# Duhon outshining Hinrich



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

The continued improvement of Chris Duhon is on the verge of making KH expendable. Especially if Pax signs Jaric. Duhon has become a better shooter than KH, is nearly as good a defender and would be better suited to come off the bench than KH.


Who do you think Hinrich is worth in trade?


----------



## HookEmHorns (Jan 31, 2005)

Bulls4Life said:


> The continued improvement of Chris Duhon is on the verge of making KH expendable. Especially if Pax signs Jaric. Duhon has become a better shooter than KH, is nearly as good a defender and would be better suited to come off the bench than KH.
> 
> 
> Who do you think Hinrich is worth in trade?


 I think we have all the pieces, especially with Curry and Deng. I think that trading Hinrich could disrupt our team chemistry (taking away minutes from other players). I like what we have now.


----------



## numlock (Feb 8, 2003)

duhon, hinrich and expendable in the same sentence. Ive seen that before.

I was going to wait until i had confirmation but i was told through a friend that during commentary for the recent all star game in europe that it was mentioned by a commentator (who has some knowledge) that the bulls are looking at jon stefansson who was at dallas last season. Maybe not 100% relevant here but if true then it could change the scenario a bit


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

If Duhon can keep this up, this may be true. Then we can get a taller SG to start next to him. Bobby Simmons anyone? or Jaric can work too.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

I don't think Du is quite the scorer that Hinrich is. Duhon might be able to shoot a three and maybe drive to the hole once or twice, but outside that he is largely ignored in the offense. How many mid-range jumpers do you remember him taking this year? Not nearly as many as wide open threes that have been kicked out to him. Hinrich can slash to the bucket and draw a foul, pull up for a jumper, and I would still contend Hinrich can dish the ball better. Other teams have 2 above average ball handlers on the team, why can't the Bulls


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

Bulls4Life said:


> Duhon has become a better shooter than KH,


I don't buy this at all. Duhon can hit the occassional runner and sometimes the wide open three pointer, but that's about it. Kirk takes much more difficult shots.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Unbelievable.

Next time Adrian Griffin has a good game, let's see if we can trade Deng and/or Nocioni.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

Why can't we just accept, we got pretty good players all-around.

This constant bickering about who is better or who is expendable is a complete joke now.. especially where the Bulls have come from.


----------



## thegza (Feb 18, 2003)

Chicago N VA said:


> Why can't we just accept, we got pretty good players all-around.
> 
> This constant bickering about who is better or who is expendable is a complete joke now.. especially where the Bulls have come from.


Great post, mate.

This really annoys me, too. We're always looking to get rid of players, if anything, Kirk has a future with us while Duhon is in a contract year and may be asking for more money then we'll be willing to dish out. With so many free agency swingmen this summer, who knows what's available to us.

I'd rather have Larry Hughes then Chris Duhon, but I don't know about the rest of you guys.


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

3 good shooting games, and you guys are thinking duhon's some sort of offensive threat. 

anyone who would trade hinrich in favor of duhon is a moron. it's just sad really.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Aesop said:


> I don't buy this at all. Duhon can hit the occassional runner and sometimes the wide open three pointer, but that's about it. Kirk takes much more difficult shots.


Kirk might take more difficult shots, but he misses though so who cares.

Why not keep both unless a good deal comes along.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Yeah, because trading Hinrich would make things sooo much easier for Duhon...I'm sure he'll be able to keep up the strong play.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

sloth said:


> Kirk might take more difficult shots, but he misses though so who cares.


Even with Kirk taking more difficult shots, he still shoots a higher percentage.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

huh, that's funny. i guess i missed the memo that said the team goal was for players to "outshine" other players in order to make them "expendable"

is that how the bulls doubled the win total from last season? everyone looking out for theirs? 

and hooboy, kirk must be pea green with envy about duhon's game last night. to wit, his quote from today's daily southtown:

_"Eight-of-9 from 3, I don't remember anybody doing that," Hinrich said. "It was impressive. He was stepping into them and feeling it, and we were trying to find him."_

oh wait, so i guess that's why they kept running the same play over and over and over with hinrich feeding duhon and why atlanta did such a stellar job defending it.





:clown:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

i posted this in another thread, not seeing this one:


if this season teaches anything its that depth does not make a player expendable. the reason them beloved have been winnig is that they throw players in waves. i'm glad duhon is coming around and this team has a real point guard. i hope we are able to resign him and that ben never cracks the starting lineup -- remaining our bench killer. but, i don't see how duhon playing well makes hinrich expendable.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

:stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: 


:rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: 



:thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: :thand: 


:no: :no: :no: :no: :no:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Whether you want to parlay one of these players into a bigger guard or not, the reality of the situation is that we have the rights to Hinrich but not Duhon. Trading Kirk does not guarantee holding on to Du. That would be a tricky proposition this summer.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Despite Duhon's nice little streak of games, I'm still pretty certain that Kirk is a better offensive player. Three good games does not a player make. And while it's foolish to close your eyes to potential opportunities, I think at this point people tend to forget that were not at the bottom of the barrel anymore, and our team has gone beyond the stage where it constantly needs to recycle players in order to find the right mix, because I'm pretty sure we have it right now. 

Sometimes I think people have been conditioned by the last six years of suckitude. We've never really been in a situation where we don't need to make wholesale changes in a long time, so it's almost like people don't know what to do with themselves now that things are going so well.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Ugh....this again? :sigh:

I like Duhon and I hope we keep him, but Kirk's better then him at pretty much every aspect of basketball. 2 good games by Duhon doesn't make Kirk expendable.

Just try to enjoy rooting for our CURRENT players.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well if we did my suggested trade of Kirk and filler before VC got traded, would anyone be complaining???


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

More crap from the [please, no personal attacks -- sst], [posters] who still haven't come to grips with the fact that between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was the _last man standing._ You can't rip Paxson or Skiles anymore, so why not go after their favored son in any way possible. How crass and unimaginative...and repetitive.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Kismet said:


> More crap from the disgruntled anti-fans who still haven't come to grips with the fact that between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was the _last man standing._ You can't rip Paxson or Skiles anymore, so why not go after their favored son in any way possible. How crass and unimaginative...and repetitive.



:clap:

:worship:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ah yes... more ad hominem and back slapping. How crass and unimaginative... and repetitive.

Everyone on the team is expendable for the right price.

1.) Who would you like to replace Bulls player X with?
2.) Why would we be better off with this new player Y rather than X?
3.) Is it realistic to believe that we can acquire Y?

Perfectly legitimate sports conversation.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah yes... more name calling and back slapping. How crass and unimaginative... and repetitive.
> 
> Everyone on the team is expendable for the right price.
> 
> ...










And as often as you've regurgitated this same type of response you might as well copyright it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah yes... more ad hominem and back slapping. How crass and unimaginative... and repetitive.
> 
> Everyone on the team is expendable for the right price.
> 
> ...



That is not an accurate characterization of the subject of this thread, however.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kismet said:


> And as often as you've regurgitated this same type of response you might as well copyright it.


And even more ad hominem....

cycle, rinse, repeat...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That is not an accurate characterization of the subject of this thread, however.


I dunno... he/she is writing about Duhon playing well and wondering what Hinrich would be worth in a trade.... seems like a fairly common sports talk conversation.

This is going to be a recurring theme IMO since...
1.) We have three solid guards now.
2.) All three are short.
3.) Duhon appears to be the best point guard of the group.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Everyone on the team is expendable for the right price.


