like a Travis Outlaw-type.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> It's all about Josh Childress next off-season. That's my somewhat realistic hope.
> 
> If Portland can sign Childress, then they can afford to keep Outlaw as a late-game shot-creator and general scorer off the bench. That's really a luxury item, a Vinnie Johnson type, but it's a luxury Portland can afford if they have a solid starter locked in at the position.
> 
> And really, if they get Childress...what need can they really address with an Outlaw deal? They'll have their starting front court for many years in Oden/Aldridge/Childress. They'll have their backcourt for as many years in Roy/Bayless/Fernandez. They have quality big men on the bench. They'll have a quality guard on the bench (either Bayless or Fernandez). Really, all they could use is a backup small forward with some upside and the ability to do some damage off the bench...like a Travis Outlaw-type.


So does that mean they just let LaFrentz finish the season and come off the books, as (presumably) originally planned, to make cap room for Childress? With that, the NBA has all sorts of tampering rules regarding talking with players on other teams, but would they apply in this case? Could Pritchard set this up openly with Childress?

Also, if the Childress move happens, what happens with Webster, do they just let him walk? Maybe find a team under the cap for a sign-and-trade with just future picks coming back?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Here's another thought -- if Pritchard is confident enough about getting Childress or some other starting SF sometime in the next year or so, _might_ that make the rumors of Outlaw for Hinrich more likely to be real?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> So does that mean they just let LaFrentz finish the season and come off the books, as (presumably) originally planned, to make cap room for Childress? With that, the NBA has all sorts of tampering rules regarding talking with players on other teams, but would they apply in this case? Could Pritchard set this up openly with Childress?
> 
> Also, if the Childress move happens, what happens with Webster, do they just let him walk? Maybe find a team under the cap for a sign-and-trade with just future picks coming back?


Childress was and will still be a restricted free agent with Atlanta still retaining matching rights if Josh returns to the NBA next season, but there's no tampering if Pritchard and Co. make their offer to him during the beginning of free agency next July. I suppose Atlanta could try and match and force him to return to their team but that seems EXTREMELY unlikely as I imagine he'd likely just head back to Greece in that case and tell them to eff off.

For the record I've long advocated Childress for this team and I think depending on how things go with Martell (especially considering his massive caphold) and Travis this year, signing him could make a lot of sense.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Childress was and will still be a restricted free agent with Atlanta still retaining matching rights if Josh returns to the NBA next season, but there's no tampering if Pritchard and Co. make their offer to him during the beginning of free agency next July. I suppose Atlanta could try and match and force him to return to their team but that seems EXTREMELY unlikely as I imagine he'd likely just head back to Greece in that case and tell them to eff off.
> 
> For the record I've long advocated Childress for this team and I think depending on how things go with Martell (especially considering his massive caphold) and Travis this year, signing him could make a lot of sense.


It seems to me it's in Atlanta's interest to try and match if their main risk would be for Childress to then go back to Greece -- at least that way he's not playing against them. Maybe something could be worked out where the Hawks come away with Webster, cash, and/or draft picks?


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Assuming Outlaw and Webster don't improve significantly I'd be pretty psyched to get Childress. Anybody know what kind of a buyout he's got with Olympiacos?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

nikolokolus said:


> Childress was and will still be a restricted free agent with Atlanta still retaining matching rights if Josh returns to the NBA next season


Really, are you sure about this? I had heard differently, that this is his RFA season and since playing outside the NBA isn't accounted for in the rules, there's nothing that causes the RFA rights to be extended until he returns.

But I am not certain about that. It's just what I recall reading in a few places when Childress decided to split for Greece.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Miksaid said:


> So I couldn't help but click the video on your link and it was pretty intense. I was hoping for more blood and guts though. You've seen the Battle at Kruger vid, right? Crazyy.


yeah... I almost linked that one instead. Both sort of remind me of some of the discussions here.

STOMP


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

amazing!...another outlaw/webster debate! whodathunkit

As to the statistical comparison of the 2 players: Webster supporters are quick to point to TS% and eFG%, as those are just about the only 2 stats where webster has an advantage. In just about every other category, Outlaw was better. And if you want a shock, go to 82games.com and compare the clutch time stats for the 2 players. Webster was totally pathetic while outlaw was about the best on the team.

If anybody is a candidate for being a casualty of KP's cap-space plan, it would be webster. His massive cap-hold as an RFA almost assures that. It's possible that he'll have his contract extended this summer, but I think it's highly unlikely. KP has already regitered his opinion on Webster by originally including him in the zach randolph trade before 'realizing' that a TPE could be created in another fashion. If anybody is extended this summer it would likely be Frye.

The assessment that neither of the players is that good a SF at this point is the most valid. What's funny is that many martell supporters seem to be expecting him to make a big leap in his development this season when in 3 previous seasons, he only made incremental progress. An article of faith I suppose. On the other hand, if either player has demonstrated a capacity for major improvement, it is outlaw, not webster.

As to Cildress: he be a lousy fit on portland. He is a better ball-handler then outlaw/webster but he's a terrible perimeter shooter. And with Oden and Aldridge operating in some form of a double post, with Roy (and maybe bayless) using dribble-penetration, portland's SF will need to be able to spread the defense with perimeter shooting...Childress can't do it.

And I do believe it's true that he'll be RFA next season. As a matter of fact, Childress may very well remain RFA in perpetuity until Atlanta has an opportunity to match another NBA offer, or they renounce the rights to him.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

moldorf said:


> As to Cildress: he be a lousy fit on portland. He is a better ball-handler then outlaw/webster *but he's a terrible perimeter shooter*. And with Oden and Aldridge operating in some form of a double post, with Roy (and maybe bayless) using dribble-penetration, portland's SF will need to be able to spread the defense with perimeter shooting...Childress can't do it.


granted he averaged just under one 3-Pnt attempt a game, but dude did shoot 37% from deep... thats not terrible. I didn't watch Atlanta much last year so there may be something I'm not considering, but I always like Childress and his efficient all around game since he was at Stanford. Regardless, while I think he'd be a step up at SF over the current guys, it seems very unlikely he'll be a Blazer any time soon. 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

moldorf said:


> If anybody is a candidate for being a casualty of KP's cap-space plan, it would be webster. His massive cap-hold as an RFA almost assures that. It's possible that he'll have his contract extended this summer, but I think it's highly unlikely. KP has already regitered his opinion on Webster by originally including him in the zach randolph trade before 'realizing' that a TPE could be created in another fashion. If anybody is extended this summer it would likely be Frye.


Why a backup power forward, rather than the starting small forward?

I don't think that signing Webster to a reasonable deal will be at all difficult.



> The assessment that neither of the players is that good a SF at this point is the most valid. What's funny is that many martell supporters seem to be expecting him to make a big leap in his development this season when in 3 previous seasons, he only made incremental progress. An article of faith I suppose. On the other hand, if either player has demonstrated a capacity for major improvement, it is outlaw, not webster.


Webster is two years younger than Outlaw, and almost all of Outlaw's improvement has come in the past two seasons... and yet they're very close in terms of production and capabilities. While there is certainly nothing approaching a guarantee that Webster will improve this season (let alone this season AND next), it's perfectly reasonable to expect a 21 year-old to improve, and there's a pretty good chance that the improvement will be dramatic.

Ed O.


----------



## Nate4Prez (Jun 3, 2007)

I say we trade Outlaw straight up for LeBron. I mean Outlaw is coming off a great year and James just lost to 'a short, white kid,' in a game of HORSE.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> amazing!...another outlaw/webster debate! whodathunkit
> 
> As to the statistical comparison of the 2 players: Webster supporters are quick to point to TS% and eFG%, as those are just about the only 2 stats where webster has an advantage. In just about every other category, Outlaw was better. And if you want a shock, go to 82games.com and compare the clutch time stats for the 2 players. Webster was totally pathetic while outlaw was about the best on the team.
> 
> If anybody is a candidate for being a casualty of KP's cap-space plan, it would be webster. His massive cap-hold as an RFA almost assures that. It's possible that he'll have his contract extended this summer, but I think it's highly unlikely. KP has already regitered his opinion on Webster by originally including him in the zach randolph trade before 'realizing' that a TPE could be created in another fashion.


Yes. After being almost traded, the team had such a low opinion of Webster, that he lost his spot in the rotation, was in the coach's doghouse, and found his butt planted firmly on the bench the entire season.

Oh wait..... that was Sergio Rodriquez.

Martell started all games he was healthy.

What does it matter what KP almost did. After that point in time Martell was a starter.

KP "almost" traded Travis Outlaw at the trade deadline.

Oops. There goes your theory.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> As to Cildress: he be a lousy fit on portland. He is a better ball-handler then outlaw/webster but he's a terrible perimeter shooter. And with Oden and Aldridge operating in some form of a double post, with Roy (and maybe bayless) using dribble-penetration, portland's SF will need to be able to spread the defense with perimeter shooting...Childress can't do it.


One issues doesn't define the fit. Otherwise, you should be firmly in Webster's camp, as he's performed your solitary "small forward task" significantly better than Outlaw in his career. (I'm using career because Outlaw's three-point percentage last season was way out of line with his two years prior and it's questionable whether it was just a spike in variance or a new level of ability going forward.)

The best fit at small forward would be someone who can contribute without a lot of shots (since Portland will have scorers to spare), rebound well, play great defense, pass the ball well, make smart decisions and shoot the ball well from the perimeter.

Childress fulfills at least all of those except perimeter shooting. And even perimeter shooting isn't clear, as his three-point percentage is solid. He seems like a great fit. If he had Battier's shot, he'd be the perfect fit.



> And I do believe it's true that he'll be RFA next season. As a matter of fact, Childress may very well remain RFA in perpetuity until Atlanta has an opportunity to match another NBA offer, or they renounce the rights to him.


The fact that you say "may very well" suggests that you are simply speculating as to how this works, not working from any facts about the rules. We have speculation. I was hoping for a conclusive statement of rules on this point (if there are no rules regarding this, the default seems likely to be that leaving the NBA doesn't preserve RFA status).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

As good a fit as Childress seems to be (to many of us, anyway), I do wonder why Pritchard didn't swoop in and snag him before he left for Greece. Maybe it wasn't clear enough what the situation was before he'd signed his contract?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

So I'll probably get flamed for this but, I still like Corey Brewer for this team. He's not much at all on offense but he's a pretty versatile defender -- I still recall feeling like, in that last championship game, he did the best job defensively on both Oden and Conley. Given the needs of the 'Wolves, I could see them being interested in Outlaw or Webster and draft picks could make up the difference.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> As good a fit as Childress seems to be (to many of us, anyway), I do wonder why Pritchard didn't swoop in and snag him before he left for Greece. Maybe it wasn't clear enough what the situation was before he'd signed his contract?


Portland didn't have cap space this off-season. They will next off-season (unless Pritchard uses the expiring contracts as trade bait for a good, expensive player in between).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Portland didn't have cap space this off-season. They will next off-season (unless Pritchard uses the expiring contracts as trade bait for a good, expensive player in between).


Right, I know, but it seems like Atlanta has currently lost Childress for nothing, and eventually they will have lost him (potentially for nothing) to a rival NBA team. It seems like, if he was really the guy Pritchard wanted, a trade could have been worked out prior to Childress leaving for Greece that would've helped both the Hawks and the Blazers.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

So, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of moving either Webster or Outlaw for Brewer and picks. Both Webster and Outlaw, while better players on the whole than Brewer to this point, are primarily offensive players, and scorers almost exclusively at that. Having either of them and Brewer would give the coaching staff more options.

Childress (or someone like him) could certainly still be added. Brewer seems like he could pretty easily develop into the guy off the bench who's called on to shutdown whomever's got the hot hand for the other team, almost regardless of position, much the way Pippen was used on defense.

I'd love for someone to field a counter argument as, right now, it seems like a golden path.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> So, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of moving either Webster or Outlaw for Brewer and picks. Both Webster and Outlaw, while better players on the whole than Brewer to this point, are primarily offensive players, and scorers almost exclusively at that. Having either of them and Brewer would give the coaching staff more options.
> 
> Childress (or someone like him) could certainly still be added. Brewer seems like he could pretty easily develop into the guy off the bench who's called on to shutdown whomever's got the hot hand for the other team, almost regardless of position, much the way Pippen was used on defense.
> 
> I'd love for someone to field a counter argument as, right now, it seems like a golden path.


I don't like Brewer at all. He doesn't seem to do anything well except possibly defend. His rebounding is mediocre for his size, he doesn't play-make, his shooting is terribly inefficient, he can't shoot from the perimeter. As for his defense, he was never seen as an all-world defender in the NBA. He was a very good defender in college and his upside was that he'd be a very good defender in the NBA. I didn't see enough of Brewer last year to know how that part of his game is proceeding thus far.

But even if he has continued to be a good/very good defender after the jump to the NBA, he strikes me much more as a Trenton Hassell, not a Bruce Bowen. A good defender who literally cannot help his team any other way. Bowen can shoot three pointers, and his defense has legitimately been among the best in the game.

Based on what I saw of Brewer in college, I really don't think he has any chance of approximating the defensive impact of a Scottie Pippen. Someone who plays good defense and does nothing else to help his team really isn't an asset, in my opinion. I'm not the biggest fan of Outlaw, but I think Outlaw is far more valuable than Brewer. And I'd rather keep Webster, because he's currently a better player than Brewer and I think has more potential than Brewer does.

