ImageImageImageImageImage

Michael Beasley

Moderators: KF10, codydaze

SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#21 » by SacKingZZZ » Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:11 pm

I don't know, they could really use that extra $$$. I think this playoffs is showing just how far away from contending and how hard it might be to build a legit team around Wade. Adding even another max FA, if his name isn't Lebron of course, won't be enough. They have a lot of holes to fill.
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 48,887
And1: 2,603
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#22 » by pillwenney » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:19 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:I don't know, they could really use that extra $$$. I think this playoffs is showing just how far away from contending and how hard it might be to build a legit team around Wade. Adding even another max FA, if his name isn't Lebron of course, won't be enough. They have a lot of holes to fill.


If you don't count wait, they have Beasley, Cook, a waived Jones, probably Anthony, and if they want him, Chalmers. Along with that, they have a mid-teens 1st rounder. That's going to be around $12million. If they keep Jones, that's going be around $15million for 6 players. I think I remember reading that if they sign two max FA's, they'll be around $15-$16million a piece in their first year, bringing to them to be at, at most, $48million for 8 players--two definite starters and franchise cornerstones (again, with the most expensive scenario), some decent future bench players and possibly future starters. Given Sterns' prediction of the cap being at $56.1million, that's still around $8million to spend on players.

They could still get more value for Beasley than just a salary dump. I think there's a good chance they're better off trading Beasley for another piece, than dumping him and using the extra money to try to go after more players.
10B10
Junior
Posts: 416
And1: 3
Joined: May 22, 2005

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#23 » by 10B10 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:00 pm

Yeah, it makes like zero since for them to just dump Beasley for salary relief. They already have a boat load of cap space this year (room for 2 max contracts, I believe) and throwing away your (arguably) second best player for even more cap space doesn't make Wade any more inclined to come back. At this point, I don't see Wade returning to Miami under really any circumstances, however.

Seriously, though, I don't see why we wouldn't at least consider it if he is available. The kid has skills and a load of potential. His head needs to be straightened out a little bit but that can be done in the right situation. At the end of the day, its not going to happen. But I don't see how anyone can say no way to giving him a look, especially in a so-called salary dump situation.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#24 » by SacKingZZZ » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:14 am

mitchweber wrote:If you don't count wait, they have Beasley, Cook, a waived Jones, probably Anthony, and if they want him, Chalmers. Along with that, they have a mid-teens 1st rounder. That's going to be around $12million. If they keep Jones, that's going be around $15million for 6 players. I think I remember reading that if they sign two max FA's, they'll be around $15-$16million a piece in their first year, bringing to them to be at, at most, $48million for 8 players--two definite starters and franchise cornerstones (again, with the most expensive scenario), some decent future bench players and possibly future starters. Given Sterns' prediction of the cap being at $56.1million, that's still around $8million to spend on players.

They could still get more value for Beasley than just a salary dump. I think there's a good chance they're better off trading Beasley for another piece, than dumping him and using the extra money to try to go after more players.



I know they'd want more than a salary dump, but they could certainly use that extra space to fill out the rest of their team. Another one of the big FA's (not named King James) won't cut it. If they end up with Boozer or Lee it's the start of a nice pairing but they probably need at least 2 or 3 more guys that would typically be making around that 8-10 million mark to even be a consideration.
User avatar
KM44
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,942
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 17, 2007

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#25 » by KM44 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:23 am

bdgking wrote:I would take the risk on BEASLEY only if we traded GARCIA or NOCIANI straight up for him maybe i would add a 2nd round pick but no more than that !

Preach it baby
Nicky Nix Nook wrote:In two years:

Thompson > Aldridge
User avatar
City of Trees
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,851
And1: 5,511
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#26 » by City of Trees » Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:15 pm

ARE YOU GUYS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!

just think about it, he smokes weed! Why would we want him to influence our players??? Especially coming to cali where there is no weed like cali weed. Bad move stay away from the pot head Beasley!!! I know some of you are going to say a lot of players do it. Yes, your right, but most can control it and not let it affect their NBA career. Obviously this guy cant with all the failed drug tests and rehab.....

And for everyone comparing to C webbs situation, atleast C-webb was the ideal size for a PF, why risk this on a tweener lol
User avatar
Nicky Nix Nook
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,672
And1: 153
Joined: Nov 13, 2008
Contact:
       

Re: Michael Beasley 

Post#27 » by Nicky Nix Nook » Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:23 pm

Well Webber DID smoke weed...just sayin

Return to Sacramento Kings