Bill Simmons thinks Kings would rather have Greg Monroe than DeMarcus.....
- Thread starter Anthony1
- Start date
The posters on this forum are excellent spoiled only recently by a troll attack that has diverted so many conversations away from basketball. I judge basketball knowledge to a large extent by whether it makes sense or not. Stating that the Kings would want Monroe over Cousins makes no sense. How it has been diverted to a discusion of posters' knowledge is beyond me.
Undoubtedly. The only drawback to those big old contracts was injuries. Cousisn gets hurt in year 5 and you are on the hook for 10 more years you might not be as happy with the deal. 
Otherwaise, I am not sure shorter deals does not HURT a smaller franchise like us. It means instead of having to win the recruiting batlle to keep DeMarcus once in his career, we will probably have to do it three times at least, with all the glamour franchises and their agents knocking at every occasion. One of the reasons its so important we don't screw up here and trade away our young star core. Cousins will need to see major teammates capable of helping lift this team or you risk the Dwight generally displeased with everything result.
Otherwaise, I am not sure shorter deals does not HURT a smaller franchise like us. It means instead of having to win the recruiting batlle to keep DeMarcus once in his career, we will probably have to do it three times at least, with all the glamour franchises and their agents knocking at every occasion. One of the reasons its so important we don't screw up here and trade away our young star core. Cousins will need to see major teammates capable of helping lift this team or you risk the Dwight generally displeased with everything result.
Last edited:
Undoubtedly. The only drawback to those big old contracts was injuries. Cousisn gets hurt in year 5 and you are on the hook for 10 more years you might not be as happy with the deal. Otherwaise, I am not sure shorter deals does not HURT a smaller franchise like us. It means instead of having to win the recruiting batlle to keep DeMarcus once in his career, we will probably have to do it three times at least, with all the glamour franchises and their agents knocking at every occasion. One of the reasons its so important we don't screw up here and trade away our young star core. Cousins will need to see major teammates capable of helping lift this team or you risk the Dwight generally displeased with everything result.
Otherwaise, I am not sure shorter deals does not HURT a smaller franchise like us. It means instead of having to win the recruiting batlle to keep DeMarcus once in his career, we will probably have to do it three times at least, with all the glamour franchises and their agents knocking at every occasion. One of the reasons its so important we don't screw up here and trade away our young star core. Cousins will need to see major teammates capable of helping lift this team or you risk the Dwight generally displeased with everything result.
The Kings aren't the only thing discussed around here. Because the Kings play other teams, we have to analyze other teams as well, and how the Kings match up. Why do I feel like someone is attempting to bait me into something here?
I judge it by a person's nuanced understanding of the game. You have to apply that knowledge to at least one team in order to demonstrate it, and here, yes, it is the Kings. Knowledge of the Kings players and their tendencies is secondary. But that is pretty well demonstrated as well, by posters around here.
Knowledge of the game, and knowledge of a certain team or group of players tendencies can be separated out into two classes of knowledge.
I judge it by a person's nuanced understanding of the game. You have to apply that knowledge to at least one team in order to demonstrate it, and here, yes, it is the Kings. Knowledge of the Kings players and their tendencies is secondary. But that is pretty well demonstrated as well, by posters around here.
Knowledge of the game, and knowledge of a certain team or group of players tendencies can be separated out into two classes of knowledge.
No, its actually THE reason to claim he doesn't have as much understanding of the game. While kindergarten is all nice and PC where everybody is equally right and all that crap, that's not he way it works. Simmons is NOT a particularly good basketball man. He's not embrarassing. But his takes are off at least as often as they are on, and insight is rare if ever. He's caleld the Sports Guy or whatever for a reason -- he does general sports, think baseball may be his best, and there is simply no way for somebody to be an expert in all sports. He is not when it comes to the NBA. Even less so when to comes to our players.
People always get caught in cults of celebrity. As if somebow because the guy has the biggest stage he knows the most. Its normally exactly the opposite. The people who know the most are the specialists who concentrate on one sport, one league, even one team. A guy like Simmons is the ultimate generalist. Any sport any time. His opinion on your or any team's roster (witht he possible exception of the Celtics) is just another average fan's opinion. There are hundreds of people on this very board who could tell him all kinds of thing about this team and its personnel that he would have him going, oh, I see...didn't know that...interesting...
You don't see me going over to Pistons boards and opining on whether Knight or Stuckey should start at PG, or whether Jerebko is a PF or SF. I have opinions on those subjects and know quite a bit, but I don't know or have as much feel as the Pistons' fans and I have the good sense to know it. I don't watch them every game, don't know about that quote in the paper last week etc. You will even less find me heading off to opine on the Cardinals offseason moves, which I don't even know, or Barca's chances this year. Simmons being a national talking head though will take shots at all those subject because he's got a column to fill and a rep to maintain doig it. Does not remotely mean his knowledge is superior to the fans/commentators who follow those particular franchises/leagues/situations. Just means he's got the largest pulpit. On some things, sports leagues, teams, he is more knowledgible than others. The NBA is not one of them. The Sacramento Kings is CERTAINLY not one of them.
People always get caught in cults of celebrity. As if somebow because the guy has the biggest stage he knows the most. Its normally exactly the opposite. The people who know the most are the specialists who concentrate on one sport, one league, even one team. A guy like Simmons is the ultimate generalist. Any sport any time. His opinion on your or any team's roster (witht he possible exception of the Celtics) is just another average fan's opinion. There are hundreds of people on this very board who could tell him all kinds of thing about this team and its personnel that he would have him going, oh, I see...didn't know that...interesting...
You don't see me going over to Pistons boards and opining on whether Knight or Stuckey should start at PG, or whether Jerebko is a PF or SF. I have opinions on those subjects and know quite a bit, but I don't know or have as much feel as the Pistons' fans and I have the good sense to know it. I don't watch them every game, don't know about that quote in the paper last week etc. You will even less find me heading off to opine on the Cardinals offseason moves, which I don't even know, or Barca's chances this year. Simmons being a national talking head though will take shots at all those subject because he's got a column to fill and a rep to maintain doig it. Does not remotely mean his knowledge is superior to the fans/commentators who follow those particular franchises/leagues/situations. Just means he's got the largest pulpit. On some things, sports leagues, teams, he is more knowledgible than others. The NBA is not one of them. The Sacramento Kings is CERTAINLY not one of them.
Last edited:
Ok, perhaps I should clarify. Yes, by my sarcastic tone I was kind of inferring he wasn't the world's leading expert on basketball, but I wasn't implying that he wasn't the world's leading expert on basketball BECAUSE his opinions were different than ours/mine. That's what I was claiming was being put in my mouth. I have no problem taking responsibility for implying that Simmons is more than seldom in over his head when it comes to basketball. I'm glad we had this talk.
Ok, perhaps I should clarify. Yes, by my sarcastic tone I was kind of inferring he wasn't the world's leading expert on basketball, but I wasn't implying that he wasn't the world's leading expert on basketball BECAUSE his opinions were different than ours/mine. That's what I was claiming was being put in my mouth. I have no problem taking responsibility for implying that Simmons is more than seldom in over his head when it comes to basketball. I'm glad we had this talk.
I never said he was an idiot. I think he's a lazy jounalist that takes would could have been a decent story about the comparison of two bigs in the same draft, and turned it into a plus for one side and a negative on the other side with made up assumptions. He's obviously done little research on Cousins, and its doubtful that he's seen him play very much, if at all. He likes to write outrageous articles to get attention. Apparently it worked.
Duh? Of course its based on the knowledge we have of our own team. That precisely the point. Simmons has no knowledge, and he proved it with his article. So to us, he's exposed! To the rest of the nation, its probably a good sell. Sadly, he perpetuates all the negativity about Cousins. Cousins is an easy target, regardless of his improvement. So I have no love for mindless pundits that write articles loaded with assumptions, and little current knowledge. How about doing some research, like talking to his teammates and his coach. How about talking to his GM and see if Petrie is willing to trade Cousins for Monroe.
No! Its easier to just make up crap sitting on your big butt somewhere.
No! Its easier to just make up crap sitting on your big butt somewhere.
That would be a waste of time, of course any GM would back their players regardless of their true thoughts.
Yes, he doesn't know the intentions of every GM or watch/study every single NBA game, so yes, he made assumptions in this article. He's not an insider nor does he claim to be. He made the wrong assumption but based on understandable points. There's no need to get so angry about it.
I see you didn't heed my advice to stop typing in order to prevent embarrassing yourself.
Let's just state what you are doing for the record: you are defending the legitimacy of an argument that would have our GM trading DeMarcus Cousins in a "cocaine minute" for Greg Monroe. That would, and should, cause anybody in your general vacinity to question your sanity, and yes, get pissed.
Let's just state what you are doing for the record: you are defending the legitimacy of an argument that would have our GM trading DeMarcus Cousins in a "cocaine minute" for Greg Monroe. That would, and should, cause anybody in your general vacinity to question your sanity, and yes, get pissed.
I like Simmons. He's entertaining. His whole schtick is that he is a fan, and his columns follow that really well. Most fans I know get as much wrong as they get right. Most fans I know are passionate about their opinions, even the stupid ones. Just don't take what he says as gospel, take it as what things appear to be to one guy who follows the sport. No big deal.
From my perspective, he's been pretty wrong about the Kings many times over the years, including some of his comments on Evans earlier in the same column. It happens. No big deal.
From my perspective, he's been pretty wrong about the Kings many times over the years, including some of his comments on Evans earlier in the same column. It happens. No big deal.
