Vote Salmons off the Island

Why the Bulls should send Salmons off the team rather than Hinrich in persuit of keeping Ben Gordon.

almost 3 years ago dougthonus 28 comments 2 recs |

Comments

I'm still for punting Hinrich instead

I don’t quite buy that Salmons is a more natural SF than SG. His selfish play on both ends makes me think he’s better used as a two, where his lack of team defense and rebounding are more masked (sort of jives with my ‘I don’t really care about BG’s defense’ argument for guards).

Also, I’m not quite getting your idea that the backup SF is less important to fill than the backup PG:

You call backup point a ‘demanding role’, when it really is 8-12 minutes a game. Gordon can take some of that (not too nuts considering you advocate Tyrus getting backup 3 mintues)
Backup SF is more important in the Bulls case because the starting SF is injury prone. Granted if Deng is always going to be injured there’s bigger problems than who’s his backup, but I think the insurance is important at least for a season.
You sort of contradict yourself by saying that a backup wing is an easy spot to fill, yet the Bulls will have a tough decision if Salmons opts out. They could just let him go get his big-money deal elsewhere and easily fill that spot, no?

This should all be it’s own post (maybe I’ll write one this week), but my general reasoning is that I’m sold on Rose-Gordon-Deng as my starting 1-3 for the next several seasons (unless the big-time big-man acquisition happens). So then it’s a question of who’s a better backup, Kirk or Salmons. And think having a backup 2-3 is more necessary than the backup 1-2 (due to Rose’s studliness), with Salmons having a much more manageable contract than Hinrich.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 27, 2009 10:34 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Filling in for a departing Salmons (while trading Hinrich and re-signing Gordon) will be finding a backup SG AND SF.

A SG/SF needs to be able to shoot the ball well and defend quicker players as well as bigger players.

Getting rid of Hinrich and then losing Salmons means losing TWO players and then either: finding A) a PG/SG combo that can play 25 mpg and SF at 12 mpg or B) a PG at 12 mpg and SG/SF that can play 25 mpg.

Punting Hinrich and hoping Salmons stays around is course B. Very possible, but you need Salmons to stick around. Punting Salmons and keeping Hinrich means A, just that we already found the PG/SG combo and you can draft the SF.

You’ll need about 40 mins for the back up of PG, SG and SF. That’s not insignificant. Neither is Hinrich’s contract, of course, but it’s a very known quantity while reducing the unknown to 12-15 mpg.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions

that's 2010 if Salmons opts out

l’d almost rather have both gone for flexibility’s sake.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 27, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions

I wouldn't. I learned that lesson from 2000.

The Bulls will make the playoffs next year as long as they don’t lose 2 out of 3 for this next season. If they do, and Salmons plays 30 mins/gm, I don’t see how he doesn’t opt out.

The Bulls could manipulate enough cap space to get a max player in 2010.

Hinrich’s a good player. He’s overpaid as a “backup”, but if he’s getting 28-30 mins/gm, he’s not.

“I’d rather keep the good players than lose them for nothing (or cap space) and try to get better players around them.”

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions

Dammit. All this is moot anyway. Gordon isn't staying and Hinrich isn't leaving.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd put them on a different class of 'good'

the likes of Hinrich and Salmons are pieces that will likely always be changing as the Bulls build towards a contender. First order of business is finding long-term pieces, I’d put Gordon in that category (thus my ‘team building’ philosophy you paraphrased) but not Hinrich or Salmons (with age being a factor).

I generally agree that even if not championship pieces, ‘good’ assets like Hinrich and Salmons shouldn’t be given away, but the Bulls have this pesky tax problem that has them at least losing one. As far as 2010, they can hope Salmons opts out and if they don’t land a big fish sign him later. That’s what I mean by flexibility.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 27, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Backup SFs need only do one of many possible things well. You could bring in a defender, a shooter, a slasher, a post player, almost anything. That’s why they’re so easy to find, because there’s a huge variety of skillsets that can fulfill that position. The guy we draft will probably be able to fill one of those roles for 10 minutes a night. Kirk Hinrich can play as a backup SF if needed. He probably defends the position better than Salmons anyway.

A backup PG has very specific harder to find qualities that have to be filled, and I don’t think I’d want to draft a rookie to be my backup PG given that experience is probably so important there. Nor do we have room to bring in someone else. You’re right that we could probably get away with Gordon as PG for 10 minutes, or possibly even Salmons and just switch to an ultra selfish isolation style (which actually might make both players quite happy for that period).

