Bulls Beat #107 - Case for Kirk

[dougthonus]

collisrost wrote:

Props to Doug for playing Devil's advocate and risking the wrath of his fellow podcasters. You can be sure there will be at least one rant about Doug's views in each of the other podcasts this week. I look forward to it.

The thing is, I completely agree with Doug, a case can be made for Kirk over Gordon, but somehow it just doesn't feel right....

Given a choice, I think I would take Gordon over Kirk, but I just think the gap isn't so far as Gordon fans would lead you to believe. I think Gordon is a more talented player, and I think that is almost always the way you want to go.

However, I think with Salmons on board, that Hinrich may actually be the better fit for team balance. His contract will certainly be better, and I think his locker room intangibles are better. A lot of Ben's strengths will become less important as this becomes Rose's team (not that scoring efficiently is ever unimportant, but as Rose becomes the goto man, Gordon's gotoness won't be quite as important).

I'm still hoping the answer is Gordon at the end of the day, but I don't think people should get as upset if it's not.

 

[Kush77]

Just listened to the case for Kirk. And Doug made good points.

My stance on gordon has nothing to do with "hating Kirk hinrich", I just don't think Hinrich is that good. And I'm not sure how someone who has basically averaged 10ppg over the last two season gets such a defense from fans and media.

What if Ben gordon averaged 10ppg over the last 2 years? Would there be people rushing to his defense? God no! People are quick to rip him when he has two bad games.

Kirk's defense, yeah, he's a above average defender. He's not all-world. I'm sorry, Hinrich's D doesn't make up for the fact that he's a 10ppg scorer, shoots in the low 40's, and never gets to the FT line.

Is there something holding back Hinrich that we don't know about? If he's really the player of 2006-07, then where is it? Maybe he isn't that player.

Out of the points Doug made, the only one I disagree with is the salary part of it.
Hinrich's deal runs out when Rose would get his extension, that shouldn't matter at all. And that's me taking my shots at cheap-ass Reinsdorf. I don't care what salary is on the books, whoever, Rose gets paid regardless.

I just think it's an absolute joke that the luxury tax is an issue when it comes to a team in the third largest market in the U.S., and an owner that has made a killing during his time as owner of the Chicago Bulls.

Not that DT's point about the money is wrong, I just don't think it should be a factor at the end of the day. And DT would agree. But I know he was looking at it the cheap eyes of uncle Jerry.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

Kush77 wrote:

Out of the points Doug made, the only one I disagree with is the salary part of it.
Hinrich's deal runs out when Rose would get his extension, that shouldn't matter at all. And that's me taking my shots at cheap-ass Reinsdorf. I don't care what salary is on the books, whoever, Rose gets paid regardless.

I just think it's an absolute joke that the luxury tax is an issue when it comes to a team in the third largest market in the U.S., and an owner that has made a killing during his time as owner of the Chicago Bulls.

Im torn on this as well. You'd like to think that JR is going to give Derrick whatever he is worth, regardless of the luxury tax implications, but can we really count on that happening? JR has shown that he WILL pay the tax when the team is title contending, but only then. In the Bulls case, I can't imagine this team being at the "lottery" level in a couple years when Rose is up for a new contract, but at the same time, I don't know that they will be contending for anything other then a 2nd round playoff birth, maybe squeaking into the ECF. In the eyes of Jerry, that may not be enough.

I suppose we will cross this bridge in time...but if I'm Pax, I build the team assuming that resigning Rose is a given, even if it puts them over the tax. I just can't see anyway that JR say's "no" and lets Rose walk. It would be mind boggling and JR would need to go into protective custody for the rest of his life as there would be a mob, roughly the size of Chicago and its suburbs, wanting his head.

 

[dougthonus]

Out of the points Doug made, the only one I disagree with is the salary part of it.
Hinrich's deal runs out when Rose would get his extension, that shouldn't matter at all. And that's me taking my shots at cheap-ass Reinsdorf. I don't care what salary is on the books, whoever, Rose gets paid regardless.

I just think it's an absolute joke that the luxury tax is an issue when it comes to a team in the third largest market in the U.S., and an owner that has made a killing during his time as owner of the Chicago Bulls.

Not that DT's point about the money is wrong, I just don't think it should be a factor at the end of the day. And DT would agree. But I know he was looking at it the cheap eyes of uncle Jerry.

That's the thing though, it doesn't matter whether you think us avoiding the luxury tax is a joke (in this economy, I don't think it is any more to be honest though) because it's a fact. It is what we WILL do.

The Bulls will stay below the tax unless they look ready to win a title and exceeding the tax will significantly improve the odds. You can wish it wasn't true, you can damn Reinsdorf to hell because it is true, but when you're figuring out what is best for the team it would be pointless to pretend and plan as if it's not true.

 

[dougthonus]

I suppose we will cross this bridge in time...but if I'm Pax, I build the team assuming that resigning Rose is a given, even if it puts them over the tax. I just can't see anyway that JR say's "no" and lets Rose walk. It would be mind boggling and JR would need to go into protective custody for the rest of his life as there would be a mob, roughly the size of Chicago and its suburbs, wanting his head.

He won't let Rose walk. However, he'll start selling draft picks, trading away other long term players, letting other good players walk etc..

 

[Kush77]

dougthonus wrote:

Out of the points Doug made, the only one I disagree with is the salary part of it.
Hinrich's deal runs out when Rose would get his extension, that shouldn't matter at all. And that's me taking my shots at cheap-ass Reinsdorf. I don't care what salary is on the books, whoever, Rose gets paid regardless.

I just think it's an absolute joke that the luxury tax is an issue when it comes to a team in the third largest market in the U.S., and an owner that has made a killing during his time as owner of the Chicago Bulls.

Not that DT's point about the money is wrong, I just don't think it should be a factor at the end of the day. And DT would agree. But I know he was looking at it the cheap eyes of uncle Jerry.

That's the thing though, it doesn't matter whether you think us avoiding the luxury tax is a joke (in this economy, I don't think it is any more to be honest though) because it's a fact. It is what we WILL do.

The Bulls will stay below the tax unless they look ready to win a title and exceeding the tax will significantly improve the odds. You can wish it wasn't true, you can damn Reinsdorf to hell because it is true, but when you're figuring out what is best for the team it would be pointless to pretend and plan as if it's not true.

The economy is a weak excuse, it's not hurting the Bulls. This isn't Oklahoma City, or Charlotte, or Sacramento. the Bulls are fine.

And I will continue to damn uncle Jerry to hell and not give him a free pass for being a cheap bastard and screwing over Bulls fans.

 

[Rerisen]

dougthonus wrote:

I'm still hoping the answer is Gordon at the end of the day, but I don't think people should get as upset if it's not.

To me, it isn't a matter of being so upset in terms of the team's talent, even though I do think Gordon helps us substantially more than Kirk. It's more being upset with how management has handled Gordon, and if they choose to make no effort whatsoever to try to resign him this offeseason in a weak market, I think they should be called on it.

We could already have Gordon back on the 6yr 54m deal that he tried to accept late, if the team could have buried the hatchet.

 

[dougthonus]

The economy is a weak excuse, it's not hurting the Bulls. This isn't Oklahoma City, or Charlotte, or Sacramento. the Bulls are fine.

And I will continue to damn uncle Jerry to hell and not give him a free pass for being a cheap bastard and screwing over Bulls fans.

I don't think a weak economy is "an excuse".

The Bulls revenue may drop 20 million next season. You want them to increase payroll substantially to make them one of the highest salaried teams in the league facing a huge profit loss while the team is expected to be a 1st round playoff squad.

That's not something a sound business man does. Reinsdorf still has fiduciary responsibility to the rest of the Bulls owners. He's chairman, not owner of the team. You're asking him to behave in an extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible way.

 

[dougthonus]

To me, it isn't a matter of being so upset in terms of the team's talent, even though I do think Gordon helps us substantially more than Kirk. It's more being upset with how management has handled Gordon, and if they choose to make no effort whatsoever to try to resign him this offeseason in a weak market, I think they should be called on it.

We could already have Gordon back on the 6yr 54m deal that he tried to accept late, if the team could have buried the hatchet.

We could, and the question is would the Bulls want Gordon on a 6/54 deal. I think now they would, but I imagine at the beginning of the season while Gordon was faking an injury to avoid playing in preseason and Kirk was healthy and they still expected Deng to not suck, getting Gordon locked into a deal at 6/54 probably didn't seem like a big priority after he blew off their deadline.

Right now, I think they'd take that back, sign Gordon, and then have dumped Kirk at the last deadline if they could do it all over with hindsight, of course if they could do that they'd have just not paid Deng.

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

Out of the points Doug made, the only one I disagree with is the salary part of it.
Hinrich's deal runs out when Rose would get his extension, that shouldn't matter at all. And that's me taking my shots at cheap-ass Reinsdorf. I don't care what salary is on the books, whoever, Rose gets paid regardless.

I just think it's an absolute joke that the luxury tax is an issue when it comes to a team in the third largest market in the U.S., and an owner that has made a killing during his time as owner of the Chicago Bulls.

Not that DT's point about the money is wrong, I just don't think it should be a factor at the end of the day. And DT would agree. But I know he was looking at it the cheap eyes of uncle Jerry.

That's the thing though, it doesn't matter whether you think us avoiding the luxury tax is a joke (in this economy, I don't think it is any more to be honest though) because it's a fact. It is what we WILL do.

The Bulls will stay below the tax unless they look ready to win a title and exceeding the tax will significantly improve the odds. You can wish it wasn't true, you can damn Reinsdorf to hell because it is true, but when you're figuring out what is best for the team it would be pointless to pretend and plan as if it's not true.

I agree that we will be staying under the tax. If we were reluctant before, we will be even more reluctant. Even if we still have sell outs at the stadium (or they say they do) people are spending less at the concession stands, buying less jerseys and and expiring ad contracts are going down. Revenues are going down, big market or little market and the bulls just aren't going to go over and beyond unless they can signifigantly improve their product.

 

[??? ??????]

While the Bulls revenue will definitely go down this year, they've made in excess of $300 million in profit in the post-dynasty years. I would hope that they have some extra money stored away for Gordon this summer. You can't compound two mistakes (Wallace and Deng) with a third (not re-signing your best player).

It's only a 1 year hit. It might need to be a lump we need to take on our way to becoming a championship team. I think losing Gordon could be a major setback on that.

From the way that Paxson talked after the deadline, it seems like he has some type of trade lined up involving Kirk or Deng, that they will pull off when they sign Ben.

 

[TheStig]

Kush77 wrote:

Just listened to the case for Kirk. And Doug made good points.

My stance on gordon has nothing to do with "hating Kirk hinrich", I just don't think Hinrich is that good. And I'm not sure how someone who has basically averaged 10ppg over the last two season gets such a defense from fans and media.

What if Ben gordon averaged 10ppg over the last 2 years? Would there be people rushing to his defense? God no! People are quick to rip him when he has two bad games.

Kirk's defense, yeah, he's a above average defender. He's not all-world. I'm sorry, Hinrich's D doesn't make up for the fact that he's a 10ppg scorer, shoots in the low 40's, and never gets to the FT line.

Is there something holding back Hinrich that we don't know about? If he's really the player of 2006-07, then where is it? Maybe he isn't that player.

Out of the points Doug made, the only one I disagree with is the salary part of it.
Hinrich's deal runs out when Rose would get his extension, that shouldn't matter at all. And that's me taking my shots at cheap-ass Reinsdorf. I don't care what salary is on the books, whoever, Rose gets paid regardless.

I just think it's an absolute joke that the luxury tax is an issue when it comes to a team in the third largest market in the U.S., and an owner that has made a killing during his time as owner of the Chicago Bulls.

Not that DT's point about the money is wrong, I just don't think it should be a factor at the end of the day. And DT would agree. But I know he was looking at it the cheap eyes of uncle Jerry.

I think you are picking on Kirk's defense a little. There are no more lock down defenders in the nba, the rules just don't allow it. There is no hand checking and any time a star gets breathed on the wrong way its a foul. But for down the stretch when we put kirk in, he looks like the closest thing to a lock down defender in the league. Ultimately I still go with BG because I think he is a vastly superior scorer, shooter and doesn't hold the ball nearly as much as BG. I think BG should concentrate more on either driving or shooting and not trying to go into isolation plays and he will be a very good fit.

 

[dougthonus]

??? ?????? wrote:

While the Bulls revenue will definitely go down this year, they've made in excess of $300 million in profit in the post-dynasty years. I would hope that they have some extra money stored away for Gordon this summer. You can't compound two mistakes (Wallace and Deng) with a third (not re-signing your best player).

It's only a 1 year hit. It might need to be a lump we need to take on our way to becoming a championship team. I think losing Gordon could be a major setback on that.

From the way that Paxson talked after the deadline, it seems like he has some type of trade lined up involving Kirk or Deng, that they will pull off when they sign Ben.

I agree that it would be nice if that were the case, and I sincerely hope BG stays as I think he's very good.

I don't think it will be the case though.

 

[Dpauley23]

If we acquire Bosh/Amare in the offseason then there's no real use for Gordon. We will need to start getting better at defense not offense. While I agree Gordon is average defender, we need to start bringing in defensive pieces since our coach doesn't know to draw up defensive scheme. Doug have you heard anything from Tyrus camp about him building up weight?

 

[cool007]

Dpauley23 wrote:

If we acquire Bosh/Amare in the offseason then there's no real use for Gordon. We will need to start getting better at defense not offense. While I agree Gordon is average defender, we need to start bringing in defensive pieces since our coach doesn't know to draw up defensive scheme. Doug have you heard anything from Tyrus camp about him building up weight?

I totally disagree. If anything we SHOULD keep Gordon. The inside/outside game would be crazy good. It's not like Bosh will carry the team to championship. He is not Tim Duncan and even he needed guys like Elliott and Ginobli to give him enough room down low to work.

Gordon can spread the floor like no-one. He is that type of player that Coaches would kill his players for leaving that guy open. If they have hard time right now guarding Gordon with no inside presence, imagine when we have Bosh/Amare?

Defense is good and all but you need offense as well. I think it should start with Rose, once he improves his D, we will no longer need Kirk at either end.

 

[Kush77]

Dpauley23 wrote:

If we acquire Bosh/Amare in the offseason then there's no real use for Gordon. We will need to start getting better at defense not offense. While I agree Gordon is average defender, we need to start bringing in defensive pieces since our coach doesn't know to draw up defensive scheme. Doug have you heard anything from Tyrus camp about him building up weight?

I disagree, a team that wins a title always need a third legit scoring option. The Bulls would have three (if they got Bosh/Stoudemire). Kirk Hinrich is not consistent enough to be a third scoring option. Deng, maybe, if he's not hurt that is.

 

[cool007]

Kush77 wrote:

Dpauley23 wrote:

If we acquire Bosh/Amare in the offseason then there's no real use for Gordon. We will need to start getting better at defense not offense. While I agree Gordon is average defender, we need to start bringing in defensive pieces since our coach doesn't know to draw up defensive scheme. Doug have you heard anything from Tyrus camp about him building up weight?

I disagree, a team that wins a title always need a third legit scoring option. The Bulls would have three (if they got Bosh/Stoudemire). Kirk Hinrich is not consistent enough to be a third scoring option. Deng, maybe, if he's not hurt that is.

Hey what;s up Kush man? We missed you yesterday.

Anyway, I totally agree with you. Gordon is that legit 20ppg threat you would need if we were to bring in Bosh/Amare. With Rose/Bosh we would make the playoffs but we wouldn't be contenders, now if you have Rose/Gordon/Bosh trio, we would be contenders.

 

[Kush77]

dougthonus wrote:

The economy is a weak excuse, it's not hurting the Bulls. This isn't Oklahoma City, or Charlotte, or Sacramento. the Bulls are fine.

And I will continue to damn uncle Jerry to hell and not give him a free pass for being a cheap bastard and screwing over Bulls fans.

I don't think a weak economy is "an excuse".

The Bulls revenue may drop 20 million next season. You want them to increase payroll substantially to make them one of the highest salaried teams in the league facing a huge profit loss while the team is expected to be a 1st round playoff squad.

That's not something a sound business man does. Reinsdorf still has fiduciary responsibility to the rest of the Bulls owners. He's chairman, not owner of the team. You're asking him to behave in an extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible way.

And you can make excuses for him if you want DT, I will call him out for being the cheap bastard that he is.

Were the Bulls concerned about the economy when they raised season ticket prices for some holders? I don't think so. So I don't want to hear the economy as an excuse for letting one of the best players walk away.

I'm aware Reinsdorf is a businessman and he has an obligation to his board. Well, I think they also have an obligation to the fans. And as a fan, and a host of a Bulls podcast, I will rip him at every opportunity. Not makes excuses. The Bulls aren't going broke, they ain't GM, they ain't AIG (or AIU now) the Bulls are fine and have made plenty of money. They can spend a little more to not let one of the top players walk away.

When did it become "extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible" to resign one of your best players. They are a major franchise in the third largest market in the U.S., and they get away with this luxury tax excuse.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

I can see JR going into the tax, short term, to sign a superstar.

I cannot, however, see JR going into the tax, short term, on BG.

The hope is that maybe we are able to swing a deal for Bosh/Amare this offseason, and can reasonably argue that with BG, we would be contenders in the east (coming off a playoff series where we hopefully won a few games versus CLE/BOS/ORL). EVEN THEN....JR would probably say no as we would still have a young team, a young (and sorta crappy) head coach, and the possibility of missing the playoffs all together would still exist.

 

[AirP]

If it's between Kirk and Gordon... I'd keep Gordon and move him to 6th man and bring in a defensive specialist at SG(or just keep Salmons there). Gordon is an elite 6th man, Hinrich is just a good defensive SG who plays some backup PG.

PG - Rose, Gordon
SG - ?, Gordon
SF - Salmons, ?
PF - ? , Noah
C - Noah, Miller

Move Tyrus ONLY if we can upgrade at PF. Deng(not having a 3pt shot to spread the court hurts) and Hinrich are redundant now and their money is best used somewhere else. So 3 important spots to fill with 2 1st round picks and 3 quality players to move.

Gordon has the green light to shoot nearly 100% of the time he's on the court, that's why you bring him off the bench... take shots away from the backups, not the starters.

Wouldn't mind seeing us just cycle through vet defensive SGs every couple of years(cheap and somewhat reliable)... R.Bell and A.Parker are both FAs this year, M.Barnes would also be a nice backup to add if at all possible, MLE one of those guys then you have 2 more spots to fill.