• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Print Versions
  • About
  • Masthead
    • 2022-2023
    • 2016-2017

The Bowdoin Review

Demarcus Cousins and the Power of Unintended Consequences

Written by: Noah Rothman
Published on: March 2, 2017

On February 19, Demarcus Cousins was traded from the Sacramento Kings to the New Orleans Pelicans. Cousins is, by consensus, a top player in the NBA. Indeed, he is one of the most talented scoring centers the game has seen in years. Yet, for a multitude of reasons, the Kings felt obligated to trade him. The team believed that Cousins was destined to leave in free agency and was loathe to let him walk for nothing. But the catalyst for the move might have been a new rule designed to prevent this exact situation from occurring. In a case of perverse incentives and unintended consequences, the NBA’s new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) may have paved the road for Cousins’ departure from Sacramento.

In a way, the story begins in Oklahoma City. For most of this decade, the Oklahoma City Thunder have been the NBA’s worst nightmare. The franchise drafted three of the five best players in the league: Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant and James Harden. All three are MVP winners or finalists. Each will be named All-NBA this season. And only one of them remains on the team.

Harden was traded in 2012 to avoid the luxury tax. The Thunder saw how expensive their team was becoming, and traded him away to Houston for a song. Durant signed a five-year extension in 2010, but he left for the Golden State Warriors as a free agent in the 2016 offseason. Although the Thunder could have offered Durant another extension, the rules surrounding such deals made refusal a certainty. Under the stipulations of the 2011 CBA, extensions could only give a small raise in salary to the signee. A theoretical extension would have offered Durant nowhere near the $30 million per annum contract available to him as a free agent. The Thunder still had a small advantage in free agency; they were able to offer an extra year and about $2 million more in average annual value. But the difference wasn’t enough to tempt Durant to stay.

The NBA was horrified by the Thunder’s misfortune. It is very much against the NBA’s interest if teams cannot keep their homegrown stars. The reaction was swift and decisive. Indeed, in the CBA from last year, teams received a new tool to help them retain their superstars. The provision, called the Designated Player Extension (DPE), only applies to superstar players, as defined by various performance criteria. For these particular players, teams can offer special five-year extensions with a significantly higher salary than would be available on the open market. Most importantly, these offers can only be made by a player’s current franchise. On the whole, the NBA responded enthusiastically to the rule. No longer, the thinking went, would teams be forced to give up their star players.

The league was sorely mistaken. In the very first instance of the rule’s application, the DPE likely created the exact scenario it was created to thwart—a team forced to part with their franchise player: Demarcus Cousins.

Cousins is something of an enigma. The big man has a fiery temper and consistently leads the league in technical fouls. He is one of the most notorious personalities in all of sports; it is no coincidence that Sacramento has gone through six head coaches since 2012. The Kings organization itself is equally dysfunctional, but Cousins has undeniably played a role in the chaos.

Given Cousins’ mercurial nature, Sacramento’s reluctance to invest heavily in him is understandable. Even under the old rules, a five-year maximum contract would have been costly, but the Kings seemed committed to making the offer. However, Cousins would have demanded the DPE. As a top-15 player in the league, he would have sought out exactly what he deserved—and not a penny less. With the new rules, then, his next contract would have been ludicrously expensive, about $35 million more than the traditional max. It would have been the richest contract in NBA history, about 37 percent larger than the previous record. This exorbitant figure rightfully terrified the Sacramento organization.

Unable to re-sign Cousins, the Kings were left with few options. They could have kept him until the expiration of his contract in 2018, but at that point Cousins would have simply left with the franchise receiving nothing in return. Likely guided by Oklahoma City’s similar experience with Durant, Sacramento desperately sought to avoid that situation. As a result, the fateful trade was made and Cousins, one of the greatest players in Kings history, became a New Orleans Pelican. But if it weren’t for the league’s reaction to the plight of the Thunder, and subsequent creation of the DPE, it is possible that Cousins would still be wearing purple and silver.

Categories: SportsTags: Basketball

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Why South Africa Remains Unequal Thirty Years After Apartheid May 7, 2024
  • Skeptical of September February 8, 2024
  • Waterwheel February 7, 2024
  • Nineteen February 7, 2024
  • D.C.’s Most Expensive Retirement Home: Congress    February 7, 2024
  • Instagram

Archives

  • May 2024
  • February 2024
  • October 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • February 2012

Copyright © 2025 · The Bowdoin Review - A voice on campus for politics, society, and culture.