Webber trade: Good or bad for the Kings ?
- Thread starter sloter
- Start date
Webb just wasn't what he used to be. He was an amazing player but post surgery he was a shell of his former self. Too bad. I really wanted to see us win a title with him at the helm. Webb's legs just couldn't lead us to the promise land. Hes now a complimentry player. It sucks but thats just the way it is. He still has those paws and that great passing ability but he isnt the same player as he once was. Hes a worse defender, rebounder, and scorer. Its painful to watch. It hurts my knees even watching him play.
I believe GP reconized that a change was needed and deided that trading Webber would be right for the future of the franchise. that it would help the team to be alot more flexable in he future. Keeping Webb would have "sent us back to exspansionism" as the big idiot once said. We would have totally been screwed by Webbs contract. It would have been a bit similiar to Lionel Simmons contract and others that GP had to deal with when he first came here.
Its time for the past to rest and the future to take flight.
I believe GP reconized that a change was needed and deided that trading Webber would be right for the future of the franchise. that it would help the team to be alot more flexable in he future. Keeping Webb would have "sent us back to exspansionism" as the big idiot once said. We would have totally been screwed by Webbs contract. It would have been a bit similiar to Lionel Simmons contract and others that GP had to deal with when he first came here.
Its time for the past to rest and the future to take flight.
Last edited:
There are nuances missing from this poll -- specifically:
1) Was trading Webber good in the short term? No. Obviously not. We were a .500 team after the trade and got punked in the playoffs by a team we would have handled easily in years past.
2) Was it a good move in the long term? Now that depends almsot entirely on what we do in the offseason.
As an aside, this rarely gets mentioned, but the window BTW for making it a good trade is two years long. Year 1 (1/2 year this year) was a failure. Years 2 & 3 will tell the tale. Because in Year 4 Chris Webber's contract becomes a very large ASSET. A giant expiring contract to either clear a bunch of cap room and make a run at a big free agent, or as trade bait to a strugglign team willing to do the same and willing to trade you a bunch of pieces for it. From a purely contractural standpoint, in 2 years you'd probably rather have Webb's contract than the variety of midlevels (one of them running to 2010) that we got back in exchange. So its this year and next -- we have to make moves to significantly outperform the team as it would have been with Webber over thsoe years, and we have to be further along in the rebuilding/reloading process than we would have been holding onto the big contract and making a play with it in two years.
1) Was trading Webber good in the short term? No. Obviously not. We were a .500 team after the trade and got punked in the playoffs by a team we would have handled easily in years past.
2) Was it a good move in the long term? Now that depends almsot entirely on what we do in the offseason.
As an aside, this rarely gets mentioned, but the window BTW for making it a good trade is two years long. Year 1 (1/2 year this year) was a failure. Years 2 & 3 will tell the tale. Because in Year 4 Chris Webber's contract becomes a very large ASSET. A giant expiring contract to either clear a bunch of cap room and make a run at a big free agent, or as trade bait to a strugglign team willing to do the same and willing to trade you a bunch of pieces for it. From a purely contractural standpoint, in 2 years you'd probably rather have Webb's contract than the variety of midlevels (one of them running to 2010) that we got back in exchange. So its this year and next -- we have to make moves to significantly outperform the team as it would have been with Webber over thsoe years, and we have to be further along in the rebuilding/reloading process than we would have been holding onto the big contract and making a play with it in two years.
I have to say YES..... (and please don't start sending me hate e-mails). I just think that Webber is not as good anymore.... His knee is major issues and considering the guy isn't 20 yrs. old anymore, this is an even bigger concern. He is slow, and the game was always slowed down with him in the line-up. Don't get me wrong-I love Webb, and I was just as shocked and disappointed when he got traded, but I do think that in the long run this is for the best. We can criticize this current team all we want, but I think that they need to be given a chance to get to know one another and get comfortable before we can really see what they can do.
I think there is another, and perhaps overriding, factor that has yet to be tested. Will Chris survive to play the last years of his huge contract? I think that was likely the most compelling reason to trade him for three mid-level guys.
Using the same logic, the chances that Williamson, Thomas, and Skinner will each suddenly become injured and unable to play is minimal. The probability that Chris will unfortunately become Philadelphia's future "Ralph Sampson" is significant.
On that basis alone, the Webber trade was a prudent business decision. Even if Webber's physical condition imptoves, and he really helps Philly in the future (and I hope he does), the Petrie decision to trade him was clearly a wise decision.
Using the same logic, the chances that Williamson, Thomas, and Skinner will each suddenly become injured and unable to play is minimal. The probability that Chris will unfortunately become Philadelphia's future "Ralph Sampson" is significant.
On that basis alone, the Webber trade was a prudent business decision. Even if Webber's physical condition imptoves, and he really helps Philly in the future (and I hope he does), the Petrie decision to trade him was clearly a wise decision.
Exactly, Brick. The moves made over the next two seasons (or offseasons, preferabley) will be what defines this trade as success or failure. It certainly set us back quite a bit this year, but you can't say the trade wasn't a good one just based on that. Nor can you say it WAS good, not until the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Many people seem to think that re-loading is what we already did, or that the team just needs some small tweaks this summer. If the Championship is still the goal, then moves must be made to make this team BETTER than the SA's, the Miami's, the Pheonix's etc. We have a lot of holes to fill to get there.
Many people seem to think that re-loading is what we already did, or that the team just needs some small tweaks this summer. If the Championship is still the goal, then moves must be made to make this team BETTER than the SA's, the Miami's, the Pheonix's etc. We have a lot of holes to fill to get there.
What happens with the Kings franchise over the next two years is important, but probably not as important as what may happen to Chris Webber and the Philadelphia 76ers during the same period. I view the Webber trade as an effort to prevent an impending disaster.
The big trade was damage-control, a reaction, a business response to a potential financial disaster. It was a defensive manuever, a vaccination to preclude salary-cap gridlock. The trade was clearly not a measured step towards immediate team improvement. I believe that Geoff Petrie had very little choice once the Philadelphia opportunity presented itself.
Would you want to be a Philly fan right now?
The big trade was damage-control, a reaction, a business response to a potential financial disaster. It was a defensive manuever, a vaccination to preclude salary-cap gridlock. The trade was clearly not a measured step towards immediate team improvement. I believe that Geoff Petrie had very little choice once the Philadelphia opportunity presented itself.
Would you want to be a Philly fan right now?
I've actually been more skeptical about the trade as the offseason and summer approach. I really hope that Petrie finds a way to move around all the mid-level contracts, but unless KG demands a trade or something, is there really anything we can do that's good enough? Is Kenny Thomas good enough to net Stromile Swift in a sign-and-trade? Mobley for Hughes? I have my doubts. It seems that even if we move out Thomas, Corliss, Tag or whatnot, we still have to move one of our core guys in order to become a legit contender. I don't know how I feel about that. Part of me thinks we should have made another run, or rather at least insisted on getting Dalembert and Glenn Robinson's expiring contract.
That's not the point! What happens to the 76ers is simply a measure of what would have happened to the Kings had Petrie not traded Webber. The success of the Webber trade will become evident based upon what might have happened had the trade not occurred, not just what will eventually happen to the Kings without him.
What happens to the 76ers is NO MEASURE of what would have happened with the Kings. You can not compare them at all. Chris has a totally different role there than he had here. The Kings do not have an Iverson, nor do they have O'Brien....Thank God!!
What happens with Chris Webber and with the Kings is a much better comparison. If Chris stays healthy enough to put up decent #'s in the final years of his contract (inspite of the ballhog named Iverson) then it will have NOT been a good trade. On the other hand, if Chris is on IR for half of each of the next few seasons (this is an example only), then it was a great trade. But, even then, it will depend on whether Geoff continues the trades that are necessary to make the Kings more than a 1st round and out team.
What happens with Chris Webber and with the Kings is a much better comparison. If Chris stays healthy enough to put up decent #'s in the final years of his contract (inspite of the ballhog named Iverson) then it will have NOT been a good trade. On the other hand, if Chris is on IR for half of each of the next few seasons (this is an example only), then it was a great trade. But, even then, it will depend on whether Geoff continues the trades that are necessary to make the Kings more than a 1st round and out team.
If you honestly think the Webber trade has already proven to be a good thing, I believe you have to admit you didn't like Webber and are simply glad to see him gone.
Otherwise, you cannot possibly know if it was a good thing because it certainly hasn't done anything for us yet except remove an all-star player capable of putting up 20/10/5 who went to the 76ers and was able to be a contributing factor in them even getting to the playoffs.
