# Roy might be hurt



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

"I fell on my tailbone in regulation and I really couldn't move," Roy said. "I told Coach I'll continue to be a decoy. ... I was just trying to gut it out for the team. We'd come too far to let this one slip."

I hope he is okay, because I while I love our team I am worried about what we can do without Roy Wonder.

http://oregonlive.stats.com/nba/recap.asp?g=2008010304&home=4&vis=22


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I don't think it'll be a huge problem.. at least I hope not, but he'll have a lot of time to rest with just two games over the next nine days.


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

alext42083 said:


> I don't think it'll be a huge problem.. at least I hope not, but he'll have a lot of time to rest with just two games over the next nine days.


The Utah game is big, it is the game that determines the tie-breaker.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

You know, that kinda brings up an interesting point. I kinda want to see what this team would be like
without Roy. What would Outlaw and Webster look like? That would really give us the full picture of their abilities.

I think by the time this team hits it's stride in a few years, Martell will be a monster.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

it wouldn't be the worst time to be hurt if he is, since we only have 2 games in the next 10 days both at home.

hope he will be ready for the 7 road games in 11 days that comes after that, though.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

c_note said:


> You know, that kinda brings up an interesting point. I kinda want to see what this team would be like
> without Roy. What would Outlaw and Webster look like? That would really give us the full picture of their abilities.


I'd rather not like to see that... It'd be something like the third quarter against Utah two games ago when Roy was out to foul trouble, and we struggled mightily.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Well, it's a good sign that he gritted it out during the two overtimes. Hopefully a little rest will help him out before Utah.


----------



## threetomaketwo (Jan 30, 2006)

Am I the only one to see the irony is this since Roy's been a pain the butt for the rest of the league the past month.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Well, Webster needs to start stepping it up, IMO. Travis is kicking his ***.

PBF


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Well, Webster needs to start stepping it up, IMO. Travis is kicking his ***.
> 
> PBF


Agreed. With James Jones and Steve Blake unconcious from behind the 3 point line, Webster isn't really as needed as much. I wouldn't be surprised to see him dealt, not that I want to trade him, but the cupboard is getting full.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Zybot said:


> Agreed. With James Jones and Steve Blake unconcious from behind the 3 point line, Webster isn't really as needed as much. I wouldn't be surprised to see him dealt, not that I want to trade him, but the cupboard is getting full.



i would be surprised since he's cheap, still has a lot of potential, moving him now would mess with chemistry, and we couldn't get anyone for him that would deserve his minutes more than the players we already have.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> i would be surprised since he's cheap, still has a lot of potential, moving him now would mess with chemistry, and we couldn't get anyone for him that would deserve his minutes more than the players we already have.


I would like to think that, because Outlaw got 4 years before this one, that Webster would get as many before we gave up on him. Is he better than Jones? Not right now he's not. But he has a bit more of a killer instinct when he's on than Jones does. He just needs to keep his mental game in check.

I certainly don't see him as a liability out there; just not the best player at the position. If he needs to start to stay productive, I'm fine with that. He hit some shots in the first and kept us afloat early.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Why are you guys talking about shipping Webster? Can 't you see that a lot of the success that the team is having is because they do have all those guys? There is no such thing as being too deep. I don't know how many times the announcers had to talk about all the sharpshooters Portland had on the floor at once. That is a good thing. Spacing. The ability to put the ball in the hole. 

Top it off with the fact that during the winning that has happened lately, every Blazer has stepped up at some time and either kept the Blazers in the game or helped put them over the top. Webster included. There are many games where his shooting in the firs half kept the Blazers within striking distance.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

hasoos said:


> Why are you guys talking about shipping Webster? Can 't you see that a lot of the success that the team is having is because they do have all those guys? There is no such thing as being too deep. I don't know how many times the announcers had to talk about all the sharpshooters Portland had on the floor at once. That is a good thing. Spacing. The ability to put the ball in the hole.


I think that the arrival of Rudy and possibly a draft pick will ensure that some moves need to be done. Rudy will need playing time - so something has to give. Unless there is a medical retirement for Miles - a move that includes Raef and a young one is a given, with 15 roster spots, it's just physics...


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

hasoos said:


> *Why are you guys talking about shipping Webster?* Can 't you see that a lot of the success that the team is having is because they do have all those guys? There is no such thing as being too deep. I don't know how many times the announcers had to talk about all the sharpshooters Portland had on the floor at once. That is a good thing. Spacing. The ability to put the ball in the hole.


