# Trade Hinrich



## MitchMatch (Jul 20, 2004)

It must be done. There is absolutely no reason to have Hinrich, Duhon, and Gordon. Keep 2 of the 3, or just 1. They all play the same position. Give up Hinrich or Gordon, or Gordon and Hinrich for a decent swing man that can score and play D. Look to trade for J.R. Smith or somebody..but I see no logic in having those 3 in a Bulls uni. I think Duhon is a better fit for this team at pg, and as a true un-selfish pg. Find him a quality 6'5"/6'6"/6'7" swing man that can score... and this team could do some damage. Especially if they manage to keep Gordon, and trade Hinrich and some draft picks for that swingman. I don't know, I just don't see it working out for the Bulls if they keep all of them. I would like to hear some feedback from you guys about this topic. Thanks.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

I think you keep all 3 because depth wins in the playoffs...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I agree! 

Either Hinrich or Gordon for PP?

Hinrich, TT and a pick for PP and Dickau?
Gordon, TT and a pick for PP and Dickau?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'd send some feelers out to see what we could get for Hinrich also. I think it's become obvious that both Duhon and Gordon have their roles in the backcourt. I'd don't know who we'd go after, but I'd look into that belligerent superstar route that seems to be working for lots of other teams.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree!
> 
> Either Hinrich or Gordon for PP?
> 
> ...



I just proposed Gordon, TT, BOTH picks, and possibly cash for PP & Blount the other day, I still think it is a great idea.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=212716


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

No to Paul Pierce. The guy is a me-first player who does not have the athletic ability that allows him to maintain his game once age takes effect.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

If Kirk refuses to take a DNA test to find out if he is genetically pre-disposed to sprained ankles, then by all means, trade him!!

After all, didn't his mother sprain her ankle a few years back?


----------



## madcows_playing_point (Mar 31, 2005)

Hell, let's trade the whole F'in team for some beer and a bag of Cheetos. 
(Why is it when people have nothing to say they start a "trade Kirk" thread?)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You know, I've been mulling things over and trying to figure out how it all could work out.

Ben and Chris together. Not enough size, and Kirk is still the individually best player. 
Ben and Kirk together. Not enough PG and toughness.
Kirk and Chris together. Not enough scoring.

The only thing I can come up with is that Hinrich AND Gordon both have to be traded and we put a traditional but top of the line SG next to traditional top of the line PG Ben.

Bulls trade Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, Tim Thomas, 2 #1 picks
LA Lakers trade Kobe Bryant, Stanislav Medvedenko

:clown:


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Bottomline is they end up trading Ben+picks+??? for a top line SG to go with Kirk at PG then Chris backing up Kirk and top line SG(Pierce?)


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Cap Space ..Sap Schmace 

I would consider dealing Luol 

Luol and Sweetney ( +TT and no draft pick give ups ) if we got Paul Pierce back as a principal and yes I would take Mark Blount on as fill ...but to be on dealt to San Antonio for Rasho Nesterovic in a 3 way

Would Mark Cuban be inclined to deal Josh Howard for Kirk Hinrich ?

*

Nesterovic
Chandler
Pierce
Howard
Duhon

Harrington
Songaila
Nocioni
Gordon
Pargo

Our draft pick in 2006 
The Knicks lottery pick in 2006

*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

madcows_playing_point said:


> Hell, let's trade the whole F'in team for some beer and a bag of Cheetos.
> (Why is it when people have nothing to say they start a "trade Kirk" thread?)


how much beer and what brand?


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> how much beer and what brand?



A 40.
Beast.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> how much beer and what brand?


See, this is the type of scratching beneath the surface we need around here.

I also need to know what brand of Cheetos.

There are plenty to choose from.

http://www.cheetos.com/parents_products.php

If its "Flamin Hot" we have a deal on the cheetos end. Still waiting on the beer.


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

I believe the time will come when trading one of the three will be necessary, but now is not the time. Let them grow, and then the Bulls can make the right decision...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

FreeSpeech101 said:


> I believe the time will come when trading one of the three will be necessary, but now is not the time. Let them grow, and then the Bulls can make the right decision...


