# Blazers/Sonics Trade



## pr0wler (Jun 8, 2003)

*Portland Trades:*

Fred Jones
Martell Webster
Dan Dickau

*Seattle Trades:*

Damien Wilkins
Earl Watson


*Why Portland does it?*

It seems like Webster is becoming more of a 6th man than the small forward of the future. At the same time, they unload two scrubs in Jones and Dickau who are just eating up cap space. In return, they get a solid point guard who is a great passer which helps with the depth of the roster.


*Why Seattle does it?*

Watson isn't entirely happy in Seattle, and his contract is not exactly cheap. Wilkins is a solid player, but you have to give up something to get something. In return, they get two local guys in Webster and Dickau, and Jones as an emergency shooting guard.


*Portland (say they draft Corey Brewer)*

PG - Jack/Watson/Rodriguez
SG - Roy/Wilkins
SF - Brewer/Outlaw/Wilkins
PF - Randolph/LaFrentz
C - Aldridge/Pryzbilla


*Seattle (say they sign Wilks/Lewis, and draft Yi Jianlian)*

PG - Ridnour/Wilks/Dickau
SG - Allen/Webster
SF - Lewis/Webster
PF - Wilcox/Jianlian
C - Swift/Collison/Sene


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I think this would be a great trade for us. I doubt we could con the Sonics into taking it though. We're basically sending them nothing of value in this trade.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

i see that you defined a section to tell why the blazers would do it but forgot to put down any good reasons....(sorry had to say it)
but seriously since when do 5 guys win a championship. you need a bench. look at the 2 best teams in the league(SA and PHO) they have the best 6th men in the league. although i personally dont care for dickau's game i think that fred jones is a guy that i wouldnt mind keeping.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd pass. Watson is a decent role player, but Wilkins is overpaid. We shouldn't give up on Webster for a couple of bench players.

Ed O.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I like the deal. But it needs a little tinkering. Hows about you throw in Rashard Lewis and we throw in Zach Randolph?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think this deal is somewhat close, but I still think Webster has more value then this. I say no.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I agree with Ed O. If we're only getting a couple bench players marginally better than our own scrubs, why have Martell Webster involved?


----------



## pr0wler (Jun 8, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I agree with Ed O. If we're only getting a couple bench players marginally better than our own scrubs, why have Martell Webster involved?


To make up for the fact that the Sonics are in fact getting scrubs in return. It's essentially Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson for Martell Webster. Dickau and Jones are just fillers to make it work salary wise - without Martell (or someone close to his caliber) in the trade it is extremely one sided.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

and I wouldn't deal a 20yr old Webster for 2 bench players...It's not a good deal for POR


period


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

It's only a bad deal if you think Webster has a good chance of becoming a good player. It's debatable, but after seeing no growth this season I'm ready to apply the b-word. Bust! I think he has some of the tools to be a good player, but he's just struggling so painfully that it doesn't look like he will ever put them together, at least not while he's playing for Nate. He really should have gone to college. This trade gives us a serviceable veteran PG and a dynamic wing who can shoot, distribute and defend. If Webster was showing any signs of life, I'd say keep him, but now I'd be content to see him shipped off for a couple role players who nicely smooth out our roster imbalances.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:



> It's only a bad deal if you think Webster has a good chance of becoming a good player. It's debatable, but after seeing no growth this season I'm ready to apply the b-word. Bust!


He's on a rookie contract. He scored 22 points in a single game this year, and he'd scored 24 in a game as a rookie.

And he doesn't turn 21 until December.

He would have to be a bust of MONUMENTAL proportions to not be at least a starting-level player, and he's still got a lot of time to become a heck of a lot more than that.

Wilkins and Watson are nothing special, and won't be factors by the time our core matures. Giving away one of our top prospects for spare parts doesn't make sense.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> He's on a rookie contract. He scored 22 points in a single game this year, and he'd scored 24 in a game as a rookie.
> 
> And he doesn't turn 21 until December.


Those are really not that impressive of accomplishments. Seriously. Feel free to go on expecting great things out of Martel Webster. For my part, I'm jumping off the bandwagon and predicting he will not ever be a very good player. Marginal starter/6th man is about the best he will be, and Watson and Wilks are already there, and not nearly as close to winding down their careers as you suggest.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Those are really not that impressive of accomplishments. Seriously.


Really?

How many 18 year olds in NBA history have scored 24 points in an NBA game?

And do you know what Damien Wilkins, who's 27, has as a career scoring high?

26.



> Feel free to go on expecting great things out of Martel Webster. For my part, I'm jumping off the bandwagon and predicting he will not ever be a very good player. Marginal starter/6th man is about the best he will be, and Watson and Wilks are already there, and not nearly as close to winding down their careers as you suggest.


Feel free to do whatever you want to do, but I find it ridiculous to think that a guy who's showed--as a teenager--that he can score in the NBA is going to end up a marginal starter at best.

I didn't suggest that either Wilkins or Watson were "winding down their careers". They are known quantities, though... the odds of them improving significantly are slim, and getting to an all-star level are almost infinitesimal.

As for "expecting great things out of Martel": that's another total straw man. I'm expecting nothing from him... I'm not even *hoping* for great things. He's not much worse than either Wilkins or Watson, and he's still got a ton of upside. Trading him right now for this kind of package would be ridiculous, because there's nothing to be gained by doing it.

If you think that I'm saying that we shouldn't trade the future great Martell Webster for a couple of guys who are over the hill, then I could see why you'd point out the flaws in that position. Given, however, that I am NOT saying either of those things, attacking those points is worthless. And criticism of the deal, as constructed, does not rely on such extreme statements.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Really?
> 
> How many 18 year olds in NBA history have scored 24 points in an NBA game?
> 
> ...


Really, I'm not impressed by Webster's play so far. I'm really really not. Are you? Really? I think his play has been awful.

Maybe it is a rare feat for an 18 year old to score 24 points (actually Webster was 19), but I think plenty of guys in the league could have, if they had been given ample minutes to play at that age like Webster had.

But even if we should be amazed that Webster has had like 5 20+ point games in his first two seasons, it still appears that scoring from open 3s created by other people is about the only thing he doesn't do poorly. Certainly you would agree that there are many more dimensions to an NBA game, and Martel seems to have an aptitude for none of them, and he hasn't seemed to improve a bit in his second season. If a guy is going to be more than a backup/marginal starter, let alone an all-star, he's going to have to do more. Even Peja, while playing terrible defense, could grab a rebound, make a nice pass, create his own shot or drive to the hole once in a while.

Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson, by comparison, are very well-rounded players.



Ed O said:


> Feel free to do whatever you want to do, but I find it ridiculous to think that a guy who's showed--as a teenager--that he can score in the NBA is going to end up a marginal starter at best.


I find it ridiculous to say a guy who shoots under 40% and averages 7ppg in 21 minutes has really "showed ... that he can score in the NBA". I think looking at a guys body of work, rather than just his best games, is a better way to evaluate him, because I don't think inconsistency should be highly valued.



Ed O said:


> I didn't suggest that either Wilkins or Watson were "winding down their careers".


You said they "won't be factors by the time our core matures", which seems to imply a depreciation in skill level over a time period that it takes for our core to mature. How long would you say that is, five years or so? At that time, Wilkins and Watson will be 32-33, so they probably won't be done by then. If you weren't implying they were going to decline with age in that time period, then I misinterpreted it, but I don't see what else you could mean by that statement, and the following one where you claim they are "over the hill".





Ed O said:


> They are known quantities, though... the odds of them improving significantly are slim, and getting to an all-star level are almost infinitesimal.
> 
> As for "expecting great things out of Martel": that's another total straw man. I'm expecting nothing from him... I'm not even *hoping* for great things. He's not much worse than either Wilkins or Watson, and he's still got a ton of upside. Trading him right now for this kind of package would be ridiculous, because there's nothing to be gained by doing it.
> 
> ...


Well, where we disagree on is how good Webster is right now. I think he plain sucks. I agree that Wilkins and Watson are probably at their peak, but IMO they are way better players right now. Webster is supposedly a scorer and a good shooter, but Wilkins outscored him last year, even on a per minute basis, and outshot him from both 2pt and even 3pt range, in addition to playing much better defense and being a better passer. I also think that he could produce more if given more minutes, but that's just my opinion. Earl Watson had a down year, and maybe injuries are starting to hurt him, but he is still a veteran point guard who can defend, effectively distribute and until recently hit 3 point shots at a good (better than Martel) rate.

So sorry if I assumed you thought Martel would get better, it's just that I don't see any logical reason to keep him otherwise, because I think he's terrible right now, and those other guys are good role players right now. You just seem to have a different premise than I, that Martel is "not much worse", which leads to a different conclusion. I don't see how you came to believe in that premise, but you don't seem to share my appreciation for Wilkins and Watson either, so I guess that's where it will remain.

It will be interesting to see how Martel develops over his career though. I think his chances of being an all-star are also infinitesimal, and I'm still predicting that he never emerges as anything more than a shooting specialist, maybe something like Jason Kapono, if he is lucky. Only time will tell if I'm right.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> Really, I'm not impressed by Webster's play so far. I'm really really not. Are you? Really? I think his play has been awful.
> 
> Maybe it is a rare feat for an 18 year old to score 24 points (actually Webster was 19), but I think plenty of guys in the league could have, if they had been given ample minutes to play at that age like Webster had.
> 
> ...


Surprisingly, you are more delusional than the OP. Lets go over some facts.

Webster is the 2nd most athletic player on the team, behind Brandon. Travis is 3rd because he is not very coordinated.

Webster is 20 years old. He has played 2 seasons in the NBA straight out of high school.

Nate doesn't give him anything close to free reign to show what he can do. He is pretty much relegated to a corner jump-shooter. How is he supposed to score 20+ per night playing in a system like that? If he tries to make a play and botches it, he's yanked immediately almost. 

Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.

He has almost perfect shooting form.

Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.

Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.

Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.

Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.


And you think it has nothing to do with the system, and him learning how to find his niche?

What a bust. He's worthless. There's no point in drafting/trading for a young player and developing them. 
We should just play the rest of the team until they turn 40 and then fold the team.

