BullsByTheHorns on the Gordon/Hinrich debate

[Dpauley23]

I hope he starts next year....






on different team

 

[Hendu0520]

Yes Kirk is great I did not say that he is not a great combo guard, but if you get rid of Gordon he end up playing the 2 most of the time he is in. You think the first sub next year is gonna come in for Salmons or Rose, I think it will be Salmons if you ask me. Kirk can not get it done if we get rid of Gordon.

 

[Hendu0520]

I think you people are forgetting we don't want Rose coming out of the game much next year, if he doesn't play atleast a bit more than this year I will be ticked. Rose should be playing the pg 40 min a game that leaves only 8 for the backup. So Kirk would be mostly a 2guard if Gordon is gone.

 

[Hendu0520]

I just think we are considerably weaker if Gordon is gone. If Hinrich were to be gone it wouldn't hurt as much, but it would still hurt some don't get me wrong.

 

[Dpauley23]

40 mins is a little too much. You probably want him at 36

 

[Ralphb07]

Yes Kirk is great I did not say that he is not a great combo guard, but if you get rid of Gordon he end up playing the 2 most of the time he is in. You think the first sub next year is gonna come in for Salmons or Rose, I think it will be Salmons if you ask me. Kirk can not get it done if we get rid of Gordon.

No he is not. You're forgetting something pretty big......... We made a trade at the deadline for this guy name John Salmons who just so happens to be a SG. Salmons will be playing there for like 35 minutes. Kirk role will be exactly the same. The only thing that is different is he's backing up Salmons over Gordon. Nothing changes

I think you people are forgetting we don't want Rose coming out of the game much next year, if he doesn't play atleast a bit more than this year I will be ticked. Rose should be playing the pg 40 min a game that leaves only 8 for the backup. So Kirk would be mostly a 2guard if Gordon is gone.

Actually he shouldn't be playing 40 minutes and I think 35-36 is perfect especially if you wanna make a long playoff run

A lot of people wanted Rose to get a lot of minutes his rookie year so he will fine tune things quicker but next year he should play 35-36 minutes a game and that's why Kirk helps. He allows us to have a set rotation and give Rose/Salmons proper minutes so we don't burn them out by playoff time

Also don't forget we'll be drafting a SG or a SG/SF combo guy. So they will play some SG minutes so we can slide Salmons over for Deng. Kirk will see 10-13 minutes at SG next year

 

[Ralphb07]

Hendu0520 wrote:

I just think we are considerably weaker if Gordon is gone. If Hinrich were to be gone it wouldn't hurt as much, but it would still hurt some don't get me wrong.

I don't think it matters between each one. I'm in the middle so I see the things that Kirk will help us with and I see things BG will help us with. We know one will be gone and my prediction will be the same regardless of which one it is

 

[Hendu0520]

I hope your wrong about one being gone, I hope they can both stay they both bring great things to the team but totally different things is all.

JKidd used to eat up minutes, how much did Jordan play when he was young, huh? I wouldn't mind if Vinny tried to Wilt Chamberlain Rose he is young and can do it. We baby these guys nowadays. Damn I sound old but back in the 80's and 90's when there was a handchecking rule the best players play all the minutes, CP3 avgs 38 mpg atleast give me that. 36 isn't bad I guess if Kirk and Gordon are back though.

 

[Shakes]

I don't think anyone is saying Kirk is as good as shooter or scorer as Gordon. If he could do that, along with what else he can do, he'd be an all-star.

But having a combo of Kirk and Salmons to play SG means we retain some shooting from the position. It's not like we'll be dropping down to Trevor Ariza or Thabo Sefolosha.

 

[Ralphb07]

Hendu0520 wrote:

I hope your wrong about one being gone, I hope they can both stay they both bring great things to the team but totally different things is all.

JKidd used to eat up minutes, how much did Jordan play when he was young, huh? I wouldn't mind if Vinny tried to Wilt Chamberlain Rose he is young and can do it. We baby these guys nowadays. Damn I sound old but back in the 80's and 90's when there was a handchecking rule the best players play all the minutes, CP3 avgs 38 mpg atleast give me that. 36 isn't bad I guess if Kirk and Gordon are back though.

He can play 40 minutes but why if you don't need him. Not too many teams will have the luxury of having a guy like Kirk backing up. CP3 plays 38 because he has too, they have no back up. If we need Rose to play 48 to win a game you do it but our point is you don't overuse him.

I would love both being back but I'm a realist and I understand it's not likely because our owner doesn't wanna pay the tax unless it's a championship team and I can't fault him for that. Does it make me upset that he won't do it, yes but I still can't blame him

 

[Hendu0520]

I feel bad for Kirk really because I think he is a starting guard and could be a borderline allstar in this league. I just think he is too good to come off the bench and we have too many guards to get him the quality minutes. I just think that Gordon's 20 ppg is more important to our team than Kirk's intangibles. It was great while it lasted but I'd rather have that deadly shooter on the wing next to Rose.

 

[Dpauley23]

A border line all star? Are you serious? I could name 30 guards more deserving than Hinrich as all star

 

[wjb1492]

Hendu0520 wrote:

wjb1492 wrote:

You can run around shouting that Ben shoots better than Kirk all you want. Heck, if you want to say that Kirk's shot was lost in November 2007 and you're never going to let it go, then I'll be forced to agree with you. But he has shot the ball fine this year, and acceptably for most of last year.

Not saying he is a bad shooter for a PG. Those rankings don't sound great to me anyways and by the way what are Gordon's rankings there you didn't post those I bet he is higher in every category you put up there for Kirk.

