BullsByTheHorns on the Gordon/Hinrich debate

[dougthonus]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Shakes wrote:

I don't think driving more will really help, Hinrich has never gotten a lot of foul calls. Maybe the refs think "this guy is physical on D, he has to expect the same going the other way", I don't know.

Well then technically that's bad officiating and thus it's not Hinrich's fault at all.

I think there are times where Kirk deserves more fouls than he gets, but he doesn't drive into people at all. All of the bulls guards have the same problem of jumping to avoid contact when they drive.

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I hate this sophie's choice crap. There are a few viable options to keep both. JR can just pay the LT for a yr or trade JJ or Tim Thomas plus one of our picks for cap space. It really doesn't have to be one or the other. And if we can't find an upgrade at PF, there will be PT for all. If we didn't have such a cheap owner, this would never warrant any thought.

That's somewhat true, but we do have an owner who isn't going to pay the luxury tax.

I think we all hope he will, but it's not real likely is it? The only reason I'm not getting paid 15 million a year to play basketball is that I'm not a 6'9 freak athlete with mad skills, otherwise I'd be all set.

Well, the only reason we may not keep both is because Reinsdorf is cheap, but if it's the case, then what difference does the reason make if we can do nothing to change it? JR's policy for spending is what it is, it doesn't seem likely to change either. It sucks, but we probably have to live with it.

AS for other options to keep both, we could trade JJ for cap space if we send enough cash or picks, but no way could we free up cap room by moving Thomas, no one is paying us to take his contract.

If thats the case we will never be contenders unless we luck into it. Look at the 8 teams paying the LT this year. Half of them are still in the playoffs and the others are just below the line this year with key pieces they have to pay or lose in the off season. I understand JR's need to maximize profits but you can't look the other way when the product suffers. There are plenty of teams that make much less that are happy to spend to be contenders. I understand its nothing we can change but it doesn't mean we should silently accepting it and praising the organization. I think we can all agree we are missing a pf from competing, being so close losing BG is taking a step back instead of forward. I honestly can't see Pax letting it happen. I think we will see him wheeling and dealing to keep both of his guards here. Rose and BG aren't ready to shoulder all of the pressure yet and kirk is already here to back them up.

I think Pax will do whatever is necessary to keep the core group around. He has done so thus far and won't break them up unless he is getting a star. Not only that but we don't really have any room or PT for either pick and I don't see them being on our roster by the draft and definitely not by the trading deadline. I also don't see why we can't package the pick(s) with Tim Thomas to get salary relief. If OKC isn't going to use their cap space this year they will be happy to do it like they did with Phoenix. They took Kurt Thomas and got a pick for him.

 

[dougthonus]

If thats the case we will never be contenders unless we luck into it. Look at the 8 teams paying the LT this year. Half of them are still in the playoffs and the others are just below the line this year with key pieces they have to pay or lose in the off season.

Well Jerry will clearly be willing to go to just below the line (since we were basically right at it this year).

Also, over the past 10 years, only Boston (last year) was a tax payer among title winners if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Shakes]

The Spurs went over the tax by 196k in 2007.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2935728

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

If thats the case we will never be contenders unless we luck into it. Look at the 8 teams paying the LT this year. Half of them are still in the playoffs and the others are just below the line this year with key pieces they have to pay or lose in the off season.

Well Jerry will clearly be willing to go to just below the line (since we were basically right at it this year).

Also, over the past 10 years, only Boston (last year) was a tax payer among title winners if I'm not mistaken.

Well we aren't likely to have a team like the Spurs again and they account for almost half the titles in the last decade. We don't and won't have Tim Duncan so its not really fair. The other low budget team to win was the Pistons and they are more the exception but I would think Shaq's title teams went into the LT. The last championship Lakers team had a really high payroll. I don't know what the LT barriers were in years past but both the lakers and heat spent when they had Shaq.

