KHTK
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
No. Either you misunderstood me, or tuned in late and out of context.
What I SAID was, IF he was traded to the Lakers, we don't know what would come of it. I don't think I need to whip out my card-carrying Laker Hater card, as I know no one in this world that is a more vocal hater of anything LA than me (tied with MANY others on this board I'm sure.)
I was trying to debate the other side. So I provided a scenario- we trade him to LA. He gets hurt (God Forbid). Russell and/or Randle turn out to be all-stars, or Russell even an HOF type player (yes, I know, reach). But the point is, we DON'T KNOW. Boogie was picked 5, Russell was picked 2. How do we KNOW Russell won't be in the HOF. We don't. And that was my point.
The other part of the point was, in truth: If we traded anyone, I don't care ANYONE, to LA or wherever and 2-3 years later we were in the Finals contending for a title, would you care?
Come to think about it, honest question. If whatever holy power you believe in (or whatever else to make the point) told you that if DMC was traded, but that trade would get the Kings into title contention in 2-3 years as a result of that trade, would you hesitate then?
I for one want DMC here, and have been pretty vocal. I wore my DMC jersey to the Draft Party, and there are many surrounding him that I love to death. Honest. But if you told me trading him (Or Rudy, Ben, Grant, Jerry) would have a direct result of putting us in title contention, I'd drive them all to the airport.
Name on the front, not the back.
That's all I was trying to say. Debating the philosophies of where someone goes, if they're traded. I don't want to see him anywhere but in Sacramento.
BUT.
If we get a much better offer from the Lakers, and he HAS to be traded? Then do it. It (in my humble opinion), would be asinine to accept a lesser offer just because we hate the Lakers.
Hope that clears it up. And thank you for listening. We will try to have less garbage radio in the future.
What I SAID was, IF he was traded to the Lakers, we don't know what would come of it. I don't think I need to whip out my card-carrying Laker Hater card, as I know no one in this world that is a more vocal hater of anything LA than me (tied with MANY others on this board I'm sure.)
I was trying to debate the other side. So I provided a scenario- we trade him to LA. He gets hurt (God Forbid). Russell and/or Randle turn out to be all-stars, or Russell even an HOF type player (yes, I know, reach). But the point is, we DON'T KNOW. Boogie was picked 5, Russell was picked 2. How do we KNOW Russell won't be in the HOF. We don't. And that was my point.
The other part of the point was, in truth: If we traded anyone, I don't care ANYONE, to LA or wherever and 2-3 years later we were in the Finals contending for a title, would you care?
Come to think about it, honest question. If whatever holy power you believe in (or whatever else to make the point) told you that if DMC was traded, but that trade would get the Kings into title contention in 2-3 years as a result of that trade, would you hesitate then?
I for one want DMC here, and have been pretty vocal. I wore my DMC jersey to the Draft Party, and there are many surrounding him that I love to death. Honest. But if you told me trading him (Or Rudy, Ben, Grant, Jerry) would have a direct result of putting us in title contention, I'd drive them all to the airport.
Name on the front, not the back.
That's all I was trying to say. Debating the philosophies of where someone goes, if they're traded. I don't want to see him anywhere but in Sacramento.
BUT.
If we get a much better offer from the Lakers, and he HAS to be traded? Then do it. It (in my humble opinion), would be asinine to accept a lesser offer just because we hate the Lakers.
Hope that clears it up. And thank you for listening. We will try to have less garbage radio in the future.
No CD, you can NOT facilitate the next great Lakers big man led dynasty. That player, who they will eventually steal from somebody, just cannot come from the Kings or you are pretty much a permanent submissive picking up the Lakers soap for them. The whole idea of a rivalry, already on decade of futility life support, would now be entirely extinguished. How can one's D-League affiliate be a rival?
This is a very peculiarly Lakers event they are trying to bring about. Their once a decade fleecing of the inept small market of its star big man. What comes after is inevitable. And it would essentially be the single most humiliating thing the franchise has ever had to endure to be the very source, the very aider and abettor of the next Lakers run. Its like a Bostonite arguing for a new Babe Ruth trade. Some lines you do not cross.
