# Does Skiles have a man-crush on Hinrich?



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> “I’m really proud of my team,” Bulls coach Scott Skiles said. “To get two games without Kirk, who is kind of the engine that makes our team go, is very impressive.


Kirk is my boo, too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Maybe he does have a man-crush on Kirk. None of my business if he does.

But the point he makes in the quote is legit. Shooting percentage aside, Kirk has been a major contributer to this team over the last 2 years. This time last year, he was about the only guy you could rely on for consistently staying tight on his man defensively.

The team as a whole does deserve credit for doing well without Kirk. This team is still not "there" in terms of contending, but they are doing what should be the team -- and this forum's -- motto "playing the right way." We don't have a legit star, let alone a superstar, on this team (will one or more of these guys develop into a star/superstar? Maybe. But that's for another thread...). Yet for the most part, we are either pulling off wins or at least competing to be in the games we lose, so they are at least winnable.

I truly believe if we can keep this group together, some very good things can and will happen. Not really understanding all this Kirk hate lately. Sure, we have are share of "Kirk-boos" who see no wrong in the guy. But he is a sophomore pro who is (again, shooting percentage aside) playing beyond his years, like a seasoned journeyman. He is an important part of this team, and I believe, only going to get better. Skiles was in no way out of line by praising his team for playing well without him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I think Skiles still wants to make it clear to the players and the media that Hinrich's approach and style of play is the exemplar for this team. I suspect that once Ben starts to round out his game and when (if) Curry starts to bring it on a regular basis, the Hinrich love from Skiles will go unspoken. 

That being said, Hinrich and Deng are my boos too, so I have no problem with the overt praise.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

"And the Bulls did it without leader Kirk Hinrich" - Peter May, Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...05/03/26/at_the_end_bulls_horn_in_on_the_fun/

"Some might consider it blasphemous for the Celtics to lose a home game to a Bulls contingent without starting guard Kirk Hinrich." - Steve Bulpett, Boston Globe http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/view.bg?articleid=75150

I guess some members of the Boston media have man-crushes on Kirk as well?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2005/03/25/celtics_eyes_on_bulls/


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2005/03/25/celtics_eyes_on_bulls/


"Chicago was without spark plug point guard Kirk Hinrich" - Peter May

That's too days in a row for May, he must be madly in love with Kirky...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I liked what I saw. From the last 2 games, if we do the same thing in the 3rd, I am ready to move Kirk for a real 2 guard. Chris Duhon is a better fit for this Bulls team. He is at par with Kirk on defense and hustle. Duhon takes less shots, and what really impressed me about Duhon was how he got the offense going. We were getting our play right out of the boot instead of watching Kirk dribble for 12-15 seconds. We also seemed to find Eddy, Tyson, and AD downlow for some easy buckets that we seemed to miss when Kirk is at point guard. Kirk is a good point guard, but he isn't the right one for this team, and luckily we got the right one for this team.

When's the last time you've heard Curry say this?



> ``Guys did a good job looking for me down the stretch,'' Curry said.


Tyson Chandler adds



> "It's a huge deal," Tyson Chandler said. "Any team you might face in the playoffs, you want to leave a statement.
> 
> "This was a playoff atmosphere game. If we play and challenge shots the way we did in the fourth quarter, there aren't too many teams that can beat us."


Gordon also adds



> "That has been the story of our season," Gordon said. "We have rookies who are good enough to play in those situations."


I really don't get Skiles with the engine that makes us go and stuff, but Kirk wasn't even the same caliber of a cheer leader while sititng out like Eddy Curry was. Okay, Curry is better then Shirley, he is a good cheerleader AND he can play basketball, sorry Shirley. But seriously, it sounds like the coaching staff misses Kirk more then the players do. I don't think Eddy, Tyson, or Ben honestly believe that Kirk is the guy that makes the team goes.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

FOR THE RECORD - from the NBA general forum. posted last night by *sloth!* after the bulls win. 




> Yeah, it is quite simple actually. *The Bulls are just a better team without Kirk Hinrich. Hinrich is one of the most overrated players in the league, Chris Duhon is a much better point guard then Kirk Hinrich, and so is Jannero Pargo.* The main difference without Hinrich is that the Bulls have a better flow to the game. Pargo and Duhon get the ball moving earlier in the shotclock, unlike Hinrich who dribbles the ball for 12-15 seconds and leaves less time to have a good play. Duhon and Pargo get the ball moving right away like a real basketball team. *Pargo and Duhon also make it a note to use the big man Eddy Curry to their advantage unlike Kirk Hinrich who ignores Eddy Curry for long stretches.* I would love to see the Bulls trade Kirk for a guy like Ricky Davis.* The Bulls are just plain and simple, bread and butter, better without him.*


pargo!!! :laugh: 




> Pargo is obviously not better then Kirk, but Pargo is a good fit as the Bulls backup.
> 
> Chris Duhon is no doubt in my mind better then Kirk Hinrich. The Bulls offense has a flow to it unlike with Kirk Hinrich, and we controlled the ball much better without Kirk too. Chris is a better point guard, he knows how to set up teammates really good. He is a pure point guard, he doesn't care about jacking up 15 shots a game to get 15 points only. *Chris just wants to win.* The absence of Kirk's 6-15 shooting nights has been so sweet. And how can you say we miss Kirk on D? We got abused by the Celtics guards last time, only this tiem the help defense from Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler, our two best defensive players downlow was the difference along with Deng and Nocioni playing good defense on Davis, Walker, and Pierce. Chris might not overall be better then Kirk, but he is a better fit for point guard of the Bulls then Kirk, and cheaper too.





i didn't want to do this, slugsloth, but you kinda forced my hand! to suggest that chris "just wants to win" and what, kirk doesn't? quit hatin'. seriously gettin' tired of this act of yours. 


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=152751


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sloth said:


> I liked what I saw. From the last 2 games, if we do the same thing in the 3rd, I am ready to move Kirk for a real 2 guard. Chris Duhon is a better fit for this Bulls team. He is at par with Kirk on defense and hustle. Duhon takes less shots, and what really impressed me about Duhon was how he got the offense going. We were getting our play right out of the boot instead of watching Kirk dribble for 12-15 seconds. We also seemed to find Eddy, Tyson, and AD downlow for some easy buckets that we seemed to miss when Kirk is at point guard. Kirk is a good point guard, but he isn't the right one for this team, and luckily we got the right one for this team.


Good point.

I always like to look at the star players that teams have to make contract decisions in the off-season as players that have a higher probability of being moved.

Two guys that I potentially would trade Hinrich for.... just wanted to know what the board felt....

Ray Allen
Larry Hughes

I'm sure a trade could be worked out cap wise... but it might have to include AD as well.

Anyway ... would anyone be in favor of Duhon/Hughes/Gordon or Duhon/Allen/Gordon?


Duhon may not be a 35 minute a night NBA player.... but he sure looks solid to me. 

What does Hinrich bring that Duhon does not?

I think Hughes would be a great addition to this team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> When's the last time you've heard Curry say this?





> ``Guys did a good job looking for me down the stretch,'' Curry said.


You sure don't hear that very often. He's been such a defensive liablity, he is usually benched by the time we get around to "down the stretch."

But he's been doing a much better job lately, and as a consequence, he's staying in the game more.


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

if we resigned everyone else i really wouldnt mind a Kirk trade to the warriors for Pietrus and mebe a 2nd round draft pick, Pietrus is a tall guard who plays great defense and a 2nd rounder is always helpful.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Deng101 said:


> if we resigned everyone else i really wouldnt mind a Kirk trade to the warriors for Pietrus and mebe a 2nd round draft pick, Pietrus is a tall guard who plays great defense and a 2nd rounder is always helpful.


Perhaps Paxson could use his sikkkkkk drafting skills to pick up another Duhon in the 2nd round.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps Paxson could use his sikkkkkk drafting skills to pick up another Duhon in the 2nd round.


There won't be another Duhon for awhile. Chris should have been a 1st round pick, but he was extremely underrated because he sacrificed a lot of his game for the sake of the team at Duke.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

sloth said:


> I liked what I saw. From the last 2 games, if we do the same thing in the 3rd, I am ready to move Kirk for a real 2 guard. Chris Duhon is a better fit for this Bulls team. He is at par with Kirk on defense and hustle.


That's debatable but Skiles said something similiar to this a while back. Plus I think Duhon takes charges better than Kirk. 



> Duhon takes less shots, and what really impressed me about Duhon was how he got the offense going. We were getting our play right out of the boot instead of watching Kirk dribble for 12-15 seconds. We also seemed to find Eddy, Tyson, and AD downlow for some easy buckets that we seemed to miss when Kirk is at point guard. Kirk is a good point guard, but he isn't the right one for this team, and luckily we got the right one for this team.
> 
> When's the last time you've heard Curry say this?


Curry said that many times throughout the season. Dribble for 12-15 secs? That's a total exaggeration. Don't let your hate glasses skew your vision. Pargo and Gordon are our dribble kings on this team.



> I really don't get Skiles with the engine that makes us go and stuff, but Kirk wasn't even the same caliber of a cheer leader while sititng out like Eddy Curry was. Okay, Curry is better then Shirley, he is a good cheerleader AND he can play basketball, sorry Shirley.


what TB#1 said. plus Curry admitted to being a defensive liability in the fourth. Kirk was always standing up cheering, with his bad hamstring.



> But seriously, it sounds like the coaching staff misses Kirk more then the players do. I don't think Eddy, Tyson, or Ben honestly believe that Kirk is the guy that makes the team goes.


“Kirk is pretty much our general out there, but at the same time, we’ve got guys that can step up and play basketball,” said center Eddy Curry, who led the Bulls with 16 points after the toronto victory.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Come on, spongy, the Bulls are 2-0 without Hinrich, let his haters have their moment in the sun. They've earned it. :biggrin:

EDIT: You too, mizenkay!

There are guys on this board who have gone to ridiculous extremes, embarassing themselves on many occasions, in defense of their favorite players. Since you really can't bash much about Kirk's game besides his FG%, the Bulls winning games with Kirk on the sidelines is their only chance at happiness. Let them be.

Hell, I say :cheers: to them. 

As a Bulls fan, I happy as long as we win, I don't care if Tyson has 0 points and 6 fouls and 12 turnovers or if Eddy has 80 points and 15 rebounds (OK, that rebound total was impossible, my bad).


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

This subject is a joke. ITS A TEAM GAME - THE TEAM STEPPED UP AGAIN WITHOUT KIRK, but in no way are they a better team without him. And the funniest quote of all PARGO IS BETTER THAN KIRK? Obviously you know nothing about basketball and just enjoy starting controversies even though the main focus should have been the bulls being 5th seed and not about kirk being expendable. Wake up and realize that this a great team that plays team ball and quit hating on the bulls.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Good point.
> 
> I always like to look at the star players that teams have to make contract decisions in the off-season as players that have a higher probability of being moved.
> 
> ...


Larry Hughes has really developed into a terrific player. If we traded Kirk for another player, it would be nice to get a guy like Hughes who can take some minutes from Duhon at the point as Kirk does on occasion (like a certain player we used to have on our team). I'm not certain of their exact ages but I believe Hughes is quite a bit younger than Ray Allen so I would be in favor of getting him. Although I would take Allen on my team in a heartbeat.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Kirk is my boo, too.



Reading the Skiles quotes made me think of the "Little Engine That Could"


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

This is a stupid thread.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Come on, spongy, the Bulls are 2-0 without Hinrich, let his haters have their moment in the sun. They've earned it. :biggrin:
> 
> EDIT: You too, mizenkay!
> 
> There are guys on this board who have gone to ridiculous extremes, embarassing themselves on many occasions, in defense of their favorite players. Since you really can't bash much about Kirk's game besides his FG%, the Bulls winning games with Kirk on the sidelines is their only chance at happiness. Let them be.



:laugh:

EDIT: not naming names, not a good thing to do. apologies from miz.

my bad. terribly sorry. 



:clown:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> :laugh:
> 
> yeah, i guess guys who put dancing bananas next to "bulls 2-0 w'out kirk!" in their posts like it's something to freakin' celebrate.
> 
> ...


I think winning without Kirk DOES merit dancing bananas. Not because I don't like Kirk, but because I feel like the rest of the team had to play that much harder for the win.

Go Bull!

:banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its not so much the 2-0 record... although the fact that these were 2 road games.... 1 against a very good team.... does carry some weight.

Its that Hinrich was simply not missed. There was not 1 part of any of the 2 games where there was a moment to think... "damn, i wish hinrich was in the game." Most of this is due to Duhon. Pargo steeped up admirably last night to eat up some minutes.

Larry Hughes and Etan Thomas for AD and Hinrich would work for me.


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

Wow I just stopped reading this thread to clean up the pop I spit everywhere after reading that Duhon and Hinrich are better PG's than Hinrich, wow, that's one of the most absurd things I've ever read.

Edit-Let me put myself in your mind frame.
Alright, I hate Curry so I'm gonna say that Reiner is better than Curry.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Pargo and Duhon also make it a note to use the big man Eddy Curry to their advantage unlike Kirk Hinrich who ignores Eddy Curry for long stretches.


I don't know, Eddy averaged 11.56 FGA/game when Hinrich was playing, only 9 FGA/game without Hinrich. Eddy averaged 4.89 FTA when Hinrich was playing, only 4.00 FTA/game without Hinrich.

Eddy averaged .402 FGA/min with Hinrich, .391 FGA/min without Hinrich.
Eddy averaged .17 FTA/min with Hinrich, .17 FTA/min without Hinrich. 

Gee, Eddy gets MORE shots playing with Hinrich than he does playing without him? 

OMG, sloth was *wrong*? Start builing the ark, the world is coming to an end.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

KHinrich12 said:


> Wow I just stopped reading this thread to clean up the pop I spit everywhere after reading that Duhon and Hinrich are better PG's than Hinrich, wow, that's one of the most absurd things I've ever read.
> 
> Edit-Let me put myself in your mind frame.
> Alright, I hate Curry so I'm gonna say that Reiner is better than Curry.


Why is Hinrich a better PG than Duhon? I'd be interested to hear the argument.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not so much the 2-0 record... although the fact that these were 2 road games.... 1 against a very good team.... does carry some weight.
> 
> Its that Hinrich was simply not missed. There was not 1 part of any of the 2 games where there was a moment to think... "damn, i wish hinrich was in the game." Most of this is due to Duhon. Pargo steeped up admirably last night to eat up some minutes.
> 
> Larry Hughes and Etan Thomas for AD and Hinrich would work for me.


 The Wizards would never do that unfortunately, because Hughes is a lot better than Kirk.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> FOR THE RECORD - from the NBA general forum. posted last night by *sloth!* after the bulls win.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This is the kid who banters ad nauseum about posters getting on Curry right? And yet, "in the blink of an eye" he's dealing Hinrich out of town. 

SluggoSloth is showing his real hate now. Wear that hater label proudly SluggoSloth! Can we trade SluggoSloth for the Gipper? 

I think *the real question here* is, if the NBA goes to an age limit can we get one here at bbb.net? :laugh:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> :laugh:
> 
> yeah, i guess guys who put dancing bananas next to "bulls 2-0 w'out kirk!" in their posts like it's something to freakin' celebrate *cough*SPMJ*cough*


Hey, I'm just happy we've been so successful these past two games without the "heart&soul" of our team. I got nothing against Kirk. But like a lot of people, i can't stand his groupies. Which probably has me enjoying these 2 wins more then I should be.

2-0 w/o Kirk baby! :banana:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why is Hinrich a better PG than Duhon? I'd be interested to hear the argument.


A better *pure PG*? He's not better than Duhon.

The better all-around player? It's not really that close, a few people might tell you Duhon but I'm guessing maybe 5% at the most.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Hinrich hasn't played point guard consistently in a long time. He's been playing SG, and because Duhon can't shoot, Kirk has to take a lot of shots to keep defenses honest. 

Kirk is essential for this team because he will let Ben Gordon play shooting guard and defend point guards. Once Ben plays better defense and gets rid of his turnover problems, Ben will play SG and Kirk will play PG. And then, I think, you'll see Ben taking a lot more shots, and Kirk taking less (and therefore improving his shooting %.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> The Wizards would never do that unfortunately, because Hughes is a lot better than Kirk.


The reason would be for contract issues... as I said in my original post.

Happens all the time... team A does not want to sign a player... team B is willing to pay them.... dump the player for the best thing you can get.

Hinrich would be better than losing him for nothing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> A better *pure PG*? He's not better than Duhon.
> 
> The better all-around player? It's not really that close, a few people might tell you Duhon but I'm guessing maybe 5% at the most.


Why isn't it close?

Any reason other than just the results of a hypothetical poll?

( the poll method is questionable.... i think 40% of the people here would rather have hinrich over iverson... based on a poll at the start of the season)


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Good point.
> 
> I always like to look at the star players that teams have to make contract decisions in the off-season as players that have a higher probability of being moved.
> 
> ...


Are you baiting here or are you an in the closet Hinrich homer? Not only are you talking about two All Stars in exchange for Kirk, you're also talking about two teams that are set at the point for the forseeable future.

And Duhon is a better point guard, but Kirk is the better player.


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

Alright Duhon is probably a better pure point...but Hinrich averages more points, assists, rebounds, FG% is higher.

And then Pargo, that's just laughable.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Hinrich hasn't played point guard consistently in a long time. He's been playing SG, and because Duhon can't shoot, Kirk has to take a lot of shots to keep defenses honest.


But Hinrich is a lousy shooter as well. If that's his role... then there are better players in the league to fill it.



> Kirk is essential for this team because he will let Ben Gordon play shooting guard and defend point guards. Once Ben plays better defense and gets rid of his turnover problems, Ben will play SG and Kirk will play PG. And then, I think, you'll see Ben taking a lot more shots, and Kirk taking less (and therefore improving his shooting %.


I agree that the ideal player to put alongside gordon would be someone that can guard 1s and 2s, can play some PG but not have to be a "pure" PG... and hopefully can also be an effective scorer.

The question is Hinrich that type of player.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Well, thank God we have Paxson as GM, and I'm confident that there is no way in hell he would trade Hinrich for Hughes.

Hughes is NOT a good defender, he gets a lot of steals because he gambles and plays the passing lanes a lot. He also loses a lot of those gambles, leaving opponents with wide-open shots.

