Trade Travis?

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 6, 2008 10:23 AM PST

I'm not necessarily advocating this position -- but as I started to reply to the main-page thread about our bubble youngsters, I began to think that there are a few reasons to consider it. Hear me out, BE, and then tell me what I've missed.

1) As of now, our depth chart for next year 2-4 looks something like this. 2: Roy/Jack/Rudy/Martell; 3: Martell/JJ2/Trout. 4: LMA/Trout/Frye. All together, now, "Minute crunch!" Even if Jack gets traded, Martell still won't be getting more than a couple of minutes a game at the 2 -- if that, with Roy playing 40 minutes a game and Rudy vacuuming up his scraps. In addition, Martell lacks the ball-handling skills to be an effective 2, which by default slides him up to the 3.

Martell (28 mpg) and Jones (23 mpg) ought to combine for about 40 mpg next season, leaving 8 at the SF for Travis. Now let's say LMA averages 36 minutes a game next season: a reasonable estimate, as he's at 34.2 in his first full season as a starter. Even if Frye gets traded, that's still only 12 minutes a game for Outlaw backing up the 4 and 20 total -- more than a 25% decrease in his playing time from this season. His value as a trading chip will likely never be higher than it is right now, and that value will fall concordant with the decline of his minutes.

Proceeding from 1 begs the question: will Travis be worth more to us getting spot minutes backing up the 3 and 4, or as a trading chip to address a position of greater need -- like, for example, that glaring hole in our backcourt? I think valid arguments can be made for both sides, but what if we could trade Outlaw, Jack, and our number one for a signed-and-traded Calderon? I think that's a deal Toronto would certainly consider. Wouldn't Calderon/Roy/Martell/LMA/Oden and Blake/Rudy/JJ2/Frye/Pryz plus whatever picks we buy and whichever second-rounders pan out be a dang good team?
Here's our second unit as of next year: Jack/Sergio, Rudy, JJ2, Outlaw, Pryz. Two things jump out at me. Number one, we're gonna be hucking jumpers all day long, and number two, we're gonna get absolutely pounded on defense and on the boards. Playing that sieve-like group of perimeter defenders who offer weak rebounding means that we need at least two guys who are going to offer intimidation, rebounding, and interior defense. We have one and Trav ain't it.

We could trade the other guys for lockdown perimeter defenders who can rebound and keep Travis...or we can trade Travis, our most valuable, realistically movable trade chip, for an answer at the one and find a rugged PF to plug in his place in the second unit -- going a long way towards answering the doubts framed above in the first paragraph of 3). Maxiell, Millsap, and more recently Landry were all second-rounders within the last two years who fit this description perfectly. I see no reason why KP can't find a similar player given our abundance of second-round picks this year.

So that's one side of the argument. What's the other?

0 recs | Comment 53 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Travis

Produces more than James Jones. THye each have valuable assets. When we need a bucket in the 4th, we go to Roy or Outlaw. His importance there should not be overlooked. Him, Roy, and maybe Jack are the only real ones that can create shots for themselves.

Jones importance is spreading the floor and hitting those dagger 3s that can really help the team's momentum. Plus, Jones has been injury riddled all season, something Travis has really never had to deal with.

When its all said and done, i think you have to give more minutes to Outlaw over Jones, regardless of what position he plays. He brings more instant offense and he is becoming more reliable, game in and game out. Additionally you have to look at Outlaw's upside is much higher than Jones'. Travis still has a ton of potential and is very young. He might be able to develop the deadly outside shooting of James and put that with his ability to create shots when isolated or drive to the hoop.

Travis Outlaw drops the sledgehammer on Daequan Cook for a dunk so vicious, it's illegal in 48 states.

by BlazerBandit on Mar 6, 2008 10:40 AM PST 0 recs

In a vacuum

I agree with you -- Travis has considerably more upside than James Jones and will almost certainly end up being the better player. But you have to look at his contributions in terms of the greater Blazer picture.

