I was reading about the DeMarcus Cousins trade and it got me thinking about the NBA and how many trades like this we see. Everyone jumps on the Kings “Oh they got ripped off!” While I will not sit here and argue that trading a dollar for three quarters was a good thing, is it really that bad?
How many times have we seen this in the NBA? A big name gets dealt for multiple players and picks and it makes the team who gets the big name marginally better. Now I would much rather have Cousins than not, but did the Kings really get ripped off? Who could they have gotten in return to make that trade fair, from any team?
They were destined to get multiple picks and some younger players, none of which are guaranteed to be starters, let alone change the franchise. This is what makes John Canzano’s article in The Oregonian so interesting, as he makes the argument for trading Damian Lillard, and I can’t say I disagree.
The expectations were high coming into this season, and so far the results have been very disappointing. The team currently sits 23-33, and even with a big push, does not have a great chance of getting out of the first round of the playoffs if they make it. So why not see what you can get, especially your best player?
I feel like the NBA is the worst for this copy-cat stuff. One team figures out a good system, then 75% of the league spends the next few years trying to copy it. I’m with Canzano here by the way. Shopping your best player doesn’t mean giving him away for peanuts, but what’s the harm in letting teams know you’ll hear offers?
I like Lillard a lot, but the team has definitely become stagnant in the last few years, and as the article points out, no big name free agents are coming anytime soon. However, I see the other side of having Lillard on a very cap-friendly contract, which is always a good thing. It will be interesting to see what happens, and who knows, someone might swoop in with a Godfather Offer, but if they can get the right return I wouldn’t mind them doing what’s best for the team.