# Who are these big "burly" shooting guards I keep hearing about?



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I keep hearing about how we should trade Hinrich for a big burly shooting guard, now I don't think that's really necessary, but let's go with that for a second. 

Name some of these guys who could be had for Hinrich in a trade. Keep in mind, they would have to defend the shooting guard position better than Hinrich does (considerably better even), since the whole purpose of the trade is to make our defense on shooting guards better (even though we have defended that position better than any other position this year). 

Name some guys.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I keep hearing about how we should trade Hinrich for a big burly shooting guard, now I don't think that's really necessary, but let's go with that for a second.
> 
> Name some of these guys who could be had for Hinrich in a trade. Keep in mind, they would have to defend the shooting guard position better than Hinrich does (considerably better even), since the whole purpose of the trade is to make our defense on shooting guards better (even though we have defended that position better than any other position this year).
> 
> Name some guys.


In addition to being a better defender than Hinrich, this big guard had better be a legitimate scoring threat or Gordon will continue to be doubled on the perimeter.

Of our current crop of perimeter players, who has the ability to draw defenses away from Gordon...Pargo? Duhon? Piatkowski? Say what you will about Hinrich, but he's the only guard we have who's capable of keeping perimeter defenses honest so Gordon can get a few clear looks at the rim.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Pietrus baby.
He's like a quicker french version of Ron Artest. And maybe not as insane.

Tony Allen.

Maggette.
J-Rich.
Diaw.


Mainly Pietrus though. And how.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

:banana: Dwyane Wade :banana:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Kismet said:


> In addition to being a better defender than Hinrich, this big guard had better be a legitimate scoring threat or Gordon will continue to be doubled on the perimeter.


Yep, and should also be able to handle the ball a lot, since Duhon is the only guy on our roster currently who I feel comfortable playing 30 minutes per game. I don't feel comfortable making Jannero Pargo a rotation player.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Pietrus baby.
> He's like a quicker french version of Ron Artest. And maybe not as insane.
> 
> Tony Allen.
> ...


Could be... and maybe Allen too. How are we going to get Maggette, Jrich? Jrich, no D. Diaw has no offense, no?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I've read the name Larry Hughes thrown around, allegedly he is a better defender than Kirk or at least as good.

http://82games.com/0405WAS5.HTM

http://82games.com/0405CHI5.HTM

Washington (Hughes) allows SG to shoot an eFG% of 49.3%.
Chicago (Hinrich) allows SG to shoot an eFG% of 42.9%.

It's not even close, but I guess since Hughes is 6'5" he's better for the job than Hinrich.

:rotf:

It's not even close.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mickael Pietrus can't shoot, can't handle the ball, and plays under 20 minutes per game. We have to replace a guy who plays 35+ minutes per game. 

Tony Allen is only 6'4, that's Hinrich's height, we're looking to get a taller guard apparently. 

Maggette and Richardson are average defenders. 

Boris Diaw plays less than 20 minutes for the Atlanta Hawks, and he can't shoot or handle the ball either. 

We need a guy who is 6'6 and above, since that would eliminate us from being a small backcourt. A guy who can handle the ball a lot, a guy who can shoot and keep defenses true, and a guy who can play atleast 25-30 minutes per contest.

Keep the names coming.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Gordon/Duhon
Pietrus/Pargo
Deng/Nocioni
Davis/Chandler/Oberto
Curry

Gordon scores. Deng, Pietrus and Noce beat fools down.

You do a three team deal.

Hinrich to Toronto. Pietrus to Chicago. Aaron Williams expiring contract to Golden State.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Gordon/Duhon
> Pietrus/Pargo
> Deng/Nocioni
> Davis/Chandler/Oberto
> ...


And our PG is ?????????

Please don't say Ben, he has certainly shown this season that he is nowhere close to being a PG in the NBA.

I know, details, scheschmails.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Devin Brown


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Andre Igoudala...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Mickael Pietrus can't shoot, can't handle the ball, and plays under 20 minutes per game. We have to replace a guy who plays 35+ minutes per game.
> .


Pietrus shoots better than Hinrich lol. The only reason he plays less than 20 minutes per game is because J-Rich has been a monster this year. When Pietrus has played he has looked damned impressive. Ball-handling...who cares. He's our SG. Duhon handles the ball fine.

Some more names:
Marquis Daniels
Josh Howard


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yep, and should also be able to handle the ball a lot, since Duhon is the only guy on our roster currently who I feel comfortable playing 30 minutes per game. I don't feel comfortable making Jannero Pargo a rotation player.


 Bingo. Who's comfortable having Duhon play the point for 32+ mpg for 82 games with Pargo backing him up? Any Kirk trade needs to bring us back a big, scoring, defensive combo guard that can effectively run the point in return.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

bullsville said:


> And our PG is ?????????
> 
> Please don't say Ben, he has certainly shown this season that he is nowhere close to being a PG in the NBA.
> 
> I know, details, scheschmails.



If Ben can't play PG then he can't start in the NBA. Pargo and Duhon can handle point guard duties fine. But if it really bothers you, sign Dan Dickau to the MLE this summer.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Pietrus baby.
> He's like a quicker french version of Ron Artest. And maybe not as insane.
> 
> Tony Allen.
> ...


Wow! With the exception of Tony Allen, the rest of your list is comprised of losers. No doubt they're all talented...but Pietrus, Maggette, Richardson and Diaw have spent their entire pro careers playing for big time losing teams. No way I give up Hinrich for any of them until they can prove they can perform under pressure. Allen's proving it, but the rest of them are just show horses so far.

Funny how playing a key role for a winning basketball team sheds a whole new light on the player evaluation process.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Andre Igoudala...


 That's a nice one. Why does Philly do it? Kirk alone won't get it done.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I've read the name Larry Hughes thrown around, allegedly he is a better defender than Kirk or at least as good.
> 
> http://82games.com/0405WAS5.HTM
> 
> ...


Team defense plays a huge role in those numbers, as does Washington's pace on offense. Totally different situation. 

The stats *also* show that Hughes outproduces his counterpart by 4.1 PER. Hinrich only does by 2.2. Hughes also has a positive +/-. 7.2 versus -1.1. Hughes has a PER of about 21. Hinrich of 15. 

It's not even close.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't know about trading Kirk. Ben's lack of overall skill outside of scoring is not very pleasing. It kind of cripples the idea of trading Kirk. Dwyane Wade is my obvious choice, I wanted him on draft day at all costs, and the cost was D-Marshall and Paxson wouldn't take it for whatever reason. Andre Iguodala is a guy that fits the mold. Maybe trade Ben for him. Kirk-Iggy-Deng-Chandler that is 1-4 of our future that are great defensive players, and that at the 5 Curry is improving on defense. Ben might be the one that we end up trading, but Pax knew what he was getting into when he drafted Ben since the reason he drafted him was his great offense.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> If Ben can't play PG then he can't start in the NBA. Pargo and Duhon can handle point guard duties fine. But if it really bothers you, sign Dan Dickau to the MLE this summer.


You are the one who has him listed as a starter, not me. Pargo?

Kirk has proven to be an elite SG defender in the NBA, so we are going to trade him so Pargo can play? I don't think so.

And if you can't see that Ben is nowhere near being a PG yet.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Team defense plays a huge role in those numbers, as does Washington's pace on offense. Totally different situation.
> 
> The stats *also* show that Hughes outproduces his counterpart by 4.1 PER. Hinrich only does by 2.2. Hughes also has a positive +/-. 7.2 versus -1.1. Hughes has a PER of about 21. Hinrich of 15.
> 
> It's not even close.


Good points, and facts. 

Hughes also missed a bunch of games this season where the Wizards absolutely struggled w/o him.

When Kirk missed games.......