Do you want to start Outlaw at the 3? He's a one-dimensional player for now, and between Roy/LMA/Oden we won't need more scoring punch on the first unit. In addition, he scores almost all of his points on isolations and clear-outs, which in my opinion will mesh poorly with the style of next year's first unit (I think it'll be more of a quick-hitting ball movement attack). He'll be a defensive liability at the 3 and doesn't stretch the court nearly in the same fashion as JJ2. There's a reason there's such a gross disparity in our record with and without James Jones in uniform; I'm no statistics expert, but I'm pretty sure that difference falls outside the standard deviation of pure chance.

I love Travis. I love how far his game has come. But looking at the positions of weakness on our roster and upcoming minutes vise, I think we should strongly consider trading him while his value is at an all-time high to bolster ourselves elsewhere.

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 6, 2008 11:17 AM PST up 0 recs

This is a reasonable possibility

There is a big "minute crunch" coming. I have said before that a trade of Travis is a strong possibility, and if we do so, his trade value is perhaps at an all-time high.

Among the drawbacks:

His weaknesses can be addressed by learning, practice, effort. He is nowhere near his maximum potential. In two years, he could be beyond belief.
Players who shine in clutch circumstances are incredibly valuable. He does. Roy does. Jack makes some really clutch plays, and some really bad ones in clutch situations. Beyond that....
We don't know if Martell is going to be an answer at the 3. If he never improves further, we've got a big hole there. In fact, I'll go so far as to say Jack and Blake are closer to being a solution at the 1 than Martell is at the 3. If Martell were playing like this at the end of next year, and you suggested trading Travis, I would scream. I don't want to give up on Martell, but if we trade Travis, we may end up with as big a hole at the 3 as we currently have at the 1.
Humility. Travis is content to be a backup, and is not likely to scream about minutes if he only plays 20-25. And he isn't really the type to think, "So and so gets more money than me, and my numbers are better." With a talent like his, that's really, really valuable. I'm not sure how you can really quantify that value, but it's important. He could be a perennial candidate for 6th man of the year, and content with that.

The S.A. concept is three stars, and role players. Travis is willing to be a star role player, giving us four stars. If you trade that possibility away, you had better be getting something very, very valuable in return.

But I don't think KP is hanging up every time another GM calls and says, "We want Outlaw."

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 6, 2008 10:44 AM PST 0 recs

This is the best post

I have read except the conclusion should be to trade Martel.

"I was in the neighborhood, feeling a little daffy, so I thought I would stop in for an aperitif." Tom in Miller's Crossing.

by Kampeska on Mar 6, 2008 11:06 AM PST 0 recs

No exceptions allowed. Best post at all.

"You, my friend, are an enigma" (einman77)

by amlmart1 on Mar 6, 2008 11:14 AM PST up 0 recs

Yep.

Why trade the best three on our team? His shot is somewhat more reliable than Martell, and he has more upside than Jones. If we trade anyone, it should be Martell.

The NBA, where Von Wafer happens

by JTDuck22 on Mar 6, 2008 12:18 PM PST up 0 recs

No question

The problem is that Martell doesn't have nearly the trade value that Trout has. Having said that, I'm not sure that Martell, Frye, Jack, and our first round pick couldn't net a player of Calderon's value. (I love Jarrett's toughness and heart, but with Rudy coming in, something's got to give.)

BlazersOrBust has made an excellent argument for trading Travis. But I really see him as a key Blazer--right after the "Big 3." No doubt the point guard position needs an upgrade, but not at the expense of someone with Travis' rare ability. All he needs to do is continue filling out and improving defensively and he'll be a dynamite three.

"Ime caught the guy in mid-air with a fist and calmly continued his dispatching of oncoming people." -Gabe Muoneke

by hurryup09 on Mar 6, 2008 12:34 PM PST up 0 recs

I'm not convinced

Travis can play the 3 full-time. I don't get to see nearly as many Blazer games as I'd like, but those I've seen, he's been playing as a PF, and my impression was that he'd spent the lion's share of his minutes this year as a 4. I think he'll get roasted defensively as a SF because he's not a very good man defender on the perimeter and he doesn't have good lateral quickness on defense.

