Current Team Discussion and Possible Trades

[King Baller]

If our record is poor around the time of the trading deadline this season I don't think there is anyway Cuz stays. I think at that point the organization would realize that we just aren't going to win with him and cut bait.

Notice CelticsFan likes this

So you are saying one half season into a new process with a new Coach and a complete change in philosophy it is time to cut loose an All Star Big Man is the prime of his career? That makes no sense because it is going to take time for the players to perform on the court what Coach Joerger has in his mind. I do expect some sort of fast track with the veteran defensive wings that have been added. But I don't think you give up after half a season.

 

[whozit]

Notice CelticsFan likes this

So you are saying one half season into a new process with a new Coach and a complete change in philosophy it is time to cut loose an All Star Big Man is the prime of his career? That makes no sense because it is going to take time for the players to perform on the court what Coach Joerger has in his mind. I do expect some sort of fast track with the veteran defensive wings that have been added. But I don't think you give up after half a season.

The way I could see it, if there is a clash of "personalities" and they are viewed as irreconcilable. Having said that, I don't see it (blinders on?) because this IS tailor made for him.

 

[mac]

I think people are jumping at shadows a bit when it comes to losing Cousins to free agency. The bottom line is that the ball is absolutely in our court. We have the ability to build a contender around him pretty quickly.

What we did this off-season is sort of kick of a mini re-set without losing ground. I know that sounds a bit of an oxymoron but hear me out.

Last year we had a team that should have made the plays offs. People will argue one way or the other, but on paper, in terms of talent, we should have been a play off team. For various reasons, we flopped to 33 wins but at times still looked like a dangerous team that could do some serious damage along the way.

So what the front office did leading up to the draft is sit down and evaluate what we have now, what we are to have in 2 or even 3 years from now. We have Cousins at least for the next 2 years but if we are to seriously rebuild quickly around him, we needed to re-set a bit and get some much needed quality, talented youth to address the needs for longer term.

People will complain about our free agency but what we did here was extremely smart. PDA led front office would have blown the cap room on someone like Anderson in hope that adding veteran talent will get us into the play offs. What this front office is doing now is not for the short term (get into the play offs at all costs) but actually try and get there but still have future bright enough to be a contender for years to come.

Let's assume that we are not going to pull of any trades from now on and what we have is a bunch of expirings and a whole heap of valuable contracts. The canvas is pretty blank for us to do what we think it's best around Cousins. The draftees that we drafted this year, along with WCS should be better in 12 months time than they are now. Some of those draftees will be ready to spend some productive minutes on the court. Bogdanovic will at least be a good solid player on the team. Most of our signings are practically expiring contracts.

In 12 months time we will have salary cap room for potentially 2 max players. With Cousins as a centre piece and the inevitable change in culture that will take place, Sacramento will become a better free agent destination. So what if we lose Gay and Collison for nothing? We will gain more flexibility.

While a lot a writing off our season as a lost cause based on the signees and draftees, I tend to disagree. Like Bricklayer pointed out, many teams have been built around a franchise center and a bunch of role players. Defence will be the key and all our signings are good to excellent defenders.

If we manage to get into the play offs, we become a more attractive destination. Even if we just miss out, the appeal is there for the free agents as long as Cousins is around.

So in 12 months time, we will have Cousins, cap room for 2 max players (or there abouts), a bunch of draftees of which at least 1 will be able to contribute solid minutes with significant scope for improvement. A capable SG in Bogdanovic coming over to fill in the gap.

Sign a couple of high quality free agents, re-sign Boogie, sign Bogdanovic, WCS should be better, Skal and/or Richardson will be ready to contribute some minutes. All of a sudden that is a very different team.

What we did was re-set to Malone's second off-season in charge. Set the culture of grit and grind, smash mouth basketball. Get players to fight for every second they are on the floor. Build a team or a family if you like and all of a sudden this team is no longer a laughing stock. There is direction and a clear path forward.

Worst thing the Kings could do this off-season was blow the cap space on player who do not improve us significantly. There was KG and a bunch of question marks this free agency period. Things will be different next year.I suspect that with the salary cap money we would go shopping for a high quality SF and possibly PG and the rest of the cards are likely already on the roster, young and cheap.

This however ignores the obvious change in the way the game is played. When's the last time a team with a team won the championship/ got to the finals led by a dominant (scoring) big, let alone a team that was just a center and a bunch of role players? Dwight Howard perhaps in 2009, or if you want to count Dirk (who is very different from the traditional franchise center and has been referred to as such on this forum) then 2011. Neither of those teams had defense as their calling card in the regular season.

Now there is of course the unanswerable question as to whether this is simply due to a lack of franchise bigs or a more fundamental change in the way the game is played given the regular contending stars in the NBA (Durant, James, Curry, all the other scoring PGs). Point is, I don't think you can just bring up "history" as such to support the idea that we can replicate the same level of success today building around Cousins and a bunch of role players. It's not impossible, but it certainly isn't as sure or guaranteed a blue print as Brick has made it sound.

 

[CelticsFan]

Notice CelticsFan likes this

nks maybe I'll change my username so I don't have Celtics in the handle. Sorry I don't think this team sniffs the playoffs. IMO if I was the Kings I get a huge return for Cousins now, try to develop this years picks and have my eye on a loaded 2017 draft class

 

[The_Jamal]

nks maybe I'll change my username so I don't have Celtics in the handle. Sorry I don't think this team sniffs the playoffs. IMO if I was the Kings I get a huge return for Cousins now, try to develop this years picks and have my eye on a loaded 2017 draft class

I'd have done the same.

It's not that I hate watching Boogie or don't think he can't lead a winner or anything. We're just out of time to put one around him. Even if we did sneak into the playoffs this year and get swept by the Warriors, what would that really accomplish? Free Agents still aren't going to come here. Basically all our vets outside of Boogie and Koufos are can enter FA after next season. Would 42-43 wins really be enough for Boogie to stay on a team that's basically capped at that win total? Especially when there's going to be an army of contenders who will come calling the following year?


Basically the only way I see him staying is if we rattle off a couple 50 win seasons and we see massive growth from the young guys into being great players. Otherwise there's just no reason for Cousins to waste more of his career for a team to finally get it together when he would put a good chunk of teams into being championship contenders.

 

[Padrino]

Now there is of course the unanswerable question as to whether this is simply due to a lack of franchise bigs or a more fundamental change in the way the game is played given the regular contending stars in the NBA (Durant, James, Curry, all the other scoring PGs). Point is, I don't think you can just bring up "history" as such to support the idea that we can replicate the same level of success today building around Cousins and a bunch of role players. It's not impossible, but it certainly isn't as sure or guaranteed a blue print as Brick has made it sound.

i don't really think that there are any guaranteed blueprints to success in the nba. much of it is timing. much of it is luck. but we really don't have to go all that far back in history for comparison points. our own dave joerger's memphis grizzlies teams were built around two rather traditional big men in zach randolph and marc gasol--who aren't even all that complementary to each other, for the record. the rest of those rosters were comprised of defensive-minded roleplayers. mike conley is now being paid like a franchise player, but he's always been a very high-level two-way roleplayer; he does his job, he does it well, and he generally defers to others. he's a roleplayer through and through. and the grizzlies made the playoffs in all three of joerger's seasons at the helm in part because those roleplayers were so effective.

now, in order for the kings to replicate that success, they would need for willie cauley-stein or skal labissiere to quickly evolve into impact talents, and they would need to trade some combination of rudy gay, kosta koufos, and ben mclemore to bring back a starting-caliber PG. but if WCS makes strides, and if the kings do manage to swing a trade that brings back somebody like eric bledsoe, then whose to say that joerger can't mold them into a winner? if the guy can make the playoffs during a season in which he had to coach 28 different players who suited up for the grizzlies because of injuries across the roster, then i don't see why he can't make the playoffs with a much more stable kings lineup anchored by demarcus cousins (assuming health, and all that). of course, if the litmus test is winning a championship in the contemporary nba, then you're probably right in thinking that it's not enough to hang your hat on a single franchise big surrounded by lesser talents, no matter how effective the roleplayers on your roster are. i mean, jesus, the warriors turned in the most impressive regular season in league history, and they still couldn't win the title with the most talented roster in the nba.

that said, i firmly believe that you can make the playoffs with a franchise big and no other all-star level talents. every year, teams like the grizzlies and the mavericks and the celtics and the hornets give their fans something to root for in april despite the massive talent gap between those teams and the contenders above them in the standings. they make up the difference with excellent coaching, defensive effort, and mental toughness. and for a franchise like the kings that's had exactly eight winning seasons out of the thirty-one in which they've been in sacramento, simply making the playoffs would be good enough for this fan. after the last decade of misery, i honestly don't care if the kings win a championship anytime in the next decade. i just want a team that i can be proud of every season, that competes on the defensive end, and that's consistently in the playoff picture. it's fun to root for an underdog, after all--yes, even if it means watching an eighth-seeded kings team getting clobbered by golden state year in and year out. give me 4-5 playoff games in the first round over 82 hopeless games in the regular season any day. i'll take that trade-off every single time after watching ten straight years of sub-.500 kings basketball.

