RealGM

Debating portland's SF position always seems to be based upon Martell showing significant improvement this season.

But has he really?

On a per40 basis, comparing his first season to his 3rd season, his 'improvement' may not be as much as you think:

points: down from 15.2 to 14.5

rebounds: up from 5.0 to 5.5

assists: up from 1.3 to 1.7

So, he's scoring less; pulling down less then half a rebound per game more with his increased minutes; and has improved marginally on his playmaking ability.

His True Shooting % has dropped from 53.3 to 53.0

His Per rating has dropped from 11.75 to 11.64

His FG% has gone up from .399 to .412 while his 3pt% has gone up from .357 to .371. In other words, in three seasons he's managed a whopping .013 improvement in his shooting %. Rather insignificant.

Meanwhile, his FT% has dropped from .859 to .713.

Is there a point in the first 3 seasons of an NBA player when he actually has to demonstrate improvement rather then "potential"? Has Martell shown enough improvement to demonstrate that his potential is not simply a mirage?

People keep saying he's only 21...would only be a junior in college (wouldn't LMA only be a senior this year?). Perhaps that good reasoning, or maybe it's just an excuse.

But Martell has had the playing time. It's not like the first 3 years of Jermaine O'Neal, or those of Travis Outlaw for that matter. Martell has averaged over 22 minutes a game. Nate has given him the chances. And the result is he hasn't really improved his rate of production over his rookie numbers.

So the question again: has he really improved and is it worth investing another season in him when both Outlaw and Jones are easily better options?

I think he has improved his game overall, but no where near as much as we all would hope for.

Wizenheimer wrote:So the question again: has he really improved and is it worth investing another season in him when both Outlaw and Jones are easily better options?

I love your use of the word "investing" like it's costing us something to keep Martell around. Like we'd be better off dumping him.

Yes, he has. He's improved every part of his game except for shooting. The fact that he's playing more is a testament to that. You can see it in his game clear as day that he's improved.

Jones can't seem to stay healthy and I'm not sure sure Outlaw can play at the 3 full time. So I don't really think they're better options.

The more important reason to keep Martell is that we probably wouldn't get much for him. Martell shot is struggling but he's improved in every other facet of the game. If his shot comes around he's our ideal starting 3. So keeping him around seems like a good idea to me.

But he's by no means untouchable. If somebody offered us a top 10 pick for him I'd probably take it.

Martell has improved, but not by much.
but even though if u guys think he has improved, i think id rather have James Jones start over him.
Martell is one of those guys that can't help a team win. hes too streaky and inconsistent. James Jones brings consistency every night.

With that said, i will give him one more year. if nothing happens, get rid of him.

Regardless what the numbers say he has improved. However, he hasn't improved enough and IMO the best thing for Martell and the Blazers is for Blazers to give up on him. IMO Martell isn't going to be good in Portland and maybe he can be good somewhere else.

d-train wrote:Regardless what the numbers say he has improved. However, he hasn't improved enough and IMO the best thing for Martell and the Blazers is for Blazers to give up on him. IMO Martell isn't going to be good in Portland and maybe he can be good somewhere else.

I agree with the d.

I think we can look at Travis as a guide for Martell's development. Travis has taken a while but he came out of high school. Martell also came out of high school and will continue to improve. Patience-remember Jermaine O'Neal. Would hate to give up a young shooter like Martell to see him turn into a Glen Rice/Ray Allen. We'll need shooter when Oden gets healthy.

Of course he's improved. If you want a stat that shows it, check out his defensive rating. The first post is an interesting find, though. Most of his stats have remained disturbingly consistent.

It would be a terrible idea for the Blazers to give up on him. It's too early, he's too talented, and there's no reason not to keep him around. That said, he shouldn't be starting when the team plays much better with Jones or Outlaw in the game. Bench him and let him develop from there.

The difference is I'm pretty sure Outlaw has shown small improvements every year. It's hard to see any improvement with Martell. He still disappears sometimes for several games in a row.

