John Salmons
- Thread starter Entity
- Start date
He looks like a completely different player out there, no question. I think starting at the beginning of the season gave him real confidence. He played outstanding D on Redd tonight, is hitting the open three and going to the hoop with authority. I think Beno has been really good for him, they seem to play well together. I also like how he's not really manning the point now that Beno is here and playing major minutes. He's definitely worth the MLE this year.
The only problem that I have with Salmons is the same one that I had when he was signed: namely that he's still not appreciably better, for where they are at their respective stages of development, than a player that we already had under contract in Garcia, and I therefore object to the fact that we basically paid $25M to put Garcia in a time machine; never said that he was a bad player.
I was one of the "ppl" who were skeptical of how he would fit into our system of what used to be passing, shooting off screens and cutting. John is a one-on-one player and last year, I don't think Muss ever put together a system that worked.
Reggie seems more comfortable with that style of player and Salmons is doing what he does best.
Reggie seems more comfortable with that style of player and Salmons is doing what he does best.
And if we did that we would be a team with no depth at the wing position. Why would you not want both? I mean how does this look.
Bibby/Beno
Martin/Garcia
Artest/Garcia
Blah blah
I mean if Martin get injured or Artest get suspended and we have no John Salmons we are bringing Douby or now jones off the bench for big min.
You never want to be in a situation like that. Its silly to not want the depth that we have at the 2/3.
I would have rather seen that money spent elsewhere. I think that the disconnect comes where if you believe that we had to get somebody who was already as good right now as Salmons; we only had to get somebody as good right now as Salmons if the plan was to try to win it all right now... and, if that's the plan, then it's a very bad plan, in my opinion.
Johnny Salmons LEADS the Kings in assists this season - on a team that has been desperate for more of them. He tied Artest for the most assists tonight with 5. There's nothing bad at all being a so-called one-on-one player, as long as you're a good or great one. Then you combine good defender, can play and guard 3 positions - every team in the league would love that guy on their roster.
Sorry, Salmons is playing head and shoulders above Garcia. Salmons also put in a lot of work and greatly improved his producton last year. He has improved to the tune of where Kevin Martin was in year 1, to the end of year 2, and it's consistant unlike Garcia. That is "appreciably" better. Salmons can be in the conversation for most improved player of the year with his play thus far.
Last edited:
15.2/4.8/3.0/1.3/0.3 in 33 minutes is not "head and shoulders" above 13.0/3.5/1.7/1.2/0.4 in 27 minutes. Garcia's numbers per-48 are better and, more importantly, don't gloss over the fact that I said "at their respective stages of development." Garcia's numbers, compared either to Salmons' numbers in his third season, or the first year that he got comparable minutes, are by far superior across the board, without equivocation.
Comparing a sixth-year player to a third-year player as if they are at the same stage of their development is rather dishonest; compare where Garcia is now to where Salmons was when Salmons was in Garcia's position, and then tell me if you still believe that he's "head and shoulders" above.
Comparing a sixth-year player to a third-year player as if they are at the same stage of their development is rather dishonest; compare where Garcia is now to where Salmons was when Salmons was in Garcia's position, and then tell me if you still believe that he's "head and shoulders" above.
What she said.
I always liked Salmons. He is versatile and can clearly be a solid contributor if played correctly. He will have a decent stint in which to prove that he should have a starting role.
Garcia, I am not so sure. He has always been Slim's boy, so no point in arguing with him as it is still a little early to tell. By the end of the season we will have a better idea and I think that we will all see that he really is not all that. His "ability to read the floor" is in serious question at this point, and IIRC that was Slim's main assertion as to Garcia's worth.
Salmons was a great pick up that was widely questioned. There were really only a few of us that defended that move. If he keeps this up, I think Theus should shake it up when MB & KM return. Why is Miki starting again?
I always liked Salmons. He is versatile and can clearly be a solid contributor if played correctly. He will have a decent stint in which to prove that he should have a starting role.
Garcia, I am not so sure. He has always been Slim's boy, so no point in arguing with him as it is still a little early to tell. By the end of the season we will have a better idea and I think that we will all see that he really is not all that. His "ability to read the floor" is in serious question at this point, and IIRC that was Slim's main assertion as to Garcia's worth.
Salmons was a great pick up that was widely questioned. There were really only a few of us that defended that move. If he keeps this up, I think Theus should shake it up when MB & KM return. Why is Miki starting again?
Not really. In fact, given that neither one of these guys has any business starting for a half-decent team (or even for a healthy Kings team), Garcia's numbers suggest that he may actually be more reliable in a reserve role than Salmons is. Compare the non-starts... And since I don't think that either of these guys should be starting in the first place, I'm more inclined towards Garcia.
For as much as people like to pay lip service to Garcia being "erratic," he's had as many games of shooting the ball above .500 as Salmons has, and doesn't turn the ball over as much. The biggest difference between Salmons and Garcia is that Garcia's valleys are much lower than Salmons, and why is that? Because Garcia is a third-year player, and Salmons is a sixth-year player, that's why.
It's very frustrating to see people claim that Player A is more "consistent" than Player B, as if the fact that Player A has played in twice as many games as Player B had nothing to do with it; if you've played in 380 games and I've played in 167, you'd better be more consistent... that doesn't mean that you're a better player.
And since this comparison seems silly to me, I will use another silly comparison to refute it: in Memphis right now, Damon Stoudamire has been playing more consistently than either Kyle Lowry or Mike Conley. Do you think that means that Memphis would rather have Stoudamire than either one of those guys five years from now?
Say what now? 
You so have not been here that long... The only thing that I have consistently said since Garcia was drafted was that he had a more developed overall game than Martin did, and I think that you can make the case that he still does; I didn't like either one of them at the time, and I only like them slightly more now... I just like Garcia more than I like Salmons. Or dislike less, as the case may be.
You so have not been here that long... The only thing that I have consistently said since Garcia was drafted was that he had a more developed overall game than Martin did, and I think that you can make the case that he still does; I didn't like either one of them at the time, and I only like them slightly more now... I just like Garcia more than I like Salmons. Or dislike less, as the case may be.
Last edited:
A review of the posts that I've made regarding Garcia indicate fairly clearly that I was skeptical-to-outright-critical of the kid when he was signed, and pretty much throughout his rookie season. And I've also stated before that I think that he may have the basketball IQ of a turnip, but that I also think that he has upside.
If I've been pro-Garcia in any respect, it's only to the extent that I've been "anti"-Salmons. I was against the Salmons signing from day one, for the same reasons that I've repeated in this thread, and even my post history indicates that I've restated this on more than one occasion. Salmons is more polished than Garcia, but more polished =/= better, and it most certainly =/= "head and shoulders" above.
If I've been pro-Garcia in any respect, it's only to the extent that I've been "anti"-Salmons. I was against the Salmons signing from day one, for the same reasons that I've repeated in this thread, and even my post history indicates that I've restated this on more than one occasion. Salmons is more polished than Garcia, but more polished =/= better, and it most certainly =/= "head and shoulders" above.
You make great points as usual, and I don't disagree with anything you say but this.
If Salmons were a win-now signing, then why did they sign him to 5 years? It seems to me that most of the players that are brought in to help win a championship get 1-2 year contracts. 3 at the most. John was what?...26 years old when we signed him? I think Geoff saw untapped potential in Salmons and decided to get while the gettin was good. Who knows, maybe Salmons was an insurance signing for GP in case if Artest went Artest, or if Kevin flopped. And of course, we all know how much GP loves his swingmen.
You have always maintained the position that we haven't had the right plan, as an organization, for a little while now. And you are right, or at least, I agree. But that doesn't mean that every move we have made are bad ones. I remember many people did not like the Salmons signing at the time, and I was in favor of it. I thought at the time that Salmons would progress into the player that he should be, and in-turn, live up to his contract. There aren't many Kings on this team that are living up to their contracts.
Should we have spent the money elsewhere? Of course. Well, unless if you go out and get Mikki Moore. But wait, if Mikki lives up to his contract by next year I guess I will have to change my position on him.
Anyway, with Martin, Salmons, Garcia and Douby, we pretty much have the SG and SF position covered for a while. And for relatively cheap too. Those 4 give us the flexibility of moving Artest, whose value is pretty high right now. And if we want to keep Artest, then Salmons could be a valuable trading chip.
No matter what our organization's plans are as of this moment, Salmons is providing much more help than hurt.
If Salmons were a win-now signing, then why did they sign him to 5 years? It seems to me that most of the players that are brought in to help win a championship get 1-2 year contracts. 3 at the most. John was what?...26 years old when we signed him? I think Geoff saw untapped potential in Salmons and decided to get while the gettin was good. Who knows, maybe Salmons was an insurance signing for GP in case if Artest went Artest, or if Kevin flopped. And of course, we all know how much GP loves his swingmen.
You have always maintained the position that we haven't had the right plan, as an organization, for a little while now. And you are right, or at least, I agree. But that doesn't mean that every move we have made are bad ones. I remember many people did not like the Salmons signing at the time, and I was in favor of it. I thought at the time that Salmons would progress into the player that he should be, and in-turn, live up to his contract. There aren't many Kings on this team that are living up to their contracts.
Should we have spent the money elsewhere? Of course. Well, unless if you go out and get Mikki Moore.
But wait, if Mikki lives up to his contract by next year I guess I will have to change my position on him. Anyway, with Martin, Salmons, Garcia and Douby, we pretty much have the SG and SF position covered for a while. And for relatively cheap too. Those 4 give us the flexibility of moving Artest, whose value is pretty high right now. And if we want to keep Artest, then Salmons could be a valuable trading chip.
No matter what our organization's plans are as of this moment, Salmons is providing much more help than hurt.
If Petrie signed Salmons as a contingency to Artest, then why aren't their contracts more closely matched? Artest isn't going to be here four years from now, either.
It was a "win now" signing in the sense that Salmons' presence directly impacts Garcia's development, since they have the same skill sets, but Salmons is more ready now, which means that he's going to get time that should (in my opinion) be going to Garcia. The only reason why you should sign a more polished version of a player you already have to any kind of contract is if:
1) Salmons was only signed to be traded/packaged in a trade, or
2) You're trying to be competitive in the short term, and therefore don't want to wait on the less-polished player to develop.
Contrary to popular opinion, I do not feel that practice should be the sole determinant in whether or not the kids get to play, or even necessarily the primary determinant... not on a lottery-bound team, I don't. I feel that our goal should be to give all the young players the optimum amount of minutes, and assess their worth based on actual playing time, against actual opponents. And Garcia is never going to get the optimum amount of minutes as long as he's playing behind Salmons.
It was a "win now" signing in the sense that Salmons' presence directly impacts Garcia's development, since they have the same skill sets, but Salmons is more ready now, which means that he's going to get time that should (in my opinion) be going to Garcia. The only reason why you should sign a more polished version of a player you already have to any kind of contract is if:
1) Salmons was only signed to be traded/packaged in a trade, or
2) You're trying to be competitive in the short term, and therefore don't want to wait on the less-polished player to develop.
Contrary to popular opinion, I do not feel that practice should be the sole determinant in whether or not the kids get to play, or even necessarily the primary determinant... not on a lottery-bound team, I don't. I feel that our goal should be to give all the young players the optimum amount of minutes, and assess their worth based on actual playing time, against actual opponents. And Garcia is never going to get the optimum amount of minutes as long as he's playing behind Salmons.
The 3rd year player vs 6th year player thing seems less relevant to me. Salmons is more of an impact player now, period. Sure, Cisco could develop into a better player than he is, become a bit more consistent but I don't believe he will ever be a 25/8/6 player - he will always be a lower impact role player. When he is fully "developed" he is unlikely to have any more of an impact that Salmons is having right now. So what is the real significance of the 2/3 year difference of experience, if we are talking about a solid role player, or even trade value? Because one could argue that that Salmons trade value now is as good as Garcia's would be in 2/3 years, plus I think Salmons is more of a complete player than Garcia is, or perhaps will ever be. Maybe you see significantly more talent and potential in Garcia than I do, but I don't see him being a superstar or ever more an all-around contributor that Salmons is now.
If Salmons were an Artest-contingency, then there isn't any reason to match their contracts up or anything. Remember, Petrie wasn't the one that wanted Artest. So when he made Artest's contract it was under the duress of the Maloofs. Bringing in Salmons as a contingency plan means you are bringing the guy in, however you can. And in Salmon's case, GP felt like he had to dish out extra cash or an extended contract to attract him here.
And remember, Kevin only averaged 11 PPG in the 05/06 season. The signing of Salmons was just before Kevin's breakout year, and it was after Bonzi's agent dropped the ball. At the time, Salmons was insurance for Kevin, Ron and Cisco...in case if one of them dropped off. Who knew that Kevin would go on to break out and Ron would stabilize (at least on the court)? And Cisco is slowly starting to become more stable himself. Most of us fans saw the potential in Kevin, but none of us predicted he would go that high that fast.
I think the idea of Salmons was just a smart business idea all around. Bring in players for cheaper than their value, and let them reach that value in your uniform. Then you are in a position where you can keep the player and get more production for what you are paying them, or you get good value back in a trade. Now if GP could only do that with some frontcourt players, our team might be in a better situation.
As for the stunting of Garcia's growth, I can't really argue with you there. If the team were rebuilding, or had that "plan" as you would put it, then the Salmons signing would have been both redundant and counterproductive. But in the minds of our owners, we were still "competing", which we clearly weren't. And in competing-mode, you want to have depth, you want to have contingency plans.
I totally agree with you about rebuild-mode and giving young studs ample playing time. But I don't mind temporarily delaying one players development, if a sound business move is in place. As of this moment, we don't really skip a beat when our #1 scorer goes down to injury. And when Kevin comes back, we will be back to where we were before Kevin went down -- which is in a prime position to trade Salmons or Artest.
At this point, I would rather trade Salmons. He is more of a SG IMO, and we already have our SG of the future. I would like to see Douby get more time as backup SG too. Artest also gives us the flexibility of swinging to PF on occasion. But the window for trading Artest is going to close soon, so the team might be better served in moving him. What do you think? Trade Salmons or Artest? Or both?
And remember, Kevin only averaged 11 PPG in the 05/06 season. The signing of Salmons was just before Kevin's breakout year, and it was after Bonzi's agent dropped the ball. At the time, Salmons was insurance for Kevin, Ron and Cisco...in case if one of them dropped off. Who knew that Kevin would go on to break out and Ron would stabilize (at least on the court)? And Cisco is slowly starting to become more stable himself. Most of us fans saw the potential in Kevin, but none of us predicted he would go that high that fast.
I think the idea of Salmons was just a smart business idea all around. Bring in players for cheaper than their value, and let them reach that value in your uniform. Then you are in a position where you can keep the player and get more production for what you are paying them, or you get good value back in a trade. Now if GP could only do that with some frontcourt players, our team might be in a better situation.
As for the stunting of Garcia's growth, I can't really argue with you there. If the team were rebuilding, or had that "plan" as you would put it, then the Salmons signing would have been both redundant and counterproductive. But in the minds of our owners, we were still "competing", which we clearly weren't. And in competing-mode, you want to have depth, you want to have contingency plans.
I totally agree with you about rebuild-mode and giving young studs ample playing time. But I don't mind temporarily delaying one players development, if a sound business move is in place. As of this moment, we don't really skip a beat when our #1 scorer goes down to injury. And when Kevin comes back, we will be back to where we were before Kevin went down -- which is in a prime position to trade Salmons or Artest.
At this point, I would rather trade Salmons. He is more of a SG IMO, and we already have our SG of the future. I would like to see Douby get more time as backup SG too. Artest also gives us the flexibility of swinging to PF on occasion. But the window for trading Artest is going to close soon, so the team might be better served in moving him. What do you think? Trade Salmons or Artest? Or both?