I’m not so certain Salmon’s is the outright bad guy here. If you look at the string of quotes, there is no evidence that every individual party is speaking to the same subject thread, nor any evidence that they are talking to each other. While I am not ready to convict the reporter here, I do think there are some gaps in the story that shows room for reporter foul play. Amick summarized the general theme of a question he asked Salmon’s about his production right after his second less than stellar game, we don’t actually know what Amick asked, the question itself could have been leading, and then Salmon’s stated a fact, “he sees less plays called for him.” Granted there were better answers to give, more wherewithall to have been had. But, the next line in the article is a quote from Natt. Suspiciously missing is what Amick asked Natt. I doubt Natt was standing next to Salmons when Salmons said he doesn’t get as many plays as he used to. Nor do we know how Amick instigated Natt’s response. Did he say, “Coach Natt, do you think Salmons’s production has gone down because he has less plays called for him?” or did he say, “Hey Coach, Salmons just told me it’s on you that he isn’t scoring as much anymore, care to comment?”

Now there’s no forgiving the comment, “It’s just ridiculous.” Although again we don’t know the context.

Then, the next line, “Martin…said he doesn’t see it as a systematic problem…” is ripe with journalistic deficiencies. Martin is never quoted saying “it is not a systematic problem.” That is the reporters inference from Martin’s following quote which does not imply that Amick was asking whether or not Salmon’s decreasing production was systematic. The parenthetical (to keep everybody involved in the offense) is the only evidence to the nature of Amick’s unstated question and it does not necessarily relate specifically to Salmons. It only relates to Salmons because Amick used the quote in an article about Salmons.

So in one instance Amick sets up Salmon’s to lash out at either his coach or his teammate. The next instance he sets up Natt to lash out at his second best player, then sets up the best player on the team to answer a question ambiguous enough that the answer can be construed as either lashing out at his teammate or his coach. It all sounds a little too much like playground manipulation to me.

It is fairly obvious this guy is not a leader and is only happy and productive when he is a primary focal point. What is also obvious is that any team with John as a focal point is not a good one. He doesn’t do much to make team mates better and his well chronicled habit of pounding the ball is an offense killer. We have all played with type of guy. John isn’t a bad guy but by all accounts he is brooder and not the kind of guy you want young players around especially if leadership is already a major vacuum. Small forward is the easiest position to replace so no big loss…

salmons just plain sucks,kevin is coming off the bench and is still playing like the kevin we know so that shows me that salmons just sucks. trade him asap try to get rid of beno to.