# Kirk hinrich for Desmond Mason



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

bulls trades: 
Kirk Hinrich (12.0 ppg, 6.8 apg, 3.4 rpg, 1.3 spg)

bucks trades:
Desmond Mason (14.4 ppg, 4.4 rpg , 1.9 apg)

why?

now that tj's career is in jeopardy, the bucks gets an up and coming pg that they should have drafted in the first place. 

the trade also brings chicago an athletic wing player who can score points by the bushel.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Interesting idea. If the team is confident in Gordon's ability to run the squad, you could make him the PG of the future and start Mason at SG. I believe Mason is making about $7 million a year though at this point, so the Bulls would have to toss in something else to make the salaries match up. Maybe something like Hinrich and Pippen for Mason and Haislip?


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

I'd rather have Michael Redd!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> Interesting idea. If the team is confident in Gordon's ability to run the squad, you could make him the PG of the future and start Mason at SG. I believe Mason is making about $7 million a year though at this point, so the Bulls would have to toss in something else to make the salaries match up. Maybe something like Hinrich and Pippen for Mason and Haislip?


Masons BYC so you're not looking for an even salary match; I don't know what the exact number is, but the Bulls would have to give up more salary.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Masons BYC so you're not looking for an even salary match; I don't know what the exact number is, but the Bulls would have to give up more salary.


Ah, I thought it was last year that he was. Well, it does make it easier to stick to the Hinrich-Mason base that way.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> 
> Ah, I thought it was last year that he was. Well, it does make it easier to stick to the Hinrich-Mason base that way.


Could be,

I'm just going off of the info at realgm, which is miles less then flawless. You're probably right.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pass. 

Mason had an off year last year in shooting. His pct was way down. I know Hinrichs was nothing to write home about but he is our pg which makes him more valuable than Mason would be.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I'm not even going to comment on the trade proposal itself. All I will say is this, and it should already be obvious to anyone who follows this team:

John. Paxson. will. not. trade. Kirk. Hinrich.

I repeat:
John. Paxson. will. not. trade. Kirk. Hinrich.

Seriously,
John. Paxson. will. NOT. trade. Kirk. Hinrich.

Even if it sounds like a good idea for us, I wouldn't even waste your breath(or, in this case, typing) proposing it, because it's not happening, unless we're getting a superstar (my guess is a top 10 type of player). The Kirk's a Bull for at least another 7-8 years.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> I'm not even going to comment on the trade proposal itself. All I will say is this, and it should already be obvious to anyone who follows this team:
> 
> John. Paxson. will. not. trade. Kirk. Hinrich.
> ...


Hinrich untouchable except for a superstar:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> I'm not even going to comment on the trade proposal itself. All I will say is this, and it should already be obvious to anyone who follows this team:
> 
> John. Paxson. will. not. trade. Kirk. Hinrich.
> ...


:allhail: 

All listen too. Whats with the KH hate?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Trade Kirk Hinrich.....Like I said before, One step up, and two steps back.

Amazing.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> I'd rather have Michael Redd!


He might cost us Chandler too. Do you still want to do it? Redd & Curry together on the same team? Who do you double-team?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich untouchable except for a superstar:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Let me clarify for those who may misunderstand my post. I didn't say I would only trade him for a superstar, I merely said that's what I feel John Paxson's thinking is.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

You guys have ONE PROVEN solid player on your team and all I see are ridiculous trade rumors trying to get rid of him, that would be Kirk Hinrich. Kirk could very easily be and I think will be a top 5 PG in the league within 2 more seasons and you guys want to ship him out because you have Ben Gordon who is in all reality a SG and has yet to play an NBA game! Give me a break, you should talk about trading anyone BUT Hinrich and all I hear is proposed trades OF Hinrich. If we had a PG like Hinrich on our team, the last thing we'd be talking about is trading him...we KNOW how hard it is to get a quility Point, we've been trying for years.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> You guys have ONE PROVEN solid player on your team and all I see are ridiculous trade rumors trying to get rid of him, that would be Kirk Hinrich. Kirk could very easily be and I think will be a top 5 PG in the league within 2 more seasons and you guys want to ship him out because you have Ben Gordon who is in all reality a SG and has yet to play an NBA game! Give me a break, you should talk about trading anyone BUT Hinrich and all I hear is proposed trades OF Hinrich. If we had a PG like Hinrich on our team, the last thing we'd be talking about is trading him...we KNOW how hard it is to get a quility Point, we've been trying for years.