Martell's trade value is significantly lower right now. If we believe that he'll pan out, then it makes sense to trade Outlaw for a one because that maximizes our value and because Martillo's more of a natural 3 than Outlaw is. My thoughts anyway.

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 6, 2008 12:26 PM PST up 0 recs

Recently Travis has been playing more 3

and doing quite well. He would be my guess as the starting 3 next year after having played the 4 basically exclusively until February.

by EnglandDan on Mar 6, 2008 2:04 PM PST up 0 recs

I don't see

Martell getting 28 mins a game next year, unless he really improves.

My guess is that Jack and Frye will be traded this offseason.(reaf, miles, wafer, mcrob, are all on the block as well)
Rudy will impress us, but in limited minutes, maybe 15 or so at the most.
We will get a new point guard, not sure if this will be through FA or draft. Also not sure if he will start or be a back up.
Outlaw will continue to come off the bench as the main scorer in the 2nd unit.
James Jones, just might start at the 3.
We will either draft, sign or trade for a brusier back up PF. (one of the players I would target if it was me, is Najaera. I hate playing aganist him, which is always a good sign).
Live and die time for Martell, he could be traded if he doesn't show improvement.
Sergio will take a big step forward next year, and solidify(sp?) his role as the back up point guard. Meaning Steve will either get traded or let go after next year, or be a 3rd string pg for far less money.
KP will be executive of the year, because Oden will bring this team into the elite teams in the NBA.
55+ wins next year

by usmcr3049 on Mar 6, 2008 11:39 AM PST 0 recs

Trout = Flying Fish

Travis is my favorite, if we traded him I would cry for a week.

That said, he does have a lot of trade value and any trade that would improve the team at multiple positions KP would have to consider. But it's hard to imagine him being more useful to any team than he is to us.

His versatility has saved us this season. He's been mostly playing out of his natural position all season. (He's a 3, not a 4) And as jscot pointed out his weaknesses are things that can be improved with teaching and practice, his strengths are not. He is a freak (in a good way), you can't teach hops.

We've only seen glimmers of his true ability, one of the things you address is Travis' defense, but I think he has the potential to be a plus defender as well, especially as a help defender.

by Bretski on Mar 6, 2008 11:44 AM PST 0 recs

Travis and Darius

I think this would cost the Blazers some money, but we should PLAY him (Darius) in the second unit at his usual place (3rd spot) for either Martell or Jones and then evaluate him as to performce, attitude, ect. Tell it like it is. If he is productive, move him to the first unit where more rebounding and point production is needed. Evaluate and do not be easy on him. I would hope that he becomes a valuable, productive member of our team. Travis needs to become more of a passer, dribbler, and set-up man than I've seen of him so far this year.

The Blazers are rising

by Idahofan on Mar 6, 2008 12:05 PM PST 0 recs

I'd trade him for the right offer

although that's contingent on being confident that Aldridge is really the future at PF. Despite some disappointment with his progress this season, I still think the Oden/Aldridge/Roy combo is the core.

The big question marks, at PG and SF, are areas of concern. In the next couple of years, we can count on these significant assets to try to address those needs:

young, inexpensive talent. Primarily Outlaw, but also includes Jack, Martell, Jack, and Frye to some extent. Also includes guys that aren't playing that we have rights to, like Rudy and Koponen.
expiring contracts. Raef's contract for 13 million expires next year, Darius for 9 million the year after.
cap space. If we don't trade Raef's expiring, we're looking at probably at least 10 million in cap space.
Probably one more lottery pick, this year, but we can probably only count on low first rounders after this year.

I think we can assume that we can find good wing players in the lottery (a lot of quality second banana SFs are picked up in the picks from 15-25) or free agency, but realistically, point guards without a huge downside don't pop up in free agency or lower than the lottery. Plus, I'm starting to get that Nate's another one of these ex-PG coaches that can't really be relied on to develop young PGs (see also Avery Johnson, Mo Cheeks).

