The Outlaw Trout

by JPop on Feb 4, 2007 10:28 PM PST

One media type labeled him as one of the Blazers untouchables. So, what do you think, will Outlaw be a Blazer next year? If so, what should his role on the team be. If not, why not.

I go back and forth on this daily. He has shown some flashes of brilliance, some games have been positively pedestrian, and some games he has been a total non-factor. I just wanted to know if other people feel of two minds about our man Travis.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm of two minds about Travis as well

but, if we are shifting towards a running game (and think at least 50% of our future is), Travis' shortcomings may not be as big a factor and his positive game attibutes will become much more valuable than they currently are.

This is how I hope Blazers management is looking at it. My guess is he stays because I think we are shifting towards a run capable team, but if we aren't I think we will probably see Travis go. (I've read that Phoenix is hoping to pick him up.) If the Blazers are going to run, he is worth us making sure we keep him, if not, he may be worth it, but it depends on how much other teams offer.

by drawingjeremy on Feb 4, 2007 11:30 PM PST reply actions

So basically

Travis is the problem we address after deciding on ZBo. I think essentially that is the situation facing Blazer management at this point. Unless of course Zach adjusts his game to an uptempo style. Or pigs fly. One or the other.

by JPop on Feb 5, 2007 12:13 AM PST reply actions

Exactly

what I think is happening. Also, I think pigs might fly first.

by drawingjeremy on Feb 5, 2007 12:29 AM PST reply actions

Pigs First

is my vote...

Ball Don't Lie

by bothteamsplayedhard on Feb 5, 2007 9:58 AM PST up reply actions

TLaw

Here is one that no matter what the Blazers do they will probably take some heat.

If they pay him to stay and he doesn't produce next year, they have another Zach situation (Why did they pay that guy that much at that time?). If they let another team take him and he explodes, they have an O'Neal situation (Why did they spend all the time developing that guy so someone else could reap the benefits?).

Does anyone really know what he will do? Will he be a starter at the 3 next year? Will he keep coming off the bench at the 3 and 4 spots as a defensive spark and hustle guy?

I think they should do what they should have done with Zach and Darius. Let him play the field and if the offers are too high let him go, if the price is right, match the offer and you have, at the least, a strong bench player.

by tssbro on Feb 5, 2007 12:36 AM PST reply actions

Oh yeah

Zach could fit on an up tempo team. He has three years before he really reaches his prime athletic ability. His basketball IQ and attitude could adjust by then. He has been a winner at every level except the NBA and don't forget how good he was as a second option/garbage man in the offense. If the young guys progress, and they win playing up-tempo, Zach may just figure it out.

by tssbro on Feb 5, 2007 12:42 AM PST reply actions

No fair

pulling out a Shaq line in there. Except I think his exact quote was more or less, "I've been a winner at every level except college and the NBA." This, of course, is before the Lakers won those titles.

--Dave

by Dave on Feb 5, 2007 5:43 PM PST up reply actions

I didn't know

Shaq said that? I just read recently that Zach won a state championship in high school, and we all know he won at Michigan State... so I was really just saying that he is a winner.

by tssbro on Feb 6, 2007 7:05 PM PST up reply actions

Keep Him

I think it's clear that Travis isn't going to be a starter or all-star. However, I think he can be a very productive player off the bench who isn't going to kick & complain about his role. Players like that are hard to find.

by blazerprophet on Feb 5, 2007 8:03 AM PST reply actions

Before the injury...

I thought his improvement was good enough to keep him around. Let's see how he does in the second half. He prefers to come in off the bench and does better in that capacity. Gives him to chance to figure out what he needs to to. As BP says, that's a rare breed.

"...though you may fail...aim at something high." Henry David Thoreau

by Dr Dave on Feb 5, 2007 8:26 AM PST reply actions

That's where I'm at, too.

I think he's alllllmost at the point where we can pass some sort of judgement on him.
He needs to come back from the injury and finish the process of showing his ability to progress.

It really feels like he's close to either making it OR breaking it.
Let him finish showing it; I don't think it'll take more than a couple of weeks.

Oh! I just realized: there's also the impact of other trades to consider.
There will be a lot more PT available to use to judge him down the stretch if Mags is gone.
The revelation of Trout as asset or bust will accelerate soon.
(I fully believe the thing about how, if a good deal for Mags
doesn't materialize by the trade deadline, they'll buy him out and let him go anyway.)

You'd do it for Randolph Scott.

by QualityPie on Feb 5, 2007 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

ya

as long as he doesn't want crazy money, we should resign him.. also depends how he does these last 30+ games.. if he does great and wants a ridicuous payday for 2 good months, then no...

by junit3123 @ Blazer's Edge on Feb 5, 2007 8:32 AM PST reply actions

i think

it depends on what teams want to sign him. if the spurs or some team liek that want him, no matter what they are would pay him, we have to match it. since obviously the spurs would know something we didn't. but if osme crappy team wants him for an absurd price.. let him go.

by ssa400 on Feb 5, 2007 9:53 AM PST reply actions

The Suns

I think the Suns would have a strong interest. Many of their players are similar to T-Law.

by blazerprophet on Feb 5, 2007 10:34 AM PST up reply actions

Yep

Suns are said to want him on their squad.

by drawingjeremy on Feb 5, 2007 11:35 AM PST reply actions

My (shaky) understanding . . .

. . . about Trout being 'untouchable' is that, for the teams that want him,
they're willing to give up more in return than near what he's making this year.

In other words, if you trade him, the only way to maximize our return on him
is to wait until the off-season and do a sign-and-trade, at whatever price he'd fetch.
Thus, he's not truly 'untouchable'; he's just untouchable for the remainder of the season.

Makes sense to me.
If that's the case.

You'd do it for Randolph Scott.

by QualityPie on Feb 5, 2007 11:41 AM PST reply actions