You said Kirk's shot is lost. This isn't a debate between whether Ben or Kirk is a better shooter - that would be pretty short. It's a question of whether Kirk can shoot. You seem to think he's pretty lousy - I showed you that he is better than average, significantly better than average on 3s, compared to all guards in the NBA - not just PGs, but all guards.

If you are going to compare everyone to Ben as a shooter and declare them "not good" if they don't shoot as well as he does, you have will have written off the vast majority of guards currently playing in the NBA as bad shooters. IMO, that's patently ridiculous.

I don't care if you or anyone wants to make the argument that the Bulls should keep Ben over Kirk*, if the team insists it has to be one or the other. But it bugs me when people portray Kirk inaccurately and unfairly, just as bad as it bugs Fred when they portray Ben inaccurately and unfairly. I find myself physically unable to just pass by someone who states that Kirk's shot is "lost" without correcting that statement.

*Ben is better - I forgot to add my asterisk on my first post; maybe that would have saved all this arguing? Note to self: need to remember the asterisk....

 

[Shakes]

Of course we know Kirk is a starting quality guard, for example the Lakers are probably wishing they tried to get him at the trade deadline instead of trying to make a championship run with Derek Fisher's corpse.

But the Bulls responsibility isn't to get Kirk the minutes his talent deserves, it's to make the team the best it can be. If that means he plays 24 minutes off the bench then tough luck if Kirk could get more elsewhere.

 

[Hendu0520]

wjb1492 wrote:

Hendu0520 wrote:

wjb1492 wrote:

You can run around shouting that Ben shoots better than Kirk all you want. Heck, if you want to say that Kirk's shot was lost in November 2007 and you're never going to let it go, then I'll be forced to agree with you. But he has shot the ball fine this year, and acceptably for most of last year.

Not saying he is a bad shooter for a PG. Those rankings don't sound great to me anyways and by the way what are Gordon's rankings there you didn't post those I bet he is higher in every category you put up there for Kirk.

You said Kirk's shot is lost. This isn't a debate between whether Ben or Kirk is a better shooter - that would be pretty short. It's a question of whether Kirk can shoot. You seem to think he's pretty lousy - I showed you that he is better than average, significantly better than average on 3s, compared to all guards in the NBA - not just PGs, but all guards.

If you are going to compare everyone to Ben as a shooter and declare them "not good" if they don't shoot as well as he does, you have will have written off the vast majority of guards currently playing in the NBA as bad shooters. IMO, that's patently ridiculous.

I don't care if you or anyone wants to make the argument that the Bulls should keep Ben over Kirk*, if the team insists it has to be one or the other. But it bugs me when people portray Kirk inaccurately and unfairly, just as bad as it bugs Fred when they portray Ben inaccurately and unfairly. I find myself physically unable to just pass by someone who states that Kirk's shot is "lost" without correcting that statement.

*Ben is better - I forgot to add my asterisk on my first post; maybe that would have saved all this arguing? Note to self: need to remember the asterisk....

I already said that I'm not saying Kirk has to shoot as good as Ben, just saying that if you lose Ben then your shooting at the 2 is dropping that's all. It would hurt us a lot more if Ben were gone than Kirk that is the basic point. Plus Ben is clutch and can create his own shot and that is a great thing to have.

 

[wjb1492]

Hendu0520 wrote:

I already said that I'm not saying Kirk has to shoot as good as Ben, just saying that if you lose Ben then your shooting at the 2 is dropping that's all. It would hurt us a lot more if Ben were gone than Kirk that is the basic point. Plus Ben is clutch and can create his own shot and that is a great thing to have.

So you're saying that Kirk's shot is, in fact, not lost...which is the only thing I disagreed with you over.

 

[Hendu0520]

wjb1492 wrote:

Hendu0520 wrote:

I already said that I'm not saying Kirk has to shoot as good as Ben, just saying that if you lose Ben then your shooting at the 2 is dropping that's all. It would hurt us a lot more if Ben were gone than Kirk that is the basic point. Plus Ben is clutch and can create his own shot and that is a great thing to have.

So you're saying that Kirk's shot is, in fact, not lost...which is the only thing I disagreed with you over.

No its lost to me, the shot I wanted it to be, the 44.8% is still his best year, he was supposed to improve after that year, remember the baby Bulls even getting better. Kirk should be considered a sharpshooter by now in my mind. He was improving every year early on if you go back to my breakedown. Then he kinda got derailed so he has to improve again. He still would have to shoot atleat 44% to prove it not lost to me. I have high standards maybe that's my problem. I just remember him missing a lot of those mid range shots this year.

 

[Hendu0520]

Look at even high volume good shooting guards they shoot atleast 45% he wouldn't be playing much point next year. He isn't even shooting that well and he shoots much less.

 

[Hendu0520]

What if or when does Deng go down? Now you have to move Salmons to the 3 and start Kirk at the 2? You have to count on some injuries too, we have to keep Ben who is a steady scorer for us always no matter what. That is what utlimately wins games.

 

[Shakes]

If injuries happen they happen, you can't afford to pay people so you have depth to cover every position.

I also find it hard to get woprked up about the idea we might lose a few more games next year. It's a building year, especially with the 2010 free agency that follows.

Most of the guys on the team wont be here when/if we win a championship. You have to assume to win a championship Rose becomes a superstar. Look at what happens for most teams when they get their superstar. How many guys from the Bulls when MJ was drafted were there by the time he was contending? How about the Cavs and LeBron? Getting Rose was always going to imply roster turnover, so I don't see any point stressing over whether Kirk or Ben is better for winning a couple of meaningless games next year. Unless we stink so badly no free agent want to come here, it really doesn't matter a great deal.