OK, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate. Let's say the Rocks finish among the top 3 in the lottery, and draft: 1. Kwame Brown 2. Gerald Wallace 3. Take a flyer on Pau Gasol Should the Rocks still sign CWebb? IMO, Brown is a younger version of CWebb, with the ability to be better and could be ready to contribute in a year. KT has proven that he can be a solid starter at PF should the Rocks decide to drop out of the CWebb sweepstakes or Mo re-signs somewhere else. And if they could acquire a solid big man like LaFrentz, maybe involving a package of Cato & KT, re-sign Dream for the next 2 years, they could have a lineup of: C - Dream, Collier PF- LaFrentz (until Brown is ready, then moves to C), Brown (Langhi spot duty) SF- ? (maybe Walt, FA), Bullard, Langhi, Wallace SG - Cat, ? (Wallace also slides to SG) PG - Steve, Mooch Just a thought. ------------------
quick "?" is kwame brown the same "brown" that is/was supposed to go to florida next year? the same "brown" that was a McD HS all american participant? if so, he is nothing close to a c webb clone. dude dunked from BEHIND the free throw line with two hands... dude is also rail thin. closer to a carter clone than a webber clone, IMO. that is, if it's the same one.
so mango, if you'd rather have a defensive stud, answer this for me... why is it the philly 76rs are a WORSE team with mutombo than with ratliff? mutombo is the defensive player of the year. he is a bigger body than theo. he is a better rebounder than theo. so tell me....why are the 76rs a WORSE team. now i can tell you why...it's because OFFENSE wins games, defense keeps you close enough to make a run. that said, you'll never see a 76r team with one scorer and a bunch of defenders win (or even get to) an nba championship. IMO, there is a FAR greater chance of a milwaukee bucks team (offensive juggernaut) getting there, and even winning. ********
I just want to add my compliments to the well-stated posts on both sides of this issue. I don't have much to add other than my opinion. Webber would be a significant upgrade at PF, but if it precluded upgrading or maintaining status quo at center and SF, then I don't think it would be worth it. I believe that championships are still won in the middle with the Bulls being the noted exception. ------------------
verse, I'm not sure what your recent love affair with high scoring offensive juggernauts is all about. The bucks are not going to get anywhere close to the NBA title. If they happen to be lucky enough to keep hitting their shots and make it out of the Charlotte series, much less the Eastern Conference, they will be destroyed by whichever team comes out of the West. Both the Lakers and Spurs play fantastic defense. The Spurs have the edge in D, while the Lakers have the edge in O. Should be a great series, but I'll guarantee you that the series will go to the team that plays the better defense during clutch-time. Your contention that offense is far away more important than defense in today's NBA is, in my opinion, baffling and, to say the least, ludicrous. That being said, I've given my opinion on the whole Webber issue in other threads. I don't think we should pay the hefty price tag that he brings. Is he an upgrade from what we have now?....sure. But I'd rather win less games in the regular season and have someone I know I can count on in the playoffs. The point has been made by some in this thread that they would rather win a ton of games and be ousted in the second round than not make the playoffs all together. My question is...why? Sure it's more exciting for the fans. But if you don't have a chance of taking it all the way, what the hell is the point? All you do by failing in the playoffs is hurt your chances of drafting someone(and, depending on your salary situation, signing someone) that will help you get "over the hump." I mean, look at the Jazz. Look at the Knicks. They've been failing in the playoffs for years, and you know that unless they do something drastic that's all they'll ever do. Webber is not worth us spending our last dime to bring him to Houston and lead us to a second round disappointment. To me, that's a helluva lot more frustrating than being a lottery team that can very quickly become a contender with a couple of smart acquisitions. I'm afraid that some of you are simply blinded by the hype, and it's a shame.....because I'm afraid you're not alone. I think the Rockets are very much blinded by the hype as well, which means we could all be in a great deal of trouble. Webber = great numbers = less than an NBA championship That's really the bottom line. Well, okay, this is really the bottom line, but you get the point. ------------------ Gascon [This message has been edited by Gascon (edited May 15, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Gascon (edited May 15, 2001).]
Let me try to summarize the best arguments I’ve seen so far from Webber supporters in this thread. These are the arguments that put all the other arguments and numbers in perspective and make a strong case for deciding, in view of everything that has been said, to sign Webber if we can. 1. If we don’t spend the money on somebody of Webber’s quality, we’re going to end up spending it on someone of less quality, not more. Let’s take the best we can get. This is it. 2. “It's much easier to acquire the stars and then try to fill in with role players than the other way around.” (aelliott) 3. “Debating about whether or not your pf will get it done in the second round of the playoffs is a luxury that the Rockets don't have... yet.” (Achebe) Now, let me try rebutting three other points that have been made. 1. This is just a follow-up question. To sign Webber to the max, what exactly would we have to give up in the way of current players who might otherwise be re-signed (Hakeem, Moochie, Mo, etc.) and this year’s draft picks (which presumably would be dealt away at a slight loss)? Over to you, aelliott. 2. Is it necessarily smart to sign Webber on the assumption that at worst, he’s a “tradeable commodity”? Think back to Pippen. We had cap room. We used it on him. When things went south, we dealt him – but for what? We’re now trying to unload the last of the players for whom we traded him. That’s because when the relationship with your recently signed star goes south, it usually means the he’s no longer performing commensurate with his salary. Which in turn means you can only trade him for somebody else’s trash. Cap room is better than trash. 3. There’s an assumption floating around this thread, and the BBS in general, that I like to call the girlfriend fallacy. It goes like this: Guy meets girl. Girl size up guy, decides he’s good-looking or rich or has potential, except he’s a bit of a head case: moody, sometimes surly, sometimes unreliable, not interested in communicating, etc. She figures: I can fix him; I’ll make him feel loved, and his bad habits will go away, and he’ll open up, and he’ll be the person I know he could be. Except that it doesn’t work. In fact, it almost never works. And it almost never works in the NBA, either: Coach/GM meets player, decides he’s got great physical talent and potential, except he’s a bit of a head case; but that’s OK, because we’ll surround him with great fans and great teammates, and he’ll feel loved, and his bad habits will recede, and he’ll rise to his potential. So we pretended Scottie Pippen could become a leader, and we pretended Kelvin Cato could develop a work ethic. And now we’re pretending Chris Webber can be a frontcourt anchor in the clutch. How long will it take us to realize that personality is as hard to change as talent is? I guess when I sit back and look at this whole debate, I end up thinking this: We should sign Webber if we can, because he’ll make us better, and he’ll make us a contender, and if we don’t sign him, all the other alternatives are worse. He’ll always be a bad communicator with his teammates, he’ll always be emotionally hypersensitive and fragile and moody (playing with angry fire at some times, but retreating timidly at others), he’ll never be a team leader, he’ll never be clutch, and he won’t be enough, alongside Francis and Mobley, to win us a championship. But he’ll get us to the playoffs every year, and he might get us to the conference finals, and as long as the West is as tough as it is today, that’s as good as we’re going to get.
Will, lemme ask you this. If you're in a bookstore, and you have a choice between a couple of books that you've never read before...you're not sure how they end, but they look like they might be interesting and show even a slight possibility that you might learn something and, in the end, be a better person for reading them, or There's a really big, expensive book...probably a work of fiction....that you have read before....you know how it ends....it was fun to read, had a lot of twists and turns, and you really enjoyed it except for the dissapointing ending....... Which would you buy? ------------------ Gascon [This message has been edited by Gascon (edited May 15, 2001).]
i know you addressed this to verse, so i hope you don't mind me jumping in and asking what i think are some pertinent questions. why have you forever slotted webber as a playoff failure? before last year, would you have said the same thing about shaq? no heart, no commitment, too selfish, etc...? i would have. i think 24 games into his playoff career, webber deserves some slack. even jordan needed a supporting cast to help hoist his first trophy. that's not to say webber would have the right one in houston, but, rather, it's too easy, and not fair to simply look at the results, and conclude: no championships = failure. they did, after all, lose last year (and very likely this year) to the eventual champs. it's not as if they choked against an inferior opponent. this is, WADR, silly. anything can happen once the postseason starts, and if your rocket history is a bit fuzzy (1995 ring a bell?), then look no further than this year's jazz team for proof. i don't see how landing a player who exponentially increases your chances of making it to the dance in a rough conference is more of a gamble than hoping you can strike lottery gold a few years in a row with players who have no playoff experience, and no idea how they'd deal with the postseason. plus, looking a bit beyond the team, the rockets have a new arena to sell to a public that has quite obviously lost interest. sales shouldn't be the bottom line, and the team has proven countless times that it is not, but something needs to be done to re-energize a once-rabid fan following, and lottery picks ain't the way to do it. boy, please list for us this magical group of unproven college players who will lead us past the second round. talk about a tall order! the rockets are a lot better off going the sure thing route, hoping some pieces fall in place and taking their chances in the playoffs than they are hoping they can land the right combination of inexperienced players to... lead them into the playoffs. again, wasn't this always the knock against shaq? ------------------ Ric http://www.houstonprofootball.com [This message has been edited by Ric@HPF (edited May 15, 2001).]
