# Riley open to trading #1 pick.



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Do we have the goods to get it? What would they be?

I think we could package something up nice for ol' Pat! He needs a center. We could trade Joel\Jack\Frye and our pick for Mark Blount and their pick?

I would strongly consider that. Then we take Beasley.

Blake
Roy
Beasley
LMA
Oden

That looks to be a pretty nice roster  OR.........

Rose
Roy
Webster
LMA
Oden

I think I like Beasley in there better then Rose.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> Do we have the goods to get it? What would they be?
> 
> I think we could package something up nice for ol' Pat! He needs a center. We could trade Joel\Jack\Frye and our pick for Mark Blount and their pick?
> 
> ...


 There is no way something like that would do it. An absolute minimum would be something like Joel, Outlaw, Fernandez for the Heats #1


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm not sold on any of the top draft picks this year. I don't see any of them as a can't-miss NBA star. Riley probably sees the same thing, which is why he's open to trading.

There may be a diamond in the rough player in this draft, and I trust KP to find that player.

But in terms of Beasley, Bayless, Rose, Lopez and Jordan - I don't know that any of those guys are can't-miss prospects. Not in terms of what I've seen in their games.

There are certain years where there is a consensus top 2 or 3 picks. This isn't one of them.

-Pop


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> There are certain years where there is a consensus top 2 or 3 picks. This isn't one of them.
> 
> -Pop


I think there is a consensus on the top two, I'm just not sold on either. Beasley had a reputation as being uncoachable and having an attitude. Maybe he matured out of those in college. If so, and if he could legitimately play the three (not like Marion), then he would be worth Outlaw, Sergio, Joel, etc.

However, I don't see Miami giving up the #1 to Portland unless Portland is willing to give up a player higher on the chart than Outlaw (one of the big three), which Portland wouldn't do. 

One trade that Miami might consider, but I'm not sure Portland should or not, would be:

Sergio, Fernandez, Joel/Frye and #13 for #1. Portland could get Beasley or trade down and get Rose, etc. Miami would instantly get some talent around Wade. And the Spanish connection of Sergio and Rudy would play well in Miami.

Miami

Wade
Fernandez
Marion
Haslem
Joel

This lineup would definately play batter than last year's team.

Portland

Roy
Webster
Beasley
Aldridge
Oden

or

Rose
Roy
Outlaw/Webster/Jones
Aldridge
Oden

Portland consolidates and trades some solid, but less than all-star talent for a potential all-star PG or forward.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Let's hope that Miami gets the #2, 3 or 4 pick, maybe they will be even more willing to trade


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

someone should tell riley they have better odds of getting #4 than #1


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

It's not like Sergio and Rudy are Cuban ... that's like saying we would get excited about Joel Freeland because he's a native english speaker (whatever, that's purely beside the point).

As for what Riles would be willing to negotiate only he knows, but I suspect it would probably involve the rights to Rudy, Jack, Travis, our number one pick and probably taking a bad contract back.

We'll see what kind of draft day magic KP is able to pull off this year I guess.

_If the past is any idication the Heat will probably end up with the 3rd or 4th pick anyway._


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

andalusian said:


> Let's hope that Miami gets the #2, 3 or 4 pick, maybe they will be even more willing to trade



won't need a particularly large amount of hope since there's a 75% chance of that happening


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> It's not like Sergio and Rudy are Cuban ... that's like saying we would get excited about Joel Freeland because he's a native english speaker (whatever, that's purely beside the point).


Let me 'splain (Ricky Ricardo reference [he was Cuban])

Miami has a very large Spanish speaking population. I do not believe that any Heat players speak Spanish as a first language. Sergio and Rudy speak Spanish as a first language. Ergo, they may be popular with a large population in Miami. [Weren't Cubans Spaniards who colonized the island of Cuba?]

Portland has a large English speaking population. Almost all the Blazers (except Sergio) speak English as a first language. Joel F speaks English much like everyone else. Accordingly, he is nothing special.

Explain to me again how these two situations are the same?


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

miami needs more than our garbage leftovers to convince them to let go of their top 3 pick.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BenDavis503 said:


> Do we have the goods to get it? What would they be?
> 
> I think we could package something up nice for ol' Pat! He needs a center. We could trade Joel\Jack\Frye and our pick for Mark Blount and their pick?
> 
> I would strongly consider that. Then we take Beasley.


You would only "strongly consider" trading three mediocre bench players to trade up to the top position? You can't trade trash (relatively) for the year's top prospect.

It would take at least Outlaw/Fernandez and more. It may very well require someone like Aldridge.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

If Miami is at #1, it would take LMA+13 at least to get up.
At #2, it probably would still take LAM+13. But, they just might go for Outlaw/Rudy/#13/2010 1st. Seems mighty high.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

As already mentioned, that trade is way lopsided. One of the worst I've seen actually.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I doubt Miami will end up wiht the #1 pick, but if they did, idk, i'm guessin' we'd trade to it, and then trade down to #2 from there and draft rose?

We would have to give up ALOT to get the #1. Probably our #1 this year, #1 next year, and then JAck, Fernandez and Outlaw or somethin' like that, idk.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> If Miami is at #1, it would take LMA+13 at least to get up.



sonny must be having a brainwashing effect or something. aldridge is worth more than the #1 pick just by himself. he would BE #1 this year if he were still at texas as a senior.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Y we have the goods if you want to give up someone like Oden or Aldridge. Say we landed on the 13th pick would you trade Aldridge and our 13th pick for the #1 to get Beasley?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree Soda. Considering where we will likely be picking, and the players available this year, I think it is more likely that KP tries to trade out of the lottery entirely to nab a quality PG with experience, than he trades up in the draft, to draft one without. Either way, I do expect him to identify and acquire a great prospect later in the draft. I'm spoiled like that. :biggrin:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Say we landed on the 13th pick would you trade Aldridge and our 13th pick for the #1 to get Beasley?



if they throw in dwyane wade for miles i'd consider it.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Reep said:


> Let me 'splain (Ricky Ricardo reference [he was Cuban])
> 
> Miami has a very large Spanish speaking population. I do not believe that any Heat players speak Spanish as a first language. Sergio and Rudy speak Spanish as a first language. Ergo, they may be popular with a large population in Miami. [Weren't Cubans Spaniards who colonized the island of Cuba?]
> 
> ...


