# Lakers Trying to Acquire DeMarcus Cousins



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

> The Los Angeles Lakers have emerged as one of the most determined trade suitors for Sacramento Kings All-Star center DeMarcus Cousins, according to league sources. Sources told ESPN that the Lakers have been actively pursuing trade scenarios in recent weeks in attempt to construct a deal that would convince the Kings to part with Cousins.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2503434-demarcus-cousins-trade-rumors-latest-buzz-speculation-on-kings-stars-future?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Lakers to add Wade and Cousins?

It has been many weeks I have not watched any Lakers game. Is jack nicholson still a Laker?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

> @Probballdraft: Still in talks but initially sounds like Kings get 5 pick, Vucevic, & other picks, Magic get 2nd pick & take Okafor, Lakers get Cousins & 6.


If this is true then pull the fucking trigger Mitch! We could add Cousins and potentially Winslow.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> If this is true then pull the fucking trigger Mitch! We could add Cousins and potentially Winslow.


If needed, we can send 2013 nba double-double leader David Lee and #30 pick to Kings for absolutely free. just to help everyone look better.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> If this is true then pull the fucking trigger Mitch! We could add Cousins and potentially Winslow.


I don't think that scenario would be waiting on Mitch's approval. Probably Vlades.

Come on Vlade, you lead us the 91 finals and assisted Horry in Game 4 2002, do us another solid!


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't think that scenario would be waiting on Mitch's approval. Probably Vlades.
> 
> Come on Vlade, you lead us the 91 finals and assisted Horry in Game 4 2002, do us another solid!


It would be the biggest assist of his career


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> If this is true then pull the fucking trigger Mitch! We could add Cousins and potentially Winslow.


Yeah, that would be an absolute no-brainer.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't think that scenario would be waiting on Mitch's approval. Probably Vlades.
> 
> Come on Vlade, you lead us the 91 finals and assisted Horry in Game 4 2002, do us another solid!


He also assisted you in getting Kobe


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Dissonance said:


> He also assisted you in getting Kobe


Touché


----------



## Pelicans808 (Jun 9, 2015)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> If this is true then pull the fucking trigger Mitch! We could add Cousins and potentially Winslow.


Cousins AND Winslow? I just don't see a way Vlade does this trade unless it's for the #2 pick, which I'm guessing would be Winslow or Russell.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

This would be amazing.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

No way that trade is real.

We trade 2, and presumably 27/34 to get Cousins and 6. Come on.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

it's not what's being reported on ESPN - they're saying Randle and Clarkson are involved in which case I'd rather keep them, pay rookie scale for Okafor who will be able to do a decent impression of Boogie sooner than later and then stay on plan


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

If the Lakers can turn 2/27/34 into Cousins and any other lottery picks, they've got to do that.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

as long as they keep Clarkson and Randle


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Lakers trade the 2nd and get Cousins and the 6th? And you guys think this is actually a possibility?

That's adorable.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

R-Star said:


> Lakers trade the 2nd and get Cousins and the 6th? And you guys think this is actually a possibility?
> 
> That's adorable.


I think it's highly unlikely, but not completely far fetched if they think Cousins wants out or doesn't want to play for Karl or whatever. You turn Cousins into Vucevic + move up a slot + an additional pick or two. Not a move you make if he wants to stay, but if he's expressed otherwise? And you can nab Porzingis (whom the Magic would no doubt take if they stay at 5 and he's available) or Winslow?

Honestly, I think it's the Magic that get the short end here. Unless they reeeally like Okafor, why do you trade Vucevic (24 yrs old) and (presumably) Porzingis?


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

USA Today



> "We have zero interest in moving Cousins, so I don't know where that's coming from," Ranadive said when asked about an ESPN.com report in which a Kings-Los Angeles Lakers-Orlando Magic trade scenario was discussed. "But if you like, you should talk to (Kings vice president of basketball and franchise operations) Vlade (Divac), because I know Vlade feels exactly the same way. And I'm deferring to Vlade on everything. We have no interest in moving him. From my perspective, it's really simple: we feel that he's a one-of-a-kind player, and we have a group of players right now and we're going to build on it."


