Demarcus CUZZZZ

[Covert Rain]

Would you actually prefer Aldridge or Love to Cousins for this current Suns roster? A simple yes or no.

You didn't ask me either but mine would be Aldridge, Cousins then Love (assuming those are my choices).

 

[Cheesebeef]

Would you actually prefer Aldridge or Love to Cousins for this current Suns roster? A simple yes or no.

But it's not that simple because that wasn't the question we were debating now, was it? You're original question retort in our discussion of Cousin's worth was:

NAME THREE BIG MEN BETTER THEN COUSINS (bolded to make sure you actually remember what we were discussing as it seems to have slipped from memory.

I went ahead and did so and then you said I literally could ONLY have put Aldridge in there to be argumentative. Now, multiple people have agreed with me. So, I ask you a simple question... are all those people simply being argumentative? Or is there actually room for debate on the subject which you rejected as completely out of hand?

But, to answer your simple yes or no question... I'd take Aldridge. He's a team player, right in the middle of his prime, isn't a cancer and we wouldn't have to give up anything to get him.

Love? I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole and would take Cousins over him. But Love wasn't one of the players I listed (which you also ignored outside of Aldridge).

Now, you'll probably ignore the first part of my response as continued existence of my "mania and hysteria" and try to weave it somehow into a personal attack on you, but when you keep moving the goal-posts in a discussion, I'm gonna call you on it.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Exactly! Which is why a roster including Tucker, the twins and Cousins would be doomed to mediocrity until a Head Coach who could handle them is part of the equation.

I am not sure a hard-nosed coach is a fit for Cousins. George Karl isn't working out so well. Hard-nosed coaches don't survive very long in today's NBA. Ask Tom Thibideau.

 

[elindholm]

NAME THREE BIG MEN BETTER THEN COUSINS (bolded to make sure you actually remember what we were discussing as it seems to have slipped from memory.

I went ahead and did so and then you said I literally could ONLY have put Aldridge in there to be argumentative.

Yes, that's my memory too. Well done.

Now, multiple people have agreed with me. So, I ask you a simple question... are all those people simply being argumentative? Or is there actually room for debate on the subject which you rejected as completely out of hand?

I'll admit that I'm surprised that support for Cousins is as weak as it is. However, the fact that there's a "debate" means nothing. People debate whether we landed people on the moon, or whether the earth is undergoing climate change at an unprecedented rate. Or those endless things like "what is 7 + 7 / 7 - 7 * 0?" People "debate" them, but there's only one answer. (In this case, 8.)

But, to answer your simple yes or no question... I'd take Aldridge. He's a team player, right in the middle of his prime, isn't a cancer and we wouldn't have to give up anything to get him.

You're always giving something up, whether it's now or in the future, so that last statement (green) can be tossed out.

He's also 30 years old (which means that his "prime" has probably only a few years left), prefers playing on the perimeter to going inside, and has averaged 10 rebounds per game only twice. I think he's a great player, and during the 2013-14 season, when the Suns had a better roster and looked like they might be going somewhere, I thought he'd be the ideal acquisition. But times change, and given where the Suns are now and what their needs are, I simply can't agree with anyone who would choose Aldridge over Cousins.

Love? I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole and would take Cousins over him. But Love wasn't one of the players I listed (which you also ignored outside of Aldridge).

Why do you keep saying this? I gave you Davis and you came up with Griffin. Great, that's two. I didn't ask whether you could come up with two bigs ahead of Cousins. I asked whether you could come up with three. Aldridge is your third, and I think that's nonsense. We agree that Love isn't a candidate.

 

[Folster]

I think Aldridge would be a better fit for the offense the Suns are trying to run, but we have no chance in getting him IMHO. I remember there being rumors that the Suns nearly moved the twins or at least Markieff to Chicago for Nikola Mirotic. I wonder if something like that could be a possibility. Probably unlikely with the felony assault case looming.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I think Aldridge would be a better fit for the offense the Suns are trying to run, but we have no chance in getting him IMHO. I remember there being rumors that the Suns nearly moved the twins or at least Markieff to Chicago for Nikola Mirotic. I wonder if something like that could be a possibility. Probably unlikely with the felony assault case looming.

