# What can we get for Kirk Hinrich?



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

What caliber of player can we get for Kirk? 

What about for Kirk + the pick?

This guy seriously isn't working out for our team, its time to part ways with him.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

im seeing a starting trend here. Chandler gets a huge contract and then under performs. Now Hinrich is under performing. Next it'll Deng and then Gordon, then Nocioni. i suggest that they dont offer them big contracts so theres no pressure


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bulls rock your socks said:


> im seeing a starting trend here. Chandler gets a huge contract and then under performs. Now Hinrich is under performing. Next it'll Deng and then Gordon, then Nocioni. i suggest that they dont offer them big contracts so theres no pressure


Well see, Ben Gordon and Luol Deng are hardworkers, that work on improving their games in the offseason.

Kirk Hinrich never improved his game over the offseason. There is a difference from those 2 and Hinrich, those 2 want to be great.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Kirk Hinrich never improved his game over the offseason. There is a difference from those 2 and Hinrich, those 2 want to be great.


So playing for the USA did nothing for him?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Well see, Ben Gordon and Luol Deng are hardworkers, that work on improving their games in the offseason.
> 
> Kirk Hinrich never improved his game over the offseason. There is a difference from those 2 and Hinrich, those 2 want to be great.


I think with Kirk, you may be confusing effort with results. Everything I have every heard suggests the guy does work hard on his game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I think with Kirk, you may be confusing effort with results. Everything I have every heard suggests the guy does work hard on his game.


Would you trade Darius Miles for Miles Davis?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

step said:


> So playing for the USA did nothing for him?


It made him cocky and arrogant, thats something...nothing positive towards basketball, but I guess it did do something.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Would you trade Darius Miles for Miles Davis?


**** no.

But Miles for Thabo? Where do I sign?


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I'd love to see Duhon run this team. Kirk could get that scoring PF!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> What caliber of player can we get for Kirk?
> 
> What about for Kirk + the pick?
> 
> This guy seriously isn't working out for our team, its time to part ways with him.


I would hope the Cavs would after Lebron offer everybody on their roster with the possible exception of Verejao. It's clear the two of them have chemistry. He would be the perfect guard for that piece of crap they call an offense. And his defense would make them the best defensive team in the NBA.

Who wouldn't want Kirk Hinrich? Jeez.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> I would hope the Cavs would after Lebron offer everybody on their roster with the possible exception of Verejao. It's clear the two of them have chemistry. He would be the perfect guard for that piece of crap they call an offense. And his defense would make them the best defensive team in the NBA.
> 
> Who wouldn't want Kirk Hinrich? Jeez.


Really. You'd have to trade LeBron to the Nuggets and then offer him + Melo + Iverson to even get our attention.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Kirk Hinrich never improved his game over the offseason. There is a difference from those 2 and Hinrich, those 2 want to be great.


:lol: 



Mebarak said:


> It made him cocky and arrogant, thats something...nothing positive towards basketball, but I guess it did do something.


:lol: :lol: :lol: 



XMATTHEWX said:


> I'd love to see Duhon run this team.


:lol:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> It made him cocky and arrogant, thats something...nothing positive towards basketball, but I guess it did do something.



Cite evidence please. Just making stuff up isn't really useful.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

We should probably cut him because he's worthless. The sooner the better.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

step said:


> So playing for the USA did nothing for him?


If anything it probably killed his legs. I'd cut his minutes until he gets them back.

Just don't give him a mental health break that Jay Williams took. That would be bad for chemistry.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Man, you really see some STUPID things posted on this forum sometimes. This thread is a perfect example. So he has a bad game, big deal. Did you forget a couple games ago where Kirk was the only one doing ANYTHING in the first quarter and kept us in the game all by himself? We ended up coming from behind to win, but would've been blown out had it not been for Kirk in the 1st. (Hawks game in case you don't remember it) Duhon sucks compared to Kirk to put it mildly.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Man, you really see some STUPID things posted on this forum sometimes. This thread is a perfect example. So he has a bad game, big deal. Did you forget a couple games ago where Kirk was the only one doing ANYTHING in the first quarter and kept us in the game all by himself? We ended up coming from behind to win, but would've been blown out had it not been for Kirk in the 1st. (Hawks game in case you don't remember it) Duhon sucks compared to Kirk to put it mildly.


And Kirk sucks compared to Gordon to put that mildly.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Cite evidence please. Just making stuff up isn't really useful.


Well one time, a few games ago, Ben Wallace got a rebound at around the freethrow line. Both Kirk and Ben were standing there, and Wallace looked at both of them, and decided to give the ball to Gordon to bring up the court (the Big Ben and Ben chemistry is obvious, Ben is Ben's guy). And then Hinrich just gives Gordon a glare and starts moving his jaw, which means he was jawwing at Gordon, until Gordon finally gave it up to him. Kirk is so special that he thinks he deserves to bring the ball up the court everytime when they're are players like Gordon that are better at it.

This is in addition to Kirk putting out the hot hand. He's done it so many times. He gets in foul trouble, Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng are on fire, Kirk comes in, and starts jacking shots like he's the man, like he's the ****, and kills the offense. 

Kirk's really not a good player.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Well one time, a few games ago, Ben Wallace got a rebound at around the freethrow line. Both Kirk and Ben were standing there, and Wallace looked at both of them, and decided to give the ball to Gordon to bring up the court (the Big Ben and Ben chemistry is obvious, Ben is Ben's guy). And then Hinrich just gives Gordon a glare and starts moving his jaw, which means he was jawwing at Gordon, until Gordon finally gave it up to him. Kirk is so special that he thinks he deserves to bring the ball up the court everytime when they're are players like Gordon that are better at it.
> 
> This is in addition to Kirk putting out the hot hand. He's done it so many times. He gets in foul trouble, Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng are on fire, Kirk comes in, and starts jacking shots like he's the man, like he's the ****, and kills the offense.
> 
> * Kirk's really not a good player*.


15 pts 6 assists a game, over 1 steal. Plays good defense and shoots 47% and 45% in threes. Thats not good???

He has had two bad games.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Stupid stupid thread. Get your game up fella.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Well one time, a few games ago, Ben Wallace got a rebound at around the freethrow line. Both Kirk and Ben were standing there, and Wallace looked at both of them, and decided to give the ball to Gordon to bring up the court (the Big Ben and Ben chemistry is obvious, Ben is Ben's guy). And then Hinrich just gives Gordon a glare and starts moving his jaw, which means he was jawwing at Gordon, until Gordon finally gave it up to him. Kirk is so special that he thinks he deserves to bring the ball up the court everytime when they're are players like Gordon that are better at it.
> 
> This is in addition to Kirk putting out the hot hand. He's done it so many times. He gets in foul trouble, Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng are on fire, Kirk comes in, and starts jacking shots like he's the man, like he's the ****, and kills the offense.
> 
> Kirk's really not a good player.


Kirk IS a good player.

It's one thing to vent your frustration at the team/players after a poor performance, but it's another to say the guy is dirt and that we should dump him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's one thing to vent your frustration at the team/players after a poor performance, but it's another to say the guy is dirt and that we should dump him.


But we do that all the time around here, right?

The Bulls just got their asses kicked tonight by two guys that were considered dirty and dumpable by many on this board.

Another guy we dumped gobbled up 17 rebounds in 27 minutes tonight. 

As for Kirk, I was just thinking the same thing.

What could we really get in a trade for Kirk Hinrich? Right now I think we have to take in a lot back in salary due to his contract status, but what type of player could we really get for him?

A young, scoring, startable right now PF? If yes, which one?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> But we do that all the time around here, right?
> 
> The Bulls just got their asses kicked tonight by two guys that were considered dirty and dumpable by many on this board.
> 
> ...


Hinrich ain't going anywhere soon. he has a poison pill provision that makes him virtually untradable.

I've been as hard on Hinrich as anyone, but my position is that he belongs as our starting SG, not that he's useless and should be traded.

AND, if we did trade him, you'd be telling us how he's scoring 25 and dishing out 15 assists, since our guys seem to go elsewhere and perform a whole lot better.

:biggrin:


----------



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

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich ain't going anywhere soon. he has a poison pill provision that makes him virtually untradable.
> 
> I've been as hard on Hinrich as anyone, but my position is that he belongs as our starting SG, not that he's useless and should be traded.
> 
> ...


I don't think he's useless, but I think there isn't too much to fear if we ever did lose him. He chokes A LOT when it matters, shines when it doesn't. Has had his moments (like Jamal and Eddy have theirs), but nothing transcending. Don't see how he's being held back at all, seeing that he dribbles around like it's the greatest thing in the world, plays till he gets tired, and still gets his crunch time minutes barring extraordinary performances by Thabo, Duhon.

One good thing he's had is the playoffs, but those were back in the days when he was shooting and making shots. What the hell happened to that guy? Is Skiles weighing down on him too?

He could get quite a few of those 25/15 games with a guy like Yao or maybe even Eddy, but he's not that creative with the ball.

I'd hope we'd be able to get a big for him. I remember that MikeDC said a PJ Brown, Kirk, 1st round pick deal or Tyrus Thomas for KG deal could be done. Don't quite remember but that deal would scream the words "steal" and "championship" there.

Well, this doesn't matter cause unless PaxSkiles are gone, he's here to stay like US troops in Iraq.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> I don't think he's useless, but I think there isn't too much to fear if we ever did lose him. He chokes A LOT when it matters, shines when it doesn't. Has had his moments (like Jamal and Eddy have theirs), but nothing transcending. Don't see how he's being held back at all, seeing that he dribbles around like it's the greatest thing in the world, plays till he gets tired, and still gets his crunch time minutes barring extraordinary performances by Thabo, Duhon.
> 
> One good thing he's had is the playoffs, but those were back in the days when he was shooting and making shots. What the hell happened to that guy? Is Skiles weighing down on him too?
> 
> ...


There's no deal that works for KG with Hinrich and PJ as the principles. Hinrich's poison pill provision (CBA thing) makes it not work.

I tried on trade checker, and it doesn't work even if we give up Hinrich, PJ, Nocioni, Sweetney, Thomas, and Duhon.

It does work if we give up Brown, Sweetney, Thomas, Nocioni, and Gordon, though. There's no way I'd do that deal, though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Always up for the chance to plug the guy in my avatar:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CHICAGO BULLS TEAM REPORT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Chicago Bulls Team Report*
---------------------------

Last Result: 102-93 loss at New York, December 22 
Streak: Lost 1
Next Game: vs. Charlotte, December 23

It was just over three weeks ago that the Bulls made their
initial visit to New York. On November 25, they posted an
11-point victory at Madison Square Garden, avoiding a winless
mark on their annual November "circus trip". That game also
featured C Ben Wallace's run-in with coach Scott Skiles for
defying team rules by wearing a headband. That game came after
the Bulls and Wallace were embarrassed in Philadelphia and
started the current 12-2 run that has the Bulls right behind
Detroit in the Central Division standings. In that stretch,
Wallace has averaged eight points and 11.4 rebounds. ... G Ben
Gordon has also heated up since that game. Gordon normally does
very well at New York but his seven-point night here was his
sixth single-digit showing of the season. It also was his last
as *the Mount Vernon N.Y. native is averaging 21.6 points in his
last 12 games*. ... F/C P.J. Brown returned from a sprained
plantar fascia tendon in his right foot. Brown had missed the
previous four games and Friday played 13 minutes.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Man, you really see some STUPID things posted on this forum sometimes. This thread is a perfect example. So he has a bad game, big deal. Did you forget a couple games ago where Kirk was the only one doing ANYTHING in the first quarter and kept us in the game all by himself? We ended up coming from behind to win, but would've been blown out had it not been for Kirk in the 1st. (Hawks game in case you don't remember it) Duhon sucks compared to Kirk to put it mildly.


I agree, you definitly get some stupid threads up on here also(not mentioning any names, since my posts seems to vanish everytime i mention Sloths name, i mean noones name!)

Im sick and tired of the people wanting to trade any player after one/or a few bad games. Also wanting to a player who has a decent game(aka Sweets) and they wonder what on earth Skiles is doing out there. If you watch the game a little more intently you'd realize the answers.

Kirk along with Deng has been the most consitent players on a team with inconsistent players all round. People seem to forget, we're a young team, and not only a young team but also a team that is still continuing to gell as the season goes along. We also don't have any superstars, meaning that we don't have that star that we can always rely on for "consitentcy". We are a young growing team of "inconsitent" players all down the line of our rosters, including Kirk. The hardest step for any young player, who is in the cusp of stardom is becoming a good player once every so often, to becoming a good player every or virtually every game. Kirk, Deng, and Gordon are still learning, they are all inconsistent. What do you expect? Our whole team is inconsitent at the moment and you want to trade this player and that player because one or two bad games, and you want consitentcy within the team? Give me a break...

Im a bulls fan, anyone who reads my posts i don't have any real bias on any bulls players and i critize most just as much as a praise them. But to the certain someone who constantly bashes Kirk, with stories that carries no substances what-so-ever, and has a constant "arousal" of Gordon is just quite disturbing to me. Because Wallace passed the ball to Gordon ".. its obvious they have chemistry". Need i say more. Whomever reads such hideous information and relates needs to go to the corner of the room and just rott. 

Maybe im just too loyal of a Bulls fan that i don't see the benefits of constantly trading players, bashing and critizing them over little mistakes or inconsitentcy thats EVERY player in the league goes through occasionally. But for the people that have narrow minded visions and hatred towards certain players that can't see things in a broaded aspect really annoys me as a true Bulls fan. 

Im actually a fan of Skiles, sure, every fan including myself sometimes gets fustrated at coaches because, heck, why do we even need a reason. Its the heat of the moment, and we latch onto anything that we can lash our fustrations on, and the little bold man is always a nice place to start. But what better way to "teach" our young consitent players, to become more consitent is to make them accountable for their actions on the court. Make them "earn" their mintues. Its obvious, in previous games, that when Kirk is not on, Skiles will Bench him. When Sweets plays well, he'll go to him over and over untill he tires out. When Gordon is on, he'll also ride him untill he becomes cold. All that disagree?

Two games ago(lakers), Kirk was obviously playing poorly, he was benched late in the 3rd and there after. But for most part of the season, along with Deng he has been the back bone to keep the team above water, to keep them at bay. 

Sweets(same game), Skiles went to "the well" untill Sweets got tired. Today he didn't get as much mintues, but Skiles gave him a go, but he is the perfect example of inconsitent player. The reason to you all "part time" nba fans, is that he is a match up problem, in both spectrums, for the opposition and for us. Slow down team like Lakers, you can use him to your advantage to set up plays, slow it down pitch it down low to him. Against the Knicks who like to run up and down, he is obviously at a disadvantage because his too slow. If was more conistent and reliable, he would get more mintues. Period. Where are all the Sweetney fans now after the poor game tonight? I thought so. 

Gordon, tonights game, people ask why didn't he get more mintues? Like Hinrich, Gordon has had foul trouble. You can't get mintues if your in foul trouble. Against the Knicks, he was on a roll, but he had 2 fouls going into the half, so Skiles took him out to avoid the 3rd by half time. Is that really a bad move by Skiles, to save the foul on Gordon, in a close game? To save him from getting in foul trouble to keep him in the game in the second half? Most people don't realize how many sets Skiles has for Gordon. He has the most sets run for him than anyone on this team and alot more than even some stars do on other teams. They don't realize how many plays are run for him and him alone. If his such a drag to Skiles, you think he would bother drawing up tonnes of plays for his haterd player? Please.. NEXT.

I know a conversation would not be a conversation without disagreements and what not, but some people swing from tree to tree. Some people make absurd observations from things that a totally irrelevent(Hinrichs jaw was moving at Gordon, so obviously Hinrich was jawing at him), and expects people to respond civially? I have nothing against anyone personally, i have agreed and disagreed with the same people, but when someone makes trade ideas, over and over and over and over again, about the same players, just because of their personal issues with that certain players, it just becomes enough. 

NEXT!


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I agree, you definitly get some stupid threads up on here also(not mentioning any names, since my posts seems to vanish everytime i mention Sloths name, i mean noones name!)
> 
> Im sick and tired of the people wanting to trade any player after one/or a few bad games. Also wanting to a player who has a decent game(aka Sweets) and they wonder what on earth Skiles is doing out there. If you watch the game a little more intently you'd realize the answers.
> 
> ...


excellent post!:cheers:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> And Kirk sucks compared to Gordon to put that mildly.


Please note that Gordon is primarily a shooter/scorer and Hinrich is primarily a distributor/defender.

Gordon: 46.9% eFG, 54.5% TS, 41.8% FG, 34.9% 3PT, *87.2% FT,* 5.1 ast/48 min, 3.3 ast/bad pass, 1:1 A/TO ratio (lower than his career average).

