I don't think getting the #2 pick is possible for the Nets, but Harris and Beasley would be a helluva start to brining Lebron James to Brooklyn.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ May 22 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>3 things to consider... Miami doesn't want or need RJ (if and when Marion re-signs). Miami will want to deal Blount & Banks with any trade of the #2 pick #1 pick - Chicago WILL pick Rose. I think thats a done deal Therefore any trade for the #2 pick (Beasley) would need to be a bit creative... Why not a 3 team deal: Nets get: #2 pick, Blount & Banks Heat get: Ford, Bargnani & # 10 & #40 picks Raptors get: RJ Would that work? Just shooting stuff around. I would love to get the #2 pick and be wrong about my Chicago prediction. I literally drool over a backcourt of Harris/Rose. Move VC to the 3. Man, now THAT is a pipedream!</div> Im not sure that will be enough for Miami... But from the nets and raps POV its a sweet deal. And the nets ONLY give up RJ and our 10th pick... how is that fair? lol Plus that would kill Miami's "Flexibility" Isnt that why they want to get rid of banks and blount? Just a thought.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ May 22 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>3 things to consider... Miami doesn't want or need RJ (if and when Marion re-signs). Miami will want to deal Blount & Banks with any trade of the #2 pick #1 pick - Chicago WILL pick Rose. I think thats a done deal Therefore any trade for the #2 pick (Beasley) would need to be a bit creative... Why not a 3 team deal: Nets get: #2 pick, Blount & Banks Heat get: Ford, Bargnani & # 10 & #40 picks Raptors get: RJ Would that work? Just shooting stuff around. I would love to get the #2 pick and be wrong about my Chicago prediction. I literally drool over a backcourt of Harris/Rose. Move VC to the 3. Man, now THAT is a pipedream!</div> Nice find. I'd also throw in MWill and/or the 21st pick to make this happen. Well worth it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ May 23 2008, 02:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ May 22 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>3 things to consider... Miami doesn't want or need RJ (if and when Marion re-signs). Miami will want to deal Blount & Banks with any trade of the #2 pick #1 pick - Chicago WILL pick Rose. I think thats a done deal Therefore any trade for the #2 pick (Beasley) would need to be a bit creative... Why not a 3 team deal: Nets get: #2 pick, Blount & Banks Heat get: Ford, Bargnani & # 10 & #40 picks Raptors get: RJ Would that work? Just shooting stuff around. I would love to get the #2 pick and be wrong about my Chicago prediction. I literally drool over a backcourt of Harris/Rose. Move VC to the 3. Man, now THAT is a pipedream!</div> Im not sure that will be enough for Miami... But from the nets and raps POV its a sweet deal. And the nets ONLY give up RJ and our 10th pick... how is that fair? lol Plus that would kill Miami's "Flexibility" Isnt that why they want to get rid of banks and blount? Just a thought. </div> Well, the idea is that they want flexibility to improve PG and C positions, and get players with potential. With Ford, they get a 2nd tier PG to pair with Wade, and if they think Bargnani has potential, like I do, I'd take him.... plus they get 2 picks. In that deal, they may ask for both #10 and #21. I say give it to them. It's great deal for all the parties involved, but if one of them wants something extra, MWill for example, give it to them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Once again, all players in the draft are prospects. The fact that they haven't played in the NBA yet doesn't affect their trade value. You stated that it does.</div> That's actually not precisely what I stated, but oh well. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why do you keep posting long winded explanations that have nothing to do with this simple reply?</div> If you don't get it by now, there's little hope in helping you to that point, and certainly not with the attitude you're displaying. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> I don't understand the other nonsense you posted,</div> Thank you for admitting that you are the one lacking understanding, even though that's been obvious for a couple of pages.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 22 2008, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Once again, all players in the draft are prospects. The fact that they haven't played in the NBA yet doesn't affect their trade value. You stated that it does.</div> That's actually not precisely what I stated, but oh well. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why do you keep posting long winded explanations that have nothing to do with this simple reply?</div> If you don't get it by now, there's little hope in helping you to that point, and certainly not with the attitude you're displaying. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> I don't understand the other nonsense you posted,</div> Thank you for admitting that you are the one lacking understanding, even though that's been obvious for a couple of pages. </div> Wow! One sentence responses! If you think I misunderstood your point, just address that. You go off on so many tangents it's impossible to have a focused discussion with you.
