# Courtside Thursday 5/8/08



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Is anyone listening to Courtside tonight?

Barrett said that Pritchard and co. is back from Spain and their visit with Rudy. Supposedly, they've been impressed with Rudy and said that he is better than they thought. Even more interesting, they said Fernandez could play SG, *SF, and PG.* They also mentioned a possible backcourt duo of Rudy and Roy. 

From reading scouting reports online, I thought that a knock on Rudy was that his handles weren't that great. Could he possibly play point guard for us or are they just being homers? 

Thoughts?


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Supposedly, starting next week Courtside will now be on 95.5 FM instead of KXL.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

I don't know that his dribbling ability is all that amazing, but he sure can pass the ball. I think I'll have to see more than just highlight videos before I buy into that just yet.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crap! I hate forgetting that it's on. Damn them moving it to Thursday!!!


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

I am sure they told Rudy that they see him playing everyrwhere to reinfoirce the fact he will get on the floor. And he and BRoy probably can AT TIMES play all three positions. The bottom line is that Rudy will get 30 minutes a game and play about about 90 games. He will get more than his share of minutes next year. (And won't start)MB seemed pretty confident he is coming.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

chairman said:


> I am sure they told Rudy that they see him playing everyrwhere to reinfoirce the fact he will get on the floor. And he and BRoy probably can AT TIMES play all three positions. The bottom line is that Rudy will get 30 minutes a game and play about about 90 games. He will get more than his share of minutes next year. (And won't start)*MB seemed pretty confident he is coming.*


Yeah, Barrett said they couldn't talk too much about Rudy coming over because he's still playing with his team in Spain, but Barrett pretty much guaranteed Rudy will be here next season. Terrific news! :yay:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

chairman said:


> The bottom line is that Rudy will get 30 minutes a game and play about about 90 games.


Well, I guess we'll be getting to at least the second round of the playoffs, then.

barfo


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Please pleas please give every piece of info you can think of. I wish I could listen but I can't


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

barfo said:


> Well, I guess we'll be getting to at least the second round of the playoffs, then.
> 
> barfo


I was counting pre-season. LOL


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

GOD said:


> Please pleas please give every piece of info you can think of. I wish I could listen but I can't


Well, they're just talking about the draft and lottery. They mentioned Gordon slipping on mock draft websites and Antonio asked about Batum. Somebody said he's more of a 2-guard. Donte Greene was mentioned and they said Bayless might slip in the draft.

MB said he woudln't be disapointed if they traded out of the draft.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Barrett confirmed that we were trying to get Harris in the Harris-Kidd trade.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

It is clear that these guys on court side (Vance, Rice, MB, Harvey) know about as much as the rest of us when it comes to trades. They are all over the place with their ideas on how to improve the team.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Blazers games (and other sports) will be on 95.5 The Game this coming season. This is probably old news to some of you.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Darkwebs said:


> MB said he woudln't be disapointed if they traded out of the draft.



That's a strange remark. We have a very good chance of getting someone at 13 who will eventually crack our rotation. Is MB really that big a homer that he doesn't see any players out there better than Jack, Frye, or Webster?


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

A listener emailed, questioning whether Bibby would be a good fit at point for us, but MB said no, he wouldn't. But someone else (Rice, I think) chimed in, saying Bibby has turned around the Hawks franchise.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Down here in Florida listening on KXL.com baby!


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Another email asked about Nate as a coach. That Kenny Vance guy said Nate might possibly not be the coach in the long term. Of course, he was just speculating.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

I'm liking this Kenny guy. He doesn't just spew the company line like MB and Harvey always do.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

New uniforms are on the horizon, but not next year said MB


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Antonio and Rice don't like Felton as a possbile PG for us, because he is more of a score-first player.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

MB said Roy will play half of the games at the PG. And they repeated that Rudy can play PG again.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Antonio is interested in a PG like Derek Fisher. Someone that won't cost a lot, but will work hard and lead the team.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Darkwebs said:


> Another email asked about Nate as a coach. That Kenny Vance guy said Nate might possibly not be the coach in the long term. Of course, he was just speculating.


Kenny Vance saying Nate won't be the coach long term sure is speculating. He has no inside info. It's no different then me going on there and saying the same thing. It's his opinion. I remember Vance on 1520 AM back in the day! Wasn't a big fan, but it's gonna' beat what we've had over on the fan.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

how is he going to get 30 minutes a game? Unless we get rid of some guys.....or outlaw/webster give up some of their minutes and jack/sergio too


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Kenny Vance saying Nat won't be the coach long term sure is speculating. He has no inside info. It's no different then me going on there and saying the same thing. It's his opinion. I remember Vance on 1520 AM back in the day! Wasn't a big fan, but it's gonna' beat what we've had over on the fan.


This show really doesn't offer much news, does it? It's kind of like a radio version of people on this board because a lot of it is just their opinion. I wish they would offer more insider knowledge since they are employed with the Blazers organization.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Kenny Vance thinks that we should move some of our guys (the one that will get pushed out of the rotation next year) so that we can still get good value for them.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Rice, Barrett, and Harvey are all really high on Rudy. It seems that they think he'll be good right away. Aren't they being too optimistic? Have they considered an adjustment period at all for Rudy, going from the Spanish league to the NBA? Well, I hope they're right and Fernandez starts kicking *** on day one as a Blazer.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

When will we be able to sign Rudy?


