Kings still have work to do - ESPN Insider

#1sacfan said:
Nobody wants to trade Pedja, they are talking about trading Webber
lol.... Your funny. Im not really a Webber fan but I wouldn't be crazy enough to say that:p

I'd like Webber to head out but only for a deal that would better the team and not make this team alot worse (which every deal possible has been).

With Webbs salary and his unknown condition he is untradable. I don't see why its even an issue to talk about. No GM would be dumb or crazy enough to do a deal... so lets give it a rest people..... sheesh. Please?

If Webber did not come back last year Dallas would've beat us in 4 games. Our defense was pitiful!! Webber made our defense much better.

This team should be much better defesively while sacrificing some offense. I know in the first 10 games we'll here Webber is killing our offense but in the Postseason this team will be much better. Of course thats if Peja gets toilet trained ansd Webbs somewhat healthy.
 
Bricklayer said:
You can keep your book. And yes, we have to go through this as long as you keep raising the issue. Stop, and I promise I will stop replying as well.
I didn't raise the issue. I was responding to a post by Daved, who essentially said: Get rid of Webber at all costs. I disagree. Webber is, when healthy, the Kings' biggest asset. I said that if circumstances -- fear that Webber wouldn't return to anything near peak form or ongoing chemistry issues -- forced the Kings into making a trade, there could be deals out there for him, even at a point where his future is cloudy.

Whether the trades I pulled out of my (ahem) hat were acceptable or not to Kings fans, I think this much is true: Webber's trade value right now is at an all-time low. The best you could hope to get for him -- again, right now -- would be someone to throw into the 4 spot and perhaps a backup or two. Do I advocate doing that? No. But it's unrealistic to think that, until the state of Webber's health is known and he re-establishes himself as a preeminent power forward, that you can trade him for anyone who is going to make fans ooh and ahhh.

Bricklayer said:
" ... the two most easily identifiable weaknesses the Kings have had over the years vis a vis the championship teams have been 1) injuries (NO modern championship team has ever had stars down for their playoff run), and 2) a LACK of dominant players. Neither Webber (close) nor Peja (not as close) is on the same level of greatness as the HOF players that typically head up a championship team.
Couldn't agree with you more. Of course, those who would trade Webber would use both of those points to support their position: CWebb inevitably has injuries that keep him out for long stretches and CWebb lacks something -- be it tangible or intangible -- that will allow him to be the dominant player on a championship level team. That's not a knock on Chris; as someone else mentioned, lots of great players have failed to win championships. Not everyone can be Michael Jordan or Larry Bird. And the Kings have had exceptionally bad luck. But this is reality ...

Bricklayer said:
Now you can trade Webber for anyone you want. But don't kid yourself that that means anything but pure rebuilding for the Kings unless you can somehow magically bring back a HOF type player for Webber. Peja alone is nowhere near the caliber of #1 option that you need to get it done, and you can surround him with as many good but not great players as you want. So if you're going to dump Webber you are almost by defintion going to be getting FURTHER from a title, not closer. And further for us at this point can roughly be translated into "out of the picture".

This team likely gets one more year unless Peja sulks and forces his way out of town. One more shot. There are no teams impossible to beat for us out there, even with our flaws. Everybody else has them too. If we fall short again, I have little doubt Webb will be very much on the table, Adelman will be gone, Bobby will be gone, Doug might be gone, unless we try to play the caproom game, Peja will be dangled. Team will be blown up. But when and if Webb gets moved, its over.
Don't know if I agree with you totally here. While I agree that the NBA is wide open this year -- why not the Kings? -- I remember what Bill Walsh used to say in the heyday of the 49ers: Better to make moves a year too early than a year too late.

Could the Kings be torn apart if they don't win this season? Absolutely, and perhaps at that point it's the right move. I'd like to see the team as currently constructed -- with the addition of someone who can back up both forward positions -- get another shot at winning a championship.

But if the team is broken up, does it mean a total rebuild? Taking Webber out of the equation for a moment, the Kings still have a good, young three-player nucleus in Bibby, Peja and Miller. If you could trade C-Webb for a decent power forward, someone who could ultimately replace DC at two guard and another backup player or draft pick, you wouldn't necessarily have to fall into Charlotte Bobcats territory while the roster is in transition. You might not have a 60-win team for a couple of years, but they could remain competitive and fun to watch while reloading.


Kingsgurl said:
You started that one, telling Brick how to post as a moderator. This discussion was going along quite amicably before that.
Look, we're all Kings fans. Some of us are knowledgable, some of us are just fans with opinions, some of us are just looking for an argument. I'd like to consider myself in the first group. Without giving a resume, let's say that I've followed the NBA religiously since the early 1970s and have a decent connection in the Kings' front office who throws me a bone from time to time.

