# What happened to Martell?



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

He only played 12 minutes? Did he get hurt? I didn't get to see the game.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well I can tell you this, after the first half, he had played about 8 minutes, and had an absolute doughnut across all categories. I don't know about you, but when a player goes out and gets absolutely no stats in 8 minutes of play, that indicates they are doing nothing out there but being a waste of oxygen.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Martell sucks. He is the most inconsistent player in the NBA, and that's including Jack. He will be a servicable player someday, but not here. 2005, what a ****ed up draft that was.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

did he get hurt? You know that's a good question ... Oh wait, you meant physically not psychologically, nevermind.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

He just wasn't playing well. Nate yanked him.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ebott said:


> He just wasn't playing well. Nate yanked him.


He needs to borrow one of Jack's uniforms. Maybe Nate will leave him in if he is sucking then.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

If you look at Martell's statistical progress this season compared to his increase in minutes, it's not a pretty picture. Compared to other high school players that panned out, his trajectory is flat in comparison.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Do you guys think Martell will be a part of the team next year? or do you think hemight be included in trading for a PG or moving up in the draft?

Rudy is comin' over also.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I think Martell becomes redundant next year since he's not really cut out to play SF, and his handles aren't good enough to play SG ... I just don't know what kind of value he'd have in a trade except some team thinking he's got "upside" or "potential"


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Bad news 

Poor Martell. I had such high hopes for him. Now I wouldn't mind if he got traded. I don't know if I am ready to give up on him yet but you guys are right. Not on this team. We are gearing up to win now. Not to develop.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Martell's cap hold is enemy #1 to the cap space plan of '09. You do the math.


----------



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

andalusian said:


> Martell's cap hold is enemy #1 to the cap space plan of '09. You do the math.


I would say the Miles contract is enemy #1. Besides, we can just let Martell walk if we wanted to in '09, and it wouldn't affect us at all. That said, my dream deal is to trade Miles and some combo of Webster/Jack/Frye for an expiring contract to free up tons of space in '09.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Webster may be the worst player in the NBA at creating his own shot. He simply cannot get a shot off unless he's wide open in the corner, or wide open somewhere else beyond the 3-pt. line. And, unfortunately, he's such an erratic shooter (ok, he's worse than "erratic") that he cannot justify his existence on the court. 

The only question is, will he develop a la Travis Outlaw? Is he worth the wait? That's probably what Pritchard spends a lot of time thinking about.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

IMO the most frustrating thing is how Martell dissappears. An example is when Roy was out. Martell was productive. Then Roy comes back, and he disappears. If the dude would just show up, score 10 to 12 points a night, I would have no problem. He just flat out dissappears, and might as well not be out on the court. To me that is just a lack of focus. Most of the time the team doesn't ask any more from him but to make open jumpers. Is that too much to ask? 

That also makes me wonder too, if perhaps playing Martell at SF is the wrong spot for him. Maybe it is Roy playing SG that is taking him off his game. If so, maybe he would be better coming off the bench at SG.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

Martell has had his opportunity this year to prove he should 
A) be our starting SF
B) be a solid contributing member of the team

We all realize we need an upgrade at SF so he has failed at A. Unfortunately, while his overall game has improved somewhat and we have seen one great performance and a few good performances, I don't think he can be considered to have succeeded at B either.

In short, he is trade bait.

Beyond Martell, I am satisfied with how KP and Nate have "evaluated" the team this year. Most of the players have received adequate opportunities to prove they deserve more playing time. It has led to disappointment and/or reduced expectations in some cases (i.e., Martell, Sergio) but it helps them to better understand their "keeper coefficient" when it comes time to look at adjusting the roster and making changes this summer.

As compared to earlier in the year, I would not be surprised to see fairly significant personnel changes this off-season. The core will likely still be there (Roy, Oden, LMA, Blake, probably Outlaw), but beyond that, I'm not betting on anyone being here next year. In fact, as Outlaw probably has one of the higher trade values of the non-core players, he may not be around next year either. I count Blake as core as I just don't see him having much trade value and I think he is a valuable asset to have around as a very solid role player (thus, he's not necessary "core" but I believe the chances of him being here next year are very high).

Gramps...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> In short, he is trade bait.


Not very enticing trade bait. If Jones is good to go I'd much rather have him and Travis getting a majority of the PT at th 3 and let Martell do his developing in practice and spot minutes. At least he's on the cheap for another year.

Unfortunately I think his problem is mostly between the ears and those problems rarely go away. 

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> I would say the Miles contract is enemy #1. Besides, we can just let Martell walk if we wanted to in '09, and it wouldn't affect us at all. That said, my dream deal is to trade Miles and some combo of Webster/Jack/Frye for an expiring contract to free up tons of space in '09.


I agree and disagree.

I consider Miles's contract an unmovable object - and there is nothing that can be done about it other than hope he retires. So, with this out of the equation, Webster's contract is enemy #1 - as it is something that can be dealt with.

Could Webster do something with himself given enough time? Maybe. Is he worth the wait? I do not know.

Since I assume that Darius is going to be around the length of his contract - Webster, Frye's and Jack's contracts are natural to be moved. The heaviest of the 3 is Webster's - and he is possibly the easiest to move as he has the most "potential" of the 3.

I will be shocked if all 3 are back here for next year. I would be really surprised if both Webster and Frye are back (Jack's contract is much smaller and until Rudy can prove he can slash and attack the rim in the NBA - I am not sure the Blazers will be ready to move him).

So - to sum it all, my bet is that when some trades are done around draft night - either Webster or Frye are included - with Webster a slightly higher possibility.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

During camp, Martell talked about how he needs to create his own shot. He's shown little to no improvement during the year. It's not surprising then that he has no midrange game. He needs to be passed the ball when he's open, which is OK, but it's not the role of an NBA starter.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

i think the part that keeps KP up at night would be when he's watching highlight tapes of Martell going off for 24 points in a quarter.

When the kid makes his shot you see why we drafted him. When he misses, well, its not pretty. The catch is whether he will stay inconsistent, or develop into an NBA sharpshooter...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Five5even said:


> i think the part that keeps KP up at night would be when he's watching highlight tapes of Martell going off for 24 points in a quarter.
> 
> When the kid makes his shot you see why we drafted him. When he misses, well, its not pretty. The catch is whether he will stay inconsistent, or develop into an NBA sharpshooter...



I think that is part of the problem. How many guys have you seen who have "developed" into an NBA sharp shooter? It just seems to me that most of the time guys who nut up and hit their shots, tend to do it from the beginning of their career at least to a good extent. 

People talk about his silky smooth shot, blah blah blah. You know what? It doesn't matter to me how ugly it is, if it goes in. Its the end result that counts. Half the problem with the Blazers right now is guy just not hitting open shots. There is no excuse. Nut up and hit your shots, and most of the Blazers "problems" go away.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I think Martell is trade bait because he has a little contract, it expires soon, and he has lots of upside. I think its possible him, Jack, Sergio, maybe frye are involved in gettin' us a SF maybe, if we decide to stick with our 1st and get someone like Westbrook. If we want to move up, i see Jack and Martell as the pieces teams would want with our 1st and 2nd to move up, if they don't need a guard, like Memphis. We will see.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I keep thinking about Travis having his breakout year when i think about Martell and that is the only thing that would hold me back from trading Martell at the end of the year. 

It's hard to pinpoint what is holding Martell back and like other have said I think it's got something to do with a head problem much like Travis used to have, however, after saying that I don't think Travis' past issues were ever anything to do with confidence, he just didn't seem to get it when it came to making the smart play, he still loses his man on defense, and has a tendency to force a shot when it might be better to pass, but the guy flat-out has confidence and great athletic ability. Martell on the other hand is probably smart enough to play the SF position and seems like a heady defender, but you can almost see him metally clutching up when he tries to drive or go for a shot; it just seems like he won't allow himself to rely on instinct, and I'm not sure there will ever be a cure for that.

Bottom line: I'll take a player like Travis that makes the occasional bone-head move, vs. the guy who over thinks and seizes up when the pressure is on.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Bottom line: I'll take a player like Travis that makes the occasional bone-head move, vs. the guy who over thinks and seizes up when the pressure is on.


Yup... thats pretty much how I'd characterize this situation though I'd add that the key to the first sort of player being effective is for him to come to terms with his game's limitations. I don't know what you can do besides hope to help a guy overcome the yips. The longer the yips persist the less likely the player snaps out of it.

STOMP


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

hasoos said:


> I think that is part of the problem. How many guys have you seen who have "developed" into an NBA sharp shooter? It just seems to me that most of the time guys who nut up and hit their shots, tend to do it from the beginning of their career at least to a good extent.
> 
> People talk about his silky smooth shot, blah blah blah. You know what? It doesn't matter to me how ugly it is, if it goes in. Its the end result that counts. Half the problem with the Blazers right now is guy just not hitting open shots. There is no excuse. Nut up and hit your shots, and most of the Blazers "problems" go away.


I agree. Some of the players considered to be the greatest shooters ever had terrible looking shots. Guys like Reggie Miller and Larry Bird. Shot mechanics are no indication of how effective the shooter is. Look at Kevin Martin. His shot looks really awkward. Yet he is one of the most efficent scorers in the game today.

Sometimes our announcing crew reaches a bit when praising a player. Talking about how pretty Martell's shot is reminds me of all of the time I heard that Cliff Robinson lead the league in 3 pointers attempted. I laughed every time they brought that up, like it was a good thing.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Freakin John Nash. Martell was a projected late 1st round pick that year, but he impressed Nash with hot shooting in a workout, so Nash traded down and took him at 6. He also said Martell reminded him of Dennis Scott. Don't know why you'd take a player in the high lotto with visions of them becoming the next Dennis Scott...but even Dennis Scott would be better than Martell.


----------



## ppilot (Jun 29, 2006)

I think Martell has one more year to show some growth. That would give him four years.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Mediocre player/prospect. He has a lot of ability but it's what's between his ears is the problem.

Oh yeah, the lack of playing time you ask? 


..maybe the 3.6 ppg on 36 fg% the last three games has something to do with it?


----------



## toutlaw25 (Aug 7, 2005)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> Beyond Martell, I am satisfied with how KP and Nate have "evaluated" the team this year. Most of the players have received adequate opportunities to prove they deserve more playing time. It has led to disappointment and/or reduced expectations in some cases (i.e., Martell, *Sergio*) but it helps them to better understand their "keeper coefficient" when it comes time to look at adjusting the roster and making changes this summer.
> 
> Gramps...


Don't kid yourself into thinking Sergio has received a fair shot at showing what he can do like Jack or Webster. The guy has seen 20 minutes of action ONE time this season. Hardly a chance to shine if you ask me.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^ a lot of it is because his turnovers, defense, and shooting ability though...


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

hasoos said:


> That also makes me wonder too, if perhaps playing Martell at SF is the wrong spot for him. Maybe it is Roy playing SG that is taking him off his game. If so, maybe he would be better coming off the bench at SG.



I think I might be okay with him coming off the bench at SG if we trade Jack. But I would rather have Jack i think. as sad as that sounds.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Martell was _not_ a Kevin Pritchard pick. He's just another John Nash blunder.


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

Yega1979 said:


> Freakin John Nash. Martell was a projected late 1st round pick that year, but he impressed Nash with hot shooting in a workout, so Nash traded down and took him at 6. He also said Martell reminded him of Dennis Scott. Don't know why you'd take a player in the high lotto with visions of them becoming the next Dennis Scott...but even Dennis Scott would be better than Martell.


All I ever needed to know about John Nash was that he thought Martell would be the next Dennis Scott and felt that was a good thing. I didn't like the pick then (I wanted either Paul or Deron) and I think it has gotten worse with age.

It could be worse, though. We could have passed on both Deron and CP3 for Bogut.:eek8:

On second thought, I would rather have Bogut.


----------



## toutlaw25 (Aug 7, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^ a lot of it is because his turnovers, defense, and shooting ability though...


Wait a second. Are you talking about Sergio or Jack? Because Jack seems to have those exact same deficiencies minus a bit better shooting touch.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

toutlaw25 said:


> Wait a second. Are you talking about Sergio or Jack? Because Jack seems to have those exact same deficiencies minus a bit better shooting touch.


You neglected to mention the biggest thing that separates Sergio from Jack.

Jack drives to the hoop, gets contact, *finishes* and draws the foul ... not too mention the fact that he's an 87% foul shooter -- that's a pretty huge difference.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

-Sonny- said:


> Martell was _not_ a Kevin Pritchard pick. He's just another John Nash blunder.


Which is why I am surprised that Martell is still here:

1) He sucked when KP took over.
2) The team isn't desperate to have a warm body at that position.
3) He still sucks.
4) He isn't KP's boy.
5) Everytime I look at him I see Chris Paul destroying the league.
6) He sucks even harder than the beginning of the season.
8) He is on a rookie deal, so contract wasn't a big issue in moving him.
7) KP doesn't owe him anything.

I argued a LONG time ago that Martell had shown so little in his NBA career to that point, that he a low chance of ever becoming anything greater than an average player. And that he had a long, tough road just to get to that point. Needless to say, I took a lot of **** for those posts among certain elements of the Blazer "all current players are great" faithful.

Early this season, he looked ready to prove me wrong with a tuned up game and a new attitude. He failed to build on that start, and he failed to sustain what he started. Though, to his credit, his defense is better, which is his ticket to staying in this league. After this lost season, it is becoming ever less likely that Martell will become a long-time, above average player.

Average can be ok. Teams need average role players. But, if a player has a recalibrated ceiling of average - they are expendable. Trade for value with a GM who thinks their ceiling is higher than average, and let them figure it out.

Unfortunately, this crap season, and the looming end of his contract, has crushed Martell's trade value IMO. He is fast hurtling toward "throw-in" status.

Sad.


----------



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

andalusian said:


> I agree and disagree.
> 
> I consider Miles's contract an unmovable object - and there is nothing that can be done about it other than hope he retires. So, with this out of the equation, Webster's contract is enemy #1 - as it is something that can be dealt with.
> 
> ...


Well, if we can't move Miles's contract (or Joel's), we aren't going to have enough cap space to sign anyone good regardless of what we do with Martell.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Wait a second. Are you talking about Sergio or Jack? Because Jack seems to have those exact same deficiencies minus a bit better shooting touch.


Jack is also a better shooter, better at free throws, and gets to the rim which him and Brandon only do, and Jack plays better defense.

Why would you want 2 of them to play if they both sucked that bad?


----------



## sportsnut1975 (Jul 6, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Martell sucks. He is the most inconsistent player in the NBA, and that's including Jack. He will be a servicable player someday, but not here. 2005, what a ****ed up draft that was.


Thank You!! Now could you please let MGB know. I have a bet with him that Martell would average 9.9 or less. He is getting there game by game. By the way, our bet is a T-Bone steak dinner at the roadhouse.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Martell was a Pritchard orchestration. BECAUSE when the draft day occured we were all praising Pritchard's ability to get Jack. Remember that video in the Blazers "War room" in which Pritch was high fiving everyone when they acquired Jack?

I provided links about a month ago regarding this. 

Anyways, I support Martell. He's fine....he is a developing player, he looks better this year than Outlaw did last year. Big deal, he's a high school player that needs to develop more...patience with him. He'll be fine.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Jarrett_Jack_Making_His_Point-203086-1218.html



> The pre-draft buzz was all about the heralded point guards. The college crop of 2005 contained three of the best point-guard prospects to enter the draft in a decade -- Paul, Deron Williams of Illinois and Felton.
> 
> Portland could have drafted any of those three since the Blazers had the third pick in the draft, but it passed on bidding in the point-guard stakes because Kevin Pritchard and his scouting staff believed that they had discovered a well-kept secret in Jarrett Jack of Georgia Tech.
> 
> Portland's scouting report showed that Jack was very close to Paul, Williams and Felton in his ability to run a team, set up plays and play defense. Trail Blazer scouts had a good book on Jack. They had seen him as a sophomore hit the game-winner in Tech's upset of North Carolina in the Atlantic Coast Conference tournament. Later, they had watched him score 29 points in the NCAA Regional Tournament in St. Louis to lead Georgia Tech to an upset overtime victory over favored Kansas. For that effort, he was named the tournament's most outstanding player.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> He needs to borrow one of Jack's uniforms. Maybe Nate will leave him in if he is sucking then.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Webster may be the worst player in the NBA at creating his own shot. He simply cannot get a shot off unless he's wide open in the corner, or wide open somewhere else beyond the 3-pt. line. And, unfortunately, he's such an erratic shooter (ok, he's worse than "erratic") that he cannot justify his existence on the court.
> 
> The only question is, will he develop a la Travis Outlaw? Is he worth the wait? That's probably what Pritchard spends a lot of time thinking about.


Almost all range shooters are relatively erratic and few of them can create their own shot. He is playing with enough playmakers. I think he is a good enough shooter as is and a good rebounder. He just drifts out of the offense. He needs to be more aggressive. He is the perfect example of a player that needs to be selfish. He is the type of player that you want looking at the box score at halftime.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> Anyways, I support Martell. He's fine....he is a developing player, he looks better this year than Outlaw did last year. Big deal, he's a high school player that needs to develop more...patience with him. He'll be fine.


The trend in his stats don't support your optimism. 

It's 3 years into Martell's career and he hasn't had a season where his FG % was as good as TO's rookie season. He's getting a ton of minutes (28 mins) and not producing at all. For a player with a reputation as a long range shooter, his FG% is stalled at a pathetic 40%. 

The only place for in the NBA for Martell is DEEP on the bench.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

We can afford to have patience with Martell as we have other players that can fill in for him. We are still a young team. We can even afford to wait it out with Jack IMO. What are we goign to get back for them?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> The trend in his stats don't support your optimism.
> 
> It's 3 years into Martell's career and he hasn't had a season where his FG % was as good as TO's rookie season. He's getting a ton of minutes (28 mins) and not producing at all. For a player with a reputation as a long range shooter, his FG% is stalled at a pathetic 40%.
> 
> The only place for in the NBA for Martell is DEEP on the bench.


Well, long range shooters generally have lower shooting percentages. Historically speaking. 

He's averaging 10ppg in his 3rd season, which is not bad. He will improve as he gets more playing time and gets more confidence.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I'm personally not too worried about Martell. I just hope that Prtichard doesn't make a dumb trade to dump him.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> Well, long range shooters generally have lower shooting percentages. Historically speaking.
> 
> He's averaging 10ppg in his 3rd season, which is not bad. He will improve as he gets more playing time and gets more confidence.


I think talent breeds confidence. I really believe that if Martell went to college he would have slipped out of the the 1st round of the draft if scouts had a look at him against non-high school competition. 

As for playing time, he's getting 7 more minutes this season and only producing 3 more points. 10ppg for a player that spent most of the year starting isn't encouraging. 

37% 3 point shooting and 41% FG shooting is frankly mediocre to say the least. Don't compound the problem of drafting a bust by refusing to cut your losses.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

cutting losses on a young player who still has potential is totally foolish. To throw him in a trade for cap reasons is fool hardy. We don't know what's going to happen with James Jones if he is indeed going to stay in town. 

We have no reason to cut our losses with Martell. 

He is looking for shots other than 3 pointers now. He is working on his game and has improved versus last season. It may still be "mediocre" but I'm willing to wait on a 21 year old player out of high school growing. He is not an NBA veteran nor is the Blazers in a real need to go out and trade him for veteran players at this time. Its simple growing pains which will take time. 



Tell me specifically how we should "cut our losses". Trade proposal for Martell? 

Again, there is absolutely NO URGENCY to trade Webster at this time. We can afford to let him develop over time.

But maybe you like to buy high and sell low.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I like Martell but I think he is on of those players with alot of talent and a good shooting touch. He just dosen't bring it everynight.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Martell was a Pritchard orchestration. BECAUSE when the draft day occured we were all praising Pritchard's ability to get Jack. Remember that video in the Blazers "War room" in which Pritch was high fiving everyone when they acquired Jack?
> 
> I provided links about a month ago regarding this.
> 
> Anyways, I support Martell. He's fine....he is a developing player, he looks better this year than Outlaw did last year. Big deal, he's a high school player that needs to develop more...patience with him. He'll be fine.


I don't think that proves that Pritchard wanted Webster. If anything it shows he wanted a point guard. I have read that he was overruled on his first choice so presumably he made a deal later in the draft to try to salvage something, and he was excited he was able to get Jack. But certainly not as excited as he would have been if the Paul pick had not been traded away.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Got proof? This is all speculative. What happened, happened and if Pritchard really had the pull even back then that he was hyped up to have (he had superior basketball knowledge to Nash and Patterson) and was the director of scouting, it should have been largely his decision. 

At the time, the Blazers had TElfair in their sights as the future PG so drafting another PG was redundant. That didn't work out, so we traded Telfair to acquire Roy, which seems to have worked out nicely.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> Got proof? This is all speculative. What happened, happened and if Pritchard really had the pull even back then that he was hyped up to have (he had superior basketball knowledge to Nash and Patterson) and was the director of scouting, it should have been largely his decision.
> 
> At the time, the Blazers had TElfair in their sights as the future PG so drafting another PG was redundant. That didn't work out, so we traded Telfair to acquire Roy, which seems to have worked out nicely.


It is well known Pritchard wanted to draft Chris Paul, and was overruled. I have heard this many times, perhaps in chats...but I will look for a link. Although I'm sure many, many posters here can back me on this.


----------



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

http://blog.oregonlive.com/johncanzano/2007/07/blazers_eyeing_chris_paul_in_s.html


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ah, reliable John Canzano. I still don't buy it. Pritchard was the guy who scouted and drafted Jack and they said they got what they wanted. To be perfectly honest, John Nash didn't have the bollocks nor Steve Patterson had the type of vision to gamble and trade like that, it wasn't his M.O. That kind of agressive draft day trading had K.P.'s signature all over it. Nash would have taken 2 years to decide to pull a move off that ballsy, then try to get approval, then think it over again. 