If your theory is that everything is fixed, that Webber's performance in Philly, is indicative of what it would have been here, you're overlooking some of the factors that need to be addressed.
Webber was a King at heart; he often said he hoped he had earned the right to retire as a King. So, he played his heart out here. There, while he's still playing the game he loves, the dynamics have completely changed. Webber is NOT the leader of the 76ers.
The success of the Webber trade will NOT become evident based upon what might have happened because there's no way - short of some kind of time machine involving an alternative universe - we'll ever know.
As KG points out, however, it isn't about the 76ers and what does or doesn't happen to them. It is - whether or not you want to address it - solely about the Kings and what happens to them.
Will it end up being a good deal? If Petrie is able to parlay some of those smaller yet still bulky and lengthy contracts into a star play, then yes - it will most likely have been the right thing to do at the time.
If Webber stays healthy in Philadelphia and is able to contribute for the remainder of his contract, you will always have to wonder what might have happened here.
Otherwise, you cannot possibly know if it was a good thing because it certainly hasn't done anything for us yet except remove an all-star player capable of putting up 20/10/5 who went to the 76ers and was able to be a contributing factor in them even getting to the playoffs.
If your theory is that everything is fixed, that Webber's performance in Philly, is indicative of what it would have been here, you're overlooking some of the factors that need to be addressed.
Webber was a King at heart; he often said he hoped he had earned the right to retire as a King. So, he played his heart out here. There, while he's still playing the game he loves, the dynamics have completely changed. Webber is NOT the leader of the 76ers.
The success of the Webber trade will NOT become evident based upon what might have happened because there's no way - short of some kind of time machine involving an alternative universe - we'll ever know.
As KG points out, however, it isn't about the 76ers and what does or doesn't happen to them. It is - whether or not you want to address it - solely about the Kings and what happens to them.
Will it end up being a good deal? If Petrie is able to parlay some of those smaller yet still bulky and lengthy contracts into a star play, then yes - it will most likely have been the right thing to do at the time.
If Webber stays healthy in Philadelphia and is able to contribute for the remainder of his contract, you will always have to wonder what might have happened here.
Im sure that the loyal Kings fans on this site have debated the 'Webber trade' in far greater detail than i could hope to match before i arrived so im not about to launch into a detailed speculation as to whether the trade will prove good or bad.
Did we miss him (bad knee and all) since he was traded...definately. Would we have gone further into the play-offs..probably. Will that prove an acceptable decision ?
IMHO we simply wont know for at least 18 months. Then, we can look at how Chris' knee has held up or not as the case may be. We can make some sort of judgement on the talent we sign in his place, (i dont consider Williamson, Skinner and Thomas as 'replacement' for CWebb) and we will hopefully have a title contending lineup.
Getting into the playoffs isnt good enough for this team. If we sign another superstar, play pretty, but ineffectual basketball then that wont be good enough either. However, I do have faith in Geoff Petrie to engineer a deal which will ultimately result in the Webber trade being viewed as 'good'..its just way too early to tell. So for now im in the 'dont know' camp, but i look forward with optimism at finding out.
Did we miss him (bad knee and all) since he was traded...definately. Would we have gone further into the play-offs..probably. Will that prove an acceptable decision ?
IMHO we simply wont know for at least 18 months. Then, we can look at how Chris' knee has held up or not as the case may be. We can make some sort of judgement on the talent we sign in his place, (i dont consider Williamson, Skinner and Thomas as 'replacement' for CWebb) and we will hopefully have a title contending lineup.
Getting into the playoffs isnt good enough for this team. If we sign another superstar, play pretty, but ineffectual basketball then that wont be good enough either. However, I do have faith in Geoff Petrie to engineer a deal which will ultimately result in the Webber trade being viewed as 'good'..its just way too early to tell. So for now im in the 'dont know' camp, but i look forward with optimism at finding out.
Honestly, i think it broke even(but i voted for don't know yet). The kings didn't get any better from the trade, neither did the sixers. Both still need more pieces before they consider themselves real contenders,both had average to below average seasons after the trade, both were booted in the first round. There isn't a chuckle to go around here let alone who got the last laugh.
Yeah, I must say that I was wrong in terms of how much the Kings would miss Webber on the court, but his contract was still huge, and paying off the last few years of the contract would be pretty much a waste of money ... a lot of money. But Petrie didn't keep Divac for the same reason, and he didn't want to keep Webber either.
