# am i the only one that doesnt want to resign outlaw



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

I love his spark off the bench but im tired of his peanut-sized brain....id love to see udoka re-signed and have webster play 3 or draft a 3...


thoughts


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Travis is far better than Martell and will be far better than Ime in another year or 2.

Personally, I'd like to keep all 3 and don't see any reason why we wouldn't.

I think the dummy knock is an unfair one of which there is little evidence to support.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

id rather have ime than either of them at this point.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

like maris said, no point in getting rid of any of them, barring the team drafting Durant and needing the room.

I won't be upset if they don't resign travis or trade him (although I think he'll be a good role player).


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The nice thing about Outlaw is, we can see who falls to us in the draft before making a decision on him.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Hap said:


> like maris said, no point in getting rid of any of them, barring the team drafting Durant and needing the room.
> 
> I won't be upset if they don't resign travis or trade him (although I think he'll be a good role player).


or thaddeus young


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I think the dummy knock is an unfair one of which there is little evidence to support.


From people I've spoken to who have seen practices and who indirectly know Travis, the "dummy knock", while a little harsh, is evident. He is the object of repeated instructions from McMillan during practices. He went pro in large part because he couldn't get into a college with a basketball program due to his poor grades and test scores. His heart is in the right place, and he has unbelievable physical gifts, his confidence is growing, but his development has been limited by his slow acquisition of NBA basketball concepts. 

Do I think the Blazers should re-sign him? Yes, but it's a close call. Here's my ranking from the most important players to keep (#1 being highest), on down: 

1.) Aldridge
2.) Roy
3.) Rodriguez
4.) Jack
5.) Randolph
6.) Webster
7.) Udoka
8.) Outlaw
9.) Przybilla (sorry, Joel, but the knee has me worried)
10.) Jones 
11.) Dickau
12.) LaFrentz
13.) Magloire

and on and on until finally 

14578.) Darius Miles

Of course, a list like this is entirely contingent on what the Blazers were offered in exchange.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

So long as they don't overpay, I see no reason to let him go for nothing...

The more solid players with reasonable contracts we have, the more flexibility in trades.

Besides, he's a solid player who can continue to play a large role in the team's success off the bench.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Public Defender said:


> From people I've spoken to who have seen practices and who indirectly know Travis, the "dummy knock", while a little harsh, is evident. He is the object of repeated instructions from McMillan during practices. He went pro in large part because he couldn't get into a college with a basketball program due to his poor grades and test scores. His heart is in the right place, and he has unbelievable physical gifts, his confidence is growing, but his development has been limited by his slow acquisition of NBA basketball concepts.
> 
> Do I think the Blazers should re-sign him? Yes, but it's a close call. Here's my ranking from the most important players to keep (#1 being highest), on down:
> 
> ...


That list has to be a joke. Jack at #4??????? MAYBE #8...hes nothing special I'd put him at about #9 or 10


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

c_note said:


> That list has to be a joke. Jack at #4??????? MAYBE #8...hes nothing special I'd put him at about #9 or 10


Yeah, Jack might be a little high, but I'm not going to put him as low as #8. Webster, Randolph, and Jack I see as all key pieces to the puzzle - or else should only be traded if something really good comes in return. But those three I see as clearly more valuable than Outlaw or Udoka, for instance.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Travis is definitly not worth the 5 mil MLE many teams out there would be willing to offer him. I think it would be advantageous to re-sign him though, simply to use as trade-bait. I'm not sure if his 'stock' was as high as in years past but if we could package him to get a guy like LaFlimsy off the books, or package him with sluggie slug.

They should offer him a modernate contract...perhaps a 3 year deal just 'in case' he ever gets his act together. But if someone else comes and offers him lavish deal, we should not match.

In my mind, Travis Outlaw will be never been more than a Ruben Patterson type player...with Ruben Patterson being the better player.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think 3 years, $12M would be a good deal.

Or 4 years, $15M.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Travis has taken a very long time to develop, but he was a #22 pick out of high school, he's right where he should be. Most of his playing time is positive at this point, and I don't think he's been that erratic this year, not really screwing anything up, other than one lay up. He's fine with coming off the bench, won't need a ton of money, and extremely versatile while being athletic. That's exactly who you want as your 6 or 7th man! Travis has the potential to be a game changer on defense with his very good blocking ability and many times he's had a good game and been in at the end. It's just a confidence and agressiveness thing, but this year we have seen him do some awesome stuff like go toe to toe with KG and come out on top. With his still massive potential and humble personality he's perfect for our bench. Or would you rather draft someone who will also take a while to develop and have the same talent as Travis but be gunning for starter minutes? No team harmony in that.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I think Travis fits well with this team and could serve a valuable role. He brings energy off the bench and can get up and down the court with the second unit. He provides solid help defense (I know, and often needs help on defense) and jumps around enough to disrupt opposing player's shots. He is young and has yet to reach his potential (I know, he may never reach it).