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

Kenny was on?? Dang it, I love KV.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> When will we be able to sign Rudy?


The last game in the ACB regular season is tomorrow, and then the playoffs start.

I'd say probably 2 months minimum before he can buy his way out of his contract and start negotiations with the Blazers. His signing is still a very long way off.


----------



## <-=*PdX*=-> (Oct 11, 2007)

No new digs until at least a year from now? I thought the team said it was almost a given for the coming season and that they tried to get new ones for last year?


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I don't remember ever seeing anybody from the Blazers saying they were getting new jerseys.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

<-=*PdX*=-> said:


> No new digs until at least a year from now? I thought the team said it was almost a given for the coming season and that they tried to get new ones for last year?


I want new uniforms, too. It would be perfect for the new Oden era. But I don't remember anyone from the Blazers talking about new uniforms. I just recall a Canzano article suggesting that the Blazers should get new uniforms since we were moving passed the Jail Blazer era.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

i like our uniforms, classic and original, simple yet beautiful :clap2:


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Here we go again!


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Darkwebs said:


> Is anyone listening to Courtside tonight?
> 
> Barrett said that Pritchard and co. is back from Spain and their visit with Rudy. Supposedly, they've been impressed with Rudy and said that* he is better than they thought.* Even more interesting, they said Fernandez could play SG, *SF, and PG.* They also mentioned a possible backcourt duo of Rudy and Roy.
> 
> ...


 Hmmmm.... didn't KP say earlier that he thought Rudy was the best player in Europe? And now he thinks he is better than they thought? Dayaamn, how good is this kid?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Hmmmm.... didn't KP say earlier that he thought Rudy was the best player in Europe? And now he thinks he is better than they thought? Dayaamn, how good is this kid?


just speculation on my part, but they may be refering to better then they thought when they traded for him.

STOMP


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Jayps15 said:


> The last game in the ACB regular season is tomorrow, and then the playoffs start. I'd say probably 2 months minimum before he can buy his way out of his contract and start negotiations with the Blazers. His signing is still a very long way off.


If his season is almost over, what are the constraints delaying a buyout?


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

STOMP said:


> just speculation on my part, but they may be refering to better then they thought when they traded for him.
> 
> STOMP


 Ya, I know we shouldn't put to much pressure on Rudy and keep our expectations low... but screw dat'. I'm hoping he's from the same far away planet that gave us Larry Bird.


----------



## Gunner (Sep 16, 2005)

I seem to remember both KP and Nate saying last Sept or so,that after what they'd seen of him thru the summer he most likely would have been in the starting line up if he'd have been able to come over. I don't think hes going to have any worries regarding minutes.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Nice article, but I would rather witness a live gang stomping than see Rudy (Or even Roy) play SF.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Nice article, but I would rather witness a live gang stomping than see Rudy (Or even Roy) play SF.



Nice hyperbole.:raised_ey

You _do_ realize that, presuming you've been watching Blazers games, you've almost certainly seen Roy on the floor with Blake and Jack for stretches, often effectively, yes? It hasn't worked particularly well as a starting line-up for a variety of reasons -- they're matched against an opposing starting unit, Webster and/or Jones unavailable so less ideal rotations overall, etc. Still, when playing together over the course of a game, that combination had decent success.

Given that Fernandez seems to be a near certain improvement over Jack, things should only get better.

If it were me, I'd probably bring Fernandez off the bench (starting Blake, Roy, and Webster/Jones/Outlaw, if no other moves are made) but it seems to me Roy spending five to ten minutes a game at SF should be fine over the course of most games.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I definitely see Rudy playing SF on offense and guarding the SG on defense.

I think he would be perfect for the role our SF plays in Nate's offense.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

whatsmyname said:


> how is he going to get 30 minutes a game? Unless we get rid of some guys.....or outlaw/webster give up some of their minutes and jack/sergio too



Yes that is the dilemma. I would say JJ and JJ are two possibilities. They get 49 minutes between them per game. (27 for Jack and 22 for jones)Something would have to give.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

chairman said:


> Yes that is the dilemma. I would say JJ and JJ are two possibilities. They get 49 minutes between them per game. (27 for Jack and 22 for jones)Something would have to give.


It occurs to me that _if_ KP uses this summer to trade bench depth for greater talent (in some kind of 4 or 5 for 2 sort of deal, which he might try to do given that trade value will drop on players as their PT drops) those 2nd rounders the Blazers have stacked up might actually get used by the team to fill out the roster. I don't think it's likely but it's interesting to consider.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I would not expect any moves to bring in an upgrade until after Rudy signs. I could see a small trade, something like #13, a 2nd and Jack to move up to the 11th spot, or perhaps as far as a #13, jack and Webster to move up even further, but I doubt it will be to bring in a player till after Rudy signs. But once Rudy is signs, I could definitely see a larger trade to bring in a semi-star at PG or SF.


----------



## Stay Blazed (May 5, 2008)

stop talking about Jack. There is a 100% chance he is traded in the offseason. That goes for the majority of these as well:

Pick 13
Outlaw
Webster
Frye


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Stay Blazed said:


> stop talking about Jack. There is a 100% chance he is traded in the offseason. That goes for the majority of these as well:
> 
> Pick 13
> Outlaw
> ...


