Trade Talk (Part Six)

[Jedzz]

Didn't speak to you or quote you.

A number of people describe Beasley still as "should be 6th man" and a possible trade asset because he's not all world yet. This greater group of individuals is who I'm speaking to. Trading a young player that shoots like that, gives effort all game every game, that just signed that contract, it's just unreal to me.

As others have said, the only way he should get traded is if it's in a package for a much better star player that is either a better total package star or to complete the super bros plan. But even that would be arguable as the best route to building your best team.

[Klomp]

Dame Lillard shoots 38% 3s and is known to up that percentage in clutch moments. 45/38/93 this season, he get's lawded for clutch end of game shooting, gets paid 31 million this year then from 40 to 48 million each of the next 4 years.

Beasley in his first year with a solid starting role is avg 38-40 range from 3 and currently showing a 45/40/86. Because he's on a team run by clowns that tank annually, endlessly, his late game clutch shots are often posted about as garbage stat padding. He just signed a $15/yr deal and some people can't wait to use that as a trade piece. He's also got to constantly be labeled a bad defender in nearly every post just to remind everyone how they think he should be a 6th man and how tradeable he should be in all our heads. Because we can't have all bad defenders and just about everyone on the team is. So, single out the only great shooter for his lessor defensive attributes to fix it?

Meanwhile Dame Lillard is the same level defender (117 Drtg past two seasons, per100) and nobody ever says anything about it. Their team fights for wins every year, not tanks, because that ultimate competitor wants to win. Beasley may not be as all around skilled a playmaker as Dame yet, but he's that level of competitor and working on his other skills. Maybe, just maybe when Beasley(4,746 minutes played) gets near 20,000 "starintg" minutes played (Dame = 23,313 starting minutes played) Malik might edge closer to the playmaker Dame is now. He might even learn to be a much better defender by then, we know the effort is there.

Maybe he should be described as untradeable, while the team should focus on getting better players from every other player/position on the team. In Dame's 5th season(already 14 thousand starting minutes served) (Malik is on yr5 w/4k mixed minutes), Dame shot 47/37/90 as the lead focus of his offense. Malik is trying to earn a team's respect enough to lean on him more and more, but he's fighting against so many superbrains in MN overthinking it as usual.

I agree that the "bad defensive pairing" gets thrown around too often. But I don't think Beasley is untradeable. The team needs to be very selective, but he's not unattainable.

[Jedzz]

I agree that the "bad defensive pairing" gets thrown around too often. But I don't think Beasley is untradeable. The team needs to be very selective, but he's not unattainable.

Yes maybe untradeable is the wrong term. When you use unattainable that makes me think more about it and sure everyone has a price. I should adjust it to saying that he just shouldn't be so often talked about as a trade piece unless we are talking about star returns.

[RiRuHoops]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

[moss_is_1]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Not for Ant. I don't see a fit for having Beasley and LaVine on the same team, TBH. LaVine is a better player, but they are so similar defensively, and neither can play PG. I don't see use using assets on him to be a good move.

[RiRuHoops]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Not for Ant. I don't see a fit for having Beasley and LaVine on the same team, TBH. LaVine is a better player, but they are so similar defensively, and neither can play PG. I don't see use using assets on him to be a good move.

Beasley is a 6th man, once you get better players, that is his best role. LaVine has matured and is a top10 scorer now. I'd look to ship out Russell as well to clear the touches for LaVine and have less bad defense on the team.

[shrink]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Too much for me. I like LaVine’s work ethic, but he is a horrible defender who still loses his man. If this team is rolling out big minutes for DLo and Beasley, LaVine just magnifies our good offense positively, and magnifies our bad defense negatively.

Better to hope than Edwards develops on both sides of the ball.

[RiRuHoops]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Too much for me. I like LaVine’s work ethic, but he is a horrible defender who still loses his man. If this team is rolling out big minutes for DLo and Beasley, LaVine just magnifies our good offense positively, and magnifies our bad defense negatively.

Better to hope than Edwards develops on both sides of the ball.

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Too much for me. I like LaVine’s work ethic, but he is a horrible defender who still loses his man. If this team is rolling out big minutes for DLo and Beasley, LaVine just magnifies our good offense positively, and magnifies our bad defense negatively.

Better to hope than Edwards develops on both sides of the ball.