I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with other fans. The value of this board as opposed to others is that it has a higher than average number of passionate, fans who know a thing or two about the NBA. But even if some of the poster are a bit off on their facts or have an opinion that is in the minority, we can disagree, correct or make suggestions respectfully and cordially, without sarcasm or snarkiness.

I think it's perfectly fair game to have some fun with someone who suggests, for example, trading Darius Songaila for Shaq. But if someone takes the time to go to realgm.com and suggest a trade that has some logic in the context of the salary cap and the board discussion, we shouldn't be so quickly dismissive. It seems to me that there's a rather cliqueish attitude on this board at times; anything that X says is peachy keen, anything that Y says is automatically wrong. That's a disservice to those of us who just want to have some fun talking basketball.

Thanks for "hearing" me out.
 
thedofd said:
Couldn't agree with you more. Of course, those who would trade Webber would use both of those points to support their position: CWebb inevitably has injuries that keep him out for long stretches and CWebb lacks something -- be it tangible or intangible -- that will allow him to be the dominant player on a championship level team. That's not a knock on Chris; as someone else mentioned, lots of great players have failed to win championships. Not everyone can be Michael Jordan or Larry Bird. And the Kings have had exceptionally bad luck. But this is reality ...
I think that the last time Webber was healthy, he had that something extra - both tangible and intangible - that would have put us over the top. I'm willing to give him a chance to show that he still has it, rather than move him as a knee-jerk reaction to the poor ending of the season. Many of the people who are convinced that we need to purge this team of all things Webber were convinced of that several years ago; the last two months of the season only put them even further over the edge.

Reality is that, without Webber (or a player who can do what he can do when healthy), we are a lot further away from a championship than we are with him. Especially when you start talking about "addition by subtraction." A gaping hole at power forward is NOT the answer; neither is Darius Songaila.

I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with other fans. The value of this board as opposed to others is that it has a higher than average number of passionate, fans who know a thing or two about the NBA. But even if some of the poster are a bit off on their facts or have an opinion that is in the minority, we can disagree, correct or make suggestions respectfully and cordially, without sarcasm or snarkiness.
Many disagree with you, and openly lobby for the right to post however they see fit, whether some people feel that it's rude or not. In the future, the best way to address a concern with the way another poster posts (Brick was posting as a member of the board, not a moderator), is to address him/her privately about it.
 
1

#1sacfan

Guest
thedofd said:
Look, we're all Kings fans. Some of us are knowledgable, some of us are just fans with opinions, some of us are just looking for an argument. I'd like to consider myself in the first group. Without giving a resume, let's say that I've followed the NBA religiously since the early 1970s and have a decent connection in the Kings' front office who throws me a bone from time to time.

I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with other fans. The value of this board as opposed to others is that it has a higher than average number of passionate, fans who know a thing or two about the NBA. But even if some of the poster are a bit off on their facts or have an opinion that is in the minority, we can disagree, correct or make suggestions respectfully and cordially, without sarcasm or snarkiness.

I think it's perfectly fair game to have some fun with someone who suggests, for example, trading Darius Songaila for Shaq. But if someone takes the time to go to realgm.com and suggest a trade that has some logic in the context of the salary cap and the board discussion, we shouldn't be so quickly dismissive. It seems to me that there's a rather cliqueish attitude on this board at times; anything that X says is peachy keen, anything that Y says is automatically wrong. That's a disservice to those of us who just want to have some fun talking basketball.

Thanks for "hearing" me out.
Great Post. This is what I have been saying here for a long time. There is a group of people here who share some of the same opinions and there opinions (as well as the mods) have now become FACT on this site and anyone that disagrees with them is either crazy or stupid or not even worth listening to.

Keep on posting brother, at least one person on this board respects you.
 
M

Markezi

Guest
Superman said:
Do you agree that the Kings are better and more capable of winning a championship with a 90% Webber than they are without him?

Before you answer, consider 2003, when Webber was probably between 75-80% healthy all season long (back problems, ankle problems, knee problems, hand problems). We finished 59-23, and when everybody was clicking, Webber went down. We lost to an inferior team that many were expecting us to sweep, mostly because they had no answer for Webber.

Then think about 2002, when we were at our absolute closest. No Peja, but the Webber-Bibby tandem got us to Game 7 of the WCF.

I get the sneaky suspicion that Webber could win the MVP and we could win 60 games, and you'd still want him gone. Excuse me for saying this, but there's a difference between thinking that we could be a better team without a certain player having a personal vendetta against a person and just wanting him gone no matter what, even if it's a one step forward, two steps back type of thing.

How does getting rid of Webber make us a better team?
Well..wait - I never said we were a better team, just a healthier, happier team with a brighter future. However, I agree with thedoft that I don't think it's entirely irrational to believe that we just may be a better team without him. We sure were last year in every regard.

