# Beasley's Team USA Snub



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

By now, the fact Mike isnt on the USA team can be seen purely as a snub. These are guys selected ahead of him:

DJ Augustin
Ronnie Brewer
Kevin Durant
Rudy Gay
Eric Gordon
Danny Granger
Jeff Green
Devin Harris
Andre Igoudala
Kyle Korver
David Lee
Brook Lopez
Kevin Love
OJ Mayo
JaVale McGee
Paul Millsap
Greg Oden
Anthony Randolph
Derrick Rose
Josh Smith
Russell Westbrook
Thaddeus Young

Can anyone really say that Mike shouldnt be on this team? especially ahead of guys like McGee, Augustin, Randolph, Brewer and Korver. 

Kinda crazy really. Mike aint happy about it either (from his twitter):

# Kinda upset sooooo expect me to be on kill mode all season and every season afta for that matter!!!!!!!!!11:26 AM Jul 23rd from TwitterFon
#
so I'm out Vegas and someone jus brought up the USA 2012 team that I didn't get picked to tryout for so i'm kinda in my feelin today!!!!!!


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Especially ahead of guys like Anthony Randolph? You better refresh yourself with Anthony Randolph, he's going to be an absolute stud come 2012.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

I have no problem with Randolph as a player, but because he had 1 good summer league he's an absolute stud? He reminds me of Josh Smith, which is fine, but Beasley should be on this team.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

Beasley > Randolph is debatable, Randolph is the better overall player and is more athletic but Beasley's probably the better scorer... but it's not an OUTRAGE like you made it out to be.

I agree with McGee, Augustin, Brewer and Korver though.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

People's opinions of Randolph are inflated because he dominated Summer League. Draft Night and the weeks leading up to it, people said he'd be a huge bust. So opinions change - not sayin he wont be a solid player, but I dont think he's Beasleys equal yet.

Beasley had a better year than Randolph, that much is not debatable. I hardly made that out like its an outrage though.

Hopefully its motivation for Mike anyway.


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

I thought it was ridiculous as well. Kyle Korver, really?


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

I don't hate the Korver selection. He's one of the most consistent shooters in the league and he actually tries hard on defense.


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

But over Beasley? Korver isn't going to get any better. I thought the point of these USA teams was to get the best young talent and try to develop them. It's all good though, this will just add more fuel to his fire.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Korver's a specialist, these teams need players that will stick to their roles and play off the ball.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> Korver's a specialist, these teams need players that will stick to their roles and play off the ball.


I forgot that Michael Beasley is a ball hog with a terrible attitude...

What did Beasley do wrong ever on the court? I mean, seriously, he wasn't a ball hog, he passed when need be, he stayed within the offense, he listened to the veterans, and he improved throughout the year defensively.

Kyle Korver is worse than Mike defensively. Josh Smith has a bad attitude out there, chucks the ball when he is a terrible shooter, and whines when things are going badly. Ronnie Brewer doesn't have the offensive game to play on that team and his defense, although very good, isn't enough to earn him a spot on that team. Rudy Gay hates everything but offense and I have heard their fans complain about his attitude. KLove is a good player and his versatility is a plus, but didn't coaches select Beasley over him for 1st team all-rookie? Augustin's numbers were inflated since usually the Bobcats entire bench was Augustin chucking. What have McGee and Randolph done on the court to deserve the spot?

Michael Beasley was the victim of a media assassination. For some reason, they decided they didn't like him, and they just went after him. As much as they hate, he'll still be great.

I can't wait until the day in a few years when D-Wade is still a star on the wing and Michael Beasley is beasting and averaging 23 and 12 down low and people are scared to death to play us and everyone in the media is hyping him up... Hope he reminds them of what they were all saying about him.


----------



## PoetLaureate (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm almost certain it's because of the rookie camp incident. Frankly, it was such a stupid thing for him to do I don't even mind the snub. I just hope he responds to it the way a guy like Zo or Wade would.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

he's certainly better than some of those players listed, i dont understand this snub either, he'd be perfect for the PF position


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

Yeah, I don't really understand. It's one thing to not make the team but they're not even considering him which baffles me. Doesn't mean the other players chosen didn't deserve to be chosen though (with the exception of Brewer :krazy


----------



## Wade2Bosh (Mar 31, 2004)

Sucks that he wasnt getting chosen even after a lot of those players dropped out. Mike's offensive game would translate so well in international play. Those 3's are like layups for him.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

It already did.

Im over this. Im glad he's been working out over here. He's also finally admitting to being peeved about the snub. It should be good for him in the end.

In two years, Colangelo will be offering Beasley signed Spongebob memorabilia in attempts to convince him to accept joining the team. You'll see.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

Jace said:


> In two years, Colangelo will be offering Beasley signed Spongebob memorabilia in attempts to convince him to accept joining the team. You'll see.


:lol:

Rep'd


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

True though. Mike represented USA before in the U19's - dunno why he's been blackballed.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

I think it has something to do with the league trying to move to a more "wholesome" image. Beasley's tattoos and disposition are perceived negatively by narrow-minded people, and they turn their perceptions into false realities. 

It sucks, but Beasley will play through it. I still expect him to be an All Star.


----------



## HeatBall (Jan 14, 2009)

"kinda in my feeling"... "afta".. this guy shoulda atleast finished english classse in his university.. sorry


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MB30 said:


> I have no problem with Randolph as a player, but because he had 1 good summer league he's an absolute stud? He reminds me of Josh Smith, which is fine, but Beasley should be on this team.


And because Beasleys had what?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> I forgot that Michael Beasley is a ball hog with a terrible attitude...
> 
> What did Beasley do wrong ever on the court? I mean, seriously, he wasn't a ball hog, he passed when need be, he stayed within the offense, he listened to the veterans, and he improved throughout the year defensively.
> 
> ...


Terrible post. What does this have to do with the team wanting a shooting specialist? Beasley is a better player than Korver, but not even close to a better shooter. Korver would be the shooter off the bench. They will have more than enough athletic scorers on the team.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HeatBall said:


> "kinda in my feeling"... "afta".. this guy shoulda atleast finished english classse in his university.. sorry


Its no secret, Beasley is stupid.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

MB30 said:


> People's opinions of Randolph are inflated because he dominated Summer League. Draft Night and the weeks leading up to it, people said he'd be a huge bust. So opinions change - not sayin he wont be a solid player, but I dont think he's Beasleys equal yet.
> 
> Beasley had a better year than Randolph, that much is not debatable. I hardly made that out like its an outrage though.
> 
> Hopefully its motivation for Mike anyway.


I agree Beasley should be there, and he's better right now, but this "sudden" high opinion of Randolph started when he worked his way out of Nellie's dog house (when told to find a trade) and how well he played 2nd half last yr. 2 SLs are only small part of it. But I actually was hoping he'd fall to the Suns before the draft.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

Jace said:


> It already did.


the interesting handling started even at that 2007 u-19 pre-college point... despite mike leading in points and up in rebounds in sparse minutes throughout the tournament, coach jerry wainwright gave him only 14min in the final and they lost

so... enough with the b.s., either he's an asset or a liability... say so, say why, move him and move the team forward

i doubt that the answer is criticizing a 20yr old for being immature, holding his defensive development over his head for minutes... and then switching him off to a non-natural position... how can that do anything but set him up for failure, more confusion and stunt his overall skills growth... doesn't even seem logical

to me, all it does is start the whole 'develop or sit' cycle again for next year... i say move him while he has value and you can get an upgrade in return, or open a spot at pf and let him develop... a real 32min spot

was it the goal of the #2 pick overall to develop a "first off the bench" at two positions?


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

HeatBall said:


> "kinda in my feeling"... "afta".. this guy shoulda atleast finished english classse in his university.. sorry


You dont use words like "kinda" and "gonna"? If youre an English purist, dont read twitter. Shoot, dont read the internet. People tend to write how they speak. Deal with it. No, he shouldn't have finished classes at his university, because he's now making millions of dollars playing basketball.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jace said:


> You dont use words like "kinda" and "gonna"? If youre an English purist, dont read twitter. Shoot, dont read the internet. People tend to write how they speak. Deal with it. No, he shouldn't have finished classes at his university, because he's now making millions of dollars playing basketball.


Afta is not the same as kinda or gonna. Kinda could probably be found in a dictionary. Beasley to me comes off as a child who can hardly read or write.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

4putt said:


> the interesting handling started even at that 2007 u-19 pre-college point... despite mike leading in points and up in rebounds in sparse minutes throughout the tournament, coach jerry wainwright gave him only 14min in the final and they lost
> 
> so... enough with the b.s., either he's an asset or a liability... say so, say why, move him and move the team forward
> 
> ...


I don't get it though. You all just think Beasley is getting picked on? There are all these stories and for every one you guys think its the fault of someone else, but not Beasleys?
I'm not taking away from the fact that hes an amazing, superstar type talent. But I don't think his head is there, and I don't think it ever will be. Beasley is a punk.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

come on. beasley isn't getting blackballed.

and no, he's not getting snubbed in any way because guys like augustin and korver were chosen above him. those guys aren't competing for the same spots as beasley. the only guys who matter it terms of beasley competing are the pfs because that's the only position he'll play for team usa if he gets the opportunity.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Afta is not the same as kinda or gonna. Kinda could probably be found in a dictionary. Beasley to me comes off as a child who can hardly read or write.


My point is Im sure he knows its spelled "after." There exists internet lingo that some tend to get a little more involved in than others.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

What i don't understand about the whole ordeal is the fact that he didn't get an invite. We're not talking about making the team here, and i don't have a problem with players like Korver, DJ, Brewer being invited, as Rocketeer said, different positions, and position players of need for the international squad. A perimeter Defender, a shooter, a 3rd string PG, i get that. 

But in speaking of PFs they extended an invite to Big Baby, i mean Big Baby?! Not one of you can sit here, and tell me you'd be comfortable as a Coach running a tryout, that you would be down with inviting Big Baby and not Mike Beasley.

I also see what their aim is with many of the "PFs". The ones they choose are highly versatile that can play both 3 and 4 or the 4 and 5, however Beasely seems like a good fit for the international 4 game.

I just don't see why they couldn't extend an invite, if he doesn't fit, he doesn't fit, but give him a chance to prove you wrong or right on the court. No reason to deny a talented player when you have 20+ players in the camp already...


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Smithian said:


> What have McGee and Randolph done on the court to deserve the spot?


They are picking players for the 2012 Olympic team, Randolph was what 19 last year? He's grown an inch and put on 20 pounds since then, the guy is poised to make a big impact in the upcoming years. They know what Randolph can and probably will become, that's why they selected him. Beasley is a great player, and it's only 2009. There's no saying he still won't somehow make the squad, but ragging on talented players like Randolph makes you look foolish. I was big on this guy when he got drafted, and now he's packed on the weight and put in the work. I'm excited to see him being a serious impact on the court next year.

With Randolph, K Love, Jeff Green, Josh Smith, and Paul Millsap already fighting for that 4 spot there's a valid chance he wouldn't have made the squad anyways. If you notice, none of those guys are three point threats either. Maybe they don't want a player like Beasley? I really, really like Beasley as a player. But if he doesn't fit Team USA's team concept then it is what it is. He's still going to be a fantastic player for the Heat, isn't that what really matters?


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

Rather Unique said:


> What i don't understand about the whole ordeal is the fact that he didn't get an invite. We're not talking about making the team here, and i don't have a problem with players like Korver, DJ, Brewer being invited, as Rocketeer said, different positions, and position players of need for the international squad. A perimeter Defender, a shooter, a 3rd string PG, i get that.
> 
> But in speaking of PFs they extended an invite to Big Baby, i mean Big Baby?! Not one of you can sit here, and tell me you'd be comfortable as a Coach running a tryout, that you would be down with inviting Big Baby and not Mike Beasley.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have put it any better. You are a wise, wise man.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

R-Star said:


> I don't get it though. You all just think Beasley is getting picked on? There are all these stories and for every one you guys think its the fault of someone else, but not Beasleys?
> I'm not taking away from the fact that hes an amazing, superstar type talent. But I don't think his head is there, and I don't think it ever will be. Beasley is a punk.


point taken... and if he's a punk, do you want him on your team? 

i'm not crying for him at all.. i just pointed out that the pattern is there from multiple coaches... at k-state they let him play for the most part and he flourished... what i am saying is that if he's here, play him... how many wins would have come off the record last year if he had 32min?

the heat are not going deep in the playoffs until they resolve the "wade and cast" situation... in the meantime, why not develop b-easy with minutes as the second option? and if he doesn't fit, or wade wants him out... then trade him now for talent while he has value


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

Wait... GLEN DAVIS got an invite over Mike?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> Wait... GLEN DAVIS got an invite over Mike?


He'll never make it, but if you have Glen Davis on your team, he knows what hes there for. He doesn't get to touch the ball, hes there to rebound, grind, box out and throw picks. Would Mike understand that hes there for sparring minutes of rebounding and bruiser type play? I don't know. Plus Glen Davis is more suited for grinding type of play that you would want a 3rd sting role player to do. 

Everyone knows Beasley is a HOFer compared to Glen Davis, but its all about filling roles when you are talking about the bench.


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

R-Star said:


> He'll never make it, but if you have Glen Davis on your team, he knows what hes there for. He doesn't get to touch the ball, hes there to rebound, grind, box out and throw picks. Would Mike understand that hes there for sparring minutes of rebounding and bruiser type play? I don't know. Plus Glen Davis is more suited for grinding type of play that you would want a 3rd sting role player to do.
> 
> Everyone knows Beasley is a HOFer compared to Glen Davis, but its all about filling roles when you are talking about the bench.


That's bs. Glen Davis just isn't that good. Just look at the Redeem Team... Their role players were guys like Michael Redd and Tayshaun Prince. Is someone like Glen Davis or Kyle Korver ever going to be as good as those two guys?


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

MB30 said:


> Can anyone really say that Mike shouldnt be on this team? especially ahead of guys like McGee, Augustin, Randolph, Brewer and Korver.


McGee is a center, Augustin is a point guard, Brewer is there for his defense, and Korver is there for his 3 point shooting.


I agree that Randolph and Beasley are debateable. One could argue that Randolph would play better defensively because he's taller and quicker laterally. Beasley is a better scorer though and could be valuable as a big who can shoot the 3.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

sMaK said:


> That's bs. Glen Davis just isn't that good. Just look at the Redeem Team... Their role players were guys like Michael Redd and Tayshaun Prince. Is someone like Glen Davis or Kyle Korver ever going to be as good as those two guys?


Kyle Korver is one of the best shooters in the league. I don't understand how you don't get that. There would be 10+ guys on the team who can all score in better ways than Beasley, so what is the point of having him as the last guy off the bench? He doesn't bring one thing that the other players wouldn't bring. Korver would bring one of the better more consistent shooters in the league to the team.

No one thinks Korver is better. You just don't seem to understand whats going on here.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

A lot of people seem to have their red and black shaded glasses on.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Kevin Durant
Rudy Gay
Danny Granger
Jeff Green
Kyle Korver
David Lee
Kevin Love
Paul Millsap
Anthony Randolph
Josh Smith
Thaddeus Young

Those are the forwards selected ahead of Beasley. Can you honestly say you'd rather all those guys instead of Mike? I'm not saying that all those guys are crap thats missing the point...im saying he's gonna be better than a lot of guys on that list.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Do you notice a trend with the PF's in that group? None of them are going to shoot shots on the perimeter. Maybe that should tell you something about the type of guys they are looking for at that position.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

GregOden said:


> Do you notice a trend with the PF's in that group? None of them are going to shoot shots on the perimeter. Maybe that should tell you something about the type of guys they are looking for at that position.


Jeff Green
Anthony Randolph
Josh Smith
Thaddeus Young

Could all see time at the 4, and all enjoy their outside shots. Kevin Love also likes to shoot jumpers. I can see him falling in love with the international three.

I fall halfway with this argument. I understand the need to build a balanced team, Beasley's questionable position and ability to fit into a team concept, but normally, Beasley's talent gets him on the team alone. Josh Smith? Are you kidding me? Rudy Gay, Thaddeus Young, and Anthony Randolph are all talented, upcoming players, but none are considerably better than what Beasley is/projects to be. I think Beasley over Young, Gay, and Smith is a no-brainer. With Randolph you can argue his upside.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

GregOden said:


> Do you notice a trend with the PF's in that group? None of them are going to shoot shots on the perimeter. Maybe that should tell you something about the type of guys they are looking for at that position.


That's funny if that's what their looking for, considering a 4 that can shoot is extremely effective, mainly against the zones in international play. Hence, why Melo is a such an effective international "4". 

