Webber trade, revisited...
- Thread starter mcsluggo
- Start date
I agree with your point, I just disagree that we wouldn't have been better off letting Webber's contract run it's course, not escorting him out of town, not letting Adelman go, not going down the dark, meandering path into obscurity that we have over the past two plus seasons.
And I think that the Webber trade is so closely related to the moves that have been made or not made since then, that it is a valid point of reference to when management decided that they weren't going to put the best possible team out on the floor everynight. It is intrinsically related to the sad state of the team that we have been subjected to for two years, with no way out in sight.
And I think that the Webber trade is so closely related to the moves that have been made or not made since then, that it is a valid point of reference to when management decided that they weren't going to put the best possible team out on the floor everynight. It is intrinsically related to the sad state of the team that we have been subjected to for two years, with no way out in sight.
There is a certain irony to the fact that Webber's huge contract, full time starting role etc. would have actually SHIELDED us from our own financial mismanagement and desire to throw around bad contracts the last few years. Best thing that could have happened to us would have been having a cap choking deal preventing us from signing crpa free agents every year, and then suddenly coming off the books all at once to almost force us to have cap room all at once.
It also of course, by combining three players into one salarywise and rolewise, would have opened up spots on bench for kids that have just not been there with mediocre vets piled up *** deep to a tall Indian (no idea what that means really, just something colorful my dad used to use
).
It also of course, by combining three players into one salarywise and rolewise, would have opened up spots on bench for kids that have just not been there with mediocre vets piled up *** deep to a tall Indian (no idea what that means really, just something colorful my dad used to use
).The only reason you think we still would have done those things is because that's what we did. You're too tainted with what happened in the past to imagine would could have possibly been different.
My entire argument is hypothetical, so it's hard to really defend it, but had we not traded Webber for junk, the franchise would have made different decisions over the past two and half years. Then we'd still have his $23 million coming off next year, and would be able to spend some money to bring some talent and respectability back to the Kings. We probably would have hired a successful coach, or kept Adelman. There wouldn't be a sense of alienation among the majority of the fan base.
My entire argument is hypothetical, so it's hard to really defend it, but had we not traded Webber for junk, the franchise would have made different decisions over the past two and half years. Then we'd still have his $23 million coming off next year, and would be able to spend some money to bring some talent and respectability back to the Kings. We probably would have hired a successful coach, or kept Adelman. There wouldn't be a sense of alienation among the majority of the fan base.
Best thing that could have happened to us would have been having a cap choking deal preventing us from signing crpa free agents every year, and then suddenly coming off the books all at once to almost force us to have cap room all at once.
It also of course, by combining three players into one salarywise and rolewise, would have opened up spots on bench for kids that have just not been there with mediocre vets piled up *** deep to a tall Indian (no idea what that means really, just something colorful my dad used to use ).
It also of course, by combining three players into one salarywise and rolewise, would have opened up spots on bench for kids that have just not been there with mediocre vets piled up *** deep to a tall Indian (no idea what that means really, just something colorful my dad used to use
).
Of course, the bench spots and available minutes would still be helpful.
Not Moore. Corliss = Moore. Part of the Webb money.
SAR, yes. But the argument, entirely possible, has been that SAR wouldn't have come here to be Webb's understudy.
but if you are arguing that we would have found ways to be idiots even with Webb's contract, I am not in a mood to particularly argue the point.
I'm just talking salary cap wise. The "cap choking" deal wouldn't have mattered cap wise, since Abdur-Rahim and Moore were mid-level exception signings. It might have mattered luxury tax wise on the Moore signing, though.
I figured that if I explained why beb0p's salary cap argument didn't hold water I had better be evenhanded about it.
I figured that if I explained why beb0p's salary cap argument didn't hold water I had better be evenhanded about it.
Because you can't judge a trade purely from a contract/salary cap standpoint; and there is no need to be way under the cap for the 08-09 season when we're still in the beginnig stage of rebuilding.
But if you must, you can't make that judgement now. You have to wait until KT is for sure on our book for the next three yrs before you can make your conclusion.
