# This will be unpopular :)



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Would the Raptors consider a trade of Kirk Hinrich for the #1 pick? Commit to Gordon and Duhon as the PGs.

Bulls draft Aldridge/Bargnani #1 and Roy #2. Trade up if we need to in order to get Brewer.

1- Gordon/Duhon
2- Roy, Brewer
3- Deng, Nocioni
4- Aldridge/Bargnani, Songaila
5- Big Ben/Nene/Pryzbilla, Chandler

Why? Because the Raptors need a good PG in the worst way. Because as time goes on, Ben is developing into a Jason Terry or Chauncy Billups like player who can run the point. The general thought is he's going to be the best player of the two when all is said and done. The general thought is that Roy quite possibly Kirk Hinrich as a shooting guard. Well, isn't that what we need?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Because as time goes on, Ben is developing into a Jason Terry or Chauncy Billups like player who can run the point. *The general thought is he's going to be the best player of the two when all is said and done. * The general thought is that Roy quite possibly Kirk Hinrich as a shooting guard. Well, isn't that what we need?


No way. And I'm a definite exception to that "general thought".


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ooooo boy, that is a tough one. If I had more confidence in Ben's point skills, it'd be easier for me. I am also not among those sharing this "general thought" about Ben eventually being the best point of the two.

Even so, I'd have to at least consider that trade.

BPA at 16, and still go after Nene or Pryz (or, God willing Big Ben) in FA.

Another thought: if the general consensus really is that Ben is eventually the better point guard, maybe he is the trade piece, and not Hinrich.

Certainly an idea just as unpopular!


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

:whofarted :jawdrop: :dead: Gordon doesn't have the mindset or the ball control to be a full time point guard. His TOs would go through the roof. And the Raptors need a backup PG. I for one think Calderon will develop nicely.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

It's far fetched . . . But if I could guarantee B. Wallace and that Ben Gordon can play an effective PG role NOW, I'd at least think about it.

Interesting if nothing else . . .


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Interesting thought. Hinrich for the #1? I'd be more inclined to do Gordon for the #1 and then go with your same scenario. Either way, that's a helluva lineup. It'd be really difficult to lose either Gordon or Hinrich but if the thought is that we're going to lose one of them eventually because there's only so many dollars to go around, this isn't such a bad way to go. I just see the Bulls as more inclined to part with Gordon than Hinrich.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sorry mike, when it's all said and done, kirk will be the better _all around on both sides of the court_ player than ben.

i don't share the general thought either. not in the least.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I agree flash. And this would make the third year in a row we trade away our leading scorer! 

I am more inclinded to believe that if anyone was to be traded it would be Gordon.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Wow...

so far, it doesn't look like that "general thought" is held very...generally.


:laugh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'd have to pass on the old a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush rule.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mike, you were right the proposal would be unpopular at least. 

I will agree on one thing though...I DO think Ben Gordon will be able to play solid PG minutes at some point. I just think he's still another year or two away from doing so. Still, there's some evidence that he can...I remember several games (one early in the year versus the Nets when we lost of the R-Jeff 3pt play) where he was just penetrating at will and doing a phenomal job setting up teammates AND getting his shot off. Ben's also improved his assist/turnover ratio considerably since his rookie year and his decision making is noticeably better. But Hinrich is more natural at it obviously and I think Kirk and Ben make a good starting pair (we just need 1 more big guard like Roy or Brewer to throw into the mix!).

It's not a bad idea if we think Roy will be better than Hinrich, but if that's the case then Toronto probably wouldn't do the trade. So I'll have to play it safe and say no.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Would the Raptors consider a trade of Kirk Hinrich for the #1 pick? Commit to Gordon and Duhon as the PGs.


It all depends on how good the Bulls or the Raptors think the #1 pick would be.
Duhon, Gordon & Roy would be a very good guard rotation, so no problems there.
But the crux of the matter is whether Bargs or Aldrich is equal in value to Kirk. My guess is yes.

Of course the Bulls get considerably younger for a couple of years and take a step back in the win column again. That would be unpleasant. As John Maynard Keynes once said in regard to the long-term consequences of delayed expenditure, "in the long run we're all dead".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Suppose, per TB#1's suggestion, that it's Gordon for the #1 overall?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Suppose, per TB#1's suggestion, that it's Gordon for the #1 overall?


