Worst trade of 2011 Offseason?
- Thread starter Heuge
- Start date
The thought that Jimmer is going to be able to step up and provide what Beno did is so ludicrous and pie-in-the-sky I find it absurd.
I can understand if fans think that, but if anyone in the Kings organization ACTUALLY thinks that an over-hyped rookie is available at #10 and can step in and stabilize the team the way Beno did (after YEARS of learning the tricks of the trade), than they seriously need to leave the NBA and find another industry to screw up things.
Beno proved he could modify his game and fit in with Evans etc which is a VERY valuable commodity on this team.
Getting rid of Beno, who possesses skills and leadership this team needs, for Salmons (who has proven he can't modify his game to fit in) is making me more and more convinced this trade may turn out VERY bad.
I can understand if fans think that, but if anyone in the Kings organization ACTUALLY thinks that an over-hyped rookie is available at #10 and can step in and stabilize the team the way Beno did (after YEARS of learning the tricks of the trade), than they seriously need to leave the NBA and find another industry to screw up things.
Beno proved he could modify his game and fit in with Evans etc which is a VERY valuable commodity on this team.
Getting rid of Beno, who possesses skills and leadership this team needs, for Salmons (who has proven he can't modify his game to fit in) is making me more and more convinced this trade may turn out VERY bad.
There is no guarantee we can pick and chose the free agent we want anyway. Petrie's past has shown that he tends to wait late into the signing season before he makes a move. Perhaps this is because big time free agents wouldn't dream of coming to Sacto. This trade leaves us with no urgency. I also wonder what the new CBA will do to this whole scenario. Given that we will pay heavy cash some day to Reke and Cuz, I think having money in the bank is wise.
Let me put it this way -
Beno has never been expendable on the Kings.
Whenever he played, you could tell the team needed his contributions.
Why the fanbase constantly talked about trading his contract is beyond me - do they not watch the games and see what he provided to the team?
To get rid of Beno for Salmons - the ultimate expendable player that other teams don't look back on, is a BAD decision.
Beno has never been expendable on the Kings.
Whenever he played, you could tell the team needed his contributions.
Why the fanbase constantly talked about trading his contract is beyond me - do they not watch the games and see what he provided to the team?
To get rid of Beno for Salmons - the ultimate expendable player that other teams don't look back on, is a BAD decision.
We were already going to have his contract coming off the bench. It was just going to be attached to Beno.
If we wanted to. A significant if mind you. But if we wanted to, there is nothing either minutes wise or $$wise from preventing us making an offer to Shane Battier for instance, who does nto expect to start and play 38min a game. We've got bodies stacked up at SF, but many of them are effectively failures that we will probably try to flush or minimize. Its really just a question of whether we want to try to get our moeny's worth out of Cisco as the main backup SF/SG insruance, or whether we want to still go out and sign somebody and bump him down a notch into spot player. The somebody could go the other way too -- the unlikely AK47 signing for instance, making him backup SF with matchup minutes at PF too. We were never lookign for a star at SF. The guys who were/are best fits are all guys used to a 25-30min platoon type situation.
Knowing the way we have always operated,such sweeping ambition seems to exceed the scope of Geoff's flatline imagination. But nothing has happened here preventing it.
If we wanted to. A significant if mind you. But if we wanted to, there is nothing either minutes wise or $$wise from preventing us making an offer to Shane Battier for instance, who does nto expect to start and play 38min a game. We've got bodies stacked up at SF, but many of them are effectively failures that we will probably try to flush or minimize. Its really just a question of whether we want to try to get our moeny's worth out of Cisco as the main backup SF/SG insruance, or whether we want to still go out and sign somebody and bump him down a notch into spot player. The somebody could go the other way too -- the unlikely AK47 signing for instance, making him backup SF with matchup minutes at PF too. We were never lookign for a star at SF. The guys who were/are best fits are all guys used to a 25-30min platoon type situation.
Knowing the way we have always operated,such sweeping ambition seems to exceed the scope of Geoff's flatline imagination. But nothing has happened here preventing it.
Let me start by saying that when I was sitting around thinking about who the Kings might aquire at the SF position, I'll admit, Salmons didn't spring to mind. He's certainly not my first choice. But he's not as bad as some would like to believe. How he's used offensively, is yet to be seen. There's no doubt that he has a rep for overdribbling, and that his game to some degree is very similar to Tyreke's. Biggest difference being, that he can actually shoot the ball from behind the arc. He's averaged around 38% for the last 3 or 4 years, and thats a decent percentage.
Defensively he's an improvement. I went to 82 games and looked up the oppositions shooting percentage against him and compared it to some of the other suspossed defenders in the league, including our own players.
Prince: .497%
Battier: .511%
Butler: .463%
Kirilenko: .460%
Salmons: .472%
Greene: .541%
Casspi: .555%
Garcia: 515%
Now obviously there are other things that come into play. I think everyone would acknowledge that Battier is a terrific defender and yet he had the highest percentage of any of the known SF defenders. Thing is, Battier is asked to defend just about every good player in the league. Including PGs from time to time. Whereas a player like Kirilenko is seldom asked to defend SG's or PG's. I'd also like to point out that if you look at Prince carefully, you'll find that he's in decline in just about every catagory over the last couple of years.
I think everyone knows that I'm a big Jimmer fan, and I'll say it again. He's going to surprise those sceptics out there. And, I think its obvious that Fredette is the player the Kings wanted. When Petrie was asked at the press conference if the draft went the way he thought it would. He said the first 6 picks went exactly the way they thought it would. If so, then he knew that there was an excellent chance that Knight would be there at 7. Having been involved in the trade with Charlotte, he also had to know that they were going to take Walker at 9, and leave Fredette for the Kings at 10. Jerry Reynold said this morning on the Rise Guys that the Kings figured that Walker, Fredette, and Knight would all be there at 7. And they were!
That tells me that Petrie and company think that Fredette was the best choice. I happen like all three players. But if you break it down to who is the most ready to step in and play right now, then it comes down to two players. Fredette and Walker! Of those two, Fredette is the bigger or the two, and is the best shooter of the two. Walker is the quicker of the two. I think both players playmaking skills are fairly similar. Both players are good at getting to the basket and both are good at getting to the freethrow line. Both guys can create their own shot, and both have a wicked crossover. So I don't have a problem with drafting Jimmer, and I wouldn't have had a problem with drafting either Knight or Walker. But lets be clear about one thing. Knight probably has the most potential of the three, but right now, this minute, both Jimmer and Walker are better players than he is. So I can't fault any GM for going with someone thats already more proven, than one that might be better in a couple of years.
So am I thrilled about the trade as far as aquiring Salmons? No! But I can see where it could be an improvment defensively. As far as Beno goes. I think logicaly, Beno had to go if we drafted either Walker or Fredette. If we drafted Knight, probably not, since Knight wasn't ready for big minutes yet. So no big shock to me that Beno is gone. Do I think Jimmer will be better than Beno. Your damm right I do.
And please, when comparing Beno to Jimmer next season, try and remember that Beno has been in the league for 7 years already. Try an remember what he was like his first 4 years in the league. This stuff doesn't happen overnight . I'll be willing to bet you this though. If Jimmer gets enough minutes, he'll be on the rookie all star team, and might be in the running for ROY. Don't worry, I'm already looking for some crow just in case.
Defensively he's an improvement. I went to 82 games and looked up the oppositions shooting percentage against him and compared it to some of the other suspossed defenders in the league, including our own players.
Prince: .497%
Battier: .511%
Butler: .463%
Kirilenko: .460%
Salmons: .472%
Greene: .541%
Casspi: .555%
Garcia: 515%
Now obviously there are other things that come into play. I think everyone would acknowledge that Battier is a terrific defender and yet he had the highest percentage of any of the known SF defenders. Thing is, Battier is asked to defend just about every good player in the league. Including PGs from time to time. Whereas a player like Kirilenko is seldom asked to defend SG's or PG's. I'd also like to point out that if you look at Prince carefully, you'll find that he's in decline in just about every catagory over the last couple of years.
I think everyone knows that I'm a big Jimmer fan, and I'll say it again. He's going to surprise those sceptics out there. And, I think its obvious that Fredette is the player the Kings wanted. When Petrie was asked at the press conference if the draft went the way he thought it would. He said the first 6 picks went exactly the way they thought it would. If so, then he knew that there was an excellent chance that Knight would be there at 7. Having been involved in the trade with Charlotte, he also had to know that they were going to take Walker at 9, and leave Fredette for the Kings at 10. Jerry Reynold said this morning on the Rise Guys that the Kings figured that Walker, Fredette, and Knight would all be there at 7. And they were!
That tells me that Petrie and company think that Fredette was the best choice. I happen like all three players. But if you break it down to who is the most ready to step in and play right now, then it comes down to two players. Fredette and Walker! Of those two, Fredette is the bigger or the two, and is the best shooter of the two. Walker is the quicker of the two. I think both players playmaking skills are fairly similar. Both players are good at getting to the basket and both are good at getting to the freethrow line. Both guys can create their own shot, and both have a wicked crossover. So I don't have a problem with drafting Jimmer, and I wouldn't have had a problem with drafting either Knight or Walker. But lets be clear about one thing. Knight probably has the most potential of the three, but right now, this minute, both Jimmer and Walker are better players than he is. So I can't fault any GM for going with someone thats already more proven, than one that might be better in a couple of years.
So am I thrilled about the trade as far as aquiring Salmons? No! But I can see where it could be an improvment defensively. As far as Beno goes. I think logicaly, Beno had to go if we drafted either Walker or Fredette. If we drafted Knight, probably not, since Knight wasn't ready for big minutes yet. So no big shock to me that Beno is gone. Do I think Jimmer will be better than Beno. Your damm right I do.
And please, when comparing Beno to Jimmer next season, try and remember that Beno has been in the league for 7 years already. Try an remember what he was like his first 4 years in the league. This stuff doesn't happen overnight . I'll be willing to bet you this though. If Jimmer gets enough minutes, he'll be on the rookie all star team, and might be in the running for ROY. Don't worry, I'm already looking for some crow just in case.
That not what 82games says for last year. 82games lists stats by positions played and only Caron Butler only played SF last year.
Salmons played 12.7% of his minutes at SF were he held his opponent to 47.2%. However he played 87.3% of his minutes at shooting guard where is opponent shot 51.3%. Total opp% = 50.8%
Everyone else's actual numbers:
Prince: 51.1%
Kirilenko: 48.2%
Battie: 48.7%
Butler: 46.3% (Only played SF last year)
Greene: 52.8%
Casspi: 54.9%
Garcia: 51.1%
So again, it's another statistical category where Cisco and Salmons are almost identical.
Salmons played 12.7% of his minutes at SF were he held his opponent to 47.2%. However he played 87.3% of his minutes at shooting guard where is opponent shot 51.3%. Total opp% = 50.8%
Everyone else's actual numbers:
Prince: 51.1%
Kirilenko: 48.2%
Battie: 48.7%
Butler: 46.3% (Only played SF last year)
Greene: 52.8%
Casspi: 54.9%
Garcia: 51.1%
So again, it's another statistical category where Cisco and Salmons are almost identical.
In your experience? Do you work for a sports organization? All that is just opinion and speculation. Unless you can come up with solid facts, you are just another paranoid fan that is looking for a scapegoat for his favorite player being dealt away. If what you think is true, and the organization relies on the fanbase to make personnel decisions, this team will never be good. BTW, I don't disagree with you about Beno. He was SOLID and this team will really feel his departure in the upcoming season. Tyreke better be ready.
Jimmer will be our version of JJ Barea! The Laker/Heat killer!
Until we see him play on the NBA court we won't know how good or bad he is. He could be the next Douby, Bibby or Nash. If he can play and contribute like Barea did, i think he'll be ok.
I just understand why we'd want Salmons back. I know he can shoot and defend and could be a solid SF but there are other SFs we could have targeted.
Here's to hoping Fredette will shine and Salmons to fit in with our young core.
Until we see him play on the NBA court we won't know how good or bad he is. He could be the next Douby, Bibby or Nash. If he can play and contribute like Barea did, i think he'll be ok.
I just understand why we'd want Salmons back. I know he can shoot and defend and could be a solid SF but there are other SFs we could have targeted.
Here's to hoping Fredette will shine and Salmons to fit in with our young core.
Thats just your way of looking at it! But here is the fact you conveniently overlook in your rant. When he became a starter with us, he was asked to score and be one of the main scorers on the team. When Chicago got him, he WAS their #1 go to guy which is insane. He predictably failed in that role. Next season he was back to his role player production and was shipped to Bucks where he was again asked to be their main perimeter scoring threat and he helped them get to the play offs. Then the following year the whole team sucked and he was back to his real production type.
But here is the thing that you overlook here. This time around with the Kings he will NOT be asked to be one of the main scorers. Quite to the contrary, he will at best be 4th scoring option which is more his level. Now there are legitimate questions and concerns whether he will be willing to be a 4th option on offense and primary perimeter defender. If he is willing to take on that role then this will work out great. If not, then we have issues and with his skillset, there will always be a play off team (or the team on the verge of play offs) willing to take on a veteran who plays great defense, can shoot the 3 and can create his own shot.
