# Reasons to take Michael Beasley. . .



## csourk4ksu (May 25, 2008)

1. Best player in the draft. Hands down.

2. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs. They all have an All-Star bigs.

Celtics- Garnett
Pistons- Rasheed Wallace
Lakers- Gasol, Odom
Spurs- Duncan

Now their starting point guards.

Celtics- Rondo
Pistons- Billups
Lakers- Fisher
Spurs- Parker

Not a bad group of guards, but nowhere close to skill of the bigs. Just like the separation from Rose to Beasley.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

He's probably the player who will bring the most impact to the team that drafts him in the short run. If Rose fills his potential, he'll be the more impactful player in the long run.

And Beasley is not a true big man. His skills are also more suited to play SF.

That's not to say he's not going to be a good player though. I think he has the highest chance of being a multiple all-star.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

how are his skills more suited for playing sf?

strong, semi tall(will grow more)
great rebounder
versatile scorer


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Deke said:


> how are his skills more suited for playing sf?
> 
> strong, semi tall(will grow more)
> great rebounder
> versatile scorer


Inside out game. Hit's jumpers and 3s, but can also play the low post.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

csourk4ksu said:


> 1. Best player in the draft. Hands down.


If this was the case, there wouldn't be much discussion about it. A large group of people think Rose is the best player, hence the dilemna. 



csourk4ksu said:


> 2. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs. They all have an All-Star bigs.
> 
> Celtics- Garnett
> Pistons- Rasheed Wallace
> ...


3 of those 4 teams have great *defensive* big men (Duncan, Garnett, Wallace), and Beasley has about as good of a chance as becoming that as Rose does. He is not a good defender. 

Lakers have good bigs without having good defensive bigs, but their best player looks more like Rose than like Beasley, so I don't know how much that does for your argument.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I thought Noah and Thomas were good defenders


----------



## csourk4ksu (May 25, 2008)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If this was the case, there wouldn't be much discussion about it. A large group of people think Rose is the best player, hence the dilemna.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really don't see how Rose is a better player than Beasley though. Beasley, you could argue is a better outside shooter than Rose. Maybe it's just my bias, but having seen Beasley play a whole season I don't think there is another player in college basketball than him.

Also Beasley is very underrated in defense, he might not look like he _tries_ hard but he is a good shotblocker, long arms, and understands defensive positioning pretty well.

Rose is a great player, don't get me wrong. But he is no Michael Beasley.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Beasley is just an athletic Zach Randolpf


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Lebron is just an athletic Bruce Bowen.

See what I did thar? 

In seriousness though, Beasley is not Zach Randolph. Besides the lack lustre D, I dont see any similarities at all...


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Beasley V Durant V Anthony college stats

This post is brought to you by my boredom at work. I don't have a point, I was just curious myself so thought I'd share it. Beasley got a few less minutes a game than the other two at 31.5 where they pretty much got 36 mpg. 




```
B       D     A  
PPG | 26.5 | 25.8 | 22.2
RPG | 12.4 | 11.1 | 10.0
FG% | .532 | .472 | .453
FT% | .774 | .816 | .706
3P% | .379 | .404 | .337
```
Anthony Rookies season
21.0 PPG
6.1 RPG

Durants
20.4 PPG
4.4 RPG


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

BG44 said:


> Lebron is just an athletic Bruce Bowen.
> 
> See what I did thar?
> 
> In seriousness though, Beasley is not Zach Randolph. Besides the lack lustre D, I dont see any similarities at all...


They're both left handed, and around 6'9".


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG44 said:


> Lebron is just an athletic Bruce Bowen.
> 
> See what I did thar?
> 
> In seriousness though, Beasley is not Zach Randolph. Besides the lack lustre D, I dont see any similarities at all...


They're more similar than you think.

Michael Beasley







Zach Randolph


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Beasley isn't even as good as Rose, let alone better. He won't dominate in the NFL as he did at the college level either. And of Durant, Melo and Beasley, I'd go Durant #1 by far, then probably Beas and Melo.


----------



## Vivaldi (Nov 12, 2006)

Too bad he's not going to play in the NFL


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

nfl? wtf


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> nfl? wtf


I think it's clear he meant NBA.

I always have an urge to edit things like that for posters when I see 'em, but I think it's better if they do it themselves (or just don't care)...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

lmao, woopsy. I'm also browsing an NFL forum right now, so must've had that on my mind. Plus it's been a VERY long and tiring weekend between work, graduation parties (read: drinking beer) and going to see both Clintons.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> lmao, woopsy. I'm also browsing an NFL forum right now, so must've had that on my mind. Plus it's been a VERY long and tiring weekend between work, graduation parties (read: drinking beer) and going to see both Clintons.


how's chelsea clinton doing? you see her?
*http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q...ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title*


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If this was the case, (beasley being the best player in the draft) there wouldn't be much discussion about it. A large group of people think Rose is the best player, hence the dilemna.


ask yourself honestly... was tyler hansbrough the best player in college basketball this year? beasley has the misfortune (or mis-step) of always leaving his critics with external question marks to use against him... just read this thread for all of the examples!

face it... if it weren't for the high school bounce-around, some immature playful comments and the unfortunate comparison of his left-handed inside/outside college game with the pariah derrick coleman... go with on-the-court play only and *nobody* would have a single question that beasley is the #1 pick and by far the most nba-ready player yet still with the largest upside potential

it's a shame... because beasley only has himself to blame for the first and second parts of the comparison... regardless, look at it this way... if you compare his college stats to say durant and carmelo and extrapolate that to more minutes in the nba (and no multi-team and junk defense) you'll have to admit that he is likely to have a 24pt 12reb rookie season... now factor that both of those guys were cogs on championship level (or at least long-ncaa-run) teams with many options... and then compare the stats

i say because of his type of game and unique skillset, his rookie season could be quite special and whoever ends up with him will be very satisfied with the pick


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

4putt said:


> ask yourself honestly... was tyler hansbrough the best player in college basketball this year? beasley has the misfortune (or mis-step) of always leaving his critics with external question marks to use against him... just read this thread for all of the examples!
> 
> face it... if it weren't for the high school bounce-around, some immature playful comments and the unfortunate comparison of his left-handed inside/outside college game with the pariah derrick coleman... go with on-the-court play only and *nobody* would have a single question that beasley is the #1 pick and by far the most nba-ready player yet still with the largest upside potential
> 
> ...


This part is beyond wishful thinking. _Likely_ to put up those numbers as a rookie? No sir.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> This part is beyond wishful thinking. _Likely_ to put up those numbers as a rookie? No sir.


if he was on the Bulls or Heat I think those numbers would be easily obtainable for him. Who else would score on the Bulls or Heat?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

csourk4ksu said:


> 2. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs. They all have an All-Star bigs.
> 
> Celtics- Garnett
> Pistons- Rasheed Wallace
> ...


I think you are right that we do need a bigman to compete for a championship. I would argue you also need players with great ball command. Right now we have neither.

Is Beasley big enough? All the guys mentioned are 7 footers who can play center and Beasley is not even 6'9". I can't believe all this he's going to grow crap, how many people grow in height after they are 19.

Billups is a very good PG and the Pistons team as a whole is very good with the ball. Kobe is the Lakers primary ballhandler not Fisher, Kobe is pretty good. Parker is good. Rondo has become a very decent point, worthy of starting on several teams, but more importantly the Big 3 all have above average passing and ball handling ability. I think it is very likely Paul slips in the PG list next year.

So yes we do need a quality big man, I am just not positive Beasley is the answer although I do think he has a shot. No doubt he will be a very good player, the defensive end will determine his greatness. I do feel confident however that Rose will be the facilitator that we need.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> if he was on the Bulls or Heat I think those numbers would be easily obtainable for him. Who else would score on the Bulls or Heat?


He could score 20 a night on the Bulls. Probably 10 rebounds, too.

Numbers aren't everything, though, as we all know.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

4putt said:


> it's a shame... because beasley only has himself to blame for the first and second parts of the comparison... regardless, look at it this way... if you compare his college stats to say durant and carmelo and extrapolate that to more minutes in the nba (and no multi-team and junk defense) you'll have to admit that he is likely to have a 24pt 12reb rookie season... now factor that both of those guys were cogs on championship level (or at least long-ncaa-run) teams with many options... and then compare the stats


not only will beasley not have a 24 point and 12 rebound per game rookie season, he will never have a season like that during his entire career.

you can't just take college numbers and extrapolate them into pro numbers. that just doesn't work.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

rocketeer said:


> not only will beasley not have a 24 point and 12 rebound per game rookie season, he will never have a season like that during his entire career.
> 
> you can't just take college numbers and extrapolate them into pro numbers. that just doesn't work.


And now you're making assumptions just like that person.

I doubt he'll have a rookie season like that, but it's ridiculous to say he absolutely won't be able to do it in the future.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> And now you're making assumptions just like that person.
> 
> I doubt he'll have a rookie season like that, but it's ridiculous to say he absolutely won't be able to do it in the future.


i guess i should have added in my opinion to my statement.

i just don't see how anyone sees that from beasley.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hustle said:


> Is Beasley big enough? All the guys mentioned are 7 footers who can play center and Beasley is not even 6'9". I can't believe all this he's going to grow crap, how many people grow in height after they are 19.


Last time I checked, they played basketball in shoes... which means Michael Beasley is 6'9". Not less. Also, he has a 7 foot wingspan and a 9'1" standing reach... (those numbers are from the Nike Hoop Summit in 2007). I think he's big enough to play the 4... whether or not he can is a different Q.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> not only will beasley not have a 24 point and 12 rebound per game rookie season, he will never have a season like that during his entire career.
> 
> you can't just take college numbers and extrapolate them into pro numbers. that just doesn't work.


first part is absurd and second part is dead on.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Last time I checked, they played basketball in shoes... which means Michael Beasley is 6'9". Not less. Also, he has a 7 foot wingspan and a 9'1" standing reach... (those numbers are from the Nike Hoop Summit in 2007). I think he's big enough to play the 4... whether or not he can is a different Q.


i don't see him being able to play anything other than the 4.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

i'd wait to see how tall her is at 21 to make that decision


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> first part is absurd and second part is dead on.


so him not averaging 24 points and 12 rebounds during a single season in his career is absurd? maybe you don't realize how hard 24/12 is. tim duncan did it once. kevin garnett did it once. yao has never done it. dwight has never done it. boozer's never done it. amare hasn't done it. dirk hasn't done it. bosh hasn't done it. the only guy in the nba right now that i can think of who has done it more than once is shaq and he's done it 4 times.

but yeah. beasley is immediately going to be on par with duncan and garnett's best statistical seasons and i'm crazy for thinking that won't happen.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Last time I checked, they played basketball in shoes... which means Michael Beasley is 6'9". Not less. Also, he has a 7 foot wingspan and a 9'1" standing reach... (those numbers are from the Nike Hoop Summit in 2007). I think he's big enough to play the 4... whether or not he can is a different Q.