THANK YOU!!!


(sometimes i wonder about bulls fans, i really do!)


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> I'm not even going to comment on the trade proposal itself. All I will say is this, and it should already be obvious to anyone who follows this team:
> 
> John. Paxson. will. not. trade. Kirk. Hinrich.
> ...


True, but then again 99.999% of the fan proposals on this board will never happen. It's not like the Bulls scout these boards looking for good ideas. Yet people still propose them anyways.

I still don't understand this type of behaivor on basketballboards.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> You guys have ONE PROVEN solid player on your team and all I see are ridiculous trade rumors trying to get rid of him, that would be Kirk Hinrich. Kirk could very easily be and I think will be a top 5 PG in the league within 2 more seasons and you guys want to ship him out because you have Ben Gordon who is in all reality a SG and has yet to play an NBA game! Give me a break, you should talk about trading anyone BUT Hinrich and all I hear is proposed trades OF Hinrich. If we had a PG like Hinrich on our team, the last thing we'd be talking about is trading him...we KNOW how hard it is to get a quility Point, we've been trying for years.


THANK YOU!!!!!!

Perhaps a fan of another team can get this through their heads. It boggles my mind, really.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

Again.. Hinrich is not going to be the type of player that will carry the Bulls to victory.. So if you can get what you need and he is the only proven player out of all the guards.. Why not TRADE him for a need?

The only Bulls player who I ever deemed untradeable is MJ. and Hinrich is far from that


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> You guys have ONE PROVEN solid player on your team and all I see are ridiculous trade rumors trying to get rid of him


It's because he's not as AND1 as Jamal Crawford was.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Again.. Hinrich is not going to be the type of player that will carry the Bulls to victory..


:laugh: 

Thats wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> You guys have ONE PROVEN solid player on your team and all I see are ridiculous trade rumors trying to get rid of him, that would be Kirk Hinrich. Kirk could very easily be and I think will be a top 5 PG in the league within 2 more seasons and you guys want to ship him out because you have Ben Gordon who is in all reality a SG and has yet to play an NBA game! Give me a break, you should talk about trading anyone BUT Hinrich and all I hear is proposed trades OF Hinrich. If we had a PG like Hinrich on our team, the last thing we'd be talking about is trading him...we KNOW how hard it is to get a quility Point, we've been trying for years.


THANK YOU !!!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Again.. Hinrich is not going to be the type of player that will carry the Bulls to victory.. So if you can get what you need and he is the only proven player out of all the guards.. Why not TRADE him for a need?
> 
> The only Bulls player who I ever deemed untradeable is MJ. and Hinrich is far from that


We said the same thing about Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Brad Miller, etc and look where they are now? They are successful somewhere else, two of them are on title contenders playing big roles and the other is the 3rd best PF in the league. You work around your proven players, you dont work around your needs. 

Thats why its smart to wait and see how Gordon does. If he can prove his ability to successfully run a team, then Hinrich *or* Gordon can become trade material and we can bring in a natural SG. Then again, if Hinrich/Gordon works as a backcourt, why mess with what works?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Again.. Hinrich is not going to be the type of player that will carry the Bulls to victory.. So if you can get what you need and he is the only proven player out of all the guards.. Why not TRADE him for a need?
> 
> The only Bulls player who I ever deemed untradeable is MJ. and Hinrich is far from that


Is Desmond Mason going to carry a team to victory? I dont see that happening. So your point is moot.

And who says Kirk cannot become a Jason Kidd type of player? After all, he put up better rookie numbers than most of the current NBA "star" point guards did when they first came in the league.

Sorry, but I'm not trading Kirk.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It's because he's not as AND1 as Jamal Crawford was.


:yes: Good post, and your right. Kirk isn't "street", therefore he cannot become a "star player".


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Is Desmond Mason going to carry a team to victory? I dont see that happening. So your point is moot.


Ahh, great point. Those were the words I was looking for.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Des Mason? No, I don't see how we're better with him than with Hinrich.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Des Mason? No, I don't see how we're better with him than with Hinrich.


Exactly correct, Mike. Now, Ben Gordon for Mason? Now you've sparked my interest. But not Kirk.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PD</b>!
> 
> Redd & Curry together on the same team? Who do you double-team?


