Chris Webber trade

[nbrans]

I tried to keep quiet but this is just silly. Why not just suck it up and admit you - and Geoff Petrie and the Maloofs - were wrong?

Mike Bibby, Kevin Martin, Ron Artest, Chris Webber and Brad Miller...

No matter what kind of spin you or the other trade advocates try to put on it, that is one helluva starting five.

Ok, heaven forbid that you respect that I just have a different opinion than you.

That lineup would be the worst defending frontcourt in the recent history of the NBA. People go on and on and on about how our frontcourt isn't tough enough, how there's not enough shotblocking etc. etc. etc., all the while pining for the worst defending power forward in the NBA. Webber's not even good on offense anymore, he's a volume shooter who shoots a low percentage.

I think it was a painful if necessary trade. I know this is Webber central around here, but I will respectfully disagree with everyone who wishes he were still here. Would it be too much to ask for you to respectfully disagree with me?

 

[BigSong]

Uh...that's a tad inaccurate.

We gained NOTHING financially. Nothing. Nothing on the court either. The "flexible peices" turned out either to be Petrie being full of ****, or him being badly, sadly mistaken. And while 2 of them are finally going to expire after this year, all of 1 season ahead of Webb, we've got the other third (KT) for years after Webb's contract goes poof. Meanwhile we've had to fill the roster with all kinds of garbage looking to fill the Webb void, and are currently running an $11 million platoon of mediocrity at the position, BOTH of whom will still be getting paid after Webb's deal is done. And I'll tell you something else -- at the end of next year when it comes time to max out Ron, and Kevin's agent comes forward and says show me the $10 mil as well, we would absolutely kill to have a nifty $20mil contract coming off the books to free up that kind of room.

There's not a single good thing to be said about that deal. We panicked. We lost. Geoff's best excuse is to try to pin it on the Maloofs.

i like how you throw that out there as sorta insignificant or inconsequential. I mean if the guys paying the bills say this is how much were spending, thats how much you can spend right?

Flexibility is also not just about financial flexibility either, if we had Webber right now, probably are one and only backup would be TAylor who would have to be playing center right now because Brad is out. i suppose wed also have williams and woods to throw out there.

right now id take KT SAR Vitaly and MO TAylor over Webb williams woods and Mo Taylor.

 

[VF21]

Ok, heaven forbid that you respect that I just have a different opinion than you.

That lineup would be the worst defending frontcourt in the recent history of the NBA. People go on and on and on about how our frontcourt isn't tough enough, how there's not enough shotblocking etc. etc. etc., all the while pining for the worst defending power forward in the NBA. Webber's not even good on offense anymore, he's a volume shooter who shoots a low percentage.

I think it was a painful if necessary trade. I know this is Webber central around here, but I will respectfully disagree with everyone who wishes he were still here. Would it be too much to ask for you to respectfully disagree with me?

No more than it would nice if you didn't find "disrespect" in everything that's said that doesn't agree with your particular take. Let it go - since you're also sending me PMs, I don't think we need to flex our respective muscles or whatever on the board.

 

[Roman]

I'm with NBRANS on this one. I know that Chris Webber is sacred ground for King's fans, as well he should be ... but he's not the player he once was. His name alone is not something a team worries about. There once was a time, but alas, not anymore.

Chris Webber WAS the Kings team back in the day, but he's hardly the player he once was. He's a poor defender with the propensity to take shots outside of the offense.

He's not the same guy.

Personally, if SAR could pull his head out of his rear and get some passion, I think it wouldn't even be a consideration.

But, if you think we have too many shooters and personalities now - Can you imagine Artest, Martin, Bibby, Webber and Miller vying for shots?

Chris Webber is a guy who is going to take 17 shots a game to get you 18 points. That's not good .. at all. Especially from a PF spot. You've got to get high percentage shots from there.

Chris Webber makes this team infinitely worse at this point in his career. When he was younger (pre-injury) he'd make this team a title contender.

 

[BMiller52]

Two additional points:
1) I was actually pro-trade even before Webber's injury - that way we get rid of sensitive yet egoistic, pot-smoking, injury prone self-proclaimed team leader with a loser mentality and we would have actually gotten some solid pieces for him. It's a shame that Petrie was too slow on this.
2) I disagree that the Kings era is divided in pro and past Webber's injury, it should be divided into pre and post Divac era. He was the glue of the team in so many ways.