That's the bottom line. Even though Hinrich is the best and most valuable player on our team, he is still not close to being a superstar and is replaceable, like everyone else on the team. Our team is about balance, depth, defense and playing hard. It's not about one player carrying us.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Kismet said:


> More crap from the [please, no personal attacks -- sst], [posters] who still haven't come to grips with the fact that between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was the _last man standing._ You can't rip Paxson or Skiles anymore, so why not go after their favored son in any way possible. How crass and unimaginative...and repetitive.


Kismet: 

I don't see how your logic follows. Someone comments that Duhon's steller play of late might replace the necessity for KH, so they must have a hidden agenda??? Kirk Hinrich is the Bull's most vauable asset in a trade. I have already stated that I am not for moving Hinrich, but shipping him would be the easiest solution for our problem with large guards. i don't see how holding this view implies any lack of loyalty. i hope we can encourage meaningful basketball discussion -- which this is -- even if we don't agree with the sentiments.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's the bottom line. Even though Hinrich is the best and most valuable player on our team, he is still not close to being a superstar and is replaceable, like everyone else on the team. Our team is about balance, depth, defense and playing hard. It's not about one player carrying us.


Yah, although I don't think Hinrich is the most valuable, no matter what definition of "most valuable" you want to use. 

For instance... if every player in the NBA became a free agent and there was no salary cap, would Hinrich end up being the higest paid player next season out of our current Bulls? I don't think so.

As for this current team... I think we could ill-afford to lose any of our core players now that Curry and Deng are gone. Out of the remaining players... I'd be most afraid of losing Chandler.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

This conversation has only been done about 1.2 million times in the past year, though. Read the same crap about a big guard who can defend, even though Hinrich is one of the best defenders of 2 guards in the league.

Why are there no threads on "Nocioni is playing well, is Deng expendable"? Why not trade Deng for a big SG, since Nocioni is making him obsolete?

Exactly.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Kismet:
> 
> I don't see how your logic follows. Someone comments that Duhon's steller play of late might replace the necessity for KH, so they must have a hidden agenda??? Kirk Hinrich is the Bull's most vauable asset in a trade. I have already stated that I am not for moving Hinrich, but shipping him would be the easiest solution for our problem with large guards. i don't see how holding this view implies any lack of loyalty. i hope we can encourage meaningful basketball discussion -- which this is -- even if we don't agree with the sentiments.


IMO, and for what its worth, its not the topic, its the timing of the thread. We've been through this before, when Hinrich sat out with a pulled hamstring. Now Duhon has a couple of solid games and the same conversations (Hinrich's expendability) start up all over again.

Funny how this board hasn't been dominated by similar expendability threads for Curry as the team has continued winning despite his absence and in large part because of Chandler's inspired play.

I've also noticed a proportionate lack of "Trade Luol" threads while he's been out and still the Bulls have kept on winning.

No, the only player subjected to this kind of "do we really need him" theme on a regular (and I do mean consistently regular basis) is Kirk Hinrich. The team is doing incredibly well and yet some people can barely contain themselves when they see even the slightest opportunity to point out how replaceable and dispensible Kirk Hinrich seems to be.

Say what you want, but Duhon's recent performances have provided the same group of suspects another chance to REHASH every topic about Hinrich that was beaten to death while he recovered from his pulled hamstring.

Like I said, no problem with the threads that encourage discusion about ways to improve the team. I'm just very suspicious of the motivation behind introducing a thread that's titled "Duhon Outshining Hinrich." Does the title of that thread give you the impression that its about finding ways of improving the Bulls? Or has Duhon's _three game_ hot streak simply given some people an opportunity to take another shot at Paxson's first draft choice and the player who beat out Jamal Crawford as the Bulls lead guard? I'll remind you again that this was all covered in a very vindictive manner (requiring a number of threads to be locked) while Hinrich was recovering from a hamstring injury and the Bulls continued to win.

You questioned my logic and I felt you deserved a response.

BTW, can this thread be merged with the other thread entitled "Better Passer: Duhon or Hinrich?" Catch my drift?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Writing and thinking about trade scenarios is what makes posting to message boards fun for many.

At this point, what Kirk and Duhon both bring to the Bulls are the abilities to control the ball without a lot of turnovers, make good passes, play defense, and take reasonably good shots. Both on the court at once have been a winning combination for us. So much so, that Skiles has played them both AND Gordon for long stretches of games. That's worked so well that we've even seen FOUR guards (including Pargo) on the court at the same time.

I'm still of the opinion that Gordon has superstar written all over him, while the rest of the players aren't there yet - if they're going to be. If it turns out that Gordon gets to start and play starter's minutes next season, one of Hinrich or Duhon is going to have to prove to be the other starter, and there's NOTHING wrong with the other being a solid reserve.

Starting Duhon and Hinrich together have given us about 46 wins. It's a good combination that works this season.

Next season is something we are going to have to consider after we're done in the playoffs.

Paxson did not make any moves to improve our depth at the deadline this season. He has to re-sign Duhon, and Othella. He has to re-sign Curry and Chandler, too. And that's just to stay even with where we are now.

I'm not so sure that this team, if we stand pat, is going to do as well against improved competition next season. We have no draft picks, and little to trade except for our young core. 

AD has basically had a career best year this year, shooting better than he's ever shown, and playing solid in his limited minutes. He's going to be another year older, and on his last contract year. His contract is worth something in trade, though probably worth more to us - plus we'd really need a big of his quality (he does start over Chandler!) to replace him.

So looking at our needs, we might want a SG/SF type to add some depth in the front court in case Deng or Nocioni has to miss some games. Such a guy could also be useful to us when we're facing a tough matchup with an opponent's big guard lineup. And we definately need a PF/C type to add depth to our front court.

Is Hinrich the logical choice if we are going to make a trade? Quite possibly. We've yet to see whether Pax can squeeze some valuable contributor onto the roster along with Duhon and Othella, using the MLE. If Duhon is re-signed, it limits Pax's flexibility when it comes to trading him, so that should be considered.

I wouldn't be upset in the least if we kept Hinrich, but would a package of Hinrich and AD bring us that SG/SF and PF/C that can help us step up a notch?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I dunno... he/she is writing about Duhon playing well and wondering what Hinrich would be worth in a trade.... seems like a fairly common sports talk conversation.
> 
> This is going to be a recurring theme IMO since...
> 1.) We have three solid guards now.
> ...



Nope. Your characterization of this thread was that it was merely a trade discussion presupposing that every player is expendable if the deal improves the team. I agree with this notion. Every player is dealable for the right price. However, this thread presupposes that Hinrich was not expendable in the past and has only become expendable now b/c Duhon has had some good games. In my opinion, this is just capitalizing on a very tiny sample of good games in order to step in and start another let's get rid of Kirk thread. It's what happens every time some guard other than Kirk does well. It happens all the time, and it's old.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

Maybe this topic wouldn't keep getting rehashed if certain people would for once decide to actually discuss the topic rather than derail the threads attacking the people who suggest the idea of trading Hinrich. 

Maybe you don't see as many threads about dumping our other guys because outside of the occasional Gipper appearance dealing with Curry, threads talking about trading other players don't degenerate into flamewars.

edit: And for the record, no I don't think that Duhon has made Kirk expendable. Du has had like less than 10 good shooting games this season.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

thanks for your response. i understand where you are coming from, but believe hinrich is in a unique position.

there is no specualtion about curry because he can't be traded until after this offseason. we all realize that the beloved is going to be over the cap shortly, so arguing that curry has been replaced doesn't net you anything. refusing to resign curry would not bring us another star, like a hinrich trade scenario.

as far as deng, i believe most fans view him as the diamond in the rough. there was a poll a couple weeks ago, "who will be the best bull in four years." deng finished first reflecting the fact that many feal, as i do, that deng has the most potential of all of our players. its scary to talk trade with him because we really have no idea of what he can accomplish. hinrich has shown modest improvements over last season. thats not a knock, but i can't imagine him busting out and becoming a franchise star "shaq" type. also, our team weakness is guarding larger wings -- which noc can't do. it doesn't makes sense to trade a player that would create such a gaping hole. 

this leaves hinrich and gordon for trade talk. there's a fair amount of trade gordon talk. maybe not equal to that of our captain, but gordon also has not shown his ceiling like kirk.

i realize that there is a history here of a back forth between kirk and crawford fans. but, there are plenty of valid reasons why you would him moved. though again, i'm not favor of a trade.

i checked the duhon passing thread for merger when it was formed, and it seems to have stayed on its topic. they are two different issues. i voted for duhon on the passing thread , and don't think that kirk is expendable. thanks again for the conversation.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kismet said:


> IMO, and for what its worth, its not the topic, its the timing of the thread. We've been through this before, when Hinrich sat out with a pulled hamstring. Now Duhon has a couple of solid games and the same conversations (Hinrich's expendability) start up all over again.
> 
> Funny how this board hasn't been dominated by similar expendability threads for Curry as the team has continued winning despite his absence and in large part because of Chandler's inspired play.
> 
> ...



1.) I don't think that the poster that started this thread was heavily involved in the unfortunate closed threads that you mentioned. 

2.) When Hinrich is out or when Duhon is getting better and better are the exact times where it becomes apparent that Chris might be a starter quality PG in this league. If you think Chris is a better PG than Hinrich and you think that Gordon is eventually going to be a starting SG the natural train of thought is "what could we get for Hinrich to make the team better?" That's what this thread was seemingly all about... before it went off track for obvious reasons.

3.) This thread is not about who is the better passer. Its about sizing up what we could get in a trade for Hinrich.

4.) The reasons you don't see threads about Deng and Curry IMO is that that I would think that many feel they are not expendable….. or that we could get a player that would help the team in return. Even so, just today I saw a thread that proposed a DENG+Hinrich for Lebron trade. So Deng’s name is being bandied about in trade talks as well, at least in this internet fantasy-land. 

5.) Perhaps Hinrich is being "subjected" to threads such as these is because some people think that Duhon might be the better PG and that Gordon is going to be our SG?

6.) The real question is why can't a poster have a legitimate discussion about the Chicago Bulls without the "usual suspects" jumping down their throat?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I posted this in another thread, but it is relevant to this topic as well.

If Gordon continues as his role as a 6th man, and if Duhon improves his shooting, then Hinrich may be expendable.

However, I don't see Gordon being a 6th man for the rest of his career. He will start, probably from next season onwards. While Gordon will play SG, he can't guard SGs very well, while Hinrich has shown he can guard SGs quite well, despite his height disadvantage. Hinrich's ability to guard most SGs effectively likely will allow a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt because Gordon can guard PGs, which is what he is likely best suited to. 

A Duhon-Gordon starting backcourt will likely not work since neither player can effectively guard SGs.

_______

I think the simple fact is while Hinrich has to improve his shooting, Duhon has to by a greater margin. Duhon is shooting just above 35%. Duhon has been great, but I wouldn't be trading Hinrich in favour of Duhon any time soon. Having Duhon hopefully makes Skiles realise he doesn't have to play Hinrich extreme minutes.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Am I wrong, or was John Havlicek a career sixth man?
If he was, why can't Ben? Shoe endorsemnets?

http://www.nba.com/history/players/havlicek_bio.html



> For the next five seasons Havlicek was the best nonstarter in basketball. As Boston's "supersub" he came in at either guard or forward and was usually on the court at the end of a game. Along with Russell, *Havlicek routinely accumulated the most playing minutes among the Celtics during a season.
> 
> Havlicek didn't mind the sixth-man role. "It never bothered me," he once said, "because I think that role is very important to a club.. One thing I learned from Red Auerbach was that it's not who starts the game, but who finishes it, and I generally was around at the finish."*


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> Am I wrong, or was John Havlicek a career sixth man?
> If he was, why can't Ben? Shoe endorsemnets?
> 
> http://www.nba.com/history/players/havlicek_bio.html


I posted in one of the threads that Friday (?) on NBA TV (?) they had a special on Hondo, and how he was a career 6th man but often the C's best player along with Russell. They then did a little recap throughout history of 6th men, from All-Stars Bobby Jones and Kevin McHale to Vinnie Johnson and Detlef Schrempf and of course Toni.

Hell, it could be considered a good career move to be the 6th man on a contending team that plays balanced offense. At least as 6th man you enter the game by yourself instead of being one of 5 starters, you can certainly get noticed awfully quick.

Ben is already the go-to guy on offense down the stretch and has been in the top-15 in Crunch Time most of the season, so he's going to be getting noticed on a good team. And if he only has to play 30-32 minutes, much of it against 2nd unit guys who he shouldn't have to defend as hard, he will be that much more effective down the stretch when players become superstars.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

you know what would solve this problem?

break both of hinrich's legs and expand 'em about 3 inches, then fill in the empty space and voila we got a 6"6 PG/SG that's a great defender

then we dont need to worry about trading any of our guards or looking for a tall SG over summer :clap: 

i take a bow to my genius :biggrin:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Am I wrong, or was John Havlicek a career sixth man?
> If he was, why can't Ben? Shoe endorsemnets?
> 
> http://www.nba.com/history/players/havlicek_bio.html


The simplest answer to this of course is that "because he doesn't have to be". We can stop fantasizing about some illusion that our bulls live in an NBA where players are more loyal to their teams and teammates than to the dollar, or the opportunity to start. This is a business for them, just like it is for their employers. So if they see better opportunities and greener patures elsewhere (and ben gordon will if we don't start him by the end of his rookie contract), then they have every right to move on. The league is different. The sooner we accept that not all our favorite players are going to be re-signed, the better.

To be perfectly honest, there are only 5 players I don't consider trading at all right now, Deng, Gordon, Chandler, Curry, Nocioni. It would be most difficult to replace the latter two, and we have no idea what we have yet in the first two (making their true value to the league still yet an enigma)....everyone else is tradable for the right price (and that may or may not be a supestar). Nocioni is a tough guy. You don't trade those...


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> The simplest answer to this of course is that "because he doesn't have to be". We can stop fantasizing about some illusion that our bulls live in an NBA where players are more loyal to their teams and teammates than to the dollar, or the opportunity to start. This is a business for them, just like it is for their employers. So if they see better opportunities and greener patures elsewhere (and ben gordon will if we don't start him by the end of his rookie contract), then they have every right to move on. The league is different. The sooner we accept that not all our favorite players are going to be re-signed, the better.
> 
> To be perfectly honest, there are only 5 players I don't consider trading at all right now, Deng, Gordon, Chandler, Curry, Nocioni. It would be most difficult to replace the latter two, and we have no idea what we have yet in the first two (making their true value to the league still yet an enigma)....everyone else is tradable for the right price (and that may or may not be a supestar). Nocioni is a tough guy. You don't trade those...


