Webber trade, revisited...
- Thread starter mcsluggo
- Start date
I was not at Kingsfans when the trade happened. However, I fully supported the trade when it happened and the current state of the Kings does not change my mind about the big trade. I have not posted or voted in this thread because I have moved on with my life. Perhaps, there are others like me who also supported the trade then and now that just no longer want to bother with it.
If we had kept CWebb here through the remainder of his contract I cannot even imagine the sh** storm that would be occurring right now. Paying a guy who was a shell of his previous self an average of 20 million a year for 4 years would have created a very ugly situation. Very likely a much worse situation than we have now. Be glad that the legacy of the CWebb years remains in tact. If he would have remained on the Kings and we watched him struggle on that knee for an additional 3 years his legacy here may have been completely destroyed along with his knee.
The destruction of Chris' knee was a horrible accident for this franchise. It was not his fault, it was not GPs fault or the Maloofs or K9s. The finger pointing, the name calling (like trash, garbage and even excrement) and the general mal-contentment around here is disheartening.
Is it possible to be a little more supportive of the Kings while they try to improve?
I still voted like/like, although admittedly things haven't turned out so rosy. The reason I still voted like/like is that the trade should have afforded the opportunity to kick off the rebuilding process early by shaking the team out of the Webber-centric mindset, by giving some, yes, flexibility leading into this offseason and by letting off some of the cap pressures by dividing up the resources into several players who collectively still weren't that much worse than Webber.
However, whatever opportunities were afforded by the Webber trade were completely squandered by the failure to make any trades (whether or not that's Petrie's fault, that's the end result), by the inability to find any semblence of a team leader, by the rotten chemistry, by the inexplicable Mikki Moore signing, and by the dogged resistance to rebuilding that the Moore signing represents. It was a classic rebuilding move..... only we're still not really rebuilding, or if we are, we're rebuilding in incompetent fashion.
So I still think the Webber trade was the right first move, and just because things have been screwed up after that doesn't mean the trade itself (considered in a vacuum) was necessarily the wrong move at the time. I thought the move was a stab at beginning the rebuilding process, both philosophically and by getting most of Webber's salary off the cap sooner to speed up the process. However, that's not exactly the way things turned out.
However, whatever opportunities were afforded by the Webber trade were completely squandered by the failure to make any trades (whether or not that's Petrie's fault, that's the end result), by the inability to find any semblence of a team leader, by the rotten chemistry, by the inexplicable Mikki Moore signing, and by the dogged resistance to rebuilding that the Moore signing represents. It was a classic rebuilding move..... only we're still not really rebuilding, or if we are, we're rebuilding in incompetent fashion.
So I still think the Webber trade was the right first move, and just because things have been screwed up after that doesn't mean the trade itself (considered in a vacuum) was necessarily the wrong move at the time. I thought the move was a stab at beginning the rebuilding process, both philosophically and by getting most of Webber's salary off the cap sooner to speed up the process. However, that's not exactly the way things turned out.
^brave man. 
shouldn't the vote then be like/hate, because you do not in hindsight how it did turn out?
shouldn't the vote then be like/hate, because you do not in hindsight how it did turn out?
So I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Eh? If you don't like the end result, what other way is there to look at it?
You cannot, in fact, look at the trade in a vacuum, because it actually happened in real life. You can look at hypothetical trades in a vacuum, but this one is an indelible part of our team's history, and you have to evaluate the trade based on what moves were made as a result of that trade, and what has happened since then.
You cannot, in fact, look at the trade in a vacuum, because it actually happened in real life. You can look at hypothetical trades in a vacuum, but this one is an indelible part of our team's history, and you have to evaluate the trade based on what moves were made as a result of that trade, and what has happened since then.
I disagree. For example: Kevin Martin was a great draft pick. Just because our team sucks doesn't mean it wasn't a good draft pick.
I think the trade was good. Just because the moves that came after it were bad doesn't mean the trade itself wasn't the right move.
I guess you could say that the "good-ness" of the trade depended upon the rebuilding moves that didn't materialize, which then negated the quality of the trade. I can buy that argument, but I think it's splitting hairs.
I still don't have a problem with the trade. Had it been followed up with good moves we'd be in a much better situation, but what was supposed to be the summer of rebuilding has turned into the summer of treading water in quicksand.
I think the trade was good. Just because the moves that came after it were bad doesn't mean the trade itself wasn't the right move.
I guess you could say that the "good-ness" of the trade depended upon the rebuilding moves that didn't materialize, which then negated the quality of the trade. I can buy that argument, but I think it's splitting hairs.
I still don't have a problem with the trade. Had it been followed up with good moves we'd be in a much better situation, but what was supposed to be the summer of rebuilding has turned into the summer of treading water in quicksand.
I'm just saying that it is possible to view moves in isolation from how much we suck now. You were saying that the two couldn't (or shouldn't) be separated because they're intrinsically related. I agree with that to a point, but you can still look at moves and say "This one is good, that one is bad" without having to tie everything to the big picture.
Your comparison is very poor.
The scenarios are not analogous because there's nothing that you can point to and say, "well, if we hadn't drafted Martin, then..." Drafting Martin, while a good acquisition talent-wise, has yet to have any lasting effect on the history of this franchise. Nothing that has happened since Martin was drafted can, in any appreciable way, be traced directly back to drafting Martin, unless you intend to convince me that Petrie didn't re-sign Wells specifically because he expected Martin to develop as quickly as he has, and I ain't really buying that. There are, on the other hand, at least three bad moves (Skinner trade, Abdur-Rahim signing, Moore signing) that you can argue can be traced directly to the Webber trade. That's why you can't separate the Webber trade from what has happened since: you can't evaluate that trade without looking at what's happened, whereas you may be able to do that in Martin's case, since nothing of consequence has actually happened since he was signed that you can reasonably say he had anything to do with.
The scenarios are not analogous because there's nothing that you can point to and say, "well, if we hadn't drafted Martin, then..." Drafting Martin, while a good acquisition talent-wise, has yet to have any lasting effect on the history of this franchise. Nothing that has happened since Martin was drafted can, in any appreciable way, be traced directly back to drafting Martin, unless you intend to convince me that Petrie didn't re-sign Wells specifically because he expected Martin to develop as quickly as he has, and I ain't really buying that. There are, on the other hand, at least three bad moves (Skinner trade, Abdur-Rahim signing, Moore signing) that you can argue can be traced directly to the Webber trade. That's why you can't separate the Webber trade from what has happened since: you can't evaluate that trade without looking at what's happened, whereas you may be able to do that in Martin's case, since nothing of consequence has actually happened since he was signed that you can reasonably say he had anything to do with.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree that everything should be lumped together so much when you're evaluating the trade.
While I can see somewhat of a link between SAR and Webber because they came closer together, just because Webber was traded didn't necessarily mean Moore HAD to be signed and that it should therefore be considered an effect of the Webber trade. It was just a stupid move on its own, and heck, it could have happened had Webber still been here. I think it gets a little bit like going down a rabbit hole when you try and draw a direct line.
And conversley, had we used that money on, say, Amir Johnson as a rebuilding move, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a direct result of the Webber trade either (although it would have made a lot more sense).
I prefer to look at the trade on its own and evaluate the moves that came afterwards independently. The big picture is that there were a series of moves that were questionable or at least have soured, culminating in the Moore fiasco. I think we both agree that we're not so happy about where things are right now, but I see that more as a series of good or bad moves rather than everything emanating from just the Webber trade.
While I can see somewhat of a link between SAR and Webber because they came closer together, just because Webber was traded didn't necessarily mean Moore HAD to be signed and that it should therefore be considered an effect of the Webber trade. It was just a stupid move on its own, and heck, it could have happened had Webber still been here. I think it gets a little bit like going down a rabbit hole when you try and draw a direct line.
And conversley, had we used that money on, say, Amir Johnson as a rebuilding move, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a direct result of the Webber trade either (although it would have made a lot more sense).
I prefer to look at the trade on its own and evaluate the moves that came afterwards independently. The big picture is that there were a series of moves that were questionable or at least have soured, culminating in the Moore fiasco. I think we both agree that we're not so happy about where things are right now, but I see that more as a series of good or bad moves rather than everything emanating from just the Webber trade.
Last edited:
Your most likely right, just what i heard though. And i dont understand why everyone hates the moore signing. He comes off the books in a little over two years and most likely will be gone in time for our 09 offseason. Obviously they dont think reef and kenny will play as much as they did in the past and they want a vet at thier position along with hawes and justin getting enough playing time which i think they will get.
Go kings?
Go kings?
Yeah, wasn't Webber pushing old women in front of buses or something?
I'm sorry it cracks me up when I see Webber pushed as a villian. Yeah, he's not perfect, I'm the first to admit that. But he played his heart out for the team each and every day and had a passion for the game, and for winning, that helped make that Kings team a very special thing to watch. To have people belittle his role to just a general troublemaker, is, IMHO, just comical.
I'm just a little curious: How many is in favor of bringing back C-Web?
I ask this because I have my suspuscion that many of you who hated the trade, who don't mind paying him $23 millions a year; wouldn not touch him now with a ten-foot pole when he can be had for the vet's minimumm.
I know, things changed. But look at it this way, Web is still the same player he was when he left Sacramento - slow, lumbering, can't guard anyone, can't rebound, and shoot too many jumpers. He still brings the identity, the history, the passion, and the memory.
In fact, with Bibby and Miller still here, we can play the same offense we used to run with C-Web, with Martin and Artest subbing for Christie and Peja. If Web never left, this is probably the lineup we see. Bringing him back now would cost little and it's as if he's never left.
Note I'm not asking if C-Web wants to come here, I'm asking if you want him here. I'm curious because to me, trading C-Web was a no-brainer and I do not want to bring him back.
Or perhaps you wanted him last season, when he was available and we could have signed or traded for him.
I ask this because I have my suspuscion that many of you who hated the trade, who don't mind paying him $23 millions a year; wouldn not touch him now with a ten-foot pole when he can be had for the vet's minimumm.
I know, things changed. But look at it this way, Web is still the same player he was when he left Sacramento - slow, lumbering, can't guard anyone, can't rebound, and shoot too many jumpers. He still brings the identity, the history, the passion, and the memory.
In fact, with Bibby and Miller still here, we can play the same offense we used to run with C-Web, with Martin and Artest subbing for Christie and Peja. If Web never left, this is probably the lineup we see. Bringing him back now would cost little and it's as if he's never left.
Note I'm not asking if C-Web wants to come here, I'm asking if you want him here. I'm curious because to me, trading C-Web was a no-brainer and I do not want to bring him back.
Or perhaps you wanted him last season, when he was available and we could have signed or traded for him.
Last edited:
Talent-wise, I'd bring him back; he's still better than anybody we've got at the PF or C position right now.
That said, I wouldn't do it, precisely because it would NOT be the same, and it wouldn't even remotely be anything like if he'd never left. Everything that we had before that trade has been destroyed and trod upon, and you can't go back in time.
That said, I wouldn't do it, precisely because it would NOT be the same, and it wouldn't even remotely be anything like if he'd never left. Everything that we had before that trade has been destroyed and trod upon, and you can't go back in time.
geoff, is that you???
how can another 2 seasons on his tires and the wounded pride from the trade be "the same?" not to mention the malaise that's permeated the organization. about the only thing that would be the same is bringing him back, him "failing" to "resurrect a contender" and being run out of town again. no thanks.
how can another 2 seasons on his tires and the wounded pride from the trade be "the same?" not to mention the malaise that's permeated the organization. about the only thing that would be the same is bringing him back, him "failing" to "resurrect a contender" and being run out of town again. no thanks.
No, I'm not in favor of bringing Webber back for the following reasons:
1. He wouldn't come near Sacramento now.
2. Bringing the 2007 Webber back wouldn't restore the feeling we AND THE TEAM had back then.
3. If would NOT be as though he'd never left.
You can't go back and rewrite history. If we could I personally would take the initial trade offer of Artest for Peja and taken my chances with Artest that point, playing along side Webber, Bibby, Christie and Miller. THAT might have been worth watching.
1. He wouldn't come near Sacramento now.
2. Bringing the 2007 Webber back wouldn't restore the feeling we AND THE TEAM had back then.
3. If would NOT be as though he'd never left.
You can't go back and rewrite history. If we could I personally would take the initial trade offer of Artest for Peja and taken my chances with Artest that point, playing along side Webber, Bibby, Christie and Miller. THAT might have been worth watching.
Yeah I think that team would've had a chance to do well. Maybe Doug still needed to be replaced with Cuttino though because his ankle/foot was falling apart IIRC but if we had kept him he'd provide good D. Webber was a 20/10 guy for like 2 years after we traded him. With Artest to lock down guys on the perimeter and Miller was still a good defender back then in 04/05. Get a shotblocker off the bench(lets say we get Skinner by trading someone besides Webber) and that could've been a good team.
Yeah but he wasn't as good. He could've probably been the starter in 05-06 though(Webber was still pretty good then) or we could've still made the Bonzi/Bobby trade again.
Bibby/Bonzi/Artest/Webber/Miller could've been a good team, especially if you get a shotblocker off the bench and you have Kevin off the bench. We wouldn't have sucked so bad at rebounding with Bonzi getting 6 or 7 a game and Chris getting 10 or so.
Bibby/Bonzi/Artest/Webber/Miller could've been a good team, especially if you get a shotblocker off the bench and you have Kevin off the bench. We wouldn't have sucked so bad at rebounding with Bonzi getting 6 or 7 a game and Chris getting 10 or so.