ImageImageImage

SF in our future

Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites

User avatar
Pharaoh
RealGM
Posts: 16,443
And1: 4,742
Joined: Aug 10, 2001

Re: SF in our future 

Post#41 » by Pharaoh » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:30 pm

Warspite wrote:This thread makes no sense to me.

We arent going to have 6 guys who are 15-20ppg scorers. You need some glue guys and cheap role players.


The only way to bring in any real talent to the SF is to trade Moose.


Is there realy a point to this? Do you realy want to give away our size adv for someone else?


Amen!

What we should be looking for are cheap shooters, a steady young PG to run the show when Jennings sits, a stretch 4 and a banger

Singler, Datome, Mitchell & Siva might pan out as cheap role players...if 2 of them do we're in a good spot.

If none of them pan out we're likely to struggle for bench depth. But that's something to worry about gor 2014-15 since we have vets like Stuckey, Chauncey, Bynum & CV next season...

Hang on: we could have $8-10 mil in cap space next off-season! That should be able to get 2 bench players...while we still have Bynum, Datome, Mitchell, Singler & Chauncey on the books.

Best of both worlds...

Amazing job by Joe & his boys this off-season...surprised me....happy I was wrong!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app
ImHeisenberg
Head Coach
Posts: 6,465
And1: 2,323
Joined: Apr 01, 2013
 

Re: SF in our future 

Post#42 » by ImHeisenberg » Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:20 pm

HotelVitale wrote:
Hotmayo wrote:If we are ever talkng about acquiring a small forward it better be Harrison Barnes

We've covered Barnes so many times: he was nothing but a mediocre jump shooter last year, and GSW likes him. It would cost us big to get him, and he wasn't a very good player last year.

If he was available for $5m in free agency then he'd be a solid option.


I agree. He still has a lot of upside, but people have incredibly overvalued Barnes due to a couple of nice playoff games.

I'm certain he currently isn't worth whatever GS's asking price may be.
User avatar
Alexander
Senior
Posts: 670
And1: 331
Joined: Nov 12, 2012
 

Re: SF in our future 

Post#43 » by Alexander » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:04 pm

I'd be offering Michael Beasley whatever we could afford.
PistonNetwork
Banned User
Posts: 12
And1: 2
Joined: Aug 08, 2013

Re: SF in our future 

Post#44 » by PistonNetwork » Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:27 pm

Slackstring701 wrote:Michael Beasley .... I'm not kidding.

Yeah, I'm down with this...Jonas+Singler for Beasley+Lakers 1st rounder...Dumars, Smith, Billups, Monroe, and Cheeks can help Beasley get his sh#t together...
sc8581
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,876
And1: 766
Joined: Jul 22, 2013

Re: SF in our future 

Post#45 » by sc8581 » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:19 am

Beasley? Really? What has he shown? I didn't see anything from Barnes and he had a ton of help. I would love to trade Monroe for Leonard, Batum or Parsons but I don't see that happening.

Another deal might be Monroe and Jerebko for Jeff Green and Olynyk, Green scored 17.3ppg on 12.9 shots after the break and 20.3ppg in the playoffs, does a little bit of everything, nice defense, his shot has really improved and he can play 4 positions in a pinch. This deal would also give us around $6-7 million more in cap space next summer with no serious holes to fill unless KCP looks awful which would surprise me.
DetroitDon15
General Manager
Posts: 8,836
And1: 553
Joined: Jul 23, 2002
         

Re: SF in our future 

Post#46 » by DetroitDon15 » Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:09 pm

Alexander wrote:I'd be offering Michael Beasley whatever we could afford.


:lol:

Beasley sucks. We don't need that here. I'd rather keep Jonas in all honesty.
User avatar
Alexander
Senior
Posts: 670
And1: 331
Joined: Nov 12, 2012
 

Re: SF in our future 

Post#47 » by Alexander » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:41 pm

DetroitDon15 wrote:
Alexander wrote:I'd be offering Michael Beasley whatever we could afford.


:lol:

Beasley sucks. We don't need that here. I'd rather keep Jonas in all honesty.


:lol: :lol: Beasley doesn't "suck". He's unprofessional and his maturity is holding him back and putting his NBA career in jeopardy, but he doesn't "suck". Players that "suck" don't put up 19/7/2/1/1 per36 at 24 years old at respectable percentages.
User avatar
The_Irony
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,298
And1: 411
Joined: Nov 28, 2002
Location: Westcoast

Re: SF in our future 

Post#48 » by The_Irony » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:50 pm

sc8581 wrote:Beasley? Really? What has he shown? I didn't see anything from Barnes and he had a ton of help. I would love to trade Monroe for Leonard, Batum or Parsons but I don't see that happening.

Another deal might be Monroe and Jerebko for Jeff Green and Olynyk, Green scored 17.3ppg on 12.9 shots after the break and 20.3ppg in the playoffs, does a little bit of everything, nice defense, his shot has really improved and he can play 4 positions in a pinch. This deal would also give us around $6-7 million more in cap space next summer with no serious holes to fill unless KCP looks awful which would surprise me.



