And that's the terrible truth I think some Kings fans are still reluctant to face. We can talk about the notion of "better trades" being out there, but you have to face the apparent fact that if there had been "better trades" out there, Petrie would have grabbed them. Webber was the reigning player of the month when the Philly trade went down - right at the trade deadline. Petrie pulled the trigger most likely because it was the only offer he had. It was more about Webb's contract than it was about Webber himself...
Assessing Petrie's trade history (split from Evans/Rubio thread)
- Thread starter Capt. Factorial
- Start date
I would say that the trade itself wasn't the disaster. The disaster happened in Dallas in Game 2 of the 2003 Western Conference Semis. All that was left after that was to watch it play out in one of any hundreds of scenarios, none of them particularly better than the other. (And as you point out, had we kept Webber, he might have been reviled rather than revered at this point!)
I didn't really intend (though I might have foreseen) for that post to focus on the Webber trade specifically -- but it's the biggest and most emotionally charged trade we've made at least since the Richmond/Webber swap, one that was made in the face of a no-win situation, so it's understandable that the focus has been there. And I don't think there will ever be a consensus view on that particular trade.
But what I was really interested to see was (given the general sentiment here that Petrie has not done well in trades and the specific assertion by Merdiesel that Petrie hasn't made a good trade in five years) exactly how good/bad Petrie's trade record looked over that period. Now it's obviously impossible to grade trades that didn't happen, but it looks to me like the majority of trades that did happen were neutral or good from our point of view, and that was a bit surprising. I think it's fairly easy to argue with the general direction that the franchise took after the Webber injury (and there will never be any consensus on that, either) but taken individually I think most of the trades were positive steps given Petrie's current direction for the franchise. When he makes trades, I think Petrie generally succeeds in accomplishing what he intends to accomplish.
He's got a great draft record, too. Now, free agent signings (particularly with the MLE) on the other hand...
I didn't really intend (though I might have foreseen) for that post to focus on the Webber trade specifically -- but it's the biggest and most emotionally charged trade we've made at least since the Richmond/Webber swap, one that was made in the face of a no-win situation, so it's understandable that the focus has been there. And I don't think there will ever be a consensus view on that particular trade.
But what I was really interested to see was (given the general sentiment here that Petrie has not done well in trades and the specific assertion by Merdiesel that Petrie hasn't made a good trade in five years) exactly how good/bad Petrie's trade record looked over that period. Now it's obviously impossible to grade trades that didn't happen, but it looks to me like the majority of trades that did happen were neutral or good from our point of view, and that was a bit surprising. I think it's fairly easy to argue with the general direction that the franchise took after the Webber injury (and there will never be any consensus on that, either) but taken individually I think most of the trades were positive steps given Petrie's current direction for the franchise. When he makes trades, I think Petrie generally succeeds in accomplishing what he intends to accomplish.
He's got a great draft record, too. Now, free agent signings (particularly with the MLE) on the other hand...
I think the point was, that KT finally has value. Whether you combine him in a trade along with our cap space for a player of greater value, or just simply let his contract expire and then aquire more cap space. He is now movable, if we desire to to so.
As far as the orginal trade goes. As I said before, most people on this fourm and probably around the country, thought Webber would be impossible to trade. I remember people stating just that. So it became a pay me now or pay me later sort of thing. It was a bad situation and there simply wasn't going to be a good answer. The only advantage of keeping Webber is that we would have gotten out from imposing contracts sooner.
At the time of the trade I thought that at least we got a couple of players that had value around the league in Corliss and KT. I don't think anyone could have forseen that KT was going to turn into such a large albatross.
As they say, hindsight is 100%. Confucious says " He who lives in the past, has no future ". Time to move on folks..
As far as the orginal trade goes. As I said before, most people on this fourm and probably around the country, thought Webber would be impossible to trade. I remember people stating just that. So it became a pay me now or pay me later sort of thing. It was a bad situation and there simply wasn't going to be a good answer. The only advantage of keeping Webber is that we would have gotten out from imposing contracts sooner.
At the time of the trade I thought that at least we got a couple of players that had value around the league in Corliss and KT. I don't think anyone could have forseen that KT was going to turn into such a large albatross.
As they say, hindsight is 100%. Confucious says " He who lives in the past, has no future ". Time to move on folks..
I think the point was, that KT finally has value. Whether you combine him in a trade along with our cap space for a player of greater value, or just simply let his contract expire and then aquire more cap space. He is now movable, if we desire to to so.
As far as the orginal trade goes. As I said before, most people on this fourm and probably around the country, thought Webber would be impossible to trade. I remember people stating just that. So it became a pay me now or pay me later sort of thing. It was a bad situation and there simply wasn't going to be a good answer. The only advantage of keeping Webber is that we would have gotten out from imposing contracts sooner.