And you're right about my perception of Webber even in the face of a (complete fantasy) MVP award and 60 games won. I am a Kings fan, period, and I have been since the day they arrived. Players come and go. Some I've liked, some I haven't. The fact that I believe Webber is bad for this city and bad for this team (both on and off the court) does not make me less of a fan - in fact, it makes me MORE of a fan because I'm standing up for what the team means to me. The fact that some people on this board (not speaking to you) can't respect that speaks volumes about their inability to understand that fans come in every shape and size. Just because we can't be lumped into an adolescent and entirely restrictive definition, our opinions are perceived as "attacks" on the "sanctity" of the Kings.

Actually, it's more humorous than anything!

Still - you use the word "vendetta" - that's ridiculous. I would say it's a difficult but necessary decision to make when looking at the big picture. Portland started making those decisions last year, and they appear to have (just in the nick of time) saved their fan base. I don't think it's productive, healthy, or a good business decision by any regard NOT to consider these factors when judging the impact of a player to a franchise - both on and off the court.

And I do agree that in 2002-2003 we probably had the best chance ever to win it all before Webber went down. But THAT'S the point. The consistency in his injuries. The consistency of his off the court distractions. The consistency in his lies and poor decisions.

The mark of a great player (or great person) is consistently making good decisions. Always displaying integrity. Making others around him better. Chris Webber is none of these things.
 
Markezi said:
The mark of a great player (or great person) is consistently making good decisions. Always displaying integrity. Making others around him better. Chris Webber is none of these things.
What's funny is that Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Mcgrady, and half of the other "great" players in the league aren't either.
 
Just some clarification...

>2002-03 rotation: ... Chris (whom you conveniently left out of your synopsis, which is curious since he was 23/10/5, played more consistently and bailed us out in the clutch several times that year) ...
I assumed you were asking if this team sans Webber was better than that team sans Webber, so that's how I answered the question. If you are asking if this team without Webber (which I think would likely have a better chance at winning than this team with Webber) is better than that team with Webber before he was injured, then I would say no. But that doesn't change my argument at all. Webber was much better then than I think he will be this year, the chemistry was much better then than it likely could be this year, and the style of offense and defense fit the team better then that it will this year. Besides, that 2003 team had a great chance of winning a championship, I don't have to think this year's team without Webber will be better to prefer them over the other potential alternatives.

>I didn't raise the issue. I was responding to a post by Daved, who essentially said: Get rid of Webber at all costs.
I actually said I'd being willing to trade Webber for a blow-up doll, and it is not such a far-fetched idea that doing so could help the team. Getting rid of Webber at all costs is an idea espoused by Kings fans who dislike him. There is a difference. I still think the Kings have a shot at the championship this year with him, and I will be happy to root for him and them to do well.
 
>How does getting rid of Webber make us a better team?

That is the real question, and IMHO many of the arguments made against that idea are irrelevant ... I actually agree with them.

Let me attempt to summarize my reasoning. I am not trying to criticize Webber with any of these points:

1. Team morale will be higher. Yes, some of the players will be unhappy about losing Webber, but few of them get so upset about stuff like that that they act out, maybe Bobby Jackson would be the most affected. I do think Stojakovic would get a boost. I think the biggest and most important gain would be from the removal of the catalyst for a lot of the drama that currently surrounds the team. Some teams can fight through internal discord to perform well, I don't think this one can.

2. Peja will play better. I understand that Peja played well with Webber for several years, but things change. I expect him to have a good year this season also, even without Webber getting traded. But with Webber gone, Stojakovic would improve his mentality and his game. A slightly different offensive focus (see below) and less stress from locker room drama (see above) would help him. Part of the reason Peja didn't show up in the playoffs, IMO, is because he wasn't able to handle the drama. Reduce the drama, increase productivity.

3. The offense will improve. Webber is a talented player, but unless his athleticism comes roaring back, he will slow down the Kings offense. I expect him to be a little better and a little more consistent next year, but not that much. With Miller at the high post and a more up-tempo offense with a greater focus on Stojakovic's shooting and back door cuts again, the scoring will be better. Even though it is not an offense that is built for today's playoffs, it can still be effective - more so than the offense of this past year. Webber, even when hobbled, provides offensive output... I just think the offensive output generated in his absence would be greater.

4. The defense will be adequate, definitely better than it was without Webber last year. Miller will be at center most of the time, better than Vlade was. Most likely, a decent starting PF will be in place who can defend at PF as well as Miller could. Bibby, Christie, and Stojakovic will still be there.


It is true that some of the benefits above could be achieved without Webber leaving, I just think it is more likely that Webber is traded than any of that happens. A lot of this stuff is conjecture, who knows what would actually happen, but where are the flaws in these arguments?
 
