Kings play by play announcer Grant Napear torches 'disgraceful' DeMarcus Cousins

[wayupnorth]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

[crimson_stallion]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

Have you heard half the things Tommy says?  I don't think being an announcer immediately gives you credibility!

[Tr1boy]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

Top points for this

[wayupnorth]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

Have you heard half the things Tommy says?  I don't think being an announcer immediately gives you credibility!

Tommy might say some out there things, but he is far more in toucharge with the Celtics than we are. Also, we have both Tommy and Mike, and it is clear to me Mike is very in the loop, as far as the c's are concerned.


Especially considering this is both beat writers and team announcers.

They know significantly more about this situation than any of us do, and I am shocked at how many people discount what they are saying.

[crimson_stallion]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

Have you heard half the things Tommy says?  I don't think being an announcer immediately gives you credibility!

Tommy might say some out there things, but he is far more in toucharge with the Celtics than we are. Also, we have both Tommy and Mike, and it is clear to me Mike is very in the loop, as far as the c's are concerned.


Especially considering this is both beat writers and team announcers.

They know significantly more about this situation than any of us do, and I am shocked at how many people discount what they are saying.

We discount it because the announcers for most teams are complete idiots who are there purely for entertainment, and are often hugely biased. 

I actually love Mike and Tommy, but I still don't take half of what Tommy says seriously.

These announcers are hired by the organisation - they aren't going to criticise the organisation that pays them.  If there is a conflict between the organisation and one of it's players, then it would be a conflict of interest for the announcers to take the side of the player.  Of course they're going to support the organisation...and coach is higher up in the food chain then the player.

How many times have you ever heard Mike or Tommy criticise Brad Stevens or Doc Rivers?  I don't know if I've ever heard it.  I've heard them criticise players though.  Does this mean that the Celtics coaches are perfect and never makes mistakes? Of course not.

By no means am I suggesting that Cousins is a stand up guy who can do no wrong.  Of course that's not the case.  He is clearly a guy with a challenging personality, and it's easy to see that he's the type of guy who needs to be in a specific environment to be able to keep happy.  He's obviously not good at keeping his emotions in check.

But there have been other guys in the past (Rasheed, Rodman, Jordan, etc) who have had difficult personalities, but who have played a huge role in leading their teams to championships. 

Could you imagine Kobe, or MJ, or Rasheed, Rodman, Shaq or even Lebron being able to survive on a team like this Kings squad without losing their cool?  Not a chance in hell. LeBron couldn't even handle being on an initial Cavs team that was a perennial deep playoff team because he wanted more - so he left for Miami.  If he were on this Kings team he'd have had the coach fired months ago and probably half the team traded out. 

There are superstars out there who are really easy going and who excel at keeping their cool (guys like Duncan, Durant, Anthony Davis, etc) but those qualities are very rare in a star player.

Still, if I had a chance to have a prime Kobe, MJ, Rasheed, Rodman or Shaq on my team I wouldn't say no.

[wayupnorth]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

Have you heard half the things Tommy says?  I don't think being an announcer immediately gives you credibility!

Tommy might say some out there things, but he is far more in toucharge with the Celtics than we are. Also, we have both Tommy and Mike, and it is clear to me Mike is very in the loop, as far as the c's are concerned.


Especially considering this is both beat writers and team announcers.

They know significantly more about this situation than any of us do, and I am shocked at how many people discount what they are saying.

We discount it because the announcers for most teams are complete idiots who are there purely for entertainment, and are often hugely biased. 

I actually love Mike and Tommy, but I still don't take half of what Tommy says seriously.

These announcers are hired by the organisation - they aren't going to criticise the organisation that pays them.  If there is a conflict between the organisation and one of it's players, then it would be a conflict of interest for the announcers to take the side of the player.  Of course they're going to support the organisation...and coach is higher up in the food chain then the player.

How many times have you ever heard Mike or Tommy criticise Brad Stevens or Doc Rivers?  I don't know if I've ever heard it.  I've heard them criticise players though.  Does this mean that the Celtics coaches are perfect and never makes mistakes? Of course not.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. This guy travels with the team. He is significantly more in touch with the team than we are...

There is simply no debate  about that.

Demarcus could make a much stronger point by staying above the Kings dysfunction, instead he becomes part of it.

That is utterly inexcusable.

[Roy H.]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

No, on-court vs. off-court statistics as a measure of how much better the Kings play with DMC on the team. 

As for as off-court, though, DMC is active in the community, leads practice during the off-season for young players, showed up at summer league to support the young players, and has improved his game every year.  So, off-court there's a lot to like.

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons. 

[crimson_stallion]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

Have you heard half the things Tommy says?  I don't think being an announcer immediately gives you credibility!

Tommy might say some out there things, but he is far more in toucharge with the Celtics than we are. Also, we have both Tommy and Mike, and it is clear to me Mike is very in the loop, as far as the c's are concerned.


Especially considering this is both beat writers and team announcers.

They know significantly more about this situation than any of us do, and I am shocked at how many people discount what they are saying.

We discount it because the announcers for most teams are complete idiots who are there purely for entertainment, and are often hugely biased. 

I actually love Mike and Tommy, but I still don't take half of what Tommy says seriously.

These announcers are hired by the organisation - they aren't going to criticise the organisation that pays them.  If there is a conflict between the organisation and one of it's players, then it would be a conflict of interest for the announcers to take the side of the player.  Of course they're going to support the organisation...and coach is higher up in the food chain then the player.

How many times have you ever heard Mike or Tommy criticise Brad Stevens or Doc Rivers?  I don't know if I've ever heard it.  I've heard them criticise players though.  Does this mean that the Celtics coaches are perfect and never makes mistakes? Of course not.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. This guy travels with the team. He is significantly more in touch with the team than we are...

There is simply no debate  about that.

Demarcus could make a much stronger point by staying above the Kings dysfunction, instead he becomes part of it.

That is utterly inexcusable.

The point I am making is that just because somebody is saying something, doesn't mean it's true. 

You speak of this as if the only thing to come into question is the person's level of familiarity with the environment - you completely ignore the possibility of personal bias. 

The guy could have a very close relationship with ownership/management/coaching staff.  If that's the case then then of course said person is going to unload on Cousins.

The person mentions Cousins having problems with players, etc.  Yet in his whole time in Sacramento, no player has ever (to my recollection) made comments about Cousins being a problem.  Not while with the team, and not after leaving the team. 

Have any of Cousins' former teammates come out after these events to speak ill about him?  I haven't heard it if they have.

Wouldn't said teammates (and former teammates) have an even more intimate knowledge of what goes on with at team than an announcer?

Ricky Rubio talked publically about Love's lack of leadership skills in Minnesota.  Love and Bosh have both spoken about the difficulties of playing with Lebron.  Countless players have spoken their minds about what (unpleasant things) they think about Jordan.  Ray Allen publically voiced the fact that he clashed with Rondo.  Dwight famously clashed with Kobe and then made Jameer Nelson (apparently a former friend) into an enemy after having him traded from Orlando.  Even KG has had former teammates talk ill of him.  Gilbert Arenas pulled a gun on a teammate, Lance Stephenson got into punch-ups with team mates.  Jason Kidd's departure from Dallas was largely due to conflicts with teammates.  Harrison Barnes has gotten into fights with teammates.

When you have real problem players in the locker room, you normally hear about it from ex teammates.  I've never heard a single ex teammate talk bad of Cousins - not one.

Our own IT seems all the more eager to recruit him to the Celtics. 

If a stack of former players started concurring with all the anti-Cousins talk then I'd take that on board, but none of them do...but until that happens I just don't see Cousins as the horrible locker room destroyer that he is made out to be.   

[wayupnorth]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

No, on-court vs. off-court statistics as a measure of how much better the Kings play with DMC on the team. 

As for as off-court, though, DMC is active in the community, leads practice during the off-season for young players, showed up at summer league to support the young players, and has improved his game every year.  So, off-court there's a lot to like.

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons.

I don't think Cousins is a bad person. I just do not think heveryone is much of a leader, which is tough when he would be the most talented player on any team in the league outside of a handul of them.

I think that he is partly to blame for the Kings dysfunction, due to his attitude.

Personally, and I keep brining this up, but he is the anti--KG and I see that as a huge drawback to his immensely talented game.

[crimson_stallion]

I just posted in the other Cousins thread, but the numbers clearly show that the Kings are a significantly better team when Cousins is in the game, then when he is not in the game, on both ends of the floor.  They score a lot more and give up a lot less.  They shoot significantly better as a team and they hold their opponents to a significantly small FG%. This is pretty much across the board in all stats (except turnovers, they are slightly worse offensively at that with Cousins).  I mean that is what should happen with your best player, but if Cousins is really that much of a problem, you would think it would show statistically and it does not.

Cousins is a very good player.  By far the best player on the Kings.  I don't see why it's surprising that the team plays much better when he's in the game.  He is still a drain on the entire organization, makes his coaches less credible among other players, etc.  But of course the team is going to play better when he's in the game.

Your point is well-taken.

