# Will this help put the Hinrich nonsense to rest?



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

All sorts of analysis is possible from looking at the last 24 games including the last 3 without Hinrich and the prior 3 with him. 

3-0 absolutely! Better with him than without him as many have suggested? Nonsense.

Keep Duhon and Gordon and trade Hinrich because he's overrated! Nonsense.

Annoint Gordon superstar status! Nonsense.

I noticed SPMJ whom I believe has been particularly hard on Hinrich in game threads (apologies if I'm wrong), said this about Gordon "He's busting his butt on D lately, which is hurting his O." 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2046511&postcount=17

Sound like anybody else on the team who has been doing it for the last two years? I thought that was just an "excuse" used by the "Kirk fans".

Notice Gordon's fourth quarter outbursts have dried up and his percentage has been in steady decline as his minutes have increased? Still think Skiles doesn't know a thing or two about the league? Isn't that what he said when everybody called for Gordon to start and get big minutes?

3-0 without Hinrich? Yup, and look below to see how much our guard play has contributed to that record.

You can talk rookie wall and everything else, but you can't deny a good case can be made that we might be better off turning Gordon into a Maggette or Johnson instead of building the backcourt around him - SportsCenter future nothwithstanding.

I trust Paxson will make the right moves or non-moves.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The sad thing is, facts and objective analysis don't mean much to those who insist we should get rid of Hinrich.

Maybe we can bring in a guy like Hollis Price? That would be cool.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Sloth, you might want to run the numbers. While Hinrich has been gone I believe Eddy is 22-29 from the field. If ever there was a time to state the case for Eddy (especially after last nights manly game) this might be as good a time as any.

Also, lets not forget 3 of Eddy's missed games coincided with 3 of Deng's missed games.

And finally, lets not forget we're 1-0 without Chandler. I wanted to note this just in case this argument doesn't prevail and we're back to the Jamal-era arguments that only W's matter.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> 3-0 absolutely! Better with him than without him as many have suggested? Nonsense.


Who said that?



> I noticed SPMJ whom I believe has been particularly hard on Hinrich in game threads (apologies if I'm wrong), said this about Gordon "He's busting his butt on D lately, which is hurting his O."


I also added that his *CONDITIONING* is the biggest reason for that. He gets tired too quickly. Once he gets better at that, he'll be just fine at both ends of the court.

Kirk's conditioning is not an issue, unlike Ben's. Hinrich struggles on O cuz he's just not a good offensive player and rightfully gets criticized for shooting too much when he's knocking em' down at a deplorable percentage.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> Who said that?
> Kirk's conditioning is not an issue, unlike Ben's. Hinrich struggles on O cuz he's just not a good offensive player and rightfully gets criticized for shooting too much when he's knocking em' down at a deplorable percentage.


More faulty analysis in an effort to validate the Hinrich-bashing.

*PER (a.k.a. offensive efficiency)*
Gordon: 15.18
Hinrich: 15.20

This is with Gordon taking a higher frequency of shots than Hinrich.

PER = Player Efficiency Rating - A single number that represents a player's ability adjusted for minutes played and pace - *a great representation of his offensive ability (30 best - 0 worst)*

Facts -- they're elusive.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> Who said that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No offense, but I'm not going to do anybodies homework. That was suggested more than a few times. Revisit the locked threads of the last few days.

I'm not going to argue that Kirk is a better "scorer" than Ben because it simply isn't true. You are however, completely wrong when you state Hinrich is "just not a good offensive player". Jason Kidd is a borderline sub 40% lifetime shooter. I guess by extension, he too is "just not a good offensive player".

So after four years of Jamal has so much potential, Hinrich doesn't quite get two years and he's hit the ceiling? Theres no chance he'll develop into a highly efficient perimeter shooter as his demands for scoring go down and our overall talent increases? Wow, thats quite a prediction. Yet, you seem to know for a fact Gordon will become what you expect him to become! Bravo!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> More faulty analysis in an effort to validate the Hinrich-bashing.
> 
> *PER (a.k.a. offensive efficiency)*
> Gordon: 15.18
> ...


When it comes to people criticizing Hinrich, it should say...

Facts -- they're useless. :biggrin:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> No offense, but I'm not going to do anybodies homework. That was suggested more than a few times. Revisit the locked threads of the last few days.


I have read them all. I don't remember anyone SERIOUSLY saying we're better w/o Kirk. U said "many have suggested" we're better w/o Kirk. I know that's not true. Y don't u prove me otherwise.



> You are however, completely wrong when you state Hinrich is "just not a good offensive player".


He's not. He doesn't shoot a good, average or even a below average percentage from inside or outside. Doesn't go to the FT line. Doesn't attack the rim and his assist numbers aren't that great either.



> Jason Kidd is a borderline sub 40% lifetime shooter. I guess by extension, he too is "just not a good offensive player".


I wouldn't call him a great offensive player either, but he's obviously pretty darn good. *11 assists per game*. That's a LOT more then Kirk's 6. Kidd's been the biggest fast break threat to the league since Magic. And he was a darn good slasher/finisher as well. Kirk's not. In fact, he's among the poorest I've seen at the PG spot. Kidd's had plenty of big scoring games while leading his team to two finals appearances. If Kirk can do that, then I'll call him a good offensive player like Kidd.



> So after four years of Jamal has so much potential, Hinrich doesn't quite get two years and he's hit the ceiling?


Well, there are plenty people out there who can't see Kirk ever getting much better then where he's right now. I agree. 



> Theres no chance he'll develop into a highly efficient perimeter shooter as his demands for scoring go down and our overall talent increases?


It might. His shooting can only improve. But I don't ever see him becoming better then a 40-42% guy. Almost all of his pts come from outside. Hard to imagine someone who scores like that to be a very efficient perimeter scorer. 


> Yet, you seem to know for a fact Gordon will become what you expect him to become! Bravo!


Gordon's already set plenty of SCORING rookie records. *His 20 10+ 4th qtr pts are most in NBA History. He has the most 20+ games off the bench in more then 2 decades.* He's accomplished most of this at a very high efficiency rate. Of course, he's been a slump this month but all rookies go through that. Bottomline, Gordon's shown me and MANY others enough to consider him pretty damn good and close to an untouchable.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

SPMJ said:


> He's not. He doesn't shoot a good, average or even a below average percentage from inside or outside. Doesn't go to the FT line. Doesn't attack the rim and *his assist numbers aren't that great either.*


Ranks #9 in the NBA in Assists Per Game(6.7)

????


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Ranks #9 in the NBA in Assists Per Game(6.7)
> 
> ????


Yes, they aren't *great*. That's what I said. 6.7 is pretty good for a PG. But they're not elite.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> He's not. He doesn't shoot a good, average or even a below average percentage from inside or outside.


39% from the field is below average for a guard, not unclassifiable as you state above. 35% from three is right around average. I think you're exaggerating things again.



> Doesn't go to the FT line.


He doesn't get there very much at all, which is one of my biggest knocks on him. But he does get there almost as much as Ben Gordon, a guy who everyone agrees is a great slasher who gets to the rim very well.



> Doesn't attack the rim and his assist numbers aren't that great either.


He attacks the rim -- he just doesn't finish. And remember what I said about exaggeration? Hinrich is #9 in the NBA in assists per game, with over 40% of them being of the "close" variety. Seriously, this argument has been run full circle by the Hinrich-bashers. Last year, Kirk wasn't an effective passer because his close assist frequency wasn't great. This year he does have a great close assist frequency, but his numbers "aren't that great". Talk about circular logic.



> Well, there are plenty people out there who can't see Kirk ever getting much better then where he's right now. I agree.


Sure there are. They're the same people who said that Hinrich was out of his league playing ball at Kansas, the same people who said that Hinrich would never make the NBA, and the same people who said that if he did get lucky enough to make the NBA, he'd be a career scrub playing 3 minutes a night.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Talking about trading Hinrich for Ray Allen or Larry Hughes is now "bashing."


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Talking about trading Hinrich for Ray Allen or Larry Hughes is now "bashing."


Translation or elucidation, please.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

No, Talking about trading Hinrich for Ray Allen or Larry Hughes is not "bashing."

No one is untochable if the right trade came along.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Translation or elucidation, please.





Mr T said:


> Keep Duhon and Gordon and trade Hinrich because he's overrated! Nonsense.


I don't think anyone is saying trade Hinrich for nothing. And not because he's overrated. Just that perhaps he's our most expendable player with a decent trade value. If we can improve the team... any player should be traded.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> He doesn't get there very much at all, which is one of my biggest knocks on him. But he does get there almost as much as Ben Gordon, a guy who everyone agrees is a great slasher who gets to the rim very well.


He does average 2 more FTA per 48 minutes(as u pointed out). And I honestly think anybody who watches Bulls games can easily see a pretty big difference in offensive skill level between the two. Ben can very EASILY take his man off the dribble and take it to the rim most of the time he feels like it. He can finish it as well. Kirk's not on that level.



> Sure there are. They're the same people who said that Hinrich was out of his league playing ball at Kansas, the same people who said that Hinrich would never make the NBA, and the same people who said that if he did get lucky enough to make the NBA, he'd be a career scrub playing 3 minutes a night.


Good, more motivation for Kirk. I don't think he'll get much better then what he's right now. If he does, great for me. He does play for my favorite team after all.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally Posted by *Mr T*
> 
> Keep Duhon and Gordon and trade Hinrich because he's overrated! Nonsense.



Help me out here, kukoc4ever. Where were Ray Allen and Larry Hughes mentioned?

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion of trading a player to make the team better. What's quite transparent is the you "paraphrasing" Mr.T's comment and assuming that he did not approve of trading Hinrich for Allen or Hughes because it was "bashing".

Come on, man.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> He does average 2 more FTA per 48 minutes(as u pointed out). And I honestly think anybody who watches Bulls games can easily see a pretty big difference in offensive skill level between the two. Ben can very EASILY take his man off the dribble and take it to the rim most of the time he feels like it. He can finish it as well. Kirk's not on that level.


Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Ben Gordon. A big fan. The thing is, if he's not scoring, he doesn't really do anything else. He can't run the team from the PG spot, he's not a great defender, he's not a great rebounder. This isn't the case with Kirk (and Duhon) -- when they're not scoring, they're still effective in the other facets of the game. The game is not all about "offensive skill". There's other variables involved.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

SPMJ said:


> Yes, they aren't *great*. That's what I said. 6.7 is pretty good for a PG. But they're not elite.


You're right, it's not elite. It's pretty good for a PG.

Only Hinrich spends a lot of his time at SG. Duhon plays PG for the Bulls 26 mpg, that only leaves 22 minutes for Hinrich. Hinrich plays 37.2 minutes.

I'll even forget that FWill and Pargo have played some PG for the Bulls, THE MOST Hinrich could be playing at PG is 22 minutes/game. That means he is spending AT LEAST 15.2 minutes at SG.

15.2 divided by 37.2 equals 40.86 per cent of Hinrich's minutes at shooting guard. (And again, the true total is a little higher, not much)

So 6.7 assists for a guy who only plays PG 59% of the time (22 minutes per game)- and who spends his SG minutes on the floor with Duhon in the backcourt, one of the absolute worst shooting % starters in the league- that's pretty damn good.

Great? Probably pretty close. Bordering on great.  A hell of a long way above "not that great".


Isn't it funny how someone tries to discredit Hinrich, and it turns out to actually be a positive?


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Ben Gordon. A big fan. The thing is, if he's not scoring, he doesn't really do anything else. He can't run the team from the PG spot, he's not a great defender, he's not a great rebounder. This isn't the case with Kirk (and Duhon) -- when they're not scoring, they're still effective in the other facets of the game.


I'll agree with that. But u have to admit his D has come a long way, and he's no longer a "liability" when not scoring. Cuz Skiles wouldn't keep him on the floor for so long when Ben's struggling on O(like he has this month). Regarding Ben's ability(or inability) to run the PG spot, does he ever have to? When Ben's on the floor, so are either Duhon or Kirk. I don't see his lack of PG skills as as big of an issue as some others seem to. Even if we do trade Kirk for a "stud SG", we'll always have Duhon(we better sign this guy) to run the things. He's run it very well this season, w/ or w/o Kirk.



> The game is not all about "offensive skill". There's other variables involved.


I never said it was. I was just pointing out the big difference in offensive skill level between Kirk and Ben.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

bullsville said:


> You're right, it's not elite. It's pretty good for a PG.
> 
> Only Hinrich spends a lot of his time at SG. Duhon plays PG for the Bulls 26 mpg, that only leaves 22 minutes for Hinrich. Hinrich plays 37.2 minutes.
> 
> ...



Dagger!

Damn the facts.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Dagger!
> 
> Damn the facts.



Nah, remember the motto of any Hinrich discussion:



Facts -- they're useless.* :biggrin:



And you have to add the big grin at the end.



*-copyright 2005 bullsville.com all rights reserved


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> Yes, they aren't *great*. That's what I said. 6.7 is pretty good for a PG. But they're not elite.


Even when he spends half the game playing SG? How many of his assists are taken away by Duhon handling the ball?

Edit: I posted this without reading the full thread. Obviously, bullsville did a much better job in explaining this point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Help me out here, kukoc4ever. Where were Ray Allen and Larry Hughes mentioned?
> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion of trading a player to make the team better. What's quite transparent is the you "paraphrasing" Mr.T's comment and assuming that he did not approve of trading Hinrich for Allen or Hughes because it was "bashing".
> 
> Come on, man.


So he's just against the concept of trading Hinrich in general?



> Keep Duhon and Gordon and trade Hinrich because he's overrated! Nonsense.


How do you interpret this quote?

You don’t think the context of the recent discussions on Hinrich (ie trading him for allen, r davis, Hughes) had anything to do with it?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I pose a question that I think is relavent to this thread. Rank the following as to which you'd most like to have on your team:

<pre>
* FG% 3PT% FT% TRB AST ST TO PTS*
*A* .457 .167 .840 3.60 2.9 2.06 2.50 22.7
*B* .428 .364 .875 4.90 4.3 1.35 3.21 19.5
*C* .416 .216 .746 3.20 1.5 1.08 1.90 10.0
*D* .386 .352 .798 4.20 6.7 1.60 2.42 15.5
*E* .381 .336 .692 6.80 9.7 2.16 4.05 16.6
</pre>

Use whatever formula you like. Some of us will no doubt rank by FG%, as I've listed them here. Some will use some efficiency formula or another. I'd just be interested to see a ranking based on stats alone -- no jib, no race, no height, no size, no background info.

Thanks in advance for your participation.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

K4E, what are you doing? You come in here and make some ridiculous comment about suggesting a trade being "bashing", and then post a bunch of quotes from other people, none of them mentioning anything to do with trading Kirk for Allen or Hughes.

Can the mods please do something, this recent hijacking of thread by K4E is getting real old, real quick. I'm not saying ban him, maybe he needs to cool off for a day or two? I'm sure someone has already corresponded with him about the other threads, but I still see threads getting hijacked.

Thanks in advance for all of your help, the mods here have been doing a great job lately.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Help me out here, kukoc4ever. Where were Ray Allen and Larry Hughes mentioned?
> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion of trading a player to make the team better. What's quite transparent is the you "paraphrasing" Mr.T's comment and assuming that he did not approve of trading Hinrich for Allen or Hughes because it was "bashing".
> 
> Come on, man.


What he said. 

The crying of "Hinrich is treated like a god by the Hinrichloving mob" is getting ridiculously old.

There is a thread with all kinds of Hinrich trades PROPOSED BY BULLS FANS, go read it and please quit hijacking good threads.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Wynn said:


> I pose a question that I think is relavent to this thread. Rank the following as to which you'd most like to have on your team:
> 
> <pre>
> * FG% 3PT% FT% TRB AST ST TO PTS*
> ...


Well, defensive ability is paramount, but that's not something that comes across in the stats. 

I will rank them, however: B, E, D, A, C.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> What he said.
> 
> The crying of "Hinrich is treated like a god by the Hinrichloving mob" is getting ridiculously old.
> 
> There is a thread with all kinds of Hinrich trades PROPOSED BY BULLS FANS, go read it and please quit hijacking good threads.


I was responding to a post that said trading Hinrich was "nonsense."

Don't see how its off topic.


PLEASE... I think we can keep this one non-personal. Not looking for any fights. Just talk about basketball.

EDIT: I'm out for the evening anyway... sorry for posting in the first place. :wave:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> So he's just against the concept of trading Hinrich in general?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you interpret this quote?


Mr.T is against the idea of trading Hinrich simply on the basis of others' perceptions of him being overrated.



> You don’t think the context of the recent discussions on Hinrich (ie trading him for allen, r davis, Hughes) had anything to do with it?


I think 99.9% of rational Bulls fans would trade KH for Allen or Hughes in a heartbeat. I think a fair amount of them would also trade him for Ricky Davis, although I sure as hell wouldn't.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Mr.T is against the idea of trading Hinrich simply on the basis of others' perceptions of him being overrated.


I agree. Message board rep is a poor reason to trade someone. :biggrin: 

lates


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was responding to a post that said trading Hinrich was "nonsense."
> 
> Don't see how its off topic.
> 
> ...


Non-personal? You accused everyone hear of bashing you for proposing a trade, which nobody did. Everyone includes me, and I'm sick of you hijacking threads.

I'm sick of you attacking people and then crying "personal attack". 



> Talking about trading Hinrich for Ray Allen or Larry Hughes is now "bashing."


That is your first "contribution" to this thread, it is baiting, and it is a personal attack on the rest of this board, and I am sick of it.

I said you shouldn't be banned, maybe I was wrong. Your sudden hatred may go beyond something that can be solved by a cooling off period or temporary suspension. 

But I'll leave that to the mods, they are already award of you and are reading this thread.

I'm sorry I let you drag me into your hijack job, and now I will ignore any other "contributions" you have to this thread. Hopefully everyone else will do the same, you have made it quite clear that you are not interested in any kind of honest discussion.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> I think 99.9% of rational Bulls fans would trade KH for Allen or Hughes in a heartbeat. I think a fair amount of them would also trade him for Ricky Davis, although I sure as hell wouldn't.


Well, I wouldn't trade Kirk for either one of them straight up.

But then again, I am a Tysonite, so what does my opinion really mean? :biggrin:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ok guys, KK4e is not purposely trying to hi-jack this thread so give him slack this time. 

He is really trying to talk basketball and not stir anything up. 

so let's try and talk basketball.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

What we've seen is the early return from the SC crowd. Damn the facts is right. 

SPMJ - I only need to look at game threads to see your visible dislike for Hinrich and love for Ben. Hinrich is what he is and Ben will be the next AI/MJ? Says you? And you are what exactly? The young Jerry Krause?

I love how folks throw around their opinions like they're facts, especially when they're PROJECTIONS. Projections by Internet message board posters nonetheless.

I look at Hinrich and I see a lot of improvement from last year to this year. And apparently Hinrich doesn't get to use the excuse that he's working hard on D like Ben does. But hey, maybe progress is being made. To understand the criticism, knowing the origination of it is key. Maybe a good portion of the Ben base is made up of the departed Jamal base. That certainly seems to be more and more apparent. 

I started this thread to try to give some additional perspective, but what we have is one guys opinion (and probably more to follow) that the facts be damned.

So hey how about another useless stat.

Adj FG%

.539 Curry
.537 Harrington 
.515 Piatkowski
.487 Gordon
.486 Chandler
.478 Davis
.461 Deng
.451 Hinrich
.422 Duhon
.418 Nocioni
.375 Reiner
.374 Griffin
.333 Pargo
.150 Williams
.470 Team

Considering the level of concern over Hinrich, shouldn't we start getting worried about Luol "the chucker" Deng? .461 and that comes on a serious amount of dunks and put backs.

And wow, how about the guy some prefer at the point - Duhon? Ouch. Oh, Du ain't that bad? Hmmm. Better not go with that argument. The diff is pretty much equidistant between Gordon - Hinrich - Duhon.

We can try to throw sarcasm like that in, but lets face it, a hater is a hater because he refuses to look at things objectively. A hater has an agenda and open-minded isn't in his dictionary.

People here HATE Hinrich. Great, we've finally found one thing about Hinrich that everyone here can agree on. 

The rest of the facts (basketball stats) which don't tell the whole story, can still be damned.

