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

[ockingsfan]

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to part ways for both parties.

For DMC, hopefully he will learn from this situation (which may have cost him millions) and maybe look himself in the mirror and get the help he needs to control his anger issues.

He has always been an awesome player, but I was constantly worried that after a great play, he would make a stupid foul or glare at an official and get a technical, when his team needed him the most. Great player, but his lack of self control was detrimental to his team.

Like Rasheed Wallace, who didn't learn to better control his emotions until he was traded. I think that "light" goes off sometimes, when you find out that you are no longer "untouchable".

Hopefully, DMC will go on to have a great career and find his inner peace and that self control that will enable him to get that next level, unfortunately it never happened in Sacramento.

 

[KingsFanGER]

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).

If you want to explain to me, why you think criticizing Vlade's actions as a GM and making statements about his qualities as a GM has something to do with however you seem to define character, feel free to do so.

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.

I don't think the meaning of character is different in English or German. Now if you want to go deeper into this and debate the term more from a philosophical or psychoanalytical standpoint, I might confuse something. So please go ahead. Might be a very interesting read.

 

[King Baller]

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.

There should be a quota for each of us It is healthier.

 

[KingsFanGER]

There should be a quota for each of us It is healthier.

You are right, that's the one thing we should probably all agree on. But it's difficult to let it go, isn't it?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

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

For the past 11 seasons they haven't been able to win with anybody. Or for 24 of the the franchises 32 seasons in Sacramento for that matter. The only time they have done any winning was while a competent ownership group and GM were in place. So the only thing you should be truly gleaning from any of this is, until the franchise has those two things in place again -- nothing is likely to change.

Could Vivek and Vlade get to that place? Possibly. But neither have shown that they've figured out that they've been the franchises biggest problems and are instead placing blame elsewhere by citing things like culture, character and pointing the finger at Cousins. Until they realize their own mistakes and shortcoming and actually correct them, there's nothing to rebuild. Cause they'll continue to screw it up.

The real truth is the Kings can't win with a meddling owner that doesn't understand the business or how to run it properly and a completely inexperienced GM than isn't and wasn't ever qualified for the job. That's where the rebuild truly needs to begin. But we all know it won't. We have to hope they learn on the fly and figure things out before another 5-10 years of the status quo goes flying by.

 

[peacelate]

"good" character might hinder individual success, but it definitely has an impact on team success depending on the severity. I've had co-workers who only complained and moaned as they found problem with every single little thing creating an inhospitable work environment. The only thing I wanted to do was clock out to get as far away from them as possible.

Napear criticizing DMC for his character is fair because Napear is not part of the locker room. He's not part of the fraternity so Napaer's character doesn't influence the team atmosphere in the same way that DMC does. If Napear had said, "gee the announcer needs to stop criticizing the star player," I'd find more fault with him.

 

[KingsFanGER]

"good" character might hinder individual success, but it definitely has an impact on team success depending on the severity. I've had co-workers who only complained and moaned as they found problem with every single little thing creating an inhospitable work environment. The only thing I wanted to do was clock out to get as far away from them as possible.

That's actually a fair point. And in a usual business environment I tend to agree, when it comes to colleagues, who complain. Not so much with other signs of what I simplistically call bad character (still waiting for JCassio to educate me further ), like lack of empathy, lack of self awareness or self doubt, oversized egos or a tendency for aggressive authority. But the NBA is not a usual environment. Those guys are the best of the best and the Top-50 players are the best of the best of the best.
These guys are used to pushing themselves and teammates extremely hard, are used to work under immense pressure, are used to work around big egos and are used to a lot of emotion and also have to deal with all the impacts of early fame, fortune and more money than most people usually earn in a lifetime. I don't think teams in that environment function the same as the teams we are used to.

 

[jcassio]

If you want to explain to me, why you think criticizing Vlade's actions as a GM and making statements about his qualities as a GM has something to do with however you seem to define character, feel free to do so.



I don't think the meaning of character is different in English or German. Now if you want to go deeper into this and debate the term more from a philosophical or psychoanalytical standpoint, I might confuse something. So please go ahead. Might be a very interesting read.

No thanks. I'm done here.

