Cousins extension?

That is personal choice.
Team success is important, and I agree with you that Kings cannot use that as a leverage (yet).

Cuz stated several times that HE wants to be the one to bring Kings around, anti-Durant approach. If Kings turn things around nobody can dispute him that. Personal aspiration can be reason he would like to stay - leverage.

He seems to be fellow for whom the personal connections matter. If he likes, or more importantly trusts Divac and Joerger, that is also leverage.

Then of course there is a big and obvious one - money. Even without the max money, we can still offer him more than anybody else.

he sure did lead the heat to the playoffs in a tough western conference.

The Heat were .500 both years against the West both years. Not great, but it's something the Kings w/ DMC have never sniffed.

Lebron,Kareem, Wilt,Jordan,Shaq

its cheap when the going market rate for a star player is more than what you are offering.

Wade wouldnt have walked if the market rate was in line with what Riley was offering.

Demarcus aint even looking elsewhere and dont pretend he doesnt deserve the max. We would be foolish to try low ball him under what he is worth to try save a couple mill here for another player.

if boogie instigates that conversation then great but typically those types of deals happen after a star players big payday and his next contract.

simply put we just need to pay the man. lock him in and move on with some continuity.

Continuity is key to all and Demarcus is our key asset and we are paying him what he is worth. this is a non issue. a no brainer. as long as he wants to be here we move forward as is.

Not to mention you cant continue lamenting the fact that Sac cant lure quality free agents while advocating low balling a player as good as Deamrcus. What message does that send? You need to be willing to pay every penny of the max. If you can retain him happily while leaving room for improvements at other positions then thats a bonus. You waffle on this and you send a bad message to the rest of the leagues players for who knows how long and you alienate your best player/asset the summer before his last season.

The Heat offered Wade 2/40 while the Bulls offered 2/47. Factor in state taxes, the contracts were about even. Wade also felt like Miami didn't treat him like he was the first priority when they signed Whiteside to a max deal and went after Durant.

Was Miami foolish when they simultaneously brought in Wade, Bosh and Lebron by signing them to below market deals.?

You can most likely add Westbrook to this list by seasons end

and they say that loyalty is overrated!

K. Smart V S. Van Gundy

Penny Pinchers Goofballs V Billionaire Carnival Cruise Owner

The Wade example is a pretty good one. All five of these guys were on good teams. Check the rosters.

There is a term that applies here: "fiduciary responsibility". Vlade has fiduciary responsibility to act in best interest of the team just as Boogie's agent has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of his client. If Vlade does not look for best interest of the team, who will? None of this personal. It is business. Its protecting self-interest. Its ridiculous when fans say we dare not risk to offend a player who likes SAC by offering him the largest contract in NBA history. Imagine the horror, the personal affront, the inexcusable injustice by offer of $175M over 5 years, in excess of any contract in history of pro hoops.... goodness gracious, what's Vlade been smoking besides cigarettes to "lowball" his franchise player like that?! Now let me add a qualifier....."Hey Boogie, Want the max???" You can have it. On one condition, lead us to playoffs this year. You want 220M you can have it by proving for the first time you are worth it instead of imploding as you did vs the Dubs and too many game prior to recount.

I think you are correct. The moderator of this forum thinks you are dumber than a flatworm.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

I think you misunderstand my position as further illustrated in post #96. I do believe you pay him the max if that is what it takes. I do not advocate putting stipulations like some have suggested such as playoff appearances or anything else.

If I am Vlade I let it be known the max is there while laying out the benefits and plan of what would and could be done with extra money if he takes a smaller payday. I don't know if I understand some here correctly. What happens if you lay out a lesser contract or one with stipulations and he and his agent balk? What then? Do you yield or are you digging your heels in if your Vlade? Genuinely curious as I have not seen anyone who advocates a smaller contract address this scenario.

I have outlined this exact scenario but have been rebuked by others because they consider it being cheap. Most people here don't desire the Kings to negotiate with DMC. They simply want to hand him a blank contract and let him fill in the details like the mere mention of a negotiation is an affront to his talents.

I didn't misunderstood you. I am in agreement with you. Others on this board have contended that for any reason shape or form if you do not automatically give Boogie the max, you fail a basic IQ test. I concur with you that it is Vlade's job to sell Boogie on the prudence of agreeing to a contract below max for the good of the franchise, just as the Spurs did with Timmy. You can simultaneously convey how much a player means to your franchise and commitment to him while also conveying there are other priorities that need to be addressed, flexibility retained, for good of the team, playoff and championship aspirations. It is common sense, even for a tapeworm.

In regards to "Do you yield or are you digging your heels in if your Vlade? " I think ultimately you have to yield but a "blank check" is not the place from where you begin extension talks.

My mistake then. I agree in that of course it is Vlade's duty to keep and give perspective on the big picture. I guess I am the one confused in that some it seems , not you specifically, would absolutely not offer the max, at least not without stipulations.

I edited my above post to add that ultimately I think you would have to concede and give him the max before risk of losing him, but I don't think it needs to come to that if Vlade does his job.

I think a lot of it comes down to tact, as with any negotiation. I would start with the max offer though first and work backwards through explaining what I can and would do if given more money to fill other needs. As opposed to the typical start low and gradually concede.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the Cavs during LeBron's first stint were a good team, minus LeBron.

Really not in the beginning of their careers. It took them at most a year to make the playoffs. DMC is way past a couple years.

Cousins does not handle the immediate double team well at all.

Five years 207 mil according to James Ham.

"CSN California has confirmed through a league source that the two sides have tossed around numbers and that barring a late change in direction by either side, Cousins intends to sign a massive, max-money extension, estimated at roughly $207 million during the offseason that will keep the big man in a Kings uniform long-term."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/kings/source-cousins-intends-sign-massive-extension-kings

OH **** THIS IS GIANT NEWS FOR US IF TRUE. OMG BOOGIE LOVES US!

Wow....Boogie staying loyal to this franchise....207 million reasons doesn't hurt.

Locking him up is a no brainer. Asset retention. Even if you end up parting ways down the road, you retain good assets. This is what was so stupid on the Tyreke and ESPECIALLY Isaiah debacle.

I love Boogie, and Boogie loves Sacramento.

Get. That. Man. Some. Real. Help.

I honestly don't see a single star player turning down 200 million, despite the franchise.

No brainer. Best player/asset and never going to get close to equal value in a trade, plus he wants to be here.