So KP is planning on picking Blake and Outlaw back up.

[Pinwheel1]

I have to ask...is this the Pinwheel1 from years ago on the Hoopsworld message boards?

Yes that would be me. Same obnoxius, intolerable, arrogant (and some times lovable) ass!

 

[Mediocre Man]

As has been already pointed out, "high impact" players are more likely to change teams through a S&T, or a lopsided deal (where we use the extra $7 mil in cap space to give another team a chance to dump salary)

One more point to consider - the locker-room impact. Why is Hedo leaving Orlando? Because they grossly over-paid for Lewis. If we turn around and over-pay for Hedo, what will it cost us down the road?

Maybe, God forbid, Travis or Blake demand a trade.

 

[Tince]

As has been already pointed out, "high impact" players are more likely to change teams through a S&T, or a lopsided deal (where we use the extra $7 mil in cap space to give another team a chance to dump salary)

One more point to consider - the locker-room impact. Why is Hedo leaving Orlando? Because they grossly over-paid for Lewis. If we turn around and over-pay for Hedo, what will it cost us down the road?

I'd like Hedo, but I don't like anyone enough to overpay them. I think we'll take the same approach the Spurs have taken with their contracts. Sign your best player to the max, and having everyone fall in line behind that. We have 0 bad contracts (outside of Miles), and I can't see KP taking on his first bad contract this season, or anytime soon for that matter.

 

[Sinobas]

Like who? Ron Artest, Hedo, Shawn Marion, Andre Miller..we could possibly even have enough to pick up a secondary player like Nate Robinson, Brandon Bass, or Birdman.

I'll bet KPs strategy is to first try and make a lop-sided trade, so he can go out and target a player he wants, and not be limited by the free agent field, if he can't work out a deal, maybe he'll cut one or the other...but who knows...he seems to really be in love with them.

 

[anonymous gambler]

Who's minutes are you going to drastically cut if we bring in Odom, Milsap, or Boozer? Realistically, you'll have to trade at least one of: Oden, LMA, or Joel for it to make any sense to take on one of those three players.

You would let two major role players under a great contract walk, on the chance we could sign Shawn Marion? The guy who hasn't proven he can fit in outside of Phoenix, who's shot has left him, and who would take away a large chunk of minutes from Batum?

I still don't get what everyone sees in Sessions. I'll be shocked if the guy gets more than 6-7 million a year, and even that seems to be too much.

Yeah, I'd be thrilled to have Marion- Batum can back him up and develop some semblance of an offensive game. I'd also be happy with Turkoglu or Artest at the 3 spot- each of these three would be a huge improvement- odds are pretty darn good we could sign one of these and still have room for a veteran pg.

Boozer or Milsap would necessitate a trade eventually- maybe Aldridge for Devin Harris?- but would add a ton of talent to the team. Odom would be nice if the price was right- mostly as a backup at the 4 and 3.

Kobe makes us the best team in the NBA- though admittedly a long shot.

At the point- Andre Miller would a much better point than Blake, Sessions looks very promising and is relatively cheap.

 

[Tince]

Yeah, I'd be thrilled to have Marion- Batum can back him up and develop some semblance of an offensive game. I'd also be happy with Turkoglu or Artest at the 3 spot- each of these three would be a huge improvement- odds are pretty darn good we could sign one of these and still have room for a veteran pg.

Boozer or Milsap would necessitate a trade eventually- maybe Aldridge for Devin Harris?- but would add a ton of talent to the team. Odom would be nice if the price was right- mostly as a backup at the 4 and 3.

Kobe makes us the best team in the NBA- though admittedly a long shot.

At the point- Andre Miller would a much better point than Blake, Sessions looks very promising and is relatively cheap.

IMO, anything over 6 million a year for Marion would be grossly overpaying him. With your plan, we would also have Webster rotting somewhere on the bench, or trying to trade him with next to no leverage. So we'd be wasting 3 good assets for 1 system player who hasn't proven anything outside being a disgruntled, inconsistent small forward over the last two years.

