# Official Chicago Bulls @ Golden State Warriors



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

vs. 








Warriors are 11-27 and have lost 3 in a row. 7-10 at home and are 4-6 the last 10 games. 

Bulls are 19-20, they have won 4 in a row. They are 4-13 on the road. They are 7-3 in the last 10 games. 

WGN,CSBA


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Warriors stats of interest

107.3 pts a game and give up _112.0_

They shoot .474% and .363(232-639)%

They give up *.492%* and .347%

They are out rebounded by *9 a game!*

Monta Ellis 26.1
Corey Maggette 19.7
Kelenna Azubuike 13.9
Stephen Curry 12.6
Anthony Randolph 11.6
Anthony Morrow 11.5
Raja Bell 11.0

Anthony Randolph and Andris Biedrins lead the team in rebounding with 6.5 a game. 

Anthony Randolph leads the team in blocks with 1.55. 

Monta Ellis leads the team in assists with 5.3


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Bulls stats of interest. 

94.3 pts a game and give up 97.4

They shoot .438% and .340(143-421)%

They give up .441% and .330%

Derrick Rose 19.0
Luol Deng 17.6
John Salmons 13.0
Joakim Noah 11.2

Joakim Noah leads the team in rebounding with 12.2 and in blocks with 1.74.

Derrick Rose leads the team in assists with 6 a game.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

In the last Warriors/Bucks game, the Warriors ended up with 4 players, so they had to let the person who had fouled out come back in. Never saw that before in a game.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Warriors off to a 9-6 start.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng scores


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Kirk Hinrich is not playing today. Apparently he's sick. Crap.

I was just saying earlier how Hinrich is the glue guy in our starting lineup these days. Now we're back to Salmons who has generally stunk as a starter. 

That also puts us back down to a 7-man rotation and Pargo as backup PG.

Amazing how thin this team gets when only 1 key player goes down.


----------



## Dancon7 (Jan 13, 2005)

Holy crap. WGN better fix the sound on this game. Whatever that high pitched sound is, it's nearly unbearable.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

18-12 Gs


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Needless to say Bulls making warriors look like a good team early. Geeeessh


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Warriors 21-12


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

23-12 after an ellis steal and lay up


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

25-14 GS time out Bulls. 

Bulls 35% Warriors 64%. 

bulls have 5 turnovers. 

Both teams have 9 rebounds. 

Maggette 13, Ellis 8.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose gets fouled on the lay up attempt. Curry's 3rd

FTA split the pair

Pargo is in.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TT misses lay up, get the loose ball and misses again


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Miller to deng for the dunk. 25-17


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Maggette scores again


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng is fouled. Maggettes second foul

FTA made them both


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Warriors foul a lot, Pargo is now fouled

FTA made them both. Bulls down 6


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pargo drives and took a wild shot that never came close to the rim, TT fouls on the rebound attempt


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Miller gets fouled on the lay up attempt

FTA split the pair


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

31-22 Gs


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons for 3.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pargo gets blocked, gets the ball back and misses the jumper.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

End of one GS 33-25

Bulls 32%, GS 57%. 

GS 15-14 rebounding edge. 

Maggette 17, Ellis 10.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry for 3. GS up 11


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Tolliver fouls pargo

FTA


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Sheesh. Maggette with 17 pts in first quarter?!?!

Clearly Luol Deng cannot hang with this guy. Too athletic. Need to go small and put John Salmons on him.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pargo with the jumper


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Ellis for 2.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TT for two


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

JJ scores in close, Bulls down 6


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TT gets fouled.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons with the jumper, bulls down 4 with Rose on the bench


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Biedrins scores and gets fouled.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

pargo misses, Gibson rebounds


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons with the lay up


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons with the jumper! Bulls down 4


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Salmons has been fire so far


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Gibson with the jumper! Down 2.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

P to the Wee said:


> Salmons has been fire so far


Dont know about you, but I am glad to see it!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

7:28 42-40 GS 

Maggette 17, Ellis 12, Salmons 11. 

Bulls 41%, GS 50%

Bulls are slowly taking control of the boards up 22-19. Thomas has 6 rebounds.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

I've always wondered this but, for Bulls fans, who are the guys you want to keep? I think Rose and Joakim Noah are like the more valuable guys for the Bulls right now but whatabout guys like Hinrich, Salmons and some younger guys like Tyrus Thomas and Taj Gibson (who is looking pretty solid)?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Nice! Salmons to Gibson for the dunk game is tied


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose is fouled in transition before the lay up attempt

FTA made them both, bulls up 2


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

GS has 3 D League players playing right now against the Bulls


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose scores in close to tie the game.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose steals and dunks


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

**** is Rose fast


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Gibson is fouled by maggette, his 3rd

FTA split the pair


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose with the charge trying to get the 4th foul on Curry


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Noah just got his 3rd foul.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

I love Stephen Curry


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

2:56 50-49 GS

GS 45%, Bulls 42%

Maggette 17, Ellis 15, Rose and Salmons 11. 

Noah with 8 rebounds

Biedrins has 4 blocks.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

gi0rdun said:


> I love Stephen Curry


That was a deep, deep 3.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Halftime Bulls down 54-53. 

Bulls 37%, Warriors 44%. 

Ellis 19, Maggette 17, Rose, Salmons 13.


----------



## Dancon7 (Jan 13, 2005)

Giordun, I'd like to see the Bulls keep everyone you mentioned except Salmons, who is playing terribly this season. I think we're seeing the last of him, as well as Ty Thomas and Hinrich. I like both of those guys, but the team wants the cap space for FAs.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

gi0rdun said:


> I've always wondered this but, for Bulls fans, who are the guys you want to keep? I think Rose and Joakim Noah are like the more valuable guys for the Bulls right now but whatabout guys like Hinrich, Salmons and some younger guys like Tyrus Thomas and Taj Gibson (who is looking pretty solid)?


The core is Noah, Rose, and Deng. Deng can be had if in a package for a super star. 

We need to trade hinrich because of his contract. Salmons will opt out so we will let him walk. 

Gibson is here for a while. 

TT will either be traded or walk. He is not our answer at PF.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

both teams start cold. Bulls 35%


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons for 3. Bulls up 2


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng is fouled. Maggette has 4 fouls

FTA split the pair, game tied


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry fouls Rose in transition, his 4th foul. 

FTA splits the pair, bulls down 1.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng with the jumper, bulls up 1


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Maggette with the jumper


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

7:21 63-60 Warriors. 

GS 43% Bulls 36%. 

Both teams 36 rebounds each. 

Maggette 22, Ellis 19, Salmons 16, Rose 14, Deng 11, Curry 10


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry for 3. Warriors up 6


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons for 3 bulls down 5


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons scores and is fouled

FTA is good, Bulls down 2


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salmons hits another 3! 4-6 in 3's


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose is fouled on a lay up attempt. Biedrins 4th foul

FTa splits the pair, game tied


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng with the jumper


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng at the foul line

FTA made both, game tied


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng scores in close and is fouled!

FTA is good, Bulls up 3


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng to TT for the alley oop


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Warriors went on a 9-2 run to lead by 4


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

pargo misses, TT called for the foul on the rebound attempt


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

End of 3, 83-79 Warriors

Bulls 37%, Warriors 42%

GS 44-41 rebounding edge. 

C. Maggette 26, Salmons 25, Ellis, Curry, 21, Deng 18, Rose 15. 

* Biedrins 16 rebounds, 6 blocks*!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

pargo with the jumper


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry scores, Tolliver is hurt.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TT just fouled out.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose to Gibson, fouled by Martin

FTA splits the pair, bulls down 3


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Biedrins with 8 blocks, Warriors up 5


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Make that 7. 8:53 left GS 89-82


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

36% and being out rebounded on the road by a bad rebounding team wont win you many games. GS allows 112 a game! We have just 83.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

5:42 left GS up 11.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Gibson FTa made both


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Ellis fouls Salmons

FTA missed both...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Now the bulls are purposely fouling Biedrins


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Gs 103-90


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry blocks Rose


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Dare I say we missed Hinrich and his D.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

This one was winable for Bulls, but now it will be real tough for Bulls to get a win to start the west trip.

Go Bulls!


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Oy. We can't win shooting 36%.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose is getting careless...damn


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Too many turnovers from Bulls now. And no defensive stops.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

Warriors on fire.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Curry for 3, game over...


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

90-105 now


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Deng is fouled. missed both


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

90-106...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Rose with the jumper


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Bulls on 22-33 on FTs - Maggette and Ellis with 30+ points

1st Loss on west trip


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Biedrins played a hell of a game


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pargo for 3.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Ellis for 3.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pargo just chucking now...missed the last 2.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pargo with the lay up


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Blech.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Warriors 114-97.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

End of game

Bulls lose 97-114

I'm disappointed. Thought that this one was one of the better chances to get a W on this west trip.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Bulls 37%

We were out rebounded by 4 by a team that gets out rebounded by 9 a game!


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> Bulls 37%
> 
> We were out rebounded by 4 by a team that gets out rebounded by 9 a game!


:wtf:

Bad.

Bulls really missed Hinrich.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsger said:


> :wtf:
> 
> Bad.
> 
> Bulls really missed Hinrich.


Yep..we did.

And it is look like our bigs had a nice vacation.

Deng (-28) ?! It is such a burden to carry this team on his shoulder game after game. I am wondering, did Maggette know that Deng is a “fourth best SF in East” ? … no ****ing respect whatsoever !


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Wow, it turned bad quickly, or maybe that's a mistaken impression? I know the Bulls started slow. I checked the score when it was 85-81 but didn't get to check again until the end. 

How many people had this day off? I've put in 11 hours of work today.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

narek said:


> Wow, it turned bad quickly, or maybe that's a mistaken impression? I know the Bulls started slow. I checked the score when it was 85-81 but didn't get to check again until the end.
> 
> How many people had this day off? I've put in 11 hours of work today.


I was playing tennis half of the day...then enjoyed reading Bullhitter's hieroglyphs between shots of bourbon and watched the game on-line


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Bulls96 said:


> Yep..we did.
> 
> And it is look like our bigs had a nice vacation.
> 
> Deng (-28) ?! It is such a burden to carry this team on his shoulder game after game. I am wondering, did Maggette know that Deng is a “fourth best SF in East” ? … no ****ing respect whatsoever !


Maggette played PF all game...


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

P to the Wee said:


> Maggette played PF all game...


It does not matter...it is a basketball game, my friend.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Bulls96 said:


> I was playing tennis half of the day...then enjoyed reading Bullhitter's hieroglyphs between shots of bourbon and watched the game on-line


A much better day than I had.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

narek said:


> A much better day than I had.


Well...I don’t know man. 

I love my job, and frankly speaking I probably should be working today too, but then I changed my mind. All my friends took off and as you know “laziness” is very contagious


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

the bulls are CLEARLY, i mean CLEARLY a better defensive team. their defense is beyond reproach. it's quite remarkable what the purging of one player can do for an entire defensive philosophy.

offensively the bulls are sharing the ball with no greedy "chucker" taking all the shine away from the soon to be HOF'er derrick "the sieve" rose. a major offensive juggernaut like the bulls excelling with 36% shooting against a team with 3 minor league players and 3-4 starters allergic to defense.... this offseason looks to be one of the most glorious ones in bulls history. managment's efforts to continue to make money with such a mediocre roster, mediocre coach, and fragile minded players will underscore the excellence with which john and gar perform their jobs. i tell ya, what FA won't want to get overpaid by such a stellar group.



> was playing tennis half of the day...then enjoyed reading Bullhitter's hieroglyphs between shots of bourbon and watched the game on-line


e pluribus unum to you too......:smackalot:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> the bulls are CLEARLY, i mean CLEARLY a better defensive team. their defense is beyond reproach. it's quite remarkable what the purging of one player can do for an entire defensive philosophy.


And I'm sure missing our best perimeter defender against a team dominated by dynamic, high-scoring guards had nothing to do with this?

A theme we've seen this season is that we can't sustain even a single injury without having a very bad impact on the team. Continues to be true, for whatever reason.

Our record without Kirk Hinrich this season is probably very very bad based on my recollection. And pretty good with him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Kind of a disappointing loss though. Yeah the Warriors have a talented starting 5 here, but no depth at all. They don't play defense either, and yet I guess they don't need to when only John Salmons comes to play. Pretty much everyone else played like garbage.

LVP of this game = Deng, Rose, Noah, Pargo, Miller, Gibson, Tyrus, JJ

Too much fun this weekend perhaps.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Kind of a disappointing loss though. Yeah the Warriors have a talented starting 5 here, but no depth at all. They don't play defense either, and yet I guess they don't need to when only John Salmons comes to play. Pretty much everyone else played like garbage.
> 
> LVP of this game = Deng, Rose, Noah, Pargo, Miller, Gibson, Tyrus, JJ
> 
> Too much fun this weekend perhaps.


If Golden State controlled the pace, it would explain a lot. they can score, and you're doomed if you can't keep up. Ah, for one of those scorer types.......


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

narek said:


> If Golden State controlled the pace, it would explain a lot. they can score, and you're doomed if you can't keep up. Ah, for one of those scorer types.......


Gotta give credit to Corey Maggette too. He's been playing like a maniac all season. Averaging around 19 ppg in only 30 minutes.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> And I'm sure missing our best perimeter defender against a team dominated by dynamic, high-scoring guards had nothing to do with this?
> 
> A theme we've seen this season is that we can't sustain even a single injury without having a very bad impact on the team. Continues to be true, for whatever reason.
> 
> Our record without Kirk Hinrich this season is probably very very bad based on my recollection. And pretty good with him.


We're 1-6 without Kirk.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> And I'm sure missing our best perimeter defender against a team dominated by dynamic, high-scoring guards had nothing to do with this?
> 
> A theme we've seen this season is that we can't sustain even a single injury without having a very bad impact on the team. Continues to be true, for whatever reason.
> 
> Our record without Kirk Hinrich this season is probably very very bad based on my recollection. And pretty good with him.


i don't believe for a second that what kirk brings to the table for the bulls would have made an ounce of difference in that game. kirk is a solid, unspectacular, far from "lockdown" defender. his greatest attribute is that he tries hard consistently, even if unsuccessfully half the time. that's correct, he's an inconsistent player, just like the rest of the team, a major reason why the team can't find
.500. i think monta's quickness would've gotten kirk in to foul trouble in that kirk likes to play with his hands as much as he does with his feet, and GS was very effective (or more aptly put, the bulls were powerless to solve )in the P&R. rose has spent his entire two years going under the P&R with no success, and kirk likes to fight thru picks, a sure way to pick up cheap fouls. in short, i think monta lights kirk up like a xmas tree. given he was able to get up damn near 40 shots, can you honestly think kirk doesn't get in foul trouble against that kind of guy?

i'm equally disappointed in tyrus; this was the kind of game he should have been very effective in shutting down maggette. thomas has the quickness and length to stay with him and not be shot over (which he did time and again with little resistance), whereas deng doesn't, yet thomas seemed disintested and just not into it. the bulls, imo, have failed with thomas. fault notwithstanding, idk if he'll reach the potential they saw (with which i've concurred), but i don't think they'll reach him at this point in his career. the game of basketball begins and ends with his head; either he masters that aspect and flourish, or he'll always be on the cusp of "what he could've been". maybe he'll go to another team and grow up, but at this point it seems obvious it's not going to happen for him in chicago. the organization seems fragemented top to bottom, which is filtering down to and thru the team (what's the old saying s**t rolls downhill?) further, there's seems to be a lot of underlying "stuff" that isn't being said, presented or played out in the media. that's just my take on it, but this group just doesn't look like a "team"; more like a bunch of guys saying stuff that makes them appear to BE on the same team, but clueless to figure out how to perform like one every night (and that includes "the franchise").

tough season all around.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

With Kirk
Bulls: 95.1 PPG
Opponents: 96.9 PPG

Without Kirk
Bulls: 91.1 PPG
Opponents: 102.4 PPG


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> With Kirk
> Bulls: 95.1 PPG
> Opponents: 96.9
> 
> ...


a perfect underscore for the entire season; the bulls LOSE by LESS POINTS *with* captain kirk.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> With Kirk
> Bulls: 95.1 PPG
> Opponents: 96.9 PPG
> 
> ...


Other fun facts...

Kirk as Starting SG (12.1 PPG, 43.9% FG, 45.1 3PT FG, 3.8 RPG, 5.6 APG, 1.4 TO/G)
Bulls W-L: 8-3
Bulls PPG: 102.9
Opponents PPG: 95.6

Kirk off the Bench (8.5 PPG, 36.2 FG%, 32.2 3PT FG, 2.9 RPG, 3.8 APG, 2.0 TO/G)
Bulls W-L: 9-12
Bulls PPG: 91.0
Opponents PPG: 97.5


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> a perfect underscore for the entire season; the bulls LOSE by LESS POINTS *with* captain kirk.


*...with a winning record.*


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i don't believe for a second that what kirk brings to the table for the bulls would have made an ounce of difference in that game. kirk is a solid, unspectacular, far from "lockdown" defender. his greatest attribute is that he tries hard consistently, even if unsuccessfully half the time. that's correct, he's an inconsistent player, just like the rest of the team, a major reason why the team can't find
> .500. i think monta's quickness would've gotten kirk in to foul trouble in that kirk likes to play with his hands as much as he does with his feet, and GS was very effective (or more aptly put, the bulls were powerless to solve )in the P&R. rose has spent his entire two years going under the P&R with no success, and kirk likes to fight thru picks, a sure way to pick up cheap fouls. in short, i think monta lights kirk up like a xmas tree. given he was able to get up damn near 40 shots, can you honestly think kirk doesn't get in foul trouble against that kind of guy?
> 
> i'm equally disappointed in tyrus; this was the kind of game he should have been very effective in shutting down maggette. thomas has the quickness and length to stay with him and not be shot over (which he did time and again with little resistance), whereas deng doesn't, yet thomas seemed disintested and just not into it. the bulls, imo, have failed with thomas. fault notwithstanding, idk if he'll reach the potential they saw (with which i've concurred), but i don't think they'll reach him at this point in his career. the game of basketball begins and ends with his head; either he masters that aspect and flourish, or he'll always be on the cusp of "what he could've been". maybe he'll go to another team and grow up, but at this point it seems obvious it's not going to happen for him in chicago. the organization seems fragemented top to bottom, which is filtering down to and thru the team (what's the old saying s**t rolls downhill?) further, there's seems to be a lot of underlying "stuff" that isn't being said, presented or played out in the media. that's just my take on it, but this group just doesn't look like a "team"; more like a bunch of guys saying stuff that makes them appear to BE on the same team, but clueless to figure out how to perform like one every night (and that includes "the franchise").
> ...


I think you're over analyzing the game yesterday. It's very simple, we were getting run over by their guards, and we didn't have a wing defender who could slow them down. 

Could Hinrich have locked them down? I can't guarantee that, but I can guarantee our chances of winning would've been much better had Hinrich suited up.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> but I can guarantee our chances of winning would've been much better had Hinrich suited up.


with all due respect, you cannot guarantee that whatsoever. the ONLY thing i'll agree with is that hinrich definitely brings more to the table overall than pargo or hunter, along with six extra fouls. he most certainly couldn't have taken or made enough shouts to make up the 17 point differential in scoring, nor made curry or ellis wary enough of his prescence to warrant getting them in foul trouble, thus minimizing their impact on the game.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> i'm equally disappointed in tyrus; this was the kind of game he should have been very effective in shutting down maggette. thomas has the quickness and length to stay with him and not be shot over (which he did time and again with little resistance), whereas deng doesn't, yet thomas seemed disintested and just not into it. the bulls, imo, have failed with thomas. fault notwithstanding, idk if he'll reach the potential they saw (with which i've concurred), but i don't think they'll reach him at this point in his career. the game of basketball begins and ends with his head; either he masters that aspect and flourish, or he'll always be on the cusp of "what he could've been". maybe he'll go to another team and grow up, but at this point it seems obvious it's not going to happen for him in chicago. the organization seems fragemented top to bottom, which is filtering down to and thru the team (what's the old saying s**t rolls downhill?) further, there's seems to be a lot of underlying "stuff" that isn't being said, presented or played out in the media. that's just my take on it, but this group just doesn't look like a "team"; more like a bunch of guys saying stuff that makes them appear to BE on the same team, but clueless to figure out how to perform like one every night (and that includes "the franchise").
> 
> tough season all around.


Tyrus won't ever excel anywhere. The dude has so many problems it's ridiculous. It is crazy that he is one of the most athletic and yet one of the worst finishing big men I have ever seen. I mean seriously TT make a layup. Offensiveley all the dude can do is dunk. I have never seen a more one dimensional offensive big man in my life. I mean he has ZERO skills. I actually think he has been playing better the last two games. He hasn't been chucking up bad J's as often and has been playing really hard (which I will admit he normally does play pretty hard) but the guys is just so unskilled that he still can't be effective.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> with all due respect, you cannot guarantee that whatsoever. the ONLY thing i'll agree with is that hinrich definitely brings more to the table overall than pargo or hunter, along with six extra fouls. he most certainly couldn't have taken or made enough shouts to make up the 17 point differential in scoring, nor made curry or ellis wary enough of his prescence to warrant getting them in foul trouble, thus minimizing their impact on the game.


Well considering that the evidence is against you... You just saw a stat of how much better we play with Hinrich than without. And regardless of what you think of Hinrich we have zero depth at guard. So when we lose Hinrich that means pargo or hunter play which kills us. We might still of lost but we definateley would have had a better chance of winning. How can you argue that.
And further how come it seems that you want the bulls to lose?
If you are so angry about BG leaving that you hate the bulls than why don't you go become a Pistons fan and follow your hero?
Whats with the constant Bull Bashing?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I personally don't think Hinrich would have made that big of difference. I mean, GS had 4 decent players, 3nbdl players, and one scrub and we had EVERYONE healthy except Hinrich. There's just no excuse for losing this game, plus GS had lost three in a row and we had one 4 in a row. We played very sloppy ball, Rose turned the ball over too much, we didn't try to get GS in foul trouble in any apprecciable way which would have helped. If we really have to say, "well, if Hinrich was healthy we would have won" given GS's state of dissaray then thats a sad statement on our team.


ACE


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Well considering that the evidence is against you... You just saw a stat of how much better we play with Hinrich than without.


yes they lose by less points with him.....big woot.



> And regardless of what you think of Hinrich we have zero depth at guard.


thanks to brilliant foresight by the FO; which has JACK to do with gordon.



> So when we lose Hinrich that means pargo or hunter play which kills us. We might still of lost but we definateley would have had a better chance of winning How can you argue that.


because i've seen kirk hinrich get his azz lit up by travis diener. monta ellis is in a different galaxy talent wise than diener.



> And further how come it seems that you want the bulls to lose?
> If you are so angry about BG leaving that you hate the bulls than why don't you go become a Pistons fan and follow your hero?
> Whats with the constant Bull Bashing?


it just seems that way; there's no positives from a losses like the bulls have shown this season; if you want to pull some out, be my guest. as well, i'm not angry about BG leaving, he got a better deal; i'm happy for him. when it's all said and done, i'm betting he'll have better career numbers than hirnich OR deng, AND could end up as a specialist on a championship caliber team. and fwiw, imo, the bulls *aren't* as good as they were last year (the records are close FOR NOW); and even worse the bulls are mediocre *by design*, and that's an infuriating position to be in as a fan.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

We'd be equally mediocre by design if we had kept Gordon, perhaps a bit more so with the salaries we'd be locked into...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> yes they lose by less points with him.....big woot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so you think The bulls are not better with Hinrich... fine. You are ignoring the stats though. So I can't persuade you. 
But I do find it interesting that you ignore point differential stats with Hinrich But say this about the team having virtually the same record at this point last year whithout BG:


> BS.. they've fallen further offensively than they climbed defensively; while the records are the same


So it is ok to look at differential when discussing BG but not when discussing Hinrichs impact on the game....very conflicting opinions.



> and even worse the bulls are mediocre *by design*, and that's an infuriating position to be in as a fan


See here is the problem with your arguement. The Bulls would have been mediocre by design had they signed BG. By not signing him they are angling for a potentially great future. By signing him they are absoluteley making themselves mediocre by design. Do you think we would be a contender right now with BG??? No we would be at best the 5th best team in the east. Which is still our potential this year anyways. And next year not having BG gives us the opportunity to sign a max contract player which could make this team a legit contender. Why is that so difficult to understand???


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I didn't watch the game. could it be possible that the absence of Hinrich affected our passing game? hence the poor shooting and the loss.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> So it is ok to look at differential when discussing BG but not when discussing Hinrichs impact on the game....very conflicting opinions.


all i stated were facts; they've fallen FURTHER offensively than they've climbed defensively. hinrich's differential on the bulls wins have only been a marginal positive; they can't score, and hirnich's D is a neglible factor in their defensive climb; doesn't help them win by much if any. hell i could point to the stat that could be equally attributable to their improved rebounding. they ARE 18-21, after all.



> See here is the problem with your arguement. The Bulls would have been mediocre by design had they signed BG.


he's not here, so there's no way you can support that claim. furthter, based on the FO's non-movement in the offseason *that's* the design i'm referring to.



> By not signing him they are angling for a potentially great future. By signing him they are absoluteley making themselves mediocre by design. Do you think we would be a contender right now with BG???


trading hinrich was the right thing to do imo; you don't think that, fine. the bulls would be a better team WITH gordon alongside a max deal guy than they would with hinrich. lastly, potential only means you haven't done s**t yet. the potential "great future" you're buying into has been the bulls MO for the past 4 years. show me the money.



> No we would be at best the 5th best team in the east. Which is still our potential this year anyways. And next year not having BG gives us the opportunity to sign a max contract player which could make this team a legit contender. Why is that so difficult to understand???


ok, by that rationalization, the bulls could very well POTENTIALLY have been the 4th best team in the east with gordon and two (2) reasonably paid and performing role players in the 9 mil slot that hinrich is sucking up at both damn ends (try antonio daniels and dahntay jones for example; a backup pg with experience AND cheap, and jones, a defensive 2 with size and a little O, both very attainable). for the deal the bulls pulled from the table on gordon (6/54) they'd have a 20 point scorer who could start or play off the bench, who has a history of winning games (help me recall the last time hinrich or deng did that), a possible/potential 4th place playoff team, and a far more attractive place/team to a max guy.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> ok, by that rationalization, the bulls could very well POTENTIALLY have been the 4th best team in the east with gordon and two (2) reasonably paid and performing role players in the 9 mil slot that hinrich is sucking up at both damn ends (try antonio daniels and dahntay jones for example; a backup pg with experience AND cheap, and jones, a defensive 2 with size and a little O, both very attainable). for the deal the bulls pulled from the table on gordon (6/54) they'd have a 20 point scorer who could start or play off the bench, who has a history of winning games (help me recall the last time hinrich or deng did that), a possible/potential 4th place playoff team, *and a far more attractive place/team to a max guy.*


You aren't a max guy, so there's no way you can support that claim. Trading for Dahntay (who's not that good) and Daniels (who's more or less done) isn't something I'd trust that the FO'd get done.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> all i stated were facts; they've fallen FURTHER offensively than they've climbed defensively. hinrich's differential on the bulls wins have only been a marginal positive; they can't score, and hirnich's D is a neglible factor in their defensive climb; doesn't help them win by much if any. hell i could point to the stat that could be equally attributable to their improved rebounding. they ARE 18-21, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your just not using good logic here. First of all I'd love to trade Hinrich for an expiring also. But how do you know that was even a possibility? And how do you know we could have resigned BG for less money than what he ended up getting. And if we played out your fairytale scenario where you get actual talent back for Hinrich. Odds are those players would still be under contract next year. So no we wouldn't be able to sign a max contract player. Are you blaming the Bulls FO for not trading Hinrich for cheap talented players +expirings? What are you even talking about anyways how does a Hinrich trade factor into this at all? Why are you so confident that we can move hinrich for talent and expirings? Please break it down for me.
Your whole arguement is based on nothing but opinion and anger at the Bulls not making fantasy moves that you could have no idea of knowing whether or not were even a possibility. 



> ok, by that rationalization, the bulls could very well POTENTIALLY have been the 4th best team in the east


:wtf:The 4th best team in the east this year is Orlando. So you think we could have potentially been better than Orlando If we kept the same team from last year but replaced Hinrich, with Daniels and Jones.
OOKKKK. Got it. Thanks.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> First of all I'd love to trade Hinrich for an expiring also. But how do you know that was even a possibility?


the bulls DON'T want to trade hinrich for expirings; that's the whole problem; i guess you don't get news out there where you live regarding the bulls. there were at least two rumors that i can recall (portland and minny) for a hinrich deal. the bulls didn't pull the trigger. when the bulls drafted rose, hirnich's bags should've been packed. since you didn't get the memo, i'm not going to bother going into further detail about what i know; i'll leave the "what i know" to the nba consultants.



> And how do you know we could have resigned BG for less money than what he ended up getting.


again, a 6/54 deal was widely reported; a deal gordon was going to take reportedly....just not in your neck of the woods.the bulls pulled the offer after some BS about a "deadline", meaning they'd decided to replace the two guard and go with the expensive backup pg, since they couldn't get what they felt was value for hinrich. don't take my word for it though, just keep on spouting off from wherever you are not know jack about what goes on in chicago.



> Odds are those players would still be under contract next year. So no we wouldn't be able to sign a max contract player.


that's a guess on your part, but they did sign pargo the scrub to a one year deal, so it's not beyond the realm of possiblity to sign FA's as a stopgap procedure, and not take a step back basing future moves on "hope".



> What are you even talking about anyways how does a Hinrich trade factor into this at all?


try to keep up.....hinrich is overkill, he's not a two, and rose gets the lion's share of minutes at point; there's NO ONE at the two worth a f**k and the bulls have a huge hole there which the FO elected NOT to fill. therefore, there's now TWO huge holes, a scoring frontcourt player and a scoring backcourt player, both needed in FA. moving hinrich and keeping the scoring two (at what would've been pretty much the same salary as what hinrich is getting without the piss poor offense) would've been the wiser choice. i'd even go as far as to state drafting a guard would've been smarter than 2 forwards. how difficult could it have been to find a defensive guard for a year or so on the cheap? the bulls are great at finding cheap players, so i don't think "fantasy" is even remotely accurate; and as far as daniels being done, have you watched f'n lindsey hunter? think daniels is THAT done? btw, jones is a starter in indiana/denver (i forget which, but the point stands) but was available this offseason if i'm not mistaken.



> Why are you so confident that we can move hinrich for talent and expirings? Please break it down for me.


i don't work in the FO, so i don't KNOW what they could have done; i'm confident that they SHOULD'VE done things differently, reportedly turned down opportunities to do so, and are worse for it. 9 million dollar defensive players are guys the bulls philosophically can't afford, yet they believe they'll replace 20ppg with someone who's going to give them considerably MORE production at a price they think will be worth it. i don't think that's going to happen in the least. they'll be overpaying for a bump in production, not someone who can carry a team, but paying likely and extra who knows how many mil just to make a "splash".



> The 4th best team in the east this year is Orlando. So you think we could have potentially been better than Orlando If we kept the same team from last year but replaced Hinrich, with Daniels and Jones.
> OOKKKK. Got it. Thanks.


no more far fetched than believing joe johnson OR chris bosh is going to bring about this "exciting future" some seem to believe.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> because i've seen kirk hinrich get his azz lit up by travis diener. monta ellis is in a different galaxy talent wise than diener.


You may want to check the game tape on this one my friend - I remember watching this, and it was your guy Ben Gordon that was getting lit up by Travis Diener. Hinrich only played 16 minutes that night while Larry Hughes played one of his better games as a Bull (29 points) and Ben Gordon got taken to school by the pride of Fond du Lac.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Even so, I can't deny that Hinrich can get taken to school by some of those smaller, quicker guards. He isn't that type of defender. (Rondo has burned him from day 1)

Hinrich really shines against those combo-guards that rely on slashing to the basket. He's always fared pretty well against Dwayne Wade; arguably the most effective defender that Wade has ever faced (I saw a stat once that Wade averages like 6-7 points below his average against the Bulls).

I would put Monta Ellis into the "middle class man's" version of D-Wade, so I have to think Hinrich helps a helluva lot more than he hurts there.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I said it 3 games ago, this road trip was going to be the real test to see what this team is.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I really hope nobody on here thinks we would have won if Kirk Hinrich was playing LOL.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> the bulls DON'T want to trade hinrich for expirings; that's the whole problem; i guess you don't get news out there where you live regarding the bulls. there were at least two rumors that i can recall (portland and minny) for a hinrich deal. the bulls didn't pull the trigger. when the bulls drafted rose, hirnich's bags should've been packed. since you didn't get the memo, i'm not going to bother going into further detail about what i know; i'll leave the "what i know" to the nba consultants.


First of all I am well aware of all the _rumors_, However I am also somewhat intelligent and realize that a _rumor_ is not a _fact_ I have read at least 15 different trade rumors involving the Bulls this year. I am pretty confident that 99% of the time it is garbage. But if you want to take all these rumors as truth that's up to you. 



> again, a 6/54 deal was widely reported; a deal gordon was going to take reportedly....just not in your neck of the woods.the bulls pulled the offer after some BS about a "deadline", meaning they'd decided to replace the two guard and go with the expensive backup pg, since they couldn't get what they felt was value for hinrich. don't take my word for it though, just keep on spouting off from wherever you are not know jack about what goes on in chicago.


Hilarious. Trust me bro I am well aware of all of the Bulls news. I remember exactly what you are talking about. But my point is... if we pulled a deal off the table, then that means that it was on the table and never accepted by BG. So if he never accepted it how do you know he would have had we left it on the table? BG got plenty of contract offers from us over the years. But he did not accept them and it turned out to be a good move because he got more money from Detroit than he would have goten from us. Use your head.



> that's a guess on your part, but they did sign pargo the scrub to a one year deal, so it's not beyond the realm of possiblity to sign FA's as a stopgap procedure, and not take a step back basing future moves on "hope".


Of course it is a guess on my part. It is a guess about a fantasy situation that you included almost no reasonable detail. So when you say we should have traded Hinrich for 2 "reasonably paid and performing role players" and then don't include any other details how can I do anything but guess what you are talking about?? But yes odds are we would not get back expirings in your scenario. So no we wouldn't be able to sign that max contract because we would be paying BG and Hinrich's "2 reasonably paid replacements". Get it? We don't save money for trading Hinrich unless we get back expirings, which isn't what you suggested we do. You wanted talent back for him.



> try to keep up.....hinrich is overkill, he's not a two, and rose gets the lion's share of minutes at point; there's NO ONE at the two worth a f**k and the bulls have a huge hole there which the FO elected NOT to fill. therefore, there's now TWO huge holes, a scoring frontcourt player and a scoring backcourt player, both needed in FA. moving hinrich and keeping the scoring two (at what would've been pretty much the same salary as what hinrich is getting without the piss poor offense) would've been the wiser choice. i'd even go as far as to state drafting a guard would've been smarter than 2 forwards. how difficult could it have been to find a defensive guard for a year or so on the cheap? the bulls are great at finding cheap players, so i don't think "fantasy" is even remotely accurate; and as far as daniels being done, have you watched f'n lindsey hunter? think daniels is THAT done? btw, jones is a starter in indiana/denver (i forget which, but the point stands) but was available this offseason if i'm not mistaken.


Ummm. I never said I wanted to keep Hinrich. In fact I think it's pretty clear that I want to trade him for expirings. But you are angry at the Bulls for not making made up deals that you think they could have actually made. It is a ridiculous position to defend. There is no way of knowing if any of the stuff you want to happen were ever even possibilities. It is just fantasy nonsense. Don't believe the hype. Half of these trade rumors that you get so worked up about don't even technically work out when you look at them.



> i don't work in the FO, so i don't KNOW what they could have done


Finally! Now stick with that cause all the rest of this stuff is garbage.




> no more far fetched than believing joe johnson OR chris bosh is going to bring about this "exciting future" some seem to believe.


Just admit when you are wrong...
You are claiming that had we kept the same team from just last year. With one difference Instead of Hinrich we get antonio daniels and dahntay jones we could compete for fourth in the east (currently Orlando). Personally I think our team would be clearly worse but you seem to think that is a really good team. Face it one way or the other we would have our ceiling be 5th place in the east. Which means we would be sacrificing a chance at a max contract (superstar) just so we could have a little bit better chance at finishing 5th in the east. I am thrilled you aren't the GM of the Bulls. It would be fun to see you try and complete trades with Sam Smith though.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I really hope nobody on here thinks we would have won if Kirk Hinrich was playing LOL.


It's not a ridiculous idea, and it certainly holds merit. Hypotheticals don't really matter, though, so the issue doesn't really merit much further discussion.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> It's not a ridiculous idea, and it certainly holds merit. Hypotheticals don't really matter, though, so the issue doesn't really merit much further discussion.


Its like people on here forget how bad Kirk has been defensively at times this season, I highly doubt he would have made much of a difference (especially when battling the flu) going against a hot shooting Curry, Ellis and Maggete.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Its like people on here forget how bad Kirk has been defensively at times this season, I highly doubt he would have made much of a difference (especially when battling the flu) going against a hot shooting Curry, Ellis and Maggete.


He would have helped. He has been playing pretty well lateley. And instead of him we had to play Pargo. Who was horrible in that game for us. If we had more depth at guard it wouldn't be as much of an issue... but we don't so losing Hinrich is a big blow to us.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> He would have helped. He has been playing pretty well lateley. And instead of him we had to play Pargo. Who was horrible in that game for us. If we had more depth at guard it wouldn't be as much of an issue... but we don't so losing Hinrich is a big blow to us.


Again though, lets not forget he had the flu and even a good defender has problems against players who hit 3's like crazy. Ellis would have been way to much for Hinrich and we all know at some point Vinny would have put Kirk on Magette who would have eaten him for lunch.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Again though, lets not forget he had the flu and even a good defender has problems against players who hit 3's like crazy. Ellis would have been way to much for Hinrich and we all know at some point Vinny would have put Kirk on Magette who would have eaten him for lunch.


I was really referencing a healthy Kirk. Definitely with you on flu-ridden Kirk likely not making a difference.

No big deal, though, really...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

My understanding is we offered BG 6/55 and gave him some arbitrarly established deadline. He didn't accept it by that deadline but a week later he agreed to it but the Bulls said "Oh sorry, thats off of the table now" which is a wholeheartedly bush league offer. Still, Bullhitter is very much correct about this, it has been widely reported as going down just like I said.

ACE


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> My understanding is we offered BG 6/55 and gave him some arbitrarly established deadline. He didn't accept it by that deadline but a week later he agreed to it but the Bulls said "Oh sorry, thats off of the table now" which is a wholeheartedly bush league offer. Still, Bullhitter is very much correct about this, it has been widely reported as going down just like I said.
> 
> ACE


Right. But my point is if we offered him a deal with a deadline to accept it and he didn't accept the deal in that timeline... well who's fault is it? If he wanted that deal why didn't he sign it, within the timeline? Anyways he got more money which is good for him. And we didn't grossly overpay him which IMO is good for us. But regardless he is not on our roster... why not focus on who is and how to move forward. Instead of blaming all our problems on the bulls FO for not signing BG to a rumored deal some of you think we should have offered or reoffered?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Who cares what the terms of the BG offer were? If we sign him, we eliminate 2010 options and lock down the team into mediocrity, unless some sort of extraordinary salary-shedding move could be made. We might be marginally better this season, but would doom ourselves to continued mediocrity. Might as well take a shot at the big time and risk flopping, IMO.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> My understanding is we offered BG 6/55 and gave him some arbitrarly established deadline. He didn't accept it by that deadline but a week later he agreed to it but the Bulls said "Oh sorry, thats off of the table now" which is a wholeheartedly bush league offer. Still, Bullhitter is very much correct about this, it has been widely reported as going down just like I said.
> 
> ACE


I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were the one making the offer. It's insulting to say "no thanks", only to say "oh wait, I accept" after you've already concluded the discussion. 

That'd be like if I turned down a job offer, only to come back a few days later to try and accept after they already hired someone else No way in heck I get the job.

Like jnrjr said though, this is a minute irrelevant point when considering the 2010 plan.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Who cares what the terms of the BG offer were? If we sign him, we eliminate 2010 options and lock down the team into mediocrity, unless some sort of extraordinary salary-shedding move could be made. We might be marginally better this season, but would doom ourselves to continued mediocrity. Might as well take a shot at the big time and risk flopping, IMO.


^this


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I negotiate for a living and its strictly bush league to make an arbitrary deadline a hard and fast rule. Sure, I can see setting a deadline to try to make someone acceppt your offer more quickly but if that falls through and later you can STILL get them for the same offer you were comfortable with making its just foolishness to draw a line in the sand at that point. And its not insulting, its business and should never be taken personally, of course BG would want to take his time and try to get a more competetive offer, thats the whole nature of things and likely why the Bulls tried to impose some arbitrary deadline to begin with! Anybody wanting to play the blame game and say that the Bulls were right to do what they did just isn't used to these sorts of negotiations. 

Also, you don't "eliminate 2010 options" particularly at 6/55. We could have traded Hinrich and kept Gordon, who is clearly more of an impact player, and basically been in the same boat in free agency after this season as we are in now. Of course we would have been looking more to sign a Bosh/Amare/Lee instead of a Wade (Lebron obviously is also an acceptable answer in any scenario). 


Incidentally, people forget that most of these free agents can make THIRTY MILLION more by remaining with their current teams. The only ones who will move will likely be via sign & trade because of this and I doubt many of them move at all. We are, IMO, being a bit too hopeful, yeah, we have to take a shot but the odds are stacked against us to begin with.

ACE


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Also, you don't "eliminate 2010 options" particularly at 6/55. *We could have traded Hinrich and kept Gordon*, who is clearly more of an impact player, and basically been in the same boat in free agency after this season as we are in now. Of course we would have been looking more to sign a Bosh/Amare/Lee instead of a Wade (Lebron obviously is also an acceptable answer in any scenario).


Again... how do you know this??? Why is this the central arguement in every one's BG arguement. How do you know we could have made a Hinrich trade that would have benefitted Chicago? It is all assumption and BS. Had we signed BG than we would have _had_ to trade Hinrich for expirings in order to sign max contract. Which if we do now (along with Salmons opting out) than we can get _2_ max contracts. *Here is the point we shouldn't want BG or Hinrich under contract next year. *


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> Again... how do you know this??? Why is this the central arguement in every one's BG arguement. How do you know we could have made a Hinrich trade that would have benefitted Chicago? It is all assumption and BS. Had we signed BG than we would have _had_ to trade Hinrich for expirings in order to sign max contract. Which if we do now (along with Salmons opting out) than we can get _2_ max contracts. *Here is the point we shouldn't want BG or Hinrich under contract next year. *



How would I not know this? Dealing Hinrich for expirings shouldn't be too hard to do, its not like he doesn't have some value. Plus we could even sweeten the pot with 2nd rounders or Tyrus contract which would give some team his Bird rights who might actually resign him. There were deals out there reported for Hinrich that we passed on to clear cap if I remember correctly. The trade would have benefitted Chicago merely by clearing cap and allowing us to resign Gordon. I don't think we would be quite enough under the cap for two max FA's even if we dealt Hinrich for expirings and Salmons opts out, but it would at least be close. In any case, we will have to have a four leaf clover rammed up our giggys to sign ONE free agent, much less two, and as I said, most of these guys will be signed and traded IF they leave their teams, which they won't. Further, I believe it would be everyone's central argument simply because it makes the most sense. 


ACE


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> How would I not know this? Dealing Hinrich for expirings shouldn't be too hard to do, its not like he doesn't have some value. Plus we could even sweeten the pot with 2nd rounders or Tyrus contract which would give some team his Bird rights who might actually resign him. There were deals out there reported for Hinrich that we passed on to clear cap if I remember correctly. The trade would have benefitted Chicago merely by clearing cap and allowing us to resign Gordon. I don't think we would be quite enough under the cap for two max FA's even if we dealt Hinrich for expirings and Salmons opts out, but it would at least be close. In any case, we will have to have a four leaf clover rammed up our giggys to sign ONE free agent, much less two, and as I said, most of these guys will be signed and traded IF they leave their teams, which they won't. Further, I believe it would be everyone's central argument simply because it makes the most sense.
> 
> 
> ACE


rumors, rumors, rumors....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> rumors, rumors, rumors....




huh? Thats a Fleetwood Mac album and has nothing to do with my post.

ACE


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> How would I not know this? *Dealing Hinrich for expirings shouldn't be too hard to do, its not like he doesn't have some value.* Plus we could even sweeten the pot with 2nd rounders or Tyrus contract which would give some team his Bird rights who might actually resign him. *There were deals out there reported for Hinrich that we passed on to clear cap if I remember correctly.* The trade would have benefitted Chicago merely by clearing cap and allowing us to resign Gordon. I don't think we would be quite enough under the cap for two max FA's even if we dealt Hinrich for expirings and Salmons opts out, but it would at least be close. In any case, we will have to have a four leaf clover rammed up our giggys to sign ONE free agent, much less two, and as I said, most of these guys will be signed and traded IF they leave their teams, which they won't. Further, I believe it would be everyone's central argument simply because it makes the most sense.
> 
> 
> ACE


speculation and rumors.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

I get so sick of arguing with the BG fan club though. Can't you just get over the fact that he is not on our team anymore? He is gone... Which if you look at it logically was the right decision. But even if you want to argue that, does it really matter? He isn't here... focus on the future.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> I get so sick of arguing with the BG fan club though. Can't you just get over the fact that he is not on our team anymore? He is gone... Which if you look at it logically was the right decision. But even if you want to argue that, does it really matter? He isn't here... focus on the future.



First off, let me say that, no, it wasn't "rumors and speculation" there WAS an offer that was on the table dealing Hinrich for expirings before it came time to resign Gordon. This was reported in the media as a fact, not as speculation or daydreaming, even so, if a factual account hadn't been reported, is it really that far of a stretch to think Hinrich could easily be dealt for expiring deals? I mean, I just don't see what issue anyone could have with that statement. 

Secondly, this isn't an argument, this is a discussion on a discussion forum, not an arguing forum. 

Thirdly, I am not a member of the "Ben Gordon fan club", I supposse he has one but I am sure thats somehow a pejorative term you are using to describe anyone who realizes that he is obviously better than Kirk Hinrich. 

Lastly, I love this line of thinking that goes, "Oh well its over now, can't we just forget about it and move on?". That sounds like something the Nazi's would want to do or something. Why should a ballclub's moves not come under scrutiny? We simply acceppt what happens and move forward holding hands and singing Kumbaya or else what? we aren't good fans? When an orginization makes a mistake then we should talk about it, we should ***** about it, thats part of being a fan! I am not enough of a company guy to just blindly go along with everything thats done. In any case, I jumped into the whole discussion merely to point out that Bullhitter was indeed correct and that we DID have the opportuinity to sign Gordon. My main complaint is with the Bulls bush league negotiation tactics, they thought they could save some money and they were wrong, thats the problem with this ballclub, they are ALWAYS looking to save money. Being prudent is good up to a point but it really is sort of a joke at this point. In any case, I'm more than happy to talk about the future, past, present, you name it and I don't see any reason to make it personal, we are, after all, both Bulls fans and I am sure we both want whats best for the Bulls, even if we have vasty different ideas about what that is, right?

ACE


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> My main complaint is with the Bulls bush league negotiation tactics, they thought they could save some money and they were wrong, thats the problem with this ballclub, they are ALWAYS looking to save money. Being prudent is good up to a point but it really is sort of a joke at this point. In any case, I'm more than happy to talk about the future, past, present, you name it and I don't see any reason to make it personal, we are, after all, both Bulls fans and I am sure we both want whats best for the Bulls, even if we have vasty different ideas about what that is, right?


let the church say AMEN.....


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I negotiate for a living and its strictly bush league to make an arbitrary deadline a hard and fast rule. Sure, I can see setting a deadline to try to make someone acceppt your offer more quickly but if that falls through and later you can STILL get them for the same offer you were comfortable with making its just foolishness to draw a line in the sand at that point. And its not insulting, its business and should never be taken personally, of course BG would want to take his time and try to get a more competetive offer, thats the whole nature of things and likely why the Bulls tried to impose some arbitrary deadline to begin with! Anybody wanting to play the blame game and say that the Bulls were right to do what they did just isn't used to these sorts of negotiations.
> 
> Also, you don't "eliminate 2010 options" particularly at 6/55. We could have traded Hinrich and kept Gordon, who is clearly more of an impact player, and basically been in the same boat in free agency after this season as we are in now. Of course we would have been looking more to sign a Bosh/Amare/Lee instead of a Wade (Lebron obviously is also an acceptable answer in any scenario).
> 
> ...


Maybe we are being too optimistic, but this seems like the only plausible path to an NBA championship in the foreseeable future. You have to take the shot.

Also, if we trade for a player at the deadline this year, we keep their bird rights and therefore can pay 'em like they re-signed with their existing team. That option remains potentially available as a means to thwart that concern. Our biggest target, if it is indeed Wade, is not likely to be acquired that way, however.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> First off, let me say that, no, it wasn't "rumors and speculation" there WAS an offer that was on the table dealing Hinrich for expirings before it came time to resign Gordon. This was reported in the media as a fact, not as speculation or daydreaming, even so, if a factual account hadn't been reported, is it really that far of a stretch to think Hinrich could easily be dealt for expiring deals? I mean, I just don't see what issue anyone could have with that statement.
> 
> Secondly, this isn't an argument, this is a discussion on a discussion forum, not an arguing forum.
> 
> ...



Did you just play the Nazi card? Really?? I call shenanigans!

:whiteflag:


In any event, looking at it as Kirk vs. Gordon, though it has been a persistent meme, is incorrect. I think if the Bulls had their druthers, they'd deal Kirk to set the team up to be more complete next year. I don't think, by any means, that the Bulls are unwilling to deal him.

Gordon may or may not be better, but it really doesn't matter in terms of this discussion.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Maybe we are being too optimistic, but this seems like the only plausible path to an NBA championship in the foreseeable future. You have to take the shot.


i'd agree with this if i thought the bulls goal WAS to win a championship. i don't think this is their goal; being competitive (.500 or above), making the playoffs year in, year out, remaining flexible and being able to at least *sell* the idea of wanting to win a championship is the bulls model. i am no longer of the belief the organization will make bold enough moves (nor pay for said moves) to put them in this position; too many variables HAVE to fall in place for this to happen (top/lottery picks panning out in their rookie deals, a max FA turning the team around, etc). in the meantime, *keep young, cheap players, a relatively inexpensive coach, a playoff seed, and a player or two the fans will pay to see.*

by the bolded model, the bulls will have considered this season a success.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Did you just play the Nazi card? Really?? I call shenanigans!
> 
> :whiteflag:
> 
> ...



lol, yeah I guess I did. It reminds me of that old Naked Gun movie where the firework factory is on fire and things are going off in the air and blowing up everywhere and Leslie Nielsen (or maybe it was someone else) is telling the crowd, "move along, nothing to see here". Like we shouldn't talk about these things, why not? Maybe we shouldn't talk about the past because we can't change it but using that logic we also shouldn't bother talking about the present or the future, heck why even have a Bulls board? We can all just shut the hell up, watch the games and hope we get lucky at some point huh? 

I'm not sure what a meme is but it sounds pretty fancy :champagne:
My point was if you could deal Kirk and KEEP Gordon then your in a better situation than keeping Kirk and letting Gordon walk. Thats probably been debated here ad nausem, I honestly haven't been around that much to know, but I do think its accurate. Thats why it mattered for the purposes of what I was saying. I do think the Bulls would love to unload Hinrich's contract so they can be even further under the cap and I don't blame them, I like Hinrich and he is a pretty solid guy, he is NOT however worth $9mil a year or anything approaching that.

ACE


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> First off, let me say that, no, it wasn't "rumors and speculation" there WAS an offer that was on the table dealing Hinrich for expirings before it came time to resign Gordon. This was reported in the media as a fact, not as speculation or daydreaming, even so, if a factual account hadn't been reported, is it really that far of a stretch to think Hinrich could easily be dealt for expiring deals? I mean, I just don't see what issue anyone could have with that statement.
> 
> Secondly, this isn't an argument, this is a discussion on a discussion forum, not an arguing forum.
> 
> ...


Here's my issue... This BG thing comes up in seemingly about half our topics. Yet I can't recently remember seeing a topic titled "why we should have resigned BG" or something along those lines. In a topic like that you guys could go on and on about BG and how dumb are FO is and it wouldn't be an issue. Instead itjust pops up from the same posters in every other random topic. Ultimateley it is my fault for even responding to it. But I can't help it I have a confrontational personality I guess and feel strongly that what we are doing for now is the right thing. I would like to move Hinrich but I am not sure there is a market for him. I think the FO wants to move Hinrich also and can only assume that the fact that he is still here is based on the lack of a market for him. As for these rumors I don't believe any of them unless it is confirmed by someone in the Bulls office. If sam Smith writes there was an offer on the table for expirings for Hinrich and the Bulls turned it down. I won't buy it until GarPax confirms it. Otherwise it is a rumor. Maybe it happenned but I don't remember it and nobody has showed me anything suggesting otherwise and I haven't done the research to figure out if it is true or not. 
As for getting personal I apologize if what I said came off like that... it wasn't my intention nor was it aimed at you. I am simply tired of all long conversations eventually turning into A BG vs Hinrich/bulls FO thread. 

On a more different and way off-topic note. My favorite sport by far is basketball but second is Hockey and I am a big Kings fan. To me the Kings have had a similar 10 year stretch in Hockey as the Bulls have in Basketball. But a few years ago the kings got a GM who decided to say F the fans and decide to not cave in to overpaying for players and instead to use his cap space intelligently and focus on building from within and through the draft. Ignoring fans complaints when he traded or did not sign certain players that might have had good stats but weren't good all around players. After a few years of this the Kings have finally begun to reach their potentiall and are way under the cap with a very talented young roster. Now every time a bigtime players is rumored to be traded the kings are at the top of this list of potential suitors. Every time a big-time FA is available the Kings are the favorite to land him. And now that they are competitive and the timing is right they will most likeley add a bigtime player (maybe even overpay) and get over the hump and turn itno contenders. They got to this point by making sound financial decisions and not rushing to be average. I believe this is finally what the Bulls have realized (hopefully). The Kings with Lombardi as GM have been a model organization in another sport for what the Bulls should be doing. And if it is, I am very excited about our future. Through luck or sound strategy or both. We have somehow arrived at a point where we have some good young talent and are going to be way under the cap without losing our core pieces at exactly the right time for the Biggest FA class in the history of the game. Would I trade any of that cap space for a ffew more wins this year and BG going forward. Hell no. Signing BG would have been a huge mistake IMO because he is more or less a hired gun who does not contribute to anything other than scoring and isn't such an amazing scorer to make you forget about is enormous weaknesses. But more importantly him filling a roster spot means we would rather have him than a shot at Lebron/wade/Bosh...etc. You take that chance if you can and if you miss out on it it sucks but either way we wouldn't even be close to being a contender. Give me a higher pick and cap space over BG any day of the week. Teams can work miracles with cap space and draft picks. You just gotta be smart. Anyways this is the last I will talk about the BG arguement unless someone creates a topic for it.
Anyone who read all this deserves a medal. peace.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> lol, yeah I guess I did. It reminds me of that old Naked Gun movie where the firework factory is on fire and things are going off in the air and blowing up everywhere and Leslie Nielsen (or maybe it was someone else) is telling the crowd, "move along, nothing to see here". Like we shouldn't talk about these things, why not? Maybe we shouldn't talk about the past because we can't change it but using that logic we also shouldn't bother talking about the present or the future, heck why even have a Bulls board? We can all just shut the hell up, watch the games and hope we get lucky at some point huh?
> 
> I'm not sure what a meme is but it sounds pretty fancy :champagne:



Ha! Indeed. I actually agree with the sentiment. There's very little we shouldn't discuss here. It's a message board. Discussion is sort of the point, right?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Fair enough Casey, it's nothing personal and I am certainly not trying to hijack the thread. I've been a Bulls fan since the mid 80's so I have sort of been there through it all. Our orginization has generally been a prudent, cap protecting, drafting sort of orginization ever since MJ retired. We haven't really made all that much of it to be honest. I agree however that a good FO plans and conserves and takes the right swings at the right times. I think an accumulation of assetts is a good way to build a club. Unfortunately when you let high draft picks who have value get away with nothing in return it usually isn't a winning formula. If your not going to resign Gordon then move him for a decent player or draft picks, don't just fail to sign him and let him go with no compensation. At least thats what I think. I value well rounded players and would be the first to agree that they are invaluable to any team in any sport. I think however that a lot of people, apparently you included, sort of undervalue Gordon because he is primarily a scorer. He isn't a great defender or distributor but he can sometimes be that guy that will nail a three point dagger for your team, or drive and get the and 1, those are what he brings to the table and he does them pretty well. I don't see moving Hinrich for expirings as being a terribly difficult proposition and apparently you do, fair enough. Hinrich is certainly the better all around player but I definitley think Gordon is more of a difference maker, thats why I would prefer having him making big bucks than Hinrich. As I said, I feel we would be in the same situation with a better core if we had dealt Hinrich and gave Gordon the offer he accepted a little too late for the Bulls liking (for some strange reason). The trade deadline isn't over yet so maybe he gets moved maybe he doesn't. I still believe our chances of outright signing the big name FA to be extremely low. I'm hopeful though, at least we should have the opportunity when the time comes. Anyways, peace love and chicken grease.


ACE


----------

