ImageImageImage

Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

User avatar
Dual
Starter
Posts: 2,224
And1: 1,215
Joined: Jun 26, 2009
 

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#241 » by Dual » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:08 pm

Let's make a great reunión!
Bring Love back! :lol:
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 45,239
And1: 5,867
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#242 » by shrink » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:11 pm

minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter

Thanks for sharing that. Let’s hope Dane Moore is right.

The positives? More space up front to help fit in a PF. On a team option, we can look at this as a three year deal, for $14.5. The richest year is a team option. The second richest is when Rubio has expired, so he might be getting more minutes.

The negatives? Ascending deals are less tradable than descending.

The key to determining if a contract is good or bad is to look at each year, and decide if the player has the talent and opportunity to provide that much team production. Beasley is a young player and can get better, you decide. I don’t mind the standard structure for younger players.
Jedzz
General Manager
Posts: 9,067
And1: 1,976
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#243 » by Jedzz » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:11 pm

minimus wrote:
shrink wrote:
minimus wrote:the problems with this approach is that you keep in microscope one problem, while ALL positive things kind of slip from view.

Well, that’s just an untrue accusation. In fact, I just wrote this:

shrink wrote:When you acquire DLo, you get above-average shooting and great passing. But you still have constrained yourself with a different max deal. You have filled one of the most easily-filled positions. You have locked in a poor defender, who doesn’t really have the athleticism to get much better. I’ll take that over Wiggins, but you see how our pathways were severely narrowed.


So It’s untrue to say that the positive things slip from view.

It’s also untrue to say there is only one problem with DLo.

Perhaps YOU need to be realistic. What’s the opposite of calling someone a hater? Blind homer maybe?


Let's stop it here. Don't get offensive, shrink


Well taken high road on this one.

I will point out shrinks little statement slipped in the middle of this post of his...

"You have filled one of the most easily-filled positions." :lol:
Jedzz
General Manager
Posts: 9,067
And1: 1,976
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#244 » by Jedzz » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:15 pm

Dual wrote:Let's make a great reunión!
Bring Love back! :lol:


haha, it's not like we haven't suggested it this past summer while joking around. 1 part down, 1 to go and the team "needs a PF" according to some. Too bad Cleveland had to be jackwagons and pay Love so much thru 2023. That ruins it.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 45,239
And1: 5,867
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#245 » by shrink » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:15 pm

Dual wrote:Let's make a great reunión!
Bring Love back! :lol:

I really doubt this would happen in the Love situation, but other teams have waived vets so they could go play elsewhere. Love can’t defend to the perimeter, but he can certainly shoot three’s and rebound! But if they cut him, there is probably 25 other teams he’d rather re-sign with than MIN. But I like the reunion idea. I wonder if Rhino is still in basketball shape?
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 45,239
And1: 5,867
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#246 » by shrink » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:15 pm

(Double post)
younggunsmn
Analyst
Posts: 3,735
And1: 246
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Hiding from the thought police.

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#247 » by younggunsmn » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:15 pm

Restricted free agency is a dangerous game.
Teams will overpay to get you to not match, especially teams without much talent who can't get anyone to take their money (cough, knicks, cough). And all it takes is one team.

If Rosas wanted Beasley back, it was smart of him to set his own price point at the very beginning and sign him before other teams started throwing offers at him. Whether that price point was too much, is a point for debate, as is the long term opportunity cost of that salary slot versus the cost of him walking for nothing. Ultimately I think his play, and how the legal situation play out will determine that.
If he can clean up his personal life and keep hitting 38%+ from deep, I think 3-43.4 + Team Option is still a very tradeable deal, although I think the league is still in deep denial about the financial ramifications of the covid/political fallout.

There should be options at the deadline/next offseason and plenty of teams who need shooting if it doesn't work out. Bucks will be hard to salary match. Knicks could do Randle + pick. Philly could do Danny Green + protected pick. Orlando has Fournier and Gordon deals. Would love to get my hands on Maxi Kleber from Dallas.

Rosas is in a bad spot in that he has to make a decision and many teams are probably wary of a s/t until his legal situation plays out.
If he just signs the QO, it comes with the caveat that if we trade him while on his QO, he has to sign off on it and the team acquiring him loses his bird rights, making it much harder to retain him. It sounds counterintuitive, but he is actually more tradeable on a 3-43.4 + TO deal than he would be on his 3.8m QO.
minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,606
And1: 2,215
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#248 » by minimus » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:17 pm

shrink wrote:
minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter

Thanks for sharing that. Let’s hope Dane Moore is right.

The positives? More space up front to help fit in a PF. On a team option, we can look at this as a three year deal, for $14.5. The richest year is a team option. The second richest is when Rubio has expired, so he might be getting more minutes.