How come some people can hate Webber so bad? HE MADE THIS TEAM. How can you not see that? He was the reason we went to the conference finals, he was the reason we made the playoffs in 99 or whatever year it was. I don't see how you can bash someone like Webber so badly.

Trade sucked and it still does.

 

[Roman]

Mike Bibby, Kevin Martin, Ron Artest, Chris Webber and Brad Miller...

No matter what kind of spin you or the other trade advocates try to put on it, that is one helluva starting five.

It's a "helluva" starting 5 if they were healthy and young.

Webber isn't that player. Saying his name doesn't make it so. Webber is all but done and at his salary, he's a terrible deal.

Our PFs aren't perfect, but the two of them combined are what's getting us through the Brad Miller injury. You think Webber putting up 38% from the field would help us? It's too much for one player and too much for a player that's declined to the point of being a shell.

I love Web for all he's done, but his time is past. You always talk about loving the Kings and it's about the front of the shirt, not the back. Why doesn't this apply to Webber?

 

[GoGoGadget]

i like how you throw that out there as sorta insignificant or inconsequential. I mean if the guys paying the bills say this is how much were spending, thats how much you can spend right?

Flexibility is also not just about financial flexibility either, if we had Webber right now, probably are one and only backup would be TAylor who would have to be playing center right now because Brad is out. i suppose wed also have williams and woods to throw out there.

right now id take KT SAR Vitaly and MO TAylor over Webb williams woods and Mo Taylor.

It's impossible to assume what moves would have been made if the Webber trade hadn't happened.

Webb stays and the team still could have pursued SAR as his backup. Still could have traded Peja to get Ron. Keep Webb's passing and ability to hit outside shots as a big, and Brad's unique skills become less of an asset, so maybe the team gets more serious about upgrading at center... and so on.

We'll never know. All we will know is what actually happened, which has been far from spectacular.

 

[Roman]

It's impossible to assume what moves would have been made if the Webber trade hadn't happened.

Webb stays and the team still could have pursued SAR as his backup.

Well, I can say that I doubt SAR signs as a backup. He didn't sign with the Spurs because he didn't want to play off the bench.

He didn't sign here to sit behind KT, I'm guessing, either.

 

[BMiller52]

Well, I can say that I doubt SAR signs as a backup. He didn't sign with the Spurs because he didn't want to play off the bench.

He didn't sign here to sit behind KT, I'm guessing, either.

Unfortunately for him, Kenny had other plans

 

[uolj]

You always talk about loving the Kings and it's about the front of the shirt, not the back. Why doesn't this apply to Webber?

It is the name on the front. That's the point. Those who lament the Webber trade do so because it was bad for the team.

Before the trade, the Kings had one of the top 10 records in the league (5th?), even with the post-injury Webber. In the most recent playoffs before the trade, with the post-injury Webber, the Kings won 7 playoff games. After the trade, the Kings were a .500 team that won only 1 playoff game. A year later, they won only 2 playoff games.

The only way that makes the team better is if they are able to rebuild or retool themselves better than they would have otherwise, and there isn't much evidence that they would have.

At the time, the only real potential benefit of the trade that I saw would be the removal of the strong personality that was unlikely to lead the team to a championship. Getting rid of the strong personality could make room for a new team to grow more quickly than otherwise. But now, that new team hasn't grown any identity that is better than the one led by Webber, so I still see it as a bad move.

 

[cfechter]

Uh...that's a tad inaccurate.

We gained NOTHING financially. Nothing. Nothing on the court either. The "flexible peices" turned out either to be Petrie being full of ****, or him being badly, sadly mistaken. And while 2 of them are finally going to expire after this year, all of 1 season ahead of Webb, we've got the other third (KT) for years after Webb's contract goes poof. Meanwhile we've had to fill the roster with all kinds of garbage looking to fill the Webb void, and are currently running an $11 million platoon of mediocrity at the position, BOTH of whom will still be getting paid after Webb's deal is done. And I'll tell you something else -- at the end of next year when it comes time to max out Ron, and Kevin's agent comes forward and says show me the $10 mil as well, we would absolutely kill to have a nifty $20mil contract coming off the books to free up that kind of room.

