e_blazer1

Gee, on April 18 of last season, Travis scored 36 points while Granger only managed a puny 14 points. I guess that proves Travis is the better player.


True, the Blazers weren't playing the Pacers that night, but stats are stats.

__________________
Blazermania is BACK!!!

hasoos

Another point I would like to bring up. Folks say "If they were starting, or getting 40 minutes a game they would be equal". Well if certain players played well enough and not sketchy, they would win the starting job and the bulk of the minutes easily. Unfortunately, none of the players have made Nate's job easy, and he has to spend a lot of each night trying to figure out which player is going to show up ready for work that night, and thus their stats and minutes remain erratic.

__________________
Hasoos

ebott

I don't know. I'd say that stat line sums up the differences in Outlaw and Granger quite nicely.

e_blazer1

I thought we'd heard Nate say it often enough for us to understand that he places an emphasis on having two units that can play well when they're on the court. Travis is on the "white" unit because he provides scoring punch. The fact that he plays in the 4th quarter at crunch time indicates that Nate values his contributions and trusts him to help win the game...which he has done for us several times this season.

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily opposed to trading Travis in the right deal, but I do think it's important to be accurate about what his status on the second unit means.

__________________
Blazermania is BACK!!!

hasoos

You can listen to the coach banter all you want. You watch the games, correct? If so, then I ask you this. How much of many of the games this season, have you watched as Nate shuttles guys in and out trying to find a combination or player that is working. The answer is a lot. Just remember, what guys say to keep their team motivated or say to the newspaper, may not really be what the true story is. It is what they say to keep folks happy.

__________________
Hasoos

tucsonhanny

Step away from the stats sheets

Can Granger help the Blazers win more games than Outlaw plus whatever else we have to give up to get him?

It's difficult to say since as one of Indiana's top player the past two years they have struggled. You can make a case that he hasn't contributed much to a successful team.

Does he have qualities in his game that are more desirable to have on this team than what we may give up. Yes, he makes free throws and is a good three point shooter. Some have mentioned he has nice all around game, which unfortunately doesn't show in stat sheet.

Players that play for losing teams are routinely discounted when it comes to their trade value. Look at Zach, he put up nice numbers but his teams struggled he has a reduced no value (his contract and off-court issues also affect this). SAR was the same way. Point is, it common practice to pay less for talent on losing teams. Fair or not. The reason our young guys are starting to have some trade value is by virtue of the limited success we've had this year. If our record was closer to Miami's, none of our young guys would get much interest.

Outlaw may not be as good as Granger but he's had some success this year on a winning team as a key part of it. That makes him more valuable in my book. The fact that the some of the numbers favor Outlaw (as do some favor Granger)and he is a younger player makes him more valuable. It is debatable which one has a higher upside. Granger is more skilled, but Outlaw started out very raw is developing his skills. They are both young enough to show dramatic improvements from their current level.

Having said all that perhaps Outlaw isn't what Indiana would looking for in a trade anyway. So are we willing give up on our other young talent (Webster, Sergio, Jack, Frye, Kopponen, Freeland)and picks to get him?


I do trust KP's judgment, so if he thinks the Granger is worth trading multiple young players (Outlaw may or may not be among them) and using up our cap space taking on a bad contract, then I'll support the decision. Personally, I would like to give Webster one more year to develop before including him in any deals, but the reality is that may not be possible if the right deal comes along.

e_blazer1

Sorry, but I think your argument makes my point. On most nights Nate doesn't pay much, if any, attention to position as a starter or second unit player. He has a general rotation plan, but he tinkers with it constantly to try to get the right combination of players on the court at critical times. Your original argument was that Travis should be discounted as a player since he can't crack the starting rotation. Do you honestly think that Nate values Martell's contributions to the team more than Travis's? The fact that Travis is on the court at crunch time says otherwise.

__________________
Blazermania is BACK!!!

hasoos

Just because he is on the court at crunch time doesn't make him superior. Nate has to make a choice who to play, or to play both. Outlaw has a record of playing well at the end of games, so he is in a lot. At the same time, he Outlaw has a track record of not playing well until the 4th quarter of a lot of games. So that is why Martell is in early, he plays better at the beginning of the game. But if either was truly a better player, wouldn't he just flat out win the bulk of the minutes? That is what I am saying. Neither of the small forwards has played well enough to win it out right. Both are streaky, inconsistent. Both have improved a lot, but IMO neither is worthy of a starting SF spot on most NBA teams.

__________________
Hasoos