RussoTuristo
G-League
A little bit off topic ... what happened with the Kings and Webber? It looks like he is the only player from that era that has no business with the team?
A little bit off topic ... what happened with the Kings and Webber? It looks like he is the only player from that era that has no business with the team?
"A little bit off topic"? Seriously? That's like saying a discussion of drinking your favorite beverage on the rocks or straight up is "a little bit off topic" from a discussion of the sinking of the Titanic.
Kinda deserves its own thread, but not many people here - including me - want to truly accept the Webber dis. To me he is the greatest of the Sacramento era, but we hung a dirty jersey in the rafters, he did not step up huge in the various "here we stay" campaigns (a few rally appearances only - he was not emphatic from his TNT perch when the chips were down), Shaq's an owner and he isn't, and he blew off the Arco finale. How he missed the Arco finale is just beyond me - scheduling conflicts my ass. Lets see if Dan Fouts misses the final game festivities in Jack Murphy stadium because he has to broadcast a game the next day or whatever. It is bullpoopoo.
Something isn't right there but I don't like to linger on it too long in my own mind because I think HE put us on the map ... anybody who thinks it could have happened without him is kidding himself. Having a blue chip ringer of a PF really really really helps.
Hope CWebb and the Kings reconcile but it really seems like there are hard feelings. Hope I'm wrong.
Well, yes, absolutely seriously. Since people discussed Scot, that team and how they played and the other guys etc., I realized that Webber is the only guy who is not involved with the Kings now at any capacity (yes, while I was reading this particular thread).
My life has been very busy with a new city, new job, new child etc., so I could have missed smth, therefore just asked the question. Yes, it was not about Pollard and his interview, that's why I said it was off topic to avoid someone like you telling me why I asked this question here. I did not want to create a new thread for that and just decided to ask it here, hoping that may be someone will answer here or PM me. It is a pretty quite thread, so I saw no harm.
If you have nothing to say or do not want to answer, just skip it. Take it easy and just save your energy. It is not like I have been spamming all over the thread with it.
I don't quite understand it either.
Wasn't he trying to get investors together to buy the team from the Maloofs at one time?
For what it's worth, the word around the ol' water cooler is that yes, there is a beef between the organization and Webber. The fact that he AND Mitch weren't at the finale wasn't an accident. Webber is pissed that he wasn't offered an ownership stake when he desperately wanted to be a part of the group in any way. They told him no, and then let Mitch invest. Or at least opened the door. Then the way they unceremoniously booted Mitch after Mullin left sealed the deal. Both will have absolutely zero to do with the team now. Nothing.
Do you know more about the Mitch story? I know he's no longer part of the ownership herd. He hardly seemed like a trouble maker no matter what his role.For what it's worth, the word around the ol' water cooler is that yes, there is a beef between the organization and Webber. The fact that he AND Mitch weren't at the finale wasn't an accident. Webber is pissed that he wasn't offered an ownership stake when he desperately wanted to be a part of the group in any way. They told him no, and then let Mitch invest. Or at least opened the door. Then the way they unceremoniously booted Mitch after Mullin left sealed the deal. Both will have absolutely zero to do with the team now. Nothing.
Do you know more about the Mitch story? I know he's no longer part of the ownership herd. He hardly seemed like a trouble maker no matter what his role.