Because he is known to have a poor attitude, is wildly inconsistent, is being outplayed by Travis and James Jones, and seems to be the odd man out. I am all for keeping him but if we decide to make a deal it seems to me that he and Jack are the ones we'd be using as chips.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> *Why are you guys talking about shipping Webster? * Can 't you see that a lot of the success that the team is having is because they do have all those guys? There is no such thing as being too deep. I don't know how many times the announcers had to talk about all the sharpshooters Portland had on the floor at once. That is a good thing. Spacing. The ability to put the ball in the hole.
> 
> Top it off with the fact that during the winning that has happened lately, every Blazer has stepped up at some time and either kept the Blazers in the game or helped put them over the top. Webster included. There are many games where his shooting in the firs half kept the Blazers within striking distance.


another sharpshooter is arriving next year in Fernandez who is supposed to have a great floor game as well. Martell has skill and upside, no doubt, but the cupboard is getting very full. Sizewise Webster is probably more of a 2 then a 3 and with Roy and Rudy, Portland seems pretty set there. Whether it's him or one of the other youngins, I'd think their talent and upside would bring back a pretty decent return. I'd rather that return be in the form of a pick and a clapping vet (for salary matching purposes)... and we've seen that KP & Co have the ability to evaluate young talent in the draft so this wouldn't exactly be "giving up on a guy"

STOMP


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

Travis was known to be stupid, inconsistent, and was nearly always outplayed by the players ahead of him. I don't see the difference. I like Webster.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> another sharpshooter is arriving next year in Fernandez who is supposed to have a great floor game as well. Martell has skill and upside, no doubt, but the cupboard is getting very full. Sizewise Webster is probably more of a 2 then a 3 and with Roy and Rudy, Portland seems pretty set there. Whether it's him or one of the other youngins, I'd think their talent and upside would bring back a pretty decent return. I'd rather that return be in the form of a pick and a clapping vet (for salary matching purposes)... and we've seen that KP & Co have the ability to evaluate young talent in the draft so this wouldn't exactly be "giving up on a guy"
> 
> STOMP


That is nice and all, but until I see a player in the NBA playing at a high level, I assume their performance level will be unsatisfactory. It's great seeing Fernandez playing good oveseas. It doesn't mean he will be anything here. It also doesn't mean he will be better then Webster entering next year. it also might be a scenario where it takes Fernandez a few years to get a hold of the NBA game himeself. 

One thing to think about is that this is the first year where I have seen Webster make marked improvement. I believe he has a few more years of improvement left until he becomes what he can. My guess is that Webster is about 1 year out of taking minutes away from other players in the 4th quarter. He already does from time to time now, but another year of working on his game will get him there.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Miksaid said:


> Travis was known to be stupid, inconsistent, and was nearly always outplayed by the players ahead of him. I don't see the difference. I like Webster.


The difference is that Webster was the #6 pick, and Outlaw was lucky to be picked in the 1st round. The Blazers could have had Paul or Deron Williams, and settled on Webster instead.

None of that may be *his* fault, but he has to live with it. The fans have the right to expect more out of a top 10 pick.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> That is nice and all, but until I see a player in the NBA playing at a high level, I assume their performance level will be unsatisfactory. It's great seeing Fernandez playing good oveseas. It doesn't mean he will be anything here. It also doesn't mean he will be better then Webster entering next year. it also might be a scenario where it takes Fernandez a few years to get a hold of the NBA game himeself.


yeah but it's not you and I making the roster decisions... it's KP. Have you heard him raving about this guy and what he expects he'll bring next year? I'm just trying to read the tea leaves here.



> One thing to think about is that this is the first year where I have seen Webster make marked improvement. I believe he has a few more years of improvement left until he becomes what he can. My guess is that Webster is about 1 year out of taking minutes away from other players in the 4th quarter. He already does from time to time now, but another year of working on his game will get him there.


maybe... but he'll always be a bit undersized at the 3.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

c_note said:


> I think by the time this team hits it's stride in a few years, Martell will be a monster.


I hope you're right, but these days he looks like a clutz most of the time. I've never seen a guy fall down as much as he does. He seems to get tripped up a lot, and he always looks very awkward driving to the hoop. It's almost as if he doesn't know how to inhabit his own body.

I hope he's just going through growing pains, and this is not the real Webster.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Keep in mind folks, Martell is still VERY young. He just turned 21 a month ago. Yes, he's still inconsistent, but has has shown marked improvements in his overall game over the last year. Like most high school kids, Martell has to go through a long adjustment period before he can come close to reaching his potential. I don't think he'll ever be a star, but I do think he will develop into a very solid NBA player. He's gaining valuable experience this season, and has occasionally stepped-up and helped the team win some games.

In terms of development, he's light years ahead of where Travis Outlaw was at the same point in his career. I get the feeling all the posters who want to trade Martell are the same ones who thought re-signing Travis was a bad move. You have to be patient with these kids and allow them to develop.

Of course, if a killer deal came along, you'd probably trade anyone on the roster not named Roy, Aldridge or Oden, but I see no need to trade Martell just for the sake of making a trade. Yes, we hope to add Rudy next year, but that's not a 100% done deal. And, players get !njured. At this point, Martell is cheap insurance with a chance to continue improving (which, at the very least, will increase his trade value).

BNM


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

If Roy ever does get hurt, I hope Nate plays Sergio in his stead. The offense would just come to a screeching halt with Blake or Jack running the show.

