MIN - SAC (Beasley for Thorton)

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:16 pm

From the trade board:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1127405

ChrisTheFuturePaul wrote:Beasley for Thornton (S&T ~5.5mil)

Cousins / Thompson
Beasley / Hickson
Salmons / Beasley
Evans / Garcia
Jimmer / Evans

Darko / Tolliver
Love / Randolph
W Johnson / D Williams
Thornton / Webster
Rubio / Ridnour

Esohny · Post #2 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:27 pm

I like it. I'm sure that the "Beasley will be a superstar" crowd won't.

shangrila · Post #3 » by **shangrila** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:45 pm

Wouldn't it just be swapping one mildly inefficient no defence player for another?

Swimmer · Post #4 » by **Swimmer** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:02 pm

shangrila wrote:Wouldn't it just be swapping one mildly inefficient no defence player for another?

Well, if that's what you think, at least the fit will be a little better.

I'd be down for this trade, I think.

Esohny · Post #5 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:21 pm

shangrila wrote:Wouldn't it just be swapping one mildly inefficient no defence player for another?

Shrug. Thornton is actually more efficient than Beasley (in addition to shooting pretty well from 3, he actually takes it to the basket), and a solid defender (noticeably better than SuperCool) since he actually tries. His issue is that he doesn't pass the ball enough after he gets it. But I think he can improve that mentality, and with Rubio initiating the offense, it should reduce the negative effects since Thornton should be getting the ball in good spots where he can focus on the finishing the play.

And as Swimmer mentioned, there's also roster balance improvement.

Wingman · Post #6 » by **Wingman** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:50 pm

One day we will look back and laugh at what some of us would have taken for Micheal Beasley.

Swimmer · Post #7 » by **Swimmer** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:30 pm

^ Orrrr one day we will look back and be frustrated at what some of us could have gotten for Michael Beasley.

[RCG] · Post #8 » by **[RCG]** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:55 pm

I don't dislike the idea.

pumunga · Post #9 » by **pumunga** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:14 pm

Shouldn't this belong in the "trade Beasley" thread........... This is comical.

Foye · Post #10 » by **Foye** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:03 pm

I'll keep Beasley.

moss_is_1 · Post #11 » by **moss_is_1** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:04 pm

Yes please. Beasley just doesn't do it for me that much, and especially now that we have Williams. Thornton would be a great 6th man(or Wes), that can really fill it up.

Rashoismydad · Post #12 » by **Rashoismydad** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:23 pm

I remember people scoffing at trade proposals for another high volume, inefficient scorer who doesnt play defense (Jefferson). I bet those deals would look pretty damn good now, and this will be no different.

Krapinsky · Post #13 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:27 pm

I don't know about this. I feel like undersized shoot first SG's are kind of a dime a dozen and we shouldn't have to give up Beasley to get one. Thornton played great for the 30 games he was in Sacramento, but if we're only basing it on 30 games, then well Beasley looked great for 30 games before he turned his ankle.

Moreover, without Beasley who left can emerge as a #1 scoring option? Thornton isn't exactly a great ISO player. He gets to the line even less than Beasley.

From Sac's POV, I couldn't think of a worse combination of players than Evans, Beasley, and Cousins. I don't think Beasley is the right fit for them.

Foye · Post #14 » by **Foye** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:27 pm

Rashoismydad wrote:I remember people scoffing at trade proposals for another high volume, inefficient scorer who doesnt play defense (Jefferson). I bet those deals would look pretty damn good now, and this will be no different.

How will this be different when we get another high volume, inefficient scorer back in this deal?

pumunga · Post #15 » by **pumunga** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:38 pm

Krapinsky wrote:From Sac's POV, I couldn't think of a worse combination of players than Evans, Beasley, and Cousins. I don't think Beasley is the right fit for them.

Really ? I think that's a nice lil' 3 headed monster.

Krapinsky · Post #16 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:40 pm

pumunga wrote:
Krapinsky wrote:From Sac's POV, I couldn't think of a worse combination of players than Evans, Beasley, and Cousins. I don't think Beasley is the right fit for them.

Really ? I think that's a nice lil' 3 headed monster.

Three turnover prone, low BBIQ ball stoppers? Who passes the ball?

Post #17 » by **Klomp** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:43 pm

Krapinsky wrote:
pumunga wrote:
Krapinsky wrote:From Sac's POV, I couldn't think of a worse combination of players than Evans, Beasley, and Cousins. I don't think Beasley is the right fit for them.

Really ? I think that's a nice lil' 3 headed monster.

Three turnover prone, low BBIQ ball stoppers? Who passes the ball?

Jimmer! Oh wait.....

cpfsf · Post #18 » by **cpfsf** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:50 pm

Sacramento would be loaded with household names, unfortunately none of them would be any good.

deeney0 · Post #19 » by **deeney0** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:51 pm

Meh, if this is all the value the Wolves can get back for Beasley at this point, it's worth rolling the dice and keeping him on the team for next year. If his value goes down so be it.

cpfsf · Post #20 » by **cpfsf** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:56 pm

deeney0 wrote:Meh, if this is all the value the Wolves can get back for Beasley at this point, it's worth rolling the dice and keeping him on the team for next year. If his value goes down so be it.

Pretty much, but I would wait till the trade deadline.