# Could Kirk Win MIP?



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Is Kirk a chance for most improve player next year?

Pros
the obvious, now has one season of experience.
he got sick last year and lost a lot of conditioning
he should have better/more shooters around him to help his assists numbers


cons
he got good minutes last year so a massive stats jump is unlikely.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

curry has much greater chance of wining the MIP than kirk. i dont think kirk improves so much from last season, i mean he was already averaging almost 7 assists a game.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

if Hinrich averages 7 or more assists next year, there is no way this club wins more then 30. The reason he got so many assists is because he has a tendency to dominate the ball (as does Jamal) and to overdribble. The Bulls had no ball movement. The Ball is going to be in Gordons hands next year. If anything, I see Kirk down to 5 assists per game BUT his FG% up 40 basis pts. And that would be far better off. The more people who touch it, the better off the club is. Deng, in particular, will be great for ball movement. But given Skiles history (see phoenix), dont expect a very interesting, or creative, halfcourt sets. In Phoenix, his idea of a half court offense was to give the ball to kidd or kj and let them run around and figure it out. thats what he did with kirk and craw last year. frankly, i am not that inspired that he can put in a system that takes advantage of everyones skills


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Chandler has the best change to win MIP. Kirk would have to improve his assists, shooting, and scoring numbers dramatically and I just can't imagine that.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> if Hinrich averages 7 or more assists next year, there is no way this club wins more then 30. The reason he got so many assists is because he has a tendency to dominate the ball (as does Jamal) and to overdribble. The Bulls had no ball movement. The Ball is going to be in Gordons hands next year. If anything, I see Kirk down to 5 assists per game BUT his FG% up 40 basis pts. And that would be far better off. The more people who touch it, the better off the club is. Deng, in particular, will be great for ball movement. But given Skiles history (see phoenix), dont expect a very interesting, or creative, halfcourt sets. In Phoenix, his idea of a half court offense was to give the ball to kidd or kj and let them run around and figure it out. thats what he did with kirk and craw last year. frankly, i am not that inspired that he can put in a system that takes advantage of everyones skills


Do you think we could use Deng in the high post and run the offence through him? (I've never seen him play?)

i.e the first entry pass into the offence would go to him and let him read whether to dump it into curry or out to shooters.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Chandler has the best change to win MIP. Kirk would have to improve his assists, shooting, and scoring numbers dramatically and I just can't imagine that.


yeah i belave this is true aswell.

im not for nor against Skiles,but this comein season to me feels like a fresh start for the bulls,i know gordon and deng are rooks and will play like rooks this year but it seems like things are startin to fit into place all but the coach.i dont keep up with coaches or anything so im not even going to say who is better,but i for one wouldnt mind havin a "Bigger Name" coach in there to teach our guys.

someone who has done this kind of thing b4 and has took that team from the dog house to the ring(or close to it) and has takin young players like TC,EC,BG,LD,KH and brought the best out of them to make them alstars.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>darlets</b>!
> Is Kirk a chance for most improve player next year?


sure, but it's unlikely. KH has a chance to be league MVP next year, too, but that's not real likely either.  

i concur that Tyson may be the best bet on the Bulls. he'll have to stay healthy, first of all, and then learn that there's more to defense than blacking shots off the weak side. but if he can up his scoring to 13-14 points and grab 9-10 boards, there's a good chance he'd be in the running, barring someone unforseen just blowing the hell up.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> if Hinrich averages 7 or more assists next year, there is no way this club wins more then 30. The reason he got so many assists is because he has a tendency to dominate the ball (as does Jamal) and to overdribble. The Bulls had no ball movement. The Ball is going to be in Gordons hands next year. If anything, I see Kirk down to 5 assists per game BUT his FG% up 40 basis pts. And that would be far better off. The more people who touch it, the better off the club is. Deng, in particular, will be great for ball movement. But given Skiles history (see phoenix), dont expect a very interesting, or creative, halfcourt sets. In Phoenix, his idea of a half court offense was to give the ball to kidd or kj and let them run around and figure it out. thats what he did with kirk and craw last year. frankly, i am not that inspired that he can put in a system that takes advantage of everyones skills


That's ridiculous. Hinrich will average at least 7 assists per game next season. He'll have more scorers and better shooters. It's amazing he averaged 7 this season considering the Bulls were the worst shooting team in the NBA.

He was putting up good assist numbers with Cartwright and the triangle and he was putting up good assist numbers in a totally different offense when Skiles took over.

First of all, Hinrich didn't dominate the ball at all last year. How could he when Jamal and him split time running the team. The ball movement was fine.

Kirk Hinrich averaging 7 assists a game last year wasn't the reason the Bulls were terrible.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> if Hinrich averages 7 or more assists next year, there is no way this club wins more then 30. The reason he got so many assists is because he has a tendency to dominate the ball (as does Jamal) and to overdribble. The Bulls had no ball movement. The Ball is going to be in Gordons hands next year. If anything, I see Kirk down to 5 assists per game BUT his FG% up 40 basis pts. And that would be far better off. The more people who touch it, the better off the club is. Deng, in particular, will be great for ball movement. But given Skiles history (see phoenix), dont expect a very interesting, or creative, halfcourt sets. In Phoenix, his idea of a half court offense was to give the ball to kidd or kj and let them run around and figure it out. thats what he did with kirk and craw last year. frankly, i am not that inspired that he can put in a system that takes advantage of everyones skills


It's distressing to hear that about Skiles. 

I really doubt Kirk gets enough minutes or ball handling time anyways.


----------



## What Gives? (Aug 2, 2003)

I think that Hinrich certainly has a chance to win MIP, but only if he improves a lot.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

> if Hinrich averages 7 or more assists next year, there is no way this club wins more then 30. The reason he got so many assists is because he has a tendency to dominate the ball (as does Jamal) and to overdribble.


With all due respect Rlucas, this view seems partly flawed. Did you take under consideration that we will have better shooting next year? How about the possibility of more pick and rolls, where Hinrich can consistently pick up assists? Hinrich dominated the ball many times (at the top of the key), because of that play we ran over and over where the two "bigs" come down and set picks on opposite sides of the court for two "shooters" popping out. In the meanwhile, obviously someone would be dribbling up top.



> The Ball is going to be in Gordons hands next year. If anything, I see Kirk down to 5 assists per game BUT his FG% up 40 basis pts.


While I agree that Gordon will be given the opportunity to break down the defense and use Kirk's three point ability to be able to kick the ball out, it will also work the other way as well, though admittedly not as much. Regardless, it still doesnt give enough evidence to conclude that Kirk's assist average will not stay between 6-8. I do agree that we will likely see Kirk at about 43-45% from the field next year, however.



> The more people who touch it, the better off the club is. Deng, in particular, will be great for ball movement.


Again, I agree with this, and ball movement will greatly improve this team. However, from that simple fact you conclude that if Hinrich averages 7 assists per game we will be a 30 win team, at the very best?

Things I believe you also fail to consider:

- We run more, and therefore producing more assists opportunities.
- The addition of Ben Gordon and Deng stretch the defense, opening up the lane for more penetrate and dish.
- Tyson Chandler staying healthy and consistently hitting a 12 footer gives Hinrich and Gordon numerous assist opportunities.
- Eddy Curry shooting a higher percentage than 50%.

***I don't, however, believe that Hinrich can win MIP award, as many of know it takes pretty serious statistical improvement to do so. Can Hinrich score 16 and dish out 9 assists while shooting 44% and 40+% from 3 point land? I do not want to say "he can't," but I will say that for the sake of the Bulls season I would prefer to see him improve his FG% and play solid defense while averaging 13 and 7.5. However, this will not allow him to capture the award, in my opinion.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Chandler has the best change to win MIP. Kirk would have to improve his assists, shooting, and scoring numbers dramatically and I just can't imagine that.


I agree - TC has the better chance,since Kirk had quite good numbers in his rookie season allready!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. Hinrich will average at least 7 assists per game next season. He'll have more scorers and better shooters. It's amazing he averaged 7 this season considering the Bulls were the worst shooting team in the NBA.
> ...


whats ridiculous is that you think the ball movement was find last year. We ranked in the bottom 5 in assists. Partially because our guards over dribbled and couldnt make the extra pass. And yes, that is on Kirk as well as Jamal. The Bulls will be better with a true attacking player like Gordon breaking people down and letting Deng hit cutters off the ball from the high post. EXCEPT, as best I can tell, Skiles has never emphasized off the ball movement in phoenix or in chicago


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> whats ridiculous is that you think the ball movement was find last year. We ranked in the bottom 5 in assists. Partially because our guards over dribbled and couldnt make the extra pass. And yes, that is on Kirk as well as Jamal. The Bulls will be better with a true attacking player like Gordon breaking people down and letting Deng hit cutters off the ball from the high post. EXCEPT, as best I can tell, Skiles has never emphasized off the ball movement in phoenix or in chicago


I saw it differently last season but hey each person has a different perspective.

I think Hinrich is a smart player that allows plays to develop and if it takes Eddy Curry 8 seconds to get to the right spot on the court, Kirk is going to hold onto to it. 

It the job of the point guard to quarterback the play and if his recievers are running slants instead of prescribed hitches, he's going to have to hold onto the ball.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think the chances of Kirk winning MIP are pretty much nil. He's a good player and very solid but he has already fulfilled most of his potential before entering the league. He will improve a little but he has a very low ceiling. Pretty much what you see + a little bit better is what you get with Hinrich.

If any Bulls have a chance for MIP it would have to be Curry, Chandler, or Crawford IMO.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think the chances of Kirk winning MIP are pretty much nil. He's a good player and very solid but he has already fulfilled most of his potential before entering the league. He will improve a little but he has a very low ceiling. Pretty much what you see + a little bit better is what you get with Hinrich.


Ahh low ceilings :upset: He ain't going to get that much better because his best years have been wasted at college  

When did getting a college degree become likened to Ted Williams and Rocky Bleir "lost" years in battle? 

Damn I wish Curry and Chandler wasted their best years at school instead of wasting my time watching them learn how to dress themselves and learn how to be professionals.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> Ahh low ceilings :upset: He ain't going to get that much better because his best years have been wasted at college
> ...


I never said his years at college were "wasted". He simply fulfilled most of his potential and has already developed his game to the point where there isn't a lot of room for him to get much better. I didn't liken his college years to any "lost years". He had a great career at Kansas and I am sure it was invalubale experience. 

If Curry & Chandler had gone to college they would probably have fulfilled a lot of their potential before entering the league too.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think the chances of Kirk winning MIP are pretty much nil. He's a good player and very solid but he has already fulfilled most of his potential before entering the league. He will improve a little but he has a very low ceiling. Pretty much what you see + a little bit better is what you get with Hinrich.
> 
> If any Bulls have a chance for MIP it would have to be Curry, Chandler, or Crawford IMO.


how you can say this with a straight face :| and in another thread say that Jamal _hasn't_ reached his ceiling yet after FOUR YEARS in the NBA is just laughable to me. to me, with Jamal, what you see is all you're gonna get.

(not turning this thread into one of those threads, so relax everyone)

Kirk fulfilled most of his potential *before* even entering the NBA? 

wow. that's nuts. i think Kirk will show much MUCH improvement next year. 

that said, i think EDDY has the best chance of winning MIP on the Bulls next year.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> how you can say this with a straight face :| and in another thread say that Jamal _hasn't_ reached his ceiling yet after FOUR YEARS in the NBA is just laughable to me. to me, with Jamal, what you see is all you're gonna get.
> ...


_

Guys..calm down here. This is simple logic here. Ask ANY scout and they will be more than glad to tell you what I am saying is true. Hinrich has been playing ball since he was knee high to a grasshopper, his dad was a coach he has played in many different organized environments. He played 4 years under Roy Williams at Kansas, under a system. He simply DOESN'T have as much room for growth as a lot of you guys want to make him out to have. He WILL get a little better because he will learn what works and what doesn't in the NBA. He will also get better officiating the longer he is in the league. But basketball skill wise Kirk is pretty dang close to his personal panacea.

Jamal is a completely different beast. The kid only played basketball in his driveway in middle school & HS, he only started playing HS ball his junior year! He played two years of organized HS ball, 17 games with Michigan, 4 years with the Bulls, one of which was his rookie season where he hardly played, another of which he had to sit out because of his ACL injury. This isn't ABOUT whether Crawford or Hinrich are better or whatever. Clearly Jamal has a lot of room to grow and learn how to play better organized basketball. 

Actually it's really a compliment to Kirk to say he has fulfilled most of his potential and Jamal hasn't. But this is CLEARLY the case._


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Guys..calm down here. This is simple logic here. Ask ANY scout and they will be more than glad to tell you what I am saying is true. Hinrich has been playing ball since he was knee high to a grasshopper, his dad was a coach he has played in many different organized environments. He played 4 years under Roy Williams at Kansas, under a system. He simply DOESN'T have as much room for growth as a lot of you guys want to make him out to have. He WILL get a little better because he will learn what works and what doesn't in the NBA. He will also get better officiating the longer he is in the league. But basketball skill wise Kirk is pretty dang close to his personal panacea.
> ...


if i hear that "jamal learned to play basketball in his driveway story" one more time i am going to scream. 

and that's kinda a backhanded compliment to kirk. but whatever. i don't think kirk has shown us nearly all he is truly capable of. 

i still think that after four years in the NBA what you see with jamal is what you get. 

i am not blind. 

i am not wearing rose colored glasses. 

my opinion. 

have a great day.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Most Improved next year will either be

Pietrus
Mliicic
Barbosa
Nene
Rodney White


----------



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

I gotta say I some what agree w/ Ace's line of reasoning. Maybe the better question is; can Kirk improve enough to become and allstar ? The fact that Kirk played so well in his rookie season almost precludes him from the competition of MiP, because the award usually goes to those players who previously have underachieved or have been one dimensional players.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

its entirely possible that Kirk doesnt EVEN START for the Bulls next year. Its not likely but possible. If Jamal shows up again and Gordon proves to be the real deal, its is quite conceivable that the golden boy could be coming off the bench. Heck, if Macijauskas can do anything, that could make Kirk the.................................... well I wont go there. But can anyone deny that Hinrich might actually drop off in minutes next year? Or is everyone too blind to actually admit its a possibility?


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> its entirely possible that Kirk doesnt EVEN START for the Bulls next year. Its not likely but possible. If Jamal shows up again and Gordon proves to be the real deal, its is quite conceivable that the golden boy could be coming off the bench. Heck, if Macijauskas can do anything, that could make Kirk the.................................... well I wont go there. But can anyone deny that Hinrich might actually drop off in minutes next year? Or is everyone too blind to actually admit its a possibility?



Rlucas, I would have to place my money on Kirk. Kirk is a basketball player that will work on his game every summer...and that just isn't because Paxson asked him to do it. Kirk is not going to suffer a sophmore slump because he rested on his laurels.

I have a tough time believing that a rookie is going to come in and take Hinrich's job and I've witnessed enough of Jamal and his ceiling to know that he isn't getting the point back either. 

So if you're taking bets, I got 2O on Kirk(I missed my sister's wedding to practice) Hinrich to be a lock at starting in October


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mizenkay,

Of course your entitled to your opinon man just like I am entitled to mine. But if you really believe Kirk has a whole lot left to show I think your going to be sorely dissapointed. 

Last year before the season began I predicted that the MIP would be Zach Randolph of Portland, guess who the mip was last season?  

This upcoming season I really haven't given a lot of thought on who it will be. I guess my short list right off the top of my head now would go something like this:

Chandler
Curry
Crawford
Pietrus
Gerald Wallace
Sweetney
Mike Dunleavy Jr

but it's still early and I haven't thought that much on it yet really.

Rlucas, it is entirely possible that Gordon/JC push Hinrich to the bench,I kind of doubt it though. I think it is more likely that JC/KH push BG to the bench.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

With the addition of Gordon and Macas I definitely think Kirk's minutes will drop. Kirk played heavy minutes last year due to our lack of depth. I still think Kirk will improve his stats, but not enough to qualify as MIP.

Come on guys, MIP the last several years has gone to the guy who finally made a career for himself after at least one year of unimpressive stats.

1999-2000 - Jalen Rose, Indiana
2000-01 - Tracy McGrady, Orlando
2001-02 - Jermaine O'Neal, Indiana
2002-03 - Gilbert Arenas, Golden State 

Kirk cannot improve his stats in a dramatic enough fashion to even receive consideration for this.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> its entirely possible that Kirk doesnt EVEN START for the Bulls next year. Its not likely but possible. If Jamal shows up again and Gordon proves to be the real deal, its is quite conceivable that the golden boy could be coming off the bench. Heck, if Macijauskas can do anything, that could make Kirk the.................................... well I wont go there. But can anyone deny that Hinrich might actually drop off in minutes next year? Or is everyone too blind to actually admit its a possibility?


yes!! it's entirely possible there will be a drop-off in his minutes. in a three-guard rotation, this is likely to be the case. which is cool, cause at the end of the season, jamal and kirk were like vapors because of the heavy minutes played. 

as far as all the other stuff - let's just wait and see, ok? 

i think it is entirely possible that KH/BG force JC to the bench.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> its entirely possible that Kirk doesnt EVEN START for the Bulls next year.


Sure it's possible, but VERY unrealistic...

MY prediction for Kirk next season puts him at around 10-12ppg and 6-9 apg...

In today's NBA, a disciplined player like Hinrich doesn't sit the bench, unless of course he is a talent-less hack...

Kirk Hinrich can be a golden boy for the NBA, the Bulls know better than to bench the kid...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Mizenkay,
> 
> Of course your entitled to your opinon man just like I am entitled to mine. But if you really believe Kirk has a whole lot left to show I think your going to be sorely dissapointed.
> ...


it's all good. 

i think eddy could SERIOUSLY win MIP. 

that would be so great.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> it's all good.
> ...


Yeah, if Eddy or Tyson either one wins it it means the Bulls have a great season IMO.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure it's possible, but VERY unrealistic...
> ...


This is what I expected. Who cares about the stats and everything else. If Gordon and Crawford, or Arvydas, give us the best chance to win as starters, then the "MIP" will not only play less next year, but coming off the bench in the process. Would the Bulls actually bench the golden boy if it meant they would be better? I dont know. And that is alarming. But its very possible, call is 30% that Kirk is the 3rd best guard on this team.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I expected. Who cares about the stats and everything else. If Gordon and Crawford, or Arvydas, give us the best chance to win as starters, then the "MIP" will not only play less next year, but coming off the bench in the process. Would the Bulls actually bench the golden boy if it meant they would be better? I dont know. And that is alarming. But its very possible, call is 30% that Kirk is the 3rd best guard on this team.


Very enlightening thought rlucas. I hope to God that Skiles has the forsight to put the best guards out there who'll give us a chance to win. If its Gordon and Crawford so be it. Popo had the forsight to bench Manu this season (whose clearly a better all around player than Hedo), why couldn't Kirk be our high energy 25 minute guy off the bench too? Gotta keep an open mind about it.

If Gordon is as good as many think him to be, then such a scenario could take place. If he's the franchise talent that some make him out to be, then he'll get the lionshare of minutes on the floor. The rest of the minutes will be doled out to whomever else and we'll go from there.

Hinrich for Pietrus?  I'm bored so I'll throw that out there.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I expected. Who cares about the stats and everything else. If Gordon and Crawford, or Arvydas, give us the best chance to win as starters, then the "MIP" will not only play less next year, but coming off the bench in the process. Would the Bulls actually bench the golden boy if it meant they would be better? I dont know. And that is alarming. But its very possible, call is 30% that Kirk is the 3rd best guard on this team.


If Kirk is the 3rd best guard on the team, the Bulls will win 50 next season


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> If Kirk is the 3rd best guard on the team, the Bulls will win 50 next season


The Bulls could have a tremendous FOUR guard crew and still not make the playoffs. They are going to need spacing and they are going to have to get Curry to show up before late Jan and Chandler to stay healthy, and then they really HAVE TO IMPROVE. as good as our backcourt could be, with a real lack of proven help up front and just a very talented 19 year old at 3, I dont see the playoffs next year. BUT i do see a very good team the following year


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Very enlightening thought rlucas. I hope to God that Skiles has the forsight to put the best guards out there who'll give us a chance to win. If its Gordon and Crawford so be it. Popo had the forsight to bench Manu this season (whose clearly a better all around player than Hedo), why couldn't Kirk be our high energy 25 minute guy off the bench too? Gotta keep an open mind about it.
> ...


dave, ill throw one out there, Kirk for Caron

They need a PG so Wade can move over to the 2 fulltime. Its a smallish backcourt, but still bigger then what we got. Plus, with Wade on the ball, Kirk can move to his catch and shoot predicament

Odom is really a 3, and Jones could play the 3 as well. But with Dorrell Wright and Rasual Butler there as well, Miami isnt short at that spot. Caron Butler could be the odd man out. Butler could play the 3 for the Bulls until Deng (who I predict might be ready quicker then most of us think) is ready, and then move to be a huge 2 when that happens. 

Just a thought


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> dave, ill throw one out there, Kirk for Caron
> ...


Are you not worried about Caron's knees?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

No.

The easy lock for mip is Chandler.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you not worried about Caron's knees?


Me? No, not really. He got stronger as the year went on, which is a good sign. And his performance in the playoff was really overshadowed by Wades greatness. Butler played great. He has medical clearance as of right now. And he is now excess goods in Miami with the Wright drafting. Thats where I would look to pick up that much needed swingman


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Me? No, not really. He got stronger as the year went on, which is a good sign. And his performance in the playoff was really overshadowed by Wades greatness. Butler played great. He has medical clearance as of right now. And he is now excess goods in Miami with the Wright drafting. Thats where I would look to pick up that much needed swingman


I think it's relatively fair value without the health problems. With the health concerns, I don't make this deal. I also don't know if I deal for a 3 since we just got Luol. Caron is one of the slowest young guys out there. I really think if he slipped over to the 2 he would get blown past (much more than Kirk at his position).


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

*Hinrich as MIP*

Although it is a longshot, I see no reason why Hinrich couldn't win MIP next season. Unlike many of you, I don't see his minutes dropping off significantly -- I think he'll average somewhere around 33 MPG in 2004-05. If Crawford re-signs, I see Gordon coming off the bench, playing around 25 MPG and Crawford around 30 MPG. 

So, if that occurs and Kirk improves his shooting percentage, I see no reason why he shouldn't average around 15 PPG and 8 APG this year (assuming the Bulls can improve on their awful team FG% from this past year). Crawford's numbers will probably remain around what he did last year (17 and 5), maybe up slightly in PPG. Gordon, I see averaging around 10 PPG and 4 APG coming off the bench. 

As for RLucas's contention that Hinrich and Crawford overdribbled, that's true to a point. But I saw A LOT of standing around on offense by the Bulls last season, which would force the two guards to either (a) overdribble while waiting for someone to post up or come out to try and set up the pick and roll; (b) shoot from the perimeter themselves; or (c) try to penetrate into the lane. The team needs to emphasize off the ball movement and setting better screens in the upcoming training camp. They also need to have EVERYONE work on finishing at the rim. I never saw so many missed layups in my life than I did last year -- especially from Curry, Chandler and Jerome Williams.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I agree with your post, girly. I would add that kirk's overall game will improve in his second year if the refs get off his case and let him play. His defense will be better, he won't be benched for foul trouble and the overall flow of his game won't be disrupted.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> If anything, I see Kirk down to 5 assists per game BUT his FG% up 40 basis pts. And that would be far better off.


40 basis pts = 0.4%


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

Why is everyone so sure that Ben Gordon is going to be a franchise player/superstar? He's possibly athletic and skilled enough, but he never really consistently dominated in college, only for a few games at a time. What's to say he'll dominate in the NBA? He'll never dominate as a SG being 6'2", and I really don't think he has the PG skills to dominate as a 1.

Anyway, I don't think JC and BG will push KH to the bench, if anything as the season goes on it'll be BG + KH on the floor starting, with JC coming off of the bench for instant offense.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> whats ridiculous is that you think the ball movement was find last year. We ranked in the bottom 5 in assists.



The Bulls averaged 21.9 assists last season.

Mavs, Kings, Lakers, Bucks, Grizzlies, Twolves, Cavs, NJ were the only teams that averaged more.

It could use improvement but they certainly weren't bottom 5 like you said.

*The ball movement wasn't a problem last year.* And like I said before, Kirk Hinrich averaging 7 assists last season in his rookie year wasn't the reason the Bulls only won 26 games.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

rlucus, why do you dislike Hinrich so much? You've said before that you think Hinrich will end up being the 8th best point guard in the league. What point guard who is the 8th best in the league doesnt get minutes or doesnt start? Maybe you're just high on Gordon and think he will be better than the 8th best. I still dont understand why you and arenas seem to go out of your way to ridicule the kid as much as you do. 

Anyways, as far as Hinrich getting MIP, its not likely. Hinrich wasnt a raw enough product last year, so his improvement next season wont be drastic. My guess would be that Pietrus or Amare get it. I do expect Hinrich to continue to be the best guard on the team though, and I see him bumping his numbers up to around 14-15 points on an efficient FG percentage (44-45 would be nice), probably a little over 7 assists and close to 4 rebounds.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

As far as the guard rotation, I'd say that Kirk will stay at PG and either Gordon/Crawford will start. The one who doesnt start will come off the bench as the spark. You dont start two defensively weak players who both shoot a lot and shoot poorly from the field. Kirk has the most PG skills of the three, and is also the most unselfish and best defender of the three. I would be completely shocked if he didnt start over Crawford/Gordon.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> rlucus, why do you dislike Hinrich so much? You've said before that you think Hinrich will end up being the 8th best point guard in the league. What point guard who is the 8th best in the league doesnt get minutes or doesnt start? Maybe you're just high on Gordon and think he will be better than the 8th best. I still dont understand why you and arenas seem to go out of your way to ridicule the kid as much as you do.
> 
> Anyways, as far as Hinrich getting MIP, its not likely. Hinrich wasnt a raw enough product last year, so his improvement next season wont be drastic. My guess would be that Pietrus or Amare get it. I do expect Hinrich to continue to be the best guard on the team though, and I see him bumping his numbers up to around 14-15 points on an efficient FG percentage (44-45 would be nice), probably a little over 7 assists and close to 4 rebounds.


rlucas is my amigo, so i'll feel free to serve up the crow this season that he'll be eating...on Kirk, Skiles, and Pax (i see him finally relenting on some of the Paxson stuff)

5 assist per game for Kirk next season is rlucas prediction? Oh boy, this is going to hurt :shy: 
Skiles had a dumb guy offense in Phoenix? I didn't think so at all.
Its amazing to hear this stuff, since so many NBA people think Skiles is so encyclopedicaly intelligent with Xs and Os (including the Bulls guards (who admittedly where probably just glad to be rid of the horrid triangle), and even the infamous sourpuss E-Rob

Glad to hear it in a way, because i normally don't serve too much crow...but he and Arenas are too vocal to escape the coming bird, and only because rlucas is my boy that i can (and WILL)


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> rlucas is my amigo, so i'll feel free to serve up the crow this season that he'll be eating...on Kirk, Skiles, and Pax (i see him finally relenting on some of the Paxson stuff)
> 
> 5 assist per game for Kirk next season is rlucas prediction? Oh boy, this is going to hurt :shy:
> ...


I agree, you can put me in the Skiles and Pax club. I think people jumped on them too early either because they didnt transform them into a contender in 2 months, or they didnt want to execute the same vision some of the fans on this site had. I like that Paxson and Skiles are on the exact same page, and I like the fact that they are both hardnosed guys with a great passion and will to win. 

As far as rlucas, hes a good poster with good ideas, I just dont understand the dislike for Hinrich. And arenas, well arenas will jump wagons to the Clippers soon as Hinrich keeps proving him wrong. At that point, arenas will continue to boast of how much better Shaun Livingston will be in a few years (this argument will also last a few years) while SL is riding pine on the Clips. That buys him a few more years to hate Hinrich.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Guys..calm down here. This is simple logic here. Ask ANY scout and they will be more than glad to tell you what I am saying is true. Hinrich has been playing ball since he was knee high to a grasshopper, his dad was a coach he has played in many different organized environments. He played 4 years under Roy Williams at Kansas, under a system. He simply DOESN'T have as much room for growth as a lot of you guys want to make him out to have. He WILL get a little better because he will learn what works and what doesn't in the NBA. He will also get better officiating the longer he is in the league. But basketball skill wise Kirk is pretty dang close to his personal panacea.
> ...


And professional athletes like Ken Griffey Jr., who were exposed to their respective sports since they were "knee high to a grasshopper", already fulfilled their potential after one year in professional sports?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> As far as rlucas, hes a good poster with good ideas, I just dont understand the dislike for Hinrich.


rlucas has frequently stated that Hinrich exceeded his expectations. That doesn't sound like a guy who dislikes Hinrich.

rlucas frequently and correctly points out that as good as Hinrich was, he's nowhere good enough to rave about him as if he were the next coming of Larry Bird or Magic Johnson (rookies who had REAL impact).

Hinrich was a good enough rookie PG to lead this team from 30 wins to 23 wins. There's your bottom line.

Meanwhile, Melo joined a team with 17 wins and it won 43 games and made the playoffs. Sure you can reason that he wasn't the entire reason for the turnaround, but he sure didn't hurt. 17 wins to 23 wins. There's your bottom line.

It's not about putting up good stats, it's about helping the team win. It's about impact.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> he's nowhere good enough to rave about him as if he were the next coming of Larry Bird or Magic Johnson (rookies who had REAL impact).


You'll have to point out where someone said realistically that Hinrich would be a top 5 player of all time. I also dont see the point in ignoring the gap between star and legend. Its a pretty huge gap. 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Hinrich was a good enough rookie PG to lead this team from 30 wins to 23 wins. There's your bottom line.


Are you serious? You're going to simplify things that much? Thats that type of mentality that makes us trade guys like Artest and Brand for guys who are supposedly "winners" until those "winners" come to our team and stink it up much worse than who we traded them for, then watch the players we traded away become an integral part of a title contending team. 

Zach Randolph was a good enough breakout player to lead his team from 50 wins to 41 wins. Theres your bottom line. That is of course, if you ignore every other thing that factors into a *team* winning games. But yeah, I agree, he is horrible. 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> It's not about putting up good stats, it's about helping the team win. It's about impact.


You must have said the same things about Ron Artest. You're basically telling me that its impossible for a great player to exist on a bad team, regardless of why that team is bad.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I think people jumped on them too early either because they didnt transform them into a contender in 2 months, or they didnt want to execute the same vision some of the fans on this site had. I like that Paxson and Skiles are on the exact same page, and I like the fact that they are both hardnosed guys with a great passion and will to win.


ditto 



> As far as rlucas, hes a good poster with good ideas, I just dont understand the dislike for Hinrich.


hes just about as knowledgable as you'll find. I learn every time i read his posts. This subject is almost our only point of disagreement...other than Krause, the triangle. I don't know why he can't see I'm right lol



> And arenas, well arenas will jump wagons to the Clippers soon as Hinrich keeps proving him wrong. At that point, arenas will continue to boast of how much better Shaun Livingston will be in a few years (this argument will also last a few years) while SL is riding pine on the Clips. That buys him a few more years to hate Hinrich.


one man, one team. period:dead:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

JTCK, here is a perfect example of just seeing what you want to see my friend. I dont hate Kirk, but I have to keep rampant, and really unfair expectations, which Bulls fans have on this kid, completely in check. He played hard, but wasnt nearly as effective as you guys say. I have actually heard posters say that Hinrich could be the "greatest Bull ever". Can you believe that ****? He will not crack the top 10. There is too much Kirk is going to be an allstar, Kirk is the next Stockton (which Pax himself backed off on) Kirk is the best player mombo jumbo. 

Here are the facts, Hinrich played well, individually, yet the Bulls dropped 7 games. If you ever look at the truly great rookies in our time, their teams never suffered nearly a 30% drop in wins. They are usually good enough to make the team better

Give Jay Williams, who everyone on this board bashes, Kirks minutes and freedom to run an offense and guess whose numbers are better? Jays. Yet Jay is a bust and Kirk is a star? Isnt that hypocritical.

Kirk Hinrich is not a great defensive player. He truly tried. But I saw him personally get lit up other rookie PGs. For the year, the starting PGs of other teams scored 1.5 ppg more, shot .040 better against the bulls and played 3 minutes less per game. That isnt a sign of good defense

What Kirk was supposed to give us was a good off the ball shooter. But his shot was sub .400. Yet, YOU, said he was a great shooter and the fact that he cant make a layup wasnt indicative. Well, I dont buy it. until a guy can make atleast 45% of his FGs attempts, lets not call him a great shooter

What we have here was a kid with a tremendous work ethic who shined on a team of has beens and never will bes. Skiles gave him freedom to dominate the ball, and he and Crawford showed the world how to overdribble. Frankly, with the amount of time they dominated the ball, 7 assists should be easy. That was the system installed on Kirk. And I still dont think it was the best system for him. He cant shoot on the dribble, but I am willing to bet that his FG% is 5 pts higher on a catch and shoot basis. Regardless, put him on a better team and he doesnt start, alot of his stats are because someone has to score or pass or shoot, particularly when the other team isnt taking you too seriously. 

at the end of the day, what I want to hear is that its POSSIBLE that the golden boy doesnt even start for us next year, I never said it was likely. But its POSSIBLE. Crawford, who is basically the same age as Kirk, has done things in his career that Kirk could only dream of. I am sure Kirk himself would admit to that. Crawford has a much higher ceiling, and is probably a better ballplayer when given the chance (dont tell me Kirk was better then the Jamal that ended 03). And we dont know about Gordon yet. But its possible that Gordon is better then Kirk too. And if he is, shouldnt Kirk be coming off the bench? Or is Kirk bigger then the team?

The point is, its very unlikely that Kirk is going to be the MIP, MVP, Allstar, All NBA first team defensive player that lots of us want him to be. In fact, its far more likely to me that he will be 6th man of the year, based on how the draft went. And that wouldnt be a bad thing because for a good team, Kirk would be coming off the bench, not as the central point of a rebuilding project. Thats a certainty

As for my mate Fleet, please mate, go back and check those Suns tapes from the 90s. KJ dribbles left, KJ dribbles right and lots of people standing around. Either KJ and Kidd get to the rim and finish or they pass out to an open shooter for a jumpshot. Its an unimaginative offense without alot of flexibility. And Gordon, Hinrich and Crawford are not KJ or Kidd. If Skiles was so good, why was he unemployed for nearly 5 years after he quit the Suns? What did he do last year for you to have confidence that he knows what he is doing? Players publicly praise him, but thats because they see what happened to Erob, who was unceremoniously yanked AFTER PLAYING AS WELL AS ANYONE ON THE TEAM. Players live in fear of that. Is that a way to run a team? Popovich is the one guy I can think of who has won with the drill sergeant mentality, eventually, and rather quickly, those types of approaches run its course and the coach totally loses the players and gets fired, or in his case, quits. He isnt the coach to lead this team deep. If he was, he wouldnt be coaching here. With big name coaches available, Pax ought to do what Dumars did last year, fire the guy, and bring in a Jackson, or Riley, or Coach K (who would love to coach some of these Dukies). That would buy credibility. All Skiles is known for league wide is sitting Chandler down cause his shirt was untucked. Do you think Jackson would care? Or Larry Brown? get real. I am flexible. I have given credit where credit is due. But right now, you cant claim victory since Skiles Bulls winning % is no better then BCs. Yet BC was a bum and Skiles is a great coach? Isnt that a contradiction, and for the record, I know that isnt your thoughts, but read the Boards. Bulls fans find themselves, often, in these hypocritical instances when they say things like that, or when they say Jay was a bust, even though his numbers (if they mean anything, but wins certainly do, which he had) were better over Kirks on a per minute basis, yet Kirk is a future hall of famer. What I am doing is being consistent. Until Skiles or Kirk or Curry or Crawford can lead the Bulls to a 40 win season, why should anyone sing anyones praises? Dont Bulls fans deserve that? I


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

> Here are the facts, Hinrich played well, individually, yet the Bulls dropped 7 games. If you ever look at the truly great rookies in our time, their teams never suffered nearly a 30% drop in wins. They are usually good enough to make the team better





> JTCK, here is a perfect example of just seeing what you want to see my friend


Ironic, in my opinion. 

RLucas, you seem too intelligent an individual to make an issue this simple. You must consider what was happening the year that the 30 games were won, and compare that to what was happening (personnel, coaching, changes, etc) the year that 23 games were won.

To simply say that there was a 30% drop in wins, and imply that Hinrich was not "good enough to make the team better" (your words), is a tremendously convenient argument, in all due respect.

Using your logic, regardless of what kind of personnel changes or sub-par performances by _the other members of the team _ that occur, a rookie must increase team wins in order to qualify for your definition of "excellent."

Is Hinrich "truly great?" I think everyone can see that is not the case. I can definitely see that most of the backlash against Hinrich is a direct reaction to those that sometimes overly sing his praises, but one must also consider that a fan needs to at least take pride in _something_ good on an abysmal team.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

*Kirk's "potential" (long post)*

I'm a KU alum, but I wouldn't be silly enough to suggest that Kirk will ever be the greatest Chicago Bulls player ever. However, I do believe that he has a higher ceiling than RLucas, Arenas and other people suggest, and has the potential to eventually be an All-Star caliber player. 

Dwyane Wade played 3 years of college, but no one is suggesting he's reached his potential. Tim Duncan played 4 years of college, yet he didn't reach his full potential as a rookie. John Stockton played 4 years at Gonzaga, then backed up Rickey Green in Utah for THREE YEARS before becoming a full-time starter, yet still became a Hall of Famer. I could go on and on (and NO, I'm not suggesting Kirk will ever be as good a player as Duncan or Stockton). Some players improve little as their NBA careers go on, others make big jumps in ability, and still others regress. It's stupid to make generalities about a player's age or experience/lack of experience on the college level when it comes to determining their possible ceiling as a pro.

I also think it's silly to say Jay Williams would put up better numbers than Kirk, given Jay's full health and the freedom to run a team. Maybe he would've, maybe he wouldn't have. Personally, I never thought Williams was anything better than a very good college player, and his rookie season didn't suggest that he'd be anything more than an average to slightly above average NBA player. I certainly didn't see superstar written all over him. Especially since he is a worse shooter from the perimeter, a worse defender, and less of a "pure" PG than is Hinrich.

Kirk is a gym rat, pure and simple. If one is willing to put in the time and effort, it makes sense that his game will improve. I'm withholding judgment on Ben Gordon. From what I saw of him at UConn, until about February of this past season, he was a very inconsistent player, great one game, mediocre the next. So I'm not going to be silly and suggest he's going to be an overnight star in the NBA. But neither do I think he'll be a bust. Let's give him time, ok?


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> to me, with Jamal, what you see is all you're gonna get.


i agree. :yes: 


> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> that said, i think EDDY has the best chance of winning MIP on the Bulls next year.


i disagree. :no:

_(i fell like i'm on Hollywood Squares: Shadoe "ace" Stevens to block..._


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is abut the only statement you made that I disagree with. Its not hypocritical to call Jay a bust. His career is likely over. There really is no other way to look at him other than as a bust. He was supposed to be an all-star for 10+ years, but instead only gave us one slightly dissapointing season.

Other than that, I agree with you. Who said Kirk could be the best Bull ever? They need to have some sort of act of violence performed on them. Kirk is gonna be good, and I think he'll make some all-star teams if he improves like other young point guards have in the past. But suggesting he's a HOF-er or anything of that nature is just crazy. Maybe some "great white hope" syndrone.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Hinrich was a good enough rookie PG to lead this team from 30 wins to 23 wins. There's your bottom line.


Compare rosters from last season and the season prior.



> Meanwhile, Melo joined a team with 17 wins and it won 43 games and made the playoffs. Sure you can reason that he wasn't the entire reason for the turnaround, but he sure didn't hurt. 17 wins to 23 wins. There's your bottom line.


The Nuggets made the playoffs in spite of Carmelo, not because of him. The team had a positive +/- when he was on the bench and a negative +/- when he was in the game. Camby, Nene, Leonard and Boykins all had excellent seasons and improved by leaps and bounds. That is the reason Denver improved in the W/L department and made the playoffs. Check out Dan Rosenbaum's analysis on this subject for more info. It's quite telling, IMO.



> It's not about putting up good stats, it's about helping the team win. It's about impact.


Amare Stoudamire, Matrix, Marbury, T-Mac, etc. -- are they not impact players then?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hmmm....

In the last 6 years, the only Bulls I can think of who scored 15+ PPG for an entire season:

Rose
Brand
Mercer
Kukoc
Crawford

That's from memory, and I think I got them in descending order of scoring average.

Looks to me like none of them are still on the Bulls, assuming Pax lets Crawford walk.

Rose is the only guy we traded for who scored 15+ for us. He was run out of town.

That's the Bulls' story.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Amare Stoudamire, Matrix, Marbury, T-Mac, etc. -- are they not impact players then?


Only one of those players played on a worse team than the Bulls.

Of course they're impact players.

Yeah, look at our roster change from 30 wins to 23. Designed to get Kirk his 40 minutes per game because management was infatuated with him.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Yeah, look at our roster change from 30 wins to 23. Designed to get Kirk his 40 minutes per game because management was infatuated with him.


DB, i don't think you're really that cynical, are you?  

JMSO, it's not that management is "infatuated" with Kirk; it's that he has the qualities around which they want to build a team: defensive effort, hustle, intensity, drive. 

Rose didn't fit that mold, so he was traded. in that deal we got at least one player who does (admittedly, JYD is overpaid) and a shorter contract than Rose's millstone in AD. Curry hasn't shown those qualities yet, but they apparently still hold out hope for him. (i'm much less optimistic.) Chandler has shown flashes of those qualities, but hasn't shown them consistently yet. (i _am_ still optimistic about that, because at least i've seen flashes.) and it's evident that they see those qualities in Gordon and Deng as well. Crawford? he shows intensity and occasional hustle and drive, but doesn't appear to have thought of the defensive effort.

if you think Pax and Skiles are on the wrong track, that's one thing. to accuse them of, perhaps, pandering racism is quite another.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> DB, i don't think you're really that cynical, are you?
> 
> ...


I don't think there's any pandering racism going on. Pax is a white PG, Skiles is a white PG, and Hinrich just looks like them. They know the white PG's game and they want the team to play the game the way they know it.

AD and JYD are really a waste of roster spots and cap room, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, call me cynical if you like, AD is probably the best player on the Bulls (at least last year). JYD played well in his first game, before Skiles put in his offensive scheme (maybe it was him being happy about the trade, maybe it was just the team was allowed to play ball instead of playing a scheme). JYD did play just 65 minutes (I seem to remember) in the Bulls' last 25% of the season - THAT IS A WASTE.

But let's get back to Hinrich, since the thread is about him.

If the Gordon/Hinrich back court does not work out well, then Gordon should be the starter, considering how much we are banking on him being an impact player. #3 pick in the draft vs. #7 is something of an indication of how the league considered their potentials. Of course, if Gordon is a total flop, Hinrich should start.

I agree with RLucas to a large degree about Hinrich, and I agree with those who think he can be very good. He has exceeded our expectations, and he may continue to do so. However, he has set realistic NBA level expectations from his first season, and he will HAVE TO be considered for MIP to be any better than Jamal Tinsley has been for Indy (and they're not happy with him). 

Hinrich is fundamentally a good defender. That is, he knows how to fight through screens and keep between his man and the basket. He knows how to effectively double team, too. But RLucas is right - he's not a defensive stopper. Offensively, he's about the same as JWill as a rookie, just more minutes. Defensively, JWill was a sieve and Hinrich is much less one (if one at all).

If Gordon plays great and the backcourt gets burned for lots of points, then we will see if there's a certain kind of favoritism in play by who gets the most minutes. Agreed?


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I don't think there's any pandering racism going on. Pax is a white PG, Skiles is a white PG, and Hinrich just looks like them. They know the white PG's game and they want the team to play the game the way they know it.
> 
> AD and JYD are really a waste of roster spots and cap room, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, call me cynical if you like, AD is probably the best player on the Bulls (at least last year). JYD played well in his first game, before Skiles put in his offensive scheme (maybe it was him being happy about the trade, maybe it was just the team was allowed to play ball instead of playing a scheme). JYD did play just 65 minutes (I seem to remember) in the Bulls' last 25% of the season - THAT IS A WASTE.
> ...


well, JMSO, for Gordon to be playing "great", he'd have to defend at least as well as KH did most of last year.

Gordon has all the physical tools to be solid defensively, and appears to have been schooled pretty well in the fundamentals. will he have Kirk's want-to? Pax seems to think so. we'll have to wait and see.

Gordon will be limited by his size, to be sure, but i'm of the mind his future is as a third guard on a contending team -- his game is just too perfect for five buckets and a steal in seven minutes off the bench and then sitting back down; plus he'll be too quick for the other team's backup guards.

and i will certainly agree that Kirk isn't a stopper defensively, or at least he isn't one yet...and maybe he won't ever be. but as you said, fundamentally he's sound, and the effort is clearly there. i'm not going to put it past him to reach that level.

i don't think it applies nearly as much if they're playing together, but i'll agree to this much: if Gordon proves he should be the starting _point guard_ by outplaying Hinrich -- not the starting shooting guard -- and Kirk is still the starter, "there's a certain kind of favoritism in play." deal. :yes:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> well, JMSO, for Gordon to be playing "great", he'd have to defend at least as well as KH did most of last year.
> 
> ...


Maybe neither Gordon nor Hinrich can guard 2s well. How do you judge Gordon guarding 2s vs. Hinrich guarding 1s? Or vice versa.

While I believe Hinrich is a fundamentally sound defender, he's never shown he's got what it takes to be a stopper. I don't know of anyone he's guarded who was really bothered by his defense. There's a considerable difference in his intensity vs. Crawford's or JWill's, no doubt. Of course it's better to at least stay in front of your man than to wave your hands at your man as he goes by (like a matador).

It didn't win any ball games, that is for sure.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> JTCK, here is a perfect example of just seeing what you want to see my friend. I dont hate Kirk, but I have to keep rampant, and really unfair expectations, which Bulls fans have on this kid, completely in check. He played hard, but wasnt nearly as effective as you guys say. I have actually heard posters say that Hinrich could be the "greatest Bull ever". Can you believe that ****? He will not crack the top 10. There is too much Kirk is going to be an allstar, Kirk is the next Stockton (which Pax himself backed off on) Kirk is the best player mombo jumbo.
> 
> Here are the facts, Hinrich played well, individually, yet the Bulls dropped 7 games. If you ever look at the truly great rookies in our time, their teams never suffered nearly a 30% drop in wins. They are usually good enough to make the team better
> ...


this is an excellent post.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> JTCK, here is a perfect example of just seeing what you want to see my friend. I dont hate Kirk, but I have to keep rampant, and really unfair expectations, which Bulls fans have on this kid, completely in check. He played hard, but wasnt nearly as effective as you guys say. I have actually heard posters say that Hinrich could be the "greatest Bull ever". Can you believe that ****? He will not crack the top 10. There is too much Kirk is going to be an allstar, Kirk is the next Stockton (which Pax himself backed off on) Kirk is the best player mombo jumbo.
> 
> Here are the facts, Hinrich played well, individually, yet the Bulls dropped 7 games. If you ever look at the truly great rookies in our time, their teams never suffered nearly a 30% drop in wins. They are usually good enough to make the team better
> ...


Alright rlucas, I'm going to put this post in my log and look back on it next season. You're saying Kirk gets numbers because he gets minutes, and that he'll never be more than a 6th man and will never be a top 10 PG. 

I feel like I'm having deja vu, I'm seeing the same arguments I saw with Brand, Artest and Miller. All three were dismissed because they couldnt even lead the team to a decent record, and now they are all top 5 players at their position. Funny that we keep letting history repeat itself. 

But you're right, I only "see what I want to see", just like I did with those guys I suppose. Go figure.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Kirk played more minutes and had stats no better than Jamal Tinsley for his rookie season. 

Why is Kirk going to be better than Tinsley? Maybe a little better, but he's got to PROVE he's better.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Why is Kirk going to be better than Tinsley? Maybe a little better, *but he's got to PROVE he's better.*


But Gordon doesnt? I see.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

For the record, here are my thoughts on Hinrich. Base your opinions on whether or not I'm bias on this: 

Position - I believe Hinrich is a point guard naturally. He has the speed, defense, ball handling skills, decision making skills and passing skills to be successful in that position. 

Defense - I dont think he'll be a defensive stopper like a Ron Artest or Bruce Bowen, not even close really, simply because point guards arent typically elite scorers like shooting guards are. Bowen and Artest have ability to lockdown the most elite scorers, who are usually 6'7 or 6'8. However, I believe Hinrich has the ability to lockdown any point guard in the league for the most part. I dont buy the argument that Hinrich just "tries hard" because you could say the exact same thing about Bowen if you ignore anticipation and timing. Some people think that defense is only about hustle, but the truth is, while hustle is extremely important, theres a lot more to it than that. You have to know when to gamble, when to go over/under screens, you have to anticipate a players move to be in position to stop them. Theres a lot of things involved, a lot of timing and things to do with your basketball intelligence and things that come with experience. He may not ever make an all defense team, but if he doesnt, it'll be because they pick two guards, regardless of whether he is a point or shooting guard. Theres an elite crop of shooting guards in the league right now who are better defenders than Hinrich. I do think Hinrich will probably be the best defender at the point guard position in the league. Looking at depth charts, I cant find one who I'd say is better. 
*Comparison: Eric Snow*

Shooting - I think Hinrich has a nice stroke and his FT/3PT percentages in his rookie year prove this. Just to get it out of the way, FG% doesnt mean much when considering how good of a shooter a guy is, it deals more with scoring efficiency (which I'll address later), Shaq shoots the best FG% in the league, and nobody in their right mind thinks he is the best shooter, Wade is not a better _shooter_ than Nash, etc. Anyways, Hinrich has nice mechanics, and his percentages in the shooting categories in his rookie season lead me to believe that he'll be a very good shooter in the future. Anyone who says otherwise is either out of their mind, or lets FG% define how good of a shooter a guy is, in which case I'll make a list of the best shooters in the league with Shaq and Erick Dampier on top. If you like to use the guard-center argument, well then would you consider Richard Jefferson the best _shooter_ in the league, over a guy like Ray Allen or Peja Stojakovich? Hopefully not, but field goal percentage would indicate that. 
*Comparison: Steve Nash*

Scoring - This is where Hinrich needs work. He has great speed and quickness, he can get into the lane but has trouble finishing. He needs to work on his midrange game as well, so he can use his ability to penetrate more often and use his passing ability. This is the weakest part of Hinrichs game, he cant cant finish around the hoop that well and because of it he'll never be an elite scorer or someone who gets isolations or anything of that sort. However, even I do think this is his biggest weakness, I also think its where he has the most untapped potential.
*Comparison - Jason Williams* (if he taps into that potential, he could be more like Bibby or Nash in this department, but thats just an if at the moment)

Athleticism - He is a deceptively good athlete. People praise Dwyane Wade for his unreal athleticism, but him and Hinrich were the top two athletes before the 2003 draft. They are comparable athletes but in different aspects. Hinrich is extremely quick and fast. He is also very strong for a guard. This is where people see him as an average athlete because hes white, no way around that. 
*Comparison - Bobby Jackson*

Passing - I think he has a great basketball IQ due to his experience. He knows how to set guys up and get them the ball in the right spot. He has good court vision and timing with his passes. He is no Jason Kidd, but I certainly dont think he is a bad passer who "only" averaged 6.8 assists when he "should have averaged more" because he plays in a system that supposedly is the only reason he gets assists. 

*Comparison - Steve Nash* (you could argue that Nash only gets assists because he plays with elite scorers, but thats equally as foolish IMO)

Hinrich is a good rebounder for a guard, has a great feel for the game and a great basketball IQ as well. He has a great work ethic as well, so we can expect improvement in his weaknesses. I think he'll be a top 5 PG in the league in his prime. He'll end up being on the same level as a Steve Nash or Mike Bibby. He has a unique skillset, so he wont be exactly like any of them, but thats the calibur he'll be. 

Its foolish to write him off completely after his rookie season. Rookie point guards are tricky to analyze. Steve Nash averaged 3 points his rookie season, and in his 3rd season where played 32 minutes per game, he put up only 8 points and 5 assists on a poor shooting percentage. Bibby played 35 minutes per game in his rookie season for a horrible team, and put up 13 points with 6.5 assists. A lot of other pretty good point guards follow the same trend. 

So no, Hinrich wont be close to being the best Bull of all time, wont be a top 10 player in the league at any time, may not make any all defense teams, and will probably battle for being the 5th best rookie in this draft class alone (behind Lebron, Melo, Darko and Bosh) but so what? I wrote a post awhile back about great roleplayers vs. mediocre superstars, and I think that argument applies with Hinrich. Some guys think they are superstars, and have a decent amount of talent to pull it off, but they are not nearly as valuable as a roleplayer who does all the intangibles at a high level. That is why I always loved Artest and hated when he, an excellent roleplayer, was traded for a mediocre superstar in Rose. 

Soon as those excellent roleplayers are put with a legitimate superstar, they begin to shine because people are constantly exposed to the intangibles they do. At one point this post season, people were saying Ron Artest was the best player on the Pacers. But when excellent roleplayers are placed on teams that dont have much depth, dont have a very good system, where theres not very much organization, thats when they get ignored and people assume that their job could be done by any average joe. 

Getting your hands on a legitimate superstar like Duncan, KG, Shaq, Kobe, Tmac, Dirk or JO is a difficult task. But once you do, its much much much better to have a guy who does the duties of a roleplayer, but does them at a high enough level where he can be considered a star. Mediocre stars are fools gold, they might bring you to being mediocre, but you'll never get beyond that. Maybe some Bulls fans are so tired of being horrible that they'll sacrafice any chance at getting past mediocre, just for the chance to be mediocre. I'm not like that, I'd rather work at building something legit. 

Now, I have Gordon made out to be one of those "mediocre superstars" who may fool some people into thinking he is good enough to be a franchise player, but hes fools gold. His type of player usually ends up playing for many teams over the course of their careers, because they are temporary solutions and dont really fit in a long term plan, which is ultimately to be more than a mediocre team. 

Iguodala on the other hand, would have worked perfect next to Hinrich, and would have allowed Hinrich to play point guard. Iguodala would have provided the ability to play the SF as well, and he could handle the ball well. He is a permanent piece, Gordon is not. Atleast I have Gordon made out to be like that, I'll take the wait and see approach because I hope he proves me wrong. However, thats my expectations for him. 

Thats how I feel.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

So bottom line

Kirk=Bulls best player. Bulls are a MINUS 7. Kirk=greatest player of alltime (if you read Bulls message boards)

Jalen Rose=Bulls best player in 2002-2003. Bulls are a PLUS 10. Rose=cancer and bust

Isnt this just a bit hypocritical? Just a tad?

This is where this board, and Bulls fans in general, completely lose perspective. And I cant crystallize it more (though one fan actually said Kirk could be the greatest Bull ever, I have to question whether he was drunk when he said it, MJ anyone?). Kirk is not the player everyone makes him out to be. He is solid but he is about the 15-20th best PG in the game. For some teams, he might not crack the rotation. And as for JTCK saying he will probably be the best defensive PG in the game, if he isnt already, well, that my friend is an instant classic. I am sure Barbosa and Ridnour can put up the type of numbers they did against Kirk against someone like Eric Snow, or Gary Payton, or Chauncey Billups or Antonio Daniels, all of which blow Kirk away on that end of the floor.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Man, I'm done with this. I'll definitely pull it up when the "bottom line" changes a little bit and you guys dont know why because you're afraid of details. 

Until then, the "bottom line" is, the Suns dont have anything more than "solid players" because they were the 2nd worst team in the west this season. So yeah, Amare Stoudemire is just solid, nothing special. Same goes with Marion, JJ, and Barbosa. Obviously they cant be anything more than solid or they would have won games and its impossible for good players to be on bad teams.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Man, I'm done with this. I'll definitely pull it up when the "bottom line" changes a little bit and you guys dont know why because you're afraid of details.
> 
> Until then, the "bottom line" is, the Suns dont have anything more than "solid players" because they were the 2nd worst team in the west this season. So yeah, Amare Stoudemire is just solid, nothing special. Same goes with Marion, JJ, and Barbosa. Obviously they cant be anything more than solid or they would have won games and its impossible for good players to be on bad teams.


But arent you proving me right? Amare got to Phoenix, and helped lead a team not expected to go anywhere to the playoffs as a rookie. thats the definition of impact. I cant think of such a great rookie who led his team to a 28% drop off in wins. Kirks name shouldnt be included in the same sentence with Wade, James and Anthony, until his team gets better. Or is Kirk bigger then the team?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But arent you proving me right? Amare got to Phoenix, and helped lead a team not expected to go anywhere to the playoffs as a rookie. thats the definition of impact. I cant think of such a great rookie who led his team to a 28% drop off in wins. Kirks name shouldnt be included in the same sentence with Wade, James and Anthony, until his team gets better. Or is Kirk bigger then the team?


Amare led his team to how many wins this season compared to last season? Did he get worse this season?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Amare led his team to how many wins this season compared to last season? Did he get worse this season?


he played in 55 games. If he played in 75, they would have 10 more wins atleast, and thats in the west.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> he played in 55 games. If he played in 75, they would have 10 more wins atleast, and thats in the west.


Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Even if they had won 10 more games, thats *still* a drop off in wins from last season, how do you explain that? 

When Hinrich didnt play much in November, the team was 2-9 with an 18% winning percentage. When he started playing more, the team was 21-50, and thats a 29% winning percentage.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> But Gordon doesnt? I see.


After gordon puts up Tinsley-like rookie numbers, he ABSOLUTELY does. Hinrich is a known quantity, Gordon is not. We know Hinrich did not come in and be an impact player. We have no way to know that Gordon will or will not be an impact player without letting him play.

Seems like you've been posting here a while. If you were here in the JWill days, I posted the comparison between his stats and Tinsley's, too. If you were here when Kirk was drafted, you'd know that while others complained about the pick, I suggested we give him every chance to see if he'd be an impact player, too.

Kirk played a LOT of 40+ minute games last season. Why? Because if he sat, the only guy Skiles had to put in was Brunson or ERob in many of those games. He didn't beat out anyone on the team for his job, and he likely wouldn't have if the team actually had many of the other guards on the team healthy or not traded away.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> After gordon puts up Tinsley-like rookie numbers, he ABSOLUTELY does. Hinrich is a known quantity, Gordon is not. We know Hinrich did not come in and be an impact player. We have no way to know that Gordon will or will not be an impact player without letting him play.
> 
> Seems like you've been posting here a while. If you were here in the JWill days, I posted the comparison between his stats and Tinsley's, too. If you were here when Kirk was drafted, you'd know that while others complained about the pick, I suggested we give him every chance to see if he'd be an impact player, too.


Dont get me wrong, I want to give Gordon a shot, and play him good minutes. I think that can be done without sacraficing Hinrichs contributions to the team. My only problem with your mentality is, if the Bulls start winning next season, will you give the credit to Gordon and/or Deng despite efforts made by everyone to make it a cohesive and balanced roster? 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Kirk played a LOT of 40+ minute games last season. Why? Because if he sat, the only guy Skiles had to put in was Brunson or ERob in many of those games. He didn't beat out anyone on the team for his job, and he likely wouldn't have if the team actually had many of the other guards on the team healthy or not traded away.


Depends on which guards were starting, but youre assuming Hinrich wouldnt do this or that. Hinrich did play well enough to get the team to move Crawford out of position in order to put Hinrich in the starting lineup. So you might as well include Crawford in the same class with Brunson and Erob if you're going to make that argument that Hinrich didnt have much competition to beat out.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Even if they had won 10 more games, thats *still* a drop off in wins from last season, how do you explain that?
> ...


and how do you explain the 28% dropoff in wins? Do you think if we put Steve Nash, as you compare Kirk to, in Kirks place this team wins 23 games? Do you think a healthy Jay Will would have equaled less wins? Its called impact


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Though I'm big DB and rlucas fans, I have to side with the Cool Kid on this one. In all, it seems to be a miscommunication.

John seems to be saying that Hinrich is a solid PG that can handle the position. In his summation of KH's skills, he placed him near Nash and Eric Snow.

I don't think that those are assertions with which anyone would totally disagree with. Nash, a point guard on a Western powerhouse, is still two outside the top 20% of PG's in the league, at least IMO. Marbury, Kidd, Francis, and Bibby are definitely more talented and better PG's, regardless of stats. (I'd place Billups in that category, after seeing what he could do to win a championship against the Lakers. None of the other PG's in that list have ever been Finals MVP. You might say, "Well, none of them have ever won the NBA Finals before." To which I say, "Exactly.") Eric Snow isn't even close. Jackson certainly isn't either. Those guys might fall in the top half, at best.

To say that Hinrich has the ability to play among the top half of the point guards in the league... that's certainly not saying that he's the savior of the Bulls franchise, nor is it saying that he will be among Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Love, Van Lier, or any of the rest of those guys that played with Chicago. 

To say that he can one day be as good as Bibby or Nash is not preposterous either. 

Also, John's very big on the "roleplayer becoming star" distinction, and on that, I think I agree with him. Dale Davis, Glenn Robinson, and Glen Rice come to mind.

It is in consideration for all these things that comments should be made. Hinrich is not a superstar, or perhaps even an All-Star level player. Hinrich is gifted defensively; maybe or maybe not a "stopper". Hinrich is a skilled PG and Gordon would have to impress them very much to oust KH from the starting lineup. 

More importantly, rather than defend our own positions, we should consider carefully what exactly is being said. Rlucas continues to repeat that Hinrich is not going to be the best Bull of all time, nor in the top 10. John has readily agreed to this.

I do have to disagree with this single superlative from John:



> I do think Hinrich will probably be the best defender at the point guard position in the league.


Because I think that Billups, Francis, and Wade could be better defenders for several years to come.

But in all, I don't think it's absurd for Hinrich to get consideration for the MIP. What this mostly means, as DB continues to painfully point out, is that we have a lot more wins. Most of the time MIP's have been on fairly improved teams (Jalen Rose, Pacers Finals run year; Tracy McGrady, when the Magic cracked the playoffs and when he doubled almost every statistical category; Jermaine O'Neal, when the Pacers were rebuilt in a single year).

Historically, MIP's have usually made huge increases in their statistical categories and I just don't see that happening with Hinrich simply because he'll never be the main scorer for our team, and he can't possibly increase his assist average more than 2 or 3 assists. He's not going to start yanking down 7 rpg and nabbing 2.5 steals, either, so while he MIGHT have an outside chance at warranting consideration, he's not likely to get it. He's starting from too good of a position.

Eddy Curry DOES have a chance, simply because he CAN dramatically increase his averages across the board, as well as making the Bulls a better team in the process. 

That's what I think.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I want to give Gordon a shot, and play him good minutes. I think that can be done without sacraficing Hinrichs contributions to the team. My only problem with your mentality is, if the Bulls start winning next season, will you give the credit to Gordon and/or Deng despite efforts made by everyone to make it a cohesive and balanced roster?
> ...


Dabullz, bingo, we have a winner, here it is mate

Hinrich is bigger then the team. 

We "shouldnt sacrifice Hinrich" for what? The good of the team? Why would we want to do that? I mean, after all, dont we want to win? 

Oh and exactly how did Kirk earn his spot? Hmmm, He came in and had the worst game of his career against NO and was magically a starter? Exactly who did he beat out? He wasnt even out playing Roger Mason in preseason. 

The point is, if Gordon beats Kirk out, and Jamal beats kirk out, they should start. Kirk is not bigger then the team, and should be "sacrificed". No one on a 23 win team has proven squat. And frankly, isnt it ATLEAST POSSIBLE that Kirk is the 3rd guard in a 3 guard rotation? Of course it is. Any sane fan would acknowledge that it is atleast possible but some insane fans think things should just be handed to players


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> and how do you explain the 28% dropoff in wins? Do you think if we put Steve Nash, as you compare Kirk to, in Kirks place this team wins 23 games? Do you think a healthy Jay Will would have equaled less wins? Its called impact


Prove to me without a doubt that Steve Nash in the same position could have equaled more wins. You're going strictly off assumptions and not ability. Impact is extremely important, but its your way of determining it that is flawed. You have to judge the player, not the win-loss column. 

You're completely disregarding Chandlers injury, the fact that we traded Rose and Marshall midseason, the fact we changed coaches midseason, the fact we changed GMs over the summer. 

Last season, the winning percentage was 36%. This season in November when Kirk didnt get minutes it was 18%. Then with Kirk playing 30+ minutes or so starting at the beginning of December, they won 29% after that. 

The 36% to 18% drop off was with Kirk completely irrelevant to the picture. Then *with* Kirk, they won 11% more games from that point on. 

To act like the Bulls of 02-03 were the same team as 03-04 and that Kirk was the only difference is completely unfair and flat out wrong.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Dabullz, bingo, we have a winner, here it is mate
> 
> Hinrich is bigger then the team.
> ...


Yeah okay, you're the one saying he is the sole reason why we lost more games this past season. Now whos making him bigger than the team. You're the one who is trying to isolate him off the team because in your mind he is the sole reason for their failures. I said we shouldnt sacrafice Hinrichs *contributions* just to give a *chance* to a rookie, I guess you had struggles reading. A guard rotation can get Gordon minutes, and include Hinrichs contribution since Hinrich is *proven* as the best Bulls guard. 

Is that too much for you, or do you need a "bottom line" to clarify?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Though I'm big DB and rlucas fans, I have to side with the Cool Kid on this one. In all, it seems to be a miscommunication.
> 
> John seems to be saying that Hinrich is a solid PG that can handle the position. In his summation of KH's skills, he placed him near Nash and Eric Snow.
> ...


Thanks, good post. I agree about Curry as well, he has a chance at most improved. I also think Chandler has a decent chance, just because he had such a great start to the season, and if he continues that, then hes a lead candidate.

I dont think its out of line to say Hinrich could be the best defender at PG, but even if not I wanted to make it clear that its extremely rare for a PG to be a "defensive stopper" and I tried to emphasize that Hinrich wont be that type of player, but will be a very good defender at his position.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

RLucas,

Do you simply hit the ignore button on the posts I make that are directed toward you? Just wondering, as you seem to be having the same argument with JCTK, yet I attempted to get an answer on certain flaws within the argument.

Just wondering.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah okay, you're the one saying he is the sole reason why we lost more games this past season. Now whos making him bigger than the team. You're the one who is trying to isolate him off the team because in your mind he is the sole reason for their failures. I said we shouldnt sacrafice Hinrichs *contributions* just to give a *chance* to a rookie, I guess you had struggles reading. A guard rotation can get Gordon minutes, and include Hinrichs contribution since Hinrich is *proven* as the best Bulls guard.
> ...


WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT HE WAS THE SOLE REASON WE LOST MORE GAMES LAST YEAR? 

Please post that? Please. This is what I am talking about. Reading what you want to read? What I specifically said is that impact rookies dont usually go to teams and then they fall 28%. I never ONCE SAID KIRK was bad OR THE REASON FOR OUR BAD YEAR. I said that BULLS FANS OVERRATE HIM. Lets get this straight. And I am making an argument that he might just be the 3rd guard in our 3 guard rotation. And I dont think its a fallacy. Before arguing, understand what your opposition is saying. 

And by the way, who says Hinrich is our best guard? This is clearly an opinion. And I believe if you ask league wide who the Bulls best guard is, my gut tells me slightly over 50% would say Jamal.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT HE WAS THE SOLE REASON WE LOST MORE GAMES LAST YEAR?


That has been your implication throughout the thread. 



> and how do you explain the 28% dropoff in wins?


Was this off topic or were you looking for me to say Hinrich was the reason they dropped off 28% in the win column? I'm sure as a Bulls fan you know that a number of things factored into the Bulls losing more games. From injuries, to coaching, to management, the whole nine. Determining a players ability by judging a completely different team last year to that rookies impact this year is absurd. 

If Lebron James had come onto a team that had Duncan and Kobe the previous year, but they left, that team would not win more games. So Lebron isnt a special player?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> That has been your implication throughout the thread.
> ...


No, your reading what you want to read. I said Bulls fans overrate Kirk. And that he isnt the impact player people make him out to be. 

I said we shouldnt bend over backwards for a guy, that everyone here says is GREAT, when the impact on the team was still a minus 28%. Was it his fault? Not entirely. But he isnt as good as you say he is, or as Bulls fan says he is. And on a 23 win team, NO ones jobs should be safe. And if Gordon and Jamal are the best guards, then yes, Kirk should be sacrificed. Because this is about the Bulls, not Kirk. 

And did we have Tim Duncan or Kobe? There wasnt much of a change in our roster so your argument is really null and void


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> and how do you explain the 28% dropoff in wins? Do you think if we put Steve Nash, as you compare Kirk to, in Kirks place this team wins 23 games? Do you think a healthy Jay Will would have equaled less wins? Its called impact


I understand where you guys are coming from, Kirk is clearly not our savior right now (and likely not in the future either--it'll take a team effort to get back out of our hole). However, I don't think we can hold him soley responsible for our 28% drop offf in wins. We had guys showing up out of shape to start the regular season, the Pippen, Rose and Chandler injuries, the trade for JYD and Davis, the Curry injury in December, Fizer's injury problems, and a myriad of other issues. If it wasn't for Hinrich, we probably would have been the worst team in the league instead of the 2nd worst team. I doubt if Steve Nash could have won very many more games than Kirk as a Bull if we could travel back in time and trade Hinrich for Nash before the 2003-2004 season. And, I'm pretty sure that Nash as a rookie wouldn't have done any better than Hinrich did last season.

Hinrich is good (not great), deserves to start for this team until/unless proven otherwise (and that would mean that Gordon/JC/others? would have to be very good), and should improve now with a legitimate NBA SF and enough guard depth to get him some rest. That rest alone should help his shooting % quite a bit. If he can learn to take contact and still finish at the hoop over the summer, he could come back dramatically improved. I think he has that ability, but just hasn't learned how to use it properly at the NBA level yet. I also think he will likely improve upon his hacking habits and FT shooting over time, although his hacking won't be as much of an issue if we have better depth.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> No, your reading what you want to read. I said Bulls fans overrate Kirk. And that he isnt the impact player people make him out to be.


Looks like the person above me is reading what he wants to read as well? 



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I said we shouldnt bend over backwards for a guy, that everyone here says is GREAT, when the impact on the team was still a minus 28%. Was it his fault? Not entirely. But he isnt as good as you say he is, or as Bulls fan says he is. And on a 23 win team, NO ones jobs should be safe. And if Gordon and Jamal are the best guards, then yes, Kirk should be sacrificed. Because this is about the Bulls, not Kirk.


You keep saying everyone here says hes "great" but I honestly dont see these people you're talking about. Even if their are people like that, I dont see why you choose to take the opposite extreme and underrate the guy as much as these others overrate him. 

I agree, if Gordon and Crawford play better together than any other guard combination, then they should start. If Rick Brunson and Roger Mason play better together than any other guard combination, then they should start. Its always whats best for the team, I feel that Hinrich over Gordon or Crawford will be best for the team based on what I've seen from them. 



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> And did we have Tim Duncan or Kobe? There wasnt much of a change in our roster so your argument is really null and void


Point: Significant changes were made from last year to this year, very significant changes. To just look at the win loss record like Hinrich was the only change is ignorant.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> ... And I believe if you ask league wide who the Bulls best guard is, my gut tells me slightly over 50% would say Jamal.


Yep, I am sure Indiana will tell you that and ask to trade them Gordon or Kirk instead. :grinning: 

With all my respect, come on guys, each of our three guards has their strong and weak sides. But, it is obvious that Kirk’s and Gordon’s values are higher than Jamal’s. 

As a matter of fact even now, Pax has a difficult time getting anything decent, in return for Jamal. IMO, Kirk or Gordon will bring far more attentions around the league should we decide to trade them.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Even if they had won 10 more games, thats *still* a drop off in wins from last season, how do you explain that?
> ...


Kirk wasn't a reason that the Bulls loss. It's not like he turned the ball over and played matador defense. That was Jamal. It's just that Kirk didn't have much impact towards winning either. 

However, what Jamal did in wins is what an impact player (as in impact towards the w column) does (though we could have used more of it :shy. He occasionally can make things happen. I've been saying all along, he's a momentum-making player, something the Bulls as a young team, should hold on to until we get momentum-stopping (that is established defenders) players.

Kirk has shown none of that, not even any flashes. Kirk is more a constant who can ocassionally have a big night like Eric Snow. He's just someone who can keep up well.

It's sad that our motto has seemingly declined from "pounding them like pound-me-in-the-***-prison" to "keeping up" (OK I made all that up). Some on these message boards will always point out "look how we kept up with the Lakers, we should be damn proud of this team." Oh yeah ? 28 (now 29) can probably do the same. It's about what can take you over the top past "keeping up."

Impactplayers.com.


----------



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

BTW, on the title. . .

Umm. . .ANYONE can win the MIP.

Does Kirk have one of the best chances ? Probably because he'll probably still get his minutes. I imagine realistically that he could average as much as 17 a game next year, and probably finish 5th in voting or something.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> Kirk wasn't a reason that the Bulls loss. It's not like he turned the ball over and played matador defense. That was Jamal. It's just that Kirk didn't have much impact towards winning either.


Well I disagree. I think Kirk did have impact towards winning, it just didnt show in the win loss column. Look at Tracy McGrady for the perfect example of that (or Amare, Marion, JJ). You're right, Kirk didnt lose games all by himself, so by the same token he cant win games all by himself. Basketball is a team sport, players should be judged on their ability as a player and teams should be judged on their ability as a team. 

I have no problem if people doubt his ability because of things based on his ability as a player. I do have a problem with the logic that hes not that good because his team only won 23 games. I just would rather deal with players as players. A players analysis should include his abilities, strengths, weakness, etc. I've seen guys go from one of the worst teams in the league to one of the best, and their stats actually improve, their role actually gets bigger, and they are better players.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

Primoz Brezec MIP 2005, lol


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I disagree. I think Kirk did have impact towards winning, it just didnt show in the win loss column. Look at Tracy McGrady for the perfect example of that (or Amare, Marion, JJ). You're right, Kirk didnt lose games all by himself, so by the same token he cant win games all by himself. Basketball is a team sport, players should be judged on their ability as a player and teams should be judged on their ability as a team.
> ...


No Kirk was not worthless and he did have a hand in the wins by constantly NOT screwing up. That was his impact/contribution towards winning. 

But when I use "impact" in the word "impact player", I'm talking about a player who can change the momentum of a game during critical moments. I didn't really see Kirk do that on any end, but to his credit, he did keep us in a few games for a bit when the momentum was turning against us kinda like what Jamal did when he was coming off the bench in favor of Jay. 

TMac could change the momentum of a game, mainly through scoring, but his team simply didn't play any defense for him to keep going. 

As for Phoenix, well, they played in a very tough conference. I think they would've definitely been a playoff team in the East, but their core is pretty young, and their impact players are not as confident as others in the West. They have no real go-to-guy. They have talent, but I think there's a lot of uncertainty in their stars (which we could use) relative to other teams. They'll probably improve with time.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Prove to me without a doubt that Steve Nash in the same position could have equaled more wins. You're going strictly off assumptions and not ability. Impact is extremely important, but its your way of determining it that is flawed. You have to judge the player, not the win-loss column.
> ...


actually what you posting about the record the bulls had before kirk started playing a lot is inaccurate , after 10 games and before kirks rise in min.(which was spiked in game 11 and 12 because JC was out with a sprained neck) the bulls were 4-6(40%) , it should be noted kirk did not play in another 30 minute game until the dec.1st the game JC was switched to sg, so i am of the belief that he beat out no one for the starting spot(unless you want to say he beat brunson who i believe was on the IL with a phantom injury) and got the spot merely because JC was needed more at shooting guard with the trade of rose. in fact in between the spike in time caused by JC's injury and then JC placement in at sg kirk never played more than 22 minutes in any game.

so the dropoff you are posting isn't right after all the bulls lost both the games by an avg. that was in double digits so his impact then wasn't exactly there against sea. and pho. but the game before against minny he only played 15 minutes and the game went into OT and the bulls only lost by 3 and they are a far superior team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*now to answer the thread question.*

yeah kirk can win it , but he's at best the 3rd best candidate on the bulls to win it behind tyson and eddy , in fact i would say tyson due to what he has shown he can do statwise before getting hurt should make him a big time guy in the running for the award.

if he put up those numbers or close to it(14 and 11) he should be a lock unless something unforseen happens and grant hill comes back or something like that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> so i am of the belief that he beat out no one for the starting spot(unless you want to say he beat brunson who i believe was on the IL with a phantom injury) and got the spot merely because JC was needed more at shooting guard with the trade of rose.


Exactly.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> For the record, here are my thoughts on Hinrich. Base your opinions on whether or not I'm bias on this:
> 
> Position - I believe Hinrich is a point guard naturally. He has the speed, defense, ball handling skills, decision making skills and passing skills to be successful in that position.
> ...


5 stars.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> But arent you proving me right? Amare got to Phoenix, and helped lead a team not expected to go anywhere to the playoffs as a rookie.


And the very next year, they won 14 fewer games and were forced to trade their All-Star "impact" PG. The Suns went from 43 wins in 2002-2003 to 29 wins this past year -- _with_ Amare, _with_ Matrix, _with_ Joe Johnson, _with_ Barbosa, _with_ Marbury for half the season.

You were talking about impact?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Though I'm big DB and rlucas fans, I have to side with the Cool Kid on this one. In all, it seems to be a miscommunication.
> 
> John seems to be saying that Hinrich is a solid PG that can handle the position. In his summation of KH's skills, he placed him near Nash and Eric Snow.
> ...


5 more stars.


----------