Earth to sloter: Divac was a free agent. He CHOSE to go to LA for the bigger bucks and we were lucky Petrie didn't go ahead and match that offer because, in case you haven't heard, VLADE DIDN'T PLAY most of the year. If Vlade had been willing to accept the offer the Kings could make, he would still be here.
Paying off the last years of the contract would only be a waste of money if the team didn't end up meeting or exceeding the goals of the owners. We'll never know now if that would have happened.
Paying off the last years of the contract would only be a waste of money if the team didn't end up meeting or exceeding the goals of the owners. We'll never know now if that would have happened.
This question has too many levels and unknowns to give a definitive answer right now. You can't compare the performances of the two teams involved-good nor bad-and use that as your basis of evaluation. The answer to this question can only be determined 2-3 years from now. That would be sufficient time for both teams to make any subsequent moves or alterations that where a direct factor of the trade.
Yes, we got (in theory) 3 flexible contracts. But as pointed out, we also got 3 more million dollars plus 1-3 more years of contracts. Also, do not forget that Chris has a player option after the 5th year-What were to happen if the knee does not get better and he decides to retire? Again, lets come back to the question in 3 years.
Short-term, like I said in another thread, you'd have to have your head too far up your ::bleep:: not to think Chris would have made a difference.
Yes, we got (in theory) 3 flexible contracts. But as pointed out, we also got 3 more million dollars plus 1-3 more years of contracts. Also, do not forget that Chris has a player option after the 5th year-What were to happen if the knee does not get better and he decides to retire? Again, lets come back to the question in 3 years.
Short-term, like I said in another thread, you'd have to have your head too far up your ::bleep:: not to think Chris would have made a difference.
We needed to move on? From what to what? Elite team to mediocrity? Well, if that was the goal we've certainly reached it.
We need to trade at least one of our big name guys? Not exactly. We don't NEED to trade them but we will most likely be forced to trade at least one of them to get anything of real value in return...
We need to trade at least one of our big name guys? Not exactly. We don't NEED to trade them but we will most likely be forced to trade at least one of them to get anything of real value in return...
I think she meant that Webber hasnt been himself since the injury. Thats why he needed to move on. He also takes a LOT OF MONEY. I dont think he deserves that much either. PLus, we dont have to be bothered of when Chris will be healthy or not. Sometimes his knee starts gets hurt so he cant play a number of games. This trade will show it was a GREAT TRADE for the KIngs. It might of been teh best trade in Kings history.
I think mikebibby1034 is capable of speaking for him/herself, Bball...
And I think you're wrong on a lot of levels. First, a lot of players get injured and come back different. That doesn't make them worse. Webber is an excellent passer and is still capable of drawing a defensive player out to him on the perimeter. Those are huge assets.Then you need to address the 20/10/5...you know, the stats he is STILL capable of putting up. You don't find those in the bargain bin. In addition, he has experience and knowledge of the game you can only get after playing it at his level. Of course he makes a lot of money. He is worth a lot of money.
I'm sorry but I think you're dead wrong all the way down the line.
A great trade? Yeah, we're sure sitting a lot better right now than we were last year at this time. Oh wait...no, we're not.
Skinner, Thomas and Corliss are not going to lead this team anywhere. Period.
And I think you're wrong on a lot of levels. First, a lot of players get injured and come back different. That doesn't make them worse. Webber is an excellent passer and is still capable of drawing a defensive player out to him on the perimeter. Those are huge assets.Then you need to address the 20/10/5...you know, the stats he is STILL capable of putting up. You don't find those in the bargain bin. In addition, he has experience and knowledge of the game you can only get after playing it at his level. Of course he makes a lot of money. He is worth a lot of money.
I'm sorry but I think you're dead wrong all the way down the line.
A great trade? Yeah, we're sure sitting a lot better right now than we were last year at this time. Oh wait...no, we're not.
Skinner, Thomas and Corliss are not going to lead this team anywhere. Period.
When yo say that he draws himself a defensive player, he really doesn't use that skill wisely. He almost never goes inside. He always shoots perimeter shots and tehy are not going in all the time. I know that he is a good shooter but sometimes he can't make his shots because of his leg push with his knee problem.
I dont think it was a great trade in short term, but it is a GREAT trad in the long term because we have some more trading pieces. Kenny thomas is not a bad passer either u know. he can shoot the perimeter shot AND go inside. Brian Skinner has pretty darn good defense with as blocking. Corliss has post up moves and has ideal experience with his ring.........
i didnt say they were going to lead the team, I just said in the long term, a lot f good things will happen.
