What do we think of Petrie now?

Warhawk · Aug 26, 2005

Yoda said:
So far, Webb is healthy and we are worse. (and pay more)

Well, you cannot really say that, at least not yet.

I agree with the trade, even if Webb plays 82 games and leads them to a championship. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEBB PERSONALLY, JUST HIS SALARY AND HIS INJURY. GP (and the Maloofs, I assume) made the decision to move Webb based on their intimate knowledge of his health, his prospect of recovery, and his contract. If Webb was on SAR's salary, there is no way we trade him, but he's not. They have to look out for the financial welfare of the team as well, and his injury was/is just too darn risky with his contract, no question.

We have not seen how these guys will all fit in with a camp and healthy teammates. Give them a chance to learn the system better and play with a healthy Brad. Let Skinner get his thumbs and feet healthy. See how the new guys fit in as well.

G_M · Aug 26, 2005

loopymitch said:
If we traded players just because of injuries, we'd never have anyone on the team. Are we better now than we were this time last year, I don't think so but I may change my mind when the season starts.

First, not every player makes a third of your team's payroll. Webber's salary at 20million per year was a third of the teams payroll. Moreover, there's a clear track record for players that have suffered Webber's injury and undergone his subsequent microfracture surgery. Mashurn, Houston, Hardaway, and Kidd just to name a few. Needless to say the outcomes have generally not been good. Compunding his "rehab" is the fact that he is a big guy who is aging, not the best combination.

So, I think the team simply looked at the objective facts and made a prudent financial decision.

nbrans · Aug 26, 2005

I think one of the misconceptions about the Webber trade is the idea of "flexibility." Everyone has really seized on Petrie's comment about flexibility as a sign that he plans on trading the Philly 3, or HAS to trade them in order to accomplish anything from the Webber trade. I don't think this is the case. In fact I think the Kings are already reaping the benefits of this flexibility.

One example of "flexibility" achieved with the Webber trade is the Bonzi Wells trade. I really don't think the Bonzi Wells trade would have happened if Brian Skinner wasn't on the roster because the Kings couldn't have afforded to trade Greg Ostertag and risk not having a backup center. We may have our qualms about Skinner as a backup C, but at the very least he made Ostertag expendible.

If the Kings hadn't traded Webber they would have gone into the offseason with one trade asset (Bobby Jackson) and the MLE. It's highly likely that in order to maximize their investment with the cash on hand they would have split the MLE on Evans (to fill the starting SG slot) and Songaila (backup PF) and gone into the season*. In other words, they'd have a weak bench, an unproven SG and a power forward with a bum knee. Not exactly the stuff of champions.

Because of the extra pieces, the Kings had the flexibility to go after Wells and SAR. So just because the Philly 3 are still on the roster, and probably will still be on the roster when the season begins, doesn't mean that the Kings didn't gain flexibility from the Webber trade. They gave the Kings very solid backups at the SF, PF and C positions and allowed Petrie to go after new starters.

Bottom line is that the Kings weren't going to win the championship with a hobbled Webber, better to cut your losses and start over. Because Petrie is a genius we didn't have to go through a painful, long rebuilding process in order to have a shot at contending once again.

* even though the Kings had early bird rights with Songaila I don't think they would have spent the full MLE on Evans and another player AND exercised those rights on Songaila because they don't want to exceed $61 million in salary and become a luxury tax team.

JB_kings · Aug 26, 2005

G_M said:
First, not every player makes a third of your team's payroll. Webber's salary at 20million per year was a third of the teams payroll. Moreover, there's a clear track record for players that have suffered Webber's injury and undergone his subsequent microfracture surgery. Mashurn, Houston, Hardaway, and Kidd just to name a few. Needless to say the outcomes have generally not been good. Compunding his "rehab" is the fact that he is a big guy who is aging, not the best combination.

So, I think the team simply looked at the objective facts and made a prudent financial decision.

I agree about Webber's injury outlook. Time is not going to help his recovery. To be fair, Webber has shown more ability to play than Mashburn, and Houston. Those guys were done when they got injured.
However Petrie didn't exactly break the bank with what he got in return. Which is about 17 million tied up in 3 backup players. Two of which may average under 20 minutes a game each. Petrie said it was easier to move smaller pieces, he just hasn't shown that to be true yet.

ParniValjak · Aug 26, 2005

Yoda said:
3) He said he picked up these contracts to be able to be more flexable. He has not used a single one of these contracts to upgrade talent

This is something that is starting to annoy me.

When we traded Webber Petrie said that the deal gives us some depth and flexibility and the players we got for him are moveable pieces. Now some fans, took the "moveable pieces" bit and ran with it. You took it as if he was going to shop those players around and not keep them for the following year. That was your perception and it appears to be the wrong one.

Just about everyone was convinced that some of those players would be moved on and now that it appears its unlikely that they will be moved for the time being, the sky is falling in.

Webber trade HAS given us flexibility. Webber still has another 3 years left on his huge contract. Corliss has 2 years left and Skinner has 2 years (plus a team option for 3rd year). Quite simply next off-season both of those contracts are very valuable because they are expiring and totaling somewhere around $12 million. As far as salary cap goes we are a LOT more flexible than if Webber was here.

We quite simply wouldn't be any better with Webber. As much as I love C-Webb and what he has done for this franchise, he still isn't half the player he was prior to injury. And while he battled manfully last year for us, it was very clear that he is a shadow of his former self and he wasn't as effective as he has been. His game has changed and we were not going anywhere. We were no more contenders with Webber (post injury) at PF than we are with Abdur-Rahim. We are a much deeper team now. More versatile and more flexible as far as salary cap is concerned. Are we contenders? No. Would we be contenders with post-injury Webber? No.

Everyone wants a superstar PF/C on the team to lead us to glory. Reality check, those players don't fall off trees and are just about impossible to get via trade.

Petrie has done as good a job as he could have cosidering what he had to deal with. No one realistic expected him to turn this team into a contender in one off-season. Just because he is done for the time being, doesn't mean that this is finished product.

thesanityannex · Aug 26, 2005

Čarolija said:
When we traded Webber Petrie said that the deal gives us some depth and flexibility and the players we got for him are moveable pieces. Now some fans, took the "moveable pieces" bit and ran with it. You took it as if he was going to shop those players around and not keep them for the following year. That was your perception and it appears to be the wrong one.

Depth we do have, and I like that. The Kings were not deep with Webber here, and could not get any deeper if he stayed. I love Webber, but his time had come. Thats the downside of this game.

love_them_kings · Aug 26, 2005

Čarolija said:
This is something that is starting to annoy me.

When we traded Webber Petrie said that the deal gives us some depth and flexibility and the players we got for him are moveable pieces. Now some fans, took the "moveable pieces" bit and ran with it. You took it as if he was going to shop those players around and not keep them for the following year. That was your perception and it appears to be the wrong one.
QUOTE]

possible. or it's possible that his perception was that there would be a market for these players, and there hasn't been. If we start the season with all 3 of those players it could mean either a) that was the plan all along, or b) we had no choice.

one thing is for sure, and that is that Peja (post trade) is a happy camper and wants to stay a King. If that was part of the (unspoken) motivation for the trade, then the trade is a success from that perspective. Whether or not pacifying Peja was worth that kind of move is in the eye of the beholder...

Yoda · Aug 26, 2005

Čarolija said:
Everyone wants a superstar PF/C on the team to lead us to glory. Reality check, those players don't fall off trees and are just about impossible to get via trade.

Petrie has done as good a job as he could have cosidering what he had to deal with. No one realistic expected him to turn this team into a contender in one off-season. Just because he is done for the time being, doesn't mean that this is finished product.

We had one. Let us not forget he was the reigning player of the month at trade.

As a GM, he is responcible for the peices he has to work with.

I do like your point about Corlis and Skinner's contracts being worth more on the market next year. The only thing with that is the value of those ending contracts to other teams seems to be overrated.

Les Jepsen Fan · Aug 26, 2005

nbrans said:
Because of the extra pieces, the Kings had the flexibility to go after Wells and SAR. So just because the Philly 3 are still on the roster, and probably will still be on the roster when the season begins, doesn't mean that the Kings didn't gain flexibility from the Webber trade. They gave the Kings very solid backups at the SF, PF and C positions and allowed Petrie to go after new starters.

EXATAMUNDO!

Grobar · Aug 26, 2005

yea... i'm all for depth but we all know that adelman has a 7 man rotation burned into his head, so unless that changes, this "depth" that is the focus of all conversation and the sole reason we got rid of webb and his contract, won't be of much use. averaging 4 minutes a game does not mean we have a good depth player. it means we have a hole filler. the kings of 01/02 had depth. these kings have unproven players who have a pretty good chance of not cracking the lineup on most nights.

now, this may sound pessimistic, but it's really not. i do like these kings. more then the ones of old...? no. however, i do agree it was time for a different approach, and we do have more flexibility now. i do like the fact we have bonzi and sar, and we wouldn't have them if webb was here right now, that's a fact.