There is a reason that a team with a very good defensive center like Brenda has such a horrible defense (7th worst opp FG%, 4th most points allowed) despite being 3rd in the league in steals.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Good point.
> 
> I always like to look at the star players that teams have to make contract decisions in the off-season as players that have a higher probability of being moved.
> 
> ...


Man, I'm disappointed in you K4E. 

I'm all for trading anyone if we get better, but moving our "best player" (your words) after just two games wreaks of being disingenuous or simply being shortsighted. 

I expect its a shortsighted reaction on your part, because the other alternative was you were flat out telling bald-faced lies in your 600 page win without Hinrich locked thread.

And you, who proclaimed Hinrich to be our best player, today needs to hear the argument why Hinrich is better than Duhon.  

No offense, but the "outing" seems complete.


Johnston didn't start this thread to rip on Hinrich or get him traded, he started it to discuss the relationship between Skiles and Hinrich. Oh how quickly we can turn things right back into a bash fest.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Are you baiting here or are you an in the closet Hinrich homer? Not only are you talking about two All Stars in exchange for Kirk, you're also talking about two teams that are set at the point for the forseeable future.
> 
> And Duhon is a better point guard, but Kirk is the better player.


I think its pretty clear that Hinrich is not a PG.

And... once again... as I said in my original post... the main reason Seattle and Wash do the trade is that "something is better than nothing."

Is a Duhon/Hughes/Gordon combo better than a Duhon/Hinrich/Gordon combo? If it could be done, would you want to do it? That’s the question I’m asking.

We talk about trading players all the time here. Hinrich is just 1 player on the Bulls.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> Hey, I'm just happy we've been so successful these past two games without the "heart&soul" of our team. I got nothing against Kirk. *But like a lot of people, i can't stand his groupies.* Which probably has me enjoying these 2 wins more then I should be.
> 
> 2-0 w/o Kirk baby! :banana:


fair enough. i went back and edited that post, cause it wasn't cool of me to put it that way. i misinterpreted the dancing banana! sorry.





miz slinks away in shame. she's just a stupid groupie after all


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Man, I'm disappointed in you K4E.
> 
> I'm all for trading anyone if we get better, but moving our "best player" (your words) after just two games wreaks of being disingenuous or simply being shortsighted.
> 
> ...


I said that I'd have no problem calling Hinrich our best player. I can't make a convincing argument for anyone else at this point. I think players like Curry, Deng, Gordon and Chandler will all be better than Hinrich in the long run. I feel right now that we're a team of equals in a lot of ways.

And... "best player" is different that "most important" player. We missed Deng and Curry when they had their brief stints on the bench. Have not missed Hinrich at all yet. Maybe tonight will be different.

And once again... *PLEASE*... keep the thread about basketball. Posts like the one above is why these threads get off track.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why isn't it close?
> 
> Any reason other than just the results of a hypothetical poll?
> 
> ( the poll method is questionable.... i think 40% of the people here would rather have hinrich over iverson... based on a poll at the start of the season)


Why isn't it close?

Because almost any impartial NBA observer will say that Kirk is the better overall player. Because they watch games and can see that Kirk is the better overall player. 

It's not my fault, and no I don't have any polls to prove it. So you go ahead believing what you want. 

Peter May and lots of writers around the country have a man-crush on Hinrich, I guess that's why it isn't close? 

There are lots of reasons why Kirk is a better overall player, but I know that's not what you're looking for, so I won't bother.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> But Hinrich is a lousy shooter as well. If that's his role... then there are better players in the league to fill it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*A better argument might be to go back to the one that says* *A BETTER SHOOTING GUARD TO PUT ALONGSIDE HINRICH IS MAGGETTE OR JOHNSON.*


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> Man, I'm disappointed in you K4E.
> 
> I'm all for trading anyone if we get better, but moving our "best player" (your words) after just two games wreaks of being disingenuous or simply being shortsighted.
> 
> ...


 :clap: 

But don't lie, you're not confused. I'm not confused. None of us are confused, we all know exactly what's going on.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:



> I think its pretty clear that Hinrich is not a PG.


I believe he is, although the Bulls don't believe in the labels. Perhaps you enlighten all of us why he is NOT a point guard and why Duhon is BETTER than him.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> :laugh:
> 
> yeah, i guess guys who put dancing bananas next to "bulls 2-0 w'out kirk!" in their posts like it's something to freakin' celebrate *cough*SPMJ*cough* or guys who say that "pargo is better than kirk" *cough*slothslug*cough should have their moment in the sun.
> 
> ...


You've got to see through it, miz. There's still alot of hard feelings on this board because between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was, in a manner of speaking, _the last man standing_. Those that would have preferred to see JC running the offense and may have in fact, resented Paxson's selection of Kirk on draft day in the first place will continue in their attempts to devalue him. It gives them a chance to say, "I told you so," in a very subtle, abstract manner.

Had Jason Williams remained a viable member of this team allowing Paxson to deal Crawford and our #7 pick in '03 instead of using it on Kirk, you'd be reading similar criticisms about Jay from pretty much the same crew of posters.

Simply put, I view much of the Hinrich hating that goes on in these threads as nothing more than bitterness about the fact that Hinrich's here and Crawford isn't. Some people hold grudges longer than others, I suppose.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I said that I'd have no problem calling Hinrich our best player. I can't make a convincing argument for anyone else at this point. I think players like Curry, Deng, Gordon and Chandler will all be better than Hinrich in the long run. I feel right now that we're a team of equals in a lot of ways.
> 
> And... "best player" is different that "most important" player. We missed Deng and Curry when they had their brief stints on the bench. Have not missed Hinrich at all yet. Maybe tonight will be different.
> 
> And once again... *PLEASE*... keep the thread about basketball. Posts like the one above is why these threads get off track.


Boy, if you aren't something! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Weren't you one of the first to TAKE IT OFF TOPIC? 

Johnston's post was about their relationship, but you've clearly grabbed hold of it as an extension of your locked thread. 

C'mon man, at least be intellectually honest about your intent.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I believe he is, although the Bulls don't believe in the labels. Perhaps you enlighten all of us why he is NOT a point guard and why Duhon is BETTER than him.


