# Pax : We're going to build with Kirk



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

The quote is in miz's sig and is taken from a USA Today article from yesterday

So.....

_ Starting 5 _


Center : *Position Vacant*
Forward : *Position Vacant*
Forward : Luol Deng
Guard : *Position Vacant* 
Guard : Kirk Hinrich 

_ Bench _

Center : Tyson Chandler
Forward : Darius Songaila
Forward : Andres Nocioni
Guard : Ben Gordon
Guard : Chris Duhon

_ 3rd string _

Center : Luke Schenscher
Forward : Mike Sweetney 
Guard : Jannero Pargo

OK I don't think Pierce or Garnett will be out in the open and outside of these guys as the obvious candidates no one else strikes me as either being in reach (who we might like - like Bosh ) or worthy of gutting what we have to acquire ( Lewis etc ) 

So I'm working under the assumption that we have free agency and the draft to address what we need in "building around Kirk"

And we're talking about 3 players 

Needs :

1. Size up front 
2. Size on the wing 
3 Finishers
4. Another two way player 

So against this broad description of needs - who fits with Kirk ?

* Player #1 - Tyrus Thomas *

We need an athletic finisher who can catch anything in the general vicinity of the hoop - on the break and on misses from the half court offense 

Kirk was a push , transition guard at Kansas - and I still think his real value hasn't been tapped yet . Give him a finisher or two and watch Kirk gun it . I do believe that Kirk has the chance to be one of the best transition guards in the business if he has the right assets 

Enter Tyrannasaurus Thomas 

Thomas being a runner and crasher also allows Deng to continue to develop his post game in the half court offense ..all Tyrus need do is to with his quickness is work on a spin move with jump hook and keep working that 12ft J he showed against Texas. 

He has the athleticism and co-ordination to be offensively competent as reserve offensive option - but the majority of his points initially will come with speed and explosiveness

Big motor - a competitor 

*Player #2 - Option A - Brandon Roy *

He's our 3rd genuine two way player that can do it all - drive , shoot from range , pass and defend . 

Big motor -a competitor

* Player #2 - Option B - Rodney Carney *

Has two way capacity although I don't think he is as all round skilled as Roy but I do think he is the more genuine finisher . Has good defensive upside as a shut down type 

Is intense but seems to be a type that it works against a little bit . Needs to play within himself a bit more , relax and let the game come to him more 

* Player #3 - Nene *

A big athletic body that can move on the break

Not a great shotblocker but more of a guy that bangs and bodies up defensively - someone to put a body on to allow the weakside shotblocking help from Thomas and Chandler 

Not a prolific scorer but a guy that does have a couple of post moves and is competent 

So... in building around Kirk your 2006/2007 Chicago Bulls 



*

Nene
Thomas
Deng
Roy
Hinrich

bench

Chandler
Songaila
Nocioni
Gordon
Pargo

*

Note I have assumed the loss of Duhon and Sweetney to move up from say #12 spot into #7/#8 to grab Brandon Roy 

The only fills we need to address our roster would be some veteran leadership - one upfront and one at guard


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I don't think he meant "building around" Kirk in the sense that Kirk will be our best player and everyone else will be a supporting role player. I can still see Pax pulling a deal for a player who would replace Kirk as our centerpiece for the franchise (Garnett, Pierce, Bosh, etc...)


I take "building with Kirk" as meaning..

1. Kirk was the first player Pax drafted and his attitude and work ethic will set the precedent for the rest of the team (so no Zach Randolph).

2. Kirk is our #1 point guard

3. Kirk won't be traded


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I love the way u think my friend...that's a future championship team IMO


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

jimmy said:


> I don't think he meant "building around" Kirk in the sense that Kirk will be our best player and everyone else will be a supporting role player. I can still see Pax pulling a deal for a player who would replace Kirk as our centerpiece for the franchise (Garnett, Pierce, Bosh, etc...)
> 
> 
> I take "building with Kirk" as meaning..
> ...


That's how I take it as well ... which means ...building around Kirk - given that Garnett, Bosh and Pierce won't be out in the open 

That was a central part of the premise to the post


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

well he did say build WITH kirk and not AROUND kirk


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I'd rather spend the money on Nazr Mohammed, mainly because I know what i'll be getting. With Nene, nobody has a clue.

Plus another option I'd like to explore is the Boozer trade, if it's possible to walk away with him for Sweets and our pick, I'd do it, would you?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

step said:


> I'd rather spend the money on Nazr Mohammed, mainly because I know what i'll be getting. With Nene, nobody has a clue.


I do know he's better than Nazr



> Plus another option I'd like to explore is the Boozer trade, if it's possible to walk away with him for Sweets and our pick, I'd do it, would you?


No

We need an above the rim finisher at the power spot upfront - which is why Tyrus Thomas is a much better fit with Kirk who Pax is building with


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I do know he's better than Nazr


Really, what tells you that? His stats this season? Nene was an athletic big that was good on the break, but after tearing his ACL, who really knows.

All we need is a center that can give us 20mins a game, the rest is for Tyson coming off the bench, why pay another big ~10M per year for that. It's a pure waste of money.


> We need an above the rim finisher at the power spot upfront - which is why Tyrus Thomas is a much better fit with Kirk who Pax is building with


Boozer is that, and since his return from injury he's been playing quite well. He's almost back at the level where you can pencil him in for a 20/10 each game. Tyrus has alot of potential, but for him to get to that level will take alot of work, time and luck.

My scenario still has us in possession of the Knicks pick, where we can draft the most talented guy, whether it be Thomas, Aldridge, Roy, whoever.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

this should come to no surprise. 

That being said, did you know Kirk has the very same stats he had last year? So where is the improvement? We need to talk about this! Gordon and others have not gotten a free pass, why should Hinrich?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

For the right player, Pax would send Hinrich packing pretty quickly IMHO. But he probably does value him about as highly as any GM so probably not likely.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Just to put things in perspective:
Michael Jordan (rookie year)
28.2 PPG
6.5 TRB
5.9 APG
2.4 SPG
20.7 FGA

Kirk Hinrich (3rd season) PLUS Ben Gordon (2nd season):
32.0 PPG (+3.8)
6.1 TRB (-.4)
9.2 RPG (Kirk's 6.3 is just .4 better than Jordan's 5.9)
2.1 SPG (-.3)
27.6 FGA (-6.9, or 6.9 MORE per game)

One of these players is a guy you build "around" or "with", IMO


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jimmy said:


> I don't think he meant "building around" Kirk in the sense that Kirk will be our best player and everyone else will be a supporting role player. I can still see Pax pulling a deal for a player who would replace Kirk as our centerpiece for the franchise (Garnett, Pierce, Bosh, etc...)
> 
> 
> I take "building with Kirk" as meaning..
> ...


