BullsByTheHorns on the Gordon/Hinrich debate

RPK

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
287
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Chicago, Illinois
http://bullsbythehorns.com/?p=759

Anyone who follows the Bulls will tell you that the team’s biggest and most immediate offseason concern is what to do with Ben Gordon: Re-sign him…or let him moonwalk out of town? The main problem is that, to avoid the dreaded luxury tax — the Dr. Doom of the NBA – John Paxson probably won’t be able to retain Gordan and keep everybody on the current roster. As Sam Smith said: “…to sign [Gordon] to a competitive deal, the Bulls would probably have to trade a player without taking back a similar salary, which is difficult in this era. It most likely would be Kirk Hinrich if that occurs.”

Now keep in mind that this is all just idle speculation at the moment. It’s impossible to know what kind of deal (or deals) Pax might be dreaming up or perhaps even working on right now. (Just, uh, don’t expect a Chris Bosh mega-trade, okay?) However, if it really comes down to a decision of whether to keep Gordon or Hinrich, I hope the team holds onto Captain Kirk.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an unabashed Air Gordon fan. I’ve made that point before. He’s a proven 20-point scorer who can heat up in a hurry and win games — including, as we just found out, critical playoff contests — with his ridiculous shot-making ability. (I say “ridiculous” because both the quality of the attempts and the fact that they actually go in are often enough to boggle the mind.) However, scoring is pretty much all BG does. He can play only one position (shooting guard), he can’t defend at any position, he’s not a play maker, he tends to spend way too much time looking for (and dribbling to create) his own offense, and he’s almost as likely to shoot the Bulls out of a game as he is to shoot them into it. Seriously, flip a coin.

Kirk, obviously, isn’t nearly the offensive threat that Gordon is. (Although he can light it up from time to time, as he did in the fourth quarter of Game 7 against the Celtics.) But he does so much more. He can play both guard positions, he can defend point guards, shooting guards and (at need) small forwards, he can stick the three, he can handle the ball and run the offense, and he showed this season that he’s willing and able to come off the bench and do whatever the coach asks of him.

Think about it. Kirk is a starting-caliber player who can provide off-the-bench spot-duty behind both Derrick Rose and John Salmons (assuming John will be starting at the two-spot next season). Look, it’s hard in this league to find a quality backup at the point. Just ask the Hornets and Suns, who are always forced to play Chris Paul and Steve Nash way too many minutes over the course of a season. It’s just as hard, if not more so, to find versatile, two-way players who can subordinate their egos. Hinrich can do all that.

I get that Kirk is overpaid. But while he pulled down $10 million this season, his contract is structured so that the money he’s owed goes downinstead of up. He has three more seasons left at $9.5 million, $9 million and then $8 million. That seems like a lot to play if you look at his numbers, but teams win with depth and flexibility. Hinrich provides that. Gordon does not.

Think about it like this. Imagine you were an NBA GM and you had to choose between two nameless players. One was going to cost you $10+ million for the next four or five seasons. For that money, he would provide you 20 points per game and a half-dozen (or so) game-winning shots per season…and that’s it. The other guy was going to run you less than $10 million a year for the next three, would give you 12-15 PPG, play off the bench at two positions, defend at three positions and never complain about his role. I know which one I’d choose.

I’m not trying to demean Ben’s worth as a player. The 20-point scorer is a relative rarity. So is the game-winning shooter. But Hinrich simply has greater all-around utility than Gordon. Personally, I’d like the Bulls to keep both of them. But if that’s impossible, then Gordon should be the one to go. That would leave the Bulls with a starting lineup (I’m guessing) of Rose, Salmons, Luol Deng, Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah with Kirk and Brad Miller coming off the bench. There’s a lot of offensive and defensive flexibility in that bunch…assuming that Loul can return healthy and ready to pick up some of the scoring that Ben did.

Again, as I said, it’s all speculation.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
The author makes a pretty good case there. It's part of what I was discussing in my case for Kirk podcast as well.

When you have Rose, Salmons, and Deng as your other 3 guys, Hinrich is a great utility guy among them. If you keep Gordon then he probably starts adn Salmons is the utility guy, except that Kirk is a better utility guy than Salmons because he backs up the 1/2, and finding a backup 3 is a lot easier than a backup 1.

Salmons also has not played nearly as well coming off the bench in the past, so do you want to put him back in that role?

My counterpoint might be, try and move Salmons instead of Hinrich. Salmons is on a short deal at an ultra reasonable price and will help any team he goes to. You might be able to move him for cap relief, Gordon is better, Kirk stays as the valuable utility guy, and you don't have to deal with trying to figure out what to do with Salmosn if he opts out or in 2 years when he's older seeking a new deal.

You'll have a guy who's proven to be a better scorer and is 4 years younger and will likely grow better with Rose.
 

Basghetti80

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
234
Liked Posts:
0
Doug as you know I have wondered about Salmons and moving him lately if we can get Gordon signed. He would be much easier to move than Deng obviously and as you stated Hinrich fits a utility role much better than Salmons does. With that said I know that Paxson is real big on having some more size in our backcourt and that is why he was so high on bringing Salmons in. If we move Salmons for capspace to sign Gordon we are back to a 3 guard rotation where all 3 guys are 6'3 or shorter. Is Paxson/Gar okay with going back to that?
 

Ralphb07

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Palm Bay FL
That is a pretty good case for Kirk. I would love to have Gordon back but I just don't see us going over the LT and from hearing at the trade deadline that the Bulls really wanted Salmons IMO confirms that.

If we actually sign Gordon I'll jump for joy and be happy but it really looks like that won't be the case. To me it looks like we could be setting ourselves up for 2010 or giving us flexibility for the future.
 

Ralphb07

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Palm Bay FL
Basghetti80 wrote:
Doug as you know I have wondered about Salmons and moving him lately if we can get Gordon signed. He would be much easier to move than Deng obviously and as you stated Hinrich fits a utility role much better than Salmons does. With that said I know that Paxson is real big on having some more size in our backcourt and that is why he was so high on bringing Salmons in. If we move Salmons for capspace to sign Gordon we are back to a 3 guard rotation where all 3 guys are 6'3 or shorter. Is Paxson/Gar okay with going back to that?

My thinking and I touch on it in my post below yours is the Bulls want salary flexibilty for 2010 or future moves. Which is why Salmons works. Salmons is 29 and if he opts out in 2010 that helps us and if we extend him he will make around 7-8 mil which is still a pretty fair deal

That's what I think the Bulls want. They want smaller contracts around Rose that can still help us win but give us that room to make moves down the road
 

Rose1

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
360
Liked Posts:
0
I'm tired of reading about this contrast between Gordon and Hinrich. The proof is in the stats. They're making this a bigger deal than it really is. If you want to contend, then you go with the guy whom averaged 20ppg. If you want to save money, then just don't sign BG. If I was BG, I would go somewhere that will allow me to be appreciated. Hinrich is a overpaid backup point guard. He's not a true SG or wing player so that guy has not future with Rose. Besides, you just can't expect Hinrich to replace Gordon 20 points, I find that laughable. That's the reason why we almost made to the second round.
 

Rose1

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
360
Liked Posts:
0
Fans cry about little stuff that Gordon tends to do. He dribble off him feet too much..., well last time I check Hinrich doesn't take it strong to the hole and draw contact.
 

Fred

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
982
Liked Posts:
7
RPK wrote:
http://bullsbythehorns.com/?p=759

However, scoring is pretty much all BG does. He can play only one position (shooting guard), he can’t defend at any position, he’s not a play maker, he tends to spend way too much time looking for (and dribbling to create) his own offense, and he’s almost as likely to shoot the Bulls out of a game as he is to shoot them into it. Seriously, flip a coin.

12.19.08

Bulls vs. Utah.

Derrick Rose picks up 2 quick fouls. He goes to the bench.

Midway through the first quarter, D. Williams, moves over to guard Gordon. Gordon blows by him and Wiliams is forced to foul to prevent a layup. The very next possession, Ben does the exact same thing, and Williams picks up another foul. He goes to the bench for the next 10 minutes.

So, the best player on the Utah Jazz is sent to the bench because Ben has the ability to draw fouls. Can anyone name a prominent member of the Celtics who suffered the same fate in Game 5? Most of the fouls Allen committed were made during attempts to stay with BG.

Why do people continually underrate this? For a guy who takes such a high percentage of shots at the 3-point line, and 3-point shooters are RARELY fouled, he is excellent at drawing fouls.

I haven't even talked about spacing the floor. But hey, scoring is all he does.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
Ben doesn't draw that many fouls.

Not so many that I'd call it a big strength of his. He does a better job than Hinrich, but he doesn't do the job of a guard who's good at drawing fouls.
 

Dpauley23

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
1,496
Liked Posts:
4
For some reason he does get cheaped out of alot of calls though
 

dunkside.com

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
166
Liked Posts:
0
dougthonus wrote:
The author makes a pretty good case there. It's part of what I was discussing in my case for Kirk podcast as well.

When you have Rose, Salmons, and Deng as your other 3 guys, Hinrich is a great utility guy among them. If you keep Gordon then he probably starts adn Salmons is the utility guy, except that Kirk is a better utility guy than Salmons because he backs up the 1/2, and finding a backup 3 is a lot easier than a backup 1.

Salmons also has not played nearly as well coming off the bench in the past, so do you want to put him back in that role?

My counterpoint might be, try and move Salmons instead of Hinrich. Salmons is on a short deal at an ultra reasonable price and will help any team he goes to. You might be able to move him for cap relief, Gordon is better, Kirk stays as the valuable utility guy, and you don't have to deal with trying to figure out what to do with Salmosn if he opts out or in 2 years when he's older seeking a new deal.

You'll have a guy who's proven to be a better scorer and is 4 years younger and will likely grow better with Rose.

No. No no no no. NO !!!!

Salmons is one of the few Bulls on a decent contract and you want HIM gone ?!

You know what ?
I'll take the more radical approach to the problem: TRADE THEM ALL !!!
Deng, GONE.
Hinrich, GONE.
Gordon, GONE.

Deng and Hinrich are already overpaid and I'm pretty sure Gordon is about to get overpaid by someone, be it the Bulls or other team.

I can't really think of a team that won despite having at least 2 overpaid players making around 10 mil/season. Most teams that won were paying their superstars and had a bunch of role players, most of them not making too much money.

So trade them all and take a step back. Rose won't reach his prime anytime soon, so you can give him 1-2 seasons of having to carry the team by himself. This way he gets a lot of experience and will appreciate it even more when you bring him help. Then, in 3-4 years, you can have a superstar with experience and have a good team around him. Is more or less what the Cavs have done.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
You know what ?
I'll take the more radical approach to the problem: TRADE THEM ALL !!!
Deng, GONE.
Hinrich, GONE.
Gordon, GONE.

Deng and Hinrich are already overpaid and I'm pretty sure Gordon is about to get overpaid by someone, be it the Bulls or other team.

I can't really think of a team that won despite having at least 2 overpaid players making around 10 mil/season. Most teams that won were paying their superstars and had a bunch of role players, most of them not making too much money.

You can't trade Deng I'm betting. Hinrich's deal isn't that much longer, nor do I think he's overpaid.

BG at 9 million a year wouldn't be overpaid. As I said, look at the SGs who are better or about the same, even on your list every single guy on it was paid at least 9 million per year if I'm not mistaken. Maybe Barbosa was less if you had him on your list, but that's it.

People have a distorted view of what "overpaid" is.

As a side note, Miami won their title with Jason Williams and Antoine Walker on large overpaid deals.
 

Diddy1122

I ain't your pal dickface
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
4,459
Liked Posts:
1,155
Location:
Chicago
The guy makes some pretty good points, ones which I have echoed for years now. But I think the line that best sums up what frustrates me most about BG is this:

"He’s a proven 20-point scorer who can heat up in a hurry and win games — including, as we just found out, critical playoff contests — with his ridiculous shot-making ability. (I say “ridiculous” because both the quality of the attempts and the fact that they actually go in are often enough to boggle the mind.)"

For as good as scorer as BG is, his shot selection has got to be the worst of any 20pt scorer in this league.
 

clonetrooper264

Retired Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
23,316
Liked Posts:
7,394
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  2. Golden State Warriors
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Ah the case for Kirk Hinrich...

When you look at it, it really does make sense why keeping Kirk would be a good idea. He's a team player and does what is asked of him without complaining. Ben, while I'm sure he would come off the bench if asked to, would probably be like AI and complain about it. Kirk's defense and versatility thereof is a valuable part of his game, in addition to playing 2 positions. We all know Kirk isn't close to what Ben is at the 2, but Ben is quite frankly not able to play the point. This makes Kirk a bit more versatile on offense when he can actually shoot a decent percentage. That's the one thing that irks me about Kirk: he can't shoot above like 43% most of the time. It kills me to see him missing open 3's.

Of course the best situation is you keep both :)
 

Shakes

Iconoclast
Joined:
Apr 22, 2009
Posts:
3,857
Liked Posts:
142
Kirk shoots 38% from 3 for his career. That's pretty good for a guy who averages over 300 attempts a year. He only looks like a bad three point shooter compared to Gordon, who is off the charts good.

Kirk's limitations on offense are more his inability to score close to the hoop and/or draw fouls. Gordon's not that great in those areas, but compared to Kirk he looks like Lebron.
 

clonetrooper264

Retired Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
23,316
Liked Posts:
7,394
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  2. Golden State Warriors
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Shakes wrote:
Kirk shoots 38% from 3 for his career. That's pretty good for a guy who averages over 300 attempts a year. He only looks like a bad three point shooter compared to Gordon, who is off the charts good.

Kirk's limitations on offense are more his inability to score close to the hoop and/or draw fouls. Gordon's not that great in those areas, but compared to Kirk he looks like Lebron.

Well the easy way to remedy that is to go up to Kirk and say: "DRIVE MORE!" And he'll probably do it and thus get more fouls...hopefully. Kirk is above average from 3pt range, but he's not 3pt contest worthy like Ben is. Still if we have him and Salmons stays, we are still pretty good from 3. I think we just got spoiled by seeing Ben drain 40% every year so we don't appreciate Kirk's shooting as much.
 

Shakes

Iconoclast
Joined:
Apr 22, 2009
Posts:
3,857
Liked Posts:
142
I don't think driving more will really help, Hinrich has never gotten a lot of foul calls. Maybe the refs think "this guy is physical on D, he has to expect the same going the other way", I don't know.
 

TheStig

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
3,636
Liked Posts:
38
I hate this sophie's choice crap. There are a few viable options to keep both. JR can just pay the LT for a yr or trade JJ or Tim Thomas plus one of our picks for cap space. It really doesn't have to be one or the other. And if we can't find an upgrade at PF, there will be PT for all. If we didn't have such a cheap owner, this would never warrant any thought.
 

clonetrooper264

Retired Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
23,316
Liked Posts:
7,394
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  2. Golden State Warriors
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Shakes wrote:
I don't think driving more will really help, Hinrich has never gotten a lot of foul calls. Maybe the refs think "this guy is physical on D, he has to expect the same going the other way", I don't know.
Well then technically that's bad officiating and thus it's not Hinrich's fault at all.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
TheStig wrote:
I hate this sophie's choice crap. There are a few viable options to keep both. JR can just pay the LT for a yr or trade JJ or Tim Thomas plus one of our picks for cap space. It really doesn't have to be one or the other. And if we can't find an upgrade at PF, there will be PT for all. If we didn't have such a cheap owner, this would never warrant any thought.

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

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

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

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

Top