DeMarcus Cousins continues to be a knucklehead; Should the Celtics make a play for him?
Stop thinking and just do what I say
DeMarcus Cousins was suspended again yesterday. This time for 2 games for his attack on Spurs announcer Sean Elliott, based on Elliott's mild criticism of him on the air. Reporters wondered why he got such a serious penalty for going after an announcer, but it's obvious to me. It's called being a repeat offender. Try getting caught four times in the past stealing a car and see what happens the 5th time. Guys like Artest, Stephen Jackson, and Cousins deserve harsher penalties than first time offenders. Ok now on to the Celtics angle. Should Danny make a play for him?
Cousins is just 22 years old, is on a reasonable rookie contract, and has averaged 16 and 10 for his career (in less than 30mpg). Those stats are eye popping and issues or no issues the Kings will demand a lot. The Kings will have to settle for less than he's worth.
The Celtics have only 5 tradable assets: Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Avery Bradley, and Jared Sullinger. *Everyone else, trade wise has either next to no value, no value, or negative trade value. Obviously we're not moving Rondo, Pierce, and KG. So the question is should Danny offer Bradley and Sullinger for Cousins? It should be noted that the Kings have expressed no desire to move Cousins and could very likely receive a better offer than Bradley and Sullinger.
This is where it really sucks that Danny passed on guys like Marshon Brooks and PJ3 in the past two drafts (for reaches like JJJ and Fab Melo). Brooks and PJ3 would have trade value. Without guys like them we only have Sullinger and Bradley to offer teams and I REALLY like both of those guys. I think I'd pass on this trade, but I'm just one opinion. What's yours?
*The way the NBA works is if you have a guy with negative trade value, you can't trade him for a guy with any value, so all Jeff Green trade ideas that don't include an equally bad contract coming back like this guy for example make zero sense. To trade a bad contract like Green's, we'd have to include Bradley just to get the overall package back up to zero. That's not being cruel to Green. It's just reality. We're better off keeping Green and hoping he becomes less bad.