It's hilarious how many people don't like Beasley that probably LOVED Durant last year, and all Beasley did was put up frighteningly similar numbers as a freshman, but have a more NBA ready body for his position. Also, I think Derrick Rose and Beasley are the top 2, but it's also unbelievable to me how Rose has been put on such a high pedestal by so many people.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow! One sentence responses! If you think I misunderstood your point, just address that. You go off on so many tangents it's impossible to have a focused discussion with you.</div> I would be happy to address your misunderstanding of my point if you would refrain from impregnating your responses with insults and sarcastic insinuations that I (or anyone espousing a different view) is ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid. You really have been sounding more and more like cpawfan, and, as Mark Jackson would say, "You're better than that!" What I'm trying to convey is that the speculative component in any assessment of a draft prospect should (and often does) weigh into the "value" of that prospect. Some players exhibit "can't miss" NBA superstar talent and skill at the time of the draft much more than others. Examples of the former include LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal. Others, either because of age/experience, level of prior competition, current development, and other factors are not quite as "can't miss". For example, many bright basketball minds felt Orlando would be better served by drafting Emeka Okafur over Dwight Howard because Howard was a high schooler with little basketball skill and elite competition under his belt while Okafur was the premiere player on a big-time college team that had a lot of success. To those people/GM's, before either guy played an NBA game, Okafur had more "value" as a prospect and they would have presumably been willing to give up more in a trade to acquire his draft rights. Their valuations at that time are not necessarily wrong just because Howard turned out to be a far, far more valuable NBA player than Okafur. He might have also turned out to be Michael Olawikandi. So because of the frustrating compenent of speculation and uncertainty, the value of Dwight Howard on draft night was not what his value became after he'd played his first 30 games, and certainly no where near what it is today. If you doubt that, imagine this time-warped scenario: you run a team that has a 25 year-old Shaq on the roster, but, for whatever reasons (a lot of other bad contracts, lack of depth, personnel conflicts, financial problems, etc.) you entertain trade offers for your franchise center. Another team offers you their 2nd year point guard, Deron Williams, and the draft rights to #1 pick Dwight Howard, fresh out of high school and yet to play even in NBA summer league (forget the CBA for a minute and just assume the numbers work). Do you make that deal at that time? If not, you and I both know it's because you have no idea that Howard will actually turn out to be arguably as good as Shaq. If so, it's at least partly because you already assess Williams to be a terrific NBA point guard and therefore added value to protect you against the risk that Howard will not pan out as anything close to Shaq in the NBA. In both cases, the offer will only be made (and only accepted or rejected) because of the uncertainty of what Howard will become. His VALUE will be fluid (depending upon the prescience of the person performing the valuation and their propensity for risk-taking). That deal would never happen after Howard has played a year because it's obvious after that point that the value given and received is unequal. Now, how does that relate to the disucssion of Beasely? I made the point that -- based solely on what I have read -- he doesn't seem to be as "can't miss" as some picks are in that range (e.g., James, O'Neal), partly due to repeated questioning of his character (I evidently put a lot more weight on that than you in terms of guaging what ultimate impact a player will have on a team). You may disagree and believe he is "can't miss", that he will have a career along the lines of a KG. That's fine. You've seen him play, so I concede you have a much better basis for your opinion on that point than I do. Ultimately, however, if there is truth in the reports that Riley would trade the draft rights to Beasley, I conclude that it's because HE (Riley) isn't certain that Beasley is going to be the next KG and would prefer to parlay his draft rights into assets that have a less speculative, more definite value. If his own assessment told him Beasley was "can't miss" as a franchise PF, why (given his team's needs) would he be open to trading him? So if the report is true, he will likely hook up with a trading partner that IS subjectively certain that Beasley is the next KG or who simply is much more comfortable taking risks. And that partner will offer enough certain value to satisfy Riley, and that value may or may not end up looking equal in a couple of years. That's what I've been saying. If this post taxes your patience, or if you feel its full of terrible digressions, you obviously don't care for nuance and detail and linear argumentation in a discussion, which is your prerogative. In that case, you are best off not engaging me on matters like these. One sentence replies may be your forte, but they are not mine.
