# Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

* Edit: I'm a huge Duhon fan. This post is entirely based on what I BELIEVE he will prove this season. At no point do I claim that he has already proven he is better than Kirk.*

Because I don't like him (kirk)? NO, because we hit the jackpot with Chris Duhon. 

What are the hardest things to find in constructing an NBA franchise? True centers and pure point guards. Well we hit the jackpot with one in Duhon. In an NBA so built on guys concerned with their shots and numbers, Duhon brings top flight talent (he was as highly rated out of high school as any of those Dukies), with a pass first, pass second mentality. 

Before you think I'm buying into the trend, I was the guy who used to get in shouting matches with J. Hood in 2001 about drafting Duhon instead of Williams if both players came out. I've always liked his game. 

I love Kirk's game. He and Eddy are the two players I covet most, which means they are probably the two players we could get something for. So for those wanting to trade Eddy, I ask you, who is the second round gem we got at center that has turned out to be a steal thusfar? That's right because that person doesn't exist. Who would play center if Eddy goes? Tyson? Yeah right. Wake me up when he stays healthy and produces a whole season at PF. Davis? LOL. Fact is you dont' trade or let an Eddy Curry go, because the replacement is going to be a significant downgrade. Not so with Duhon. 

What are we looking at now. I theorize our current situation as this:

C: Curry, Davis, Reiner
F: Chandler, Harrington
F: Deng, Nocioni, Griffin
G: Piatkowski (yes the only one who fits a SG mold IMO)
G: Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Williams, Pargo, Wilks

(Realize I may have somone wrong on the cuts).....

I want an elite athlete, who is a defender, who can make the easy, and plays good team ball. You know a guy like Andre frickin Iguodala. 

I'm looking at two scenarios:

Golden State -- 

Kirk Hinrich
Erik Piatkowski

FOR

Mikhael Pietrus
Calbert Cheney 
next available first round pick (if you think this is lopsided in favor of GSW, add another pick, or two [see Hardaway and 3 first rounders for Webber])

San Antonio --

Ben Gordon
future second

FOR

Romain Sato
two future firsts (if you think this is lopsided in favor of Chicago, take off a first rounder)

Our lineup in the Kirk scenario would be:

Curry, Davis, Reiner
Chandler, Harrington
Deng, Nocioni
Pietrus, Cheaney
Duhon, Gordon, Williams

I like. This is all IMO of course. Am I saying this will happen? No. Has it crossed my mind? Yes. 

Remember if you attack this post in an angry manner it is because of your feelings for Kirk, which are most likely derived from the subconscious willing to identify with him to a greater extent because you are white and so is he.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!


:laugh:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Duhon has done a great job, but I think that some people on this site fail to understand where guys do great and where they dont. Duhon is a steal in the 2nd round, because he can actually make a roster and be a nice contributor (assuming he can, its only preseason). 

Duhon as a backup point guard, I say thats very nice to have. The second you put him in a starting role, you've taken away his ability to be an effective player by giving him too much responsibility. 

Look at Earl Boykins, that guy is one of the best 6th men in the league. What happens when you put him in a starting role? He'll become one of the worst starting point guards in the league. 

Thats how it is with Duhon, and until he finds his shot, the guy will never be a consistent starter in this league.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> Duhon has done a great job, but I think that some people on this site fail to understand where guys do great and where they dont. Duhon is a steal in the 2nd round, because he can actually make a roster and be a nice contributor (assuming he can, its only preseason).
> 
> Duhon as a backup point guard, I say thats very nice to have. The second you put him in a starting role, you've taken away his ability to be an effective player by giving him too much responsibility.
> ...


Well that's a nice rationale if you love Kirk, but there's nothing to say he wouldn't be a great starting PG. First of all, he was rated higher than Kirk coming out of high school. Secondly he was as good in college, but played on a better team with more players of the caliber of Collison than Hinrich had. Duhon isn't close to undersized like Boykins, he's 6'1" 185. He was a parade All American in high school. Drafted low because everyone wants the "scoring point guard" of today's NBA. Well most of the time that PG sucks, and when that type of PG doesn't absolutely suck, he's the type of player that shoots his team out of more games than he wins for them.

All of this could have been solved by drafting Iguodala instead of Gordon, but right now we have two highly capable PGs and not one true SG of any significance. If Nocioni and Deng are able to both play heavy minutes at SG and not be outmatched then this is a moot point .


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> Well that's a nice rationale if you love Kirk, but there's nothing to say he wouldn't be a great starting PG. First of all, he was rated higher than Kirk coming out of high school. Secondly he was as good in college, but played on a better team with more players of the caliber of Collison than Hinrich had. Duhon isn't close to undersized like Boykins, he's 6'1" 185. He was a parade All American in high school. Drafted low because everyone wants the "scoring point guard" of today's NBA. Well most of the time that PG sucks, and when that type of PG doesn't absolutely suck, he's the type of player that shoots his team out of more games than he wins for them.
> ...


I say, let Duhon earn the job in his bench minutes in REAL NBA games, not preseason-type stuff. Not to mention that while Hinrich's shot hasn't really been falling since he got into the league, he's a much better pure shooter than Duhon, whose shot doesn't even look nice.

Hinrich has mid-range game, penetration game, and gritty defense. He can make some long-range bombs, as well as or better than anyone else on the roster. Duhon doesn't bring most of those skills at an NBA level.

In the pure PG spot, Hinrich is probably only a minor advantage, but in everything else, KH is the player. That makes Duhon the Kevin Ollie (a solid role PG who coaches love to handle their teams of the bench) and KH the Terrell Brandon (someone who can actually lead a team and get things efficiently done on the floor).

If what you say ends up being true, we might as well trade Hinrich after his stock goes up a little bit... the trading deadline is a long time away yet. Other, playoff-bound teams may see critical injuries to their PG's that will make them a little more desperate, as well. 

To be honest, we're not REALLY short-term desperate for anything, since we don't have anything at stake. We're desperate in a deeper sense. :|


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> I say, let Duhon earn the job in his bench minutes in REAL NBA games, not preseason-type stuff. Not to mention that while Hinrich's shot hasn't really been falling since he got into the league, he's a much better pure shooter than Duhon, whose shot doesn't even look nice.
> ...


It's hard to respect someone with the avatar of the person we never should have drafted, BUT I'll try . 

Hmmmm. I'd say in terms of PURE PG passing skills, Duhon is leaps and bounds ahead of Hinrich. Of course he was only a Parade All American coming out of high school, who coach K was more excited about than any of them, but I guess he just brings nothing that Kirk doesn't.

Duhon is much better than Ollie, who I believe took a bit to stick on an NBA roster.

One thing I will agree on is that this will not happen tomorrow. Of course I never meant that. After we realize we have a Kendall Gillish hole at SG, it MAY happen at the trade deadline. 

It's fun to see Kirk fans rationalize Duhon away once he is posed in a thread as a threat. ALMOST as fun as it was to see Cubs fans argue that Grace was better than Sosa while Sosa was winning an MVP in 1998. Almost....

But you are spot on with one more thing. Duhon has to prove this in real NBA action. Of course I know he will. I've been saying he'll prove things since 2001, and I'm not going to stop now. 

I remember when the confidence in Duhon got me "you'd take Duhon over Jason Williams? Are you mad?" It's moments like these when it's nice to know that Duhon isn't into motorcycles LOL. J. Hood.....you're always right!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> Well that's a nice rationale if you love Kirk, but there's nothing to say he wouldn't be a great starting PG.


Look at your name. 



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> First of all, he was rated higher than Kirk coming out of high school. Secondly he was as good in college, but played on a better team with more players of the caliber of Collison than Hinrich had.


I can list hundreds of players who were ranked above NBA superstars in high school, doesn't mean teams should pick them up and replace those superstars with them because they were better in high school. If Duhon was really better in college, he would have been picked in the 1st round. 



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> Drafted low because everyone wants the "scoring point guard" of today's NBA. Well most of the time that PG sucks, and when that type of PG doesn't absolutely suck, he's the type of player that shoots his team out of more games than he wins for them.


I agree. Hinrich isnt that type of "scoring point guard" though. 



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> All of this could have been solved by drafting Iguodala instead of Gordon, but right now we have two highly capable PGs and not one true SG of any significance. If Nocioni and Deng are able to both play heavy minutes at SG and not be outmatched then this is a moot point .