At the time of the trade I thought that at least we got a couple of players that had value around the league in Corliss and KT. I don't think anyone could have forseen that KT was going to turn into such a large albatross.
As they say, hindsight is 100%. Confucious says " He who lives in the past, has no future ". Time to move on folks..
As far as the orginal trade goes. As I said before, most people on this fourm and probably around the country, thought Webber would be impossible to trade. I remember people stating just that. So it became a pay me now or pay me later sort of thing. It was a bad situation and there simply wasn't going to be a good answer. The only advantage of keeping Webber is that we would have gotten out from imposing contracts sooner.
At the time of the trade I thought that at least we got a couple of players that had value around the league in Corliss and KT. I don't think anyone could have forseen that KT was going to turn into such a large albatross.
As they say, hindsight is 100%. Confucious says " He who lives in the past, has no future ". Time to move on folks..
You think they didn't try to move Kenny Thomas? REALLY? It takes someone to accept an offer before a deal can be completed.
But I won't argue the point further because I doubt if Kings fans will ever all see it the same way. I got past it the day they put #4 in the rafters and the final sentence of the book will actually be written the day KT's salary comes off the books and we get the salary cap benefit. I can live through one more season after coming this far.
But I won't argue the point further because I doubt if Kings fans will ever all see it the same way. I got past it the day they put #4 in the rafters and the final sentence of the book will actually be written the day KT's salary comes off the books and we get the salary cap benefit. I can live through one more season after coming this far.
Had you kept reading, I think you would have seen that Capt. Factorial WASN'T being a Petrie apologist. He made a very good attempt at analyzing the trades from a fairly objective perspective. You can disagree with his analysis but I think it's patently unfair to dismiss it out of hand without even giving him the courtesy of reading the whole thing.
As a small green guy once said "Do or do not there is no try" They turned down a deal of KT for Alston at one point. That turned into a mistake too.
There is nothing to get past. This is evaluating the trade now that all of petries "parts" are at the end of their life cycle. And since nothing was done with those parts it really turned out to have nothing to do with talent, but contracts and the Kings slowly getting salary off the books instead of one chunk.
There is nothing to get past. This is evaluating the trade now that all of petries "parts" are at the end of their life cycle. And since nothing was done with those parts it really turned out to have nothing to do with talent, but contracts and the Kings slowly getting salary off the books instead of one chunk.
Well the Petrie apologists are probably tired of you too, so it works out just fine. And, The Capt. is not a apologist for Petrie. He was just trying to do an objective analysis of Petrie' last five years. You like everyone else are entitled to agree or disagree with it. But I don't think it necessary to beat up on the Capt.
The problem with trades are, is that you only know the result of your actions. You don't know what the result would have been had you taken no action. The results could have been worse. But we'll never know. In my humble opinion Petrie was in a dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't situation. There simply wasn't a good answer available.
Now if you want to call me a Petrie apologist, have at it. I could care less...
The problem with trades are, is that you only know the result of your actions. You don't know what the result would have been had you taken no action. The results could have been worse. But we'll never know. In my humble opinion Petrie was in a dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't situation. There simply wasn't a good answer available.
Now if you want to call me a Petrie apologist, have at it. I could care less...
Bottom line....8 straight years of losing (getting worse), the aggregate total of the trades have been total failure. I'm just looking at the facts, "the apologist" tries to make excuses for what is read in the facts. You can be tired of my type all you want, but those that believe Petrie has been awful are backed by the records and the current state of this franchise.
Had you kept reading, I think you would have seen that Capt. Factorial WASN'T being a Petrie apologist. He made a very good attempt at analyzing the trades from a fairly objective perspective. You can disagree with his analysis but I think it's patently unfair to dismiss it out of hand without even giving him the courtesy of reading the whole thing.
Fair enough. I don't agree with your assessment since a team in decline, such as the Kings, is going to be viewed for all the things they've apparently done wrong. My main objection to your comment was that while you didn't agree with Factorial, it would have been nice to actually read his stuff. Since you've addressed that part, I'm good.
my statement was just based on the rumor. i dunno if it were true or not, but the reasons its one or the other (i hope im understanding your question correctly) is based on the fact that IF we had alston in 2007 and he was at minimum a decent point guard and at best doing what he did for the magic, i dont think we would have resigned beno to the contract. so based on that, i would have rather have "that 30 yo pg on our rebuilding team."
2001-2002-61 wins/21 losses
2002-2003-59 wins/23 losses
2003-2004-55 wins/27 losses
2004-2005-50 wins/32 losses
2005-2006-44 wins/38 losses
2006-2007-33 wins/49 losses First losing season...