Martell is indeed our 3rd best SF behind Jones and Outlaw. But I still think we should keep him just in case we are unable to resign Jones this offseason.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> The difference is that Webster was the #6 pick, and Outlaw was lucky to be picked in the 1st round. The Blazers could have had Paul or Deron Williams, and settled on Webster instead.
> 
> None of that may be *his* fault, but he has to live with it. The fans have the right to expect more out of a top 10 pick.


Draft position does not make the difference. It can be argued, from a different perspective, that Webster being drafted at #6 is all the more reason we should give him the same patience that we gave to Travis. You're right; it isn't Webster's fault. But trading him because we have two other capable players draws some parallels from the time we traded Jermaine. He's doing fine, he is young, and we're winning. C'mon.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> The difference is that Webster was the #6 pick, and Outlaw was lucky to be picked in the 1st round. The Blazers could have had Paul or Deron Williams, and settled on Webster instead.
> 
> None of that may be *his* fault, but he has to live with it. The fans have the right to expect more out of a top 10 pick.


And, Martell IS delivering more than Travis was at the same point in his career. 

33 games into his 3rd season, Travis Outlaw was averaging 2.7 PPG on one of the worst teams in the league.

33 Games into his third season, Martell Webster is averaging 10.7 PPG on a play-off contender.

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Of course, if a killer deal came along, you'd probably trade anyone on the roster not named Roy, Aldridge or Oden, but I see no need to trade Martell just for the sake of making a trade. Yes, we hope to add Rudy next year, but that's not a 100% done deal. And, players get !njured. At this point, Martell is cheap insurance with a chance to continue improving (which, at the very least, will increase his trade value).


This teams plays such inspired basketball despite their shortcomings, that I do not want to trade anyone. But, there will be a need to open at least one roster spot next year, if not two (depending on the pick and what happens with Jones) - so a trade is about as close to a reality if we accept that KP will not just cut players and be done with it. It is in a way sad, but it is reality.

The biggest trade assets Portland has are an expiring contract (Raef), a multitude of picks (a 1st and multiple 2nd round) and a lot of young cheap promising pieces.

If any team is going to be willing to give a good piece for cap space - they will want some "promise" or another asset that could help with rebuilding. Such an asset could be one or more picks or a semi-established young player with potential.

Could it be a Raef + 1st round Pick + cheap asset (Green or McBob)? Or would it be more likely to be Raef + established asset with potential (Webster/Outlaw/Jack/Sergio) + pick for a higher pick + dead albatross contract that KP thinks is valuable in the short term...

Something is going to happen - and I suspect that if KP has someone he really wants in the draft - the 2nd scenario is very likely. Just my gut feeling.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> And, Martell IS delivering more than Travis was at the same point in his career.
> 
> 33 games into his 3rd season, Travis Outlaw was averaging 2.7 PPG on one of the worst teams in the league.
> 
> 33 Games into his third season, Martell Webster is averaging 10.7 PPG on a play-off contender.


But all things aren't equal in comparing those two. Travis will always be a bigger/longer, and Martell will never have close to his hops.

Relaying a somewhat related baseball analogy... a scout is watching two HS players running around the basepaths. One rounds the bases and generally has perfect form, the other is gangly and undisciplined. They both turn in the same times... which one is the better prospect? The gangly one because he can be taught and improve more.

Comparing these two young Blazers the one with the rough edges is clearly Travis. Dude arrived without any sort of floorgame or jumper. I think he's just starting to put it together and to take advantage of his gifts. I just don't see the same sort of untapped upside with Martell. He could be good, but I see Travis as having the potencial of becoming great.

STOMP


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> This teams plays such inspired basketball despite their shortcomings, that I do not want to trade anyone. But, there will be a need to open at least one roster spot next year, if not two (depending on the pick and what happens with Jones) - so a trade is about as close to a reality if we accept that KP will not just cut players and be done with it. It is in a way sad, but it is reality.


There's really too many possible scenarios at this point to consider them all.

Yes, we are all hoping to see Rudy Fernandez in a Blazers uniform next season, but it's not 100% etched in stone.

Greg Oden already counts against our 15-man roster. So, "adding" him doesn't require freeing up a roster spot.

They could simply cut Darius Miles, or offer him a buy out. Either one would free up a roster spot. He really doesn't have a place on this team and has less than zero trade value. So, a buy out might be prudent. It's only money and Paul Allen still has plenty of that last time I checked. With the Blazers on the verge of something special, I see Paul much more likely to eat the remainder of Darius Miles' contract than trading a young player with potential and a cheap contract just to free up a roster spot.

And then, as you note, there are other young players with lesser roles (McRoberts and Green) that could be moved/cut instead of trading Martell.

And, if there is no one Pritchard likes at our draft position, he could simply trade our 2008 1st round pick for somebody else's future 1st round pick.

I see no reason, at this point, to assume ANY of our top 12 players will be moved just to open up a roster spot. At this point, we're not even 100% sure if we'll NEED a roster spot.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> But all things aren't equal in comparing those two. Travis will always be a bigger/longer, and Martell will never have close to his hops.
> 
> Relaying a somewhat related baseball analogy... a scout is watching two HS players running around the basepaths. One rounds the bases and generally has perfect form, the other is gangly and undisciplined. They both turn in the same times... which one is the better prospect? The gangly one because he can be taught and improve more.
> 
> ...