Markezi said:
Well..wait - I never said we were a better team, just a healthier, happier team with a brighter future. However, I agree with thedoft that I don't think it's entirely irrational to believe that we just may be a better team without him. We sure were last year in every regard.
Aside from defense, of course.

I think we have a better shot having an above average defense and an above average offense than we do having the best offense and one of the worst defenses.

And you're right about my perception of Webber even in the face of a (complete fantasy) MVP award and 60 games won. I am a Kings fan, period, and I have been since the day they arrived. Players come and go. Some I've liked, some I haven't. The fact that I believe Webber is bad for this city and bad for this team (both on and off the court) does not make me less of a fan - in fact, it makes me MORE of a fan because I'm standing up for what the team means to me. The fact that some people on this board (not speaking to you) can't respect that speaks volumes about their inability to understand that fans come in every shape and size. Just because we can't be lumped into an adolescent and entirely restrictive definition, our opinions are perceived as "attacks" on the "sanctity" of the Kings.
It may be complete fantasy, but that's not the point. The point is that I don't think you agree that Chris Webber can ever mean anything good for the Kings or the city of Sacramento. I believe it was you who downplayed his voluntary charity and community service; if not, I apologize. But my point still stands: you don't like Chris Webber, no matter what.

And that has nothing to do with what I think about what kind of fan you are; you're right that some people support their teams in different ways. No problem with that.

Actually, it's more humorous than anything!

Still - you use the word "vendetta" - that's ridiculous. I would say it's a difficult but necessary decision to make when looking at the big picture. Portland started making those decisions last year, and they appear to have (just in the nick of time) saved their fan base. I don't think it's productive, healthy, or a good business decision by any regard NOT to consider these factors when judging the impact of a player to a franchise - both on and off the court.
Portland was no longer a contender when they started gutting their team in order to save face.

And I agree with you about considering these factors; I don't agree with the conclusions you've come to, that it's necessary to get rid of Webber, or that it's profitable to leave a wide open hole at power forward. People were upset that we didn't pursue Jimmy and that we let Vlade walk. What if we get rid of Webber and concede that we're not winning anything in the next two or three years? I don't think that's a good business or basketball decision.

And I do agree that in 2002-2003 we probably had the best chance ever to win it all before Webber went down. But THAT'S the point. The consistency in his injuries. The consistency of his off the court distractions. The consistency in his lies and poor decisions.
Okay. I agree that his injuries have hurt us. No way anyone can argue that. But some people take that and run with it.

The mark of a great player (or great person) is consistently making good decisions. Always displaying integrity. Making others around him better. Chris Webber is none of these things.
I don't really feel comfortable commenting on this. I'm not nearly as concerned with the type of person Chris Webber is as you are. Maybe I'm not as good a fan as you. But I DO know that this TEAM is better with a relatively healthy Webber in the lineup than it is with no starting caliber power forward, especially in the Western conference.
 
Markezi said:
The mark of a great player (or great person) is consistently making good decisions. Always displaying integrity. Making others around him better. Chris Webber is none of these things.
Absolutely correctomundo. Couldn't agree more. Nice summation.:)
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
JoMama - And in reply to Markezi's post, I think kingsnation made a very good point, too:

kingsnation said:
What's funny is that Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Mcgrady, and half of the other "great" players in the league aren't either.
Consistently making good decisions? Granted, Webber has made his share of bad ones. Most other humans on this planet have, too. Most of us are just lucky enough that ours aren't splashed all over the news and brought up years and years after the fact.

Always displaying integrity? See above.

Making others around him better? I'd be interested in seeing this one explained. I think Webber has brought out the best in his teammates. Of course, no one plays their best all the time. In addition, these are professional NBA players. They should be able to take each other's game higher. I think Webber has done that - and apparently his teammates think so, too. More than once Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson and Mike Bibby have commented on Webber's drive, desire, etc. While some may question his methods, I don't think anyone can question Webber's motives. He wants the guys around him to play their best. He wants to play his best. He wants to win the NBA title.

Yes, I think Webber has made some mistakes. I think because he IS Chris Webber those mistakes have been bigger, bolder and more publicized than someone not in the eye of sports fans since college.

Regardless of how people may feel about Webber the person, I think they should at least be objective in what he brings to the game. Every year the Kings put out Media Guides. Most players are lucky to get two pages, which includes all their career highlights. Chris Webber has four pages. The list of his accomplishments is long and impressive.

Had he not gone down with the knee injury, required surgery, had the extensive recovery period, etc. his list would have kept growing. As it is, there were still some additions because of his play in the playoffs.

Until the season starts and we actually see just how far back he has come, all this talk of how much better the Kings would be without him is IMHO as a long-time Kings fan simply naive. Yes, you may dislike the person but to condemn the player before you even see how much he can contribute to the team is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
A

AriesMar27

Guest
Until Peja shows up in the playoffs and leads this team somewhere, none of you have the right to bash Webber like this.... If he had played as bad as Peja has in the playoffs, he would be gone by now.