But I mean, if you believe that this kind of move to trade down, then draft a player like Kleiza THEN trade for Jack is more of a John Nash move than KP move, then you haven't been following KP's draft history.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> ah, reliable John Canzano. I still don't buy it. Pritchard was the guy who scouted and drafted Jack and they said they got what they wanted. To be perfectly honest, John Nash didn't have the bollocks nor Steve Patterson had the type of vision to gamble and trade like that, it wasn't his M.O. That kind of agressive draft day trading had K.P.'s signature all over it. Nash would have taken 2 years to decide to pull a move off that ballsy, then try to get approval, then think it over again.
> 
> But I mean, if you believe that this kind of move to trade down, then draft a player like Kleiza THEN trade for Jack is more of a John Nash move than KP move, then you haven't been following KP's draft history.


What is KP going to say, "I am overruled and I'm pissed!"? I followed KP's draft history, and passing over a talent like Paul doesn't sound like KP, nor does trading DOWN in a draft.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

He did trade down to acquire Jack. 


It is KP's draft history to make a lot of draft day dealings. He did this year, last year and I contend the year before. Nash has always drafted straight up.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> He did trade down to acquire Jack.
> 
> 
> It is KP's draft history to make a lot of draft day dealings. He did this year, last year and I contend the year before. Nash has always drafted straight up.


No, they traded up for Jack. But who cares? That was a minor trade compared to trading down for Martell, and my contention is KP wasn't in charge of these trades anyways. 

If you want to ignore what the media says, and just judge this on KP's history, I still don't think you have a strong case. Since he has been GM, he has been a superb talent evaluator and been extremely aggressive in trading UP in drafts. Yet, you believe that the year he wasn't GM, he was secretly in charge and decided to trade DOWN to draft Martell Webster over Chris Paul? I just don't see it.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

without trading down, they couldn't have traded up. I'm ignoring what Canzano is saying because he has shown his agenda on many occasions. I am not ignorning what media says, as I have placed an article that is more definitive than your reference:

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...5888-what-happened-martell-3.html#post5345804

But if you choose to ignore that, its up to you. This statement and the accompanying quotes is more than Pritchard just biting his lips. I find that too many people have a lot of Blind faith in Pritchard due to his great trades of getting Roy and LaMarcus in the 06 draft. Oden was dumb luck. 

At the time of the 2005 draft, this move made more sense. We already had Sebastian Telfair, who the blazers brass annointed as their PG of the future...so they wanted a shooter and Martell appeared to be that guy. By 2005, I think that John Nash and Steve Patterson were essentially dummy figures at the helm relying heavily on KP's recommendations.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I agree with Xerick, we need to be patient with Martell and give him at least one more year. When you draft a HS player you have to be willing to give him at least four years and I'm sure KP plans on doing just that.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

His low performance actually helps us as he will be cheaper to re-sign if he's happy here (ala Travis Outlaw). And who wouldn't be happy here when we have Oden and Roy and company. We all need to be patient with this team. There is no urgency to firesale guys because they had a few bad games or they're making mistakes out there.

Big whoop. If James Jones doesn't resign, having a spot shooter like Martell helps immensely. Its not like he's always going to shoot mediocre from beyond the arc...he's 21, he'll get smarter on the court with game time. He seems to be teachable, its not unfathomable that he will improve greatly.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> without trading down, they couldn't have traded up. I'm ignoring what Canzano is saying because he has shown his agenda on many occasions. I am not ignorning what media says, as I have placed an article that is more definitive than your reference:
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/port...5888-what-happened-martell-3.html#post5345804
> 
> ...


How is your article more definitive than mine? 

The Blazers brass may have thought Telfair was the future, but being that KP didn't draft him, but DID trade him away in his first year as GM makes me think he wasn't so enamored with Telfair that he would pass over Deron Williams and Chris Paul.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

> The pre-draft buzz was all about the heralded point guards. The college crop of 2005 contained three of the best point-guard prospects to enter the draft in a decade -- Paul, Deron Williams of Illinois and Felton.
> 
> Portland could have drafted any of those three since the Blazers had the third pick in the draft, but it passed on bidding in the point-guard stakes because Kevin Pritchard and his scouting staff believed that they had discovered a well-kept secret in Jarrett Jack of Georgia Tech.
> 
> Portland's scouting report showed that Jack was very close to Paul, Williams and Felton in his ability to run a team, set up plays and play defense. Trail Blazer scouts had a good book on Jack. They had seen him as a sophomore hit the game-winner in Tech's upset of North Carolina in the Atlantic Coast Conference tournament. Later, they had watched him score 29 points in the NCAA Regional Tournament in St. Louis to lead Georgia Tech to an upset overtime victory over favored Kansas. For that effort, he was named the tournament's most outstanding player.


vs. 



> Keep in mind, Blazers general manager Kevin Pritchard, who sharpening pencils in the draft room as the assistant GM three years ago, pushed hard to draft Paul over Martell Webster, but lost out.


I guess if you believe that Pritchard did nothing more than sharpen pencils in 2005 versus actively scouting Jarrett Jack and prepare indepth scouting reports with a deep file on Jack (who I recall Pritchard mentioning in a post-draft interview was their specific TARGET), then I guess you could reasonably conclude that that blog post is as definitive as the Rip City Magazine article on Blazers.com I posted.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> cutting losses on a young player who still has potential is totally foolish. To throw him in a trade for cap reasons is fool hardy. We don't know what's going to happen with James Jones if he is indeed going to stay in town.
> 
> We have no reason to cut our losses with Martell.
> 
> ...


You could have said the same things about Telfair before we traded him for Roy. I agree there is no urgency for trading Webster...but if the right deal came around, I wouldn't be upset to see him go.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Besides, the big debate amoung who the Blazer would pick was either Martell Webster, Gerarld Green or Andrew Bynum. Did CP3 or Deron even workout in Portland at all?


----------



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

Xericx said:


> vs.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you believe that Pritchard did nothing more than sharpen pencils in 2005 versus actively scouting Jarrett Jack and prepare indepth scouting reports with a deep file on Jack (who I recall Pritchard mentioning in a post-draft interview was their specific TARGET), then I guess you could reasonably conclude that that blog post is as definitive as the Rip City Magazine article on Blazers.com I posted.


I think it is quite possible that KP was high on J. Jack. KP, like any good talent evaluator, is fond of more than one player in a draft. It doesn't mean that he wasn't overruled on Paul.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> You could have said the same things about Telfair before we traded him for Roy. I agree there is no urgency for trading Webster...but if the right deal came around, I wouldn't be upset to see him go.


Sure, if we are able to trade Webster for the 5th pick in this draft or higher, I guess that would be acceptable to do. Some people are assuming we need to trade him out for some crappy scrub, which I am not ready to do at this time. 

This is a much different team than the still-in-flux team of the post-Jailblazer era. We absolutely have the pieces now, when we didn't before.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> Besides, the big debate amoung who the Blazer would pick was either Martell Webster, Gerarld Green or Andrew Bynum. Did CP3 or Deron even workout in Portland at all?


Thats the thing that got me during the time. Chris Paul was on just about all the draft experts top 3 list. Williams was on most top 5 lists. But Portland (regardless of who was in charge) wasn't even considering them. Webster, Green and Bynum were much farther down most people's lists. It drove me crazy then, and it drives me crazy now (although i am happy how things worked out). 

I still contest that Nash/Patterson, the guys who drafted Telfair the year before, still had faith in him and thus weren't interested in a PG. And that KP, the guy who traded Telfair the year after, did not, and wanted Paul.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> I think it is quite possible that KP was high on J. Jack. KP, like any good talent evaluator, is fond of more than one player in a draft. It doesn't mean that he wasn't overruled on Paul.


Canzano likes to make things up to fill in fluff on his writings. Other than that, I have never seen any indication that the blazers were even remotely close to drafting Chris Paul.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> Sure, if we are able to trade Webster for the 5th pick in this draft or higher, I guess that would be acceptable to do. Some people are assuming we need to trade him out for some crappy scrub, which I am not ready to do at this time.
> 
> This is a much different team than the still-in-flux team of the post-Jailblazer era. We absolutely have the pieces now, when we didn't before.


agreed


----------



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

Xericx said:


> Canzano likes to make things up to fill in fluff on his writings. Other than that, I have never seen any indication that the blazers were even remotely close to drafting Chris Paul.


I don't think they were remotely close, because Nash/Patterson didn't want a PG.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> Thats the thing that got me during the time. Chris Paul was on just about all the draft experts top 3 list. Williams was on most top 5 lists. But Portland (regardless of who was in charge) wasn't even considering them. Webster, Green and Bynum were much farther down most people's lists. It drove me crazy then, and it drives me crazy now (although i am happy how things worked out).
> 
> I still contest that Nash/Patterson, the guys who drafted Telfair the year before, still had faith in him and thus weren't interested in a PG. And that KP, the guy who traded Telfair the year after, did not, and wanted Paul.


It wasn't just the blazers, many fans on the boards were looking towards this direction as well in Green, Webster and a long shot in Bynum. Paul was mentioned briefly and his potential as a PG was mentioned, but at that time the Blazers didn't even have a shooting guard on the team, unless you counted Juan Dixon. So that was the pressing need...to fill the SG slot. Drafting Chris Paul or Deron Williams wouldn't have done that. 

I believe that drafting Jack was Pritchard's way of getting Telfair out of town and that is who he wanted. Drafting Webster also satiated the angry fans who were against the jailblazers era because he was a very polite, respectful guy who was from the Northwest and carried himself well. I do not agree with this kind of drafting but that was a HUGE consideration at that time. While stories about Paul and his struggles also surfaced, this was more of a feel good story at the time. The backlash of the moral fans who wanted a team of nice guys that played hard....that was the result. By getting Webster and Jack, they filled those needs.



> "It may be too soon to crown him as our point guard of the future,” said player personnel director Kevin Pritchard as the 2006-2007 season began, "but I wouldn't bet against it."


----------



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

Here's another article on KP by Casey Holdahl:

We're still trying to figure out just how large a role he had in Portland's post-Bob Whitsitt mistakes: handing big contracts to Darius Miles, Theo Ratliff and Zach Randolph; trading down to draft Martell Webster over Chris Paul; and taking Sebastian Telfair way too high in 2004. _Most signs point to Pritchard being a less-than-willing partner in former boss Steve Patterson's machinations_.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2007/06/kevin_pritchard_ninth_in_si_fi.html

Doesn't exactly prove me right beyond a shadow of a doubt, but hey, it's someone other than Canzano.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wasn't Casey Hodahl a poster on this site?


----------



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

Xericx said:


> I believe that drafting Jack was Pritchard's way of getting Telfair out of town and that is who he wanted. Drafting Webster also satiated the angry fans who were against the jailblazers era because he was a very polite, respectful guy who was from the Northwest and carried himself well. I do not agree with this kind of drafting but that was a HUGE consideration at that time. While stories about Paul and his struggles also surfaced, this was more of a feel good story at the time. The backlash of the moral fans who wanted a team of nice guys that played hard....that was the result. By getting Webster and Jack, they filled those needs.


If Pritchard wanted to draft a young PG as a way of getting Telfair out of town, why didn't he draft Paul or Williams? 

If Pritchard wanted so badly to "satiate the angry fans" and draft a "polite, respectful guy from the northwest", then why didn't he draft Adam Morrisson over Brandon Roy?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

overall, I'm still fine with Jack and Martell's contributions looking back on this draft. At the beginning of the year I wanted Jack gone..but to be honest, lately, I've liked him on this team..now and in the future. I'm fine with the team, the only one I really want traded right now is Channing Frye as we is basically a poor duplicate of LaMarcus Aldridge and I'd like to trade him for a banger-type of SF. With Oden next year though, he could be more valuable so maybe keep him. 

I'll be fine if we do not do any trading whatsoever and have this same squad next year. Maybe to get a Gerald Wallace, Richard Jefferson or Andre Igoudala I would trade Jack/Martell or hell, even Travis Outlaw if the deal was sweet enough. But there is no need to dump players at this time, to give up on them...sure, we can criticize but this "we should have drafted Chris Paul 3 years ago" crap is meh.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> If Pritchard wanted to draft a young PG as a way of getting Telfair out of town, why didn't he draft Paul or Williams?
> 
> If Pritchard wanted so badly to "satiate the angry fans" and draft a "polite, respectful guy from the northwest", then why didn't he draft Adam Morrisson over Brandon Roy?


Because we still wouldn't have filled our need at SG if we had drafted Paul or Williams. Jack is a guy he apparantly was very high on, and he worked it so the blazers got their SG as well as a PG that he raved about and heavily scouted. When we drafted Jack, there were rumblings that this was a signal that Telfair may not be in that secure of a position, if you would recall. 

And when was AMMO ever polite and respectful? And isn't Brandon Roy a polite, respectful guy from the Northwest???? I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make here.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Maybe you meant LaMarcus Aldridge.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> Because we still wouldn't have filled our need at SG if we had drafted Paul or Williams. Jack is a guy he apparantly was very high on, and he worked it so the blazers got their SG as well as a PG that he raved about and heavily scouted. When we drafted Jack, there were rumblings that this was a signal that Telfair may not be in that secure of a position, if you would recall.
> 
> And when was AMMO ever polite and respectful? And isn't Brandon Roy a polite, respectful guy from the Northwest???? I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make here.


You're the one who said he drafted Jack to get Telfair out of town, I'm saying that drafting Paul or Williams would have accomplished this much better than drafting Jack. If you recall, there was much heated debate in Blazer nation as to who was better: Telfair or Jack.

AMMO was far and away the fan's choice for the blazers. They had websites, and held rallys outside of the practice facility. I don't seem to remember such behavior for Webster. Being that KP resisted pleasing the fans with that kind of pressure, I doubt he drafted Webster as a P.R. move.

Finally, check this article out:

_Kevin Pritchard is talking about the team's draft list, and he says they've got between five and seven players they really like in this draft.

Question from Mike Rice to Pritchard: Would the Blazers take a center (Andrew Bogut) or a point guard (Chris Paul) if one of those players were available to the team, despite the fact those aren't positions the Blazers need to fill?

Prichard says you hit a home run with guys like Bogut or Paul, and if that caliber of player is available to the team, they'll take him regardless of position._

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_blazerblog/archives/print062322.html


I don't see how it can get any clearer than this...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

this interview was done even before pre-draft workouts and the usual scouting and comparisons. it was taken immediately after the blazers were assured of the 3rd pick. but i guess if you ignore the pre-draft workouts and base your whole theory based on a mike rice interview taken moments after learning they had the 3rd pick in the draft, then I guess its "crystal clear" then.


----------



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

Xericx said:


> this interview was done even before pre-draft workouts and the usual scouting and comparisons. it was taken immediately after the blazers were assured of the 3rd pick. but i guess if you ignore the pre-draft workouts and base your whole theory based on a mike rice interview taken moments after learning they had the 3rd pick in the draft, then I guess its "crystal clear" then.


By all accounts, Durant was more impressive than Oden in their pre-draft workouts, yet KP still went with Oden. 

C'mon, it's a quote FROM KP saying he wouldn't pass on Chris Paul, regardless of need, and you think that Martell blew his mind so much when he worked out (even though he was a mid first rounder on most everyone else's board) that KP changed his mind? You actually think THAT is more likely than our actual GM at the time disagreeing with him and overruling him? And you believe this while also choosing to ignore articles saying KP was, in fact, overruled? I don't know what else I can do to convince you at this point, and being that I have to get some sleep... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Talk to ya later.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Did CP3 even work out with the Blazers? I don't think that it was a unilateral KP decision but he did have a big input in what transpired that day.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Random thought on this topic: wasn't it Blake, Roy, and Jack's job to get their starting SF involved in the offense in this last game? They were the ball handlers. They should've gotten Webster some opportunities. Just a random thought passing through my head as I beat the Suns on my PS3.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx, I think you are quite right about no need to dump Martell. To my eye he has improved greatly this year, particularly on the defensive end. He is a much better overall player this year than last. He is not forcing shots, thus he sometimes doesn't score many. The flip side is, he isn't playing selfish ball. He is willing to work within the offense. If he works over the summer and improves as much next year as this, I think most here will be happy that he is a Blazer.

By media reporting (not worth it to me to look up and cite them, but I suspect others here will recall) Nash directly over-ruled Warkentein by taking Telfair over Al Jefferson. A few weeks later, Warkentein left for another job. 

By my old man speculation, Nash (maybe Patterson too) was then "on the line" for Telfair. He had placed his judgment as being superior to that of the scouting staff, making him accountable for Telfair. He had much incentive, a year later, to continue backing Telfair. KP was in his first year, and I would guess, not really in a position to be forcing Nash to make any picks. He could make his thinking known, but I strongly doubt he had enough of a back door to Paul A to be throwing his weight around. Besides, his basketball judgment probably already told him that Telfair wouldn't be a star soon. By waiting a bit he was more likely to get Nash's job. It would have been really ideal for him to let Nash make another poor judgment, that KP was not asssociated with.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> He needs to borrow one of Jack's uniforms. Maybe Nate will leave him in if he is sucking then.


Impressive. A dig at Nate AND Jarrett in one breath.

PBF


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Xericx said:


> Sure, if we are able to *trade Webster for the 5th pick in this draft or higher*, I guess that would be acceptable to do. Some people are assuming we need to trade him out for some crappy scrub, which I am not ready to do at this time.


any gm who would trade a 5th pick or higher for webster should be fired on the spot. webster was a huge reach then as a 6th pick, and he's proven he wasn't worth the 6th pick. hell, i'd be giddy if we could get a pick mid to lower first round for webster.

i'm sick of people that say we shouldn't dump such and such. it's not about dumping players when you trade them. dumping would be cutting or waiving. you have to give value to get something of value. i think webster's value is a mid to lower first round pick.

i said before that i thought webster's likely potential is that of george mccloud. earlier this year i thought his potential might be a little higher, but right now he's back on track to be george mccloud. which is not bad. mccloud was a fine role player off the bench for a few years in phoenix. i'd be ok with webster being a productive player off the bench for a title contending team.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/george_mccloud/

Averaged 18 ppg as a starter for Dallas. Dude also had 22 assists in a game once.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

ZackAddy said:


> Mcleod


thank you. that's the correct spelling of his name.

EDIT: ah, so i DID spelled his name correctly!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> thank you. that's the correct spelling of his name.
> 
> EDIT: ah, so i DID spelled his name correctly!


Yes. You were right. Mcleod played in the 50s. McCloud played in the 90s.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

long thread

as to if KP wanted Chris Paul and was over-ruled. The 'reporting' on this was more then just Canzano after the fact. Jason Quick and Brian Hendrickson definitely wrote about it, and I'm pretty sure Kerry Eggars did as well. Trading from 3 down to 6 and 22 was a Nash decision. KP though Paul was the BPA, and this decision was cited as one of the 'causes' of Nash's "resignation". Whether or not the reporting was accurate or came from a single source is really unknown.

As to Webster...he hasn't really improved in any significant fashion over the course of his career. *On a per40 basis he is actually scoring less this season then his rookie season*. His rebounds are up around 0.5/game per40.

And what was supposed to be his strength: shooting, is inconsistent and that's being kind. 40% shooting over a 3 year stint is a pretty good indicator of where he'll always be. His True Sooting % is actually less this season then it was as a rookie.

He has improved on the defensive end as far as man-to-man defense. His help defense still has holes though.

Normally, a 21 year old might be worth another year of 'audition', but the conflict between the mandates of his rookie scale contract and portland's often stated 2009 cap-space plan may force the decision. If Portland doesn't extend his contract this summer, or trade him before next feb's deadline, Martell's cap-hold as RFA in 2009 will be 11.3 million, effectively killing any cap-space option. Portland would have to renounce their rights to him and let him walk. It might be better to use him in a trade this summer then to lose him for nothing in 2009.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

CP3 did not come to audition here because "they have Telfair there". Given that KP shipped Bassy as soon as he got a chance - you have to accept that it was not him that notified CP3's agent that he should not bother to come because Telfair was here.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

i don't really know how much longer we can wait and develop him.

We are at the point, next year, where its time to start winning now, imo.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

andalusian said:


> CP3 did not come to audition here because "they have Telfair there". Given that KP shipped Bassy as soon as he got a chance - you have to accept that it was not him that notified CP3's agent that he should not bother to come because Telfair was here.


How did you arrive at that conclusion, you're missing a step here. I find it comical how blazer fans are totally delusional in terms of the past and what they suspect happened.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I had some guy call me out earlier this season for previously saying Martell was a bust. Webs had a couple good games, and he was busting out with the "I told you so's". I don't know where that guy is now, but at this point it definitely doesn't look like Webster isn't truly developing into a force in this league.

That said, despite his lack of increased offense (that halftime row of doughnuts was amazing) since last year, Martell has improved pretty significantly on the defensive end. It's unusual for a player his age and position to be focusing on that, but I don't think it's a bad thing. Some people were expecting great things from him, but if we put aside those previous expectations, we can see that he could potentially be a solid role player. If instead of a star, our 3 is a guy who can play good D, hit some open 3s, grab some rebounds and make heady plays once in a while, then we could still have a pretty good team.

Still, while solid role players are valuable, they also are replaceable. We don't need to force dump Webster. His cap hold for his qualifying offer year can be reduced simply by extending him. If he isn't playing great then, then the extension should cost that much less. But if we get an offer that includes Webs going out and a nice upgrade at SF or PG coming in, we shouldn't be too hesitant.

As an entirely unrelated aside; I vaguely remember the player George McCloud, but the first thing I thought of when I saw the name was this guy:










Shut up you Spanish peacock.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

andalusian said:


> CP3 did not come to audition here because "they have Telfair there". Given that KP shipped Bassy as soon as he got a chance - you have to accept that it was not him that notified CP3's agent that he should not bother to come because Telfair was here.


Nope. While there was talk CP might not work out for Portland he ended up doing so. 

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> How did you arrive at that conclusion, you're missing a step here. I find it comical how blazer fans are totally delusional in terms of the past and what they suspect happened.


What step is it that I am missing? And are you not a Blazers fan? If you are, your wide paintbrush paint your-own self in the same "comical delusional" canvas.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

STOMP said:


> Nope. While there was talk CP might not work out for Portland he ended up doing so.