I don't think he meant Kirk as our best player either. Because frankly, I like Kirk, but if he's your best player, you are NEVER winning a championship. The last Champion with a best player that Kirk could be reasonably close to would be the 1979 (or 78, always get them mixed up) Supersonics and Dennis Johnson. Kirk actually reminds me a lot of Dennis Johnson, and I think that's the player he could top out as, but DJ did it when the league was perhaps at its weakest. The NBA probably hasn't experienced a 3 year span as weak as 76-79 since before Russell came into the league. So I don't think that's realistic today. I think though that you may not have meant that literally, moreso that Kirk will be the player that holds it all together, which, to me, means that we could have a STAR, a player much more talented than Kirk, a player that Sportscenter THINKS is our leader, when it will still actually be Kirk who is our leader and who does all the dirty work and glues the team together. 

*BUT I think that while neither of these two players are as talented OFFENSIVELY, I think Noce and Du also share in that role just as much. I mean is Du as good as Kirk at some things? No. But he's decently close in a lot of areas (i.e. what I'm about to say doesn't apply to player with NO talent), so I think that you have to give Du and Noce just as much credit for doing the little things. Outside of a few of Jordan's Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Harper, Levingston, Paxson, Armstrong), Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis, I've NEVER been more proud to call a guy a Chicago Bull than Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon and Andres Nocioni.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Machinehead said:


> The quote is in miz's sig and is taken from a USA Today article from yesterday
> 
> So.....
> 
> ...


I like what you've done here. But right off the bat, remember, to fill those three spots, we don't need all world players. You now have set up pretty much the same bench we had last year. Those 5 guys as your bench, are LETHAL. As lethal as anything I've seen since the Knicks could bring players like Anthony Mason, Greg Anthony, Derek Harper and Glen "Doc" Rivers off their bench at various points (I don't think that ALL of these guys were off their bench in any one season). So think about it. Last year, with THAT SAME bench, we won 47 games with the following players filling those vacancies:

Eddy Curry
Antonio Davis
Chris Duhon

None of those three guys is THAT good. I think that let's you know how close we are. And if Tyrus Thomas is one of those guys, then he can lack what AD brought in some areas because he has the same motor and at the same time is so much more athletic and young. Thomas reminds me of AD, and if we couldn't get him, Shelden Williams still could be reasonably close, again, when you factor the youth. Then there's Curry, who I could see your comparison of Nene filling his shoes, O'Bryant, Nazr Mohammed. Basically any guy who is at least 250 where you sacrifice all around game for a big fat scoring punch. Remember, if you're bringing Duhon, Noce AND Chandler off the bench, that's a lineup that will welcome teams to lockdown defensively, so with our starters we need to hit them in the mouth offensively. The real advantage comes with Duhon. Kirk will be a full-time point, so you really just need an athletic long two who wants to play D and can hit a WIDE open jumper. Someone like Iguodala moreso than some all around guy who thinks he's the next Jordan (and therefore daydreams about it during games -- See Kobe and TMac). 

If we got say...

Nazr Mohammed (or Nene, O'Bryant)
Tyrus Thomas (or Shelden Williams)
Antonio Davis (back on a CHEAP deal to sit at the 5th spot in the post)
Brandon Roy (or Carney, Brewer)

We'll be pretty good off next year.

What I'm wondering is, would Pax consider trading a 2008 first rounder to someone for a first rounder this year. If we could find a way to get O'Bryant, Thomas and Roy, I'd be ecstatic. BUT I'm certainly not expecting anyone to sign onto that opinion. That's just who I'd like to see.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

for the last time...

why would paxson trade for a player that publically DUPED his brother?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Just to put things in perspective:
> Michael Jordan (rookie year)
> 28.2 PPG
> 6.5 TRB
> ...


Interesting numbers, but isn't it sort of stating the obvious? If I had Michael Jordan, I wouldn't even contemplate building with a Gordon or Hinrich


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> for the last time...
> 
> why would paxson trade for a player that publically DUPED his brother?


Maybe Paxson is focused on improving the team and doesn't have a personal agenda. I do agree that going after Boozer is much more unlikely because of that though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Interesting numbers, but isn't it sort of stating the obvious? If I had Michael Jordan, I wouldn't even contemplate building with a Gordon or Hinrich


The obvious thing is you'd want to build with/around someone much closer to Jordan than to Gordon or Hinrich. There's all kinds of those guys in the league, certainly rarer than the Gordons and Hinrichs of the league. Pierce and Garnett being prominently mentioned in other threads and all along.

My point is that we shouldn't be satisfied with what we have.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The obvious thing is you'd want to build with/around someone much closer to Jordan than to Gordon or Hinrich. There's all kinds of those guys in the league, certainly rarer than the Gordons and Hinrichs of the league. Pierce and Garnett being prominently mentioned in other threads and all along.
> 
> My point is that we shouldn't be satisfied with what we have.


And I'm not.

However, it comes down to the semantics again. I'm happy to build _with_ Kirk, not _around_ him.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The obvious thing is you'd want to build with/around someone much closer to Jordan than to Gordon or Hinrich. There's all kinds of those guys in the league, certainly rarer than the Gordons and Hinrichs of the league. Pierce and Garnett being prominently mentioned in other threads and all along.
> 
> My point is that we shouldn't be satisfied with what we have.


The very rare team can win because they come at you in waves. They have no player like Jordan, but they maybe have 8 or 9 players who would be the 2nd or 3rd best player on their opponents team. This is how we won 47 games last year. Only Eddy Curry was close to being an all-star (at a depleted position), but, like Lebron said "what are you supposed to do, they can bring lotto picks off the bench."

If you do this almost perfectly, you could end up being the 2004 Detroit Pistons or the 1989-90 Detroit Pistons. The problem is, with a wrong turn, even with the "right guys," you could end up being the Cleveland Cavaliers of the late 80s and early-mid 90s. 

The wild card is Skiles. Instead of whining like a little bleep like Floyd and Cartwright about what his guys were NOT, he figured out what they WERE, and worked with that, very effectively. Eddy Curry doesn't rebound or play very good D. Fine. Skiles answer was to get Duhon, Noce and Davis out there with him, to cancel out his weaknesses while taking full advantage of his strengths. Ben Gordon finishes games explosively but can't play the whole game. Fine. Skiles answer last year was to get offense out of Curry early, and then when Curry tired down, put Gordon in there with a run the court lineup and let him sprint to the finish. Skiles is VERY good at creating winning systems and therefore making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. 

