# Livingston could be a Blazer by tomorrow.



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54465/20080920/pritchard_on_livingston_i_need_more_time/



> Blazers' General Manager Kevin Pritchard says that he needs more time to make a decision on free agent point guard Shaun Livingston, according to Oregonian.
> 
> "I need another 24-to-48 hours to think about it," Pritchard said Friday afternoon. "I haven't sat down and done all the pros and cons. Once I do that, we will come to a decision about where we want to go. And even if we do decide to move forward, whether a deal gets done or not is another question."
> 
> The time frame would indicate that Pritchard will have a decision on Livingston by the end of the weekend.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I wonder if either side is giving consideration to signing him to a non-guaranteed contract? Then we would have all of training camp to evaluate him, and Livingston would have more time to prove his worth.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

So what does that mean? I have never heard of a non-guaranteed contract. Is it safe to assume that we offer him a contract [he accepts] but we can cut him without penalty if we so choose to?


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Well, considering we "signed" Luke Jackson, Steven Hill, and Jamaal Tatum a couple weeks ago....there must be a way to sign a guy for the duration of training camp, and then decide whether or not to keep him for the whole year.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't think what your talking about up above, signing him temporarily to evaluate him now, will do any good. This dude seems to me over a year away from returning at best. You would be signing him in the hope that maybe in a year or so, he could play again. Evaluating him now only tells you some idea of if he can recover or not. It is rolling the dice. The thing is, the last 5 dudes on the team are basically bodies for practice. I would rather take a chance on a recovering Livingston down the road, and keeping him off of a competing team, than say, Raef Lafrentz, who is really never going to make an impact on this team.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I agree that it is rolling the dice over the long-term. But I also think extra time to evaluate him can only help in our decision.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

This is the same situation the Celtics & Miles are in. Miles has a non-guaranteed contract, which is what made me think we should do the same with Livingston.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> This is the same situation the Celtics & Miles are in. Miles has a non-guaranteed contract, which is what made me think we should do the same with Livingston.


Right, but despite the disgusting injury, Livingston is still a young buck with no attitude problems. Miles is a few years older and running out of people willing to put faith in him.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Non-guaranteed contracts happen all the time in the NBA, though they're _somewhat_ less common in Portland, I suppose, in part because the Blazers often have more depth than other teams. But often during a season, as injuries accumulate, you'll see teams sign guys to 10-day contracts. That can happen with the same guy two or three times in a row but I believe after the third, teams are required to sign the player in question for the remainder of the season.

As for Livingston, I suspect Pritchard will put the decision off as long as he can without losing Livingston, because once that last spot's gone, I'd think they'd lose all the guys like Jackson and Hill, who are currently being useful practice dummies. At the same time, if he really does want Livingston, it's best not to gamble too much as there are other teams out there that seem ready to sign him (like the Timberwolves who'd offer him PT _this_ season).


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

I think we need to take this chance. We can afford to wait a year for him to recover. We don't need him to play. We can sit on him like we did Oden and let our boys rehab the hell out of him! He could be ready to play a significant role when Blakes contract expires haha.

My only concern now is... how would Livingston effect Petteri? Or who would you prefer? That is a tough call.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

It's most likely going to be guaranteed. Livingston has already turned down one guaranteed contract, why would he accept a non-guaranteed one now?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> I think we need to take this chance. We can afford to wait a year for him to recover. We don't need him to play. We can sit on him like we did Oden and let our boys rehab the hell out of him! He could be ready to play a significant role when Blakes contract expires haha.
> 
> My only concern now is... how would Livingston effect Petteri? Or who would you prefer? That is a tough call.


I don't think it's an 'either/or' proposition; there will likely be a trade made in the next year that opens up a spot for PetKo should he choose to come over, and there's no guarantee that Shaun will even come back to a serviceable level.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Weasel said:


> It's most likely going to be guaranteed. Livingston has already turned down one guaranteed contract, why would he accept a non-guaranteed one now?


To have a chance to play with our team. I am sure most players in the league wouldn't be mad if they got signed or traded to Portland.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> To have a chance to play with our team. I am sure most players in the league wouldn't be mad if they got signed or traded to Portland.



I'm still not very sure what the point is of signing him to a non-guaranteed contract. He's a different case than normal 15th men like Hill or Jackson. If Portland signs him, it'll be because they have looong term interest in him. Yes, signing him to a short-term contract gives him some money while they continue to check him out, but I doubt he'd be willing to do that. He's got other teams courting him and rumor has it he's hopeful of playing this season. Unless he's really at the top of his game, it seems unlikely that he'd crack the rotation on this team without injuries (which, of course, they'll almost certainly be, so maybe).

