Webber and Iverson taking down the defending champions first round after playing a mere 26 games together is hardly a valid point. Kobe leading an entire squad of newbies into the playoff's against a league full of western elites also comes up as a rather weak comparisson and who the hell know's what the timberwolves major malfunction was. The fact is we should not have gone down in five to the Sonic's...Any player will tell you the playoff's are all about experience and our guys just couldnt put theirs to use without Webber.
Would Webber Have Made A Difference This Year In Playoffs???
Why? There is no judgement in the assertion that Webber provided something for the Kings team that Stojakovic has not provided when Webber has been absent. Note that Bibby has not provided this intangible either, as has been mentioned by many in other threads. The question is whether the Kings would have fared better with Webber, and I can't see very many good arguments to say they wouldn't. What was different about the Kings this year versus last? Other than effects of the Webber trade, was there really that much different to cause the playoff record to tumble from 7-5 to 1-4?
I think it would be obvious that the Kings would have done better with Webber in the lineup. The interesting question is why? That is interesting because it goes to what the Kings need to do in the future. The best part of that post was the assertion that the Kings don't need an all-powerful superstar and that Stojakovic is a good building block for a team without one. I'm not sure I agree, but at least there is a point there to be discussed.
I think it would be obvious that the Kings would have done better with Webber in the lineup. The interesting question is why? That is interesting because it goes to what the Kings need to do in the future. The best part of that post was the assertion that the Kings don't need an all-powerful superstar and that Stojakovic is a good building block for a team without one. I'm not sure I agree, but at least there is a point there to be discussed.
Well, we know for a fact that twenty players averaged at least twenty points (apparently Stojakovic didn't play enough games to be ranked by NBA.com, or something), and I'd bet even money that at least twenty more can put up those kind of numbers (hell, no fewer then ten players who are not ranked in the top twenty on NBA.com have already proven over the course of their careers that they can average at least 20 and 4: Richard Jefferson, Shawn Marion, Antioine Walker, Jamal Crawford, Kenyon Martin, Wally Szczerbiak, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Ricky Davis, Jermaine O'Neal). Furthermore, there are several guys that, given minutes and shots, could probably average that much (Ronald Murray, Willie Green, Troy Hudson, Bobby Jackson. Fred Jones, Juan Dixon, Keith Bogans, Hedo Turkoglu).
Uhh... no. If anything, Bricklayer and others are making the case that Webber + Stojakovic + Bibby go further in the playoffs than Stojakovic + Bibby alone. And, as far as "ten years of evidence," that must not be taking the 2002 playoffs (where the Kings got out of the first round with little from Stojakovic, and out of the second round with pretty much nothing for him) into consideration.
You state your case here like your suggesting that they lost to inferior teams, or something. Were the 76ers "supposed" to beat the Pistons? I mean, Ray Allen is a better player than any player on the Spurs not named Tim Duncan, but that doesn't mean that the Sonics have a prayer.
Only as long as, by "building block," you mean second (or maybe even third) option.
Uhh... no. If anything, Bricklayer and others are making the case that Webber + Stojakovic + Bibby go further in the playoffs than Stojakovic + Bibby alone. And, as far as "ten years of evidence," that must not be taking the 2002 playoffs (where the Kings got out of the first round with little from Stojakovic, and out of the second round with pretty much nothing for him) into consideration.
You state your case here like your suggesting that they lost to inferior teams, or something. Were the 76ers "supposed" to beat the Pistons? I mean, Ray Allen is a better player than any player on the Spurs not named Tim Duncan, but that doesn't mean that the Sonics have a prayer.
Only as long as, by "building block," you mean second (or maybe even third) option.
love_them_kings said:
would we even have played the Sonics? the whole end of the season was impacted by this trade, and we will never really know what would have happened.
Webb's trade was huge, and having him would have made a difference. The whole season would have played out differently, not just because of his individual stats, but because we had a team with an identity, and a team that had chemistry together. Trading such a big piece away less than 2 months before the playoffs is a (hopefully) short term sacrifice, and I think we knew it going in. My expectations for this season dropped dramatically for this season when Webb was traded, but the trade wasn't made with this season in mind.
But, yes, having Webb this year would have made a difference. Having the chemistry and experience on the court would have helped in the playoffs, whoever we faced in the first round (and probably future rounds).
If we made a first round exit this year with Webb, things would be out of control. Fans would be shocked, crushed and angry, and it would be ugly for a while. Oh yeah, and it would have been Webb's fault.
Webb's trade was huge, and having him would have made a difference. The whole season would have played out differently, not just because of his individual stats, but because we had a team with an identity, and a team that had chemistry together. Trading such a big piece away less than 2 months before the playoffs is a (hopefully) short term sacrifice, and I think we knew it going in. My expectations for this season dropped dramatically for this season when Webb was traded, but the trade wasn't made with this season in mind.
But, yes, having Webb this year would have made a difference. Having the chemistry and experience on the court would have helped in the playoffs, whoever we faced in the first round (and probably future rounds).
If we made a first round exit this year with Webb, things would be out of control. Fans would be shocked, crushed and angry, and it would be ugly for a while. Oh yeah, and it would have been Webb's fault.
I think that we would have won more GAMES with Webb, but I am not sure we would have won the series. Obviously, none of us knows for sure. I think the reason we would have won more can be summed up by Peja.
He said, "I had different communication on the court with Doug and Vlade and Chris," Stojakovic said Friday. "I'd been with those guys for five years, and all you needed was eye contact. Everything will take time to get better and some practicing time."
I think that the chemistry angle is over used sometimes, but in this case, I believe it is valid. During this series, we looked like we had never played together at times. You cannot win in the playoffs without trust and familiarty with your teammates.
He said, "I had different communication on the court with Doug and Vlade and Chris," Stojakovic said Friday. "I'd been with those guys for five years, and all you needed was eye contact. Everything will take time to get better and some practicing time."
I think that the chemistry angle is over used sometimes, but in this case, I believe it is valid. During this series, we looked like we had never played together at times. You cannot win in the playoffs without trust and familiarty with your teammates.
If you think that explains why this Kings team was only able to win a single game, while last year's team not only beat Dallas 4-1, but took the Timberwolves to seven games, then fine. I don't think that is a very strong argument. I think the loss of Webber meant a great deal to the huge decline in playoff success from last year to this. That of course doesn't mean the trade was bad or that the current players suck, it just means that Webber would have made a difference.
It also means that if Petrie doesn't recognize the difference that Webber would have made (I think he does), then the Kings are going to have a much tougher time getting back to being championship contenders in the near future.
It also means that if Petrie doesn't recognize the difference that Webber would have made (I think he does), then the Kings are going to have a much tougher time getting back to being championship contenders in the near future.
There are other differences too. We did not have two pesky perimeter defenders in Doug and Peeler. We also did not have additional post passing from Vlade. What we had was a completely new team with Miller playing on one leg.
That aside, what I'm addressing is the assertion that with Stojakovic we are not going anywhere. The assertion is that we need a 'Kobe' type to take us to the championship and Stojakovic is not it. Not only is he not a Kobe type, but there are 50 players which we can pick up any time we want to replace his production.
That aside, what I'm addressing is the assertion that with Stojakovic we are not going anywhere. The assertion is that we need a 'Kobe' type to take us to the championship and Stojakovic is not it. Not only is he not a Kobe type, but there are 50 players which we can pick up any time we want to replace his production.
Yes, Tim Duncan is one of them. So is Shaq. Lets see if we can get one of those 20 guys. If not we just trade Peja for Juan Dixon and problem solved.
You state your case like you are suggesting we were supposed to beat the Sonics.
I was asserting just the opposite. A team with two superstars lost to an awsome team. And don't write off the sonics yet.
It does not matter if he is the 'fifth option'. Unless of course we can get Dixon and then we just pull the trigger.
How can you say I was wrong? I never said we played well the last few weeks Webb was here, I just said the season played out differently than it would have. Overall our pretrade record is much better than our post trade record, and although we were struggling I think most of us had complete faith we would turn it around.
But, yes, I agree Petrie thought we weren't going to win it all this year, with or without Webb, and that's why he pulled the trigger. But this thread is about if Webb would have made a difference in the playoffs, and he would have. Would we have won a championship? Highly unlikely. Would we have exited in the first round? Again, highly unlikely. In the playoffs this year we lacked leadership, team identity, and experience playing together as a team. Webb's presence would have helped, no question.
But, yes, I agree Petrie thought we weren't going to win it all this year, with or without Webb, and that's why he pulled the trigger. But this thread is about if Webb would have made a difference in the playoffs, and he would have. Would we have won a championship? Highly unlikely. Would we have exited in the first round? Again, highly unlikely. In the playoffs this year we lacked leadership, team identity, and experience playing together as a team. Webb's presence would have helped, no question.
Nobody is asserting that with Stojakovic the Kings are not going anywhere. There are some who think they need a superstar to win a championship, and I don't think there is any argument that Stojakovic is not that superstar. The real question is whether the Kings need such a superstar or someone close to it. You might argue that they don't. I think that while it is of course possible that they could win it all without a conventional superstar leader, I think it is not very likely. They came close in 2002, but didn't quite make it. I don't expect them to get many chances like that again unless they are able to find someone who can step up and lead the team. I think that their lack of playoff success this year was directly related to the absence of leadership provided by Webber, Christie, and Divac.
But if you accept the idea that they need a superstar to win a ring, are you really going to argue that Stojakovic has shown that he can be that guy? I don't think you would, and that's all that is being said.
But if you accept the idea that they need a superstar to win a ring, are you really going to argue that Stojakovic has shown that he can be that guy? I don't think you would, and that's all that is being said.
Pedja is more than capable of being the first option on offense. Now the Kings have a 2nd option in Bibby, 3rd in Miller ... the problem is that's where the number of options pretty much end ... unless you want to count the Cuttino Garbage Shot as an option which I don't.
Even with all that, the main problem for the Kings was not scoring points - it was defending shooting guard, power forward and center positions (rebounding of course).
Even with all that, the main problem for the Kings was not scoring points - it was defending shooting guard, power forward and center positions (rebounding of course).
Here are the problems I have with the thought that having a superstar would propel this team over the top:
1) The Kings already have a steep payroll, coming in about $58 million. Bringing in a top tier player or "superstar" would almost certainly mean the team would have to give up too much to make a difference.
2) This Kings team needs much more than one player, even if that player was Superman. There are holes at the 3, 4 and especially the 5, IMO.
Teams like Detroit have proved that a team can go all the way without a perennial superstar. But they did it by filling all of the holes, 1 through 5. And they did it with a bench that produced.
I expect several changes this off-season. Petrie has a lot of high-priced contracts to move...
1) The Kings already have a steep payroll, coming in about $58 million. Bringing in a top tier player or "superstar" would almost certainly mean the team would have to give up too much to make a difference.
2) This Kings team needs much more than one player, even if that player was Superman. There are holes at the 3, 4 and especially the 5, IMO.
Teams like Detroit have proved that a team can go all the way without a perennial superstar. But they did it by filling all of the holes, 1 through 5. And they did it with a bench that produced.
I expect several changes this off-season. Petrie has a lot of high-priced contracts to move...
If by first option you mean high scorer, then sure, he is more than capable of being the team's high scorer. If by first option you mean go-to guy when the game is on the line and the score is close, then I'm not so sure. He might be capable, but he hasn't really shown it consistently. To do so I think he would need the coach/team to specifically run plays for him, and with the current team and coach I think the past indicates that will not happen often.
uolj, i obviously mean the guy that you will the plays up for, and the guy who should be taking the most shots. Pedja has gotten better in the last 2 years in the big games as well, but he wouldn't be my choice of a go to guy at the end of the game - that's obviously Bibby (unless Pedja is having a scorching 4th quarter - wishful thinking)
True, but I would have been skeptical of Webber's abilities to be the go-to-guy back then as well. The fact that he had a little bit of post game helped him, as did his words and actions which suggested that he wanted to become that go-to-guy. Stojakovic has neither (at least not yet). I have actually said many times that I think Stojakovic could learn to be a clutch performer the way Webber did, and that I wanted him and the coaching staff to provide him the opportunity to "learn" that trait. I still think its possible. However, I don't think the Kings can rely on that or even hope for it. They must continue with the assumption that it won't happen, because that is the far more likely possibility. If it does, great, but don't bet the championship hopes on it if you have better options.
Point is that of course it's possible that Stojakovic could lead a championship team, but it's not likely, so why worry about it or try to force it. Instead, let's focus on using him as an all-star caliber player that is part of a championship team, or if necessary as all-star caliber trade bait.
Point is that of course it's possible that Stojakovic could lead a championship team, but it's not likely, so why worry about it or try to force it. Instead, let's focus on using him as an all-star caliber player that is part of a championship team, or if necessary as all-star caliber trade bait.
This is just as impossible to determine as those predicting that we would have went all the way last year had chris NOT come back into the line up.LOL I think the sonics were up on us 3-1 this season. The only time we beat them was when most of their starting line up was on the injured list. However,if i'm not mistaken, the maviericks were also up on us 3-1 last year and we still beat them in 5 games.
Dixon's a free agent, so we can't trade anybody for him. But thanks for totally misinterpreting my point, "smart guy."
I find two problems with this assessment: 1) The Kings don't have two superstars, but 2) The Sonics are not an "awesome" team.
And the Sonics were "written off" the moment the final buzzer sounded in Game 5 between the Spurs and the Nuggets. And you can quote me.
I find two problems with this assessment: 1) The Kings don't have two superstars, but 2) The Sonics are not an "awesome" team.
And the Sonics were "written off" the moment the final buzzer sounded in Game 5 between the Spurs and the Nuggets. And you can quote me.