The decision making on Salmons is hard because his value is that of a “good player on a cheap contract”. We won’t replace that easily. We may not even be able to use Salmons to replace that most likely, because he likely won’t be looking for a “cheap” contract type deal as a FA. We can find someone else to fill in his role, but we’ll have to pay that person then.

Salmons greatest asset is his pricetag for his ability, but with his contract possibly expiring in a year, that asset will be gone. On a market value contract, his game isn’t good fit for our team.

Bulls Beat Podcast

by dougthonus on May 27, 2009 10:51 AM CDT reply actions

hit the reply button! :)

again, I see Salmons as a backup 2/3. So if he’s easy to replace, letting him go isn’t hard.

If the issue is that the Bulls aren’t capitalizing on Salmons’ current trade value…then I agree he should be thrown in on a big trade if possible (and a trade so big I won’t care if it’s Salmons or Hinrich). As far as a minor move, the Bulls aren’t really interested in getting better right now, just staying under the tax. But yeah, if he opts out and wants big money, he won’t be an asset anymore. I suppose I see Deng and Gordon as quality championship pieces if they can’t be traded. If Salmons prices himself out of being an asset, oh well. That’s more of a Nocioni-type situation, best to let him go than turn him from an asset to a liability.

And a backup PG can be had with the vet minimum. Re-start the Mike Wilks era for all I care. Rose is going to play a LOT. In fact, lets get the crappiest backup point possible so that Vinny can’t put him on the court with Rose. Evidently that means even crappier than Lindsey Hunter.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 27, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions

Replacing Salmons w/ a quality back-up w/ the ability to start at SG and SF isn't easy.

But you’d be replacing the SG portion of that w/ Hinrich. I know you don’t like that, but it’s worked and been effective. It works for the exact same reason that HInirich next to Roy would work. Or Kobe. Or whomever. If putting Hinrich next to a ball-dominant SG works in your mind, then putting him next to a scoring PG shouldn’t be so crazy.

So then you’re only replacing the backup SF, and that is easy. Finding one that could start, isn’t. If Deng goes down again, the Bulls are screwed. But like you said, that’s a shite scenario anyway.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions

I meant to hit the reply button, in fact I thought I was typing in the reply field and was quite embarrassed to find that I didn’t.

I like the idea of Hinrich, Rose, Gordon, as fitting together more than if you put Salmons in there. Salmons and Gordon are just both ball stoppers, and I don’t think you want both on the floor with Rose. Gordon has a better ability to play off the ball than Salmons, so he’s a better fit by a huge margin.

Hinrich isn’t a ball stopper at all relative to Gordon/Salmons, is a better defender at any position, and gives you a great backup PG. I think the chemistry of the team will work better with Hinrich than with Salmons. I won’t complain if we boot Hinrich to make room for Gordon, but I think keeping Hinrich over Salmons gives you a better team.

Bulls Beat Podcast

by dougthonus on May 27, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Salmons is a crappy backup and a decent starter.

I don’t want him as a backup. Egh.

Three things you must know:
-"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
-Pau Gasol: The defense of a seven foot ladder paired with the post presence of Manute Bol.
-Joakim Noah is better than you.

by Prevenge on May 29, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions

This is what I've been saying for months...

I’m glad at least one other person agrees. Even if that makes two of us crazy, at least I’m not alone.

Obviously, I don’t like John Salmons game, but I can recognize its strengths. A Rose-Hinrich-Gordon back court is a very expensive one, but it’s also one of the best in the league per 96 minutes. You’d likely be getting positive net-positive contribution from your back court the entire game. I also like the idea of having the same back court rotation for the next four years. Of course, if they learn more bad habits under Del Negro this year…. that might be hard to break.

I’d also rather see (dear god!) a 3-guard lineup and the rookie wing before Tyrus Thomas at SF.
Rose and Gordon 34 min/gm, Hinrich 28 mins/gm backing them up and 5-8 mins/gm backing up a 30 min/gm Deng and 10-15 min/gm from the rookie, whether that’s Terrance Williams, Chase Budinger, Danny Green or Sam Young. If the rookie pans out (not likely, of course), that’s a very, very good 5-man rotation at the 1-3. The move takes away cap flexibility, but I think it creates security, stability and a very above-average team.

