Shaun Livingston possible signing???

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
gatorpops

gatorpops

Allen Crabb hits winning shot on Nov24 vs Blazers
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
963
Likes
272
Points
63
Haven't seen anything on this board about the possible signing of Shawn Livingston this week end.

There is a good thread discussion over at the other "place" and was surprised that there is nothing here.

O' Live has a comment from KP on it as well.

What are your thoughts?
url]
 
Last edited:
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

My thoughts are pretty much the same about Livingston: I'm all for signing him to a multi-year deal, especially if the team is in control of the length and especially if it's not for that much.

Livingston will probably never be an NBA starter again. He will almost certainly not be able to contribute in any meaningful way this year.

BUT before the injury he had capabilities that one cannot teach... and his height and court vision presumably haven't been impacted by his knee being shredded.

While the odds are long he'll ever make an impact, I believe there is still a chance that he can recover and not only become a starter but a darn good one... and if the price is relatively low, I'd much rather make the investment in him than carry Jackson or Hill at the end of the roster.

Ed O.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

best. video game. team. ever.

it is a very high reward type of signing, he was absolutely untouchable before the injury, we just need to see what he has to offer, modern medicine could very well pull a miracle here, and i would love to be the ones to benefit.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

Ed O said:
My thoughts are pretty much the same about Livingston: I'm all for signing him to a multi-year deal, especially if the team is in control of the length and especially if it's not for that much.

Livingston will probably never be an NBA starter again. He will almost certainly not be able to contribute in any meaningful way this year.

BUT before the injury he had capabilities that one cannot teach... and his height and court vision presumably haven't been impacted by his knee being shredded.

While the odds are long he'll ever make an impact, I believe there is still a chance that he can recover and not only become a starter but a darn good one... and if the price is relatively low, I'd much rather make the investment in him than carry Jackson or Hill at the end of the roster.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

There is the possibility that we could waiveRaef and add Hill or ? too if KP and company think this kid can be the possible star/rotation player they might get if they were to trade Raef's contract. Maybe we could get both Hill and Livingston.

g
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

Although Penny Hardaway never came back to the level before his injury, he was a serviceable player for a couple of year after healing sufficiently. His injury was also much before the skill and experience that is now available.

I really think "if" Shawn can come back he is a good risk.

KP - PA have shown they will take a risks on players by wasting/using a first round draft pick on players that have up side. Freeman etc.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

Garrison Hearst of the 49ers had a terrible injury too. He came back and was a pro bowler. It's worth the risk of a roster slot and some money. He can't expect to come in and start or be a backup anyway. It's a low risk/high reward move and I'm behind it 100%. He'd be a better move than Hill or Jackson for sure.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

gatorpops said:
There is the possibility that we could waiveRaef and add Hill or ? too if KP and company think this kid can be the possible star/rotation player they might get if they were to trade Raef's contract. Maybe we could get both Hill and Livingston.
Click to expand...

Waiving Raef is always an option... I just don't see Hill as a player that is of any significance, and I'd prefer to keep Raef (or, rather, his expiring contract) as a potential trade chip for later this year.

Ed O.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

Knowing nothing about his knee besides what I read, it seems like a long shot to me. But if KP and crew think it is a gamble worth taking, then I guess I'm up for it.

barfo
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

I'm willing to gamble a roster spot and a little of Paul Allen's money on the very small hope that Livingston can recover enough from his injury to be a useful player. Steven Hill gives the team nothing but a practice dummy, Luke Jackson gives the team nothing. A lottery ticket is a better use of that spot, to me.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

Aquireing assets is what KP is doing. No risk.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

HispanicCausinPanic said:
Aquireing assets is what KP is doing. No risk.
Click to expand...

I am all for acquiring assets to a point, but I think the Blazers are fairly loaded with assets. I think the Blazers would be better served at the moment getting players to fill holes and help the rest of the assets reach their potential. I am not saying that Livingston, Hill or any specific player being mentioned does not fit this purpose, but stockpiling is not what we need. Livingston for example is a year away from redemption if he does succeed. Sure, that is gamble that might pay off, but there is a downside. Keeping Linvingston means we don't keep some other player (Hill, Luke or Raef and his contract) which may be more useful in the short term, and possibly in the long term.

I would rather swing for the fences by keeping Raef until the deadline and hope that a high level player comes available for some mix of Raefs contract and some of our other players.

One problem that I have with Livingston is that even before he got injured, actually from the moment he was drafted, I expected him to be very injury prone due to his extreme slight build and stretched body. I don't see this going away even if he is able to fully return from this injury. The chances that he makes a full recovery are not great in my opinion, and the chance that he stays healthy enough to have a truly productive career are even worse. I would rather pass on this risk and use our assets in other ways.
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

GOD said:
I am all for acquiring assets to a point, but I think the Blazers are fairly loaded with assets. I think the Blazers would be better served at the moment getting players to fill holes and help the rest of the assets reach their potential. I am not saying that Livingston, Hill or any specific player being mentioned does not fit this purpose, but stockpiling is not what we need.
Click to expand...