Redd.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly correct, Mike. Now, Ben Gordon for Mason? Now you've sparked my interest. But not Kirk.


Not mine.

I'm not sure Gordon is going to be all that, but I think I'd rather take a chance on him at this point than get a guy who's basically showed he's a sixth man or ok starter, and that's what Mason is.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Not mine.
> ...


Good point. I also would like to see exactly what we have in Gordo. I have no question about his heart, I'll tell you that.

BTW? The Nets just waived Luscious Harris.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Des Mason? No, I don't see how we're better with him than with Hinrich.


It would be completely contingent on having two young point guards, neither of which turns out to work out so well as shooting guard. Desmond could certainly D up shooting guards, although he would play the position much like Richard Jefferson plays small forward.


----------



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Pass.
> 
> Mason had an off year last year in shooting. His pct was way down. I know Hinrichs was nothing to write home about but he is our pg which makes him more valuable than Mason would be.



I'm sorry to inform you that you are absolutely WRONG! Desmond Mason shot a TEAM HIGH 47.2%. But if i were the bulls i wouldn't do this trade. Dez isn't a great shooter, like you said, so he would just clog things down low. Now as a Bucks fan i wouldn't do this trade either, i wanna see exactly what happens with TJ and i would like to experiment with Mo Williams (eventhough i think he isn't anything special). Its gunna be a tuff year to be a Bucks fan.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Kirk isn't "street", therefore he cannot become a "star player".


You helped put the Olympic team together, didn't you?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> It would be completely contingent on having two young point guards, neither of which turns out to work out so well as shooting guard. Desmond could certainly D up shooting guards, although he would play the position much like Richard Jefferson plays small forward.


Well right, but I guess my viewpoint is that we need to be getting equal or better value in any trade we make, rather than just saying we've got two young PGs and we need a wing so let's trade the surplus to alleviate the shortage.

Just because we've got a surplus doesn't mean we should trade a good player for an ok one


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You helped put the Olympic team together, didn't you?


NOT ME! :laugh: 

Any interest in Harris, who was just waived by the Nets?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> You guys have ONE PROVEN solid player on your team and all I see are ridiculous trade rumors trying to get rid of him, that would be Kirk Hinrich. Kirk could very easily be and I think will be a top 5 PG in the league within 2 more seasons and you guys want to ship him out because you have Ben Gordon who is in all reality a SG and has yet to play an NBA game! Give me a break, you should talk about trading anyone BUT Hinrich and all I hear is proposed trades OF Hinrich. If we had a PG like Hinrich on our team, the last thing we'd be talking about is trading him...we KNOW how hard it is to get a quility Point, we've been trying for years.



No one on our team has proven jack .Your team has the luxury of already having a "paul Pierce " but we do not and while I wouldnt trade Kirk for Mason hes not untouchable and nobody on the Bulls should be .

I think the question is if you could trade Ricky Davis for a quality pg would you ?I think you would :yes:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well right, but I guess my viewpoint is that we need to be getting equal or better value in any trade we make, rather than just saying we've got two young PGs and we need a wing so let's trade the surplus to alleviate the shortage.
> ...


Des is a unique player with some real deficiencies (shooting), but he plays hard, finishes better than anyone on our team (including ERob), plays good D, and manages to shoot a very good percentage from the field. I think he's better than you give him credit for. Plus at 27 years old, finally we would have a good player in his prime (and signed to a reasonable contract no less).


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Des is a unique player with some real deficiencies (shooting), but he plays hard, finishes better than anyone on our team (including ERob), plays good D, and manages to shoot a very good percentage from the field. I think he's better than you give him credit for. Plus at 27 years old, finally we would have a good player in his prime (and signed to a reasonable contract no less).


Darius, I think Kirk is better than most give HIM credit for. I do NOT think Des Mason is worth Kirk Hinrich. Point guard is the most difficult position to play in the NBA. And we are SET at it with Kirk. I see absolutely no reason to trade him, unless we got back equal or better talent.

This trade simply does not do that, IMO.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I am not a Hinrich fan, meaning I don't think he is the next coming superstar but Des is just a little to ordinary to give up your starting PG for a slightly above average NBA player. IMO they are equals but Hinrich has more value due to position.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

What point guards are cuurrently better than Hinrich
?

