Pritchard Defends Outlaw

[Minstrel]

because he isn't that good of a player?

Unless you can find 12-15 better players to fill up the roster, you're weakening the team by simply getting rid of him.

He's about an average player, even if he gets there in streaky fashion. That's worth $4 million and a roster spot. There's no way you can end up with a roster entirely composed of above-average players.

 

[Natebishop3]

I agree completely. But the Outlaw we see has productive value and is only paid $4 million. He's not overpaid for what he produces and you're not going to ever end up with 12-15 players better than him. So he's not a waste of money or a roster spot.

If you can trade him for a better player, great. If not, why get rid of him?

Normally I would agree with you Minstrel, but if we cut Travis, and a few other players, we could sign some meaningful contributors this offseason. After this summer we're not going to be anywhere near the salary cap. If we could cut Travis, Blake, Frye, and Ruffin in order to get enough space to sign a Ramon Sessions, an Andre Miller, or a Anderson Varajao, why not do it? I'm not convinced that Blake or Outlaw would return someone of that caliber.

 

[illmatic99]

Normally I would agree with you Minstrel, but if we cut Travis, and a few other players, we could sign some meaningful contributors this offseason. After this summer we're not going to be anywhere near the salary cap. If we could cut Travis, Blake, Frye, and Ruffin in order to get enough space to sign a Ramon Sessions, an Andre Miller, or a Anderson Varajao, why not do it? I'm not convinced that Blake or Outlaw would return someone of that caliber.

aka addition by subtraction.

Not that I'm advocating simply cutting him, but Trav-Bo leaving would help this team.

 

[Minstrel]

Normally I would agree with you Minstrel, but if we cut Travis, and a few other players, we could sign some meaningful contributors this offseason. After this summer we're not going to be anywhere near the salary cap. If we could cut Travis, Blake, Frye, and Ruffin in order to get enough space to sign a Ramon Sessions, an Andre Miller, or a Anderson Varajao, why not do it? I'm not convinced that Blake or Outlaw would return someone of that caliber.

Andre Miller won't require in excess of $12 million per year. At his age, he's not worth it if that were his demand. Letting Frye, LaFrentz, Ruffin and Blake go would be sufficient to free up the room for Miller, assuming he wants to play for Portland. Sessions can't be offered more than the MLE by anyone (including Milwaukee), so there's no need to cut Outlaw loose for him. I suppose if you wanted to try to sign both Miller and Varejao, you'd need to cut Blake and Outlaw loose, but you have to renounce them before the free agent signing period...which means you're gambling that you can get them both. I wouldn't take that gamble. Teams rarely sign every free agent they want, even if they have the cash, plus I doubt Varejao would want to leave Cleveland.

Ultimately, I don't see a big benefit to letting Outlaw go. If you think you can get Miller, letting Blake go makes sense, because Miller takes his place as the veteran point guard. But I don't see that there's value beyond the money freed up by LaFrentz/Frye/Ruffin/Blake.

 

[alex42083]

The beef with Travis came when we relied on him to be our third-leading scorer and he couldn't live up to it in the playoffs. If he's our fifth, sixth or seventh option, sure keep him, but he can't be relied upon to be our third-best scorer behind Roy and Aldridge. It probably isn't his fault since he just isn't good enough to be a No. 3 option but he was on the receiving end of the hate anyway.

 

[Natebishop3]

Andre Miller won't require in excess of $12 million per year. At his age, he's not worth it if that were his demand. Letting Frye, LaFrentz, Ruffin and Blake go would be sufficient to free up the room for Miller, assuming he wants to play for Portland. Sessions can't be offered more than the MLE by anyone (including Milwaukee), so there's no need to cut Outlaw loose for him. I suppose if you wanted to try to sign both Miller and Varejao, you'd need to cut Blake and Outlaw loose, but you have to renounce them before the free agent signing period...which means you're gambling that you can get them both. I wouldn't take that gamble. Teams rarely sign every free agent they want, even if they have the cash, plus I doubt Varejao would want to leave Cleveland.

