Now that it's March 1st, we're going to be playing whack-a-mole with these rumors over the next two weeks. Sam Amico is the driving force behind the rumor that would send Michael Beasley to the Celtics for Jermaine O'Neal and his expiring contract. He claims:
Minnesota is dangling Beasley to see what else they can get, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't the deal they eventually made by the (March 15) trading deadline. The Celtics, of course, would love it.
"Love it?" I'm skeptical. First of all, why would Minnesota consider this? I understand that Beasley has had his off court issues and on the court, the ball seems to stop in Adelman's motion offense when it touches his hands, but he's still 23. Minnesota has the option to pick up another year on his contract, too. Why not wait out the season and just cut him in the summer?
I have to respectfully disagree with my CelticsBlog colleague.
For Boston, I understand the gamble. Jermaine O'Neal's wrist injury must be worse than they're reporting, but if he can give us anything down the stretch, I say we keep him. I'm a big fan of loyalty and Jermaine has worked so hard to get himself back on the court and to cut him loose now is just bad karma.
I get the allure of Beasley; he was a second overall pick in 2008 and he's the type of player that you want to surround Rajon Rondo with. However, he's the kind of knucklehead that Danny has acquired every trading season since 2008. I'd rather not roll the dice on another Nate Robinson or Stephon Marbury. Also, Beasley's qualifying offer for next season is $8+ million. I'd rather save that cash and spend it on Jeff Green.
And for what it's worth, the Lakers rejected an offer to get him already. The idea of what's not good enough for the Lakers is good enough for the Celtics makes me sick to my stomach.