There's not a single good thing to be said about that deal. We panicked. We lost. Geoff's best excuse is to try to pin it on the Maloofs.

Very well put, Brick.

Thanks for all the responses to the post.

 

[diggining]

I agree with the notion that Webber simply hasn't been a good player at all since he has left the Kings--the fact that he's been the worst defender at his position (I could be wrong about this, but I remember a sixers fan quoting this elsewhere awhile ago) really means he's much more of a drag on his team than an asset. It's not his fault that he's basically playing no defense right now, 'cause its' just really unlucky that his knee basically takes away any hops and mobility he had, and well, it's really hard to play defense when you can't move laterally to keep up with a defender.

I think it's still very hard for a lot of us, emotionally, to let the Webber trade go--he was a big part of the turnaround of this team, just like J-Will and Vlade, but rationally, it's hard to see what the Kings have given up basketball-wise. I think that people who're saying how the kings aren't as good now as they were before are missing the point--the entire team's different--the wear and tear that comes along with age has just caught up with the Kings. Christie and Vlade are now out of the league, and Peja has gotten injured with greater and greater frequency nowadays. I don't think we can just jump to the conclusion that Webber is a negative influence just because the Kings had the best record in the league when he was injured and was a .500 team when he came back, and for the same reason, I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that Webber was the reason why the Kings haven't been as good as they were before since the trade.


I think that rationally, what the Kings gave up was one giant bloated contract for 3 smaller bloated contracts. The hope was that the smaller ones would have been easier to move, but it turns out that it really wasn't much better--the only one the Kings could move was the least bloated one, Skinner. The Maloof's actually did save a little bit of money from the Skinner trade, but ultimately, the Kings got very little out of it financially. And basketball-wise, the Kings gave up very little, but didn't get very much in return either.

Of course, emotionally, that trade, along with the Christie and Peja trades and the departure of Vlade, signalled the end of the Princeton era, an era with its highs and lows, the excitement of the most brilliant basketball played in the NBA at the time, and the repeated disappointments of coming so close and failing to get the ultimate prize.

 

[uolj]

I think that people who're saying how the kings aren't as good now as they were before are missing the point--the entire team's different--the wear and tear that comes along with age has just caught up with the Kings. Christie and Vlade are now out of the league, and Peja has gotten injured with greater and greater frequency nowadays. I don't think we can just jump to the conclusion that Webber is a negative influence just because the Kings had the best record in the league when he was injured and was a .500 team when he came back, and for the same reason, I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that Webber was the reason why the Kings haven't been as good as they were before since the trade.

While there are emotional aspects to the trade, I think the facts on their own support the argument that it was a bad move. The entire team is different now, of course, but the immediate impact was obvious. The team was playing well. Then they weren't. They had a very good regular season record, then they had a mediocre one. Virtually the same team had won 7 games in the playoffs before, and then they won 1 in the playoffs after. Trading Webber made the team obviously worse at that time.

The reason we can't jump to the conclusion that Webber's return from injury made the team worse is because there is evidence and arguments (that have been made many times) that it did not, including the performance of the team in the playoffs.

I really don't see how you can debate the notion that the trade made the on-court team less able to win or compete in the postseason. So as I said the question is whether there was a greater ability to improve the team that made that drop acceptable. A year and a half later I personally don't think so.

 

[diggining]

While there are emotional aspects to the trade, I think the facts on their own support the argument that it was a bad move. The entire team is different now, of course, but the immediate impact was obvious. The team was playing well. Then they weren't. They had a very good regular season record, then they had a mediocre one. Virtually the same team had won 7 games in the playoffs before, and then they won 1 in the playoffs after. Trading Webber made the team obviously worse at that time.

The reason we can't jump to the conclusion that Webber's return from injury made the team worse is because there is evidence and arguments (that have been made many times) that it did not, including the performance of the team in the playoffs.

I can't help but still think that you're maintaining a double-standard here because there is also "evidence and arguments (that have been made many times)" that go against your point that you've been dismissing. Sure, one could argue that the Kings played worse after the Webber trade, but I would think that the argument that the Kings played worse after Webber came back from injury is if anything much stronger than your argument because the difference in record (going from tops in the league to .500) is so great that the effect is simply much greater than that of the Webber trade.

