If Brooklyn wins lottery

[footey]

I'd consider trading it. I'm not saying I definitely would, but what if the offer is:

Simmons for Cousins + #8?

If Simmons turns out to be very good but not elite, that's a good deal for us.

Even with the number one pick, I think Sacramento not only wouldn't throw in a pick but they would ask us for an additional asset.

My guess is they would at least ask for #1 and Bradley for Cousins. Which is why I would just keep Simmons or Ingram

Agreed.  Plus they know how badly we want Cousins, and have so many draft picks and extra players to give up.

[Csfan1984]

Simmons could be great but Cousins is very good right now. I definitely don't think the #1 is enough for Cousins just look at what Wolves got for Love. I say price is more like #1, 23, Rozier, Mickey and 31. I don't see them wanting AB. I'd take that deal because Cousins fits a need and fills the hardest position for C's Center.

[Evantime34]

I'd consider trading it. I'm not saying I definitely would, but what if the offer is:

Simmons for Cousins + #8?

If Simmons turns out to be very good but not elite, that's a good deal for us.

Even with the number one pick, I think Sacramento not only wouldn't throw in a pick but they would ask us for an additional asset.

My guess is they would at least ask for #1 and Bradley for Cousins. Which is why I would just keep Simmons or Ingram

I'm not as sure. No team would give up the #1 pick plus a good starter for Cousins.

Didn't Cleveland give up the number one pick, the previous number one pick and Thad Young (acquired via Philly) who is good stater, for Love. Not sure how Love was viewed then compared to how Cousins is viewed now.

[gift]

I'd consider trading it. I'm not saying I definitely would, but what if the offer is:

Simmons for Cousins + #8?

If Simmons turns out to be very good but not elite, that's a good deal for us.

Even with the number one pick, I think Sacramento not only wouldn't throw in a pick but they would ask us for an additional asset.

My guess is they would at least ask for #1 and Bradley for Cousins. Which is why I would just keep Simmons or Ingram

I'm not as sure. No team would give up the #1 pick plus a good starter for Cousins.

Didn't Cleveland give up the number one pick, the previous number one pick and Thad Young (acquired via Philly) who is good stater, for Love. Not sure how Love was viewed then compared to how Cousins is viewed now.

I think it's not unimportant to note that that previous number one pick was Anthony Bennett. Cleveland was also more pressed to make a big move that summer because Lebron was on a one year deal. While the Celtics would like to make a deal this summer, realistically they still have more time to wait until the right deal at the right price comes along.

[celticsclay]

I'd consider trading it. I'm not saying I definitely would, but what if the offer is:

Simmons for Cousins + #8?

If Simmons turns out to be very good but not elite, that's a good deal for us.

Even with the number one pick, I think Sacramento not only wouldn't throw in a pick but they would ask us for an additional asset.

My guess is they would at least ask for #1 and Bradley for Cousins. Which is why I would just keep Simmons or Ingram

I'm not as sure. No team would give up the #1 pick plus a good starter for Cousins.

Didn't Cleveland give up the number one pick, the previous number one pick and Thad Young (acquired via Philly) who is good stater, for Love. Not sure how Love was viewed then compared to how Cousins is viewed now.

I think it's not unimportant to note that that previous number one pick was Anthony Bennett. Cleveland was also more pressed to make a big move that summer because Lebron was on a one year deal. While the Celtics would like to make a deal this summer, realistically they still have more time to wait until the right deal at the right price comes along.

That was also a terrible trade for Cleveland. Love was thought to be a superstar and seems to be more of a fringe all-star on a halfway decent team.

[Roy H.]

I'd consider trading it. I'm not saying I definitely would, but what if the offer is:

Simmons for Cousins + #8?

If Simmons turns out to be very good but not elite, that's a good deal for us.

Even with the number one pick, I think Sacramento not only wouldn't throw in a pick but they would ask us for an additional asset.

My guess is they would at least ask for #1 and Bradley for Cousins. Which is why I would just keep Simmons or Ingram

I'm not as sure. No team would give up the #1 pick plus a good starter for Cousins.

Didn't Cleveland give up the number one pick, the previous number one pick and Thad Young (acquired via Philly) who is good stater, for Love. Not sure how Love was viewed then compared to how Cousins is viewed now.

Cleveland had very limited options due to salary matching requirements, and Bennett was a bust. Cleveland didn't trade Thad Young.

[hwangjini_1]

I'd consider trading it. I'm not saying I definitely would, but what if the offer is:

Simmons for Cousins + #8?

If Simmons turns out to be very good but not elite, that's a good deal for us.

Even with the number one pick, I think Sacramento not only wouldn't throw in a pick but they would ask us for an additional asset.

My guess is they would at least ask for #1 and Bradley for Cousins. Which is why I would just keep Simmons or Ingram

I'm not as sure. No team would give up the #1 pick plus a good starter for Cousins.

Didn't Cleveland give up the number one pick, the previous number one pick and Thad Young (acquired via Philly) who is good stater, for Love. Not sure how Love was viewed then compared to how Cousins is viewed now.

Cleveland had very limited options due to salary matching requirements, and Bennett was a bust. Cleveland didn't trade Thad Young.

yes, and besides cleveland was totally gearing up to win NOW, while lebron still has some good years left in him. wiggins was 2-3 years away and they did not want to wait.

that the cavaliers may have traded away their future and still NOT win a championship would be a very satisfying event for me. 

[aefgogreen]

At this point, I'm convinced that Cousins is empty stats - I'd take my chance with Simmons.  If we had the chance to get Butler or Griffin, I'd be on the fence.

[Roy H.]

At this point, I'm convinced that Cousins is empty stats - I'd take my chance with Simmons.  If we had the chance to get Butler or Griffin, I'd be on the fence.

I think he'd be awesome here. There's nothing empty about his stats.

[droopdog7]

In November I would have said Simmons was untradeable; a once in a decade talent (like Lebron).  At this point, I would say his value comparable to Cousins and agree that wemay need to give up an additional asset, not the Kings in a trade.

All that said, when is the last time an immature, volatile, player led his team to a title?  I really want no part of headaches.   

[knuckleballer]

At this point, I'm convinced that Cousins is empty stats - I'd take my chance with Simmons.  If we had the chance to get Butler or Griffin, I'd be on the fence.

I think he'd be awesome here. There's nothing empty about his stats.

Would you rather trade Simmons/Ingram plus other assets which would probably include another Brooklyn pick for Cousins or give the max to Horford and keep the Brooklyn picks? 

In a vacuum I'd rather Horford and the picks, but in reality it would depend on other moves. 

[The One]

I will jump for joy...and slap my face!

[jambr380]

The OP needs to temper his expectations on what a number one pick is worth. Every year the team with the #1 would make that trade for two top 10 players. I venture to say they would trade it for two top 30 players as well (depending on age / contracts). If we can get Cousins for just the pick, we should take it and run. The vultures have been lining up to acquire Demarcus for years now; I would be happy to be the ones to land him.

[BitterJim]

In November I would have said Simmons was untradeable; a once in a decade talent (like Lebron).  At this point, I would say his value comparable to Cousins and agree that wemay need to give up an additional asset, not the Kings in a trade.

All that said, when is the last time an immature, volatile, player led his team to a title?  I really want no part of headaches.

If it weren't for the refs it would have been 2010

[Roy H.]

At this point, I'm convinced that Cousins is empty stats - I'd take my chance with Simmons.  If we had the chance to get Butler or Griffin, I'd be on the fence.

I think he'd be awesome here. There's nothing empty about his stats.

Would you rather trade Simmons/Ingram plus other assets which would probably include another Brooklyn pick for Cousins or give the max to Horford and keep the Brooklyn picks? 

In a vacuum I'd rather Horford and the picks, but in reality it would depend on other moves.

Oh, I'd definitely prefer Simmons + Horford over Cousins and giving up additional assets.

But, I don't think many franchises could / would beat an offer of Simmons. A team has to have the assets, and Cousins needs to find that franchise attractive.