# This is Kirk Hinrich's team.



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

The more I watch the Bulls play, the more I come to the conclusion that Kirk Hinrich is our best player. Even if his box score tonight didn't look as impressive as Crawford's, it was Hinrich that made almost every big play down the stretch to preserve the win. The more I see of him, I can't help but feel that he is our best draft pick since....well, Brand and Artest. He's just one of those guys whose value to a team doesn't entirely show up in the box score. As high as I was on Crawford going into this season, I have a feeling that we've found our Pg for the next decade or so and it's not him.

This is definitely not a knock on Crawford, who's a spectacular offensive player when he's on his game. But I'm starting to wonder if he's the best fit for this team- as a SG, he will always be overmatched physically. As dissapointing as Caron Butler has been for Miami this season, trading Crawford for him is starting to look pretty good from where I'm standing.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Afterall. It's important that we have only one good guard.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i think the two play off of each other quite nicely. i think hinrich needs to shoot the ball in order to be at his most dangerous. today's game is a good example. both guys were a threat to shoot from three or take people off of the dribble to create for themselves or others, the floor spacing hasn't been this good since the orlando game and when it happens gill happens to get a lot of good looks. i think the two can coexist in the same way chandler and curry will end up working out. by all appearences chandler and cirk  will look like the scrappy, all hustle, 'mirror image of their coach', defensive minded players and crawford and curry will the offensively talented, but too damn smooth and finesse-y for our likeing. in reality (and imo) these four guys will develop into mutli-dimensional talents. i think hinrich could light up a score board, chandler will have a good midrange jumper and passing skills, jamal will be a decent defender, and curry will bring his rebounding and defense to a more than respectable level.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Afterall. It's important that we have only one good guard.
> 
> THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!


No one's saying that there must only be one good guard- if that's what you got from my post, than you completely missed my message. Crawford can do things offensively that Kirk can't (and indeed, few players can)- and that's certainly important. But as far as who leads this team by example, who makes the important plays when the team needs it most, Hinrich is the more valuable player. All I'm saying is that if we had to keep one, it would easily be Kirk IMO.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> i think the two play off of each other quite nicely. i think hinrich needs to shoot the ball in order to be at his most dangerous. today's game is a good example. both guys were a threat to shoot from three or take people off of the dribble to create for themselves or others, the floor spacing hasn't been this good since the orlando game and when it happens gill happens to get a lot of good looks. i think the two can coexist in the same way chandler and curry will end up working out. by all appearences chandler and cirk will look like the scrappy, all hustle, 'mirror image of their coach', defensive minded players and crawford and curry will the offensively talented, but too damn smooth and finesse-y for our likeing. in reality (and imo) these four guys will develop into mutli-dimensional talents. i think hinrich could light up a score board, chandler will have a good midrange jumper and passing skills, jamal will be a decent defender, and curry will bring his rebounding and defense to a more than respectable level.


Good post- I'd like to see it work out that way too.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> The more I watch the Bulls play, the more I come to the conclusion that Kirk Hinrich is our best player. .....As dissapointing as Caron Butler has been for Miami this season, trading Crawford for him is starting to look pretty good from where I'm standing.


Yes, I am glad that Pax did draft the Kirk, he is the first real
building block since the beginning of the “Great Depression”.
I hope that Tyson will be the second building block.

Together with Jamal , we also could consider trading the Fiser and Curry for the future first round picks and convert Crawford, Eddy and Fiser into at least:

1. two good solid players or
2. solid player (not older guys) and one first round draft, or
3. two future first round draft picks (new potentials )

We need to go back to the draft and tried to catch something special . It is the only one way for Bulls to get a “real stuff”. No one will trade to the Bulls a special player unless he is a fake or they got JK as a consultant :laugh:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I am glad that Pax did draft the Kirk, he is the first real
> ...


Unfortunately, this is not likely. We did miss a great draft this past year, although we nabbed Hinrich. We stockpiled 1st rounders in the worst year, 2000. 

Next year's draft, it looks like Okafor and Deng are the guys to grab. Deng will need to develop, but he'll develop a lot in the next year in school and might be Carmelo-level ready. Or, he might not be. Dajuan Wagner was an incredibly highly touted high schooler, and his year in Memphis was alright, but he didn't come out as polished as he wanted to. Of course, Deng has an excellent coach at Duke and a higher quality program, so it might make the difference.

Okafor is an incredible athlete, made to be a Theo Ratliff/Ben Wallace type except with more aptitude on offense. I read an article on the guy in ESPN the Mag I think, and he's the most intelligent guy I've ever seen approach the game. He spends endless hours with guards like Gordon and other guys, grilling them as to what they are thinking when they are pentrating the lane, trying to understand their mentalities and their brains so as to predict what they'll do and how they'll shoot. He's a super-intelligent shotblocker with a good GPA and very high demeanor, a perfect fit with Hinrich.

Hahahaha.... wow. Are we going to start a thread that says "This Chandler/Curry thing is a wash"? Should we just totally abandon Plan C of the Krause era and go with new blood altogether?

NBADraft.net has Andre Iguodala as a late first-rounder, but from what I've seen, this kid is a solid talent. He can shoot, he can board, he can score from different places, and he's pretty athletic. On a poor shooting night in a one point loss to Florida earlier this year (Florida is an excellent team this year), Iguodala shot horribly (2 for13 from the field) but he pulled down 10 boards and dished out 8 assists. That shows versatility. In his best game of the season, he notched a triple-double against a very good Texas team, 13 pts, 13 boards, 10 assists, 2 blocks and a steal. Supposedly he's an excellent defender as well, which is what we need at that position too. 

He will rise in the draft to the late lottery positions, which gives us an excellent shot at nabbing them.

There's a lot to think about this offseason. If we stayed healthy, then this season would have been progress. But injuries have hurt us in the short run and the long, and there's a lot to think about as far as considering the face of this team.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

Kirk is a good complementary player, but he is not our best player and will never be. The best player on a team is a player who can carry the load on offense and be the center piece on defense. Kirk is not a scorer and will never be one. He is one of those guys who really understand how to play team basketball and will always give you hustle plays, but he's no franchise player. 