SacTownKid · Aug 26, 2005

Yoda said:
We had one. Let us not forget he was the reigning player of the month at trade.

As a GM, he is responcible for the peices he has to work with.

I do like your point about Corlis and Skinner's contracts being worth more on the market next year. The only thing with that is the value of those ending contracts to other teams seems to be overrated.

He was the reingning player of the month as we were headed downhill fast.

SacTownKid · Aug 26, 2005

Grobar said:
yea... i'm all for depth but we all know that adelman has a 7 man rotation burned into his head, so unless that changes, this "depth" that is the focus of all conversation and the sole reason we got rid of webb and his contract, won't be of much use. averaging 4 minutes a game does not mean we have a good depth player. it means we have a hole filler. the kings of 01/02 had depth. these kings have unproven players who have a pretty good chance of not cracking the lineup on most nights.

now, this may sound pessimistic, but it's really not. i do like these kings. more then the ones of old...? no. however, i do agree it was time for a different approach, and we do have more flexibility now. i do like the fact we have bonzi and sar, and we wouldn't have them if webb was here right now, that's a fact.

When we had "depth" with set players Adelman did utilize his bench. For the last couple of years the bench has undergone a complete makeover over and over, in large part do to Webbers deal. Now that Adelman has players that he knows what he will get with (K9, Skinner, Corliss, Kevin, and Hart) I think he won't be so hesitent to use them.

Bricklayer · Aug 27, 2005

SacTownKid said:
When we had "depth" with set players Adelman did utilize his bench. For the last couple of years the bench has undergone a complete makeover over and over, in large part do to Webbers deal. Now that Adelman has players that he knows what he will get with (K9, Skinner, Corliss, Kevin, and Hart) I think he won't be so hesitent to use them.

Actually suspect it will got he other way -- even when we had real depth rick preferred to stay with about an 8 man on any given night, and now all 5 starters are big minutes guys. In years past age or injuries freed up minutes for backups, this year every one of our starters could easily average 35+ min in 70+ games. Not many scraps left for a bench. Any bench.

Amory · Aug 27, 2005

nbrans said:
One example of "flexibility" achieved with the Webber trade is the Bonzi Wells trade. I really don't think the Bonzi Wells trade would have happened if Brian Skinner wasn't on the roster because the Kings couldn't have afforded to trade Greg Ostertag and risk not having a backup center. We may have our qualms about Skinner as a backup C, but at the very least he made Ostertag expendible.

Wow, very true. thanks for the post. I haven't thought of it that way.....

VF21 · Aug 28, 2005

nbrans said:
Hmmm, Saint Petrie, the patron saint of General Managers. I like the sound of that!!

(As opposed to Saint Jean, the patron saint of that sinking feeling you get when your mediocre General Manager appoints himself head coach.)

Shame this was buried ... I just found it.

Very clever, nbrans!

KP · Aug 29, 2005

It's funny but people are acting like that embarassment to end last season never happened, or that this "new" team has already steamrolled their way back to the top just by being put together. This team has done absolutely Nothing post-Webber, except lose... badly. The starting 5 looks good on paper, lets see how they actually stack up with the rest of the West before we talk about how Webb would make absolutely no difference. I saw a gaping hole during the playoffs last year and it was obvious to anyone who has watched this team the past few years what was missing. Sar and Bonzi could very well pick up the slack, and help us right the ship, but some of you are acting like they have already...

Kings113 · Aug 29, 2005

They were also banged up, undersized some, lacked chemistry, and on the floor as a team for the first time. I thought we could gut it out, but lost in that as the series went on.

I don't see or get where anyone is acting like it's happened already. I think it's pure excitement and anticipation of all the new guys and off-season stuff with the core.

loopymitch · Aug 29, 2005

I hope the bashing is now over but I have a feeling 10 years from now, it will still come up

thesanityannex · Aug 29, 2005

KP said:
It's funny but people are acting like that embarassment to end last season never happened, or that this "new" team has already steamrolled their way back to the top just by being put together. This team has done absolutely Nothing post-Webber, except lose... badly. The starting 5 looks good on paper, lets see how they actually stack up with the rest of the West before we talk about how Webb would make absolutely no difference

Did I miss "this team" play some games together? As far as I know, "this team" hasn't played a single game together, so it seems nearly impossible for "this team" to have done nothing but lose. I'll wait to see them play "a game" before I claim they've done nothing but lose.