Purely from a contract/salary cap standpoint, how can the trade be a success? I don't think it is possible.
If you want to, you can wait until the trade deadline this year. If Thomas has been traded and the salary brought back expires at the end of this season, then the trade can be considered even from a contract/salary cap standpoint. Otherwise it is a failure.
I know there is more to the overall trade value than just salary and cap concerns, I just want to make it clear that only if we are really lucky can it turn out to be anything other than a failure in that sense. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Of course, part of the reason some contend it was a bad trade is that if they hadn't traded Webber, his $22 million coming off the books for 08-09 would be the catalyst for a rebuild then rather than a year or two later.
Actually, it has little to do with that. You said the trade provided cap relief. All I'm saying is that it didn't. That doesn't mean we would have had cap relief if the trade didn't happen.
Plain and simple, unless Thomas' contract is moved for an ender this season, then the Kings will be in basically the same salary situation as they would have had they not traded Webber, except they will still have Thomas' $8 million on the books.
Is it possible that even if the Kings didn't trade Webber they'd never get under the cap and so the whole point is moot? Sure, I guess that's possible. But then again, the trade would be pretty even in that sense.
So I'll change my tune. At best, if the Kings are lucky, the trade could possibly turn out to be even in the contract/salary cap sense, although it seems more likely that it will be a failure. Fair enough?
If you want to, you can wait until the trade deadline this year. If Thomas has been traded and the salary brought back expires at the end of this season, then the trade can be considered even from a contract/salary cap standpoint. Otherwise it is a failure.
I know there is more to the overall trade value than just salary and cap concerns, I just want to make it clear that only if we are really lucky can it turn out to be anything other than a failure in that sense. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Of course, part of the reason some contend it was a bad trade is that if they hadn't traded Webber, his $22 million coming off the books for 08-09 would be the catalyst for a rebuild then rather than a year or two later.
Actually, it has little to do with that. You said the trade provided cap relief. All I'm saying is that it didn't. That doesn't mean we would have had cap relief if the trade didn't happen.
Plain and simple, unless Thomas' contract is moved for an ender this season, then the Kings will be in basically the same salary situation as they would have had they not traded Webber, except they will still have Thomas' $8 million on the books.
Is it possible that even if the Kings didn't trade Webber they'd never get under the cap and so the whole point is moot? Sure, I guess that's possible. But then again, the trade would be pretty even in that sense.
So I'll change my tune. At best, if the Kings are lucky, the trade could possibly turn out to be even in the contract/salary cap sense, although it seems more likely that it will be a failure. Fair enough?
1) Elite FA join rebuilding teams all the time. They folow the money. Joe Johnson went to Atlanta. Peja to New Orleans. Rahsard to Orlando. Boozer and Okur to Utah etc. etc. In fact often the only teams which can sign them away from their original teams are smart teams who have laid the groundwork for the rebuild and cleared capspace.
2) And of course a major step in any rebuild is when you add that major free agent or free agents to supplement your work through the draft.
3) While I do not trust Geoff's financial self control as far as I can throw him, if you clear up cap room after this year, you do NOT need to immediately spend it. It is, in fact, entirely possible to keep cap room from one year to the next. Geoff wastes capspace and loads on debt like a teenager at the mall with mommy's credit card, but just a little disciple, ANY discipline, and Webb $23 million becomes $23million of space you would have next summer, the summer after, the summer after. Whenever the hell it came time to spend it. Its free and clear and guaranteed without major wishful thinking trades of garbage contracts for enders and whatnot. Its a done deal. Philly gets major cap room next summer. We have to fight, and fight hard, to do nearly as well.
2) And of course a major step in any rebuild is when you add that major free agent or free agents to supplement your work through the draft.