Definitely. I was on the Deng/Igoudala from day one. When we had one pick, I hoped we came out with one of those guys, when Paxson traded for another pick, I hoped to God we got both.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at your name. [/quope]
> ...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I have a better solution .

move kirk to the 2, instead of going through a bunch of trades that will never happen and will cause the already turmoil filled bulls more turnover , simply thin the herd.

play the players who deserve to play by what they do on the court.

that means as of now , a rotation of dunon , kirk, nocioni , deng tyson, AD, eddy, tommy smith and pargo and let practice be a determiner for tryouts into the rotation , when a player has thoroghly played into the top 10 he gets in , and if he doesn't produce he is out.

that simple.

if gordon is playing great and starts killing people then someone out this rotation has to go , the group of eddy, tyson , nocioni , kirk and duhon start ,all getting about 30-35 min. and the 2nd unit of deng , AD smith and pargo round out the rest , easily defined roles , kirk plays all the backup pg min with an occasional spot help, deng gets 20 or so to start , davis gets about 15 pargo 15 and smith 15 if reiner plays very well with eddy and AD out he gets either smiths min. or skiles just tries to find a way to get him on the court.

a meritocracy , and if any player cant take it , he has to go.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I have a better solution .
> 
> move kirk to the 2, instead of going through a bunch of trades that will never happen and will cause the already turmoil filled bulls more turnover , simply thin the herd.
> ...


Lets put Curry at SG and Hinrich at C just to throw teams off.....wrong universe sorry. 

Hinrich at SG never makes it the whole season. Wears out. Same with Gordon. Probably same with Deng and Noci. Probably the same with Iguoda.....nevermind.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> So I guess if Duhon does very good in live NBA action he'll be an exception to your theory (Kirk is not a superstar, which is to be implied in your sentence). If he doesn't he won't.


I like Duhon, but saying that he is better or equal to Kirk because he was in high school and college (debatably) is a bit absurd to me. I mean, everyone knows I defend Hinrich a lot, but I really dont think I'm out of line with this. If Duhon comes in and proves himself to be better than Kirk, then yes, we should look to trade Kirk, but until he does that, its not smart. 



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> Hinrich doesn't have Duhon's passing ability, so what bridges the gap?


Hinrich is a fine passer, but his overall game is what makes him more special than Duhon. We could say that Mike Bibby doesnt have Duhons passing ability, but Bibby is a fine passer plus he has a great overall game. Hinrich is a great all around point guard, and isnt at all in the mold of the scoring point guards that both you and me dont like much. 



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> Something for us to be mates over. My main diggety dog Mista Johnny Mac listenin up to the Iggy knowledge. Wap!


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> I like Duhon, but saying that he is better or equal to Kirk because he was in high school and college (debatably) is a bit absurd to me. I mean, everyone knows I defend Hinrich a lot, but I really dont think I'm out of line with this. If Duhon comes in and proves himself to be better than Kirk, then yes, we should look to trade Kirk, but until he does that, its not smart.


Why are you defending Kirk? I have already said he's one of my favorite....



> Hinrich is a fine passer, but his overall game is what makes him more special than Duhon. We could say that Mike Bibby doesnt have Duhons passing ability, but Bibby is a fine passer plus he has a great overall game. Hinrich is a great all around point guard, and isnt at all in the mold of the scoring point guards that both you and me dont like much.


the difference is far greater....



>


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> Why are you defending Kirk? I have already said he's one of my favorite....


I'm defending him because you're saying (or implying at least) that we should trade him due to Duhon being better.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> It's fun to see Kirk fans rationalize Duhon away once he is posed in a thread as a threat. ALMOST as fun as it was to see Cubs fans argue that Grace was better than Sosa while Sosa was winning an MVP in 1998. Almost....


The freak? they both are on the same team. Quit the PG controversy. At least the Jamal/Kirk debates were made when they both had NBA regular season games under their belts.

yeech.



> But you are spot on with one more thing. Duhon has to prove this in real NBA action. Of course I know he will. I've been saying he'll prove things since 2001, and I'm not going to stop now.


how do you know he will? I know everyone thought he'd be a lottery his sophomore year but they were wrong. He doesn't have the same talents as others to merit a top 10 pick. College game is different than the pros so quit using that argument. Using High school rankings is laughable.

Don't come in with a username Duhon mania that you just registered today and start posting stupid topics like Solution to every problem : trade Kirk. You may have a right to but I have a right to bash asinine proposals. You expected flack and that constitute as bait. 

FLAG! Who are you really?


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm defending him because you're saying (or implying at least) that we should trade him due to Duhon being better.


No I'm saying IF DUHON IS BETTER, and I think he will be. But he still has to do it. Better clarification?

Also....if Duhon became better and the best option was to trade him, I'd do it in a heartbeat and keep Kirk. In the end I care about one name......the name on the FRONT of the jersey, oh and Jordan, because his name is even more important than the name on the front of the jersey

"Here's Jordan splitting the move! Now it's Jordan with the steal! And then it's stolen by Starks, McDaniel, chased by Jordan. It's a clean block!"

Doesn't that make you feel better?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> No I'm saying IF DUHON IS BETTER, and I think he will be. But he still has to do it. Better clarification?


Alright, thats clear. I agree, if Duhon makes Hinrich expendable like you think he will, then plenty of teams would be willing to part with a pretty good shooting guard to get Hinrich.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> The freak? they both are on the same team. Quit the PG controversy. At least the Jamal/Kirk debates were made when they both had NBA regular season games under their belts.
> ...


Ah angry. Again......Duhon has proven nothing yet.....I was posting in a future context. In the future he will prove himself to be better.



> how do you know he will? I know everyone thought he'd be a lottery his sophomore year but they were wrong. He doesn't have the same talents as others to merit a top 10 pick. College game is different than the pros so quit using that argument. Using High school rankings is laughable.


Duhon was very good in college. He has very nice physical talents. He's not a scorer and in today's NBA that is a priority from a PG. Today's NBA shows it has it tragically wrong when Baron Davis and Allen Iverson are deified.



> Don't come in with a username Duhon mania that you just registered today and start posting stupid topics like trade Kirk.
> 
> FLAG! Who are you really?


I'll do whatever I want. I love when I put adequate disclaimers in a post and someone flies off the handle and starts talking in "internet tough guy" tone.

Watch your tone.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Alright, thats clear. I agree, if Duhon makes Hinrich expendable like you think he will, then plenty of teams would be willing to part with a pretty good shooting guard to get Hinrich.


Do I really think we'll trade Kirk ever? NO! But sometimes imagining things, even things that won't happen, yields some pretty good ideas by chance. If Pax sat in his office and imagined trades for every Bull....he'd stretch the box of what he ever thought was possible and would probably end up coming up with a hum dinger of a trade.

To anyone else (i.e. Passions of the Damon avatar boy), if you read my post to indicate that Duhon has proven it already and not that he "must prove it" like I intended it to mean, I'm sorry .


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Alright, thats clear. I agree, if Duhon makes Hinrich expendable like you think he will, then plenty of teams would be willing to part with a pretty good shooting guard to get Hinrich.


I edited my original post


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I'm not white and you can't pigeonhole people with that disclaimer. You're basically saying we can't have the opinion that Duhon will never amount to more than a 2nd string PG.

I don't believe Duhon has what it takes to take over Hinrich's job. That's my opinion and if Duhon supplants Hinrich well that's great because he have a tradeable commodity because Hinrich is wanted on many teams. Duhon was passed up by 30 picks in the first round. Still I want Duhon to excel and do very well. That in turn helps our team win games.

I'm not angry. You will be lambasted with those comments by others here as well because to many, Kirk is their boo. and you know it. 

hey a title like this will make people's head explode. maybe a more fitting title, Duhon : better than you think. or something along those lines.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> I'm not white and you can't pigeonhole people with that disclaimer. You're basically saying we can't have the opinion that Duhon will never amount to more than a 2nd string PG.
> 
> I don't believe Duhon has what it takes to take over Hinrich's job. That's my opinion and if Duhon supplants Hinrich well that's great because he have a tradeable commodity because Hinrich is wanted on many teams. Duhon was passed up by 30 picks in the first round. Still I want Duhon to excel and do very well. That in turn helps our team win games.
> ...


Fair enough


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

uh oh, is this the first hinrich vs. duhon thread?



> *At no point do I claim that he has already proven he is better than Kirk.*


good. 

if duhon were taken 7th in the first round then you might have the beginning of a case.

higher rated out of HIGH SCHOOL? don't make the coffee come out of my nose. who cares?

talk to us when duhon makes the All-Rookie first team, or finishes in the top five of rookie of the year voting. 

or when he records more than 14 double doubles his rookie year (heck, even if he gets a triple double - not even lebron did that in his rookie year)

or when duhon averages nearly 7 assists per game this year.

or averages more than 12 points a game.

or breaks the bulls rookie record of 144 threes hit.

or is the second all-time rookie assist leader (behind MJ thankyouverymuch)

you get my drift....

but at this point to come on here and suggest that the problem is kirk and the solution is trading him, is laughable.

duhon hasn't proven squat yet.

the thread title is insulting. and to suggest that hinrichs supporters are that because they are white? are you trying to start a flame war?

seriously, duhon has shown remarkable composure and skill for a BACK-UP point guard. 

he will never be the shooter kirk is.

and one thing i noticed - that as soon as the hubbub of him "making the team" died down, he wasn't nearly as effective in the pre-season.

he was competing for his nba life - and he did very well. 

duhon will do a FINE job for the bulls this season, and i think we got a steal and i really, really, like him. i think he has skill and smarts and tenacity.

but to suggest that the solution to ALL our problems is to trade kirk is just incredibly naive.

eddy and tyson playing well this year is the solution to the problem.

just my :twocents:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well I would love to trade Kirk as much as the next guy but the trades you suggest are just crap.