6'9" in shoes that's exactly what I mean. He is as close in height to a 2 guard as those guys and other recent championship bigs Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem, and in my mind Nowitski.

I don't even question that he is a 4 and will be damn good at it, allstar caliber, at least a few times. That speaks how highly I think of Rose I guess.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

liekomgj4ck said:


> how's chelsea clinton doing? you see her?


She wasn't there unfortunately. Hillary was in one town on Friday, and she was VERY impressive, and Bill in another town on Sunday, and he was cool too (mainly said the same things Hillary had on Friday, but he's essentially a God in my book, so it was cool meeting him....weird thing is, to see Hillary you got searched and wanded and everything....NOTHING to see Bill lol, and I mean absolutely nothing, other than secret service standing by him). I just switched from independent to Democrat on last Monday so I could vote for her in the primary. She's the only worthwhile candidate in the thing, so she'd better win!


----------



## csourk4ksu (May 25, 2008)

Over at ksufans.com our resident youtube guru made a great highlight video.

He says it all in the descrition:

"Don't be retarded, Chicago. "

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


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

csourk4ksu said:


> Over at ksufans.com our resident youtube guru made a great highlight video.
> 
> He says it all in the descrition:
> 
> ...


Great video... some stuff I hadn't seen before... for those to lazy to follow the link:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGV_wGpupbM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGV_wGpupbM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

Dornado said:


> Great video... some stuff I hadn't seen before... for those to lazy to follow the link:
> 
> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGV_wGpupbM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGV_wGpupbM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


hmmm, no matter what height he is, b-easy looks pretty good against 7'-0", 260lb andre jordan, 6'-11", 250lb sasha kaun, 6'-10", 265lb alecs maric, 6'-11", 226lb connor atchley and even 6'-11" 250lb jason thompson for a few of those clips (in addition to double teams)... all of whom will see nba time


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Impressive video. I've gotta be honest, Beasley's game looks more like a SF than a PF. Not sure whether that's good or bad (or anything), but that's the one thing I took from that video.

Alot of jump shots, alot of ballhandling and slashing. Not sure I see the "post up" aspect to his game, but it's pretty clear he's a dynamic scorer and will continue to be at the next level.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

yodurk said:


> Impressive video. I've gotta be honest, Beasley's game looks more like a SF than a PF. Not sure whether that's good or bad (or anything), but that's the one thing I took from that video.
> 
> Alot of jump shots, alot of ballhandling and slashing. Not sure I see the "post up" aspect to his game, but it's pretty clear he's a dynamic scorer and will continue to be at the next level.


that's because teams were dropping three and four low into the key on him... hard to score low or put a strong drive thru three and four bodies without a charge (in the big12)... don't think he'll need to worry about that next season

remember, his team had bill walker (most nights) and literally nothing else... that being the case, how would you defend him? i'd be pushing him away from the basket... and as you noted that shows prominently on the video


----------



## csourk4ksu (May 25, 2008)

4putt said:


> that's because teams were dropping three and four low into the key on him... hard to score low or put a strong drive thru three and four bodies without a charge (in the big12)... don't think he'll need to worry about that next season
> 
> remember, his team had bill walker (most nights) and literally nothing else... that being the case, how would you defend him? i'd be pushing him away from the basket... and as you noted that shows prominently on the video


Well said, Beasley carried the load all season with help from Walker. The other 3 starter with the exception of the 6th man (Pullen- Chicago kid) were the quality of player that you might on your men's league team.


----------



## JayEll (May 29, 2008)

I don't see how there is any question to who Chicago should pick.

On the court- Beasley blows Rose out of the water. Christ, just watch any video on him. He dominated in a tougher conference with no help from teammates.

Off the court- Beasley went to multiple high schools, BFD. He had absolutely zero problems at KSU. ZERO. However, Rose got into a fight at Memphis...and LOST!!! http://www.memphisrap.com/cgi-bin/content/pub9990263694155.cgi?itemid=9990285813644

Not to mention, do you really think its a great idea to give a teenager millions of dollars and have him return to where he grew up with all of his childhood friends? Yeah, I'm sure that will be a great environment for the lad.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I don't know why, but I can't get the name, "Glen Big Dog Robinson" out of my head. I just can't.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> I don't know why, but I can't get the name, "Glen Big Dog Robinson" out of my head. I just can't.


is that a bad thing?


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Durant also drew comparisons to Glenn Robinson and he is going to be much better.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Is G-rob a bad thing? hell yes. Glenn Robinson in his prime would add absolutly nothing to this team.

My number one reason to take Beasley is so I can here Stacy King say his name.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> is that a bad thing?


You decide!

Again, you decide

FWIW, Robinson put up similar or better numbers in college, AND had the benefit of playing with Vin Baker (who was an all star at the time), and a YOUNG Ray Allen and Sam Cassell.

He never sniffed the NBA finals until he got to San Antonio, on the coattails of Tim Duncan.

For all his gifts, if beasley is anything like him (and I'm leaning towards--yes he is), then I'll pass.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Is G-rob a bad thing? hell yes. Glenn Robinson in his prime would add absolutly nothing to this team.


well 10 years of consistently putting up 20+, 6, and 3 isn't something i would consider bad.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

croco said:


> Durant also drew comparisons to Glenn Robinson and he is going to be much better.


Whoever made that comparision did a piss poor job of scouting Durant. Durant is NOTHING...NOTHING like G-rob, except both like to shoot.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> well 10 years of consistently putting up 20+, 6, and 3 isn't something i would consider bad.


It is, when you are the lead dog on your team and can't lead them to the finals, even with at LEAST one other all-star present for the majority of your career.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> well 10 years of consistently putting up 20+, 6, and 3 isn't something i would consider bad.


We have 2 sf's who combine for 35 and play defense.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Hustle said:


> We have 2 sf's who combine for 35 and play defense.


beasley is a pf. i just think in general the comparison to glen robinson is always a negative one, but it shouldn't be. the guy was a very good player.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> It is, when you are the lead dog on your team and can't lead them to the finals, even with at LEAST one other all-star present for the majority of your career.


kevin garnett up until this point has never made the finals. grant hill never made the finals. tmac has never made the finals. only two teams per year make the finals. there are great players(better than glen robinson ever was) who don't ever make the finals. that is a pretty bad argument on your part.

if you don't want beasley because you think he's a sf, that's fine. but being compared to glen robinson is not a bad thing and if it is that just says something about the talent level of the player you are comparing that him putting up 20, 6, and 3 for 10 years would be considered bad.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> beasley is a pf. i just think in general the comparison to glen robinson is always a negative one, but it shouldn't be. the guy was a very good player.


Agreed. He was a "Very good player". You don't draft "very good players" with the #1 pick in the draft. You draft stars and superstars. At least you try to.

Again, my concern is, if he's anything like G-rob, he won't be winning any titles unless he's the second or third dog on the team. As the lead dog, he just won't do.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Let me make it clear I don't like the Robinson comparision much at all, but I'm just saying drafting GRob at #1 would be painful. 

I think he's more like Carmelo, with better rebounding skills due to his great hands and lower body strength, but not quite as good a shooter (IMO Melo has the best midrange game in the league), and a little less athletic.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Agreed. He was a "Very good player". You don't draft "very good players" with the #1 pick in the draft. You draft stars and superstars. At least you try to.


when there aren't any superstars in a draft, sometimes you have to settle for a very good player. that is what the bulls will be doing when they select rose or beasley.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

csourk4ksu said:


> 1. Best player in the draft. Hands down


Wow these KSU fans are really annoying. Any facts to support this statement


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> kevin garnett up until this point has never made the finals. grant hill never made the finals. tmac has never made the finals. only two teams per year make the finals. there are great players(better than glen robinson ever was) who don't ever make the finals. that is a pretty bad argument on your part.


Not really, since we are trying to make the finals. ALl those playes have the same thing in common. They didn't have great big men or PG's to get them over the top. Beasley won't either.



> if you don't want beasley because you think he's a sf, that's fine. but being compared to glen robinson is not a bad thing and if it is that just says something about the talent level of the player you are comparing that him putting up 20, 6, and 3 for 10 years would be considered bad.


It would be for the bulls though, considering Deng is ALREADY VERY close to putting up those kinds of numbers NOW, and also plays SF. I mean, Deng averaged 19, 7 and 2.5 2 years ago, and took a small dip in PPG and Rebounds last year, but still put up 17, 6, and 2.5 in a down year.

Is there really THAT much difference?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I posted this in the other thread, but regarding Big Dog:



> They really aren't all that similar... putting the ball on the floor is a strength for Beasley... Big Dog couldn't dribble down the court to save his life. And making the Eastern Conference Finals counts as at least "sniffing" the finals.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

I've heard comparisons to Derrick Coleman which is not a bad thing. From 1990-1994 Coleman was on par with Barkely, Malone, and Kemp as the best PF's in the NBA. Then he got lazy and stopped caring. I think Beasley would solve a problem the Bulls have had since Curry left. he would provide a much needed post scorer. The Bulls already have enough defensive bigs like Noah, Thomas and Gooden. I believe Kirk is a more than servicable pg.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> It would be for the bulls though, considering Deng is ALREADY VERY close to putting up those kinds of numbers NOW, and also plays SF. I mean, Deng averaged 19, 7 and 2.5 2 years ago, and took a small dip in PPG and Rebounds last year, but still put up 17, 6, and 2.5 in a down year.
> 
> Is there really THAT much difference?


you only consider drafting beasley if he is going to play pf for you. which he would.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Glenn Robinson version 2, nothing to be mad about... but a mistake when you consider you could get Rose.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

csourk4ksu said:


> 1. Best player in the draft. Hands down.
> 
> 2. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs. They all have an All-Star bigs.
> 
> ...


Those are all near 7 footers, that are more PF/C, rather than 6'9" and more SF/PF. Real bigs, not a wing player/wanna-be-big.


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

bball2223 said:


> Wow these KSU fans are really annoying. Any facts to support this statement


I was just lurking but couldn't pass this one up.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not hatin' on Rose. He's the best point guard, at least defensively and athletically, this draft has and he completely destroyed other guards headed to the NBA like Augustine.

However I think a lot of Chicago guys are more in favor of Rose due to him being a Chicago native and the exposure he got in the big dance than because of him being the best fit for Chicago.

Beasley put up insane numbers. Better than Durant. MUCH better than Rose. And Rose, for all his good qualities, put up these weaker numbers with more touches, playing against weaker competition (CUSA vs Big 12,) and without seeing double and triple teams like Beasley did (Memphis had good enough talent you couldn't double team them, while KSU had Bill Walker and NOTHING else so Beasley was consistantly seeing double teams.)


And I am laughing at all the comparisons being drawn to former and existing NBA players. Stop comparing both of them to existing players and start thinking about them as Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose - both players very different from anyone currently or formerly in the league, and both players that will end up in the All Star game at least once. Derrick Rose is a freak athlete who can consitantly score but is an even better defender. Michael Beasley is an ambidextrous 6'9 player with a 7'0" wingspan with amazing hands, great basketball IQ, rebounding ability, and the ability to score at will from anywhere on the court.


They're comparable in talent. I'd say Beasley has a slight advantage due to his size, scoring, and rebounding ability that I don't think Rose would be able to match. You can make the argument that Rose would make the players around him better, and noone can realistically dispute that with facts. But noone can realistically support that with facts either.


Everything said and done, Take the names and faces out of it, and just break it down this simply: What do the Bulls need more to be successful? A point guard or a power forward? Who will help the team out immediately? If you need a point guard, you pick Rose. If you need a power forward, you pick Beasley.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Problem is, IMO, PG and PF aren't the biggest needs, so you have to take the BPA. That's Rose, since Beasley has such serious character issues. Beasley could very well turn into an absolute beast, as could Rose, but Beasley has a very high bust factor that Rose simply does NOT have. I would prefer the top pick was a stud SG or C, since I think that Gordon and Noah are the 2 starters that need replaced the most. But, since the choice is between a PG and PF, and our current PG is pretty damn good usually, and our PF is the only player on the roster with a shot at legit stardom, you just go with the best and safest pick, which is Rose. If Beasley was 6'11" rather than 6'9" it'd help his case a lot, but he's more of a SF/PF tweener, and that's not what we need. 

With all that said though, I won't be happy with the Beasley pick, but I'd still be glad to have him, as LUCKING into the #1, we should all just be happy we'll get one of the 2, rather than some scrub at #9.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Problem is, IMO, PG and PF aren't the biggest needs, so you have to take the BPA. That's Rose, since Beasley has such serious character issues. Beasley could very well turn into an absolute beast, as could Rose, but Beasley has a very high bust factor that Rose simply does NOT have. I would prefer the top pick was a stud SG or C, since I think that Gordon and Noah are the 2 starters that need replaced the most. But, since the choice is between a PG and PF, and our current PG is pretty damn good usually, and our PF is the only player on the roster with a shot at legit stardom, you just go with the best and safest pick, which is Rose. If Beasley was 6'11" rather than 6'9" it'd help his case a lot, but he's more of a SF/PF tweener, and that's not what we need.
> 
> With all that said though, I won't be happy with the Beasley pick, but I'd still be glad to have him, as LUCKING into the #1, we should all just be happy we'll get one of the 2, rather than some scrub at #9.


Top post :cheers:

I'd be happy with either and I think we all should be very happy we get one of them.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Problem is, IMO, PG and PF aren't the biggest needs, so you have to take the BPA. That's Rose, since Beasley has such serious character issues. Beasley could very well turn into an absolute beast, as could Rose, but Beasley has a very high bust factor that Rose simply does NOT have. I would prefer the top pick was a stud SG or C, since I think that Gordon and Noah are the 2 starters that need replaced the most. But, since the choice is between a PG and PF, and our current PG is pretty damn good usually, and our PF is the only player on the roster with a shot at legit stardom, you just go with the best and safest pick, which is Rose. If Beasley was 6'11" rather than 6'9" it'd help his case a lot, but he's more of a SF/PF tweener, and that's not what we need.
> 
> With all that said though, I won't be happy with the Beasley pick, but I'd still be glad to have him, as LUCKING into the #1, we should all just be happy we'll get one of the 2, rather than some scrub at #9.


Agreed, great post.


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Problem is, IMO, PG and PF aren't the biggest needs, so you have to take the BPA. That's Rose, since Beasley has such serious character issues. Beasley could very well turn into an absolute beast, as could Rose, but Beasley has a very high bust factor that Rose simply does NOT have. I would prefer the top pick was a stud SG or C, since I think that Gordon and Noah are the 2 starters that need replaced the most. But, since the choice is between a PG and PF, and our current PG is pretty damn good usually, and our PF is the only player on the roster with a shot at legit stardom, you just go with the best and safest pick, which is Rose. If Beasley was 6'11" rather than 6'9" it'd help his case a lot, but he's more of a SF/PF tweener, and that's not what we need.
> 
> With all that said though, I won't be happy with the Beasley pick, but I'd still be glad to have him, as LUCKING into the #1, we should all just be happy we'll get one of the 2, rather than some scrub at #9.


The character issues are completely non-existant. Beasley got in absolutely 0 trouble at KSU. Never had a bad word mentioned about him. Never a fight, never drugs, never anything. I don't know WHERE everyone is getting that from. Mike is a great kid. Is it because he went to 5 high schools? Big deal, Durant went to 4. Does that seem to effect Durant's character or playing ability? Meanwhile Rose gets in a fistfight at Memphis, but not a word is said about his character.

And you'll have to explain to me how Beasley has a high bust factor that Rose doesn't. That seems like a completely opinionated statement that someone in the media made that has since been regurgitated 1000 times.

I'm not disagreeing with Rose being the best pick depending on the needs of the team. Using reasons like "Beasley has character issues" which are complete lies, or at the very best blown out of proportion (Beasley's worst offense in high school? Signing his Principal's bumper!) are not the right reason to pick Rose over Beasley.


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

Here's an article you all might find interesting, especially those who think Michael Beasley has character issues. You can ignore the opinion section if you don't agree, but pay attention to the part about his 'character issues' and then make your mind up for yourself.



LISTEN UP, CHICAGO
Tim Fitzgerald - commentary

The Chicago Bulls may have beaten the biggest odds in winning the NBA's Draft Lottery on Tuesday night, but Kansas State's Michael Beasley might have hit his own jackpot in the process. It appears Beasley is exactly what the Bulls need as a franchise, and based on basketball, he obviously should be the top selection in the league's draft, but that doesn't mean the Bulls will call his name.

Despite Beasley's obvious fit with the Bulls as a 6-foot-9 power forward with a game lacking any obvious flaws, Chicago may turn to hometown high school hero Derrick Rose with the top choice. The reasons Chicago, and its guard-heavy roster, would select the University of Memphis one-and-done point guard star over Beasley are nearly as hard to explain as to why Tyler Hansbrough was voted college basketball's best player when he obviously was not.

If Rose is going to be a better NBA player than Beasley, then pick him. If Rose is going to fit the Bulls' needs better than Beasley, then pick him. If Rose is going to sell dramatically more tickets, move the franchise back into NBA prominence more quickly or be a much better citizen than Beasley, then pick him.

The Bulls, though, cannot give an affirmative answer to any of those and cannot escape this simple truth: Michael Beasley will be a dramatically better pro player than Rose. Picking Beasley will be akin to dropping a 19-year-old Kevin Garnett on the Bulls' roster.

Hey, Bulls fans, it's about basketball, and not only does Beasley fit a gaping hole in the lineup, but he also has a strong chance of becoming a perennial all-star, franchise-type cornerstone the team has lacked since that other Michael left town.

There is little doubt that barring injury, Beasley will produce in the professional ranks for years to come. Most experts admit that he's probably going to be a 20-point, 10-rebound type player from the get-go. And he will get better. Much better.



Joslyn Brown 

At 6-foot-9, Michael Beasley was an awesome offensive and rebounding machine for K-State with no major flaws in his game, but despite the Chicago Bulls' need for such a player, they may still pass on Beasley in favor of Chicago native point guard Derrick Rose. 
"Mike is a guy whose game is evolving. He's like no other," said K-State coach Frank Martin, who not only has an obvious bias toward Beasley but also a great understanding of the player and person under discussion. "He's six-foot-nine-and-a-half, and he's got the most amazing hands I have ever seen. He has a great understanding how to play. He's an absolute nightmare because at 240 pounds, he's strong enough to defend on the interior, but he's cat-like quick and can defend on the perimeter. He's got the game to shoot on the perimeter, but he can just punish you with his strength on the interior offensively.

"As a freshman, he stepped into college basketball and set standards that have never been seen before. And he's nowhere near the player that he will be."
*
As a 19-year-old, Beasley also is evolving into the young man he will be, which brings us to the criticism dogging Beasley. There is a growing legend of Beasley's "character issues," issues those of us who have been around Beasley since he came to K-State a year ago have not seen.

Is Michael Beasley a goofy kid? Yes, and he and his mother, Fatima Smith, will admit so. At times when dealing with Beasley, he comes across as a big 14-year-old.

Is Michael Beasley a bad kid? There was never a single indication of that while he was in Manhattan. He took care of his academics, he stayed out of trouble, he thrived in his college environment and he showed an amazing work ethic to improve his game.

This legend of Beasley's character grows out of his high school experience, during which he attended five schools in four years –- bouncing from school to school is not so uncommon for basketball phenoms. Beasley, though, moved around mostly because of his playful, childlike nature.

We've all known the kid who decides it would be fun to pull the school's fire alarm to see what would happen. That's Michael Beasley. What he's not is the kid who decides to set a fire in the school's bathroom because he's too disconnected to realize what a bad decision it would be.

The crowning feat for Beasley was autographing his name on the bumper of the truck owned by the principal of Oak Hill Academy in Mouth of Wilson, Va. This came a day or two after being told by school officials that Beasley would not be invited back to the school for his senior year because aside from his annoying habit of autographing everything in sight, Beasley committed such transgressions as wearing pajamas to the school cafeteria, throwing sticks at teachers' houses, and, you better sit down for this one, sneaking out of his dorm after curfew and organizing games of hide-and-seek.

OK, so this might be a bit annoying behavior from a 6-foot-9 manchild, but is it the 1950s? 

In this age of young athletes making seriously questionable decisions that should make franchises shudder, the concern that Michael Beasley may try to organize a team-wide game of hide-and-seek or he will, gasp, autograph everything he possibly can –- you've got to wonder what would that truck's bumper if it had been saved would bring at auction so who's the dummy now, Mr. Principal -– actually constitutes "character issues" is laughable.

"Everybody beats Mike up because he went to five high schools, but Kevin Durant went to four. Nobody has ever wondered about Kevin Durant's character," Martin said. "Everybody who keeps talking about 'character issues' has never met Mike Beasley. Yes, he signed his name on the bumper of the car owned by the school principal, which as a high school teacher for 16 years I wish that was the only problem we have right now with youth. If that's a character flaw, I will deal with that every day of the week."*
Simply put, Michael Beasley is a basketball prodigy. Everything else he does in life is filling time until he's back on the court. Sure, some of those time fillers were annoying and out of the normal –- as is his unexplainable love for everything that is SpongeBob SquarePants –- but that's just one side of the story.

Off the court, Beasley may have a young boys' approach to life, but on the court he's a man's man.

"He's tremendous to be around. He's a sponge as an athlete and he's going to work as hard as he can work because he wants to be the best," Martin said. "As a teammate, he's the best I've been around because all he cares about is winning. He might have made some mistakes, but he just turned 19 years of age. The mistakes he made in the past aren't character flaws. They're a kid being a kid."

And Michael Beasley is unquestionably a freak of nature on the basketball court. He not only averaged 26.2 points and 12.4 rebounds in his one season at K-State, but his scoring average also rose to 28.2 in Big 12 play while shooting 52 percent from the field in the face of some of the most ludicrous double- and triple-team defenses ever seen in major college basketball. He excelled despite operating against defenses he will not see in the NBA, where he will likely have much greater room to operate offensively.

There were numerous great performances during his 33-game freshman season, but the most memorable came against national champion Kansas. First, Beasley helped the Wildcats beat KU in Manhattan with 25 points, but later in the season in Lawrence, with KU defenders and ticky-tack fouls draped on him from the get-go, Beasley scored 39 points and grabbed 11 rebounds against KU in front of the Jayhawks' home crowd.

Great players have moved from the Big Eight/Big 12 to the NBA over the past 25-some years, from Rolando Blackman through Danny Manning and Mitch Richmond, through Paul Pierce, Chauncey Billups and Durant, and those who have seen them all will almost to a person pick Beasley as the best.

He is head-shaking, jaw-dropping good. Whichever team lands Beasley, will quickly find that out, too.

Still, the political push in Chicago is to pick Rose. The media pressure on Bulls' general manager John Paxson to go with the hometown kid already is mounting.

If Paxson passes on Beasley, then the Miami Heat will benefit with the No. 2 pick. It was the Heat facing the best chance to win the draft's top pick, but with just a 1.7 percent chance of winning the top pick (decided by a weighted lottery of the NBA's non-playoff teams with the teams with the worst records receiving the greatest chance of winning), the Bulls transported themselves from the expected No. 9 spot to the top of the draft.

And now the NBA, not to mention Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose, awaits the Bulls' decision.

Picking Rose is far from Sam Bowie-bad, but the odds are good that the franchise that passes on Beasley will look awfully silly in the future. In fact, passing on a player of Beasley's quality and fit for a franchise such as Chicago would not just be pull-the-fire-alarm dumb, but it would be set-the-fire stupid.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

SpazZTiK said:


> Here's an article you all might find interesting, especially those who think Michael Beasley has character issues. You can ignore the opinion section if you don't agree, but pay attention to the part about his 'character issues' and then make your mind up for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dude that is way too much to read


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

Underlined and bolded the part about 'character issues' for you.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

SpazZTiK said:


> And Rose, for all his good qualities, put up these weaker numbers with more touches, playing against weaker competition (CUSA vs Big 12,) and without seeing double and triple teams like Beasley did


Weaker Numbers? If Rose played for KSU he too would have scored 20-25 ponts a contest. Rose is a POINT GUARD his job wasn't to score the basketball. He was supposed to push the ball and create opportunities for his teammates. He saw double and Triple teams just like Beasley did which allowed guys like CDR, and Anderson to have some of the performances they had.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SpazZTiK said:


> The character issues are completely non-existant. Beasley got in absolutely 0 trouble at KSU. Never had a bad word mentioned about him. Never a fight, never drugs, never anything. I don't know WHERE everyone is getting that from. Mike is a great kid. Is it because he went to 5 high schools? Big deal, Durant went to 4. Does that seem to effect Durant's character or playing ability? Meanwhile Rose gets in a fistfight at Memphis, but not a word is said about his character.
> 
> And you'll have to explain to me how Beasley has a high bust factor that Rose doesn't. That seems like a completely opinionated statement that someone in the media made that has since been regurgitated 1000 times.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with Rose being the best pick depending on the needs of the team. Using reasons like "Beasley has character issues" which are complete lies, or at the very best blown out of proportion (Beasley's worst offense in high school? Signing his Principal's bumper!) are not the right reason to pick Rose over Beasley.


Hey buddy, you can think whatever you want, and post whatever ridiculously long posts in rebuttal that you like, but you're not going to change my mind one bit on his character flaws. And YES, they ARE big-time character flaws. Pulling a fire alarm is no laughing matter. Most areas are under-staffed and have too few fire departments as is, and his stupid prank could've resulted in a real fire not being put out as fast and someone dying as a result. So he might not be running drugs or raping girls or gang-banging, but stunts like that can directly lead to someone dying as well.

His signing his autograph competition with Ty Lawson is vandalism, and I'd kneecap anyone that signs their name on my car. His stupid childishness in practice during high school was retarded. The list goes on and on. Some people have a higher standard of expected behavior for people, like me, and others, like you, condone that unacceptable behavior for whatever reason. You really need to get a clue if you think all of his past actions don't indicate a serious character flaw.

Bottom linee, he could be Kevin Garnett, or he could be Ron Artest....he sounds closer to Artest than Garnett, and I would want no part of Artest.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

> Problem is, IMO, PG and PF aren't the biggest needs, so you have to take the BPA. That's Rose,


How much more of Hinrich do you want to see? He's never even reached 7 apg over a season. You're wrong about the Bulls not needing a PG, because we need a playmaking 1 to make our guys better. Not this overdribbling chump who can't break defenses down, with his poor viion, athleticism and inability take his man off dribble. Want to know how bad Kirk is? His teammates preferred Duhon ("DuChump" you call him, right?), but Scott Scowls stuck with his pet ***** Kirky, screwing with the team chemistry. listen:

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3417443&categoryId=2459788&n8pe6c=1

Kirk has had his chances, and thankfully, now done in Chicago. We are going to take Rose not because he's "BPA", but because he is a definite need.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bulldozer said:


> How much more of Hinrich do you want to see? He's never even reached 7 apg over a season. You're wrong about the Bulls not needing a PG, because we need a playmaking 1 to make our guys better. Not this overdribbling chump who can't break defenses down, with his poor viion, athleticism and inability take his man off dribble. Want to know how bad Kirk is? His teammates preferred Duhon ("DuChump" you call him, right?), but Scott Scowls stuck with his pet ***** Kirky, screwing with the team chemistry. listen:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3417443&categoryId=2459788&n8pe6c=1
> 
> Kirk has had his chances, and thankfully, now done in Chicago. We are going to take Rose not because he's "BPA", but because he is a definite need.


The problem wasn't Kirk, it was that greedy little EDIT SG who couldn't guard his own man. That is the problem. If the Bulls had any finishers on the wings, rather than just crappy jump shooters, Hinrich would've looked a lot better than he did this year. He is a great defender too, or at least was till this year when the whole team fell apart. Hinrich isn't perfect, and he is a bit of a combo guard, but on a normal year, I'd put him in the top 5-10 of the league for PGs. Put him with a real SG, and a SF that can actually finish, rather than just shoot mid-range jump shots (no 3pt range even) and he'd do a lot better. Rose will most likely be much much better of course, so don't misinterpret my post here as saying Kirk is great. Even if we get Rose, I'd still keep Kirk around to be the 6th man and backup both PG and SG. Bengo would have his bags packed and headed out the door where he can screw up another team with his inability to do anything but shoot jumpers, play no D, and have no business ever handling the ball, yet expect to be played like a complete starting SG. :azdaja:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Hey buddy, you can think whatever you want, and post whatever ridiculously long posts in rebuttal that you like, but you're not going to change my mind one bit on his character flaws. And YES, they ARE big-time character flaws. Pulling a fire alarm is no laughing matter. Most areas are under-staffed and have too few fire departments as is, and his stupid prank could've resulted in a real fire not being put out as fast and someone dying as a result. So he might not be running drugs or raping girls or gang-banging, but stunts like that can directly lead to someone dying as well.
> 
> His signing his autograph competition with Ty Lawson is vandalism, and I'd kneecap anyone that signs their name on my car. His stupid childishness in practice during high school was retarded. The list goes on and on. Some people have a higher standard of expected behavior for people, like me, and others, like you, condone that unacceptable behavior for whatever reason. You really need to get a clue if you think all of his past actions don't indicate a serious character flaw.
> 
> Bottom linee, he could be Kevin Garnett, or he could be Ron Artest....he sounds closer to Artest than Garnett, and I would want no part of Artest.


dababybullz, I love ya buddy, but loosen up a bit. He was a high school kid. Key word - kid. People had worries about KG's character too...

I don't think we can go wrong either way here, its all about what we do to build around them.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> The problem wasn't Kirk, it was that greedy little biatch SG who couldn't guard his own man. That is the problem. If the Bulls had any finishers on the wings, rather than just crappy jump shooters, Hinrich would've looked a lot better than he did this year. He is a great defender too, or at least was till this year when the whole team fell apart. Hinrich isn't perfect, and he is a bit of a combo guard, but on a normal year, I'd put him in the top 5-10 of the league for PGs. Put him with a real SG, and a SF that can actually finish, rather than just shoot mid-range jump shots (no 3pt range even) and he'd do a lot better. Rose will most likely be much much better of course, so don't misinterpret my post here as saying Kirk is great. Even if we get Rose, I'd still keep Kirk around to be the 6th man and backup both PG and SG. Bengo would have his bags packed and headed out the door where he can screw up another team with his inability to do anything but shoot jumpers, play no D, and have no business ever handling the ball, yet expect to be played like a complete starting SG. :azdaja:


Oh hell naw..you say "the problem" was Gordon couldn't guard his own man? What happened to one of Kirk's supposed redeeming qualities, of guarding the bigger scoring guard? Try this: How about, Kirk's slow *** can't keep up with the faster, quicker pgs, that blow by him, on the times he actually does guard the point. Gordon, the better athlete and quicker/faster of the 2, is a natural fit for guarding the PG. Gordon is an undersized 2, we all know that. But, don't go around making excuses for Kirk, you sound silly doing so. Oh, and Kirk's overrated defense also went to **** this past season, in case you didn't notice.