Artest, while quite the talent, is a major liability. He does his own thing, and always wanted to be #1 when it comes to offensive priority. Plus, he needs a coach that will look the other way and just let him do his own thing (not Nate). Though I suppose most people who would really want Artest, wouldn't mind seeing Nate gone. Most importantly, Artest wants to stay in Houston, and I have no reason to believe he'd leave unless we overpaid for him.

Giving up Blake and Outlaw, in the hopes we could sign a PF, that then in turn we could hope another team would trade an elite PG, sounds like we're play fantasy basketball. Why would we want to keep rolling the dice and taking major risks on a team that is built to win? You make desperate moves like this when your window is closing, not right before it opens.

Sessions may be promising, but I don't know what makes you think he'll be "cheap". The guy will want 8 million a year, despite not being able to hit a 3 to save his life. Not to mention he couldn't beat out Luke Ridnour for the starting job this past season. He is totally unproven, and has only been able to put up good stats at the end of the year once his team was out of the playoff hunt.

I like Turk and Andre Miller, but not for more than 7 million a year with standard raises. We don't need to free up more cap room for any FA out there, unless we want to overpay for them and handcuff our future roster flexibility.

 

[Tince]

Like who? Ron Artest, Hedo, Shawn Marion, Andre Miller..we could possibly even have enough to pick up a secondary player like Nate Robinson, Brandon Bass, or Birdman.

I'll bet KPs strategy is to first try and make a lop-sided trade, so he can go out and target a player he wants, and not be limited by the free agent field, if he can't work out a deal, maybe he'll cut one or the other...but who knows...he seems to really be in love with them.

I don't think he's in love with them, he just realizes their value to this team is much greater than the value of the FA market this summer. If you think there is a chance either of them are going to be let go, you're mistaken. I'll give you 5:1 odds on any bet that he doesn't waive them for nothing.

 

[KingSpeed]

I can sort of see keeping Blake, though he is coming off of shoulder surgery.

I don't see any reason why they would keep Outlaw, though. He killed his trade value in the playoffs by not even bothering to show up..

He had some bad games but it was his first time in the playoffs. Give him a break. The Lakers failed to show up in the Finals last season and now they might win it all. Hope not, course.

 

[Sinobas]

I don't think he's in love with them, he just realizes their value to this team is much greater than the value of the FA market this summer. If you think there is a chance either of them are going to be let go, you're mistaken. I'll give you 5:1 odds on any bet that he doesn't waive them for nothing.

You're on. One penny to your nickel.

 

[Tince]

Deal!

 

[LittleAlex]

Blake and Outlaw to be extended

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/06/pritchard_says_blazers_will_ex.html

I am not surprised, but not very pleased either.

 

[LittleAlex]

He had some bad games but it was his first time in the playoffs. Give him a break. The Lakers failed to show up in the Finals last season and now they might win it all. Hope not, course.

In a players whole career they will only play a few playoff games. We really can't wait for a guy to play 20 playoff games before he gets a feel for it.

It was Roy's first playoff games too.

 

[Minstrel]

It was Roy's first playoff games too.

If Roy had had a bad series, would it be time to trade him since he'd have proven not to have what it takes to help a team in the playoffs?

 

[oldmangrouch]

If Roy had had a bad series, would it be time to trade him since he'd have proven not to have what it takes to help a team in the playoffs?

6 years experience vs 3 years.

Look, I like Outlaw. I can handle the fact that he wasn't Mr consistency during the regular season, as many reserves have that problem - but I am not going to ignore the fact he looked helpless against play-off caliber defense. As long as he is our best scorer on the bench, we have a problem.

No offense, but do you *ever* think players should be held accountable for not playing well?

 

[Minstrel]

6 years experience vs 3 years.

Look, I like Outlaw. I can handle the fact that he wasn't Mr consistency during the regular season, as many reserves have that problem - but I am not going to ignore the fact he looked helpless against play-off caliber defense. As long as he is our best scorer on the bench, we have a problem.

I think you're a little confused. I was questioning the logic of a single playoff series proving that Outlaw is useless in the playoffs. That's terrible logic.

Your post has nothing to do with what I said. He's played against "playoff caliber" defenses many times during the regular season and either lit them up or been useless. He's inconsistent and prone to being great or crap.

No offense, but do you *ever* think players should be held accountable for not playing well?

Your implied claim that I'm simply an apologist for players is pretty silly, considering I'm one of the least enamoured posters here of Martell Webster and have often been accused of being an "Outlaw-hater." I tend to keep emotions out of my evaluations...that makes people who are either really high or really low on players due to emotions perceive me as being on the "opposite side."

I have consistently maintained that Outlaw is a solid reserve, a luxury as a scorer off the bench, but too inconsistent and too weak on defense to be a starter for a championship-caliber team. One bad playoff series isn't going to change that evaluation, and it would be completely illogical for it to do so.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Minstrel, I guess my question about where this is going is this: if Outlaw's value is in his scoring off the bench, but he can't be relied upon to do it consistently (and I won't go into Webs, you could ask the same question), is it valuable? He wasn't "inconsistent" during the HOU series: he was consistently bad. Like it or not, he's relied upon by Nate to be the either the #1 or #2 scoring option when he is on the floor...which is around 28 mpg.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, I guess my question about where this is going is this: if Outlaw's value is in his scoring off the bench, but he can't be relied upon to do it consistently (and I won't go into Webs, you could ask the same question), is it valuable?

Yes. Very few teams have consistent go-to guys off the bench. Consistent go-to guys tend to be starters. Outlaw's PER (basically dead average) suggests that he contributes consistently enough to be a useful player. Coming off the bench, for only about $4 million in salary, that's a good value for money.

He wasn't "inconsistent" during the HOU series: he was consistently bad.

Granted. One bad series. A 7 game sample isn't a useful way to make personnel decisions. If he had had a great series, would you have flipped your opinion on him and be advocating that he be kept and played a lot?

Like it or not, he's relied upon by Nate to be the either the #1 or #2 scoring option when he is on the floor...which is around 28 mpg.

Generally because he's one of the few Blazers on the court capable of creating his own shot. He's a reserve, so he's rarely on the floor with both Roy and Aldridge. Once you get past those two, the Blazers have no one else who can consistently create their own shot except Outlaw.

Now, my opinion is that Oden will become someone who can consistently create his own offense. I think Bayless will, too, though that may not be next season. I think Rudy and Batum might. But in 2008-09, Outlaw was the only player who could outside of Roy and Aldridge. McMillan used him accordingly.

 

[Tince]

You're on. One penny to your nickel.

You can send me my penny in the mail!

 

[oldmangrouch]

I think you're a little confused. I was questioning the logic of a single playoff series proving that Outlaw is useless in the playoffs. That's terrible logic.

Your post has nothing to do with what I said. He's played against "playoff caliber" defenses many times during the regular season and either lit them up or been useless. He's inconsistent and prone to being great or crap.



Your implied claim that I'm simply an apologist for players is pretty silly, considering I'm one of the least enamoured posters here of Martell Webster and have often been accused of being an "Outlaw-hater." I tend to keep emotions out of my evaluations...that makes people who are either really high or really low on players due to emotions perceive me as being on the "opposite side."

I have consistently maintained that Outlaw is a solid reserve, a luxury as a scorer off the bench, but too inconsistent and too weak on defense to be a starter for a championship-caliber team. One bad playoff series isn't going to change that evaluation, and it would be completely illogical for it to do so.

I will concede that my last comment was flippant and needless. Sorry.

As for Outlaw - we actually are in 95% agreement about him. I even agree with the dangers of small sample size. That said, the Houston series did impact how I see a couple of our players - notably Outlaw and Blake. They are 2 of the 3 most experienced guys in our rotation, and they simply didn't play that way.

 

[anonymous gambler]

IMO, anything over 6 million a year for Marion would be grossly overpaying him. With your plan, we would also have Webster rotting somewhere on the bench, or trying to trade him with next to no leverage. So we'd be wasting 3 good assets for 1 system player who hasn't proven anything outside being a disgruntled, inconsistent small forward over the last two years.

Artest, while quite the talent, is a major liability. He does his own thing, and always wanted to be #1 when it comes to offensive priority. Plus, he needs a coach that will look the other way and just let him do his own thing (not Nate). Though I suppose most people who would really want Artest, wouldn't mind seeing Nate gone. Most importantly, Artest wants to stay in Houston, and I have no reason to believe he'd leave unless we overpaid for him.

Giving up Blake and Outlaw, in the hopes we could sign a PF, that then in turn we could hope another team would trade an elite PG, sounds like we're play fantasy basketball. Why would we want to keep rolling the dice and taking major risks on a team that is built to win? You make desperate moves like this when your window is closing, not right before it opens.

Sessions may be promising, but I don't know what makes you think he'll be "cheap". The guy will want 8 million a year, despite not being able to hit a 3 to save his life. Not to mention he couldn't beat out Luke Ridnour for the starting job this past season. He is totally unproven, and has only been able to put up good stats at the end of the year once his team was out of the playoff hunt.

I like Turk and Andre Miller, but not for more than 7 million a year with standard raises. We don't need to free up more cap room for any FA out there, unless we want to overpay for them and handcuff our future roster flexibility.

the maximum that can be offered to sessions is the midlevel- though we can offer bigger increases than Milwaukee can.

and we have no future roster flexibility- after this year, it's just the midlevel.

Webster and Batum would be backups until one of them could beat out the new small forward.

I think we could get both Turk and Miller if we let go of Blake and Outlaw- it's a trade up-

 

[Tince]

the maximum that can be offered to sessions is the midlevel- though we can offer bigger increases than Milwaukee can.

and we have no future roster flexibility- after this year, it's just the midlevel.

Webster and Batum would be backups until one of them could beat out the new small forward.

I think we could get both Turk and Miller if we let go of Blake and Outlaw- it's a trade up-

When I said roster flexibility, I wasn't referring to having actually cap room. Flexibility to me is having a roster full of players who have both talent and reasonable contracts that would be of use to the rest of the league. Over paying for players such as Shawn Marion would reduce our flexibility. A great example of this is Darius Miles and his current contract. If his contract matched his skill set, we wouldn't be in this mess because at any point we could have likely traded him for an expiring contract.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yes. Very few teams have consistent go-to guys off the bench. Consistent go-to guys tend to be starters. Outlaw's PER (basically dead average) suggests that he contributes consistently enough to be a useful player. Coming off the bench, for only about $4 million in salary, that's a good value for money.

I somewhat agree with this. Would you say that Travis is as consistent, as, say: Odom, JR Smith (yes) Ginobili, Lowry (yes), Posey, Terry, Kirilenko?

Or in the East: Gordon/Hinrich, House, Murray, Kapono, Lou Williams, Joe Smith, Beasley...I mean, really?

Granted. One bad series. A 7 game sample isn't a useful way to make personnel decisions. If he had had a great series, would you have flipped your opinion on him and be advocating that he be kept and played a lot?

Um, if he showed that he was a stone-cold killer (a la Ben Gordon) against a tough team in the playoffs for 28 mpg, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I said he wasn't useful or worth it. My opinion would have been noticably shifted if he showed he was worth the 28mpg. There's a reason Jerome James has a 5 year 40M contract right now. There's a reason that James Posey got the full MLE. Good showings in the playoffs, when EVERYONE is supposedly playing their best, gets you paid--good decision or not.

Generally because he's one of the few Blazers on the court capable of creating his own shot. He's a reserve, so he's rarely on the floor with both Roy and Aldridge. Once you get past those two, the Blazers have no one else who can consistently create their own shot except Outlaw.

Some would say that JB and Rudy could. Some would say that if Roy and LMA and Outlaw were the only Blazers consistently capable of creating their own shot (and they were "inconsistent" at it), then potentially there should be more gameplanning to get open shots rather than isos. Maybe more pick-and-rolls than pick-and-pops. Maybe more two-dribbles-to-the-hoop rather than one-dribble-pull-up. But this isn't a coaching thread.

Now, my opinion is that Oden will become someone who can consistently create his own offense. I think Bayless will, too, though that may not be next season. I think Rudy and Batum might. But in 2008-09, Outlaw was the only player who could outside of Roy and Aldridge. McMillan used him accordingly.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying that keeping Travis on the floor for ~30 mpg was a necessity because he could "consistently create his own offense", except that he couldn't, consistently, further proof of which was shown in the playoffs--when we could have used it the most. Maybe running a play or two for Batum, or Oden, or JB instead of having Travis shoot 40%. (BTW--totally agree with you on Oden creating his own offense, but he still needs someone to pass him the ball).

Basically, here's my summary on this. Travis is a useful player if used properly. I've been saying that all year. I've also been saying that ~30mpg is not a proper use. You (and most others, probably) seem to say that he was the best use of that 30 mpg that Nate had. But if we were "baking it", or "evaluating", or whatever KP cliche one wants to toss out, my contention is that there were better uses of that time. Whatever. Anyway, going forward, i wouldn't be averse to re-signing Travis, even at 4M, after all of our shopping/trading is done. But to have that money tied up (if you don't make a draft day trade) seems like a waste of flexibility to me.

 

[Minstrel]

I somewhat agree with this. Would you say that Travis is as consistent, as, say: Odom, JR Smith (yes) Ginobili, Lowry (yes), Posey, Terry, Kirilenko?

Or in the East: Gordon/Hinrich, House, Murray, Kapono, Lou Williams, Joe Smith, Beasley...I mean, really?

Sure. If those players were Blazers, they'd be drawing boos on this forum for every poor game. I mean, obviously Ginobili is a much better player. He's the exception. Almost no team has a reserve as good as Ginobili and he really should be a starter. As for the others...House? Posey (these days)? Kapono? These are hardly consistently excellent players.

Basically, from a reserve you can get consistent but unimpressive performance or inconsistently good performance. Anyone who is consistently good tends to start.

Um, if he showed that he was a stone-cold killer (a la Ben Gordon) against a tough team in the playoffs for 28 mpg, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I said he wasn't useful or worth it. My opinion would have been noticably shifted if he showed he was worth the 28mpg. There's a reason Jerome James has a 5 year 40M contract right now. There's a reason that James Posey got the full MLE. Good showings in the playoffs, when EVERYONE is supposedly playing their best, gets you paid--good decision or not.

This really doesn't make sense. You seem to agree that basing decisions on a single series wouldn't make for a "good decision" but also assert that you would change your mind. You're endorsing bad decision-making?

if Outlaw had had a great playoff series, he'd be exactly the same player. He'd just have had a good streak at a very opportune time for the team, instead of a bad streak. He's a random player. Making decisions on a random player by looking at seven games is not going to lead you to a rational decision. I want Pritchard to make rational decisions, not say "Well, people have made mistakes by looking at performance in one playoff series, so it's okay if I do, too."

Some would say that JB and Rudy could.

Some might. I wouldn't be one of them. I think Bayless has great talent, but he's certainly not a good offensive player in the NBA right now. If Outlaw bothers you with inconsistency, I can't think why you're endorsing Bayless. Bayless was much, much, much, much more erratic. And Rudy thrives on getting open off the presence of teammates who draw double-teams. He's not a player you can throw the ball to and say, "Go get us something."

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying that keeping Travis on the floor for ~30 mpg was a necessity because he could "consistently create his own offense", except that he couldn't, consistently

He can consistently create his own shot. That is, he can consistently put the ball on the floor, create separation and end up with a clean look at the hoop. That is something that not a lot of Blazers can currently do. What makes Outlaw so variable is that he's not consistent in knocking down those shots. Shot-creation (creating clean looks) is a skill he always has. But his shooting touch is inconsistent.

Basically, here's my summary on this. Travis is a useful player if used properly. I've been saying that all year. I've also been saying that ~30mpg is not a proper use. You (and most others, probably) seem to say that he was the best use of that 30 mpg that Nate had. But if we were "baking it", or "evaluating", or whatever KP cliche one wants to toss out, my contention is that there were better uses of that time.

That's an accurate statement of my position. I think Outlaw is ideally a 20 MPG player. He played more minutes because he had a skill that the team lacked in 2008-09. My opinion is that, moving forward, the Blazers will have more players who can create shots (notably Oden and Bayless) and Outlaw's role will shrink.

Of course, I'm not one of the people in favour of "baking it." If Outlaw can be traded in a deal to bring back a superior player, I'd be thrilled. I'm simply not in favour of dumping him for nothing. As an average player, he's definitely worth a roster spot (since no team carries 12-15 above average players) and at $4 million, I don't think he's overpaid. If Pritchard can better use his salary, he should. But that's far from a given, since Outlaw is good value for his salary.

 

[LittleAlex]

If Roy had had a bad series, would it be time to trade him since he'd have proven not to have what it takes to help a team in the playoffs?

Yes, if he had failed at the same level as Outlaw. The team is screwed if your best player is a no show in the playoffs.

The Cliff Robinson years are still fresh in my mind.

Lucky for all concerned, Roy showed up.

I would give Outlaw a break if he broke through in even one game. But he didn't. THAT is a bad sign. Even Blake played two good games.

Of the players who got a significant quantity of minutes, only Travis couldn't be bothered to show up for even one freaking game.

Is that something other teams GM's really want? A guy who chokes in the post season? I would guess not.

 

[Minstrel]

Yes, if he had failed at the same level as Outlaw. The team is screwed if your best player is a no show in the playoffs.

Okay, that's consistent, at least. I think making judgments based on seven games is a big mistake.

Obviously, if a player routinely fails in the playoffs, that's going to be a problem. One series in no way tells you anything about their routine tendencies.

 

[LittleAlex]

Okay, that's consistent, at least. I think making judgments based on seven games is a big mistake.

Obviously, if a player routinely fails in the playoffs, that's going to be a problem. One series in no way tells you anything about their routine tendencies.

I am saying that a team will not really play enough games in the playoffs to tell you anything about their typical tendencies. You have to make judgments based on the evidence at hand. You might wait 4 or 5 years before you get even 30 games as a sample. Portland can't afford to wait that long.

 

[Minstrel]

I am saying that a team will not really play enough games in the playoffs to tell you anything about their typical tendencies. You have to make judgments based on the evidence at hand. You might wait 4 or 5 years before you get even 30 games as a sample. Portland can't afford to wait that long.

For a reserve, they can. Secondly, since the vast majority of players remain basically the same player in the playoffs as in the regular season, I think that should be the default assumption. One bad series shouldn't determine everything.

Oden had a poor playoff series, do you think Pritchard should be looking to get rid of him?

 

[Ed O]

I am saying that a team will not really play enough games in the playoffs to tell you anything about their typical tendencies. You have to make judgments based on the evidence at hand. You might wait 4 or 5 years before you get even 30 games as a sample. Portland can't afford to wait that long.

Why not?

Giving up on a player due to a few rough games is silly, whether it's regular season or the playoffs.

Portland shouldn't be afraid to move Outlaw, and should always be looking to get a better piece to replace him in the rotation, but they should NOT move him based on a half dozen games.

Ed O.

 

[adrenalize74]

This isnt about $$ at all for me. I have no probs whatsoever keeping Blake, as a matter of fact I REALLY hope we do! He will be a very good vet backup PG for us. However, I REALLY have issues with KPs man-crush on Outlaw. If we are picking up his option so he can be used as trade fodder, then great.....but if its because KP is in love with him, then......

 

[Minstrel]

However, I REALLY have issues with KPs man-crush on Outlaw. If we are picking up his option so he can be used as trade fodder, then great.....but if its because KP is in love with him, then......

What if it is because Outlaw is a good value at $4 million?