All i'm sayin is to those defending the non-invite, if YOU held this camp, would you not even consider looking at, working out Beasely? Once again, we're not even talking bout making the team here.


----------



## anru321 (Jul 13, 2002)

Rather Unique said:


> That's funny if that's what their looking for, considering a 4 that can shoot is extremely effective, mainly against the zones in international play. Hence, why Melo is a such an effective international "4".
> 
> All i'm sayin is to those defending the non-invite, if YOU held this camp, would you not even consider looking at, working out Beasely? Once again, we're not even talking bout making the team here.


Completely agree. I don't understand why they would want Milsap/Jsmith / DLee etc. as international 4s over Bease. Those guys will just clog the lane for Lebron and the other slashers IMO.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

There's no doubt if I'M putting together a squad for 2012 I'm inviting Beasley to the camp. 

Jace, by the way, Thad Young and Rudy Gay are both 3's. Josh Smith has all the talent in the world, he's just a bonehead. If they can preach to him the importance of defense and team basketball (I would probably give them a kiss on the face, nh) he could be one of the most important pieces on that team. He runs the floor extremely well for a big, he can jump out the gym, and if he bothers to focus on it he can be an incredible shot blocker. His career average is 2.3 blocks per game, and 1.2 steals per game. That would be invaluable in international play. If the kid gets his head on straight (focus's on defense and rebounding) and stops jacking up terrible shots all game (and wakes up when he's at the FT line, he shot WAY below his career average last season) he could probably be a defensive player of the year candidate.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Wait. This is the tryouts for the 2012 Olympic team?

Aren't they going to have some more next year or in a couple years? and won't most of the 2008 regulars be on the final roster anyway. yeah Beasley should be invited ahead of Big Baby but i also think you guys are making mountains out of molehills.


----------



## HeatBall (Jan 14, 2009)

i agree with the mountains over molehills (worst analogy ever, but made sense).. but look at the ppl that were invited ahead of him... since has the nubmer 1 or 2 pick in a draft NOT been invited? is this an NBA decision.. carlisimo, or karzynski?


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

Is this the same Josh Smith who outside of alley oops and dunks had zero contibution in the playoffs against Miami except to jack shots, throw hissy fits, make mean faces, and basically mark himself for some hard fouls this year?


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

ATLien said:


> Wait. This is the tryouts for the 2012 Olympic team?


Well yeah and no, It's more like a tryout for the World Championships next year (Which if we win, we wouldn't have to play in the Olympic qualifiers in 2011.)

This is as close to a large scale try-out we'll get. Nothing would be in stone tho, as who knows how may of the 'core' are actually gonna stay through til 2012 due to circumstances like injuries, age, personal reasons. You better believe tho, IF Beasley were to put up eye catching numbers and tear it up in the league the next year or so, they'll give him a look.


----------



## HeatBall (Jan 14, 2009)

they always look for good young talent.. but korver and McGee over beasley is just insulting


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HeatBall said:


> they always look for good young talent.. but korver and McGee over beasley is just insulting


I don't know how more clear I can make it for you guys. If you want a guy deep in your bench to be a shooter for you, you'd pick Beasley over Korver?

Kyle Korver isn't even considered young talent anymore. He is what he is, a consistent shooter, a role player. They invited him to camp to play the role of shooter off the bench. The role of athletic young 4 on the team will be filled long before anyone would look at Beasley.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Smithian said:


> Is this the same Josh Smith who outside of alley oops and dunks had zero contibution in the playoffs against Miami except to jack shots, throw hissy fits, make mean faces, and basically mark himself for some hard fouls this year?


what did michael beasley do in that series? 

I don't really have a problem with Josh Smith getting invited to this thing but I guess you do. Like I said, mountains out of molehills.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Rather Unique said:


> You better believe tho, IF Beasley were to put up eye catching numbers and tear it up in the league the next year or so, they'll give him a look.


of course which is why it is crazy to me to see people so upset over this. it is not like they are going to set everything in stone this summer. the olympics are still three years away


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

First of all "mountains over molehills" is one of the gayest things I've ever heard.

Secondly, I'm not an incompetent idiot. I know teams need role players and especially players that can shoot. All I'm saying is that the role players for a team like that are usually a lot better than Korver, regardless of how good of a shooter he is. All we are trying to say is that Beasley was snubbed. That's all. I don't see how this is being biased at all.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

GregOden said:


> There's no doubt if I'M putting together a squad for 2012 I'm inviting Beasley to the camp.
> 
> Jace, by the way, Thad Young and Rudy Gay are both 3's. Josh Smith has all the talent in the world, he's just a bonehead. If they can preach to him the importance of defense and team basketball (I would probably give them a kiss on the face, nh) he could be one of the most important pieces on that team. He runs the floor extremely well for a big, he can jump out the gym, and if he bothers to focus on it he can be an incredible shot blocker. His career average is 2.3 blocks per game, and 1.2 steals per game. That would be invaluable in international play. If the kid gets his head on straight (focus's on defense and rebounding) and stops jacking up terrible shots all game (and wakes up when he's at the FT line, he shot WAY below his career average last season) he could probably be a defensive player of the year candidate.


Thad is a combo-forward, and I never said Gay was a 4. And we'll have to agree to disagree on Josh Smith. I think he sucks. Sorry.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

ATLien said:


> what did michael beasley do in that series?


You mean his first Playoff series in his rookie year as a 20-year-old? On a confused squad that suddenly had him playing SF for the fist time?

Josh Smith is supposed to have arrived by now. He's been starting on his team for awhile. He played a 7 game series against the eventual champs the previous season. Im sure ATL fans expected much more.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Jace said:


> You mean his first Playoff series in his rookie year as a 20-year-old? On a confused squad that suddenly had him playing SF for the fist time?
> 
> Josh Smith is supposed to have arrived by now. He's been starting on his team for awhile. He played a 7 game series against the eventual champs the previous season. Im sure ATL fans expected much more.


I remember Dwayne Wade cursing and yelling at him in Game 7. The Heat desperately needed him to break out and help Wade as a solid #2 and he didn't. That's what I remember from that series. and it was another Heat homer that first brought up playoff performance not me


----------



## vinsanity77 (May 1, 2006)

quick question, heat fans, how come Beasley don't get the respect that other rookies of his caliber gets from gms and coaches? I mean, Team USA staff picked Thaddeus Young over Beasley? Really? Why doesn't he get the respect he deserves? Just cuz he isn't that good at defense? somebody explain...


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

Beasley had a subpar series but the kid was 19 or 20. People tend to forget that.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

sMaK said:


> Beasley had a subpar series but the kid was 19 or 20. People tend to forget that.


yeah i know. and he should have been invited to this little thing. i was just responding to the heat homers post about josh smith sucking in the heat series.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

ATLien said:


> I remember Dwayne Wade cursing and yelling at him in Game 7. The Heat desperately needed him to break out and help Wade as a solid #2 and he didn't. That's what I remember from that series. and it was another Heat homer that first brought up playoff performance not me


What's your point? Clearly in my post I was indicating Beasley did not have a great series. My point is Josh Smith is supposed to be producing at a high level NOW. He is not.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

smithian said something to the effect of what else besides dunks and making mean looks did josh smith do in the first round series. i said something to the effect that he was more productive than mr. beasley. that's it. and you came in to defend your boycrush and **** got off topic. i am sorry


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

ATLien said:


> smithian said something to the effect of what else besides dunks and making mean looks did josh smith do in the first round series. i said something to the effect that he was more productive than mr. beasley. that's it. and you came in to defend your boycrush and **** got off topic. i am sorry


Not arguing with what you've said...but Josh Smith has a much, much bigger role and plays more minutes than Beasley.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

ATLien said:


> smithian said something to the effect of what else besides dunks and making mean looks did josh smith do in the first round series. i said something to the effect that he was more productive than mr. beasley. that's it. and you came in to defend your boycrush and **** got off topic. i am sorry


Its perfectly on topic dolt. We're talking about Beasley vs. Smith. Don't be thick. If you're going to try to justify Smith's crap performance by comparing him to a rookie in his first playoff, prepare to get put in your place.

I dont care if its a Heat board or not, you say stupid things, you're going to get embarrassed. 

Accept it. Move on.


----------



## HeatBall (Jan 14, 2009)

^^
owned???


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

what stupid things have i said??


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Jace said:


> Thad is a combo-forward, and I never said Gay was a 4. And we'll have to agree to disagree on Josh Smith. I think he sucks. Sorry.