I was seeing this from the other end ... I was under the impression that you thought the Cuban community would be excited about Rudy and Sergio in a Heat uniform (who knows, maybe they would be?), but you are right that it would be advantageous for Rudy and Serg to be able to be around a large spanish speaking population, from their POV.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

crowTrobot said:


> if they throw in dwyane wade for miles i'd consider it.


Sarcastic much?


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

As for the idea of trading our pick, Outlaw and Fernandez and maybe others; that doesn't make sense to me. One way to look at it, is that KP has said Rudy would be a top 10 pick this year, and as for Travis, he is still the age of a college senior, I think he would be a top 10 pick. So we trade #13, two top 10 picks, and Frye for the rights to Beasley or Rose, who may be consensus 1 and 2, but how would you compare them to last year's 1 and 2?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I think I would package #13, 2010 1st no protection, Rudy, Jack, Frye for #1 and fillers. I do it more to consolidate as well. You take ROSE!
Rose/Blake/Sergio/Koponen
Roy/Marty/Von
Jones/Trav
LMA/Raef/Freeland
Oden/Przy
+ Miami filler and 2nd rounder.
Beasley would give us too many offensive options..plus I just don't think he is that great. I would not trade Trav in any scenario for #1. I'm hesitant to trade Rudy but I would for Derrick Rose.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ukrainefan said:


> As for the idea of trading our pick, Outlaw and Fernandez and maybe others; that doesn't make sense to me. One way to look at it, is that KP has said Rudy would be a top 10 pick this year, and as for Travis, he is still the age of a college senior, I think he would be a top 10 pick. So we trade #13, two top 10 picks, and Frye for the rights to Beasley or Rose


Another way to look at it is that neither Outlaw nor Fernandez profile as stars. Either could be, but both are more likely to be steady starters. Would you trade the #13, two solid players and a decent reserve for a superstar-ceiling prospect?

I would, because of two things:

1. Whenever teams trade quantity for quality, the team getting quality almost always comes out the victor (as judged by history). This is complicated by the fact that Beasley and Rose aren't yet proven NBA quality, but I think the underlying principle still holds with consensus star prospects.

2. Locking in four potential star level starters, all very young, means 95% of the heavy lifting for a long-term title contender is complete. The remaining 5% is to keep rotating a fresh group of role-players around them, as the years go by. Outlaw and Fernandez could have been good ones, but you can acquire such players much more easily than you can acquire stars.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> Do we have the goods to get it? What would they be?
> 
> I think we could package something up nice for ol' Pat! He needs a center. We could trade Joel\Jack\Frye and our pick for Mark Blount and their pick?
> 
> ...


Why would Miami even consider a deal that bad?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

All the deals posted so far are horrible..

I agree with whoever it was that said it would take LMA + #13 pick, at the least, for Riley to trade that pick.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Riley seemed to be saying that if he trades the pick, it will be to facilitate an accelerated turnaround in his team. That means something like what Boston did, trading their youth/picks for a proven star veteran. No way Riley takes a pile of so-so guys for the pick. Either he wants the team to compete now, or he wants to do a rebuilding (in which case he will probably keep the pick anyway). All the trade ideas on this board leave the team in the no-man's land in between those two options.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> All the deals posted so far are horrible..
> 
> I agree with whoever it was that said it would take LMA + #13 pick, at the least, for Riley to trade that pick.


I think you are probably right, but I don't think the Blazers would do that. Which means, the Blazers will not be getting the #1 from the Heat.

I actually think that Riley will be looking for a team blowing up with a very established player so another high quality and ready to go player could be added to Wade and Marion. Like all the Garnet, Ray Allen, Kidd type deals that have happened recently. I don't think He would want Aldridge or any player that is not in his prime right now. And I don't see any need for Outlaw with Marion already there, or Rudy with Wade there.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

SodaPopinski said:


> I'm not sold on any of the top draft picks this year. I don't see any of them as a can't-miss NBA star. Riley probably sees the same thing, which is why he's open to trading.
> 
> There may be a diamond in the rough player in this draft, and I trust KP to find that player.
> 
> ...


Lol, you are so wrong. First off, you've obviously never seen Beasley play. He's better a better prospect than Kevin Durant IMO. Basically a suped-up Carlos Boozer. Derrick Rose will also be a great player. He's super athletic and great skills. Most similar to Dwayne Wade or Deron Williams.

Pat Riley wants to entertain trades because he has Wade and Marion, and those guys arent getting any younger. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

These trades are little ridiculous (okay, totally ridiculous). To get the #1 pick it would take at least LA and the Blazers pick. And if you could get Beasley for LA and late lotto pick you'd be a fool not to do it. Beasley is right now, already better than LA (and I say that being a HUUUUUGE LA fan).

Some people posting in this thread must not know much about college ball. Beasley is putting up the best season of all-time, BY FAR! He's making Kevin Durant's greatest college season of all-time look plain average. He's the best college player since Pistol Pete, making him the second best college player of all-time.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Remember when Riley said that he "isn't considering trading Shaq"? And remember when the Blazers said they were considering Kevin Durant?

Please, how many years have you been watching Pat Riley, this is obviously a front. Unless the Heat get a superstar or a package of stars, theres no way they trade the #1 pick in this year's draft.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

crowTrobot said:


> sonny must be having a brainwashing effect or something. aldridge is worth more than the #1 pick just by himself. he would BE #1 this year if he were still at texas as a senior.


Two things, 1st, no he isnt. 2nd, no he wouldnt.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

GOD said:


> I think you are probably right, but I don't think the Blazers would do that. Which means, the Blazers will not be getting the #1 from the Heat.
> 
> I actually think that Riley will be looking for a team blowing up with a very established player so another high quality and ready to go player could be added to Wade and Marion. Like all the Garnet, Ray Allen, Kidd type deals that have happened recently. I don't think He would want Aldridge or any player that is not in his prime right now. And I don't see any need for Outlaw with Marion already there, or Rudy with Wade there.


I agree that a deal between the Blazers and Heat is not happening, not sure about the second part though. Riley said he's looking for an accelerated rebuilding process - not a 1 year fix. So if its a move like bringing in one star past his prime, I doubt Riley's gona trade the #1 pick for it and take the heat again, just when we finally get rid of Shaq's contract.

I don't know though - I have trouble reading Riley's mind, he seems to always do the opposite.. :laugh:



R-Star said:


> Two things, 1st, no he isnt. 2nd, no he wouldnt.


Yea, agree with you. Aldridge is NOT worth the #1 pick himself, and no way Adridge would be the #1 pick himself if he were in college. Do you guys know just how great a season Beasley is having?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

yeah, Aldridge would be a top 5 pick, likely behind Beasley and Rose. He wouldn't have developed as fast if he stayed in college as oppose to playing major minutes on a rebuilding team. You can't really look at what he has accomplished in the league and then go back and say that he would've done this and that in college.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> yeah, Aldridge would be a top 5 pick, likely behind Beasley and Rose. He wouldn't have developed as fast if he stayed in college as oppose to playing major minutes on a rebuilding team. You can't really look at what he has accomplished in the league and then go back and say that he would've done this and that in college.


yeah because college competition is so much better then whats in the league[/sarcasm] 

LA started his pro career missing preseason and the beginning of the season to shoulder surgery. But as soon as he started playing he was clearly a stud talent more then holding his own. I think it's funny when some posters refer to him as a project coming out, as he was obviously skilled the day he took the court. He's put on some muscle/weight since, but he's always had his sweet stroke, great length, and above average coordination. 

If he'd have stayed at Texas, Beasley probably still goes over him, but thats not a lock as there is always a scarcity of quality Bigs in the league... Beasley projects as a 3. I really doubt Rose would though as a guard having no J is a big flaw. 

STOMP


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

This is a reply to a message from Minstrel on page 2, sorry I messed it up.

I would make this kind of trade for a Keven Durant, Le Bron James, Tim Duncan type prospect. I'm not convinced Derrick Rose is in that class. He's shooting 46% 2's, 32% 3's, 67% ft with 4.5 assists to 3 TO's. I think Rudy Fernandez has as much star potential as Derrick Rose, maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think when Riley says he's open to trading the #1 pick, he means he's willing to trade it for a 3-7 pick and another player...


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I am guessing that if the Heat get the #3 or #4 pick, a package with the #13 pick and some of the Frye/Webster/Jack/Outlaw might be do-able.

I doubt the #1 pick will be traded.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i hope stern punishes the heat like he did the two team that openly tanked last year!


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

STOMP said:


> yeah because college competition is so much better then whats in the league[/sarcasm]
> 
> LA started his pro career missing preseason and the beginning of the season to shoulder surgery. But as soon as he started playing he was clearly a stud talent more then holding his own. I think it's funny when some posters refer to him as a project coming out, as he was obviously skilled the day he took the court. He's put on some muscle/weight since, but he's always had his sweet stroke, great length, and above average coordination.
> 
> ...


I don't think you understood what I said. Because the competition in the NBA is better and Aldridge had the opportunity to play major minutes because the Blazers weren't any good last year, it made him develop faster compare to if he had stayed in college.

The comparison right now is between the Aldridge that stayed in school and Beasley, not Aldridge the 2 year veteran against Beasley. If Aldridge stayed in school and comes out this year, he wouldn't be drafted as high as some of you are saying because he wouldn't be the player that he is now.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> The comparison right now is between the Aldridge that stayed in school and Beasley, not Aldridge the 2 year veteran against Beasley. If Aldridge stayed in school and comes out this year, he wouldn't be drafted as high as some of you are saying because he wouldn't be the player that he is now.


While I agree that Aldridge developed a lot in the NBA - he actually did not play all that much last year. He was wounded in training camp and the start of the year. Stuck behind Z-Bo and Magloire in the rotation until he got about 4 - 6 weeks of proper minutes and then was wounded again (heart thing). So, he was definitely improved by the NBA experience, but not so much by major minutes until this year.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

If Aldridge were in this draft, I think he would be behind Beasley but ahead of Rose.

Beasley
Aldridge
Rose

But what if Oden and Fernandez were in this years draft (and Rudy was 100% coming over), that would be harder to judge. I still think Oden would be first, and I think that Rudy might actually be drafted ahead of Rose. This might show my homerism towards Rudy, or it might reflect by lack of respect for Rose.

Oden
Beasley
Aldridge
Fernandez
Rose


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Where has it been reported that Riley said he'd be open to trading the pick, if they get it?


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

B_&_B said:


> Where has it been reported that Riley said he'd be open to trading the pick, if they get it?


RealGM.

And you guys are crazy if you think LMA isn't worth the #1 pick by himself.
Also, ya'll even more crazy for thinking that if LMA was still in college, he wouldn't be the #1 pick.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't think you understood what I said. Because the competition in the NBA is better and Aldridge had the opportunity to play major minutes because the Blazers weren't any good last year, it made him develop faster compare to if he had stayed in college.
> 
> The comparison right now is between the Aldridge that stayed in school and Beasley, not Aldridge the 2 year veteran against Beasley. If Aldridge stayed in school and comes out this year, he wouldn't be drafted as high as some of you are saying because he wouldn't be the player that he is now.