This is a very peculiarly Lakers event they are trying to bring about. Their once a decade fleecing of the inept small market of its star big man. What comes after is inevitable. And it would essentially be the single most humiliating thing the franchise has ever had to endure to be the very source, the very aider and abettor of the next Lakers run. Its like a Bostonite arguing for a new Babe Ruth trade. Some lines you do not cross.
Again.
As much as I hate the Lakers, I care more about OUR team.
I'm pretty sure if the positions were reversed, Kupchak could give two poos about what it might do for us.
Please don't get lost in what would PROBABLY happen, how good DMC is, etc.
I'm simply saying you look at whatever trades. And if one is better than the other, and makes sense based on talent alone, you make the trade regardless of the partner.
As much as I hate the Lakers, I care more about OUR team.
I'm pretty sure if the positions were reversed, Kupchak could give two poos about what it might do for us.
Please don't get lost in what would PROBABLY happen, how good DMC is, etc.
I'm simply saying you look at whatever trades. And if one is better than the other, and makes sense based on talent alone, you make the trade regardless of the partner.
Even if they gave their best offer (#2, #27, Clarkson, Randle), they should not be even in talks because that offer is embarassing for the Kings return.
There is no point to talk about a trade with the Lakers because they have nothing to offer, Cousins is already a HOF type player that you would hope for in a draft, and its the Lakers.
Yes it could help us, but helping them too would be downright dumb.
There is no point to talk about a trade with the Lakers because they have nothing to offer, Cousins is already a HOF type player that you would hope for in a draft, and its the Lakers.
Yes it could help us, but helping them too would be downright dumb.
Bricks right. We have a known commodity, the BEST commodity we have ever had. Trading that for more 'what ifs and maybes' would,, in and of itself, be a severe blow Trading it to the Lakers so they can rebuild and go on to kick our ass for the next decade is in no way palatable, would break the spirit/heart of a great many of us.
Trading DMC at this point in his career to the Lakers would be akin to the Red Sox selling Babe Ruth to the Yankees, in terms of the legendary and lengthy negative effect it would have on the franchise. It would take several generations to recover from that. It would dominate Kings fans minds and conversations for decades. It would be very difficult for fans to believe in the team again. You have to essentially start from scratch, and I mean not with the roster, with fan relations. But worse than scratch. You'd have created a generation of young fans (say 15 and under) whose primary memory of the Kings would be trading away the greatest player they ever drafted and watching him win championships with their greatest rival. Any and all future failure would be blamed on this one event. And, until you win a title, it will hang above the franchise like a dark, cursing cloud. That's what you risk. So you better be damn sure you're getting the significantly better end of the bargain. And, as I said before, I don't believe a trade even exists that meets that criteria.
That kind of sting doesn't just go away.
That kind of sting doesn't just go away.
This was your mistake.
Don't debate the other side, when the other side is us losing our only chance for a competitive team (deep into playoffs competitive).
You're not on CNN, and this false equivalency crap doesn't apply to fan-centered radio.
Your role is to squash even the remote possibility that "our team" (in the words of Vivek) will lose its franchise star.
Using unlikely future-projected scenarios as the basis for an argument is irresponsible and misleading, anyway.
Don't do that.
Don't debate the other side, when the other side is us losing our only chance for a competitive team (deep into playoffs competitive).
You're not on CNN, and this false equivalency crap doesn't apply to fan-centered radio.
Your role is to squash even the remote possibility that "our team" (in the words of Vivek) will lose its franchise star.
Using unlikely future-projected scenarios as the basis for an argument is irresponsible and misleading, anyway.
Don't do that.
Ok. Its two different schools of thought, and we obviously differ.
And I'll go ahead and be on the island here.
But I'm right.
And again, do not mistake me making one argument for saying that Cousins for XYZ from the Lakers is a good deal, and we should take it.
I'm saying, IF you have decided to make a trade, and the Lakers have by far and away the best deal on the table, you don't take a lesser deal just because its the Lakers.
YOU can do that. I wouldn't. And I would venture a guess most if not all GM's would do the same thing.
Example: Randle, Russell, Clarkson, 1st rounders in 16 and 18, for DMC and anything else you want to throw in that helps. No?
Ok. Three way deal. We get Russell, Vucevic, Payton, 1st rounders in 16 and 18, for DMC and whatever. DMC to the Lakers. Still no??
