Seems a few people nationally seem to think we really screwed up the Draft/Trade

[Anthony1]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/news/story?page=5-on-5-110624


2. Who lost the draft?

Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Without even considering whether the Kings reached too high for Jimmer Fredette, they royally screwed up by taking on John Salmons' unmovable contract to move down in the draft. This is the same John Salmons they shipped out in 2009 to create cap space, which they just blew on ... John Salmons, except now he's older and worse at basketball. Also, they reached too high for Jimmer.

Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: The Kings. They made a dumb trade that added payroll without clearly upgrading talent -- and traded down. Then they drafted a player whose fan support dwarfs his ability.
In the long run, Jimmer won't sell tickets. Winning will. Can Jimmer help Sacramento win?

Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: The Kings made a mind-boggling trade that made them worse and dropped them from No. 7 to No. 10. Sacramento would have been better off sitting at 7 and selecting one of the several prospects better than Jimmer Fredette at that slot. I'm generally pro-Jimmer, but the expectations for him seem to be growing too high.

 

[Gary]

Same as I felt

 

[rainmaker]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/news/story?page=5-on-5-110624


2. Who lost the draft?

Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Without even considering whether the Kings reached too high for Jimmer Fredette, they royally screwed up by taking on John Salmons' unmovable contract to move down in the draft. This is the same John Salmons they shipped out in 2009 to create cap space, which they just blew on ... John Salmons, except now he's older and worse at basketball. Also, they reached too high for Jimmer.

Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: The Kings. They made a dumb trade that added payroll without clearly upgrading talent -- and traded down. Then they drafted a player whose fan support dwarfs his ability.
In the long run, Jimmer won't sell tickets. Winning will. Can Jimmer help Sacramento win?

Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: The Kings made a mind-boggling trade that made them worse and dropped them from No. 7 to No. 10. Sacramento would have been better off sitting at 7 and selecting one of the several prospects better than Jimmer Fredette at that slot. I'm generally pro-Jimmer, but the expectations for him seem to be growing too high.

Well, then I highly question how much you know about our team. Two of your three examples blast the Kings for cutting into their cap space by trading for Salmons. They didn't. There is abrely any difference. His contract and benos are pretty similar, and taking Fredette at 10 instead of 7, which you say is a mistake, saved them half a mil.

 

[mac]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/news/story?page=5-on-5-110624


2. Who lost the draft?

Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Without even considering whether the Kings reached too high for Jimmer Fredette, they royally screwed up by taking on John Salmons' unmovable contract to move down in the draft. This is the same John Salmons they shipped out in 2009 to create cap space, which they just blew on ... John Salmons, except now he's older and worse at basketball. Also, they reached too high for Jimmer.

Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: The Kings. They made a dumb trade that added payroll without clearly upgrading talent -- and traded down. Then they drafted a player whose fan support dwarfs his ability.
In the long run, Jimmer won't sell tickets. Winning will. Can Jimmer help Sacramento win?

Mark Haubner, The Painted Area: The Kings made a mind-boggling trade that made them worse and dropped them from No. 7 to No. 10. Sacramento would have been better off sitting at 7 and selecting one of the several prospects better than Jimmer Fredette at that slot. I'm generally pro-Jimmer, but the expectations for him seem to be growing too high.

If you didn't know that by now then you're not very clever. It also seemed more than a few people thought we'd pick Kawhi Leonard. A few people thought Tyreke Evans was a horrible pick. A few people thought DeMarcus Cousins had super giant questionmarks that outweighed his talent.

So ... your point is?

 

[Anthony1]

Well, then I highly question how much you know about our team. Two of your three examples blast the Kings for cutting into their cap space by trading for Salmons. They didn't. There is abrely any difference. His contract and benos are pretty similar, and taking Fredette at 10 instead of 7, which you say is a mistake, saved them half a mil.

This is just what other people happen to be saying. If you go to ESPN.com and the NBA section, this is just one of the main stories on there. It's about who won the draft, and who lost the draft. They had 5 people talk about who they think lost the draft, and 3 of the 5 said the Kings. Then, if you look at the comments to the article, it seems there are guys all over the nation that think we totally got screwed on this deal. I mean, it's pretty much the consensus opinion in the national media that we made some of the worst moves in this draft. It's much more related to Salmons and getting rid of Beno, then it is with Fredette. Although, most seem to think we should have stayed at 7, and taken either Knight or Walker.

By the way, I'm not a Fredette hater in the least. I think he will be a decent player in the league, maybe not quite worth a 10th overall selection, but I don't think he's going to be a bust. I'm just devastated by the fact that had we simply stayed in our shoes, stayed with that 7th pick, not done anything stupid, we would have walked away with one of the top 5 players in the draft (IMHO), and one of the top two PG's in this draft (IMHO). We'd still have Beno, who has a better contract than Salmons, and we wouldn't be dealing with the malcontent that is Salmons. Salmons is just a depressing guy. You can see it in his face. He brings other people around him down. I get a negative vibe from dood. I don't want him ANYWHERE near our young impressionable guys.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't see how anyone can argue this trade made the team worse. You could say it's a wash but not that it's a downgrade.

 

[rainmaker]

This is just what other people happen to be saying. If you go to ESPN.com and the NBA section, this is just one of the main stories on there. It's about who won the draft, and who lost the draft. They had 5 people talk about who they thing lost the draft, and 3 of the 5 said the Kings. Then, if you look at the comments to the article, it seems there are guys all over the nation that think we totally got screwed on this deal. I mean, it's pretty much the consensus opinion in the national media that we made some of the worst moves in this draft. It's much more related to Salmons and getting rid of Beno, then it is with Fredette. Although, most seem to think we should have stayed at 7, and taken either Knight or Walker.

The trade didn't kill us at all. Why listen to what other people around the country, who don't pay half the attention to the team we do, about their opinion on our trade and pick? If we listened to them, instead of Reke/Cousins/Fredette, we'd have Rubio/Monroe/Leonard.

I don't like the trade because it puts a lower ceiling on what I thought our sf would contribute, with our cap space. I think we might have jumped the gun instead of considering other options via trade or free agency this summer. As it is, it wouldn't have been hard to do a Beno/Salmons swap this summer, if there weren't any other options on the table, at least potentially.

But we did get better as a team, we did upgrade our sf position, and we didn't cut into our cap space.

 

[Anthony1]

I don't see how anyone can argue this trade made the team worse. You could say it's a wash but not that it's a downgrade.

Really?

I mean...... REALLY?

You don't see how anybody could argue that it's a bad trade.... gee.... let me count the ways....

1. First off, in terms of contracts, we went from a contract that maybe isn't exactly the most ideal contract (Beno's), to a contract that is MUCH worse (Salmons)
2. We go from a guy that we might have been able to trade (Beno), to a guy that we are most likely going to be stuck with.
3. We go from a guy that is a positive force in our locker room, a good team guy, to a malcontent, potential cancer in the locker room.
4. We go from a guy who might not exactly be a spring chicken (Beno), to a guy that is even older (Salmons).
5. We go from a guy that doesn't NEED to have the ball in his hands at all times, to a guy that is a virtual black hole on the court.
6. We go from already having WAY too many SF's, to having even more (although I actually like Honeycutt)
7. Taking on Salmons wacked contract, we should have been able to move UP in the draft, not down, thus we miss out on a potential top 5 talent (Knight)

Those are a just a few reasons I can argue off the top of my head...

 

[jpsls]

This draft was so fluid that every so called expert could argue every team after the #1 pick reached. Also, the last site you should trust is ESPN. The Knicks drafted a guy in the first round who many believed would have gone undrafted, but they are no where near seen as losers by ESPN.

Many of their analysts don't focus on the Kings and have little knowledge of how dire our SF position was. Kings needed a point guard who can shoot and they got a player who can be much more with that. I think Jimmer will surprise many people.

 

[Anthony1]

I think Jimmer will surprise many people.

I'm not anti-Jimmer in the least. In fact, after Irving and Knight, he was the next guard I wanted. I knew we had zero chance at Irving, and I also thought we'd have virtually no chance at Knight. I had already conceded the minute the draft lottery was over, and we had landed the 7th spot that Knight was virtually an impossibility. Of course, I'm not a General Manager, and I'm not paid to take chances on assumptions that a guy WON'T be there, and then end up regretting it later, because we had locked ourselves into a trade with no "out clause".

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Really?

I mean...... REALLY?

No. I’m joking...

Yeah, really!

1. First off, in terms of contracts, we went from a contract that maybe isn't exactly the most ideal contract (Beno's), to a contract that is MUCH worse (Salmons)

Gross exaggeration. Their yearly salaries aren’t significantly different (by NBA standards). The only significant difference is that Salmons has three years on his contract, one more than Beno. You can’t say that’s a bad thing unless he ends up not working out, though. If he works out, it’s not an issue.

2. We go from a guy that we might have been able to trade (Beno), to a guy that we are most likely going to be stuck with.

Purely speculative. Whether they’re “stuck with him” or not depends on how he plays. Sure, he could play terribly and end up being a costly mistake, but he could just as easily play well and help the team improve. Unless you have a crystal ball, it’s too soon to say which will end up being the case.

We go from a guy that is a positive force in our locker room, a good team guy, to a malcontent, potential cancer in the locker room.

How is he a “potential cancer”? Because you say so? I seem to remember him being pretty well liked when he was here before.

We go from a guy who might not exactly be a spring chicken (Beno), to a guy that is even older (Salmons).

He’s 31, not 40. I don’t know where people get the notion that basketball players are useless once they hit 30 but it’s absurd. They aren’t building the team around the guy. He’s here for a couple seasons to add some defensive presence and fill a positional need. By the time his contract is up, Greene/Honeycut/Casspi will probably be ready to replace him.

5. We go from a guy that doesn't NEED to have the ball in his hands at all times, to a guy that is a virtual black hole on the court.

This has been addressed many times. He’s mostly been on teams where he had to score and was expected to score. His role will change on this team. I’m sure the coaches are more than aware of and capable of addressing this.

6. We go from already having WAY too many SF's, to having even more (although I actually like Honeycutt)

Not necessarily a bad thing because the young guys are cheap at the moment and could be great trade bait.

7. Taking on Salmons wacked contract, we should have been able to move UP in the draft, not down, thus we miss out on a potential top 5 talent (Knight)

Assuming they wanted Knight. The Jazz and Raptors, two teams projected to possibly take Knight passed on him. That should tell you something. Trading down also saved them money on Fridette’s rookie contract.

Salmons contact isn’t wacked. Rashard Lewis’ contract is wacked. Salmons is just a little overpaid but it’s not franchise crippling.

Those are a just a few reasons I can argue off the top of my head...

Your reasons were mostly speculating and overacting. You’d think they just signed Vince Carter to 5 years/100 million or something the way you’re acting (it’s not just you, either.)

There’s a very real possibility this trade works out good. You’re acting as if it’s a forgone conclusion that it will be a disaster though. At least wait until we’ve seen how he’s going to fit in with the team before declaring the sky has fallen.

 

[jpsls]

Really?

I mean...... REALLY?

You don't see how anybody could argue that it's a bad trade.... gee.... let me count the ways....

1. First off, in terms of contracts, we went from a contract that maybe isn't exactly the most ideal contract (Beno's), to a contract that is MUCH worse (Salmons)
2. We go from a guy that we might have been able to trade (Beno), to a guy that we are most likely going to be stuck with.
3. We go from a guy that is a positive force in our locker room, a good team guy, to a malcontent, potential cancer in the locker room.
4. We go from a guy who might not exactly be a spring chicken (Beno), to a guy that is even older (Salmons).
5. We go from a guy that doesn't NEED to have the ball in his hands at all times, to a guy that is a virtual black hole on the court.
6. We go from already having WAY too many SF's, to having even more (although I actually like Honeycutt)
7. Taking on Salmons wacked contract, we should have been able to move UP in the draft, not down, thus we miss out on a potential top 5 talent (Knight)

Those are a just a few reasons I can argue off the top of my head...

1. Salmons' contract runs 1 year longer. Don't see how that is much worse.
2. Salmons was traded from Sacramento to Chicago to Milwaukee despite his contract. GM's clearly believe he still has value.
3. He is never been associated with the term cancer as far as I know and was a pretty mellow guy when he was with the Kings.
4. Beno is 29 and Salmons is 31. He's not that much older and still has a few years left in his prime.
5. This point of contention might have some truth to it as demonstrated by Salmon's high usage rate.
6. There is a difference between having too many SF's that are effective and having too many SF's that are ineffective. The latter essentially means you have no small forwards
because none of them are dependable -- this represents the Kings SF situation. The jury is still out on Casspi and Greene, but neither have proven to be reliable starting small forwards as their inconsistency relegates them to sporadic minutes.

 

[Bricklayer]

As I have mentioned before -- and here I should note that I am much more informed about the Kings roster and salary situation than 90% of the national writers -- we did NOT blow our capspace with this trade. By swapping Beno for Salmons, and then trading back a few picks to get the guy we wanted anyway, we only carved off about a million+ of the huge capspace nestegg. This trade's main impact will end being about talent, role and fit, not finances.

As for Fredette being more hype than substance, I am sympathetic to that possiblity. But opinions as they say are like *******s, and that one is going to be determined on the court, not because scout A thinks this while scout B thinks that.

 

[jpsls]

I'm not anti-Jimmer in the least. In fact, after Irving and Knight, he was the next guard I wanted. I knew we had zero chance at Irving, and I also thought we'd have virtually no chance at Knight. I had already conceded the minute the draft lottery was over, and we had landed the 7th spot that Knight was virtually an impossibility. Of course, I'm not a General Manager, and I'm not paid to take chances on assumptions that a guy WON'T be there, and then end up regretting it later, because we had locked ourselves into a trade with no "out clause".

What you want and what Geoff Petrie wants are two totally different things. Is it unreasonable to believe Geoff rates Fredette higher than Knight?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

What you want and what Geoff Petrie wants are two totally different things. Is it unreasonable to believe Geoff rates Fredette higher than Knight?

The fact that Utah and Toronto passed on Knight even though both could use point guards should tell that maybe it wan't just Petrie that wasn't that impressed by him.

 

[jpsls]

Are those people who opined that the Kings lost in this draft even scouts?

 

[mac]

Oh, a few people nationally also think that we signed Dalembert as a FA, that Steve Hawes (yes, Steve Hawes) still plays for us, and lots of other really things that would seem funny if you were a Kings fan.


You have locked yourself into a "Brandon Knight was the Kings top pick no matter what anyone says" mindset, with no "out clause".

 

[ParniValjak]

Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Without even considering whether the Kings reached too high for Jimmer Fredette, they royally screwed up by taking on John Salmons' unmovable contract to move down in the draft. This is the same John Salmons they shipped out in 2009 to create cap space, which they just blew on ... John Salmons, except now he's older and worse at basketball. Also, they reached too high for Jimmer.

Obviously blowing a smoke out of his ***. We did not "blow" our cap space on Salmons because we still have pretty much the same salary cap room than pre-trade, except we now actually have a starting SF that is a very good defender, can shoot the 3 and handle the ball.

Trading for Beno and pick #7 for Salmons and pick #10 only increased our overall salary for next year by $1million. Hardly blowing salary cap on someone.

And I seem to recall that at the time of the trade, Salmons was attached to Miller's monstrous contract at the time. There is no way in hell you could trade's Miller's contract (especially considering his performance at the time) to anyone without attaching a player with some value and at that time, Salmons was highly productive for the salary he was getting. He was making less than the MLE.

And Mark Haubner is pro Jimmer but expectations of him seem to be too high and because of this, it was a bad pick?! WTF?!?!?! He wouldn't have a clue what is expected of Jimmer from the franchise yet he is qualified to make a comment on it?! Sounds pretty legit to me

 

[Spike]

Hold on a minute, we could have had Rubio/Monroe/Leonard?


No wonder management was looking to move to Anaheim.

 

[Sac.1989]

as for salmons being a black hole im sure from previous quotes that when GP initially traded for him he looked at his stats as a creator and facilitator when iverson was injured or sitting out in philly. He knows exactly what were getting here and hes confident he can play the role we've set out for him which is more then fine for me

 

[Bricklayer]

as for salmons being a black hole im sure from previous quotes that when GP initially traded for him he looked at his stats as a creator and facilitator when iverson was injured or sitting out in philly. He knows exactly what were getting here and hes confident he can play the role we've set out for him which is more then fine for me

Well that Iverson stuff was jsut the tip of the iceberg and the core of the problem with Salmons. He refuses to, and it is pretty much consciously, play unless he gets to be the star and goto guy. If he does, he puts up numbers, if her doesn't, he goes into full on moping mood and his whole game jsut collapses. Happened in Philly, happened with us when we tried to bring him off the bench, happened in Chicago as Rose blew up. Don't even know what happened last year.

We not only do not need that out of a SF, ANY SF, we can't have it or it could sink us. That's the whole negative side of this deal. How to slap him awake and convince him to play the good soldier rather than the me-first malcontent.

 

[mac]

Well that Iverson stuff was jsut the tip of the iceberg and the core of the problem with Salmons. He refuses to, and it is pretty much consciously, play unless he gets to be the star and goto guy. If he does, he puts up numbers, if her doesn't, he goes into full on moping mood and his whole game jsut collapses. Happened in Philly, happened with us when we tried to bring him off the bench, happened in Chicago as Rose blew up. Don't even know what happened last year.

We not only do not need that out of a SF, ANY SF, we can't have it or it could sink us. That's the whole negative side of this deal. How to slap him awake and convince him to play the good soldier rather than the me-first malcontent.

Makes you wonder how good he really thinks he is. I could answer that question for him.

 

[steelevt]

1. Salmons' contract runs 1 year longer. Don't see how that is much worse.
2. Salmons was traded from Sacramento to Chicago to Milwaukee despite his contract. GM's clearly believe he still has value.
3. He is never been associated with the term cancer as far as I know and was a pretty mellow guy when he was with the Kings.
4. Beno is 29 and Salmons is 31. He's not that much older and still has a few years left in his prime.
5. This point of contention might have some truth to it as demonstrated by Salmon's high usage rate.
6. There is a difference between having too many SF's that are effective and having too many SF's that are ineffective. The latter essentially means you have no small forwards
because none of them are dependable -- this represents the Kings SF situation. The jury is still out on Casspi and Greene, but neither have proven to be reliable starting small forwards as their inconsistency relegates them to sporadic minutes.

1. I dont think an extra mil a year cripples us this year with 28 or so mil in capspace, but if we use it all this year for sammy/mt23/fa and are near the cap, then he starts to look like kenny thomas 2.0 if he doesn't perform or mopes on the bench the next few years
2. Being traded multiple times doesnt necessarily mean u have value. If u were so valuable, why didnt the team keep u? In rare cases if u out perform ur contract, teams have to include u in a trade to move a bad contract. But at 8 mill, looks like salmons is the bad contract
3. I wouldnt say "cancer" but many kings fans remember that salmons didn't take getting benched behind martin and artest very well. He moped and sulked on the bench and there were reports he stormed out of the locker room in anger. So yea, not a cancer, but not the cure to our problems either
4. 30 is the imaginary age were most (not all) players start to see a decline. There are exceptions like nash or kidd. Some players adjust there games and succeed, others are just ageless. But in general over 30 is when u are nearing the end of your most productive years. So theres a slight difference between 29 and 2 years left on a contract vs 31 and 3 years. Personally if I were a to sign a contract and had to choose a between 2 players of equal talent, id choose the younger. The fact that its cheaper and shorter is icing on the cake.

 

[jpsls]

1. I dont think an extra mil a year cripples us this year with 28 or so mil in capspace, but if we use it all this year for sammy/mt23/fa and are near the cap, then he starts to look like kenny thomas 2.0 if he doesn't perform or mopes on the bench the next few years
2. Being traded multiple times doesnt necessarily mean u have value. If u were so valuable, why didnt the team keep u? In rare cases if u out perform ur contract, teams have to include u in a trade to move a bad contract. But at 8 mill, looks like salmons is the bad contract
3. I wouldnt say "cancer" but many kings fans remember that salmons didn't take getting benched behind martin and artest very well. He moped and sulked on the bench and there were reports he stormed out of the locker room in anger. So yea, not a cancer, but not the cure to our problems either
4. 30 is the imaginary age were most (not all) players start to see a decline. There are exceptions like nash or kidd. Some players adjust there games and succeed, others are just ageless. But in general over 30 is when u are nearing the end of your most productive years. So theres a slight difference between 29 and 2 years left on a contract vs 31 and 3 years. Personally if I were a to sign a contract and had to choose a between 2 players of equal talent, id choose the younger. The fact that its cheaper and shorter is icing on the cake.

1. The same could be said about any player with a large contract, so it's not entirely fair to assess Salmon's as the only player with potential to be Kenny Thomas 2.0. If the Kings sign Andre Kirilenko to a multi year deal comparable to Salmons, he has potential to be Kenny Thomas 2.0 as well.
2. The Kings traded Kevin Martin and Carl Landry...does that they mean they are both scrubs or were they just not good fits with the team? John Salmons became expendable because the Bucks have Stephen Jackson and Ilyasova who can both play the SF position.
3. Fair enough
4. Beno is no young pup himself (turns 29 this year). Salmons and Udrih are different player who play a different position fulfilling different needs. I would agree that I would take a younger player vs older player if they played the same position, but that is not the case in this trade. It's comparing apples and oranges. Beno no longer had a role to fill on this team. With Tyreke and Jimmer splitting time at the point and Tyreke, Thornton, and Jimmer splitting time at the SG position, where exactly does Beno fit in? Here's a scenario: You have Chris Paul as your point guard. Chicago offers you Derrik Rose and you get to keep Chris Paul. However, Knicks offer you Carmelo Anthony and you get to keep Chris Paul. You're team is desperately seeking consistency at the small forward position and you already have a pg -- who do you take?

 

[swisshh]

Ford and Henry Abbot and Simmons all hated the trade. People are generally fine with the Jimmer selection, but the Salmons trade makes no sense. Hollinger absolutely hate the trade.

Another blog tidbit:

http://blog.shamsports.com/2011/06/2011-nba-draft-diary.html

The trade also includes John Salmons and the #10 pick being sent from Milwaukee to Sacramento, in addition to Beno Udrih going the other way, thereby making the deal from the Kings perspective a swap of Salmons for Udrih, and a trading down of three spots. Salmons was a King between July 2006 and February 2009, when he was traded to Chicago along with Brad Miller in exchange for Andres Nocioni's lengthy contract, Drew Gooden's expiring contract, and some peripheries. Sacramento's motivation to deal was to save short term money by taking on long term money. They then did the opposite, taking on short term money to open up long term cap space, when they traded Nocioni and Spencer Hawes last summer for Samuel Dalembert. And now they have used that cap space.......on John Salmons. It is, needless to say, a baffling trade, and one that could have been avoided had the Kings done more than 5 seconds of Googling and checked to see if Salmons had gotten much worse since he left.

A lot of sports folk think the trade is a loss for the Kings. I know that in some mind's that will only reaffirm their greatness of the trade to them, but Petrie's trade history isn't anything to stand by.

edit:

Heres another look at the trade from CBS: http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/30244912

 

[kingsnation]

To all who support this trade taking place and the return of Salmons, say what you will but the fact of the matter is that Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee and even US ourselves have experimented with Salmons and realized he wasn't a key piece in the puzzle. Yet here he is, a key part in our 17-win team, back to make us better?

Why didn't we just KEEP him in the first place if he was so valuable? I can understand why Orlando went and got back Hedo this year - he was a key cog for them back in their finals year. But we go back and get Salmons, and in doing so TRADE DOWN?

It's all very mind-boggling and I guess just points to the state of our franchise. Our big draft day trade is to move down and to take on the large contract of a guy who was our starting 3 in our worst season in franchise history?

As others have also stated, he better start because coming off the bench he is completely ineffective.

I guess the question is: wasn't there ANYONE better and wouldn't it had been worth the wait?

 

[kingsnation]

1. The same could be said about any player with a large contract, so it's not entirely fair to assess Salmon's as the only player with potential to be Kenny Thomas 2.0. If the Kings sign Andre Kirilenko to a multi year deal comparable to Salmons, he has potential to be Kenny Thomas 2.0 as well.
2. The Kings traded Kevin Martin and Carl Landry...does that they mean they are both scrubs or were they just not good fits with the team? John Salmons became expendable because the Bucks have Stephen Jackson and Ilyasova who can both play the SF position.
3. Fair enough
4. Beno is no young pup himself (turns 29 this year). Salmons and Udrih are different player who play a different position fulfilling different needs. I would agree that I would take a younger player vs older player if they played the same position, but that is not the case in this trade. It's comparing apples and oranges. Beno no longer had a role to fill on this team. With Tyreke and Jimmer splitting time at the point and Tyreke, Thornton, and Jimmer splitting time at the SG position, where exactly does Beno fit in? Here's a scenario: You have Chris Paul as your point guard. Chicago offers you Derrik Rose and you get to keep Chris Paul. However, Knicks offer you Carmelo Anthony and you get to keep Chris Paul. You're team is desperately seeking consistency at the small forward position and you already have a pg -- who do you take?

2. Don't forget we traded Salmons once too. Why was that again?

4. If the SF is Anthony, I pull the trigger. If the SF is Salmons, I say been there, done that.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Well, then I highly question how much you know about our team. Two of your three examples blast the Kings for cutting into their cap space by trading for Salmons. They didn't. There is abrely any difference. His contract and benos are pretty similar, and taking Fredette at 10 instead of 7, which you say is a mistake, saved them half a mil.

Ding ding ding, winner! This trade was GOOD in alot of ways! And we 'blew our cap space' with this trade?? We saved $500,000 in trading down...AND how the h-e-double hockey sticks did we 'blow our cap space'...looking at how much we had to spend with our cap space RIGHT NOW...Beno was scheduled to make $7.2 million...Salmons $8.5 million...so we 'blew' a total of $800,000 of our cap space this year in getting Salmons and trading down(saving $500,000). 'Blowing it'?!?! And...what could ANY team add to their roster for $800,000 that would have made any difference??? Not that much...so we GAIN a better SF...and a younger/better pure shooter/playmaker in this trade...'blowing it'...I think NOT!

 

[bajaden]

Its been stated that it was Westphal that really lobbied for Salmons. First off, why anyone would listen to what Westphal wanted is beyond me, but I guess if he's going to have his neck on the line in the last year of his contract, then maybe this was some sort of bone that was thrown his way. Fairly large bone though. I wasn't a big fan of Salmons when he was here the first time. I do think the dislike of him was a little exaggerated, but most of the criticisms are accurate.

So if Westphal is truely the genesis of this trade, he damm well better find a way to make it work. And I don't mean by force feeding Salmons down our throat with unearned minutes. In the end, it could lead to Westphal's departure. Unfortunately, it'll be easier to rid ourselves of Westphal than it will Salmons. As a fan, I sincerely hope it does work. I hope Westphal proves to be a great coach. But I'd be lying if I didn't say I was Sceptical.

 

[jpsls]

2. Don't forget we traded Salmons once too. Why was that again?

4. If the SF is Anthony, I pull the trigger. If the SF is Salmons, I say been there, done that.

Salary dump -- doesn't mean he's a scrub. Look, I concede on paper Salmons does not fit with this team given his style of play, but we need to see them play together before jumping to any conclusions. Salmons was asked to carry much of the offense given the talent level back then.