The majority of those 4 players is 3. So there is 100% chance that 4 of those 5 players will be gone this summer?

I think those odds are a little high. I just don't see it. But you never know.....


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Stay Blazed said:


> stop talking about Jack. There is a 100% chance he is traded in the offseason. That goes for the majority of these as well:
> 
> Pick 13
> Outlaw
> ...


Can you let me know which one on your list isn't in the majority, so I can still talk about him?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

chairman said:


> The majority of those 4 players is 3. So there is 100% chance that 4 of those 5 players will be gone this summer?
> 
> *I think those odds are a little high*. I just don't see it. But you never know.....


You think? :biggrin:


I would take that bet . . . 100-1 odds that 4 0f the 5 players are gone. I've got thousands of credits in my "banking" to play with. What do you say stayed blazed?


----------



## Stay Blazed (May 5, 2008)

chairman said:


> The majority of those 4 players is 3. So there is 100% chance that 4 of those 5 players will be gone this summer?
> 
> I think those odds are a little high. I just don't see it. But you never know.....


I didn't write that very well. I meant including Jack so your right about the odds on that, although looking at that list I wouldn't be at all surprised if only Webster or Outlaw remained on this team next season.


----------



## Stay Blazed (May 5, 2008)

It's_GO_Time said:


> You think? :biggrin:
> 
> 
> I would take that bet . . . 100-1 odds that 4 0f the 5 players are gone. I've got thousands of credits in my "banking" to play with. What do you say stayed blazed?


My 200 credits for you 20,000? I'm down but is it if they're on the team on the first day or last day of the season?


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

PorterIn2004 said:


> It occurs to me that _if_ KP uses this summer to trade bench depth for greater talent (in some kind of 4 or 5 for 2 sort of deal, which he might try to do given that trade value will drop on players as their PT drops) those 2nd rounders the Blazers have stacked up might actually get used by the team to fill out the roster. I don't think it's likely but it's interesting to consider.


I still think we should package some young players for vets who either are expiring and will play hard for a new contract (somewhere else if we choose) or are about to ride off into the sunset and won't mind our young guys taking a larger role. I really would like a guy like this at PG, and I think Jones has filled his role well at that in SF, it would be great if he came back too. I'm just getting to the point of realizing you can't have all young players if you want to develop them well and have good chemistry, vets can also push the competitiveness as it's not a throw away year for them. Andre Miller is the guy I would like most personally.

If we could move up in the draft with Jack to get Kevin Love, and then package him and Raef for Andre Miller I'd love it.

which would leave us at:

Miller/Blake/Rodriguez
Roy/Fernandez
Webster/Outlaw/Jones
Aldridge/Frye/Mcroberts
Oden/Pryzbilla

we could fill out our roster (two spots) with a combo of second round picks, Koponen, or Freeland.

I personally would like it a lot if after that we were able to make a trade with some sort of combo with Blake and Outlaw (before the season or perhaps mid-season) as it could be an attractive package, especially with another draft pick, as there just won't be enough minutes going around to develop everyone, we should be trying to get Roy minutes at PG in order to give Fernandez more time too, and Outlaw probably has the highest value of him, Webster, and Frye, but with Frye and Webster being better complimentary players. 

I'm not sure what Blake/Outlaw/pick could net us...but perhaps a disgruntled star at the trade deadline, maybe a player ending their rookie contract and having a hard time negotiating a new deal, I don't really know for sure. But obvious targets could be Deng, Iguodala, Granger, Devin Harris and others...perhaps even down to Mike Miller (not my choice).


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I hope we don't trade Outlaw, Webster or Frye. Jones and Jack i can part with. LaFrentz also. but i love our rotation if you add Rudy and Greg.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

does anyone have the link to the podcast like they did last week?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Any time you can trade a couple or several mediocre/replaceable players for a upper tier player, you should pull the trigger. Just make sure their names aren't Fat Lever, Calvin Natt, and Wayne Cooper. Because it will come back to haunt you forever.


----------



## gogreen (May 24, 2006)

With Oden, LA, Pryz all having injury concerns i think Frye is our most important bench player. Frye showed in the last bit of the season and of course his rookie year that he is a keeper. If Brook Lopez projects as a top 5 pick, no thanks. I would not trade Frye for Lopez straight up this year.

IF Nate can get Martel to work on his defense and Martel becomes a good defender, there is no way i would trade Martel. He has a pure stroke that you can't teach and for God's sake, he is 21 years old. Martel has star potential and we have seen nowhere near his ceiling. Remember Nash passed on CP3 for Webbs, just sayin.

As much as i love Outlaw's potential i think what we see is what we are going to get in the future. He is not a Jermaine O situation. Remember, JO was getting no playing time so we never knew what he was going to end up at. Travis's biggest asset is his ability to cause match up problems plating the 3 and the 4. Also like a Jerome Kersey he relies on his athletic ability. In 4 to 5 yeras from now Travis might be already on the downside. As opposed to Martel, he has a skill that can keep him in the league for many more years. Walter Davis is someone who comes to mind right off the top of my head. Steve Smith, who else ??

Now, just my crazy opinion but Danny Granger is loved by KP and probably the rest of the league. I think Martel can be in a few years something close to Granger, who knows. I think Granger is a stud, but why trade away multiple peices when we may have someone on our roster now. Patience, patience..........

KP gave us all the Betty Crocker i wanna bake a cake speach and what he wants to do. I hope he sticks with his plan and waits a year so when we have our cap flexability he can go out and get that icing he is talking about. I think he has to see how Rudy, Roy and Martel play together as well as Oden and LA.

If he gets impatient and deals young talent for a experinced PG this summer i will be pissed. 

Outlaw, Jack, Raef, # 13, are the only assets i wouldn't be to pissed if he gave away this summer for a Calderon, Conley jr, Andre Miller, Russel Westbrook. As much as everyone talks about the need for a PG, realisticaly BRoy is gonna have the ball in his hands in the 4th Q. Also, Rudy has great handles and his assist totals in ACB tells me he is unselfish and like Barret said last night on courtside, Rudy could also play some PG. One more year of Blake at the point is not going to kill us. You never know but i doubt we challange for Hardware next year anyway.

What do you think Denver feels about not having Blake on that dysfunctional team this year in the playoffs ??? Karl was not happy at the start of the year when he lost Blake and i think after watching the Laker series we all know why now. Blake is not chopped liver and if we get a franchise type PG i hope we keep Blake. The guy gets no credit and that is a shame. He does everything coach asks of him and wants to be in Portland. Wow a FA that wants to be in Portland?? I thought nobody wants to come here through free agency.

PATIENCE


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

gogreen said:


> With Oden, LA, Pryz all having injury concerns i think Frye is our most important bench player. Frye showed in the last bit of the season and of course his rookie year that he is a keeper. If Brook Lopez projects as a top 5 pick, no thanks. I would not trade Frye for Lopez straight up this year.


I agree that Frye makes a good backup, and that it would be nice to keep him. But, he is not an integral cog to the Blazer machine and if the p[layers you listed do stay fairly healthy all year, will not see much playing time. If this happens, his value will decrease. I do not want to trade Frye for junk, but he must be on the table if an upgrade can be made to a player that will see more court time. For the same reason, I would even have Joel as a possible trade, not that I want to see him traded, but if that's what it takes to get an upgrade at starting PG than so be it. 



> IF Nate can get Martel to work on his defense and Martel becomes a good defender, there is no way i would trade Martel. He has a pure stroke that you can't teach and for God's sake, he is 21 years old. Martel has star potential and we have seen nowhere near his ceiling. *Remember Nash passed on CP3 for Webbs, just sayin.*


All that shows is that Nash is a fool. Once the player has been drafted, you must make decisions based on their ability and not on where they were drafted. In business there is the term "sunk cost" which means that once you spent the money, that cost can't play a role in decision making, only future costs. For example, lets say you have a factory and to make the widget you buy 20mil in machines. Then there is a crash in the widget market and nobody wants them anymore. It does not make sense to keep making widgets just cause you spent the 20mil, you need to use the rest of your resourses wisely and have your workers, capitol and everything else work on making something that is wanted and not the widget. Sorry, I think I was rambling. Nash is an idiot.
And, you and I disagree that Webster has star potential. That is probably the crux of our disagreement on this point. I can't ever see him being better than a pretty good starter, and that will take a lot of improvement as I see him now as not even deserving a starting position. 



> As much as i love Outlaw's potential i think what we see is what we are going to get in the future. He is not a Jermaine O situation. Remember, JO was getting no playing time so we never knew what he was going to end up at. Travis's biggest asset is his ability to cause match up problems plating the 3 and the 4. Also like a Jerome Kersey he relies on his athletic ability. In 4 to 5 yeras from now Travis might be already on the downside. *As opposed to Martel, he has a skill that can keep him in the league for many more years.* Walter Davis is someone who comes to mind right off the top of my head. Steve Smith, who else ??


But wait, Websters talent of shooting the ball is actually worse than Outlaws. They are both good shooters and Outlaw is better. Both need a lot of work on the defensive end, I would say equal, but my guess is that you disagree with me here. It is hard to prove with stats, but my guess is you think Matell is a better defender. 



> Now, just my crazy opinion but Danny Granger is loved by KP and probably the rest of the league. I think Martel can be in a few years something close to Granger, who knows. I think Granger is a stud, but why trade away multiple peices when we may have someone on our roster now. Patience, patience..........


I do not think that Martell has it in him to be as good as Granger. Both will keep improving, but Granger is already so much better that I don't see Webster or Outlaw ever getting even with him. It's possible, I just don't see it. 



> KP gave us all the Betty Crocker i wanna bake a cake speach and what he wants to do. I hope he sticks with his plan and waits a year so when we have our cap flexability he can go out and get that icing he is talking about. I think he has to see how Rudy, Roy and Martel play together as well as Oden and LA.


The problem is that we have so many decent players and they simply can't all get playing time. With the addition of Oden and Rudy, not to mention #13, a lot of our players will see greatly reduced roles. If this happens, two negatives can happen. 1) chemistry is harmed because people want to play, and in some cases need to play to prove themselves and make their future contracts. Too many cooks in the kitchen. 2) The players that lose playing time will also see a decrease in their value, so at the end of the year, we will not be able to get nearly as much for the same players. 



> If he gets impatient and deals young talent for a experinced PG this summer i will be pissed.


For me, it depends on the quality of the player. If he trades for an experienced player with years left on them and that player is high quality (Calderon, Harris) than I will be happy. If he trades them for an over the hill player (Kidd, Miller) I will be pissed. 