To me it's simple. If you can package him with Raef for a big time player this summer you do it. Or if you can use him to get a high draft pick. If not, you keep him around for another year or two and hope he realizes some of his potential. And hey, at least we didn't pick Gerald Green.

Red Robot wrote:he shouldn't be starting when the team plays much better with Jones or Outlaw in the game. Bench him and let him develop from there.

well said

Of course he has improved, the question is how much and at least IMO this season has been pretty marginal. Currently I think Webster has hit a bit of a mental wall. I think he needs to realize he has to do other thing and let the offense come to him. To often now it seems that if he isn't involved in the offense right off the bat he fades and you really don't get much production out of him.

Like others have mentioned there still is no reason to dump him. His current deal isnt a terrible contract and much like Outlaw if he will accept a reasonable contract I think he is worth keeping around.

In consideration on trades he is far from untouchable. If they're is a deal on the table that gets portland an upgrade at the PG or SF spot and Webster needs to be involved then see you later Martell.

ebott wrote:
I love your use of the word "investing" like it's costing us something to keep Martell around. Like we'd be better off dumping him.

well..."we" don't invest anything, Paul Allen does. He'll send over 3.7 million of his dollars martell's way next year. I would imagine the coaches invest their time, and his teammates invest as well. So, I disagree, investment is a proper term.

And exactly where did I say "dump him"? Trading him for a return isn't dumping.

However, if he goes into the 2009 off-season as a blazer and without a new contract, then, if the blazers want cap-space, they will dump him for certain. Martell's 11.3 million cap-hold will assure that.

ebott wrote:Yes, he has. He's improved every part of his game except for shooting. The fact that he's playing more is a testament to that. You can see it in his game clear as day that he's improved.

Jones can't seem to stay healthy and I'm not sure sure Outlaw can play at the 3 full time. So I don't really think they're better options.

The more important reason to keep Martell is that we probably wouldn't get much for him. Martell shot is struggling but he's improved in every other facet of the game. If his shot comes around he's our ideal starting 3. So keeping him around seems like a good idea to me.

But he's by no means untouchable. If somebody offered us a top 10 pick for him I'd probably take it.

if his shot comes around?...to what I wonder. His career mark is .403, and he's only shooting .412 in this his best season. And it's only a marginal improvement over his rookie year.

I've said before that I don't have a big problem with keeping martell. But I will also say that I don't see the "clear as day" improvement in his game that you see. He hasn't increased his productivity or his efficiency. And yet I see plenty of people here saying that Webster should be kept over Outlaw. And Outlaw has definitely improved whereas Martell's improvement is still in that "potential" category. If he shoots better...if he becomes more consistent...if he can learn to handle the ball better...if...

We know Travis can improve because he already has, and substantially. Martell, not so much...at all. And by the way, the difference in playing time and game experience between Travis and martell is not big at all.

It seems that by improvement, you are looking strictly at his stats, and then seeing numbers that look the same, and assuming no improvement. I think he has improved a great deal on the defensive side of the board. I think his rebounding has improved. Maybe not his rebounding stats, but his actual rebounding, watching him in games. It seems unfair to look and see his PPG per 40, and see he hasn't "improved" when part of the problem is not getting plays ran for him all that often. You look at Travis, and he takes almost 3 more shots per game, in a minute and a half less. How would his numbers differ if he came into the season with the mindset to not bother passing the ball, or passing once in a great while, like Travis? Or, how would Travis' numbers look if he was told to just sit in the corner and basically not move for the majority of the game? Herein lies the danger of just looking at stats for improvement. I mean, one can say just looking at per-36 numbers, Steve Nash regressed from his first to third year.
Look at Travis' 2nd through 4th seasons. I'll disregard his first, as he hardly played. 2-4, though, his "progression" was no better than Martell's was. Now, half the people in here thinks he's as untouchable as Roy and LMA.

cucad8 wrote:You look at Travis, and he takes almost 3 more shots per game, in a minute and a half less.

And 4.5 shots more per game on a PER36 basis. The problem with using scoring stats with Martell is that he is starting this year where he is, at best, the third option and usually the fourth. He's not there to score--he's there to defend and to be a decoy to spread the floor. But even so, his court awareness, ability to drive to the hoop, decision making, and defense have all improved markably against the better compeition he is facing as a starter.