I think I'd pull the trigger on that one.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

while i don't think it should or will happen, it's not as far fetched as proposed; nor should it be deemed "unpopular". i'm a fan of kirk's game; after his first season when he handily showed he was a better pg than jamal (and i felt jamal was going to make kirk his personal beeotch), if pax thought/felt he HAD to have both guys, i would probably give the nod to ben as well because i think ben's got the greatest "star" potential. i think kirk's got a stocktonesque quality about him, but far too many on this forum feel ben's ceiling is at its apex 2 years into his career. i don't. he's shown a far greater capacity to be a "difference maker", and while he's a role player presently, the team as a whole is being groomed to play as a team, which isn't a bad thing, its the bulls thing.

i don't want either moved under any circumstances, but i'd see pax keeping ben over hinrich as well. duhon makes a great backup for either, but as stated if the bull committment is to roy, then it makes a good deal of sense from a team building standpoint.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I wouldn't trade either Kirk or Ben for the no. 1 pick, these guys are too good to trade away for just a pick. If we're talking Gasol or Pierce or someone like that, then I'm willing to talk, but not just for a draft pick.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It depends, if we trade Hinrich, will we have enough to sign a max player in 2007 free agency? No doubt Gordon is already a better scorer and passer than Hinrich, and his defense on point guards is fine, its a control issue with Ben, but I like Ben, in the Miami Heat series, when he was left to take control of the ball, he showed some flashes of Steve Nash, but then when things got out of control, it started looking like Jason Williams of old. Once again, if it comes down to having to keep one of Kirk or Ben, you keep Ben, but if the coaching staff is in agreement that they can coexist together, keep them both.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think I'd pull the trigger on that one.


 Me too, without flinching, which means it probably isn't equal value.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Here's what Sam Smith thinks about moving Gordon (from the other thread):

Do you feel that Ben Gordon will take it lightly if the Bulls draft Brandon Roy and give him a chance to start over Gordon? Could a better fit be keeping Chris Duhon who is more likely to be OK with not starting and can play both guard spots? Then look for a bigger name by trading Gordon, like to New York, who has wanted him for sometime now. If so I feel the only player on the Knicks worth anything is Channing Frye. --Jason K., Peoria, Ill.

That's one of the most interesting questions about the draft. I believe Ben is a professional and team player, but I know he believes he's a starter and is coming up on a contract year. And I know he'd want to start in that circumstance. Watching the Mavs and Jason Terry suggests you can get away with a small shooting guard, though it's not the perfect way to go. If the Bulls were to draft Roy, I don't think they'd start him right away and see if he could beat out Ben. It could prove somewhat uncomfortable. As for the Knicks, I think the two teams are done dealing.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If we are trading with the Knicks, here is what the deal should be:

Bulls Trade:

Ben Gordon

Knicks Trade:

Channing Frye
Eddy Curry
2007 1st Round Pick

The 2007 pick, is really the Knicks trading like the 20th overall pick in the draft, because the pick swap devalues their pick, and just gives us 2 picks next year. Channing Frye and Eddy Curry are self explanatory to fill out the deal to balance the trade value in this.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think I'd pull the trigger on that one.


I might too.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

sloth said:


> If we are trading with the Knicks, here is what the deal should be:
> 
> Bulls Trade:
> 
> ...


you think thre is ANY way they would give up that much for Gordon? I sure don't.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> I wouldn't trade either Kirk or Ben for the no. 1 pick, these guys are too good to trade away for just a pick. If we're talking Gasol or Pierce or someone like that, then I'm willing to talk, but not just for a draft pick.


:clap:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> you think thre is ANY way they would give up that much for Gordon? I sure don't.


A scoring player, and Isiah Thomas? I'm sure we could add on a few more draft picks, and take some more frontcourt players for that.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I might too.


Well, if you do that, you draft Roy and Aldridge.

I don't think Toronto would trade the #1 pick for Ben Gordon, honestly. I think Charlotte might trade the #3 pick for Ben Gordon IF Morrison is gone to Toronto at #1. We end up getting the same players that way. 

I think Hinrich would have more appeal to Toronto than Gordon, though I'm not sure about that.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> If we are trading with the Knicks, here is what the deal should be:
> 
> Bulls Trade:
> 
> ...


Are you toking up when you concoct these crazy scenarios? There's no way that the Knicks would make that trade. On top of that, we traded Curry for a reason, so why give up our best player for him and a mid to late 1st round pick in the NEXT draft? Frye is also the same position as Chandler basically, a 6'11" PF, though he might be worth having. I do see why you'd want the deal done, we'd get 2 bigs that are proven to be at least serviceable in the NBA, but the trade just isn't realistic, and I'm not too sure we'd wanna give up Little Ben.


----------



## Jonathan (Feb 24, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> There's no way that the Knicks would make that trade.


I don't think this statement holds true for any possible proposed trade.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Jonathan said:


> I don't think this statement holds true for any possible proposed trade.


Well, it IS true that they are the Knicks lol. But still, come on man :raised_ey


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Yeah, but if you guys are getting Roy as well, it would be perfect. As Roy can play the 1. So if needed, Roy could run point while ben went to 2 on offense, then switched back on D.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Again I ask, like a broken record, why anyone would trade a PROVEN NBA PLAYER for a draft pick. If we're looking at Kobe, maybe..... Are we? I didn't think so.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Blazer Freak said:


> Yeah, but if you guys are getting Roy as well, it would be perfect. As Roy can play the 1. So if needed, Roy could run point while ben went to 2 on offense, then switched back on D.


You forget that trade involves giving up our best player. Roy isn't a sure thing to be a worthy replacement, cause he isn't proven, Ben is. The scenario does have it's good points, getting 2 fairly good post players plus another #1 pick, but as someone else said, it'd be the 3rd year in a row we trade away our #1 scorer...though we'd be getting one of them back in the trade lol.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pretty nifty trick. Trade the #7 pick from a pretty good draft for the #1 in a weak one.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

Pound for pound, Hinrich is the best player on the Bulls. Why'd yo want to trade him when he's just beginning to get established as one of the top defensive minded PGs in the league for someone from this year's draft?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Would the Raptors consider a trade of Kirk Hinrich for the #1 pick? Commit to Gordon and Duhon as the PGs.
> 
> Bulls draft Aldridge/Bargnani #1 and Roy #2. Trade up if we need to in order to get Brewer.
> 
> ...




Hmmmm... why not the #1 next year instead. you know the Raptor's aren't going to be much better next year, even with Hinrich and the #1 pick. Or this years #1, and that good ole draft switch option.

Plus it would invite the possibility of me finally seeing more of the Duhon/Gordon backcourt, which IMO can a very, very good one. (assuming Du has no more back problems...)

And yes, there's little doubt Gordon will be better then Hinrich when it's all said and done, so you are right in suggesting we trade our surplus to get better.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Jim Ian said:


> Hmmmm... why not the #1 next year instead. you know the Raptor's aren't going to be much better next year, even with Hinrich and the #1 pick. Or this years #1, and that good ole draft switch option.
> 
> Plus it would invite the possibility of me finally seeing more of the Duhon/Gordon backcourt, which IMO can a very, very good one. (assuming Du has no more back problems...)
> 
> And yes, there's little doubt Gordon will be better then Hinrich when it's all said and done, so you are right in suggesting we trade our surplus to get better.


That is a very, very interesting idea, and could very well be the soundest plan for long term success. The Knicks pick AND the Raptors pick -- both likely lottery -- in what is considered a strong big man draft? I'd love it!!! 2 shots at he #1 consensus pick? How can you not like it?

---------

I only oppose it for purely selfish reasons -- in that the moaning and groaning all next year that we are waiting for 2007 would about give me an ulcer.

Good God, the resident boo-birds would not be able to get enough of hearing themselves pontificate.

:hurl:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Jim Ian said:


> Hmmmm... why not the #1 next year instead. you know the Raptor's aren't going to be much better next year, even with Hinrich and the #1 pick. Or this years #1, and that good ole draft switch option.
> 
> Plus it would invite the possibility of me finally seeing more of the Duhon/Gordon backcourt, which IMO can a very, very good one. (assuming Du has no more back problems...)
> 
> And yes, there's little doubt Gordon will be better then Hinrich when it's all said and done, so you are right in suggesting we trade our surplus to get better.


I don't know. I think Duhon is overrated as a man defender and neither he or Gordon does anywhere near the job Hinrich does on bigger guards. I think the Gordon/Hinrich back court can work long term. I'm not sure Duhon is a starter on a really good NBA team though - unless it's in an Eric Snow type capacity, and that requires a superstar.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I don't know. I think Duhon is overrated as a man defender and neither he or Gordon does anywhere near the job Hinrich does on bigger guards. I think the Gordon/Hinrich back court can work long term. I'm not sure Duhon is a starter on a really good NBA team though - unless it's in an Eric Snow type capacity, and that requires a superstar.



i think that's cause you and i don't think of hinrich as "surplus".





