John Salmons
- Thread starter Entity
- Start date
You said this a year ago, and I still don't see it; I don't see one thing that Salmons does that Garcia doesn't.
Also, as I stated before, I think it's dishonest to try to compare the "consistency" of two player with extremely difference levels of experience, as if they exist in a vacuum. When Salmons was a third year player, he was unpredictable as ****, too. For that matter, even when he was averaging the same number of minutes as Garcia is now for the first time (which wasn't until last year, as I recall), he was still unpredictable. To look at a six-year pro and say that he's more consistent than a three-year pro, and then purport that the present situation is always going to be the case, when history proves that the guy you're so high on didn't even develop half as quickly as the guy you're down on is rather unfair.
Also, as I stated before, I think it's dishonest to try to compare the "consistency" of two player with extremely difference levels of experience, as if they exist in a vacuum. When Salmons was a third year player, he was unpredictable as ****, too. For that matter, even when he was averaging the same number of minutes as Garcia is now for the first time (which wasn't until last year, as I recall), he was still unpredictable. To look at a six-year pro and say that he's more consistent than a three-year pro, and then purport that the present situation is always going to be the case, when history proves that the guy you're so high on didn't even develop half as quickly as the guy you're down on is rather unfair.
Its not even about what year they are in and what garcias stats are and shooting percentage, the fact is garcia makes more stupid plays then good ones at the absolute worst times and salmons with starters minutes has been fantastic in nearly every aspect. I cant wait until garcia is gone, BTW in 4 of those years, salmons was with a much bigger ballhog then artest ever was or will be.
Both players have been pretty damn unpredictable, its just that the flavor of their unpredictablity is different. Before this year, Salmons was wont to have a "great" game every third game or so (by great, I mean 15-17 points and a few other stats and some nice d), and then turn completely passive and disappear entirely for 2 games. "did he REALLY play 30 minutes last nigt? I missed it somehow". Frisco on the other hand is all energy, sometimes it is good energy, sometimes it blowing out of his head and making you ask "what the f***?" (but you CERTANLY knew he was out there!) However, BOTH have been inconsistant, in their own ways.
I like them both. Or I should really say, "I like EITHER of them". If the intent is to trade Artest, it'll be nice to have both around... if the Kings don't trade artest, they should trade either Salmons or Garcia.
I like them both. Or I should really say, "I like EITHER of them". If the intent is to trade Artest, it'll be nice to have both around... if the Kings don't trade artest, they should trade either Salmons or Garcia.
You can quote all the statistics you'd like. Frankly I don't have time to look them up. What I can tell you is what I see on the floor. What I see on the floor is someone making things happen on a consistant basis. He's driving inside, drawing fouls when we NEED IT the most, being a good team role player, not turning the ball over consistantly, making good decisions on a regular baiss.
By Salmons doing those things he DOES make the TEAM better. That being said I have nothing against Garcia. I like him. He's a good energy guy....and that's all he ever will be. That's ok though, the NBA needs those type of guys. John Salmos could start at the 2 guard position on any team int he NBA right now the the way he is playing. He can give you 15-25 points, defend, grab a couple rebounds, give a couple asissts, get a couple steals. Anyone would take that.
Salmons is playing so well that I HATE to not see him the starting line-up when everyone is healthy, but I realize it just makes the team that much stronger. Which shows while the team is re-molding itself the Kings are starting to a build a few core "bench mob" type players in Salmons and Garcia, as well as finding the new core of starters such as Martin, and Hawes, Udrih, and Hawes for the future.
By Salmons doing those things he DOES make the TEAM better. That being said I have nothing against Garcia. I like him. He's a good energy guy....and that's all he ever will be. That's ok though, the NBA needs those type of guys. John Salmos could start at the 2 guard position on any team int he NBA right now the the way he is playing. He can give you 15-25 points, defend, grab a couple rebounds, give a couple asissts, get a couple steals. Anyone would take that.
Salmons is playing so well that I HATE to not see him the starting line-up when everyone is healthy, but I realize it just makes the team that much stronger. Which shows while the team is re-molding itself the Kings are starting to a build a few core "bench mob" type players in Salmons and Garcia, as well as finding the new core of starters such as Martin, and Hawes, Udrih, and Hawes for the future.
Agree with you on the stats comment. I go by what I see on the floor. I like both players. I think Cisco has steadily progressed to be a viable option in the rotation. The same with Salmons as being an important piece to the rotation. Both players have their warts but they both have nice games. Regarding the stats comment again, Salmons defense doesn't show up in the boxscore. A solid pro who was worth the signing....I'm glad he fell into our lap. 
The point is, however, that Garcia has shown enough comparable skills that it's not outrageous to suggest that he might develop some of those qualities and some of that control if he were given more time to gain that experience. Time that is currently being taken by Salmons. Hence, the Salmons signing was one that is hindering the development of our youth. Which, considering we're not a team that is in any way built to contend NOW, is just plain silly.
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?
You do? Wow. Well that certainly is the disconnect.
FG%:
Salmons is currently 3rd on the team behind Williams(.750) and Moore(.513) with a .493 scoring clip. Considering that Williams has only played in 1 game that is really not a good indicator of his true FG%. And Moore can't even create his own shot. He is just the beneficiary of better player's assists. So what does that mean about Salmons? That he is basically the single most efficient scorer on the Kings, considering that he actually has the ball in his hands.
3PT%:
Salmons is currently #1 on the team with a blistering .464 3-pt shooting clip. Wow. I remember a big knock on John when we signed him was his range. Looks like he is improving. The next most efficient 3-pt shooter on the team is Kevin(.398). So John isn't taking as many 3's as he could be, but that just goes to show that he is smart when he takes them. He shoots 'em when he is open, and uses dribble penetration the rest of the time.
Other Stats:
Roughly 5 Rebs, 3 Asts, a steal and the occasional block...Salmons is contributing. He isn't our best defender, but he is on the top end of our defensive players.
Intangibles:
John can create shots. He is pretty good at taking guys off the dribble. When he is at SF, he uses his speed more. When he is at SG, he uses his length to shoot over guys. Which is what a SG/SF swingman should do IMO.
Room for Improvement:
Every King has room for improvement, even KMart. I would like to see John knock his turnovers down a bit. At times he will try to force a pass that he shouldn't. The next biggest thing for him to work on is his assists. He has good point-skills, and should use them more for the benefit of the team. I suppose as our team continues to mold and as the coaches begin to create more set plays for the team, that John's assist ability will be utilized more.
As it stands right now, Salmons is in the upper echelon of the team. And considering his contract will never inflate to over $6M/yr, I personally can't see how you say he is not being paid below his value. If I had some more time, I would look up the contracts of other 27 year old SG/SF swingmen and make comparisons. I strongly feel that given his production, Salmons could warrant more money, and still live up to that contract.
FG%:
Salmons is currently 3rd on the team behind Williams(.750) and Moore(.513) with a .493 scoring clip. Considering that Williams has only played in 1 game that is really not a good indicator of his true FG%. And Moore can't even create his own shot. He is just the beneficiary of better player's assists. So what does that mean about Salmons? That he is basically the single most efficient scorer on the Kings, considering that he actually has the ball in his hands.
3PT%:
Salmons is currently #1 on the team with a blistering .464 3-pt shooting clip. Wow. I remember a big knock on John when we signed him was his range. Looks like he is improving. The next most efficient 3-pt shooter on the team is Kevin(.398). So John isn't taking as many 3's as he could be, but that just goes to show that he is smart when he takes them. He shoots 'em when he is open, and uses dribble penetration the rest of the time.
Other Stats:
Roughly 5 Rebs, 3 Asts, a steal and the occasional block...Salmons is contributing. He isn't our best defender, but he is on the top end of our defensive players.
Intangibles:
John can create shots. He is pretty good at taking guys off the dribble. When he is at SF, he uses his speed more. When he is at SG, he uses his length to shoot over guys. Which is what a SG/SF swingman should do IMO.
Room for Improvement:
Every King has room for improvement, even KMart. I would like to see John knock his turnovers down a bit. At times he will try to force a pass that he shouldn't. The next biggest thing for him to work on is his assists. He has good point-skills, and should use them more for the benefit of the team. I suppose as our team continues to mold and as the coaches begin to create more set plays for the team, that John's assist ability will be utilized more.
As it stands right now, Salmons is in the upper echelon of the team. And considering his contract will never inflate to over $6M/yr, I personally can't see how you say he is not being paid below his value. If I had some more time, I would look up the contracts of other 27 year old SG/SF swingmen and make comparisons. I strongly feel that given his production, Salmons could warrant more money, and still live up to that contract.