Chicago trades: PG Kirk Hinrich (12.0 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 6.8 apg in 35.6 minutes)
SF Eric Piatkowski	(4.1 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.3 minutes)
PF Othella Harrington	(4.6 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 15.6 minutes)
PF Ben Gordon	(4.6 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 15.6 minutes)
Chicago receives: PG Gary Payton	(14.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 5.5 apg in 34.5 minutes)
SF Ricky Davis	(14.4 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 3.3 apg in 31.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +8.3 ppg, +0.6 rpg, and +1.0 apg.

Boston trades: PG Gary Payton	(14.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 5.5 apg in 34.5 minutes)
SF Ricky Davis	(14.4 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 3.3 apg in 31.3 minutes)
Boston receives: PG Kirk Hinrich	(12.0 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 6.8 apg in 76 games)
SF Eric Piatkowski	(4.1 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 0.5 apg in 49 games)
PF Othella Harrington	(4.6 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 56 games)
PF Ben Gordon	(4.6 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 56 games)
Change in team outlook: -8.3 ppg, -0.6 rpg, and -1.0 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

What about that trade.

PG-Gary Payton/Chris Duhon
SG-Ricky Davis/Luol Deng
SF-Andres Nocioni/Luol Deng
PF-Tyson Chandler/Tommy Smith
C- Eddy Curry/Antonio Davis

I think that Gary Payton still has superstar in him, and that last year was a fluke. This is a top team in the East imo. On the flipside for the Celtics.

PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Ben Gordon
SF-Paul Pierce
PF-Al Jefferson
C- Raef Lafrentz

Weren't they in love with both Hinrich and Gordon.

But Duhon can't do all thos assist and stuff because he wont be handed unfairly the starting job like Kirk was. But when you have two deserving point guards, and you try to start both bad things happen.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> Well I would love to trade Kirk as much as the next guy but the trades you suggest are just crap.
> 
> Chicago trades: PG Kirk Hinrich (12.0 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 6.8 apg in 35.6 minutes)
> ...


Gary Payton is old and a Ricky Davis type player was just bought out for 10 millions dollars. This deal goes against everything Pax and Skiles are trying to do.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> uh oh, is this the first hinrich vs. duhon thread?
> 
> 
> ...


LOL well your two cents are wrong. Kirk is far from the problem, I love Kirk. But Kirk and Eddy are about the only two Bulls who are gonna get us anything in return. Duhon is good enough to handle rock, distribute, and play big defense while making stars out of Curry and Deng on offense.


----------



## Hammertoes (Jun 25, 2002)

I'm not going to reply about your initial idea. I like Kirk and I like Duhon, so I really have no opinion on the matter. However, what I DON'T like is this.....



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> Remember if you attack this post in an angry manner it is because of your feelings for Kirk, which are most likely derived from the subconscious willing to identify with him to a greater extent because you are white and so is he.


Real nice!  You throw a crappy "disclaimer" at the end of your well written post so that anyone who disagrees with you and likes Kirk more than Duhon is automatically a racist. Are you qualified in the field of psychology so that you can make judgements about what people do and do not "derive from their subconcious"?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm a Duhon fan too , but obviously not a fan as U r.
I'm happy with him being our backup pg.

The 1st trade is ok , but I think Kirks value is higher then Pietrus at the moment.

I'd offer Kirk for Pietrus *and a top 5 protected 1st rounder* and let Ben start at Point , but I'd rather do it with Ben instead.

we'd have a damn aggressive backcourt with

Kirk/Pietrus/Deng and Chapu.

in any case I would not trade both just to let Duhon start , thats just Nuts...


----------



## AZwildcats4 (Feb 9, 2004)

Let start off by saying that it drove me absolutely nuts all the Duhon bashing that has been going on here around here. Just look at the thread about him in the draft forum. It's absurd. I think he's a player that will have a long career in the NBA, but I think your exagerating the amount of shoot first point gaurds there are in the league, and how good of a passer Duhon is. I'm pretty sure if you asked any GM in the league they will tell you that they would rather have a pure point gaurd than a scoring point gaurd. Just because has this quality it doesn't mean that he has potential to be a great player, or even a starter. The fact is that scoring is a very important skill to have even for a point gaurd, and if you can't do it you will have a tough time. Take Omar Cook for example; great passer (arguably better than Duhon), good defender, actually averaged 15 points his freshman year, but has had a hell of a time even making a roster because he is just a terrible shooter. My point is that there is a difference between a point gaurd who passes first but can light it up when he needs to, and a pg who passes and passes and passes because he can't score. Sorry but I think Duhon falls in the latter category.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> Lets put Curry at SG and Hinrich at C just to throw teams off.....wrong universe sorry.
> ...


and your magical ball tells you this ...can i get a date of when exactly kirk wears out ?

crawford weighed less last year than kirk does now.

why cant he make it?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> and your magical ball tells you this ...can i get a date of when exactly kirk wears out ?
> 
> crawford weighed less last year than kirk does now.
> ...


For the same reason you wouldnt put Kobe at point guard, he can do it for the most part, but he is most effective at the other guard spot. Putting him on point guards wears him down (PGs are consistently too quick), just like putting Kirk on shooting guards wears him down (SGs are consistently too tall/strong). 

Hinrich the point guard is quick as it gets, strong as it gets, and is 6'4, great size for a point guard. On top of that, he has great point guard skills. 

Put him at shooting guard is taking away alot of those advantages. The fact he can play the other guard position decently is a testament to his versatility, but its still bad news. We want our best players being utilized to the fullest.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> For the same reason you wouldnt put Kobe at point guard, he can do it for the most part, but he is most effective at the other guard spot. Putting him on point guards wears him down (PGs are consistently too quick), just like putting Kirk on shooting guards wears him down (SGs are consistently too tall/strong).
> ...


i disagree , he isn't as quick as pg's get unless you think kirk is the quickest pg in the league , he would have more of a quickness advantage at the 2, , kirk is only 1 inch shorter than JC , and he currently weighs more ,

JC didn't fall apart , didn't wear down, so unless JC is so much tougher and stronger than kirk i dont see how the wear down theory works, unless basically kirk is a wuss, which i dont think is the case.

I also disagree with the notion that kirk is a point guard more than a 2 guard all of his best performances come as a scorer , any time he has taken over a game its been as a scorer , he doesn't seem to have the kidd-like or andre miller like ability to beat a team with his passing, but he can beat them occasionally with his shot.

it would seem to play to his actual strengths to put him in a position to use his skills that actually win us games.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>Hammertoes</b>!
> I'm not going to reply about your initial idea. I like Kirk and I like Duhon, so I really have no opinion on the matter. However, what I DON'T like is this.....
> 
> 
> ...


It's actually sociology. And this is what I can't stand. People who think they are experts on the term racism when they don't even have a firm grasp of racism.

Racism is the feeling that your race or a race is inherently superior to another race.

That's not what this is at all. To identify with someone of your own race does not make you a racist for two reasons:

1. Sociological studies unanimously support the finding that we are more likely to affirmatively identify with someone who shares more groups with us than with someone who does not. That includes race, same family, same sex, same high school (assuming other adversarial factors aren't involved), same group of friends, etc. It's no different than if you were white and preferred Duhon and I found out he was adopted by your family and pretty much your brother. That gives you more of a reason to identify positively with him. It doesn't indicate any hostility toward someone of another race at all. Unless you understand this you should never talk about racism. One of the most dangerous phenomenon in society is people who don't grasp the concept of racism going around point fingers and saying "you're calling people racists" or "you are a racist".....

2. It's subconscious. No way no how am I accusing anyone of sitting there and consciously saying "Kirk is white, I got his back"....the whole point of identifying with your own (or tending to, there are of course a large list of exceptions [see siblings, who are rivals...]) is that you don't consciously do it. Most believe that to be a racist you have to manifest intent in some conscious way. The problem is that most of the time unless you've studied psychology and sociology in detail you rarely ever are able to identify subconscious thoughts that you yourself have. 

The phenomenon I speak of is people, throughout their lives identifying groups and beliefs that they find favorable, and then subconsciously rationalizing everything they find favorable to always turn out to be right, and everything they find disfavorable to always turn out to be less favorable. 

And before you start "what about this" there are no absolutes, there are huge exceptions. But if you really want to put this theory to test answer me this:

Why is it that Tom Waddle received more ran fare than MOST WRs the Bears have had in the last 15 years?

AND...if you're still not convinced (which you probably won't be because although this is COMMONLY known as true, it disagrees with fundamentals you've already set in your mind, so you will find a way to rationalize it as false), come over to my pad and we'll listen to talk radio tapes after Bulls games in the Jordan years. Where I will sit there and tally. At the end there will be as many calls talking about Steve Kerr as there are talking about Michael F-ing Jordan. Don't believe me? How much money do you have?

Nothing racist about identifying with your own and having an inflated perception of your own. EVERY RACE does it. If they didn't, the Olympics would be no big deal....


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I'm a Duhon fan too , but obviously not a fan as U r.
> I'm happy with him being our backup pg.
> 
> ...


The whole point of me starting this thread is for someone to post like you just did. Well done. 

"Oh Duhon mania, I disagree, but I can in fact read a disclaimer, so why not trade player X in the same scenario."

Thanks for the contribution and for not having the IQ and EQ of about 95 (and for anyone who brings up some of my idiotic posts, there IS an agenda behind them...).


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>AZwildcats4</b>!
> Let start off by saying that it drove me absolutely nuts all the Duhon bashing that has been going on here around here. Just look at the thread about him in the draft forum. It's absurd. I think he's a player that will have a long career in the NBA, but I think your exagerating the amount of shoot first point gaurds there are in the league, and how good of a passer Duhon is. I'm pretty sure if you asked any GM in the league they will tell you that they would rather have a pure point gaurd than a scoring point gaurd. Just because has this quality it doesn't mean that he has potential to be a great player, or even a starter. The fact is that scoring is a very important skill to have even for a point gaurd, and if you can't do it you will have a tough time. Take Omar Cook for example; great passer (arguably better than Duhon), good defender, actually averaged 15 points his freshman year, but has had a hell of a time even making a roster because he is just a terrible shooter. My point is that there is a difference between a point gaurd who passes first but can light it up when he needs to, and a pg who passes and passes and passes because he can't score. Sorry but I think Duhon falls in the latter category.


Omar Cook is not an adequate comparison, though I appreciate the tone of your post. By the end of this year it will become apparent just how much personal glory Duhon sacrificed for the Duke program and for his teammates...


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> For the same reason you wouldnt put Kobe at point guard, he can do it for the most part, but he is most effective at the other guard spot. Putting him on point guards wears him down (PGs are consistently too quick), just like putting Kirk on shooting guards wears him down (SGs are consistently too tall/strong).
> ...


Well said. I admire your poise when you disagree with someone.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk is White, I got his back. So you either stop hatin my main man or I'm gonna bust you up.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i disagree , he isn't as quick as pg's get unless you think kirk is the quickest pg in the league , he would have more of a quickness advantage at the 2, , kirk is only 1 inch shorter than JC , and he currently weighs more ,


Kirk is one of the quickest guards in the league, and of those very quick guards, Kirk is stronger than all of them. 







> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I also disagree with the notion that kirk is a point guard more than a 2 guard all of his best performances come as a scorer , any time he has taken over a game its been as a scorer , he doesn't seem to have the kidd-like or andre miller like ability to beat a team with his passing, but he can beat them occasionally with his shot.


I think his versatility at point guard is his best trait. I mean, he was one of the best passers in the league last year, and he has shown he can be a pretty good scorer and defender. He has great court savvy and intelligence as well. Thats the type of player I want at point guard, a guy who is an excellent passer capable being a very good scorer, a good defender, and a guy who makes good decisions and knows how to play the game. He loses a lot of those things in a transition to the shooting guard. 



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> it would seem to play to his actual strengths to put him in a position to use his skills that actually win us games.


Unfortunetly, Hinrich may be our best shooting guard by a larger margin than he is our best point guard. However, that doesnt mean he is better at shooting guard than he is at point, it just means that we are so stacked at the point and so horrible at the 2. 

I still dont see how Hinrich is a 2 though, it seems like the only thing he does like a shooting guard, is shoot. He is undersized, wouldnt handle the ball as much, and his great passing skills wouldnt be utilized. He would go to very good defender on point guards, to average to below average defender on shooting guards. He would go from great passer at point guard, to not able to utilize his passing ability at the shooting guard. He would from being able to use his intelligence and know how of the game at point, to being moreless just a scorer at the shooting guard. 

I mean, its always whats best for the team, but if thats how the Bulls want to use Hinrich, then they better just trade him for something they can actually utilize. Putting Hinrich at the 2 would be under-utilizing him a great deal.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> Kirk is White, I got his back. So you either stop hatin my main man or I'm gonna bust you up.


Yes cause classic hating usually comprises of:

I love Kirk, Kirk is my favorite...


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

The Bulls solutions always seem to be to trade away your best players.

How about in the future maybe thinking about trading your bad players (Curry, Curry, and possibly Curry), and keeping your good players. I know that's a radical concept, but I think some other teams have had success by this "keep your good players" strategy. It's worth a try, at least.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> It's actually sociology. And this is what I can't stand. People who think they are experts on the term racism when they don't even have a firm grasp of racism.
> ...


Damn! This is good stuff! Duhon Mania, big-time kudos. Well conceived and well written. Very, very fine.

My basketball hero growing up was Jerry Sloan (see avatar). In high school, I insisted on #4. It could've been Van Lier (#2), but it wasn't. Race probably had something to do with it (though I loved Norm).

This said, Hinrich has played a season and succeeded in the league. Duhon hasn't. Trading Hinrich is crazy. He can play.

Duhon will cost us very little this season. If, after the year is over, the Hinrich-Duhon thing is a dead heat, trade whoever you can get the most for.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Damn! This is good stuff! Duhon Mania, big-time kudos. Well conceived and well written. Very, very fine.
> ...


I don't really think we'd ever trade Kirk....my point was, there could be a scenario where it happens if Duhon is good enough. Also I was looking for people to say, "I disagree, but we could do this, or that instead."


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> The Bulls solutions always seem to be to trade away your best players.
> 
> How about in the future maybe thinking about trading your bad players (Curry, Curry, and possibly Curry), and keeping your good players. I know that's a radical concept, but I think some other teams have had success by this "keep your good players" strategy. It's worth a try, at least.


LOL its so funny that Curry gets all the blame. Curry would commonly be someone who doesn't share a group with fans who "loved Miller" since he was Miller's replacement. Curry is 21 yet he's a bust. What a bunch of crap. Teams really want us to trade him because they remember how much Bulls fans wouldn't take their crap when we had Jordan, and the last thing they ever want is someone else being a Bull who COULD one day take us there (and that possibility is again open now that emotionally Curry has appeared to take his head out of his ###).....let the "Show me" period with Eddy begin . 

LOL I love it. Curry is so bad, yet he's the one we're getting the most offers for. I guess Pan Mengtu has successfully showed me that the economic theory of supply and demand is in fact only a farce LOL.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

No, it's just that he hasn't shown an ability to do anything other than score. That doesn't make him a bust, and he could certainly get better, but Hinrich has shown more, in his 1 season, than Curry has in his 3. Hinrich has a better chance of being a good player in this league than Curry does. If you are going to trade someone, and i'm not saying you definitely should, it should be Curry. Or Gordon.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> No, it's just that he hasn't shown an ability to do anything other than score. That doesn't make him a bust, and he could certainly get better, but Hinrich has shown more, in his 1 season, than Curry has in his 3. Hinrich has a better chance of being a good player in this league than Curry does. If you are going to trade someone, and i'm not saying you definitely should, it should be Curry. Or Gordon.


So you missed the part where I said we have two adequate PGs and no one other than Curry who could play center without getting his back busted in half. 

Are you Philly's manager? Cause if you want to trade me Iguodala, a first rounder and Dalembert for Curry and Gordon you're on


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Two adequate PGs? Who? You mean your two rookies who've never played a regular season game? The Bulls want to continue the trend of trading away good players and keeping their "potential" and then when/if that potential ever starts to show something, trade it away.

You should have traded Curry back when Memphis was willing to give up Gasol for him. I doubt that would happen today. Now, you're right, you probably can't get a good center in return, so you're stuck with him. But don't trade Kirk just because you have the itch to trade. Duhon and Gordon don't count as "adequate" PGs until they've shown at least a half season of being one.

And Philly would laugh in your face if you offered them that trade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I've suggested we trade Hinrich several times now. And Curry with him. Maybe we could get a solid enough starting SG and a backup C; those two guys would solidify our roster considerably.

Why trade Hinrich? 

1) Because he's the most tradable commodity we have. We would clearly get more in return for Hinrich than for Duhon.
2) Because we are ridiculously deep at PG. Ben Gordon should be forcefed minutes like Hinrich was last season, and Duhon is a capable backup.
3) Because Kirk had a worse rookie season than Jamaal Tinsley, and if he doesn't improve dramatically, his trade value will go down.
4) Because we have no draft pick next season to address our needs (backup C, starting SG).

On the other hand, Paxson is likely to give up the best player(s) in the deal again...


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Two adequate PGs? Who? You mean your two rookies who've never played a regular season game? The Bulls want to continue the trend of trading away good players and keeping their "potential" and then when/if that potential ever starts to show something, trade it away.
> 
> You should have traded Curry back when Memphis was willing to give up Gasol for him. I doubt that would happen today. Now, you're right, you probably can't get a good center in return, so you're stuck with him. But don't trade Kirk just because you have the itch to trade. Duhon and Gordon don't count as "adequate" PGs until they've shown at least a half season of being one.
> ...


So are you a Bucks fan? Cause if you are I've got all kinds of interesting stuff to share on the Lew Alcindor trade .

Do you wanna go over the long list of current centers who are very good players, and who also weren't as good as Curry at age 21? You don't like Eddy Curry or the Bulls. I get it....I know lol.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> So are you a Bucks fan? Cause if you are I've got all kinds of interesting stuff to share on the Lew Alcindor trade .


No, I don't like the Bucks, but I do like several of their players. And in case you weren't aware, Kareem demanded a trade to the Lakers.



> Do you wanna go over the long list of current centers who are very good players, and who also weren't as good as Curry at age 21? You don't like Eddy Curry or the Bulls. I get it....I know lol.


I like several players for the Bulls. I even like Curry just a little. It's just that he hasn't shown anything besides an ability to score down low decently. Most sane Bulls fans agree with that.

What does age have to do with anything? Besides Shaq, how many good centers were in the league before they turned 21? So it doesn't exactly apply.


----------



## AZwildcats4 (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 1) Because he's the most tradable commodity we have. We would clearly get more in return for Hinrich than for Duhon.
> 2) Because we are ridiculously deep at PG. Ben Gordon should be forcefed minutes like Hinrich was last season, and Duhon is a capable backup.
> 3) Because Kirk had a worse rookie season than Jamaal Tinsley, and if he doesn't improve dramatically, his trade value will go down.
> (backup C, starting SG).


If someone is your most tradeable commodity then he is your most valuable player, and therefore you should keep him unless you really need to trade him, which in this case you don't. Until Gordon shows he can't be an effective shooting gaurd and/or Duhon shows he has all-star potential, nobody should be talking about trading Hinrich. Also I don't really understand your Jamaal Tinsley comment. If you look at the numbers Hinrich clearly had a better rookie season imo. 9 and 8 on 24% from downtown for Jamaal versus 12 and 7 on 38% from deep for Kirk. Anyway, either way I don't see why Tinsley's so far dissapointing career should effect anyone's opinion of him.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> So are you a Bucks fan? Cause if you are I've got all kinds of interesting stuff to share on the Lew Alcindor trade .
> ...


Well heres the results of my evaluation formula

Shaquille Oneal .5250
Yao Ming .5616
Tim Duncan .5820
Vin Baker .3948
Tony Battie .3437
Calvin Booth .3803
Mark Blount .4131
Shawn Bradley .4232
Marcus Camby .4578
Elden Cambell .3946
Kelvin Cato .3289
Tyson Chandler .3707
Eddy Curry .4124
Samuel Dalembert .3910
Erick Dampier .4688
Dale Davis .2791
Desagna Diop .2793
Vlade Divac .4010
Danny Fortson .4942
Adonal Foyle .3071
Dan Gadzuric .3795
Brendan Haywood .3784
Steven Hunter .2293
Primoz Brezec .3443
Ruben Bountje Bountje .1468
Zydranus Igauskus .5029
Jerome James .3416
Chris Kaman .3080
Raef Lafrentz .4578
Chris Mihm .3992
Darko Milicic .2849
Brad Miller .5100
Nazr Mohommad .3859
Dikembe Mutumbo .3533
Rasho Nesterovic .3142
Michael Olowokandi .3186
Scot Pollard .2236
Theo Ratliff .3382
Brian Scalbrine .3094
Jake Voshkul .3220
Ben Wallace .3248
Jamaal Magloire .4368

1. Tim Duncan 28
2. Yao Ming 24
3. Shaquille O'neal 32
4. Brad Miller 28
5. Zydranus Igauskus 29
6. Danny Fortson 28
7. Marcus Camby 30
8. Raef Lafrentz 28
9. Jamaal Magloire 26
10. Shawn Bradley 32
11. Mark Blount 28
12. Eddy Curry 21

He is the 12th most productive center per a minute after 3 years in the league. That is quite an accomplishment. Lets face it Curry is 3 years younger then Yao Ming, and is not that far away from Ming's production giving 3 more years of improvement. Fat out of shape Curry is 12th best in the league. In shape Curry should be able to knock over Mark Blount, Shawn Bradley, Raef Lafrentz, Marcus Camby, Danny Fortson, and Zydranus Igauskus like they are coned during a driving license test. He will be competing for the 4th best center with Miller, and Magloire this year. He is going to be good, in time.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> No, it's just that he hasn't shown an ability to do anything other than score. That doesn't make him a bust, and he could certainly get better, but Hinrich has shown more, in his 1 season, than Curry has in his 3. Hinrich has a better chance of being a good player in this league than Curry does. If you are going to trade someone, and i'm not saying you definitely should, it should be Curry. Or Gordon.


Has Hinrich really showed more in one season then Curry has in 3 years, lets take a look.

Eddy Curry- 2,402 Pts 1,076 RBD 130 AST 58 STL 198 BLKS

Kirk Hinrich 915 Pts 259 RBD 517 AST 101 STL 21 BLK 


Lets face it Curry does better then Hinrich at center stuff, and Hinrich does better at guard stuff. Hinrich was a 4 year grad, while Curry was out of high school. I dont even why were even comparing a center and a guard against each other.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>AZwildcats4</b>!
> 
> 
> If someone is your most tradeable commodity then he is your most valuable player, and therefore you should keep him unless you really need to trade him, which in this case you don't. Until Gordon shows he can't be an effective shooting gaurd and/or Duhon shows he has all-star potential, nobody should be talking about trading Hinrich. Also I don't really understand your Jamaal Tinsley comment. If you look at the numbers Hinrich clearly had a better rookie season imo. 9 and 8 on 24% from downtown for Jamaal versus 12 and 7 on 38% from deep for Kirk. Anyway, either way I don't see why Tinsley's so far dissapointing career should effect anyone's opinion of him.


Being our most valuable player isn't saying much, now, is it? No, it's not saying much. We can lose with him or we can lose without him. Without him, we have Gordon and Duhon, which makes the loss of Hinrich more than bearable. It's not like we're trading away all our guys who can play the position (like we did at SF with the Marshall and Rose trade).

I just haven't sniffed enough glue to see that Kirk is guaranteed to be any better than Tinsley. As much as I hope and pray he turns out to be something much much much better. Shooting-wise, Kirk was horrible, so was Tinsley - your comparison is unimpressive (as is mine!). Yet, Kirk was supposed to have been such a great PG, though Tinsley was actually a much better PG as a rookie than Hinrich (see assists and other stats you ignored).

I am not convinced that Kirk has a lot of room to improve. He has to become a lot more efficient to be better (he got an awful lot of minutes last season). But let's say he does. Which is better for the team:

1) Hinrich scoring 20 pts/8 assists, Gordon averaging 7 pts/2 assists

or

2) Gordon averaging 20 pts/8 assists,
Ricky Davis averaging 20 pts/5reb/5 assists

(I use Ricky Davis as an example of a player I think could be had for Hinrich and Curry).

Forget about how realistic my projected numbers are or you'll miss the logic behind this concept.


----------



## AZwildcats4 (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> He is the 12th most productive center per a minute after 3 years in the league. That is quite an accomplishment. Lets face it Curry is 3 years younger then Yao Ming, and is not that far away from Ming's production giving 3 more years of improvement. Fat out of shape Curry is 12th best in the league. In shape Curry should be able to knock over Mark Blount, Shawn Bradley, Raef Lafrentz, Marcus Camby, Danny Fortson, and Zydranus Igauskus like they are coned during a driving license test. He will be competing for the 4th best center with Miller, and Magloire this year. He is going to be good, in time.


Well i don't know about your formula, but I agree on Curry. Good point on the Yao Ming thing. People mature at different rates, and Curry since he came in the league has been acting like what he is, a kid. However he is obviously maturing and finally getting in shape, and eventually he will realize what he is capable of when he acts like a pro. One day he will be thought of as a shoe in all-star. You can count on that. If I were a Bulls fan i would pray Paxson keeps him.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Jamaal Tinsley is one of the few cases where a rookie plays very well his first season and then falls off the Earth after that. 

I think when you take into consideration how hard of worker Hinrich is and how we can not possibly get worse than last year as far as having other players around who can spread the floor for Hinrich's own shooting to go up and his assists, you'll see that Hinrich's value has basically no chance of going down like Jamaal's did. Worst case scenario, he keeps the same value he has now. 

I just don't understand why this board always has to talk about trading Kirk. The guy had a very good rookie season and is only going to get better, is a tireless worker, and on top of that, it's just not going to happen. You guys who want to trade him know he's not going to get traded too so save yourselves the energy and don't get worked up about it.  It's not like we're not going to be overwelmed by any Hinrich trade either.And I know you all have good intentions of improving the team, but I would just think that after all the crap that's happened post MJ, that when you find a guy who's clearly a piece to the puzzle, you don't get rid of it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> Jamaal Tinsley is one of the few cases where a rookie plays very well his first season and then falls off the Earth after that.
> 
> I think when you take into consideration how hard of worker Hinrich is and how we can not possibly get worse than last year as far as having other players around who can spread the floor for Hinrich's own shooting to go up and his assists, you'll see that Hinrich's value has basically no chance of going down like Jamaal's did. Worst case scenario, he keeps the same value he has now.
> ...


There's NO comparison between Kirk and MJ. MJ scored 28.8 PPG as a rookie and helped the team improve by 9 wins. Kirk.... well, 30 -> 23 wins.

Kirk is fine. We'd simply be better off if Gordon turns into an impact rookie rather than having some sort of modest improvement from Kirk.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> There's NO comparison between Kirk and MJ. MJ scored 28.8 PPG as a rookie and helped the team improve by 9 wins. Kirk.... well, 30 -> 23 wins.



I didn't compare Kirk and MJ. :| 




> Kirk is fine. We'd simply be better off if Gordon turns into an impact rookie rather than having some sort of modest improvement from Kirk.



If is the key word. If he turns into an impact rookie at SG, it's all gravy.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> Well that's a nice rationale if you love Kirk, but there's nothing to say he wouldn't be a great starting PG. First of all, he was rated higher than Kirk coming out of high school.


High school rankings don't mean a whole lot when trying to prove a point for someone's skills in the NBA. Recent cases in point: Emeka Okafor and Gilbert Arenas were both ranked #99 RSCI coming out of high school, and Dwyane Wade wasn't even top 100 coming into Marquette as a partial qualifier.



> Secondly he was as good in college, but played on a better team with more players of the caliber of Collison than Hinrich had.


Kansas beat Duke in the Elite 8 during Hinrich's senior year.



> Drafted low because everyone wants the "scoring point guard" of today's NBA.


Makes you wonder why TJ Ford and Shaun Livingston went lottery.



> Well most of the time that PG sucks, and when that type of PG doesn't absolutely suck, he's the type of player that shoots his team out of more games than he wins for them.


Unless that player is Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, Dwyane Wade, Bobby Jackson...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I disagree, just because Tinsley doesn't increase his stats it doesn't mean a thing. He is playing less minutes so his assist numbers would be the same as they were his rookie season if getting 30+ mpg. And he may be getting less points, but he is scoring more efficiently.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

In regards to collegiate performance:

Chris Duhon, *senior* year at Duke: 10.0 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 6.1 apg, 45% FG, 30% 3PT, 72% FT.

Kirk Hinrich, *sophomore* year at Kansas: 11.5 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 6.9 apg, 50% FG, 51% 3PT, 84% FT.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL its so funny that Curry gets all the blame. Curry would commonly be someone who doesn't share a group with fans who "loved Miller" since he was Miller's replacement. Curry is 21 yet he's a bust. What a bunch of crap. Teams really want us to trade him because they remember how much Bulls fans wouldn't take their crap when we had Jordan, and the last thing they ever want is someone else being a Bull who COULD one day take us there (and that possibility is again open now that emotionally Curry has appeared to take his head out of his ###).....let the "Show me" period with Eddy begin .
> ...


You're LB26Matrix right? The Curry stuff and the threats of violence are very familiar (As well as the "LOL" preface to every response.)


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Does Gordon suck so much that we are reduced to this?


Wow, great move Paxson.............

And to Gordon - What happened? Maybe you really weren't that good without your teammates taking all the pressure off of you.

Hell, there's not a lot of pressure on you.better pick it up.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i have alawys been saying lets package kirk+chandler, (we need to keep curry) for a nice relatively young 2-guard.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> You're LB26Matrix right? The Curry stuff and the threats of violence are very familiar (As well as the "LOL" preface to every response.)


I was threatened not the other way around....who is this, this LBMatrix26?? I like Duhon more than Curry. Curry can still become a star, but only if Duhon lets him lol.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Does Gordon suck so much that we are reduced to this?
> 
> 
> ...


Wouldn't Andre Iguodala have been perfect?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I cant believe some people would rather get rid of guys like Hinrich and Chandler, and insist we must hold on to guys like Curry, Gordon and Duhon. 

Right now, Hinrich, Chandler, Deng and Nocioni is the foundation of this team. Curry, Duhon and Gordon are still 2nd string contributors, and thats being generous with Duhon (and Gordon really, so far, I know he'll get better though). Dont be surprised if Curry and Gordon are gone by the deadline, while Duhon remains as a very good backup point guard.

I swear, we could have a 22 year old Shaquille O'Neal fall into our lap, and some people on this board would still be demanding to trade him because he could net us the most in return.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> It's actually sociology. And this is what I can't stand. People who think they are experts on the term racism when they don't even have a firm grasp of racism.
> ...


You have such a firm grasp of rascism, that you confuse it with Nationalsim.
The reason the Olyimpics are a big deal is Nationalism, you identify with those from your country not race.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> I cant believe some people would rather get rid of guys like Hinrich and Chandler, and insist we must hold on to guys like Curry, Gordon and Duhon.
> 
> Right now, Hinrich, Chandler, Deng and Nocioni is the foundation of this team. Curry, Duhon and Gordon are still 2nd string contributors, and thats being generous with Duhon (and Gordon really, so far, I know he'll get better though). Dont be surprised if Curry and Gordon are gone by the deadline, while Duhon remains as a very good backup point guard.
> ...


for one chandler is definitely more expandable than curry. i m not gonna go a whole lenght to explain because everyone knows curry's ability is far more rare than chandler's. i dont understand what's going on with all the curry hates on the board. i mean didnt thta man just come to the camps in best shape of his life. granted, he didnt totally blowing up the camps by averaging 30+ppg, but this is a pre-season, nobody plays hard, notice the leading scorer for pre-season was kobe at 20ppg. during the last game, he shot 9-12, yeah we lost the game, but i dont think it's more curry's fault than other players. people talking about how tough the NY media are on their players, i think the bulls fans on bbb.net bulls forum are the toughest and most scrutinized. nothing will ever satisfy you guys. why keep trading away our best players? we are never going to go anywhere giving up our most experienced/best players in return getting more potentials and rookies. yes its exciting to see what those rookies/potentials can do every year before the season starts. once it starts, its all the same old bashing again. " we need to trade this guy and that guy".

i say we keep the team together and let them grow. it's obviously curry is going to become a superstar sooner or later, anyone who fails to see that -dare i say ,he/she doesnt have any clues about basketball.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> for one chandler is definitely more expandable than curry. i m not gonna go a whole lenght to explain because everyone knows curry's ability is far more rare than chandler's. i dont understand what's going on with all the curry hates on the board. i mean didnt thta man just come to the camps in best shape of his life. granted, he didnt totally blowing up the camps by averaging 30+ppg, but this is a pre-season, nobody plays hard, notice the leading scorer for pre-season was kobe at 20ppg. during the last game, he shot 9-12, yeah we lost the game, but i dont think it's more curry's fault than other players. people talking about how tough the NY media are on their players, i think the bulls fans on bbb.net bulls forum are the toughest and most scrutinized. nothing will ever satisfy you guys. why keep trading away our best players? we are never going to go anywhere giving up our most experienced/best players in return getting more potentials and rookies. yes its exciting to see what those rookies/potentials can do every year before the season starts. once it starts, its all the same old bashing again. " we need to trade this guy and that guy".
> 
> i say we keep the team together and let them grow. it's obviously curry is going to become a superstar sooner or later, anyone who fails to see that -dare i say ,he/she doesnt have any clues about basketball.


If you read the very post of mine you quoted, I said we need to hold onto our best players. Unfortunetly, I dont think Curry is even top 5 for us. When he is in the game, he provides no interior defense, and is pretty turnover prone once the opposing team figures it out that Curry doesnt know how to pass out of a double team. On top of this, he is ridiculously horrible at rebounding. 

Now, Curry showed me something when he came into camp looking great. So I'm willing to give him time, but he has to show me progress in *defensive rebounding, defense, and passing out of double teams*, otherwise he will never be an effective player despite having nice glory stats. The thing is, fans have to understand his value, understand the chances of him reaching his potential, and what is a good deal or bad deal at this point. 

If Pau Gasol is on the table for Curry, you have to take that deal. 
If any proven young star is on the table for Curry, you have to take that deal. 

But if its bench players, other unproven young talent, or anything like that, you dont take the deal. Thats the scenario where you keep him, and let him develop more.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> If you read the very post of mine you quoted, I said we need to hold onto our best players. Unfortunetly, I dont think Curry is even top 5 for us. When he is in the game, he provides no interior defense, and is pretty turnover prone once the opposing team figures it out that Curry doesnt know how to pass out of a double team. On top of this, he is ridiculously horrible at rebounding.
> ...


when someone posts trades like curry,gordon for ricky davis, gary payton, i seriously questioned those people's bball IQ. 
last year's excuse was "we lose because we dont have a 3"
this year's excuse is " we lose because we dont have a 2". 
what's with the need to look good on paper? it doesnt mean anything.
\


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> when someone posts trades like curry,gordon for ricky davis, gary payton, i seriously questioned those people's bball IQ.
> last year's excuse was "we lose because we dont have a 3"
> this year's excuse is " we lose because we dont have a 2".
> ...


I agree, I would never do that trade. Payton is a PG and is as good as done, I'd never trade for Ricky Davis. 

As far as not having a 2, I'm more concerned with improve the teams interior defense. The combination of Deng, Nocioni, Gordon, Hinrich and Pike can keep the 2 covered. Positions are overrated, but our defensive presence in the middle still needs to improve.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> 
> 
> when someone posts trades like curry,gordon for ricky davis, gary payton, i seriously questioned those people's bball IQ.
> ...


I would give the Great Twinkee a bit of a break. He was 9 the last time the Bulls were any good, can you imagine growing up watching the current Bulls?That enough to distort anyone's basketball knowledge.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Is Kirk ever gonna get some love on this board?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Is Kirk ever gonna get some love on this board?


What would this board be w/o a point guard controversy? Even if it's Hinrich v Duhon , kinda of reminds me of the Jamal v. Khalid elAmin controversy of the past.


----------



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

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> You have such a firm grasp of rascism, that you confuse it with Nationalsim.
> The reason the Olyimpics are a big deal is Nationalism, you identify with those from your country not race.


Funny, because a lot of Americans this year decided that they wanted Team USA to lose because they played "selfish, And 1" not "traditional, right-way" basketball.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> If you read the very post of mine you quoted, I said we need to hold onto our best players. Unfortunetly, I dont think Curry is even top 5 for us. When he is in the game, he provides no interior defense, and is pretty turnover prone once the opposing team figures it out that Curry doesnt know how to pass out of a double team. On top of this, he is ridiculously horrible at rebounding.
> ...


Pretty much what I was trying to say, but better articulated. People on this board have an obsession for trading for potential. You don't trade Hinrich for potential. At worst he becomes a decent starting PG like Tinsley is. That's better than trading him for someone that could be a star or a complete bust.

I think people on this board want to keep this team ridiculously young so that if they continue to do poorly you can always blame it on age.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> If is the key word. If he turns into an impact rookie at SG, it's all gravy.


I'm not suggesting you compared MJ to Kirk. I DID. To emphasize what I mean by an impact rookie. Of course, Jordan developed into one of the few most special players ever...

There's another IF to be considered. IF Gordon plays PG, he might well be that impact rookie. At SG he might well be a bust.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, I would never do that trade. Payton is a PG and is as good as done, I'd never trade for Ricky Davis.
> ...


The good as done point guard, and the "Cancer" are going to be on a top team in the East this year. Guess you'd rather watch a losing team then a winning team.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> 
> 
> when someone posts trades like curry,gordon for ricky davis, gary payton, i seriously questioned those people's bball IQ.
> ...


You question my basketball iq for suggesting a trade of Curry and Gordon for Ricky Davis and Payton. I question your general IQ by not being able to read that it was Hinrich and Gordon for Payton and Davis.



> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> Well I would love to trade Kirk as much as the next guy but the trades you suggest are just crap.
> 
> Chicago trades: PG Kirk Hinrich (12.0 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 6.8 apg in 35.6 minutes)
> ...


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> The good as done point guard, and the "Cancer" are going to be on a top team in the East this year. Guess you'd rather watch a losing team then a winning team.


You can't be serious. What kind of logic is that? You'd trade Deng for Fred Hoiberg? Luol Deng is going to be on a losing team, and Hoiberg is going to be on a contender. That means Hoiberg is better according to your logic. So if you wouldnt do that trade, you're a hypocrite, if you would do that trade, you're an idiot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wow, that was a lot of stuff to read.

None of it convinces me though, that Duhon is going to be so good that we can trade Hinrich.

If anything, my thoughts coming out of the pre-season were that Duhon did ok, but we'd probably be wiser using Ben as the backup PG.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> PG-Gary Payton/Chris Duhon
> SG-Ricky Davis/Luol Deng
> SF-Andres Nocioni/Luol Deng
> PF-Tyson Chandler/Tommy Smith
> ...


hinrich and peirce on the celtics? well that beats busted thumb running on fumes gary payton and ricky me,me,me davis on the bulls everyday of the week. 

and for the last time - kirk was not HANDED the starting PG spot. he earned it. jamal was moved to the SG because the coaches thought it was his natural position. funny how he is still playing it now that he is in NYC. 

sheesh - the thing about this board - and it isn't something that is just dawning on me now - but i feel like i need to shout:

revisionist history fever! catch it!!!!
 

thank you.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> You're LB26Matrix right? The Curry stuff and the threats of violence are very familiar (As well as the "LOL" preface to every response.)


:laugh: :laugh: MongolianDeathCloud busts Duhon Mania! Too funny.

I'm psychically picking up facts about Duhon Mania...
Italian...
formerly ignorant white boy who learned about racial sensitivity at a Purdue class...
loves Eddy...
likes boxing... specifically has an odd desire to box with bboards posters... :boxing: :boxing: 

Sometimes this board cracks me up!!


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Not only do I not think we should even think about trading Kirk but the trades Duhon Mania proposed were just awful.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> 
> 
> You question my basketball iq for suggesting a trade of Curry and Gordon for Ricky Davis and Payton. I question your general IQ by not being able to read that it was Hinrich and Gordon for Payton and Davis.


first of all, i never said in my post that it was directed to you, i didnt bother to read carefully cause when i saw names like our core young guys for likes of ricky davis and gary payton, i lost interest of that post. 

2ndly, kirk/gordon for gary davis and ricky davis? i guess now i have no choice but to question ur bball IQ.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> You can't be serious. What kind of logic is that? You'd trade Deng for Fred Hoiberg? Luol Deng is going to be on a losing team, and Hoiberg is going to be on a contender. That means Hoiberg is better according to your logic. So if you wouldnt do that trade, you're a hypocrite, if you would do that trade, you're an idiot.


That is something completely different. Theres a difference between trading for talent that can contribute to win and to a guy with little talent that will not be a reason why his team will win. I suggest that the Bulls will be a better team with Payton and Davis, not saying that a player on a top team is better then a player on a bad team.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> That is something completely different. Theres a difference between trading for talent that can contribute to win and to a guy with little talent that will not be a reason why his team will win. I suggest that the Bulls will be a better team with Payton and Davis, not saying that a player on a top team is better then a player on a bad team.


Davis and Payton are not the reason the Celtics win. Paul Pierce is, point blank. Pierce led the Celtics to the playoff before Davis got there and before Payton got there. If Hinrich and Gordon were traded for Payton and Davis, Pierce would still carry the Celtics to the playoffs, *and a better record due to getting Hinrich and Gordon*, and Payton and Davis would be stuck on a Bulls team worse than the one we have now.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Good luck Bulls fans!:uhoh:


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

didnt we just clean the house, now u wanna bring in 2 of the worst attitudes in the NBA ?


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

It's on if Duhon starts knocking down that 3


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> 
> 
> That is something completely different. Theres a difference between trading for talent that can contribute to win and to a guy with little talent that will not be a reason why his team will win. I suggest that the Bulls will be a better team with Payton and Davis, not saying that a player on a top team is better then a player on a bad team.


Yep. We should trade our tough nosed, up and coming guard, our other two guards and center for a combo SF/SG and an old PG.

Sounds very familiar doesn't it? :sour: This will just put us back another 3 years.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep. We should trade our tough nosed, up and coming guard, our other two guards and center for a combo SF/SG and an old PG.
> ...


Paxson has already put us back another 3 years.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Good luck Bulls fans!:uhoh:


Haha, and I thought sonics fans had it bad!


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> You have such a firm grasp of rascism, that you confuse it with Nationalsim.
> The reason the Olyimpics are a big deal is Nationalism, you identify with those from your country not race.


Actually the whole thing was about identifying with your own. I gave examples like race, family, friends, same school, etc. But apparently being from the same country does not mean you share an ingroup with someone. Absolutely remarkable that you could read that and come up with that.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Funny, because a lot of Americans this year decided that they wanted Team USA to lose because they played "selfish, And 1" not "traditional, right-way" basketball.


Yes that would be an exception....

Basically you two can't read.

He reads a post where I specifically say that race is one of many areas where people identify with their own. I even explicitly state that there are many other areas, and LOB decides that I dont' know what I am talking about because I give another example of people identifying with their own. This time "nationalism." I guess he took the words "there are many other examples besides race" and came up with "you used something besides race"......

Then you read a post where I said that there are many exceptions and say "ha ha ha check out this exception"......

Astounding


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

To even consider trading Kirk simply because we have Duhon, is almost an insult to logical Bulls fans.


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> To even consider trading Kirk simply because we have Duhon, is almost an insult to logical Bulls fans.


Again...... it's all based on Duhon proving it.....if he doesn't I've said that of course you don't do it. If he does it would be stupid not to use the most tradeable commodity we have to get whatever we need. 

Because basically, at some point isn't everyone expendable? If you think my idea rips the Bulls off.....what about:

Kirk for Rip Hamilton
Kirk for Michael Redd

At some point doesn't anyone go? 

It's like saying you wouldn't trade Michael Jordan in 1986 for Magic, Kareem, Worthy and 5 first rounders. Eventually everyone goes....

The real person I'd like to see go (and not the "devil's advocate" person [don't know if more than 3 people have picked up the fact that I MIGHT be playing the devil's advocate yet]) is Gordon.....but are we gonna get that lucky? How about Gordon for Iguodala....


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> Again...... it's all based on Duhon proving it.....if he doesn't I've said that of course you don't do it. If he does it would be stupid not to use the most tradeable commodity we have to get whatever we need.
> ...


So basically the point of this thread is we now have Chris Duhon, who was amazing in high school, lost his shot in college, and maybe in the future will be better than Kirk Hinrich, but because there is the chance that he will be, we should start thinking about moving him.

And no, it's not like saying you wouldn't trade Michael Jordan in 1986 for Magic, Kareem, Worthy and 5 first rounders. Kirk Hinrich is a capable natural leader of a young team who has already commanded and gotten the respect of the fans, coaches and the rest of the players on a team. He was on the all-rookie team last year, is a better passer than Duhon (yea that's right), and has actually proven himself in NBA games. But, it's not like Phoenix is going to trade Steve Nash, Shawn Marion, and Amare for him. 

At some point everyone goes, but there aren't going to be teams offering Rip Hamilton for Hinrich or players of his caliber. The Bulls simply haven't one lately, and because of this, they have been consistently low-balled in offers. Teams aren't going to trade superstars to teams for players on a team that can't win over 20 games. 

Think about the trades Pax made in the offseason. Do you think he wanted the package of crap we got for Jamal? No. But, that was the best we could get for him. Do you think Eric Piatkowski was his first pick for a 3-point threat. I doubt it. Paxson is simply doing what he can with what he has because players that come from losing teams simply don't command much in the trade market. 

And by the way, Duhon is simply not better than Hinrich. He may have been in the past, but until he proves himself better in the NBA he isn't. And if you wanna base your views on the preseason because you have to be since talking about high school is laughable and both had excellent college careers, I would still take Hinrich. I was one that was a firm backer of having Duhon make the team as a backup, but I sure don't want to watch Duhon start and consistently watch him drive to the basket and heave up one-handed bricks for 35 minutes.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually the whole thing was about identifying with your own. I gave examples like race, family, friends, same school, etc. But apparently being from the same country does not mean you share an ingroup with someone. Absolutely remarkable that you could read that and come up with that.



When you write a paragraph like this, how else am I supposed to interpret it? 



> Nothing racist about identifying with your own and having an inflated perception of your own. EVERY RACE does it. If they didn't, the Olympics would be no big deal....


Wow, did I miss something in this paragraph? You even typed EVERY RACE in capitals.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnjo</b>!
> 
> 
> So basically the point of this thread is we now have Chris Duhon, who was amazing in high school, lost his shot in college, and maybe in the future will be better than Kirk Hinrich, but because there is the chance that he will be, we should start thinking about moving him.
> ...


WOW! You have redeemed my faith in this site that there actually ARE intelligent people posting here!

Seriously? Wonderful post.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Shinky, Johnjo is ignoring the assumption of the original post, is he not? 

Johnjo said


> And by the way, Duhon is simply not better than Hinrich. He may have been in the past, but until he proves himself better in the NBA he isn't.


The original post is based on the scenario where Duhon is good enough to replace Hinrich. Once you assume that to happen, then I can see where the Duhon maniac is coming from. 

I swear I feel like I'm defending LBmatrix/JYD. :laugh:


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HINrichPolice</b>!
> Shinky, Johnjo is ignoring the assumption of the original post, is he not?
> 
> Johnjo said
> ...


HP you have restored my faith that people on this site can read. JohnJo, LOB, and Shinky clearly cannot....


----------



## Duhon Mania (Oct 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some people on this earth are idiots. I may be talking to "some people" right now....

Let's reference the paragraph you "believe you've busted me as a fraud on"

Nothing racist about identifying with your own and having an inflated perception of your own. EVERY RACE does it (Identifies with their own). If they didn't (identify with their own [notice I never said "own RACE" just merely "own"]), the Olympics would be no big deal...."

Is not every member of every race ALSO a member of a nation? Or are there some members of some races that live all by themselves? Don't try to bust me out.....you lack the requisite qualifications.

So what I said boiled down to this.

*Nothing racist about identifying with your own and having an inflated perception of your own. Now before I move any further I said "identifying with your own" not "identifying with your own RACE." Every race does identify with their own IN EVERY WAY from race, to family, to political party, to COUNTRY/NATION. If they didn't identify with their own IN EVERY WAY, the Olympics, which embody YOUR OWN NATION would be no big deal.*

Have I shown you that maybe instead of ..... me lacking the analytical skills to write correctly, maybe you lack the interpretive skills to READ correctly?

If not do you want me to bring flashcards to your house? I could go farther. I can order "hooked on phonics" and bring it over....


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Hmmm....He seems to post just like Matrix used to....

YEP! I think it's him.


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> WOW! You have redeemed my faith in this site that there actually ARE intelligent people posting here!
> ...


Thanks, I usually just read most of the posts and don't speak very often but I couldn't take reading this crap and not retorting any longer.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Our solution to every problem? Trade Kirk*



> Originally posted by <b>Duhon Mania</b>!
> 
> Have I shown you that maybe instead of ..... me lacking the analytical skills to write correctly, maybe you lack the interpretive skills to READ correctly?
> 
> If not do you want me to bring flashcards to your house? I could go farther. I can order "hooked on phonics" and bring it over....


No, it would be your ability to write a summarizing paragraph to your original thesis.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I've watched just about every game both Hinrich and Duhon have ever played over the last five years.

Hinrich is a better shooter, scorer, passer, penetrator and athlete than is Duhon.

Hinrich and Duhon are equal leaders, organizers, defenders and hustlers.

Duhon underachieved in college relative to hype, Hinrich overachieved in college relative to hype.

Hinrich dunks, Duhon lays it up.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I've watched just about every game both Hinrich and Duhon have ever played over the last five years.
> 
> Hinrich is a better shooter, scorer, passer, penetrator and athlete than is Duhon.
> ...


I dont believe anyone really thinks Duhon is better then Kirk, or ever will be better then Kirk. Thats fairly unrealistic. However, thats not to say that Duhon cant be good enough to maybe make Kirk expendable. Those are two different things and frankly I think its possible. But then again, its been proven that the PG position is a bit overrated. 11 of the 14 NBA champs didnt have one (San Antonio with Avery and Parker certainly did and Billups was technically a PG, even though his main job is too score). Its quite possible that the next time the Bulls actually do something, like make a conference finals, that the primary handler will be a guy like Deng, or some player that isnt even on the roster.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont believe anyone really thinks Duhon is better then Kirk, or ever will be better then Kirk. Thats fairly unrealistic. However, thats not to say that Duhon cant be good enough to maybe make Kirk expendable. Those are two different things and frankly I think its possible. But then again, its been proven that the PG position is a bit overrated. 11 of the 14 NBA champs didnt have one (San Antonio with Avery and Parker certainly did and Billups was technically a PG, even though his main job is too score). Its quite possible that the next time the Bulls actually do something, like make a conference finals, that the primary handler will be a guy like Deng, or some player that isnt even on the roster.


:yes:


----------