You listed Gay as somebody who would log minutes at the 4 spot, I simply pointed out that he isn't a 4. In fact I highly doubt he would see ANY minutes at the 4 spot, supposing he made that team.

I agree that Josh Smith has his flaws, but let's be real here. He certainly doesn't "suck". He averaged 1.6 blocks per game (career average 2.3 blocks per game), and 1.4 steals per game last season. LeBron James averaged 1.1 blocks per game, and 1.7 steals per game. Wasn't LeBron second in DPOY voting? I'm sure you'll try to find a way to spin this as if I'm claiming Smith to be better than LeBron on defense, which should be obvious I am not. I'm just trying to put things into perspective for you, since you're obviously having trouble doing it yourself. There's no denying Josh Smith took a (small) step backwards last season (in blocks, shot selection, and FT% at least) however to claim he "sucks" makes you look like a blind hater, not to mention a fool.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

GregOden said:


> You listed Gay as somebody who would log minutes at the 4 spot, I simply pointed out that he isn't a 4. In fact I highly doubt he would see ANY minutes at the 4 spot, supposing he made that team.
> 
> I agree that Josh Smith has his flaws, but let's be real here. He certainly doesn't "suck". He averaged 1.6 blocks per game (career average 2.3 blocks per game), and 1.4 steals per game last season. LeBron James averaged 1.1 blocks per game, and 1.7 steals per game. Wasn't LeBron second in DPOY voting? I'm sure you'll try to find a way to spin this as if I'm claiming Smith to be better than LeBron on defense, which should be obvious I am not. I'm just trying to put things into perspective for you, since you're obviously having trouble doing it yourself. There's no denying Josh Smith took a (small) step backwards last season (in blocks, shot selection, and FT% at least) however to claim he "sucks" makes you look like a blind hater, not to mention a fool.





Jace said:


> Jeff Green
> Anthony Randolph
> Josh Smith
> Thaddeus Young
> ...


There's the first part of my post. No Rudy Gay on that list. Later I mentioned him when discussing forwards (either three or four) whom I feel Beasley is more talented than, and don't provide specific roles ala Korver.

And I admittedly got carried away with the Smith hate. I just hate his game and his attitude. Sure, he provides some nice things on the court, but I wouldn't want him on my team, even from an objective point of view. Maybe he doesn't suck, but I feel like the good things he provides are more often than not negated by his shortcomings.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Smithian said:


> I forgot that Michael Beasley is a ball hog with a terrible attitude...
> 
> What did Beasley do wrong ever on the court? I mean, seriously, he wasn't a ball hog, he passed when need be, he stayed within the offense, he listened to the veterans, and he improved throughout the year defensively.
> 
> ...



When did I say that Beasley was a ballhog with a bad attitude? I did say that Beasley needs the ball in his hands, creating the play, to be most effective. And that's not even a bad thing, you need that from an allstar player during the NBA season. But, you can't throw 12 guy's like that out there and expect them to be effective, it's just not going to work (EX. 2004 U.S. Olympic team.) Beasley's clearly a better player than five or six of the guy's on that team, but he's also more ball dominant than most of them too, and obviously the coaches were simply more intrigued by Anthony Randolph's potential or McGee's size than Beasley's scoring.

And while I think Beasley will be a pretty good player in this league, 23/12? Really? That's not going to happen, sorry. He simply doesn't have the rebounding ability or the size to bring down 12 a game (And please, don't compare Beasley to Sir Charles and embarass yourself.) and even on the off chance that Beasley does get numbers somewhere around that area, Wade's certainly not going to be playing at say, his current level.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

I agree with some of that, but you just dont know how good I guy like Beasley can become, so you have to invite him to the tryout. The fact that one of his best assets is his ability to create his own shot should not keep him OFF the team.

And 23 and 12 is ridiculous. I see him getting to 25-27 and 8-10. He'll have stretches and maybe playoff series where he avgs at least 12, but not over a season, methinks.


----------



## PoetLaureate (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't care how big a ballhog Mike Beasley may or may not be, you don't ignore a player of his size and skillset to a *TRYOUT*, without having some sort of agenda behind it. Especially after multiple "cuts" where players AT HIS POSITION (Blake Griffin) choose not to participate. There is no other justification. Remember, its a tryout. A ****ing tryout


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jace said:


> I agree with some of that, but you just dont know how good I guy like Beasley can become, so you have to invite him to the tryout. The fact that one of his best assets is his ability to create his own shot should not keep him OFF the team.
> 
> And 23 and 12 is ridiculous. *I see him getting to 25-27 and 8-10.* He'll have stretches and maybe playoff series where he avgs at least 12, but not over a season, methinks.


Granted, I haven't watched Beasley as much as most of you probably have (Though I did see a pretty decent amount the past two years) he simply hasn't shown me that he can be that explosive, as the second banana to one of the greatest two guards of all time (Wade, obviously) I see him putting in an efficient 21/8.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Jace said:


> I agree with some of that, but you just dont know how good I guy like Beasley can become, so you have to invite him to the tryout. The fact that one of his best assets is his ability to create his own shot should not keep him OFF the team.


that's ridiculous. any player who has any kind of potential needs to be invited just in case they pan out? if beasley proves himself to be too good to be ignored, he'll get his invite, there's no doubt about that.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

vinsanity77 said:


> quick question, heat fans, how come Beasley don't get the respect that other rookies of his caliber gets from gms and coaches? I mean, Team USA staff picked Thaddeus Young over Beasley? Really? Why doesn't he get the respect he deserves? Just cuz he isn't that good at defense? somebody explain...


No clue.

NBA Head Coaches voted him 1st team All-Rookie over the Common Man's Jesus Christ, Kevin Love.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> that's ridiculous. any player who has any kind of potential needs to be invited just in case they pan out? if beasley proves himself to be too good to be ignored, he'll get his invite, there's no doubt about that.


Wow, is that what I said? I said Beasley has TOO MUCH POTENTIAL to be passed on like this. A lot of that potential has even been realized. Compare his caged, rookie stats to those of many of the better power forwards.

Have fun warping my words to validate posting again, though.

EDIT: I guess I didn't say it specifically in that post, but Ive been saying it throughout the thread. Either way, you don't lump Beasley in with "any player who has any kind of potential" and the "just in case they pan out" players. That's ludicrous.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jace said:


> Wow, is that what I said? I said Beasley has TOO MUCH POTENTIAL to be passed on like this. A lot of that potential has even been realized. Compare his caged, rookie stats to those of many of the better power forwards.
> 
> Have fun warping my words to validate posting again, though.
> 
> EDIT: I guess I didn't say it specifically in that post, but Ive been saying it throughout the thread. Either way, you don't lump Beasley in with "any player who has any kind of potential" and the "just in case they pan out" players. That's ludicrous.


You're acting like Michael is LeBron or someone. He's a barely 6'8 powerforward that is a sub par (And that's being pretty generous) defender. Yes, he's fairly athletic and has a good offensive repitore for a young player, congrats. He's not oozing with potential like you may think he is.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

ATLien said:


> smithian said something to the effect of what else besides dunks and making mean looks did josh smith do in the first round series. i said something to the effect that he was more productive than mr. beasley. that's it. and you came in to defend your boycrush and **** got off topic. i am sorry


Was I wrong about Josh Smith? He was an epic fail that series and aside from the first game and maybe Game 4, the Heat were better off when he was on the court since they wouldn't have nto guard him on the perimeter and double on someone else. So far your only defense has been coming after our rookie who didn't even start.



VanillaPrice said:


> When did I say that Beasley was a ballhog with a bad attitude?


That was basically meant for Beasley haters.



VanillaPrice said:


> And while I think Beasley will be a pretty good player in this league, 23/12? Really? That's not going to happen, sorry. He simply doesn't have the rebounding ability or the size to bring down 12 a game (And please, don't compare Beasley to Sir Charles and embarass yourself.) and even on the off chance that Beasley does get numbers somewhere around that area, Wade's certainly not going to be playing at say, his current level.


First, he can score that much.

Second, on the rebounding, he can do it. Ranked #13 in the NBA overall this year in rebounds per 48 minutes as a rookie who was used as a perimeter player who will only get stronger. Plus, he has awesome length and sick athletic ability... He can do it. In college where he was in a 40-60 perimeter/inside role like he should be here in his prime, he beasted on the boards at both ends. Michael Beasley will eventually be way too quick for PFs and will simply over power SFs. He has superstar potential.

