Ailene Voisin: Bottom line: With Webber, Kings mattered more

[Bricklayer]

While I am not actually Jim Les, I would like to point out that the Kings in Webber's first year started out 13-17 in their first 30 games, or one game better than the current 12-18 in the first year sans Webber.

So basically, the Kings mattered as much in Webber's first year as they matter in the first year without him.

That's weak.

As it turns out in 97-98, the year before Webber arrived, we started out 11-19 (ironically the 30th game coming against Philly) on our way to 27-55. So quite obviously all three years were pretty much the same thing. In fact, you know what? We really never changed at all. Last 7 years were just a mirage.

 

[nbrans]

^Oh, come on you two. First off, I would say that the main difference between this team and the past team is that the first one was exciting because they were a vast improvement on what had come before vs. this team, which is a vast step down on what had come before. But from a basketball standpoint you're talking about pretty much equal team.

Just because this is a downswing from great heights vs. a upswing from miserable depths doesn't mean that the Kings can't rebuild over the next few years into something that once again matters. That old team didn't mean all that much without the subsequent moves in the following years, same as this one.

P.S. If you dropped this current team into Sacramento in 1998-1999, I think people would remember this unit as fondly as that old one. I haven't forgotten 1985-1998, and I would have been ecstatic to have this team back then. Now I'm spoiled.

 

[VF21]

...the main difference between this team and the past team is that the first one was exciting because they were a vast improvement on what had come before vs. this team, which is a vast step down on what had come before.

Yep.

The first team WAS exciting and it was clear they were going to meld and get better.

This team just doesn't have that feel. It's especially obvious in person. Without the dynamic personality of someone like Webber, it won't have that feel again...

With the exceptions of Bonzi, Martin and Garcia, there is NOTHING exciting about this current team. Bibby is struggling, Miller will do what Miller did when he had to step in for Webber, Peja is missing in action. Sorry, but there's no way the current crew could excite us back in 1998-99 anywhere near as much as the team Petrie assembled did. There are simply too many square pegs for the round holes.

But since you simply don't see it that way, we'll agree to disagree because I know I'm not changing my opinion and I'm reasonably sure you aren't going to change yours.

GO KINGS!!!!!

 

[Kingsgurl]

P.S. If you dropped this current team into Sacramento in 1998-1999, I think people would remember this unit as fondly as that old one.

Well, I contend that if you dropped this current team into 98-99 we wouldn't have noticed much difference in them and the many lovable losers who had gone before. Their record certainly wouldn't have set them apart, their style of play (with the exception of some recent ones were the young uns got up and down the court) alone certainly wouldn't have been enough to make anyone sit up and take notice.

 

[Bricklayer]

^Oh, come on you two. First off, I would say that the main difference between this team and the past team is that the first one was exciting because they were a vast improvement on what had come before vs. this team, which is a vast step down on what had come before. But from a basketball standpoint you're talking about pretty much equal team.

Just because this is a downswing from great heights vs. a upswing from miserable depths doesn't mean that the Kings can't rebuild over the next few years into something that once again matters. That old team didn't mean all that much without the subsequent moves in the following years, same as this one.

P.S. If you dropped this current team into Sacramento in 1998-1999, I think people would remember this unit as fondly as that old one. I haven't forgotten 1985-1998, and I would have been ecstatic to have this team back then. Now I'm spoiled.

Wrong. Very wrong. This current team looks more like the one we had back in 89 than anything else. Bunch of depressed vets that looked good on paper but had no will oir chemistry to ever do it on the court.

If you couldn't feel the fundamental difference between the '99 team and this one...well, you just can't feel basketball. That team had a HUGE future, and you could see it on court. Youth, potential, enormous room to grow. You should never NEVER field a ****ty team of old vets. And yet here we are. Nobody's getting better. In fact ina couple of years some of them may be getting worse (in fact a few show some premature signs of that already). Not only suck, but no hope for the future suck. There is no worse kind. And even the supposedly unsophisticated Arco fans of '99 woudl have sniffed out the difference in an instant. They'd been watching this current team play for over a decade.