I would trade Kirk for Hughes in a heartbeat. And I think most Bulls fans will do so as well. Hughes is a special talent. I'm amazed by him almost every time I watch a Wizards game.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Kismet said:


> Wow! With the exception of Tony Allen, the rest of your list is comprised of losers. No doubt they're all talented...but Pietrus, Maggette, Richardson and Diaw have spent their entire pro careers playing for big time losing teams. No way I give up Hinrich for any of them until they can prove they can perform under pressure. Allen's proving it, but the rest of them are just show horses so far.
> 
> Funny how playing a key role for a winning basketball team sheds a whole new light on the player evaluation process.


Coming into this season Kirk was a part of a bigger loser than any of these guys except Diaw. Pietrus and Diaw have championship experience in europe. And Pietrus definitely has that burning desire to win. If you want to wait until next year when the Warriors don't suck and Pietrus is a major part of that--then be my guest.

I'm trying to get ahead of the trend here before Pietrus gets to an Igdoula level where we won't be able to get him.

You're going to give something up no who you trade Kirk for. But the point is we are trading him to address more pressing needs. Right now having Gordon, Hinrich, Duhon, Pargo--is a luxury. If you want to go with Hinrich and Gordon fine. But if you are worried about Hinrich not being big enough to defend twos without breaking down everyear--then these are deals you have to look at.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Wait, so Kirk Hinrich is an elite NBA shooting guard. Up there with Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson, and _Jamal Crawford_


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

SPMJ said:


> Good points, and facts.
> 
> Hughes also missed a bunch of games this season where the Wizards absolutely struggled w/o him.
> 
> ...


I don't watch the Wizards, but how much does Hughes need Arenas to function? If we trade our leader, we want another one back. Could he do it? He certainly had trouble with that at Philly and GS, no?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

We need a 6'6+ defender who can handle the ball 20+ minutes per game and keep defenses out on the perimeter for Gordon to go to work. We *need* all of these, because that is what we're getting right now from Hinrich, but since he is 6'4, we need a bigger guard who also does all of those things apparently. 



futuristxen said:


> If Ben can't play PG then he can't start in the NBA.


Wrong. He can play shooting guard and guard the point guard. Why? because Hinrich can play the point guard and guard the shooting guard.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

bullsville said:


> You are the one who has him listed as a starter, not me. Pargo?
> 
> Kirk has proven to be an elite SG defender in the NBA, so we are going to trade him so Pargo can play? I don't think so.
> 
> And if you can't see that Ben is nowhere near being a PG yet.


I'm saying, what's the point of having Ben if you aren't going to start him at point guard? Maybe we should trade Ben for our shooting guard.

Maybe trade Gordon for J-Rich?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Team defense plays a huge role in those numbers, as does Washington's pace on offense. Totally different situation.
> 
> The stats *also* show that Hughes outproduces his counterpart by 4.1 PER. Hinrich only does by 2.2. Hughes also has a positive +/-. 7.2 versus -1.1. Hughes has a PER of about 21. Hinrich of 15.
> 
> It's not even close.


Agreed that team defense plays a huge role. So does Hughes constantly gambling for steals and leaving his man wide open.

But our team defense is #1, so why bother if that's your philosophy?

So why are we trading Kirk again? He is an outstanding defenders of SG right now. I thought the point of this was to find a better defender of SG?

Hughes puts up better numbers on offense than Kirk. But his defense is not good, that's why he's a good fit on the no-defense Wizards and he wouldn't be a good fit on the #1 defense-Bulls. 

I can't wait until the playoffs, then Bulls fans who don't watch the Wiz can see that Hughes is NOT a very good defender most of the time. He's outstanding at gambling and getting steals, but he leaves his man wide open so often that they shoot almost 50% on eFG%. 

I can't wait to see him try to "cover" Ben in the playoffs in the 4th quarter. Then people will see what I am talking about.

(That last part wasn't directed at you personall, rwj333, but at people in general who don't have League Pass or don't watch many Wiz games and just see that he leads the league in steals).


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Wrong. He can play shooting guard and guard the point guard. Why? because Hinrich can play the point guard and guard the shooting guard.


No. He can't. That's the point. Hinrich is not strong enough to stand up to the task of guarding shooting guards every year every game for the rest of his career. Unless he bulks up a lot.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> No. He can't. That's the point. Hinrich is not strong enough to stand up to the task of guarding shooting guards every year every game for the rest of his career. Unless he bulks up a lot.



Huh? Really? I don't know what makes you say that?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah, I don't know why anyone would have so much more faith in a guy whos been playing under 20 minutes per game his career, to come in and defend the shooting guard position for 35+ minutes per game.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> I don't watch the Wizards, but how much does Hughes need Arenas to function? If we trade our leader, we want another one back. Could he do it? He certainly had trouble with that at Philly and GS, no?


Philly and GS were just plain bad teams, like us last year.

Hughes' game isn't really depended on his teammates. He produces at a high level because he's a quality player. He's been putting up the numbers his entire career, so I think he'll be just fine w/o Arenas. I love how he's only 26 and still improving despite being in the league for 8 years. Wizards' play w/o him is a testament to his value and what he brought to them. As far as "leadership" goes, Bulls don't really have a clear cut "leader" either as far as the players go. Skiles IMO is the undisputed leader of the team. Hughes and the Bulls would do fine under his guide. 

Hughes is definitely that SG i would trade Kirk for in a heartbeat.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yeah, I don't know why anyone would have so much more faith in a guy whos been playing under 20 minutes per game his career, to come in and defend the shooting guard position for 35+ minutes per game.


Well, Kirk has missed 4 games in a row with a bad hammy.

I guess that means that Eddy can't stand up to the physical rigors of guarding centers all game all season long either, eh?


----------



## Buford T. (Mar 8, 2005)

sp00k said:


> Bingo. Who's comfortable having Duhon play the point for 32+ mpg for 82 games with Pargo backing him up? Any Kirk trade needs to bring us back a big, scoring, defensive combo guard that can effectively run the point in return.


This is right on. I am hopeful in that I haven't read to this point that anyone wants Gordon to become starting PG. Getting a player who is strictly a SG, who won't be able to slide to PG, makes no sense as this burly SG will be fighting for minutes with Gordon while we go long stretches with Duhon as our only real PG and we all know his limitations.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

SPMJ said:


> Hughes is definitely that SG i would trade Kirk for in a heartbeat.


Hughes is a really good player, I would probably trade Hinrich for him too if I could be sure he'd duplicate this season for the rest of his prime years. Hughes does a lot of the things Gordon does though, and would allow Hinrich to move back to point guard. I think a Hinrich/Hughes backcourt would be better than a Gordon/Hughes backcourt.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> I'm saying, what's the point of having Ben if you aren't going to start him at point guard? Maybe we should trade Ben for our shooting guard.
> 
> Maybe trade Gordon for J-Rich?


The point of having Ben is that he is a great, great scorer with ice-water in his veins who is one of the best 4th-quarter scorers in the league. And he will someday develop into a decent back-up PG, just like he was at UConn.

Who cares if he starts at PG? If he could defend PGs like Duhon, he could start at SG with Hinrich at PG. That will probably happen in the future, but right now it just isn't pratical.

I have no interest in J-Rich, I want players who can defend, and thank God so do Paxson and Skiles.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Agreed that team defense plays a huge role. So does Hughes constantly gambling for steals and leaving his man wide open.
> 
> But our team defense is #1, so why bother if that's your philosophy?
> 
> ...


I have to disagree I've seen every Wiz game and your right in that Hughes isn't consistently a great defender, sometimes he lets up. BUT, Larry can lock down when he wants too. He's a ballhawk, puts more pressure on the player with the ball than maybe any other guard in the league. At the beginning of the year I thought his steals were from gambling, but he gets them in crucial moments of the game just from playing his man straight up. He's a game changer defensively, one of the few offensive guards who can change the game on the defensive end. 

He's definetly a better defender than Hinrich, both on the ball and off the ball. I think anyone in the league would say that, the reason is because he can shut down PGs and SGs. Defensive stats can be misleading due to Washingtons overall team defense being and and them playing a style that gives up lots of points, but don't get confused, Larry Hughes has shut down guys like Kobe Bryant, Ray Allen, Tracy Mcgrady, Richard Jefferson, and Rip Hamilton. He's not one of those guys who gets steals by gambling, that's Arenas not Hughes. He gets alot of them just by playing man to man defense, he's more skilled at it than anyone I have ever seen, just uses his quick hands and seems to know what the ball handler is going to do before he does it. He has a very long wingspan and the quickness to guard PGs and SGs, you'll see him giving a guy like Gordon FITS in the playoffs. If your turnover prone or have shaky handles your in big trouble if Larry is guarding you. Larry can definetly be the defensive SG on a championship team. 

The fact that he's going to make an All-NBA defensive team this year should tell you that he's a great defender, but your opinion is your opinion. In the playoffs I think everyone will see it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> No. He can't. That's the point. Hinrich is not strong enough to stand up to the task of guarding shooting guards every year every game for the rest of his career. Unless he bulks up a lot.



I disagree 100%. 


I really think what we should be focusing on is getting a backup 2 guard who can defend. Our problem is that the guys playing backup 2 minutes are BG, Pargo, Polish Rifle, etc. We need a guy for the backup 2 minutes when Kirk is out and someone to play next to him when he's at the 1. BG plays the 2 on offense and you'd want this backup to be able to play next to him, so he's got to have good handles and be able to run the offense. I don't want to see a replacement for Kirk or Ben right now. I would be willing to consider letting Duhon walk if it means being able to bring in whoever this person is (Jaric or whatever). I don't think there are adequate minutes for Duhon/Kirk/BG/new 2 guard unless Duhon is going to take a sharply reduced role or we run a lot of 3 guard lineups.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Shanghai Kid said:


> I have to disagree I've seen every Wiz game and your right in that Hughes isn't consistently a great defender, sometimes he lets up. BUT, Larry can lock down when he wants too. He's a ballhawk, puts more pressure on the player with the ball than maybe any other guard in the league. At the beginning of the year I thought his steals were from gambling, but he gets them in crucial moments of the game just from playing his man straight up. He's a game changer defensively, one of the few offensive guards who can change the game on the defensive end.
> 
> He's definetly a better defender than Hinrich, both on the ball and off the ball. I think anyone in the league would say that, the reason is because he can shut down PGs and SGs. Defensive stats can be misleading due to Washingtons overall team defense being and and them playing a style that gives up lots of points, but don't get confused, Larry Hughes has shut down guys like Kobe Bryant, Ray Allen, Tracy Mcgrady, Richard Jefferson, and Rip Hamilton. He's not one of those guys who gets steals by gambling, that's Arenas not Hughes. He gets alot of them just by playing man to man defense, he's more skilled at it than anyone I have ever seen, just uses his quick hands and seems to know what the ball handler is going to do before he does it. He has a very long wingspan and the quickness to guard PGs and SGs, you'll see him giving a guy like Gordon FITS in the playoffs. If your turnover prone or have shaky handles your in big trouble if Larry is guarding you. Larry can definetly be the defensive SG on a championship team.
> 
> The fact that he's going to make an All-NBA defensive team this year should tell you that he's a great defender, but your opinion is your opinion. In the playoffs I think everyone will see it.


 Shanghai, what do you think the Wizards would want in return for Hughes if we were to make a trade for him? Is it even possible given how much he means to your team?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Wow! With the exception of Tony Allen, the rest of your list is comprised of losers. No doubt they're all talented...but Pietrus, Maggette, Richardson and Diaw have spent their entire pro careers playing for big time losing teams. No way I give up Hinrich for any of them until they can prove they can perform under pressure. Allen's proving it, but the rest of them are just show horses so far.
> 
> Funny how playing a key role for a winning basketball team sheds a whole new light on the player evaluation process.


What a ridiculous argument. Put Pietrus, Maggette, or Richardson on this Bulls team and they would be playing for a "winner" right now. Seriously, if Hinrich were out for the season, and we somehow got Maggette or Pietrus to take his place, you actually believe the Bulls would become "a losing team?"

This is almost as bad as your campaigning for Paxson to include Shandon Anderson as part of the Crawford / Knicks deal.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> Hughes' game isn't really depended on his teammates. He produces at a high level because he's a quality player. He's been putting up the numbers his entire career, so I think he'll be just fine w/o Arenas. I love how he's only 26 and still improving despite being in the league for 8 years. Wizards' play w/o him is a testament to his value and what he brought to them. As far as "leadership" goes, Bulls don't really have a clear cut "leader" either as far as the players go. Skiles IMO is the undisputed leader of the team. Hughes and the Bulls would do fine under his guide.


Your half right and half wrong, Hughes has improved nearly every year of his career, but he does depend on his teammates alot. Not saying he would be bad on another team, but he has to be #2 or #3 option so that he can focus on his all around skills. If you put him in a posistion to be a #1 option he becomes a shot jacker and his all around game doesn't stick out. Arenas and Jamison take alot of attention away from Larry and allow him to just go out and do his all around game every night. 

Washington wouldn't trade Hughes for just Kirk though, their is a difference in talent there.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I really think what we should be focusing on is getting a backup 2 guard who can defend. Our problem is that the guys playing backup 2 minutes are BG, Pargo, Polish Rifle, etc. We need a guy for the backup 2 minutes when Kirk is out and someone to play next to him when he's at the 1. BG plays the 2 on offense and you'd want this backup to be able to play next to him, so he's got to have good handles and be able to run the offense. I don't want to see a replacement for Kirk or Ben right now. I would be willing to consider letting Duhon walk if it means being able to bring in whoever this person is (Jaric or whatever). I don't think there are adequate minutes for Duhon/Kirk/BG/new 2 guard unless Duhon is going to take a sharply reduced role or we run a lot of 3 guard lineups.


Great point, this is what I've been getting at. We don't need to trade our most valuable player to bring in some of these guys as a backup, and a lot of these guys just don't do as many things as Hinrich, so we'd become a worse team with the trade. Bringing in a backup shooting guard who can defend is what we need, just as a rotation player. I think this is what Paxson is thinking also.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Shanghai, what do you think the Wizards would want in return for Hughes if we were to make a trade for him? Is it even possible given how much he means to your team?


It is possible, but I don't see it happening unless he demands some outrageous amount of money. Washington would definetly NOT give him the max, or even close to that. 

I don't know what they would want in return, but to be honest it'd have to be more than just Kirk. Depends on how the rest of the season plays out. If Hughes makes an All-NBA defensive team like I think he will, and than has a good playoff showing, he'll be pretty damn valuable this summer, and he may make himself the best free agent on the market, which means Washington would get better offers than just Kirk.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Shanghai Kid said:


> It is possible, but I don't see it happening unless he demands some outrageous amount of money. Washington would definetly NOT give him the max, or even close to that.
> 
> I don't know what they would want in return, but to be honest it'd have to be more than just Kirk. Depends on how the rest of the season plays out. If Hughes makes an All-NBA defensive team like I think he will, and than has a good playoff showing, he'll be pretty damn valuable this summer, and he may make himself the best free agent on the market, which means Washington would get better offers than just Kirk.


 Exactly what I was thinking. Does Gordon for Hughes get it done, or in your objective opinion laugh do you think that would be overpaying?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Team defense plays a huge role in those numbers, as does Washington's pace on offense. Totally different situation.
> 
> The stats *also* show that Hughes outproduces his counterpart by 4.1 PER. Hinrich only does by 2.2. Hughes also has a positive +/-. 7.2 versus -1.1. Hughes has a PER of about 21. Hinrich of 15.
> 
> It's not even close.


Umm, doesn't team *offense* have something to do with Hughes' numbers, as does the pace of Chicago's offense? Totally different situation.

Hughes eFG% is .451
Hinrich eFG% is .451


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Shanghai Kid said:


> Not saying he would be bad on another team, but he has to be #2 or #3 option so that he can focus on his all around skills. If you put him in a posistion to be a #1 option he becomes a shot jacker and his all around game doesn't stick out. Arenas and Jamison take alot of attention away from Larry and allow him to just go out and do his all around game every night.


He will play a similar role here as well. EC will be the main guy, and BG should take plenty of pressure off Hughes for him to be Pippen-esque on the court. 



> Washington wouldn't trade Hughes for just Kirk though, their is a difference in talent there.


I know


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Umm, doesn't team *offense* have something to do with Hughes' numbers, as does the pace of Chicago's offense? Totally different situation.
> 
> Hughes eFG% is .451
> Hinrich eFG% is .451


Larry Hughes is much better at the driving and finishing in the lane. They're comparable shooters though. When Hughes came into the league he couldn't shoot at all. Hinrich is probably a better pure shooter.

I don't there's that huge of a gap in talent. Kirk is a bit younger and will improve. He has a better shooting stroke, at least. Hughes also has Arenas beside him, drawing attention. But I do think Hughes is better. And I do feel that those 2 extra inches make a difference, though you might be right about Kirk being the better defender. The gap will close in the coming years.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Exactly what I was thinking. Does Gordon for Hughes get it done, or in your objective opinion laugh do you think that would be overpaying?


Naw I doubt it, Gordon is probably too similar to Arenas to have them both in the backcourt. You guys are better of keeping Gordon and trading Kirk for an SG who can handle the ball. Alot of teams will be interested in Hughes so that seems unlikely, but Kirk will have a good enough demand on the open market to get a decent starting SG. Hughes will probably either stay in Washington or go to Cleveland to try to be Lebron's Pippen.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Shanghai Kid said:


> I have to disagree I've seen every Wiz game and your right in that Hughes isn't consistently a great defender, sometimes he lets up. BUT, Larry can lock down when he wants too. He's a ballhawk, puts more pressure on the player with the ball than maybe any other guard in the league. At the beginning of the year I thought his steals were from gambling, but he gets them in crucial moments of the game just from playing his man straight up. He's a game changer defensively, one of the few offensive guards who can change the game on the defensive end.
> 
> He's definetly a better defender than Hinrich, both on the ball and off the ball. I think anyone in the league would say that, the reason is because he can shut down PGs and SGs. Defensive stats can be misleading due to Washingtons overall team defense being and and them playing a style that gives up lots of points, but don't get confused, Larry Hughes has shut down guys like Kobe Bryant, Ray Allen, Tracy Mcgrady, Richard Jefferson, and Rip Hamilton. He's not one of those guys who gets steals by gambling, that's Arenas not Hughes. He gets alot of them just by playing man to man defense, he's more skilled at it than anyone I have ever seen, just uses his quick hands and seems to know what the ball handler is going to do before he does it. He has a very long wingspan and the quickness to guard PGs and SGs, you'll see him giving a guy like Gordon FITS in the playoffs. If your turnover prone or have shaky handles your in big trouble if Larry is guarding you. Larry can definetly be the defensive SG on a championship team.
> 
> The fact that he's going to make an All-NBA defensive team this year should tell you that he's a great defender, but your opinion is your opinion. In the playoffs I think everyone will see it.


You have seen a lot more of Hughes than I have, so I really can't argue your evaluation. The last I really watched of the Wiz was the end of the Seattle game (I don't count Portland they are barely an NBA team right now), and Hughes made a great play on Allen to strip him on the final shot and win the game.

But I also saw him make a stupid reach-in foul on Allen when Arenas was right there to have his back, and he or Arenas (GA I think) one made a real bad reach-in on Allen when he was 40 feet from the basket facing the other way with the Wiz trying to hold on to a late lead.

I was way off on the Wiz, I didn't think they would be able to overcome their defensive and rebounding weaknesses to be where they are now. 

Like you, I am anxiously awaiting the playoffs as it looks like we will be matching up in the first round. I still believe that the Wiz' lack of defense and rebounding will be their downfall in the playoffs, but I have been thinking that all year so I could certainly be wrong.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Well guys, not that Shanghai Kid has final say in the Hughes negotiations, but I think it's probably fair to say that Hughes is out of the equation. What other big PG/combo guards are out there that can play Skiles defense? Jamal Crawford? :laugh:

The Bulls are better off keeping their backcourt intact or trading Gordon off for a Maggs type. OR we see if Skiles can develop some sets where the SF (Deng) initiates the offense, go after Simmons with the full MLE and say goodbye to Duhon. How's that for thinking outside the box?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Well guys, not that Shanghai Kid has final say in the Hughes negotiations, but I think it's probably fair to say that Hughes is out of the equation. What other big PG/combo guards are out there that can play Skiles defense? Jamal Crawford? :laugh:
> 
> The Bulls are better off keeping their backcourt intact or trading Gordon off for a Maggs type. OR we see if Skiles can develop some sets where the SF (Deng) initiates the offense, go after Simmons with the full MLE and say goodbye to Duhon. How's that for thinking outside the box?


It's too late to do anything about it now, but we would be a much more balanced team with Iguodala. He can play PG, SG, or SF, handles the ball well, and is a great passer. He could play the point with Ben easily. He's also an amazing defender.

Though Luol will be the better overall player, I half-wish we had gotten Iggy with that pick. In hindsight.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Mickael Pietrus can't shoot, can't handle the ball, and plays under 20 minutes per game. We have to replace a guy who plays 35+ minutes per game.


I'm with futuristxen and I'll make my case for Pietrus again here.

That was true last year. He's improved quite a bit since then. He can shoot and his shot selection is getting better. He attacks the rim very well and finishes (a dimension this team's backcourt could use more of, IMO). He can handle the ball OK, but not as a PG.

I'm not sure we'd HAVE to give up Hinrich or Gordon to get our hands on Pietrus, so the "I don't trust him to play 35+minutes at SG" concern might be moot. If GS extends Dunleavy, Pietrus becomes a luxury, plus they've brought in Rodney White and Skita, who can play some minutes at the 3, and they like using a 3 guard offense with Baron, Fisher, and JRich. That doesn't leave a ton of time for Pietrus. 

That said, I don't know what we have that GS would want. If they don't keep White and Skita around, they could be interested in Noc as MDJr's backup and a sparkplug off the bench. Noc plus a future first? That's getting a little closer, but probably still not quite enough.

Pietrus isn't the deity that our absent, strongly opinionated friend made him out to be, but he's a really good defender and his offense has improved tenfold since last year. He could take Noc's backup minutes at the 3 and get some minutes at the 2 beside Kirk or Duhon (if he stays), and have a very big role on the team, and take a LOT of pressure off Kirk (and Deng) to guard the Lebrons and McGradys of the world. A lineup with Kirk, Pietrus, Deng, and Chandler would be fierce on defense and solid on offense, especially if Curry's in there too. And we'd still have Gordon to provide scoring. Not too shabby.

This is all assuming that we don't lose any of our backcourt pieces. If we do (especially Kirk), then he becomes less of a perfect fit.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Larry Hughes is much better at the driving and finishing in the lane. They're comparable shooters though. When Hughes came into the league he couldn't shoot at all. Hinrich is probably a better pure shooter.
> 
> I don't there's that huge of a gap in talent. Kirk is a bit younger and will improve. He has a better shooting stroke, at least. Hughes also has Arenas beside him, drawing attention. But I do think Hughes is better. And I do feel that those 2 extra inches make a difference, though you might be right about Kirk being the better defender. The gap will close in the coming years.


Hughes is much better at finishing in traffic and drawing fouls, he gets to the line a lot more than Hinrich. Hinrich is no doubt the better long-range shooter, although from what I've seen Hughes has improved his mid-range game this season.

I don't think there is a huge difference, and Kirk is still 2 years younger. I would stick with Kirk just because I see no reason to make a change unless it's a big improvement for the long term. IMO Kirk will eventuall be as effective as Hughes on offense once he gets some more experience.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

A first and Noc for Pietrus gets my blessing. Resign Duhon and Pietrus gets backup minutes at the 2 and 3. I'm not thrilled to lose Noc, but once Deng is playing 30+ mpg Noc becomes expendable. 

Hell, I think I'd give up two (lotto protected) first rounders for Pietrus.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

bullsville said:


> You have seen a lot more of Hughes than I have, so I really can't argue your evaluation. The last I really watched of the Wiz was the end of the Seattle game (I don't count Portland they are barely an NBA team right now), and Hughes made a great play on Allen to strip him on the final shot and win the game.
> 
> But I also saw him make a stupid reach-in foul on Allen when Arenas was right there to have his back, and he or Arenas (GA I think) one made a real bad reach-in on Allen when he was 40 feet from the basket facing the other way with the Wiz trying to hold on to a late lead.
> 
> ...



Yeah I know what your talking about with the stupid reach in from Seattle game, the 2nd time was GA but the first time Hughes was being over aggressive. Larry's D is inconsistent, it's not great every night, sometimes he won't take a guy like Andre Miller serious and get burned, but the point is he can be a lockdown defender when he wants to be. Whenever he plays a good SG he seems to take it personal and just goes at em. I remember some Miami fans saying after a Miami/Wiz game this year that Hughes was playing Wade defensively better than anyone they had seen. 

It will be a good playoff series, Hughes had 6 steals the only time he played Chicago this season, I think he'll really put pressure on Gordon and Duhon. The rebounding is what I'm worried about, Chandler looks like Wilt Chamberlin when he plays the Wiz.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm with futuristxen and I'll make my case for Pietrus again here.


So you would trust Pietrus to step into a starting role playing 30-35 minutes per game? I wouldn't. If we didn't have to give up Hinrich or Gordon, then I would happily welcome Pietrus, because he'd be a rotation player who would be stepping into a 20-25 minutes per game role. That's something he is familiar with and would help our team quite a bit.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So you would trust Pietrus to step into a starting role playing 30-35 minutes per game? I wouldn't. If we didn't have to give up Hinrich or Gordon, then I would happily welcome Pietrus, because he'd be a rotation player who would be stepping into a 20-25 minutes per game role. That's something he is familiar with and would help our team quite a bit.


 His argument is that we don't need to give up Kirk or Ben for Pietrus.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

sp00k said:


> A first and Noc for Pietrus gets my blessing. Resign Duhon and Pietrus gets backup minutes at the 2 and 3. I'm not thrilled to lose Noc, but once Deng is playing 30+ mpg Noc becomes expendable.
> 
> Hell, I think I'd give up two (lotto protected) first rounders for Pietrus.


I think it's probably wishful thinking. I mean, I think if GS commits to MDjr, they'll definitely be willing to deal Pietrus, but they can probably get a better deal than that. I just thought it could be a starting point for a deal that doesn't disrupt the core (other than Noc). We might, as you suggest, need to give up TWO future firsts to get it done. I think I'd do it too, seeing how young we already are, and the fact that we should be able to add either two MLE players or one above-MLE player (in 06, if we hold onto our projected cap room) in the next couple years via FA.

It's just an interesting thought in that it's at least remotely possible to bring in a player that addresses our needs there without giving up one of our prized pieces - and that would make us a scarily versatile team IMO.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

sp00k said:


> His argument is that we don't need to give up Kirk or Ben for Pietrus.


Is it? He mentioned that we might not have to give up Hinrich to get him, but I got the feeling he is high on Pietrus either way though, and would be willing to part with Hinrich to get him. Maybe I'm wrong though.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So you would trust Pietrus to step into a starting role playing 30-35 minutes per game? I wouldn't. If we didn't have to give up Hinrich or Gordon, then I would happily welcome Pietrus, because he'd be a rotation player who would be stepping into a 20-25 minutes per game role. That's something he is familiar with and would help our team quite a bit.


Depending on what GS does in the near future with Dunleavy and some of the other young enigmas they've piled up, his price tag might not require us to give up Kirk or Gordon. MIGHT not. If that's the case, he'd fit our team like a glove as a backup 2/3 and come in to slow down the big SGs we're so scared of, which would free up Kirk and Deng to do other things, and allow Kirk to get a little more rest.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Is it? He mentioned that we might not have to give up Hinrich to get him, but I got the feeling he is high on Pietrus either way though, and would be willing to part with Hinrich to get him. Maybe I'm wrong though.


I wouldn't give up Kirk for Pietrus straight up. If it's part of a bigger deal that works well for us, I'd give it some thought. The attractive element of Pietrus is adding the big guard we need without giving up Kirk or Ben. Not sure we could, but it's at least possible, unlike with guys like Maggette and Hughes.

edit: this is what I said at the end of my first post:


> This is all assuming that we don't lose any of our backcourt pieces. If we do (especially Kirk), then he becomes less of a perfect fit.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I wouldn't give up Kirk for Pietrus straight up. If it's part of a bigger deal that works well for us, I'd give it some thought. The attractive element of Pietrus is adding the big guard we need without giving up Kirk or Ben. Not sure we could, but it's at least possible, unlike with guys like Maggette and Hughes.


Adding a big guard to our rotation is what we need to do, and this is what Paxson is thinking also I think. I just don't understand the obsession on this site with wanting to take one of our starting guards who plays 37 minutes and trade them for a rotation player who doesn't do nearly as many things on the court.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

been thinking about ways to do a S&T for Joe Johnson. Problem is, AD makes so damn much money

Phoenix, despite the public statements that they would match any offers to keep him, is looking for money to pay Amare, and avoid the Lux tax. If they could get talent, and an expiring contract, i'll bet they would think about the deal........although it would probably be Ben Gordon instead of Kirk they'd be interested in

Joe Johnson 6'7:
-Team player
-defender 
-PG skills
-Shooter/scorer

and if the Suns get into trouble in the playoffs because they had difficulty with post defense? Thats where AD and his expiring contract comes in

fly in the ointment: The Suns don't really have money to match up with ADs bloated final year (what is it like 12 mil?)

if its a three way deal, or something creative, this would be my dream deal. especially if we got our 1st rounder back


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Adding a big guard to our rotation is what we need to do, and this is what Paxson is thinking also I think. I just don't understand the obsession on this site with wanting to take one of our starting guards who plays 37 minutes and trade them for a rotation player who doesn't do nearly as many things on the court.


I'm not one of those people. I have no interest in trading Kirk to fill that role. Kirk ALREADY fills that role better than I would have guessed. I mean, if we can trade him and get a total stud out of the deal, then OK. Otherwise, I'd rather explore ways to add a solid player to complement and add to what we already have. There's a chance we could add Pietrus without losing anyojne more important than Noc and draft picks we don't need that much anymore. There's also a chance we could get a decent player like Raja Bell with a chunk of our MLE money. I like those ideas.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If Gordon is the problem, perhaps we should trade him?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> If Gordon is the problem, perhaps we should trade him?


That's a judgement call, he brings a certain scoring dominance from the guard position that you love to have. But he will always force us to find unique and rare type guards to pair with him in the backcourt, if we're to keep him. Since we have Hinrich, I think keeping Gordon is a good idea.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

If you want a defensive minded guard that can score but wanders away from the offense and does his own thing alot get Pietrus.

If you want a combo guard who can play defense when he wants, can finish and score and play a bit of point get Hughes. (Him going for steals is because the whole team flies around the ball.) Hinrich will get some votes for defensive teams and I contend that Kirk is just as good a defender if not better than Larry. I'm not underrating Larry, I think Kirk is too underrated for his defense. I don't understand why you would bring Larry in here if Kirk brings about the same thing to the team unless we have a desperate need to have a finisher at the rim, something Curry already provides.

I don't know too much about joe Johnson other than he's tall and shoots alot. (but then so does the whole team)


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

sloth said:


> If Gordon is the problem, perhaps we should trade him?


You don't trade pure shooters like him just like that. He can breakdown the majority of the guards in the game. He's deadly outside and inside and he's on the cheap for a while.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> If you want a defensive minded guard that can score but wanders away from the offense and does his own thing alot get Pietrus.
> 
> If you want a combo guard who can play defense when he wants, can finish and score and play a bit of point get Hughes. (Him going for steals is because the whole team flies around the ball.) Hinrich will get some votes for defensive teams and I contend that Kirk is just as good a defender if not better than Larry. I'm not underrating Larry, I think Kirk is too underrated for his defense. I don't understand why you would bring Larry in here if Kirk brings about the same thing to the team unless we have a desperate need to have a finisher at the rim, something Curry already provides.
> 
> I don't know too much about joe Johnson other than he's tall and shoots alot. (but then so does the whole team)


Pithy comments that express pretty well, in contrast to these other players, why Kirk is actually pretty irreplaceable on the Bulls. Paxson DID say that he was building the team around Kirk. I guess the 4-0 streak says something about Kirk not doing any one thing at superstar level. But I think Skiles' assessment, "he's the engine that makes things go," is about right.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's a judgement call, he brings a certain scoring dominance from the guard position that you love to have. But he will always force us to find unique and rare type guards to pair with him in the backcourt, if we're to keep him. Since we have Hinrich, I think keeping Gordon is a good idea.


I think Paxson has a back up plan if a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt doesn't work, and that's free agency 2006. If Gordon, because of his height, is limited to being a bench player, they could have cap space to fill the SG spot. We also have AD and Pike's expiring deals. You would hate to trade Gordon because there aren't that many players with his ability in clutch situations.

The simple fact seems to be that Gordon will eventually start, and a Duhon-Gordon won't cut it. Another fact is at the moment, and likely next season as well, Gordon can't play PG. 

While many of us dream of having a 6'6" PG who is an incredible defender to pair with Gordon, there aren't many of those guards around. Joe Johnson could probably do it. Iggy could eventually become that type of player. Marquis Daniels maybe could as well. Shaun Livingston could be ideal in 2 years. Larry Hughes was tried at PG when Doug Collins coached in Washington and it didn't work that well.

But we have Hinrich, and he is better suited to the role of guarding SG than probably 90% of starting PGs. Also, none of the guys mentioned above (with the exception of Livingston) are really PGs, and will likely not having the playmaking ability Hinrich has. Many here say he guards SGs better than PGs, with can allow Gordon to guard PG, which is where he'll be most effective.

Just keep Hinrich and Gordon and see how it goes.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Benny the Bull said:


> I think Paxson has a back up plan if a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt doesn't work, and that's free agency 2006. If Gordon, because of his height, is limited to being a bench player, they could have cap space to fill the SG spot. We also have AD and Pike's expiring deals. You would hate to trade Gordon because there aren't that many players with his ability in clutch situations.
> 
> The simple fact seems to be that Gordon will eventually start, and a Duhon-Gordon won't cut it. Another fact is at the moment, and likely next season as well, Gordon can't play PG.
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Pietrus shoots better than Hinrich lol. The only reason he plays less than 20 minutes per game is because J-Rich has been a monster this year. When Pietrus has played he has looked damned impressive. Ball-handling...who cares. He's our SG. Duhon handles the ball fine.
> 
> Some more names:
> Marquis Daniels
> Josh Howard


You're whack with your other suugestions, but at least the mention of Daniels ans Howard describe somewhat what we're looking for. I'm sure Dallas would love to have Kirk, but I know that they're enamored with both Howard and Daniels. But is Daniels worth the money they're paying him with the minutels they're giving him?

Has anyone mentioned Joe Johnson? What's his deal?

EDIT: Oh, sorry Fleet!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Bingo. Who's comfortable having Duhon play the point for 32+ mpg for 82 games with Pargo backing him up?


We would have to pick up a Brunson type in FA to back up Duhon.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

well i'd like to see how hinrich at the 1 and bg at the 2 on offense would work on a regular basis. let hinrich be the set up man for curry and ben and he can still score as the third option. on defense kh gets the sg's (which i think he could handle as he no longer has to carry the offense).

that said this situation and all this talk reminds me of...


1987-88:
Because Cage played in only 72 games and Oakley played in all 82 contests, Oakley finished as the league leader in total rebounds (1,066) for the second straight year. He also averaged 12.4 points-second on the Bulls to Michael Jordan's 35.0-and shot .483 from the field

1988-89:
In a blockbuster trade on the eve of the 1988 NBA Draft, the Chicago Bulls sent Oakley and draft choices to the New York Knicks for Bill Cartwright and draft choices. Chicago wanted to make room for second-year forward Horace Grant on its front line, and the Knicks needed a reliable power forward to play alongside Patrick Ewing.  

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/charles_oakley/bio.html

and krause did this despite oak's popularity with mj.

so i guess anything is possible


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Wow! With the exception of Tony Allen, the rest of your list is comprised of losers. No doubt they're all talented...but Pietrus, Maggette, Richardson and Diaw have spent their entire pro careers playing for big time losing teams. No way I give up Hinrich for any of them until they can prove they can perform under pressure. Allen's proving it, but the rest of them are just show horses so far.
> 
> Funny how playing a key role for a winning basketball team sheds a whole new light on the player evaluation process.


Hinrich was a loser as well before Curry lost weight, Chandler got healthy, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni and Gordon were on the team.

Now that he's out, the team does not miss much of a beat. 4-0.

What makes him such a winner?

What makes him the key factor to the turnaround?

Especially since we had a noticeable drop-off when Curry and Deng were injured.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Suffice to say... just like last week... Larry Hughes would be my pick.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> No. He can't. That's the point. Hinrich is not strong enough to stand up to the task of guarding shooting guards every year every game for the rest of his career. Unless he bulks up a lot.


This is a great point. Even before this extended injury there have been stretches of games where Hinrich just seems "worn out." We've all seen it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Posters who have never played the game aren't going to understand leadership on the court and how important it is. People who have never coached the game aren't going to understand how important chemistry and basketball IQ are. People who have never been in the media aren't going to understand how broadcasts work. People who have never officiated aren't going to understand exactly how difficult it is to call a game. People who have never been a statistician aren't going to understand how to interpret the stats nearly as well as someone who has. 

_______________________________________

This may explain the differing opinions of Hinrich's game, and why some people don't think he is very valuable to the team.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is a great point. Even before this extended injury there have been stretches of games where Hinrich just seems "worn out." We've all seen it.


And yet, with Kirk as the acknowledged leader of the team, we are pretty damn good team in the final minutes of games, when he should be worn out.

It's funny, SG are less effective against the Bulls than all but a few teams in the league. SG are more effective against Detroit, more effective against Miami, and much, much, much more effective against Washington.

Strange how that could possibly be with a worn-out team leader down the stretch guarding SGs. And yet we still have the best FG% defense in the entire NBA.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Shanghai Kid said:


> It is possible, but I don't see it happening unless he demands some outrageous amount of money. Washington would definetly NOT give him the max, or even close to that.
> 
> I don't know what they would want in return, but to be honest it'd have to be more than just Kirk. Depends on how the rest of the season plays out. If Hughes makes an All-NBA defensive team like I think he will, and than has a good playoff showing, he'll be pretty damn valuable this summer, and he may make himself the best free agent on the market, which means Washington would get better offers than just Kirk.


My whole point behind mentioning Hughes in the first place, other than his clearly obvious skill and talent on both sides of the ball, is the contract status.

Perhaps Washington won't pay him a ton. We built up this cap space so we can land a stud. Why not land the stud now.... for next season? Pay the man, Jerry, if Washington won't. Sign and trade with Kirk and AD... we get Hughes back. Add whatever filler you want to make it work CBA wise?

Washington might prefer Kirk over nothing, yes? Other team may be willing to pay him as well of course.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> My whole point behind mentioning Hughes in the first place, other than his clearly obvious skill and talent on both sides of the ball, is the contract status.
> 
> Perhaps Washington won't pay him a ton. We built up this cap space so we can land a stud. Why not land the stud now.... for next season? Pay the man, Jerry, if Washington won't. Sign and trade with Kirk and AD... we get Hughes back. Add whatever filler you want to make it work CBA wise?
> 
> Washington might prefer Kirk over nothing, yes? Other team may be willing to pay him as well of course.


Since you won't ever give us an actual trade that actually would work under the CBA, how much are you willing to pay Hughes in this sign and trade?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

fleetwood macbull said:


> been thinking about ways to do a S&T for Joe Johnson. Problem is, AD makes so damn much money
> 
> Phoenix, despite the public statements that they would match any offers to keep him, is looking for money to pay Amare, and avoid the Lux tax. If they could get talent, and an expiring contract, i'll bet they would think about the deal........although it would probably be Ben Gordon instead of Kirk they'd be interested in
> 
> ...


Maybe it's just me but I think Joe Johnson is one of the more overrated players in the league. He's a good shooter and all but nowhere close to a #1 scoring option. His low FTA (2.4) per game indicates that he doesn't drive to the basket nearly enough. If you're giving up Ben Gordon (who has more potential to develop as a #1 option) or Kirk Hinrich (who is a better all around player) you should do better than Joe Johnson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Maybe it's just me but I think Joe Johnson is one of the more overrated players in the league. He's a good shooter and all but nowhere close to a #1 scoring option. His low FTA (2.4) per game indicates that he doesn't drive to the basket nearly enough. If you're giving up Ben Gordon (who has more potential to develop as a #1 option) or Kirk Hinrich (who is a better all around player) you should do better than Joe Johnson.


Agree 100%. I don't give up either for JJ.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich was a loser as well before Curry lost weight, Chandler got healthy, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni and Gordon were on the team.
> 
> Now that he's out, the team does not miss much of a beat. 4-0.
> 
> ...


very confusing words from someone who insists at certain _convenient_ moments that he really likes Kirk Hinrich. We believe it, yeah right

actually, this post was more in line with the original position that Kirk is no good. Why not stick with that instead of retreating to the phony position that Kirk is great when the opportunity presents?


this reminds me of the Kerry campaign









they say I'm a flip flopper.
No.
I'm just nuanced commensurate with the situtional dynamics of the discusion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> very confusing words from someone who insists at certain _convenient_ moments that he really likes Kirk Hinrich. We believe it, yeah right
> 
> actually, this post was more in line with the original position that Kirk is no good. Why not stick with that instead of retreating to the phony position that Kirk is great when the opportunity presents?
> 
> ...



Maybe, just maybe, there is a difference between liking Kirk Hinrich and thinking he's a solid basketball player and thinking he's the most important and undisputed reason behind an epic turnaround. 

I think he's just one of many. 

I know others feel differently.... but I also know others agree with me.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

fleetwood macbull said:


> very confusing words from someone who insists at certain _convenient_ moments that he really likes Kirk Hinrich. We believe it, yeah right
> 
> actually, this post was more in line with the original position that Kirk is no good. Why not stick with that instead of retreating to the phony position that Kirk is great when the opportunity presents?
> 
> ...


:clap: :worship:

I Love Kirk:scatter:I Hate Kirk



bullsville said:


> Posters who have never played the game aren't going to understand leadership on the court and how important it is. People who have never coached the game aren't going to understand how important chemistry and basketball IQ are.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Frankensteiner said:


> Maybe it's just me but I think Joe Johnson is one of the more overrated players in the league. He's a good shooter and all but nowhere close to a #1 scoring option. His low FTA (2.4) per game indicates that he doesn't drive to the basket nearly enough. If you're giving up Ben Gordon (who has more potential to develop as a #1 option) or Kirk Hinrich (who is a better all around player) you should do better than Joe Johnson.


1-first off, you are only talking offense. JJ is a very good defender, who takes on the oppositions best big guard forward nightly. THis would allow Kirk (if Ben was traded) to go back to PG, which would have a huge positive effect overall

2-the FT nick. Thats the only nick. This guy can score, and more than he currently does. He proved it when Steph was traded, and he was filling the stat sheet. Right now, he takes a backseat for the good of the team, because He's a team player, and can contribute in a multitude of ways. He's the swiss army knife of 2 guards

3-JJ can handle the rock if it was Kirk who was traded. He'd be the perfect compliment to Ben. JJ has PG skills. Maybe the Suns don't need Kirk, but maybe a third team would

4- The trade would start off as say AD + Kirk or Ben.........for signed JJ,salary filler and our #1 pick back


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Agree 100%. I don't give up either for JJ.


But you know I wouldn't trade either of them for Larry Hughes, or Ray Allen, or J-Rich or just about anyone else with the exception of a true star like Kobe or KG (and I understand that you would have to package a few of our players in that type of a deal).

Big picture here: I looked at our record since the 0-9 start, and it's 38-22. That's a .633 winning percentage (sure to go up even more IMO), which translates to 52 wins over a full season. So while our 40+ win record won't show it, our level of play is on par with a 50-win team. That's pretty damn incredible considering there's still a ton of room for growth with such a young roster.

That's why someone would have to knock my socks off for me to even consider moving either of these guys.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Maybe, just maybe, there is a difference between liking Kirk Hinrich and thinking he's a solid basketball player and thinking he's the most important and undisputed reason behind an epic turnaround.
> 
> I think he's just one of many.
> 
> I know others feel differently.... but I also know others agree with me.


well to me it seems you never and i mean EVER, miss a chance to trade him, criticize him, dump on him, or diminish his positives

i think your hiding your true feelings. Roll with you true feelings, don't fake this "i like Kirk" position. You don't. That dog won't hunt (i say again)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> well to me it seems you never and i mean EVER, miss a chance to trade him, criticize him, dump on him, or diminish his positives
> 
> i think your hiding your true feelings. Roll with you true feelings, don't fake this "i like Kirk" position. You don't. That dog won't hunt (i say again)


And I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Sorry. 

Why does this bother you so?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Big picture here: I looked at our record since the 0-9 start, and it's 38-22. That's a .633 winning percentage (sure to go up even more IMO), which translates to 52 wins over a full season. So while our 40+ win record won't show it, our level of play is on par with a 50-win team. That's pretty damn incredible considering there's still a ton of room for growth with such a young roster.
> 
> That's why someone would have to knock my socks off for me to even consider moving either of these guys.


That's cool. Some people think a deal would help the team, other disagree. No problem with that.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Sorry.
> 
> Why does this bother you so?


you mean your not going to admit you were wrong about hating Kirk earlier?
You are going to try and convince everyone that you "liked him?" :rotf: 

hey, like him, hate him whatever. IMO, you should just stick with one "position"
(actually, you _really_ have only one.... this dog and pony show "i like him, I really really like him" routine is uke 

Uh, we can see when someone is peeing on us and tells us its raining


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> Uh, we can see when someone is peeing on us and tells us its raining


1.) Who are “we?”
2.) Really, you are off base on this one. Your vision is failing you. Sorry.

I will agree that you "like" Hinrich much *more* than I do. Clearly that's the case.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> But you know I wouldn't trade either of them for Larry Hughes, or Ray Allen, or J-Rich or just about anyone else with the exception of a true star like Kobe or KG (and I understand that you would have to package a few of our players in that type of a deal).
> 
> Big picture here: I looked at our record since the 0-9 start, and it's 38-22. That's a .633 winning percentage (sure to go up even more IMO), which translates to 52 wins over a full season. So while our 40+ win record won't show it, our level of play is on par with a 50-win team. That's pretty damn incredible considering there's still a ton of room for growth with such a young roster.
> 
> That's why someone would have to knock my socks off for me to even consider moving either of these guys.


We have 4 rookies, a 2nd year player, and a pair of 22 year olds who have played 76.4 percent of our minutes. After their first 15 games, they are 36-18. They have the best FG% defense in the league, which is remarkable for such a young team.

I don't know why anyone would want to trade anyone at this point. Down the line? It is certainly possible, but I wouldn't count on it. Paxson chose to have this small back-court by design- he could have taken Deng 3rd and a big guard 7th, and I dare say that on draft day he could have probably traded Kirk for the pick to get Ben if he really wanted to.

Give this team 2 years of playing together, and there won't be any SG posting us up because we will go zone, and with our athletes who are smart we can force any team back to the outside.

There could certainly be a trade of one of our 7 young core players, you never know what Paxson will be offered. *But I'm guessing he just adds a veteran big SG and a veteran big man or two and be set for 10 years.

EDIT: Just like he did this year.*


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.)
> 
> 
> I will agree that you "like" Hinrich much *more* than I do. Clearly that's the case.


clearly


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> clearly


Great. Why not chalk it up to a difference in opinion and move on then?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

bullsville said:


> We have 4 rookies, a 2nd year player, and a pair of 22 year olds who have played 76.4 percent of our minutes. After their first 15 games, they are 36-18. They have the best FG% defense in the league, which is remarkable for such a young team.
> 
> I don't know why anyone would want to trade anyone at this point. Down the line? It is certainly possible, but I wouldn't count on it. Paxson chose to have this small back-court by design- he could have taken Deng 3rd and a big guard 7th, and I dare say that on draft day he could have probably traded Kirk for the pick to get Ben if he really wanted to.
> 
> ...


Kirk and Ben together may just work 'sville. 
Yet I'm not convinced that its the master plan, or final answer. 

I think Pax may just be taken at his word that he's aquiring as much assets as he can. And I see Kirk possibly, eventually wearing out like this

fine tuning, and optimal matching of talent may yet still come. That could include a trade of Kirk or Ben. and I would think Ben is the more likely one to be traded.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Just a little OT: I just noticed it's 10:30, I'm going to check out the Knicks/Lakers game to see how Jamal is doing in his playoff hunt with his new team.

For about $900,000 less, he could have been our big SG and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's too bad he couldn't live with $42 million over 6 years (or $39 million, whichever), since he only got $56 million over 7 years. He probably could have picked up some extra $$$ here though, besides just his playoff share he would be getting featured on TV all the time since the Bulls have been on NBA-TV like 5 times this month, plus the WGN Superstation games. That would have helped his endorsement $$$ plus all the exposure in the playoffs. Damn, it's a shame, he could have been our big SG.

But then we wouldn't have Othella or Pike or Griff. Pike or Griff would be not a problem to replace, but not having Othella this year would have hurt us in more than one or two games.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

fleetwood macbull said:


> Kirk and Ben together may just work 'sville.
> Yet I'm not convinced that its the master plan, or final answer.
> 
> I think Pax may just be taken at his word that he's aquiring as much assets as he can. And I see Kirk possibly, eventually wearing out like this
> ...


No doubt, there could still be moves, but I think the success of the players he brought in has probably lessened his need to change the pieces. 

He certainly couldn't have known the Bulls would be so good this season- unless he really *did* know, which is why we didn't tank the season when we were 2-13. Maybe that's why he traded for Deng, the pick for next year was only top 3 protected so maybe he figured we could be good enough to not need the pick? If he thought we would be bad again, why wouldn't he keep the pick for next year? Even if we wound up with the worst record this season with Deng, that's only like a 60% chance of being top-3, which is quite the risk to take the pick this year, suck on accident, and not have a pick next year.

Or maybe I should quit watching 'Conspiracy' on History Channel?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

If I´m Paxson, I resign Duhon and Harrington, get the best 2 guard that can be had for the remaining MLE (Bell, Jaric, Brown) and start the season. 

This team is two young and has progressed to rapidly recently to tear up without giving it a bit more time to see how chemistry developes. 

If at the trade deadline next season it is quite clear that our roster cannot compete at the highest level without a change, we will have a significant amount of tradeable assists to try to consolidate into one player. 

We might not even have to touch the most talented players in order to bring a fixture at 2 guard back. We would have Noc, Duhon, AD´s expiring contract, and the 2 guard we sign as trade bait.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I'd think about doing either Hinrich or Gordon for Iggy. Not saying I'd do it, but I'd think about it.

Iggy's a great defender, he's long, he's extremely athletic and can handle the ball. He does everything decent and a few things very well, but he's not a shooter. That's obviously the major drawback. But as stated earlier, he brings a ton of intangibles and a certain fill-in-the-gap style of play that the vast majority of NBA players just don't have. I think bringing him in could potentially improve the team. A lot. But bringing him in for Hinrich would mean an initial loss of backcourt leadership and ability to run the team, and a bringing him in for Gordon would result in an initial loss of scoring. Hmmmm....like I said, I'd think about it.

If we would get Iggy, who would come off the bench between him and the guard we trade?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm not one of those people. I have no interest in trading Kirk to fill that role. Kirk ALREADY fills that role better than I would have guessed. I mean, if we can trade him and get a total stud out of the deal, then OK. Otherwise, I'd rather explore ways to add a solid player to complement and add to what we already have. There's a chance we could add Pietrus without losing anyojne more important than Noc and draft picks we don't need that much anymore. There's also a chance we could get a decent player like Raja Bell with a chunk of our MLE money. I like those ideas.


Yeah I don't really have an interest in trading Kirk. Just this thread was about aquiring big burly SG's, and Pietrus is my guy. The rules were we had to trade Hinrich.

I too think we could probably get him for Noc and some first rounders. Or possibly working out a deal where they could get some expiring contracts to give them some cap relief.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah I don't really have an interest in trading Kirk. Just this thread was about aquiring big burly SG's, and Pietrus is my guy. The rules were we had to trade Hinrich.
> 
> I too think we could probably get him for Noc and some first rounders. Or possibly working out a deal where they could get some expiring contracts to give them some cap relief.


No no no  no no, NOT Nocioni!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

From the new SI, "Scout's Take": (On Corey Maggette)

"He's always going to be one of those guys who's a good player on a bad team. He ranks 11th in the league in turnovers (2.9 per game) because he's an iffy ball handler who makes bad decisions. He'll come out of a timeout playing man-to-man defense when his teammates are in a zone, or he won't know the offensive play because he wasn't paying attention in the huddle- which, believe it or not, is a problem with a lot of guys in this league. Maggette has explosive athleticism and he gets to the line for almost 40% of his points. But, bottom line, he's filling up his stat sheet more than helping his team play at a higher level."
_______________________________

I think I'll pass, and I'm pretty sure Pax will as well.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> No no no  no no, NOT Nocioni!


I love Noce and it's hard for me to part with him. But goddamn it. I won't rest until the Bulls have Pietrus and/or Diaw on their roster. Maybe th Spurs can get him.

I want to see an all french backcourt for some team. Parker, Pietrus, Diaw. Someone get on the phone to Pop.

Whoever manages to unite Diaw/Pietrus in the NBA is going to come up Aces. I know this.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

bullsville said:


> For about $900,000 less, he could have been our big SG and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Nah. Jamal was a big PG, certainly not a big SG. And he is anything but "burly."


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> No no no  no no, NOT Nocioni!


Nice use of font size!! :yes: 

I would be greatly saddened if Noch was traded. Probably have to take a few days off from work (just like PCLoad) just to mourn. However... Pietrus is like Noch on 'roids so it would certainly lessen the blow.


----------