Yes, but it took Travis until his 5th season to be better than Martell is at the beginning of his 3rd.

I don't see this is an either/or situation. If you have two young players with potential, why not keep them both? They are currently co-existing quite nicely. Why the desire to trade one of them?

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Greg Oden already counts against our 15-man roster. So, "adding" him doesn't require freeing up a roster spot.
> 
> I see no reason, at this point, to assume ANY of our top 12 players will be moved just to open up a roster spot. At this point, we're not even 100% sure if we'll NEED a roster spot.


I think the consolidation talk is more about having PT for guys who deserve it then it is about roster spots. Having a quality young player like Martell or Travis rotting on the bench is a potential problem IMO... sitting a McBob, not a problem.

STOMP


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> I think the consolidation talk is more about having PT for guys who deserve it then it is about roster spots. Having a quality young player like Martell or Travis rotting on the bench is a potential problem IMO... sitting a McBob, not a problem.
> 
> STOMP


My response wasn't about PT, it was a direct response to andalusian's statement that we needed to free up at least one roster spot for next season.

But as I said, it's not a 100% done deal that Rudy will be wearing a Blazers uniform next season, and it's also not a done deal that we'll keep our 2008 draft pick. Nor, is it a done deal that James Jones will be on the roster next season. I hope to heck he is, but he could exercise his player option and sign elsewhere for more money - which would then mean MORE, not less PT for Martell and Travis.

No PT issue currently exists, and I see no reason to trade a player to address a non-existent problem. If a problem does crop up in the future, then you start looking at making a trade. ANY trade talk right now, with the way the team is playing, is totally premature and can only undermine the excellent chemistry and confidence this young team has developed.

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, we are all hoping to see Rudy Fernandez in a Blazers uniform next season, but it's not 100% etched in stone.
> 
> Greg Oden already counts against our 15-man roster. So, "adding" him doesn't require freeing up a roster spot.
> 
> ...


From the way KP talks, I am counting Rudy as a "coming here next year" and the team will have a 1st round draft pick. This is why I assume one or two new players on the roster.

While cuts are an option - I imagine that KP knows there are some issues that need to be addressed (another good rebounder), and once people get out of their rookie contract - there will be a need to pay several of them - so consolidation makes sense. If the "CAP Plan" is still in effect, one or both of Webster/Jack will need to be traded/cut to remove their cap hold.

My guess is that KP will try to keep James Jones. He makes Nate happy, he makes Roy happy and he fits the team's projected needs with a big interior force like Oden - so I do not think he will let him go and open the roster spot this way.

Now, the Blazers now have a rather unlikely playing rotation of 10 guys per game. At least 2 more will need minutes next year (Oden, Rudy) - so even if roster spots are not needed because you cut Green/McBob - you need to make playing time available. What good is Webster if he is buried on the bench behind Jones and Outlaw (assuming that Outlaw is moved to a 3, since Oden gets into the bigs rotation). One of the Jack/Sergio could also be moved, assuming that Blake is retained and Rudy needs time in the guards rotation.

In theory there is a potential that no-one is traded and there are some cuts (Miles, Green, McBob). I doubt however that this scenario happens. There are too many issues of roster spots and playing time that need to be addressed - so I would be shocked if a trade that involves one of the young ones does not happen before the first game of next year.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> ANY trade talk right now, with the way the team is playing, is totally premature and can only undermine the excellent chemistry and confidence this young team has developed.


Absolutely right, if it is done by KP and Nate. Totally irrelevant if we, as fans, do it. At least, this is my opinion.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> No PT issue currently exists, and I see no reason to trade a player to address a non-existent problem. If a problem does crop up in the future, then you start looking at making a trade. ANY trade talk right now, with the way the team is playing, is totally premature and can only undermine the excellent chemistry and confidence this young team has developed.
> 
> BNM


I agree that there is no reason to make a change right now. I think people are just speculating about what might happen down the road. Who is the better value - Webster at nearly $3 million, or Jack at $1.2 million? Who has more trade value? Fans are always going to argue over such questions. :biggrin:


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

I really think Martell will be a very good player for us soon. If he doesn't put it together by the end of this season, I really think he'll be there by next season. It just seems to me that he has the tools to be more than just a shooter. I think he just needs a little more experience and confidence before he really breaks out.

Please, let's not trade him yet.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I just want to throw this out there. 

Martell Webster 07-08 (3rd year) PPG 10.7 (Double figure scorer). RPG 4.1 FG% .423 (Improved) 3pt% .371 (Very Solid). TO 1.18. MPG 29.4

Travis Outlaws 3rd Year: PPG 5.8 RPG 2.7 FG% .440 3pt% .264 TO .54 MPG 16.7

If you look at where he is, he is still ahead of some company that has turned ok to be pretty decent at certain points of their careers. In other words, he is developing faster then some players we have had a lot more patience with. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, but it took Travis until his 5th season to be better than Martell is at the beginning of his 3rd.
> 
> I don't see this is an either/or situation. If you have two young players with potential, why not keep them both? They are currently co-existing quite nicely. Why the desire to trade one of them?
> 
> BNM


Agreed.
For high schoolers, it takes more than three years unless you're LeBron. Dwight Howard has taken four years to become the beast he is right now.