Well there's that. I believe it, but I also believe they're going to get a ton of offers for him anyway. We'll see if they stick to their guns.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Uncle Drew said:


> I think it's highly unlikely, but not completely far fetched if they think Cousins wants out or doesn't want to play for Karl or whatever. You turn Cousins into Vucevic + move up a slot + an additional pick or two. Not a move you make if he wants to stay, but if he's expressed otherwise? And you can nab Porzingis (whom the Magic would no doubt take if they stay at 5 and he's available) or Winslow?
> 
> *Honestly, I think it's the Magic that get the short end here.* Unless they reeeally like Okafor, why do you trade Vucevic (24 yrs old) and (presumably) Porzingis?


Exactly. So why do they even need to be involved. 

Why not just 2nd and whatever for Cousins? The idea of just the 2nd netting Cousins _AND_ the 6th? Nope. Not going to happen.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

R-Star said:


> Exactly. So why do they even need to be involved.
> 
> Why not just 2nd and whatever for Cousins? The idea of just the 2nd netting Cousins _AND_ the 6th? Nope. Not going to happen.


Agreed. If the Lakers are willing to part with Clarkson or Randle, maybe those talks get somewhere. Still doubtful, but more doable. As is, no way. 

The Magic have a nice young core and could be adding another solid player at #5 . No reason to eff with the program.

And you're not getting Cousins for just the #2 straight up, either. There will be much better offers. Hell, they can ask for whoever gets drafted at #2 whenever they want.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Yahoo Sources: Sacramento Kings coach George Karl pushing to trade All-Star center DeMarcus Cousins.
> http://yhoo.it/1K8OLOP


Yeah I have no idea what to believe.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Never doubt the Lakers, fellas. They've pulled off big trades before.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

It ain't a real rumor until Woj gets involved


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

The plot thickens.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/613225835365949440


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/613318707981484032


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Exactly. So why do they even need to be involved.
> 
> Why not just 2nd and whatever for Cousins? The idea of just the 2nd netting Cousins _AND_ the 6th? Nope. Not going to happen.


I think the Lakers could eventually get Cousins for the 2nd. Honestly, given that the end of his contract isn't quite so far away as it would seem, the damaged relationship with the franchise, and the character problems, I'd probably make a trade along those lines if I were Sacramento and hope that Okafor is Cousins, but sane. I can even see the logic behind a three-way deal that ships out Cousins to LA and nets back Vucevic and the fifth pick for Sacramento, if that's indeed available. However, giving up Cousins to trade up four spots (meaning they'd give up the sixth pick as well)? I can't see that.

EDIT: Something like Cousins for 2 and 28, plus the Lakers eat one of the Landry/Thompson contracts, but not both, sounds about right. Not Cousins _and _6 for 2.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I'd have a very difficult time disliking the Lakers if they pulled Cousins to pair with Randle and that makes me sad.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Also interesting as a Cousins suitor: Denver, who just hired his favorite NBA coach and has some interesting pieces in Lawson, Faried, the seventh pick in this draft, and their first next season that comes with swap rights on the Knicks' first-rounder next season.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Marcus13 said:


> I'd have a very difficult time disliking the Lakers if they pulled Cousins to pair with Randle and that makes me sad.



Randle may be part of the trade if it happens.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

God forbid

which is better? Clarkson-Randle-Okafor locked into rookie scale for the next 4-5 years + cap space for a max contract 


or 


Boogie?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

e-monk said:


> God forbid
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It wouldn't just be Boogie, though. It would be Boogie plus the #6 pick.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Basel said:


> It wouldn't just be Boogie, though. It would be Boogie plus the #6 pick.


I have a hard time seeing the Lakers picking up Cousins in exchange for trading down 4 spots. Looks like something leaked by the Lakers to set a baseline in the media. If true then it'd be awful on the part of the Kings - they'd be moving up a single spot in the draft for turning Cousins into Vucevic.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

More would be involved though. It would probably be #2 and Randle + Clarkson, for Cousins + #6 .