PS
Webster is 20 years old straight out of high school.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i thought webster was a huge reach when we drafted him and i'm not high on webster's potential, but i'm not comfortable in giving up on him just yet. he's young, has good size, is above average athletically, and has shown a very nice shooting stroke. i would bet anything om him not ever being as good as D williams or Paul, whom i thought we should have drafted, but i wouldn't bet against him turning into a starter for a decent team. 

as for the trade idea by the op: i like watson, but not enough to trade webster for him. i don't really care for wilkins.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If we're going to be looking to deal Webster it should be to sweeten up a deal rather than trading him by himself. By himself he has no value. But as sweetener I think he's got lots of value. GMs don't seem to like to trade for potential by itself. But they love having it added in to push a deal over the hump.

there's got to be some sort of psychological explanation for this.

I don't care how much you think Webster sucks. Trading him for a couple of role players is "giving him away" and Kevin Pritchard doesn't give guys away.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

c_note said:


> Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.
> 
> Webster is 20 years old, straight out of high school.
> 
> ...


I do not think it is time to drop Webster for role players - but I will be OK with him being a part of a big trade that lands Portland an impact 3 or 5.

BTW - Anyone know how old Webster is and what is his academic background?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ebott said:


> I don't care how much you think Webster sucks. Trading him for a couple of role players is "giving him away" and Kevin Pritchard doesn't give guys away.


Well said.

I think Portland could find second rounders and free agent camp invitees that could perform similar to or better than Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson. Dealing Webster only makes sense as part of a larger deal.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

andalusian said:


> I do not think it is time to drop Webster for role players - but I will be OK with him being a part of a big trade that lands Portland an impact 3 or 5.
> 
> BTW - Anyone know how old Webster is and what is his academic background?


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

21 in December


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Trader Bob said:


> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/martell_webster/index.html
> 
> 21 in December


The question was, obviously, tongue in cheek - given the repetition in the quoted text...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ebott said:


> If we're going to be looking to deal Webster it should be to sweeten up a deal rather than trading him by himself. By himself he has no value. But as sweetener I think he's got lots of value. GMs don't seem to like to trade for potential by itself. But they love having it added in to push a deal over the hump.
> 
> there's got to be some sort of psychological explanation for this.
> 
> I don't care how much you think Webster sucks. Trading him for a couple of role players is "giving him away" and Kevin Pritchard doesn't give guys away.


I'll definitely buy that. I'm very down on Webster's potential, but I can still imagine that some GM might see him as a good sweetener in a trade deal. Also, I like that Pritchard places such a high priority on "A-list" players. It's easy to find role players, but real stars are tough to find. I don't think Martel will ever be a star, and I think we'd get more value out of two role players than we would if we kept Martel, but I think you're right that we potentially could get more value out of him in a different trade. We should get the best deal we can, but I still think that we will and should trade him someday soon, before the rest of the league realizes how one-dimensional his game really is.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> Webster is 20 years old straight out of high school.


That's a terrible reason for keeping a player. Just because he is young, doesn't mean he will ever be good.

Does every 20 year old male in the world have NBA star potential? No, obviously not. Of course we have to look for other indicators. Martel Webster has good shooting form, good height and an average degree of athleticism for an NBA player. Those are good traits, but that's all he has. He has no defensive ability or instincts. He has no real ball-handling skill. He can't create his own shot, and most of the time he doesn't seem to know what's going on on either end of the court.

He's a spot-up shooting specialist who isn't even that great of a shooter. Of course, he could improve those weak aspects of his game that make it a liability to put him out on the floor, but he doesn't seem to be actually doing it, since and he doesn't seem to have the aggression and the awareness factor necessary to be really good. Guys who will be very good players usually show the good stuff very early in their careers. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> That's a terrible reason for keeping a player. Just because he is young, doesn't mean he will ever be good.
> 
> Does every 20 year old male in the world have NBA star potential? No, obviously not. Of course we have to look for other indicators. Martel Webster has good shooting form, good height and an average degree of athleticism for an NBA player. Those are good traits, but that's all he has. He has no defensive ability or instincts. He has no real ball-handling skill. He can't create his own shot, and most of the time he doesn't seem to know what's going on on either end of the court.
> 
> He's a spot-up shooting specialist who isn't even that great of a shooter. Of course, he could improve those weak aspects of his game that make it a liability to put him out on the floor, but he doesn't seem to be actually doing it, since and he doesn't seem to have the aggression and the awareness factor necessary to be really good. Guys who will be very good players usually show the good stuff very early in their careers. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare.


Even so, it doesn't make this trade any better. We'd be getting back two guys that (hopefully) would be buried on the bench.

Let's say you're completely right and all Webster will ever be able to do is hit an open 3 point shot. That's still valuable enough of a talent to make him a starter on a team that needs outside shooting. That makes him worth more than two guys that won't play.

The way you're talking it's like you think trading Webster is addition by subtraction. Do you really think that simply not having Webster around would be a good thing for the team? Are you saying he's a cancer like many believe Zach and Darious are? Cause then you'd have an argument.

Right now your only argument is that he hasn't lived up to expectations. That's an ok reason to trade a guy if you can find a team that still likes his upside and is willing to give you back something of value. But in and of itself it's no reason to give a guy away.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ebott said:


> Even so, it doesn't make this trade any better. We'd be getting back two guys that (hopefully) would be buried on the bench.
> 
> Let's say you're completely right and all Webster will ever be able to do is hit an open 3 point shot. That's still valuable enough of a talent to make him a starter on a team that needs outside shooting. That makes him worth more than two guys that won't play.


Why wouldn't Wilkins and Watson play for us? It depends on the roster moves we make this summer, but as it stands now, Wilkins would probably start at SF for us. If we get a stud SF in the draft or in trade, he and Ime would be the primary backups at SG/SF. Watson would create a logjam at point guard, but for some reason Nate again requested a veteran guard to help the team, and Watson could absolutely do that. Actually, I think it might be bad unless Jack was traded, but if that happened, Watson would be the starter until Sergio could beat him out, and then he would be the primary backup.

I just disagree that a guy who can only shoot is so valuable. Can you think of an example of this? Jason Kapono and Kyle Korver are the ones that come to mind for me. They are great shooters, and contribute to their teams at times, but they aren't that valuable. Kapono shot an absurd 51% from 3 point last year, and he's a free agent this year. Will there be a bidding war for him? No, I don't think so, at least not one that goes over a couple million bucks a year. He's the premier shooter in the league, and he's not that valuable.

It's because shooting specialists are a dime a dozen, and because guys who can't do anything else are too much of a liability to put in the starting lineup. Both Korver and Kapono have started games, but mostly they came off the bench for their teams.

But anyway, you should know that Wilkins and Watson can also hit an open 3. Wilkins shot a higher % than Webster last season. Watson had an off year (admittedly, I have no idea why, maybe the ankle injury?), but in the two season before that he was a ~40% 3pt shooter as well.

So if a guy can be a starter on a team that needs shooting if his only ability is to hit an open 3 point shot, why couldn't Wilkins and Watson, who can hit an open 3 point shot as well as play above average defense and make good passes, be contributors for us?



ebott said:


> The way you're talking it's like you think trading Webster is addition by subtraction. Do you really think that simply not having Webster around would be a good thing for the team? Are you saying he's a cancer like many believe Zach and Darious are? Cause then you'd have an argument.
> 
> Right now your only argument is that he hasn't lived up to expectations. That's an ok reason to trade a guy if you can find a team that still likes his upside and is willing to give you back something of value. But in and of itself it's no reason to give a guy away.


I'm not a big believer in addition by subtraction. I don't think not having Webster around makes the team better. I think that replacing him with two veteran role players who can also shoot and have better all-around games would make the team better. If we can get more value from him in a different trade, that would be great, but I don't see him panning out if we decide to keep him.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> That's a terrible reason for keeping a player. Just because he is young, doesn't mean he will ever be good.
> 
> He has no real ball-handling skill. He can't create his own shot, and most of the time he doesn't seem to know what's going on on either end of the court.
> 
> He's a spot-up shooting specialist who isn't even that great of a shooter. Of course, he could improve those weak aspects of his game that make it a liability to put him out on the floor, but he doesn't seem to be actually doing it, since and he doesn't seem to have the aggression and the awareness factor necessary to be really good. Guys who will be very good players usually show the good stuff very early in their careers. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare.


The guy put up 15 pts in a QUARTER against Charlotte this season. He can create his own shot, but was not confident or aggressive enough this season to use his strength and athleticism to consistently attack the basket.

Players who show the ability to score at a young age need to be given time to develop. Martell has shown the ability to defend and rebound, especially toward the end of the season.

Martell, like Travis, has holes in his game. He has limited ball handling ability, and is not a playmaker like Roy. However, he has good size for the 3, can be a prolific scorer and can rebound. 

He is far from the lost cause/bust that you claim him to be.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Blazer Maven said:


> The guy put up 15 pts in a QUARTER against Charlotte this season. He can create his own shot, but was not confident or aggressive enough this season to use his strength and athleticism to consistently attack the basket.
> 
> Players who show the ability to score at a young age need to be given time to develop. Martell has shown the ability to defend and rebound, especially toward the end of the season.
> 
> ...


We'll see. I think it's unconvincing when people mention one good game that Martel had, as though that's some kind of evidence that he will be a good player. Good players play more than one consecutive good game in a row, which Webster has probably never done. His defense and rebounding were better near seasons end, but only because they were so horribly awful before that. He's still a very bad defender, and his scoring ability hasn't seemed to improve at all over the last year, despite getting pretty consistent playing time.

Travis is a good comparison though IMO. He basically has one weapon on offense, which is the mid range jumper, sort of comparable to Martel's one weapon being the 3 point shot. But Travis rebounds, defends his guy and blocks shots from the weakside. I see them as somewhat comparable players. Travis is older and farther along in his development, but both are missing key mental components for greatness. I never claimed either to be a "lost cause", but I think both have pretty limited upside, and will be marginal starter/6th man caliber players at the peak of their careers, because they have so many holes in their games. I know it's not a popular opinion, since we'd all like Webster to be more than that for us someday, but I can't help but feel he won't.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Why wouldn't Wilkins and Watson play for us?


Because Watson would be on the bench behind Jack and Sergio and Wilkins would be on the bench behind who ever we get at small forward. And that's just next season. When I talk about Wilkins and Watson not playing for us I'm thinking a couple seasons out when Roy and Aldridge are starting to hit their stride. By then I expect us to have a point guard and small forward that put Watson and Wilkins to shame.



dudleysghost said:


> I think that replacing him with two veteran role players who can also shoot and have better all-around games would make the team better.