But that's not my point. I think that the Kings really did play worse after the Webber trade, just as it was also very clear that the Kings played worse after Webber came back from injury (factors such as "increased difficulty in schedule" do not come close to making up for the difference in performance levels at all--moreover, if one had looked closer, the schedule really didn't get that much harder). The point is that the situation wasn't so simple as Chris Webber coming back and or getting traded is the reason the Kings got worse. The situation is so much more complicated than that. And emotions really do come in when people want to make the past much more simple that it was. Given how poorly C-Webb has played in Philly, I think it's very hard to argue that Kings would've played better if the trade hadn't been made. Almost all the important members of that great Princeton era team, including C-Webb, has gotten significantly worse since then, and it's just a fact of life that players eventually get old and become less effective.

If anything, I have been very impressed with the way the Kings have played during this transition period. They have retooled with youngters like Kevin Martin and veterans like SAR before the ship was ready to sink, and we have now a younger Kings team without having to miss the playoffs. I don't think that Geoff Petrie's every move has been a successful one (the Webber trade, for example, isn't successful, although it didn't hurt either), but overall, I really do think he's done a good job of making changes and keeping the team competitive at the same time.

 

[uolj]

I can't help but still think that you're maintaining a double-standard here because there is also "evidence and arguments (that have been made many times)" that go against your point that you've been dismissing.

Given how poorly C-Webb has played in Philly, I think it's very hard to argue that Kings would've played better if the trade hadn't been made.

It's not hard at all. Just look at what happened. Look at the records before and after. Remember how the team was playing- not major championship threats, but still one of the best in the league. Then remember how they played after. So-so and then out in the first round (to Seattle!).

It is not a double standard because I still haven't heard the arguments refuting that (you even admitted it). In the case of the return from injury, in addition to the more difficult schedule, there were the two important injuries, the improved defense, and the success in the playoffs that outweigh the difference in records. If there were anything like that to help explain the difference in records after the trade and I was ignoring it, then it would be a double standard. But since there isn't, or I haven't heard it, then it still all makes sense.

 

[Roman]

It's not hard at all. Just look at what happened. Look at the records before and after. Remember how the team was playing- not major championship threats, but still one of the best in the league. Then remember how they played after. So-so and then out in the first round (to Seattle!).

So, according to you - Webber was not going to decline the way he has? According to you, if he'd stayed a King his body would have miraculously avoided wearing down and Webber would remain one of the top 5 PFs in the league?

Somehow I doubt it.

Webber broke down. He's not the player we used to see. He's always going to have a place in my heart, but he's not what he once was.

 

[uolj]

So, according to you - Webber was not going to decline the way he has? According to you, if he'd stayed a King his body would have miraculously avoided wearing down and Webber would remain one of the top 5 PFs in the league?

I'm not sure you understand the point. Whether or not Webber has declined since then doesn't have any bearing on whether the Kings got immediately worse when he was traded. He didn't decline immediately the day of the trade (well maybe he did, but that was because of the trade). Whether this deal was a good one depends on:

1. Did the team get clearly better or worse immediately after the trade?
2. Is the team clearly better or worse now than it would have been if the trade did not happen?
3. Will the team be significantly better or worse because of the trade in the next two years or so?

With better or worse referring to ability to win games and compete in the playoffs.

#1 is obvious. The team got worse. The more interesting questions are #2 and #3. I don't understand the point of arguing #1, it seems like a waste of time.

 

[diggining]

It is not a double standard because I still haven't heard the arguments refuting that (you even admitted it).

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me because I certainly didn't admit it. In fact, I had briefly outlined some of those arguments in my prior post:

--the entire team's different--the wear and tear that comes along with age has just caught up with the Kings. Christie and Vlade are now out of the league, and Peja has gotten injured with greater and greater frequency nowadays.

As I have said before, I agree that the Kings played worse. What I do not agree is that we can jump to the conclusion that trading Webber is the reason the Kings got worse. Things are much more complicated than that.

In the case of the return from injury, in addition to the more difficult schedule, there were the two important injuries, the improved defense, and the success in the playoffs that outweigh the difference in records.