People talk about how Webber doesnt like to take the big shots but fail to realize that he took everyother shot before that. If Peja had lead the team past Dallas in 2003, then maybe you could make the argument about Webber, but we all know how that ended. Why is it that no one rips Peja?

Peja has a bad game, blame Webber for not setting good enough screens.... who sets screens for Webber? not Peja.... When you are 6'10 and a 6'6 SG shuts you down, you have no one to blame but yourself. He should have been post Hassell up all series long, but he didnt and got burned for it. He didnt even guard Hassell that well either, Hassell put up All-star numbers against Peja. He should have had like 3 or 4 blocks a game against him and Hoidberg.

Its because of Peja inability to take control of the game that got Bibby in so much trouble. If Peja was on, Spreewell wouldnt have been guarding Bibby and Hoidberg wouldnt have been playing so many minutes. Peja was off, so the put spree on Bibby, with Bibby out there was no need for a PG so Hassell and Hoidberg got crazy minutes and nailed shots all night.

Blame Peja for our shortcomings not Webber, Webb was 3 points, 2 rebounds and 1 assist away from averaging his career numbers on one leg going up against the MVP and Peja got shutdown by a SG that is 4 inches shorter than him.
 
VF21 said:
Consistently making good decisions? Granted, Webber has made his share of bad ones. Most other humans on this planet have, too. Most of us are just lucky enough that ours aren't splashed all over the news and brought up years and years after the fact.
I agree with everything you said about Webber's game and what he brings to the court.

Webber makes mistakes as all of us do and they are unfairly splashed in front of the world to see, but does he admit that they are mistakes and take responsibilty for them? Does he make excuses for things? Does he apologize to those who counted on him when he makes mistakes? I don't know, maybe he does and I just don't hear it.

I will not argue his talent or his on court abilities, he does make the Kings a better skilled basketball team. I don't dislike him at all and I hope he does well wherever he goes, but I don't see a reason to defend his off court behavior. Making the argument that because we all make mistakes that somehow validates Chris Webber's doesn't make it Ok. Making mistakes is human. What determines character is the reaction to those mistakes or how we deal with them. That is where I have issues with Chris Webber.
 
kingsnation said:
What's funny is that Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Mcgrady, and half of the other "great" players in the league aren't either.
really good point. come to think of it, i think that everyone one must have done something or the other wrong or everyone has their weakness.
so i think that the important thing to look at is the player's commitment towards winning and I have no doubt that he showed that a lot during the last season.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
allrightythen said:
I agree with everything you said about Webber's game and what he brings to the court.

Webber makes mistakes as all of us do and they are unfairly splashed in front of the world to see, but does he admit that they are mistakes and take responsibilty for them? Does he make excuses for things? Does he apologize to those who counted on him when he makes mistakes? I don't know, maybe he does and I just don't hear it.

I will not argue his talent or his on court abilities, he does make the Kings a better skilled basketball team. I don't dislike him at all and I hope he does well wherever he goes, but I don't see a reason to defend his off court behavior. Making the argument that because we all make mistakes that somehow validates Chris Webber's doesn't make it Ok. Making mistakes is human. What determines character is the reaction to those mistakes or how we deal with them. That is where I have issues with Chris Webber.
I don't defend his off-court behavior so much as I try and minimize its importance to the task at hand. ON the court Chris Webber is one of the best PFs in the game today. Sure, he has feet of clay and he doesn't accept responsibility for all his mistakes. Quite frankly, I don't care if his feet are clay if they can fit into those DaDas and put up 20-10-5 on a regular basis. And if he doesn't accept responsibility for all his mistakes, so be it. He's not perfect, but then again neither are most of us. We all have character flaws. It is written: Judge not, lest ye be judged. In the case of Webber, I think all too often his weaknesses are fodder for the public grist while his strengths are pushed back into the shadows.

I guess it boils down to what you expect of a professional athlete who plays on your favorite team. NOT what you would like as an ideal situation, but what you actually expect and will tolerate. IMPO I believe too often athletes are expected to be not only highly skilled at the game but perfect human beings off the court as well. It doesn't happen in real life, so I don't understand the idea that it should happen in the NBA.

Just my three cents...
 
M

Markezi

Guest
kingsnation said:
What's funny is that Shaq, Kobe, Iverson, Mcgrady, and half of the other "great" players in the league aren't either.
Obvoiusly this is the truth (some at different levels than others). The state of the NBA is highly questionable in my opinion. Valuing individual over team. Making instant stars out of people without having proven anything on the court. Clearly our international play has taken these issues to the forefront.