Our franchise players remain to be Chandler and Curry, as it has been for the last couple of years.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this is not likely. We did miss a great draft this past year, although we nabbed Hinrich. We stockpiled 1st rounders in the worst year, 2000.
> ...


I ask again, why are Bulls fans banking on Deng coming out after his freshman year?

He's not near Carmelo's level anyway...


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Kirk is a good complementary player, but he is not our best player and will never be. The best player on a team is a player who can carry the load on offense and be the center piece on defense. Kirk is not a scorer and will never be one. He is one of those guys who really understand how to play team basketball and will always give you hustle plays, but he's no franchise player.
> 
> Our franchise players remain to be Chandler and Curry, as it has been for the last couple of years.


I mean that Kirk is our best player right now. Ideally, Curry and Chandler would be our franchise players, but so far this year Chandler has been hampered by back injuries and Curry has played extremely soft. The only guy that has really stepped forward this year is Kirk, and that is why he is currently our best player. Seriously, who has played better for us this year than Kirk?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I mean that Kirk is our best player right now. Ideally, Curry and Chandler would be our franchise players, but so far this year Chandler has been hampered by back injuries and Curry has played extremely soft. The only guy that has really stepped forward this year is Kirk, and that is why he is currently our best player. Seriously, who has played better for us this year than Kirk?


I think you have a point. Kirk has displayed more leadership than any one of our guys, although thats not saying much. Hes hustled, been more consistent and has not displayed the least bit of selfishness. Thats something only Chandler can brag, but hes been injured most of the season. 

If Curry and JC hustled and were as consistent and vocal as Hinrich, then they would easily be the leaders. Its not Hinrichs talent, but his toughness and heart. 

Thats why hes so valuable at this point, hes the ultimate roleplayer. I could see him playing a vital role on a championship team in his career, whether or not its the Bulls. Hes a winner.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> NBADraft.net has Andre Iguodala as a late first-rounder, but from what I've seen, this kid is a solid talent. He can shoot, he can board, he can score from different places, and he's pretty athletic. On a poor shooting night in a one point loss to Florida earlier this year (Florida is an excellent team this year), Iguodala shot horribly (2 for13 from the field) but he pulled down 10 boards and dished out 8 assists. That shows versatility. In his best game of the season, he notched a triple-double against a very good Texas team, 13 pts, 13 boards, 10 assists, 2 blocks and a steal. Supposedly he's an excellent defender as well, which is what we need at that position too.


I've watched a lot of Arizona, as I love college hoops, and I've seen a bunch of Andre Iguodala. Iggy's is a great talent, and I love his versatility, but he has got to develop a consistent outside shot for us to even consider him. He's an elite athlete (R-Jeff type athleticism, perhaps even more) with a prototypical basketball body. Lean, long and strong, and he does a lot of things well. He's a very good defender due to his athleticism, quickness and length, and he's a great rebounder. I think he'd be a great prospect if it weren't for his relative inability to hit anything outside 15 feet. Has he hit the college three? Sure. Is he consistent? Hell no. Does he have to potential to develop a shot? I think so. Right now, I liken Iguodala to another famous Arizona alum -- Richard Jefferson. R-Jeff had a relatively complete package when he left college, except for a consistent perimeter jumper. Great defense, great motivation, good instincts, decent shot, great athleticism, great fundamentals, great upside. I think in time Iguodala could become a talent in the same vein as R-Jeff.....but then again, prognostication is always hard to....uh...prognosticate. Anyways........

In regards to Hinrich, I believe he can be a very capable scorer (18-20 ppg) and a very effective assist man (8-10 apg) in due time, given the right situation(s). In absolute sincerity, I've never, ever seen a more dominant player on the court in pickup games (one-on-one, talent-laden environment) against elite competition (ie, vs. Paul Pierce, Scot Pollard, Drew Gooden, Danny Manning, Jacque Vaughn, Rex Walters, etc) than Kirk Hinrich. Kid is just flat-out nuts, completely dominant. Whenever he wanted to score, he could (not would) score, be it on a drive, in transition, on a midrange jumper or from long range. He would dominate the game to the point where you knew which team was going to win provided you knew which team Kirk was on. I'm a broke-*** college student, but I'd bet my checking account that, all other things being equal, a team with Kirk Hinrich on it would beat a team with Paul Pierce on it 2 out of 3. Straight up, money on the table. I've seen the trend. In that light, I believe that if the offense calls for Kirk to score, he can score. But I think Kirk values setting others up to score before himself on the larger (and more practical, immediate) stage, and in that vein, I think he's invaluable to whatever organization he's on. He's a threat to score and to distribute whenever and wherever.

Whatever the case, I really, really, really hope Crawford can focus and harness his extraordinary skills here in Chicago so he can run alongside Kirk. I truly think they can be a special backcourt, one that is potent both offensively and defensively (JC has really buckled down on D the last few games, and he has the tools necessary to be a capable defender). Moreover, if that backcourt were to exist and flourish, it would cover all bases -- finesse, grit, defense, scoring, leadership, ball distribution, athleticism......it could be an absolute dynamite backcourt if given the time to synchronize, IMO. That's why I never gave up on Jamal, and why I'll never give up on him as long as he puts forth a concerted effort. JC has all the tools.....he just needs to develop a consistent comfort zone, and I think Kirk can offer that for him. I think Pax would be stupid to trade JC right now, seeing as how Jamal has actually lended an ear and given effort in improving himself on both ends of the court. Kid's got talent above and beyond a lot of PG/SGs right now. And if he improves to the point where his effort is commensurate with his talent, and if Hinrich keeps on keepin' on........watch out, Eastern Conference. I can only hope that Pax doesn't get stupid, and that he keeps JC, and that JC learns and WANTS to learn under Skiles. If that is the case, then Chicago will have, IMO, a backcourt to not only build on, but invest hopes in as well.

