Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
21 - 36 of 36 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
to me the statement "we're going to build with kirk" is the right one. not "build around" him (though i don't think there would be anything wrong with that).

i don't interpret any of these comments to mean that kirk has to be the #1 option on offense. you guys are just arguing semantics.

pax wants players who have his love of the game. it's so simple. i don't know why people here are so down on that.

kirk isn't just underappreciated in respect to his draft class, but astonishingly, is still underappreciated and unrespected by bulls fans.

he has his flaws to be sure - but who on this team doesn't?

he has improved this year and still has many things to work on. but don't they all?

at the end of the day we are damn lucky to have a guy like kirk on the bulls. damn lucky.


go kirk! :love: :love:
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,713 Posts
Mikedc said:
I don't think Kirk being mentioned as a building block is a story, but it's taking away from the real story, which is that Deng and Gordon don't appear to be being mentioned.
Well, the writer is writing the article about Kirk Hinrich. He even got a quote from Doc Rivers about him.

If the article were about Luol Deng, I suspect Luol Deng would be being mentioned.
 

· Me lose brain? Uh oh!
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
I hardly think Hinrich is untouchable, but when I watch the Bulls play, it strikes me how much responsibility they put on him. He guards the other team's best guard quite a lot, unless it's a bigger guy that Deng can check, or a smaller guy Duhon can deal with. He has the ball in his hands a TON, even when he's on the court with Duhon. Duhon may bring the ball up, but eventually Kirk will get it and have to make a decision either to look for his own shot or find one for someone else.

The only way I can think of to describe it is that at the moment, Kirk is the team's lynchpin. Even though he's not the kind of transcendent talent that gets the "untouchable" tag (far from it, in fact), if the Bulls did trade him, there would be a realignment in Skiles's system and it could be painful temporarily.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess the point is that Kirk is probably quite a bit more valuable to the current Bulls team than he is in a generic sense in the league because of how much he's asked to do, including but not at all limited to scoring. But all that said, he doesn't fill the role of emotional and vocal leader and I'm not sure he wants that job on top of everything else.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,143 Posts
Ron Cey said:
Well, the writer is writing the article about Kirk Hinrich. He even got a quote from Doc Rivers about him.

If the article were about Luol Deng, I suspect Luol Deng would be being mentioned.
Actually, if you could come up with comparable Paxson quotes to "We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team" about Deng, I'd be pretty interested to hear them. I don't think there are any, even in articles about Deng. And if there are, they're significantly less frequent and wholehearted than they are regarding Deng.

Obviously the article was about Hinrich, but it's another article about Kirk where a quote like that floats out. And I don't suspect that if the article was about Deng, you'd get a quote from Pax saying they were going to find guys who fit around what he does.

To put things differently, I don't think the Bulls would take much of a look at Chris Paul were he in this year's draft. Because they want to build around guys that fit into how Kirk runs the team. Paul wouldn't be much of a fit. I don't have much doubt that if the Bulls are in position to do so, they'll look closely at Rudy Gay and Adam Morrison.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,713 Posts
Mikedc said:
Actually, if you could come up with comparable Paxson quotes to "We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team" about Deng, I'd be pretty interested to hear them. I don't think there are any, even in articles about Deng. And if there are, they're significantly less frequent and wholehearted than they are regarding Deng.

Obviously the article was about Hinrich, but it's another article about Kirk where a quote like that floats out. And I don't suspect that if the article was about Deng, you'd get a quote from Pax saying they were going to find guys who fit around what he does.

To put things differently, I don't think the Bulls would take much of a look at Chris Paul were he in this year's draft. Because they want to build around guys that fit into how Kirk runs the team. Paul wouldn't be much of a fit. I don't have much doubt that if the Bulls are in position to do so, they'll look closely at Rudy Gay and Adam Morrison.
I can't really disagree with any of that. Good points.

And if what you hypothesize is correct, I would kind of agree with it. As much as I like ( :love: ) my boo Lu, I want the Bulls to take the best non-point guard talent available with the Knicks' pick. Even if its Morrison.
 

· Me lose brain? Uh oh!
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
Mikedc said:
Actually, if you could come up with comparable Paxson quotes to "We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team" about Deng, I'd be pretty interested to hear them. I don't think there are any, even in articles about Deng. And if there are, they're significantly less frequent and wholehearted than they are regarding Deng.

Obviously the article was about Hinrich, but it's another article about Kirk where a quote like that floats out. And I don't suspect that if the article was about Deng, you'd get a quote from Pax saying they were going to find guys who fit around what he does.

To put things differently, I don't think the Bulls would take much of a look at Chris Paul were he in this year's draft. Because they want to build around guys that fit into how Kirk runs the team. Paul wouldn't be much of a fit. I don't have much doubt that if the Bulls are in position to do so, they'll look closely at Rudy Gay and Adam Morrison.
But I highly suspect they'd only take Gay or Morrison if they show that they are no-brainer, can't-miss players, or if guys like Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani, etc. all show big red flags that make them shy away. I mean, the Bulls took Ben Gordon, who is at least mildly duplicative with Kirk, because they thought he was the BPA at that pick, then they took Duhon, who duplicates other facets of Kirk's game, later on (though obviously they didn't really expect much of him). Yes, I know that the Gordon pick was more geared toward replacing Jamal, but still - ostensibly Gordon was not terribly different from Kirk when he was drafted. Scoring PG with a great pedigree, etc. So I'm not sure I agree with your Paul scenario. I think Pax would have considered whether Paul and Kirk could coexist or entertained trading Kirk if he thought Paul was the BPA.

anyway, I don't think it's much in dispute that Kirk does, in many ways, run the team. Deng, for all his talents, does not run the team. And the brass seems to think Kirk is doing a good job. Clearly you can take umbrage with that judgment, but I think mainly this article highlights that they think Kirk can be the guy to run a contending team as a PG if they find the right pieces. Whether you call it building around Kirk or with Kirk....eh, I think that's semantics.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,379 Posts
Ron Cey said:
As much as I like ( :love: ) my boo Lu, I want the Bulls to take the best non-point guard talent available with the Knicks' pick. Even if its Morrison.
Even if they project Morrison or Gay to be only slightly better than Deng? I don't think that is a very wise stratagy.

Using completely fabricated numbers, if Deng's upside is rated as an 84 and Gay is rated as an 86 is that differance worth the opportunity cost of missing out on upgrading from Nazr's 74 to Aldridge's 83?

Of course this scenerio is complicated by trade possibilities. However, SFs are less valuable then bigs so drafting a Gay or Morrison over a big with slightly lesser upside cannot be offset by a trade.

Gay or Morrison must be good enough so that they plus whichever big the Bulls can aquire for Deng is better than Deng plus Aldridge/Thomas/....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,143 Posts
ViciousFlogging said:
But I highly suspect they'd only take Gay or Morrison if they show that they are no-brainer, can't-miss players, or if guys like Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani, etc. all show big red flags that make them shy away. I mean, the Bulls took Ben Gordon, who is at least mildly duplicative with Kirk, because they thought he was the BPA at that pick, then they took Duhon, who duplicates other facets of Kirk's game, later on (though obviously they didn't really expect much of him). Yes, I know that the Gordon pick was more geared toward replacing Jamal, but still - ostensibly Gordon was not terribly different from Kirk when he was drafted. Scoring PG with a great pedigree, etc. So I'm not sure I agree with your Paul scenario. I think Pax would have considered whether Paul and Kirk could coexist or entertained trading Kirk if he thought Paul was the BPA.

anyway, I don't think it's much in dispute that Kirk does, in many ways, run the team. Deng, for all his talents, does not run the team. And the brass seems to think Kirk is doing a good job. Clearly you can take umbrage with that judgment, but I think mainly this article highlights that they think Kirk can be the guy to run a contending team as a PG if they find the right pieces. Whether you call it building around Kirk or with Kirk....eh, I think that's semantics.
I'm not taking umbridge at the judgement at all, but I think a year or two down the road that Deng is a better player than Kirk. More importantly, I don't see that a top flight, 2-way SF is easier to replace than a top-flight 2-way PG.

And I don't mind the idea of drafting a better player if he's there, but I get the sense the Bulls wouldn't draft a better player if it meant drafting a better PG (a la Chris Paul). In short, I believe (though it's obviously not provable) while Kirk is very good, the Bulls think he's a bit better than he is, and maybe underrate how good Deng is. Fortunately this draft doesn't have a Chris Paul to pass on, but I've seen enough to be pretty sure I don't want to keep Deng and draft Gay or Morrison.
 

· Me lose brain? Uh oh!
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
Mikedc said:
I'm not taking umbridge at the judgement at all, but I think a year or two down the road that Deng is a better player than Kirk. More importantly, I don't see that a top flight, 2-way SF is easier to replace than a top-flight 2-way PG.
I'd rather have to replace a SF than a PG, but that's sort of up to luck and chance as to who comes into the league, who's a FA, etc. Truth is, I want the Bulls to succeed with both Kirk and Deng on the team if possible. Like I said in an earlier post, I think the way the Bulls run their sets, combined with their affection for Kirk's abilities and attitude, have created a situation where he's more important to the Bulls than his abilities or trade value might suggest. Deng is probably close to being as good of a player right now and has a higher ceiling IMO, but at this moment, we could replace him with another decent SF (maybe even Noc) and not take a huge step back, because he's not running the team.