Just my opinion, based on the numbers. I haven't watched a lot of Brewer in the NBA.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> One issues doesn't define the fit. Otherwise, you should be firmly in Webster's camp, as he's performed your solitary "small forward task" significantly better than Outlaw in his career. (I'm using career because Outlaw's three-point percentage last season was way out of line with his two years prior and it's questionable whether it was just a spike in variance or a new level of ability going forward.)
> 
> The best fit at small forward would be someone who can contribute without a lot of shots (since Portland will have scorers to spare), rebound well, play great defense, pass the ball well, make smart decisions and shoot the ball well from the perimeter.
> 
> Childress fulfills at least all of those except perimeter shooting. And even perimeter shooting isn't clear, as his three-point percentage is solid. He seems like a great fit. If he had Battier's shot, he'd be the perfect fit.


I'm not in either webster's "camp" or Outlaw's. It seems there are a lot of people pushing hard for the idea of dumping Outlaw in favor of webster. My point is that right now, Outlaw is the better player under the better contract, and that the sentiment of dumping him has a lot more emotion behind it, then reason...IMO. I don't think portland is loaded enough with talent to be trading a better player in favor of a lesser player because of some perceived roster fit.

As to webster being that perimeter shooter that I think portland needs at SF, maybe he can be. But his season and career marks to this point aren't that great, and shooters don't normally have a major increase in their percentages after their third season in the league. At this point, I'd say it's much more likely to be the case that webster is a streak shooter then a consistently good perimeter shooter. That's what he's been so far.

And that's probably the best that can be hoped for with Childress. He is the better ball-handler as I said, although having watched him plenty at stanford and at Atlanta, I definitely think some people in this thread are overrating his defensive abilities.




> The fact that you say "may very well" suggests that you are simply speculating as to how this works, not working from any facts about the rules. We have speculation. I was hoping for a conclusive statement of rules on this point (*if there are no rules regarding this, the default seems likely to be that leaving the NBA doesn't preserve RFA status*).


tsk, tsk...for someone quick to accuse of "speculation" and condemn for the use of "seems" you certainly are prone to the same sins yourself.

My "speculation" came after reviewing the pertinent section of the CBA:



> A qualifying offer cannot be accepted after March 1. Teams may place a shorter time limit on their qualifying offer, specifying any date between October 1 and March 1 by which it must be accepted. *If the deadline passes and the qualifying offer is neither withdrawn nor accepted, then the player continues to be a restricted free agent. *The team and player are also still free to negotiate a new contract after the qualifying offer ends -- the deadline only affects the player's ability to accept the qualifying offer.


and this:



> To summarize, a restricted free agent essentially has four options:
> 
> 
> He can accept his prior team's qualifying offer, play for one season, and become a free agent again the following summer.
> ...


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

it sure seems to me that the Childress situation is covered by that section. And your notion about what the "default" position is or that the CBA doesn't account for Europe isn't supported by any evidence I know of. One primary function of the CBA is and has been, to protect the rights of NBA teams, especially when it come to their own draft picks. I'm not aware of any loophole that would allow a player to sit out of the NBA for a season as RFA and then become UFA. For instance, I know for a fact, that the reporting was that Cleveland would have continued to hold the rights to Varajao in their contract dispute last season, no matter how many seasons he would have held out. The same would apply to Childress whether he's sitting in Oakland or playing in Europe.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Why a backup power forward, rather than the starting small forward?
> 
> I don't think that signing Webster to a reasonable deal will be at all difficult.


I'd speculate that Frye and KP could arrive at a mutually agreed number for reasonable a lot easier then Webster and KP would.

But in reality, I'd say the odds are pretty high that none of the three 4th season players will be extended this summer.




> Webster is two years younger than Outlaw, and almost all of Outlaw's improvement has come in the past two seasons... and yet they're very close in terms of production and capabilities. While there is certainly nothing approaching a guarantee that Webster will improve this season (let alone this season AND next), it's perfectly reasonable to expect a 21 year-old to improve, *and there's a pretty good chance that the improvement will be dramatic.*
> 
> Ed O.


How did you arrive at that conclusion???..."dramatic improvement"??

The difference between webster and outlaw as rookies was the thing that was dramatic. Outlaw was as raw as any blazer player ever. He only played about 19 minutes his entire rookie season. Meanwhile, Webster was much more advanced as a rookie.

Outlaw had played 800 minutes when entering his 3rd season. Martell had played 2800...2000 more minutes. That's a huge advantage.

What we know now is that when Travis get's playing time, he's the one that makes "dramatic improvements". Martell HAS had the playing time and his improvements have been incremental, not dramatic.

Like I said in my previous post, support for Martell involves a large component of faith, of which expecting him to make dramatic improvement when he hasn't to this point, is an example.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Masbee said:


> Yes. After being almost traded, the team had such a low opinion of Webster, that he lost his spot in the rotation, was in the coach's doghouse, and found his butt planted firmly on the bench the entire season.
> 
> Oh wait..... that was Sergio Rodriquez.
> 
> ...


I call BS...I don't believe there was any "almost" trade of Outlaw

However, Tom Penn himself confirmed that Webster was originally included in the NY trade.

And KP's job is to evaluate players and their talent. Throwing in webster as salary filler in order to dump Zach Randolph speaks volumes about how KP perceived Webster last summer. Maybe KP's opinion has changed, but he sure doesn't seem like a wishy-washy GM to me.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't like Brewer at all. He doesn't seem to do anything well except possibly defend. His rebounding is mediocre for his size, he doesn't play-make, his shooting is terribly inefficient, he can't shoot from the perimeter. As for his defense, he was never seen as an all-world defender in the NBA. He was a very good defender in college and his upside was that he'd be a very good defender in the NBA. I didn't see enough of Brewer last year to know how that part of his game is proceeding thus far.
> 
> But even if he has continued to be a good/very good defender after the jump to the NBA, he strikes me much more as a Trenton Hassell, not a Bruce Bowen. A good defender who literally cannot help his team any other way. Bowen can shoot three pointers, and his defense has legitimately been among the best in the game.
> 
> ...


I hear you. What I've been picturing for him is less Bowen or Pippen but more.... Well, there are still many differences but Ruben Patterson. While I don't expect he'll develop to the extent Patterson has as a rebounder, or "enforcer," I think he's likely already a better team defender and I could definitely see him becoming a better ball-handler. Also in Brewer's favor is his ability to defend multiple positions and his free-throw percentage. And at 6'9" (and a long 6'9" at that) he's a much better size than Patterson (or Hassell).