3) While I do not trust Geoff's financial self control as far as I can throw him, if you clear up cap room after this year, you do NOT need to immediately spend it. It is, in fact, entirely possible to keep cap room from one year to the next. Geoff wastes capspace and loads on debt like a teenager at the mall with mommy's credit card, but just a little disciple, ANY discipline, and Webb $23 million becomes $23million of space you would have next summer, the summer after, the summer after. Whenever the hell it came time to spend it. Its free and clear and guaranteed without major wishful thinking trades of garbage contracts for enders and whatnot. Its a done deal. Philly gets major cap room next summer. We have to fight, and fight hard, to do nearly as well.
Last edited:
Since we were over the cap to begin with, that $23 millions off the book translate to around $10 millions under the cap. It's possible that serves as a catalyst for a rebuild, but I doubt it. That $10 mil is not going to nap a franchise player nor do we need one... yet (want one sure. But not need. At least not yet).
I didn't say the trade provided cap relief. I said a large part of the salary came off the book THIS year. That's not saying there is cap relief.
But let's do the math a bit. C-Web was owed roughly $60 millions when we traded him. Corliss, Skinner, and KT combined make roughly $60 millions. I don't see where we lose out financially. They are break-even contracts. In fact, the rest of KT's salary equals to around what C-Web would make this yr.
We traded Skinner for Potatohead and Monya. Monya forfeited his salary to return to Europe. So for what it's worth, we actually saved a meager $1 million.
I didn't say the trade provided cap relief. I said a large part of the salary came off the book THIS year. That's not saying there is cap relief.
But let's do the math a bit. C-Web was owed roughly $60 millions when we traded him. Corliss, Skinner, and KT combined make roughly $60 millions. I don't see where we lose out financially. They are break-even contracts. In fact, the rest of KT's salary equals to around what C-Web would make this yr.
We traded Skinner for Potatohead and Monya. Monya forfeited his salary to return to Europe. So for what it's worth, we actually saved a meager $1 million.
From post #108...
Caught!
That's not the point. It is not about money spent, the differences in salary are minimal. It is about the effects on the salary cap and effects if there were any on the luxury tax.
With Webber's contract, the Kings would either be in the same or better position to sign a free agent this year, next year and the year after. The chances of it being the same for all three years isn't that great, so most likely it would have provided them more of an opportunity in the free agent market than if the trade didn't occur.
If you want to argue about the trade's success or failure based on on-court of locker room reasons, fine, but I don't see how you can argue this part.
That's not the point. It is not about money spent, the differences in salary are minimal. It is about the effects on the salary cap and effects if there were any on the luxury tax.
With Webber's contract, the Kings would either be in the same or better position to sign a free agent this year, next year and the year after. The chances of it being the same for all three years isn't that great, so most likely it would have provided them more of an opportunity in the free agent market than if the trade didn't occur.
If you want to argue about the trade's success or failure based on on-court of locker room reasons, fine, but I don't see how you can argue this part.
I think there is a gap between what I understand of the salary cap and how much we can spend, vs how some of you understand it.
Let's say Webber's $23 millions come off the book next year. Do we have a fat $23 millions to spend on FA?? HELL NO. Or at least that's how I understand it:
There is a roughly $13 million gap between the salary cap and the luxury tax limit. We were over the cap but just at or slightly over the luxury tax limit for a long time, including when Webber was here.
For example, last season's salary cap is around $52 millions. The luxury tax limit is set at around $65 millions. Teams that go over $65M have to pay penalties, teams that stay under collect said penalites, and team that stay in between pay nothing and get nothing.
So the Kings, as usual, is at or near the luxury tax at around $65 millions. Now we take Webber's $23 millions off the book, which leaves us at around $42 millions.
That equates to $10 millions available funds. Why only $10 mil? Because we cannot go over the cap to sign other teams' FAs. With the cap at $52 millions, that leaves us with $10 mil spending money.
And who are we going to sign with $10 Mil? Your Joe John, Peja, and other stars are all going to cost over $10 Mil a year. Fine, maybe we can find an All-Star SG or SF, but don't expect any respectable PF or C to sign for that amount, those guys cost a lot more $$. Big men who sign for $10 mil a year are guys like Brad Miller.
