# Chris Duhon or Kirk Hinrich



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Lets keep this thread clean. No personal attacks, baiting and what not. Just discuss the basketball aspects of the two guys. Just post your oppinion, don't bash other posters and get another thread closed.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Here is my 2 cents.

Chris Duhon is a better fit then Kirk Hinrich at the point guard for this team. He controls the ball better, takes less shots, finds bigmen in favorable position, and gets the plays going faster all while playing defense equal to Hinrich's on point guards and showing more hustle too. We all know what Eddy Curry can do, get him the ball within 5 feet of the basket he will for the most part score on you. He is a great scorer. What I saw last night was that Chris as the full time point guard was finding Curry in the post in these favorable positions. Eddy was giving the Celtics fits downlow and Duhon was feeding Eddy a lot, along with that one feed by Gordon for the alleyoop which was just sick. But back on track, Duhon did some passes to Eddy that were bullet passes, that when Kirk has seen it, Kirk passes it out to Deng or whoever on the wing. Kirk doesn't understand that Eddy has super soft hands and is bigger then everyone but Shaq and Diop so Eddy holds his position well downlow, so Kirk may think this is a risk when it is not to pass it downlow sometimes, and that is what I like about Chris better. He gets the ball into the post more, and he does a real good job at it. Eddy would have gotten around 25-30 points if he stayed out of foul trouble. 

But where does that leave Kirk? That leaves him in the combo guard role, and frankly if I want a small shooting guard, its going to be Gordon. He is just better at the role. So that leaves Kirk as another piece. He has high trade value, so it would make sense to trade him. But what am I looking for that I want in my 2 guard, I want a guy with some point guard skills that can nail an outside shot, but doesn't take a lot of shots and plays solid defense. Dwyane Wade would be the ideal guy for this, but Paxson didn't want to give up Marshall to get him. So the guy I would go after by trading Kirk and something else for is Manu Ginobli. The guy can play shooting guard or point guard, he plays good defense, attacks the rim, and can nail a jumpshot. The only problem now is convincing the Spurs to do that trade.

Just my 2cents


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The whole point of this thread is to invoke the same nonsense as the closed thread.

Perhaps you can relate to a thread like this -

*EDDY CURRY or OTHELLA HARRINGTON*


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> The whole point of this thread is to invoke the same nonsense as the closed thread.
> 
> Perhaps you can relate to a thread like this -
> 
> *EDDY CURRY or OTHELLA HARRINGTON*


Why eddy of course....


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

How about Jared Reiner or Paul Shirley?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> The whole point of this thread is to invoke the same nonsense as the closed thread.
> 
> Perhaps you can relate to a thread like this -
> 
> *EDDY CURRY or OTHELLA HARRINGTON*


No its to discuss who is a better fit for the Bulls point guard position, and what to do with the remaining players.

The posters who post in a thread post the nonsense, not the thread starterl


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> No its to discuss who is a better fit for the Bulls point guard position, and what to do with the remaining players.
> 
> The posters who post in a thread post the nonsense, not the thread starterl


In most cases (like this one) its the person starting the thread. The rest are just eager to play their part.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Let's assume for a second that you're right in your analysis of Duhon. What does Kirk bring us? It won't be Maggette. It won't be Allen. Doubtful that it's Hughes. Highly unlikely that it will get us Redd. Doubtful that it gets us Joe Johnson. So if we can't get a tier 1/2 type SG that can play some point then why bother moving Kirk? 

Maybe we can get Jamal Crawford?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Let's assume for a second that you're right in your analysis of Duhon. What does Kirk bring us? It won't be Maggette. It won't be Allen. Doubtful that it's Hughes. Highly unlikely that it will get us Redd. Doubtful that it gets us Joe Johnson. So if we can't get a tier 1/2 type SG that can play some point then why bother moving Kirk?
> 
> Maybe we can get Jamal Crawford?


Jamal Crawford is just Kirk Hinrich in a flashy coat. Why would we need JC back? Someone like Manu, or Jalen that can play the point guard and the two guard, like really play like a 2 guard, and not trying to adapt would be the best fit for this team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Let's assume for a second that you're right in your analysis of Duhon. What does Kirk bring us? It won't be Maggette. It won't be Allen. Doubtful that it's Hughes. Highly unlikely that it will get us Redd. Doubtful that it gets us Joe Johnson. So if we can't get a tier 1/2 type SG that can play some point then why bother moving Kirk?
> 
> Maybe we can get Jamal Crawford?


Teams have been known to trade players for less talent and better contracts. 

That's why Allen and Hughes would be potential targets to begin with.

Hinrich plus an expiring AD would be attractive to a team reluctant to lock up a player long term for big $.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I like both players and don't think we have to choose between them. Given that, can anyone name 1 objective statistical category in which Duhon performs better than Hinrich?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

sloth said:


> Jamal Crawford is just Kirk Hinrich in a flashy coat. Why would we need JC back? Someone like Manu, or Jalen that can play the point guard and the two guard, like really play like a 2 guard, and not trying to adapt would be the best fit for this team.


 I'm confused by this post. You want a combo guard or not? You want a pure 2 guard or a guard that can play both positions? Or is it just anything that Kirk isn't?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wynn said:


> I like both players and don't think we have to choose between them. Given that, can anyone name 1 objective statistical category in which Duhon performs better than Hinrich?


Assist/Turnover Ratio.

I'm sorry, it's the truth, which is why I have commented that IMO Duhon is the better pure PG.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I like both players and don't think we have to choose between them. Given that, can anyone name 1 objective statistical category in which Duhon performs better than Hinrich?


Yeah, the question should not be Duhon vs Hinrich.... saying we *have* to choose between one or the other.

The question should be can we trade one of them for a STUD 2 guard. If so, which one would be the most likely to net said STUD 2 guard and can we afford to lose the player it would take to net said STUD 2 guard.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Teams have been known to trade players for less talent and better contracts.
> 
> That's why Allen and Hughes would be potential targets to begin with.
> 
> Hinrich plus an expiring AD would be attractive to a team reluctant to lock up a player long term for big $.


 And my point is that the Sonics have no need for Kirk and neither do the Wizards. Not to mention that if those players are on the block then there will undoubtedly be better offers. Besides, I'm not convinced that Hughes makes us a better team and I'm pretty sure that Allen won't.

But let's continue with this trade Kirk talk - I'm certainly not opposed to it. What are we ultimately looking for? We'd need 6' 5" + guard that can play in the backcourt with Duhon and Gordon that can distribute the ball and score when needed and play defense on the opponent's best guard. Looking at things from that perspective, what options are available?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

What a surprise, you like Duhon more *solely* because he's slightly better at finding Eddy Curry.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

As for the question, I take both. I am very, very happy with our 3-guard rotation of Duhon, Hinrich and Gordon. I'm not that worried about getting a "big SG", because it's going to be hard to find anyone who guards 2s any better than Kirk does.

CD, KH and BG are all *winners* who know how to play the game. I say we keep them all, it certainly is working so far- and 2 of them are just rookies. They all still have a lot of improving to do.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> We'd need 6' 5" + guard that can play in the backcourt with Duhon and Gordon that can distribute the ball and score when needed and play defense on the opponent's best guard. Looking at things from that perspective, what options are available?


I threw out Hughes and Allen... with Hughes being the best choice... due to age and defense. Only if Washington was unwilling to sign him to the contract he'll be demanding.

Interested in hearing what other players you come up with.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

Duhon averages 9 assists per 48 to Kirks 8....


I think Sloth is really along the right lines. The way I see it is we have 3 good guards and in the end, we can only keep 2. One must be replaced by a tall, defensive minded SG in order for us to go to the next level.

That being said, IMO Ben will be the best out of the 3, so to me he's a keeper, no doubts about it. He's already the most important to the team, so trading him would be a huge mistake.

That leaves Kirk and Chris. Personally, that's an easy call for me on who to keep to and who to trade. Kirk has a higher value and we don't lose much when Duhon replaces him on the floor. If Kirk/Davis and maybe Noc could net us a Ray Allen or a Joe Johnson... I'd do it in a heartbeat.

But it's really a moot point in the end, because Pax wouldn't trade his boy Kirk for anyone short of MJ in his prime. And he'd have to call back on that one. In the end, Pax will prolly end up trading Ben and never think twice about it...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> What a surprise, you like Duhon more *solely* because he's slightly better at finding Eddy Curry.


LOL, and even that isn't true.

Eddy was averaging 11.56 FGA/game until the last 2 without Hinrich, when he only got 9 FGA/game.

Per minute, his FGA are almost identical with or without Hinrich.

Not to let the facts get in the way or anything...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> And my point is that the Sonics have no need for Kirk and neither do the Wizards. Not to mention that if those players are on the block then there will undoubtedly be better offers. Besides, I'm not convinced that Hughes makes us a better team and I'm pretty sure that Allen won't.


One more point. I think you might be undervaluing Hinrich a little bit here. He's a great young guard and I think he'd be about the level of talent that Washington would be able to recieve in the "gun-to-the-head" type trade.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Assist/Turnover Ratio.
> 
> I'm sorry, it's the truth, which is why I have commented that IMO Duhon is the better pure PG.


Fair enough. Assist/turnover in favor of Duhon. How many objective statistical categories do we measure? Are there any others where Duhon has the advantage over Hinrich?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Wynn said:


> Fair enough. Assist/turnover in favor of Duhon. How many objective statistical categories do we measure? Are there any others where Duhon has the advantage over Hinrich?


 If they counted taking charges he would definetely be higher than Hinrich. (him, Othella, and AD)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Fair enough. Assist/turnover in favor of Duhon. How many objective statistical categories do we measure? Are there any others where Duhon has the advantage over Hinrich?


I think Duhon uses less shampoo in the team shower, but I don't have the updated stats including last night's game. :biggrin: 

But other than that, no. Unless you want to start looking at per/48 minutes stats.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> If they counted taking charges he would definetely be higher than Hinrich. (him, Othella, and AD)


:yes:

I think Duhon is #1 no doubt, but don't forget Nocioni, he's got to be the best at drawing the offensive foul on a player who doesn't have the ball.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I have not seen any argument posed on these boards today to indicate that Chris Duhon and Kirk Hinrich are not at least "comparable" basketball players.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, the question should not be Duhon vs Hinrich.... saying we *have* to choose between one or the other.
> 
> The question should be can we trade one of them for a STUD 2 guard. If so, which one would be the most likely to net said STUD 2 guard and can we afford to lose the player it would take to net said STUD 2 guard.


Given that both are in rookie contracts, I'd say that NEITHER is likely to bring back "STUD 2 guard". If a "STUD 2 guard" is making as little as Chris or Kirk, then no team in their right minds would make that trade.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

SLOTH : Freakin I wanted Curry as my RPG character.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

I think you can have this discussion without it turning into a flamewar if Kirk's groupies can keep it in check.

The real question should be phrased like this:

Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon < Chris Duhon and what you could receive in trade for Kirk Hinrich??

I take the right side. Even Hinrich fans admit that Duhon is the better pure point guard. Well Ben Gordon is a better scoring guard than Hinrich especially next season and in the years to come. So the question becomes "why not just trade Kirk for a role playing SG and a bunch of other goodies?" 

For example people always say they want Oberto. Well we cant sign Oberto as it stands now. We need to spend whatever is left of the MLE after we re-sign Duhon on another shooting guard. Right now for that reason it makes much more sense to just resign Othella than to go after Marshall or Oberto. Othella doesnt draw the double like Eddy but he shoots 53% against the single D. Very valuable. But the point is if we moved Hinrich in the right deal well two things would happen:

1. Most of the people who disagree with the move would not be Bulls fans anymore because most of them are only Bulls fans because of Kirk
2. We could explore signing an Oberto because Hinrich would not only get us a role playing SG who could hit the open jumper (but not shoot too much) and play defense while knowing his role - but also probably address other needs. For example wed probably also get a draft pick. With that pick we could draft another Duhon. You know another guy who can quietly run the point know his role and play good defense but since he isn't going to be a "star" he doesn't get drafted very high. Not only that but we could probably cut some fat out of our team.

Picture a deal of:

Eric Piatkowski
Kirk Hinrich

To GSW for:

Mickael Pietrus
Andris Biedrins
2005 First Rounder
2007 First Rounder

The first attack of Hinrich fans (and really what theyre hoping you will buy because if you dont they have no ammo) is "GSW would never do this." Really? They're a team full of guys who can score with absolutely no glue. If Kirk is 75% as good as his fan boys say he is Mullin would do this in a heartbeat. Golden State fans are sick of lottery picks so the fact that Mullin would move those to bring in an established guy like Kirk would be easily sold to the public. Besides Mullin would say to people in the boardroom "Mickael and Andris aren't close to as good as Hinrich so we have to give them something."

The second attack is probably "well what happens to our PG rotation. With Duhon and Kirk we always have a guy in there with PG skills." Well you missed that 2005 first rounder. That could turn into Raymond Felton (who Skiles could easily reign in) or Deron Williams depending on what style you wanted. 

The third attack will be attacks on Pietrus. He isn't good enough to be the staple of a deal for Hinrich. Well for us he is. He can't slash or penetrate but if he could youd never get him for Hinrich. The guy can hit the open shot (which you get in Chicago with Curry down low making his current FG% in GSW irrelevant - watch him play - they have no spacing in GSW). He also plays above average defense and could be a downright doberman under Skiles. He's got the mentality ever Kirk fan loves. He's the guy last year who was flipping tables over in the locker room and telling guys to stop taking their careers for granted. A rotation in the backcourt of Duhon, Gordon, Pietrus and Williams/Felton gives us everything we could ask for when taken as a collective hole.

The other bonus is that you get Biedrins. Biedrins could be molded to take over AD's role at the end of next season. And if AD or Tyson are in foul trouble he can already give you some of what they give you. Best thing is after AD leaves we'd still have 2-3 years of Biedrins for rookie money (around 2 million).

Then you get the 2007 pick. I'm betting if you get that pick from GSW its gonna be a good one. Mullin has all the intentions Paxson has so he'd move those quickly. They need more Duhons and Noces and less Murphys and Richardsons in their future. But Mullin just doesn't have the tools like market size that Paxson has. By june 2007 I firmly believe we'll be in the NBA Finals. Probably with Kirk and without if we get good value for him. Wouldnt it be awesome to have a lotto pick to turn around and address a need with right after going deep into the playoffs? Or maybe we trade the pick for future picks if we don't need it. 

And honestly as someone who likes Kirk and just thinks that we have enough offensive stars and we need more role players (I'd never trade Kirk if he shot 9 times a game at 44% but that will never happen) with equal the talent of Kirk and more willingness to get the ball to other guys like Deng, Gordon and Curry -- this a bottom of the barrel deal. This is not my proposed deal. We'd probably get better than this. This is just a deal to show you the plethera of needs we could fill with Hinrich in trade. For what Kirk brings you at 2-3 more years of ROOKIE pay teams will fall over themselves. WE just don't need him here IF we get value because of the number of talented players we have. If anything we need the right condensing move as time goes on. We need Curry, Gordon and Deng to be our scorers and everyone else to be top notch defenders who can knock down the wide open shot if you leave them to double Curry Gordon and to a lesser extent Deng.

*The point is that even if you dont like my deal there are deals out there available to us that you WOULD like IF you approaching this strictly from a what makes the Bulls the best team they can be perspective.*


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Given that both are in rookie contracts, I'd say that NEITHER is likely to bring back "STUD 2 guard". If a "STUD 2 guard" is making as little as Chris or Kirk, then no team in their right minds would make that trade.


Details, details... :biggrin:


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Its so funny to listen to Kirks biggest groupies trying to tell everyone that Kirk has no trade value LOL. If he has no trade value is he really the "heart and soul" of the Bulls? 

Either Kirk isnt as good as his groupies think he is or you absolutely could get the right package for him. Dont just analyze the top player from the opposition in the deal. We could get the right role player at the SG position a young talented role playing big and probably a couple draft picks for Hinrich. Hell had we had Raymond Felton and Mickael Pietrus last night instead of Pargo and Piatkowski we would have run Boston off the floor by 35.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Jim Ian said:


> Duhon averages 9 assists per 48 to Kirks 8....


Granted. So now we've got assists per 48 and assist/turnover.

Any others?



> I think Sloth is really along the right lines. The way I see it is we have 3 good guards and in the end, *we can only keep 2*. One must be replaced by a tall, defensive minded SG in order for us to go to the next level.


Why? I typed till I was blue in the.... uh...ummm.... fingers on another thread to show *Beale!* that the top 10 teams in the league (11 if you count us) have enough minutes for a four guard rotation. I could have gone down the entire NBA and still found those minutes. *What team in the NBA only plays three guards?!* Every time you see Pargo, or Pike, or Griff, or see Kirk limping around like a spent ninny in Q4 you need to say to yourself "there is a minute that could be used by a 'STUD 2 guard'". Heck, go through every boxscore this season and you'll find an average of at least 25 mpg where we could have used a viable fourth option. 

I just don't get where we only need three guards? Our championship Bull teams still found room for the Randy Browns of the world to see the floor. And that was with MJ, Harp, Kerr, and even Pip covering most of the guard minutes.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

"Welcome back, 
Your dreams were your ticket out
Welcome back,
To that same old place that you laughed about"


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> If they counted taking charges he would definetely be higher than Hinrich. (him, Othella, and AD)


Got it. Even though no one tracks this stat. So Duhon has assist/turnover, assists/48, and drawing charges.

Others?


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Jim Ian said:


> Duhon averages 9 assists per 48 to Kirks 8....
> 
> 
> I think Sloth is really along the right lines. The way I see it is we have 3 good guards and in the end, we can only keep 2. One must be replaced by a tall, defensive minded SG in order for us to go to the next level.
> ...


How about a tall defensive minded SG, a young role playing big (think Biedrins, Pachulia, etc.) and a couple draft picks.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I don't see why this an either/or proposistion. 

I've read that Hinrich would be more likely to fetch back a "stud 2" as part of a package deal or trade. By trying to extend that line of thinking, isn't it safe to say that Hinrich must be, by default, a more valuable player than Duhon? At least in the eyes of the GM's of the 29 other teams? So, if the question comes down to who would you rather have - the player that supposedly can garner more in a trade than a player who can garner less in a trade? - I don't even understand the question. Any rational thinking person will take the former over the latter.

I really like Chris Duhon. I really like Kirk Hinrich. If forced to choose between the two, it really isn't much of a choice. It's Hinrich hands down. Duhon has been a wonderful addition to this team and he's going to have a very long and successful NBA career. So will Kirk Hinrich. I just feel that Hinrich will be able to play at a consistantly higher level than Duhon over a longer period of time - hence he has more value as far as I'm concerned and he's the better player.

Frankly, I'm just happy they're both Bulls and I can't figure out why others aren't.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Welcome back!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Johnny Ringo said:


> *The point is that even if you dont like my deal there are deals out there available to us that you WOULD like IF you approaching this strictly from a what makes the Bulls the best team they can be perspective.*


And if *The Gipper!* is on board with it, then we need to make it happen.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Kirk has all the skills that Duhon posseses AND MORE

it's just that Kirk is forced to play SG, and finds himself with the ball when a shot is needed to be taken.... next year once Kirk can take his natural PG position watch his FG% rise to 40+% proly 42% and his 3p% back to 38-40%

he'll also get way more asists next year... proly 8+ cuz he won't have to be forced to play SG

his defense is much better than duhon's and kirk has the ability to defend taller SG while giving them hell

between duhon and kirk i would def take kirk, but duhon is a solid backup that could play 20-25mpg

kirk <B>is the heart and soul of this team and we cannot trade him </B>


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Johnny Ringo said:


> I think you can have this discussion without it turning into a flamewar if Kirk's groupies can keep it in check.
> 
> The real question should be phrased like this:
> 
> ...



Good post. But I disagree with your parenthetical statement. That implies that Kirk shoots so much because he wouldn't be happy shooting any less. You and I both know the reason he shoots more is because Skiles tells him to, because Skiles depends on him as the engine of the offense, and wants to keep him involved and help his confidence. 

Kirk's game will adjust as the team develops. This time of him sitting out may well help him see what he needs to do.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> I don't see why this an either/or proposistion.
> 
> I've read that Hinrich would be more likely to fetch back a "stud 2" as part of a package deal or trade. By trying to extend that line of thinking, isn't it safe to say that Hinrich must be, by default, a more valuable player than Duhon? At least in the eyes of the GM's of the 29 other teams? So, if the question comes down to who would you rather have - the player that supposedly can garner more in a trade than a player who can garner less in a trade? - I don't even understand the question. Any rational thinking person will take the former over the latter.
> 
> ...


What you are seeing is the Kirk-haters are trying out the "we are fine without him, let's trade him" that gets thrown around about Eddy. Matrix/Gipper should be confirming that for you within the next 30 minutes or so.

They are trying the "we need a stud 2 guard" card, when I don't know how Hinrich is going to fetch us a "stud 2 guard". Obviously Hinrich isn't a "stud 2 guard" in their eyes, so why would anyone trade a "stud 2 guard" for a guy who isn't a stud 2 guard and who isn't a pure PG or even a good PG (because that's also in their argument "against" Kirk).

I can't figure it out, if it's not blatant jealousy then I don't know. Jamal got traded because of Kirk, and now Kirk is "stealing all of Eddy's thunder"- like it's the fault of any of us that the national media is giving Kirk a lot more props than Eddy.

I almost busted out laughing, at 1 AM ET I was watching the New England Sports Report to get their take on the game, and *even they mentioned Eddy's lousy +/- and how it is among the absolute worst in the league for a guy on a +.500 team.*

I could see Gip booking his plane tickets to Boston so he could go "defend Eddy's honor".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Given that both are in rookie contracts, I'd say that NEITHER is likely to bring back "STUD 2 guard". If a "STUD 2 guard" is making as little as Chris or Kirk, then no team in their right minds would make that trade.


As I said on the other thread... AD would likely be included.

"reading is fundamental!"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Good post. But I disagree with your parenthetical statement. That implies that Kirk shoots so much because he wouldn't be happy shooting any less. You and I both know the reason he shoots more is because Skiles tells him to, because Skiles depends on him as the engine of the offense, and wants to keep him involved and help his confidence.


Do you think he might change his mind given the team's success with guards that are shooting less?

Skiles has to see Kirk's low %, yah?

I understand wanting to keep his confidence up.... but after 2 years... it may be becoming clear that Hinrich may not be an efficient scorer.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

"Where the names have all changed
Since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained
And they've turned around"


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Johnny Ringo said:


> <b>Its so funny to listen to Kirks biggest groupies trying to tell everyone that Kirk has no trade value LOL. If he has no trade value is he really the "heart and soul" of the Bulls? </b>
> 
> Either Kirk isnt as good as his groupies think he is or you absolutely could get the right package for him. Dont just analyze the top player from the opposition in the deal. We could get the right role player at the SG position a young talented role playing big and probably a couple draft picks for Hinrich. Hell had we had Raymond Felton and Mickael Pietrus last night instead of Pargo and Piatkowski we would have run Boston off the floor by 35.


Nice try but I don't think anyone on these boards has ever lauded Kirk as a top 10 player. He's a nice piece but I think everyone knows that he is more valuable to our team than damn near every other team in the league. Is there anything wrong with that? Reggie Miller is most valuable on the Pacers, not anywhere else and Billups is probably most valuable on a team like the Pistons. Neither of those guys will fetch you much in terms of a trade but they're extremely valuable to their teams nonetheless.

<b>IF</b> Ben can handle some PG minutes and <b>IF</b> Duhon can play the point for 35+ mpg for the next 5 years then by all means, let's trade Kirk and Noc for a 2/3 to merge that gap and sign a Brunson type to back up Duhon. The only problem is that I'm not convinced on the first two ifs and just about every team with an attractive 1/2 or 2/3 is already set at the 1/2. Why do they bother picking up the phone?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> As I said on my other thread... AD would likely be included.
> 
> *"reading is fundamental!"*


Would that be one of the threads you got locked in the last couple of days? Stopped reading them.

Ummmm..... personal attacks aside.

Why is a team more likely to take on a max contract plus an underperforming tweener to give up a "STUD 2 guard"?

I don't find you to be sincere anymore, and thus no longer enjoy these protracted conversations as I did when we were talking on the JC update thread a month or so ago. There I felt that you were actually sincere in what you posted. Here I think you're being disingenuous.

If Kirk is as bad as you feel, then adding him and an oversized contract (I'm glad we have AD, and actually hope we resign him after this contract, to a more reasonable one) will not bring back a "STUD 2 guard". If he's as good as you suggest, then why trade him?

This is just going to be the third closed thread in as many days (or even fewer, if you can manage to get it locked today) because people are picking fights rather than giving any reasonable input.

What are you hoping to gain?

Put a real trade out there. Let's debate the merits or detriments of that trade. Don't keep flopping from "Kirk is great and we can package him with an expiring MAX contract" to net a "STUD 2 guard" to "Duhon is better than Kirk" depending on which will get the bigger rise out of others.

I've provided reasoned counter arguments to both hypotheses. Answer them, rather than question my ability to read. Isn't this your bone in the other threads you've had locked? That people are attacking the poster rather than addressing the subject of the post. Show me a post in this thread before this one where I've not given your posts their due consideration.

Now grow up and stop using *The Gip!* as your role model.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think he might change his mind given the team's success with guards that are shooting less?
> 
> Skiles has to see Kirk's low %, yah?
> 
> I understand wanting to keep his confidence up.... but after 2 years... it may be becoming clear that Hinrich may not be an efficient scorer.


Yes, I do think he might change his mind. Others have spoken about efficiency better than I can. I don't think Kirk is as inefficient as you imply. But Kirk as "engine" is part of the whole "heart and soul" idea. Kirk has been the one to keep the team on task, to execute the strategy, etc. It has really been only VERY RECENTLY that Duhon has shown enough confidence in his shot to help shoulder this burden. The TWO YEARS of your suffering because of Kirk's poor shooting is highly exaggerated. There really weren't any alternatives. 

Now, it seems that Duhon is coming up to speed... Will Skiles adjust to take that into account? I believe so. Does that make Kirk expendable, a hindrance, etc? No. It gives the Bulls the chance to be even better. That's a good thing, in my book.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> As I said on the other thread... AD would likely be included.
> 
> "reading is fundamental!"


So you would trade away 2 of our 3 captains, 2 of our best defenders, for some stud 2 guard? And this team is going to give us this guard why? You've done a fine job of telling us Hinrich's flaws, so I'm curious which team we are going to rip off?

*SI's Scout's Take

"I would rate none of the top 10 steals leaders as an all-NBA defender. Fans assume you must be a great defender if you're averaging 2.84 steals like Larry Hughes, but he and Paul Pierce (1.65) often hurt their teams by gambling and leaving the defense vulnerable when they don't come up with the ball."*

I've seen you mention Hughes and Ray Allen- the same Ray Allen who was crying about Hinrich's physical defense? Yeah, that's really a trade I want to make...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Chris Duhon is a better defender then Kirk Hinrich. Chris Duhon knows how to play defense with his feet better then Hinrich, while Hinrich depends on his hands more. Duhon plays with more hustle then Kirk too.

How is Kirk the heart and soul of the Bulls. Do you know what happens out there, or is it just that Kirk is a white, 4 year college point guard so that automatically makes him the leader and what not. I think Eddy Curry leads the team just as much with his post scoring. Tyson Chandler leads this team just as much by showing his defensive presence. Ben Gordon leads this team just as much with his 4th quarter heroics. I would rather have guys that lead by example like the ones I listed, then being a theoretical leader. Kirk leads us by taking the most shots on the team and shooting a low percentage. He does bring other things to the team, like his defense, but so does Chris Duhon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, Tyson Chandler and so on. I just don't get how Kirk is the leader over anyone, and the heart and soul.

Now one poster stated that we don't trade Kirk because he is more valuable then Duhon in the eyes of other general managers. If other general managers are falling head over heels for Kirk, when Duhon can manage the Bulls at the point guard spot just fine, that is what makes it a no brainer to trade Kirk to fill our needs. That is the point of a 2nd round blessing, it allows you to make a trade that you wouldn't have been able to make before to fill your needs. That is where this is a trade I would like to see happen is. Here it is.

Kirk Hinrich and Eric Piatowski for Ricky Davis

We all talk about Kirk not being able to haul in a stud 2-guard. Well here is one that we might be able to haul in. Davis is a really good offensive player, so even if he is taking his share of shots, he makes them at a high percentage because he can make both outside shots, and he slashes quite a bit. Ricky Davis is also a pretty good defender.

Kirk Hinrich and Frank Williams for Andris Biedrins and Mikael Pietrus.

Mikael Pietrus is a tall defensive shooting guard, better defender then Kirk that can fit into his role with a team. If BD can't stay healthy, Kirk will be their long term fit at point guard which is most likely. The bonus of this trade is that we get a young big man prospect in Biedrins. It evens out the depths charts, and we don't lose any toughness.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

If the question is who would bring back more value in a trade, the answer is Kirk. If the question is who is the better ALL-AROUND player, the answer is Kirk. If the question is who is the better pure point guard, the answer is Chris.

However, there isn't an answer to who is the better fit for this team. They are both very good fits, as shown by the chemistry of the team and the results so far this season. 

MY question is what was wrong with the idea of moving Kirk back to PG, slotting in a new starting SG and have Chris come off the bench? THAT is the best solution -- not trying to get rid of one or the other just when the team looks like it can be very good for several years to come.

As for trading Kirk to Golden State for Pietrus, as some on this thread suggest, the Warriors already have two PGs in Baron Davis and Derek Fisher, who have long-term contracts, and they just signed Jason Richardson, their starting SG, to a HUGE deal, so why would they want to trade for Kirk? What Golden State needs is a CENTER, not another guard -- not even one as good as Kirk.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Why is a team more likely to take on a max contract plus an underperforming tweener to give up a "STUD 2 guard"?


(sigh)

Because the AD MAX contract is going to expire after next season and Hinrich is a damn good BB player and the other team is not interested in signing the player to big money. This exact situation is about to play out in Seattle. In may happen in Washington as well.




> I don't find you to be sincere anymore, and those no longer enjoy these protracted conversations as I did when we were talking on the JC update thread a month or so ago. There I felt that you were actually sincere in what you posted. Here I think you're being disingenuous.


(( I'm interested in keeping the thread about basketball ))
(( Please PM me to discus )) 



> If Kirk is as bad as you feel, then adding him and an oversized contract (I'm glad we have AD, and actually hope we resign him after this contract, to a more reasonable one) will not bring back a "STUD 2 guard". If he's as good as you suggest, then why trade him?


All the reasons, both by me and others, are included in the posts today.



> This is just going to be the third closed thread in as many days (or even fewer, if you can manage to get it locked today) because people are picking fights rather than giving any reasonable input.


Not interested in picking fights or calling names or anything like that. PM me if you are in the mood for that. Just want to talk hoops.




> What are you hoping to gain?
> 
> Put a real trade out there. Let's debate the merits or detriments of that trade. Don't keep flopping from "Kirk is great and we can package him with an expiring MAX contract" to net a "STUD 2 guard" to "Duhon is better than Kirk" depending on which will get the bigger rise out of others.


I'm not trying to get a rise. I was just trying to point out that we should only be asking a Duhon or Kirk question in an attempt to improve the team. Otherwise, just keep both.



> I've provided reasoned counter arguments to both hypotheses. Answer them, rather than question my ability to read. Isn't this your bone in the other threads you've had locked? That people are attacking the poster rather than addressing the subject of the post. Show me a post in this thread before this one where I've not given your posts their due consideration.
> 
> Now grow up and stop using *The Gip!* as yor role model.


Yah, you are right. I just get frustrated having to re-type the same things. 

I was responding to your post saying a Hinrich/Noc trade could not happen. The reason it could is because we have another valuable asset.... an expiring MAX deal.

Sorry for the reading comment. I should have just provided a link to other post that mentioned AD.

And yah.. if we’re going to have a meaningful debate… “reading is fundamental” in order for it to be constructive. Perhaps you just forgot that AD was part of the hypothetical deal.

I’m not interested in personal flame wars on the board. If you want that, PM me.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

sloth said:


> Chris Duhon is a better defender then Kirk Hinrich. Chris Duhon knows how to play defense with his feet better then Hinrich, while Hinrich depends on his hands more. Duhon plays with more hustle then Kirk too.
> 
> How is Kirk the heart and soul of the Bulls. *Do you know what happens out there, or is it just that Kirk is a white, 4 year college point guard so that automatically makes him the leader and what not. *


Remember the premise of the thread?



> Lets keep this thread clean. No personal attacks, baiting and what not. Just discuss the basketball aspects of the two guys. Just post your oppinion, don't bash other posters and get another thread closed.


Keeping on task is a sign of maturity and leadership. Kirk has displayed it consistently from the beginning. Eddy and Tyson in particular, have not.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Chris Duhon is a better defender then Kirk Hinrich. Chris Duhon knows how to play defense with his feet better then Hinrich, while Hinrich depends on his hands more. Duhon plays with more hustle then Kirk too.
> 
> How is Kirk the heart and soul of the Bulls. Do you know what happens out there, or is it just that Kirk is a white, 4 year college point guard so that automatically makes him the leader and what not.


Once you sunk to your hero's level with the racist comments, I quit reading.

But are so blind that you can't see the people from BOSTON- who AREN'T Kirklovers- also think he is our most important cog? As well as all the other writers, announcers, analysts...

You are blaming the wrong people, the fans on this board- *even the blatant Tysonites like myself*- aren't the ones making Hinrich out to be so important. He is important. Non-Bulls affiliated people see it all the time.

So you think Curry is more important to the team- we know that. How do you explain the New England Sports Report bringing up Eddy's among-the-worst-in-the-league +/- rating (their words, not mine)? Are they "Kirkites", or do they just "hate Eddy"? 

People here aren't Kirkites- it's just that the people who don't LOVE Jamal or Eddy are like so many of the *national, non-Chicago media*- they can see that Kirk is the Bulls' leader. Their "heart and soul". THEIR words.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Johnny Ringo said:


> I think you can have this discussion without it turning into a flamewar if Kirk's groupies can keep it in check.
> 
> The real question should be phrased like this:
> 
> ...


I agree that Kirk Hinrich is not an untouchable, but that trade proposal is ridiculous. Two recent lottery picks and two first rounders? I think you lose a lot of leadership in the deal though by shipping out Hinrich and Piatkowski. Leadership isn't something that shows up in the boxscore.

Come up with a reasonable Hinrich deal that most Bulls fans would consider, and I'll be happy to evaluate. 

Plus, was it necessary to preemptively say that anyone who would disagree with you would be "attacking" you? That doesn't help.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

I disagree that Chris is a better defender than Kirk. Hinrich can guard both point guards and shooting guards. Duhon can ONLY guard point guards, and he is constantly getting beat off the dribble by the quicker point guards in the league, like Parker and Arenas (for example). What Chris does VERY WELL defensively is being a help defender and stepping into lanes to draw charges. If anyone tracked this, I would bet most of the charges Chris has taken this season have been on guys OTHER than the player he was responsible for guarding.

I do agree that Kirk reaches too much on defense, so picks up more cheap fouls than does Chris. However, by reaching, he also forces his man into a lot more turnovers. 

Here's a stat for you:

Kirk is one of just FOUR players this year to rank in the top 20 in the NBA in assists, steals and 3-pointers made. The otehr 3? Mike Bibby, Rafer Alston and Tracy McGrady.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

girlygirl said:


> I disagree that Chris is a better defender than Kirk. Hinrich can guard both point guards and shooting guards. Duhon can ONLY guard point guards, and he is constantly getting beat off the dribble by the quicker point guards in the league, like Parker and Arenas (for example). What Chris does VERY WELL defensively is being a help defender and stepping into lanes to draw charges. If anyone tracked this, I would bet most of the charges Chris has taken this season have been on guys OTHER than the player he was responsible for guarding.
> 
> I do agree that Kirk reaches too much on defense, so picks up more cheap fouls than does Chris. However, by reaching, he also forces his man into a lot more turnovers.
> 
> ...


*Well, if Rafer Alston does it, it can't be a very big deal.*

I don't believe that, just saving others the trouble, since I'm already here.

Really nice post on all counts. Although I must add that many times when Duhon gets beat off the dribble, he does a great job of at least forcing his man to the help defense and then helping out.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So you would trade away 2 of our 3 captains, 2 of our best defenders, for some stud 2 guard? And this team is going to give us this guard why? You've done a fine job of telling us Hinrich's flaws, so I'm curious which team we are going to rip off?


I think I've typed this 19 times today... but since you keep asking.

Team A (seattle, potentially washington) decides they don't want to sign player to big deal. Team B wants player and is willing to pay them. Team A get lesser but good talent in return and an expiring deal in return for player.




> *SI's Scout's Take
> 
> "I would rate none of the top 10 steals leaders as an all-NBA defender. Fans assume you must be a great defender if you're averaging 2.84 steals like Larry Hughes, but he and Paul Pierce (1.65) often hurt their teams by gambling and leaving the defense vulnerable when they don't come up with the ball."*
> 
> I've seen you mention Hughes and Ray Allen- the same Ray Allen who was crying about Hinrich's physical defense? Yeah, that's really a trade I want to make...


Notice that your quote does not say that Hughes is a bad defender. Just that you can't go by the steals numbers alone. When the risk pays off, it helps the team, when it does not, it can hurt the team. 

Most of the consensus around here today seems to be that Hughes is a good defender. I think he's a good defender as well. But, if you don't, then fine. If your opinion that Kirk/Duhon/Gordon is the backcourt of the future, then fine. That's the whole point of discussing these things. To hear other people's opinions.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

girlygirl said:


> I disagree that Chris is a better defender than Kirk. Hinrich can guard both point guards and shooting guards. Duhon can ONLY guard point guards, and he is constantly getting beat off the dribble by the quicker point guards in the league, like Parker and Arenas (for example). What Chris does VERY WELL defensively is being a help defender and stepping into lanes to draw charges. If anyone tracked this, I would bet most of the charges Chris has taken this season have been on guys OTHER than the player he was responsible for guarding.
> 
> I do agree that Kirk reaches too much on defense, so picks up more cheap fouls than does Chris. However, by reaching, he also forces his man into a lot more turnovers.
> 
> ...


That's interesting.

How does he fare on a per/minute basis?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Chris Duhon is a better defender then Kirk Hinrich. Chris Duhon knows how to play defense with his feet better then Hinrich, while Hinrich depends on his hands more. Duhon plays with more hustle then Kirk too.
> 
> How is Kirk the heart and soul of the Bulls. Do you know what happens out there, or is it just that Kirk is a white, 4 year college point guard so that automatically makes him the leader and what not. I think Eddy Curry leads the team just as much with his post scoring. Tyson Chandler leads this team just as much by showing his defensive presence. Ben Gordon leads this team just as much with his 4th quarter heroics. I would rather have guys that lead by example like the ones I listed, then being a theoretical leader. Kirk leads us by taking the most shots on the team and shooting a low percentage. He does bring other things to the team, like his defense, but so does Chris Duhon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, Tyson Chandler and so on. I just don't get how Kirk is the leader over anyone, and the heart and soul.
> 
> ...



I see where you're coming from sloth. Plus, the "4-yr white" comment may hold some merit. I think along with Hinrich, the rest of our vets seem to be good leaders, especilally Antonio Davis. Tysopnh seems to be a guy who pushes his teammates in practice as well.

But after this talk about leadership, you suggest you trade Hinrich for Ricky Davis. Who are you trying to build? This season's Raptors or this season's Knicks? The NBA is a mental game just as it is physical, my friend.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

sloth said:


> Chris Duhon is a better defender then Kirk Hinrich. Chris Duhon knows how to play defense with his feet better then Hinrich, while Hinrich depends on his hands more. Duhon plays with more hustle then Kirk too.


These are subjective opinions as opposed to objective facts, and thus can not be debated. *ViciousFlogging!* says it best with his "I like pie" club. So what if I don't like pie? There's no objective measure of a tasty pie. Until we have an objective measure of "better defender" or "plays defense with his feet" or "more hustle", then we simply have to agree to disagree.



> How is Kirk the heart and soul of the Bulls.


This is a question you need to ask his teammates, his coach, his GM, and his opponents, as they are the ones who put these statements in the press.



> That is where this is a trade I would like to see happen is. Here it is.
> 
> *Kirk Hinrich and Eric Piatowski for Ricky Davis*
> 
> We all talk about Kirk not being able to haul in a stud 2-guard. Well here is one that we might be able to haul in. Davis is a really good offensive player, so even if he is taking his share of shots, he makes them at a high percentage because he can make both outside shots, and he slashes quite a bit. Ricky Davis is also a pretty good defender.


First, I wouldn't be against throwing Pike as filler into any trade. Salaries match, so there is no problem according to RealGM trade checker. Ricky has a better FG% and FT% more height. They score about the same amount of points (though Kirk in more minutes). Kirk has better assists, better 3PT%, better rebounding, better assist/turnover. The two are both young players. Have you seen other objective evidence to suggest that Ricky is a good defender? Can you explain why a guy with his height and handles is on his fourth roster in 6 years in the league?

Until these questions are answered, why risk the chemistry of the team to gain .01 ppg and give up in every other category?



> Kirk Hinrich and Frank Williams for Andris Biedrins and Mikael Pietrus.
> 
> Mikael Pietrus is a tall defensive shooting guard, better defender then Kirk that can fit into his role with a team. If BD can't stay healthy, Kirk will be their long term fit at point guard which is most likely. The bonus of this trade is that we get a young big man prospect in Biedrins. It evens out the depths charts, and we don't lose any toughness.


In trading Kirk for Pietrus we sacrifice in EVERY statistical category. Is Pietrus that much better of a defender than Kirk? How is he at handling point. I wouldn't mind having Pietrus as the fourth guard on this team -- in ADDITION to Kirk -- but I think this would be a silly trade. Based purely on numbers.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I see where you're coming from sloth. Plus, the "4-yr white" comment may hold some merit. I think along with Hinrich, the rest of our vets seem to be good leaders, especilally Antonio Davis. Tysopnh seems to be a guy who pushes his teammates in practice as well.
> 
> But after this talk about leadership, you suggest you trade Hinrich for Ricky Davis. Who are you trying to build? This season's Raptors or this season's Knicks? The NBA is a mental game just as it is physical, my friend.


I agree with the first paragraph.

But... isn't Ricky Davis on the division leading Celtics... not the Raptors and Knicks?

And... the division leading Celtics are a team with un-cut jibbers like Payton, Pierce and Walker, yes?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree with the first paragraph.
> 
> But... isn't Ricky Davis on the division leading Celtics... not the Raptors and Knicks?
> 
> And... the division leading Celtics are a team with un-cut jibbers like Payton, Pierce and Walker, yes?


Davis w/ Payton, Walker, and Pierce couldn't beat the Bull w/o Hinrich. I'd say this is a matter of talent losing to gib.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think I've typed this 19 times today... but since you keep asking.
> 
> Team A (seattle, potentially washington) decides they don't want to sign player to big deal. Team B wants player and is willing to pay them. Team A get lesser but good talent in return and an expiring deal in return for player.


Well AD and Hinrich make $16 million combined, so we'd have to take back a guard making at least $13.6 million. Hughes certainly isn't worth that, and Allen is no defender, I'd rather have Hinrich. Not to mention that Kirk is better than Hughes on defense IMO.



> Notice that your quote does not say that Hughes is a bad defender. Just that you can't go by the steals numbers alone. When the risk pays off, it helps the team, when it does not, it can hurt the team.


No, it doesn't say he is a BAD defender? Did I say he was a BAD defender? NO. The scout said "none of them are all-NBA defenders". I said Hinrich is a better defender than Hughes. The scout said that when they gamble and fail, the defense is vulnerable- duh, defending 5 players with 4 is not good. Take what you will out of that. 

People reading this can decide who has more credibility when it comes to player evaluation, a scout and myself or you.



> Most of the consensus around here today seems to be that Hughes is a good defender. I think he's a good defender as well. But, if you don't, then fine. If your opinion that Kirk/Duhon/Gordon is the backcourt of the future, then fine. That's the whole point of discussing these things. To hear other people's opinions.


I said Hughes isn't a good on-the-ball defender- we should all find out in the first round of the playoffs when we play them.

I don't know if Kirk/Duhon/Gordon is the backcourt of the future, I do know that right now there is no way I would trade away the heart and sould of my team along with another captain just for some "stud SG" who probably isn't going to defend SGs any better than Kirk does. 

And cetainly not for Larry Hughes, who was crying earlier this week that their bigs were slowing down the offense and that he needed the ball more. This is the NBA, not a video game, leadership and maturity and intangibles and all the other "little things" that some people like to belittle are very, very important. Every team in the NBA has talent, it's the teams who work hard and do the "little things" and play "the right way" that are successful.

For lack of a better term, IMO Hughes and Allen don't play "the right way". The Paxson way. The Skiles way. Which seem like some pretty good freaking ways to do things from where I am sitting, despite the usual bickering from fans who aren't happy that their favorite "flashy, wrong-way player" got traded and then the Bulls started succeeding.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Davis w/ Payton, Walker, and Pierce couldn't beat the Bull w/o Hinrich. I'd say this is a matter of talent losing to gib.


True... but they do still have a better overall record than the Bulls. 

My point is that teams can win with Ricky Davis playing a big role. And teams can win with their main players being Gary Payton, Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker and Ricky Davis. As a matter of fact, teams can compile a better record than the Bulls with those guys.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> How is Kirk the heart and soul of the Bulls. Do you know what happens out there, or is it just that Kirk is a white, 4 year college point guard so that automatically makes him the leader and what not.


First Skiles was the racist, now we're the racist? Seems to me SluggoSloth is a racist.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Hinrich and F-Will for Pietrus and Biendris is an interesting deal. I'd like a future pick too, but I wouldn't necessarily balk at such a trade. I think there's no way in hell that the Warriors do such a trade as they're already pretty stacked at the point and trading two more guards to an already guard heavy team doesn't make much sense.

I'm still of the opinion of wanting both. Make a trade like the one above and what happens if Duhon should go down? All that's left if Pargo playing 35+ mins a game and that's just not an option I'd like to see come to pass. If we could get a guy like Pietrus alone by moving less necessary parts like Hinrich, I'd be all over it. F-Will and Othella possibly? (I know neither can be traded as they are both FA at the end of the year - but you folks get the point...)

I'm sure there are deal out there to move Hinrich. Most aren't all that equitable and I'm not quite ready to quit on the guy simply because he's sat two games and the team is 2-0 during those games.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree with the first paragraph.
> 
> But... isn't Ricky Davis on the division leading Celtics... not the Raptors and Knicks?


I think Doc has used Davis perfectly. He lets his young guards start while he gives Davis a chunk of the minutes off the bench.

I believe that Davis would do little to help the Raps and Knicks. Boston has a better pedigree IMO.



> And... the division leading Celtics are a team with un-cut jibbers like Payton, Pierce and Walker, yes?


That's not what I say. I like all three of those players (especially together).


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> Lets keep this thread clean. No personal attacks, baiting and what not. Just discuss the basketball aspects of the two guys. Just post your oppinion, don't bash other posters and get another thread closed.


Unless of course I want to accuse people of being a racist because they see value in Hinrich's game.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> True... but they do still have a better overall record than the Bulls.
> 
> My point is that teams can win with Ricky Davis playing a big role. And teams can win with their main players being Gary Payton, Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker and Ricky Davis. As a matter of fact, teams can compile a better record than the Bulls with those guys.


We shall see. They cleaned up on an easy schedule after the trade, but now they have lost back-to-back games at NY and at home to the Bulls. 

As of right now, the C's have a better record. They have 5 home games left and 8 on the road.  Their schedule is currently ranked 28th toughest out of 30, meaning they have some tough games coming up.

@ Detroit 
Dallas 
@ Atlanta 
Philadelphia 
@ Washington 
Milwaukee 
New Jersey 
@ Philadelphia 
@ Milwaukee 
Miami 
@ Toronto 
@ Cleveland 
New Jersey 

The Bulls and Celtics each have 31 losses. I'll bet you that the Bulls wind up with the better record, you name the terms.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Well AD and Hinrich make $16 million combined, so we'd have to take back a guard making at least $13.6 million. Hughes certainly isn't worth that, and Allen is no defender, I'd rather have Hinrich. Not to mention that Kirk is better than Hughes on defense IMO.


I mentioned Etan Thomas in another thread. Let's not quibble about the CBA, OK? If the two teams wanted to make a Hinrich/Davis for Hughes deal they would be able to work it out.




> No, it doesn't say he is a BAD defender? Did I say he was a BAD defender? NO. The scout said "none of them are all-NBA defenders". I said Hinrich is a better defender than Hughes. The scout said that when they gamble and fail, the defense is vulnerable- duh, defending 5 players with 4 is not good. Take what you will out of that.
> 
> People reading this can decide who has more credibility when it comes to player evaluation, a scout and myself or you.


Fine by me. 



> I said Hughes isn't a good on-the-ball defender- we should all find out in the first round of the playoffs when we play them.
> 
> I don't know if Kirk/Duhon/Gordon is the backcourt of the future, I do know that right now there is no way I would trade away the heart and sould of my team along with another captain just for some "stud SG" who probably isn't going to defend SGs any better than Kirk does.


AD is going to be gone after next season anyway. It may be time to start to say goodbye to him.



> And cetainly not for Larry Hughes, who was crying earlier this week that their bigs were slowing down the offense and that he needed the ball more. This is the NBA, not a video game, leadership and maturity and intangibles and all the other "little things" that some people like to belittle are very, very important. Every team in the NBA has talent, it's the teams who work hard and do the "little things" and play "the right way" that are successful.
> 
> For lack of a better term, IMO Hughes and Allen don't play "the right way". The Paxson way. The Skiles way. Which seem like some pretty good freaking ways to do things from where I am sitting, despite the usual bickering from fans who aren't happy that their favorite "flashy, wrong-way player" got traded and then the Bulls started succeeding.


I understand that those guys might not be your type of player, for whatever reason. Both guys currently are currently main players on teams that have better records than the Bulls... so I guess they are doing something right.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> First Skiles was the racist, now we're the racist? Seems to me SluggoSloth is a racist.


Let's not call each other racists. We should face the fact that the Kirk vs. ??? issues are very much race based. It's kind of like a double-edged sword. It helps you in the newspapers but not on the message boards.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> True... but they do still have a better overall record than the Bulls.
> 
> My point is that teams can win with Ricky Davis playing a big role. And teams can win with their main players being Gary Payton, Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker and Ricky Davis. As a matter of fact, teams can compile a better record than the Bulls with those guys.


Do you really want to the "better overall record" argument again? One loss by them (perhaps to Detroit) and one win by us (maybe Indiana) and we move ahead of them in the standings. My point was that Ricky is doing it with perenial all-stars in his supporting cast and Kirk (or in this case "non-Kirk") is doing it without. Take Ricky away from his supporting all-stars and is he the same player? Three NBA franchises have already voted NO on that subject.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I'm still of the opinion of wanting both. Make a trade like the one above and what happens if Duhon should go down? All that's left if Pargo playing 35+ mins a game and that's just not an option I'd like to see come to pass. If we could get a guy like Pietrus alone by moving less necessary parts like Hinrich, I'd be all over it. F-Will and Othella possibly? (I know neither can be traded as they are both FA at the end of the year - but you folks get the point...)


The Bulls would need to sign a Brunson type to back up Duhon in the off-season. But yah, it is nice having 2 guys like Hinrich and Duhon on the roster. But if losing one means getting a STUD 2 guard, it may be worth the risk.

None of these trades would happen until the end of this season anyway.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Do you really want to the "better overall record" argument again? One loss by them (perhaps to Detroit) and one win by us (maybe Indiana) and we move ahead of them in the standings. My point was that Ricky is doing it with perenial all-stars in his supporting cast and Kirk (or in this case "non-Kirk") is doing it without. Take Ricky away from his supporting all-stars and is he the same player? Three NBA franchises have already voted NO on that subject.


Yah, but there has been a ton of press about how Ricky has matured under Rivers this season.

Paxson and Skiles managed to get Curry pointed in the right direction. 

My point is that a team can win with Ricky Davis. 

And yah.... as of late... the Bulls are doing it without Kirk.

And yah... the Celtics have a better record than the Bulls. 

And yah... take a player playing with 3 all-star types and put him on a lesser team and you may see a lesser result.

