What if...

[KingFred4]

TDOS has got me thinking, there really is no point in this other than conjecture and I can't think of a better forum for this thread so I'll put it here...

what if Miller had been traded instead of Webber.

As far as I can see Miller hasn't been any sort of answer to the defensive problems that a post-knee injury Webber posed and at least C-Webb wasn't afraid to shoot the ball.

IMO C-Webb Kings > Miller Kings
No Kenny Thomas, better rebounding, scoring,a litttle better passing game. Webber did have a penchant for trying to take over games with mixed success. I'm not sure what other centers were available at the time but I know Miller's stock was at it's highest at that point.

I repeat conjecture, second guessing, pointless etc.

but it is the TDOS what do you think??

 

[Spike]

It would mean no Artest & probably no Bonzi last year, as Webber's contract allowed for a "greater" amount of flexibility. There really is a dearth of centers in the NBA; Miller IS better than everyone seems to be giving him credit for. Who would have played the 5?

 

[KingFred4]

It would mean no Artest & probably no Bonzi last year, as Webber's contract allowed for a "greater" amount of flexibility. There really is a dearth of centers in the NBA; Miller IS better than everyone seems to be giving him credit for. Who would have played the 5?

If I remember correctly we Acquired Artest as a straight up trade for Peja (whom we hoped would accel without webber) before we lost any of the pieces we traded Webber for and we traded BJax for Bonzi. We could have had all 3? As I said I didn't know who was available at the time but I THINK it would be possible that we could've gotten a center for Brad,who was worth as much as he probably ever will be at that time,for a 5 that would've given us more productivity than Thomas, Skinner, Williamson.

 

[VF21]

You can't go back and substitute Miller for Webber, because the reasons for trading Miller would not have been the same as those for Webber.

 

[KingFred4]

You can't go back and substitute Miller for Webber, because the reasons for trading Miller would not have been the same as those for Webber.

Logically, at that time? No.

But What if?? What if we'd had the foresight?

 

[VF21]

•What if Webber hadn't required microfracture surgery?
•What if we hadn't exposed Gerald Wallace to the expansion draft?
•What if we'd kept Jon Barry?
•What if we'd matched the Lakers' offer for Vlade?
•What if Vlade hadn't tipped the ball right to Robert Horry?
•What if we hadn't drafted Peja Stojakovic?

You can play "what if" with virtually every single decision Geoff Petrie or any other GM ever makes and it doesn't change anything. We'll never know what would have happened, because it didn't happen.

 

[KingFred4]

•What if Webber hadn't required microfracture surgery?
•What if we hadn't exposed Gerald Wallace to the expansion draft?
•What if we'd kept Jon Barry?
•What if we'd matched the Lakers' offer for Vlade?
•What if Vlade hadn't tipped the ball right to Robert Horry?
•What if we hadn't drafted Peja Stojakovic?

You can play "what if" with virtually every single decision Geoff Petrie or any other GM ever makes and it doesn't change anything. We'll never know what would have happened, because it didn't happen.

Whoa! You are no fun. I see your point and for the record I accept the team as it is. They are the Kings and they're my favorite team. Always were, Always will be. Period.

But trading Webber has been the biggest "second-guessable" (my wordiness is so much gooder than yours) issue in recent King's history and one of the major off-season question's is Brad and whether we still want/need him

Which begs the question...

 

[KingFred4]

•What if Webber hadn't required microfracture surgery?
•What if we hadn't exposed Gerald Wallace to the expansion draft?
•What if we'd kept Jon Barry?
•What if we'd matched the Lakers' offer for Vlade?
•What if Vlade hadn't tipped the ball right to Robert Horry?
•What if we hadn't drafted Peja Stojakovic?

You can play "what if" with virtually every single decision Geoff Petrie or any other GM ever makes and it doesn't change anything. We'll never know what would have happened, because it didn't happen.

And to answer YOUR questions

• we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with
• he would have rotted on Adelman's bench
• Overall we would be looking at the same history. Barry was a fantastic bench additive but is not one to take a team to the next level
• He would have rotted on Adleman's bench and his locker room presence would've allowed Peja a .5 shooting percentage better
• Sac would've won the title that year
• we wouldn't have Artest

 

[VF21]

Whoa! You are no fun. I see your point and for the record I accept the team as it is. They are the Kings and they're my favorite team. Always were, Always will be. Period.

But trading Webber has been the biggest "second-guessable" (my wordiness is so much gooder than yours) issue in recent King's history and one of the major off-season question's is Brad and whether we still want/need him

Which begs the question...

I don't mean to rain on your parade. Feel free to continue. It's just that probably 99 times out of 100 that this comes up - about Webber not being traded primarily - it ends badly.

You do have to consider that if Webber hadn't needed the microfracture surgery, the team might well have won in Dallas and gone on to do gooder ( ) things. In that case, there wouldn't have been a trade in February of 2005...

Have you seen the movie The Butterfly Effect?

I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything. I just can't see how you can pull one decision out of the past and try and figure out at this point what would have happened had something different been chosen.

It's all good. It's TDOS. We have, in the past, argued about things as bizarre as whether garlic fries should be eaten with or without catsup.

 

[6th]

It's all good. It's TDOS. We have, in the past, argued about things as bizarre as whether garlic fries should be eaten with or without catsup.

Not to mention with or without chocolate. Just ask hoopsie.

 

[KingFred4]

I don't mean to rain on your parade. Feel free to continue. It's just that probably 99 times out of 100 that this comes up - about Webber not being traded primarily - it ends badly.

You do have to consider that if Webber hadn't needed the microfracture surgery, the team might well have won in Dallas and gone on to do gooder ( ) things. In that case, there wouldn't have been a trade in February of 2005...

Have you seen the movie The Butterfly Effect?

I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything. I just can't see how you can pull one decision out of the past and try and figure out at this point what would have happened had something different been chosen.

It's all good. It's TDOS. We have, in the past, argued about things as bizarre as whether garlic fries should be eaten with or without catsup.

I do see your point about arbitrarily choosing a point in Kings's history and questioning it.

I only pose the scenario as a hypothetical situation to see what others think and pass TDOS.

and I do appreciate your attention to this post whether or not you humor my curiosity.