What about the #16 and John Salmons to Toronto for the #9 to get DeJuan Blair? (If they won’t give up Bosh, of course) They get a wing and still get an okay pick. The Bulls take Blair and then Sam Young or Danny Green at 26. (2010-2011 salary in parentheses)

Rose(5.5)/Hinrich(9)
Gordon(10)/Hinrich
Deng(11.3)/ROOKIE/Hinrich
Thomas(???)/Blair(3)/Noah
Noah(3)/Miller

That team wins 50+ games next year, loses only Brad Miller going into 2010-2011, and only has $43 million committed in salary following that season (take off whatever less than $10/year you think Gordon will actually sign for), depending on what they do with Tyrus Thomas. Sign him for $10 million or more, they don’t have much cap space, but that means he played very well next year. Have something better come along (like Bosh), renounce his rights.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 10:52 AM CDT reply actions

Ben Gordon is the east's JR Smith.

I love to disagree with this post.
With Ben Gordon on the ‘as is’ Bulls, the future postseason success is clearly limited. The last 7 Bulls’ games were flooded with broken-down offensive plays forcing some very skilled player to heave a last second shot.

Ben Gordon is the main ingredient in a recipe for dangerous and exciting plays- not for success and fidelity. It is unfortunate but necessary to say good-bye to BG in order to make the Bulls into a contender.

Put Ben Gordon on the Cavs or Lakers, and they win the Championship hands down. Ben Gordon is the east’s JR Smith.

Ah, whatever happens, I know the Bulls will have a dramatic and exciting 09-10 season. I am also sure that the Bulls will perform a trade that is from left field that NO ONE predicted.

by chicago-homesick-blues on May 27, 2009 1:37 PM CDT reply actions

So you want to boot Gordon, even though you acknowledge he can help teams win a title?

Nice logic!!!!

And fwiw, Ben Gordon is a lot better than J.R. Smith. Come on now.

"Vinny continues to act like a crazed arsonist pouring gasoline on our season while running around carrying a torch yelling 'I’m in charge. Don’t any of you foolish knaves try to second guess me. I know gasoline is a liquid but I’m pretty sure it isn’t flammable and the odor gives me a natural high.'" - Tyrusmancrush

by Illini15 on May 27, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Ben Gordon used to be a lot better than J.R. Smith, now that J.R. Smith is interested in playing defense, I'm less convinced that's still the case.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on May 27, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Good point.

J.R.‘s D on Kobe this series has impressed me. But that is a very, very small sample size. Until he proves he’s interested in playing D at all times, I still think BG is a much better player.

by Illini15 on May 27, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree.

Part of Smith’s knuckle-headedness is/was his inconsistency due to his complete lack of caring about trying. I need more to show me he’s different than just the playoffs.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions

He's been more committed to defense for most of this year. It also doesn't hurt that his bigs are better defenders this year

than at any other time, either. Replacing the overrated defense of Marcus Camby with a healthy Nene, KMart, and Birdman will do that.

J.R. is still a knucklehead at times in ways that are, perhaps, more conspicuous or disheartening than Ben when he makes mistakes, but Ben is not without boneheaded plays, and I say that as someone who has often defended BG against claims that he’s somehow turnover prone (he’s not) or that he’s selfish (he’s not). He makes dumb decisions sometimes, but he’s so damned talented it doesn’t matter most of the time.

J.R. is getting to the point where even when he’s doing the occasional dumb thing, it’s outweighed by all the positive things he’s doing for you. He’s been passing the rock, d-ing up, and making smart cuts off the ball and still been bombing away from deep. I’ve been really impressed with him in this series especially, but also with his improvement over the course of the entire year. There’s a reason that George Karl is trusting him more this year.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on May 27, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions

1 for 10 from three tonight.

Tonight was a bad J.R. night. Sometimes he doesn’t know when to stop shooting.

But yeah, he’s certainly making strides. You have to think Chauncey’s had a big impact on him as well, at least as far as helping him learn the game and make better decisions (when to pass, when to shoot, when to drive, etc.). If A.I. were still there, there’s no way J.R. is playing like he is now. That’s for sure.

by Illini15 on May 28, 2009 12:17 AM CDT up reply actions

Shooters shoot. I've no problem with him continuing to shoot. That's the mindset a guy like him or Gordon has to have

to be as successful as they are shooting from back there. They have always believe that the next one is going in. I missed about half the game so I didn’t see a lot of the looks he took, so I can’t comment on whether they were good looks or not and whether he should have taken those particular shots, but in the abstract, I don’t mind a shooter continuing to shoot even on an off night.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on May 28, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions

Ben Gordon as a primary piece isn’t anything exciting. Ray Allen as a primary piece wasn’t too exciting either.

