So KP is planning on picking Blake and Outlaw back 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.

 

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.

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 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."

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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......

 

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

 

I agree that Outlaw is decent value. I'm in no hurry to trade him.

However, I don't know that it's "silly" to evaluate him based off of one playoff series. In pro football, players are on the field for only half the game, and they may only get 5 or 6 games to prove their worth before much of their career is decided. So they may only get a couple of hours of total playing time before it's all decided. Why? Because there are so few iterations in pro football. If you really wanted to fairly evaluate every player with a large sample size, you'd be 7 seasons into his career before you could make a judgment.

Similarly, on a first-round-and-out playoff team, the iterations are pretty limited. You can't know for sure that Outlaw is a playoff choker along the lines of Uncle Cliffy. But there are lots of things in the NBA that you can't know for sure until it's too late to matter. So you take your best guess.

Outlaw's stock definitely went down in my eyes (and I suspect among every NBA GM) as a result of the playoff series. Not enough that I want to just dump him, but enough that I don't consider him to be the excellent value he was before the playoffs. He's a decent, maybe good value, but not excellent anymore, at least IMO.

 

might be nate love for him tho

hope nate doesnt veto any trade or picks this summer...again

 

You know it took Outlaw 5-6 years to show he belonged as an NBA player...So we should at least give him 3? 4? playoff series before we write him off?

right?

right?

 

I've never found that argument terribly compelling. When he was drafted, he could jump really, really high. And that was it.

He's really a third-year player that took six years to get where he is because he was so bad to begin with.

Going forward, will it take him another six years (for a total of twelve seasons) to reach his true potential? Clearly no, as he's probably about 90% there right now.

The last 10% or so, in my mind, is how much of his playoff misery is an aberration (he was, after all, often matched up against two of the very best defenders in the league).

I think he's a playoff choker, but I could be wrong.

 

Outlaw had a poor series - no disagreement there.

I would be happy to see him leave, assuming we got value for him, because his overall game isn't great - agreed again.

However, I think it's absolutely unfair to bag on the guy because of the playoffs. It was his first playoffs and he had to play against the one team in the last however many years that had TWO all-NBA defensive wing players.

 

I have spent roughly 54 1/2 years on this earth. I have lived as a responsible person. If I go out tomorrow and rob a bank, they are not going to let me off the hook based on "small sample size". I will go to prison, and spend the rest of my days with the label "convicted felon" hanging around my neck.

Sorry Travis, but life doesn't give you infinite chances!

 

You know I have said this many times, and once you realize this truth, you will be able to live with Outlaw and his production. Outlaw is a tweener. The difference between a tweener and a versatile player is that a versatile player is good at more than one position, where a tweener can play multiple positions but none of them at an exceptional level. A tweener is only useful when lined up against a player who they cause a distinct matchup problem, but usually end up suffering from a matchup problem at the defensive end. Such as a skinny SF type taking a PF out to the perimeter (Outlaw). Once you come to terms with that, dealing with Travis sketchy play from game to game, and sometimes even quarter to quarter, is much easier to deal with. It is like closure in a way. Now I just don't expect much out of him, except if the matchup is just right.

 

Except the tweener status doesn't take into account his extremely low basketball IQ.

 

I'm wondering what Rudy Fernandez did in the playoffs to make him a part of the future. Same with Greg Oden.

 

Many people were upset that KP didn't land Gerald Wallace. I'm wondering what he's done to prove himself in the playoffs?

What available player would be a guarantee to come of the bench and have a stellar playoff series, regardless of the opponent?