> Outlaw, Jack, Raef, # 13, are the only assets i wouldn't be to pissed if he gave away this summer for a Calderon, Conley jr, Andre Miller, Russel Westbrook. As much as everyone talks about the need for a PG, realisticaly BRoy is gonna have the ball in his hands in the 4th Q. Also, Rudy has great handles and his assist totals in ACB tells me he is unselfish and like Barret said last night on courtside, Rudy could also play some PG. One more year of Blake at the point is not going to kill us. You never know but i doubt we challange for Hardware next year anyway.
> 
> What do you think Denver feels about not having Blake on that dysfunctional team this year in the playoffs ??? Karl was not happy at the start of the year when he lost Blake and i think after watching the Laker series we all know why now. Blake is not chopped liver and if we get a franchise type PG i hope we keep Blake. The guy gets no credit and that is a shame. He does everything coach asks of him and wants to be in Portland. Wow a FA that wants to be in Portland?? I thought nobody wants to come here through free agency.
> 
> PATIENCE


Well, I think you and i agree on most of this final part, don't trade just to trade, don't trade for an over the hill player and such. And I also agree that although I would prefer to make a trade for an upgrade at PG (young as well) It would not be the end of the world if we went another year with Blake. The only real part I differ on is the players I would be willing to trade. I would rather keep Outlaw over Webster, but I would have both on the block, and I would certainly have Jones, Frye, Joel added to Jack, Raef et al. Basically, anyone but the big three is on the block if the return is great enough. But don't trade them for crack.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

This courtside just popped up on my itunes, so if anyone missed it, go get it now.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

GOD said:


> This courtside just popped up on my itunes, so if anyone missed it, go get it now.


 Go get it from where please?


----------



## Stay Blazed (May 5, 2008)

graybeard said:


> Go get it from where please?


iTunes


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Stay Blazed said:


> iTunes


 Thanks for that pearl of information. Now where the hell is iTunes?


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

graybeard said:


> Thanks for that pearl of information. Now where the hell is iTunes?


Download iTunes, install, then search in the iTune store for "Portland Trail blazers."

http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

You can also download it directly from the Blazer site scroll down

you do not need itunes


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

GOD said:


> But wait, Websters talent of shooting the ball is actually worse than Outlaws. They are both good shooters and Outlaw is better. Both need a lot of work on the defensive end, I would say equal, but my guess is that you disagree with me here. It is hard to prove with stats, but my guess is you think Matell is a better defender.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2008.html

Shooting stats 07-08 Season

FG%: Martell: 42%; Travis: 43%
3pt%: Martell: 39%; Travis: 40%
FT%: Martell: 74%; Travis: 74%
End of deceptive stats.

True Shooting Percentage gives credit for getting to the line:
TS%: Martell: 55%; Travis 50%

Effective Field Goal Percentage adjust for 3 pt shots being worth 50% more points.
eFG%: Martel: 52%; Travis 45%

So, Martell and Travis has (more or less) identical shooting percentages from the field, the 3pt line and the free throw line.

Yet, Martell is a more efficient scorer. Why? He draws more fouls, and he takes more 3 point shots.

Travis, has a strange game. He takes a ton of pull-up jumpers a step or two inside the 3pt line. That is a good skill to have. Having a player who can find a hole in the defense and get a shot off is helpful. But, if too many of your shots are long 2 pointers, that is bad news in the long run.

Note, I am not saying that Martell is anything great. Just, that as a complimentary type player, he has a better, more varied, more effiecient offensive game right now. Martell's numbers are not super deluxe right now, as much as Travis has weak offensive numbers. He has become pretty overrated by a lot of Blazer fans. A couple of game winning shots and several hot 4th quarters do a lot to erase the memory of a mixed season.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea, Martell takes a lot more 3 point shots than Outlaw (317 to 101). So the fact that Travis only has a 1% higher FG% isn't that big of a deal, imo. 

They both have their roles on the team, and both do them well.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Kenny Vance saying Nate won't be the coach long term sure is speculating. He has no inside info. It's no different then me going on there and saying the same thing. It's his opinion. *I remember Vance on 1520 AM back in the day!* Wasn't a big fan, but it's gonna' beat what we've had over on the fan.


Remember when Kenny and Colin Cowherd shared a show?

That was good radio until Vance blew up on-air and basically was shoved out the door not too long after that show.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Masbee said:


> http://www.basketball-reference.com...ade value in comparison to their value to us?


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Thanks guys for helping me get the download, you're awesome.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

gogreen said:


> With Oden, LA, Pryz all having injury concerns i think Frye is our most important bench player. Frye showed in the last bit of the season and of course his rookie year that he is a keeper. If Brook Lopez projects as a top 5 pick, no thanks. I would not trade Frye for Lopez straight up this year.
> 
> IF Nate can get Martel to work on his defense and Martel becomes a good defender, there is no way i would trade Martel. He has a pure stroke that you can't teach and for God's sake, he is 21 years old. Martel has star potential and we have seen nowhere near his ceiling...
> 
> ...


I completely agree. I think that between the three of Martell, Outlaw, and Frye one of them has to go to leave any playing time left for the others. I like them all a lot, especially personality wise they all seem to be favorites in the locker room, and they all made strides in what they contribute on the court this year, which makes it tough. But I really think Webster and Frye are better complimentary pieces than Outlaw will be. Established teams needing a third option to inject life in them and can go to in iso would love and could use Travis bigtime (Phoenix, San Antonio, and Dallas come to mind). He is a match-up problem, he is entertaining, and at times is unstoppable. However, he doesn't consistently stretch the floor, swing the ball around, and stick with his guy on defense. I really think that next to Brandon, Lamarcus, and Oden, we need more players who will move without the ball and do the dirty work while being good shooters. Say what you will about percentages but Travis shot a lot when hot, and didn't do much else when he wasn't, Martell consistently shot and will develop into the better shooter. Frye was brought in to be the foil to Oden and Pryzbilla, and hasn't gotten the chance to really show what he does best yet. To top it all off, Outlaw has by far the best value of the three and will return the most in a trade.



gogreen said:


> Outlaw, Jack, Raef, # 13, are the only assets i wouldn't be to pissed if he gave away this summer for a Calderon, Conley jr, Andre Miller, Russel Westbrook. As much as everyone talks about the need for a PG, realisticaly BRoy is gonna have the ball in his hands in the 4th Q. Also, Rudy has great handles and his assist totals in ACB tells me he is unselfish and like Barret said last night on courtside, Rudy could also play some PG. One more year of Blake at the point is not going to kill us. You never know but i doubt we challange for Hardware next year anyway.


I totally agree with you about the assets I would move. We don't need more youth and already have two rookies that will be playing minutes next year (Oden, Rudy), Jack is expendable with Rudy in the picture (and may need to go for Rudy to come over), Raef's contract is an asset, and I already explained why I would trade Travis. But I disagree with you about not needing vets, now while next year will be a development year, we still need vets to instill a sense of urgency and challenge our guys to step up. I really think a balance is necessary, look at what Miller did in Philly this year? While deferring to Iggy and letting him develop and not needing to log heavy minutes. He'd also be in a contract year so we wouldn't need to worry about planning the future around him, or him not playing hard. If we could somehow consolidate our pick, Jack, and Blake for a good PG it'd be awesome as far as minutes for Rudy and a streamlined development plan. The type of player I'd want is an unselfish vet PG who does want to "win now", can push the break better than Blake or Jack (who can't), and will pound it into our bigs. 

I really think a bunch of comptetive youngsters with Andre Miller, James Jones, and Joel Pryzbilla to push them is ideal if you ask me.

I think you try to take
Jack/Raef/pick and turn it into either a PG or SF

and then you take
Blake/Outlaw and try to turn it into either a PG or SF


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

GOD said:


> I do not think that Martell has it in him to be as good as Granger. Both will keep improving, but Granger is already so much better that I don't see Webster or Outlaw ever getting even with him. It's possible, I just don't see it.


Webster is 21, Granger is 25.
nuff said


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Webster is 21, Granger is 25.
> nuff said


What the hell? I'm sorry, but your logic is just wrong. You can't say X player will become as good as Y player just because X player is younger. It just doesn't work that way. Otherwise, we'd have a league full of superstars. Channing Frye will probably never be as good as Dirk Nowitzky, Brandon Roy will probably never be as good as Kobe Bryant. Same goes for Webster/Granger. Like GOD said, it COULD happen, but it's highly unlikely.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Webster is 21, Granger is 25.
> *nuff said*


I don't agree. Web has been in the league for three years, and will continue to improve, but this was his third year and that is more important than raw age alone. Granger was in the same draft class. I agree that because of his age, Web will improve proportionately a little more than Granger, but I doubt that it will ever be enough to reach him. I don't think there are stats that can prove this one way or another, just my belief. I respect your belief, I just don't agree. 

Just cause Josh McRoberts is 21 and Boozer is 26 does not mean that McRoberts will ever be as good as Boozer.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Masbee said:


> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2008.html
> 
> Shooting stats 07-08 Season
> 
> ...


When we are talking about an ability to shoot, then free throws are a different skill. True, Web is better at drawing fouls. Outlaw also gets more rebounds, assists, blocks and steals. My point was to dispute that Web was a better shooter. In truth, they are very close.


> Effective Field Goal Percentage adjust for 3 pt shots being worth 50% more points.
> eFG%: Martel: 52%; Travis 45%


They have very different roles on the team. Web is expected to sit on the outside and wait for the open shot. Outlaw is asked to penetrate and actually take harder shots. Without people causing havoc like Roy, Outlaw and even Jack, Web would not get the open looks he gets. Visa versa, without Web, Jones, Blake and Outlaw to a lesser degree shooting well from the arc, the others would not have the space to operate on the inside.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

GOD said:


> They have very different roles on the team. Web is expected to sit on the outside and wait for the open shot. *Outlaw is asked to penetrate and actually take harder shots.* Without people causing havoc like Roy, Outlaw and even Jack, Web would not get the open looks he gets. Visa versa, without Web, Jones, Blake and Outlaw to a lesser degree shooting well from the arc, the others would not have the space to operate on the inside.


