Ziller: Time for Kings to consider life after Cousins
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
My WAG is that, for many of the posters that I described, it seems to have more to do with the notion that, "I'm local, so I care more about local sports than I do sports in general. I watch the Kings because they're the local basketball team, moreso than because I actually like basketball, so when they're not playing, I'm more interested in other local teams in different sports than I am in non-local teams in this one sport."
As someone who a) likes basketball to the exclusion of all other sports, and b) moved around so much during the first three-quarters of my life that I have no concept of 'roots,' am psychologically incapable of relating to that point of view.
As someone who a) likes basketball to the exclusion of all other sports, and b) moved around so much during the first three-quarters of my life that I have no concept of 'roots,' am psychologically incapable of relating to that point of view.
Paul Westhead would like to introduce you to Magic Johnson, Don Nelson's head is still spinning from the beating Patrick Ewing and the Boys gave him, and the skewers in Rudy Tomjanovich's back are so long they are pointing out the front after meeting Kobe. Lebron has no reason to yell t David Blatt, because he owns his ass and could order him to clean his shoes with his tongue at any time.
Happens all the time. And if Karl has been castrated, good. If he feels his job is dependent on maintaining peace with Boogie, good. If he knows another burst of player dissatisfaction over his smallball tactics will finish him, good. I'm not interested in losing even one more game because the coach and owner won't align themselves with the talent on the team.
Happens all the time. And if Karl has been castrated, good. If he feels his job is dependent on maintaining peace with Boogie, good. If he knows another burst of player dissatisfaction over his smallball tactics will finish him, good. I'm not interested in losing even one more game because the coach and owner won't align themselves with the talent on the team.
I am not so naive to believe Cousins is the only, the first or the last to ever unload on his coach, or cuss him out in front of others. Or that his temper and antics are unique in the NBA. I believe this happens much more often than is reported in professional sports – after all, we are dealing with some of the most ultra-competitive and passionate athletes and coaches in the world.
I do not condone DMC’s actions, however, I believe the majority of professional teams are able to keep this kind of stuff “in house” and are able to deal with it out of the public view and scrutiny. No player and no team deserves to have their “dirty laundry” hung out to dry in front of everyone. And every team should be allowed to deal with “their dirty laundry” on their own terms, in their own way, without the world weighing in on it.
The problem is not Cousins (sure is has some issues, but we knew that when we drafted him). The larger problem, in my opinion, is Vlade still has a little house cleaning to do – there is still a “rat” in the house and it seems as if someone is functioning under a different set of values, or their loyalties lie elsewhere. Under ideal conditions, we may have never known about any of this (and we could be focusing and celebrating on a solid Kings win, and expecting an even higher level of play moving forward).
I do not condone DMC’s actions, however, I believe the majority of professional teams are able to keep this kind of stuff “in house” and are able to deal with it out of the public view and scrutiny. No player and no team deserves to have their “dirty laundry” hung out to dry in front of everyone. And every team should be allowed to deal with “their dirty laundry” on their own terms, in their own way, without the world weighing in on it.
The problem is not Cousins (sure is has some issues, but we knew that when we drafted him). The larger problem, in my opinion, is Vlade still has a little house cleaning to do – there is still a “rat” in the house and it seems as if someone is functioning under a different set of values, or their loyalties lie elsewhere. Under ideal conditions, we may have never known about any of this (and we could be focusing and celebrating on a solid Kings win, and expecting an even higher level of play moving forward).
I know you aren't referring to me, as I haven't been criticizing DMC, etc., but I rarely, if ever, watch other teams play if the Kings are not involved. I don't have time. I haven't watched all the Kings games this season. I sure as heck am not going to spend time watching the Suns-Raptors or Wizards-Sixers when I can't even catch all the games of the hometown team I support.
I do "watch the Kings because they're the local basketball team" and "I'm more interested in other local teams in different sports than I am in non-local teams in this one sport" is also true. I'd rather watch the SF 49ers than either of the other basketball games listed previously. I think that you are the rarity, Slim, in that you don't really like watching any other sports. I don't really like watching baseball on TV except perhaps the playoffs, but I would likely rather watch the SF Giants play than the games listed above as well. If I have a rooting interest in the team it makes the sport much more enjoyable for me to watch. I just don't care who wins a Wizards-Sixers game.