Maybe. I just don't think that either guy in the trade would do us any real good. And when I say real good I mean win more games. I don't think adding those two guys would win us 1 more game next season. I know Martell won us a couple games last season.



dudleysghost said:


> If we can get more value from him in a different trade, that would be great, but I don't see him panning out if we decide to keep him.


Here's to hoping you're wrong.:cheers:


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> That's a terrible reason for keeping a player. Just because he is young, doesn't mean he will ever be good.
> 
> Does every 20 year old male in the world have NBA star potential? No, obviously not. Of course we have to look for other indicators. Martel Webster has good shooting form, good height and an average degree of athleticism for an NBA player. Those are good traits, but that's all he has. He has no defensive ability or instincts. He has no real ball-handling skill. He can't create his own shot, and most of the time he doesn't seem to know what's going on on either end of the court.
> 
> He's a spot-up shooting specialist who isn't even that great of a shooter. Of course, he could improve those weak aspects of his game that make it a liability to put him out on the floor, but he doesn't seem to be actually doing it, since and he doesn't seem to have the aggression and the awareness factor necessary to be really good. Guys who will be very good players usually show the good stuff very early in their careers. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare.



Why don't you just concede to the fact that you are absolutely wrong in this situation? You keep trying to defend a position that contains no realistic or meaningful points. 

Noone is saying Martell is going to be an all-star. And how do you know that he can't create his own shot?
With his tools, there's no doubt that he could be that type of player. Nate doesn't let him do that because he's only 20, and there's other guys on the team who are much better than him ATM. 

He has all the tools to become a solid starter. I'm sure his defense correlates to his experience as well, as he never played college ball.

Bottom line, you don't trade a 20 year old with those types of tools for a couple of 27 year old bench scrubs. He's smart, talented, and just needs some more experience/freedom in order to improve. 

You can't teach Martell's physical talents. You CAN teach defense and general basketball intelligence.

How can you argue against anything that I've written above here? I just don't see it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ebott said:


> Because Watson would be on the bench behind Jack and Sergio and Wilkins would be on the bench behind who ever we get at small forward. And that's just next season. When I talk about Wilkins and Watson not playing for us I'm thinking a couple seasons out when Roy and Aldridge are starting to hit their stride. By then I expect us to have a point guard and small forward that put Watson and Wilkins to shame.
> 
> Maybe. I just don't think that either guy in the trade would do us any real good. And when I say real good I mean win more games. I don't think adding those two guys would win us 1 more game next season. I know Martell won us a couple games last season.
> 
> Here's to hoping you're wrong.:cheers:


It would be great if I am wrong about Martel, because that would mean we have a real asset and not just an average NBA player.

I don't know what math you are using to figure that Martel "won us a couple games" and that somehow Watson and Wilkins wouldn't. Yeah, Martel had a couple major scoring outbursts that contributed to wins (and I mean literally, just like two), but I think if you watch those other guys play, you'll realize they actually do stuff like that at times as well. They also play defense and pass the ball. How many games did Martel "lose us" with his poor defense and lack of assist generating capability? I still fail to see how a couple guys who can hit threes and do other stuff are supposedly not better contributors than a guy who can only hit threes, now or in the future, especially since one plays the same position.

You say that we are supposedly going to add enough talent to make a couple good role players obsolete. You mention Roy and Aldridge developing, even though they don't play the same natural positions as Watson and Wilkins, and you don't seem to realize that good teams need great backup players. You also don't seem to realize that if Webster doesn't improve a lot, then whoever is good enough to make Wilkins uneccessary is also good enough to do the same to Martel. The argument that we will add talent at certain positions, even if we could assume it to be true, doesn't favor Martel.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> Why don't you just concede to the fact that you are absolutely wrong in this situation? You keep trying to defend a position that contains no realistic or meaningful points.
> 
> Noone is saying Martell is going to be an all-star. And how do you know that he can't create his own shot?
> With his tools, there's no doubt that he could be that type of player. Nate doesn't let him do that because he's only 20, and there's other guys on the team who are much better than him ATM.
> ...


What talents does Martel have? 1. Good jump shot form. 2. *Average* NBA athleticism. That's it, and that does not make him a gifted player. I have no idea why you think he is so special and you haven't done much to explain it. What am even supposed to argue against?


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> What talents does Martel have? 1. Good jump shot form. 2. *Average* NBA athleticism. That's it, and that does not make him a gifted player. I have no idea why you think he is so special and you haven't done much to explain it. What am even supposed to argue against?


Average? I don't think so. He's definitely above average. He's the fastest guy on the team. At 6'7. 

Haven't you seen him on those rare occasions when he decides to take it to the rim? He tries those crazy quadruple-pump lay-ins or just flat out throws it down. Not many people his size can do that. It would be foolish to say he is an average NBA player athletically. 

Why do you think the Blazers took him with the #6 pick? Obviously, in hindsight, it was the wrong pick and we should've taken Paul or Williams. However, whoever was running that draft for us was enamored with his physical abilities and massive potential. All he needs to do is harness it. At 20 years of age, I think he's got enough time to make something of himself.

Can you imagine the type of player he COULD become? I'm thinking that the main detriment to his game right now is his lack of decent handles. If he had half of what Brandon Roy has in that department, he would be unstoppable.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> Average? I don't think so. He's definitely above average. He's the fastest guy on the team. At 6'7.
> 
> Haven't you seen him on those rare occasions when he decides to take it to the rim? He tries those crazy quadruple-pump lay-ins or just flat out throws it down. Not many people his size can do that. It would be foolish to say he is an average NBA player athletically.
> 
> ...


I see him totally differently. He looks like a roughly average NBA SF in terms of athletecism to me, with good linear footspeed, poor lateral footspeed, and average hops. I, and I think most other people, would definitely pick Outlaw as the better athlete. I'm not saying Martel doesn't have a decent enough body to play NBA basketball, but rather that he doesn't have a great enough one to succeed without developing a high level of other skills, which he hasn't done and doesn't seem to be improving at. He doesn't look like he has a high level of awareness either or killer instinct. The same factor that makes us love Sergio's potential is what Martel is lacking. Some times a light can just come on, and a player will suddenly realize how to play and become a player. This often happens when a guy changes teams. Much more likely though, one gets the outcome we saw with Outlaw, where a guy coming into the league lacking in important mental and basic basketball skills just ends up being a nothing-special player.

Nobody can predict the future, and I hope I'm wrong about Martel. It will be interesting to see how he does in the future.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

I guess I'm more optimistic than you, especially about a team that I love. But not in a bad way. I recognize the possibilities, you recognize the faults and limitations. 

Optimism vs. Pessimism.

When I think of the word "Athleticism", I think of not only jumping ability, but speed, agility, strength, etc.

Martell is faster, stronger, more agile, and not as clumsy as Outlaw. Sure, he can jump over Martell, (and he's my favorite player on the team), but to say he's more athletic than Martell...no way. 

Step back and look at the whole picture for once.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> I guess I'm more optimistic than you, especially about a team that I love. But not in a bad way. I recognize the possibilities, you recognize the faults and limitations.
> 
> Optimism vs. Pessimism.
> 
> ...


I'm optimistic about the team in general, I just don't think Martel is going to be a good player. I'm a pessimist who doesn't look at the whole picture? You are very random c note.

Martel is a good sprinter, but not that good, and he's not agile enough to even play halfway decent defense. He's not especially strong and doesn't jump high. He's got an average NBA body, a jump shot and no real skills. That's the whole picture.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> What am even supposed to argue against?


Is this what you come to this forum for? to debate and argue against other posters?

just curious DG.... I enjoy reading your rebuttals on topics really I do

I come here to have fun, learn about players, get a bit smarter on the CBA, and hear others thoughts on basketball... but I sure dont come here to soohe my ego by out debating someone in the forum. Its for fun


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Martel is a good sprinter, but not that good, and he's not agile enough to even play halfway decent defense. He's not especially strong and doesn't jump high. He's got an average NBA body, a jump shot and no real skills. That's the whole picture.


Martell's defense, especially post defense, is improving. He collected several nice blocks inside in the last 2 weeks of the season.

He has shown the ability to rebound in traffic, which will serve him well playing the SF position.

The simple fact that he cannot break down his man off the dribble, a la Roy, is not evidence that he has "no real skills".

Martell is worth keeping and developing, at this point in his career.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> Is this what you come to this forum for? to debate and argue against other posters?
> 
> just curious DG.... I enjoy reading your rebuttals on topics really I do
> 
> I come here to have fun, learn about players, get a bit smarter on the CBA, and hear others thoughts on basketball... but I sure dont come here to soohe my ego by out debating someone in the forum. Its for fun


I think you mis-read the context of his post. He was replying to c_note's comment of "How can you argue against anything that I've written above here?" by pointing out there was no substance to argue against. I certainly don't think he's here because his ego needs a boost.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

c_note said:


> I guess I'm more optimistic than you, especially about a team that I love. But not in a bad way. I recognize the possibilities, you recognize the faults and limitations.
> 
> Optimism vs. Pessimism.


Ahh yes, the optimists always call people who disagree pessimists (instead of realists) and the pessimists always call optimists something like pollyannas.

I'm curious - where does your information come from that Webster is the fastest guy on the team? I've never seen that before.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> Ahh yes, the optimists always call people who disagree pessimists (instead of realists) and the pessimists always call optimists something like pollyannas.
> 
> I'm curious - where does your information come from that Webster is the fastest guy on the team? I've never seen that before.


I think I read that too somewhere, when Nate made everyone pass a certain time in sprint drills at the end of the season. That's not really saying much though, because we don't have any real fast guys on the team, and it's just running in a straight line.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Blazer Maven said:


> Martell's defense, especially post defense, is improving. He collected several nice blocks inside in the last 2 weeks of the season.
> 
> He has shown the ability to rebound in traffic, which will serve him well playing the SF position.
> 
> ...


He did look a little better the last two weeks of the season, but that's not very hard considering he was so awful before. But a good player plays well for more than a game or even a couple games. Sebastian Telfair had a great last two weeks as a Blazer too, then went out and played himself out of the Celtics rotation the next year. If a guy is good, he plays well consistently, not in short inconsistent bursts. You can say he had a block here and a 24 point game there, but that doesn't make him a good NBA player until he does it almost every game, rather than 1 in 10.

