John Salmons for ATL pick?

sackings916 · Post #1 » by **sackings916** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 12:23 am

Kings need to choose between Salmons and Artest, and at this point Artest is simply the better player. If the Kings do choose Artest, what do Suns fans think about a trade involving Salmons to the Suns for their TPE(did it expire?) and ATL's first rounder this year. The Kings want the pick to aid the rebuild, and Salmons is a good fit for the Suns. Salmons would give the Suns a 2nd player to create/slash other than Nash and would also give them versatility defensively. When Artest/Martin were out for extended periods Salmons averaged over 20 PPG on over 50% shooting.

Salmons is better than Hill and should start at the 3, he is also effective at PG and can back up Nash allowing Barbosa to play off the ball and Hill to slide in at the 3.

KayZee · Post #2 » by **KayZee** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 12:56 am

sackings916 wrote:Salmons is better than Hill and should start at the 3, he is also effective at PG and can back up Nash allowing Barbosa to play off the ball and Hill to slide in at the 3.

this is just hilarious :rofl:

other than that particular sentence, the trade idea is not bad though
we probably wont play the rookie anyways and John is a guy who can contribute right away

chrice · Post #3 » by **chrice** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 1:01 am

OH HELLLLLLLLL NO! Philly let that guy go for nothing for a reason. Trade Rejected.

sackings916 · Post #4 » by **sackings916** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 1:19 am

KayZee wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

this is just hilarious

other than that particular sentence, the trade idea is not bad though
we probably wont play the rookie anyways and John is a guy who can contribute right away

IMO, Salmons is better than Hill at this point in Hill's career. They are both similar players offensively, but Hill just cant slash and get to the basket like he used to which Salmons excels at. They both have good mid range shots, they're about even but you can give Hill the slight edge. Salmons range extends to the 3 point line though. Defensively, Salmons is the better defender as he's able to guard positions 1-3 effectively with his speed and length.

OH HELLLLLLLLL NO! Philly let that guy go for nothing for a reason. Trade Rejected.

There's also a reason Geoff Petrie, Bryan Colangelo and the Suns your team offered him long term MLE level deals.

Sarlonus · Post #5 » by **Sarlonus** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 2:02 am

He didn't want to come here when we tried to sign him so why should we trade for him? We could use depth at C, SF, and PG. I would prefer to see our options in the draft because we could basically go BPA. In addition, the contract at 15 would be less than Salmon's.

Arles · Post #6 » by **Arles** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 4:15 am

Salmons is OK, but he's not good enough to devote $16 million to over the next 3 seasons. He doesn't shoot the 3 well and his defense has been spotty. Why pay $5 mil a year to him and lose a top 18 pick when we can keep the pick and get a similar player on the cheap (a la Hill or Giricek) or use part of our MLE on an upgrade if need be?

WTFsunsFTW · Post #7 » by **WTFsunsFTW** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 6:11 am

I would love to have him here, but I doubt he would like to be here, and I think the ATL pick would be too much for him.

eastsidecrossover · Post #8 » by **eastsidecrossover** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 6:24 am

please stop.

Post #9 » by **TASTIC** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 8:18 am

Completely agree with Sarlonus, he sums it all up.

The guy is a good player, but his 3 shot isn't enough to make him play enough minutes and for some reason D'Antoni is obsessed with leaving Barbosa at the point, despite having Hill and Diaw who can run the point A LOT better than #10...

Go7enKs · Post #10 » by **Go7enKs** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 10:23 am

The way Giricek has been playing we don't need another swingman. I'm even afraid of saying this, don't want to jinx but if Indiana could...you know...we might have a 10-14 pick and it wouldn't be bad picking anybody this year just for a change.

ClosAZ · Post #11 » by **ClosAZ** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 4:49 pm

John Salmons had a religious awakening to not come to Phoenix. Has he recently had a new awakening that would now allow him to come here?

Pass. We can draft a future Salmons guy in the draft and he'll be much cheaper too. If the Suns resign Giricek for 2 mill per year or less and/or draft a young wing guy we've got the position covered.

Post #12 » by **TASTIC** » Wed Apr 9, 2008 7:24 pm

^Yeah and call me a homer, but I think DJ could be similar to Salmons in 2-3 years time

thamadkant · Post #13 » by **thamadkant** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:07 pm

G.Hill cant slash to the rim anymore??

Are you kidding?

Every time he does it reminds everyone of his young self... thats why everyone is surprise, because Hill CAN still do it...

Obviously no way near as frequent or as good as back then, but still better than most, and he is better than Salmons also at that.

Salmons needs the ball, basically running the plays and getting touches to be productive, he isnt a reliable jump shooter, 3 point shooter nor defender.... He is a good back up for the Suns.. but on a team where they dont really have a hierarchy of offensive options... Salmons is better.

sackings916 · Post #14 » by **sackings916** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:25 pm

thamadkant wrote:G.Hill cant slash to the rim anymore??

Are you kidding?

