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.
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.
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.
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.
$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.
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.
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.
I'm going on what I see of the ultra rich owners who've had really big payrolls in the past. Particularly Mark Cuban and James Dolan. The likelihood of some of these players getting signed to big contracts and turning into Stoudamire type players is a big risk.
Dolan seemed to have almost inexhaustible (and inexplicable) willingness to pay huge amounts of money for little in the way of results. I think Roy and Aldridge are the only current players that will be given huge contracts soon. Barring injury, they look to be worth it. Oden, Bayless and Fernandez are still some years from being paid big bucks. The team will have a chance to evaluate them and see if they are major talents. The risky one to me is Travis Outlaw. He's someone who might command a big deal soon and has the potential to become a tall Damon Stoudamire. So, I'll be interested to see how Pritchard handles it. I'd like to see Outlaw flipped to be someone else's tricky salary problem, if Pritchard can get good value back (essentially the quandary Chicago is in with Ben Gordon...he definitely has real value, but he's hard to value in terms of salary).
Don't the Blazers have a four year deal at about 4 mil/yr with TO, the last two years being a team option? That is a good position to be in for the Blazer (if I have that right). I agree with DC, these days in the NBA it isn't just about paying players big bucks to get them to sign, teams have to sign players to contracts that still make them a tradable asset (not overpaid), or else you end up with a Damon or Raef sitaution . . . untradable till the very end of their contract.
I think the idea is that the Blazers would look to acquire a very good player who is making a ton of money... instead of using potential cap space to sign a free agent (like the Magic did with Rashard Lewis, for example) the Blazers could take a bigger contract on (Kirilenko or Vince Carter or whomever) to upgrade the team without having the uncertainty of free agency in the summer determining what they can get. Ed O.
Something that has not been mentioned yet, I think, is that SL might have been one of the targets to try and acquire as a FA or as a trade target. I think that could have been a real possibility. If so, we now can get him with risk for cheap. And still leaves Raef as bait for future adjustment. The only question for me would be, can he play? His agent at least says the Dr.s have released him to play 5 on 5 much like Oden has. If true he is just too good to pass up. Get it done KP!!!!
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing??? Why do you keep bringing up Raef? I don't think anyone is saying waive Raef, they're saying use our 15th spot on Livingston. We can keep Raef and sign Livingston. With that said, I don't see any reason not to sign Livingston. Think of it this way, one of three possible outcomes are possible. 1) Livingston is never able to return to the NBA at a productive level and we waive him or choose not to re-sign him. 2) Livingston recaptures some or all of the player that he was with the Clippers, and we integrate him into our future core. 3) Livingston recaptures some or all of the player that he was and we trade him to another team for good value (I.E. a draft pick, a veteran, or another young prospect). If option 1 happens, we're not really out anything. A couple million dollars and the sad fact that a young player with a lot of potential was unable to recover from a devastating injury. If option 2 happens, we have essentially added a lottery pick for peanuts, and we are a stronger team because of it. Livingston is the pass-first point guard that we've beem clamoring for. If option 3 happens, we have essentially flipped a low-risk commodity into value for almost nothing. From what I understand of KP, this is the kind of move that he favors. Low risk into high gain. If we weigh this on a cost/benefit analysis, the benefits far outweigh the costs of signing Livingston.
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing??? Well, to be accurate I did say that we could waive Raef. However that was because some were saying that we did not need SL, we needed another Big (Hill) etc. OK we still have Reaf that we can do that with after, we sign SL. We get both the big and the potential gain from SL. That may not be enough for Raef, but it is one possibility. Sounds perrty good to me. On Hill, I watched him in Summer League and was not all that impressed. He Got schooled by Love. He did block a few shots but did not rebound very well, or so it seemed to me.
Re: Shawn Livingston possible signing??? Waiving LaFrentz would mean not having his contract to trade during the season as an expiring deal. We'd still get the cap relief next off-season, but Pritchard would lose the flexibility to make a move before then, if some team decided to give away a costly, good player for cap relief. I don't think losing that possibility is worth signing Hill.
