This is what I posted to another board with a few edits, your thought?
I've thought about this trade for about a day now and I still don't completely understand it. I realize that Petrie was clearly a believer in the old "addition by subtraction" cliche, and to an extend I agree. Webber takes too many bad shots, doesn't play D, and generally interupts the normal flow of play in the Kings offense not to mention the supposed bad blood between he and Peja. I also understand the fact that his contract is huge and crippling to any longterm plants. I understand the reasons for dealing Webber. What I don't understand is why the Kings got who they got.
Kenny Thomas is signed long term, he will make about 50 million through 2008. He is only averaging about 6.6 boards, and 11.3 points,1.3 assists, .9 steals .5 blocks a game in about 28 minutes per.
How are those numbers any better then what we currently have in Darius Songaila? Songaila is averaging 3.9 boards, 6.6 points, .9 assits, .6 steals, and .2 blocks in only 19.9 minutes. If you start Songaila in place of Webber his numbers would be almost identical to Thomas'. So how does getting a player who is clearly overpaid and signed longterm who is also NO BETTER then what we have in Songaila help?
Next up is Corliss, this is probably the only piece of the trade that I like, He would make a perfect backup to Peja, he would give us a good inside rebounding/scoring option.
Finally there is Skinner, he has been a total bust this year and is currently injured, he may or may not even be healthy enough to really contribute this year and even if he is where does he play??? We already have quality backups in Songaila and Corliss, House, Evans, and Ostertag? At least his contract isn't long term, I suspect that's the reason Petrie got him. I doubt he'll be around after this year.
So to summerize we basically get 1 contract off the books in Skinner, a good backup for Peja, and an overpriced bum in Thomas, who is no better then what we have in Songaila. This still doesn't solve the problem we have of Miller playing out of position at center. Was it really worth it to do bump Webber? Why couldn't we get Robinson or at least 1 quality starter that is an upgrade to what we already have
We should have got Corliss and Glenn Robinson (whose big contract comes off the books this year and would allow us to sign a big time free agent) and then whatever throw-ins they wanted to give. OR we should have got Dalembert.
Edit 1: My point about Rodney Rogers was simply saying that in dealing for him they(philly) gave up a lot more (Robinson's contract) then they did to get Webb. Since Webber is more important to Philly's success then Rogers I'd have thought Petrie would be able to get more for him. If Billy King felt Rodney Rogers was worth Robinson don't you think Petrie could have gotten that contract for Webber?
Edit 2: Well after game 1, Corliss (who was the only player we got that I liked) did quite well, so at least he looks good. Thomas (whom I wasn't fond of) also played quite well. If he gets 16 and 10 a night this deal might work out quite well, but I still can't help but think Songaila could pull down those type of numbers too. Anyways the main point is that we won. I also thought that last ditch effort from C-Webb was indicative of his career. Close but no cigar. He is an excellent player who simply can't get it done in crunch time. See Michigan; time-out called, as well as playoffs; vs. Lakers.
I really have no ill will towards Webber and I think it was classy for him to take out a full page ad thanking the Kings fans in Sundays Bee, but I still feel like we are better off without him, he simply monopolized the offense, for better or worse (worse in my opinion). But I can understand that, I believe he guinely thought he was the King's best option and that Sacramento had the best chance to win when he had the ball. Even though I disagree with that, I can respect it and I think Chris Webber will be missed, if for his toughness at least. I don't believe anyone else on the Kings is half the leader he was, for better or worse.