Ultimately, I don't see a big benefit to letting Outlaw go. If you think you can get Miller, letting Blake go makes sense, because Miller takes his place as the veteran point guard. But I don't see that there's value beyond the money freed up by LaFrentz/Frye/Ruffin/Blake.

Okay, so could a trade be put together that included Travis and netted us some nice pieces?

I'm really tempted to do some kind of deal with Detroit for Prince and Rip Hamilton.

 

[Minstrel]

Okay, so could a trade be put together that included Travis and netted us some nice pieces?

Can't speak to that...I really have zero idea what Outlaw's value is around the league. I'm sure it's not as high as his biggest fans assume, nor as low as his greatest critics assume. But that's an enormous range.

I'd be perfectly happy to ship Outlaw in a package for a really nice player. I'm not against losing Outlaw, just against losing him for nothing.

I'm really tempted to do some kind of deal with Detroit for Prince and Rip Hamilton.

I'm not very interested in Rip. Roy is, of course, enormously better and I think Rudy is at least comparable in talent, though Hamilton is currently more polished.

I like Prince a lot, but I'm not sure how much I'd give up for him. I think Batum could be a similar player in a year or two.

 

[Public Defender]

The beef with Travis came when we relied on him to be our third-leading scorer and he couldn't live up to it in the playoffs. If he's our fifth, sixth or seventh option, sure keep him, but he can't be relied upon to be our third-best scorer behind Roy and Aldridge. It probably isn't his fault since he just isn't good enough to be a No. 3 option but he was on the receiving end of the hate anyway.

The part that bothers me the most is this: Outlaw is talented enough and athletically gifted enough to be a team's 3rd option on offense. The problem is, Outlaw has a questionable basketball IQ, and is probably not being used as effectively as he could be. There should be plays run that send Outlaw to the hoop, and or that put him in position to get offensive rebounds. But, Outlaw should also work harder for high-percentage shots. If he worked half as hard as Rudy to get open, or as hard as Oden and Pryzbilla did to earn position against Yao, it'd be a different story. Outlaw lacks either the competitive drive or the focus to put it all together.

Last, Nate made this problem worse by putting Fernandez into the starting lineup in Game 6, and making Outlaw the far-and-away best option on offense. Outlaw is not up for being the #1 option on offense, even against a reserve unit, if it's coming in a vital playoff game.

I agree that Outlaw is not a useless player, but he has to be seen in context. It reminds me of Ruben Patterson (forget the moral and legal problems for a minute). Patterson had a limited skillset, but some of those skills were very useful. But only for 10-15 minutes a game. More than that, and Patterson would start to get too comfortable, and would become a blackhole on offense, and overconfident on defense. In Outlaw's case - put him on the floor for a short enough period that he can retain 100% of his focus the whole time. Pull him when he starts losing it. Sounds like an 8th or 9th man to me.

 

[KingSpeed]

Why would he speak bad about his players? Not only is it bad PR, but it also shows the GMs of the league that "this guy can be had for cheap".

Just because he wouldn't speak bad about his players doesn't mean he would have to speak good about the player. He made a point of speaking highly of Outlaw and I think he meant it. He could have said nothing or been ambivalent.

 

[hasoos]

Where did LMA stand in regards to decision making after last season?

Very high. He was playing awesome at the end of last season. I don't see why you are asking though. Lamarcus just finished his 3rd year, Travis just finished his 6th. Also last season there was no playoffs to base off of.


I don't think they have to "trade" Outlaw. But they sure got to get somebody better than him to go to.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

We got Rudy for Zach. That's quite a catch. If he can get more than Rudy for Outlaw - it sounds like a really sweet deal.

Basically, this is revisionist history. KP was going to do the trade without the Rudy pick included. It was Tom Penn who, at the last minute, said that if we throw in Freddie Jones, we could make the deal with the Suns, and get the pick. It wasn't some KP mastermind play. We traded away Zach, and got a twenty-something pick and some cap space for our trouble (obviously Steve Francis and Channing Frye aren't worth talking about). The cap space is only NOW kicking in.

