Cousins News
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
Chubbs
Starter
Thoughts? I can see this as very good or very bad. Ultimately, it was the only choice.
No matter how it turns out, giving him the extension before Oct. 31 is really the only logical move. Anything else threatens to undermine him and the rebuilding of the team before it truly gets started. Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith.
Vivek has made it abundantly clear that he wants to build his franchise around DFC. Bringing Shaq into the fold is another step in that direction. I am confident we're going to see Cousins stepping up and proving himself worth every penny he gets.
Vivek has made it abundantly clear that he wants to build his franchise around DFC. Bringing Shaq into the fold is another step in that direction. I am confident we're going to see Cousins stepping up and proving himself worth every penny he gets.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
I don't agree with it, but if it happens it happens
TyFreak Evans
Bench
My thoughts exactly. This move had to be done, one way or another. With bringing Shaq in, I only expect this move to explode in a positive way for us. Look for a meaner, tougher, and less explosive DeMarcus Cousins. This should be a fun ride, folks!
King Baller
All-Star
Sign Cousins now!
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Thoughts is that it would be the single best news of this offseason.
Well...aside from getting Kayte back of course.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Interesting little blurb from the end of that story BTW:
Dunno. Its hard to see on what basis we could talk Grevis extension without him ever having played a minute for us so maybe that was just a braindead intern listing all the prominent members of that class without a deal.
On Cousins:
The extension has to be done. Absolutely has to be. He's not a malcontent, he's supremely talented, and wants to stay in Sacramento.
Seems like a no-brainer, and the less drama you have heading into the season, the better. I believe we had like a 20 page thread on this topic.
On Vasquez:
The only reason I would do it is for the potential of getting him on the cheap. Other than that, I don't see why you'd extend him without seeing what he can do with this team. It would be just as short-sighted as letting Evans walk.
The extension has to be done. Absolutely has to be. He's not a malcontent, he's supremely talented, and wants to stay in Sacramento.
Seems like a no-brainer, and the less drama you have heading into the season, the better. I believe we had like a 20 page thread on this topic.
On Vasquez:
The only reason I would do it is for the potential of getting him on the cheap. Other than that, I don't see why you'd extend him without seeing what he can do with this team. It would be just as short-sighted as letting Evans walk.
It does source it from "league executives", but that would likely mean that other execs think Vasquez is on track for an extension given last year's performance. As far as I'm concerned, any Vasquez extension would have to be relatively low-dollar. He's making $2.15M this year, and his QO will be $3.2M. If we wanted to lock him up on an extension at say $3.5-4M for 3-4 years, I can't imagine I'd have a problem with it. At that price he's a tradeable contract. But if you start talking $7-8M for a GV extension, I start getting real nervous.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Only logical reason I can think for extending Vasquez at this point would be if you're extremely confident he'll have a good year and you want to wrap him up for a cheaper price rather than overpay next summer.
That of course is risky given he hasn't played a minute for us and in no way has staked a claim to being deserving of an extension and we don't yet know his value.
That of course is risky given he hasn't played a minute for us and in no way has staked a claim to being deserving of an extension and we don't yet know his value.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
It has to be proven that Greivis can play non-liability defense before I personally want him after this year
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Yeah, I agree 100%. Actually no reason to be premature with an extension. Lets see how it plays out this season. If he appears to be lightning in a bottle, then resign him to an extension. I could be wrong, but I've felt from the beginning that Vasquez wasn't originally a target by the Kings. We know that Calderon was. I thought from the beginning that acquiring Vasquez was a last resort to get something out of Tyreke, other than just letting him walk. Which, if true, could mean they have no intention of retaining beyond this season.
I could be wrong in my initial thoughts of course, or, Vasquez could well change their minds. Especially if Cousins falls in love with a guy that gets him a lot of easy baskets. I believe that something like 46% of all the baskets scored last year by New Orleans were assisted by Vasquez. That's an incredibly large number. And when you figure that something like 70% of Cousins baskets were unassisted, I could easily see a great relationship developing.
jcwkings
All-Star
0_0
Am I in a parallel reality?
I am not 100% for an extension now because i feel you should earn your status as a franchise player, and being a franchise player is more than being able to drop 30 and 15 once or twice a month in a loss. With that said the talent is there and maybe if he is given the responsibility it forces him to grow up and become a professional.
As far as Vasquez, can't really say much, he is a good player who is a late bloomer, his game relies almost exclusively on mental ability rather than physical so i think we only started to see what he can be in NO. Aparently he is a natural leader and all his teammates love him, so i am looking forward to seeing him this year. Plus i cant think of another fellow Hispanic on the Kings since Nocioni? and even before that i can't think of any. Now we just need to trade for Gustavo Ayon.
There's a difference between being a malcontent and immature. Cousins is immature. He loves the town and the fans. He wants to win. Does he make dumb decisions on the court? Sure. Is he a choir boy? Off the court, I'd say he's been great!