It helps him that he could reasonably play either guard position and potentially even some SF, though from what I've read, even before the injury he wasn't particularly a standout defensively -- certainly guys like Bayless and Roy will be stronger defensively and likely (at least until he's fully recovered) even guys like Blake, Fernandez, Webster and Outlaw will be better defensively. Given that he's also not historically a great catch and shoot kind of guy, he seems like a taller/longer version of Rodriguez -- unlikely to get serious PT at least for awhile.

I'm certainly still intrigued with Livingston, but yeah, I don't see him accepting a non-guaranteed contract at this point.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Weasel said:


> It's most likely going to be guaranteed. Livingston has already turned down one guaranteed contract, why would he accept a non-guaranteed one now?





BenDavis503 said:


> To have a chance to play with our team. I am sure most players in the league wouldn't be mad if they got signed or traded to Portland.


If I was Livingston and my choice was to be 3rd or 4th on the depth chart of a team with a lot of potential but where I didn't have a guaranteed deal, and having another choice with financial security and opportunity to play I think he'd be a fool to sign with the Blazers. Frankly I think it's going to probably take at least a two year deal with perhaps a team option on a third year at around 1.5 to 2 million a year for Livingston to consider signing with the Blazers ... now the question arises is it worth it to the Blazers to offer him that kind of deal?


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> To have a chance to play with our team. I am sure most players in the league wouldn't be mad if they got signed or traded to Portland.


Livingston is trying to restart his career from his horrible injury. The only reason he signs with Portland is he is either going to be in the rotation/get some time or he is getting a guaranteed contract. By the looks of the Portland roster he will probably be the 3rd or 4th PG so it's not the playing time he is interested in, its the money. Livingston probably doesn't really care about the team he plays on, just that he gets on a team and gets his career going in the right direction. If he had a choice of playing with a good team like Portland but being stuck behind several players in the rotation or going to the worst team in the league and being a 2nd option he would go to the worst team in the league (assuming both give him the same contract).


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Yeah you guys both make good points. I stand corrected.


----------



## CharcoalF (Feb 11, 2005)

Make him a highly paid assistant coach if he cannot contribute immediately. Dallas did this with Kurt Thomas.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I trust KP. At 6"7 PG with excellent vision of the court it sounds like a pretty good risk to me. I'm not going to blame and talk bad about KP if he makes the wrong choice on this one. I mean the Blazers still have a very good exiteing furute either way. KP, Paul and others have done a very nice job with this team.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

It seems to me KP doesn't need 48 hours to think about whether Livingston can come back and add some strength to his previously way-too-skinny frame and play NBA basketball at a high level -- he has doctors and trainers who have already concluded that one way or the other. So, if KP is thinking about it, they must have concluded in the affirmative. To me, it's a no-brainer. Sign him. Pay him to rehab for the next year. KP however has a lot more issues to consider than I, the mere fan. He has to evaluate how Shaun and every other player fits into his long-term model and a myriad of implications for the team roster going into the future. If KP is pondering signing Livingston, he's probably thinking more about the future implications for the other players and other potential roster moves; and about just how to structure a contract offer if he decides to make one. I hope he does.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Bad deal, don't do it.

An oversized PG who has multiple injury issues is not worth it at this point for a two-year roster spot, no matter what the price.

UNLESS, of course, he can be moved in a package for a legitimate SF option.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BBert said:


> It seems to me KP doesn't need 48 hours to think about whether Livingston can come back and add some strength to his previously way-too-skinny frame and play NBA basketball at a high level -- he has doctors and trainers who have already concluded that one way or the other. So, if KP is thinking about it, they must have concluded in the affirmative. To me, it's a no-brainer. Sign him. Pay him to rehab for the next year. KP however has a lot more issues to consider than I, the mere fan. He has to evaluate how Shaun and every other player fits into his long-term model and a myriad of implications for the team roster going into the future. If KP is pondering signing Livingston, he's probably thinking more about the future implications for the other players and other potential roster moves; and about *just how to structure a contract offer if he decides to make one*. I hope he does.


I have been someone of a parrot about this point but thought I would post my thoughts on this board too.

The Blazers have been gearing up towards cap flexibility next summer. IF Livingston wnats a multi-year deal, what should the Blazers do (assuming they want him). Do they offer the multi-year deal hurting their cap flexibilty?