If you just look at numbers, the problem doesn't show up. It's a sign of how much natural talent Webber has that he can coast his way to 25 points and 12 rebounds per game. But one thing that does show up in the numbers is that 42% field goal percentage, which is horrible for a supposed inside player. Webber is 9 inches taller and almost 100 pounds heavier than Iverson; he's supposed to get higher-percentage shots. The fact that he didn't points up Webber's career-long aversion to mixing it up with bigger players inside. I think if you check their average number of FT attempts per game, you'll also see an indication of which player prefers to avoid contact. ------------------
Let me start off by saying I would love to have C-webb. He is a great player. No doubt about it. My only problem is we have several holes to fill even if we sign him. Are only 2 givens are Stevie & Cat. We need a center. Best case scenario is we re-sign Dream but he will only be hear for another year or two. Even if we sign Webb and Dream signs for a million dollars I still think it would take our team until the second year to play together well. You can't just add a superstar with another potential star (Stevie) and expect things to flow well. By the time they learn to play together we need a C. We need an athletic SF who doesn't need shots, can play D, and is fairly cheap. Best case scenario is probably the draft (Battier) but it would probably take him a year or two to learn to play in the NBA. Also we could really scre wthe franchise and lose Mo, Dream & not get webber. Then we need a PF. THis is the worst case scenario. Now we have to reload with our draft picks and with cheaper role players via FA. I guess my point is that C-Webb will not put us in the finals next year, but it will put us in the playoffs. Then hopefully we can fill in some missing peices thru veteran FA the upcoming years for our salary cap exceptions to play for a championship-caliber team. C-webb is not the final answer for us but he is a needed peice to be competitive next year. Without him we will be lucky to make the playoffs next year, and this lottery **** is getting old!
Ric- I agree with pretty much everything you say, with only slight reservations. I think Nelson is an ass, and handled the Webber situation poorly. But Webber's response--to refuse to report--was disproportionate, and rare in a budding superstar. (Worse, for example, than any of the stuff Iverson has been pilloried for in Philly.) And you're right, Webber presumably hasn't been in Sacramento most of the year, and I've heard no suggestion he's gotten into trouble. But, again, some of the stuff in Washington wasn't illegal behavior, just inappropriate. It's fine to stay up 'til 5 in the morning partying during the off-season--but questionable to do it the night before a late-season game when you're trying to make it to the playoffs. Finally, I completely agree it would be tough to spend months on the job not knowing about my future employment situation. But the reason Webber didn't know wasn't that the Kings were shopping him or undecided about resigning him. He didn't know because he wouldn't commit to the team; his fate has always been in his own hands. The people I feel real sympathy for are his fans and teammates in Sacramento--whose fates are also in Webber's large, gifted, but perhaps not completely reliable hands. ------------------
But one thing that does show up in the numbers is that 42% field goal percentage, which is horrible for a supposed inside player. Webber is 9 inches taller and almost 100 pounds heavier than Iverson; he's supposed to get higher-percentage shots. I don't care if you're 3'7" tall, 39% is pathetic. Webber rebounded really well against LA,what else is Iverson doing except shooting the ball every time down the floor? My point was that Webber posted equal or better numbers than Iverson, yet for some reason Webber is getting slammed and Iverson is getting hailed as the MVP. Iverson is much more of a one dimensional player than Webber and currently that dimension isn't working too well. It's a sign of how much natural talent Webber has that he can coast his way to 25 points and 12 rebounds per game. If Webber can coast to 25 and 12 every night, I'll take him in a minute. ------------------
cool, have at it... it's been a great discussion thus far! let me first address the iverson comparison: quitting on a team is not worse than releasing a misogynistic, homophobic rap album when you're in the position allen iverson is, but back to webber... seems he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't with you. i agree -- nelson's means do not justify webber's action. there is no excuse for quitting on a team. but... didn't webber face a similarly unhappy situation (in his eyes) when he was dealt from washington to sacramento? if we assume, as you seem to be doing, that webber's actions from his golden state days are still somehow applicable to the 2001 version... why did he improve his game and help take sacramento to the next level? why didn't he merely walk away as he had done 7 or 8 years earlier in san fran? i think it speaks to his maturity as an athlete/person that he dealt with similar situations in vastly different ways. that he's now a free agent and allowed to shop his wares to whomever he pleases is not something we should condemn him for. shaq did the same thing -- these guys have played within the rules of the current system and are now set to reap the dividends of having done so. more power to webber, whether he comes to houston, or not, i say. i don't know -- didn't jordan and rodman jet off to vegas during the finals one year to gamble? was it uncommon to see barkley out carousing the