# Should the Lakers trade the #2 pick for DeMarcus Cousins?



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

> The Lakers won big in the 2015 NBA Draft Lottery, landing the second overall pick (likely Kentucky’s Karl-Anthony Towns or Duke’s Jahlil Okafor), which most think they’ll use June 25, but there’s an alternate scenario floating out there — one that puts them clearly in “win-now” mode.
> 
> *Speculation is starting to emerge that general manager Mitch Kupchak will use the second overall pick as trade bait to land a proven big man, someone like the Sacramento Kings’ DeMarcus Cousins, in a straight up deal.*
> 
> ...


http://la.suntimes.com/los-angeles-lakers/7/88/271920/lakers-kings-demarcus-cousins-trade

I'm not buying it.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Yes. Cousins is an absolute beast. 

I'm not sure how his mental health would welcome a move to LA.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Thats not a bad trade at all for the Lakers. Not sure why the Kings would do it, but I really do not understand any of their moves


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I think it would be a no-brainer move for the Kings. I actually don't like it for the Lakers. Despite the overwhelming "need" in Lakers fans' minds to win and win now, they should be playing the long game. It feels weird saying this, but maybe Kupchak should be taking a page out of Sam Hinkie's book for the next couple years.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> I think it would be a no-brainer move for the Kings. I actually don't like it for the Lakers. Despite the overwhelming "need" in Lakers fans' minds to win and win now, they should be playing the long game. It feels weird saying this, but maybe Kupchak should be taking a page out of Sam Hinkie's book for the next couple years.


I guess you're confident that Towns will be better than Cousins? I'm not.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I guess you're confident that Towns will be better than Cousins? I'm not.


I'm not, either. I am, however, confident that he's 5 years younger.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> I'm not, either. I am, however, confident that he's 5 years younger.


Cousins is 24. When you can see a player through the next 4 or 5 years, you shouldn't worry about much past that date.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Cousins is still young. Getting him for the #2 pick would be an amazing deal. 

It's not like this years draft has that clear superstar in it. I'd do it without hesitation if I'm the Lakers.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

If that offer is truly on the table, the Lakers should do it without hesitating. Towns or Okafor would be a nice get for them, but Cousins would be perfect. Gives them a young guy who is supremely talented at a position of need. Randle/Cousins is a really nice duo.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

If that deal is really on teh table, you absolutely do it. But I doubt that deal is really available.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> If that deal is really on teh table, you absolutely do it. But I doubt that deal is really available.


I think guys like Simmons have been putting the fear of god into Ranadive since they keep asking Cousins when he's going to leave the Kings and go to a real team. There's a lot of speculation that he's going to push to leave at some point.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Yeah I think I would do that. Cousins is a beast and still young too. I think he would do really well in an environment with better management and more stability. He has played with 5 different starting PGs so far in his career.

The only hesitation is the salary difference. I think you have to look at it as would you rather have: Cousins or Okafor+$12M player. Who would fit into that $12M slot to really make it worth it?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> I'm not, either. I am, however, confident that he's 5 years younger.


So? I'd rather have the next ten years of cousins projected contributions than the next ten years of towns. Maybe in 2025 as cousins turns 35 and towns is 30 towns is better, who cares by then. If randle is a double double threat as a rookie a lineup with him, cousins, Kobe, clarkson and a starter FA or two is back in the playoffs.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> So? I'd rather have the next ten years of cousins projected contributions than the next ten years of towns. Maybe in 2025 as cousins turns 35 and towns is 30 towns is better, who cares by then. If randle is a double double threat as a rookie a lineup with him, cousins, Kobe, clarkson and a starter FA or two is back in the playoffs.


Exactly. That's my point. If I'm the Lakers right now with their current make-up, the absolute last thing I want to do is start making the playoffs and getting bounced in the first round. 

This is a franchise that is basically championship or bust because of their rich and storied history. They have a chance right now to get a couple top, young players and really built an elite title contender for years to come.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> Exactly. That's my point. If I'm the Lakers right now with their current make-up, the absolute last thing I want to do is start making the playoffs and getting bounced in the first round.
> 
> This is a franchise that is basically championship or bust because of their rich and storied history. They have a chance right now to get a couple top, young players and really built an elite title contender for years to come.


That's stupid. You mean to tell me the Pelicans aren't attractive to stud free agents because they got bounced in the first round? Randle, clarkson and cousins is still a very young core.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

ATLien said:


> Thats not a bad trade at all for the Lakers. Not sure why the Kings would do it, but I really do not understand any of their moves


I think it makes sense for both teams. The Kings aren't going to win in Boogie's timeframe anyway (i.e. before he hits free agency), so it makes sense to hit the reset and try to build around the uncrazy DMC and whoever they select at #6 (hopefully Winslow).

For the Lakers you always take the actual star over the maybe one day one.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> That's stupid. You mean to tell me the Pelicans aren't attractive to stud free agents because they got bounced in the first round? Randle, clarkson and cousins is still a very young core.


I still think the #2 pick has more value for the Lakers than Cousins does at this time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I agree and it's at least in small part because if you keep the pick you are still in the market for free agents this summer whereas if you take on Boogie's contract you're cooked

which is better? Towns/Okafor and a shot at signing a max contract guy or Boogie and that's it?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> So? I'd rather have the next ten years of cousins projected contributions than the next ten years of towns. Maybe in 2025 as cousins turns 35 and towns is 30 towns is better, who cares by then. If randle is a double double threat as a rookie a lineup with him, cousins, Kobe, clarkson and a starter FA or two is back in the playoffs.


I really wouldn't just mark down Randle for a double double threat as a rookie. No one has since Griffin in the 2010-11 season. Even Davis was only 14 and 8 and that's the closest anyone has been since Blake.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

RollWithEm said:


> It feels weird saying this, but maybe Kupchak should be taking a page out of Sam Hinkie's book for the next couple years.


They can't, they still owe firsts to Philadelphia and Orlando, so most of their suckage would benefit other teams. The idea behind landing a top five pick is to land a franchise player, if you can get a 24 year old franchise player for a top five pick you pull the trigger on the deal and hope the guy on the other end of the line doesn't sober up in the meantime. (That last is a Ted Williams joke.)


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> They can't, they still owe firsts to Philadelphia and Orlando, so most of their suckage would benefit other teams. The idea behind landing a top five pick is to land a franchise player, if you can get a 24 year old franchise player for a top five pick you pull the trigger on the deal and hope the guy on the other end of the line doesn't sober up in the meantime. (That last is a Ted Williams joke.)


Well that really is a tough spot they've gotten themselves into. The only laurels they have to rest on are their reputation and their weather. This could be an ugly 6-7 year stretch for the Lakeshow.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> Exactly. That's my point. If I'm the Lakers right now with their current make-up, the absolute last thing I want to do is start making the playoffs and getting bounced in the first round.
> 
> This is a franchise that is basically championship or bust because of their rich and storied history. They have a chance right now to get a couple top, young players and really built an elite title contender for years to come.


Like others have said, Cousins is still young. And are Okafor and Towns really a sure thing to be 24/12 players down the line? If Cousins stayed with the Lakers for 6, 7 years, odds are the Lakers would have managed, by that time, to nab a good FA to pair with Randle and Clarkson thus making a probable contender.

If Towns gets picked #1 , i would do that trade without hesitation. If Okafor is #1 , i would think a little about it (cause Towns defensive potential is interesting) but i'd pull the trigger nonetheless.

IF Randle turns out to be the stud he seemed to be, and Clarkson develops nicely, in a couple of seasons the Lakers would be aiming at much more than a one-and-out. Unless ALL good FAs spurn the Lakers.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Once again, is Randle really better than Okafor or Towns? What has he accomplished to be labeled a stud over these other two players? If Randle were in this years draft would anybody take him over Okafor or Towns? I wouldn't.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Once again, is Randle really better than Okafor or Towns? What has he accomplished to be labeled a stud over these other two players? If Randle were in this years draft would anybody take him over Okafor or Towns? I wouldn't.


There isn't a team in the NBA that would take Randle over Okafor or Towns. I agree.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I really wouldn't just mark down Randle for a double double threat as a rookie. No one has since Griffin in the 2010-11 season. Even Davis was only 14 and 8 and that's the closest anyone has been since Blake.


I wouldn't either. That's why I said if.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I wouldn't either. That's why I said if.


It's not really an "if" with him as a rookie. It's more of a no shot in hell, which is why I don't know why you mentioned it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> It's not really an "if" with him as a rookie. It's more of a no shot in hell, which is why I don't know why you mentioned it.


That's not what you argued the first time. You misrepresented my statement to mean I was saying he WILL get a double to double.


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

e-monk said:


> I agree and it's at least in small part because if you keep the pick you are still in the market for free agents this summer whereas if you take on Boogie's contract you're cooked
> 
> which is better? Towns/Okafor and a shot at signing a max contract guy or Boogie and that's it?


With the cap going up, and with Kobe coming off the books (or paid less), the Lakers will have room to sign multiple max players in the summer of '16 to add to the core of Clarkson, Randle, and Cousins. Cousins could help the Lakers win more immediately, which could keep them from getting mired in a losing (tanking) culture. As a bonus, it would help keep us Lakers fans from having to see a possibly very high 2016 Lakers draft pick go to another team. Which max contract guy can the Lakers attract this summer, with unknowns like Okafor and Randle expected to handle lots of responsibility in 2015-16, compared to who they might attract with a more competitive and experienced Cousins and Randle combo going into 16-17? I think if that deal is on the table, the Lakers should take it.


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

R-Star said:


> It's not really an "if" with him as a rookie. It's more of a no shot in hell, which is why I don't know why you mentioned it.


I wouldn't say no shot. Unlikely? Yes. No shot? No. It depends mostly on his minutes, I would think. If healthy, I could see Randle getting as much as 15 and 8 in about 30 minutes per game next season.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

No, no, no.

If Lakers want to win the Champ in 5 years, they have to draft 3 top 5 picks and sign 3 young all-stars or superstars.

Sign superstars >>>>> trade for superstars

Sign Shaq >>>>>> trade for Shaq


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Once again, is Randle really better than Okafor or Towns? What has he accomplished to be labeled a stud over these other two players? If Randle were in this years draft would anybody take him over Okafor or Towns? I wouldn't.


I'm not even sure that he'd go over his former teammate (Cauley-Stein).


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

e-monk said:


> I agree and it's at least in small part because if you keep the pick you are still in the market for free agents this summer whereas if you take on Boogie's contract you're cooked
> 
> which is better? Towns/Okafor and a shot at signing a max contract guy or Boogie and that's it?


Cooked...for a year. And then when Kobe retires you still have a true franchise guy who just put up 24/13, and will be 25 at the start of next season. 

Do you know that you have a franchise guy in Towns or Okafor? I like them both, but chances are the better of the two is off the board at 2 anyways.

Let me ask this. If you inserted Cousins into this draft, even with the same contract he has now, do you not agree he would be the first player off the board?


----------



## Wiz (Feb 1, 2015)

I would trade the #2 pick for Cousins.

I would not trade Cousins for the #2 pick.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> Well that really is a tough spot they've gotten themselves into. The only laurels they have to rest on are their reputation and their weather. This could be an ugly 6-7 year stretch for the Lakeshow.


The Lakers were in the lottery in 94. By 96 they were attractive enough to sign Shaq. He joined a team with Van Exel (second round pick), Jones (lottery pick in 94), Ceballos (acquired in a shrewd trade for the Suns to clear minutes and cap room) And Elden (later first rounder from 90). They0've done more with less before.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

these arent those times and this isn't that CBA but I still think they can bounce back sooner than later


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> these arent those times and this isn't that CBA but I still think they can bounce back sooner than later


The point stands. They already have some young talent.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

like I said I think they'll bounce back sooner than later


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> like I said I think they'll bounce back sooner than later


Generally when you agree with the premise of someones post you don't reply first by pointing out why it might not be valid?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

because it's not likely to be a home run free agent signing (like getting Shaq) that gets the job done - I don't think that guy is out there this summer and next summer everyone is going to have money to burn - they should still be setting the table and building a nest or foundation or whatever metaphor you prefer


----------