I agree with the recent comment on the board - thank goodness this decision is up to Paxson. It must be hell for the SC crowd knowing that. If Hinrich is to be traded, I'm certain Paxson will make us better by doing so. If he's not and somebody or nobody else is, I'll stand with that as well. But win, lose or draw I'll always be happy knowing this is nothing more than an Internet message board whose opinion with respect to managements decisions don't amount to a pimple on their azz.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

So where did he come up with "suggesting a trade is bashing"?

That had no place in this thread, and his first post in this thread- 

Talking about trading Hinrich for Ray Allen or Larry Hughes is now "bashing."

That's an indirect personal attack on every member of this board, just like when he calls anyone who disagrees with him on the subject part of the "mob". Besides that, it is a flat out lie, just another part of his "people overrate Hinrich on this board" agenda.

What does basing a trade idea have to do with basketball? NOTHING. He addressed himself, and he addressed the rest of the board (the people who "bashed" him) and he said absolutely nothing about basketball.

Maybe I'm wrong, could someone explain to me how talking about a trade idea being "bashing" is related to basketball? It's not, it's releated to K4E, and the last time I check, he doesn't play for the Bulls.

If he wants to discuss basketball, he should discuss basketball, not whether or not someone who suggests a trade is a basher. I'm sorry, but nobody can convince me that his post had anything to do with basketball (other than mentioning the names of players).


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think anyone is saying trade Hinrich for nothing. And not because he's overrated. Just that perhaps he's our most expendable player with a decent trade value. If we can improve the team... any player should be traded.


K4E, you read my posts so you certainly know I am for improving this team in any way possible. Simply put, if that means trading Kirk, I'm on board.

I don't even consider Kirk "my boo", or me to be a "Hinrich lover". I do find myself drawn into defending him as I would any other Bull who is giving us everything he's got every night, playing at a high level and being regularly thrashed on this board. I'm dumbfounded that there can be such hate for a guy who is doing so good by us. 

Another good example is Eddy. You don't see me ragging him. I do give Sloth and Gipper a hard time for their profound blindness toward him, but even TB#1 does and is there a more respected poster? When I see Eddy giving us everything he's got, I'll defend him just as vehemently. Even now, I often point out Eddy's good games and positives. I don't dwell on the negatives.

If I have a "weakness", its the fact I believe in the play the right way mentality. Thats what I'm looking for and the names aren't important.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Here is the point of what I was trying to make on trading Hinrich. Not saying that Hinrich doesn't make the team better, but the Bulls are still a good team without Kirk, and we have Chris Duhon who can do a nice job at the point guard position. I'm lost on Ben, he is just useless until the 4th, but thats for another topic. But if we can trade Kirk, for a real two gaurd THAT MAKES THE TEAM BETTER, then we should do it. We weren't talking about just getting rid of Kirk, and get rid of him at all means like some posters try to make it seem. We are talking about if Kirk is expendable because we have other good point guards, so if a trade comes along that MAKES US BETTER, then why shouldn't we do it.

Kirk is our most tradeable asset imo, he will bring the 2nd or 3rd most value on this team behind definitely Eddy Curry, and maybe Ben Gordon. He also is easier to replace then someone like Eddy Curry or Ben Gordon, we need Curry's post presence, and Gordon's 4th quarter scoring, until we have others that can do that, they are not a very tradeable asset.

But it is NOT essential to trade Kirk. We only trade Kirk if it makes us better, and if Ray Allen does that (which he does) then we make a trade like that. We are not in any hurry to trade Kirk.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Wynn said:


> I pose a question that I think is relavent to this thread. Rank the following as to which you'd most like to have on your team:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice puzzle Wynn. Just on those stats, theres a little bit to love and hate with everyone! I guess B, D, A, E, C.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> Here is the point of what I was trying to make on trading Hinrich. Not saying that Hinrich doesn't make the team better, but the Bulls are still a good team without Kirk, and we have Chris Duhon who can do a nice job at the point guard position. I'm lost on Ben, he is just useless until the 4th, but thats for another topic. But if we can trade Kirk, for a real two gaurd THAT MAKES THE TEAM BETTER, then we should do it. We weren't talking about just getting rid of Kirk, and get rid of him at all means like some posters try to make it seem. We are talking about if Kirk is expendable because we have other good point guards, so if a trade comes along that MAKES US BETTER, then why shouldn't we do it.
> 
> Kirk is our most tradeable asset imo, he will bring the 2nd or 3rd most value on this team behind definitely Eddy Curry, and maybe Ben Gordon. He also is easier to replace then someone like Eddy Curry or Ben Gordon, we need Curry's post presence, and Gordon's 4th quarter scoring, until we have others that can do that, they are not a very tradeable asset.
> 
> But it is NOT essential to trade Kirk. We only trade Kirk if it makes us better, and if Ray Allen does that (which he does) then we make a trade like that. We are not in any hurry to trade Kirk.


Sloth, I pointed out earlier, Eddy has been a man among boys in Kirk's absence. My goodness, 22-29! But, did you look at the 3 games stats of Du and Ben? O-U-C-H. And this is with Deng back in the lineup!

I will be more than happy to trade Kirk if its gonna get us to another level. Personally though, I still think he should be playing PG and not SG. 

I believe there to be more to the argument than you state. Look at the numbers, Ben is declining and has been over the last 24 games. I think its fair to say that in addition, as his minutes have gone up, his effectiveness has gone down. The same argument that says it may be best to move Hinrich can be applied to moving Ben. His value this summer may also never be higher. 

See, I am just as open to trading Ben for Maggette or Joe Johnson and coupling them with Kirk. As a matter of fact, I believe that may be the better move, but I don't profess to be some genius prognosticator. I'll put my faith in Paxson, that he'll know best which guy if any needs to be moved and I'll just keep my comments to myself and bbb.net.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I don't think there is one person on this board who wouldn't trade Hinrich if it made the team better.

The problem is, evidently, if you don't agree with the guys K4E suggests, you are just part of the "Kirkloving mob". I really resent the implication it makes toward myself and the other posters here.

And then when a guy defends JC to the point he does, you truly wonder where this guy's loyalties lie.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> SPMJ - I only need to look at game threads to see your visible dislike for Hinrich and love for Ben.


I criticize what I see on the court. I believe that's what game threads are for. It's not my fault that a Kirk-lover has problems with me criticizing Kirk Hinrich's deplorable shooting on a lot of FGA game after game.



> Hinrich is what he is and Ben will be the next AI/MJ? Says you? And you are what exactly? The young Jerry Krause?


I'm just like a lot of people. 90% of non Kirk and Bulls fans will agree with me that Ben has a much bigger upside then Kirk. They'll also agree that Kirk won't get much better then his current self. Go and conduct a poll on the General board. And please, stop with the stupid exaggerating of what I believe Ben's upside is. 



> I look at Hinrich and I see a lot of improvement from last year to this year.


A lot? I see much less then that. Statistically his numbers are practically the same from last year. Pts have gone up, but so have the shots and 3pt% has gone down. His already-good D improved a little more, but not much. Overall, a little improvement. I don't see where u're getting "A LOT" from. 

Biggest improvement was made on the roster. Which is THE reason Y we're so much better this season. 



> And apparently Hinrich doesn't get to use the excuse that he's working hard on D like Ben does.


I've already explained the reason for this.



> Maybe a good portion of the Ben base is made up of the departed Jamal base. That certainly seems to be more and more apparent.


And this exactly proves what? Its like me saying a good portion of the Ben doubters and discrediters stem from the Kirkite base. 



> I started this thread to try to give some additional perspective, but what we have is one guys opinion (and probably more to follow) that the facts be damned.


Fact is we're 3-0 w/o Kirk. That's eating a Kirkite(u) from inside. So u're now looking for more ways to discredit it. Sure, our guards haven't put up gaudy numbers in those 3 games. But the game goes beyond the numbers(favorite line of a Kirk fan). Anybody whose watched the games would tell u Duhon, Pargo and Ben were much better in those games then the numbers would indicate.



> We can try to throw sarcasm like that in, but lets face it, a hater is a hater because he refuses to look at things objectively. A hater has an agenda and open-minded isn't in his dictionary.


Just like a groupie is a groupie because he refuses to look at things objectively.



> People here HATE Hinrich. Great, we've finally found one thing about Hinrich that everyone here can agree on.


Nobody likes to hate on a player of their OWN favorite team. Especially when that player is a big contributor on that team. Believe me, all the so called "haters" hate the ites FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more then they dislike Kirk's game sometimes.




> I agree with the recent comment on the board - thank goodness this decision is up to Paxson. It must be hell for the SC crowd knowing that. If Hinrich is to be traded, I'm certain Paxson will make us better by doing so. If he's not and somebody or nobody else is, I'll stand with that as well. But win, lose or draw I'll always be happy knowing this is nothing more than an Internet message board whose opinion with respect to managements decisions don't amount to a pimple on their azz.


What? 

We're all doing the same thing here. Putting our OPINIONS down. I'm sure everybody is aware this is a message board and our thoughts aren't directly going in to the management's ear.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

I lost those last "problems" but bullsville is now on a fase that not agreeing with him is a crime... We are in a forum, you think that your arguments are the better, K4L doesn´t like it, learn to live with that. What you critscize from the Kirk "bashers" is what you do with Curry, but you think it´s ok do it with curry because you have the "reason" but with Kirk is just wrong.

You talk about hijacking threads, but yours "facts- not important" or something like it do the same or more problems in hijacking threads, and yours directed posts to K4L also do the things for your banning...

Sorry 4 going off topic, but this forum is getting so less entertaining since bullsville have the life objective of make everyone love Kirk, because if he don´t he is blind...

And the sad part is that he is arguments are a lot better than the kirk bashers, but he is making it so annoying... 

You can just say to me, "doesn´t like leave", but I think more people aren´t enjoying it and are getting tired of the forum, and because of that reading and posting less... just my 2 cents...


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Wynn said:


> <pre>
> * FG% 3PT% FT% TRB AST ST TO PTS*
> *A* .457 .167 .840 3.60 2.9 2.06 2.50 22.7
> *B* .428 .364 .875 4.90 4.3 1.35 3.21 19.5
> ...