None of that suggests that he doesn't rightfully deserve that extension.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Sergio Rodriquez springs to mind. I like Vasquez quite a bit. I loved him at Maryland because of his fiery personality, and how he would get in his teammates faces if they blew a play. Don't know if I would call him a late bloomer or not. Its not unusual for PG's, particularly pass first PG's, to take 3 or 4 years to find their nitch. As for Cousins, I don't think you fool around with this. You give him the extension and move on. If he doesn't work out, then he's a very tradable commodity. But what we don't need, is to read every other day something about whether he's playing well enough to warrant an extension. We don't need that distraction. As for the word Malcontent, I don't think he is. Immature in how he reacts at times, but a malcontent is someone that's always unhappy with where he is, and everything around him. That's not Cousins. He loves it here and wants to stay. That's hardly a malcontent.
I figured out that, and I'm probably wrong, so the Capt will get an opportunity to correct me, but I believe his total extension, if he gets the max, would be around 79 mil total over 5 years. By my figuring, that would start him out in the first year at something close to 13.5 mil a year and increasing at a rate of 7.5% every year, ending in his fifth year at just over 18 mil a year. If I'm wrong, then I'll blame my little hand computer. Its never my fault!!!
Speaking of Sergio I heard he played pretty darn well in Eurobasket. That Spanish team has a load of good PGs.
What a contrast in those numbers. If nothing else, to see actual ball movement will be refreshing.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
We'll see about that too. Its hard to read through different offenses/personnel, but people have this huge fascination with single guys with big assist totals. Me too actually, but the fact of the matter is that Grevis's offense produced all of 0.2 more ast/game than the Kings offense last year. It was just that he completely dominated the ball so that he was the only guy getting them. And that is per norm with a lot of big assist PGs. They are intensely ball dominant, and you will indeed see them passing the ball, but it doesn't necessarily lead to more ball movement or passing as a team per se. I will settle for a guy who can consistently feed the post and who runs pick and rolls for the roller, not himself.
You realize that the guards we have had have been intensely ball dominant and passed the ball from one hand to the other while creating for themselves only, right?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Oh yes. But that is kind of the point isn't it? We have numerous selfish ball dominant guards...who yet somehow managed to average as many assists and score far more points than the Grevis led offense did.
Now frankly I am a traditionalist in that I have no particular fascination with motion offenses. Motion offense to me = you don't have a good enough PG and you don't have a star, or if you do you are squishing his talent in favor of making scrubs feel good about being able to touch the ball. So if Grevis wants to dribble around playing keep away from the rest of the team that doesn't particularly offend me so long as after those 15 seconds of dribbling the play ends with him passing it to Boogie or a scorer rather than trying to find a way to force something up himself.
But that's not the same thing as ball movement. In fact ball dominant/high assist PGs and high team assist motion offense are basically opposite sides of a coin. Grevis dribbling around in circles waiting to run a play makes perfect sense if you are going to surround him with the likes of McLemore, Mbah a Moute, Landry etc. He'll have to. But that doesn't mean the ball is necessarily going to be going anywhere but up and down from his palm to the floor and back again. It can actually make for less ball movement, not more. But if the PG is smart and unselfish it can still result in an offense which uses its weapons better.
I find it amusing that your comparing the personnel of the Hornets to our personnel from last year. How many offensively capable players did the Hornets have? 1? There will be more ball movement and player movement this year.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I just wonder why it's taking so long. A max contract is a max contract. You print out the boilerplate, fill in a few blanks, including the the salary, sign and notarize. Should take about ten minutes. This regime thinks things through very carefully, so I suspect there are reasons for the delay, but so far I haven't been able to glean what they are. The only thing I can come up with is that they didn't want Cousins too comfortable in the offseason; they wanted him to work hard to get the rabbit.
jalfa
Starter
they're probably negotiating incentives, meaning how much of the salary will be incentive based. couldn't imagine any other reason for the hold up, at least.
What is it about the makeup of this team that makes you so certain that there will be more ball movement? Certainly not the switch of Vasquez for Evans, who are ball dominant players (albeit in different ways). The rest of the "me first" players are still here, and we've added another one in Landry.
If the idea is to bring in a pass-first PG to run the offense, then odds are he's going to run the offense, which based on personnel, is not likely to be a motion offense, because it would not suit the "talent" that exists on this team. Who's going to play away from the ball and move to an open spot? McLemore and Patterson are the only ones that fit that bill, but again, once they get the ball, I'm hoping it's because they're open and they're going to shoot.
I think people see gaudy assist numbers from one player and assume ball movement. I'd posit that it means quite the opposite. Truth is, we're not really going to know what it looks like until the season starts, so assumptions in both directions are purely sausage, but, hey, that's what message boards are for.