Before this season, he was, at best, an occasional starter. This year, he is a full time starter, and yet his stats have essentially maintained. This means against better players and as a lesser option he is still scoring at the same clip. That is improvement, not regression or stasis. Also, worrying about a lack of TS% improvemnt is harsh when you're talking about a player that A) shoots fully half of his shots from behind the arc and B) was already shooting just about 37% from three point range before this year. It's kind of like complaining about Dwight Howard because he went from 12.5 rebounds per game to 12.3 his third year in the league--it's looking for something to pick on in a stat when the player is already at a high level in that area.

Wizenheimer wrote:well..."we" don't invest anything, Paul Allen does. He'll send over 3.7 million of his dollars martell's way next year. I would imagine the coaches invest their time, and his teammates invest as well. So, I disagree, investment is a proper term.

If the NBA were a truly free market were "investments" can be easily bought and sold like I do with my portfolio then maybe I'd agree with you.

That's not the case. Trades are very difficult to pull off. Production on one team doesn't always translate into production on another team.

As we know all too well, potential doesn't always turn into production. Some times potential can inexplicably turn into production.

No GM wants to be the next one to pull a Jermaine O'neal.

Wizenheimer wrote:And exactly where did I say "dump him"? Trading him for a return isn't dumping.

The way you talk (or type or whatever) it's as if you want him on the next train out of town and you don't care what else happens.

You didn't at all address my concern of low return on a trade. Not that I'm supporting holding onto a bad "investment" but Webster was the 6th pick in the draft.

He's our starting small forward in the best year we've had in quite some time. That's not in spite of him. He's won us more than a couple games this year and there's several more that we wouldn't have won if it weren't for his contributions.

He's got as much shooting talent as anyone. He's very athletic and it's starting to translate into something useful.

However, if he goes into the 2009 off-season as a blazer and without a new contract, then, if the blazers want cap-space, they will dump him for certain. Martell's 11.3 million cap-hold will assure that.

Martell's cap-hold is 5 mil.

You still believe in the 2009 cap space plan?

Wizenheimer wrote:if his shot comes around?...to what I wonder. His career mark is .403, and he's only shooting .412 in this his best season. And it's only a marginal improvement over his rookie year.

But you can't deny that he's got shooting ability. He's had so many shoot the lights out type of games that nobody can. If he can become more consistent and less feast or famine he'll be able to contribute to our success like James Jones has done.

I've said before that I don't have a big problem with keeping martell. But I will also say that I don't see the "clear as day" improvement in his game that you see. He hasn't increased his productivity or his efficiency.

Are you watching the games? Cause it sounds like you're just looking at the numbers. Last year Martell was a deer in the headlights. This year he's a real player.

And yet I see plenty of people here saying that Webster should be kept over Outlaw. And Outlaw has definitely improved whereas Martell's improvement is still in that "potential" category. If he shoots better...if he becomes more consistent...if he can learn to handle the ball better...if...

These exact same things were said about Outlaw last year. The vast majority of Outlaw's PT this year has been at the 4. He started the two LA road games and wasn't very efficient in either.

Then again, he did look good in both games and seemed to have a lot of shots that looked like they were gonna go in and just didn't.

We know Travis can improve because he already has, and substantially.

But that improvement has been at the 4. As others have said in previous Travis VS Webster threads, Webster is the starting small forward and Travis is the backup power forward. That's significant.

Why isn't Travis starting if he's better than Webster?
Why has Travis spent all season at the 4 if we see a future with him at the starting 3?
How's Travis going to fit into what will likely be an inside/outside offense built around Oden when he pretty much always goes one on one?

Martell, not so much...at all. And by the way, the difference in playing time and game experience between Travis and martell is not big at all.

But the difference in age and time in the league is significant. Travis has had the years to learn and practice that Martell hasn't.