Every time he does it reminds everyone of his young self... thats why everyone is surprise, because Hill CAN still do it...

Obviously no way near as frequent or as good as back then, but still better than most, and he is better than Salmons also at that.

Salmons needs the ball, basically running the plays and getting touches to be productive, he isnt a reliable jump shooter, 3 point shooter nor defender.... He is a good back up for the Suns.. but on a team where they dont really have a hierarchy of offensive options... Salmons is better.

The times I've seen Hill he'll get to the rim every now and then, but nothing like before as you said and just isn't at the level of a Salmons. As far as driving/slashing/getting to the rim, I just think Salmons is at another level compared to Hill.You are accurate in saying Salmons needs the ball to be most effective, this is where he shines. My thinking was that he and Nash would be the ballhandling/creators and create opportunities for Amare/Shaq/Barbosa,etc as well as themselves. As far as his shooting, Salmons is quite reliable from midrange..obv not as good as a Monta Ellis or Kevin Martin but probably just 1 notch below. His 3 pt is inconsistent though, he was over 40% around all star break but has dipped to mid 30s. And thats just inaccurate on his defense. He is a very good defender and does a good job on elite wings. He has done a better job on Kobe than Artest this season.

And before I get asked if he's so good why dont you keep him, he's just not an effective player coming off the bench and not getting many touches. He needs minutes and plenty of touches to reach his potential, and with Martin and Artest on the team I feel the Kings should get value for him and he should be moved to a better situation.

Arles · Post #15 » by **Arles** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:43 pm

Salmons is a Diaw-lite. And, we already have $9 million in that position, we don't need another $5-6.

Biff · Post #16 » by **Biff** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:50 pm

Salmons is a good defender. Good slasher, not a very good shooter. We already have someone that can be(potentially) just as good for a lot cheaper... DJ Strawberry.

chrice · Post #17 » by **chrice** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:28 pm

sackings916 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There's also a reason Geoff Petrie, Bryan Colangelo and the Suns your team offered him long term MLE level deals.

Yes you're right. It was because there were only table scraps left during free agency at that time. The Kings, Philly, Suns are among the teams I follow the most in the NBA, and believe me, the trade doesn't make sense for the Suns. It's hard enough to justify paying the MLE for Salmons, but you are asking the Suns to risk going into luxury tax territory, AND giving up a mid first rounder?? :crazy:

Yes I know he is an all-around player, but he is not a good fit for the system. Yes, he can handle the ball, but he also has a tendency to kill ball movement. Yes, he can shoot, in fact, he loves to shoot, he has a scorer's mentality. But he is not reliable enough. Salmons is still not fully developed. Ask Sixers fans too. We knew there were a lot of people on the roster being held back, because of having AI run the point. We knew he would be able to put up better numbers given the minutes. Does anyone even care that he's gone? No. I'll take Grant Hill 24/7/365 over Salmons, despite what you said about him.

sackings916 · Post #18 » by **sackings916** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:06 am

chrice wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yes you're right. It was because there were only table scraps left during free agency at that time.

Thats terrible logic. Teams are not going to commit that type of salary for that many years to a player just because they're "scraps left during free agency"...especially GMs with the track record of Petrie and Colangelo. Give Salmons his due, he is a quality basketball player that can do a lot of things on the court which include scoring,playmaking and defending. Im not saying this trade in particular is a good move for the Suns, but you're selling Salmons short.

Arles · Post #19 » by **Arles** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:49 am

sackings916 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Thats terrible logic. Teams are not going to commit that type of salary for that many years to a player just because they're "scraps left during free agency"...especially GMs with the track record of Petrie and Colangelo.

IIRC, after losing out on Salmons, the Suns went and gave Banks $21 million over 5 years. So, I think the bolded part was answered pretty clearly there...

Give Salmons his due, he is a quality basketball player that can do a lot of things on the court which include scoring,playmaking and defending. Im not saying this trade in particular is a good move for the Suns, but you're selling Salmons short.

He offers little over the combo of Giricek and Hill. Plus, he makes more than both combined. If he was to come play for $2 million, I would be OK with it. But for $15 mil over the next 3, I'll pass.

chrice · Post #20 » by **chrice** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:51 am

sackings916 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Im not saying this trade in particular is a good move for the Suns, but you're selling Salmons short.

Yes you did. You said right in the beginning that he fits in Phoenix. Plus, you wouldn't have created a non-sensical thread proposing the trade if you didn't think it was a good trade for us. Do you honestly believe that because Colangelo and Petrie went after him, he's the GOAT or something? We get that you view Colangelo and Petrie as gods, because obviously they have never made a questionable move in their life. That still doesn't erase the fact that there wasn't much to choose from in Free agency with the MLE. And Please, don't preach to me what kind of player Salmons is. I've been watching him since he started his career. I know what he can do, if you search all the way back through my posts in 05, you'll see I was pulling for him to get more minutes at the Sixers. And no, I don't think I'm selling him short, I think you're overrating him. The way you're making him sound to sell this trade idea, makes him look like the next Pippen.