We've been patient with Travis, and I'd like to see us be patient with Martell. He's improved year after year, and he'd only be a junior in college, while Travis essentially would be in his rookie season if he went to college.
Keep Martell. He'll be a good player when this team hits its stride over the next few years.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> From the way KP talks, I am counting Rudy as a "coming here next year" and the team will have a 1st round draft pick. This is why I assume one or two new players on the roster.


Where Rudy plays next season is HIS decison, not KP's. I'm sure he'd be VERY welcome here, but it really is up to him. Sergio says he wants to be here, but that doesn't make it reality. Fact is, he makes much more in Europe than he would on a rookie scale contract here. I'm not saying he won't be here, but it's not a 100% done deal.

Ditto on the draft pick. When we were 5-12 and it looked like we'd be getting another high lottery pick, I'm sure KP was salivating about the possibilities. If the draft was held today the Blazers would be picking 21st. That makes trading the pick, or using it on another young international player to stash overseas, much more likely. And, even if we do keep it, there's no guarantee anyone taken at 21 in the 2008 NBA raft would make our roster, let alone get any significant PT.



andalusian said:


> My guess is that KP will try to keep James Jones. He makes Nate happy, he makes Roy happy and he fits the team's projected needs with a big interior force like Oden - so I do not think he will let him go and open the roster spot this way.


I hope we keep him too, but the reality is someone else could end up offering him more money, or a longer term deal than KP is willing to commit. I'm not saying KP would let Jones walk just to free up a roster spot, but if he's REALLY planning to go after a big time free agent during the summer of '09, re-signing James Jones to a bigger, longer contract could put a damper on those plans. The way James is playing, there will certainly be other teams interested. 

Personally, I'd rather just re-sign James and say the heck with the cap space plan. The way the current CBA is structured, cap space is fool's gold. It's almost impossible to lure away any potential free agents that you'd actually want (good and reasonably young). You might be able to overpay for a decent, but not great player, but I'd rather keep James Jones, who is very decent and a great fit on this team.



andalusian said:


> Now, the Blazers now have a rather unlikely playing rotation of 10 guys per game.


Actually, we only have 9 guys that get more than 10 MPG. 



andalusian said:


> At least 2 more will need minutes next year (Oden, Rudy) - so even if roster spots are not needed because you cut Green/McBob - you need to make playing time available. What good is Webster if he is buried on the bench behind Jones and Outlaw (assuming that Outlaw is moved to a 3, since Oden gets into the bigs rotation).


Well, for starters Raef's minutes, assuming he isn't moved, will go from 8.3 MPG to 0 MPG. Oden will likely be foul prone. Plus, I think the Blazers will try to bring him along slowly, like they did LaMarcus last year. I don't think they want to have him playing 35 MPG after coming back from his !njury and getting up to speed after a year off. Joel, as a backup will likely see his minutes drop from about 21 MPG to 15 or 16 MPG. So, Travis might still get a few minutes at the 4 spot when Nate elects to go with a smaller line-up. I don't think Oden's presence alone necessarily means Martell will be "buried on the bench behind Jones and Outlaw".



andalusian said:


> One of the Jack/Sergio could also be moved, assuming that Blake is retained and Rudy needs time in the guards rotation.


Assuming Rudy comes over next season, I see Jack as the odd man out. Rudy will play the same role and has the potential to be a lot better at it. I do think they will keep Sergio around for at least a year to help ease Rudy's transition, but in the long run, ironically, I think the addition of Rudy makes Sergio a player without a role on this team. Adding Rudy means even more minutes at PG for Brandon, and I think Steve Blake is the best guy to keep around as a back-up PG. Other than six great minutes against the worst team in the league, Sergio hasn't impressed me much this season.



andalusian said:


> In theory there is a potential that no-one is traded and there are some cuts (Miles, Green, McBob). I doubt however that this scenario happens. There are too many issues of roster spots and playing time that need to be addressed - so I would be shocked if a trade that involves one of the young ones does not happen before the first game of next year.


IF something does happen involving one of our young rotation players, I think it would be more likely to occur around the trade deadline. That will give Nate a few months to see how the new guys fit in and what guys are expendable. Still, I don't necessarily think we'll end up trading one of our younger rotation guys, and if we do, I think Jack is the most likely to go with the addition of Rudy.

BNM


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> 33 games into his 3rd season, Travis Outlaw was averaging 2.7 PPG on one of the worst teams in the league.
> 
> 33 Games into his third season, Martell Webster is averaging 10.7 PPG on a play-off contender.