And it is hyperbole to say he has "no skills". I should say he is severely lacking in vital skills, which include the ability to defend an NBA player effectively, to drive with the ball, to get even an average number of rebounds for his position, and to find open teammates in scoring position with passes. He doesn't have no skills, but he is missing so many important ones.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Trader Bob said:


> Is this what you come to this forum for? to debate and argue against other posters?
> 
> just curious DG.... I enjoy reading your rebuttals on topics really I do
> 
> I come here to have fun, learn about players, get a bit smarter on the CBA, and hear others thoughts on basketball... but I sure dont come here to soohe my ego by out debating someone in the forum. Its for fun


Yeah, like Yak said, I was responding to a specific statement of C note's. It makes sense if you go back and read his post. It's kind of funny actually.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Well I guess we will find out about Martell eventually...

It IS ridiculous to advocate this trade, however.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> Well I guess we will find out about Martell eventually...
> 
> It IS ridiculous to advocate this trade, however.


I know I'm crazy. I actually prefer players who know how to play! Hopefully someday Webster can become one of those.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

LOL...Earl Watson and Damien Wilkins are journeyman scrubs....You can pick those types of players off the waiver wire any day of the week...Ime Udoka anyone? Stupid GM's trade 20yr old kids for journeymam players...

This is...was?...the problem with HS players...You have to be patient enough to let them develop...as painfully slow as that may tend to be...I look at Outlaw who has tested even my patience with his sloooow development...but now here he sits, up for a contrct and starting to show more flashes of NBA quality play...and he is what? 22?...and Martell, who you malign has shown more in his 1st two years than Outlaw EVER did...Great he may not be...Worthy of the #6 pick is questionable at this point, but a scrub? Hardly...

By the time Martell is 27 both Damien and Earl will have long washed out of the league...and you would have dumped Martell for what? 5 more wins? lol...Thankfully your not the POR GM......


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> LOL...Earl Watson and Damien Wilkins are journeyman scrubs....You can pick those types of players off the waiver wire any day of the week...Ime Udoka anyone? Stupid GM's trade 20yr old kids for journeymam players...
> 
> This is...was?...the problem with HS players...You have to be patient enough to let them develop...as painfully slow as that may tend to be...I look at Outlaw who has tested even my patience with his sloooow development...but now here he sits, up for a contrct and starting to show more flashes of NBA quality play...and he is what? 22?...and Martell, who you malign has shown more in his 1st two years than Outlaw EVER did...Great he may not be...Worthy of the #6 pick is questionable at this point, but a scrub? Hardly...
> 
> By the time Martell is 27 both Damien and Earl will have long washed out of the league...and you would have dumped Martell for what? 5 more wins? lol...Thankfully your not the POR GM......


If I were GM, I wouldn't sit around waiting on a 22 year old who has shown he only has enough skills to someday be a journeyman scrub at best. It's so funny how many people think "he is 22!" is a good argument. Being young doesn't mean you will someday be a good basketball player. Unless the guy shows some kind of indications that he is likely to be good, he is not likely to be. So yes, I'd take an extra 5 wins from adding two quality role players, every year for the next 5 years, over waiting for Martel to prove to the world how much of a bust he is. Why exactly would a good GM hold onto a bad young player?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Do you even know the history of HS players drafted into the NBA? I ask that rhetorically, b\c it is blatantly obvious that you don't..

The MAJORITY of them have taken several years to develop, and many of them have struggled as bad or worse than Martell has...quite frankly even several college graduates...the reigning NBA MVP comes to mind...have struggled there 1st few years into the league and at older (23-25) ages....

So yeah...a good GM would wait around and a foolsih one would trade him away after two years...seriously man this is a bad trade...your delusional if you think it is...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> Do you even know the history of HS players drafted into the NBA? I ask that rhetorically, b\c it is blatantly obvious that you don't..
> 
> The MAJORITY of them have taken several years to develop, and many of them have struggled as bad or worse than Martell has...quite frankly even several college graduates...the reigning NBA MVP comes to mind...have struggled there 1st few years into the league and at older (23-25) ages....
> 
> So yeah...a good GM would wait around and a foolsih one would trade him away after two years...seriously man this is a bad trade...your delusional if you think it is...


I see you spending a lot of words simply stating how wrong I am and very few giving any good reasons. Yes, young players take time to develop. That doesn't mean every guy who sucks when he is 22 is going to be good at some later date. Duh! Why is it I have to explain that multiple times?

What exactly about Martel makes you think he has any potential? Can you give any good reasons? Remember, being 22 isn't a good one. I've listed the reasons I think he doesn't numerous times already in this thread, feel free to read them and refute them directly if you like.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i think this summer is going to be very, very important to webster. he should work on his ball handling most. we'll see how he does against summer league competition. i really hope to see a much improved webster next season, but i'm not optimist.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, like Yak said, I was responding to a specific statement of C note's. It makes sense if you go back and read his post. It's kind of funny actually.


me bad... should of read more... actually should of known.. it was out of charecter for you... my apologies


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I think that every once in a while you see flashes from Martell - he rebounds well, when he goes to the hole it is often effective (he needs to do that more), he actually finishes well on the break and does a good job of using the rim to protect him in this situation - and when his shot falls (which does not happen enough) he can be automatic (like every other player in the league I guess, but it is pretty when he does it).

My opinion is that Martell is worth keeping around to see if he develops unless he can be a part of a trade for an impact player. The proposed trade with Seattle is not for impact players - so were I KP - I would pass.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I love it how dudley is clamoring for evidence, but he dismisses games where Webster led the team in scoring. He doesn't care that he's the fastest guy on the team. He doesn't care that Webster was earning minutes as a teenager.

He, in other words, doesn't care about evidence unless it supports his position: that Webster is a "a bad young player".

Whatever.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I love it how dudley is clamoring for evidence, but he dismisses games where Webster led the team in scoring. He doesn't care that he's the fastest guy on the team. He doesn't care that Webster was earning minutes as a teenager.
> 
> He, in other words, doesn't care about evidence unless it supports his position: that Webster is a "a bad young player".
> 
> ...


Yeah, whatever is exactly how I feel about that evidence. I recognize it, I just find it totally uncompelling. Do you honestly think runs fast in a straight line and scoring well in 5 games in two seasons should convince us Martel is good? That's the best you can say about him? And with that you smugly suggest I'm the one ignoring evidence? OK, whatever.

I would add "earning minutes as a teenager", but i really don't think Webster has earned his minutes. He's been given them by GMs who have left the team thin on talent at his positions and by a coach who is trying to give him opportunities to show that he can in fact play, so far to no avail. He did beat out Sergei Monia though, so we can add that to the list of career accomplishments.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> I think that every once in a while you see flashes from Martell - he rebounds well, when he goes to the hole it is often effective (he needs to do that more), he actually finishes well on the break and does a good job of using the rim to protect him in this situation - and when his shot falls (which does not happen enough) he can be automatic (like every other player in the league I guess, but it is pretty when he does it).
> 
> My opinion is that Martell is worth keeping around to see if he develops unless he can be a part of a trade for an impact player. The proposed trade with Seattle is not for impact players - so were I KP - I would pass.


I think KP would pass as well. He's all about the "A-list" guys, which is smart. I probably wouldn't make this trade either actually, because I would hope to be able to trick some team into overpaying for Webster. Heck, in a different situation he might even turn into a capable NBA player. He can run the floor and he can shoot. One of his major problems, IMO, is that he doesn't seem to know what to do. His awareness factor is really low.

Often though, that can improve in a different situation. A guy usually won't go from very bad to very good, but it's not uncommon for guys who are totally floundering with one team to get traded and suddenly appear to learn how to play basketball. Even then, I see no greatness, no all-star games (except maybe a 3-point shootout), no A-list potential in him, but he definitely could someday at least be a useful player.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, whatever is exactly how I feel about that evidence. I recognize it, I just find it totally uncompelling. Do you honestly think runs fast in a straight line and scoring well in 5 games in two seasons should convince us Martel is good? That's the best you can say about him? And with that you smugly suggest I'm the one ignoring evidence? OK, whatever.


Please. Name one player in NBA history that scored 20+ points multiple times as a teenager that didn't become an above-average player (or better) in his career. (OK... I looked it up and Webster did it the second time a week after turning 20, but we can expand it a bit if you need to be exact.)

I don't know for SURE that there are none, but I would be shocked if there have been. Maybe Bill Willoughby, but he only scored 500 points as a teenager in 101 games, so I doubt he did it. 

It is certainly POSSIBLE that Webster is an all-time bust, just waiting to happen. That the successes he's had at a very, very young age are fluky. That his underrated athleticism will never matter, and that he will stay the exact same player that he is now, or maybe improve a bit into a player like Damien Wilkins.

The odds, though, seem to be clearly against that.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Please. Name one player in NBA history that scored 20+ points multiple times as a teenager that didn't become an above-average player (or better) in his career. (OK... I looked it up and Webster did it the second time a week after turning 20, but we can expand it a bit if you need to be exact.)
> 
> I don't know for SURE that there are none, but I would be shocked if there have been. Maybe Bill Willoughby, but he only scored 500 points as a teenager in 101 games, so I doubt he did it.
> 
> ...


The 20+ point thing is fairly arbitrary IMO. And "all-time bust" is kind of a strawman. Who really cares if Martell is just good enough to be a journeyman? Will he or won't he become an above average player? If the odds of that are low, he is worth little and can be jettisoned at any time for value.

In a thread some months back (yes we have trod this path before) I tried to find a current "good" perimenter player (I contend that they "show" earlier than slow to develop post players) who came into the league young (straight from high school not a limiting factor) who had poor PER numbers for at least their first two seasons, where significant injury was not an issue.

I could only find one good example: Joe Johnson.

In recent years, the overwhelming majority of "good" perimeter players who came to the league young show something by their 2nd healthy season.

Maybe Martell will follow Joe Johnson's track. Odds seem low at this point.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Ed O said:


> I love it how dudley is clamoring for evidence, but he dismisses games where Webster led the team in scoring. He doesn't care that he's the fastest guy on the team. He doesn't care that Webster was earning minutes as a teenager.
> 
> He, in other words, doesn't care about evidence unless it supports his position: that Webster is a "a bad young player".
> 
> ...


