Jake Layman

[Scalma]

Trevor Ariza sucks. He's washed. We better not trade for him.

I don’t even want him, I just listed him since he’s been mentioned. My biggest issue with Ariza is that he fits the way we currently play, but we need someone that would force a change in gameplan.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Trevor Ariza sucks. He's washed. We better not trade for him.

Expiring contract. If you could convince them to take Hark or Turner for him, you grab that deal and run before they can change their minds.

 

[hoopsjock]

Expiring contract. If you could convince them to take Hark or Turner for him, you grab that deal and run before they can change their minds.

Yeah exactly, I am still of the opinion that if you can trade Harkless, Turner, or Leonard for an expiring contract you do it no matter who the player coming back is.

 

[illmatic99]

Expiring contract. If you could convince them to take Hark or Turner for him, you grab that deal and run before they can change their minds.

does very little for our long term cap outlook. We need to remove two of those contracts to be of any significance.

 

[hoopsjock]

does very little for our long term cap outlook. We need to remove two of those contracts to be of any significance.

Well I doubt that there are many deals for expiring contracts that involve multiple bad contracts going out so we most likely have to start with one somewhere.

I also think that no matter how "little" it seemingly effects the future, any deal that Olshey can tell current ownership that will help save future money would likely get approved.

 

[TBpup]

I like that Jake gave Stotts a subtle FU with his play last night. Incredible efficiency even if it was the Suns.

 

[ripcityboy]

I was listening to the Rip City radio broadcast coming home last night. Kudos to the guy who asked Terry about why we haven't seen Layman? But Terry did say that Layman is accepting his role not playing on the bench. Don't know how. I think'd I'd be ripping the bench out and throwing it at him at this point.

 

[riverman]

Jake is a keeper...it's possible he knows that...guys playing in front of him might be just playing mostly to gain trade value at the break...now is that time of the season. He may know someone like Mo or ET are on the block...hard to say.

 

[LayneStaley]

I don’t know, I’m gonna be pretty surprised if pdx makes any trade at all, unless it’s strictly to clear money off the books to make us look better to a new owner from a financial standpoint, but then again I don’t see that happening considering I don’t think anyone is touching et/harmless/nards.

 

[riverman]

I don’t know, I’m gonna be pretty surprised if pdx makes any trade at all, unless it’s strictly to clear money off the books to make us look better to a new owner from a financial standpoint, but then again I don’t see that happening considering I don’t think anyone is touching et/harmless/nards.

Lot of teams like the Wizards and Bulls are looking to move players ..I think this trade deadline will be very active and we'll see a lot of change...too many teams that thought they were there have learned they're not...Rockets, Celtics...I don't think it has anything to do with Paul Allen's passing but a lot to do with Olshey wanting to keep his job

 

[blue9]

I don’t know, I’m gonna be pretty surprised if pdx makes any trade at all, unless it’s strictly to clear money off the books to make us look better to a new owner from a financial standpoint, but then again I don’t see that happening considering I don’t think anyone is touching et/harmless/nards.

With a valuation at over $1B, I don't think a $10M (or even $17M) contract is going to be a deal-breaker for anyone.

 

[kjironman1]

Yeah exactly, I am still of the opinion that if you can trade Harkless, Turner, or Leonard for an expiring contract you do it no matter who the player coming back is.

Especially this year. Why on earth not? It not only helps payroll it makes things better faster for any possible changes in store for the team in the coming months.

 

[kjironman1]

does very little for our long term cap outlook. We need to remove two of those contracts to be of any significance.

I disagree. One solid player helps this team immensely. One expiring contract can help get one solid player. If they make another deal on another for another expiring contract then you never know.

 

[kjironman1]

Lot of teams like the Wizards and Bulls are looking to move players ..I think this trade deadline will be very active and we'll see a lot of change...too many teams that thought they were there have learned they're not...Rockets, Celtics...I don't think it has anything to do with Paul Allen's passing but a lot to do with Olshey wanting to keep his job

The only question i got there is how much does Olshey really want to keep his job?