Poor entry passer. Has trouble guarding 1s... better at guarding 2s. Holds on to the ball for too long. Takes an inordinate amount of the teams shots... especially given that he's a low % shooter.

If you don't believe me... believe Paxson and Skiles... they say the same thing.

Great combo guard. Can play point when asked. Not a "pure" point guard.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Boy, if you aren't something! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Weren't you one of the first to TAKE IT OFF TOPIC?
> 
> Johnston's post was about their relationship, but you've clearly grabbed hold of it as an extension of your locked thread.
> 
> C'mon man, at least be intellectually honest about your intent.


(not responding to keep thread about basketball) 
(PM me if you want to discuss)


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Kismet said:


> You've got to see through it, miz. There's still alot of hard feelings on this board because between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was, in a manner of speaking, _the last man standing_. Those that would have preferred to see JC running the offense and may have in fact, resented Paxson's selection of Kirk on draft day in the first place will continue in their attempts to devalue him. It gives them a chance to say, "I told you so," in a very subtle, abstract manner.
> 
> Had Jason Williams remained a viable member of this team allowing Paxson to deal Crawford and our #7 pick in '03 instead of using it on Kirk, you'd be reading similar criticisms about Jay from pretty much the same crew of posters.
> 
> Simply put, I view much of the Hinrich hating that goes on in these threads as nothing more than bitterness about the fact that Hinrich's here and Crawford isn't. Some people hold grudges longer than others, I suppose.


Theres no question about it. When I joined these boards I never knew so many fans who would purport to be Bulls fans were really just about idolizing their boo, team be damned.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I'd still like to know what the Duhon/Hinrich "who is better" question has to do with Skiles' man-crush on Kirk. I didn't see Duhon mentioned anywhere in the love-fest.

It would be nice if people would keep the thread on-topic. Maybe there should be a "Duhon or Hinrich, Who Is The Better Player" thread?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think its pretty clear that Hinrich is not a PG.
> 
> And... once again... as I said in my original post... the main reason Seattle and Wash do the trade is that "something is better than nothing."
> 
> ...


k4e, I can expect such lapses in logic from sloth but when it comes from you I can only come to the conclusion that you're baiting. First off, how enticing is a backcourt of Ridnour and Kirk or Arenas and Kirk to those respective teams? Secondly, what makes you think that the Sonics and Wizards won't get better offers than Kirk plus an expiring contract for arguably the best player on their playoff bound teams? You threw that post out there in anticipation that some posters would quickly jump the gun and say hell no.

But to meet your bait, no, I don't think a backcourt of Gordon/Duhon/Allen or Duhon/Gordon/Hughes is better than Kirk/Duhon/Gordon. Why? Neither of those players provide the defensive intensity that Kirk brings nor does either player provide us minutes at the point (since I don't see Ben being capable of playing the point). Furthermore, Allen is getting up there in years and is the type of player we should consider adding to put us over the top. I have to honestly say that we aren't near that level yet.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Poor entry passer. Has trouble guarding 1s... better at guarding 2s. Holds on to the ball for too long. Takes an inordinate amount of the teams shots... especially given that he's a low % shooter.
> 
> If you don't believe me... believe Paxson and Skiles... they say the same thing.
> 
> Great combo guard. Can play point when asked. Not a "pure" point guard.


Aside from %, its your opinion. And as for %, I don't see Duhon rocking Kirk's world on that front. 

As far as checking with Pax and Skiles, its clear that you ought to. Actually, they didn't say a single thing that you did. Perhaps you'd like to provide some links instead of just typing away.

I pointed out what Skiles said, he doesn't believe in labels - they're all guards.

You've got your wish though man, you've taken over the thread and the K4E 600-page bash fest is under way once again.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Aside from %, its your opinion. And as for %, I don't see Duhon rocking Kirk's world on that front.


No... its the # of shots that Hinrich takes vs the # of shots that Duhon takes. Read it again.




> As far as checking with Pax and Skiles, its clear that you ought to. Actually, they didn't say a single thing that you did. Perhaps you'd like to provide some links instead of just typing away.


I can provide quote after quote to this affect.

"Kirk is not a PG. He's not a SG. He's just a G" Everyone has seen this.



> You've got your wish though man, you've taken over the thread and the K4E 600-page bash fest is under way once again.


false. just proposing a trade.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Kismet said:


> You've got to see through it, miz. There's still alot of hard feelings on this board because between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was, in a manner of speaking, _the last man standing_. Those that would have preferred to see JC running the offense and may have in fact, resented Paxson's selection of Kirk on draft day in the first place will continue in their attempts to devalue him. It gives them a chance to say, "I told you so," in a very subtle, abstract manner.
> 
> Had Jason Williams remained a viable member of this team allowing Paxson to deal Crawford and our #7 pick in '03 instead of using it on Kirk, you'd be reading similar criticisms about Jay from pretty much the same crew of posters.
> 
> Simply put, I view much of the Hinrich hating that goes on in these threads as nothing more than bitterness about the fact that Hinrich's here and Crawford isn't. Some people hold grudges longer than others, I suppose.


I like when people just cut to the obvious truth like this. Well done.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> Man, I'm disappointed in you K4E.


To be "disappointed" requires that you had a prior expectation for something better than what you ultimately received. I've never been disappointed in K4E.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And once again... *PLEASE*... keep the thread about basketball. Posts like the one above is why these threads get off track.


I see this post as the more confrontational one that leads threads off track. You've bulit a reputation on this board, k4e, on the topics that you choose to post about. Mr.T was asking questions along those lines. How was it not related to basketball discussion?

You've been prolific in pertpetuating what your opinions are, and I think when we see a a post of yours, k4e, we to an extent know what we're going to read before we read it. I understand that it's a subject you enjoy discussing, but your motives aren't steering towards any type of closure. Why? For a small victory here and there?

