John Salmons

[Jerryaki]

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.

i think that's a great attitude to have, even if i only share parts of it.

what irritates me is when people of the happy camp get all up in arms and defensive when someone from the grumpy camp makes a point about something or other. look at the two posts prior to this. i answered 6'1{PF's post, point out something i see, and wish him/her luck in enjoying what i think may not be such a hot season. for me, personally, i am not going to enjoy a 35-47 year again, but that's just me. and what happens?

i get questioned about my definition of being a true fan. i mean, seriously. is there a need for that?

 

[uolj]

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.

Unfortunately I think that was the OPs fault for making a claim that the Salmons signing was a good one. If this had been a normal any questions thread it would be fine, but by making that claim it opened the door for people to refute it.

In my opinion, that's fine. It has made for some interesting discussion.

 

[VF21]

i think that's a great attitude to have, even if i only share parts of it.

what irritates me is when people of the happy camp get all up in arms and defensive when someone from the grumpy camp makes a point about something or other. look at the two posts prior to this. i answered 6'1{PF's post, point out something i see, and wish him/her luck in enjoying what i think may not be such a hot season. for me, personally, i am not going to enjoy a 35-47 year again, but that's just me. and what happens?

i get questioned about my definition of being a true fan. i mean, seriously. is there a need for that?

Um, look again. The thread has been edited and I've asked people to please try and stay civil. There are equal strong feelings on BOTH sides. You actually threw down the gauntlet IMHO with the sarcastic "good luck in enjoying the season" comment. He responded and the situation escalated, which is why I edited the thread.

You could have made the point without resorting to the snide sarcasm. And he could have replied without questioning whether or not you're a true fan. It takes a little tolerance on both sides.

As I said, however, the thread has now been edited. People need to take just a moment or two before they hit the "submit reply" and decide if what they're saying is a continuance of the thread discussion or if it's a reply in haste because of a "How dare he say that to me?" reaction.

 

[Superman]

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??

It's almost like you try to misinterpret what I post.

Anyhowever, the point isn't that Salmons is stunting the growth of Garcia, it's that we spent the entire MLE (again) on a middling player (again) who doens't make us any better (again) who isn't significantly better than the players we already have at the position (again). It's SAR, it's Salmons, it's Moore.

If we're contending and we need depth, then that's fine. But John Salmons, God bless his soul and his 22 points last night, doesn't make us significantly better. And he's not going to get significantly better; he pretty much is what he is, and there's nothing wrong with what he is, but a supposedly "rebuilding" team doesn't sign a player like John Salmons to a multi-year contract when you already have a similar player on the team.

And let's not forget that we could have made a harder push at Bonzi and kept him in Sacramento for the same money.

 

[Superman]

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.

That doesn't mean we're ready to compete for a championship, or even a playoff spot. Top-tier teams lose games to sorry teams every year.

 

[Cal-Kings]

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.

Couldn't have said it better...

 

[Cal-Kings]

....And let's not forget that we could have made a harder push at Bonzi and kept him in Sacramento for the same money.

Hmmm... I'm so happy to have Salmons instead of Bonzi. More upside and a lot younger.

I was never a big Bonzi fan. Sorry.

 

[Glenn]

It's almost like you try to misinterpret what I post.

Anyhowever, the point isn't that Salmons is stunting the growth of Garcia, it's that we spent the entire MLE (again) on a middling player (again) who doens't make us any better (again) who isn't significantly better than the players we already have at the position (again). It's SAR, it's Salmons, it's Moore.

If we're contending and we need depth, then that's fine. But John Salmons, God bless his soul and his 22 points last night, doesn't make us significantly better. And he's not going to get significantly better; he pretty much is what he is, and there's nothing wrong with what he is, but a supposedly "rebuilding" team doesn't sign a player like John Salmons to a multi-year contract when you already have a similar player on the team.

A harder puch on Bonzi? You will have to explain what we should have done. And if we had Bonzi, would he be better than Salmons or Garcia?

