Michael Beasley

[Draco]

If Minnesota doesn't get a good offer for the #2 they probably have to take Williams. According to Chad Ford they would then look to trade Beasley.

Would Minnesota be interested in Babbit, Rudy, Elliot and our #21? Minnesota with Rubio would be the perfect situation for Rudy to play out the final year of his contract. If he has a better season he can resign there if not he can go back to Europe. Elliot Williams and Babbit are unlikely to get minutes stuck behind Wes, Roy, Wallace and Batum. But they do have upside, there is room for contributors on the Wolves. The #21 has some value.

Beasley is clearly the best player in the deal and would give us a legit option at backup 4 or could even be a stopgap starter alongside LaMarcus, who would slide over to center. Beasley is a knucklehead, but with our team of choir boys they have a culture that he can't really corrupt. Our team could use somebody with an edge. But mostly our team needs talent and this would upgrade our talent.

Oden is unlikely to be healthy at the start of the year, so Beasily/LaMarcus/Camby would be the 3 man rotation at the 4/5. If Oden comes back long-term he would take the place of Camby.

 

[Nikolokolus]

David Kahn is a moron, but that trade package is a hot plate of garbage.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

We could have easily acquired him last summer for a second round pick.

Instead, we got Armon Johnson.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah, not a good move on our part. The Heat were giving him away and we didn't get in on it.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

I'd run naked around the Rose Garden concourse during a game if we traded for Beasley. Not a chance in hell that's happening. He doesnt fit the culture and even HCP has a higher basketball IQ then Beasley.

 

[Draco]

We could have easily acquired him last summer for a second round pick.

Instead, we got Armon Johnson.

How could we have given Miami immediate cap relief?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

How could we have given Miami immediate cap relief?

Ah yes. That makes it even worse considering it would have been the #51 pick for Beasley.

 

[Nikolokolus]

How could we have given Miami immediate cap relief?

we couldn't have.

 

[Natebishop3]

we couldn't have.

That's not true. We had Ryan Gomes, who could have been traded and waived before a deadline, but we decided to keep him and waive him instead.

 

[Nikolokolus]

That's not true. We had Ryan Gomes, who could have been traded and waived before a deadline, but we decided to keep him and waive him instead.

Oh damn, I forgot all about him.

 

[Natebishop3]

Oh damn, I forgot all about him.

So yeah, we basically could have had Beasley for nothing and chose not to make the offer. Two guys I wish we had made a move for, Beasley and Darren Collison.

 

[Nikolokolus]

So yeah, we basically could have had Beasley for nothing and chose not to make the offer. Two guys I wish we had made a move for, Beasley and Darren Collison.

No need, we got Luke Babbitt and Armon Johnson instead.


FML

 

[Natebishop3]

No need, we got Luke Babbitt and Armon Johnson instead.


FML

Come now... say it with some gusto!

FML

 

[PapaG]

Who would want Beasely over Batum or Wallace?

He's crap, and he played on a crappy team last year.

Unless you're talking about trying to convince this headcase to be happy being an 8th man off of the bench, this is just silly.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Who would want Beasely over Batum or Wallace?

He's crap, and he played on a crappy team last year.

Unless you're talking about trying to convince this headcase to be happy being an 8th man off of the bench, this is just silly.

Worse than Luke Babbitt though?

 

[Natebishop3]

Who would want Beasely over Batum or Wallace?

He's crap, and he played on a crappy team last year.

Unless you're talking about trying to convince this headcase to be happy being an 8th man off of the bench, this is just silly.

Who would want Michael Beasley over Luke Babbitt? We could have had him for nothing. They wanted cap relief. Why turn down a shot at the 2nd overall pick from the draft a couple years ago?

 

[PapaG]

Beasely had a .55 PER/USG ratio last year while making $4 million, and he's due an extension decision soon.

The funniest part of Beasley's basketballreference.com profile is that his only accolade was being listed 10th in Usage last season.

That's an overt insult, isn't it?

 

[PapaG]

Who would want Michael Beasley over Luke Babbitt? We could have had him for nothing. They wanted cap relief. Why turn down a shot at the 2nd overall pick from the draft a couple years ago?

Because he's a shithead and a lockerroom cancer? Plus, how do you know Portland could have even received Beasely? The Blazers didn't have the cap space to absorb his contract in a lopsided trade.

Dumb argument, isn't it?

 

[Natebishop3]

Because he's a shithead and a lockerroom cancer? Plus, how do you know Portland could have even received Beasely? The Blazers didn't have the cap space to absorb his contract in a lopsided trade.

Dumb argument, isn't it?

