Would The Webb Trade Have Happened If.....?

[HutchNU]

we would have won those two goaltending games?

Now I'm not sayin we shipped out Webber just because we lost them. However, at the time when we were chasing the Suns and battling the Mavs for playoff spots, those 2 home losses were huge. I realize the team would have been broken up in the summer for sure, but I think if we hadn't have been on the short end of those non calls this team would have been given one more playoff run.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Brick pointed out the Spurs blowout as being the turning point, and that seems reasonable to me. I think that happened before the goaltending games.

 

[loopymitch]

It still would have happened IMHO.

 

[Just_Lurkin]

didn't one of the goaltends happen while he was still here?

 

[Bibby_Is_Clutch]

didn't one of the goaltends happen while he was still here?

They both did. Thats what hes saying. Had they not happened would he still have been traded and IMO he was going to be traded no matter what.

 

[HutchNU]

Both happened about 2 weeks or so before he got dealt, that's the question. They were part of a 4 game losing streak with 2 losses at home to top Western teams. I'm sayin if we had gotten the goaltending calls, Webb might have made it to the summer in a Kings uniform, but not past then. I think the 2 home losses to top West teams was the final straw

 

[Londonking]

As far as i can tell from reading other posts on this site which have referred to the Webber trade, (and i could be wrong) we do not know the vital bit of information as the key to answer to this thread, being which party initiated the trade.

If Petrie was approached by Philly then the trade might be said to have happened in an opportunistic way for the Kings. Whereas if it were the case that we made the approach then that's obviously premeditated and maybe the two home losses were influential.

From what i've read, I'm inclined to think that it was Philly who made the call and the Kings management collectively looked at the pros and cons of such a player swap and for better or worse went with the option which they considered would provide the franchise with the greater flexibility (financially)...which was to say goodbye to CWebb.

There have been other threads which have dwelt on whether the team is better or worse without him so i see little point in raising that issue again. Maybe in time we will learn the full details of the deal which was massive for everyone associated with the Kings...fans, players,management and owners.

In the meantime, however much we miss key players such as Chris, Vlade and Doug, i think we have little choice but to trust our GM to do his best in getting us the best active roster he can achieve. Time will tell......

 

[LPKingsFan]

As far as i can tell from reading other posts on this site which have referred to the Webber trade, (and i could be wrong) we do not know the vital bit of information as the key to answer to this thread, being which party initiated the trade.

If Petrie was approached by Philly then the trade might be said to have happened in an opportunistic way for the Kings. Whereas if it were the case that we made the approach then that's obviously premeditated and maybe the two home losses were influential.

From what i've read, I'm inclined to think that it was Philly who made the call and the Kings management collectively looked at the pros and cons of such a player swap and for better or worse went with the option which they considered would provide the franchise with the greater flexibility (financially)...which was to say goodbye to CWebb.

There have been other threads which have dwelt on whether the team is better or worse without him so i see little point in raising that issue again. Maybe in time we will learn the full details of the deal which was massive for everyone associated with the Kings...fans, players,management and owners.

In the meantime, however much we miss key players such as Chris, Vlade and Doug, i think we have little choice but to trust our GM to do his best in getting us the best active roster he can achieve. Time will tell......

Good post.

 

[albeitrue]

As far as i can tell from reading other posts on this site which have referred to the Webber trade, (and i could be wrong) we do not know the vital bit of information as the key to answer to this thread, being which party initiated the trade.

If Petrie was approached by Philly then the trade might be said to have happened in an opportunistic way for the Kings. Whereas if it were the case that we made the approach then that's obviously premeditated and maybe the two home losses were influential.

From what i've read, I'm inclined to think that it was Philly who made the call and the Kings management collectively looked at the pros and cons of such a player swap and for better or worse went with the option which they considered would provide the franchise with the greater flexibility (financially)...which was to say goodbye to CWebb.

There have been other threads which have dwelt on whether the team is better or worse without him so i see little point in raising that issue again. Maybe in time we will learn the full details of the deal which was massive for everyone associated with the Kings...fans, players,management and owners.

In the meantime, however much we miss key players such as Chris, Vlade and Doug, i think we have little choice but to trust our GM to do his best in getting us the best active roster he can achieve. Time will tell......

Here is an article from the Sacramento Bee on 2/26/2005: (sorry, but I had to pay for the article out of the archives and subsequently am not able to paste the link)


Such a big move, but it came together quickly


February 25, 2005
Section: SPORTS
Page: C1

By Martin McNeal
Bee Staff Writer

DALLAS--HOW DID THE DEAL GO DOWN?

The trade that changed the face and direction of the Kings began as an innocent investigation but quickly evolved into a deal the team hopes will have impact for years to come.

Philadelphia general manager Billy King said Thursday afternoon that acquiring five-time All-Star power forward Chris Webber as the centerpiece of a six-player deal came with relative ease.

"There really only were a couple of (telephone) conversations," King said from Madison Square Garden in New York before the 76ers lost 113-101 to the Knicks. "I think (Kings vice president of basketball operations) Wayne (Cooper) called me while I was out of town (during the All-Star break), and I had Tony (Dileo, the assistant GM) call him back.

"I don't think anything serious was discussed. At that point, it was more calling to talk about any and everything."

King said the conversations became serious Tuesday before the Kings played the Atlanta Hawks.

"When you're having conversation and discussing different players," King said, "sometimes (the other side) says yes, and then it becomes, 'Do we want to do it?' "

King said Tuesday was about exploring the available options.

"The Kings were playing that night," the 76ers GM said, "so we watched the game and talked to the coaching staff, our owners and figured out where we wanted to go from there."

While the Sixers weighed the major decision of accepting the $62-plus million remaining on Webber's contract following this season, the Kings clearly had decided to make the trade.

Sacramento was looking to change the direction of its franchise and believed other teams might not be as willing as the Sixers to deal.

Kings assistant coach Pete Carril said the deal changes the focus of the team.

"I don't know what to say," Carril said. "It was very much of a surprise, but I'm sure there is a commitment on the part of (president of basketball operations) Geoff (Petrie) and 'Coop' and Rick (Adelman) that the future belongs with some of our younger players and that we're just going to grow with them."

The new Kings' salaries add trading flexibility, Petrie said after making the deal. Webber stood to make $19.1 million in 2005-06, $20.7 million in 2006-07 and $22.3 million in 2007-08. Smaller payments are due to Corliss Williamson, Kenny Thomas and Brian Skinner, making them more appealing to other teams.

Williamson can opt out of his contract after this season, Thomas can do so following the 2007-08 season and the team has the option on Skinner's deal after the 2006-07 season.

All that was required of the Sixers after watching the game Tuesday night was a little more conversation Wednesday afternoon. The clause in Webber's contract that would pay him more money if he was traded was a major holdup only because the Kings had to wait the four hours of travel from Sacramento to Dallas before they could address the situation from him and see if he would waive it.

 

[albeitrue]

I read that article in the Bee on the day it was published, and recent questions here about who initiated the contact made me think of it.

It amazed me that A GM might make a determination about acquiring Chris and his contract after watching that game against the Hawks, in which Chris had a great 30+ game. Coincidentally, Matt Barnes also played very well that night.

 

[Londonking]

Thanks Albeitrue,

I wasnt aware of that article. reading it a coupel of times it does make be believe that Philly proposed he deal, although the seeds and potential may well have been sown in the conversation initiated by Wayne Cooper.

I suspect the 76ers management felt under pressure to do something (anything) which might give them the extra boost to make the playoffs which, (from memory) wasnt a foregone conclusion for them pre-Cwebb trade.

Webber's capabilities was one of the key elements of the Kings which drew me towards supporting them, so losing him is meaningful to me. Whatever team we put out i will be rooting for them. (In whatever colors their uniforms are!)

 

[sono]

Here is an article from the Sacramento Bee on 2/26/2005: (sorry, but I had to pay for the article out of the archives and subsequently am not able to paste the link)

thank you albeitrue,

 

[VF21]

If anyone in the know ever writes a book, I hope they can be honest enough to tell us all what really happened - because I am still firmly convinced the Maloofs panicked and had Petrie pull the trigger on the deal 22 hours before the trade deadline because they were worried Webber might get hurt before the end of the season and they'd be stuck with his contract.

I don't think it was about the goal-tending in any way, shape or form. If you look at the timing, you see a slightly different picture.

As a related comment, I've been trying to figure out a legitimate trade scenario that might be feasible to bring Kevin Garnett to the Kings. (Bear with me...) A key component of that is finding a way to move Kenny Thomas and HIS contract, you know one of the smaller pieces that have been touted as being a positive outcome from the Webber deal?

I have NOT been able to identify ANY team that would be willing to take Kenny Thomas. Why should they? He's undersized, overpaid with a contract that lasts forever...

But, I digress and it's comments I've made before.

Bottom line is I don't think the Webber trade was in any way related to the events on the court.

