[Game] Kings v. Nuggets - 3/11/17 - 7:30PT/10:30ET

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And if the "bad" foundation is actually management/ownership, the only thing you've changed is you've removed one certain building block and replaced it with pieces that "might" be a building block(s). But the bad foundation (organizational dysfunction) would be the same.

There's also that: whether you believe that tearing the house down and starting over is the optimal solution depends heavily on whether you believe that Cousins was the foundation, or the living room floor.

 

[Glenn]

Getting words put into my mouth. Not once have I blamed Cousins for not leading us to success. I am fully aware we didn't have the necessary components around him to sustain any success. What I am saying (or questioning) is how conducive he was to winning while only leading us past 30 wins ONE TIME. I question how highly people on here view him because there is absolutely 0 way you can tell me that a player as highly regarded as Cuz is on here and Rudy Gay/IT as second options could get past a 30 wins ONE.SINGLE.TIME. That win total is putrid. I don't care how dysfunctional your FO is, if you are a true superstar, getting past 30 wins more than once is not difficult. I question why he is never held accountable for his attitude and how it's downplayed so much here to the point that it's simply irrelevant.

That's my whole thing. I'd never place the blame on him not willing us to the playoffs. I will, however, question how much of a franchise player he truly is without being able to make us at least mediocre.

You are relatively new here. He has been criticized quite a bit. He deserves it. I wonder how he made the national team, what is it, three times in a row?

Perhaps the problem is not an either/or problem but perhaps a troubled player is on a team with a troubled front office. The beat goes on as we lose and lose and lose. As a fan, I am tired of it. Someone, and I don't care who, has to come up with a solution. It's none of us.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... Perhaps the problem is not an either/or problem but perhaps a troubled player is on a team with a troubled front office. The beat goes on as we lose and lose and lose.

... And there's also this. For all the people who sarcastically ask, "Who are the Cousins apologists going to blame when he continues to lose?", the question can be asked, "Well, who are Cousins' critics going to blame, when the Kings continue to lose?"

 

[Jeremy Fraser]

I have not disputed this, aside from maybe nitpicking over the standard of "proof."


I have, however, and continue to, dispute this. Every new beginning is not a better beginning.
I
The problem, of course (and where the metaphor falls apart), is that in sports, you don't have the option of getting out of the "dating game," and taking a few years off to "find yourself." That's what the Kings really need to do; it's a shame that relegation isn't an option.

I can agree with this. I'll just leave it at I, personally, am much happier with the hope in future prospects instead of the treadmilling that was happening with Cousins and the bleak future in terms of assets. I didn't see us getting anywhere with Cousins from what I've seen. Seeing a more competitive team with him was nice, but after so many years the hope we could take the next step kind of became lost in my mind. We could very well draft duds, but the thought we have a chance to get good players instills hopes for me whereas said hope wasn't really there when we had no chances the next two years to build.

Here's to hoping we can make this a smart rebuild and don't continue the mess we've endured for a decade+

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Fair enough. And, as I've said whenever I've seen the "treadmilling" comment, a sinkhole is definitely not a treadmill. But, the Kings have definitely achieved the goal of getting off the treadmill, so... yay?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Getting words put into my mouth. Not once have I blamed Cousins for not leading us to success. I am fully aware we didn't have the necessary components around him to sustain any success. What I am saying (or questioning) is how conducive he was to winning while only leading us past 30 wins ONE TIME.

Thanks for clarifying your stance.

Regarding the bolded portion, I circle back to what I stated earlier. Come up with a list of players that you are certain would be do much better given the same circumstances of having subpar talent the day they were drafted and not adding any help via the draft for 6 consecutive years thereafter. That list may start and end with LeBron James.

My point is it's the situation, not the player.

I question how highly people on here view him because there is absolutely 0 way you can tell me that a player as highly regarded as Cuz is on here and Rudy Gay/IT as second options could get past a 30 wins ONE.SINGLE.TIME.

That trio didn't even play one full season together. I don't recall the exact numbers, but between Rudy coming over at the trade deadline and games missed to due injury or whatever, I believe it was less than 30 games. IT was traded that offseason. So your expectation is unrealistic.

What you should be harping on is the fact that ownership and the front office didn't give those 3 players anywhere near adequate time to play together to see what they had. They were obviously wrong on IT's potential. And even if they didn't think it would work despite the small sample size (I think they were close to.500?), they still let him go for a freaking trade exception.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Thanks for clarifying your stance.

Regarding the bolded portion, I circle back to what I stated earlier. Come up with a list of players that you are certain would be do much better given the same circumstances of having subpar talent the day they were drafted and not adding any help via the draft for 6 consecutive years thereafter. That list may start and end with LeBron James.

My point is it's the situation, not the player.



That trio didn't even play one full season together. I don't recall the exact numbers, but between Rudy coming over at the trade deadline and games missed to due injury or whatever, I believe it was less than 30 games. IT was traded that offseason. So your expectation is unrealistic.

What you should be harping on is the fact that ownership and the front office didn't give those 3 players anywhere near adequate time to play together to see what they had. They were obviously wrong on IT's potential. And even if they didn't think it would work despite the small sample size (I think they were close to.500?), they still let him go for a freaking trade exception.

It was forty games, and the Kings played .475 ball (19-21) with all three in the lineup. It does beg the question of what could have happened if management had given Malone a full season with that trio.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

It was forty games, and the Kings played .475 ball (19-21) with all three in the lineup. It does beg the question of what could have happened if management had given Malone a full season with that trio.

Thanks for correcting. I figured somebody would. I normally research those type of things, but wasn't feeling motivated to do so. I knew it was far less than a full season for sure and that they were 'around' .500 and that was really the crux of the point.

They were 2 games under .500 all while first learning to play together. Imagine what that trio might be doing today given IT's improvement and another shooter or two in the mix. I feel very confident we'd already be looking forward to the playoffs.

The Kings ownership and FO have had some opportunities for a winner, but blew it up themselves. First IT then Malone then Boogie.