# Mike Bibby signs 7-year deal!



## Joe (Aug 16, 2002)

Okay kids, I live here in Sacramento and saw that Dana Jacobson of KXTV Channel 10 reported that Bibby will sign a "long term" deal tomorrow, not just one year.

Looking at other Kings' message boards just now, Grant Napear announced on KHTK that the deal is for 7-years.

Rumor is $81 million.

Also if you live in the Sacramento area and don't believe me, stay up till 12:35 a.m. tonight when Channel 10 replays their newscasts. Dana leads off with the story.


----------



## Joe (Aug 16, 2002)

Sacramento Bee:

$80 million deal for Bibby

The Kings point guard will sign a seven-year contract to stay with the team.

By Martin McNeal -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Friday, August 16, 2002

Kings point guard Mike Bibby usually sports a poker face while competing at basketball's highest level.

So it was appropriate that Bibby was in Las Vegas when he agreed Thursday to a seven-year, $80 million contract with the team. The deal came following a meeting between his agent, David Falk, and Kings president of basketball operations Geoff Petrie and co-owners Gavin and Joe Maloof.

"I'm happy," Bibby said Thursday night from Las Vegas before a late dinner. "I figured something would happen in that meeting. I'm glad to be back in Sac."

The Kings will announce the signing today at a news conference in Las Vegas.

**Thanks for the link, but we cannot post the entire story. It fringes on copyright violations. A few paragraphs is OK, but more than that is not. Thanks.**


----------



## ken pham (Jun 21, 2002)

Don't get too excited people. I think Bibby just got hot last year, he will be back to earth next year. And the Kings still loose to the Lakers.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Don't get too excited people. I think Bibby just got hot last year, he will be back to earth next year. And the Kings still loose to the Lakers.


Why would you think that Bibby will get worse, not better? He's been in the league for only four years, just had his first career playoff experience, and played great. If someone was destined to play poorly in the playoffs I don't think he would kick off his playoff experience the way Bibby did.


----------



## LupinIV (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Don't get too excited people. I think Bibby just got hot last year, he will be back to earth next year. And the Kings still loose to the Lakers.


Is Bibby the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd option on the Kings?? 

No.

Why all the fuss about a 4th option? People acted like Bibby's sneakers got hit by that MJ lighting or something. Y'all, he didn't really get hot, just his typical self in the playoffs. I saw him done the same thing for the Grizz in regular seasons (but the Grizz could never keep the games close to make his heroics noticeable). 

What Bibby does is handle the ball, make smart decisions, and knock down the open J. He's been doing it for 4 yrs. Just because he got noticed last year doesn't mean he got 'hot.' And you can expect him to do the same thing for the next 7 yrs. 

He'll be back to earth? Boy, he never left.


----------



## g-dog-rice (Jun 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Don't get too excited people. I think Bibby just got hot last year, he will be back to earth next year. And the Kings still loose to the Lakers.



I agree. Here is why:

Lakers/Kings Head to head last three years 

99/00 
Regular season: Lakers 3-1 
Playoffs: Lakers 3-2 
Total: 6-3 
Arco: Lakers 2-2 
Staples: Lakers 5-0 

00/01 
Regular Season: Lakers 3-1 
Playoffs: Lakers 4-0 
Total: Lakers 7-1 
Arco: Lakers 4-0 
Staples: Lakers 3-1 

01/02 
Regular Season: Lakers 3-1 
Playoffs: Lakers 4-3 
Total: Lakers 7-4 
Arco: Lakers 3-3 
Staples: Lakers 4-1 

Grand total last three years. 
Regular Season: Lakers winners 9 of 12 
Playoffs: Lakers winners 11 of 16 
Arco: Lakers winners 9 of 14 
Staples: Lakers winners 12 of 14 

Lakers winners 20 of the last 28 Games 

“The lakers fear us” 
Bobby Jackson


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

What is the point in posting previous years W/L statistics? Yeah, the Pistons beat the crap out of the Bulls for a few years before Chicago took over. Look what happened....


----------



## g-dog-rice (Jun 27, 2002)

The point is to show the Lakers have dominated the last 3 years and it is unlikely that the Kings will win soon.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>g-dog-rice</b>!
> The point is to show the Lakers have dominated the last 3 years and it is unlikely that the Kings will win soon.


LOL, *past* dominance has nothing to do with this coming season. Things change....


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

I find it funny that Laker fans so easily forget that this was Mike Bibby's first year with the team and his *first year in the playoffs.* He can only get better, the kid is still young and still getting acclimated to the offense. Also for Webber, Christie and Peja this was the farthest they have ever gotten, so they also recieved much needed expirience. This team can only get better as they continue to gel, and get used to each others games.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>g-dog-rice</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK...that doesn't make any sense.

You're arguing that Mike Bibby won't get hot next year by using stats from 99-00 and 00-01 when the Kings didn't even have Bibby?



This was the Kings' roster in 1999-2000:

Chris Webber
Jason Williams
Vlade Divac
Peja Stojakovic (12 PPG)
Nick Anderson
Corliss Williamson
Jon Barry
Lawrence Funderburke
Tony Delk
Darrick Martin
Scot Pollard
Ryan Robertson
Tyrone Corbin
Bill Wennington

That's a VERY different team than the the 2002-2003 Kings.


----------



## BizzyRipsta (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>k^2</b>!
> I find it funny that Laker fans so easily forget that this was Mike Bibby's first year with the team and his *first year in the playoffs.* He can only get better, the kid is still young and still getting acclimated to the offense.


exactly. plus, i must add, that bibby knows that people will have high expectations for him, and he will most likely want to live up to those expectations.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>k^2</b>!
> I find it funny that Laker fans so easily forget that this was Mike Bibby's first year with the team and his *first year in the playoffs.* He can only get better, the kid is still young and still getting acclimated to the offense. Also for Webber, Christie and Peja this was the farthest they have ever gotten, so they also recieved much needed expirience. This team can only get better as they continue to gel, and get used to each others games.



We can care less if it was Bibby's first or last year with the Kings....He'll get better, no doubt about it. Let's just hope CWebb is not hiding in the seats with Tyra when it comes to the final mins of a game again. If you guys are soo hyped up about adding experience, we Laker fans must be....
"OVER-(Edited- Please refrain from using obscenities. Thanks.) -EXCITED" to add 3 yrs to ours.

You guys are right....
it's gonna be a different year next year, The kings have signed Clark & made Bibbs happy, 
BUT....
This is the same type of attitude and hypness the Kings and their fans had for the past 2 yrs. I can recall when they got Bibbs last year, and all I remember, was everyone up North bagged up the WCF with the Kings written all over it.....the kings came close and played well, but "CLOSE" don't mean jack sqwatt, 
when you loose...
so we Laker fans feels the same way, unitl proven otherwise, It's funny how Kings fans, try and come back and say - The Lakers did not improve this off-season?? we don't need to shop for big names, we kept our core players that has been effective for the past 3 yrs.....OK


----------



## ken pham (Jun 21, 2002)

I agree. The Kings will come close every season until shaq and kobe retired. Let's face it who could comepete with the Lakers if shaq and kobe play at the top at their game( and they seem to perform better when it counts, unlike the Kings they disappear when it's matter the most). The Kings may win games but they'll never win a series against the Lakers.(I don't think they've ever).
For now the Kings may satisfy for division champ and keep dreaming for nba champs. Or they may find it proud for themselves because they're in the same state with LA.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Let's face it who could comepete with the Lakers if shaq and kobe play at the top at their game( and they seem to perform better when it counts, unlike the Kings they disappear when it's matter the most).


Who can compete with them...? A Stojakovic-less Sacramento Kings team. Come on, don't pretend it was a blow-out. There's a very, very good chance the Kings could win it all next year.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Really- one thing I'm getting very sick of is Laker fans insisting that the Kings have no chance until Shaq is gone. Did you watch the Conference Finals? The series I saw really could have gone either way-if the Kings had gotten a few more breaks or if the Lakers had gotten a few less, the Kings would now be champs. It's not at all like the Lakers had them in their pockets all along. Alot of the Laker role players played better down the stretch than the Kings players only because they've been there before, while the Kings haven't. But the Kings have been gaining confidence and playoff experience the last few years, and the Lakers are starting to sense that they no longer own this team as they once did. Don't even bother bringing up regular season matchups or playoff series' from past years- none of those mean anything. Face it- the Kings are getting better. I'm not guaranteeing a victory next season, the Lakers are still the favorites, but if the KIngs came that close last year, and they're now going into this season with a healthy Peja, Keon Clark, and that much more playoff experience and confidence......well, you do the math.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

I think Laker fans mean a healthy Shaq. Shaq's presence alone doesn't guarantee a win for LA. I think he needs to be 100% for LA to repeat because the Kings certainly improved themselves on paper. Aside from Shaq I think what LA fans are banking on is Bibby not playing as well as he did during last years playoffs. I thought he was unbelievable. He did everything that was asked of him and a lot mo. I don't know if it is possible for Bibby to play better than that. Nor do I think it is possible for he, Peja and Chris to score over 20 points a game each. There aren't enough balls to go around and someone is going to have to sacrifice. Last year it was Bibby during the regular season. The only reason he scored more was because Peja was out and there were more shots to go around. That seems to be the prevalent opinion among Laker fans. Here is my opinion:
Shaq is 100%-Lakers win in 6
Shaq is < 100%-Lakers might win in 7 again but will likely lose
I think Shaq is the player that will decide this series because he is the biggest and most dominant.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

I get your point, Pinball, but here's why I don't entirely agree with it.

You're saying that if O'Neal was at 100% the Lakers would win in 6. Well, sorry, he's not gonna be at 100%. He's getting older, so he's not gonna be at 100%. That's just the way it is. Yes, if all the Lakers are at 100%, they would win. Well, if all the Kings were at 100%, THEY would win. It's a moot point.

Yes, I agree that Webber, Stojakovic, AND Bibby can't all get 20 PPG, especially considering that the Kings have a deep bench. I think that it was just about keeping the Kings offensive options open. Stojakovic's injury hurt our depth so Bibby had to be the second scoring option.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

If the Kings had Stojakovic at 100% they probably would have won it all. But when I say Shaq at 100% I just mean healthy. I know all players get a little older and slower over the course of time. I'm just talking about him being pain free. Now that is a big IF. I just think that Shaq is the most important factor in the series because he can't be guarded. Christie does a decent job on Kobe. Horry does a decent job on CWebb. Fox has always does a solid job on Peja. But no one can stop Shaq. The only thing Vlade does is make him work on D a little bit. But when Shaq is healthy and motivated he'll get 40 and 20 whenever he wants. Clark gives you some more depth up front but against Shaq he'll be nothing more than a weakside shotblocker.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wiggum</b>!
> I get your point, Pinball, but here's why I don't entirely agree with it.
> 
> You're saying that if O'Neal was at 100% the Lakers would win in 6. Well, sorry, he's not gonna be at 100%. He's getting old, so he's not gonna be at 100%. That's just the way it is. Yes, if all the Lakers are at 100%, they would win. Well, if all the Kings were at 100%, THEY would win. It's a moot point.
> ...



So you are 100% positive that Shaq is going to be unhealthy and at the age of 30 he's getting old???......you are a JOKE!!!Do not insult people. Thanks. 
always trying to find all the little things to throw at the champs.

For Shaq - The older the wiser....OK 
he might not be as physical fit as he once was, but he did show, even at 90% he can still dominate the game. Ok so Peja wasn't at 100% either, but he was able to play for the rest of the series, and he made some key baskets and key plays, but that's no EXCUSE for the horrible air ball he threw up in the final mins of the WCF, Let me guess Peja's leg or knee gave out again, while throwing up that Airball....Right??

Shaq will dominate at 90-95% even better at 100%
Didn't you learned that from last year??


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b><<<D>>></b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whether you want to admit it or not, O'Neal is progressively going to get worse; he's not gonna get any better. He's not "old", but he has been in the league a long time and, in my opinion, is not going to be at his best because of his toe. You don't need to insult me.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wiggum</b>!
> 
> 
> Whether you want to admit it or not, O'Neal is progressively going to get worse; he's not gonna get any better. He's not "old", but he has been in the league a long time and, in my opinion, is not going to be at his best because of his toe. You don't need to insult me.


Why do you feel insulted??, I didn't try to insult you....
it's called - Proven facts.
Every player's skills will diminish in time, you make sound as if Shaq is some Handicap, he's 30 yrs old, a player at his prime, if not already. He can dominate the game at 90-95%, you saw it last year, For you to say he's not gonna get better, he's already at that stage where he's considered the most dominant player, you would hope he doesn't get any better than that right?? He'll continue to dominate the game, even if his toe fell off during a time out.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b><<<D>>></b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you feel insulted??, I didn't try to insult you....
> ...


You didn't try to insult me? Well, you didn't try very hard, then, because "You are a joke!" is an insult.

Pinball said if O'Neal is at 100%, the Lakers would win. I don't think he'll be at 100%, so I don't think the Lakers are guaranteed to win. No, he's not old, but he is not gonna get any better. Therefore, when you look at things like his toe situation, and then look at how dependent the Lakers are on him, it's not a stretch to say other teams have a good chance of winning. That's all I was trying to say. Settle down...


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wiggum</b>!
> 
> 
> You didn't try to insult me? Well, you didn't try very hard, then, because "You are a joke!" is an insult.
> ...



What I meant to say - Your comment was a joke
laterz!!


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Theres no need to insult other people's comments or opinions, <<<D>>>. Let's try and keep this post clean.

On another note, I don't think the Lakers are unbeatab;e even if Shaq is healthy. It makes it way harder, but it's still possible. It's really not that hard (especially for a master flopper like Vlade) to get him in a litle foul trouble and limit his effectiveness.


----------



## ken pham (Jun 21, 2002)

Kings fans keep talking about paja not being healthy as an excuse to loose to the Lakers. Did you all forget what Rick Fox did to him last summer? He always disappear in the play off.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Kings fans keep talking about paja not being healthy as an excuse to loose to the Lakers. Did you all forget what Rick Fox did to him last summer? He always disappear in the play off.


OK...I really thought we were done talking about Stojakovic, but if I have to explain it again I will.

Whether or not he "disappear" in the playoffs, which is debatable, by the way...it hurts the Kings depth not to have him. Fisher got absolutely beat on by Bibby in the WCF this year, but it was still nice to have him, right? Because otherwise, the only PG you had was Lindsey Hunter, and you'd like to have Fisher instead, right? Well, since we didn't have Stojakovic, the all-star who won the 3-point shootout, the Kings had to give the starting SF job to Hedo Turkoglu.

Hedo Turkoglu, while a solid player, is our BACKUP SF, and since we had to start him, guess what? The Kings now have no backup SF! That's bad!

Guys...it's really not that complicated...


----------



## LupinIV (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Kings fans keep talking about paja not being healthy as an excuse to loose to the Lakers. Did you all forget what Rick Fox did to him last summer? He always disappear in the play off.


You seem to have a very selective memory. Peja have figured out Fox by the end of that series. He got 26pts on 57% FG on that last game.

Then Peja got 25 pts and 50% FG for the two regular season games against the Lakers. (He missed one game and basically just chill for their last regular meeting, when the Kings have already clutched the conference.)

Ever since Peja became an all-star, I saw Fox being out-foxed by Peja. Unless George is really as good a defender as he is hyped up to be, I expect Peja to get around 25 pts and 50% everytime he faces the Lakers. Fox is no more a Peja stopper than Ruben Patterson is a Kobe stopper.


----------



## ken pham (Jun 21, 2002)

Year after year all the Kings and say is if.......... and they are still losers.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Losers took you guys to OT of the seventh game, Losers could have beaten you had they gotten a few more breaks.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ken pham</b>!
> Year after year all the Kings and say is if.......... and they are still losers.


Year after year all the Kings...and...say is if....?....Huh? Good one... Classy...


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Im not even a kings fan but this thread shows how ***edited***some fans can be. First of all in the series, Turkoglu was starting in place of an injured All-Star, if Brian Shaw was starting in place of Kobe and you lost wouldnt you think that had something to do with it.

Remember when Samaki walker hit a 3 at the half time buzzer that shouldnt have counted, well thats not happening next year cuz of the instant replay rule. Those 3 points ended up being the difference in the game, though you cant say the kings would have won that game because it would have been a whole different scenerio.

The Kings Were horrible at free throws in that game 7, if they would have made just 1 more free throw than they did in regulation the game would have never gone into overtime and the Kings would be in the finals.

You can not honestly believe that the Lakers are a lock to win the title, remember you guys were down 3-2 in the series and nearly lost game 4, 6, and 7. If a few things dont go your way the Lakers lose the best of 7 series, 6-1. And dont bring up a immature comment like "YOU CAN ONLY WIN 4", because you know what I mean.

That WCF was a classic series and I honestly hope these 2 teams play for the western conference next year and many more after that because this has the potential to be one of the great rivalries in NBA history, but Lakers and Kings fans need to face facts that either team can win on any given night. So dont bring up facts about who won the most regular season games because the last game of the season the Lakers were handed a W because pretty much all the starters were benched to prep for the playoffs so if you win the first game of the season dont get too happy, if u wanna be all joyful about a win make sure its in june.


----------

