# Bulls might hesitate to trade No.3 pick for Harrington??Artest available??



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull04.html 

*One player the Bulls are interested in is the Indiana Pacers' Al Harrington, who is available. Harrington is a 6-9, 250-pound small forward who was the runner-up to Jamison for Sixth Man of the Year. Harrington, who averaged 13.3 points and 6.4 rebounds, wants to start, and that doesn't appear to be likely with Ron Artest on the Pacers. Artest also might be available.* 

*''If there is the opportunity for [Harrington] to be a starter here, that would be great,'' Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said. ''And if there isn't, then it may be time for him to move on to another team.''* 

*Harrington has only two years and $13.3 million remaining on his contract, which is a bargain, but the Bulls still might hesitate to deal the No. 3 pick in the draft for him. The Bulls would be able to unload a contract, perhaps that of forward Eddie Robinson or forward Scottie Pippen.* 

Well I guess there is a huge possibility that Al Har comes to Chicago unless Indiana finds a better deal for him.

I've also heard that Pax is interested in Artest .

Maybe we bring the crazy Ron Ron back???Though it's far fetched.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Honestly, why would anyone think Artest is available?


----------



## Hawks4ever (Jun 6, 2002)

LOL you want to trade A Top 3 Pick for a reserve on the paper champs?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Seems to me that Artest is the natural replacement for Reggie at SG and there'd be an open SF position for Harrington.

Is Reggie going to play for a whole lot longer, if even next season? The guy is 39 years old.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

If we could get Artest back somehow great. No way would I deal the #3 for Harrington although I'd be happy to give up AD, JYD, or E-Rob for him..


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Al Harrington would bring a toughness and intensity that we are lacking with this team. However, I'm not sure he alone would be worth the #3. I'm not sure if this is possible, but I would try to package the pick and additional players for Fred Jones and Harrington. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't mind having Croshere as a small forward either. He stinks defensively, but he can shoot the ball as well if not better than anyone we have. His contract isn't very good, but we could probably get rid of one of our bad contracts for him. Just throwing some ideas out there as I know these deals would leave the Pacers depleted at the 2 and 3.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

#3, JYD for Harrington,Jones,#29. I posted this yesterday. It is a good deal and one we should explore. Obviously I would rather them take Erob instead of JYD but I kind of doubt they would do that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Hinrich and Chandler for Bender and Harrington, we throw in a number one in 06. Then shift Jamal back to the point and look to take Igoudala or anyone who could shoot, cause this team needs shooters, with the pick.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

That is some serious overpayment to Indiana. Bad deal if without throwing in the number one in 06. Just Hinrich/Chandler for Harrington/Bender is a bad bad deal.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> That is some serious overpayment to Indiana. Bad deal if without throwing in the number one in 06. Just Hinrich/Chandler for Harrington/Bender is a bad bad deal.


How so? they get a starting PG and a guy who might be able to play the 5. We shore up the 3 spot. harrington, lets face it, is the best player of the 4. there can be no denying that. And Bender has superstar potential. its a good deal all around, though it might leave Indiana light on the wings. But with Croshere, they have someone who can step in at the 3. and Jones is waiting in the wings at the 2 spot. Its a great deal for both teams


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I really like Harrington but he is not the best player in the deal. And I am not a Bender fan either. No superstar potential. I would do Chandler for Harrington though. But not Hinrich for Bender.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> I really like Harrington but he is not the best player in the deal. And I am not a Bender fan either. No superstar potential. I would do Chandler for Harrington though. But not Hinrich for Bender.


How is he not the best player in the deal. He puts up the best numbers, on a much better team and is still very young. Plus he was runner up in the 6th man of the year. Are you going to actually tell me that Hinrich is the best player in that deal?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

We could do worse than Harrington. He is better than anyone we have. Is he worth a #3? I don't know. 

Would Deng get the same numbers?

I do know as a community off and on down through the years we have talked about acquiring Harrington. Well it looks like he could be available. I am not sure Indy would want the #3. They could want a player in exchange. One of our bigs. 

Would a Howard help them? Probably not for a while. Would Deng give them anymore than they had in Harrington? Could they use AD? 

Those are questions that need to be answered.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you going to actually tell me that Hinrich is the best player in that deal?


If he's not going to, I will. Hinrich is the best player in that deal. You are completely overrating Harrington. Come on RLucas you add alot of insight on this board. But take a step back for a second, this trade idea would probably set us back even farther.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I like Hinrich better than Harrington or Jones...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I like Hinrich better than Harrington or Jones...


I like Hinrich, too. But Harrington is the best player in the deal, RLucas is right.

Bender sure seems like he'd give us a ton of what we need, too. And we didn't have to develop him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

lets see harrington plays on a better team, plays less minutes, and beats Kirk in every statistical category but assists and he isnt the best player in the deal? Are you guys kidding me? Again, how he not be the best player when he plays for a better team, and puts up better numbers, and gets mentioned for All NBA defensive team?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Kirk

PPG 12.0 
RPG 3.4 
APG 6.8 
SPG 1.33 
BPG .28 
FG% .386 
FT% .804 
3P% .390 
MPG 35.6 

harrington

PPG 13.3 
RPG 6.4 
APG 1.7 
SPG 1.01 
BPG .28 
FG% .463 
FT% .734 
3P% .273 
MPG 30.9 

One guy does this coming off the bench for a team that is playing for something, the other guy does it in garbage time, which was usually 6 minutes after the opening tip for the Bulls. harrington is the best player in this deal


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> lets see harrington plays on a better team, plays less minutes, and beats Kirk in every statistical category but assists and he isnt the best player in the deal? Are you guys kidding me? Again, how he not be the best player when he plays for a better team, and puts up better numbers, and gets mentioned for All NBA defensive team?



How can you compare them that way since Hinrich is a rookie. I am talking purely from the standpoint of what I see basketball skill wise on the court and I think Hinrich is better than Harrington. Honestly I'm surprised anyone would disagree. Obviously Harrington has the tools to be a more physical player and plays a different position and all but Hinrich shows a lot of promise.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> How can you compare them that way since Hinrich is a rookie. I am talking purely from the standpoint of what I see basketball skill wise on the court and I think Hinrich is better than Harrington. Honestly I'm surprised anyone would disagree. Obviously Harrington has the tools to be a more physical player and plays a different position and all but Hinrich shows a lot of promise.


They are nearly the same age. one guy produces for a winner, the other guy produces for a loser. harringtons numbers are better, and he plays on a better team, in LESS minutes. This one isnt close


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Kirk
> 
> PPG 12.0
> ...


I'm not sure I agree with you. I like Harrington a lot, but he's a tweener. I see him as much more of a 4, although I wouldn't mind him being the Bulls' starting 4. 

I understand pulling out stats, but despite the fact that the two players are of similar age, obviously Harrington has had many more years of pro experience. I think both have a lot of room to improve, but I'm almost ready to guarantee a much higher career shooting percentage for Kirk. 

I also think Kirk may end up a higher ranking point guard than Harrinton will a power forward. Which will be a better player? Not sure, but it's certainly not clear to me.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> lets see harrington plays on a better team, plays less minutes, and beats Kirk in every statistical category but assists and he isnt the best player in the deal?


You might want to rephrase that, the stats you gave don't exactly back it up. But why are you comparing stats anyway, they play completely different positions?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with you. I like Harrington a lot, but he's a tweener. I see him as much more of a 4, although I wouldn't mind him being the Bulls' starting 4.
> ...


I could never hate you DMD. But my point is this, one guy produces against teams that take you seriously. And produces more in less time then against a guy who produces against teams who might be going half speed. I dont think this one is particularly close


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> 
> 
> You might want to rephrase that, the stats you gave don't exactly back it up. But why are you comparing stats anyway, they play completely different positions?


How should I rephrase it?

Harrington puts up better numbers outside of assists- Pretty much so, Check

Harrington plays on a better team- Check

Harrington produces more in less minutes- Check


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

They want to offload Harrington, a player who can't beat out Artest (whom we practically gave to them for Jalen Crap)???

Fine. But under no circumstances are we going to practically ensure that Indiana remains the top team in the East for the next five years by givin' em either our topic pick, Chandler, or Hinrich..

No frickin' way... They'll have to take JYD, AD, etc.
 

The Bulls do not exist as a charitable offshoot of the Pacers


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

RLucas,

I'd be way more impressed if you compared their playoff stats for this year.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

it was about 10 pts, 6bds for Harrington in 26 minutes. It was higher til Detroit shut everyone down. But then again, does anyone honestly think the Bulls would have scored 50 against that Det D?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I could never hate you DMD. But my point is this, one guy produces against teams that take you seriously. And produces more in less time then against a guy who produces against teams who might be going half speed. I dont think this one is particularly close


You put Harrington on last year's Bulls without Hinrich and their record is similar. You can't expect Hinrich to save a joke of a team if McGrady can't do it either. 

Look, I'll give Harrington credit for producing on a winning team, and I am interested in him, but think he and Hinrich remain promising players but don't really separate themselves from one another in ability.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> it was about 10 pts, 6bds for Harrington in 26 minutes. It was higher til Detroit shut everyone down. But then again, does anyone honestly think the Bulls would have scored 50 against that Det D?


Right. And how did Hinrich do in the playoffs?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I like Hinrich, too. But Harrington is the best player in the deal, RLucas is right.
> ...


If Bender doesn't need developing, it's because he already is what he is... a guy who can't get off the bench.

Harrington vs. Hinrich. Well, Hinrich is less experienced and Harrington has been in the league six years and not gotten off the bench.

Do his marginally better stats, after six years in the league, make him better than a guy who's been in the league one year and on a crappier team? I would expect them to be better. But I also think if you put Hinrich on the Pacers and give him a couple years, his stats will also be quite a bit better.

Plus, we really need to consider just what kind of player Harrington is and what kind of player Hinrich is. Hinrich is a guy who can pass, shoot, and defend. He can do everything necessary.

Harrington is a nice player who can score and defend. He's not going to create any space in the post for our franchise player, Curry. He's not a good shooter, especially from the 3 position. In fact, he's potentially going to clog the post because that's where he likes to operate. He's not a particularly gifted passer... again, below average from the 3 spot. That also makes life more difficult for a team that will live or die on how we can feed Curry.

What Harrington reminds me of is a rich man's Marcus Fizer. If Fizer was everything he could be (and two inches taller), he'd be Al Harrington. And that's a good player. But the question we've got to ask ourselves is whether he's the right player. 

In this deal, we're dealing a guy who's a good fit (Hinrich) and a guy who should be a good fit and probably do everything and maybe more than Harrington can do (Deng or Iggy) in exchange for a guy who has so far been a bust and a guy who, while a decent player, is only a decent player and not particularly a good fit for what we ought to be trying to accomplish.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> How should I rephrase it?
> ...


Well, just looking at the numbers, Hinrich appears to be a better 3 pt shooter, free throw shooter, and he got more steals. There BPG was the same so I guess they're even, of course Harrington is six inches taller. However I still don't understand how comparing their stats is going to prove one is better than the other, they play completely different roles during the course of the game.

I would have no problem adding Harrington, but to give up Hinrich for him isn't going to make us better. Maybe I'm missing something but what does Harrington do that is so special. After six years in the NBA he seems more average than anything. Maybe the seventh year will be his lucky one, and his game will be elevated to new heights, I don't know. But Hinrich has only played one year and is already turning heads accross the NBA.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Anyway, I think the whole trade idea is just an opportunity taken to further vent about and/or cause discussion on the whole Hinrich/Jamal paradigm. Since everyone knows that's where the battle lines are drawn, we can't help ourselves but to turn every topic into that topic. All roads lead to Rome I guess


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

And in final point, the whole conversation is pretty much tangential since the basic deal being described centered around Harrington for the 3 pick.

It seems clear that no one thinks that, by itself, is a good deal for the Bulls, because everyone keeps adding more to the Pacer's side (both here and in any number of print articles).

So let's consider a bit of logic here.

#3 > Harrington
#3 < Harrington + Bender

#3 + Hinrich = Harrington + Bender ?


Well, for that to be the case, it would seem to me to suggest we think 

Bender > Hinrich

Does anyone think that? And if so, how are the going to make the case based on the criterion used to discuss Harrington vs. Hinrich?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Anyway, I think the whole trade idea is just an opportunity taken to further vent about and/or cause discussion on the whole Hinrich/Jamal paradigm. Since everyone knows that's where the battle lines are drawn, we can't help ourselves but to turn every topic into that topic. All roads lead to Rome I guess


actually, if it were up to me Mike, Id take Hinrich and Jamal an move the 2 of them. Jamal played better 2 years ago as an upfront guy with freedom. Last year, he turned into World B Free

Kirk couldnt hit the side of the ocean with his J, and either due to Skiles or him, had a tendency to dominate the ball which leads to alot of forces against the clock.

Neither guy can defend. Kirk atleast tries, Jamal I am not so sure. But both guys get lit up like a Xmas tree

However, if your going to get some balance on the team, id move Jamal back to the 1. Why? Cause he is an RFA. We could lose him for nothing or not. bringing him back, status quo, doesnt make much sense to me. But Id rather bring him back, and let him run the show, and get something for Kirk. But like I said, Id get rid of both. I certainly dont have a favorite in the Jamal/Kirk battles. They are both overrated. On this board, Kirk is very overrated. No time in history has the words untradable been associated with a player more then it has here. More then Jordan. And alot of us have simply lost perspective when it comes to him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

could Iggy play the 1? Thats a legit question cause that is what it appeared to me he was doing at of UofA. How about a defensive team of Iggy, Harrington and Bender (who actually guards 2 guards most of the time). I think that does make some sense. But like Mike said, if you get Harrington as a 3, for balance, youll need a 4 who can shoot from the perimeter. Okur?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> actually, if it were up to me Mike, Id take Hinrich and Jamal an move the 2 of them. Jamal played better 2 years ago as an upfront guy with freedom. Last year, he turned into World B Free
> 
> ...


LOL, I do see the logic in what you're saying, I just think that maybe you're overcompensating a bit for your perception of others' perceptions about Hinrich 

I'm not at all unwilling to move Kirk, but I don't think these are the right guys to do it for. I think I was saying it back in the Orlando trade thread, but we need more assets, not less. These guys (if we keep Jamal) are assets. Maybe not the best, but drading two for one or two for two doesn't do a whole lot for me unless we're taking a real step up.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Just to throw something else in, I'd consider trading Kirk for pretty much any of the top 5 picks as I see them right now.

Okafor, Howard, Pavel (the mock draft thing from Ford and your latest post have me re-evaluating him), Deng,and Iggy look like pretty interesting guys to me. I'm not so much as hung up on where guys get taken as targeting guys I like.

For example, if we could trade Hinrich and in doing so end up with Deng and Iggy, that'd be a pretty interesting scenario.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Just to throw something else in, I'd consider trading Kirk for pretty much any of the top 5 picks as I see them right now.
> 
> Okafor, Howard, Pavel (the mock draft thing from Ford and your latest post have me re-evaluating him), Deng,and Iggy look like pretty interesting guys to me. I'm not so much as hung up on where guys get taken as targeting guys I like.
> ...


I think a Hinrich for Iggy trade, with us taking Deng or whomever at 3 makes alot of sense. I see Iggy as a primary handler wherever he ends up. My only concern would be shooting still. we need someone who can knock down the 3. Actually we need 2, maybe 3 guys, who can do it. Deng and Iggy are probably not those guys. jamal? Not on most nights. But defensively, that crew would make some noise


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> could Iggy play the 1? Thats a legit question cause that is what it appeared to me he was doing at of UofA. How about a defensive team of Iggy, Harrington and Bender (who actually guards 2 guards most of the time). I think that does make some sense. But like Mike said, if you get Harrington as a 3, for balance, youll need a 4 who can shoot from the perimeter. Okur?


The one is not Iggy's true position, even though he can handle and pass. He's a true swingman, I think. Interesting idea though.


----------



## thrillhouse (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls_Bulls_Bulls!</b>!
> They want to offload Harrington, a player who can't beat out Artest (whom we practically gave to them for Jalen Crap)???
> 
> Fine. But under no circumstances are we going to practically ensure that Indiana remains the top team in the East for the next five years by givin' em either our topic pick, Chandler, or Hinrich..
> ...


are you trying to say that harrington is no good because he cant beat out Ron Artest, the DPOY and a very solid offensive player in his own right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thrillhouse</b>!
> 
> 
> are you trying to say that harrington is no good because he cant beat out Ron Artest, the DPOY and a very solid offensive player in his own right?


There ya go, MikeDC.

I don't see how a 30 MPG player "can't get off the bench," either.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> There ya go, MikeDC.
> ...


Well, he can get off the bench, but he doesn't appear to be playing a play a starter's role. 

Saying he can't get off the bench behind Artest is only part of the argument. Artest is quick enough to play the 2 against most teams and, O'Neil is big enough to play the 5. That would give Harrington a nice home at the 4 if he were really good enough to step into it.

Hell, at 6'9 and 250, is Harrington that much worse suited to guarding the average Eastern Conference center (A Brian Grant, or Ben Wallace, for example) than the 6'11 242lb Jeff Foster?

After 6 seasons, if he was really all that, they'd figure out how to get him more minutes. But he's not. He's a good player, but a player with some critical limitations. Donyell Marshall with better defense and less shooting might be a good analysis. He's got a lot of nice skills, but they don't fit in a package you want to really build around... he's a utility man.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> After 6 seasons, if he was really all that, they'd figure out how to get him more minutes. But he's not. He's a good player, but a player with some critical limitations. Donyell Marshall with better defense and less shooting might be a good analysis. He's got a lot of nice skills, but they don't fit in a package you want to really build around... he's a utility man.


Agreed.

Hinrich is clearly more valuable as a pure PG.

I can't believe people want to talk about playoff stats. Harrington was TERRIBLE in last year's playoffs and not much better this year.


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

Why and who did we trade Donyell Marshall for again?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> ...


The point is: we are comptemplating giving the Pacers someone who has the potential to be a solid point guard OR someone who can be a defensive force at C OR a #3 lottery pick for....two of their bench players, who've been "developing" for half a decade..

I repeat: when did the Bulls become a charity operation on behalf of the Pacers??? 

And yes, we know all to well what kind of players Artest and also Brad Miller have become...

The GM at Indy must be one of the best, if he can continually fleece/rape the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Harrington is not a scrub, and can still get better, but the 2-3 swingman is what I want for a SF, not a 3-4 (-5 according to some in this thread, eh?). 

He's definitely not a centerpiece. I'd consider trading the #3 for him, but yes, we'd need either Bender or Fred Jones to come along (Jones did begin to impress me a little bit with a few big games in the playoffs, like 17 points in game 2 against the C's, and a quick 13 points against the Pistons along with some gritty defense... the kid looks and plays like a real SG). 

#3 + JYD + ERob for Harrington + Bender + #29 ... that should be enough. The Pacers get Jerome, who will give them exactly what Harringon gave them if not more, and ERob, who under Carlisle might be sparked to do some serious damage (and I really believe it). #3 obviously gives them a chance to continue keeping this team very talented AND young, and to reign supreme over the East.

We lose our two cumbersome contracts, get back Bender's nasty contract but with hopefully good production, and get Harrington as well. #29 is no waste by any means, and should bring back a decent player.

Hinrich/Pargo
Crawford/Bender/Delonte West
Al Harrington/Bender
Chandler/AD
Curry/Ha Seung-Jin

With #29 we draft Khryapa and stash him overseas.

It's a really big lineup, at least. Can't say we don't have a lot of size now.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I posted that exact trade showtyme but with Jones instead of Bender. Reason being is I can't see them giving up them both. They will choose one or the other. Bender is who they will keep IMO. I think they would be willing to include Jones however and we should bite.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Man, you guys are the biggest bunch of homers on BBB.net. Kirk is nowhere close to Harrington .


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Man, you guys are the biggest bunch of homers on BBB.net. Kirk is nowhere close to Harrington .


thank you

last year, we, including myself couldnt get it in our pants about Curry and Crawford. This year we are worse, and cant keep it in our pants for Kirk, who wasnt as good as Curry or Crawford was at the end of the previous year. Alot of us have a real lack of perspective


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Regardless of what everyone's opinions is on whether Kirk is better than Harrington or not, the only area that we should be concerned about is this - does Harrington do more for our team than Kirk? I think evaluating what each brings to the table tells us no. Harrington's game is very much that of a PF/SF while Kirk was our most successful rookie since Brand. Harrington was at times criticized for incompetent play, and more importantly how he would clog the paint and take shots away from O'Neal. In one sense, Eddy and Shaq are alike - they need as much room as possible to operate on the offensive end. I don't see how a Harrington + considerations swap for Kirk + considerations helps us reach this goal.

And Bender? What has he done or shown in his entire NBA career? I'm willing to bet that the Pacers wish they could take that trade back.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Man, you guys are the biggest bunch of homers on BBB.net. Kirk is nowhere close to Harrington .


Well, now I'm convinced.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Regardless of what everyone's opinions is on whether Kirk is better than Harrington or not, the only area that we should be concerned about is this - does Harrington do more for our team than Kirk? I think evaluating what each brings to the table tells us no.


We won 23 games last year....would we be worse with Harrington?

Especially considering we were a team that couldn't score, and this guy could put points on the board?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Man, you guys are the biggest bunch of homers on BBB.net. Kirk is nowhere close to Harrington .


Well it's nice to see someone from the outside say this...

I'm gona keep my mouth closed


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> We won 23 games last year....would we be worse with Harrington?
> ...


I think yes, we would be worse with Harrington on board and losing Kirk. One of our biggest flaws was our lack of outside shooting. Baby Al, with his 27.3% 3pt percentage and 13.3 ppg isn't going to rectify that. Heck, as a starter he was only averaging 13.7 ppg. "Putting points on the board" is not his forte.

I really do like Harrington, and he is the type of player we could use - just not as our 3. I can see him fitting on this team better as a 4 than Tyson currently does.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

But to return to the original topic, hell no do I do this trade. I would imagine that the Pacers would target Biedrins, Pavel, or Livingston with that pick. Take into account Artest and O'Neal and do you want to face that team even?

Also, if we traded Kirk to the Pacers he would immediately become their 3rd best player and part of their core for the next 5-8 years. And the most sad part would be that 2/3 of their core (Artest and Hinrich) would be former Bulls. Talk about pissing in your own drinking water.


----------



## ChiGuy_82 (May 31, 2004)

Well i dont know who the better player will be, but keep this in mind when talking about trading Hinrich, he averaged 6.8 assists and he was on the worst shooting team in the league, if we had a REAL sf who could consistantly hit the mid range jumper he would have around ten. The stats he put up this year are almost those or J. Kidd in his rookie year.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I love how Kirk has become the most overrated player in the league who can't play defense but at least tries. :laugh: 

This overcompensation (by some) for Kirk getting "too much" praise earlier on is becoming quite comical. By the end of the offseason he'll be no better than a 12th man who is in the league only because of hype. Oh wait, ShakeTiller already thinks that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I love how Kirk has become the most overrated player in the league who can't play defense but at least tries. :laugh:
> 
> This overcompensation (by some) for Kirk getting "too much" praise earlier on is becoming quite comical. By the end of the offseason he'll be no better than a 12th man who is in the league only because of hype. Oh wait, ShakeTiller already thinks that.


ran a little test. Lets put an end to the myth

RLucas4257: Baron vs the NBA, 18.3ppg, vs the Bulls 23
RLucas4257: Iverson vs NBA 26.4 ppg, vs the Bulls 29.4
RLucas4257: Marbury vs the NBA 21 vs the Bulls 14.5
RLucas4257: Jason Terry vs the NBA, 16.8, vs the Bulls 21.8
RLucas4257: McInnis 11.8 vs the NBA, vs the Bulls 14.3
RLucas4257: Billups 16.9 vs the NBA, vs the Bulls 16
RLucas4257: Tinsley vs the NBA, 8.3, vs the Bulls 8.7
RLucas4257: Wade vs the NBA 16,2, vs the Bulls 13
RLucas4257: Ford vs the NBA 7.1, vs the Bulls 6
RLucas4257: Kidd vs the NBA 15.5, vs the Bulls 15.5
RLucas4257: Lue vs the NBA 10.5, vs Chicago 21
RLucas4257: A williams, 8.8 vs the NBA, vs Chicago 9
RLucas4257: Arenas 19.6 vs NBA, vs bulls, 19.5
RLucas4257: Nash 14.5 vs NBA, vs Bulls 10.5
RLucas4257: Miller, 14.8 vs NBA, vs Bulls 15
RLucas4257: Claxton vs NBA 10.6, vs Bulls 15
RLucas4257: Francis 16.6 vs NBA, vs Bulls 15
RLucas4257: Jaric 8.5 vs NBA, vs Bulls 14
RLucas4257: Payton 14.6 vs NBA, Vs Bulls 12.5
RLucas4257: Jwill vs NBA 10.9, vs Bulls 13.5
RLucas4257: Cassell vs NBA 19.8, vs Bulls 19
RLucas4257: Barbosa vs NBA 7.9, vs Bulls 27
RLucas4257: Damon Stoudamire vs NBA, 13.4, Vs Bulls 12
RLucas4257: Bibby 18.4 vs NBA, vs Bulls 14.5
RLucas4257: parker 14.7 vs NBA, vs Bulls 14
RLucas4257: arroyo 12.6 vs nba, vs bulls 9.5

Now this is rudimentary and doesnt take into account of a lot of diffferent things but this shows that most players scored their average against the Bulls. Some really exceeded their averages. I didnt even put Ridnour on this list but his best game of the year came against the Bulls. Now this doesnt take into account switches and rotations but just a general scoring output. Based on the naked eye, and not part of my quick research, these players, about 70% I would guess, also shot a higher % against the Bulls. Of the guys who scored less against Kirk, i would say 60%+ played significantly less minutes (defined by 3 minutes or more) then their average. So if most players are getting their average, and doing it with higher efficiency, how can anyone say that this guy is a good defensive player, or even a stopper? Technically, those who say he tries, but to mixed results, are correct.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well do to many this is a 2 man draft. We are not in the top 2 for the 2 men. So if there is nothing left then Harringon is better then nothing. But in seriousness, Harrington could be better then anyone we could get with the 3rd pick and he is still getting better.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

all you proved with your comparisons is that Hinrich is at least an average defender. Plenty of guys got less than their averages. Some got substantially less. So saying he "can't defend", your words, not mine, still doesn't ring true. I respect that you refuse to get carried away with praising Kirk. You've made that abundantly clear. Now, in my opinion, you've gone much further the other way than necessary to get your point across. I know what I've seen with my own eyes, and it's a fundamentally very good defender who moves his feet and uses his body effectively, but sometimes gets burned when he tries to stay too close (see paragraph below for more on this) but also gets called for umpteen fouls that veterans get away with. For example, against GS Claxton got about 12 points in a row by isolating Brunson up top and torching him after Kirk was sent to the bench with 3 BS fouls and 1 or 2 real ones. I was at that game, I remember it vividly. Yet in your analysis you attribute that to Kirk not being able to defend. 

Of course, you'll just say this next part is me making excuses, but so be it. The interior defense you have behind you as a perimeter defender makes a difference as well. The Bulls, with Curry who still had no clue how to switch and help out, and AD who means well but is just too slow now, gave Kirk and Jamal absolutely no room for error. They overplay a passing lane and their guy exploits it? Two points. They get pummelled by a great pick? Two points. And so on. It's my belief that a lot of players don't really become lockdown defenders or get recognized as such until they have a decent big man or good team defense behind them to let them be more aggressive. Just look at Hassell and how all of a sudden people think he's a stopper. With Hinrich, Crawford, and JW, Hassell and Rose before them as well, it was a 75% chance they were giving up a basket if they allowed any penetration. For Hassell (on the Wolves) or Bowen or Detroit's guards, it's probably 50%, maybe less.


Is Hinrich a lockdown defender? No, not yet and maybe never. Did I see him play like one at times? Hell yes I did. Did he make his share of mistakes? Yes. Can he defend? I think so.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> all you proved with your comparisons is that Hinrich is at least an average defender.


Wasn't that the point?

I don't think I've ever seen RL or even most people who think the opposite of the majority have said he can't defend..

He's just not the defensive stopper that he's made out to be....

Kudos to you on the Golden State game, I'm glad you were there, perhaps you have on tape (a guy we didn't take into account) where Ridnour broke his ankles for about 5 mins at the end of the Seattle game and scored about 12-14 pts and had a bunch of assists and after ripping Kirk made him leave the game with a sore ankle, so as far as I'm concerned we can take out that Clax game that you pointed out and put this one right in there, stats are still the same.

Stats proved he's not a defensive stoppper...

Stats proved he's not a difference maker...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


he said it right in this thread. (edit: look at post #34)

and I agree that he's not a stopper, though I think with more experience and a better interior defense behind him, he could be pretty close.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> he said it right in this thread. (edit: look at post #34)
> ...


VF, I agree with you, he could be, but it's pointed out time to time that he's already some of those things, and really that's the problem I have...

He's a great shooter that shoots 30 whatever percent, he's a great defender that gets lit up more than he stops people...

He could be a great shooter, and a great defender and a floor general and all of those things, but right now he's not...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> He could be a great shooter, and a great defender and a floor general and all of those things, but right now he's not...


And that makes him more valuable than Harrington.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> And that makes him more valuable than Harrington.


Roger that. The key is, how much improvement are we going to see from Harrington? His stats would definitely inflate if given a big role on a team, but . . .

Hinrich is a promising young rookie point guard who was the most competitive, best-mannered, most rugged player we had. To see him come in and play at that level when he basically atrophied for the crucial parts of the preseason... pretty tough cookie.

As for his shooting percentage, I daresay that he IS a great shooter by form, but he's a pass-first guard that was forced to take a lot of shots because of lack of other options on a horrible team. Among rookies, his 39% from the arc was third best on the list by less than .5 % margin, and he took 150 more 3 point attempts than Barbosa, the leader in 3-pt % with 39.5. 

As for defense, 1.33 steals a night against the likes of Marbury and Iverson sure ain't bad for a rookie. Only Lebron James had more steals last season. I know steals don't tell the whole story, but yeah.

I'm not a Hinrich bandwagoner, or pro-Harrington. I'm saying, why are we even talking about this?

Should we trade Hinrich for Harrington? Is that really the question here? The answer has less to do with who's BETTER than it has to do with who ELSE is available?

I don't know if the league agrees with you, Rlucas, if you think that Hinrich and Chandler can't bring back more than Harrington and Bender. I think they can, and I think Harrington can be had with just the #3 pick this year (probably Luol Deng, who may become a more valuable player than both Harrington and Hinrich).

Remember: Indiana doesn't NEED Al Harrington, and is TRYING to get rid of him. As Carlisle mentioned, Al is a starter in this league but it doesn't look like there's space for him to be that on the Pacers.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Hey I dig Baby Al 

But no way in hell do I deal #3 for him 

I think Crawford and Harrington is a fair swap 

* Scott Pollard , Al Harrington , Primoz Brezec , Anthony Johnson and the Pacers #30 pick for Davis , Crawford ( resigned to $5.2M starting ) and the rights to #39 works *

Swap #3 for #5 ( and JYD and Laetner - expiring contract ) 

#5 and ERob for Utah's #14 and #16

Utah take their Center at #5 - Pavel Podzolkine 

We need a shooter to put alongside Baby Al if we're playing him at the 3 - 4 - that's why we take Luke Jackson at #14 and pursue Wesley Person as our back up 2 guard 

At #16 .. if Johan Petro is as good as advertised from the Treviso camp based on what Lucas reported .. I think we take a big here where we can afford to bring him on more slowly . Sounds like he could be a handy asset in a year or two down the track

Probably look at Sasha Vujacic if he is there at #30 ( and if not Kevin Martin ) and Donta Smith seems worth a shot at #32

*

Curry
Chandler
Harrington
Jackson
Hinrich

bench

Pollard
Laetner
L.Johnson
Person
A.Johnson

Petro
C.Jeffries
Vujacic

Brezec
Pippen

Rights retained to Kevin Martin at #32 to go along with rights held for Mario Austin and Tommie Smith 

*

That gives us a 15 man roster for $44.5M 

We would also have $16M expiring contracts at seasons' end (Brezec, Laetner , Pippen , Jeffries , Johnson , Johnson )with 9 players under contract for next season - Curry, Chandler , Pollard, Petro , Harrington , Jackson , Person , Hinrich , Vujacic. Add next year's 1st round draft pick and that's 12 players 

So our payroll is down at $30M for 10 players 

If we extend Curry for $7M starting ( this summer ) and leave Tyson to next summer but retain him back at $7M .. then we will have committed a further $5M in salary 

We bring back Anthony Johnson for the minimum .. Bring in Mario Austin ( once his contract dispute clears up ) and Kevin Martin for the same - say another $2M in commitments 

We would have a roster of 13 guys at $37M 

Assuming a salary cap of $45M we would have $8M in cap room to either sign a free agent(s) outright ( Odom was had for this money.. Maggette for less and it is probably what Ginobili will go toward this summer ) .. or we preserve the cap room and use it to facilitate trades and pick up players and/or picks - or pick up a bargain ( aka Sheed to Detroit last deadline ) as we have room and good young tradeable assets that are CHEAP

The summer after when Hinrich's extension money kicks in we would have Pollard and Person off the books for $8M

Ultimately the young core looks like :

Curry, Chandler Petro upfront 

Harrington in the swing forward position 

Jackson in the swing wing position 

Martin at scoring guard 

Vujacic at combo guard

Hinrich at Point 

Next draft if we are are late lottery to mid first round .. we take the best natural "3" available 

And there is a young core of 10 players .. all built through the draft - except Harrington 

We have the cap room to add a superstar around the $8M mark the next summer or thereafter .. and the balance roster spots are taken up with 2nd round projects or CBA hustlers/just happy to be here/ role playing practise dummy types

Talent = High 

Cost = Low 

Salary cap flexibility to improve : High 

If the Pacers were agreeable to this deal and Utah want Pavel at #5 and will take ERob ( that doesn't involve them giving up Harpring ) for #14 and #16 ... then this gets us to thsi model , and I think, in a nice position of advantage going forward

From the Pacers point of view , Davis adds further vet savvy/toughness and holds the 5 spot down with Foster .. which allows O'Neal to stay at 4 - and not shifting over to the 5 to allow for Harrington to play 4 ( when Artest or Bender is in playing 3 ) 

Croshere has his minutes behind O'Neal and behind Artest 

Someone made the comment earlier that Artest is the sucessor to Reggie Miller at the 2 guard

I disagree

I said last season .. that Jamal should be trying to model his game on Rip Hamilton - being of slighter frame .. you can't get bodied up and knocked around if your always running.. always moving 

This philosophy was at the heart of Reggie Miller's game and Rip has patented a lot of Reggie Miller into his game . Who better for Jamal to learn these adaptations and be the player he can be .. then Reggie Miller himself?

I could see Jon Bender and Jamal Tinsley getting cashed in for #7 and Alvin Williams .. and Indiana selecting Ben Gordon at #7 

And here is the rationale :

I think Ben Gordon is going to be Chauncey Billups type of guard . He's sturdy/robust and he's a scoring point in the Billups mould. 

If you acquire Crawford and develop him as the guy who runs his azz off.. off the ball then this is the a Gordon/Crawford combination could be every bit as lethal.. and possibly even moreso than Billups and Hamilton in Indiana

Alvin Williams is the vet at point until Gordon gets the balance to his scoring game and distribution game .. and Fred Jones is the 4th guard in the rotation 

Croshere plays his back up minutes across the 3 - 4 supporting O'Neil and Artest .. and Davis and Foster at Center

They take Arthur Johnson #39 pick they would get from us 

Indiana

*

Foster
O'Neil
Artest
Crawford
Gordon

bench

Davis
A.Johnson
Croshere 
Jones
A.Williams

*

Raptors 

*

Bosch
Marshall
Bender
Rose
Tinsley

*


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> ran a little test. Lets put an end to the myth
> ...


When you were compiling your stats you didn't by any chance include games that Hinrich didn't even play in, because that would mean your numbers would be a little skewed, right. Also I noticed Iverson and B. Davis right there at the top, but weren't Hinrich's first two games of his career against those two guards, and didn't he shut them down later on in the season.

All I'm saying is stats don't tell the whole story. So I guess what you consider a myth is still wide awake.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

no way we are trading kirk for harrington. thats crazy. we might give up chandler or the no.3 pick +some bad contracts for harrington. 
harrington after all is a nice player. he would flourish at the bulls i think if he starts at the 4 or 3. he has 2 years remainding on his contract that pays him about 6mil a year, i think he really wants to leave the pacers now to a lesser tteam, so he can put up big numbers just in time for a big fat contract.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> all you proved with your comparisons is that Hinrich is at least an average defender. Plenty of guys got less than their averages. Some got substantially less. So saying he "can't defend", your words, not mine, still doesn't ring true. I respect that you refuse to get carried away with praising Kirk. You've made that abundantly clear. Now, in my opinion, you've gone much further the other way than necessary to get your point across. I know what I've seen with my own eyes, and it's a fundamentally very good defender who moves his feet and uses his body effectively, but sometimes gets burned when he tries to stay too close (see paragraph below for more on this) but also gets called for umpteen fouls that veterans get away with. For example, against GS Claxton got about 12 points in a row by isolating Brunson up top and torching him after Kirk was sent to the bench with 3 BS fouls and 1 or 2 real ones. I was at that game, I remember it vividly. Yet in your analysis you attribute that to Kirk not being able to defend.
> 
> Of course, you'll just say this next part is me making excuses, but so be it. The interior defense you have behind you as a perimeter defender makes a difference as well. The Bulls, with Curry who still had no clue how to switch and help out, and AD who means well but is just too slow now, gave Kirk and Jamal absolutely no room for error. They overplay a passing lane and their guy exploits it? Two points. They get pummelled by a great pick? Two points. And so on. It's my belief that a lot of players don't really become lockdown defenders or get recognized as such until they have a decent big man or good team defense behind them to let them be more aggressive. Just look at Hassell and how all of a sudden people think he's a stopper. With Hinrich, Crawford, and JW, Hassell and Rose before them as well, it was a 75% chance they were giving up a basket if they allowed any penetration. For Hassell (on the Wolves) or Bowen or Detroit's guards, it's probably 50%, maybe less.
> ...


who exactly did he stop? Earl Watson doesnt count 

The numbers dont lie. Opposing starting PGs averaged 1.5 ppg more against us then they did against the rest of the league. They also did in about 3 mpg less on average while shooting 30 basis points higher. Sure, team defense was lacking. But if a guy isnt stopped outfront, can you really blame Curry for that?

Lets put an end to this myth. This is why he DIDNT recieve any votes for the all defensive team


----------



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

#3 for Al Har ?

No.

Jamal for Al Har ?

No.

Kirk for Al har (sounds one uh dem terrorist orghinizashuns) ?

Eeee is there a better deal out there ?

I'd be willing to deal Kirk more for Jamal because I think things were much better the way it was before last year and Jamal at point can maybe re-spark some of that (oh yeah, minus our two leading scorers that year). However, I doubt John is down for anything that requires four rounded objects: balls and vision.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Lets put an end to this myth. This is why he DIDNT recieve any votes for the all defensive team


Come on RL...

We all know Kirk didn't get any votes because he was a rookie, and rookies don't get votes for all-defensive team...

Oh wait, oops, Pietrus did...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

ehhh, its all mostly the guys that wanted Pietrus that do all the pointing out and "myth busting" Thats part of their fuel.
And i am one of the Pietrus people too. But that didn't blind me to what Kirk did, which is more than what these guys are saying he did. I'll believe what some players said about Kirk, and opposing coaches B4 i believe all the "mythbusting"

and my own eyes. I think Kirk is going to make them look petty (not to mention wrong). I mean, we all know how each other feels, why go over it a trillion times over? Answer:????????????


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Anyway, I think the whole trade idea is just an opportunity taken to further vent about and/or cause discussion on the whole Hinrich/Jamal paradigm. Since everyone knows that's where the battle lines are drawn, we can't help ourselves but to turn every topic into that topic. All roads lead to Rome I guess


Looks like I pretty much called this one


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> I'll believe what some players said about Kirk, and opposing coaches B4 i believe all the "mythbusting"


I'll believe the opposing coaches as well...

None of them gave him 1 vote for either all-defensive team....

That makes me believe something...

Should we only believe the "good" things?

I'll just cover my ears and yell when anything "negative" is said about Kirk...


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> ehhh, its all mostly the guys that wanted Pietrus that do all the pointing out and "myth busting" Thats part of their fuel.
> And i am one of the Pietrus people too. But that didn't blind me to what Kirk did, which is more than what these guys are saying he did. I'll believe what some players said about Kirk, and opposing coaches B4 i believe all the "mythbusting"
> 
> and my own eyes. I think Kirk is going to make them look petty (not to mention wrong). I mean, we all know how each other feels, why go over it a trillion times over? Answer:????????????


You know what ?! Your face !

I'm sure what you've said has been said a billion times over, but when it comes down to it, we talk about this because there's really nothing else to talk about. It's NBA basketball, it's based on what the best players or best combination thereof can do. I don't really care to see if Paul Shirley does or can do the equivalent of putting on his shorts the right way.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll believe the opposing coaches as well...
> ...


is this what they call negative advertising? edited


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> ran a little test. Lets put an end to the myth
> ...


IMO u just started a new myth:

C.Billups (clearly not a defensive player) is the best defensive PG in the league , and the fact that Sheed,big Ben and Prince jump at every slasher in the lane has nothing to do with the fact pg's score less against the Pistons , It's only Billups's D:no: 

And right behind him in the best defensive pg's r Jamal Tinsley (clearly not a defensive giant) and Tony Parker (decent at most) with no regaurds to Tim D or JO behind them.

Defense is also an issue of what the coach tells u to do.if Skiles tells Kirk to help Eddy or Jamal he'll double , and many times get burnt.It's much easier to be a good defensive player when all the rest of your team helps out and covers their ground (not the case in Chicago) , in a way that even Tony Parker can be refered as "decent" on D.

Just by looking at Kirk play u can say he plays good D , hustles , takes charges , makes smart fouls (though still a rookie) and all the kind of things defense includes - but stats don't - and the fact that many coaches (hard nosed as Van Gundy) say they like his game , means he plays good defense.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> is this what they call negative advertising? If they charged a penny an anti Kirk/Pax/Skiles post you'd be out roughly the amount in Bill Gates' savings account.


Funny how you didn't really counter my point because I used what you said to work in favor of my argument, you can result to insults, I'll just keep discussing ball...

Cheers.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Funny how you didn't really counter my point because I used what you said to work in favor of my argument, you can result to insults, I'll just keep discussing ball...
> ...


theres no point edited. To say because a rook didn't get voted to the defensive squad means he's not a very good defender is just not a good point worthy of adress. With you, cheerio, i choose to adress you, not your so called points. You haven't made a new one in a year. At a certain point of diminishing returns, you indeed become the point that needs adressing, and the object of my curiosity.

edited


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> theres no point but crap to flush. To say because a rook didn't get voted to the defensive squad means he's not a very good defender is just not a good point worthy of adress. With you, cheerio, i choose to adress you, not your so called points. You haven't made a new one in a year. At a certain point of diminishing returns, you indeed become the point that needs adressing, and the object of my curiosity.
> 
> ...


editedthat's just comical...

I'm "ferocious", yes that's me the fiery dominican, get in my way and I'll bail you over lol...

Anyway....

Basically you said you'll defer to what players, coaches say instead of the mythbusting that RL did with his post...

I said ok, I'll defer to the coaches too then....

It works if you just look at the good things the coaches said, which is what you obviously chose to do, but you're ignoring the fact that these same coaches, who mainly commented on his hustle and defense, didn't give him 1 vote for the AD teams...

What does that tell you?

It tells you nothing if you choose to cover your ears and scream blah blah blah...

Again, no one said he doesn't play defense or he's bad at it, he's just not a defensive stopper, and as Shaketiller said the other day, a lot of you confuse hustle with good defense....


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I rather relace my shoes than read your analysis of me, someone you don't even know...that's just comical...
> ...


regurgitrant post nonetheless, i'll regurgitate my response to it

Just because a rook didn't get voted to the TOP defenders in the NBA, DOES NOT= He's not a good defender

i'll add a new question: that a expect a typical facakta response to: Do you think the NBA (and i stress NBA, not realGM)players and coaches were BSing their compliments of Kirk? Do you think its bogus? ......of course you do.

Heck i don't need them against you arenas. I trust my own judgement is better than your judgement. I see you rarely are right on anything


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll believe the opposing coaches as well...
> ...


All world defender Trenton Hassel only received one vote. I suppose he can't really play defense all that well. Ostertag received a vote as well. And Marion only received one. Let's face it, the all defensive team is composed of players who are either superstars who play some D or players who have made a career on their D. Pietrus was only able to play D this year and obviously one coach took notice. I think it's pretty easy to overlook an "unathletic, white" PG when you have the likes of Kobe, Bowen, Christie, Kidd, and Snow, stars in themselves or guys that have made a career out of playing defense.

BTW, if Kirk sucks so bad how do you explain his presence on the all rookie first team in the strongest rookie class in years?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TJ Ford got hurt :uhoh:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> All world defender Trenton Hassel only received one vote. I suppose he can't really play defense all that well. Ostertag received a vote as well. And Marion only received one. Let's face it, the all defensive team is composed of players who are either superstars who play some D or players who have made a career on their D. Pietrus was only able to play D this year and obviously one coach took notice. I think it's pretty easy to overlook an "unathletic, white" PG when you have the likes of Kobe, Bowen, Christie, Kidd, and Snow, stars in themselves or guys that have made a career out of playing defense.
> ...


Reading is fundamental...

If you or anyone else can find 1 quote of mine that says he sucks so bad...

Please do that...

I know I never have....

I just think he's way overrated by Bulls fans.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> Heck i don't need them against you arenas. I trust my own judgement is better than your judgement. I see you rarely are right on anything


Ya you're so superior to me, I'll defer to your beliefs and just not have any of mine, for that I will be a better person and have a better life.

Please.

Hearsay, opinion about the poster was edited. truebluefan

You can find a few threads on here from the past week where people have said, oh maybe arenas was right, maybe we should apologize to arenas...

Not that means anything to me, I'm just saying to say I'm rarely right on anything, is hmm, wrong...

I have a different opinon, if it's wrong sometimes, cool, and if it's right, cool...

Anyway my inferior immigrant culo is going to stop having debates with you since it's beyond obvious I can't win, why even respond to my posts Watch the cutting remarks?

This one's for you buddy (as you told me once)...

edited again


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ya you're so superior to me, I'll defer to your beliefs and just not have any of mine, for that I will be a better person and have a better life.
> ...


Naaaaa
all anybody needs to remember about you is that you go to the wall for a guy like E-Marosa. And you go to the wall against a guy like Kirk Hinrich. 

says it all


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Stop this crap guys! Post your opinions on the Bulls and not your opinion on each other. It does nothing..but make both of you look bad. Period. 


No one on this board is superior to another. Period.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Stop this crap guys! Post your opinions on the Bulls and not your opinion on each other. It does nothing..but make both of you look bad. Period.
> 
> I am going to edit your post arenas.


actually, its not arenas' fault tbf. I started it, going after him and his constant bashing. Quite frankly, its ******* IMO.
I realize my behavior is against the rules, so i will stop now.

He's the only cat that makes this board almost unreadable at times besides myself tbf, so i am the real moron for reading him, and trying to read him. I have gone to the dark side. I have become a problem (larger than usual) :laugh:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll believe the opposing coaches as well...
> ...


Van Gundy very high on Hinrich

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...lboards.net&KRD_RM=4qspokmmnnppsptkkkkkkkklro|roger|Y

It's not a stretch to say he'll be a star point guard in this league," Van Gundy said. "He's a stud, a big-time competitor. He doesn't back down. He's bigger than you think. He's quicker than you think. And he's nastier than you think."


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> actually, its not arenas' fault tbf. I started it, going after him and his constant bashing. Quite frankly, its ******* IMO.
> I realize my behavior is against the rules, so i will stop now.
> ...


I am going back to edit anything I can find. 

Guys we want, opinions on the bulls and not mudslinging on each other. It gets you nowhere. If you do not believe me go back ane read what you guys just said. Where did it get you? Nowhere! Adds nothing to the site. Nothing at all.

There is an ignore feature on here.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Van Gundy very high on Hinrich
> ...


TBF, I know what's been said about him...

Good things were said about JC, Curry, and TC this past year as well.....

I just think he's overrated here, and it's just annoying that sometimes when some people here talk about him it's as if they're talking about their brother.

He could be very a special player, and that's great, but right now he's not.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> TBF, I know what's been said about him...
> ...


I agree with you. But he is not one way or the other. That is all i am sayng. ( I am not saying you said he was)He doesn't suck and he is not great. He does play decent defense, but never got voted to all defensive team. A lot of good defenders didn't get voted in. Only so much room fon the team. 

Kirk can be very, very good. He is not there yet.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I am going back to edit anything I can find.
> ...


hmm you've done a nice job dehorning my posts :cannibal: :rock:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> hmm you've done a nice job dehorning my posts :cannibal: :rock:


LOL thanks.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Reading is fundamental...


Seriously arenas, you question why people hate/target/insult you, yet you respond with these type of comments. I enjoy reading many of your posts, but your smugness is really unnecessary and turns many people off. I challenge you to find one post in which I've spoken to you as an idiot. 



> If you or anyone else can find 1 quote of mine that says he sucks so bad...
> 
> Please do that...
> 
> ...


And I made that remark due to the many anti-Kirk posts you've made. Did you ever use the exact words "Kirk sucks"? No, but given your many comments in regards to how Kirk is overrated, Kirk isn't better than Barbosa, Kirk isn't anything special, etc. many posters here are led to believe that is your opinion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Seriously arenas, you question why people hate/target/insult you, yet you respond with these type of comments. I enjoy reading many of your posts, but your smugness is really unnecessary and turns many people off. I challenge you to find one post in which I've spoken to you as an idiot.


:rock:


----------