So far we've had two posters willing to put their necks on the line:

*B, E, D, A, C
B, D, A, E, C*

Anyone else want to join, or are we happy arguning pointlessly back and forth?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

JPBulls said:


> I lost those last "problems" but bullsville is now on a fase that not agreeing with him is a crime... We are in a forum, you think that your arguments are the better, K4L doesn´t like it, learn to live with that. What you critscize from the Kirk "bashers" is what you do with Curry, but you think it´s ok do it with curry because you have the "reason" but with Kirk is just wrong.
> 
> You talk about hijacking threads, but yours "facts- not important" or something like it do the same or more problems in hijacking threads, and yours directed posts to K4L also do the things for your banning...
> 
> ...


LOL, that shows me you obviously know nothing about me, or about how I feel about the players on this team.

You, sir or ma'am, are not really worth responding to. I don't know where you came from, I don't really care, but the intelligent, respected posters here know that I could care less about Hinrich, outside of him winning us games.

If you could read my posts, you would know that I am all for trading Hinrich for Tayshaun Prince right now. I am all for Eddy Curry resigning with the Bulls, as long as the first year salary is around $8-$9 million tops.

You are more than welcome to your opinion, though. No matter how incorrect or inconsequential it may be, nobody will refuse you the right to express your opinion.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wynn said:


> So far we've had two posters willing to put their necks on the line:
> 
> *B, E, D, A, C
> B, D, A, E, C*
> ...


Well, unless I know the mental makeup and defensive intensity of a player, I can't really judge a guy just by looking at stats, since offense is less than half the game. You can't go by the rebounds, because I don't know how many minutes each guy is playing.

Besides that, who doesn't prefer arguing pointlessly back and forth? :biggrin:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Well, unless I know the mental makeup and defensive intensity of a player, I can't really judge a guy just by looking at stats, since offense is less than half the game. You can't go by the rebounds, because I don't know how many minutes each guy is playing.


Fair enough. Avoiding direct answers seems to be par for the course these days. I respect your right to do so.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

> I criticize what I see on the court. I believe that's what game threads are for. It's not my fault that a Kirk-lover has problems with me criticizing Kirk Hinrich's deplorable shooting on a lot of FGA game after game.


So in your opinion there's a great deal of difference between a 39% shooter and a 42% (one who also turns the ball over at a high rate). If 39% is "deplorable," then 42% must be no better than "poor." Right?


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So in your opinion there's a great deal of difference between a 39% shooter and a 42% (one who also turns the ball over at a high rate). If 39% is "deplorable," then 42% must be no better than "poor." Right?


Dude, I've been criticizing Ben's shot selection a lot lately too(his FG% has only taken a dip this month though). I'm a TEAM fan. I will give props to whoever does well and the opposite when they don't. I celebrate a Bulls win just like any loyal fan does. But since legitly(sp?) criticizing Kirk seems to be a crime here, that's the only thing that's talked abt, sadly.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

bullsville said:


> LOL, that shows me you obviously know nothing about me, or about how I feel about the players on this team.
> 
> You, sir or ma'am, are not really worth responding to. I don't know where you came from, I don't really care, but the intelligent, respected posters here know that I could care less about Hinrich, outside of him winning us games.
> 
> ...


So it just prove my point that you are making the case of your banning as much as you ask for K4L banning...

I read this board almost daily for 3 years, I probably miss the posts that you said you would trade Kirk for Prince, but the music, the signature, and thousands of posts show how you overcritsize Curry, he goes for 30 pts, you just say he didn´r grab that rebound... Kirk have a bad night and you have planty of excuses, I may be not worth responding but I read this forum, you may be now in a phase to love Tyson, and again I said I lost he locked threads in the weekend, but until then I can garantee that 99 of 100 readers here would say that you love Kirk...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Fair enough. Avoiding direct answers seems to be par for the course these days. I respect your right to do so.





> I'd just be interested to see a ranking based on stats alone -- no jib, no race, no height, no size, no background info.



I'm really sorry, I didn't see that part of your original post.

What I wrote was still true, I am a huge right way and defense guy, so I really don't believe in ranking guys solely by his stats. And since I don't usually do it, I'm probably the last guy who should be trying.

But if I had read your entire post, I would have just kept my mouth shut. Sorry.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

JPBulls said:


> So it just prove my point that you are making the case of your banning as much as you ask for K4L banning...
> 
> I read this board almost daily for 3 years, I probably miss the posts that you said you would trade Kirk for Prince, but the music, the signature, and thousands of posts show how you overcritsize Curry, he goes for 30 pts, you just say he didn´r grab that rebound... Kirk have a bad night and you have planty of excuses, I may be not worth responding but I read this forum, you may be now in a phase to love Tyson, and again I said I lost he locked threads in the weekend, but until then I can garantee that 99 of 100 readers here would say that you love Kirk...


I'm sick of K4E trying to start crap, and I'm not the only one, but I'll keep that to the mods. What I think doesn't really matter, but what they think does.

Think what you will, I'm more than happy to allow you to have your opinion.



> you may be now in a phase to love Tyson


:rotf:

Hmmmmm.... does anyone else see the irony here? :laugh:

I won't let you in on the joke, maybe someone else will. I will say, it's been one hell of a long phase!!

Or maybe you should actually read a few of my posts and know what the hell you are talking about before you say anything?


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

I really hate those personal discussions, but what irritates me is that you do as much as k4l to start the crap and than pose as the good guy...

I know you like Chandler, but 50% of your posters are or praising Kirk and Pax/Skiles, bashing Curry. I hate found the quotes, but I have no doubt that I can find lots of quotes of you just saying those stuffs. Maybe you don´t do as much as my impression, but the annoying way that you do it make your character in my head... 

I´m starting to read the locks threads, if you don´t consider that your constant defence of Kirk makes you a Kirk fan I don´t know what will do...

ps. I actually thinks your arguments a lot better than your "enemies" arguments, what really pisses me of is you complaining and being ironic about some stuff and doing the exactly same thingthat you critcsize...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> yadda, yadda, yadda


So to be clear are you admitting you are a hater and a SC-first-fan whose more concerned with the &1 than all else? Or was I supposed to go to the general board at bbb.net to conduct a poll? 

How touching that the argument you make is the one I've pointed out numerous times. Folks got so tired of listening to folks like you worship on about Jamal that the arguments became huge and divisive. Invoking them now is, well, priceless.

As for the pertinent ending, it was very clear. Regardless of the &1 crowd here, Paxson calls the shots. Since my vision seems to be closer to his than yours, I will continue on with maximum enjoyment of this season.

And with that, all attempts at trying to inject logic into a Hinrich discussion ends. Some people have an axe to grind - its as simple as that.

The board is close-minded, the thread might as well be too. Mods, do your thing.

L-O-C-K

:clown:


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

i wouldnt mind trading Kirk if we got some true value in return. If we could get a guy like Pietrus from the Warriors who is a big guard plays good defense and can contribute on the offense id do that in a heart beat... it would allow Gordon and Duhon to play the point which i believe they can effectively. :banana:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> So to be clear are you admitting you are a hater and a SC-first-fan whose more concerned with the &1 than all else? Or was I supposed to go to the general board at bbb.net to conduct a poll?
> 
> How touching that the argument you make is the one I've pointed out numerous times. Folks got so tired of listening to folks like you worship on about Jamal that the arguments became huge and divisive. Invoking them now is, well, priceless.
> 
> ...


Yada Yada Yada, eh? :laugh:

Just as I expected, u don't have anything to say w/o resorting clueless blabbering.

U're now rambling something abt me being a KIRK hater, an AND1 worshipper, a JC worshipper and whatnot. Somebody's surely got issues and it ain't me. U created this topic out of ur own insecurity by belitting players from our own team and u dare to call me a "hater" :laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What happened to the good posts I normally see on this board?

Not in this thread, not in several others the past few days.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> Yada Yada Yada, eh? :laugh:
> 
> Just as I expected, u don't have anything to say w/o resorting clueless blabbering.
> 
> U're now rambling something abt me being a KIRK hater, an AND1 worshipper, a JC worshipper and whatnot. Somebody's surely got issues and it ain't me. U created this topic out of ur own insecurity by belitting players from our own team and u dare to call me a "hater" :laugh:


What I think I was saying is theres no point in discussing it with someone as completely and utterly clueless as you.
:banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> What happened to the good posts I normally see on this board?
> 
> Not in this thread, not in several others the past few days.


That was the spirit of the thread. Put together the numbers and draw some analysis. 

What resulted is damn the statistics, I know what I know and everybody else is wrong.

And thats whats happened this week in general.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> U're now rambling something abt me being a KIRK hater, an AND1 worshipper, a JC worshipper and whatnot. Somebody's surely got issues and it ain't me. U created this topic out of ur own insecurity by belitting players from our own team and u dare to call me a "hater" :laugh:


Sound like you have penis envy, but that aside, I didn't belittle any players. I pointed out sarcasm when necessary. READING is fundamental pal. Perhaps I can get you one of those phonics tapes, some Dr. Suess, etc. to go with your Iggy highlight reel.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> What happened to the good posts I normally see on this board?
> 
> Not in this thread, not in several others the past few days.


Hey, I tried to appeal with some logic to those who almost seem ignorant to a fault. I apologize for my transgressions. 

From this point forward, I intend to stay out of the Hinrich stuff. If this many folks hate the guy - let them, I've said my peace on the subject.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> That was the spirit of the thread. Put together the numbers and draw some analysis.
> 
> What resulted is damn the statistics, I know what I know and everybody else is wrong.
> 
> And thats whats happened this week in general.


Your spreadsheet work was interesting.

The reason I'd be more willing to trade Hinrich over Gordon is because Gordon has shown the rare ability to single-handedly take over games and win them for us. And he's done it on multiple occasions. Its a pretty rare gift IMO and not one to cast away.

Hinrich brings great defense, good decision making, winning attitude, leadership, good handles, decent distribution. All important qualities. The thing is... Duhon brings most of these as well. And Hinrich and Duhon share the same weaknesses pretty much. They seem like similar players in many ways.

But... I'd trade anyone on the team if it made the team better. Gordon included.

Your insight on Gordon and Duhon shooting poorer due to increased minutes/role is interesting


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

JPBulls said:


> I really hate those personal discussions, but what irritates me is that you do as much as k4l to start the crap and than pose as the good guy...
> 
> I know you like Chandler, but 50% of your posters are or praising Kirk and Pax/Skiles, bashing Curry. I hate found the quotes, but I have no doubt that I can find lots of quotes of you just saying those stuffs. Maybe you don´t do as much as my impression, but the annoying way that you do it make your character in my head...
> 
> I´m starting to read the locks threads, if you don´t consider that your constant defence of Kirk makes you a Kirk fan I don´t know what will do...


First of all, I see no reason not to praise Paxson and Skiles. They have completely turned this team around in less than 2 years, the job they have done has been remarkable. Pax and Skiles will most likely both finish in the top 3 (Executive of the Year and Coach of the Year), why would anybody choose *not* to praise them? 

What's not to praise? We have the 4th best record in the Eastern Conference, one game behind the 3rd best record. This team is the first team in league history that started 0-9 and even reached the .500 mark, and they reached .500 before the mid-way point of the season.

And sure, I praise Kirk, what's not to like? His shooting percentage is too low, without a doubt. But his defense is outstanding and he plays hard all the time, both of which are very important to me. His assist/turnover ratio is very good, and his assist total is great for a guy who only plays PG about 59% of the time. 

Are there things he could do better? Of course. Are there valid criticisms of his game outside of his shooting? I'm sure there are, and despite K4E's erroneous assumptions, I'm willing to discuss any aspect of his game.

Do you have any criticisms of his game? I'd love to hear them.

Do I bash Eddy? You bet I do, but only because around here a factual, valid criticism is known as a BASH for some reason. He doesn't play hard all the time IMO, which is my first problem with his game. And he doesn't block many shots, which as I mentioned earlier playing hard and defense are very important to me. His rebounding is abysmal for a man his size. *And by the way, his rebounding numbers are what says he is an abysmal rebounder, that wasn't a BASH.*

But the worst thing about Eddy is that he could solve most of his problems if he just played hard and with passion all the time. He would be unstoppable on offense if he went up hard all the time, like he has been doing more the last few games. And he would be a big-time rebounder if he went after the ball hard, too many times I see Eddy just standing there watching.

It also bothers the hell out of me that Eddy's rebounding numbers have gone down each season, there is no excuse for that. No matter how great a player can score, if he doesn't do anything else at least average he's never going to be a great player. Eddy could be one of the best ever if he just played with passion all the time.

If Kirk hit only one more shot every game, he would be shooting 45.5% from the field, which is pretty damn good for a guard. If Eddy grabbed one more rebound per game, he would be averaging 6.4 rebounds in 28.6 minutes, which is still pretty damn bad for a center. That's how drastic the difference is.

And I don't know if I "like" Chandler, I only met him once, but he did seem nice in the 5 minutes or so he was around us. I do love the way he goes about playing the game, I always have. But I like all the Bulls, they are Bulls and I am a Bulls fan. If you really read my posts, instead of just looking for the Curry criticisms or the Hinrich praises, you would know that I am hoping that Eddy will agree to a reasonable contract and come back to the Bulls. You would know that I think he is worth a first-year salary of $8 million dollars, which is more than Ben Wallace is making.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And Hinrich and Duhon share the same weaknesses pretty much. They seem like similar players in many ways.


Kirk Hinrich is on a different level than Chris Duhon, and it's not even close. But since neither is flashy, they must be similar. 

You do realize that Duhon would shoot somewhere around 20-25% being forced to take Kirk's shots?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Kirk Hinrich is on a different level than Chris Duhon, and it's not even close. But since neither is flashy, they must be similar.
> 
> You do realize that Duhon would shoot somewhere around 20-25% being forced to take Kirk's shots?


Playing with Kirk, Duhon takes less than 6 shots per game.

The last 3 games, he has taken over 7 shots per game, and he is shooting 18.2%. 

Of course, he did have 18 assists and only 4 TO in the 3 games, plus 5 steals and we won all 3 with him running the show.

But they are similar in ways... they both play physical, hard-nosed defense. Neither of them can throw the ball off the backboard to themselves for a dunk. Neither has a very pretty crossover. Neither of them dribble behind the back or between their legs very well.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> Go and conduct a poll on the General board.


Go and conduct a poll on the General board? The same board that vacillates back and forth to extremes in regards to a player's worth over the course of a few hours? The same board that annoints a player a superstar one day, and then tears him down to 6th man material the next...and then back again? Yeah, that'd be real scientific.



> And please, stop with the stupid exaggerating of what I believe Ben's upside is.


How about you quit exaggerating what you believe Kirk's deficiencies are? I think that would be a good start.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

VincentVega and bullsville pretty much owned this thread with actual facts and logic. But I'll chime in. The Bulls won three without him, and all of the sudden the Bulls can win without Hinrich for a whole season? Must I keep using the example of the Pacers winning 3 straight after losing Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson? The Pacers should have traded all three, since apparently they can win without them.

The Hinrich trade talks are pretty foolish, because he is our most tradeable asset for a reason. He is a very good player. If it makes the team better? Sure, that goes completely without saying though. I think trading Ben Gordon would be a _better_ idea, because he is a liability and forces us to build our whole backcourt around him. I'd trade Gordon for Hughes in a heartbeat (strictly talking ability, I'm not sold on Hughes attitude, while Gordon's attitude is great). Being able to put Hinrich at the point full time would do wonders for his game. A backcourt of Hinrich/Hughes is more dangerous on both ends, and Duhon is a great backup point guard. That makes sense. I don't think Hinrich trades make sense a lot of the times, but people suggest them because of they want him gone for some reason. 

For me, I don't think this team needs trade right now. Our guys shouldn't be shopped, and no team is going to go out of their way to offer us something that rips them off. So with that, we stand put.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> VincentVega and bullsville pretty much owned this thread with actual facts and logic. But I'll chime in. The Bulls won three without him, and all of the sudden the Bulls can win without Hinrich for a whole season? Must I keep using the example of the Pacers winning 3 straight after losing Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson? The Pacers should have traded all three, since apparently they can win without them.
> 
> The Hinrich trade talks are pretty foolish, because he is our most tradeable asset for a reason. He is a very good player. If it makes the team better? Sure, that goes completely without saying though. I think trading Ben Gordon would be a _better_ idea, because he is a liability and forces us to build our whole backcourt around him. I'd trade Gordon for Hughes in a heartbeat (strictly talking ability, I'm not sold on Hughes attitude, while Gordon's attitude is great). Being able to put Hinrich at the point full time would do wonders for his game. A backcourt of Hinrich/Hughes is more dangerous on both ends, and Duhon is a great backup point guard. That makes sense. I don't think Hinrich trades make sense a lot of the times, but people suggest them because of they want him gone for some reason.
> 
> For me, I don't think this team needs trade right now. Our guys shouldn't be shopped, and no team is going to go out of their way to offer us something that rips them off. So with that, we stand put.


 You will get A LOT of people disagreeing with you on this post. (including me) Gordon WILL get better on defense and WILL get better with the TO problem. Offensively he's already shown his dominance with his pure shooting and explosiveness to the basket. If there were gun to my head to choose who I had to ship out Hinrich or Gordon, I'd choose to trade Kirk.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> You will get A LOT of people disagreeing with you on this post. (including me) Gordon WILL get better on defense and WILL get better with the TO problem. Offensively he's already shown his dominance with his pure shooting and explosiveness to the basket. If there were gun to my head to choose who I had to ship out Hinrich or Gordon, I'd choose to trade Kirk.


Defense is not something he can correct. I think he'll patch up the turnover problems, but he is a 6'1 shooting guard. He will always be a liability on defense because of his height.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What happened to the good posts I normally see on this board?
> 
> Not in this thread, not in several others the past few days.


I personally liked your "The kool-aid is stronger than you might think" post from CiMa's "Our playoff chances are higher than you might think" thread. _That_ was a good one.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I know you can't teach height but he has improved on his defense already. Players who were taller than him would abuse him by posting up on him but he's been holding his own as of late. I think it's unfair to say that Gordon, just a rookie, will be always be a liability on defense just because of his height. There are short guards in the league who are good defensively and there are tall guards who are matadors. Factors for defense are positioning, effort and yes, size. He doesn't have the positioning part down 

_"I have no problem if the situation dictated starting Ben," Skiles said. "Ben's going to be a starter in the NBA. That's just not his role on our team now. He's improved drastically on defense, but he's got a ways to go. He still gets attacked, gets into foul trouble. He's still got a lot to figure out."_ I had another link of Skiles praising Gordon's improvement on D. He can still improve and will be adequate defensively in the league.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Defense is not something he can correct. I think he'll patch up the turnover problems, but he is a 6'1 shooting guard. He will always be a liability on defense because of his height.


That post makes no sense. If he improves his TO problem, as you say he's capable of doing, then we can get a 2, and he can guard the 1's....which is what he's been doing anyway. And the idea that his defense cannot get any better is laughable. Every 62" and under shooting guard that has WANTED to get better at D has done so....or has AI's defense NOT improved since his rookie season?

Its about desire.....its about desire, its about desire. How badly does Ben want to improve...???


------------------------The rest of this is not directed at you--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I see is a lot of people who either want to trade Gordon or trade Hinrich. I really sick of almost every single poster in this thread. None of you seem willing to leave room for the player you so desperately want to trade, to grow. There are about 5 exceptions, but this bickering and mindless support (AND BASHING) has gotten way out of control, ON BOTH SIDES. THe stats put up are not fool proof, and I kept waiting for an objective post to address them, but it never came.

For example:

6.7 assinst for a guy who only spends 59% at PG is great huh? I seem to remember a guy who almost NEVER played point guard on our team, and almost ALWAYS put up similar or better numbers on our team. In fact, so proficient was he at getting others involved from a position OTHER THAN THE PG (which is just a title of a player on the court), that he created a new position: Point Forward.

Bottom line: If you want to rack up the assists, you can do it from almost any position on the court. Didn't Wilt lead the team in assists from the 5 spot? Didn't MJ do it WHILE AVERAGING more than 30 a game??

Not a single argument in this thread is impervious to having quite a few holes shot in it. And that makes ALL the senseless arguing meaningless. Looks like its back into silence for me. Hopefully this foolishness (which, btw is two sided) will have been addressed by the time the playoffs get here.

FTR--I wouldn't trade either player right now. But I do believe that BG has more upside and will in the long run be a better PLAYER than KH. Its amazing how people forget the TO problems that KH had last year......as a rookie. He wasn't exactly Isaih Thomas with the pill last year.

Fortunately, I think Pax will keep them both for at least one more year and give HIMSELF time to evaluate exactly what he got.

I'll see yall around......... :curse:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Spongyfungy, I mean it this time man. Until this crap is sorted out, I'm just gonna sit the bench for a while.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> That post makes no sense. If he improves his TO problem, as you say he's capable of doing, then we can get a 2, and he can guard the 1's


It's not that simple, I think he can clean up the turnover problem, but I doubt he'll ever be able to run the point guard position full time while still being the scorer that he is. Right now, he plays *shooting guard*, and turns the ball over a lot. 

So in order for him to not be a liability, he needs a player who can run the point guard, and guard shooting guards. Kirk Hinrich is probably the best combination of those things you'll find in the whole league. That's not exaggerated. That's why I don't think we need trade, but I'd definitely trade Gordon before Hinrich, Hinrich will fit on any team because of his abilties. He isn't being used very well on the Bulls, but he comes to play, and doesn't rely on anyone else. Gordon needs a rare type of backcourt mate in order to not be a liability.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> That post makes no sense. If he improves his TO
> 
> Bottom line: If you want to rack up the assists, you can do it from almost any position on the court. Didn't Wilt lead the team in assists from the 5 spot? Didn't MJ do it WHILE AVERAGING more than 30 a game??


Statistically speaking, the probability that a point guard (as a single position) will earn an assist as opposed to the four other positions on the court (each as single positions) is very good.  17 of the top 20 players in assists per game start at point guard for their respective teams -- only LeBron James, Kirk Hinrich and Tracy McGrady do not.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> That post makes no sense. If he improves his TO problem, as you say he's capable of doing, then we can get a 2, and he can guard the 1's....which is what he's been doing anyway. And the idea that his defense cannot get any better is laughable. Every 62" and under shooting guard that has WANTED to get better at D has done so....or has AI's defense NOT improved since his rookie season?
> 
> Its about desire.....its about desire, its about desire. How badly does Ben want to improve...???
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap: 

That was a great post, I would rep you but I can't yet.

But you've inspired me, I'm not going to discuss Hinrich with some people around here any more. I don't understand the dislike for him, and I certainly don't understand the dislike for his fans. I really can't understand why people get upset because some of their fellow Bulls fans allegedly praise Hinrich too much? Or don't criticize him enough? 

From everything I read and hear, it certainly seems that Hinrich is our "best all-around player" or "leader" or "heart and soul" or whatever the hell you want to say *according to people who cover the NBA who aren't affiliated with the Bulls*. It seems only natural to me that he would have the most fans, nationally he's the face of the franchise, the one getting the most pub. Why does that bother people?

And why does it bother anyone that people criticize Eddy's game? It doesn't mean you hate him, it means you see a lot of aspects of his game that are worth criticizing. I have stated over and over that I hope Eddy is a Bull for a long time, as long as he signs a reasonable contract, $8 million next season is the ballpark figure established by FJ the Sausage King. But for some reason, certain people either ignore that or say I hate Eddy because I don't think he should be paid $12 million. 

We are all here giving our opinions of the Bulls. So what if you are a "Kirklover" or an "Eddy Hater" or a "Tysonite" like myself, if that's what you think of the player, so be it. If I make a statement about Eddy, don't call me a hater- try to discredit or disprove the statement, or if it's an opinon-only thing without stats or anything else to back it up, argue your opinion.

Just don't say "you can't say anything bad about Kirk" or "People hate Eddy", that's not discussing basketball. I have strayed from that myself, and I apologize profusely for any contributions I have made to this lousy posting. I really should go back to work, I sit around on here and try to converse with lower quality posters and I wind up sinking down to their level of stupidity and moronic behavior.

If you want to discuss Hinrich, discuss what he does on the court, or don't expect me to discuss it with you. Not to be rude, but I'm taking the high road on this one, I don't care to discuss whether or not suggesting a trade is bashing, or whether or not Hinrich gets too much love or Curry gets too much hate.

I don't want to see a quality poster like Kraken stop posting, so please don't go, I'll stick to conversing with people who know how to converse (like you).

And BTW, 22 of the top 25 assist leaders are PG- LeBron, TMac and KG are the other 3. I think that's why SPMJ brought up assists for a PG. For whatever reasons, in the NBA the PG gets the most assists almost without fail. So I think SPMJ had a valid point when he brought up number of assists for a PG. I just think he was wrong in saying Kirk's assist total wasn't that great, if you look at how PGs get most of the assists in the NBA, IMO Kirk is doing an outstanding job of getting assists despite playing less than 60% of his minutes at PG.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Eddy looking great so far, one off a nice pass from AD.

Of course, I can't let the game only being only 2:07 old stop the requisite 'Eddy zero rebounds so far'... 

------------------------

Awesome spin move by Eddy! 

That's two nights in a row he has pulled out a nice move I hadn't seen. 

Great start, 10 points in 4 minutes.

-----------------------

Eddy 12 points in 5 1/2 minutes, almost a perfect game from him so far (he is perfect shooting, 3/3 and 6/6).

------------------------

OMFG!!!

Who arranged for the pods to come and for Shaq's pod to wind up in Eddy's bedroom?

----------------------

Pacers so afraid of Eddy, AD had 20 feet of open space to get the offensive board.

---------------------

Eddy 16, Pacers 17

-----------------------

LOL, Ben waiting to pass to Eddy, they didn't leave Eddy so he had to shoot!

---------------------

Pargo can shoot, but that's about all.

If Eddy played this aggressively every night, he'd be Shaq.

-------------------

Eddy bruised knee.

--------------------

All of my posts from last game mentioning Eddy. 

Amazingly [/sarcasm] , when he plays well, I praise him a lot. 

Imagine that. [/sarcasm]


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

No rush to trade Kirk.

But 

If we had to, I'd trade Kirk before Ben simply because we would be hardpressed to find another player that has led the league in 4th quarter scoring as a rookie as sloth put pretty well. 

These one-dimensional tags on Ben don't really matter because as I see it he's helped us do something that we haven't been able to do since #23 was lacing it up for us. 

Does anyone care that Shaq is a one-dimensional offensive player ? Would you trade him for Lamar Odom because Lamar Odom has more skills ? 

My point in asking those questions is that one-dimensionality doesn't necessarily equate with ineffectiveness.

As per the exultation of Kirk's defense, it's largely been team defense that has helped us keep us in games through 3 quarters with Tyson making the big defensive plays. Occasionally Kirk has had those games where he shut out the Ray Allens of the world, but that's only on occasion. But everyone sees that defense and rebounding has had a marked improvement in general. On these boards, that marked improvement is usually a testament to Skiles' coaching genius, so you'd be arguing against observations you've made yourself if you tried to make it seem like Kirk's the only one who's improved on defense. 

Regarding Ben himself on defense, I don't understand how he can't get better. . .he's a rookie. . .but even then. . .

You'd want Ben during pressure time because he's already provided enough proof to establish himself as something of a certainty during those times of uncertainty. That 4th quarter stat, correlates more to wins because they're garnered in the last quarter of the game, when games are decided. The man changes/decides games. If anything, you Kirksters were probably kissing Ben's feet when we helped us rally with a minute to go and then finished the game by nailing that jumper to beat a just-came-off-an-injury Jamal (  ) and the Knicks at the Garden.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Yes sir, as much as I "hate" Eddy :biggrin: , he deserves major props for his play in the 4th tonight.

----------------

I would mention Eddy's zero rebound first half, but it's not even newsworthy or noteworthy any more... jeez.

Pargo is horrible, we better hope Duhon can give us 24 minutes in the 2nd half. Gordon is going to need to give us big minutes as well- even if he's not scoring, Pargo has just been too horrible to see the court again. We'll undoubtedly see more Griff, but it may be at Pike's expense, when he's not hitting he's useless.

AD and Tyson were outstanding, let's hope they keep it up. Tyson only has one foul, usually if he stays out of foul trouble he has a big 2nd half. 

What was with that awesome drive to the hole with the left hand by Eddy? I had never seen that one, it even left Heinson's loud-arse pie-hole speechless.

---------------------

That is every post in the Boston game thread where I mention Eddy's name.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

15, no. But if he stays out of foul trouble, I would expect Pike to get at least 10 shots in 30 minutes. He is our 2nd best 3pt shooter behind Ben, and if he can get open looks he is going to have to take them.

Eddy is 1-3 with 2 TO so far, let's hope Othella picks it up.

--------------------

Harrington 3-3 FG, 2-2 FT, 2 ast, 1 stl 8 pts in 7 minutes, OUTSTANDING.

(This post doesn't mention Eddy, but it was the next post I made in the thread and it directly relates to the previous post)

--------------------------------

LOL, Matt Bonner abuses Eddy in the post.

Matt Bonner.

:nonono:

---------------------------

Jalen rebounded and got to the line very well tonight, the Raps lost but at least Jalen can sleep well tonight knowing that he got his.

Eddy- 23 min, 16 pts, 4 reb
Tyson- 27 min, 8 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 blk
Harrington- 17 min, 11 pts, 5 reb, 3 ast
AD- 28 min, 12 pts, 5 reb
Nocioni- 26 min, 10 pts, 8 reb
Deng- 23 min, 9 pts, 6 reb, 2 blk

It wasn't just the towers, they played well (especially Tyson) but every one of our forwards and centers had nice games tonight.

----------------------

Toronto game thread.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

JPBulls said:


> I read this board almost daily for 3 years, I probably miss the posts that you said you would trade Kirk for Prince, but the music, the signature, and thousands of posts show how you overcritsize Curry, he goes for 30 pts, you just say he didn´r grab that rebound


Thanks for saying that, it gave me the impetus to go back and look through the game threads to see what I actually did say about Eddy.

[sarcasm] Amazingly [/sarcasm], the better Eddy plays, the more I praise him.

When Eddy lets MATT BONNER abuse him on a play in the post, or he grabs ZERO rebounds in the first half of a game, I criticize him.

For reading this board "almost daily for 3 years", you seem to have missed a lot of my posts. I'm going to believe that you have actually "read this board almost daily for 3 years", and that being the case, it certainly appears as if you only remember the posts you want to remember. 