This is the part of the statement I don't get: "moreso than because I actually like basketball" - I don't think this really plays into it at all. I like basketball. I'll watch my son's team play all day in a tournament. If there is a team I have a vested interest in I can watch it all day. But if the teams mean nothing to me, I lose interest because I don't care who wins. And I don't have time to keep watching TV of things I really don't care about the outcome.
I do "watch the Kings because they're the local basketball team" and "I'm more interested in other local teams in different sports than I am in non-local teams in this one sport" is also true. I'd rather watch the SF 49ers than either of the other basketball games listed previously. I think that you are the rarity, Slim, in that you don't really like watching any other sports. I don't really like watching baseball on TV except perhaps the playoffs, but I would likely rather watch the SF Giants play than the games listed above as well. If I have a rooting interest in the team it makes the sport much more enjoyable for me to watch. I just don't care who wins a Wizards-Sixers game.
This is the part of the statement I don't get: "moreso than because I actually like basketball" - I don't think this really plays into it at all. I like basketball. I'll watch my son's team play all day in a tournament. If there is a team I have a vested interest in I can watch it all day. But if the teams mean nothing to me, I lose interest because I don't care who wins. And I don't have time to keep watching TV of things I really don't care about the outcome.
I actually kind of was talking about you, among others. I wasn't accusing you of criticizing Cousins; @Padrino was the one trying to make that particular connection. I was just addressing his question of, "Are there really Kings Fans who don't actually watch NBA games, unless the Kings are playing?" with the answer, "Apparently so."
Regarding your last paragraph, I do indeed question how much someone can claim to enjoy a sport, if they only watch that sport when they have skin in the game? I mean, when you qualify the statement of "I can watch [basketball] all day" with the qualifier, "If there is a team I have a vested interest in", that's not exactly a strong argument that you're that big a fan. And, let me be clear, I don't say that as a value judgment: if you can only be bothered to watch basketball when you have a vested interest, that's whatever. It certainly doesn't make you any less of a Kings Fan, but it does suggest that you may not be the biggest basketball fan in the world.
Regarding your last paragraph, I do indeed question how much someone can claim to enjoy a sport, if they only watch that sport when they have skin in the game? I mean, when you qualify the statement of "I can watch [basketball] all day" with the qualifier, "If there is a team I have a vested interest in", that's not exactly a strong argument that you're that big a fan. And, let me be clear, I don't say that as a value judgment: if you can only be bothered to watch basketball when you have a vested interest, that's whatever. It certainly doesn't make you any less of a Kings Fan, but it does suggest that you may not be the biggest basketball fan in the world.
Yeah the problem with some posters here is that they say this is Cousins' team 100% and that he's the leader ... until we don't win or there's a problem, then suddenly everything is everyone else's fault and Cousins is the only one that is blame free. Some posters, thankfully, are a bit more objective and able to see that Cuz shares part of the blame, but others are so quick to jump to his defense and blame the organization for his (lack of) leadership behaviour.
You know what's the difference between Cousins and Barkley, Ewing, Kobe, Lebron and Jordan? Or Paul and Griffin and Durant? They frikin made the playoffs. Many times. But of course, it's not Cousins' fault (at all!) that we haven't made the playoffs. He just happens to be this mismanaged best big man in the history of the NBA or something like that who hasn't even won 30 games in a season because the environment is so darn toxic.
You know what's the difference between Cousins and Barkley, Ewing, Kobe, Lebron and Jordan? Or Paul and Griffin and Durant? They frikin made the playoffs. Many times. But of course, it's not Cousins' fault (at all!) that we haven't made the playoffs. He just happens to be this mismanaged best big man in the history of the NBA or something like that who hasn't even won 30 games in a season because the environment is so darn toxic.
You ironically got it about right in your second paragraph.
