ABM

Hmmm........and no mention of Outlaw on his response.

Trade brewing?

Dan

as it is in most cases, the simplist answer is probably the best one.

he's not ready, nor is he reliable or that good.

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

ABM

But, again, ONE MINUTE?!

How humiliating.

Dan

Im not sure who he should've played ahead of last night. His game, as of yet, isn't geared for a system thats like Nate's. He looks lost out there when the teams play defense like the Clippers did last night, and that makes a HUGE difference on whether or not he'd play I bet.

Things almost have to be perfect for Outlaw to play in certain situations (like last nights game).

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

kaydow

It depends on what you mean by "should've". Is TO better than Ruben at this point? Of course not. You have a better chance of winning/competing with Rube. I just don't think that should be our main goal right now. I'm not sure why Ruben is playing if we're in a youth movement--He's gone at the end of the season, if not sooner. If we win 35 games instead of 25 with him, who cares? Especially if it's at the expense of valuable experience for a guy like TO. I don't know if Nate is just too competetive or impatient, or if the Blazers think winning/competing in more games will help attendence, or if they're still trying to showcase Rube. I just don't know what good it does to play this guy (RP) for the long run. If they are showcasing him, I sure don't know why. Who doesn't already know about his game? Ruben Patterson is the same player he's been for the last 7-8 years! He hustles, plays good D, good at cleaning up/getting garbage points, can post up a little, takes it strong to the basket, can't shoot a lick, is over aggressive at times, forces bad shots, turns the ball over. Is there any team/potential trading partner that hasn't seen enough of Ruben to decide whether or not they want to trade for him? I say, based on that, that TO "should've" played ahead of Ruben last night. Not because he gives the team a better shot of winning. Because he needs real game PT to develop. He's not going to improve a whole lot anytime soon with DNP-coaches decision, or in 1 minute stints. Maybe TO just doesn't have it, I don't know. Like I said in the "TO= J. O'Neal" thread though, I remember how bad I thought O'Neal was. And I also remember most Blazer fans agreed with me at the time. O'Neal was EVERY BIT AS CLUELESS on the floor (as a Blazer) as Outlaw looks at times. Those of you who differ need to go back and watch some tapes.

__________________
Big Kaydow

meru

Smart doggies know that squirrels are the most common carriers of rabies.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson, not-so-proud Founding Father

mook

kaydow--

I'd agree with you if there were little difference in wins/losses between the two. for instances, it aggravated me to no end that Stoudamire started ahead of Telfair, when it didn't really seem to make much difference in wins/losses. with Patterson, however, we are just more likely to win games right now than with Outlaw.

why are wins and losses still important, even if we don't make the playoffs? player value. every one of our players who can put up decent numbers in a win is going to add more value than every player who can put up decent numbers in a loss.

just look at Shareef Abdur-Rahim. the guy has put up great stats his entire career, and yet he was only a MLE signing in the off-season. meanwhile a guy like Derek Fisher (and half a dozen other guys who've played with Shaq) get overpriced deals because they've played roles on winning teams.

the more wins we get, the more valuable our players are. the more valuable our players are, the more likely we can parlay some of them into something better.

besides, nothing hurts the competitive spirit like playing somebody who is vastly inferior to somebody else, just because you hope one day they may be as good as the benched guy.

Outlaw needs to reach the point that he helps the team at least 80% as much as Patterson does before he really should get minutes.

kaydow

I hear you. I don't agree, but it's the best arguement I've heard for playing Ruben. I don't think that wins/losses affect a players (especially a young one) trade value as much as you do. I'm sure there is some consideration given there, but not a lot IMO. Look how terrible Seattle is playing right now. Do you think that has hurt Ray Allen or Rashard Lewis' trade value that much? I think your theory makes sense with a guy like SAR, who perenially finds himself on losing teams. Sure, That scares GM's. Or maybe if you're talking about trying to move Zach, then I can see where you would want to play as close to .500 as you could to up his value a little. But even then, I think he gets a hall pass if he's playing with the likes of Telfair, Outlaw, Webster, & co. I really don't think he gets traded either way. I know we are overloaded at SF. And I know Ruben is the only proven one of the bunch with Miles down. I just don't care. He'll be gone soon, and even if he stays & plays the whole season, we have no chance of winning. I don't mind losing with a guy like Outlaw, primarily because 1) better draft pick, 2) gets him some experience, 3) gives coaches & all of us more to evaluate him on, and 4) we aren't going to win that much anyways.

__________________
Big Kaydow

kaydow

Well, I'm not watching or listening to the Dallas game tonight. But, at the end of 3 quarters, Outlaw has played 1 minute . . . again!! When's the last time a guy played 1 minute in back to back games? The Blazers are down by 5 heading into the 4th quarter, and I'm assuming TO's line won't change if it stays close. Unbelievable.

__________________
Big Kaydow

SolidGuy3

Travis Outlaw reminds me alot of Dog Woods without the attitude problems. The thing is, Dog actually has played better in the NBA. I remember Dog won a game for us against the Celtics a few years back, unfortunately those were rare.

Kmurph

I think the problem with Travis IS and CONTINUES to be his inability to grasp the team's plays...He has continually looked lost out there...

Terrific athletic ability...but until he develops mentally (and I sincerely hope he can)..he will not play much for Nate....Nor should he..

__________________
Quit the Webster hate

Public Defender

Quick's article in today's O uses the word "confused" in reference to Outlaw. I think that's pretty darn accurate. However, Travis nearly nailed a three-pointer with time running out at the end of the third (?), so at least he can grasp those plays drawn up for situations like that.

It was interesting to read both Quick's story on the game, and the one out of the AP. The AP referred to the Blazers as "short-handed" something that Quick never said. Instead, Quick drew attention to McMillan's use of veterans rather than young players. I question - what young players weren't playing?

Telfair? out with injury.

Khryapa? played 16 minutes, and would've played more if not for dislocating a finger.

Monia? showed too little in earlier games.

Ha? Ha!

Jack? played decent minutes, considering his ankle is still sore (according to John Nash in e-mail to Erik).

Outlaw? now there's one worth questioning...

Also, I think Quick makes a strange distinction with regard to the youth movement, and who the players of the Blazers' future are - Randolph has only been in the league a few years (hardly a "veteran") and he's a huge part of the team's future - why question his playing time? Likewise, Dixon and Blake were in college as recently as 2002 - what's wrong with letting them play?

It's not like we're getting the last miles out of Sam Cassell or Gary Payton at the point...

__________________
Next year...

RedHot&Rolling

NBA Veteran is defined as a player with one year of experience.

All of our players with the exception of Theo and Ruben are still young players! Play them.

__________________
Trail Blazers Fan since Walton was injured the first time!
OSU Beavers Alumni & Fan since Ralph Miller's Orange Express -

"Fans cheer when they have reason to." Stop the programmed noise!!

mook

...or Damon Stoudamire and Nick Van Exel.

I agree. there's a real difference between most of the veterans we are playing this year versus last year. the only veteran I see who has no possiblity of a long-term future on our squad is Ruben Patterson, but the guy has been our second be