And before someone comes back with the, "Well, he didn't do anything this year," comment, remember he was the 6th man on a team that had the biggest win improvement in the NBA, finished second in scoring on the team, and was developed as well as possible by the Miami coaches who benched him every time he started to show a bad habit, but also showed the willingness to play him in crucial situations when he was within his role.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Smithian said:


> Second, on the rebounding, he can do it. Ranked #13 in the NBA overall this year in rebounds per 48 minutes as a rookie who was used as a perimeter player who will only get stronger.


your stats are way way off. beasley wasn't in the top 50 of rebound rate or rebounds per 48 minutes this season.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> You're acting like Michael is LeBron or someone. He's a barely 6'8 powerforward that is a sub par (And that's being pretty generous) defender. Yes, he's fairly athletic and has a good offensive repitore for a young player, congrats. He's not oozing with potential like you may think he is.


He doesn't have to be LeBron James to have his talent recognized. Sure he doesn't have a fantastic all-around game yet, but considering what he did in college, its clear he will be quite special. I understand he doesn't have the super-high ceiling of Randolph, but people make him out to have had a way worse season than he actually did.

What does "barely" 6-8 mean? If you're 6-8, you're 6-8. He measured 6-7 barefoot, and 6-8 1/4 with shoes. Most players get at least an inch and a half with shoes.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> You're acting like Michael is LeBron or someone.


No... We're not... We're saying he can be a top player someday. Not an MVP.

Big difference.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> your stats are way way off. beasley wasn't in the top 50 of rebound rate or rebounds per 48 minutes this season.


Haha, good job, I checked back and I was looking at playoff rankings. That number did seem high.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> You're acting like Michael is LeBron or someone.


Did you also criticize Kobe after his rookie year? Michael was 19, turned 20 in January, and he had a better rookie year than Kevin Garnett, Antonio McDyess, Chris Bosh, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, and LaMarcus Aldridge. Last I checked, two of those guys are MVP winners.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

You guys are REALLY optimistic which is fine, but I've been posting a while for this site and I have seen this kind of optimism before, most notably on the Chicago Bulls and Portland Blazers forums.


> Was I wrong about Josh Smith? He was an epic fail that series and aside from the first game and maybe Game 4, the Heat were better off when he was on the court since they wouldn't have nto guard him on the perimeter and double on someone else. So far your only defense has been coming after our rookie who didn't even start.


I don't know if I agree. Epic fail? Maybe, maybe not but Josh's playoff averages (17.1PPG and 7.5RPG) are actually stronger than his regular season averages (15.6PPG and 7.2RPG) so take it for what it's worth


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Tyrus Thomas and Greg Oden?

No.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The '93 Heat said:


> Did you also criticize Kobe after his rookie year? Michael was 19, turned 20 in January, and he had a better rookie year than Kevin Garnett, Antonio McDyess, Chris Bosh, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, and LaMarcus Aldridge. Last I checked, two of those guys are MVP winners.


Kobe and Kevin came straight out of highschool, and even so, i'd take a rookie Garnett over a rookie Beasley anyday.

And Jace/Smithian, you guy's are saying that he will be a top player, but not an MVP canidate? One of your predictions was 23/12 (MVP numbers) and the other was 27/10 (MVP numbers).


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> Kobe and Kevin came straight out of highschool, and even so, i'd take a rookie Garnett over a rookie Beasley anyday.


PER which factors in all the statistics provides a good comparison between the two and Michael had a PER of 17.2 and Kevin had a PER of 15.8. Whether you would "take a rookie Garnett" is irrelevant because the stats prove that Beasley was better as a rookie than Kevin.

Kobe also only had a PER of 14.4 as a rookie, 18.5 in his second season, and 18.9 in his 3rd season. He didn't even become a starter until his third year. And the straight out of highschool argument doesn't work for Garnett either because Beasley had better stats per 36 minutes in his first season than Garnett did in his second. Beasley's rookie PER is comparable to a 2nd year PER from Garnett. Beasley was also only 19 in his rookie year as I already stated so that also hurts your argument.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> PER which factors in all the statistics provides a good comparison between the two and Michael had a PER of 17.2 and Kevin had a PER of 15.8. Whether you would "take a rookie Garnett" is irrelevant because the stats prove that Beasley was better as a rookie than Kevin.


there is also the half of the game we like to call defense which isn't really reflected in PER.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> there is also the half of the game we like to call defense which isn't really reflected in PER.


Yeah, and Beasley was the only player of those I mentioned whose team had the balls to sit him and play him minutes that he rightfully earned.

Nowitzki and Amare are still piss poor defenders to this day so I don't get your point. Kevin Garnett was an awful rebounder for several early seasons and was clueless as a rookie and manorexic. Beasley earned all his minutes that he got and he sat for the ones he didn't get. 

All any player can do is take advantage of the time he has on the court and the stats show Beasley did that as good or better than some of the greatest to play his position.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> Yeah, and Beasley was the only player of those I mentioned whose team had the balls to sit him and play him minutes that he rightfully earned.
> 
> Nowitzki and Amare are still piss poor defenders to this day so I don't get your point. Kevin Garnett was an awful rebounder for several early seasons and was clueless as a rookie and manorexic. Beasley earned all his minutes that he got and he sat for the ones he didn't get.
> 
> All any player can do is take advantage of the time he has on the court and the stats show Beasley did that as good or better than some of the greatest to play his position.


are any of the things you said relevant?

you said that PER proves that beasley was better as a rookie than kevin garnett. but PER isn't really much of a measure of defense, where even in his rookie year garnett was better than beasley. it's fair to say that beasley's rookie year was on par with garnett's rookie year, but i'd disagree that beasley was better and the notion that because in your mind beasley "earned" his minutes doesn't change that.

also, if garnett was an awful rebounder early in his career, are you willing to say the same about beasley? for their rookie seasons they had the same rebound rate.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> are any of the things you said relevant?
> 
> you said that PER proves that beasley was better as a rookie than kevin garnett. but PER isn't really much of a measure of defense, where even in his rookie year garnett was better than beasley.


No, he wasn't. He couldn't guard a chair and he sat often because of it.



> it's fair to say that beasley's rookie year was on par with garnett's rookie year, but i'd disagree that beasley was better and the notion that because in your mind beasley "earned" his minutes doesn't change that.
> 
> also, if garnett was an awful rebounder early in his career, are you willing to say the same about beasley? for their rookie seasons they had the same rebound rate.


Beasley's defensive rebound % was 19.8. Garnett didn't exceed that until his 4th year. So no, I wouldn't be willing to say the same.

I clearly said Garnett was awful over several seasons. The point being that he didn't improve his rebound rate from his rookie year. If Beasley doesn't improve his rebound rate then I will say the same. Garnett's rate wasn't bad for a rookie but it was bad for a 3rd year player of his potential and that was my point.

Beasley averaged 8 rebounds per 36 minutes. In games he started, averaging only 30 minutes, he averaged 7 rebounds. That beats the 6.3 Garnett averaged as a rookie. Projecting Beasley into the future I have no problem saying that he will be a great rebounder which was the point that was pounced upon by Vanilla Price which I refuted.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> No, he wasn't. He couldn't guard a chair and he sat often because of it.


yes, he was.



> Beasley's defensive rebound % was 19.8. Garnett didn't exceed that until his 4th year. So no, I wouldn't be willing to say the same.


oh i see. defensive rebounds are all that matters, because beasley was better in that category. let's ignore offensive rebounds or the two combined.



> I clearly said Garnett was awful over several seasons. The point being that he didn't improve his rebound rate from his rookie year. If Beasley doesn't improve his rebound rate then I will say the same. Garnett's rate wasn't bad for a rookie but it was bad for a 3rd year player of his potential and that was my point.


your point is that beasley is somehow better than garnett was as a rookie. your point is neither true nor relevant. plenty of players have had equal or better rookie years than garnett.



> Beasley averaged 8 rebounds per 36 minutes. In games he started, averaging only 30 minutes, he averaged 7 rebounds. That beats the 6.3 Garnett averaged as a rookie.


so you want to take beasley's per 36 numbers and measure them up against garnett's non per minute numbers and then you want to take beasley's numbers as a starter and measure them against garnett's numbers for the full season when he only started part of it? those seem like perfectly fair comparisons not intended to have the numbers favor what you're trying to argue.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> yes, he was.
> 
> 
> oh i see. defensive rebounds are all that matters, because beasley was better in that category. let's ignore offensive rebounds or the two combined.


