Revisiting DMC - again
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
LOL at "forced adoration." The only thing I ever told you to do is follow your own advice: you're the one who claims to be "over it," but you won't stop talking about it.
This is the NBA sub-folder; nobody is 'forcing' anybody to 'adore' anybody. Quit being salty that some people continue to like players that you don't like.
This is the NBA sub-folder; nobody is 'forcing' anybody to 'adore' anybody. Quit being salty that some people continue to like players that you don't like.
Depends on whether or not Dell Demps makes any other moves. The Pelicans are terrible: they're a three-man team right now.
With that being said, as deep and competitive as the west is supposed to be, there's only three 'lock' teams for the playoffs: Warriors, Rockets and Spurs. Thunder (who upgraded talent at a key position) and Trailblazers (who mostly stood pat) are highly likely to return to the playoffs, but not locks. The other three teams that made the playoffs in the west in 2017 all got worse, and you could make the case that some of them got substantially worse. They could all go back, or none of them could go back.
That does, indeed, leave 3-4 playoff spots that are "up for grabs," so to speak. I feel like most people would likely agree that the moves that they've made in the offseason would make the Timberwolves and Nuggets the favorites for two of them: that final spot is anyone's guess... The only team I'm completely ruling out of playoff contention in the west is the Suns; they're the only team that I feel has no shot. The Pelicans, depending on how well Cousins and Davis mesh, with the benefit of a full offseason and training camp, could finish anywhere between 6th and 14th. Having two bigs as skilled as those guys is still an advantage over most teams not named Golden State, Houston or Portland, but they have no depth, and no ability to stretch the floor.
Pending any further moves, my gut has the Pelicans finishing 41-41, which will only be good enough for 9th place.
With that being said, as deep and competitive as the west is supposed to be, there's only three 'lock' teams for the playoffs: Warriors, Rockets and Spurs. Thunder (who upgraded talent at a key position) and Trailblazers (who mostly stood pat) are highly likely to return to the playoffs, but not locks. The other three teams that made the playoffs in the west in 2017 all got worse, and you could make the case that some of them got substantially worse. They could all go back, or none of them could go back.
That does, indeed, leave 3-4 playoff spots that are "up for grabs," so to speak. I feel like most people would likely agree that the moves that they've made in the offseason would make the Timberwolves and Nuggets the favorites for two of them: that final spot is anyone's guess... The only team I'm completely ruling out of playoff contention in the west is the Suns; they're the only team that I feel has no shot. The Pelicans, depending on how well Cousins and Davis mesh, with the benefit of a full offseason and training camp, could finish anywhere between 6th and 14th. Having two bigs as skilled as those guys is still an advantage over most teams not named Golden State, Houston or Portland, but they have no depth, and no ability to stretch the floor.
Pending any further moves, my gut has the Pelicans finishing 41-41, which will only be good enough for 9th place.
But... you didn't ask LeBron James, you asked KingsFans.com. And anyway, their respective salaries were two million apart that season: maybe they couldn't get a deal worked out? Maybe Ranadivé was still enamored with Cousins, and wasn't taking any calls about him?
I don't even know why I bother to ask, but can I safely interpret your comments as meaning that you disagree with my assessment? That you would take Kevin Love over DeMarcus Cousins?
I don't even know why I bother to ask, but can I safely interpret your comments as meaning that you disagree with my assessment? That you would take Kevin Love over DeMarcus Cousins?
I'd say the Warriors, Spurs, Rockets and Thunder are pretty much set for play off basketball next season.
Clippers and Grizzlies should make it if their key players can stay healthy.
Even with Hayward's departure the Jazz should be a play off team next season. They've got enough good talent to make it happen but I suspect they'll be a lower seed this time around.
The Trailblazers are reliant on their backcourt carrying the load. I personally see them as a fringe play off team and susceptible for missing out.
Personally I don't see the Pelicans getting in. They have a chance obviously but I'd put them behind all eight teams that made it last year and I'd put them behind the Timberwolves as well. For me, they're more likely to blow things up than make the play offs. And if that happens maybe Cousins will head to a play off team.
Clippers and Grizzlies should make it if their key players can stay healthy.
Even with Hayward's departure the Jazz should be a play off team next season. They've got enough good talent to make it happen but I suspect they'll be a lower seed this time around.