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I think I'd rather stay on plan - 3 young guys on rookie scale plus a max guy this summer plus a couple more the next 2 summers seems like a decent way to rebuild


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> I think I'd rather stay on plan - 3 young guys on rookie scale plus a max guy this summer plus a couple more the next 2 summers seems like a decent way to rebuild


What max guy this summer are we talking about?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Eternal said:


> More would be involved though. It would probably be #2 and Randle + Clarkson, for Cousins + #6 .


That looks a little more reasonable, but even then it's not exactly what I'd be going for if I were the Kings. Then again, they seem convinced they can make the playoffs next year even if they trade Cousins, so safe to say I'm not 100% on the same page as their front office.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> What max guy this summer are we talking about?


Lebron James. 

Que the "maple leaf fans of the NBA" rant.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Eternal said:


> More would be involved though. It would probably be #2 and Randle + Clarkson, for Cousins + #6 .


Are you back to being a laker fan?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Lebron James.
> 
> Que the "maple leaf fans of the NBA" rant.


Just wondering who these 3 max guys are going to be.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Demarcus Cousins has become at least the fifth player to call George Karl a snake.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> Demarcus Cousins has become at least the fifth player to call George Karl a snake.


Who are the other 4? Shawn Kemp? Anthony Mason? Carmelo?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> Who are the other 4? Shawn Kemp? Anthony Mason? Carmelo?


Karl forced Ray Allen out in Milwaukee, right? (seriously asking, I'm not sure if I remember correctly)


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

e-monk said:


> God forbid
> 
> which is better? Clarkson-Randle-Okafor locked into rookie scale for the next 4-5 years + cap space for a max contract
> 
> ...


Cousins. If they get 6 too, that could be Justice Winslow, Emmanuel Mudiay, Mario Hezonia, maybe even somebody like Kristaps Porzingis falls to them. That makes it a really, really obvious move to make. But even just Cousins for 2 and the role players, I would do without hesitation. Cousins is a franchise talent at 25 year old center, if you can get one of those guys you do.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> God forbid
> 
> which is better? Clarkson-Randle-Okafor locked into rookie scale for the next 4-5 years + cap space for a max contract
> 
> ...


Id rather have the Clarkson-Randle-Okafor trio over just Cousins, but as others have mentioned it's not just Cousins.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Id rather have the Clarkson-Randle-Okafor trio over just Cousins, but as others have mentioned it's not just Cousins.


If Porzingzing were to fall to the 6th pick, that's an amazing big man tandem that compliments each other well.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Who are the other 4? Shawn Kemp? Anthony Mason? Carmelo?


Carmelo, Andre Iggy, Ty Lawson, and JR Smith


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Karl forced Ray Allen out in Milwaukee, right? (seriously asking, I'm not sure if I remember correctly)


Yep, because you know Michael Redd was going to step right into that role...


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Id rather have the Clarkson-Randle-Okafor trio over just Cousins, but as others have mentioned it's not just Cousins.


This right here.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13134455/sacramento-kings-coach-george-karl-wants-trade-demarcus-cousins-owner-vivek-ranadive-not-allow-it



> The Los Angeles Lakers are interested in trading for Sacramento Kings forward DeMarcus Cousins, as ESPN's Marc Stein has reported, and are willing to give up the No. 2 pick for him, but a source close to the Kings tells ESPN's Chris Broussard that owner Vivek Ranadive will not allow coach George Karl to trade Cousins.
> 
> Yahoo! Sports reported Monday night that Karl is pushing the Kings to trade Cousins.
> 
> ...


What a comically dysfunctional franchise. What are the odds that George Karl doesn't even last to the end of this coming season?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13134455/sacramento-kings-coach-george-karl-wants-trade-demarcus-cousins-owner-vivek-ranadive-not-allow-it
> 
> 
> 
> What a comically dysfunctional franchise. What are the odds that George Karl doesn't even last to the end of this coming season?


Ranadive seems like a guy who's going to consistently ruin his team by being way too hands on of an owner. The guy is an idiot when it comes to basketball.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I love that NBA players have a meme for George Karl being a snake.

Of course he wants a trade that can net him young players and/or draft picks. That's the kind of situation where you have no expectations or pressure and you win 45 games and get coach of the year. Rooks also do everything you tell them. What's the alternative? Keep Cousins and miss the playoffs or lose in the first round?