As bad as Kings fans think it is, if you watch the NBA as a whole it looks even worse. The Kings are THE laughingstock organization in the NBA. Its a fairly remarkable achievement to be a fan of the 30th of 30 teams. VERY few franchises in the modern NBA have gone through anything like this stretch of chaos and stupidity. Anybody questioning that doesn't know their NBA history.
If DeMarcus Cousins played for the Los Angles Clippers, the Memphis Grizzlies, the Houston rockets, the Cleveland Cavaliers, you name it, he has been in the playoffs for years, and is a "passionate winner". Instead he's stuck it out with a loser franchise. Its admirable. Foolish, but admirable, and a an absolute gift to an organization that hasn't deserved it.
As bad as Kings fans think it is, if you watch the NBA as a whole it looks even worse. The Kings are THE laughingstock organization in the NBA. Its a fairly remarkable achievement to be a fan of the 30th of 30 teams. VERY few franchises in the modern NBA have gone through anything like this stretch of chaos and stupidity. Anybody questioning that doesn't know their NBA history.
If DeMarcus Cousins played for the Los Angles Clippers, the Memphis Grizzlies, the Houston rockets, the Cleveland Cavaliers, you name it, he has been in the playoffs for years, and is a "passionate winner". Instead he's stuck it out with a loser franchise. Its admirable. Foolish, but admirable, and a an absolute gift to an organization that hasn't deserved it.
indeed. i think such close proximity to events across the last decade has actually rendered many kings fans incapable of recognizing the sheer magnitude of dysfunction that this franchise has forced us to endure; it's several hundred orders of ludicrous beyond the simple classification of the kings as a "bad team." it's more like a ten-year research project in how not to own, manage, or coach an nba team...
I find it even more ludicrous to believe that the Kings are the one and only organization this bad that some apparent HOF top 5 big man ever to play the game can't even win 30 games. Of course the Kings are terribly dysfunctional! Even the beloved national media has that well covered. But maybe we wouldn't quite be this dysfunctional if our HOF player wasn't such a difficult player to deal with! You have to handle Cousins like a child, ensuring you don't imply any sense of disloyalty or distrust, while fighting for his emotions/antics on the court, while dealing with his agents etc. And to Cousins' credit, he has made some strides in being more professional. Trust me, I was p*ssed as hell that Vivek and his friends were so meddlesome. But Malone is gone, and if Malone is the only coach in the world that can get Cuz to win then that shows that Cousins is not the easiest player to build around. People bring up Lebron and Blatt. Yeah, Lebron doesn't like Blatt - but guess what? He can cuss at his coach as much as he wants because in the end his team wins games. He did so with weaker rosters, with different coaches. Our team, up to this point under Cousins, has not. That may well change going forward. I just think it's ridiculous that you can consider a guy to be a HOF player when he hasn't even won 30 games and apparently needs this perfect system to succeed. I'm not talking championships mind you, I'm talking 30 games.
If Cousins had JUST ONCE had decent players around him we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just look at the craptitude he's been forced to deal with. Look at the Kings rosters over the past few years. Take a few minutes and really study those names. Guys who STARTED for us are now out of the league, flipping burgers somewhere or trying to live out their dreams playing overseas.
Cousins doesn't need a perfect system. He needs adequate players and a coach who doesn't immediately end up out of the NBA once his time with us is done. Who have we had since Adelman departed? Eric Musselman, who started out his career with a DUI before training camp. Reggie Theus, whose biggest fault perhaps was his jealousy of players who might threaten any of his Kings records, Kenny Natt (who?!?!?), Paul Westphal (whose primary goal seemed to be to alienate our very talented but difficult draft pick), Keith Smart, Mike Malone (who was fired after showing himself to be the only coach willing to preach defense - and BTW the one guy DMC seemed to trust and believe in), Ty Corbin (are you freaking kidding me?) and then George Karl (who started his career here by saying DMC might be traded).
Come on. Get real. How trusting would you be if you had FIVE different bosses at your job ALONG WITH a complete and total change in ownership AND, just for fun, a turnover in personnel that makes carny work look like a lifelong career path.
I can't think of another team in the whole history of the NBA (and that's going back to when I first fell in love with basketball in the early 60s) that has had this much bullcrap going on (and don't even think about the relocation nightmares). When you have a bunch of mediocre players who are probably just lucky to still be in the NBA it doesn't matter that much. But when you have a future HOF player who needs and deserves the structure of a stable franchise with competent coaching and veterans players who can help show him the ropes, what DMC went through is akin to managerial malpractice.
You can't compare DMC to anyone else because there simply hasn't been anyone else put through what's he gone through. And yet, through it all, he's remained LOYAL to Sacramento and the fans of the Sacramento Kings. Has he shown frustration, immaturity, poor decision making? Oh hell yes. Would anyone else have done any better? Oh hell freaking no.
People need to quit making him the scapegoat. DMC believes that #LoyaltyIsLove. He's shown it to us. The least we can do is show him as much loyalty as the Big Blue Nation. IMHO he's earned it...
Cousins doesn't need a perfect system. He needs adequate players and a coach who doesn't immediately end up out of the NBA once his time with us is done. Who have we had since Adelman departed? Eric Musselman, who started out his career with a DUI before training camp. Reggie Theus, whose biggest fault perhaps was his jealousy of players who might threaten any of his Kings records, Kenny Natt (who?!?!?), Paul Westphal (whose primary goal seemed to be to alienate our very talented but difficult draft pick), Keith Smart, Mike Malone (who was fired after showing himself to be the only coach willing to preach defense - and BTW the one guy DMC seemed to trust and believe in), Ty Corbin (are you freaking kidding me?) and then George Karl (who started his career here by saying DMC might be traded).
Come on. Get real. How trusting would you be if you had FIVE different bosses at your job ALONG WITH a complete and total change in ownership AND, just for fun, a turnover in personnel that makes carny work look like a lifelong career path.
I can't think of another team in the whole history of the NBA (and that's going back to when I first fell in love with basketball in the early 60s) that has had this much bullcrap going on (and don't even think about the relocation nightmares). When you have a bunch of mediocre players who are probably just lucky to still be in the NBA it doesn't matter that much. But when you have a future HOF player who needs and deserves the structure of a stable franchise with competent coaching and veterans players who can help show him the ropes, what DMC went through is akin to managerial malpractice.
You can't compare DMC to anyone else because there simply hasn't been anyone else put through what's he gone through. And yet, through it all, he's remained LOYAL to Sacramento and the fans of the Sacramento Kings. Has he shown frustration, immaturity, poor decision making? Oh hell yes. Would anyone else have done any better? Oh hell freaking no.
People need to quit making him the scapegoat. DMC believes that #LoyaltyIsLove. He's shown it to us. The least we can do is show him as much loyalty as the Big Blue Nation. IMHO he's earned it...
to conflate this franchise's dysfunction with the difficulties of managing demarcus cousins is to misrepresent the entirety of the last decade of kings basketball. the ten years of dysfunctional baggage that the kings are dragging with them into their shiny new arena next season are much, MUCH bigger than cousins. they existed before he arrived in sacramento, they persisted after he was drafted, and they have been compounded ever since ownership of the team changed hands...
you've also committed rather blatant sins of logical fallacy. mike malone is surely not the only coach in the world that "can get cuz to win." however, he is the only coach thus far who has managed to do so; that makes him an asset who was discarded far too flippantly. the other coaching luminaries who have graced the kings' bench since demarcus cousins was drafted? paul westphal, keith smart, and tyrone corbin. you're not exactly intimidating the opposition with those names. more to the point, where are they now? what gifts do they have, and what tremendous credit are they owed in pursuit of making sure that the blame for this franchise's failures falls squarely on the 25-year-old cousins' broad shoulders, shoulders that already carry the burden of anchoring both the kings offense and its defense?
of course, george karl certainly represents the most accomplished of cousins' coaches-to-date, but he also has an ego the size of the rocky mountains, he has a nasty reputation of clashing with star players, he's a rickety 64 years of age, he's recovering from the physical and psychological traumas of aggressive cancer treatment, and he's likely a short term hire who will be lucky to reach the end of his contract, much less receive an extension. this is not exactly a recipe for stability in a franchise that desperately needs it. or am i way off base here in believing that a young, vibrant, defensively-minded player's coach like mike malone may have been a better option--though certainly not the only option--to guide a demarcus cousins-led kings team?
