Bear Ye John Salmons' Burdens

by Ziller on Sep 22, 2008 4:07 PM PDT

[This is one of StR's '07-08 Kings previews. Follow them here.]

It is ... difficult to keep faith in John Salmons when faith is a) so hard to come by, and b) Salmons fails to regularly live up to expectations sealed by your faith. In few Kings matter do we trust. Why waste a share on a spotty player who sits on the older end of the Tomorrow Brigade age spectrum*? And when we feel we can rely on a player -- we put faith in his ability to perform -- and we do not receive the expected performance, we will withdraw future offerings of faith.

Or, in simpler terms: Johnny sells wolf tickets, and I can't afford no more.

But, as with all things Kings, there is hope just outside the grave.

Salmons-lines_medium

Check it out: when Salmons plays many minutes over the course of numerous games, he tends to be good over the course of numerous games. When his minutes come inconsistently, or when they are consistently low, his performance suffers, even if you toss in a spare 40-minute game for kicks and giggles. (Reggie Theus is ALL ABOUT ironic humor.)

Now, the graph above shouldn't be taken as gospel. Game Score (a Hollinger metric, a basic version of PER) is a bit too dependent on minutes for my taste, so there's some causal crap in there. And there are some instances of relatively low minutes with strong performance, as well as (of course) high minutes in conjunction with crap performance. He's not a perfect science, folks. Hate to ruin your daydreams.

But we all know there's something to the "flow factor" for Salmons: we saw REPEATEDLY that he needs to get into a flow to be effective. Flows come with regular, consistent minutes: you can't get into rhythm with two minutes here and four there. As you'd expect, starters get more flow-inducing minutes than bench players. So last year this came down to a "Johnny needs to start to be effective" motto, which is really the most basic way to put things (unless you turn Salmons into a de facto sixth starter, a la Jerry Stackhouse or Manu Ginobili; this is unlikely to occur).

So let's get basic: the starter-bench splits for Salmons '07-08 are MIND-BLOWING. Shooting at as a starter: .515 on twos, .385 on threes. As a reserve: .475 on twos, .214 on threes. !

Scoring: 16.6 points per 36 minutes as a starter, 11.2 points/36 as a reserve !!

Aggressiveness: 14.5 shooting possessions per 36 minutes as a starter, 10.7 per 36 as a reserve. !!!

Even assists, rebounds, steals ... everything! Some of that (shooting, aggressiveness) is flow. Some of it (rebounding, steals) is effort. Salmons didn't provide the same effort off the bench as he did in the starting lineup. We can only blame the wing logjam for so much.

We assume Salmons will start the season opener at small forward. He'll have every chance on Great Mother Earth to perform, to meet expectations, to justify our faith. The record shows he can do it. But you'll understand if I take a "believe it with my own two eyes" approach.

Make me believe, Johnny. I want to believe.

Salmons-believe_medium

* Coming soon.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Numbers don't lie

Your assessment is probably pretty close. But, as you pointed out the Hollinger metric, doesn’t take everything into consideration. Specificly, who was on the floor with him at the time, or who he was playing against.

I remember an episode where Weber & Bibby were discussing not giving Peja the ball, because they felt he was too scared to shoot.

So, with Salmons you need to consider if he was in because Artest had moved to the PF. Since Reggie declared Artest his go to guy, once Artest got the ball no one else touched it.

And, I think his numbers should be more consistant since he doesn’t have to look over his shoulder fore Artest anymore.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 22, 2008 4:45 PM PDT 0 recs

Well...

I think that sort-of misses the point, because at no point (save one game) did Artest start at power forward. All Salmons’ start came when Martin or Artest were out and injured, or in those first few games when those guys came off the bench coming off injuries. Salmons only started alongside Artest when Martin was out; in that case, Salmons was the two and Artest the three. And Salmons played very well during that span.

by Ziller on Sep 22, 2008 6:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Bad example on my part

I agreed with your analysis on both the man and the statistical forrnula used. I only hoped to inform those not familiar with the Hollinger formula, that it doesn’t take in account other variables. I’ll try to provide a more pertinent example in the future.

Though the example was intended as an example of Salmon’s not starting.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 22, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

Best-photoshops-ever

Those are photoshops…aren’t they?

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Sep 22, 2008 4:59 PM PDT 0 recs

Yes and no

The X-Files one, yeah. But the photo of the monks mysteriously showed up on a postcard in my mail last week, with no alterations from me …

by Ziller on Sep 22, 2008 6:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

It was from me.

Those are the monks I visited during my self-imposed hiatus after a number of circular Artest arguments with CC. Apparently Johnny visited them during the All-Star Weekend to get HIS Artest craziness put into perspective, too, and, well, I kinda stole the photo off the wall.

Pretty sure I’m going straight to hell for stealing from monks, but it was too good to pass up.

Let's go home.-Kevin Martin

by LeaguePassAddict on Sep 22, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Great Pic

Well done LPA.

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 Sep 22, 2008 8:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

Right on with the Salmons points

I think that pretty much hits the head on the proverbial nail with regards to Johnny S. But the more important is, and I suppose this is the biggest part of the argument, is at what point do you think Salmons becomes expendable because you have Greene who can take over him? (That is of course an assumption on my part I realize.) What type of return do you move him for? I’m interested to see how the Kings approach the roles of Salmons and Miller in the upcoming season myself.

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 Sep 22, 2008 5:59 PM PDT 0 recs

At the risk of losing again,

In answer to

the biggest part of the argument, is at what point do you think Salmons becomes expendable because you have Greene who can take over him?

Once Cisco is signed next summer, whether Greene’ is ready or not Salmons becomes expendable.

And, if that doesn’t bring down the rathe of Hades on me, let me add. GP will try to move Thomas, Salmons and the 1st round pick from Houston for a free agent big next summer. Thomas’ expiring contract in 10/11 reprsents $16M in releif for any team over the Luxury Tax. Or, $8M in cap space for any team wanting to get into the FA market, or just make more room to protect their stars.

I expect him to go after a big ( Odom, Boozer, and others will be available ). Plus the Draft will be full of guards. And, the early acquistion of a vet big, makes the moving of Miller even easier.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 22, 2008 6:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

I do agree Salmons’ status has a lot to do with Greene’s development.

Thomas’ contract expires in 2010, though. Two seasons left.

by Ziller on Sep 22, 2008 7:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

Greene's development?

In your opinion, does Greene’ have to pass Salmons for the starting SF before Salmons expendable?

Yes, Thomas’ contract has two years left ending in the year of the Great FA Flood. So, doesn’t that mean that the Kings need to trade him sometime before next years trade deadline. But, your not going to make a move this year until you know where you stand with your current rookies. So, as I said isn’t the best time to move him during next summers FA market?

Also, I believe that Salmons has an ETO on his contract. If he has a all-star type year, he could choose to opt out next year in hopes of getting a new long term deal.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 22, 2008 8:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think

Salmons has an ETO in in 2010, not 2009.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Sep 22, 2008 8:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

ETO

I don’t believe Salmons has an ETO until 2010-11, but I might be wrong.

It’s not necessary to move Thomas at all unless you want to play in next summer’s FA class, with Marion, Odom, Iverson, Artest (cough), J.O. …

by Ziller on Sep 22, 2008 8:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

Sham agrees with you TZ

For those who don’t think TZ knows more than I do about the salary cap you’re wrong. (I"m just saying that for those who think I"m the only one who knows anything about the salary cap.) Anyway here’s the link to Sham for those who didn’t know about 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 Sep 22, 2008 8:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

ETO trade limitations

The reason I brought up Salmons ETO is because of the CBA rules regarding trades.

When the trading deadline has passed. Teams are free to make trades again once their season has ended, but cannot trade players whose contracts are ending or could end due to an option or ETO

I was simply pointing out that although his contract does run through 10/11, the last day on which he could be traded before he announces whether or not he is in or out, will be the trade deadline next year.

And, yes, the FA’s you highlighted don’t generate a lot of excitement, there should be RFA whose teams might be willing to trade for Salary Cap & Luxury Tax relief.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 24, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's not going to be a problem the next 2 seasons HighTops

It won’t even be a remotely difficult problem. It will be finding a return the Kings are willing to part with Salmons for.

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 Sep 26, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

SF depth

Also, I don’t think Greene needs to be starter-level to move Salmons. But he needs to be able to replace Garcia, and Garcia needs to be able to replace Salmons. The team isn’t going to cough up a cheap starting SF for kicks and giggles.

by Ziller on Sep 22, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's the other part my statement was addresing

At what point is Salmons too good to move, and at what point does that come. I would think that moving Salmons would include taking Kenny Thomas away and getting some salary relief for that.

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 Sep 22, 2008 8:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

Just playing devil's advocate here

Is there any point where Salmons is good enough to keep as the SF for the future? I know that means either Greene or Cisco need to go so it is highly unlikely. But could that scenario play out?

by eduardo_m7 on Sep 22, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

Of course

injury to Greene’ or Cisco come to mind. Slow development of Greene’ or even Greene’ being moved to PF.

Then there his free agency. When his contract ends he’ll be 30 and looking for long term security like Baron Davis. And, like Davis he could opt out of his contract next year and force us to resign him to a long term deal expecially if he has a banner year this year, and Greene’ show poor progress.. I’m sure there are more ways.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 22, 2008 11:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

At 28 years old I'm not sure that's possible Eduardo

I’m just really not sure that’s possible in any fashion actually. In 3 years he’ll be 31 years old. Do you consider that having a great future?

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 Sep 23, 2008 6:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

If John Salmons is really Brad Pitt (Benjamin Button).

I hope that Greene is a quick study but I think he is probably 2 years away from making the leap to starter if we are lucky.

Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.

by jjham15 on Sep 23, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up 0 recs

That's perhaps true too

I think Salmons status is adjustable depending on Donte Greene, and that’s been my entire point all along. I think he’s very expendable, but I also think he can be a useful player (San Antonio?) for a lot of teams that could utilize him and need a player like him at the 3 spot.

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 Sep 23, 2008 6:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

Cisco doesn't make Salmons expendable now

In my opinion for this reason. With Artest gone Salmons is considered the starter, and Garcia a valuable 6th man. The only reason Salmons would lose his job at this point is to Greene. Hence why I said what I did.

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 Sep 22, 2008 7:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

Agree on the analysis, but...

I agree with TZ’s always thorough analysis, but I am slightly more optimistic. To see the glass over half-full, you have to take one tremendous leap of faith:

That John Salmons takes his career seriously and wants to get the most out of it he can. That he’s the kind of guy that truly wants it. Let’s be honest, if you were 28 or so, $10+ million in the bank, at least that much more on the way…it would be pretty easy to be pretty content. You have to drink the kool-aid that Salmons is one of those ultra-competitive people.

If you buy that, then looking at it from JS’ perspective, he has to know this upcoming year is far and away the best opportunity he is going to get in his career to be a starter and grow. This is it, the one good shot he’s going to get at carving out a primary spot on a team. Not to be a supporting player, not a bench player, but a close to feature, starting role. If he doesn’t grab the opportunity this year, another one will not happen for him.

So that’s my source of optimism. He has to know this is it. We’ll see this year just how talented he is and how hard he works. It may or may not pan out for the Kings, if it doesn’t then what do we do?

Essentially in that scenario, Salmons is a below average SF that doesn’t like to come off the bench. That kind of player, the best fit I could see would be as the 4th or 5th best starter on a team with a dominant player who makes plays. That’s a pretty narrow list of teams (think Cleveland/the team from the south that won’t be named). As for what we get…not much probably, a good role player or minor cap relief, etc is probably the best you can hope for or taking a good player that’s overpriced a little that you think exactly fits your system. I’m talking value, not what exactly would work under the cap, etc.

by ForThree on Sep 22, 2008 6:46 PM PDT 0 recs