Shoe endorsements it is then! :clap:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So will Ben be the first player to be the Rookie of the Year and 6th man following that up later in his career by becoming the first 6th man of the year and MVP in the same season?


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> Next time Adrian Griffin has a good game, let's see if we can trade Deng and/or Nocioni.


In all fairness we are not talking about 1 or 2 good games!!! Duhon is a guy that many (including myself) figured would be playing in Europe this year. Instead he is starting and making significant contributions to the greatest turnaround in victories from one season to the next in team history. He isn't just some feel good story, he is for real and is deserving of some long overdue recognition. The biggest knock on him was his shooting but he has improved his shooting every month during the season. That's something JWill was able to do, but up until now, Hinrich has not improved his shooting. If their is anything else that concerns you about Duhon's game, I'm sure, based on his track record so far, that he will improve upon it. 

Not only does Hinrich shoot a ridiculously low percentage, he takes the most shots. He often over dribbles and ends up taking ill advised shots with the clock running out. The Hinrich we see today is the Hinrich we saw on day one last season. The pieces around Kirk have improved but he has not. That's the same complaint people had with Crawford but Hinrich seems to be untouchable when it comes to honest criticism. 

I know people here love KH, but how can you justify calling for the trade of Curry when it is well known that 7-footers are worth their weight in gold in this league, but you won't even consider a trade of Hinrich even though guards with his stats are a dime a dozen! Duhon is proof of that.

Let's be real, Ben Gordon is the future at guard and even Pax has been quoted recently stating he needed to find a big, defensive minded guard to play with GORDON, not Hinrich. Duhon can come off the bench. It would be good to trade Hinrich before you sign a big guard so I'm trying to see what he's worth. Maybe a 1st round pick or something else of use.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

bullsville said:


> This conversation has only been done about 1.2 million times in the past year, though. Read the same crap about a big guard who can defend, even though Hinrich is one of the best defenders of 2 guards in the league.
> 
> Why are there no threads on "Nocioni is playing well, is Deng expendable"? Why not trade Deng for a big SG, since Nocioni is making him obsolete?
> 
> Exactly.


If both prove to be equally good, one will HAVE to go. The only way one of them will accept coming off the bench is if the other one is clearly better. 


C'mon guys, Pax won't be able to keep ALL the players. The trick is to keep the best players. Hinrich being a good defender is not enough to keep him on this team. He still gets posted up and out rebounded by bigger guards. Anyone see the last game against Atlanta? Smith & Childress were clowning Hinrich, Duhon & Gordon. We have to get a big guard to combat teams that throw two long guards at us. That big guard will start along with Gordon next season. 

Now do you think Hinrich will be happy coming off the bench after being a starter the last 2 seasons? Duhon won't like it either but will accept it more readily.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

nanokooshball said:


> you know what would solve this problem?
> 
> break both of hinrich's legs and expand 'em about 3 inches, then fill in the empty space and voila we got a 6"6 PG/SG that's a great defender
> 
> ...


:rofl:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Some of you have a horrible understanding of what it takes to cover up the weakness of players who have rare strengths. People want to get Gordon in the starting lineup, and trade Hinrich to do it? That makes no sense. 

Gordon is one of the worst defenders in the league. He isn't a good ball handler, and he does very little outside of scoring. He is a 6'1 *shooting guard*. He cannot play point guard, you're dellusional if you think he can. That's fine though, he has weaknesses, but his one outstanding strength is valuable, so it's a matter of coving those weaknesses up to reap the benefits. 

So what type of a player do you need to pair him with in the backcourt? A guy who can handle the ball a lot and run the offensive efficiently without turning it over. Additionally, he needs to be able to guard opposing shooting guards, and very well infact, to make up for Gordon's lack of defense. So long story short, a point guard on offense and a shooting guard on defense. That goes together with a shooting guard on offense and a point guard on defense. 

Which players in the league can do all of these things? Can Chris Duhon do these things? You're telling me we're going to trade Hinrich and start Duhon and Gordon in the backcourt? Please. Lets be realistic. Duhon is a good defender on point guards, but we might as well play 4 on 5 with Gordon guarding opposing shooting guards. 

So who can do all of those things? Marko Jaric comes to mind, but then he is only good for 50-60 games a year due to chronic foot problems. Hinrich can do those things better than any other guard in the league. He covers up Gordon's weaknesses better than any other player in the league could. Of course, that is just in the scenario of building around Gordon. If you like Gordon, Hinrich should be last guy you want to trade. 

I would rather trade Gordon than put him at point guard full time or shooting guard full time. He simply cannot guard shooting guards, and cannot run point guard. I'd rather trade Gordon for a more conventional shooting guard (scoring offguards aren't hard to find) and move Hinrich back to the point. 

If Gordon truly has superstar written all over him, we should throw him on the table for Manu Ginobili. Hinrich and Ginobili would be an amazing backcourt on both ends of the floor, with no liabilities. Gordon would be joining a sometimes offensively challenged Spurs team that has a strict defensive system that could make Ben look like an average defender. 

PG- Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon
SG- Manu Ginobili, Eric Piatkowski
SF- Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni
PF- Tyson Chandler, Othella Harrington
C- Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis

This would make us a better team. Ginobili understands how systems work and is a truly unselfish player. He can be the roleplayer or the superstar, just tell him what you want from him. He plays the right way.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Yo.. regardless of what us wasteoids think... Kirk Hinrich stays a Bull before Chris Duhon

You don't trade the symbol baby

AD's expiring contract is not going anywhere either 

Trading Kirk and AD is like leaving John Holmes being left without his dick

Also - you don't see trade Deng threads because the overwhelming consensus is is that Deng is a better player than Nocioni 

The problem with Kirk has got nothing to do with basketball - he's a bloody good basketball player, but rather , he reps the blue collar underestimated working man and gal who love the down home values he exudes while not backing down from anyone . And its this not backing down from anyone or anything while still keeping himself yessiree which is the vicarous aphrodisiac for those that wish they could in their lot in life... but for various reasons can't

[turn green on]

These people in their passive urban extremism are borderline sect 

Shades of Waco

[/turn green off ]

[Naw F..k it leave green on]

Then you have the shytestirrers that are compelled to root for the underdog and despise the jock / teacher's pet / employee of the month etc etc ...because these people have never been accepted by "the system" in their life and they see such a person described above as an extension of the system at their peer level.

Their outcasts , antisocial and obnoxious with a thorough disrespect for authority / rule orienatated structure... and are prone to excessive bouts of compulsive masturbation no doubt brought on by excessive bullying / abuse they suffered "in the system'

You know who you are . Face up to your unchannelled rage before you are the star of a real life , real time , hostage TV drama ...but if posting on message boards questioning the status quo of the authority /class divide is under orders from your therapist to help you channel .. then hey bro ( or sis ) pound away ( on your keyboard )

Soooooooo what do we have here RRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGEEEEEEE ..... at both sides of the divide

See brothers ( and sisters ) y'all not really that dissimilar ..y'all just want to be heard where your not being heard in the world and from a position within y'all don't want to surrender 

And this here is the channel 

[/end the green ]

Y'all all need to get together and do Pilates 

The world would be a better place if we all solved our conflicts with deep breathing and contortionist twisting on the Pilates floor with wind , rain , birds and waterfall music 

Dig


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Some of you have a horrible understanding of what it takes to cover up the weakness of players who have rare strengths. People want to get Gordon in the starting lineup, and trade Hinrich to do it? That makes no sense.
> 
> Gordon is one of the worst defenders in the league. He isn't a good ball handler, and he does very little outside of scoring. He is a 6'1 *shooting guard*. He cannot play point guard, you're dellusional if you think he can. That's fine though, he has weaknesses, but his one outstanding strength is valuable, so it's a matter of coving those weaknesses up to reap the benefits.
> 
> ...


