But Francis' contract isn't up 'till 2003. ------------------ Charles Barkely on the Raptors defeating the Knicks in Round 1 :"I think it was the Lord. The Lord was with the Raptors. You know the Knicks like to talk so much about religion, but I think the Lord was a Raptor fan."
I'm in favor of signing Webber, if possible, not because he's going to guarantee us a championship, but rathre, because the Rockets will be better with Webber than without him. Not signign Webber gets Houston what? The return of a PF with limited defense and no rebounding. The chance to sign the other non-existant free agents on the market? The ability to give 10 million to a C who's past his prime? At worst, Webber is a tradeable commodity. If the Rockets got him, and didn't want him, they certainly wouldn't be stuck with him. What were the Kings before Webber? Roadkill. What were they after 3 years of Webber? Title contenders that got beat by the best in the NBA. I'll take that deal any day of the week. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
What about Webber's character. His brushes with the law concern me and in my mind do not make compatible with the Rockets organization. Another concern has been the type of injuries he has suffered. I may be mistaken but has he not separated his shoulder twice in his career? Finally we do not really know what can be had in terms of available players until the usual round of dismantling and rebuilding begins. It strikes me that Mo Taylor fit in just fine and could be had a whole lot cheaper than Webber. I would rather see the Rockets try and upgrade at the Center and especially SF postions. Taylor's automatic jumper should prove to be quite invaluable with the zone defense next year. ------------------
Jackson? I'm goin on the premise that all we get is Webber 2. Cato is better than collier? One been the league 4~5 yrs. . the other a rookie and the difference between them IS NOT BIG AT ALL Cato may have more potential . .but nothing will come of it Rocket RIver ------------------
"What about Webber's character. His brushes with the law concern me and in my mind do not make compatible with the Rockets organization. " Character should not be in an issue with Webber. He is truly one of the most articulate, classiest guys in the league. He was charged with possession of mar1juana, but not convicted. Other than that, his record is spotless. But I think the most important aspect that people just refuse to mention is that Webber is arguably the best interior passer in the league. I mean in regards to passing and rebounding, he is Barkley reincarnated. Houston has been sorely missing a guy in the post who could kick it out and find slashers in the lane since Barkley retired. I think Rockets fans, when it is all said and done, will be delighted to by Webber's play when he finally puts on Rocket uni's. ------------------
don't forget, if Webb comes to Houston, the ROcks will get more national exposure and more games on tv. Think Rockets taking over the Kings slot in games shown. YIPPEE!! ------------------ snap crackle pop
You had a recent post in another thread about a teams's defensive ranking and how it is a good indication of contender status and championship potential. Mango, Yes, but that discussion had nothing to do with whether or not we should sign Chris Webber. I think if you look up some other old threads, you'll find that I also state that the Rockets also need a low post scorer and a rebounder. No matter what we do this offseason, we're not going to be a championship contender next season. You don't go from the lottery to the NBA Championship in one season. We're building towards a championship, just don't expect it next year. Even if we sign Webber, we've still got holes, but he plugs a couple of major gaps. Do we need to fill those holes with good defenders? You bet. Unless there's a FA out there that I don't know about, we're not going to completely fill all our needs this offseason. Webber gives us a serious rebounder and he's a good defender. He also gives a a low post game that demands a double team. I guess my question would be, "What other realistic options are available and better than Webber"? Do you want to sign Antonio Davis instead? He's already in his early thirties and he'll get near the max salary. Theo Ratliff? Is he available? What would you have to give up to get him? Is Ratliff at $8M more appealing than Webber at $12M? In my opinion, no. I believe that Francis, Webber and Mobley would be the foundation of a championship team. What we would need to do is plug in some blue collar role players as you suggested. I just think that it's much easier to acquire the stars and then try to fill in with role players than the other way around. ------------------
1) Of course Webber's paid to be a star, and not just a thug. But there's a reason his position is called "power" forward. More often than not the guy playing the 4 has to be the team enforcer--even if he's also the star. I don't really believe that today's version of the PF is neccessarily an enforcer. Look at the top guys: Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Wallace, Nowitzki, Walker, Jamison, they don't fit that mold. How many real enforcers are there in the NBA today? ------------------
orrcottle, It seems that your mentality is a fear of Webber becoming disenchanted with this team. If that ends up happening (which I dont think will happen), then so be it; the Rockets would have to handle it. To build a championship team, a certain amount of risk needs to be taken and teams cannot be gun-shy when opportunities like this come along. A chance of this happening arises with any FA signing, thats why its an inexact science. As far as your point that Webber is responsible for Golden State and Washington's condition.... I really cant blame Webber for becoming annoyed with Don Nelson and wanting to move on. Nellie does some very crazy things and can sometimes get on the nerves of players. In his short stay in New York, Nellie quickly got under the skin of Patrick Ewing by attempting to convert him into a predominantly perimeter center. Webber did not stab Sprewell in the back as you insinuate; it was Nellie he just despised. Think about it, if Webber was such a bad person, then why would Sprewell and himself be good friends to this day? As far as the Washington situation goes... Wes Unseld wanted to clear up the image of the team and get a player with a good public reputation like Mitch Richmond (something Webber had no control of). For the record, Webber was found INNOCENT of his rape charges and won a defamation lawsuit against the woman that filed them. However, even though he was innocent, that didnt bode well for his reputation, and the Wizards did not lift a finger to defend him. Sacramento was considered some form of exile before Webber arrived on the scene. He played a key role in improving a perennial lottery club into a top 3 seed in a stacked Western Conference. It amazes me that a team with such crappy individual defenders was one of the top defensive ballclubs (statistically) over the regular season. Webber's presence inside (which you criticize) along with the addition of Christie played a major role in this. I am just not convinced with your argument that has seemed to dupe others. Instead of providing solid evidence, its full of what if this and what if that? When you present the GSW and Washington situations, you leave out important information that provides a complete picture. Also, your assessment that Webber is soft is purely inaccurate. Soft players dont average 11-13 RPG and play a key role in upgrading a team's defense. ------------------ Check out the Best Source for Draft Info Draftsource.net
Great thread guys. Most insightful, well thought out discussion I've seen on this board in weeks from both sides of the Webber story. ------------------
aelliot: I guess I half agree; the 4 position is becoming more fluid. A number of the guys you name play like 3s, and for a few of them (garnett, nowitzki, jamison, maybe walker) that's probably their natural position, regardless of height. But Webber has always been very adamant about his being a 4 (and I kinda doubt he'd do well at the 3 even if he tried it), which makes his complaining about the Kings not having a thug 4 such as Oakley or Grant (if Grant can be considered a thug) all the more perplexing. In Golden State and Washington, Webber complained a lot when he was asked to play center, arguing that if the teams would just acquire a quality 5, he'd play his natural position. Well, the Suns had a quality 5 in Vlade, and after they were knocked out, Webber complained they didn't have a tougher 4. So what exactly does Chris want? To play the 3? To come off the bench? ------------------
orrcottle, open up man. she's not going to hurt you. I understand that she may have dated someone else before, but take a chance man; it's called life. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
I think Webber and Grant Hill are similar in the sense that they both are stars, but neither can carry a team on his own. That's why Hill will succeed in or Orlando and that is why CWebb will succeed there also or here with the Rocks. I'm sure he'll end up here or there, but it's just my opinion. Does anyone recall an interview CWebb had on NBC before he was drafted? It was after the lottery and during a playoff halftime. He said something along the lines of how he was so happy that the Magic got the #1 pick and he would get to play along side Shaq. If people would remember that, it is conceivable that CWebb never really wanted to be the Man. Then the GS deal went down and I really think it crushed CWebb's expectations. His other words in the interview went along the lines that he was happy that he wouldn't have to go to a bad team and have them build with him. Finally after years of unhappinness, CWebb is in a situation where he's in control of his destiny. I hope he finds his happiness here.
Mmanal: A number of good rebuttals in your post. A couple of clarifications: 1)I didn't say Webber stabbed Spree in the back (and I agree with you that Nelson can be a pain in the ass); all I was saying was the loyalty to teammates that he always talks about wasn't enough to keep him from refusing to report, and that this pattern (talking about how close he is to teammates, but leaving--or making staying untenable) has continued through two more stops. 2) Webber most certainly had "control" over his bad reputation in DC. Beyond the rape charge (which I thought was against Juwan, tho I may misremember), there was being picked up in customs with mar1juana, and having the big party 'til five a.m. the night before a key game, and a variety of other small infractions. Do they mean Webber is a terrible guy or a major criminal? Of course not. But they certainly call into question his focus and commitment to winning. 3) I agree that Webber is a good defender and interior player--and could be a great one. But to my mind, he doesn't quite seem to want to be--too many ouside jumpers, too little willingness to mix it up down low, too much complaining when he was asked to play center (compare to toothpick camby, or ratliff, or any of the other converted 4s). Is Webber a great talent? Absolutely. But a great player? I just don't know. You say that I'm dealing with what ifs rather than facts. But anyone's expectations for Webber as a Rocket are, by definition, what ifs. The fact that Webber is about to be the best player in a couple of decades to play for four different teams during his prime is a fact. Might the next stop be the one where he settles down and commits himself for the long term? I suppose it could. But then that's the kind of thinking that has teams continuing to bid for Rod Strickland's services. ------------------
orcottle, By all accounts I have heard, Chris Webber has a very big heart and gives maximum effort every time he steps on the floor. He has had his problems off the court that you cite, but no one is perfect (btw, the rape charge was against both Webber and Juwan but was found to be invalid and frivoulous according to what I saw on "Beyond the Glory" recently). I dont agree with your insinuations that he basically does not care about winning b/c that just is not the case. Its unfair to compare him to a lazy, unmotivated loser like Rod Strickland that has an agent in David Falk that duped Wes Unseld into a mammoth contract. Webber never has been and never will be the waste of talent that Rod Strickland is. Whats next, are you going to compare Webber to Quitten? Also, as far as the what ifs issue. Rockets fans like myself would be committing this if we said stuff like "Well Webber could be the guy for this team if he developed such and such part of his game." This is how the Mo Taylor situation was approached and was basically a question mark going into this season. Webber on the other hand has already shown over an extended period of time what he is capable of doing. Webber has shown he can consistently be a double digit rebounder and has scored over 20 PPG each season except for his rookie campaign. What is the what if in that? Is Webber going to suddenly fall off the face of this earth? Also, Webber has not had any of the off court problems you harp on for the last 3 seasons. Are we to just go by your what if scenario and assume they will magically re-surface? Lets see here, Webber has shown he is a 20-10 PF that can defend, play inside-outside and fits this team well. I suppose we should pass on him because "what if" something bad happens. What if Shaq learns how to shoot free throws? What if Quitten learns how to stop whining? What if the NBA folds? ------------------ Check out the Best Source for Draft Info Draftsource.net
Here's some comments from a Sacramento resident on a Warriors e-mail list: Webber is a tremendous talent, but, since mid-season, he has been a psychologically negative force. Most aggravating has been his tendency to criticize teammates for flaws that are equally, and sometimes even more evident, in his game. If he did this on a team with an Oakley or Tim Hardaway, they'd get in his face about it. Webber criticizes his teammates for being soft, for not "leaving it all out on the floor", but, in this series, Webber was content to shoot midrange jump shots until the Kings fell way behind, and then he would go into the low post to score. Defensively, one of the reasons Shaq went off was because Webber didn't really want to be around the guy. (Now, I know that the Lakers spread the floor to keep Webber away from doubling and tripling the post, but you'd think a good coach would find a way to get Webber down there). Webber really didn't want any of Shaq at either end of the floor, it wasn't just people like Divac. Watching this series, years after the fact, I understand what Nellie was trying to do back in 1994. He immediately recognized this diffidence in Webber's game, and was trying to goad him out of it. He knew the Ws weren't going to go far with Webber unless Webber toughened up. Now, I don't think he went about it the right way, but Nellie clearly saw the problem. Mentally, there was a world of difference between Webber and Shaq in this series. Shaq had that look, that intensity, that reminds of Michael, of Moses Malone in 1983. When he got those 7 blocks in Game 1, the series was over, because, like MJ and Malone in the past, he was making his statement at the defensive end. Webber played brilliantly in spots, but often mechanically. He also made some crucial mental errors (errant passes, reaching out for loose balls with his arms and not his body, etc., that cost the Kings dearly). Shaq ran over people for loose balls, leaving prone bodies in his wake; Webber just stretched out his arms, and let Lakers strip the ball away. Webber is a great player, but he has not yet elevated his game to a level that will lead a team deep into the playoffs. Perhaps he will in the future. No one in Sacramento wants to say this, because they are afraid it will make him bolt. Ideally, a team with Webber needs a Charles Oakley, Dennis Rodman kind of player. Otherwise, I think his teams are destined to be like the Denver Nuggets teams coached by Larry Brown and Doug Moe. Flashy in the regular season, a lot of wins, but limited playoff success. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Swopa (edited May 15, 2001).]
aelliott, I acknowledged earlier that you and Achebe are taking the long term view on this team, while many here among us think that everything will be in place with Webber on the roster. Cato appears to be a lost cause and Dream can't be expected to play extended minutes or 80 games (if he even stays). Collier will likely be a journeyman, but not a stud defender. Brad Miller, M Jackson et al to the rescue? Diop, Chandler, Curry et al to solve this within the next two years? Webber a strong upgrade over Taylor? Sure, but my point is that a better Taylor won't make this team a true contender, while a player that would make NBA All-Defense 1st or 2nd Team would. Would this BBS get as excited about getting a stud defensive player rather than Webber? Doubtful and that is a shame because defense wins rings. If people would look at the names on the All-Defense Teams, they would see players with lots of Championship Rings. The table that you had in the "Defense" thread showed that defense matters. The Kings and Webber were not known for being defensive stoppers and neither are Cat & Francis. Is it a reasonable expectation that the 3 players mentioned above plus assorted role players will mesh to become a top level defensive team and become a true contender? When Rudy and CD find a defensive stud, then I will be happy. Until then, they are marking time. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads! [This message has been edited by Mango (edited May 15, 2001).]
Because it is a veterans' thread. Will's friend is new, but can take care of himself. You had to expect Will to associate with sharp people. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads! [This message has been edited by Mango (edited May 15, 2001).]
Mango, If you're trying to make the point that Chis Webber alone won't make us a championship contender, then I agree. I think we also both agree that in order to be a true contender, we need to be a good defensive team. Webber is a major upgrade on the defenive end at the PF spot. With a nucleus of Webber, Mobley and Francis (coupled with the new rules), I don't think it would be that difficult to acquire the right role players to make us both a good defensive team and a championship contender. To me that seems alot easier than first acquiring the role players and then trying to find a star to fill whatever remaining hole that you have. ------------------
I am in full agreement with Aelliott. I think we can all agree that Webber is a significant upgrade defensively and on the boards over Mo Taylor which is what this team needs. Once you get the big pieces in place, filling in the surrounding parts is not as difficult. The Rockets have multiple draft picks on the horizon, and the exception rising to 4.5 mil will allow them to add solid players when necessary once their team is capped out. The tougher situation is one of having to package several role players for a star. The Rockets wont just immediately win the title next yr if they get Webber in the fold, but they will be on their way. They should be able to find the defensive minded SF they need in the draft, and a good role player at center in due time. Olajuwon can be a good stopgap for next season if he decides to stay, and this will allow them sufficient time to explore other options. ------------------ Check out the Best Source for Draft Info Draftsource.net
