Donte Greene = Next G.Wallace?

[=LarryLegend=]

Anybody have a feeling that Donte Greene will be the next "Kings version"
of Gerald Wallace?

Wallace was behind Peja, Hedo...........Wallace

Greene is behind The Fish, Cisco..........Greene


Dont get me wrong I like both Salmons and Cisco.......One of them needs to go. Salmons value is so high right now! he has been scoring and so clutch. 20pts in the 4th last night. Cisco just signed his deal.

 

[Arby's Roast Beef]

You mean in terms of being stuck in the bench?

Because, so far, it seems that's where the comparison ends.

 

[Bricklayer]

We're half a season into his rookie year. There is a similar logjam in front of him today, but that could change by tommorow. And the core guys ahead of Wallace were winners who had proven they would win 60 games as a unit so we were only minimally inspired to make room for him while we were contending. Infatuation aside, the guys ahead of Greene have shown nothing but that they can ut up big numbers on a bad team. They can moved in trade, they can be pushed aside if he shows major potential. There's nobody with the possible and not even guaranteed exception of Kevin who clearly has his spot locked up for the length of Donte's rookie contract.

 

[Section 101]

From what we are told, Greene has a much better work ethic than Wallace did at this stage. Plus Wallace was hurt alot when he was to get playing time. Greene hasn't had an injury that prevented him from playing yet.

Plus, Greene is known as a shooter while that was and still is Wallace's weakness.

 

[HighTopKicks]

We're half a season into his rookie year. There is a similar logjam in front of him today, but that could change by tommorow. And the core guys ahead of Wallace were winners who had proven they would win 60 games as a unit so we were only minimally inspired to make room for him while we were contending. Infatuation aside, the guys ahead of Greene have shown nothing but that they can ut up big numbers on a bad team. They can moved in trade, they can be pushed aside if he shows major potential. There's nobody with the possible and not even guaranteed exception of Kevin who clearly has his spot locked up for the length of Donte's rookie contract.

I'm often facinated by the comment "big numbers on a bad team". I guess to me it would be harder to put up big numbers since the opposition can focus in on the players putting up the big numbers since there's no one else to defend.

I think a case could be made that Salmons is the best player on the Kings at this moment. And, Kevin though an outstanding scorer, has enough weaknesses in his game that he doesn't merit being excluded from being moved.

 

[Bibby.10]

No, Salmons will most likely be moved before Greene is ready to get big minutes.
Greene is at least 2 years from being a factor with large minutes in the NBA IMO.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'm often facinated by the comment "big numbers on a bad team". I guess to me it would be harder to put up big numbers since the opposition can focus in on the players putting up the big numbers since there's no one else to defend.

It means two things.

First it is a recognition that the player is getting shots, opportunities and minutes on the bad team that he would not on a good team surrounded by more talented players. That's the classic syndrome. Take a solid 12-15ppg contributor on a good team, put him on a bad team where he gets 10 extra minutes and 6 extra shots, and he looks like a star.

Second it is the lingering suspicion that if a guy is putting up big numbers and his team still sucks, that the big numbers are disguising weaknesses i his game that are hurting his team and contributing to their suckiness. Selfishness, lack of passing ability, and lack of defense are always good places to start when looking for that a link.

Where you MIGHT see some of the effect you postulate would be in efficiency -- the good number on the bad team guy gets to put up bigger numbers, but shoting percentages might slip and turnovers might rise.

 

[HighTopKicks]

It means two things.

First it is a recognition that the player is getting shots, opportunities and minutes on the bad team that he would not on a good team surrounded by more talented players. That's the classic syndrome. Take a solid 12-15ppg contributor on a good team, put him on a bad team where he gets 10 extra minutes and 6 extra shots, and he looks like a star.

Second it is the lingering suspicion that if a guy is putting up big numbers and his team still sucks, that the big numbers are disguising weaknesses i his game that are hurting his team and contributing to their suckiness. Selfishness, lack of passing ability, and lack of defense are always good places to start when looking for that a link.

Where you MIGHT see some of the effect you postulate would be in efficiency -- the good number on the bad team guy gets to put up bigger numbers, but shoting percentages might slip and turnovers might rise.

Well, the first might apply to Salmons though we won't know until he gets traded to a good team. The second doesn't apply. The Kings best defender, 1st in rebounds among non bigs, 3rd in assts, 2nd in scoring, 1st in games played without injury, 2nd in 3pt shooting percentage, 3rd in overall shooting percentage, and the only player capable of backing up Martin when he gets injured. If he has weaknesses, then there the only things keeping him from being a star.

When Martin came back, initially his scoring went down but his assts & rebounds went up. That's how a good player contributes when he isn't getting the ball. And, he's not afraid to take the big shot. So, I guess the term doesn't apply to him.

 

[BibbyFAN10]

Speaking of Wallace....He is absolutely dominating the Trail Blazers right now including a HUGE one handed alley oop over Greg Oden....

 

[Kingster]

Anybody have a feeling that Donte Greene will be the next "Kings version"
of Gerald Wallace?

Wallace was behind Peja, Hedo...........Wallace

Greene is behind The Fish, Cisco..........Greene


Dont get me wrong I like both Salmons and Cisco.......One of them needs to go. Salmons value is so high right now! he has been scoring and so clutch. 20pts in the 4th last night. Cisco just signed his deal.

No, because Salmons (mark my words) will get traded. Just makes no sense to keep him, given his age. If they trade Salmons, then Cisco becomes starter and Greene *can* become a backup. But Greene has a long ways to go; he's really got to work hard to make a contribution. To me, Greene has shown less in rookie year than Wallace did in his. Wallace you could see had great potential. I've definitely seen glimmers with Greene, but I'm not as sold on Greene's potential as I was on Wallace's.

 

[bajaden]

No, because Salmons (mark my words) will get traded. Just makes no sense to keep him, given his age. If they trade Salmons, then Cisco becomes starter and Greene *can* become a backup. But Greene has a long ways to go; he's really got to work hard to make a contribution. To me, Greene has shown less in rookie year than Wallace did in his. Wallace you could see had great potential. I've definitely seen glimmers with Greene, but I'm not as sold on Greene's potential as I was on Wallace's.

Really hard to say at this point. Wallace was a better athlete than Greene. But then, Wallace was probably a better athlete than 90% of the players in the NBA. Wallace relied purely on his athletic ability. He had had no reliable outside shot or inside game at all.

Greene is at present a more fundamentally sound player than Wallace was when he was drafted. He has good form on his shot and seems to have an understanding of how the game is played. He's displayed some passing skills. So its really like mixing apples and oranges right now. Two intirely different players with different skill sets.

 

[Section 101]

No, because Salmons (mark my words) will get traded. Just makes no sense to keep him, given his age. If they trade Salmons, then Cisco becomes starter and Greene *can* become a backup.

Cisco is only 2 years younger than Salmons. It's not an age thing.

 

[Bricklayer]

Well, the first might apply to Salmons though we won't know until he gets traded to a good team. The second doesn't apply. The Kings best defender, 1st in rebounds among non bigs, 3rd in assts, 2nd in scoring, 1st in games played without injury, 2nd in 3pt shooting percentage, 3rd in overall shooting percentage, and the only player capable of backing up Martin when he gets injured. If he has weaknesses, then there the only things keeping him from being a star.

When Martin came back, initially his scoring went down but his assts & rebounds went up. That's how a good player contributes when he isn't getting the ball. And, he's not afraid to take the big shot. So, I guess the term doesn't apply to him.

The term actually apples decently to both of them. Both guys are elevated into roles that they would not have on a good team. Meanwhile Salmons is selfish and can't play with others (making him truly a classic good numbers on bad team guy -- he goes into a shell as soon as anybody else gets his ball) -- and Kevin does not play defense or make anybody better. Because he is actually better at being set up for his shots than setting up his own shots Kevin has the greater potential to be a good secondary player on a good team...if he learns to make an effort on defense. But he will never be the man on a good team, and if he does not improve his defense no good team could ever become great wiht him on it. Even guys like Peja and Rip have learned how to make an effort nad be respectable defenders. Absorbed the concept that it is not all about their scoring numbers.

And so you have two guys who put up pretty looking numbers -- although rarely at the same time due to Salmons' allergy to other players getting the ball -- and yet do not make much difference to winning or losing (indeed I'm not sure if Salmons has ever played for a winning team -- our new Shareef). Kevin is in danger of being thought of as another Michael Redd, and Salmons is in danger of being Corey Maggette.

 

[Bricklayer]

Cisco is only 2 years younger than Salmons. It's not an age thing.

Yes it is -- Cisco is on the border too, but those two years make this difference:

Salmons is 29

It is going to take us at least three years to be back into elite status (at LEAST). That's if everything goes perfectly and we get a little lucky beyond that.

By the time we could be back into elite status Salmons would be 32/33 and almost immediately need to be replaced. More likely it takes us closer to 5 years and he's 34/35 and just about done. When you are a 10-31 team you have no use for a 29 year old guys (let alone our 33 yr old center). They aren't going to be there when you get good, and they just gobble up minutes and shots from guys who might be.

 

[HighTopKicks]

The term actually apples decently to both of them. Both guys are elevated into roles that they would not have on a good team. Meanwhile Salmons is selfish and can't play with others (making him truly a classic good numbers on bad team guy -- he goes into a shell as soon as anybody else gets his ball) -- and Kevin does not play defense or make anybody better. Because he is actually better at being set up for his shots than setting up his own shots Kevin has the greater potential to be a good secondary player on a good team...if he learns to make an effort on defense. But he will never be the man on a good team, and if he does not improve his defense no good team could ever become great wiht him on it. Even guys like Peja and Rip have learned how to make an effort nad be respectable defenders. Absorbed the concept that it is not all about their scoring numbers.

And so you have two guys who put up pretty looking numbers -- although rarely at the same time due to Salmons' allergy to other players getting the ball -- and yet do not make much difference to winning or losing (indeed I'm not sure if Salmons has ever played for a winning team -- our new Shareef). Kevin is in danger of being thought of as another Michael Redd, and Salmons is in danger of being Corey Maggette.

I guess we just don't see things the same way. You say Salmons is selfish and can't play with others, but I don't see it. In fact, in the month of Jan. since Martin returned, Salmons PPG went down from 20.1 to 16.7, but his assts went up to 3.9 from 3.4, and his rebounds went up from 3.3 to 5.3. I see this as a guy who accepted that Martin is the primary scorer, and he has made a outstanding effort to contribute in a different way.

Since Martins return 1/3 of Salmons shots are from 3pt, and his percentage went up from .372 to .444. He isn't the same guy. A lot of people see his dribble drive to the rim a negative. But, this is his style, and with Martin out he took it upon himself to be the scorer. Right or Wrong, at least he was trying. On a good team where the opponent has to defend their man and not crowd into the paint, I think he'll be as good and as effient a scorer as Martin.

If he is traded I'll be sorry to see him go.

 

[mac]

If he is traded I'll be sorry to see him go.

I won't.

 

[Uncia03]

I guess we just don't see things the same way. You say Salmons is selfish and can't play with others, but I don't see it. In fact, in the month of Jan. since Martin returned, Salmons PPG went down from 20.1 to 16.7, but his assts went up to 3.9 from 3.4, and his rebounds went up from 3.3 to 5.3. I see this as a guy who accepted that Martin is the primary scorer, and he has made a outstanding effort to contribute in a different way.

Since Martins return 1/3 of Salmons shots are from 3pt, and his percentage went up from .372 to .444. He isn't the same guy. A lot of people see his dribble drive to the rim a negative. But, this is his style, and with Martin out he took it upon himself to be the scorer. Right or Wrong, at least he was trying. On a good team where the opponent has to defend their man and not crowd into the paint, I think he'll be as good and as effient a scorer as Martin.

If he is traded I'll be sorry to see him go.

People want to trade Salmons specifically because he is playing well right now. Most likely Salmons will not be physically able to play at the same level when our team is good enough to compete at an elite status.

So three years down the line which would you rather have:

A.) An aging wing player who can't quite do what he used to be able to do and is slowing down, while management is having to figure out whether to trade him, or re-sign him. (And if his production hasn't dropped off noticably at this point, do you want to pay him 8-10 million a year for 5 more years? He could end up walking to another team and we get nothing in return.)
B.) A 24-30 year-old wing who has spent the last three years building chemistry with the rest of our young team and is physically able to compete at an elite level?

Since we are a rebuilding team I'll take option B every time.

So, let's trade Salmons since he is playing at a high level and his production is very favorable when compared to his contract. If the trade clears up space to see if Donte can be our future 3, or if it brings in a piece who will be the starter on our elite-level team in 3-4 years you have to make that trade.

I would like for those who will be the future of this team to get as much playing time together as possible to develop on-court chemistry. The longer we continue to play those who most likely will not be our future, the further we delay our progress.

I will wish him well where ever he ends up, but right now he can help further our championship aspirations far better by being traded for pieces who can contribute significantly when we hopefully make our next championship run.

 

[HighTopKicks]

People want to trade Salmons specifically because he is playing well right now. Most likely Salmons will not be physically able to play at the same level when our team is good enough to compete at an elite status.

So three years down the line which would you rather have:

A.) An aging wing player who can't quite do what he used to be able to do and is slowing down, while management is having to figure out whether to trade him, or re-sign him. (And if his production hasn't dropped off noticably at this point, do you want to pay him 8-10 million a year for 5 more years? He could end up walking to another team and we get nothing in return.)
B.) A 24-30 year-old wing who has spent the last three years building chemistry with the rest of our young team and is physically able to compete at an elite level?

Since we are a rebuilding team I'll take option B every time.

So, let's trade Salmons since he is playing at a high level and his production is very favorable when compared to his contract. If the trade clears up space to see if Donte can be our future 3, or if it brings in a piece who will be the starter on our elite-level team in 3-4 years you have to make that trade.

I would like for those who will be the future of this team to get as much playing time together as possible to develop on-court chemistry. The longer we continue to play those who most likely will not be our future, the further we delay our progress.

I will wish him well where ever he ends up, but right now he can help further our championship aspirations far better by being traded for pieces who can contribute significantly when we hopefully make our next championship run.

I don't necessarily buy this too old to play for a championship theory. There are plenty of 30 something players contributing on championship contenders, or has everyone forgotten about the Celtics, Spurs, & Detroit.

Salmons has no history of injury and seems to take very good care of himself. I see no reason to believe that he won't be better than he is today in 3 years. If we had a line of quality players ready to step in and take over his role, then I could see trading him. But, unless we get a significant upgrade, his lose doesn't guarantee future success but could add additional 20 win years to our rebuild.

 

[Nighthawk1]

I don't necessarily buy this too old to play for a championship theory. There are plenty of 30 something players contributing on championship contenders, or has everyone forgotten about the Celtics, Spurs, & Detroit.

Salmons has no history of injury and seems to take very good care of himself. I see no reason to believe that he won't be better than he is today in 3 years. If we had a line of quality players ready to step in and take over his role, then I could see trading him. But, unless we get a significant upgrade, his lose doesn't guarantee future success but could add additional 20 win years to our rebuild.

But by the time we'll be ready to contend for a championship he probably will be too old. We're still 3 years away from competeting for one

 

[AriesMar27]

i dont think greene can be the player that wallace is or was supposed to be for us... he will probably become a poormans rashard lewis. or a more athletic version radmonovic... a big small forward who has big games every once in a while. if he can hit open threes on a regular basis i will be perfectly okay with him.

i dont think that he will develop the overall game to be as good as wallace. if we are lucky he will develop into a odom type of player, jack of all trades... can do everything but doesnt dominate anything....

 

[Bibby.10]

If Greene doesn't develope his defense he is just going to be ANOTHER sad defensive player on the Kings. (Imagine that)

 

[Kingster]

Cisco is only 2 years younger than Salmons. It's not an age thing.

Yes, it is an age thing. He's too old to be around when the core has been around long enough to be good. Cisco is at the edge. Salmons is over the edge.

 

[BMiller52]

Yes, it is an age thing. He's too old to be around when the core has been around long enough to be good. Cisco is at the edge. Salmons is over the edge.

Salmons is a ball stopper and an overrated defender. He needs to go regardless of his age while his value is high.

 

[Uncia03]

If we had a line of quality players ready to step in and take over his role, then I could see trading him. But, unless we get a significant upgrade, his lose doesn't guarantee future success but could add additional 20 win years to our rebuild.

I trust Petrie's eye for talent as he does a great job with his 1st round draft picks. So if Rubio declared, and Petrie picked him up I would give him the benefit of the doubt that Rubio could be our starting PG of the future.
Now, if Petrie also decided to let him play one more year in Europe, and because of that we end up having an additional 25 win year next year, I'd be fine with that too.
Why?
We'd have ideally secured our PG, and would have another top 5 pick in the next draft to pick up another potential star player.

In the above scenario, if keeping Salmons during this time period would get us to 35 wins next year as opposed to 25 wins, I'd rather have him traded.
Remember, he's going to be looking for his last big payday after the 10/11 season, and I don't really want our team to lock him up for a long-term, large salary contract just as we might be hitting our stride.

Perhaps Greene won't be the answer at the 3. Perhaps he ends up being a great guy who can score in bunches off the bench, and our 1st round pick in 2010 ends up being our starting 3, or we pick up a potential star player in free-agency. Regardless of where we find our starting 3, I just don't see Salmons being that guy, and if he isn't going to be that guy, we should trade him now while he's in a position to best help the future of our team.

 

[FakeInjury]

Salmons will stay to determine if Greene is improving. If Greene leaps over Salmons and Garcia, then we know what we have in Greene. If he can't jump those two, its safe to say he's a bust.

 

[AriesMar27]

very true... if greene isnt better than salmons and garcia what would be the point in moving them?

 

[Bibby.10]

Well, he's not going tp jump them for at least 2 years. He is sooo raw, he should still be in college right now. He's a project.

 

[Bricklayer]

very true... if greene isnt better than salmons and garcia what would be the point in moving them?

Greene will never have the chance to prove he is better with both those guys ahead of him -- with both of them and Kevin there are not even spot minutes for him to show is stuff. It will be Gerald Wallace/Jermaine O'Neal type situations all over again. You can displace one guy, if he's the starter and you're the backup you can outplay him. But with Salmons and Cisco both in town getting every minute at SF, Greene could be LeBron and never have a chance to move either guy out because he will never play. And by never playing, never improve either.

I am far form sure Greene is going to be the guy moving forwrd. I am 100% sure he will not be if we don't clear him enough space to breathe and grow into the rotation.

 

[AriesMar27]

true... but wouldnt the coaches know when they see him play in practice? we may not see it on the court but the coaching staff is there during practice, they should know if he is worth playing regadless of who is in front of him on the depth chart...

 

[Bibby.10]

true... but wouldnt the coaches know when they see him play in practice? we may not see it on the court but the coaching staff is there during practice, they should know if he is worth playing regadless of who is in front of him on the depth chart...

Exactly...