The Trailblazers are reliant on their backcourt carrying the load. I personally see them as a fringe play off team and susceptible for missing out.
Personally I don't see the Pelicans getting in. They have a chance obviously but I'd put them behind all eight teams that made it last year and I'd put them behind the Timberwolves as well. For me, they're more likely to blow things up than make the play offs. And if that happens maybe Cousins will head to a play off team.
The Brow managed to get the Pelicans to the play offs in his third season.
Garnett carried the load in Minnesota.
Likewise Dirk has carried the load in Dallas.
An argument could be made that Dwight Howard carried the Magic because he never really had a stellar supporting cast.
I don't remember Chris Bosh in Toronto having a stellar supporting cast either.
There's probably other examples but those are five that I can think of as PF/Cs carrying the load for their team.
Garnett carried the load in Minnesota.
Likewise Dirk has carried the load in Dallas.
An argument could be made that Dwight Howard carried the Magic because he never really had a stellar supporting cast.
I don't remember Chris Bosh in Toronto having a stellar supporting cast either.
There's probably other examples but those are five that I can think of as PF/Cs carrying the load for their team.
Are you under the impression that any of those guys had rosters as bad as the Kings had? Chris Bosh? He "carried the load" so well that, three years after he was drafted, Toronto had the Number One Overall pick. Garnett and Nowitzki are both players who were, in their primes, better players than Cousins, without qualification... but, they also played their primes in an era that was more agreeable to being a skilled big man than the era that Cousins plays in. The same can be said for Dwight Howard. He was unstoppable, back when big men still mattered, but we've seen what's become of him in the "small ball" era: he's still great at all the things that he was ever great at but, nowadays, that's barely good enough to be a starter.
I don't really understand what that has to do with @jpsls's question anyway, which was, what would you give up for Cousins (although he didn't mention Cousins by name: he was trying to be all coy about it)? How does bringing up players who are not contemporaries of Cousins make this a meaningful conversation? You want to say that those guys were better than Cousins? Okay, fine... you might as well say that Shaq was better than Cousins, for as much as it adds to the discussion. Cousins' first season of 20/10 was 2013-14; Dwight Howard's last season of 20/10 was 2011-12, Garnett's last season of 20/10 was 2006-07. Dirk (who, despite being seven feet tall, never averaged double-figure rebounds in a season) Nowitzki's last season of 20+ points was 2013-14...
For all practical intents and purposes, none of those guys played in the same era as Cousins, and results-based comparisons of guys who played in different eras are useless, because there's no counterfactual. Could Prime!Dwight have dominated in the small ball era? Maybe? Maybe not; I'm leaning towards not. Prime!KG played in an era when big men mattered, and still only made it out of the first round once, so who's to say that he even would have made the playoffs at all, in this era? The year he won MVP, the league average on 3PA/gm was 14.9, the year he and the Celtics won a championship, it was 18.1. The year that Dwight led the Magic to the Finals, it was 18.5. Last year, it was 27. It hasn't been below 20 since Cousins' sophomore year: he simply hasn't played in the same era as those guys.
DeMarcus Cousins is a Top Two or Three big man to play in his era. You tell me what that's worth?
I don't really understand what that has to do with @jpsls's question anyway, which was, what would you give up for Cousins (although he didn't mention Cousins by name: he was trying to be all coy about it)? How does bringing up players who are not contemporaries of Cousins make this a meaningful conversation? You want to say that those guys were better than Cousins? Okay, fine... you might as well say that Shaq was better than Cousins, for as much as it adds to the discussion. Cousins' first season of 20/10 was 2013-14; Dwight Howard's last season of 20/10 was 2011-12, Garnett's last season of 20/10 was 2006-07. Dirk (who, despite being seven feet tall, never averaged double-figure rebounds in a season) Nowitzki's last season of 20+ points was 2013-14...
For all practical intents and purposes, none of those guys played in the same era as Cousins, and results-based comparisons of guys who played in different eras are useless, because there's no counterfactual. Could Prime!Dwight have dominated in the small ball era? Maybe? Maybe not; I'm leaning towards not. Prime!KG played in an era when big men mattered, and still only made it out of the first round once, so who's to say that he even would have made the playoffs at all, in this era? The year he won MVP, the league average on 3PA/gm was 14.9, the year he and the Celtics won a championship, it was 18.1. The year that Dwight led the Magic to the Finals, it was 18.5. Last year, it was 27. It hasn't been below 20 since Cousins' sophomore year: he simply hasn't played in the same era as those guys.
