Anyone else have seller's remorse on John Salmons yet? He's currently playing outstanding basketball for Milwaukee, and the Bulls could desperately use what he's giving them right now. Our biggest problem with Salmons is that we took him out of the position he was so good at and put him in one he's not so good at.
From a big picture perspective, you have to respect the Bulls decision to ensure 2010 free agency participation. I do not fault them for taking the stance they did, and I would have taken the same one.
Still, I have seller's remorse now. I knew all along this was a double edged sword, since John Salmons playing well means he's more likely to opt out [in other words we got no benefit], push us out of the playoffs [Milwaukee has jumped us since the trade], and force us to switch draft picks with the Bucks.
It looks like we might have traded John Salmons to ensure something we would have had anyone and gave up a couple second rounders, lowered our first rounder, and might miss the playoffs because of it.
Now it's easy to say that the Bulls had to do this in order to maximize the 2010 plan, and there's certainly a large amount of truth to that, however, our 2010 plan would be even better if we had kept Salmons, finished higher in the playoff standings, and then had Salmons opt out. By moving Salmons and possibly missing the playoffs [or at the least lowering our seed] we've actually reduced our 2010 hopes.
It was always a double edged sword though. Had they not traded him and had he continued to play poorly, then the Bulls wouldn't have had any chance in 2010 FA. So the rewards outweighed the risks, it was the right decision. You place your bets on the highest probability for a good outcome, and I believe the Bulls did that. However, when the lower probability outcome may happen, it's easy to second guess everything even when you know it's not fair.