The *HUGE* thing DaBullz is that if you go for the STAR and get the wrong one, you're gonna end up way worse off than the 1994 Cleveland Cavaliers. The Knicks have become what they are today through trying to continuously win now with the wrong star. They dug deeper and deeper and deeper until there was no more to dig. Leydon (sp?) is more to blame for this than Thomas, because he succumbed to the initial temptation that put them in a ditch. 

*SO, I believe you try to get the Dwyane Wade's of the world when and IF they become available. But until then I'd rather build a system around guys who will show up and who EACH individually are much more easily moved than a Paul Pierce. You get Pierce (and I'm not saying you want Pierce), and things don't work out? Good luck getting mobility in that situation.*

So now, it depends. I BELIEVE, with role players like Du, Noce, Hinrich and even Chandler if he's in the right situation, this team can afford to bring in 2-3 players who are talent first, jib second. Why? Because, just like with Curry, we have the horses who can do all the little things already, which is Kirk's real value. So will Paxson get THESE guys (i.e. adding Billups [who was more talent than jib at THAT point], Rasheed, etc.), or will he go for more all around players that will just beat that "all-around" horse to death with redundant acquisitions. 

Pax to me can forego "stars" if he gets the right guys. If he gets the wrong ones, this team is gonna be unwatchable. I swear if he writes Tyrus Thomas off, and we are in position to draft him and don't, and then we end up with a role player while Thomas flourishes, I'm done. That may or may not happen. If that does, then it's on him.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Heaven forbid the Bulls build with arguably their best player.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> The very rare team can win because they come at you in waves. They have no player like Jordan, but they maybe have 8 or 9 players who would be the 2nd or 3rd best player on their opponents team. This is how we won 47 games last year. Only Eddy Curry was close to being an all-star (at a depleted position), but, like Lebron said "what are you supposed to do, they can bring lotto picks off the bench."
> 
> If you do this almost perfectly, you could end up being the 2004 Detroit Pistons or the 1989-90 Detroit Pistons. The problem is, with a wrong turn, even with the "right guys," you could end up being the Cleveland Cavaliers of the late 80s and early-mid 90s.
> 
> ...


Nice post. While I don't agree with your Tyrus Thomas or bust (and I know you did not mean it that literally), I think everything you said is spot on.

My main concern with Thomas is his size. I don't see the height or wing span that would complement his crazy athleticism. If he comes in and measures up both in height and wingspan, that's when his stock rises in my eyes. Also, I would like him a lot more if he were a good at something offensively. Range out to 18 feet or some low post moves and he be near #1 in my book as well, despite the couple of inches.

I just see two major negatives in Thomas where I see only one in guys like:
Aldridge -- strength
Bargnani -- no evidence of anything in the low post
Noah -- shooting touch
Splitter -- lack of star power (great fit, but his upside is probably only as a role player starter)

At this point, I most likely would take him above Splitter unless we were pretty sure Carney would fall to us with our second pick, which would be our gamble on athleticism.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> this should come to no surprise.
> 
> That being said, did you know Kirk has the very same stats he had last year? So where is the improvement?


*Select Hinrich stats*

2004-2005
39.7% FG
35.5% 3PT
79.2% FT
46.2% eFG
2.8 FTA
15.2 PER

2005-2006
42.4% FG
36.5% 3PT
82.9% FT
48.7% eFG
3.6 FTA
15.6 PER
Career highs in assists (17), rebounds (13), steals (7), FT (12) and FTA (13) this year.



> We need to talk about this! Gordon and others have not gotten a free pass, why should Hinrich?


Hinrich doesn't get a free pass, but it sometimes appears as if he does because his all-around game dwarfs that of Gordon. The amount of decent or better games by Hinrich far outnumbers the amount of spectacular games by Gordon; thusly, how and how much they are each used is going to be different. I'm not sure why so many people still confuse this with favoritism.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> Nice post. While I don't agree with your Tyrus Thomas or bust (and I know you did not mean it that literally), I think everything you said is spot on.
> 
> My main concern with Thomas is his size. I don't see the height or wing span that would complement his crazy athleticism. If he comes in and measures up both in height and wingspan, that's when his stock rises in my eyes. Also, I would like him a lot more if he were a good at something offensively. Range out to 18 feet or some low post moves and he be near #1 in my book as well, despite the couple of inches.
> 
> ...


Ok here's my thing with Thomas. Hear me out. He doesn't have to try to be what Aldridge, Bargnani, Noah or Splitter has to be. My logic works this way. Basically, you can roughly categorize all post players using three organizing factors.

1. Type of player:

Curry (true center, post offense)
Chandler (4-5 hybrid, post defense)
Davis (pure four, doesn't have to pretend to be a five in any way, all around player)
Harrington (4-5 hybrid, post offense)

2. Position on depth chart:

#1 Post offender Curry
#1 Post defender Davis
#2 Post offender Harrington
#2 Post defender Chandler

3. Level of greatness

For example, Shaq would be the same type of player as Curry, but he'd grade out at a 9 greatness wise, whereas Curry might be a 5 or 6. Ditto with Rodman and Davis. Ditto with Nowitzki and Harrington.

*This is just kind of a rough way of explaining how I think. This is not a perfect system where everything fits perfectly. AND as with most things, it's much harder to explain it to you than it is to think it in my own head.*

So if you look at type of player, I'd categorize Aldridge, Bargnani as being a Harrington-type (i.e. scorer who lacks the size and power to score on athletic true centers, but may also have athleticism issues with some fours). I'd categorize Noah and Splitter as either Harrington types if their offense is good enough (eventually they'd get someone big enough and athletic enough defending them in the post where they could push and the guy wouldn't budge) OR Chandler types. 

Whereas Thomas to me fits the Davis physical profile. Less leadership, but FAR more athleticism and youth AND fairly equal defense. AND, next to a player like Nazr, Nene or O'Bryant (i.e. Curry type), what did we really need out of Davis? When Curry got doubled and threw up a hook that was long, Davis would slam it home on the other side. Or when a guy went down to double Curry, Davis would catch at the upper part of the key and drive it home. 

Right now, we have Chandler, so someone like Pryzbilla or Noah to me would be redundant. AND Harrington types are just too easy to get (think about it, you can acquire a good one virtually whenever you want). So IMO if a guy fits one of those I (me personally) am apt to write them off. 