Eh, I don't really agree with this. I doubt he's "asked" to do this. He just tends to go iso, no matter whats happening. Most of Outlaws points come from long jumpers, and he takes a bunch of bad shots. He'd actually be a better player if he passes up his bad shots.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> What the hell? I'm sorry, but your logic is just wrong. You can't say X player will become as good as Y player just because X player is younger. It just doesn't work that way. Otherwise, we'd have a league full of superstars. Channing Frye will probably never be as good as Dirk Nowitzky, Brandon Roy will probably never be as good as Kobe Bryant. Same goes for Webster/Granger. Like GOD said, it COULD happen, but it's highly unlikely.


I wasn't saying he is or will be as good. I was saying you're rediculous for writing off his ability as a 21 year old and acting like he's maxed out since he's been in the league three years, that's rediculous. Brandon wasn't that good as a junior in college (remember) on a NateRob dominated team when he was 21 if you remember. Martell has the athletic ability and beautiful jumper, he needs to learn nuances and game flow better. His career path will follow Rashard Lewis with better defense. And is Granger really that much of a superstar? He didn't make the playoffs, in the east, as a 25 year old supposed star. I agree he's better than Martell now, but I think that a role playing athletic 3 with a beautiful jumper fits with Oden, Roy, and Aldridge almost perfectly.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> I wasn't saying he is or will be as good. I was saying you're rediculous for writing off his ability as a 21 year old and acting like he's maxed out since he's been in the league three years, that's rediculous. Brandon wasn't that good as a junior in college (remember) on a NateRob dominated team when he was 21 if you remember. Martell has the athletic ability and beautiful jumper, he needs to learn nuances and game flow better. His career path will follow Rashard Lewis with better defense. And is Granger really that much of a superstar? He didn't make the playoffs, in the east, as a 25 year old supposed star. I agree he's better than Martell now, but I think that a role playing athletic 3 with a beautiful jumper fits with Oden, Roy, and Aldridge almost perfectly.


You do realize that Granger has a better 3pt shot than webster, and he has taken more of the shots, and he is better at most other things as well.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

You do realize that:

he had college seasoning where he learned to be 'the man' with plays ran for him
he is the focal point of his teams offense
he is four years older than Martell


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> You do realize that:
> 
> he had college seasoning where he learned to be 'the man' with plays ran for him
> he is the focal point of his teams offense
> he is four years older than Martell


Yes, I was just responding to you thinking that Web would be a great match with the big three. I was just saying, that at least for now (and I think forever most likely) Martell is worse at just about everything. So if Web would be a good match, imagine how much better Granger would be. Now if you really believe that Webs will be better, then we disagree and there is not much that either of us can say to convince the other.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

GOD said:


> Yes, I was just responding to you thinking that Web would be a great match with the big three. I was just saying, that at least for now (and I think forever most likely) Martell is worse at just about everything. So if Web would be a good match, imagine how much better Granger would be. Now if you really believe that Webs will be better, then we disagree and there is not much that either of us can say to convince the other.


I think you're writing him off very very early in his career. Compare current Webster with college junior Granger is what I'm saying. I think Webster has the athletic ability and potential of Granger, but I haven't seen Granger play much. If Granger is better at creating his own shot that's fine, I'm just saying we don't need more players who can do that necessarily.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> I think you're writing him off very very early in his career. Compare current Webster with college junior Granger is what I'm saying. I think Webster has the athletic ability and potential of Granger, but I haven't seen Granger play much. If Granger is better at creating his own shot that's fine, I'm just saying we don't need more players who can do that necessarily.


Believe it or not, I am not writing him off. I don't want to dump Webster, I like him and think he will be a decent player with the potential to be a good starter (not great) down the road. I am just not opposed to trading him, or Outlaw, or most other players not named Roy, Oden, Aldridge or Rudy. If a good upgrade is not available this offseason, I would be perfectly happy keeping the players we already have. But I do realize, that you have to give up quality to get a good player. And I would like to upgrade both PG and SF, but mostly PG.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

PapaG said:


> Remember when Kenny and Colin Cowherd shared a show?
> 
> That was good radio until Vance *blew up on-air *and basically was shoved out the door not too long after that show.


Which of the 3 do you mean: 1) He got fatter (if that is possible), 2) He got more popular than Cowherd and was too much of a threat or they couldn't pay him what he was worth, or 3) He got into a heated argument? I never heard why they got rid of Vance, so I actually would like to know the answer.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Masbee said:


> True Shooting Percentage gives credit for getting to the line:
> TS%: Martell: 55%; Travis 50%
> 
> Effective Field Goal Percentage adjust for 3 pt shots being worth 50% more points.
> ...


Huh? Martell shot 166 FTs last season; Outlaw shot 294. Webster averaged 28 mpg; Outlaw averaged 26 mpg.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

PapaG said:


> Huh? Martell shot 166 FTs last season; Outlaw shot 294. Webster averaged 28 mpg; Outlaw averaged 26 mpg.
> 
> Am I missing something here?


WOW, Great point. I guess the only reason that his TS% would be higher is that he scores less but shoots a higher percentage of his shots from three. Just to show the raw data and make things more obvious, I will compare all the shooting stats.