fans like to forget that demarcus has only just entered his prime. you do not treat a supremely-gifted but flawed and volatile star talent to a revolving door of woefully insufficient mentors who are either too limited to know how best to handle a player like cousins or too checked out to care. yes, cousins absolutely needs to strive to greater maturity, and he absolutely needs to take on greater responsibility for his poor behavior (note the heartfelt self-awareness in his apology after his frustrations inappropriately boiled over in the locker room after the loss to san antonio). but surely it's not too much to ask of a franchise that it, ya know, offers a young, developing superstar talent a strong mentoring presence somewhere along the sideline (or, alternatively, simply doesn't f***ing sabotage itself by firing a head coach who was getting tangible results both out of demarcus cousins and out of his team at large)...
elsewhere among the fallacies in your post, cousins doesn't need a "perfect system to succeed." he needs a system that seeks first to maximize his strengths, just as all other superstars across the nba require a system that seeks to maximize their strengths. this isn't rocket science, mac. it's basketball. that the kings have so royally f***ed this up is not some kind of referendum on demarcus cousins' talent. it's a testament to the kings' utter inability to construct a roster of complementary talent that fits around cousins, and to hire a coaching staff capable of maximizing the most talented players on that roster. from ill-advised coaching hires to whiffing on four straight draft picks between 2011 and 2014, this franchise has gotten nearly everything wrong since it drafted cousins in 2010. in fact, drafting demarcus cousins has been one of the few things that the kings managed to get right in recent memory...
bottom line: i don't care how difficult a personality he might be to contend with; a dominant superstar that averages 24/11 and effectively protects the rim is never going to be a franchise's #1 problem. never. not once. not ever. i'm sure that demarcus cousins isn't easy to get along with, but the formula for success with a big man of his size and skill is as simple as it's always been. however, in an era in which spacing matters more than ever before, the kings have outright failed to acquire the talent necessary to make cousins' life easier. since he came into the league, the kings have shot 34%, 32%, 36%, 33%, and 34% from three. that's below league average in most cases. so, you tell me, is this franchise doing enough to ensure its own success by promoting stability, surrounding its best player with complementary talent, and hiring coaches capable of maximizing all of that talent? or are they simply wont to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly?
you've also committed rather blatant sins of logical fallacy. mike malone is surely not the only coach in the world that "can get cuz to win." however, he is the only coach thus far who has managed to do so; that makes him an asset who was discarded far too flippantly. the other coaching luminaries who have graced the kings' bench since demarcus cousins was drafted? paul westphal, keith smart, and tyrone corbin. you're not exactly intimidating the opposition with those names. more to the point, where are they now? what gifts do they have, and what tremendous credit are they owed in pursuit of making sure that the blame for this franchise's failures falls squarely on the 25-year-old cousins' broad shoulders, shoulders that already carry the burden of anchoring both the kings offense and its defense?
of course, george karl certainly represents the most accomplished of cousins' coaches-to-date, but he also has an ego the size of the rocky mountains, he has a nasty reputation of clashing with star players, he's a rickety 64 years of age, he's recovering from the physical and psychological traumas of aggressive cancer treatment, and he's likely a short term hire who will be lucky to reach the end of his contract, much less receive an extension. this is not exactly a recipe for stability in a franchise that desperately needs it. or am i way off base here in believing that a young, vibrant, defensively-minded player's coach like mike malone may have been a better option--though certainly not the only option--to guide a demarcus cousins-led kings team?
fans like to forget that demarcus has only just entered his prime. you do not treat a supremely-gifted but flawed and volatile star talent to a revolving door of woefully insufficient mentors who are either too limited to know how best to handle a player like cousins or too checked out to care. yes, cousins absolutely needs to strive to greater maturity, and he absolutely needs to take on greater responsibility for his poor behavior (note the heartfelt self-awareness in his apology after his frustrations inappropriately boiled over in the locker room after the loss to san antonio). but surely it's not too much to ask of a franchise that it, ya know, offers a young, developing superstar talent a strong mentoring presence somewhere along the sideline (or, alternatively, simply doesn't f***ing sabotage itself by firing a head coach who was getting tangible results both out of demarcus cousins and out of his team at large)...