And let's not forget that we could have made a harder push at Bonzi and kept him in Sacramento for the same money.

First let me say I usually respect your opinion but ......

I don't think anyone knows if Salmons has peaked. That can only be a guess as what I am seeing is a guy playing at a level I didn't think he could attain. I have already addressed another issue but I'll flesh it out. Teams have injuries. For example, you don't go into a season with only one NBA quality pg because if he gets hurt, you are in a world of hurt. Redundancy at any position is good as injuries are part of he game. The era where players played hurt is over.

He is being paid roughly an average wage in the NBA and is a highly valued member of the Kings right now. His contract has no impact on our ability to get a free agent. I can't see how he is hurting us and I can see a lot of ways that he is helping us and to me, that's a good deal.

What more should we have offered Bonzi? Even as it was, we may have offered more than he is worth.

 

[Il Mago]

I am new here, and my favorite team are the Toronto Raptors, and Salmons kind of signed with them before he officially signed with the Kings. At first I was really excited that he signed with the Raptors, and sad when I found out he backed out.


With that being said, I've been disapointed with his performance since joining the Kings, I always thought this guy could become close to a 18-20ppg type of player, he has great basketball skills, its just that I believe that he doesnt give his all in every games. Sometimes he'll come out and look to score the ball and have a good game, then on other nights he's no where to be found. If this guy would perform every night he could be a very good player in this league.

 

[dude12]

It's almost like you try to misinterpret what I post.

Anyhowever, the point isn't that Salmons is stunting the growth of Garcia, it's that we spent the entire MLE (again) on a middling player (again) who doens't make us any better (again) who isn't significantly better than the players we already have at the position (again). It's SAR, it's Salmons, it's Moore.

If we're contending and we need depth, then that's fine. But John Salmons, God bless his soul and his 22 points last night, doesn't make us significantly better. And he's not going to get significantly better; he pretty much is what he is, and there's nothing wrong with what he is, but a supposedly "rebuilding" team doesn't sign a player like John Salmons to a multi-year contract when you already have a similar player on the team.

And let's not forget that we could have made a harder push at Bonzi and kept him in Sacramento for the same money.

Really it comes down to we don't agree on some topics. IMO, and you don't agree, Salmons was a guy who displayed some upside when given the chance to earn time with Philly...when Iverson was hurt. He put up some good numbers. Salmons is not an all-star but he certainly is a solid NBA rotation player on about any team out there. And he's a younger player. I don't think we should put all of our hopes into 1 guy, in this case Francisco. If he doesn't pan out, and there is still some debate on him but it looks like he's going to be a solid piece, if he doesn't pan out, then we are stuck with a hole there. In my view, sign a couple of guys and let them battle for minutes. We will have 2 pieces to trade if it ever comes to that. If you consider Salmons a middling guy, ok, but teams need players like him. SA is full of guys like that. Same with Phoenix, who by the way had a great deal of interest in Salmons.

Here's a comparison in talent....Hedo Turkoglu. Differing games but Hedo is a rotation guy on a nice up and coming team. Hedo, Salmons, Cisco, Micheal Finley now, Bobby Jackson, etc, etc.

As far as Bonzi, I think we made a good push for the guy and then Petrie choked it off. Bonzi or his agent turned down a pretty good offer considering what his market value turned out to be.

 

[NewArena]

It's almost like you try to misinterpret what I post.

Anyhowever, the point isn't that Salmons is stunting the growth of Garcia, it's that we spent the entire MLE (again) on a middling player (again) who doens't make us any better (again) who isn't significantly better than the players we already have at the position (again). It's SAR, it's Salmons, it's Moore.

If we're contending and we need depth, then that's fine. But John Salmons, God bless his soul and his 22 points last night, doesn't make us significantly better. And he's not going to get significantly better; he pretty much is what he is, and there's nothing wrong with what he is, but a supposedly "rebuilding" team doesn't sign a player like John Salmons to a multi-year contract when you already have a similar player on the team.

And let's not forget that we could have made a harder push at Bonzi and kept him in Sacramento for the same money.

Come on now, not to be rude but where in the world have you been? We offered salmons 5 million and offered Bonzi almost 3 million more for goodness sake, what makes you think that we could have gotten bonzi with the same type of contract that salmons got?

BTW i am very happy that we didnt get stuck with Bonzi, he has already declined from what he was in the 05-06 season.

 

[VF21]

We couldn't have gotten Bonzi for the same kind of money.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Exactly. Wells foolishly turned down Kings BIG multi-year offer ending up with mere peanuts - something like $4.5 mil 2 yrs with Houston.

The deal Bonzi was offered by the Kings: $38.5 mil 5yrs
The deal Salmons signed with the Kings: $25.5 mil 5yrs

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

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.

It is my opinion that when you know that you're not going anywhere in the "now" (and, AFAIC, we do know this), then it's better to plan for the future. If you want to believe that we shouldn't be more concerned about the future, that's your business, but I, for one, am sick of seeing this team be reactive rather than proactive. Ever since Webber blew out his knee, Petrie's done nothing but react, react, react. We've been below-average to outright bad for several years now, and we're not getting better, and it doesn't look like we're going to be getting better any time soon. And, in my opinion, it's precisely because Petrie appears to share your reticence to take chances and plan for the "variable" future, content to make "safe" moves like signing the relatively proven commodities in Moore and Salmons, rather than trying to develop relatively unproven talent, and see how far they can take us.

I contend that Salmons does not make this team better: as I said back when he was signed, Salmons is not going to make the difference between the Kings being a playoff team and a championship team; he's not even going to make the difference between the Kings being a playoff team and a lottery team. We're in the lottery with or without John Salmons, and not only are the Kings never going to be relevant in the NBA with him as a key component on this team, but that his presence means that there is no room to try to develop anybody else.

Contrary to the popular interpretation of my remarks, I really don't like Garcia much at all, so that should speak volumes for how I feel about Salmons. As far as I'm concerned, I don't know exactly how good Garcia is going to be, but I feel that he's going to be at least as good as Salmons is now, and probably better. Salmons is overrated to a ridiculous degree on this board, the same way that Mo Evans was when he played here, the same way that Songaila was when he played here. To paraphrase Dennis Green, Salmons is what I think he is, I think that he's playing right now, as good as he's ever going to play, and I feel confident that the sands of time will prove me right.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

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.

Wow, Salmons aged three years in just one year? Because he turns twenty-eight tomorrow, and twenty-eight is entering a player's prime, not his youth. He'll be thirty-two and slowing down at the end of his contract. And, at the rate things are going, we're still not going to be contending then, either.

Thank goodness you don't run our franchise. We would end up like the Hawks who are.....how long is that rebuild process now??

You'd rather have the Kings current lineup than the Hawks? The Hawks are way better than the Kings right now, and have more upside to boot.

 

[dude12]

You'd rather have the Kings current lineup than the Hawks? The Hawks are way better than the Kings right now, and have more upside to boot.

The point being made was that the Hawks have been in a rebuild mode for eons. That was the point.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The point being made was that the Hawks have been in a rebuild mode for eons. That was the point.

Except that that's not actually true. The Hawks have only been in an actual rebuilding mode since 2004, when they hired Billy Knight as their GM. Before then, they had different management, and were trying to rebuild on the fly, not unlike what we've been doing here: keep signing tired vets and trying to make it work. For all intents and purposes, Atlanta's rebuild didn't start until they waived Terrell Brandon.

 

[fnordius]

The Hawks have been in a rut for eons. That's not the same as rebuilding.

 

[VF21]

It is my opinion that when you know that you're not going anywhere in the "now" (and, AFAIC, we do know this), then it's better to plan for the future. If you want to believe that we shouldn't be more concerned about the future, that's your business, but I, for one, am sick of seeing this team be reactive rather than proactive. Ever since Webber blew out his knee, Petrie's done nothing but react, react, react. We've been below-average to outright bad for several years now, and we're not getting better, and it doesn't look like we're going to be getting better any time soon. And, in my opinion, it's precisely because Petrie appears to share your reticence to take chances and plan for the "variable" future, content to make "safe" moves like signing the relatively proven commodities in Moore and Salmons, rather than trying to develop relatively unproven talent, and see how far they can take us.

He signed Moore and Salmons because we needed at least adequate players. He also drafted Martin, Garcia, Douby and Hawes - which is looking towards the future.

During all of this downfall, rebuild, etc. the team still has to find a way to put some kind of product on the court that people will support. Last year was a total and abject failure. This year there is at least excitement and something to keep people even minimally interested. That is important because the majority of fans that pay for the season tickets, walk up to Arco and pay for seats for a single game, etc. are not going to pay premium bucks to watch a team do nothing but lose. It's the difference between the build solely for the future philosophy you and some others espouse and the harsh reality of NBA financing.

In an ideal world, your theory might work. The only problem is - as Seattle is finding out - this isn't an ideal world.

 

[BawLa]

Contrary to the popular interpretation of my remarks, I really don't like Garcia much at all, so that should speak volumes for how I feel about Salmons. As far as I'm concerned, I don't know exactly how good Garcia is going to be, but I feel that he's going to be at least as good as Salmons is now, and probably better. Salmons is overrated to a ridiculous degree on this board, the same way that Mo Evans was when he played here, the same way that Songaila was when he played here. To paraphrase Dennis Green, Salmons is what I think he is, I think that he's playing right now, as good as he's ever going to play, and I feel confident that the sands of time will prove me right.

Salmons may be overrated by some, but he is underrated by others. And IMO, Salmons is not even comparable to Evans and Songalia.

Salmons >>>>>>> Evans and Songalia.......combined.

Evans and Songalia were limited role players that found their very specific niche on the team. Evans could drive the occasional hoop, he could hit a 3 every once in a while, but never really warranted big minutes or a contract over $2M. Songalia could give you some hustle rebounds, the occasional hustle putback. Not much else. He too never warranted starter minutes or a bigger contract.

Salmons on the other hand, would be the starting SG on this team if we didn't have a guy named Kevin. Salmons has the full tool-set...scoring both inside and out(esp. this year), rebounds, assists, steals, the occasional block. The only other guy on the team that can play both ways like that is Artest. Funny how both of those guys are our best (available) trading chips.

I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you Salmons is a superstar, or even a star for that matter. But he has definitely distinguished himself from an average, run-of-the-muck role player. The Songalia's and Evans' of the league will come and go. And some will be more enjoyable than others. But Salmons is not that guy IMO. If he takes the next step, and elevates his game to the next level, then he will be a star. The problem for us is that we already have Kevin. That is why it is almost a blessing in disguise that Kevin got injured. John will get full playing time along with Artest, and hopefully by the time Kevin is ready to come back, we will have traded one for something that we really need...like a real PF.


PS: I hope you don't think I am picking on you. I am not. You tend to give me great material for discussion.

 

[Superman]

Really it comes down to we don't agree on some topics. IMO, and you don't agree, Salmons was a guy who displayed some upside when given the chance to earn time with Philly...when Iverson was hurt. He put up some good numbers. Salmons is not an all-star but he certainly is a solid NBA rotation player on about any team out there. And he's a younger player. I don't think we should put all of our hopes into 1 guy, in this case Francisco. If he doesn't pan out, and there is still some debate on him but it looks like he's going to be a solid piece, if he doesn't pan out, then we are stuck with a hole there. In my view, sign a couple of guys and let them battle for minutes. We will have 2 pieces to trade if it ever comes to that. If you consider Salmons a middling guy, ok, but teams need players like him. SA is full of guys like that. Same with Phoenix, who by the way had a great deal of interest in Salmons.

Here's a comparison in talent....Hedo Turkoglu. Differing games but Hedo is a rotation guy on a nice up and coming team. Hedo, Salmons, Cisco, Micheal Finley now, Bobby Jackson, etc, etc.

You're comparing the Kings with the Spurs and the Suns. We are NOT a contending team. We do NOT need a player like John Salmons. I don't have anything against him; I don't think he's necessarily overpaid for what he does/can do. But he doesn't make us any better, and he doesn't fill a hole.

If we were right there on the brink and wanted some depth at the position, or weren't comfortable making a push for a title with Garcia logging 30 minutes a night, then Salmons would make sense. You're likening him to Hedo Turkoglu and Michael Finley, when they play for teams that are far better than the Kings. Teams that are ready to compete for championships sign players like John Salmons to give them depth. Not the Kings.

Bad teams don't sign middling players to long-term contracts, especially not when they have to use their MLE to do so. It just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that Petrie should be fired because of this contract, but I disagree with the notion that it was a good signing simply because the guy can put up 22 points in a win at home. I loved seeing him do it, but it doesn't make me feel like this team is headed in the right direction when we're still $8 million above the cap and saddled with bad contracts for the next three years (SAR, Thomas, Moore, arguably Miller/Bibby).

 

[Superman]

Come on now, not to be rude but where in the world have you been? We offered salmons 5 million and offered Bonzi almost 3 million more for goodness sake, what makes you think that we could have gotten bonzi with the same type of contract that salmons got?

BTW i am very happy that we didnt get stuck with Bonzi, he has already declined from what he was in the 05-06 season.

I guess I mis-remembered the Bonzi offer. I thought he wanted $8 million and we basically told him to go fly a kite. You're probably right, though. Even still, Bonzi wound up signing with the Rockets for something like $4 million for 2 years. We could have signed him for what we gave Salmons, no doubt about it.

We couldn't have gotten Bonzi for the same kind of money.

We could have signed him for what Houston gave him. He said publicly that he wanted to be here, but that by the time he woke up and took matters into his own hands, the Kings had moved on and signed Salmons. Maybe that's good for us, as we shouldn't have been offering him $40 million to begin with; upper management was still in denial about what this team was capable of at that time. But we could have had him for the same money we gave Salmons.

Anyways, I'm not saying that Bonzi would be the answer to all of our problems, or that I'd even want him to be on the team. I'm saying that, while Salmons is a very serviceable player, he's not the kind of player that the Kings (over the cap, no real attractive trading chips, no great draft picks) should be spending their MLE on. And we've done this now three years in a row, and have gotten worse all three years.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Anyways, I'm not saying that Bonzi would be the answer to all of our problems...

I don't know if anyone has any answers to our problems. I wonder how Bonzi would have taken to Muss last year? Oh well, all hypothetical, at this point. Oh, and for the record, I think Salmons has been more of a pleasant surprise to more than just me, and as far as him being overrated, well...ask me that next year this time . He's done everything Theus could ask of him, so far, and more...you have to at least give him that much.

 

[Glenn]

Anyways, I'm not saying that Bonzi would be the answer to all of our problems, or that I'd even want him to be on the team. I'm saying that, while Salmons is a very serviceable player, he's not the kind of player that the Kings (over the cap, no real attractive trading chips, no great draft picks) should be spending their MLE on. And we've done this now three years in a row, and have gotten worse all three years.

I have read you shoot down darn near every idea that people have. For some reason, people feel compelled to convince you that they are right. Why don't we switch things around a bit?

Instead of taking the role of spoiler, why don't you spell out what the next move Petrie should take. One move big or little. Tell us what it should be and how he should accomplish it.

If it is to acquire a player, tell us who it is and how we get him. If it is to get rid of someone, tell us who and how it will be accomplished.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Salmons on the other hand, would be the starting SG on this team if we didn't have a guy named Kevin.

