Michael Beasley

B Calrissian · Post #61 » by **B Calrissian** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 5:28 pm

WiscoKing13 wrote:bucks first round pick(6-10ish), Maggette for Beasley???

Not even close.

jgustav1 · Post #62 » by **jgustav1** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 6:41 pm

Ian Kognitow wrote:If he were to start living up to his promise a versatile defender and top-level rebounder (with some opportunistic scoring ability, as well), Randolph would actually seem to be the kind of forward Beasley could successfully be paired with [somewhat similarly, in a trade scenario I recently wrote up, I argued that Beasley could be a great acquisition by LAC since B. Griffin would be another forward that would highly-complement Beasley's skill-set, and compensate for some of his deficiencies].

That trade scenario with the LAC acquiring Beasley was one of the more absurd proposals I've seen on this board in quite a while. It involved Gordon, the Minny pick, Kaman, Aminu and Bledsoe leaving the Clippers and they were to receive Batum, Beasley (why after adding Batum?), rights to Rubio, Fernandez and Camby in a 3 way including Portland. Gordon and the Minny pick won't be moved any time soon, particularly involving guys with a lot of question marks like Rubio and Beasley.

Golabki · Post #63 » by **Golabki** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 6:48 pm

If you want to gauge Beasley's value you have to start with this offseason. The most Miami could get from Beasley was two high second round picks. Minny wasn't the only team with space to take him, so you have to assume Miami talked with several teams and that was the most they could get.

I will admit, I was surprised Beasley didn't have more value, but you can't ignore the fact that was value was recently gauged on the trade market. Clearly teams think that Beasley's obvious scoring talent is overshadowed by (A) terrible defense, (B) poor work ethic/attitude, and (C) mediocre passing/offensive awareness.

After the trade Beasley has played his third NBA season, on a team where you would expect ample opportunity for him to contribute offensively. He has shown little if any improvement in play, so it's pretty difficult to argue his value has gone up at all.

Given these basic facts, you aren't getting a lotto pick for Beasley unless you take back an ugly contract. Mid-first + expiring is as much as you could hope for, and even that seems fairly optimistic.

shrink · Post #64 » by **shrink** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 7:01 pm

I'm not a big fan of David Kahn, but I give him credit for being the first on the scene, offering up the cap space (which is the main value in the deal for MIA) plus their two 2nds. By making that open-ended offer first to the Heat, it allowed them to negotiate with LeBron and Bosh, because they could say, "We're going to get all three of you, and this is how we're going to do it." This isn't such a direct "We searched the market and found the best possible deal"- situation, which is why you have heard so many people then and now say, "Man, why didn't we offer that?"

I should also add that I have never been a big fan of Michael Beasley either. However, most mid-firsts, especially in this draft, don't have the potential that Beasley has. Heck, I doubt a mid-1st even has the potential to get to where Beasley is now.

Personally, I would be surprised if MIN traded Beasley. They desperately need a superstar, and at least Beas has the potential - though not the likelyhood - of becoming one. We probably agrre that they p[robably couldn't get that back in trade.

B Calrissian · Post #65 » by **B Calrissian** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 7:03 pm

Golabki wrote:If you want to gauge Beasley's value you have to start with this offseason. The most Miami could get from Beasley was two high second round picks. Minny wasn't the only team with space to take him, so you have to assume Miami talked with several teams and that was the most they could get.

I will admit, I was surprised Beasley didn't have more value, but you can't ignore the fact that was value was recently gauged on the trade market. Clearly teams think that Beasley's obvious scoring talent is overshadowed by (A) terrible defense, (B) poor work ethic/attitude, and (C) mediocre passing/offensive awareness.

After the trade Beasley has played his third NBA season, on a team where you would expect ample opportunity for him to contribute offensively. He has shown little if any improvement in play, so it's pretty difficult to argue his value has gone up at all.

Given these basic facts, you aren't getting a lotto pick for Beasley unless you take back an ugly contract. Mid-first + expiring is as much as you could hope for, and even that seems fairly optimistic.

Facts are supposed to be true.

You obviously have not watched him much this year if you think he has made no improvements.

Taking on a bad contract just for the chance to swap him for a loto pick.. Umm no.

Golabki · Post #66 » by **Golabki** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 8:11 pm

shrink wrote:I'm not a big fan of David Kahn, but I give him credit for being the first on the scene, offering up the cap space (which is the main value in the deal for MIA) plus their two 2nds. By making that open-ended offer first to the Heat, it allowed them to negotiate with LeBron and Bosh, because they could say, "We're going to get all three of you, and this is how we're going to do it." This isn't such a direct "We searched the market and found the best possible deal"- situation, which is why you have heard so many people then and now say, "Man, why didn't we offer that?"

If other teams thought Beasley was worth a top 10 pick I simply don't see how Kahn could get him for 2 seconds. Maybe Kahn did act first, but it makes ZERO sense for another team to not to put in a competing offer if they thought Kahn was underpaying, and it makes ZERO sense for Miami not to court other offeres if they were out there. Maybe at the margin, someone was offering slightly more, but wouldn't make an open-ended agreement, but it couldn't have been a lot more. I just don't have it plausible.

Post #67 » by **loserX** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 10:17 pm

shrink wrote:I'm not a big fan of David Kahn, but I give him credit for being the first on the scene, offering up the cap space (which is the main value in the deal for MIA) plus their two 2nds. By making that open-ended offer first to the Heat, it allowed them to negotiate with LeBron and Bosh

The money cleared by trading Beasley was given to Mike Miller. LeBron and Bosh were going there already.

The rest of your post is spot on, though.

AQuintus · Post #68 » by **AQuintus** » Sat Mar 5, 2011 10:33 pm

Golabki wrote:If other teams thought Beasley was worth a top 10 pick I simply don't see how Kahn could get him for 2 seconds.

Because trade value isn't a static thing. It changes as situations change; which is why Beasley went from being worth the 2nd pick in a very good draft to only being worth 2 seconds 2 years later. Right now, after a solid season, he's worth more than 2 2nds (a lot more) but less than the 2nd overall pick.

Golabki · Post #69 » by **Golabki** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 12:12 am

AQuintus wrote:Because trade value isn't a static thing. It changes as situations change; which is why Beasley went from being worth the 2nd pick in a very good draft to only being worth 2 seconds 2 years later. Right now, after a solid season, he's worth more than 2 2nds (a lot more) but less than the 2nd overall pick.

Well I guess this is just a difference of opinion. Beasley was "solid" his rookie year, if overshadowed by Rose. The last two years he has been disappointing, at least to me (I've routed for Beasley since the draft). I just don't see much improvement, and I really am VERY surprised to find so much disagreement from Wolves fans. 100% of the stats agree with me and I would guess 90% of non-Wolves fans agree with me.

All this said, Beasley is the EXACT type of player that the Wolves should be trying to get (high reward, low risk)... so trading him is silly.

Chosen01 · Post #70 » by **Chosen01** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 1:44 am

Beasley gets really underrated, he was averaging 22ppg 6rbs(on the dot) on 49% FG 40% 3pt before he had a recurring ankle injury.

shangrila · Post #71 » by **shangrila** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 7:24 am

Golabki wrote:Well I guess this is just a difference of opinion. Beasley was "solid" his rookie year, if overshadowed by Rose. The last two years he has been disappointing, at least to me (I've routed for Beasley since the draft). I just don't see much improvement, and I really am VERY surprised to find so much disagreement from Wolves fans. 100% of the stats agree with me and I would guess 90% of non-Wolves fans agree with me.

He changed positions, which isn't exactly easy, and is still managing to average a career high in points. Not mention he was on fire earlier in the season until he had ankle problems...I mean, if you just stared at stats I guess you could say he hadn't improved but when you watch him it's easy to tell he's better then he used to be.

Mattya · Post #72 » by **Mattya** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 8:02 am

I'm really hesitant to trade Beasley. I thinkif by next trade deadline if he doesn't return to how he was playing earlier in the season, then you consider trading him, unless you get a no brained deal. I think he'll make a good jump after a full year in this system and a summer to rehab his ankle. Now I'm not blind to his defense and lapse in judgment, but I'm hoping that's just his ankle affecting him and not regression.

youngibaka · Post #73 » by **youngibaka** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 9:35 am

What about Varejao and the clippers pick for Beasley and Randolph. I think value wise the trade is fair and the two teams follow their right path. The Cavs need to suck for one or two more to acquire and develop prospects, and the Wolves should begin to build a winning enviroment, and that starts by giving defense the right importance

Post #74 » by **Diop** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 1:00 pm

I would much rather Love, Beasley than Love, Varejao on my team.

Geaux_Hawks · Post #75 » by **Geaux_Hawks** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 6:41 pm

Sachmo wrote:I would much rather Love, Beasley than Love, Varejao on my team.

Love offense and Varejeo D would be better than 2 offenses

Post #76 » by **dockingsched** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 8:11 pm

youngibaka wrote:What about Varejao and the clippers pick for Beasley and Randolph. I think value wise the trade is fair and the two teams follow their right path. The Cavs need to suck for one or two more to acquire and develop prospects, and the Wolves should begin to build a winning enviroment, and that starts by giving defense the right importance

i think thats a terrible deal for the cavs.

[RCG] · Post #77 » by **[RCG]** » Sun Mar 6, 2011 8:56 pm

dcash4 wrote:
youngibaka wrote:What about Varejao and the clippers pick for Beasley and Randolph. I think value wise the trade is fair and the two teams follow their right path. The Cavs need to suck for one or two more to acquire and develop prospects, and the Wolves should begin to build a winning enviroment, and that starts by giving defense the right importance

i think thats a terrible deal for the cavs.

Depending on how Randolph finishes the season it could be terrible for the Wolves. As is I think it is about equal if you are a person who likes Varejao.

jgustav1 · Post #78 » by **jgustav1** » Mon Mar 7, 2011 12:59 am

dcash4 wrote:
youngibaka wrote:What about Varejao and the clippers pick for Beasley and Randolph. I think value wise the trade is fair and the two teams follow their right path. The Cavs need to suck for one or two more to acquire and develop prospects, and the Wolves should begin to build a winning enviroment, and that starts by giving defense the right importance

i think thats a terrible deal for the cavs.

Yes it is a terrible deal for them. Varejao is a decent defensive player at C and they already have Hickson and Jamison to play forward, they would be better off keeping what they have in place and adding the lottery pick.

dookieguy · Post #79 » by **dookieguy** » Mon Mar 7, 2011 9:37 am

I think the Wolves keep Randolph, another high-risk low-reward player.

Also, I see no reason to trade Beasley. He could become the #1 option they need in the long run. Not like they're competing anytime soon, so just continue the Beasley experiment for now.

JackFinn · Post #80 » by **JackFinn** » Mon Mar 7, 2011 1:02 pm

dookieguy wrote:I think the Wolves keep Randolph, another high-risk low-reward player.

Also, I see no reason to trade Beasley. He could become the #1 option they need in the long run. Not like they're competing anytime soon, so just continue the Beasley experiment for now.