Trade Idea From a Bulls Fan (Hinrich/Picks for Azubuike/Wright)
by tyger1147 on Jun 22, 2009 7:44 AM PDT
84 comments
First, there are two obstacles to this trade: 1) if I read correctly, Azubuike has an offer sheet so he'd have to approve any trade and 2) this might have to be an "agreed in principle" trade before the draft, that won't be official until July 1st. I'm not sure about the second point, though.
The trade:
Warriors get:
Kirk Hinrich + 2009 #16 + 2009 #26
Bulls get:
Kelenna Azubuike + Brandan Wright + Marco Belinelli + 2010 2nd-round pick (because, why not?)
Rationale below.
Salaries barely work, but they do.
The Warriors would be replacing Azubuike w/ Hinrich which as an obvious upgrade considering their needs, and they don't play Wright or Belinelli anyway. They get two draft picks as well to try to move up and ensure they get Jordan Hill or to take guys like Earl Clark, Terrance Williams, BJ Mullens, etc. They could start Hinrich and Monta Ellis (at whichever positions they want) w/ Stephen Jackson or Corey Maggette at SF, and they'd be backed up by Jamal Crawford and the other of Jackson or Maggette. They'd have Ronnie Turiaf, Andres Biedrins, Anthony Randolph and ... Jordan Hill? to man the Big spots.
The Bulls get a backup PG they'd need if they traded away Hinrich, their M2GwcSaD that they've been in search for four years now and an offensive-minded PF. The latter two are positions they'd be trying to fill in with this draft anyway, and this way they can get somewhat more proven commodities.
If the Warriors could give up #7 and #16 to Washington to move up and grab Hill, I think this is an outstanding trade for them. Still pretty damn good if they don't move up, too.
(update: revealing I didn't look close enough. Why did I think Belinelli could play PG? Could he do it for 10 mpg (because Derrick Rose will be playing the other 38)?)This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
84 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yes!!!
I would do that in a heartbeat
Oakland Raiders Fan
Golden State Warriors Fan
San Francisco Giants Fan
San Jose Sharks Fan
MMA Fan
USC Trojan Fan
by i love sports101 on Jun 22, 2009 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just swap Belinelli out for Watson or whomever if need-be.
Whatevs. Backup PG for the Bulls is irrelevant to me, anyway.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 22, 2009 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
If we traded Azubuike, then Marco and Morrow would get decent playing time behind Monta and Hinrich.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Watson's a Free Agent
A Sonics fan without a team.. Though I'm auditioning GS Warriors this season.
by mcwalter44 on Jun 22, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the point is
He doesn’t care if Marco’s included or not…I think. tyger, would you do the trade without Marco? So…
Warriors get:
Kirk Hinrich + 2009 #16 + 2009 #26
Bulls get:
Kelenna Azubuike + Brandan Wright + 2010 2nd-round pick (because, why not?)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I didn't reply sooner. Been busy.
The salaries have to equal to 7.2+ million or so that Hinrich’s $9 million is 125% of it. And while “backup point” is the least of my worries, I’d still want one. Sign-and-trade w/ Watson if he wants. Probably not. Get a 3rd team involved somehow to throw us a PG or an early 2nd-rounder this year to get one of the many.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bad trade
Hinrich would be a nice addition to the Dubs, but not at that price. I might do it for 2 of those guys, but all three is way too steep.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on Jun 22, 2009 8:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This draft is VERY weak
I think you forgot that Wright was taken at #8 and Belinelli at #18. I’d bet those two will be better than those 2 picks for us. Replace Buike with Crawford or Maggette and I’d consider.
by Captain Jack on Jun 22, 2009 9:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we came away from the draft with Jordan Hill, Terrance Williams, and Lawson/Mills/Collison in addition to Hinrich its tought to really dislike the idea.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 22, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the rookies are better players there is absolutely a need for more rookies.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 22, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can I please borrow your crystal ball when you’re done with it?
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 23, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I didn't forget is that Brandan Wright never plays and Belinelli stinks.
You guys need a starting G alongside Ellis. That’s not Watson. That’s not Azubuike, not Belinelli. And if the Warriors really, really, really like Jordan Hill, and um… they already have Biedrins, Randolph and Turiaf, what’s their message on how much they value Wright?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
The Warriors might end up getting the worse end of this deal when all is said and done, depending on the picks, but I feel this team is at the point where they have to roll the dice. Plus I feel that Hinrich is underrated and could run the point quite well for the Warriors.
by markdash on Jun 22, 2009 9:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or, if Monta insists, Hinrich can pretend to run the SG.
