AnubisADL wrote:

fishmike wrote:beasley shows zero interest in playing defense. ZERO. Of course being an Arenas fan anubis probably doesnt really care but that matters to me

Amare shows ZERO interest in playing defense too and he got a max deal and is a all star. Beasley's defense is lacking but he is still young.

???

He averaged 1 block a game during the regular season. And between 1.2 - 1.7 during the playoffs. He isn't known for his defense but it's clearly better than Lee's. He has gotten better as well. He even just commented on becoming more of a defensive player. He is a presence anyway, much more than Lee is of course.

SLAM: Is there a part of D’Antoni’s way of coaching that you understand now which you may not have understood when you were with him in Phoenix?
AS: Nah, it’s pretty much the same with D’Antoni. Obviously he’s one of the best offensive coaches in the NBA. So, that’s going to be great for us. Defense is something I’ve gotten better at the past few years so that’s obviously something that’s going to help us as a team.

Anyway, regarding Randolph vs. Beasly, it's no competition. Hands down I'd take Randolph, even with his past injury. Randolph is another class of basketball player.

SupremeCommander wrote:Beasley is and was a tweener. Randolph is almost 7' and handles the ball like a guard.

Exactly- but in a way Randolph also doesn't have a true position, but that's because he can fit in a number of places on the court, where Beasley is a tweener in a bad way.

I may have missed this on the first page, but the biggest difference is where they were drafted, and their expectations.

Still, on one level, I would have loved to have taken Beasley off Miami's hands for nothing.

SupremeCommander wrote:

franco12 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:Beasley is and was a tweener. Randolph is almost 7' and handles the ball like a guard.

Exactly- but in a way Randolph also doesn't have a true position, but that's because he can fit in a number of places on the court, where Beasley is a tweener in a bad way.

I may have missed this on the first page, but the biggest difference is where they were drafted, and their expectations.

Still, on one level, I would have loved to have taken Beasley off Miami's hands for nothing.

I agree... I have nicknamed Randolph "Little Stick Boy"

But I like his ability to add muscle more than I like Beasley's ability to add polish and grow 2-3"

If you're going to be an undersized power forward, you'd better bring something special like Ben Wallace, Barkley or Dennis Rodman, because otherwise, you're outta the league.

franco12 wrote:If you're going to be an undersized power forward, you'd better bring something special like Ben Wallace, Barkley or Dennis Rodman, because otherwise, you're outta the league.

Beasley is HIGHLY skilled. You think he was drafted for his good looks?

This is just one game but he did all of that in college too.

The difference between them?

One was picked at # 2 and expected to be a franchise type player

That same player was thought to be a possible #1 pick

One of them was listed at 6'10" in college, measured at 6'7" at the combine, and is not a PF, but too slow to be a good SF

One of them was a pot head when he was drafted, probably smoked pot during his rookie orientation, and was still a pot head when he had to go into rehab

One of them, despite having some terrific offensive skills, could not, in 2 years, average 30 MPG on the floor with a team that cried out for a #2 go to guy to take some pressure off of the future Scheme Team leader, because he could not do the other things a good player has to do to help a team win

One of them has maturity issues and other mental problems but does not seem to care about making himself better, and at times, has not even admitted that he has problems

One of them played with a player considered one of the top players of the past decade and, seemingly, could not learn how to be a complete player despite having such a player to learn from

AnubisADL wrote:

crzymdups wrote:i thought you were all about TS%. Beasely's TS was a mediocre .505 last year. he regressed from his rookie season. his PER went down, too. as did his rebounding percentage. I'm not a huuuge proponent of TS%, but when all you offer on the basketball floor is scoring, i think it's worth looking at.

he's mediocre. and has character issues, glowing reports from college coaches notwithstanding. maybe there was a reason he went to a small school like that instead of one of the big boys.

Im not all about TS%. Beasley is FAR from mediocre. The guy had a weed issue. No one says a thing about Beasley's character so why make stuff up?

Beasley's TS% is lower than Wilson Chandler's and Anthony Randolph's, two guys who aren't great shooters or scorers - but add other things to the game.

The problem with Beasley is scoring is all he adds and he's really not very efficient. He's a poor man's Glenn Robinson. He's kind of an Al Harrington clone, at best.

AnubisADL wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

fishmike wrote:beasley shows zero interest in playing defense. ZERO. Of course being an Arenas fan anubis probably doesnt really care but that matters to me

Amare shows ZERO interest in playing defense too and he got a max deal and is a all star. Beasley's defense is lacking but he is still young.

???

He averaged 1 block a game during the regular season. And between 1.2 - 1.7 during the playoffs. He isn't known for his defense but it's clearly better than Lee's. He has gotten better as well. He even just commented on becoming more of a defensive player. He is a presence anyway, much more than Lee is of course.

SLAM: Is there a part of D’Antoni’s way of coaching that you understand now which you may not have understood when you were with him in Phoenix?
AS: Nah, it’s pretty much the same with D’Antoni. Obviously he’s one of the best offensive coaches in the NBA. So, that’s going to be great for us. Defense is something I’ve gotten better at the past few years so that’s obviously something that’s going to help us as a team.

Anyway, regarding Randolph vs. Beasly, it's no competition. Hands down I'd take Randolph, even with his past injury. Randolph is another class of basketball player.

- Blocks = defense now? Amare is known for his lack of defense and the guy has been in the league 8 yrs already. Offensively he is better than David Lee but that isnt saying much.

- Please tell me WHY Randolph is another class of basketball player.

http://ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=36473

If you have seen him play, and understand that he was playing for Don Nelson and that he was injured last year, I am not sure why you are posting negative stuff about him.

nixluva wrote:Not for nothing, but 2 games where he was playing the Knicks and Grizz? I could put up numbers against those teams. Just joking, but seriously, everyone knows Beasley has talent. I think tho that he's just not a player that people have a lot of confidence in. His career so far has seemed a bit less than many expected and he's got some things going on up in his head that make people question his value. He just doesn't give you that feeling that on this level he'll be as dominant as you'd like.

Also regarding Amar'e I believe that it's already been shown by another poster here that his man Defense is very underrated. It's his help defense that has slipped a lot. Opposing PF's don't go off against him. AR from what I understand is a weak Man defender but an excellent help defender. There's also no question that AR plays with a lot more energy than Beasley. I think this is why some assumed that he was more athletic. He just expends more energy per minute than Beasley.

- Everyone knows Beasley can put up points. The only question is his defense and consistency.

- Amare's defense his first 3 yrs in the league was nothing to right home about. Amare was ****ting on guys offensively on pure athleticism.

- What does it matter how much energy a guy plays with. Production is what matters.

earthmansurfer wrote:Blocks doesn't equal defense, we all know that. But, it is a part of defense. Amare is a bit of an intimidator inside. Not a whole lot, but much much more than Matador Lee ever will be. Just an upgrade with Amare, I'm not saying he is a great defender, just much much better than Lee.

Randolph and Beasley are both athletic, but Randolph plays up to his athletic capability. He uses it on defense and Beasley doesn't. Just from his limited play people have called Randolph capable of being a star, and not just an All Star. Beasley is fighting to stay in the league. They gave him away, teams weren't trying to get him like they were Randolph, that tells you something. Beasley to me is a very undersized great scorer, but that was in college, thus far it hasn't translated well. Since Miami did get rid of him I hope he does blow up in Minny, but I doubt he will. Randolph just needs to stay healthy, he has shown much much more than Beasley, hence why teams were trying to trade for him last year. Randolph intimidates when he plays, both sides of the ball, Beasley is still looking to do that on the offensive side. His lack of size is going to likely keep him as a jump shooting scorer.

- Amare wasn't some defensive beast at 21.

- Beasley isnt fighting to stay in the league. Miami essentially traded Beasley for Lebron and Bosh. That is a no brainer. Teams with 2010 cap space weren't going to give Miami room for 3 near max deals. If you dont think the Knicks would have traded the entire roster to make room for Bosh and Lebron you are kidding yourself.

- Teams arent worried about Anthony Randolph on the offensive end.

- Beasley's size at SF is not problem because most SF's are 6'7"-6'9"

Solace wrote:Yikes. I think you're posting with an agenda in regards to continually bashing the Knicks. I am fed up reading that so many players play no defense. Apparently, there are five players in the entire league who play on defense, and everyone else takes a nap on the other side of the court, according to this board. F*cking ridiculous.

Anyway, I don't think Beasley is completely a lost cause, but for now he has enough negatives against him to be concerned. I don't know who will eventually wind up being a better piece, but the fact remains that Beasley was traded for a second rounder and a possible swap of first-rounders, while AR was the main piece in a trade for a young All-Star forward. That's a pretty immense difference. If I was offered Beasley for Randolph right now, I would turn it down. If I was offered Beasley for the same trade Minnie got, I would take it. Simple as that.

Im not hating on the Knicks. This is a thread discussing why Randolph gets to compared to a Kevin Garnett(HOF'er) while Beasley gets compared career losers.

Beasley being traded for 2nd rounders isnt indicative of his value. Miami was trying to get under the cap and no team with cap space was willing to give them cap space to sign Lebron and Bosh.

crzymdups wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Beasley's TS% is lower than Wilson Chandler's and Anthony Randolph's, two guys who aren't great shooters or scorers - but add other things to the game.

The problem with Beasley is scoring is all he adds and he's really not very efficient. He's a poor man's Glenn Robinson. He's kind of an Al Harrington clone, at best.

- Beasley shoots long range jumpers. Chandler and Randolph take shots close to the basket. Chandler was a brick mason when he was trying to be a jump shooter.

- Comparing Beasley to Harrington instead of other young SF's. Granger, Igoudala, and Gay are considered franchise players too. I dont see Beasley far off from those guys.

Chandler was shooting bricks but still has a higher TS% than Beasley... so who is really shooting bricks?

I'm not comparing Beasley to Granger, Igoudala and Gay because he's not remotely similar to them. He's Glenn Robinson lite.

Since we are pulling comparisons out of thin air I guess Anthony Randolph will be the African American Andrei Kirilenko.