I like the idea of a three year deal with two years being a team option. This gives the Blazers the flexibilty they want (TO and Blake have those kind of deals), but does SL do that kind of deal. 

So I don't think it is just an issue of PA's money. It will be KP and Penn's task to figure out something that will work with SL and towards their goal for next summer (again assuming they want him and it is still their goal to be a player in the free agent market next summer)


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I'm not a fan of this, but if KP does it, I'll reserve judgment.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

PapaG said:


> Bad deal, don't do it.
> 
> An oversized PG who has multiple injury issues is not worth it at this point for a two-year roster spot, no matter what the price.
> 
> UNLESS, of course, he can be moved in a package for a legitimate SF option.


We need a PG more than we need a SF. Also Don't give up on Martell Webster up yet. I think he will mold into that Steve Smith type of player.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Weasel said:


> Livingston is trying to restart his career from his horrible injury. The only reason he signs with Portland is he is either going to be in the rotation/get some time or he is getting a guaranteed contract. By the looks of the Portland roster he will probably be the 3rd or 4th PG so it's not the playing time he is interested in, its the money. Livingston probably doesn't really care about the team he plays on, just that he gets on a team and gets his career going in the right direction. *If he had a choice of playing with a good team like Portland but being stuck behind several players in the rotation or going to the worst team in the league and being a 2nd option he would go to the worst team in the league (assuming both give him the same contract)*.


Of course that is just your opinion. Healthy who knows what option he would be. By your logic he must not think much of himself. Once healthy, and he won't play on either team much until he's healthy, he may feel he'll be the second option on the Blazers. Later down the road especially so.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

How about the flexibility to run a very tall 3 guard lineup of Roy, Rudy and Livingston? Or is that a 3 point-forward lineup, I'm not sure. :biggrin:


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

mgb said:


> Of course that is just your opinion. Healthy who knows what option he would be. By your logic he must not think much of himself. Once healthy, and he won't play on either team much until he's healthy, he may feel he'll be the second option on the Blazers. Later down the road especially so.


So that would make Sergio the 2nd string PG. :azdaja: No wonder why KP wants to find a PG soon.:biggrin:


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

BlazerFan22 said:


> *We need a PG more than we need a SF.* Also Don't give up on Martell Webster up yet. I think he will mold into that Steve Smith type of player.


LoL your posts always make me laugh.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

mgb said:


> Of course that is just your opinion. Healthy who knows what option he would be. By your logic he must not think much of himself. Once healthy, and he won't play on either team much until he's healthy, he may feel he'll be the second option on the Blazers. Later down the road especially so.


Then BF22 says...



BlazerFan22 said:


> So that would make Sergio the 2nd string PG. :azdaja: No wonder why KP wants to find a PG soon.:biggrin:


Dude wtf are you talking about?! This doesn't even make sense!!!! WOW!!!!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think it's more likely we'd go Roy Bayless and Livingston than Roy Rudy Livingston.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

This is why I think this is a great idea...

1) We are not going to sign a big FA next season. In fact, I dont think we sign anyone. At the most, we deal Raef at the deadline and kill our cap space, and even then I dont think it happens. Signing Shaun to a 2 year deal at ~2M does nothing negative to our future. 

2) We are, at some point, going to need a backup PG. Look, I love Blake, but I dont see him being a piece of our 'championship' window. This team, IMO, has a legit starting 4(Bayless, Roy, LMA, Oden). Im not going into the SF paradox, but it is certain that we are going to need a backup PG. And, the ideal backup PG, consitering that Bayless is a combo guard in the most extreme sense of the word, is a 'true' PG. Shaun fits that mold. I am completley against starting a pass 1st PG with Roy, but off the bench I would think the ideal fit is a pass 1st PG who can defend. That was Livingston before the injury and could very well be him after.

3) We are a team of combo guards at PG/SG; Bayless, Rudy and Roy are CG's. Adding a 'pure' point in Shaun, who could potentially facilitate and guard anyone from a PG, SG, SF is a incredibly unique tool. 


IMO, what it comes down to is who do we think has a better chance of being our backup PG of the future; PetKo or Shaun. I honestly dont know, but it definatley wont hurt to take a low risk chance on Livingston.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

I would like to sign hill and doc livingston


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I have another thought: perhaps pritchard feels that if miles is going to cost him 9m in flexibility on an injury, he might as well have a rehabbing player on the roster. It's the same with lafrentz: his caphold is likely viewed as the money it took to get brandon.


----------

