I know I will be mocked mercilessly for this due to the efforts of certain overzealous Green-supporters, but that person got me curious about how he compares to our current allotment of SF brick-layers. This is probably useless as I doubt the Kings are even looking at him. Boston, Chicago, and Brooklyn are showing interest.

First, remember the numbers here are actually comparable - both teams finished 22-44 (equally bad teams). But it should also be remembered that Green had a smaller sample size than Salmons.

COMPARING 2012 ONLY - Better result in Bold

Salmons is a better passer and has fewer turnovers. But for all the talk of Salmons being a good defender the numbers just don't back it up. Green destroys him in all defensive categories and has the edge in rebounding. Green is the better shooter and it isn't even close. Actually, he would have been one of the best 3pt shooters on the team. If you could stomach, a few more Offensive Fouls (11 more), and never seeing Green bring the ball up the court to initiate the offense (he has a worse handle than Salmons), you get a better and improving defender/rebounder/shooter for a fraction of the price.

Green is a far better shooter than Garcia, despite Garcia's FT% advantage. Green is a much better defender despite Garcia's advantage at shot blocking. Garcia is a slightly better rebounder and a better passer.

Now with all of that laid out, let me first say, adding Gerald Green doesn't turn the franchise around, but he can hit the corner 3, is an above-average defender, is clearly athletic, Small Forward is his most natural position, and he is a lot cheaper than either of our Small Forward options. His problems are clear, he doesn't have a good handle, and is a bad passer. I realize that the statement: He is better than what we've got is not a glowing endorsement, but it is still an endorsement... as long as he comes cheap. ;)