Salmons' skillset is a lot of what this team need. He is in no way perfect, in fact there are concerns about his willingness to accept his likely role here but no one can deny that he is a very good perimeter defender (that can guard 1-3), no one can deny that he is a good 3 pt shooter and a good ball handler. Last time I checked, that pretty much what we were looking for from our SF. Defense, shooting and ball handling. No player was going to be perfect at that spot but I comfortable in saying that our starting 5 (provided we re-sign Thornton and Dalembert) is better today than it was before the trade. I am also comfortable in saying that our 3pt shooting and perimeter defense has also improved with the trade and the draft.
People don't like Salmons (and I have my own doubts) but in reality we have not lost anything significant but we have gotten better. If Salmons in his older and wiser age can accept the role that we have in mind for him this will work out very well for both parties.
But here is the thing that you overlook here. This time around with the Kings he will NOT be asked to be one of the main scorers. Quite to the contrary, he will at best be 4th scoring option which is more his level. Now there are legitimate questions and concerns whether he will be willing to be a 4th option on offense and primary perimeter defender. If he is willing to take on that role then this will work out great. If not, then we have issues and with his skillset, there will always be a play off team (or the team on the verge of play offs) willing to take on a veteran who plays great defense, can shoot the 3 and can create his own shot.
Salmons' skillset is a lot of what this team need. He is in no way perfect, in fact there are concerns about his willingness to accept his likely role here but no one can deny that he is a very good perimeter defender (that can guard 1-3), no one can deny that he is a good 3 pt shooter and a good ball handler. Last time I checked, that pretty much what we were looking for from our SF. Defense, shooting and ball handling. No player was going to be perfect at that spot but I comfortable in saying that our starting 5 (provided we re-sign Thornton and Dalembert) is better today than it was before the trade. I am also comfortable in saying that our 3pt shooting and perimeter defense has also improved with the trade and the draft.
People don't like Salmons (and I have my own doubts) but in reality we have not lost anything significant but we have gotten better. If Salmons in his older and wiser age can accept the role that we have in mind for him this will work out very well for both parties.
Jimmer averaged around 4 boards a game in college IIRC. Pretty much par for the course for a PG in college. Unless you're going to lose sleep over a PG not pulling down 8+ boards a game, your post makes no sense. Why dislike Jimmer? He creates his own shot and gets into the lane and to the line a lot. So your argument that Jimmer looks for the jump-shot first is flawed at best. And even if he did, when you make them as much as he does, why would you want him to do anything else? It's non-sensical. Contrary to what you believe, shooters are a valuable commodity. And Jimmer is not just a shooter by any means. He's a good passer, ball-handler, and believe it or not, he's actually pretty damn tough!
I asked you the question because I knew you'd trot out the same junk. Perhaps you haven't seen him play, but to label him soft, or a jump-shooter (which appear to be what you dislike) is nothing more than fabricated nonsense. Jimmer's plenty tough. You'd be doing well to base your [some of your] opinions off something other than a stereo-type (this doesn't apply to what you think of Peja), which AFAIC is all your basing it off. If you'd like to go ahead and say what it is about Jimmer that you don't like, I'm all ears. You'll have to do better than cite his accurate jump-shot.
It's not my opinion that he declined in the second seasons he was with the bulls and bucks, and that he was dealt afterwards, never spending more than two years with teams that needed perimeter talent.
He was never the first option with either the bucks or the bulls. It's clear you don't watch basketball. He came to chicago to boost the backcourt which already had rose and gordon. He then declined the next season, and was traded to the bucks for expirings to clear cap space. On the bucks, he was never the first option. Bogut and Jennings were already there, and when Bogut got hurt, and the team needed him, his production declined in his second year yet again. These aren't opinions, these are facts. He's declined quickly in every stop after Sacramento, not being able to flourish for more than a season in a featured role. Ironically, he proved in Sacramento to struggle in a supporting role off the bench. What that tells me is that he basically is a good player when he's featured on a bad team, but when asked to be a contributor to a playoff team, he can't keep his level of play up.
Where he's struggled in the past, both in Philly and in Sacramento.
I agree, but his entire past has examples of him not doing that, and 8 mil for a defensive role player again proves how this is a bad deal when they could have gotten that in another guy for half the price.
I have never questioned his skillet, just his mindset. I don't think he can consistently produce as a role player, and his contract doesn't reflect that either, so that's why I question this decision.
I disagree. This team doesn't need another score-first player who can play defense when he wants. They need a pass-first, team oriented defensive veteran leader.
Perimeter defense could have been obtained in a far less-costly way.
Not if they already have 4 other players who fill those roles.
All of which could have been addressed in less-costly ways. And I don't think they need ball-handling, despite GP's claims. The issue with Casspi or Donte wasn't that the team needed another guy to handle the ball, but they needed consistent defense, shooting, and a team-first guy.
The team could have improved in other ways. The argument that the team is better is a moot one, because they would have turned out better than before the draft anyway. It's how much better they can get, and iMO they didn't improve that much at all with the addition of Salmons at the SF position.
The Mavs and Grizz didn't get worse by not having Butler and Gay. They actually got better from the guys that filled in. Battier and Allen, along with guys like Marion, Stevenson, etc gave their teams a boost from not being way talented, but how their games complimented the other pieces around them. Salmons is skilled, and can produce in the right situation, but his game doesn't compliment the guys already here. We need a Battier, and got a poor man's Stephen Jackson.
He was never the first option with either the bucks or the bulls. It's clear you don't watch basketball. He came to chicago to boost the backcourt which already had rose and gordon. He then declined the next season, and was traded to the bucks for expirings to clear cap space. On the bucks, he was never the first option. Bogut and Jennings were already there, and when Bogut got hurt, and the team needed him, his production declined in his second year yet again. These aren't opinions, these are facts. He's declined quickly in every stop after Sacramento, not being able to flourish for more than a season in a featured role. Ironically, he proved in Sacramento to struggle in a supporting role off the bench. What that tells me is that he basically is a good player when he's featured on a bad team, but when asked to be a contributor to a playoff team, he can't keep his level of play up.
Where he's struggled in the past, both in Philly and in Sacramento.
I agree, but his entire past has examples of him not doing that, and 8 mil for a defensive role player again proves how this is a bad deal when they could have gotten that in another guy for half the price.
I have never questioned his skillet, just his mindset. I don't think he can consistently produce as a role player, and his contract doesn't reflect that either, so that's why I question this decision.
I disagree. This team doesn't need another score-first player who can play defense when he wants. They need a pass-first, team oriented defensive veteran leader.
Perimeter defense could have been obtained in a far less-costly way.
Not if they already have 4 other players who fill those roles.
All of which could have been addressed in less-costly ways. And I don't think they need ball-handling, despite GP's claims. The issue with Casspi or Donte wasn't that the team needed another guy to handle the ball, but they needed consistent defense, shooting, and a team-first guy.
The team could have improved in other ways. The argument that the team is better is a moot one, because they would have turned out better than before the draft anyway. It's how much better they can get, and iMO they didn't improve that much at all with the addition of Salmons at the SF position.
The Mavs and Grizz didn't get worse by not having Butler and Gay. They actually got better from the guys that filled in. Battier and Allen, along with guys like Marion, Stevenson, etc gave their teams a boost from not being way talented, but how their games complimented the other pieces around them. Salmons is skilled, and can produce in the right situation, but his game doesn't compliment the guys already here. We need a Battier, and got a poor man's Stephen Jackson.
Fredette averaged 2.6 rebounds per game in college. Our last four starting point guards (Evans, Bibby, Williams, Johnson), all, with the exception of Evans, considered by most non-Kings Fans (read: homers) to be poor rebounders for their position, averaged 5.4, 3.1, 3.3 and 2.6 rebounds in college, respectively. I'm not particularly impressed by the fact that he had one half-decent rebounding season, out of four years, in a weak conference.
Fredette is, most likely, going to end up being a poor rebounder for his position.
... But I doubt it.
EDIT - And yes, I left out Udrih, since he does not have any college stats.
Fredette is, most likely, going to end up being a poor rebounder for his position.
... But I doubt it.
EDIT - And yes, I left out Udrih, since he does not have any college stats.
Last edited:
The more I think about it, the more I actually REALLY like this trade.
1. We get our man, and pay him a tad less.
2. I think Salmons will know his role. Plus, and you can see this on the Mavs, as guys get older, they've made some money, they're on the back half of their career and know they won't be getting much better, just saavier, they tend to be more willing to fit a role within a team for the sake of winning. Also, Salmons knew deep down those previous teams weren't going anywhere. Now, we're on our way up, and it could be a swift ride. That changes everything. I have a feeling he's going to work out beautifully.
3. What I really like about this trade is that by shifting things around the way we did we get a very high ratio of value (i.e. adressing needs) for relatively small cash outlay. The thing is, if we still manage to lure a serious free agent, we can still trade somebody to make room on the roster if needed. We largely addressed two major needs (shooting, and SF defender/shooter) and barely put a dent in our capspace. Petrie has shown an unbelievable knack the past few years of stockpiling talent while maintaining cap flexibility. Maintaining options has serious value.
4. Sans the ball hog behavior, Salmons is tough, very good defender, clutch, can hit the three, can handle the ball, can pass. These are exactly the qualities we need at that position. The thing about his game that is different from other "ball hogs" or ball dominant players is that he doesn't need the ball to contribute. He'll be that one or two option if needed (or if on a bad team on it's way down with no clear team leader or strong #1 option), but you can't argue that his game depends on it, unlike a Martin for example. These are the types of players we need to fill out this lineup.
1. We get our man, and pay him a tad less.
2. I think Salmons will know his role. Plus, and you can see this on the Mavs, as guys get older, they've made some money, they're on the back half of their career and know they won't be getting much better, just saavier, they tend to be more willing to fit a role within a team for the sake of winning. Also, Salmons knew deep down those previous teams weren't going anywhere. Now, we're on our way up, and it could be a swift ride. That changes everything. I have a feeling he's going to work out beautifully.
3. What I really like about this trade is that by shifting things around the way we did we get a very high ratio of value (i.e. adressing needs) for relatively small cash outlay. The thing is, if we still manage to lure a serious free agent, we can still trade somebody to make room on the roster if needed. We largely addressed two major needs (shooting, and SF defender/shooter) and barely put a dent in our capspace. Petrie has shown an unbelievable knack the past few years of stockpiling talent while maintaining cap flexibility. Maintaining options has serious value.
4. Sans the ball hog behavior, Salmons is tough, very good defender, clutch, can hit the three, can handle the ball, can pass. These are exactly the qualities we need at that position. The thing about his game that is different from other "ball hogs" or ball dominant players is that he doesn't need the ball to contribute. He'll be that one or two option if needed (or if on a bad team on it's way down with no clear team leader or strong #1 option), but you can't argue that his game depends on it, unlike a Martin for example. These are the types of players we need to fill out this lineup.
Last edited:
You might want to read that The Good and the Bad thread about Salmons on that clutch claim. 
Otherwise...so much of this depends on John Salmons head, and unfortunately I have always considered him a grade A turd. The worst kind really. The silent and deadly. He doesn't run dog fighting rings and fight teammates. He just pouts and seems just inherently selfish. I'm not sure anybody has ever reached him in a 10 year career. So I'm right out there arguing he has the skill set. And that if we can retain Daly adding Salmons at SF gives us the beginngins of a good defenisve team (Daly, Salmons and Reke could all be superior defenders). But I just fundamentally don't trust John Salmons to be about anyone but himslef. I don't think he ever has been. And I have never ever gotten the feeling he has ever felt bad about that. Its always somebody else's fault, and he's just not being used right. Don't like him. And the whole thing has the ick feel I had about Geoff and the front office for almost all of 04-08. But I still say he's got the skills. That will be my hope.
My REAL hope is that they still go out there this summer and add ANOTHER defnsive SF. That would get me going, assuming Daly retention. Then We would be beginnign to look real good defensively, and would not be dependant on Ole Sulky suddenly seeing the light and reforming himself. But of course we never seem to do that. The ambitious all at once patch. Always with the interminable one move and then wait and "evaluate" while another half season or full season is lost. Then 1 more move.
Otherwise...so much of this depends on John Salmons head, and unfortunately I have always considered him a grade A turd. The worst kind really. The silent and deadly. He doesn't run dog fighting rings and fight teammates. He just pouts and seems just inherently selfish. I'm not sure anybody has ever reached him in a 10 year career. So I'm right out there arguing he has the skill set. And that if we can retain Daly adding Salmons at SF gives us the beginngins of a good defenisve team (Daly, Salmons and Reke could all be superior defenders). But I just fundamentally don't trust John Salmons to be about anyone but himslef. I don't think he ever has been. And I have never ever gotten the feeling he has ever felt bad about that. Its always somebody else's fault, and he's just not being used right. Don't like him. And the whole thing has the ick feel I had about Geoff and the front office for almost all of 04-08. But I still say he's got the skills. That will be my hope.
My REAL hope is that they still go out there this summer and add ANOTHER defnsive SF. That would get me going, assuming Daly retention. Then We would be beginnign to look real good defensively, and would not be dependant on Ole Sulky suddenly seeing the light and reforming himself. But of course we never seem to do that. The ambitious all at once patch. Always with the interminable one move and then wait and "evaluate" while another half season or full season is lost. Then 1 more move.
You might want to read that The Good and the Bad thread about Salmons on that clutch claim.
Otherwise...so much of this depends on John Salmons head, and unfortunately I have always considered him a grade A turd. The worst kind really. The silent and deadly. He doesn't run dog fighting rings and fight teammates. He just pouts and seems just inherently selfish. I'm not sure anybody has ever reached him in a 10 year career. So I'm right out there arguing he has the skill set. And that if we can retain Daly adding Salmons at SF gives us the beginngins of a good defenisve team (Daly, Salmons and Reke could all be superior defenders). But I just fundamentally don't trust John Salmons to be about anyone but himslef. I don't think he ever has been. And I have never ever gotten the feeling he has ever felt bad about that. Its always somebody else's fault, and he's just not being used right. Don't like him. And the whole thing has the ick feel I had about Geoff and the front office for almost all of 04-08. But I still say he's got the skills. That will be my hope.
My REAL hope is that they still go out there this summer and add ANOTHER defnsive SF. That would get me going, assuming Daly retention. Then We would be beginnign to look real good defensively, and would not be dependant on Ole Sulky suddenly seeing the light and reforming himself. But of course we never seem to do that. The ambitious all at once patch. Always with the interminable one move and then wait and "evaluate" while another half season or full season is lost. Then 1 more move.
Otherwise...so much of this depends on John Salmons head, and unfortunately I have always considered him a grade A turd. The worst kind really. The silent and deadly. He doesn't run dog fighting rings and fight teammates. He just pouts and seems just inherently selfish. I'm not sure anybody has ever reached him in a 10 year career. So I'm right out there arguing he has the skill set. And that if we can retain Daly adding Salmons at SF gives us the beginngins of a good defenisve team (Daly, Salmons and Reke could all be superior defenders). But I just fundamentally don't trust John Salmons to be about anyone but himslef. I don't think he ever has been. And I have never ever gotten the feeling he has ever felt bad about that. Its always somebody else's fault, and he's just not being used right. Don't like him. And the whole thing has the ick feel I had about Geoff and the front office for almost all of 04-08. But I still say he's got the skills. That will be my hope.
My REAL hope is that they still go out there this summer and add ANOTHER defnsive SF. That would get me going, assuming Daly retention. Then We would be beginnign to look real good defensively, and would not be dependant on Ole Sulky suddenly seeing the light and reforming himself. But of course we never seem to do that. The ambitious all at once patch. Always with the interminable one move and then wait and "evaluate" while another half season or full season is lost. Then 1 more move.
How do you think he'd react to us hypothetically putting Prince ahead of him, especailly right off the bat? That's the exact scenario I'm afraid of, and then we're stuck with his contract. If he mentally is tuned in, it should work fine, and then it would be a good move.
I'm not a huge Beno fan but Tyreke always gets injured over the course of the year. We are thin at point guard now, and you cannot win without a good point guard in most offenses. Plus Salmons (really?) on a long-term contract, very uninspiring.
Please Petrie, re-sign Sammy and all will be forgiven.
Please Petrie, re-sign Sammy and all will be forgiven.
You might want to read that The Good and the Bad thread about Salmons on that clutch claim.
Otherwise...so much of this depends on John Salmons head, and unfortunately I have always considered him a grade A turd. The worst kind really. The silent and deadly. He doesn't run dog fighting rings and fight teammates. He just pouts and seems just inherently selfish. I'm not sure anybody has ever reached him in a 10 year career. So I'm right out there arguing he has the skill set. And that if we can retain Daly adding Salmons at SF gives us the beginngins of a good defenisve team (Daly, Salmons and Reke could all be superior defenders). But I just fundamentally don't trust John Salmons to be about anyone but himslef. I don't think he ever has been. And I have never ever gotten the feeling he has ever felt bad about that. Its always somebody else's fault, and he's just not being used right. Don't like him. And the whole thing has the ick feel I had about Geoff and the front office for almost all of 04-08. But I still say he's got the skills. That will be my hope.
My REAL hope is that they still go out there this summer and add ANOTHER defnsive SF. That would get me going, assuming Daly retention. Then We would be beginnign to look real good defensively, and would not be dependant on Ole Sulky suddenly seeing the light and reforming himself. But of course we never seem to do that. The ambitious all at once patch. Always with the interminable one move and then wait and "evaluate" while another half season or full season is lost. Then 1 more move.
Otherwise...so much of this depends on John Salmons head, and unfortunately I have always considered him a grade A turd. The worst kind really. The silent and deadly. He doesn't run dog fighting rings and fight teammates. He just pouts and seems just inherently selfish. I'm not sure anybody has ever reached him in a 10 year career. So I'm right out there arguing he has the skill set. And that if we can retain Daly adding Salmons at SF gives us the beginngins of a good defenisve team (Daly, Salmons and Reke could all be superior defenders). But I just fundamentally don't trust John Salmons to be about anyone but himslef. I don't think he ever has been. And I have never ever gotten the feeling he has ever felt bad about that. Its always somebody else's fault, and he's just not being used right. Don't like him. And the whole thing has the ick feel I had about Geoff and the front office for almost all of 04-08. But I still say he's got the skills. That will be my hope.
My REAL hope is that they still go out there this summer and add ANOTHER defnsive SF. That would get me going, assuming Daly retention. Then We would be beginnign to look real good defensively, and would not be dependant on Ole Sulky suddenly seeing the light and reforming himself. But of course we never seem to do that. The ambitious all at once patch. Always with the interminable one move and then wait and "evaluate" while another half season or full season is lost. Then 1 more move.
I'm with you on signing another top notch defensive sf.... only a little suspicious of Salmons mental ability to come off the bench... that's one of the things I'm hoping changes for him as our team forms into a contender/being on his last big contract. Thing is with this trade, we upgrade the sf position, and STILL have plenty of room to go out and get a Kirilenko... and maybe that was the plan, one sf with better ball skills, one better at defending big men/blocking shots. Now with Salmons, Kirilenko would seem to be the ideal fit. And I know you and I agree on that one. You either go with a lineup that can defend a small ball lineup (but still have a height advantage) with Tyreke, Thornton/Fredette (defense remains to be seen) and Salmons... or you go with your interior D/bigger lineup of Evans, Garcia/Thornton, and Kirilenko.
Interesting part of a bucks blog:
http://www.bucksketball.com/2011/06/milwaukees-new-creators/
So...they wanted a swingman who can pass and create and make plays for himself and others. And the kings got Salmons because he can handle the ball, pass, play defense and create plays...
...this doesn't add up GP.
http://www.bucksketball.com/2011/06/milwaukees-new-creators/
So...they wanted a swingman who can pass and create and make plays for himself and others. And the kings got Salmons because he can handle the ball, pass, play defense and create plays...
...this doesn't add up GP.
I just don't see how anyone can defend this trade. It is one of the worst trades I think I've ever seen. There isn't one single argument that can be made in favor of doing it.
1.) We got the worse player in the deal
2.) We moved back three spots in the draft to get him.
3.) We picked up the worse contract to the tune of an extra year and ~10 million
4.) Casspi was actually more productive last year than Salmons by just about every statistical metric. We're essentialy giving up on a 23 year old 1st rounder from two years ago in order to add an aging vet that isn't actually better than him.
5.) Salmons has never been known to be anything other than a black-hole on offense, which makes you wonder how he will fit in with Reke, Marcus, and Cousins.
I can't fathom why a rebuilding team would want to add a declining thirty something vet on a bad contract who was never particularly good to begin with. It's even harder to understand why we would give up anything of value to get him, let alone one of the better players on our team and three spots in the draft.
The funny thing about it is that we didn't even wait to see who might have fallen to us at #7 before we made the trade. And if we were just dead set on Fredette as most of the reports right before the draft claimed, then we sure gave any team interested in him (utah, per reports) a golden opportunity to swoop in and draft him before our pick. That nightmare scenario would have us missing out on our desired player in the draft just so we could acquire John Salmons.
1.) We got the worse player in the deal
2.) We moved back three spots in the draft to get him.
3.) We picked up the worse contract to the tune of an extra year and ~10 million
4.) Casspi was actually more productive last year than Salmons by just about every statistical metric. We're essentialy giving up on a 23 year old 1st rounder from two years ago in order to add an aging vet that isn't actually better than him.
5.) Salmons has never been known to be anything other than a black-hole on offense, which makes you wonder how he will fit in with Reke, Marcus, and Cousins.
I can't fathom why a rebuilding team would want to add a declining thirty something vet on a bad contract who was never particularly good to begin with. It's even harder to understand why we would give up anything of value to get him, let alone one of the better players on our team and three spots in the draft.
The funny thing about it is that we didn't even wait to see who might have fallen to us at #7 before we made the trade. And if we were just dead set on Fredette as most of the reports right before the draft claimed, then we sure gave any team interested in him (utah, per reports) a golden opportunity to swoop in and draft him before our pick. That nightmare scenario would have us missing out on our desired player in the draft just so we could acquire John Salmons.
Last edited: