Debate:Should Beasley go #1

[_BBIB_]

Maybe the better question is: would Beasley be a #1 in prior draft classes. My answer is: recently no (Bargnani being the exception because he's the worst 1st pick since Kwame).

Well teams take the big man phenom over the little guy which is why he wouldn't have gone over Ming, Howard, or Oden.

I think he goes over Andrew Bogut though

He also isn't worse than the 2nd pick in any draft in recent memory including your boy Durant.

[treefi]

Beasley would go ahead of Durant last year, easy. He would've challenged Oden for the #1 pick but I still think Oden would have gone #1.. His offensive game will be much more effective in the NBA than Durant's has. Durant relies on his jumper, if it's off he's simply not a very good player against such competition at this point in his career. Beasley has a game and body more comparable to Carmelo Anthony's... Although it appears he's even better at this point. This is going to be one of the best drafts in recent memory. It's deep and it's heavy at the top...

[Villanova1L]

you always go with best player availible with the #1 pick in the nba and beasley is certainly the best player in the draft

I don't know if this is right either. A lot of #1s are based on potential, not best player right then. There is definitely an argument that Rose has a higher ceiling, and if a team has a similar player to Beasley why not go Rose?

[JoeT]

-= original quote snipped =-



I don't know if this is right either. A lot of #1s are based on potential, not best player right then. There is definitely an argument that Rose has a higher ceiling, and if a team has a similar player to Beasley why not go Rose?

I think by best player he meant best player/prospect available, which is the general connotation implied by BPA. It's not necessarily the best player at that very second, but the player most likely to be the best player in the long-term. And when a team is drafting #1, odds are they're not very good. My general philosophy is, unless you're a 50-win team and/or have a legitimate 1st, 2nd, and 3rd option that can lead a team to compete for a title, you should go BPA in the draft. Quite frankly, if you're a 25 or 30 win team, so much can change between the time you draft #1 and the time you actually compete for a title. You can't draft by need at that stage of development, thus reducing the available talent pool to choose from, minimizing your chances of getting the best player. At that stage, you need to add players who can be core components to a title contender, as that is the hardest thing about building a team (getting good enough 1st, 2nd, and 3rd options to lead your team). Until you have those guys, everything else should take lesser priority.

Also, most guys you're looking at with the #1 pick are capable of playing two, or maybe even three, positions well enough in the NBA. This goes for the vast majority of elite players in the league. You need to add the best players available when you're rebuilding, and worry about fits later. If Minnesota considers Beasley to be far and away the best player in this year's draft (purely a hypothetical), they can't not take him because they have Al Jefferson. They're just way too far away from competing to draft for need at this stage, especially when Al is capable of playing the 4/5 and Beasley should be capable of playing the 3/4 in some capacity. They might both ideally be 4's in the NBA, but you worry about fixing those things later. And playing Beasley 24 minutes at the 4 and 12 minutes at the 3, while playing Al 24 minutes at the 4 and 12 minutes at the 5 isn't the worst thing in the world. That's probably the minute breakdown they'd be playing on most teams anyway. Again, this under the hypothetical that they view him as the clear-cut best prospect, which isn't necessarily the case.

The one exception to this rule might be getting two small-sized pure point guards. If you have a Chris Paul and the best player on the board is a 6'0 pure point guard, but there's not a huge dropoff with the next best player, who's a wing or a big or whatever else, then it might make more sense not to go BPA, just because getting major minutes for two 6'0 pure point guards isn't very viable in most situations. That said, if you have Chris Paul and you project the #1 pick as the next John Stockton and the #2 as Kenyon Martin and the #3 as Adam Morrison and the #4 as Stromile Swift, you're taking John Stockton there, unless someone blows you away with a trade offer (I'm talking an established or budding star in or entering his prime). In that scenario, you've just got to let the guy develop, showcase him, and get maximum trade value later.

A lot of hypotheticals going on in there, but I think that sums up the gist of it.

[dbodner]

It's really hard to say whether Beasley should go #1 without knowing who else declares. For example, right now I would have to give Blake Griffin a real, real hard look if he declared. But I don't think it's all that likely that he declares.

[Worm Guts]

It's really hard to say whether Beasley should go #1 without knowing who else declares. For example, right now I would have to give Blake Griffin a real, real hard look if he declared. But I don't think it's all that likely that he declares.

If Griffin has legitimate shot to go number one he will come out but I don't know how anyone takes Griffin over Beasley.