I'm tell you all, Kirk and Ben are going together for Kobe.

We need to keep Deng around until the summer to team him up with Tyson to get back KG. Duhon, Nocioni, and whomever we can get with our exceptions can fill in around those two


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

After watching yesterday's game, it's pretty obvious that someone should be traded (hopefully multiple players for one star). I have a headache trying to keep up with Skiles' rotation pattern, and having a regular rotation of more than 8 players is a bit much.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'm tell you all, Kirk and Ben are going together for Kobe.
> 
> We need to keep Deng around until the summer to team him up with Tyson to get back KG. Duhon, Nocioni, and whomever we can get with our exceptions can fill in around those two


I love Kirk and Ben, but I agree Mike, you've got to be willing to part with them if arguably the top 2-guard in the league is coming back in return. Duhon and Kobe is a pretty solid backcourt tandem, especially defensively. This would also bump Pargo up in the rotation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'm tell you all, Kirk and Ben are going together for Kobe.
> 
> We need to keep Deng around until the summer to team him up with Tyson to get back KG. Duhon, Nocioni, and whomever we can get with our exceptions can fill in around those two


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> You know, I've been mulling things over and trying to figure out how it all could work out.
> 
> Ben and Chris together. Not enough size, and Kirk is still the individually best player.
> Ben and Kirk together. Not enough PG and toughness.
> ...


Ben has shown an ability to put the ball into players hands in scoring position. Perhaps we move whichever two we have to plus one lottery pick to get a top of the line shooting guard. Not Kobe...but whom?


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> After watching yesterday's game, it's pretty obvious that someone should be traded (hopefully multiple players for one star). I have a headache trying to keep up with Skiles' rotation pattern, and having a regular rotation of more than 8 players is a bit much.


its not that simple to get an allstar. its all about the draft, the spurs are a prime example.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Ben has shown an ability to put the ball into players hands in scoring position. Perhaps we move whichever two we have to plus one lottery pick to get a top of the line shooting guard. Not Kobe...but whom?


Why not Kobe? Other than the fact the Lakers won't trade him. I think the chances are low, but you gotta figure they will get pretty high if the Lakers don't do well this year. I think there's a 50% chance of a 0% chance of him being traded and a 50% chance of a 99% chance he gets traded.

But to answer your question, I'm honestly not sure there's another guy out there I'd

I'm not sure I'd trade one of our guys plus a pick for anyone else. Is there really a wing that's conceivably going to be available that's worth that much?

I have a really hard time judging Pierce. On the one hand, I think he's definitely a cut above Jalen Rose, but is he really a guy that's going to put us over the top? I view him as a very good player, but I don't know that he's in that "special" category. 

-----------

While we're on the subject of totally zany ideas, how about Gordon, Thomas, and Picks for Zach Randolph and Martell Webster.

Would the Blazers even remotely sniff at that? Probably not, but they seem genuinely at odds with Randolph and maybe they'd part with Webster to try and clear the decks and start fresh?


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

Id rather deal for a guy like Zach Randolph or Chris Bosh.....


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

3 small guard rotation or 3 guard line-up (w. Pike) worked a lot better when you had size at the other positions especially across the front line with AD, EC and TC, (or NOC/Deng at the 3 with the rotation)

Now with an undersized f/c front court rotation, the lack of size in the back court is even more pronounced especially w/o Tyson on the floor.

Bulls simply can't give up size at every position


----------



## madcows_playing_point (Mar 31, 2005)

Well, for the beer, I say a six pack of choice for each loyal poster (I'm going for some Corona or Leinenkugels), and we'll just have to vote on the Cheetos...
Sorry for the pissed-off response, everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether I agree or not...
But why is it that people that don't think that Kirk can do well enough for us think that we can get someone to trade us a "superstar" for him? It just doesn't look like we have anyone we can package together to get one of those guys without gutting the team. And if we did do that, would we get 100% effort out of a guy that might be mad he's expected to carry the team without much help? Isn't it pretty much a given we would have to trade more than one of our top players to get the caliber of player we're talking about? We would be better off to wait until we see who's going to be our go-to guy, and who is getting good numbers, but not quite fitting with the rest of the team before we talk trade, or we might end up trading the wrong one.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'm tell you all, Kirk and Ben are going together for Kobe.
> 
> We need to keep Deng around until the summer to team him up with Tyson to get back KG. Duhon, Nocioni, and whomever we can get with our exceptions can fill in around those two


Then Pike for Tim Duncan and we're set!


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> No to Paul Pierce. The guy is a me-first player who does not have the athletic ability that allows him to maintain his game once age takes effect.


This couldn't be farther from the truth.

A 'me-first' player averages 4.2 assists per game and only 14.9 field goal attempts?

He doesn't have athletic ability? While not being able to jump 45 inches, Pierce is still very athletic. He is one of the strongest small forwards in the league. He must be strong to draw all the fouls he does and take the abuse he gets. Pierce, also, is a very good post player and uses his strength to post up, turnaround, and hit his mid-range jumper.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

FreeSpeech101 said:


> I believe the time will come when trading one of the three will be necessary, but now is not the time. Let them grow, and then the Bulls can make the right decision...


I agree w/ this.

I don't necessarily think it's an inevitability that one of the three has to go, but I wouldn't bet against it either. That said, these guys are young players and I'd rather see how they develop and the situation shakes out before we deal one of them.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

keep them all. If you really want to trade, trade one for a productive big man - not a guard. We could take care of that in the summer.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I bet all of your fantasy teams suck


----------



## southpark (Jul 5, 2003)

Whats with all this trade talk?

First of all, I think its pretty obvious we have one of THE BEST young nuclei in all of basketball....granted they arent superstars yet, but BG, Kirk, Noce, Du, Deng, TC are all very solid and very young and can basically only get better. Pax has set us up to be a competitive team for at least the next decade and with a few tweaks here and there, perhaps title contenders. 

But some people seem to want to throw the future away for a few years of success without guarantee of even winning a title. Lets say just for arguments sake that Pax trades some package of BG, exp contracts, picks and/or TC/Kirk for Kobe. Whats to say Kobe leads us to a title? Not to mention, if we did pull off a trade like that, we would be mortgaging our future. Assume we do win a title or two. Sure a few titles would be nice, but Kobes not getting any younger and what would we do afterwards when Kobe retires? We'd have to make up for his loss and who knows how long that could take? And would Kobe even fit in here? Right now we have GREAT team chemistry and I think that that is often overlooked/underrated. What if Kobe comes and because we arent winning, decides to be disruptive and call out his teammates and so on? 

I really think we should just keep our core intact and continue to build up gradually via draft/free agency or pick up solid players via trade but not something like trade for Kobe/KG wehre we would sell our future just for a few good years of POSSIBLY winning a championship or two but not having that guaranteed. In the 06 and esp 07 draft, there is A BUNCH of talented young big men (look at possible 07 draft) from europe, college, and even current HS players that would be draft eligible. I say we wait for a few more years to see how this core grows together and even we arent advancing in the playoffs each year, THEN we can look to trade Kirk/BG/Du or whoever. 

But talking now about trading Kirk just because Du had a triple doulbe and can run the team well is crazy...Kirks a valuable player and fits well into our system even though he may not be a superstar. 

And same goes for Nocioni. There's talk here of packaging him and others to acquire whoever is out there but the intangibles he brings to the game are very valuable and I'm sure he'd feel somewhat slighted if the Bulls traded him unless he asked to be traded. 

We are in prime position to be potential title contenders in a few years once Shaq/Duncan retire since neither of those powerhouses boasts a talented future core like us. But let's be patient for a few years to see where this core can take us, shall we?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The +/- net numbers are a decent reason in my mind to trade Hinrich.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05CHI2D.HTM

We are only a net -7 points for the whole year. Amazingly enough, we are (-) 32 points worse than our opponent when Hinrich is on the court and (+) 25 points better than our opponent when he is off the floor.

It's early and these +/- net numbers have a lot of noise, but that's terrible. Especially considering he was bad in this regard last year, too. 

Last year's numbers
http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM
-4.5 +/- Net

================================================================

I really like Hinrich, but if we can find a GM as much in love as a good portion of this board, then I think we really need to trade the guy.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

I am in the crowd that thinks that this team has a bright future. I think they should work on seasoning the players they have acquiring with cap space and draft picks.

But I can understand that a person who thinks the team is at a dead end would want to start another construction job and that would including moving valuable players for tradeable ones and for draft picks.

I have not read the beginning of the thread. I am assuming at motives of people who want Hinrich traded.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I'm assuming most of that +25 came in the Charlotte game after Kirk got hurt.

Considering the 5-0 we were without Kirk last year, are we 0-3 right now if he doesn't sprain his ankle?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I am in the crowd that thinks that this team has a bright future. I think they should work on seasoning the players they have acquiring with cap space and draft picks.


It's going to take a bold move IMHO to get the core into a perennial championship contender. I don't see Pryzibella (sp) or Baby Al Harrington getting it done.

And, per MikeDC's point, I beg to differ - it's starting to look like Hinrich is not going to be the best of the three. But he probably has the highest value right now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> DaBullz said:
> 
> 
> > When Hinrich plays 45 minutes and the team loses by 9, it's not surprising he'd be -8 or -9
> ...


You have one other problem with the +/-

Bulls made a massive comeback of 25 points in a game he was injured. In such a small data set, that's going to make his "off the floor" numbers skewed


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You have one other problem with the +/-
> 
> Bulls made a massive comeback of 25 points in a game he was injured. In such a small data set, that's going to make his "off the floor" numbers skewed


http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/boxscore.cgi?date=20051102&game=CHACHI

First, Hinrich was only -14 in that game. -4 in our 1 point loss to NJ. -8 in our 9 point loss last night. So he is not playing better than average guy in the other 2 games.

Second, I never suggested that these aweful numbers would hold. However, it does give more credence to his bad numbers from last year were on to something.

The Bobcats game is just one more example. As our 9-0 stretch at the end of last year. It's certainly not definetive yet, but the evidence is mounting.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/boxscore.cgi?date=20051102&game=CHACHI
> 
> First, Hinrich was only -14 in that game. -4 in our 1 point loss to NJ. -8 in our 9 point loss last night. So he is not playing better than average guy in the other 2 games.
> 
> ...


Let's just say I'm not a big fan of the +/- numbers.

I will say this, though. I'm of the opinion that the team does play better without him on the court a lot of the time. When he's really on, like against New Jersey, he's HUGE. When he's not really on, he's mediocre (though he contributes in ways other than shooting/scoring). He's been incredibly inconsistent; if he were consistent, we'd not even be thinking along these lines at all.

I agree that he has a lot of value right now, but I think Ben Gordon has HUGE value, too. What I observe when watching the games on NBALP is that opposing teams announcers just rave about Gordon and how special a player he is.... I suspect that goes deeper than just the announcers and to the coaches and scouts league-wide.

I think there's little doubt that a trade of any kind would hurt the team in the short run, maybe even for the whole season. We see issues with both the Bulls and the Knicks with new players trying to adjust to a new system and philosophy without the benefit of an offseason to learn things from the coach.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I am in the crowd that thinks that this team has a bright future. I think they should work on seasoning the players they have acquiring with cap space and draft picks.
> 
> But I can understand that a person who thinks the team is at a dead end would want to start another construction job and that would including moving valuable players for tradeable ones and for draft picks.
> 
> I have not read the beginning of the thread. I am assuming at motives of people who want Hinrich traded.


There's just too much talent about to come in to not have some of it consolidated.

Our own pick + New York's pick (a good bet to be #1, apparently) + the new players we're acquiring with $20+ million in Cap Space + 2nd rounders/undrafted FAs that Paxson and Skiles will fall in love with.

Something has to give.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Why not? To get value we give up value. 

We have Duhon, Pargo and to a lesser extent Gordon that can play the point. I know he is a sg, but he is a pg turned sg, imo. 

To get a big time player here through a major trade or S & T, it would have to include Hinrich. I would not trade Gordon.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Still too early to use the +/- system. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Marcus Camby, Rashard Lewis, Andrew Bogut, Chris Bosh, etc. all have negative ratings too. It's actually best if you have a sample size of more than one season, so a few games is not going to do it. 

Johnston, haven't you said before you don't believe in the +/- ratings?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Hinrich was +5.6 the year he started at point guard the whole season. Maybe that proves he is a better point guard than shooting guard?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Still too early to use the +/- system. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Marcus Camby, Rashard Lewis, Andrew Bogut, Chris Bosh, etc. all have negative ratings too. It's actually best if you have a sample size of more than one season, so a few games is not going to do it. ?


Were any of they guys negative last year like Hinrich?



Sir Patchwork said:


> Johnston, haven't you said before you don't believe in the +/- ratings?


I am skeptical and don't take it nearly as far as some. (I definetely don't think a +10 guy is hands down better than a +7 guy even on the same team with a year's worth of data) However, John Hollinger never used them before and now uses for a portion of his defensive rating this year for the first time. So I am coming around a bit. 

I will say that the stat is only backing some of my newer personal observations. One of which is that Duhon looks like he will be able to truly take his game up a level from his rookie year. Which is part of the reason that I now see Hinrich as expendable if the right deal comes along.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Were any of they guys negative last year like Hinrich?


I looked up all of those guys except Boguts of course. All were positive. Most signficantly. I looked at about 12 teams. The best player that I saw with as poor a +/- net was Caron Butler - also about negative four. Best player with a neg number was Peja who was just slightly negative.

Just something to track as the season progresses.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Were any of they guys negative last year like Hinrich?


Yes, Dwyane Wade. 



johnston797 said:


> I will say that the stat is only backing some of my newer personal observations. One of which is that Duhon looks like he will be able to truly take his game up a level from his rookie year. Which is part of the reason that I now see Hinrich as expendable if the right deal comes along.


I think the Bulls create a tough situation to use +/- ratings, simply because Skiles likes to have a bench/2nd team that is almost as good as the first team. Obviously other teams don't do this, so the 2nd team does better against inferior competition than the starters do against other teams starters. This kind of toys with the accuracy of the ratings, especially with our team, since other teams don't leave a couple of their best players to come off the bench. If the starters (with Hinrich) get down 26-20 early against the Suns starters, then the 2nd team comes in and ties it up at 30-30 against the 2nd team, I don't think you can say that the 2nd team is better than the 1st team. This goes along with the fact that Hinrich was a +5.5 his first season, and a +10 or so his 2nd season until the Bulls bench came into their own around January, when his ratings started to drop gradaully every game.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yes, Dwyane Wade..


Good catch, although he is at -0.1.




Sir Patchwork said:


> I think the Bulls create a tough situation to use +/- ratings, simply because Skiles likes to have a bench/2nd team that is almost as good as the first team. Obviously other teams don't do this, so the 2nd team does better against inferior competition than the starters do against other teams starters. This kind of toys with the accuracy of the ratings, especially with our team, since other teams don't leave a couple of their best players to come off the bench. If the starters (with Hinrich) get down 26-20 early against the Suns starters, then the 2nd team comes in and ties it up at 30-30 against the 2nd team, I don't think you can say that the 2nd team is better than the 1st team. This goes along with the fact that Hinrich was a +5.5 his first season, and a +10 or so his 2nd season until the Bulls bench came into their own around January, when his ratings started to drop gradaully every game.


I agree with this to an extent. However other starters like Duhon both years and Chandler this year are doing fine. So, *if this trend continues and both Duhon and Gordon remain above him*, it may be fair to say that Hinrich is not our best player and expendable in the right deal.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Good catch, although he is at -0.1.


Then again, most would agree he is a good deal better than Hinrich at this point. 



johnston797 said:


> I agree with this to an extent. However other starters like Duhon both years and Chandler this year are doing fine. So, *if this trend continues and both Duhon and Gordon remain above him*, it may be fair to say that Hinrich is not our best player and expendable in the right deal.


It's not so much Duhon that I'm worried about, it's Gordon. Duhon is a stud and can defend opposing point guards as well as run the team very well. I'm happy as hell Paxson snatched him in the 2nd round. I even said in another thread a couple days ago that Duhon may be the one guard we have to keep, simply because he has a set position and plays it well on both ends, and packaging both Hinrich and Gordon for a legit shooting guard might be for the best. If we trade Hinrich, we still have Duhon and Gordon starting in the backcourt, which would be a disaster longterm, mainly because Gordon cannot play shooting guard full time on both ends.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> I agree with this to an extent. However other starters like Duhon both years and Chandler this year are doing fine. So, *if this trend continues and both Duhon and Gordon remain above him*, it may be fair to say that Hinrich is not our best player and expendable in the right deal.



i'm just really curious how you go from this analysis, to feeling kirk should, in the right deal, be traded? i understand you are not advocating a trade just to make one. 

it would really help me to wrap my head around it, cause right now, i don't see what happened over the course of the off-season, to make kirk expendable in your view.

is it really the +/- stat after three games? or is it something else?

please don't flame me. i ask an honest question and seek an answer.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i'm just really curious how you go from this analysis, to feeling kirk should, in the right deal, be traded? i understand you are not advocating a trade just to make one.
> 
> it would really help me to wrap my head around it, cause right now, i don't see what happened over the course of the off-season, to make kirk expendable in your view.
> 
> ...


Without Curry and with more assets in his place (Songalia, Sweetney, and lots of draft pick goodies from NYKs), a trade to consolidate talent makes more sense.

Next, I have much more confidence in Duhon. And Gordon is showing the more all-around skills.

Lastly, combined with the above, Kirk's below average +/- from *last season* supported by the +/- results to date lead me to think that maybe moving Kirk in the right deal might be the way to go.

p.s. I still feel that Kirk was our MVP last year. Part of my reasoning at the time and now was that he played so many more minutes than anyone else.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Without Curry and with more assets in his place (Songalia, Sweetney, and lots of draft pick goodies from NYKs), a trade to consolidate talent makes more sense.
> 
> Next, I have much more confidence in Duhon. And Gordon is showing the more all-around skills.
> 
> Lastly, combined with the above, Kirk's below average +/- from *last season* supported by the +/- results to date lead me to think that maybe moving Kirk in the right deal might be the way to go.



thank you for clarifying this for me.


(i'm not agreeing however. just thanking you for explaining your change in views.) :biggrin:


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

Hinrich and Gordon are the best things to hit Chi town since Jordan and Pippen. Why give it up?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I love Kirk Hinrich. I consider him to be, bar none, the current leader and best player (by a huge margin) on the team. 

That being said, I would trade him. I would also trade Ben Gordon or Chris Duhon. Indeed, I believe that 1 of those 3 is not long for Chicago and probably will/should be traded at some point. 

But the question isn't whether or not one of them CAN be traded. They all can be. The question is, what is the return in trading one of them, and is the return actually an upgrade to benefit the team. My concern is that fans are thinking along the lines of "Well, we've got these three, so we can trade one." And then they look at some garbage like Cuttino Mobley because he's taller and therefore satisfies a ficticious team need.

This thread isolates Hinrich as one to be traded, so lets consider him. Who are we talking about trading him for? Paul Pierce, I saw. If you are talking about Pierce, for Hinrich and a bunch of filler, I think that is a no-brainer. You do it.

But is that going to actually happen? The problem I see is that Hinrich alone, or with worthless filler, isn't going to bring back something in return that is actually better than Hinrich himself. 

