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?
Printable View
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?
We don't need that body.
If Lebron couldn't get him to focus then nobody can.
Evans, Salmons, Miller, Babbitt, and AD for 4 mins a game in the big lineup. Plenty of bodies at the 4. Are any ideal? No, that comes next offseason. But this is fine for now. Nobody has the perfect team, but this is fine. And its not like Beasley would make it perfect.
Can we let the Beasley stuff go? Please?
There was just an article a couple days ago saying Miami wouldn't re sign him because of his maturity issues and defense. Why is his name still brought up?
Doubt he gets signed. If you can't do it in Miami where can you.
Carlos Delfino
OMG, this again.
We may not need Beasley but given the current make-up of this team we could very well use his skillset. Again not getting to the behind the scene things as we have no idea why LeBron would feel like Michael lacked focus or why Spoelstra choose not to play Beasley. Maybe it was the lack of playing time that cause the mental lapse who knows. All I know is we still have a huge hole at the 3. Beasley sure looked focused when he played in the Finals especially defensively. I see no reason why given the magnitude of this season to the future of management why we shouldn't kick the tires on Beasley. Winning teams aren't always comprised of boy scouts.
It's mind boggling how people can continue to ignore the mountain of evidence against Beasley both off the court and on it.
I was about to say he didn't even play in the Finals, but lo and behold, he played 17 minutes in the final game of the series during a blowout. He only played 6 minutes in the rest of the playoffs combined.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...406150SAS.html
I was aware he didn't play a lot, but his play prompted the question why hadn't he played more. Of course it probably was justified in the coaching staff mind, but at that point Miami was just being killed and was getting little to nothing from everybody other than James.
Because they would have rather played James or Bosh in positions Beasley was capable of playing and he is far, far worse than them. The team was built with the offense being centered around LeBron (and, to a lesser extent, Wade). Beasley doesn't have skills that fit into that. His defense was still bad, so why play him?
I think his issues are imbedded. Like he has some undiagnosed disorder. Or something was diagnosed but I haven't read about it.
Basically something he can't grow out of.
i agree with da throne, he is definitely worth a look.
his play in the playoffs is what caught my eye. the heat were getting torched and he was the only person on the court playing with pride (albeit for selfish reasons related to another contract). this is michael beasleys make or break year, his last chance. he knows it and everyone knows it. thats a good motivator
What does Beasley offer us at the 3 besides just being labeled a 3? Is putting Beasley in the mix for minutes at the 3 with Miller, Babbit, Salmons, and Tyreke really gonna change what we have at the 3? Does he really beat out any of those guys for a roster spot?
Over his career, his teams are 4.3 points per 100 possessions better with him off the court than on
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.
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.
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?
Maybe get Dudley on the cheap?
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?
I'd rather Babbitt...
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.
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
So salmons is going to be our starting 3?
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.
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.
Lets bring him aboard so we can cut him and never speak of this again.
I'll say this. I wouldn't complain if we bring him in.
But I wont expect it to end well.
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
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.