:|


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Plus, folks, do you think Paxson would really trade Hinrich and keep Gordon? Do you really think that could/would ever happen?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Gordon might one day be a better PG than Kirk??????????? Aren't they the same age? 

Kirk for #1, if Pax knows that Ridge or Barg is going to be a superstar, then OK. But I don't see how that's possible. If we did the trade, we will take a step back from what we could've been next season if you know what I'm saying. Kirk for the next 2 years at least Kirk will out preform the #1 pick.


----------



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

mizenkay said:


> sorry mike, when it's all said and done, kirk will be the better _all around on both sides of the court_ player than ben.
> 
> i don't share the general thought either. not in the least.


Thank you MikeDC.

Kirk can be the 1-on-1 baller on the team complete with a Michael Jordan reverse lay-up and Pistol Pete's passing skills for all I care, but does he give this team confidence and take over games in the 4th quarter ? I think we'd be hardpressed to find a guy with a talent like Ben's: remember that we started this whole winning business in 2004 when HE started playing well as a rookie, bench or whatever.

I really don't understand how we chain ourselves to a point guard who dominates the ball in an offense that is predicated on ball movement. Sure, he has OK assist numbers, but at what cost ? I tend to think he gets assist numbers at the cost of time spent holding the damn ball and not getting teammates involved. He seems to be paid not to make mistakes. His defense doesn't really shut anyone down as much as it slows, which is quite useful, but I'd seriously wonder who would give us our offense.

I would like to see a Ben/Roy backcourt. Would be intriguing but I don't think Paxiles is very flexible to trading for Kirk unless it's for an obvious franchise player. If they did trade Kirk for anything less and we still get good value like a #1 pick, I would take back almost every bad thing I have ever said about Paxson.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Jim Ian said:


> Hmmmm... why not the #1 next year instead. you know the Raptor's aren't going to be much better next year, even with Hinrich and the #1 pick. Or this years #1, and that good ole draft switch option.
> 
> Plus it would invite the possibility of me finally seeing more of the Duhon/Gordon backcourt, which IMO can a very, very good one. (assuming Du has no more back problems...)
> 
> And yes, there's little doubt Gordon will be better then Hinrich when it's all said and done, so you are right in suggesting we trade our surplus to get better.


Ben has too many turnovers to be as good at PG as Kirk is, but he makes more plays as a SG. Keep them together, get a SF to move over and guard the bigger SGs if need be. I've mentioned Deng as a possibility for that before, and someone in the draft might fit the bill as well, or a big SG at 16.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Am I the only one that doesn't see how a Raptors team with Hinrich, Bosh, Villanueva, the #1 pick, and capspace is not going to make the playoffs next year?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

sloth said:


> Am I the only one that doesn't see how a Raptors team with Hinrich, Bosh, Villanueva, the #1 pick, and capspace is not going to make the playoffs next year?


Nope. 

Giving Toronto Kirk makes Toronto a very good team.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Damn. I wrote a typically idiotic post and my wife came home from work, asked a question that demanded going to a different web page and I never made the post.

The original post, as nearly as I recall, was positively brilliant...Hall of Fame stuff. Really, ya shoulda seen it. I'll replicate as best I can, but don't expect too much.

MikeDC, you're a great poster. However, trading Hinrich for the #1 pick SHOULD BE UNPOPULAR because it's wrong-headed on several levels. This is a bad draft. There are no sure-fire stars...NONE! Hinrich IS a PROVEN semi-stud NBA player who is still young. There's not a single player in this draft who is worth Hinrich. Period.

This "draft hysteria" is beginning to make me nuts. Since the Bulls are no longer playing, it's like we have to "win the draft." If not for the stupidity of the Knicks, the Bulls would be thinking about nothing more than what sort of role player we might get with the 16th pick. We're already a decent team. Without the Knicks' help, we'd have no business being a top-of-the-draft player. Unlike the other top-of-the-draft teams, we already have a solid, young nucleus and don't need to take a wild swing in the hope that we hit something. We don't need to attempt an Elton Brand-Tyson Chandler redux.

We're in an unusually good draft position for a decent team, particularly one with an excellent young nucleus. It's a gift. Unfortunately, it's a weak draft. If we can't trade the picks for real, live NBA players, then we should get what we can, but the LAST thing we should do is trade proven talent for the shiny baubles available in this lackluster draft class.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

transplant said:


> Damn. I wrote a typically idiotic post and my wife came home from work, asked a question that demanded going to a different web page and I never made the post.
> 
> The original post, as nearly as I recall, was positively brilliant...Hall of Fame stuff. Really, ya shoulda seen it. I'll replicate as best I can, but don't expect too much.
> 
> ...


This "it's a weak draft" stuff can change after the draft with a little time and distance, you know. I know there's no LeBrons in this draft, but Wade wasn't considered anywhere near LeBron before the draft, and look where that kid is now.

All of us need to be wary of too many scouting reports. We need to watch game footage and make our own decisions.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Am I the only one that doesn't see how a Raptors team with Hinrich, Bosh, Villanueva, the #1 pick, and capspace is not going to make the playoffs next year?


Maybe...just as you were the only one to predict that Hollis Price would be an NBA starter.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Suppose, per TB#1's suggestion, that it's Gordon for the #1 overall?


I'd have to say that deal would be flatly turned down.

And the 07 deal wouldn't be done, and couldn't be done as we have an outstanding deal to CHA for our first if we MAKE the playoffs next year. I suppose an option might be placed, but you're not trading him for an option.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

blowuptheraptors said:


> I'd have to say that deal would be flatly turned down.
> 
> And the 07 deal wouldn't be done, and couldn't be done as we have an outstanding deal to CHA for our first if we MAKE the playoffs next year. I suppose an option might be placed, but you're not trading him for an option.


What's the option with Charlotte?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Damn. I wrote a typically idiotic post and my wife came home from work, asked a question that demanded going to a different web page and I never made the post.
> 
> The original post, as nearly as I recall, was positively brilliant...Hall of Fame stuff. Really, ya shoulda seen it. I'll replicate as best I can, but don't expect too much.


They all are, my friend.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Big Ben and Lil Ben is what thell call em


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

transplant said:


> Damn. I wrote a typically idiotic post and my wife came home from work, asked a question that demanded going to a different web page and I never made the post.
> 
> The original post, as nearly as I recall, was positively brilliant...Hall of Fame stuff. Really, ya shoulda seen it. I'll replicate as best I can, but don't expect too much.
> 
> ...












Who are you, who are so wise, in the ways of science?


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> What's the option with Charlotte?


They have a lotto protected pick thru 2008 (varied protection actually) via CLE.

So you Might not technically even get the pick if outside that protection. But you want a shot at a high pick. You could make it so that the pick reverts if it lands in the protected area I suppose.


What I would consider, and I think it is fairly even is CV for Hinrich straight.

You may not like it or want it, but it is even.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

blowuptheraptors said:


> They have a lotto protected pick thru 2008 (varied protection actually) via CLE.
> 
> So you Might not technically even get the pick if outside that protection. But you want a shot at a high pick. You could make it so that the pick reverts if it lands in the protected area I suppose.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure it is. You can make the argument that they're more or less equals as offensive players, but Hinrich is a much better defender. Villanueva's size is nice but it's not like he's an impact rebounder or shot blocker.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I'm not sure it is. You can make the argument that they're more or less equals as offensive players, but Hinrich is a much better defender. Villanueva's size is nice but it's not like he's an impact rebounder or shot blocker.


Premium for size in the league for sure, supply and demand, all that BS. It would depend on how one views the respective upsides. I think it's pretty close, as long as BG and CD are seen as the future, and I don't think they are, not at the point.


----------



## Misfit (May 4, 2005)

I'd like to see Chicago make a bid for Jermaine O'neal, maybe BG and there second 1st round pick and that doesn't do it then BG and the #2 pick could probably get it done.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Misfit said:


> I'd like to see Chicago make a bid for Jermaine O'neal, maybe BG and there second 1st round pick and that doesn't do it then BG and the #2 pick could probably get it done.


That would leave us without a guard if we traded #2 and Ben, for a injury prone, over rated PF. We already have a tall skinny PF who is good on D and rebounding, no use giving away half the team for O'Neal, especially not when there are FAs out there to try for, and good draft picks.


