Michael Beasley has been talking to his new fans in Minnesota.

He has always had a ton of charisma and lots to say. For instance, he says "people don't know I'm actually a good guy. I actually love kids and dogs and long walks in the park and stuff like that."

Big laughs on that one.

He was also wholly believable when asked if he would have liked to have stuck around with the Superfriends (trying the nickname on for size) in Miami. "Maybe," he says. "I guess. Would have been fun. But we're here now."

I recognize that Shane Battier or Grant Hill would have said something about how great the Twin Cities are. But that would have been hard to swallow! The man earns credibility with this answer and he said all the right things about working hard and being a good teammate, and it's believable when he says "I'm done dwelling on the past."

But about that past ... what the hell happened?

How did one of the NBA's more respected franchises, one with some strong characters like Pat Riley and Alonzo Mourning on the case, give up on an affordable player with insane potential?

Remember that enormous mess his life became last summer? With the rehab and all that?

They got to know him for two years and, after shopping around for months and months and finding no takers, ditched him for almost nothing.

This in a league where players with far less going for them than Beasley get paid for their potential all the time.

That's not good.

And remember what he was like in college? Watch the highlights! And before you tell me it's about his attitude, consider what his coach at Kansas State, Frank Martin, told me last summer:

"I was his number one fan when I was recruiting him, I was his number one fan when I was coaching him and will forever be his number one fan. All he ever has to do is call me and I'll do whatever I can for him."

Asked if Beasley was a harmless goofball, or something more serious, Martin denied that he was either. "Ask anyone on my coaching staff. He has a heart the size of the earth, and was as easy a kid to coach as I have ever had. He'd listen. He'd do what he was told. He was very coachable," says Martin. "He never did anything to hurt anybody. And if you ask his professors at K-State, I don't think they'll tell you he was a goofball either."

The raw materials of a great basketball player are there and he's a guy who can make a coach rave.

And it's not like his play as been abysmal. His PER last season was in the top 100 of all players, above average in the 16s, one notch ahead of Luol Deng who has what was until this month the biggest contract in Chicago Bulls' history. Also trailing Beasley in regular season production last season: respected players like Aaron Brooks, Lamar Odom, Anderson Varejao, Jameer Nelson, Kyle Lowry, and Ray Allen. Nobody thinks Beasley has even scratched the surface of his NBA potential, but even at last year's level he's a bargain for a guy still on his rookie contract.

There's a story in there somewhere. But from what has been made public, it makes no sense at all that the Heat would have to give him away.

Kurt Rambis and Beasley will in the gym together in Los Angeles all next week, according to Timberwolves' GM David Kahn. If Rambis, or any other coach, ever connects with the guy who played for Frank Martin, watch out. And if we never see that player again -- the one who was the best player in college three years ago -- there's going to be some explaining to do.

Source: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/18258/why-did-nobody-want-michael-beasley

Randolph has had known issues with Don Nelson for the last 2 years yet people don't foresee him having an issue with D'Antoni. Harrington also had issues with Don Nelson and Harrington and D'Antoni weren't the best of friends in NY.

Both guys are talented and both have been traded their 2nd year in the league.

Randolph hardly has a full season under his belt as well.

Name one player that hasn't had an issue with Don Nelson

Allanfan20 wrote:I can understand why you'd want to trade the guy for Melo, but come on man, start posting something valueable to the bored. For the record, Beasley doesn't do crap on defense, Randolph works hard on both ends. One has real bad character issues, Randolph may be young and dumb, but not nearly on the level as Beasley, so far...

Randolph hardly has a full season under his belt as well.

- Working hard and actually being good are not one and the same. Jared Jeffries worked hard too.

- You mention character issues but I don't recall Beasley having issues with his coach in Miami. Beasley had an issue with smoking weed. Randolph has had issues with his coach because Nelson didn't let him run wild.

martin wrote:

Juice wrote:Had we acquired Beasley we would be searching high and low for ways to defend him. He plays for Sota, so there's no need to be overly interested in him as a player. Randolph was traded for, the staff likes him... as some did during the 2008 draft. As a fan base there is a desire to stick up for this mental kid and church up anything that's possibly good.

When Tim Thomas dunked on him while punking him, I recall so many fans laughing at the kid counting their blessings and saying their graces over us passing him up in the draft.

I've always maintained he's one heck of a talent(but mental)

Beasley also is one heck of a talent(but a little socially unstable)

Both of them brought some bad press upon themselves while their organizations appeared to be working against them to assure they stayed down kicking them.

Here another things to consider: one of those 2 guys played for a team with a superstar and a HOF coach/GM both of whom are no-nonsense type dudes who are focused on winning. And the other player had a coach who is a nutjob at this point in his career.

Im saying they have both under achieved based on their perceived talent and ceilings. Stephen Curry seemed to play fine under Don Nelson.

Allanfan20 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:I can understand why you'd want to trade the guy for Melo, but come on man, start posting something valueable to the bored. For the record, Beasley doesn't do crap on defense, Randolph works hard on both ends. One has real bad character issues, Randolph may be young and dumb, but not nearly on the level as Beasley, so far...

Randolph hardly has a full season under his belt as well.

- Working hard and actually being good are not one and the same. Jared Jeffries worked hard too.

- You mention character issues but I don't recall Beasley having issues with his coach in Miami. Beasley had an issue with smoking weed. Randolph has had issues with his coach because Nelson didn't let him run wild.

I'm sorry bro, but if you're comparing Anthony Randolph to Jared Jefferies than I can't have a conversation with you because you don't know what you're talking about. What makes you say that? Have you seen him on the court? Have you seen Jefferies? When I see Randolph, I see a solid shooter (Unlike Jefferies), a guy who can handle the ball (Despite what you think and unlike Jefferies) goes all out on defense (With much more athleticism than Jefferies) and is young and improving.

Now, I am NOT comparing Randolph to Beasley. I think they both have enormous upside to be honest, and they both have very different skill sets. However, this is just something you just decided to pull out of your ars to prove a point that AR is not worth keeping which is completely off base. To me, that's trolling.

Come up with something that's more worth argueing about, like why MDA should have been playing Jordan Hill last year. At least that arguement had interesting points on both sides.

- Im not comparing Randolph to Jared Jefferies. Im simply stating working hard means diddly if you dont produce.

- I didnt decide to pull this out of my ass. I was high on Beasley especially since Miami was trying to give him away. Many here knocked Beasley but love Randolph.

Im trying to find out what makes Randolph superior to Beasley to some here.

AnubisADL wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:randolph is, what, 6'11"? beasely is like 6'8" and has had numerous drug issues. randolph is also a way better athlete.

The draft combine says different.

he's grown over an inch since the draft.

beasley is a drug user with no drive to improve. meh. AR is the prospect i'd rather have. he's dominated at the NBA level, albeit for short stretches. beasley has been consistently mediocre.

Juice wrote:Had we acquired Beasley we would be searching high and low for ways to defend him. He plays for Sota, so there's no need to be overly interested in him as a player. Randolph was traded for, the staff likes him... as some did during the 2008 draft. As a fan base there is a desire to stick up for this mental kid and church up anything that's possibly good.

When Tim Thomas dunked on him while punking him, I recall so many fans laughing at the kid counting their blessings and saying their graces over us passing him up in the draft.

I've always maintained he's one heck of a talent(but mental)

Beasley also is one heck of a talent(but a little socially unstable)

Both of them brought some bad press upon themselves while their organizations appeared to be working against them to assure they stayed down kicking them.

Oh man I forgot about that. Randoph is still young though so we shall see. The guy does have a little Big Baby(Glen Davis) in him though.

crzymdups wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:randolph is, what, 6'11"? beasely is like 6'8" and has had numerous drug issues. randolph is also a way better athlete.

The draft combine says different.

he's grown over an inch since the draft.

beasley is a drug user with no drive to improve. meh. AR is the prospect i'd rather have. he's dominated at the NBA level, albeit for short stretches. beasley has been consistently mediocre.

+1

AnubisADL wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:randolph is, what, 6'11"? beasely is like 6'8" and has had numerous drug issues. randolph is also a way better athlete.

The draft combine says different.

he's grown over an inch since the draft.

beasley is a drug user with no drive to improve. meh. AR is the prospect i'd rather have. he's dominated at the NBA level, albeit for short stretches. beasley has been consistently mediocre.

The incentive to improve is his contract after his rookie deal. Beasley hasn't been mediocre. Averaging 15 and 6 is mediocre?

For a number 2 picks, yes it is. And that makes me less interested if that's what our hope lies on. Him playing for a new contract. Isn't that what we've been doing with Curry the past two years?