Discussion in 'NBA' started by The Hammer, Apr 11, 2017.
Yep, and Cousins led that charge.
I think we have to look beyond technicalities when discussing playoff contention. Yes, if you are within reach of the 8th seed pre-AS break, you are in contention, but when the 7th and 8th seed are barely above .500, competing for that final playoff position if you are a worthy team shouldn't be a rigorous task. A bunch of other teams were also "competing" for the playoffs because the bar was set so low. I think if you are 10 games below .500, you have to be wary of using the world "competing for a playoff spot."
And you can substantiate that claim, I'm sure.
No, we don't. It's pretty much a boolean expression.
Yes we do because any GM can say "hey this team was in playoff contention after the first 20 games of the year so I shouldn't lose my job!"
It wasn't just the "first 20 games." You ain't gotta lie to kick it.
But you said contending the playoffs was a boolean expression, so on a technicality, any team in contention after 20 games is in the playoff hunt correct?
No. Contention isn't established after twenty games, and nobody is trying to make the argument that it is, would be, should be, or has been.
Actually, I only used the 20 games example to show that contention is not a boolean expression. Contention needs to have added context and perspective to have any meaning rather than merely discussing it as a binary term.
Well then, you did not succeed, because you'd have to artificially expand the criteria for contention beyond what most would agree to be a reasonable standard, in order to validate your argument.
I don't know anyone who even starts seriously talking playoffs until the season is into January. And most feel the race truly begins after the all-star break.
Look I don't believe contention starts at 20 games. I merely used it to demonstrate that "contention" is not binary as claimed. Adding context to "contention" is met with rebuke and derision oddly.
Why would I have to expand it. It's a boolean expression as you suggested, so there is no need to modify the criteria because you simply contend or you don't.
If you are 1.5 games out of the playoffs in February, then you are in playoff contention. No context is needed.
Sure but that's your opinion. There are a host of fans on here who wouldn't agree with that sentiment because the Kings were several games under .500.
There are a lot of fans on here who would agree with Telemachus. I could start a poll, but inevitably every time I do it ends up disproving the person who first claimed to be taking the majority opinion.
Other than you, I haven't seen anyone argue that the Kings weren't in the playoff race going into the all-star break. They were 1.5 games out sitting in the 9th spot (with 3 games remaining against the 8th spot). Several felt that they wouldn't make into the playoffs, but that is a much different discussion.
It's still a boolean expression: Is this team in contention for the playoffs, Yes or No? The answer was yes, and you trying to expand the criteria for contention is just a cheap attempt to use argumentum ad absurdum for some form of gotcha. You changing the data set doesn't change the answer, but the data set is artificial in the first place. I mean, sure, someone could argue that a team was in contention after twenty games, but only a ****head would. Hell, you could "argue" (for differing values of "arguing") that a team was in contention after one game but, again, only a ****head would.
And they would be wrong. Playoff contention is determined by how close you are to the eighth seed, not by how close you are to .500. If a team is in ninth place, but they're ten games back then, sure, they're not really in contention. But, if they're only a game and a half back, then they're in contention, even if they're ten games under .500.
Added important information.
We were playing our youth against the weakest part of our schedule, making it nearly impossible to successfully tank. Given that context, it's easier to argue the possibility that we would have made the playoffs.
I've never been one to hide from reality.
The future could be bright but the past showcases that we will most likely screw it up again and in any case if we managed the DMC trade in a planned and professional manner the future could have been brighter - enough flogging a dead horse though. Everyone knows where i stand here.
"far, far from the way it is" - my statements are much closer to reality then you would paint them out to be and no they do not affect my ability to enjoy the kings presently, i am just mindful of what the future may look like based on the past.
True. I admit the Kings were technically in the playoff hunt, but the larger point that must be addressed is whether or not changes needed to be made. Invariably the argument invoked in support of maintaining the current roster stems from the "playoff hunt" as the whole contention notion bolsters the improvement of the team. Sure the team was in the playoff hunt, but they weren't necessarily a good team because of it. Kings were in contention so that's a mark in support of Cousins. I say not necessarily so.
That's the only point I'm trying to convey.
Gives some context to the Cuz trade. At least we got two top 10 picks out of the deal.
But our all-star was signed to a reasonable contract over the next two seasons. CP3 was a free agent.
But Cousins' agent was trying to sabotage any return the Kings got.
But our GM was deadset on getting a deal done before our owner changed his mind about a trade.
Sure, but Vlade said the Kings had a better offer from the Pelicans before his agent got involved. Even if Vlade had waited for better offers, Fegan was only going to further drive down the value of his client.
I feel like a case could be made that Divac could have gotten a much better haul for Cousins in the offseason. The way I see it, the Kings were going to make the playoffs, if Cousins hadn't been traded. Just making the playoffs, even if it had been four blowout losses, likely changes the narrative just enough so that coaches and GMs around the league start looking at Cousins like, "Hrmm... maybe he is coachable, after all! If I can put him around some winners, they might keep him in line enough for him to make us into a contender!" Suddenly, you go from taking what you can get at the trade deadline, to flipping him for a King's Ransom on draft day.
Or, since the only real reason why Cousins' agent "sabotaged" trade talks was because he wanted to make sure that Cousins got his money, doesn't anybody think that a DeMarcus Cousins with a playoff résumé would have been in play for a sign and trade deal with a team that was desperate to upgrade talent?
With the Cousins trade and Butler trade, the market for all-star players is setting in. It will be interesting to see the return for Paul George.
I believe sign and trades changed under the new CBA. Teams cannot offer a 5th year to a player and then immediately trade him, so DMC would still be losing out in the S&T.
Let's say for the sake of argument Kings made the playoffs. That means they would have lost the #5, #15, #20 and #34. Can you really expect a better return than that if you wait to trade him?
I don't see you guys making the playoffs with Cousins. You were in contention with a bunch of teams but it isn't like you were in the playoffs when he was traded.