DeMarcus Cousins is a Top Two or Three big man to play in his era. You tell me what that's worth?
You just proved my point. Cousins is not worth what you think he is because this era is not conducive to big men. Factor in that Cousins is only under contract for 1 1/2 years, I can see why teams did not relent to Vlade's demands. I'd give up what the Thunder gave for Paul George, which isn't much.
I don't think that proves your point, at all. Even factoring for the era, I still think that Cousins is worth more than Kevin Love, and you haven't explained why you think he isn't.
I reject the premise that the market for a wing dictates what the market for a big should be, the same as I reject the premise that the market for a guard should dictate what the market for a wing should be: what Indiana got for Paul George should not be judged based on what the Clippers got for Chris Paul, or on what Sacramento got for DeMarcus Cousins, it should be judged based on what Chicago got for Jimmy Butler. Do you think that Indiana got fair market value for George, based on the Butler trade?
I reject the premise that the market for a wing dictates what the market for a big should be, the same as I reject the premise that the market for a guard should dictate what the market for a wing should be: what Indiana got for Paul George should not be judged based on what the Clippers got for Chris Paul, or on what Sacramento got for DeMarcus Cousins, it should be judged based on what Chicago got for Jimmy Butler. Do you think that Indiana got fair market value for George, based on the Butler trade?
Despite being a top two or three big man in this era, he still didn't manage to significantly elevate this team. I know some might argue that we might have won less games without Cousins on our team, but in six full seasons with Cousins we averaged 27 wins which is only 2 wins more than the year before we drafted him. In six seasons we finished under thirty wins on five occasions and his last full season we topped thirty wins for the first time.
As for the comparing eras, you are right that it is harder in this era to carry a team as a big, but it is not impossible for a big to have a significant impact on his team and help them win more games. Take Embiid as a prime example and he's a rookie that only played 31 games:
- With Embiid: 13-18 / .419 win percentage
- Without Embiid: 15-36 / .294 win percentage
Now you might argue that when Embiid got hurt the 76ers embraced tanking rather than trying to compete and win games, however they did seem to be at least trying in a similar manner to we did after the Cousins trade, they just simply didn't have enough to win games at times. With that said, when Embiid was healthy the 76ers were flirting with a play off run [granted in the weaker eastern conference], whereas they were heading for a top pick when he got hurt. So that itself shows that a big man can still have an impact on a team in the right situation. To a degree Cousins had an impact on us because our win-loss record would arguably have been lower without him, but all we got on average was 2 wins more than before he was drafted.
You are right that in this era big men don't tend to have the same impact as in previous eras, but that only goes to confirm that his trade value is not as high as people on these boards expected it to be when he was a King, and it is certainly not that high right now as a Pelican. Why? Because Cousins has not shown in his career to date that he can elevate a team to the next level. He's a fine player, but I wouldn't be giving up significant assets for him, and if I was trading for him right now I wouldn't be offering more than what OKC did for Paul George. That's not to say when he hits free agency that he won't be given a huge pay day because he will, but his trade value isn't that high now, and wasn't as high as many Kings fans thought when he was with us.
As for the comparing eras, you are right that it is harder in this era to carry a team as a big, but it is not impossible for a big to have a significant impact on his team and help them win more games. Take Embiid as a prime example and he's a rookie that only played 31 games:
- With Embiid: 13-18 / .419 win percentage
- Without Embiid: 15-36 / .294 win percentage
Now you might argue that when Embiid got hurt the 76ers embraced tanking rather than trying to compete and win games, however they did seem to be at least trying in a similar manner to we did after the Cousins trade, they just simply didn't have enough to win games at times. With that said, when Embiid was healthy the 76ers were flirting with a play off run [granted in the weaker eastern conference], whereas they were heading for a top pick when he got hurt. So that itself shows that a big man can still have an impact on a team in the right situation. To a degree Cousins had an impact on us because our win-loss record would arguably have been lower without him, but all we got on average was 2 wins more than before he was drafted.