The fact that he was better than a future multiple rebounding title winner is noteworthy when somebody is arguing his potential.

My point was that Garnett was a mediocre rebounder for several seasons hence that was not a strength of his game.



> your point is that beasley is somehow better than garnett was as a rookie. your point is neither true nor relevant. plenty of players have had equal or better rookie years than garnett.


It is relevant in the context I posted it which you are removing it from.

I guess that it's somehow unfair to compare the production of players of roughly the same age, same position, and same year of their professional career?

And the fact that you would bet on Garnett's rookie year defensive prowess is absolutely ridiculous because he was a horrific defender. He was so raw and skinny. He wasn't anything close to an average defender yet you saw fit to claim that his defense closes the difference in their PER's? That's preposterous. At _best_ they're equal defenders (and I'm being generous because Beasley is the better defender) so for you to argue that PER, which factors in rebounding, steals, and blocks and shows Beasley with a greater rating, does not prove Beasley was the better rookie because Kevin Garnett was the superior defender is silly.



> so you want to take beasley's per 36 numbers and measure them up against garnett's non per minute numbers and then you want to take beasley's numbers as a starter and measure them against garnett's numbers for the full season when he only started part of it? those seem like perfectly fair comparisons not intended to have the numbers favor what you're trying to argue.


I didn't measure Bealey's per 36 against Garnett's non per 36. I measured them against Garnett's per 36.

I compared Beasley's time as a starter which was 30 MPG to the Garnett's season because he averaged (get this) 30 MPG. In effect, I compared their per 30 minute stats. Try to keep up rocketeer.


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

Sorry, I had to...


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

I'm going to be quiet now so I don't ruin '93 and Jace's momentum.

opcorn:


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

sMaK said:


> Sorry, I had to...


YES!

"must spread rep before giving it to sMaK." Damnit.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

PoetLaureate said:


> I don't care how big a ballhog Mike Beasley may or may not be, you don't ignore a player of his size and skillset to a *TRYOUT*, without having some sort of agenda behind it. Especially after multiple "cuts" where players AT HIS POSITION (Blake Griffin) choose not to participate. There is no other justification. Remember, its a tryout. A ****ing tryout


Everyone is out to get poor Mike Beasley.........

**** you guys are pathetic.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> The fact that he was better than a future multiple rebounding title winner is noteworthy when somebody is arguing his potential.
> 
> My point was that Garnett was a mediocre rebounder for several seasons hence that was not a strength of his game.


beasley wasn't better unless you decide that offensive rebounds are irrelevant.



> I guess that it's somehow unfair to compare the production of players of roughly the same age, same position, and same year of their professional career?


unfair? no. irrelevant? pretty much.



> And the fact that you would bet on Garnett's rookie year defensive prowess is absolutely ridiculous because he was a horrific defender. He was so raw and skinny. He wasn't anything close to an average defender yet you saw fit to claim that his defense closes the difference in their PER's? That's preposterous. At _best_ they're equal defenders (and I'm being generous because Beasley is the better defender) so for you to argue that PER, which factors in rebounding, steals, and blocks and shows Beasley with a greater rating, does not prove Beasley was the better rookie because Kevin Garnett was the superior defender is silly.


you should stop pretending that beasley is even an average defender, because he is for from that.

the difference in PER from their two seasons was not huge and garnett as a rookie was the better defender. garnett wasn't anything close to the defender he was in his prime, but he didn't have to be to still be better than beasley in that regard.



> I didn't measure Bealey's per 36 against Garnett's non per 36. I measured them against Garnett's per 36.


garnett also averaged 8 rebounds per 36 minutes as a rookie.



> I compared Beasley's time as a starter which was 30 MPG to the Garnett's season because he averaged (get this) 30 MPG. In effect, I compared their per 30 minute stats. Try to keep up rocketeer.


if you actually adjust garnett's rookie numbers to per 30 minutes, his rebounding is basically the same as beasley's. there's something like a .1 difference in the two.

so again, per minute they were equal rebounders. by rebound rate, they were equal rebounders. what about that makes beasley the better rebounder?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Okay, Officer Mancuso. You interjected to point out that manorexic rookie year Garnett's defensive prowess was so intangibly great that it overcomes the statistical difference in PER that factors in rebounds, blocks, and steals. If you want to enjoy that fiction then be my guest, but I was alive and witness to otherwise. Garnett couldn't guard Urkel back in those days.

Furthermore, I never said Beasley was a better rebounder because of their rookie years. I said that Garnett was a mediocre rebounder over his first several seasons. When you pressed me I explained that it was because his rebound rate didn't improve until his 4th year and a rookie Beasley had a comparable rebound rate to a 3rd year Garnett. Beasley and Garnett's rookie year rebounding is fine relative to that, a rookie year, but 3 years later it is mediocre. I already said that if Beasley is rebounding at the same rate 3 years later then I will say the same thing about him. Are you going to intentionally ignore my explanation of my statements and accuse me a 3rd time of saying that Beasley was a better rebounder as a rookie than Garnett as a rookie?



> unfair? no. irrelevant? pretty much.


It's not irrelevant when I'm replying to Vanilla Price that you can't write Beasley off when he compares statistically to some of the best PF's in the game. The only thing that was irrelevant was your silly claim that Garnett's defense puts him above Beasley despite all the countless variables PER measures which deemed Beasley his better. Do passing, shooting, and dribbling skills not exist in your world?

When you consider that Garnett was only one of many players that I mentioned in that post it makes your mission on confusion even more ridiculous. I guess you couldn't argue the tangential issue of defense with Amare, Bosh, Dirk, or Aldridge yet because you think that Garnett was a better rookie than Beasley it somehow refutes the crux of my post that _he was only a 19 year old rookie and had a historically impressive season relative to past greats._ If you can refute that then I'll call my post irrelevant myself.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> And Jace/Smithian, you guy's are saying that he will be a top player, but not an MVP canidate? One of your predictions was 23/12 (MVP numbers) and the other was 27/10 (MVP numbers).


I'm saying in a Beasley-optimized situation (see: not on a team with Wade, at least not in an active scoring role) there's no question he can average 25-27 points (you took the high end of my range with both stats.) 

My rebound range was 8-10. I'd say he'll definitely get to 10, or at least damn close. The kid can board, and he showed it at the end of the season.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Everyone is out to get poor Mike Beasley.........
> 
> **** you guys are pathetic.


Man, you're cool.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> It's not irrelevant when I'm replying to Vanilla Price that you can't write Beasley off when he compares statistically to some of the best PF's in the game. The only thing that was irrelevant was your silly claim that Garnett's defense puts him above Beasley despite all the countless variables PER measures which deemed Beasley his better. Do passing, shooting, and dribbling skills not exist in your world?


if you've been reading my posts, you would have seen where i said that beasley and garnett had equal rookie seasons.



> When you consider that Garnett was only one of many players that I mentioned in that post it makes your mission on confusion even more ridiculous. I guess you couldn't argue the tangential issue of defense with Amare, Bosh, Dirk, or Aldridge yet because you think that Garnett was a better rookie than Beasley it somehow refutes the crux of my post that he was only a 19 year old rookie and had a historically impressive season relative to past greats. If you can refute that then I'll call my post irrelevant myself.


my point was that he didn't have a historically impressive season relative to past greats and that even if he had, it wouldn't really be relevant. beasley trailed kevin love, marreese speights, greg oden, and brook lopez in PER as a rookie and guys like roy hibbert, marc gasol, and anthony randolph weren't far behind but you're trying to act as if beasley's rookie production is historically good.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jace said:


> Man, you're cool.


If cool means I don't sit back crying about secret conspiracy theories against my favorite player, then yea, I guess you could call me cool.

If your guys strongest argument against Beasley not making it is there's a conspiracy theory against him, then again, that is pathetic.

No one wants Beasley on their team because he is known to be a problem. Why invite a me first locker room prima dona? And honestly, would Beasley improve the team? No.

But you are all correct, the most powerful men in basketball get together on Sunday nights to decide how best to screw over Beasley.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

R-Star said:


> But you are all correct, the most powerful men in basketball get together on Sunday nights to decide how best to screw over Beasley.


Yup. They do. The NBA head coaches have all already seen the light and they voted him 1st team All-Rookie over a few players on that list.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> Yup. They do. The NBA head coaches have all already seen the light and they voted him 1st team All-Rookie over a few players on that list.