Still way better scorer than the rest. Get the best scorer and if the inferior scorers don't complement him just ship them out or move to the bench (Beasley). The idea is to get top talent ready to produce. I'd rather go after Beal but Wolves may not have the ammo.

[TRik]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Dear lord that is a bad deal. Lavine, like Beasley, is 6th man material and not someone to build around if you want to have a winning team. Put Lavine on any of the contending squads and he is absolutely coming off the bench. Anthony Edwards is the first overall pick, is 19, and has shown flashes that he could be a dominant force in a couple years...........you'd have to be insane to trade that, especially if you are a small market team.

If anything you try to dump Dlo for Lavine....but my guess is the Bulls say no to that.

[RiRuHoops]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Dear lord that is a bad deal. Lavine, like Beasley, is 6th man material and not someone to build around if you want to have a winning team. Put Lavine on any of the contending squads and he is absolutely coming off the bench. Anthony Edwards is the first overall pick, is 19, and has shown flashes that he could be a dominant force in a couple years...........you'd have to be insane to trade that, especially if you are a small market team.

If anything you try to dump Dlo for Lavine....but my guess is the Bulls say no to that.

28/5/5 on 51/43/85. Your statement is laughable. Comparing him to Beasley is a cherry on top of your ignorance cake.

[moss_is_1]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Not for Ant. I don't see a fit for having Beasley and LaVine on the same team, TBH. LaVine is a better player, but they are so similar defensively, and neither can play PG. I don't see use using assets on him to be a good move.

Beasley is a 6th man, once you get better players, that is his best role. LaVine has matured and is a top10 scorer now. I'd look to ship out Russell as well to clear the touches for LaVine and have less bad defense on the team.

Well if you're trading out Russell for LaVine, absolutely. Problem is that no one is going to want Russell unless he can play and gain some sort of value.

[Klomp]

LaVine is on the low end of the type of player I'd want in return for Beasley, but positional overlap makes it hard for me to trade Edwards for him.

[TRik]

Ok guys what do you think of LaVine back to MN ?

would you want him and how much would you give up?

I'd go Ant and Culver.

Dear lord that is a bad deal. Lavine, like Beasley, is 6th man material and not someone to build around if you want to have a winning team. Put Lavine on any of the contending squads and he is absolutely coming off the bench. Anthony Edwards is the first overall pick, is 19, and has shown flashes that he could be a dominant force in a couple years...........you'd have to be insane to trade that, especially if you are a small market team.

If anything you try to dump Dlo for Lavine....but my guess is the Bulls say no to that.

28/5/5 on 51/43/85. Your statement is laughable. Comparing him to Beasley is a cherry on top of your ignorance cake.

Ohhh awesome, because the Bulls are one of the best teams in the league right?? My ‘statement’ is true, on a good team LaVine would be coming off the bench in a sixth man type roll. The only reason I mentioned Beasley is because he should be coming off the bench in a sixth man type roll for this Wolves team. Clearly LaVine is better than Beasley.

Your trade proposal still sucks, but go ahead laugh at other people’s ‘statements’ all you want if it makes you feel better.

[Jedzz]

There is that 6th man bs again. clueless wonders

Maybe send Beasley, Rubio, Culver, for LaVine, Patrick Williams, and maybe a small TPE.
Otherwise there is maybe no point because if you aren't doing it to fix roster construction then don't do it. Also, Lavine only has a year left and if he's still averaging 25-28ppg he's going to want to get paid. While Beasley is locked into a nice deal for a while, so Bulls are getting a better financial situation out of this. I would do it to fix the idiocy of this logjammed roster construction.

[TRik]

There is that 6th man bs again. clueless wonders

Maybe send Beasley, Rubio, Culver, for LaVine, Patrick Williams, and maybe a small TPE.
Otherwise there is maybe no point because if you aren't doing it to fix roster construction then don't do it. Also, Lavine only has a year left and if he's still averaging 25-28ppg he's going to want to get paid. While Beasley is locked into a nice deal for a while, so Bulls are getting a better financial situation out of this. I would do it to fix the idiocy of this logjammed roster construction.

The rich, rich irony of calling other posters ‘clueless wonders’, and then going on to suggest that the Wolves could trade three mediocre (at best) assets to the Bulls for Patrick Williams, one of the prized rookies from this years draft, who the bulls clearly highly value as a player with significant upside... oh, and might as well throw in LaVine too.

Hahaha... now that’s rich.