Through much penetrating insight and many important-sounding words we have apparently established that NBA franchises are well-served to evaluate draft prospects (since, you know, they haven't actually played in the league and all). So now can we all return to the discussion about why Miami would trade Michael Beasley for RJ? I believe where we left off was if the cost is the same and Blount expires after 2009, why not start Beasley instead of tying up money in RJ?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's hilarious how many people don't like Beasley that probably LOVED Durant last year, and all Beasley did was put up frighteningly similar numbers as a freshman, but have a more NBA ready body for his position. Also, I think Derrick Rose and Beasley are the top 2, but it's also unbelievable to me how Rose has been put on such a high pedestal by so many people.</div> I think you and I have had this conversation. I look at the type of PG that Devin Harris is, and I don't see too many differences with Rose. I feel like that sort of thinking would come under fire with people saying "Rose could be like Deron and Paul, idiot!" well how is that? Because he's a top-2 pick? :-\
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Through much penetrating insight and many important-sounding words we have apparently established that NBA franchises are well-served to evaluate draft prospects (since, you know, they haven't actually played in the league and all). So now can we all return to the discussion about why Miami would trade Michael Beasley for RJ? I believe where we left off was if the cost is the same and Blount expires after 2009, why not start Beasley instead of tying up money in RJ?</div> I will repeat the first response I gave, which you ignored in favor of pursuing the "digression" of speculative value mentioned later in the post: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The deal Netted proposed is not JUST Jefferson. They will get a quality player/potential starter at 10 and a good prospect at 21. They turn two bad contracts into a 27 year-old forward with finals experience coming off the best offensive season of his career. And, if Marion opts out, they can get something back in a S & T knowing that they are solid at SF. If he doesn't opt out, they can play him at the 4 and shop Haslem, who would bring some nice offers. Bottom line is they will be adding to their depth while ridding themselves of dead weight.</div> A quality starting SF, a lottery pick, another first rounder, and ridding themselves of bad contracts. Why do you insist on characterizing the deal as "Beasley for RJ" when that's NOT the full deal Netted propsed? If you don't like it, fine. But it's NOT Beasley for RJ.
The Nets are swapping first rounders and adding an additional first and RJ. That's three guaranteed contracts. They are taking back Banks and Blount. That's three guaranteed contracts. The salary of RJ and the two draft picks is roughly equal to the three players the Nets are getting back. My question again is, why would Miami consolidate all that salary into one player when they can just keep Beasley, especially since Blount expires the same summer they hope to pay Wade?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's hilarious how many people don't like Beasley that probably LOVED Durant last year, and all Beasley did was put up frighteningly similar numbers as a freshman, but have a more NBA ready body for his position. Also, I think Derrick Rose and Beasley are the top 2, but it's also unbelievable to me how Rose has been put on such a high pedestal by so many people.</div> Why get Beasley or Durant when we can get someone exactly like them in Donte Greene? Shimmy shimmy ya! Seriously though, Beasely doesn't impress me much...hell, this whole draft doesn't impress me much. If we're trading RJ away, I think we're better off getting a good, proven player back. BTW, I can't see this trade happening.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ May 23 2008, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's hilarious how many people don't like Beasley that probably LOVED Durant last year, and all Beasley did was put up frighteningly similar numbers as a freshman, but have a more NBA ready body for his position. Also, I think Derrick Rose and Beasley are the top 2, but it's also unbelievable to me how Rose has been put on such a high pedestal by so many people.</div> Why get Beasley or Durant when we can get someone exactly like them in Donte Greene? Shimmy shimmy ya! Seriously though, Beasely doesn't impress me much...hell, this whole draft doesn't impress me much. If we're trading RJ away, I think we're better off getting a good, proven player back. BTW, I can't see this trade happening. </div> What about infinet's trade? Here's a recap: <u>NJ</u> #2 pick Mark Blount Marcus Banks <u>MIAMI</u> TJ Ford Andrea Bargnani # 10 pick # 40 pick <u>TORONTO</u> Richard Jefferson
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 08:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ May 23 2008, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ May 23 2008, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's hilarious how many people don't like Beasley that probably LOVED Durant last year, and all Beasley did was put up frighteningly similar numbers as a freshman, but have a more NBA ready body for his position. Also, I think Derrick Rose and Beasley are the top 2, but it's also unbelievable to me how Rose has been put on such a high pedestal by so many people.</div> Why get Beasley or Durant when we can get someone exactly like them in Donte Greene? Shimmy shimmy ya! Seriously though, Beasely doesn't impress me much...hell, this whole draft doesn't impress me much. If we're trading RJ away, I think we're better off getting a good, proven player back. BTW, I can't see this trade happening. </div> What about infinet's trade? Here's a recap: <u>NJ</u> #2 pick Mark Blount Marcus Banks <u>MIAMI</u> TJ Ford Andrea Bargnani # 10 pick # 40 pick <u>TORONTO</u> Richard Jefferson </div> I highly doubt Toronto wants RJ. They have Parker and Moon on the wings. Why would they mess that up to get RJ?