As I have said before, the case of the difficult schedule has been made out to be much more of a factor than it actually is--we are talking about a drop from best-of-the-league ball to .500 ball here. As for "success" in the playoffs, this was a Kings team that simply wasn't very successful relative to the relevant standard at hand--the kings were the best team in the league before Webber came back, and had the best offense in the NBA relative to the rest of the league in the past 20 years. They were eliminated in the second round in a close series, which btw was no better than what they have done the past 3 seasons.

As for the injuries, I think that the fact the you brought it up seems to be indication that you didn't really get my point in the first place. I agree with you that we can't jump to the conclusion that C-Webb's at fault for the Kings' collapse. What I have been arguing is that it is clear that the Kings played worse after Webber's return. What is not clear is that Webber's return is the reason the Kings played worse. The injuries you brought up support my argument.

And again, I want to emphasize that much of this is still orthogonal to my main argument. What I have been trying to emphasize is that things are more complicated than people are making them out to be, both in the case of Webber's return from injury and the Webber trade, and we can't just blame C-Webb return or departure for the downturn in the Kings' fortunes.

 

[uolj]

Ok, I guess I did misunderstand you, you did not admit that trading Webber made the Kings worse at the time of the trade ( ).

However, you even quoted me saying that it ("it" meaning my belief that the trade clearly made the team worse but Webber's return from injury did not) is not a double-standard because I haven't heard any arguments that the trade didn't make the team worse. And yet you give three paragraphs about the injury and still haven't given any arguments about the trade! You quoted me saying that there haven't been any arguments made about the trade, and yet you didn't give any.

I agree that the issue can be complicated, and I agree that there are other factors involved, but it seems obvious to me and most others here that separate from all those other factors there was still a clear decline in the team's play. I don't know why you want to argue it.

What's your opinion on #2 and #3 above? That's so much more interesting of a subject.

 

[diggining]

You always respond so quickly! :impressed:

However, you even quoted me saying that it ("it" meaning my belief that the trade clearly made the team worse but Webber's return from injury did not) is not a double-standard because I haven't heard any arguments that the trade didn't make the team worse. And yet you give three paragraphs about the injury and still haven't given any arguments about the trade! You quoted me saying that there haven't been any arguments made about the trade, and yet you didn't give any.

Sorry, but now I'm just confused...I had typed this before, and had quoted this again in my last post:

--the entire team's different--the wear and tear that comes along with age has just caught up with the Kings. Christie and Vlade are now out of the league, and Peja has gotten injured with greater and greater frequency nowadays.

To be fair, I was thinking about how the Kings have played since the Webber trade, and haven't thought about whether the Kings got immediately worse after the trade at all--and I agree with you that really, questions 2 and 3 are the really interesting questions given the Webber trade. Personally, I think that the answer to both 2 and 3 is that the trade made no significant difference in either case. Webber has been very poor, especially awful in the defensive end, for the last 2 years; KT has shown occasional flashes of really good play but has mostly been ineffective. Only the least bloated of the 3 smallest bloated contracts got traded, so financially it didn't make a huge difference--all it did was allow the Maloofs to save some pocket change in the Skinner deal.

So, yeah, unless KT ultimately comes good, which I certainly hope to be true but am skeptical that it will be true, I think the Kings would have been in similar shape now than they had been if they hadn't made the trade (and this is an answer to both questions 2 and 3 because I consider future prospects to be one of the characteristics one can discuss about the current team). Vlade, Christie, and Peja have all been on the decline due mostly to age and injuries over the last several years, and really the Princeton-era Kings were playing on their last hurrah when the Webber trade was made. If anything, I think that Geoff Petrie picked the right times to trade (well, I do remember the Kings were on a winning streak when they made the C-Webb trade--I would've preferred that the Kings not trade anyone when they're hot--but to be fair, the trade deadline was coming up, and I think 2003-2004 was the right time to trade C-Webb if it was ever going to happen) Webb, Christie, and Peja.

 

[uolj]

You always post just as I sit down to the computer.

I think we understand each other now. I agree with most of your comments about #2 and 3, although the question on #3 is still out because it depends in large part on what is done with the contracts that are expiring this year and what could have been done with Webber's contract next year.

 

[diggining]

I think we agree mostly with each other, uolj.

Given that I can't predict the future , obviously #3 is still an unanswered question--we can only make educated guesses. I would have to say though that it seems highly unlikely anyone will be able to do anything with Webber's contract except to let it run out. Expiring contracts are sometimes desirable for teams that want to unload salary, especially to stay under the salary cap, but it's really hard to trade an expiring contract the magnitude of Webber's.

