Webber trade, revisited...

[VF21]

Yeah but he wasn't as good. He could've probably been the starter in 05-06 though(Webber was still pretty good then) or we could've still made the Bonzi/Bobby trade again.

Bibby/Bonzi/Artest/Webber/Miller could've been a good team, especially if you get a shotblocker off the bench and you have Kevin off the bench. We wouldn't have sucked so bad at rebounding with Bonzi getting 6 or 7 a game and Chris getting 10 or so.

We would have had a lot of options available to us had we gone ahead and dealt Peja instead of Webber, IMHO. But that's hindsight. While I know a good number of people around here would have opted to ship Peja out, unfortunately TPTB weren't on the same page ... and theirs were the only votes that counted.

Ah, the joys and agonies of hindsight and playing "what if."

 

[Kevin MartinFan]

Yeah I think that team would've had a chance to do well. Maybe Doug still needed to be replaced with Cuttino though because his ankle/foot was falling apart IIRC but if we had kept him he'd provide good D. Webber was a 20/10 guy for like 2 years after we traded him. With Artest to lock down guys on the perimeter and Miller was still a good defender back then in 04/05. Get a shotblocker off the bench(lets say we get Skinner by trading someone besides Webber) and that could've been a good team.

See thats the thing, everyone talks about Webber getting 20 and 10 before he left but he can still get that in his sleep. Its the other things that he doesnt do and cant do that hurts a team especially after that knee injury. The question is would that 20 and 10 make a big enough impact to win anything?

My answer is no way.

 

[love_them_kings]

I'm just a little curious: How many is in favor of bringing back C-Web?

Would I bring Cwebb back now? No, what would be the point? We could never get back what was destroyed by tearing apart the team. He would never go to a team with no prospects of winning anything, let alone to a team who turned their back on him, and even if for some reason he did, we could never win back the undying loyalty he had before.

So, no, I wouldn't bring him back, but, if I could UNDO the trade, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I would have enjoyed watching the best Kings team I've ever seen play together for a little longer.

 

[VF21]

See thats the thing, everyone talks about Webber getting 20 and 10 before he left but he can still get that in his sleep. Its the other things that he doesnt do and cant do that hurts a team especially after that knee injury. The question is would that 20 and 10 make a big enough impact to win anything?

My answer is no way.

Oh and what other things are those? Things like having the heart of a warrior and putting it all out there on the court every night? Things like demanding that those around him try as hard as he does?

Chris Webber STILL has among the best hands in the league. He can still see the court as well as any top PG in the league. He can still work inside and create shots for his teammates.

Hurt a team? I think Detroit would beg to differ as he really gave them a boost last year. And this year? Any team that gets him would - if they know anything - work to his strengths and be the better for it. Not as a starter, of course, but as someone that can bring knowledge, experience and maturity in measures few other players can match.

 

[kupman]

If we could I personally would take the initial trade offer of Artest for Peja and taken my chances with Artest that point, playing along side Webber, Bibby, Christie and Miller. THAT might have been worth watching.

Maybe it would be worth watching from a comedic standpoint Chris with his bad knee and Doug with his bad foot? Miller would look like a gazelle in that line-up. We could even bring Vlade in once in a while off the bench so that he could show case his bad back. We might not win a title with that line-up, but we could be the official team of the American's with Disabilities Association.

 

[beb0p]

Not as a starter, of course, but as someone that can bring knowledge, experience and maturity in measures few other players can match.

You hit the nail right on the head VF21, Webber is not a starter. Since the injury, he has become a role player, a bench player even.

And if I have to sum up my feeling on the trade it's this: we traded one way-overpriced role player for three cheaper role players. It's a one for three.

The only thing I feel bad about is the Philly fans having to watch Webber's stiff and soft play turning that team into one of the worst in the NBA. Well not really, when I read that Philly was suddenly a very bad defensive team, soon after Webber arrived, I grinned and the only thing I can think of is: glad he's not our problem anymore! I guess I'm just more pragmatic than I am sentimental.

 

[beb0p]

Maybe it would be worth watching from a comedic standpoint Chris with his bad knee and Doug with his bad foot? Miller would look like a gazelle in that line-up. We could even bring Vlade in once in a while off the bench so that he could show case his bad back. We might not win a title with that line-up, but we could be the official team of the American's with Disabilities Association.