So you fill in the blank. We get whatever. Westbrook, Durant, James, and Chris Paul in a 7 team trade for DMC, DMC to the Lakers. Triple No???
Yes, none of those trades will be offered. I get it. But based on what you guys are saying above, you would say no to all three. And if that's the case, I guess we can just part as friends on the topic.
I am interested in making the Kings better. I am not interested in other teams. Yes, the Lakers bring a special kind of hate, but I'll worry about OUR backyard. I trust Vlade. In my opinion, this little brother persecution mentality that drives us (for a rivalry that is all but one-sided) is only getting in the way, not helping. And I get that I'm beating on some sacred cows here. But I want the Lakers to someday worry about US, not the other way around.
No its not. That's not my role.
My role is to do a radio show. And in that show, my role (as I execute it) is to speak my mind, know the material, and be passionate.
I am not a spin artist, either way. I am not chief rumor starter, nor am I chief rumor killer. Although lately it seems as such.
What I try to do is translate, keep my ear to the ground, and be as connected as I can. To be an advocate, but that's as far as it goes. And I won't "chase ambulances".
Anytime there's a debate I try and argue both sides in my head. I for one, love being wrong, because it means I learned something. And I will never care about public opinion and let it sway something I feel strongly about. That's my role, as I choose to fill it.
Irresponsible and misleading? If you're willing to call the fanbase (or a good bulk of it) ignorant children who cannot think for themselves, then I guess you're right. I tend to trust in the intelligence and wisdom of Kings fans. That's me. I don't need to protect them from possibilities and projections. And if you think DMC to the Lakers wasn't talked about, I have a bridge to sell you.
And I'll go ahead and be on the island here.
But I'm right.
And again, do not mistake me making one argument for saying that Cousins for XYZ from the Lakers is a good deal, and we should take it.
I'm saying, IF you have decided to make a trade, and the Lakers have by far and away the best deal on the table, you don't take a lesser deal just because its the Lakers.
YOU can do that. I wouldn't. And I would venture a guess most if not all GM's would do the same thing.
Example: Randle, Russell, Clarkson, 1st rounders in 16 and 18, for DMC and anything else you want to throw in that helps. No?
Ok. Three way deal. We get Russell, Vucevic, Payton, 1st rounders in 16 and 18, for DMC and whatever. DMC to the Lakers. Still no??
So you fill in the blank. We get whatever. Westbrook, Durant, James, and Chris Paul in a 7 team trade for DMC, DMC to the Lakers. Triple No???
Yes, none of those trades will be offered. I get it. But based on what you guys are saying above, you would say no to all three. And if that's the case, I guess we can just part as friends on the topic.
I am interested in making the Kings better. I am not interested in other teams. Yes, the Lakers bring a special kind of hate, but I'll worry about OUR backyard. I trust Vlade. In my opinion, this little brother persecution mentality that drives us (for a rivalry that is all but one-sided) is only getting in the way, not helping. And I get that I'm beating on some sacred cows here. But I want the Lakers to someday worry about US, not the other way around.
No its not. That's not my role.
My role is to do a radio show. And in that show, my role (as I execute it) is to speak my mind, know the material, and be passionate.
I am not a spin artist, either way. I am not chief rumor starter, nor am I chief rumor killer. Although lately it seems as such.
What I try to do is translate, keep my ear to the ground, and be as connected as I can. To be an advocate, but that's as far as it goes. And I won't "chase ambulances".
Anytime there's a debate I try and argue both sides in my head. I for one, love being wrong, because it means I learned something. And I will never care about public opinion and let it sway something I feel strongly about. That's my role, as I choose to fill it.
Irresponsible and misleading? If you're willing to call the fanbase (or a good bulk of it) ignorant children who cannot think for themselves, then I guess you're right. I tend to trust in the intelligence and wisdom of Kings fans. That's me. I don't need to protect them from possibilities and projections. And if you think DMC to the Lakers wasn't talked about, I have a bridge to sell you.
It's hilarious reading to these Babe Ruth comparisons regarding DeMarcus Cousins.
Babe Ruth in 6 seasons with Boston: 514-359 (3 World Series championships)
DeMarcus Cousins in 5 seasons with Sacramento: 128-263 (No playoff appearances)
So, no, trading DMC would not be the same as when Babe Ruth was traded. If the Kings were knocking on the door to the NBA championship then, yes, the argument most are making here are valid. Right now, the Kings are not EVEN CLOSE to making the playoffs. I think the highlight of the last 5 years was that comeback win in Chicago.
Also, Babe Ruth wasn't even close to being in his prime yet.
Babe Ruth in 6 seasons with Boston: 514-359 (3 World Series championships)
DeMarcus Cousins in 5 seasons with Sacramento: 128-263 (No playoff appearances)
So, no, trading DMC would not be the same as when Babe Ruth was traded. If the Kings were knocking on the door to the NBA championship then, yes, the argument most are making here are valid. Right now, the Kings are not EVEN CLOSE to making the playoffs. I think the highlight of the last 5 years was that comeback win in Chicago.
Also, Babe Ruth wasn't even close to being in his prime yet.
Last edited:
I see that you say none of those trades will be offered, but unlike the 7-Superstar one, this one is at least a plausible scenario -- which is why I feel compelled to point out for the future record on such discussions that the Lakers' first-round picks are encumbered through 2019 and Stepiened through 2020. The first pick they can currently deal is 2021. In a best-case scenario, following the 2018 draft they could have fulfilled their encumbrances and subsequently trade the 2019 pick, but by that time Cousins' contract with the Kings will be up.
No, it's not that. It's actually realistic enough that it's important to point out that it's not legal - I would have assumed that was the most likely structure of any potential deal until I looked up the picks to see if they were available. I just don't want to have to listen to Russell/Randle/16/18 chatter over and over when the 16/18 part of it can't happen.
I knew I was going to get this.
Read closer. I said in terms of the negative and lengthy impact on the fanbase/franchise. I was not comparing anything else. In fact, ours might even be worse, since no taste of glory was yet had with Cousins in a Kings uniform before he was shipped off to win trophies with our greatest rival.
And no, Ruth wasn't in his prime yet, but that's because the arc of a baseball player's career is longer, and so is the early development stage. But again, that only strengthens my point. CUZ IS JUST ENTERING HIS PRIME.
Read closer. I said in terms of the negative and lengthy impact on the fanbase/franchise. I was not comparing anything else. In fact, ours might even be worse, since no taste of glory was yet had with Cousins in a Kings uniform before he was shipped off to win trophies with our greatest rival.
And no, Ruth wasn't in his prime yet, but that's because the arc of a baseball player's career is longer, and so is the early development stage. But again, that only strengthens my point. CUZ IS JUST ENTERING HIS PRIME.
Grant hit a new low for me. Softballs for Karl all the way. When a caller asked why he didn't ask any tough questions Grant said "Why would I - George Karl doesn't make trades". I'm so mad at myself - falling for the teaser and tuning in to hear that bozo.
If you didn't hear the George Karl segment, you didn't miss anything except a silly embarrassing patty-cake game between the Coach and the shill mouthpiece of the Kings. very bad interview I'm kind of surprised that either of those guys did that interview at all - both were obviously on tight scripts.
If you didn't hear the George Karl segment, you didn't miss anything except a silly embarrassing patty-cake game between the Coach and the shill mouthpiece of the Kings. very bad interview I'm kind of surprised that either of those guys did that interview at all - both were obviously on tight scripts.
I know I'm going to get killed for this-
Maybe Grant was in a tough spot. Maybe Grant KNEW that Vlade had made it clear that HE was the only one who should speak on the DMC situation, and maybe Grant wanted to respect that and still ask Coach about the other stuff fans wanted to know about.
And maybe he did that knowing that he'd get killed by some for not going after the DMC thing.
Again, you have every right to feel however you want, and who am I to say different. I'm just honestly trying to present an alternative thought.
Maybe Grant was in a tough spot. Maybe Grant KNEW that Vlade had made it clear that HE was the only one who should speak on the DMC situation, and maybe Grant wanted to respect that and still ask Coach about the other stuff fans wanted to know about.
And maybe he did that knowing that he'd get killed by some for not going after the DMC thing.
Again, you have every right to feel however you want, and who am I to say different. I'm just honestly trying to present an alternative thought.