 

[nbrans]

Wrong. Very wrong. This current team looks more like the one we had back in 89 than anything else. Bunch of depressed vets that looked good on paper but had no will oir chemistry to ever do it on the court.

If you couldn't feel the fundamental difference between the '99 team and this one...well, you just can't feel basketball. That team had a HUGE future, and you could see it on court. Youth, potential, enormous room to grow. You should never NEVER field a ****ty team of old vets. And yet here we are. Nobody's getting better. In fact ina couple of years some of them may be getting worse (in fact a few show some premature signs of that already). Not only suck, but no hope for the future suck. There is no worse kind. And even the supposedly unsophisticated Arco fans of '99 woudl have sniffed out the difference in an instant. They'd been watching this current team play for over a decade.

I mean, yeah, this team doesn't have the spirit of that team and that's a major difference, and it lacks the centerpiece to build around in the future, which is a massive difference. I went to probably the worst game of the year (Portland) and I understand that aspect of it. I don't want to understate the importance of having something to build around.

But even still, the comparisons to the pre-Webber era isn't quite right either. The Kings right now are talented. They're not a bunch of old tired vets, either, Corliss is the only player over 30. The talent level that the Kings have now and the young players' talent exceed anything the Kings had in 1997. While the Kings lack a centerpiece they also are starting from a better position. So I'd take 2005 over 1997.

The current Kings also show signs of potential, Martin and Cisco show flashes of promise and Bonzi and Shareef have been solid pickups, but I don't think Kings fans are patient enough to wait for a rebuild. From a pure basketball standpoint it's a draw between 1998 and 2005, and it's a matter of the moves Petrie makes to see if he'll get us back to where we were. Judging from the fact that we don't seem to be in the Artest lottery I'm starting to doubt whether he now has the stones to get us back there.

 

[KP]

Even Voisin has admitted it at this point.

 

[VF21]

...I don't think Kings fans are patient enough to wait for a rebuild. From a pure basketball standpoint it's a draw between 1998 and 2005, and it's a matter of the moves Petrie makes to see if he'll get us back to where we were. Judging from the fact that we don't seem to be in the Artest lottery I'm starting to doubt whether he now has the stones to get us back there.

I don't think you really know that much about TRUE Kings fans. I've been a Kings fan since 1985. I'm not going to stop now. A draw between 1998 and 2005? You're certainly entitled to your opinion but don't act like it's fact.

In case you haven't noticed, the Artest lottery has been exposed as a smoke and mirrors show. The HUGE demand for the Indiana nutcase hasn't materialized. Why? Because GMs like Geoff Petrie are WISE enough to realize they don't need that particular time bomb ticking on their team. It's not about "stones," which is a pretty stupid comment anyway.

This isn't about Artest, however. And it's not really about Petrie. It's about how the Kings are perceived by large numbers of people.

Back in 1998-99 we had new fans flocking to our team because they were exciting to watch, even if they weren't winning many games. Right now, we can't even fill Arco, claims of "sell out streaks" notwithstanding.

If you find truly find this year's team comparable to the beginning of the greatest era in Sacramento Kings history, we simply have different perceptions.

 

[ParniValjak]

^^That's just silly.

The Kings in Webber's first year were a "new" team with the future opening up in front them. They were raw, they were hungry, they were about to embark on the journey of a lifetime.

The Kings this year are a team of pieces that do not fit; the only player to truly be the "warrior King" is presently sitting out with a groin injury. The shooting star hasn't done much at all since he and his countryman won the world cup.

The Kings in Webber's first year had every reason to look towards the future with optimism and hope.

The Kings in the first year without Webber have every reason to hope Petrie can do SOMETHING to rectify the problems.

I have seen you make that comment a number of times and I would really like to see you back that up. You previously made a comment that Pedja lost all of his hunger after he won the world championships with Vlade.