It's a dangerous path to think that a player is ever more important than a team or an organization, and it happens all the time. I kind of feel it's our duty to acknowledge this and recognize it when it starts to happen (and to speak out).
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
The problem is that we can remain competitive without Webber -- of that I have little doubt. But we are NOT championship contenders without him. And the only way we can make ourselves championship contenders without him is to somehow get our hands on another player of that caliber, or preferably even a half step up. But you just can't do that if you're a capped out small market team hanging around on the fringes of the playoff picture, which is what we are if we're led by a middling Peja/Miller/Bibby trifecta. Good, but not good enough. Peja in particular is totally ineffective against exactly the two teams (Spurs/Wolves) that we have to go through to get to the Finals. They have Peja stoppers who have whipped him consistently with Webb in the lineup or without. Legendary championship leading players do not have stoppers they cannot beat.

So how do you get your hands on that legitimate superstar/goto guy/HOF type player to lead you to the promised land without caproom, in an unattractive market to free agents, and without high draft picks? The answer is you really don't unless you can pull off a trade for him. And of course not only are very few guys of that caliber actually available, but to get them you have to trade away a huge chunk of your existing talent and may not have enough left to get a ring even WITH that leader.

Which brings us back to Webb. Damaged goods for sure. But damaged or not, he remains what he has always been -- as talented as any non-HOF player in the league. You would love to have better, but better's not out there and available. What we need is exactly what Webber CAN be. He CAN be "the man", "the straw that stirs the drink" etc. Will he be? As always there is significant doubt there. And for that reason, sure, it would be great to have an equally talented player instead who was also younger, tougher, and more durable. But seeing as that player does not exist, or if he does is almost surely unattainable for a team in the Kings position, Webber once again remains the Kings best hope of getting it done. Once he's gone, you face the prospect of a long long drought while you try to get your hands on another player at least as good, or maybe even better.

Three years ago we came within a single FT of winning the championship with Webber and basically WITHOUT Peja. Two years ago we were favored to win the championship until we lost Webber in the playoffs. The only team with a legit chance to stop us was San Antonio, who was all kinds of shaky themselves. It hasn't been THAT long since a Webber led Kings squad was knocking long and hard on that championship door. Really a single season of discontent when you get down to it.

One final note, you NEVER buy high sell low. Never sell when an asset is at its lowest ebb of value. Or you'll soon be broke.
 
Bricklayer said:
The problem is that we can remain competitive without Webber -- of that I have little doubt. But we are NOT championship contenders without him. And the only way we can make ourselves championship contenders without him is to somehow get our hands on another player of that caliber, or preferably even a half step up. But you just can't do that if you're a capped out small market team hanging around on the fringes of the playoff picture, which is what we are if we're led by a middling Peja/Miller/Bibby trifecta. Good, but not good enough. ...
So how do you get your hands on that legitimate superstar/goto guy/HOF type player to lead you to the promised land without caproom, in an unattractive market to free agents, and without high draft picks? The answer is you really don't unless you can pull off a trade for him.
Agree with nearly everything you'd say. The only observation I'd like to add is that if you had told me last year that the Utah Jazz would end up with both Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur, I would have said you were high. In other words -- with the notable exception of the Atlanta Hawks -- available cap room seems in many cases to trump market size and playoff potential.

Again, let me be clear: I'm not advocating dumping CWebb. But if the Kings decided that was the route to go -- essentially made an institutional decision that the team as currently constructed cannot win a championship -- what would the cap ramifications be? Are the existing contracts of their other players scheduled to increase so much as to make signing a significant free agent impossible? Just asking.

The ultimate goal is to win a championship. But a parallel goal is important too: never fall into lottery land again.

Bricklayer said:
One final note, you NEVER buy high sell low. Never sell when an asset is at its lowest ebb of value. Or you'll soon be broke.
True enough ... unless, of course, you have insider information that your asset's value is on the verge of taking a major tumble. Just ask Martha Stewart.
 
M

Markezi

Guest
Brick, I have to say I completely agree with your last post.

The only thing I'd add is that even though we were "close" to winning it in the past, we haven't. And we all know what game is the only game "close" matters in.

It will be more difficult than ever to get that close again this year. True, it might be more likely to get close with a VERY healthy Webber (although I might argue that), but I still see no evidence that he could ever push this team over the top. He's never been that player before - even before he was injured/arrested/over 30.
 
