2nd_city_saint787 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Hinrich is a good defensive guard playing for a defensive coach....It really is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 11:21 AM) Rose really isn't that bad defensively, and if someone can explain to me what you are getting in Hinrich at the 2, I'd love to hear it. Is it a better offensive lineup with him there? If not, then it must be better at defense...but I'd much rather use Snell's 7 foot wingspan at SG if we are going defense and jimmy at the 3. So it must be adding a second ballhandler. I am drooling right now thinking about kirk dribbling for 15 seconds and then passing it to a cutting rose to shoot a desperation shotclock expiring jumper. Hinrich is Mark Kotsay in his stay with the white sox. You can all make all the arguments about all these things Hinrich "can" do, but he's not particularly good at any of them. I'd much, much rather have given ourselves a potential offense-heavy unit that paired rose with a guard who can take defenders off the dribble and shoot 3s at a consistent clip. We don't have that. We do have guards that aren't particularly good on offense, decent at defense and aren't inspired balhandlers. Disagree. Kirk is a good defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) Disagree. Kirk is a good defender. At the very least he isn't a BAD defender, which is more than you can say for DJ/Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Don't know how much stock should be put in real plus minus, but Kirk ranked 15th among all guards defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 06:13 PM) At the very least he isn't a BAD defender, which is more than you can say for DJ/Nate. okay. But the team scored 68 points in a playoff game, when this team needs offense, are you going to throw Kirk at the 2? That's exciting to everyone? I'd rather have tried the BAE on Shawn Marion than kirk if we wanted defensive re-enforcement. I'd have no problem had Kirk decided to pay the org a true discount and signed for vet min I'd be all for it. But to sign him at 2 million per because he is better at defense than 2 offensive guards, meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) okay. But the team scored 68 points in a playoff game, when this team needs offense, are you going to throw Kirk at the 2? That's exciting to everyone? I'd rather have tried the BAE on Shawn Marion than kirk if we wanted defensive re-enforcement. I'd have no problem had Kirk decided to pay the org a true discount and signed for vet min I'd be all for it. But to sign him at 2 million per because he is better at defense than 2 offensive guards, meh. He isn't going to be THE 2. He might get minutes at the 2. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 06:30 PM) He isn't going to be THE 2. He might get minutes at the 2. Big difference. I didn't say he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) okay. But the team scored 68 points in a playoff game, when this team needs offense, are you going to throw Kirk at the 2? That's exciting to everyone? I'd rather have tried the BAE on Shawn Marion than kirk if we wanted defensive re-enforcement. I'd have no problem had Kirk decided to pay the org a true discount and signed for vet min I'd be all for it. But to sign him at 2 million per because he is better at defense than 2 offensive guards, meh. If they need to score points they're going to put in Gasol or McDermott and play "big." Or even Brooks. Kirk will be the PG of the 2nd unit, expected to play about 10-15 minutes a game against other teams' 2nd units. I think that's something he can handle just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) I didn't say he was. Then there is even less reason to be in an uproar about it. Hinrich's primary job will be to spell Rose. The lions share of his minutes will be logged there. He will get a few minutes here and there at the 2 as match ups and game situations dictate. It is hardly worth getting upset about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) okay. But the team scored 68 points in a playoff game, when this team needs offense, are you going to throw Kirk at the 2? That's exciting to everyone? I'd rather have tried the BAE on Shawn Marion than kirk if we wanted defensive re-enforcement. I'd have no problem had Kirk decided to pay the org a true discount and signed for vet min I'd be all for it. But to sign him at 2 million per because he is better at defense than 2 offensive guards, meh. you are acting like Hinrich was the only addition, and is going to be the starter going forward forever. He is a backup. If he ends up being the starter, then the Bulls are certainly in trouble(for reasons other than him starting), but he was not brought in to be the starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I'm perfectly fine with hinrich and his defense as long as he does not take a shot all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) I'm perfectly fine with hinrich and his defense as long as he does not take a shot all season. Lets not forget it was just 2 years ago that Kirk shot 39% from beyond the arc. He's had Alex Rios syndrome the last few years. 13-35% 12-39% 11-34% 10-38/42%....Even his bad years beyond the arc aren't THAT bad. When he and Rose are on the floor together all he really needs to be is a 3 point shooter. If he can shoot ~37% from 3 he'd be adding to the offense. If he's put in the position to do more then they could be in some trouble. Edited July 21, 2014 by scs787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 07:02 PM) you are acting like Hinrich was the only addition, and is going to be the starter going forward forever. He is a backup. If he ends up being the starter, then the Bulls are certainly in trouble(for reasons other than him starting), but he was not brought in to be the starter. No, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm questioning the allocation of resources to a s*** backup PG for the BAE when more interesting moves were available, or players with different skill sets (offense) were available. Other bulls fans, who liked the offseason, need to convince themselves that because they like Doug and Nikola, that Kirk must also have been a good addition because they like to feel good and not think of anything bad. But Kirk sucks, we know he sucks because we've watched him suck, and this season when he dribbles in circles for 20 minutes and can't get the ball to our incredible second line of shooters, we will hear about how Kirk sucks on this very board that is so happy we used our last bit of attractive flexibility on Kirk Hinrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) okay. But the team scored 68 points in a playoff game, when this team needs offense, are you going to throw Kirk at the 2? That's exciting to everyone? I'd rather have tried the BAE on Shawn Marion than kirk if we wanted defensive re-enforcement. I'd have no problem had Kirk decided to pay the org a true discount and signed for vet min I'd be all for it. But to sign him at 2 million per because he is better at defense than 2 offensive guards, meh. FWIW, Kirk was 4-5 from beyond the arc and 6-11 overall in that 68 point game....He wasn't the problem.....DJ was 1-10 that game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) No, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm questioning the allocation of resources to a s*** backup PG for the BAE when more interesting moves were available, or players with different skill sets (offense) were available. Other bulls fans, who liked the offseason, need to convince themselves that because they like Doug and Nikola, that Kirk must also have been a good addition because they like to feel good and not think of anything bad. But Kirk sucks, we know he sucks because we've watched him suck, and this season when he dribbles in circles for 20 minutes and can't get the ball to our incredible second line of shooters, we will hear about how Kirk sucks on this very board that is so happy we used our last bit of attractive flexibility on Kirk Hinrich. Yes you will because players do suck for certain stretches and Kirk is not without his weaknesses. Overall, he's an effective but boring player. If he plays sparingly as a true backup, you won't notice him. If he plays starters' minutes, it will be more frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) No, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm questioning the allocation of resources to a s*** backup PG for the BAE when more interesting moves were available, or players with different skill sets (offense) were available. Other bulls fans, who liked the offseason, need to convince themselves that because they like Doug and Nikola, that Kirk must also have been a good addition because they like to feel good and not think of anything bad. But Kirk sucks, we know he sucks because we've watched him suck, and this season when he dribbles in circles for 20 minutes and can't get the ball to our incredible second line of shooters, we will hear about how Kirk sucks on this very board that is so happy we used our last bit of attractive flexibility on Kirk Hinrich. Hinrich fits what the Bulls need. They don't need a guy who can win you games. They need a guy who won't hurt you while Derrick Rose isn't on the floor. A defender first player is the perfect thing to have behind Rose, especially as you are building a bench with shooters that can take care of the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) Lets not forget it was just 2 years ago that Kirk shot 39% from beyond the arc. He's had Alex Rios syndrome the last few years. 13-35% 12-39% 11-34% 10-38/42%....Even his bad years beyond the arc aren't THAT bad. When he and Rose are on the floor together all he really needs to be is a 3 point shooter. If he can shoot ~37% from 3 he'd be adding to the offense. If he's put in the position to do more then they could be in some trouble. Oh and play premium defense. Real Plus or Minus was also really poor on DJ Augustin. By the way, Rose is not a bad defensive pg. Not sure where that came from. I wouldn't call him great, but he's a solid defensive player for his position, if not slightly above average (or at least was). I'm excited to watch some of the US practices that will be televised in a week or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) No, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm questioning the allocation of resources to a s*** backup PG for the BAE when more interesting moves were available, or players with different skill sets (offense) were available. Other bulls fans, who liked the offseason, need