The Beginning of the Kings' Decline

[Travis_Knight]

Why did the Magoof's give Chris (timeout) Webber a 120 million contract when his second highest offer was from the Pistons for 80 million? Also, Bibby got paid 85 million after the 2002 playoffs which was the best 2 week stretch of basketball in his life. There was nowhere to go but down at that point. That's 200 million for two guys that never made an all star team since they got their paycheck.
After those huge contracts the Magoof's couldn't sign any other big time free agents. Webber's knee popped and Bibby came back down to earth and now the Kings SUCK.

[pillwenney]

There is some validity to this, but at the same time, hindsight is 20/20 to a certain degree. Most notably, you can't blame anybody for Webber's knee injury--the main culprit in the franchise's decline. That was plain bad luck and it happened at a very unfortunate time.

[deNIEd]

Why did the Magoof's give Chris (timeout) Webber a 120 million contract when his second highest offer was from the Pistons for 80 million? Also, Bibby got paid 85 million after the 2002 playoffs which was the best 2 week stretch of basketball in his life. There was nowhere to go but down at that point. That's 200 million for two guys that never made an all star team since they got their paycheck.
After those huge contracts the Magoof's couldn't sign any other big time free agents. Webber's knee popped and Bibby came back down to earth and now the Kings SUCK.

It's the Sacramento tax. The tax we have to pay for being a boring ass town that no 20 year old superstar would ever want to play in willingly unless they are convinced by the money.

[ICMTM]

Yes Bibby was overpaid, but Webber in his healthy prime is a max player. When Webb went down that was the start of this franchise's decline.

[pillwenney]

Why did the Magoof's give Chris (timeout) Webber a 120 million contract when his second highest offer was from the Pistons for 80 million? Also, Bibby got paid 85 million after the 2002 playoffs which was the best 2 week stretch of basketball in his life. There was nowhere to go but down at that point. That's 200 million for two guys that never made an all star team since they got their paycheck.
After those huge contracts the Magoof's couldn't sign any other big time free agents. Webber's knee popped and Bibby came back down to earth and now the Kings SUCK.

It's the Sacramento tax. The tax we have to pay for being a boring ass town that no 20 year old superstar would ever want to play in willingly unless they are convinced by the money.

To be fair, it's not like it's a huge disadvantage in comparison to most teams. New York, LA, and to a lesser extent, Miami and Chicago are places where players will make it a priority to live there. But that's pretty much it--and I wouldn't even include the Clippers in that. Nobody signs with, say, Dallas because of the city.

[KF10]

Retaining these players were significant for this franchise success at the time. We were title contenders when everything fall in place correctly.

The Webber injury was when we started to decline. It was an unfortunate situation.

[deNIEd]

It's the Sacramento tax. The tax we have to pay for being a boring ass town that no 20 year old superstar would ever want to play in willingly unless they are convinced by the money.

To be fair, it's not like it's a huge disadvantage in comparison to most teams. New York, LA, and to a lesser extent, Miami and Chicago are places where players will make it a priority to live there. But that's pretty much it--and I wouldn't even include the Clippers in that. Nobody signs with, say, Dallas because of the city.

To be fair, it doesn't really matter.

There are 30 teams in the league, and in the past 30 years, only what 8 different cities have won a title before?

It doesn't mean jack if we have it better than Mil, or Minn, or whatever city you want to say. None of those teams mean jack sh*t. There are only 2-3 teams that matter ever year, and if we want to be one of them we will have to find a way around the "Sacramento tax"

[Travis_Knight]

I disagree about a "sacramento tax." Very few basketball players ever turn down more money. One of the only guys I can think of over the last 5 years that took significantly less than was offered elsewhere was Karl Malone in 2003. If the Pistons offered Webber 80 million, the Magoof's could've offered him 85 million and he would of stayed in sac. There was no need to offer him 120 million, that put the kings into the luxury tax and they couldn't sign anybody else.

Before the 2002 playoffs Bibby was only worth a 40 million contract, then with a couple (ok, maybe 3-4) clutch shots his value doubled. BIBBY HAS NEVER MADE AN ALL STAR TEAM AND NEVER WILL.

[pillwenney]

To be fair, it doesn't really matter.

There are 30 teams in the league, and in the past 30 years, only what 8 different cities have won a title before?

It doesn't mean jack if we have it better than Mil, or Minn, or whatever city you want to say. None of those teams mean jack sh*t. There are only 2-3 teams that matter ever year, and if we want to be one of them we will have to find a way around the "Sacramento tax"

Yeah, but outside of the Lakers, that hasn't proven too relevant. Miami--to a certain degree. But Shaq was traded there. Nobody else on that team was really there for the advantages of the city, that I can tell. People certainly aren't going to San Antonio for the city, or Detroit for that matter--not to mention that very few of the elite teams have built their team in that way anyway. The only championship team that was built because of its location in the last couple of decades was the Lakers (Shaq deliberately signing in LA, and Kobe threatening to not play anywhere else when drafted). As an over all excuse, it's pretty weak.

[KM44]

As many have said: hindsight is 20/20, but you are completely correct in criticizing the kings' moves. We overpaid, and whether that was the "Sacramento Tax" or not is irrelevant. Personally, I think that the Sac tax only applies to incoming FA, but for guys that have been there for a couple of years, then that guy probably doesn't want to get up and move unless some other city overpays.

[deNIEd]

To be fair, it doesn't really matter.

There are 30 teams in the league, and in the past 30 years, only what 8 different cities have won a title before?

It doesn't mean jack if we have it better than Mil, or Minn, or whatever city you want to say. None of those teams mean jack sh*t. There are only 2-3 teams that matter ever year, and if we want to be one of them we will have to find a way around the "Sacramento tax"

Yeah, but outside of the Lakers, that hasn't proven too relevant. Miami--to a certain degree. But Shaq was traded there. Nobody else on that team was really there for the advantages of the city, that I can tell. People certainly aren't going to San Antonio for the city, or Detroit for that matter--not to mention that very few of the elite teams have built their team in that way anyway. The only championship team that was built because of its location in the last couple of decades was the Lakers (Shaq deliberately signing in LA, and Kobe threatening to not play anywhere else when drafted). As an over all excuse, it's pretty weak.

Well, I'm not saying it as an excuse, but moreso a reality that we have to overcome. You can overcome it by drafting well/getting lucky in the draft (Spurs), good trades (Miami), amazing finds/signings (Detriot).

Regardless of whether cities who are less attractive have won or not, you have to admit there is a "tax" out there. Because of it, we have to be absolutely perfect in order to have any chance at success. We can't simply "put together" a team together, since no one is out there trying to help us out. No one gives a flying f*** if we make the playoffs or not. It's simply Sacramento and Sacramento.

Webber got hurt and that entire chance was finished. Beno was a terrible signing, will that one mistake be the end of this group...still too early to tell. Either way, we have to nail every transaction otherwise we won't be going anywhere.

[Krimzen]

If the Pistons offered Webber 80 million, the Magoof's could've offered him 85 million and he would of stayed in sac. There was no need to offer him 120 million, that put the kings into the luxury tax and they couldn't sign anybody else.

You don't know that because it never happened. Your right that money is a big factor, but it is all proportional. Detroit was a place he felt comfortable heading to since it was his hometown and he had starred just down the road at Michigan. So how big of a price do you put on that? $5 million? $10 million? $20 million? It is different for every player, and we aren't privy to what happened behind closed doors. Getting his max deal was also about respect, as it was the team recognizing he was the most important piece. The max deal also gave him the added security of an extra guaranteed year on his contract.

No one can argue that Webber in his prime wasn't worth a max deal. As much as Vlade, Peja, and Bibby mattered, he mattered more than all of them. When he went down, our championship contender status went down.

You can't argue in hindsight because of an injury unless there was an obvious injury history or something so obvious it comes up in routine physicals. Injury is always a risk you take when you sign any big ticket player. Kobe, LeBron, Rose, Wade, or even our just-drafted Tyreke Evans could go down tomorrow and tear every ligament in their knees. That is the nature of the game. That doesn't mean you stop signing superstars.

Before the 2002 playoffs Bibby was only worth a 40 million contract, then with a couple (ok, maybe 3-4) clutch shots his value doubled. BIBBY HAS NEVER MADE AN ALL STAR TEAM AND NEVER WILL.

Bibby was a very good player in his prime. All Star appearances mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because they are voted in by the fans. On the right team, Bibby is still an effective player. You just need to make up for his defensive issues by pairing him with a good defender. It is true that he was overpaid a bit, but you also can't discount Petrie and Adelman's obsession with offense meant they never really put a good defender next to him once Christie finally burned out. They only really tried once with Bonzi Wells.

[Travis_Knight]

If no one can argue that webber wasn't worth a max contract, then how come not a single team in the league considered offering him anything near the max? The Pistons were the second highest offer and it was for 40 million less than the Magoofs offered.
Getting his max deal was out of respect? Ha, that mindset right there is why the Kings suck now. Nobody respects a last place team!

[ICMTM]

1. Because the Kings flat out offered Webber the max BEFORE her was a free agent.
2. Nobody was anywhere near matching it at the time
3. There wasn't a sign and trade offer there because Webber really didn't want to leave.

That's pretty simple. What you forgot to mention is had the Kings not traded him his contract would have expired last season leaving the Kings with $20+ million less in payroll.

4. Quit trolling!

[Travis_Knight]

That's the most incoherent response i've ever heard. So let me get this straight, you are defending the magoofs offering webber 40 million more than any other team offered? I shouldn't even dignify this with a response.

[Smills91]

That's the most incoherent response i've ever heard. So let me get this straight, you are defending the magoofs offering webber 40 million more than any other team offered? I shouldn't even dignify this with a response.

The CBA is set up to where, NO OTHER TEAM comes CLOSE to offering 120 million because he was OUR Free Agent.

6 years vs. 5 years with 12.5% increases vs. 10% increases. That all adds up to millions of dollars. Factor in teams with MAX capspace and the market was limited.

You offer a bona fide superstar that contract because that's what the market says he worth, not because others will 'COMPETE' with you to match or better that deal.

It's more about respect/status at that point, and the Kings were showing C-Webb the love with that contract and solidifying him as 'THEIR GUY' as they didn't want to piss him off and have him sign elsewhere for less.

[KingInExile]

That's the most incoherent response i've ever heard. So let me get this straight, you are defending the magoofs offering webber 40 million more than any other team offered? I shouldn't even dignify this with a response.

Yet you are responding...that says something.

Frankly, ICMTM's response was far more reasoned and coherent than anything I've read from you so far. All you have demonstrated is that you have some sort of hatred for the Maloofs (did they touch you as a child?), you have little understanding of how the CBA and salary cap system works and you don't seem to appreciate the fact that there is far more that goes into contract negotiations that what appears in the newspapers. If you want people to take you and your posts seriously, you need to step up the informed opinion and drop the hate. Otherwise you will quickly get dismissed as a troll.

[King Baller]

Its easy to make those comments NOW

Back then the Kings were America's darling NBA team. It was a wild ride man! The Kings made the cover of Sports Illustrated!!! Everybody in the Kings organazation was getting paid. CWebb was the main piece to make it all go. CWebb was not a super star, but he was a very, very good NBA player PRE-INJURY. The Maloofs were putting up billboards offering to mow his lawn if he stayed

Bibby looked like he had ice water in his veins in the playoffs. So he got paid to.

Those choices were made "In the moment" which is very, very different from sitting here now looking back in hindsight.

Later,
KB

[bjax24]

Webber's still the scapegoat? smh

With Webber
27-23
44-38
55-27
61-21
59-23
55-27
50-32 (better if we didn't trade him)

Post Webber
44-38
33-49
38-44
17-65

People can say what they want about 04-05 but...
1. We weren't winning anything in the PO with Peja as Leader
2. I blame Peja for the collapse when Webber came back, I don't hate the guy by any means but he needed to still step up, but he pouted for the rest of the time. And don't forget that we were 1 shot that went in the basket (and I still don't know how the hell that bounced out) from having a good shot at the WCFs. (It woulda gone overtime), and the Lakers did not play well against us that year.

So yes Webber was the beginning of the decline, but it wasn't his signing. It was his trading. Sure we lost Vlade and all that, but we were not truly a bad team til we traded him. Had a tiny glimmer of hope when we got Artest, but then went down again.

[darkadun]

This is kind of a moot thread. Yes, we paid alot for Webb and Mike, but what if Chris's career had not been derailed by injuries? I don't think we would be bitching over his contract. We would have had some great years.

We just had the misfortune of our Star player going down. What if Duncan had the same injury? Or Shaq or Kobe? It happens, and unfortunately it happened to us.