CLE - POR - MN (Sessions, Crawford, Beasley)

Krapinsky · Post #1 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 10:18 pm

Simple 3-way deal as mentioned in the title.

CLE OUT: Sessions
CLE IN: Beasley

POR OUT: Crawford
POR IN: Sessions

MN OUT: Beasley
MN IN: Crawford

Cleveland gets to take a look at Beasley for the rest of the season as a potential piece for the future. Portland gets a much needed change at PG. Minnesota swaps one scorer for another to better balance the roster and add some more veteran experience.

change · Post #2 » by **change** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 10:38 pm

no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Post #3 » by **Klomp** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 10:42 pm

change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

[RCG] · Post #4 » by **[RCG]** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 10:46 pm

Klomp wrote:
change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

mandurugo · Post #5 » by **mandurugo** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 10:52 pm

Klomp wrote:
change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

It looks like he's been a pretty good passer his whole career, though isn't he mostly playing point guard this year? His shooting percentages are worse than Beasley and he's a below average rebounder. How's his defense?

Post #6 » by **The J Rocka** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 11:12 pm

change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Looks like someone here doesn't want change

BeasleyTheBeast · Post #7 » by **BeasleyTheBeast** » Wed Mar 7, 2012 9:08 pm

Klomp wrote:
change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

Crawford isn't a true shooting guard

dunkonu21 · Post #8 » by **dunkonu21** » Wed Mar 7, 2012 9:10 pm

BeasleyTheBeast wrote:
Klomp wrote:
change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

Crawford isn't a true shooting guard

Neither is Ridnour. Crawford is a vet and knows how to play either PG or SG.

NewWolves · Post #9 » by **NewWolves** » Wed Mar 7, 2012 9:41 pm

I think we can do better than that for Beasley....but Crawford will definitely be a upgrade in our SG position. I guess I'm in.

Peezo · Post #10 » by **Peezo** » Thu Mar 8, 2012 5:35 am

I think that is a great trade. Beas is seeing the court less and less. I think Wes/Martell can play the three for us. DWill can also take time there. I love Beas but if we can get something for him before the deadline it is definitely time to pull that trigger.

post0115 · Post #11 » by **post0115** » Thu Mar 8, 2012 10:29 am

I like it. Good trade idea.

MN - Definite yes (unlikely we would do better this offseason with the cap space anyway and Crawford may even decide not to opt out or at the least he would likely give us first dibs on resigning him.

Por - They need a PG badly and have enough shooters to put around Sessions that he should shine. Likely yes.

Cle - I think they would do this, but not certain.

eyeteeth · Post #12 » by **eyeteeth** » Thu Mar 8, 2012 3:59 pm

Wow. This trade makes more sense than anything I've seen this season.

I am also not sure how the Cavs like it; does this leave them with a decent PG behind Irving? If they're in, it certainly makes more sense for Minny and Portland than Ridnour for Crawford.

guille_4 · Post #13 » by **guille_4** » Thu Mar 8, 2012 5:27 pm

Would you guys trade Beasley for OJ Mayo?

lazfa199 · Post #14 » by **lazfa199** » Thu Mar 8, 2012 6:04 pm

Where does Beasley fit in with Cleveland? is he a sixth man coming off the bench for Jamison?

ctmagic · Post #15 » by **ctmagic** » Fri Mar 9, 2012 12:37 am

guille_4 wrote:Would you guys trade Beasley for OJ Mayo?

Absolutely

Narf · Post #16 » by **Narf** » Fri Mar 9, 2012 1:18 am

Klomp wrote:
change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

What did Beasley average last year?

Post #17 » by **The J Rocka** » Fri Mar 9, 2012 1:25 am

Narf wrote:
Klomp wrote:
change wrote:no thanks, crawford is almost as bad as our current sg's. not worth giving beasley for him

Yeah I'd hate to add a true shooting guard whos averaging 15 ppg and 4 apg.

What did Beasley average last year?