As far as wanting to keep Kirk as the "6th man", you've got to be kidding me. First and foremost, you DO NOT pay a back up PG the kind of money Kirk makes, its not worth it. Second, Kirk doesn't provide enough offense to play as a SG, that's like saying Gordon can play point, which I'm sure you're staunchly against. Thabo provides even better defense against the SG, and can handle the ball a bit himself, not as well as Hinrich, but he'll get there...and Thabo and Hinrich's offense are comparable at this point. Look how much $ Thabo makes, compared to Hinrich...why pay 1 guy much more than the other when they offer a similar service? You NEED SCORING in a backcourt of Thabo and Rose, and Gordon provides this balance. Put your bias aside, and come to grips with this reality. Kirk is no fuggin SG; he is a pseudo point and an undersized 2 guard... the classic, and NEGATIVE version of a "TWEENER".


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> dababybullz, I love ya buddy, but loosen up a bit. He was a high school kid. Key word - kid. People had worries about KG's character too...
> 
> I don't think we can go wrong either way here, its all about what we do to build around them.


Looking at it from a player-only perspective I agree. If Beasley grows up, or has indeed already grown up, then the issue is essentially over already. I don't really give a damn though, if he was a high schooler or not, it shows very poor character and that's not the kind of person I care for at all. I guess growing up in rural midwest my parents taught me better values and manners, and just an overall better standard of acceptable behavior, so the stuff city people might think is just horse-play, I see as totally intolerable. I agree, somewhat, in 2nd chances as well, but it sounds to me like he's already had 5 and it didn't seem to do any good. Now, you put a kid with no maturity and no self-control as the #1 or #2 pick, and he's an instant millionaire, and that's like playing with fire to me.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> Oh hell naw..you say "the problem" was Gordon couldn't guard his own man? What happened to one of Kirk's supposed redeeming qualities, of guarding the bigger scoring guard? Try this: How about, Kirk's slow *** can't keep up with the faster, quicker pgs, that blow by him, on the times he actually does guard the point. Gordon, the better athlete and quicker/faster of the 2, is a natural fit for guarding the PG. Gordon is an undersized 2, we all know that. But, don't go around making excuses for Kirk, you sound silly doing so. Oh, and Kirk's overrated defense also went to **** this past season, in case you didn't notice.
> 
> As far as wanting to keep Kirk as the "6th man", you've got to be kidding me. First and foremost, you DO NOT pay a back up PG the kind of money Kirk makes, its not worth it. Second, Kirk doesn't provide enough offense to play as a SG, that's like saying Gordon can play point, which I'm sure you're staunchly against. Thabo provides even better defense against the SG, and can handle the ball a bit himself, not as well as Hinrich, but he'll get there...and Thabo and Hinrich's offense are comparable at this point. Look how much $ Thabo makes, compared to Hinrich...why pay 1 guy much more than the other when they offer a similar service? You NEED SCORING in a backcourt of Thabo and Rose, and Gordon provides this balance. Put your bias aside, and come to grips with this reality. Kirk is no fuggin SG; he is a pseudo point and an undersized 2 guard... the classic, and NEGATIVE version of a "TWEENER".


Uhhh... sorry man, but I have to go with dababybullz here... 

First of all... Kirk Hinrich isn't slow... I don't know if this is "he's white so he must not be a good athlete" talk, but for a guy his size - and this bore out at the predraft combine - he's no slouch.

And having watched every game of Ben Gordon's career - he can't guard PGs _Or_ SGs... 

Hinrich had a bad year, but I don't think you give him enough credit.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bulldozer said:


> Oh hell naw..you say "the problem" was Gordon couldn't guard his own man? What happened to one of Kirk's supposed redeeming qualities, of guarding the bigger scoring guard? Try this: How about, Kirk's slow *** can't keep up with the faster, quicker pgs, that blow by him, on the times he actually does guard the point. Gordon, the better athlete and quicker/faster of the 2, is a natural fit for guarding the PG. Gordon is an undersized 2, we all know that. But, don't go around making excuses for Kirk, you sound silly doing so. Oh, and Kirk's overrated defense also went to **** this past season, in case you didn't notice.
> 
> As far as wanting to keep Kirk as the "6th man", you've got to be kidding me. First and foremost, you DO NOT pay a back up PG the kind of money Kirk makes, its not worth it. Second, Kirk doesn't provide enough offense to play as a SG, that's like saying Gordon can play point, which I'm sure you're staunchly against. Thabo provides even better defense against the SG, and can handle the ball a bit himself, not as well as Hinrich, but he'll get there...and Thabo and Hinrich's offense are comparable at this point. Look how much $ Thabo makes, compared to Hinrich...why pay 1 guy much more than the other when they offer a similar service? You NEED SCORING in a backcourt of Thabo and Rose, and Gordon provides this balance. Put your bias aside, and come to grips with this reality. Kirk is no fuggin SG; he is a pseudo point and an undersized 2 guard... the classic, and NEGATIVE version of a "TWEENER".


Who do you see falling on the ground all the time while dribbling? It isn't Hinrich. Gordon's athleticism is over-rated since he doesn't have the necessary body control to put it all together. He's fairly fast, yeah. He's fairly explosive, and he's probably strong as hell, but he doesn't USE it other than to shoot a jumpshot, so it's practically useless. Put him with a really big SG like Joe Johnson would be ideal, and then his flaws might be covered up well enough. (For the record, I liked Ben quite a bit till this year, when he got greedy, and really started sucking. Thoroughly sick of him now though, and won't be the least bit sorry to see him go, assuming we get something worthwhile in return...unlike the Chandler dump for nothing. I'm pretty disgusted with Hinrich this year too, but at least in the other years he was a complete player, rather than this one-dimensional crap that Ben has always been.)

As for Kirk's offense, it is all relative to what scheme would be employed with him at SG. You saw this year in a few games where he was the SG due to Ben's injuries, and he was attacking more, and his offense was definitely adequate. I think that Rose would be good enough, and big enough, to allow Kirk to thrive at the SG, and Thabo at SG with Kirk at PG would work too. Duchump was just too small and worthless to make Kirk at SG with him work. Believe it or not, biases aside, I have given this a lot of thought to come to that conclusion that Kirk would work with Rose/Thabo as the 3 guard rotation.

Thabo will be off his rookie contract shortly, and then he'll be in exactly the same position Kirk is in. Good defender, mediocre offense, but Kirk can play the point and Thabo can play point-forward. So contracts aren't what you should base this decision on, because Kirk's is front-loaded and soon Thabo's will be just as high.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Uhhh... sorry man, but I have to go with dababybullz here...
> 
> First of all... Kirk Hinrich isn't slow... *I don't know if this is "he's white so he must not be a good athlete" talk,* but for a guy his size - and this bore out at the *predraft combine* - he's no slouch.
> 
> ...


I don't care what Hinrich did or what he was back in '03 or whenever, this is now 2008, and Hinrich is very slow laterally on defense (CANNOT guard PGs) and even slower with the ball, poor court vision and doesn't create good offense for his teammates. Why do you mention race? Are you trying to say white players can't be athletic? Horrible post.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> I don't care what Hinrich did or what he was back in '03 or whenever, this is now 2008, and Hinrich is very slow laterally on defense (CANNOT guard PGs) and even slower with the ball, poor court vision and doesn't create good offense for his teammates. *Why do you mention race? Are you trying to say white players can't be athletic? Horrible post.*


Clearly I was saying Kirk Hinrich was a good athlete. You got that, right? That made sense in my post, right?

So why would you ask if I was trying to say white players can't be athletic? That was the opposite of my point. And then you have the nerve to say that my post was horrible? After you clearly didn't understand it? Weak. I mentioned race because I can't figure out why a few people have ripped his athleticism (and if you don't think people - OTHER PEOPLE - stereotype white players as un-athletic, you haven't been paying much attention) when it is at worst average. 

Anyway, I'll agree that he doesn't do a good enough job creating offense for his teammates, as for the rest, as you so annoyingly put it: "horrible post".


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Assuming Gordon is traded, Kirk would really needa get his jump shots to fall given that he will play at the 2. A pretty big void to fill IMO. Gordon is instance offence for the bulls nevertheless.

Back to the topic, Beasley is a Carmelo in the making at the best and that is awesome but that would make Tyrus and Gooden redundant and given their trade value, i don't think we can get someone reasonable in return age-wise to fill the 1 spot.

Why not give Tyrus another year to prove himself for he is still a work in progress mind you, or see what Gooden can come up with in his contract year? We can fill the need of a slasher/penetrating player in Rose and relief the double duties of Kirk and let him focus on filling the job at the 2. I just feel that drafting Rose is a better fit for the bulls as it frees up more options for the 1,2 and 3 spots.

Assume we draft Rose. 

PG - Rose/Duhon/Kirk
SG - Gordon/Hughes/Thabo/Kirk
C - Noah/Gray/Gooden
PF - Gooden/Tyrus
SF - Deng/Noce

We can end up with Gordon as a potential trade piece which is of highest value in the roster to fill in gaps.


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Hey buddy, you can think whatever you want, and post whatever ridiculously long posts in rebuttal that you like, but you're not going to change my mind one bit on his character flaws. And YES, they ARE big-time character flaws. Pulling a fire alarm is no laughing matter. Most areas are under-staffed and have too few fire departments as is, and his stupid prank could've resulted in a real fire not being put out as fast and someone dying as a result. So he might not be running drugs or raping girls or gang-banging, but stunts like that can directly lead to someone dying as well.
> 
> His signing his autograph competition with Ty Lawson is vandalism, and I'd kneecap anyone that signs their name on my car. His stupid childishness in practice during high school was retarded. The list goes on and on. Some people have a higher standard of expected behavior for people, like me, and others, like you, condone that unacceptable behavior for whatever reason. You really need to get a clue if you think all of his past actions don't indicate a serious character flaw.
> 
> Bottom linee, he could be Kevin Garnett, or he could be Ron Artest....he sounds closer to Artest than Garnett, and I would want no part of Artest.


Whatever you say man. Signing an autograph on a bumper(which is worth more money than the bumper now) in HIGH SCHOOL doesn't scream character flaw to me. But if you have those ridiculously high standards I'm not gonna change your mind.