Overall, Travis is young, athletic, a good kid, and can contribute to he second unit. I just hope other teams aren't going to overpay him based on a glimpse of his athletic ability.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Outlaw is fine at the right price. He clearly is a slow learner. On a per minute basis, I don't think his numbers have improved this year over last year (just by glancing at the stats -- does anyone have his PER numbers?). In other words, he looks less lost, but the numbers don't reflect it.

iWatas


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I think that Travis has had more then a chance to prove he is ever going to become a consistent player. He has not. I honestly don't understand why so many fans are stuck on players who really are not that good. The flat out fact is, that the reason the Blazers are not good, is because of the inconsistent play of some member of the team, and some of those guys really have not shown improvement over the last few seasons. Travis is one of them. For a guy that is athletic as he is, he is uncoordinated, has small hands, lacks the ability to finish in traffic, and is stuck on shooting a very erratic outside jumper. He gets hammered on the inside rebounding, and about the only positive side of his game is defensively he makes some plays on the weak side, and has some length to bother some guys. Guys as good as him if not better are a dime a dozen on the free agent market.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Outlaw is fine at the right price. He clearly is a slow learner. On a per minute basis, I don't think his numbers have improved this year over last year (just by glancing at the stats -- does anyone have his PER numbers?). In other words, he looks less lost, but the numbers don't reflect it.


Doesn't the fact that he's earned more minutes reflect his improvement?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I think that Travis has had more then a chance to prove he is ever going to become a consistent player. He has not. I honestly don't understand why so many fans are stuck on players who really are not that good. The flat out fact is, that the reason the Blazers are not good, is because of the inconsistent play of some member of the team, and some of those guys really have not shown improvement over the last few seasons. Travis is one of them. For a guy that is athletic as he is, he is uncoordinated, has small hands, lacks the ability to finish in traffic, and is stuck on shooting a very erratic outside jumper. He gets hammered on the inside rebounding, and about the only positive side of his game is defensively he makes some plays on the weak side, and has some length to bother some guys. Guys as good as him if not better are a dime a dozen on the free agent market.


He's gotten better every year - if you think that he's not good enough and won't continue to improve, that's your opinion.

I think he's good enough to make a positive contribution and earn $3-4M now, and will likely continue to improve.

I disagree that players like Travis are a dime a dozen. He has his deficiencies, but I think he brings unique talents to the team.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Travis has improved a ton this year on the defensive end, to the point where that's where many of his contributions come from. The thing is a good bench player does fetch the MLE exception, and we should give it to Travis. He is 22 (23 maybe?) years old, like Brandon Roy. If Travis would've gone to college, showed athletic ability inconsistently but been good, he would have been a mid-late first like he was where we picked him. We payed him for his college experience basically, but he would be a rookie right now and if you had a rookie playing as consistently as he is now making plays like these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOxdqhvRcZs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNsS3oFpxkA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5b8YTao99U

then you'd be excited about him. Your letting a lack of patience get in the way of fair evaluation. He's a slow learner, management probably has known that for a long time, but he can provide a lot and has the potential to be a game changer on defense. On offense he'll be a role player, as he doesn't have "the man" mentality, but I think that's what you need for a young team full of guys who maybe do have that mentality. Not every guy can be a focal point of the offense, and when everyone tries to, it doesnt work. Look at the spurs, suns, mavericks, championship lakers, whoever. Not everyone can have the ball all the time, and I think sometimes young rebuilding teams make the mistake of getting as many guys who can put up points, and they all compete against each other for shots. Every team needs a guy like Outlaw to provide defense, get steals, blocks, rebounds, and chip in a few points, without calling for the ball all the time. He's worth 5-7 to me. I'd be fine with 4 yr/20 mil, or 3/16 or something like that.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

To me, this question completely depends on how much it costs to resign outlaw.

I think he's worth a few million/year, but not worth several million/year.

If a team offers him a Darius Miles type contract, then arriverderci (or however you spell that)!

If we can resign him for close to Dixon money, then all is good.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Outlaw is fine at the right price. He clearly is a slow learner. On a per minute basis, I don't think his numbers have improved this year over last year (just by glancing at the stats -- does anyone have his PER numbers?). In other words, he looks less lost, but the numbers don't reflect it.
> 
> iWatas


15.42 estimated for this season so far.
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Blazers.htm

12.9 last season.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/outlatr01.html
His first two seasons he played too few minutes to gage his stats.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Thanks, Masbee. That's good enough for me. MLE works.

iWatas


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Travis is far better than Martell and will be far better than Ime in another year or 2.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to keep all 3 and don't see any reason why we wouldn't.
> 
> I think the dummy knock is an unfair one of which there is little evidence to support.


Travis is a 4, while Ime and Martell play the 2/3. There is room for all three on the roster.

Travis needs to bulk up so he can bang more in the post.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It seems to me I am reading a bunch of post from people who don't want to see the Blazers improve.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

a player who can play 3 positions (at least in spot minutes) off of the bench and is versatile but doesn't get in the way is an incredibly valuable thing. Every good team has players like this. If Travis can bulk up a little than he will be able to bring it consistently with defense and rebounding, and his offense is a bonus, but you don't give up after developing a guy four years and seeing him improve a lot with a good attitude, and no roster issues such as playing time or demand for a starting spot, it's stupid!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

hasoos said:


> It seems to me I am reading a bunch of post from people who don't want to see the Blazers improve.


How does letting an asset go for nothing in return help the team improve?


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> How does letting an asset go for nothing in return help the team improve?


There are three main ways that a team can let a player go for nothing and improve.

1. There is a player in the rotation behind the player you're letting go that will improve given the leaving players playing time to the point where they're better than the player you've let go. Example: Back in 2000 the Blazers should have let Brian Grant leave via free agency so Jermaine O'neal could have his playing time.

2. There is another player available in free agency that you can get using the same money that you think is better than the player you're letting go.

3. You would have to overpay the player so much that it would interfere with your ability to make future transactions.

I don't think any of these situations exist with Travis. So I say re-sign him.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

If Miles comes back motivated (and matured), the only role I see for Travis on this team is as a backup for Zach. But he fits so well with this squad (in terms of youth, energy, work-ethic, character, and bonding) that I would hesistate to trade him for maybe a better (i.e., more skilled) backup for Zach.

If you can improve the team by trading Travis, then trade him. Just make sure to consider all the "intangibles" when you do. I personally don't think trading Travis will improve the team much, but I guess it depends on who you get back.

PBF


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Ime is already worn down!


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> If Miles comes back motivated (and matured),


Sorry, but the fit of laughter I just had over reading the first part of your post created such a huge reservoir of tears in my eyes that I was unable to read the rest of it.....


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

BTW, the Blazers are in a pretty good situation with Outlaw. They make him a qualifying offer which will scare off most teams from making him an offer sheet. If somebody makes him an offer that's too big (IMO, that's more than $4 million to start) then they let him walk after tying up the other team's money for a couple of weeks. If someone makes him a reasonable offer, then they simply match it (again, after tying up the other team's money for a couple of weeks). If nobody else makes him an offer, then they get to name their price. Worst case scenario is that TO signs the qualifying offer and becomes an UFA in 2008. I'd say the odds are that a better situation for the Blazers will be in place than that.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> How does letting an asset go for nothing in return help the team improve?


How is Outlaw an asset? This is just another example of the Blazer fans over valuing the players on this team. There are only a few truly talented players on the Portland roster. The rest of them stink. That is why Portland has the record they have, and why they will not improve until the talent level and basketball IQ of the team goes up. If they were actually good, then Portland would win a lot more games. 

If Portland ends up re signing a player because his one ability is to be able to touch the top of the backboard while jumping, I will be very disappointed.

Lets do a Travis Outlaw skill check:

1. Decision making - F.
2. 3 point range - F.
3. Not knowing you don't have 3 point range -F.
4. Ball handling - D.
5. Defense - B.
6. Weak side defense - B.
7. Jump shooting inside 3 point line - C.

Re-sign? If anybody else is available that is more rounded in skill and has upside, I say no way Jose!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> How is Outlaw an asset? This is just another example of the Blazer fans over valuing the players on this team. There are only a few truly talented players on the Portland roster. The rest of them stink. That is why Portland has the record they have, and why they will not improve until the talent level and basketball IQ of the team goes up. If they were actually good, then Portland would win a lot more games.
> 
> If Portland ends up re signing a player because his one ability is to be able to touch the top of the backboard while jumping, I will be very disappointed.
> 
> ...



Hasoos has hit the nail on the head twice in this thread. Outlaw has really not improved since his sophmore year IMO, he may have actually regressed a little on offense, as he seems to have no rhythm to his game what so ever.

Hasoos was actually being too generous to Outlaw. I could in no way give Outlaw anything but a D- on defense. Are you kidding? He defends the peremter like he's got cinder blocks tied to his feet. His only asset in that category is the occasional block.

Also, add a category for finishing in the paint. D. He can jump high, but can't even finish in the paint!


----------