19 pts on 17 shot attempts. Crawford is a chucker too but he at least fills a position of need, can come through in the clutch, and he actually has a handle. If Beasley is going to be moved regardless, I'd rather move him for Crawford than moving him for a late 1st rounder or letting him walk for nothing.

Narf · Post #18 » by **Narf** » Fri Mar 9, 2012 1:29 am

The J Rocka wrote:19 pts on 17 shot attempts. Crawford is a chucker too but he at least fills a position of need, can come through in the clutch, and he actually has a handle. If Beasley is going to be moved regardless, I'd rather move him for Crawford than moving him for a late 1st rounder or letting him walk for nothing.

Beasley is also a top 5 rebounding SF and has actually improved his defense to average this year.
Crawford is a poor defender, a chucker, and a combo guard. He has talent, but not as much as Beasley.

I don't like this trade for 2 reasons.
1) I dont want to ruin the chemistry
2) Crawford has significantly less value than Beasley

If I'm trading Beasley, I don't want a crappy "win now" option. I want a "building piece". Crawford just isn't that for me, and while it's nice to make the playoffs as a 7th/8th seed I would rather have an expiring and a pick for Beasley than Crawford.

Post #19 » by **The J Rocka** » Fri Mar 9, 2012 2:44 am

Narf wrote:
The J Rocka wrote:19 pts on 17 shot attempts. Crawford is a chucker too but he at least fills a position of need, can come through in the clutch, and he actually has a handle. If Beasley is going to be moved regardless, I'd rather move him for Crawford than moving him for a late 1st rounder or letting him walk for nothing.
Beasley is also a top 5 rebounding SF and has actually improved his defense to average this year.
Crawford is a poor defender, a chucker, and a combo guard. He has talent, but not as much as Beasley.

I don't like this trade for 2 reasons.
1) I dont want to ruin the chemistry
2) Crawford has significantly less value than Beasley

If I'm trading Beasley, I don't want a crappy "win now" option. I want a "building piece". Crawford just isn't that for me, and while it's nice to make the playoffs as a 7th/8th seed I would rather have an expiring and a pick for Beasley than Crawford.

If an expiring is going to be a JO type of player + late pick, I'd rather move Beasley for a piece that can help us regardless.

If we can get Morrow or Redick for him, sign me up. If all we can get is a dead corpse & a late pick, I'd rather get a player Like Crawford. He also has a PO so if he wants out it's not that big of deal.

Beasley's value seems low considering all the trade rumors that have been discussed. I assume any pick for him would be lottery protected or in the 20s. I just think we don't need any more young draft picks on this team. We need guys that can come in and make somewhat of an impact now. Not all "win now" options are bad for this team either. We can always try to flip Barea/Ridnour/Webster + picks for an alternative option as well. If you think Crawford is a guy that helps us now & next season (he does IMO), I think you have to consider it.

Narf · Post #20 » by **Narf** » Fri Mar 9, 2012 3:11 am

The J Rocka wrote:If an expiring is going to be a JO type of player + late pick, I'd rather move Beasley for a piece that can help us regardless.

If we can get Morrow or Redick for him, sign me up. If all we can get is a dead corpse & a late pick, I'd rather get a player Like Crawford. He also has a PO so if he wants out it's not that big of deal.

Beasley's value seems low considering all the trade rumors that have been discussed. I assume any pick for him would be lottery protected or in the 20s. I just think we don't need any more young draft picks on this team. We need guys that can come in and make somewhat of an impact now. Not all "win now" options are bad for this team either. We can always try to flip Barea/Ridnour/Webster + picks for an alternative option as well. If you think Crawford is a guy that helps us now & next season (he does IMO), I think you have to consider it.

I suppose I would rather have Beasley than a late pick + worthless expiring as well. And I would trade him for Morrow or Redick. But I think Beasley actually does help us more than Crawford would. He's won us a few games and hasn't really lost us any as a bench player.

I guess I just think Beasley off the bench is worth more than Crawford starting. He has as many faults as Ridnour starting, and doesn't seem like someone I would want around past this year. I'd rather resign Beasley to a reasonable contract in the off season and sign Courtney Lee to $7 mil a year.