beyond that, i also think it's a bit of a fallacy to believe that the standard, boilerplate "game is changing" rhetoric actually leads to fewer teams building around franchise bigs, when in fact, there is still a fundamental desire around the league to build around big man talent. the new orleans pelicans are banking on anthony davis, who's a franchise big. the minnesota timberwolves are banking on karl-anthony towns, who's clearly ready to be a franchise big. the new york knicks are banking on kristaps porzingis, who's certainly on the path to being a franchise big. the philadelphia 76ers are banking on at least one of joel embiid, jahlil okafor, and ben simmons, all of whom have the potential to be franchise bigs of some kind or another, with nerlens noel and dario saric on the margins of potential stardom someday, as well. hell, even the miami heat are banking on hassan whiteside, to some degree.

and though the bigs i've mentioned above are of different shapes, sizes, and styles of play, they're the next generation of nba all-stars. there are certainly boatloads of talented guards that have entered the nba in the last decade, but there's plenty of talented bigs coming into the league to re-balance the scales. yes, there have been rule changes that make it harder for "traditional" bigs to excel in the same ways they had in the past, and yes, the analytics movement has helped to devalue points scored in "traditional" back-to-the-basket post-up situations, but that hardly means that a team can't make the playoffs with a franchise big, good coaching, and a strong defense-first approach.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'd have done the same.

It's not that I hate watching Boogie or don't think he can't lead a winner or anything. We're just out of time to put one around him. Even if we did sneak into the playoffs this year and get swept by the Warriors, what would that really accomplish? Free Agents still aren't going to come here. Basically all our vets outside of Boogie and Koufos are can enter FA after next season. Would 42-43 wins really be enough for Boogie to stay on a team that's basically capped at that win total? Especially when there's going to be an army of contenders who will come calling the following year?


Basically the only way I see him staying is if we rattle off a couple 50 win seasons and we see massive growth from the young guys into being great players. Otherwise there's just no reason for Cousins to waste more of his career for a team to finally get it together when he would put a good chunk of teams into being championship contenders.

Sometimes its like you don't know this player at all.

However I do take it as a given that we have to at least make the playoffs and show growth. But this is the polar opposite of Dwayne Wade, CP3 or as it turns out even Kevin Durant. Which is one of the reasons if the Kings lose him its even worse -- 9/10 superstar caliber players consider Sacto a backwater little berg to be passed through on their way to real glory someplace better. You get maybe the 1 superstar in several generations of superstars with a loyalty gene big enough he WANTS to stay (KG is the last one like this I can think of, even Duncan came very close to running off and abandoning Admiral and Pop for the sake of Orlando glory), and all you have to do is show progress, and show family, and this franchise's ability to maximize that gift has been beyond pathetic.

But Cousins does WANT it to work. He WANTS to be a career King, and be the guy who brings back the winning. Always has. And we just refuse to capitalize on that. Still the one more chance here with Joerger however. And no we don't have to be a perennial power. His agent will be thinking that way. Cousins? He needs the GM, coach, and players, to be his guy, his family. And that family has to get him to the dance with a chance to fight.

 

[King Baller]

nks maybe I'll change my username so I don't have Celtics in the handle. Sorry I don't think this team sniffs the playoffs. IMO if I was the Kings I get a huge return for Cousins now, try to develop this years picks and have my eye on a loaded 2017 draft class

See I don't understand your logic. The Kings already have the best Big Man in the Association in his prime. What do you hope to get in the 2017 draft?

Before you even see what this team can do you want to throw in the towel? There still could be a trade and people are already wanting to trade DMC and Tank? I honestly don't get it

 

[Bricklayer]

See I don't understand your logic. The Kings already have the best Big Man in the Association in his prime. What do you hope to get in the 2017 draft?

Before you even see what this team can do you want to throw in the towel? There still could be a trade and people are already wanting to trade DMC and Tank? I honestly don't get it

Tank in a year where the Sixers have a right to pick swap with us too.

 

[dude12]

Get a net, there is a troll loose

 

[ParniValjak]

This however ignores the obvious change in the way the game is played. When's the last time a team with a team won the championship/ got to the finals led by a dominant (scoring) big, let alone a team that was just a center and a bunch of role players? Dwight Howard perhaps in 2009, or if you want to count Dirk (who is very different from the traditional franchise center and has been referred to as such on this forum) then 2011. Neither of those teams had defense as their calling card in the regular season.

Now there is of course the unanswerable question as to whether this is simply due to a lack of franchise bigs or a more fundamental change in the way the game is played given the regular contending stars in the NBA (Durant, James, Curry, all the other scoring PGs). Point is, I don't think you can just bring up "history" as such to support the idea that we can replicate the same level of success today building around Cousins and a bunch of role players. It's not impossible, but it certainly isn't as sure or guaranteed a blue print as Brick has made it sound.

I think people are seriously getting carried away with how the game is played. You don't beat those teams by playing their type of game. You play them by making them play your game.

