# Tribune: Hinrich waits in line for new deal



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...2bulls,1,1067263.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



:wait: why are they making him wait? 




> In an ideal world, Kirk Hinrich would have his contract extension out of the way by the time he begins practicing Wednesday with USA Basketball's Senior National Team.
> 
> *"A lot of these guys who are going to be on the team have long contracts," the Bulls point guard said. "I don't have much left on mine. I could sign this summer but I don't know."*
> 
> ...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sounds like the seedlings for a sign and trade next summer!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

IMO Kirk deserves about what Jason Terry got, 6 years at 50M.

If he gets greedy I could live with Thabo replacing him 

[ducks head]


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

Tying Hinrich into a long term contract this season will certainly tie the team's hands for next season when it comes to potential free agents. This would guarantee that the Chandler trade was strictly made to resign our own guys, and not pursue someone else....but in our situation, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

They'd better lock him up long term. They'd regret it big time if they don't.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Sounds like the seedlings for a sign and trade next summer!


I don't get that impression from the article. Hinrich is one guy who will get his money from Reinsdorf, deservedly so.


----------



## Silvio Dante (Jul 4, 2006)

SpartanBull said:


> I don't get that impression from the article. Hinrich is one guy who will get his money from Reinsdorf, deservedly so.



Absolutely - Capt. Kirk isn't going anywhere other than 1901 West Madison Street. Bulls brass LOVES the guy too much to trade him away. He'll get an extension sometime this summer, most likely after Pax is done wheeling and dealing. Then next year, we can count on Noch, Gordon and Deng inking new deals. That's the core of the team now, along with Tyrus and Thabo. Dealing Chandler's long-term contract allows the Bulls to keep their core guys together for a nice long time. :clap: :cheers:


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

I'm not impatient yet. could be a couple other moves brewing.

he better be extended before training camp though. 

is noc not available for extension?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

When Tyson, Ben, and all that pap is finally goen through and official, then they will begin. The reporter appears to have asked Hinrich to try and make a story.....out of nothing.

So let's not panic, eh.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

paxman said:


> is noc not available for extension?


There are only two types of players eligible for extensions. Players who were first round draft picks, are still on their rookie contracts, and who have just completed their third year but not started the fourth (i.e., the 2003 first round draft class), and players with contracts of four years or longer. nocioni is on a three year deal, so no, he cannot be extended.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

How much money though, Crawford money?

Crawford: 17.3 ppg 5.1 ast 3.5 reb
Hinrich: 15.9 ppg 6.3 ast 3.6 reb.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

superdave said:


> IMO Kirk deserves about what Jason Terry got, 6 years at 50M.
> 
> If he gets greedy I could live with Thabo replacing him
> 
> [ducks head]


No offense, but I need a little more than two summer league games before I'm kicking Hinrich to the curb. And for the record, I'm not at all a Hinrich guy. 

I guess the extension isn't as cut and dried as some earlier articles suggested. I've said it before and I've said it again -- it really behooves the Bulls to get things done now, because assuming he has another solid year, someone is gonna offer Hinrich something damn close to the max if he goes to restricted free agency. A very competent hard-working two-way point guard who also happens to be white (sorry, it's a factor)? Forget about it. 

And I can't see him signing for less than Chandler got. Fair's fair. And I wouldn't begrudge him that -- long-term, he's one of the top 4-5 guys at his position, and those sorts of players get big money.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> How much money though, Crawford money?
> 
> Crawford: 17.3 ppg 5.1 ast 3.5 reb
> Hinrich: 15.9 ppg 6.3 ast 3.6 reb.


Yeah, sure, why not. Crawford money, although unlike Crawford, *he'd* be worth it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

SpartanBull said:


> Yeah, sure, why not. Crawford money, although unlike Crawford, *he'd* be worth it.


But Crawford brought intangibles.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> But Crawford brought intangibles.


 :raised_ey 

Feel free to elaborate.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

SpartanBull said:


> :raised_ey
> 
> Feel free to elaborate.


Whoops, wrong spelling.

I meant Crawford brought in tangerines for Eddy Curry.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Whoops, wrong spelling.
> 
> I meant Crawford brought in tangerines for Eddy Curry.



:laugh: 


Had me going there!! Although I don't think Eddy got his big butt eating tangerines... maybe twinkies.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

SpartanBull said:


> :laugh:
> 
> 
> Had me going there!! Although I don't think Eddy got his big butt eating tangerines... maybe twinkies.


Tangerines with a pound of whipped cream on them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I believe that the cap hold for Hinrich after the season would be 300% of this year's salary. They have nothing to gain or lose by signing him now.

Except...

Paxson telling him to get a DNA test or to go get his best offer and we'll match it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I believe that the cap hold for Hinrich after the season would be 300% of this year's salary. They have nothing to gain or lose by signing him now.
> 
> Except...
> 
> Paxson telling him to get a DNA test or to go get his best offer and we'll match it.


This is all gonna backfire on Paxson, and I'm telling you when.

When Thabo comes up for an extension. He's gonna get a DNA test, its going to say he's the son of God, God will increase the max salary and instantly create his own franchise and give Thabo an offersheet of 14 million dollars and eternal life, lets see Paxson match that.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> And I can't see him signing for less than Chandler got. Fair's fair. And I wouldn't begrudge him that -- long-term, he's one of the top 4-5 guys at his position, and those sorts of players get big money.


Chandler-sized money is right on par with other very good, but non-all-star level PG's around the league. A reasonable extension is 5 years, $50-55M, IMO (Chandler got 6 yr, $60M). Guys like Jason Terry and Andre Miller are right in the same ballpark. Tony Parker, however, got a bigger contract than that while oddly enough, Manu Ginobili got a smaller one (who I tend to think is a more valuable player). 

Btw, Kirk is not technically a FA so he can only sign a extension for 5 years max. Personally I think Pax will sign him to an extension...we're finally starting round 1 of extensions for Paxson's draft picks and Kirk is at the top of his list. It won't get done right away simply because we've been major players in the draft, free agency, and now potential blockbuster trades. But I'd be VERY surprised if we allow Kirk to become a RFA next summer...very surprised...I'd go so far to say that it sours an otherwise very good off-season.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I'd be VERY surprised also, since Hinrich can get his "deserved" amount of $55ish million this year at almost a discount. What if a deal doesn't get done? I could see Kirk taking it out on the team, having the sickest statistical contract year, and basically suddenly warranting a max offer. Then what will we do? Sign and trade, really? That's a terrible situation to be in.

Give him the cash that he deserves and also save yourself some in the long run. That's the simple truth.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> And for the record, I'm not at all a Hinrich guy.


Yeah ?

How come ?

Do you mean you don't rate him that much or do you mean your not a fan on the same level as miz or Vega ( but then again who is ? ) 

I am interested in how you view his game ..what you like and what you don't


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I'd pay him $55M for 5 years - no sweat


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I'm thinking 5 years, 40-45 mill. should get the job done--anything more is eclispsing the market rate, set by Jason Terry in Dallas.

Kirk is not a big, so he will not get the "premium" associated with those type of players--i.e., he won't get Chandler/Dalambert/Knee-Knee money.
.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Chandler-sized money is right on par with other very good, but non-all-star level PG's around the league. A reasonable extension is 5 years, $50-55M, IMO (Chandler got 6 yr, $60M). Guys like Jason Terry and Andre Miller are right in the same ballpark. Tony Parker, however, got a bigger contract than that while oddly enough, Manu Ginobili got a smaller one (who I tend to think is a more valuable player).


Precisely. He should be paid accordingly. The high end is Parker, the low end is Terry. Hinrich is in that range and he will be extended this summer unless he asks for significantly more than that. 

If the Bulls won't pony up for 5 years/$50 mil (basically Chandler money) then they will have made a mistake. Hinrich will improve again this season, probably as part of a deep playoff run, and another team will offer more per year next summer. The Bulls will have to match, thereby costing them more in the long term.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:



> Yeah ?
> 
> How come ?
> 
> ...


I'm not a fan on the same level as miz or VV, that's for sure. I do rate him -- I think he's one of the 3 or 4 or 5 best points in the league over the next 6-7 years. 

I have no complaints about his D or his conditioning/approach to the game. He's a consummate professional.

I do have a lot of complaints about his offense -- he dribbles too much, he's a great system passer (i.e., takes care of the ball, finds the open man, etc.) but not a creator. His finishing abilities are subpar, and he can't really get his own shot without a screen. Ideally, Skiles would continue to take possessions and plays away from Kirk and give them to other players, which I think would make him a more efficient offensive player. If he could stick to taking fairly wide-open Js, he could get his eFG well over .500.

All I really meant by "I'm not a Hinrich guy" is that I wasn't bringing a superfan agenda to what I was about to say with respect to his salary.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not a fan on the same level as miz or VV, that's for sure. I do rate him -- I think he's one of the 3 or 4 or 5 best points in the league over the next 6-7 years.
> 
> I have no complaints about his D or his conditioning/approach to the game. He's a consummate professional.
> 
> ...



You know, the weird thing is... I can think of a few more point guards that might be better in the upcoming years.

Top tier PG: Nash, Arenas, Billups, and Kidd still has two or three more good seasons left in him... and I think you have to put Jason Terry there finally. Don't forget about Bibby, who had an off-year but is still one of the most gutsy and solid guys out there.

There's younger but established talents: Chris Paul (SICK) and Shaun Livingston (not even starting to be sick yet).

Then there's young but not yet established talents like Raymond Felton, TJ Ford who can explode on the scene any day. 

I'd say that any of those guys, depending on your team, can be as valuable or more valuable than Hinrich. Hinrich is still going to get better and hopefully launch himself into that top-most tier, but it hasn't happened yet and thus he shouldn't be paid as if it has. One thing that most of those guys share in common (and Hinrich exhibits this too, to some extent): they are mainly responsible for helping their teams go from pretty bad to pretty good or even better.

That's not even counting guys who are still youngish and in their primes but are stuck on bad teams or have bad attitudes (Marbury, Baron Davis). Nor is it counting guys like LeBron and Wade and Iverson who essentially make good point guards unnecessary or even obsolete.

The tier after Hinrich is with Luke Ridnour, Deron Williams, Andre Miller, Jameer Nelson, Rafer Alston, Jamaal Tinsley. Starting PG's in the NBA that are solid.

So here's my rankings:

Nash
Kidd
Billups
Arenas
Chris Paul
Jason Terry
Kirk Hinrich
Shaun Livingston (I think most GM's would take Hinrich over Livingston today, although it'd be close)
Mike Bibby (some sense a decline in his skills but I think it's just the mini-rebuilding happening in Sac-town)
Baron Davis (hasn't fallen as far as you think, although he's not a top-5 PG anymore)
Marbury (no one wants the headache but you can't deny the talent)
Francis (is he still a point guard? more headache than Marbury)
Andre Miller
Luke Ridnour
TJ Ford
etc.

One of the biggest differences between Hinrich and everyone on that list above him (except for Chris Paul) is that all of those guys have been past the first round of the playoffs. And it won't take long for Paul to get there. Players make their money in the playoffs. Jason Terry is the perfect example, as is Sam Cassell.

As a result, although he's probably a better player overall, Hinrich maybe shouldn't get Terry-money, but he should get right near it. As a "goodwill" bonus of gratitude for basically being the Pax/Skiles guy to really turn around the entire franchise, they'll probably pay him out Terry-level money anyway.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

superdave said:


> IMO Kirk deserves about what Jason Terry got, 6 years at 50M.
> 
> If he gets greedy I could live with Thabo replacing him
> 
> [ducks head]


I'm with you.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No offense, but I need a little more than two summer league games before I'm kicking Hinrich to the curb. And for the record, I'm not at all a Hinrich guy.
> 
> I guess the extension isn't as cut and dried as some earlier articles suggested. I've said it before and I've said it again -- it really behooves the Bulls to get things done now, because assuming he has another solid year, someone is gonna offer Hinrich something damn close to the max if he goes to restricted free agency. A very competent hard-working two-way point guard who also happens to be white (sorry, it's a factor)? Forget about it.
> 
> And I can't see him signing for less than Chandler got. Fair's fair. And I wouldn't begrudge him that -- long-term, he's one of the top 4-5 guys at his position, and those sorts of players get big money.


I hate this argument. Chandlers numbers were inflated because of his SIZE, and the lack of it around the league. The two are not comparable. You CAN get a good PG in almost any draft.

I'll pay him 5 years 48-52 million tops.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> How much money though, Crawford money?
> 
> Crawford: 17.3 ppg 5.1 ast 3.5 reb
> Hinrich: 15.9 ppg 6.3 ast 3.6 reb.


I'm curious why you selected to compare Hinrich year 3 and Crawford year 4.

Hinrich career 14.6 ppg 3.6 rpg 6.5 apg
Crawford career 13.0 ppg 2.7 rpg 3.9 apg

Hinrich year three 15.9 ppg 3.6 rpg 6.3 apg
Crawford year three 10.7 ppg 2.3 rpg 4.2 apg

Hinrich year four ???????
Crawford year four 17.3 ppg 3.5 rpg 5.1 apg

Hinrich career playoffs 20.8 ppg 3.5 rpg 6.8 apg
Crawford career playoffs ???????


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

One thing to remember is that it's DALLAS that paid Terry.

Terry that was the unsung (and then sung) hero of that team. Terry, the guy that MAKES Dirk better, into one of the best season a forward has had for years. 

Mark Cuban, who overpays generally, paid out that much to Terry, a still fairly young guard that just helped his team to the NBA FINALS.

If Hinrich is somehow considered worth more than an overpaying owner's estimation of the hero of a Conference Champion, then I think we're making a mistake.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm curious why you selected to compare Hinrich year 3 and Crawford year 4.
> 
> Hinrich career 14.6 ppg 3.6 rpg 6.5 apg
> Crawford career 13.0 ppg 2.7 rpg 3.9 apg
> ...


Why do people do this?

Stats like this are meaningless. Compare them at the same age, an equally valid comparison, and the results will be skewed in the other direction. Can we just stop comparing them period?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> One thing to remember is that it's DALLAS that paid Terry.
> 
> Terry that was the unsung (and then sung) hero of that team. Terry, the guy that MAKES Dirk better, into one of the best season a forward has had for years.
> 
> ...


There you go.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

sloth said:


> But Crawford brought intangibles.


Jelly donuts for Curry when he was here, for Sweets in NY. And anti-smile facial cream for Marbury.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> You know, the weird thing is... I can think of a few more point guards that might be better in the upcoming years.
> 
> Top tier PG: Nash, Arenas, Billups, and Kidd still has two or three more good seasons left in him... and I think you have to put Jason Terry there finally. Don't forget about Bibby, who had an off-year but is still one of the most gutsy and solid guys out there.
> 
> ...


Two good seasons and two playoff appearances in our system.

Lets show some contentment with what we have. We can replace when and if he shows an inability to get it done. We all know Pax isn't shy about pulling the trigger in such cases.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Remember, Hinrich has never been on a winning team without Curry and Chandler leading the team in major statistical categories (points per game, rebounding, fg%, shot blocking, FTA per game).

Hopefully, now that the roster is sufficiently bolstered with freakish lotto picks and the heart and soul from a championship team, we can get back on the winning track.

Hinrich of course will play his meaningful role.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Why do people do this?
> 
> Stats like this are meaningless. Compare them at the same age, an equally valid comparison, and the results will be skewed in the other direction. Can we just stop comparing them period?



I tend to agree with you. I posted additional stats just to add to my question of why the original comparison was Hinrich year 3 to Crawford year 4. I can see no reson for that particular comparison whatsoever, but there seemed to be an underlying point intended by the comparison.


But, yes -- the comparison stats are ultimately meaningless, especially when you consider the completely different circumstances each player played under viv-a-vis the rest of the team, coaches, etc.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm fine with Hinrich at 5yr/$50MM. I could probably be had for $55MM.

A lot of the PG comparisons don't work for me. The Bulls have Ben Gordon and Ben Gordon needs to be on the floor a lot cuz he can flat fill it up. Gordon is not good at running the point on offense and can't effectively guard big guards on defense. Hinrich complements Gordon very well and can handle defensive assignments many of the other PGs mentioned can't.

Pay the man.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> You CAN get a good PG in almost any draft.
> I'll pay him 5 years 48-52 million tops.


If it is really truly that simple then the Bulls are *fools* to play him almost 10 million a year to do it. Just keep a merry go round of PG's on their rookie contracts in the position and use the cap space on other valuable positions.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Remember, Hinrich has never been on a winning team without Curry and Chandler leading the team in major statistical categories (points per game, rebounding, fg%, shot blocking, FTA per game).
> 
> Hopefully, now that the roster is sufficiently bolstered with freakish lotto picks and the heart and soul from a championship team, we can get back on the winning track.
> 
> Hinrich of course will play his meaningful role.


Neither Eddy nor Tyson has been a part of a winning team without Kirk running the team. Meaning, of course, that one year in a row.

Kirk will do fine. Hopefully the freaks will play a meaningful role.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Neither Eddy nor Tyson has been a part of a winning team without Kirk running the team. Meaning, of course, that one year in a row.


I think its debatable about who ran that team, Duhon or Hinrich.

Duhon was the PG for most of the winning part of the season, until the end of games when Gordon dribbled for 10-15 seconds before launching shots.

If you surround Kirk with good players, you'll have a good team. Solid combo guard.

The freaks and big men are required.... if we want to win.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The freaks and big men are required.... if we want to win.


Especially if they have "tons of upside" and can play like "beasts"


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I tend to agree with you. I posted additional stats just to add to my question of why the original comparison was Hinrich year 3 to Crawford year 4. I can see no reson for that particular comparison whatsoever, but there seemed to be an underlying point intended by the comparison.
> 
> 
> But, yes -- the comparison stats are ultimately meaningless, especially when you consider the completely different circumstances each player played under viv-a-vis the rest of the team, coaches, etc.


I agree. Entirely.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Especially if they have "tons of upside" and can play like "beasts"


Tyrus Thomas has long length.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

GB said:


> If it is really truly that simple then the Bulls are *fools* to play him almost 10 million a year to do it. Just keep a merry go round of PG's on their rookie contracts in the position and use the cap space on other valuable positions.


That's a strawman. Nowhere did I imply that PG's don't get better as they progress throughout their careers. Yes, I expect Hinrich to outperform most rookies not names Chris Paul in the NBA at the PG position. But that doesn't have as much to do with his talent at the PG position as it does with his experience, environment, coaching, intagibles, ect. 

So let me rephrase. Drafting a PG with GOOD NBA PG SKILLS is not really a big deal. There's at least one or two available in almost every draft.

Better?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Drafting a PG with GOOD NBA PG SKILLS is not really a big deal. There's at least one or two available in almost every draft.
> 
> Better?



Yes. It's an entirely different and more truthful statement. It also has little to nothing to do with KH.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

GB said:


> Yes. It's an entirely different and more truthful statement.


ITs not any different, nor any more truthful. You READ it to be that way, based on you though I meant. Not based on what I said or actuall DID mean.



> It also has little to nothing to do with KH.


Except that we shouldn't overpay for him based on our willingness to overpay for good big men (which CANNOT be found in every draft like a good PG). THAT was my point. To compare what we are willing to pay a big man to what we are willing to pay a pg is incongruous.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Tyrus Thomas has long length.


Long length is great, but you can't teach potential.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> So let me rephrase. Drafting a PG with GOOD NBA PG SKILLS is not really a big deal. There's at least one or two available in almost every draft.
> 
> Better?



Two in every draft divided into 30 teams each needing at least one, means they all have 15 year careers with no injuries, no back up, and no drop off, etc. 

I think there have to be more than two in every draft or it's not that simple.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> Two in every draft divided into 30 teams each needing at least one, means they all have 15 year careers with no injuries, no back up, and no drop off, etc.
> 
> I think there have to be more than two in every draft or it's not that simple.


Which is why I said AT LEAST 2. Hell, we got 2 good pgs drafting in vastly different places in back to back drafts. What does that tell you?

We took Hinrich one year. We could have taken devin harris or shaun livingston the next. We DID take chris duhon that year in the SECOND ROUND. Last year it was Chris Paul, Felton, Williams, etc....

This year, the player that people consider arguably the best pure PG in the draft wasn't selected until the first round was almost over.

Get my drift?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Which is why I said AT LEAST 2. Hell, we got 2 good pgs drafting in vastly different places in back to back drafts. What does that tell you?
> 
> We took Hinrich one year. We could have taken devin harris or shaun livingston the next. We DID take chris duhon that year in the SECOND ROUND. Last year it was Chris Paul, Felton, Williams, etc....
> 
> ...


Not really. What does it have to do with KH not being worth 50 mil for 5 years?


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Which is why I said AT LEAST 2. Hell, we got 2 good pgs drafting in vastly different places in back to back drafts. What does that tell you?
> 
> We took Hinrich one year. We could have taken devin harris or shaun livingston the next. We DID take chris duhon that year in the SECOND ROUND. Last year it was Chris Paul, Felton, Williams, etc....
> 
> ...



It tells me the Bulls have good point guards evaluating good point guards, and yes they could probably keep a revolving door of talent at the position, but if they never made a good offer to a good PG, they would always lose the players to other teams who maybe didn't draft so well, and subsequently have to pay for a point guard. Duhon got an offer that the Bulls were willing to match, but I have to think KH's value to other teams would be much higher should it come to that. 

I just wouldn't want the Bulls to be stingy just because they can easily spot another. All those point guards do different things best, good, and average, and I think KH's combination of skills is perfect for this team, and it might be harder to replace than you think.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> I think KH's combination of skills is perfect for this team, and it might be harder to replace than you think.


His intangibles too.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

GB said:


> Not really. What does it have to do with KH not being worth 50 mil for 5 years?


Tell me where I said as much.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> It tells me the Bulls have good point guards evaluating good point guards, and yes they could probably keep a revolving door of talent at the position, but if they never made a good offer to a good PG, they would always lose the players to other teams who maybe didn't draft so well, and subsequently have to pay for a point guard. Duhon got an offer that the Bulls were willing to match, but I have to think KH's value to other teams would be much higher should it come to that.
> 
> I just wouldn't want the Bulls to be stingy just because they can easily spot another. All those point guards do different things best, good, and average, and I think KH's combination of skills is perfect for this team, and it might be harder to replace than you think.



Let me state this in no uncertain terms for those who seem to not get it. I have not nor will I ever NOT advocate paying Hinrich what he "deserves" or what he's worth to us. I will not EVER advocate OVERPAYING him though. Period.

I fail to see what the problem is.

Edit: I left out NOT.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Let me state this in no uncertain terms for those who seem to not get it. I have not nor will I ever NOT advocate paying Hinrich what he "deserves" or what he's worth to us. I will not EVER advocate OVERPAYING him though. Period.
> 
> I fail to see what the problem is.
> 
> Edit: I left out NOT.



Is overpaying what Dallas did for Terry? Would he not have gotten that from others, maybe not, so it could be seen as overpaying. Hinrich will get not get overpayed in that sense because I think the Bulls will have a correct view of both his value to others and of his loyalty and desire for stability in the form of an extension rather than testing free agency. 

If it's a matter of couple million more over the contract term than might be considered fair this year, I'm just of the opinion to give it to him, because I think next year as a rfa, he'll get even more and be gone. 

Am I advocating overpaying? I don't think I am, but you might see that differently, too.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I do have a lot of complaints about his offense -- he dribbles too much, he's a great system passer (i.e., takes care of the ball, finds the open man, etc.) but not a creator.


Yeah I'd go with this too

For a guy that obviously lives and breathes the game I would have expected his passing / creating ability ( moreso in the slower tempo'd half court offense ) to be more intuitive ..kind of like Steve Nash / Jason Kidd intuitive . 

It's not 

And that's no boo hoo he's not and therefore he sucks just an observation that he's not at that kind of level /feel with his passing / creating game in the half court set 

I would classify him as you did - a system guard - that can be relied upon to make the right pass in designed plays the Coach wants 

In transition however I think he is terrific and will really develop further into one of the best in this facet . I really do enjoy watching him in transition - and with additions like Tyrus Thomas - the Bulls transition offense has a chance in coming seasons to be very exciting and very effective 

I always though he over dribbled in his first two seasons because he was thinking too much and not letting the game come to him and that may have been just getting acclimated to NBA ball or perhaps some nod to the fact that he is not an absolute pure point ( which I believe most would agree ) 

It was probably a combination of both 

I found last season however he seemed to become appreciably better and tended not to over dribble the possession. I thought he initiated better and quicker 




> His finishing abilities are subpar, and he can't really get his own shot without a screen. Ideally, Skiles would continue to take possessions and plays away from Kirk and give them to other players, which I think would make him a more efficient offensive player. If he could stick to taking fairly wide-open Js, he could get his eFG well over .500.


Again ..these are fair comments over his entire pro career to date - but I also feel he made real strides last season in finishing a lot better inside compared to the previous season . He still needs to get better here but he definately made improvements which give me some optimism when looking at this aspect of his game 

Big time players come up big when it counts ( obviously ) and Kirk played real big in the run home in the regular season when we needed to clinch that playoff berth and he really stood up and was counted in the Miami series 



> All I really meant by "I'm not a Hinrich guy" is that I wasn't bringing a superfan agenda to what I was about to say with respect to his salary.


So what do you think he's worth ?

You mention Tyson and 6 and 60 

We can only give Kirk 5 on the extension which would put him at 5 and 50 

FWIW I think we have to show a better level of appreciation for what he genuine in what we have with him and not just the hope he grows into it 

If it were me I'd go for 5 and 55


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

hollinger on the extensions for the rest of the class of 2003.





> *Kirk Hinrich, Bulls*
> 
> Tayshaun Prince and Caron Butler set the market last summer for "good perimeter players who aren't All-Star caliber" at $48 million (Prince) and $46 million (Butler). Throw in a bit of inflation and Hinrich's number should come in right around $50 million, *especially when one considers how human Hinrich made D-Wade look* in the first round of the playoffs (when Wade averaged 24.3 points on 43.9 percent shooting).
> 
> _*Forecast: Five years, $50 million*_




i'm thinking that will not get it done. and i wouldn't at all be surprised if kirk and his agents politely declined that. 

and still the captain waits.

:wait:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Paxson has said that Hinrich's extension is his #1 priority once the wheeling-dealing is over. This means there's some commitment there. Paxson's ready to tango, but as they say, "it takes two..."

It'll get done and when the numbers come out, some will say that the Bulls overpaid. If they pay over $55MM, I'll be one of them.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

10 million a year is enough for Hinrich. If he starts getting higher, that is the benchmark for Gordon's contract next year.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

i love hinrich, but 10 mill a year is a little too much, especially
him being a 40% shooter, and not being a scorer.

I think he is worth ginobili money.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Ginobili money seems about right to me as well, something like 5 yrs/$45 million.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

paxman said:


> i love hinrich, but 10 mill a year is a little too much, especially
> him being a 40% shooter, and not being a scorer.
> 
> I think he is worth ginobili money.


I agree that if I was to describe Hinrich's game, I wouldn't start with "scorer." However, he was 1ppg behind Gordon last season, who everyone considers "a scorer." Both were 42% shooters (Gordon's better from the arc).

Hinrich's an all-around good player...the best the Bulls have. In a perfect world, I'd like to see the Bulls get him signed for $45MM, but am fine with $50MM, and I won't criticize unless it's over $55MM.

Hinrich is very important to this team.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

transplant said:


> I agree that if I was to describe Hinrich's game, I wouldn't start with "scorer." However, he was 1ppg behind Gordon last season, who everyone considers "a scorer." Both were 42% shooters (Gordon's better from the arc).
> 
> Hinrich's an all-around good player...the best the Bulls have. In a perfect world, I'd like to see the Bulls get him signed for $45MM, but am fine with $50MM, and I won't criticize unless it's over $55MM.
> 
> Hinrich is very important to this team.


agreed about hinrich's importance.
i just don't want to have to lose another player b/c of roster payroll restrictions.
aside from that, i wouldn't care if kirk inked a 60 million contract. 
hinrich to me is a offensive-3rd/4th-option, championship piece player.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I honestly don't care what they pay him as long as they get it done and they keep the other guys the team needs to keep. It ain't my money, the owners have more than the needed means, and with the roster in place now, cap space won't be possible for a while either.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Given the apparent strict salary control that Paxson has to operate under, they should pay Hinrich as little as they possibly can without losing him. 

We were loosey goosey with the Chandler signing and now we've dumped him for one year of the ancient PJ Brown.

No more salary dumps! Since we're operating under Oklahoma City rules every penny is sacred.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

We weren't loosey goosey with Chandler.

We were grossly mistaken.

There is a difference.

Kirk, Luol, Andres, and to a lesser extent, Gentle Ben, are a different story.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> We weren't loosey goosey with Chandler.
> 
> We were grossly mistaken.
> 
> ...


we've yet to give them contracts.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

paxman said:


> we've yet to give them contracts.


and...

We had this on another thread today.

Blind negativism is just as useless as blind faith.

Based on the progress made pulling this franchise out of the muck, I'd say even more so.

But if you keep building up worst case expectations, I guess you are safe from ever getting disappointed.

Rock on.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> and...
> 
> We had this on another thread today.
> 
> ...


 

I'm just basing this on reinsdorf's history, not on "blind negativism"
you said that hinrich, ben, deng, noc ARE a different story, and i think
it's realistic to think that we will lose one of them.
the recent reports are for kirk to ink a 10 million a year extension. 
and knowing reinsdorf's history, unless we are absolutely an elite team, he
will restrict our roster payroll to be an nba average one.

I would think that assuming that kirk ben deng and noc will all get extensions from us
is closer to blind faith.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Pax said on ESPN tonight that next up is Kirk's contract. He also said he wants to take his first vacation in three years in August, so I bet the contract gets done fairly quickly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

narek said:


> Pax said on ESPN tonight that next up is Kirk's contract. He also said he wants to take his first vacation in three years in August, so I bet the contract gets done fairly quickly.


Glad to see that, our name already etched on the 2007 NBA Championship trophy, we can rest on our laurels.

I think I'm going to vomit.

Am I the type of guy to begrudge someone a vacation? 

Actually, yes, I am!
I work seven days a week. I take care of a toddler full time. I've got two jobs. And I'm writing a dissertation. It's 10:30, and I'm at the library looking up a bunch of crap instead of home with my family.

You know what? I haven't taken a real vacation in over 3 years either. *And I don't even make millions of dollars a year!* And if I did, I'd be there working for it while there are free agents out there, not taking a freaking vacation!

I'll sleep when I'm dead, not when I'm behind the wheel!
:twave:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given the apparent strict salary control that Paxson has to operate under, they should pay Hinrich as little as they possibly can without losing him.
> 
> We were loosey goosey with the Chandler signing and now we've dumped him for one year of the ancient PJ Brown.
> 
> No more salary dumps! Since we're operating under Oklahoma City rules every penny is sacred.


Hinrich is the heart and soul of this Chicago Bulls team. He has, afterall, been here since the "losing days" and he's as responsible as anyone for the team's turn around. Furthermore, he was Paxson's first chosen one. If Hinrich gets penny pinched into leaving and/or is dumped for salary reasons, then I've pretty much officially lost all hope as a Bulls fan. If we don't keep Capt Kirk, who DO we keep?

That's not to say it's the world's end if we don't extend him this summer. But I do think the lack of a Hinrich extension sours an otherwise good off-season. I still expect something to get done; I'd be very surprised if Kirk doesn't get extended by the time training camp rolls around.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Hinrich is the heart and soul of this Chicago Bulls team. He has, afterall, been here since the "losing days" and he's as responsible as anyone for the team's turn around. Furthermore, he was Paxson's first chosen one. If Hinrich gets penny pinched into leaving and/or is dumped for salary reasons, then I've pretty much officially lost all hope as a Bulls fan. If we don't keep Capt Kirk, who DO we keep?
> 
> That's not to say it's the world's end if we don't extend him this summer. But I do think the lack of a Hinrich extension sours an otherwise good off-season. I still expect something to get done; I'd be very surprised if Kirk doesn't get extended by the time training camp rolls around.


Sure, I want him to get extended too. But I also don't see any logic to paying him more than is necessary to keep him.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I work seven days a week. I take care of a toddler full time. I've got two jobs. And I'm writing a dissertation. It's 10:30, and I'm at the library looking up a bunch of crap instead of home with my family.


Stop procrastinating by reading BB.net! (Like I'm doing.) :naughty: :clown:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Sure, I want him to get extended too. But I also don't see any logic to paying him more than is necessary to keep him.


I've argued for weeks now that 5 yrs, $50 is a perfectly fair deal for both sides. It's not a bargain, but I don't think it's overpaying considering Hinrich's production and consistency. It's right on par with the many other players who are about as good as him, most of whom have been mentioned (Ginobili, Butler, Prince, Andre Miller, etc). Personally I think Hinrich's camp would be foolish to turn down that kind of security when he might not get a penny more next season. And I think the Bulls would be foolish not to offer it. Generally those are the signs of a fair deal.

Edit: Sorry to be luring you back to this thread, Mike. In about a month I'll be in the same boat with grad school starting up at GMU. Maybe I should change my name to "DurkDC".


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> someone a vacation?
> 
> Actually, yes, I am!
> I work seven days a week. I take care of a toddler full time. I've got two jobs. And I'm writing a dissertation. It's 10:30, and I'm at the library looking up a bunch of crap instead of home with my family.
> ...


After you get your PH.D, and get a cushy professorship, you'll get plenty of vacation to make up for it. You'll also be broke paying off your student loans, so it won't matter. :biggrin:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I've argued for weeks now that 5 yrs, $50 is a perfectly fair deal for both sides. It's not a bargain, but I don't think it's overpaying considering Hinrich's production and consistency. It's right on par with the many other players who are about as good as him, most of whom have been mentioned (Ginobili, Butler, Prince, Andre Miller, etc). Personally I think Hinrich's camp would be foolish to turn down that kind of security when he might not get a penny more next season. And I think the Bulls would be foolish not to offer it. Generally those are the signs of a fair deal.
> 
> Edit: Sorry to be luring you back to this thread, Mike. In about a month I'll be in the same boat with grad school starting up at GMU. Maybe I should change my name to "DurkDC".


So you decided on Mason, eh? Sweet. I'll probably see you around campus at some point.



narek said:


> After you get your PH.D, and get a cushy professorship, you'll get plenty of vacation to make up for it. You'll also be broke paying off your student loans, so it won't matter. :biggrin:


No loans for me... I've managed to do it almost all for free up to this point


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> No loans for me... I've managed to do it almost all for free up to this point


Not me, student debt all the way. :cheers: 

And yeah, you know, the Mason Final 4 run really pushed my decision over the top...not really, but I like seeing how many people believe it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bump/update (in a way)

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/282sd1.htm



> Now that Hinrich is one of 15 finalists for a roster spot with the United States national team for the World Championship next month, *his contract extension has been moved to the backburner.*
> 
> "That will be my next goal," Paxson said. "There's no timetable, but I expect to get it done. We'll do everything we can to get it done."



then listen to the audio interview at comcast sportsnet (top audio item dated 7/24)

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp



_"we love kirk as a person and a player"...then kinda hedges a bit about the extension, taking RFA, trying to build a team, *hopefully guys understand it*, at the end of the day if it's about money then that's what it's about. it takes two sides to get it done._


anyone else think it might not get done by the october 31st deadline? i have nothing to base this feeling on other than, well, feeling. pax isn't sounding super confident (to me) that it will get done this summer.


----------



## J-City (Feb 20, 2003)

*****THIS JUST IN*****

Pax is making Kirk get a DNA test to prove he's not predisposed to Genital-Hogwarts!

Apparently Kirk experienced shortness of breath while playing a pick-up game of Quidditch...

...this could have sign and trade written all over it!

^ring ring^ "Hello... damn I'm sleepin! Yeah this is Isaiah!"


----------