But you can excuse getting in a fight that could have resulted in serious injury to Rose or the Memphis football player as nothing. No double standard there.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I do agree that Gordon is the "instant offense" off the bench, but even if you pair him with Rose he's still not going to have any defense. Rose's strength comes from his size advantage, along with the speed and physical strength, and if you put him on the SGs on defense, he is at a disadvantage size-wise and probably strength-wise, so would only have speed as his advantage there. To fully maximize Rose's abilities, you need to play him at PG on both sides of the ball, so he, like Kirk, doesn't get wore out from banging with bigger players constantly. That's half the reason Kirk has slowed down recently IMO....he put on bulk to pound, and it took away some quickness/explosiveness. 

As for the cons on taking Beasley, position-wise, that really depends on if you see him as a 3 or 4, and also what your opinion is on Tyrus. I personally think that Tyrus can and will be a star PF if we get a penetrating PG in Rose, so I tend to think that PF isn't a need....it's actually the last position I'd address in all honesty. He's just shown me enough on defense and rebounding, and shown the signs of the ability to develop an offensive game to make me have hope still, unlike some other people on here. Beasley, however, may be more of an over-sized SF in the NBA, which would crowd SF with Deng and Noc already there, along with Thabs and Tyrus who got some burn there last year. 

Which starting lineup looks the best, assuming Beasley would be a SF?

Kirk
Thabs
Beasley
Tyrus
Pothead

or

Rose
Thabs
Deng
Tyrus
Pothead

Now, I must admit that if we could pull it off (if the Heat really don't want Beasley after all, and want to get vets to make a run while they have Wade), I'd trade Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, etc to the Heat for the #2 pick, and take both Rose and Beasley. That would give a nice lineup.

Rose/Kirk
Thabs/Kirk
Beasley/Thabs
Tyrus/Gooden
Noah/Gray


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SpazZTiK said:


> Whatever you say man. Signing an autograph on a bumper(which is worth more money than the bumper now) in HIGH SCHOOL doesn't scream character flaw to me. But if you have those ridiculously high standards I'm not gonna change your mind.
> 
> But you can excuse getting in a fight that could have resulted in serious injury to Rose or the Memphis football player as nothing. No double standard there.


To be honest, I hadn't heard of it, and sometimes fights can't be avoided. I don't know the details, so until I read about it from a reputable source first not forming any conclusions. It's also a ONE-TIME THING, rather than a habitual string of offenses like Beasley did every day for years with the graffiti and immature behavior that showed absolutely no respect for anyone, their rules, or anything in general. Maybe Beasley was just a ******* that has since grown up, so he can be a decent pick, idk. But given the fact that there's a lot of evidence pointing to him not respecting authority (team rules??) that is enough for me to take Rose over him. I also watched them both play quite a bit this year, and Rose was the better player in the games I saw.


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

DaBabyBullz said:


> To be honest, I hadn't heard of it, and sometimes fights can't be avoided. I don't know the details, so until I read about it from a reputable source first not forming any conclusions. It's also a ONE-TIME THING, rather than a habitual string of offenses like Beasley did every day for years with the graffiti and immature behavior that showed absolutely no respect for anyone, their rules, or anything in general. Maybe Beasley was just a ******* that has since grown up, so he can be a decent pick, idk. But given the fact that there's a lot of evidence pointing to him not respecting authority (team rules??) that is enough for me to take Rose over him. I also watched them both play quite a bit this year, and Rose was the better player in the games I saw.


http://www.memphisrap.com/cgi-bin/content/pub9990263694155.cgi?itemid=9990285813644
I'll get more sources if you want.

As for the disrespect thing, if he really has a problem with authority and breaking team rules why wasn't there any indictation of that throughout this year at K-state? Mike was a joker in high school and played pranks sure. But what kid hasn't? I can guarantee you every kid in the draft played pranks in high school, some of them even severe enough to get arrested for. (Beasley's never been arrested.) Bottom line is Mike has been on perfect behavior throughout his time at K-state. No pranks, good grades, no suspensions do to breaking the rules or problems with authority, no arguing, no arrests, nothing.

I've got no problem with you saying Rose is the better player. I might disagree with you but that's fine. It's just the "Beasley has character issues" that piss me off because he absolutely doesn't. He's a truly good person. Anyone that's met the guy knows that.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Rose's strength comes from his size advantage, along with the speed and physical strength, and if you put him on the SGs on defense, he is at a disadvantage size-wise and probably strength-wise, so would only have speed as his advantage there.


For the above reasons if we draft Rose we should play him at point guard and pair him with a big guard. None of this getting Kirk or Rose to guard the starting SG on the other team.

I don't mind the idea of bringing Kirk off the bench and having him guard a backup sg but not thrilled by it.

No more midget ball in the back court.

If you draft Rose and his "da man" then build around him, trade people.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> I don't care what Hinrich did or what he was back in '03 or whenever, this is now 2008, and Hinrich is very slow laterally on defense (CANNOT guard PGs) and even slower with the ball, poor court vision and doesn't create good offense for his teammates. Why do you mention race? Are you trying to say white players can't be athletic? Horrible post.



Tone down the rhetoric. You know that's exactly the OPPOSITE of what he was saying. He was saying white players sometimes unfairly get labeled as unathletic due to stereotyping.

Hinrich had one bad year defensively. It's foolish to conclude from that he'll never be a good defender again for the rest of his career. Most of our players sucked this year compared to past performance. Are all of them just going to continue to be bad for the rest of their careers?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SpazZTiK said:


> http://www.memphisrap.com/cgi-bin/content/pub9990263694155.cgi?itemid=9990285813644
> I'll get more sources if you want.
> 
> As for the disrespect thing, if he really has a problem with authority and breaking team rules why wasn't there any indictation of that throughout this year at K-state? Mike was a joker in high school and played pranks sure. But what kid hasn't? I can guarantee you every kid in the draft played pranks in high school, some of them even severe enough to get arrested for. (Beasley's never been arrested.) Bottom line is Mike has been on perfect behavior throughout his time at K-state. No pranks, good grades, no suspensions do to breaking the rules or problems with authority, no arguing, no arrests, nothing.
> ...


Your problem is you just want to discard his long history of being a moronic trouble maker, since he had ONE year in college where he didn't get into any documented trouble. In the "real world", prior behavior isn't discarded if he's been a model citizen for a year, so why should it be in this case either? He DOES have character issues. They might not be at the level of Ron Artest or Pacman Jones, but they are there. As I said, if he did indeed grow up and won't be a ticking timebomb for the Bulls, I'd be fine with the pick, but IMO he's a much riskier pick than Rose.


----------



## SpazZTiK (May 30, 2008)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Your problem is you just want to discard his long history of being a moronic trouble maker, since he had ONE year in college where he didn't get into any documented trouble. In the "real world", prior behavior isn't discarded if he's been a model citizen for a year, so why should it be in this case either? He DOES have character issues. They might not be at the level of Ron Artest or Pacman Jones, but they are there. As I said, if he did indeed grow up and won't be a ticking timebomb for the Bulls, I'd be fine with the pick, but IMO he's a much riskier pick than Rose.


His long history of character issues? They're non-existant. HE'S NEVER BEEN ARRESTED. The worst thing he's ever done is autograph things. He's never done anything to put anyone in danger. He's never done anything other than simple mischief, like organizing games of hide and seek after curfew. What exactly has he done that has shown he has character issues? Give me any examples you have.

Derrick Rose on the other hand put himself AND another Memphis athlete in danger by getting in a fight. It even caused him to cancel/delay his press conference declaring for the draft. And what was the fight over? A girl? A girl that he won't even be with in 2 months as he moves on to the NBA. Yeah, that seems like a good reason to put yourself and another person in physical harms way.

Your double standards are amazing.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I do agree that Gordon is the "instant offense" off the bench, but even if you pair him with Rose he's still not going to have any defense. Rose's strength comes from his size advantage, along with the speed and physical strength, and if you put him on the SGs on defense, he is at a disadvantage size-wise and probably strength-wise, so would only have speed as his advantage there. To fully maximize Rose's abilities, you need to play him at PG on both sides of the ball, so he, like Kirk, doesn't get wore out from banging with bigger players constantly. That's half the reason Kirk has slowed down recently IMO....he put on bulk to pound, and it took away some quickness/explosiveness.
> 
> As for the cons on taking Beasley, position-wise, that really depends on if you see him as a 3 or 4, and also what your opinion is on Tyrus. I personally think that Tyrus can and will be a star PF if we get a penetrating PG in Rose, so I tend to think that PF isn't a need....it's actually the last position I'd address in all honesty. He's just shown me enough on defense and rebounding, and shown the signs of the ability to develop an offensive game to make me have hope still, unlike some other people on here. Beasley, however, may be more of an over-sized SF in the NBA, which would crowd SF with Deng and Noc already there, along with Thabs and Tyrus who got some burn there last year.
> 
> ...


I would love that last one there. Altho what happens if Beasley grows and becomes a PF? Who is at SF then?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I would love that last one there. Altho what happens if Beasley grows and becomes a PF? Who is at SF then?


I see Thabo excelling more at the SF than at the SG position, at least offensively.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I think this Beasley character nonsense is blown way out of proportion, but at the same time, I really don't think the Bulls need another "joker" on this team. It's just not what we need on this team. We need a leader, an enforcer, winning attitude.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

wow, where do i began first. i would like to know what has ty thomas done to show hes gonna be a stud in the nba? all i see from him are occasional highlight reel dunks and blocks. he takes bad shots, has no j to speak of, d is none existant at best he three years away from being a DECENT PLAYER. 

bg is at best a very good 6th man nothing more and should not be starting. 

and while i know rose is gonna be a very good player i think hes a project offensively and the bulls do not need any more projects. he does not have a j,is a bad ft shooter, and he did play in a weaker conference. i really believe that the only reason you guys want him is because hes a hometown boy. since kirk has been here i think hes been steady. and all the bulls regressed in 08, not just kirk. 

as far as beasley i believe hes an instant 20 10 player who can finish at the rim just like rose can but can hit fts when fouled. and as far as character issues, like previously stated, he never been arested, been caught with guns, drugs, raping women, fighting, assaulting people, robbery, accepting money from agents, multiple illigetiment kids, or been affliated with gangs. those are real character issues. i firmly believe that he was just doing what mischevious teenagers do. you should look at how people like oprah winfrey, albert einstein, george bush, were when they were young. and i think they faired ok


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I think this Beasley character nonsense is blown way out of proportion, but at the same time, I really don't think the Bulls need another "joker" on this team. It's just not what we need on this team. We need a leader, an enforcer, winning attitude.



shaq has a rep for being a joker and i would have loved to have him on my team when he was in his prime.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

da bully said:


> shaq has a rep for being a joker and i would have loved to have him on my team when he was in his prime.


i'll pass, thank you


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=813109

The reason Beasley was on the other court "laughing and joking" was he caught the wrong bus. Some of this is a beat up at least. 

"Just when their research seemed complete, NBA executives learned something new about potential No. 1 draft pick Michael Beasley on Friday.

The kid is punctual.

Actually, maybe a little too punctual.

*Because he caught the wrong bus from the players' hotel, Beasley arrived at the Milk House 60 minutes early for his weigh-in and measurement session at the NBA pre-draft camp. Rather than spend the downtime relaxing in the locker room, Beasley shot baskets while other draft hopefuls scrimmaged on an adjacent court.*

"I want to play so bad right now," said Beasley, pausing to watch the game. "I want to get on that court right now."

Would've been nice. "

I'm flip floppy between the two still. Glad it's Paxson decision


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

As I've said before, I see some serious concerns with Beasley, but if he grows up and turns into what his potential is, he'd be a great pickup. We really can't go wrong here, though I prefer Rose since I think he's a safer pick and in the long run I prefer Rose + Tyrus over Kirk + Beasley. I just hope the Bulls are smart enough to trade a guy like Nocioni for a pick to take Chase Budinger if he is around at #19 as he is in the mock drafts on both nbadraft.net and draftexpress. He'd be the big, athletic, scoring 2 that we've needed for so long!


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

liekomgj4ck said:


> i'll pass, thank you


are you crazy shaq is the most dominant center ever


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

da bully said:


> are you crazy shaq is the most dominant center ever


please don't point out facts while they all still have their "rose-colored" glasses on!


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

The Bulls are deeply in need of a low post scorer. Their pick needs to be Beasley. A Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Beasley/Noah lineup is the best possible for the Bulls, especially when they could have Duhon/Nocioni/Thomas/Gooden off the bench.

The departure of Scott Skiles will give the team much more offensive versatility, and with the defenders they already have on the team, they can afford to sacrifice some size up front in exchange for some more offense.

The big men in Chicago have long only been able to score off of open mid-range jumpers, fast-breaks and put-backs. Selecting Beasley would add much much more than just that.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> The Bulls are deeply in need of a low post scorer. Their pick needs to be Beasley.


If I had a dollar for everytime this was said, I'd be a very rich man. For the billionth time:

1) The Bulls aren't drafting based on need. They will draft based on who the better player is. Beasley is not clearly the better overall player of the two (not sure Rose is either -- it's too close to call right now).

2) Even if we did draft for need, many people (myself included) are very sick of watching the Kirk Hinrich experiment at PG. Ben Gordon isn't a PG either. Chris Duhon is a FA and we're letting him go, nor is he starter material. In other words, WE DON'T HAVE A PG. 

3) On Beasley, many of us aren't even sold that he'll be a pure post scorer at the NBA level. Physically speaking, he doesn't offer a size/strength advantage to play in the post right now. His best attribute is scoring ability inside-out and athleticism to make it happen. But I'm not sold that he can sit there and post up the Tim Duncans of the world and be able to score in the post. Or whether he can defend the Tim Duncans.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

So... on the Beasley side of the argument, I was just thinking...


PG - Kirk Hinrich
SG - Thabo Sefolosha
SF - Luol Deng
PF - Michael Beasley
C - Joakim Noah

with a bench of 

PG - Ben Gordon
SG - Larry Hughes (Hughes and Gordon would have to share ball handling duties, as Gordon can't do it alone)
SF - Andres Nocioni
PF - Tyrus Thomas
C - Drew Gooden (Aaron Gray)

... is as deep of a team as I've seen. Needs at backup PG, but maybe the combined offense of Gordon and Hughes off the bench can make up for that... certainly it is a potent offensive team with Beasley, Deng, Gordon all capable of scoring 20ppg + and Hughes, Hinrich, Nocioni and even Gooden all capable of putting up over 15 ppg... 

I feel like worse-case scenario with Beasley is still a high scorer/rebounder in the mold of Carlos Boozer (who was also too short to play PF in the NBA, remember?)... best case scenario is franchise player/animal.

With all of the shuffling that would be required with the drafting of Derrick Rose, I have to say that I'm more and more in favor of taking the socring/rebounding machine.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> With all of the shuffling that would be required with the drafting of Derrick Rose, I have to say that I'm more and more in favor of taking the socring/rebounding machine.


I don't think there would be any less shuffling needed in a Beasley scenario. Do you really think we can manage to keep Beasley, Tyrus, Gooden, AND Nocioni (who also plays some 4)? 

You almost certainly have to make at least 1 trade. Maybe 2 trades (one to unload Gooden or Tyrus, and another to unload Nocioni). If not, I see a pending implosion -- Tyrus is trying to prove himself in this league, Gooden is in a free agent year, and Beasley is supposed to come in at 19 years old and rob them of playing time? I like depth and all, but that's just a disaster waiting to happen.

I do get intrigued by the prospect of Deng & Beasley as your franchise forwards. Those guys could be a nasty 1-2 punch. However, I don't like how Hinrich runs the team these days, Duhon is on his way out, and it frightens me to think what our PG play might look like. 

Conversely, if you pick Rose, you not only prevent a PG meltdown like last year, but we don't have to give up on Tyrus prematurely.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I don't think there would be any less shuffling needed in a Beasley scenario. Do you really think we can manage to keep Beasley, Tyrus, Gooden, AND Nocioni (who also plays some 4)?
> 
> You almost certainly have to make at least 1 trade. Maybe 2 trades (one to unload Gooden or Tyrus, and another to unload Nocioni). If not, I see a pending implosion -- Tyrus is trying to prove himself in this league, Gooden is in a free agent year, and Beasley is supposed to come in at 19 years old and rob them of playing time? I like depth and all, but that's just a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> ...


But coming into the season wit Kirk Hinrich as the question mark in our starting lineup certainly seems better to me than throwing all of our eggs in the Tyrus Thomas/Drew Gooden basket at the 4.

I just don't see what we're going to get for one of our guards... none of those franchise type big men are likely to get dealt (i.e. Elton Brand) and the one that could, Jermaine O'Neal, is injury prone... even O'Neal is a longshot to acquire. So the player we do get back for Hinrich or Gordon is likely to be another Drew Gooden-level moderately successful PF with limited upside... and that just makes the minutes crunch at the 4 worse. 

I guess for me, currently, Hinrich + Beasley is a better option than Rose + The enigma that is Tyrus Thomas. 

And, in all fairness, Tyrus Thomas is my favorite player... I just know that he's still a huge question mark. Drafting Rose so that we have 6 guards, passing on a potential show-stopping PF while we do it... just seems like we'll still be clamoring for front-court offense.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> But coming into the season wit Kirk Hinrich as the question mark in our starting lineup certainly seems better to me than throwing all of our eggs in the Tyrus Thomas/Drew Gooden basket at the 4.


The way I see it, we have double or even triple insurance at PF, to at least hold down the fort. But if Hinrich blows, who do we turn to?

Gooden is really a known commodity by now, and I feel comfortable with him as either starter or backup. If Tyrus blows, then Gooden is the fall back starter. He'll at least give us a steady 10-12 points and 8-10 boards. Even in a worst case, I think Tyrus could still be a sufficient backup for 15-20 minutes. Worst worst case, we have Nocioni who is pretty reliable.

I don't feel near the assurance at PG. If we pick Beasley, we'd almost certainly need to make a MLE type of signing, or trade a forward for someone like Kyle Lowry.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Drafting *Jordan* so that we have "X" guards, passing on a potential show-stopping *C* while we do it... just seems like we'll still be clamoring for front-court offense.


Famous Last words............


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

yodurk said:


> If I had a dollar for everytime this was said, I'd be a very rich man. For the billionth time:
> 
> 1) The Bulls aren't drafting based on need. They will draft based on who the better player is. Beasley is not clearly the better overall player of the two (not sure Rose is either -- it's too close to call right now).
> 
> ...


Thank you. Great post.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Famous Last words............


If you're operating under the assumption that the talent difference between Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley is anywhere near the talent difference between Michael Jordan and Sam Bowie, I don't know what to tell you.

If we were talking about the Hawks taking the BPA in Marvin Williams over the positional need in Deron Williams or Chris Paul you might be singing a different tune... 

I'm operating under the assumption that these guys are both all-world talents... obviously if Rose is the next Jordan we should take him... but if Rose is Jason Kidd and Beasley is Karl Malone (upsides I'm sure we'd all be happy with)... then you have to take into account how your roster is set up to pick between the two of them...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> The big men in Chicago have long only been able to score off of open mid-range jumpers, fast-breaks and put-backs. Selecting Beasley would add much much more than just that.


beasley would add a post player that the bulls don't really have.
rose would add a slasher that the bulls don't really have.

either guy would add a new element to the offense.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

well I think Hughes and Thabo are slashers but I agree with your Beasley part


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> well I think Hughes and Thabo are slashers but I agree with your Beasley part


and neither hughes nor thabo should start on a nba team. if those guys are your best slashers, i'd say that's an obvious problem.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Stats are at times misleading. Stacey King averaged 26 and 10 his senior year at Oklahoma despite ridiculous double and triple teaming. Many back then thought he would be the inside scoring presence that would put us over the top. He got to the pros and turned out to be an ironing board...

I am not a critic of Beasley and don't mean to compare apples to ironing boards. Just to say stats can be misleading. At 6'7" only, he is more of a 3. I can't see a dominant post presence here against NBA level defenders. We are set at the 3 spot, but this guy would likely be an upgrade. So do you want Rose/Deng or Hinrich/Beasley? 

I think Paxson will likely debate this so much he probably won't be able to decide and we will end up timing out and forfeiting the pick.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> If you're operating under the assumption that the talent difference between Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley is anywhere near the talent difference between Michael Jordan and Sam Bowie, I don't know what to tell you.


No I'm not. But Hakeem Olajuwon was also in that draft, and the talent level is ALOT more similar there. The difference is that we have 6 championships here in chicago and they have two. The reason? We took the guard. Or more precisely, they DIDN't take the guard.



> If we were talking about the Hawks taking the BPA in Marvin Williams over the positional need in Deron Williams or Chris Paul you might be singing a different tune...


I think history bears out exactly what I thought at the time: Marvin WIlliams was NEVER the BPA to begin with. SO no I wouldn't, because I thought that Atlanta was just as stupid as we will be if we don't take rose. Fact is, Rose is BOTH the BPA AND a positional need. That's a distinction ATL didn't have.