The negatives? Ascending deals are less tradable than descending.



In this case an ascending deal is how you implement team leverage, because Beasley has significantly more money locked in 4th non guaranteed year. Unless it is not Lin deal in HOU an ascending deal is tradable
minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,606
And1: 2,215
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#249 » by minimus » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:20 pm

Read on Twitter
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#250 » by KGdaBom » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:22 pm

minimus wrote:
Read on Twitter

Interesting point.
younggunsmn
Analyst
Posts: 3,735
And1: 246
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Hiding from the thought police.

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#251 » by younggunsmn » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:27 pm

One thing I would like to add, the Wolves have had Beasley in their programs since February.
They have experience with how hard he works, takes to coaching, gets along with teammates, his ability to pick up schemes.
They have a comfort level they wouldn't have were they dealing with a free agent.

I think they need to be more proactive in helping him become more of a professional in his personal life, but that is a very very fine line to walk.
User avatar
King Malta
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,948
And1: 1,166
Joined: Jun 24, 2013
Location: The Lottery
         

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#252 » by King Malta » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:30 pm

I get the "let the market dictate the offer" approach, but what happens if the Knicks come in and offer 4/60 with no option? What if they offered more? (They are the Knicks lol)

If this deal does turn out to be an overpay after the initial 12 months then he's only really got 24 months left on a moveable deal, especially if its structured as Dane suggests.
Jedzz
General Manager
Posts: 9,067
And1: 1,976
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#253 » by Jedzz » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:33 pm

younggunsmn wrote:If there is one thing that really bothers me on this site it's when posters (and often mods) starting bagging on other posters for negativity.

I get that people have an innate dislike for negativity, but when you start lashing out about it, you are only creating a feedback loop that creates more and more. This is internet etiquette 101. Let people say their piece.
2 words that are toxic: homer and hater.

We're entitled to look at the bright side of things, but we're also entitled to point out things we would have done differently and things that we think are mistakes and our level of faith in players, coaches and executives. Both points of view are valid.
The world doesn't function without both hope and criticism.


Hey I agree fully. Often finding myself on the complaining side of what has occured or what I see as too many hoping for something I wouldn't advise, I've felt the pressure of what you've pointed out.

However, when posters get so emotional about something that they refuse to post without bias and are happy to post untruths, halftruths or twisting of facts evident in every sentance posted, while refusing to entertain reasonable criticism and alternatives, there often is no better term. Like you said though, it creates more toxicity so no point in doing so. I've been guilty of falling into these loops with others and using the terms when I've had enough.
Jedzz
General Manager
Posts: 9,067
And1: 1,976
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#254 » by Jedzz » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:49 pm

King Malta wrote:I get the "let the market dictate the offer" approach, but what happens if the Knicks come in and offer 4/60 with no option? What if they offered more? (They are the Knicks lol)

If this deal does turn out to be an overpay after the initial 12 months then he's only really got 24 months left on a moveable deal, especially if its structured as Dane suggests.


The only way it becomes an overpay is if his ability to shoot and work hard as the team currently knows him falls completely off the map. His history of play does not project that happening and it's the exact same risk you take offering anyone a decent contract that has already proven who they are on the court. The legal outside thing is clearly the difference in risk here from the norm. Some people simply want to use that non basketball related thing to take advantage of one player more then they would any other good player. Which is the wrong way to operate. The team offered a contract that has appeared less than just about every 4 year deal I've seen signed so far this FA, it has a team option included which is fairly typical when there is a glimmer of extra risk. Otherwise NBA deals for vets are typically fully guaranteed I have no idea why people would still talk like it's an overpay.

What is their counter alternative to finding a real 38 to 45% starting shooter here? Because those are his real numbers while starting games in the NBA in MN and Denver and those are the kinds of numbers this team needs to succced in this system. Find me a cheaper 2guard with this level of skill and exhibited court work ethic signing for cheaper. That's the real task for anyone still claiming this is an overpay. They likely have no better example for less and so far have not produced one. The only cheaper option is to draft one or sign a udfa and start them to find out if they can be that, & meanwhile that kind of proposal is a completely different kind of risk.
Reddy83
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,645
And1: 356
Joined: Jan 11, 2012

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#255 » by Reddy83 » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:09 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
Reddy83 wrote:
Foye wrote:
Why so annoyed? Cant read the truth?
The roster is in shambles again. No clear plan what to build and accepting thug behaviour around the organization.
1 year from now people will question how the Wolves passed on Wiseman in favour of Edwards lol.

Just ignore my posts if you dont like them.


The roster is in shambles?

The sky isn’t falling. We have great guards and an allstar center, a 6’6” 235 number one pick at wing.

My only concern is rim protection, but let’s see how the free agency goes and judge a quarter way into the season instead of raining negativity for no reason. It’s a new year of hoops!

he keeps getting bigger post after post. He might be 7' by the time the season starts.


I was speaking from the recent Ringer podcast, my weight may be high, point still stands. He’s arguably the best prospect in the draft, and people are already complaining. I’m personally excited as hell for this squad. :-)
User avatar
_AIJ_
General Manager
Posts: 7,665
And1: 1,949
Joined: Oct 15, 2008
Location: 13 years...
     

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#256 » by _AIJ_ » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:37 pm

Cant wait for the season to start already! All this crap will end if we perform well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TIMBERWOLVES FOR LIFE :cry:
TLand0026
Ballboy
Posts: 28
And1: 12
Joined: Jan 13, 2010

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#257 » by TLand0026 » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:43 pm

I'm lurking but what the hell do we have to lose at this point? 17 years since our last and only run?
Jedzz
General Manager
Posts: 9,067
And1: 1,976
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#258 » by Jedzz » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:44 pm

Crowder option gone. Signs with Suns 3/30 They are stacking up for some kind of run. Need to stick it to the Suns after they tried to skip over Wolves last season in pecking order.

let's just say Rosas asked them to sign Crowder for 3 years because he will be included in the Booker deal here in the future
User avatar
Krapinsky
RealGM
Posts: 19,919
And1: 1,308
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#259 » by Krapinsky » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:13 am

shrink wrote:
Krapinsky wrote:
shrink wrote:Last point. I struggle to come up with Rosas motivation for this contract, and my main theory is he wanted to make Beasley happy. The other explanation I could have is that he traded the #24 to get him and Juancho, and he didn’t want that pick to be wasted.

If this is his thinking, it needs to end. Once he traded the pick, it became a sunk cost. Nothing he could do after the trade was going to get the pick back. He needed to make the best decision for the Wolves regardless of how we got to that position, even if we didn’t want to match an overpaid deal so he would take flack for giving away a pick for nothing.


I think the contract had to do with two things: (1) Beasley had other suitors in the Knicks and Bucks, and maybe Rosas was confident that Beasley could have got the same money elsewhere; and (2), I think more importantly, with the Wolves hardcapped this year (and next with Rubio Edwards), they did not have many options to add talent in free agency or via trade, so options are limited to resigning their own RFA or looking at much lesser options.

I also don't think the deal is that bad, considering the premium teams are paying for shooting, the team option for the 4th year, and the threat that Beasley could have just signed the qualifying offer and played out the year (which i think is problematic because we aren't projected to have cap space next year).

We also have to remind oursleves that we aren't the Lakers, we don't have a hall of fame coach like Popovic, we don't play in a tax friendly state, we have MN winters, and we have historically been a laughing stock of a franchise. All these factors mean that we aren't going to get discounts like the Harrel contract, and no regime that has ever been here has been able to sign free agents to cap friendly deals. It just doesn't happen when you aren't a championship contender or playing in a big market.

I don’t know if the Knicks were suitors, or if they were offering this much, but the Bucks have no cap space, and can’t offer more than the MLE, and as an RFA, we could match if we chose.

The Wolves aren’t hardcapped. They haven’t brought in a player for the 2021 season in a sign and trade, and they haven’t used the exceptions that trigger it ( BAE or more of the MLE than the tax-payers MLE)

If Beasley played for the QO, we would trade him, and as a $5 mil expiring, he would have decent trade value anywhere.


I agree that we aren’t a UFA site. We certainly should have done better with our RFA’s, especially one that claims to want to be here. I feel we did act like the Lakers in one regard - we were 2016 Mitch Kupchak, overpaying for borderline starters like Mozgov and Luol Deng because we were so scared we would miss out.


I am a little rusty when it comes to coining the correct salary cap terms, but the point I was trying to make is the Wolves will likely be over the cap and limited to exceptions, and I don't think Bealsey's signing would preclude them from making better moves. In fact, I think considering our options, we probably needed Beasley more than he needed us.

Bealey on an expiring qualifying offer may net a late round first come the trade deadline, but I'd rather have a player that can contribute and help us build something.
FinnTheHuman wrote: Your post is just garbage.

NewWolvesOrder wrote:Garbage post, indeed.
Baseline81
Senior
Posts: 626
And1: 252
Joined: Jan 18, 2009

Re: Beasley Re-Sign for 4 years / $60M 

Post#260 » by Baseline81 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:52 am

shrink wrote:Do you think our team is better? Or that KAT is more likely to stay with a bad team with his buddy here?

DLo, Rubio
Beasley, Edwards, Okogie
Culver, Layman
Juancho
KAT, Naz

Honestly, yes. I think there's a puncher's chance at making one of the play-in games.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves