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.