# Hinrich now expendable?



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

If the Bulls draft Rose, I wonder if they'd be more willing to trade Kirk Hinrich?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Oh, I think he's definitely going to get traded. However.....he has a long and semi-large contract. 

I can see him traded to somewhere like the Knicks (packaged with Joakim Noah) for Zach Randolph. It will take some tweaking to get it to work, but it gives the Knicks a point guard and Noah seems like he would fit more of the D'antoni type of system...and for the Bulls it gives them some interior scoring and rebounding in exchange of getting out of Kirk's longish/large contract and getting rid of a relatively useless player (Noah).


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'd think so but the team who would get him will need to be committed to him for awhile as he has a pretty large, long contract.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I hope to god he ends up on the Blazers. He is a perfect fit. I would be estatic if we could get him. Some 3 way like Outlaw, Jack, Raef for Hinrich, 2010 protected 1st.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i would rather not....contract is too big...why take him when we could wait 1 season to use raefs money to sign someone


or use raef to get a better point for that price


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I think Outlaw, Jack and Raef is a pretty steep price to pay for Hinrich, even with a 2010 1st round pick thrown in. But I do like the idea of him as the blazers PG; a decent defender with the ability to hit from outside and play off-ball would be nice.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I still cant understand why people are hesitant to get Kirk b/c of the 'cap plan'. The likleyhood of getting a better PG through the FA market is very, very low. Not to mention we dont need a superstar PG like Derron or Paul. We need a guy who is willing to be a 5th option, is a good defender and plays hard team ball. 

Kirk would be amazing.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Kirk would fit in with what the Blazers management are trying to do here.


----------



## Stay Blazed (May 5, 2008)

I think the Bulls go Beasley. The only expendeble player in that case would be Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

kirk would be most perfect paired up with iverson. i think a camby/hinrich deal is not far out at all.

whats blakes situation like? hes close to the same player kirk is (not as good, but very similar). did he fall off in portland? roy is already essentually the PG right? just wondering...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I'll hurt myself if we pick up Harry Potter (Kirk)...he is so unbelievably average it's crazy.
While we're at it, lets target Ridnour and Bibby too !


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I would much rather get Ben Gordon!!!!!!!!!


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Kirk's contract is awful and he's not a great fastbreak PG. I'd rather go after Jose or TJ Ford. At least Ford has a manageable contract to go with his fragile spine.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

pac4eva5 said:


> kirk would be most perfect paired up with iverson. i think a camby/hinrich deal is not far out at all.
> 
> whats blakes situation like? hes close to the same player kirk is (not as good, but very similar). did he fall off in portland? roy is already essentually the PG right? just wondering...


Blake was dependable, though his shooting could go really cold at times -- I guess you could say he is the perfect backup, but probably wouldn't start on more than half the team's in the league.

The reason Hinrich would fit so well next to Roy is because he is so comfortable playing off-ball and also is a pretty solid perimeter defender.

I have to admit that if I was the Bull's and Nuggz came knocking with Marcus Camby on the offer sheet for Hinrich, that would be a pretty enticing proposal.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> I'll hurt myself if we pick up Harry Potter (Kirk)...he is so unbelievably average it's crazy.
> While we're at it, lets target Ridnour and Bibby too !



You do realize that we don't need a star at every position, don't you?

Reading early reports from Chicago fans, I can see that they want Rose over Beasley (can't really understand that, but whatever). Hinrich would be a great fit with Roy because of his defense against PGs (2nd team all nba defense two years ago), his outside shooting, and ability to play off the ball. He's like Blake, only better. What he would provide is for Blake to move over to the bench, allowing us to solidify both units with very capable point guards. If you didn't notice last year, we looked lost whenever Roy or Blake weren't on the floor. 

Anyway, my offer would be Jack + Raef + 13 for Kirk and a future first rounder, and I think Chicago would take that deal.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

If we get Kirk, it will be 7 white boys(Pryz, Sergio, Blake, McBob, Reaf, Rudy, Kirk). At the risk of sounding racist, there is no chance we could win the championship with that many white boys.

On a serious note, Kirk is only slightly better than Blake, if that. Blake shot over 41% last year from the 3pt line while Kirk only shot 35%. Blake had a 3.65 A/TO ratio while Kirk had a 2.88 ratio. Kirk is better on the defensive end maybe. All-star money for a questionable small upgrade over Blake? No thanks.

Between Blake and Kirk, I rather have Blake ...he is cheaper.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

yuyuza1 said:


> You do realize that we don't need a star at every position, don't you?


Yea. Problem is Kirk is paid like an All Star. Awful contract.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Pass on Kirk. The guy is regularly in a shooting funk. I'd rather have guys like Mo Williams, Barbosa, and others.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

You do realize that Kirks on a DECLINING contract, right. It gets BETTER each year. Not worse. In fact, this year is his highest paid year in the contract. It declines from him. By the time it ends, it is actually the same size as the MLE.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> You do realize that Kirks on a DECLINING contract, right. It gets BETTER each year.


It might get less awful each season. It's still awful. 