There is a clear lack of quality big men in the league, hence why the game has gone small. Of all the centers currently in the league, the only one that would not be out of place in the mid 90s is Cousins. He could mix it up wit the likes of Shaq, The Dream, Ewing, Mouring, The Admiral. As Elston Turner mentioned in his presser the other day as the team was preparing for Summer League, its a trend and only a trend. Nothing more.

You ask yourself one question, would there be ANY team out there (including the Warriors) that would say no to a player like Cousins? I think it's a flat out NO! Don't get sucked into the trend. I can guarantee you that if the kids like WCS and Skal can develop as we hope they can, when you roll out a frontline of DMC-WSC-Skal will give fits to Warriors. Not teh players that they currently are but project 2-3 years from now. OKC gave all sorts of fits to Warriors with their length and even Adams inside was causing them all sorts of grief. They are not god's gift to basketball.

You only need to look at Memphis to see how they are bucking the trend and doing is pretty darn well over the years.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

I think people are seriously getting carried away with how the game is played. You don't beat those teams by playing their type of game. You play them by making them play your game.

There is a clear lack of quality big men in the league, hence why the game has gone small. Of all the centers currently in the league, the only one that would not be out of place in the mid 90s is Cousins. He could mix it up wit the likes of Shaq, The Dream, Ewing, Mouring, The Admiral. As Elston Turner mentioned in his presser the other day as the team was preparing for Summer League, its a trend and only a trend. Nothing more.

You ask yourself one question, would there be ANY team out there (including the Warriors) that would say no to a player like Cousins? I think it's a flat out NO! Don't get sucked into the trend. I can guarantee you that if the kids like WCS and Skal can develop as we hope they can, when you roll out a frontline of DMC-WSC-Skal will give fits to Warriors. Not teh players that they currently are but project 2-3 years from now. OKC gave all sorts of fits to Warriors with their length and even Adams inside was causing them all sorts of grief. They are not god's gift to basketball.

You only need to look at Memphis to see how they are bucking the trend and doing is pretty darn well over the years.

agreed. just look at the games where okc kicked gsw's ass and its really clear what the role players did in the game. durantula and russy decided to go hero ball instead of ball movement and letting some of their other guys help do damage.

 

[mac]

I think people are seriously getting carried away with how the game is played. You don't beat those teams by playing their type of game. You play them by making them play your game.

There is a clear lack of quality big men in the league, hence why the game has gone small. Of all the centers currently in the league, the only one that would not be out of place in the mid 90s is Cousins. He could mix it up wit the likes of Shaq, The Dream, Ewing, Mouring, The Admiral. As Elston Turner mentioned in his presser the other day as the team was preparing for Summer League, its a trend and only a trend. Nothing more.

You ask yourself one question, would there be ANY team out there (including the Warriors) that would say no to a player like Cousins? I think it's a flat out NO! Don't get sucked into the trend. I can guarantee you that if the kids like WCS and Skal can develop as we hope they can, when you roll out a frontline of DMC-WSC-Skal will give fits to Warriors. Not teh players that they currently are but project 2-3 years from now. OKC gave all sorts of fits to Warriors with their length and even Adams inside was causing them all sorts of grief. They are not god's gift to basketball.

You only need to look at Memphis to see how they are bucking the trend and doing is pretty darn well over the years.

That's besides the point though, and completely missing it, shifting the goalposts. The question is not whether a team would say no to Cousins, but whether Golden State would trade Curry to build around Cousins, or OKC would previously trade Durant to build around Cousins, and so on. Of course this comparison is also not perfect, because what we're supposed to be debating is a matter of most important position and team construction rather than how good Cousins is compared to perimeter player X.

And yes, OKC gave all sorts of fits to Warriors with their length, but that is also besides the point. They were not a team that consisted of a franchise big and a bunch of role players, neither were they particularly punishing the Warriors around the rim in a half court setting. Nobody is questioning that defense wins, nobody is questioning that length is great (for even GS has length in its wing players). The question is - can you build around a scoring low-post center (that's the general idea here even though Cousins is more versatile than that), and a step further than that you/Brick suggested: can you build around a scoring low-post center with a bunch of role players and no real #2? Nothing you've brought up, including Memphis, gives a definite answer.

There is also no doubt that you are right in identifying the current slate of things as a trend. Problem is, everything follows trends, and if you're caught against that trend sometimes it can hurt you. Yeah, maybe you'd have a return to old school big men-led teams winning in 8 years, but that's not relevant to us. Yes, maybe Cousins wouldn't be out of place in the mid 90s, but now is not the mid 90s. What's relevant is the present, the next 5 years or so.

So again - can you actually point to anything recently that gives you absolute confidence and concrete evidence that you can build a contender around Cousins and a bunch of role players, in TODAY's age of superteams and rules favoring perimeter players? Because I can give you 6 years of evidence where Cousins and a bunch of role players didn't do very well.

 

[mac]

i don't really think that there are any guaranteed blueprints to success in the nba. much of it is timing. much of it is luck. but we really don't have to go all that far back in history for comparison points. our own dave joerger's memphis grizzlies teams were built around two rather traditional big men in zach randolph and marc gasol--who aren't even all that complementary to each other, for the record. the rest of those rosters were comprised of defensive-minded roleplayers. mike conley is now being paid like a franchise player, but he's always been a very high-level two-way roleplayer; he does his job, he does it well, and he generally defers to others. he's a roleplayer through and through. and the grizzlies made the playoffs in all three of joerger's seasons at the helm in part because those roleplayers were so effective.

now, in order for the kings to replicate that success, they would need for willie cauley-stein or skal labissiere to quickly evolve into impact talents, and they would need to trade some combination of rudy gay, kosta koufos, and ben mclemore to bring back a starting-caliber PG. but if WCS makes strides, and if the kings do manage to swing a trade that brings back somebody like eric bledsoe, then whose to say that joerger can't mold them into a winner? if the guy can make the playoffs during a season in which he had to coach 28 different players who suited up for the grizzlies because of injuries across the roster, then i don't see why he can't make the playoffs with a much more stable kings lineup anchored by demarcus cousins (assuming health, and all that). of course, if the litmus test is winning a championship in the contemporary nba, then you're probably right in thinking that it's not enough to hang your hat on a single franchise big surrounded by lesser talents, no matter how effective the roleplayers on your roster are. i mean, jesus, the warriors turned in the most impressive regular season in league history, and they still couldn't win the title with the most talented roster in the nba.

that said, i firmly believe that you can make the playoffs with a franchise big and no other all-star level talents. every year, teams like the grizzlies and the mavericks and the celtics and the hornets give their fans something to root for in april despite the massive talent gap between those teams and the contenders above them in the standings. they make up the difference with excellent coaching, defensive effort, and mental toughness. and for a franchise like the kings that's had exactly eight winning seasons out of the thirty-one in which they've been in sacramento, simply making the playoffs would be good enough for this fan. after the last decade of misery, i honestly don't care if the kings win a championship anytime in the next decade. i just want a team that i can be proud of every season, that competes on the defensive end, and that's consistently in the playoff picture. it's fun to root for an underdog, after all--yes, even if it means watching an eighth-seeded kings team getting clobbered by golden state year in and year out. give me 4-5 playoff games in the first round over 82 hopeless games in the regular season any day. i'll take that trade-off every single time after watching ten straight years of sub-.500 kings basketball.

beyond that, i also think it's a bit of a fallacy to believe that the standard, boilerplate "game is changing" rhetoric actually leads to fewer teams building around franchise bigs, when in fact, there is still a fundamental desire around the league to build around big man talent. the new orleans pelicans are banking on anthony davis, who's a franchise big. the minnesota timberwolves are banking on karl-anthony towns, who's clearly ready to be a franchise big. the new york knicks are banking on kristaps porzingis, who's certainly on the path to being a franchise big. the philadelphia 76ers are banking on at least one of joel embiid, jahlil okafor, and ben simmons, all of whom have the potential to be franchise bigs of some kind or another, with nerlens noel and dario saric on the margins of potential stardom someday, as well. hell, even the miami heat are banking on hassan whiteside, to some degree.

and though the bigs i've mentioned above are of different shapes, sizes, and styles of play, they're the next generation of nba all-stars. there are certainly boatloads of talented guards that have entered the nba in the last decade, but there's plenty of talented bigs coming into the league to re-balance the scales. yes, there have been rule changes that make it harder for "traditional" bigs to excel in the same ways they had in the past, and yes, the analytics movement has helped to devalue points scored in "traditional" back-to-the-basket post-up situations, but that hardly means that a team can't make the playoffs with a franchise big, good coaching, and a strong defense-first approach.

Thanks for a good reply and for understanding my point fairly

Yes, if our singular aim is to simply make the playoffs (and I think I am with you in that that would be satisfactory to me), Cousins' talent alone as an all star should be sufficient on a well-coached team. I disagree with your assessment of Conley though, in that I've seen him take over games in ways you would never ascribe to a mere roleplayer who defers to others. Memphis also "only" made the WCF once, and ZBo + Gasol is not = one franchise big + role players. You're exactly right that luck and timing really factors into success in the NBA - and in that sense I don't think it's fair to simply take a "Meh, perimeter-led teams are a trend. BIG MEN WIN GAMES" attitude. For whatever reason, be it the game changing, a simple lack of talented bigs in the past few years and so on, there is no concrete body of recent evidence for us to conclude that Cousins + roleplayers is a winning (arbitrarily 2nd round of playoffs perhaps?) formula in the NBA today.

You raise a good point about looking at the young bigs that are developing. But as I also alluded to in another post, the question was never about whether bigs would ever again be relevant, but whether they are the most important piece to have today and for the next 5 years or so. If we plan on being a serious contender in Cousins' time with us, we aren't so much going to be competing with Philly and Minny and NY (although Minny does have a lot of talent) but with GSW, whatever team Lebron is on, Spurs, Blazers? etc, all of which are still primarily perimeter-driven teams. The unfortunate fact is that we're not in year one of Cousins thinking how to build long-term - we're essentially starting from scratch with an all-star big and needing to turn things around in a year or two.

So I guess it comes down to what our goal is - simply making the playoffs or really being a serious contender. I brought all this up because it was pointed out that in the past you could be a contender with just a dominant big and roleplayers (to a certain extent), but I questioned how relevant that model was today given the lack of any real recent evidence of that. And the implications of the point I'm trying to raise would be that: a) you might want to consider trading Cousins, b) you might want to temper expectations of how much success a team with Cousins + roleplayers can really achieve, c) The current team construction should be opened to constructive criticism rather than blind faith in Vlade and the FO

 

[mac]

i don't really think that there are any guaranteed blueprints to success in the nba. much of it is timing. much of it is luck. but we really don't have to go all that far back in history for comparison points. our own dave joerger's memphis grizzlies teams were built around two rather traditional big men in zach randolph and marc gasol--who aren't even all that complementary to each other, for the record. the rest of those rosters were comprised of defensive-minded roleplayers. mike conley is now being paid like a franchise player, but he's always been a very high-level two-way roleplayer; he does his job, he does it well, and he generally defers to others. he's a roleplayer through and through. and the grizzlies made the playoffs in all three of joerger's seasons at the helm in part because those roleplayers were so effective.

Thought I'd use a separate post to address this one particular bit I bolded as I just had some additional (not-very-serious) thoughts.

In recent history the generally guaranteed blueprint to success in the NBA has been:

1. Have two all-star level talents or performers on your team
2. Have LeBron James on your team

 

[ParniValjak]

That's besides the point though, and completely missing it, shifting the goalposts. The question is not whether a team would say no to Cousins, but whether Golden State would trade Curry to build around Cousins, or OKC would previously trade Durant to build around Cousins, and so on. Of course this comparison is also not perfect, because what we're supposed to be debating is a matter of most important position and team construction rather than how good Cousins is compared to perimeter player X.

And yes, OKC gave all sorts of fits to Warriors with their length, but that is also besides the point. They were not a team that consisted of a franchise big and a bunch of role players, neither were they particularly punishing the Warriors around the rim in a half court setting. Nobody is questioning that defense wins, nobody is questioning that length is great (for even GS has length in its wing players). The question is - can you build around a scoring low-post center (that's the general idea here even though Cousins is more versatile than that), and a step further than that you/Brick suggested: can you build around a scoring low-post center with a bunch of role players and no real #2? Nothing you've brought up, including Memphis, gives a definite answer.

There is also no doubt that you are right in identifying the current slate of things as a trend. Problem is, everything follows trends, and if you're caught against that trend sometimes it can hurt you. Yeah, maybe you'd have a return to old school big men-led teams winning in 8 years, but that's not relevant to us. Yes, maybe Cousins wouldn't be out of place in the mid 90s, but now is not the mid 90s. What's relevant is the present, the next 5 years or so.

So again - can you actually point to anything recently that gives you absolute confidence and concrete evidence that you can build a contender around Cousins and a bunch of role players, in TODAY's age of superteams and rules favoring perimeter players? Because I can give you 6 years of evidence where Cousins and a bunch of role players didn't do very well.

All I got out of this is a "follower" mentality rather than "leader of the pack"

Why can't WE be the team to do it? Why do we have to follow what others are doing and always run second? Why don't we set the trend?

I am not interested in being a follower. I believe that you build your style of play and your approach based on your assets. Our franchise player happens to be a 27ppg/12rpg center who is old school type of player. I am not interested in trying to fit him into a style where you are not taking advantage of his talents. We tried that last year and failed miserably. He is difficult to guard and there were nights last season where he would foul out the entire front line of the opposition. Why should be go away from that just to fit the current trend.

Point is you build around what you have, not try yo copy others. All it takes is one team to do something different that leads to success and everyone else jumps onto that bandwagon.

 

[mac]

All I got out of this is a "follower" mentality rather than "leader of the pack"

Why can't WE be the team to do it? Why do we have to follow what others are doing and always run second? Why don't we set the trend?

I am not interested in being a follower. I believe that you build your style of play and your approach based on your assets. Our franchise player happens to be a 27ppg/12rpg center who is old school type of player. I am not interested in trying to fit him into a style where you are not taking advantage of his talents. We tried that last year and failed miserably. He is difficult to guard and there were nights last season where he would foul out the entire front line of the opposition. Why should be go away from that just to fit the current trend.

Point is you build around what you have, not try yo copy others. All it takes is one team to do something different that leads to success and everyone else jumps onto that bandwagon.

Again, you have a valid point but I do not think it is related to what I am saying.

We can try and set the trend sure, but now we're moving away from the original discussion that suggested dominant big + roleplayers is a proven way to win today to one that says we can be the first to do so.

As to your question "Why should we go away from that just to fit the current trend" there are several possible answers. But before that, we have to define just what the "that" is that we're supposedly moving away from. Are we talking about Cousins as a whole, or Cousins as a low-post player, or Cousins in an uptempo system (since that was what we were last season) or Cousins as our best player? and so on... As a disclaimer, my original point was never to say what we should or should not do, but merely to cast a bit more doubt on the argument that Cousins + roleplayers + defense = win today. I think I spelled out my objectives quite clearly in replying to Padrino. So back to answering the question however it is understood - firstly, because whatever it is we have been doing hasn't worked. Secondly, because whatever we seem to be trying to do hasn't clearly worked either.

Note that this is different from saying we're going to pair Cousins with a superstar wing player. That changes the discussion completely.

The real problem and complexity of the situation was highlighted well by Jamal. We are not in year one with rookie Cuz trying to build a team to contend in 4-5 years. That situation affords you a lot more flexibility and risk-taking to be the "leader of the pack" you speak of, and you would naturally try to build around what franchise talent you have. It's quite a different situation when you have a long losing history, a bad rep for attracting talent through FA, and you're pinning your hopes on one player who becomes an UFA in two years by surrounding him with role players, let alone in a style that bucks the current trend of winning teams.

 

[Jimbob]

Howdi,
Im a new guy here as my old fan forum site disappeared off the face of the internet map.
I have been a Kings fan since they arrived in Sac but now live over the pond so not always the most informed but read a lot and watch my share of clips.
Just a few random thoughts to get me going.
So far love the coaching change and change to a defesive philosophy. I would love to see how the Warrios would fare against the old Pistons.
Also brilliant how Vlade dumped Marco for the 22nd pick and do believe Bogdan will be a welcome addition next year. I hope Im wrong but I think PapaG was a mistake at 13. If Boston wanted him that bad I cant help but wonder if we could of swung a Rozier trade as they have a PG surplus. If not sure wish we walked away with Dejounte Murray in this draft. Just a feeling but i think the Spurs got a steal. We will see, look forward to future conversations.

 

[alden.viado]

Hey guys,

How would you feel about trading for Bledsoe or Knight.

I prefer Bledsoe as he and Boogie seem to be real close and I think Boogie needs a friend in Sactown right now.

I would do: Gay/Koufos/BMac for Bledsoe/Chandler/Warren..

why?

- Gay for Bledsoe is pretty much fair, despite Bled's injuries he can still be effective when healthy, plus we still got DC there in case anything bad happens

- I really don't think Papagiannis is ready and I honestly feel like he's got Primo Brezec BUST written all over him. Chandler will be another great Joerger type, defensive minded, good vet off the bench. KK is solid but he puts up Jason Thompson numbers

- TJ Warren would be a good 3rd string/developing SF behind Barnes and Casspi. He would've been 4th in line in Phoenix.

What do you guys think?

C- Cousins/Chandler/Papagiannis
PF- WCS/Tolliver/Skal
SF- Barnes/Casspi/Warren
SG- Afflalo/Temple/Richardson/Patterson
PG- Bledsoe/Collison/Cousins

that's 16 but I don't think Patterson will stick.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I would do: Gay/Koufos/BMac for Bledsoe/Chandler/Warren..

- Gay for Bledsoe is pretty much fair, despite Bled's injuries he can still be effective when healthy, plus we still got DC there in case anything bad happens

I strongly suspect that if the Suns were willing to do a Gay/Bledsoe trade straight up, it would have already happened. I think Gay for Bledsoe would be a steal for us rather than pretty much fair.

 

[alden.viado]

that's very true but if we take back Tyson and his 3/39mil, I think they'd consider.

I strongly suspect that if the Suns were willing to do a Gay/Bledsoe trade straight up, it would have already happened. I think Gay for Bledsoe would be a steal for us rather than pretty much fair.

 

[KingsCitizen]

Dragic for Rudy works straight up.
Miami would likely consider Gay after losing Wade and would most likely be willing to part with Dragic considering the long term investment they made on Tyler Johnson.
Add Collison or McLemore to that deal for maybe James Johnson.

 

[Jimbob]

Hey guys,

How would you feel about trading for Bledsoe or Knight.

I prefer Bledsoe as he and Boogie seem to be real close and I think Boogie needs a friend in Sactown right now.

I would do: Gay/Koufos/BMac for Bledsoe/Chandler/Warren..

why?

- Gay for Bledsoe is pretty much fair, despite Bled's injuries he can still be effective when healthy, plus we still got DC there in case anything bad happens

- I really don't think Papagiannis is ready and I honestly feel like he's got Primo Brezec BUST written all over him. Chandler will be another great Joerger type, defensive minded, good vet off the bench. KK is solid but he puts up Jason Thompson numbers

- TJ Warren would be a good 3rd string/developing SF behind Barnes and Casspi. He would've been 4th in line in Phoenix.

What do you guys think?

C- Cousins/Chandler/Papagiannis
PF- WCS/Tolliver/Skal
SF- Barnes/Casspi/Warren
SG- Afflalo/Temple/Richardson/Patterson
PG- Bledsoe/Collison/Cousins

that's 16 but I don't think Patterson will stick.

I like Bledsoe lots, not Knight so much. Sounds right depends how much Phoenix wants to dump Chandler would be a big factor in this scenario.
I too wish I could get more excited about Papa. I would have been a lot happier with Chriss at 8 and taking his Washington teammate Dejounte Murray with the 22nd. That would have meant no Bogdan though and I do think he will be good.

 

[alden.viado]

wasn't Ryan McD big on Rudy a few years back? www.fanatix.com/news/nba-trade-rumors-phoenix-suns...in...rudy-gay/182160/

Hope he still is. He can also fill in that small ball 4 while their 2 PF rookies gain experience.

It's a win win for both teams

 

[KingMilz]

wasn't Ryan McD big on Rudy a few years back? www.fanatix.com/news/nba-trade-rumors-phoenix-suns...in...rudy-gay/182160/

Hope he still is. He can also fill in that small ball 4 while their 2 PF rookies gain experience.

It's a win win for both teams

All depends on the status of TJ Warren and his injury, cause they thought super highly of him and he looks like there future SF.

Hey guys,

How would you feel about trading for Bledsoe or Knight.

I prefer Bledsoe as he and Boogie seem to be real close and I think Boogie needs a friend in Sactown right now.

I would do: Gay/Koufos/BMac for Bledsoe/Chandler/Warren..

why?

- Gay for Bledsoe is pretty much fair, despite Bled's injuries he can still be effective when healthy, plus we still got DC there in case anything bad happens

- I really don't think Papagiannis is ready and I honestly feel like he's got Primo Brezec BUST written all over him. Chandler will be another great Joerger type, defensive minded, good vet off the bench. KK is solid but he puts up Jason Thompson numbers

- TJ Warren would be a good 3rd string/developing SF behind Barnes and Casspi. He would've been 4th in line in Phoenix.

What do you guys think?

C- Cousins/Chandler/Papagiannis
PF- WCS/Tolliver/Skal
SF- Barnes/Casspi/Warren
SG- Afflalo/Temple/Richardson/Patterson
PG- Bledsoe/Collison/Cousins

that's 16 but I don't think Patterson will stick.

zero chance they are giving up on Warren unless they think the injury is career threatening. We get 3 of the best 4 players in that deal.

 

[CelticsFan]

Interesting Rudy Gay interview

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2016/7/26/12283364/sacramento-kings-rudy-gay-frustration

 

[Letsgokings13]

Interesting Rudy Gay interview

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2016/7/26/12283364/sacramento-kings-rudy-gay-frustration

Not too sure what to make of that honestly

 

[White_Chocolate]

What do you guys think of Koufas and McLemore for Cory Joseph? I feel he showed really well in Toronto last year.

 

[Bricklayer]

What do you guys think of Koufas and McLemore for Cory Joseph? I feel he showed really well in Toronto last year.

He did, which is why an ECF team won't move him.

 

[bajaden]

Don't know how much validity this rumor has to it, but I read about it on three different sites, none of which are mainstream by the way, but who knows, where there's smoke there might be fire. According to the article talks between the Kings and the Bulls is heating up again and this time with the Suns involved. In short, Gay would go to the Bulls. Gibson would go to the Suns and Knight would go to the Kings. I ran the trade through trade checker and it works. If true, if I were the Kings I would include the Bulls relinquishing their rights to our draft pick for next season.

Here's a link. http://www.inquisitr.com/3367618/nb...ns-and-sacramento-kings-talk-three-way-trade/