But we do have Martin. And frankly, there aren't five teams in this league that, when healthy, would take Salmons to start over the guy they've already got. What Salmons is doing is hardly special: there are probably fifty guys warming the bench in the league that could do what he does if you gave them thirty minutes a game and as many touches, and if you don't believe me, then I've got two words for you:
Tarence Kinsey.

Salmons isn't going to take the "next step," because he already has: for him, this is the "next step."

 

[VF21]

We could have signed him for what Houston gave him. He said publicly that he wanted to be here, but that by the time he woke up and took matters into his own hands, the Kings had moved on and signed Salmons. Maybe that's good for us, as we shouldn't have been offering him $40 million to begin with; upper management was still in denial about what this team was capable of at that time. But we could have had him for the same money we gave Salmons.

It wasn't anywhere near that simple. Bonzi's agent was being a total and complete jerk and made a bunch of statements in the press about how many teams were after Bonzi, how he didn't have to play for less than what he deserved, etc.

I don't know how you think we could have gotten Bonzi for less when his agent wouldn't even return phone calls. Sorry, Supes, but you're off-base on this one.

And, all things considered, I think Bonzi would have been a major disruption under the Eric Musselman regime.

 

[BawLa]

You're comparing the Kings with the Spurs and the Suns. We are NOT a contending team. We do NOT need a player like John Salmons. I don't have anything against him; I don't think he's necessarily overpaid for what he does/can do. But he doesn't make us any better, and he doesn't fill a hole.

If we were right there on the brink and wanted some depth at the position, or weren't comfortable making a push for a title with Garcia logging 30 minutes a night, then Salmons would make sense. You're likening him to Hedo Turkoglu and Michael Finley, when they play for teams that are far better than the Kings. Teams that are ready to compete for championships sign players like John Salmons to give them depth. Not the Kings.

Bad teams don't sign middling players to long-term contracts, especially not when they have to use their MLE to do so. It just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that Petrie should be fired because of this contract, but I disagree with the notion that it was a good signing simply because the guy can put up 22 points in a win at home. I loved seeing him do it, but it doesn't make me feel like this team is headed in the right direction when we're still $8 million above the cap and saddled with bad contracts for the next three years (SAR, Thomas, Moore, arguably Miller/Bibby).

Reading what you say makes me think that we just signed Salmons yesterday or something. We signed him right after Bonzi declined the generous offer we made to him. Apparantly, Petrie wanted to have another SG/SF swingman on the team. Just because Bonzi didn't sign doesn't mean he should have just dropped the thought. He certainly could have chosen a worse signing.

I hate repeating myself but here goes. At that time, Kevin was coming off of his first "breakout" year when he averaged under 11 PPG. At that time Garcia was coming off of an underwhelming rookie season. Seeing Garcia's up-and-down nature at the time didn't exactly instill much confidence in me, and I have still liked Garcia from day 1. Also at the time we signed Salmons, the perception of Artest was that he was still a ticking time-bomb.

There are three sound reasons why the Salmons signing as a backup to the Bonzi offer was well justified. Here's another one. Salmons was a guy that had not yet reached his potential, and Petrie should be commended for picking him up for a relatively cheap contract.


I understand and agree with the idea that we had more pertinent needs at the time, and therefore should have spent that money elsewhere. But who was available at the time that would have filled a need in our frontcourt? I don't remember missing out on any big names that could've been had for the MLE. Furthermore, at the time, we had SAR, Williamson, Miller, Thomas, Williams, Maurice frickin' Taylor, and "the beast himself" Potapenko. Making the same complaint about Mo Taylor is fully acceptable IMO, but it just doesn't make sense with Salmons. And even if we could've found/had the right guy for our frontcourt with our MLE we are just going to throw him into that mix? We would've had 8 guys on the roster to fill two positions and only Justin Williams and Mo Taylor would've been paid under $3M. Ridiculous.

Hindsight certainly is 20/20. If Kevin had never taken that next step and become the budding superstar he is today, then Salmons would be one of the most glorified players on the team. But Kevin did bud, and now people are upset that we signed Salmons, a guy who is becoming a true asset to this team. I just don't get it, and maybe I never will.



And I love the argument about Udrih. Just because we had Douby means that we shouldn't have signed Udrih? Udrih had untapped value and now that value is being realized in a Kings uni. And much quicker than expected. At first people were thinking Udrih? And after just a few games the tune became UDRIH! Now imagine if we had signed Udrih to a 3 yr/$3M contract. That would be similar to the Salmons signing IMO. Locking an underrated player in for cheaper than their actual value.

If this team was truly in a rebuild/play for the future mode, then we should be playing our younger studs across the board. Garcia isn't the only one who's growth is being stunted by someone ahead of him. Douby, Garcia, Williams and Hawes all should be getting significant development minutes by the same rationale. But that is not the way things are working under our new coach. Theus has maintained that players have to earn their minutes by their play on the court. And Salmons has certainly done that. If people want to complain about youth development, complain about Bibby, Moore and Miller blocking Douby, Williams and Hawes. Do that before complaining aobut Salmons blocking Garcia because Salmons is more of a late-developing player than a veteran.

 

[BawLa]

But we do have Martin. And frankly, there aren't five teams in this league that, when healthy, would take Salmons to start over the guy they've already got. What Salmons is doing is hardly special: there are probably fifty guys warming the bench in the league that could do what he does if you gave them thirty minutes a game and as many touches, and if you don't believe me, then I've got two words for you:
Tarence Kinsey.

Salmons isn't going to take the "next step," because he already has: for him, this is the "next step."

Tarence Kinsey? You could have done better than that.

I fail to see your point. Kinsey is putting up similar FG and 3PT percentages to Salmons, but he is only scoring 4 PPG this year. Salmons is at 15.5 PPG, and apparantly rising. Kinsey rebounds less, assists much less, steals and blocks much less. He does turn it over less, but that is likely because the team doesn't have the ball in his hands much. Basically there is no comparison.

If you want to take Kinsey's numbers and stretch them out to a per48 rating in order to make a comparison to Salmons, then go right ahead. I just think that per48 numbers are a bit misleading, especially when their original minutes/game are under 24 minutes. You are basically assuming that the person would have constant production given any amount of minutes, and that is not realistic at all.

If you are trying to make the point that we could get similar production for much cheaper, then I do see your point. But I have seen that all along. Garcia is that guy. That doesn't mean that Salmons doesn't deserve his minutes or his contract, beacuse I think he does. And I have been standing by that viewpoint all along.

I do think Garcia can give us similar production to Salmons. I want to see Garcia get more minutes. I think he can be more than just a 6th or 7th man. I have always seen Garcia as Doug Christie version 2.0. I think Garcia can be even better than Doug was. But I don't think Salmons was a bad signing. I won't complain about Salmons taking minutes from Garcia. I think the rise of Salmons has put our team in a very unique trading position where we have the flexibility of trading either John or Ron. That is what I think.

 

[SacTownKid]

Salmons as a starter is nearly putting up 20 ppg. Yes...that is special!!! I have tried to justify him not really being as good as he is, but I'll be damned, there is just one way to explain it!

He's pretty @#^!&*$ good!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Tarence Kinsey? You could have done better than that.

I fail to see your point. Kinsey is putting up similar FG and 3PT percentages to Salmons, but he is only scoring 4 PPG this year. Salmons is at 15.5 PPG, and apparantly rising. Kinsey rebounds less, assists much less, steals and blocks much less. He does turn it over less, but that is likely because the team doesn't have the ball in his hands much. Basically there is no comparison..

The point is that, when Tarence Kinsey got minutes down the stretch of last year, he averaged 17/4/2/2 on 50% shooting over the past fifteen games of the season. The point is that he proved that he can perform, given the minutes... and there are at least fifty other guys in the league just like that. And, like Salmons, he's nothing special, and his numbers were nothing more than the by-product of getting minutes on a go-nowhere team.