Then why were people giving Larry Miller the blame? I remember right after the signing Canzano had Miller on his radio show and he was discussing the signing from a standpoint like he was in charge. At that point in time I think Miller had say in the personnel aspect of the team. It was a cost cutting move to get Matthews, but it was also an underachieving Webster for a middle of the 1st round pick. About fair value if you ask me.
My recollection is that most people were quite positive on the deal. They were talking about how he started for Sloan and played Kobe tough in the playoffs. Also at the time, I recall people saying that Born and Buchanon were largely continuing the agenda Pritchard had established...which makes perfect sense because that was also the agenda they had been involved with. So it was their agenda too.
I think many liked Matthews as a player, but didn't like the deal. Giving KP credit for that move when he wasn't even a part of the organization at that point doesn't make sense.
Did I miss something? Matthews was signed with the MLE. They didn't need to clear cap space by trading Webster. I was no fan of Webster's game, and hardly heart-broken to see him traded. The point is, KP turned a pick in the low teens into a D league player. That is nothing to brag about.
My mistake. I was thinking tax threshold, and getting closer to it as more moves are made. Plus, moving Webster cleared room for Matthews. Do you think that the Webster trade was primarily to improve the back-up (and now starting) SF spot? I do. I don't think that the draft day trade is made without a replacement in mind.
It wasn't 100% mandatory but it was definitely part of it. You bring in a better player + a young prospect and your cost only minimally goes up. It's a great move. I don't think PA is as willing to spend as he once was(we're talking $90M-$100M). I think they want to stay as close as possible to salary cap.