It's gotten to the point where I'm not even gonna attempt to respond to his posts...I'm just straight up laughing at them. Seriously...(insert aspersions/truths directed towards dudley here). I'm done in this thread.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> It's gotten to the point where I'm not even gonna attempt to respond to his posts...I'm just straight up laughing at them. Seriously...(insert aspersions/truths directed towards dudley here). I'm done in this thread.


And this kind post moves the topic of this thread along how, exactly?

P.S. Don't bother responding, its a rhetorical question. We all know the answer already.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Masbee said:


> And this kind post moves the topic of this thread along how, exactly?
> 
> P.S. Don't bother responding, its a rhetorical question. We all know the answer already.


And this kind post moves the topic of this thread along how, exactly?

P.S. Don't bother responding, its a rhetorical question. We all know the answer already.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

I designate Masbee as the head of the PP (Post Police). Can't think of anyone who better fits the title.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> I designate Masbee as the head of the PP (Post Police). Can't think of anyone who better fits the title.


If that's the case, then you obviously aren't thinking very hard. Seems typical though.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Please. Name one player in NBA history that scored 20+ points multiple times as a teenager that didn't become an above-average player (or better) in his career. (OK... I looked it up and Webster did it the second time a week after turning 20, but we can expand it a bit if you need to be exact.)
> 
> I don't know for SURE that there are none, but I would be shocked if there have been. Maybe Bill Willoughby, but he only scored 500 points as a teenager in 101 games, so I doubt he did it.
> 
> ...


I looked up all the HS guards taken in the draft in the last 11 drafts. There were 11 players, and all but 3 were probably still too young to evaluate if they will be "above-average" or not. Those three were Kobe, T-Mac and DeShawn Stevenson. Kobe and McGrady outperformed Webster in nearly every category their first two seasons. Stevenson was 19 when he started playing, and hardly played for the playoff-bound Jazz in his first couple seasons, and is considered a defensive specialist. Basically it's hard to find any comparable examples.

The closest two I did find though are JR Smith and Sebastian Telfair. Neither is old enough to write off completely yet, but Telfair had two 20+ point games his first season, before the age of 20, and now looks like a major bust. Do you think he will turn out above average?

JR Smith had a dozen (as in >2) 20+ point games his first year. Some might consider him above average, but I don't, and his coaches don't seem to either. He is a streaky but sometimes effective 3 point shooter who plays awful defense, and thus gets stuck on the bench. Admittedly though, he probably isn't a great comparison, because he is a much more prolific scorer than Martel, because he is still young and undetermined, and because his attitude rather than his ability seems to be what's keeping his career off track.

Anyway, I think there's a lot more to basketball than the ability to rarely have a large scoring outburst, so the simple scoring algorithm of # of 20+ point games as a teenager is not a good way to evaluate a player. Plenty of otherwise bad NBA players are capable of having a twice yearly 20+ point night, espcially streaky shooting specialists. The vast majority didn't get the chance to try as teenagers, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have.

But there is a lot more to basketball. If a player can be called good, he should score consistently and at a high percentage, play some D, grab some boards and make some good passes. A guy can still be good if he is lacking in one or more areas if he makes up for it in others.

But Martel is just a <14pts/40min scorer and a <40% shooter who does all of the other stuff pretty poorly. What you describe as "successes" I see as hot nights in the course of a bad season. He's a guy with one skill and he's not even that good at it. If he started poor and showed rapid improvement, maybe we'd have reason to hope, but Webster is almost statistically identical in his second season as in his first. Arguably, he's gotten worse! Can you think of any young guy who fit that description who ever turned into an above average player? I can't.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> The 20+ point thing is fairly arbitrary IMO.


OK. Name a teenager who's scored as well as Webster has before turning 20 and then turned out to be something less than better-than-Wilkins.



> And "all-time bust" is kind of a strawman. Who really cares if Martell is just good enough to be a journeyman? Will he or won't he become an above average player? If the odds of that are low, he is worth little and can be jettisoned at any time for value.


The odds are NOT low. The downside is limited, based on historical information of young players.

That limited downside doesn't restrict his upside in the least.



> In a thread some months back (yes we have trod this path before) I tried to find a current "good" perimenter player (I contend that they "show" earlier than slow to develop post players) who came into the league young (straight from high school not a limiting factor) who had poor PER numbers for at least their first two seasons, where significant injury was not an issue.
> 
> I could only find one good example: Joe Johnson.
> 
> ...


Joe Johnson was 21 as a rookie. The difference (for a variety of reasons) between 18 and 21 is tremendous. While I don't recall your examples, I'm not sure that it was on point if Johnson was in the population you're comparing Webster to.

Maybe that's a problem: there's just too small of a sample size. Or we're focusing on different populations.

Here's another question: which team in NBA history has been burned by hanging onto a high school-drafted player too long? I'm not asking that in a loaded way, because there might be a few examples I'm just not thinking of. Maybe Al Harrington, during his first go-round with the Pacers? Or Jonathan Bender, although that might be attributable to injuries.

The downside for trading away a young player who's demonstrated excellence, even in short bursts, is just too great IMO to trade him away for mediocrity. I would have used the same argument about Telfair, if we'd traded him for a couple of mediocre players, and I would argue that Webster's game (perimeter shooting, potential defensive limitation) is much more suited to NBA success than Telfair's (small, shoot-first PG who can't shoot).

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> It's gotten to the point where I'm not even gonna attempt to respond to his posts...I'm just straight up laughing at them. Seriously...(insert aspersions/truths directed towards dudley here). I'm done in this thread.


It's another, "How can you argue against anything that I've written above here? I just don't see it..." moment from C note. The crazy thing is you think that when you cop that kind of attitude it makes _me_ look bad.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> The 20+ point thing is fairly arbitrary IMO. And "all-time bust" is kind of a strawman. Who really cares if Martell is just good enough to be a journeyman? Will he or won't he become an above average player? If the odds of that are low, he is worth little and can be jettisoned at any time for value.
> 
> In a thread some months back (yes we have trod this path before) I tried to find a current "good" perimenter player (I contend that they "show" earlier than slow to develop post players) who came into the league young (straight from high school not a limiting factor) who had poor PER numbers for at least their first two seasons, where significant injury was not an issue.
> 
> ...


That's about how I look at it. Of course, PER doesn't capture defensive ability, but Webster is bad at that anyway, so that factor doesn't help him. I was hopeful for young Martel after he seemed to step up his game a bit at the end of his first season, but after seeing him go a second year of low production and little improvement, the prognosis looks a lot worse. His game just has so many holes, and the stuff he is supposed to be good at (shooting and scoring), he's not even that good at.

I don't really think we should trade him for guys that we could get out of free agency, although I think it wouldn't be that easy to find free agents comparable to Watson and Wilks for the same price. Like ED O said, teams don't really get burned hanging onto young players that pan out. The risk of keeping him is low, so I think we can hold onto him and shop him patiently and try to package Martel with something to get back an "A-list" guy. But I still think that he is going to end up one of those easily replaceable journeyman types, most likely, so if we did dump him for veteran journeyman today we'd get better in the short-medium term and suffer no cost in the long-term compared to if we keep him.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> The crazy thing is you think that when you cop that kind of attitude it makes _me_ look bad.


Trust me, not hard to do.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I see you spending a lot of words simply stating how wrong I am and very few giving any good reasons.


First...Do your own damm homework...particularly if you are going to base your opinions on such faulty logic

Second...there are several players out there (some closer than others) with mediocre\slow starts who either went on to become good to great players or are showing signs of becoming good players...and I referenced one of them (Steve Nash) in my post...

Some others? Oh let me see....

Joe Johnson
Al Jefferson (HS)
Devin Harris
JR Smith (HS)
Chauncy Billups
Al Harrington (HS)
Steven Jackson
Tracy Mcgrady (HS)
Jermaine O'Neal (HS)
Shaun Livingston (HS)
Corey Maggette
Sam Cassell
Gary Payton
Ricky Davis
Tyson Chandler (HS)
David West
Jamal Crawford
Quentin Richardson
Trevor Ariza
Darko Milicic
Kevin Martin
Brad Miller
Rashard Lewis (HS)
Chris Wilcox
Mehmet Okur
Steve Nash
Jalen Rose
Leandro Barbosa
Raja Bell

to name a few....

Now some played more minutes, some less.... Some shot better percentages, some did not... or some averaged 1-3 more pts per game & some did not...but the point is that if you judged them solely by their pedestrian statistics in there 1st two years and subsequently labeled them as a "bust" as you have Webster...then you CLEARLY would have been wrong...and I seriously doubt that for most of the players listed above..you would not have regretted getting Damien Wilkins & Earl Watson for them....



> What exactly about Martel makes you think he has any potential? Can you give any good reasons? Remember, being 22 isn't a good one. I've listed the reasons I think he doesn't numerous times already in this thread, feel free to read them and refute them directly if you like.


Well you can dismiss his age all you want...but is a legitimate reason\factor in a slower progression and to dismiss it as not a valid reason is ridiculous...Does it guarantee he will be a good\great player?...Uh no...Did I ever say it did?...Uh, no...but it DOES deserve more than a two year evaluation, especially if you were the team that spent a #6 pick on him...

and I think he has shown improvement this year...He has proven he can shoot\score...but IMO his defense was better this year...he was more active on the boards...he was more aggressive in going to the basket instead of just standing out on the 3pt line...Yeah, I think his head got in his own way too often...but he showed a lot more of the little things (you know...the kinds of things that Nate likes...err...requires from his players) this year than he did last year....So yeah, he showed enough to not warrant dumping him for two bench scrubs who could be looking for work in another year or so....



> So yes, I'd take an extra 5 wins from adding two quality role players, every year for the next 5 years, over waiting for Martel to prove to the world how much of a bust he is. Why exactly would a good GM hold onto a bad young player?


5 extra wins means jack....and POR wouldn't need to deal a young player to add similiar players of impact...like they did with Ime this year...or have you already forgotten?

Martell is a bad player? really? already? I guess he is washed up then, I mean...the great talent scout Dudley has spoken...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> Trust me, not hard to do.


Well, I tried having a conversation with you, but now you want to get into a snippy contest. Pass. Have a nice day.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> The closest two I did find though are JR Smith and Sebastian Telfair. Neither is old enough to write off completely yet, but Telfair had two 20+ point games his first season, before the age of 20, and now looks like a major bust. Do you think he will turn out above average?