I don’t like it for the Bulls, but only because Ben Gordon is a starting-caliber SG AND Rose is still a few years away from being at his best. Ellis is a lot closer.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roll the dice?
basically gamble that the #16 and #26 picks in a horrible draft will be better than two players who were drafted higher and have already shown that they can play in the NBA on a limited basis? I would lay those odds, were I a punter.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on Jun 22, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My point of view is that sure, Azubuike and Wright are probably going to be better than those picks. But you do get the best player in the deal, plus if you’re in the Warriors position, you have to be very mindful of getting caught in perpetual mediocrity. You don’t want to win 35-40 games every year, miss the playoffs but fail to get a high pick in the draft to acquire an impact player to turn things around.
As other teams have shown, when caught in such a rut it’s a good idea to completely melt things down and start over with high draft picks. So if the goal was to try to win as many games as possible each year without planning for the next, I would be on board with nixing this plan, but ultimately you have to decide if you should sacrifice the now for a better future.
by markdash on Jun 22, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Hinrich is the answer to perpetual mediocrity? I don't see it
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on Jun 22, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying Hinrich is a savior or anything, but he’s better than the other guys in the deal (unfortunately his salary is disproportionately large). Maybe this trade wouldn’t have a net effect on the Warriors W/L record in the short term, but I think those two draft picks could be put to good use, weak draft or no.
by markdash on Jun 22, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade the #7 and #16 to get #5 and take Etan Thomas's contract.
Make sure you get the guy you want.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why would you guys trade away possibly our best bench player in Azibuike? he’s strong and a great player. imo, i wouldn’t get rid of him…
by Young Moolah on Jun 22, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because we have Maggette
Which, yes, I agree, would be better to get rid of, but reality is, we’re stuck with him. And it’s not all that bad that we’re stuck with a 20ppg bench player.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not only that
it will open up more opportunities to Morrow and Marco, both who have more specialized skills than Azubuike.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't really open up PT for Marco
since he’s in the trade.
That said, Hinrich and Monta would gobble up enough minutes (plus, I’d assume that a PG would come with one of the picks coming back- ideally Lawson or Maynor) that there would only be enough for one other player, and that would be Morrow.
by dprodigy19 on Jun 22, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
read the update
He’s looking for a backup PG for Derrick Rose.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have 17 other SG/SF's that aren't as tradeable.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd do it, but it's a gamble
Gives us big flexibility in the draft. If we can swing the 16th and 26th for a higher pick, then it may be worth it. Any one of these would satisfy me.
Hill, Lawson, Williams
Evans/Jennings/, Clark/Williams/Blair, Casspi/BPA
Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, or Tyreke Evans. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Conductor of the We're Back Warrior Movement!
by ejdacanay on Jun 22, 2009 12:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This would have to be a multi-team trade
Since we can’t just take on Hinrich’s salary without dumping Crawford or Maggette’s or we will exceed the cap (with the current roster, we are already exceeding last year’s cap and it figures the cap will be lowered for 2010).
And since Chicago would not take Crawford or Maggette (they had Crawford before and they already have Luol Deng), we need a third team to be involved.
Here is our salary for 2009/2010:
Azubuike $3,132,000.00
Belinelli $1,547,640.00
Biedrins $9,000,000.00
Crawford $9,360,000.00
Ellis $11,000,000.00
Jackson $7,650,000.00
Maggette $8,937,931.00
Morrow $736,420.00
Randolph $1,837,560.00
Turiaf $4,140,000.00
Wright $2,671,440.00
TOTAL: $60,012,991.00
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Swap Ben Wallace and Crawford?
Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, or Tyreke Evans. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Conductor of the We're Back Warrior Movement!
by ejdacanay on Jun 22, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since we can’t just take on Hinrich’s salary without dumping Crawford or Maggette’s or we will exceed the cap (with the current roster, we are already exceeding last year’s cap and it figures the cap will be lowered for 2010).
The cap has nothing to do with it; as long as both sides of the trade are within 125% of each other, salary-wise, it’s OK by the CBA. In this case, the Warriors would be receiving 9.5 million back and sending out 7.35 million. The most they would be allowed to take on is 125% of 7.35 million, or 9.19 million.
by markdash on Jun 22, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right. Thanks for clarifying. What about the draft picks? They have to figure into the salaries somehow, don’t they?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 22, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Before the picks are made, they do not count against the team’s salary cap. Once a player is selected, however, they count against the team’s salary cap (in the amount of 100% of the maximum allowed salary for their draft slot).
