The Kings are, as Akis so thoroughly and brilliantly laid out, at a crossroads. But it doesn't matter which direction you choose if the driver is wearing a blindfold and trying to prove he can drive with only his knees. Trading DeMarcus Cousins is the obvious catalyst towards major change, but what if the Kings trade Cousins and we experience more of the same dysfunction, just without Boogie?
We often point out that the Kings' history of ineptitude should be separated into pieces. Don't count what the Maloofs and Geoff Petrie did. Some even say we shouldn't count anything Pete D'Alessandro did. But this all start at the top. Let's look at the moves from Thursday's post, but only look at what's been done since the Maloofs have been gone:
What is it about that list of transactions that inspires any confidence that the Kings could successfully navigate the minefield of trading a superstar? Which of those transactions suggests that the Kings could successfully rebound around young assets or a new star? Similarly, none of that suggests an ability to build around DeMarcus Cousins.
The objective of any rebuild is to acquire and then build around a star or stars. I don't know if the Kings can successfully build around DeMarcus Cousins, but if they can't I'm not sure it matters who or what they get in a trade. I understand why people are more and more ready to trade Cousins, but I still think it would be a mistake.
I think the team needs to fix the issues higher up the ladder first. Otherwise, whether they keep Cousins or not, I'm not sure it really matters.