I'm always impressed when people are able to pull up statistics like this. Just curious--how do you find numbers that so neatly support your point? What is your source and how do you extract these kinds of numbers from year-end statistics? 

Again, count me VERY impressed.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Well, for starters Raef's minutes, assuming he isn't moved, will go from 8.3 MPG to 0 MPG.


he's averaging those minutes in the 15 games he's appeared in... factor in the other 18 DNP-CD games and he's averaging 3.8 MPG.

STOMP


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> I'm always impressed when people are able to pull up statistics like this. Just curious--how do you find numbers that so neatly support your point? What is your source and how do you extract these kinds of numbers from year-end statistics?
> 
> Again, count me VERY impressed.


My source for the data is the game logs at basketball-reference.com. I did the math. A lot of this is just based on memory of what role Travis played and how he performed back at the beginning of his 3rd season. By the end of the year his PT and scoring average had increased, but at the beginning of that season, he was playing very limited minutes and not really contributing much. 

So, I went to basketball-reference.com and dug up his numbers for the first 33 games of that season to compare to Martell's for the first 33 games of this, his third, season. As I expected, it clearly shows Martell was contributing a lot more at the same point in his young career than Travis was.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> he's averaging those minutes in the 15 games he's appeared in... factor in the other 18 DNP-CD games and he's averaging 3.8 MPG.
> 
> STOMP


Of course, any potential PT issues assume we won't have any significant !njuries. Other than Oden's big one, we've been pretty lucky !njury wise so far this season. Much better than last year when Roy, Aldridge, Joel and Zach all missed a sgnificant number of games due to !njuries.

It's always nice to have a deep bench so you can continue to win when you lose a starter for an extended period. Assuming Rudy comes over AND we re-sign James Jones, I think is makes since to keep Martell around as potential insurance (at the very least) AND to watch him continue to develop. He's still on his rookie contract. So, he's cheap. And he can play both the 2 and the 3.

BNM


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> No PT issue currently exists, and *I see no reason to trade a player to address a non-existent problem.* If a problem does crop up in the future, then you start looking at making a trade. ANY trade talk right now, with the way the team is playing, is totally premature and can only undermine the excellent chemistry and confidence this young team has developed.


I totally agree. Is it possible Rudy and Oden come over, we keep all our players, and nobody has an injury thus creating a PT issue? Sure, but until it happens, making a trade for the primary reason of clearing up PT is a bad idea. 

We should make a trade because we believe the guys traded for are better talents, because we believe they make our team better than the guys going out, if that happens and Martell is a part of it then great job KP. Otherwise, just leave the dang cake in the oven.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Draco said:


> We should make a trade because we believe the guys traded for are better talents, because we believe they make our team better than the guys going out, if that happens and Martell is a part of it then great job KP. Otherwise, just leave the dang cake in the oven.


It does boggle the mind that we've won 15 of 16 and posters here are talking about trading one of our starters that just turned 21 the day after the winning started.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> It does boggle the mind that we've won 15 of 16 and posters here are talking about trading one of our starters that just turned 21 the day after the winning started.
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


It boggles the mind that fans of a team whose championship window opens in 2+ years (and about a year or so earlier than previously expected) and has so many young assets that can not all co-exist from a PT and salary implications (not to mention hints by the team's GM about cap space and final piece and Rudy coming over) do not accept that other fans of the same team want to speculate on the structure of that team during the predicted glory days 

No one is talking about a trade during this year's run - but speculating that the chances of a trade at draft night are not minimal and if so, how it would be done is a fair topic of discussion, imho.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Draco said:


> I totally agree. Is it possible Rudy and Oden come over, we keep all our players, and nobody has an injury thus creating a PT issue? Sure, but until it happens, making a trade for the primary reason of clearing up PT is a bad idea.


No one ever said that the trade was made just to clear PT - but to make the team better. Let's face it, one of the primary reasons for the Zach trade was the clear PT for LaMarcus. It seems to be working pretty well... more PT and a better team... - and while I like the entire team and just about any player on it - I will not be surprised to see some of the pieces traded for things that make the team better - and getting more PT for players the GM/Coach consider better for the team's success is definitely part of this equation.


----------



## DucRider (Dec 22, 2007)

Several comments from Nate and KP have indicated this is to remain an evaluation year. 
One things with evaluations, success incurs higher expectations.
Travis got the years to develop because the team sucked and was rebuilt. Had they been 6-8th in the playoffs, he would likely be gone in a move to make a run for the finals. Webster is unlikely to have the same time frame to prove himself if only because the team is better and he may be expendable for the "final piece".


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

how serious is this roy injury

this thread got hijacked like a mofo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> It boggles the mind that fans of a team whose championship window opens in 2+ years (and about a year or so earlier than previously expected) and has so many young assets that can not all co-exist from a PT and salary implications (not to mention hints by the team's GM about cap space and final piece and Rudy coming over) do not accept that other fans of the same team want to speculate on the structure of that team during the predicted glory days


Fine, speculate away. Personally, I'd rather enjoy the better-than-expected present than worry about the even brighter future. That's KP's job and I'm content to leave it in his very capable hands.