Bricklayer said:
The problem is that we can remain competitive without Webber -- of that I have little doubt. But we are NOT championship contenders without him. And the only way we can make ourselves championship contenders without him is to somehow get our hands on another player of that caliber, or preferably even a half step up. But you just can't do that if you're a capped out small market team hanging around on the fringes of the playoff picture, which is what we are if we're led by a middling Peja/Miller/Bibby trifecta. Good, but not good enough. Peja in particular is totally ineffective against exactly the two teams (Spurs/Wolves) that we have to go through to get to the Finals. They have Peja stoppers who have whipped him consistently with Webb in the lineup or without. Legendary championship leading players do not have stoppers they cannot beat.
Bricklayer- Liked your whole post & especially this part. Thanks for pointing out that the regular season & the playoffs are very different. Although Peja & the rest of the team had an awesome run at the beginning of last season (& they had an easy schedule which didn't hurt) that team was not going to make it in the playoffs without Webber coming back. Webber coming back gave us the best possible chance to make a championship run last year, and I believe the results may have been different if Bobby was healthy. Of course, I'm of the very objective point of view that we'd have a couple of championships under our belt if we could just stay healthy in the playoffs! Without Webber (or a player like him) we'd be a team like Dallas (or at least Dallas before the shake up) where even if we flew through the season without problems we would not be equipped to make a serious run for the ring.
 
M

Markezi

Guest
love_them_kings said:
Bricklayer- Liked your whole post & especially this part. Thanks for pointing out that the regular season & the playoffs are very different. Although Peja & the rest of the team had an awesome run at the beginning of last season (& they had an easy schedule which didn't hurt) that team was not going to make it in the playoffs without Webber coming back.
We do not know this. Actually, I would argue the opposite. Adelman himself admitted he believed this too, and that his decision didn't work.

love_them_kings said:
Of course, I'm of the very objective point of view that we'd have a couple of championships under our belt if we could just stay healthy in the playoffs! Without Webber (or a player like him) we'd be a team like Dallas (or at least Dallas before the shake up) where even if we flew through the season without problems we would not be equipped to make a serious run for the ring.
If. Every losing team in the NBA can say "if."

If Webber hadn't been able to come back at all last season and decided to rehab over the summer, we may have gotten the first seed, trounced Denver, gotten past the second round of the playoffs, and have been in line to contend for the WCF and ultimately the title.
 
i gotta agree with markezi. last year, at least, we looked like a fine tuned machine heading towards the playoffs. now we know what happened when CWebb came back, and all that good stuff. but nobody can say what would have happened if he had stayed on the bench. true, we had a tougher schedule, and we lost bobby jackson, but if we are to guess from the point when webb came back, we were owning the leauge. pedja was dropping points like never before, and actually had confidence himself without webber to back him up. i would have liked to have seen us toward the playoffs without webb. just to see what would have happened.
 
Markezi said:
We do not know this. Actually, I would argue the opposite. Adelman himself admitted he believed this too, and that his decision didn't work.
Where did you hear that? Everything I heard is to the contrary. Adelman has said he made the right decision. That the best decision was too bring back Webb a bit early.

If. Every losing team in the NBA can say "if."

If Webber hadn't been able to come back at all last season and decided to rehab over the summer, we may have gotten the first seed, trounced Denver, gotten past the second round of the playoffs, and have been in line to contend for the WCF and ultimately the title.
Ive watched this current nucleus of Kings for 6 years and saw just about every game last year. I saw an absolutely pitiful defensive team till Webb came back. Theres no way the Pre-Webb Kings would've gotten the #1 seed.

We made scrubs on alot of teams look like freakin All-Stars. Letting the opposition go to the basket untouched on what seemed every play at times was very frustrating. We looked like the Dallas Mavericks for crying out loud. Now how bad is that?:p

Our #1 offensive team was only because our defense was soooo bad. Im sure I wasnt the only one to see that our lack of defense was not going to cut it. It was discussed here on the site a few times.(Which turned into one of those optimists vs pessimists threads:p ) Adelman did what he thought was right. He had no choice.


heck, I like this years team much better. We should actually be able to defend;)

Edit: actually most of that post was reaction to Grobars post not necessarily Markezi's
 
Last edited:
slugking50 said:
Where did you hear that? Everything I heard is to the contrary. Adelman has said he made the right decision. That the best decision was too bring back Webb a bit early.
Just to add on to what Slugking said: If I still had it, I would post the transcript, but in his interview with Grant Napear after the season, he was asked point blank (regarding Chris Webber) knowing what you know now, would you do things differently? Rick Aldeman say and I " No. Absolutely not. I wouldn't"

And he said this to Mark Kreidler:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/9518881p-10442688c.html

Q: You made a decision with your team at 43-15 that you had to get Chris Webber minutes. There's a popular body of thought - dunno if it's a majority, but a popular body of thought - that when Chris came back, the chemistry just went south.

A:
I didn't know how it was going to go. I just knew I had a guy who was our best player for five years, who could do things that a lot of people in this league never dream of doing, a big guy who had the mentality to be The Guy. Our other big guys don't have that mentality, to take 20 shots make or miss, and be an impact player - I mean, he's an impact player in this league. Now, he comes back, he says he feels good, he needs to play to get better. We're going to have to find out where he's at. When do you find that out? So, to me, it was pretty obvious what you had to do. You had to put him in the lineup.

