Bring Back Shelvin Mack.

payitforward · Post #1 » by **payitforward** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:04 pm

Shaun Livingston is contributing nothing now, has no upside beyond his current level of play, and won't be back next year anyway. We are fully capable of losing without him, so why do we need him?

As a rookie, Shelvin Mack played at a higher level than Livingston is playing now, being young he has some upside, and he certainly couldn't make us worse.

Why don't we bring back Shelvin Mack? I think we should -- how about you?

If you don't, please point to another *young* candidate, i.e. someone who (given the fiction that this is a young team still developing) might conceivably develop along with the team.

Post #2 » by **Zonkerbl** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:09 pm

what's the point?

Post #3 » by **nate33** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:11 pm

I could understand the original thought that we'd be better off with a veteran like Livingston backing up Wall rather than another youngster. But now that it looks like Wall won't be around for a while, I think you are right. Bring back Mack. With a team as sucky as this one, it makes more sense to groom a young PG than to lose with an old one.

Chocolate City Jordanaire · Post #4 » by **Chocolate City Jordanaire** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:42 pm

payitforward wrote:Shaun Livingston is contributing nothing now, has no upside beyond his current level of play, and won't be back next year anyway. We are fully capable of losing without him, so why do we need him?

As a rookie, Shelvin Mack played at a higher level than Livingston is playing now, being young he has some upside, and he certainly couldn't make us worse.

Why don't we bring back Shelvin Mack? I think we should -- how about you?

If you don't, please point to another *young* candidate, i.e. someone who (given the fiction that this is a young team still developing) might conceivably develop along with the team.

If Mack doesn't get called by another team, then yeah, I hope the Wizards call him back.

These guys didn't have to draft him, but after they did the Wizards IMO screwed him over cutting the way they did in the first place.

Post #5 » by **montestewart** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:55 pm

Time for a Sh"Mack Attack! Bring him back!

TheBigThree · Post #6 » by **TheBigThree** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:59 pm

No way they'll bring back Mack. I'm sure there is bad blood there based on how they treated him.

I think they might have considered bringing him back if they weren't actively developing a backup PG in Satoransky, even if I'm still not convinced we'll ever see him in a Wizards uniform. His stats in Eurocup are good, not great.

Barring another injury, I think we probably just wait this out with Craw and Livingston until Wall or Price get back.

TGW · Post #7 » by **TGW** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:47 pm

^^^How'd they treat him exactly? He sucked and got cut. That's the reality of the NBA...they didn't owe anything to him.

I'm sure some people may not like the deck chairs and how their arranged right now, but the boat is still going down people.

Nivek · Post #8 » by **Nivek** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:57 pm

I wouldn't say he sucked. He was solidly below average, but they went out and replaced him with a couple guys who were AT BEST no better. I could see how that would rankle. Still, my guess is that he'd jump at an offer from the Wizards. An NBA paycheck is a nice enticement for a guy who's probably making around $35k-50k this season. He'd make that in a few weeks in the NBA.

tontoz · Post #9 » by **tontoz** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:29 pm

Mack was bad but i would still take him over Livingston and Pargo.

cwb3 · Post #10 » by **cwb3** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:37 pm

Yeah this will fix us. . .sorry I can't get his awfulness at Vegas Summer League out of my head.

CLIN · Post #11 » by **CLIN** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:15 pm

i dont know how much value u can put on this, but he was d league player of the week last week.

http://www.nba.com/dleague/shelvin_mack ... 12_10.html

he probably could have contributed atleast something

DMVleGeND · Post #12 » by **DMVleGeND** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:56 pm

TheBigThree wrote:No way they'll bring back Mack. I'm sure there is bad blood there based on how they treated him.

I think they might have considered bringing him back if they weren't actively developing a backup PG in Satoransky, even if I'm still not convinced we'll ever see him in a Wizards uniform. His stats in Eurocup are good, not great.

Barring another injury, I think we probably just wait this out with Craw and Livingston until Wall or Price get back.

No way he would turn down an offer for the Wizards. He would jump at any chance to get back into the NBA, no matter what the situation is.

But he sucks anyway. I don't think he'd be an upgrade.

Nivek · Post #13 » by **Nivek** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:10 pm

Just ran the numbers on the D-League. Won't be a regular thing (probably) because it's kind of a pain since no one formats the numbers in a way that's easy to work with.

Most productive PGs by PPA (my measure): Tre Kelley, Courtney Fortson, Nick Covington, Garrett Temple, Walker Russell.

Shelvin Mack rates solidly above average (121 -- I set the league average to 100 for D-League as well).

Have to run now, but I'll post more about this tomorrow.

MJG · Post #14 » by **MJG** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:39 pm

I'd be fine with bringing Mack back. He isn't good, but neither are any of our other PGs, and maybe his time in the d-league has done him some good. If not, well, then simply cut him again.

verbal8 · Post #15 » by **verbal8** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:57 pm

Hoping for the return of the Mack.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCYlrfH_5o[/youtube]

JonathanJoseph · Post #16 » by **JonathanJoseph** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:32 am

nate33 wrote:I could understand the original thought that we'd be better off with a veteran like Livingston backing up Wall rather than another youngster. But now that it looks like Wall won't be around for a while, I think you are right. Bring back Mack. With a team as sucky as this one, it makes more sense to groom a young PG than to lose with an old one.

This.

Mack has more upside than most think.

hands11 · Post #17 » by **hands11** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:53 am

Price looked like he was getting better then Mack and has more upside. He looked to be a better defender. Not a big Price fan as a starter but they have him signed and he will be returning. As a back up behind Wall and Crawford, he can fight to become more.

I like Crawford at PG for now and they did sign Livingston so I don't see how they bring back Mack. I guess a 10 day contract could work. But if they are tanking anyway, why bother?

Post #18 » by **nate33** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:11 pm

hands11 wrote:Price looked like he was getting better then Mack and has more upside. He looked to be a better defender. Not a big Price fan as a starter but they have him signed and he will be returning. As a back up behind Wall and Crawford, he can fight to become more.

I like Crawford at PG for now and they did sign Livingston so I don't see how they bring back Mack. I guess a 10 day contract could work. But if they are tanking anyway, why bother?

This is the problem.

The Wizards already have 15 active players. There are no roster spots. If we pick up Mack, one of Barron or Livingston must go.

DMVleGeND · Post #19 » by **DMVleGeND** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:14 pm

JonathanJoseph wrote:
nate33 wrote:I could understand the original thought that we'd be better off with a veteran like Livingston backing up Wall rather than another youngster. But now that it looks like Wall won't be around for a while, I think you are right. Bring back Mack. With a team as sucky as this one, it makes more sense to groom a young PG than to lose with an old one.

This.

Mack has more upside than most think.

What upside? Yes he's young, but he's lacking in skills and athleticism.

tontoz · Post #20 » by **tontoz** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:22 pm

nate33 wrote:This is the problem.

The Wizards already have 15 active players. There are no roster spots. If we pick up Mack, one of Barron or Livingston must go.

I don't see letting Livingston go as a problem but as an opportunity.