The exception is if the player signs a contract with a non-NBA team; then that player no longer counts against the NBA team’s cap.
by markdash on Jun 22, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good knowledge
Thanks for the info.
I guess what my earlier point should have been about the cap is that the Warriors would be foolish to take on Hinrich’s without being able to shed at least one of their big contracts. The long-term ramifications would put the Warriors in a situation where they would not be able to re-sign their young talents (presuming Randolph becomes significant) and/or sign an actual all-star caliber FA, which smart teams these days seem to be doing.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 23, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They won’t be able to sign an all-star caliber FA unless they are willing to take the MLE. Thanks to the Biedrins, Jackson, Maggette, and Ellis contracts, the Warriors already have $39m committed to four players for the 2012-13 season. Assuming some small-ish contracts for other players, including draft picks, that means that the Ws should be well out of the running for any free agents unless the salary cap soars, which I would consider rather unlikely.
Taking on Hinrich’s salary would not affect their ability to sign Randolph, as he isn’t due an extension until 2012-13 and Hinrich’s deal expires after 2011-12.
by markdash on Jun 23, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me rephrase: they won’t be able to sign any significant FA for the coming years.
I can’t imagine the Warriors really want to be have the current roster as a foundation for the future but for Randolph, Ellis, and Biedrins. Jackson and Maggette’s long-term lockup isn’t good for the franchise…maybe for two seasons max. Given all of that, taking on Hinrich’s salary (I think he’s overpaid as it is) makes no sense because any smart business would want some flexibility. I understand your point and you certainly put me in my place, but would you agree that there is a grave deal of risk involved locking up your franchise for the next 3-4 years with players that haven’t proven they can excel going deep into the PO’s. You’d want some flexibility to make adjustments to your team.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 23, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t trying to “put you in your place,” just trying to inform.
Yes, the risk of trading for a guy like Hinrich is that you further hamstring yourself, salary-wise. The big year where it’s relevant is in 2011-2012, after Crawford’s deal expires. Then you would have 5 guys making $9m or more, meaning that it’s unlikely the Warriors could even offer anyone the MLE. From my perspective, that’s OK, because this team as constructed is unlikely to do anything anyway, so as long as they don’t acquire any contracts that run longer than Maggette/Jackson, it’s fine. Let everyone expire simultaneously, build around youth and perhaps mix in a big FA acquisition after 2012-13.
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 23, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate your info. This site for some reason allows me to post hastily without doing some research. So, I felt a little embarrassed :p
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 23, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
This site for some reason allows me to post hastily without doing some research. So, I felt a little embarrassed :p
That’s a great line.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 23, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Picks count against the salary cap but not for trading purposes.
So you could trade Hinrich plus… “the rights to” Ty Lawson and Omri Casspi and the only salary you’d include would be Hinrich’s $9 million (after July 1).
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I should have read to the end of that entry on Larry Coon’s salary cap FAQ.
Good info.
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 23, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would have to be one of those "agreed to a trade in principle" deals.
Hinrich’s salary drops 0.5 million on July, making it only 7.2 the Warriors would need to take back.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's value in the middle round of the draft...
But with that being said, having 3 picks in what’s being heralded as one of the weakest drafts in 25 years…really doesn’t make sense to try and swing a trade up for one of the top picks if isn’t Rubio or Griffin.
I’d ONLY do this trade if the players we were targeting were available at 16…26 not so much. Having Hinrich would allow us to take a gamble on Jennings at 7, and probably relieve the notion of having to resign Watson.
Picks reflect the level of talent of each position in this draft.
- Brandon Jennings/Johnny Flynn
- Terrence Williams/ James Johnson
- Tyler Hansborough/ DeJuan Blair
PG: Kirk Hinrich, Jamal Crawford, #7
SG: Monta Ellis, Anthony Morrow
SF: Stephen Jackson, Corey Maggette, #16
PF: Anthony Randolph, #26
C: Andris Biedrins, Ronny Turiaf,
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 22, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I still think their best bet would be to try and package #7 + #16 for #5.
I think the Warriors want Hill, and I think he’d fit your style perfectly. This way, they’d ensure they’d get him. Make the trade Hinrich + Hill + Omri Casspi (for example) for #7 + Azubuike + whoever + Wright.
I know that sounds like a lot to give up, and I like Azubuike and Wright (otherwise I wouldn’t want the Bulls to get them), but the Warriors MUST make a trade for a good complement to Ellis and I think Hinrich would be great. He doesn’t need the ball, but he can handle it. He can guard PG or SG. He can hit 3’s. And I just don’t think Crawford, Maggette or Jackson or going to get you anything of value at all.
Ellis/Crawford/Jackson
Hinrich/Crawford/Maggette
Maggette/Jackson/Casspi
Randolph/Turiaf/Hill
Biedrins/Hill/Turiaf
10 guys w/ 9 getting most of the minutes. All the bigs can run. All the smalls can score. Is that Nelly ball?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why
would you trade the #7 and the #16 just to move up one or two spots to get Jordan Hill. I don’t think that would be worth it.
by duballers23 on Jun 22, 2009 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
just depends on how much you want Hill.
I think HIll is the ultimate complement to Randolph, Turiaf and Biedrins. If they don’t think the Wizards will take him, sit back and take Hill at 7 and trade the Bulls pick to move up 3 or 4 spots and get Lawson or Flynn or Williams or Henderson. I would do it just because I wouldn’t want to be paying three rookies from this draft. And if you can move up a couple of spots to get the player you want, why not?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No offense to you, really, I mean no offense to you.
But just because another team’s fan comes up with a trade idea, doesn’t mean that fan’s team is interested in making that deal. And it doesn’t mean the voice is automatically more objective than any trade proposal a Warrior fan could dream up.
by belilaugh on Jun 22, 2009 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In general it probably does. The average trade idea from the fan of another team generally takes far more consideration of the other team’s desire to make the deal than the average warrior fan’s trade idea (for evidence scan all GSoM fanposts of the last month) Sure its not ALWAYS the case, but it increases the odds.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 22, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the average Warrior fan trade proposal on this site is heavily biased in our favor, no arguments here. I guess I only really read the more equal ones because as soon as I see a sloppily constructed title or some ridiculous use of caps lock/grammar in the first paragraph I usually tune it out. So I guess I was arguing for those trade proposals. And in that case, I still stand by it. Besides, this person may not be representative of every poster that comes over from another team either, (s)he is one of the first few I’ve seen. I don’t doubt that there are posters that try to appease the other team’s fans by stacking their proposal for the other team.
by belilaugh on Jun 23, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, i'm trying to appease bulls fans.
I didn’t even link to this on Blog-a-Bull.
This proposal is not stacked for the Bulls.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do I care? I'm not assuming to be a authority.
Take it for what is. Give your analysis of the trade proposal instead of some philosophical blog-comment point.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell nah Kaz and Wright has a much brighter future than Hinrich...
We USED to Believe...
WE DEMAND IMPROVEMENT!
by RunNdGun on Jun 22, 2009 2:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
Hinrich and Monta as a backcourt is a huge defensive liability. We need to improve our D and rebounding, this trade makes us way worse in that area, and we would have another bad contract. Pass
by myk on Jun 22, 2009 3:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah the backcourt would be a huge defensive liability… because of Monta. Kirk Hinrich was on the NBA All-Defensive 2nd team.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Jun 22, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you think Hinrich is a defensive liability...
I don’t even know what to say.
You say we need to improve our D and rebounding? Because B-Wright and Belinelli were major factors in those two areas, we definitely shouldn’t trade them.
B-Wright really hasn’t done much and with Randolph’s emergence, it makes dealing him an easier pill to swallow. Same can be said for Belinelli with Morrow. Although Morrow still can’t create shots for others, it’s not really what we need him to do. He’ll be our dead-eye shooter.
I love Bookie and his thrifty deal, but what Hinrich can do for this squad far outweighs what Bookie does.
If we are assured T-Will or an Earl Clark at 16, then this deal is a NO BRAINER.
Hinrich has a serviceable contract and he’s a decent PG who plays extremely well on the defensive end. I’m all for adding talent and avoiding albatross of contracts, but just because we have bad contracts in Jack and Maggette, doesn’t mean we have to avoid players with contracts longer than 2 years for the sake of saving money. It’s not like this front office knows what the the hell they’re doing in FA anyway.
He’s perfectly capable of running an offense as well as capable of time at the 2 guard position.