P.S. I said it before the season, and I was laughed at. I'll say it now, and risk being laughed at now. Kirk is not a role player. He's a main player.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I've watched a lot of Arizona, as I love college hoops, and I've seen a bunch of Andre Iguodala. Iggy's is a great talent, and I love his versatility, but he has got to develop a consistent outside shot for us to even consider him. He's an elite athlete (R-Jeff type athleticism, perhaps even more) with a prototypical basketball body. Lean, long and strong, and he does a lot of things well. He's a very good defender due to his athleticism, quickness and length, and he's a great rebounder. I think he'd be a great prospect if it weren't for his relative inability to hit anything outside 15 feet. Has he hit the college three? Sure. Is he consistent? Hell no. Does he have to potential to develop a shot? I think so. Right now, I liken Iguodala to another famous Arizona alum -- Richard Jefferson. R-Jeff had a relatively complete package when he left college, except for a consistent perimeter jumper. Great defense, great motivation, good instincts, decent shot, great athleticism, great fundamentals, great upside. I think in time Iguodala could become a talent in the same vein as R-Jeff.....but then again, prognostication is always hard to....uh...prognosticate. Anyways........
> 
> In regards to Hinrich, I believe he can be a very capable scorer (18-20 ppg) and a very effective assist man (8-10 apg) in due time, given the right situation(s). In absolute sincerity, I've never, ever seen a more dominant player on the court in pickup games (one-on-one, talent-laden environment) against elite competition (ie, vs. Paul Pierce, Scot Pollard, Drew Gooden, Danny Manning, Jacque Vaughn, Rex Walters, etc) than Kirk Hinrich. Kid is just flat-out nuts, completely dominant. Whenever he wanted to score, he could (not would) score, be it on a drive, in transition, on a midrange jumper or from long range. He would dominate the game to the point where you knew which team was going to win provided you knew which team Kirk was on. I'm a broke-*** college student, but I'd bet my checking account that, all other things being equal, a team with Kirk Hinrich on it would beat a team with Paul Pierce on it 2 out of 3. Straight up, money on the table. I've seen the trend. In that light, I believe that if the offense calls for Kirk to score, he can score. But I think Kirk values setting others up to score before himself on the larger (and more practical, immediate) stage, and in that vein, I think he's invaluable to whatever organization he's on. He's a threat to score and to distribute whenever and wherever.
> 
> ...


Nice post.:yes:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> The more I watch the Bulls play, the more I come to the conclusion that Kirk Hinrich is our best player. Even if his box score tonight didn't look as impressive as Crawford's, it was Hinrich that made almost every big play down the stretch to preserve the win. The more I see of him, I can't help but feel that he is our best draft pick since....well, Brand and Artest. He's just one of those guys whose value to a team doesn't entirely show up in the box score. As high as I was on Crawford going into this season, I have a feeling that we've found our Pg for the next decade or so and it's not him.
> 
> This is definitely not a knock on Crawford, who's a spectacular offensive player when he's on his game. But I'm starting to wonder if he's the best fit for this team- as a SG, he will always be overmatched physically. As dissapointing as Caron Butler has been for Miami this season, trading Crawford for him is starting to look pretty good from where I'm standing.


My feeling exactly and about time someone writes it down Louie!

By the way he's playing now as a rookie in an awful team,with a lot of presure on his slim sholders,i think he will grow to be one of the best pure PG's in the league.

the nums he's giving now to the team i think in 2 years he can easy stand on :

18 pnts,8 ast,4 rbds,2 stls,40+% on 3,80+% on 1,and his biggest asset to our game would still be his man to man D.he plays as tough as they get and gets all the credit from 2 other tough undersized gaurds in Skiles and Pax.He might not shoot like Pax or Pass like Skiles but he's way more athletic that gives him more options on D.

I love his game and think he and TC should be the Bricks for future.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Kirk has been our best player. Thats scary. He is a fine fine pro. will be a nice player. But you arent going to get far with him as your number one option. Lets hope he turns out to be our #3 or 4 guy. Even he would say that. But overall, im very happy with him and his effort has been great


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Kirk has been our best player. Thats scary. He is a fine fine pro. will be a nice player. But you arent going to get far with him as your number one option. Lets hope he turns out to be our #3 or 4 guy. Even he would say that. But overall, im very happy with him and his effort has been great


I agree. If you could see yourself writing this a few months ago, rlucas, I think you might have gone nuts.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. If you could see yourself writing this a few months ago, rlucas, I think you might have gone nuts.


I would have VV. Youve got that right. But I really thought this kid was going to be a bench player. especially after playing so poorly in preseason and summer league. But he has been so good that its just hard to keep him off the floor. He really knows how to play the game. I just dont think we can get too far with him playing as our best player, which he has been. But if he was your #3 guy, or #4 guy, then that shows how stacked you are. He was a nice pick by Pax. I like him


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> This is definitely not a knock on Crawford, who's a spectacular offensive player when he's on his game. But I'm starting to wonder if he's the best fit for this team- as a SG, he will always be overmatched physically. As dissapointing as Caron Butler has been for Miami this season, trading Crawford for him is starting to look pretty good from where I'm standing.


crawford didn't appear to be physically overmatched guarding the 6'8 240 lbs LBJames

who are these super guards that JC cant deal with because they are just too much for him ?

JC is the best player on the team its not kirk and the proof is this simple ...JC is a player that can be the difference between wins and losses ...the other teams know it and center on him ...not kirk and for that reason alone


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> who are these super guards that JC cant deal with because they are just too much for him ?


at the moment all of them.He's got to upgrade his D.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> at the moment all of them.He's got to upgrade his D.


ask lebron how good jamal's defense is ...i think he'll say its pretty good


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> crawford didn't appear to be physically overmatched guarding the 6'8 240 lbs LBJames
> ...


happygrinch, 


If that is a true, why is his trading value so low?

MJ, one of the Jamal’s supporters, valued him as: 

Jamal Crawford = Kwane Brown – Elton Brand


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> 
> 
> happygrinch,
> ...


thats was 2 years ago when he(JC) was less than 90 days back after an acl rehab ...i doubt very much JC's value today is as a throw in on a trade as you are insinuating (which by the way it wasn't because JK wouldn't do it)

its like asking how much would jared jeffries fetch on the open market today ?

ask that question in 2 years and i bet the answer would be different 

crawford's defense is better than people want to admit especially when he is tuned into putting forth a good effort


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

lol - just because one gm tries to rob another, that doesn't mean a players value is set in stone...from two years ago.

think of all the insane proposals coming from scott layden. this trade proposal from mj approaches that kind of territory. just because a gm throws it out there doesn't mean value is established, that's crazy talk.

would the clippers would trade brand straight up for kwame right now? that would be a steal for the clips right? the clips wouldn't even have to give up a 'throw-in jamal crawford' type player.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: This is Kirk Hinrich's team.*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> thats was 2 years ago when he(JC) was less than 90 days back after an acl rehab ...i doubt very much JC's value today is as a throw in on a trade as you are insinuating (which by the way it wasn't because JK wouldn't do it)
> ...


