He's a complete player, cheaper, taller, better defender, and is getting 18 per game. He's playing just as good offensively then Ben and actually defends so that gives him the advantage. I bet it doesn't take him to long to become a starter. That's if he isn't part of a bigger trade in the works. This trade to me isn't all about Brad Miller it's about Salmons.
I see what youre saying. And Salmons is taller, and can run PG (didnt he come out as a PG then got converted to a 2/3?) He probably cant shoot as good as BG (even with his inconsistency) but hes taller and plays better defense
And I know that you can argue that he scores cause he's on a crap team, but the Bulls are a crap team too. Ben has done his share of padding his stats in blow out games. I did some reading on Salmons and they aren't to big on him playing pg. But yeah he could play pg because he has good play making ability and good ball handling skills. He is also considered the best defender on the team, which I guess isn't saying a whole lot cause we are talking about the Kings but still...lol.
Here is his scouting report from ESPN Scouting report: In addition to his slashing ability, Salmons is a very good defender who can guard three positions. He's quick and has good size at 6-7, and ranked in the top third of shooting guards in both blocks and steals per minute. The Kings often used him as the primary stopper against elite scorers, even when Ron Artest was on the court with him, and he held his own in those matchups. Offensively, he likes to attack off the dribble for layups or short-range jumpers. He's a mediocre spot-up shooter and isn't a good shooter off the dribble, plus he tends to have high turnover rates because he's driving into traffic so much. However, he's a good enough dribbler to play point guard in a pinch. 2008-09 outlook: With Artest gone, the starting small forward gig appears to be firmly in Salmons' possession, and based on his career splits his numbers could take another boost forward as a full-time starter. Salmons isn't going to be a star, but he could average in the mid-teens with a decent shooting percentage, and between that and his stellar defense it makes him a very valuable player.
Here's something about John Salmons though. He pretty much sucks. Here's his annual per for each season of his career: 9.5 10.6 9.7 10.7 12.7 13.9 16.2 Outside of this year, he's been a backup level player or worse. I expect he's pretty much that for us. Which makes him exactly like Nocioni.
I think once Ben re-signs, they will try to get rid of him for an expiring contract. If we mess with him enough, he might opt out, because he has an ETO in 2010!
He's improved almost every year. And this year he's averaging 18 per. Not to mention he's been a bench player behind Artest. So that's all BS. He's a better player, and he will be a starter when we finally rid ourselves of ball hog Ben. From what all the reporters and writers are saying he's a upgrade for us at the 2 and 3 spot.
Commentary from Sam Smith on Salmons and his effect on Gordon: The deal probably means the end of Ben Gordon's tenure in Chicago, though the circumstances still exist for Gordon to return next season in the role he's most suited for, sixth man. The Bulls could have a heck of a backcourt rotation with Derrick Rose, Salmons, who is more the classic big perimeter wing player and good defender, and Gordon... Thus it was a coup for the Bulls to add a player like Salmons, who can be a piece going forward, while still remaining in position to drop salary in 2010 to have a shot at some free agent, if perhaps not necessarily the most expensive ones.... The Bulls also apparently won out in a competitive battle for Salmons with the Nets, Trailblazers, Knicks Thunder, Spurs and Mavericks among those teams pursuing the Philadelphia native. Several of those teams also have been talking with the Nets about Vince Carter, but saw Salmons as a player who could be as effective but without the big contract...
Goodness... you guys (and I'm including Sam Smith) are drinking some serious kool-aid on Salmons. He's not a useful piece going forward, and he's not a starting caliber SG. In fact, he's not even a SF, he's a SG. And he's not a good SF. If he's your starter, then you're the Sacramento Kings.
I'm not saying he's going to be sort of answer to all of the Bulls problems. I'm just saying he's a upgrade and a cheaper option.
Except he appears to be a tangibly worse player (judging by his career productivity) who's signed for probably about 80-90% of what Gordon will probably be had for. I know you're not a Gordon fan, but I don't see how Salmons is an answer to really, any of our problems. We need to clear cap room, be it for Gordon or someone else, and Salmons doesn't do that. We need a shooter to play next to Rose and Deng, and Salmons doesn't shoot very well. He doesn't really inspire confidence in any department to me. I basically see him as exactly the same as Noc.
His numbers are eerily similar to BG's this year. Not sure if I'd call him a piece, more of a stopgap. But if he can maintain his performance level, he'd be a nice addition. And he'll drive the price down on BG.
Ben Gordon is one of the best three point shooters ever, and is fourth in the NBA in fastbreak scoring this year. Bulls would be crazy to trade Gordon, given that he looks like exactly what the Bulls need right now.
I honestly do not see Gordon and Salmons co-existing if the reports are true that this trade went down. Think about it.
You don't know the NBA if you don't think so. Gordon is on pace to break the record for most three pointers hit by a player in their first five years in the league. Out of the other guys in the top 100, Gordon has a higher three point percentage than all but two of them, and both of those players have less than half of what Gordon has.