I agree that both Outlaw and Webster are better defensively than Brewer is offensively and that they're likely better offensively than Brewer is defensively. I feel like, right now, we're waiting to see if either Webster or Outlaw can become a decent defender. Based in part on the conversation about everyone needing to be involved each play defensively but that that's not as true at the other end, I'd feel more comfortable with a more natural defender on the team in the 2/3/4 range.

At the same time, I get that Brewer may not be the answer. Right now he's have problems much like Rodriguez did last year in that he's a poor enough shooter/scorer that defenses can cheat away from him -- that's apparently part of why he's not gotten more minutes with the Timberwolves.

Hm. Maybe a better parallel would be a SF version of Przybilla? He's at least already a better free-throw shooter than even the greatly improved Przybilla.  Maybe I'm over-valuing defense. It seems like what the team most needs, but defense from a player who's not more of an asset on offense might be more of an issue than I'm thinking.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> I'm not in either webster's "camp" or Outlaw's. It seems there are a lot of people pushing hard for the idea of dumping Outlaw in favor of webster.


I'm also not in either camp, because I don't think either player is sufficient as a full-time starter. Both can knock down the three-ball, but do very little else well. Granted, Outlaw can create his own shot, however he doesn't score very efficiently. Both are poor defenders, poor play-makers, mediocre rebounders.



> And that's probably the best that can be hoped for with Childress. He is the better ball-handler as I said, although having watched him plenty at stanford and at Atlanta, I definitely think some people in this thread are overrating his defensive abilities.


I watched his entire career at Stanford (living in the Bay Area) and have seen a fair amount of him in Atlanta. I think he's a very good defender, a smart player, a good passer, an adequate rebounder and an efficient scorer when he does take shot attempts. As I said, if he had a great three-point stroke, he'd be about perfect. With a streaky outside shot that comes out to a solid average, I think he's still a great fit, and much more of an all-around contributor than Outlaw or Webster.



> tsk, tsk...for someone quick to accuse of "speculation" and condemn for the use of "seems" you certainly are prone to the same sins yourself.


You're a little confused. There's no hypocrisy there, I _admitted_ I was speculating. What I asked for was a definitive article of the rules on the issue. I didn't "condemn" speculation or speculative wording (which "seems" is), I simply said that that wasn't what I was looking for.

Now, you have given me what I was looking for. Thank you!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Hm. Maybe a better parallel would be a SF version of Przybilla? He's at least already a better free-throw shooter than even the greatly improved Przybilla.  Maybe I'm over-valuing defense. It seems like what the team most needs, but defense from a player who's not more of an asset on offense might be more of an issue than I'm thinking.


Well, the points of disgreement I have with the Przybilla comparison are:

1. A very good defensive center has a lot more impact on the team's defense than a very good defensive swing man. Pippen is one of the very few perimeter defenders that I've seen have a disruptive team defense effect on the level of big men. Brewer doesn't have those gifts. Even as a very good defender, I think his impact will (largely) be as a man defender. That defensive impact isn't enough, IMO, to make up for contributing little else. A big man's impact on team defense can be enough to solely justify his existence.

2. Przybilla contributes more than defense. He's also a strong rebounder and an efficient scorer when he takes his 2-4 shots per game. He's not a production star, but he gives the Blazers something more than defense and doesn't hurt them when he shoots.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Well, the points of disgreement I have with the Przybilla comparison are:
> 
> 1. A very good defensive center has a lot more impact on the team's defense than a very good defensive swing man. Pippen is one of the very few perimeter defenders that I've seen have a disruptive team defense effect on the level of big men. Brewer doesn't have those gifts. Even as a very good defender, I think his impact will (largely) be as a man defender. That defensive impact isn't enough, IMO, to make up for contributing little else. A big man's impact on team defense can be enough to solely justify his existence.
> 
> 2. Przybilla contributes more than defense. He's also a strong rebounder and an efficient scorer when he takes his 2-4 shots per game. He's not a production star, but he gives the Blazers something more than defense and doesn't hurt them when he shoots.


I agree with your points for the most part.

As for Pippen's effects, I don't think he'd have been as effective without Jordan -- even if Pippen was, on the whole, the better defender (he was inarguably more versatile), Jordan was certainly close. They both had almost a Nash-like ability to predict where guys would be, but defensively more than offensively (and I frequently wonder why Nash isn't a better defender, but that's another thread).

That said, Bowen, Artest, Marion, and other good defenders can take a team out of its offense at critical points in a game by really hounding either the main ball-handler or the main scorer. Yes, they all provide more than Brewer currently does, and again, I'm willing to concede that Brewer might not be "our guy." Still, I'd love to see the Blazers land a wing who's main thing was defense -- given how strong the team might be defensively at other positions with guys like Oden, Bayless, and even Roy, that defensive wing might at least approach Pippen, in the sense that there'd be a similar sort of support.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

In thinking about it more, Corey Brewer's practically already on this team in Nicolas Batum.

Brewer -- 6'9" -- 185 -- 22 years old
Batum -- 6'8" -- 190 -- 19 years old

Both are known primarily as defenders and both have offensive struggles. And reading both their draft info, Batum seems to have the higher ceiling... which seems odd to me given the difference in draft position. Maybe they figure that while Batum's ceiling may be higher, Brewer's floor is higher? At this point I'd certainly still take Brewer over Batum in a game I had to win tomorrow.

Regardless, it seems like the Blazers should be targetting someone like Childress or Kirilenko as a starter and having both a offensive option (Outlaw or Webster) and a defensive option (Batum?) for times said starter is resting (and they aren't then going with Roy) seems good, though at least for awhile I wager they'll go with Roy (or even Fernandez) over Batum. Maybe by next season Batum will be ready to contribute?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

moldorf said:


> Like I said in my previous post, support for Martell involves a large component of faith, of which expecting him to make dramatic improvement when he hasn't to this point, is an example.


I disagree. Development is based more on physical maturity early in a career, IMO, than on playing time.

Jermaine O'Neal barely played as a Blazer, but as soon as the Pacers unleashed him he was playing at a near all-star level. His improvement was from his body changing from a young man in his teens to a man entering his mid-20's... if it was dependent on playing time, he would have required a season or two of regular minutes before he was capable of dominating.

Webster has played a significant number of minutes, but he's still only 21 years old. His body simply is not as physically capable as it will be when he's 23, 24, and into the rest of his 20's. Even if he does not improve mentally at all, his production should increase because of his increased maturity.

This is not based on faith at all. It's based on simply logic and reason.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Thing is about that, Webster _made_ more 3s that Outlaw even _attempted_. Outlaw doesn't even rank among the best 3pt shooters because he hasn't shot enough of them to qualify. I don't think you can judge until we see him shoot more than 1 every 2 games.


Why not? ..and since he appeared in all 82 games and last season and had 101 attempts, thats 1.24 a game not 0.5

Travis making 40 on 101 attempts qualifies as impressive to me. For years we've been hearing that he's been draining them in practice and last year he did just that in actual games. Shooting 40% from deep is especially impressive considering that he often took them as the clock was winding down and the defense was on red knowing what was coming. 

Martell plays a different offensive role with the starters...a much easier role. In half court sets he's often the a relief valve standing off to the side with his feet set ready to catch and pop when the D collapses on the star. A very high percentage of his 3 attempts were clean/wide open looks. He did that pretty well last year offensively but was a step down from the lofty heights of Ime Udoka from the year prior on both ends. If thats to be more of Travis's offensive role next year (as he's recently hinted) as the result of the rest of the 2nd unit improving with several shooters/playmakers, I'd expect his percentage will benefit. Better looks should equal better results don't you think?

STOMP


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Ed O said:


> I disagree. Development is based more on physical maturity early in a career, IMO, than on playing time.
> 
> Jermaine O'Neal barely played as a Blazer, but as soon as the Pacers unleashed him he was playing at a near all-star level. His improvement was from his body changing from a young man in his teens to a man entering his mid-20's... if it was dependent on playing time, he would have required a season or two of regular minutes before he was capable of dominating.
> 
> ...


logic and reason???...since when does everybody physically mature at the same rate? You seem to be assuming that Martell has plenty of physical development ahead of him. That may be true, but unless you can read the future, you don't know that. 

I'm also not arguing that Martell won't improve...never said that. He's improved incrementally every season, and "*logic and reason*" would indicate that would continue. What I am debating is the notion that Martell is poised to make a dramatic improvement this season. There is nothing that suggests that at this point. His history suggests more of the same: small improvements. It's worth pointing out, since you said his "production" should increase, that last season Martell actually scored at a lesser rate then his rookie season. And last season, Zach wasn't around hogging offensive opportunities. I'd think adding Oden, Fernandez, & Bayless would make it difficult for martell to actually register increased production. 

You using O'Neal as an example to buttress your case makes little sense. His increased production was directly related to his increased minutes. Martell has considtently played more minutes in his first 3 seasons then O'Neal did in his in first 4 seasons.

And your statement "if it was dependent on playing time, he would have required a season or two of regular minutes before he was capable of dominating." actually conflicts with reality. O'neal DID need a season of big minutes before he started to put up all-star level numbers the following season.

Again...there seems to be a bunch of Blazer fans believing Martell is poised for a breakout season; that he's ready for "dramatic improvements". I have a pretty decent memory, and I remember many of those same fans expecting the same thing last summer. Martell's fan club. There's nothing wrong with that. But at the same time they expect these big developments in his game, they also seem to believe their expectaions are based upon "logic and reason". Sorry, but there simply isn't a lot of logic and reason behind that expectation, it's more hope then anything else. 

Well, I hope he does too, but I also think it's pretty damn stupid to advocate trading an arguably much better player...travis...based upon the hope that martell will make big, pattern-breaking gains once travis is out of Martell's way. And that's what this thread advocates.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

moldorf said:


> logic and reason???...since when does everybody physically mature at the same rate? You seem to be assuming that Martell has plenty of physical development ahead of him. That may be true, but unless you can read the future, you don't know that.


And unless you can read the future, the sun won't come up tomorrow.

People don't need to mature at the EXACT same rate for logic and reason to be applied. The prime for an NBA player is almost never--and maybe NEVER--at age 21. Barring injury or some sort of work ethic issue, Webster's physical capabilities should continue to trend up.

There's no "faith" involved there.



> You using O'Neal as an example to buttress your case makes little sense. His increased production was directly related to his increased minutes. Martell has considtently played more minutes in his first 3 seasons then O'Neal did in his in first 4 seasons.


I'm less concerned with production than CAPABILITY.

A player will produce based on his minutes and his capabilities. A player's capabilities are, in my opinion, MUCH more influenced by age than by number of minutes played in a career. Of course there are other factors (work ethic, etc.) but people who ignore continued breakout potential of young players merely because they've played a fair number of minutes as teenagers are ignoring the lack of physical maturity in that player.



> And your statement "if it was dependent on playing time, he would have required a season or two of regular minutes before he was capable of dominating." actually conflicts with reality. O'neal DID need a season of big minutes before he started to put up all-star level numbers the following season.


Wrong. His PER the first year in Indiana was 17.5 his first year, and he had over 60 more blocks than he did his second year as a Pacer... where he was at 18.1 PER. He had career highs both in blocks and rebounds his first year as a Pacer.



> Again...there seems to be a bunch of Blazer fans believing Martell is poised for a breakout season; that he's ready for "dramatic improvements". I have a pretty decent memory, and I remember many of those same fans expecting the same thing last summer. Martell's fan club. There's nothing wrong with that. But at the same time they expect these big developments in his game, they also seem to believe their expectaions are based upon "logic and reason". Sorry, but there simply isn't a lot of logic and reason behind that expectation, it's more hope then anything else.


I can't speak for anyone who was a big fan of Webster this time last year (I certainly was not) but I can speak for myself when I say his improvement (and the continued chances of him breaking out) are not based on faith at all.



> Well, I hope he does too, but I also think it's pretty damn stupid to advocate trading an arguably much better player...travis...based upon the hope that martell will make big, pattern-breaking gains once travis is out of Martell's way. And that's what this thread advocates.


Webster is an arguably much better player, too. I don't think that your portrayal of the situation (as seen in this last paragraph in your post) is a fair representation of the situation here.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> Well, I hope he does too, but I also think it's pretty damn stupid to advocate trading an arguably much better player...travis...based upon the hope that martell will make big, pattern-breaking gains once travis is out of Martell's way. And that's what this thread advocates.


I am not sure who this poster is supposed to represent. I don't think it is an accurate reflection of EdO's views. He can say for himself.

I can say with certainty that it does not reflect my views at all. To restate my long held, often posted views on this:

Neither small forward on our roster is an acceptable near-term or long-term answer at the small forward slot as they currently are as players.

I do not see Roy or Rudy as any type of answer for that problem either.

Batum is too raw and too far off to be part of this conversation.

Martell and Travis each bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Last season they were roughly equal in their impact on the team trying to win games. 

Arguing over who is a "better" player in isolation is pretty much splitting hairs at this point. Until either one makes a big leap over the other they are close enough that other factors are far more important than their current impact on the game in deciding which one to keep and which one to trade - contracts, potential for improvement, attitude, fit with the other players on the team, and so forth.

The head coach of the Blazers decided that Martell was a starter, and throughout the course of an entire season, decided there was no reason or need to take a long look at Travis in the starting Small Forward slot.

I don't see Travis as being the answer at starting Small Forward EVER. He does not have the current game that would make for a good fit, he is lacking in far too many key skills that make a good starting small forward and I think it essentially impossible for him to morph into something he is not physically and mentally.