----Webster/Outlaw
mpg: 28.4 / 26.0 Advantage Webster

FGA 656 / 964 Advantage Outlaw
FGM 277 / 417 Advantage Outlaw
FG% .422 / .433 Advantage Outlaw

3ptA 317 / 101 Advantage Webster
3ptM 123 / 40 Advantage Webster
3pt% .388 / .396 Advantage Outlaw

FTA 166 / 294 Advantage Outlaw
FTM 122 / 218 Advantage Outlaw
FT% .735 / .742 Advantage Outlaw

The raw data really shows the truth.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

While that's nice and all with the stats, I think there was a reason they pretty much split the minutes last season. They were pretty much equal, with Travis being able to create his own shot a little more. Few players improve much after a certain point of their career. Chances are that Travis is closer to that time than Martell is, just because of age and experience. Nobody can say what will happen, but I have to guess that the coaches and GM have a much better idea than any of us do.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

They had different roles on the team. Outlaw was a spark off the bench. His job was to come in and shoot and score, and really did a good job imo. I hope he is back with us next year.

Webster started and played with better players. His job was to play defense and hit open shots when given the opportunity (took most 3s on our team).

They both did well. Outlaw is a better scorer and possibly a better mid-range jump shooter, but not a better 3pt shooter, imo. 

I also like Webster's on-ball defense better.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> They had different roles on the team. Outlaw was a spark off the bench. His job was to come in and shoot and score, and really did a good job imo. I hope he is back with us next year.
> 
> Webster started and played with better players. His job was to play defense and hit open shots when given the opportunity (took most 3s on our team).
> 
> ...


Webster was a more prolific 3pt shooter, but I don't think he can be called a better 3pt shooter when he shot worse. It's not like Outlaw only shot 20 3pters so the sample size is too small, he shot 101 3pters which is more than enough to trust his percentages. And remember the two years before, there was always talk about how in practice Outlaw was the best shooter on the team, but it just never showed up in games. Now it's showing up in games. Personally, I think that Outlaw could more easily take Websters role than Webster could take Outlaws role. 

I will say that I agree that Web has more room to improve for two reasons. 1) younger and two fewer years experience. 2) higher bball IQ. 

But I disagree that at this moment they are equal. I think that right now, Outlaw is the better player. Web may be better in the future, but he may fall short. I like both players and actually don't think that an upgrade at SF is needed. But, I do think that an upgrade at PG is needed, and likely one of either Web or Outlaw will be needed to make that upgrade happen. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Notice the IMO in my quote.

He shot 1% better with shooting more than 200 3 pointers less...

And IDK who i think it better. I think Webster is better as a starter, but Outlaw is better off the bench. I couldn't really say who is overall better as they play a lot different and its too close to make that assumption for the overall game, imo. 

I think webster is better on ball defense and Outlaw help and rotate defense. I think Webster is a better 3 point shooter and outlaw a better 2 point shooter. I think Outlaw is better at getting to the rim, and gettin' to the line, and creating his own shot, but i think that Webster is a better compliment to our guys, and might have more potential. *shrug*

But if somebody put a gun to my head and told me to choose one (lol) i'd say Outlaw is better.



> I like both players and actually don't think that an upgrade at SF is needed


Nice man! Same here for the most part. Unless a (unlikely) scenerio came up where we could land somebody like Iguodala or Deng for a good price, but that won't happen. I really like Webs as our starting SF and Outlaw as our 6th/7th man!


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

PapaG said:


> Huh? Martell shot 166 FTs last season; Outlaw shot 294. Webster averaged 28 mpg; Outlaw averaged 26 mpg.
> 
> Am I missing something here?


Good call. I just assumed since the TS% was higher for Webster, he got to the line more often. But no. All of it comes from taking and making more 3 point shots. Interesting. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

GOD said:


> Webster was a more prolific 3pt shooter, but I don't think he can be called a better 3pt shooter when he shot worse. *It's not like Outlaw only shot 20 3pters so the sample size is too small, he shot 101 3pters which is more than enough to trust his percentages. * And remember the two years before, there was always talk about how in practice Outlaw was the best shooter on the team, but it just never showed up in games. Now it's showing up in games. Personally, I think that Outlaw could more easily take Websters role than Webster could take Outlaws role.
> 
> I will say that I agree that Web has more room to improve for two reasons. 1) younger and two fewer years experience. 2) higher bball IQ.
> 
> ...


Actually according to the NBA it's not the number of attempts, but the number of FGs made for whether or not a player has a big enough sample size. For 3pters a player needs at least 55 made 3pters in the regular season to be qualified, or else they aren't listed on the 3pt shooting percentage leader board. Martell is ranked 44th with his 38.8%, but Outlaw had to small of a sample size to qualify with only 40 made 3pters, so he isn't listed at all.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...itScope=GAME&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Good call. I just assumed since the TS% was higher for Webster, he got to the line more often. But no. All of it comes from taking and making more 3 point shots. Interesting. Thanks for the correction.


I agree with the rest of your post in that it did point out how different both players are offensively. It does seem that TS% rewards three-points shooting volume at an extreme level. James Jones was the team leader in that category at over 61%. Really, if comparing players, a case should be made that for their role, James Jones should be starting over Martell Webster, at least using TS% as the comparison for offensive efficiency.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think it's important not to value any specific metric too highly. But, the one that does seem to me to be the best, is PER, although it too has flaws. According to PER, Jack would be better than Blake, but I think that at least 90% of the posters here would disagree with that contention. 
PER for the Blazers
EFF is another metric I look at sometimes, but it seems to be off the mark a lot. Like Roy this year had the 44th highest EFF, two ahead of Zach Randolph. 
league EFF


----------