Marbury
Kidd 
Parker
Bibby
Davis
Francis
Cassell

At worst he is already the eigth best point in the league in my mind and none of the guys ahead of him were rookies last year, Kirk will be an all-star and lead us to many victories.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hustle</b>!
> What point guards are cuurrently better than Hinrich
> ?
> 
> ...


I agree! There were times when Kirk was on Davis last season, and he simply frustrated the hell out of him. So much, in fact, that the Baron was resorting to "ref begging" because of the Defense that Kirk was playing on him.

Kirk is special, and will be even better as the years go on.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Is Desmond Mason going to carry a team to victory? I dont see that happening. So your point is moot.
> ...


I was not specifically talking about Mason.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hustle</b>!
> What point guards are cuurrently better than Hinrich
> ?
> 
> ...


Steve Nash? Andre Miller? Chauncey Billups, the Finals MVP? Hinrich was a solid player last year but he sure wasn't better than any of these guys.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Steve Nash? Andre Miller? Chauncey Billups, the Finals MVP? Hinrich was a solid player last year but he sure wasn't better than any of these guys.


And Jason Williams


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well right, but I guess my viewpoint is that we need to be getting equal or better value in any trade we make, rather than just saying we've got two young PGs and we need a wing so let's trade the surplus to alleviate the shortage.
> ...


!End of the world alert!

I agree with Mike on something...


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Steve Nash? Andre Miller? Chauncey Billups, the Finals MVP? Hinrich was a solid player last year but he sure wasn't better than any of these guys.


Again, some posters are NOT taking into account that Kirk was JUST A ROOKIE last season. HELLLLLLOOOOOO!!!!

A rookie played as well, and in some instances, BETTER than many of the top guards in the league. So PLEASE stop making out Kirk's season last year as some form of mediocrity. Because it was far more than that.

Why not compare what all those "stars" did in their rookie seasons to what Kirk did? I think you will be very surprised.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> I am not a Hinrich fan, meaning I don't think he is the next coming superstar.


Who thinks he has superstar written all over him?

I guess it could be surmised from the Stockton references...but I don't think any Bulls fans truly believe he'll be a Kobe, Shaq or LeBron...


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, some posters are NOT taking into account that Kirk was JUST A ROOKIE last season. HELLLLLLOOOOOO!!!!
> ...


OK, listen very carefully. When another poster asks "which point guards are currently better than Hinrich," _it doesn't matter_ whether he was a rookie, it just matters whether he's currently better than them.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, listen very carefully. When another poster asks "which point guards are currently better than Hinrich," _it doesn't matter_ whether he was a rookie, it just matters whether he's currently better than them.


But he also goes on to point out that none of those players were rookies last year.

I'll tell you what, RC. Which one of those aforementioned point guards had better rookie seasons than Kirk?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> But he also goes on to point out that none of those players were rookies last year.
> ...


Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, and Steve Francis. Four out of ten.

Other active players who did better as rookie point guards than Hinrich are Penny Hardaway and Damon Stoudamire. Nick Van Exel, Brevin Knight, and Jamaal Tinsley are debatable. Whether you use rookie performance or 2003-04 performance, Hinrich comes out near the bottom of the top ten.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If anything, looking at other PG's rookie years seems to provide pretty strong evidence that a PG's rookie year is not a strong predictor of how good or bad he'll be over the long run.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, and Steve Francis. Four out of ten.
> ...


Yet he ranks 6th in total assists, and 7th in assists per game. And this was for a team that couldn't shoot worth crap. THAT say's alot to me. Then we can talk about his defense, which I think is better than most of those guys on that list right now. Rookie or not. 

You simply cannot undermine Kirk's rookie performance. You cant. Just because he's not "street" does not mean he will not be a great player. This is the mentality some of the posters here have, and that really bothers me. 

"Kirk will never lead us anywhere" I think was one quote that was used in this very thread. And I don't see where this person get's off making those assumptions. Who say's he cant, or won't lead us anywhere? How can anyone even make a statement like this? 

NEVER doubt a player like Kirk that has skill, determination, and work ethics. Never do it. Because 9 times out of 10, it will end up biting you in the ***.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

I think.. SOME of you guys are making Kirk's rookie season as an automatic lock to be a future Hall of Famer for the simple fact he exceeded everyone's expectations of him.