Martell has the potential and possiblity. But, I have lost confidence that he is likely to add the skills and mental maturity needed. I do not want the team to wait on him any longer assuming he will meet their needs. 

I want the team to continue to look for an upgrade at the small forward position.

I trust KP to ship out the guy that needs to go considering the many complicating factors involved in dealing with players roles, contracts and attitudes. I don't care which one goes since neither one is my guy.

Those that argue that Travis is "much better" are poor observers of NBA basketball. Over the entire course of last season, there is no way a careful observer could hold to that opinion.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Ed O said:


> And unless you can read the future, the sun won't come up tomorrow.
> 
> People don't need to mature at the EXACT same rate for logic and reason to be applied. The prime for an NBA player is almost never--and maybe NEVER--at age 21. Barring injury or some sort of work ethic issue, Webster's physical capabilities should continue to trend up.
> 
> There's no "faith" involved there.


I'm not sure what you're choosing to debate with that. I've said about 4times that I expect Martell to continue to improve, very likely at the same pace he has been. THAT is logical and reasonable. Expecting a major improvement is not...that is faith.




> I'm less concerned with production than CAPABILITY.
> 
> A player will produce based on his minutes and his capabilities. A player's capabilities are, in my opinion, MUCH more influenced by age than by number of minutes played in a career. Of course there are other factors (work ethic, etc.) but people who ignore continued breakout potential of young players merely because they've played a fair number of minutes as teenagers are ignoring the lack of physical maturity in that player.
> 
> ...


unfortunately, the simple fact that he went from 12 minutes a game in his 4th year as a blazer, to 32 minutes a game in his 1st year in Indiana and 37 minutes a geme in his second, means your theories are completely unprovable using O'Neal as an example. The correlation between production and minutes is indisputable, and O'Neal himself has said this very thing numerous times. 

On the other hand, Martell's minutes have been rather consistent, as have his marginal improvements from season to season.




> I can't speak for anyone who was a big fan of Webster this time last year (I certainly was not) *but I can speak for myself when I say his improvement (and the continued chances of him breaking out) are not based on faith at all*.


LOL...well that certainly walks and talks like faith. Breaking out?...I assume that means a huge step forward in his development. I guess you'll need to supply a little more context...just what are the "chances" that he'll "break out" versus simply make more measured strides...as he has each season? Why should this season be different?

and by the way, the season will be only 1 month old when Martell turns 22. And it will be 8 months old when his cap-hold will be 11.3 million dollars. That last number is probably the most relevant number in relation to Webster and the Blazers.




> Webster is an arguably much better player, too.


it's not nearly as easy an argument and it's probably impossible to make that he a "much" better player. About the only areas he had an advantage were in TS% and eFG%. The irony of that is that Outlaw was better in all 3 shooting categories. And then the fact that Outlaw was better at scoring, rebounding, assists, turnovers, blocks, & steals makes the argument that webster was better difficult. Then, when factoring in Outlaw's huge clutch play advantage, the argument is strained to the breaking point.

But it's a foolish argument insofar as Portland has both players, and will have a difficult time trading either for a better SF then what they already have.



> I don't think that your portrayal of the situation (as seen in this last paragraph in your post) is a fair representation of the situation here.
> 
> Ed O.



what?...what situation are you talking about. My last paragraph was about this thread. Check the title and read responses. There are plenty posts in this thread fundamentally advocating trading Outlaw because 'webster is better'.

This is not a new development by the way. The outlaw vs webster debate has been the geneisis of multiple threads at multiple blazer sites.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Masbee said:


> I am not sure who this poster is supposed to represent. I don't think it is an accurate reflection of EdO's views. He can say for himself.
> 
> I can say with certainty that it does not reflect my views at all. To restate my long held, often posted views on this:
> 
> ...


well then essentially, we agree on that. I think Travis has more potential to be an effective 6th man, then martell does to be an effective starter. I'm speaking playoff effective.

but neither will likely be the long term answer at SF, while Martell's contract situation in light of KP's cap-space plan may mean Martell won't even be a blazer long term



> I trust KP to ship out the guy that needs to go considering the many complicating factors involved in dealing with players roles, contracts and attitudes. I don't care which one goes since neither one is my guy.


I'd prefer to see Travis stay. However, I think there is ample evidence that Outlaw has far higher trade value around the league. I think the reality is, he is viewed as subtantially more talented and versatile then webster. And his ability to create his own shot (something webster can't do) is a sought after commodity.

Add that to the fact that Outlaw has a desirable contract while webster's is not, and the blazers would have much more leverage dangling outlaw as trade-bait then webster. So if KP wants to make a big move, then Outlaw is more likely to be included then webster.



> Those that argue that Travis is "much better" are poor observers of NBA basketball. Over the entire course of last season, there is no way a careful observer could hold to that opinion.


that's total bunk, and I think you're disputing the evaluation of most "careful observers", including blazer management.

Jason Quick, Mike Barret, and Brian Wheeler have all said, several times, that blazer management & coaches consider outlaw as being almost as close to the 'untouchable' column as roy-LMA-oden when it comes to trades.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with the great Masbee, they then must have "poor observation" skills??...funny stuff


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Arguing who is better between Otlaw and Webster is futile unless you define the frame of reference.

Webster is a below average starter. I strongly believe Outlaw would be the same. In fact, his skill-set probably makes him a worse choice, given the rest of the line-up.

Conversely, Outlaw is a very productive bench player. IMHO, Webster would founder if placed in the same role. 

Since neither one is the long-term answer as a starter, arguing over who is "better" (ie less bad) in that role is rather pointless. OTOH, there is no doubt in my mind that Outlaw is the superior bench player. It is not unreasonable for folks to prefer a "C+" reserve to a "C-" starter. Just keep in mind that *both* are expendable if we can get a superior starter in return.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> that's total bunk, and I think you're disputing the evaluation of most "careful observers", including blazer management.
> 
> Jason Quick, Mike Barret, and Brian Wheeler have all said, several times, that blazer management & coaches consider outlaw as being almost as close to the 'untouchable' column as roy-LMA-oden when it comes to trades.


Smoke, sir, smoke.

I know when it is being blown up someone's rear.

It is comical that some people would fall for the notion that a low bball iq chucker like Travis has morphed into an "untouchable".

Travis Outlaw has a FRACTION of the value of any of the big three. They aren't even in the same stadium.

Completly ****ing comical.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Arguing who is better between Otlaw and Webster is futile unless you define the frame of reference.
> 
> Webster is a below average starter. I strongly believe Outlaw would be the same. In fact, his skill-set probably makes him a worse choice, given the rest of the line-up.
> 
> ...


I would trade both for a clear upgrade.