I hope, you are right, because Kirk needs a help to run that team and a dependable guard, who can guard and is not a good potential kid ? 

The truth is I don’t care how long it will take them (JC,EC,TC) to develop, as long as there is a visible progress in any areas, regardless of its magnitude . I am okay with it.

But for the most, IMO, I want to see the progress in their characters, attitudes, and physicals. And the sad part is, we are not seeking that yet.

So,IMO, they have a max. of six month to prove that they are real Bulls or not. 

Probation should be over not later that the end of the summer 2004.

Happy New Year ! And I hope all your wishes come true!
:yes:


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> crawford didn't appear to be physically overmatched guarding the 6'8 240 lbs LBJames


James had an off night- I wouldn't read too much into it.



> who are these super guards that JC cant deal with because they are just too much for him ?


Well, let's see......just about every high-scoring shooting guard who's bigger and/or stronger than he is. Kobe, TMac, Pierce, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Michael Finley, Corey Maggette, Richard Jefferson....the list goes on. JC may be an adequete defender down the road if he really commits himself and gets alot stronger, but for a 2 he is below average in height, strength, and athleticism. That doesn't mean that he still can't be an effective 2, but he will have to be damn good offensively every single night to compensate for his defensive shortcomings- otherwise, we will usually lose the matchup at the 2 spot against teams featuring any of the aformentioned 2 guards. Is it possible for JC to be that good offensively? I believe that he has the talent to do so, but he has yet to show it on any kind of consistent basis.



> JC is the best player on the team its not kirk and the proof is this simple ...JC is a player that can be the difference between wins and losses ...the other teams know it and center on him ...not kirk and for that reason alone


JC is our best offensive player, no doubt- but if you think that offense is all there is to basketball, I would have to question your knowledge of the game. Last night, it was Kirk and not Jamal that was the difference between winning and losing. For all of Crawford's scoring, we still would have lost to one of the worst teams in the league if not for Kirk's hustle plays down the stretch. We still need Jamal because he's really our only perimeter player that can create his own shot off the dribble, but Kirk is our best player- if you can't see that, then I'm not sure what team you've been watching.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

I don't think I am hearing anyone around the league saying..... 

....Kirk Hinrich and the Chicago Bulls!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> I don't think I am hearing anyone around the league saying.....
> 
> ....Kirk Hinrich and the Chicago Bulls!


well,thats because nobody's got any reason to even talk about the Bulls.they talk more about Kirk and his D then talking of the Bulls


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> well,thats because nobody's got any reason to even talk about the Bulls.they talk more about Kirk and his D then talking of the Bulls


Are you looking over my shoulder ?
:laugh:


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

hmmm interesting.. The Bulls will not do anything over the long run if they are depending on Hinrich carry the load and to lead this them.

He is a 3rd option @ best.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> JC is our best offensive player, no doubt- but if you think that offense is all there is to basketball, I would have to question your knowledge of the game. Last night, it was Kirk and not Jamal that was the difference between winning and losing. For all of Crawford's scoring, we still would have lost to one of the worst teams in the league if not for Kirk's hustle plays down the stretch. We still need Jamal because he's really our only perimeter player that can create his own shot off the dribble, but Kirk is our best player- if you can't see that, then I'm not sure what team you've been watching.


You're right Kirk was the difference...

In fact, let's just subtract Jamal's 30 points, and I'm sure Kirk's hustle plays make up the difference in what would be a 80-57 Bulls lost.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> 
> JC is our best offensive player, no doubt- but if you think that offense is all there is to basketball, I would have to question your knowledge of the game. Last night, it was Kirk and not Jamal that was the difference between winning and losing. For all of Crawford's scoring, we still would have lost to one of the worst teams in the league if not for Kirk's hustle plays down the stretch. We still need Jamal because he's really our only perimeter player that can create his own shot off the dribble, but Kirk is our best player- if you can't see that, then I'm not sure what team you've been watching.


Hinrich our Best player on the team........ 

My question is what team are you watching.

Hinrich is good, but not our best player. 

I swear the way some of you talk, Hinrich plays Defense all by himself out there. Hinrich's D against the opponents 5 players.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> hmmm interesting.. The Bulls will not do anything over the long run if they are depending on Hinrich carry the load and to lead this them.
> 
> He is a 3rd option @ best.


Agreed- he is probably a 3rd option on a _good_ team. But the Bulls are not a good team- they are currently one of the league's bottom dwellers. The Bulls have a number of guys that are capable of being better than Kirk, but so far no one has shown it this season.



> Hinrich our Best player on the team........
> 
> My question is what team are you watching.
> 
> Hinrich is good, but not our best player.


Name one player that has played better for us this season. The only guy that I could see you even being able to make a case for is Chandler, but he's been hampered by injuries all year and hasn't been around all that much.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> You're right Kirk was the difference...
> 
> In fact, let's just subtract Jamal's 30 points, and I'm sure Kirk's hustle plays make up the difference in what would be a 80-57 Bulls lost.


That's extremely flawed logic- if Crawford hadn't played, I guarantee that the score would not have been 80-57- the 20 shots that Crawford took would have been taken by other players, and the score would have been a hell of a lot closer than that. Would we have still lost? Yeah, probably- it was a close game. But my point is that Hinrich, overall, has done more for this team this season than Crawford has. Didn't you notice that we didn't even start to become competitive in most games until Hinrich took over the point? And while Crawford looked great at the 2 last night, he has been very inconsistent- in his previous 7 games, he scored 5, 12, 16, 22, 12, and 9 respectively. When scoring is your primary task and your the primary offensive option, that just doesn't cut it. Crawford can be a devestating offensive player, but he has not lived up to his potential so far this season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Didn't you notice that we didn't even start to become competitive in most games until Hinrich took over the point?


Sadly, some people just don't see this. They only see points on the scoreboard.

Human beings are by nature attracted to shiny objects.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> Name one player that has played better for us this season.