Again he is solid PG..... but.. Kirk isn't the end all and be all on the Bulls team!


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet he ranks 6th in total assists, and 7th in assists per game. And this was for a team that couldn't shoot worth crap. THAT say's alot to me. Then we can talk about his defense, which I think is better than most of those guys on that list right now. Rookie or not.
> ...



I am not buying into the love affair that some has with Kirk..
He's a solid player.. You all are acting like he's the 2nd comng. 

I am beginning to think the only reason.. why is because :dead: 

I'll keep that thought to myself.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> I think.. SOME of you guys are making Kirk's rookie season as an automatic lock to be a future Hall of Famer for the simple fact he exceeded everyone's expectations of him.
> 
> Again he is solid PG..... but.. Kirk isn't the end all and be all on the Bulls team!


He's the best player we have.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I think that alot of people DONT care for him much because....I'll keep that reason for myself as well.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> He's the best player we have.


Are you serious


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you serious


Yes. And Coach Skiles agrees with me.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> And I think that alot of people DONT care for him much because....I'll keep that reason for myself as well.


Can't say that on my end.. because to me a baller is a baller no matter what.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> 
> 
> Can't say that on my end.. because to me a baller is a baller no matter what.


Same here. As long as that person gives it 100%, and plays all phases of the game, I respect them no matter what.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes. And Coach Skiles agrees with me.


OKay and who is Skiles and what has he won? ... for me to take his opinions in high regards???

But at this point.. I'll leave it alone and Agree to disagree with you. :yes:


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> 
> 
> OKay and who is Skiles and what has he won? ... for me to take his opinions in high regards???
> ...


If Kirk Hinrich was not our best player, who was? PLEASE dont tell me Jamal. PLEASE.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> If Kirk Hinrich was not our best player, who was? PLEASE dont tell me Jamal. PLEASE.


Jamal


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal


I take it you started hooching early today?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> I take it you started hooching early today?


Nope just speaking the truth! :laugh:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> 
> 
> OKay and who is Skiles and what has he won? ... for me to take his opinions in high regards???
> ...


Comments like this just get me.

Who are _ you _ and what have you won? I would tend to think the coach of a professional basketball team, no matter how goofy or off-center we make think of him, has a pretty decent basis to form an opinion on a player.

Scott Skiles holds the NBA record for most assists in a game. How many assists have you had in an NBA game?

I don't see it as such a reach that Hinrich was the best player on the Bulls last season. If it makes you sleep better, you can rationalize it that that is why the team only won 23 games.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope just speaking the truth! :laugh:


So you would rather take Jamal's 17ppg and 5.1 assists per game, along with his ZERO defense, ZERO lane penetration, as well as his little "tifts" with every coach we had, over Kirk's 12ppg and 6.8 assists and tough D, as well as his leadership and on and off court savvy and work ethic?

Not me. And thankfully, not Skiles or Paxson either.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

:banghead: 

:wait: 

:whatever: 

it's the argument that NEVER DIES!!! :|


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Comments like this just get me.
> ...


You can have YOUR opinion and I will have mine.

Thanks!


----------



## charlz (Jun 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal


most physically gifted perhaps - but Kurt is a guy you hitch your wagon too.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> :banghead:
> 
> :wait:
> ...




Don't say that. The same was said about the Jay and Jamal debate. :uhoh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> You simply cannot undermine Kirk's rookie performance. You cant. Just because he's not "street" does not mean he will not be a great player. This is the mentality some of the posters here have, and that really bothers me.


You should stop with the nonsense because arent you the one always professing his hate for anything and everything streetball ,and1 etc .. but now claim that some here dont Kirk because hes not street enough .

WHO has said that here ?Who claims Kirk cant be good becauses hes not street ?

You dont like jamal because you think hes a streetball player and so anyone who doesnt think Kirk is going into the HOF obviously HAS to not like him because hes not :sigh:


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> You should stop with the nonsense because arent you the one always professing his hate for anything and everything streetball ,and1 etc .. but now claim that some here dont Kirk because hes not street enough .
> ...


I can see no reason why someone would put a "ceiling" on Kirk. Dont tell me they don't. When I read "Kirk will never lead us anywhere", that alone tells me a ton. There's no reason why Kirk CAN'T be a star caliber player. And going by where he compares to the other star point guards in the league and in their own rookie seasons, I would say that he has a definite shot.