LOL. Yeah, that team would suck. Webber and Miller forming the softest "big" men frontcourt in the NBA. Christie not fit to play and Bibby doing his usual day-dreaming on defense. We could set the record for most points allowed in NBA history.

 

[VF21]

You hit the nail right on the head VF21, Webber is not a starter. Since the injury, he has become a role player, a bench player even.

And if I have to sum up my feeling on the trade it's this: we traded one way-overpriced role player for three cheaper role players. It's a one for three.

The only thing I feel bad about is the Philly fans having to watch Webber's stiff and soft play turning that team into one of the worst in the NBA. Well not really, when I read that Philly was suddenly a very bad defensive team, soon after Webber arrived, I grinned and the only thing I can think of is: glad he's not our problem anymore! I guess I'm just more pragmatic than I am sentimental.

The only thing I feel badly about is that you seem to have overlooked, forgotten or chosen to ignore exactly how much Chris Webber did for our franchise. You're glad he's not our problem any more?

Pragmatic? Sentimental?

Hogdooty.

Webber was a HORRIBLE fit in Philadelphia, which most of us around here predicted would happen.

Dude, you obviously have Webber issues ... and that's your choice (and somewhat reminiscent of the days when fans of another player of the team had to make it about one or the other - which it never really was). But please do not try and rewrite Sacramento Kings history to erase Webber's legacy here. If he was guilty of any one thing, it was caring too much and wanting those around him to care, too. It wasn't just a job - and I have it on good authority he even did basketball at home.

 

[VF21]

LOL. Yeah, that team would suck. Webber and Miller forming the softest "big" men frontcourt in the NBA. Christie not fit to play and Bibby doing his usual day-dreaming on defense. We could set the record for most points allowed in NBA history.

And where did Peja fit into that picture?

Give me a break...

 

[Superman]

Well we already got cap relief with skinner and williamson gone so what happens if kenny get traded with bibby for expiring and picks? Its the same thing as letting webber's contract come off the books, no?

No. What are we gonna get back for Kenny Thomas? Another contract, and it won't likely be an ender. It will probably be some more garbage, as a matter of fact. Unless we package him with someone like Bibby, but as I said, that makes the deal exponentially more difficult to do. Had we simply rode it out with Webber, we'd be getting ready to lose his deal, we'd probably not have SAR or Mikki Moore, and we'd be in a much better situation. Not to mention all the emotional and political fallout that has come from tearing the team up over the past two and a half years.

 

[bajaden]

Its a sad state of affairs that all we have to talk about is whether the Webber trade was good or bad. Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damm. He's gone. Those who loved him, get over it. Those who hated him, get over it.

As an aside. I happen to fall into the former group. And though it was tough to see the end of an era, at least I didn't have to watch a once great player turn into a shell of his former self. For those who were criticital of his game when he tried to come back. He did what every great player tries to do. Be the player he used to be. It wasn't his fault he couldn't be, and you can't blame him for trying.

 

[Superman]

This is the trade that never dies,
It comes around like pesky flies,
Geoff Petrie traded Chris Webber to try and save some dough,
He got back crap, and now the team sucks hard and really blows, cause it's the trade that never dies...

Is that the "Lambchop" song?

 

[beb0p]

The only thing I feel badly about is that you seem to have overlooked, forgotten or chosen to ignore exactly how much Chris Webber did for our franchise. You're glad he's not our problem any more?

Pragmatic? Sentimental?

Hogdooty.

Webber was a HORRIBLE fit in Philadelphia, which most of us around here predicted would happen.

Dude, you obviously have Webber issues ... and that's your choice (and somewhat reminiscent of the days when fans of another player of the team had to make it about one or the other - which it never really was). But please do not try and rewrite Sacramento Kings history to erase Webber's legacy here. If he was guilty of any one thing, it was caring too much and wanting those around him to care, too. It wasn't just a job - and I have it on good authority he even did basketball at home.

Maybe you can show me where I tried to rewrite Webber's legacy.

I have a #4 Kings jersey, a Dada cap and a pair of Dada sneakers just becasue C-Web was on TV pimping them. I even traded my motorycycle (not working) for a C-Web autographed basketball (worth less than the bike obviously). Webber turned this franchise into a contender and trust me, I am thankful for that.

But let's not mixes up emotions with basketall decisions. I didn't want Webber to get hurt, but he did and he sucked after he came back. In less than one year C-Web turned from a franchise player to complementary role/bench player. Not rewriting history, just facts.

Philly was a bad fit because they needed a franchise PF and they got a role player. In the end, Philly folked up $35 millions just to make Webber go away. That could have been us. The minute Webber messed up his knee, he became a $20+ millions/yr problem. Not rewriting legacy, just the facts.

 

[Superman]

I see what you're saying, but I disagree that everything should be lumped together so much when you're evaluating the trade.

While I can see somewhat of a link between SAR and Webber because they came closer together, just because Webber was traded didn't necessarily mean Moore HAD to be signed and that it should therefore be considered an effect of the Webber trade. It was just a stupid move on its own, and heck, it could have happened had Webber still been here. I think it gets a little bit like going down a rabbit hole when you try and draw a direct line.

And conversley, had we used that money on, say, Amir Johnson as a rebuilding move, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a direct result of the Webber trade either (although it would have made a lot more sense).

I prefer to look at the trade on its own and evaluate the moves that came afterwards independently. The big picture is that there were a series of moves that were questionable or at least have soured, culminating in the Moore fiasco. I think we both agree that we're not so happy about where things are right now, but I see that more as a series of good or bad moves rather than everything emanating from just the Webber trade.

The thing about that particular trade, not trades in general, is that it was such a huge trade that it has directly affected almost every move the team has made since then. It has affected the performance of almost every player on the team, some to the positive, like K-Mart, most to the negative, like Bibby. It affected the decision to part ways with Rick Adelman. It affected our draft picks. It affects the fan base and its loyalty to the team. This is not a minor blip on the radar. It was a major and significant move.

I understand that it is possible to separate the trade from the moves made subsequently, but you can't ignore the impact that trade has had on the franchise and its fan base since then.

The Kevin Garnett trade is such a big deal to the Timberwolves that it will affect every move they make for at least the next five seasons. All the moves may not be a direct result of that trade, but it has such an impact on the team's plan that it will be referenced every time the T-Wolves make or don't make a trade, make a draft pick, etc. It was huge for them.

Same thing with the Webber trade. You can't ignore the impact it has had on our franchise. It is an indelible part of our history that has affected the team's decision-making in every way possible.

 

[Superman]

I'm just a little curious: How many is in favor of bringing back C-Web?

I ask this because I have my suspuscion that many of you who hated the trade, who don't mind paying him $23 millions a year; wouldn not touch him now with a ten-foot pole when he can be had for the vet's minimumm.

I know, things changed. But look at it this way, Web is still the same player he was when he left Sacramento - slow, lumbering, can't guard anyone, can't rebound, and shoot too many jumpers. He still brings the identity, the history, the passion, and the memory.

In fact, with Bibby and Miller still here, we can play the same offense we used to run with C-Web, with Martin and Artest subbing for Christie and Peja. If Web never left, this is probably the lineup we see. Bringing him back now would cost little and it's as if he's never left.

Note I'm not asking if C-Web wants to come here, I'm asking if you want him here. I'm curious because to me, trading C-Web was a no-brainer and I do not want to bring him back.

Or perhaps you wanted him last season, when he was available and we could have signed or traded for him.

Isn't the point being made in this thread that it would have been better for the franchise to have not traded him for the garbage we got back, to have his $23 million coming off the payroll, and to have not ripped the team to shreds the way we did?

How does that equate to "Hell, let's go out there and get him, since we love him so much"?

I would like to see Webber wear a Kings jersey again. I'd like to see him retire with us, and I'd like to see his number in the rafters. But the reason those things aren't likely to happen is because, in the actual past, we did those things that it would have been better for us not to do. We can't erase that. It would NOT be as if he never left.

So, those things having been done, there's no point in bringing him back, except for nostalgia's sake. And I get the feeling that nostalgia isn't real high on the Maloofs' list of priorities.

 

[Superman]

The minute Webber messed up his knee, he became a $20+ millions/yr problem.

That problem would be off the books after this season. Instead, we're stuck with a bunch of smaller problems that Lord knows how long it will take to fix.

Wouldn't it have been better to have that cap relief, than to be wallowing in sub-mediocrity the way we are?

 

[nbrans]

The thing about that particular trade, not trades in general, is that it was such a huge trade that it has directly affected almost every move the team has made since then. It has affected the performance of almost every player on the team, some to the positive, like K-Mart, most to the negative, like Bibby. It affected the decision to part ways with Rick Adelman. It affected our draft picks. It affects the fan base and its loyalty to the team. This is not a minor blip on the radar. It was a major and significant move.

I understand that it is possible to separate the trade from the moves made subsequently, but you can't ignore the impact that trade has had on the franchise and its fan base since then.

The Kevin Garnett trade is such a big deal to the Timberwolves that it will affect every move they make for at least the next five seasons. All the moves may not be a direct result of that trade, but it has such an impact on the team's plan that it will be referenced every time the T-Wolves make or don't make a trade, make a draft pick, etc. It was huge for them.

Same thing with the Webber trade. You can't ignore the impact it has had on our franchise. It is an indelible part of our history that has affected the team's decision-making in every way possible.

I don't really disagree with you that it affected a lot of moves, but if you start down that road there's really no stopping and it just becomes a muddled mess. So... Webber was traded for KT, Skinner and Corliss, so that afforded the opportunity to move Ostertag, which led to Bonzi. So... does that mean the Webber trade was better? Oh, but then you can say, Bonzi walked and we replaced him with Salmons who wasn't as impactful. Does that affect the Webber trade too? Oh, but then Martin replaced Bonzi and he was great, so if we didn't trade Webber than we wouldn't have had Bonzi and Bonzi wouldn't have walked and then maybe Kevin wouldn't have gotten good.... I mean, it just starts getting insane.

The way I look at it is, the Webber trade afforded the team the opportunity to start the rebuilding process. I look at it as a necessary trade that took most of Webber's salary off the books a year sooner, it replaced him with parts that reproduced his production (if not his leadership, intangibles, etc.) over 48 minutes, the team needed to move on from the Webber era, and it should have been a short term step backward to take a rebuilding step forward. I don't think, had Webber stayed, that we would have been drastically better, and then you have Webber on a declining team when he wants to win a championship, and we saw how well that worked in Philly. So I still think it was the right move.

I don't, however, agree with some of the moves that were made, especially this offseason, which squandered the opportunities afforded by the Webber trade. So overall I'm not happy with the direction of the team, but I don't think it makes sense to tie EVERYTHING to the Webber trade. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes bad offseason moves are just bad offseason moves.

 

[beb0p]

That problem would be off the books after this season. Instead, we're stuck with a bunch of smaller problems that Lord knows how long it will take to fix.

Wouldn't it have been better to have that cap relief, than to be wallowing in sub-mediocrity the way we are?

We DID have cap relief. Around $14 millions of the $23 millions come off the book THIS summer. Which meant we actually get a big chunk off the book A year earlier than the end of Webber's contract. The rest come off the book in three yrs. But you're not going to tell me KT's $8 mil a year is going to ruin our cap.

 

[fnordius]

Didn't care much for the options in this poll. Had I liked it, I could choose "like," but the only alternative presented was "hate," which is a much more extreme word. If "hate" had to be used, "love" would have been a fitting alternative.

I neither liked or hated the trade at the time, I was floored by it, and my gut reaction was to hate it, but I was still on the "trust Geoff in all ways" bandwagon, so I gave it a chance and hoped for the best. I expected Geoff to turn right around and deal the flexible pieces, making something good of the whole mess, but obviously that didn't happen. Only when it became apparent that the highlight of the deal was Potapenko + Monia + years of KT did I lose my faith in the front office and begin to hate the trade.

No point in talking about having Webber back, that's like asking whether it would be good to get back together with an ex that you tried to run over with your car. There's just no going there.

 

[Kingzrool]

It is pretty surprising that this thread is still going on. Blows me away that some still have such passionate feelings about what is basically ancient history. Hey, what if Vlade did not tip the ball out to Horry? Enough is enough already.

/end rant
carry on

 

[Superman]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes bad offseason moves are just bad offseason moves.

This wasn't just any bad offseason move, though. It was a move that dramatically changed the direction of the franchise, no denying that. It had a direct impact on, not only the moves made afterwards, but also the performance of the players and the fanbase. And in hindsight, we're no better off for it.

All I'm saying is that this isn't like not resigning Keon Clark or Tony Massenburg. This was like a tidal wave that had a huge ripple effect on the franchise, and it still hasn't subsided.

Didn't the Mitch Richmond for Chris Webber deal directly impact the moves the franchise made thereafter? Would we have traded for Doug Christie or Mike Bibby without Webber? Probably not.

Bottom line is, had we not traded Webber when we did for scrap heap junk, we'd have a completely different team than we have now. Same way that if we hadn't traded for Webber in 1998, we would not have had the same team that went to the WCF in 2002. It's like the Butterfly Effect, or Six Degrees of Separation, but it's not nearly as vague or random. Webber being dealt had a direct impact on everything that happened afterward.

 

[Superman]

We DID have cap relief. Around $14 millions of the $23 millions come off the book THIS summer. Which meant we actually get a big chunk off the book A year earlier than the end of Webber's contract. The rest come off the book in three yrs. But you're not going to tell me KT's $8 mil a year is going to ruin our cap.

Why not?

Chris Webber's entire contract would have come off our payroll after this coming season. Compared with paying $8 million for dead weight, that is a much better option, is it not?

And even with the money coming off this summer, we're still significantly over the cap for at least two more years. And we're paying Kenny Thomas for NOTHING, which is the worst part about it!

If we're able to parlay him into something (which won't happen without combining him with Artest or Bibby), then it would be worth it. But it still doesn't undo all the frustration of the past two years as our once proud franchise has been brought done to the depths of the Western conference.

 

[beb0p]

Why not?

Chris Webber's entire contract would have come off our payroll after this coming season. Compared with paying $8 million for dead weight, that is a much better option, is it not?

Not to me. I don't see why it's so important for the full $23 millions to expire at once. IF we're trying to sign an elite FA then I can see it, but we're not.

But it still doesn't undo all the frustration of the past two years as our once proud franchise has been brought done to the depths of the Western conference.

But Webber's trade didn't cause this. Injury and age did.

 

[beb0p]

Bottom line is, had we not traded Webber when we did for scrap heap junk, we'd have a completely different team than we have now. Same way that if we hadn't traded for Webber in 1998, we would not have had the same team that went to the WCF in 2002. It's like the Butterfly Effect, or Six Degrees of Separation, but it's not nearly as vague or random. Webber being dealt had a direct impact on everything that happened afterward.

That's an interesting scenario. What would we have done differently had we not traded Webber?

Imo, not much. We would still trade Peja for Artest (at least we should), trade BJax for Bonzi. Draft Garcia and Douby. Sign Salmon (because Petrie has a huge crush on him). The only difference is that we may not have SAR, but we would probably extent Songalia's contract to roughly what Washington is paying him now (only slightly less than SAR). Although if Songalia insisted on leaving back then, we still would have signed SAR.

So remove KT. Replace SAR with Songalia. Add Webber. And we have what this team would have been. Not much difference imo.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That team would have beaten Seattle in '05 on sheer heart. AND would have finished higher than eighth in '06. AND would have made the playoffs this year.

I mean, if you're looking at it in the strictest "big picture" sense that they wouldn't have won a championship then, yes, in that respect, there wouldn't have been that much difference. But in terms of actually making the playoffs, and just being relevant in the national/worldwide basketball consciousness in general, there would have been a hell of a lot of difference.

By the way, somebody needs to tell Detroit that Webber's not good enough to be a starter...

 

[uolj]

We DID have cap relief. Around $14 millions of the $23 millions come off the book THIS summer. Which meant we actually get a big chunk off the book A year earlier than the end of Webber's contract. The rest come off the book in three yrs. But you're not going to tell me KT's $8 mil a year is going to ruin our cap.

Unless you are under the salary cap by more than the value of the mid-level exception, it doesn't really matter much.

I believe the argument is that this offseason that was not the case, so the fact that the other two contracts are off the books helps little. On the other hand, if Webber was still around, then next offseason could be seen as a target for getting far enough under the cap to actually sign people. In addition, an expiring contract for $22 million would be valuable as a trade asset.

We get none of those benefits. The contracts that did expire did not leave any usable cap room. They did not bring back anybody who is currently helping the team. All that is left is Thomas' contract, which if it is not moved will still be around a year longer than the current target for getting under the cap after the 2008-09 season.

So purely from a contract/salary cap standpoint, how can the trade be considered anything but a failure?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Unless you are under the salary cap by more than the value of the mid-level exception, it doesn't really matter much.