 

[wjb1492]

Rose1 wrote:

I'm tired of reading about this contrast between Gordon and Hinrich. The proof is in the stats. They're making this a bigger deal than it really is. If you want to contend, then you go with the guy whom averaged 20ppg. If you want to save money, then just don't sign BG. If I was BG, I would go somewhere that will allow me to be appreciated. Hinrich is a overpaid backup point guard. He's not a true SG or wing player so that guy has not future with Rose. Besides, you just can't expect Hinrich to replace Gordon 20 points, I find that laughable. That's the reason why we almost made to the second round.

Well obviously if you limit the debate to points scored, Ben is going to win hands down. I think he was overly hard on Ben about doing "nothing" else, but I do think the debate is much, much closer when you look at things other than scoring. IMO, if we're looking for a starting SG I think Ben's the better choice, but if we're looking for someone to backup the 1 and 2 I think Kirk is, for many of the arguments made here. However, I see it as a close call and wouldn't just dismiss anyone who thought Ben would provide the better backup. And I don't think anyone magically expects Kirk to replace Ben's 20 points, particularly coming off the bench. The team would look different without Ben's scoring, but that doesn't necessarily have to be worse.

And for the record, I do think the team as is would be worse just removing Ben and making no other changes - but I also think the team would be worse just removing Kirk and making no other changes. Removing Ben's scoring from the team during the playoffs is easy to imagine directly, but I don't think they come close to the second round without the defense Kirk played either.

 

[dougthonus]

Well we aren't likely to have a team like the Spurs again and they account for almost half the titles in the last decade. We don't and won't have Tim Duncan so its not really fair.

The reason they have won is Tim Duncan though. The reason we won't win is not having a superstar. It's not that we won't pay the tax in vain attempt to make up for not having one.

The other low budget team to win was the Pistons and they are more the exception but I would think Shaq's title teams went into the LT. The last championship Lakers team had a really high payroll. I don't know what the LT barriers were in years past but both the lakers and heat spent when they had Shaq.

The rules for the luxury tax changed significantly in 2005 when they redid the CBA, so it's probably not a fair comparison anyway. Only one Laker title team happened in a year where the luxury tax was paid out by anyone.

Now the tax is paid every year, but I believe the threshold was raised and announced before the signing period. Whereas before the threshold was determined at the end of the season adn the tax was paid or not paid based on profits determined at the end of the season.

 

[dougthonus]

wjb1492 wrote:

Well obviously if you limit the debate to points scored, Ben is going to win hands down. I think he was overly hard on Ben about doing "nothing" else, but I do think the debate is much, much closer when you look at things other than scoring. IMO, if we're looking for a starting SG I think Ben's the better choice, but if we're looking for someone to backup the 1 and 2 I think Kirk is, for many of the arguments made here. However, I see it as a close call and wouldn't just dismiss anyone who thought Ben would provide the better backup. And I don't think anyone magically expects Kirk to replace Ben's 20 points, particularly coming off the bench. The team would look different without Ben's scoring, but that doesn't necessarily have to be worse.

And for the record, I do think the team as is would be worse just removing Ben and making no other changes - but I also think the team would be worse just removing Kirk and making no other changes. Removing Ben's scoring from the team during the playoffs is easy to imagine directly, but I don't think they come close to the second round without the defense Kirk played either.

I agree with all these points except perhaps that I think Ben might help us more than Kirk in the future, but I also agree that it's pretty close once you have to decide their fit with the remaining players.

The underlying assumption though is that Luol Deng comes back healthy and plays well. If he doesn't, than Ben definitely fits a lot better. If he does then I think the debate is more open, because Hinrich can be basically a straight backup to two positions. Without a healthy Luol though, he'll need to be a starting 2 guard, in which case Gordon is better suited for the job.

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

The reason they have won is Tim Duncan though. The reason we won't win is not having a superstar. It's not that we won't pay the tax in vain attempt to make up for not having one.

I don't know about that. I can see Rose becoming one and we are trying to add another star in a Bosh/Amare/West trade. Tim Duncan isn't a common occurrence. They don't come around often and I don't really see any young bigs that are as good. The bottom line is that the NBA changed the rules to make this a guard league and you are seeing the truly domaniant teams best players are perimeter oriented. Having a low post threat and good front court play is important but this isn't 20 years ago where every contender had a superstar PF or C.

