John Salmons to Portland?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Fez Hammersticks

Fez Hammersticks

スーパーバッド Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
29,201
Likes
9,896
Points
113
There were indications Sunday that a trade involving swingman John Salmons is becoming increasingly likely, with Portland and Oklahoma City believed to be the leaders in a group of as many as five interested teams. The Trail Blazers' offer would involve forward Channing Frye's expiring contract ($3.2 million), and the Thunder's offer would involve forward Joe Smith's expiring deal ($4.8 million). According to numerous league sources, Dallas is also in the mix.
Click to expand...

LINK​
 
Fez said:
LINK​
Click to expand...

I guess I could live with Salmons for Frye. It's not quite as exciting as CP3 for nothing, but it would help. I think. If nothing else we can give him a nickname like Sockeye.

barfo
 
Oh man Channing would HATE us if we traded him to Sacramento after him saying he HATES that city haha
 
I'm not the biggest Salmons fan in the world, but getting him for Frye? Sign me up.

Ed O.
 
Frye & Ike & draft pick for Salmons would be highway robbery. Sign me up.
 
No thanks. I don't think he would be good on our team after hearing what Sacramento fans think of him. And on top of that, I don't think creating further logjams is the way to go.
 
MrJayremmie said:
after hearing what Sacramento fans think of him.
Click to expand...

Sacramento fans? Who are these mythical creatures?

Salmons is cheap, a good scoring wing and easy to move if he doesn't fit. If we only give up backup PFs for a player that scores 18.3ppg (more than Ray Allen, Iverson, Iguodala, Billups, Mo Williams and RJeff), it's insanely lopsided.

This team's D sucks, but the offense isn't exactly a well oiled machine either. He could really help our epic scoring droughts.
 
I'm not concerned about our offense, honestly. I think a better offensive scheme with more movement would help us a lot more than another wing. I'm more concerned about the logjam we are creating, and how our rotation would just be getting bigger and bigger.
 
If we are going field a unit of Trout and Salmons - we really need a Frye out there as well. KP knows cookery - I call bullshit.
 
Salmons is an upgrade. He's a do-it-all type of wing. He's 29 but by the time his contract expires Batum will be more than ready to take over.

The talent gap between Salmons and Frye is pretty massive.
 
craigehlo said:
Sacramento fans? Who are these mythical creatures?

Salmons is cheap, a good scoring wing and easy to move if he doesn't fit. If we only give up backup PFs for a player that scores 18.3ppg it's insanely lopsided.

This team's D sucks, but the offense isn't exactly a well oiled machine either. He could really help our epic scoring droughts.
Click to expand...


Only $6/# at costco.:lol: How are we going to make Fish& Chips without Fry?
 
:sigh:

Ugh. If we get an upgrade without giving any rotation players, that just creates further logjams that might piss off some of the players.

I think we should give a little more, but go after a better player....
 
Exactly, B-Roy. I wouldn't mind giving up around 3 rotation players (including Blake and Webs which would push our rotation to 11 normally) and getting 1 good player back.
 
Logjam? Logjam of the type you find in your toilet. Without Martell we have no small forward of any quality, and even with him, he is very average at best. Of course we didn't get to see him play this year, and he was showing some good signs in pre season.
 
What if there was a bigger trade for another position (PG) involving Outlaw, Rudy or whoever, then this is an additional deal. That what this would seem like to me, since I know the front office is well aware of the log jams in the roster.
 
hasoos said:
Logjam? Logjam of the type you find in your toilet. Without Martell we have no small forward of any quality, and even with him, he is very average at best. Of course we didn't get to see him play this year, and he was showing some good signs in pre season.
Click to expand...

I know, I love Webster, which is why I don't want to see him stuck behind Salmons. Same with Batum.

And this would SERIOUSLY decrease Outlaw's minutes.

It could seriously hurt team chemistry.
 
Webster is very mediocre. He's a spot up shooter who really doesn't do anything else. There is a reason why Salmons would start over Marty.
 
Fez said:
Webster is very mediocre. He's a spot up shooter who really doesn't do anything else. There is a reason why Salmons would start over Marty.
Click to expand...

You think Salmons is good? He's a marginal upgrade at best, putting up his numbers as the second option of a terrible Sacramento team. He's not a great defender, he's not a particularly good shooter, he's just a slightly above average player signed onto a decent contract.
 
No, but he is solid. We aren't giving up too much for him, too. But one thing is clear: He is a big upgrade over our current options.
 
So we do this trade, and lets say WEbster comes back at the end of the year and hypothetically in good enough shape to contribute.... You cut Sergio and Batum out of the rotation. Rudy would hardly play because with Salmons (And webs and Trout trying to get some minutes at SF), Roy would rarely slide over to SF and play Roy and Rudy together... you got Webs gettin' like 10mpg, and Outlaw hardly playing because he wouldn't really slide between SF and backup PF anymore, just the leftover minutes at PF... on top of that you have Sergio pouting and either Blake or Jerryd's minutes cut drastically if they want to try and play Roy at PG with Rudy at SG. It would really cause problems. So if we do this trade (which is a steal talent wise for us) we would have to make another trade where we get rid of at least 3 rotation players, even 4 to get 1 so we can try and get to a 9 man rotation (which is where we should be for the playoffs). 12 people on a team who think they all should get at least 20mpg isn't a good thing.
 
Fez said:
No, but he is solid. We aren't giving up too much for him, too. But one thing is clear: He is a big upgrade over our current options.
Click to expand...

Is a marginal upgrade worth pissing off our players? I tend not to think so. If were going to make an upgrade, make it BIG, Carter, RJ, Wallace, etc.
 
B-Roy said:
he's not a particularly good shooter, he's just a slightly above average player signed onto a decent contract.
Click to expand...

Dude shoots 47% which is better than Grangier, Rip Hamilton, JRich, Pierce, Hedo, Deng, Redd, VC, Butler and Josh Howard. He's not a great defender, but calling him a "not particularly good shooter" is simply not accurate.
 
He's not a "marginal" upgrade. He's a significant upgrade. That should tell you how weak our SF rotation is.

Batum is the future but he's obviously not ready.

Martell is one-dimensional and wont be 100%, most likely, until next season. A mediocre talent.
 
craigehlo said:
Dude shoots 47% which is better than Grangier, Rip Hamilton, JRich, Pierce, Hedo, Deng, Redd, VC, Butler and Josh Howard. He's not a great defender, but calling him a "not particularly good shooter" is simply not accurate.
Click to expand...

Slasher, not shooter.
 
He isn't a bad shooter at all when you look at his stats... 47% FG, 42% 3PT, and 82% FT. But he wouldn't really get his 14 shots/game up here as a 3rd option, and 4th whne Nate is determined to get Greg going (which he should do more). He would also be asked to play better D here... He is the same height as Brandon but not as built, and is 29 years old, and aquiring him would cause some rotation problems in my opinion, which is why I think i'm not for it.
 
Last edited:
He was a sub 35% 3PT shooter until this year.

Anyone can have a good year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top