Hinrich: *52.2% eFG, 56.8% TS, 45.6% FG, 43.8% 3PT, *78.4% FT, *8.3 ast/48 min, 4.2 ast/bad pass, 2.5 A/TO ratio.*


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Please note that Gordon is primarily a shooter/scorer and Hinrich is primarily a distributor/defender.
> 
> Gordon: 46.9% eFG, 54.5% TS, 41.8% FG, 34.9% 3PT, *87.2% FT,* 5.1 ast/48 min, 3.3 ast/bad pass, 1:1 A/TO ratio (lower than his career average).
> 
> Hinrich: *52.2% eFG, 56.8% TS, 45.6% FG, 43.8% 3PT, *78.4% FT, *8.3 ast/48 min, 4.2 ast/bad pass, 2.5 A/TO ratio.*


Yet Gordon has those intangibles that wins ball games, Hinrich doesn't.

And since when is Kirk Hinrich consistent.

Kirk Hinrich this month

17
10
11
0
13
15
10
14
21
24
6
7

Nothing like good ol' Mr. Consistency!


----------



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

VincentVega said:


> Please note that Gordon is primarily a shooter/scorer and Hinrich is primarily a distributor/defender.
> 
> Gordon: 46.9% eFG, 54.5% TS, 41.8% FG, 34.9% 3PT, *87.2% FT,* 5.1 ast/48 min, 3.3 ast/bad pass, 1:1 A/TO ratio (lower than his career average).
> 
> Hinrich: *52.2% eFG, 56.8% TS, 45.6% FG, 43.8% 3PT, *78.4% FT, *8.3 ast/48 min, 4.2 ast/bad pass, 2.5 A/TO ratio.*


Considering how your boy's been ravaged lately, I was expecting a cursing tirade/implosion of monumental proportions. My eyes lit up when I saw that you finally posted. I thought we were in for a treat. I opened the thread, scrolled down till I see the Hellbent for Leather avatar. 3 lines. Blank statement of Kirk vs. Ben that is obvious. 2 more lines of statistics that we intuitively already knew. I don't know if your post or Kirk's play is more emotionally disappointing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I wrote over and over and over again this summer that I thought the Team USA selection had the strong possibility for being a negative for Hinrich and the Bulls this season.

Hinrich, as much as I value the guy (I value him very highly), always has stretches during the season where he obviously just loses his legs. I honestly don't think I've ever seen anything like it with any other player. And it usually isn't even at the end of the season.

At around this exact same time last year, Hinrich lost his legs and looked just like this for 8-10 games (which not coincidentally saw an 8 game losing streak visity Chicago). 

He always bounces back though. Hopefully he has a little more spark tonight and then can rest up over the "Christmas Break". He's tired. This happens every season to him. Its always going to be an issue for Hinrich, I'm afraid. 

I just hope it isn't worse this season than in years past as a result of all the Team USA activity.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Considering how your boy's been ravaged lately, I was expecting a cursing tirade/implosion of monumental proportions. My eyes lit up when I saw that you finally posted. I thought we were in for a treat. I opened the thread, scrolled down till I see the Hellbent for Leather avatar. 3 lines. Blank statement of Kirk vs. Ben that is obvious. 2 more lines of statistics that we intuitively already knew. I don't know if your post or Kirk's play is more emotionally disappointing.


Why would I unleash a tirade/implosion of monumental proportions? For the first time this year, Hinrich doesn't have the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-highest PER on the team. This is the role he's designed for. Look up some of my posts from five years ago.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

for all of Kirk's 'd', his perimeter defense especially on JC last night was atrocious. When he didn't leave JC wide open at the 3 pt line, Kirk fouled JC in the act of shotting typically bailing out JC from a dumb shot.

Kirk's d is overrated. He can't effectively guard large 2's or really quick 1's.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

I see what everyone is saying,but i think that ben needs to start or we need to put kirk at pg full time,enough with this short line up trash with kirk and duhon.I rather have ben starting I think that when kirk is at his best,cris and kirk are both pass 1st and it's killing us if deng and noc dont shot well.I rather start ben a few game's with kirk again to just to see what happen's,and how kirk play's.I bet he starts playing well.But i know skiles he rather play gordan in limited min and play his boy duh,noc,a boat load of min's.Or play this super small line up as if size doesn't matter.


This is basketball size is everyone,i shut up because we where winning,but we bascially lost to the kinck because of lack of size,and i bet other teams will try to expose that.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

we're going to need him come playoff time. Kirk, Gordon, and Duhon are our three primary ball-handler. They've been playing together for 3 years and I think they are perfect complement of each other. Moving Kirk will hurt our balance at guard rotation. I like Thabo, but I want Skiles to bring him slowly. Without Kirk Thabo will have to step into the spotlight, and we'll see a lot of Thabo's flaw; which could change the result of our season. There's a lot of things that Thabo needs to work on. Right now he's not a PG or a SG. His best role is as a swingman defender who occasionally handles the ball.

Back to Kirk, he's on a funk right now. We don't know when he's going to bounce back. But, moving him won't make us any better. You'll miss Kirk in nights when Gordon's having an off night and we realized that we only have Duhon and Thabo as our other scoring option from guard spot. Believe me, you'll hate it when we have to compete against other team's guard rotation every night with Gordon, Duhon, and Thabo. Our guards are pretty untouchable right now unless we can get another better and bigger guard in return, which I doubt.

Our guard rotation is barely our strength right now. Players take turn on having off nights. But we're winning despite that. Trading Kirk will only make things worse. I'll give him until January to bounce back and fully return to his best form after the All-Star break.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ztect said:


> Kirk's d is overrated.


Overrated by who? NBA coaches or internet messageboard posters?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> 2 more lines of statistics that we intuitively already knew.


Really?

If these stats that "we intuitively already knew" illustrate on-court performance, then they illustrate that Hinrich is a better shooter, more efficient scorer and a vastly superior distributor than Gordon (I'd say those are three pretty important parts of an NBA guard's game, wouldn't you?). Let this bounce around in your head for a moment. Now, do I really think that Hinrich is a better shooter or more efficient scorer than Gordon? No, not particularly. Do I buy your excuse that "we intuitively already knew" these statistics and that they aren't meaningful to the debate? No.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Some people are saying that he has only two bad games…IMO, this is not a good answer.

If Skiles treats Kirk like the team’s leader, we should expect some leadership skills
particular in the game like last one…not with Hawks or Charlotte…but with NY and I mean all four games thru the season. 

Kirk is a very good player, but not the team leader. And we all remember Pax’s statement, that this team will be build around Kirk. So, if Kirk is not one who will
lead that team (even when his numbers are not there), we may seriously consider trading him now for somebody more suitable to our needs – BIG NASTY and TALL PF or C, who can rebound and dunk. 

Or if we decided to keep him as a good SG option, someone needs tell Skiles and Pax to change their initial settings and make adjustments. IMO, Gordon should be the team leader and Skiles should build (even he needs to take a prescribe medication) the game’s plan around that concept. And if that does not work we need to find someone else.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I really find this stuff quite fascinating.I don't recall Sloth complaining when Gordon had about a dozen bad games to start the season and it's obvious that this really has a lot more to do with his devotion to Gordon than it really concerns Hinrich.The season is very long and guys have bad stretches,but if you are rooting for the team you can be patient in the interest of the team.If you're rooting for one player over another every bad game is an opening to say that your favorite player should shoot the ball like Gilbert Arenas on Meth.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> I really find this stuff quite fascinating.I don't recall Sloth complaining when Gordon had about a dozen bad games to start the season and it's obvious that this really has a lot more to do with his devotion to Gordon than it really concerns Hinrich.


Exactly. I don't remember sloth posting _at all_ during the first 15-20 games of the season. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kirk is not good enough to build a NBA contender around.

Can he be the 4th guy PER wise on a great team? Sure. But, if that’s his best role, then why all the hype?

But many considered him to be an all-star caliber guard. He's the guy announced last at the Bulls games. He's the main man when it comes to marketing the team. He's the guy whose Team USA exploits are trumpeted to the world. Usually this role is reserved for the best player on the team. 

But, perhaps Kirk is more an icon than the legit best player on a great team. I think he's a damn solid player, but if he's the best player on your team, at his current level of play, don't expect to make much noise in the NBA.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> if he's the best player on your team*, at his current level of play, *don't expect to make much noise in the NBA.


Your qualifier, which I put in bold, is really not necessary, is it?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Overrated by who? NBA coaches or internet messageboard posters?


I'd say some internet messageboard posters. And some announcers.

It's not like the kid has ever sniffed All NBA defense or anything.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Kirk is not good enough to build a NBA contender around.
> 
> Can he be the 4th guy PER wise on a great team? Sure. But, if that’s his best role, then why all the hype?
> 
> ...


This is pretty spot-on, IMO. In a funny way, I think the Bulls may have shot themselves in the foot by emphasizing Hinrich as the heart and soul of the team the past year or two. His 5 year 47 million dollar deal almost seemed like a bargain in light of that, but I'm not sure that's the case now. 

I think Hinrich is a solid player, I also think he's regressed as a distributor and point guard. He's not a guy who can get into the lane and wreak havoc like Gordon (who doesn't finish all that well inside but does draw fouls and kick the ball out better), but he doesn't seem content to set up the offense like Duhon. I'm not quite sure what the answer is. Here's hoping his play gets better.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

.....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Your qualifier, which I put in bold, is really not necessary, is it?


No, its not. I wasn't referring to his current slump, but his season as a whole.

Only true stars are consistently great. Kirk isn't that type of player. These slumps are to be expected in good but not great players. 

I hesitate to write a guy off, but it would be surprising to see Kirk elevate his game to the land of the NBA star at this point in his career.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I'd say some internet messageboard posters. And some announcers.
> 
> It's not like the kid has ever sniffed All NBA defense or anything.


Perhaps by Scott Skiles, who has gone on record saying he thinks Hinrich should be considered for the All NBA defensive team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Kirk Hinrich is not the best player on the Bulls. Who disagrees? 

He's just been holding that spot like a trooper until the more talented players "arrived". That time is now. (But he's playing bad recently regardless - see my previous post). 

K4E is right. If Hinrich is your best player, you aren't elite. The last two seasons suggest this. But that doesn't mean he isn't signigicant to this team, its present and its future.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Please note that Gordon is primarily a shooter/scorer and Hinrich is primarily a distributor/defender.
> 
> Gordon: 46.9% eFG, 54.5% TS, 41.8% FG, 34.9% 3PT, *87.2% FT,* 5.1 ast/48 min, 3.3 ast/bad pass, 1:1 A/TO ratio (lower than his career average).
> 
> Hinrich: *52.2% eFG, 56.8% TS, 45.6% FG, 43.8% 3PT, *78.4% FT, *8.3 ast/48 min, 4.2 ast/bad pass, 2.5 A/TO ratio.*


It's interesting that you would compare individual stats, like this. But then I realized that Gordon has a better +/-, a better Roland rating, and a higher PER. 

That said, I agree with the posters saying that he's clearly lost his legs. He's a terrific defensive player when he has stamina. I wish Skiles would just give him a game off, and tell him to do nothing but eat and sleep for the next 4-7 days.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

During the championship years, when they announced the starting lineup with all the fanfare (Alan Parsons' Siruis and all that), it was a big deal that Michael Jordan was announced last.

Sorta like the Isaac Newton chair at cambridge that Steven Hawking now holds.

Guess who is announced last these days? Isn't that management's way of saying "he's THE guy" jamming it down everyone's throat?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I have always said I like Kirk Hinrich as a player 

I have also been consistent in saying that in the crafting of a culture for this team he was the embodiment of it 

And yes there are more talented players than him on this team

Luol, Ben Gordon and Thabo and Tyrus come to mind .

Yes that's right I said Thabo 

I can see early signs that Thabo is a special talent and is a tantalising fit with Ben, Luol and Tyrus 

Duhon is glue 

Kirk and Nocioni are embodiment and somewhere between glue and talent - but not top draw talent 

I'm not sure where that leaves what into the future other than a pleasant problem that the Bulls have got .


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> During the championship years, when they announced the starting lineup with all the fanfare (Alan Parsons' Siruis and all that), it was a big deal that Michael Jordan was announced last.
> 
> Sorta like the Isaac Newton chair at cambridge that Steven Hawking now holds.
> 
> Guess who is announced last these days? Isn't that management's way of saying "he's THE guy" jamming it down everyone's throat?


Does the last guy called ever change - sans injury to that player - during the season?

That would be wierd. I don't think anyone does this. 

And Hinrich has been "the guy" in the sense that he's been the spearhead of the offense and the defense since he got here. That's changing now offensively, thank god, due to the evolution of players like Deng and Gordon (and eventually Tyrus and Thabo). 

Not to mention that his teammates vote him team captain every year. Calling him last during games is symbolic. Hinrich is symbolic as well. His approach to the game became the template for this team. 

And he's meaningful on the court as well. I wouldn't want his symbolic status to be confused with a terrel-owens-calling-wayne-crebette-the-team-mascot type of thing.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think Hinrich just likes to see himself dribble....he'll dribble the ball by himself saying "Hey look everyone, I can dribble!" until the shotclock is down to 10, before something actually gets started, making it a rushed offense. Its like damn, everyone knows your a good dribbler...imo, he does this for stats. As he brings down the shotclock, the more likely it is for a player to take a shot off of one of Hinrich's passes.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Kirk is a very good player, but not the team leader.


Evidently his teammates disagree with you, being that they vote him team captain every year. I'd also refer you to his post-season performances. 

But, as you will see below, I don't think Hinrich is "the" leader. I don't think this team really has any such player. And I don't really mind that. 



> And we all remember Pax’s statement, that this team will be build around Kirk.


No we don't. Because Paxson never said that. NEVER. He said that the team will be "built *with* Hinrich" not "around" Hinrich. Yet, like countless things on this board, a fiction evolves into supposed fact.

Paxson made it very clear that Hinrich was a critical piece to the team going forward, but he NEVER said that team would be build around him as though he were to be the best player. Indeed, on more than one occassion, when asked who the most talented and best-down-the-road player on this team would be, he's said Deng. 

Sorry, its a pet peeve of mine. If there is one thing that I hate about this otherwise excellent message board, its debating things that never, ever happened. 



> So, if Kirk is not one who will
> lead that team (even when his numbers are not there), we may seriously consider trading him now for somebody more suitable to our needs – BIG NASTY and TALL PF or C, who can rebound and dunk.


I would certainly trade Kirk Hinrich for such a player. He - nor any of the guards - are untouchable. 



> IMO, Gordon should be the team leader and Skiles should build (even he needs to take a prescribe medication) the game’s plan around that concept. And if that does not work we need to find someone else.


I think its just plain silly to think that the coach decides who the leader is. The players decide this. And on the court, its obvious that the players - including Hinrich - often look to Gordon and even Nocioni for leadership. And when Gordon is in the game, the game plan is that Gordon is the centerpiece. I don't know how much more obvious that could be than it is right now. 

Maybe its just the he's-not-starting thing that's throwing people off.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't think he is a true leader. It seems like Hinrich, Brown, and Wallace all were voted in because the players felt obligated to. Actually watching the game, Wallace and Gordon are the leaders of the team. Everyone looks to them on the court.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kirk's in his annual holiday slump. has happened every year since his rookie campaign. but hey, even after the last two outings his % is still, what? .449 (EDITED after i looked it up - btw, BG is at .429) so yeah. kirk sucks. 

luckily for us, he usually bounces back strong in January, and is in FINE FORM come PLAYOFF time. you know, when it really, really counts. just seems he loses his legs this time every year. 

but whatever, i suppose we could trade him for a bunch of beads and fancy headbands. 

happy christmas everyone!!!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> It seems like Hinrich, Brown, and Wallace all were voted in because the players felt obligated to.


At gunpoint, no doubt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> you know, when it really, really counts. just seems he loses his legs this time every year.


I think it "seems" that way because its true. :biggrin: If it wasn't Christmas Eve morning, I'd go back and try to prove this (not to you since I know you agree with me). 

But alas, I'm out to construct toys for my son and pretend like I enjoy spending time with my extended family and in-laws.

Merry (insert late-december observation of choice), everyone!


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> kirk's in his annual holiday slump. has happened every year since his rookie campaign. but hey, even after the last two outings his % is still, what? .449 (EDITED after i looked it up - btw, BG is at .429) so yeah. kirk sucks.
> 
> luckily for us, he usually bounces back strong in January, and is in FINE FORM come PLAYOFF time. you know, when it really, really counts. just seems he loses his legs this time every year.
> 
> ...


I agree. While I don't consider him the best player on the team, I don't know if I consider anyone on this team the "best". We have a lot of equal parts in my opinion. Good games one night, not so good the next. Gordon is God to many at the moment. Early in the season people were all over him. And you just don't know what you are going to get from him from game to game. Streaky, but that is the make up of many players.

Most consistent so far has been Deng and Noc. The rest have been inconsistent. Hinrich will put up a few 20/10 asst games soon, Gordon will put up a few 2 for 9 nights, and everyone will get on gordn and praise Hinrich. 

This is our team people. Great one night, not so great the next. We do need something more to contend.


----------



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

Ron Cey said:


> Evidently his teammates disagree with you, being that they vote him team captain every year. I'd also refer you to his post-season performances.
> 
> But, as you will see below, I don't think Hinrich is "the" leader. I don't think this team really has any such player. And I don't really mind that.
> 
> ...


As well as the sitting for 3rd quarters no matter how hot he is in the 2nd quarter (especially against the Knicks), and still averaging less than 30 minutes a game. Has there ever been a player to lead their team in scoring OFF the BENCH in less than 30 minutes a game? 

IMO, we see Ben do what he does despite what Skiles has done . Skiles wouldn't put him in during crunch time of some games. Skiles benched him. Despite a horrific start (which the team had as well), he's still on his way to a 20-ppg season that even I, the biggest of Gordon "fanboys" didn't think was possible.

Meanwhile, in the last 3 games we see Kirk cruising around putting up a combined 15 points, averaging 5 points, in 89 minutes on 7/25 shooting with absolutely ZERO free throws attempted or made. In those same 3 games, Ben actually has less minutes, 83, on 28/51 shooting and 12/14 from the line averaging 24.0 for a combined 72 points. 

My point is not that Kirk stinks, but that even in his worst stretch of the season, Kirk as a starter is still getting the benefit of the doubt that Ben Gordon doesn't even get when he's performing well.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> And Hinrich has been "the guy" in the sense that he's been the spearhead of the offense and the defense since he got here. That's changing now offensively, thank god, due to the evolution of players like Deng and Gordon (and eventually Tyrus and Thabo).
> 
> Not to mention that his teammates vote him team captain every year. *Calling him last during games is symbolic. Hinrich is symbolic as well. His approach to the game became the template for this team.*
> 
> And he's meaningful on the court as well. I wouldn't want his symbolic status to be confused with a terrel-owens-calling-wayne-crebette-the-team-mascot type of thing.


I concur.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> As well as the sitting for 3rd quarters no matter how hot he is in the 2nd quarter (especially against the Knicks), and still averaging less than 30 minutes a game. Has there ever been a player to lead their team in scoring OFF the BENCH in less than 30 minutes a game?
> 
> IMO, we see Ben do what he does despite what Skiles has done . Skiles wouldn't put him in during crunch time of some games. Skiles benched him. Despite a horrific start (which the team had as well), he's still on his way to a 20-ppg season that even I, the biggest of Gordon "fanboys" didn't think was possible.


I think the simple answer to your concern is that Skiles is using people according to their strengths. 

Kirk's is that of being a workhorse. 

Ben's is that of being a temperamental stallion. 

Ben is improving, no doubt, but he still doesn't have the temperament to run the team. He depends too much on how his offense is going. So, he remains a player with whom you need to pick your spots, find ways to unleash him so that his offense picks up right away. Then, he can integrate himself into the offense and be an effective leader. But it seems that when he starts the game, he easily gets "bogged down", loses focus, and then the whole team suffers.

Kirk has his faults, and he's struggling, no doubt. But he's the sort who generally will keep an even keel and keep things moving by contributing in other areas. He generally plays within the team concept and keeps the team in games with his overall play. 

This is not to say that things will always be this way, but I think historically this has been the case. If Ben can really have the mindset of a leader, then he can handle more minutes. 

There's a difference between a leader and an attacker. Ben is more of the attacker than Kirk, no doubt, and that comes through best at the end of games. But when it comes to regrouping, handling the other team's charge, you need a leader, and Ben hasn't shown he can do that as well as Kirk. 

Here's hoping that each can fill in the holes in their games, and become the force we think they can.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

First its "Ben Gordon sux, trade him!" when he is off to his typical slow start.

Now its "KH sux, trade him" when he hits a spell that pulls his averages down to his career rates.

Perhaps the Bulls fans should feel fortunate to have two above average back court players who contribute to the overall team success. When one guy is down, the other guy always seems to step it up. Sure, we can argue all we want about who is really better but at the end of the day, both of these guys are important pieces to the t.e.a.m.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

What's the over/under on the number of "we need to trade Gordon!" threads after Gordon has a string of bad games in January? And if we finish the season with a good record, will DaBullz use that as proof that Gordon is effective coming off the bench?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> kirk's in his annual holiday slump. has happened every year since his rookie campaign. but hey, even after the last two outings his % is still, what? .449 (EDITED after i looked it up - btw, BG is at .429) so yeah. kirk sucks.
> 
> luckily for us, he usually bounces back strong in January, and is in FINE FORM come PLAYOFF time. you know, when it really, really counts. just seems he loses his legs this time every year.
> 
> ...


Gordon's FG% is on the rise. Last time I looked it was 41%.

Hinrich's FG% is on the decline. There was a point where he was shooting near 50%.

But... whatever.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> What's the over/under on the number of "we need to trade Gordon!" threads after Gordon has a string of bad games in January? And if we finish the season with a good record, will DaBullz use that as proof that Gordon is effective coming off the bench?


Geez. Michael Jordan woul put up great numbers if he came off the bench. I think it's irrelevent. All I see is Gordon putting up a point a minute lately, so it's hard to see why he's not getting as many minutes as possible.

6ft Hurdle pointed out the absurdity that he isn't.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> As well as the sitting for 3rd quarters no matter how hot he is in the 2nd quarter (especially against the Knicks), and still averaging less than 30 minutes a game. Has there ever been a player to lead their team in scoring OFF the BENCH in less than 30 minutes a game?
> 
> IMO, we see Ben do what he does despite what Skiles has done . Skiles wouldn't put him in during crunch time of some games. Skiles benched him. Despite a horrific start (which the team had as well), he's still on his way to a 20-ppg season that even I, the biggest of Gordon "fanboys" didn't think was possible.
> 
> ...


I don't buy this Skiles conspiracy stuff, he did sit Hinrich for the last 18 minutes of a game vs. the Lakers. I also think it's next to impossible for us as fans to determine how much Gordon is doing in spite of Skiles and how much he's doing because Skiles is using him in a way that gets the best out of him.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I don't buy this Skiles conspiracy stuff, he did sit Hinrich for the last 18 minutes of a game vs. the Lakers. I also think it's next to impossible for us as fans to determine how much Gordon is doing in spite of Skiles and how much he's doing because Skiles is using him in a way that gets the best out of him.


Exactly. I should copy and paste this post in every game thread from here on out.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> kirk's in his annual holiday slump. has happened every year since his rookie campaign. but hey, even after the last two outings his % is still, what? .449 (EDITED after i looked it up - btw, BG is at .429) so yeah. kirk sucks.
> 
> luckily for us, *he usually bounces back strong in January, and is in FINE FORM come PLAYOFF time. you know, when it really, really counts. just seems he loses his legs this time every year.*
> 
> ...


What the wise lady said. He'll snap out of it and anyone who suggests he be traded because he goes into a funk during the Holidays is slurping the stupid juice. To me its a permanent solution to a temporary issue.

To answer the question, _"what can we get for Kirk Hinrich,"_ since it's THAT season, I dunno ... a barber that will convince him to lose that insanely stupid mop?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Here's some perspective.

Hinrich has had a lackluster December. He's scored in single digits in *4 of 13* games. He's shooting *40.4%* for the month.

Gordon had a lackluster November. He scored in single digits in *5 of 13* games. He shot *40.9%* during that month. If we include the season opener @ Miami on 10/31, he scored in single digits in *6 of 14* games and shot *39.5%* over that 29-day period.

As previously stated, Hinrich's main role is not to shoot and score. Gordon's is.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Notice how the team plays bad when Gordon plays bad? It doesn't really matter how Hinrich plays...he's not that important to the team imo, his value to the Bulls is overrated, especially if we could get a guy like Drew Gooden up there. Some people seem to be thinking we'd just be cutting Hinrich in a trade, and don't comprehend that Gordon would start, get his better opportunity, we get a big that can help us, and its a winning situation as Cavs fans cuss out Hinrich every night.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Here's some perspective.
> 
> Hinrich has had a lackluster December. He's scored in single digits in *4 of 13* games. He's shooting *40.4%* for the month.
> 
> ...


How'd they do in kindergarten league?

Geez.


----------



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

Good Hope said:


> I think the simple answer to your concern is that Skiles is using people according to their strengths.
> 
> Kirk's is that of being a workhorse.
> 
> ...


It seems like we could've used more of that "tempermental stallion" during the Knicks game don't you think? 

Other than being a guy with a mop haircut and being considerably more lightly pigmented, I really don't understand what else Ben has to prove to get as many minutes as Hinrich on his worse days. He does a lot on offense, so it's not JUST offense, and he does pull down some key rebounds at times. *What more do people want him to do?*

That description of Ben Gordon you offered seems to fit Kirk more often. He's been known as of late to throw up his array of bad shots when other players are on hot streaks, he gets in foul trouble quite easily. 

There's no doubt that you need a leader to handle the team's charge, but you seriously think Kirk does that? My most resounding memory of his game is last year against the Wizards when we were making our playoff run. Ben was in the middle of his 3-point barrage game. Kirk, being Kirk, with 51 seconds on the block turned the damn ball over, and put our team down by 1 or 2. But that almost-costly turnover was quickly forgotten when Ben hit his 9th three pointer and we clinched a playoff spot.

*When you're talking about regrouping and handling the charge, you think it's Kirk who's behind all that? * If I understand that correctly, this leader is a guy who usually does not get ruffled. 

OK, so my question is Kirk is THAT guy who does not get ruffled? The guy who shoots considerably a worse free throw pct in the clutch (pointed out by Jbulls during a game thread)? Alright, so he contributes on the floor doing other things in the clutch. Are we talking the same Kirk that gave up a key foul against Milwaukee for them to pull within 1 with 24 seconds left? The same Kirk that killed our run against NY by fouling Jamal Crawford for 3 free throws? Where was he in preventing any runs before Ben Gordon checked in? 

Maybe he's not the worst clutch player, but he is hardly the guy that keeps this team in check when the opponents are crashing through offense or other ways.

The guy that handles the charge seems to be Gordon. Entered against the Lakers with the team down 12. Brought us to within 6, Lu and Du rode off the momentum till the finish of the quarter. Sweets dominates, BG re-enters, team NEVER looks back. Or how about the game against Atlanta where he nailed a 3 to bring us within 1? Or drawing a foul and nailing the free throws in the Milwaukee game that Hinrich fouled out in?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Lets not forget when we were down against the Rockets, and BG had 30 in the 2nd half to almost lead us back.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> It seems like we could've used more of that "tempermental stallion" during the Knicks game don't you think?
> 
> *What more do people want him to do?*


The team is 13 out of its last 15. What more do you want Skiles to do?



> That description of Ben Gordon you offered seems to fit Kirk more often. He's been known as of late to throw up his array of bad shots when other players are on hot streaks, he gets in foul trouble quite easily.
> 
> There's no doubt that you need a leader to handle the team's charge, but you seriously think Kirk does that? My most resounding memory of his game is last year against the Wizards when we were making our playoff run. Ben was in the middle of his 3-point barrage game. Kirk, being Kirk, with 51 seconds on the block turned the damn ball over, and put our team down by 1 or 2. But that almost-costly turnover was quickly forgotten when Ben hit his 9th three pointer and we clinched a playoff spot.
> 
> ...


How about when Kirk put the stop on Joe Johnson several times in the closing minutes of regulation to keep the Bulls in the game?

I agree with you that Ben (when he's on) is the one you want to lead the charge when attacking...but Kirk is generally the one who will lay it on the line from beginning to end, whether he's having a great game or not. 

If you want highlights, then you look for Ben. If you want leadership, setting the tone, organization, you more often than not will look elsewhere -- to Kirk or Chris. 



> The guy that handles the charge seems to be Gordon. Entered against the Lakers with the team down 12. Brought us to within 6, Lu and Du rode off the momentum till the finish of the quarter. Sweets dominates, BG re-enters, team NEVER looks back. Or how about the game against Atlanta where he nailed a 3 to bring us within 1? Or drawing a foul and nailing the free throws in the Milwaukee game that Hinrich fouled out in?


These examples illustrate my point. Ben is more of a precision weapon. Kirk is the guy you ride through thick and thin. And that's how Skiles uses them. And Skiles is not blind to when Kirk isn't playing his usual game. He sat him in LA. He called him out for making excuses about being tired after the Worlds'. I don't think that Kirk and Skiles' relationship is all lovey-dovey. I bet that Skiles likes Du better than Kirk, to be honest. 

Kirk has weaknesses, and he's struggling right now. He also has a history of being our best player in the playoffs. He's not the most talented player in the league, nor is he paid like one. But he's been the one around whom Paxson has built this turnaround in franchise fortunes. Paxson had a chance to go away from Gordon and after Roy, but he didn't. He likes Ben, and has a hope for him. But he, like Kirk, still needs to grow up as a player. 

Our backcourt is a little awkward, no doubt. But as Machine said, it's in general a good problem to have.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Here's some perspective.
> 
> Hinrich has had a lackluster December. He's scored in single digits in *4 of 13* games. He's shooting *40.4%* for the month.
> 
> ...


If thats not his role and he makes a ton of money these days, why is he the starting SG? In some posts you claim KH doesn't have the stats of other PGs because he doesn't play all his minutes there. In other posts, you claim his role is not to be a scorer but to be a distributor. Do you believe KH is misused on this team?

I believe KH is an average SG in the NBA and not worth the salary he is making. He does have the talent to be an above average PG (and be worthy of his salary). People say that BG is better coming off the bench and seem to point the finger at him for his inconsistent play when he is a starter. Perhaps we need to start thinking about the chemistry between KH and BG when they are on the court together. I've always felt that BG gives the ball to KH in better scoring positions than KH does for BG.

On an individual basis, both of these guys are above average players when they are playing at their main positions w/ Gordon's upside being a ring below a superstar (if he wants to be a super star, I think he needs to be able to play PG for 20 out of 38 minutes per game).


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I wonder if Indiana would move J.O'Neal?

18 ppg, 10 rpg, 3 bpg, 3 apg

probably not.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Let's see if I understand the logic behind the idea of trading Hinrich.

The Bulls are going into the new year with a team that eight new members and two rookies in the main rotation.

They have been one of the top 4 teams in the eastern conference since they emerged from the circus trip. They are currently tied with an overachieving team in rapid retreat (Orlando) for the second best record in the conference, and they are only 2 games behind the conference leader Detroit.

The Bulls have compiled their good record to date because, in spite of the number of new players, they have kept turnovers down this year, and are finally getting reasonable treatment from most referee crews.

So, the best thing to do would be to trade the Bull's most experienced guard -- who was elected to represent the USA in international games last year, has the best shooting percentage of all the guards, is their best defensive guard, and has been elected to be the team leader by his fellow players for the last three years.

Oh, and by the way, Hinrich's contract makes it virtually impossible to trade him even if it were a good idea.

But what the hell, he perversely dribbles too much. Trade him!:banned:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Once again, where does the idea that the franchise turnaround back to a winning team came with Hinrich? I thought a crappy season came with Hinrich....the winning turnaround came with Ben Gordon's heroics, not Kirk's....averageness.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I don't buy this Skiles conspiracy stuff, he did sit Hinrich for the last 18 minutes of a game vs. the Lakers. I also think it's next to impossible for us as fans to determine how much Gordon is doing in spite of Skiles and how much he's doing because Skiles is using him in a way that gets the best out of him.


The difference being, Gordon lost his starting spot for playing badly. Hinrich will keep his through thick and thin. 

I don't buy Gordon being a "temperamental stallion" or a "precision weapon." His defense has gotten a lot more consistent, he's stopped shuffling his feet and traveling, he's an excellent decision maker on the fast break and he's good at moving the ball *when told to do so*. Right now, he's being pigeonholed into being strictly an off-the-bench scorer and role player, and he is obviously capable of more than that... if not here than on another team with a more lenient coach. When I hear that he's grown to accept coming off the bench, like in the NBATV video, that's a sign that Skiles needs to find another way to motivate him. 

As for Kirk, he'll be fine once he gets his legs back. He started out the year shooting 50% and he should finish at around 48% if he gets some rest quickly enough. He's a good enough shooter to shoot at that percentage. And he's definitely 2nd-team All Defense when he isn't 2 steps slow like he is right now. I just hope that his self-confidence doesn't sink too low.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Notice how the team plays bad when Gordon plays bad? It doesn't really matter how Hinrich plays...he's not that important to the team imo, his value to the Bulls is overrated,


Do you think our early struggles had anything to do with Ben Wallace starting out slow and eventually (after 10-15 games) finding his rhythm with his new teammates? Do we have any rookies that are playing better now than they were during their fist handful of NBA games?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> How about when Kirk put the stop on Joe Johnson several times in the closing minutes of regulation to keep the Bulls in the game?


Do you mean the game eight days ago in which Kirk had 24 points (7-12 FG) and 2 blocks and held one of the game's best scorers to 5 points below his average and 7% below his season FG% in a Bulls road win? That game?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> If thats not his role and he makes a ton of money these days, why is he the starting SG?


Not all starting SGs have primary responsibilities of shooting and scoring. Many are #1 defenders, combo guard distributors, and opportunistic scorers (think Raja Bell, Manu Ginobili and Jason Terry). This is what Hinrich is on this team. I think he's currently being used very well by Skiles. In previous seasons, he was spread way too thin (he played PG, SG and SF on both offense _and_ defense almost every game, with one of the least efficient frontcourts in recent memory, from '03-05), and his legs and shot suffered as a result. Some of us felt that with more specialization on offense and more talent on the roster, his shooting would improve. Guess what? It has. And so has the team.



> I've always felt that BG gives the ball to KH in better scoring positions than KH does for BG.


Why do you feel that way? Is it Gordon's assist numbers?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Let's see if I understand the logic behind the idea of trading Hinrich.
> 
> The Bulls are going into the new year with a team that eight new members and two rookies in the main rotation.
> 
> ...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Once again, where does the idea that the franchise turnaround back to a winning team came with Hinrich? I thought a crappy season came with Hinrich....the winning turnaround came with Ben Gordon's heroics, not Kirk's....averageness.


You also thought that Hollis Price was going to be an NBA All-Star.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Do you mean the game eight days ago in which Kirk had 24 points (7-12 FG) and 2 blocks and held one of the game's best scorers to 5 points below his average and 7% below his season FG% in a Bulls road win? That game?


Talk about skewing some statistics here. This was Joe Johnson's first game back from injury. I would take 9/21 (including 3/7 from 3) from a star coming back from injury all day long...and don't forget Kirk's 6 turnovers. He also only had 4 points in 3 turnovers from the 4th quarter on. This is hardly a game anyone should be pointing to if you are trying to prove KH's worth.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> Talk about skewing some statistics here. This was Joe Johnson's first game back from injury.


Johnson was only out for 5 days (12/10-12/15) with a Grade 1 right calf strain. Grade 1 strains are relatively minor injuries that generally require rest of a week or two before a return to game action is allowed. Johnson's sprain was probably sub-Grade 1 (thus his being out only 5 days), meaning that he probably experienced very minor discomfort in the middle of his calf during the Bulls game, if any pain at all. Regardless, he was still able to log 45 minutes that night.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Not all starting SGs have primary responsibilities of shooting and scoring. Many are #1 defenders, combo guard distributors, and opportunistic scorers (think Raja Bell, Manu Ginobili and Jason Terry). This is what Hinrich is on this team. I think he's currently being used very well by Skiles. In previous seasons, he was spread way too thin (he played PG, SG and SF on both offense _and_ defense almost every game, with one of the least efficient frontcourts in recent memory, from '03-05), and his legs and shot suffered as a result. Some of us felt that with more specialization on offense and more talent on the roster, his shooting would improve. Guess what? It has. And so has the team.



Raja Bell --> Amare and Nash are stars, they don't value the SG position as highly as most teams (see Joe Johnson)

Manu Ginobili --> Duncan isn't so bad himself w/ Ginobili being the #1 non-Duncan option

Terry --> Dirk ain't half bad either with Terry being the number 2 or 2b option



> Why do you feel that way? Is it Gordon's assist numbers?



Just my observations from watching...Kirk does actually shoot 15% more at the PG position than the SG position.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Johnson was only out for 5 days (12/10-12/15) with a minor (Grade 1) right calf strain. Grade 1 strains are relatively minor injuries that generally require rest of a week or two before a return to game action is allowed. Johnson's sprain was sub-Grade 1 (thus his being out only 5 days), meaning that he probably experienced very minor discomfort in the middle of his calf during the Bulls game. He was still able to log 44 minutes that night.


"I pretty much didn't have my legs," said Johnson. "I was pretty much exhausted."

I trust the players words over internet message boards and roto websites


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> Raja Bell --> Amare and Nash are stars, they don't value the SG position as highly as most teams (see Joe Johnson)


Again, this is the position Hinrich excels most at: primary defender, distributor, opportunistic scorer who is surrounded by talent. He should be taking the 4th- or 5th-most shots on the team and hitting a good percentage of these shots, while in the meantime filling in the blanks with defense, assists and experience.



> Manu Ginobili --> Duncan isn't so bad himself w/ Ginobili being the #1 non-Duncan option


Parker takes more shots (and more shots/minute) than Ginobili does.



> Terry --> Dirk ain't half bad either with Terry being the number 2 or 2b option


Terry is at best the #3 option on offense. Howard and Stackhouse take more shots/minute than he does.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> "I pretty much didn't have my legs," said Johnson. "I was pretty much exhausted."


This is Hinrich about every fourth or fifth game. Do we allow him to use this as an excuse? Well, we kind of did a couple years ago, sayhing that with more rest and more talent on the roster we'd see his FG% rise. But the other side of the aisle wasn't so forgiving...

But your (or, rather, Joe's) point is noted. Regardless of point production in the final quarter, Hinrich's defense during the last five minutes was a big reason we won that game, as well as a big reason Johnson didn't take over and win the game at home.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Again, this is the position Hinrich excels best at: primary defender, distributor, opportunistic scorer who is surrounded by talent. He should be taking the 4th- or 5th-most shots on the team and hitting a good percentage of these shots, while in the meantime filling in the blanks with defense, assists and experience.


I agree with this assessment. The manner in which the Bulls are constructed require the person who takes the 4th most shots is the point guard, not the shooting guard. Duhon and Wallace are not shooting options. This is why I consider KH to be an average player when playing for the Bulls at the SG position. His fault? No, but that doesn't change the assessment...and this is why threads like this (and the Trade Gordon) threads exist.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Trading Kirk doesn't make any sense right now 

It _may_ eventually make sense in an Andre Miller + type of package that nets you a star


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

sov82 said:


> I agree with this assessment. The manner in which the Bulls are constructed require the person who takes the 4th most shots is the point guard, not the shooting guard. Duhon and Wallace are not shooting options. This is why I consider KH to be an average player when playing for the Bulls at the SG position. His fault? No, but that doesn't change the assessment...and this is why threads like this (and the Trade Gordon) threads exist.


Chris Duhon is a 36% 3 point shooter as a pro and has improved from being a 40% FG% shooter last season to a 45% FG% ( so far ) this season 

The role that Vega described a few posts ago sounds a lot more like Chris Duhon to me , who , is at least the equal of Kirk as a guard defender ( obviously Kirk has a bit more size - but Duhon played Kobe a few games ago as good as anyone I have seen for a long time ) He is a better pure distributor than Kirk ( IMO ) is an experienced pro and is probably more of a natural leader than what Kirk is 

Fact is , subject to my projected development of Thabo and what I think he will be , a like a core 3 man guard rotation of Ben, Thabo and Chris with Kirk being the 4th guard - a nice luxury to have but a luxury nonetheless 

It makes sense to keep Kirk until Thabo develops into his upswing and then cash him ( Kirk ) out high


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Here's how the East's starting SGs stack up.

Boston (Pierce): 26.6 ppg, 4.3 apg, 46% FG, 41% 3PT
New Jersey (Carter): 26.3 ppg, 3.7 apg, 46% FG, 37% 3PT
New York (Crawford): 16.4 ppg, 4.1 apg, 38% FG, 29% 3PT
Philadelphia (Iguodala): 16.0 ppg, 4.8 apg, 48% FG, 38% 3PT
Toronto (Parker): 10.9 ppg, 1.6 apg, 45% FG, 34% 3PT
Chicago (Hinrich): 14.3 ppg, 5.9 apg, 45% FG, 42% 3PT
Cleveland (Hughes): 13.6 ppg, 2.9 apg, 42% FG, 35% 3PT
Detroit (Hamilton): 20.9 ppg, 3.3 apg, 45% FG, 32% 3PT
Indiana (Jackson): 13.6 ppg, 3.3 apg, 41% FG, 31% 3PT
Milwaukee (Redd): 27.9 ppg, 2.1 apg, 47% FG, 38% 3PT
Atlanta (Johnson): 27.7 ppg, 3.9 apg, 50% FG, 39% 3PT
Charlotte (Morrison): 13.2 ppg, 2.0 apg, 37% FG, 35% 3PT
Miami (Wade): 28.1 ppg, 8.0 apg, 48% FG, 27% 3PT
Orlando (Hill): 15.3 ppg, 2.6 apg, 53% FG, 20% 3PT
Washington (Stevenson): 10.1 ppg, 2.5 apg, 51% FG, 52% 3PT


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

I think it's time for Captain Kirk to be benched.He gets away with to much.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Compared to the rest of the East's starting SGs, Hinrich dishes out the 2nd-most assists and hits the 2nd-best percentage from three (#1 is Stevenson, who only takes one three per game). Hinrich's FG% is slightly above average, and his scoring average is 10th-best out of the 15 starters. He's probably a top 3 or 4 defender among this group as well.

Average when compared to the East's starting SGs? Probably. Above average? Depends on what you're looking for...maybe if you're factoring in defense and the ability to split time at PG.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

bre9 said:


> I think it's time for Captain Kirk to be benched.He gets away with to much.


Like what?


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

As the leader and main core to are group he's playing inconsisted and he should be bench maybe that will give him a lift and rest his legs. It helped Ben G. so maybe it will help Kirk.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Compared to the rest of the East's starting SGs, Hinrich dishes out the 2nd-most assists and hits the 2nd-best percentage from three (#1 is Stevenson, who only takes one three per game). Hinrich's FG% is slightly above average, and his scoring average is 10th-best out of the 15 starters. He's probably a top 3 or 4 defender among this group as well.
> 
> Average when compared to the East's starting SGs? Probably. Above average? Depends on what you're looking for...maybe if you're factoring in defense and the ability to split time at PG.


Kirk's defense does not change whether he is at PG or SG. Skiles will put him on the man that he wants. Therefore, you really need to look at two things when he is at SG. How productive is the PG when he is at the SG spot (not very productive) and how productive he is offensively at the SG spot (average). If his shooting rates continue to decline to historic averages, he becomes slightly below average.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> If his shooting rates continue to decline to historic averages, he becomes slightly below average.


Agreed, but does the fact that he's an above average defender among starting SGs make him an average or slightly above-average starting SG? And hypothetically speaking, if a player can play at or above an average starters level at two positions, does that make him an above-average overall player?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Kirk's defense has been regressed every year since his rookie season. This year, his so-called "above average defense" is a myth. That's the problem I noticed with his play this season. Before this season even his shots weren't falling, he could contribute other way. But this way, IF his shot is off, he has been pretty useless in other area as well. (And still played major minute despite of it. This is a criticism toward Skile more so than toward Kirk). Anyway, I think Kirk's defense is overrated.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

If he gets voted on an All-Defense team, will you still think his D is overrated?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sov82 said:


> Kirk's defense does not change whether he is at PG or SG. Skiles will put him on the man that he wants. Therefore, you really need to look at two things when he is at SG. How productive is the PG when he is at the SG spot (not very productive) and how productive he is offensively at the SG spot (average). If his shooting rates continue to decline to historic averages, he becomes slightly below average.


Coming off the bench works wonders with BG. imagine what diminished minutes and coming off the bench would do for Kirk? Maybe turn him into an all-star or something.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

VincentVega said:


> If he gets voted on an All-Defense team, will you still think his D is overrated?


Big IF. Of course his defense ggets better and voted in, I will be more than happy. I just states that as of now his defense is not what media and some fans made it out to be. 

I stated in another thread that his effort was and is always there. It's the result part that I have my doubt. I just don't see sginificant result from his defensive efforts lately (to my harsh eye, for about 2 years now). His defense simply doesn't affect the opponent's performance all that much. Even less than Du or Thabo.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Big IF. Of course his defense ggets better and voted in, I will be more than happy. I just states that as of now his defense is not what media and some fans made it out to be.
> 
> I stated in another thread that his effort was and is always there. It's the result part that I have my doubt. I just don't see sginificant result from his defensive efforts lately (to my harsh eye, for about 2 years now). His defense simply doesn't affect the opponent's performance all that much. Even less than Du or Thabo.


hey, Hinrich did get votes for all-nba defensive team last year. So did PJ Brown. LOL


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If Hinrich can't condition himself to play a high level of basketball, what use is he? I'll take a guy like Gordon, who is just plain struggling not do to conditioning over a guy who chronically doesn't work on his game in the summer, and doesn't condition himself properly.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Okay, this thread has now reached historic levels.

Currently, we have Hinrich who doesn't want to pass the ball to Gordon; whose votes on the All-Defense team last year don't mean anything; isn't conditioned and fails to condition himself; dribbles around aimlessly to pad his stats; is "the" [only] player that Paxson said he would build the team around; and doesn't work on his game in the summer.

Previously it was Hinrich can't take care of the ball, Hinrich can't make an entry pass, Hinrich can't play PG, Hinrich isn't an efficient passer, and Hinrich can't shoot.

I think that covers just about everything.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Okay, this thread has now reached historic levels.
> 
> Currently, we have Hinrich who doeesn't want to pass the ball to Gordon; whose votes on the All-Defense team last year don't mean anything; isn't conditioned and fails to condition himself; dribbles around aimlessly to pad his stats; is "the" [only] player the Paxson said he would build the team around; and doesn't work on his game in the summer.
> 
> ...


henrick sux.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Okay, this thread has now reached historic levels.
> 
> Currently, we have Hinrich who doeesn't want to pass the ball to Gordon; whose votes on the All-Defense team last year don't mean anything; isn't conditioned and fails to condition himself; dribbles around aimlessly to pad his stats; is "the" [only] player the Paxson said he would build the team around; and doesn't work on his game in the summer.
> 
> ...


Aha! You admit it all is true.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Agreed, but does the fact that he's an above average defender among starting SGs make him an average or slightly above-average starting SG? And hypothetically speaking, if a player can play at or above an average starters level at two positions, does that make him an above-average overall player?


During the regular season, perhaps. During the post season, absolutely not. At the end of the day, the Bulls want to win championships. Average doesn't cut it in playoff season.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

If it was a situation where Kirk would be moved would/could you guys find a 3rd team with a possibility of Andre Miller finding his way to Chicago?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sov82 said:


> During the regular season, perhaps. During the post season, absolutely not. At the end of the day, the Bulls want to win championships. Average doesn't cut it in playoff season.


Hinrich's postseason averages: 20.8 ppg, 6.8 apg, 3.5 rpg, 1.7 spg, 0.5 bpg, 43% FG, 44% 3PT, 79% FT. He seems to raise his game and perform at a very high level in the playoffs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Since you love 82games.com so much.

Gordon's played 6% of the bulls minutes at PG. His PER is a whopping 25.8. Per 48 minute, he puts up 37.5 points with 10 assists. He also turns it over 7 times. Yikes? Opposing PGs turn it over 7 times per 48 minutes when he guards them, so it's a wash! His eFG% at PG is .547

How's his defense? Opponent's PGs have an eFG% of just .239 against him and a PER of ZERO.

He's also our best SG, with a PER of 16.8. Opponents' PER at SG is identical if you have Hinrich or Gordon at that spot.

Hinrich?

38% of the team's minutes at PG. His PER is 19.3. Per 48 minute, he puts up 22.9 points with 10 assists and 3.9 TO. Opposing PGs turn it over 4.2 per 48.

How's his defense? Opponents PGs have an eFG% of .507 against him and a PER of 15.9. last time I checked, PER of 15 is "average" so opposing PGs do slightly better than average against him. 

So PER of 25.8 (which makes him a SPECIAL player, among the best in the league) vs. PER of 19.3? At both ends of the floor, the choice seems clear from the 82games.com kinds of numbers.

It is nice to see Skiles is playing Gordon more and more at PG where he belongs. Earlier in the year, he had played 0% of the team's minutes. So in recent games, he's played 12% or more. It does seem silly that the guy who's better at both guard positions gets a lot less playing time. Makes no sense, if these numbers mean anything.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Sample size is still too small, DaBullz. According to the +/- and net PER only a third of the way through the season, we can similarly draw these conclusions:

* Deng is a much more effective PF than SF
* Hinrich guards PGs more effectively than Wallace guards centers
* Gordon is more effective at SF than he is at SG


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Sample size is still too small, DaBullz. According to the +/- and net PER only a third of the way through the season, we can similarly draw these conclusions:
> 
> * Deng is a much more effective PF than SF
> * Hinrich guards PGs more effectively than Wallace guards centers
> * Gordon is more effective at SF than he is at SG


Which is why the velocity of the numbers is meaningful, but the actual numbers themselves aren't. Which is why I pointed out that Gordon WAS at 0% of the time at PG but now 6%. 

The reason Gordon plays SF is because Skiles plays 3 guards a lot - and even more recently.

You still didn't answer the question. Why wouldn't you still look at the results (numbers) and play the 25+ PER guy at PG until the numbers decline (assuming they would, which I don't)?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You still didn't answer the question. Why wouldn't you still look at the results (numbers) and play the 25+ PER guy at PG until the numbers decline (assuming they would, which I don't)?


Numbers don't always tell the truth, but they also (generally) don't lie. I'd play Gordon at PG until his numbers declined. That said, previous (full) seasons indicate that Hinrich is more effective playing PG rather than SG.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

You could get anyone on the Cavaliers that you want except for Bron of course (and maybe Andy).


----------