We need to use that roster spot as usefully as possible, which doesn't rule anything out. If there's a player "who can help all the other assets reach their potential," that's great. But we're talking about a 15th man. There aren't freely available Josh Childresses or Shane Battiers who can be veteran glue and help the young players. We're basically picking between scrubs. I don't think any scrub, any marginal NBA player is going to be someone who helps the other players reach their potential. So, in picking among current scrubs, I'll take the one who actually has talent and therefore a slight chance of turning into an asset over two scrubs without NBA talent and thus have no chance of becoming useful players.

It's not that I have much optimism for Livingston's chances. It's that I'll take a 1% chance over a 0% chance, when considering odds of the player being useful in the future. An empty roster spot, Luke Jackson and Steven Hill all hold 0% chances of being useful players, to me. Livingston has a non-zero chance (IMO, anyway).
 
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing???

Minstrel said:
We need to use that roster spot as usefully as possible, which doesn't rule anything out. If there's a player "who can help all the other assets reach their potential," that's great. But we're talking about a 15th man. There aren't freely available Josh Childresses or Shane Battiers who can be veteran glue and help the young players. We're basically picking between scrubs. I don't think any scrub, any marginal NBA player is going to be someone who helps the other players reach their potential. So, in picking among current scrubs, I'll take the one who actually has talent and therefore a slight chance of turning into an asset over two scrubs without NBA talent and thus have no chance of becoming useful players.

It's not that I have much optimism for Livingston's chances. It's that I'll take a 1% chance over a 0% chance, when considering odds of the player being useful in the future. An empty roster spot, Luke Jackson and Steven Hill all hold 0% chances of being useful players, to me. Livingston has a non-zero chance (IMO, anyway).
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any players who can make a squad who truly have a 0% chance, but I get your point. But I just dissagree. Hill came out of nowhere and we have not seen him play or develop in the NBA yet, so I just don't know what his chances are. But having him on the team to battle Oden in practice, even if he never becomes a quality game-time player, may be more than Livingston ever has to offer. If having Hill can accelerate Oden's development just a tad, then he will likely be more important than Livingston will ever be.

Luke, I have little hope for him, but once again, we really don't know that he has ~0% in the NBA. In fact, with his glimpses in the past, when his injuries were not substantial, I would say he has a decent chance of at least becoming a quality bench player.

But more important than either Hill or Luke is that we not waive Raef and the slim shot that we can use his contract before the deadline. I think there is not a good chance that anything will come of Raef's contract, but if we are talking about taking risks, I think this is the most bankable.
 
I agree with Minstrel and others, but I'll put in a different frame of reference.

I think that every roster spot should be occupied (or not) through best net present value.

Net present value, in case you don't know and don't care to google it, discounts future value and "normalizes" it into what that asset is worth today. It's used in finance a lot to determine whether it's better to have, say, $100 in hand now or a cash stream of $8 a year forever.

Would we be better with an empty roster spot or an overpaid veteran that we sign to a 4 year deal? It depends on what he would give us, right? If he never plays, then it's money down the tubes this year and hurts our cap space for years. His NPV would probably be negative.

Would we be better with Steven Hill or an empty roster spot? Would we be better with Shaun Livingston or Steven Hill?

Who has the better NPV? And are either of them greater than zero?

Ed O.
 
i think that if we sign livingston to a 3 year deal with the 2nd and 3rd year a team option, then that leaves us with flexibility. another team might be persuaded to make a trade with us simply by us throwing in livingston, if he can prove that he can at least play basketball again.

until he proves that he can play though, much ado about nothing.
 
Ed O said:
I agree with Minstrel and others, but I'll put in a different frame of reference.

I think that every roster spot should be occupied (or not) through best net present value.

Net present value, in case you don't know and don't care to google it, discounts future value and "normalizes" it into what that asset is worth today. It's used in finance a lot to determine whether it's better to have, say, $100 in hand now or a cash stream of $8 a year forever.

Would we be better with an empty roster spot or an overpaid veteran that we sign to a 4 year deal? It depends on what he would give us, right? If he never plays, then it's money down the tubes this year and hurts our cap space for years. His NPV would probably be negative.

Would we be better with Steven Hill or an empty roster spot? Would we be better with Shaun Livingston or Steven Hill?

Who has the better NPV? And are either of them greater than zero?
Click to expand...