You have to give value to get value most of the time (pretend the Pau trade didn't happen). If we want a really high end pg on the team, we're going to have to give up something. I love Travis, but he's one of our bigger bargaining chips, and if he's the cost of a significant upgrade to a position of need for us, I say we have to make the deal.

by howlingfantods on Mar 6, 2008 12:29 PM PST 0 recs

Oh, and also, take a look at

the Bulls, if yall want to see what happens to a team that falls too much in love with its talent. They refused trades for Pau, Kobe, and Kevin Garnett within the past year and a half.

by howlingfantods on Mar 6, 2008 12:35 PM PST up 0 recs

i can't blame them for that

every scenario involved giving up Deng, who is likely to produce for more years than any of those 3 and Chicago had its eyes set on the future as well as the present.

Who would have thought they would tank the way they did this year? Definitely one of the biggest surprises as far as I'm concerned.

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Mar 6, 2008 1:44 PM PST up 0 recs

Deng's good

but not that good, cmon, this is the kind of overrating ones own players that I'm talking about. He's someone who'll be a very good second banana on a good team, you won't trade that for a MVP, best player in the league, at his peak? That's just completely nuts.

by howlingfantods on Mar 6, 2008 9:08 PM PST up 0 recs

I have to say that this argument makes sense.

Before reading this, I was aghast at the possibility that we might move Travis--mainly because I still don't think we've seen the best of Travis, but also because he's such a good kid and fits the culture to a T.

But you have to give something to get something, and if we really want to trade for a blue-chipper, then trading Jack, Frye, and Martell simply isn't going to get it done. I can see us moving Travis if the right deal comes along.

And to further the argument, you have to start thinking about the playoffs when most teams go to an 8 man rotation. You have to consider that if we were to do that, there might not be many minutes available for Travis.

I think the flip side to the argument is that we would be trading away several years at the end of this run for a chance to get better sooner. Travis is still only 23, which absolutely amazes me. He might not reach the apex of his intelligence and athletic ability for another 4 years, and then remain at that peak for another 3-4 years on top of that. That's A LOT of potential to trade away for the chance to win now.

If you could get Calderon, who is only 26, then I think it might be worth it. But if we're talking about older player, then the return on our investment (if we see trading Travis as an investment in winning now) is greatly diminished.

Another trade I could see working: Raef, Travis, Jack, and Frye for Jermaine O'Neal and Danny Granger. (This assumes Indiana REALLY wants to get rid of O'Neal ...) Indiana would get good young players at several positions, and immediate cap relief with Raef. We would get the blue chipper we need at SF, and an aging Jermaine O'Neal who might like to come back "home" to Portland to try to win a championship and redeem the last few years that he's been sucking in Indiana as a powerful player off the bench. We could further entice Indiana with a draft pick or two. This does not resolve our PG conundrum, but we consolidate the roster and still have a couple chips left in Martell and Sergio with which to maneuver a trade for a solid PG. This trade would leave us with:

Oden/Prz
Aldridge/O'Neal
Granger/Jones/(Martell)
Roy/Fernandez/Martell
Blake/(Roy)/Sergio

I don't know if that's the trade, but this is the type of trade I could see us moving Travis in in order to improve the team on the whole.

by bfan on Mar 6, 2008 1:45 PM PST 0 recs

Oh yeah ...

I forgot to mention that if we wanted to get a PG back, we could ask for Diener, who strikes me as a younger Steve Blake ...

by bfan on Mar 6, 2008 1:46 PM PST up 0 recs

Trade checker:

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4543691

by bfan on Mar 6, 2008 1:53 PM PST up 0 recs

This doesn't sound like that outrageous

of a deal.

I'd be a bit surprised by Indiana letting go of Granger. To me, he's the guy they build around.

But like you said, it likely depends on just how badly they want out from under O'Neill's deal.

by timg56 on Mar 6, 2008 4:25 PM PST up 0 recs

A couple of things.

First, James Jones might renounce his option and get the MLE to play on a contender. He might be gone next year.

Secondly, Outlaw might be considered more valuable than Frye at the 3/4 instead of Frye at the 4/5, making Frye the odd one out.

To trade Outlaw we would need to be picking up a starter quality player at the 3 or 1.

by EnglandDan on Mar 6, 2008 2:07 PM PST 0 recs

A couple of things

It's definitely possible that James Jones renounces his option and tries to go to a contender. I'd argue that it's not likely: I think his market value is just about that $3.2 million option -- because he's battled injuries all year, I find it improbable that somebody gives him the full MLE -- and if he plays well next year he can cash in more then than he potentially could now. Besides, he seems to like Portland and hasn't given any indication of wanting to leave. I think he'll be here next year, chewing right into those available minutes at the three.

Number two, I definitely agree that Travis is more valuable at the 3/4 than Fyre is at the 4/5. The question isn't that, really. It's more a question of relative trade value. To my view, Travis is valuable as a player, but his value will drop next season; on the other hand, his value as a trade chip is at an all-time high. Frye is much less valuable as a player, but next year his value will increase because he'll be able to play the role we had initially planned for him -- second-unit shooter playing alongside Pryz and playing spot minutes at the 5. And Frye wouldn't bring a sack of potatoes in a trade right now, whereas Outlaw could conceivably land us a very valuable piece at a position of need. And I agree wholeheartedly with your final assertion.

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 6, 2008 2:54 PM PST up 0 recs

A couple of things

The market value for your proposal trade is about 20 comments. You are now over the cap. Second in a second, time is gone.

"You, my friend, are an enigma" (einman77)

by amlmart1 on Mar 6, 2008 3:04 PM PST up 0 recs

Undervalues Frye

His rebounds per minute aren't bad.
He's young.
He's inexpensive.
He's a big man with a shot, thus a nice complement to a big center in the low post (helps prevent the defense from collapsing).

His trade value isn't real high right now, but it's better than you are saying.

This is just a quibble, in general I agree with your premise in this thread that trading Travis is not unmentionable, and might, if the right offer comes along, be the best thing for us to do.

But it better be a good offer.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 7, 2008 12:38 AM PST up 0 recs

Travis might be our starter at the 3 next year.

Thus upping his trade value, but also making him more valuable to the team.

by EnglandDan on Mar 7, 2008 2:43 PM PST up 0 recs

What about this trade begining

with Grizzlies, sending them also one of our worst contracts, because they can get it with their cap space. Then we can go to talk with the Raptors in a stronger position.

"You, my friend, are an enigma" (einman77)

by amlmart1 on Mar 6, 2008 3:10 PM PST 0 recs

Lately, I've been of the opinion that Outlaw

is our starting SF. I agree with most of the pro Travis comments here, in particular jscot's. (But then I usually agree with his opinions.)

To summarize, Travis still has tons of upside, is versatile enough to play a couple of positions, has the perfect attitude so as to not care if he's starting or coming off the bench, and is developing that fearless mindset that makes him a clutch player. For us to trade him, I think we'd have to find a partner who placed an even higher value on him than we do.

I'm thinking Martell is the guy more likely to be traded. But then I'm not sure anybody gets traded. It's entirely possible that the only guy not here next October is Von Wafer. Yes we are looking at a minute crunch, but I can see the organization looking at that as the crucible of competition, with the best players coming out of the fire, stronger than before. Under that scenario, Travis will do fine.

by timg56 on Mar 6, 2008 4:37 PM PST 0 recs

I don't think he's ready to start

He's too much of a catch and shoot or isolate and shoot. I don't think his game, as it is now, would flow with the sharing offense the team is supposed to be playing.

You should not retain, copy or use this comment or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person.

by tominhawaii on Mar 6, 2008 5:11 PM PST up 0 recs

We have to get past that "usually"

to "always" agreeing with my statements.

