Webber trade, revisited...
- Thread starter mcsluggo
- Start date
I see your point, but does it matter if we're a few bucks under the cap vs. a few bucks over next year?
Either way, we're not going to use that cap space next year. (At least we shouldn't use that cap space) Either way, we'll have to wait til 2009 summer to really make a push at the free agency. Either way, it'll be a few yrs before we are relevant again. Having cap space in 2008 vs. having it in 2009 doesn't make a wee bit difference in our long-term plan.
I dont like the signing of Moore either, but his two-yr contract is not the end of the world. But I really, really don't like the signing of Salmons, but that's another story.
We have started our rebuilding by playing the youngsters. We're already found our future SG and possible C (Hawes). If Garcia, Justin, and Douby play to their potential we have a very talented group of young guys. The "getting under the cap thing" will come in 2009 and then we will focus on "upping the talent." Believe it or not, we may still be trying to win a titile instead of rebuilding if Web is still here.
You'll not get any argument from me here. It would have been nice to sent him off in a classy manner. This is a valid argument. But this argument is not a deal breaker to me.
Either way, we're not going to use that cap space next year. (At least we shouldn't use that cap space) Either way, we'll have to wait til 2009 summer to really make a push at the free agency. Either way, it'll be a few yrs before we are relevant again. Having cap space in 2008 vs. having it in 2009 doesn't make a wee bit difference in our long-term plan.
I dont like the signing of Moore either, but his two-yr contract is not the end of the world. But I really, really don't like the signing of Salmons, but that's another story.
We have started our rebuilding by playing the youngsters. We're already found our future SG and possible C (Hawes). If Garcia, Justin, and Douby play to their potential we have a very talented group of young guys. The "getting under the cap thing" will come in 2009 and then we will focus on "upping the talent." Believe it or not, we may still be trying to win a titile instead of rebuilding if Web is still here.
You'll not get any argument from me here. It would have been nice to sent him off in a classy manner. This is a valid argument. But this argument is not a deal breaker to me.
I see.
So we had the 7th best record in the NBA before the trade. After the trade we ended up with the 8th best record in the NBA.
Does it mean we got worse? Possible. Does it mean we got better? Also posssible. That one spot up/down out of 30 is not really telling imo.
So since we're talking about numbers, let really analyze Webber's impact, shall we?
According to +/-, Webber's net is a negative (-1.4), below most other Kings, including Ostertag. This number means the Kings did better when Web was on the bench. Now, the +/- doesn't tell us everything, and is just one stat. But you can look at the entire NBA and will not find another "franchise player" (besides Yao Ming, who has since breakout into a double-digit positive) with a "minus" statistical impact.
http://www.82games.com/0405SAC.HTM
So we had the 7th best record in the NBA before the trade. After the trade we ended up with the 8th best record in the NBA.
Does it mean we got worse? Possible. Does it mean we got better? Also posssible. That one spot up/down out of 30 is not really telling imo.
So since we're talking about numbers, let really analyze Webber's impact, shall we?
According to +/-, Webber's net is a negative (-1.4), below most other Kings, including Ostertag. This number means the Kings did better when Web was on the bench. Now, the +/- doesn't tell us everything, and is just one stat. But you can look at the entire NBA and will not find another "franchise player" (besides Yao Ming, who has since breakout into a double-digit positive) with a "minus" statistical impact.
http://www.82games.com/0405SAC.HTM
1) doesn't moore's contract become 3 yrs guaranteed if he stays a day after the 08-09 season? so if we don't lost his contract by then...
2) we've started playing our youngsters, besides k-mart? garcia was all over the place last season, justin got garbage time, and who's douby? and you're pegging hawes as a "potential" center of the future? now that is a lot of what ifs.
Last edited:
I'm guessing we cut him before the 09-10 season. At least we all know Petrie is considering it, otherwise this clause wouldn't be in the contract.
Good, by your admission, we've played KMart, Garcia, and Justin with varying success and in varying roles. Maybe you expect every youngster to pull a Brandon Roy but I don't.
As for Hawes, barring injury, trade, or we drafting/signing the next Patrick Ewing, he is our future center. The question is when, not if.
Good, by your admission, we've played KMart, Garcia, and Justin with varying success and in varying roles. Maybe you expect every youngster to pull a Brandon Roy but I don't.
As for Hawes, barring injury, trade, or we drafting/signing the next Patrick Ewing, he is our future center. The question is when, not if.
well, i'm not couting on it, but let's hope so.
and maybe you expect kudos for simply playing everyone in garbage time. we sure as hell better hope they all turn out to be brandon roys, otherwise we're s*** out of luck. you seem to have a lot of hope in draft picks.
or perhaps...barring that he sucks? i'd like for him to be good and to be a reliable, dependable center too. but let's not put the horse ahead of the cart here. i'd like garcia to be the SF of the future too.
and maybe you expect kudos for simply playing everyone in garbage time. we sure as hell better hope they all turn out to be brandon roys, otherwise we're s*** out of luck. you seem to have a lot of hope in draft picks.
or perhaps...barring that he sucks? i'd like for him to be good and to be a reliable, dependable center too. but let's not put the horse ahead of the cart here. i'd like garcia to be the SF of the future too.
I cannot understand how you fail to get it. Webber coming off the books not only puts us under the cap significantly, but his contract remaining for the past three years keeps us from handing out at least two of the bad contracts we gave to Salmons and Moore, and it keeps KFT off our payroll. We are also likely not to sign SAR, but even if we do, we get at least $15 million under the cap next summer. And we have Ron as an ender, plus Mike as an ender with more value than he has now, and we have the potential to get $25 million under the cap, next summer, instead of $8 or $10 million under the cap summer after next.
That speeds up the first stage of rebuilding, which is getting under the cap. Instead of struggling to get a few million under the cap in two years, we'd be tens of millions under next year.
And that helps, not only with free agency, but also with working out trades and such, since we don't have to worry about salary restrictions when we're under the cap.
It is not the end of the world in itself; we can rebound from the contract. The problem is that the front office still has not committed itself to a couple years of cellar-dwelling play for high draft picks and salary cap space, and that was indicated by the Salmons deal and even further cemented by the Moore contract. So, the way things stand right now, we might be under the cap in two years, but with Martin's new deal and with Geoff handing out an MLE every summer for a non-impact player, we won't be far enough under the cap to do anything significant. We will still be around $48to $50 million in payroll, with the cap around $55 million or so(?). This when we could be at $30 million or so next summer.
That's a lot of flexibility you're turning your nose up to.
Spenser Hawes might be our future center, but as of right now, he is just another draft pick. Garcia, Justin and Douby are 7th, 8th and 9th spot benchers on a contending squad -- if they play up to their potential. If Martin turns into a consistent 22/4/4 player, he still won't be good enough to lead us deep into the playoffs. I think you are overestimating what you call "a very talented group of young guys."
I would rather us still be trying to win a title with Webb than be floundering around with no discernible plan for getting back to the top. Everytime upper management says something about us rebuilding, they turn right around and do something that goes completely against what they said. For instance, the Mikki Moore deal.
I am not saying that we would be a much better team this year or next if we still had Webber here. I am saying that trading him away did not afford us any flexibility, and in the big picture, actually pushed us back at least a year from where we would have been if his contract was coming off the books next summer.
That isn't the primary argument, but I'm glad to know you agree.
That speeds up the first stage of rebuilding, which is getting under the cap. Instead of struggling to get a few million under the cap in two years, we'd be tens of millions under next year.
And that helps, not only with free agency, but also with working out trades and such, since we don't have to worry about salary restrictions when we're under the cap.
It is not the end of the world in itself; we can rebound from the contract. The problem is that the front office still has not committed itself to a couple years of cellar-dwelling play for high draft picks and salary cap space, and that was indicated by the Salmons deal and even further cemented by the Moore contract. So, the way things stand right now, we might be under the cap in two years, but with Martin's new deal and with Geoff handing out an MLE every summer for a non-impact player, we won't be far enough under the cap to do anything significant. We will still be around $48to $50 million in payroll, with the cap around $55 million or so(?). This when we could be at $30 million or so next summer.
That's a lot of flexibility you're turning your nose up to.
Spenser Hawes might be our future center, but as of right now, he is just another draft pick. Garcia, Justin and Douby are 7th, 8th and 9th spot benchers on a contending squad -- if they play up to their potential. If Martin turns into a consistent 22/4/4 player, he still won't be good enough to lead us deep into the playoffs. I think you are overestimating what you call "a very talented group of young guys."
I would rather us still be trying to win a title with Webb than be floundering around with no discernible plan for getting back to the top. Everytime upper management says something about us rebuilding, they turn right around and do something that goes completely against what they said. For instance, the Mikki Moore deal.
I am not saying that we would be a much better team this year or next if we still had Webber here. I am saying that trading him away did not afford us any flexibility, and in the big picture, actually pushed us back at least a year from where we would have been if his contract was coming off the books next summer.
That isn't the primary argument, but I'm glad to know you agree.
Not with the +/- again...
When you look at the impact Webber had on the team in the playoffs the year before, especially how he played against the Mavs, it's ridiculous to say that he wouldn't have helped us against the Sonics in '05. And it's impossible to say he wouldn't have helped us more than Kenny Thomas and Brian Skinner.
It doesn't matter what 82games.com says about his impact on the Kings. He was the only player we had that year that opened the floor for Bibby and Peja, and he would have helped us win some games in the Seattle series.
When you look at the impact Webber had on the team in the playoffs the year before, especially how he played against the Mavs, it's ridiculous to say that he wouldn't have helped us against the Sonics in '05. And it's impossible to say he wouldn't have helped us more than Kenny Thomas and Brian Skinner.
It doesn't matter what 82games.com says about his impact on the Kings. He was the only player we had that year that opened the floor for Bibby and Peja, and he would have helped us win some games in the Seattle series.
Who cares if he would have helped us sweep seattle WTF? we were NEVER going to win a title with C-webb, and thats all some of us kings fans have been crying about. Who cares if we would have had caproom next offseason? We wouldnt/shouldnt use it anyway and we will have caproom in 09 and we REALLY will in 2010. I wonder why webber hasnt been signed yet?
I forget who initially brought up the idea, but it was a good possibility for the reason for Moore's 50% clause:
We can trade him and the other team can then cut him before the contract deadline to reduce their payroll. For us it means getting higher trade value (full contract value) and for them it means lowering payroll after the trade (50% off fire sale cut).
We can trade him and the other team can then cut him before the contract deadline to reduce their payroll. For us it means getting higher trade value (full contract value) and for them it means lowering payroll after the trade (50% off fire sale cut).
You said, "Yes, we managed not to blow the playoffs by trading Webber." In other words, you said that trading Webber made the Kings better.
Do you really think having a worse record and dropping down in the playoff seedings is better? You made the assertion that the team was better. All I'm saying is that you were wrong. You can move on to another argument if you'd like, that doesn't change the fact that the Kings performed better with Webber than without.
So now we've established that trading Webber did not improve the Kings salary cap situation, and likely made it worse. We've also established that the Kings performed worse after trading Webber than they had before. We've also established that the Kings have done nothing of note since trading Webber, so on the off chance that they would have done worse with him it doesn't matter because they didn't succeed at anything worth succeeding at.
So what is left to argue?
Do you really think having a worse record and dropping down in the playoff seedings is better? You made the assertion that the team was better. All I'm saying is that you were wrong. You can move on to another argument if you'd like, that doesn't change the fact that the Kings performed better with Webber than without.
So now we've established that trading Webber did not improve the Kings salary cap situation, and likely made it worse. We've also established that the Kings performed worse after trading Webber than they had before. We've also established that the Kings have done nothing of note since trading Webber, so on the off chance that they would have done worse with him it doesn't matter because they didn't succeed at anything worth succeeding at.
So what is left to argue?
Last edited:
Why not have cap room a year or two sooner than you would have? Why are you opposed to the idea of getting under the cap sooner than 2009?
It's not about whether we would have beaten Seattle. It's about the fact that we traded Webber for salary cap reasons, and those reasons still haven't become obvious almost three years later. In fact, it appears that by trading Webber, we may have set ourselves back a year or two.
Again, if you could get $20 million under the cap next summer, why wait two more years? That doesn't make any sense.
It's not about whether we would have beaten Seattle. It's about the fact that we traded Webber for salary cap reasons, and those reasons still haven't become obvious almost three years later. In fact, it appears that by trading Webber, we may have set ourselves back a year or two.
Again, if you could get $20 million under the cap next summer, why wait two more years? That doesn't make any sense.
Maybe you can show me where I said the Kings were "better." I said the Kings were better than they would have been if they had kept Webber. There's a distinct difference between the two.
Exactly! It doesn't matter! Some of you are describing this trade as a franchise-destroying move... when its impact is so mininal when you step back and look at the whole picture.
There you go, this trade doesn't matter is exactly what I am trying to say!
I'm sure somebody will come up with something.
Btw, I quit drinking soda.
Exactly! It doesn't matter! Some of you are describing this trade as a franchise-destroying move... when its impact is so mininal when you step back and look at the whole picture.
There you go, this trade doesn't matter is exactly what I am trying to say!
I'm sure somebody will come up with something.
Btw, I quit drinking soda.
Here's where I disagree with you. Vlade was the one who opened up the floor for Bibby and Peja. All we have to do is go back and look at the 03-04 season when C-Web was out and Vlade was still here; the team was rolling and Peja was having a career year. Then Web came back, Vlade went to the bench, and the team fell apart, literally.
Note that I'm not saying Web didn't have an impact, he did. But Vlade was the one who REALLY open things up for everyone. I remember Doug Christie complained about the lack of open shots after Vlade left.
Note that I'm not saying Web didn't have an impact, he did. But Vlade was the one who REALLY open things up for everyone. I remember Doug Christie complained about the lack of open shots after Vlade left.
I understand what you're saying. Even though the Kings played worse without Webber than they did with him, you think that things were going downhill anyway and that if Webber had stuck around they would have gone downhill faster. I don't see any good evidence of that, but it is certainly possible.
I'm not sure who thinks of it as a franchising destroying move. I think many believe it has little to no benefits and several drawbacks. In other words, it was a bad trade.
The only possible benefits that have been brought up are complete suppositions - the Kings would have played even worse faster (which to some would actually be a good thing) and the negativity surrounding Webber would have made the atmosphere around the team even worse than it is now. That doesn't mean they aren't correct, but there's not a lot of direct evidence that says that they would have occurred.
On the other hand, the facts are that without a trade of Kenny Thomas in the next 6 months the Kings are worse off financially, their performance was noticably worse than it was before the trade, and they have done nothing "good" since the trade.
So again, it is possible that had the trade not gone down events would have transpired that would be worse for the team than they have, but personally I'm just going to look at the facts and the most likely scenarios when I revisit the quality of that trade.
I'm not sure who thinks of it as a franchising destroying move. I think many believe it has little to no benefits and several drawbacks. In other words, it was a bad trade.
The only possible benefits that have been brought up are complete suppositions - the Kings would have played even worse faster (which to some would actually be a good thing) and the negativity surrounding Webber would have made the atmosphere around the team even worse than it is now. That doesn't mean they aren't correct, but there's not a lot of direct evidence that says that they would have occurred.
On the other hand, the facts are that without a trade of Kenny Thomas in the next 6 months the Kings are worse off financially, their performance was noticably worse than it was before the trade, and they have done nothing "good" since the trade.
So again, it is possible that had the trade not gone down events would have transpired that would be worse for the team than they have, but personally I'm just going to look at the facts and the most likely scenarios when I revisit the quality of that trade.
Vlade wasn't with us the year that Webber got traded. Webber was the only player on the team opening up the floor for Bibby and Peja. Mike was struggling a bit with a foot injury, and Peja was complaining and asking to be traded, so neither of them were producing at a high level at that point, but Webber was the only player we had who would have been able to capitalize against the Sonics in the playoffs. Not that we were going to go anywhere, but that is beside the point. The point is that 82games.com and their +/- statistics are NOT conclusive, and do not prove that the Kings were better without Webber than they were with him.
And I really don't want to get into the impact Webber's return had in 2004, because I've been down that road far too many times. It never ends good.
And I really don't want to get into the impact Webber's return had in 2004, because I've been down that road far too many times. It never ends good.