Jamal Crawford.
More points, assists, steals, and rebounds.
Less turnovers.

And he's starting to become a competant defender.

Kirk has been good. For a rookie. But he still has a lot of things to learn on the basketball court. He's still finding himself in this league. And I think the fact that he is a rookie is giving him a free pass around these parts, by most.(VincentVega is really the only one offering any real critiques on Hinrich's game). He'll be a nice player. But it's still just potential that we're talking about. Same as Jamal. He's got to realize his potential and play with consistency. He's been a suprise. But Jamal in his flashes of brilliance has been better than Kirk in his.

And as far as whose team it is....I think this is still Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler's team. At first I thought our backcourt could lead us. But it's clear that both of our guards need Eddy out there to get their spacing.

And actually as emotional as Tyson is and as much of a ruckus as he causes. This is still a team waiting for Eddy Curry. Once Eddy is ready then this is his team without question. He's the only one of our guys who has the natural talent to be an unstoppable force.

People compare Tyson with KG or Marcus Camby, depending on your lean. Those are not guys who win you championships.

Curry has been compared to Duncan and Shaq.(Albeit by drunken Bulls fans). Those are guys you hitch your wagon to and who take you to the promise land.

Unless Crawford becomes Michael Jordan he's not taking us anywhere.

And I don't see Hinrich being the man either.

We're still waiting for a certain somebody to wake up and realize he is as good as he wants to be.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> JC is our best offensive player, no doubt- but if you think that offense is all there is to basketball, I would have to question your knowledge of the game. Last night, it was Kirk and not Jamal that was the difference between winning and losing. For all of Crawford's scoring, we still would have lost to one of the worst teams in the league if not for Kirk's hustle plays down the stretch. We still need Jamal because he's really our only perimeter player that can create his own shot off the dribble, but Kirk is our best player- if you can't see that, then I'm not sure what team you've been watching.


I think youre waay off on this one .Kirk had 3 t/o's in crunch time .Did he make a couple of hustle plays ?YES but that was after giving up the rock in the first place .Crawford actually made the knockout punch early in the 4th quarter to give us the lead for good when he hit Blount for an open jumper and nailed a 3.

Kirk has been solid but he hasnt been that good at getting the ball in the hands of the players it needs to be in .Crawfords our #1 option but how many assists does Kirk get feeding Crawford when hes on ?Last night he had 1 assists to Crawford and rge ream ran much better when Crawford controls the tempo .

As Crawford goes so go the Bulls .I dont think you can really say that about a player and he not be considered your best player.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford.
> ...


Future, thanks for pointing something out. While we all like Kirk, he really isnt as good as JC now. Atleast on the offensive end. Defensively, totally different story. But the Kirk fans run rough shod on this board. and are blind to anything Kirk or Jamal related, with the exception of VV. VV is easily the most credible Kirk expert we have. And I am a proud member of his fan club


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> VV is easily the most credible Kirk expert we have. And I am a proud member of his fan club


My fan club meets on Friday nights. Per-person admission is a case of brew, one lampshade and at least two available women.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

We just have to wait and see what Curry brings to the floor when he gets back. Maybe he'll be encouraged by his teammates good play.

I think it's been a really good stretch, a time that Paxson didn't think would come until the summer. Curry has motivation to play hard, because he will get benched if he doesn't bring it hard. It's really different from the benchings of the BC days, though... Skiles has now proven that this team, though not decisively or with consistency, is CAPABLE of winning with their stars hurt. He can get away with sitting Curry for the entire first half and not worry that the team won't win... he will still get his shot at the win with the guys he puts out on the floor.

Curry is a key piece to this team, but now maybe he's realized that his buddy JC has stepped up and begun doing some big things.

This is as much KH's team as anyone else's, but if Curry doesn't bring some solid play back onto the floor, and if Crawford yo-yo's more with his shooting, then Hinrich, even with a rookie slump, will definitely be the most consistent talent on the squad.

Although, I might add, JYD and AD have been AMAZINGLY consistent. Almost too consistent. I'd like to see one of them blow up for a big game, although it's not likely. It's as if Paxson told them ahead of time what their season averages would be and now they know exactly how to get their 10 and 9, or 7 and 8.

But it's not their team. If it's going to be anyone's, it's his. Even through bad shooting, he still manages to run the floor well. Defense is tiring; he's not the fresh-out-of-the-gate prove to everyone that he's a true lottery pick. Now he'll have to be smart about how to play his defense... either learning how to know when to turn it up hardcore and when to just play it smart, or he'll have to become Superman.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by futuristxen!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford.
> ...


Wrong- Kirk is not just potential, he is already one of the better perimeter defenders in the Eastern conference. He plays with a wisdom and knack for the ball that exceeds his years, and he is the perfect example of a player who's true value doesn't show up in a box score. Kirk is the perfect example of a young player that is realizing his potential. Crawford's potential is almost certainly greater than Kirk's, but Crawford is lot less mature in his approach to the game (though he is improving in that regard).



> And as far as whose team it is....I think this is still Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler's team. At first I thought our backcourt could lead us. But it's clear that both of our guards need Eddy out there to get their spacing.
> 
> And actually as emotional as Tyson is and as much of a ruckus as he causes. This is still a team waiting for Eddy Curry. Once Eddy is ready then this is his team without question. He's the only one of our guys who has the natural talent to be an unstoppable force.
> 
> ...


I think some of you guys misinterpreted what I was trying to say; of course the future of this franchise still depends on Chandler, Curry and to a lesser extent Crawford moreso than it does on Kirk. All I'm trying to say is that Kirk has been our best player overall *so far this season*- _that_ is why I say that this is "his team" currently. Ideally, it can and should be Crawford or Curry's team, but neither of those guys have stepped up this season the way Hinrich has. Does that mean that Hinrich should be "the man" in the years to come? Hell no- we will go nowhere if he remains our best player. But that doesn't change the fact that he is still currently our best player, IMHO.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

how current is current? if we mean by the last two games, then jamal is our best player. so now it's his team yes?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Does it really matter who is more important and who is playing better?

Crawford is important. Hinrich is important. Crawford would find it harder without Hinrich. Hinrich would find it harder without Crawford. We have two good young guards who can both be very good players.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

You ran into a problem when you mis-titled the thread: "This is Kirk Hinrich's Team." And even if you titled it correctly (to your opinion): "Kirk has been our best player so far", it would still be wrong. 