 

[kjironman1]

Jake is a keeper...it's possible he knows that...guys playing in front of him might be just playing mostly to gain trade value at the break...now is that time of the season. He may know someone like Mo or ET are on the block...hard to say.

This is what i'm thinking also. Not only is there so much up in the air but we simply do not know the dynamics going on behind the scenes. Why certain players are being played and why others are not. Who can say what strings are being pulled by whom?

 

[wizenheimer]

View attachment 23688

Here’s what should happen next. Pretend they acquired Porter, Oubre, or any other apparent “missing piece” wing, and give whatever role/ looks they would’ve given them to Layman. I don’t care if it costs Portland games. We have to find out what we have in Layman. If that means CJ takes a backseat for a couple games, so be it. It has to be done.

I really like to use stats to buttress arguments

however, they need to be like for like and in the NBA, one of the quickest ways to get into an apples and oranges thing is to try and 'normalize' minutes for players that play a lot and for players that don't.

In this case, you have Layman who has only averaged 16 minutes and are comparing him to Ariza at 34 minutes, Porter at 30 minutes, and Oubre at 25. Those are too wide of gaps in minutes, and it's almost certain there is noise and skew in the numbers

there's a couple of other factors too that I think are really important to keep in mind. One is that Layman has been absent from the rotation lately when the Blazers, as a team, have been struggling. If he had been in the rotation his efficiency and advanced numbers would have regressed along with the team's

another big factor is that the other three players have established their games over multiple seasons. This isn't their first rodeo. Their numbers are a reflection of how they've played over a thousand games and 30,000 minutes (Ariza), 300 games and 10,000 minutes (Porter), and 270 games and 5400 minutes (Oubre)

meanwhile, you're comparing that to Layman this season for only 20 games and 326 minutes. It's just a comparison that erodes under any scrutiny

further than that, it's nearly impossible to believe or credit the numbers Layman is posting right now:

* he has a 13.5 PER when the previous two seasons it was 4.9 & 4.9

* he has a .645 TS% when the previous two seasons it was .404 & .352

* he has a .106 winshare/48 when the previous two seasons it was -0.054 & -0.021

* he has a +0.6 box plus/minus when the previous two seasons it was -7.4 & -5.0

like I said, there should be little confidence in the numbers he's currently posting. He's likely not as bad as the numbers show in his first 2 seasons, but he's certainly not as good as they show right now

all that's not to say he shouldn't be part of the rotation, especially a rotation that somehow has 'room' for 43 minutes a game from Turner & Curry

 

[dviss1]

What are Jake’s numbers this season compared to last?

Stop playing @PtldPlatypus It's here:

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I really like to use stats to buttress arguments

however, they need to be like for like and in the NBA, one of the quickest ways to get into an apples and oranges thing is to try and 'normalize' minutes for players that play a lot and for players that don't.

In this case, you have Layman who has only averaged 16 minutes and are comparing him to Ariza at 34 minutes, Porter at 30 minutes, and Oubre at 25. Those are too wide of gaps in minutes, and it's almost certain there is noise and skew in the numbers

there's a couple of other factors too that I think are really important to keep in mind. One is that Layman has been absent from the rotation lately when the Blazers, as a team, have been struggling. If he had been in the rotation his efficiency and advanced numbers would have regressed along with the team's

another big factor is that the other three players have established their games over multiple seasons. This isn't their first rodeo. Their numbers are a reflection of how they've played over a thousand games and 30,000 minutes (Ariza), 300 games and 10,000 minutes (Porter), and 270 games and 5400 minutes (Oubre)

meanwhile, you're comparing that to Layman this season for only 20 games and 326 minutes. It's just a comparison that erodes under any scrutiny

further than that, it's nearly impossible to believe or credit the numbers Layman is posting right now:

* he has a 13.5 PER when the previous two seasons it was 4.9 & 4.9

* he has a .645 TS% when the previous two seasons it was .404 & .352

* he has a .106 winshare/48 when the previous two seasons it was -0.054 & -0.021

* he has a +0.6 box plus/minus when the previous two seasons it was -7.4 & -5.0

like I said, there should be little confidence in the numbers he's currently posting. He's likely not as bad as the numbers show in his first 2 seasons, but he's certainly not as good as they show right now

all that's not to say he shouldn't be part of the rotation, especially a rotation that somehow has 'room' for 43 minutes a game from Turner & Curry

That would be a valid argument if the claim was that Layman should be expected to replicate the small sample size values he's provided to date. However, that wasn't the claim. What was said was, "we need to find out what we have in Layman". We don't know whether Layman in a larger role can provide something comparable to what Porter or Oubre presently do, and we won't know until/unless his role is expanded.

 

[dviss1]

That would be a valid argument if the claim was that Layman should be expected to replicate the small sample size values he's provided to date. However, that wasn't the claim. What was said was, "we need to find out what we have in Layman". We don't know whether Layman in a larger role can provide something comparable to what Porter or Oubre presently do, and we won't know until/unless his role is expanded.

School these rooks on their reading comprehension!

 

[dviss1]

That would be a valid argument if the claim was that Layman should be expected to replicate the small sample size values he's provided to date. However, that wasn't the claim. What was said was, "we need to find out what we have in Layman". We don't know whether Layman in a larger role can provide something comparable to what Porter or Oubre presently do, and we won't know until/unless his role is expanded.

That was a long ass post to be out of context!

So far I like @wizenheimer tho. Thanks for bringing facts to the debate!

 

[wizenheimer]

That would be a valid argument if the claim was that Layman should be expected to replicate the small sample size values he's provided to date. However, that wasn't the claim. What was said was, "we need to find out what we have in Layman". We don't know whether Layman in a larger role can provide something comparable to what Porter or Oubre presently do, and we won't know until/unless his role is expanded.

that could have been accomplished by simply saying it and not posting stats which were obviously lacking some context
don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the idea that Layman should get playing time.

That was a long ass post to be out of context!

So far I like @wizenheimer tho. Thanks for bringing facts to the debate!

no surprise that I don't think it was out of context at all

if what the poster wanted to say is "we need to see more of Layman", he could have said it without adding all the stats. It's a simple statement and a fairy easy argument to make. Once he added the stats, conveniently editing out the per game box, he was comparing players, SF's in particular, and the difference in sample sizes becomes valid context.

 

[Scalma]

that could have been accomplished by simply saying it and not posting stats which were obviously lacking some context
don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the idea that Layman should get playing time.


no surprise that I don't think it was out of context at all

if what the poster wanted to say is "we need to see more of Layman", he could have said it without adding all the stats. It's a simple statement and a fairy easy argument to make. Once he added the stats, conveniently editing out the per game box, he was comparing players, SF's in particular, and the difference in sample sizes becomes valid context.

I left out per game box because it’s useless and I never use it to compare players.

The only purpose of the stats was to show he at least deserves a further look. Didn’t know some needed it spelled out.

 

[wizenheimer]

The only purpose of the stats was to show he at least deserves a further look. Didn’t know some needed it spelled out.

but you did spell it out and you used stats to do it. Pointing out significant sample size differences is valid context for any stat comparison...no?

 

[TBpup]

The fact that Jake may seem to be accepting being completely benched after being so much more efficient even with few/spotty minutes doesn't mean Stotts made the right move.

Coach really didn't answer the question that well to me.

 

[Rozay]

The fact that Jake may seem to be accepting being completely benched after being so much more efficient even with few/spotty minutes doesn't mean Stotts made the right move.

Coach really didn't answer the question that well to me.

Well of course he didn’t answer it well. He was feeling stupid. Think about it, Layman was doing really well starting, then he sits when Stotts man crush Harkless got back. Then right on cue after 5 games sitting Layman wastes no time to kill it.