You can’t kick everyone off the team who isn’t good enough to be a #1 option on a title team. Especially when their average earnings is going to be around 9 million per season and not 15-18 million per season.

Bulls Beat Podcast

by dougthonus on May 28, 2009 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions

If the Bulls managed to land Bosh, isn't this team very, very similar to the 07-08 Celtics, only younger and not quite as good?

Rose = Rondo, but better (Rondo was not that good last year, he took off this year)
Gordon = Ray Allen lite
Deng = Pierce (this is the only one that really doesn’t fit because Pierce is quite a bit more versatile and better than Deng, but whatever, it’s not a perfect fit)
Bosh = KG lite (he’s the best young big man not named Dwight Howard and he plays a game very similar to KG’s – jump shooting 4 who hedges very well on the pick and roll on defense. He’s not as tough inside as KG and he’s not in his class as a defender, but there’s not a single young NBA big around right now that is, besides the aforementioned Dwight).
Noah = Perkins ++ (Noah is a much better version of Perkins, albeit weaker physically).

Am I crazy about this? Maybe. It makes a little sense though, and if Rose can become the alpha dog of the team in the role that Pierce plays for the Celtics, then Deng not being in Pierce’s class matters far, far less.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on May 28, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions

Do you not think we can get another SG in 2/3 years?

I don’t think anybody wants to keep Salmons beyond his contract. My hope is we let Gordon go this offseason, then keep Salmons for two more years, giving us two years to find a comparable SG for less than $10 million.

The focus shouldn’t be building our dynasty core asap, Rose is just 20 and probably 3-4 years at least from being a championship-level superstar. If you think Rose-Gordon-Deng-Tyrus-Noah wins a title in 4 years, then okay, but I don’t see that happening. And to keep Gordon AND Hinrich means tying up our payroll through 2010, which is our biggest chance to vault into the top tier of NBA teams.

by YaoPau on May 27, 2009 3:02 PM CDT reply actions

You did read about Salmons leaving next year? That's kind of what this is predicated upon.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on May 27, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions

You did read what I wrote?

Why worry about who our SG is now? I’d rather have a fill-in playing than give Gordon a fat, longterm contract that ties up our 2010 payroll.

by YaoPau on May 27, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions

It’s not easy to add legitimately, very talented players. There are no more than 2-3 players in the NBA who have gotten contract extensions, are better than Ben Gordon, and make less than 9 million per year on average. Ben Gordon is a value contract at his current asking price.

So do I think it’s impossible to replace him (or Salmons), no. I do not. However, I think it’s unlikely that you can replace Gordon for less than Gordon’s asking price. I won’t be upset if we move Hinrich and keep Gordon. I was mainly pointing out that alternative to trading Hinrich would be to trade Salmons, and that could work out real well too.

Bulls Beat Podcast

by dougthonus on May 28, 2009 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't think there;s any evidence that Salmons is a better SF and SG.

His 82games position splits basically show that he what he is wherever he plays. He;s not as good at SG as Ben Gordon, but he’s not a better SF than Deng either and Salmons is a team defense killer at SF.

You’re point that Salmons is only marginally better rebounder than Gordon is a good one. Your argument that John’s rebounding at SF was inflated doesn’t really hold water. If Salmons was a guy who made any effort to rebound a ball that didn’t come directly to him, his minutes at SF would be a factor. But, there’s not any clear difference between his rebounding at SF and SG,

I’d be perfectly happy if Salmons opts out after the season. Salmons is great for filling minutes, but he;s not that good. There’s no need to replace him with another guy that can play 35 minutes. Either spend money for the guy you really want at SG or asw long as you have Rose and Hinrich you only need to find a 25 min per game type guy to start at SG and you can find another guy that;s a true backup SF for cheap. Maybe one of those guys even gets drafted this summer. Losing Salmons doesn’t even make my list of concerns.

by Scotter on May 27, 2009 8:15 PM CDT reply actions

I would be wiling to include

Salmons in a deal for either Bosh or STAT as long as we can resign Gordon. Salmons, Hinrich, Thomas, two 1st rounders and the rights to Asik should be able to land us a star. That would still leave us with a roster of Rose, BG, Deng, STAT or Bosh and Noah.

I would then attempt to trade Miller to the Thunder for Watson and Collison. If we trade for Bosh I’m sure we would take back Kapono’s contract. If we trade for STAT I would demand either Barnes, Dudley or Tucker be involved. If we keep one of our picks we can use it on a back up center or a wing.

All the above is wishful thinking though.

Homecoming

by illwill on May 28, 2009 6:59 AM CDT reply actions