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

and the plot thickens...


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

I think it is a good idea to trade Cousins. The reasons

1. Kings are almost beat to dead every season, Cousins is unable to rescue them.
2. Rebuild for the future with all of the Lakers and Magic have.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

If I'm Mitch, I offer 2nd pick (If it's anyone other than Towns), 27th pick, 34th pick, Young, and Hill for Cousins and the 6th. 

If they say no, then hang up and get ready for free agency


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> If I'm Mitch, I offer 2nd pick (If it's anyone other than Towns), 27th pick, 34th pick, Young, and Hill for Cousins and the 6th.
> 
> If they say no, then hang up and get ready for free agency


That's an absolutely horrifically bad offer. 

Maaaaybe you could con them into Cousins for the 2nd overall pick if they're sure he's going to force his way off the team and they don't get a better offer (which they probably would). But then you're offering junk picks in the 27th and 34th along with Young and Hill for the 6th pick? Why would anyone do that?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Because I'm a greedy son of a bitch and I'm lowballing the hell out of them. They don't really have much leverage anyways. If it's true that Karl is pushing for the trade, do you really think Cousins is gonna let bygones be bygones and let it go?? I sure as hell don't. Maybe the Kings fire Karl to keep Cousins happy. Either way if Karl stays, Cousins and his agent will most likely force a trade.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Because I'm a greedy son of a bitch and I'm lowballing the hell out of them. They don't really have much leverage anyways. If it's true that Karl is pushing for the trade, do you really think Cousins is gonna let bygones be bygones and let it go?? I sure as hell don't. Maybe the Kings fire Karl to keep Cousins happy. Either way if Karl stays, Cousins and his agent will most likely force a trade.


I expect that the Lakers will be outbid if they insist on Sacramento throwing the 6th overall pick in with Cousins. They aren't the only team that the Kings can deal with.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Bogg said:


> I expect that the Lakers will be outbid if they insist on Sacramento throwing the 6th overall pick in with Cousins. They aren't the only team that the Kings can deal with.



Who's going to give the Kings a better draft pick?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Basel said:


> Who's going to give the Kings a better draft pick?


2 is a great individual asset, but if they're insisting that the Kings throw in pick 6 it amounts to trading up four spots (admittedly likely up a tier, though). Young, Hill, 27, and 34 have basically no value of note when discussing a deal this big. Like I said, the Lakers can probably put together a workable package for Cousins, but it won't be headlined by "We'll let you trade up four spots". Picking up 2 entirely, though? Different story.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> I expect that the Lakers will be outbid if they insist on Sacramento throwing the 6th overall pick in with Cousins. They aren't the only team that the Kings can deal with.


You also expected the Lakers to be outbid in the Dwight Howard sweepstakes.

Do yourself a favor and don't deny that you said that.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> You also expected the Lakers to be outbid in the Dwight Howard sweepstakes.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and don't deny that you said that.


No, what I said was that Andrew Bynum by himself was an awful centerpiece for a rebuild because of his balky knees (and that was when I thought he'd be healthy enough to win you 36 games every year), and that Orlando should go elsewhere to land a package of picks and prospects - which is exactly what they did, but by sending Bynum to a third team. Considering Bynum's played in all of 26 games since 2012 and is currently out of the league, I'm actually feeling pretty vindicated in "Andrew Bynum is a shitty centerpiece" stance.

EDIT: I also said that if Orlando insisted on going with the kind of "win now" direction that Bynum would have entailed they should have blown out the trade to additional players and insisted on getting Pau Gasol back as well, because Pau could have carried them through Bynum's annual absences (and, again, this was when I expected Bynum to simply be injured every year, Andy V-style, instead of out of the league entirely).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> No, what I said was that Andrew Bynum by himself was an awful centerpiece for a rebuild because of his balky knees (and that was when I thought he'd be healthy enough to win you 36 games every year), and that Orlando should go elsewhere to land a package of picks and prospects - which is exactly what they did, but by sending Bynum to a third team. Considering Bynum's played in all of 26 games since 2012 and is currently out of the league, I'm actually feeling pretty vindicated in "Andrew Bynum is a shitty centerpiece" stance.
> 
> EDIT: I also said that if Orlando insisted on going with the kind of "win now" direction that Bynum would have entailed they should have blown out the trade to additional players and insisted on getting Pau Gasol back as well, because Pau could have carried them through Bynum's annual absences (and, again, this was when I expected Bynum to simply be injured every year, Andy V-style, instead of out of the league entirely).


So you didn't say teams like OKC can outbid the Lakers right?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> So you didn't say teams like OKC can outbid the Lakers right?


I said OKC could outbid the Lakers if they put Westbrook on the table, back when Dwight was winning DPOYs by default and there was still some question as to whether Westbrook was hurting OKC by taking shots away from Durant. 

So I mean, I now look silly because I improperly projected how good Westbrook would become and didn't know Dwight's back would give out. In my defense, Harden was still on the team at the time, would win 6MOY that season, and a Durant-Healthy Dwight-Harden core would have been pretty good (and while we're at it, Westbrook for Dwight wouldn't have been any worse than what wound up being Harden for Steven Adams and Mitch McGary). However, I still feel pretty good about saying that Westbrook would have been way better than anything the Lakers were offering, had OKC actually put that offer on the table.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> I said OKC could outbid the Lakers if they put Westbrook on the table, back when Dwight was winning DPOYs by default and there was still some question as to whether Westbrook was hurting OKC by taking shots away from Durant.
> 
> So I mean, I now look silly because I improperly projected how good Westbrook would become and didn't know Dwight's back would give out. In my defense, Harden was still on the team at the time, would win 6MOY that season, and a Durant-Healthy Dwight-Harden core would have been pretty good (and while we're at it, Westbrook for Dwight wouldn't have been any worse than what wound up being Harden for Steven Adams and Mitch McGary). However, I still feel pretty good about saying that Westbrook would have been way better than anything the Lakers were offering, had OKC actually put that offer on the table.


The lakers were clearly the best suitor amongst the teams willing to bid for Dwight was the outcome.

So here's my question, sure teams can outbid the lakers for cousins. I can also win a eBay auction for a used sock for $2,000. Now would the teams that can outbid the lakers actually want to outbid them? That's the question


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> The lakers were clearly the best suitor amongst the teams willing to bid for Dwight was the outcome.
> 
> So here's my question, sure teams can outbid the lakers for cousins. I can also win a eBay auction for a used sock for $2,000. Now would the teams that can outbid the lakers actually want to outbid them? That's the question


What? Why word it so stupidly?


The "what if" scenario trades being thrown around here are terrible. Plain and simple. So no, a $2,000 for a used sock reference isn't needed. Here's a reference for you; Would a team be willing to offer more than the 2nd, some absolute junk late round picks and some garbage players for Cousins and the 6th? Absolutely. 

You're welcome.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> What? Why word it so stupidly?
> 
> 
> The "what if" scenario trades being thrown around here are terrible. Plain and simple. So no, a $2,000 for a used sock reference isn't needed. Here's a reference for you; Would a team be willing to offer more than the 2nd, some absolute junk late round picks and some garbage players for Cousins and the 6th? Absolutely.
> ...


I didn't say shit about the 6th. I said cousins. Did I word it stupidly or are you stupid?


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I didn't say shit about the 6th. I said cousins. Did I word it stupidly or are you stupid?



:yesyesyes::nono::yesyesyes::nono:


:baseldance:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I didn't say shit about the 6th. I said cousins. Did I word it stupidly or are you stupid?


Quote your "Cousins for the 2nd" post please.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't think that scenario would be waiting on Mitch's approval. Probably Vlades.
> 
> Come on Vlade, you lead us the 91 finals and assisted Horry in Game 4 2002, do us another solid!


Here's you quoting someone talking about Cousins and the 6th...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Id rather have the Clarkson-Randle-Okafor trio over just Cousins, but as others have mentioned it's not just Cousins.


Aaaaaand again....


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Wanna know just how dysfunctional the Kings have become?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/613682785837039616


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Quote your "Cousins for the 2nd" post please.