I would not trade Hinrich for Davis though. I'd want more.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> We shall see. They cleaned up on an easy schedule after the trade, but now they have lost back-to-back games at NY and at home to the Bulls.
> 
> As of right now, the C's have a better record. They have 5 home games left and 8 on the road. Their schedule is currently ranked 28th toughest out of 30, meaning they have some tough games coming up.
> 
> ...


No thanks... I'll be happy with saying "teams can win and make the playoffs with Ricky Davis." They currently have a better record than the Bulls. The Bulls may catch them.

I'll make a bet with you about the other guy you were ripping... Ray Allen... and the Sonics finishing with a better record than the Bulls if you want to.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

@Utah
@Phoenix
Lakers
Hornets
TWolves LOSS
Hawks
Pistons
Wizards
@Charlotte
Raptors
@Houston
@New Orleans
@New York LOSS
Bulls LOSS

That's what the C's have done since the trade, a few good wins, a few bad losses, and a lot of beating up on lousy teams at home. Not all that impressive when you look at it. The C's are 11-3 since the trade, they could easily finish 4-9 or 3-10 over the last 13.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> Let's not call each other racists. We should face the fact that the Kirk vs. ??? issues are very much race based. It's kind of like a double-edged sword. It helps you in the newspapers but not on the message boards.


If they're raced based and it is ok to accuse the message board of favoring Hinrich because he's white (by a person who dubbed Skiles a racist no less), then I take it bbb.net welcomes future allegations of favoratism because unnamed player is in fact black?

I can find many articles that suggest the high-flying, sports-center loving type of basketball is more "black" basketball, while you know the "hickory", "play-right" type is "white" basketball. 

Is that really where this nonsense is going to degenerate to?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I can find many articles that suggest the high-flying, sports-center loving type of basketball is more "black" basketball, while you know the "hickory", "play-right" type is "white" basketball.
> 
> Is that really where this nonsense is going to degenerate to?


It's where it has been for awhile, we just can't say it here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> It's where it has been for awhile, we just can't say it here.


 :clap:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> ding ding ding ding ding


so you agree?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> so you agree?


check PM


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I mentioned Etan Thomas in another thread. Let's not quibble about the CBA, OK? If the two teams wanted to make a Hinrich/Davis for Hughes deal they would be able to work it out.


Yeah, why bother with specifics... what does the CBA have to do with anything? 

So you want reaction to an imaginary trade then? If not, give me a real trade proposal involving real players that really works and I'll gladly give you my opinion.



> AD is going to be gone after next season anyway. It may be time to start to say goodbye to him.


Really? I didn't know you were psychic or had the inside info on what Paxson is planning.

He'll be 37 when next season ends, but it's far too early for me to write him off. He stays in great shape, works hard, and he's not too old to grab more rebounds than Eddy in 4 fewer minutes per game. 

But I'm not totally against trading AD in the right deal, but we would need someone to replace him- I don't want to see Reiner starting or playing ADs minutes at all next season.



> I understand that those guys might not be your type of player, for whatever reason. Both guys currently are currently main players on teams that have better records than the Bulls... so I guess they are doing something right.


They are doing something right, they are playing their teams' styles of ball very well. The Wiz are the worst defensive team in the playoffs, and the Sonics are a 3-point shooting team. They fit in well there. 

But why are we discussing a guy (Allen) who isn't nearly the defender that Kirk is? I know you say Allen is, I'm talking about people that know enough about hoops to realize that Hinrich is the Bulls' best player and their heart and soul. 

But like I said before, this isn't a video game. Just because they play on a winning team doesn't mean they will fit here. Chemistry matters. Leadership matters. 

FOR EXAMPLE, CWebb was a main player on a better team than the Sixers... did his trade there- for 3 "scrubs" with far less talent- make the Sixers any better? They are 8-6 since the trade, it didn't help them very much to trade 3 "role players" for a "superstar" did it? (Again, just an example).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> No thanks... I'll be happy with saying "teams can win and make the playoffs with Ricky Davis." They currently have a better record than the Bulls. The Bulls may catch them.
> 
> I'll make a bet with you about the other guy you were ripping... Ray Allen... and the Sonics finishing with a better record than the Bulls if you want to.


LOL, because I said the TRUTH about Ray Allen's whining to the officials, I'm ripping him?

Or because I said I think Hinrich is a better defender?

How exactly did I "rip" him?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, why bother with specifics... what does the CBA have to do with anything?
> 
> So you want reaction to an imaginary trade then? If not, give me a real trade proposal involving real players that really works and I'll gladly give you my opinion.


Fine... Kirk Hinrich, Pike and AD for Larry Hughes (resigned) and Etan Thomas.
Jeez. Or just fill in whatever blanks you want to. The principles are Hinrich and Hughes with AD there to match salary. The details work themselves out if both team want to do the deal. You know this.



> Really? I didn't know you were psychic or had the inside info on what Paxson is planning.
> 
> He'll be 37 when next season ends, but it's far too early for me to write him off. He stays in great shape, works hard, and he's not too old to grab more rebounds than Eddy in 4 fewer minutes per game.


No need to bash the future highest paid player on the team.



> But I'm not totally against trading AD in the right deal, but we would need someone to replace him- I don't want to see Reiner starting or playing ADs minutes at all next season.


Curry and Chandler will be starting soon enough. Next season sounds OK. I'll take those two with Etan and Othella… given the towers will be starting eventually anyway. We can resign AD after his deal expires. The main guy the other team would want is Hinrich anyway.



> They are doing something right, they are playing their teams' styles of ball very well. The Wiz are the worst defensive team in the playoffs, and the Sonics are a 3-point shooting team. They fit in well there.


And both have better records than the Bulls. And the Bulls can win without Hinrich.



> But why are we discussing a guy (Allen) who isn't nearly the defender that Kirk is? I know you say Allen is, I'm talking about people that know enough about hoops to realize that Hinrich is the Bulls' best player and their heart and soul.


Hey... if you don't want to trade Hinrich... and its clear you don't want to... than that's cool. I don't think your mind is going to change anytime soon.



> But like I said before, this isn't a video game. Just because they play on a winning team doesn't mean they will fit here. Chemistry matters. Leadership matters.
> 
> FOR EXAMPLE, CWebb was a main player on a better team than the Sixers... did his trade there- for 3 "scrubs" with far less talent- make the Sixers any better? They are 8-6 since the trade, it didn't help them very much to trade 3 "role players" for a "superstar" did it? (Again, just an example).


Yes, of course. I'll count you in the "don't do the trade camp."


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> Let's not call each other racists. We should face the fact that the Kirk vs. ??? issues are very much race based. It's kind of like a double-edged sword. It helps you in the newspapers but not on the message boards.


I'm sorry, for me ABSOLUTELY NONE of this is "race-based". I couldn't care less what color Kirk is or anyone else. 

I am white, my wife is white, my son is white and his name is 'Tyson'. His middle name would be 'Chandler', but the wife wouldn't go that far, she made me use a family name. I own one Bulls jersey, #3. 

My oldest son, born in 1991, had 2 Bulls jerseys- #23 and #91, not #7. Those were his favorite players.

Maybe for some or even most of the people here something is "race-based", but for me it is most definitely not, and I don't appreciate being lumped in with that characterization.

Not that you meant to offend anyone, Slim, just that what you said could be taken as an indictment of innocent people.

And besides, I thought we all learned from what the OJ trial proved... it's not about black or white in this country, it's about green.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mr. T, I didn't say people like Kirk because of that stuff, but they think he has leadership because of it. And once again, people forget the 2nd part. Here are some things that make people stereotype Kirk as a good leader.

-White
-Point Guard
-4 Year College Grad
-Coaches Son

Does this make Kirk a leader? No! But people will automatically think that because of this stuff, true or not.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

What a coincidence... the *Does Skiles have a man-crush on Hinrich?* thread gets locked at 1:14pm and this one pops up at 1:20pm.

And prior to all this we've had a thread entitled *The Bulls win without Hinrich?* end up getting locked down as well.

This new, abstact and somewhat subtle form of trolling, baiting, or whatever you want to call it is disappointing.

Talk about kicking a man when he's down...Hinrich is suffering through a significant injury while the team is making its big push for the playoffs. And rather than look forward to his return, some so-called _Bulls fans_ have taken the opportunity to belittle his impact and contributions by marking him as an expendable commodity as well as suggesting that he's been outperformed by our rookie second round draft choice.

We're enjoying our best season since 97/98 and this is the best that some posters can come up with???


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

For starters, I only made this thread because the first post in this thread was going to be posted but the thread was closed while I was typing it up.

I don't get some stuff though about player favortism. The Bulls are 1-5 without Eddy Curry, and because of that the main flow of posters says that he has little impact on the team. The Bulls then go 2-0 without Kirk, and the main flow says that Kirk has the biggest impact on the team. I don't get that, it doesn't make sense.

All we heard was wait until Kirk has to sit out some games, then you'll see the Bulls lose a lot of games. I don't see this happening.

I don't get this though. This is a good thing that we are winning without Kirk. That means we don't need Kirk to be a good team, and that we can trade him for players that fill our needs and make our team better. BUT LIKE ALWAYS IF THE TRADE ISNT IN OUR FAVOR AND DOESNT HELP US, THEN WE DONT DO IT, AS SIMPLE AS THAT.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

sloth said:


> Mr. T, I didn't say people like Kirk because of that stuff, but they think he has leadership because of it. And once again, people forget the 2nd part. Here are some things that make people stereotype Kirk as a good leader.
> 
> -White
> -Point Guard
> ...


You're misusing the word stereotype, except in the first instance. The other things are called "evidence", or "contributing factors". 

Until the last week, there hasn't been anyone else on the Bulls who could or should play for 48 minutes, other than Hinrich. Now, Duhon has showed the capacity to do so, partly out of necessity. Nonetheless, he did it, and Skiles praised him for it, and it's great. It means that the Bulls have more options. But the reason that the others can't do it isn't just conditioning. It's lack of focus, inability to keep with the game plan, etc. Hinrich is a good player who knows how to implement his coach's winning game plan. That's a skill that's hard to measure, but is clearly valued, and not just by Skiles, but all the other coaches and other observers in the league (Black or white).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fine... Kirk Hinrich, Pike and AD for Larry Hughes (resigned) and Etan Thomas.
> Jeez. Or just fill in whatever blanks you want to. The principles are Hinrich and Hughes with AD there to match salary. The details work themselves out if both team want to do the deal. You know this.


No, I DON'T know this. You asked for comments on a trade, well propose a trade. I can't give you a general "I'd trade Hinrich" without knowing who else in involved.

If you can't come up with an actual trade, I'm sorry I can't respond.

If you want to know if I would trade Hinrich for Hughes, no I wouldn't.



> No need to bash the future highest paid player on the team.


Bashing? AD *does* grab more rebounds than Eddy in fewer minutes. It is a fact, not a bash. I'm not bashing Eddy, I'm praising AD for being a better rebounder than the "future highest paid player on the team". 

I guess that makes you a Hinrich-basher... you did say that Hughes shoots a higher percentage than Kirk, why do you have to bash him? Did anyone accuse you of bashing Kirk for saying Hughes is a better shooter? NO, because the truth is not a bash.



> Curry and Chandler will be starting soon enough. Next season sounds OK. I'll take those two with Etan and Othella… given the towers will be starting eventually anyway. We can resign AD after his deal expires. The main guy the other team would want is Hinrich anyway.


How are we getting Etan? Some imaginary trade? Because we aren't getting him and Hughes for Kirk, AD and Pike, unless Hughes signs for over $10 million next season, and I don't see Paxson paying him that much (or anyone else).



> And both have better records than the Bulls. And the Bulls can win without Hinrich.


And? Sorry, keep on saying that if you want, it doesn't mean Allen or Hughes will fit in with the Bulls. But go on ignoring what I actually say in favor of the stats that you can use right now, whatever makes you feel better.



> Hey... if you don't want to trade Hinrich... and its clear you don't want to... than that's cool. I don't think your mind is going to change anytime soon.
> 
> Yes, of course. I'll count you in the "don't do the trade camp."


You're right, I don't want to trade Hinrich UNLESS WE GET A BETTER PLAYER WHO IS A BETTER FIT FOR THE TEAM. Larry Hughes isn't. Ray Allen isn't.

Kirk for Tayshaun Prince? I do that trade right now.

LOL, I hope you are having fun, and I hope you have "proven some points to yourself". Personally, I'm enjoying this Bulls season so much more than some people... (not you, K4E)

-I'm not bitter that Jamal got traded, still trying to say that we would still be good with him here 

-I'm not all worried about Eddy getting traded this summer, if he does or doesn't I don't care as long as the team keeps winning

-I don't have to worry about wasting time ripping Hinrich and being mad because everyone gives him "too many props". 

If it bothers people on this board that Kirk gets too much love from BULLS FANS (duh), it must really suck to not be able to watch the Bulls on national TV or read any national articles about the Bulls because it's just a bunch of "mob-speak" praising and overrating Kirk at every possible opportunity. If BULLS FANS giving Kirk love bothers a person, how much must it bother that person when impartial national people give him love?

-I don't have to feel bad because I see the non-Kirkite New England Sports Report hosts talking about Eddy's among-the-worst-in-the-league +/- rating... even though I have spent the last 3 months explaining away all the reasons his +/- ratio is so poor, among the worst in the NBA.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

On the 48 minute things, Chris Duhon only played 26 minutes last night because of foul trouble.

