vivek is in love with Buddy and thinks he is going to be a superstar, noone else thinks this way but it seems to be the reasoning behind the trade.
Sac was looking to clear cap. That's a reason many teams like us weren't really in the running. They took back expiring deals for the most part.
I am part of the vast universe who doesn't know what Sac would do. As for myself, I'd seriously consider it. FAs don't want to come to Portland? They sure shouldn't want to go to Sacramento. So, having good players locked into contracts is actually a good thing.
all the radio guys out here have been talking about the celtics needing a rebounder and a scorer. umm hello. boogie is both. bunch of idiots on the radio here too, i keep hearing he is a free agent at the end of this year (wrong), that boston would have to pay him "219 million" (wrong), and that the celtics would have had to gut the team to get him (wrong).
It certainly appears from this trade that Sac is looking to do a total rebuild. They took expiring contract (Evans), a nice young player (Hield ), filler (Galloway), a top-4 protected first round pick and a second round pick. I'm sure that they wouldn't have balked at taking Ed Davis's contract, but Crabbe and Leonard are on new and pretty expensive deals. That probably have given them pause if they're rebuilding. Also, Boogie isn't making enough this year to take that big of package in trade so the Kings would have had to throw in other players on ending contracts and they don't have enough of those to make it work.
The thing that is predictable every time a trade goes down, that involves a player fans regard as desirable, is the reaction that somehow our GM failed by not making a better offer. I know in the world of Video games it seems so simple, but in reality it isn't. Example even if we had offered Crabbe, why would Sacramento who is blowing it up to start over want to take on Crabbe's contract? Sure maybe on paper Crabbe is a better player right now than Hield is but the $$$ is a big part of the equation. In this case 28 other teams didn't make a better offer either. Cousins, while a phenomenal talent, is a colossal chemistry, not just risk, but issue.
I agree. As I was saying in another thread, Portland actually couldn't have matched or slightly improved on the Pelicans' offer. They could have completely blown it away, of course, by offering Lillard or McCollum, but that's a completely different thing and I don't necessarily blame Olshey for not trading one of the Blazers' legitimate stars for the risk that Cousins entails (both the chemistry and eventual flight risk).
One tweeter pointed out that George Karl was right about everything. If they had traded Boogie back then, they'd be much better right now.
A declining Garnett and Pierce for a generation's worth of premium first-round picks was probably the worst.
You know, in reading about this trade and recent Kings' history, it's been pointed out that the Kings themselves have another competitor for worst trade ever: they traded Nik Stauskas, option to swap picks in 2016, option to swap picks in 2017 and a completely unprotected pick in 2019 to the 76ers in return for the 76ers taking some bad contracts off their hands. They did that to open up space to sign Rajon Rondo (a one-year rental who had already seen his value collapse), Kosta Koufas and Marco Belinelli. So if the Kings collapse this season, the 76ers will get their pick and the Kings will get the 76ers' pick which might not even end up that remarkable if they win some more games considering the Knicks and Hornets are declining. And the 76ers will get the Kings pick in 2019 even if it's #1. All so that the Kings could sign three meh players for a non-existent contention push. Also, the Kings had Isiah Thomas and didn't bother to re-sign him because they thought he was too small. I'm not going to give them enough credit to assume that they made a rational, smart decision here on Cousins.