[dbodner]

I think Griffin's going to be a better post player in the pro's. One of the most valuable attributes, I find, is the ability to command a double team in the post, and the ability to pass out of that double team. I think Griffin's going to excel in that regard. I see him as having 20/10 potential with very good passing. He's one of the more intriguing guys for me.

[Worm Guts]

Maybe Griffin's a better passer, I don't know, but it seems like they have similar upsides only Beasley's far more advanced at this point. Beasley's currently the better scorer in the post and the better rebounder.

[dbodner]

I disagree that Beasley's the better scorer in the post. I think Beasley's a great finisher down low, but that mainly comes off face up moves IMO. From a back to the basket standpoint, I think Griffin's more effective right now. I think Beasley will be more of a faceup PF in the pro's than a back to the basket PF, and I think the passing out of a double team is a pretty big discrepancy between the two right now, even if the #'s don't fully show it right now

[UGA Hayes]

^ I completely disagree dbodner.

[Flite]

First off, I would like to say Michael Beasley is an amazing player.

However, I would not take him with the number one overall pick come June. Despite his stock dropping because he hasn't lived up to the college hype thus far (which is amazing considering he is averaging 20/5/3), I would take OJ Mayo. I believe that OJ will be the best pro player in the draft, and hence the first overall pick.

I feel that OJ, if placed on that Kansas State team, would be the consensus #1 pick and putting up incredible numbers. This is no knock on Michael Beasley, but a knock on USC. Their offence is terrible for a player as talented offensively as OJ - he's in the complete wrong system for his game to flourish, no matter how many shots a game he is allowed to take.

In my opinion, OJ is just as skilled and talented offensively as Beasley. Michael has an all around package - good downlow, nice midrange game, decent from the premiter NBA-wise - but I think OJ can match that. He's a terrific shooter, passer and ballhandler - as long as he's keeping his head in the game and not getting frustrated he's amn near impossible to stop. He's not blessed with the athletic ability of a LeBron James or Michael Jordan, but he's up there in a Dwyane Wade kind of way - definately a nice athleticism level to package with the king of skill he possesses.

Defensively on the next level I think he'll be at least above average. He moves very well and is so quick with his hands that unless he wastes that skill and becomes a lazy defender, he has to be above average. He could turn out to be a very good defender, who knows.

I simply cannot pass up on a player who's offensive game is absolutely perfect for the pro game and has defensive ability that won't hurt you, but help you. He's a guy I see capable of 28/6/6 some day.

For the record, not counting team needs, my top 10 would go like this:

1. OJ Mayo, USC
2. Michael Beasley, Kansas State
3. Derrick Rose, Memphis
4. Eric Gordon, Indiana
5. Jerryd Bayless, Arizona
6. Donte Greene, Syracuse (could go anywhere from 4-8)
7. Brook Lopez, Stanford
8. DJ Augustin, Texas
9. Danilo Gallinari, Italy
10. Chase Budinger, Arizona

[BBen]

Took me a while to check back on this post and got a good chuckle when I returned.

Beasley would go ahead of Durant last year, easy. He would've challenged Oden for the #1 pick but I still think Oden would have gone #1.. His offensive game will be much more effective in the NBA than Durant's has. Durant relies on his jumper, if it's off he's simply not a very good player against such competition at this point in his career. Beasley has a game and body more comparable to Carmelo Anthony's.

This is a foolish argument. For his career Anthony is shooting 5% better overall than Durant (to date) and during his rookie year he shot 2% better. Think about your arguments.

[theGreatRC]

Beasley has hinted at staying in school.

He says he's not ready for the NBA and that money is not an issue for him.


He's actually a lot more humble kid than people give him credit for because the way he carries himself just seems arrogant but he's really as humble as you can expect a talented kid like that to be.

If Beasley does stay in school, it would certainly ease the pain if the Wolves don't get the top pick. The 09 draft will be insane.

Beasley
Derozen
Rubio
Mullins
Jennings
Griffin

[DaGoodz]

Took me a while to check back on this post and got a good chuckle when I returned.

Beasley would go ahead of Durant last year, easy. He would've challenged Oden for the #1 pick but I still think Oden would have gone #1.. His offensive game will be much more effective in the NBA than Durant's has. Durant relies on his jumper, if it's off he's simply not a very good player against such competition at this point in his career. Beasley has a game and body more comparable to Carmelo Anthony's.

This is a foolish argument. For his career Anthony is shooting 5% better overall than Durant (to date) and during his rookie year he shot 2% better. Think about your arguments.

All Durant is, is a jumpshooter. When his shot isn't falling he can't do anything else.
He's not like Anthony or Beasley because both of them post up and take jumpers. There games are totally different than Durant

[_BBIB_]

I disagree that Beasley's the better scorer in the post. I think Beasley's a great finisher down low, but that mainly comes off face up moves IMO. From a back to the basket standpoint, I think Griffin's more effective right now. I think Beasley will be more of a faceup PF in the pro's than a back to the basket PF, and I think the passing out of a double team is a pretty big discrepancy between the two right now, even if the #'s don't fully show it right now

Are you Blake Griffin's cousin?

You've got to be kidding me. Michael Beasley is mature beyond his years in the post.

You have the audacity to say Griffin commands double teams? Have you ever watched a KSU game? Beasley even gets THREE GUYS shadowing him on plays.

The notion that he has no back to the basket game is laughable. His left hook with that big mitt of his is unstoppable and the way he absorbs contact and even finishes on several defenders some times is unmatched by anyone at the college level right now.


In fact I've only seen Tim Duncan make more of those glass shots that look like luck consistently under durress.

[BBen]

All Durant is, is a jumpshooter. When his shot isn't falling he can't do anything else.
He's not like Anthony or Beasley because both of them post up and take jumpers. There games are totally different than Durant

Watch some basketball before you post on a basketball board plskthxbie.

Edit: I just thought I'd explain it to you because you don't get it. First of all, you obviously haven't watched Durant in either college or the NBA. No pure jumpshooter would be picked number two or win unheralded awards unanimously. That's a ridiculous statement. Just watch him play, don't be a hater.

Second of all, he's not a one dimensional player. He gets steals, averages a block and really takes it to the hoop when he wants to. He gets a lot of dunks just cause he has a wicked first step. Seriously watch him don't just assume since he's shooting 40% he's a jumpshooter, you make yourself look dumb.

[KA_G4040]

yeah durant had one made jumper today and he had 9 buckets.

[cdash]

Beasley would go ahead of Durant last year, easy. He would've challenged Oden for the #1 pick but I still think Oden would have gone #1.. His offensive game will be much more effective in the NBA than Durant's has. Durant relies on his jumper, if it's off he's simply not a very good player against such competition at this point in his career. Beasley has a game and body more comparable to Carmelo Anthony's... Although it appears he's even better at this point. This is going to be one of the best drafts in recent memory. It's deep and it's heavy at the top...

Dumb post. Sorry, but Beasley wouldnt have gone ahead of Durant, and he sure as hell wouldnt have challenged Oden for the top overall pick. You cant judge Durant on this partial season alone. He is being used stupidly by the Sonics; he is not a shooting guard. They surrounded him with garbage players, so defenses focus solely on him and Carlesimo as given him the green light to throw up crappy shots left and right. Also, I dont think this draft is that good at all. It actually seems really weak to me. Beasley is good, and as far as im concerned he is #1 no questions asked, but if I had to pick him or Durant, I'd still take KD all day, every day.

[ponder276]

Michael Beasley seems to be the consensus number 1 pick in next year's draft. He is a fantastic offensive player , clearly the best in the country, flashing the ability to post up inside and shoot from the outside, and do many things in between. He is also a very good rebounder.

So what is the debate, of course he should go #1, right. I'm not so sure. Here's why. I really wonder how much of a positive effect he is going to have on a team's winning percentage playing defense at the four. Its not all about effeort either. Despite being a little short for a PF he doesn't have the world's best lateral movement. He also doesn't strike me as a shotblocker on the next level. As much as he bullies people with strength on the offensive end he doesn't seem to great at holding position on the defensive end.

I've always had trepidation about poor defensive players in the frontcourt. Basically it seems one has to be otherwordly offensively like a Boozer to offset that weakness. I can't say there are a lot of other prospects that have a better claim for number one, by I can't help but feel if I were Gm I may gamble on a little less polished player that seems more likely to defend his position better.

Who says he's gonna play the 4 in the NBA? He could just as easily play the 3. Also, most of the top prospects in this year's draft are kind of stuck between positions (Rose, Bayless, Gordon and Mayo are all sort of 1/2s, Beasley is a 3/4).
Beasley is the only player in the draft who actually dominates games, I think it would be a mistake not to take him. If he sticks at PF, he'll bulk up in the pros and become a better defender. If he sticks at the 3, he's already a decent size for defending SFs. He is just too dominant of a scorer to not take him, especially when you consider the fact that he's also a great rebounder, a decent shot blocker, and an amazing athlete with tons of upside.

[BBen]

I like the Derrick Coleman reference that was somewhere in this thread. Coleman's problem was with work ethic. Any idea if Beasley is a worker?