I dont think it was a great trade in short term, but it is a GREAT trad in the long term because we have some more trading pieces. Kenny thomas is not a bad passer either u know. he can shoot the perimeter shot AND go inside. Brian Skinner has pretty darn good defense with as blocking. Corliss has post up moves and has ideal experience with his ring.........
i didnt say they were going to lead the team, I just said in the long term, a lot f good things will happen.
Sorry, I'm not in agreement in any way, shape or form.
Webber is much more skilled than you give him credit for...STILL. He doesn't always shoot perimeter shots. He takes them if he's open - and he should.
It will never be a great trade. We did NOT receive equal value in return. What it might be is the set-up for a great trade in the off-season.
Kenny Thomas is not a superstar or even a real PF. He's undersized and, while adequate, he's not going to do the job we need done at the 4. Skinner hasn't been the same since his thumbs got injured. Was it simply adrenalin at being on the Kings that was driving him? Or are we seeing the reason he was riding the bench in Philly? As far as Corliss goes, I know Big Nasty very well - having watched him for years when he was a King the first time around. I love his low post spin move, AND his heart on defense.
Those are role players. Pure and simple. We traded away a premiere power forward capable of being a team leader for three guys with limited value. The true test of the trade will come when and if Petrie is able to improve the team via their trades.
If Doug fouls out, but in so doing makes room for Bobby to come in and make a winning shot later in the game, was Doug's 6PF a good thing? I doubt if anyone would say it was. Only in retrospect can we look at it and realize that, because of the fates and the way things happen, his fouling out enabled the game winning player to get into the game. If Bobby, on the other hand, comes in and doesn't do a thing and we lose, was Doug's 6PF still good?
Webber is much more skilled than you give him credit for...STILL. He doesn't always shoot perimeter shots. He takes them if he's open - and he should.
It will never be a great trade. We did NOT receive equal value in return. What it might be is the set-up for a great trade in the off-season.
Kenny Thomas is not a superstar or even a real PF. He's undersized and, while adequate, he's not going to do the job we need done at the 4. Skinner hasn't been the same since his thumbs got injured. Was it simply adrenalin at being on the Kings that was driving him? Or are we seeing the reason he was riding the bench in Philly? As far as Corliss goes, I know Big Nasty very well - having watched him for years when he was a King the first time around. I love his low post spin move, AND his heart on defense.
Those are role players. Pure and simple. We traded away a premiere power forward capable of being a team leader for three guys with limited value. The true test of the trade will come when and if Petrie is able to improve the team via their trades.
If Doug fouls out, but in so doing makes room for Bobby to come in and make a winning shot later in the game, was Doug's 6PF a good thing? I doubt if anyone would say it was. Only in retrospect can we look at it and realize that, because of the fates and the way things happen, his fouling out enabled the game winning player to get into the game. If Bobby, on the other hand, comes in and doesn't do a thing and we lose, was Doug's 6PF still good?
I still don't agree on some parts. Yes, I do know that we got a little less value than we should have. BUT, the Philly 76ers were probably the only team who wanted him and the Kings had to trade him. I think a lot of people know that this deal was not for winning the championhip this year. It is for starting the Kings over with a new team.
The Kings had to trade Webbwer with anumber of reasons:
- Webber is getting old
- The injury was really bad for Webber andcan't do much with his injury other than shoot perimeter shots.
- 3 long contracts is easier to trade with one ginourmous contract
- Webber was missing a lot of games in the season due to his knee and the Kings didn't want to take the risk if his knee is helathy in teh playoffs
Th deal was not for he KIngs to get better right now, it is for the Kings to get better in the offseason and the future. Petrie hads never made us angry. he knows what he is doing...........
The Kings had to trade Webbwer with anumber of reasons:
- Webber is getting old
- The injury was really bad for Webber andcan't do much with his injury other than shoot perimeter shots.
- 3 long contracts is easier to trade with one ginourmous contract
- Webber was missing a lot of games in the season due to his knee and the Kings didn't want to take the risk if his knee is helathy in teh playoffs
Th deal was not for he KIngs to get better right now, it is for the Kings to get better in the offseason and the future. Petrie hads never made us angry. he knows what he is doing...........