He did? All I remember is the comment by him that they have Telfair there, so there is no reason for me to work for them. Must have missed the fact that he did a workout later.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Still, while solid role players are valuable, they also are replaceable. We don't need to force dump Webster.


I had a force dump once. Painful as hell, but it felt pretty good afterwards.





(I got bored of waiting for barfo to say it.)


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

andalusian said:


> He did? All I remember is the comment by him that they have Telfair there, so there is no reason for me to work for them. Must have missed the fact that he did a workout later.


Some old news:



> • General Manager John Nash and Kevin Pritchard, Portland’s director of player personnel, watched Wake Forest point guard Chris Paul work out last weekend in Washington, D.C.



I don't remember if there was a workout in Portland.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

andalusian said:


> What step is it that I am missing? And are you not a Blazers fan? If you are, your wide paintbrush paint your-own self in the same "comical delusional" canvas.


I have an excellent memory and write in clear and coherent, logical terms, backing up what I have to say without jumping to unnecessary conclusions.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

:thinking2:

There are times I just don't get Blazer fans. The choice of which players they/we love, and which they/we hate, seems utterly random.

Whoever was in charge of the 05 draft should be dragged into the street and savagely beaten. Webster's ceiling is "mildly useful journeyman". People need to accept that and move on.

Players far better than Webster have been burned at the stake in this town! On one level I am glad - I hate it when people boo their own team! OTOH, I just don't understand what Webster has done to get such special treatment?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Webster will be fine. He's a HS player, he's being thurst in the starting lineup now but not finishing the games. I'm fine with that. 

Just need to have patience with him, no one expected 20ppg from him this year.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

andalusian said:


> He did? All I remember is the comment by him that they have Telfair there, so there is no reason for me to work for them. Must have missed the fact that he did a workout later.


it was a while ago, but I grew up in Winston-Salem NC having Wake players visite my elementry school every year, so I was following the possibilities of him becoming a Blazer pretty closely. After many threads here about why he wouldn't/shouldn't come to Portland for a workout, I recall the thread where we put that to rest after he did. In the linked post workout article I recall he was quoted saying nice things about Telfair's potential for greatness.

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

OK. Thanks for setting me right. I really thought he never worked out for Portland. Maybe I am confusing him with Gerald Green? Too much time passed for me to remember all the proper details, apparently.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Webster will be fine. He's a HS player, he's being thurst in the starting lineup now but not finishing the games. I'm fine with that.
> 
> Just need to have patience with him, no one expected 20ppg from him this year.


Of course not. He showed so little his first 2 seasons, no reasonable person would put that condition on him.

However, as a #6 pick in the draft, it was entirely reasonable to expect better scoring numbers from him by the end of his third season. He was sold as having Glen Rice potential. That was much debated at the time of his draft, with many commenting that even if Webster somehow becomes as good as Glen Rice it still was a stupid move to pass on Chris Paul.

Glen Rice 3rd season: 22.3 pts per game.

Now we talk about George McCloud, while Paul is drawing comparisons to Hall-of-Fame players like Isiah Thomas.

Now, what "seemed" to be a dumb move at the time, is proven to be one of the all-time blunders.

Problem for Webster is, whatever his ceiling, he won't find it on the Blazers. As a #6 pick, as a guy with mental issues, he will be unable to shake that and become the average NBA player he could be. I don't see him as an Outlaw type that will be able to clear his mind, forget the past and just play. He needs a fresh start. Keep him here, and he won't reach his potential.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Of course not. He showed so little his first 2 seasons, no reasonable person would put that condition on him.
> 
> However, as a #6 pick in the draft, it was entirely reasonable to expect better scoring numbers from him by the end of his third season. He was sold as having Glen Rice potential. That was much debated at the time of his draft, with many commenting that even if Webster somehow becomes as good as Glen Rice it still was a stupid move to pass on Chris Paul.
> 
> ...


He certainly won't find it when people are dumping these illogical comparisons on him and not even letting him develop and be given the chance. Martell is 21 years old. YES, THAT IS AN EXCUSE. In Glen Rice's 3rd season, he had already had 4 years of college ball under his wings if you want to argue moot points. 

What makes you think that he won't realize his potential here? I'm hearing a lot of whining and complaining but not a lot backing it up other than faulty comparisons. Or solutions. Or what exactly is the IMMEDIATE need right now for Webster. He is not the achilles heel on this team right now, what is our achilles heel is interior scoring and rebounding. 

I mean, I don't get all the anger at Martell here. I guess there are a group of sour-grape "we should have drafted Chris Paul" supporters that have nothing better to whine about so they whine about this.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> He certainly won't find it when people are dumping these illogical comparisons on him and not even letting him develop and be given the chance. Martell is 21 years old. YES, THAT IS AN EXCUSE. In Glen Rice's 3rd season, he had already had 4 years of college ball under his wings if you want to argue moot points.
> 
> What makes you think that he won't realize his potential here? I'm hearing a lot of whining and complaining but not a lot backing it up other than faulty comparisons. Or solutions. Or what exactly is the IMMEDIATE need right now for Webster. He is not the achilles heel on this team right now, what is our achilles heel is interior scoring and rebounding.
> 
> I mean, I don't get all the anger at Martell here. I guess there are a group of sour-grape "we should have drafted Chris Paul" supporters that have nothing better to whine about so they whine about this.


If you look at my posts thoughout since we drafted Martell you will find I rarely whine about it. For a long time I said nothing. But, as time moves on and Martell doesn't significantly improve his game in three years, a pattern starts to develop. You can't lean on the age thing as a crutch forever, and it is a weak sauce argument regardless. How old were Paul, LeBron, Monta Ellis, etc. etc. etc. when they showed above average play?

And NEVER have I said to dump Martell, or kick him in the nuts, or any other spiteful or angry action.

I merely point out the numerous issues that surround the situation:

His contract situation is going to force a decision, and can easily be a big problem. I am certain that Martell will demand more money than he has proven to be worth so far.

His failure to develop and pending contract situation have slashed his market value. Last summer or at the trade deadline was the time to trade him. Now, we either trade him for little, or keep him, and risk letting him walk so as not to overpay on a deal.

A player that turns out to good, usually shows high efficiency in limited minutes, then learns to play that way for extended minutes and against starters. A player that turns out to be good noticeably and statistically improves as time goes by. Neither of these is true for Martell. He may turn out to be good, but he isn't following the usual pattern. His pattern is that of past journeymen.

If Martell had the right attitude or frame of mind, and would re-up for reasonable money, I am not against him staying. I just don't think these things will happen. He doesn't see himself like a Steve Blake or a Joel P. He sees himself as a future star.

None of the above is any different than what I said a year ago. Now the team has learned nothing it didn't already know, yet Martell's value has plunged. The sunk cost fallacy may have caused the team to hang on too long. Now their asset they thought was diamond, that they knew was gold a year ago, is now worth silver. Hey keep hanging on, it will rebound, won't it?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

If he demands more than he's worth, let him walk. Simple as that. I'm not up for overpaying players that don't earn their keep or won't fit in. I think he is improving bit by bit. It may not be huge strides, but he is taking different shots than he was last season and his rookie year. I am fine with his progress, I honestly wish he would shoot a lot more but nonetheless its going to take time (which we absolutely have on our side). 

To compare him to LeBron and Chris Paul is foolish. Both those guys entered the draft as known commodities. Martell was a gamble with the realization that we will have to wait for him to develop. I'm not leaning on the age-factor as a crutch. He is what he is, so we'll just have to live with it for now, which again, we can afford to do.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> He certainly won't find it when people are dumping these illogical comparisons on him and not even letting him develop and be given the chance. Martell is 21 years old. YES, THAT IS AN EXCUSE. In Glen Rice's 3rd season, he had already had 4 years of college ball under his wings if you want to argue moot points.
> 
> What makes you think that he won't realize his potential here? I'm hearing a lot of whining and complaining but not a lot backing it up other than faulty comparisons. Or solutions. Or what exactly is the IMMEDIATE need right now for Webster. He is not the achilles heel on this team right now, what is our achilles heel is interior scoring and rebounding.
> 
> I mean, I don't get all the anger at Martell here. I guess there are a group of sour-grape "we should have drafted Chris Paul" supporters that have nothing better to whine about so they whine about this.


what a load of manure

your characterization of people who don't share your positive view of martell as angry whiners praticing sour grapes is pure bunk.

It's possible you know, that Martell will never reach anything close to all the "potential" he supposedly has because he simply doesn't have as much as some think. And after all, he's reached so little of it to this point.

His production and efficiency on the offensive end haven't really increased since his rookie season. He's scoring less, and his true shooting percentage is lower.

He's improved defensively, at least in man defense, but his help and team defense is weak.

And he's not a good shooter at least if measured by results. I know some think he has an amazing shooting form, but who cares about that.

And it's not like he hasn't had the opportunity or playing time. He's averaged over 22 minutes a game for his career. Right now he's played about 10% fewer total career minutes then Outlaw even though travis has been in the league 2 years longer.

Travis is better, Jones is better, and martell's contract creates a growing urgency to reach a decision on his future with the blazers.
Rookie scale contracts take away the luxury of time with young players who don't really progress. Martell has actually progressed vey little compared to the time an opportunities he has had.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

to be perfectly honest, I would prefer Martell over much of that draft class on this team still (barring Deron and CP3) with this current team. 

Andrew Bogut
Marvin Williams
Deron Williams*
Chris Paul*
Raymond Felton
Charlie Villanueva
Channing Frye
Ike Digou
Andrew Bynum*


Guys with the asterisk are guys I would take over martell on this current team at this current time and for the future. I think if we're patient we'll be rewarded.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> His production and efficiency on the offensive end haven't really increased since his rookie season. He's scoring less, and his true shooting percentage is lower.
> 
> He's improved defensively, at least in man defense, but his help and team defense is weak.
> 
> ...


His shooting % has improved. I don't know what you mean by "true shooting percentage"? 

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/martell_webster/career_stats.html

Those are decent, not outstanding numbers. 

I think his man to man defense has improved. I don't know how you can quantify his team defense contributions. 

What is Martell's big deal with his contract exactly? If he doesn't play as well, he's not going to get a bigger contract. He'll sign a low-ball contract extension like Outlaw did, what, do you think he'll ask for a max contract? Please.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> To compare him to.. Chris Paul is foolish. Both those guys entered the draft as known commodities. Martell was a gamble with the realization that we will have to wait for him to develop. I'm not leaning on the age-factor as a crutch. He is what he is, so we'll just have to live with it for now, which again, we can afford to do.


Wait a minute.

You are arguing that Paul was a known commodity, and that the Blazer Brass passed on the known in order to wait for years in the hope that Martell would maybe, possibly, might, turn into.... what?? Not Glen Rice, according to you that is an unfair burden. What? Even if you assume Rice, that is a bad, bad, bad deal. Wait years for a player that isn't as important as a good point guard.

If that is true, you are making the claim that the Blazer Brass was suicidal.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I think the Martell discussion is maybe a little premature, but not unwarranted. My expectations this off-season for Martell is that he'll be back. 1) His trade value can't be all that high, 2) he's still extremely young and has shown flashes of brilliance, and some marked improvement on defense as well as the occasional ability to finish at the rim, and 3) his contract isn't exactly killing us.

