Author Topic: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.  (Read 19946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #60 on: February 20, 2017, 02:13:37 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
No knuckleheads.
Danny is very smart.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2017, 02:14:38 PM »

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
No knuckleheads.
Danny is very smart.

Sign Noel.
Draft Fultz.

Did I get that right?

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2017, 02:16:47 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent, and he's commenting on a guy he's never worked with.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

Bill Belichek has a much different locker room than the Celtics on more than one level.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2017, 02:17:30 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
No knuckleheads.
Danny is very smart.

Sign Noel.
Draft Fultz.

Did I get that right?

Not sure. I like Jackson also and after seeing Noel, I might say sign Olynyk.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2017, 02:20:15 PM »

Offline Shamrocker

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 786
  • Tommy Points: 69
If Brad doesn't have the confidence to coach talented knuckleheads, maybe he should consider taking that job at Indiana University after all.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2017, 02:20:37 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
No knuckleheads.
Danny is very smart.

Sign Noel.
Draft Fultz.

Did I get that right?

Not sure. I like Jackson also and after seeing Noel, I might say sign Olynyk.

Josh Jackson is my pick also. Good fit under CBS system

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2017, 02:21:08 PM »

Offline rochrist

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 17
...
With regard to the comments on BB and his willingness to take on problem players, most of those have been with regard to behaving badly off the field, not on it.  As someone rightly pointed out regarding Jamie Collins, if BB doesn't like someone's attitude, he trades them away or cuts them right away.  That's easier to do in football.  If Danny brings Cousins to Boston and he tries to undermine Brad's system, they can either cut him and have his salary negatively impact their cap space for the next two years, or they can bench him and have the same problem, while still having his bad attitude around the other players.  There is no good way to get rid of a malcontent player if they don't work out in the NBA. 
....

Not to mention that the assets used to get him are now gone and you're left with nothing.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2017, 02:28:16 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

That's absurd.  At this point you're letting your Cousins' bias get in the way.

Denver could have easily made the same offer for Cousins as New Orleans did.  They didn't give up too much less to get Mason Plumlee.  They also have apparently the only coach that Cousins ever seemed to play for. That they didn't step up, nor were even rumored to be trying in the last week, should say a good deal about the league wide opinion of Cousins ability to be a good teammate.

If Denver had gotten him for a package of Jamal Murray and a 1st, I'd be a little more upset, because then the front office and coaching staff that knew him best outside of Sacramento would have said "yes, he's worth the trouble." But that they stayed away same as most other teams says that the concerns were very, very real.

Comparing it to the Patriots is completely different too.  Basketball contracts are much more guaranteed than football, so jettisoning someone who doesn't work out is more difficult on the salary cap.  Furthermore, rosters are smaller, top players see a much larger percentage of action, and the ability to find someone viable in mid-year free agency is less.  Belichek, and every football team, can take a risk on a player, because the cost of him not working out is so much less. The Patriots could take a risk on sending a 5th round for Albert Haynesworth, because if he didn't work out, so what.  It's just apples and oranges.  My gut says an NBA version of Belichek wouldn't have been any more interested than Stevens.

Denver has Jokic, who they're building around. They're committing to youth. Malone still admires and stays in touch with DMC.

With regards to Jokic, they just paid a decent price to get Plumlee and his Bird rights.  If they're willing to go forward with that pairing, they certainly should have been willing to go forward with Jokic and Cousins.  If Cousins can't guard 4s well enough for 15-20 minutes a game, I question how good of a fit he'd have been on the court with Horford, who at this point in his career has problems keeping up with quicker PFs.

As for Malone praising Cousins in public -- a lot of people are willing to say nice generalities to reporters.  Malone might truly wish Cousins the best, even.  But, again, they traded a 1st rounder in this draft (that will probably wind up only about 5 spots worse than what Sac wound up getting) and a decent prospect for someone who plays the same position as DMC, but less well, and is 5 months older.  If Cousins is that special a player, then they should have had no problem trading a little bit more for him.  It is not remotely unreasonable to conclude that the Nuggets, who employ both his former coach and GM, decided they weren't interested. And if they weren't, I'm just fine with the Celtics being similarly uninterested.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2017, 02:31:24 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

That's absurd.  At this point you're letting your Cousins' bias get in the way.

Denver could have easily made the same offer for Cousins as New Orleans did.  They didn't give up too much less to get Mason Plumlee.  They also have apparently the only coach that Cousins ever seemed to play for. That they didn't step up, nor were even rumored to be trying in the last week, should say a good deal about the league wide opinion of Cousins ability to be a good teammate.

If Denver had gotten him for a package of Jamal Murray and a 1st, I'd be a little more upset, because then the front office and coaching staff that knew him best outside of Sacramento would have said "yes, he's worth the trouble." But that they stayed away same as most other teams says that the concerns were very, very real.

Comparing it to the Patriots is completely different too.  Basketball contracts are much more guaranteed than football, so jettisoning someone who doesn't work out is more difficult on the salary cap.  Furthermore, rosters are smaller, top players see a much larger percentage of action, and the ability to find someone viable in mid-year free agency is less.  Belichek, and every football team, can take a risk on a player, because the cost of him not working out is so much less. The Patriots could take a risk on sending a 5th round for Albert Haynesworth, because if he didn't work out, so what.  It's just apples and oranges.  My gut says an NBA version of Belichek wouldn't have been any more interested than Stevens.

Denver has Jokic, who they're building around. They're committing to youth. Malone still admires and stays in touch with DMC.

With regards to Jokic, they just paid a decent price to get Plumlee and his Bird rights.  If they're willing to go forward with that pairing, they certainly should have been willing to go forward with Jokic and Cousins.  If Cousins can't guard 4s well enough for 15-20 minutes a game, I question how good of a fit he'd have been on the court with Horford, who at this point in his career has problems keeping up with quicker PFs.

As for Malone praising Cousins in public -- a lot of people are willing to say nice generalities to reporters.  Malone might truly wish Cousins the best, even.  But, again, they traded a 1st rounder in this draft (that will probably wind up only about 5 spots worse than what Sac wound up getting) and a decent prospect for someone who plays the same position as DMC, but less well, and is 5 months older.  If Cousins is that special a player, then they should have had no problem trading a little bit more for him.  It is not remotely unreasonable to conclude that the Nuggets, who employ both his former coach and GM, decided they weren't interested. And if they weren't, I'm just fine with the Celtics being similarly uninterested.

For starters, Cousins wasn't on the market when they made that trade.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2017, 02:38:52 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

That's absurd.  At this point you're letting your Cousins' bias get in the way.

Denver could have easily made the same offer for Cousins as New Orleans did.  They didn't give up too much less to get Mason Plumlee.  They also have apparently the only coach that Cousins ever seemed to play for. That they didn't step up, nor were even rumored to be trying in the last week, should say a good deal about the league wide opinion of Cousins ability to be a good teammate.

If Denver had gotten him for a package of Jamal Murray and a 1st, I'd be a little more upset, because then the front office and coaching staff that knew him best outside of Sacramento would have said "yes, he's worth the trouble." But that they stayed away same as most other teams says that the concerns were very, very real.

Comparing it to the Patriots is completely different too.  Basketball contracts are much more guaranteed than football, so jettisoning someone who doesn't work out is more difficult on the salary cap.  Furthermore, rosters are smaller, top players see a much larger percentage of action, and the ability to find someone viable in mid-year free agency is less.  Belichek, and every football team, can take a risk on a player, because the cost of him not working out is so much less. The Patriots could take a risk on sending a 5th round for Albert Haynesworth, because if he didn't work out, so what.  It's just apples and oranges.  My gut says an NBA version of Belichek wouldn't have been any more interested than Stevens.

Denver has Jokic, who they're building around. They're committing to youth. Malone still admires and stays in touch with DMC.

With regards to Jokic, they just paid a decent price to get Plumlee and his Bird rights.  If they're willing to go forward with that pairing, they certainly should have been willing to go forward with Jokic and Cousins.  If Cousins can't guard 4s well enough for 15-20 minutes a game, I question how good of a fit he'd have been on the court with Horford, who at this point in his career has problems keeping up with quicker PFs.

As for Malone praising Cousins in public -- a lot of people are willing to say nice generalities to reporters.  Malone might truly wish Cousins the best, even.  But, again, they traded a 1st rounder in this draft (that will probably wind up only about 5 spots worse than what Sac wound up getting) and a decent prospect for someone who plays the same position as DMC, but less well, and is 5 months older.  If Cousins is that special a player, then they should have had no problem trading a little bit more for him.  It is not remotely unreasonable to conclude that the Nuggets, who employ both his former coach and GM, decided they weren't interested. And if they weren't, I'm just fine with the Celtics being similarly uninterested.

For starters, Cousins wasn't on the market when they made that trade.

You don't think Cousins was on the market February 12th? Keep in mind that the report of the Magic declining to trade for Cousins came out on February 17th.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2017, 02:42:39 PM »

Offline blink

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18040
  • Tommy Points: 1469
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

That's absurd.  At this point you're letting your Cousins' bias get in the way.

Denver could have easily made the same offer for Cousins as New Orleans did.  They didn't give up too much less to get Mason Plumlee.  They also have apparently the only coach that Cousins ever seemed to play for. That they didn't step up, nor were even rumored to be trying in the last week, should say a good deal about the league wide opinion of Cousins ability to be a good teammate.

If Denver had gotten him for a package of Jamal Murray and a 1st, I'd be a little more upset, because then the front office and coaching staff that knew him best outside of Sacramento would have said "yes, he's worth the trouble." But that they stayed away same as most other teams says that the concerns were very, very real.

Comparing it to the Patriots is completely different too.  Basketball contracts are much more guaranteed than football, so jettisoning someone who doesn't work out is more difficult on the salary cap.  Furthermore, rosters are smaller, top players see a much larger percentage of action, and the ability to find someone viable in mid-year free agency is less.  Belichek, and every football team, can take a risk on a player, because the cost of him not working out is so much less. The Patriots could take a risk on sending a 5th round for Albert Haynesworth, because if he didn't work out, so what.  It's just apples and oranges.  My gut says an NBA version of Belichek wouldn't have been any more interested than Stevens.

Denver has Jokic, who they're building around. They're committing to youth. Malone still admires and stays in touch with DMC.

With regards to Jokic, they just paid a decent price to get Plumlee and his Bird rights.  If they're willing to go forward with that pairing, they certainly should have been willing to go forward with Jokic and Cousins.  If Cousins can't guard 4s well enough for 15-20 minutes a game, I question how good of a fit he'd have been on the court with Horford, who at this point in his career has problems keeping up with quicker PFs.

As for Malone praising Cousins in public -- a lot of people are willing to say nice generalities to reporters.  Malone might truly wish Cousins the best, even.  But, again, they traded a 1st rounder in this draft (that will probably wind up only about 5 spots worse than what Sac wound up getting) and a decent prospect for someone who plays the same position as DMC, but less well, and is 5 months older.  If Cousins is that special a player, then they should have had no problem trading a little bit more for him.  It is not remotely unreasonable to conclude that the Nuggets, who employ both his former coach and GM, decided they weren't interested. And if they weren't, I'm just fine with the Celtics being similarly uninterested.

For starters, Cousins wasn't on the market when they made that trade.

You don't think Cousins was on the market February 12th? Keep in mind that the report of the Magic declining to trade for Cousins came out on February 17th.

why is it so hard to believe that Sac has been actively shopping Cousins for quite a while? 

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2017, 02:52:59 PM »

Offline PAOBoston

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8098
  • Tommy Points: 533
The most important person in the organization is Brad Steven's. Speaks volumes about him and the way he and Danny want this team to be.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2017, 02:57:23 PM »

Offline TheBig3

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 255
  • Tommy Points: 18
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent, and he's commenting on a guy he's never worked with.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

Ask all the guys Belichick cut when more often then not they don't work out. So much easier to cut your losses in NFL. Comparison doesn't work.

The point is, Belicheck doesn't say no to coaching guys because they're difficult.

If Cousins hadn't worked out, how much worse of a position would we have been in? It was low/moderate risk versus extremely high reward.

Belichick also wouldn't package the potential number 1-4 pick in the draft and other top assets for a potential locker room issue. He says yes to difficult players that he can pick up on the cheap. Big difference.

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2017, 03:03:16 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Belichick this, Belichick that. Repeat with me: non-guaranteed contracts. Belichick has taken on plenty of head cases in the past (Talib, Heinsworth, and Floyd are just the first three that come to mind) -- but what Belichick doesn't (have to) do is sign off 25% of his team's cap to them, guaranteed for 5 years. That is all.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Brad Stevens said no about coaching Cousins.
« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2017, 03:04:06 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
If true, it makes me respect Stevens less. He's not up to the task of trying to mold a generational talent.

Imagine if Bill Belichek had that mindset.

That's absurd.  At this point you're letting your Cousins' bias get in the way.

Denver could have easily made the same offer for Cousins as New Orleans did.  They didn't give up too much less to get Mason Plumlee.  They also have apparently the only coach that Cousins ever seemed to play for. That they didn't step up, nor were even rumored to be trying in the last week, should say a good deal about the league wide opinion of Cousins ability to be a good teammate.

If Denver had gotten him for a package of Jamal Murray and a 1st, I'd be a little more upset, because then the front office and coaching staff that knew him best outside of Sacramento would have said "yes, he's worth the trouble." But that they stayed away same as most other teams says that the concerns were very, very real.

Comparing it to the Patriots is completely different too.  Basketball contracts are much more guaranteed than football, so jettisoning someone who doesn't work out is more difficult on the salary cap.  Furthermore, rosters are smaller, top players see a much larger percentage of action, and the ability to find someone viable in mid-year free agency is less.  Belichek, and every football team, can take a risk on a player, because the cost of him not working out is so much less. The Patriots could take a risk on sending a 5th round for Albert Haynesworth, because if he didn't work out, so what.  It's just apples and oranges.  My gut says an NBA version of Belichek wouldn't have been any more interested than Stevens.

Denver has Jokic, who they're building around. They're committing to youth. Malone still admires and stays in touch with DMC.

With regards to Jokic, they just paid a decent price to get Plumlee and his Bird rights.  If they're willing to go forward with that pairing, they certainly should have been willing to go forward with Jokic and Cousins.  If Cousins can't guard 4s well enough for 15-20 minutes a game, I question how good of a fit he'd have been on the court with Horford, who at this point in his career has problems keeping up with quicker PFs.

As for Malone praising Cousins in public -- a lot of people are willing to say nice generalities to reporters.  Malone might truly wish Cousins the best, even.  But, again, they traded a 1st rounder in this draft (that will probably wind up only about 5 spots worse than what Sac wound up getting) and a decent prospect for someone who plays the same position as DMC, but less well, and is 5 months older.  If Cousins is that special a player, then they should have had no problem trading a little bit more for him.  It is not remotely unreasonable to conclude that the Nuggets, who employ both his former coach and GM, decided they weren't interested. And if they weren't, I'm just fine with the Celtics being similarly uninterested.

For starters, Cousins wasn't on the market when they made that trade.

You don't think Cousins was on the market February 12th? Keep in mind that the report of the Magic declining to trade for Cousins came out on February 17th.

why is it so hard to believe that Sac has been actively shopping Cousins for quite a while?

Bc Divac was lying ...  Even one or two days prior to the trade

What a liar