One quibble I have with using net present value in this case is that we're not really working with a financial market, where the goal is maximal efficiency. We're working with a sport (with some artificial constraints on how money can be spent), where we just want more wins, at any cost (that Allen is willing to bear). Forgetting the cap space issue of next year (or let us assume this example takes place in 2010, after cap space is no longer a possibility), if we could get an extra 2 wins with a player and it cost a billion dollars...if Allen were willing to spend it, why not? The NPV might be way negative, because the marginal cost of those wins is insane...but if that billion dollars can't be spent in any other way (due to the salary cap) then it is worth it to us.

The NPVs of Hill, Jackson and Livingston might all be negative...but I'd still want one of them (the one with the best upside chance) over an empty roster spot. Unless Allen has a spending limit which this would violate (leading to an opportunity cost), why not? An objective positive gain in wins (or even a chance at one), even at negative efficiency, is a win for us.
 
Ed O said:
I agree with Minstrel and others, but I'll put in a different frame of reference.

I think that every roster spot should be occupied (or not) through best net present value.

Net present value, in case you don't know and don't care to google it, discounts future value and "normalizes" it into what that asset is worth today. It's used in finance a lot to determine whether it's better to have, say, $100 in hand now or a cash stream of $8 a year forever.

Would we be better with an empty roster spot or an overpaid veteran that we sign to a 4 year deal? It depends on what he would give us, right? If he never plays, then it's money down the tubes this year and hurts our cap space for years. His NPV would probably be negative.

Would we be better with Steven Hill or an empty roster spot? Would we be better with Shaun Livingston or Steven Hill?

Who has the better NPV? And are either of them greater than zero?

Ed O.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of your points regarding how to assess possibilities, but I do disagree with how I value Livingston vs. Hill vs Raef's contract. I see selecting Livingston as buying a lotto ticket. If you win, you win big, but the chances of winning are so slight that it's not a safe investment. I don't know too many financial advisors who will say "I think you should spend x amount on lotto tickets" The other options have a smaller possible payoff, but a much greater chance of realization. This is of course just my opinion and i have not examined Livingston personally or spoken to his doctors, so I could be way off base. I just see his recovery and return to long-term health as a bad gamble.
 
GOD said:
I don't disagree with any of your points regarding how to assess possibilities, but I do disagree with how I value Livingston vs. Hill vs Raef's contract. I see selecting Livingston as buying a lotto ticket. If you win, you win big, but the chances of winning are so slight that it's not a safe investment. I don't know too many financial advisors who will say "I think you should spend x amount on lotto tickets" The other options have a smaller possible payoff, but a much greater chance of realization. This is of course just my opinion and i have not examined Livingston personally or spoken to his doctors, so I could be way off base. I just see his recovery and return to long-term health as a bad gamble.
Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree that much... I do NOT think we should get rid of Raef's contract by waiving him.

And I totally agree that Livingston is like a lottery ticket, but I see it as a free lottery ticket.

Free? Yes, because I see Hill as worthless. Cutting him tomorrow would not impact the future of this franchise one iota in my opinion. That's where we disagree, I think :)

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
I don't think we disagree that much... I do NOT think we should get rid of Raef's contract by waiving him.

And I totally agree that Livingston is like a lottery ticket, but I see it as a free lottery ticket.

Free? Yes, because I see Hill as worthless. Cutting him tomorrow would not impact the future of this franchise one iota in my opinion. That's where we disagree, I think :)

Ed O.
Click to expand...
As you said, I don't think we disagree that much. I am not high on Hill like others, just higher on him than I am on Livingston. Personally, I don't hold out much hope that either will ever make an impact on the Blazer team. There are two reasons that i give the nod to Hill over Livingston. 1) Hill will be good practice fodder for Oden. 2) We have a lot of injury prone players, especially our bigs, Oden, Raef, Joel, Frye, Ike and Aldridge have all had significant health issues in the past couple years, and I would rather have Hill as an insurance player than Livingston who we know will be injured for some time to come.
 
I'm going on the assumption that if the Blazers go after Livingston, they figure he can come back. But a second component KP mentioned is if the Blazers go after him, still doesn't mean they can agree to terms.

So assuming Blazers like his chances of coming back, what contract works. Last year they signed Blake and TO each to basically 2 year deals (with two year team option.) The idea being leaving the Blazers with options at the end of this year. So maybe a three year deal with two being team options. Would SL go for that? Does a multi year contract mess things up for the Blazers cap flex?

On top of all this, Livingston's agent says SL wants to play this year. I don't see the Blazers and Livingston agreeing to terms if other teams are interested.
 
it's_GO_time said:
On top of all this, Livingston's agent says SL wants to play this year. I don't see the Blazers and Livingston agreeing to terms if other teams are interested.
Click to expand...