For the record World championships was played in the summer of 2002. Thats after the 01-02 season. After the world championships Pedja has put together a couple of very good seasons inclusing his career best.

Sure he sucked last year and he has continued to suck on most occassions this year but he hasn't sucked as long as you have implied in number of your posts.

 

[VF21]

In my humble opinion, the premiere goal of Peja's career was to win the World Championship. Once he did that, although he still might put up decent numbers, etc. he didn't have the same hunger. Sorry if it rankles you but that's my opinion based on what I saw of him during the World Cup. He was much more animated, excited, etc. than I've ever seen him on the Kings.

And this isn't about Peja, although you continue to try and find ways to make it look as though I'm picking on him. I made a statement that is consistent entirely with an opinion I've been totally honest about...IN MY HUMBLE OPINION the NBA is just a job to Peja, nothing more. The World Championship with Vlade, however, was the dream of a lifetime.

 

[ParniValjak]

In my humble opinion, the premiere goal of Peja's career was to win the World Championship. Once he did that, although he still might put up decent numbers, etc. he didn't have the same hunger. Sorry if it rankles you but that's my opinion based on what I saw of him during the World Cup. He was much more animated, excited, etc. than I've ever seen him on the Kings.

And this isn't about Peja, although you continue to try and find ways to make it look as though I'm picking on him. I made a statement that is consistent entirely with an opinion I've been totally honest about...IN MY HUMBLE OPINION the NBA is just a job to Peja, nothing more. The World Championship with Vlade, however, was the dream of a lifetime.

I don't disagree with you that a world championship with Vlade was ultimate for Pedja. I actually feel the same way but I am very puzzled by your continual assertion that he has lost the hunger after the Indianapolis when clearly he had his career best year 2 years AFTER the world championships and played the best basketball in his career AFTER winning the championship with Vlade.

If you said that he lost all his drive and hunger after Vlade left then I would have agreed with you 110%.

Your opinion on this matter is not supported by anything rather than here say which is entirely incorrect.

 

[6th]

I don't disagree with you that a world championship with Vlade was ultimate for Pedja. I actually feel the same way but I am very puzzled by your continual assertion that he has lost the hunger after the Indianapolis when clearly he had his career best year 2 years AFTER the world championships and played the best basketball in his career AFTER winning the championship with Vlade.

If you said that he lost all his drive and hunger after Vlade left then I would have agreed with you 110%.

Your opinion on this matter is not supported by anything rather than here say which is entirely incorrect.

I understand what VF is saying. While you are correct that Peja had his career year after winning the world championship, I don't think that necessarily measures his heart for the game. During his best year, CWebb was out and his best buddy (Vlade) and world championship teammate was setting him up/feeding him the ball where all he needed to do was knock down his shots......which he did, admirably. But, that doesn't mean that his whole heart was in the game of basketball like it was for the world championship.

I am not saying this is a bad thing. I am not judging it. But, I agree with VF. As a person who watches human nature (and admittedly am sometimes wrong ), I do not see the same player pre and post world championship. I do not see the same hunger any longer. For Peja, he has already reached the pinnacle of success. I see a downhill slant (even if somewhat slight at times) in his heart/hunger/attitude since then.

 

[nbrans]

I don't think you really know that much about TRUE Kings fans. I've been a Kings fan since 1985. I'm not going to stop now. A draw between 1998 and 2005? You're certainly entitled to your opinion but don't act like it's fact.

Huh. Didn't know that you were the only Kings fan around here since 1985. I mean, not that I remember going to the old Arco Arena and cheering on the team and rooting for guys like Reggie Theus and LaSalle Thompson.

Seriously VF21, don't go around questioning who the true Kings fans are, it's pretty tiresome and ignorant.

 

[Kingsgurl]

That's a LONG commute from Brooklyn, you must, indeed be a major fan if you made that drive to see LaSalle Thompson!