What you're over overlooking is that DMC doesn't just make his team better internally (on court, off court), but that the Kings also outscore other teams when he's playing.  For a team as talent-deprived and dysfunctional as the Kings, that is impressive.

You say he makes them better off of the court (or at least that is how I read that), but here we have a team announcer who is significantly more in touch with that franchise than any of us here, saying explicitly that he makes the team worse off the court, and has an attitude that makes his teammates less successful.

Two points:

1) just because a player is on a bad team (no matter how dysfunctional the team or how talented the player) does not mean they can disrespect coaches,  take plays off because you are too busy complaining to the refs,  and have such a bad attitude all the time.

2)said player really has no room to act like that when he signed a long term contract to be with that organization. He is there by choice at the end of the day.

Demarcus is an extraordinarily  talented player but he has a really, really bad attitude.

He plays a role in the Kings dysfunction instead of trying to fix it.

No, on-court vs. off-court statistics as a measure of how much better the Kings play with DMC on the team. 

As for as off-court, though, DMC is active in the community, leads practice during the off-season for young players, showed up at summer league to support the young players, and has improved his game every year.  So, off-court there's a lot to like.

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons.

I don't think Cousins is a bad person. I just do not think heveryone is much of a leader, which is tough when he would be the most talented player on any team in the league outside of a handul of them.

I think that he is partly to blame for the Kings dysfunction, due to his attitude.

Personally, and I keep brining this up, but he is the anti--KG and I see that as a huge drawback to his immensely talented game.

While I understand where you are coming from with this, I don't necessarily agree.

True, if he just sat there and took all of the crap going on, and just went about his business - maybe it would help a bit.  His responses to the situations probably don't help.

But most of the evidence seems to indicate that Cousins is not the source of the problems.  It seems the organisation is the source of the problems, and that Cousin's reactions are exactly that - reactions to what lies at the heart of the problem.

Cousins specifically said in that interview that he thinks players are playing their hardest, but they are playing frustrated - which is making it hard for the team to win games.  A number of the things I've heard/seen suggest to me Cousins is far from the only person in the locker room who is frustrated with Karl and the organisation.

If Cousins sat there, shut his mouth, and went on with it...that wouldn't change the fact that he's playing frustrated.  It wouldn't change the fact that the other guys on the team are playing frustrated.  If anything guys might become even more frustrated if they look to Cousins to be their voice and their leader - if he sits there and does nothing, they might get more frustrated feeling that he doesn't care.

So while you can (on one hand) argue that Cousin's attitude isn't helping the situation - I wouldn't so far as to say that he is one of the causes, or that he is partly to blame for the dysfunction.  I think that the one to blame for the dysfunction is the source of it - which I believe is the organisation itself.

Cousins isn't doing much to help the situation, but what CAN he do?  If he is voicing his concerns and the team is doing nothing about it, then when eh voices his concerns more loudly the team suspends him - what else can he do? 

As a player, what power does he have to change the situation? 

All he can do is voice his concerns, and play as hard as he can play.  Looking at his numbers and all the arguments that are happening, it seems he is dong both of those things already.

I've worked in companies where everybody is overworked because management are complete idiots - where you are working stupid hours and working twice as hard as you should be because management doesn't do anything to fix problems.  I've been in the position where you want to make a difference so you raise your concerns and make suggestions, and management ignores you or just calls you a whinger and turns it back around on you to work harder. 

It gets to the point where you eventually give up trying, because you feel utterly powerless.  There is nothing you can do.  You work at 110% capacity and stress yourself out to try to carry the organisation/department, and still it's not enough.  You have ideas of things that could be done to help, and management ignores them and won't hear you. 

Eventually you get tired working at 110% for an organisation the doesn't care. You get beyond frustrated to the point of being depressed and feeling helpless.  Then you stop caring.  Why should you bust your butt for a manager/organisation who has no zero concern for your happiness or your wellbeing?  Why should you work yourself to the limit to help your organisation, if they won't do anything to help you? You give up, you throw in the towel, and you start putting in the minimal effort to collect your pay cheque. 

What you are suggesting of Cousins is the same as suggesting that the hypothetical guy in the above hypothetical situation should just shut up, keep working beyond his capacity, stop voicing concerns, and just put a smile on his face and take it.  All well and good in theory, but people just don't work that way.

[nickagneta]

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons.

This doesn't make sense to me, Roy.

If what you and others say are true and DMC's attitude can be directly attributed to the King's management's dysfunction then of course he knew what he was getting into. Cousins has been acting up every year he has been in Sacramento.  If he acts up because the King's management is so bad and he has been doing so since he was a rookie, then he had four years of a King's dysfunction to know that things weren't going to be turning around and could well have forced his way out via sign and trade or accepted a qualifying offer, stayed another year and been out of there this year.

