monsterpile wrote:lipoli390 wrote:monsterpile wrote:thedoper wrote:Im surprised at the negativity. The extra year at 15 per seems pretty good for a shooter. Hes going to get some nice clean looks with Ricky. We do need size but the MLE plus another trade should get us there.
If he didn't have the legal issues I'd be ok with it to some extent especially the way some guys have been getting paid but this is ridiculous. It felt like we bid against nobody.
That's pretty much the way I feel, Monster. I'd also feel better about signing Beasley if we had drafted Wiseman or Okongwu to help defensively and better balance the roster. Nevertheless, looking at the FA contracts getting doled out tonight, I can't say the Beasley deal is out of whack with the marketplace. The problem thought, is that it doesn't look like the Wolves allowed he market to set a price for him. Maybe Rosas had some credible information that another team, perhaps the Knicks, were going to offer more. But if that were the case, wouldn't Beasley's agent also know? And if so, why would he agree to this deal?
I agree to some extent Beasley's deal might be what the market states is his value in this offseason. Dane Moore Tweeted that the Knicks were actually looking to make a similar offer so... The thing is Dieng's deal was in line With other guys that got paid that offseason. That didn't make it a good deal. Beasley's deal feels a lot like that. This front office didn't make a smart decision IMO on the Beasley contract. There is gonna be some guard that might end up being as good as Beasley that gets half or a 3rd as much money after everything settles. 3 years with the team option for the 4th year does help because if you have to dump him at least you may be able to use him as salty relief a couple years down the road and if Malik somehow is the real deal they will have him locked in for 4 years. I just have a hard time believing in Malik based on the info we now have and he isn't some proven guy on the court either. He is an aspiring guy that's really a bench player (33 career starts 14 of those with the Wolves).
I'd be interested to know what the Knicks would have been willing to give up in a sign and trade. What did the Wolves pass up? What was another opportunity cost there?
I agree, Monster. As you know, I've been pretty high on Beasley since he came here. But my thinking has changed with the revelations that show him to be truly depraved. My thinking further changed when the Wolves drafted Edwards and traded for Ricky. Re-signing Beasley makes considerably less sense tome than it did 6 months ago. You also raise a good question about the opportunity costs, i.e., what did the Wolves pass up and what were the Knicks willing to give up in a sign-and-trade? I think the Knicks would have swapped Randle for Beasley, Spellman and Evans. That would have helped better balance the Wolves roster and it would have also cleared two roster spots. The payroll impact would have been about the same.