I see a lot of "he's a 4M bench player...what you get is what you get". I disagree. He's all those things, AND getting almost 30mpg on a playoff-caliber team. That's the part I disagree with. If you want to say that he's the most clutch player on the team, fine (personally I disagree, but I will happily concede that point to continue). He's pretty good in his one dimension. Put him in as a designated clutch shooter in "last play" situations. Bring him off the bench if you need an offensive spark, or if a team goes zone and you want some shooters. But I think his overall play and/or improvement path does not match with what 28mpg players on playoff teams are giving. I was asked in another conversation to
It's pretty hard for me to get 'fired up' about the short-comings of a guy who makes 4 million a year and is a fairly productive scorer and mediocre defender. I guess I don't get point of writing a huge expository piece complaining about Trav
He gets that many minutes because Portland doesn't have a superior player to take those minutes. If you cut Outlaw loose, you'd still have to fill those minutes and you'd have $4 million or so to do it. How would you spend that $4 million to get better production, restricting yourself to players who are actually available? That's the question that needs to be answered for me to agree with you.
Quality post, and some interesting stats too. I don't really buy the "he's a 4 million bench player" argument for the same reason as you (amount of minutes he plays). I've actually been thinking that when he's not on early, he should play little in the first 3 quarters and then put him in at the end of the game, but your stats show that that's not even the greatest plan. Definitely something worth chewing on.
Wasn't meant to "complain about Trav". It was to respond to those who say we shouldn't want something better b/c he's a 4M bench player. I showed what other 28mpg players on average-to-good teams are producing. The comparison is yours to do with as you will. If you think he meets our needs and deserves 28mpg, then that discussion is what this post was for. In response to Minstrel's post, I think I said that if Batum got 28 and Travis 16, rather than the other way around, I really don't think I'd have a problem.
I don't remember saying "cut him loose". I'm saying turn him from being a 4M 28mpg player into a 4M 16-18mpg player, doing much the same things he does already, and gameplan around his weaknesses. For instance, for the stretches he's in the game, if you know he's probably not going to crash the boards, send a guard in to do it (random poor example, I know). Don't set up complex defensive schemes that he'll probably have trouble picking up. Stuff like that. Outlaw makes more than everyone on the list who's not a 10yr vet on the last year or two of their big FA contract (Posey, Odom, Wallace). Hill, Finley, Ariza, Kleiza, Scola are all less (Beasley is at 4.3M, my mistake). The guys who play less (Turiaf, Landry, Maxiell, etc.) generally aren't making that much.
It's a good initial post, but the big hole that others are kind of dancing around with is, "So?" If Outlaw doesn't cut it, as you say, who do we put in his place? And more importantly, why? You say Batum, but you don't offer any facts to suggest that Batum would be any better than Outlaw in the list of forwards you compare Outlaw to. Instead of comparing Outlaw to forwards on other teams (who, incidentally often seem to make more money than Outlaw), it'd be more instructive to make comparisons to other players on our team. Myself, I think you're wrong in thinking Batum should get more minutes. I agree we cut Outlaw's minutes, and use him almost exclusively as Aldridge's backup at PF (cutting him down to 15 mpg). Then we should slide Roy to small forward more and give Fernandez more minutes. Rudy is easily better than Outlaw or Batum, and Roy (according to 82games.com) actually plays better statistically against small forwards. Roy can guard bigger guys like Carmello and Stojakovic, but it's a matchup nightmare for the other team for them to figure out who they should guard on the other end. This move has the added benefit of adding a third smaller guy to cover the perimeter, where we seem to get beat so much.
