burekijogurt
Starter
btw, just shutting down Boogie is probably not wothout its unintended consequences in the locker room and team dynamics...
Revisiting the Cousins trade - again...
- Thread starter burekijogurt
- Start date
True
Someone might say trading away your franchise player could also do that. But you get over those type of things when you do whats best for the franchise. Those types of "dynamics" will get better if you have good coach and when the players see that it was a good decision. Wether it was trading your franchise player or shutting him down for the rest of the year like other teams do too.
Or if you are implying Cousins would've caused those problems, I believe he would've understood that he could've caused us to lose our pick and if he wanted to be here long term, I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted that. Having no picks for two straight years would've most likely ment death for the franchise and he probably knew that.
Either way I believe everything would've been better after the draft and after getting the new shiny prospect. But I just wont buy it that in order to keep the pick, you needed to completely get rid of your franchise player. Or if that had impact on the decision, I wouldnt even know what to say
burekijogurt
Starter
yeah i was saying Cousins would not have liked that decision and would cause trouble. but we never know what would happen if a different path is taken, too many variables. thats why I dont myself include Fox when defending the Cousins trade even though I can see the rationale for it. by the same token i dont know if we could have done the same by sitting Cousins without consequences.
King Baller
All-Star
Players are traded away every year by teams planning to tank. Why do you find it so bizarre?
I am and have been DMC's biggest defender with the possible exception of Bricklayer. If you think he would have understood, you're delusional. What's even more delusional is the idea that the Kings would have even considered doing that.
You can believe what you like. We didn't get rid of our franchise player to keep our draft pick. We got rid of our franchise player because it had gotten to the point where Vlade and Vivek had no other choice.
The Kings had two options - to super max Boogie or trade him. That was really the long and short of it. And now the reality is that Cousins is signed to a $5.3 million deal instead of a $200 million one.
We can argue about whether he was destined to have a major injury and the Kings dodged a bullet or if he was just played too many minutes (my feeling) in New Orleans. We can also argue about whether the Kings could have possibly had enough resources to build a winner around him with him averaging $40 million a season in salary or not. Personally I'd say probably not - too many years of bad lottery picks sealed that fate.
In my mind a rebuild had to happen. And that was more than just shutting Cousins down to end the season. It was moving him for other assets and allowing the team another poor season which allowed them to land Bagley. And it was also opening up playing time for the young bigs to see if they were building blocks going forward. The Kings were stuck in neutral with Cousins not being good enough to drag them singlehandedly out of the basement and not enough assets (or front office skill) to rebuild on the fly. We can argue the return that Vlade got but I think a trade had to happen. Fox was indirectly part of that deal while Buddy, JJ and Giles were direct results. Depending on how Boogie returns from his achilles tear, history may not view this as a lopsided trade. It may even be the case that the Kings end up the winners in the long run.
But honestly, right now I'm just rooting for Boogie and IT to come back strong with bounce back years that restart their careers. In every game other than when the Warriors and Nuggets play the Kings.
We can argue about whether he was destined to have a major injury and the Kings dodged a bullet or if he was just played too many minutes (my feeling) in New Orleans. We can also argue about whether the Kings could have possibly had enough resources to build a winner around him with him averaging $40 million a season in salary or not. Personally I'd say probably not - too many years of bad lottery picks sealed that fate.
In my mind a rebuild had to happen. And that was more than just shutting Cousins down to end the season. It was moving him for other assets and allowing the team another poor season which allowed them to land Bagley. And it was also opening up playing time for the young bigs to see if they were building blocks going forward. The Kings were stuck in neutral with Cousins not being good enough to drag them singlehandedly out of the basement and not enough assets (or front office skill) to rebuild on the fly. We can argue the return that Vlade got but I think a trade had to happen. Fox was indirectly part of that deal while Buddy, JJ and Giles were direct results. Depending on how Boogie returns from his achilles tear, history may not view this as a lopsided trade. It may even be the case that the Kings end up the winners in the long run.
But honestly, right now I'm just rooting for Boogie and IT to come back strong with bounce back years that restart their careers. In every game other than when the Warriors and Nuggets play the Kings.
I suppose the question is whether trades are a zero-sum game. I think the naive answer is "yes" but it may well be possible for trades to NOT be a zero-sum game - perhaps both teams can win, perhaps both teams can lose.
I think it's abundantly clear that New Orleans lost the trade. They gave up Buddy, a first round draft pick, and a second round draft pick to get 65 games of Cousins, and he never appeared in the playoffs for them, and then they lost him for absolutely nothing.
As you pointed out, it's not really clear whether we won the trade or not. The alternative to trading him would have been signing him to a super-max. Then, does he still tear his achilles? If he does tear his achilles and doesn't ever come back to the player he was, then we clearly win the trade. But even if he doesn't tear it, or f he does but he comes back strong, is he enough to be a better asset than Buddy+JJ+Giles+Mason and whatever downgrade from Fox+Bagley we would have had given our expected record with Cousins around? I have no idea. But given our continual inability to win with Cousins, I won't be surprised if the current group, once ripened, will lead us to a better record than Cousins ever did. I think our fanbase generally went into the trade hoping we didn't lose the trade hard, but at this point it looks like winning the trade is possible.
King Baller
All-Star
Fox being a King was a result of the Cousins trade IMO
Section 101
All-Star
They got Randle with his cap space.
Grant is probably loving this thread.
Kingz19
Hall of Famer
Still too early to tell from our end. If Buddy Hield and Harry Giles are a big part of our future and if Justin Jackson becomes part of that too it’s going to be a big win but that hasn’t been determined yet. It already looks significantly better than it did the year of.
What we do know is that it will go down as an extremely regrettable trade from the Pelicans end. They got nothing.
What we do know is that it will go down as an extremely regrettable trade from the Pelicans end. They got nothing.
Well, they signed Randle with the MLE, so technically they did not get Randle with his cap space.
(I also would not count letting a player go for nothing and then signing somebody else as "getting something out of the player" but since it was an MLE anyway, it's not a necessary argument to have.)
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