Bottom line, that $23 millions off the book is NOT $23 millions of space. It's around $10 millions. What's gonna happen is we extent KMart's contract and eats into some of that cap space. Alright, we can go over the cap to sign our guys, so let's do that.
We do it smartly by using a big chunk to sign some FA first, and then go over the cap to extend KMart's salary. So what does that leave us? Over the cap again, with more long term deals locked up and still don't have a franchise player.
OR...
We don't use that $10 mil to sign a FA. But... with KMart's contract eating into that space, we actually have LESS to spend next year because of the soft cap.
So...
If you like BIG cap space. 2010 is the year. That's when Miller, KT, and SAR (and probably Moore) comes off the book. We should have a great supporting cast of Martin, Garcia, Hawes, Justin, Douby, and two other first draft picks. The way I see it, any half-donkey moves like signing borderline FAs before 2010 is bascially eqates to the signing of SAR.
And uojl, this answers your question too.
Let's say Webber's $23 millions come off the book next year. Do we have a fat $23 millions to spend on FA?? HELL NO. Or at least that's how I understand it:
There is a roughly $13 million gap between the salary cap and the luxury tax limit. We were over the cap but just at or slightly over the luxury tax limit for a long time, including when Webber was here.
For example, last season's salary cap is around $52 millions. The luxury tax limit is set at around $65 millions. Teams that go over $65M have to pay penalties, teams that stay under collect said penalites, and team that stay in between pay nothing and get nothing.
So the Kings, as usual, is at or near the luxury tax at around $65 millions. Now we take Webber's $23 millions off the book, which leaves us at around $42 millions.
That equates to $10 millions available funds. Why only $10 mil? Because we cannot go over the cap to sign other teams' FAs. With the cap at $52 millions, that leaves us with $10 mil spending money.
And who are we going to sign with $10 Mil? Your Joe John, Peja, and other stars are all going to cost over $10 Mil a year. Fine, maybe we can find an All-Star SG or SF, but don't expect any respectable PF or C to sign for that amount, those guys cost a lot more $$. Big men who sign for $10 mil a year are guys like Brad Miller.
Bottom line, that $23 millions off the book is NOT $23 millions of space. It's around $10 millions. What's gonna happen is we extent KMart's contract and eats into some of that cap space. Alright, we can go over the cap to sign our guys, so let's do that.
We do it smartly by using a big chunk to sign some FA first, and then go over the cap to extend KMart's salary. So what does that leave us? Over the cap again, with more long term deals locked up and still don't have a franchise player.
OR...
We don't use that $10 mil to sign a FA. But... with KMart's contract eating into that space, we actually have LESS to spend next year because of the soft cap.
So...
If you like BIG cap space. 2010 is the year. That's when Miller, KT, and SAR (and probably Moore) comes off the book. We should have a great supporting cast of Martin, Garcia, Hawes, Justin, Douby, and two other first draft picks. The way I see it, any half-donkey moves like signing borderline FAs before 2010 is bascially eqates to the signing of SAR.
And uojl, this answers your question too.
Last edited:
There is no particualr gap in udnerstanding.
BUT, what you fail to account for is the extra $8million of Kenny's deal which would not be here next year, largely accounting for the Kevin extension. And you fail to account for the change, the immensely POSITIVE change that having such a huge contract puts on the entire mentality this summer. Mikki may not get signeed -- why? Because next year we have immediate and obvious salary room possibilities. Maybe Geoff holds his water for a year. Furthemore the push to move one or more of the other veteran contracts becomes MUCH greater. If you already have $10 mil in cap room, then if you clear off one Bibby, one Artest, one SAR (who would likely not be here either with his $6mil) or one Brad, then suddenly you are talking about having $20 million in cap room, making you the preeminent FA player next year. You have far more hope of a sudden and abrupt change of fortunes next summer than we have ever had in the post-Webber regime. Massive capspace, another lottery pick. A chance to make one or more good signings and turn the corner. A corner that because of our stupidity is currently at least two years, and maybe three, from being turned as things currently stand.