It amazes me that in season like this that there are Bulls fans like yourself that are so irritated.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Contrast this:



kukoc4ever said:


> Its that Hinrich was simply not missed. *There was not 1 part of any of the 2 games where there was a moment to think... "damn, i wish hinrich was in the game."* Most of this is due to Duhon. Pargo steeped up admirably last night to eat up some minutes.


with this from the Celtic Game:



> Get pargo out of there. Everytime hes in we start to lose..... I can't stand it when hes in...and now as i type hes having trouble moving the offense, not to mention hes fouling now


or this:



> Duhon checks in for the dreadful Pargo.
> 
> They seem to be hitting everything but we're only down 6.


or even this:



> YA at least its even so far
> 
> Get pike and Pargo way out of here


possibly this:



> I can honestly say Piatkowski is completely worthless.


or maybe this:



> I agree. Pike and Pargo have no business being on this team. Let's hope they get replaced next year.


how about this:



> Pike 2-7.
> 
> better let Grif play...


this:



> lotsa air on that last attempt. wow. :sour: (refering to a hugely missed Pike airball)


here's another:



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


this one:



> as much as i love Pax, he needed to get some help in here. Somebody, anybody(refering to competent guard play)


dieser:



> Yessssss Pike Has 5 Fouls
> 
> Now We Wont See His Awful Shot For The Rest Of The Night


hmmmm:



> We complain about Hinrich shooting bad I rather have him in there than Pike and Pargo who are supposed to be shooters.


consider this:



> We need captain kirk
> 
> He will improve our defense on the perimiter
> 
> He can actually move the ball and shoot unlike duhon


another:



> PARGO YOU MORON!! I cant handle it.


one more:



> I wish we had hinrich right now even if he wasnt scoring his defense would be that little umph we need right now to put us over the celts


or this from the Toronto game:



> Bulls offense not looking good early without Kirk out there, despite 8-5 lead. Toronto isn't doing anything but shooting perimeter jumpers, which is a HUGE help. Bulls already with 5 turnovers...and now Pike has picked up 2 quick fouls, which could be a problems, given Gordon's occasional tendency to get in foul trouble himself.


this:



> Gordon with 2 fouls already... Pike with 2 fouls.... this looks bad. With Hinrich out we will see either Pargo or Griffin in. I think Skiles should have NOC at SF and Deng at SG.


this one's interesting:



> "We would rather have Kirk every night , of course," Skiles said. "But not having him and the way our guys were able to come in here and get this win is big for us."


check this one out:



> In with the Ben, out with the Pargo please.


this:



> Kirk brings passion and energy every night and toughness for us out there. The thing that’s been different for us this year is that we have a lot of guys who bring that. We would rather have Kirk every night of course, but not having him and our guys being able to come in here and get this win is big for us.


and finally:



> We didn’t have Kirk Hinrich either, who really is our floor general. So it made it a little bit different. But everyone stepped up and played great defense.


...your perspective seems to be quite a bit different than many on the game threads and on the team.

Go figure.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Well, thank God we have Paxson as GM, and I'm confident that there is no way in hell he would trade Hinrich for Hughes.
> 
> Hughes is NOT a good defender, he gets a lot of steals because he gambles and plays the passing lanes a lot. He also loses a lot of those gambles, leaving opponents with wide-open shots.
> 
> There is a reason that a team with a very good defensive center like Brenda has such a horrible defense (7th worst opp FG%, 4th most points allowed) despite being 3rd in the league in steals.


Ridiculous. Hughes is one of the best defenders in the league... better than Hinrich, though not by much. If the Wizard's defense is bad, it's definitely not his fault. 

He might gamble a bit, but he's also fantastically quick with great instincts. He's a great man defender that also plays the passing lanes well. 

Hughes is putting up 22 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists, and 3 steals a game, while shooting .422, a very respectable % and much better than Kirk's. He also has some point skills and can run the point decently. 

You can call the defense a wash if you want, but throw in the fact that Hughes is on another level offensively and it's not that close.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The better all-around player? It's not really that close, a few people might tell you Duhon but I'm guessing maybe 5% at the most.



Kukoc4Ever said:


> Why isn't it close?
> 
> Any reason other than just the results of a hypothetical poll?


"And the Bulls did it without leader Kirk Hinrich" - Peter May, Boston Globe "And the Bulls did it without leader Kirk Hinrich" - Peter May, Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...05/03/26/at_the_end_bulls_horn_in_on_the_fun/

"Some might consider it blasphemous for the Celtics to lose a home game to a Bulls contingent without starting guard Kirk Hinrich." - Steve Bulpett, Boston Globe http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/view.bg?articleid=75150

Instead of asking the "mob" of "Hinrichlovers" here, why don't you ask these 2 impartial NBA observers why they think that Kirk is our "leader" or why losing at home to the Bulls without Hinrich is "blasphemous"? 

If you are really interested and not just BSing and baiting, email them and ask them.
If you are really interested and not just BSing and baiting, I'll find you the names of 50 other NBA beat writers who think Hinrich is the Bulls best player, and you can ask them as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Why is a trade proposal of Kirk Hinrich for Larry Hughes considered baiting?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> To be "disappointed" requires that you had a prior expectation for something better than what you ultimately received. I've never been disappointed in K4E.



(not responding to keep thread about basketball)
(PM me if you want to discuss)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why is a trade proposal of Kirk Hinrich for Larry Hughes considered baiting?


It isn't. Who said it was?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Kirk is my boo, too.


I'm not gonna lie. The first time I read that comment, I was like "Where the **** did that come from?"

:krazy:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Since this is the slippery slope this thread is heading down, its worth repeating -



> Originally posted by *GOODHOPE*
> 
> When I (and many others) did post in response to the rhetorical question, "Is Hinrich more useful by playing or not playing?" with a resounding, "he is worth more playing than not," you didn't pay much attention. You paid a lot more attention to how people responded to you, as evidence of our "group think" and your "objectivity."
> 
> ...


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2034602&postcount=245<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Ridiculous. Hughes is one of the best defenders in the league... better than Hinrich, though not by much. If the Wizard's defense is bad, it's definitely not his fault.
> 
> He might gamble a bit, but he's also fantastically quick with great instincts. He's a great man defender that also plays the passing lanes well.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%. Hughes is a phenomenal basketball player would be a great addition to the team.

Awesome defense. Very fast and athletic. Can score. Can distribute (not as well as Hinrich perhaps... but we're talking about a 2 guard... not a 1)... rebounds... an absolute monster in getting steals.

This guy would help us take the team to the next level. 