Post 65, the post YOU quoted I mentioned nothing about the sixth pick. I said "cousins". This is a 70+ post thread and the conversation changes, as I was discussing who can outbid the lakers for cousins with bogg. Again sorry you're too stupid to keep up.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> The lakers were clearly the best suitor amongst the teams willing to bid for Dwight was the outcome.


Not really, Andrew Bynum was a terrible return at the time and it only looks worse in retrospect. They would have wound up with absolutely nothing to show for Dwight. Now, they were able to route Bynum to a third team and pick up the package of picks/prospects that I originally said made the most sense to jump-start their rebuild, so they let someone else be the fall guy and are better off for it. I don't think anyone in Philly is now saying that trading Iguodala, Vucevic, and a pair of first-round picks (I think that's what they gave up) for Bynum was clearly the best move. 



Jamel Irief said:


> So here's my question, sure teams can outbid the lakers for cousins. I can also win a eBay auction for a used sock for $2,000. Now would the teams that can outbid the lakers actually want to outbid them? That's the question


A) Westbrook for the best center in the league (at the time of the talks) is hardly paying $2,000 for a used sock, and considering that Harden and Dwight with spare parts just made the conference finals, I'm pretty sure Durant, Harden, and Dwight would be doing just fine (without even bringing up Ibaka or the possible return from trading him). 

B) If all the Lakers are offering is the opportunity to trade up 4 spots? Denver can easily outbid them, and just hired Cousins' favorite coach, Orlando could easily outbid them should they decide to make a move for a cornerstone, and Boston could even put themselves in the discussion if they're able to get the 4th pick from NY. 



Jamel Irief said:


> Post 65, the post YOU quoted I mentioned nothing about the sixth pick. I said "cousins". This is a 70+ post thread and the conversation changes, as I was discussing who can outbid the lakers for cousins with bogg. Again sorry you're too stupid to keep up.


On the other hand, my post that you quoted about the Lakers being outbid specifically said it was if they insisted on the sixth pick being included along with Cousins. I've been pretty clear in this thread that I think the Lakers can land Cousins if they trade the second pick outright (and Sacramento agrees to deal, obviously) but that if they're not willing to do anything more than move down four spots it isn't enough return for Sacramento.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Not really, Andrew Bynum was a terrible return at the time and it only looks worse in retrospect. They would have wound up with absolutely nothing to show for Dwight. Now, they were able to route Bynum to a third team and pick up the package of picks/prospects that I originally said made the most sense to jump-start their rebuild, so they let someone else be the fall guy and are better off for it. I don't think anyone in Philly is now saying that trading Iguodala, Vucevic, and a pair of first-round picks (I think that's what they gave up) for Bynum was clearly the best move.
> 
> 
> 
> A) Westbrook for the best center in the league (at the time of the talks) is hardly paying $2,000 for a used sock, and considering that Harden and Dwight with spare parts just made the conference finals, I'm pretty sure Durant, Harden, and Dwight would be doing just fine (without even bringing up Ibaka or the possible return from trading him).


Because you think it was a great trade doesn't mean Presti did, and clearly he ended up being right. So again, OKC wasn't a better suitor because they might of not wanted to part with what it would take. The Cavs can get Cousins for Lebron if they want. 


> B) If all the Lakers are offering is the opportunity to trade up 4 spots? Denver can easily outbid them, and just hired Cousins' favorite coach, Orlando could easily outbid them should they decide to make a move for a cornerstone, and Boston could even put themselves in the discussion if they're able to get the 4th pick from NY.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, my post that you quoted about the Lakers being outbid specifically said it was if they insisted on the sixth pick being included along with Cousins. I've been pretty clear in this thread that I think the Lakers can land Cousins if they trade the second pick outright (and Sacramento agrees to deal, obviously) but that if they're not willing to do anything more than move down four spots it isn't enough return for Sacramento.



So back to the same question I posed in post 65, does this mean we are acknowledging that the Lakers are the top likely suitor for *Cousins*? Not Cousins and the sixth, not Cousins, the sixth and Gay, Not Cousins and Vlades beard, just Cousins?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> Because you think it was a great trade doesn't mean Presti did, and clearly he ended up being right. So again, OKC wasn't a better suitor because they might of not wanted to part with what it would take. The Cavs can get Cousins for Lebron if they want.