This is not to even mention the fact that a $20million ending contract probably could have landed you Zach Randolph this summer, could have gotten you in the conversation for kevin Garnett or Jermaine ONeal. Not deals I currently have an interest in. but all things infintiely possible when you've got a massive capspace creating contract and completely impossible when you've been suckered into taking some team's leftovers and their leaden contracts.
Last edited:
Well, even if KT is not here (one could still dream), we still would have $10 millions to spend. Even if Moore wasn't signed, we still would have $10 millions to spend. So I don't think their salary factor into this hypothesis.
I do get your point that maybe GP would focus on a fire sale in return for enders. But it's not a given that such deals can be gone. Would any respectable PF or C sign with us if we do have the cap room? I'm not so sure. Would GP really hold a fire sale when Webber still eyes that ring? I'm not so sure either.
As for SAR, I think if Webber was here and GP didn't sign him, it'd be some other aging PF that occupies his cap space. After all, if KT, Corliss, and Skinner weren't here; who's going to backup the injury-prone Webber?
Even with Web's ender, we have no chance at KG or JO (since Bird wants essentially the same we do). And if GP traded for Zach, I'd personally committ him to the asylum.
So in essense, I don't think keeping Web would make much of a difference when it comes to signing FAs in 2008.
I do get your point that maybe GP would focus on a fire sale in return for enders. But it's not a given that such deals can be gone. Would any respectable PF or C sign with us if we do have the cap room? I'm not so sure. Would GP really hold a fire sale when Webber still eyes that ring? I'm not so sure either.
As for SAR, I think if Webber was here and GP didn't sign him, it'd be some other aging PF that occupies his cap space. After all, if KT, Corliss, and Skinner weren't here; who's going to backup the injury-prone Webber?
Even with Web's ender, we have no chance at KG or JO (since Bird wants essentially the same we do). And if GP traded for Zach, I'd personally committ him to the asylum.
So in essense, I don't think keeping Web would make much of a difference when it comes to signing FAs in 2008.
Last edited:
Disregarding all the "what if" scenarios possible if Webber wasn't traded and just looking at the players involved, it was a bad trade at the time (didn't save money, didn't get any young players, didn't get any expiring contracts) and considering the steady decline of Kenny Thomas, the year Webber had a season ago, and the emergence of Matt Barnes--it's an even worse deal now.
We're not even in rebuilding mode yet. We have not started tearing down. A rebuilding team doesn't give a 3 year contract to a player like Mikki Moore.
And if we we're in Stage 1 of this "rebuild", that's only because we don't have cap room. If we were $20 million under the cap after this coming season, we would be in Stage 4 or 5, instead of just getting ready to get ready.
If we had Webber as an ender, Ron with trade value, Mike with trade value, and no Kenny Thomas, we'd have the potential to get further under the cap than any other team in the League, and pay Kevin to stay. The only bad contract we'd have would be Brad Miller, if we'd played our cards right. And his contract would be semi-moveable, especially packaged with Ron or Mike.
And, as Brick said, there's no written rule that you have to use cap space to sign free agents.
And, once you're under the cap, you don't have to take the 125% rule into consideration for every trade you want to make, which would give us further flexibility in making moves.
Instead, we're hamstrung with Kenny Thomas' contract for another three years, and we're well over the cap. And, apparently, the front office didn't get the memo, or else Mikki Moore wouldn't be a King.
And if we we're in Stage 1 of this "rebuild", that's only because we don't have cap room. If we were $20 million under the cap after this coming season, we would be in Stage 4 or 5, instead of just getting ready to get ready.
If we had Webber as an ender, Ron with trade value, Mike with trade value, and no Kenny Thomas, we'd have the potential to get further under the cap than any other team in the League, and pay Kevin to stay. The only bad contract we'd have would be Brad Miller, if we'd played our cards right. And his contract would be semi-moveable, especially packaged with Ron or Mike.
And, as Brick said, there's no written rule that you have to use cap space to sign free agents.
And, once you're under the cap, you don't have to take the 125% rule into consideration for every trade you want to make, which would give us further flexibility in making moves.
Instead, we're hamstrung with Kenny Thomas' contract for another three years, and we're well over the cap. And, apparently, the front office didn't get the memo, or else Mikki Moore wouldn't be a King.
We wouldn't be any further along NOW than we are right NOW, but we would absolutely be further along next year than we're going to be next year... which. I think, was the point in the first place.
Yes, who needs goals and standards and stuff? We got embarrassed by a team that we wouldn't have lost to with Webber, one leg and all, and we've gotten steadily worse ever since. But hey, we made the playoffs one-and-a-half times without Webber, so clearly we came out ahead...
Yes, who needs goals and standards and stuff? We got embarrassed by a team that we wouldn't have lost to with Webber, one leg and all, and we've gotten steadily worse ever since. But hey, we made the playoffs one-and-a-half times without Webber, so clearly we came out ahead...
If we'd kept Webber, we would have the room to resign Martin and still be several million under the cap next season, instead of several million over, which is where we will be.
And the signing of Mikki Moore shows that the front office isn't making a concerted effort to get rid of bad contracts, which is the only way we will ever get far enough under the cap to actually rebuild the team.
We haven't even started our rebuild. We haven't done anything to suggest that we are going to either improve the talent level of the team or cut payroll and get significantly under the cap. We're not even in Stage 1 yet. If we had Webber's $23 million coming off next season, that would catapult us far past where we will be, considering the junk we have on the roster right now. That's what you aren't getting.
And beyond that, we would have had the opportunity to send Webber off in a classy manner, instead of selling him to the quickest bidder for their salary cap fodder.
And the signing of Mikki Moore shows that the front office isn't making a concerted effort to get rid of bad contracts, which is the only way we will ever get far enough under the cap to actually rebuild the team.
We haven't even started our rebuild. We haven't done anything to suggest that we are going to either improve the talent level of the team or cut payroll and get significantly under the cap. We're not even in Stage 1 yet. If we had Webber's $23 million coming off next season, that would catapult us far past where we will be, considering the junk we have on the roster right now. That's what you aren't getting.
And beyond that, we would have had the opportunity to send Webber off in a classy manner, instead of selling him to the quickest bidder for their salary cap fodder.
Yeah, I think that's what hurts the most. It's a black eye for the franchise. Any star who's thinking of signing with Sacramento now has to think about how they hailed Webber as their savior and then dumped him when he didn't recover from injury fast enough--an injury that typically takes more than one season to recover from. We did make the playoffs for two seasons after the trade, but as a fringe team with no real shot at getting past the first round. That's what we sold out our franchise player for? Two seasons of semi-competitiveness and a minor break from salary-cap hell which never materialized? At the time it was possible to be optimistic about the "flexible pieces" we acquired, but looking back now it's nothing but negative. And I would much rather have an aging, declining Chris Webber soaking up our salary for a couple years than a malcontent Kenny Thomas. At least Webb earned it. And he wanted to be here.
Last edited:
The Kings finished the 04-05 season with the #6 seed. If you're right that we were at #7 before the trade, then we improved after the trade.
If you're trying to bring the 05-06 and 06-07 into the discussion, that would be unreaonable. Things changed, including coaching change, personel change, and injuries played a part big in the Kings' last two seasons.
If you're trying to bring the 05-06 and 06-07 into the discussion, that would be unreaonable. Things changed, including coaching change, personel change, and injuries played a part big in the Kings' last two seasons.
How?
If you think we would have defeated the Sonics and Spurs, or that Mike Bibby, Peja, and Brad Miller wouldn't suffer their injuries, or that the Maloofs wouldn't fire Adelman with Web here; all of I have to say is you have a very good imagination.
Yes, who needs goals and standards and stuff? We got embarrassed by a team that we wouldn't have lost to with Webber, one leg and all, and we've gotten steadily worse ever since. But hey, we made the playoffs one-and-a-half times without Webber, so clearly we came out ahead... [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]