All this talk about developing our younger players is getting old.
If a player warrants time on the court, then he gets it.
It's that simple.
Salmons warrants more time on the court than Garcia does, because Salmons is more productive.
Same reason Bonzi got more minutes and Artest and Kmart get more minutes. They are more productive.
Garcia will not develop into a significantly better player than he is, that is not based on lack of playing time, it's just the simple truth. Otherwise he would be on the court more.
Garcia played 67 games his rookie season and 79 (out of 82) games last year all averaging about 18 minutes. That is about 1/3rd of a whole game. In that amount of time and during practice, he obviously hasn't shown he deserves any more playing time then he already gets.
It is apparent he is not the next Magic Johnson otherwise he would have gotten the minutes by now.
If anybody does not grasp this concept of warranting court time, than they are misguided. This is the way it works. This is not NBA Live or Fantasy hoops.
If a player warrants time on the court, then he gets it.
It's that simple.
Salmons warrants more time on the court than Garcia does, because Salmons is more productive.
Same reason Bonzi got more minutes and Artest and Kmart get more minutes. They are more productive.
Garcia will not develop into a significantly better player than he is, that is not based on lack of playing time, it's just the simple truth. Otherwise he would be on the court more.
Garcia played 67 games his rookie season and 79 (out of 82) games last year all averaging about 18 minutes. That is about 1/3rd of a whole game. In that amount of time and during practice, he obviously hasn't shown he deserves any more playing time then he already gets.
It is apparent he is not the next Magic Johnson otherwise he would have gotten the minutes by now.
If anybody does not grasp this concept of warranting court time, than they are misguided. This is the way it works. This is not NBA Live or Fantasy hoops.
Salmons reminds me of a poor mans Doug Christie/Mitch Richmond combo. Not a great outside shooter, but can get inside 17ft and is almost automatic with that stop and pop jumper.
Defensively wise he is a cut below Christie though..
Watching Salmons, I believe if we had him in 2001 starting in place of Christie their numbers would be similar.
Christie would have been doing with this team (2007-2008) what Salmons is doing when starting this year. Putting up 20ppg 5/5apg/rpg
And of course Richmond would be Richmond. Athletically/body type Salmons reminds me of Richmond.
Put Christie, and Richmond together and turn it into a poor boys version, and you have Salmons
Defensively wise he is a cut below Christie though..
Watching Salmons, I believe if we had him in 2001 starting in place of Christie their numbers would be similar.
Christie would have been doing with this team (2007-2008) what Salmons is doing when starting this year. Putting up 20ppg 5/5apg/rpg
And of course Richmond would be Richmond. Athletically/body type Salmons reminds me of Richmond.
Put Christie, and Richmond together and turn it into a poor boys version, and you have Salmons
Well said..... we have a rookie head coach who in the first year is aiming to set expectations. He wants to win, the players want to win, the organization wants to win. You don't just say that we are going to play the young guys and tell the vets that....well....we'll get you some playing time here and there. Does that really sound like a good plan or working environment? Cisco has gotten lots of burn on the court. Enough time to develop. Same goes for Salmons who is getting a real opportunity. Same goes for Udrih. Hawes' time will come. Justin Williams time is a toss-up...as of right now, he doesn't deserve that extra-playing time. As the season progresses, things could certainly change, just like they did last year in the last 20 games or so. Douby is getting time here and there and I think that situation is being handled well. Let the kids build confidence and stay hungry for that playing time.
Salmon's contract is fine. It's not like he's making 12 mill per year. Saying that he's overpaid is just having an agenda.
Salmon's contract is fine. It's not like he's making 12 mill per year. Saying that he's overpaid is just having an agenda.
I didn't use the word "consistency". I said "predictable." Maybe a minor difference, but when you put quotes around a specific word, it should be the same one that was used.
Yes, I did say the same thing a year ago and I'll most likely say it next year. While some are hoping Garcia will develop into something more than what we currently get, I simply am not one of them.
It's not about six years vs. three years. It's about a basic mindset. I've watched Garcia enough to realize that he, like others before him including Jason Williams, has the hotdog mentality. Yes, it makes for excitement but it also makes for turnovers and dumb decisions that hurt your team.
As far as saying Garcia might develop more skills if he were given more time on the court, I think that's something the coaching staff is in a much better position to assess than are we. (This part addresses G3's comments, too.)
Reggie LIKES Francisco Garcia - a lot. He's said so and he knows his game arguably better than anyone else. And it's Reggie who is trying to get the most out of his unpredictable swingman. Reggie doesn't want Garcia to fail; he wants him to succeed. I believe that Cisco is getting the minutes - and the court lessons - he can handle.
And, yes, I know that is pretty much diametrically opposed to how you and some others look at things. I respect your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it - in part because I've sat in Arco way too many times and seen Cisco do way too many dumb things up close and personal, so to speak. He needs a firm hand and real guidance to become all that he can be as an NBA player. If he gets it, I see him as a valuable sixth man at some point in the same vein as Bobby Jackson. But I don't see him as a future starter.
Just my two cents...
Yes, I did say the same thing a year ago and I'll most likely say it next year. While some are hoping Garcia will develop into something more than what we currently get, I simply am not one of them.
It's not about six years vs. three years. It's about a basic mindset. I've watched Garcia enough to realize that he, like others before him including Jason Williams, has the hotdog mentality. Yes, it makes for excitement but it also makes for turnovers and dumb decisions that hurt your team.
As far as saying Garcia might develop more skills if he were given more time on the court, I think that's something the coaching staff is in a much better position to assess than are we. (This part addresses G3's comments, too.)
Reggie LIKES Francisco Garcia - a lot. He's said so and he knows his game arguably better than anyone else. And it's Reggie who is trying to get the most out of his unpredictable swingman. Reggie doesn't want Garcia to fail; he wants him to succeed. I believe that Cisco is getting the minutes - and the court lessons - he can handle.
And, yes, I know that is pretty much diametrically opposed to how you and some others look at things. I respect your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it - in part because I've sat in Arco way too many times and seen Cisco do way too many dumb things up close and personal, so to speak. He needs a firm hand and real guidance to become all that he can be as an NBA player. If he gets it, I see him as a valuable sixth man at some point in the same vein as Bobby Jackson. But I don't see him as a future starter.
Just my two cents...
What in the hell is wrong with having as many good players on the team as possible. Number one. I have no idea what your talking about. Number two. Salmons is better than Garcia right now. He doesn't make the mistakes that Garcia makes. If that takes away from Garcia's minutes, so be it. Salmoms is still a young player. Number three. If you watched the game last night, it should appear obvious that we wouldn't have won the game without Salmons. He was, at least in this game, head and shoulders above anyone else on the team. Try and move your feet out of the concrete in which you have them embeded and open your eyes. I wasn't a big fan of the Salmons signing at the time, but I was wrong, and I have to give him his due.
Salmons reminds me of a poor mans Doug Christie/Mitch Richmond combo. Not a great outside shooter, but can get inside 17ft and is almost automatic with that stop and pop jumper.
Defensively wise he is a cut below Christie though..
Watching Salmons, I believe if we had him in 2001 starting in place of Christie their numbers would be similar.
Christie would have been doing with this team (2007-2008) what Salmons is doing when starting this year. Putting up 20ppg 5/5apg/rpg
And of course Richmond would be Richmond. Athletically/body type Salmons reminds me of Richmond.
Put Christie, and Richmond together and turn it into a poor boys version, and you have Salmons
Defensively wise he is a cut below Christie though..
Watching Salmons, I believe if we had him in 2001 starting in place of Christie their numbers would be similar.
Christie would have been doing with this team (2007-2008) what Salmons is doing when starting this year. Putting up 20ppg 5/5apg/rpg
And of course Richmond would be Richmond. Athletically/body type Salmons reminds me of Richmond.
Put Christie, and Richmond together and turn it into a poor boys version, and you have Salmons
OK, I going to try and understand here. When we signed Salmons he was 25 yr's old. So, he, in my opinion would have to be put into the youth movement catagory. If you accept that analogy,then what is wrong with having an experienced young player that is improving and becoming the kind of player you want on the team. If you really like Garcia's game, and you think he's valuable to the team, but Salmons game is better, and he gets more minutes because of it, doesn't that, in the long run make the team even better? I mean what kind of players do you want Petrie to sign. Some crappy players that are worse than Garcia just so he looks good and will get the minutes you want him to get. In my opinion, competition brings out the best, or worse in every player. Of late, Salmons has been the best finisher on the team, especially when its meant something. That in no way take's away from anything that Garcia has accomplished. I guess I'm trying to say, that the team is better by having both of them now, and hopefully in the future.
I'd like to interject here.
When you are trying to build for the future (something I'm not sure management is doing, by the way), you don't sign middling players to multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts, especially when you already have a younger player that closely resembles that player.
Truth is that John Salmons, while arguably better than Garcia, doesn't make our team a whole lot better. He may, in fact, stunt the growth of the younger players behind him.
When you are trying to build for the future (something I'm not sure management is doing, by the way), you don't sign middling players to multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts, especially when you already have a younger player that closely resembles that player.
Truth is that John Salmons, while arguably better than Garcia, doesn't make our team a whole lot better. He may, in fact, stunt the growth of the younger players behind him.
It would seem that there are differences of opinion here because in my book, we get good players to man all the positions and there is nothing wrong if they have same skill sets. It is more important to have skills than what the specific skills are.
With injuries being a major part of the game, I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference in the long run.
Also, very few players would settle for a one or two year contract unless they are marginal.
With injuries being a major part of the game, I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference in the long run.
Also, very few players would settle for a one or two year contract unless they are marginal.
Um... wow.
"Playing for the future" involves aggressive risk taking and decision making. It involves realistically assessing the current state of the team,coming to terms with the fact that it has absolutely zero chance of winning at a higher level as is, and making a plan to get decisively better.
Patching holes, pushing for that eighth seed yet again, and persistently denying the very real problems that exist on the team, however, is the very definition of passivity.
"Playing for the future" involves aggressive risk taking and decision making. It involves realistically assessing the current state of the team,coming to terms with the fact that it has absolutely zero chance of winning at a higher level as is, and making a plan to get decisively better.
Patching holes, pushing for that eighth seed yet again, and persistently denying the very real problems that exist on the team, however, is the very definition of passivity.
I love the thought process of not signing young quality players who can get better. Why in the heck did we sign Udrih? I mean Salmons and Udrih are stunting the growth of Garcia and Douby......oh wait, Salmons and Udrih are young too. Thank goodness you don't run our franchise. We would end up like the Hawks who are.....how long is that rebuild process now??
If we had zero chance of winning at a higher level how did we beat the Spurs, Jazz, etc... They are at that level.
You're reaching with these comments.
Echoing what Glenn and dude12 have said, we are a small market and it takes time to build a winner.
What you're suggesting is imploding and starting from scratch.
They've been looking for the next Michael Jordan for years now, do you think he's in this years draft too.
Sure Petrie made a few questionable moves, but we are moving in the right direction how else do you explain our ability to beat these upper echelon teams. That accomplishment speaks for itself.
You're reaching with these comments.
Echoing what Glenn and dude12 have said, we are a small market and it takes time to build a winner.
What you're suggesting is imploding and starting from scratch.
They've been looking for the next Michael Jordan for years now, do you think he's in this years draft too.
Sure Petrie made a few questionable moves, but we are moving in the right direction how else do you explain our ability to beat these upper echelon teams. That accomplishment speaks for itself.
You won't get an argument from me. I firmly believe sports is in the now. You do the best with what you have and plan for the future. I personally do NOT think Petrie has been sitting idly by. Every single team in the league goes through highs and lows. It's part of the circle of life, so to speak.
No one knows what the future will bring. It's my opinion - not shared by everyone - that it's a little dishonest to disregard the now and try and stack the cards in your favor for the future because too many variables exist.
What irritates me the most is the way in which some people want to suck the life out of whatever joy some of us want to take in the day-to-day little things like the occasional win. I'm going to enjoy today because I cannot personally change anything anyway. What will be will be.
But again, that's just me. I can cheer for a bad team to do better and I can cheer for a good team to do better still. I can root for the individual players even though they may have lots of weaknesses.
No one knows what the future will bring. It's my opinion - not shared by everyone - that it's a little dishonest to disregard the now and try and stack the cards in your favor for the future because too many variables exist.
What irritates me the most is the way in which some people want to suck the life out of whatever joy some of us want to take in the day-to-day little things like the occasional win. I'm going to enjoy today because I cannot personally change anything anyway. What will be will be.
But again, that's just me. I can cheer for a bad team to do better and I can cheer for a good team to do better still. I can root for the individual players even though they may have lots of weaknesses.