Breaking down the logic for the DMC Trade and the Kings Future

[Blob]

For Vlade, I don't think he made this decision on a whim. I think he had decided to trade DMC for a while. He planned ahead by drafting Papa at 13, when he already had DMC. I don't think you do that, if you are not thinking about the inevitable of trading DMC. Even DMC was like WTF was that pick for?

Also, looking at the Veterans he signed and the essentially one year deals for Afflalo and Tolliver, Vlade always had one finger on the re-set button.

Also, Vlade has already said that his better offer he talked about came from the Pelicans. He explained that N.O. took away a 1st rounder, after Vlade informed DMC's agent and DMC's agent scared off the Pelicans when he told them he wouldn't sign an extension.

Again, everything is just conjecture on everyones part, but I take Vlade's actions and words and I read between the lines, since we don't have much else to go by.

There's a difference between pure conjecture and rational deduction considering the motives of parties involved and piecing together bits of information from viable sources like James Ham reporting it as "done deal". I don't buy this idea no one knows exactly what happened so anyone who wants to pontificate to his imaginations extent is on equal grounds. Your theory has gaping holes in it. You want to credit Vlade for something he is undeserving of credit. It would reveal his naivety and stupidity by "warning the agent" of player he intended to trade and cost him $30 million.

This is incorrect and doozy of a grammatically challenged sentence: "He explained that N.O. took away a 1st rounder, after Vlade informed DMC's agent and DMC's agent scared off the Pelicans when he told them he wouldn't sign an extension." When did Vlade say the 2019 1st round pick was rescinded after "Vlade informed DMC's agent..." ??? You don't know this. I'll repeat myself. It is more likely the agent learned of proposed trade from NOP not SAC. If you want to be taken seriously you need to not misquote the GM and present it as fact.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Were the Kings winning? If the Kings were winning 50+ games, you could put up with the headache and volatility in the locker room, but if your maxing out at 35 wins, what is the point?

You keep saying this as if it means something. I keep asking people taking this argument to post a list of current players you are 100% certain would be winning given the same exact circumstances of no impactful talent via the 1st round of the draft for 6 consecutive seasons, no impactful FA signings, front office dysfunction, and trading away the only other legit player they managed to find during the past 7 years.

Nobody has an answer. If your truthful and realistic, that list should start and end with LeBron James. So stop with the nonsense already.

They've been maxing out at 33 wins because they haven't been able to draft well, other than Cuz and IT, or make any sound decisions of note. To your point, with those decision makers still in place --- what's the point?

 

[Blob]

Would you agree that at times this season it looked like Boogie had turned a bit of a corner? Less arguing, more production, better focus etc?

For him to reach his potential he'd have to continue that change. As it stands now can he be THE guy on a contending team? I personally don't think so. During the Raptors game early this year I had good seats and watched him get mentally taken out of his game and proceed to drift/sleepwalk through the game. I wondered if he could ever be a winner. And then there's nights where you wonder if anyone can stop him or even slow him down.

No, until he's tougher and more focused mentally Boogie can't be that guy. Can he flip that switch? I don't know, but wasn't that what most of us were pinning our hopes on these last few years?

I think perhaps "the turning of a corner" was Boogie becoming better player in a system better designed to exploit his skills. He came to camp in the best shape of his career. He played from the high post and low post in a good ratio, and the tempo slowed down compared to Karl to help him shoot and pass more efficiently than any time in his career. There was progress in this regard. In terms of impulse control and maintaining his composure when things did not go his way, it is debatable he improved at all. Certainly the number of techs he received did not argue in favor. The point that I am making long-winded is the "improvement" related to emotional demeanor was more function of being more of a dominant player and having less situational basis to argue as opposed to achieving this Zen state of mind.

 

['89 Kings Fan]

One point I never see mentioned, is that Cousins stopped playing defense this year.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2016/sort/DRPM

Last year his DRPM was 13th in the league. This year it's 162. Right behind Meyers Leonard. That probably added into the decision to move on.

 

[andjel]

I was referring to his actions for this year, 2016-17. I believe he wanted to give it the first half of the year to see what happened. If the Kings were doing great and had a winning record and solidly in the playoffs, I don't think he makes the trade. Being a fringe 8th place team at the break with a sub 0.500 record, he was ready to trade DMC at the deadline.



I was referring to what he has said since the trade and extrapolating to why he made the trade.

k, makes sense

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Were the Kings winning? If the Kings were winning 50+ games, you could put up with the headache and volatility in the locker room, but if your maxing out at 35 wins, what is the point? That kind of toxic behavior can hinder development of the young guys.

It's really unfortunate we couldn't have gotten Joerger a year ago. It's possible with 2 years he could have gotten a DMC team to 50 games and we could have afforded to max out Cousins on the DFP and take a chance.

 

[peacelate]

You keep saying this as if it means something. I keep asking people taking this argument to post a list of current players you are 100% certain would be winning given the same exact circumstances of no impactful talent via the 1st round of the draft for 6 consecutive seasons, no impactful FA signings, front office dysfunction, and trading away the only other legit player they managed to find during the past 7 years.

Nobody has an answer. If your truthful and realistic, that list should start and end with LeBron James. So stop with the nonsense already.

They've been maxing out at 33 wins because they haven't been able to draft well, other than Cuz and IT, or make any sound decisions of note. To your point, with those decision makers still in place --- what's the point?

Dwayne Wade took garbage heat teams to the playoffs although they didn't have a crap front office.

 

[ockingsfan]

This is incorrect and doozy of a grammatically challenged sentence: "He explained that N.O. took away a 1st rounder, after Vlade informed DMC's agent and DMC's agent scared off the Pelicans when he told them he wouldn't sign an extension." When did Vlade say the 2019 1st round pick was rescinded after "Vlade informed DMC's agent..." ??? You don't know this. I'll repeat myself. It is more likely the agent learned of proposed trade from NOP not SAC. If you want to be taken seriously you need to not misquote the GM and present it as fact.

Here is the article where Vlade explains that he had 2 first round picks from N.O. before he told DMC agent about the impending trade.

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2017/...cousins-vlade-divac-if-im-wrong-ill-step-down

You may want to check your facts before you comment on someone's post, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[VF21]

...The guy has zero impulse control when faced the reward of the highest contract in NBA history!

Quite possibly the best single sentence description of Cousins I've ever seen.

 

[VF21]

Here is the article where Vlade explains that he had 2 first round picks from N.O. before he told DMC agent about the impending trade.

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2017/...cousins-vlade-divac-if-im-wrong-ill-step-down

You may want to check your facts before you comment on someone's post, if you want to be taken seriously.

Ohhhh.... smh.

You need to double check that source, which is based on an article by Ailene Voisin. I mean absolutely no offense here, but I'm not sure you can talk about being taken seriously when you're citing Voisin.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Ohhhh.... smh.

You need to double check that source, which is based on an article by Ailene Voisin. I mean absolutely no offense here, but I'm not sure you can talk about being taken seriously when you're citing Voisin.

It's a Q&A with direct quotes from Vlade as far as I can tell. I think it's a fair cite for the poster's point, but perhaps the original interview would have been better: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/ailene-voisin/article135024309.html

 

[ockingsfan]

Ohhhh.... smh.

You need to double check that source, which is based on an article by Ailene Voisin. I mean absolutely no offense here, but I'm not sure you can talk about being taken seriously when you're citing Voisin.

as LPKingsfan was so kind to link the original article. Thanks.

The article was a direct interview with vlade on a Q & A.

 

[VF21]

I believe those are Vlade words being quoted in the article.

It's a Q&A with direct quotes from Vlade as far as I can tell. I think it's a fair cite for the poster's point, but perhaps the original interview would have been better: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/ailene-voisin/article135024309.html

I quit believing anything AV reported a long time ago but I'll bow out on this discussion because anything else I might say would be based on personal belief and unsupported by anything I could/would share on a message board.

 

[ockingsfan]

I quit believing anything AV reported a long time ago but I'll bow out on this discussion because anything else I might say would be based on personal belief and unsupported by anything I could/would share on a message board.

Fair enough.

 

[Blob]

Here is the article where Vlade explains that he had 2 first round picks from N.O. before he told DMC agent about the impending trade.

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2017/...cousins-vlade-divac-if-im-wrong-ill-step-down

You may want to check your facts before you comment on someone's post, if you want to be taken seriously.

I stand corrected then with re: to this comment from Vlade:

When I was first talking with the Pelicans, it was about Buddy (Hield) and two first-round picks. I talked to DeMarcus’ agents (Dan Fegan and Jarinn Akana) to inform them we were having talks, negotiating terms, and they called teams and threatened them, saying that if Cousins was traded, he would not sign an extension.

But why is that something you want to give Vlade credit for? I don't. He was naive and stupid. That's not the decent thing to do, that was the dumb thing! If he would have waited until after the trade was consummated to inform the agent maybe he would have gotten two draft picks. Now it is likely the GM of the Pelicans picks up the phone and call Fagan before agreeing to deal but Vlade did not need to inform the agent he was having discussions. He should have kept his mouth shut until he extracted maximum value. The other point I raised at time of the trade is Vlade let the agent dictate the narrative to the Pelicans. It was a bad negotiation. Your defense of the way he handles this is unjustified. He could have at least waited until Thursday to get the pick protection removed. Its called high stakes poker and he did not play the game well.

 

[ockingsfan]

But why is that something you want to give Vlade credit for? I don't. He was naive and stupid. That's not the decent thing to do, that was the dumb thing! If he would have waited until after the trade was consummated to inform the agent maybe he would have gotten two draft picks. Now it is likely the GM of the Pelicans picks up the phone and call Fagan before agreeing to deal but Vlade did not need to inform the agent he was having discussions. He should have kept his mouth shut until he extracted maximum value. The other point I raised at time of the trade is Vlade let the agent dictate the narrative to the Pelicans. It was a bad negotiation. Your defense of the way he handles this is unjustified. He could have at least waited until Thursday to get the pick protection removed. Its called high stakes poker and he did not play the game well.

The thing is, it was a poker game. Did vlade flinch first, yes, he probably did.

But there was rumors of New Orleans talking to philly about okafor, and he probably would have been cheaper for them than DMC.

If vlade held on to his cards too long, he may have been left with a worse deal. He could have been left with d'angelo russel and DMC could had been a laker!

 

[KingsFanGER]

And what are you doing with your post, but trashing someone's character? Only in your post, you're trashing Vlade instead of DMC. We all have our axes to grind, don't we? Plus, I'm not sure that I would agree that he was trashing DMC's character. I think he described a scenario in which the kings were not going to become championship contenders with DMC as the franchise player. And that doesn't mean that DMC is not a tremendous talent and a potential Hall of Fame player.

Can you explain to me, where I write about Vlade's character? I criticize his actions and express my feelings, that he just isn't doing a good job as a GM. That's pretty much it.
Vlade's statement regarding the DMC trade was very clear -"Character matters!". There is actually not much to spin here, even though I agree, that this was only a part of his statement.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Were the Kings winning? If the Kings were winning 50+ games, you could put up with the headache and volatility in the locker room, but if your maxing out at 35 wins, what is the point? That kind of toxic behavior can hinder development of the young guys.

Look with all due respect, but over the years the two sides of this argument have been repeated over and over again. It's a fact, that we didn't win enough games with DMC. I give you that. To extrapolate from that, that we would have been unable to win with DMC in the future is actually not factually correct. It's an educated guess at best and because basketball is a team sport I don't think this guess has much merit to it. DMC is not responsible for the teams the Kings have put around him. He didn't make any trades, he didn't draft any players and he didn't sign any coaches. And ultimately it's a question of repsonsibility.