Imaging him out there with Deng, Curry, Chandler... and with a good distributor and defender like Duhon... damn.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Kismet said:


> You've got to see through it, miz. There's still alot of hard feelings on this board because between Crawford and Hinrich, Kirk was, in a manner of speaking, _the last man standing_. Those that would have preferred to see JC running the offense and may have in fact, resented Paxson's selection of Kirk on draft day in the first place will continue in their attempts to devalue him. It gives them a chance to say, "I told you so," in a very subtle, abstract manner.
> 
> Had Jason Williams remained a viable member of this team allowing Paxson to deal Crawford and our #7 pick in '03 instead of using it on Kirk, you'd be reading similar criticisms about Jay from pretty much the same crew of posters.
> 
> Simply put, I view much of the Hinrich hating that goes on in these threads as nothing more than bitterness about the fact that Hinrich's here and Crawford isn't. Some people hold grudges longer than others, I suppose.



spot on as usual *kismet!*. and here i let myself get intimidated by it, to the point where i actually went back and edited that post thinking it wasn't "very nice of me" calling out specific guys. 

i'm going to go do some girlie stuff, get my nails done and pick up the latest copy of Paris VOGUE, and i'll let you boys argue the finer details. i'm just going to continue to be a fan. of the team. and of kirk. and ben. and chris. and tyson. and eddy. and luol. et al. 

too bad the whole TEAM concept that pax and skiles have worked so hard to implement is lost on some people here. i mean, people who don't like to cheer for a player because they don't like that _players fans?_ 

wow.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mr. T, I think we should just keep Good Hope's magnificent post handy to end all threads like this. Considering that this dreck pops up daily regardless of whether the initiating post is about Hinrich's value or not, this practice might save us all a lot of time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It isn't. Who said it was?


I've seen the term "baiting" being thrown around. Look at the thread. Read the posts.

All I'm interested in is talking about potential trades involving Hinrich ... hopefully to improve our situation at the 2. Paxson's steal of a pick in the 2nd round in Duhon has perhaps made this possible.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> too bad the whole TEAM concept that pax and skiles have worked so hard to implement is lost on some people here. i mean, people who don't like to cheer for a player because they don't like that _players fans?_
> 
> wow.


Just throwing out a trade that could potentially improve the team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I've seen the term "baiting" being thrown around. Look at the thread. Read the posts.
> 
> *All I'm interested in is talking about potential trades involving Hinrich * ... hopefully to improve our situation at the 2. Paxson's steal of a pick in the 2nd round in Duhon has perhaps made this possible.


Maybe you should start a thread about that then, because this one was supposed to be about Skiles' thoughts on Hinrich.

You could call it "Why Hinrich's best games are the ones he doesn't play in, but I like Hinrich, Hinrich is the best player on the team but Duhon is better, and other thoughts about Hinrichlove and groupthink."

I'm sure it would skyrocket to 17 pages by tip-off.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I see this post as the more confrontational one that leads threads off track. You've bulit a reputation on this board, k4e, on the topics that you choose to post about. Mr.T was asking questions along those lines. How was it not related to basketball discussion?
> 
> You've been prolific in pertpetuating what your opinions are, and I think when we see a a post of yours, k4e, we to an extent know what we're going to read before we read it. I understand that it's a subject you enjoy discussing, but your motives aren't steering towards any type of closure. Why? For a small victory here and there?
> 
> It amazes me that in season like this that there are Bulls fans like yourself that are so irritated.


( not responding to keep thread about basketball )
( PM me if you want to discuss )


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Considering k4e's talent evaluation skills lead him to believe our team would sorely miss the combined talents of Jalen and Jamal, maybe we shouldn't take his basketball related musings to heart? In fact, based on the opinion expressed within this thread, I'm more convinced than ever that Kirk is a very good player and the PG of the future for the Bullies.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why is a trade proposal of Kirk Hinrich for Larry Hughes considered baiting?


 It isn't baiting. All trade proposals are valid and it's up to the posters to decide whether the trade is good or bad. Why should Kirk be held to a different standard than any other player?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why is a trade proposal of Kirk Hinrich for Larry Hughes considered baiting?


 If your modus operandi wasn't to incite then I apologize. But I'm fairly certain that an apology is not in order. 

Let's review k4e - you've long held your view that Hinrich isn't an All-Star by any means. Similarly, you've held a view that Hinrich isn't appreciated/glorified as much in the rest of the world as he is on these message boards. So now you propose a trade of Hinrich for Allen or Hughes that arguably would not improve our team and certainly hurt the other teams. For what purpose? The only reason I can see is that you're anticipating some posters to respond with "Good God no!" and you can follow up by pointing out these posters as Hinrich homers that are incapable of discussing basketball in an objective manner.

But once again, if I've misinterpreted your intentions then I apologize and beg your forgiveness.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Since this is the slippery slope this thread is heading down, its worth repeating -
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2034602&postcount=245<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->





kukoc4ever said:


> Part of the joy of basketball, IMO, is the flair. The no-look pass, the in-your-face dunk, the shimmy, the shake.... as long as its done with an adequate amount of sportsmanship and does not detract from winning the game.... go for it.
> 
> Pro basketball is not the military. Its not the NFL.
> 
> Of course fundamentals are important. But without talent you'll quickly hit a ceiling. And without flair you'll be boring.


We have two different philosophies.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Ridiculous. Hughes is one of the best defenders in the league... better than Hinrich, though not by much. If the Wizard's defense is bad, it's definitely not his fault.
> 
> He might gamble a bit, but he's also fantastically quick with great instincts. He's a great man defender that also plays the passing lanes well.


I would disagree, as would a lot of other people, but there is no way of proving who is the better man defender. Just as many people would say Hughes is a better defender. I think we'll all get to see for ourselves in the first round of the playoffs. 



> Hughes is putting up 22 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists, and 3 steals a game, while shooting .422, a very respectable % and much better than Kirk's. He also has some point skills and can run the point decently.
> 
> You can call the defense a wash if you want, but throw in the fact that Hughes is on another level offensively and it's not that close.


On another level? Hughes' adjusted FG% is 45.0, Hinrich's is 45.1%. Hughes shoots a higher overall percentage, but Kirk shoots a lot more 3's, so FG shooting is a wash. Hughes has scored 735 points on 816 FGA, Hinrich 851 points on 943 FGA. Hughes does get to the line a lot more, but he also turns the ball over more and has a worst ast/TO ratio. 

I'll give Hughes the edge on offense, but I would attribute most of that to his being 2 years older than Kirk. But it certainly isn't at another level IMO, and it is close. And I'll give Hughes the edge on playing the passing lanes, but I give Hinrich the edge on playing tough D on his man.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just throwing out a trade that could potentially improve the team.




was i talking to you? no. i was referring to SPMJ's post about not liking a player because they don't like his fans. that is just TWISTED. 

and so how about this backcourt?: *hinrich/gordon/hughes*

rock on!!!! now that would improve the team!!!! :rock:

i have no idea how to get that done or what it would take player/money wise.... but duhon is FAR FAR FAR more "expendable" than kirk at this point, in my humble know nothing opinion. 

later kids.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> If your modus operandi wasn't to incite then I apologize. But I'm fairly certain that an apology is not in order.
> 
> Let's review k4e - you've long held your view that Hinrich isn't an All-Star by any means. Similarly, you've held a view that Hinrich isn't appreciated/glorified as much in the rest of the world as he is on these message boards. So now you propose a trade of Hinrich for Allen or Hughes that arguably would not improve our team and certainly hurt the other teams. For what purpose? The only reason I can see is that you're anticipating some posters to respond with "Good God no!" and you can follow up by pointing out these posters as Hinrich homers that are incapable of discussing basketball in an objective manner.
> 
> But once again, if I've misinterpreted your intentions then I apologize and beg your forgiveness.


Honestly.. I'm not interested it going after individual posters like so many are on this thread. I'm not responding to it anymore... since I know where it leads. 

I just was throwing out a trade proposal. 

Seems like some believe it would help the Bulls. Hughes is a great player. Landing Duhon in the 2nd round has given the Bulls some flexibility. We've been talking about acquiring "bigger guards" all year.

So what if I'm convinced that Hinrich is going to be an all-star? I'm entitled to my opinion. I think many would agree that Hughes is better than Hinrich.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I know one thing, I'll be watching and hoping the Bulls win their fifth in a row tonight. Keep the playoff push going, move into the fourth seed. Indy had a long delay last night, played an emotional game, and should be there for the taking. 

No agendas. No hoping we lose just to shut some people up. Long ago I suspect we all learned that some people are more about agendas than the team. I suppose when we sucked it was easy to get sidetracked like that. *News Flash* - we don't suck any more. 

It really is time for everybody to get on board. Bandwagoners get a bad rap sometimes. They may only jump on in good times, but usually they're just about the team. We could use a little more of that. We're watching our young players mature and become better players. Too bad the same dynamic wasn't occurring at bbb.net.

I don't have any "boos", I have one favorite team - the "bools". :clown:


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Hughes would be a perfect fit on your team, you could play him in the backcourt with Gordon for a good amount of minutes since he can handle the ball and distribute. Defensively, Hughes is better than Kirk. Larry isn't a Lebron or even an Arenas type player who just gambles all the time and leaves his man open. He gets steals with extreme pressure defense and quick hands, he's probably the most skilled player at getting steals in the NBA. The reason Washingtons defense is bad is because of the coaching, Eddie Jordan has horrible defensive schemes that leave shooters wide open, and the players don't rotate on D.


I mentioned a Kirk for Hughes type trade, but I don't think Washington would actually do it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I've seen the term "baiting" being thrown around. Look at the thread. Read the posts.


I am reading the posts. Nobody said or implied that suggesting a Hinrich for Hughes trade is "baiting". So why make that explicit suggestion? 

Because if you were interested in a serious discussion, you would simply ask "How have I baited"? 



> All I'm interested in is talking about potential trades involving Hinrich ... hopefully to improve our situation at the 2. Paxson's steal of a pick in the 2nd round in Duhon has perhaps made this possible.


Quit lying, it's not ALL you are interested in talking about. You are also interested in why Hinrich is a better PG than Duhon.


> Why is Hinrich a better PG than Duhon? I'd be interested to hear the argument.


If you want to be taken seriously, quit making stuff up. You have changed what you are interested in discussing several times already in this thread. Keep claiming "victim" all you want, everybody sees what is going on.

And no, I don't have a poll to prove that everyone sees what is going on.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> It isn't baiting. All trade proposals are valid and it's up to the posters to decide whether the trade is good or bad. Why should Kirk be held to a different standard than any other player?


Actually its putting words in the mouths of other posters. Where was K4E told proposing a trade was baiting? Thats ludicrous and simply a poor way to try to redefine the debate.

Baiting might be suggesting a guy is the best player on the team one day while back pedaling in a thread AND suggesting Duhon is better than him when revived and ready for thread warfare on another day.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Considering k4e's talent evaluation skills lead him to believe our team would sorely miss the combined talents of Jalen and Jamal, maybe we shouldn't take his basketball related musings to heart? In fact, based on the opinion expressed within this thread, I'm more convinced than ever that Kirk is a very good player and the PG of the future for the Bullies.


 :clap: 

That is just an outstanding way of looking at things. 100% true.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> and so how about this backcourt?: *hinrich/gordon/hughes*
> 
> rock on!!!! now that would improve the team!!!! :rock:
> 
> i have no idea how to get that done or what it would take player/money wise.... but duhon is FAR FAR FAR more "expendable" than kirk at this point, in my humble know nothing opinion.


I don't think Duhon alone would be enough to land a player of the caliber that I'm pining for.... but yah... that would be even better. More size in the starting lineup ... two guards that can handle and play D and distribute... Gordon coming off the bench.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Shanghai Kid said:


> I mentioned a Kirk for Hughes type trade, but I don't think Washington would actually do it.


Just curious Shanghai Kid, but why would you want Kirk when you already have Arenas in the backcourt?

And who was the Washington poster that insisted that Hinrich was no better than Steven Blake?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I am reading the posts. Nobody said or implied that suggesting a Hinrich for Hughes trade is "baiting". So why make that explicit suggestion?
> 
> Because if you were interested in a serious discussion, you would simply ask "How have I baited"?
> 
> ...



( not responding to keep thread about basketball )
( please PM to discuss )


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Sorry guys, I think this thread is spiraling away, and I don't think it's going anywhere productive. Let's take a breather - LOCK - ES


----------