No way the Blazers should touch his contract with a 10-foot pole. I'd rather stay with Steve Blake if Kirk is our only option for upgrade.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Hinrich's contract is not that bad at all;

10.25 9.7 9.2 8.2

TJ Fords deal is 8.0 8.5 8.5, hardly any smaller

I'd be for snagging either one if the price is low. We'll still have enough cap room to make a big free agent acquisition next summer if there even is any free agent worth signing.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Draco said:


> Hinrich's contract is not that bad at all;
> 
> 10.25 9.7 9.2 8.2
> 
> ...


That contract is prohibited to Pritchard's carefully laid out plan of cap space in 2009.

Whats the fascination with Hinrich? It's even questionable whether he is better than Blake or not. Look CAREFULLY at his stats for this year. The guy is highly overrated. We are not going to win any championship with him.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Balian said:


> If we get Kirk, it will be 7 white boys(Pryz, Sergio, Blake, McBob, Reaf, Rudy, Kirk). At the risk of sounding racist, there is no chance we could win the championship with that many white boys.


You're right. That is racist.

Let's look at skin color, not talent or how much they play or how long any of them will be around. Skin tone is clearly more important.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Fork said:


> You're right. That is racist.
> 
> Let's look at skin color, not talent or how much they play or how long any of them will be around. Skin tone is clearly more important.





Balian said:


> If we get Kirk, it will be 7 white boys(Pryz, Sergio, Blake, McBob, Reaf, Rudy, Kirk). At the risk of sounding racist, there is no chance we could win the championship with that many white boys.
> 
> *On a serious note*, Kirk is only slightly better than Blake, if that. Blake shot over 41% last year from the 3pt line while Kirk only shot 35%. Blake had a 3.65 A/TO ratio while Kirk had a 2.88 ratio. Kirk is better on the defensive end maybe. All-star money for a questionable small upgrade over Blake? No thanks.
> 
> Between Blake and Kirk, I rather have Blake ...he is cheaper.


Reading comprehension 101 perhaps?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Don't forget, Chicago also has Larry Hughes these days. I bet he's even more expendable than Hinrich. And they have yet to give Ben Gordon a contract. They might want to keep Hinrich along with Rose. Who was it who said that Rose was more like Dwayne Wade than Jason Kidd?
In fact, it's kind of hard to work out the "core" players for Chicago. Almost certainly Deng (but he's not been signed to an extension) and then...? Noah was suspended for a game for "conduct detrimental" - and then the _players _voted to extend the suspension - _not _a good sign! Thomas has been incredibly inconsistent and looks like even more of a headcase. Gordon is all-O, no-D. Hinrich is one of the few solid-looking players. If they were to offload him, they'd probably want a nice piece in return (probably LaMarcus back...) I'd say it's too early to rule out them taking Beasley (even though I think Rose is clearly the better player, and fits the mold of the kind of player they've taken - i.e., clean cut, from winning college program).

Suppose that Chicago do trade Hinrich: this trade works according to the RealGM tradechecker:

Chicago trades Hinrich and Hughes (even bigger contract, but only for the next 2 years)
Portland trades Raef, Przybilla (the player Chicago would probably be most interested in outside of our big 3) and Martell, and perhaps a couple of picks too.

Would we want to do that?

Teams who might want to trade their picks:
Minnesota at 3 (hard to get too excited about Brook Lopez, but the alternatives are scoring tweener guards, and they have a glut of those)
New York at 5 (they'd probably insist you take a big contract along with it)
Charlotte at 9 (Larry Brown wants to win now).


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

Balian said:


> Reading comprehension 101 perhaps?


You think by quantifying it with "on a serious note" makes it not a racist comment? Wow, just wow!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Kirk's stats were not impressive at all last year, and he really ended the season poorly. But it's all the more reason we could get a steal by offering our #13, Raef and a guy like Outlaw/Webster/Frye/Jack/Blake. 

I'd much rather have Calderon. But Hinrich is a big upgrade over anyone we have now.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

It might not be fair (or for that matter rational), but when I hear "Larry Hughes" I think "Darius Miles".


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

billfindlay10 said:


> You think by quantifying it with "on a serious note" makes it not a racist comment? Wow, just wow!


Yes, I do ...considering I subsequently explained that I preferred *BLAKE*(he is white) over Kirk and provided numbers to backed it up. 
BTW, I am a big fan of Rudy Fernandez(he is also of a white persuasion) and think he will start next year. He might even be rookie of the year.

It was a joke, get over it.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Balian said:


> It was a joke, get over it.


Actually, it was a misguided attempt at a joke that bombed bad. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

On topic, I reeeeaaaaly don't want Hinrich. It would be just like having Steve Kerr, except without the outside shot. :whofarted

Hinrich couldn't lead his team anywhere and he shot terribly from the floor. Exactly what would he bring to the Blazers?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

It's not that I have anything against Hinrich, but the posts in this thread are suggesting we give Chicago WAY WAY WAY too much for him. Considering his pay-to-talent ratio and the fact he'd be completely expendable to Chicago, we'd be doing them a favor by taking him. I wouldn't give more than just the 13th pick; but I wouldn't even give that. I'd rather draft Galinari.