I would also point out that Rudy and/or Bayless likely prove to be excellent bench scorers. I anticipate that Rudy in short order will be a better scorer than Travis, Bayless may take a little longer.

If that in fact plays out, Travis' vaunted trade value could take a major hit. His trade value may never be higher than it was at last season's trade deadline, before his late season swoon.

Don't think I am rooting against Travis. I hope he defies odds and his past patterns and blows up this season. That would be a great "problem" to have.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

outlaw, webster and jones for billups

Dumars likes young players.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Masbee said:


> Smoke, sir, smoke.
> 
> I know when it is being blown up someone's rear.
> 
> ...


it may be some smoke and it may not...you don't know for sure and that is a fact. Unless of course you're KP or Nate and I doubt it. And I think I've been pretty direct in my evaluation of Travis's situation. I've said he's one of the more likely blazers to be involved in a trade if one occurs. That obviously means I don't think he's untouchable. But it also means I believe he has considerably more trade value then someone like webster. At least in the eyes of GM's around the league.

What's ****ing comical are people who repeat the "low bbIQ" canard expecting it's any kind of a persuasive argument without context or explanation. It's not. I'd like someone...in this case you...to explain why Travis has low bbIQ compared to someone like webster. Webster doesn't try to do much at all except stand around and wait for his teammates to make plays for him. Webster's career has been noted for being lost on defense and drifting on offense, yet I never see him accused of low bbIQ. Travis is asked to come in and create his own shot, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult job then that asked of webster.

In case you're not getting my point: I think someone who trots out the "low bbIQ" argument is essentially saying nothing. It's meaningless, vapid. Try to do better, and explain just why travis is a stupid player incapable of improving his game.

Oh, and since you said that Travis was almost traded before the deadline, I'm really curious what concrete information you have to back-up that assertion.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> it may be some smoke and it may not...you don't know for sure and that is a fact. Unless of course you're KP or Nate and I doubt it. And I think I've been pretty direct in my evaluation of Travis's situation. I've said he's one of the more likely blazers to be involved in a trade if one occurs. That obviously means I don't think he's untouchable. But it also means I believe he has considerably more trade value then someone like webster. At least in the eyes of GM's around the league.
> 
> What's ****ing comical are people who repeat the "low bbIQ" canard expecting it's any kind of a persuasive argument without context or explanation. It's not. I'd like someone...in this case you...to explain why Travis has low bbIQ compared to someone like webster. Webster doesn't try to do much at all except stand around and wait for his teammates to make plays for him. Webster's career has been noted for being lost on defense and drifting on offense, yet I never see him accused of low bbIQ. Travis is asked to come in and create his own shot, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult job then that asked of webster.
> 
> ...


I am not a high volume fast-typing poster. These issues have been hashed out and discussed previously on this board. I don't care to re-hash at this time. Maybe someone else will, or you can try the search feature of this site.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

moldorf said:


> Travis is asked to come in and create his own shot, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult job then that asked of webster.


I just noticed this.

Are you actually saying you think it requires more iq to be handed the ball and told to do your "thing", which in Travis' case is to take one dribble, lift up, and jack up a long jumper, than it does to try to be a part of a functioning offensive unit?

Ummm..... ok.

I am not arguing that Martell has high bball iq. We don't need to compare. I just find it interesting that you want to argue Travis' doesn't have a low iq.

Good luck with that.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Martell plays a different offensive role with the starters...a much easier role.


I don't think this is necessarily true. Martell may get more open shots and those shots might be more open than when Outlaw is creating his own shot but it doesn't necessarily make it easier. Catching and shooting is a different skill than taking a shot off the dribble. 

From what little evidence there is of Outlaw and Martell playing these two different roles neither one seems to be particularly good at being a catch and shoot guy. Both seem to be more comfortable having the ball in their hands and creating their own shot.

In the few situations last season when Outlaw was playing small forward and getting open looks due to other players' creative abilities he wasn't as effective as when he was playing the 4 and creating for himself. In the rare situations where Webster was given a more creative role in the offense he did better.

This isn't really an argument for either player. It's just something I've noticed.

If the statements we've heard about Travis playing the 3 full time and Webster being the starter are true it will be very interesting to see how how they do. I don't expect either player to do remarkably well unless Nate makes some big changes to the way the 3 acts in our offensive sets. I also expect people will claim Outlaw has regressed when really he's in a different role that doesn't suit him.

I'm with oldmangrouch on the overall small forward situation. Neither of these guys looks like they're gonna be our future small forward. Arguing about it, while fun, will eventually be pointless since neither side will ever be able to declared the "winner" and it seems to me that, like the Sergio/Jack debate both sides will end up being the loser.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

moldorf said:


> In case you're not getting my point: I think someone who trots out the "low bbIQ" argument is essentially saying nothing. It's meaningless, vapid. Try to do better, and explain just why travis is a stupid player incapable of improving his game.



This is the part of your argument I can't agree with. After 1 training camp, James Jones had a better grasp of the team's offensive and defensive schemes than either Outlaw or Webster. You could even make that argument about Frye. It may be a flaw common to both Outlaw and Webster, but it is still a flaw.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Masbee said:


> I just noticed this.
> 
> Are you actually saying you think it requires more iq to be handed the ball and told to do your "thing", which in Travis' case is to take one dribble, lift up, and jack up a long jumper, than it does to try to be a part of a functioning offensive unit?
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing what you think...I'm asking you to define bb IQ to begin with, and how that applies to this specific situation.


You just defined travis game down to him taking a single dribble and jacking-up a long jumper. Does he do that every single possesion? Does he take a higher percentage of jump shots then anybody else on the team? What percentage of his shots are assisted compared to teammates? Is there a difference in execution efficiency between the 1st and 2nd units, that would cause the coaches to have given travis instructions to do just what you say he does that's "low IQ? Why were his clutch play numbers about the best on the team, even as good or better then roy's? Was that because he was playing with the 1st unit? 

I think I was clear: I'm saying basketball IQ is a meaningless term...a generic cop-out. Make your case. You seem to have a formed opinion of Outlaw, it shouldn't be difficult if that opinion is based upon some specific observations.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> This is the part of your argument I can't agree with. After 1 training camp, James Jones had a better grasp of the team's offensive and defensive schemes than either Outlaw or Webster. You could even make that argument about Frye. It may be a flaw common to both Outlaw and Webster, but it is still a flaw.


fair enough, although I'd suggest what Jones was asked to do on offense was not extensive. I'd also suggest that the amount and type of zone defenses portland played last year would give a advantage to a more experienced player. 

Didn't Jones play in college for 4 years? Isn't he a few years older and more experienced because of that? Frye played 4 years at Arizona didn't he?