 

[Ralphb07]

dougthonus wrote:

wjb1492 wrote:

Well obviously if you limit the debate to points scored, Ben is going to win hands down. I think he was overly hard on Ben about doing "nothing" else, but I do think the debate is much, much closer when you look at things other than scoring. IMO, if we're looking for a starting SG I think Ben's the better choice, but if we're looking for someone to backup the 1 and 2 I think Kirk is, for many of the arguments made here. However, I see it as a close call and wouldn't just dismiss anyone who thought Ben would provide the better backup. And I don't think anyone magically expects Kirk to replace Ben's 20 points, particularly coming off the bench. The team would look different without Ben's scoring, but that doesn't necessarily have to be worse.

And for the record, I do think the team as is would be worse just removing Ben and making no other changes - but I also think the team would be worse just removing Kirk and making no other changes. Removing Ben's scoring from the team during the playoffs is easy to imagine directly, but I don't think they come close to the second round without the defense Kirk played either.

I agree with all these points except perhaps that I think Ben might help us more than Kirk in the future, but I also agree that it's pretty close once you have to decide their fit with the remaining players.

The underlying assumption though is that Luol Deng comes back healthy and plays well. If he doesn't, than Ben definitely fits a lot better. If he does then I think the debate is more open, because Hinrich can be basically a straight backup to two positions. Without a healthy Luol though, he'll need to be a starting 2 guard, in which case Gordon is better suited for the job.

Lu is the key to everything. With Lu healthy and adding Salmons to play SG as much as I like Gordon team wise we should be okay. We'll be missing his big buckets down the stretch but they feel that Rose will eventually take over that which is why I see them not wanting to sign Gordon long term

Gordon helps this team scoring but we can replace that it's the big bucket which is hard to replace but by selecting Derrick and him being the franchise they probably see Gordon at 9-10 mil isn't needed. Next year and by year 3 Rose will be with the ball making the big plays down the stretch and that takes away one of BG pluses on wanting to keep him

You want more than one big play guy but you'd rather have a Guard and a big over two Guards doing it

I think it's really confusing on who should stay and go. I'll support Paxson whichever way he goes because he usually makes a good well thought out decision

Edit: I've been through this with my football team. We lose Tiki and there's this big hole that nobody think can be filled. The Giants that year went with 3 RB and not only got the job done but was a better team and won it all

Last year we lose Shockey and don't pick up any replacement but have a great season and better offensive season until a stupid player shoots himself in the leg

We lost two great players but overall still got the job done. If we lose BG it sucks but we gotta stick with what team in put together and wait 82 games to see what can happen

 

[wjb1492]

dougthonus wrote:

wjb1492 wrote:

The underlying assumption though is that Luol Deng comes back healthy and plays well. If he doesn't, than Ben definitely fits a lot better. If he does then I think the debate is more open, because Hinrich can be basically a straight backup to two positions. Without a healthy Luol though, he'll need to be a starting 2 guard, in which case Gordon is better suited for the job.

I agree, and I really don't know about Lu coming back healthy. It seems there's nothing to fear from the stress fracture if it heals up fully - except that he got it in the first place and seems to have a lot of these nagging injuries. If we are going to be without Lu for significant chunks of every season, forcing John to play SF and leaving a hole at SG, Ben can step in to pick up scoring much better, absolutely. My assumption right now is that the Bulls are planning on either Ben or Kirk to back up the 1 and 2, with John starting, but for all I know the Bulls are thinking something totally different.

And of course, what it takes to get Ben signed plays a huge role. If he gets no offers and wants to sign with the Bulls for much less than Kirk makes on average, that makes a difference for me. If Ben gets an offer that would force the Bulls to pay much more on average and/or over a longer period of time than what Kirk makes, even assuming they'd be willing to pay it, I don't know. And that doesn't come from thinking Ben is not worth more than Kirk in an ideal world, just from what options are there with the cap/tax and all.

 

[Shakes]

dougthonus wrote:

The rules for the luxury tax changed significantly in 2005 when they redid the CBA, so it's probably not a fair comparison anyway. Only one Laker title team happened in a year where the luxury tax was paid out by anyone.