----------



## GoBlazersGo (May 21, 2008)

I wouldn't be too entirely opposed to obtaining Hinrich if we could get him "on the cheap" (something like Raef, Jack, and maybe a second rounder or two). Unlike a lot of people, I just don't see him as a big enough upgrade over Blake to justify virtually abandoning our capspace plan AND give up young talent and/or draft picks in the process.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Hinrich is a headache offensively, but he is just really good defensively. That's why the Blake and Ridnour comparisons are nonsense. Hinrich put Dwyane freaking Wade on lockdown two years in a row, regular season and playoffs both years. The kid is an outstanding defensive player. 

Offensively, he would benefit from having a small role. Defensively, he would just be an amazing addition on the perimeter with Mr. Oden patrolling the paint.


----------



## GoBlazersGo (May 21, 2008)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Offensively, he would benefit from having a small role. Defensively, he would just be an amazing addition on the perimeter with Mr. Oden patrolling the paint.


Agreed and, furthermore, against the PG's that Hinrich couldn't "stop," 1 vs. 1, he could still do a helluva job in "funneling" them into the teeth of our defense (read: Oden, Aldridge, Przybilla, etc.). I think he'd make a pretty nice fit, I just wouldn't be willing to give up a ton to get him, personally... as if it were really up to me anyways. :whistling:


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'd be willing to come around for Hinrich if we got him on the cheap for our pick and a combo of Raef, Jack, or whatever of our bench players excluding Outlaw.

Last year was just an anomaly for everyone on the Bulls, going through different coaches and everything. It was a disaster.
I didn't know that Hinrich was a lockdown defender, but hearing that he was an all-league defender, he shot 41.5 percent from 3 two years ago. The guy is a good player, and I think he fits our timeline as he's only 27 years old.

His contract is a little bit of a mess, but if he's a guy that KP wants and targets as our PG of the future, I'd have no problem with it.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I'm not sure about this yet. At first thought, I'd rather draft Westbrook/Augustine and have them slowly gain minutes over Blake in the next year or two (with Roy also playing some time at PG).

On second thought, it'd be nice to go from Hinrich to Blake with 1st to 2nd unit.

Hinrich --> Blake
Aldridge --> Frye
Webster --> Jones 

are all decently similar players. The style of play wouldn't have to change much. I don't know how important that is, but I found it interesting.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Portland doesn't need a top-flight PG with Roy splitting PG duties. Hinrich isn't that great on offense, but he doesn't need to be. For better or worse, Nate doesn't run the most complicated offense in the world, and plugging Hinrich in would be easy. Plus, there's nothing wrong with bringing in a good defender to stop Paul, Williams, Parker, Iverson, Alston and the like.

Even his contract doesn't bother me. He makes less money in the final year of his deal than he will next season. His contract becomes a bit more tradable if he flames out in another year or two.

I say spend the money on Hinrich (if the price is right). I don't see any solid point guards becoming available next off-season, when there's all that money to spend.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

My problem with Kirk is that he doesn't penetrate or feed the post very well. He's an improved Steve Blake. I'd rather see us get someone who can get to the rim. ~Nathan


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

HurraKane212 said:


> My problem with Kirk is that he doesn't penetrate or feed the post very well. He's an improved Steve Blake. I'd rather see us get someone who can get to the rim. ~Nathan


He also doesn't fast break amazingly well either. If you take on a dude making 8-10 million for the next 4 seasons, he simply needs to bring more to the table.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't think we'll get anyone in FA anyway. Hinrich is a good plan B if we can't get Calderon. Nate said he wants a better defender a PG.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Reep said:


> Actually, it was a misguided attempt at a joke that bombed bad. Nothing wrong with admitting that.
> 
> *On topic, I reeeeaaaaly don't want Hinrich. It would be just like having Steve Kerr, except without the outside shot.* :whofarted
> 
> Hinrich couldn't lead his team anywhere and he shot terribly from the floor. Exactly what would he bring to the Blazers?


this is a hell of a lot more racist than the stupid joke. obviously the ONLY similarity between kerr and hinrich is skin color. they arent close to the same player, bud.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

pac4eva5 said:


> this is a hell of a lot more racist than the stupid joke. obviously the ONLY similarity between kerr and hinrich is skin color. they arent close to the same player, bud.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see Hinrich as a point guard who can't lead a team, but is more of a combo player (pick your favorite MJ-era PG [Kerr, Hodges, Paxon], I picked Kerr), only in this case, he can't score either. I've never thought of Hinrich as a stellar defender, so I'll have to take people's word for that one. If (big IF) he can be a solid defender and find a reasonable outside shot, and still bring the ball up, then he would still be only a slightly better Blake. 

I too would rather not take on that salary just for a minor improvement. It's not outrageous, but it would put a big dent into the 2009 plans.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BBert said:


> It's not that I have anything against Hinrich, but the *posts in this thread are suggesting we give Chicago WAY WAY WAY too much for him.* Considering his pay-to-talent ratio and the fact he'd be completely expendable to Chicago, we'd be doing them a favor by taking him. I wouldn't give more than just the 13th pick; but I wouldn't even give that. I'd rather draft Galinari.


Funny, as a Bulls fan, I have yet to see someone post an offer for Hinrich that I'd consider... and some kid even suggested we give Hinrich + Joakim Noah (our first rounder from last year) for Zach Friggin' Randolph.

The Bulls need a quality big man in exchange for a guard if they take Rose... I haven't seen one offered up. Pryzbilla doesn't fit that bill, as we already have enough guys in the front court who play D and can't score around the hoop well... Hinrich would compliment Brandon Roy well, but you guys have 3 top guys who you won't trade and 12 other guys that wouldn't help improve our team...


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Dornado said:


> Funny, as a Bulls fan, I have yet to see someone post an offer for Hinrich that I'd consider... and some kid even suggested we give Hinrich + Joakim Noah (our first rounder from last year) for Zach Friggin' Randolph.
> 
> The Bulls need a quality big man in exchange for a guard if they take Rose... I haven't seen one offered up. Pryzbilla doesn't fit that bill, as we already have enough guys in the front court who play D and can't score around the hoop well... Hinrich would compliment Brandon Roy well, but you guys have 3 top guys who you won't trade and 12 other guys that wouldn't help improve our team...


Considering that Raef Lafrentz's name is the most common one being thrown out there by most people around here, there's a lot to like from Chicago's POV since they are already over the cap and need to lock up Deng and Gordon with new contracts; Portland would be unloading one very attractive contract for a not very attractive one in Hinrich. So combination of 12 million dollar expiring deal and a mid-first rounder (hell maybe even Jarret Jack thrown into the mix) would probably get a lot more traction than you give it credit.

Whatever the case, I know Kevin Pritchard isn't going to sell the farm to get Kirk, and it won't be the end of the world if Portland doesn't pursue him; it's just an intriguing idea since there are a few things to like about the trade possibility from both Portland and Chicago's perspective.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Considering that Raef Lafrentz's name is the most common one being thrown out there by most people around here, there's a lot to like from Chicago's POV since they are already over the cap and need to lock up Deng and Gordon with new contracts; Portland would be unloading one very attractive contract for a not very attractive one in Hinrich. So combination of 12 million dollar expiring deal and a mid-first rounder (hell maybe even Jarret Jack thrown into the mix) would probably get a lot more traction than you give it credit.
> 
> Whatever the case, I know Kevin Pritchard isn't going to sell the farm to get Kirk, and it won't be the end of the world if Portland doesn't pursue him; it's just an intriguing idea since there are a few things to like about the trade possibility from both Portland and Chicago's perspective.


yeah, I guess I just see general roster incompatability... the Pick would be intriguing, but I don't think I'd ship out Hinrich (a guy who plays both ends... guards like that are a nice commodity) for cap relief in the form of Raef's expiring.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Dornado said:


> yeah, I guess I just see general roster incompatability... the Pick would be intriguing, but I don't think I'd ship out Hinrich (a guy who plays both ends... guards like that are a nice commodity) for cap relief in the form of Raef's expiring.


Of course the whole scenario is predicated on Chicago taking Derrik Rose, a kid who plays both ends of the floor and has "all-star" written all over him; how much time do you think Kirk is going to log with Ben Gordon, Rose, and Larry Hughes in the Bull's backcourt? Hinrich then probably is more valuable trying to get value for him now rather than giving him 15-20 minutes per game further diminishing his stock in subsequent years.

Then again if Chicago takes Beasley this whole thread becomes meaningless.


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

I think the Bulls will look into dealing Heinrich, but will be under whelmed with what they'll be offered. While the Bulls need inside scoring punch, it is doubtful that Heinrich will fetch one: GMs tend to shy from dealing big for small, not to mention Heinrich's subpar season and contract.

Heinrich is a decent guard. He's a good defender, shoots OK, and while he is a decent distributor, he isn't really a strong playmaker. Given that Roy have common skill sets in running a team, they could work well together and raise havoc as dual facilitators. I'm not sure how Heinrich would perform in terms of making effective post entry passes, as there wasn't exactly a need for that in Chicago.

Despite the length and overall price of Heinrich's contract, it is front-loaded, meaning that he makes less in the latter years. Not only does that help make him tradable later, it would help the Blazers financially, as Greg Oden projects to be a future max contract player.

That being said, someone will have to help you on the trade. Obviously Aldridge is way too much to give up. To me the logical candidate is Fernandez, paired with Raef, with the first rounder as sweetener if they don't bite.


Note: This assumes Fernandez wants to play for Chicago. He could throw a wrench into any proposed deal faster than you can say "tapas".


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

angrypuppy said:


> I think the Bulls will look into dealing Heinrich, but will be under whelmed with what they'll be offered. While the Bulls need inside scoring punch, it is doubtful that Heinrich will fetch one: GMs tend to shy from dealing big for small, not to mention Heinrich's subpar season and contract.
> 
> Heinrich is a decent guard. He's a good defender, shoots OK, and while he is a decent distributor, he isn't really a strong playmaker. Given that Roy has the same (though superior) skill sets, they could work well together and raise havoc as dual facilitators. I'm not sure how Heinrich would perform in terms of making effective post entry passes, as there wasn't exactly a need for that in Chicago.
> 
> ...