Would you be happy if we go pick #24 or something for Outlaw?

 

[crandc]

I agree with Minstrel. Travis is far from untouchable, but he's not going to be traded just to get rid of him a la Zach Randolph. He's a role player. If he should not be the first option off the bench that means the team needs to improve their bench overall, get a better 6th man. Or put Rudy as 6 and Travis as 7.

As for putting Rudy in the starting lineup, that was not a bad move IMO. Batum had contributed in the regular season beyond expectation, but in the playoffs he was totally lost on both offense and defense. It was either Travis or Rudy.

Having great players at every position makes a good all star team or Olympic team. But I remember when the Blazers tried to do that with two starting lineups. It didn't work.

 

[andalusian]

Basically, this is revisionist history. KP was going to do the trade without the Rudy pick included. It was Tom Penn who, at the last minute, said that if we throw in Freddie Jones, we could make the deal with the Suns, and get the pick. It wasn't some KP mastermind play. We traded away Zach, and got a twenty-something pick and some cap space for our trouble (obviously Steve Francis and Channing Frye aren't worth talking about). The cap space is only NOW kicking in.

Would you be happy if we go pick #24 or something for Outlaw?

I am sorry - we are talking about what happened - not a theory about what would have happened...

The fact of the matter is that we got Rudy because of the Zach trade. Simple as that. Assuming that the Zach trade would have happened without Rudy/James Jones is interesting - but it is a theory. If there is someone playing what/if with history here - it is not me.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I am sorry - we are talking about what happened - not a theory about what would have happened...

The fact of the matter is that we got Rudy because of the Zach trade. Simple as that. Assuming that the Zach trade would have happened without Rudy/James Jones is interesting - but it is a theory. If there is someone playing what/if with history here - it is not me.

I suppose if we are to assume that what KP and Tom Penn have both admitted publicly is a "theory", then you are absolutely right. Then again, whether theory or no, it may not reflect your actual original point, shrug.

 

[mook]

"It was totally a learning experience for him," Pritchard said of the postseason. "I feel like he needed to go through a playoff experience to see what it's like. If you make decisions on four or five or six games, it could come back to bite you. He has the potential to win basketball games. He's a shot-maker, and when he does that we're a different team."

Reminds me of this Porsche 914 I had. Broke down constantly on me, leaving me stranded about a dozen times. I told the first buyer looking at it something like, "I feel like it's a great car that just needs regular driving to see what it's like. If you make a decisions on it right now just because it's got the weird shifter, it'll come back to bite you. It has the potential to scream around the tightest corners. It's a real roadster, and when it hugs a corner, I tell you you'll feel like a different person."

I unloaded that piece of crap for $2000, and counted myself lucky.

The last thing Pritchard should be doing is saying anything bad at all about Outlaw. The first thing he should be doing, however, is figuring out how to package him into a consolidating trade for a major talent upgrade at SF or PG.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Reminds me of this Porsche 914 I had. Broke down constantly on me, leaving me stranded about a dozen times. I told the first buyer looking at it something like, "I feel like it's a great car that just needs regular driving to see what it's like. If you make a decisions on it right now just because it's got the weird shifter, it'll come back to bite you. It has the potential to scream around the tightest corners. It's a real roadster, and when it hugs a corner, I tell you you'll feel like a different person."

I unloaded that piece of crap for $2000, and counted myself lucky.

The last thing Pritchard should be doing is saying anything bad at all about Outlaw. The first thing he should be doing, however, is figuring out how to package him into a consolidating trade for a major talent upgrade at SF or PG.

Oh my God, classc.

Does this mean Travis is a Fiat? inexpensive, fun little roadster that will give you a cheap thrill on a back-country road, but if you take it to the track to race against the big boys, you might have wished you hadn't.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Oh my God, classc.

Does this mean Travis is a Fiat? inexpensive, fun little roadster that will give you a cheap thrill on a back-country road, but if you take it to the track to race against the big boys, you might have wished you hadn't.

Yes, it means that Travis is VERY good and somethings, and very bad at others.

 

[hasoos]

Yes, it means that Travis is VERY good and somethings, and very bad at others.

No it means he is a tweener. As I have said before, the difference between a being a tweener and being a versatile player is very simple. A versatile player is good enough to play multiple positions well. A tweener is a guy who can play those positions but doesn't fit particularly well at any of them. That is why he only produces when he gets a favorable matchup he can feel comfortable with.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

No it means he is a tweener. As I have said before, the difference between a being a tweener and being a versatile player is very simple. A versatile player is good enough to play multiple positions well. A tweener is a guy who can play those positions but doesn't fit particularly well at any of them. That is why he only produces when he gets a favorable matchup he can feel comfortable with.

I don't see how you are disagreeing with what I said, but your point is interesting. I'm not sure I buy it, and it's a little naughty, but I can see why some people think that.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/05/pritchard_the_puzzle_master.html#more

Brandon Roy also alluded to the fact that this was Outlaws first playoff experience. Outlaw is a VERY valuable member of this team and he will actually play more minutes next season. People have to remember he is actually still very young and came straight out of high school. If we trade Outlaw, it can come back to bite us.

Despite Outlaw's disappointing performance, Pritchard and the Blazers are focusing on a six-year resume that includes tremendous growth, clutch fourth-quarter play, versatility and firepower off the bench.

"It was totally a learning experience for him," Pritchard said of the postseason. "I feel like he needed to go through a playoff experience to see what it's like. If you make decisions on four or five or six games, it could come back to bite you. He has the potential to win basketball games. He's a shot-maker, and when he does that we're a different team."

Rereading that, I think KP is actually talking to other GMs

 

[hasoos]

I don't see how you are disagreeing with what I said, but your point is interesting. I'm not sure I buy it, and it's a little naughty, but I can see why some people think that.

That is because I am not in disagreement with you. I am just pointing this out why he performs the way he does. The only reason the guy is driving Blazer fans so crazy, is because the team actually relies on him as it is built right now to be a #3 scorer, and because he is a tweener, he will never be that consistent guy we need. Travis is a player who you have to look for a particular matchup, and then use him at that time.

 

[adrenalize74]

whatever... this isn't an "experience" thing. This is a basketball IQ thing. That isn't going to change.

2nd that. I read an interview with Travis and he said something like "I love the jumpshot, even when I am on a fastbreak all by myself I feel like pulling up from the freethrow line and shooting a jumper...". When I read that I knew he had to go. His below average BB IQ by far outweights his talent.

 

[oldmangrouch]

That is because I am not in disagreement with you. I am just pointing this out why he performs the way he does. The only reason the guy is driving Blazer fans so crazy, is because the team actually relies on him as it is built right now to be a #3 scorer, and because he is a tweener, he will never be that consistent guy we need. Travis is a player who you have to look for a particular matchup, and then use him at that time.

Dead on.

On balance, Nate has done pretty well at finding favorable match-ups for Outlaw on offense. Defense has been more of a problem, and one that is complicated by what seems to be inconsistent effort.

 

[Wheels]

more minutes? ugggggggggh

 

[Sinobas]

Exactly. Outlaw is a reserve who makes around $4 million. Is he really the linchpin, for good or ill? The obsession with him is very odd. He plays because, right now, there's no one who's consistently better than him beyond Roy and Aldridge. That's the entirety of it, really. You could blame Pritchard for that "lack of talent," except most of the non-Roy/Aldridge talent is still developing. If none of Oden/Bayless/Rudy/Batum surpass Outlaw as reliable players, that's Pritchard's fault, not Outlaw's.

He's just a bench player. There's no reason at all to get rid of him unless it's in a deal to get back a better player.

How much he makes isn't a key point. When he's on the court he has a huge impact on the game, for better or worse. Even though he can get ice cold, in general he is an asset to the offense. The biggest problem is his defense and rebounding.

If we had no one coming off the bench who could score, but rather, a bunch of defensive role players, then Travis would be a much better fit. But his shots come at the expense of others.

His defensive rebounding % is only 12.5% so his share of defensive rebounds as our PF. If we had Bayless, Rudy, and Webster coming off our bench, I'd say we could use a tougher inside presense to compliment that unit.

 

[mook]

If we had no one coming off the bench who could score, but rather, a bunch of defensive role players, then Travis would be a much better fit.

This is the biggest key. Even if he'd had a mediocre playoff performance, it'd still be the main issue.

Our bench doesn't need the scoring punch Outlaw offers. Or at least it's not worth that scoring punch to give up so many other things.

McMillan has gone away from benching both Aldridge and Roy at the same time (thank god). So the idea of a "White Unit" that has its own separate identity has kind of gone out the window.

When we run our bench, it'll be Rudy, Aldridge or Roy, and probably Bayless or Webster. That's plenty of scoring.

What we need is a Ron Milsap-like hard nosed power forward for that second squad. Somebody to put in for rebounding and defense. Preferably with range out to 10 or so feet, because Przybilla is going to be in there too.

I'm not in a huge hurry to "dump" Outlaw. But I am for a consolidating trade that offloads 3-5 contracts/draft picks for 1 really good player. Outlaw seems to be a likely piece in any such trade.

 

[LittleAlex]

I agree completely. But the Outlaw we see has productive value and is only paid $4 million. He's not overpaid for what he produces and you're not going to ever end up with 12-15 players better than him. So he's not a waste of money or a roster spot.

If you can trade him for a better player, great. If not, why get rid of him?

Sometimes you need to take a player away so the coach can't use them more then that player should be used.

Jack was last years example. He would have played every game this year had he stayed, which would have sucked. Remove the player, you remove the temptation for Nate to play that player.

This is the reason I think Outlaw should be sent down the highway.

 

[Minstrel]

Sometimes you need to take a player away so the coach can't use them more then that player should be used.

Who should have taken Outlaw's minutes? Outlaw basically saw time at small forward and power forward. Rudy is too small to take those roles (even at small forward, except very occasionally). Batum was raw and used quite a lot for a rookie who didn't have much offensive game. Frye was a disaster. I don't really see that Nate overused Outlaw. I see Nate lacking superior options and thus using Outlaw out of necessity.

 

[Blaze01]

Unless you can find 12-15 better players to fill up the roster, you're weakening the team by simply getting rid of him.

First, I think we could find 12 or so better players than Outlaw....Second, I believe that addition by subtraction can make a team stronger in many cases, rather than weaker....trading Zach Randolph away, opened up room for Aldridge, which helped make POR a stronger and better team IMO....Trading away Outlaw would open up time for Webster and specifically Nic Batum, which IMO would make this team better not worse...I disagree with the notion that if Outlaw wasn't with this team next year, they would be worse off....I think they would be BETTER off...

He's about an average player, even if he gets there in streaky fashion. That's worth $4 million and a roster spot. There's no way you can end up with a roster entirely composed of above-average players.

I agree...he is average...but you cannot discount his poor decision making on both offense and defense, no matter how affordable his salary is...

 

[Minstrel]

First, I think we could find 12 or so better players than Outlaw
...
I agree...he is average

There is no way you will assemble a roster of 12 above average players.

Second, I believe that addition by subtraction can make a team stronger in many cases, rather than weaker....trading Zach Randolph away, opened up room for Aldridge, which helped make POR a stronger and better team IMO

Randolph was moved due to chemistry issues, of which Outlaw has none. Also, Outlaw isn't blocking anyone. Outlaw played so much because there was no one else to use instead. Batum was raw and often invisible, Webster was injured (and hasn't been better than Outlaw in past years), Frye was awful, Rudy can't play small forward much. If there's someone better than Outlaw, he'd surely play more than Outlaw.

I agree...he is average...but you cannot discount his poor decision making on both offense and defense

That's already factored into his being average. If he didn't make poor decisions and was consistently good, he'd be well above average.