dakomish23 wrote:knickstape4ever wrote:dakomish23 wrote:
Considered an overpay by who? That’s a fair value contract, especially b/c it declined.
Beasley is not a big upgrade on defense. He’s mediocre on that end. He’s younger. Beasley isn’t getting 13. More likely 4/65.A league executive told The Bee the Kings erred in overpaying Hield, Harrison Barnes and other players over the past few years. Hield will be paid $24.4 million next season in the first year of his new deal. Barnes was paid $24.1 million this season in the first year of his contract.
“You can’t pay everybody $25 million,” the executive said.
The executive believes the Kings will try to trade Hield, but he said that might not be easy. His ball-handling issues and defensive struggles are no secret around the league.
https://www.sacbee.com/sports/article245012050.html
I'd rather give Beasley 4/65 then trading assets to get Hield at 4/88.
Beasley might be an avg. defender, but Hield is a bad defender
Sounds like that executive should do his homework since Hield is only getting paid near 25 for one year and drop down to a little under 19 at the end.
https://dunkingwithwolves.com/2020/03/29/minnesota-timberwolves-sign-malik-beasley/The downside to Beasley is that he is a complete negative on defense. He struggles to stay with his man, doesn’t force turnovers, and lacks the size to switch. This team, however, hasn’t seemed to care about defense.
He turned down 3 for 30. He produced offensively to close the season. He’s going to get paid.
We’ll see who’s the better player once Hield gets out of SAC and is starting
Beasley was one of Denver's better defenders (according to DRTG), but was bad defensively for the Wolves. that could be b/c he was much more involved offensively.
If something like 3/48-51 can get Beasley done, I'd rather do that than trade assets for Hield