And I don't mind the idea of drafting a better player if he's there, but I get the sense the Bulls wouldn't draft a better player if it meant drafting a better PG (a la Chris Paul). In short, I believe (though it's obviously not provable) while Kirk is very good, the Bulls think he's a bit better than he is, and maybe underrate how good Deng is. Fortunately this draft doesn't have a Chris Paul to pass on, but I've seen enough to be pretty sure I don't want to keep Deng and draft Gay or Morrison.
I don't really disagree. I just think if they were sitting in a position where there was a PG on the board who was quite clearly the best player on the board, they would take him. I agree that they value Kirk beyond his actual talent level, but I don't think they'd pass on a can't-miss player because they already have Kirk. But who knows.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
DaBullz said:
Slezak wrote:
The Bulls want Hinrich to be their No. 1, and he has looked like that guy at times.
That Slezak article stunk. I'm willing to go back and forth re: Pax's comments about Kirk's, not Carol Slezak's opinions on what Bulls' management might think.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,143 Posts
VF, I agree with most of what you're saying, I just don't think there's any special significant to Kirk "running the team".

I mean, if we're talking about replacing him with a guy who's better, then the new PG would be able to run the team just like Kirk does, wouldn't he? Just like a better SF would replace Lou.

Yeah, any new guy would have to develop some chemistry in doing it, but that's what good PGs do. I mean, for argument's sake, suppose we suddenly put Chris Paul or Dywane Wade or even an Andre Miller in there for him. I don't think the team would fall apart or anything, even in the short-run, and I think they'd be just as good (with Miller) or better (with the other guys) in the long-run.

I don't really disagree. I just think if they were sitting in a position where there was a PG on the board who was quite clearly the best player on the board, they would take him. I agree that they value Kirk beyond his actual talent level, but I don't think they'd pass on a can't-miss player because they already have Kirk. But who knows.
I dunno either, it's only my suspicion. My more pressing concern is whether they under value Deng for whatever reason. Because... and like I said, it comes across to me more in what's repeatedly not said, I get the sense they do. That's important because I see lots of ways the Bulls might end up wasting their remaining assets needlessly getting another SF who's not really any better than Deng and then making the most out of either of them (whether they play together as Bulls or one eventually gets traded off at a discount).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
Mikedc said:
VF, I agree with most of what you're saying, I just don't think there's any special significant to Kirk "running the team".

I mean, if we're talking about replacing him with a guy who's better, then the new PG would be able to run the team just like Kirk does, wouldn't he? Just like a better SF would replace Lou.

Yeah, any new guy would have to develop some chemistry in doing it, but that's what good PGs do. I mean, for argument's sake, suppose we suddenly put Chris Paul or Dywane Wade or even an Andre Miller in there for him. I don't think the team would fall apart or anything, even in the short-run, and I think they'd be just as good (with Miller) or better (with the other guys) in the long-run.



I dunno either, it's only my suspicion. My more pressing concern is whether they under value Deng for whatever reason. Because... and like I said, it comes across to me more in what's repeatedly not said, I get the sense they do. That's important because I see lots of ways the Bulls might end up wasting their remaining assets needlessly getting another SF who's not really any better than Deng and then making the most out of either of them (whether they play together as Bulls or one eventually gets traded off at a discount).
I hope they value Deng too. My feeling, regardless of what Paxson does or doesn't say concerning Deng, is that they probably do. Deng's averaged 38.4 MPG in the month of March (Hinrich's only played that much over the span of a month once this year - 38.5 MPG in January). It seems very difficult for most guys to break the 35 MPG barrier with Skiles' deep rotations, and he's running Deng out there basically 40 minutes a night now. Given that Paxson puts a lot of stock in Skiles' player evaluations I have to believe the organization feels pretty good about Luol.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,716 Posts
I would really like to see the question that Paxson responded to in saying "build". He may have been led into it.

And other than some decent quotes that article sucks. Hinrich as been to more playoff games than Lebron? Brian Cook has been to a lot more than either of those two.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
Too lazy to find the free agent thread, thought it would suit this thread fine.

Free agent center-in-waiting Joel Przybilla, who wants only a legitimate reason he should re-sign, now is seriously considering moving on to another club — perhaps Chicago or Toronto, Milwaukee or Minnesota. In better times, none of those teams would look better than Portland to a player of Przybilla’s character, but these are the worst of times. So far.
Portland Tribune
 

· Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
mizenkay said:
at the end of the day we are damn lucky to have a guy like kirk on the bulls. damn lucky.


go kirk! :love: :love:
...and at the end of the day, without Kirk, we at BBB.net may also not have the presence of our beloved Miz!, so we find ourselves doubly indebted!

Go Kirk!

Go Bull!

Go Miz!

______________________________
play guard
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top