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Nets are swapping first rounders and adding an additional first and RJ. That's three guaranteed contracts. They are taking back Banks and Blount. That's three guaranteed contracts. The salary of RJ and the two draft picks is roughly equal to the three players the Nets are getting back. My question again is, why would Miami consolidate all that salary into one player when they can just keep Beasley, especially since Blount expires the same summer they hope to pay Wade?</div> Maybe because they view RJ as being much more worthy of his salary than Banks and Blount (combined) are? Isn't it better to pay a guy that you actually want to put on the floor and who has a good chance of outproducing his counterpart in most games? To me overpaying a productive player is a lot better than overpaying two unproductive players. Honestly, I don't know that I like the deal at all from the Nets' perspective, so I'm hardly pushing it. If this was last year and the pick was Oden, yes in a heartbeat (I did see him play some). If it's a few years ago and the pick is Howard, absolutely because his upside was so strong and his character so impeccable. If it was the year before and LeBron, absolutely. I would not have favored the deal last year for Durant based on the little I saw of him beforehand, and every thing I saw of him this season in the NBA confirms that that would have been a wise judgment. Beasley, I have no basis for an opinion grounded in personal knowledge. But I have seen Rose, and, as much as I like his talent, I don't think he would be worth giving up RJ, both picks, and taking on two bad salaries, which helps illustrate why I think that deal is at least one an opposing GM should consider. Extrapolate vis-a-vis Beasley as you will.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ May 23 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 23 2008, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Nets are swapping first rounders and adding an additional first and RJ. That's three guaranteed contracts. They are taking back Banks and Blount. That's three guaranteed contracts. The salary of RJ and the two draft picks is roughly equal to the three players the Nets are getting back. My question again is, why would Miami consolidate all that salary into one player when they can just keep Beasley, especially since Blount expires the same summer they hope to pay Wade?</div> Maybe because they view RJ as being much more worthy of his salary than Banks and Blount (combined) are? Isn't it better to pay a guy that you actually want to put on the floor and who has a good chance of outproducing his counterpart in most games? To me overpaying a productive player is a lot better than overpaying two unproductive players. Honestly, I don't know that I like the deal at all from the Nets' perspective, so I'm hardly pushing it. If this was last year and the pick was Oden, yes in a heartbeat (I did see him play some). If it's a few years ago and the pick is Howard, absolutely because his upside was so strong and his character so impeccable. If it was the year before and LeBron, absolutely. I would not have favored the deal last year for Durant based on the little I saw of him beforehand, and every thing I saw of him this season in the NBA confirms that that would have been a wise judgment. Beasley, I have no basis for an opinion grounded in personal knowledge. But I have seen Rose, and, as much as I like his talent, I don't think he would be worth giving up RJ, both picks, and taking on two bad salaries, which helps illustrate why I think that deal is at least one an opposing GM should consider. Extrapolate vis-a-vis Beasley as you will. </div> You're not understanding what he's saying -- and believe me, I have nothing against you or want to get in the middle of your little ladies' fight. If Miami trades Beasley plus Banks and Blount for RJ, they still take on the same amount of salaries but simply lose Beasley. It makes no sense. If they keep Beasley they have a player that's better than RJ and roughly the same in salaries (-Beasley's rookie deal). That's why that trade is just absolutely stupid on Miami's part.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ May 23 2008, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're not understanding what he's saying -- and believe me, I have nothing against you or want to get in the middle of your little ladies' fight. If Miami trades Beasley plus Banks and Blount for RJ, they still take on the same amount of salaries but simply lose Beasley. It makes no sense. If they keep Beasley they have a player that's better than RJ and roughly the same in salaries (-Beasley's rookie deal). That's why that trade is just absolutely stupid on Miami's part.</div> You just did what ghoti did repeatedly: characterize a trade that includes a 10th and 21st pick plus RJ for Beasley, Blount, and Banks as a trade of "Beasley for RJ". Do I assume from that that both of you feel there is NO VALUE in the 10th and 21st picks? If so, shouldn't we just give them away and save ourselves a few million in salaries this year? The deal proposed helped rid the team of dead weight -- players earning money that are not productive -- and netted them a quality starting SF and two first round draft picks, one of which is top 10. They get at least two and possibly three rotation players in exchange for one, and one of them is a vet with finals experience who is just entering his prime. I'm lost at why the possible value in that is being so casually and completely dismissed.
Value is relative. If a team with the #2 pick in a 2 person draft is looking to trade the pick as a way to both trade down for multiple picks and to clear out dead salary, a package of RJ, 10 & 21 is a bad package. RJ has too much long term salary compared to any player or combination of players the Heat would want to shed. In standard draft math, 10+21 doesn't come close to equaling 2. So then it comes down to how good is RJ in comparison to the best player from Miami's side. Beasley is a better and more versatile scorer than RJ and is a much better rebounder. However, RJ does have experience and if Miami was trading for him, that would signify that they are trying to immediately retool to get back in the playoffs. If that was what they wanted to do, picks 10 & 21 become of even less value to the Heat because they wouldn't be contributing much until the midpoint of the season. Yet, Riley stepped down and hired a very young head coach which speaks to complete rebuild. In which case, RJ is completely pointless. There is nothing about this potential trade that makes sense for Miami