I'm building an army, the world will be mine soon. If you join early, you can be an officer.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 7, 2008 12:40 AM PST up 0 recs

How about signing tom and I up

to run your navy?

BTW - I'm a Campbell on the maternal side.

by timg56 on Mar 7, 2008 1:25 PM PST up 0 recs

Heck Yeah

I worked in the engine room. I'd kick it old school.

You should not retain, copy or use this comment or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person.

by tominhawaii on Mar 7, 2008 1:27 PM PST up 0 recs

Check Gilbert & Sullivan

As to the qualifications to be the Ruler of the Queen's Navy.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 8, 2008 8:26 AM PST up 0 recs

If we got something great in return, sure

otherwise, though the argument is logical far too much upside for Travis. If only Martell were having a better year (though not bad) we could move him for nearly the value of Travis. For me, I'm pro shopping (of those who would have potential appeal, there are others, but I'd call that dumping as opposed to shopping): Martell, Jack, and Frye. I like all three but if we could make something happen I'd seriously consider. With regards to Rudy, I want to see him play in the NBA before I consider trading any players based on his promise, if his skill set seriously overlaps with Outlaw's in the end then we have a great problem.... ohh and that reminds me almart1, I can't see Memphis being a trade partner for Outlaw because they have Rudy Gay, I think their skill sets are far too similar for Outlaw to be worth as much to them as he is to us.

by drawingjeremy on Mar 6, 2008 5:17 PM PST 0 recs

I thought I had made it

clear that Travis is sacrosanct. His name is never to be mentioned in any talks of trade. As far as trades go Travis is off limits. When talks of trade occur Travis is he who's name must not be mentioned. Travis slides like teflon through talks of trade. If I still haven't made it clear just let me say this. You leave Travis alone you big bullies!

by annthefan on Mar 6, 2008 6:05 PM PST 0 recs

Trout is not the bait

how can you people even suggest something so backwards?

"He tasks me, and I shall have him." -- Khan

by bow4meow on Mar 6, 2008 6:48 PM PST up 0 recs

We are also followers of an Outlaw

It means the last thing I want is a pompous Sheriff interfering with me when I´m trading a player to win a ring.

"You, my friend, are an enigma" (einman77)

by amlmart1 on Mar 6, 2008 10:52 PM PST up 0 recs

Well sheesh. On top of everything else

my significant other bought me an authentic Outlaw jersey for Valentine's day. On a more serious note, I think Travis would regress horribly if he was traded. He's comfortable where he is and that is a big part of the reason he's doing well this year. I think he'll just keep improving if he remains in Portland. I could go on but I hate typing. I'm all for the bon mot. I just want Travis to remain a Blazer until he retires.

by annthefan on Mar 6, 2008 11:50 PM PST up 0 recs

Trading Travis

would give your significant other the opportunity to prove next Valentine's Day his great love for you by either A) buying the jersey of your new favorite Blazer or B) buying a Travis jersey with his new team. In Travis' case, as long as the new team was not the L*kers or J*zz or some such, this would not be treasonous. There are few players of whom we could say that, but Travis would be one.

I want Travis to remain a Blazer until he retires, too. But I can see the argument for trading him, and KP's job is to win championships.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 7, 2008 12:46 AM PST up 0 recs

My significant other has no significance in this

conversation other than being the conduit for providing me with a Travis jersey. Next year I want a years supply of Euphoria mint dark truffles.

by annthefan on Mar 7, 2008 1:18 AM PST up 0 recs

I concur - Travis OFF limits - right along with..

Roy, LaMarcus, and Oden.....
Why? In addition to all the more sophisticated analysis already provided, I personally find Travis is one of our most entertaining and satisfying, and yes, likable, players on the court, not to mention his phenomenal interviews ! This season he has generally been exceeding expectations, he seems to handle, even enjoy pressure situations, and has been one of our more reliable players. His athleticism, including leaping is phenomenal. I am eager to see how far he can go ON our team, not on someone elses. SURE other teams want him, for good reason.. I find reglar inquiries regarding an Outlaw trade as irritating as probably most of you would find questions of trading LaMarcus or Oden.... which I would NOT do either, under any likely offer by another team. Travis has already shown remarkable improvement, has been healthy (durable), and WE deserve to enjoy his further progress. We got needs ? OK But, please, find another solution......

"It feels like I belong here." Kevin Durant - working out for the Blazers before the draft.

by DaveR on Mar 7, 2008 12:49 AM PST up 0 recs

if we trade

I can understand trading Travis if the scales were tipped in our favor, but we shouldn't trade Travis for the sake of trading him. I don't think he's done anything to warrant himself to being on the trading block.

by Philthyanimal on Mar 7, 2008 12:21 AM PST 0 recs

i hate this

kind of rosterbation. it's bad karma for one thing. maybe you have to drink a lot of beer to get a kick out of "oh, he's really improved this year -- let's trade his ass."

this kind of stuff -- over and over and over, endlessly repeated -- is why i've gradually lost interest in this site.

because this stuff just never stops.

ignacio

by ignacio on Mar 7, 2008 2:50 AM PST 0 recs

He has been our third best player behind

Roy and LMA. He's a real winner in heart and showed it with his winning game shots and 4th quarter clutch shots.

He doesn't get a lot of love on this site though. You leave the door cracked and all of a sudden the "trade Outlaw posse' comes out. We have other bargaining chips like Frye, Jack, Martel and draft picks since next years roster is so stacked before we give up this year's 3rd best player on the team. If it wasn't for Ginobli, he would probably be the 6th man of the year in my opinion.

He still has upside and seems to me wants to win. I want guys that want to win and do what it takes to win on my team. Travis has showed me both.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 7, 2008 5:55 AM PST 0 recs

Funny thing is...

I agree that this trade our good players talk happens a lot. And when I don't agree I can get annoyed but it is just par for the concourse.

Trade Travis Outlaw. Heck no. He's 23 and improving. He's got the work ethic, he's got the NBA body, he's a character guy who wants to be here. Only a block buster offer, like someone said before, should even be considered.

We're not seeing the improvement out of Webster that we all want yet but he's a youngster with a great NBA body and he's all upside and potential. If the right deal comes you consider but he's a nice chip to hold onto. He needs to come off the bench with only the minutes he earns then he'll work hard enough and stop being afraid to get hurt. Or rather overcome it for PT.

We keep talking about trading away LaFrenz so folks can get the salary of their books. Wouldn't that be a good thing for US to do? This has prob been explained before but I'm ignorant on the topic.

And finally on James Jones, I don't think he'll leave. He's loved here. He plays here. He might go for bigger money or a guarantee of playing time but that is a big if or two.

I've said it before and say it again. I'm of the let's hold on to our boys and see what they do school over the let's trade and trade and trade. That kind of crap shoot doesn't work very often. Look at the Suns and Mavericks. Their playoff runs are over. They made really bad trades and one of em is falling out of the playoffs. Denver and GS are thrilled.

If dinosaurs voted Ralph Nader would win the election... Unanimously.

by T REX on Mar 7, 2008 10:41 AM PST 0 recs

I agree with absolutely everything you said...

except here's the one thing you overlooked -- there simply isn't roster space next year for all "our boys". After we add Oden, Rudy, and an almost-certain lottery pick, we're going to have too many decent players and not enough minutes. Something's got to give.

I'm not a poster who casually throws around trade speculation. When I post in trade diaries, it's usually to disparage them, and I agree with you and others above you who have stressed patience as a virtue. But this summer, we're going to have some hard roster decisions to make, and "let's trade Raef, Darius, and McRoberts for an All-Star" isn't going to be one of them -- guys we like are gonna be gone. Maybe it'll be Travis, maybe it'll be Jack/Frye/Martell/Sergio/first-rounder, but roster turnover is guaranteed. This is nothing more than my initial thoughts about how what form that turnover may take, and I think quick-fix solutions are silly.

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 7, 2008 11:33 AM PST up 0 recs

We have our caricature in BE

about the blazer overloaded locker-room.

He-he-he.

"The man with a theory"

by amlmart1 on Mar 7, 2008 11:42 AM PST up 0 recs

The suns and mavs only started

their playoff runs because of trades...

This is kind of a weak argument. Smart teams draft for the best players available. When they end up with unbalanced rosters because their PF picks have developed better than their SF picks, they draft one of their PFs for a SF.

Actually another way to look at it is that the Suns made a desperation trade because of the trade they didn't make. Everyone knew that the Suns were a long shot to ever win it all because of their horrible rebounding and poor interior defense. If they'd taken the Amare for KG trade, they'd be a favorite to win it all. But they didn't make the move, they realized their blunder when teams around them improved, and made the desperation deal of Marion for Shaq that was a much much worse move than Amare for KG.

That's the kind of thing that happens when teams decide to just "hold on to our boys". Say "oh no major trades, we're good" while powerhouses like the Kobe/Pau/Bynum squad are being put together.

by howlingfantods on Mar 7, 2008 11:53 AM PST up 0 recs

Travis will be traded and here's why...

Blazers need a point guard.
Point guards are VERY hard to draft and take a long time to develop.
Therefore, a proven PG will probably be obtained through free agency or a trade.
Blazers are over the cap and can't sign a free agent.
Therefore, they will go the trade route.
There are a limited number of guys on the Portland roster that are both (a) drool-worthy, in the eyes of other GMs around the league; and (b) tradeable in the eyes of the Blazers. It ain't gonna be Roy, Oden, or LMA. Jack might be of interest, but no other GM is going to "trade down" -- if you want a better player, you're gonna have to sweeten the pot A LOT. Who does that leave? Joel? Maybe, but Oden is going to be foul prone. And who wants a 4 ppg. guy making 7 million bucks or whatever? Some teams, but not that many... Martell? I suppose some GMs might want to take a flier on him. But is he gonna turn heads of other GMs? No. The valuable guy is TRAVIS.

I love Travis. But, realistically, to get a great PG, it's going to take Jack and Travis (plus other goodies, in all likelihood).

"You don't live by the jumpshot, you die by the jumpshot." ---Charles Barkley, 2/7/08

by timbo on Mar 7, 2008 8:30 PM PST 0 recs

Where does it say that we have to

give up anybody for a PG. There is a thing called free agency. Where does the love come from if you say, I love Travis but get him out of here.

Thats like saying, "I love my wife and she is great but I want to trade her @ss for somebody else.

We also have McRoberts, Blake, Von Wafer, and Frye that we can trade. Why isn't their names in trade talk?

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 8, 2008 5:16 AM PST 0 recs

Good veteran point guards

are a valued commodity. They don't come available in free agency, or get traded for 10th men or NBDL guys like Mcbob or Von Wafe.

by howlingfantods on Mar 8, 2008 8:20 AM PST up 0 recs

Why can't we get a one sided trade like

most trades in the NBA. We have a lot of bargaining chips. I want a PG more than anybody on this site but giving up Travis seems too much when we can go buy one after next season.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 8, 2008 10:33 AM PST up 0 recs

Most trades

aren't nearly as one-sided as the press or opposing coaches make them out to be.

How do we just "go buy one" after next season? Who're going to be the unrestricted free agents and what other teams will we be competing with for those free agents? How many good point guards that are experienced enough for nate but aren't too old for our championship window do you think there are in the league? 3? 5? How many of those do you expect to be on the free agent market?

by howlingfantods on Mar 8, 2008 1:52 PM PST up 0 recs

Plus we can't trade anybody until the summer

so why are we talking about it. The trade deadline was last month. Unless we are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, we have to focus on the rest of the season and get better.

Maybe other Blazers will improve during the final stretch thus increasing trade value. Trade Travis so we can win 1 ring. Only women want 1 ring. I want 10 of them.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 8, 2008 5:32 AM PST 0 recs