You missed all the praise I give to Eddy when he plays well. You missed where I said on several occasions that the song about Eddy was a joke and that all of my songs have lyrics like that. You missed where I invited people to listen to the other songs in my signature, so they can see that "suck my d***" is a common phrase I use when writing a song.

But like I said a few posts back, I'm willing to wipe the slate clean with anyone who has accused me of being a Hinrich lover or an Eddy hater. You have read my criticisms of Eddy covering the last 3 games, do you care to discuss them? Were any of them unfair in any way? Instead of just saying I "overcriticize Eddy", do you care to discuss what I actually say?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

NBA-TV graphic:

Hinrich is in the top-20 in the league in assists, steals and 3-point FGs.

------------------------------

It's a little easier to live with Eddy's 1 rebound in 13 minutes when he has NO turnovers and AN ASSIST!! Other than a pair of very, very ill-advised fadeaways, he has been downright dominant on the offensive end so far.

---------------------------------

Eddy Curry was outstanding tonight, 24 pts and 6 reb in only 24 minutes? Only 1 TO?

This was possibly Eddy's best game of the season, definitely top-5.

:clap:

-------------------------------

Atlanta game thread, every mention of Kirk and Eddy


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> These one-dimensional tags on Ben don't really matter because as I see it he's helped us do something that we haven't been able to do since #23 was lacing it up for us.


So has Kirk Hinrich, so has Luol Deng, so has Chris Duhon, Andres Nocioni, and our veteran bigs, an Eddy Curry who is in shape, and a Tyson Chandler who is actually playing games (hurt all last year). He has helped us, but that's irrelevant, since other players have been just as important, if not more. 



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Does anyone care that Shaq is a one-dimensional offensive player ? Would you trade him for Lamar Odom because Lamar Odom has more skills ?


Shaq is one dimensional? Only by his own standards. Shaq is arguably the best center of all time, and it's because of his dominance on the block as a scorer. That aspect of his game makes him look one dimensional, but compared to other centers in the league, he is probably among the top defenders at his position. If Shaq had no post game or ability to put the ball in the hoop, he'd still be on the court 35 minutes for some team. Can you say the same about Gordon? If he wasn't a scorer, would he be on the floor? There is no way. 

But I understand your argument, you probably should have used a guy like Peja as an example. He is dominant with his shooting, and I'd rather have him over Lamar Odom any day of the week. Dominance is great, but you have to weigh that dominance against the liability. Gordon's scoring dominance outweighs his liability most of the time, which is why he is a good player, but if you ignore the liability, it's really easy to make him look a lot better than he is.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> You do realize that Duhon would shoot somewhere around 20-25% being forced to take Kirk's shots?


I think that Hinrich shoots too much as it is. Duhon does not shoot as much, which lessens the damage of his poor shooting.

And... there is no way to be sure about the 20-25% number. I would not expect Duhon to be taking the types of shots Kirk does.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So has Kirk Hinrich, so has Luol Deng, so has Chris Duhon, Andres Nocioni, and our veteran bigs, an Eddy Curry who is in shape, and a Tyson Chandler who is actually playing games (hurt all last year). He has helped us, but that's irrelevant, since other players have been just as important, if not more.


By that I meant closing those 4th quarters, because we've always had teams that have kept close with other teams, but our problem was that we never knew what to do at the end especially with all the inexperienced players.



> Shaq is one dimensional? Only by his own standards. Shaq is arguably the best center of all time, and it's because of his dominance on the block as a scorer. That aspect of his game makes him look one dimensional, but compared to other centers in the league, he is probably among the top defenders at his position. If Shaq had no post game or ability to put the ball in the hoop, he'd still be on the court 35 minutes for some team. Can you say the same about Gordon? If he wasn't a scorer, would he be on the floor? There is no way.
> 
> But I understand your argument, you probably should have used a guy like Peja as an example. He is dominant with his shooting, and I'd rather have him over Lamar Odom any day of the week. Dominance is great, but you have to weigh that dominance against the liability. Gordon's scoring dominance outweighs his liability most of the time, which is why he is a good player, but if you ignore the liability, it's really easy to make him look a lot better than he is.


If Shaq didn't have skills, would he still be Shaq ? If you take away anybody's skills, they wouldn't be on the court, or actually I have no freakin' clue. Maybe Shaq's defense depends on his post game to be there. Maybe some part of his post game allows him to rebound. These what if scenarios can go in infinite ways. It says more about our imaginations than it does about the players in question.

But anyway it sounds like you're saying we should value Kirk because he could do so much for every other team and not just the Bulls. That would sound more like an argument for trading him because it implies that if he does nothing for us he's going to do something for another team. You're basically saying: were going to lose something important when we trade him more than we have something to gain from keeping him. 

I try to look at what players bring to this particular team --- another man's trash may be our gold [cue opera voice]Othella ![/end opera voice]. Regarding this possibility of trading Kirk before Ben, I say what reasonable Kirksters told me last year about Jamal (again, not that I'm rushing to throw him for a second round pick in the 2032 Draft): yes we would lose something important if we traded him, but we'd be building a team in the most economic way possible, we'd also gain something in a trade for him. I mean, we should have faith in Paxson right ? Support every decision he makes right ? Heh. . .seems that we'd have a plethora of new Fire Paxson club members if Kirk was traded before Ben, and I'd understand how that feels. 

This isn't directed at you, Mr. Patchwork, as much as it is a general observation that I've seen a few new age Kirksters (as in the fool pitier and that boring town full of Bulls) laugh off the idea that Duhon is a better point guard than Kirk. It's funny/sad how the tables have turned and their favorite player (along with Eddy of course) has become the board pinata at least for these last 3 games. The new age Kirksters' answers sound like what we said last year, of course, except we couldn't dig up some pieces that talked about Jamal's heart and soulness. Not trying to stir up trouble as I am pointing out the ironies.

Anyway, I've seen how turnover prone, shot-happy Ben is, first-hand. Maybe he isn't the strongest defender. He could be the worst 1st 3 quarters player we've ever seen for all I care, but the thing is, with his offense he's sealed the deal on so many of our wins. I don't know any other way to say it. 

But I do know it's hard to say that Kirk has closed 4th quarters the way Ben has. I mean Kirk's pretty much always done his part to ensure a win, but is he the guy that will resist the pressure, score in bunches in very limited amounts of time, and lead the team to a win despite 3 crappy quarters of play ? Of course that describes Ben, but wouldn't you say that Ben's game has more ability to change the game's outcome than Kirk's ?


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

Iwould guess that the Bulls will trade Gordon before Hinrich. Sure, Gordon has shown he can shoot the lights out in the 4th to ice games, but Hunrich brings a lot more of the little things that contribute to setting up for the win. Gordon has more trade value as a result of his heriocs too.

Besides, if Hinrich sucks as much as some posters seem to think, why would any team that has as much intelligence as these posters be willing to give anything of value in return? Therein lies the fallacy of the reasoning - Hinrich sucks, so lets trade him and get something better in return! If Hinrich sucks, we'll get the equivalent in return. The real message is "Hinrick sucks for us, but when we want to trade him, he's the best thing since sliced bread". Huh? These guys essentially arguing for this must work for the government or be using this site to practice for government jobs with the kind of logic I'm seeing here. :angel:


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Thanks for saying that, it gave me the impetus to go back and look through the game threads to see what I actually did say about Eddy.
> 
> [sarcasm] Amazingly [/sarcasm], the better Eddy plays, the more I praise him.
> 
> ...


I tried to keep this in PM, but than you started it again here...

You try so hard to be the guy that kill the other people arguments, but ironicaly you ignore some aspects of the post. I said in my first post, before reading old games theads and the locked ones, that I didn´t read this board in the weekend, was partying :cheers: , so amazingly your post to discredit my opinion were all in the time that I wasn´t reading it here. My intention with my first post was just to try to show you that the repetitive and boring discussion about Kirk was making this board worse. And I thought that you and K4L were the most responsable for that, and he was already being called for almost everyone, so I tried to make you reflect that maybe you had some guilt to. I made some exageration? Sure... But I think your love for Curry in posts has the same impact of K4L saying, "I like Kirk", yeah, you read it but after reading the oppossite so many times you just doesnt buy it. And then you start with your posts with lots os sarcasm make fun of everyone that disagree with you, and no, I wont find quotes because I hate use the searh, I never can find what I want without trying for a lot more time then I should, in most times you really are displaying better arguments, but I just like to be on the side of the weaker, having cheering so much for the Bulls the last 6 years make it easier do believe :biggrin: , and thought you were to arrogant. I´m loving winning, the Bulls are the only sport team that gives me a little happines, my soccer team doesn´t win anything important since 71, and than this board become so lame with the same old discussion that I stopped enjoying it, and since everyone was already calling K4L, who was really trying to increase the animosity, I tried to say that you also help it happens.

Like I already said to you throw PM after reading the locked threads I realized that almost all the blame could be given to K4L...

But just imagine this scene, you are reading someone saying almost every offesnive board of the opossite team how crappy Eddy is with the boards, that offense is the only thing that he gives to the table, that we play better without him and that the 82games site prove it. And than he say that yeah, we have better options, but I would like to resign him for 8 millions. And when he is playing good you admit it, but never let the chance of saying that he didn´t grab a board. With all the duality that happens here, I think some people may think that you dislike Curry.

As I said, lets just get over it and get back on the track and start make his board being enjoyable too...

ps. Had been a long time since I wrote this much in English. It´s readable, good, passable, bad?? Just would like some insight.... :angel:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

KwaZulu said:


> Iwould guess that the Bulls will trade Gordon before Hinrich. Sure, Gordon has shown he can shoot the lights out in the 4th to ice games, but Hunrich brings a lot more of the little things that contribute to setting up for the win. Gordon has more trade value as a result of his heriocs too.
> 
> Besides, if Hinrich sucks as much as some posters seem to think, why would any team that has as much intelligence as these posters be willing to give anything of value in return? Therein lies the fallacy of the reasoning - Hinrich sucks, so lets trade him and get something better in return! If Hinrich sucks, we'll get the equivalent in return. The real message is "Hinrick sucks for us, but when we want to trade him, he's the best thing since sliced bread". Huh? These guys essentially arguing for this must work for the government or be using this site to practice for government jobs with the kind of logic I'm seeing here. :angel:


No, not something necessarily better than Hinrich the individual player, but perhaps something that better complements what we have.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

JPBulls said:


> I tried to keep this in PM, but than you started it again here...
> 
> You try so hard to be the guy that kill the other people arguments, but ironicaly you ignore some aspects of the post. I said in my first post, before reading old games theads and the locked ones, that I didn´t read this board in the weekend, was partying :cheers: , so amazingly your post to discredit my opinion were all in the time that I wasn´t reading it here. My intention with my first post was just to try to show you that the repetitive and boring discussion about Kirk was making this board worse. And I thought that you and K4L were the most responsable for that, and he was already being called for almost everyone, so I tried to make you reflect that maybe you had some guilt to. I made some exageration? Sure... But I think your love for Curry in posts has the same impact of K4L saying, "I like Kirk", yeah, you read it but after reading the oppossite so many times you just doesnt buy it. And then you start with your posts with lots os sarcasm make fun of everyone that disagree with you, and no, I wont find quotes because I hate use the searh, I never can find what I want without trying for a lot more time then I should, in most times you really are displaying better arguments, but I just like to be on the side of the weaker, having cheering so much for the Bulls the last 6 years make it easier do believe :biggrin: , and thought you were to arrogant. I´m loving winning, the Bulls are the only sport team that gives me a little happines, my soccer team doesn´t win anything important since 71, and than this board become so lame with the same old discussion that I stopped enjoying it, and since everyone was already calling K4L, who was really trying to increase the animosity, I tried to say that you also help it happens.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I replied before I saw your PM this morning, I will respond to it as soon as I get the chance. 

You are asking the wrong person about your English, I have a lot of friends that Spanish is their first language, and I am used to trying to translate Spanglish, so I have no trouble reading your English. 

Perro, yo hablo Espanol pequeno, comprende mas perro no bueno?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I think Brazill's language is Portuguese


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

first of all, *bullsville* not everyone has the ability to recall word for word what you have posted over the course of three years, so it would be a good idea if you lightened up just a tad on our new friend *jp bulls*. just saying this as an ally. kill more bees with honey than vinegar if you know what i am saying. 

second of all, that was pretty good written english *jp* so don't be shy, your voice is a welcomed addition. 

thirdly, as *queen of the "frothing mob"* wink i have to say i am disappointed there is still this petty arguing over this stuff. is it possible to enjoy a winning season without lowering ourselves like this? if you are bored and have nothing better to do than rip a guy who has contributed mightily to the success this season, i have a few errands you could run, laundry that needs folding, a palm frond that needs waving and a few grapes that need to be peeled. 

ok, all attempts at lame *sarcasm!* aside, whether or not you believe kirk will lead us to the promised land isn't really the point. trade him, keep him, make him write bad checks, the point is...he is a key piece of the puzzle and he is contributing in bringing the franchise back to respectability. likewise, eddy and tyson. and ben and chris and luol and mr. coffee. and [opera voice] othella![/opera voice]* - they have all stepped up at different times during the course of this surprising and wonderful season. they have made it fun to cheer for a winning team. 

i trust pax and skiles to do right by the team. 

i  the bulls. 






* [opera voice] device blantantly ripped off of *6 foot* cause that made me laugh out loud today!!!


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

bullsville said:


> You are asking the wrong person about your English, I have a lot of friends that Spanish is their first language, and I am used to trying to translate Spanglish, so I have no trouble reading your English.
> 
> Perro, yo hablo Espanol pequeno, comprende mas perro no bueno?


Ok, first you said that I speack Spanglish, that can´t be good...  

And Sponggy is right, I speak Portuguese. It´s really annoying the image that all the latin america speaks Spanish, but learn to live with that, it´s better than the image that some people have that here we live in a jungle...

By the way, anyone can say how good my english is... I think that the spelling is suffering a little more than usual because I stop writing in english, but the really bad part of my english is with prepositions, in, on, of, never know when to use them, and since I hate study those details I write how I think looks better... 

I have a certificaty of Proficiency in English, although I know that my english is far from great, at least it shouldn´t be Spanglish... :curse:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

In a word...apparently not.

Let's let the season take its course, (we have no choice, anyway) before breaking up the team in any way, shape or form.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> I think Brazill's language is Portuguese


You are correct, like I said I didn't even notice as I am used to dealing with broken English. My bad.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

JPBulls said:


> Ok, first you said that I speack Spanglish, that can´t be good...
> 
> And Sponggy is right, I speak Portuguese. It´s really annoying the image that all the latin america speaks Spanish, but learn to live with that, it´s better than the image that some people have that here we live in a jungle...
> 
> ...



you mean you don't live in a jungle? :jawdrop:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

JPBulls said:


> It´s really annoying the image that all the latin america speaks Spanish



Not all of it...just most of it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> first of all, *bullsville* not everyone has the ability to recall word for word what you have posted over the course of three years, so it would be a good idea if you lightened up just a tad on our new friend *jp bulls*. just saying this as an ally. kill more bees with honey than vinegar if you know what i am saying.


You are correct, but someone shouldn't be acting like they know how I feel about something when they obviously haven't read (or don't remember) many of my posts. I don't know if it's selective memory or not, I'm just saying that I am getting sick of people accusing me of saying things I didn't say, or thinking things I don't think. But we cleared things up on PM, so it's all good (I think).



> second of all, that was pretty good written english *jp* so don't be shy, your voice is a welcomed addition.


Agreed.



> thirdly, as *queen of the "frothing mob"* wink i have to say i am disappointed there is still this petty arguing over this stuff. is it possible to enjoy a winning season without lowering ourselves like this? if you are bored and have nothing better to do than rip a guy who has contributed mightily to the success this season, i have a few errands you could run, laundry that needs folding, a palm frond that needs waving and a few grapes that need to be peeled.


I agree 100%. I don't know why it bothers people that Kirk is so "loved" by many Bulls fans... the national, non-Bulls biased media certainly seems to think that Kirk is our "heart and soul" and our "leader", why should Bulls fans be any different?

And I really don't understand the urge to defend Jamal so mightily. He left our team for more money, and went to our hated enemies. Screw him, he is now the enemy, and it was his choice.

If Kirk leaves for more money than Pax is offering when the time comes, screw him too once he is no longer a Bull.

If you want to discuss Jamal's game without him being criticized, I would suggest you go to the Knicks board, because here he is the enemy. Of course, you will find plenty of Knicks fans who aren't happy with Jamal's game either, so I don't know if that would change anything. 



> ok, all attempts at lame *sarcasm!* aside, whether or not you believe kirk will lead us to the promised land isn't really the point. trade him, keep him, make him write bad checks, the point is...he is a key piece of the puzzle and he is contributing in bringing the franchise back to respectability. likewise, eddy and tyson. and ben and chris and luol and mr. coffee. and [opera voice] othella![/opera voice]* - they have all stepped up at different times during the course of this surprising and wonderful season. they have made it fun to cheer for a winning team.
> 
> i trust pax and skiles to do right by the team.
> 
> ...


 :clap:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

JPBulls said:


> Ok, first you said that I speack Spanglish, that can´t be good...
> 
> And Sponggy is right, I speak Portuguese. It´s really annoying the image that all the latin america speaks Spanish, but learn to live with that, it´s better than the image that some people have that here we live in a jungle...
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. It's probably my fault for not making myself clear, all I was trying to say was that I am used to dealing with less than perfect English, so I don't really pay much attention to it. I live in Florida, and the vast majority of people who don't have English as a first language speak Spanish. 

I certainly hope you weren't offended, that wasn't my intention. Your English was fine by me.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> By that I meant closing those 4th quarters, because we've always had teams that have kept close with other teams, but our problem was that we never knew what to do at the end especially with all the inexperienced players.


I don't think that's the difference, our defense is much better than it's been in years. We're just a better team in every aspect. It's not like we're the same exact team from last year that relies on Gordon to win us games, that's completely off. 



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> If Shaq didn't have skills, would he still be Shaq ? If you take away anybody's skills, they wouldn't be on the court, or actually I have no freakin' clue. Maybe Shaq's defense depends on his post game to be there. Maybe some part of his post game allows him to rebound. These what if scenarios can go in infinite ways. It says more about our imaginations than it does about the players in question.


Why would Shaq's defense depend on his post game? Why would his post game allow him to rebound? You said Shaq is one dimensional, and the fact that he is a better rebounder and defender than 95% of the centers in the league means he is not one dimensional. One part of his game is much better than other parts, but you have to compare him with the rest of the league, not himself. 



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> But anyway it sounds like you're saying we should value Kirk because he could do so much for every other team and not just the Bulls. That would sound more like an argument for trading him because it implies that if he does nothing for us he's going to do something for another team. You're basically saying: were going to lose something important when we trade him more than we have something to gain from keeping him.


We would lose something important if we traded him, because we have something to gain from keeping him. 

He is our most important player right now (outside of Deng maybe), because he makes the defensive matchups work. Gordon would be a great liability without Hinrich on the team to cover those liabilities up. If Gordon is as great as you make him out to be, then any player that makes a Gordon a much better player when he is on the court is pretty damn valuable and shouldn't be traded. 



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> I try to look at what players bring to this particular team --- another man's trash may be our gold [cue opera voice]Othella ![/end opera voice]. Regarding this possibility of trading Kirk before Ben, I say what reasonable Kirksters told me last year about Jamal (again, not that I'm rushing to throw him for a second round pick in the 2032 Draft): yes we would lose something important if we traded him, but we'd be building a team in the most economic way possible, we'd also gain something in a trade for him. I mean, we should have faith in Paxson right ? Support every decision he makes right ? Heh. . .seems that we'd have a plethora of new Fire Paxson club members if Kirk was traded before Ben, and I'd understand how that feels.


This is all irrelevant, since Hinrich is not Crawford. If he was, I'd want him traded. You can't take two completely different players, and expect history to repeat itself for the sake of trying to prove a point. I could take your statement about Hinrich and make it about Gordon, and it would be just as legitimate.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. It's probably my fault for not making myself clear, all I was trying to say was that I am used to dealing with less than perfect English, so I don't really pay much attention to it. I live in Florida, and the vast majority of people who don't have English as a first language speak Spanish.
> 
> I certainly hope you weren't offended, that wasn't my intention. Your English was fine by me.


No ofense taken... :biggrin:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Bumpity bump bump bump.


----------