Okay, fair enough. I was conflating this with past discussions I remember having with you. I assume he's played 28 minutes, instead of 16-18, because Portland doesn't believe the team has a better option for those 10-12 minutes. Whether that is true, is hard to say. Batum provides great defense, but very little production. Outlaw provides decent production, but below average defense. Plus Outlaw gets a fair number of minutes at backup power forward. Options there are Frye and Diogu (before) or Ruffin (now). I'd rather see Outlaw in the game than Frye, Diogu or Ruffin. Or Shavlik Randolph. First of all, I'm not sure how that's relevant. There will always be better and worse deals. The question is whether Outlaw is a good deal for his production, and I would say he definitely is. His overall level is about average and he makes less than the MLE. Second, you need to prune that list of players on rookie contracts. They are being paid less than market value, since they are locked into set salaries, so are hardly fair comparisons. You seem to be shifting the argument a bit. Are you arguing that Outlaw is a bad value for his salary (which seems to be your thrust in comparing his salary to others) or that he's playing too many minutes? The first bears on whether you think he should be cut loose or not. The second is a question of whether Nate McMillan is using him correctly.
Travis palys multiple positions and knows the team's offensive and defensive schemes. He is valuable because you can put him into the game in a lot of different sitatuions and with a lot of different line ups. It's his versitility and understanding of Nate's system that produces that many minutes, IMO.
As much as I love Nicolas' game, I just don't think Nicolas is ready for 28-32 minutes a game yet. He just doesn't make enough of an impact to warrant those kind of minutes. He's a good defender, but offensively, his shot is still inconsistent and not enough of a threat to other teams. We've also asked more of Travis this year due to Martell being out. Like Minstrel said, there is no better alternative off the bench for the 3 spot. There are certainly games where I pull my hair out, thinking why Nate keeps having Travis in the game when it's obvious he keeps screwing up on both ends of the floor. But there are games when he does deserve those 25-30 mins. If Martell were playing, it'd be different. But right now, I've generally liked what Travis has given us especially for the amount we're paying him.
Well then I guess I missed the subtext in your post (in your defense you may have been explicit in your point, but I've been reading reams of pages for my classes lately and I'm mostly the point where my eyes glaze over when I have to read anything longer than 500 words :wink) As for him meeting our needs and getting 28 mpg for this year I have no problem with him being on the court; he's a better scoring option than any of our other power forwards, he's one of a couple of players who can create his own shot off the dribble and he's certainly outperforming his contract. Do I think he's a long term solution as an instant offense sixth man or are there better options out there? I don't know, but that's something that has no bearing on the present.
I think you're right that Batum isn't ready for 28-32 mpg, but I don't think at times playing him 20-24 would be a bad thing. I also think that with increased minutes, he'd be able to work off of players on offense better. We've seen flashes, and know he plays pretty intelligently when he does have the ball, but I think a lot of his improvement will come from simply playing.
I guess that's why most of us were clamoring for a consistent SF on this team, and just having someone we know what we can get from that position every night. To me, Nicolas and Travis are just wildcards game to game. Some games, one will deserve 30 and the other 18, and other games, the other way around. It's not their faults, they're just not full-time starting SFs. With Nicolas, I think we're bringing him along the right way. We're in midst of a big playoff run, and I don't think we can afford to have him learning trial by fire. Maybe a couple years ago, but not right now. When he's playing well (like at LA) then by all means, keep him in. But sometimes I don't even notice Nicolas is on the floor. And Travis just simply has Nate's trust -- whether that's a good or bad thing, depends game by game.
Outlaw is a limited player who creates his own shot and consistently contributes at the end of close games. That's his role. Why I'd occupy my afternoon dissecting the original post baffles me. I don't think that there is a more played out "debate" than the Outlaw debate on this board, especially when you consider that the guy is a bench player.
I agree with Mook. The reason being, there are certain players which should be on the floor more. Fernandez is one of them. After watching Roy handle Josh Smith the other night, I do not have any more second thoughts about him guarding SF.
Good work Brian, way to waste a fucking shit ton of your time for a completely stupid thread. I hope you feel special for your contribution.
yet by some measures, Portland's SF spot isn't performing all that badly. http://www.82games.com/0809/BYPOSIT.HTM STOMP
As far as it depends on him, Outlaw will end up having a better career than Kersey. There, I have spoken.
Well that post was completely necessary. Thanks for your contribution to the thread as well. I actually like reading different people's perspective on Outlaw because it's so varied, and for the most part this thread hadn't really been bashing him or posters until now. Hopefully that was sarcasm.