VF21 · Aug 29, 2005

The Kings are dead; long live the Kings.

IMHO people really need to let go of some of the residual anger they might have OR the unrealistic idea that last year's team (after the trades) was really a legitimate threat to do anything other than bow out early in the playoffs.

It's over; it's done. The team we've loved for the past few years is now relegated to fond memories and some aging VCR tapes. Luckily, this is sports and not real life.

Just because that team has passed into history doesn't mean we'll never have another team like them. There are a lot of new Kings this season.

Personally, I want to wish ALL of them the very best and I'm going to be cheering for them just as loudly as I ever cheered the old Kings.

Arguing about what might have happened had Webber stayed is fine, as long as you remember that we'll never really know what might have happened.

Please, can we just move on?

I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of picking at the scab. Let it heal. Give the NEW team a chance.

Warhawk · Aug 29, 2005

VF21 said:
The Kings are dead; long live the Kings.

IMHO people really need to let go of some of the residual anger they might have OR the unrealistic idea that last year's team (after the trades) was really a legitimate threat to do anything other than bow out early in the playoffs.

It's over; it's done. The team we've loved for the past few years is now relegated to fond memories and some aging VCR tapes. Luckily, this is sports and not real life.

Just because that team has passed into history doesn't mean we'll never have another team like them. There are a lot of new Kings this season.

Personally, I want to wish ALL of them the very best and I'm going to be cheering for them just as loudly as I ever cheered the old Kings.

Arguing about what might have happened had Webber stayed is fine, as long as you remember that we'll never really know what might have happened.

Please, can we just move on?

I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of picking at the scab. Let it heal. Give the NEW team a chance.

Agreed - it is all just useless speculation.

Really looking forward to players getting into camp and preseason games, as I am sure the rest of you are as well.

KP · Aug 29, 2005

thesanityannex said:
Did I miss "this team" play some games together? As far as I know, "this team" hasn't played a single game together, so it seems nearly impossible for "this team" to have done nothing but lose. I'll wait to see them play "a game" before I claim they've done nothing but lose.

Look I don't know how this thread turned into another Webb bashing thread but I waited until late to respond just because it's the same argument over and over. Bold out my whole post because you should read it all again. This team(the Kings) HAS done nothing but lose so far, they could very well start to win and be just fine at the start of next season, but so far they haven't. I didn't bring this topic up, I was just responding to the people who seem to think it's a given we gained something since the trade. There is no evidence to support that theory, just a .500 record post trade and an ***-whooping courtesy of Jerome James and co. in front of the whole country. Not to mention a complete inability to move any of the pieces we aquired this off-season. I really lost some confidence in Bibby, Peja and Brad after what happened. I thought they would fight harder, and do more against the Sonics. Although all 3 played well at times, all in all it was more than a little anti-climactic. Now that the team is pretty much set, this is what worries me, (especially Bibby) because they are going to have to lead this team, without leadership, you guys saw what happened. The starting five is solid and if they gel could be scary, or they could not gel and have trouble scoring in halfcourt pressure situations against the better teams and be horrible defensively, as for Bonzis potential problems those have been discussed at length. After that you've got what could be a sixth man of the year canidate in KT, but on the other hand he seems given to pouting when asked to come of the bench and that could end up badly. Skinner is avg like 40-something games a season over his entire career and he's supposed to break that long and consistant injury streak here??? In Sacramento? Sure... just please no more freak double thumb injuries. Then there's Corliss who while tough, seems to really be slowing down or at the very least not a good fit. Add in 2 talented, but completely unproven guards and their are still a lot of question marks, that could go either way about this team. Are things better then they were at the end of the season? Definately. Are they a better team than the one that took the floor at the start of last season? Remains to be seen... Thats my only point.

love_them_kings · Aug 29, 2005

VF21 said:
The Kings are dead; long live the Kings.

IMHO people really need to let go of some of the residual anger they might have OR the unrealistic idea that last year's team (after the trades) was really a legitimate threat to do anything other than bow out early in the playoffs.

It's over; it's done. The team we've loved for the past few years is now relegated to fond memories and some aging VCR tapes. Luckily, this is sports and not real life.

Just because that team has passed into history doesn't mean we'll never have another team like them. There are a lot of new Kings this season.

Personally, I want to wish ALL of them the very best and I'm going to be cheering for them just as loudly as I ever cheered the old Kings.

Arguing about what might have happened had Webber stayed is fine, as long as you remember that we'll never really know what might have happened.

Please, can we just move on?

I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of picking at the scab. Let it heal. Give the NEW team a chance.

