This is Moose's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Moose's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Moose
Recent Activity
"I remember about 5 huge mistakes by Beasley in the second half" I did watch it. And I have a lot of experience playing/watching/coaching basketball. I didn't see anything to warrant sitting your 2nd best player in a close game. I asked for clarification. Could you list those 5 mistakes for me?
I would like some clarification as to specifically what mistakes Beasley made to justify sitting him out in the 4th. If he simple failed to set a screen on a set play, couldn't you just point that out in a timeout or in a film session and develop Beasley just as well as benching him? Not only that, if we are about winning, how does it help to take out the only guy other than Wade who is creating offense? Even if Haslem is hitting shots, it doesn't help Wade. They still double him. If Beasley is hitting, he is such a threat to shoot or drive that he forces other defenders on him, freeing up Wade. Our end of game offense is much more of a concern than our end of game defense. I was fine with the tight leash last year, when Beasley clearly had much to learn. But at this point, it really makes no sense to me. It helps his development and we are better with him in the game at the end.
Fellas, just enjoy this. This is unbelievable.
sorry friends, anyone have a link?
Josh, if LeBron is out of play, do you think we can still build a better team through free agency? Posted by: eddieomaha | January 25, 2010 at 01:05 PM I'm not Josh, but it's a good question so I thought I'd jump in here. I'd say maybe. There is no guarantee that free agency will work out for us. However, the potential to build a dynasty this summer is too great not to go for it. Whatever we can build through trade right now will pale in comparison to what we can do this summer. Even if we strike out this summer with the big names, there are still so many good players, and we will have so much money, that we can likely match whatever we can build through a trade before we reach the summer. That's why I think it's in the team's best interest to wait for the summer to revamp the roster.
All the chatter from the rumor mill and from Ira says Toronto doesn't want Beasley. Also, from a common sense standpoint, a Beasley Bargnani frontcourt would be atrocious defensively. Like historically bad. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree about whether Beasley for Amare is a "no brainer." I think that Beasley's production will match what Amare is doing this year, and will do so for a much, much lower price.
Posted by: JD | January 22, 2010 at 08:10 PM Dude, did you read my post? We aren't getting either one of those guys. Both of them are expiring contracts. We can't move expirings for them. We have to trade young talent. Our only young talent is Beasley. Toronto will not move Bosh for Beasley. Phoenix might move Amare, but IMO, it's not worth it. Beasley will be nearly as good next year and much cheaper.
Posted by: TylerD | January 22, 2010 at 08:04 PM I think you're right - you can't have a frontcourt of Bargnani and Beasley. You'd give up 1000 points a game. I think Toronto would love to do Bosh for Bynum. That trade actually makes a ton of sense to me for both teams.
Posted by: JD | January 22, 2010 at 08:01 PM But then we wouldn't have the space to sign another max FA. It's a catch-22. If we cash in our expirings now, that is the team we are going with for the future. We have to hope Wade likes the team enough to resign, and that will be it for the summer. No other big time FA's.
Posted by: JD | January 22, 2010 at 07:56 PM Even if we don't get Lebron, that cap space is still extremely valuable. There is almost no trade worth risking it for. Bosh or Amare would be (assuming we then signed them to an extension), but we would have to trade our best asset, Beasley, to do that. IMO, Beasley is def not worth trading for Amare, and while I would move him for Bosh, apparently Toronto has no interest.
Out of the playoffs? No way. Posted by: cruicruise | January 22, 2010 at 07:53 PM Yeah, I mean with Wade I don't think that would ever happen, but nothing surprises me with this team, good or bad.
It's really mind boggling how up and down this team is. I guess the fact that we have played the top teams so well gives me some hope that we can give someone a scare in the 1st round, but at the same time, I could see us slipping to the 8th seed or possibly out of the playoffs. Just a very frustrating team to watch this year.
Posted by: Chris | January 22, 2010 at 07:40 PM haha, come on dude, i don't ask that much.
He didn't go strong at all - he got bailed out by the ref. He pushed off and faded away. I like the effort, but he's gotta go right into the defender.
Thanks Hades - its better than refreshing the box score
anyone have a link?
Wow. Posted by: Ohshz | January 20, 2010 at 01:48 PM Thorpe must be saying that because Beasley would be a poor fir for the Hawks since they already have Josh Smith. I don't see how anyone could think Horford is a better prospect than Beasley. Horford is a good player and gives you solid defense in the paint, but he has only marginally improved his offense since he came into the league. Beasley would be a 20/8 player right now given the minutes.
hey are usually former lawyers, who often side with "the law" (police) Posted by: doctorb | January 13, 2010 at 09:52 PM That's not really true. A lot of criminal judges were former defense attorneys, too. Most judges take their positions seriously and do their best to uphold the law. Keep in mind, though, that judges are bound by precedent. But yes, it is an imperfect system we have, as all parties have their inherent biases.
is it clearly defined? Posted by: doctorb | January 13, 2010 at 09:45 PM It is defined in case law -- you will find examples of what qualifies as "reasonable" in the body of case law of a particular jurisdiction. But yes, "reasonable" is more or less subjective, as are most legal standards. That's why we have judges.
ow its a matter of debate as to whether they "should" be able to, but as of this time, they do often are able to do it. Our soldiers are not. Is this a double standard? Posted by: doctorb | January 13, 2010 at 09:26 PM Doc, police officers must have probably cause. It's a tenuous legal standard, but usually you can't search someone without permission just because he/she looks suspicious. If an officer find drugs on a person but didn't have PC, then the evidence gets thrown out and the person likely walks away. Oftentimes policemen search a person w/out such cause simply because they are taking advantage of their authority. I don't think police officers have as much leeway as you think - many of them just know how to take advantage of the rules. You assume that police officers have greater authority than soldiers to do searches. What is your basis for this statement? I've never heard this before.
yes, but they get punished. My point is why even have such a rule, that creates a disadvantage to us?? The enemy doesnt follow any rules, in such. Posted by: doctorb | January 13, 2010 at 08:41 PM As signatories to the Geneva Convention, we are limited in what we can technically do in combat situations. For example, if you think terrorists are hiding a school building, you can't just start firing into the school building. You must have been provoked, and your response must be proportional and necessary. Israel has gotten in trouble for this before. I imagine this "rule" is in place in order to prevent any violations of international law and to limit our government's accountability (but who knows how seriously it's followed.)
"Katrina, Floyd, our hurricane here Andrew were JOKES compared to what's going on in Haiti." Just signed into the blog for the first time in a while, and after reading this, I can say with certainty that out of all the stupid comments on this blog, this one is by far the stupidest.
Wow, QRich will not give the ball to Beasley. Posted by: josh | January 04, 2010 at 08:33 PM Something is definitely going on there, right? Those two have some kind of beef that needs to be resolved.
It's amazing to me how inconsistent we are. We either look incredible or absolutely awful. There is no in between.
Maybe that's why the coaching staff thinks Beasley can play the 3? My goodness was that dirty.