View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DoubleClutch Star Player
Joined: 02 Jun 2005 Posts: 2712 Location: Town
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position. |
Cha needs big man depth. After big Al it's just Biyombo, Vonleh and Zeller. Pretty underwhelming when healthy and dangerously thin if anyone gets hurt. I see a Hill for MKG trade coming at the deadline. _________________ “This goes far beyond paychecks” |
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17063
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position. |
Agreed. Stuckey can't replace what Stephenson brought |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vancouver Fan Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 17740
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
DoubleClutch wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position. |
Cha needs big man depth. After big Al it's just Biyombo, Vonleh and Zeller. Pretty underwhelming when healthy and dangerously thin if anyone gets hurt. I see a Hill for MKG trade coming at the deadline. | in your dreams maybe. _________________ Music is my medicine |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
DoubleClutch wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position. |
Cha needs big man depth. After big Al it's just Biyombo, Vonleh and Zeller. Pretty underwhelming when healthy and dangerously thin if anyone gets hurt. I see a Hill for MKG trade coming at the deadline. |
They're fine. And yes, they have lots of assets to make trades. Not too many big men in the East that pose a threat. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
22 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Yup. I think you'll see Indy decline a bit this year and Charlotte is going to love Lance. Charlotte IMO should be a top 4-5 seed this year. They are strong at every position. |
Agreed. Stuckey can't replace what Stephenson brought |
Stuckey is a fraction of Lance, not even close. They will really miss Lance, even though he had some crazy antics. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
30 Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Posts: 4984
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Hit the nail on the head. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Game James Star Player
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 4003 Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). _________________ Don't make me give you a trout slap! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Game James wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). |
Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17063
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Big Game James wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). |
Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez? |
And Lance does not have a near max contract like BGJ said. He makes $9M. Much better use of money than Beasley at the min who was being paid to collect goose eggs on the bench for Miami last year |
|
Back to top |
|
|
30 Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Posts: 4984
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Game James wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). |
Since when is 9M near max? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
King Randle Star Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2014 Posts: 7313
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely...Beasley at the minimum is a better acquisition than Lance at $27 for 3 years. Lance got his ass kicked by an aging Wade, would blow in Lebron's ear to try to get under his skin. That worked out well right?
If Beasley can carry himself like he did last year in Miami he could be a huge asset. If he got 24-28 minutes a game here he could easily get 11-14 ppg and is a legitimate threat. I still don't think he'll sign here but he would definitley help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17063
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
30 wrote: | Big Game James wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). |
Since when is 9M near max? |
Right?! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
30 Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Posts: 4984
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
King Randle wrote: | Absolutely...Beasley at the minimum is a better acquisition than Lance at $27 for 3 years. Lance got his ass kicked by an aging Wade, would blow in Lebron's ear to try to get under his skin. That worked out well right?
If Beasley can carry himself like he did last year in Miami he could be a huge asset. If he got 24-28 minutes a game here he could easily get 11-14 ppg and is a legitimate threat. I still don't think he'll sign here but he would definitley help. |
Did you forget the part where Stephenson led the NBA in triple-doubles? Did you forget the part where Stephenson was an All-Star Snub? Did you forget the part where Stephenson is only 23? Has Beasley come close to this type of production? No. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
King Randle Star Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2014 Posts: 7313
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.
We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
30 Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Posts: 4984
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
King Randle wrote: | Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.
We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain. |
So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...
Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Game James Star Player
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 4003 Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Big Game James wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). |
Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez? |
Yes, and that would be nice. However, doing that would cripple what we as an organization is trying to do. We are attempting to keep our capspace free in an effort to land the heavy weights. Signing Lance at $9 million would hurt that goal. Lance is not worth giving up that goal. That to me is what also makes acquiring Beasley that much more valuable. Signing him allows us to maintain our focus with minimal risk and max reward. _________________ Don't make me give you a trout slap! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jim99187 Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 22138
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
King Randle wrote: | Absolutely...Beasley at the minimum is a better acquisition than Lance at $27 for 3 years. Lance got his ass kicked by an aging Wade, would blow in Lebron's ear to try to get under his skin. That worked out well right?
If Beasley can carry himself like he did last year in Miami he could be a huge asset. If he got 24-28 minutes a game here he could easily get 11-14 ppg and is a legitimate threat. I still don't think he'll sign here but he would definitley help. |
please show me the stats. I am v curious. I watched the entire series and never did wade kicked his a$$. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jackobe Star Player
Joined: 17 May 2011 Posts: 4466
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
30 wrote: | King Randle wrote: | Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.
We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain. |
So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...
Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has. |
Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.
Let's pick him up, he is a FA! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
30 Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Posts: 4984
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Game James wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Big Game James wrote: | 22 wrote: | TheGood83 wrote: | 22 wrote: | B_P wrote: |
We dodged the Melo and Stevenson bullet and we're going to bring in Michael Beasley??
|
If we do bring in Beasley that is a legitimate question to ask.
I'd much rather have taken the risk/reward of Stephenson at $9M than Beasley at the min.
But for now it doesn't matter much unless we sign beas |
Why on earth would you want to be stuck in a long term contract with Stephenson who is a proven head case and has shown to alienate himself from franchise talent? Beasley at the min is great, not a huge investment, the reward is high, and the Lakers can cut him any time if he doesn't pan out. |
Long term? He signed a 3 yr deal with a TEAM OPTION in the 2nd year lol.
Stephenson is no more of a head case than Beasley. Except he produces and Beasley doesn't |
Lance will outplay Beasley. No one is disputing that. But Lance will get paid about 9 times as much as Beasley. Will Lance be 9 times better? No one here believes that!
With that line of reasoning, I would rather have Beasley at the minimum than Lance at a near max based on the direction this team is headed (keeping our money freed up for big free agents). |
Not really a fair comparison. Lance would be a long-term piece (on a rather short-term deal); Beez is a min. player on a 1 year contract (on presumably his 3rd team in as many years). Of course a player of Lance's caliber wouldn't lock himself on a 3 year vet's min contract. Would you compare Beez and Kobe and say Kobe is not worth 23 times the value of Beez? |
Yes, and that would be nice. However, doing that would cripple what we as an organization is trying to do. We are attempting to keep our capspace free in an effort to land the heavy weights. Signing Lance at $9 million would hurt that goal. Lance is not worth giving up that goal. That to me is what also makes acquiring Beasley that much more valuable. Signing him allows us to maintain our focus with minimal risk and max reward. |
I would actually think, signing a player of Stephenson's calibar would have helped the Lakers get the heavyweights. It would show them that they would not have to carry the team alone, and Stephenson can be a reliable 2nd to 3rd option on a contending team. Also 9M would not have impaired the Lakers ability to sign a max free agent since we would be projected to have 33-37M in cap space (before subtracting 9M) to sign free agents. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17063
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jackobe wrote: | 30 wrote: | King Randle wrote: | Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.
We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain. |
So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...
Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has. |
Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.
Let's pick him up, he is a FA! |
I heard Gilbert Arenas scored over 60 once. Let's pick him up too!
It'd be for the vet minimum so that automatically means it's a bargain right? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
30 Star Player
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Posts: 4984
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
22 wrote: | Jackobe wrote: | 30 wrote: | King Randle wrote: | Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.
We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain. |
So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...
Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has. |
Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.
Let's pick him up, he is a FA! |
I heard Gilbert Arenas scored over 60 once. Let's pick him up too!
It'd be for the vet minimum so that automatically means it's a bargain right? |
Any chance we can bring Damon Stoudamire (Scored 54 points in one game) out of retirement? He would be a great fit! I think we can get him for a bargain vet min deal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jim99187 Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 22138
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Looking around the league - teams with cap space - teams that might want to do S&T - slim slim market for Eric Bledsoe
At some point, I'd anticipate Bledsoe re-signs w/ Suns instead of taking qualifying offer - but I expect the rhetoric to uglify before then
|
Emplay |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hard_Butter Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2012 Posts: 12223 Location: The Two One Three
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
30 wrote: | 22 wrote: | Jackobe wrote: | 30 wrote: | King Randle wrote: | Again....$27 million for 3 years for Lance...minimum for Beasley...Has Lance ever had a 42 point game...No...Beasley has.
We're talking about what's worth the $. Beasley after staying out of trouble last year, for the minimum is a bargain. |
So Beasley is better player than Lance because he has scored more points in one game than him. Wow...
Let me ask you this. Has Beasley ever been a core piece on a championship contending team? The answer is no, but Lance has. |
Charlie Villanueva scored 50 pts before, he must be better than Beasley.
Let's pick him up, he is a FA! |
I heard Gilbert Arenas scored over 60 once. Let's pick him up too!
It'd be for the vet minimum so that automatically means it's a bargain right? |
Any chance we can bring Damon Stoudamire (Scored 54 points in one game) out of retirement? He would be a great fit! I think we can get him for a bargain vet min deal. |
I heard Tony Delk is available....he once scored 53 in a game. He has to be good! _________________ The butter's hard and the eggs are chillin' in the dark.
Kiss my Converse. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hard_Butter Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2012 Posts: 12223 Location: The Two One Three
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jim99187 wrote: | Quote: | Looking around the league - teams with cap space - teams that might want to do S&T - slim slim market for Eric Bledsoe
At some point, I'd anticipate Bledsoe re-signs w/ Suns instead of taking qualifying offer - but I expect the rhetoric to uglify before then
|
Emplay |
Uglify? Eric making up words now? _________________ The butter's hard and the eggs are chillin' in the dark.
Kiss my Converse. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|