Batum for Monroe would probably make me stop being a pistons fan :lol: that would be HORRIBLE.

Beasley is a very good player and at this point cheap. His weed issues bother me though, but sheed had a weed issue as well.
Slackstring701
Starter
Posts: 2,423
And1: 1,963
Joined: Oct 05, 2012
 

Re: SF in our future 

Post#49 » by Slackstring701 » Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:36 pm

Beasley would be a fun pick up haha
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 48,997
And1: 12,481
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: SF in our future 

Post#50 » by BadMofoPimp » Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:46 pm

I am not against pot smokers playing in the NBA. Didn't one player mention that it seemed half the players smoked? Anyways, if Beasely gets cut and will accept playing for the Minimum, why the hell not.
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
tmorgan
RealGM
Posts: 14,275
And1: 9,770
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
   

Re: SF in our future 

Post#51 » by tmorgan » Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:54 pm

The_Irony wrote:Beasley is a very good player and at this point cheap. His weed issues bother me though, but sheed had a weed issue as well.


Beasley is not, by ANY stretch, a very good player.

Three NBA seasons ago, he did indeed put up 19.2pts/5.6rebs in his best season. He also took 17.1 shots and shot 45% to do it. He doesn't get to the line much, he's always had significantly more turnovers than assists, gets basically no blocks or steals, and can't guard a fencepost.

Since then, he's gotten significantly worse on both ends. Last year, he used 10.2 shots to score 10.1 points per game. That's freaking unbelievably horrible, especially for a guy 6'10".

Beasley SUCKS. His career PPG = 14.1, and his career shots per game = 12.7. Compare that to the oft-maligned Rodney Stuckey, who actually does play solid defense and clearly has no perimeter game, and yet his numbers are 13.4 points on 11.2 shots. Better, despite all his offensive flaws.
tmorgan
RealGM
Posts: 14,275
And1: 9,770
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
   

Re: SF in our future 

Post#52 » by tmorgan » Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:56 pm

And another -- Josh Smith, another big, jumper sucks, takes bad shots, and yet 15.3 PPG on 12.8 shots.

Beasley is basically a Josh Smith with even less offensive talent that plays no defense whatsoever. And you want that guy around?
tmorgan
RealGM
Posts: 14,275
And1: 9,770
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
   

Re: SF in our future 

Post#53 » by tmorgan » Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:27 pm

OK, wait, I've got it. The final nail in the coffin for Beasley:

Beasley career: 26.4 minutes, 12.7 shots, 14.1 points, 5.2 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 1.9 TO, 0.5 blocks, 0.6 steals
Player X career: 23.6 minutes, 10.4 shots, 11.8 points, 5.3 rebounds, 1.0 assists, 1.1 TO, 0.6 blocks, 0.6 steals

They've both slid into bench roles, although X has been around longer. Both are tall forwards that like long jumpers.

Figure out who that guy is and tell me, honestly, do you want him on your team (again)?
User avatar
Alexander
Senior
Posts: 670
And1: 331
Joined: Nov 12, 2012
 

Re: SF in our future 

Post#54 » by Alexander » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:14 am

tmorgan wrote:OK, wait, I've got it. The final nail in the coffin for Beasley:

Beasley career: 26.4 minutes, 12.7 shots, 14.1 points, 5.2 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 1.9 TO, 0.5 blocks, 0.6 steals
Player X career: 23.6 minutes, 10.4 shots, 11.8 points, 5.3 rebounds, 1.0 assists, 1.1 TO, 0.6 blocks, 0.6 steals

They've both slid into bench roles, although X has been around longer. Both are tall forwards that like long jumpers.

Figure out who that guy is and tell me, honestly, do you want him on your team (again)?


The second guy seems like somebody I'd have amnestied had I had the chance 8)
sc8581
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,876
And1: 766
Joined: Jul 22, 2013

Re: SF in our future 

Post#55 » by sc8581 » Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:23 am

CV is much better than Beasley imo.
tmorgan
RealGM
Posts: 14,275
And1: 9,770
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
   

Re: SF in our future 

Post#56 » by tmorgan » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:40 am

He actually is, which is freaking sad. I certainly wouldn't want CV at his current salary, but at least the guy has a definable role. Beasley's role is underachieving pothead that blew well above-average talent and turned into a complete stiff.

CV at 4 mil or Beasley at 2 mil? Give me CV.
sc8581
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,876
And1: 766
Joined: Jul 22, 2013

Re: SF in our future 

Post#57 » by sc8581 » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:57 am

tmorgan wrote:He actually is, which is freaking sad. I certainly wouldn't want CV at his current salary, but at least the guy has a definable role. Beasley's role is underachieving pothead that blew well above-average talent and turned into a complete stiff.

CV at 4 mil or Beasley at 2 mil? Give me CV.


Without a doubt

Return to Detroit Pistons