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