I proposed trading our #3 draft pick last year for Manu in a sign and trade (with ballast)

I think Manu has about as much chance of leaving the Spurs as what Kirk has leaving the Bulls


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Yo.. regardless of what us wasteoids think... Kirk Hinrich stays a Bull before Chris Duhon
> 
> You don't trade the symbol baby
> 
> ...



:worship:


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I agree with a couple of the earlier posters . . . No reason to get rid of Kirk at this point, let's just be happy we have two winners in our starting backcourt. I do think that the possibility of signing another guard instead of Duhon exists this summer, but let's talk about that after the PLAYOFFS.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I wouldn't be upset in the least if we kept Hinrich, but would a package of Hinrich and AD bring us that SG/SF and PF/C that can help us step up a notch?


Only in rare cases would I consider trading Kirk Hinrich, but I've toyed with the suggestion of trading Hinrich/AD for a re-signed Joe Johnson/cap filler (Barbosa?). We fill alot of needs with this trade. We get a big guard who can also play some SF. He can handle, pass, and really shoot the ball lights out. I would think this is a fairly big upgrade for the Bulls if it happened.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

*Hmmm, it seems like the Bulls, with their outstanding record over the past few years should be able to plug-and-play new players into the system with no drop off - much like Sacramento.*

Maybe part of the Bulls problems is from a lack of stability and consistantcy. Ya think? So maybe you don't take a player that is in part responsible for the Bulls success and run to trade him.

The Hinrich Haters (HHers) make me vomit. They try to disguise their feelings by couching their questions as innocent, but we all know that is horsecrap.

So, the HHers hate Hinrich because:
1. They liked Crawford and hate Hinrich because they feel KH was responsible for making him expendable, or
2. They prefer a more flashy, streetball style which KH does not bring to the court, or
3. They are not really Bulls fans but fans of Duke who want this to be Duke Midwest or fans of other schools who don't happen to like KH because he went to Kansas (Illini fans perhaps?),
4. I am not calling anyone this but there may be some people who don't like KH because he is white. Racism cuts both ways.

I'd run a poll on this but figure it would get locked. I'm sure there are some reasons I am missing but these cover a few of them.

Edit: lime green does not show well


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Bolts said:


> *Hmmm, it seems like the Bulls, with their outstanding record over the past few years should be able to plug-and-play new players into the system with no drop off - much like Sacramento.*
> 
> Maybe part of the Bulls problems is from a lack of stability and consistantcy. Ya think? So maybe you don't take a player that is in part responsible for the Bulls success and run to trade him.
> 
> ...


What you say is correct, my friend.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Bolts,

I realize that Hinrich is very underappreciated by many on this board...but that doesn't mean he is untradeable if it means bringing in a superior player. If Pax somehow has the opportunity to snag someone like Joe Johnson in a sign-and-trade scenario, wouldn't you rather have him over Hinrich? I love Hinrich and all, but we're talking about a fairly significant upgrade in the backcourt. A starting backcourt of Duhon/Johnson, or even Gordon/Johnson, seems better than Duhon/Hinrich or Gordon/Hinrich. I would never want Kirk traded for the sake of thinking he's expendable...but when you're a GM who is trying to keep your team moving in the right direction, sometimes you need to make moves like this. I mean, the Bulls are a great defensive team and all, but they can be pretty brutal on offense sometimes.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

I agree Yodork. Whatever makes the Bulls better. KH is not above being traded and the same goes with any other player. There are people that incessantly hate on one particular Bulls starter and it is getting old. I see little "Hinrich for Johnson" responses which would be a fair idea except for the fact that Phx has Nash and Barbosa and has little need for KH. "Who we can get for KH" seems a very valid question. "Let's get rid of KH because Duhon rocks" is simply idiotic.

Go *BULLS*.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Shoe endorsements it is then! :clap:



:laugh: Unfortunately......yeah.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Bulls4Life said:


> In all fairness we are not talking about 1 or 2 good games!!! Duhon is a guy that many (including myself) figured would be playing in Europe this year. Instead he is starting and making significant contributions to the greatest turnaround in victories from one season to the next in team history. He isn't just some feel good story, he is for real and is deserving of some long overdue recognition. The biggest knock on him was his shooting but he has improved his shooting every month during the season. That's something JWill was able to do, but up until now, Hinrich has not improved his shooting. If their is anything else that concerns you about Duhon's game, I'm sure, based on his track record so far, that he will improve upon it.


Agreed. 



> Not only does Hinrich shoot a ridiculously low percentage, he takes the most shots.


Curry and Gordon shoot more frequently than does Hinrich. Moreover, Hinrich's eFG% (the TRUE measure of shooting efficiency) is higher than Nocioni's, and only 0.3% less than Deng's. The efficacy of three-pointers is twofold: first, 33% from three is equal to 50% from inside the arc. Second, there is much value in three-pointers attempted (and not necessarily made), as it spreads the offense and allows for more fluid and effective distribution of the ball.



> He often over dribbles and ends up taking ill advised shots with the clock running out. The Hinrich we see today is the Hinrich we saw on day one last season. The pieces around Kirk have improved but he has not. That's the same complaint people had with Crawford but Hinrich seems to be untouchable when it comes to honest criticism.


I disagree. Hinrich's FG% is up, the percentage of his passes leading to close shots or dunks is WAY up (a common criticism of him last year), his rebounds are up, his defense is improved, his efficiency is higher. He also toughened up a bit in the lane (though he still needs a LOT of improvement in that area). 



> I know people here love KH, but how can you justify calling for the trade of Curry when it is well known that 7-footers are worth their weight in gold in this league, but you won't even consider a trade of Hinrich even though guards with his stats are a dime a dozen! Duhon is proof of that.


I'm not for trading Curry.



> Let's be real, Ben Gordon is the future at guard and even Pax has been quoted recently stating he needed to find a big, defensive minded guard to play with GORDON, not Hinrich. Duhon can come off the bench. It would be good to trade Hinrich before you sign a big guard so I'm trying to see what he's worth. Maybe a 1st round pick or something else of use.


I'm of the opinion that Gordon will never be a full-time PG in the NBA. I also took Pax's comments to be a comment on Gordon's defense (though it's getting better), as opponents usually light us up when he and Duhon share the backcourt together. Sir Patchwork commented on this beautifully a few posts ago.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I'm of the opinion that Gordon will never be a full-time PG in the NBA. I also took Pax's comments to be a comment on Gordon's defense (though it's getting better), as opponents usually light us up when he and Duhon share the backcourt together. Sir Patchwork commented on this beautifully a few posts ago.


i agree:

i don't project gordon as a full time pg [but i am open to surpirses ]. thats not necessairly a knock on gordon, either. if he can can become more consistent with his brilliant offense off the bench, then he could become the type of player who wins championships, and still never cracks the starting lineup. i don't see any reason gordon has to project to a starter.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Bolts said:


> *Hmmm, it seems like the Bulls, with their outstanding record over the past few years should be able to plug-and-play new players into the system with no drop off - much like Sacramento.*
> 
> Maybe part of the Bulls problems is from a lack of stability and consistantcy. Ya think? So maybe you don't take a player that is in part responsible for the Bulls success and run to trade him.
> 
> ...


Dude, you[r comments sound in reverse racism]. Hinrich has a good shooting game once out of every five played. For 2 years and everyone on this board, including myself said his shooting would improve. Well it isn't improving. Now when Crawford couldn't string together 2 good shooting games he had to go but we have to watch Hinrich shoot bricks for the next 12 years?!?!?!?!?!? 

I am comparing this to the way Duhon's shooting has STEADILY improved while Hinrich's has not in 2 seasons. And the knock on Duhon was he couldn't shoot while Hinrich was KNOWN for being a good shooter. So what is the problem with Hinrich's shooting?

BTW, I wanted Rose out of here, I wanted Crawford out of here, I wanted ERob out of here, I was the FIRST person on this board to call for Cartwright's firing. All those people are black. Some people agreed with me, some didn't. But no one was disgusted the way they are with the mention of trading Hinrich. And if my suggestion is racist, why is it I'm not calling for the trade of Nocioni? And Reiner? I'm still not sold on Skiles but I'll wait and see on that one. Let's forget about what color a player is and focus on the only issue I'm concerned with. Skills.


ALL I WANT IS SOMEONE AT THE POINT THAT CAN HIT THEIR SHOTS CONSISTENTLY. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S *** WHAT COLOR THEY ARE!

[edit, sst: please keep comments on issues, not posters/ no personal attacks]


----------



## Shabadoo (Feb 12, 2005)

Ok, I know many of the die-hards here are infuriated with the constant badgering between both sides of the Hinrich, Jamal debate. It is becoming increasingly malevolent on both sides, something that is a shame at a time when we should all be coming together to cheer on the Bulls in the playoffs.

However, what Bolts said is completely and 100% fallacious. The only thing he did was prove my point (at least in terms of him in particular) that it is invariably impossible to critique Hinrich in any way. "They try to disguise their feelings by couching their questions as innocent" is lucid evidence of this. Again, some of you are acting irrational, and this (on both sides of the equation) is what is causing conflict.

Since I am by default a Hinrich hater, according to Bolts' definition, I should explain why it is stereotypical garbage to suggest that I fall under the Bolts' 4 Commandments.

Why do I "hate" Hinrich? The truth is.....I don't. It would be entirely irrational and just plain dumb to hate Hinrich considering that I am a self-confessed n00b in terms of watching the Bulls (due to geographical location).

Ok then, why do I criticise him? My critical attitude towards Kirk comes from an ingrained irk of mine: things and people becoming overrated. Kirk is a good player, but he is unfairly credited with the Bulls rise to prominence this season. The contributions of 4 rookies are understated, and Kirk's leadership and intangibles are repeatedly lauded. At the same time, the "addition by subtraction" argument is unjustly thrust upon Crawford, and he is lambasted as a bad apple and a cancer.

That is exactly why I dislike a lot of things. It is sort of ingrained in me (and arguably a lot of Australians) to root for the underdog, and in a board dominated by Kirk fans that means critiquing his game. As for Crawford, I find his style of play exciting, although it is admittedly not particularly potent. Still though, he is a decent player, and one whose true value is often misjudged: he’s either terribly overrated or criminally underrated depending on fandom.

There are a few here who continue their Napoleonic tirade against any Kirk comment. I am all for honest, logical repartee. In particular, I'd like to thank Patchwork for presenting a compelling, and civil case for Kirk. It's as simple as that: make good points, and people on both sides will listen.

[edit: please limit personal attacks and keep discussion on positions: sst]


----------



## Shabadoo (Feb 12, 2005)

In terms of the topic, I'll link back to another thread where I asked a similar question, and no one say (or everyone ignored hehe).

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2139452&postcount=11 

While keeping Kirk (or any player) is a matter of perception and taste, judging by past experience, either Reinsdorf's pocket or the door is going to have to open. Choices are going to have to be made.


I like some posters' suggestions of Joe Johnson. I think that looking for a PG with the versatility and defensive ability of Kirk is likely going to prove fruitless. However, there are more of the "SG with PG skills" then "big PG's". Of course, we are just hypothesizing, because it is unlikely that a team with Nash or Barbosa is going to need Kirk, or that we can afford Joe, but the JJ type of player is a different way of looking at things.

Jalen Rose or Crawford maybe? :biggrin: (j/k)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Shabadoo said:


> Ok, I know many of the die-hards here are infuriated with the constant badgering between both sides of the Hinrich, Jamal debate. It is becoming increasingly malevolent on both sides, something that is a shame at a time when we should all be coming together to cheer on the Bulls in the playoffs.
> 
> However, what Bolts said is completely and 100% fallacious. The only thing he did was prove my point (at least in terms of him in particular) that it is invariably impossible to critique Hinrich in any way. "They try to disguise their feelings by couching their questions as innocent" is lucid evidence of this. Again, some of you are acting irrational, and this (on both sides of the equation) is what is causing conflict.
> 
> ...


Nice post and I understand how you feel on the other side of the fence as well.

For example, I get blasted when I say Hinrich is our best player this year (other than miz and the other loyal Hinrich lovers). By best, I mean most consistent all-around game. I don't expect him to be a perennial All-Star or even our best player in the future, or even next year. Yes, his shooting needs to improve. He is a good shooter, probably needs to play less mpg, and needs to learn how to finish at the hoop.

What I don't understand is who is crediting the turnaround to Hinrich. I haven't paid attention to the Jamal vs. Kirk thread since after day 1, so I'm assuming it is there, but Kirk is only one reason for our turnaround.

If anything, I would say our leadership has been the largest cause for our turnaround. That would point to Skiles, and fed through the rest of the team by A.D., Hinrich, and Chandler, and Nocioni. Team chemistry is the reason for our revitalization, and why we are fighting for the #4 seed with hardly an All-Star consideration this year.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> For example, I get blasted when I say Hinrich is our best player this year (other than miz and the other loyal Hinrich lovers). By best, I mean most consistent all-around game. I don't expect him to be a perennial All-Star or even our best player in the future, or even next year. Yes, his shooting needs to improve. He is a good shooter, probably needs to play less mpg, and needs to learn how to finish at the hoop.
> 
> What I don't understand is who is crediting the turnaround to Hinrich. I haven't paid attention to the Jamal vs. Kirk thread since after day 1, so I'm assuming it is there, but Kirk is only one reason for our turnaround.
> 
> If anything, I would say our leadership has been the largest cause for our turnaround. That would point to Skiles, and fed through the rest of the team by A.D., Hinrich, and Chandler, and Nocioni. Team chemistry is the reason for our revitalization, and why we are fighting for the #4 seed with hardly an All-Star consideration this year.


i agree rhyder!


and i don't think you will find a single post by me (or vega for that matter) saying that kirk is the one and only reason for the dramatic turnaround this year. yes, i am a fan. i'm also a fan of duhon's. and of ben's. and i LURVE tyson. is that allowed? what i do take issue with, very strongly, is the language of the initial post that declares hinrich on the verge of expendability because he was "outshone" in scoring by duhon in the last few games. i suppose you could say that duhon outshone gordon in the hawks game too, but you won't find a thread saying chris is on the verge of making ben expendable. why? cause it is uninformed and frankly ridiculous. same as it is, in my opinion, uniformed to declare kirk expendable cause chris is having a good stretch of games. 

sir patchwork very eloquently stated the reasons why this premise is less than logical, so i won't belabor the point.

i am not a huge fan of player v. player threads, and maybe it is sheer coincidence that hinrich always seems to be one of the players involved. or maybe not. and i happen to agree with kismet, that it isn't so much the question being asked (who could we get in a trade) but the timing of the question. i think it's disingenuous and that's my position. 

and for the record, i don't think it has ANYTHING to do with color, but has much to do with style and what is VALUED in a player. namely: scoring.

in the 46 wins this year, ben has been the leading scorer (or co-leading) in 13 games. eddy has 13 leading scorers to his credit and kirk has eleven. the balance of wins has AD, nocioni and othella chalking up the leading points. duhon has been the co-leading scorer in one game and the outright leading scorer in one (v. the hawk)

what is the point of citing that? well to my perception it says that this team is not constructed around a superstar scorer and that on any given night someone will step up and lead the way. it is a balanced approach that speaks directly to the change in philosophy surrounding the team. the losing culture is gone. dead. buried. 

so while bulls4life may be genuinely curious as to who hinrich would fetch in a trade, i find it interesting that he does not offer up his own solution. 

i also believe that kirk has improved his overall game - and yes, still needs to work on the shooting - but it may be hard to tell vs. last year cause we have MUCH BETTER PLAYERS OVERALL.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i don't think you will find a single post by me (or vega for that matter) saying that kirk is the one and only reason for the dramatic turnaround this year. yes, i am a fan. i'm also a fan of duhon's. and of ben's. and i LURVE tyson. is that allowed? what i do take issue with, very strongly, is the language of the initial post that declares hinrich on the verge of expendability because he was "outshone" in scoring by duhon in the last few games. i suppose you could say that duhon outshone gordon in the hawks game too, but you won't find a thread saying chris is on the verge of making ben expendable. why? cause it is uninformed and frankly ridiculous. same as it is, in my opinion, uniformed to declare kirk expendable cause chris is having a good stretch of games.


I hope you didn't take what I said as singling you out. I was including myself with you (and vega), as having the "Hinrich Lover" lable.

However, whenever the debate is brought up on why Hinrich is considered our best player, anyone who seems to support that argument seems to get labeled as a blind Hinrich lover.

I was merely pointing out what Shab was feeling happens on the other side of the ball as well.

Basically, the point is most message board posters don't seem to understand that you can label someone as overrated, yet not hate the player or his game for that matter. You can say that Hinrich is better than Jamal and vice versa, yet not _HATE_ the other player.

For example, up until the past three seasons, it was my belief that Iverson was very overrated. However, I loved watching how hard and determined he has played and hoped he develop into a team before me type of player. Ever since getting his teammates more involved, he has made tremendous strides in his game without really making any significant improvements to his skills. He certainly is not a team before me type of guy, but he is much moreso that now than he ever used to be.

Another example, is that I put TMac on the NBA third team (behind Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, and Lebron). I was labeled a TMac hater because I thought he was the fifth best forward in the league this year. I questioned the validity of putting him at the guard slot when he plays SF the majority of his minutes, just so he could be included in the second (or even first) team.

All in all, most posters behave in such a manner that when one of their players is critiqued, they view it as a personal attack against them, and that's when irrational arguments happen. One irrational response in an objective debate, and things usually spiral southward.

I was labeled a Jamal-hater last summer when I agreed that he should be moved. I liked Crawford, and appreciate what he did for his team. However, I thought his contract demands were too high, and at the prospect of signing him and losing one of Curry or Chandler (if we had another 30-win season) did not sound very appealing. I hope the best for Jamal, and would have been one of the first to admit I was wrong (and still could be proven wrong). The one thing that I, and just about everyone else, did not expect was the Bulls to be playing so well this year.

Had we known we were going to be competing for the #4 seed in the preseason, I think that would have changed my, Paxson, and Uncle Jerry's views on Jamal's contract situation as well. I too, think Jamal is unfairly included in the addition by subtraction argument shared by a lot of people.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i agree rhyder!


Good to hear!

I replied before you edited your post, and was hoping you weren't taking me the wrong way.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Good to hear!
> 
> I replied before you edited your post, and was hoping you weren't taking me the wrong way.


lol. that's why i went back and edited it to include *"i agree"* cause i didn't want for you to think i wasn't!!





it's all good. THE PLAYOFFS START THIS WEEKEND PEOPLE. THE PLAYOFFS!!!!!!!!! oh yeah, baby.

:rock:


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

The Jamal vs. Jay evolved into Jamal vs. Kirk and then now Kirk vs. Duhon?

Makes me miss the days of Jamal vs. ElAmin. 

Im not overly certain why we need a constant battle over which one is the better point guard if both are starting for us and the results have been a tremendous season!

No player is perfect. Not even MJ. 

While thats obvious, there are things called intangiables that either work or don't on a team. 

For whatever reason, like him or don't, these two "work".

And while both are tremendously young players who have shown a whole lot... there is still room for growth. Knowing both personalities... it seems odd for us to assume that either/both won't continue to work and improve on their games.

We aren't talking about who 'should start' anymore. And the style of game each plays has played a LARGE part in the success of the team.

I don't feel this post was started to bring out a "one or the other" debate... but merely a "Duhon has been VERY important to the team as well".

And I don't think anyone can argue that.

In as much as it matters, I'm hardpressed to identify anyone that is heads and shoulders "responsible" for our resurgance over everyone else.

And that shows me that EVERYONE is bringing it. And thats good for the whole.

Sure Kirk won't be throwing lobs to himself off the backboard for dunks, but he is running HIS game which has shown to be highly effective.

Same goes for Duhon. Both understand where their strengths and weaknesses are and both have tried to maximize and limit their games accordingly.

I don't know if its possible NOT to like both guys.

Im merely happy both have been so successful TOGETHER!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Shabadoo said:


> Ok, I know many of the die-hards here are infuriated with the constant badgering between both sides of the Hinrich, Jamal debate. It is becoming increasingly malevolent on both sides, something that is a shame at a time when we should all be coming together to cheer on the Bulls in the playoffs.
> 
> However, what Bolts said is completely and 100% fallacious. The only thing he did was prove my point (at least in terms of him in particular) that it is invariably impossible to critique Hinrich in any way. "They try to disguise their feelings by couching their questions as innocent" is lucid evidence of this. Again, some of you are acting irrational, and this (on both sides of the equation) is what is causing conflict.
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

Fantastic.

+reputation for that.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Fantastic.
> 
> +reputation for that.


I gave him +rep as well


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Bulls4Life said:


> The continued improvement of Chris Duhon is on the verge of making KH expendable. Especially if Pax signs Jaric. *Duhon has become a better shooter than KH,* is nearly as good a defender and would be better suited to come off the bench than KH.
> 
> 
> *Who do you think Hinrich is worth in trade?*


Not as much as Duhon would be worth in trade, evidently. Therefore, I subscribe to the belief that Duhon's improvement has made Duhon expendable. 

The question, then, is who do you think Duhon is worth in trade?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Not as much as Duhon would be worth in trade, evidently. Therefore, I subscribe to the belief that Duhon's improvement has made Duhon expendable.
> 
> The question, then, is who do you think Duhon is worth in trade?


Also true.

I think most would assume that Hinrich would have a higher market value than Duhon though.

And... Duhon is likely a better point guard... our only true point guard. Given how important feeding the ball to our towers is to this franchise, a player that is on the court for heavy minutes that excels in feeding the post is quite important.

So far, this thread has been heavy on rhetoric, light on trade proposals. I've talked about a desire for a Larry Hughes in the past, and would be willing to trade Hinrich (or gordon?) to get him.

Perhaps our guard trio of Gordon, Duhon and Hinrich will be enough to take us where we need to go. The playoff series with Washington, with their great Arenas/Hughes tandem, will perhaps shed some light on the future prospects of Gordon/Duhon/Hinrich.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Also true.
> 
> I think most would assume that Hinrich would have a higher market value than Duhon though.
> 
> ...


For the record, I was being sarcastic. My image of the Bulls' future backcourt rotation is Hinrich/Gordon backed up by Duhon/miscellaneous-free-agent-taller-defensive-minded-shooting-guard-role-player. 

Of the three in place, I suspect I'm like most in that I believe Duhon is by far the most expendable.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Let's say we trade Hinrich for Hughes, who is going to play point? Gordon? I think people want to believe that Hinrich is the reason we have a small backcourt, but it's Gordon that makes us a have a small backcourt. We can only start two guys in the backcourt, so it's either Duhon/Gordon which is ridiculously small, or Gordon/Hughes which doesn't have a point guard. Since so many people are dead against trading Gordon, there is no way around having a small backcourt unless we can come up with someone who can run point better than Hinrich, and guard shooting guards better than Hinrich. Who can do these things?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Not as much as Duhon would be worth in trade, evidently. Therefore, I subscribe to the belief that Duhon's improvement has made Duhon expendable.
> 
> The question, then, is who do you think Duhon is worth in trade?


Josh Childress ?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Josh Childress ?


Atlanta would laugh at us for that one (and they haven't been doing a lot of laughing this year).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Let's say we trade Hinrich for Hughes, who is going to play point? Gordon? I think people want to believe that Hinrich is the reason we have a small backcourt, but it's Gordon that makes us a have a small backcourt. We can only start two guys in the backcourt, so it's either Duhon/Gordon which is ridiculously small, or Gordon/Hughes which doesn't have a point guard. Since so many people are dead against trading Gordon, there is no way around having a small backcourt unless we can come up with someone who can run point better than Hinrich, and guard shooting guards better than Hinrich. Who can do these things?


I'm in agreement. That's why I've been a proponent of ideas that supplement what we already have instead of trading away one valuable piece for another one that might not fit quite as well. I have visions of trading for Pietrus without giving up anything more than Noch plus a future 1st or two, but MP is playing himself out of that kind of price range lately. Adding a solid player like Raja Bell would be fine if we could do it with the remainder of the MLE after retaining Duhon. I understand and agree with the need for more backcourt size, but this young team that even optimists like myself had written off for dead in November, has won 46 games with that supposedly fatal flaw. Kirk does a decent job on most SGs, and Deng can guard some of the bigger ones that Kirk's too small for. Having another guy would be great, but not at the expense of what we already have working. At least, not yet. We hold some valuable cards now, pending contract resolutions, and time will be on our side if Pax/Jerry pony up the money.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Atlanta would laugh at us for that one (and they haven't been doing a lot of laughing this year).


Duhon + a future first? (which should be in the 20s unless something strange happens) Atlanta has a bunch of swingmen and nothing at PG to speak of. That's at least getting closer.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Duhon + a future first? (which should be in the 20s unless something strange happens) Atlanta has a bunch of swingmen and nothing at PG to speak of. That's at least getting closer.


That's getting closer, but I still doubt Atlanta would.

Childress is really their only player of the future at the moment... that is, until Smith spends a couple summers knocking down 18-20 footers.

I think Duhon might be able to net us Kareem Rush (in terms of equal value SG for PG).

In all honestly, Duhon is a super fit here, and his value to us is probably higher than any other team would think of him.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> Atlanta would laugh at us for that one (and they haven't been doing a lot of laughing this year).


Well I guess that one is for all who think that Duhon is a future top 10 point guard in the league and who already think that he is a better point guard option than "The Symbol"

Atlanta takes a big with the draft pick ( likely Bogut ) and absolutely needs a quality trad point guard given what they have in Josh Smith , Al Harrington and possibly Bogut

The easiest position to fill is guard/wingmen who are average to above average talents ( comparatively to the finest in the league )

Getting past the nominal statistical comparative of fantasy head to head stats ( IMO ) this trade should be a trade that Atlanta does if it were ever available ( which it wouldn't be )

So long as they had committed management and a Coaching choice that had capacity to implement a proper scheme

Atlanta won't get marquee free agents but they have a bunch of cap room

If they had a young nucleus of Bogut, Harrington, Smith and Duhon.. they have key positions filled at Center and Point Guard ... the flashy stud wing player ... all they have to do is fill depth at the power and wing positions with 2nd tier free agents that would only be playing roles anyway... and they would have their salary house in order and growing off young and funky with vets supporting as per the Chicago model

Childress is a nice player ..but he's a complementary role player he can do a bit of everything

He ain't all that just because he's a stat pony on a team without a structure


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I think Duhon might be able to net us Kareem Rush (in terms of equal value SG for PG).


LOL



> In all honestly, Duhon is a super fit here, and his value to us is probably higher than any other team would think of him.


I think your wrong

Trad point guard who can execute and run an offense and defend like hell are not a common commodity in the league

Defense starts at the perimeter

Some times you have to go back to go forward in "talent swaps"

See : Rose and Crawford trades

And the law of the NBA jungle is that super role players on lteams that are amongst the league's best have much higher value than developmental players who have nice style but no substance yet on cellar dwelling teams 

Chicago Bulls fans should only understand this law too well


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

I will never understand those of you who want to break up a YOUNG team that is starting to come together and could be a championship contender in the next couple of years.

Duhon has shot the ball VERY WELL over the last 3 games, but that is just 3 games out of 80 -- not enough of a sample to suggest whether it is a fluke or whether he will actually become a decent shooter in the NBA. Here are his month by month FG %:

Nov: .275
Dec: .284
Jan: .395
Feb: .406
March: .287
Apr: .523

That means in 3 of the 6 months he shot BELOW 30 % from the field. Also, as shown by his March numbers, he has not improved steadily. In April, yes, he has improved. Much props to him, but he still has to show he can hit shots when he is closely defended. Chris benefits from defenders paying little attention to him -- something neither Ben nor Kirk get the benefit of.

I'm not saying he won't be able to hit a decent % of shots once he gets more defensive attention, I'm just saying he hasn't shown that ability yet this season. 

Kirk does not shoot a high percentage from the field. But that is the ONLY big flaw in his game. He is an excellent defender, a good rebounder for a guard (I have looked it up - few very players Kirk's size average 4 boards a game, but Hinrich averages exactly that), and a very solid PG (not an elite one, but very solid). Guardswho are as good defensively as Kirk who ALSO can score and pass the ball as well as he does are anything but a dime a dozen. And those who have similar skills are either locked up to long-term contracts or will be commanding the type of $$ the Bulls will likely be loathe to pay a free agent.

I am not opposed to trading Kirk -- or anyone else on the Bulls -- if the management really thinks such a move would improve the team. But trading Kirk simply to try and get bigger in the backcourt wouldn't, IMO, necessarily result in a better team.

The grass isn't usually greener, remember...


----------



## momocult45 (Apr 16, 2005)

kirk, duhon, and gordon are too good together, theyre learning from each others style of play and are racking up wins in the mean time......i say keep the team together and if anything do away with oldies like harrington and davis for more youth, too much youth could be bad, but with this club it looks to be a good thing


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hinrich shone quite well tonight vs. the Knicks.


----------