And your right. I HATE streetballers. I think the whole ruckers park/AND1 stuff is complete trash that has NOTHING to do with the way basketball should be played. Basketball is a TEAM sport. It is not meant for the glorification of one's own skills.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

good stuff Shinky. Kirk was definately the Bulls best player last year if you go by +/- ratings.......tatoos and backboard passes to yourself don't count. Defense, leadership and working the gameplan on offense *and* defense the best on the team, makes you the best.
JC was second best, AD third, Curry fourth

to those who say the Bulls sucked anyways, well no argument. But Kirk sucked the least. 
 

i used to think it might be JC, But Kirk had the biggest positive impact on the team


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

Can someone please show or tell me where they saw leadership... in KIRK?


All I saw last season was a sinking ship and a team with NO ONE stepping up being a leader?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> Can someone please show or tell me where they saw leadership... in KIRK?
> 
> 
> All I saw last season was a sinking ship and a team with NO ONE stepping up being a leader?


so you think you can just stick General Patton in a lifeboat and sail him into Hurricane Ivan and you win?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I can pretty easily undermine Kirk's performance as a rookie because

1) I'd put him in the middle of the pack or worse as far as PGs last year. Under my rating system, Kirk was the 15th ranked PG based on raw production and the 28th ranked PG when I adjusted production based on minutes played.

2) Compared to other PG's rookie years, he's pretty strong, but well behind guys like Tim Hardaway, AI, Kidd, Penny, Francis, Andre Miller, Marbury, and Rod Strickland.

Creepily, there are a few pretty nasty guys on the list above him. Sherman Douglas, Brevin Knight, Khalid Reeves, and Pooh Richardson for example. Those guys all started out as pretty strong.

Similarly, there are lots of good players that had similar or worse rookie years: Wade, Bibby, Cassell, Van Exel, Terrell Brandon, Tony Parker, Sam Cassell, Kenny Anderson

In short, the rookie stats look to me to be more of a function of Kirk playing 35mpg than him being out and out great.

Where he goes from here? I think he'll be pretty good. If you look at his stats, compared to other guys during his rookie year, a couple of guys he's pretty similar to are Andre Miller, Mike Bibby and Nick Van Exel. None of those guys suck, that's for sure, although Bibby is the only one I think of as a really elite PG.

The other thing to consider is that it took Bibby going to Sacramento to really put him up there.

Just for fairness' sake though, his numbers, after put through my stat formula, bear are also somewhat similar to Khalid Reeves, Vinny Del ***** and Dee Brown.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> so you think you can just stick General Patton in a lifeboat and sail him into Hurricane Ivan and you win?


No, but it will most likely result in drowning General Patton, just as sailing Mike Bibby through Vancouver for three yearsresulting in trading him for Jason Williams.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

comes down to different people seeing different things. 
Numbers, as Mike is doing, can be used to say whatevers on your agenda.

not going to get into the how good is he thing again. He's just good imho. Better than Mike thinks he is imho.

I beleive he is exactly as good as Skiles and Pax say he is, and i didn't use them as a reference when i formulated that opinion. I watched the kid play


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Ok why on BBB.net it is always the white player who seems to show leadership and have the 'intangibles'. I watched plenty of Bulls games and there is no way anyone who objectively watched a Bulls game could think KH was better last season the JC. Saying KH was/is a top 10 PG makes some posters just seem ignorant.

Jason Kidd
Dwayne Wade
Stephon Marbury
Gary Payton
Gilbert Arenas
Steve Francis
Chauncey Billups
Baron Davis
Eric Snow
...that is 9 and we are just leaving the East
Sam Cassell
Tony Parker
Jason Williams
Andre Miller
Mike Bibby
Steve Nash

and this is giving him the nod over Nick Van Exel, Damon Stoudamire, Brent Barry, Marquis Daniels, Bobby Jackson, Barbosa and Carlos Arroyo.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> No, but it will most likely result in drowning General Patton, just as sailing Mike Bibby through Vancouver for three yearsresulting in trading him for Jason Williams.


true

and just why would you put an Army guy in a Navy operation? :upset:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Ok why on BBB.net it is always the white player who seems to show leadership and have the 'intangibles'.


don't know, its a possible scenario that you refer to that includes stereotyping. I don't believe that applies to Kirk's case..at least to the discerning eye



> watched plenty of Bulls games and there is no way anyone who objectively watched a Bulls game could think KH was better last season the JC.


can, and do, especially after seeing some +/- numbers that seem to bear that out...or at least, bolster Kirks case if anyone wants to make it



> Saying KH was/is a top 10 PG makes some posters just seem ignorant.


Ignorance is as ignorance does. Geeze i love that one :grinning:

anyways, Kirk is in the mix IMO this upcoming season. Bet me

Oh, and i must edit.....Keep posting with that avatar Memphis. I'll always enjoy that part


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> I can see no reason why someone would put a "ceiling" on Kirk. Dont tell me they don't. When I read "Kirk will never lead us anywhere", that alone tells me a ton. There's no reason why Kirk CAN'T be a star caliber player. And going by where he compares to the other star point guards in the league and in their own rookie seasons, I would say that he has a definite shot.
> ...


Most posters Ive read here respond with those remarks after the kirk is the messiah leading us to the promise land speeches that are so frequently some of you.

We dont know what Kirk can really do given the tainted testing systems in which he was judged last year .Could he be great ?yes but he could also just be a product of playing 35 mpg on a mediocre team .

The example that comes to mind when I think of Kirk is Andre Miller because he put up huge assists totals when he had very few offensive weapons but as soon as the talent around him rose those numbers dropped and he feel into a upper middle part of the pack as far as pg's go .THIS season should be a more clearer barometer of where Kirk is headed good or bad .

I guess youve always hated the harlem globetrotters I mean who cares if they were pioneers that helped popularize basketball around the world because they are nothing but trash who are doing nothing but glorifying there own individual skills


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> comes down to different people seeing different things.
> Numbers, as Mike is doing, can be used to say whatevers on your agenda.
> 
> ...


You think he'll be better than Bibby or Van Exel?

Bibby is the most obvious comparison to me. Coach's son, 6'3", kind of a shooter, a good but not outstanding defender, good knowledge of the game, out of guys that are currently playing, he's the most obvious match to me when including stats and everything else too.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i can feel the Bibby thing.

VanExel just is not my cup of tea, if you're building from scratch. He's matured some, but he's another one of these me first point guards that would hog the ball unless he was on a strong Vet team...
But you can win a lot of games with all of them. I prefer more of a PG who would rather get an assist, or passes to the guy who gets an assist, than a bucket. And leads 24 hours a day


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i didn't exactly quibble with your direct comparo Mike. Just the part where you say he's a function of 35 MPG. Skiles is not the type of coach who just puts guys out there without earning the spot

I will freely admit however that Skiles might not have gotten Kirk out there so much if he had better options, which he obviosly did not. Yet Kirk will always play upwards of 32MPG even on a better Bulls team, and his assist #s should hold.
Teamates Shooting %s will rise, for more assists, yet better balanced team offense will work against his assist #s too yes.......which should all come out to Kirk maintaining his assist #s

similarly, his own scoring will be maintained by his own % rise, and more open looks


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> i didn't exactly quibble with your direct comparo Mike. Just the part where you say he's a function of 35 MPG. Skiles is not the type of coach who just puts guys out there without earning the spot
> 
> I will freely admit however that Skiles might not have gotten Kirk out there so much if he had better options, which he obviosly did not. Yet Kirk will always play upwards of 32MPG even on a better Bulls team, and his assist #s should hold.
> ...


Dont forget about some ref's calls that will eventually go his way and get him to the free throw line a bit more. I think we can all agree that Kirk got hosed quite often last season when it came to the refs and they're silent whistles.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Mike;

You do know that Kirk put up better rookie stats than Andre Miller, Billups, Davis and others right? In fact, his were extremely comparable to Kidds as well. 

That's some pretty damn good company right there. And I would still say he's better on D than most of those players are right now.
And he'll only get better.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Mike;
> 
> You do know that Kirk put up better rookie stats than Andre Miller, Billups, Davis and others right? In fact, his were extremely comparable to Kidds as well.
> ...


As I said

*Compared to other PG's rookie years, he's pretty strong, but well behind guys like Tim Hardaway, AI, Kidd, Penny, Francis, Andre Miller, Marbury, and Rod Strickland.*

Creepily, there are a few pretty nasty guys on the list above him. Sherman Douglas, Brevin Knight, Khalid Reeves, and Pooh Richardson for example. Those guys all started out as pretty strong.


