Finally, another Bulls blog(?)
Well it's young, but I've enjoyed reading Thank You Isaiah so far, and not just because of the name.
Here's a sample of their most recent post...and it uses Roland Ratings so it gets my attention:
BUT...in all of the trade talk, there are always three main names from our core guys bandied about: Deng (less so now, but I think he's still viewed as expendable for the right superstar, which is still insane, b/c in 2 more years, he will be the right superstar), Nocioni and Gordon. In any event, I was tooling around 82games.com the other day, and the thought arose: Why isn't Hinrich ever considered as expendable as these other guys?
It continues from there with the evidence...
Of course I can't just post such a quote without comment: As I've said several times before when discussing big-picture scenarios, I think the timetable is accelerated through the Wallace signing and Brown's expiring deal where difference-making deals should be aggressively explored. But also I think the numbers presented say more about how good Ben Gordon's been this year (and I'll give him the proper due [in full-length-post form] soon) than it does about Hinrich's relative expendability...and I'm much more hesitant to deal him now than I was a few weeks ago.
But differences in opinion aside, it's a good post. So go there and say hi.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's a step up
As far as the notion of a 'core' goes, it would seem the only players with long term deals are Hinrich and Wallace, so considering both untouchables would probably be sound thinking. I'm not discounting Deng, Gordon, or Nocioni's future with the Bulls, only stating the obvious that the organization is officially sold on keeping Hinrich and Wallace. Sure they gave a big contract to Chander, but there wasn't much choice in the matter.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Dec 21, 2006 12:21 AM CST reply actions
wow you guys sound like your
by JoJoEnglish94bulls4ever on Dec 21, 2006 12:45 AM CST reply actions
Yes, they do need girlfriends...
by Rick S on Dec 21, 2006 1:05 AM CST up reply actions
Rick you SOB :-)
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 21, 2006 9:28 AM CST up reply actions
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!
by Bullschicago on Dec 21, 2006 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
I saw that
JoeJoe/JoJo
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 21, 2006 9:26 AM CST up reply actions
Man I got so many
by JoJoEnglish94bulls4ever on Dec 21, 2006 2:19 PM CST up reply actions
Why Can't we keep everyone?
If we have Ben and Kirk locked up at around 22 million combined the next 3 years after this one, what's the harm in giving Gordon, Noce, and Deng all 8-9 million and Duhon 6? That's around 55-60 million dollars, plus the entry level contracts of Thabo and Thomas. That's an 8 player rotation, plus our draft picks this year that will be entry level deals long enough until Wallace's contract expires. What's wrong with this plan? On top of that, we'll be losing PJ's contract too at the end of this year, so adding a couple 9 million dollar deals isn't as unfeasible as it sounds, considering we're like 26th in the league in salary right now, with PJ's included.
Leaving these guys together for the next 3 years is going to provide more winning than mortgaging the future on KG for a 2 year window before his knees fall apart. And who's to say he would elevate us to the championship anyway? I say stick with these 8 guys, plus the rookies next year, for the next 4-5 years, and see how many rings we get.
I have doubts
Are all of our core members going to sign the contract extensions when they know there is a good chance of letting the free agent market drive up the price? Kirk was signed at a relative bargain, but not all of our negotiations are going to go as cheaply as his.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Gordon also could command a higher price in free agency, as he could go ballistic on offense on the right team.
by Bullschicago on Dec 21, 2006 11:18 AM CST up reply actions
But what if
So what if the Hornets offer C. Paul for Hinrich, would you bite on that deal? We get younger, faster, better passing and decision making. We do lose a little on the defensive end, but Paul is no puss on the defensive end. This sort of move will help our transition game that will be created from good defense.
by DannyRange on Dec 21, 2006 9:01 AM CST reply actions
no no
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 21, 2006 9:31 AM CST up reply actions
I missed that discussion.
That said, anyone who wouldn't trade Hinrich for Paul considering age and salary is insane. This is not a criticism of Hinrich either. Even on straight up production for one season, I'd take Paul. I don't think Hinrich's defense is THAT good.
by Eddy Currys Broken Heart on Dec 21, 2006 10:02 AM CST up reply actions
as much as it hurts
The Hornets wouldn't trade Paul
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Dec 21, 2006 10:35 AM CST up reply actions
I'm a
blasphemy!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 21, 2006 12:03 PM CST up reply actions
players and coaches alone . . . . "
http://www.flakmag.com/sports/cook050207.html
by GWKD on Dec 21, 2006 12:30 PM CST up reply actions
I'm glad
by Moses Taylor on Dec 22, 2006 11:14 AM CST up reply actions
Me, too, Sue.
I'll still
I'm still holding out hope
Aren't Hinrich's overall numbers influenced
I think a case could be made that his production within the context of the Chicago Bulls doesn't completely describe his abilities.
I wondered about this
also
+/- and Roland Ratings aren't perfect...they're just a tool to use in evaluations.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 21, 2006 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
Stats
I looked at Hinrich, Duhon, and Gordon's stats at the point guard position, which is what you're looking at above. I chose minutes for statistical reasons, PER is almost essential (and I don't need to list points, rebounds, assists, etc.), and the team offense, defense, and win% to show how well the team plays with a specific point guard.
Obviously Gordon hasn't played enough point guard for those stats to mean anything. Hinrich and Duhon have surprisingly comparable numbers, and Duhon has a better PPR (which I didn't list) as well. The glaring exception here is PER, and Hinrich's 19.7 has him producing at a near-elite level.
The biggest problem I have with Duhon's numbers, especially team points allowed, is that he is often playing alongside an out of position Hinrich. Kirk is still out there guarding the better perimeter players and making up for Duhon's offensive weaknesses. I wish I could come up with more really solid conclusions from this, but Skiles' insistence on limiting Jizzle's minutes and playing Hinrich out of position skew the stats.
I think it's pretty obvious as an observer and fan that Kirk is the best point guard on the team, and a Hinrich/Gordon backcourt gives the Bulls the most balance despite size problems. Hopefully Sefolosha replaces Duhon's minutes, and Kirk can play his natural position with more frequency. A good point guard is almost as hard to find as a good big anyway.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Dec 21, 2006 5:37 PM CST reply actions

by 