What about Curry, in games he played over 40 minutes, this is what he has done.

20 pts 11 rebs
16 pts 7 rebs
25 pts 12 rebs

21.3 pts 10 rebs

Hinrich is an alright player, I don't think he is the best on our team, or the little engine that makes us go. He is just a role player that does his role on this team. Eddy is the offensive star, and Gordon is the 4th quarter offensive star. That is their roles. Kirk role is to set up other players in a favorable position and play defense, and he needs to stop worrying about shooting more and find people in favorable conditions like Chris Duhon did last night. Kirk's stats don't indicate how good he is, but how much he plays. He is a awful scorer, above average passer, and a good defender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kismet said:


> What a coincidence... the *Does Skiles have a man-crush on Hinrich?* thread gets locked at 1:14pm and this one pops up at 1:20pm.
> 
> And prior to all this we've had a thread entitled *The Bulls win without Hinrich?* end up getting locked down as well.
> 
> ...



It seems that the very thought of trading Kirk Hinrich... even for an all-star like Ray Allen or a great young big guard like Larry Hughes brings about such a response.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Mr. T, I didn't say people like Kirk because of that stuff, but they think he has leadership because of it. And once again, people forget the 2nd part. Here are some things that make people stereotype Kirk as a good leader.
> 
> -White
> -Point Guard
> ...


You're only 15, so it's not your fault. 

People used to think MJ was a hell of a leader, and he's black.

If the players follow Kirk, I don't get it, because most of them are black. Why are they following a white guy?

Who are these people who are using these stereotypes? Name some names. You don't think Kirk is a great leader, do you? Aren't you white? Isn't Eddy Curry your favorite player? Isn't he black?

Drop mentioning race here, it has no business being here. Unless you want to name names as to who is "stereotyping Kirk as a good leader", drop it. 

I'm not stereotyping him or anyone else, and I'm offended as a white person.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> You're only 15, so it's not your fault.
> 
> People used to think MJ was a hell of a leader, and he's black.
> 
> ...


The point is that, that plays into fans thinking that he is a good leader. But what you are doing is isolating one part, and it doesn't work without all of it which is A white, four year college point guard, that is the coaches son. That has nothing to do with being a leader, but people think that it does. That is my point. Being white or black, or anything has nothing to do with how a person leads team, but a combination of race with a few other things can skew people's visions on what leadership a person brings to a team.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> It seems that the very thought of trading Kirk Hinrich... even for an all-star like Ray Allen or a great young big guard like Larry Hughes brings about such a response.


LOL at you real loud if you actually believe this crap that you just wrote.

Seriously, everyone sees it. It's quite funny, although I shouldn't be laughing at you.

But you don't have any problem insulting people for not wanting to trade Hinrich for Allen or Hughes. I don't appreciate being lumped in with a "mob" just because I disagree with your opinions of Hughes and Allen. 

I'm sick of you insulting people, and I really hope the mods will stop all this crap. You aren't interested in serious conversation at all, you want to start a disagreement so you can scream "Hinrich Mob". Well, if I say "Bin Laden is great", I guess I'll be overruled by the "Bin Laden Sucks MOB".

Nobody agrees with most of what you are saying, deal with it. Quit crying like a baby, if you want to be confrontational with people don't scream "personal attack" when you are insulting each and every person on this board. 

Instead of talking about the reasons for people NOT wanting to do this trade, you cry "mob". It is extrememly old.

The complete hijacking of threads is old.

I hope the mods do something about this, I don't know what's wrong with you lately, I guess the Bulls success really hurts you more than others. 

It already hurts the Paxson/Skiles suck club, but not like this K4E. You aren't even enjoying the team's success you are so wound up in your hatred for Kirk.

NOBODY goes around kissing Kirk's arse until you start in. Give it up.

Mods, please talk to K4E. This is getting old, fast. Thank you.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

sp00k said:


> Nice try but I don't think anyone on these boards has ever lauded Kirk as a top 10 player. He's a nice piece but I think everyone knows that he is more valuable to our team than damn near every other team in the league. Is there anything wrong with that? Reggie Miller is most valuable on the Pacers, not anywhere else and Billups is probably most valuable on a team like the Pistons. Neither of those guys will fetch you much in terms of a trade but they're extremely valuable to their teams nonetheless.
> 
> <b>IF</b> Ben can handle some PG minutes and <b>IF</b> Duhon can play the point for 35+ mpg for the next 5 years then by all means, let's trade Kirk and Noc for a 2/3 to merge that gap and sign a Brunson type to back up Duhon. The only problem is that I'm not convinced on the first two ifs and just about every team with an attractive 1/2 or 2/3 is already set at the 1/2. Why do they bother picking up the phone?


I wholeheartedly disagree that Kirk is more valuable to us than other teams. Kirk is less valuable to us than other teams. For a team that needs a guy to run the offense and get opportunities for other guys and has a role playing SG to trade alone with other goodies Kirk is much more valuable than he is for us. Why? Because we have a guy that can run the offense. Guys who run the offense like Kirk are young and on rookie contracts are very valuable. We just happen to have a guy in Duhon who can also run the offense. 

So what makes Kirk better than Duhon? Well he's a better penetrator. But we don't need that with Eddy. I've heard opposing TV announcers say that "players on this Chicago team don't need to drive so much. I mean they have that with Gordon. Players on this team need to be able to hit the open three." Other than Kirk's SG abilities which Duhon is missing he isn't clearly superior in any aspect of the game when each player is given the same opportunities. You can't point to their relative stats because fact is they play together and Kirk is given the leader role. When Duhon has been given the leader role he's shown you that he brings close to what Hinrich does positively without bringing the negatives. He gets the offense going but he isn't the same scorer. BUT he hits the open shot and he knows he's not a scorer and thus shoots less. So you can't ignore him and if you guard him he's going to get it to Eddy, Ben and Luol in good situations. 

But you take other teams and they would give you a lot for a guy who can run the offense like Hinrich. Other teams don't have that. What makes Duhon special (he was the #1 high school player in america coming out don't know if you knew that) is that all the guys who have his skill for running the point (and Hinrich's for that matter) seem to want to become this Stephon Marbury "look at me I can score if you sleep on my passing" combo guard. Baron Davis same thing. Jamaal Tinsley same thing. Tony Parker same thing. Most teams don't have the guy who will just run the offense. Kirk would do that if he was dealt to a team where he'd be the PG and he wouldn't have a coach who thinks that Kirk is his adopted son telling him to shoot the ball 15 times a game. 

If you look at a team like Golden State or even Portland who has guys who can fill it up but no one that can organize them Kirk Hinrich is something they need probably more than anything. GSW could move Baron to the 2 and Richardson to the 3 and then mix and match personnel with a lot of teams. Portland could stop relying on Telfair. And these are just a couple examples. What would Toronto give you for Kirk Hinrich. Kirk is everything good that Rafer Alston isn't and when you think about it everything good that Rafer Alston is. You could probably get a package from Toronto of Morris Peterson, Rafael Araujo and two draft picks. And we could probably drop a contract like AD or Pike on them (depending on what Mo Pete makes he doesn't show on hoopshype and configure the deal to suit us. 

We don't need a top shelf SG. Of the three things you want a SG to do (defend, hit the jumper, penetrate) we only need the first two skills. We don't need a penetrator. We could trade for a guy who would rate in a video game as follows (shooting 90, defense 90, dribble penetration 30) lol. We don't need Michael Redd. We don't need a "star." If we traded Kirk for two cheap talented role players whose strengths and weaknesses suit this team and a couple first rounders we'd be great.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Kismet said:


> What a coincidence... the *Does Skiles have a man-crush on Hinrich?* thread gets locked at 1:14pm and this one pops up at 1:20pm.
> 
> And prior to all this we've had a thread entitled *The Bulls win without Hinrich?* end up getting locked down as well.
> 
> ...



:clap: 

i posted this in the "hinrich love-fest thread" and since i have a feeling that nobody will see it there, i will post these thoughts here too:


_[mizrant] kirk has been getting some recognition and props from the national media recently; ESPN Magazine, Dime, Slam, Hoops, not to mention the shout-outs he regularly receives from opponents broadcasting teams. much of this is due to his play last year and the fact that, at press time, the bulls had made a remarkable comback from a horrendous 0-9 start. no other team in league history came from 0-9 to over .500, and kirk has been a very integral part in that success. named team captain in only his second year speaks volumes about his leadership abilities both on court and off. 

so right now he is, like it or not, the face of the franchise. it is his little moment. can we let him have his moment or have some become so jaded and cynical that they are blinded by petty jealousy? next year the national press won't be knocking down his door, they'll be all hot for ben and if all is fair, tyson and eddy should get their share of the spotlight too. and they will deserve it and we should all be grateful for it and we will celebrate them. it puts the franchise in a very positive light, on the map, and hopefully back on national tv a lot more. it's all good, bulls fans!!!

but where you lose me, is when people begrudge him this praise based on the fact they think he is overhyped on an internet message board. i obviously don't know kirk personally, but i'd imagine that it is kinda killin' him that he can't play due to this injury. he seems like a pretty competitive guy. so he sits out and gets intense treatment in hopes that it will heal and he will be full strength for the playoffs. (playoffs!!!) and yes, we won two games without him, cause there really is no "true" MVP on this team, and on any given night any of the guys can and will step up and lead. it was that way before he got hurt. we missed eddy when he was out and deng when his ankle forced him to the IL, but when kirk sits out and we win, why do i get the sense that people are rejoicing? dancing bananas and their true meaning aside, is this how we show our support for this team? 
[/mizrantover]_


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> The point is that, that plays into fans thinking that he is a good leader. But what you are doing is isolating one part, and it doesn't work without all of it which is A white, four year college point guard, that is the coaches son. That has nothing to do with being a leader, but people think that it does. That is my point. Being white or black, or anything has nothing to do with how a person leads team, but a combination of race with a few other things can skew people's visions on what leadership a person brings to a team.


Being a four year college point guard and being a coaches son DO have something to do with being a good leader, only an idiot would say otherwise. Being white has nothing to do with being a good leader.

I am sorry, it's that simple sometimes. 

But I am sure that nobody seriously thinks that a four year college point guard that is a coaches son had NOTHING to do with being a good leader... it's called PREPERATION, and you obviously understand nothing about it.

You are 15, in HS, why don't you become a stat-keeper for your HS team? It's a good way to get in with the coach and learn a lot about the game if you don't play. I'm serious, you know so little about basketball, but care about it so much, you should do it. You would learn so much.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

My two bob 

I really like Kirk as a player and I think if he were being used a little bit differently with a genuine 2 guard of some size with above average defensive skills ... then great

As as valuable as he is to us as a player he is perhaps more important to this organisation as a symbol

What is it with Chris Duhon pushing more talented "impact" players to secondary unnatural positions ?

Jay at Duke and now Kirk on the Bulls

Must be a basketball reason for it ?

Could it be that he actually deserves to be a starter at every level that he has played at and play big sig minutes ?

Maybe it does come down to a choice between Kirk and Duhon 

Outside of Kirk's value as a symbol .. I have two questions 

1. Can we add a legitimate starting quality 2 guard with size and defensive prowess through free agency ( the MLE )

If we can keep Kirk . If not 

2. Who can bring this type of player back to us in trade ... Kirk or Chris ?

In fact its 3 questions 

3. In light of question #2 ... if its Kirk .... does this team suffer immeasurably if Kirk were to net us a player as referenced in Question #1 and we were runnning with Chris Duhon as the choice instead

We win two on the road against tough teams without Kirk .... and I think the debate / questions as put forth by kukoc4ever and sloth have merit 

I may not agree in their method or indeed to some of their conclusions but I can't understand why some people are so incensed 

Maybe I can actually 

Some Cows ( or is that Bulls ) are a little too sacred for the hard core indoctrinated 

Its legitimate discussion 

Relax


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> LOL at you real loud if you actually believe this crap that you just wrote.
> 
> Seriously, everyone sees it. It's quite funny, although I shouldn't be laughing at you.
> 
> ...



(( I'm not going to respond to these types of personal posts ))
(( Please PM to discuss ))


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

sloth said:


> On the 48 minute things, Chris Duhon only played 26 minutes last night because of foul trouble.
> 
> What about Curry, in games he played over 40 minutes, this is what he has done.
> 
> ...


And the reasons why he on more than rare occasions plays 20 minutes or less is because...?

Eddy is inconsistent, but getting better. But he's no leader for this team. 

And your point about Duhon should be better taken. He hasn't been able to do it consistently. But he is improving. And the team is better for it. As the team improves, Kirk's role can change. And maybe, in the future, the chance will come up for Kirk to be cashed in for Kobe, Jr. Until then, let's stop criticizing Hinrich for having led us to a 34-31 record, and hope that when all the parts become more mature and stable, the team can go all the way.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Some Cows ( or is that Bulls ) are a little too sacred for the hard core indoctrinated
> 
> Its legitimate discussion
> 
> Relax



:clap: 

Break out the kielbaba baby!










The King has spoken!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The one thing everyone overlooked is that Paxson and Skiles wouldn't trade Hinrich. There is a reason Hinrich plays *8 more minutes* than Eddy Curry, who plays the 2nd most minutes per game on the team. Now I don't know about you, but to me that means that the coaches trust the kid more than anyone else, and it's not even close. 