I agree. TDOS is always tough, but this year in particular is hard after the turmoil of last year. I love the old Kings, and I'll love this team.. I just wish the off season was over so we could get this show on the road!

thesanityannex · Aug 29, 2005

KP said:
Bold out my whole post because you should read it all again. This team(the Kings) HAS done nothing but lose so far, they could very well start to win and be just fine at the start of next season, but so far they haven't. I didn't bring this topic up, I was just responding to the people who seem to think it's a given we gained something since the trade. There is no evidence to support that theory, just a .500 record post trade and an ***-whooping courtesy of Jerome James and co. in front of the whole country. Not to mention a complete inability to move any of the pieces we aquired this off-season. .

Maybe I should have put this in bold instead of parenthesis. This team has not played a single game together, and by this team, I mean Miller, Peja, Bibby, Wells, Rahim. (I'm not talking about the .500 team after the trade. They were thrown together, got a few wins, showed some signs of greatness, but generally sucked. What more could you ask for?)

We haved gained something for the trade, we gained SAR, Hart, and Wells. They are impact players. We may not have gotten rid of anything from the trade of Webber, but you can't say there was no net gain.

ONEZERO · Aug 29, 2005

I agree with sannity. And also, besides kennys contract, we have great backups now because of the trade. We do need thomas to cooperate as the backup though. This season should be excited as hell to watch. Will we be good? That all depends on how well they gel together.

Bricklayer · Aug 29, 2005

thesanityannex said:
Maybe I should have put this in bold instead of parenthesis. This team has not played a single game together, and by this team, I mean Miller, Peja, Bibby, Wells, Rahim. (I'm not talking about the .500 team after the trade. They were thrown together, got a few wins, showed some signs of greatness, but generally sucked. What more could you ask for?)

We haved gained something for the trade, we gained SAR, Hart, and Wells. They are impact players. We may not have gotten rid of anything from the trade of Webber, but you can't say there was no net gain.

The only thing we gained was SAR -- Wells and Hart were both easily acquirable with or without Webb. I doubt SAR would have come, or been on the menu. Then again, maybe somebody else would have with that money. Also sans the trade, and assuming we do not turn around and trade Webb for something else/better this summer, Darius is probably back. Makes the scorecard roughly Webb/Darius/MLE player vs. SAR/Thomas/Skinner/Corliss.

Packt · Aug 29, 2005

^ been meaning to say that. O-tag would've been shipped off regardless of whether Webb was here or not. That leaves only Shareef, and he was a FA pickup for the mid-level. Theoretically still possible to sign him if the Nets situation played out similarly.

thesanityannex · Aug 30, 2005

Bricklayer said:
. Makes the scorecard roughly Webb/Darius/MLE player vs. SAR/Thomas/Skinner/Corliss.

Not too bad considering no other player had the talent of SAR for the price of the MLE. He was a steal.

To me: Webb/Darius/MLE player < SAR/Thomas/Skinner/Corliss

Plus, these new guys are pretty talented and could be used as trade bait next year.

KP · Aug 30, 2005

thesanityannex said:
Maybe I should have put this in bold instead of parenthesis. This team has not played a single game together, and by this team, I mean Miller, Peja, Bibby, Wells, Rahim. (I'm not talking about the .500 team after the trade. They were thrown together, got a few wins, showed some signs of greatness, but generally sucked. What more could you ask for?)

We haved gained something for the trade, we gained SAR, Hart, and Wells. They are impact players. We may not have gotten rid of anything from the trade of Webber, but you can't say there was no net gain.

Well, we will find out next year, all I was saying is that you don't know anything for sure yet. If the team isn't challenging for the lead in the Pacific and in the top 5 Western conference teams, don't say I didn't warn you. The top 5 guys are good, and KT is a great 6th man, after that I have way less faith then you do, but if some guys after the starters step up, we will be all right. If we falter even a little, the Warriors, Lakers, T-wolves, insert improved WC team here...any of them could push us down. One way or another it's going to be an exciting team to watch.

Kings113 · Sep 2, 2005

What do we think of Petrie now?

Give blood and save a life!

Starter

All-Star

Starter

All-Star

thesanityannex

Guest

Starter

Bench

Prospect

G-League

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Bench

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

All-Star

All-Star

thesanityannex

Guest

Super Moderator Emeritus

Give blood and save a life!

Starter

Starter

thesanityannex

Guest

ONEZERO

Guest

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Starter

thesanityannex

Guest

Starter

All-Star

Similar threads