Once again we are talking about toxic behaviour and volatility. Once again we are talking on the basis of what Blob usually calls "connecting the dots", when we make claims, that DMC would hinder the development of young guys. As far as I know there were some young guys actually thanking DMC for helping them with their development. As far as I know Stauskas was one of them, even though he gets used by the "sources" to further push the narrative, that DMC is a bully (plane indicent, youtube video of DMC+Gay and Evans pranking Stauskas with popcorn). The problem with "connecting the dots" is, that we all are usually guilty of favoring information that further strengthens our own believes. That may happen conciously by willingly leaving out sources and informations, that don't support our own theories in our postings. Or it may happen unconciously, because we follow different persons on Twitter or listen to different radio shows or read different websites, leavin us in our very own media bubble, that only presents us a certain viewpoint.
I'm not excluding myself from that. But that's also the reason, why I'm extremely reluctant to give those "connecting the dots" posts enough credit. Ultimately they are pushing the agenda of the author in most cases. That's also why I actually love to debate basketball, but not things like character, which are extremely difficult to measure from the outside looking in. Not that there is no agenda pushing when talking basketball, but it isn't based on "connecting the dots", but on things, that actually happen on the court and in some cases of very diligent guys on this board even based on a plethora of statistics, which makes is measureable.
And that's what makes a discussion interesting for me. That's why I actually asked the question in this thread, why we seldomly talk about basketball reasons for the DMC trade and why every thread only turns into a discussion about his character? Why are people so obsessed in this case? I honestly don't understand that.

 

[mac]

Look with all due respect, but over the years the two sides of this argument have been repeated over and over again. It's a fact, that we didn't win enough games with DMC. I give you that. To extrapolate from that, that we would have been unable to win with DMC in the future is actually not factually correct. It's an educated guess at best and because basketball is a team sport I don't think this guess has much merit to it. DMC is not responsible for the teams the Kings have put around him. He didn't make any trades, he didn't draft any players and he didn't sign any coaches. And ultimately it's a question of repsonsibility.

Once again we are talking about toxic behaviour and volatility. Once again we are talking on the basis of what Blob usually calls "connecting the dots", when we make claims, that DMC would hinder the development of young guys. As far as I know there were some young guys actually thanking DMC for helping them with their development. As far as I know Stauskas was one of them, even though he gets used by the "sources" to further push the narrative, that DMC is a bully (plane indicent, youtube video of DMC+Gay and Evans pranking Stauskas with popcorn). The problem with "connecting the dots" is, that we all are usually guilty of favoring information that further strengthens our own believes. That may happen conciously by willingly leaving out sources and informations, that don't support our own theories in our postings. Or it may happen unconciously, because we follow different persons on Twitter or listen to different radio shows or read different websites, leavin us in our very own media bubble, that only presents us a certain viewpoint.
I'm not excluding myself from that. But that's also the reason, why I'm extremely reluctant to give those "connecting the dots" posts enough credit. Ultimately they are pushing the agenda of the author in most cases. That's also why I actually love to debate basketball, but not things like character, which are extremely difficult to measure from the outside looking in. Not that there is no agenda pushing when talking basketball, but it isn't based on "connecting the dots", but on things, that actually happen on the court and in some cases of very diligent guys on this board even based on a plethora of statistics, which makes is measureable.
And that's what makes a discussion interesting for me. That's why I actually asked the question in this thread, why we seldomly talk about basketball reasons for the DMC trade and why every thread only turns into a discussion about his character? Why are people so obsessed in this case? I honestly don't understand that.

Because if it were purely about basketball in terms of stats we wouldn't have traded him? As I've said before, you have basically determined on your own that only stats matter. Nevermind technicals, nevermind feuds that impact the team's morale and chemistry, nevermind leadership. Those things contribute to the teams performance, and they are in that sense "basketball reasons", but what you are really concerned with is the Xs and Os and stats. If you're looking at that alone there isn't much discussion to be had, aside from Vlade apparently wanting a team that moves the ball more. The truth of the matter whether you accept it or not, is that Cousins wasn't traded just because he's a bad pick and roll defender.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Wait, what? I'm afraid you've totally lost me. Character does matter, whether it's with an organization or an individual player IMHO. I think it was classless for the comment to be made about DMC on his way out and I have openly and repeatedly questioned Vlade's character in regards to how he handled the whole situation surrounding the trade.

I'm not a mind-reader. I don't know why the organization chose to make it an issue. Doing so IMHO was a stereotypical example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Well from what I tend to read into our exchanges on this board we seem like two human beings on the exact opposites of the spectrum. The way we look at the world sometimes seems to be entirely different, which makes some of your post actually disturbing for me, but nontheless interesting.

For me there is no connection between having a "good" character and success. From my experience and when I look around in the world, having a "good" character is actually often detrimental to success. We all could find examples for that, wether it's from our own experience or politics (which are not allowed on this board to protect me from having aggressive exchanges with some users ) or sports or economics.
I don't put much trust in things like character. I even find myself liking people, that are regarded by their social environment as people with a bad character (and no I don't mean people commiting major crimes or anything). Because from my own experience people often get hit with the bad character label, when they refuse or are unable to fulfill the social norms, that are expected of their social environment. Those people are often unable or unwilling to wear an imaginary mask, that would allow them to fit in. Because that's what it's all about. It's more about faking character than actually having it, which in some cases means people with the bad character label often are more honest and easier to read and accept.
So don't expect me to put much enthusiams into the concept of character.

The one thing, that got me upset in this whole debate, was the double standard, that is used by guys like Napear or even Vlade Divac and you got that excactly right - it's an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
That's the one thing I can't stomach.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Because if it were purely about basketball in terms of stats we wouldn't have traded him? As I've said before, you have basically determined on your own that only stats matter. Nevermind technicals, nevermind feuds that impact the team's morale and chemistry, nevermind leadership. Those things contribute to the teams performance, and they are in that sense "basketball reasons", but what you are really concerned with is the Xs and Os and stats. If you're looking at that alone there isn't much discussion to be had, aside from Vlade apparently wanting a team that moves the ball more. The truth of the matter whether you accept it or not, is that Cousins wasn't traded just because he's a bad pick and roll defender.

And how do you measure this things? Who do you believe? How is this not an issue of which anonymous sources you trust when sports media is mainly about entertainment and not about undeniable facts, where sports columnist are clearly pushing an agenda and radio hosts are going nuts on anyone disagreeing with them? I brought up actual quotes of his coaches and former teammates. Did that even matter for people, who deciced for themselves to believe that DMC is a team cancer, that was rightfully removed? I don't think so. So please tell me how this kind of discussion can lead to any valid conclusion? It's more about believes than measureable facts and believes are very hard to debate.
And let me say this - people often tend to focus on believes, when they know their opinion isn't actually supported by many facts, because believes are not easy to disprove. But before you feel enraged by this statement - both sides are guilty of that.
And btw. I said I focus on the things on the court, which actually include technicals or temper outburst and such things. Yes I do think DMC is that good as a player, that you try to work around those things, but that doesn't mean I ignore them.
Funy that you label me as a stats guy. This honor should go to guys like Blob, Bricky or twslam07

 

[mac]

And how do you measure this things? Who do you believe? How is this not an issue of which anonymous sources you trust when sports media is mainly about entertainment and not about undeniable facts, where sports columnist are clearly pushing an agenda and radio hosts are going nuts on anyone disagreeing with them? I brought up actual quotes of his coaches and former teammates. Did that even matter for people, who deciced for themselves to believe that DMC is a team cancer, that was rightfully removed? I don't think so. So please tell me how this kind of discussion can lead to any valid conclusion? It's more about believes than measureable facts and believes are very hard to debate.
And let me say this - people often tend to focus on believes, when they know their opinion isn't actually supported by many facts, because believes are not easy to disprove. But before you feel enraged by this statement - both sides are guilty of that.
And btw. I said I focus on the things on the court, which actually include technicals or temper outburst and such things. Yes I do think DMC is that good as a player, that you try to work around those things, but that doesn't mean I ignore them.
Funy that you label me as a stats guy. This honor should go to guys like Blob, Bricky or twslam07

I'm really not sure what you expect. It's as simple as this. The team wasn't winning and wanted to take a different direction because they didn't believe that they could build around Cousins as a cornerstone. There's nothing else for "valid discussion". Why did they believe as such? The most likely reason is what Vlade himself said - character/culture. I am still not sold on quotes by former team mates given that there are more than enough instances of well documented issues. You wouldn't badmouth a colleague in front of the media, particularly when you're not a high level player. How do you think badmouthing any team mate would affect the career of a rookie? Or veteran glue guys? So at best, it's inconclusive as you have said.

I feel like you are unhappy that there's no valid discussion when there simply isn't anything more to be discussed with regards to the rationale for the trade. It's not like we traded Cousins for Davis or George in which case you could get into a lengthy discussion about how we wanted to play a different style. As it is though, we traded Cousins for youth and the GM makes a statement about culture. Not sure what else there is to glean other than we didn't think we could win with Cousins and decided to rebuild.

 

[KingsFanGER]

I'm really not sure what you expect. It's as simple as this. The team wasn't winning and wanted to take a different direction because they didn't believe that they could build around Cousins as a cornerstone. There's nothing else for "valid discussion". Why did they believe as such? The most likely reason is what Vlade himself said - character/culture. I am still not sold on quotes by former team mates given that there are more than enough instances of well documented issues. You wouldn't badmouth a colleague in front of the media, particularly when you're not a high level player. How do you think badmouthing any team mate would affect the career of a rookie? Or veteran glue guys? So at best, it's inconclusive as you have said.

I feel like you are unhappy that there's no valid discussion when there simply isn't anything more to be discussed with regards to the rationale for the trade. It's not like we traded Cousins for Davis or George in which case you could get into a lengthy discussion about how we wanted to play a different style. As it is though, we traded Cousins for youth and the GM makes a statement about culture. Not sure what else there is to glean other than we didn't think we could win with Cousins and decided to rebuild.

And I'm still not sold on valuing anonymous sources more than quotes from teammates. Because while I agree, that colleagues can have the motivation to sugarcoat certain things out of fear for their own careers, at least I know who those people are and can include their motivation of saying certain things. With anonymous sources I don't have that luxury. I have no clue what the motivations of those sources are. I know about the motivations and agendas of the media members, who refer to those sources, but I can't know anything about how credible the information is, that the source has given the media. All I can decide is to put my trust in the honesty of the media people and in SAC's case I'm extremely reluctant to do that.
So like you said - it's inconclusive, but somehow people want to "connect the dots" and act like it's crystal clear. That's not something I feel comfortable with.

We traded DMC for Buddy Hield, who looks decent for a rookie. We did a huge turnaround in the way we approach games, back to more of a "jazz band" philosophy (Ok sorry I couldn't leave that out ). That's the biggest change in the way basketball has been played in SAC since DMC got here. Is it for the better? That's the interesting thing from a basketball standpoint.

 

[King Baller]

I stand corrected then with re: to this comment from Vlade:



But why is that something you want to give Vlade credit for? I don't. He was naive and stupid. That's not the decent thing to do, that was the dumb thing! If he would have waited until after the trade was consummated to inform the agent maybe he would have gotten two draft picks. Now it is likely the GM of the Pelicans picks up the phone and call Fagan before agreeing to deal but Vlade did not need to inform the agent he was having discussions. He should have kept his mouth shut until he extracted maximum value. The other point I raised at time of the trade is Vlade let the agent dictate the narrative to the Pelicans. It was a bad negotiation. Your defense of the way he handles this is unjustified. He could have at least waited until Thursday to get the pick protection removed. Its called high stakes poker and he did not play the game well.

One mans "naive and stupid" is another man being ethical and doing the right thing. Vlade did inform DMC through his representative that a trade might happen. These deals are not done without both sides talking to the agent, Akana/Fegan in this case. That first offer was never going to be a done deal once Fegan began souring the deals. Fegan did this because he was going to lose his share of a 200+ million dollar deal. That is a huge business deal. This whole thing is so much about the money IMO.

 

[King Baller]

The thing is, it was a poker game. Did vlade flinch first, yes, he probably did.

But there was rumors of New Orleans talking to philly about okafor, and he probably would have been cheaper for them than DMC.

If vlade held on to his cards too long, he may have been left with a worse deal. He could have been left with d'angelo russel and DMC could had been a laker!

Can you imagine the media poop storm Fegan would have created if Vlade had held out for a better offer? Everything would have been scorched earth when Fegan saw the 200+ million dollar deal evaporate. Fegan is one of the most despised agents for a reason.

 

[whozit]

.... Not sure what else there is to glean other than we didn't think we could win with Cousins and decided to rebuild.

Didn't think we could win with Cousins or could not win with Cousins' salary taking such a chunk of the salary cap? The first part puts the onus on Cousins the second puts in the cold hard facts of the ramifications of his increased salary and the team's ability to put anyone else around him.

 

[jcassio]

Can you explain to me, where I write about Vlade's character? I criticize his actions and express my feelings, that he just isn't doing a good job as a GM. That's pretty much it.
Vlade's statement regarding the DMC trade was very clear -"Character matters!". There is actually not much to spin here, even though I agree, that this was only a part of his statement.

When you repeatedly assert that Vlade is the worst GM in the league, you think you are only criticizing his actions and not his character? I hope you're not a parent (for the sake of your children).

 

[jcassio]

For me there is no connection between having a "good" character and success. From my experience and when I look around in the world, having a "good" character is actually often detrimental to success.

Wow. Just wow. But I suspect that you are confused about the word "character." I suspect that you equate character with morals, or society norms, where as character is really about the sum of a person's mental and moral qualities.

 

[mac]

Didn't think we could win with Cousins or could not win with Cousins' salary taking such a chunk of the salary cap? The first part puts the onus on Cousins the second puts in the cold hard facts of the ramifications of his increased salary and the team's ability to put anyone else around him.

You're arguing semantics when I was making a general statement. Point is, they did not believe we could build a winning team around Cousins, possibly simply not having avenues to add enough talent around him (which I believed), possibly because they didn't think you can win with a big as your #1 guy, possibly because he's a team cancer (hyperbole to make a point). Personally if it were just a matter of salary I don't think Vlade would have made that "culture" comment, which is another piece in the puzzle. Much easier to say we wanted to retain cap flexibility - it would draw a lot less flak too. I do think that you can't entirely separate the salary situation from the "character" issues though, but that is conjecture.

Anyway, enough of this. I've exceeded my Cousins-talk quota for the month.

 

[whozit]

You're arguing semantics when I was making a general statement. Point is, they did not believe we could build a winning team around Cousins, possibly simply not having avenues to add enough talent around him (which I believed), possibly because they didn't think you can win with a big as your #1 guy, possibly because he's a team cancer (hyperbole to make a point). Personally if it were just a matter of salary I don't think Vlade would have made that "culture" comment, which is another piece in the puzzle. Much easier to say we wanted to retain cap flexibility - it would draw a lot less flak too. I do think that you can't entirely separate the salary situation from the "character" issues though, but that is conjecture.

Anyway, enough of this. I've exceeded my Cousins-talk quota for the month.

Actually it was simply a question. I don't know, I can only take "educated" guesses. It could be both and even more. I will agree to disagree on which would be worse, character issues or to say to the world we can't afford him. Either way, I'm enjoying watching the youngsters.