I thought he said that if Shaun is healthy and can play, he'd expect to play.

Doesn't that seem reasonable? Of course, there's the matter of whether Shaun would be good enough to earn minutes, but I don't know that it would make sense for Portland to just park Livingston on the bench for a year even if Shaun is (somehow) healthy enough to play.

You're right, though, that other teams might be interested in Shaun. The Blazers have three advantages, IMO, over most (if not all) teams:

-- longer time horizon (can afford to let Shaun rest up and recover)
-- deeper pockets
-- the most promising and potential-packed team

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
I thought he said that if Shaun is healthy and can play, he'd expect to play.

Doesn't that seem reasonable? Of course, there's the matter of whether Shaun would be good enough to earn minutes, but I don't know that it would make sense for Portland to just park Livingston on the bench for a year even if Shaun is (somehow) healthy enough to play.

You're right, though, that other teams might be interested in Shaun. The Blazers have three advantages, IMO, over most (if not all) teams:

-- longer time horizon (can afford to let Shaun rest up and recover)
-- deeper pockets
-- the most promising and potential-packed team

Ed O.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Blazers have the advantage of deep pockets in this situation. I'm not a cap expert, but if they sign him to anything longer than a year, dosn't that cut into this cap flex they have been working towards for next summer?
 
It's such a low risk move with a very high reward possible. Teams have 3 roster spots that are ineligible to play, so at least one may as well be used for a gamble on a player like this.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I wonder if the Blazers have the advantage of deep pockets in this situation. I'm not a cap expert, but if they sign him to anything longer than a year, dosn't that cut into this cap flex they have been working towards for next summer?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I meant more that Allen can afford to pay someone to play for the team in a year or two... many owners would not do that, irrespective of cap issues.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Yes, but I meant more that Allen can afford to pay someone to play for the team in a year or two... many owners would not do that, irrespective of cap issues.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Just how much is Allen willing to pay? Starting 5 for $75M/season and already over the LT threshold?
 
Denny Crane said:
Just how much is Allen willing to pay? Starting 5 for $75M/season and already over the LT threshold?
Click to expand...

Allen went over $100 million for the team that went to the Western Conference Finals twice at the start of this decade, so he seems willing to go very high for a winner. If anything, this team is even more promising, so my guess is that money isn't really an object.
 
Minstrel said:
Allen went over $100 million for the team that went to the Western Conference Finals twice at the start of this decade, so he seems willing to go very high for a winner. If anything, this team is even more promising, so my guess is that money isn't really an object.
Click to expand...

$100M doesn't buy what it used to with the new CBA.

Unless I'm doing the math wrong, if he pays $75M for the starting 5, the remaining 10 players would be paid $1.2M each to reach that $100M figure.
 
Denny Crane said:
$100M doesn't buy what it used to with the new CBA.

Unless I'm doing the math wrong, if he pays $75M for the starting 5, the remaining 10 players would be paid $1.2M each to reach that $100M figure.
Click to expand...

He spent over $100 million, not exactly $100 million. I believe the payroll was the highest in the NBA at one point. My recollection was that it reached $120 million, but I wasn't certain, so I left it at "over $100 million." My assumption is that once he gets that high, he's signaled that he's willing to bankroll an expensive team (if it wins), so my guess (purely speculation) is that another $10-20 million wouldn't be rejected if it produced value. As long as Allen believes Pritchard is spending the money well, I think he'll pay. But it remains to be seen.
 
If we get to the point in a few years where we have $120m or $150m of ACTUAL production from players (not the Damon Stoudamire kind, obviously, nor Darius Miles)... we will have options to flip players for younger, cheaper guys while keeping the cream of the crop as our core.

Or Allen can nut up and pay to keep the best team in basketball together.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Yes, but I meant more that Allen can afford to pay someone to play for the team in a year or two... many owners would not do that, irrespective of cap issues.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is what makes it so fun to have Allen as an owner. And with KP and Penn Blazers have management that is aggressive and creative with contracts.

I saw it was suggested by another poster about a three year deal with two years being team option. Maybe PA overpays for that first year just to get that kind of deal done. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JDC
Thoughts through 4 games...
Replies
17
Views
431
THE HCP
THE HCP
Road Ratt
OT Losing the battle
Replies
5
Views
122
Strenuus
Strenuus
THE HCP
OT Type 2 Diabetes
8 9 10
Replies
270
Views
4K
crandc
crandc
SlyPokerDog
NBA free agency 2025: Who could be the league's first $82M player?
Replies
5
Views
634
tlongII
tlongII
SlyPokerDog
NCAA G League Eligibility Retreat Marks Amateurism’s Latest Defeat
Replies
12
Views
406
barfo
barfo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top