> I'm operating under the assumption that these guys are both all-world talents... obviously if Rose is the next Jordan we should take him... but if Rose is Jason Kidd and Beasley is Karl Malone (upsides I'm sure we'd all be happy with)... then you have to take into account how your roster is set up to pick between the two of them...


WHich is exactly what portland did when they passed on BOTH Jordan AND Barkley. FTW--Houston did the same thing. They just got better results.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> No I'm not. But Hakeem Olajuwon was also in that draft, and the talent level is ALOT more similar there. The difference is that we have 6 championships here in chicago and they have two. The reason? We took the guard. Or more precisely, they DIDN't take the guard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, Houston actually didn't pay attention to positional need, as they already had Ralph Sampson... but again, its really hard for me to make a convincing argument when you're talking about drafting Michael Jordan... I mean, he's like a basketball god to us, of course you should always draft Michael Jordan... but still, this is operating under the assumption that Derrick Rose is anywhere near MJ... I'd prefer to use other player comparisons for that reason...

We didn't pay attention position needs when we drafted Marcus Fizer, a PF, with Elton Brand on the roster, and it burned us. 

Again, none of this makes sense if one of the players is clearly better than the other... but as much as I question Beasley's defense I question Rose's ability to distribute the ball.... they both have incredible strengths and a few weaknesses...

I just think we would benefit greatly from a go-to scorer, and that's exactly what Michael Beasley is... I think Hinrich can be an adequate PG with a guy like Beasley around.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

csourk4ksu said:


> 1. Best player in the draft. Hands down.
> 
> 2. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs. They all have an All-Star bigs.
> 
> ...


Pat Riley, is that you posting?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Pat Riley, is that you posting?


He has a point though... outside of Isiah Thomas, who played with an incredibly balanced roster... who is the last PG to lead his team to a championship?

I don't really count Magic, as he was 6'9"... if Rose was 6'9" I don't think we'd be having a discussion about this... 

When is the last time a guy like Derrick Rose took a team to a title? If he's Dwyane Wade, I sure hope we find our Shaquille O'Neal... 

John Paxson, Danny Ainge, Rajon Rondo, Kenny Smith/Sam Cassell, Steve Kerr, Derek Fisher and Avery Johnson are all wearing Championship rings right now.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Well, Houston actually didn't pay attention to positional need, as they already had Ralph Sampson... but again, its really hard for me to make a convincing argument when you're talking about drafting Michael Jordan... I mean, he's like a basketball god to us, of course you should always draft Michael Jordan... but still, this is operating under the assumption that Derrick Rose is anywhere near MJ... I'd prefer to use other player comparisons for that reason...


Fair enough.



> We didn't pay attention position needs when we drafted Marcus Fizer, a PF, with Elton Brand on the roster, and it burned us.


You'll never convince me that Krause wasn't trying to pull a fast one when he drafted Fizer. Clearly, he was trying to interfere with the Clippers, who drafted darius miles, who Krause really wanted. I don't think Krause ever drafted fizer with the intention of playing him here, and if it were me, it would have been grounds for his immediate termination (his inability to consumate the trade). 



> Again, none of this makes sense if one of the players is clearly better than the other... but as much as I question Beasley's defense I question Rose's ability to distribute the ball.... they both have incredible strengths and a few weaknesses...


Against that backdrop, your point is well taken.



> I just think we would benefit greatly from a go-to scorer, and that's exactly what Michael Beasley is... I think Hinrich can be an adequate PG with a guy like Beasley around.


I guess then it comes down to what we think of Hinrich. I don't think he's an adequate PG. I think he's an AVERAGE combo guard, who has been heavily overrated because of his really good defense. But outside of that (and he wasn't even good at that last season), he's average to below average at EVERYTHING else (among starting PG's).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> He has a point though... outside of Isiah Thomas, who played with an incredibly balanced roster... who is the last PG to lead his team to a championship?
> 
> I don't really count Magic, as he was 6'9"... if Rose was 6'9" I don't think we'd be having a discussion about this...
> 
> ...


And they all had MULTIPLE superstars and top 10 all-time talnets around them. Is beasley that guy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt he's even top 5 in the CURRENT NBA. I have questions about him even being top 5 at HIS POSITION any time soon. 

Rose on the other hand will be a top 5 PG by the end of his second season. Maybe sooner.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

The Krakken said:


> And they all had MULTIPLE superstars and top 10 all-time talnets around them. Is beasley that guy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt he's even top 5 in the CURRENT NBA. I have questions about him even being top 5 at HIS POSITION any time soon.
> 
> Rose on the other hand will be a top 5 PG by the end of his second season. Maybe sooner.


I think you are right :biggrin:


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

The Bulls have enough guards on their roster with Hinrich, Gordon, Hughes, and Stefalosha. They have no low post scoring yet you want to take another guard? 

Look at it like this, if you have a hole in your roof, would you change your carpet, despite nothing being wrong with the carpet? When you still need to fix the hole in your roof. The Bulls have Hinrich at PG who has had his ups and downs but he is a good PG. Ben Gordon is a scorer and the game should become easy for him with a big who demands double teams in the post.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

eddymac said:


> The Bulls have enough guards on their roster with Hinrich, Gordon, Hughes, and Stefalosha. They have no low post scoring yet you want to take another guard?
> 
> Look at it like this, if you have a hole in your roof, would you change your carpet, despite nothing being wrong with the carpet? When you still need to fix the hole in your roof. The Bulls have Hinrich at PG who has had his ups and downs but he is a good PG. Ben Gordon is a scorer and the game should become easy for him with a big who demands double teams in the post.


draft based on best player available not need


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

Yeah but in the Bulls case they need a low post scorer. They dont need another PG.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> 3) On Beasley, many of us aren't even sold that he'll be a pure post scorer at the NBA level.


That's because he's not.



> Physically speaking, he doesn't offer a size/strength advantage to play in the post right now.


That isn't accurate, in my opinion. He's got excellent strength. He's about 3/4 of an inch shorter than a standard NBA power forward though. I expect his height to present a problem against a grand total of about 3 power forwards currently playing in the NBA. 



> His best attribute is scoring ability inside-out and athleticism to make it happen.


True.



> But I'm not sold that he can sit there and post up the Tim Duncans of the world and be able to score in the post. Or whether he can defend the Tim Duncans.


How many "Tim Duncans of the world" are there? And lets just use Tim Duncan as an example. Beasley won't guard him. Noah will. Beasley will guard Kurt Thomas. Same with Kevin Garnett. Beasley would defent Perkins, who is less of a threat. Noah will guard KG. That is the beauty of having a mobile center.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

A rare duel with Ron Cey...ok, I'll bite! 




Ron Cey said:


> That's because he's not.


So we do agree on that, at least. Beasley isn't a pure post scorer. I guess I feel the need to constantly point that out. It seems like every non-Bulls fan who posts here constantly argues, "The Bulls need a post scorer, so you should really take Beasley." 

Sounds like your argument is going for the best #1 scoring option available in the draft, rather than post scoring per say. That's fair and all. Trust me, I'm tempted by Beasley. Him and Deng would be a dynamite forward tandem.




> That isn't accurate, in my opinion. He's got excellent strength. He's about 3/4 of an inch shorter than a standard NBA power forward though. I expect his height to present a problem against a grand total of about 3 power forwards currently playing in the NBA.


There's actually a VERY slight but crucial difference between what I said, and how you interpreted it. I said he doesn't offer a size/strength "advantage." He is definitely a strong kid. And he appears to have a just-good-enough arm reach compared to other NBA PFs. *But with the #1 pick in the draft, I'd much prefer to take a guy who can physically outmatch his counterpart on a nightly basis. *

Why you ask? I guess it's because everyone, including the very best, have bad shooting nights. Beasley will have plenty of bad shooting nights. I think you need someone who has the ability to offset an off-night with other things. If Beasley's shot isn't falling, how else does he produce? That's a critical difference, IMO, between him and Rose. You can't really change the fact that Rose is bigger/faster than virtually every PG in the league. Oh, and the kid can score and pass too. Just a really intriguing player.




> How many "Tim Duncans of the world" are there? And lets just use Tim Duncan as an example. Beasley won't guard him. Noah will. Beasley will guard Kurt Thomas. Same with Kevin Garnett. Beasley would defent Perkins, who is less of a threat. Noah will guard KG. That is the beauty of having a mobile center.


Again, I just really hate the idea of having to mask the flaws of our franchise player. The best franchise players of our era, for example, are Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. Garnett and a few others may belong there as well. Those guys didn't have any flaws to mask. They could all score, pass, play defense.

I'm not hating on Beasley. He'll be tremendous I'm sure. I just see some red flags. For the record though, I'm not especially worried about the character issues. I agree that was overblown.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Reasons to take Beasley... because Miami has no other choice. :biggrin:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Note: This is not a serious post (or is it?)

Gotta take Beasley because there's more pictures like these of him than there are of Rose:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

eddymac said:


> Yeah but in the Bulls case they need a low post scorer. They dont need another PG.


In which case we try and trade for Brook Lopez ..not Beasley . I like Beez but he isn't the answer to our "low post presence" 

Beez is a smaller Coleman / Glenn Robinson / Carmelo Anthony type player


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

That...is one hideous hoodie :lol:


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

*The Sure Thing*
Michael Beasley, Kansas State, 19.31

Beasley's rating is the highest of any player going back to 2002, and it's the best by a pretty sizable margin. Obviously, this isn't new information -- nobody doubts this guy's talent level.

But he might be even better than people realize. His numbers were superior even to Kevin Durant's from a year ago, and Durant had everyone gaga over his performance as a college freshman.

Somehow Beasley didn't resonate quite as strongly, perhaps because of concerns over his character, but if he keeps his head on straight he's going to be insanely good. 

Link


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

To put it bluntly, John Paxson should be fired if he passes on Michael Beasley.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i dont even know which way i feel 100%

but man Beasley seems like such a goofball


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> To put it bluntly, John Paxson should be fired if he passes on Michael Beasley.


to put it bluntly, beasley doesn't stand a chance in hell of being drafted by john paxson.

may as well start your "fire paxson" arguments, bull shak.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> to put it bluntly, beasley doesn't stand a chance in hell of being drafted by john paxson.
> 
> may as well start your "fire paxson" arguments, bull shak.


I'm not saying Rose won't be drafted, but it seems a little silly to think that Beasley has no chance...


----------