It's hard finding past information, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.

What I've been able to dig up suggests the Heat were slightly over the tax in 2006. The Spurs were over in 2007 by a tiny amount. We know Boston was over last year and this year it seems like the Lakers or Cavs will win, both of whom are over the tax I believe.

So basically since the new CBA it seems paying the tax is a requirement to win the championship.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

The rules for the luxury tax changed significantly in 2005 when they redid the CBA, so it's probably not a fair comparison anyway. Only one Laker title team happened in a year where the luxury tax was paid out by anyone.

It's hard finding past information, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.

What I've been able to dig up suggests the Heat were slightly over the tax in 2006. The Spurs were over in 2007 by a tiny amount. We know Boston was over last year and this year it seems like the Lakers or Cavs will win, both of whom are over the tax I believe.

So basically since the new CBA it seems paying the tax is a requirement to win the championship.

That makes sense, I just had no way to check it. Thanks. I also remember most of the contenders (conference finals) pay the tax too.

 

[clonetrooper264]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

The rules for the luxury tax changed significantly in 2005 when they redid the CBA, so it's probably not a fair comparison anyway. Only one Laker title team happened in a year where the luxury tax was paid out by anyone.

It's hard finding past information, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.

What I've been able to dig up suggests the Heat were slightly over the tax in 2006. The Spurs were over in 2007 by a tiny amount. We know Boston was over last year and this year it seems like the Lakers or Cavs will win, both of whom are over the tax I believe.

So basically since the new CBA it seems paying the tax is a requirement to win the championship.

That makes sense, I just had no way to check it. Thanks. I also remember most of the contenders (conference finals) pay the tax too.

Therefore, if JR wants to win a championship, it would make sense to pay the tax and resign Gordon to whatever he wants to sign for. But I suppose it depends on what he puts first on his priority list: winning a championship (thus making the Bulls semi popular again and possibly increasing profit by a lot) or just making a profit. As they all say at times like these, "the NBA is a business"

 

[Dpauley23]

I think he should he would only pay the tax if we had good team and were to acquire good big man

 

[clonetrooper264]

Dpauley23 wrote:

I think he should he would only pay the tax if we had good team and were to acquire good big man

*cough* trade for Bosh *cough* oh did I say that out loud?

 

[Dpauley23]

Doubt it happens though

 

[dunkside.com]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Therefore, if JR wants to win a championship, it would make sense to pay the tax and resign Gordon to whatever he wants to sign for.

If winning a title means you have to pay the tax it doesn't necessarily mean that if you pay the tax you'll win a title. You can pay the tax and have a horrible team *cough*isiah*cough*knicks*cough.

IMO having 3 overpaid players on the team (Deng, Hinrich, Gordon) none of which is even an all-star would keep the team mediocre for a long time and keep it in cap-space hell for the next 3-4 years. Losing Gordon might mean taking a step back, but it could help more on the long term if the Bulls can get rid of the other 2 bad contracts they have and manage to avoid getting more bad contracts in the process.

 

[Frank Breakfast Styleham]

Kirk Hinrich has been the best player on this team the past 3 years.

End of argument.

 

[TheStig]

dunkside.com wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Therefore, if JR wants to win a championship, it would make sense to pay the tax and resign Gordon to whatever he wants to sign for.

If winning a title means you have to pay the tax it doesn't necessarily mean that if you pay the tax you'll win a title. You can pay the tax and have a horrible team *cough*isiah*cough*knicks*cough.

IMO having 3 overpaid players on the team (Deng, Hinrich, Gordon) none of which is even an all-star would keep the team mediocre for a long time and keep it in cap-space hell for the next 3-4 years. Losing Gordon might mean taking a step back, but it could help more on the long term if the Bulls can get rid of the other 2 bad contracts they have and manage to avoid getting more bad contracts in the process.

It doesn't guarantee you a title but it certainly increased your chances greatly. Of the eight LT teams, five of them are still playing today. Compare that to three of twenty two non LT teams playing in the playoffs and that includes Denver and Orlando who are barely under it.