[zDank]

The only team LaVine is coming off the bench for is the All-Star team.

[Jedzz]

There is that 6th man bs again. clueless wonders

Maybe send Beasley, Rubio, Culver, for LaVine, Patrick Williams, and maybe a small TPE.
Otherwise there is maybe no point because if you aren't doing it to fix roster construction then don't do it. Also, Lavine only has a year left and if he's still averaging 25-28ppg he's going to want to get paid. While Beasley is locked into a nice deal for a while, so Bulls are getting a better financial situation out of this. I would do it to fix the idiocy of this logjammed roster construction.

The rich, rich irony of calling other posters ‘clueless wonders’, and then going on to suggest that the Wolves could trade three mediocre (at best) assets to the Bulls for Patrick Williams, one of the prized rookies from this years draft, who the bulls clearly highly value as a player with significant upside... oh, and might as well throw in LaVine too.

Hahaha... now that’s rich.

Lol, no different than others suggesting LaVine for Ant. Which is why I included Patrick Williams. Tit for Tat. Plus, he's not a guard. Other than that, he's just one of the many decent rookies from this draft. "prized rookies"...we'll see how it plays out for a while.

The big issue you are glossing over is LaVine's next deal. Which would be a reason why Bulls might entertain trading him. To get back a player like Beasley who himself can put up 20-30 in any game locked in at 15 for years is a benefit Bulls pay extra in the trade for if I'm looking at that trade. All you wonky fellas and your crying about defense and claims of sixth man talk are just left field. Lavine is averaging Max scoring numbers. Lebron hasn't averaged higher since 2009. Lillard hasn't averaged higher scoring until these last two seasons. Bulls had an ultra scorer for cheap and that's soon ending. Someone is going to have to pay that guy.

[jpatrick]

Lavine is better than any Wolves player not named Towns. His scoring efficiency for a guard is unreal. That said, he’ll never be a #1 on a good team but that’s okay. If he’s your #3 guy for example, you may be a championship team.

If Taylor really squashed moving Wiggins for Butler instead of Lavine, I don’t know. He has to be the worst owner in sports? His only saving grace is that he kept the team in MN, which is big.

[TRik]

There is that 6th man bs again. clueless wonders

Maybe send Beasley, Rubio, Culver, for LaVine, Patrick Williams, and maybe a small TPE.
Otherwise there is maybe no point because if you aren't doing it to fix roster construction then don't do it. Also, Lavine only has a year left and if he's still averaging 25-28ppg he's going to want to get paid. While Beasley is locked into a nice deal for a while, so Bulls are getting a better financial situation out of this. I would do it to fix the idiocy of this logjammed roster construction.

The rich, rich irony of calling other posters ‘clueless wonders’, and then going on to suggest that the Wolves could trade three mediocre (at best) assets to the Bulls for Patrick Williams, one of the prized rookies from this years draft, who the bulls clearly highly value as a player with significant upside... oh, and might as well throw in LaVine too.

Hahaha... now that’s rich.

Lol, no different than others suggesting LaVine for Ant. Which is why I included Patrick Williams. Tit for Tat. Plus, he's not a guard. Other than that, he's just one of the many decent rookies from this draft. "prized rookies"...we'll see how it plays out for a while.

The big issue you are glossing over is LaVine's next deal. Which would be a reason why Bulls might entertain trading him. To get back a player like Beasley who himself can put up 20-30 in any game locked in at 15 for years is a benefit Bulls pay extra in the trade for if I'm looking at that trade. All you wonky fellas and your crying about defense and claims of sixth man talk are just left field. Lavine is averaging Max scoring numbers. Lebron hasn't averaged higher since 2009. Lillard hasn't averaged higher scoring until these last two seasons. Bulls had an ultra scorer for cheap and that's soon ending. Someone is going to have to pay that guy.

Dude, you're overvaluing your scrubs. When Beasley was actually on a good team and was being utilized within his limitations....the absolute best season he averaged 11 points. The season when he was playing well on the Nuggets before we overpaid for him, he averaged just over 7 points a game. Yes he can average 20 points a game......but that is only because he is currently being allowed to chuck on literally the worst team in the NBA.

Forgetting the fact that he is currently dealing with a criminal matter for being an absolute tool, other teams wouldn't be banging down our walls to get Beasley.

[Neeva]

Lavine is getting overated, do people
Realize he does not play any defense still..: