# Kirk's signed!



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...inrich,1,1971030.story?coll=cs-home-headlines




> MIAMI -- Choosing security over stubbornness, Kirk Hinrich has accepted the Bulls' final offer on a long-term contract extension, according to league sources.
> 
> With the deadline for the negotiating window expiring at 11:59 p.m. Tuesday, Hinrich decided to sign the five-year deal rather than become a restricted free agent next off-season.
> 
> ...



Yesssssssssss!


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Kirk is so gosh darn trooper-like


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Surreal is right. That's an awful lot of money, even after taxes. If he conservatively invests half of it, he can have inflation-protected income of $1 million/year for the rest of his life. That'll pay for the groceries and the rent on the villa on the Cote de Azur.

I'm glad the Bulls finally made a committment. I was beginning to wonder about them.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Great news. Great price. Good times. :banana:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Looks like Kirk took a 5% paycut (from 5-years, $50M) for financial security. I'm guessing Kirk's camp started at $55M and the Bulls started at $45M, assuming these numbers are accurate.

The Bulls probably got the better deal, but I'd probably do the same thing if I were in Kirk's shoes. He shouldn't have to worry about feeding his family.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

That's great news!! Now we only have Sweetney's contract status to worry about. ;-)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Way to go! That is a good deal at a good price. Very reassuring.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Good day for the Bulls

This was also on hoopshype today but the link didn't work


> Andrés Nocioni: "I've earned the respect of the NBA players." Clarin
> 
> Nocioni: "I want to be important in this team. That will give me confidence to sign a good contract next season." Clarin


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Good for Hinrich and good for the Bulls. The guy is right - even after taxes - he's set for life. He's also enabled Pax a little more wiggle room with which to resign Nocioni and then hopefully Deng and Gordon later on. Figure that his increase in pay is about $4.8 mil. That still leaves about $3.2 mil of PJ Brown's expiring left to use up. You've got Wallace who'll get a pay decrease, Sweetney will probably be let go after this season. Eisley comming off the books along with possibly Malik allen. Throw all that together and there should be enough to swing a decent deal for Noce along with what should be a lottery salary slot and they're still in roughly the same salary position they're in now. With their still being around $12 mil before they approach the tax limit - you'd hope that keeping Deng and Gordon shouldn't be that difficult - especially if this team is winning.

There may not be any championsips in this teams future but there should be much more winning than losing and as long as they're in the running for the trophy in the forseeable future - it's all good.


----------



## Jill (May 23, 2006)

YAY!!! I am so happy! Bulls for life!

:banana: 

:clap: 

:cheers: 

Now we have to kick some Heat a$s tonight!!!


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

This news made by day. Go Bulls!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Great signing. We have been winning the last 2 years based on our depth. Pax needs to underpay slightly to keep it all together. Nice start.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Excellent for both parties!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm very glad. While it's pure speculation, I am personally convinced that the Bulls would have lost him if he hadn't been extended.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

And now he, or rather, his contract, sets the measuring stick for future renewals: Noce, Deng, and Ben. For sure, Ben now knows what he'll generally be getting, unless he blows up and dishes out MJ like numbers...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

So Ben W. & Kirk H. have been signed/extended. Two of the MAIN pieces of this team, now we get to evaluate Andres, Ben & Luol for the rest of the year, I'd say, who ever makes the LEAST amount of progress is the goner.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> And now he, or rather, his contract, sets the measuring stick for future renewals: Noce, Deng, and Ben. For sure, Ben now knows what he'll generally be getting, unless he blows up and dishes out MJ like numbers...


Right (regarding Ben), which means, in other words -- if you want the money of two or three key pieces all for yourself, then perform at that level. Seems fair.

And, by the way....Yahooo! Great signing!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Well, hopefully this'll put an end to the ridiculous "Thabo is our PG of the future, Kirk is on the way out" comments.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Just want to add to the general celebration.

Yay for us.

Go Bull.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i bet this pisses off the players union


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Just another testament to Kirk jib. He's helping his team and himself. The Bulls made out on this deal IMO. We should all be wearing his jersey.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Also, this is great trade bait for Garnett this season.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Great deal for the Bulls! Given the situation though Kirk didn't have much leverage though so I can certainly understand why he signed.

ACE


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Good to see he got resigned, now they just gotta resign Lil Bennie. Hopefully Bennie won't be all about the Benjamins and will resign just to stay a Bull as Kirk did. Get a couple studs in the draft next year (well one anyway, Oden) and we're on our way to another Dynasty hopefully


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I had a feeling he would. I think that the other signings of the last two days have sparked on his desire for security. And the risk really is huge... you get injured, even if you're as good as Kirk Hinrich, and you could be making a fraction of that salary. Still more than enough to be "comfortable", by any standards, but really a fraction of the contract value he could have had.

I think the Bulls will feel good about this too. I sort of wish they had paid up a tiny bit more, because it sets a standard for other teams to leverage against us. If some team with cap space were to toss an offer at Gordon starting nearer to $8.5 or 9 mil, what will the Bulls do? He might be worth it, but if you use Hinrich as a measuring stick, he seems suddenly not at worth it anymore, relatively. Yet some other team will grab a prolific scorer for what the rest of the league will consider a STEAL.


----------



## WestHighHawk (Jun 28, 2003)

Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!! :clap:


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

lorgg said:


> Also, this is great trade bait for Garnett this season.


how so?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

stack 'em deep and *re-sign* 'em cheap.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Oh, Pax is so bleeping overrated its not even funny!!

(BTW: Love this deal)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> I think the Bulls will feel good about this too. I sort of wish they had paid up a tiny bit more, because it sets a standard for other teams to leverage against us. If some team with cap space were to toss an offer at Gordon starting nearer to $8.5 or 9 mil, what will the Bulls do? He might be worth it, but if you use Hinrich as a measuring stick, he seems suddenly not at worth it anymore, relatively. Yet some other team will grab a prolific scorer for what the rest of the league will consider a STEAL.


Reinsdorf had no issue with a ridiculously underpaid Pippen while he gave guys like Kukoc more money.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Terrific. Chicago's long nightmare is now over.

Now let's play basketball.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Great news.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

5 years/47.5M

That's perfect. Great job Pax.....!


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

:clap:

Was hoping to here this by today!


----------



## Reignman (Feb 15, 2005)

Let's start the party tonight!


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Gotta give high fives and maybe even a butt pat to everyone from Kirk's side and the organization's side.

Very good deal all around.

I'm very surprised, but it really makes you say "Pax, damn fine job. You got Jib!"


I would echo the statements of letting them play it out before we get to ahead of ourselves about the next contracts and how much.

Glad to see Kirk will be here till his hairdo is back in style.

Go Bulls!

YOU GOT JIB!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Spiderman, Spiderman 
Does whatever a spider can...




all I can say is I'm glad we have him for a long time.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Haha, he does look like Spider-Man, that's awesome. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm absolutely staggered that the Bulls were able to sign him on a 5 year deal starting at $7.8 million per. Bargain city. 

And really, it is a testament to the type of guy Hinrich is - because thats an underpayment in my opinion. 

This is terrific for the team going forward and for its ability to sign the rest of the guys down the road.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

From that article that Narek posted:



> Hinrich recognized that only Milwaukee of the three teams with significant salary-cap room next off-season needed a point guard. And with guard Mo Williams set to be an unrestricted free agent, the Bucks might not have been willing to tie money up into an offer sheet for Hinrich.


Not just Williams but newly acquired Steve Blake as well. I'd think Williams would resign with MKE, on the other hand Blake shouldn't have ever been traded there to begin with ... in retrospect a bad move by Portland to dump him like that considering he seemed to be one of the few Blazers that wanted to be there (and yes, I am extremely biased towards Blake and disappointed with Portland over this one).

Speculation on my part but if Mo Williams were to leave MKE next year, if MKE was really daring, could maybe make a run at Chauncey Billups, who will be UFA next year (and probably the grand prize of FA PGs at that time). I view MKE as a bubble team -- they might not make the playoffs, they might squeak in -- and I would expect that if expectations aren't met, there will be a major housecleaning there next summer. They have played terribly in the preseason but injuries have had a little to do with that too (Bogut, Bell).

Sorry for threadjacking. Let us now return to the joyous celebration at hand.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


>


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


>


nicely played


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

wow! well I suppose I'm not going to say anything new here -- it's all already been said.

but this is a collective sigh of relief. Glad Kirk can appreciate the reality of the amount of money he was offered. Even if it is "underpaid" by NBA standards -- it's a ridiculous amount of money that the average person would not see if he or she lived to be 300 years old.

it's about time NBA players - or really any professional athlete - look at their salary and average salaries around their respective league - and realize they are making wayyyyyyyyy too much to complain about anything.

Kirk shows his true jib one more time. gotta love it

oh and one more thing -- 

Lorgg - buddy, you've GOT to update your signature
your about up to date with week 3 of the NFL season... the 2005 season!


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

:worship: Awesome deal by Pax :worship: 

To secure the face of the franchise at THIS price is plain terrific.

Pax already should get GM of the Year for his moves in the offseason.

:banana: :rbanana: :banana: :rbanana: :banana: :rbanana: :banana: :rbanana:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Perfect end to an outstanding off-season. This really is fantastic news for the Bulls future. Morale should be very high for a strong start to this season.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

paxman said:


> how so?


It's a good contract that many teams would be glad to take on for the value they'd receive.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Just wanted to point out that I see *mizenkay's* name at the bottom of the screen as someone viewing the thread.

Welcome back, *miz.* :cheers:


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Just wanted to point out that I see *mizenkay's* name at the bottom of the screen as someone viewing the thread.
> 
> Welcome back, *miz.* :cheers:


What Penguin said.


----------



## Ventura (Aug 9, 2005)

great news. pax is god.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Good news indeed. I'm not positive that Kirk is worth $10 million a year but that seems to be the going rate and my philosiphy is to spend however much it takes to resign your own players since it does not affect a team's ability to sign new players and retain its current players unless luxury tax concerns come into play. On a similar note, this is my favorite part of the article:



> Paxson has made it clear he doesn't want the team's salary-cap situation to incur the league's punitive luxury tax.


Yeah I'm sure it's _Pax _who is concerned about paying the luxury tax.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

John Paxson (left) and Kirk Hinrich (right) announce the new deal!


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Great news. 5 yrs 47.5M is about what I was hoping for. 

Does signing Kirk to a deal starting at $7.8M make any significant difference on our potential cap space next year? I mean, it was reported we could have $20M to spend if we let both Hinrich & Nocioni walk. I'm assuming since Kirk sets the bar for future signings, that Andres will probably sign a contract with a starting salary less than Kirk (unless we are forced to match another team's offer). 

Could we have slightly more than the MLE next year with Hinrich & possibly Nocioni being signed for less than what was expected?


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> John Paxson (left) and Kirk Hinrich (right) announce the new deal!


Ohh I thought that was Schenscher on the right.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

new cars for everyone!! (kirk, i'd like a shiny new jaguar, please!)




great deal for the bulls and for kirk. kinda thought it might go RFA, but glad it didn't.



oh yeah and she's back...and READY TO RUMBLE TONIGHT on TNT!

:biggrin: 

thanks to my fans for noticing!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pardon me for not feeling too sorry for poor old mistreated Ronald...


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

About time!!!!

I was a little slow on the news.. this thread was beyond my eye sight. Im relieved more than anything..


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> oh yeah and she's back...and READY TO RUMBLE TONIGHT on TNT!
> 
> :biggrin:


Have I ever mentioned that I nicknamed my bed TNT?

:groucho:


[/leering sophomoric post]


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Have I ever mentioned that I nicknamed my bed TNT?
> 
> :groucho:
> 
> ...



does mrs. boerwinkle know?


:angel:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

kulaz3000 said:


> About time!!!!
> 
> I was a little slow on the news.. this thread was beyond my eye sight. Im relieved more than anything..


Hey, the Score had the news 45 minutes after KC's story was posted on the Tribune site. don't feel bad.

Oh, the Raptors overpaid TJ Ford and will regret that contract!!!!!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> does mrs. boerwinkle know?
> 
> 
> :angel:


Heck, she's always welcome to...Ahhh, never mind. Who am I kidding? I like to think I could, but I'd probably end up huddled in a corner in the fetal position.

I guess I'm pretty old fashioned after all.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

narek said:


> Hey, the Score had the news 45 minutes after KC's story was posted on the Tribune site. don't feel bad.
> 
> Oh, the Raptors overpaid TJ Ford and will regret that contract!!!!!


How much have they paid TJ Ford? 

Its strange how suddenly players are going for security more than anything. Alot of times players would atleast become restricted free agents, then see what to do. But Hinrichs draft class all the above average players have been signed to extentions. This is good sign for signing a core for next year..


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

narek said:


> Hey, the Score had the news 45 minutes after KC's story was posted on the Tribune site. don't feel bad.
> 
> Oh, the Raptors overpaid TJ Ford and will regret that contract!!!!!


TJ Ford is one back injury away from retirement... I don't see him as a star point gaurd regardless even if his healthy. His more of a spark plug off the bench.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Did his engagement have anything to do with it?! Did his girl think her daimond wasn't big enough?!!


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm absolutely staggered that the Bulls were able to sign him on a 5 year deal starting at $7.8 million per.


Penguin, I suspect you know that the contract _starts_ at $7.8MM and increases 10%/year, so it's about $9.5 per, but for lesser sages, I thought I'd clarify.

Great news on the Kirk signing. Paxson got this done at his price and Hinrich has lifetime security. Yodurk, I trust this is the happy ending to a phenomenal offseason you were hoping for.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I like to think I could, but I'd probably end up huddled in a corner in the fetal position.



The fetal position? Is that some sort of crazy kama sutra thing?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

SALO said:


> Could we have slightly more than the MLE next year with Hinrich & possibly Nocioni being signed for less than what was expected?


I think we are upto $42M with Hinrich and Wallace and Hoopshype figures and 3 cap holds.

To get this low, it would involve us trading away our 1st round pick and letting go of Noch. 

Not sure if that would give us an more than MLE, but considering the FA class and the net loss, no thanks!

We definetlely don't have any cap room if we sign Noch.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Noach's cap hold it 200% of his salary, and you have to factor in the first rounder....so unless we renounce him, we have an MLE and LLE to work with.

The Chandler trade was about cap flexibility, not cap space. The two are different.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It's good for the players, bad for the players' union. You need one or two guys to step out there, perform like crazy, not get injured, and push their value higher. Make it a risk for the TEAM to lose you, and balance that against the risk that you'll get hurt.

Otherwise, when players snap up medium contracts for job security, teams will start seeing how low they can go. But then, free agency should make up for that, theoretically, even if it's just a matter of RFA matching and whatnot.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

thanks for the cap info. 

:cheers:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> The fetal position? Is that some sort of crazy kama sutra thing?


 As the resident Indian, I could tell you; but then I'd have to kill you.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

I can't believe the guys who think kirk was robbed at 9.5 mil per year. He's not Tony Parker. He didn't get Parker money. There wasn't anybody else who was going to offer him more. His agent had feelers out. Thats his job. 47.5 mil for 14 pts 6 assists. Someone rob me and give me 47.5 mil.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Sham said:


> Noach's cap hold it 200% of his salary, and you have to factor in the first rounder....so unless we renounce him, we have an MLE and LLE to work with.
> 
> The Chandler trade was about cap flexibility, not cap space. The two are different.


This might be what you meant, but I'd say the Chandler trade was pretty clearly about avoiding the luxury tax threshold.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> but I'd say the Chandler trade was pretty clearly about avoiding the luxury tax threshold.



That is exactly what I meant, yes. Losing his salary does not get us cap space, which is a widely held belief. But it does allow us to re-sign more deserving players to big money without having to panic about spending tax. Thus, it gives us more flexibility with our salary figure.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

transplant said:


> Yodurk, I trust this is the happy ending to a phenomenal offseason you were hoping for.


Absofreakinlutely!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Paxson officially gets an A++++ for his offseason. Great signing at a TREMENDOUS price. I was figuring on 50M.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Wouldn't get too excited about any exceptions or extra cap, it's likely going to go to older vets that will take a one year deal. Probably will go to Brown and/or Allen. Otherwise the Bulls will be facing the luxury tax after extending Lu and BG.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Good ol graveyard work, was pleasantly surprised to see this tidbit when checking the results.


> The Chicago Tribune cited league sources on Tuesday saying that the Kansas product has agreed to a five-year deal worth $47.5 million. The extension kicks in for the 2007-08 season and is front-loaded, with the first year paying approximately $11.42 million and then tailing off to about $7.8 million in the final year. The structure offers the Bulls financial flexibility in coming years when Andres Nocioni, Luol Deng and Ben Gordon are due new contracts.


Kirk at under $8M at the end of this deal, now that's a steal.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

kulaz3000 said:


> How much have they paid TJ Ford?
> 
> Its strange how suddenly players are going for security more than anything. Alot of times players would atleast become restricted free agents, then see what to do. But Hinrichs draft class all the above average players have been signed to extentions. This is good sign for signing a core for next year..


It's about 8 million a year, 3 years guaranteed for 24 million, then an option year. They may not have to regret it for that long. Although the Bucks missed Ford a lot the year he was out, they played better without him in the line up last year.

TJ's just not the player he promised to be since the back injury. Plus he may be fast, but he's still short.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

step said:


> Kirk at under $8M at the end of this deal, now that's a steal.


Actually, given the net present value of money, it's a better deal for Kirk than if he got $7M at the start and $11M at the end


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Actually, given the net present value of money, it's a better deal for Kirk than if he got $7M at the start and $11M at the end



It obviously didn't matter to him that much, and it works out fantastic for the Bulls. It's another little move that improves our financial flexibility down the road.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

step said:


> Good ol graveyard work, was pleasantly surprised to see this tidbit when checking the results.
> 
> Kirk at under $8M at the end of this deal, now that's a steal.


Sheridan mentioned it the front-loading of this contract too. Apparently Sheridan feels it was done to allow Paxson to re-sign Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni without going over the tax threshold. If so, can we find Hinrich a seat at the permanent table of great teammates. Maybe he just likes hanging out with a eclectic group of people. After all...

Kirk(Iowa farmboy)
Gordon(NYC)
Deng(British)
Nocioni(Argentinian)

Now that is a crew I'd roll with too. Kudos for Kirk.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Phil Arvia, Southtown

*Bulls right on the money with Hinrich deal*

November 1, 2006
MIAMI -- Ten years from now -- heck, 10 weeks from now -- the fact that the Bulls embarrassed the reigning NBA champion in Tuesday night's season opener won't matter much.

The Heat's ring ceremony will be long forgotten by everyone save the owners of the doorknob factory that provided the mold for the featured jewelry.

Still, at least one event Tuesday should loom large in Bulls history. Kirk Hinrich signed a five-year contract extension worth a reported $47.5 million, just a few hours before he dropped a game-high 26 points on the Heat in a ridiculous 108-66 Bulls win.

"It's an important day for us as a franchise," head coach Scott Skiles said. "He's a guy, two or three years ago when we were winning 23 games, we could point to as an example of a guy that plays hard and we wanted to surround him with other guys who played like he did. And we feel like we're moving in that direction."

They are sprinting in that direction, with a mature Hinrich at the helm.

First the guy spends the summer playing for the U.S. National Team and getting engaged, then he signs a deal worth $9.5 million per year.

"Those are all good things," Hinrich said. "I was proud to play USA basketball, thrilled to have a long-term contract with the Chicago Bulls. It's been good things. It's been kind of a whirlwind."

So, did he sign a prenup?

"Next question," Hinrich said, laughing.

There were a lot of questions. I, for one, wondered if Hinrich's new Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT 396 HP sports sedan (retailing at $117,250 and producing a nifty 12 mpg in the city) came with the 10-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty I got on my Hyundai.

But at least we need not question the commitment of a talented Bulls team and its court leader to each other, a circumstance Chicago has not enjoyed since the days before Michael Jordan was a baseball player.

The Bulls did give Hinrich a lot of money. But then, he could have played out the season and likely would have forced the Bulls to match a bigger offer in restricted free agency. It means something that he didn't.

"Kirk's a gamer," Ben Wallace, still the highest-paid Bull at $15 million per, said. "He's definitely our leader on this team. He's got a big responsibility here, and he chose to sacrifice something for the team. Those kind of guys, you want to go to war with every night."

The Bulls seem to be stocked with that kind of player. On Tuesday, they showed off their speed, tenacity, youthful verve and depth against a defending champ that looked old, save the splendid and overburdened Dwyane Wade.

Hinrich's deal should send a message to his teammates -- a message that says what they have going is something worth sacrificing a few dollars in order to keep intact. For his part, though, Hinrich insisted he wished to accomplish only one thing with his pact.

"Ultimately it was my family," Hinrich said. "My parents, saving pop cans, scrapping pennies to provide for me and my sister, so I could afford to go on some weekend youth tournament or something, just to give me the opportunity to have things and have privileges that a lot of kids sometimes don't have.

"I've always tried to do stuff for them. They're the type of people, I appreciate them so much, they would never ask for anything from me. I'm just happy to be able to tell them, 'Don't worry about work or anything. Just enjoy the rest of your life.' "

Still, elite athletes are competitors -- and Hinrich is an elite athlete. So, yeah, he wrestled with taking a deal that may have left a few bucks on the table.

"For a while in the negotiations, I struggled a lot just with pride," he said.

In the end, he accepted the Bulls' offer, which is back-loaded to help them retain other members of their core group when their turns arrive.

What do those players now know? Work hard, keep your nose clean and be productive, like Kirk, and you will be rewarded, like Kirk.

"You hope and feel like maybe you had a little something to do with it," Skiles said. "I feel proud that he was able to get a deal like that. And he's certainly a big part of why I got a deal."

It may turn out that a lot of Bulls will be able to say that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Kirk(Iowa farmboy)


Hinrich is not exactly an Iowa farmboy. He's from Sioux City, a city with a population of 85,000.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

An Deng is definitely more New Jersey than British.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

HKF said:


> An Deng is definitely more New Jersey than British.


not according to him


----------



## Jill (May 23, 2006)

VincentVega said:


> Hinrich is not exactly an Iowa farmboy. He's from Sioux City, a city with a population of 85,000.


LOL. Very true VV. Probably the only time we ever went to a farm is on school field trips. We are both allergic to horses and other farm type animals. If anything, we're surburban kids.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Jill said:


> LOL. Very true VV. Probably the only time we ever went to a farm is on school field trips. We are both allergic to horses and other farm type animals. If anything, we're surburban kids.


So is there a Maserati dealership anywhere in Iowa in case the new car breaks down on a visit home? 

And have you gotten to drive it? :biggrin:


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> ... He's from Sioux City, a city with a population of 85,000.





Jill said:


> LOL. Very true VV. Probably the only time we ever went to a farm is on school field trips. We are both allergic to horses and other farm type animals. If anything, we're surburban kids.


Proof that generalizations suck ... for example I tell people I live in Oklahoma and everybody thinks cows and horses and alfalfa and grain elevators. Then again I wasn't born here (I was a military brat) so I guess I never had a connection either way.

Admittedly my angrily worded .sig is more aimed to Pacific Northwesterners (read: Supersonics fan) and I've thought about toning it down if not eliminating it since I seem to be on this board more lately.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

narek said:


> So is there a Maserati dealership anywhere in Iowa in case the new car breaks down on a visit home?
> 
> And have you gotten to drive it? :biggrin:


Maserati dealers pay for the tow from basically anywhere. In other words, if you need service on it, they will pay to have it taken away on a flatbed truck.

The only reason I know is b/c there's some rich SOB who parks a Maserati in my parking garage at work.... and I believe he got it towed for an oil change or something like that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

No Maserati dealers in Sioux City, but here is a list for Iowa.

Hope this helps.

http://www.edmunds.com/dealerships/Maserati/Iowa/index.html


----------



## Jill (May 23, 2006)

Dude...if he lets me drive that thing...WATCH OUT!!! But I'm gonna bet that he is a bit overprotective of that puppy. Maybe I can drive the Mercades.  

And really. I moved from Iowa to Kansas. So from one generalization to the other. At least Lawrence is the coolest place on earth and I can still cling to that.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Jill said:


> Dude...if he lets me drive that thing...WATCH OUT!!! But I'm gonna bet that he is a bit overprotective of that puppy. Maybe I can drive the Mercades.
> 
> And really. I moved from Iowa to Kansas. So from one generalization to the other. At least Lawrence is the coolest place on earth and I can still cling to that.


Iowa, at least, has a border with the Mississippi River so it isn't completely flat. Kansas? flat, flat, flat. And I've driven from one end to the other in both states. Been to Sioux City, too. I had relatives in Waterloo so I'm more familiar with Iowa than I want to be. :biggrin: (Hey, I grew up in Western Wisconsin. We make Iowa jokes. And Iowans on the border make Wisconsin Jokes, and we both pick on Minnesota).

But Lawrence as the coolest place on earth? Hmmm.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The sentiment that Lawrence is the coolest city in the Midwest is not uncommon.


----------



## Jill (May 23, 2006)

OK...I'll revise. Lawrence is _one_ of the coolest places on earth. Or coolest college towns on earth.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> The sentiment that Lawrence is the coolest city in the Midwest is not uncommon.


Is Chicago no longer in the midwest???


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Jill said:


> OK...I'll revise. Lawrence is _one_ of the coolest places on earth. Or coolest college towns on earth.


I'm a UW (Wisconsin, not Washington) alum, and I've got to say we tend to think we're the coolest place on earth. College towns tend to be on the cool side as a whole.

Chicago is in a whole other category


----------



## Jill (May 23, 2006)

Madison is a pretty sweet town. We tore it up there during the NCAA regionals in 02. Good times. That is where I was first introduced to Blue Moon Beer.  

I think that every alum is pretty loyal to their college stomping grounds. Unless, of course, you went to a lame school.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Madison was incredibly fun the 2-3 times I visited there while in college. I'm not sure if I'd still find it as fun now as I did then, but it's outstanding for the college experience.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

narek said:


> Iowa, at least, has a border with the Mississippi River so it isn't completely flat. Kansas? flat, flat, flat. And I've driven from one end to the other in both states.


Ever driven through Iowa after Davenport on thru South Dakota up to the black hills. Longest 8 hours ever. 

 :eek8: uke:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> Ever driven through Iowa after Davenport on thru South Dakota up to the black hills. Longest 8 hours ever.
> 
> :eek8: uke:


I've driven from Western Wisconsin to Denver. Nebraska's a killer. On the way back we went to the Black Hills and drove all across South Dakota into Northern Minnesota to get to Hibbing. It was a very surreal trip - hills, flat, flat, flat, big hills, flat, flat, flat - lots of forest!

but I took a trip to California that was worse. Arizona and New Mexico are beautiful, but it's all the same. 

I bet Kirk's car could get from Chicago to KC really, really fast so he'd never notice the scenery. (Just don't do it!)


----------



## Jill (May 23, 2006)

The drive in both KS and IA is pretty brutal. But the worst drive I've ever been on is New Orleans - KC after the 03 Final Four. *sobs*


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

narek said:


> I've driven from Western Wisconsin to Denver. Nebraska's a killer. On the way back we went to the Black Hills and drove all across South Dakota into Northern Minnesota to get to Hibbing. It was a very surreal trip - hills, flat, flat, flat, big hills, flat, flat, flat - lots of forest!
> 
> but I took a trip to California that was worse. Arizona and New Mexico are beautiful, but it's all the same.
> 
> I bet Kirk's car could get from Chicago to KC really, really fast so he'd never notice the scenery. (Just don't do it!)


I stayed in Hibbing for a couple weeks one time, two cabins down from Kevin McHales summer place, Somehow the water in MN gets up to 75-80 degrees it's pretty sweet.

I agree the southwest all looks the same to me too. My uncle would argue with that, he has discovered(first to classify 4 plant species) there, apparently it looks the same but the wildlife is fairly diverse.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Bump.

A small controversy arose on another thread regarding Kirk's contract. The brief back-and-forth was considered to be off-topic (Oh, the shame of it all!), so I figured I'd resurrect this.

After reading through this, I'd say that the VAST majority felt that it was a fair contract, or perhaps Kirk actually got shorted a bit.

So, from where we stand now, did the Bulls overpay, underpay or about break even?

With a regular season now behind us, Kirk having had his best season and this contract 6+ months closer to taking effect, I'd have to say that, barring injury, it looks to me like Hinrich did OK and the Bulls did great.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Agreed, transplant. As usual. 

I think the Bulls *slightly* underpaid for Hinrich.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

11 million for Hinrich next season?

Not bad. Not great. Seems fair enough. A little high, perhaps.

Of course, I thought Crawford, Curry and Chandler were all fairly paid as well.


Crawford is due to make 7.9 million next season, by comparison. He was considered "overpaid" by many.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 11 million for Hinrich next season?
> 
> Not bad. Not great. Seems fair enough. A little high, perhaps.
> 
> ...


Sometimes I just like to take a step back and think about the absurd relativity of all of this. 11 million dollars next year, more than most of us will likely make in our lives, to play 82 basketball games. 11 million dollars is what the average high school teacher would earn in 220 years (not counting for inflation, etc.)

God bless America.


In any event, I think Hinrich is fairly paid by what the market seems to be for a player of his skill. If it leans either way, I'd say it's more a bargain than overpayment.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> 11 million for Hinrich next season?
> 
> Not bad. Not great. Seems fair enough. A little high, perhaps.
> 
> ...


OK, I'll bite.

Considering that Hinrich's contract goes down from 11MM and Crawford's continues to increase from the 7.9MM, which represents the best value for the player's respective team and why?

Just askin.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> 11 million for Hinrich next season?
> 
> Not bad. Not great. Seems fair enough. A little high, perhaps.
> 
> ...


Well, you are looking at it from the front loaded perspective. On a per year basis Hinrich is making $9.4 million annually. Which is less than almost all of the other guards in his range of quality. 

If you want to look at Hinrich vs. Crawford on a year by year comparison like you are, then here's one for ya:

In 2009/2010 Crawford will make $9.4 million while Hinrich makes $9.5 million

In 2010/2011 Crawford will make $10.1 million while Hinrich makes $9 million.

In 2011/2012 the Bulls will be paying Hinrich the bargain basement price of $8 million for what projects to be an excellent, veteran point guard. Will that be a "little high" too?

Is $9.4 million annually a "little high" or is it a good deal, do you think?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> Considering that Hinrich's contract goes down from 11MM and Crawford's continues to increase from the 7.9MM, which represents the best value for the player's respective team and why?
> 
> Just askin.


It depends on your projections for Hinrich and Crawford. 

Right now, I'm just looking at next season. Projecting out 4 years is hard. Hinrich's tangibles are not growing very much. But, his intangibles are allegedly off the charts and seemingly have no upper limit.


The obvious way to value the contracts is a NPV.

With a rate of 8%, Hinrich's deal is worth 38.3 mil today and Crawford's is worth 33.9 today (assuming he takes the player option).

Crawford was considered to be "overpaid" by many on this board.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It depends on your projections for Hinrich and Crawford.
> 
> Right now, I'm just looking at next season. Projecting out 4 years is hard. Hinrich's tangibles are not growing very much. But, his intangibles are allegedly off the charts and seemingly have no upper limit.
> 
> ...


I don't know. You used PER in an earlier discussion to compare the tangibles of Hinrich and Parker. Hinrich's PER has risen every season, with the biggest one season jump occurring this past season (15.5-17.0). Tangible growth. Crawford's PER has been in the 15s, until this past season when it dipped to 14.5. Lack of tangible growth.

Hinrich's contract NPV is about 13% higher than Crawford's and Hinrich's PER was about 17% higher last season. If you view PER as a good measure of tangible production, then Hinrich's contract appears to be a better tangible value than Crawford's.

And of course, as we all know, Hinrich just oozes intangibles, making this one a runaway.:biggrin:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I don't know if Crawford is overpaid, but I'm glad we're not the ones paying him.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't know if Crawford is overpaid, but <b>I'm glad we're not the ones paying him.</b>


End of the story. Underpaid? Overpaid? As long as it is the other team that is paying JC, I am good.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't know if Crawford is overpaid, but I'm glad we're not the ones paying him.


Compared to two of the other guards on his club Crawford's salary is very modest; especially considering he's better than at least one of them.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Compared to two of the other guards on his club Crawford's salary is very modest; especially considering he's better than at least one of them.


duhon?


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> blah blah, 3 C's, blah, Crawford, blah blah... Hinrich's tangibles are not growing very much. But, his intangibles are allegedly off the charts and seemingly have no upper limit.


8/10.

Got a lot of responses already, too.


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

Compared to other contracts that most players get for their production I would say that his deal is a bargain. A hell of a bargain...he probably could've gotten some garbage team to pay him close to $60 million if he really wanted to test the market but he took less money to help build something here...which is a quality not many players have or ever develop even when they get older.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I agree JonMatrix. Kirk could've gotten more elsewhere, MUCH more. Staying in Chicago, playing a style that suits him to a T, and an up and coming team, he definitely made the right choice. He's set financially for life assuming he doesn't have some of the bad habits other pro athletes have (gambling, poor financial decision (Tyson letting his manager steal all his money for example).


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich's tangibles are not growing very much.


Hinrich had career highs in PPG, FG%, 3PT%, FT%, eFG%, TS%, EFF and PER this season. He was also voted to the All-Defensive team for the first time in his career. He's a big reason the Bulls are now in the 2nd round of the playoffs with a fighting chance to make the Eastern Conference Finals. But you're right, he's not growing very much.

Also this past season, Jamal Crawford averaged fewer points, lower FG%, lower 3PT%, lower PER, fewer steals and more turnovers than his career averages, and his team was one of the very worst in the league.

Tough call.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hinrich showed a nice 9% growth rate in tangibles this year. 1.6% the year before. Hardly a breakout. Perhaps he's a top 60 player in the league. Perhaps. He is gritty and gutty though.

Gordon and Deng are the guys with the real growth going on. Hinrich is a workhorse. He's the 3rd or 4th best player on this team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> And of course, as we all know, Hinrich just oozes intangibles, making this one a runaway.:biggrin:


Are you off the reservation enough to suggest that Hinrich is better than Tony Parker?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> 11 million for Hinrich next season?
> 
> Not bad. Not great. Seems fair enough. A little high, perhaps.
> 
> ...


Well maybe Pax will be smart and "let the market set the value" next time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> Hinrich's contract NPV is about 13% higher than Crawford's and Hinrich's PER was about 17% higher last season. If you view PER as a good measure of tangible production, then Hinrich's contract appears to be a better tangible value than Crawford's.



If you want to assume continued 9% growth in Hinrich's production for the next 5 years and negative growth for Crawford going forward, feel free. I disagree, barring injury.

Over the last 3 years, Hinrich averaged a PER of 15.98333. Crawford's is 15.11667. I think this is a better starting point and I think the two players will have comparable growth rates from this point on.

From the NPVs earlier, the Bulls are on the hook for 2.39 million per unit of PER. The Knicks are on the hook for 2.24 million per unit of PER. 

2.39 > 2.24 --- and Crawford is supposedly "overpaid." But, Hinrich does have heaping helpings of intangibles.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I have no issues with the Hinrich contract, BTW. But, I also don't think that the three C's were "overpaid," so I know my opinions on these matters differ from many of the diehards on this site.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> 2.39 > 2.24 --- and Crawford is supposedly "overpaid." But, Hinrich does have heaping helpings of intangibles.


You're forgetting that most of those who called Jamal "overpaid" did so near the time of his new contract. I'm sure that most of us are aware that he's shown some substantial improvement. He has reallly hitting his stride before the injury, it's a shame. Let's see what he can do next year.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I have no issues with the Hinrich contract, BTW. But, I also don't think that the three C's were "overpaid," so I know my opinions on these matters differ from many of the diehards on this site.


Those "diehards". Let me tell ya.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The problem with Jamal Crawford is that he's not a very good point guard and probably never will be. On the other hand, he's been a pretty mediocre shooting guard. I like the way he has improved his defense from awful to downright OK in the last two years. All in all he's a nice player to have coming off the bench.

If Paxson idiotically offered to trade either Hinrich or Gordon to New York for Crawford, you can bet IT would grab them in a New York minute.

I wouldn't trade Duhon for him either. Duhon is simply a much better ball-handler, floor general and defender than Crawford. The better shooting of Crawford simply is not enough to make up for those things.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> All in all he's a nice player to have coming off the bench.
> 
> If Paxson idiotically offered to trade either Hinrich or Gordon to New York for Crawford, you can bet IT would grab them in a New York minute.
> 
> I wouldn't trade Duhon for him either. Duhon is simply a much better ball-handler, floor general and defender than Crawford. The better shooting of Crawford simply is not enough to make up for those things.



The spill-over from the other thread was focused on two issues though.

Is Hinrich "overpaid?" I say, if Crawford is "overpaid," than Hinrich is as well.

And, is Kirk Hinrich better than Tony Parker?

-----------

I agree that Gordon and Hinrich are both better NBA basketball players than Crawford. Hinrich is paid accordingly. Gordon likely will be as well.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

No Kirk is not better than Parker.


But i know for sure if i had to give money to Kirk Or Crawford, i would choose Kirk every time.
His defensive pressure is brilliant he runs the point very well a majority of the time.
But the big thing that sways me is i would pay kirk over craw because i know Kirk will work his *** of every summer just to get that little bit better every year, He is a worker!


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The spill-over from the other thread was focused on two issues though.
> 
> Is Hinrich "overpaid?" I say, if Crawford is "overpaid," than Hinrich is as well.
> 
> ...


NBA teams need certain things. Players who can rebound. Players who can defend the paint. Players who can hit 3 point shots. Players who can hit inside shots. Players who can defend the best opponent scorer.

Amoung the most important things an NBA team needs is a point guard/forward who can initiate the offense -- a floor general. It would be nice if that guy could defend other point guards and score a bit (or a lot). But the important thing is that the guy is a decent floor general. This vital "intangible" is measured in PER primarily with assist/turnover -- which is, IMO inadequate. 

Sure, Billips and Nash can score, but it not a lack of point scoring that causes their teams fall apart when they're out of the game. KC Jones led the Boston Celtics to one championship after another but he was the team's lowest scorer. His PER was probably pretty ordinary, but the Celtics sucked when he wasn't in the game.

The Bulls have two pretty good floor generals : Hinrich and Duhon. Both are very good defenders, although Hinrich is tall enough to be able to guard wing players as well as point guards. In fact he's damn good at defending -- better than almost anyone other than jason Kidd. It's also very nice that Hinrich can lead a fast break, hit 3 pointers at a decent rate and drive the lane -- which is a handy skill for a point guard to have, since it tends to break down defenses.

So Hinrich is one of the few point guards in the league who can do it all. Some points, like Parker, drive the lane a bit better, steal the ball a bit more and some, like Marbury or Arenas, are better shooters. Some, like Nash, Paul or Billips, are better floor generals. But all in all, Hinrich is now generally regarded as one of the best point guards in the game.

There are probably 30 point guards in the NBA who are better than Crawford. He's just not that good of a floor general -- which is the main thing a point guard must be. Marbury is much better.

Good point guards are not easy to come by, and when you get one like Hinrich you pay whatever it takes to keep him.

So no, he's not overpaid.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

McBulls said:


> NBA teams need certain things. Players who can rebound. Players who can defend the paint. Players who can hit 3 point shots. Players who can hit inside shots. Players who can defend the best opponent scorer.
> 
> Amoung the most important things an NBA team needs is a point guard/forward who can initiate the offense -- a floor general. It would be nice if that guy could defend other point guards and score a bit (or a lot). But the important thing is that the guy is a decent floor general. This vital "intangible" is measured in PER primarily with assist/turnover -- which is, IMO inadequate.
> 
> ...


EXACTAMUNDO!!! Hinrich might not be the best at any one thing, though I'd argue he could be at defense, but his overall game he is definitely one of, if not THE best point guard in the NBA right now, for all the reasons you pointed out. I'd take him over Gordon any day too, simply because Gordon is only valuable when he's on, whereas Kirk can be off and still be valuable to the team on defense and initiating the offense.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you want to assume continued 9% growth in Hinrich's production for the next 5 years and negative growth for Crawford going forward, feel free. I disagree, barring injury.
> 
> Over the last 3 years, Hinrich averaged a PER of 15.98333. Crawford's is 15.11667. I think this is a better starting point and I think the two players will have comparable growth rates from this point on.
> 
> ...


This is an interesting thread. I don't think comparing / contrasting PER's is a great way to rate Hinrich versus Crawford. It's pretty much a given that PER doesn't take into account (in any kind of meaningful way) Hinrich's biggest strength, man defense.

That said, I think you could make a decent argument that both players are overpaid. At this risk of oversimplifying things : Jamal Crawford is about to enter year 9 of his NBA career. He's never been on a 40 win team. He's not a plus defender. He's not a true point guard. He doesn't shoot particularly well. I don't think he's worth what he gets paid. Hinrich is probably the 3rd or 4th best player on a 49 win team. Is that worth 50 million dollars? I don't know. If we advance to the conference or NBA finals this year or next, maybe it is (that's about what Tayshaun Prince gets paid for being the 4th best Piston), if we don't maybe it's not. I don't think Hinrich's deal is a slam dunk great value.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Are you off the reservation enough to suggest that Hinrich is better than Tony Parker?


Hinrich and Parker couldn't be more different as far as PG's are concerned; the former being a defensive, jumpshooting presence, and the latter being a speed-demon, drive the lane type of guy. But at the end of the day, I think Hinrich would be the better player more times than not. It really depends on team need though. I think the Spurs are better off with Parker than they would be with Hinrich (he's really their only speed guy). But if you asked me who's better for, say, the Lakers...I think Hinrich would make them better hands down.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

We're STILL talking about Crawford?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Are you off the reservation enough to suggest that Hinrich is better than Tony Parker?


I believe I said in the other thread that I don't care who's the better player. Still don't. Those sorts of arguments make my head hurt. If trade talks between the Spurs and the Bulls get serious on this, my feelings will change.

The Crawford comparison is a little different since Hinrich sorta replaced Crawford (though I've always felt that it was the Gordon acquisition that made Crawford expendable), so I bit on that argument. Knew it was a mistake when I did it. Ended up with average NPVs and trended PERs...sure enough, it made my head hurt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Regarding the Tony Parker thing, I don't expect most people to agree with me on that. Nor do I care who agrees. Its just an opinion I hold based on the type of point guard I personally prefer. And I place great emphasis on defense. Because of this, though Parker is a better penetrator and scorer, I think Hinrich is the better player. And I'm not "suggesting" it, I'm saying it outright. 

But Parker is a very, very good point guard and I put him right in the mix with Hinrich. I only mentioned him because he's going to earn $10 million more than Hinrich over the life of Hinrich's contract. And I think its a good point of reference in evaluating whether or not Hinrich is overpaid or - as I believe - paid slightly under market value.

If that makes me "off the reservation" then so be it. If you want "off the reservation" K4E, here's one for ya: I also prefer Hinrich over Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis. 

Have a field day.

P.S. - I don't think Crawford is overpaid. Not that it matters.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> This vital "intangible" is measured in PER primarily with assist/turnover -- which is, IMO inadequate.


I agree that assist/turnover ratio is inadequate. Good thing its not used in the calculation. A methodology similar to assist-ratio is used.




> The Bulls have two pretty good floor generals : Hinrich and Duhon. Both are very good defenders, although Hinrich is tall enough to be able to guard wing players as well as point guards.


Duhon is the better point guard. Hinrich the better combo guard/scorer.



> In fact he's damn good at defending -- better than almost anyone other than jason Kidd. It's also very nice that Hinrich can lead a fast break, hit 3 pointers at a decent rate and drive the lane -- which is a handy skill for a point guard to have, since it tends to break down defenses.


Hinrich is good, no doubt about it. I guess that’s why Paxson gave him a fat contract.




> So Hinrich is one of the few point guards in the league who can do it all. Some points, like Parker, drive the lane a bit better, steal the ball a bit more and some, like Marbury or Arenas, are better shooters.


He also is the "floor general" for a NBA champion.




> Some, like Nash, Paul or Billips, are better floor generals. But all in all, Hinrich is now generally regarded as one of the best point guards in the game.


The Heat were "generally regarded" the defeat the Bulls.

Pure point rating is a nice stat that is better than assist/turnover and is designed to rate PGs.

The three you mentioned are #1, #2 and #3 in fact! 

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PPR.htm

Hinrich is #18.




> There are probably 30 point guards in the NBA who are better than Crawford.


Crawford is not a point guard. He is a combo guard.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tony Parker seems to do a good job holding his man to below average tangible production.

http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS1C.HTM

Perhaps he’s getting killed on D intangibly.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

This thread is starting to be annoying! Why some poster have an issue with every single current Bulls? Even if he is saying he doesn't.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Regarding the Tony Parker thing, I don't expect most people to agree with me on that. Nor do I care who agrees. Its just an opinion I hold based on the type of point guard I personally prefer. And I place great emphasis on defense. Because of this, though Parker is a better penetrator and scorer, I think Hinrich is the better player. And I'm not "suggesting" it, I'm saying it outright.
> 
> But Parker is a very, very good point guard and I put him right in the mix with Hinrich. I only mentioned him because he's going to earn $10 million more than Hinrich over the life of Hinrich's contract. And I think its a good point of reference in evaluating whether or not Hinrich is overpaid or - as I believe - paid slightly under market value.
> 
> ...


Kinda high on Kirk, eh.

As has been mentioned ad nauseum, in evaluating Hinrich, his fans often mention "intangibles" while those who are not so high on him dismiss the intangible argument entirely. Opponents of the "only deal with the tangibles" school of thought point out that winning in the NBA isn't accomplished using a "fantasy league" mindset.

Here's an irony for you. This site did a statistical analysis based on a fantasy league-type methodology:

http://www.bullz-eye.com/paulsen/2007/0502.htm

As you'll see, this site's got Hinrich as the 4th best point guard (they've got Barbarosa at #2, which puzzles me), agreeing with you on all the players mentioned above.

Mind you, there are pretty obvious holes in the methodology (like weighing all statistical categories equally), but frankly, Hinrich's ranking was so surprisingly high, I simply had to share.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Heat were "generally regarded" the defeat the Bulls.
> Crawford is not a point guard. He is a combo guard.


When it comes to salary negotiations, "generally regarded" is probably a lot more important than any statistic you can dig up.

That said, it is possible to pay too much for a combo guard like Hinrich or Crawford. 
Crawford's contract is a case in point. He's getting paid starter's wages for coming off the bench. But then that isn't unusual on the Knicks, who operate in a parallel economic universe to the rest of the NBA.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree that assist/turnover ratio is inadequate. Good thing its not used in the calculation. A methodology similar to assist-ratio is used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's sort of funny that you're using Hollinger stats as a means of player evaluation and yet completely ignore them when evaluating the Bulls as a whole. The Bulls were the 5th best team based on Hollinger's Rankings, BTW. But I don't think you ever once brought that up in your numerous team appraisals.

Actually, I'm not surprised.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Kinda high on Kirk, eh.


More low on the others' style than high on Hinrich, I'd say. For example, I'm the guy who always thought Steve Francis was a poor point guard even when he was a starter on the allstar team.

There are a number of point guards I'd take above Hinrich.

Chris Paul. Deron Williams. Steve Nash. Chauncy Billups. They all jump right to mind. 



> As has been mentioned ad nauseum, in evaluating Hinrich, his fans often mention "intangibles" while those who are not so high on him dismiss the intangible argument entirely. Opponents of the "only deal with the tangibles" school of thought point out that winning in the NBA isn't accomplished using a "fantasy league" mindset.


I don't really get caught up in either one. As some may notice from my posts, I think many "metrics" used by basketball fans on boards like this are grossly misused. So I give them very little weight, beyond a passing curiosity, for how they are most often used. 

On the other hand, you'll also rarely read me writing about "intangibles." I don't even know what an "intangible" is when the term is used by others. To me, an "intangible" is something that can't be observed by a fan. Leadership. Locker room presence. Coachability. Respect from teammates. The list goes on. 

Based on that, I'd never be one to trump Hinrich's intangibles. He seems soft-spoken for the most part unless he's complaining to an official. He doesn't strike me as a strong leader - a role I believe is destined to be Luol Deng's. And I have no idea how his teammates feel about him. When they are asked about how hard each other works, I typically hear praise for Deng and Gordon, not Hinrich - though I've no doubt Hinrich works adequately hard.

Others, however, I believe consider anything non-quantifiable (or not easily quantifiable) to be an intangible. Under that definition, then I'd say yes, Hinrich is strong in the intangibles. Defensive positioning. Man defense. Help defense. Fighting over screens. Communicating on offense and defense. Properly maintaining the dribble. This list goes on as well. While they might not be quantifiable, they are observable and can be, and should be, evaluated by any informed basketball fan. 

To me, I think Hinrich is tangibly an excellent young point guard who probably needs to work some on his intangibles. But we all have different definitions for those terms, I'd suspect.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> He's getting paid starter's wages for coming off the bench.


Crawford led the Knicks in minutes per game and played more minutes per game than any Bull other than Deng.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Hinrich > Arenas


Do you think the Wizards would be a better team or a poorer team if they replaced Arenas with Hinrich?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think the Wizards would be a better team or a poorer team if they replaced Arenas with Hinrich?


Poorer. Because they've structured that team around Arenas. But if they started from scratch and had a chance to build a whole new team round Arenas/Butler or Hinrich/Butler, I believe the latter would create a greater opportunity to have a higher ceiling for sustained, legitimately competitive success. 

Which is why you've seen, and will continue to see, the Bulls widen the gap between themselves and the Wizards.

I have some very strict views on what will and will not win at the highest level in the NBA. Golden State and Phoenix - not capable of winning at the highest level of playoff basketball. When the Warriors were all the rage, I predicted Utah over Golden State in 6 games max and said it wouldn't be much of a series. Same with my prediction for the Spurs over the Suns - though I'll admit that series has proven closer than I thought it would be.

Similarly, I don't think teams built around a shoot first, poor defensive playing point guard can compete at the highest level. Which is why I don't think a team structured around Gilbert Arenas or, in the past, the younger versions of Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis could or would ever compete in a sustained way at the highest levels of the league. 

Historically, my view has support. And I don't pretend not to be an old fuddy-duddy when it comes to my notions of basketball. Perhaps someday I'll be proven wrong. But a fluke alone won't do it. And to date, I don't even have a fluke to point to.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Which is why you've seen, and will continue to see, the Bulls widen the gap between themselves and the Wizards.


I chalk it up to their lack of a quality 4 and 5.

Actually, weren’t the Wizards kicking our butts in the standings this season until their team was decimated by injuries?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I chalk it up to their lack of a quality 4 and 5.
> 
> Actually, weren’t the Wizards kicking our butts in the standings this season until their team was decimated by injuries?


No, they weren't. The Bulls had already moved past the Wizards in the standings prior to losing Butler and Arenas. Moreover, they were trending downward significantly even before those guys went down. They were 8-14 over the last 22 games prior to losing Gilbert.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, they weren't. The Bulls had already moved past the Wizards in the standings prior to losing Butler and Arenas.


What about before they lost Butler, not Butler AND Arenas.

Either way, I chalk it up to their not having a productive 4/5.

We saw how our team fared last season with good play at the 1/2/3 and poor performing big men.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What about before they lost Butler, not Butler AND Arenas.
> 
> Either way, I chalk it up to their not having a productive 4/5.
> 
> We saw how our team fared last season with good play at the 1/2/3 and poor performing big men.


They lost Butler 1 game before Arenas. If you wan't me to back further, they were 11-18 over their last 29 games before those guys got hurt. They were falling.

And I'm not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Jamison isn't a productive 4. What is his PER?


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

Actually, the Wizards were leading the Eastern Conference around Christmas time, but then Arenas went into a slump and Butler got hurt the first time, they started declining at that point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> They lost Butler 1 game before Arenas. If you wan't me to back further, they were 11-18 over their last 29 games before those guys got hurt. They were falling.


When they lost Butler for their first extended streak, they were 34-28. 20 games before the end of the regular season, the Bulls were 35-27. Quite the gap.

And, the Wizards have nothing even close to a Ben Wallace. Or a Tyrus Thomas, who was coming on strong at that point.



> And I'm not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Jamison isn't a productive 4. What is his PER?


Fair enough. I mean to say "big men" of which I don't consider Jamison to be. I always see him as a SF/PF. 

If your point is that small ball usually does not make a long run in the playoffs, I agree.

The leap to Hinrich > Arenas is the one that is confounding. Give the Wizards Ben Wallace (again) and they are sitting pretty.

Most NBA titles in recent years are won by teams focused around centers or true PFs. I don't see the Bulls current model any more or less likely than the Wizards to bring home the trophy.


The Bulls do have a lot more lotto picks to work with though. I’m not sure how much “found money” the Wizards have received over the last couple years.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm not sure what this thread is about. I think you lawyers just like to argue.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> When they lost Butler for their first extended streak, they were 34-28. 20 games before the end of the regular season, the Bulls were 35-27. Quite the gap.
> 
> And, the Wizards have nothing even close to a Ben Wallace. Or a Tyrus Thomas, who was coming on strong at that point.
> 
> ...


I hate, yes, hate it everytime you use the word <b>"found money."</b> I don't know why you are fixating on that word. Or Maybe I know.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> *If your point is that small ball usually does not make a long run in the playoffs, I agree.*
> 
> The leap to Hinrich > Arenas is the one that is confounding. Give the Wizards Ben Wallace (again) and they are sitting pretty.


No, that isn't my point. My point is that teams primarily built around shoot first, selfish, poor defensive point guards aren't built to compete consistently at the highest level of the NBA. Just like I said earlier. 

You don't agree. Thats fine. 

In my years of watching the NBA, I've never seen a team constructed around such a player compete at a high level. The Wizards made the second round once after beating an injury depleted, rookie laden Bulls squad. Thats it. I don't think they'd have made the second roung this year, even if healthy. Teams featuring Marbury and Francis in their early days suffered the same problem or worse (I liken Gilbert to those two players in style - though he's better than either of them). Indeed, even with a very effective big man - Yao as a rookie - Francis's style of play was absolutely awful in the playoffs, negating Yao, and they were promptly beaten. 

Its just my opinion about what works and what doesn't. Perhaps some day we'll see a rash of conference champions from both conferences with shoot first, poor defensive point guards as the primary building block. On that day, I'll change my mind.

There was once a time when the notion that a team built around a shooting guard - like Jordan - could never win a championship. Obviously things change, and maybe they will again.

As for "giving the Wizards Ben Wallace and they'd be sitting pretty" - thats kind of my point. The Wizards opted to build around Arenas and his style. To do so, they opted to spend their other big bucks on runners and gunners. Had they been more patient and selective, perhaps they would have had a different core and a different cap situation that would have permitted them to offer Ben the big bucks needed to recruit him. 

I'm really not trying to convince you or anyone else to agree with me. I realize I'm in a minority with regard to my opinion about Parker (who I also think is better than Arenas) and that I'm in an EXTREME minority - perhaps a minority of 1 - regarding Arenas. I realize my view of how things are best done is narrow. I'm just explaining my thought process.

If I inherited a capped out team with Gilbert Arenas as the centerpiece, I'd trade him immediately.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The leap to *Hinrich > Arena*s is the one that is confounding.


And for the record, that isn't what I'm saying. You even changed my quote earlier to reflect this position. I'm not saying "Hinrich > Arenas". I'm saying "I prefer Hinrich to Arenas". 

In isolation, based purely on individual talent and ability, Arenas is better than Hinrich. Its when you go to team building around a particular style of play and philosophy that "I prefer Hinrich to Arenas". 

Does that make sense (whether you agree with the preference or not)?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> I'm not sure what this thread is about. I think you lawyers just like to argue.


I disagree. :biggrin:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I disagree. :biggrin:


:lol: Well played.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Just to weigh in on the Hinrich vs. Anybody "controversy", I looked at Hinrich's season splits vs. Detroit, Washington, San Antonio, Miami, New Jersey, and Phoenix. I then looked at how Billups, Arenas, Parker, Wade, Kidd, and Nash did against Chicago. Other than Phoenix (Nash and Hinrich didn't play each other this season), Hinrich's numbers compare very favorably with the others. The only one who significantly beat Kirk in any category was Kidd in rebounding.

It's difficult to compare the players this way, because it's hard to say who defended whom and how many minutes, etc, each played. It makes more sense, though, than comparing season averages. Teams just don't come into Chicago getting their season averages. For what it's worth, Kirk has held his own against the best guards in the league in head-to-head competition this season.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Speaking of arguments...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

_Embedded it for you, fl_flash - KJ_


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The only team I can think of that has won anything with a shoot-first point guard is the bad boy Pistons of 89-90. And it's stretching the definition quite a bit to call Isiah that. He was also a masterful distributor, fiery leader and defensive pest. 

Billups is the next closest thing and he had to rein in his gunning tendencies for the good of the team for them to win a title.

So I think Penguin has a good point. There are some PGs who need to be the primary scorer to be comfortable, and their teams don't historically contend for championships - no matter how good they are (and Arenas is great). That's probably one reason why I don't support the calls for Gordon to be made our full-time PG. He might put up eye-popping PPG stats and improve his assists, but in terms of how we play, I think he's best in the mixed role Skiles has carved out for him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> The only team I can think of that has won anything with a shoot-first point guard is the bad boy Pistons of 89-90. And it's stretching the definition quite a bit to call Isiah that. He was also a masterful distributor, fiery leader and defensive pest.
> 
> Billups is the next closest thing and he had to rein in his gunning tendencies for the good of the team for them to win a title.


And to put a finer point on it, just because a point guard can score (Billups, Zeke Thomas, Mike Bibby, Tony Parker) does not make him a "shoot first" point guard. 

The scoring points I just mentioned are all excellent at getting their team set up in the half court offense, initiating that offense, and taking their shots within the structure of that offense. A "shoot first" point guard - Arenas and Baron Davis are the two most productive point guards that currently fit my definition (Francis is washed up and Marbury has become more of an initiator) - doesn't really run the offense. He typically comes down, looks for his shot, and gets rid of it only if his shot isn't there, only to immediately look for the ball to promptly return to him so that he can look for his shot again.

These aren't intended to be descriptions in absolutes, they are typicalities.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Thank goodness!


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

2-11. That's all I am saying.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Why the hell is this thread even bumped up?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> Why the hell is this thread even bumped up?


Another thread was moving off-topic in discussing Kirk's value and such, and this thread's an appropriate place for that discussion.


----------