to convince themselves that because they like Doug and Nikola, that Kirk must also have been a good addition because they like to feel good and not think of anything bad. But Kirk sucks, we know he sucks because we've watched him suck, and this season when he dribbles in circles for 20 minutes and can't get the ball to our incredible second line of shooters, we will hear about how Kirk sucks on this very board that is so happy we used our last bit of attractive flexibility on Kirk Hinrich. What game changers were available in Hinrich's price range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 12:18 PM) No, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm questioning the allocation of resources to a s*** backup PG for the BAE when more interesting moves were available, or players with different skill sets (offense) were available. Other bulls fans, who liked the offseason, need to convince themselves that because they like Doug and Nikola, that Kirk must also have been a good addition because they like to feel good and not think of anything bad. But Kirk sucks, we know he sucks because we've watched him suck, and this season when he dribbles in circles for 20 minutes and can't get the ball to our incredible second line of shooters, we will hear about how Kirk sucks on this very board that is so happy we used our last bit of attractive flexibility on Kirk Hinrich. It isn't like the Bulls were the only team to offer Kirk. He took less money to play with Chicago. Kirk has played everywhere he has gone and yes, there are actually some statistics, which factor in defense, that rate him pretty well. If you want to complain cause he can't handle a starting gig, go ahead, because he can't, but that isn't what he is here for. Aaron Brooks and Hinrich is better then Aaron Brooks and DJ in our back court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Another way to think about it is: if you think both were worth the room exception (what was used on Hinrich), which of the two would have been easier to replace at the minimum? I don't see Aaron Brooks being appreciably worse than DJ Augustin. With that said, part of having a coach who is supposed to be excellent is buying in when he says that [x player] needs to be on the team for a couple million per year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 12:22 PM) Hinrich fits what the Bulls need. They don't need a guy who can win you games. They need a guy who won't hurt you while Derrick Rose isn't on the floor. A defender first player is the perfect thing to have behind Rose, especially as you are building a bench with shooters that can take care of the offense. A guy that is going to win you games is not there at 2.7M per year. Hinrich is one piece to the part and with a healthy Rose will be a pretty efficient and effective role player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 12:35 PM) Another way to think about it is: if you think both were worth the room exception (what was used on Hinrich), which of the two would have been easier to replace at the minimum? I don't see Aaron Brooks being appreciably worse than DJ Augustin. With that said, part of having a coach who is supposed to be excellent is buying in when he says that [x player] needs to be on the team for a couple million per year Great post. I think Aaron Brooks might be better then DJ. Might be slightly worse. Bottom line, I'm happy if we got Brooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) No, I'm not acting like that at all. I'm questioning the allocation of resources to a s*** backup PG for the BAE when more interesting moves were available, or players with different skill sets (offense) were available. Other bulls fans, who liked the offseason, need to convince themselves that because they like Doug and Nikola, that Kirk must also have been a good addition because they like to feel good and not think of anything bad. But Kirk sucks, we know he sucks because we've watched him suck, and this season when he dribbles in circles for 20 minutes and can't get the ball to our incredible second line of shooters, we will hear about how Kirk sucks on this very board that is so happy we used our last bit of attractive flexibility on Kirk Hinrich. In comparison to Lebron James, yes, he sucks. In comparison to other back-up point guards making 2 million a year, he's actually pretty good. His shooting is about the only thing that sucks in his game. He can do everything else just fine for 10-15 minutes a game against a 2nd unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 07:20 PM) FWIW, Kirk was 4-5 from beyond the arc and 6-11 overall in that 68 point game....He wasn't the problem.....DJ was 1-10 that game Kirk was getting paid $4 million last year to shoot 32% from the field and 75% from FT. Please tell me some more great 1-game samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 21, 2014 -> 07:36 PM) In comparison to Lebron James, yes, he sucks. In comparison to other back-up point guards making 2 million a year, he's actually pretty good. His shooting is about the only thing that sucks in his game. He can do everything else just fine for 10-15 minutes a game against a 2nd unit. So can other players for the vet min. A guard that can't shoot or pass...it does sound appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts