Revisiting DMC - again
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
I think we have to look beyond technicalities when discussing playoff contention. Yes, if you are within reach of the 8th seed pre-AS break, you are in contention, but when the 7th and 8th seed are barely above .500, competing for that final playoff position if you are a worthy team shouldn't be a rigorous task. A bunch of other teams were also "competing" for the playoffs because the bar was set so low. I think if you are 10 games below .500, you have to be wary of using the world "competing for a playoff spot."
Other than you, I haven't seen anyone argue that the Kings weren't in the playoff race going into the all-star break. They were 1.5 games out sitting in the 9th spot (with 3 games remaining against the 8th spot). Several felt that they wouldn't make into the playoffs, but that is a much different discussion.
It's still a boolean expression: Is this team in contention for the playoffs, Yes or No? The answer was yes, and you trying to expand the criteria for contention is just a cheap attempt to use argumentum ad absurdum for some form of gotcha. You changing the data set doesn't change the answer, but the data set is artificial in the first place. I mean, sure, someone could argue that a team was in contention after twenty games, but only a ****head would. Hell, you could "argue" (for differing values of "arguing") that a team was in contention after one game but, again, only a ****head would.
And they would be wrong. Playoff contention is determined by how close you are to the eighth seed, not by how close you are to .500. If a team is in ninth place, but they're ten games back then, sure, they're not really in contention. But, if they're only a game and a half back, then they're in contention, even if they're ten games under .500.
And they would be wrong. Playoff contention is determined by how close you are to the eighth seed, not by how close you are to .500. If a team is in ninth place, but they're ten games back then, sure, they're not really in contention. But, if they're only a game and a half back, then they're in contention, even if they're ten games under .500.
I've never been one to hide from reality.
The future could be bright but the past showcases that we will most likely screw it up again and in any case if we managed the DMC trade in a planned and professional manner the future could have been brighter - enough flogging a dead horse though. Everyone knows where i stand here.
"far, far from the way it is" - my statements are much closer to reality then you would paint them out to be and no they do not affect my ability to enjoy the kings presently, i am just mindful of what the future may look like based on the past.
The future could be bright but the past showcases that we will most likely screw it up again and in any case if we managed the DMC trade in a planned and professional manner the future could have been brighter - enough flogging a dead horse though. Everyone knows where i stand here.
"far, far from the way it is" - my statements are much closer to reality then you would paint them out to be and no they do not affect my ability to enjoy the kings presently, i am just mindful of what the future may look like based on the past.
True. I admit the Kings were technically in the playoff hunt, but the larger point that must be addressed is whether or not changes needed to be made. Invariably the argument invoked in support of maintaining the current roster stems from the "playoff hunt" as the whole contention notion bolsters the improvement of the team. Sure the team was in the playoff hunt, but they weren't necessarily a good team because of it. Kings were in contention so that's a mark in support of Cousins. I say not necessarily so.
That's the only point I'm trying to convey.
That's the only point I'm trying to convey.
I feel like a case could be made that Divac could have gotten a much better haul for Cousins in the offseason. The way I see it, the Kings were going to make the playoffs, if Cousins hadn't been traded. Just making the playoffs, even if it had been four blowout losses, likely changes the narrative just enough so that coaches and GMs around the league start looking at Cousins like, "Hrmm... maybe he is coachable, after all! If I can put him around some winners, they might keep him in line enough for him to make us into a contender!" Suddenly, you go from taking what you can get at the trade deadline, to flipping him for a King's Ransom on draft day.
Or, since the only real reason why Cousins' agent "sabotaged" trade talks was because he wanted to make sure that Cousins got his money, doesn't anybody think that a DeMarcus Cousins with a playoff résumé would have been in play for a sign and trade deal with a team that was desperate to upgrade talent?
Or, since the only real reason why Cousins' agent "sabotaged" trade talks was because he wanted to make sure that Cousins got his money, doesn't anybody think that a DeMarcus Cousins with a playoff résumé would have been in play for a sign and trade deal with a team that was desperate to upgrade talent?
I believe sign and trades changed under the new CBA. Teams cannot offer a 5th year to a player and then immediately trade him, so DMC would still be losing out in the S&T.
Let's say for the sake of argument Kings made the playoffs. That means they would have lost the #5, #15, #20 and #34. Can you really expect a better return than that if you wait to trade him?
Let's say for the sake of argument Kings made the playoffs. That means they would have lost the #5, #15, #20 and #34. Can you really expect a better return than that if you wait to trade him?