Hinrich, Jennings/Evans/Flynn, Terrence Wililams/Earl Clark, Blair/Hansborough/Daye >>>> Kaz, Belli, Wright
We get our defensive minded PG capable of running an offense with a decent midrange jumper and the ability to score. We can get a homerun project in Jennings, or invest in Evans or Flynn. T-Will or Earl Clark can equally do what Kaz does IMO. And with 26, you’re pretty much rolling the dice and trying to bank on a solid spot/rotational player.
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 22, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
I don’t think Hinrich is a good fit for us. Starting Monta with Jack and Buike is better than Hinrich with Monta and Jack. Plus if Crawford doesn’t opt out we hace Jack, Maggs, Crawford, and Hinrich, that would put is into the worst financial situation in the league.
Hinrich was all NBA 2nd team D as a PG, if he played with Monta he’d be guarding 2’s and 3’s, that’s why it is a defensive liability.
Jack is just as good, if not better than Hinrich on O and he is more valuable to us on D because he can guard almost anyone. Since Hinrich or Monta can’t play the 3, Buike is also more valuable to us. Plus his contract is better. I pass on this trade because I don’t see how it makes us better.
by myk on Jun 22, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Hinrich was all NBA 2nd team D as a PG
When was the last time we had anybody who was on an All-Defensive Team? Even if it was one time, it’s good to know somebody will play defense! If we pick a guard in the draft, they will all be around the same height. Hinirich is a small combo guard that would work fine with Monta.
if he played with Monta he’d be guarding 2’s and 3’s, that’s why it is a defensive liability
Monta would guard the worse guard and Hinrich can guard the other guard. Jackson guards the 3. We can still draft a guard so that we can have an eventual replacement for PG in the future.
Jack is just as good, if not better than Hinrich on O and he is more valuable to us on D because he can guard almost anyone.
Jackson & Hinrich are two different players at two different positions. Plus, Jackson’s best guarding days are behind him. He can’t guard almost anyone, he is an average defender now because he gives up sometimes on Defense. He isn’t as dedicated to the defensive end like he is used to be.
The only downside on this trade is it doesn’t help us until maybe a year or two after the 3 players drafted come into their own.
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Jun 22, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich has guarded a whole of SG's in his time.
Remember his back court, the guy he started with four years including when they won 49 games, was Ben Gordon. This is why Hinrich is perfect for Ellis. He can handle the ball if they want to take it out of Ellis’s hands for awhile or he goes to the bench. He can distribute. He is a very good spot up 3 pt shooter. He can guard the slower PG’s and all of the SG’s (he’s not the best defensive SG, but ask D-Wade if he likes being guarded by Hinrich—also, keep in mind when i say "he can guard all of the SG’s, i understand that no one really stops Kobe or Roy or Wade or whatever. I’d say he’s in the 75-85th percentile of big-minute defensive SG’s)
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agreed with you tyger1147
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Jun 23, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can we switch Kaz with Jax?
will the $ work?
JR...An All-Time Warriors Favorite!
by MANUTEs BOLs on Jun 22, 2009 3:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Even if the money did work (and I strongly doubt it would) taking on an aging swingman who scores pretty inefficiently and comes with an awful contract instead of a young swingman with a pretty great contract who shoots extremely well, would cause Chicago to lose all interest.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 22, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. I only want it because they're forcing Gordon out and Salmons is old.
They could go from having 3 SG’s (if we include Hinrich as a combo) to having none a year from now.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the trade
We’re trading for clear needs (defense and passing) and giving up Azubuike (whose skills are replicated by our other swingmen).
The Wright+Belinelli for draft picks part of the swap is just giving up a little more because we’re already getting the best player in the trade.
We should not be crying about losing two bench swingmen to get a real PG. The bench 2/3 is the easiest position to replace in the NBA, as evidenced by Kaz and Morrow.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Jun 22, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich may be a “real PG,” but that doesn’t make him a real good PG. I suspect even after you factor his plus D (which I do admire) he’s below-average for a starting PG. I’m not convinced he’s the best player in that deal. Factor in his $9M salary (triple what either of our guys make) and I’m less convinced. 21 year-old PFs with 7’4" wingspans and Wright’s athletic skills are a rarer commodity than 30 year-old overpaid point guards who shoot 40-45% from the floor, don’t draw fouls, and can barely muster 6 dimes per 36 minutes.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 22, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair,
Hinrich’s 28, not 30, which is probably a huge difference in basketball years. But I agree, all things considered Wright is definitely the prize in that deal.
Now I might sound like a crazy person, but hear me out. What if… the Bulls can’t/choose not to retain Ben Gordon, but want to replace him with a similar microwave tweener guard. We just happen to have one in Jamal Crawford. I know they’ve already traded Crawford away once, but they’ve got a new GM—maybe he’s not opposed to bringing Craw back? Hinrich’s got $7M more on his contract than Crawford, so they save that much money PLUS whatever they save by not re-signing Gordon. If we’ve gotta swap the 7th pick for the 16th as part of the deal, the Bulls could draft someone like Flynn to back up Rose and give them the best PG pair in the league, and we could grab whoever falls, like a T.Will, Blair, Johnson, Lawson, etc. Am I crazy?
by ffgolden on Jun 22, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like where your head is at
but considering the Bulls have past experience with Crawford I’m guessing they are one of the teams that we can’t flash his sparkly PPG at in hopes to distract them from the disgustingly awful offensive efficiency and defense we are slipping in their pocket.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 22, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's nothing new about their GM situation.
Technically, yes. Practically, no.
Instead of Paxson doing some of the grunt work and being the GM and Gar Forman doing most of the grunt work and being… whatever he was, now it’s Paxson doing none of the grunt work (but still doing the “big picture” thing) and being super GM or something and Forman doing all of the grunt work and getting the promoted title for it.
With their owner Jerry Reinsdorf being so hands-on and the revelation that Forman was actually negotiating most parts of the contracts with Deng and Gordon last summer, We’ve been referring to them as Gar Paxdorf. That doesn’t change.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not convinced he’s the best player in that deal.
And I’m not convinced that the draft picks wouldn’t have pretty good shots to be the best players in the deal. I kinda like Wright and I know his injuries have kinda been freak things, but its a little concerning that he hasn’t logged a full season’s worth of games in two years here. I love Azubuike and his contract, but I’m not convinced that he’s not pretty dang replaceable-Nelson does seem to have a knack for finding wings that can contribute off the “scrap heap.” I’m not very big on Belinelli so I really don’t care a whole lot either way about his inclusion in this deal. I don’t know if Hinrich/Monta is a great backcourt (starting backcourts with no real 3 point threat really concern me) but I think this deal greatly improves our defense even if Hinrich’s role is primarily as Monta’s backup. I feel Monta/Hinrich, Jackson/Morrow, Maggette/Williams (pick 16) , Randolph/Hill(pick 7) and Biedrins/Turiaf is quite a bit better (particularly on the defensive end) than what we’ve got now and thats not including anything we might be able to do with the MLE, Crawford or the 26th pick. I’d do it.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 22, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that he is an assassin
but he shot 40% last year from the 3 and 38% respectively from the 3 for his career. But yeah, he still is
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Jun 22, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Below average
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Jun 22, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's tough for me to say where Hinrich is right now.
At age 26 two years ago, he was clearly a top-12 PG. That’s not great, but it’s good. He’s very efficient, a good passer and can knock down open shots. And he’s a very underrated defender. Really, the only players he can’t guard are the super quick PG’s (Ellis, Paul, Ford, etc. and the biggest and best SG’s like Bryant and Roy — but he’s been good against D-Wade, at least, has held him below his averages)
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OH NO!!
That is a lousy stinking low down dirty horrible atrocious horrific detestable horrendous dreadfully awful trade Idea.
And I said all dat without using a semi colon ;=
by ForestGrump on Jun 22, 2009 6:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How about
Warriors get:
-Derrick Rose
-Tyrus Thomas
Bulls get:
-Monta Ellis
-Corey Maggette
-B.WRight or #7 pick
7
by AlbinoWhale on Jun 23, 2009 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
don't think the Bulls would ever trade away Rose
JRich 23
by warriorsalltheway on Jun 23, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 23, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if we don’t get a point guard in this years draft, slect Evans and if Ellis is not a pg, jopefully we can get John Wall or some other guy
Oakland Raiders Fan
Golden State Warriors Fan
San Francisco Giants Fan
San Jose Sharks Fan
MMA Fan
USC Trojan Fan
by i love sports101 on Jun 23, 2009 9:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
- Select
*hopefully
Oakland Raiders Fan
Golden State Warriors Fan
San Francisco Giants Fan
San Jose Sharks Fan
MMA Fan
USC Trojan Fan
by i love sports101 on Jun 23, 2009 9:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