All the things you mentioned he does = the performance of a good complimentary player. I mean, since Skiles, the kid is averaging 11 points on 40% shooting. If he's the damn best on the team (so far, as you wrote) he better also be averaging 10 assists and like 5 boards and a couple of steals for him to be considered playing the best, let alone making it his team. Dude, his defense better be Artest-like to make up for those stat deficiencies if you're calling it his team -- and no, it hasn't. 

This: "exactly the type of play that doesn't show up in stats" crap is practically the NBA definition of the word "complimentary."

You can't approach it that way. "Who's the most important to a teams success for now and the future?" -- should be the basis. 

Coming at this the way you are, I could make a friggin case for Antonio Davis being our best player. He's anchored our interior defense, provided tough play and rebounding with near double-doubles every night -- where would we be without him? 

This Is Antonio's Team!!! LOL


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Wrong- Kirk is not just potential, he is already one of the better perimeter defenders in the Eastern conference. He plays with a wisdom and knack for the ball that exceeds his years, and he is the perfect example of a player who's true value doesn't show up in a box score. Kirk is the perfect example of a young player that is realizing his potential. Crawford's potential is almost certainly greater than Kirk's, but Crawford is lot less mature in his approach to the game (though he is improving in that regard).


Good posting, man :yes: 



I convinced more and more, by comparison between Kirk and Stockton.

Kirk has tremendous impact not just only on overall Bulls scheme, but also he is giving a lot of opportunities (including “floor coaching” during the game) to guys like Crawford to be a star player. 

He is an engine of that team, solid like a rock, never gave up and always in the front line of any “battle”. 

And most importantly, players can COUNT on him day after day: on his wisdom, his basketball intelligence, his toughness and his determination to win.

IMO, right now , only Kirk has a true leadership qualities on that team !


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

lol, it seems like there's this huge uncrossable mental divide between KH and the rest of the bulls team.

everything that KH is doing on the perimeter, AD and Blount have been doing in the interior. and JYD is doing everywhere. so is this correct: these three vets would be sitting on their butts clueless without KH?

KH is only 9 months younger than Crawford. Hinrich is also older than the two highschoolers. For some reason Skiles knows how to reach crawford. Skiles turns criticism into teachings, the key thing that Floyd and BC could not do with the three C's. i think he'll mature Chandler and Curry in similar fashion.

I'm not trying to downplay everything Kirk is doing, he's a huge part of the team's success, but this is Skiles team.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*I'm just as hopeful as the next guy...*



> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> lol, it seems like there's this huge uncrossable mental divide between KH and the rest of the bulls team.
> 
> everything that KH is doing on the perimeter, AD and Blount have been doing in the interior. and JYD is doing everywhere. so is this correct: these three vets would be sitting on their butts clueless without KH?
> ...


I agree with everything you said, up til the statement, "part of the team's success...." There hasn't been success, yet. It's still just a hope, a prayer really. Success is measured in the long term, and we haven't seen any yet. But we do have hope...:gopray: 

I do think that KH's stability and focus in the backcourt has played a big role in helping JC know his role and keep focus, and especially, not despair when things are going badly. It means a lot to have a partner who will keep fighting and helping out to the end, sort of like Samwise Gamgee to Frodo Baggins. JC has the ring, but Kirk is there to pick him up when need be. (Actually, I bet JC gets that look in his eyes when someone wants to take it from him! ) Skiles' genius has been (perhaps born of desperation) to let JC carry the ring.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

IMO:

-It's not "Hinrich's team." A couple reasons. First, his stats aren't gaudy enough to grab national attention. Second, at least right now (with Chandler and Curry on the shelf), it's clear that "as Jamal Crawford goes, so go the Bulls."

-Hinrich is not good "for a rookie." He's just a good NBA player. Period. Not great, but good. He's a "consistent contributor," which means that he finds different ways to help the team each game. He's a coach's dream because he does his best to execute what the coach wants done on both ends of the floor and gives everything he has all the time.

-I think Crawford is beginning to build the kind of bond with Skiles that can lead to both individual and team success. I think Crawford now "gets it." This is HUGE for the Bulls.

-The most frustrating part of this season is behind the Bulls. They now have 7 players who are in sync with the coach. They'll soon get Curry and Chandler back, adding some much-needed talent to the mix. It will get steadily better from here on out.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> orginally posted by *Cochise*
> You ran into a problem when you mis-titled the thread: "This is Kirk Hinrich's Team." And even if you titled it correctly (to your opinion): "Kirk has been our best player so far", it would still be wrong.


I didn't mistitle anything- this _has_ been Hinrich's team all year because he's been our best overall player all year. Ideally, it _should_ be Crawford's team, and hopefully it will be eventually. But how can it ever be "your team" when you turn in performances like the stinker Crawford gave us 3 games ago- 2 for 14 shooting and crappy defense. Hopefully Crawford can out those behind and become the star and leader that he can be and that we need him to be, but unlike some people I'm not ready to jump into his jockstrap after 2 games.





> All the things you mentioned he does = the performance of a good complimentary player. I mean, since Skiles, the kid is averaging 11 points on 40% shooting. If he's the damn best on the team (so far, as you wrote) he better also be averaging 10 assists and like 5 boards and a couple of steals for him to be considered playing the best, let alone making it his team. Dude, his defense better be Artest-like to make up for those stat deficiencies if you're calling it his team -- and no, it hasn't.
> 
> This: "exactly the type of play that doesn't show up in stats" crap is practically the NBA definition of the word "complimentary."


I agree- Kirk is, ideally, a complimentary player- no team will ever go anywhere with him as "the man". But that still doesn't change the fact that he has been our best, most consistent player all year. You're focusing way too much on stats- to see Kirk's value, just watch the team play when he's off the floor. They look lost, as if they've forgotten how to play. Kirk has become our floor leader, and what's more is that he is already of the best perimeter defendersd in the Eastern conference. Seriously, I can't ever remember seeing a rookie that played defense like Kirk does. His stats themselves aren't gaudy, but they're still solid, and what's more is he brings them every night- not just some nights.



> You can't approach it that way. "Who's the most important to a teams success for now and the future?" -- should be the basis.