Not sure how him making the 1st team All-Rook justifies this as a snub.

You know what, I'm upset no one called Jamal Tinsley to play for Team USA after his rookie year. He had a better season than Beasley did, and even had a triple double.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Everyone is out to get poor Mike Beasley.........
> 
> **** you guys are pathetic.


It's funny watching you come on our board all the time, take pot shots, and two thirds of the time no one even comments but you keep coming back. I don't even know what your favorite team is!

I've seen Laker haters, Celtic haters, and just a bunch of overall haters, but never a Heat hater. It's actually quite adorable that you dislike us that much.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

R-Star said:


> If cool means I don't sit back crying about secret conspiracy theories against my favorite player, then yea, I guess you could call me cool.
> 
> If your guys strongest argument against Beasley not making it is there's a conspiracy theory against him, then again, that is pathetic.
> 
> ...


Just curious R-Star, do you have any examples of the bolded, I know you don't like dude, and the gripes against his Defense and his passing skills are valid criticisms, and I know he can be immature, aloof w/e you wanna call it. But where are these problems (in the NBA)? the prima dona? All i've heard is that he works hard, and is open to learning. Can you bring up examples since the rookie symposium incident which BOTH he and Mario got the boot?


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

When have any of us said that there is some type of conspiracy? We just think he was snubbed. What's the big deal here? And its the offseason, there's not much to talk about.

Seems like some of you came in here with an agenda to make us Heat fans look like biased retards. One of our players got snubbed and we are complaining about.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Smithian said:


> It's funny watching you come on our board all the time, take pot shots, and two thirds of the time no one even comments but you keep coming back. I don't even know what your favorite team is!
> 
> I've seen Laker haters, Celtic haters, and just a bunch of overall haters, but never a Heat hater. It's actually quite adorable that you dislike us that much.


He's a Pacers fan.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

there sure is a lot of passion and interest surrounding mike... just ask ira... why is that?


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Smithian said:


> It's funny watching you come on our board all the time, take pot shots, and two thirds of the time no one even comments but you keep coming back. I don't even know what your favorite team is!


Honestly. And he dares to throw the word "pathetic" around. Couldn't find a better example of the pot and kettle.

Figures he's a Pacers fan. I should've been able to tell by that picture, hah.

Oh yeah, and I for one never said nor implied there was a conspiracy theory. Im pretty sure no one else did. If anything, some are saying it sucks he's been stigmatized because of his loose behavior, or whatever it was.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

This is ridiculous. 

Beasley got snubbed, but not majorly so. He has ZERO chance of making the 2012 team unless BOTH Lebron AND Carmelo Back out. That isn't going to happen. Durant is going to play the 4 in the international game. Coach K has already given the seal of approval on that.

The guys that SHOULD have been invited ahead of Beasley unequivocally:

Rose
Harris
Durant (who makes Beasley moot, because he'll NEVER beat Durant out for that spot).....

Guys I have no problem being invited ahead of Beasley (for reasons of fit, or just being plain better right now):

Mayo
Iguodala
Gay (barely)
Korver
Westbrook
Brook Lopez
Gordon
Blake Griffin (Only because he's a #1 pick, and #1's usually get invited)

Iffy Guys (Guys that could go either way): 

Love
Randolph
Granger (Who is already pretty close to maxed out on potential, and will be about 30 when the 2012 games roll around).

Guys Beasley probably should be ahead of based on potential and health:

Milsap
Oden (Can't stay healthy)
Young
Green
Josh Smith
David Lee
Javale McGee

Guys that had no business being invited:

Brewer
Chalmers 
Big Baby
Jerryd Bayless 

Exactly what position would Jerryd Bayless play on this team? If they are going to invite him, they might as well have invited Ben Gordon.......


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

HeatBall said:


> they always look for good young talent.. but korver and McGee over beasley is just insulting


Javale McGee is a center. He fills the role as a long athletic guy who can run the floor and block shots.

Korver is a 3 point specialist. If you look at why the 2004 team lost, they didn't have enough guys who could hit open 3s. Beasley is a better player but Korver is a specialist.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Im not going to bash anyone on the roster, but if you are going to lineup as much young talent as you can there really is no logic behind leaving last years #2 pick off of it


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

^ the voice of reason.

Thank you


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Chalmers was not invited, Krakken.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Jace said:


> Chalmers was not invited, Krakken.


I meant Augustin. I confuse the two whenever I visit the Heat board.


----------



## PoetLaureate (Feb 8, 2009)

If 14 guys are iffy at best, how is that not a major snub? That's over half the invites


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

PoetLaureate said:


> If 14 guys are iffy at best, how is that not a major snub? That's over half the invites


It's my opinion that 20+ players shouldn't have been invited anyway.

It's not a major snub, because I'm willing to bet any amount you care to wager, that the coaching staff, already had their list narrowed down to about 8-10 real players to look at. The rest of those guys are just punching bags.

In fact, I can name the one's I KNOW they are considering for the USA Team next year.....in order that they are considering them.......(only counting who was actually in camp)

Durant
Rose
Harris
Gay
Korver
Mayo
Gordon
Oden 
Lopez
Iguodala

That's it.

Everyone else there is there to provide competition to these players. None of them are being considered seriously. And really, once you get below Harris, everyone else on the list above becomes a REALLY REALLY long shot at making the team. That's even counting how well Gay played.

Westbrook is just barely on the outside looking in. And that's only because the two players ahead of him are better than he is, and are already on the list.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)




----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

MB30 said:


>


Why? Because I placed Rose so high on that list? He's that high, because apparantly the coaches regard him that much, at a postion of NEED. Every account given states that Because of team needs, Coach K, hold Rose, Durant, and Harris, in a different place than everyone else. 2 of those three will make next years team. They are the only nearly sure things. Rose was the front runner for the vacant PG spot coming into camp, and up until the showcase game, Rose was still the frontrunner...even if slightly. He didn't play well in the showcase game, but Harris didn't play at all. So Rose didn't damage his position.

Add to that, the fact that Coach K was gushing about Rose on Friday Morning, and it isn't hard to tell.

He only gushed about a few players. 2 or three to be exact.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Nah I pretty much just put it there to stir you - its pretty much a guarantee Rose will be there.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Who is Derrick Rose?

You mean Malik? He probably won't make the team.

If it's Jalen, he might have a chance.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> my point was that he didn't have a historically impressive season relative to past greats and that even if he had, it wouldn't really be relevant. beasley trailed kevin love, marreese speights, greg oden, and brook lopez in PER as a rookie and guys like roy hibbert, marc gasol, and anthony randolph weren't far behind but *you're trying to act as if beasley's rookie production is historically good.*


I compared his rookie season to some of the greatest power forwards of the last 15 years, lottery picks, all 19 or 20 years old, and said that Beasley had a better rookie season, so historically speaking he may not have had a Rookie of the Year type year but he is as far or farther along than any rational person should have expected him. It's really strange that given the mountain of historical evidence there are plenty who are calling Beasley a bust because he didn't have a LeBron performance. Bill Simmons calling him a fraud was just pathetic. Anyway, my point was to tell Vanilla why he should not write Beasley off based on his rookie season. I'm not arguing that he had an all-star season. He was historically good in the context I presented.



The Krakken said:


> Why? Because I placed Rose so high on that list? He's that high, because apparantly the coaches regard him that much, at a postion of NEED.


I wouldn't call the 3rd PG spot a position of need. Paul is the starter and Deron is the backup and Wade can play point.

At the 4 position you have to find replacements for Tayshaun (age) and Boozer, and Carmelo is a headcase on occasion.

Durant is not a 4. Don't underestimate the physicality of international ball (just look at the finals against Spain or the game against Australia last year). Ideally he would be replacing Redd or even Kobe who will be really old in 2012 and should make way for the younger guys.

You don't accidentally invite Glen Davis instead of Beasley. There was a conscious decision to not invite him and that's why people around here are so pissed. It has nothing to do with conspiracies (R-Star). Team USA did it to Gilbert Arenas and now Beasley. I would like an explanation from the head coach about why he is being actively snubbed. It's customary for national selection teams to at least explain the decision behind their choices.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qPRWajOVSM

He seems pretty cool about it being left out of the team; not bitter at all. I hope he makes the 2012 squad!


