Beasley

[Kumar]

That goes both ways. People are overlooking his skillset and his numbers. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. The question is can he improve this team? Not 100% sure, but given the right investment it may be worth the risk.

What numbers exactly? I thought you didn't put stock in them? You know how many easy looks he gets playing on the 2nd best team in the NBA? Playing with the best player in the world? Even then he couldn't escape criticism from both players and staff! I mean you can conveniently ignore his garbage numbers he has put up his entire career and look at hardly one season's worth. But that is not representative at all.

[Kumar]

if we used evidence purely "on the court" he'd be a starter somewhere. off the court is the only issue

You really want to try to argue this?

[Above the Rim]

Example #2 today of 1 or 2 people thinking something that we all know is kind of absurd, yet folks waste their time trying to prove to that person that the sky is blue. I don't get why.

[Kumar]

Example #2 today of 1 or 2 people thinking something that we all know is kind of absurd, yet folks waste their time trying to prove to that person that the sky is blue. I don't get why.

You're right. I need to stop engaging.

[NOEngineer]

Can we just limit ourselves to one thread and call it "Crappy player nobody wants???", to cover Beasley and whatever other jokers are cut loose between now and the start of the season?

[AnthonyDavis23]

Maybe get Dudley on the cheap?

[da ThRONe]

What numbers exactly? I thought you didn't put stock in them? You know how many easy looks he gets playing on the 2nd best team in the NBA? Playing with the best player in the world? Even then he couldn't escape criticism from both players and staff! I mean you can conveniently ignore his garbage numbers he has put up his entire career and look at hardly one season's worth. But that is not representative at all.

What is it with some of you? I never said I don't put any stock into numbers. I said I rank skill set ahead of numbers not close to being the same thing.

[Kibner]

What is it with some of you? I never said I don't put any stock into numbers. I said I rank skill set ahead of numbers not close to bring the same thing.

Then what skill set does Beasley bring to this team as a SF (he would never get time at PF) that would mesh well with the main pieces of our roster? He's not a quality defender and needs to be ball-dominant to be a factor on offense.

[da ThRONe]

Then what skill set does Beasley bring to this team as a SF (he would never get time at PF) that would mesh well with the main pieces of our roster? He's not a quality defender and needs to be ball-dominant to be a factor on offense.

Floor spacing and he's a guy in the half court that can create his own shot. Who at the SF position that we have on this rosters that's a better defender than Beasley? Again if we were set at SF I wouldn't even consider it, however that is the only glaring hole on the team right now. Mostly how would it hurt us on a short term partly guarenteed contract?

[DirtySouf]

I'd rather Babbitt...

[AUSSIE_PELICAN]

So in this hypothetical world who do we get rid of to add Beasley?
Withey or Babbitt?

I wouldn't risk him to lose either of those players.
Dudley maybe but he's not even available.

[Above the Rim]

You're right. I need to stop engaging.

One of us should start a good topic worthy of conversation or debate so we don't get sucked into this other threads. Got anything?

[Kibner]

Floor spacing and he's a guy in the half court that can create his own shot. Who at the SF position that we have on this rosters that's a better defender than Beasley? Again if we were set at SF I wouldn't even consider it, however that is the only glaring hole on the team right now. Mostly how would it hurt us on a short term partly guarenteed contract?

He won't ever get the ball enough to create his own shot (which he is terrible at converting into points, anyway). We would be better off with Jrue, Evans, Davis, Anderson, and possibly Gordon filling that role.

Evans, Miller, and Salmons are no worse than Beasley on defense and they all fit better into our offense. Miller and Salmons are just as capable of spacing the floor, if not moreso than Michael.

I'd rather Salmons playing SF for what we need than Beasley. I would give him a roster spot over Babbitt, though.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

[AnthonyDavis23]

So salmons is going to be our starting 3?

[Above the Rim]

So salmons is going to be our starting 3?

Most likely not, but even if he does and gets 15-18 minutes and never finishes games, is that something that would be terrible to you?

[Caffeinedisastr]

Example #2 today of 1 or 2 people thinking something that we all know is kind of absurd, yet folks waste their time trying to prove to that person that the sky is blue. I don't get why.

I think RaisingTheBar's monicker of "Voice of Reason" is about to be traded.

[da ThRONe]

Again the question for Beasley is why not? Is he a step down from what we have at the 3 IMO no. Does he have the potential to be a huge upgrade at the SF position IMO yes. So it's almost a free roll given his contract is team friendly and all it cost us is a roster spot that would be Whitney or Babbitt. He's younger than Eric Gordon so he fits the young vet theme we have going here. He's a solid 3pt shooter. He gives you versatility. He can play the 3 with Davis/Asik or Anderson/Davis at the 4 and 5 spots or he play the 4 with Evans/Miller/Salmon at the 3 and Davis/Asik at the 5. He's strong and has quick feet so he has the bare basic to being a solid defender. Coach Williams greatest strength IMO is developing players. Again on the right contract this seems like a small risk with the potential for a huge reward.

[mrsaints]

http://fansided.com/2014/08/25/micha...shape/#!bKZjzE

seriously, what are we doing at 3? is reek gonna start or do we need another body?

I am on board with that idea!!!

[Nola3]

Again the question for Beasley is why not? Is he a step down from what we have at the 3 IMO no. Does he have the potential to be a huge upgrade at the SF position IMO yes. So it's almost a free roll given his contract is team friendly and all it cost us is a roster spot that would be Whitney or Babbitt. He's younger than Eric Gordon so he fits the young vet theme we have going here. He's a solid 3pt shooter. He gives you versatility. He can be the 3 with Davis/Asik or Anderson/Davis at the 4 and 5 spots he play the 4 with Evans/Miller/Salmon at the 3 or Davis/Asik at the 5. He big and has quick feet so he has the bare basic to being a solid defender. Coach Williams is greatest strength IMO is developing players. Again on the right contract this seems like a small risk with the potential for a huge reward.

Except the risk isn't monetary. It's not even about the roster spot. It's all about his work ethic and attitude. This is an incredibly young team and one bad influence could ruin the chemistry of the team. That's why. If we are talking purely on-court then hell yes let's take a flyer on him. But because we are signing Beasley the person as a whole and not just Beasley the player then I pass 11 times out of 10 and roll with what we have.

[LouisianaPride]

Lets bring him aboard so we can cut him and never speak of this again.

[Eman5805]

I'll say this. I wouldn't complain if we bring him in.

But I wont expect it to end well.

[wuggie]

I'll say this. I wouldn't complain if we bring him in.

But I wont expect it to end well.

Monty's head>>>>>

[PELICANSFAN]

Most likely not, but even if he does and gets 15-18 minutes and never finishes games, is that something that would be terrible to you?

Not necessarily. However, just seeing that question reminded me of the comments some countered with when people complained about Steimsma last year. Ugh.

[speedyG]

It is trendy to hate on Beasley and for good reason, but the guy is obviously a talented scorer and would come on a minimum deal where we can cut him at any time.

I dont get why people are so strongly opposed to him when it is literally no risk, possible reward

[Kurgan]

When each and every team got rid of him in any way possible or played him so little it was laughable because of how horrid he was...why do we have to be the stupidest of the fair? The heat had a team full of vet presence (heck, they had only vet presence) and lebron seemed to actually want to try to get something out of beasley...if THEY gave up, how the heck should we do better? The guy is a lost cause, all he can do is score inefficiently, be a black hole on defense and a cancer in the locker room on a pathetic losing team. We don't need that, really.