Actually, Andre Miller's rookie year was demonstrably more productive than Kirk's when you look at it.

My point is:

1) There are plenty of guys that put up better stats, although Kirk's were good.

2) Saying he's "in good company" based off his rookie stats is pretty much meaningless because it doesn't provide a strong prediction about how he'll be in the future. Yes, he had better numbers than Baron Davis (who was coming off an ACL), but he had worse numbers than Damon Stoudemire, Brevin Knight and Sherman Douglas. 

If you want to talk about how he was better than some guys, you also have to talk about how he was worse than others by the same measure.

One year of action simply isn't a lot to be able to draw a conclusion from. It's certainly better that he had good stats than that he had bad stats, but given that he played more minutes than he would have on most any other team in the league, it's not surprising he put up more statistics.

That gets back to the Andre Miller comparison. As rookies, Miller put up numbers pretty equivalent to Kirk's but while playing 10 minutes less a game. That doesn't necessarily make Miller a better player, but it does mean that using statistics to say Kirk's rookie year was something special is unwarranted.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> You think he'll be better than Bibby or Van Exel?
> 
> Bibby is the most obvious comparison to me. Coach's son, 6'3", kind of a shooter, a good but not outstanding defender, good knowledge of the game, out of guys that are currently playing, he's the most obvious match to me when including stats and everything else too.


Bibby is the best comparison, I think. Hinrich is more athletic than Bibby though, while Bibby has a sweeter shot, especially coming off that pick. 

I dont think Bibby could improve his athleticism, while Kirk can improve his shot. 

The stereotype that MemphisX referred to can go both ways. Its often said that white players are more intelligent players, I dont know why, but thats the stereotype. In Kirks case, I think he really is a very smart player on the court. Theres a flipside to that stereotype though, usually white players arent thought to have a lot of potential. Most people think Kirk is a finished product because he is white. 

He is very athletic, but has some obvious flaws in his game. He has the work ethic to patch up those flaws as well. Would anyone be surprised if Kirk became a sharpshooter in this league? Would anyone be surprised if Kirk became one of the top passers in this league? Would anyone be surprised if Kirk became an excellent defender? Would anyone be surprised if he ended up being the best pick and roll point guard in the league? I wouldnt be surprised at any one of those. All of them? Yes, I'd definitely be surprised and pleased. 

Kirk has no weakness that I cant see him patching up. Hes athletic, he has a sweet stroke, he is a great passer, he has a great mindstate on the floor. He also has an excellent work ethic. 

I think he has upside, and he has the work ethic to bring it out. These are the types of players I dont bet against.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure that any of what you're saying makes him better than Bibby. That is, Bibby's worked very hard to get to where he is too... I think Kirk can and probably will improve to along the lines that Bibby is, but I wouldn't necessarily say he'll go much beyond that.

My more immediate concern is that Bibby was traded by a desperate team before he got there. 

I'm a lot less concerned with how good Kirk is going to be than with the likelihood we do something foolish with him because we (as a team) are going to stink again.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

I see more of a Stockton type of player when I look at Kirk play. He doesn't shoot lights out, yet. But I am certain he will make major strides in that aspect of his game.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> My more immediate concern is that Bibby was traded by a desperate team before he got there.


The Grizz were not actually desperate and he didn't make any demands, however, the Grizz did not think he was worth the contract he would demand and eventually got from the Kings. However, I agree that Bibby might be a decent comparison to KH because he won't make you a playoff contender but if you are there he defenitely won't hurt your team in any way.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> The Grizz were not actually desperate and he didn't make any demands, however, the Grizz did not think he was worth the contract he would demand and eventually got from the Kings. However, I agree that Bibby might be a decent comparison to KH because he won't make you a playoff contender but if you are there he defenitely won't hurt your team in any way.


Eh, that's a little misleading, MemphisX. He got his huge contract on the coattails of an absolutely amazing playoff run, especially the series against the Lakers. I seriously believe that series added about 20 million dollars to the whole of his contract.

Your point still holds, but Bibby never would have commanded the same contract had the Griz kept him.

By the way, Mike Bibby is freaking awesome. If Kirk could learn to be money in the bank like Bibby, I'd be thrilled.


----------