Certainly its impossible to argue that Hinrich isn't tradeable for the "right deal" but what is that deal? 

I project that when one of them is traded, it will be as the centerpiece (unless its Duhon) of a huge trade that bundles several valuable assets together. Not a trade that simply trades one of them away for one guy in return.


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

hey, let's trade gordon, hinrich, luol, anyone else with talent/skill.

build around duhon, othella, and pike. let's do it the right way.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

david123 said:


> hey, let's trade gordon, hinrich, luol, anyone else with talent/skill.
> 
> build around duhon, othella, and pike. let's do it the right way.




Hey, great try. Thanks for playing. Johnny, can you tell dave about our lovely consolation gifts?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Why don't we just trade Hinrich for Steve Nash straight up? According to the numbers, it'd be a steal.

Or how about Carmelo Anthony or Marcus Camby?

johnston797, you can't be serious.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

So many questions. Du has a position (at least someone does), and has skills, but does he have the pure talent (by which I guess I mean scoring and playmaking ability) to be our long term answer? Ben is a SG in a PG body, a quandary which a Hall of Fame coach (LB) failed to solve with a future Hall of Fame player (AI), even in the year they went to the finals. But Ben also seems to have that magical something - he's hard to imagine starting on a champion team, but yet somehow he's also the one you can easiest imagine lifting a finals MVP trophy. Do you trade that kind of talent - or do you just let him turn a series of coaches gray? Could he play PG? Can he defend SG? Can he defend anybody? Can he even crack the starting lineup? Is he Jason Terry or Vinnie Johnson? Is there anyone anywhere he could coexist with for 30 mins a game (how about Dwayne Wade?) How about Kirk? Is Kirk a PG? Can he score enough to be a SG? Is there anybody on the team who can defend SGs all game, every game, and score some? Is his name, ahem, Luol Deng? 

If we could just figure out any one of these things about Du Kirk and Ben, everything else might fall into place. I'm not sure you can figure who doesn't fit until you decide who does fit. Unfortunately it seems like these questions usually seem to just linger on for years as the team gets better rather than getting resolved in a timely way. Well, it will be interesting :biggrin:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> This thread isolates Hinrich as one to be traded, so lets consider him. Who are we talking about trading him for? Paul Pierce, I saw. If you are talking about Pierce, for Hinrich and a bunch of filler, I think that is a no-brainer. You do it.


I'd actually see that as a possibility, due to the fact the Celtics haven't found a PG that suits them really.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

step said:


> I'd actually see that as a possibility, due to the fact the Celtics haven't found a PG that suits them really.


Seriously? I thought that Danny Ainge has had to have all of his trousers altered to accommodate the 24/7 woodrow he's springing over Delonte West.

I mean, I totally agree with you in that Delonte's no kind of long-term answer, but every time I watch a Boston game or read a Boston paper, someone is slobbering over the guy.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Well? Can we get Nash for Hinrich straight up?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hinrich for Camby? Camby and Chandler inside would be nasty.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I will say that the stat is only backing some of my newer personal observations. One of which is that Duhon looks like he will be able to truly take his game up a level from his rookie year. Which is part of the reason that I now see Hinrich as expendable if the right deal comes along.


http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI.HTM

We all thought Chris Duhon was playing well, but it looks like he has dropped to -7.1 which is below Hinrich's -1.7. I guess he isn't as good as we thought, or I wonder if it has to do with him becoming a starter? 

4 of our 5 starters are negatives. We need to be starting Chandler, Songaila, Thomas, Pike and Gordon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI.HTM
> 
> We all thought Chris Duhon was playing well, but it looks like he has dropped to -7.1 which is below Hinrich's -1.7. I guess he isn't as good as we thought, or I wonder if it has to do with him becoming a starter?
> 
> 4 of our 5 starters are negatives. We need to be starting Chandler, Songaila, Thomas, Pike and Gordon.


What do you know? 3 of our top 5 scorers have a combined 4 games started this season. Makes sense.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I still say Hinrich for Nash, and maybe Pike for Camby. That would be super.


----------