This thread is not about "Who's the most important to a teams success for now and the future?"- it's about who's our best player right now.





> Coming at this the way you are, I could make a friggin case for Antonio Davis being our best player. He's anchored our interior defense, provided tough play and rebounding with near double-doubles every night -- where would we be without him?
> 
> This Is Antonio's Team!!! LOL


The next time Antonio takes over the point and becomes our floor leader, let me know. Antonio's certainly been solid, but take him off the floor and we're not hurting that much with Blount and JYD in his place. Take Kirk off the floor, and the whole team stops functioning- *that's* the difference between them. Saying that "this is Antonio's team" is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: I'm just as hopeful as the next guy...*



> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with everything you said, up til the statement, "part of the team's success...." There hasn't been success, yet. It's still just a hope, a prayer really. Success is measured in the long term, and we haven't seen any yet. But we do have hope...:gopray:
> ...


yeah i was wondering if 'success' is the proper word.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Saying that this is Kirk Hinrich's team is like saying the Sixers are Eric Snow's team.

Eric Snow does a lot of the same things consistently as Kirk(he does them better, actually).

But at the end of the day, it is Iverson's team. And when Iverson is out, it is whoever is the scorer on the team's team.(Coleman, Robinson, Mckie and so on down the line).

And Louie I think you are too hard on Jamal for what was a slump.

Right now Jamal isn't simply hot, he's changed his mental approach to the game. And your refusal to recognize that and what it may portend seems short sighted.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Saying that this is Kirk Hinrich's team is like saying the Sixers are Eric Snow's team.
> 
> Eric Snow does a lot of the same things consistently as Kirk(he does them better, actually).
> ...


Futureistxen you are my favorite poster here.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I agree- Kirk is, ideally, a complimentary player- no team will ever go anywhere with him as "the man". But that still doesn't change the fact that he has been our best, most consistent player all year.
> This thread is not about "Who's the most important to a teams success for now and the future?"- it's about who's our best player right now.
> The next time Antonio takes over the point and becomes our floor leader, let me know. Antonio's certainly been solid, but take him off the floor and we're not hurting that much with Blount and JYD in his place. Take Kirk off the floor, and the whole team stops functioning- *that's* the difference between them. Saying that "this is Antonio's team" is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


Man, the idea is Antonio, like Kirk, is a complimentary/role player. By definition, a team can't be a role player's team. Calling Kirk, who you admit is a complimentary player, is dumb.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Saying that this is Kirk Hinrich's team is like saying the Sixers are Eric Snow's team.
> 
> Eric Snow does a lot of the same things consistently as Kirk(he does them better, actually).
> 
> ...


There's one *huge* difference between calling the Bulls Hinrich's team and calling the Sixers Snow's team that you failed to mention- when was the last time you ever heard anyone mention Jamal Crawford's name in the same sentence as Allen Iverson's? Crawford may have the _potential_ to be an Iverson-like player, but as of right now, Iverson is about 3 times the player Crawford is. Iverson is leading the league in scoring, and is a proven supertstar who has taken a team to the Finals. Crawford is an unproven young guy who shot 15 for 47 in the three games previous to the Cleveland game, and who has been extremely streaky all season. *HUGE* difference there.

Ideally, Crawford and Hinrich could form a backcourt similar to Snow and Iverson- they certainly have that potential. But I don't think your analogy is valid because Crawford is nowhere near that level just yet.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Man, the idea is Antonio, like Kirk, is a complimentary/role player. By definition, a team can't be a role player's team. Calling Kirk, who you admit is a complimentary player, is dumb.


Yeah, but the *difference* is that Kirk is our floor leader, while Antonio is really just another solid role player. And a team *can* be a role player's team if nobody else steps up on a consistent basis, which in this case nobody has.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> There's one *huge* difference between calling the Bulls Hinrich's team and calling the Sixers Snow's team that you failed to mention- when was the last time you ever heard anyone mention Jamal Crawford's name in the same sentence as Allen Iverson's? Crawford may have the _potential_ to be an Iverson-like player, but as of right now, Iverson is about 3 times the player Crawford is. Iverson is leading the league in scoring, and is a proven supertstar who has taken a team to the Finals. Crawford is an unproven young guy who shot 15 for 47 in the three games previous to the Cleveland game, and who has been extremely streaky all season. *HUGE* difference there.
> 
> Ideally, Crawford and Hinrich could form a backcourt similar to Snow and Iverson- they certainly have that potential. But I don't think your analogy is valid because Crawford is nowhere near that level just yet.


kirk is no snow either...just so you know.

futursitxen has it right JC is the 1st option star of the team right now and kirk is a supporting player and has no chance of being better than that this season , in the future who knows but in this band its really easy to see who sings lead and who plays drums


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> kirk is no snow either...just so you know.


He's a whole helluva lot closer to Snow than Crawford is to Iverson.



> futursitxen has it right JC is the 1st option star of the team right now and kirk is a supporting player and has no chance of being better than that this season , in the future who knows but in this band its really easy to see who sings lead and who plays drums


*Of course* Crawford is the first option- nobody is saying that he's not. He is without a doubt our best offensive player, but that does not necessarily make him our best *overall* player. As far as the total game that Kirk brings night in and night out, I'd say that he has been more valuable to us this season than Crawford. If Crawford keeps going the way he's going, that should change pretty soon, but for now I still say that Kirk is our best *overall* player.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Louie. Right now Crawford is our best overall player. Maybe 3 games ago he wasn't. But for two games he's been our best overall player. And last night he was our best player by a wide margin. And not just becauses he rang up 42 points. I would submit that he played better defense than Kirk last night. Kirk looked drained on the defensive end, while Crawford looked energized.