Could we move him to Philly for the rights to Dario Saric. Philly has to spend money anyway.

 

[BC867]

"what is 7 + 7 / 7 - 7 * 0?" People "debate" them, but there's only one answer. (In this case, 8.)

Algebra was my favorite subject, but that was a loooong time ago.

7+7 (14) divided by 7-7 (0) = infinity. Please explain what the * 0 in the equation represents.

Thanks

 

[elindholm]

Algebra was my favorite subject, but that was a loooong time ago.

7+7 (14) divided by 7-7 (0) = infinity. Please explain what the * 0 in the equation represents.

Thanks

Sure thing, happy to oblige. The asterisk is multiplication. Multiplication and division take priority over addition and subtraction,† so parentheses around the multiplication and division operations are implied.

7 + 7 / 7 - 7 * 0

7 + (7 / 7) - (7 * 0)

7 + 1 - 0

8

†This is the rule that people like to argue about, but it really isn't a debatable point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations for more information.

 

[BC867]

Sure thing, happy to oblige. The asterisk is multiplication. Multiplication and division take priority over addition and subtraction,† so parentheses around the multiplication and division operations are implied.

7 + 7 / 7 - 7 * 0

7 + (7 / 7) - (7 * 0)

7 + 1 - 0

8

Ah, so you're saying that seven plus the quantity (seven divided by seven, which is one) minus the quantity (seven times zero, which is zero) equals eight. That is true!

But without having parentheses around each -- as you did the second time -- it could be interpreted as the quantity (seven plus seven, which is fourteen) divided by the quantity (seven minus seven, which is zero) equals infinity, times zero, which is zero.

The way the first part was written -- 7 + 7 / 7 - 7 -- could be taken either way, in which case the answer wouldn't always be the same.

It is all in the presentation. Which means there is not always one (correct) answer. So I respectfully disagree with that conclusion.

'Sorta like the various opinions on this board.


Also, I have always seen the "times" sign as an "x" not an asterisk, which is why I didn't understand the last part.

I just checked Wikipedia and it confirms that the "times" sign is an "x" with no mention of an asterisk. Check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_sign

Edit: I just re-read your note about "Multiplication and division take priority over addition and subtraction,† so parentheses around the multiplication and division operations are implied."

I had never heard that rule. Interesting! OK, in the words of Rosanne Rosannadanna, "Never mind."

 

[Chaz]

 

[elindholm]

Also, I have always seen the "times" sign as an "x" not an asterisk, which is why I didn't understand the last part.

An asterisk is usually used when typing to avoid confusion with the letter x, especially since x is the most common letter used for a variable. It's also used by Excel (and similar programs, I would guess), and used to be the norm in computer programming, but I'm not up on any of the newer languages.

The multiplication sign "x" is not actually the letter. Did you read the page you linked to? It says, right there below the heading, "Not to be confused with the letter X."

Edit: I just re-read your note about "Multiplication and division take priority over addition and subtraction,† so parentheses around the multiplication and division operations are implied."

I had never heard that rule.

Well, I don't know how old you are, but I'm quite certain that the rule was around back when algebra was your favorite subject. The first footnote of the Wikipedia article links to a discussion which dates the convention back to at least the 1600s. It's part of the basic knowledge tested on the SAT, for example, and any decent calculator follows the rule automatically.

But this discussion has helped to make my point: a "debate" when only one person is properly informed is not a debate at all.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I have to agree with Eric - although Boogie is an idiot, he's also only 24 and putting up monster numbers. Aldridge is an extremely solid player, but a questionable #1 guy, and already 30.

As it seems possible that the Kings trade him, why not make a run? It's pretty obvious that top players ain't coming here through free agency, the Cousins reclamation project is probably our best shot at relevance.

We then dump Horny for Coach Cal, and it's Kentucky NBA!

 

[Phrazbit]

This board is an interesting place...

 

[Mainstreet]

This board is an interesting place...

This is an understatement.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yes, that's my memory too. Well done.



I'll admit that I'm surprised that support for Cousins is as weak as it is. However, the fact that there's a "debate" means nothing.


People debate whether we landed people on the moon, or whether the earth is undergoing climate change at an unprecedented rate. Or those endless things like "what is 7 + 7 / 7 - 7 * 0?" People "debate" them, but there's only one answer. (In this case, 8.)

Sorry, but this is just someone who can't admit they're wrong that I was just being argumentative. You're basically saying that everyone here is just wrong... because you say so. That's ridiculous.

You're always giving something up, whether it's now or in the future, so that last statement (green) can be tossed out.

He's also 30 years old (which means that his "prime" has probably only a few years left), prefers playing on the perimeter to going inside, and has averaged 10 rebounds per game only twice. I think he's a great player, and during the 2013-14 season, when the Suns had a better roster and looked like they might be going somewhere, I thought he'd be the ideal acquisition. But times change, and given where the Suns are now and what their needs are, I simply can't agree with anyone who would choose Aldridge over Cousins.

That's fine that you can't agree with it, but to just blast it as completely ridiculous and unheard of and that I was only saying it to be argumentative is wrong and has been proven to be so with others agreeing with me.

Why do you keep saying this? I gave you Davis and you came up with Griffin. Great, that's two. I didn't ask whether you could come up with two bigs ahead of Cousins. I asked whether you could come up with three. Aldridge is your third, and I think that's nonsense. We agree that Love isn't a candidate.

I find it interesting that you don't think Love is a candidate and it goes to my bigger point considering that previous to this year when he had to play 3rd fiddle, couldn't you have made the exact same argument about Love? He had better stats then Cousins when he was averaging 26/12.5/4, was already a two-time All-Star and a 2 Time 2nd Team All-NBAer. So, in your opinion, what's the difference between what Cousins has done and what Love did in Minnesota? And if you'll recall, I never wanted Love either because I thought his stats were just that... stats, that never equaled any needle moving success for his team. So, I know why I dismiss Love as a top 3 big man, but am curious why you do since his career has mirrored Cousins, save the headcase of it all.

Let me ask you another question... would you have been completely hot to trot for Carmelo when he was 24? I probably would have been, but that's partially because at 24, Melo wasn't just putting up stats, he came to the Nuggets who had been awful forever and immediately not only put up stats, but those stats helped the team get back to the playoffs for three straight years. But Cousins isn't doing that. He's just putting up numbers, that haven't meant anything for team success. And with a young team, would you really want to add a Melo-like attitude who can't raise the team's fortunes?

 

[Cheesebeef]

But this discussion has helped to make my point: a "debate" when only one person is properly informed is not a debate at all.

wow... you're the only person in this entire debate about Cousin's worth that's "informed". good grief.

 

[elindholm]

Sorry, but this is just someone who can't admit they're wrong that I was just being argumentative. You're basically saying that everyone here is just wrong... because you say so. That's ridiculous.

One has to consider the source. You're very argumentative, and I know that you've had it out for me ever since I tried to start my own message board in response to this one's darkest period of Orwellian censorship, which fortunately has now abated somewhat. So if you say something that seems ridiculous, then yes, the most likely explanation is that you're saying it to be antagonistic, and not because you actually believe it.

But we've had a lot of people chime in by now, some of them known by reputation to be rational and thoughtful. The consensus that Cousins is more desirable than Aldridge is nowhere near as strong as I thought it would be. So I was wrong: His perceived value as a trade commodity is not that high, and it was a mistake to describe him as comparable to Barkley, or whatever word I used.

and yet, previous to this year, couldn't you have made the exact same argument about Love, citing his even better stats then Cousins when he was averaging 26/12.5/4. I mean, what's the difference between what Cousins has done and what Love did in Minnesota?

I'm scared away by the analysis showing him to be awful defensively. I was pretty high on him before that.

I mean, would you have been completely hot to trot for Carmelo when he was 24?

I don't know, but probably not, because he's more of a wing than a big man. But also, the Suns were in a different place then. Anthony turned 24 in 2008, which was the year that the Suns acquired O'Neal. I didn't love that move, but it made sense for where that team was, probably.

But Cousins isn't doing that. He's just putting up numbers, that haven't meant anything for team success. And with a young team, would you really want to add a Melo-like attitude who can't raise the team's fortunes?

