Everybody wants to trade for Cousins and I feel like Horford would be a better option. He's not a headcase and would play well with Garnett.
From all of the times I've seen them play together in the past...actually I haven't. Further more people want Cousins because he's young, talented and maybe they can get a deal while his value dips. Horford is not even being shopped so we'd have to sell the store to get him.
We get a true center and a point guard in return who is only getting better. How would ATL not accept a trade for one of the best PGs in the league?
I'm confused about why they'd move a great center and a point guard who is only getting better for our point guard. This is very similar to the Cousins/Evans for Rondo pipe dream. I've had it too, I admit. It's just not realistic (unless Kahn is involved).
This trade works so I don't know how both sides couldn't agree on this. Maybe a draft pick could sweeten the deal for them.
It doesn't work financially. ATL would have to take on at least 2 minimum contracts or we'd have to give up one of our rookies/AB. I'm not saying they wouldn't but the trade doesn't work from that standpoint. Is there another?
Winning teams have made trades in the past so that argument makes no sense.
This is the most infuriating part of your post. Winning teams are less likely to make huge, team changing moves when they are winning. It's not rocket science.
Usually I'm not an ass like this but this post just got under my skin. I like Horford, I really do. I'm just not sure I'm willing to rebuild around a slightly undersized center and an unproven PG. Stranger things have happened but I'm more confident in Rondo than in the Horford/Teague combo for both rebuilding and for competing this year.