BNM

P.S. At the risk of heading down yet another rat hole, why can't so many young assets co-exists due to salary implications? I never understand comments about needing to dump salary to re-sign Roy, Aldridge, Oden and our other "young assets". We own the Bird rights to ALL of our young (and old, too) players. We are free to re-sign them for any amount we see fit up to the league maximum - which is more than anybody else can offer them. The cap has no bearing what-so-ever in our ability to re-sign our young assets. Plus, with Francis and Raef coming off the books eventually, it's not like it will bankrupt Paul Allen to do so. After we won the lottery, Allen said he'd be willing to pay luxury tax for a chance to contend for a title. First you said it was a roster spot issue, then a PT issue, and now it's a salary issue?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

DucRider said:


> Webster is unlikely to have the same time frame to prove himself if only because the team is better and he may be expendable for the "final piece".


Good point. I might be wrong, but isn't Webster (and Jack) eligible for an extension this summer? If they get it, it pretty much negates the Cap Space plan right there, if they do not get it - will it cause a problem the way Gordon/Deng's lack of extension caused Chicago (to a lesser extent, they are not the stars of the team).


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Fine, speculate away. Personally, I'd rather enjoy the better-than-expected present than worry about the even brighter future. That's KP's job and I'm content to leave it in his very capable hands.


I have no doubts that his capable hands are better than mine, but it does not stop me from speculating and thinking on it... I can do it while enjoying the current success as well. Does not seem to be mutually exclusive for me.




Boob-No-More said:


> P.S. At the risk of heading down yet another rat hole, why can't so many young assets co-exists due to salary implications? I never understand comments about needing to dump salary to re-sign Roy, Aldridge, Oden and our other "young assets". We own the Bird rights to ALL of our young (and old, too) players. We are free to re-sign them for any amount we see fit up to the league maximum - which is more than anybody else can offer them. The cap has no bearing what-so-ever in our ability to re-sign our young assets. Plus, with Francis and Raef coming off the books eventually, it's not like it will bankrupt Paul Allen to do so. After we won the lottery, Allen said he'd be willing to pay luxury tax for a chance to contend for a title. First you said it was a roster spot issue, then a PT issue, and now it's a salary issue?


The Salary Cap plan of 2009 and looking for the final piece (KP's words, not mine) is non-existent if Miles does not retire or further moves are done, due to cap-hold of unsigned young assets like Webster/Jack. Could be even worse if JJ opts out and the team re-signs him to a longer/more lucrative deal (even if it is not an outrageous one). Since a Miles retirement is far from a certainty, I would imagine that if this plan is more than a smoke-screen - more trades will happen.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I've said it all along, Cap Space '09 is not about signing a big name free agent. It just doesn't happen like that under the current CBA. It's about (potentially) facilitating a trade by being able to take on more salary than you ship out. Raef's big expiring contract serves a similar purpose.

I actually think the Blazers HAVE all the pieces they need. Once they get Oden and Fernandez on board, what else do they need? Yes, they lack a world class superstar PG (Chris Paul) and an all-star small forward, but you can't have an all-star at every position and expect to maintain harmony and that elusive team chemistry that's so important to winning a title. You need two or three all-star caliber players and several excellent role players. The Blazers have that now. They just need to keep this young core together, mix in a healthy dose of Greg Oden and a little Rudy Fernandez on the side and they are all set.

Greg Oden gives them the three things they currently lack most - rebounding, interior defense and a low post scoring threat. And Rudy gives them an upgrade in the backcourt to compliment Brandon Roy (who may very well be our answer to having a world class PG - he's certainly world class and he's manning the point more and more - likely full-time once Rudy cracks the starting line-up, be it 2008-09 or 2009-10).

We don't need to bring in a big name, big ego "final piece" to complete this team. Add Oden, and Fernandez and let them grow into champions.

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> I actually think the Blazers HAVE all the pieces they need. Once they get Oden and Fernandez on board, what else do they need? Yes, they lack a world class superstar PG (Chris Paul) and an all-star small forward, but you can't have an all-star at every position and expect to maintain harmony and that elusive team chemistry that's so important to winning a title. You need two or three all-star caliber players and several excellent role players. The Blazers have that now. They just need to keep this young core together, mix in a healthy dose of Greg Oden and a little Rudy Fernandez on the side and they are all set.
> 
> Greg Oden gives them the three things they currently lack most - rebounding, interior defense and a low post scoring threat. And Rudy gives them an upgrade in the backcourt to compliment Brandon Roy (who may very well be our answer to having a world class PG - he's certainly world class and he's manning the point more and more - likely full-time once Rudy cracks the starting line-up, be it 2008-09 or 2009-10).
> 
> We don't need to bring in a big name, big ego "final piece" to complete this team. Add Oden, and Fernandez and let them grow into champions.


I do not think they need a world class PG, nor do I think there is a glaring hole in the SF position, but they do need a lock-down perimeter defender (the "Bruce Bowen" or maybe in the future, if he develops - a Corey Brewer type) and they do need another good rebounding role-player. These are the pieces that will really make this team very well rounded, imho. Perimeter defense is really an issue that needs to be addressed, imho, if we want to protect Oden/Aldridge from getting cheap fouls trying to cover for penetration mistakes.

As for chemistry, it is true that this year it goes well - but at some point the issue of contracts and money do get into the equation - less so when you have so many rookie contract players - but will Webster/Jack/Frye be happy when it is time for an extension if this extension does not materialize? Will the guys be happy to continue with their playing time? If Oden/Rudy need minutes, and Sergio needs more minutes to develop - where do these minutes come from? If you include Sergio in the "rotation" PT, especially in the upcoming years when he will need more to progress - you will have 12 guys (Blake/Roy/Webster/Aldridge/Pryz/Sergio/Jack/Jones/Outlaw/Frye/Oden/Rudy).

I just do not believe that the team can continue forward with 12 guys that need minutes/money for the long term - and if we learned something about KP - he does not like to react, he likes to be proactive. I can't imagine he does not see these issues and will be trying to fix them before he is forced to do so, and it is usually easier to swing trades around the draft-time, especially when the team can "postpone" some of these issues by combining expiring with lower pick and another developing potential young player for a higher potential player/pick and salary matching that will either be a good role player or another bench/cut target.

Look at Chicago - they assembled a lot of young talent, they were not willing to trade any of them and they were not willing to commit big money to keep them - and the chemistry is no longer there... Gordon needs minutes and plays for a contract, Deng does the same, Kirk did get his contract and the other guys are saying "why him and not me". Portland has a lot of youth and a lot of potential - but ignoring the fact that it will need to be consolidated with clear definition of who is what is ignoring the elephant in the room.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Look at Chicago - they assembled a lot of young talent, they were not willing to trade any of them and they were not willing to commit big money to keep them - and the chemistry is no longer there... Gordon needs minutes and plays for a contract, Deng does the same, Kirk did get his contract and the other guys are saying "why him and not me". Portland has a lot of youth and a lot of potential - but ignoring the fact that it will need to be consolidated with clear definition of who is what is ignoring the elephant in the room.


The Bulls drop off from last season to this has more to do with their best player's (Deng) back injury then anything else. I don't think there is that much to be gained from looking at their situation other then it's best to avoid injury... I guess you could look at their guys and notice that they've some gaps in their lineup sizewise (like SG) and redundant talent at other positions (SF). But they're neither as talented or as complimentry as a unit as Portland's players. 

STOMP


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> how serious is this roy injury
> 
> this thread got hijacked like a mofo


Any update on Roy? Is there any chance he may not play tomorrow night?

Barrett's blog makes it sound like Roy was pretty sore after the game last night.
http://mikebarrettsblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/back-home-looking-for-more.html


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

****. "Game-time decision." We *need *Brandon to play this game.
Quick.


----------



## Driew (Oct 20, 2007)

Knowing Roy I think he'll play unless the doctors say no.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

He sure is starting to deserve a reputation for gutting it out, first when he was sick, puking between the third and fourth and now playing two overtimes while injured.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

*I got sick of this thread getting hijacked as well. We could have transfered 3/4 of these responses into their own thread titled "Webster or Outlaw better @ their 3rd year? If "moderators" would have done their job they would have done a separate thread by now and cleaned up this thread that went off the bandwagon.*

The word is (from the news), that Nate let have the team off on Friday. Hopefully Roy took some pain medication for him to play saturday. He is a gut player to play two overtimes regardless to the pain that he must have been feeling. This just shows hes a true sportsman and wants to win for the team.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> We don't need to bring in a big name, big ego "final piece" to complete this team. Add Oden, and Fernandez and let them grow into champions.
> 
> BNM


I was actually thinking about this earlier today. I was considering how often Jack, Frye, and Outlaw have shut me up through the season so far, and considering my hopes for Webster and Sergio. I really don't think we need a major move to get us over the hump. Like you said, with Oden and Fernandez, the team just needs to grow. Maybe in a year or two we realize someone doesn't fit (I'm thinking one of Jack, Sergio, and Blake or Outlaw/Webster/Jones), we make a move, but if not then I really think we don't need a whole lot more. 

I'd be much more satisfied with standing pat, letting Raef expire, and making similar moves and allowing some of these young guys (Webster, Sergio, Fernandez specifically) develop and see what we have than to give up on one of them while their "potential" is high. Hypothetically, if one of them doesn't pan out and we can't get much for them down the line, I think we have enough solid pieces to take the minutes from that player(s).


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Stop hijacking this thread. This is getting annoying. I will be a pest, to get this to stop. We could be down to one page right now without all this other "useful" information on two players thats not relevant to this thread.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Nate Dogg said:


> Stop hijacking this thread. This is getting annoying. I will be a pest, to get this to stop. We could be down to one page right now without all this other "useful" information on two players thats not relevant to this thread.


I thought about making a new thread, but thought it'd be more beneficial to just respond in the same one. Your thoughts?


----------