If Cousins goes on the market, I hope you're right. I still think he'd be a good gamble, the best plausible option for the Suns at this point. I figured his appeal was so overwhelming that everyone would agree with me, but I was wrong about that. So if that means he'd be easier to get, so much the better.

 

[JCSunsfan]

If Cousins goes on the market, it would be a gamble. Its probably one that should not be dismissed out of hand by the Suns mgmt. The problem for fans is that many of the factors essential to making the decision are "behind closed doors" private matters that will never hit the news media. So we, here, will never be able to evaluate this in a truly informed way.

Cousins' numbers and age clearly indicate he should be a target.

 

[Cheesebeef]

One has to consider the source. You're very argumentative, and I know that you've had it out for me ever since I tried to start my own message board in response to this one's darkest period of Orwellian censorship, which fortunately has now abated somewhat. So if you say something that seems ridiculous, then yes, the most likely explanation is that you're saying it to be antagonistic, and not because you actually believe it.

But we've had a lot of people chime in by now, some of them known by reputation to be rational and thoughtful. The consensus that Cousins is more desirable than Aldridge is nowhere near as strong as I thought it would be. So I was wrong: His perceived value as a trade commodity is not that high, and it was a mistake to describe him as comparable to Barkley, or whatever word I used.



I'm scared away by the analysis showing him to be awful defensively. I was pretty high on him before that.



I don't know, but probably not, because he's more of a wing than a big man. But also, the Suns were in a different place then. Anthony turned 24 in 2008, which was the year that the Suns acquired O'Neal. I didn't love that move, but it made sense for where that team was, probably.



If Cousins goes on the market, I hope you're right. I still think he'd be a good gamble, the best plausible option for the Suns at this point. I figured his appeal was so overwhelming that everyone would agree with me, but I was wrong about that. So if that means he'd be easier to get, so much the better.

Fair enough.

 

[Mainstreet]

It seems DeMarcus Cousins may still be available in a trade as reportedly there is still tension between him and the Kings organization.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...nization-In-Favor-Of-Trading-DeMarcus-Cousins

 

[Suns_fan69]

It seems DeMarcus Cousins may still be available in a trade as reportedly there is still tension between him and the Kings organization.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...nization-In-Favor-Of-Trading-DeMarcus-Cousins

I'd love to get Cousins, but I just don't see a deal that will work for both sides.

Sacramento would probably want to reset on their roster if they get rid of Cousins, so they'll likely want to dump Gay. They'll want Len for sure, probably Warren and Booker too. Kieff would almost have to be included for salaries, as well as probably Tucker and even that probably won't get the salaries to match.

Unless Phoenix includes Bledsoe they would pretty much have to trade half the team.

 

[Mainstreet]

I'd love to get Cousins, but I just don't see a deal that will work for both sides.

Sacramento would probably want to reset on their roster if they get rid of Cousins, so they'll likely want to dump Gay. They'll want Len for sure, probably Warren and Booker too. Kieff would almost have to be included for salaries, as well as probably Tucker and even that probably won't get the salaries to match.

Unless Phoenix includes Bledsoe they would pretty much have to trade half the team.

If Markieff gets the court case resolved in a favorable manner, he would be much better than filler. He would be their starting PF. Actually I think Len and Markieff make this trade work. Of course the Kings would want more and the Suns have more (including picks) but these two players should form a foundation for the trade. However, the Suns look set at center with Chandler and Len.

 

[JCSunsfan]

What are his shooting percentages? Is he an efficient player both offensively and defensively?

 

[Catlover]

It would be tough for some of us to cheer for Cousins, he's not a very likable player. But he's only 25. He's just coming into his physical prime and already has 4 straight years of 20+ PER (2 straight years with a PER over 25). That's impressive.

I don't know if it would interest them but Markieff, Len and Goodwin (or Warren) plus the Miami picks and the Cleveland pick works dollar-wise and might get the discussion started. It's likely we'd have to get another team involved and probably even have to throw in a pick or two of our own (with little protection) but it would be worth pursuing if they really want to move him.

 

[slinslin]

He is a center.

Can you see the problem?