Or you could say that Grant generally has an agenda, picks a side, and uses his radio show as a bully pulpit to express his agenda. Whether his agenda is his own, comes from someone within the organization, or someone else entirely, we will probably never know, but you cannot deny that he generally uses his radio show to express HIS view and push HIS message. His ass kissing of the Maloofs was disgusting and he would attack anyone who thought otherwise. The other day he came out in full attack mode on Boogie, and would not even listen to other opinions or thoughts, even if well stated. He is a petulant child; if you don't agree with him he yells at you and/or hangs up. He clearly sides with Karl on this issue.
His schtick is so old. If he has something he wants to say, he opens his show on a tirade, states his opinion, and then flushes on anyone who disagrees. Otherwise, if it is a "normal show" he deflects well-stated and informed questions about the Kings by saying things like "I am not the coach" or "I am not the GM." My personal favorite was last year when he ranted about how low the basketball IQ of "some players" is (which is true), and then after ranting about it for 10 minutes, someone asked him who he was talking about and he refused to answer.
The guy has become a complete parody of himself. Dave, I get your desire to "back up" your coworker but I don't think you are going to get very far defending Grant here. Most of us still don't forgive him for his conduct during the Maloof days, which amounted to "ignore the man behind the curtain" type shows.
His schtick is so old. If he has something he wants to say, he opens his show on a tirade, states his opinion, and then flushes on anyone who disagrees. Otherwise, if it is a "normal show" he deflects well-stated and informed questions about the Kings by saying things like "I am not the coach" or "I am not the GM." My personal favorite was last year when he ranted about how low the basketball IQ of "some players" is (which is true), and then after ranting about it for 10 minutes, someone asked him who he was talking about and he refused to answer.
The guy has become a complete parody of himself. Dave, I get your desire to "back up" your coworker but I don't think you are going to get very far defending Grant here. Most of us still don't forgive him for his conduct during the Maloof days, which amounted to "ignore the man behind the curtain" type shows.
First thought would be, why would Grant who works for KHTK honor Vlade's request not to touch the Cuz situation while you, also working for KHTK, are more than comfortable bringing up trade scenario involving Cuz and in general, debating the Cuz situation?
Second thought would be, if Grant wants to honor Vlade's request, why did he lay into Cuz a few days ago and for the most part, blame Cuz and Fegan for this entire saga without even acknowledging Karl has had run-ins with star players and FO personnel in every stop throughout his career?
As much as I disagree with you openly discussing Cuz trade possibilities and believe there's zero upside to publicly discussing moving him(just as NO radio hosts don't sit there talking about trading Davis and LAC hosts don't sit there talking about trading Griffin), you do at least discuss both sides. Grant? He yells like he has roid rage and/or hangs up on callers who bring up the possibility Karl and his ego are a problem, as they've ended up being every step along the way. There's a reason he got canned after winning coach of the year. There's a reason he had to publicly beg for a chance to get back into the NBA and took a job with the most dysfunctional organization in the league.
So it'd be very convenient for Grant to rip Cuz, then as soon as Karl comes on, say he's suddenly respecting Vlade's wishes. Grant was all over Cuz even while Vlade has clearly stated for weeks that he's not trading him.
Second thought would be, if Grant wants to honor Vlade's request, why did he lay into Cuz a few days ago and for the most part, blame Cuz and Fegan for this entire saga without even acknowledging Karl has had run-ins with star players and FO personnel in every stop throughout his career?
As much as I disagree with you openly discussing Cuz trade possibilities and believe there's zero upside to publicly discussing moving him(just as NO radio hosts don't sit there talking about trading Davis and LAC hosts don't sit there talking about trading Griffin), you do at least discuss both sides. Grant? He yells like he has roid rage and/or hangs up on callers who bring up the possibility Karl and his ego are a problem, as they've ended up being every step along the way. There's a reason he got canned after winning coach of the year. There's a reason he had to publicly beg for a chance to get back into the NBA and took a job with the most dysfunctional organization in the league.
So it'd be very convenient for Grant to rip Cuz, then as soon as Karl comes on, say he's suddenly respecting Vlade's wishes. Grant was all over Cuz even while Vlade has clearly stated for weeks that he's not trading him.