night before a big game? webber's a grown man who knows and understands his body and its limitations. perhaps you and i couldn't party all night and be ready for a big game hours later, but then... maybe webber can. i don't think we should condemn him for it, unless his performance was decidedly off, and said performance lapse was related directly to his previous night's fun. i do not know, honestly know if they were or not. not to mention, that was over four years ago, and as i think i've shown, he seems to have matured. don't you find it interesting you have to keep going back to '97 and prior for concrete examples to support your counters? valid point, but understand, the pressure, et al, came not from him refusing to make a commitment (something he doesn't have to do), but from the media constantly dogging him about it -- they, not webber, made it an issue, and thus, turned up the heat. webber can't be blamed for waiting until the end of the year to explore his options -- that his right, and he's earned it. all the peripheral is media-based. again, he's damned if he does... if he chooses not to comment on his future, it becomes a big deal, but what's he supposed to do? during a playoff run, announce his intentions to leave? how is that a better route to take? understand, i think your points are valid, and when discussing $12-15M a year going to one player, these issues should be discussed, examined, etc., something i don't think the rockets did when looking at pippen, btw. anyway, interesting debate all the way around. when i first started reading this thread, i literally changed my mind after each post. ------------------ Ric http://www.houstonprofootball.com
regarding tim duncan: yes, there was drama in sa-town about duncan leaving. repeatedly, throughout the entire season, he was questioned about whether or not he was going to come back to the spurs. did he give an assuring response? no. what tim did was say "i don't know. i want to weigh my options." "orlando does sound good." was it a full magazine article? really, i don't know, since i don't catch every major mag. what i do know is that ANY TIME a major superstar is going to be a free agent and says he doesn't know if he is coming back, there will be ripples. i don't look unkindly about chris or tim for the way they handled those situations. the only thing webber did was answer honestly - probably too honestly - that he disliked the city of sacramento. why? for the same reason shandn did not like utah - not enough black people. now, he probably could have used a "politically correct" response, but he didn't. that's probably, in retrospect, an unwise decision. but i don't paint him as a troublemaker or cancer for doing what he did. and like aelliott said, if he can "coast" to 25 and 12, i'll be his surfboard. hold up...that didn't come out right....
Ric-- you may be right about Webber growing up between Golden State and Sacramento; no question he dealt better with the latter situation than the former. as for the iverson comparison: i was only referring to his difficulties with larry brown (the showing up late for practices, the tirades, etc.), not to his off-court behavior which has unquestionably been worse than Webber's. finally, my problem with how he handled questions about his free agency isn't that he chose not to comment, it's that he chose to comment too much. despite his occasional denials, it's been pretty clear for months that webber was planning to leave if he could, and i think that knowledge made for a tough situation in sacramento. ------------------
i think a lot of people forget how young he was that first year in GS -- 20 when the season started. that blows my mind! don't know about you, but i'd hate to have to go back and justify my actions as a 20-year-old. probably, though, again, i doubt he could have said anything that would have made the situation better. walk-year FA's of his caliber are always going to be targets. ------------------ Ric http://www.houstonprofootball.com
I've recently changed to being pro-signing Webber, but if the Rockets are ever going to win a championship, it will be because of Francis, not Webber. Webber's played 8 years, and this is likely going to be his best one. He'll never be the best player in the league. Francis still has a chance at that though (although remote). It's already been said that Webber will not be able to get us through the playoffs. The man has never won a 2nd round game, and he's in his prime. Some say it's because he hasn't had the supporting cast, but how does that explain his drop in numbers in the playoffs compared to the regular season? Yeah, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc., took a while to win a title, but did their numbers go up or down in the playoffs before that? They still raised their level of play, even though they didn't have all the pieces around them. Webber's numbers are WORSE in the playoffs. That's not clutch, period. Even this year, he put up good numbers in the 2nd round, but they were still worse than he put up during the year, AND his team was swept. That's not stepping it up in the playoffs. We're talking about a 55-win team here, one win less than LA, get totally swept aside without a fight. If you're not going to have a good playoff record, you at least need to raise your level of play statistically in the post-season. Webber has done neither. But I'd still like to sign him, and leave it up to Francis and Mobley come playoff time.
orrcottle....??? Why isn't it cottleorr? sorry, Will, you are no longer the writer on the BBS who am I most jealous of. orrcottle, if I come to DC, will you invite me and heyschweetie over to your lovely townhouse for some burgers, Barkley, and Mike?
