And regarding the Bonzi opinions, my point was not that we should have signed Bonzi instead of Salmons. I believe I made that clear. My point was simply that ... here:
You see, here's the part I don't understand. It's been explained on the fourm that we offered Bonzi more money than Salmons. Although at the time the two signings wern't connected. Bonzi turned down a very good deal, that if he had it to do over, I'm sure he would take the offer now. If your Petrie, and a player has just turned down your offer, why would you think to yourself, Gee, if I just wait for a while, I can get him for practically nothing. Bonzi had just come off a very good season and his absence was going to create a hole. I think Petrie felt and oblgilation to do something about it. One of the problems that Petrie had, was that it took so much time for the negotiations to come to their end, that a lot of the available free agents were already signed. From this point on, you can argue that he should have, or should not have signed Salmon, but Bonzi doesn't enter in to that equation.
One other thing. Some people have stated that Salmon's doesn't make the team any better. I think that any player who average's 15 pts a game and does it while shooting almost 50%, and plays defense as well as Salmon's does, certainly makes the team better. I doubt we would have won the Buck's game without him, and if thats true, then he made the team better. He seldom shoots out of games, or makes crazy turnovers at important times in the game. And countless times, I have seen him get the team a basket when things seemed to be going down the toilet and no one could find the hoop.