I don't know how you interpreted my post that way. LA was drafted #2 two years back... I don't think he'd slip past that spot if he were coming out of college this year and I'm pretty sure some teams would select him over Beasley. Aldridge was pretty darn impressive from the get go of his NBA career. He's changed his body sure, but his game was nice day one. What we see with him today isn't some amazing stretch from when he arrived so his real development didn't happen in the league. While he wouldn't have done the weight training he's done in Portland, he still would have filled out and gained some strenth like most every guy does from age 20 to 22.

STOMP


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Dude STOMP... your avatar freaks me out man. You should change it lol I am having bad dreams.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> Dude STOMP... your avatar freaks me out man. You should change it lol I am having bad dreams.


STMP


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

BenDavis503 said:


> RealGM.
> 
> And you guys are crazy if you think LMA isn't worth the #1 pick by himself.
> Also, ya'll even more crazy for thinking that if LMA was still in college, he wouldn't be the #1 pick.


You're crazy if you think LA would be selected ahead of Beasley.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> You're crazy if you think LA would be selected ahead of Beasley.


Beasley puts up big numbers on a weak team, against mid-level competition. It is unclear what he would do against strong competition. 



> With that said, there is still much concern about his defensive awareness, as even though he’s clearly trying harder, he can still look like a fish out of water here at times. He reminds of Drew Gooden a lot on the defensive end, in that he has the length and athleticism to occasionally make some impact plays, but can often look a little lost or confused, making some questionable decisions and not showing the greatest awareness of what’s going on around him. . . .
> 
> There are still some legitimate question marks about Beasley’s game when projecting to the next level, though, notably what position he’s ideally suited for. At 6’9, he’d be slightly undersized for a power forward, but his strong rebounding and length and athleticism may lend himself better to that position than the small forward position. In the early going, he also looks more competent defending the post than the perimeter. There are also some questions about how he’s going to get off his turnaround jumper in the post against larger, more athletic defenders, as he has already showed some trouble there when matched up with California big man Devon Hardin.


We won't know if Beasley or LMA will be the better player for a few years yet. But, LMA has a position and has good size for that position. Beasley is a question mark here. The 3/4 tweener is one of the most unsuccessful body types in the NBA. LMA has the right attitude for good chemistry. Beasley is a question mark here also. 

I could see why someone would take LMA over Beasley.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

Reep said:


> Beasley puts up big numbers on a weak team, against mid-level competition. It is unclear what he would do against strong competition.


A weak team can make the tournament? Wow, I think you just proved how good Beasley really is.

Against strong competition?
George Mason: 30/10
Oregon: 24/12/3 blk
Kansas: 25/6
Texas: 30/15



> But, LMA has a position and has good size for that position. Beasley is a question mark here. The 3/4 tweener is one of the most unsuccessful body types in the NBA.


His body is almost identical to Karl Malone's coming out. You think that's an unsuccessful body type? He's 3" taller than Barkley otherwise that would be the proper comparison.

And the only reason LA has a position is because the Blazers lucked into getting Oden. If not he'd be a tweener center/pf, like he would be on most other teams in the NBA as well.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BenDavis503 said:


> Dude STOMP... your avatar freaks me out man. You should change it lol I am having bad dreams.


ok ok... I changed it. Rest easy

STOMP


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

beasley is not going to be a great pro! Teams would be idiotic to take MB over LA if A were a Senior, likely wrapping up his 3rd straight DPOY in the Big 12. I would not trade LA for any pick in this year's draft. He is goiing to be one of the best 4's in the league for a while.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

MAS RipCity said:


> beasley is not going to be a great pro! Teams would be idiotic to take MB over LA if A were a Senior, likely wrapping up his 3rd straight DPOY in the Big 12.


That depends if NBA scouts were competent enough to realize that LA's defense would not translate to the NBA, and he would actually end up being a below average defender.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> That depends if NBA scouts were competent enough to realize that LA's defense would not translate to the NBA, and he would actually end up being a below average defender.


&


> the only reason LA has a position is because the Blazers lucked into getting Oden. If not he'd be a tweener center/pf, like he would be on most other teams in the NBA as well


lol.... oooookay, whatever you say. I don't see the point of debating this sort of ridiculousness. 

STOMP


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

STOMP said:


> &
> 
> lol.... oooookay, whatever you say. I don't see the point of debating this sort of ridiculousness.
> 
> STOMP


Of course you don't see the point of debating, because you know you'll lose. Instead you just leave a snide comment.

So far in his career LA has been at best a below average defender. That is a fact.

Before getting Oden the Blazers played LA at center. That is a fact.

Not sure why you think facts are ridiculous. :thinking2:


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

STOMP said:


> ok ok... I changed it. Rest easy
> 
> STOMP


LOL that one isn't any better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad dreams coming tonight!!!


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> A weak team can make the tournament? Wow, I think you just proved how good Beasley really is.
> 
> Against strong competition?
> George Mason: 30/10
> ...


Now you are comparing MB to Barkley and Malone?! I thought he was a small forward???

LoL you just an LMA hater. Go bugger off.

LMA was considered one of the best big men in college in his sophomore year. You think that if he stayed for 2 more years and dominated like he did... he wouldn't be a #1 pick option in this years draft???

That is crazy.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> Of course you don't see the point of debating, because you know you'll lose. Instead you just leave a snide comment like a ***** would.


looks like someone might need a TO



> So far in his career LA has been at best a below average defender. That is a fact.


no it's not... thats just your opinion that plenty of posters would take issue with. 


> Before getting Oden the Blazers played LA at center. That is a fact.


sorry dude, facts are that he played plenty of both PF and Center his rookie year. Of course once Joel went down he played a lot more Center, but his primary position is and always has been the 4.

STOMP


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Methinks the Milkshake dude = SONNY in disguise? 

Thoughts?


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

BenDavis503 said:


> Now you are comparing MB to Barkley and Malone?! I thought he was a small forward???


You thought incorrectly. Beasley plays PF, although he can likely play either in the NBA depending on what system the team runs.



> LoL you just an LMA hater. Go bugger off.


You're just an ignorant homer.



Drink Your Milkshake said:


> These trades are little ridiculous (okay, totally ridiculous). To get the #1 pick it would take at least LA and the Blazers pick. And if you could get Beasley for LA and late lotto pick you'd be a fool not to do it. Beasley is right now, already better than LA *(and I say that being a HUUUUUGE LA fan).*


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

STOMP said:


> looks like someone might need a TO


I agree that you should take a time out.



> no it's not... thats just your opinion that plenty of posters would take issue with.


No, it's a fact easily backed up by stats or watching LA run 5 feet away from the hoop in fear of LeBron James, which cost the Blazer the game.



> sorry dude, facts are that he played plenty of both PF and Center his rookie year.


Which is exactly what I said. Sorry dude, please read more carefully before infesting this board with your hate filled posts.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> Against strong competition?


His team lost 4 out of 5. 

George Mason: 30/10 *Loss*
Oregon: 24/12/3 blk *Loss*
Kansas: 25/6 *Won*
Kansas: 39/11 *Loss*
Texas: 30/15 *Loss*

I don't see Carmelo here--I see Kevin Durant (the one who had great stats, but couldn't lead his team anywhere).

Interesting that in playing Kansas (split two games), K state won when Beasley had a much weaker game (25/6). But when Beasley had 39/11, they lost. 

He may end up being a great player, or he may end up as one of those guys who puts up great stats on bad teams. Or, he may end up as a guy without a position. Remember that Durant averaged 11 boards/game against better competition than Beasley faced--and look at his rebounding now.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

This years draft isn't last years draft, I think that Rose and Beasley are the two top players prior to March Madness. The draft is filled with a ton of roll players. Portland is going to most likely be picking 13th in this draft which screams Euro player. I'd love to move up and get Rose, but I don't see it happening.

I think our best hope is that Memphis lands a top two pick, takes Rose and makes Conley or Lowery expendable. Sure the ping pong balls could fall in our favor, but we got super lucky last year, I don't see it happening this year. If Memphis wins the lottery, there is a good chance we could come out smelling like Roses again.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

BenDavis503 said:


> RealGM.
> 
> And you guys are crazy if you think LMA isn't worth the #1 pick by himself.
> Also, ya'll even more crazy for thinking that if LMA was still in college, he wouldn't be the #1 pick.


Do you really want me to take this to the general board? 90% of non-Blazer fans would disagree on both those points, so who's crazy?



BenDavis503 said:


> Now you are comparing MB to Barkley and Malone?! I thought he was a small forward???
> 
> LoL you just an LMA hater. Go bugger off.
> 
> ...


Beasley is 6'9" in shoes with a 9'1" standing reach. He plays PF.

And noones disputing LMA would probably dominate - but do you have any idea how good of a season Beasley is having himself? He's having a historic season, he's broken Melo's double-double record and is making people forget about Durant's season already.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

Howie, I'm not as sold on Conley as most others, but it's still a good point and certainly wouldn't make the Blazers worse.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> Howie, I'm not as sold on Conley as most others, but it's still a good point and certainly wouldn't make the Blazers worse.



Sometime we have to think outside the box when it comes to the lottery. Conley or Lowry would be very interesting with this group of players in Portland. Memphis would have to take Rose, hometown kid, compared to Jason Kidd/ D Wade type of player.

I think Portland is going to be very active. Might not get everything they want, but they'll be active.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> I agree that you should take a time out.


remember when you signed up to post here just a couple days ago? When you did that you agreed not to call other posters names like "*****" or "ignorant". Keep it up and see what happens.


> No, it's a fact easily backed up by stats or watching LA run 5 feet away from the hoop in fear of LeBron James, which cost the Blazer the game.


what stats could you possibly point to? Rebounds, steals and blocks are all looking good to me. Cherry picking a single play as proof of a players ability is silly.


> Which is exactly what I said.


no it's not.


> Sorry dude, please read more carefully before infesting this board with your hate filled posts.


good grief

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> His body is almost identical to Karl Malone's coming out. You think that's an unsuccessful body type? He's 3" taller than Barkley otherwise that would be the proper comparison.


You picked two historical anomalies. All Malone and Barkley prove is that it is _possible_ to be successful as an undersized power player. Not that it isn't a disadvantage or generally unsuccessful.

Beasley looks like a great talent, but it's crazy to claim that there are no question marks about him. His defense, attitude and work ethic and size are all question marks. His lack of height isn't much of a detriment in the much smaller college game, but it will be a detriment in the NBA, where he'll be shorter than virtually every other power player in the game.

I think Beasley would probably be picked ahead of Aldridge, but I don't think it's a lock that all teams would draft Beasley ahead of Aldridge. A 22 year old Aldridge would be dominating the college game, himself, and he'd have much more prototypical size, at 6'11'.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> Beasley looks like a great talent, but it's crazy to claim that there are no question marks about him.


That was never claimed by anybody. It's crazy to claim that claim was made.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> That depends if NBA scouts were competent enough to realize that LA's defense would not translate to the NBA, and he would actually end up being a below average defender.


If you think Aldridge, at 22, is where he'll "end up," you really have no business calling other people ignorant about basketball.

Of course, Aldridge _isn't_ a "below average" defender even now, but that's a separate point that can't be resolved on a message board. Even if he were, though, your claim that he's "ended up" below average (implying his development is finished and he won't improve) is amazingly silly.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> That was never claimed by anybody. It's crazy to claim that claim was made.


You said "Beasley is right now, already better than LA." The only way you could claim such a thing, about a player dominating collegians in comparison to an NBA player, is by assuming the college player has no question marks in terms of how his success will translate to the NBA.

If you agreed that there _are_ questions about his translation to the NBA game, there's no way to definitively state who is the better player now, since they are competing against such _vastly_ different competition.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> If you think Aldridge, at 22, is where he'll "end up," you really have no business calling other people ignorant about basketball.


I don't think that and never said that. I think there is a serious reading comprehension problem on this board. You say one thing and people assume you mean something completely different.

The hate on this board is amazing. If you say anything not positive about a Blazer player you are attacked non-stop for being a hater.

On this board I'm afraid to say Michael Jordan is the best ever because I'd be attacked for being a Clyde hater.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

HOWIE said:


> Sometime we have to think outside the box when it comes to the lottery. Conley or Lowry would be very interesting with this group of players in Portland.



conley hasn't exactly done anything inspirational so far. seems just as likely to be a semi-bust as a top tier PG.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> You said "Beasley is right now, already better than LA." The only way you could claim such a thing, about a player dominating collegians in comparison to an NBA player, is by assuming the college player has no question marks in terms of how his success will translate to the NBA.


No. There is no logic to that at all. You're not making any sense in any of your posts in this thread. So if I say Beasley is better than Deavon George that means I think Beasley is perfect and has no flaws? If I say Beasley is better than Ha that means I think Beasley is perfect and has no flaws? If I trade Telfair for Roy does that mean I think Roy is perfect and has no flaws?

You are being too accusatory and are missing the entire point because of it. Calm down, I'm not a hater. Liking another player more than LA *(who I love)* doesn't make me a LA hater, it means I like another player more than him. That is all. Nothing else there except your imagination.



> If you agreed that there _are_ questions about his translation to the NBA game, there's no way to definitively state who is the better player now, since they are competing against such _vastly_ different competition.


There's no way to definitively state ANY player is better than another. Saying Michael Jordan is better than Deavon George is an OPINION, and cannot factually be proven.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> I don't think that and never said that. I think there is a serious reading comprehension problem on this board. You say one thing and people assume you mean something completely different.


You said he's "ended up" a below average defender. "Ending up" means where someone has finished.

Don't blame me if you can't express yourself well.



> The hate on this board is amazing. If you say anything not positive about a Blazer player you are attacked non-stop for being a hater.
> 
> On this board I'm afraid to say Michael Jordan is the best ever because I'd be attacked for being a Clyde hater.


Poor little victim.  I don't think anyone has ever been so targeted by hate as you.

It's always amusing when someone comes along who thinks _he_ should be allowed to be attacking and condescending (because he's _right_, of course, why won't people _see_ that??), but when he gets flak in return, he's the victim of "hate."

At least be original in your whining that people don't agree with you.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> No. There is no logic to that at all. You're not making any sense in any of your posts in this thread. So if I say Beasley is better than Deavon George that means I think Beasley is perfect and has no flaws? If I say Beasley is better than Ha that means I think Beasley is perfect and has no flaws?


No, but you've missed the point nicely. In comparing two players in the same sphere of ability (both would be among the top three prospects in this draft), saying that the collegian's performance in college shows him to be superior than the NBA player's performance in the NBA implies that the collegian's success is directly comparable to success in the pros...which would be true only if there were no questions about the player's ability to translate his success to the pros.



> You are being too accusatory and are missing the entire point because of it. Calm down, I'm not a hater. Liking another player more than LA *(who I love)* doesn't make me a LA hater, it means I like another player more than him. That is all. Nothing else there except your imagination.


I never said you hated Aldridge. So you calling me "too accusatory" is nice irony. None of this paragraph applies to me. I simply disagree with some of your contentions. Of course, you've already established that, in your mind, disagreement with you is "hate." Perhaps you should calm down a little.


----------



## Drink Your Milkshake (Mar 13, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> No, but you've missed the point nicely. In comparing two players in the same sphere of ability (both would be among the top three prospects in this draft), saying that the collegian's performance in college shows him to be superior than the NBA player's performance in the NBA implies that the collegian's success is directly comparable to success in the pros...which would be true only if there were no questions about the player's ability to translate his success to the pros.


I never implied that. You're not very good with people or conversations are you? If you wanted to know why I think Beasley is better than Aldridge, the correct method would be to, you know, ASK me. Instead you just throw out whatever you can and claim that's my stance. Your imagination does not equal others stances. Just because YOU can only think that way, does not mean other people can only think that way.

This isn't math. This isn't science. There is not only one way to think. There is not only one way to come to conclusions.



> I never said you hated Aldridge. So you calling me "too accusatory" is nice irony. None of this paragraph applies to me.


Than why are you assuming it's directed at you? Guilty conscience? I never said you said I was an Aldridge hater. ONCE AGAIN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT SIMPLY ISN'T THERE! I was just clarifying for you that I wasn't an Aldridge hater, since your posts were so accusatory in attitude. Oh there's some irony, but you've missed it entirely.

Am I going to have to continue explaining every little thing to you or can you please start thinking a little more for yourself?



> I simply disagree with some of your contentions. Of course, you've already established that, in your mind, disagreement with you is "hate." Perhaps you should calm down a little.


Wow, this is just too funny. You manage to find the exact opposite of the truth in pretty much everything.

You are a black and white thinker and have added nothing but negativity to this thread. If I no longer reply to you it's because you're on ignore.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

riley doesnt even have the 1st pick watch him get the 3rd or 4th pick now.....


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> riley doesnt even have the 1st pick watch him get the 3rd or 4th pick now.....


that is exactly what i think. More often then not, if i'm not mistaken, the team with the worst record doesn't end up with the #1 pick.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I don't know how you interpreted my post that way. LA was drafted #2 two years back... I don't think he'd slip past that spot if he were coming out of college this year and I'm pretty sure some teams would select him over Beasley. Aldridge was pretty darn impressive from the get go of his NBA career. He's changed his body sure, but his game was nice day one. What we see with him today isn't some amazing stretch from when he arrived so his real development didn't happen in the league. While he wouldn't have done the weight training he's done in Portland, he still would have filled out and gained some strenth like most every guy does from age 20 to 22.
> 
> STOMP


2006 was a weak draft. I thought that was obvious.

If he comes out this year, him being a senior would also affect his draft position because he won't have as much upside as 2 years ago. People are underrating the benefits of playing in the NBA. If a guy is lucky enough to be in a good situation playing with good players, it is much better than staying college playing against weak competition. Especially when Aldridge is playing in the Western conference, he is almost always playing against the best in the NBA.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Drink Your Milkshake said:


> That depends if NBA scouts were competent enough to realize that LA's defense would not translate to the NBA, and he would actually end up being a below average defender.


LMA is a great defender. He gets around 2bpg, alters more, and doesn't need to be helped out with a double team. He locked up Dwight both times this year..and he does pretty well when he gets a smaller player on him out on the perimeter. I couldn't be more thrilled with LMA's D actually.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*Alright, I cleaned this thread up as best I could.

Let's get back on topic now...*


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> LMA is a great defender. He gets around 2bpg, alters more, and doesn't need to be helped out with a double team. He locked up Dwight both times this year..and he does pretty well when he gets a smaller player on him out on the perimeter. I couldn't be more thrilled with LMA's D actually.


i agree 100% dude. I think LMA has come along much better than i ever could have thought he was going to this year. He is doin' great. Rebounding and disapearing from games are probably the 2 things i'd want him to work on, along with putting on more muscle.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Beasley is 6'9" in shoes with a 9'1" standing reach.


I'm calling BS because something doesn't fit. Looking at past pre-draft measurements, no one with a 6'9 w/shoes measurement and 7'0 wingspan comes close to a 9'1 standing reach. Many taller guys with much bigger wingspans don't have 9'1 standing reaches. They must have measured with shoes on and Beasley must have put on high heels. If he declares I'll be very interested to see whats what when he measures. For a quick reference check out Al Horford and Brandon Wright from this past year or feel free to dig deeper into this link. I think it's a pretty obvious blunder. Not only that but from the same measurement list that had Beasley with a 9'1 reach, they had the only other anomaly I could find in Donte Green.

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Nike-Hoop-Summit-Official-Measurements-2002/

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2007



> He plays PF


in college... but so did Terry Porter. Combined with his lack of mass, dude is a SF in the league... good thing he's got an outside stroke because thats where he's going to have make his mark.

STOMP


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I'm calling BS because something doesn't fit. Looking at past pre-draft measurements, no one with a 6'9 w/shoes measurement and 7'0 wingspan comes close to a 9'1 standing reach. Many taller guys with much bigger wingspans don't have 9'1 standing reaches. They must have measured with shoes on and Beasley must have put on high heels. If he declares I'll be very interested to see whats what when he measures. For a quick reference check out Al Horford and Brandon Wright from this past year or feel free to dig deeper into this link. I think it's a pretty obvious blunder. Not only that but from the same measurement list that had Beasley with a 9'1 reach, they had the only other anomaly I could find in Donte Green.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Nike-Hoop-Summit-Official-Measurements-2002/
> 
> ...


I have no idea if it is true, but there are plenty of people with those measurements. 

The following people all have a standing reach of 9'1"
2004 - Aurther Johnson, h w/shoe 6'8.5"
2004 - David Slmon, h w/shoe 6'9"
2003 - Ugonna Okyekwe, h w/shoe 6'8.5"
*2000 - Darius Miles, h w/shoe 6'9"*
2005 - Ike Diogu, 6'8"
2006 - Justin Williams, h w/shoe 6'8.75"

Mike Miller was the player with the highest standing reach for a player 6'9" or shorter. His reach is listed as a staggering 9'3.5"



Where I got the info


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> I have no idea if it is true, but *there are plenty of people with those measurements*.
> 
> The following people all have a standing reach of 9'1"
> 2004 - Aurther Johnson, h w/shoe 6'8.5"
> ...


I started to write a concession post but then I decided to check your claim. All but one of the guys you listed had bigger wingspans then Beasley's 7'0... most were over 2" bigger. The one was Mike Miller. He had only a 6'9.5 wingspan. Stack that relatively modest measurement on top of a 6'7.5 barefoot frame and he's reaching a full inch higher then a 7' barefoot Joel Przybilla with a 7'2 wingspan??? 

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2000&sort2=ASC&draft=15&sort=

mistakes happen.

STOMP


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

STOMP said:


> I'm calling BS because something doesn't fit. Looking at past pre-draft measurements, no one with a 6'9 w/shoes measurement and 7'0 wingspan comes close to a 9'1 standing reach. Many taller guys with much bigger wingspans don't have 9'1 standing reaches. They must have measured with shoes on and Beasley must have put on high heels. If he declares I'll be very interested to see whats what when he measures. For a quick reference check out Al Horford and Brandon Wright from this past year or feel free to dig deeper into this link. I think it's a pretty obvious blunder. Not only that but from the same measurement list that had Beasley with a 9'1 reach, they had the only other anomaly I could find in Donte Green.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Nike-Hoop-Summit-Official-Measurements-2002/
> 
> ...


Well I got those measurements from Memphis_X (i think) over on the draft forum, so I'm not sure but he's not exactly a small forward or tweener really.

But I don't disagree with you, he might end up playing SF in the NBA, but I still see him as a PF (even if he does lack mass for the post).


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I started to write a concession post but then I decided to check your claim. All but one of the guys you listed had bigger wingspans then Beasley's 7'0... most were over 2" bigger. The one was Mike Miller. He had only a 6'9.5 wingspan. Stack that relatively modest measurement on top of a 6'7.5 barefoot frame and he's reaching a full inch higher then a 7' barefoot Joel Przybilla with a 7'2 wingspan???
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2000&sort2=ASC&draft=15&sort=
> 
> ...


Ya, I was not looking at wingspan, I was just doing standing reach vs height. But we really don't know which number is a mistake. Is his standing reach less, or is his wingspan greater. I always love when the measurements come out and we finally get to see how players measure against our beliefs. Last year I really thought that Horford was going to come in at 6'8" in shoes but he was just shy of 6'10".


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> But we really don't know which number is a mistake. Is his standing reach less, or is his wingspan greater.


We know which one of the three is not like the other two. Neither his 6'7.5 height or his 6'9.5 wingspan goes with a 9'3.5 standing reach so...

Think about it. He's supposed to be giving up 4.5" in height to Joel and have a 4.5" less wingspan, yet be able to reach up a full inch higher? Come on GOD... do the math!

STOMP


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

STOMP said:


> We know which one of the three is not like the other two. Neither his 6'7.5 height or his 6'9.5 wingspan goes with a 9'3.5 standing reach so...
> 
> Think about it. He's supposed to be giving up 4.5" in height to Joel and have a 4.5" less wingspan, yet be able to reach up a full inch higher? Come on GOD... do the math!
> 
> STOMP


My comment was in reference to Beasley, not Miller. I agree that Miller most certainly does not have that crazy standing reach without high heels. But I wonder if Beasley has a standing reach shorter than 9'1" or a wingspan greater than 7'0".


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BenDavis503 said:


> RealGM.
> 
> And you guys are crazy if you think LMA isn't worth the #1 pick by himself.
> Also, ya'll even more crazy for thinking that if LMA was still in college, he wouldn't be the #1 pick.


Not crazy, realistic. If your someone who isnt a Portland fan, you arent trading the #1 pick for LMA. It isnt that far off, but LMA just isnt proven enough to get you the first.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> My comment was in reference to Beasley, not Miller. I agree that Miller most certainly does not have that crazy standing reach without high heels. But I wonder if Beasley has a standing reach shorter than 9'1" or a wingspan greater than 7'0".


Looking over as many guys as you did to compile that short list should lead you to an educated guess. For guys standing 6'7.5 or so barefoot, having a 7' wingspan is pretty solid length... same height having a 9'1 standing reach is almost unheard of.

James Jones measured 1/4 inch shorter then MB and had a Condor like wingspan of 7'2.5 yet only a 8'11.5 standing... he also clocked in at the same weight (220lbs) that these sites have Beasley pegged. Can you see him trading inside with the starting 4s of the league or is he better suited for the perimeter? Thats my main point here...

STOMP


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Looking over as many guys as you did to compile that short list should lead you to an educated guess. For guys standing 6'7.5 or so barefoot, having a 7' wingspan is pretty solid length... same height having a 9'1 standing reach is almost unheard of.
> 
> James Jones measured 1/4 inch shorter then MB and had a Condor like wingspan of 7'2.5 yet only a 8'11.5 standing... he also clocked in at the same weight (220lbs) that these sites have Beasley pegged. Can you see him trading inside with the starting 4s of the league or is he better suited for the perimeter? Thats my main point here...
> 
> STOMP


Somewhere along the way I think you got the idea I was arguing with you about Beasley. I wasn't. I was simply trying to find players who matched the statistical parameters you mentioned earlier. 

But, if you want my opinion on Beasley, here it is. I think he will end up a very good player who will more than likely play both PF and SF with SF eventually being his primary role. I think there are a lot of teams in the modern NBA, like GS, that could use a player like Beasley as a PF. However, the vast majority of teams, that don't run a wide open style, will want a PF that is more capable of defending other bigs. I think Beasley has the offensive skills to play both positions very well, but on the defensive end, he will be better suited to SF. 

I hear people talk about "tweener" with some players and "versatile" with others. I think you want a versatile player that can effectively play 2+ positions. So when I hear the word tweener, I think of it as more negative, where they are too slow to effectively play the SF position and too weak to play the PF spot. Beasley I do not see as too slow, so I can't call him a tweener. I think he may be too weak to battle with bigs, but in truth, he sure seems to hold his own in the NCAA. So, perhaps he is just versatile and can play both positions very well. I think the jury will be out for some time. SOme players put on a lot of bulk in the NBA while others have a hard time adding an ounce. 

So, if I think he will be able to play both positions in the NBA eventually, why do I say he will end up a SF? Because he holds a greater advantage from the SF spot. As a PF, he would hold his own, but as a SF I feel he could really dominate.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> Somewhere along the way I think you got the idea I was arguing with you about Beasley. I wasn't. I was simply trying to find players who matched the statistical parameters you mentioned earlier.


mostly I wanted to argue with GOD. 

Sounds like were in near full agreement on how Beasley projects...great versatile scorer from all over but probably not suited to be a 4 on D especially because PFs often get switched on to the other team's center where he'd be even more over matched physically. 

STOMP


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> that is exactly what i think. More often then not, if i'm not mistaken, the team with the worst record doesn't end up with the #1 pick.


That's correct. It's because the team with the most lotto balls still only has a 25% chance of getting the no. 1 pick; which means they have a 75% chance of NOT getting the first pick. They actually have a better chance (36%) at the no. 4 pick. (Or something like that.)


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

IDK what position Beasly will end up playing, that is a good conversation.

I'm worried that he might end up like a Jeff Green in seattle. He has much mroe talent, but i'm thinkin' about playing position situation.


----------