Outlaw is the poster child for why we shouldn't give up on Martell. 4 years in the league and he didn't show any signs of being a consistent contributor. But in his 5th season people are calling him untouchable. We can't say that's going to happen with Martell, but it could. And that's plenty of reason not to give up on him.

If we could use him in a package to get a surefire guy like Granger, Harris, Iguodala, etc. I'd be all for it. But I'd be all for using Outlaw in a deal like that as well. They're both in that "not as good as the big 3" group that I'd happily trade to have a big 4 to build around.

ebott wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


If we could use him in a package to get a surefire guy like Granger, Harris, Iguodala, etc. I'd be all for it. But I'd be all for using Outlaw in a deal like that as well. They're both in that "not as good as the big 3" group that I'd happily trade to have a big 4 to build around.

As much as I love Granger, and would welcome him here completely, how is he an upgrade from Travis? Give Travis the minutes Granger gets (as hes beginning to now) and you see the exact same production.

Travis' line when he gets 30+ mpg this season

17.5 ppg 5.3 rpg 1.3 apg 32mpg

Granger's stat line for the season

18.4 ppg 5.8 rpg 1.9 apg 35 mpg

For the season theyre shooting percentages look like this

TO - .449 FG .380 3pt
DG - .442 FG .397 3pt

Granger is a year and a half older than Outlaw and when Outlaw gets the minutes, hes producing just as well. Outlaw reminds me of a young Rashard Lewis just without the range up until now and with even better hops. I like Webster, but Outlaw has more potential IMO. His physical tools alone put him above Webster as far as potential goes. I think Martell will still end up being a very good player, but he isnt showing nearly the improvement that he was supposed to be showing. Hes getting better at taking it to the rim, but only when hes getting a dump off pass as hes already heading there. He cant create for himself hardly at all. Yes Webster is 2 years younger, but Outlaw came in as almost as much of a project as HA was. Webster was supposed to be one of the most NBA ready players out of the 2005 draft .. Webster has gotten more opportunities than Outlaw from the very start and while he has improved in his defense, I dont see the Ray Allen potential popping out of him. Somebody's going to have to go this summer and I have a feeling that its going to be him. He would be a great guy to have off the bench in the future but to get talent you have to give talent, so hopefully he can somehow help get us the PG of the future this summer

ebott wrote:As we know all too well, potential doesn't always turn into production. Some times potential can inexplicably turn into production.

so potential actually translates into a better player except when it doesn't....hmmm

No GM wants to be the next one to pull a Jermaine O'neal.

please...Martell has played 4519 minutes in 2.7 seasons. By the end of Jermaine's 3rd season he'd played 1576 minutes. By the end of his 4th season he'd played 2435 minutes. By the end of his 5th season...his 1st in Indiana...he'd played a total of 5076 minutes. That's less then Martell will have played at the end of this season if he continues at his current pace.

It is not really accurate to compare Martell to O'Neal. Martell has had opportunity and playing time equal to jermaine after his 5th season.

The way you talk (or type or whatever) it's as if you want him on the next train out of town and you don't care what else happens.

You didn't at all address my concern of low return on a trade. Not that I'm supporting holding onto a bad "investment" but Webster was the 6th pick in the draft.

don't take it personal....I've criticized LMA this season as well and I don't want him traded.

Read the title of the thread again...I was asking if martell has actually improved, not if he should be "dumped"...that was your interpretation and it's not accurate

You say he'd yield a low return in trade. OK, then you're saying he has low value. Maybe because he hasn't improved measurably in nearly 3 seasons?

He's our starting small forward in the best year we've had in quite some time. That's not in spite of him. He's won us more than a couple games this year and there's several more that we wouldn't have won if it weren't for his contributions.

the same is true of Jack

He's got as much shooting talent as anyone.

as long as you confine the comparison to those shooting 40% or less. Again, his TS% has actually gone down over his career.

Martell's cap-hold is 5 mil.

NO...it will not be 5 million unless they sign him to a contract of 5 million a year this summer.

As an RFA in the 2009 off-season his cap-hold will be 300% of his just completed season's salary of 3.71 million. His cap-hold will be over 11.3 million.