There were all sorts of possibilities I tossed out at the time - some of them good in retrospect, some of them not - but they all boiled down the same: Orlando would have better taking almost any other reasonable package than Bynum and filler. They wound up doing what I suggested, and are better off for it. It was never about what a home run Dwight would have been for OKC (and, again, had they done that they still may be just as good right now), I think you're literally talking about something I tossed out using half a sentence in a single post (based on what I can dig up), it was about Bynum being a bad return. Which he was. 




Jamel Irief said:


> So back to the same question I posed in post 65, does this mean we are acknowledging that the Lakers are the top likely suitor for *Cousins*? Not Cousins and the sixth, not Cousins, the sixth and Gay, Not Cousins and Vlades beard, just Cousins?


I mean.....was that ever a point of contention?



Bogg said:


> *I think the Lakers could eventually get Cousins for the 2nd. Honestly, given that the end of his contract isn't quite so far away as it would seem, the damaged relationship with the franchise, and the character problems, I'd probably make a trade along those lines if I were Sacramento* and hope that Okafor is Cousins, but sane. I can even see the logic behind a three-way deal that ships out Cousins to LA and nets back Vucevic and the fifth pick for Sacramento, if that's indeed available. However, giving up Cousins to trade up four spots (meaning they'd give up the sixth pick as well)? I can't see that.
> 
> EDIT: Something like Cousins for 2 and 28, plus the Lakers eat one of the Landry/Thompson contracts, but not both, sounds about right. Not Cousins _and _6 for 2.


You just quoted a post specifically about Cousins _and_ the sixth pick and then moved the goalposts so that you could argue something more favorable.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> I mean.....was that ever a point of contention?


I guess not, which is why I was confirming. Maybe you and R-star are just used to arguing with me and assumed I was picking a fight.



> You just quoted a post specifically about Cousins _and_ the sixth pick and then moved the goalposts so that you could argue something more favorable.


Not sure why you think this is about settling a argument. I was just trying to gain alignment that if the Lakers really wanted Cousins they can make a top offer. I don't follow rumors likely as much as you do. 

Post I quoted may have been about the sixth pick as well, but honestly I want Cousins 10x more than I want that pick, especially if we can get cousins without giving up Randle or Clarkson. If the Kings are willing to take Cousins for the 2nd pick I do it, if they want to throw in the sixth with us throwing in Clarkson and Randle I'll pass. If you call that "moving the goalposts" I don't give a shit. The end result I want to see here is Cousins on the Lakers.

So acknowledging, the Lakers are probably THE top suitor for Cousins. Here's hoping Karl makes it happen!


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> I guess not, which is why I was confirming. Maybe you and R-star are just used to arguing with me and assumed I was picking a fight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough - yea, if the Lakers put their best offer (or, at least, the best offer necessary) on the table, they're right around the front of the line. I just think that's going to require trading the second overall pick outright. I was specifically replying to the "make them throw in the sixth pick as well, or no deal" posts that had popped up.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

It could be 5 for 1.

Cousins will be a Laker soon.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Yahoo Sources: Lakers, Kings discuss possible framework of a DeMarcus Cousins trade. Kings exploring elsewhere too.
> https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/613906326243119104


...


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

From the above article. 



> Minimally, the Lakers have no intention of including Randle in a deal for Cousins, league sources told Yahoo Sports. Randle, a power forward, was the seventh overall pick in the 2014 NBA draft and missed most of his rookie season after leg surgery. The Lakers are reluctant to part with Clarkson too, sources said


Stick to your guns Mitch. Especially if we're eating a bad contract to go with it.

Edit: Don't see how this happens without a third team. We need to match salaries if this happens before July 1st, and we can't use those that expire this year. Unless they take Young, which is doubtful.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Post 65, the post YOU quoted I mentioned nothing about the sixth pick. I said "cousins". This is a 70+ post thread and the conversation changes, as I was discussing who can outbid the lakers for cousins with bogg. Again sorry you're too stupid to keep up.


So..... you were originally talking about that trade..... but now you aren't and I'm stupid?


For once, take your loss and shut the **** up.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So..... you were originally talking about that trade..... but now you aren't and I'm stupid?
> 
> 
> For once, take your loss and shut the **** up.


You didn't win shit. Your stupid ass couldn't read. Admit youre an idiot or suck my dick.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You didn't win shit. Your stupid ass couldn't read. Admit youre an idiot or suck my dick.


 At what point did your opinion change from Cousins and the 6th to just Cousins?

Please provide a quote. I provided your two previous quotes to the one you're talking about and they clearly reference Cousins and the 6th. Please reference or per chance "archive" where you dropped the 6th.

Thanks in advance,

R-Star


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/613938072066002944


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Lakers have 37.0 million in contract with Kobe at 25.0 million.

The rest of the salaries is 12 million.

I'd give Kings everything for Boogie except Kobe, then sign 13 free agents.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Ballscientist said:


> I'd give Kings everything for Boogie except Kobe, then sign 13 free agents.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Cousins would be awesome, but i only want him if we could trade okafor straight up for him. The young guys are just as important to the future.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> At what point did your opinion change from Cousins and the 6th to just Cousins?
> 
> Please provide a quote. I provided your two previous quotes to the one you're talking about and they clearly reference Cousins and the 6th. Please reference or per chance "archive" where you dropped the 6th.
> 
> ...


I'm repeating myself because you're apparently dense. Post 65, the post YOU quoted. I'm not going to quote it again for you. If you're too dumb to figure it out that's on you.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

It occurs to me that if the Lakers could move Randle and the #2 for Cousins that they could actually start next season with a starting line-up of Clarkson/Wes Matthews/Kobe/Aldridge/Cousins. If anything close to that happens, it will only reinforce why everyone should hate the Lakers.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

RollWithEm said:


> It occurs to me that if the Lakers could move Randle and the #2 for Cousins that they could actually start next season with a starting line-up of Clarkson/Wes Matthews/Kobe/Aldridge/Cousins. If anything close to that happens, it will only reinforce why everyone should hate the Lakers.


Or even Kevin Love instead of Aldridge.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I wouldn't worry about that, the proposed trade reduces the Lakers cap space enough that they might not have a max slot open this summer (even if they don't take back another bad contract)


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm repeating myself because you're apparently dense. Post 65, the post YOU quoted. I'm not going to quote it again for you. If you're too dumb to figure it out that's on you.


Be a better poster please.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> It occurs to me that if the Lakers could move Randle and the #2 for Cousins that they could actually start next season with a starting line-up of Clarkson/Wes Matthews/Kobe/Aldridge/Cousins. If anything close to that happens, it will only reinforce why everyone should hate the Lakers.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reasonably certain the Lakers can't afford to add max contracts for Cousins and Aldridge and an eight-figure deal for Wes Matthews on top of Kobe's contract.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you are not wrong, right now they have like 24m open after existing contracts and cap holds etc - adding Boogie while subtracting Randle and the cap hold for the second pick is still a net negative of like 6-8m (could be more as I'm not sure what the hold for the 2nd pick is valued at)


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reasonably certain the Lakers can't afford to add max contracts for Cousins and Aldridge and an eight-figure deal for Wes Matthews on top of Kobe's contract.


Yeah, Wes was probably a bit of a stretch. It would have to be some sort of sign-and-trade scenario if it's possible at all.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> It occurs to me that if the Lakers could move Randle and the #2 for Cousins that they could actually start next season with a starting line-up of Clarkson/Wes Matthews/Kobe/Aldridge/Cousins. If anything close to that happens, it will only reinforce why everyone should hate the Lakers.


...... then replace Kobe with Kevin Durant next summer.

front court:
Aldridge
Cousins
Durant


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

R-Star and Jamel, get a room already


----------



## Wiz (Feb 1, 2015)

Ballscientist said:


> ...... then replace Kobe with Kevin Durant next summer.
> 
> front court:
> Aldridge
> ...


I would imagine that the Lakers would have to give up quite a bit to score Durant in a trade with the Wizards.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> R-Star and Jamel, get a room already


I prefer the back seat of my car. R-star is not worth a room.


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

So are we done with this?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I prefer the back seat of my car. R-star is not worth a room.


My home is nicer than yours. We'll slum it at your place, you slut.


----------

