I think I differ in philosophy from Bricklayer and Venom, and dare I say I have a bit more in common philosophically with Petrie. If you look back at past Kings teams, back before Webber's injury, the Kings were the second-best team in basketball, and had a real shot at the title. They were also one of the top defending teams a few years back, and Webber and Divac weren't exactly stalwarts. They didn't accomplsih these things with the traditional structure of having a superstar or two surrounded by role players, they did it by having complete players at every position.
I have to differ a bit with the idea that what the Kings need most is a role player at the 4. It works to have a role players when you're building around a star or two who will dominate the ball, ie, the San Antonio model. But the Kings don't have the luxury of a superstar, and they have to beat teams by being better than the other team at as many positions as possible. They've shown that the model works in the past, it almost won them a championship, and the offense depends on having capable offensive players at every position.
That's not to say that Abdur-Rahim is a complete player by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not convinced that Stromile Swift is going to make the Kings much better. When you can pick up an All-Star, unless his name is Antoine Walker I think you have to go for it.