You are right that in this era big men don't tend to have the same impact as in previous eras, but that only goes to confirm that his trade value is not as high as people on these boards expected it to be when he was a King, and it is certainly not that high right now as a Pelican. Why? Because Cousins has not shown in his career to date that he can elevate a team to the next level. He's a fine player, but I wouldn't be giving up significant assets for him, and if I was trading for him right now I wouldn't be offering more than what OKC did for Paul George. That's not to say when he hits free agency that he won't be given a huge pay day because he will, but his trade value isn't that high now, and wasn't as high as many Kings fans thought when he was with us.
I don't think Love is more valuable than Cousins, but their values is similar in terms of on-court production are similar. I think Love's worth was highly inflated because Lebron publicly endorsed him and cornered the Cavs into an unfavorable bargaining position.
Teams were also hesitant to acquite Cousins because he could potentially leave after the next season. Lebron is the best recruiter of all time, so the chances of losing Love were slim to none. Factor in Cousins' baggage and I can see why teams didn't present exorbitant offers that fans thought he could garner. Also, I don't think Cousins helped the team when he went around telling teams he wouldn't sign an extension, so he helped tank his own value.
Teams were also hesitant to acquite Cousins because he could potentially leave after the next season. Lebron is the best recruiter of all time, so the chances of losing Love were slim to none. Factor in Cousins' baggage and I can see why teams didn't present exorbitant offers that fans thought he could garner. Also, I don't think Cousins helped the team when he went around telling teams he wouldn't sign an extension, so he helped tank his own value.
Last edited:
1. I said we would arguably have had less wins without Cousins, but how many more wins did Cousins contribute?
When our best finish with Cousins was 33 wins and the average is 27 wins, well, I think those extra wins are nothing to brag or even worry about.
2. Kevin Love was another player that was over valued by his team's fan base. He struggled with injuries and never being able to get his team into the play offs, but he performed at an all star level which was great for the Wolves fan base. However, he's another example of a clearly talented player that was not the type of player to carry a team on their back and make everyone around him significantly better. That's not to say they don't have value around the league - they do - rather it's simply the case they are a piece to the puzzle rather than the piece to the puzzle.
When our best finish with Cousins was 33 wins and the average is 27 wins, well, I think those extra wins are nothing to brag or even worry about.
2. Kevin Love was another player that was over valued by his team's fan base. He struggled with injuries and never being able to get his team into the play offs, but he performed at an all star level which was great for the Wolves fan base. However, he's another example of a clearly talented player that was not the type of player to carry a team on their back and make everyone around him significantly better. That's not to say they don't have value around the league - they do - rather it's simply the case they are a piece to the puzzle rather than the piece to the puzzle.
I'll have to re-run the numbers when I have more time but, IIRC, they indicated that the Kings were a 27-win team with Cousins, and were a 12-win team without him. It doesn't really have anything to do with "bragging" about it. Saying that the Kings' best finish with Cousins was 33 wins disregards how completely inept the rest of the team was; there was really only one season where you could make the argument that they underachieved, and that was the season where the whole team quit on George Karl.
Waymint... back up: brought what upon himself?
I mean, I understand having a Kings-centered morality, and being happy he's not in Sacramento anymore, and all that. I even 'understand' (if we're using the literal definition of 'understand') someone saying that 'he's not that good.' I think that believing that to be an accurate statement is crazy, but that's neither here nor there. But what did he bring upon himself?
I mean, I understand having a Kings-centered morality, and being happy he's not in Sacramento anymore, and all that. I even 'understand' (if we're using the literal definition of 'understand') someone saying that 'he's not that good.' I think that believing that to be an accurate statement is crazy, but that's neither here nor there. But what did he bring upon himself?
He may actually realize it at this point. My concern is whether that matters.
I believe firmly that refs cost us the 2002 series vs. the Lakers. The thing that I waffle on is whether that was because the NBA conspired to make it a 7 game series or because some of the Kings players had a rep with the officials that cost us calls. If it's the latter, I think that might have something to do with Vlade's desire to clean house re: character thinking as well. He played with both organizations and certainly understands how perception can change the game.
I believe firmly that refs cost us the 2002 series vs. the Lakers. The thing that I waffle on is whether that was because the NBA conspired to make it a 7 game series or because some of the Kings players had a rep with the officials that cost us calls. If it's the latter, I think that might have something to do with Vlade's desire to clean house re: character thinking as well. He played with both organizations and certainly understands how perception can change the game.