Only way to rebuild

[funkykingston]

Thanks, Man! I really appreciate your input in this. Goes without saying that I very much agree with what you write. It seems that we actually see the same things. It is about coaching and if the coach "rules", you don't have to have the top picks in the lottery to become a basketball dynasty. I didn't go into coaching legends, such as Phil Jackson and Pat Riley for instance, because they had all the great players there to produce. Maybe Jackson's Bulls were a bit real coaching products. However, there are so many superstars that never won anything, because they weren't coachable or refused to buy into systems. Bron has two rings despite not being coachable (and the one against the Spurs was pure luck), but he could have 6-7 by now if he was.

I don't think there's any issue with Cousins buying into a system. He bought into what Malone wanted him to do. That's what made his firing so frustrating to me. It isn't as if Malone was a coaching genius or the second coming of Popovich but he did get Boogie to buy in and there's a reason he went from being a mediocre to poor defender to a very good defender during that span.

And it isn't that the Kings need to hire a coach that Cousins likes and/or one that will coddle and placate him. Keith Smart was very buddy-buddy, talked often about creating a "family" atmosphere around the team and gave Cousins pretty much free reign. That didn't work and that's not what the team needs or honestly what I think Cousins wants.

To get the most out of Cousins it's pretty straightforward. You need a coach that plays straight with him who he feels he can trust and who knows how to properly utilize such a talented offensive big man. Add the right complimentary players and I think you'd see a playoff team.

Yes, the next coach should have a good relationship with Cousins. That doesn't mean being a pushover or a punching bag. Quite the opposite really. He should be a coach who commands respect because he knows how to put his players in a position to win games and because he is honest and upfront with Cousins.

 

[bajaden]

Popovich is the greatest coach of this era and one of the best of all time if not the best. But credit needs to go to Tim Duncan for letting him become that by being coachable. Duncan was a consensus #1 pick when he came out and he would have been the #1 had he come out the year before too. He was (barring injury) one of the few "can't miss" prospects that I've seen. But he allowed himself to be coached. Pop would yell at Timmy and he'd take it. Duncan set the tone for things. If your best player and perennial MVP candidate is going to let the coach ride him then everybody is. Tony Parker has talked about this. He was 19 coming in and Pop was merciless with him. But he looked at Popovich getting on Duncan and realized he just had to accept it and grow.

It was Pop and Duncan together that created the Spurs culture. And once they did they the Spurs could bring in guys that fit the system and had the attitude that they wanted. It was a synergy between star and coach that allowed that to develop. If somehow Popovich had LeBron instead of Timmy I don't think he ever gets to the level he's at.



Golden State is an interesting case to look at in terms of the impact of coaching. Outside of drafting Curry, Thompson & Green, the biggest thing that changed the Warriors into contenders was trading Monta Ellis, Epke Udoh & Kwame Brown for Andrew Bogut and Stephen Jackson, the latter of whom was flipped to S.A. for a 2nd rounder that became Ezeli. That deal moved Curry to PG (he and Ellis were both PG/SGs before) and Thompson to SG, it gave them a defensive anchor in the middle, and it let them finish the year bad enough (remember that Bogut was hurt) to drop deeper into the lottery where they nabbed Harrison Barnes.

Jackson coached them into the playoffs the next two years (into the second round and then an underwhelming first round exit) but they won 51 games that year. I don't think it was so much Kerr transforming them into winners as Jackson holding them back from reaching their potential. At least that was certainly the Warriors' front offices' opinion. And I think they were right. Kerr has done a fantastic job, but I think it's overstating it to say that he was the main reason for the Warriors improvement. Curry stopped getting hurt and became otherworldly. Thompson became a very good defender and even improved as a shooter/scorer. An extra year together, Draymond Green's emergence and the addition of finals MVP Andre Iguodala were all part of it.

We can differ on how much credit Kerr deserves but to me the telling part was that with Kerr gone from the sidelines Luke Walton guided the Warriors to a historic start. Unless we believe that Walton is a coaching legend himself then it does have to take a little bit of Kerr's shine.



Speaking of Lebron . . .

I like David Blatt. I think he's a very good coach. But he was forced to bend to LeBron's will. Blatt wanted to run some elements of the Princeton offense. LeBron didn't. And so the Cavs threw out that part of their playbook. James routinely waved off Blatt's plays, even saying so directly in one post game interview when he changed the final play himself. We didn't really get to see how good of a coach Blatt was because he was handcuffed by having to kowtow to his best player.

I agree that Duncan deserves some of the credit, but every relationship requires two partners, so Pop's deserves an equal amount as well. Without his iron hand, and control of the organization, it wouldn't have mattered what Duncan did. The truth is, Duncan fit the style of play that Pop's wanted, so from the get go, it was a perfect match. Most people say that with any organization, it starts at the top. I happen to agree. But you can't say it starts at the top, and then argue that whatever moves that are made have to be made with the approval of your best player. Your either in charge, or your not. I do think you have to take you best player into consideration, but you can't allow him to dictate your decisions. Your results will determine whether you were right or wrong.

Some would look at the Warriors as a miracle of sorts, but as I pointed out, if you have a plan, and know what your doing, your going to improve, and if you have some luck along the way as well, then you might have a contender. The Warriors made good choices in the draft. At one point, they realized that Ellis, and established, popular star, was holding back the potential of Curry. So they made a bold and unpopular move at the time, and traded Ellis. Bogut was a risky move because of his past history of being injured. Don't forget that they also drafted Harrison Barnes as well. So yes they did have some luck, but they had a plan and the plan worked. The question is, what is our plan?

I'm sure some people think that Kerr just lucked out and fell into a great gig. But he's a smart guy with lot's of experience, especially playoff experience. He knows a lot about winning. And hey, he's another ex-point guard, and PG's tend to make good NBA coaches. I think he's a better coach than he's given credit for. While the Warriors never missed a beat while Kerr was gone, you have to give credit to the organization he put in place. Or that someone put in place. It'll be interesting to see what the Warriors do this next offseason. Will they actually go after Durant, and totally change the complexion of the team, or will they try and bring Barnes back for another run. Personally, I think they need a Willie Cauley-Stein type player on the team. Dwight Howard maybe? Naw!

 

[bajaden]

Its hard to overvalue the best player at his position in the entire league.

Many Kings fans though rather sadly engage in a peculiar form of self loathing.

Consider:

15-16 Cousins 34.6min 27.1pts (.537TS%) 11.4reb 3.3ast 1.4stl 1.3blk 3.9TO
00-01 Webber 40.5min 27.1pts (.516TS%) 11.1reb 4.2ast 1.3stl 1.7blk 2.8TO



But then again, maybe I am using the wrong comparison too, since there were always a contingent of Kings fans/blithering idiots who didn't like Webber either. Its built into Kings fans DNA.

To be honest, I think most of the fan's on this forum undervalue all the players on the team. Comes from losing all the time. Even the fans develop a losing mentality. The truth is, Cousins is worth what you can get for him, and that depends on how desperate a team is to have him, and also what they have to offer that the Kings might want back in return. Generally its teams that are almost contenders that will show the most interest. They look at Cuz as the final piece to get them over the top. The problem is, they usually don't want to give up any of their other valuable pieces. It's usually a team like the Celtics that has a lot of draft picks and borderline star players that they don't mind giving up. Doesn't sound all the attractive does it?

 

[funkykingston]

I agree that Duncan deserves some of the credit, but every relationship requires two partners, so Pop's deserves an equal amount as well. Without his iron hand, and control of the organization, it wouldn't have mattered what Duncan did. The truth is, Duncan fit the style of play that Pop's wanted, so from the get go, it was a perfect match. Most people say that with any organization, it starts at the top. I happen to agree. But you can't say it starts at the top, and then argue that whatever moves that are made have to be made with the approval of your best player. Your either in charge, or your not. I do think you have to take you best player into consideration, but you can't allow him to dictate your decisions. Your results will determine whether you were right or wrong.

Exactly. There has to be a synergy between the players and the coach and above all else, between the team's star player or players. Pop and Duncan are a perfect fit. Karl and Cousins are not. I would never advocate giving DeMarcus Cousins any sway over who is hired as coach (and I don't believe Boogie would want any) but the goal should be to get a guy who is a perfect fit with him - assuming Cousins isn't traded this summer. And to me that just means someone who is real, who stands by his word and who knows how to utilize such a versatile and powerful big man. That's it.

At one point, they realized that Ellis, an established, popular star, was holding back the potential of Curry.

I agree with most of what you said about the Warriors but I grabbed this quote because it reminded me of an article I read not to long back. Here's the pertinent quote:

Ellis and Curry were both dynamic combo guards, each listed at 6-foot-3 but probably a little shorter. Neither could realistically be expected to defend the Kobe Bryants and James Hardens of the NBA.

“You can’t play two 6-1 guards,” West said. “And I love Monta. He competes every darn night, a fierce competitor. That’s the thing we really love about him. But at the end of the day, no team is gonna win with a backcourt that small.”

Mark Jackson actually told Steph Curry that if he were healthy at the time he would have been traded for Bogut instead of Ellis. Larry Riley denies that Curry was ever offered in trade. But the big point for me is that Jerry West comes out and says, "you can't win with two 6'1" guards. Lillard & McCollum seem to be doing okay but we'll see when the playoffs roll around. But I was more thinking of the Kings. I know the cupboard is pretty bare at SG but continuing to roll out a Rondo/Collison backcourt is apparently as bad an idea in Jerry West's mind as it is in the minds of most Kings fans. At least Curry/Ellis and Lillard/McCollum are pairs that can each play off the ball. Paul/Collison worked in stretches for that same reason. But Rondo/Collison? It rarely pays dividends and apparently everyone but Karl & his staff can see that.

 

[bajaden]

Thanks, Man! I really appreciate your input in this. Goes without saying that I very much agree with what you write. It seems that we actually see the same things. It is about coaching and if the coach "rules", you don't have to have the top picks in the lottery to become a basketball dynasty. I didn't go into coaching legends, such as Phil Jackson and Pat Riley for instance, because they had all the great players there to produce. Maybe Jackson's Bulls were a bit real coaching products. However, there are so many superstars that never won anything, because they weren't coachable or refused to buy into systems. Bron has two rings despite not being coachable (and the one against the Spurs was pure luck), but he could have 6-7 by now if he was.

First, the reason you like what Funky writes, is that he tries to do, and successfully I might add, what I try and do. That's to take the emotion out of it, and think objectively. I try and look at the Kings as though I were a fan from another team. Or perhaps a national sports writer with no agenda. It's hard to not let my bias sneak in at times though. Funky is better at it than I'am.

With Phil Jackson, remember that the Lakers, even though they had both Shaq and Kobe, couldn't win a championship until Jackson showed up. So you have to give credit where its due. With Riley, he was the showtime, run and gun coach with the Lakers, and then he went to the Knicks, and totally changed his coaching style and made the Knicks into the bruisers of the east. In other words he adapted to his available players. No doubt he, like Jackson, had a lot of talent, but both coaches knew what to do with that talent. Both Riley and Jackson are great motivators.

I'll always remember a game where the Lakers were either tied, or down a point to us with around 8 seconds left in the game and they had the ball. Riley had called a timeout to set up the final play and he sat there with his chalk board ready as they came into the bench. He held up the chalk board for all to see, and it said, "For men only". Naturally them came out and won the game. I hated him and the team then, but I had to respect them.

 

[bajaden]

Exactly. There has to be a synergy between the players and the coach and above all else, between the team's star player or players. Pop and Duncan are a perfect fit. Karl and Cousins are not. I would never advocate giving DeMarcus Cousins any sway over who is hired as coach (and I don't believe Boogie would want any) but the goal should be to get a guy who is a perfect fit with him - assuming Cousins isn't traded this summer. And to me that just means someone who is real, who stands by his word and who knows how to utilize such a versatile and powerful big man. That's it.



I agree with most of what you said about the Warriors but I grabbed this quote because it reminded me of an article I read not to long back. Here's the pertinent quote:



Mark Jackson actually told Steph Curry that if he were healthy at the time he would have been traded for Bogut instead of Ellis. Larry Riley denies that Curry was ever offered in trade. But the big point for me is that Jerry West comes out and says, "you can't win with two 6'1" guards. Lillard & McCollum seem to be doing okay but we'll see when the playoffs roll around. But I was more thinking of the Kings. I know the cupboard is pretty bare at SG but continuing to roll out a Rondo/Collison backcourt is apparently as bad an idea in Jerry West's mind as it is in the minds of most Kings fans. At least Curry/Ellis and Lillard/McCollum are pairs that can each play off the ball. Paul/Collison worked in stretches for that same reason. But Rondo/Collison? It rarely pays dividends and apparently everyone but Karl & his staff can see that.

I agree with you about trying to win with two small guards in the lineup at the same time. Especially if their out there for significant minutes. My comment about Ellis was strictly about the PR fallout that they knew was going to come from the fans. Ellis was extremely popular and that trade didn't go over very well at the time. Of course now it's, Monte who? I have tremendous respect for Jerry West who has been successful everywhere he's gone. I know Vlade inquired about his son coming to the Kings, hoping for a chip off the old block.

By the way, both Curry and McCollum are 6'3.25" tall in shoes, so they at least come close to SG height. McCollum has a 6'6" wingspan. Not exceptional, but better than Curry's 6'3" wingspan. Lillard who is just a shade under 6'3" in shoes, has a 6'8" wingspan. So while the height of Lillard and McCollum may not be perfect, it's a lot better than Collison and Rondo. I would like ti keep Collison and let Rondo walk.

 

[randymoss1881]

Popovich is the greatest coach of this era and one of the best of all time if not the best. But credit needs to go to Tim Duncan for letting him become that by being coachable. Duncan was a consensus #1 pick when he came out and he would have been the #1 had he come out the year before too. He was (barring injury) one of the few "can't miss" prospects that I've seen. But he allowed himself to be coached. Pop would yell at Timmy and he'd take it. Duncan set the tone for things. If your best player and perennial MVP candidate is going to let the coach ride him then everybody is. Tony Parker has talked about this. He was 19 coming in and Pop was merciless with him. But he looked at Popovich getting on Duncan and realized he just had to accept it and grow.

It was Pop and Duncan together that created the Spurs culture. And once they did they the Spurs could bring in guys that fit the system and had the attitude that they wanted. It was a synergy between star and coach that allowed that to develop. If somehow Popovich had LeBron instead of Timmy I don't think he ever gets to the level he's at.



Golden State is an interesting case to look at in terms of the impact of coaching. Outside of drafting Curry, Thompson & Green, the biggest thing that changed the Warriors into contenders was trading Monta Ellis, Epke Udoh & Kwame Brown for Andrew Bogut and Stephen Jackson, the latter of whom was flipped to S.A. for a 2nd rounder that became Ezeli. That deal moved Curry to PG (he and Ellis were both PG/SGs before) and Thompson to SG, it gave them a defensive anchor in the middle, and it let them finish the year bad enough (remember that Bogut was hurt) to drop deeper into the lottery where they nabbed Harrison Barnes.

Jackson coached them into the playoffs the next two years (into the second round and then an underwhelming first round exit) but they won 51 games that year. I don't think it was so much Kerr transforming them into winners as Jackson holding them back from reaching their potential. At least that was certainly the Warriors' front offices' opinion. And I think they were right. Kerr has done a fantastic job, but I think it's overstating it to say that he was the main reason for the Warriors improvement. Curry stopped getting hurt and became otherworldly. Thompson became a very good defender and even improved as a shooter/scorer. An extra year together, Draymond Green's emergence and the addition of finals MVP Andre Iguodala were all part of it.

We can differ on how much credit Kerr deserves but to me the telling part was that with Kerr gone from the sidelines Luke Walton guided the Warriors to a historic start. Unless we believe that Walton is a coaching legend himself then it does have to take a little bit of Kerr's shine.



Speaking of Lebron . . .

I like David Blatt. I think he's a very good coach. But he was forced to bend to LeBron's will. Blatt wanted to run some elements of the Princeton offense. LeBron didn't. And so the Cavs threw out that part of their playbook. James routinely waved off Blatt's plays, even saying so directly in one post game interview when he changed the final play himself. We didn't really get to see how good of a coach Blatt was because he was handcuffed by having to kowtow to his best player.

Which is why I want Blatt he can coach.

 

[ParniValjak]

Its hard to overvalue the best player at his position in the entire league.

Many Kings fans though rather sadly engage in a peculiar form of self loathing.

Consider:

15-16 Cousins 34.6min 27.1pts (.537TS%) 11.4reb 3.3ast 1.4stl 1.3blk 3.9TO
00-01 Webber 40.5min 27.1pts (.516TS%) 11.1reb 4.2ast 1.3stl 1.7blk 2.8TO



But then again, maybe I am using the wrong comparison too, since there were always a contingent of Kings fans/blithering idiots who didn't like Webber either. Its built into Kings fans DNA.

It's because they don't know what franchise players look like and as soon as they have one, unless they are invincible and perfect, it's time to ship them out and pin our hopes on something else much less tangible.

Thankfully, Vlade is not an idiot and he will not be looking to trade Cousins. He will do everything in his power to build around him, starting with the right coach and then, right types of players. This team needs synergy between the front office and the coaches and the players. I feel like there is currently synergy between the front office and the players but not between the front office and the coach and the players and the coach. A big disconnect.

 

[funkykingston]

I agree with you about trying to win with two small guards in the lineup at the same time. Especially if their out there for significant minutes. My comment about Ellis was strictly about the PR fallout that they knew was going to come from the fans. Ellis was extremely popular and that trade didn't go over very well at the time. Of course now it's, Monte who? I have tremendous respect for Jerry West who has been successful everywhere he's gone. I know Vlade inquired about his son coming to the Kings, hoping for a chip off the old block.

By the way, both Curry and McCollum are 6'3.25" tall in shoes, so they at least come close to SG height. McCollum has a 6'6" wingspan. Not exceptional, but better than Curry's 6'3" wingspan. Lillard who is just a shade under 6'3" in shoes, has a 6'8" wingspan. So while the height of Lillard and McCollum may not be perfect, it's a lot better than Collison and Rondo. I would like ti keep Collison and let Rondo walk.

Remember how much the GS fans booed Lacob and Riley etc after that Monta trade? It wasn't JUST that Ellis was a fan favorite, it was also that with Curry and Bogut both hurt they were essentially throwing in the towel on the rest of that season. One other thing about that trade was that it allowed Thompson to move from SF to SG which gave him a size advantage vs playing the three where he often was at a size/strength disadvantage.

As for wingspan's I believe Rondo's is 6'9". But he and Collison are both around 175 lbs and Rondo doesn't give much effort on D a lot of nights. I'd be okay with Rondo moving on too. Rondo is an amazing offensive conductor but very limited by his poor shooting and poor defense.

But I think Cousins will go to bat to keep him. So unless this team is completely blown up this summer and Boogie gets dealt I think Rondo will re-sign with the Kings unless another team goes nuts with an offer to him. I don't like the idea of a huge payday and a multi-year deal for Rajon but I'm guessing that happens.

I'm slowly coming around to the idea of trading Cousins. Not because I want him moved but because I don't see a way to quickly get from where the team is now to where it needs to be to compete. And I've grown more concerned with Boogie's tendency to give up and act out when the going gets tough.

I think Cousins would be best off on a winning team that has an established star. Even if Boogie is the better player, I think in some ways he would benefit from not being thought of as the guy.

 

[Henkel]

There's no way the Kings deal him for anything less. Straight up for Russell, we don't pick up the phone. Straight up for Simmons (who is tantalizing but far from a sure thing), we don't pick up the phone. Basically any hope the Lakers have of getting Cousins would revolve around Russell and their lottery pick this year.

Now, I don't think he's actually for sale - but that's the price.

Love put up 26 12 & 4 on a 40 win team his final season in Minnesota. I don't assume Cousins will fetch more then Love, which was considered a good trade for Minnesota at the time. If Cuz gets traded it's going to be under similar circumstances. Russell and the first pick is a much better deal then the No.1 pick and Anthony Bennett. Cousins would have a extra year on his contract, but I don't think that's worth the added value a prospect like Russel brings.

 

[Bricklayer]

Love put up 26 12 & 4 on a 40 win team his final season in Minnesota. I don't assume Cousins will fetch more then Love, which was considered a good trade for Minnesota at the time. If Cuz gets traded it's going to be under similar circumstances. Russell and the first pick is a much better deal then the No.1 pick and Anthony Bennett. Cousins would have a extra year on his contract, but I don't think that's worth the added value a prospect like Russel brings.

I am not sure why people continue to talk about this. This is just setting up a whole bunch of ridiculous "disappointment" and fighting this summer.

Vlade Divac is never trading Cousins.

There have been no indications at all that Vivek is trading Cousins.

We are headed into a new building.

Cousins himself has said repeatedly he wants to win, to be the player that brings winning back to Sacramento.


And yet fans continue to talk themselves in circles about how we might trade Cousins, occasionally aided by media members holding a circlejerk. It makes no sense at all. Fans completely ignore everything in some sort of bizarre, well I won't say wish, I will say "nightmare fulfillment" pursuit. Yeah, we are going to declare a sudden rebuild just as we move into a new building? Really? We are going to declare a sudden rebuild in a season when we still have a pick swap with Philly, so being terrible won't even net us any spoils? Really? Not a single party has shown any indication they want it to happen but the fans are going to endlessly talk about it happening anyway?

 

[Henkel]

I am not sure why people continue to talk about this. This is just setting up a whole bunch of ridiculous "disappointment" and fighting this summer.

Vlade Divac is never trading Cousins.

There have been no indications at all that Vivek is trading Cousins.

We are headed into a new building.

Cousins himself has said repeatedly he wants to win, to be the player that brings winning back to Sacramento.


And yet fans continue to talk themselves in circles about who we might trade Cousins, occasionally aided by media members holding a circlejerk. It makes no sense at all.

By choice we agree. No team is trading Cousins unless they have to. If he gets traded, which I agree is unlikely, it will because he and his agent force the Kings hand. Just like Love did or a number of other disgruntled stars have.

And yet fans continue to talk themselves in circles about how we might trade Cousins, occasionally aided by media members holding a circlejerk. It makes no sense at all. Fans completely ignore everything in some sort of bizarre, well I won't say wish, I will say "nightmare fulfillment" pursuit. Yeah, we are going to declare a sudden rebuild just as we move into a new building? Really? We are going to declare a sudden rebuild in a season when we still have a pick swap with Philly, so being terrible won't even net us any spoils? Really? Not a single party has shown any indication they want it to happen but the fans are going to endlessly talk about it happening anyway?

Why'd you quote my post to tee off? I was responding to his value if a trade went down, not advocating or expecting one.

The one point I've always made regarding a Cousins trade is making moves without considering the possible of Cousins forcing his way out is short sighted. If that happens you're rebuilding, whether you want to or not.

 

[randymoss1881]

I am not sure why people continue to talk about this. This is just setting up a whole bunch of ridiculous "disappointment" and fighting this summer.

Vlade Divac is never trading Cousins.

There have been no indications at all that Vivek is trading Cousins.

We are headed into a new building.

Cousins himself has said repeatedly he wants to win, to be the player that brings winning back to Sacramento.


And yet fans continue to talk themselves in circles about how we might trade Cousins, occasionally aided by media members holding a circlejerk. It makes no sense at all. Fans completely ignore everything in some sort of bizarre, well I won't say wish, I will say "nightmare fulfillment" pursuit. Yeah, we are going to declare a sudden rebuild just as we move into a new building? Really? We are going to declare a sudden rebuild in a season when we still have a pick swap with Philly, so being terrible won't even net us any spoils? Really? Not a single party has shown any indication they want it to happen but the fans are going to endlessly talk about it happening anyway?

Preach!!

Love put up 26 12 & 4 on a 40 win team his final season in Minnesota. I don't assume Cousins will fetch more then Love, which was considered a good trade for Minnesota at the time. If Cuz gets traded it's going to be under similar circumstances. Russell and the first pick is a much better deal then the No.1 pick and Anthony Bennett. Cousins would have a extra year on his contract, but I don't think that's worth the added value a prospect like Russel brings.

1. Cousins if traded would have 2 years left vs loves 1 year.
2. Everyone knew Loce was a star padder who plays 0 defense. crap his owner came out and said so, im pretty sure if an owner can see it GMs knew it.

 

[kingsboi]

Remember how much the GS fans booed Lacob and Riley etc after that Monta trade? It wasn't JUST that Ellis was a fan favorite, it was also that with Curry and Bogut both hurt they were essentially throwing in the towel on the rest of that season. One other thing about that trade was that it allowed Thompson to move from SF to SG which gave him a size advantage vs playing the three where he often was at a size/strength disadvantage.

As for wingspan's I believe Rondo's is 6'9". But he and Collison are both around 175 lbs and Rondo doesn't give much effort on D a lot of nights. I'd be okay with Rondo moving on too. Rondo is an amazing offensive conductor but very limited by his poor shooting and poor defense.

But I think Cousins will go to bat to keep him. So unless this team is completely blown up this summer and Boogie gets dealt I think Rondo will re-sign with the Kings unless another team goes nuts with an offer to him. I don't like the idea of a huge payday and a multi-year deal for Rajon but I'm guessing that happens.

I'm slowly coming around to the idea of trading Cousins. Not because I want him moved but because I don't see a way to quickly get from where the team is now to where it needs to be to compete. And I've grown more concerned with Boogie's tendency to give up and act out when the going gets tough.

I think Cousins would be best off on a winning team that has an established star. Even if Boogie is the better player, I think in some ways he would benefit from not being thought of as the guy.

Even if Cousins never comes out and says he wants a trade, I feel him leaving this organization will be the best thing for his career moving forward. That's if he is serious about ever winning a championship, if not, he can just go through the motions like Carmelo did in Denver and is doing in New York now.

 

[Henkel]

1. Cousins if traded would have 2 years left vs loves 1 year.

Mentioned that already, not worth a player like Russel.

2. Everyone knew Loce was a star padder who plays 0 defense. poopoo his owner came out and said so, im pretty sure if an owner can see it GMs knew it.

Bullcrap. That's not how Love was viewed and that is not how he was valued around the league. But fine you don't like Love. Go back and look at other stars forcing their way out and you'll see the Love deal is actually a good one for the Wolves.

 

[206Fan]

LOL! Yeah, I would love to have him. Just trying to be real. If I'm the Lakers, I don't trade Russell. He's been mishandled this year. If your the Lakers, and you see the way the league is going with Portland and the Warriors, you don't let go of a young PG with his potential. Not only is he a great passer with terrific court vision, but the dude can shoot as well. He just scratched the surface this season.

I'm a bit surprised by this lotto class, all of them have looked amazing.

The Kings have to be extremely smart about their pick this year. I'm a bit concerned that Vlade may put it on the trading block for immediate help. In all this talk of the playoffs, believe it or not, the Kings are currently 8th in the lotto race. Quick Hypothetical mock in terms of team needs... PHI- Simmons LAK- Ingram Suns-Bender Celts-Brown MIN- Murray NO- Hield DEN- Jackson(not a lot of needs, except a PG.........Jackson would be great off the bench).

Leaves you with: Dunn, Baldwin, Poeltl, Rabb, Ellenson, Johnson, Korkmaz, and Luwawu.Cross out PF/C and raw players since Vlade wants pro-ready players(evidence of WCS pick and comments about Porzingis..and comments throughout the year....).

Leaves you with Dunn, Baldwin, and Luwawu. To be honest, I think it would be better for the Kings to pick later than sooner. It would help us narrow down our choices with limited mistake...

Even though we've failed with the draft, the Kings need to rebuild through it. It's the only way we'll be able to be competitive again.

 

[Kingster]

I don't think there's any issue with Cousins buying into a system. He bought into what Malone wanted him to do. That's what made his firing so frustrating to me. It isn't as if Malone was a coaching genius or the second coming of Popovich but he did get Boogie to buy in and there's a reason he went from being a mediocre to poor defender to a very good defender during that span.

And it isn't that the Kings need to hire a coach that Cousins likes and/or one that will coddle and placate him. Keith Smart was very buddy-buddy, talked often about creating a "family" atmosphere around the team and gave Cousins pretty much free reign. That didn't work and that's not what the team needs or honestly what I think Cousins wants.

To get the most out of Cousins it's pretty straightforward. You need a coach that plays straight with him who he feels he can trust and who knows how to properly utilize such a talented offensive big man. Add the right complimentary players and I think you'd see a playoff team.

Yes, the next coach should have a good relationship with Cousins. That doesn't mean being a pushover or a punching bag. Quite the opposite really. He should be a coach who commands respect because he knows how to put his players in a position to win games and because he is honest and upfront with Cousins.

I don't agree with the placating part. Every year we've seen news of one kind or another intimate there is placating on the part of coaches or management. Even Malone appeased him when he allowed Cousins to play his version of point guard. That was obviously not what any decent coach would allow with another center, unless he thought he had to. I also think that you just can't ignore the fact that Cousins has been the common denominator for losing for several years now. At the very very least, he may not be the core of the problem, but he certainly has not be the winning answer to the problem, which is not a great argument for keeping him. Moreover, it's just part of human nature, and maybe Cousins' distrustful nature in particular , that when you've had several coaches and several losing seasons on the same team, jadedness occurs, making it that much more difficult for the next coach to reach a player. Lastly, experience has taught us that finding the "right" coach for Cousins is a long shot. Now that the Kings reputation is **** around the league, the pool of new coaching candidates available to the Kings is as shallow as pond scum. So on the one hand the supply of good coaching candidates has been drastically reduced by the Kings bad reputation, whereas on the other hand most recognize that it takes a special coach to coach Cousins. Therefore, the probability of finding that rare gem of coach for Cousins is next to nothing, imo.