Trade Salmons

by darknight on Jun 11, 2008 7:04 PM PDT

John Salmons had a terrific season. Dude averaged 19.2 PPG from Dec. 1st to Jan 15th filling in for Martin. Also, the last five games of the season he put up 19.6 PPG, 8.4 RPG, 3.4 APG and 1.4 SPG. But that is why the Kings should trade him now. Buy low, sell high right?

He'll have a real hard time duplicating this past season as long as Artest, Martin, and Garcia are all healthy. Plus, when is Douby going to get minutes behind Martin to prove his worth?

There are a few teams with both the need for a 3 and the cap-space to make it happen:

Milwaukee - Bobby Simmons? Desmond Mason? The Bucks are looking to start fresh with a new GM and new head coach. Why not send them Salmons for Charlie Villanueva and a future draft pick?

Toronto - They wanted him before and he would have come in handy against the Magic during the playoffs when Bargnani and Kapono disappeared. Could they package Shelden Williams and a 2nd Rounder with Salmons for TJ Ford and Pick #17?

Orlando - Keith Bogans was tremendous for them this year but Salmons would provide them with another inside-outside slasher somewhat like Turkoglu and Lewis. The Magic have little to offer however outside of draft picks. Maybe Brian Cook and a future 1st Rounder for Salmons?

Just an idea I wanted to throw out there. I like John but it makes too much sense with all of the wing players on the roster and the possibility of adding another via the draft, i.e. Joe Alexander. However, I wouldn't trade him for anything less than stellar either.

Poll

Should the Kings trade John Salmons this offseason?

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree now and I agreed back in December

When I posted this.

Section 214 is one lucky schmoe

by Kfan in Korea on Jun 11, 2008 7:38 PM PDT 0 recs

You're Right

I forgot about your post then, but it remains relevant now…

"... if you watch the way I play, I'm not going to be flashy. I'm just going to get it done. I led the league in free throws made per game. There's nothing soft about that." - Speed Racer

by darknight on Jun 11, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

You forgot option 6

The Kings should trade Artest and start Salmons. : )

The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls

by KK on Jun 11, 2008 7:46 PM PDT 0 recs

Trade Salmons

But only if you get true value or fill a hole in return. Over the next three years, Salmons will make $1.7 million less than a full MLE. Contractually there is little reason to trade him, as he is fair to good value. I like the idea of packaging him for Ford, not so hot on Villanueva, who doesn’t rebound/block shots/defend particularly well.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 11, 2008 8:19 PM PDT 0 recs

Villanueva

Remind me what he does well? I cannot see a single “strength” in his game. His ability tolive without eyebrows is, however, impressive.

That being said, I say Salmons is on the table for the right offer, but so is everybody else. If Artest opt’s out (please, please, please) then it better be a GREAT trade, because he really looks good when starting

Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal

by 27freethrows on Jun 11, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

...ability to live without eyebrows...

Welcome back, dude. Welcome back.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 11, 2008 8:54 PM PDT up 0 recs

The picture? The stats?

This is what 27ft’s is warning us about.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 11, 2008 9:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

alopeciaist!

Just kidding, but on the serious side, my little nephew suffers from this disease/disorder.

It’s a lot less fun than a kick to the crotch for the sufferers.

The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls

by KK on Jun 11, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

Didn't mean to be insensitive

My apologies.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 11, 2008 9:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

I knew you didn't mean anything by your comment,

you’re too kind for that.

Just pointing out the obvious, as usual. >: )

The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls

by KK on Jun 11, 2008 9:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

Me too

I (obviously uneducatedly) did not even realize it was due to a disease, it instead chalked it ip to wierd style. My sincere appollgies to anyone offended.

Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal

by 27freethrows on Jun 11, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

Villanueva

You’re right on w/ the eyebrows (or lack thereof) and poor rebounding. However, he’ll still only 24 this coming season and according to Draft Express in an April scouting report he still “has the raw versatility to become a very good player down the line.” Maybe Mikki and the Tru Warier could help him out. He wouldn’t be the first “soft” PF to come to Sac and prove the critics wrong.

"... if you watch the way I play, I'm not going to be flashy. I'm just going to get it done. I led the league in free throws made per game. There's nothing soft about that." - Speed Racer

by darknight on Jun 11, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

Curious

How old was J.O’Neal when the Pacers got him from Portland?

by smgmatt on Jun 12, 2008 6:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

21

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 12, 2008 9:02 AM PDT up 0 recs

Oh, I see...

3 years is kind of a lot (when you’re talking about potential).

by smgmatt on Jun 12, 2008 9:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

Also

A big difference in how they were used in their 1st three years.

O’Neal’s 1st three years (all with Portland) saw him play in 140 games, starting 10, playing a total of 1,580 minutes (11.3 mpg).

Villanueva’s 1st three years saw him play in 196 games, starting 83, playing a total of 5,180 minutes (26.4 mpg).

I think that Villanueva is a lot closer to being the player that he will be than O’Neal was when comparing both players at the three year mark.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 12, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah and Jermaine is nowhere near a franchise player either (even if he was paid like it)

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 Jun 12, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

Even so

JO-like ability is easily worth trading John Salmons for.

Let’s stay on point; if Villanueva had the possibility of becoming even close to that, GP would be a fool not to make that trade. I’m just not convinced that it’s likely.

by smgmatt on Jun 12, 2008 12:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

Fair enough and I agree

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 Jun 15, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Good Points

as usual section.

I agree that with his contract he isn’t worth giving up unless you can get a real deal for him. But what if he enable you to either move up in the draft or add an additional 1st round pick?

"... if you watch the way I play, I'm not going to be flashy. I'm just going to get it done. I led the league in free throws made per game. There's nothing soft about that." - Speed Racer

by darknight on Jun 11, 2008 9:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ah,

well that’s different, given the fact that Villanueva is cheap and only under contract for a couple of years (2 yrs. @ $8 million if you don’t extend him). I might do Salmons and the #12 for Villanueva and the #8, depending on who was on the board at 8. I’m not sure that the Bucks would do that, though.

I like your thought process. It appears likely (at 10 PM PST on 6/11/08) that Artest will stay. Garcia would need most of the bench minutes behind Artest and Martin. Salmons is expendable, and because he was productive last year and is not overpriced, he can actually be moved. kfan touched on this during the season, but at that time I thought for sure that Ron was going and Salmons would be needed. Not so much now.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 11, 2008 10:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's well said

And I agree with every word of it.

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 Jun 11, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

pros and cons

Pros: good value, good defender, good with the ball on offense
Cons: needs the ball on offense to be effective, whiny if he doesn’t start

I’d trade him if we got something else that more directly filled our needs like maybe a TJ Ford trade or picks. Otherwise he’s too good a value to get rid of so easily.

by thekangarooster on Jun 12, 2008 12:49 AM PDT 0 recs

LOGJAM

Try to package him with one of the number 2s for TJ Ford. Its a no-brainer for us. Artest sees we’re clearing the way for him, we get another PG (who’s contract is insured) and if Artest does leave next year, well, we have Cisco and SF & SG are the easiest positions to fill.

Sorry 27, I think you’re CRAZY wanting to get rid of Artest , – he’s a freakin’ championship piece! (who’s maturing mentally finally). They’re not easy to come by – you gotta take some risks to build a championship team.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 12, 2008 11:53 PM PDT 0 recs

Trade Garcia ...Not Salmons

Although I believe we would be able to get solid production back from other teams in a swap for Salmons, I’d much rather see the Kings keep Salmons and trade Garcia.

*Disclaimer- I am a big fan on Garica.

I Just feel that with Artest sticking around for another year (he’s all but guarenteed he’ll be around next year), we can not continue to have the logjam at the 3. Aside from Salmons initial funk he got into when deligated back to the bench once we got healthy, I believe he outplayed Garcia throughout the year. I love the enthusiasm and especially the gull Garcia has to take the “big shot”, but I’d still feel much more confident with Salmons getting roughly 25-30 mins a night.

The only deal from the ones menioned above that I would agree to would be trading Salmons to Toronto for Ford. However, there is no way Toronto will accept Salmons, a #2 and Sheldon Williams for Ford and the #17 pick. Colangelo is agood GM and we wouldnt be able to pull that one by him.

Nice post…and I do agree that we need to relieve the logjam at the 3….But I think your focused on shipping away the wrong guy-

by Hoops916 on Jun 13, 2008 7:47 AM PDT 0 recs

Garcia = Glue

He’s this team’s Vlade. Muy importante in the locker room.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 13, 2008 8:33 AM PDT up 1 recs

Garcia

Oh No! Trade Garcia? $#@! I agree with section absolutely!

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 16, 2008 11:54 AM PDT 1 recs

Buck up?

From HoopsWorld:

The word is while Michael Redd is the attractive piece many teams want to talk about; moving one of the high paid guards – Maurice Williams and or Charlie Bell – is the preferred method…

Possible Milwaukee trade:
.
#12 & John Salmons
for
#6, Charlie Bell, & Ramon Sessions (filler, if needed)

Works under the cap (125% + $100,000), but it would have to wait until after July 1 because I believe Bell is BYC until then. This may mean that the draft pick salaries would be included, in which case Sessions may not be needed to match salaries.

by smgmatt on Jun 16, 2008 1:52 PM PDT 0 recs

Forgot to mention

The Bucks are looking for a SF, of which Salmons is, and they may even still get a shot at Alexander at #12.

by smgmatt on Jun 16, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up 0 recs

FAIL

I just noticed that I put the #6 for Milwaukee when they have the #8 (the Knicks have #6).

Errors galore!

by smgmatt on Jun 17, 2008 7:26 AM PDT up 0 recs

by smgmatt on Jun 17, 2008 6:28 AM PDT up 0 recs

It expires on July 1st you are correct

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 Jun 17, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up 0 recs