So the facts are that the Kings have just three losing seasons in recent history, not eight. Was there a slow decline? Yes! But take a look at just about any NBA team that has run is course with its current talent and there's a slow decline. Some teams decide to tear things apart sooner that others. Some teams never get to the point where there's anything to tear apart. The Clips spring to mind.
But thats beside the point. Just because I said you could call me a Petrie apologist doesn't mean I'am one. It just means I don't care if you think I'm one. You want to paint everything in black an white. In fact, life isn't that simple. If someone doesn't agree with your view of Petrie's body of work, that doesn't make them an apologist. It just means that they see it differently than you do.
I have a friend that doesn't believe in God. The two of us have had multiple discussions on the subject. Some have gotten heated. I try to give him my reasons for believing. Since belief in God is faith based, there are no black and white facts. Its not 2 plus 2 equals four. His eventual argument is always the same. Anyone with any intelligence would never believe in God. Thereby calling me, his friend, stupid. Now you tell me who has the open mind here?
My point here is, that I'm willing to listen to anyone's point of view. That doesn't mean I'll agree with it, but I've been known to change my mind. There are always facts that I don't know. Where I have trouble is when someone just makes blanket statements in response to whatever been written or proposed. Somehow,the Kings suck, or Petrie sucks, or Beno sucks, or Martin sucks, or the whole damm city sucks, just doesn't do it for me. It might be a nice emotional release for the person that says it, and it certainly offers disagreement. But its sort of a bull in the china shop disagreement. You see, I don't entirely disagree with your premise. I just didn't like the package it came in.
2002-2003-59 wins/23 losses
2003-2004-55 wins/27 losses
2004-2005-50 wins/32 losses
2005-2006-44 wins/38 losses
2006-2007-33 wins/49 losses First losing season...
So the facts are that the Kings have just three losing seasons in recent history, not eight. Was there a slow decline? Yes! But take a look at just about any NBA team that has run is course with its current talent and there's a slow decline. Some teams decide to tear things apart sooner that others. Some teams never get to the point where there's anything to tear apart. The Clips spring to mind.
But thats beside the point. Just because I said you could call me a Petrie apologist doesn't mean I'am one. It just means I don't care if you think I'm one. You want to paint everything in black an white. In fact, life isn't that simple. If someone doesn't agree with your view of Petrie's body of work, that doesn't make them an apologist. It just means that they see it differently than you do.
I have a friend that doesn't believe in God. The two of us have had multiple discussions on the subject. Some have gotten heated. I try to give him my reasons for believing. Since belief in God is faith based, there are no black and white facts. Its not 2 plus 2 equals four. His eventual argument is always the same. Anyone with any intelligence would never believe in God. Thereby calling me, his friend, stupid. Now you tell me who has the open mind here?
My point here is, that I'm willing to listen to anyone's point of view. That doesn't mean I'll agree with it, but I've been known to change my mind. There are always facts that I don't know. Where I have trouble is when someone just makes blanket statements in response to whatever been written or proposed. Somehow,the Kings suck, or Petrie sucks, or Beno sucks, or Martin sucks, or the whole damm city sucks, just doesn't do it for me. It might be a nice emotional release for the person that says it, and it certainly offers disagreement. But its sort of a bull in the china shop disagreement. You see, I don't entirely disagree with your premise. I just didn't like the package it came in.
Is that not a pattern of failure? As I said in the post you quoted, we are getting worse and have been. Partly due to some bad luck and the cyclical nature of the haves and havenots of the NBA but ultimately do to some poor player personnel decisions. You can call yourself an apologist or not. I really dont care. What I am becoming weary of is excuses on Petrie's behalf. It is time for those to disappear. Lets look at the track record. We have become worse every year since 2002. Its 2009-2010! I believe there have been moves, some of the moves even touted as good by the originol post, which have caused us to stay in this downturn much longer then we needed to be.
As for saying I am making blanket statements about how much Petrie sucks, I really dont get. I have used one major argument. His last 8 year track record. I really don't think I need much more. This is almost a decade of decline we are talking about here. And in that 8 year span it is hard to find many good decisions which would lead someone to think that maybe it isnt the GMs fault. If drafting KMart and trading Peja for the exploding RonRon are the two highlights, we have real problems.
As for saying I am making blanket statements about how much Petrie sucks, I really dont get. I have used one major argument. His last 8 year track record. I really don't think I need much more. This is almost a decade of decline we are talking about here. And in that 8 year span it is hard to find many good decisions which would lead someone to think that maybe it isnt the GMs fault. If drafting KMart and trading Peja for the exploding RonRon are the two highlights, we have real problems.