Cousins demanded a trade(Other fans: Stop proposing trades)

SacKingZZZ · Post #101 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:31 am

pillwenney wrote:So there are some facts. Would appear that he basically never made a formal request, but did yell it angrily.

Just like I figured. If Cousins wanted a trade you wouldn't hear denials when the team released a statement about the demands.

Post #102 » by **BrooklynBulls** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:32 am

rpa wrote:
BrooklynBulls wrote:Maybe he'll be fired too, but I don't think it's as simple as firing Westphal, and the problem goes away. The FO, through Westphal, has basically said we don't Cousins on this team.

If they really didn't want Cousins then why issue the statement in the first place? It negatively impacts their ability to trade him.

It's like a banker releasing a statement saying "I need to unload these completely useless derivatives".

Because he was deemed so toxic to the team that the FO doesnt even want him on the bench. They want him to sit on his ass at home-- and once that happens, it's all out anyway. At least this way, the FO controls the rumors-- they release the story, not Cousins or his agent.

RIPskaterdude · Post #103 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:34 am

If the Kings trade (or have Cousins sit out the season), they will leave Sacramento at the end of the season.

SacKingZZZ · Post #104 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:35 am

BrooklynBulls wrote:I think some of you are in denial. The full story isn't out, but what makes sense is to take the statement at face value. Cousins did something or said something or acted in a manner that the FO considered so unacceptable that they told him to stay home. Players ask for trades daily, and get rejected, daily. The ones that get traded either have leverage like upcoming unrestricted free-agency (which is not relevant here) or they're such complete headcases that the FO thinks its better to trade than deal with their disgruntled state (Odom is the most recent example of that).

Similarly to Odom, the FO basically said "we know the sh*tstorm that Cousins will raise, we know he has no value on the market anymore, let's just get him the heck away from the team before he drags us further down." That is my inference from the stated facts.

And that's what looks to have happened here. I think if DMC were to change his tune, the FO might agree to make up...but how likely do you all think that is?

This sucks balls.

Very.

The Lakers situation was different, they were by all accounts looking to cut salary and in the deal they made for Paul it did just that as well.

I'm going to use my brain and say that Geoff Petrie, who hardly lets a fart slip, let alone inside information relating to his basketball team, isn't looking to trade anyone right now. This is a message, it's up to Cousins, Westphal, and the team to respond.

boogie-reke · Post #105 » by **boogie-reke** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:36 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:If the Kings trade (or have Cousins sit out the season), they will leave Sacramento at the end of the season.

RIPskaterdude · Post #106 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:36 am

I honestly don't know how Westfail still has a job. Does he have dirt on the Maloofs? If this happened during the Theus era, Theus would have been fired MUCH sooner. None of this makes sense. I want it to make sense

SacKingZZZ · Post #107 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:37 am

BrooklynBulls wrote:If there was ever a choice between Cousins or Westphal...is it not clear that the management chose Westphal?

Maybe he'll be fired too, but I don't think it's as simple as firing Westphal, and the problem goes away. The FO, through Westphal, has basically said we don't Cousins on this team.

They're trying to salvage this team with this coach, nothing more. Westphal is in the last year of his deal and it was extremely likely that he was not going to be back anyway and with the start not likely he was going to make it half way through the season. We'll see.

SacKingZZZ · Post #108 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:38 am

deNIEd wrote:
rpa wrote:
BrooklynBulls wrote:Maybe he'll be fired too, but I don't think it's as simple as firing Westphal, and the problem goes away. The FO, through Westphal, has basically said we don't Cousins on this team.

If they really didn't want Cousins then why issue the statement in the first place? It negatively impacts their ability to trade him.

It's like a banker releasing a statement saying "I need to unload these completely useless derivatives".

One of two possibilities...

Option A) King's are doing this simply to send a message and have no intention in trading DeMarcus

Option B) King's don't care about DeMarcus anymore at all and will dump him just to get rid of him (similar to LAL and Odom).

Either DeMarcus will still be with this team after the deadline...or he would have been traded for a TPE or something.

Pretty much A or B, and honestly, this is Petrie here, now is it clear as day or what? :wink:

SacKingZZZ · Post #109 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:39 am

boogie-reke wrote:
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:If the Kings trade (or have Cousins sit out the season), they will leave Sacramento at the end of the season.

Hahaha, one individual player does not dictate the next 30 years of a teams existence. By the time the Kings get even half of the use out of a new building Cousins will be long retired.

Post #110 » by **BrooklynBulls** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:40 am

If this is a "message" to Cousins, that's one hell of a way to get his attention while losing the confidence of your fanbase. It's not a message. If it is, its an incompetent one.

SacKingZZZ · Post #111 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:42 am

mr_jasonjones Jason Jones
Cousins found out today he wasn't playing but he's not "suspended."