So RIGHT NOW this is Crawford's team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> He's a whole helluva lot closer to Snow than Crawford is to Iverson.
> 
> ...


i'm not saying you cant be a star player because you dont take most of the shots ...you can be a star defensive player ...or rebounder or distributor

but kirk isn't close to any of the 3 

he isn't better at any of those 3 than JC is a scorer and I would say jamal is much closer to being a star than kirk (as would curry and chandler be as well by the way)


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> i'm not saying you cant be a star player because you dont take most of the shots ...you can be a star defensive player ...or rebounder or distributor
> 
> but kirk isn't close to any of the 3


How is he not? Kirik is already one of the best perimeter defenders in the Eastern conference, and probably one of the best at his position in the whole league. As I have said before, I have *never* seen a rookie play defense the way Kirk does- even Artest as a rookie was alot less intelligent when it came to knowing when and when not to gamble. He's a much better defensive player than Crawford is an offensive player (though, admittedly, offense is almost always more important). Furthermore, ever since Kirk started getting regular playing time, he's been putting up somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 assissts per. That's good, no matter who you are.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> How is he not? Kirik is already one of the best perimeter defenders in the Eastern conference, and probably one of the best at his position in the whole league. As I have said before, I have *never* seen a rookie play defense the way Kirk does- even Artest as a rookie was alot less intelligent when it came to knowing when and when not to gamble. He's a much better defensive player than Crawford is an offensive player (though, admittedly, offense is almost always more important). Furthermore, ever since Kirk started getting regular playing time, he's been putting up somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 assissts per. That's good, no matter who you are.


ok lets get some reality in this 

kirk is not better than artest in his rookie year on defense 

need proof watch yesterdays game again (if you taped it) hughes scored most of his fg's on him and he wasn't his man 

2nd a pg has to be able to beat a press kirk cant and i'm not sure you can teach that at this level so an all world distrutor he can never be ,because if he were really that good the other team would force the ball from his hands and he would have to pass it ,just to avoid it from being stolen lessenning him impact ,...but the opposings dont do that because kirk isn't that good at it

he's not even the best defensive guard taken in this year's draft ...that would be wade although yes kirk is a good defensive guard

he isn't what you make him out to be


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well, if you place JC and Kirk on the NBA market, right now, who do think will get the highest value?

And that person is… the most valuable player on the team !

It is very simple, so anybody wants to try or we know the answer?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> Well, if you place JC and Kirk on the NBA market, right now, who do think will get the highest value?
> 
> And that person is… the most valuable player on the team !
> ...


eddy curry


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> Well, if you place JC and Kirk on the NBA market, right now, who do think will get the highest value?
> 
> And that person is… the most valuable player on the team !
> ...


Except we're trying to determine most valuable to OUR team. Not someone else's team.:laugh:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 2nd a pg has to be able to beat a press kirk cant and i'm not sure you can teach that at this level so an all world distrutor he can never be ,because if he were really that good the other team would force the ball from his hands and he would have to pass it ,just to avoid it from being stolen lessenning him impact ,...but the opposings dont do that because kirk isn't that good at it


Um......what?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> eddy curry



It was a good one!  

I mean between JC and Kirk?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well we know Crawford was worth Antoine Walker, an all-star, before the season.

Who knows now.

I have no idea what Hinrich's value on the market is. It's pretty much impossible to figure that out. I don't think Paxson is shopping him...since he just drafted him and all.

I would find it hard to believe that we could get Antoine Walker with Hinrich instead of Crawford right now.


----------



## pjc845 (Jun 9, 2002)

*Can we stop it with the Hinrich vs. Craw debate?*

Why is this even being argued? How do some of you people even come up with such logic?

This reminds me of the Jay vs. Jamal debate. Both Jay and Hinrich weren't worth what we picked them at, although I will say that Hinrich seems to have given us more than Williams ever did. Still, neither are worth the lottery picks spent on them, while clearly, Jamal was. Don't get me wrong -- Hinrich is a nice guard, and a little bit better than I expected, but he's still no 7th pick. What do I expect out of a #7? Well, Jamal was a #7, if I'm not mistaken. And I still would have been a lot happier if we had shipped Jay (before his accident), Rose/Marshall/Fizer, and the #7 to Denver for Melo.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Well we know Crawford was worth Antoine Walker, an all-star, before the season.
> ...


okay, I guess we will find out that, during the summer 2004.
I am not sure, that JC and Kirk could coexist?

I like to think that they could, but we should accept the reality:

1) Jamal will not tolerate the fact, that Kirk is a better PG. It’s jeopardizing his “job security” (in his latest interview there was not a word about Kirk’s contribution), and 
2) Kirk will never accept the status of “garbage guy” working for the Jamal’s glory, and I can see that happening on the floor.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Can we stop it with the Hinrich vs. Craw debate?*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> Why is this even being argued? How do some of you people even come up with such logic?


For all your aplomb, it seems kind of funny when you don't even know what draft pick Jamal Crawford was.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> 
> 
> okay, I guess we will find out that, during the summer 2004.
> ...


I like when you said "the Jamal's glory". That was the best part. And if Kirk is that much of a primadonna then he is a punk *****.

Point Guard, Shooting guard, Jamal played them both on his way to 42 points 6 assists and 4 boards...and a win. I think they can coexist and it's in the Bulls best interests to have them coexist. And if Paxson gets outbid for Crawford then Paxson is a punk *****. Keeping Kirk and Jamal together is more important than keeping the novelty act of Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry together. At least Kirk and Jamal have proven capable of both playing well on the same night. Something Tyson and Eddy seem incapable of.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This is Scott Skiles team!

I don't see how anyone can say this is Hinrichs team. He's a solid player and he has helped the team and been consistent. But, I don't recall hearing Tom Dore say "Hinrich is keeping the Bulls in this game singlehandedly". And it seems I recall hearing him say that in BOTH the Cav & Wiz game. Case closed!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> And if Kirk is that much of a primadonna then he is a punk *****.


Don't let your hatred of Kansas cloud your reason. If Kirk were a primadonna, he wouldn't have lasted at Kansas, he wouldn't have made the League, and he wouldn't have been a point guard.

A primadonna doesn't make a comment like this after a great individual performance: "Stats are like a bikini. They show some things, but they don't show it all."

KH and JC are just fine together. I'd bet good money on it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't let your hatred of Kansas cloud your reason. If Kirk were a primadonna, he wouldn't have lasted at Kansas, he wouldn't have made the League, and he wouldn't have been a point guard.
> ...


now i've heard it all . 

kansas university "the place where you have to be humble to survive" 

are you actually trying to sell kirk as someone who couldn't possibly be a primadonna because of the college he went to?

and that apparently no nba player can be a primadonna, much less a point guard ?

I have one response to that 

*STARBURY*


----------

