Here's why I Don't Want Kirk Hinrich...
by dannyboy888 on Jun 28, 2009 11:40 PM PDT
Email
Print
I've seen a lot of discussion about Kirk and how he would help the Blazers. I don't doubt it for a moment. I think he would be an upgrade from Blake as it stands now. However, I just don't believe he will be worth the amount of money we are paying him.
With this current crop of speedy guards coming from this 2009 draft(Flynn, Tyreke Evans, T Lawson, Jennings) and the existing All Star guards( Jameer Nelson, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Tony Parker, Devin Harris, Billups, Derrick Rose, Aaron Brooks, Nash), I just don't see Kirk Hinrich stopping any of these guys on a regular basis. I think he's essentially a slight upgrade over Blake as he is now. For $9-10 million a year, I have to believe there's better options out there. Most of the guards on that list make about as much as Kirk does and there are a bunch who are way less than him. How many teams with the players listed there would take Kirk for a trade straight up. I think all of them make within $4 million of Kirk meaning you could add Travis Outlaw to Kirk and be matched for salary purposes in a trade. I doubt you would find any GM who would trade their All Star guard for Kirk + Outlaw. So how many would trade their cheap recently drafted player+ salary for Kirk? So as a result, I just don't see the value of getting Kirk right now.
I believe it takes a minimum of 2 All Star players to win a championship + 1 almost All Star + 5 good role players.
The Blazers have Roy an All Star, LMA almost an All Star + 5 good role players(Rudy, Batum, Oden, Webster, Blake).
So for the Blazers to win it all, they need Oden to develop into an All Star or almost an All Star, or for Bayless to develop into an All Star, or they need to acquire one via trade or free agency. I think Kirk is a good role player, not an All Star.
So as a result, I just don't see the real purpose in trading for him. Unless we're signing a free agent who is an All Star or trading for one, I think it's not worth it.
Will Kirk improve the team? most definitely. But if it's just going to add 2 or 3 games to the win total, we still need to beat the Lakers and Denver. (Kobe, Gasol All Stars, Bynum near near All Star, Odom, Ariza, Fisher, rest of the Laker Bench, good role players.) (Billups, Carmelo All Stars, JR Smith near All Star)
I'm still holding out hope for a CP3 salary dump in February. It'll force us to take back a bad contract(Chandler?), but I think CP3 will be available.They already tipped their hand last February by trying to trade Chandler for nothing. Who's going to take him with a bad toe or Peja with a bad back for years? That leaves on CP3.
I'm just hoping that KP doesn't do add a slight upgrade of a player for $9 million. That's just not a good use of salary.
135 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I see what you're saying.
It’s a fair point, even though I don’t think I would consider Blake a “good” role player. He had the best season of his career and his PER was still below the league average.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 28, 2009 11:55 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
it was better than Hinrich's
this year by over a point
Collegiate stats:
NCAA Arizona:
Jerryd Bayless: 19.7pts, 4.0 asts, 3to
NAIA Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Terry Porter: 19.7pts, 4.3 asts, 2.33to
by SpyderRyder on Jun 29, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions
and Kirk was playing at shooting guard, which isn’t his natural position. His year in ‘06-’07 is an indicator of how he can perform with a good team around him. Is that cherry-picking? Definitely.
The point is that he is a better pick and roll playmaker, has a better midrange game, and is vastly better at defense.
by Cablinasian on Jun 29, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions
too bad
it is not 2006 anymore.
You were wring about Blair and you will be wrong about Hinrich
Collegiate stats:
NCAA Arizona:
Jerryd Bayless: 19.7pts, 4.0 asts, 3to
NAIA Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Terry Porter: 19.7pts, 4.3 asts, 2.33to
by SpyderRyder on Jun 29, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions
how do we know I’m wrong about Blair? If you really want to go there, we can go back in the archives and find bad predictions from everyone at this site. Blair though? I’m not willing to be called wrong on that just yet.
He had serious personal issues in 2008 and played away from his natural position in 2009. I see no reason to believe that he can’t return to 2007 form, as he did in the playoffs.
by Cablinasian on Jun 29, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I predicted Batum would be a mistake.
No big deal.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 30, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Ya saw Hinrich in the playoffs, right?
He was back in fine form and defending as good as ever.
Whether we get him or not, Hinrich is an elite perimeter defender and better than Blake offensively.
Any concerns about whether he could play like he did in ’06 should be assuaged by his playoff play.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Jun 29, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How could someone be wrong about Blair?
What a strange thing to say.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 29, 2009 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Wrong about Blair
How is that possible,
Conversations prove little to nothing while play seems to be a stronger case.
Any play recently?
"Knowledge will get you from A to B. Creativity will get you anywhere." Einstein
by Garden of ODEN on Jun 29, 2009 3:35 AM PDT up reply actions
It makes me sad
When people don’t see the importance of perimeter D. Hinrich is everything Blake can do, and is a vast improvement over Steve’s shortcomings.
He is a perfect fit at PG. He is cheaper to aquire then most top tier pointguards, he may not ever be an all-star but he can change this team completely.
Im biased though, I will be on the Hinrich bandwagon forever. I was skeptical of him at first but after days of thinking it over, watching clips, and scouring stats, Kurt looks simply perfect in a Blazer uniform. I think a 2-3 game improvement is an understatement.
Holding guys out of the paint will help Odens effectiveness as well. When you trade for Kurt you aren’t just making the PG spot better, you are making the players around him better. That in itself, is worth the cost of trading for him.
* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...
by OdenFanBoy on Jun 29, 2009 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
if we want to talk about how good players where
are you bob whitsitt?? there is a lot of players that where good in the past and are average at best now, Shareef Abdur-Rahim was really good in 2001 lets get him. elton brand was a 20-10 guy in 06-07 lets get him. or better yet Marbury he was good before too.
fire nate before its too late
Hinrich played very well in the recent playoffs
To me, it showed he is more than capable of playing good consistently.
It wasn’t several years ago when he showed his stuff. It was a few months ago, in the 1st round of the recent playoffs.
Morty
maybe we should get ..
Kendrick Perkins, he was good in the playoffs too, better then oden and billa. how about we trade for him. maybe billa and outlaw? or oden and outlaw? or the rights to freeland, kaponen, claver and outlaw? im so smart
fire nate before its too late
by pipgras on Jun 29, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well before ya get carried away
Which exactly are you arguing?
You say, let’s get players who were good long ago but not good anymore, just because they were good once. Of course, you say it in jest, in relation to getting Hinrich, who I guess you’re arguing was good at one point but is now bad.
So I respond, that he was just as good the other month, in the playoffs, just as good as he was when you seemingly agree he was good (if what you’re arguing is indeed what you are arguing).
Just take a step back and be sure what you’re arguing so we can move forward. Are you saying Hinrich is not capable of being good anymore? Ok, if so, I respond he was just as good this season (after coming back from a normal injury) and in the playoffs.
So you respond with a non sequitor about other players having decent playoff series? Players we are not talking about?
I think you may have lost track of the debate thread.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Jun 29, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
my box is open
i dont think portland needs a player that is a little improvement over the one they currently have, due to the fact that kirk makes 9.5, 9 and 8 and blake makes 4.9. i dont think a player being good a few seasons in the past is ever a reason to justify getting them now. and i dont think a few good games is a good reason to get someone either.if you look at playoff stats im sure that bibby had a better 2009 playoffs then kirk did so why does no one want him? i think mike rice is in love with kirk and sings his praise all year for the last 3 or so years and thats why so many blazers fans think he is the right fit for the team. But nate wants roy to control the ball and create the offense, so unless we get rid of nate (which i think is the right thing to do to win a championship) I dont see kirk being the piece that brings them over the top. i dont think kirk would have even been the piece they needed to beat houston in the first round. i think kp knows what he is doing and if kirk was coming to portland he would have already made the move, but he has not. it could be that chicago over values him or any number of other things. and if im not mistaking blake came here as a free agent when he had just as good of offer from den. so in my opinion he wants to be here. I think the best realistic scenerio would be to sign kidd for 3 years. let blake go in free agency next year or resign him if he wants to stay as a backup and pray that bayless can become a pg. i still dont see nate giving bayless very many meaning full minutes next year. he hasnt played young point gaurds as a coach, so this isnt much of a stretch. and if bayless does become a great pg kidd would be gone when its time to resign bayless as the pg of the future. and for you mortimer i like most of what you have to say, just not the stuff about hinrich.
fire nate before its too late
The 3 year contract for Kidd, and the subsequent takeover by Bayless
Would be similar to what getting Hinrich COULD be like, as he has about that much time left.
To me, the upgrade on defense is worth the extra money. Especially since it isn’t my money, and we can’t add a player worth that sort of salary for “cheap” like we can this offseason.
And if ya worry that Hinrich needs the ball to be effective and we want it to be in Roy’s hands, why would we want Kidd? Kidd is completely a player who needs (and usually, should) dominate the ball to be effective. Hinrich, like Blake, can play off the ball and get passes from Roy for open jumpers, or can be the standard PG like Blake is… but better-er.
I agree, we shouldn’t try for a player who is past his prime. To me, that is Kidd. Even ignoring the wifey-beaty type stuff. Hinrich is in his prime and fairly compensated for his services.
Bottom line, I want to improve defensively this offseason. Our weakest defensive position is PG. Blake tries hard, but he just isn’t good enough at defense. Hinrich is a clear and obvious defensive upgrade, and also offers a similar (but more athletic) offensive game. Since we know our offense was pretty good last season, and our defense was, at best, mediocre, I think adding a guy who would help our offense (at least a little) while offering a clear defensive upgrade would be a really good move for us.
Maybe KP doesn’t agree, and I trust his judgement. But for us, when we’re discussing readily available PGs who are in their prime, good at defense, and can shoot, Hinrich is at the top of the list. Not that he is the best PG in the league, but he is the best available that fits next to Roy.
Mortimer
If the Blazers had Perkins instead of Oden they would have won the series
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 29, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
14.5 vs 13.9
Blake’s PER was better last year but not “by over a point”. While PER is a great advanced statistic, it is really a shorthand that doesn’t take into account all aspects of play.
PER doesn’t do an amazing job taking into account defense. For example, Bruce Bowen has a career PER average of 8.2, but was a first team All-Defensive player from 2003-2008. Defensive play is harder to numerically evaluate than offensive play, because there are fewer quantifiable statistics than can be (or are) tallied.
I think we can all agree, though, that the Captain is a better defensive player than Blake. Last year, the Blazers had the most efficient offense in the league. While it is possible to improve their overall play by improving offense, they will probably see better marginal improvement by improving their defense. This is main thrust of the argument
by ninjasocks on Jun 29, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. The Blazer offense was incredibly efficient, and would be marginally better with Hinrich’s adequate pick and roll game.
The main issue was our defense last year. Blake is probably in the bottom third of starting point guards defensively. Hinrich is, by all accounts, at least in the top five. this is confirmed by defensive on/off stats and meshes with personal observation.
Also, adding a defensive pest at the 1 would give us three very strong defenders to base our defense on: Hinrich, Batum, and Oden/Przybilla. Given our excellent defense in the final month of the season, I see no reason that a Hinriched Blazer squad couldn’t be a top eight team in defensive efficiency.
I only like the Hinrich idea because it is a way to spend our cap space that would assure us of improving. If there is a homerun deal out there to be had, terrific. In that case, we wouldn’t need Hinrich… my only point is that he is a terrific, terrific fallback plan.
by Cablinasian on Jun 29, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
wour friendly Bulls blogger (aka Dave at Blog-a-bull)
has even said that Hinrich is no way a top 5 PG defender and that he is highly overrated. go over there and ask hi yourself.
Collegiate stats:
NCAA Arizona:
Jerryd Bayless: 19.7pts, 4.0 asts, 3to
NAIA Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Terry Porter: 19.7pts, 4.3 asts, 2.33to
by SpyderRyder on Jun 29, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions
and that same Matt also said that he didn’t really know how to rank the point guards defensively and admitted that he was unsure of where exactly Hinrich fell, if I recall correctly. Also, Hinrich’s defensive stats are clearly top five. This meshes with the statements of Pat Riley and others, as shown by Nick Van Excellent.
by Cablinasian on Jun 29, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I also believe
That like we do with our own guys, familiarity breeds contempt between Blog-a-Bull and Hinrich.
He did have an off-season in ‘07-’08. That got him a lot of scorn from Blog-a-Bull, bein’ called the Mopey Iowan and stuff. But he clearly returned to form later this recent season and in the playoffs, and the playoffs is why we want him the most.
Morty
I liken it more to the
Nit-picking we can do with LMA sometimes. Hinrich is a higher quality player than Blake/Outlaw/Sergio, but yeah— some of us go overboard and say those 3 players suck when in fact they do not, actually suck.
Ya listen to some people here, you’d think those 3 are lucky to be in the NBA at this point.
Morty
by Mortimer on Jun 29, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hinrich's defensive stats last year were good
but the two years prior were pretty bad, to ridiculously bad.
His defense is vastly overrated on this board just because we see any semblance of defense from our point guards so infrequently.
Defensive stats are funny.
They’ve got to be the least accurate of any statistic, right?
82 games had Bonzi Well ranked as the best defender on the Rockets. Rudy Gay was ranked as the best on the Grizzlies. Joel Pryzbilla was ranked the best on the Blazers. It’s just all over the place, which is what I’ve come to expect from defensive stats.
I’ve never seen any type of defensive measure that was consistently accurate. Just because some numbers say Hinrich was a bad defender for a couple years, doesn’t make it true.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 29, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I dont see any reason that Joel shouldent be rated as the best defender on the Blazers
But as for Bonzi and Rudy Gay, that is nonsense.
* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...
Joel is probably our best defender.
I’m just saying that defensive STATS are inconsistent. Too easily influenced by outside factors.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 29, 2009 4:33 AM PDT up reply actions
That sounds like a Bulls fan.
My family is from Chicago so I hear a lot about the Bulls and it’s always negative. The last place I would look for an honest evaluation of a Bulls player is from a Bulls fan. Their perspective always seems skewed in some way, good or bad.
Ranking point guards by defensive seems like it would be one of the hardest things to do. But for what it’s worth, John Hollinger thinks Hinrich is one of the best back court defenders in the league and I’ve seen the same opinion expressed by people who’s opinion I respect.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 29, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Matt doesn't like Kirk
He’s pissed that the Bulls seem likely to lose Ben Gordon and blames it all on the org’s supposed man crush on Kirk. I don’t remember the last positive thing Matt said about Kirk.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
Most Bull fans are pissed by the amount they were willing to pay Hinrich and his injury.
That is why I think they have angst. You know, if Martell goes down after signing a minimum type contract and then gets hurt we all feel sorry for him. But if Martell got a $10 million a year contract and got injured we’d be pretty upset. Ready to cut loose if he didn’t turn into an AllStar in fact.
I really don't think it's the injury
He hasn’t been at all injury prone, and the thumb thing was pretty much a fluke. He also came back from it early. I think people get the situations with Kirk and Luol Deng mixed up sometimes – people are mad they paid Luol so much when he’s got a history of injury issues which were known at the time they offered him that deal. People were for the most part pretty OK with Kirk’s contract when he signed it.
On top of that, Kirk being out of the lineup cleared a major backcourt glut of players that likely would have been a problem – remember we had not only Kirk, but Ben Gordon, Derrick Rose, Thabo Sefolosha, and Larry Hughes all wanting minutes at that point. Vinny would never have worked the minutes out.
People are more still mad about the 07-08 season, that there may not be money to resign Ben Gordon since the Bulls reportedly refuse to pay the LT, and that it’s a huge chunk of the cap for Kirk’s role going forward.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
Not really
Hinrich’s injury was a blessing that gave Rose no fear of losing his starting job. His contract was decent, overpaid the first season, and after that he was getting market value.
It’s not his fault Bulls management refuses to trade him. He plays the same position as Derrick Rose, you can imagine who comes out on top in the fans’ hearts.
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 29, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure.
But Hinrich’s biggest attribute is as a defender, which doesn’t show up in PER. Also I dare say it wasn’t a career year for Hinrich. This is likely the best year Blake has ever had.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 29, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions
the make your arguement about things other than PER
in addition, so what if HInrich did not have a career year he did not produce and at his age there is not reason to think he will be improving, only regressing
Collegiate stats:
NCAA Arizona:
Jerryd Bayless: 19.7pts, 4.0 asts, 3to
NAIA Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Terry Porter: 19.7pts, 4.3 asts, 2.33to
by SpyderRyder on Jun 29, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions
He'd essentially be playing the same thing here
you can call it what you want, but Roy and Rose play essentially the same way.
But Hinrich would be the one bringing the ball up on the fast break and he’d get more chances in pick and roll type opportunities.
how will he have more chances in the pick and roll
when he will just pass the ball to roy at half court
fire nate before its too late
Roy doesn’t run the offense every time down the floor until the fourth quartere.
by Cablinasian on Jun 29, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly, put Roy at PG
Let him tire out from running an offense as well as being the primary offensive weapon, it’s a fool-proof plan!
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 29, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right, he'd be playing off a dominant ballhandler
BUT, he’d handle the ball as the PG more than he would with Roy, at least as much as Blake does currently, if not more since Hinrich is a better P n’ R dude and can create his own shot better.
It’s a good point you make, BUT one of Hinrich’s qualities is that he is a good PG to play off of the ball next to a dominant ballhandler. He’d still be the PG though, it wouldn’t be as extreme (most likely) as playing next to Rose, a rookie PG.
Morty
?
All I said was that I wouldn’t consider Blake a “good” role player. I didn’t say a single thing about Hinrich in my comment. You should go back up and read it again.
Even so… Hinrich did have a PER of 17.1 in the playoffs this year as apposed to Blake who had a PER of 15. So yeah, although I wouldn’t consider Hinrich a stellar offensive player he has been historically better than Blake.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 29, 2009 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions
You have to also factor in the quality of offensive players around them.
Although thinking about it that does not matter considering how utterly horrible of an offensive series the Blazers had. Or maybe the Rockets defense is just that good. I have a feeling it is a little bit of both.
* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...
There was another stat I liked, I forget who brought it up
But it was basically that Blake draws an average of 2 FTs (per some amount of minutes) and Hinrich draws 6
This tells me Kirk is more agressive going to the basket, which is one of my concerns re: Steve. He tends to penetrate “halfway” into the paint then backs it out. This definitely helps keep Blake’s A/TO ratio low, but I’d rather have a starting PG who puts more pressure on the interior defenders and gets the opposing big men into foul trouble
chris paul
is not going to be available. that would obviously be an enormous trade for us if it were possible to get him, but there is no way the hornets will ever trade him, no matter how much they want to save money for the simple fact that cp3 is the main, if not only, reason a lot of those fans are paying money to go see hornets games. we all need to stop dreaming about this. and i sort of agree about hinrich, although i think you might be underestimating him a little bit. some fair points though about paying him too much.
"Brandon, a 3-pointer out front... HIT IT!!! YES HE DID!!! OHHHHH YEAAA!
by oregonduck4life on Jun 28, 2009 11:57 PM PDT reply actions
Yeah
Its a shame CP3 is nothing but a pipe dream. It is fun to imagine though.
* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...
A very good post
But I disagree with your thinking. I really like Hinrich and here’s why: I don’t believe that you need an all star point guard to win a championship. Tony Parker is the only point guard on your list that has won it. Chauncey Billups also won, but he was on a fantastic team coached by a fantastic coach. How many other all star point guards have won championships in the last 30 years? Isaiah was one and Magic (not really a true point guard) was the other. Kirk isn’t an all star right now. Most people are right that he is very similar to Steve Blake, except that Kirk also does all the things Steve can’t do. I think the comparison only counts for what is above the shoulders. Kirk is stronger and quicker, but just as tough as Blake. When it comes down to it, Brandon Roy is the true leader of the team and Blake did a good job of playing off of Brandon, they won 54 games with that backcourt. If you could somehow vastly improve Blake’s defense as well as increase his strength and quickness, would you do it? Well, you can by trading for Hinrich.
The salary concern is something I don’t understand either. Why do people care that Kirk makes 9.5 million next year? We have plenty of cap room and his salary goes down to 8 million in 3 years. By then, Bayless will be the man.
"I been ridin' the midnight train, got ice water in my veins." -Bob Dylan
"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice
Great post
the 5 million+ more that we pay Kirk is worth that slight upgrade, which could be enough to have a substantial impact. Especially when we have the assets (Outlaw+Blake) to do so without really eating into our cap.
And that slight upgrade isn't going to disrupt the flow
Adding a superstar like CP would severely change the way this team plays. I’m not saying that I don’t want CP, but I’m not completely certain he would take us to multiple championships.
"I been ridin' the midnight train, got ice water in my veins." -Bob Dylan
"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice
With the way Minnesota was drafting guards,
I think they wouldn’t mind making a trade for Kirk. Besides, who wouldn’t want a little bit of Kirk vs Kahn?
joking
"There are a few teams you have to watch out for in the fourth quarter."
"Yeah, but Portland definitely is not one of them."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters at the end of the third quarter with the Hornets leading 74-59. Portland later ends up winning 97-89.
"They don't mind him shooting that shot at all. Rudy Fernandez is not that great of a 3pt shooter."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters right after a Rudy Fernandez missed 3pter. Rudy Fernandez finished the game with three 3pters on six attempts.
by Tofu Anonymous on Jun 29, 2009 12:10 AM PDT reply actions
Hinrich may not be able to defend speedy PGs
but he seems pretty decent against SFs and SGs. Is it possible that we could put Roy or Batum on the speedier PGs and try to out-muscle them?
but Batum
would be the best against SFs and SGs
Individual PG D is an oxymoron, rather PG D is a combination of team D and the SF. PF and C that support the PG.
Collegiate stats:
NCAA Arizona:
Jerryd Bayless: 19.7pts, 4.0 asts, 3to
NAIA Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Terry Porter: 19.7pts, 4.3 asts, 2.33to
by SpyderRyder on Jun 29, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Let’s pretend for a second that Hinrich has absolutely no shot at defending point guards one-on-one.
Even without that part of his game, he’s superior in other defensive scenarios. Switches happen a lot in the NBA… wings and bigs alike abused Blake when this occured. Hinrich stands a much better chance in this situation. There’s a reason he has a ridiculous on/off court defensive +/-. It’s not just defense one-on-one. He’s an exceptional team defender.
rather PG D is a combination of team D and the SF. PF and C that support the PG.
Doesn’t it help when the point guard is also a great team defender? I don’t understand the concept of “it doesn’t matter how your point guard defends.” If the guy can defend, isn’t that a huge plus?
by Cablinasian on Jun 29, 2009 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Switches happen
I have been less then supportive about getting Kirk but that is the best argument I have heard so far abouty getting him. As much as the Blazers switched last year.Most exellent point goes to you Cablinasian.
I like team defense, but having Hinrich would leave torched by Aaron Brooks yet again, it is true.
Hinrich doubles what Batum does, but if Roy continues to refuse to play defense that is what we will need.
I think part of the issue is that people always want to judge defense by what the other guy scored
That’s an especially difficult thing to do with the Bulls, because the team defense was atrocious and the scheme on screens was to basically switch every time. But, imo, it’s also a lousy way to judge defense. At this level, you’ve got star players that can get hot and hit shots against great defense, but you also see guys brick shots when they’re wide open.
Generally speaking, Kirk got the tougher defensive assignments, and with the hand-check rules now you’re not going to find many perimeter guys who can literally be classified as “shut down” defenders. If you watch the defensive effort and defensive fundamentals, Kirk generally made guys work much harder for what they got than the other perimeter defenders on the Bulls. He’s a very good team defender when a team has an actual defensive scheme to implement. I’d say he is better defending the bigger, more physical guys over the lighting quick guys – but in my opinion he’s still a better defender against the fast guys than most of the guards in the leauge.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
Good points
These are more reasons that KP, a Money Ball guy, would need just the right deal to consider Kirk.
I like Miller. I think he gives us another look at PG, and I like keeping Blake to back him up. If Bayless develops, great. He can have his PT when he earns it.
How does one earn playing time? By being good in practice? By working extremely hard all the time? By filling in decently when injuries force you to have playing time?
By all accounts Bayless has done those things. What he hasn’t shown himself able to do is perform well in spot minutes but I don’t see that as an earn thing, being able to perform in spot minutes is a different skill entirely.
by danielfarrell on Jun 29, 2009 4:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Miller vs. Hinrich seems like an interesting debate
I think these are the two most realistic options available to the Blazers. Obviously there are a whole host of other scenarios, and KP may be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat, but Miller or Hinrich seem like two of the most plausible options. I lean towards Hinrich, but see Miller as a viable option. I’m curious to hear other people’s takes.
Age: KH 28, AM 32
Age is significant. At 32, AM is really getting up there. OTOH, he has had no history of injury and has played almost every game his entire 10 year career. His production has not fallen off at all. His PER has remained steady at about 18 for the past several seasons. You know he is going to start declining, but you don’t know how much or how fast.
Hinrich, at 28, is about the perfect age. He is an experienced vet, but should still have several productive years before he declines. His PER has been erratic over the past three years because of injury and because with the arrival of Rose, he is being used at both guard positions.
Style of Play:
Hinrich is sort of “Blake +”: he is a good spot up shooter at around 40% from deep, and takes pretty good care of the ball with an assist/TO of over 2.5. He is a better penetrator than Blake and shoots a nice floater going to the hoop, and he is known for being good at the pick and roll. Replacing Blake with Hinrich would likely be a very smooth transition. KH does many of the things Blake does well, and BRoy would not have to make any huge adjustments to his game. Defensively, opinions vary about KH, some see him as a top 5 PG defender, others think is overrated and is only slightly better than average.
Offensively, Miller is sort of an “anti-Blake”. His strengths are Blake weaknesses and vice versa. Miller is a good penetrator and good in the open court. He has a decent mid-range game off the dribble, but is lousy from deep. Defensively, Miller has a reputation as a decent defender although he may be slowing down.
Salaries:
Hinrich three more years at approx $10 mil/year. Miller, UFA, old contract $10 mil/yr, reportedly looking for slightly reduced money for a three year deal.
Mentoring Bayless:
Which of these guys would be willing and able to help teach Bayless how to be an effective PG? Miller’s game is more similar to Bayless’ than Hinrich’s. Whether or not that would make him a better mentor for Bayless is an open question. On one hand, Miller is older and might be more willing to tutor Bayless cause he knows this is his last contract. OTOH, Hinrich is a guy who has gone from being a combo type coming out of college to being a quality distributor and may know how to teach Bayless. Miller has a reputation for being a bit prickly, but I have no idea if that is deserved.
What do the rest of you think?
by upper left corner on Jun 29, 2009 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions
On salaries, Kirk is actually slightly under $9M/year from here on out. I have no idea what it would take to sign Miller, so obviously he might still be a better deal in the financial sense.
As far as mentoring, I know little about Miller other than the “prickly” rumor you referenced. I do know Kirk has gone out of his way to help younger players, including helping Derrick this year in spite of Derrick being handed his job.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
Sounds like you are with me in the Hinrich camp....
Couple of questions:
1) What is your take on the Chicago situation? I have been over at Blog-a-Bull and people’s opinions seem to be all over the place. Some think they want to let BG walk and keep Hinrich, others are are all for dumping KH’s contract. There seem to have been long standing wars between the different factions which makes it hard to get any kind of objective information about which way the team is moving.
2) If Hinrich is not available, do you see Miller as a viable option?
by upper left corner on Jun 29, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow, that's a tough one
I’m not sure anyone could answer question 1. I’m a Kirk fan, and even I’m conflicted over it. Part of me would like him to stay with Chicago because I think he makes the team much better, even in a 6th man type role. Part of me knows he deserves to start in the NBA, and if he needs to move I’d like it to be to a good team where he’s a good fit. And a small part of me wants him to get traded just to put an end to the ongoing Kirk vs. Ben battle, and to avoid what I suspect will be a significant backlash against Kirk from Ben Gordon fans if Ben walks. Just to make it more complicated, I’m also a Ben Gordon fan (although not quite as much as I’m a Kirk fan) and would like to see Chicago find a way to keep Ben if he’ll take a reasonable contract, but that requires moving someone and the most logical guy to go is Kirk.
As far as the org, the info that comes out is as conflicted as the fans are. One report has Kirk definitely gone no matter what happens with Ben. The new GM has both indicated that signing Ben is top priority and that the org loves Kirk and plans on him being there next season. Then there’s this history of contract negotiations between the Bulls and Ben’s agent that make me wonder how likely it is they reach a deal, combined with the rumors that Detroit is going to make him a big offer. There’s also a rumor that Kirk has very quietly asked management to trade him someplace he can start.
So me personally? I’m thinking Ben is out the door, and if that happens I really hope the Bulls do keep Kirk. With Salmons possibly opting out next season the Bulls could actually end up with a backcourt shortage. But if Kirk goes someplace, Portland would be my first choice for him because I think it’s basically a perfect fit.
I’m nowhere near as familiar with Andre Miller. I’ve had him on my fantasy team a couple of times and been very happy with him in that context, but stats don’t address fit. Maybe his style of play would work great for you guys. And I can see the logic behind a guy who is likely heading into retirement. On the other hand, if he suddenly starts to decline or if Bayless doesn’t develop like you hope that could cause some issues right where you’re hoping to be really hitting it competitively.
Sorry for the long post! I think basically I see Kirk as an upgrade who maintains the team style, so to me that’s a low risk, potential high reward move. I suppose the Blake fans would say the same for him, but you all are much better able than I to judge whether Blake is on an upward trend or had a fluke career season, and how costly his defense is to the team. Andre Miller seems like more of a risk to me – not necessarily him personally, but the shift in team style and maybe a bit more of a gamble that Bayless is the PG of the future.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
I don't personally think it is a debate...
The blazers can’t afford to have a point guard that can’t hit the broad side of a barn from distance. Our pg will at least need to be a threat from out there or defenses will just sag of him and onto LMA/Roy/Oden….
The Bedger formally known as ????????
about mentoring Bayless part:
IMHO the question to ask is more like “Which of them would let Bayless have more chance to play/learn?” than “Which is more willing to teach him?” because NBA player have to be on his own. Nobody has any obligation to teach any other player even if he’s your teammate. Teaching/mentoring can only help a young guy to a limited degree and the majority of the work has to be done by himself.
So to answer my own question, I think the Hinrich/Bayless would be a versatile & dynamic PG combo. They provide different things on the court and allow coaches more strategic flexibility. Therefore Bayless would have more chance to play in this scenario.
Miller & Bayless are more or less the same type of PG and thus it would be harder for Bayless to earn his playing time.
Cost vs. Opportunity Cost:
On July 1st, 2010 we will be entering the absolutely zero capspace era for the Roy-LMA-Oden Blazers. Between now and then, the clock is ticking for the Blazers to utilize their capspace flexibility to improve the team. I believe the biggest improvement needed is at the PG position. You admit Kirk would improve the team (although just slightly) but you say there are better options out there for the money. What are those options? Your argument only holds water if you expand on what players (other then Chris Paul) would be better to spend the money on.
I personally believe because of skill/caliber, age, character, fit/chemistry (defense, spot-up shooting, pace) and known availability, Hinrich seems like the best option. I like Kirk over Miller, Kidd, Nash, Bibby, Sessions and our own Blakey. Hinrich just fits the bill in age/chemisty over Miller/Kidd/Nash/Bibby and just fits better then Sessions. Now if somehow Harris, Calderon, Conley, or even Rubio are available for the same cost in what we need to give up (or even a little more) for Kirk …it becomes a much more difficult decision.
Gimmicks don't make dynasties
by WarEaglePDX on Jun 29, 2009 12:33 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
As far as attainable point guards go, kirk is our best option
We have one more off season and up to the trade deadline to upgrade by utilizing cap space. There are a limited number of upgrades to be had at point guard. There are even fewer who fit as well as Kirk. I’m not that big of Hinrich for twice what Blake makes, but with limited legitimate options and an ever shrinking timeline trading for Kirk is a reasonable improvement.
So, I’m with you wareagle
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
Count me in as well!
Hinrich is expensive when compared to Blake, but not when compared to a good starting PG, which he has been when he has been a starting PG.
This is our last window to add someone with that sort of salary, and he just may be the best option available. After this offseason, we won’t have a capspace window to do a lopsided trade for a decade since Roy and LMA and then Oden and Etc will all be paid oodles and caboodles of cash.
Out of the available players, he fits the best at a position we would like to improve on. He’s in his prime, a good to great defender, and can play off the ball in additon to being a better playmaker than Blake (Hinrich isn’t a great playmaker, but better than Blake).
It’s our only window to add a player like this, for basically “free”, and we should be happy to get the best option out there.
Mortimer
id rather have kirk than any other pg not named chris pual or deron williams and maybe devin harris
Oden...Aldridge...Roy.....THE REAL BIG THREE
Not a big fan of Heinrich, not a big upgrade.
Why doesn’t anyone bring up the fact of Roy being out 1? He did that in College correct?
B.S. Liberal Studies OSU '06
Trade for Gerald Wallace!!
I dont see Roy being a full time 1.
He has repeatibly said he hasn’t wanted to do it. I think it would wear him down pretty fast having full time ball duties.
* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...
Roy at the 1 has produced some of our poorer moments.
If you’re going to move him out of position, Roy at the 3 has produced some of our best moments.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
In a word, defense.
Roy is not a good candidate to be chasing around the current generation of uber-quick PGs. You are what you can defend in the NBA. Roy can do it in spots, but not night in and night out.
by upper left corner on Jun 29, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions
We also have Bayless
At PG, we aren’t afraid to meet any combinations other teams have.
For those speedy guys mentioned, Bayless would kill them offensively.
Our 2R are basketball geniuses-Roy and Rudy
A new (?) idea to get Hinrich
Not sure if there can be any new thought on how to acquire Hinrich with the sheer quantity of discussion on the guy in the last couple of months but I haven’t heard any discussion of using Frye in a sign and trade as part of a Hinrich deal.
My reasoning for this; PF is the Bulls main weakness – Tyrus Thomas has been slow to develop and Tim Thomas is an over the hill guy who never really cared anyway. Frye would give them a different type of PF who would be a nice compliment to Noah on the offensive end. I think it is conceivable that Frye could be a starting PF for that team at some point next year if given decent minutes.
I think that Frye could hold more value for the Bulls than Outlaw in a potential Hinrich trade. Combine Frye and Blake in the move and they get a serviceable replacement for Hinrich and address an area of weakness. If they are committed to resigning Gordon then either of these two could be a realistic piece in a lopsided trade.
I understand that placing such high value on a jump-shooting backup PF might seem homeristic but I think the potential Frye showed earlier in his career when given minutes would give the Bulls a reason to seriously consider a deal involving Frye as superior to one with Outlaw.
PG: Hinrich, Bayless, Beaubois
SF: Crash, Smith or status quo
PF:Draft Dejuan Blair, add Pops
I dont know
I think some teams could go for that hybrid 3/4 at the 4 that Outlaw can bring. Think Rashard Lewis. There seems to be more and more of them in the east. I think he would fit in alright over there.
He would also give them some flexibility to get Deng’s contract off the books. I dont see it being as horrible as it sounds here. Then again, I could make a career out of being wrong.
* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...
We also just drafted two forwards
And Tyrus is coming along. I don’t think we’d have a whole lot of interest in trying out a PF who has had a less than stellar career. That may not be fair to Frye’s untapped potential, but you’re going to have a really hard sell that he addresses an area of weakness as far as I’m concerned.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
Fair enough
However, Frye has a vastly different skillset to Gibson and doesn’t play the same position as Johnson probably will. I may have been a bit wishful in thinking Frye alone would be enough but I still see him as potentially attractive to the Bulls. I don’t see you guys wanting Outlaw as an SF with Deng and Salmons already more than covering that position and as a PF he has some pretty glaring weaknesses (rebounding, lack of post game etc). Frye was a productive player early in his career and there is no reason to think he wouldn’t be again if given minutes. His shooting could serve as a nice compliment to Thomas’ rebounding and defense and help draw defenses out to the perimeter, allowing Noah more room to work down low.
I don’t really think this will happen but I do think it is an idea worth discussing and something both sides may be open to.
PG: Hinrich, Bayless, Beaubois
SF: Crash, Smith or status quo
PF:Draft Dejuan Blair, add Pops
Kirk's contract is actually quite reasonable.
I can’t see turning down a starting quality PG because makes more money. I’m more worried about having to take Deng back along with it, which I would think is what Chicago is looking for.
Kirk is inside our window at least. Just barely, but with PG options around the league, it’s hard to be choosy. Miller, Kidd, Nash, just aren’t. You pick them up if you want to win a few more games next season, maybe the season after. Hoping that Bayless will be ready by then is a gamble. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. If he isn’t, then what? Still, these next two years are still Roy, Aldridge and Oden’s developing years. Why get them used to playing with a player who isn’t going to be there when they hit their prime?
Kirk isn’t optimal, but he is available. I’d probably be able to live with Rondo, since he’s well within our window as well, but his skill set is something very different that what our team is used to. Not that that’s bad, just that it’ll take some adjusting to get used to, which we do have time for. But the Celtics want people to take Ray Allen as well, whom we just don’t have room for. the 2 is already crowded. But I’d take Kirk if that deal is there for him alone.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
True.
Early last season, we would have been happy to get Hinrich AND Deng. Deng’s injuries, plus his contract (5 years left + escalates from 10 million to 14 million) with what he gives on the floor makes him a liability even with his skills. In today’s economic climate, whoever takes Deng is stuck with Deng for a long time. Of course, one could hope that the injuries are over and that he can justify his price.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
I think Deng can make a comeback
I always liked his off the ball game and smarts; dislike his game predicated in mid-range jumpers and no 3’s and his lack of improvement over the last few years.
His progress has been hampered by injuries, but I hold out hope he has just been unlucky and that he can hit a regular patch of clean livin’, no-injury style.
Morty
I understand that Hinrich is not a huge upgrade, but I wonder who else would be available and what that would mean.
To get a better look at the situation lets go through some scenarios:
1. Happy with Blake: Until at least the end of next season when his contract is up we go forward with Blake as the starter and Bayless as the first backup and some third player (Mills, another “bad” low salary vet). Some people like this scenario, others don’t because they don’t want to play another playoff with Blake or don’t think Bayless will ever be the #1 or both. I could imagine pretty well that’s what the Blazers will do if they still trust both players to fulfill their roles until then.
2. Old vet: We acquire another veteran like Kidd or Miller in free agency (or Nash via trade), and likely Blake stays as his backup. Now Bayless really gets no additional playing time to develop into a starter, and this isn’t a long-term solution although for a year or two it might look very favorable/successful for the team. I assume in a Hinrich trade that wouldn’t be the case since the Bulls would need a replacement for Hinrich and that would be Blake, but it’s no guarantee.
3. Young competition: We acquire a younger player who has a chance to be the immediate or future starter, but it’s not automatic. Essentially it would be a sign the Blazers aren’t sure about Bayless and want to battle it out. That might be a player like Sessions, Felton, even Conley (who is the clear starter now in Memphis but not a major star). However not all of these players might be happy to come unless they clearly get a promise to be the starter over Bayless and/or Blake.
4. Superstar: Pritchard somehow manages to acquire a star point guard still in his prime. In this scenario, it doesn’t really matter if Blake or Bayless would get traded, either one would be penciled in as the backup to the star. We might wish for this scenario, but it’s probably the hardest to do and would require that the team doesn’t really believe in either to pull the trigger.
I think Hinrich is another case that falls somewhat in between these scenarios. He is a veteran, but younger than Blake yet not the same age group as Bayless. He is also not a clear superstar who never would get replaced as long as he is here. So it wouldn’t be the battle of a youngster with Bayless for playing time to begin with. But it would also not be the ‘no confidence’ vote in Bayless as the team could still use him similarly to Blake hoping Bayless eventually replaces him by realizing his potential. If the Blazers feel Bayless still will be the future guard next to Roy, that might be what makes this scenario the most interesting in their eyes: Getting a better player for the next 3 years, but still keeping the option open that Bayless might be the one to eventually replace him.
by Norsktroll on Jun 29, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
My opinion has changed over time.
Last year, I was definitely in the “No to Hinrich” camp. Then I’ve slid to “maybe, if they’re giving him away.” Then to “I wouldn’t complain if we made the deal.” I think I’m finally at, “Yes, I would like to get Hinrich,” though not quite at the “We must get Hinrich at all costs” level. This argument is really solid. It’s now difficult for me to see how he would not be a good fit here.
The issue comes down to what does Chicago want to do? I’m not sure their front office knows for sure yet.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
Oh, and the Blazers front office too.
Because last time I checked, I didn’t have much of a say in their plans.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
yeah, I had a transition as well
I moved from “meh, we can do better” to “he’s not worth twice the money Steve Blake is” to “he’s the best fit that we can acquire”
I’m still not all that high on Hinrich, but grabbing him is a solid move. Not everything needs to be a blockbuster, sometimes a low key, competent move can reap great benefits.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
Hinrich
Essentially unwanted in Chicago.
He can shoot a little. I wonder about his D? Slow feet?
The career 6.1 to 2.28 assist to turnover ratio is not too bad.
"Oh yeah? You can Derelique my balls."
"I can Shavlick my own balls."
Ya wonder about his D? :-)
His D is why most of us want him, silly! He’s a good defender at the PG position, and able to guard the SG and SF as well. He did a really good job against all of the Celtics perimeter weapons last playoffs.
It’s not that Chicago doesn’t like him (management might like him too much and not want to trade him), but he has a true star possibly-elite young buck hot shot PG now in front of him. And since Hinrich is making starter’s pay and is a starter most anywhere else, they’re likely to move him. As a starter, his pay is more than fair.
It shouldn’t be seen as a knock on Hinrich though. Rose is just the Bulls A-level player they’ve been looking for, there’s no shame in playing backup to him and being traded because of it.
The way most of us see it, he is a decent offensive upgrade to Blake since they are similar 3-point shooters but Hinrich is a lil’ better at creating his own shot and penetrating— he isn’t great at those 2 things, mind you, but he is better than Blake at them. And then, defensively, he is a HUGE upgrade over Blake and in many’s opinion is one of the best perimeter defenders at the PG position.
So we’d be taking a Blake style player on offense, but better, and adding good defense. That’s why we like the Hinrich Maneuver.
Mortimer
Can someone photoshop Hinrich in a Blazer Uni please
Then, and only then, will I KNOW….. he is our man
"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."
-Chauncey Billups
are all of you that want hinrich
the same ones that wanted blair and morrison and bowie?
fire nate before its too late
And how does it apply?
First off, who knows how Blair will turn out. We can take him off the table as far as using wanting or not wanting him as a good way to judge someone’s talent evaluation abilities.
What on Earth does ADAM MORRISON have to do with anything? An overrated college player who is absolutely horrible in the NBA? How does that apply to Hinrich? I don’t see any comparison at all. I greatly dislike Morrison, I like Hinrich. Comparing the two makes no sense.
Once again, Bowie— what does it have to do with anything? Now, personally, I was a baby when we got him, so maybe I wrote a few posts back then saying he’d be a good fit and we needed a center, I dunno, I can’t remember— I was a baby. But again, its a player and situation with no relation to our current situation and the debate about Hinrich.
A bust drafted #3 and an injury prone big man have nothing to do with Kirk Hinrich, who has had a good, solid career and is known as a good defender.
Perhaps I missed something in the comparison. How does Hinrich relate to any of those 3 players you named?
Mortimer
it was just a question
more about people getting tunnel vision and seeing things that arnt there then really about the players
fire nate before its too late
With Hinrich, it is a bit different
We have a good career to judge him by, and his good play upon his return from injury and how he excelled in the playoffs. If he was a guy who played well for the first time in these playoffs, it wouldn’t be so encouraging— plenty of guys have gotten bad contracts based on one good playoff series.
But Hinrich showed in these playoffs that he is capable of how he played for most of his career. And, he’s young.
Blair and Ammo had/have lotsa support amongst NCAA fans, but it is/was unknown how’d they translate to the NBA. Hinrich has been in the NBA for a while now, we know what he can do— play off the ball, shoot, and defend.
Morty
???
I’m not a Heinrich fan but you seem confused
There’s an argument to be made for Heinrich, I may not agree with it as clearly neither do you, but there is a reasonable argument there.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jun 29, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
The question is: is Heinrich twice as good as Blake?
Blake makes 5 mil in 09/10
Heinrich nearly 10 mil
My opinion: no
Blazer Fan
Why does he have to be twice as good?
A Porsche costs twice as much as a BMW, but is it twice as fast? Does it handle 2 times better? An upgrade is an upgrade, and it comes at a cost. In my opinion, the upgrade is worth the cost…
The Bedger formally known as ????????
And have someone else explain it to you ;)
lunch time
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jun 29, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok
so using your logic, if we are going pay a pg 10 million dollars, he better be twice as good as Blake. Which means he better average 22 points and 10 assists? Would you like him to shoot 80% from 3pt land as well? I don’t understand…
The Bedger formally known as ????????
how?
the analogy makes sense to me. Kirk isn’t light years better than Steve Blake, but he is a significant upgrade in terms of what he brings. Which one is going to get you where you want to go faster? Kirk>Steve. Porche>BMW.
"I been ridin' the midnight train, got ice water in my veins." -Bob Dylan
"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice
That's some air-tight logic there
I mean, it’s not like you have to overpay to upgrade the roster in the NBA, nope that’s never happened before.
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 29, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I still don't get this argument
Basketball ability and salary are not a linear relationship in the NBA. The question shouldn’t be whether a potential PG target is X% better than Blake, but whether the upgrade would improve the team enough to reach another level competitively.
If it’s a step forward for the team as a whole, it doesn’t matter much if that player individually is twice as good as Blake, or whatever the salary comparison works out to. If a player is more than twice as good as Blake but not a good fit and so there’s a substantial risk the team will be worse (eg, Philly acquiring Elton Brand), you don’t do it no matter how that individual compares to Blake. It might be different on a team whose owner refused to pay the LT for a winner, but you guys don’t have that problem.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
Value
Hinrich doesn’t have to be twice as good as Blake but if you are going to pay him twice as much I think it would need to be a significant upgrade. Some people think he is a big enough upgrade to justify the salary, others don’t. The relationship is not linear but there is a relationship. I would rather have a veteran SF to ease Batum into the role and take my chances with Blake and Bayless. I think the $$ is better spent at that position. I would rather move Webster and or Outlaw than Blake. They have good things going for them but I think Blake is more solid and will contribute to a championship.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Don’t get me wrong. I think Hinrich would be a definite upgrade at the PG position. He’s definitely an improvement over Blake and I think it would give the Blazers a few more victories over the course of a season. He’s a great serviceable option for the Blazers.
My point lies with the fact that we’ve got one shot to sign/trade for a free agent. Don’t we want to make it count?
If we have $9-10 million to spend, couldn’t we get a premier free agent this year? If we took the $10 million for Hinrich and gave it to Lamar Odom, would the Blazers be better with Hinrich or Odom? I think we’d win a lot more games with Odom in the lineup or even off the bench.
Realistically, this is our last opportunity to upgrade this roster for a championship run.
We have ONE chance to add a premier free agent or trade for a premier player. Why not use it? If it ends up being Hinrich is the best available option out there, I’m totally happy going with that. I just don’t believe he’s the best we could do. Heck, for $9 million, I still think we could be close to getting a premier power forward.
Would you rather take:
Outlaw and Kirk or Amare Stoudamire
Outlaw and Kirk or Chris Bosh
Outlaw and Kirk or Chris Paul
With that summer of 2010 coming next year, I think there’s going to be a lot of dumping of quality players. Heck, even two $5 million players could do wonders for the Blazers. Imagine adding two Turiaf for $5million and another good role player.
The reason I say add an All Star PG is just in case one of the other players on the Blazers doesn’t develop into an All Star. I’m just saying try to get one as insurance. If Oden doesnt develop into an All Star, at least the All Star PG can get us to the championship with Roy and LMA.
If we pick up an All Star PG, Oden and LMA both develop into All Stars, we’d be looking at a dynasty with 4 All Stars.
If we pick up Hinrich, we are essentially putting all of our championship eggs into the Greg Oden basket.
Interesting take
it seems like the whole Hinrich debate is between those who agree that he suits our needs and those who have different reasons why we should not trade for him. There are going to be pro’s and con’s for any player, with the exception of the unattainable superstars, depending on your opinion of the Blazers’ needs. I, for one, believe that Lamar Odom would make the Blazers worse next year. That’s just my opinion and I could be wrong.
"I been ridin' the midnight train, got ice water in my veins." -Bob Dylan
"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice
Amar'e? Bosh? Paul?
What makes you think we could get any of those players? (Or would even want STAT.) None of them are free agents until at least 2010, and we will have no extra cap space then; Roy and LMA (with Greg looming) will have eaten it all up.
You want an All-Star PG? The only all-star pgs from this year are Paul, Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, Devin Harris, and Jameer Nelson. How many of those are available? People keep talking about Harris being on the trading block, but I don’t see it – NJ would be insane to trade its best player on a reasonable contract.
These hypotheticals you suggest are simply a false choice.
Would you rather take:
Outlaw and Kirk or Amare Stoudamire
Outlaw and Kirk or Chris Bosh
Outlaw and Kirk or Chris Paul
Would you rather take:
Kirk or DWill?
Frye or Nowitski?
A ham sandwich or LeBron James?
We have cap space and attractive contracts RIGHT NOW, and we won’t have them again for the foreseeable future. It’s time to make a move, and by that I mean a move within the realm of possibility, not one from imaginationland.
by samuelleejackson on Jun 29, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Stoudamire and Bosh will definitely be available some time between now and the trade deadline. Both players have shown no inclination in signing a long term deal and they will both be free agents in the Summer of 2010. The Suns and Raptors have a choice to make about whether they let them walk for free, or get back something of value.
If the Blazers acquire Kirk now, they have very little hope of getting Amare or Bosh in February. If they wait for February, they have a chance to pick up one of them for a draft prospect and maybe a filler or two(Outlaw, Pryzbilla, etc) assuming they did nothing from now until February. Sure it’s probably a 4 month rental, but I think given the Blazers team, it might be easy convince them to re-sign to a long term deal.
Chris Paul is a long shot I know, but with the salary cap going down, I think most teams will be shedding salary unless they are a championship contender. I still believe New Orleans has 3 bad contracts right now. (Chandler, Peja, and Paul). Paul is the only one who is highly sought after. The other two are damaged goods with little interest. They can’t keep all 3 with the amount of money they’re losing every year.
Paul has a bad contract?
He’s a top-5 player, and literally could not have a bad contract, as he’s worth the max.
by samuelleejackson on Jun 29, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions
With the Blazers being all about the future....
Why would they even want a “4 month rental”?
And it wouldnt be a matter of convincing them to stay and sign a long term deal, because the Blazers couldnt afford another long term max contract anyway.
thought I would add this
Alex (Rip City)
Is Hinrich an upgrade to Blake? and at what cost?
--
John Hollinger
Definitely an upgrade — better shooter, better creator, and VASTLY better defender who can cover tough 2s and allow Roy to take an easier assignment. I love Blake as a backup, but he’s stretched as a starter.
by GreatOden'sRaven on Jun 29, 2009 3:28 PM PDT reply actions
Can't argue with the back up part
I am just not sold on Hinrich being the piece that will propel us forward and make us a contender. If they trade for him I hope he is all that everyone says he is.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blazer's Edge
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
