Is there anyone who would still rather have Landry than Martin?
- Thread starter RookieOfTheDay
- Start date
Not the Webber trade. The luxury tax level for the 04-05 season would have been about $55M, and we were at about $62M when we made the trade. And since we saved less than $2.5M in that first year, we still would have been over the tax. I say "would have" because it turns out that for revenue-related reasons that I don't care to research further the luxury tax did not kick in for the '04-'05 season, but before the Webber trade we were definitely above the threshold had it done so. The luxury tax did kick in for the '03-'04 season, and we did pay it.
I want to like you, as you have some pretty intelligent observations and you recognize Gilbert Arenas' awesomeness/willingness to be hilarious but you have to back up your stance on why Kevin Martin is an a-hole. You called out a player that was in my opinion the sole reason to watch our crappy team. He was our perennial all-star and from my (admittedly) 2nd-hand experience a nice young man. Did he sleep with your GF or something?
I sort of agree with Be0p (sorry if I spelt your name wrong). I was in favor of trading Martin but it seems that we gave away our one-dimensional player for their one-dimensional player and our one-dimensional player was a lot better.
I like the idea of gaining cap room but I wish we had hung on to Martin until the draft and then maybe we could have gotten someone better for him (better for our future). Martin was always going to be tradeable (there was no rush and we nearly messed up our draft position, given how we immediately improved after the trade).
I follow baseball and the Phillies (sorry) and Pat Gillick used to say that you have to please yourselves also in a trade -- ie it can't always be the other team that's happy.
Anyway I thought it was time to trade Bibby but I did not like the deal that Petrie eventually made. Of Petrie's recent trades the only one I could say he got equal value for was probably the Peja-Artest one. The Artest-Donte trade was also OK if we got Omri out of it also but I'm not sure of the details on that one.
Anyway maybe the Kings should be actively scouting other teams, especially if they're going to be making major trades, instead of just making the salaries match and the bottom line look good.
I like the idea of gaining cap room but I wish we had hung on to Martin until the draft and then maybe we could have gotten someone better for him (better for our future). Martin was always going to be tradeable (there was no rush and we nearly messed up our draft position, given how we immediately improved after the trade).
I follow baseball and the Phillies (sorry) and Pat Gillick used to say that you have to please yourselves also in a trade -- ie it can't always be the other team that's happy.
Anyway I thought it was time to trade Bibby but I did not like the deal that Petrie eventually made. Of Petrie's recent trades the only one I could say he got equal value for was probably the Peja-Artest one. The Artest-Donte trade was also OK if we got Omri out of it also but I'm not sure of the details on that one.
Anyway maybe the Kings should be actively scouting other teams, especially if they're going to be making major trades, instead of just making the salaries match and the bottom line look good.
Haha. You had me at "urine in one's Cheerios."
I, too, am baffled by the Martin hatred. Seems to me that in order to dislike someone (and so vehemently), there has to be SOME reason. History has definitely shown that sometimes the reasons are unfounded, but at least the "reason" exists. Otherwise, it just seems like people are throwing out the "CUZ I SAID SO!" response :-\.
Regardless, I liked Martin. I knew a few people who went out with him socially and said he was a very pleasant and humble guy.
I, too, am baffled by the Martin hatred. Seems to me that in order to dislike someone (and so vehemently), there has to be SOME reason. History has definitely shown that sometimes the reasons are unfounded, but at least the "reason" exists. Otherwise, it just seems like people are throwing out the "CUZ I SAID SO!" response :-\.
Regardless, I liked Martin. I knew a few people who went out with him socially and said he was a very pleasant and humble guy.
Last edited:
I call shenanigans. I have no love or hate for Kmart either way, but based on fairness and human decency, your statement is quite unfair and unreasonable. Just because Kmart isn't here to challenge you on his statement doesn't mean you don't have to back it up. You can't accuse someone of being an a__hole, and then say you don't have to explain why. Explain what you mean, or don't say anything at all. Even if it's to say "I had a bad experience personally with KM that I'm not going to discuss, but trust me, I know he's an a__hole" then that would work.
Trash is a little harsh. Even a hobbled Webber still put up like 15-20 points, 7-10 rebounds, 3-4 assists, and 1 steal. Those are better numbers than anyone currently on the team and far better than anyone they got in return for him at the time. I believe he only had 2 or 3 seasons left on his contract when they traded him. They should have just let him expire if they couldn't get anything of value in return.
Last edited:
Webber had 3.5 seasons left on his contract.
I know not everybody goes for advanced statistics, but I find that for measuring individual contributions, Win Shares does a pretty darn good job. By this I mean that there's a high correlation between the sum of a team's individual win shares and the number of wins that team actually gets - despite the fact that the team's record doesn't enter into the calculation, only individual statistics.
Using Win Shares, Chris Webber was worth 7.9 wins in his post-Sacramento career (166 games over 3.5 seasons). This is lower than one year's total of Win Shares for Webber during his prime for us ('99-'02). Kenny Thomas alone got us 9.2 Win Shares, and Corliss and Skinner added 2.9 and 2.7 respectively.
Maybe "trash" is a bit harsh (to be fair, I was using your description of KT, etc.), but a hobbled Webber didn't really have anything to offer above and beyond what we got back. There are reasons not to like the trade, but the idea that what we got back was worse than Webber at that point in his career is not really one of them.
I know not everybody goes for advanced statistics, but I find that for measuring individual contributions, Win Shares does a pretty darn good job. By this I mean that there's a high correlation between the sum of a team's individual win shares and the number of wins that team actually gets - despite the fact that the team's record doesn't enter into the calculation, only individual statistics.
Using Win Shares, Chris Webber was worth 7.9 wins in his post-Sacramento career (166 games over 3.5 seasons). This is lower than one year's total of Win Shares for Webber during his prime for us ('99-'02). Kenny Thomas alone got us 9.2 Win Shares, and Corliss and Skinner added 2.9 and 2.7 respectively.
Maybe "trash" is a bit harsh (to be fair, I was using your description of KT, etc.), but a hobbled Webber didn't really have anything to offer above and beyond what we got back. There are reasons not to like the trade, but the idea that what we got back was worse than Webber at that point in his career is not really one of them.
I think we'd be in the same spot. Like a previous poster stated, we gave up our one dimensional player for their one dimensional player and KMart was better at that one dimension. Problem is that KMart had almost nothing else to his game (constant 23ppg nights with 2 reb and 1ast). Landry isn't that good but at least he can pull down a few rebounds and score at a higher %. Either way KMart would be scoring 20 for us now and giving up 25 to his opposing player. Where Landry, when given the minutes, will produce what the other team's PF is producing. He'll just be getting out rebounded the whole time. Either way its a moot point, unlike the Webber trade where we could have at least been more competitive that year and the next.
I never bought into the idea that KMart is one-dimensional. He was a decent defender before the injury, got injured, became a poor defender, and the rep stuck. But he is not a defensive liability when he's healthy. He was guarding Tyreke for most of the game and did Tyreke have a big night? In Houston's previous game, Xavier Henry and OJ Mayo combined to shoot 2 for 10 against KMart. Only three SGs scored more than 25 pts against Houston - Kobe, Manu, and JRich; and those are guys who will score against anyone. I will contend that KMart is a better defender than Beno will ever hope to be. You can't just evaluate a player based on playing with an ankle injury, even Iguiodala and Doug Christie became average when afflicted with injuries. KMart has the quickness and the length to stay with guards, and while he will never be mistaken for Doug, I believe KMart is a net positive for the team; meaning he will score more than he gives up.
And further more, this is a guy who kept improving every year; from an afterthought to a 20 pt scorer, from not having a handle to being above average, from a 35% three pt shooter to over 40%, from a mid 80% FT shooter to now over 90%. This guy just keep working and improving. You never write off a guy who works this hard; who's to say he won't become a good defender/passer/dribbler a couple of years down the line? In fact, the trajectory shows that he'll probably get there eventually. You don't trade away a guy like that for a sixth man.
And speaking of the man KMart traded for, my first thought at the time was "Huh"? Landry plays the same position as one of our promising PF and will likely leave in 18 months. What is the point of trading for a guy like that? Someone to take valuable mins away from the prospect you're trying to groom and at the same time not part of your future? To add insult to injury, the undersized Landry is the opposite of what the Kings is trying to become - big, tough, and physical. Is it any surprise that Landry is quickly out of favor? Is it any surprise that JT is the better fit afterall? Didn't 1/3 of the posters on this board saw this coming long ago? This trade just does not make sense on so many level.
And the sad thing is, after watching Landry up close and personal, I'm not convinced he's better than the pre-injury Ike Diogu, a player we could have signed for less than half the salary of Landry. The only reason, and I do mean the only way to justify this trade, is that the Maloofs need to save money; and I seriously suspect that is indeed the reason.
And further more, this is a guy who kept improving every year; from an afterthought to a 20 pt scorer, from not having a handle to being above average, from a 35% three pt shooter to over 40%, from a mid 80% FT shooter to now over 90%. This guy just keep working and improving. You never write off a guy who works this hard; who's to say he won't become a good defender/passer/dribbler a couple of years down the line? In fact, the trajectory shows that he'll probably get there eventually. You don't trade away a guy like that for a sixth man.
And speaking of the man KMart traded for, my first thought at the time was "Huh"? Landry plays the same position as one of our promising PF and will likely leave in 18 months. What is the point of trading for a guy like that? Someone to take valuable mins away from the prospect you're trying to groom and at the same time not part of your future? To add insult to injury, the undersized Landry is the opposite of what the Kings is trying to become - big, tough, and physical. Is it any surprise that Landry is quickly out of favor? Is it any surprise that JT is the better fit afterall? Didn't 1/3 of the posters on this board saw this coming long ago? This trade just does not make sense on so many level.
And the sad thing is, after watching Landry up close and personal, I'm not convinced he's better than the pre-injury Ike Diogu, a player we could have signed for less than half the salary of Landry. The only reason, and I do mean the only way to justify this trade, is that the Maloofs need to save money; and I seriously suspect that is indeed the reason.
Last edited:
To answer the direct question, sure, that's possible. But it's not the most likely explanation for poor numbers coming from an older, injured player. Webber's per-minute Win Share numbers dropped precipitously upon his original return from the knee injury, and they never recovered either for us, the 76ers or the Pistons, which would suggest that he just simply wasn't able to do what he once did. And I do think that's the generally-accepted version of why his career ended. It's just that there's this nostalgic sentiment around Webber, for good reason, so the idea that we got the short end of the stick talent-wise in the Webber trade hangs around. And if we were talking about the healthy, led-us-on-two-legitimate-races-at-the-title Webber, that idea would be right. But the Webber we traded wasn't that guy anymore, and what we got back was reasonably equivalent in talent.
(For the record, I've taken some pretty good heat for making statements like this in the past about the Webber trade. I should point out preemptively that there are valid reasons to dislike the Webber trade that don't relate to the on-court value of the players involved. For instance, there is an argument that we should have taken our salary lumps fast with Webber rather than spreading them out with KT's contract. There is also the argument that a team simply SHOULD NOT trade away its superstar for the good of the team and the fans, however hobbled that superstar may be. But from the point of view of on-court talent, it was pretty much a wash at that point.)
As to Win Shares, it is a complicated formula, but it's basically calculated from the stats you can get in the daily box score, along with some league scoring data and team pace data. It is intended to represent a player's value in terms of how many wins they add to their team. While we don't have an objective way to measure a single player's "win" contribution to make a real assessment of the statistic, in principle adding together the Win Shares of every player on a team (and for some players they can be negative) should come close to that team's season total of wins, and in general it does (within 2-3 wins on either side, if I recall correctly). So there's reason to believe that's it not completely "out there" as a stat.
(For the record, I've taken some pretty good heat for making statements like this in the past about the Webber trade. I should point out preemptively that there are valid reasons to dislike the Webber trade that don't relate to the on-court value of the players involved. For instance, there is an argument that we should have taken our salary lumps fast with Webber rather than spreading them out with KT's contract. There is also the argument that a team simply SHOULD NOT trade away its superstar for the good of the team and the fans, however hobbled that superstar may be. But from the point of view of on-court talent, it was pretty much a wash at that point.)
As to Win Shares, it is a complicated formula, but it's basically calculated from the stats you can get in the daily box score, along with some league scoring data and team pace data. It is intended to represent a player's value in terms of how many wins they add to their team. While we don't have an objective way to measure a single player's "win" contribution to make a real assessment of the statistic, in principle adding together the Win Shares of every player on a team (and for some players they can be negative) should come close to that team's season total of wins, and in general it does (within 2-3 wins on either side, if I recall correctly). So there's reason to believe that's it not completely "out there" as a stat.