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

If Michael Beasley comes to camp with that, please let Intangibles make him shave it. Please.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

You expect him to be crying and complaining about it? Wouldnt that perpetuate the "immature" label?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> I wouldn't call the 3rd PG spot a position of need. Paul is the starter and Deron is the backup and Wade can play point.


Doesn't matter what YOU think. What matters is what Colangelo, and Coach K think. And they think backup PG is a position of need. I tend to side with the coach and personnel director of the Gold medal winning team from last year. I think they know a little bit more about what is needed on this team than you or I.

As for wade playing PG. No. Not the way Coach K want's it played.



> At the 4 position you have to find replacements for Tayshaun (age) and Boozer, and Carmelo is a headcase on occasion.
> 
> Durant is not a 4. Don't underestimate the physicality of international ball (just look at the finals against Spain or the game against Australia last year). Ideally he would be replacing Redd or even Kobe who will be really old in 2012 and should make way for the younger guys.


Again, talk to Coach K. HE is the one who made Durant into an international 4. Not me. If you have a problem with Coach K placing him at the 4 spot, then take it up with him. I'm just the messenger. But again, everything he's stated thus far, has been about Durant playing the 4 because of his versatility....IN ADDITION to playing BOTH the 3 and the 2.



> You don't accidentally invite Glen Davis instead of Beasley. There was a conscious decision to not invite him and that's why people around here are so pissed. It has nothing to do with conspiracies (R-Star). Team USA did it to Gilbert Arenas and now Beasley. I would like an explanation from the head coach about why he is being actively snubbed. It's customary for national selection teams to at least explain the decision behind their choices.


I don't disagree. I just don't think that just over a year into the league, its a big deal.......yet.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> It's funny watching you come on our board all the time, take pot shots, and two thirds of the time no one even comments but you keep coming back. I don't even know what your favorite team is!
> 
> I've seen Laker haters, Celtic haters, and just a bunch of overall haters, but never a Heat hater. It's actually quite adorable that you dislike us that much.


Still waiting for you to come back with some validity to these Mike Beasley conspiracy theories.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Rather Unique said:


> Just curious R-Star, do you have any examples of the bolded, I know you don't like dude, and the gripes against his Defense and his passing skills are valid criticisms, and I know he can be immature, aloof w/e you wanna call it. But where are these problems (in the NBA)? the prima dona? All i've heard is that he works hard, and is open to learning. Can you bring up examples since the rookie symposium incident which BOTH he and Mario got the boot?


No examples of him being a problem in the NBA. I'm not going to lie. The stories I heard before he came to the NBA turned me off of him. And yes, I called them stories because I know some have not been proven true, but to me, where there's smoke, and with Beasley there was a lot of smoke, there's fire.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jace said:


> Honestly. And he dares to throw the word "pathetic" around. Couldn't find a better example of the pot and kettle.
> 
> Figures he's a Pacers fan. I should've been able to tell by that picture, hah.
> 
> Oh yeah, and I for one never said nor implied there was a conspiracy theory. Im pretty sure no one else did. If anything, some are saying it sucks he's been stigmatized because of his loose behavior, or whatever it was.


By my picture? Ok.........

And yea, there were multiple posters saying people were out to get Beasley and had something against him. Reread the thread if necessary.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Still waiting for you to come back with some validity to these Mike Beasley conspiracy theories.


You really need to read some more.

I didn't state one conspiracy. I am just saying I have no idea why they left him off the team, and I made several posts listing off various players with reasons of why he should be there over them.

Again, I have no idea why you hate the Heat. Really don't. I am glad, however, that we are such a good team that some people find time to hate.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

R-Star said:


> No examples of him being a problem in the NBA. I'm not going to lie. The stories I heard before he came to the NBA turned me off of him. And yes, I called them stories because I know some have not been proven true, but to me, where there's smoke, and with Beasley there was a lot of smoke, there's fire.


Don't you support the franchise that has had Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Shawne Williams and Jamaal Tinsley?

And you're saying that Beasley is bad? The worst he did was tag his name and smoke some weed.

It's not like he jumped in the stands and punched fans...oh wait...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> You really need to read some more.
> 
> I didn't state one conspiracy. I am just saying I have no idea why they left him off the team, and I made several posts listing off various players with reasons of why he should be there over them.
> 
> Again, I have no idea why you hate the Heat. Really don't. I am glad, however, that we are such a good team that some people find time to hate.


And I'm glad you're the type of fan who thinks anytime someone doesn't like one of your players that hes a "hater". I'm perfectly fine with the Heat. Zo is one of my all time favorites. I just don't like Beasley. Not sure how that makes me a hater.

Not to mention, if you guys would like to go back and read the thread, there are multiple complaints about Beasley getting screwed over by coaches, and how its confusing why no one likes him. That isn't my opinion, there are multiple poor Beasley posts in this thread.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MB30 said:


> Don't you support the franchise that has had Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Shawne Williams and Jamaal Tinsley?
> 
> And you're saying that Beasley is bad? The worst he did was tag his name and smoke some weed.
> 
> It's not like he jumped in the stands and punched fans...oh wait...


Hmmmm..... so because the Pacers have made some bad decisions with who they signed in the past, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on Beasley. I can see how that makes sense.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Smithian said:


> Again, I have no idea why you hate the Heat. Really don't. I am glad, however, that we are such a good team that some people find time to hate.


are you serious?


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Not to mention, if you guys would like to go back and read the thread, there are multiple complaints about Beasley getting screwed over by coaches, and how its confusing why no one likes him. That isn't my opinion, there are multiple poor Beasley posts in this thread.


And what did you expect when opening up a thread on this topic, on this messageboard?

I don't know how many times you re-read threads on opposing teams' messageboards to look for fodder to ridicule people, but that word 'pathetic' starts to come to mind again.

And by the way, I think posters were actually saying it was the coaches that voted Beasley onto the rookie team. I believe one poster also claimed his coaches have been toying with his minutes since the U-19 USA team, excluding K-State. Probably a silly comment considering he's had two other coaches besides Frank Martin in that period, but that's *one* poster, who I believe wasn't even a Heat fan, in a thread with many, many others (or actual Heat fans.) Would you like us to apologize for this person? What do you want here?

I personally have been saying I understand why he's not liked. Truthfully, the guy is misunderstood. I totally see why. His disposition appears pretty aloof and arrogant, and is obviously therefore perceived negatively. This in turn apparently gives off the impression he doesn't care about the sport, or doesn't respect his coaches. On top of that, he's had some minor rebellious transgressions in the past, but nothing that was ever serious or got in the way of basketball. He loves the sport and by all accounts is hard-working, respectful, and a very positive element in the locker-room. People in general tend to only pay attention to, and magnify, what validates their established perceptions. Consequently, Beasley writing his initials on his principal's truck or having forbidden women in a hotel room becomes worse than cheating on a major test, getting pulled-over for speeding, getting into fights, or being photographed throwing up gang signs (Derrick Rose.)

I honestly couldn't care less what the world thinks about Beasley. I also don't have the man-crush you're quick to claim I do on the guy. He's a goofball, and I wish he'd grow up a little more in some ways already. But, I know what kind of talent and human being we have on this squad, hopefully for the next 10-15.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

R-Star said:


> And I'm glad you're the type of fan who thinks anytime someone doesn't like one of your players that hes a "hater".


I've lost count how many times you pop up on one of our threads to make a negative comment just to disappear. You're like a Nets fan cira-2003-2006.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> I've lost count how many times you pop up on one of our threads to make a negative comment just to disappear. You're like a Nets fan cira-2003-2006.


I'm glad you selectively quote my posts. Get back to me when you can reply to the whole of my post, and not run away from statements you don't like.


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

Then lets check out the rest.


R-Star said:


> I'm perfectly fine with the Heat. Zo is one of my all time favorites. I just don't like Beasley. Not sure how that makes me a hater.


You have us all fooled.



R-Star said:


> Not to mention, if you guys would like to go back and read the thread, there are multiple complaints about Beasley getting screwed over by coaches, and how its confusing why no one likes him. That isn't my opinion, there are multiple poor Beasley posts in this thread.


I didn't claim there was a conspiracy. I just think they don't like him for some odd reason.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Smithian said:


> Then lets check out the rest.You have us all fooled.
> 
> I didn't claim there was a conspiracy. I just think they don't like him for some odd reason.


Don't like him for some _odd_ reason..... That sounds like the most plausible reason that he didn't get an invite to you? 
If you sit back and look at that statement, you don't see how it comes off as you being a homer.


----------

