All things DeMarcus Cousins (merged thread)

[LarBrd33]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.   

[Greenback]

NBA history proves that for all the hype about small ball and three point shooting, centers can still dominate. 

I would tell Sacto to choose whatever jetsam and flotsam they want, give them a first round pick and bring Cousins to Beantown.

Brad Stevens can then start earning his money coaching talented NBA players.

Git er done, Danny!

[alldaboston]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

[ssspence]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

These boo hoo responses from you are getting old.

[LarBrd33]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Even assuming out draft pick was a guarantee top 3,  I'm not sure the pick + Lee + Smart + additional picks will be enough.  Other teams could outbid us with real tangible talent.  Didn't the Kings give away all their picks to philly?  You never know what other teams could offer.  Example out of my butt, what if Houston offered a package built around Dwight Howard and youth ?   Everyone always assumes teams like the Kings would want a pu-pu platter of assets, but maybe they'd rather have guys who can help them stay relevant.  Maybe the cavs offer Kevin love and slot cousins next to Thompson... Or perhaps the Cavs offer Thompson and slot cousins next to love.   You have the factor in all the possibilities.

And this is all built on the idea that our golden asset, the Brooklyn pick, will remain golden.  It's been 8 games of an 82 game season and last I checked, Brooklyn wok their most recent game.   For all we know, they will be .500 a month from now.   They have the talent to win games. 

[LooseCannon]

NBA history proves that for all the hype about small ball and three point shooting, centers can still dominate. 

You must hate that Cousins is averaging 3.8 3PA per game this season.

[ssspence]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Even assuming out draft pick was a guarantee top 3,  I'm not sure the pick + Lee + Smart + additional picks will be enough.  Other teams could outbid us with real tangible talent.  Didn't the Kings give away all their picks to philly?  You never know what other teams could offer.  Example out of my butt, what if Houston offered a package built around Dwight Howard and youth ?   Everyone always assumes teams like the Kings would want a pu-pu platter of assets, but maybe they'd rather have guys who can help them stay relevant.  Maybe the cavs offer Kevin love and slot cousins next to Thompson... Or perhaps the Cavs offer Thompson and slot cousins next to love.   You have the factor in all the possibilities.

And this is all built on the idea that our golden asset, the Brooklyn pick, will remain golden.  It's been 8 games of an 82 game season and last I checked, Brooklyn wok their most recent game.   For all we know, they will be .500 a month from now.   They have the talent to win games.

Again, this is a post designed to insight reaction -- pure and simple. Snap outtavit.

[TheFlex]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Even assuming out draft pick was a guarantee top 3,  I'm not sure the pick + Lee + Smart + additional picks will be enough.  Other teams could outbid us with real tangible talent.  Didn't the Kings give away all their picks to philly?  You never know what other teams could offer.  Example out of my butt, what if Houston offered a package built around Dwight Howard and youth ?   Everyone always assumes teams like the Kings would want a pu-pu platter of assets, but maybe they'd rather have guys who can help them stay relevant.  Maybe the cavs offer Kevin love and slot cousins next to Thompson... Or perhaps the Cavs offer Thompson and slot cousins next to love.   You have the factor in all the possibilities.

And this is all built on the idea that our golden asset, the Brooklyn pick, will remain golden.  It's been 8 games of an 82 game season and last I checked, Brooklyn wok their most recent game.   For all we know, they will be .500 a month from now.   They have the talent to win games.

Still spouting nonsense about the Nets, I see.

edit: At first I used to enjoy your "objective" posts. I was with you the first year of post-PP/KG advocating a tank job. I was with you on Rondo. As you've veered towards pessimism, away from realism, they've just become obnoxious.

a couple examples in the post quoted above.

Pessimistic: "Brooklyn might be .500 in a month." Sure, if you look at the data of teams that have started as bad as them in the past, maybe you could find one or two that bounced all the way back to .500. The majority, however, have been really, really bad. So using the word "might" drastically mischaracterizes the chances that this will become true. It's just propaganda. You also, for reasons I can't figure out, refuse to acknowledge that this team has a chance at being historically bad if Brook Lopez goes down. I would think an objective person would see Lopez leave with soreness in a foot that has already had surgery on it and conclude that he's not likely to play the whole season. Even if he doesn't have a season-ending injury, there will be stretches of the season where he'll have to sit out 3-5 games here and there. The only chance the Nets have at winning is with him on the floor, unless they play Philadelphia.

Objective: "If Lopez doesn't go down with a season-ending injury (50/50), the Nets could pull it together and push their pick out of top 5 range by winning 30 games." This is an example of something Celtics fans don't want to hear, but it's still realistic, and thus, respectable. Hearing you continue to voice that "the Nets could be a playoff team" after what we know now (they're 1-7, Lopez is already banged up) is growing increasingly unrealistic, and thus, not respectable. In reality, Brooklyn's nightmare is so bad that they're clinging on to a 50% chance that they can have a 30 win season. You might be their biggest optimist in the whole league.

Optimistic: "The Nets will win 15 games, Lopez or not, and we'll get a top 3 pick."

Completely pessimistic: "We don't have the assets to get Cousins." This really doesn't deserve comment.

Objective: "We won't have the assets to get Cousins if we don't include Smart  and/or 2016 BKN 1 and either teams like Philly or Orlando, with better prospects and equally appealing picks, jump in and offer Sacramento anything they want, or teams like Washington or Toronto step in and offer guys like Beal or DeRozan."

Optimistic: "The Nets will see the 2017 swap and 2018 BKN 1 as guaranteed top 10 picks, they'll see the 2016 DAL 1 as being a lock for the 8-12 range and love a player in that range, and they'll prefer a player package of Rozier, Young, Olynyk and Lee (huge expiring) to Beal."

[tazzmaniac]

Again, there's no rule that says the Cs have to give up the 2016 Nets pick in a trade for Cousins.

Considering Philly isn't applicable here, the Cs will be able to exceed any offer available from another team right now, even without the Nets pick in 2016. 

For example:

Either: Our 2016 1st round pick (top 7 protected) or Dallas' 2016 pick, whichever is higher
Either: the right to swap with the Nets in 2017; or the Nets 2018 pick (not both)
One of: Our 2017 1st round pick (top 12 protected); our 2018 1st round pick (top 12 protected), the 2018 Memphis pick
Sullinger (considering the Cs won't wanna pay him next summer)
Zeller (considering the Cs won't wanna pay him next summer)
David Lee

And yes, I'd add in Bradley and agree to take Gay, if needed, provided we get to keep the 2016 Nets pick. This would give us the flexibility to add a pretty big FA contract next summer if justified.

Hard to imagine that offer could be beat.

Why don't you think the Sixers are applicable?  They could certainly put together a good offer centered around Okafor.

I think the 76ers would not be interested because one would have to wonder how Cousins would react to going to a team clearly interested in tanking season after season.


But that is just a guess. 


Also, since the 76ers can swap picks with Sac already, unless the swaps are removed or the picks sent to Sac, do the Kings want to make the 76ers that much better right now?

I don't believe the Sixers are set on tanking at all, they just need enough of a base to not tank.  I would think a reasonable trade would be something like Okafor, Thompson, LAL 1st, and remove the right to swap picks the next two seasons for Cousins (trade also gives Sacto a 10.3 million trade exception).   Maybe Philly throws in the Heat and/or Thunder picks to sweeten the pot.  I think that would be a very strong offer and one we probably couldn't top.

As for Cousins, I'm sure he wouldn't love Philly at first, but he would be going to a team with Noel who can alleviate a lot of the defensive pressure for him and that has some nice shooters surrounding him.  He would have stability in the coaching staff and management.  Plus Philly is in the East (no real bruising C's or PF's to guard him) and would still have plenty of assets and cap room to build around Cousins and Noel (and Embiid and Saric).

Exactly.  The Sixers are tanking to maximize their chances of acquiring a star that they can build around and Cousins certainly fits that mold.  They'd need to switch their mindset to acquire additional established talent quickly to show Cousins they can be competitive in the East.   

[fairweatherfan]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Well then, the whole conversation's moot since clearly every team in the league is either uninterested in Cousins or doesn't have the assets to get him.  If they did, they'd have him by now.  QED.

[playdream]

I am not so down on Cousins
(I mean if Larry Bird is on the Kings he may do the same things, they are just a mess)
but wont give the farm for him either
AB,Lee,Zeller,Crowder,Roz plus 2018Net, Dallas, and our pick this season should be it

[LarBrd33]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Even assuming out draft pick was a guarantee top 3,  I'm not sure the pick + Lee + Smart + additional picks will be enough.  Other teams could outbid us with real tangible talent.  Didn't the Kings give away all their picks to philly?  You never know what other teams could offer.  Example out of my butt, what if Houston offered a package built around Dwight Howard and youth ?   Everyone always assumes teams like the Kings would want a pu-pu platter of assets, but maybe they'd rather have guys who can help them stay relevant.  Maybe the cavs offer Kevin love and slot cousins next to Thompson... Or perhaps the Cavs offer Thompson and slot cousins next to love.   You have the factor in all the possibilities.

And this is all built on the idea that our golden asset, the Brooklyn pick, will remain golden.  It's been 8 games of an 82 game season and last I checked, Brooklyn wok their most recent game.   For all we know, they will be .500 a month from now.   They have the talent to win games.

Still spouting nonsense about the Nets, I see.

edit: At first I used to enjoy your "objective" posts. I was with you the first year of post-PP/KG advocating a tank job. I was with you on Rondo. As you've veered towards pessimism, away from realism, they've just become obnoxious.

a couple examples in the post quoted above.

Pessimistic: "Brooklyn might be .500 in a month." Sure, if you look at the data of teams that have started as bad as them in the past, maybe you could find one or two that bounced all the way back to .500. The majority, however, have been really, really bad. So using the word "might" drastically mischaracterizes the chances that this will become true. It's just propaganda. You also, for reasons I can't figure out, refuse to acknowledge that this team has a chance at being historically bad if Brook Lopez goes down. I would think an objective person would see Lopez leave with soreness in a foot that has already had surgery on it and conclude that he's not likely to play the whole season. Even if he doesn't have a season-ending injury, there will be stretches of the season where he'll have to sit out 3-5 games here and there. The only chance the Nets have at winning is with him on the floor, unless they play Philadelphia.

Objective: "If Lopez doesn't go down with a season-ending injury (50/50), the Nets could pull it together and push their pick out of top 5 range by winning 30 games." This is an example of something Celtics fans don't want to hear, but it's still realistic, and thus, respectable. Hearing you continue to voice that "the Nets could be a playoff team" after what we know now (they're 1-7, Lopez is already banged up) is growing increasingly unrealistic, and thus, not respectable. In reality, Brooklyn's nightmare is so bad that they're clinging on to a 50% chance that they can have a 30 win season. You might be their biggest optimist in the whole league.

Optimistic: "The Nets will win 15 games, Lopez or not, and we'll get a top 3 pick."

Completely pessimistic: "We don't have the assets to get Cousins." This really doesn't deserve comment.

Objective: "We won't have the assets to get Cousins if we don't include Smart  and/or 2016 BKN 1 and either teams like Philly or Orlando, with better prospects and equally appealing picks, jump in and offer Sacramento anything they want, or teams like Washington or Toronto step in and offer guys like Beal or DeRozan."

Optimistic: "The Nets will see the 2017 swap and 2018 BKN 1 as guaranteed top 10 picks, they'll see the 2016 DAL 1 as being a lock for the 8-12 range and love a player in that range, and they'll prefer a player package of Rozier, Young, Olynyk and Lee (huge expiring) to Beal."

I never set out to make fans on this forum and have passed up several invites to write for various NBA blogs, so I always get a kick out of folks who tell me they once enjoyed my posts.  I like to envision it as a some hipster celticbloggers sitting around scoffing at LarBrd33's overly pessimistic mid 2010's gimmick, pulling out old LarBrd33 vinyls based on Delonte West's shooting streak, and saying things like "I only liked his earlier stuff".   Check the B-Side of your favorite LarBrd33 jam "Vin Baker ain't so bad" and you'll see the long forgotten "should we trade Paul Pierce for Luol Deng and Ty Thomas?"... I've always been just some idiot sports fan.  I don't know what the hell i'm talking about.  I have stupid opinions every year.

But Brooklyn has made the playoffs a few years in a row and Brook Lopez, Thad Young and Joe Johnson might all be better than any players currently on the Celtics.  I haven't expected Brooklyn to make the playoffs this year.  I expected their pick to end up 12-17.  If the pick ends up 12th, that's not a playoff team.  I'm happy to see them start the season 1-7, but being 6 games under .500 with 74 games left in the season isn't necessarily time to write an obituary.   I'm rooting for them to suck.  But I'm preparing for the possibility they will be fine. 

Yeah, not a lot of teams bounce back from 6 games under .500.  I mean, we did it last year and Brooklyn themselves did it a couple years ago... And I think maybe a team does it every year, but beyond that it's rare.   I'm still tempering my expectations.

Btw... Who are we rooting for tomorrow?  Brooklyn or Sacramento.  Talk about Sophie's Choice.

[TheFlex]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Even assuming out draft pick was a guarantee top 3,  I'm not sure the pick + Lee + Smart + additional picks will be enough.  Other teams could outbid us with real tangible talent.  Didn't the Kings give away all their picks to philly?  You never know what other teams could offer.  Example out of my butt, what if Houston offered a package built around Dwight Howard and youth ?   Everyone always assumes teams like the Kings would want a pu-pu platter of assets, but maybe they'd rather have guys who can help them stay relevant.  Maybe the cavs offer Kevin love and slot cousins next to Thompson... Or perhaps the Cavs offer Thompson and slot cousins next to love.   You have the factor in all the possibilities.

And this is all built on the idea that our golden asset, the Brooklyn pick, will remain golden.  It's been 8 games of an 82 game season and last I checked, Brooklyn wok their most recent game.   For all we know, they will be .500 a month from now.   They have the talent to win games.

Still spouting nonsense about the Nets, I see.

edit: At first I used to enjoy your "objective" posts. I was with you the first year of post-PP/KG advocating a tank job. I was with you on Rondo. As you've veered towards pessimism, away from realism, they've just become obnoxious.

a couple examples in the post quoted above.

Pessimistic: "Brooklyn might be .500 in a month." Sure, if you look at the data of teams that have started as bad as them in the past, maybe you could find one or two that bounced all the way back to .500. The majority, however, have been really, really bad. So using the word "might" drastically mischaracterizes the chances that this will become true. It's just propaganda. You also, for reasons I can't figure out, refuse to acknowledge that this team has a chance at being historically bad if Brook Lopez goes down. I would think an objective person would see Lopez leave with soreness in a foot that has already had surgery on it and conclude that he's not likely to play the whole season. Even if he doesn't have a season-ending injury, there will be stretches of the season where he'll have to sit out 3-5 games here and there. The only chance the Nets have at winning is with him on the floor, unless they play Philadelphia.

Objective: "If Lopez doesn't go down with a season-ending injury (50/50), the Nets could pull it together and push their pick out of top 5 range by winning 30 games." This is an example of something Celtics fans don't want to hear, but it's still realistic, and thus, respectable. Hearing you continue to voice that "the Nets could be a playoff team" after what we know now (they're 1-7, Lopez is already banged up) is growing increasingly unrealistic, and thus, not respectable. In reality, Brooklyn's nightmare is so bad that they're clinging on to a 50% chance that they can have a 30 win season. You might be their biggest optimist in the whole league.

Optimistic: "The Nets will win 15 games, Lopez or not, and we'll get a top 3 pick."

Completely pessimistic: "We don't have the assets to get Cousins." This really doesn't deserve comment.

Objective: "We won't have the assets to get Cousins if we don't include Smart  and/or 2016 BKN 1 and either teams like Philly or Orlando, with better prospects and equally appealing picks, jump in and offer Sacramento anything they want, or teams like Washington or Toronto step in and offer guys like Beal or DeRozan."

Optimistic: "The Nets will see the 2017 swap and 2018 BKN 1 as guaranteed top 10 picks, they'll see the 2016 DAL 1 as being a lock for the 8-12 range and love a player in that range, and they'll prefer a player package of Rozier, Young, Olynyk and Lee (huge expiring) to Beal."

I never set out to make fans on this forum and have passed up several invites to write for various NBA blogs, so I always get a kick out of folks who tell me they once enjoyed my posts.  I like to envision it as a some hipster celticbloggers sitting around scoffing at LarBrd33's overly pessimistic mid 2010's gimmick, pulling out old LarBrd33 vinyls based on Delonte West's shooting streak, and saying things like "I only liked his earlier stuff".   Check the B-Side of your favorite LarBrd33 jam "Vin Baker ain't so bad" and you'll see the long forgotten "should we trade Paul Pierce for Luol Deng and Ty Thomas?"... I've always been just some idiot sports fan.  I don't know what the hell i'm talking about.  I have stupid opinions every year.

But Brooklyn has made the playoffs a few years in a row and Brook Lopez, Thad Young and Joe Johnson might all be better than any players currently on the Celtics.  I haven't expected Brooklyn to make the playoffs this year.  I expected their pick to end up 12-17.  If the pick ends up 12th, that's not a playoff team.  I'm happy to see them start the season 1-7, but being 6 games under .500 with 74 games left in the season isn't necessarily time to write an obituary.   I'm rooting for them to suck.  But I'm preparing for the possibility they will be fine. 

Yeah, not a lot of teams bounce back from 6 games under .500.  I mean, we did it last year and Brooklyn themselves did it a couple years ago... And I think maybe a team does it every year, but beyond that it's rare.   I'm still tempering my expectations.

Btw... Who are we rooting for tomorrow?  Brooklyn or Sacramento.  Talk about Sophie's Choice.

Haha, that was a funny post. TP.

1) Joe Johnson is bad. Thad Young is OK. A handful of Celts are better than Johnson. At least IT and AB are better than Young.

2) There's a very significant difference between starting out 6 in the hole and being 6 games below .500 midseason. Another very crucial mischaracterization. It is much more typical that we see a team go from 28-34 to 41-41 than we do see a team go from 1-7 to 14-14.

I don't know why you just won't admit it. The Nets are most likely going to stay a bottom 10 team and there's a reasonable chance they'll be one of the worst five teams. I have a little bit of problem with how you're characterizing the chances of a Nets resurgence, but I think I have more of a problem with you constantly directing attention to the possibility of the Nets turning around, and not the probability that they won't. It just seems desperately contrarian.

[chambers]

All of these thought experiments/debates will looks pretty stupid if Brooklyn goes on a run... Which I remain completely convinced they are capable of doing.   Glad they started the season 1-7, but a slow start isn't a guaranteed top 5 pick.   

I don't see us getting cousins.  We don't have the assets.

We definitely have the assets necessary to get him. It's more a matter of whether we are willing to give them up, and more importantly whether Sacto likes our assets. But in regards to value and being unbiased, I feel we definitely have the assets.

If we had the assets to get him, cousins would be a Celtic right now. Everything about this team is built around the objective of getting a guy like cousins.  Everyone is keenly aware we need a star.  Brad knows it.  Ainge knows it.  Reporters know it.  The owners are pushing for it.   

Even assuming out draft pick was a guarantee top 3,  I'm not sure the pick + Lee + Smart + additional picks will be enough.  Other teams could outbid us with real tangible talent.  Didn't the Kings give away all their picks to philly?  You never know what other teams could offer.  Example out of my butt, what if Houston offered a package built around Dwight Howard and youth ?   Everyone always assumes teams like the Kings would want a pu-pu platter of assets, but maybe they'd rather have guys who can help them stay relevant.  Maybe the cavs offer Kevin love and slot cousins next to Thompson... Or perhaps the Cavs offer Thompson and slot cousins next to love.   You have the factor in all the possibilities.

And this is all built on the idea that our golden asset, the Brooklyn pick, will remain golden.  It's been 8 games of an 82 game season and last I checked, Brooklyn wok their most recent game.   For all we know, they will be .500 a month from now.   They have the talent to win games.

By this logic, none of the teams in the NBA that have the assets to get Cousins want him, or he'd be on their team....

I'm a bit stunned by your stubbornness regarding Brooklyn. For someone who I'd say is realistic with some troll pessimism thrown in for laughs, you're being awfully staunch in this 'they could be .500 eventually' position.
Have you avoided watching them? They are flaming hot garbage- a dumpster fire spreading throughout the slums.
Speaking of their first win...they got a nice stretch in the 4th quarter vs Houston (who shot 23.5% from three all game) and (the Nets) managed to shoot 47% from three for the game. Houston also shot 50% from the FT line. The Nets shot 33% as a team from three last season with D Williams, Teletovic and Alan Anderson (all 35%+ 3 point shooters) and they've been replaced by Larkin (31% career over 2 previous seasons), Bargani (32% in last 2 years in New York) and their best new shooter Wayne Ellington  (38% career) is getting 13 minutes and 2 attempts a game....and they're shooting 23% overall from three this year.

Just a terrible perimeter team that only got worse once Williams and Alan Anderson left.

34 year old Joe Johnson is shooting 33% for the season and 32 year old Jarret Jack is shooting 36% off 13 shots a game (he's taking more shots than Young lol).
We are looking at two guys who are basically at the end of their run and need to be sent off to the glue factory soon. Their defense has never been this bad, and since Young joined them last year, their defense has been steadily bottom 5 in the NBA.

Their back up point guard is Shane Larkin and their back up forward/Centers off the bench are Bogdonavic and Bargani.

Something tells me that if this roster were wearing Celtic green that you'd have no problem condemning them to a bottom 3 finish.
I have always respected your opinion and will respect your opinion but I think you're going down with the ship like an honorable captain on this one.

[Monkhouse]

Honestly.

If the Nets pick end up in the top 7, I don't even know if that would be enough for Cousins.

Yes our picks seem valuable, but not to Divac. He seems like he wants proven players, and probably assets/young players to help a rebuild too.

Maybe we could facilitate a 3 way trade with DEN, and maybe give them like Zeller, and a pick or even David Lee expiring contract for Kenneth Faried.

'16 Nets pick, (this is assuming its at least a lottery pick) 2016 Celtics pick, Avery Bradley, Kenneth Faried, James Young, Bradley, KO, 4 second rounders, 2018 Grizzlies pick, and 2018 Nets pick.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=qbx2smw

Who says no?

We might have to facilitate another trade to maybe bring in another potential trade chip. But Ainge can usually find a way to make the right trades fit.