Yes, I do know. It was discussed at the time. Gomes had an expiring contract that matched Beasley's. That's how the Webster trade was able to happen. You didn't think that Luke Babbitt made the same amount as Webster, did you?

What are you basing your opinion of Beasley on? I've never heard he's a cancer, just that he is a kid who makes questionable decisions. I've never heard anything about him causing problems in the locker room.

 

[PapaG]

Yes, I do know. It was discussed at the time. Gomes had an expiring contract that matched Beasley's. That's how the Webster trade was able to happen. You didn't think that Luke Babbitt made the same amount as Webster, did you?

What are you basing your opinion of Beasley on? I've never heard he's a cancer, just that he is a kid who makes questionable decisions. I've never heard anything about him causing problems in the locker room.

Gomes didn't have an expiring contract. He was owed money on his deal.

Beasley is terrible. Historically terrible, in terms of being a bust. I'm not surprised you'd want a player like him.

 

[Natebishop3]

Gomes didn't have an expiring contract. He was owed money on his deal.

Beasley is terrible. Historically terrible, in terms of being a bust. I'm not surprised you'd want a player like him.

Gomes had a contract that had a team option on it and the Blazers could have dealt him before the option expired.

 

[PapaG]

Guess how many Blazer players that play significant minutes have had a usage rate >28 the past 4 years...

 

[Natebishop3]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2010/06/trail_blazers_waive_forward_ry.html

The expected move is a cost-saving measure that will not only save the Blazers millions of dollars long term but also move them below the luxury tax threshold of the salary cap.

Gomes was scheduled to make nearly $14 million over the next three seasons as part of a partially-guaranteed contract. But by waiving Gomes Tuesday, the Blazers will only owe him $2.75 million, including $1.75 million over the final two seasons.

That relief will put the Blazers roughly $1.9 million under the luxury tax.

BAM!

 

[PapaG]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2010/06/trail_blazers_waive_forward_ry.html



BAM!

What's the "BAM"??

Beasley is shit with an inflated PER (which is average) due to his high usage rate.

You're all over the place. Why would Portland want Beasley? He sucks, and he made ~$5 million last year.

That puts the Blazers into the luxury tax, to the tune of ~$7 million.

 

[Natebishop3]

What's the "BAM"??

Beasley is shit with an inflated PER (which is average) due to his high usage rate.

You're all over the place. Why would Portland want Beasley? He sucks, and he made ~$5 million last year.

That puts the Blazers into the luxury tax, to the tune of ~$7 million.

Oh, I don't know, maybe because we have no bench? Maybe because we could use young talent at pretty much every position? Maybe because he could have been had for nothing? Maybe because he could have been used as a trade chip later?

 

[PapaG]

Oh, I don't know, maybe because we have no bench? Maybe because we could use young talent at pretty much every position? Maybe because he could have been had for nothing? Maybe because he could have been used as a trade chip later?

So your idea is for Portland to pay $ 7.5 million for a 3rd-string SF?

Who the fuck is going to trade for Beasley? He was given away by Miami to a terrible team.

He sucks.

 

[Natebishop3]

So your idea is for Portland to pay $ 7.5 million for a 3rd-string SF?

Who the fuck is going to trade for Beasley? He was given away by Miami.

He sucks.

Hell ya I would pay $7.5 million for a 22 year old guy who can play both forward positions and has a lot of talent that he could still realize. The guy was the 2nd pick in the draft just couple years ago. If you can pick someone like that up for practically nothing, you do it. What do we have to lose at this point?

And he wasn't given away by Miami because of his attitude, they were trying to clear as much cap space as possible.

 

[PapaG]

Hell ya I would pay $7.5 million for a 22 year old guy who can play both forward positions and has a lot of talent that he could still realize. The guy was the 2nd pick in the draft just couple years ago. If you can pick someone like that up for practically nothing, you do it. What do we have to lose at this point?

And he wasn't given away by Miami because of his attitude, they were trying to clear as much cap space as possible.

And he was given away for jack shit. Plus, he was terrible in Minnesota this year.

In NateBishop's dreamworld, Beasley is a tax busting 3rd-string SF who is fine with that role.

 

[Natebishop3]

And he was given away for jack shit. Plus, he was terrible in Minnesota this year.

In NateBishop's dreamworld, Beasley is a tax busting 3rd-string SF who is fine with that role.

A) We didn't have Crash last summer so he wouldn't have factored into the deal.

B) He can play both forward positions, and as of yet we don't have a good backup power forward.

C) Batum might not be on the team much longer, so why wouldn't you want another forward with lots of upside?

 

[Minstrel]

C) Batum might not be on the team much longer, so why wouldn't you want another forward with lots of upside?

Is that a threat? Stay away from Batum's family, Nate.