Good point. And we're in an interesting position to compare Webster and Telfair as we've seen them both play quite a lot. I think the major difference between Telfair's 20+ point games and Webster's 20+ point games were that Telfair's 20+ games totally screwed the offense. Rather than running the set offense and going with the flow and being a generally good thing Telfair decided from time to time that this game would be one of those games where he took the ball to the hoop or jack up every shot he could. 

Webster, otoh, stayed in the flow of the offense. He kept with his normal offensive and defensive assignments and just did better. He was able to hit the outside shots that he's had issues with. He was able to finish at the basket rather than bricking a layup or making a bad pass. And I think his big games are a good indicator that he can eventually be a solid contributor rather than just be flookish in nature.



> But there is a lot more to basketball. If a player can be called good, he should score consistently and at a high percentage, play some D, grab some boards and make some good passes. A guy can still be good if he is lacking in one or more areas if he makes up for it in others.


And as others have said, and you deny, Martell seems to be improving in those other areas. The numbers sure don't back it up. But his defense, the way he goes after rebounds and drives to the basket and passes the ball all seem to have improved.

I don't think he'll ever be the Glen Rice/Dan Majerle all-star quality super-shooter we previously hoped he could be. But I do think that within 3 seasons he'll contribute more to this team than Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson would.

If I were a GM I sure as hell wouldn't do a deal anything like that. The fear of another Jermaine O'neal like situation is just too powerful. Bob Whitsitt made dozens of trades, but the only one he's remembered for is that Jermaine trade. 

And you're not likely to get much back if you try to trade him. Cause the reverse fear is just as bad. Giving away something valuable for a guy that could turn out to be a bust. Nobody wants to be the next Danny Ainge.



> But Martel is just a <14pts/40min scorer and a <40% shooter who does all of the other stuff pretty poorly. What you describe as "successes" I see as hot nights in the course of a bad season. He's a guy with one skill and he's not even that good at it. If he started poor and showed rapid improvement, maybe we'd have reason to hope, but Webster is almost statistically identical in his second season as in his first. Arguably, he's gotten worse! Can you think of any young guy who fit that description who ever turned into an above average player? I can't.


You've got us there. The numbers do not back up the pro-Webster side of the argument. 

His rebounds have gone up a little. But that's it. Comparing him to Gerald Green, a guy he was compared to a lot on draft day, it's even worse. Gerald has almost doubled his rookie production.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> First...Do your own damm homework...particularly if you are going to base your opinions on such faulty logic


All I did was ask you to explain why you thought I was wrong, rather than just stating it over and over. I don't think it should be my homework to state your argument for you. I can't read your mind via internet.



Kmurph said:


> Second...there are several players out there (some closer than others) with mediocre\slow starts who either went on to become good to great players or are showing signs of becoming good players...and I referenced one of them (Steve Nash) in my post...
> 
> Some others? Oh let me see....
> 
> ...


Well, I never said that I'm down on Martel just because of his pedestrian statistics. To claim that is to misrepresent my argument. I'm saying that I don't think Martel will be a good player because he has such a limited skill set (shooting), he isn't even that great at that one skill and he hasn't shown much improvement in his second season, in addition to his pedestrian statistics. If you'd like, I could take just about any player on that list above and tell you how I think they showed more promise in their first two seasons than Martel has.




Kmurph said:


> Well you can dismiss his age all you want...but is a legitimate reason\factor in a slower progression and to dismiss it as not a valid reason is ridiculous...Does it guarantee he will be a good\great player?...Uh no...Did I ever say it did?...


I didn't "dismiss" his age, and there's nothing there that I even disagreed with. Age certainly affects how a guy plays. All I said was that besides age, a guy has to have significant other good attributes to rightfully be considered a good prospect. There are millions of 20 year olds in the world, so to be considered a promising NBA prospect, a player has to have a lot more than being 20 going for him. I asked you to say what else Martel supposedly has going for him, and I even started the list off with good jump shot and average NBA athletecism? Can you think of any other things? If not, why do you think Martel even _might_ be any good in the future?



Kmurph said:


> Uh, no...but it DOES deserve more than a two year evaluation, especially if you were the team that spent a #6 pick on him...


This is what's called the "sunk cost fallacy". It doesn't matter what pick we spent on Martel anymore. The past and the pick is gone. What matters is the future.

And I disagree that Martel "deserves" more evaluation. His needs are immaterial. What matters is if we believe right now that he is worth more than whatever alternative options we have. Those two years we've had him don't exactly predict the future, but my argument is that they do give us enough information to confidently predict that he won't be very good. If you disagree, that's fine. I've stated my reasons numerous times now.



Kmurph said:


> ...and I think he has shown improvement this year...He has proven he can shoot\score...but IMO his defense was better this year...he was more active on the boards...he was more aggressive in going to the basket instead of just standing out on the 3pt line...Yeah, I think his head got in his own way too often...but he showed a lot more of the little things (you know...the kinds of things that Nate likes...err...requires from his players) this year than he did last year....So yeah, he showed enough to not warrant dumping him for two bench scrubs who could be looking for work in another year or so....


That's the kind of stuff I was thinking of, when I asked if you wanted to explain what about Martel makes you think he has promise. His rebounding has improved in his second season, and that's good. I don't agree that his defense improved. He is still awful to me. And in nearly every statistical aspect of the game outside of rebounding, he is about identical to his first season. He still shoots <40%, takes the same proportion of his shots as 3 pointers, scores the same points per minute, same meager assist numbers. He gets to the FT line slightly more, but his FT % dropped a lot. Toward the end of hte year he had a few nice games, taking the ball to the rack and playing a little better D, but a lot of young guys seem to have great end of year games and then not carry it over to the next year, so I don't personally find that so convincing.



Kmurph said:


> 5 extra wins means jack....and POR wouldn't need to deal a young player to add similiar players of impact...like they did with Ime this year...or have you already forgotten?


I don't think we should deal Martel for a similar player, but I think guys like Watson and Wilkins would have a greater impact than he would, for the forseeable future. 5 extra wins is a lot, although admittedly that's an overly optimistic estimate of what Watson and Wilkins would bring us (it was your number originally). Even if it's just a few wins though, more wins are a good thing. The only reason it would be bad is if we expect the young guy in question to bring us more wins in the future. Maybe you think Martel might, I think he won't. Since I think he won't, I don't see any loss in dealing a future role player, at best, for a couple veteran role players today.



Kmurph said:


> Martell is a bad player? really? already? I guess he is washed up then, I mean...the great talent scout Dudley has spoken...


I think Martel is a bad player, and has a very limited upside. It is just my opinion, and I never said otherwise. I explicitly invited you and others to give me some reasons you think that's not true. Why does my opinion upset you so much? Are you drinking the same strong coffee that c note is?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> OK. Name a teenager who's scored as well as Webster has before turning 20 and then turned out to be something less than better-than-Wilkins.


I don't care about Wilkins.



> The odds are NOT low. The downside is limited, based on historical information of young players.
> 
> That limited downside doesn't restrict his upside in the least.


How can you say this? Based on what facts or historical evidence? I have established that the majority of young players, regardless of age or college experience show more than PER 10 by their second season if they end up being more than an average player.



> Joe Johnson was 21 as a rookie. The difference (for a variety of reasons) between 18 and 21 is tremendous. While I don't recall your examples, I'm not sure that it was on point if Johnson was in the population you're comparing Webster to.


Well, I never said Joe Johnson was a perfect example. It is only the best one I could find. If you can find a better example that could give hope to Blazer fans, I would like to see it.


> Maybe that's a problem: there's just too small of a sample size. Or we're focusing on different populations.


The population is pretty small. Which is why I expanded to include all young players, even if not 18, regardless of college experience. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have the "hope" of Joe Johnson for Blazer fans to rally around. Instead we would have a big fat nothing.



> Here's another question: which team in NBA history has been burned by hanging onto a high school-drafted player too long? I'm not asking that in a loaded way, because there might be a few examples I'm just not thinking of. Maybe Al Harrington, during his first go-round with the Pacers? Or Jonathan Bender, although that might be attributable to injuries.


Well, since Bender didn't look to be developing into an above average player before his injuries, and since Harrington is not and does not look to become an above average player during his career, they both prove my point. So what if Webster (maybe if he works really hard) becomes what Harrington is today? Are we going to miss much? I say not.



> The downside for trading away a young player who's demonstrated excellence, even in short bursts, is just too great IMO to trade him away for mediocrity. I would have used the same argument about Telfair, if we'd traded him for a couple of mediocre players, and I would argue that Webster's game (perimeter shooting, potential defensive limitation) is much more suited to NBA success than Telfair's (small, shoot-first PG who can't shoot).
> 
> Ed O.


The problem with this reponse is you are assuming I advocate trading Webster for Wilkens, etc. I have made no such statement. I advocate considering Webster's situation, and if it looks bad, "trading him for value".


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Tracy Mcgrady (HS)


Hah!

Tracy McGrady was a PHENOM by his 2nd season, AND on top of that the team's defensive stopper. Problem was he got hurt. I guess everybody knew that but you.

The rest of your list is likewise filled with guys that were obviously more productive than Martell and/or not perimeter players.

You cannot compare perimeter players with either Point Guards or Post Players. They often take longer to develop. Martell is neither. Compare apples to apples please.

As for your rude and obnoxious attitude, it might be a little easier to take if it wasn't paired with such weak postions.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ebott said:


> Good point. And we're in an interesting position to compare Webster and Telfair as we've seen them both play quite a lot. I think the major difference between Telfair's 20+ point games and Webster's 20+ point games were that Telfair's 20+ games totally screwed the offense. Rather than running the set offense and going with the flow and being a generally good thing Telfair decided from time to time that this game would be one of those games where he took the ball to the hoop or jack up every shot he could.
> 
> Webster, otoh, stayed in the flow of the offense. He kept with his normal offensive and defensive assignments and just did better. He was able to hit the outside shots that he's had issues with. He was able to finish at the basket rather than bricking a layup or making a bad pass. And I think his big games are a good indicator that he can eventually be a solid contributor rather than just be flookish in nature.


That's one way to look at it, but I dont think it's that simple. In the both the games Telfair scored that much, he was 7-12 shooting, so he wasn't just jacking up shots. In the first one, he scored 23 points in just 24 minutes off the bench, with 3 assists, 2 steals, 1 TO and getting to the FT line 8 times. Damon started at PG and played 39 minutes, NVE played 33. That was back in the time when we had a three PG rotation and they took turns running the offense (the platoon of midgets period). I don't think Telfair played outside the offense, it was his job to create his own shot, and he did it well that game.

The next one, later in the season, was when Damon played as more of a SG and Telfair was the PG. Again Bassy was 7-12, 6 assists, 1 TO, 6 FTA with 21 points in a loss to Sacramento. I don't know if I'd say he ever did a good job setting up the offense, but by that point in that year we were so dysfunctional that I can't really blame him. Doc Rivers certainly did though.

Martel, OTOH, could be generously described as playing within the offense. To me, it mostly looks like he just stands around on the wing waiting to be open and get a pass. If someone creates an opportunity for him, he sometimes knocks it down. Is that such a good thing? I don't think so.

When his shot gets hot, he does seem to get more active, playing harder defense and moving better without the ball on offense, but I see the fact that he does that so rarely as a definite negative attribute. Guys who are winners seem to have a better ability to stay focused and aggressive all the time. We could look at his infrequent outbursts as a sign he has the ability to be better, but I see his lack of concentration most games as a sign of his inability.




ebott said:


> And as others have said, and you deny, Martell seems to be improving in those other areas. The numbers sure don't back it up. But his defense, the way he goes after rebounds and drives to the basket and passes the ball all seem to have improved.
> 
> I don't think he'll ever be the Glen Rice/Dan Majerle all-star quality super-shooter we previously hoped he could be. But I do think that within 3 seasons he'll contribute more to this team than Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson would.
> 
> ...


Well, even if Martel has supposedly improved on the little stuff besides rebounding that doesn't show up on the stat sheet, how much has he improved? Is it more than a tiny bit? To me it seems like he is still a very bad defender and is usually a statue on offense. I was definitely disappointed with how little noticable progress I could see in his game this season, and from what we've seen so far, I have zero fear that if we trade him we'd have a repeat Jermaine situation. And I think the reverse Danny Ainge factor might keep any team from offering good stuff for him. Someone else suggested that he might be most desireable as part of a package, since combining him with a more certain asset makes his uncertainty more tolerable, and that seems plausible.

In any case, I won't be surprised at all if we do keep him around a while. Pritchard won't dump him for role players alone, which is smart. I just don't think he is worth more, although I am a little hopeful that Pritchard can convince some other GM into believing he is.


You've got us there. The numbers do not back up the pro-Webster side of the argument. 



ebott said:


> His rebounds have gone up a little. But that's it. Comparing him to Gerald Green, a guy he was compared to a lot on draft day, it's even worse. Gerald has almost doubled his rookie production.


Hey, I hope I'm wrong, and Martel is the rare guy who shows so little ability and improvement in his first two seasons who nevertheless has his career take off sometime later, and you guys can all razz me as the hater who didn't see the obvious potential in Webster. After his first season, I had hopes that he would take the opening at SF and show us he could be the sweet-shooting wing player that I think this team could really use, and if he becomes that sometime in the future it will do nothing but help us.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

A glimpse of the genius in Kevin Pritchard:

Y'all need to listen to the Chad Ford interview with KP in which he states "Basketball scouting is an art, not a science".

All this talk about comparisons between players and "sample size" just doesn't apply here. Players are unique.

Don't give up on Martel just yet.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

graybeard said:


> A glimpse of the genius in Kevin Pritchard:
> 
> Y'all need to listen to the Chad Ford interview with KP in which he states "Basketball scouting is an art, not a science".
> 
> ...



YES, this quote sums up the Martell situation absolutely perfectly. And KP is right. Just because the numbers and the comparisons don't match up, doesn't mean you can write Martell off. It's not a science, it takes a certain something, the ability to recognize talent and potential. 

People like Masbee and dudly are approaching this like it's a science.

As for the argument that "all he can do is shoot and he's not even good at it, he doesn't show us anything else", NATE DOESN'T LET HIM DO ANYTHING ELSE. The team runs this thing called an offensive scheme, where players have these roles they play. If they don't follow the plays (like staying in the corner), they get taken out. Travis had this problem for a long time.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Hah!
> 
> Tracy McGrady was a PHENOM by his 2nd season, AND on top of that the team's defensive stopper. Problem was he got hurt. I guess everybody knew that but you.
> 
> ...


Phenom? Hardly...He showed more than Martell has in his 2nd year...I definitely agree with that, but nobody was predicting he was going to be the elite level player he has become...

and I certainly can compare perimieter and post players...when the discussion is about them being worthless\scrubs after what the showed in their first two years in the NBA...which Dudley has surmised after Webster's 1st two years...The point is that SEVERAL players have shown little improvement in their 1st two years and yet gone on to be very good, even great players....and several of the players on that list are wing players...so apples have been compared....



> and since Harrington is not and does not look to become an above average player during his career, they both prove my point


Al Harrington is an above average player...how you could surmise he isn't is ridiculous...So he does not "prove" your point...Nice try though

http://ww.realgm.com/src_playerfile/459/al_harrington/

Rude & obnoxious? lol...perhaps you should look in the mirror...you literally drip with both...

You know what I find funny? That you still to this day, in all of your arrogance, refuse to admit you were wrong about the Webster trade and the comparisons...even when Pritchard EXPRESSELY STATED the same exact comparison that I mentioned....and then acted like a little baby....I can't tell ya how funny it was reading your response....

http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/319031-hey-masbee.html

:lol: 

So here is a new one for you....or maybe not...welcome to ignore.....


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

(edited)

McGrady had some pretty good star potential talk going in Toronto as early as his second year even though his stats weren't great. 

He averaged 9.3, 5.7, 2.3 dimes a game his second year.

Martell averaged 7.0, 2.9, and .6 dimes a game.

That's 25%, 49%, and 74% better than Martell.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> McGrady and Martell, 2nd years. Hopefully my math is correct, though I had to make some rounding modifications.
> 
> Difference (for Webster):
> 
> ...


Those numbers aren't right.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Those numbers aren't right.


I know, I made a quick edit. Sorry, I was originally looking at McGrady's second playoff year rather than his second year.

Though I must say his stats in his second playoff year were outstanding.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

With the way the NBA's rookie scale system is set up it's just dumb to "give up on" any rookie (much less a rookie out of highschool) prior to the end of their rookie contract. If a guy hasn't shown you something in 4 years, then by all means let the kid go. You don't wanna overpay for potential like we did with Darius Miles.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> A glimpse of the genius in Kevin Pritchard:
> 
> Y'all need to listen to the Chad Ford interview with KP in which he states "Basketball scouting is an art, not a science".
> 
> ...


I agree with you that players are unique. I disagree that that means Martel hasn't shown us enough to "give up on" him. He's shown us in his first two seasons that he isn't a very good basketball player, and he hasn't shown us enough indicators that he ever will be, IMO. He has such a limited skillset, low awareness, problems staying focused, and only moderate physical gifts. What factors, quantitative or not, make you think he might be a good basketball player?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> YES, this quote sums up the Martell situation absolutely perfectly. And KP is right. Just because the numbers and the comparisons don't match up, doesn't mean you can write Martell off. It's not a science, it takes a certain something, the ability to recognize talent and potential.
> 
> People like Masbee and dudly are approaching this like it's a science.


Wow, totally not true. I've given you plenty of non-quantitative reasons why I think Martel has no potential, and I know you've been participating in this thread long enough to have seen them. Feel free to go back and read them if you like.



c_note said:


> As for the argument that "all he can do is shoot and he's not even good at it, he doesn't show us anything else", NATE DOESN'T LET HIM DO ANYTHING ELSE. The team runs this thing called an offensive scheme, where players have these roles they play. If they don't follow the plays (like staying in the corner), they get taken out. Travis had this problem for a long time.


Travis isn't a very good basketball player. That's his major problem. Nate does call the plays, but do you really believe he makes Martel not play good defense, not move without the ball, not find his teammates open when he has the ball and just generally disappear for large stretches of game? Uhh, no. Blame the coach if you want, but guys like Roy and Ime seem to succeed in the exact same positions that Martel is trying to occupy, because they know how to play.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> Wow, totally not true. I've given you plenty of non-quantitative reasons why I think Martel has no potential, and I know you've been participating in this thread long enough to have seen them. Feel free to go back and read them if you like.
> 
> 
> Travis isn't a very good basketball player. That's his major problem. Nate does call the plays, but do you really believe he makes Martel not play good defense, not move without the ball, not find his teammates open when he has the ball and just generally disappear for large stretches of game? Uhh, no. Blame the coach if you want, but guys like Roy and Ime seem to succeed in the exact same positions that Martel is trying to occupy, because they know how to play.


First off, it's pretty pathetic you can't even correctly spell the name of a guy who is on your supposedly favorite team. 

Second, I think everyone here could agree you have no idea how to evaluate basketball players (except for Masbee). YOU want to trade a guy who is 20 years old for scrubs. Just do everyone a favor and stop posting. 

You say all he has shown us in 2 years is that he doesn't know how to play? You are stuck 2 years in the past. Martell has vastly improved his defense. He is not put in a position like Roy to create and make plays for his teammates. 

As for the last little attempt at making sense, Ime is 30 years old. Martell is 20. Roy went to college for 4 years. Martell came out of high school. 

You aren't a Blazer fan. You have no loyalty to the team or its players. You sound like a Yankeees fan or something. A player on the team isn't producing at an all-star level like you expect, you immediately want to crucify the guy and ignore all future possibilities because you want everything NOW NOW NOW.

Frankly, this goes beyond opposing views of a discussion. You repeatedly attack and demean a player on my favorite team with absolutely no basis, and I take extreme offense to that. 95% of this board agrees it's not time to get rid of Martell for anything but all-star level talent. Martell and Jarrett for Rashard Lewis or something like that, I guess I could live with. Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson????????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I agree with you that players are unique. I disagree that that means Martel hasn't shown us enough to "give up on" him. He's shown us in his first two seasons that he isn't a very good basketball player, and he hasn't shown us enough indicators that he ever will be, IMO. He has such a limited skillset, low awareness, problems staying focused, and only moderate physical gifts. What factors, quantitative or not, make you think he might be a good basketball player?



Martel has all the physical tools to play in the NBA. His ball handling and dribbling are shaky right now, but that will improve. He has shown improvement in that area over the past year. His shooting mechanics are a thing of beauty IF he gets his feet set under him prior to going up for the shot. Watch him, if his feet are set he usually makes the shot. I'm not going to go into great detail about the great upside of Martel with you. Suffice to say that the scouts seen it, Nate sees it, Patternash seen it, and if you can't see it you're blind.
Martel wants very, very badly to succeed in the NBA. He is very driven, so much so that it is getting in his way right now. Nate is trying not to put pressure on him, he doesn't need to because Martel is putting so much pressure on himself. This leads to frustration and the surliness that has been reported by Jason Quick. He's trying to do every thing his coaches have told him... (thinking to much). 
What is going to pull Martel through this is his work ethic and drive. Without that I'd give up on him too. He'll work his way through this and settle down. Playing hoops year round will do that. 
It's kind of like when you let a puppy go out and play with the big dogs, for a while all he can do is piss himself, he's just so exited to be out there. That doesn't mean that he's going to do it for the rest of his life.
In summation, if you watch Martel you will see that his problems come from trying to hard, not from being lazy or dumb. If you expect a 20 year old to be mature why can't you expect a 10 year old to be the same?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

c_note said:


> Second, I think everyone here could agree you have no idea how to evaluate basketball players (except for Masbee). YOU want to trade a guy who is 20 years old for scrubs. Just do everyone a favor and stop posting.


If you do not like his posts - ignore them - but I would very much hope he does not stop posting just because you belive everyone supports your position.



c_note said:


> You say all he has shown us in 2 years is that he doesn't know how to play? You are stuck 2 years in the past. Martell has vastly improved his defense. He is not put in a position like Roy to create and make plays for his teammates.


Oh please, Martell often came to replace Roy and stunk the place. I can recall only one time in the entire season when Webster actually slashed to the rim and was able to find an open man. Roy is a better player than Martell is at this point (and likely for ever) - but Martell had enough opportunities to create for others with little success.



c_note said:


> As for the last little attempt at making sense, Ime is 30 years old. Martell is 20. Roy went to college for 4 years. Martell came out of high school.


Please. My daughter is 15 years younger than Martell - following your logic she should be a better prospect than him. Likewise - I did more than 4 years of higher education - using your logic I should be a better player than Roy. Martell has more NBA experience than Roy and is nowhere near him as a player. He will probably become better - but will he ever be as good as Roy? 



c_note said:


> You aren't a Blazer fan. You have no loyalty to the team or its players. You sound like a Yankeees fan or something. A player on the team isn't producing at an all-star level like you expect, you immediately want to crucify the guy and ignore all future possibilities because you want everything NOW NOW NOW.


All future possible include a possiblity that we have seen Martell's absolute best performance ever - unlikely, sure, but it is a possibility as well. Whenever dealing with the future you have to deal with the element of rist and calculated risk. I think that at this point Martell is worth the risk of keeping around over non-impact players - but stating an opinion as DG did does not make him a non-fan - so calm down and stop the rhetoric speech.



c_note said:


> Frankly, this goes beyond opposing views of a discussion. You repeatedly attack and demean a player on my favorite team with absolutely no basis, and I take extreme offense to that. 95% of this board agrees it's not time to get rid of Martell for anything but all-star level talent. Martell and Jarrett for Rashard Lewis or something like that, I guess I could live with. Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson????????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Attack, Demean? He is stating an opinion that Martell is not a good NBA player (100% true at this point). Calm down and learn to agree to disagree, please.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

andalusian said:


> If you do not like his posts - ignore them - but I would very much hope he does not stop posting just because you belive everyone supports your position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What the hell are you smoking man? I never saw Martell come in for Roy and bring the ball down the court. I never saw him run the offense, and set up plays for his teammates. I never saw Martell get the final shot during crunch time.

You are right, I was wrong. There is no difference between players coming out of high school and those who complete 4 years of college. Good point.

My main argument (as well as almost everyone else's) is that trading Webster for Wilkins and Watson is ludicrous. 

Thank you come again.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

c_note said:


> What the hell are you smoking man?


Nothing. Thanks for asking. I also do not drink - but I sure play a mean pinball. Wanna get back on track?



c_note said:


> I never saw Martell come in for Roy and bring the ball down the court. I never saw him run the offense, and set up plays for his teammates. I never saw Martell get the final shot during crunch time.


Bringing the ball down court is not playmaking. He can not run the offense because he can not handle the ball like Roy. He can not set up plays for his teammates because this would require being able to get into the lane, have the defense collapse on him and dish out. With the exception of one time I saw this year - when Martell tries to attack the rim in traffic it comes down to a lost possesion or a shot - most of which are not good shots. Roy on the other hand can go anywhere he wants in trafic and forces a double team which opens the a team mate for a shot. Martell is fast - but he can not change direction worth a damn - which is why Roy can do what he does and Martell can not.



c_note said:


> You are right, I was wrong.


As long as you understand this...



c_note said:


> There is no difference between players coming out of high school and those who complete 4 years of college. Good point.


Not what the original post you were discussing with DG was all about. The fact is that at this point Martell is not a good player. Will he be good in the future? Hard to tell - but my issue with your post was the tone and the way you choose to argue - everyone that does not agree with you is obviously not watching the game, not a fan and the like, please tone it down.



c_note said:


> My main argument (as well as almost everyone else's) is that trading Webster for Wilkins and Watson is ludicrous.


This I actually agree with. If you could keep your posts to this and lose some of the "you are not watching the game, what are you smoking, you are not a fan" stuff around - it would be a lot easier to respect your posts.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

andalusian said:


> This I actually agree with. If you could keep your posts to this and lose some of the "you are not watching the game, what are you smoking, you are not a fan" stuff around - it would be a lot easier to respect your posts.


Honey covered in ****, looks like ****, tastes like ****.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

andalusian said:


> Nothing. Thanks for asking. I also do not drink - but I sure play a mean pinball. Wanna get back on track?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you even trying to compare Martell to Brandon? It's stupid, they aren't even close to the same player. It's like comparing Stephen Graham to Shawn Marion.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

c_note said:


> Why are you even trying to compare Martell to Brandon? It's stupid, they aren't even close to the same player. It's like comparing Stephen Graham to Shawn Marion.


I agree again. Roy is a much better player than Martell. I should point however that it was you who started this Roy/Martell comparison from 3 posts above:



c_note said:


> He is not put in a position like Roy to create and make plays for his teammates.


The issue is not Martell not put in position - it is Martell is nowhere as good as Roy - which makes trade discussions about him reasonable. At this point in his career - I would argue that Martell is not a better player than what DG was proposing to trade him for (probably worse). The only thing that goes for Martell is his potential - which is debatable if he will ever reach. My point is not that Martell is better than the proposed trade pieces - but that he is such a low risk at this point that you either stay with him and lose 3-5 more games vs. the proposed trade - or hope that he becomes much better or that some other GM falls in love with his potential and you can get something better with his as a sweetner.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

andalusian said:


> I agree again. Roy is a much better player than Martell. I should point however that it was you who started this Roy/Martell comparison from 3 posts above:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not Martell not put in position - it is Martell is nowhere as good as Roy - which makes trade discussions about him reasonable. At this point in his career - I would argue that Martell is not a better player than what DG was proposing to trade him for (probably worse). The only thing that goes for Martell is his potential - which is debatable if he will ever reach. My point is not that Martell is better than the proposed trade pieces - but that he is such a low risk at this point that you either stay with him and lose 3-5 more games vs. the proposed trade - or hope that he becomes much better or that some other GM falls in love with his potential and you can get something better with his as a sweetner.


That's my whole point. He's not better now, but he has potential to be SO MUCH BETTER. Why give up on that? Masbee and dudly can't get that through their heads.

And if you read up above, it was dudly who started the Martell/Brandon comparison. Stretching for just about anything to support your argument, eh dudly?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> That's my whole point. He's not better now, but he has potential to be SO MUCH BETTER. Why give up on that? Masbee and dudly can't get that through their heads.
> 
> And if you read up above, it was dudly who started the Martell/Brandon comparison. Stretching for just about anything to support your argument, eh dudly?


I did compare Martel*l* to Ime and Brandon. Did you already forget why? Do you have amnesia? You had said that Webster doesn't do anything besides stand around and wait for open shots because Nate doesn't put him in a position to make any plays. I pointed out that he plays the same positions as Roy and Ime, with the implication that those guys succeed because they have skills that Martell doesn't. Roy does get more plays called for him, but that's because he is a playmaker, unlike Webster. Ime gets few plays called for him, but manages to assert himself at key moments anyway, unlike Webster. Both play good defense no matter what plays are called on offense, unlike Webster.

That doesn't mean age isn't a factor, but it does mean that Martell doesn't make plays because he just isn't able, contrary to your assertion otherwise. 

If that offends you so much ... lol I don't care. You can pound angrily at your keyboard all day, and I still don't care. But I will grant you your wish and stop describing the reasons Martell is a bad prospect, because I've said what I had to say on the matter, and I don't feel the need to continue repeating myself responding to your wierd assertions. Unless someone else has an interesting question or comment I feel like responding to, I'm done with this thread.

Except one more time: Martell sucks! :lol:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> ...At this point in his career - I would argue that Martell is not a better player than what DG was proposing to trade him for (probably worse). The only thing that goes for Martell is his potential - which is debatable if he will ever reach. My point is not that Martell is better than the proposed trade pieces - but that he is such a low risk at this point that you either stay with him and lose 3-5 more games vs. the proposed trade - or hope that he becomes much better or that some other GM falls in love with his potential and you can get something better with his as a sweetner.


That's a good point, and I can definitely see the logic in that. I'm glad that you and most other posters on this board are available for and capable of productive discussion.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> I did compare Martel*l* to Ime and Brandon. Did you already forget why? Do you have amnesia? You had said that Webster doesn't do anything besides stand around and wait for open shots because Nate doesn't put him in a position to make any plays. I pointed out that he plays the same positions as Roy and Ime, with the implication that those guys succeed because they have skills that Martell doesn't. Roy does get more plays called for him, but that's because he is a playmaker, unlike Webster. Ime gets few plays called for him, but manages to assert himself at key moments anyway, unlike Webster. Both play good defense no matter what plays are called on offense, unlike Webster.
> 
> That doesn't mean age isn't a factor, but it does mean that Martell doesn't make plays because he just isn't able, contrary to your assertion otherwise.
> 
> ...


Compare a kid from high school to a 30 year old and a 4 year college player more. Good job, you definitely supported your argument.


----------

