Jose/Deng for Gay/Sac 2nd. Sac can get their vet to keep all the youngins from becoming a bunch of degenerates
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ning-case-against-jim-buss-and-mitch-kupchak# Not sure if that has been posted, but pretty informative read, and damning against Jim Buss. Adios my friend.
It's another hit piece by the Mouthpiece. I started a thread for it. Pretty revealing but also a few stretches in logic.
I was curious what else they wanted alongside Ingram because obviously Ingram straight up for Cousins wasn't going to work since the Lakers are obviously not under the cap enough to absorb the difference. Ingram, Lou and future firsts (as in plural, so let's just assume 2 - which may as well be three if you consider Lou could theoretically net us a first via trade) - for Cousins......
The trade doesn't sound like much but looking at it closely it is a lot. Keep the core...let Ingram and Zu develop. Trade Williams for another first, go from there. We still have those two financial anchors in Moz and Deng, irksome.
I don't trust this source but let's play with it a second. Lou Williams, Brandon Ingram, and TWO FIRST ROUND PICKS... That's what they demand from us, but they get almost half that value back from the Pelicans? Seriously... wow. That's amazing. I assume we countered with Lou Williams, Julius Randle, and maybe a pick or something. Not a great return but better than the pile of trash they got.
The only way I would've considered trading for Cousins is if we get rid of Mozgov and/or Deng in a potential trade. We could better convince Cousins to stay if we could pair him with another all star player like Hayward or trading for George/Butler.
All these recent rumblings of Davis being non-committal about staying...small market team need a boost...the parity factor. Can it be that...? Nah, just a bad trade.
IF this was say Detroit trading Drummond to New Orleans and not the Kings trading Cousins, the Lakers would have stood a better chance. I fully believe the aspect of being in the same division played a considerable role in why the Kings were steadfast in their demands - along with whatever negative feelings may linger from the Kings/Lakers rivalry that in reality existed ages ago - and settled on a lesser deal with New Orleans rather than negotiating further with the Lakers on a package that, while it didn't involve BI, would have still been better. I also believe the talk of how the Kings' owner loves Hield. It's really the only explanation for why that package was enough.
Or they want to start putting in pieces to copy the Warrior style basketball that is the rage currently. Start with Hield who they want to be their centerpiece. An obvious rebuild...?
Well no doubt it's an obvious rebuild for the Kings - something I noted just now in the "Tank thread". The Lakers, with their plethora of young talent sans BI, could have offered a package that would fit their criteria just as well. In the end, the formula of: "Kings/Lakers in the same division + Lakers not willing to part with BI + Kings' owner being in love with Hield" is why the Lakers did not get Cousins
Your last statement was my initial thought as well. It will be an interesting time through Thursday to see what deals we attempt and pull off.