I believe the argument is that this offseason that was not the case, so the fact that the other two contracts are off the books helps little. On the other hand, if Webber was still around, then next offseason could be seen as a target for getting far enough under the cap to actually sign people. In addition, an expiring contract for $22 million would be valuable as a trade asset.

We get none of those benefits. The contracts that did expire did not leave any usable cap room. They did not bring back anybody who is currently helping the team. All that is left is Thomas' contract, which if it is not moved will still be around a year longer than the current target for getting under the cap after the 2008-09 season.

So purely from a contract/salary cap standpoint, how can the trade be considered anything but a failure?

And that, unfortunately, is the rub...

 

[nbrans]

This wasn't just any bad offseason move, though. It was a move that dramatically changed the direction of the franchise, no denying that. It had a direct impact on, not only the moves made afterwards, but also the performance of the players and the fanbase. And in hindsight, we're no better off for it.

All I'm saying is that this isn't like not resigning Keon Clark or Tony Massenburg. This was like a tidal wave that had a huge ripple effect on the franchise, and it still hasn't subsided.

Didn't the Mitch Richmond for Chris Webber deal directly impact the moves the franchise made thereafter? Would we have traded for Doug Christie or Mike Bibby without Webber? Probably not.

Bottom line is, had we not traded Webber when we did for scrap heap junk, we'd have a completely different team than we have now. Same way that if we hadn't traded for Webber in 1998, we would not have had the same team that went to the WCF in 2002. It's like the Butterfly Effect, or Six Degrees of Separation, but it's not nearly as vague or random. Webber being dealt had a direct impact on everything that happened afterward.

I wasn't talking about the Webber trade when I was saying bad offseason moves are bad offseason moves (that trade didn't even happen in the offseason), I'm referring more to this offseason, and to a certain extent the last two. And I don't even really care about the results on the floor, because to me, the Webber trade was never about the short term quality of play. The Webber trade really afforded an opportunity to do something this offseason. $14 million or whatever coming off the books. Had Petrie managed to trade someone for an expiring or if Bibby had opted out we would have had cap room to go after a free agent. Even standing pat would have been reasonable, because with Artest and possibly Bibby coming off the books after this season we could have made a stab at free agency next year.

But the Moore signing and the inactivity just kills all of that. Barring a miracle, we're pretty much stuck where we are for at least two more years.

What I'm saying is that the Webber trade afforded a pretty good opportunity. Just because that opportunity has now been largely squandered isn't, to me, a referendum on the Webber trade -- it's more a reflection on this really stupid offseason.

PS: I also really disagree that we would have been all that much better on the court with Webber. Maybe a little better, but who really cares about a few more wins? It's not like we would have been contending. Just more treading water. The key was getting him off the books to make a genuine step toward contention a few years down the line. But any hope of that is looking far away at this point.

 

[Warhawk]

I wasn't talking about the Webber trade when I was saying bad offseason moves are bad offseason moves (that trade 't even happen in the offseason), I'm referring more to this offseason, and to a certain extent the last two. And I don't even really care about the results on the floor, because to me, the Webber trade was never about the short term quality of play. The Webber trade really afforded an opportunity to do something this offseason. $14 million or whatever coming off the books. Had Petrie managed to trade someone for an expiring or if Bibby had opted out we would have had cap room to go after a free agent. Even standing pat would have been reasonable, because with Artest and possibly Bibby coming off the books after this season we could have made a stab at free agency next year.

But the Moore signing and the inactivity just kills all of that. Barring a miracle, we're pretty much stuck where we are for at least two more years.

What I'm saying is that the Webber trade afforded a pretty good opportunity. Just because that opportunity has now been largely squandered isn't, to me, a referendum on the Webber trade -- it's more a reflection on this really stupid offseason.

Agreed.

 

[uolj]

Even standing pat would have been reasonable, because with Artest and possibly Bibby coming off the books after this season we could have made a stab at free agency next year.

But if you don't trade Webber, then all $22 million come off next offseason, rather than the $14 million that doesn't include Thomas. So the scenario only makes sense if you planned on doing something this current offseason.

It is hindsight now, but it seems that is a pretty big risk to take, seeing as how it seems unlikely Bibby would opt out of such a big paycheck and otherwise getting under the cap would be difficult.