He took their money. He should have expected the Kings were going to be as bad a management situation as they are and decided to leave. Instead he took their massive amounts of cash knowing they were a horrible team and so shouldn't be so surprised and acting like a toddler when the Kings do what the a Kings do.

Cousins has immense talent. But he has personality issues and bad attitudes that have nothing to do with the Kings.

[Roy H.]

If what you and others say are true and DMC's attitude can be directly attributed to the King's management's dysfunction then of course he knew what he was getting into.

Cousins signed his contract in September 2013.

At that point, Ranadive had owned the Kings for about four months.  Mike Malone -- a coach that Cousins respected immensely -- had been hired in May of that year.

How would he have known what he was getting into? 

[wayupnorth]

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons.

This doesn't make sense to me, Roy.

If what you and others say are true and DMC's attitude can be directly attributed to the King's management's dysfunction then of course he knew what he was getting into. Cousins has been acting up every year he has been in Sacramento.  If he acts up because the King's management is so bad and he has been doing so since he was a rookie, then he had four years of a King's dysfunction to know that things weren't going to be turning around and could well have forced his way out via sign and trade or accepted a qualifying offer, stayed another year and been out of there this year.

He took their money. He should have expected the Kings were going to be as bad a management situation as they are and decided to leave. Instead he took their massive amounts of cash knowing they were a horrible team and so shouldn't be so surprised and acting like a toddler when the Kings do what the a Kings do.

Cousins has immense talent. But he has personality issues and bad attitudes that have nothing to do with the Kings.

You made the point I was trying to figure out how to make.

TP

[Roy H.]

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons.

This doesn't make sense to me, Roy.

If what you and others say are true and DMC's attitude can be directly attributed to the King's management's dysfunction then of course he knew what he was getting into. Cousins has been acting up every year he has been in Sacramento.  If he acts up because the King's management is so bad and he has been doing so since he was a rookie, then he had four years of a King's dysfunction to know that things weren't going to be turning around and could well have forced his way out via sign and trade or accepted a qualifying offer, stayed another year and been out of there this year.

He took their money. He should have expected the Kings were going to be as bad a management situation as they are and decided to leave. Instead he took their massive amounts of cash knowing they were a horrible team and so shouldn't be so surprised and acting like a toddler when the Kings do what the a Kings do.

Cousins has immense talent. But he has personality issues and bad attitudes that have nothing to do with the Kings.

You made the point I was trying to figure out how to make.

TP

Well, you're both wrong.

[crimson_stallion]

I agree in part with your first point, but not so much your second.  He signed a contract, but he's not clairvoyant; nobody could have anticipated the dysfunction of the last two seasons.

This doesn't make sense to me, Roy.

If what you and others say are true and DMC's attitude can be directly attributed to the King's management's dysfunction then of course he knew what he was getting into. Cousins has been acting up every year he has been in Sacramento.  If he acts up because the King's management is so bad and he has been doing so since he was a rookie, then he had four years of a King's dysfunction to know that things weren't going to be turning around and could well have forced his way out via sign and trade or accepted a qualifying offer, stayed another year and been out of there this year.

He took their money. He should have expected the Kings were going to be as bad a management situation as they are and decided to leave. Instead he took their massive amounts of cash knowing they were a horrible team and so shouldn't be so surprised and acting like a toddler when the Kings do what the a Kings do.

Cousins has immense talent. But he has personality issues and bad attitudes that have nothing to do with the Kings.

I think it's pretty obvious that the organisation's level of dysfunction is far, far higher than it ever was in the past.  Given this is the Kings we are talking about, that's saying something.

Divac and Karl have been a disaster for this team. 

Cousins even said himself that in the past, the only frustration was the losing...and that now there are lots and lots of frustrations that go beyond just the losing.

If the only frustration is losing, then you can deal with that.  There are always things you can do to improve a basketball team, so I commend Cousins for sticking around in that scenario and putting faith in the team to make things better.

Once other frustrations get added in (like coaching, management, etc) then that can make things very different.

I have a friend who works in HR, and he once said to me - "Employees don't leave jobs, they leave bosses".

While it's not always true, there is a lot of truth too it.  It's very difficult to work under a boss who hates you, who is constantly trying to stab you in the back, and who is a general Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline..  I've worked with such bosses before - I know how it feels.

On the other hand I've worked in jobs where I am overworked, or where the environment is frustrating, but the managers are good and supportive - never had a problem there.  Even if every day was a battle, I always felt ok with fighting that battle if I respected and like my boss, and felt they were on my side.