 

[ShatteredVision]

Webber has always lacked the Killer Instinct, the Kings of yesterday were always lacking the Killer Instinct.

Wayman Tisdale is still a winner though...

 

[Troy]

I thought it was a horrible trade at the time. Looking back, I have to say it's worked out even worse than I expected. Our "flexible trading pieces" haven't panned out, and Webb's health has held up better than I expected.

And, I still miss the energy Webb brought to the team. I am wondering how opening night will go tonight, but I miss the days of Webb yelling that we are the best fans in the NBA.

It is/was also more than Webber's playing. He was great in the locker room, in the community, was a franchise guy. There definately was a different Webber after the knee problem, but he still finds ways to be productive and has stayed healthy, much better than people thought. I do like SAR, but I like not only what CWebb was on the court, but also off it.

I feel the same way about Vlade, the $1M we saved on letting him go to the Lakers and keeping Ostertag was a bad move. Not only in what player he was, but so much more the guy he was in the locker room and off the court. We have lost a lot in character as team when we parted ways with CWebb and Vlade. Peja was only going through the motions and getting Artest has been huge. We have to realize that we are in a rebuild and we have still made the playoffs for 8 straight seasons which is amazing. While I like that, I don't see us getting out of the 1st round and out for a little while which is very frustrating.

Besides CWebb, we let Matt Barnes leave which was a good young local Sac kid that was getting becoming quite the fan favorite. I see Cisco as being that player and the two would have been redundant, but I did like Matt and being a local kid in such a tight knit community which is Kingsland was pretty neat.

 

[Warhawk]

FYI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/11/13/truth.rumors.nba/1.html

It's a strange and confusing time for Chris Webber. The 14-year veteran and five-time All-Star, once one of the top two or three power forwards in the game, is struggling with a reduced role that has seen him as likely to be on the 76ers' bench in the fourth quarter as on the court. After yesterday's practice, Webber said solemnly that he has been asked to change his role but that it was "something that I don't think a player like me should adjust to."
-- Philadelphia Inquirer

 

[nbrans]

FYI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/11/13/truth.rumors.nba/1.html

It's a strange and confusing time for Chris Webber. The 14-year veteran and five-time All-Star, once one of the top two or three power forwards in the game, is struggling with a reduced role that has seen him as likely to be on the 76ers' bench in the fourth quarter as on the court. After yesterday's practice, Webber said solemnly that he has been asked to change his role but that it was "something that I don't think a player like me should adjust to."
-- Philadelphia Inquirer

This is why Webber is such a lightning rod. I'm sure there are some people who see in that the pride of a star player who wants to lay it out there for his team, but that quote does not exactly make me pine for him.

 

[uolj]

This is why Webber is such a lightning rod. I'm sure there are some people who see in that the pride of a star player who wants to lay it out there for his team, but that quote does not exactly make me pine for him.

Yeah, exactly what I was going to say. You'd think he'd learn after all this time how to sound humble and selfless.

 

[VF21]

How dare Chris Webber have an ego or any self-confidence...

 

[uolj]

How dare Chris Webber have an ego or any self-confidence...

You know what we're talking about, VF21. You've complained about the same thing time and time again.

Please note the keyword "sound" in my response.

 

[VF21]

As often as I've complained about some of the things Webber said to the press or, more precisely, how things Webber said were taken out of context or intentionally spun to sound as badly as possible, I'm just a little tired of the way some people just want to use anything he says as a reason why it's a good thing he's no longer here.

I know what you're saying, uolj, but at what point is enough just enough? Webber is Webber. He shouldn't have to sound "humble and selfless" to keep people from jumping on his comments. The man is one of the kindest, most generous players ever to don a Kings uniform. A LOT of what he did while he was here and still does has been either ignored by the press or kept quiet because he doesn't like to talk about his generosity ... both of spirit and pocketbook.

I know some of the things he's done for Sacramento and especially some of the underprivileged kids and I think it's just patently unfair that he still be subjected to so much debate about every single word he says...

But I also know it's something that will never change. I just find it truly sad because Webber is a lot more than some people (and I'm speaking in general terms here and not specifically at you) will ever know or give him credit for.