Vecsey mentioned C's are targeting Beasley

[indeedproceed]

Bass eliminates any need for him whatsoever.

Completely agree

How does an undersized career backup PF eliminate any need for a highly skilled explosive scoring combo forward?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=bassbr01&y1=2012&p2=beaslmi01&y2=2012

I'd say that's because the more efficient player up until this point, and the guy with less headaches, less drama, is Brandon Bass.

Efficiency aside for a second, you cannot deny that they are very different players.  When Pierce goes to the bench, we really do not have a true backup 3 on the offensive side of the ball.  Pietrus can guard 3's, but all he does on O is camp out at the 3-point line.  Beasley can take people off the dribble, post-up, and can stick both the mid-range and 3-point shots.

As a 3? Look at the production by position:

http://www.82games.com/1011/10MIN12.HTM#bypos

As a 3, his speed advantage drops (the overwhelming advantage he has on 4's that allows him to take players off the dribble).

[birdbrady]

Eh.

I'd be more intrigued if Beasley was actually good.

Problem is, he's not.  He's a tweener that doesn't play defense, and doesn't shoot it a high clip.  Doesn't have a good low post game.  Doesn't rebound.  He's just a guy that can spread the floor a bit, and he's not even that good of a shooter at that.  Basically, he's Rodney Rogers with a much worse attitude, and even a hair worse of a shooter.  So, in essence, he isn't that good.

Couple that with his attitude problems? Even if you get him straightened out - like I said, he's a 'meh' player.

Also, it's not like this guy hasn't had chances and has been in bad situations.  In Miami, he was under the wing of Pat Riley (coached by Spoelstra), and played along side an NBA champion in Dwayne Wade.  Then he played under Rick Adelman, a highly respected, and very successful NBA head coach.  No one has been able to solve him.

And it's not like we'd have a chance at getting him for free, either.  Lakers are interested.  He's going to, at the very least, cost a first round draft pick or two.

Plus, what does this mean for Bass? is he more hurt than we realize?

[chambers]

If he's looking at Beasley then he's looking at Blatche.
We might end up with one or the other.

Similarly to Beasley, Danny Ainge might grab Blatche while he's at his current low, throw him in with the Vets to iron out his bull$%*^, and then move him at a high price when the need arises.

All being said I think Blatche has a better IQ than Beasley but his attitude just stinks. Beasley has more talent but seems to have rocks in his head. They both have much higher ceilings than they are currently reaching for.
We need Blatche's rebounding and he has a lot of potential with an attitude adjustment, but....

I'd take Beasley ahead of Blatche because of their contract situations and things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDzRvZcFn48


Poor John Wall on that horrible team in that god awful organization.

[lantinm]

I'm not excited about it but it sounds like EXACTLY the kind of guy Ainge goes after

highly talented but low value due to some issues - trust the rest of the veteran roster to get him in line

unfortunately he's not just low value because of a bad attitude.  he's also incredibly inefficient and a terrible defender.

I'll give you the bad attitude and terrible defender (although I think that could change here) traits, but last year he shot 45% from the field. 37% from deep, and 75% from the line.  Those are solid #'s

Note: I'm not interested in fancy efficiency stats, so there's no need to post those.  The aforementioned percentages are really the only one's that matter, imho.

[wdleehi]

Why should we expect half a season of KG being able to "fix" Blatche?  


Blatche would see KG as the guy hold his spot for the rest of the season and would not be interested in listening.  

[Cman]

I'm not excited about it but it sounds like EXACTLY the kind of guy Ainge goes after

highly talented but low value due to some issues - trust the rest of the veteran roster to get him in line

unfortunately he's not just low value because of a bad attitude.  he's also incredibly inefficient and a terrible defender.

I don't know about the efficiency (is this based on a stat?) But arguably defense can be taught. People never thought of PP as a good defender until the current Big Three Era.

I agree it is an Ainge-type move. The question is what he will have to give up to get Beasley. It will not be as "cheap" as what people want -- Minny isn't going to give him away free.

[pearljammer10]

Id trade JO a pick and Sasha for him... Other than that I say no. Dont think the Twolves would have any reason to make that trade though.

[indeedproceed]

I'm not excited about it but it sounds like EXACTLY the kind of guy Ainge goes after

highly talented but low value due to some issues - trust the rest of the veteran roster to get him in line

unfortunately he's not just low value because of a bad attitude.  he's also incredibly inefficient and a terrible defender.

I'll give you the bad attitude and terrible defender (although I think that could change here) traits, but last year he shot 45% from the field. 37% from deep, and 75% from the line.  Those are solid #'s

Note: I'm not interested in fancy efficiency stats, so there's no need to post those.  The aforementioned percentages are really the only one's that matter, imho.

I think you're really over-estimating what FG% can give you, and underestimating who advanced metrics can tell you. You may not be interested in understanding what Beasley brings as a player, but hopefully others might.

[Cman]

And it's not like we'd have a chance at getting him for free, either.  Lakers are interested.  He's going to, at the very least, cost a first round draft pick or two.

Plus, what does this mean for Bass? is he more hurt than we realize?

Both good points.
I agree it would take a 1st round pick to get Beasley, and yes, I also agree it might point to Bass being more hurt than realized, but might also be that Bass has indicated he wants a lot more money to stick around in the offseason.

[KCattheStripe]

Would anybody really mind if they traded JO straight up for him? I guess the only problem is he's a bad Jeff Green.

[manl_lui]

he has so much potential but a big nutcase...he's worse than big baby

he's talented though but I don't want him

[PosImpos]

From Wages of Wins:

Basiically, if you gave all of Beasley’s minutes to Williams, the Wolves could easily have won 4-5 games by now. No, I’m not joking. Beasley is truly earth-shatteringly bad. To put in perspective what a selfish chucker Beasley is, he ranks 8th among small forwards the NBA in FGA per 48 minutes (50 minutes minimum), but fifty-first in true shooting. No, not 51st in the NBA, 51st among small forwards. That means that essentially all of the starting SFs and two-thirds of the back-up SFs in the league are shooting better than he is, but he’s shooting 22 shots per 48. And I don’t keep stats for “contested 22-footers per 48″ but having watched every Timberwolves game I’m going to guess he leads the league by a fat margin, ahead of even Kobe (I’m guessing that’s the reason that he’s 25th among small forwards at getting to the line, despite all those shots). Oh, yeah, and he turns the ball over a Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ton. In short, Beasley is the very definition of a player that shoots you out of games. Every single time they choose to iso Beasley instead of just letting Ridnour or Rubio create off the dribble / pick-n-roll, a Timberwolf pup dies in the wild.

Williams is as turnover prone as Beasley, but I can chalk Williams’ TOs up to rookie mistakes and a general rookie “over-eager” attitude, which he may learn from. Most of his TOs come from ill-advised passes. Beasley, however, is a third-year player; the vast majority of his turnovers come from him trying to “create a shot” (a phrase that I guarantee I’ll be ranting about in a future article) and I don’t expect him to change anytime soon.

[CelticG1]

That's great that bass is efficient but bottom line is we are under 500the in need of a shake up,  in need of someone who could potentially carry the team offensively at times.

That's great that bass can shoot 5/7 every game but that's pretty much where it ends.

[Chris]

Would anybody really mind if they traded JO straight up for him? I guess the only problem is he's a bad Jeff Green.

I think we would have to include a pick.  But, I would gladly give up a late first rounder and JO's corpse for Beasley.  Yeah, he is one dimensional, and has character questions (although I think they are a bit overblown), but he could be a GREAT weapon to add to a team that struggles to score.  And he is still young enough that he could be salvagable.

However, if it takes more than JO and a late first rounder, then it gets much less interesting.  But for that, it would be a no brainer.  

[lantinm]

I'm not excited about it but it sounds like EXACTLY the kind of guy Ainge goes after

highly talented but low value due to some issues - trust the rest of the veteran roster to get him in line

unfortunately he's not just low value because of a bad attitude.  he's also incredibly inefficient and a terrible defender.

I'll give you the bad attitude and terrible defender (although I think that could change here) traits, but last year he shot 45% from the field. 37% from deep, and 75% from the line.  Those are solid #'s

Note: I'm not interested in fancy efficiency stats, so there's no need to post those.  The aforementioned percentages are really the only one's that matter, imho.

I think you're really over-estimating what FG% can give you, and underestimating who advanced metrics can tell you. You may not be interested in understanding what Beasley brings as a player, but hopefully others might.

That's fine.  In general, I have a big issue with the way sports are dissected these days with advanced metrics and such.  I've always been a "stats" guy, but I decided not to delve as deep as I used to because it sapped my enjoyment for the game(s).

Edit: How does one over-estimate FG %?

If Player A takes 100 shots and makes 49 of them, then he shoots 49% from the field.

If Player B takes 100 shots and makes 37 of them, then he shoots 37% from the field.

Player A is a better shooter (based on that example).

The only way to over-estimate (as I see it) would be to not take into account the percentages of certain ranges (8-12, 12-15, or 16-23 feet,) they shoot from.