 

[peacelate]

That's actually a fair point. And in a usual business environment I tend to agree, when it comes to colleagues, who complain. Not so much with other signs of what I simplistically call bad character (still waiting for JCassio to educate me further ), like lack of empathy, lack of self awareness or self doubt, oversized egos or a tendency for aggressive authority. But the NBA is not a usual environment. Those guys are the best of the best and the Top-50 players are the best of the best of the best.
These guys are used to pushing themselves and teammates extremely hard, are used to work under immense pressure, are used to work around big egos and are used to a lot of emotion and also have to deal with all the impacts of early fame, fortune and more money than most people usually earn in a lifetime. I don't think teams in that environment function the same as the teams we are used to.

True. Pro-athletes face immense pressures and are scrutinized. They motivate each other, but it has to be in the correct manner. Vlade as a former player understands and has experiences this, so it's hard for me to believe the type of culture that the Kings with Cousins had adhered to typical NBA locker rooms.

 

[Telemachus]

True. Pro-athletes face immense pressures and are scrutinized. They motivate each other, but it has to be in the correct manner. Vlade as a former player understands and has experiences this, so it's hard for me to believe the type of culture that the Kings with Cousins had adhered to typical NBA locker rooms.

The problem with these statements is that we don't know what goes on in the locker room. Temple (a straight shooter) was asked about Cousins being a bad teammate, and he said he had been a good teammate this year. On twitter Tolliver was asked if there was was any truth to what was being said about Cousins in the locker room, and he said "No".

Does this mean they are telling the truth? Of course not, but I'm more likely to listen to them than Grant.

MJ wasn't known for being a good teammate, and the same could be said of Kobe. I could probably make long lists of players that wete"good teammates" that weren't successful, and "bad teammates" that were successful. And that doesn't even bring "good character" into it.

For instance, you can point to many things with Barnes and Lawson to support bad character, but both have been considered great teammates everywhere they have played. This shows that there isn't necessarily a correlation between the two.

 

[peacelate]

The problem with these statements is that we don't know what goes on in the locker room. Temple (a straight shooter) was asked about Cousins being a bad teammate, and he said he had been a good teammate this year. On twitter Tolliver was asked if there was was any truth to what was being said about Cousins in the locker room, and he said "No".

Does this mean they are telling the truth? Of course not, but I'm more likely to listen to them than Grant.

MJ wasn't known for being a good teammate, and the same could be said of Kobe. I could probably make long lists of players that wete"good teammates" that weren't successful, and "bad teammates" that were successful. And that doesn't even bring "good character" into it.

For instance, you can point to many things with Barnes and Lawson to support bad character, but both have been considered great teammates everywhere they have played. This shows that there isn't necessarily a correlation between the two.

So why did Vlade the day after the trade say "characters matters...winning starts with culture" if Cousins was a great teammate? He could have said any number of things to justify the trade, but he didn't. I don't believe Vlade traded Cousins because off the court character issues, but for his locker room influence. Kobe and MJ could do what they did because they had the clout and accolades to reinforce their tactics. Do you think players would tolerate the antics of Popovich if he was some no-name coach? Probably not, but all Pop has to do is show them the rings. Does it make it right that the same method implemented by two different coaches is received differently? No, but that's the way it is.

You could say the Kings just need to win for Cousins to be a good teammate. That's fair, but how do the Kings get there and improve the culture while Cousins consumes 40% of the team's salary with no other established All-Stars?

 

[KingsFanGER]

No thanks. I'm done here.

Well that's unfortunate. I was genuinely looking forward to learn something.

 

[KingsFanGER]

True. Pro-athletes face immense pressures and are scrutinized. They motivate each other, but it has to be in the correct manner. Vlade as a former player understands and has experiences this, so it's hard for me to believe the type of culture that the Kings with Cousins had adhered to typical NBA locker rooms.

It all comes down, what we choose to believe. I hate to end discussions that way, because it feels like an easy way out, but there are enough arguments to support both sides and ultimately we simply are repeating the same things over and over.
I think I finally agree with Mac. Enough DMC talk for me.

 

[Telemachus]

So why did Vlade the day after the trade say "characters matters...winning starts with culture" if Cousins was a great teammate? He could have said any number of things to justify the trade, but he didn't. I don't believe Vlade traded Cousins because off the court character issues, but for his locker room influence. Kobe and MJ could do what they did because they had the clout and accolades to reinforce their tactics. Do you think players would tolerate the antics of Popovich if he was some no-name coach? Probably not, but all Pop has to do is show them the rings. Does it make it right that the same method implemented by two different coaches is received differently? No, but that's the way it is.

You could say the Kings just need to win for Cousins to be a good teammate. That's fair, but how do the Kings get there and improve the culture while Cousins consumes 40% of the team's salary with no other established All-Stars?

I don't know how, but you completely missed my point.

 

[peacelate]

What is your point? That being a great teammate doesn't lead to winning? DUH. That being a bad teammate doesn't prevent winning? Again, obvious. What I've been saying is that there is a critical point to which teammates will tolerate impertinent behavior in the locker room.

Maybe English isn't Vlade's native language, but I have an idea of what he meant by "character." How you treat teammates is part of the makeup of one's character IMO.

 

[King Baller]

I will just leave this right here, start at the 2:50 if you are pushed for time:

 

[Telemachus]

What is your point? That being a great teammate doesn't lead to winning? DUH. That being a bad teammate doesn't prevent winning? Again, obvious. What I've been saying is that there is a critical point to which teammates will tolerate impertinent behavior in the locker room.

Maybe English isn't Vlade's native language, but I have an idea of what he meant by "character." How you treat teammates is part of the makeup of one's character IMO.

Actually, the bigger point was that character often has nothing to do with being a good or bad teammate. They are two separate issues that you can't seem to separate from one another.

What Vlade meant by character we will likely never know, but assuming it means he's a bad teammate is a very large assumption on your part with very little evidence to back it up.

 

[peacelate]

Actually, the bigger point was that character often has nothing to do with being a good or bad teammate. They are two separate issues that you can't seem to separate from one another.

What Vlade meant by character we will likely never know, but assuming it means he's a bad teammate is a very large assumption on your part with very little evidence to back it up.

So basically you've been arguing semantics this entire time? Lecturing me on your definition of character against mine rather than discussing the reality of the situation? Almost every coach has said DMC is a headache in the locker room and carries around a volatile personality.

Don't you find it odd that Vivek allowed Vlade to trade away his hand picked player in Stauskas after only 1 season?

 

[New Era]

I will just leave this right here, start at the 2:50 if you are pushed for time:

I am so glad I don't have to watch that garbage anymore.

 

[Kingster]

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?

False hopes. He still led the league in technical fouls. His on the court appearances were not quite as bad as what they were in the first three years in the league, but it wasn't enough. It will be interesting to see what transpires with NO and possibly his next team after NO, but in any case, you don't risk $200 mill on a head case.

 

[VF21]

 

[Telemachus]

So basically you've been arguing semantics this entire time? Lecturing me on your definition of character against mine rather than discussing the reality of the situation? Almost every coach has said DMC is a headache in the locker room and carries around a volatile personality.

Don't you find it odd that Vivek allowed Vlade to trade away his hand picked player in Stauskas after only 1 season?

I'm beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension. I didn't define character, that would be a different conversation that would probably show many of us differ on in relation to sports. I said that " bad character" and "being a bad teammate" are NOT the same thing. That is not a definition, it is a fact. If you can't understand that, then there isn't much point to continuing this conversation.

 

[peacelate]

I'm beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension. I didn't define character, that would be a different conversation that would probably show many of us differ on in relation to sports. I said that " bad character" and "being a bad teammate" are NOT the same thing. That is not a definition, it is a fact. If you can't understand that, then there isn't much point to continuing this conversation.

It seems like you are simply arguing to argue. You made no point. How can you say bad character doesn't equal being bad teammate if you haven't defined what type of character is? Your definition is different than mine obviously, but I'm supposed to accept your opinion as fact. That's incredibly pretentious. I've already said being a bad teammate affects your character. I don't know how else to put it. That's my opinion just like you have yours, and your opinion (whatever it is) isn't fact. Sorry.

 

[Telemachus]

It seems like you are simply arguing to argue. You made no point. How can you say bad character doesn't equal being bad teammate if you haven't defined what type of character is? Your definition is different than mine obviously, but I'm supposed to accept your opinion as fact. That's incredibly pretentious. I've already said being a bad teammate affects your character. I don't know how else to put it. That's my opinion just like you have yours, and your opinion (whatever it is) isn't fact. Sorry.

Ok, let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that Matt Barnes has bad character?