Of course Stotts feels stupid. It’s baffling. Our soft media reporters should straight up hound him why is he sitting

 

[tykendo]

Holdahl and Freeman mentioned on their podcast that Moe is considered a glue guy on the team, and that he needs to start because he said in the past that he needs that to be effective. Well I say, "then bring a consistant motor that actually helps the team win". The Blazers need Jake's offensive. Say all you want about defense, but drained shots win games. I see entirely too much empty play by Harkless in the starting lineup. It puts way too much pressure on the other 4. Jake was doing just fine in the starting lineup, and provided Dame with another quality finisher off his passes. My whole rub with Harkless is that he doesn't bring it every game. He has an inconsistent motor. If he can bring Dennis Rodman energy every game, then the Blazers would have a player, and winning would be a whole lot easier.

 

[wizenheimer]

Holdahl and Freeman mentioned on their podcast that Moe is considered a glue guy on the team, and that he needs to start because he said in the past that he needs that to be effective. Well I say, "then bring a consistant motor that actually helps the team win". The Blazers need Jake's offensive. Say all you want about defense, but drained shots win games. I see entirely too much empty play by Harkless in the starting lineup. It puts way too much pressure on the other 4. Jake was doing just fine in the starting lineup, and provided Dame with another quality finisher off his passes. My whole rub with Harkless is that he doesn't bring it every game. He has an inconsistent motor. If he can bring Dennis Rodman energy every game, then the Blazers would have a player, and winning would be a whole lot easier.

on one hand: in the previous 3 seasons, Portland has went on at least one extended hot streak each year. And there have seemed to be two factors involved in each hot streak. One was that Dame was playing in superstar mode; the other was that Harkless was starting and contributing fairly consistently on each end of the floor. I guess that's the "glue" factor

on the other hand: Harkless has also been present during Blazer struggles over extended games and he's often been the incredible shrinking man during those stretches. He's 25 years old and in his 7th season so expecting that he'll somehow solve his inconsistency issue may be putting too much hope in a leaky vessel. He's probably going to be inconsistent over his entire career (and, since the combined usage rates of Dame, CJ, and Nurkic hit 81%, there isn't a lot of room for an offensively aggressive 4th player)

the problem is, with Harkless and Turner, Portland seems to be weakest where the NBA seems to be strongest: in those 6'5-6'10 wings and stretch-4's. Blazers really need to be able to match-up better in impact with the rest of the league at SF. Compounding the problem is that with the Dame-CJ-Curry-Stauskas rotation in the back court, Portland really needs to have a SF capable of good defense; and that sure doesn't look like a tool in Layman's toolbox. But of course, we haven't really seen what the inside of Layman's toolbox looks like (Layman has a DRPM of +0.80 vs Harkless at +0.41 and Turner at -0.03

I do think this loops around to Olshey. Blazers apparently have to use Turner as a point-SF because Olshey has been so stubborn about not finding a viable backup PG...probably because he still believes, contrary to all evidence, that CJ can be a PG. Olshey also seems to be allergic to adding perimeter defense to cover for that guard tandem he's so in love with. If one of Curry/Stauskas would have instead been a defensively gifted guard, maybe SF defense would not be so important. And maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on defense

 

[Orion Bailey]

Keeper.

Gamer.

 

[ripcityboy]

Holdahl and Freeman mentioned on their podcast that Moe is considered a glue guy on the team, and that he needs to start because he said in the past that he needs that to be effective. Well I say, "then bring a consistant motor that actually helps the team win". The Blazers need Jake's offensive. Say all you want about defense, but drained shots win games. I see entirely too much empty play by Harkless in the starting lineup. It puts way too much pressure on the other 4. Jake was doing just fine in the starting lineup, and provided Dame with another quality finisher off his passes. My whole rub with Harkless is that he doesn't bring it every game. He has an inconsistent motor. If he can bring Dennis Rodman energy every game, then the Blazers would have a player, and winning would be a whole lot easier.

Yeah. I am sure if Layman started... "to be effective" it might have a similar effect. But heaven forbid Harkless has to cold start from the bench.

 

[Blazers Roy]

A tall, athletic player who moves well without the ball and has a nice shooting stroke.

wHY sHouLD wE giVE ThiS gUy A chaNcE???