----------



## Misfit (May 4, 2005)

Message Deleted


----------



## Misfit (May 4, 2005)

Message Deleted


----------



## Misfit (May 4, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> That would leave us without a guard if we traded #2 and Ben, for a injury prone, over rated PF. We already have a tall skinny PF who is good on D and rebounding, no use giving away half the team for O'Neal, especially not when there are FAs out there to try for, and good draft picks.


O'neal is not skinny the guy is 260.Over rated? Unless you consider a guy who could give you 20pts in the paint 10 rebounds and 2 blocks a game over rated. Brewer could slip to 16 or trade the pick for J.R Smith.Besides guys like J.O are not always available, 2-guards in the NBA while not a dime a dozen are a lot easier to come by then all-star power forwards.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Misfit said:


> O'neal is not skinny the guy is 260.Over rated? Unless you consider a guy who could give you 20pts in the paint 10 rebounds and 2 blocks a game over rated. Brewer could slip to 16 or trade the pick for J.R Smith.Besides guys like J.O are not always available, 2-guards in the NBA while not a dime a dozen are a lot easier to come by then all-star power forwards.



I'm not all about O'neal but I like the idea of trading the 16 for J.R. Smith....BRILLIANT!


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> I'm not all about O'neal but I like the idea of trading the 16 for J.R. Smith....BRILLIANT!


Though you can't judge a character of a person purely on what you see infront of a television screen. After watching NBA ROOKIES with J.R Smith. He seems a little too immature. If Bryon Scott went out of a favour with him i see Skiles doing exactly the same. The kid said himself he'd trade alot of points for a few highlight dunks to put himself on sports centre. you think that will sit well with Skiles or Paxon. Im passing on the kid, seems like a reincarnation of Ricky Davis without the funk of Ricky.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I'm not all about O'neal but I like the idea of trading the 16 for J.R. Smith....BRILLIANT!



I'd certainly look at that move . . . He needs a change of scenery anyway. I think he could really be a player here.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Though you can't judge a character of a person purely on what you see infront of a television screen. After watching NBA ROOKIES with J.R Smith. He seems a little too immature. If Bryon Scott went out of a favour with him i see Skiles doing exactly the same. The kid said himself he'd trade alot of points for a few highlight dunks to put himself on sports centre. you think that will sit well with Skiles or Paxon. Im passing on the kid, seems like a reincarnation of Ricky Davis without the funk of Ricky.



I see his immaturity as a good thing. I mean he was first in line for the premiere of Spong Bob Square pants for crying out loud and has to beg his mother to spend his own NBA money. All of the physical attributes you can ask for are already there, in a year or two, as he grows up, he could really be one of these kids that blossoms into an all star. And, at worst, we gave up a 16 pick for someone we end up waiving.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> I see his immaturity as a good thing. I mean he was first in line for the premiere of Spong Bob Square pants for crying out loud and has to beg his mother to spend his own NBA money. All of the physical attributes you can ask for are already there, in a year or two, as he grows up, he could really be one of these kids that blossoms into an all star. And, at worst, we gave up a 16 pick for someone we end up waiving.


I definitly like the talent level that he has. As his potential is out of the roof. But i don't see Skiles or Paxon wanting to coddle a youngster like him as their track record suggests. I don't think Skiles will be too inclined to place snippets of Spong Square Bob in between game film review to motivate the kid. 

"Is shoot around optional?" J.R Smith. I can imagine Skiles fuming already.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This "it's a weak draft" stuff can change after the draft with a little time and distance, you know. I know there's no LeBrons in this draft, but Wade wasn't considered anywhere near LeBron before the draft, and look where that kid is now.


I agree. I just don't see a single player in this draft that I'm 60% confident will be a better NBA player than Hinrich and I don't see any who I'm 10% confident will be a better NBA player NEXT season.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have the #2 overall. We should get someone who can help us some next season, and if we're lucky, that player will be a key piece to a championship run or two (or 6) in future years.

I just don't see a player who has me drooling on my shirt (or to be accurate, drooling more than usual on my shirt). Certainly no one who makes me want to trade our best player for an extra pick in this crap shoot.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Friends, this will be unpopular too but possibly not nearly as unpopular as the very thought of trading Kirk Hinrich, which to this observer would be the equivalent of cutting off one's testicles with dull shears. I want less and less to underestimate him, and Chicago would be foolish to part with him.

That said, I ought to remember the ESPN Trade Checker is not a toy. Nevertheless, this is it

In addition to the players, Chicago also trades the No. 2 draft pick to Portland and New Orleans sends its No. 12 Draft pick to Chicago.

New Orleans probably gets screwed because they end up with Miles and has to part with Mason, who is a fan favorite at least to the fans in the Hornets' temporary digs in Oklahoma City. But they also get Louisiana-born Duhon, which might be good PR for the Hornets as they embark on their final season as the NBA's "evacuee team." New Orleans is also almost sure to lose Speedy Claxton to free agency -- he desires to start somewhere. Dixon would be a sparkplug off the bench. I also view it as a test for the OKC market for their worthiness to support a team that might make an unpopular personnel decision ... it could be a test for down the road if a team were to be permanently placed in OKC.

Chicago gets a solid and hard-nosed (if unspectacular) backup guard in Blake and gets JR Smith, who might grow up and benefit from a change in scenery away from a sour trip in the NOOCH. They also get Portland's No. 4 pick and NOLA's No. 12 pick that they can spend on whoever they please.

And yes, I realize that Duhon is restricted. In which case I wonder if the ESPN Trade checker is buggy.

Portland winds up with the No. 2 draft pick which unless Toronto beats them to the punch, they'll probably spend on Adam Morrison. They also jettison Miles, who seems to have worn out his welcome there. Parting with the Terps clears the logjam at PG (Blake) and, IMHO to Portland's distress, a decent offensive player a knock on whom might be his size and sometimes inconsistency (Dixon). Portland gets needed size in Sweetney; Mason would be an admirable replacement for Miles and should be familiar with Coach McMillan from his years in Seattle.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I'm not all about O'neal but I like the idea of trading the 16 for J.R. Smith....BRILLIANT!


I hate that idea. Smith is a horrible defender, has a decent at best handle, doesn't take it hard to the rim and basically has proven nothing in the NBA - he's a big guard who shoots it. Big whoop. Gordon is a great shooter from three point range. Kirk isn't bad. We don't need shooting, and that's all JR Smith does - and even that he's done at a 39% clip from the field and 31% from three point range. I'd like to see us get a big guard with handles to complement Kirk and Ben - Smith isn't that guy. Ick.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

soonerterp said:


> Friends, this will be unpopular too but possibly not nearly as unpopular as the very thought of trading Kirk Hinrich, which to this observer would be the equivalent of cutting off one's testicles with dull shears. I want less and less to underestimate him, and Chicago would be foolish to part with him.
> 
> That said, I ought to remember the ESPN Trade Checker is not a toy. Nevertheless, this is it
> 
> ...


So Blake, Smith, #4, and #12 for #2, Sweets, and Duhon??

Aldridge/Thomas/Roy/Bargnani, Sene, and Reddick at 4, 12, 16?!? Where do I sign up?!?!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

soonerterp said:


> Friends, this will be unpopular too but possibly not nearly as unpopular as the very thought of trading Kirk Hinrich, which to this observer would be the equivalent of cutting off one's testicles with dull shears.


soonerterp meet SausageKingOfChicago. King... meet soonerterp


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I hate that idea. Smith is a horrible defender, has a decent at best handle, doesn't take it hard to the rim and basically has proven nothing in the NBA - he's a big guard who shoots it. Big whoop. Gordon is a great shooter from three point range. Kirk isn't bad. We don't need shooting, and that's all JR Smith does - and even that he's done at a 39% clip from the field and 31% from three point range. I'd like to see us get a big guard with handles to complement Kirk and Ben - Smith isn't that guy. Ick.



I disagree, his game hasn't matured yet but he has the speed and footspeed to be a good defender, he definitley can throw the ball down and attack the rim, he would benefit from a change of scenery and Skiles would likely be able to get the best out of him. When this kid matures he is going to be a beast.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> soonerterp meet SausageKingOfChicago. King... meet soonerterp


Dang!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

sooner

wassup!


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

I like the idea, I think it gives a good lineup but it is too much of a risk.Who is to say how good ROY will be.He better be the R.O.Y. if we made a trade like like that for Hinrich!


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> sooner
> 
> wassup!


Uhhh, nothing ... guess I'll go back to the Blazer board ... but sometimes this board is "way funner."

I am suddenly thinking wow, I really hosed the Hornets on that lousy trade. Didn't mean to but oh well it happens sometimes.


----------

