Should Martin, Artest, and Salmons coexist?

[NoBonus]

I was watching some recent Kings action and John Salmons was exploding with great plays; just incredible; a knockout performance. Salmons looks like a starter likely could easily be a starter on a lot of teams. Once Kevin Martin returns to the starting lineup, Salmons, no doubt, will be put back on the bench for a much more limited role.

My thought is this:

1. Should the Kings trade Salmons since his trade value is high and before he is no longer remembered as sensational, but a bench player? Possibly in a combo trade with another Kings starter for a big name player?

2. Should the Kings trade Martin now, since he is a very attractive player to many teams and Salmons appears to be able to start at off guard?

3. Should the Kings trade Artest, who is also playing well, and start Salmons at small forward? (Is he big enough to start at SF?)

4. Should the Kings stand pat and potentially lose this opportunity? To upgrade while Salmons' value is high?

I just cannot put it together... Plus, with Beno playing like a star, can he continue to start at PG? Do you trade Bibby, Artest, and Salmons for an improved SF and/or PF?

What do YOU think?

 

[VF21]

I think this belongs in the Personnel Moves section...

 

[VF21]

I think we keep them all for now. If we trade anyone, I strongly believe it should be Artest. The idea of trading Martin, one of the most popular young players this franchise has EVER had, is ridiculous. While it might look good on paper, this is NOT the kind of thing the Maloofs would sign off on - and I don't think Petrie has brought this young man along only to trade him away.

 

[John Galt]

I was watching some recent Kings action and John Salmons was exploding with great plays; just incredible; a knockout performance. Salmons looks like a starter likely could easily be a starter on a lot of teams. Once Kevin Martin returns to the starting lineup, Salmons, no doubt, will be put back on the bench for a much more limited role.

My thought is this:

1. Should the Kings trade Salmons since his trade value is high and before he is no longer remembered as sensational, but a bench player? Possibly in a combo trade with another Kings starter for a big name player?

2. Should the Kings trade Martin now, since he is a very attractive player to many teams and Salmons appears to be able to start at off guard?

3. Should the Kings trade Artest, who is also playing well, and start Salmons at small forward? (Is he big enough to start at SF?)

4. Should the Kings stand pat and potentially lose this opportunity? To upgrade while Salmons' value is high?

I just cannot put it together... Plus, with Beno playing like a star, can he continue to start at PG? Do you trade Bibby, Artest, and Salmons for an improved SF and/or PF?

What do YOU think?

I think everyone on the Kings is playing well, in some cases over their heads, and has highish stock right now compared to last year. Brad, Ron, John, Kevin, Beno... not saying they are all playing over their heads but they would all fetch more than fair value for what they are. Seems like this should be a good time to be Geoff Petrie... with some marketable parts. I hope he makes the most of it and can jettison some of what I consider junk Kenny/Shareef/Mikki in combination with some of our good pieces.

It seems to me the only guy who hasn't improved his value so far this year is Bibby but the Cavs and Heat both want/need him.

To me, there is not one single sacred cow on this team right now. Not one.

 

[NoBonus]

I think we keep them all for now. If we trade anyone, I strongly believe it should be Artest. The idea of trading Martin, one of the most popular young players this franchise has EVER had, is ridiculous. While it might look good on paper, this is NOT the kind of thing the Maloofs would sign off on - and I don't think Petrie has brought this young man along only to trade him away.

I agree that trading Martin would be nuts, but if you keep Martin, why keep Salmons? Martin will soak up most of the OG minutes and Artest will soak up most of the SF minutes. Salmons should get more minutes; I just do not think he fits... too much value for a limited minute backup...

 

[SLAB]

I say you trade Salmons.

Other teams may actually look at him now and see a quality player. Once Martin returns, he goes back to the bench and returns to the mediocre 7/3/3 player he has always been and all this built trade value goes away.

You don't trade Martin unless you're getting a needed superstud back. And in all actuality no one's going to trade us a young stud big for Martin...They're more needed in a successful franchise than a high scoring wing.

Another reason you don't trade Martin is because Salmons and Artest are quite similar. They need to dominate the ball to be successful. To much of the game would either be Artest or Salmons dribbling out the clock and with driving down (more of Salmons' thing) or hoisting the ill-advised shot (Ron's thing).

Now that it's down to Artest/Salmons, you trade Salmons based on the fact that...

1: Artest is just better.
2: 'Full Value' for Ron is probably 65cents to the dollar.
3: Salmons has proven to be way to inconsistent his NBA career. What makes us think he will keep this up when he has doddled away in mediocrity his entire career? To risky to bank on him as a starter, IMO.

 

[LPKingsFan]

To me the question isn't SHOULD Martin, Artest, and Salmons coexist. It's CAN Martin, Artest, Salmons AND Garcia coexist. And the simple answer to that is, well, no. There's simply not enough minutes. And all have proven productive given playing time, so it's better to move one while they have value now rather than let them rot on the bench when everyone's healthy.

 

[VF21]

I agree that trading Martin would be nuts, but if you keep Martin, why keep Salmons? Martin will soak up most of the OG minutes and Artest will soak up most of the SF minutes. Salmons should get more minutes; I just do not think he fits... too much value for a limited minute backup...

You keep Salmons because he can actually play the 1, 2 and 3. You get rid of Artest, who will most likely be asking for much more than the Kings will want to offer anyway...

See, no problem.

 

[91sickness]

Not a chance in hell Martin gets traded. Petrie did not just resign him for 11 million a year to trade him off. Plus wing players are much easier to come by then solid big men. So nobody would give us a young big in exchange for a young scorer. So then it comes down to Artest and Salmons and I say trade Salmons because Artest is a better player. As much of a "time-bomb" Ron-Ron may be I would much rather see him in the starting lineup than Salmons.

The next question is to who and for what do you trade Salmons? I would rather see us keep him than trade him for expiring contracts. So any ideas on potential trade partners for Salmons? I could see him playing well for a team like Golden State but they dont have anything we want and the in division trades are usually a no go.

BEST CASE SCENARIO: Since Salmons has been playing a lot lately he becomes more consistent even coming off the bench and becomes our 6th man and all 3 players coexist and the Kings continue to work their way back into the upper half of the NBA....im down with that!!!

GO KINGS!!!

 

[VF21]

Remember there is another ticking part to Ron Artest. He has an ETO at the end of this season, which means he could choose to opt out and seek his fortunes elsewhere, and could garner some pretty good offers if he continues to do well.

 

[Bricklayer]

Salmons trade value is not really that high yet -- this is the problem, or one of them.

Here is an approximating table of values on a 10 scale for three situations:

Artest:
Value (Starter): 8
Value (Bench): N/A
Trade Value: 5 (and for many teams, 0, because they just will not risk it)

Martin:
Value Starter: 7
Value (Bench): N/A
Trade Value: 7

Salmons:
Value (Starter): 6 or 7 (this season at least)
Value (Bench): 4
Trade Value: 4

Bibby:
Value (Starter): 6 or 7 (used to be 7, may have deteriorated to 6 now)
Value (Bench): N/A
Trade Value: 5 or 6 (people are leery of the deterioration + contract)

Beno:
Value (Starter): 5
Value (Bench): 3
Trade Value: 2 or 3

Cisco:
Value (Starter): 5
Value (Bench): 4
Trade Value: 3 or 4


Salmons thus far this season has been almost as good as Kevin as a starter, the "this season" being a key phrase. But he has ALWAYS been an indifferent bencher. This season included. There are many guys around the league as good as him off of the bench. We have one pretty close ourselves in Cisco.

And the complicating factor is this: Right now Beno is playing like maybe a 5 for us as a starting PG, and Salmons as a 6 or 7 as a starting OG. But their values in trade will not have remotely caught up to their play based on 20 games of action. For years and years Salmons has been nothing more than a moody inconsistent bencher, and Beno was so well esteemed as a San Antonio washout that he got dumped for salary and cut just a couple of months ago. Their trade value is still much more about what the league has always thought of them as, than what they have been for a few months here. They are tradeable, but no team is going to give up established top tier talent for them -- they would be looking to take a flyer.

And that would not be so huge a problem if Beno and Salmons were going to start all year. By the end of the year their trade value would start catching up to their on court value as they proved they could do it long term and people changed the way they thought about them. But in a short time our two incumbent starters at those positions are going to return, and when they do, Salmons and Beno head back to the bench, their minutes and numbers drop, and whatever building trade value they had quickly sinks back toward their long established levels.

Meanwhile your best player's trade value remains far below his oncourt value because nobody trusts him, your returning PG's value has been sinking for years and will certainly sink further if he loses significant minutes to Beno after he returns, and you are starting a Value: 4 guy at PF. In fact for that matter, 4 of the 5 bigs on your roster are 30+ and mostly valueless in trade.

Hence that recent trade proposal BTW -- the only way to get Ron's value out of him is to keep + play him. I think that may be a mistake because his value can quickly sink to 0, but he is only an 8 on the court, not in trade. cisco, Salmons and Beno are all proving more valuable on the court than they could possibly be in trade without a full year of building that value. Maybe more. So that leaves only two established players who can bring back their equal value in trade at a position where we aren't overloaded. Unfortunately one of them is a popular young player who I myself wouold have preferred to rebuild around. But sans any effort/signs of rebuilding, the next way to go is to try to build a low level winner now. And the only guys on our roster who can fix our frontcourt problems via trade are likely Kevin and Mike. And principally Kevin. You can lose kevin = 7 to get Pau = 7 (maybe), Mike = 6 ro get Gooden = 5 (maybe) or maybe, just maybe Ron = 8 to get Lee = 5 or 6 (maybe) -- but even Lee proved out of reach a few months ago.

 

[SacTownKid]

When you've got a relatively young guy that can get you just about 20 ppg and 4 apg a night making only about 4 million a year, you don't trade him. Plus the fact that VF mentioned, he can play 3 positions. He fits into to any rebuilding plans you have because you can stick him just about anywhere on the court.

We have to get something for Ron.

 

[HaraWish]

I prefer trading Artest for a solid starting PF.

Artest is great, but IMO it's not a good idea to build a team around him.

 

[Smills91]

Yeah, let's trade the ONE player that commands a double team on our roster(Ron Artest)

Let's see the first 3 games we completely sucked this season, the four following we improved slightly, but the Kings have been a MUCH better TEAM WITH Ron Artest.

He's not going anywhere, there's no money floating around elsewhere to sign him away this off-season. Kings can lock him up for a deal roughly similar to that of Martin's deal. 5 years 55 million. Pretty reasonable amount for both sides if you ask me.

As much as I like Garcia and Salmons their versatility in my opinion clearly show that they can find 20 some odd minutes off the bench.

I truly believe that when Bibby gets back, that Ron will see quite a few of his minutes at the 4 to allow Salmons and Garcia to get more burn.

Douby/Jones are the guys who will lose their minutes altogether.

PG: Bibby 28/ Beno 20
SG: Martin 30 / Salmons 16
SF: Artest 10 / Garcia 26 / Salmons 12
PF: Moore 24 / Artest 24
C: Brad Miller 32 / Hawes 16

 

[Heuge]

Let's see the first 3 games we completely sucked this season, the four following we improved slightly, but the Kings have been a MUCH better TEAM WITH Ron Artest.

We still suck that bad.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Yeah, let's trade the ONE player that commands a double team on our roster(Ron Artest)

Let's see the first 3 games we completely sucked this season, the four following we improved slightly, but the Kings have been a MUCH better TEAM WITH Ron Artest.

He's not going anywhere, there's no money floating around elsewhere to sign him away this off-season. Kings can lock him up for a deal roughly similar to that of Martin's deal. 5 years 55 million. Pretty reasonable amount for both sides if you ask me.

As much as I like Garcia and Salmons their versatility in my opinion clearly show that they can find 20 some odd minutes off the bench.

I truly believe that when Bibby gets back, that Ron will see quite a few of his minutes at the 4 to allow Salmons and Garcia to get more burn.

Douby/Jones are the guys who will lose their minutes altogether.

PG: Bibby 28/ Beno 20
SG: Martin 30 / Salmons 16
SF: Artest 10 / Garcia 26 / Salmons 12
PF: Moore 24 / Artest 24
C: Brad Miller 32 / Hawes 16

Bibby playing just 28 minutes? Yeah, right. Even Martin playing 30 is a bit of a stretch. No, when these guys come back they're going to to get major minutes. Even going small and dropping KT off the map altogether there sill won't be quite enough.

And about the double teams: the idea would be able to trade Ron for a big man that could draw double teams. And Hawes, given another year of development, should be drawing them in the post as well. Even in your scenario, with Ron getting only 10 minutes at his natural SF position--where he has a physical advantage in the post, not at PF--he'll only be drawing double teams for 5 minutes a half! How does this rotation work? Miki comes out five minutes into the first and third quarters, Ron shifts over to PF, and Moore doesn't play the rest of the time? Can't see that going over well...

 

[NewMonkey]

Yeah, let's trade the ONE player that commands a double team on our roster(Ron Artest)

Let's see the first 3 games we completely sucked this season, the four following we improved slightly, but the Kings have been a MUCH better TEAM WITH Ron Artest.

He's not going anywhere, there's no money floating around elsewhere to sign him away this off-season. Kings can lock him up for a deal roughly similar to that of Martin's deal. 5 years 55 million. Pretty reasonable amount for both sides if you ask me.

When you say double-team, are you talking opposing players or police officers? I'll give Artest credit for keeping his head on straight for a couple months, but expecting it to last is naive. Buy low, sell high. Artest's value is as high as it's going to get.

 

[Gary]

To me the question isn't SHOULD Martin, Artest, and Salmons coexist. It's CAN Martin, Artest, Salmons AND Garcia coexist. And the simple answer to that is, well, no. There's simply not enough minutes. And all have proven productive given playing time, so it's better to move one while they have value now rather than let them rot on the bench when everyone's healthy.

A lot of the people in this thread have said to trade Salmons. Salmons would be first on my list too if it were between him an Artest.. BUT... Artest is an ending contract, Salmons is not. If we traded Salmons than we could be stuck with Garcia next year at SF. Or in a draft where Petrie feels the need to draft another SG/SF..

I say move Artest, and next season we have Salmons starting at SF, and Garcia backing up the 2/3. Garcia has proven he plays MUCH better than Salmons off the bench, but Salmons is a better starter.

Plus I don't think Artest fits with the style of BBall we are trying to play.

 

[Bricklayer]

A lot of the people in this thread have said to trade Salmons. Salmons would be first on my list too if it were between him an Artest.. BUT... Artest is an ending contract, Salmons is not. If we traded Salmons than we could be stuck with Garcia next year at SF. Or in a draft where Petrie feels the need to draft another SG/SF..

I say move Artest, and next season we have Salmons starting at SF, and Garcia backing up the 2/3. Garcia has proven he plays MUCH better than Salmons off the bench, but Salmons is a better starter.

Plus I don't think Artest fits with the style of BBall we are trying to play.

That's not why Salmons isn't traded. Its not about being oh so lucky as to have John freakin' Salmons on the squad.

Its this: Salmons has no value. No real value, yet. You can't trade Salmons at this point and get a differencemaker up front. THAT'S why he's not the guy -- otherwise yes he would be. But nobody is going to trade you a stud big because a career 7ppg guy is scoring 19ppg for 20 games. So trading Salmons frees the minutes, but it probably doesn't significantly upgrade the team because he can't bring back anybody of note.

Kevin can.
Ron should, but probably can't.
Mike probably can't anymore.
Salmons, Cisco etc. definitely can't.

 

[BMiller52]

A lot of the people in this thread have said to trade Salmons. Salmons would be first on my list too if it were between him an Artest.. BUT... Artest is an ending contract, Salmons is not. If we traded Salmons than we could be stuck with Garcia next year at SF. Or in a draft where Petrie feels the need to draft another SG/SF..

I say move Artest, and next season we have Salmons starting at SF, and Garcia backing up the 2/3. Garcia has proven he plays MUCH better than Salmons off the bench, but Salmons is a better starter.

Plus I don't think Artest fits with the style of BBall we are trying to play.

That's probably the best way to get the most we can out of our assets while keeping Kevin. I'm just not sure I want to trade Artest. I know there are a ton of reasons we should move him, but I still kind of want to keep him, and nothing anybody says will change my mind unless Ron himself does another thing wrong. I would be okay if we traded him, but not like "wow we must move Artest!!!!!"

 

[VF21]

That's probably the best way to get the most we can out of our assets while keeping Kevin. I'm just not sure I want to trade Artest. I know there are a ton of reasons we should move him, but I still kind of want to keep him, and nothing anybody says will change my mind unless Ron himself does another thing wrong. I would be okay if we traded him, but not like "wow we must move Artest!!!!!"

And there were thousands of Pacers fans who, once upon a time, said the very same thing...

The next thing Ron Artest does wrong isn't an "if", it is - unfortunately - a "when".

Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[BMiller52]

And there were thousands of Pacers fans who, once upon a time, said the very same thing...

The next thing Ron Artest does wrong isn't an "if", it is - unfortunately - a "when".

Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Well I guess, I mean he has done some things wrong here but they haven't really done anything to affect the team seriously one way or another. And he has been really good this season. I mean some people do mature and learn from their mistakes. Petrie probably has a good read on that and so does Theus IMO, considering the time they spend around Ron. So if Petrie keeps him I kind of trust that Ron has calmed down and matured a lot. If Geoff trades him, maybe Ron is a ticking time bomb still or maybe it's just to help rebuild. But I am just going to give Ron the benefit of the doubt until he does something that changes that. I don't really think it's fair to do the opposite, even if it's true. He hasn't been a problem for us though.

 

[Gary]

As much as I think Artest's style does not fit with the Kings style, if I had a choice I would want to keep Artest over Salmons *IF* they both had the same contract for the same amnt of $$, and the same years left.

BUT, Artest has a chance of leaving at the end of the year or hold us hostage for a contract extension. Salmons does not.

Artest has a chance of doing something dumb, and getting into trouble. Salmons probably does not.

The thing I am afraid of most is;
1. We trade Salmons
2. Artest leaves at the end of the year
3. Petrie drafts another SG/SF to fill the void

If we keep Salmons, and try to move Artest than we have Salmons, an Garcia who are under contract to fill the void.

 

[sactownkings1023]

u know i say package up john and like send him to memphis for gasol

that way pg bibby
sg martin
sf ron ron
pf brad
c gasol
thats soo BA

 

[Gary]

Memphis would never do it.

The only way I see them trading Gasol is if he comes right out and asks for a trade, and refuses to play for them. Memphis would want our 2008 draft pick, Bibby, and Salmons. They probably wouldn't even do it for that.

 

[Entity]

If i had a garuntee that Ron would sign and extension with us I would say trade Salmons. BUT Ron could turn alot of teams around. I don't know I'd like to keep them all and they all be happy because if gives a near unmatched depth at 1-3 spots to bad our 4-5 is unmatached as well just on the other end of the spectrum. Fact is we have to go after a Big now.

I myself have been guilty of this. We all say we need a big for them but, not many names come to mind from teams willing to give up a big we could use. I hear David Lee but he is far from big time. Some we could get but they aren't game changers i.e. Drew Gooden. Bigs we would love to have but, aren't going anywhere compiles a large list.

 

[Smills91]

And there were thousands of Pacers fans who, once upon a time, said the very same thing...

The next thing Ron Artest does wrong isn't an "if", it is - unfortunately - a "when".

Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I guess Ron's just a programmed piece of equipment and is incapable of adapting, maturing and introspection?