CBE 98: A Chat with Doug Thonus

[Shakes]

I don't really get the point of complaining about a player's contract 4 years after he signed it. Before he signs it? Sure, say we shouldn't pay that much. Just after he signs it? Sure, say we made a mistake. But 4 years later?

I didn't want Gordon on what he signed in Detroit for, but if he signed here then after some initial grumbling then I'd move on and support him as a player. You know I think Deng & Kirk are overpaid, but I don't see the point in bringing it up every time they are discussed. When talking about trades it's relevant, when talking about what they're doing on the court it's not.

(Ugh, I hesitate every time I mention Gordon these days for fear that he will become the topic rather than just an example)

 

[clonetrooper264]

I suppose in all fairness, Kirk is a better offensive player than Bowen, so something somewhat evens out. Bowen was the best defender in basketball for a good stretch of time, so saying that he was better than Kirk defensively is kind of a "no duh" statement...of course Bowen was a better defender, he was THE BEST.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I don't really get the point of complaining about a player's contract 4 years after he signed it. Before he signs it? Sure, say we shouldn't pay that much. Just after he signs it? Sure, say we made a mistake. But 4 years later?

I didn't want Gordon on what he signed in Detroit for, but if he signed here then after some initial grumbling then I'd move on and support him as a player. You know I think Deng & Kirk are overpaid, but I don't see the point in bringing it up every time they are discussed. When talking about trades it's relevant, when talking about what they're doing on the court it's not.

(Ugh, I hesitate every time I mention Gordon these days for fear that he will become the topic rather than just an example)

I bring it up because it stops us from doing anything this year and will likely cost us a key player in a year or two. When you have a team handicapped by the LT, a bad contract handicaps you and two kills you. Half of our payroll combined for only 24 points on 11/29 its a problem.

I'm also not complaining about Kirk. I am complaining about the role he is forced to play. I think he would be fine as a combo guard off the bench but we got rid of two starters ahead of him that are better. Granted they aren't as feisty but all other aspects I'd prefer them.

Now Deng I will forever complain about. I like his game when healthy but he already had major injury concerns to go with big limitations and a toxic deal. I could get over most of it but we inflated his deal by deferring the money. His deal is worth about 15% less than what it is. This further handicaps us under the LT and further weakens the final product.

 

[Shakes]

You can make the "it'll cost us a player" argument about Deng, but I don't see how you can make it about Kirk. He comes off the books when Rose comes up for his max contract.

As far as being a starter, Kirk wasn't a starter until the coach you support made him one "temporarily". Personally I find that one of VDN's worst moves. In fairness, I Vinny did get the Taj/TT situation right, and that's how I think we should be looking with draft pick vs Kirk next year (assuming we don't sign a SG in FA).

The only real thing I think they've cost us is we didn't clean house of all our contracts after we got Rose. We could have just let Deng/Gordon go, dumped Kirk and tanked for more picks & space to build a team. Rose + Noah + Stephen Curry + 2x max space would look really awesome right now. We'd be like the Knicks situation but with good players to put around them. Imagine if we turned that into Rose/Curry/LeBron/Bosh/Noah, the old dynasty would be under threat. :laugh:

 

[clonetrooper264]

Shakes wrote:

You can make the "it'll cost us a player" argument about Deng, but I don't see how you can make it about Kirk. He comes off the books when Rose comes up for his max contract.

As far as being a starter, Kirk wasn't a starter until the coach you support made him one "temporarily". Personally I find that one of VDN's worst moves. In fairness, I Vinny did get the Taj/TT situation right, and that's how I think we should be looking with draft pick vs Kirk next year (assuming we don't sign a SG in FA).

The only real thing I think they've cost us is we didn't clean house of all our contracts after we got Rose. We could have just let Deng/Gordon go, dumped Kirk and tanked for more picks & space to build a team. Rose + Noah + Stephen Curry + 2x max space would look really awesome right now. We'd be like the Knicks situation but with good players to put around them. Imagine if we turned that into Rose/Curry/LeBron/Bosh/Noah, the old dynasty would be under threat. :laugh:

That team would be champions virtually every single year for the next 10+ years...shame that that didn't happen...or really couldn't have happened realistically. Who was going to take on Deng's contract after his injury filled couple of seasons? I suppose it's possible some team might have, but it's one of those who knows? situations.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

You can make the "it'll cost us a player" argument about Deng, but I don't see how you can make it about Kirk. He comes off the books when Rose comes up for his max contract.I don't have to make the argument. It already happened. If it weren't for Kirk's deal we would have either Salmons or BG.

As far as being a starter, Kirk wasn't a starter until the coach you support made him one "temporarily". Personally I find that one of VDN's worst moves. In fairness, I Vinny did get the Taj/TT situation right, and that's how I think we should be looking with draft pick vs Kirk next year (assuming we don't sign a SG in FA).

I don't think we really know where VDN ends and where Gar/Pax begins. Its clear that they do a lot of meddling in the coaching department. But I do agree, I would have ridden it out with Salmons. But considering all other alternatives were traded, who would he start in front of Kirk now? VDN has had nothing but talent taken away from him as the year went along.

The only real thing I think they've cost us is we didn't clean house of all our contracts after we got Rose. We could have just let Deng/Gordon go, dumped Kirk and tanked for more picks & space to build a team. Rose + Noah + Stephen Curry + 2x max space would look really awesome right now. We'd be like the Knicks situation but with good players to put around them. Imagine if we turned that into Rose/Curry/LeBron/Bosh/Noah, the old dynasty would be under threat. :laugh:

Management has created a negative flow around the league, it will only get worse after VDN is fired and the real drama begins. I really have to think we are going to suffer unless we can land a top notch coach. I think VDN's story will get out and do some damage. But I do agree, we should have cleaned house and rebuilt with draft picks and fas but I couldn't see us getting curry. But its a nice dream. I would have still kept BG on a 6/54 deal.

 

[Shakes]

To get Curry we only needed to win 29 games or fewer. You don't think a rookie Rose, last year's Noah and crap to make up the roster wins more than 29 do you?

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

To get Curry we only needed to win 29 games or fewer. You don't think a rookie Rose, last year's Noah and crap to make up the roster wins more than 29 do you?

I wasn't saying that we couldn't get him, I was saying that I doubt management would take him.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I don't have to make the argument. It already happened. If it weren't for Kirk's deal we would have either Salmons or BG.

The numbers just don't add up on this. We lost them because we wanted cap space. We were working on the assumption of a 53 million dollar cap (to be safe), so the numbers work out:

Salmons (6 million) vs Kirk (8.5 million). We let Salmons go which would have given us ~2 million under the 53 million dollar cap. So Kirk would have had to be on a 4.5 million dollar deal for us to keep him.

Gordon (9 million? depends which deal we're talking, lets use that figure) vs Kirk (8.5). To keep Gordon Kirk's deal would have had to be 1.5 million.

So if you can tell me how to get a guy who was considered possibly a top 10 PG at the time to sign a deal worth 4.5 million per year, let alone 1.5, please let Pax/Garr know, they'd love to have your negotiating skills.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I don't have to make the argument. It already happened. If it weren't for Kirk's deal we would have either Salmons or BG.

The numbers just don't add up on this. We lost them because we wanted cap space. We were working on the assumption of a 53 million dollar cap (to be safe), so the numbers work out:

Salmons (6 million) vs Kirk (8.5 million). We let Salmons go which would have given us ~2 million under the 53 million dollar cap. So Kirk would have had to be on a 4.5 million dollar deal for us to keep him.

Gordon (9 million? depends which deal we're talking, lets use that figure) vs Kirk (8.5). To keep Gordon Kirk's deal would have had to be 1.5 million.

So if you can tell me how to get a guy who was considered possibly a top 10 PG at the time to sign a deal worth 4.5 million per year, let alone 1.5, please let Pax/Garr know, they'd love to have your negotiating skills.

Shakes, we could have easily traded him for an expiring a year or two ago when BG would have been reupped or in the summer after the salmons trade. Their were plenty of deals on the table. They just rid his value till it hit rock bottom. Same with the return or should I say payment to dump Salmons and getting nothing for BG.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Well to be fair I don't think Hou claimed Kirk was a great all around player, I think he said his defense is as good as Gordon's offense. I'd say that's a reasonable claim. Kirk's best defensive year he was named 2nd team all-defense. Gordon's best scoring year 8 other SGs scored more than him. If anything I'd say relative to his peers Kirk is a better defender than Gordon is a scorer.

And to equate Hinrich's perimeter defense to what a 20PPG scorer brings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. There is a reason guys who put up 20 PPG get paid, and guys like Trenton Hassell don't. It's much, much harder to find 20 PPG scorers than overrated perimeter defenders, and equating the 2 violates a law of basketball, that interior defense is FAR more important than perimeter defense. This law was once again proven this year.

This year, the Bulls gave up 100 or more points to 12 straight opponents. That hasn't happened since the Bulls allowed 25 straight teams to do so in a stretch ending Feb. 17, 1986, while Jordan was injured. Kirk Hinrich played in 11 of those games. If Kirk's defense is so freaking incredible, so freaking important, then how the hell does that happen? Interior Defense is FAR more important than perimeter defense. That's why Noah is MUCH more important to the Bulls defensive performance than Kirk.

There are only 3 concrete statistics that are used to measure defense: Steals, Defensive Rebounds, and blocks. Kirk wasn't in the top 60 in the league in any of them (unlike John Salmons, who was top 10 in the league in steals for the first 2 months this year, while everybody talked about the Captain.) Everything else is opinion, and it's all opinion with Kirk. He's a fine fundamental defender. He's not a difference maker. There are only really 5 difference makers on the perimeter in the NBA: Bryant, Battier, Ariza, Artest, and James when he wants to. You could throw Wade, Paul (despite his terrible year), and Rondo. Every other perimeter player doesn't come close. The real difference makers live in the paint. (Howard, Duncan, Garnett, Noah, Haywood, Camby, Perkins, Bynum, maybe Oden someday.)

We went from the 8th best offense in 09 to the 24th this year. We went from the 6th best 3-point shooting team to the 28th this year. We went from the 7th best Free throw shooting team to the 18th this year. Only one player left us on the offensive end. On the defensive end, we added a solid defender in Taj Gibson, we had Miller for the entire year (as oppossed to 26 games last year), and we finished tied for 3rd. That was our best finish since 2006-07, when we actually finished 2nd in Defensive FG%, and that "oh-so awful" Gordon was our starting shooting guard. But hey, Hinrich's defense was equally as important as Gordon's offense. Give me a freaking break. This is exactly what jack ass Foreman thought, and exactly why we needed Bosh to get hurt this year to make the playoffs, just so we could get swept, despite the massive jumps by Noah and Rose.

Who were the 8 shooting guards who scored more than BG in 06-07? Just curious. He was top 20 in the league twice for the Bulls.

 

[houheffna]

And to equate Hinrich's perimeter defense to what a 20PPG scorer brings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. There is a reason guys who put up 20 PPG get paid, and guys like Trenton Hassell don't. It's much, much harder to find 20 PPG scorers than overrated perimeter defenders, and equating the 2 violates a law of basketball, that interior defense is FAR more important than perimeter defense. This law was once again proven this year.

Gordon has been under 20ppg more times than over. We can act like he is some perennial 20ppg guy but that aint the case. He has done it twice in 6 years...I don't think so...

Joe Johnson and Kevin Martin are 20PPG scorers, its a trend with them, get Ben to scrape up 14ppg and holla back at me...

And by the way, if the Pistons brought either Johnson or Martin on the team, THEY WOULD HAVE STARTED OVER HAMILTON FROM DAY ONE!!! So we can pull the plug on what was an extremely ordinary player this past season...

Gordon is a good offensive player, not great, will most likely NEVER be an allstar or all league player. Same with Hinrich on the defensive end. You can belittle the importance of defense on the perimeter and accentuate interior defense, you notice how Rondo and Allen wrecked havoc on the Bulls in the playoffs last year? You don't think perimeter defense is important? Talk about ridiculous...

 

[houheffna]

Ooohh another snazzy zinger. That solved everything. Ignore the point, Rose didn't make Hinrich expendable and regress, he already did that the year before. But lets get our clever catch phrases together so we can make a few zingers and dance around the obvious all day. Stats don't matter, its all a coincidence the best players have the best stats or the best teams employee advanced stat guys, lets all blindly follow old school management that overpays supposed "perimeter defensive stoppers" and has no shooters on a team. Too bad its not 1991 anymore. Why evolve with the league when we can have good guys and defenders that can't shoot.

Your point was pointless, the stat stuff works in baseball moreso than basketball. Basketball is about you knowing who works best with who, in what situation. Something I am not too sure you are good at...again, analyzing players is not your strong point bruh. Sorry.

I don't think Hinrich was seen as the player he regressed to being when the Bulls signed him to that contract. I am not against NBA player evolution, your idea of it is Gordon over Hinrich...you need to think bigger. My idea is forget Hinrich and Gordon, get a Joe Johnson type to play with Rose, that is evolving.

Speaking of with, you come in the argument, change the damn subject to support your weak point, then accuse me of not sticking to the subject? SMH!

 

[pinkizdead]

piston are shopping hamilton. martin is injured more times than not. he needs to bulk up and finnish out a season.

 

[pinkizdead]

joe johnson is a terrible player to add this team. he sucks for the money he's getting.

 

[pinkizdead]

we've been through this.

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

And to equate Hinrich's perimeter defense to what a 20PPG scorer brings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

I don't know, maybe that's why I said the comparison was a bit of a trick one, and perimeter defense isn't as valuable as scoring? Don't hold back on a rant on my behalf though. :laugh:

Who were the 8 shooting guards who scored more than BG in 06-07? Just curious. He was top 20 in the league twice for the Bulls.

He was 19th overall that year. But the SG were

Kobe 31.6
Arenas 28.4
Wade 27.4
Redd 26.7
Allen 26.4
Iverson 26.3
Carter 25.2
Johnson 25.0
Gordon 21.4

SG tends to have the largest number of 20+ PPG scorers each year, so Gordon's up against some tough competition. That explains how he can be top 20 yet only 9th at his position.

 

[houheffna]

piston are shopping hamilton. martin is injured more times than not. he needs to bulk up and finnish out a season

I don't think Martin's injury had anything to do with the weight room. The Pistons shopping Hamilton thing is bullcrap. How long is Hamilton's contract, 2, 3 more seasons, yeah, they are gonna shop Hamilton straight through 2012...OK!!!

joe johnson is a terrible player to add this team. he sucks for the money he's getting.

You are the only person who thinks that. That statement is basketball retardation in action right there.

we've been through this.

Yep, you were wrong then and you are wrong now...

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I don't have to make the argument. It already happened. If it weren't for Kirk's deal we would have either Salmons or BG.

The numbers just don't add up on this. We lost them because we wanted cap space. We were working on the assumption of a 53 million dollar cap (to be safe), so the numbers work out:

Salmons (6 million) vs Kirk (8.5 million). We let Salmons go which would have given us ~2 million under the 53 million dollar cap. So Kirk would have had to be on a 4.5 million dollar deal for us to keep him.

Gordon (9 million? depends which deal we're talking, lets use that figure) vs Kirk (8.5). To keep Gordon Kirk's deal would have had to be 1.5 million.

So if you can tell me how to get a guy who was considered possibly a top 10 PG at the time to sign a deal worth 4.5 million per year, let alone 1.5, please let Pax/Garr know, they'd love to have your negotiating skills.

Shakes, we could have easily traded him for an expiring a year or two ago when BG would have been reupped or in the summer after the salmons trade. Their were plenty of deals on the table. They just rid his value till it hit rock bottom. Same with the return or should I say payment to dump Salmons and getting nothing for BG.

You miss my point ... that's not Kirk's CONTRACT keeping us from keeping those players, it's having Kirk at all. If Kirk had signed for the MLE (which you said you'd be happy with) we still wouldn't have been able to afford Salmons or Gordon while going for max cap space.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I don't have to make the argument. It already happened. If it weren't for Kirk's deal we would have either Salmons or BG.

The numbers just don't add up on this. We lost them because we wanted cap space. We were working on the assumption of a 53 million dollar cap (to be safe), so the numbers work out:

Salmons (6 million) vs Kirk (8.5 million). We let Salmons go which would have given us ~2 million under the 53 million dollar cap. So Kirk would have had to be on a 4.5 million dollar deal for us to keep him.

Gordon (9 million? depends which deal we're talking, lets use that figure) vs Kirk (8.5). To keep Gordon Kirk's deal would have had to be 1.5 million.

So if you can tell me how to get a guy who was considered possibly a top 10 PG at the time to sign a deal worth 4.5 million per year, let alone 1.5, please let Pax/Garr know, they'd love to have your negotiating skills.

Shakes, we could have easily traded him for an expiring a year or two ago when BG would have been reupped or in the summer after the salmons trade. Their were plenty of deals on the table. They just rid his value till it hit rock bottom. Same with the return or should I say payment to dump Salmons and getting nothing for BG.

You miss my point ... that's not Kirk's CONTRACT keeping us from keeping those players, it's having Kirk at all. If Kirk had signed for the MLE (which you said you'd be happy with) we still wouldn't have been able to afford Salmons or Gordon while going for max cap space.

At the MLE we could have had Salmons and Kirk on next years roster and had enough cap room to sign a max fax if you move a guy like James Johnson for a future pick. But I can see your point of what you are trying to say. If I had a choice, I still go with BG and Salmons over Kirk and Deng.