 

[nbrans]

That's a LONG commute from Brooklyn, you must, indeed be a major fan if you made that drive to see LaSalle Thompson!

Haha... well, I'm not from Brooklyn, I'm a transplant. And yeah, that commute would have been just a tad disappointing.

 

[KP]

it's pretty tiresome and ignorant.

Talk about calling the kettle black.

 

[VF21]

Huh. Didn't know that you were the only Kings fan around here since 1985. I mean, not that I remember going to the old Arco Arena and cheering on the team and rooting for guys like Reggie Theus and LaSalle Thompson.

Seriously VF21, don't go around questioning who the true Kings fans are, it's pretty tiresome and ignorant.

My comment was in direct response to yours:

I don't think Kings fans are patient enough to wait for a rebuild.

I guess I should have made it more definitive: If you think that Kings fans aren't patient enough to wait, then you don't know enough about true Kings fans.

Hope that clears up for you.

And in the future? Before you start throwing around words like tiresome and ignorant, you may want to consider the possibility you might be misunderstanding the statement.

 

[outsider62]

I find it amusingly ironic that many people want to bring up that regular season run with-out Chris as some sort of 'proof' that this team was better with out him, while totally ignoring the fact that if this hypothesis was actually true, the Kings should have gone on to win in the Play Offs the previous year, the year Webb went down with the injury. You know, since they were so much better with out him.
If you want to look at some truly sobering stats, take a look at our PLAY OFF wins and losses with/with out Chris and tell me he doesn't matter.

3 points:

1) It was not the same team. They had that Brad Miller trade in the meantime.
2) I don't know for others, but I think they were better without Webber but probably still not good enough to win it all. Not sure about that and we will never know.
3) The main point is that we could have been much better team with Webber in reduced role, role that would be adjusted to the state of the team and cweb's ability at the time.

One qoute from todays Indy-Warriors game:

"There is absolutely nothing we can go through that we haven't seen," said O'Neal, who plans to practice Saturday and gauge whether he'll be ready for Sunday's game at Sacramento. "The last thing I want to do is mess up the chemistry these guys have right now."

 

[Bricklayer]

"There is absolutely nothing we can go through that we haven't seen," said O'Neal, who plans to practice Saturday and gauge whether he'll be ready for Sunday's game at Sacramento. "The last thing I want to do is mess up the chemistry these guys have right now."

And after all of a week off he'll be right back in there playing 35min and being the first option as soon as he's ready, chemistry or no.

 

[nbrans]

Talk about calling the kettle black.

Right back at you, slick.

 

[outsider62]

"There is absolutely nothing we can go through that we haven't seen," said O'Neal, who plans to practice Saturday and gauge whether he'll be ready for Sunday's game at Sacramento. "The last thing I want to do is mess up the chemistry these guys have right now."

And after all of a week off he'll be right back in there playing 35min and being the first option as soon as he's ready, chemistry or no.

Still nice to hear he cares about team chemistry even after short abscense. On top of that Indy was loosing in the meantime, far for having the best record in the nba a month (or two, don't remember) before the regular season end.

 

[Warhawk]

I never said they would have won a championship without Chris - I'm just saying the team played much better during his absence than after his return. They had the best record in the NBA at the time and were playing well. What more can you ask for a team without their best player?

I think Chris came back too soon, and it didn't do anyone any good.

 

[Padrino]

I never said they would have won a championship without Chris - I'm just saying the team played much better during his absence than after his return. They had the best record in the NBA at the time and were playing well. What more can you ask for a team without their best player?

I think Chris came back too soon, and it didn't do anyone any good.

trading him didn't do anyone any good, either. leastways, not anyone in sacramento.

 

[nbrans]

trading him didn't do anyone any good, either. leastways, not anyone in sacramento.

Judging from Philly's win/loss record this year compared to last, doesn't look like it did them much good either.