I do think however that he has *exactly* until next mid February to get it all sorted out.

(I have a feeling he'll be paying another visit to the sports psychologist this summer -- hypnotism this time?)


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Wait a minute.
> 
> You are arguing that Paul was a known commodity, and that the Blazer Brass passed on the known in order to wait for years in the hope that Martell would maybe, possibly, might, turn into.... what?? Not Glen Rice, according to you that is an unfair burden. What? Even if you assume Rice, that is a bad, bad, bad deal. Wait years for a player that isn't as important as a good point guard.
> 
> If that is true, you are making the claim that the Blazer Brass was suicidal.


That draft was hyped as having the best PG crop in years. HOWEVER, blazers brass already had their PG pegged in Telfair. They needed a SG and the decision was basically between Webster and Gerald Green. They chose Webster and got Jack, who Pritchard scouted as being a guy he wanted on this team (if he was not as enamored with Telfair) as a PG who could be on the level of Paul or Deron or even as a worthy consolation in getting two players instead of one at a position that we already had a young PG in.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> That draft was hyped as having the best PG crop in years. HOWEVER, blazers brass already had their PG pegged in Telfair. They needed a SG and the decision was basically between Webster and Gerald Green. They chose Webster and got Jack, who Pritchard scouted as being a guy he wanted on this team (if he was not as enamored with Telfair) as a PG who could be on the level of Paul or Deron or even as a worthy consolation in getting two players instead of one at a position that we already had a young PG in.


I have heard that argument made to rationalize the actions of the Blazer Brass at the time. It was stupid then. It is stupid now.

I am a BPA guy. As is Pritchard. Notice he traded FOR Aldridge when we had Zach. He took Oden, when we had a starting caliber, proven center already. He passed on Durant when we had no proven, steady Small Forward, nor did we have a designated number one scoring option. Why? BPA. BPA baby. Adjust the roster later.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Masbee said:


> I have heard that argument made to rationalize the actions of the Blazer Brass at the time. It was stupid then. It is stupid now.
> 
> I am a BPA guy. As is Pritchard. Notice he traded FOR Aldridge when we had Zach. He took Oden, when we had a starting caliber, proven center already. He passed on Durant when we had no proven, steady Small Forward, nor did we have a designated number one scoring option. Why? BPA. BPA baby. Adjust the roster later.


Aldridge wasn't a BPA at the time of the draft, Morrison was and you could argue that Rudy Gay was up there too. Hell, JJ Reddick was the player of the year. 

LMA was a young prospect that had the potential to be the best out of that draft class. So he chose him as that.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

oh and HUGE risk with Oden over Durant....i think 100% of the GMs in this league would have made the same decision.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> His shooting % has improved. I don't know what you mean by "true shooting percentage"?


TS% - True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA))

It tries to combine someone's effectiveness at accumulating points - by incorporating 2 and 3 pt shots and effectiveness from the free-throw line. 

Martel has posted 0.533 TS% during his rookie year. He is now down to 0.530

What is more troubling, is that his PER score this year is lower than his PER score as a rookie. (11.5 vs 11.6).

In comparison, Travis has increased his TS% from 0.457 as a rookie to 0.513, and his PER has gone from 15.4 (his 2nd year, he only played 8 games in his rookie year) to 16.9 this year.

Of course, Travis's shots are much harder - as he creates for himself. Martel's calling card is that he is a shooter - so actually tracking his improvement as a shooter and scorer is interesting to see. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be getting any better in his shooting ability. He still shoots at a respectable clip - but not good enough to earn himself a true "shooter" status in the league.

The interesting thing to notice about Travis is that other than one year (his 3rd, Nate's first) - Travis always had a > 15 PER (where 15 is an average NBA starter). Given that Travis is a slow learner and had trouble adjusting to Nate's system - it should be clear that Travis, while not a super-star - had better than average NBA starter potential. In comparison, Webster never cracked the 12 marque for PER.

I hope he proves me wrong - but it does not look Martel is, or has the potential to be, anything more than a bench role-player.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I've never been a stat junkie to be honest (I don't really like the PER stat brought up), I just watch the games and see how they play versus making conclusions based on their box score. 

While Martell's shooting numbers and what not have dipped (insignificantly), I do like how he is working around on the court in general this year. He moves around much better, is taking more risk and taking more shots closer to the basket rather than just camping beyond the 3 point line. 

I think he's improved in this area. 

Him being a bench-role player is fine for me. I don't expect him to totally dominante and be a star. We have Roy and Aldridge and Oden to be that person. 

When Oden is here, the spacing and whole offense will change. We don't need to trade for a veteran PG right now, we don't need to trade Jack, we don't have to do anything.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Aldridge wasn't a BPA at the time of the draft, Morrison was and you could argue that Rudy Gay was up there too. Hell, JJ Reddick was the player of the year.
> 
> LMA was a young prospect that had the potential to be the best out of that draft class. So he chose him as that.


Best (NBA) PROSPECT, not literally Best (College) Player. Why am I explaining this?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

because you are unclear in your explanation?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> When Oden is here, the spacing and whole offense will change. We don't need to trade for a veteran PG right now, we don't need to trade Jack, we don't have to do anything.


KP doesn't feel the same way. He is far from satisfied with the roster. Be prepared for moves this summer.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Sure, that's fine. whatever he wants to do. what moves to you anticipate and what kind of player do you expect back?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Xericx said:


> to be perfectly honest, I would prefer Martell over much of that draft class on this team still (barring Deron and CP3) with this current team.
> 
> Andrew Bogut
> Marvin Williams
> ...


You are aware that better players have more trade value then lesser players right? I'm sure a solid young center like Bogut could fetch a whole lot on the market even if our current team doesn't have a glaring need for him. I'd also love to have Marvin on the club at the 3.

STOMP


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Sure, but Marvin essentially the same skillset as Travis Outlaw, right? I don't watch a lot of Hawks games though. Bogut would be fine as well, as a backup Center. I'm more than satisfied with Pryzbilla in that role though. 

I know we have James Jones but he has been injured quite a bit and we are unsure if he will resign with us. Maybe he will, but having shooters with a guy to draw double and triple teams like Oden will behooves us. 

Charlie V would be great as a backup PF...but again, I value shooters with Oden.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Sure, but Marvin essentially the same skillset as Travis Outlaw, right? I don't watch a lot of Hawks games though. Bogut would be fine as well, as a backup Center. I'm more than satisfied with Pryzbilla in that role though.
> 
> I know we have James Jones but he has been injured quite a bit and we are unsure if he will resign with us. Maybe he will, but having shooters with a guy to draw double and triple teams like Oden will behooves us.
> 
> Charlie V would be great as a backup PF...but again, I value shooters with Oden.


That would be great if Martell were a shooter. But he isn't. Shooters shoot. He too often doesn't. Shooters make a higher percentage of shots. Shooters can make shots with a hand in their face.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Masbee said:


> That would be great if Martell were a shooter. But he isn't. Shooters shoot. He too often doesn't. Shooters make a higher percentage of shots. Shooters can make shots with a hand in their face.


Martell can be that guy though. He's shown flashes of it and will just have to work on it over time...which is why he's being thrust into the starting lineup...to force him to take more shots. 

I mean, sure we can go chase Jason Kapono or something but Martell is a decent 3-point shooter with the potential to be a really good one.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> His shooting % has improved. I don't know what you mean by "true shooting percentage"?
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/martell_webster/career_stats.html
> 
> Those are decent, not outstanding numbers.


40% is not decent, it is a POOR FG% for somebody with almost 3 full seasons of experience. I can't believe anybody would look at a 40% FG mark for a career and call it decent.

*True Shooting Percentage:*


> TS% True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]


the TS% actually measures a players productivity in relation to shots taken. It's more revealing then a generic PPG number, and for Martell to actually be worse this year then his rookie season is a bad reflection on his development.



Xericx said:


> I think his man to man defense has improved. I don't know how you can quantify his team defense contributions.


his man defense has improved, but then the bar he set before was quite low. 

As far as his help and team defense...watch portland's defense and not the ball. What you'll see in the starting unit is that a significant amount of the time when an opponent is uncovered, it's because martell was slow to rotate or missed the assignment entirely. As a matter of fact, the majority of times that Martell gets a quick hook by nate this year, it's because of blown defensive assignments. 




Xericx said:


> What is Martell's big deal with his contract exactly? If he doesn't play as well, he's not going to get a bigger contract. He'll sign a low-ball contract extension like Outlaw did, what, do you think he'll ask for a max contract? Please.


please yourself and know what you're talking about before you try sarcasm.

The problem with Martell's contract is the nature of rookie scale contracts as mandated by the CBA. That problem is compounded in portland's case by Kevin Pritchard's often stated plan to have cap-space in the 2009 off-season.

Martell will be entering his fourth year of a rookie scale contract next season. At the end of next season, Martell will become a restricted free agent if Portland submits a qulaifying offer by june 30, 2009. Then, by CBA rule, Martell's status places a cap-hold onto Portland's salary base od 300% of his just completed season's salary. Martell's salary will be a wee bit over 3.71 million dollars, so his cap-hold will be over 11.3 million, and that will effectively kill the cap space plan.

Now portland can hope that he'd accept the QO immediately, but UFA's rarely do. They want to test the free agent market, and being RFA, any negotiations with him would happen later in the summer as teams first turn their attention to UFA's.

Portland, of course, could simply not extend him the QO and renounce their bird rights to him, but then they'd lose him without any return.

The only real way to avoid that is by either extending his contract THIS summer or trading him.

I'd anticipate a trade in Martell's near future.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> 40% is not decent, it is a POOR FG% for somebody with almost 3 full seasons of experience. I can't believe anybody would look at a 40% FG mark for a career and call it decent.


I can't believe people are calling for the head of a 3rd year player out of high school who we all realized would take time to develop.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> the TS% actually measures a players productivity in relation to shots taken. It's more revealing then a generic PPG number, and for Martell to actually be worse this year then his rookie season is a bad reflection on his development.


i GUESS if you watch games through boxscores and not the games themselves, you could come to this conclusion.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> The problem with Martell's contract is the nature of rookie scale contracts as mandated by the CBA. That problem is compounded in portland's case by Kevin Pritchard's often stated plan to have cap-space in the 2009 off-season.
> 
> Martell will be entering his fourth year of a rookie scale contract next season. At the end of next season, Martell will become a restricted free agent if Portland submits a qulaifying offer by june 30, 2009. Then, by CBA rule, Martell's status places a cap-hold onto Portland's salary base od 300% of his just completed season's salary. Martell's salary will be a wee bit over 3.71 million dollars, so his cap-hold will be over 11.3 million, and that will effectively kill the cap space plan.
> 
> ...


1. What do you hope to gain by capspace in 2009
2. I've never heard about that 300% rule for capspace. 
3. What do you want back for Martell Webster, realistically speaking. Doesn't have to be a specific player, just a type of player you want or expect back?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

What I am finding hard to decipher from all the whining and lamenting about Martell is what is wanted in return for him, in specific terms. It seems like he's the latest guy the "Blazer Nation" has turned against. Maybe another addition by subtraction type trade perhaps? 

I mean please, mention exactly what you want or expect back? What do you want to see happen?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> I can't believe people are calling for the head of a 3rd year player out of high school who we all realized would take time to develop.


martell can keep his head...it hasn't proven to have much value...just like his supposed shooting touch.

Players rarely make big leaps in shooting ability in their 4th or 5th seasons, whether they are 21 or 26


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> martell can keep his head...it hasn't proven to have much value...just like his supposed shooting touch.
> 
> Players rarely make big leaps in shooting ability in their 4th or 5th seasons, whether they are 21 or 26


well, besides Travis Outlaw of course.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> i GUESS if you watch games through boxscores and not the games themselves, you could come to this conclusion.


and simply watching games without any context to judge performances can lead to bad conclusions...you're proving that


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> and simply watching games without any context to judge performances can lead to bad conclusions...you're proving that


How so? I am not saying Martell is an awesome, unstoppable shooter. I said that he needs time to develop more on the court and we totally have the time and patience to be able to do this. 

What is my "bad conclusion" specifically?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> well, besides Travis Outlaw of course.


now you're just being plain ignorant

travis's FG% by seasons

1st .429
2nd .498
3rd .440
4th .434
5th .448

fairly consistent, which is the case for the vast majority of players. 

Martell will likely be fairly consistent as well, it will just be around 40% then 45% like travis


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> 1. What do you hope to gain by capspace in 2009
> 2. I've never heard about that 300% rule for capspace.
> 3. What do you want back for Martell Webster, realistically speaking. Doesn't have to be a specific player, just a type of player you want or expect back?


I have no clue about the cap-space plan. KP has just mentioned it several times and has stuctured Blake's and Outlaw's contract to fit the plan. I wasn't extolling it's virtue, just pointing out that martell's contract was in conflict with it.

The fact that you haven't heard about the CBA mandated 300% rule doesn't suprise me in the least considering the argumants you've advanced in this thread. I guarantee you that KP and Tom Penn know about it.

Webster's trade value isn't real high, but some team might be lured by the "potential" you apparently see. Realistically, Martell might be part of a package to allow the blazers to move up 2 or 3 spots in the draft order, although that might be a stretch.

More realistic is the possibility that Martell will be viewed as an expiring contract before next season's trade deadline. Between him and lafrentz, the blazers may have some decent leverage.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> How so? I am not saying Martell is an awesome, unstoppable shooter. I said that he needs time to develop more on the court and we totally have the time and patience to be able to do this.
> 
> *What is my "bad conclusion" specifically*?


the previous sentence


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> well, besides Travis Outlaw of course.


Actually Travis's TS% has taken a significant jump from his rookie year (0.457) and he has been around .500 since. Given that Travis only played 8 games in his rookie year, it is clear that Travis is actually pretty consistent with what he gives you shooting wise. I would be surprised if this is not the case with Martel as well.

The kid can shoot, but I doubt Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Jason Kapono or James Jones need to watch their rear-view mirror for him.

Again, all indications are that he will be a bench role player. He needs to either be extended for cheap this summer or be traded this summer - otherwise his cap hold is huge, given his lofty draft position.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> I have no clue about the cap-space plan. KP has just mentioned it several times and has stuctured Blake's and Outlaw's contract to fit the plan. I wasn't extolling it's virtue, just pointing out that martell's contract was in conflict with it.
> 
> The fact that you haven't heard about the CBA mandated 300% rule doesn't suprise me in the least considering the argumants you've advanced in this thread. I guarantee you that KP and Tom Penn know about it.
> 
> ...


again, I am a basketball fan, not a numbers cap guru or box score analyzer. I don't see how my "arguments" in this thread are very controversial to begin with. If we don't make the qualifying offer, then we don't have this cap situation, right? You make it sound like he's this super-high paid max-contract type of player with the fervent nature for you to dump him.

To trade him to move up a few spots in the draft doesn't really appeal to me. I value his potential more than that.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> To trade him to move up a few spots in the draft doesn't really appeal to me. I value his potential more than that.


Really? So you do not find the idea that Tyrus Thomas + Victor for LaMarcus appealing? Because this is exactly what was done before.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> the previous sentence


we can't afford to let Martell's rookie contract expire to see how he will play with Oden?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

andalusian said:


> Really? So you do not find the idea that Tyrus Thomas + Victor for LaMarcus appealing? Because this is exactly what was done before.


It depends on the specific draft, the specific player and what our target is. This cannot be determined until we get our draft pick order, so again, its a moot point to discuss until that time.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

moldorf said:


> now you're just being plain ignorant
> 
> travis's FG% by seasons
> 
> ...



So you think Travis Outlaw is as good of a shooter now than he was in his first 4 years in the league? I'm talking about your conclusions on watching him play, not observing ESPN's box score.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> It depends on the specific draft, the specific player and what our target is. This cannot be determined until we get our draft pick order, so again, its a moot point to discuss until that time.


So you do not find it un-appealing as you just said, you just want more information. That's progress. I can already see you marching at the front of the "trade Webster" parade down Broadway 

I want Webster to be a huge success as a Portland TrailBlazer - I just doubt it will happen and it is clear, from the plans the team seem to have put in place for 2009 - that his contribution/potential is worth his cap hold. A great quarter a year just might not be enough to keep him around, it seems to me.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> we can't afford to let Martell's rookie contract expire to see how he will play with Oden?


You can, but you risk losing him and his trade value for nothing.

Maybe KP is willing to do it - but I am guessing that since he is an active GM - he will look for ways to trade to improve the team - and Martel's contract size (bad for Portland) and potential (appealing for other GMs) are prime assets.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Really? So you do not find the idea that Tyrus Thomas + Victor for LaMarcus appealing? Because this is exactly what was done before.


Martell could end up being great--or not. You have to judge his value based on the other players you have, or have access to getting. In my mind, Martell is below Oden, Roy, Aldridge, Outlaw, and arguably Jones. He is young, so he still has upside, hence value. 

The problem is the Blazers only have so many roster spots to work with. Also, they want to upgrade the talent at some of their positions. You have to pay a price to do that.

Webster probably has the most potential/value available to trade, in a player that the team may not mind letting go.

In order to fit in the roster limit, Portland has to either dump players and picks for an established player or for a higher pick. Since I don't believe teams typically trade away good young talent that would be an upgrade (e.g. you don't get Chris Paul via a trade), the only choice left is a pick. The Aldridge trade is a good example. I wouldn't hesitate to trade our first pick + Webster to move up, if they can get a player they really want (solid starter potential). You don't trade up just to get a 1% upgrade in talent. But, if you can move up two spots and get the guy you really want--and Webster is the price--then you do it.

My current flavor:

Webster + first pick (13) + (Jack/Sergio) + [whatever] to the Clippers for #6 (E. Gordon).


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

The only way I trade Martell Webster is to get a SF named Iggy, RJeff, or G-Wallace. Someone along that type of player, in a package deal with Jack or whomever else. I'm not interested in acquiring more draft picks, I think we need some young, up and coming SFs if we are to get rid of Martell. 

Vet PG? Don't need it yet
Backup PF? We'll see what happens when Oden gets here.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Reep said:


> My current flavor:
> 
> Webster + first pick (13) + (Jack/Sergio) + [whatever] to the Clippers for #6 (E. Gordon).


Yes, that would be a good thing to do. Might have to eat an ugly contract as well - but this is the kind of deal that I can see KP doing.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Of course not. He showed so little his first 2 seasons, no reasonable person would put that condition on him.
> 
> However, as a #6 pick in the draft, it was entirely reasonable to expect better scoring numbers from him by the end of his third season. He was sold as having Glen Rice potential. That was much debated at the time of his draft, with many commenting that even if Webster somehow becomes as good as Glen Rice it still was a stupid move to pass on Chris Paul.
> 
> ...


I would like to give him another year, maybe his 4th year he won't be a below average player, but the fact that we are starting to want to win now. Next year is the start of the future. And also the fact that we will have 13 players that will want to be in our rotation, and Rudy is coming, all those signs just make me side with you. unless he really shows some brilliance, if a decent trade comes around for a SF ora backup PF banger, i'd sign on it.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

1. We need to find out what the situation with James Jones is going to be.
2. We need to see how Oden changes this team offensively

then we can make some determinations.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Xericx said:


> again, I am a basketball fan, not a numbers cap guru or box score analyzer. I don't see how my "arguments" in this thread are very controversial to begin with. If we don't make the qualifying offer, then we don't have this cap situation, right? You make it sound like he's this super-high paid max-contract type of player with the fervent nature for you to dump him.


we're all "basketball fans" here, big deal. Some of us place some value on statistics for the context they bring to bear on the performances we see. Your repeated attempts to dismiss what certains numbers reveal aren't working.

I don't have any "fervent nature", especially about martell...that seems to be your passion. I'm simply pointing out that Martell's contract status (and frye's and jack's for that matter) is in conflict with portland's rather public pronouncements about a cap-space option.

Personally, I think the cap-space plan is overrated. The list of likely free agents that summer isn't that impressive and several teams besides portland could have major cap space as well. I don't have a problem with extending Martell's contract for 3 or 4 million this summer as I think young players on attractive contracts are valuable assets, especially if expiring seasons are staggered. However, I doubt Martell would sign for that amount, even though IMO he hasn't earned it.



Xericx said:


> To trade him to move up a few spots in the draft doesn't really appeal to me. I value his potential more than that.
> So you think Travis Outlaw is as good of a shooter now than he was in his first 4 years in the league? I'm talking about your conclusions on watching him play, not observing ESPN's box score.


And it's my contention that you're vastly overrating his potential. Three seasons and he's a 40% shooter and poor ball handler. 3 seasons and he seems to vanish every other game. His game, in the areas it has developed, has developed marginally and slowly. I'd gladly see him traded if Portland could move up 3 places in the draft with KP running things for Portland



Xericx said:


> So you think Travis Outlaw is as good of a shooter now than he was in his first 4 years in the league? I'm talking about your conclusions on watching him play, not observing ESPN's box score.


what the hell do you think I've been talking about? These are my conclusions. I buttress them with numbers, and though you apparently find the numbers irrelevant, it doesn't mean they are.

Outlaw has improved his shooting. He's having his 2nd best season and this season he's become a primary focus of the other team's defense, so his percentage is even more impressive.

And while Travis has been the focus of the other team's defense, Martell hasn't. As a matter of fact, over the last 2-2/3 seasons, it's nearly certain that no blazer has had as high of a percentage of open shots as martell. That makes his 40% number even more disappointing.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

The real problem is if Rudy comes over. If Rudy comes over and plays well, and Martell stays the same, Martell won't be getting the minutes he needs to improve. Then his value will diminish. So, if the Blazers believe Rudy is coming over, then they are going to have to do something.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Reep said:


> The real problem is if Rudy comes over. If Rudy comes over and plays well, and Martell stays the same, Martell won't be getting the minutes he needs to improve. Then his value will diminish. So, if the Blazers believe Rudy is coming over, then they are going to have to do something.


Its not a problem until it becomes a problem WHEN Rudy comes over and WHEN Rudy has shown enough on the court with the Blazers to make Martell Expendable. Until then, they don't have to do anything.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^if we can trade Martell and Jack and our 1st to move up to lets say around the 6th pick (and obviously more) then i'd do it. With Rudy comin' over, and all thatk, i don't think that Martell is part of the future.

I'm all for giving him more time, if he does improve i will be very happy. I want him here, but as much as i like the guy, he really doesn't help this bball team. And if we can use him (trade) to make us better, ithink we do it.

If we can trade up and snatch someone like Bayless, that would be awesome. IMO, maybe drafting Martell would be worth it. He won us some games vs. Utah. He let us draft Roy, Aldridge and Oden because with Paul we wouldn't have. And we will use him in a trade and snatch a really fine player in Bayless with outstanding potential!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Wow....there are so many sub-issues being raised here, it is hard to keep track! 

I have said from the get-go that the "cap space in 09" plan was a PR scam. Frankly, I don't give it a lot of weight in this discussion.

IMHO, the real issue is trade value vs value to us. Jack is not a PG, and as a swing guard is likely to be inferior to Rudy. Webster is a shooter who can't shoot, and does nothing else well enough to compensate. 

Comparing Webster to Outlaw is bogus. One was drafted in the 20s, the other at #6. One was given ample playing time early, the other was nailed to the bench. If Webster was going to be an impact player as a shooter/scorer, we would have seen it by now. 

Neither Webster nor Jack alone will bring back any kind of significant return......but they could be part of a package deal that helps us move up in the draft or otherwise upgrade. Passing on such a deal because of the 1-in-100 chance Webster suddenly takes a great leap forward strikes me as silly!


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Wow....there are so many sub-issues being raised here, it is hard to keep track!
> 
> I have said from the get-go that the "cap space in 09" plan was a PR scam. Frankly, I don't give it a lot of weight in this discussion.
> 
> ...


a response that's a little grumpy, but highly pragmatic


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Wow....there are so many sub-issues being raised here, it is hard to keep track!
> 
> I have said from the get-go that the "cap space in 09" plan was a PR scam. Frankly, I don't give it a lot of weight in this discussion.
> 
> ...


i agree.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Funny, I was anti-Webster during his first two years here and would battle with posters about him (I was mainly against Webster because of who the Blazers passed up on to fraft Webster)

This year, I actaully think he has made some progress. Without looking at stats, he is more aggressive, doesn't just look for the 3 and has a better atttitude (that's jsut how I observe things).

My issue with Martell, and what I disagree with other posters, is Martell is a shooter. The problem is he doesn't have a shooter's mentality. If he misses the first few, it over for him the rest of the game. Other shooter (like a Ray Allen) can miss his first 10 shots and still not hesitate to shoot next time down with the confidence that the shot is going in.

In the end, Webster doesn't cost a lot and is young, so he is a keeper . . . unless KP can pull another trade like Telfair where a team really wants Martell and is willing to give up a draft pick or prospect that KP likes.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Sure, but Marvin essentially the same skillset as Travis Outlaw, right? I don't watch a lot of Hawks games though. Bogut would be fine as well, as a backup Center. I'm more than satisfied with Pryzbilla in that role though.
> 
> I know we have James Jones but he has been injured quite a bit and we are unsure if he will resign with us. Maybe he will, but having shooters with a guy to draw double and triple teams like Oden will behooves us.
> 
> Charlie V would be great as a backup PF...but again, I value shooters with Oden.


I realize that you're having multiple conversations here but you missed my point. I'd rather have a lot of the guys that you listed from the 2005 draft over Martell for this team because even if they bring somewhat redundant skillsets/games, they've shown a whole lot more skills/game and would be worth more on the trading block. Martell isn't worth much IMO on the market today and I'm sorry but I'd put the chances of him metamorphosing into a solid player at slim.


> I can't believe people are calling for the head of a 3rd year player out of high school who we all realized would take time to develop.


believe it but don't believe our discussion have anything to do with what actually transpires. 

btw... John Nash made many statements that Martell was not a project.

btw2... quit your whining

:whistling:

STOMP


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Sure, that's fine, some people have different visions for this team.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Its not a problem until it becomes a problem WHEN Rudy comes over and WHEN Rudy has shown enough on the court with the Blazers to make Martell Expendable. Until then, they don't have to do anything.


This is the kind of thinking that assumed that New Orleans was not in trouble until the levees were breached.

Like every other decision, there is going to be risk involved, but the team can not accumulate projects with no playing time for them and assume that they will retain their trade value at the same time. If the team believes that Rudy is going to come over and be a real contributer at SG/SF - Webster and Jack's minutes are going to be impacted, the same way that Sergio's minutes were impacted by bringing Blake.

There are real issues with play time and cap hold that need to be addressed this summer, either by signing people or by trading them - and the people we are talking about are Webster, Frye and Jack. Trying to bury one's head in the sand and say that everything will be OK and we need to see how they all mash together brings you the kind of mess that Chicago found itself in at the start of this year...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

If Rudy is so good, he'll beat Jack and Martell out of the rotation. If he isn't then he won't. 

There are no issues with playing time, those that can, will. Those that won't, have to try harder.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

And what was that Chicago reference? Can you expand on that? They had some fundamental needs they didn't address in the hopes of trading for Kobe Bryant. In the meantime they made some contractual snafus.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Xericx said:


> And what was that Chicago reference? Can you expand on that?


i think the reference to chicago is that chicago held onto to their young players too long, hoping that their values would increase. it turns out, their assets didn't increase in value and some even decreased.

i think a good gm knows when to sell and when to buy. i think webster still has some value. i think there might be some gm out there who might still be intrigued with webster's potential. if we hang onto webster and he does well, his value increase. if we hang onto webster and he continues to be mediocre, his value decrease. it's that simple. the question is: which is more likely? i don't think webster's potential is high. so my answer is: i think the more we hang onto him, the more his value will go down. we should trade him while he still has some positive trade values (i hope).


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Xericx said:


> If Rudy is so good, he'll beat Jack and Martell out of the rotation. If he isn't then he won't.
> 
> There are no issues with playing time, those that can, will. Those that won't, have to try harder.


that's fine if you don't care to see your players value turns into garbage. if rudy is as good as he's hyped up to be, webster is not going to see much playing time. what do you think his trade value is going to be sitting on the bench?

an example is sergio. i'd be willing to bet that his trade value was higher last year than this year.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Rudy will be a good player. He might have to add a few pounds, but he doesnt play with a reliance on athlecism, size or pure shooting skills(Something past Euro players have relied on; Skita, Nachbar, Jaric, Welsch, Bargnani, that one guy who was on Indiana/GSW have relied on). He is a blend of all three traits and has a incredible motor to boot. He will be at least as good as Juan Carlos Navarro as a rookie(And JCN is like 29), and has the potential to be about 3/4th the player Manu is(Which is far from a diss). 

Rudy at the worst will be a 10-12ppg player in 20-22mpg. At best he will be a less amazing version of Manu.


----------



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

Xericx, why do you have so much faith in Martell? Don't you think he has been a disappointment thus far in his career? And do you even acknowledge the possibility exists that he might not get that much better?


----------



## sjla2kology101 (Apr 23, 2006)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> Xericx, why do you have so much faith in Martell? Don't you think he has been a disappointment thus far in his career? And do you even acknowledge the possibility exists that he might not get that much better?


wasn't everyone saying the same thing about outlaw this time last year? and now he is just about untouchable? were they saying this when he scored 24 points in 1 quarter? give it a little more time children. 

end topic.


----------



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

sjla2kology101 said:


> wasn't everyone saying the same thing about outlaw this time last year? and now he is just about untouchable? were they saying this when he scored 24 points in 1 quarter? give it a little more time children.
> 
> end topic.


OK, sjla2kology, since you want to field Xericx's questions for him, why don't you actually field the questions: Don't you think he has been a disappointment thus far in his career? And do you even acknowledge the possibility exists that he might not get that much better?

Listen, I haven't given up on Webster. But I just don't understand the blind support for him either.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

sjla2kology101 said:


> were they saying this when he scored 24 points in 1 quarter? give it a little more time children.


some people can see more than that 24 points in 1 quarter. some people can see that he hasn't really progressed while being given minutes to do so. some people can see that his supposed best quality is shooting, and he's not even good at that.

giving him time is fine, if you believe that he will improve a lot. i don't think he has the potential to improve so much. while i think he still has value because some gm might still be intrigued with his potential, i'd rather not risk them finding out that his potential is very low by cashing in on him now. holding onto to him much longer, and we might as well let him walk without getting anything in return.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> some people can see more than that 24 points in 1 quarter. some people can see that he hasn't really progressed while being given minutes to do so. some people can see that his supposed best quality is shooting, and he's not even good at that.
> 
> giving him time is fine, if you believe that he will improve a lot. i don't think he has the potential to improve so much. while i think he still has value because some gm might still be intrigued with his potential, i'd rather not risk them finding out that his potential is very low by cashing in on him now. holding onto to him much longer, and we might as well let him walk without getting anything in return.


Well I haven't seen Outlaw score 24 points in one QTR.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Well I haven't seen Outlaw score 24 points in one QTR.


roy, either. nor aldridge. and oden hasn't even scored 1 point.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Martell is a bust. He'll never live up to being picked in the top-10. He's an inconsistent spot up shooter.

Like I said earlier, he's always going to be that guy our old management wanted over Chris Paul.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

-Sonny- said:


> Martell is a bust. He'll never live up to being picked in the top-10. He's an inconsistent spot up shooter.
> 
> Like I said earlier, he's always going to be that guy our old management wanted over Chris Paul.


That will always be the bottom line with Webster. He was the #6 pick in the draft, and the guy our "brain trust" prefered to Paul or D Williams. That is his legacy, and that is the yardstick he will be measured by.

I'm not saying the guy is useless. He would be an adequate reserve.(on a cheap contract) If he had been picked in the 20s like Outlaw, he would be OK. He is not, however, a quality starter. Nor is he worth the money associated with being a top 10 pick.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

sjla2kology101 said:


> wasn't everyone saying the same thing about outlaw this time last year? and now he is just about untouchable? were they saying this when he scored 24 points in 1 quarter? give it a little more time children.


If you follow the thread, you will see a post where I showed that Outlaw, even through his early years, had an above NBA starter PER of 15 (he was under it only once). Martel, on the other hands, has never been to the lofty 12 score (which is still well below an average NBA starter).

Outlaw is a better player and was always more productive. 

Outlaw's worst year (his 3rd, Nate's first, where he was lost in the new system) had him score only a 12.9 PER for the season. This is better than any season Martel has ever had.

All other years Outlaw had more than 15 score. In comparison, Martel's PER, since coming to league was: 11.6, 9.9 and 11.5

Any description of Webster being better than Outlaw in his early years is bunk when you actually look at the numbers...


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazers Edge jumps into the Martell fray:

Masbee presumtive read between the careful words summary for lazy readers: Martell sucks and needs to get his *** in gear or be banished.



> Martell Webster
> 
> This was not Martell Webster's make-or-break season but this was going to be his first year being given important minutes in a key role for this team.
> 
> ...


http://www.blazersedge.com/story/2008/3/6/43955/46195


----------