elsewhere among the fallacies in your post, cousins doesn't need a "perfect system to succeed." he needs a system that seeks first to maximize his strengths, just as all other superstars across the nba require a system that seeks to maximize their strengths. this isn't rocket science, mac. it's basketball. that the kings have so royally f***ed this up is not some kind of referendum on demarcus cousins' talent. it's a testament to the kings' utter inability to construct a roster of complementary talent that fits around cousins, and to hire a coaching staff capable of maximizing the most talented players on that roster. from ill-advised coaching hires to whiffing on four straight draft picks between 2011 and 2014, this franchise has gotten nearly everything wrong since it drafted cousins in 2010. in fact, drafting demarcus cousins has been one of the few things that the kings managed to get right in recent memory...
bottom line: i don't care how difficult a personality he might be to contend with; a dominant superstar that averages 24/11 and effectively protects the rim is never going to be a franchise's #1 problem. never. not once. not ever. i'm sure that demarcus cousins isn't easy to get along with, but the formula for success with a big man of his size and skill is as simple as it's always been. however, in an era in which spacing matters more than ever before, the kings have outright failed to acquire the talent necessary to make cousins' life easier. since he came into the league, the kings have shot 34%, 32%, 36%, 33%, and 34% from three. that's below league average in most cases. so, you tell me, is this franchise doing enough to ensure its own success by promoting stability, surrounding its best player with complementary talent, and hiring coaches capable of maximizing all of that talent? or are they simply wont to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly?
Last edited:
It's the typical stages of Cousins crisis!
Denial - "There's NO WAY Boogie did that! Typical national media making up this nonsense!"
Anger - "Well, HOW DARE someone leak that Boogie did that!"
Bargaining - "If only the Kings had..." or "if only there were more TRUE Kings/NBA fans that watched more basketball, this wouldn't be a big deal..."
Etc.
Denial - "There's NO WAY Boogie did that! Typical national media making up this nonsense!"
Anger - "Well, HOW DARE someone leak that Boogie did that!"
Bargaining - "If only the Kings had..." or "if only there were more TRUE Kings/NBA fans that watched more basketball, this wouldn't be a big deal..."
Etc.
Blatt has popped up here a couple of times for the obvious reasons. True, Blatt has the backing of the organization and is, therefore, able to sustain Bron's behavior. Bron is an excellent example of superstar player who thinks everybody should thank him for being part of the team while he should be thankful for having Blatt coaching the team of his twilight. Blatt has the qualities, however, that provides him the safety net from the organization. He is not there to run any kind of ideology of how to play basketball. He focuses and analyses his players capabilities and structures his teams style accordingly. they play the game that his players are best in. The Cavs roster is by no means the best in the NBA, but they can play almost any team when the players are used correctly. I would also say that DMC is a much easier client for Karl than Bron is for Blatt.
Popovich can play the game he thinks is the best concerning basketball strategy, but he has had the luxury to pick the players (for a multitude of years) that fit that strategy. Basically no other coach is in that situation. I give Blatt a lot of credit for his approach and would like Karl to follow suit. Blatt would have outplayed Kerr in the last finals had he not lost all his key players (except Bron) to injuries, but he came amazingly close...
Popovich can play the game he thinks is the best concerning basketball strategy, but he has had the luxury to pick the players (for a multitude of years) that fit that strategy. Basically no other coach is in that situation. I give Blatt a lot of credit for his approach and would like Karl to follow suit. Blatt would have outplayed Kerr in the last finals had he not lost all his key players (except Bron) to injuries, but he came amazingly close...
No it won't, that's ridiculous. There are people in the media, even people whom I like in the media, and whose work I respect, who've made up their minds on Cousins, and the Kings. We're never going to win enough. Short of Cousins having a complete personality transplant, and prostrating himself before George Karl, it's not going to stop.
Now, it might go away if we make multiple trips to the Finals, but it's definitely not going away behind a seven-game winning streak. I wouldn't even expect it to die down until we make the playoffs.
Now, it might go away if we make multiple trips to the Finals, but it's definitely not going away behind a seven-game winning streak. I wouldn't even expect it to die down until we make the playoffs.
I would just like to point out (in reference to your's and Padrino's post) that not once did I say COUSINS IS #1 PROBLEM OF KINGS TRADE HIM! I didn't even call him a headcase or a cancer or anything of that sort. I'd hardly call my legitimate questioning of the team's performance under him akin to making him the scapegoat. I'm a rational fan, I don't believe in scapegoating just one individual player or coach (except maybe Isaiah Thomas, who I was admittedly biased against). I'm well aware that Cousins' performance on the basketball court is one of the least of our woes, aside from the technicals and not getting back on defense, which he has improved on. I'm not sure if I mentioned this but one thing I do think Cousins has been extremely professional in is his loyalty to the city (not so much the organization) and never creating a drama about him as far as where he wants to play or team up with etc. What I question is his leadership (= leading this team to wins, which hasn't happened) and fans treating him as a HOF one of the top bigs to ever the play the game sort of player, because as far as I'm aware no such player exists that hasn't ever won 30 games in a season. You are absolutely right, the organization has screwed up tremendously. Tremendously! But your supposition that the extent of our screw up has been so vast and unprecedented that it makes a HOF player unable to win 30 games is backed up by as much cold hard facts as a supposition that Cousins is not quite such a HOF player and hence unable to win 30 games. You said you can't think of another team in the whole history of the NBA that has had this much bullpoopoo going on. You're probably right! Meanwhile, I can't think of any supposed HOF-level player that couldn't win 30 games. And if you're being reasonable, I think you'd agree I was right too.
The only reason I've kept bringing it up recently is because of the current context given these few articles and also the fact that on this board Cousins tends to be absolved of all blame. And by absolved I don't mean a "Cousins is blame free!", but more a "Yeah ... he's not perfect but that's only because this organisation sucks!". Compare this with say, the plight of Ben McLemore. Many posters somehow don't attribute his lack of development to the poor organisational environment, but are quicker to ascribe it to him lacking bball IQ/ desire to win/ aggressiveness etc. Basically, all things that are Ben's fault. Again, saying Cousins shares in the blame is not akin to scapegoating him and pinning all our problems on him. I think that there's a serious consideration that should be made of trading Cousins IF this season turns out to be yet another failure (and by failure I mean not even being in the playoff hunt). Why? Because we have changed everything except Cousins and arguably the seemingly innate necessity for this franchise to screw things up (more specifically in recent years: inability to adopt a defensive mindset and not force pace on non-pacey players). One of those two things is easier to change than the other, and there are likely posters that fall on both sides.
And just as a response to your bit on the coaches: Paul Westphal (whose primary goal seemed to be to alienate our very talented but difficult draft pick) - I always wonder why people "scapegoat" Westphal as if DMC had nothing to do with it. I highly doubt he just decided for no reason to not get along with Cousins. You know who else he didn't get along with? Spencer Hawes. But posters here will happily say that was cos Hawes was a [insert expletive of choice]. Westphal is an assistant with the Nets. Not out of the NBA, and had a good record pre-Kings. Keith Smart - you'll get no argument from me here even though he's still in the league and was considered to be a very good assistant coach when we hired him. That guy was ... not his namesake. Malone - no need to defend him. Corbin - similar to Smart, many considered him a great hire as assistant. More a victim of circumstance than anything. And now George Karl - ego? Yes. Dumb comments? Yes. But he has a record of wins. If Cousins doesn't get along with him, it's also because of Cousins' ego and dumb comments.
At the end of the day, it always somehow ends up with Cousins being in the centre of all the drama. Maybe it's just because he's the franchise player. Maybe he's just not very coachable. Maybe the media is just the one painting him as the villain. I don't know, and don't assume myself to be informed enough to know. What I do know is that reportedly, the issues are rarely with other players. What I do know is that we haven't won more than 30 games in how many years is it now? What I do know is that this organization has a preference to play fast-paced basketball, and the entire league is moving in that direction too (sadly). What I do know is that we've upgraded the roster this season, and we have a coach who has wins to back him up. With all that in mind, IF we don't sniff the playoffs this year, I'd strongly consider trading Cousins, or somehow (improbable) moving him to the 2nd option as opposed to the franchise player/leader. Reasonable? If it isn't, it's ok. I've been on this board long enough to know that we don't always agree on things, and on a number of occasions I've been on the side of the unpopular opinion. We can always agree to disagree.
The only reason I've kept bringing it up recently is because of the current context given these few articles and also the fact that on this board Cousins tends to be absolved of all blame. And by absolved I don't mean a "Cousins is blame free!", but more a "Yeah ... he's not perfect but that's only because this organisation sucks!". Compare this with say, the plight of Ben McLemore. Many posters somehow don't attribute his lack of development to the poor organisational environment, but are quicker to ascribe it to him lacking bball IQ/ desire to win/ aggressiveness etc. Basically, all things that are Ben's fault. Again, saying Cousins shares in the blame is not akin to scapegoating him and pinning all our problems on him. I think that there's a serious consideration that should be made of trading Cousins IF this season turns out to be yet another failure (and by failure I mean not even being in the playoff hunt). Why? Because we have changed everything except Cousins and arguably the seemingly innate necessity for this franchise to screw things up (more specifically in recent years: inability to adopt a defensive mindset and not force pace on non-pacey players). One of those two things is easier to change than the other, and there are likely posters that fall on both sides.
And just as a response to your bit on the coaches: Paul Westphal (whose primary goal seemed to be to alienate our very talented but difficult draft pick) - I always wonder why people "scapegoat" Westphal as if DMC had nothing to do with it. I highly doubt he just decided for no reason to not get along with Cousins. You know who else he didn't get along with? Spencer Hawes. But posters here will happily say that was cos Hawes was a [insert expletive of choice]. Westphal is an assistant with the Nets. Not out of the NBA, and had a good record pre-Kings. Keith Smart - you'll get no argument from me here even though he's still in the league and was considered to be a very good assistant coach when we hired him. That guy was ... not his namesake. Malone - no need to defend him. Corbin - similar to Smart, many considered him a great hire as assistant. More a victim of circumstance than anything. And now George Karl - ego? Yes. Dumb comments? Yes. But he has a record of wins. If Cousins doesn't get along with him, it's also because of Cousins' ego and dumb comments.
At the end of the day, it always somehow ends up with Cousins being in the centre of all the drama. Maybe it's just because he's the franchise player. Maybe he's just not very coachable. Maybe the media is just the one painting him as the villain. I don't know, and don't assume myself to be informed enough to know. What I do know is that reportedly, the issues are rarely with other players. What I do know is that we haven't won more than 30 games in how many years is it now? What I do know is that this organization has a preference to play fast-paced basketball, and the entire league is moving in that direction too (sadly). What I do know is that we've upgraded the roster this season, and we have a coach who has wins to back him up. With all that in mind, IF we don't sniff the playoffs this year, I'd strongly consider trading Cousins, or somehow (improbable) moving him to the 2nd option as opposed to the franchise player/leader. Reasonable? If it isn't, it's ok. I've been on this board long enough to know that we don't always agree on things, and on a number of occasions I've been on the side of the unpopular opinion. We can always agree to disagree.
Here is my perspective on the whole issue. The losses this team get reflect 100% on Demarcus. He is talented, but isn't winning games (see Love, Kevin). The losses will stick to Cuz forever, so I really have no issue with him cussing people out, even the coach. DMC wants to win, he NEEDS to win. Big Cuz has more at stake than anyone. So what is the discussion about?
Trade Cousins? In any trade the Kings would get back 1) an unproven rookie or pick, 2) an "east coast all-star" level veteran, and 3) filler... so why do it?
Trade Cousins? In any trade the Kings would get back 1) an unproven rookie or pick, 2) an "east coast all-star" level veteran, and 3) filler... so why do it?