[Game] Kings v. Nuggets - 3/11/17 - 7:30PT/10:30ET
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
The Hammer
All-Star
Tuned in just to make sure they were losing so I can collect my points.
Great to see the team is all smiles after the loss.
Grant "I know the losses are tough, but you're looking at the future."
On the plus side Grant seems a lot happier.
Great to see the team is all smiles after the loss.
Grant "I know the losses are tough, but you're looking at the future."
On the plus side Grant seems a lot happier.
That movie came out 56 years ago. Way to make me feel old!
SLAB
Hall of Famer
I'm sure glad that propaganda spewing troll is happy. That makes 1-8 okay, because FUTURE!!!
That movie came out 56 years ago. Way to make me feel old!
There was a remake. It's all good.
No, CULTURE. You see culture. And you will be reminded of such until you can't forget it.
Telemachus
Starter
I completely forgot that the forum was called the graffiti board. Brings back a lot of memories.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
While the team certainly hit some rough patches earlier this season, that 1-8 record including some of the easiest games on the schedule this season pretty much proves that the team is in no way better without it's former best player. Despite all the bogus reasons they continue to spew, a team simply does not get better by giving talent away. As Coach Joerger said, chemistry doesn't win -- talent does.
Jeremy Fraser
G-League
That talent got us past 30 wins one time
SLAB
Hall of Famer
And without that former talent we'd be lucky to crack 10.
It was a "rest of the team" thing not a "DeMarcus Cousins" thing.
Jeremy Fraser
G-League
Of course, it's never a "DeMarcus Cousins" thing. It is always everyone elses fault. Never his. The one consistent piece during these abysmal 7 years couldn't possibly have any part of the failures because he puts up SO MANY STATS AND HE WANTED TO BE HERE!!!11
SLAB
Hall of Famer
And the Kings are so much better off without him, right? All the problems of the past several seasons have been fixed since DMC has been traded? Give me a break.
It's only been 9 games. Everyone knew the Kings after the trade would be immediately worse off. The results haven't been unexpected.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
That's not my point. What I'm saying is that now it's pretty clear that it was THE LOUSY TEAM (as shown by their post-trade ineptitude) and not DMC who was at major fault for the sub-par continual win totals.
(And also don't forget about management. Keep McBen for 5 years, yet give away IT. Keep Jason Thompson for 20 years, yet cut Hassan Whiteside. Also not DMC's fault, but that's for a different thread)
Did DMC hurt the team sometimes? Sure. Can't argue with that. But I don't see how you can watch what this team is doing now, and say "Boy, It was all DMC that made us never win more than 30 games."
That's true. Some pretty bad players have worn a Kings uniform in the past decade and the few good ones we ran out of town. The bigger question we need to explore is if Cousins was part of the solution to the ineptitude and incompetence that has permeated this franchise. We have a bad owner and bad GM and Cousins is not without his faults. Some reports suggest Cousins is a cancer in the locker room. It's all speculation, but if true that type of thing could bring a team down. If you are going to be a perennial 30 win team, what's the point of keeping a player who pollutes the locker room?
Jeremy Fraser
G-League
Unfortunately we won't be getting that awesome 35 wins we were on pace for. The raw stats he put up certainly are missed to remain that wonderful treadmill team we were going to always be with him. As far as the (and close your eyes now because I'm going to drop that horrible "f" word fans here hate) future is concerned, we're in 9939393838x better shape than any time in recent memory. We were going to have 0 picks in this deep draft, now we have 2 top 7 picks. We have a lottery pick from last year who's showing a ton of promise. WCS looks a hundred times better than he ever did with Cousins, and I'd say that clear confidence boost is no coincidence. We are seeing a 19 year old prospect who never got time show a ton of promise with his new found time on the court which he would have never seen with Cousins. We are also not seeing points given away on defense because our "superstar" constantly gives no effort getting back on defense because he's too busy crying to the refs and moping up the court.
But you will, as usual, look past the fact that we are clearly in much better shape going forward because you think edging out 35 wins year in and year out is better than having the necessary pieces to become a good team a few years down the line. You'll continue to mock the word "future" as if it's not a fact we are much better off in this scenario. You will also mock the word "culture" as if it's not clear as day that Cousins is the last guy in the world you want around for youth development which is what we are in desperate need of. You and others here were fine settling with a ceiling that was and was always going to be mediocrity (and that's being generous because we never were close to being a mediocre team during his tenure) because he was the most talented player we've had since the golden years. I get it, it's hard to get past that. But you need to stop looking at things with your #15 shades on and look at the reality of the situation. We weren't going anywhere and had the 2nd most bleak future behind the Nets had we retained him. I can't possibly come up with a scenario where we became a legit team with Cousins locked in on that massive contract.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
I think SLAB made a reasonable comment and you interpreted it wrong.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
^^^^ It's all about players we pick panning out. The future is as bright or as bleak as whoever we pick up. I personally think it's going to be difficult to replace what we gave up.
You could be right. Or I could be right. The draft is a crapshoot. We have darts now. But we can hit bullseyes or we could miss the board.
What I do know, we had a single player who for all his faults put up 27/10/4 and seemed to still be getting better. He took a team that would normally win 10 games, and made them a 30 win team. He carried the weight of the entire franchise on his back, and his back alone. I still think an actual team could be built around him, and Sacramento **** the bed every single step of the way.
You could be right. Or I could be right. The draft is a crapshoot. We have darts now. But we can hit bullseyes or we could miss the board.
What I do know, we had a single player who for all his faults put up 27/10/4 and seemed to still be getting better. He took a team that would normally win 10 games, and made them a 30 win team. He carried the weight of the entire franchise on his back, and his back alone. I still think an actual team could be built around him, and Sacramento **** the bed every single step of the way.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
I think you and SLAB went past each other in whatever subject you think you are discussing. Go out in the hall and have a chat.
No one, and I mean no one, predicted the emergence of Malachi and Skal. In fact they were kind of the throw in pieces to a trade that netted us Big Pappa. It's interesting how the derision for Vlade's trade has subsided. It was unpredictable. Should we go back in time and take Chriss? I can't remember who exactly we got in that trade but the names already mentioned come to mind. And where did Bogdan come from? Actually I have forgotten. The point is that hindsight is 20-20. If anyone wants to use that logic, so be it, but it's not really fair in my view of the world.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
It's not clear if the team, in 4-5 years, will be better with Hield, their own pick this year, Pelicans pick, and a potential top 5 next year (compared to treadmill). Especially given the massive contract Cousins would receive and his health as a 270 pounder. which is why it's hard to take any stock from the trade.
Hahaha...and of course it got better when he left right? Ridiculous
Jeremy Fraser
G-League
Because things have to immediately get better for it to be the right decision, right? Mindsets like this are what keeps bad franchises from growing. Reminds me of when the Raiders went 8-8 two consecutive years in '10/'11. By far their best years in nearly a decade. New GM comes in and cleans all the bad contracts and culture and team is awful again the next few years. Raiders fans were calling for Reggie McKenzie's head because the team finally put out a decent product and he scrapped it. Now he's viewed as a brilliant GM and the Raiders are possibly the most promising team in the NFL with impeccable culture. Had he have kept the roster and coach, they probably could have squeaked out a few more mediocre years and temporary (relative) happiness among the fans at the cost of mortgaging the future. Instead, he weighed the options of being temporarily decent with a bleak future after, or gutting the team and making decisions to become formidable in the future. He chose the latter and, as is typically the case when that option is chosen, it was correct and now as a Raiders fans, I am seeing the fruits of that painful 4/5 year process come about.
Completely different scenarios, but the idea is the same. The best decision for a good future is generally going to be hated at the time by fans because everyone wants something right now, not a lot of fans like thinking 4 years down the road if it means being bad right now. But when that time hits and you have these blossoming players instead of that one supreme talent, that ONLY talent and one who was only going to sustain mediocrity, you'll look back and be happy you have something to look forward to instead of an aging, declining player, no cap space and no young talent to look forward to.
I was part of the group calling for Reggie's head during that process for the Raiders and I it was quite the learning experience. I'll take the awful now and a bright future instead of being slightly better than awful and no future.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
You are right and Dude12 apologizes. Is everything fine now? The important point that people seem to ignore depending on the argument, I presume, is that the trade was not Tyreke, Hield, and Galloway - players on the team now - for Boogie. We also got a 1st round draft pick that might be very valuable and a 2nd rounder, I think. Hield and the first rounder are the key.
Yeah, not all of those players that McKenzie got rid of were the problem......it's also football. Basketball more than any other sport is won with premium talent. But good try.
But this goes back to the question that I always find myself asking whenever I see people making this argument: so, what's the timetable, though? Because, if you're going to try and convince people that a trade will make a team better "in the long run," there has to be a reasonable timetable for "the long run," beyond which it is no longer legitimate to attribute any success that the team may or not have to the trade.
So, no, things do not "have to immediately get better for it to be the right decision," don't be ridiculous. But, if not now, when? Because "It will get better eventually, just wait and see" is not a good enough answer.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll