John Salmons And The Tell-Tale Heart
by section214 on Oct 24, 2008 7:20 PM PDT
in Commentary
78 comments
Another example of annoying and excessive dribbling.
Using a similar pathology as the murderer in Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart,” John Salmons gives the Kings offense the “vulture eye,” kills the offensive flow, then cuts up the remains and buries them under the hardwood of ARCO Arena. The sound of Salmons dribbling basketball against floor replicates the sound of the dismembered but still beating heart. Salmons takes the ball at the top of the key and dribbles left. Thump-thump. Thump-thump. Thump-thump. Finding no lane, he dribbles back to the right. Thump-thump. Thump-thump. Thump-thump. The shot clock and my patience winding down, he forces himself to the middle. Thump-thump. Thump-thump. Thump-thump. By the time he (perhaps) gets the shot off, the result matters little to me. John Salmons has already driven me to the Poe house.
John Salmons baffles me. His good games look exactly like his bad games. I swear! I have to look at the box score after the game to determine whether or not he played well. He is perhaps the Kings’ best defender, but that’s a lot like saying you have the best hand shake in the leper colony. And though his offensive game is needed (and often effective), it is completely out of sync with the rest of the team’s philosophy. John Salmons is where offensive flow and cohesion goes to die. Thump-thump. Thump-thump.
Now, my comments are meant as more of a reflection than a pure damnation. John Salmons has taken and made some big shots for the Kings when in the role of starter (reserve player, er, not so much). And when he’s on, he’s pretty efficient from baseline to baseline. But thrilling John is not. If John Salmons were ice cream, he would be vanilla…light…ice milk…soy…substitute.
And maybe that’s why I am becoming less and less enamored with John Salmons. He’ll do things to help a team win, but how excited can you get when that may be the difference between 30 and 35 wins? His jump shot has no aesthetic beauty, he doesn’t defy gravity, and he has seen the top side of the rim less than Brad Miller. His jersey number should be an active shot clock, as you always have to keep one eye on the damn thing whenever Salmons has the ball. Thump-thump. Thump-thump.
It’s certainly not his contract that has me perturbed. Salmon will make $5.1/$5.5/$5.8 million over the next three years (if he does not opt out of the last year), which is pretty cheap these days for a player of his caliber. But quick show of hands – who would rather see Cisco and Donte’ Greene get his minutes? See? That’s what I’m talking about (OK, you can put your hands down now). John Salmons is a good player, a good guy, a good teammate, a guy that does a lot of the little things that help you win games…and I am losing interest in watching him ply his craft.
Maybe it’s just me. The Kings are coming off of a lackluster preseason and I’m looking for an infusion of excitement, but instead I can’t get John Salmons out of my mind. The Kings are the elevator, John Salmons is the Muzak, and I’m afraid that I’m going to get the shaft.
Thump-thump. Thump-Thump. Thump-thump.
0 recs |
78 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Funny Shite
I say as soon as Cisco is back and in shape we trade John. Of course I said that last season too, except substituting Martin’s return for Cisco’s.
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 24, 2008 7:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's too bad how little he was utilized in Philly
He’d be a great player if he had been used early in his career.
Kevin Martin, line 1 holding for you. Your destiny is calling. - Section214
by vfettke on Oct 24, 2008 8:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Damn, we're up to Salmons now?
I can’t wait for the season to start, so that the endless dissection of games that matter might impede the ongoing litany of who to blame for the fact that the Kings have sucked, do suck, and will suck for the next few years.
So, Salmons gets us from 30 to 35 wins. That’s all? I suppose if all roster players were worth five wins, we’d win 65 games. I can’t argue your assertion, because it comes from one of my most-used resources, The Big Book of Statistics That I Yanked Out of My Arse.
Salmons gets to the basket. He forces defenses to collapse so that the marksmen can get clean shots. Sometimes the guy dribbles into a brick wall, but who else is mixing it up in there? Our bigs are merely talls, skilled though they may be. I like Francisco, the guy plays hard, but Salmons all-around game is still superior to Garcia’s at this point. When Cisco gets his game a bit more under control, he’s going to be a real asset, but he’s going to have to improve his already decent ability to get to the hoop, especially by eliminating those inevitable hyperspeed headlong rushes in the general direction of the rim. Unless something unimaginable happens in his game, Garcia is no more a long-term solution at the 3 than Salmons is.
Salmons is not an all-star, and will not be. He’s a guy who can score and play defense. He’s a bargain. And yeah, you trade him when someone else takes over as starter at SF. He can’t play off the bench. At this stage of rebuilding, I’m glad he’s out there. The only way I lose the guy is if a decision is made to make Greene or Thompson the starter, and let the chips and the wins fall where they may.
I can put up with an 18-win season if it means worthwhile playng time for the kids. Can anyone else?
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 24, 2008 8:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't disagree with a word that you have written
other than the fact that I said that Salmons may get us from 30 to 35 wins, not that he would get us from 30 to 35 wins. I wouldn’t mind if I were misquoted or taken out of context by Peaches, but I’ve come to expect more from you, Simsy.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 24, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hah! Mistake number one:
Expecting more from me.
But you’re right, it’s a misquote, although I don’t think it makes either of our assertions any less butt-pulled.
(puts wig and mascara on)
“LEAVE JOHN SALMONS ALONE!!!”
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 24, 2008 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine was not an assertion
It was merely an opinion…a 100% “butt-pulled” opinion.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 24, 2008 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No real difference between an assertion and opinion
I just think my word works better with the newly-minted adjective “butt-pulled.”
You can really taste the first three letters…
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 24, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minty
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 24, 2008 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No effing way
I can put up with an 18-win season if it means worthwhile playng time for the kids. Can anyone else?
I’m sorry but I cannot accept winning just 18 games under any circumstances. Reggie Theus’ job rests on the ability to make this team competitive and find ways to help the Kings make the playoffs.
I know the odds of making the playoffs in the Western Conference with the roster currently constructed are extremely long but that’s Theus’ job.
I don’t want the organization to lose games for the sake of developing players. Losing does hurt your pride and when your favorite team can win consistently, it’s more fun to wear a Kings jersey out here in Maryland.
That’s just me.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Oct 25, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can put up with an 18-win season if it means worthwhile playng time for the kids. Can anyone else?
Yes, if it means getting a potential superstar that can carry the team over the next 10 years.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 27, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could put up with an 18 win season
if we only had the “young” talent to win 18 games. But that is not the case. If we only win 18 games, I would have to put it directly on the head of Reggie. I believe that even if we started Beno, Martin, Garcia, JT, and Hawes, we still have enough talent on the floor to win more than 18 games. The thing is, people tend to associate playing time with players getting better in the NBA. Look at how many young players have been crushed by playing on teams that lose constantly. Our youngs won’t get better by playing 40 minutes a night and losing. They will get better by working their way into the rotation and learing how to win. (Now if a player like LeBron/Oden was out there in next year’s draft I would be tempted.)
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Oct 27, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name one
I see this argument a lot, but have yet to see examples. I tried to think of a player that looked like he had the talent coming into the league, and became a loser because he started too early. I can’t think of one off the top of my head. Was Reef a loser because he started his career with the Grizzlies? How a bout Bibby?
I’d like to seem some examples that we could discuss. Then we can try and figure out if the problem was starting too early or being around a losing tradition or if the player just wasn’t that talented or driven to excel.
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 27, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are lots of examples.
The problem is, it is easy to look at a player who started with a bad franchise and became great. But when you look at a player who was supposed to be good and did poorly on a bad team, there is no way to prove whether it was the chicken or the egg. Was the player bad—making the team even worse? Or did the bad team pull the player down? Let’s name just a few guys who came out of college as top draft picks, were given big minutes with bad teams immediately, and have gone nowhere.
Michael Olowokandi, Dajuan Wagner, Rafael Araújo, and our own Pervis Ellison. These are all guys who were given big minutes on bad teams, coming out of college with high expectations. And there are hundreds more. Confidence is a huge factor in sports. If you loose that early, sometimes you can never get it back. On the other hand, you’ve got someone like Speed Racer who earned his way into the rotation and totally bloomed.
My point is that a younger player who is talented enough to bloom on a bad team (Carlos Boozer, Pau Gasol) will earn minutes no matter what. But shoving a guy who may not be ready into heavy minutes can kill his confidence and ruin his career.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Oct 28, 2008 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the premise
that a young player has to be ready for the minutes he can handle as a rookie before he’s ready to convince a coach he can play them.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 28, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry to comment on my own post
But I think Douby is another great example. Not of getting too many minutes early on a bad team. But of having his confidence shot. He was played at the wrong position, until he didn’t believe in himself anymore. You know the guy can shoot. But now, even when he is played at the two, he is streaky at best.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Oct 28, 2008 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree it's not a provable point
The four you listed don’t make your argument at all. I wouldn’t cite them as examples. I’d be more likely to accept Kwame Brown and or Tyson Chandler.
Especially Chandler, may have been thrown in the fire too soon lost his confidence and has finally started to reach his potential after getting a second chance in a better environment.
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 28, 2008 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a professional sports basketball league!
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Oct 27, 2008 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And?
Not sure I understand your point? But hey, I had to sleep in a tent last night in late October in Utah, to help my son get his Arrow of Light for Cubs, so I am still a little slow.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Oct 28, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hope the Long Johns were comfy
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 28, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Less bouncy-bouncy
But I otherwise have no problem with Salmons.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 24, 2008 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
More kick out
Reggie liked to use Ron Ron because he drew the double team. So, it’s ok for John to attack the rim and draw the double/ triple team because he is the new Ron Ron. But, now he has to learn to kick out so we can swing the ball around to Martin for an open shot.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 24, 2008 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
PASS THE BALL
Yes, I concur.
If he was just a LITTLE quicker to pass it, kick it out . . . . .
I watch and at least five times a game find myself chanting (or shouting) pass it now, pass it now, pass it now -
(sigh)
Maybe being a full time starter will help him figure that out [?] (hope, hope, hope)
Salmons is a Veeery good, Veeery skilled player – but that hole in his game is pretty huge.
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Oct 25, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brilliant!
You kill me with your wit and intelligence while your writing just keeps getting better and better.
I call it the Salmons Effect, the guys just doesn’t get it sometimes and I think you hit it on the head when you said that there is really no visual difference between a great Salmons game and a bad Salmons game. Salmons has an issue with tunnel vision similar to Ron Artest. I think it might be a learned trait brought on by years of playing alongside Allen Iverson. Hopefully John embraces the opportunity to be a full time starter and doesn’t force himself into a good player on a bad team/stat filler role.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Oct 24, 2008 11:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Salmons kind of reminds me of K-9
It always looks like Salmons is just going through the motions, or playing without heart, just to boost his own stat sheet. That’s why I place Garcia hands down over Salmons.
by CloudyEyes on Oct 25, 2008 1:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yay!
We hate Salmons and Kenny Thomas now!
You’re next, Bobby Jackson…
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 25, 2008 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like K-9?
Oh come on!
Thats just meeean!
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Oct 25, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of mentality
Sure, Salmon’s skill set is a whole lot higher than what K9 has shown at this point, but a team needs to be full of players with a common goal, chemistry, and unselfishness to win. That’s what made the 02 Kings so great…team Basketball is the way the game is supposed to be played. It shouldn’t be a bunch of players playing their own games.
That’s a bit why I’m excited to see the upcoming crop of players on the Kings. They’ll develop that chemistry and loyalty to the Kings’ franchise, just like what happened to the Spurs or Pistons.
by CloudyEyes on Oct 25, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what made the 02 Kings so great…
Well, all of those things and also being demonstrably better at every position than the current team, save possibly Martin. I still love me some Doug Christie.
They had a better coaching staff, and a deeper bench, too. BJax was still in his 20s then.
Chemistry, shmemistry. Kobe & Shaq won three rings together. Talent wins out, and we had it in bunches back then. The chemistry was there, but the only thing it does for a team lacking in talent is turn losers into lovable losers.
If the team lacks a common vision, that’s entirely on the coach.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 25, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better at every position? Lacking in talent?
what do you hate the whole team now?
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 25, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a Kings fan
I’m also a realist. Let’s run it down:
Bibby > Beno
Vlade > Miller
Webber > Moore
Peja > Salmons
Martin & Christie? I’m a huge DC fan, and he was one of those guys that made his teammates better. Martin is a bigger offensive talent, but I’m trying to imagine Martin as he is now in DC’s place in ‘02, and I don’t know if the team is better, worse, or just different.
That aside, my feelings on the current players, which is largely hopeful and optimistic, is still one of harsh pragmatism. You may have noticed that I’m pretty much the only one in here defending Thomas, and now Salmons.
Aim that ad hominem “why do you hate our Kings” stuff at the ones who take endless cheap shots at the aforementioned and others. My pointing out that this team doesn’t hold a candle in talent to the 2001 squad is just simply an observation of fact. Further noticing that the current batch may not be competetive this season or next isn’t a slam, or even negative. I’m just calling it as i see it, and while I wear glasses, they are not rose-colored.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 25, 2008 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You damn pragmatic practical independent Kings fan
How dare you not criticize John Salmons for being a talented, albeit consistent, and flawed, swingman at a position the Kings are 3 deep in talent 27 or younger for the next 5 years? I mean, what are ya, a pragmatist? (Great stuff.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 25, 2008 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was being sarcastic
You’ve been pretty harsh on those that have a negative opinion of Thomas and/or Salmons, yet your opinion here is basically the same. If we’re not very good, and I agree that we aren’t, then moves should be made to change that. Thomas, Miller, Moore and probably Salmons are either too old or will likely be too old to help the team by the time we’re competitive, so I don’t see why wanting to move any of the above would be a bad thing. But that’s the feeling I’ve gotten from your other posts.
Anyway I just thought it was funny after your strong defense of players on the team to then say they aren’t very good. Guess it wasn’t very funny. And my sarcasm wasn’t very clear. Sorry.
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 25, 2008 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm doing my best here
Mikki Moore is not as good a player at PF as Chris Webber was. That is not to say that Moore sucks, and that I think I could dunk on him. The man plays hard, but he is no Chris Webber. Most of the 4s in the league ain’t Chris Webber. We were spoiled by having one of the greats play here in his prime.
Mikki isn’t the team’s future at the 4 any more than Salmons is at the 3. Again, these are both good players, but statistically, below average at their position. Offering them seperately or together as trade bait doesn’t make that fact any less apparent to other GMs.
On the plus side, neither costs that much. On the down side, they have long deals, and allowing optimistically that Thompson and Greene may be the long-term solutions in those positions, we’re going to have a couple of guys in Moore and Salmons making decent money to play off the bench.
I think Salmons can play himself into decent trade bait. He can score, and he’s active on defense. Someone looking for that will be interested as the season rolls on, and maybe we get an expiring contract out of it. Moore is going to be here awhile, and that’s fine, too. Assuming anyone steps up at PF, I believe Mikki will do well coming off the bench. I like the guy. But when he’s starting for your team at PF, you have an obvious disadvantage.
I’m merely looking at this from all sides, and as a cold-eyed realist. I’m rooting for them, but to expect a lot of wins is unfair to the entire team. All I want to see this year is improvement, especially from the under-25 crowd. That’s on Theus.
And the damned Maloofs need to guarantee he’ll be around for 2009-2010 so that he can feel comfortable enough to teach these kids and give them minutes.
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 26, 2008 2:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally
agree with everything except the last paragraph. I think they could just let him know that they will be evaluating his performance on the progress of the youngsters and not on wins and losses and it would accomplish the same thing. It would also leave us an out if he fails. Again, sorry about the poor joke.
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 26, 2008 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They have long deals?
I’m confused
On the plus side, neither costs that much. On the down side, they have long deals, and allowing optimistically that Thompson and Greene may be the long-term solutions in those positions, we’re going to have a couple of guys in Moore and Salmons making decent money to play off the bench
Did Mikki sign an extension? I thought next yr was his last , with a $2M buyout. John’s contract ends in 10/11, but that’s an ETO. He’s only scheduled to make $5.8M. If he puts up any kind of numbers like he did last year, he probably opt out after next season.
How do you consider 1 & possibly 2 years long deals?
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 26, 2008 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The same way
you consider that Martin is entering his 6th season?
Just kidding.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 26, 2008 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A watched pot...
How do you consider 1 & possibly 2 years long deals?
How much longer does Kenny Thomas have on his contract?
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Oct 26, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it's not how long your contract is -
It’s what you do with it.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 26, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
But everytime I see Kenny Thomas I see Chris Webber, and am thrilled the KIngs didn’t have to walk the route that Philly did with Webb.
Everything is perspective S214.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 26, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
I’m sorry, but the humor or sarcasm of your statement is too sophisticated for me.
IMHO, Moore will be traded this year or at least before the start of the season next year. And, if they can’t trade him they’ll buy him out. Under the current cost cutting economy, the Kings won’t pay $6.2M for Moore.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 26, 2008 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I think MM is moving on this year
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Oct 27, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with everything you say except Mikki Moore
He has next year which is only guaranteed of about 2-3 million which would be half his total salary if the option were to be picked up.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 26, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot Miller
Section just finished up with Miller yesterday where he did say that Salmons should grab a bat because he’s on deck.
by KingsFan on Oct 25, 2008 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't we trade the Black Hole....twice
I swear I was sitting in Section’s seats at the last preseason game and was thinking Ron-ron was still on our team. John just doesn’t pass the ball…Kevin was open on the wing at least three times when Salmons had the ball and he chose to drive into traffic every time! He’s killing me Whitey!
by debrixtha1 on Oct 25, 2008 2:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You got to be kidding
Donte Green taking Salmons minutes? If you think John should be traded, at least give us, your readers, the common courtesy of suggesting for who.
by KingsFan on Oct 25, 2008 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The difference between opinion and analysis
The Miller piece offered both sides of the argument, and I offered my opinion at the end, which was to hold on to him unless we got viable pieces for the future. So I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I hate Brad Miller, but to each his own, I suppose.
In this piece, I (thought that I) was clear that this was purely my opinion. It was not based in statistical analysis or rationale. It was me stating that John Salmons can be painful at times to watch, more so than most of his teammates. And my comments were that many would prefer to see Garcia and Greene get those minutes at SF, not just Greene.
As far as brokering a trade, I don’t ever recall saying that he should be traded, so I will leave that to you. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Between my own words and Geoff Petrie’s penis, there is little room for much else.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 25, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
But Garcia can be painful too. Between his frequent bonehead rookie like mistakes and his occasional air balls I have a feeling if Garcia were starting he would also be “on deck”. And don’t get me started on Donte Green. If there is one bust from the off season moves he is looking to be it.
by KingsFan on Oct 25, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greene
I have not made my mind up on Greene, but has he looked any worse than Martin did as a rookie? That said, he has looked no better than Quincy Douby as a rookie, either. But dude is only 20, for crying out loud. And if he does not pan out, we still got rid of Artest and picked up another draft pick, so I’m not sure that you’ll be able to calculate that deal as a “bust” for some time.
(Sorry if that was a bit muffled – GP was nestled between my cheek and gum while I was responding.)
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 25, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have not made my mind up on Greene, but has he looked any worse than Martin did as a rookie?
Exactly. Kevin Martin was HORRIBLE as a rookie. He didn’t look like he even had the potential to be an NBA player. People are judging guys like Donte way, way too soon.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 25, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to expect a first rounder even the 30th pick to be able to contribute something. Expecially on a team that every sports writer is projecting to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league.
How much time is enough? Will or can the team wait 6 yrs like they did with Martin. Or, will they give up and let him walk like Wallace
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 25, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Martin
was averaging 20+ ppg in his third year…but we are still waiting for him?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 25, 2008 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And
Martin scored 11 ppg in his second year. It was clear he was at least a productive bench player by his second year in the league.
How long do you wait? It depends on how much progress the player makes. Jermaine O’Neal wasn’t good until his fifth year in the league. It took Gerald Wallace until his third year.
Clearly eight preseason games is not enough.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 25, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wallace was good in his 4th year, not third.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 25, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't finish my thought
I meant to says “Can we wait 6 years for him to be a Star”.
But as to your original statement
People are judging guys like Donte way, way too soon.
I stand by my first statement;
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to expect a first rounder even the 30th pick to be able to contribute something. Expecially on a team that every sports writer is projecting to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league.
So, eight preseason games isn’t enough, for just him, some first rounder, all first rounder, late first rounders, guys learning to play under Reggie,or what criteria do we use. The draft pundits judged him after a couple of rookie draft camps,, and one yr of college. Just when can I say he wasn’t first round material.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 25, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, eight preseason games isn’t enough, for just him, some first rounder, all first rounder, late first rounders, guys learning to play under Reggie,or what criteria do we use. The draft pundits judged him after a couple of rookie draft camps,, and one yr of college. Just when can I say he wasn’t first round material.
Eight preseason games isn’t enough for any drafted player, ever to demonstrate that he can’t play in the NBA. That may be enough time to say that you CAN play in the NBA, if your name is LeBron James.
Again, you could have said Jermaine O’Neal wasn’t even NBA material for FOUR YEARS and looked right. You could have said the same about Gerald Wallace for THREE YEARS.
You can say what you want. I’m just going to disagree. I think it’s ridiculous to write a guy off after eight preseason games when NBA stars have taken years to develop.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to expect a first rounder even the 30th pick to be able to contribute something. Expecially on a team that every sports writer is projecting to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league.
Kevin Martin contributed absolutely nothing in his entire first season. The lesson is that the first season is not meaningful.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 27, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa there big guy
Don’t go putting words in my mouth, I have a wife that does that ;)
I never said he wasn’t an NBA player or wouldn’t be a star.
I did say that IMHO, a 1st rounder should be able to contribute, and on that basis I suggested that he may not have been 1st round material.
Personally I wish we had gotten the guy Houston traded to get Donte, Darrell Arthur but that a whole different discussion. Also, I don’t know how it will eventually turn out but PE Jr. had a pretty good game in the last Knicks game. I’m not looking for LeBron. I’m looking for contributors.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 27, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa again
Just read where PE Jr. got waived. I guess having a good game does really mean too much.
And, on a different note, the lakers waived Coby Karl.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Oct 27, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t go putting words in my mouth, I have a wife that does that ;)
Fair enough. That wasn’t my intent.
I did say that IMHO, a 1st rounder should be able to contribute, and on that basis I suggested that he may not have been 1st round material.
I agree that a first rounder should be able to contribute. I don’t agree that teams should expect every first rounder to contribute right away. Some players just take longer to develop. Kevin Martin didn’t contribute his first season. Bottom line – if Donte Greene doesn’t make any progress by April 2010, I’ll be worried.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 27, 2008 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donte' Green
Is not close to ready yet.
It doesn’t look like he could stay on the floor even if you did give him the minutes.
Lets get real.
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Oct 25, 2008 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Donte Greene
Is a rookie but he has shown flashes of good play this preseason against Portland and and at Houston (at least statistically).
But by no means is Donte ready to help contribute to the Kings in terms of winning basketball games.
That is what the offseason is for. For players to get better.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Oct 25, 2008 3:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thats what the Dev league is for
and we should send him.
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Oct 27, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be a dick or anything (I definitely am that too)
But this has the mark of “idle hands are the devil’s playground”. Where would we be if Section hadn’t wrote this? Arguing over ESPN’s suckiness still?
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 25, 2008 11:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I know we didn't win the championship last season but...
I also know that John Salmons started in 41 games (38 mpg) and averaged:
17,5 points – 5.4 rebounds - 3.4 assists – 1.6 steals
I’m sure our record in these 41 games wasn’t that great but these numbers are very close to players like Iguodala, Crawford, Roy, Durant, Ellis etc. John’s FG% was 49%, one of the best among SGs/SFs. I’m not talking about upside, talent or anything like that. Apart from being a Kings fan, I’m a fantasy basketball nerd and although numbers are only a reflection of what’s happening on the court, I know that Salmons is a very very efficient player and also very underrated.
by ZenBaller on Oct 26, 2008 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Andy Sims
Nice writing.
I’m not sure what the value of comparing the current team to our 2001 team is, no doubt they are not as good but very few were that season,
Beno is not Bibby of 2001 but he is surely better then the Bibs we saw the prior two seasons.
With regard to John Salmons I agree with Section. Many nights the only way to tell if he had a good game or not is to look at his line. What we saw in the last preseason game was Salmons dribbling into a collapsing defensive wall and dribbling until he lost the ball 8 feet from the net. On his good nights he makes that shot just before the defense collapses on him or like a runningback running right up the gut and bouncing through he makes it through the defense and makes the shot.
There’s a lot of things that are right with his game. If he was kicking the ball back out and moving the ball more instead of dribbling to nowhere he’d be getting a lot of props here.
Greene is way to raw to even begin to evaluate. At the end of the season we should have something to talk about. For the most part with the exception of the top 5 or 6 ,rookies don’t contribute much. For the most part with the rooks being 19 and having 1 year of college experience they just aren’t ready.
The player I’m expecting to see improvement and growth from is Cisco. If he is still shooting airballs and making too many bonehead decisions we are going to have problems.
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
by Bluejohn on Oct 26, 2008 3:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Reality
It really bites, but I am glad it is beginning to set in.
The conversations on this board are significantly different now than the ones right after Artest was traded, when many said with a straight face the team would be as good without him or at least not much worse.
The take then was that Salmons was almost as good as Artest. Now, if the pundits are right, it might turn out the difference in wins for the team with/without Artest could be 15 or more. Interesting.
The majority of posters on this board wanted a young, tanking team. You got it. Enjoy.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Oct 26, 2008 5:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for grouping an entire boards comments together
Then summing it up, incorrectly at that, and basing it off the assumption.
Personally, I don’t care whether the team is worse. It’s pleasing to see the team not be caught in limbo without Artest.
I’d tell you go back to hiding, but that’s back biting, and defeating the purpose of having a blog such as this one to garner opinions, like-able/reasonable or not, about the Sacramento Kings. I disagree with many of your opinions, but unfortunately, and I wish I was Dick Cheney and shot people who disagreed with me, but I agree with your right to say what you want.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 26, 2008 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a necessary evil
I agree the situation with Artest had run its course and it was time to move on. My only point was the unrealistic attitude of many here after the deal was done that the team would not be much worse without him.
It’s also nice to see the loan guy come around on Salmons. He’ s done a 180 in a few months. I guess it’s better late than never.
Theus has a challenge on his hands as he tries to turn this team into a competitive squad that can play hard night in and night out, even if wins don’t materialize from those efforts.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Oct 27, 2008 3:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your reading comprehension needs some work
I mentioned that John Salmon is perhaps the Kings best defender, he has been a big shot taker and maker, he is a very good baseline to baseline player, he is a fair value to bargain at his price, he’s a good player, a good teammate, and does the little things that help you win games – I just find his style of play painful to watch, especially in this offense.
This piece has as much to do with Ron Artest as it has to do with Nate Archibald. But it’s nice to have you back. I was afraid that your pyramid had collapsed on you.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Oct 27, 2008 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be right
I know you’re right on one point — that you’re going to get the shaft.
by coolcatreportdotcom on Oct 27, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point that you seem to be missing
is that the things we don’t like about Salmons are the things we hated about Artest. Ball hog, selfish, not a big rebounder. I would rather watch this team win 12 games than a team with Ron-I run the team-Artest win 35. In case you haven’t been watching, by the way, Ron is still taking more shots than anyone on his team.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Oct 27, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I haven’t been watching much, it being prefreakingseason and all, but I bet he’s making a fair share of those shots, too. Right?
by coolcatreportdotcom on Oct 27, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He always has
Which is great if you want him to be the main piece of your offense. He wants demands to be your Kobe. And if you want him to be your Kobe are willing to live with him hogging the ball, that’s great. If you don’t want him to be, you have problems. It will be interesting to see how long T-Mac and Yao are willing to be the second and third options.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Oct 28, 2008 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or how long Bill will maintain the deception
of “wanting” to be the 3rd option.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Oct 28, 2008 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, not really
Of all the Rockets, Artest took the second most shots behind Brooks, which is fair, because the only player who had more minutes was also Brooks.
Artest shot 28-73 for 38.4.
Brooks shot 38-83 for 45.8.
Artest had the second lowest FG% in the pre-season. He had the second most turnovers.
Comparing Artest to Salmons-
FG 28-73 vs 35-89
FG% 38.4 vs 39.3
3pt% 39.1% vs 50%
Reb 3.1 vs 3.6
Asst 2.1 vs 2.7
TO 1.86 vs 2.1
PPG 12.6 vs 14.4
For the record, Salmons took the most shots of anyone in pre-season starting at the three at every game. Second was Hawes who started four games and missed one.
I’m looking for the serious drop-off from Artest to Salmons, and I’m not seeing it.
Let's go home.-Kevin Martin
by LeaguePassAddict on Oct 28, 2008 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The majority of posters on this board wanted a young, tanking team. You got it. Enjoy.
I will, thanks. I say the same thing I said then. You have to get worse before you can get better. I’ll gladly suffer through a terrible season or two if the team ends up with a game-changing talent in return. I just want to see the team play hard and make progress.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Oct 27, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
15 games worse?
Who said that? I just don’t see it – though it could be a rocky start.
(remember, I’m part of the ‘Save Ron Artest!’ crowd and I have real reservations about who on this roster gets the team excited ‘Brings the Fire’)
Cisco? Cisco? CISCO!!!! #*$!%! !
by lietothegirls on Oct 27, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