My thinking with Thomas is that we just need constant energy, attack the basket, try to slam back tip-ins, be able to drive and rise up for a dunk if you catch the ball wide-open 6 feet from the basket, play active defense and start the break. We don't need to have him pretend to be a 4-5 hybrid or a true center. AND with the quality of Du and Hinrich, I think Thomas WOULD get the ball in plenty of good situations. 

That said, we'd need Aldridge to try to score in the post, and IMO he's a combo of GOOD athleticism and size, but neither is pronounced enough to give him a decided advantage on most nights. Too many guys will be too athletic to allow him to catch the ball or too big for him to move them. So I kinda want my guys to be like Thomas and Curry in the sense that either bring SO MUCH SIZE (and decent athleticism, which is all Eddy/Nazr/Nene/O'Bryant has) that you can back anyone down or SO MUCH ATHLETICISM and motor that you're just a handful to deal with (a la Rodman/Wallace/Hayes). And then the guys who are a GOOD combo of both, with neither polarized, will be much easier to acquire.

I know this is rather radical, but this is just how I see it. It comes from what I believe is a study in very good faith of what made champions champions.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> *Select Hinrich stats*
> 
> 2004-2005
> 39.7% FG
> ...


I don't think anyone gets a free pass, but Gordon is just held to higher scrutiny. This comes from the fans though, not Paxson and Skiles themselves. It gets blurred, but it's fans who call the score or what not that get this started and then writers and radio personalities. For example, if Ben and Kirk both try hard and things just don't happen for them, the radio personalities and fans that call shows will have an attitude toward Kirk like "he gave his best, *what do you want from the guy*." Whereas the attitude with Ben seems to be "who cares if he gave his best, why doesn't he make his best better." 

This to me is the same thing that has happened with a lot of stars. It's not as negative as people make it out to be, and it doesnt' come from the organization so much as the fans, but a different benefit of the doubt is there. IMO some extenuating circumstance will ALWAYS have to be there for a white guy to be held to the same level of scrutiny in this town as a black athlete. 

The theory to me can best be said this way. A white guy who tries his hardest and says the right things in the paper will ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt in this town. It's not about white people disliking the black athlete so much as it is about them AFFIRMATIVELY identifying with the white athlete. This happens with everyone. Its the same thing with Eddy Curry on the south side of Chicago or with Tito Trinidad amongst latinos, or with Rocky Marciano amongst the italians or with Darko Milicic amongst hardcore euro fans. It's just more visible when its a white guy because of how many white people there are and how much control they have over the media. If you flipped it people would be complaining about Gordon getting a free pass over Hinrich. 

*So to me, IMO, on some level, it is present and real, but its a lot less present and intentional than some think it is. As with most things, the truth is probably far in between conflicting theories.*


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok here's my thing with Thomas. Hear me out. He doesn't have to try to be what Aldridge, Bargnani, Noah or Splitter has to be. My logic works this way. Basically, you can roughly categorize all post players using three organizing factors.
> 
> 1. Type of player:
> 
> ...


I agree with what most of what you said. However, some additional comments on how I see guys:

Aldridge has the build to add the size and strength. This is where the potential in him lies and why many see him as the top pick. He currently is a finesse player with good instincts. If he adds the strength and plays above the rim, he could be a Dwight Howard type of player.

Bargnani - a 7 footer who can put the ball on the floor and shoot. He isn't a liability on defense or rebounding either, which is usually the case for a guy with his skillset in the NBA. I see him as a rare talent, which will be hard to pass up... unless Paxson sees more flaws in his all around game.

Noah - I think I see Noah how you see Tyrus. He plays the same sort of game, although Noah has the length to make up for the explosiveness Thomas has. His passing ability is amazing, and I'll take that over a better outside shot that Thomas has. Noah has that fire and intensity, so I think it's a push between them. He has more the NBA frame and will probably be a better post defender than Thomas. He just went through a growth spurt, so if his coordination catches up with his body, I think we'll see a lot more athleticism out of him in the future. If Noah can develop an outside jumper, I think he has a chance at becoming a borderline All-Star. He is a workout warrior from everything I've read, so I like his chances.

I like Tyrus and think he has had a great tournament for himself. Unless something surprises me at the pre-draft workouts, I just don't see myself liking him better than the three aforementioned. I would definately consider him with the #4 pick if these three guys are all gone, so it's not like I don't want to see him in a Bulls uniform.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I agree with what most of what you said. However, some additional comments on how I see guys:
> 
> Aldridge has the build to add the size and strength. This is where the potential in him lies and why many see him as the top pick. He currently is a finesse player with good instincts. If he adds the strength and plays above the rim, he could be a Dwight Howard type of player.
> 
> ...


A couple things. I just think this is an example of how two astute and rational basketball minds can diverge widely.

With Aldridge I'd say that he very much lacks the explosion of a Dwight Howard, and that he's already put on 20 lbs. of muscle just to get to 245. How many more can he put on without losing athleticism? Ten? Maybe? But then, I vehemently disagree with most on Aldridge, so I think we'll just have to see. 

Noah to me is pretty good, but I see him as more of a non-issue because I really don't think he's coming out. When you look at his Dad's money, he has no reason to. I do like him, BUT I'd want Chandler gone if we got him. Noah gives additional offense, but overall, their skillsets overlap far too much for my taste. My motto is that if you're not gonna have a great all around post player, you try to have the guys you do have bring drastically different skills so that maybe SOMEBODY will bring a little of everything. 

Bargnani I just don't want. All his skills are nice. And people get sold on them. BUT IMO unless they are predicated on at least the ABILITY to SOMETIMES back someone down, they're like having dessert with no dinner to me. Try to do it every night and you're gonna get sick.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> A couple things. I just think this is an example of how two astute and rational basketball minds can diverge widely.
> 
> With Aldridge I'd say that he very much lacks the explosion of a Dwight Howard, and that he's already put on 20 lbs. of muscle just to get to 245. How many more can he put on without losing athleticism? Ten? Maybe? But then, I vehemently disagree with most on Aldridge, so I think we'll just have to see.


I definately agree about the explosion comment. Playing above the rim is more what I was looking for. He has the length and wingspan to definately dunk over people. Will he have that attitude and work ethic. That's the question. Maybe Pau Gasol with a bit better timing defensively is a better comparison than Howard.



> Noah to me is pretty good, but I see him as more of a non-issue because I really don't think he's coming out. When you look at his Dad's money, he has no reason to. I do like him, BUT I'd want Chandler gone if we got him. Noah gives additional offense, but overall, their skillsets overlap far too much for my taste. My motto is that if you're not gonna have a great all around post player, you try to have the guys you do have bring drastically different skills so that maybe SOMEBODY will bring a little of everything.


If Florida wins it all, I just don't see Noah not declaring. That is unless he wants to finish off his education before he continues on in his dreams. If that is the case, he will have to be supremely confident about his ability, because his stock will most likely never be higher--and in a year where it is a perceived "weak" draft.

I do think Noah has different skills than Chandler. He is a good man to man post defender. He needs to bulk up, sure, but we don't have anyone in this mold on the team this year. This is why we miss A.D. so greatly. Tyson is a decent man defender and a great help defender. He is good at crashing the glass and defensive rebounding. This is a skill that can't be too redundant. His shooting ability is in question, but the guy works his arse off and got his FT shooting above 70% this season. I have more confidence in Noah developing a jumper than I do Chandler, and Noah hasn't even stepped into the NBA. Noah has show some signs of low post moves. He's not a go-to low post scorer, but he could be. He likes to dunk, and I think he'll excel in the pick and roll. His passing ability and basketball IQ are amazing to me.

This all said, Noah isn't "my guy" at all. I think I'm just higher on him than most, so I find myself defneding him more often than not.



> Bargnani I just don't want. All his skills are nice. And people get sold on them. BUT IMO unless they are predicated on at least the ABILITY to SOMETIMES back someone down, they're like having dessert with no dinner to me. Try to do it every night and you're gonna get sick.


He's he most surefire offensive minded big we can get. Low post game or not, he's someone we should strongly consider. I don't have a solid opinion on the guy one way or another, so I really can't comment further other than he does have a kind of talent where he could be very successful in the league. He's the only big I can safely say can play above the rim. Aldridge, Noah, and Thomas still all question marks in my mind.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I definately agree about the explosion comment. Playing above the rim is more what I was looking for. He has the length and wingspan to definately dunk over people. Will he have that attitude and work ethic. That's the question. Maybe Pau Gasol with a bit better timing defensively is a better comparison than Howard.


I think he lacks the strength to get inside enough to dunk on people. If he was playing off of another big with offense enough that he was wide open he maybe could do this. I don't see it in his present state. This may lead to the biggest difference I see in Thomas and Aldridge. What Thomas brings he just brings, regardless of whose out there. I believe Aldridge will be more dependent on his teammates. Also, I think Aldridge would take years to get the fluidity of Gasol, which may be his biggest asset. Gasol strikes me as a player who sees the game faster than perhaps any other big. 



> If Florida wins it all, I just don't see Noah not declaring. That is unless he wants to finish off his education before he continues on in his dreams. If that is the case, he will have to be supremely confident about his ability, because his stock will most likely never be higher--and in a year where it is a perceived "weak" draft.
> 
> I do think Noah has different skills than Chandler. He is a good man to man post defender. He needs to bulk up, sure, but we don't have anyone in this mold on the team this year. This is why we miss A.D. so greatly. Tyson is a decent man defender and a great help defender. He is good at crashing the glass and defensive rebounding. This is a skill that can't be too redundant. His shooting ability is in question, but the guy works his arse off and got his FT shooting above 70% this season. I have more confidence in Noah developing a jumper than I do Chandler, and Noah hasn't even stepped into the NBA. Noah has show some signs of low post moves. He's not a go-to low post scorer, but he could be. He likes to dunk, and I think he'll excel in the pick and roll. His passing ability and basketball IQ are amazing to me.
> 
> This all said, Noah isn't "my guy" at all. I think I'm just higher on him than most, so I find myself defneding him more often than not.


I'm not saying I don't want Noah, moreso, if we do get him, I think we can move Chandler.



> He's he most surefire offensive minded big we can get. Low post game or not, he's someone we should strongly consider. I don't have a solid opinion on the guy one way or another, so I really can't comment further other than he does have a kind of talent where he could be very successful in the league. He's the only big I can safely say can play above the rim. Aldridge, Noah, and Thomas still all question marks in my mind.


I have a long drawn out argument on power scoring (not that we are arguing, we aren't :biggrin. Without it I see players like Bargnani as playing too much like a guard for the post position. I want guards that play like guards and post players who play like post players. Jumpshooting finesse-scoring bigs and "big" point guards can go play for someone else is how I see it. But that is just how ... I see it .


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

heres a better example :laugh: 

kirk=arnold
gordon=gerald
chandler=stinky
sweetney=harold
skiles=big bob pataki
john bach=grandpa
deng= insert ur fav from the show
noconi= read above

but on a serious note i think pax said that because kirk represents the model of this team perhaps better than anyone else. Take pistons for example I am sure dumars said the team is built around ben wallace because he represents the model of that team. That meaning blue collar fundamentaly sound players.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> And I'm not.
> 
> However, it comes down to the semantics again. I'm happy to build _with_ Kirk, not _around_ him.


With - around 

potato potata


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> With - around
> 
> potato potata



Not to me.

With = one of the pieces you'd like to keep.

Around = _the_ central figure of the team for the future.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Not to me.
> 
> With = one of the pieces you'd like to keep.
> 
> Around = _the_ central figure of the team for the future.


tomata tomato


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> tomata tomato


tomata potato


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> tomata tomato



You and the President seem to have the same appreciation for nuance.


J/K

:biggrin:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> tomata tomato


Isn't it to-may'-to to-mah'-to? Maybe I'm misremembering....


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Verse*
Things have come to a pretty pass
Our romance is growing flat,
For you like this and the other
While I go for this and that,
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as if we two will never be one
Something must be done:

*Chorus - 1*
You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if you like pyjamas and I like pyjahmas, I'll wear pyjamas and give up 
pyajahmas
For we know we need each other so we , Better call the whole off off
Let's call the whole thing off.


*Chorus - 2*
You say laughter and I say larfter, You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter, Let's call the whole thing off,

You like vanilla and I like vanella, You saspiralla, and I saspirella
Vanilla vanella chocolate strawberry, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh if we call the whole thing of then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if you go for oysters and I go for ersters, I'll order oysters and cancel 
the ersters
For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.


*Chorus - 3*
I say father, and you say pater, I saw mother and you say mater
Pater, mater Uncle, auntie, let's call the whole thing off.

I like bananas and you like banahnahs, I say Havana and I get Havahnah
Bananas, banahnahs Havana, Havahnah, Go your way, I'll go mine

So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters, So all right no contest we'll 
order lobseter
For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.

Lyrics007.com


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Isn't it to-may'-to to-mah'-to? Maybe I'm misremembering....


You should check Duhon's dictionary.

(We might want to rethink this joke as Chris is from Louisiana)


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> With - around
> 
> potato potata


Not at all.

Try using them interchangeably in sentences to determine if they are indeed synonymous.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

LOL. Good luck with that. Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA. He does practice hard and has a decent jib though.

There is hardly anywhere to go but up.

We better pray Paxson hits a home run in the lotto. We're screwed if he doesn't... assuming that fans want to contend for titles and not trumpet ideology, even if its a loser.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA.



:laugh:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. Good luck with that. Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA.


You laugh at the idea of building with one of the better two-way PGs in the league? 

Would you prefer instead that Paxson trade one of his best players? 



kukoc4ever said:


> There is hardly anywhere to go but up.
> 
> We better pray Paxson hits a home run in the lotto. We're screwed if he doesn't... assuming that fans want to contend for titles and not trumpet ideology, even if its a loser.


What does this have to do with building with Hinrich?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. Good luck with that. Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA. He does practice hard and has a decent jib though.
> 
> There is hardly anywhere to go but up.
> 
> We better pray Paxson hits a home run in the lotto. We're screwed if he doesn't... assuming that fans want to contend for titles and not trumpet ideology, even if its a loser.




*Sigh*


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. Good luck with that. Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA. He does practice hard and has a decent jib though.
> 
> There is hardly anywhere to go but up.
> 
> We better pray Paxson hits a home run in the lotto. We're screwed if he doesn't... assuming that fans want to contend for titles and not trumpet ideology, even if its a loser.


He was the best player on the greatest 47 win team of all-time so maybe it's not that bad of an idea.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. Good luck with that. Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA. He does practice hard and has a decent jib though.
> 
> There is hardly anywhere to go but up.
> 
> We better pray Paxson hits a home run in the lotto. We're screwed if he doesn't... assuming that fans want to contend for titles and not trumpet ideology, even if its a loser.


Cut the ****, would you?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. Good luck with that. Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA. He does practice hard and has a decent jib though.
> 
> There is hardly anywhere to go but up.
> 
> We better pray Paxson hits a home run in the lotto. We're screwed if he doesn't... assuming that fans want to contend for titles and not trumpet ideology, even if its a loser.


Dude are you serious? Ever heard of the Cubs?

I'd add that I don't quite agree with your gloomy assessment. It's not THAT bad, neither is Kirk, and neither is what Paxson is saying. If he was saying "Kirk is going to be our Jordan" or something, I'd be concerned. But I think, or at least I hope, that that's not what he's saying.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc,

How about trading Kirk for Jamal Crawford?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

So many years later, 

*JAY V. JAMAL*!!

Who will be the superstar to lead a team into the next millenium. lol


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> kukoc,
> 
> How about trading Kirk for Jamal Crawford?


How long would it take to get the New York out of him...

...and put the Chicago back in?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Wow, there are a lot of posts for what I would have thought was a completely uncontroversial Paxson quote. Hinrich is a nice NBA player who is pretty productive and would probably be a starter on more than half of the teams in the league. It's unfortunate that he's the best player we have, but if you're going to single out one player on the team that you're going to build WITH, Deng's the only other player who should even get any consideration.

I guess I don't have a problem with the fact that Kirk's got a nice jib and practices hard. These are good things, and with Skiles as our coach, they are pre-requisites.

Now if Kirk could fetch us 2 legitimate NBA starters who could fit in the Skiles system, by all means trade him. The same goes for a discernable upgrade. Fact is, this ain't gonna happen, so by all means, build with a guy who has shown he belongs as an NBA starter.

I may be missing something, but I don't see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

transplant said:


> Wow, there are a lot of posts for what I would have thought was a completely uncontroversial Paxson quote. Hinrich is a nice NBA player who is pretty productive and would probably be a starter on more than half of the teams in the league. It's unfortunate that he's the best player we have, but if you're going to single out one player on the team that you're going to build WITH, Deng's the only other player who should even get any consideration.
> 
> I guess I don't have a problem with the fact that Kirk's got a nice jib and practices hard. These are good things, and with Skiles as our coach, they are pre-requisites.
> 
> ...


There was no fuss intended when I started the thread 

Intent was merely to look more specifically at fits within 3 positions in our starting 5 and the reality of who we could get ( and no we're not trading for Garnett or Pierce nor are Wade or Bosh coming here in RFA )


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> There was no fuss intended when I started the thread
> 
> Intent was merely to look more specifically at fits within 3 positions in our starting 5 and the reality of who we could get ( and no we're not trading for Garnett or Pierce nor are Wade or Bosh coming here in RFA )


Sausage King, I thought machinehead started this thread. Then again, I'm an old guy and I miss stuff.

Anyway, I agree that Hinrich and Deng are legitimate building blocks and that the rest of the current Bulls are role players. The Bulls may have the best role players in the league. I love Gordon, Nocioni, Duhon and Songaila...they're just not legit NBA starters.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

transplant said:


> Sausage King, I thought machinehead started this thread. Then again, I'm an old guy and I miss stuff.
> 
> Anyway, I agree that Hinrich and Deng are legitimate building blocks and that the rest of the current Bulls are role players. The Bulls may have the best role players in the league. I love Gordon, Nocioni, Duhon and Songaila...they're just not legit NBA starters.


And Chandler


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> And Chandler


IMO, Chandler is a role player. He could be a starter if you've got the right center, but I don't think he's a legit NBA starter (that is, he doesn't start for more than half the teams in the league). I like him. He's a nice kid. He can occasionally dominate on the defensive end, but he's one of the league's most prominent offensive liabilities. He's truly awful...can't score-can't pass (admitedly, part of the reason he can't pass is because everyone knows he can't score).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> How about trading Kirk for Jamal Crawford?


There should be no room for either to play behind our highly drafted saviors Ben Gordon and Jay Will.

I didn't mean the post to be inflammatory.... my thoughts are the same as transplant's



> Hinrich is a nice NBA player who is pretty productive and would probably be a starter on more than half of the teams in the league. It's unfortunate that he's the best player we have, but if you're going to single out one player on the team that you're going to build WITH, Deng's the only other player who should even get any consideration.


Its sad that the only players we can talk about building around at this point are merely solid, not great. But, if yer a Bulls fan, that's really all you have to look forward to, other than the lotto balls.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't mean the post to be inflammatory.... my thoughts are the same as transplant's


Well, you seemed to go a bit further than he did. But more than anything, a good discussion of the points is in order.

FWIW, I pretty much agree with him two. I see two guys on the Bulls that I really like as starters on a good team. Assets or not, three years in I think we've got a whole lot of ground to cover.

Its sad that the only players we can talk about building around at this point are merely solid, not great. But, if yer a Bulls fan, that's really all you have to look forward to, other than the lotto balls.[/QUOTE]

But here's the thing. I don't know what "building with" Kirk means. What are the alternatives? To trade him or let him walk? That'd be big time folly unless we clearly got better in doing it.

Kirk is pretty equivalent in my mind to Elton Brand as a Bull. The conventional wisdom was that he wasn't a guy to "build around", but so what? Neither is the guy we got by giving him up. And Brand, pretty much, has turned into that guy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Kirk is pretty equivalent in my mind to Elton Brand as a Bull. The conventional wisdom was that he wasn't a guy to "build around", but so what? Neither is the guy we got by giving him up. And Brand, pretty much, has turned into that guy.


This is my opinion of the situation as well.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't mean the post to be inflammatory.... my thoughts are the same as transplant's


Hmmmm.



transplant said:


> Hinrich is a nice NBA player who is pretty productive and would probably be a starter on more than half of the teams in the league.





kukoc4ever said:


> Kirk is a nice player, but does not really make a meaningful difference in the NBA.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hmmmm.


Do you think a player that would only start on 1/2 the teams makes a meaningful difference in the NBA?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Kirk is pretty equivalent in my mind to Elton Brand as a Bull. The conventional wisdom was that he wasn't a guy to "build around", but so what? Neither is the guy we got by giving him up. And Brand, pretty much, has turned into that guy.


I am extremely impressed with how Kirk has played, especially the second half of this season, but I still don't think he is a player in Elton's class. 

However, if the point of comparing these two is to suggest that we should hold on to Kirk -- because he, like Elton, may will continue to improve five or six years into his pro career -- then I totally understand and agree. 

My current opinion du jour is that we should draft Brandon Roy with the Knicks' pick and trade Gordon, our pick, and maybe Nocioni for the best big under contract that we can find, be it Boozer, Charlie V, Garnett (unlikely), Frye (unlikely), or J. O'Neal (unlikely). I suppose if Paxson likes Aldridge enough we could also parlay Gordon into a high draft pick (Charlotte if they aren't in position to draft Morrison?) that would allow us to draft both Aldridge and Roy. 

I know there's the whole Brothers Paxson thing, but would Duhon, Nocioni, and our pick net us Boozer? I think I'd risk it for Carlos with the way he's been playing of late. Utah, which hasn't seemed to like Boozer since he arrived, would get a salary dump out of it, plus a draft pick, a good backup point guard in Duhon (who could be a long term starter in case Deron doesn't work out), and a player that fits their mold that they might be able to keep long term and who is very cheap next year in Nocioni.

Hinrich, (Gordon), (Roy), Pargo?
Gordon, Roy, Basden
Deng, Rasual Butler?
Boozer, Songaila, Sweetney, AD?
Chandler, Nazr/Wright?, Luke

I'm just dreaming here, but I think this is a better team.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think a player that would only start on 1/2 the teams makes a meaningful difference in the NBA?


Hinrich would start for _more_ than half the teams in the NBA. Again, your thoughts are not the same as transplant's.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hinrich would start for _more_ than half the teams in the NBA. Again, your thoughts are not the same as transplant's.


No, I agree with transplant.

Hinrich is not a difference maker.

Deng and Hinrich may be the best players on the Bulls, but all that situation gets you is a losing NBA team.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I'd say Hinrich would start for about 20 teams.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> I'd say Hinrich would start for about 20 teams.


Yeah, I counted 22 teams last time we did this topic.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=238454


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I agree with transplant.


transplant says Hinrich would start for more than half the teams in the NBA. You say Hinrich would only start for half.



> Hinrich is not a difference maker.


Hinrich will never make it in this league.



> Deng and Hinrich may be the best players on the Bulls, but all that situation gets you is a losing NBA team.


What about last season?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, I counted 22 teams last time we did this topic.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=238454


I pretty much agree with your list, except I didn't think Hinrich would start in Milwaukee, and I was kind of on the fence with Dallas, just cause I think there is a chance he could start there because he'd be more of a true point than anyone they have at present.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

I think that wherever Hinrich plays he would start. 

Let me do the teams that he would NOT start on if he was just added to the team:
- New Jersey
- Detroit
- San Antonio

I think vurtually EVERY other team would try to make room for Kirk at either the 2 guard or PG if they could. The only reason he wouldn't start on NJ, Det, or SA is because why woulld they acquire Kirk without leaving any room for him? You can't just say I am going to add Kirk to any team an dsee if he starts. There are already teams with established backcourts. 

No matter where Kirk is traded, again I say, he will ALWAYS start, no matter what (unless he's elderly player then declining)


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> I pretty much agree with your list, except I didn't think Hinrich would start in Milwaukee, and I was kind of on the fence with Dallas, just cause I think there is a chance he could start there because he'd be more of a true point than anyone they have at present.


You don't think Hinrich would start ahead of TJ Ford? Really? Hinrich is better than Ford in just about every statistical category, not to mention a better defender.

I don't think Hinrich would start for the Mavs, although looking at Terry's stats before he arrived in Dallas (.417 FG) to where they are now (.501, .470 the last 2 seasons) makes me wonder if Hinrich wouldn't benefit in much the same way playing for that team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> What about last season?


We lost Curry and Davis.... and an environment where Chandler could be effective.

Chandler, Curry and Hinrich were the best players on our team last year.



> Hinrich will never make it in this league.


I disagree.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> You don't think Hinrich would start ahead of TJ Ford? Really? Hinrich is better than Ford in just about every statistical category, not to mention a better defender.
> 
> I don't think Hinrich would start for the Mavs, although looking at Terry's stats before he arrived in Dallas (.417 FG) to where they are now (.501, .470 the last 2 seasons) makes me wonder if Hinrich wouldn't benefit in much the same way playing for that team.


My rationale with Milwaukee was just me thinking that the Bucks are looking at Ford as sort of the future and as having more upside than Hinrich, though, I wouldn't be surpised if they chose Hinrich over him.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Yikes! I innocently stop by the board today to find that I've become K4E's ally. Go figure.

I stand by my comments, but will try to expand.

Hinrich is very clearly an above average NBA guard. I LIKE HIM and am glad he's on the Bulls. He plays hard and effectively on both ends. He's a gamer. He's also an extraordinarily good fit on a Skiles-coached team. He may well be worth more to the Bulls than he would be to any other team. Because of this, he'd be unlikely trade bait. He may not be untouchable in trade, but he's the least likely Bull to be traded.

Is he a "difference maker?" Depends on your definition. He's the best and most valuable player on a below average team. The Bulls would be downright bad if they lost him for an extended period. However, the Bulls have played a lot of games this season they had an opportunity to win late. Unlike the great ones, Hinrich was not able to successfully "take over" very many of those games.

At this point, Hinrich has not shown himself to be a great player. That's not meant as a criticism. There are only a handful (OK, maybe a couple handfuls) of great players in the game right now. 

Do you build AROUND Hinrich? This is semantics to some extent. What a player with Hinrich's considerable abilities needs is a 35mpg stud big man who makes the opposition worry about the Bulls playing "inside-out" on offense and is enough of a defensive presence that the Bulls' guards can play aggressively on the ball. So if getting this kind of player is "building around Kirk," yeah, you build around Kirk. 

In my heart, I believe that the Bulls need a "Batman." Kirk could be a great "Robin."

Oh yeah, and I want to see Hinrich play point guard...on both ends. Get me a starting SG with a little size.


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

Kirk Hinrich last night took control of the game in the 2nd half hes the leader of the game. Tyson Chandler does all the dirty work and isnt there for scoring but defense and his great jumps for rebounding. Nocioni is very underrated as well, same with Deng. In a few years I see the Bulls going far if they have the same team or get more stars.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> This is my opinion of the situation as well.


I third that. Hinrich, like Brand, has value that can't be seen. We are so lucky to have two PGs who CAN score decently, but who don't have to unless the onus is put on them. Hinrich and Duhon could immediately turn themselves into horsedung if they wanted to show you that they can be a "two guard when I want to fool" and show you that "if you sleep on my PG skills, I'll hurt you with my scoring." 

This is why I liked Curry too. In an age when centers have to pretend to be shooting guards and show you that they can hit the three, Curry's game is to back people down and put it in the hole, even if he's not a very good overall all-around player. AND similarly, in an age when PGs can't wait to show you that they are really shooting guards who happen to play the point, Hinrich is content to be a point guard. 

I have this wild theory that the more a center plays like a center and the more a PG plays like a point, the easier, given the same talents, it is for the team to function as a unit. 

Kirk's value, basically, is that he can be a leader, and be a point guard, and still leave you with plenty of basketballs to go around when you get that "Star." Which is exactly what Brand's value was. *Which is why it's not about the numbers at all.* You could put Kobe on a team with Brand and his numbers would go down, but he'd actually be a better player, because he's the rare talented player who can be better as his shots go down. Put Kobe out there with Webber and it's a disaster.

The more players like Hinrich you can get, the better, because they make it easier for you to put talented guys on the floor around them and still have enough shots to go around. THIS is why numbers to me don't matter as much as what you actually SEE transpiring on the basketball court.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

transplant said:


> Yikes! I innocently stop by the board today to find that I've become K4E's ally. Go figure.
> 
> I stand by my comments, but will try to expand.
> 
> ...


Ahh yes, but just as you build a house, the foundation may be your star, but the electrical is very important too, or something. 

The point is... in today's NBA... *Great "Robin"s are hard to find. Very hard! Elton Brand is a great robin, Emeka Okafor will be one as well. Ginobili. Pippen was perhaps the greatest robin of all time.* People underestimate this by leaps and bounds. These are the players that are good, and you can put them out there with other good players who have to be the lead guy, and they both can play their game. Put two lead guys out there and one of them has to leave some of their game on the sideline or it won't work. Kareem decided to do this, so it worked in LA. Kobe decided not to IN THE END. It's why the olympic team lost. A bunch of batmans and nobody wanted to play robin.[/b]

Noce is a robin type of player. Deng has shades of both. Gordon is batman. Another Gordon on this team (assuming you kept Gordon) and we'd be in trouble, UNLESS that Gordon is a center (polarization). But even with Gordon and Curry, it ONLY WORKED because we have so many more guys who can play and who also can be robin than any other team. The reason Eddy Curry was part of a winning concept last year is cause there were 10 robins on the team. And we had more good ones than anyone else in the league. The 2003 team had more talent than last years team, but, on that team who would step up and play robin? Donyell and Corie? (Vulgar hand gesture) 

So I think it is semantics. You can build around Kirk, but you need other pieces as well. Think of Kirk as a well built house with a great foundation and now we need that all-star real estate agent to bring home the capital gains lol. 

I know that nothing I said disagrees with what you said, I just wanted to elaborate a little and see what you think.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Hinrich's now scored in double figures in 24 straight games. Given the consistency issues that have plagued the Bulls all year that's a really encouraging streak. Here's hoping I didn't just jinx it...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

All we do is hate on our own players...and without cause. :sigh:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

GB, not all of us do! come on. 


_Kirk was named Bulls Player of the Month for March. (he hasn't gotten one of these since his rookie year as crazy as that might sound)_


*In 16 games during March, Hinrich averaged 17.4 ppg, 6.0 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.07 spg and 37.0 mpg, and shot .453 from the floor, including .431 from downtown, and .800 from the free throw line. He reached double figures in every game, including four games of 20+ points and one game of 30+ points and led the Bulls in assists 11 times and in scoring three times. He also registered two double-doubles*


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/hinrich_pom_060403.html


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> *In 16 games during March, Hinrich averaged 17.4 ppg, 6.0 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.07 spg and 37.0 mpg, and shot .453 from the floor, including .431 from downtown, and .800 from the free throw line. *


*


Now there's a line I could get used to. I wonder what his TOs per game were during the same stretch.

:clap:*


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)




----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Now there's a line I could get used to. I wonder what his TOs per game were during the same stretch.
> 
> :clap:


2.56 TO/G

Interestingly enough, while his shooting % is higher, the rest of the numbers are very similar to his averages for this season:

*March*
37.0mpg 17.4ppg (.453 FG% - .431 3P% - .800 FT%) 2.6rpg 6.0apg 1.07spg 2.56TO/G

*Season*
36.4mpg 15.7ppg (.424 FG% - .367 3P% - .827 FT%) 3.4rpg 6.3apg 1.15spg 2.32TO/G

In fact, Kirk has been remarkably consistent through his three year career.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _Kirk was named Bulls Player of the Month for March. (he hasn't gotten one of these since his rookie year as crazy as that might sound)_


WHAT?!?!! Who makes the decision, Stevie Wonder?

Miz, as you know, I'm an old guy. I'm seldom surprised anymore, but that shocked the beejeezus out of me. Unbelievable!


----------