 

[VF21]

Here is an article from the Sacramento Bee on 2/26/2005: (sorry, but I had to pay for the article out of the archives and subsequently am not able to paste the link)

Here's a hint for next time:

If you have the date of the article, just go back in our old threads. Virtually every single article that has come out in the Bee even containing the word "Kings" has been posted here. Look for the little paper icon, and you'll most likely be able to find it here - free of charge.

 

[allrightythen]

I am firmly convinced that the Webber trade had less to do with anything that happened on the court than it had to do with $. I"m sure Kings management simply did not want to be stuck with a big contract and an injured star. I think that is as simple as it is.

 

[albeitrue]

If anyone in the know ever writes a book, I hope they can be honest enough to tell us all what really happened - because I am still firmly convinced the Maloofs panicked and had Petrie pull the trigger on the deal 22 hours before the trade deadline because they were worried Webber might get hurt before the end of the season and they'd be stuck with his contract.

I don't think it was about the goal-tending in any way, shape or form. If you look at the timing, you see a slightly different picture.

As a related comment, I've been trying to figure out a legitimate trade scenario that might be feasible to bring Kevin Garnett to the Kings. (Bear with me...) A key component of that is finding a way to move Kenny Thomas and HIS contract, you know one of the smaller pieces that have been touted as being a positive outcome from the Webber deal?

I have NOT been able to identify ANY team that would be willing to take Kenny Thomas. Why should they? He's undersized, overpaid with a contract that lasts forever...

But, I digress and it's comments I've made before.

Bottom line is I don't think the Webber trade was in any way related to the events on the court.

. The article states that Sixers first watched the game against Hawks, then "figured out where they wanted to go from there". Tells me they hadn't paid much attention before, which leads one to conclude that the deal was shopped by Kings. I could be wrong, but that's what I read.

I don't think those losses by bad calls had anything to do with Web being tradedLosing a couple of games mid season shouldn't have such an mmediate impact, as to make Petrie want to pull the trigger on the franchise player, I think.

P.S. I did look for the article, actually thought I had posted it myself somewhere else, too. No biggie, $2.95 could have possibly bought a National Enquirer or somethin', I dunno...

 

[VF21]

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, comments from Billy King notwithstanding. When I said I thought the Maloofs panicked, I think they got the call from the Sixers, talked it over and came to the (what I believe to be) erroneous conclusion it might just be the best off they would get before the deadline AND they were fearful of Webber getting injured after the deadline. Yes, the Sixers watched the game and then figured out where they wanted to go - but not because of the game. I think it was because the trade deadline was less than 24 hours away.

It is my belief that it was NOT Petrie's idea to pull the trigger when the trade came down. My gut tells me he was told to do it.

That's why I mentioned hoping that someone at some point in time will eventually write a book and let us know once and for all what really happened...

 

[albeitrue]

I didn't misunderstand your point, just giving my two cents about what I think the article says. Maybe I was sugar coating my view for your edification though, my bad.

If you want to discount King's remarks, what about McNeal's? Remembering that McNeal is a staunch supporter of Web, he made these remarks:

While the Sixers weighed the major decision of accepting the $62-plus million remaining on Webber's contract following this season, the Kings clearly had decided to make the trade.

Why weigh the decision if they were the ones who did the approaching?

Sacramento was looking to change the direction of its franchise and believed other teams might not be as willing as the Sixers to deal.

Even if you don't believe Petrie made the first phone call, these comments by Marty speak volumnes about the Kings wanting to make the deal, imo.

I think it had to do FIRST with Chris's contract for the next three years, then about injury-which would have negated any possible chance to get out from under his contract in the future, of course.

In short, I believe this article states that Petrie made the call to Billy King while King was at the ASG (which was the weekend before the trade deadline). King returned the call through his assistant the following Monday, small talk was made initially, but by Tuesday a trade scenario had been introduced. All it took was King and his coaches to watch the game to solidify the deal.

Probably end of discussion. If we don't agree I'm not going to argue, just wanted you to understand where I stand and that I didn't misunderstand you.

P.S. I believe you could be right about Petrie not wanting to trade Web.

 

[VF21]

The whole thing boils down to what Marty is calling "the Kings." I think it means the Maloofs...

The rest I think we're pretty much in agreement with. For the record, however, it wasn't Petrie who made the initial call, according to Marty. It was Wayne Cooper.

That's just symptomatic of what I perceive to be a lot of unanswered questions. Maybe in 30+ years someone like Felt will come forward and spill the beans.

 

[loopymitch]

Judging how much Petrie and the Maloofs talk, we'll probably only get the real story from the Sixers people. Obie's gone now, he could tell what really happened although why it's like a big secret I don't know.
It was all about the $, he would have been traded anyway no matter what he did.