A friend of mine who's a smart observer of the NBA sent me an email suggesting the Rockets could save themselves a lot of grief by falling out of love with Webber before they sign him (rather than after). I asked my friend for an explanation. Here's his reply, which I find pretty persuasive. it's not a question of what webber *can* do; it's a question of what he *can't.* as in: can't play with any toughness (his complaint about how the Kings don't have "a Charles Oakley or Horace Grant"; d******d, this should be you--especially on a team full of europeans. if you can't play as tough as a couple of 40-something former athletes like Oakley and Grant, it's because you don't want to.) can't come up big in the big games (8-25, 2 pts in the 4th, all against aforementioned elderly 4; for those who think it's because grant is still a top-flight defender, watch what duncan does to him in the next round.) can't stand not to be "the man" (see golden state) can't shoulder the burden of being "the man" (see sacramento; throughout this whole playoffs, webber, the team's presumed superstar, has had to be carried by stojakovich, tukoglu, you name it.) most importantly, can't commit to his teams--even when they have a bright future, even when the fans love him, even when he says some of his best friends are on the team. with very few exceptions, championships are won by teams whose star(s) have been in place, working out the chemistry kinks, for several seasons; webber has never hung around long enough even to determine how much potential any of his teams actually has. if anyone thinks this is unrelated to his mental weakness on the court, i think they're crazy. three teams have thought webber was the answer; shortly, three teams will have found out that he's not. the rockets shouldn't make themselves the fourth.
Without a solid inside force to carry the blue-collar work of rebounding and D, Webber would not be the final piece to the puzzle. Even with Shaq on the bench Sunday, the outscore them mentality of the Kings was not enough to overcome the Lakers. Rather pay a price to get a "Ratliff" type than get more offense in a Webber type. The Rockets need Inside D and Boards. 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 14, 2001).]
Webber brings boards, and much better D than the rockets have right now. ------------------ snap crackle pop [This message has been edited by CriscoKidd (edited May 14, 2001).]
Better than what they have now wasn't near enough against a contender on Sunday. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads!
Nobody outside of SA twin towers can match up with Shaq at all. Vlade seemed to be a decent matchup. He can hit outside jumpers and hopefully pull Shaq away from the basket, but it didn't work. Noone can match up with Shaq physically on D. With that in mind C-Webb may indeed go east, where he would be the most dominating big man in the conference and wouldn't have to go thru Shaq or the towes to get to the finals. The west outside of Houston is a big man conference. The east is much more guard oriented. For C-webb to come to Houston he must either think very long term (D-Rob retires, Shaq and Duncan age and become less dominating) or he does it for the money (which is more than likely what it will come down to anyways). I guess I am being pessimistic in thinking that LA & SA have the cornerstones (Shaq-Kobe and Duncan-D-Rob) for great teams. Teams like MJs Bulls where the entire teams can change personnel wise yet they can be champions with their 2 key players remaining constant. Watching LA & SA play is very scary.
Great points Will I love Webber's talents and his ability to run the floor but I have long held the belief that we aren't "favorites" to land him. I have pondered other possibilities and one guy that I haven't heard many people mention that I would like to see us go after, who is a little bit older however I believe brings more of a style of play that we need, is Toronto's Antonio Davis. He is a free agent at the end of the season and I think if we were able to financially re-sign Taylor and bring Davis in, this team would be in great shape, especially defensively on the interior. I know he doesn't have as much time left as a Webber, but I think he is the type of player who could help us greatly if we don't land Webber. Don't get me wrong, I think Webber is a great guy, and a great player and could be a great asset to this franchise, but he does have a past history, and it is not the end-all say-all if we don't sign him. If this team stays the same, (of course with the inevitable addition of a 1st round pick) I think they get better anyways, Webber or no Webber. I'll still be thrilled if we sign him though. ------------------ This message was sponsored by Dr. Francis' Foundation of Posterization. The FOP was founded for and is dedicated to those who suffer from posterization by Steve Francis. We feel your pain.
CWebb is a MUCH better rebounder than Theo. 11 boards a game compared to 8. And Ratliff isn't that great a 1-on-1 defender either. He's a great help defender, but then who knows whether he's gonna be 100% coming off that serious injury. As for the toughness factor, Chris isn't paid to be the team's Charles Oakley or Horace Grant. He is paid to be the star. Hakeem had Otis Thorp beside him, Michael had Rodman (don't laugh), Patrick had Oakley and Mason. Webber has his faults, don't get me wrong. But he's one of the top 10 players in the game, and those guys just aren't available every season. And he plays a position the Rockets need. Given a free (no maximum salary) market, he might command $18 million next season. At $12 million, he's a bargain. You say the Warriors, Bullets, and Kings found out that Webber wasn't the answer? That he didn't stick around long enough to figure out how good they were? Look at Washington. A laughingstock for years without Webber, a playoff team with him, a laughingstock after he was traded away. Golden State won 50 with Webb, and 26 the next year without (despite the presence of Spree, Mullin, Hardaway, and Gugs). Shaq was right. Without Webber, the Kings will go back to expansionism. As for the Rockets, I can't guarantee that Webber is clutch, or will deliver in the playoffs. I just know that I'd rather have had 55 wins and a trip to the 2nd round of the playoffs, than missing them entirely. ------------------ Don't you have any friends? Well ... the Superfriends.
Duncan is younger than Webber, so Tim's decline will be a while in coming. Lets go with this question: Would the Rockets be better off with a journeyman center and Webber or a Mutombo/Ratliff type and a journeyman PF (Taylor, KT etc)? Mango ps Will if you don't want this question posed in your thread, let me know and I will edit it out. ------------------ 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 14, 2001).]
Will, that is pretty persuasive, but the Rockets aren't really in a position to refuse all star free agents. Hopefully each season the Rockets will be able to take steps forward. This offseason, what would be the biggest step forward? Jackson? Overhyped. Maurice Taylor? *****. This team needs a frontcourt plug to pull down rebounds, score some, stand in Timmy's way from time to time, outlet pass to the team's stronger backcourt, etc. I'd take Antonio Davis, Kwame Brown, perhaps Bradley or Troy Murphy... or in the meantime, Chris Webber. One step at a time. BTW, I'll bookmark this page just in case the Rockets don't get Webber. It might be effective in the "I didn't like you anyway, fattie" psychology. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
Whatever additional questions you want to pile on are fine. I appreciate the point that Webber can't be held to a standard of perfection and that nobody completely stacks up against Shaq and Duncan. But remember, we are talking about blowing the whole cap. All of it. Plus losing some players who have been key to our success. If Webber isn't "the final piece of the puzzle" -- and signing him means we have no money left to buy additional puzzle pieces -- wouldn't we be limiting our team's growth potential more decisively by signing Webber than by not signing him?
webber has been put in those situations. He didn't choose them. If he plays in houston, it was because he chose to do so. That's a big difference to me. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it sure does make a difference to some people. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Ah......but Shaq was sitting on the bench and the Kings still couldn't stop the Lakers when they needed to. 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).]
I agree with PhiSlammaJamma, Webber didn't want to be in those situations. He got drafted by a horrible team, then got traded, and later got traded again. In Sacramento, he felt he was too far away from his family like steve and he didn't like the size of the city either. So I think now that Webber can choose he won't be such a let down. And his recent poor play is because of what he's going through. ------------------
Anybody that says Webber is not a big time player dosen't know basketball at all. Hell if it wasn't for Webber the Kings would be at the bottom of the Pacific Division. ------------------ President of the Steve Francis, Jamal Crawford,Larry Hughes, and Charles Woodson fan club.
I would prefer to have a Mutumbo/Ratliff/A.Davis type along with Mo Taylor and KT rather than have a journeyman center like Cato,Haywood or Woods along with Webber. Webber needs a tough frontline player like Mutumbo to take the pressure off of him. The nucleus of the Kings is better than ours,and even after getting a few draft picks it will take Webber a long time to get adjusted to them,which may result in him becoming frustrated.Webber has also made it clear that he wants to play for a contender,which means that he is looking to go to a more experienced team than the Rockets. ------------------
I was going to post something similar, Will, so I agree with everything your friend says. If we can get Webber for a little less and have room to sign others, I say go for it. If not, I don't think he is the solution for the long term. And we have to think about the long term and its ramifications since our best players are not even 25 yet. He always makes the same two moves. He either dribbles into the paint and then comes the jumphook. Or a 14 foot jumper. Yea, he rebounds and stuff like that. But I don't think he is worth all that money. I think he is just a better version of Brian Grant. I would rather have Horry and Grant combo than Webber and they would come much cheeper so that we can sign more bodies to rebound and play defense. And no, I don't think Maurice is our solution either. He is soft as twinkies!(L Hutz said that once, I think.) In the famous words of Jeff, "he ain't the end all be all". Or something like that. ------------------ Sleepless in the Bronx [This message has been edited by Almu (edited May 14, 2001).]
But remember, we are talking about blowing the whole cap. All of it. Plus losing some players who have been key to our success. If Webber isn't "the final piece of the puzzle" -- and signing him means we have no money left to buy additional puzzle pieces -- wouldn't we be limiting our team's growth potential more decisively by signing Webber than by not signing him? We're talking about blowing all of THIS YEARS cap on Webber. So what? We'd be sitting right at the cap. Williams contract ends after next season, so we could definitely have some cap space next off season. What free agents are you worried about losing? Shandon is probably gone regardless of Webber. We can keep Moochie if we like. I can't see the Rockets paying a large salary for Hakeem at his age, so unless he plays for a small salary, he's also gone (regardless of Webber). The only free agent that's really affected by Webber is Taylor and that's a great trade off for us. How do you plan to acquire a max player like Mutumbo or a $8M player like Ratliff? If you're going to be able to do a trade for equal salary (the infamous,"let's trade Cato" scenario), then you can do the same deal after acquiring Webber. Otherwise, your going to have to use up a good chunk of your cap space to acquire Ratliff, so we'll end up in nearly the same situation with our free agents. ------------------
exactly aelliott. there's no choice here, just various sign and trade options. this isn't a Duncan vs. Webber issue, or a Garnett vs. Webber issue. Those guys aren't available. Webber's available, and he fits the need. 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. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
aelliott & Achebe, I understand the points that have been raised. The position that you are taking is of a long-term building process while many on this BBS think that Webber + Cat + Francis + journeymen == true contender (short term view). Until the Rockets find a solid blue-collar front court player, the team will be not be a true contender. -------------------------------------------- aelliott, 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. I don't have time to do an html table, but just about every championship team over the past 20 years had at least 1 player that made first or second team all-defense. http://global.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveteams.html 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 14, 2001).]
Ive been reading these assortment of anti-Webber posts for a while and think now would be a good time to weigh in on this debate. I keep reading this misconception that Webber is soft and is a bad defender. I wonder if people who say that actually watch the player or just re-hash bogus trash. This could possibly be said about Webber early in his career, but he has developed a LOT since those days. Chris Webber has become a top notch defender at the 4 spot over the last 3 seasons with the ability to block shots and play solid position defense. He has always been an excellent rebounder and has only re-iterated that with his stellar performances in Sacramento. I find it amusing that people view it as a negative that Webber likes to step out on the perimeter and face up. Last time I checked, Rudy T and company want a PF that is capable of hitting from the perimeter. Problem is, that PF needs to mix some post game with that outside shot which Webber does. The funniest part of it all is that all of a sudden, fans are against signing him due to a poor couple of weeks during the playoffs when he was INJURED. Atleast Webber sucked it up and played as hard as he could and did not whine, complain and moan like some other players would have (one being on the Blazers right now). Webber showed true heart and grit by playing through his ankle injuries and lived with the results. As far as Webber jumping from team to team and having zero loyalty as is stated in this thread..... Last time I checked, Webber was TRADED and did not just walk. He actually did not want to leave Washington but was forced to since he was traded. Webber choosing to leave now does not make him a bad person. What is the definition of free agency? Does it mean that you can go to any team you choose or does it mean that you have to do what others think you should? Whether or not Webber comes to Houston, it is purely his right to leave Sacramento if he chooses. ------------------ Check out the Best Source for Draft Info Draftsource.net