Unfortunately, yeah, we didn't play as well. But I think people always forget, Bobby was out, Brad was banged up, the schedule got tougher. I guess this sounds easy for me to say, but I'd ask people what they would have done. Sat him down and played him 20 minutes a game? I guess I could have done that ... But I do know one thing: I know the dynamics of the team. And I know that I had three solid big guys, and I needed to find out what Chris could and couldn't do, and how he could help this team. And I had two other big guys who were willing to do whatever it took to find out.

I never doubted my decision. It was the right thing to do for this team. I don't know what else you do in that circumstance.

Q: Part of that conversation is the thought that Brad and Vlade played so well together, and Peja was such a huge part of that equation when they were all on the floor together, to some extent because those guys aren't going to take the number of shots that Webber will take.

A:
It definitely changed, because Brad and Vlade play a different type game. But the thing I would say is, Chris Webber was there. He was there for five years for us. He was an All Pro for us. It wasn't like I had a decision: "OK, I'm bringing Chris back. Do I play him or not play him?" No. I mean, he's there. So what am I supposed to do, not play him because Brad and Vlade are playing well together? Hey, San Antonio played well without Tim Duncan. Were they going to tell him to step aside when he came back? When Mike Bibby was hurt, Bobby Jackson played so great for us at the start of that (2002-03) season. But when Mike came back, Mike is a part of this team.

To me, it was almost like Chris was a lightning rod for everything. If he played well, all was right in the world. If the team didn't win, and he didn't play so good, then he was all that was wrong with the world - well, and me, too. That's just the reality.

If there's anything I was disappointed with, it was the way we finished the regular season and the way we approached those games - and don't just put that on Chris Webber. There were a lot of people on our team who didn't play well the last two weeks of the season.


Q:
Did you ever figure out why?

A:
I think it had to do with the fact that we were struggling as a team. For the first time, you saw a little bit of tiredness in the group, just going through it all. And the schedule just turned brutal. It was hard to get any kind of run going and maintain it, because of the way we were playing and the way the schedule broke. No excuse for it, but in trying to figure it out, there just wasn't the energy level that you needed at the end of the season. And I can't tell you why, because it suddenly appeared again in the Dallas (playoff) series
 
Grobar said:
i gotta agree with markezi. last year, at least, we looked like a fine tuned machine heading towards the playoffs. now we know what happened when CWebb came back, and all that good stuff. but nobody can say what would have happened if he had stayed on the bench.
Doesn't really matter how fined tuned that machine was. If Rick decided to sit Webb for the whole season and if Bobby decided to still sit, look at our short rotation:

bibby peeler
doug peeler
pedja buford
brad darius
vlade darius

and if i remember correctly we didnt have brad for a game or two in the first round against the mavs.

Grobar said:
i would have liked to have seen us toward the playoffs without webb. just to see what would have happened.
the result would probably be the same as last year, knocked out of the playoffs
 
Last edited:
M

Markezi

Guest
ReinadelosReys said:
Just to add on to what Slugking said: If I still had it, I would post the transcript, but in his interview with Grant Napear after the season, he was asked point blank (regarding Chris Webber) knowing what you know now, would you do things differently? Rick Aldeman say and I " No. Absolutely not. I wouldn't"
Thanks for posting the article. It can definitely be interpreted a number of different ways. I interpreted it as Adelman saying that it never crossed his mind NOT to give Chris the role he'd always had - even in the wake of everything that had happened (injury, drug problem, chemistry working well). If they won - Webber would get the credit (but only if he deserved it IMO - heck, Bibby got all the credit in 2002 - not Webber), and if they lost, Webber would get the blame.

The fact is, they did lose, so therefore, is it not fair to say that Rick's decision didn't work?

This line kills me, "I never doubted my decision. It was the right thing to do for this team. I don't know what else you do in that circumstance."

Does anyone still believe it was the right thing to do for this team? Even Rick? I just have to question being satisfied with a 2nd round exit, a plummet from 1st to 4th seed, and the ripping apart of the team and its chemistry.

Rick even throws this out, "I guess this sounds easy for me to say, but I'd ask people what they would have done. Sat him down and played him 20 minutes a game? I guess I could have done that"

Yes, it was an option. Still, I respect Adelman enough to understand his decision, and then to realize, too late, that his decision had serious flaws, but with the playoffs starting, there was no going back on it.
 
Markezi said:
Does anyone still believe it was the right thing to do for this team? Even Rick? I just have to question being satisfied with a 2nd round exit, a plummet from 1st to 4th seed, and the ripping apart of the team and its chemistry.
First of all, Webber did not cost us 1st to 4th. There were many other factors which have been mentioned over and over again. Stop ignoring them, the deserve some mention.
Also, if not fr Webb in the playoffs. We are a first round exit. Look at the stats.