If a primary function of 'bbIQ' is experience, then is it reasonable to conclude that 'bbIQ' can be corrected by experience? If that's so, is it a fair term to apply?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ebott said:


> I don't think this is necessarily true. Martell may get more open shots and those shots might be more open than when Outlaw is creating his own shot but it doesn't necessarily make it easier. Catching and shooting is a different skill than taking a shot off the dribble.


yes it is different, but it's also much much easier. And shooting wide open shots as opposed to contested shots is also much easier. I don't think you'll find much support for your claim here... the degree of difficulty is much higher off the dribble and teams work their offense trying to get open looks for a reason.


> From what little evidence there is of Outlaw and Martell playing these two different roles neither one seems to be particularly good at being a catch and shoot guy. Both seem to be more comfortable having the ball in their hands and creating their own shot.


Huh? Thats not been Martell's job at all. He hasn't shown much ability to create a good look for himself let alone convert off the dribble like Outlaw does. He needs space or at least a pick to generate a good look. Dude doesn't have the same sort of athletic gifts.


> In the few situations last season when Outlaw was playing small forward and getting open looks due to other players' creative abilities he wasn't as effective as when he was playing the 4 and creating for himself. In the rare situations where Webster was given a more creative role in the offense he did better.


I suggest you go look up the 4 or so games that Travis started last year at the 3... you'll find that you are wrong. I did this a few months back and long story short, he performed well above his averages. He can raise over most SFs as well as PFs... teams did try a variety of defenders on him.


> If the statements we've heard about Travis playing the 3 full time and Webster being the starter are true it will be very interesting to see how how they do. I don't expect either player to do remarkably well unless Nate makes some big changes to the way the 3 acts in our offensive sets. I also expect people will claim Outlaw has regressed when really he's in a different role that doesn't suit him.


we shall see. It's my guess that if TO gets the sort of looks that Martell enjoyed last season that his shooting percentage will reflect it. He might not get as many shots as he did last year, but increased efficiency probably won't generate many complaints from me.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Arguing who is better between Otlaw and Webster is futile unless you define the frame of reference.
> 
> Webster is a below average starter. I strongly believe Outlaw would be the same. In fact, his skill-set probably makes him a worse choice, given the rest of the line-up.
> 
> ...


This might be the single best post in this entire thread. :greatjob:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I would trade both for a clear upgrade.
> 
> *I would also point out that Rudy and/or Bayless likely prove to be excellent bench scorers*. I anticipate that Rudy in short order will be a better scorer than Travis, Bayless may take a little longer.
> 
> ...


With that, Frye's got a lot of potential as well, and he's likely at _least_ as able to perform well from either of two positions as Fernandez and Bayless are.

In the end, I think there's plenty of bench scoring, even if/when Bayless or Fernandez crack the starting line-up -- Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Fernandez, Bayless, and Frye is more scoring than many even good teams in the NBA have and that's still not counting guys like Blake (who can't be left open) or whomever comes via trade or signing due to LaFrentz.

Last season this team regularly had quarters where they couldn't seem to score, resulting in losses or nip-and-tuck wins. This season, that should be _much_ less of an issue.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

> I suggest you go look up the 4 or so games that Travis started last year at the 3... you'll find that you are wrong. I did this a few months back and long story short, he performed well above his averages. He can raise over most SFs as well as PFs... teams did try a variety of defenders on him.


where's this?
looking at his page at http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR9C.HTM he doesn't do well as a 3. He's seriously out-PERed as a 3 (13.7 vs 19.3) while he holds his own as a 4.

moldorf - not addressed to me, and probably rhetorical, but I'll respond anyway. Good on you for asking for specific examples.


> Does he take a higher percentage of jump shots then anybody else on the team?


He takes as many jumpers as Webster, but his eFG% is 43% compared to Webster's 50%, reflecting all those jumpers a step in from the three point line. Webster is a more efficient scorer. Of course, their roles were different, as shown below...


> What percentage of his shots are assisted compared to teammates?


62%, compared to Webster's 79%, so there's the proof that Outlaw's role was to look for his shot.

The question is though, can Outlaw, with his poor handles (anecdotal, not sure how to prove that), maintain or hopefully improve an already mediocre level of efficiency going against other SFs? I doubt it. The second unit has some question marks (Rudy, Bayless being rookies) but Outlaw, moving from PF to SF, does as well. None of them are a sure thing. 

The more I think about it I feel Outlaw has reached the peak of his value as a Blazer. The bench already has offensive players we can reasonably expect to play well - Bayless and Rudy should both be able to create offense for themselves but also for others (just a good old fashioned 'from the gut' prediction here for Bayless). I also expect them to do so at a minimum as effectively as Outlaw would as a 3. So does that leave room for Outlaw to go one on one when other players more suited to their respective positions and with better playmaking abilities are available? Not for me.

I hope we trade him soon for a SF in the mold of Webster before Outlaw's value decreases.



> Conversely, Outlaw is a very productive bench player. IMHO, Webster would founder if placed in the same role.


Webster is dependent on his teammates for his offense, I think he'd play as well as he does as a starter alongside Rudy and Bayless, provided the latter learns to drive and dish. Or Sergio, if he earns some minutes. He'll also have Przybilla to set some picks to help free him up.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Nice post, #10.

And running with your "from the gut" perspective, I think Outlaw's a bit of a man without a position. He's had decent success in his 3/4 role, (though his rebounding, among other skills, is poor regardless of position) but I think Frye's a better 4 and, honestly (here's the gut part) I think Webster has more potential to be a good SF for this team (whether starting or coming from the bench). Call it a "gut feeling," call it "faith," call it "deductive reasoning" -- whatever. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet on Webster.

That said, move either or both to get someone with a greater skill set.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

moldorf said:


> fair enough, although I'd suggest what Jones was asked to do on offense was not extensive. I'd also suggest that the amount and type of zone defenses portland played last year would give a advantage to a more experienced player.
> 
> Didn't Jones play in college for 4 years? Isn't he a few years older and more experienced because of that? Frye played 4 years at Arizona didn't he?
> 
> If a primary function of 'bbIQ' is experience, then is it reasonable to conclude that 'bbIQ' can be corrected by experience? If that's so, is it a fair term to apply?


That's a good question.

College coaches are more focused on teaching than their NBA counterparts - so Frye and Jones not only had more experience, they had a different kind of experience. Either (or both) of those factors could be at work here.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

How is a guy like Outlaw, who won the team at least 5-6 games with clutch shooting, a "C+" reserve? JW....


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

how about packing with LeFenfz for Iverson?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

c_note said:


> How is a guy like Outlaw, who won the team at least 5-6 games with clutch shooting, a "C+" reserve? JW....



He is an OK rebounder at the 3, but is overmatched against 4s. His defense is shakey at both spots. His passing is just bad. If his shot isn't falling, he really has nothing else to fall back on.


----------