There is no way I would include Rudy in a trade for Hinrich and the Bulls really dont need him. They have to many SG/SF anyway. I'm sure they would still jump at getting Rudy for Hinrich but IMO there is no way KP would include Rudy in a trade for Hinrich. Like many have said the most I would include in a trade for Hinrich is LaFrenz, Jack and our 13th. I might add one of our 2nd round picks if needed to get the deal done.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Of course the whole scenario is predicated on Chicago taking Derrik Rose, a kid who plays both ends of the floor and has "all-star" written all over him; how much time do you think Kirk is going to log with Ben Gordon, Rose, and Larry Hughes in the Bull's backcourt? Hinrich then probably is more valuable trying to get value for him now rather than giving him 15-20 minutes per game further diminishing his stock in subsequent years.
> 
> Then again if Chicago takes Beasley this whole thread becomes meaningless.


In terms of helping the team, Hinrich is more valuable than Hughes and Gordon, and if he were on the roster I'd expect he'd play plenty of minutes at the 2 and shift over to take the back-up PG duties.

Some of that depends on who we bring in as a coach.

I think Brandon Roy would be well complimented by either Ben Gordon or Kirk Hinrich... they both have deficiencies but are strong players overall.


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

Tortimer said:


> There is no way I would include Rudy in a trade for Hinrich and the Bulls really dont need him. They have to many SG/SF anyway. I'm sure they would still jump at getting Rudy for Hinrich but IMO there is no way KP would include Rudy in a trade for Hinrich. Like many have said the most I would include in a trade for Hinrich is LaFrenz, Jack and our 13th. I might add one of our 2nd round picks if needed to get the deal done.




It is premature to state that the Bulls are disinterested in Fernandez. The Bulls are in a state of flux. They don't even know who the next head coach will be, they don't know how the new coach will feel about the existing roster, they don't even know how they'll deal with Ben Gordon. The only certainty in terms of need is low-post scoring, and it is highly doubtful they'll get it for Kirk Heinrich... unless they settle for Knick toxic sludge.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

angrypuppy said:


> I think the Bulls will look into dealing Heinrich, but will be under whelmed with what they'll be offered. While the Bulls need inside scoring punch, it is doubtful that Heinrich will fetch one: GMs tend to shy from dealing big for small, not to mention Heinrich's subpar season and contract.
> 
> Heinrich is a decent guard. He's a good defender, shoots OK, and while he is a decent distributor, he isn't really a strong playmaker. Given that Roy have common skill sets in running a team, they could work well together and raise havoc as dual facilitators. I'm not sure how Heinrich would perform in terms of making effective post entry passes, as there wasn't exactly a need for that in Chicago.
> 
> ...


What the hell? THERE IS NO WAY Pritchard would trade Rudy for Hinrich let along with two other players. At this point, Rudy is almost as untouchable as Roy, Oden, and Aldridge. The sky is the limit for him. 

I think people are seriously overvaluing Kirk. He is an average point guard AT BEST. Look at his stats from this year. His contract is prohibited to Pritchard's plan of maximum cap space in 2009. Yes, that's $9 mill less cap space for Pricthard in 2009 should we trade for kirk. Reaf's contract ends after this year and Hinrich has 3-4 years left.We already have a player similiar to him by the name of Blake. IT WON'T HAPPEN.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

LOL. No way i'd (or KP) would trade Fernandez for Kirk straight up.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzaRAZ_yNTQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzaRAZ_yNTQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> LOL. No way i'd (or KP) would trade Fernandez for Kirk straight up.


Amen. Some of these fans are unbelievable. I am glad Pritchard is GM. Rudy is probably 4th or 5th on the list of untouchables after Oden, Roy, and Aldridge and perhaps Joel Pryz.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> LOL. No way i'd (or KP) would trade Fernandez for Kirk straight up.


Keep counting those chickens before they hatch... Hinrich had a down year but is no slouch... Fernandez hasn't played an NBA game.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Dornado said:


> Keep counting those chickens before they hatch... Hinrich had a down year but is no slouch... Fernandez hasn't played an NBA game.


Kinda like Oden? Rudy Fernandez is the best player outside of the NBA period. He is Mr. Clutch. Seriously, after Rose and Beasley, I would be hard press to pass up Rudy if he had come out this year. He is a a rare 50/40/90(fg/3pt/ft pct.) player


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I am not interested in overpaying to get a middling PG prospect...be it Hinrich or Calderon...

I'd much rather see Pritchard work his magic....identify the player he wants (like he did with Aldridge, Roy & Rudy) and trade UP to get them...using the abundance of assets at POR disposal (young players like Sergio, Jack, Outlaw & Webster, future 1sts, 2nd round picks and possible Lafrentz if necessary)...

Why the rush to add a mediocre vet?

Why not add one more top 10 level talent to the roster....add Oden & Fernandez, let the team gel for a year and THEN look to add vets next offseason when the team has a fair bit of capspace?

I don't know who Pritchard has targeted in this draft yet...but he certainly has shown himself to be adept at evaluating talent and has made the right choices so far...So if he deems there is a player worth getting, can anyone doubt him?

BTW, great insight on Pritchard's thoughts on the draftover at Blazers Edge....


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Balian said:


> Kinda like Oden? Rudy Fernandez is the best player outside of the NBA period. He is Mr. Clutch. Seriously, after Rose and Beasley, I would be hard press to pass up Rudy if he had come out this year.


I guess I feel like I've seen enough of Greg Oden to know he's going to be good. Fernandez being "Mr. Clutch" in the Euro league means nothing if he can't guard NBA players or isn't the scorer people expect him to be. Maybe Fernandez will be a star... I'm just saying, until he plays an NBA game its a little ridiculous to be lol-ing the thought of someone trading him for Kirk Hinrich, who has been the starting point guard on 3 playoff teams in his first 5 seasons.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> He also doesn't fast break amazingly well either. If you take on a dude making 8-10 million for the next 4 seasons, he simply needs to bring more to the table.


Considering the Blazers were last in fast-break points, I don't think that's the breaking point of any deal. He can't be any worse on the break than Jarrett Jack, who Nate continued to play 20-25 plus minutes per game.

Hinrich brings a lot to the table and every player has deficiencies that we can scrutinize.


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

Dornado said:


> I guess I feel like I've seen enough of Greg Oden to know he's going to be good. Fernandez being "Mr. Clutch" in the Euro league means nothing if he can't guard NBA players or isn't the scorer people expect him to be. Maybe Fernandez will be a star... I'm just saying, until he plays an NBA game its a little ridiculous to be lol-ing the thought of someone trading him for Kirk Hinrich, who has been the starting point guard on 3 playoff teams in his first 5 seasons.




Well I guess those reports that the Blazers were looking for quality veteran leadership were just a pack of lies. It just seems like yesterday that Hinrich was a candidate for Team USA; now he's Steve Blake. Man, I hope that bum can be bought out.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Dornado said:


> I guess I feel like I've seen enough of Greg Oden to know he's going to be good. Fernandez being "Mr. Clutch" in the Euro league means nothing if he can't guard NBA players or isn't the scorer people expect him to be. Maybe Fernandez will be a star... I'm just saying, until he plays an NBA game its a little ridiculous to be lol-ing the thought of someone trading him for Kirk Hinrich, who has been the starting point guard on 3 playoff teams in his first 5 seasons.


Blah ...kinda like Blake has been a starting point guard on two different teams in the past 2 years? Hinrich is average with a large salary. Why do you think Chicago would probably draft Rose? Because he is a MAJOR improvement over Hinrich.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> I guess I feel like I've seen enough of Greg Oden to know he's going to be good. Fernandez being "Mr. Clutch" in the Euro league means nothing if he can't guard NBA players or isn't the scorer people expect him to be. Maybe Fernandez will be a star... I'm just saying, until he plays an NBA game its a little ridiculous to be lol-ing the thought of someone trading him for Kirk Hinrich, who has been the starting point guard on 3 playoff teams in his first 5 seasons.


See, i'm not speaking for anyone else but myself. I'm not saying Rudy will be a star, i'm just saying i wouldn't trade him for Hinrich. I am not a fan of Hinrich.

I wouldn't trade somebody with the potential that Rudy has for someone of Kirk's caliber.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

angrypuppy said:


> Well I guess those reports that the Blazers were looking for quality veteran leadership were just a pack of lies. It just seems like yesterday that Hinrich was a candidate for Team USA; now he's Steve Blake. Man, I hope that bum can be bought out.


Yeah ....kinda like Raph Nader is a candidate for the President. Hinrich over Paul, Williams, Nash, Kidd, Davis?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Balian said:


> Blah ...kinda like Blake has been a starting point guard on two different teams in the past 2 years? Hinrich is average with a large salary. Why do you think Chicago would probably draft Rose? Because he is a MAJOR improvement over Hinrich.


Its because Kirk is a combo-guard, and not a pure point guard. He's been playing PG because Ben Gordon has absolutely NO PG ability... hence Chris Duhon starting for long stretches. The Bulls would take Rose because he is a distributer... Hinrich is a quality player who can play some defense... he gets the tough assignments - chasing Rip Hamilton, holding Dwyane Wade, etc... and has done a solid job over his career. He's better than Steve Blake.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Balian said:


> I think people are seriously overvaluing Kirk. He is an average point guard AT BEST. Look at his stats from this year. His contract is prohibited to Pritchard's plan of maximum cap space in 2009. Yes, that's $9 mill less cap space for Pricthard in 2009 should we trade for kirk. Reaf's contract ends after this year and Hinrich has 3-4 years left.We already have a player similiar to him by the name of Blake. IT WON'T HAPPEN.


He's a little bit more than average. While he's no perennial All-Star or Chris Paul caliber, the guy is a better player than Blake.
I think sometimes we overvalue our own players.
Hinrich was all-league rookie first team in 2004, and he was all-NBA defense second team just TWO years ago.
He's second in Bulls franchise history in 3-pointers made, fourth in assists, sixth in steals.

Everyone on Chicago had a down year with what they went through.
Two years ago, he averaged 16.6 ppg, 6.3 apg, 3.4 rpb and shot 41.5 percent from 3. 

If Pritchard has Hinrich in mind as our point guard of the future, I'd have no problem with it. He's only 27.

With that said, I agree with you about not trading Rudy for him.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Seeing some of the trades Chicago has made over the years, I wouldn't be surprised if they traded the pick. The other possibility is they decide to take Beasley and trade Deng.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Dornado said:


> Its because Kirk is a combo-guard, and not a pure point guard. He's been playing PG because Ben Gordon has absolutely NO PG ability... hence Chris Duhon starting for long stretches. The Bulls would take Rose because he is a distributer... Hinrich is a quality player who can play some defense... he gets the tough assignments - chasing Rip Hamilton, holding Dwyane Wade, etc... and has done a solid job over his career. He's better than Steve Blake.


Yeah, the Blazers definitely need YET ANOTHER combo guard ...like Roy, Jack, Blake, and perhaps Rudy isn't enough.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Balian said:


> Yeah, the Blazers definitely need YET ANOTHER combo guard ...like Roy, Jack, Blake, and perhaps Rudy isn't enough.


I wasn't the one saying you should trade for him... you really need a tall ball handler to go with him.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

angrypuppy said:


> It is premature to state that the Bulls are disinterested in Fernandez. The Bulls are in a state of flux. They don't even know who the next head coach will be, they don't know how the new coach will feel about the existing roster, they don't even know how they'll deal with Ben Gordon. The only certainty in terms of need is low-post scoring, and it is highly doubtful they'll get it for Kirk Heinrich... unless they settle for Knick toxic sludge.


I didn't say they wouldn't be interested in Rudy. What I said I think they have to many SG/SF type players but still would jump at the chance to get Rudy for Hinrich. It it way to much to pay for Hinrich IMO. I'm pretty sure KP wouldn't do any trade where we possibly trade 3 players including Rudy and our 1st round pick for Hinrich. We will see what the Bulls end up getting for Hinrich if they even trade him. I have a feeling with the offers they will get they might not even trade him. Hinrich will make over 10 million next year and had a bad year after signing that big contract. I would take Hinrich in a trade if we didn't have to give up to much but would pass and go with what we have otherwise.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

outlaw,jack and raef for hinrich and a future 1st rounder sounds nice to me...after thinking about it


then with the 13th pick we pick up a guy like donte green or joe alexander or anthony randolph to fill in for outlaw


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

dwood615 said:


> outlaw,jack and raef for hinrich and a future 1st rounder sounds nice to me...after thinking about it
> 
> 
> then with the 13th pick we pick up a guy like donte green or joe alexander or anthony randolph to fill in for outlaw


I'm probably in the minority but I wouldn't trade Outlaw for Hinrich straight across.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

if we got a first rounder out of it i would...especially if we have a starting lineup of this...assuming jj opts out


hinrich/blake/sergio
roy/webster
fernandez/13th pick(randolph/green/alexander/batum)
la/frye/mcbob
oden/pryz


and use a second rounder or 2 to fill out the roster


or if jj doesnt opted out

hinrich/blake/sergio
roy/webster/2nd rounder
fernandez/james jones/13th pick(randolph/green/alexander/batum)
la/frye/mcbob
oden/pryz/2nd rounder


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that both KP and Hinrich are Kansas guys. Something to keep in mind. 

I'd like to see Hinrich as our future PG if we can get him for a decent price. McRoberts, Jack, and our 13th pick? :biggrin: I think Hinrich would fit in perfectly with our core on and off the court.

Chicago should draft Rose IMO. I think he'll be a D.Williams type player. And he's from the Chicago area.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Pritchard's post draft lotto comments

http://www.blazersedge.com/

interesting....


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I have not been a big proponent of getting Kirk, but the more I think about it, he might really fit nicely into the Blazer fold. But I really worry about his ability to bounce back. A 4 guard rotation of Roy/Kirk, Rudy/Blake should be very solid and stable group. I would trade Outlaw or Webster with Raef and Jack. but only after we looked into getting Calderon first. I am surprised when I look at our roster just how stacked we would still be. 

I actually think that the Bulls would not be that interested in Outlaw. I think they would want Joel, and although he is needed on the Blazers next year, that might actually be a better long term move. With the #13, we would select Jordan or Koufas, or bring over Freeland if he is improving enough. We would be thin at C, but with Oden hopefully playing 35mpg, that won't be a problem long.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

we could always sign a cheap vet center too^^^


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah get me jose c. not kirk!


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

From my view, these are the players i wouldn't give up for Hinrich:

Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Outlaw, Pryzbilla.

But from there, its tough to make them an offer for Hinrich that they wouldn't laugh at, unless they are just lookin' to dump him since they are picking up rose and he has a big contract.

And while i'm not that big of a fan of Calderon either, I have to admit that Calderon is really good, and hasn't hit his peak yet. I don't like the 4-6 year age difference between him and our core, but he is a good player, and already has good chemistry w/ Rudy.

I wouldn't trade Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Rudy or Pryzbilla for Calderon, but would probably be willing to trade the rest. I still think we could not make a package good enough that they would want, without actually making our team worse than better (which is the point).

Which is why i'm in favor of goin' through the draft and letting him backup Blake as a low risk high reward player, and seeing how he develops. If Hudson looks good, i think it would be a good idea to trade down to the 20s and take him. After watching Stuckey, i really like how he plays, and it looks like Hudson kinda reminds people of him. Reading articles about Hudson and draft profiles, he really seems like he can do everything.



NBADraft.net on Lester Hudson said:


> Talented combo guard with excellent NBA potential ... Prolific scorer, (over 25 ppg) ... Has a quick first step and a killer crossover allowing him to blow by defenders and get into the paint ... Does a good job of creating baskets for himself and others ... Has precision passes for ally oops even from well beyond the three point arc ... drives exceptionally well, with defenses collapsing on him ... Has a great shot off the dribble, and is able to hit it going straight up or fading away ... Has a terrific body for a point guard with size, length and strength ... Can put points up in a hurry. Advanced mid-range game ... Shows excellent vision and passing ability ... A great defender. A bigtime ball hawk, fourth in the nation in steals ... Shows great anticipation and his quick hands and feet make him a tremendous on ball defender ... Gets good lift on his shot and shows a solid shooting form ... An excellent shooter with 3-point range and consistency on his shot. Shoots threes at a high volume and great efficiency ... His form and strength should allow him to step back 5 feet and hit the pro three with consistency in time ... His body strength allows him to finish after contact, play physical and also helps his range ... Knocks down free throws at a high percentage >80% ... Solid rebounder for his position. Plays bigger than 6-3 with his long wing span ... Unlike many prolific scorers, Hudson is unselfish getting teammates involved offensively, creating easy baskets for them ... Clutch player who comes up with big shots when his team needs them ... Highly competitive ...


He seems like a low-risk high-reward type player.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> From my view, these are the players i wouldn't give up for Hinrich:
> 
> Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Outlaw, Pryzbilla.
> 
> But from there, its tough to make them an offer for Hinrich that they wouldn't laugh at, unless they are just lookin' to dump him since they are picking up rose and he has a big contract.



Which loops back to the original post. Hinrich is coming off a bad year, has many years/dollars left on his contract, and with Rose coming in, I can imagine them wanting to move Kirk. I agree with your no-trade list, except for Outlaw. If we trade Outlaw, we have a better chance of keeping James Jones. And I think Outlaw is a pretty one dimensional player. 

I think we all would have been estatic to get Kirk a year ago, but this season has dropped his value.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

they may just pick beasley and keep hinrich


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Bulls fan checking in with some thoughts for you all:

- Reading through this thread, it's clear that a lot of you don't know all that much about Kirk. That's alright, though, as I sure as heck know as much or less about many of the players around the league that aren't on my team.

- Hinrich would be a terrific fit for Portland, and a backcourt of Hinrich/Roy would be phenomenal. Hinrich had a down year much like the Bulls as a whole, but he's still a very solid player. I think the problem that has shown itself with Kirk on the Bulls is that he's not a leader. He's very well-suited to be a third or fourth banana, and that's exactly what he'd be for Portland. His shooting can hit some rough spots, but he can be the player he was two years ago (albeit it'd be reduced a bit with Portland).

- Defensively, he took a step back last year, but it's hard to say if that will continue into the future. He put on more muscle this past season and seemed to lose his quickness a bit. It would certainly help him to not have to be covering for Ben Gordon a lot of the time, though.

Basically, Hinrich would be a great fit for you. The only question at hand is what sort of deal would get him? It would surely end up including Raef and #13, but other than that I've got no idea.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Balian said:


> Yeah, the Blazers definitely need YET ANOTHER combo guard ...like Roy, Jack, Blake, and perhaps Rudy isn't enough.


Jack should not have a future with this team.

The more I think about it, the more I'm warming up to the idea of a Hinrich/Roy backcourt giving way to Blake/Rudy.

Thanks for the input King_Joseus.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I want Ben Gordon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I want Ben Gordon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That might work, as well. Roy/Gordon would be similar to Hinrich/Gordon except that Roy > Hinrich. Gordon's a great shooter, though average on D at best.

If Gordon's head is in the right place, he's a phenomenal piece to have (ideally off the bench, but could work as a starter with Roy).

Hinrich and Gordon each have their strengths and weaknesses. Gordon would give you a great shooter while Hinrich would provide defense and solid play (with less ballhandling/turnover issues).


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I think Hinrich would be better for this team than Gordon. I feel like Rudy can do what Gordon does better than Blake can do what Hinrich does.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

King Joseus said:


> Bulls fan checking in with some thoughts for you all:
> 
> - Reading through this thread, it's clear that a lot of you don't know all that much about Kirk. That's alright, though, as I sure as heck know as much or less about many of the players around the league that aren't on my team.
> 
> ...


Webster
Raef
#13

for

Hinrich
Nocioni

Would that work for either team?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Webster
> Raef
> #13
> 
> ...


Theoretically. I honestly don't know much about Webster at all. Based on my very limited knowledge of him, it actually looks like a solid deal to me - the Bulls would be embracing their youth a bit more while Portland would be stepping away a bit with a solid starter and a reliable bench vet (neither of which is old by any means).

I definitely think it would have to be considered.


----------