You still believe in the 2009 cap space plan?

you mean 'believe' as in have faith?...not a lot, no. There may be some long shots for portland in it, but I believe they'd be better served by making moves this summer and into next feb's trade dealine when they will have the optimum number of assets to make deals.

Are you watching the games? Cause it sounds like you're just looking at the numbers. Last year Martell was a deer in the headlights. This year he's a real player.

yes ebott...I am watching the games, I just see things a little differently if that's ok. I've said some complimentary things about Martell this season. But I also thought that Jones's latest stretch of missed games was the time for martell to finally step up with some consistent play. He hasn't done that.

But that improvement has been at the 4. As others have said in previous Travis VS Webster threads, Webster is the starting small forward and Travis is the backup power forward. That's significant.

what's more significant is that Travis scores more points, grabs more rebounds, blocks more shots, hands out more assists, and shoots a better percentage on FGs, 3pt FGs, and FTs then Martell. And does so playing fewer minutes.

And what is really much more significant then who starts games is who finishes games...that's almost always travis and rarely webster

Why isn't Travis starting if he's better than Webster?
Why has Travis spent all season at the 4 if we see a future with him at the starting 3?
How's Travis going to fit into what will likely be an inside/outside offense built around Oden when he pretty much always goes one on one?

god knows how Ginobli plays with Duncan then

what's funny is your counting on all kinds of improvement from a guy who has improved little, and discounting future improvement from a player who has demonstrated convincingly that he can improve.

But the difference in age and time in the league is significant. Travis has had the years to learn and practice that Martell hasn't.

you really need to take a look at the playing time numbers for Travis's first 2 years. He only played 19 minutes total in his first season.

But of course he's had "practice time". Wow! What's hilarious is that I see some of the same people advance that argument in the travis vs webster debate...practice time is good!... turn around and say that Sergio needs playing time to develop.

I hope martell really becomes better and that it will be apparent by the end of the season. Then I'm all for extending his contract this summer if he's willing to sign for 5 million or so.

But I'm not expecting it.

d-train wrote:Regardless what the numbers say he has improved. However, he hasn't improved enough and IMO the best thing for Martell and the Blazers is for Blazers to give up on him. IMO Martell isn't going to be good in Portland and maybe he can be good somewhere else.

This is exactly what we said about Outlaw. (Yeah, I know, seven people beat me to it. Whatever.) Look at how good Outlaw has been for us. And consider that the factors keeping Webster from realizing his potential are lesser than those that kept Outlaw from developing all those years.

We need to keep both.

PhilipNelsonFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



This is exactly what we said about Outlaw. (Yeah, I know, seven people beat me to it. Whatever.) Look at how good Outlaw has been for us. And consider that the factors keeping Webster from realizing his potential are lesser than those that kept Outlaw from developing all those years.

We need to keep both.

But then the issue becomes minutes. Next year with oden coming in, someone is going to get the squeeze in minutes. Joels not going to lose minutes, Frye doesnt have many minutes to lose, and Aldridge obviously isnt going to go down. So say Oden gets 26 mpg and Joel stays at 22 mpg and Frye goes down 5mpg (down to 11). So somewhere theres 21 mpg that is going to be lost by someone. Its going to have to be between Outlaw, Webster and Jones. Somebody is going to need to be moved and Jones is the ideal back up (not to mention, Webster or Outlaw will bring more value in return for a PG that we need). Webster or Outlaw is most likely on the way out this summer, and I doubt KP moves Outlaw. Hell, he was Tom Penn's genius away from sending Webster to New York with Zach last summer

I disagree. If anything, I think it's Jones who should be moved. His ceiling is limited compared to Martell's and Travis'.

Ideally, Outlaw could just take over and become the starting SF, but it's not in his mindset. He's a sixth man through and through, and I respect that. But Martell at least has the functionality to play SG (though his defense still needs some work) and Outlaw is "doomed" to PF.

We've never really experimented with a lineup such as Blake/Martell/Jones/Outlaw/Aldridge, but can you just imagine the matchup problems?