 

[Padrino]

Judging from Philly's win/loss record this year compared to last, doesn't look like it did them much good either.

this remains to be seen. the sixers are a team with two superstars, and with MUCH promise. there is no foreseeable promise in the kings team that we see before us. i don;t think you can argue with that fact.

 

[nbrans]

this remains to be seen. the sixers are a team with two superstars, and with MUCH promise. there is no foreseeable promise in the kings team that we see before us. i don;t think you can argue with that fact.

I see one superstar and one former superstar on the Sixers. No disrespect to CWebb, I admire his courage and drive, but there's no way you could still call him a superstar.

 

[Padrino]

I see one superstar and one former superstar on the Sixers. No disrespect to CWebb, I admire his courage and drive, but there's no way you could still call him a superstar.

sure i can. 19.6 pts 10.1 rebs 4.4 asts 1.5 stls 1.5 blks is nothing to smirk at, and considering that he is openly deferring to iverson, i am amazed at his efficiency. he ranks 14th in the nba in total efficiency points. he's top ten in rebounds per game and double doubles. he's 16th in field goals made. his shooting percentage is down, but despite that, he's still one of the most efficient players in the nba. the numbers don't lie, and his desire to win is as strong as ever. his numbers, coupled with his attitude and intensity = superstar.

 

[nbrans]

sure i can. 19.6 pts 10.1 rebs 4.4 asts 1.5 stls 1.5 blks is nothing to smirk at, and considering that he is openly deferring to iverson, i am amazed at his efficiency. he ranks 14th in the nba in total efficiency points. he's top ten in rebounds per game and double doubles. he's 16th in field goals made. his shooting percentage is down, but despite that, he's still one of the most efficient players in the nba. the numbers don't lie, and his desire to win is as strong as ever. his numbers, coupled with his attitude and intensity = superstar.

It's nothing to smirk at, and he may deservedly make the All-Star team, but you have a very liberal definition of Superstar if you'd put Webber in that category, particularly given how much of a liability he is defensively and how much he struggles to create his own shot.

 

[Padrino]

if you still can't accept that webb is a superstar, here's the stats for one of his peers, and unquestionable superstar, kevin garnett:

20.3 pts 11.1 rebs 4.6 asts 1.4 stls 1.7 blks

here's webber's statline again for comparison:

19.6 pts 10.1 rebs 4.4 asts 1.5 stls 1.5 blks

apart from the one rebound differential, the rest is very minor. garnett's number 2 in efficiency points, and that is primarily because he shoots a much higher percentage than webb. i think it's fair to call webb a superstar still, and i'd also like to add that his "courage and drive" only furthers my argument. he hasn't rolled over. he's still managing to produce SUPERSTAR numbers, despite his physical limitations. i don't really think there's even a question here. webb's a superstar. we got three mediocre players in exchange for a superstar. simple as that.

 

[nbrans]

if you still can't accept that webb is a superstar, here's the stats for one of his peers, and unquestionable superstar, kevin garnett:

20.3 pts 11.1 rebs 4.6 asts 1.4 stls 1.7 blks

here's webber's statline again for comparison:

19.6 pts 10.1 rebs 4.4 asts 1.5 stls 1.5 blks

apart from the one rebound differential, the rest is very minor. garnett's number 2 in efficiency points, and that is primarily because he shoots a much higher percentage than webb. i think it's fair to call webb a superstar still, and i'd also like to add that his "courage and drive" only furthers my argument. he hasn't rolled over. he's still managing to produce SUPERSTAR numbers, despite his physical limitations. i don't really think there's even a question here. webb's a superstar. we got three mediocre players in exchange for a superstar. simple as that.

Here are Pau Gasol's numbers: 19.6 pts, 9.4 rebs, 4.2 asts, .6 stls, 2.3 blks. He ranks 13th in efficiency. Plus he's better on defense and the Grizzlies have a better record than the Sixers. Is he a Superstar too?

You also might add "All-NBA Defense" to Garnett's statline and look again to see how he and Webber compare.