Hinrich has been playing out of position the whole year. He has been chasing around strong shooting guards who run you off a million picks, he has been chasing around point guards who push the tempo the whole game. He has been playing off the ball in catch and shoot situations, running his defender off screens and such, and he has been playing point, being the floor general. 

I'm glad that Paxson and Skiles have some sense, that makes these Hinrich "hatefests" pretty irrelevant. If it was Krause, hell, Hinrich would have been gone as quick as Artest was. Then again, if it was Krause, we'd still be a losing team.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> I agree that Kirk Hinrich is not an untouchable, but that trade proposal is ridiculous. Two recent lottery picks and two first rounders? I think you lose a lot of leadership in the deal though by shipping out Hinrich and Piatkowski. Leadership isn't something that shows up in the boxscore.
> 
> Come up with a reasonable Hinrich deal that most Bulls fans would consider, and I'll be happy to evaluate.
> 
> Plus, was it necessary to preemptively say that anyone who would disagree with you would be "attacking" you? That doesn't help.


Not attacking me but attacking the deal. The whole point is that Kirk fans will say "the other team will never do that" and then if they do agree that the other team would do it it will always be a bad deal. You want things proposed so you can shoot them down and come to your own conclusion that Kirk is therefore untradeable. I don't know who would trade what to the Bulls for Kirk. Guessing is harder that shooting down the guess. Guessing requires getting inside the head of other GMs. I stated that that was a bottom of the barrel deal. 

In response to others who say that the trade Kirk club is talking out of both sides of their mouth by saying "Kirk is a tweener" and "Kirk can get us a good deal" I'm not saying that.

Kirk is a fine ball player. Many teams are a Kirk away from being good because they have guys with talent and nobody who can organize it. For those teams who wish to use Kirk as a POINT GUARD he is a very good player and a player that can gel a whole team. Thing is we HAVE a player in Chris Duhon who brings that same quarterbacking ability. We have two guys who do something very valuable that is rare (because most guys with the talent to do it want to become a "scoring PG" -- See Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, etc, etc, etc.). However only one of them can do it for 30-35 minutes a night for us. So Kirk has become more valuable as a PG for another team than he is as our shooting guard. That is how he can be both good and expendable at the same time. That is why even though some posters don't want him we can also say that others do and do enough to give up plenty to get him. The argument as to why we need him is that he scores better than Duhon. Well this team without Kirk is full of scoring. 

Any team of investors wishing to become the next franchise owner in the NBA would tell you right now that if they had Luol Deng, Ben Gordon and Eddy Curry as their scorers they'd be looking for 9 guys who could do the things like Duhon and Pietrus. Everything BUT create their own shot. They'd want a PG who had pure PG skills oozing out but maybe was not such a great scorer. They'd want a guy like Noce backing up Deng. They'd want guys who could play defense and hit the open shot when someone doubled one of our three scorers. They wouldn't want guys with the same skills as Duhon except they can also initiate offense off the dribble if the shot is actually falling. We have offense without Kirk Hinrich. Plenty of it. 

Its no different than if we had another guy who could demand the double and score like Eddy Curry. If we had Eddy Curry's brother Teddy Curry and Teddy was cheaper but did about the same things and Eddy gets you more in trade and you have enough post offense then you'd trade Eddy in a package that fills all of our needs in a second. Or if we had a cheap young role playing version of Ralph Sampson then Tyson (who would bring us more in trade than said player) becomes a tradeable ASSET. Why take it personally?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> (( I'm not going to respond to these types of personal posts ))
> (( Please PM to discuss ))


You made it personal, jack.

I'm not a Kirklover, don't appreciate the implication.

*I already said that I would trade Kirk for Tayshaun right now.*

Why ignore that? Because it doesn't fit your agenda?

Quit crying and acting like a little girl when people call you on your act.



Kukoc4Ever said:


> is about to write...
> 
> (( I'm not going to respond to these types of personal posts ))
> (( Please PM to discuss


Because he can make personal attacks, but he can't take them.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Then again, if it was Krause, we'd still be a losing team.


6 titles.

twin towers.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Wynn said:


> In trading Kirk for Pietrus we sacrifice in EVERY statistical category. Is Pietrus that much better of a defender than Kirk? How is he at handling point. I wouldn't mind having Pietrus as the fourth guard on this team -- in ADDITION to Kirk -- but I think this would be a silly trade. Based purely on numbers.


In my trade we'd get two draft picks as well and draft a PG. Deron Williams or Raymond Felton. We'd have Duhon/Felton and Gordon/Pietrus. One guys is instant offense and everyone else is a role player. And you best believe that means Felton under Skiles!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I wonder how long the Matrix is going to be allowed to slow down my message board experience? I pay to support the site, it would be quicker if the banned members could stay banned. 

Thank you.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> Mr. T, I didn't say people like Kirk because of that stuff, but they think he has leadership because of it. And once again, people forget the 2nd part. Here are some things that make people stereotype Kirk as a good leader.
> 
> -White
> -Point Guard
> ...


I agree with 2-4. 

Like Bullsville, I don't take kindly to stereotyping the players OR the posters by race. Am I a white-lover because I like basketball "the right way"? BTW, the other two team leaders and captains are black. I have the utmost respect for AD. 

Personally, I think there is plenty to argue about without it turning to race.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

bullsville said:


> I wonder how long the Matrix is going to be allowed to slow down my message board experience? I pay to support the site, it would be quicker if the banned members could stay banned.
> 
> Thank you.


I agree with this. There is a reason he has been banned several times. He is one of the most close minded and childish posters I've seen on this board, point blank.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> Hinrich and F-Will for Pietrus and Biendris is an interesting deal. I'd like a future pick too, but I wouldn't necessarily balk at such a trade. I think there's no way in hell that the Warriors do such a trade as they're already pretty stacked at the point and trading two more guards to an already guard heavy team doesn't make much sense.
> 
> I'm still of the opinion of wanting both. Make a trade like the one above and what happens if Duhon should go down? All that's left if Pargo playing 35+ mins a game and that's just not an option I'd like to see come to pass. If we could get a guy like Pietrus alone by moving less necessary parts like Hinrich, I'd be all over it. F-Will and Othella possibly? (I know neither can be traded as they are both FA at the end of the year - but you folks get the point...)
> 
> I'm sure there are deal out there to move Hinrich. Most aren't all that equitable and I'm not quite ready to quit on the guy simply because he's sat two games and the team is 2-0 during those games.


Their two "point guards" have the PG skills of Jannero Pargo. One (Davis) because he decides not to use them and one (Fisher) because he's a SG in a PGs body. Obviously that is hyperbole but compared to Kirk they don't have PG skills at all. Davis at the 2 and Richardson at the 3 to start with mixing and matching as the game went on and the Warriors are a playoff team.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> For starters, I only made this thread because the first post in this thread was going to be posted but the thread was closed while I was typing it up.
> 
> I don't get some stuff though about player favortism. The Bulls are 1-5 without Eddy Curry, and because of that the main flow of posters says that he has little impact on the team. The Bulls then go 2-0 without Kirk, and the main flow says that Kirk has the biggest impact on the team. I don't get that, it doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...


I made two posts in the locked thread that debunked the "without Eddy Curry" record. Please read them before using them. They don't quite stack up like you hope. As for any pre-emptive I hate Eddy reply (because you know you won't find any such post with my name on it) notice at the end of the game thread where I would have given Curry and Chandler game balls.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I agree with this. There is a reason he has been banned several times. He is one of the most close minded and childish posters I've seen on this board, point blank.



:clap: 

Thank you.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> Let's not call each other racists. We should face the fact that the Kirk vs. ??? issues are very much race based. It's kind of like a double-edged sword. It helps you in the newspapers but not on the message boards.


I like this very much. Race-based. Just because things are controlled to some extent by race-based factors (their own) does not mean that they consciously feel that people of other races are inferior. If any of you don't think race controls things to some extent for all people I've got some footage of mexican people going to crazy extents over Julio Cesar Chavez or Africans cheering on Ali like they wouldn't even cheer on Jesus Christ that you might want to see. Just like you are more likely to find that a man calling Marciano the greatest heavyweight ever is more likely to be italian than not and Arnie's Army was all white. It drives things. It always has and always will. 

But Slim makes the greatest point. That doesn't have to mean that the ugliness and hate of racISM has to be present. 

I for a fact know that if I talked to any Kirk fan on here in private he wouldn't be like "keep Hinrich and trade Duhon cause Duhon is a bleep bleep bleep." No one is saying that.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> I agree with 2-4.
> 
> Like Bullsville, I don't take kindly to stereotyping the players OR the posters by race. Am I a white-lover because I like basketball "the right way"? BTW, the other two team leaders and captains are black. I have the utmost respect for AD.
> 
> Personally, I think there is plenty to argue about without it turning to race.


Duhon plays "the right way".

Chandler plays "the right way".

So does AD. 

So does Griff. 

So does Deng. 

I think Ben tries to play the right way, his defensive inadequacies seem to be due to lack of good technique and not lack of effort, he looks to be working hard on defense.

And yes, go ahead and assume that any player not listed doesn't play the right way IMO. You know who you are. [/sarcasm]


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

To any idiot who wants to answer...

Why is my son named after a black man when I am white and his mother is white?
Why is my favorite Bull a black man when I am white?

Please drop the 'racial preference crap' It's no less of a stereotype than 'all black men sell crack'. And I am no less offended by the implication.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Kismet said:


> What a coincidence... the *Does Skiles have a man-crush on Hinrich?* thread gets locked at 1:14pm and this one pops up at 1:20pm.
> 
> And prior to all this we've had a thread entitled *The Bulls win without Hinrich?* end up getting locked down as well.
> 
> ...


Oh please lol. Like some people wouldn't be having a seizure if we had gone 4-2 without Eddy. People told everyone that "you'll see what happens if Kirk is out." Well now he is and some people just wanna know when the Piper is gonna get paid. That's all. 

Kirk 
When he plays 34-31
When he doesn't play 2-0

Eddy 
When he plays more than 20 minutes 34-19
When he plays less than 20 minutes 1-7
When he doesn't play 1-5

Maybe it's because even though he doesn't do all the little things, he does the BIG things. Like I don't know - keep us close long enough so that we can run our 18 minute blitzkrieg game plan (with Eddy on the bench) that works so well on nights he plays and doesn't seem to work when we try to do it for *48 minutes*.

I don't think anyone hates Kirk. They just want equal standards for and equal analysis of the merits of Bulls players. 

Example of equal standard. If we had two guys who could do what Eddy can do and one was cheaper than Eddy - I would trade Curry in a heartbeat. That would be me having equal standards for Eddy and Kirk (who I propose shopping because we have two guys who can do the thing that makes him valuable).


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

My take is this is a basketball board. I come here to talk basketball. I don't come here to discuss the social impacts of color on the sport. I don't suggest other posters opinions are based on the color of the subjects being debated and I don't believe it to be the case. Its an Internet message board. It too, is colorless to me. I may agree or disagree with posters, but I never suggest or believe race is the reason - underlying or otherwise. I see us all here because (for the most part) we are Bulls fans. I see nothing good that can come from insinuating somebodies opinion is grounded in race. I think that broad stereotyping is flawed, wrong and counterproductive.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

LOL, I don't know which is funnier.

All the Curry and Crawford fans (I can stereotype as well) in here enjoying the Kirk fans (which they aren't) having a seizure (which they aren't) over the Bulls being 2-0 without Kirk.

Each of the JC and Curry fan club here started their own Hinrich thread to boast how the Bulls are 2-0 without Hinrich. Let them have their fun.

Their sad, pathetic, fun. While most of us are absolutely giddy that the Bulls are in the playoffs, a few fans just can't enjoy it. They are too busy wasting all of their time trying to discredit Kirk- not that any of them will answer a simple *"what about the national people"?*

How sad and pathetic must your life be, and how insecure and lonely must you be to have so much love for Eddy Curry that it makes you hate your "favorite team"'s best player? Or the fans of your "favorite team"'s best player?*


*-"best player" not proven by any scientific facts, only the damn-near unanimous opinion of anyone who covers the NBA for a living. Same applies for "heart and soul" and "leader" for future reference.

I know it's not right to laugh at others, but watching people completely embarass themselves and show their complete lack of knowledge about basketball is funny when those people are giving you a hard time for no reason.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> My two bob
> 
> I really like Kirk as a player and I think if he were being used a little bit differently with a genuine 2 guard of some size with above average defensive skills ... then great
> 
> ...


Congrats - you have approached this objectively and hit all the right logic spots. Last night would have been a 40 point blowout if you put Mickael Pietrus, Raymond Felton and Andris Biedrins on the Bulls in place of Hinrich, Pargo and Piatkowski. And you probably don't even need to use Felton. 

Kirk is awesome AS A POINT GUARD. He costs us as a SG because his main skill RUNNING THE POINT can't be used enough to hurt teams from the SG spot. It's why our best lineups are always with Gordon in the game. when Gordon is in there with Hinrich OR Duhon we are at our best. Because if its Du its Du with his silky smooth PG skills. He's a quarterback at the position if there ever was one. If its Hinrich he gets to play his natural position and smokes people. 

Now if Duhon could net us a fat package of players and draft picks and Kirk would come as cheap as Du will -- don't you Hinrich fans think that everyone who is currently proposinig to trade Kirk would want to trade Du? I would. I'd love to have Hinrich, Gordon, Pietrus and Felton in our backcourt. Aint gonna happen. But we could have Duhon, Gordon, Pietrus and Felton. Is this backcourt worse? If you need offense yes. If you have Curry in your frontcourt and Deng at SF the second lineup is NOT worse. It comes cheaper and we get to fill other needs without even using our MLE. 

Hell trading Kirk in a package for a big SG and other stuff is the only way we even touch Oberto. At least when compared to the idea of trying to sign Oberto with our MLE and doing nothing to address the SG position. That would be stupid. Same with signing Donyell. 

Congrats though you see what others refuse to in perfect logical order :clap:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

bullsville said:


> All the Curry and Crawford fans (I can stereotype as well) in here enjoying the Kirk fans (which they aren't) having a seizure (which they aren't) over the Bulls being 2-0 without Kirk.


Hinrich is the most loved on this board, but he is also the most hated. Each side makes the other side stronger. I feel like we're dealing with Kobe Bryant the way everything Hinrich does is justified and everything he doesn't do is magnified. But hell, it's not even worth arguing when you're on the winning side of things. Paxson and Skiles know the deal, and last time I checked, they're the ones running my favorite team. Point Hinrich.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> My two bob
> 
> I really like Kirk as a player and I think if he were being used a little bit differently with a genuine 2 guard of some size with above average defensive skills ... then great
> 
> ...


Yes, its a legitimate discussion. However, don't you find the timing of such a debate just a little suspect? 

The Bulls are in a playoff race for the first time in *seven seasons*. The team is on track to improve over last season's record by more than *twenty games*. The team has accomplished all of this with *four rookies and a second year player* making major contributions as part of the Bulls rotation.

One of Chicago's key players suffers a significant injury that prevents him from playing in the last *two games* and all of a sudden this board is dominated by talk of trading him because the performance of our second round pick has rendered this injured player unimportant and expendable.

Sure, this is an open forum and people are free to speak their minds about just about anything basketball-related. But I ask you again. With all that this *team* has accomplished and must still accomplish over the next several weeks, why shove those issues to the background in favor of trade talk regarding an injured player?

You know the answer as well as I do.

It has nothing to do with anyone being incensed or "sacred cows." It has to do with some individuals couching their real agendas under the guise of "lets talk trade" and "who's the better player." 

Its not the topic. Its the timing...and the intentions.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

bullsville said:


> Their sad, pathetic, fun.


Did you mean "They're" as in "they are"? Their sad, pathetic, fun "what"? What possession of "theirs" is sad, pathetic and fun.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

When, exactly, is Matrix getting banned again?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

bullsville said:


> LOL, I don't know which is funnier.
> 
> All the Curry and Crawford fans (I can stereotype as well) in here enjoying the Kirk fans (which they aren't) having a seizure (which they aren't) over the Bulls being 2-0 without Kirk.
> 
> ...


With all due respect this is just wrong. When the Bulls go to Golden State it's "Eddy Curry and the Chicago Bulls come into town tonight." When you go watch the highlights after most games on NBA.com inside ticket they usually start with "Eddy Curry's Bulls playing the (insert team) tonight." Most discussion centers on how Eddy Curry or Ben Gordon's scoring frees things up for others. 

Kirk Hinrich is not our best player. Is he the best all around player on our team? Yes. Nobodies talents are more EVENLY DISTRIBUTED than Kirk's. Is he the best as in most important? Not a chance. We aren't 1-5 without Curry and 1-2 without Deng (and god knows what we'd be without Ben -- Just consider the fact that he wasn't playing well AT ALL during our 0-9 stretch) for a reason. Those three players do the BIG THINGS. We always hear about little things. What about doing BIG THINGS? 

Ben Gordon wills this team to victory when most people in his shoes wouldn't have the mental fortitude. I haven't seen a guy shoot like he just knows nothing other than the ball hitting the bottom of the rim is possible since...well you know who. Seriously. Not one guy since MJ has shot the ball in key situations over and over again like Ben has this year. 

Eddy Curry does draw the double team before he goes up to shoot it. Or did you miss KC writing "Eddy Curry caught the ball and immediately an Atlanta defender ran at him" the other day in the Tribune? I'd be happy to link you. And please tell me how you know that Eddy gets most of his points on the move? I count two alleyoops last night and then Eddy creating 12 of his points due to his own skills to create his own shot. Are you disputing that we have a lot of guys who are really good when they don't have to create their own shot and that Eddy does that for them. His presence creates open looks that aren't there when he doesn't play?

Luol Deng is like Kirk Hinrich if Kirk could create his own shot off the dribble and finish at the basket. Luol does a little bit of everything but with that added dimension that you better close things off with big time defense on him or he'll finish. Most of the time if a big guy steps at Kirk on the drive Hinrich steps back and hoists another brick. With Luol you better have a big guy CLOSE THINGS off or he'll finish. Maybe an "is there a difference between a Duke player and a Kansas player" thread is necessary.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

36-31 and we are arguing like this.

This is something i would expect if we had 40+ losses.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> My two bob
> 
> I really like Kirk as a player and I think if he were being used a little bit differently with a genuine 2 guard of some size with above average defensive skills ... then great
> 
> ...



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


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

bullsville said:


> When, exactly, is Matrix getting banned again?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Tick-tock, tick-tock. Time is running out for Matrix again.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Hinrich is the most loved on this board, but he is also the most hated. Each side makes the other side stronger. I feel like we're dealing with Kobe Bryant the way everything Hinrich does is justified and everything he doesn't do is magnified. But hell, it's not even worth arguing when you're on the winning side of things. Paxson and Skiles know the deal, and last time I checked, they're the ones running my favorite team. Point Hinrich.


That's cool just as long as we establish that your biggest concern is that the team is in "your style" (Pax and Skiles) and not that the most important thing is winning championships. No thanks. That's how we got the Cubs. I wouldnt care if trading my own brother or son or dad was the way to championships I'd do it. It's nice to know that style will always win out over results for some people. 

Players like Hinrich and this Hickory Husker atmosphere on message boards and in the Tribune with KC will make us a good team. But not a championship team. The Bears have been full of players whose style "Chicago just loves so much." Losers. Period. Win. That's it. Win. Win Championships. By posting what you post you implicitly admit to everything that Hinrich fans get accused of. 

Liking Kirk not mostly because of what he can do to help us win a championship but more because he's "your guy" Mike North. That's great. I'm sick of "your guys." I don't care how much Kirk fits in with what Paxson and Skiles like in the intangibles of a player. If the case can be made that we're more likely to win a championship moving him than by keeping him you move him. Period. I don't care if his name is Kirk Paxson or John Paxson Jr. 

Sausage King of Chicago made the case himself. That's what should control things.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

remlover said:


> Tick-tock, tick-tock. Time is running out for Matrix again.


Everybody knows he's not very bright, but can you believe he actually bother to quote one of my posts and respond to it?

How stupid can a person be?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think some people forget about how big scoring is. Eddy and Ben and Luol bring us that at a pretty efficient rate, and percentage. I've said it time in, and time out, if Kirk improves his shooting to 42-43%, the Bulls become a much more dangerous time. And point cushion is needed. We got plenty of guys that can play defense: Griffin, Chandler, Curry, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni to name a few. We are a pretty set team. And as far as guards. If we need 4 guards then Chris, Ben are the two small ones I want to keep, and then I want to get 2 bigger ones. Kirk's value is high, and Chris can do everything Kirk can AS A POINT, so why not trade Kirk to fill our other needs if Duhon can handle the point.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

remlover said:


> 36-31 and we are arguing like this.
> 
> This is something i would expect if we had 40+ losses.


Some were wondering this when Eddy had 4 bad games following when HE hurt his hamstring (it was announced after the TORONTO game but never came up during Eddy's four bad games). We were a winning team that outrebounded the opposition most nights and it was crucify Eddy time.

Eddy! The player who brings what virtually every team that 1. Won a Championship and 2. Didn't have Michael Jordan, has had in the history of the NBA. A player who could create double teams and score down low. A player who creates mismatches all over the floor by the powerful force he is down low. But he's been treated like dog**** this season for "not doing the little things." What about the BIG THINGS? Without that you don't even get to talk about LITTLE THINGS. Having a skill that every championship team has had is a big thing. Right now if you're a playoff team and you have one of the top 5 post scoring options in the NBA you should be pretty happy. But no - it was crucify Eddy. Trade him for Stromile Swift! Start the bidding at 5 million dollars! Tyson is clearly the better player! And the venom and vigor with which these posts came. And we were a WINNING TEAM who AS A TEAM was doing all the things that Eddy is weak at WELL.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Johnny Ringo said:


> Some were wondering this when Eddy had 4 bad games following when HE hurt his hamstring (it was announced after the TORONTO game but never came up during Eddy's four bad games). We were a winning team that outrebounded the opposition most nights and it was crucify Eddy time.
> 
> Eddy! The player who brings what virtually every team that 1. Won a Championship and 2. Didn't have Michael Jordan, has had in the history of the NBA. A player who could create double teams and score down low. A player who creates mismatches all over the floor by the powerful force he is down low. But he's been treated like dog**** this season for "not doing the little things." What about the BIG THINGS? Without that you don't even get to talk about LITTLE THINGS. Having a skill that every championship team has had is a big thing. Right now if you're a playoff team and you have one of the top 5 post scoring options in the NBA you should be pretty happy. But no - it was crucify Eddy. Trade him for Stromile Swift! Start the bidding at 5 million dollars! Tyson is clearly the better player! And the venom and vigor with which these posts came. And we were a WINNING TEAM who AS A TEAM was doing all the things that Eddy is weak at WELL.


 When did this thread become about Eddy?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

LOL, some people are so clueless, it is just downright comical.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Duhon is too short and can't guard anyone who he can't see at eye level.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> When did this thread become about Eddy?


As soon as Matrix joined the thread.

Oh my bad, that was a rhetorical question I'm sure.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

sloth said:


> I think some people forget about how big scoring is. Eddy and Ben and Luol bring us that at a pretty efficient rate, and percentage. I've said it time in, and time out, if Kirk improves his shooting to 42-43%, the Bulls become a much more dangerous time. And point cushion is needed. We got plenty of guys that can play defense: Griffin, Chandler, Curry, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni to name a few. We are a pretty set team. And as far as guards. If we need 4 guards then Chris, Ben are the two small ones I want to keep, and then I want to get 2 bigger ones. Kirk's value is high, and Chris can do everything Kirk can AS A POINT, so why not trade Kirk to fill our other needs if Duhon can handle the point.


You're guilty of the same thing that Hinrich fans get accused of. Every time it seems like you're a fan looking at things objectively and analyzing them for what they are, without letting a preconceived set of cultural norms predetermine your subconscious thinking - you throw me for a loop and bring up Ricky Davis or Jalen Rose. Don't be an "Errisal" who just accuses one side of being biased and then is equally as biased to the other side.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> When did this thread become about Eddy?


About when most threads do. As soon as 82games.com geeks bring him up in their posts.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Kismet said:


> Yes, its a legitimate discussion. However, don't you find the timing of such a debate just a little suspect?
> 
> The Bulls are in a playoff race for the first time in *seven seasons*. The team is on track to improve over last season's record by more than *twenty games*. The team has accomplished all of this with *four rookies and a second year player* making major contributions as part of the Bulls rotation.
> 
> ...



:greatjob:


got bobblehead?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Johnny Ringo said:


> You're guilty of the same thing that Hinrich fans get accused of. Every time it seems like you're a fan looking at things objectively and analyzing them for what they are, without letting a preconceived set of cultural norms predetermine your subconscious thinking - you throw me for a loop and bring up Ricky Davis or Jalen Rose. Don't be an "Errisal" who just accuses one side of being biased and then is equally as biased to the other side.


 Are you disowning your son? He looks up to you.


----------



## Johnny Ringo (Mar 26, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> Are you disowning your son? He looks up to you.


He's not my son and I don't really favor his views. He just is the same thing he points fingers at but from the other side.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongy, somebody said something less than flattering about Eddy, which means Eddy's little sister had to jump in and defend his honor with miles and miles of baseless, pointless, clueless posts.

No matter how true what was said may be, you can't say anything bad about Eddy without his little sister putting in her 2 IQ points worth.

I just wonder when the mods will be banning her yet again?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> Are you disowning your son? He looks up to you.


LOL, if you read what Matrix wrote, she is really hilarious, calling her son out for being just like his mom.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I've read enough. I think I'll take a hiatus from postoing on these boards until playoff time. Hopefully things will have calmed down by then.....


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> I've read enough. I think I'll take a hiatus from postoing on these boards until playoff time. Hopefully things will have calmed down by then.....


 I think this is where we should close this thread....


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> spongy, somebody said something less than flattering about Eddy, which means Eddy's little sister had to jump in and defend his honor with miles and miles of baseless, pointless, clueless posts.
> 
> No matter how true what was said may be, you can't say anything bad about Eddy without his little sister putting in her 2 IQ points worth.
> 
> I just wonder when the mods will be banning her yet again?


err...Eddy's sister isn't _"little."_ :angel:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

If you guys were writing a long post in response, you can PM it to me. locked for now. Maybe tommorow it'll be unlocked.


----------