This is an interesting tweet right here. Maybe they are entertaining offers for him? I don't know, if they deal him and keep Westphal who will in all likelyhood be canned here soon anyway, wow, way to fail at understanding history and the do's and don'ts of moving forward! ARGH!

SacKingZZZ · Post #112 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:44 am

BrooklynBulls wrote:If this is a "message" to Cousins, that's one hell of a way to get his attention while losing the confidence of your fanbase. It's not a message. If it is, its an incompetent one.

If it isn't a message and the intention is to trade Cousins? Then this franchise wins the award for most incompetent in history.

After that tweet I posted above I'm starting to waiver a tad. Could be they're done with his BS. I still lean towards the message end of the spectrum because I just can't see Petrie doing that.

Post #113 » by **BrooklynBulls** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:44 am

Another possibility is that they already have a tentative deal and they wanted to explain just how much of a douche Cousins is so that they can look like the good guys, getting some value back.

What a disastrous season.

RIPskaterdude · Post #114 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:48 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:
boogie-reke wrote:
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:If the Kings trade (or have Cousins sit out the season), they will leave Sacramento at the end of the season.

Hahaha, one individual player does not dictate the next 30 years of a teams existence. By the time the Kings get even half of the use out of a new building Cousins will be long retired.

What are you talking about? This is a major step back in getting a new stadium. If you think otherwise, then...I don't know how to explain it to you.

SacKingZZZ · Post #115 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:53 am

If anyone weighs in on the arena issue with nothing but the current Kings as their motivation or knowledge base then they simply need not weigh in. A new arena is about much more than just the Kings let along the current bunch. If you thought of it that way then they better not build it because in 10 years they'll probably have to rebuild again, lol.

RIPskaterdude · Post #116 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:54 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:If anyone weighs in on the arena issue with nothing but the current Kings as their motivation or knowledge base then they simply need not weigh in. A new arena is about much more than just the Kings let along the current bunch. If you thought of it that way then they better not build it because in 10 years they'll probably have to rebuild again, lol.

I agree, but have you been to any of the city counsel meetings? ONE bad thing like could set it back. These people are seriously paranoid and will jump away at the sound of a bad problem like this. There's only 3 months until the deadline...

SacKingZZZ · Post #117 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:56 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
SacKingZZZ wrote:If anyone weighs in on the arena issue with nothing but the current Kings as their motivation or knowledge base then they simply need not weigh in. A new arena is about much more than just the Kings let along the current bunch. If you thought of it that way then they better not build it because in 10 years they'll probably have to rebuild again, lol.

I agree, but have you been to any of the city counsel meetings? ONE bad thing like could set it back. These people are seriously paranoid and will jump away at the sound of a bad problem like this. There's only 3 months until the deadline...

Then it's doomed to fail anyway, in any big debate or multi-faceted project like this there will be setbacks.

dozencousins · Post #118 » by **dozencousins** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 1:57 am

We are f**ked . We are in a lose lose situation . If its a matter of choosing between Cousins and Westpaul we better choose Cousins attitude or not . Cousins is a stud player a DMC type player just doesnt come around every year .

Again if DMC gets dealt we better get a ton .This is killing me .
I hope someone will just glue Westpaul's mouth shut . I am going to puke over all the b.s. that comes out of his mouth .

RIPskaterdude · Post #119 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 2:02 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
SacKingZZZ wrote:If anyone weighs in on the arena issue with nothing but the current Kings as their motivation or knowledge base then they simply need not weigh in. A new arena is about much more than just the Kings let along the current bunch. If you thought of it that way then they better not build it because in 10 years they'll probably have to rebuild again, lol.

I agree, but have you been to any of the city counsel meetings? ONE bad thing like could set it back. These people are seriously paranoid and will jump away at the sound of a bad problem like this. There's only 3 months until the deadline...

Then it's doomed to fail anyway, in any big debate or multi-faceted project like this there will be setbacks.

I guess so. So much for the Sacramento Kings.

deNIEd · Post #120 » by **deNIEd** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 2:09 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:
BrooklynBulls wrote:If this is a "message" to Cousins, that's one hell of a way to get his attention while losing the confidence of your fanbase. It's not a message. If it is, its an incompetent one.

If it isn't a message and the intention is to trade Cousins? Then this franchise wins the award for most incompetent in history.

After that tweet I posted above I'm starting to waiver a tad. Could be they're done with his BS. I still lean towards the message end of the spectrum because I just can't see Petrie doing that.

I don't see how the intention can be to trade DMC. It doesn't make any sense in why the release was made UNLESS we simply wanted to dump him ASAP for anything and just get him off the roster. If we actually wanted value for him, why would this have been made public at all?

That's why I really think, either it's a message or we will get absolutely nothing for DMC. (unless we already have an agreed upon trade)