i know lots of wacky trade scenarios get thrown around (and rightfully dissed and dismissed) but after watching the bulls/celtics games, i think Hinrich might be available for the right package. and i think if they can get him for Mags and Marco, they should.

I can't see them keeping Gordon, so they'll need a scorer like Mags. Very similar players. They'd have to include Marco to make the trade work salary wise, but Hinrich would be a much more useful player than Mags is now. He could play with Monta, and if he was running the point, he could make Randolph and Biedrins that much better (and take this responsibility out of Jack's less than capable hands).

I know alot of folks are down on Hinrich, and he didn't exactly burn up the playoffs, but I think he's a good serviceable point guard, who could get better with more minutes, and he'd be a much better fit than Mags.

go head....rip on the idea.

i actually like hinrich. he didnt show much this year cuz he was moved out of the starting lineup with derrick rose coming in. he is pretty good defensively and can sometimes cover monta's defensive lapses, and he has a good shot with decent range. i think he'd be a great addition to our team, but i dont think chicago would be willing to take on maggs' contract even if they were getting belinelli (who i think could be a good asset on the bulls or any team for that matter). not only that, but maggs might not want to come off the bench in chicago (with deng and salmons there). the only reason he was ok with it here is cuz he was still getting starting minutes and nellie didnt pull him out for taking an ill-advised shot.

i dont agree that maggs and ben gordon are similar players unless you only mean that they are similar in that they are scorers. ben gordon has by far a more dangerous offensive arsenal than maggs does because of his deadly shot and ability to hit from anwhere. maggs is more of a get contact and shoot free throws type of player.

hinrich plays the right way, but hes just an above average pg...sure i'd like him here, but hes not the long term answer

craw for hinrich.
already explained in detail why in another thread.

basically they need SGs, and they need to get rid of Hinrich 10M starting PG contract. we need to get rid of Craw and need a PG that can help Monta play D and distribute.

first off wrote:craw for hinrich.
already explained in detail why in another thread.

basically they need SGs, and they need to get rid of Hinrich 10M starting PG contract. we need to get rid of Craw and need a PG that can help Monta play D and distribute.

this would be assuming crawford doesnt opt out, yeah? cuz if crawford takes the option then it might actually be a decent trade for chicago considering crawford's contract is shorter than maggs' and a year shorter than hinrich's. it would expire just in time to extend tyrus thomas and (if they wanted to) john salmons.

but again, that's IF crawford doesnt opt out.

E-Man wrote:

first off wrote:craw for hinrich.
already explained in detail why in another thread.

basically they need SGs, and they need to get rid of Hinrich 10M starting PG contract. we need to get rid of Craw and need a PG that can help Monta play D and distribute.

this would be assuming crawford doesnt opt out, yeah? cuz if crawford takes the option then it might actually be a decent trade for chicago considering crawford's contract is shorter than maggs' and a year shorter than hinrich's. it would expire just in time to extend tyrus thomas and (if they wanted to) john salmons.

but again, that's IF crawford doesnt opt out.

actually it works either way IMO.
supposing he DOES opt out then the bulls have just effectively cut Hinrich's 3 year 26 million dollar contract (given to him back when they thought he was going to be the starting PG for years to come) out.

this gives them money to resign Ben Gordon if they so please.

So it's great for the bulls because:
-If Craw doesn't opt out, he gets to be on a playoff caliber team, with a future all star PG. Chicago doesn't have to resign Ben Gordon to a huge deal, and they just got rid of a starting PG they can't use.
-If he DOES opt out they still get rid of hinrich, and have money to burn on a decent SG.

OK somebody make it happen.

first off wrote:

E-Man wrote:

first off wrote:craw for hinrich.
already explained in detail why in another thread.

basically they need SGs, and they need to get rid of Hinrich 10M starting PG contract. we need to get rid of Craw and need a PG that can help Monta play D and distribute.

this would be assuming crawford doesnt opt out, yeah? cuz if crawford takes the option then it might actually be a decent trade for chicago considering crawford's contract is shorter than maggs' and a year shorter than hinrich's. it would expire just in time to extend tyrus thomas and (if they wanted to) john salmons.

but again, that's IF crawford doesnt opt out.

actually it works either way IMO.
supposing he DOES opt out then the bulls have just effectively cut Hinrich's 3 year 26 million dollar contract (given to him back when they thought he was going to be the starting PG for years to come) out.

this gives them money to resign Ben Gordon if they so please.

So it's great for the bulls because:
-If Craw doesn't opt out, he gets to be on a playoff caliber team, with a future all star PG. Chicago doesn't have to resign Ben Gordon to a huge deal, and they just got rid of a starting PG they can't use.
-If he DOES opt out they still get rid of hinrich, and have money to burn on a decent SG.

OK somebody make it happen.

no, that's not what i meant...cuz if crawford opts out then we cant trade him as he would no longer be on our team. i guess if we traded him before his deadline to opt out then what you said does make sense.

yes, E-Man is correct. If Crawford opts out, we can not trade him. I believe the deadline for him to decide is July 1st (or last week in June) and I dont think trades can happen before then.

OK, I'll bite on this one. Hinrich hasn't impressed me much. I like his defense. I agree it would help filling in for Monta's lack of defense.

If we consider a Hinrich deal for Crawford, We would certainly be giving up scoring for a good defender who'd be our chief distributor.
We'd also be giving up our best backup PG for an all around adequate PG. At least now,I do think Crawford is a better passer/ distributor and sees downcourt better than Monta. Though I agree it might be the best we could do to at least lose Crawford's contract.

But to what ends? I know the general consensus is that Nelly's style of ball needs a good PG as a facilitator. Trading for Hinrich would be a synergy bet. That is, our game would transform, by just having a good ball distributor.

But what about the guys he's passing to? Right now it's Sjax, Monta, Maggs and (Crawford.) Which means we get one pass off to any one of our ball hog shooters. Does it really matter who passes it to them?

My point is: Are we really the team that's going to transform from the addition of a good passing PG like Hinrich? I don't think so.

I know we are all pretty much in agreement that we have to get rid of some of our veteran chuckers. This Crawford for Hinrich trade would have to be just one step. But I'd probably shoot higher, and try to sign A. Miller, Kidd, or go for a good PG propspect, ( the Bucks are probably now going to let Sessions go, or maybe Felton. )

Then the next step is to clear out more deadwood, get a SF or a PF, ( depending on where you see Randolph eventually fitting in ) who can benefit from a good PG.

i would love to get sessions or felton. hinrich is just an option and seemingly more probable than getting either of the two mentioned before.

if milwaukee does let sessions go then he'd be a good point guard to get with good vision and a pretty good shot. felton is still a gamble as far as trying to trade for him. we dont really have players that charlotte wants.

with hinrich we get a defender with good court vision. he's not just passing to monta, jackson, or maggs. he'd be setting up biedrins, randolph, turiaf, and wright also (all of whom at this point are better when they are set up). buike would be a weapon as well.

yeah we'd get rid of a scorer in crawford...but with all the ball hogs on our team (maggs, jackson, monta, and jamal himself) we can afford to lose one of them and have someone like hinrich running the offense and helping jackson with perimeter defense.

as far as miller and kidd, i love miller but im not sure how much itd take to get him. we cant offer much unless we get rid of maggs or crawford or both. same with kidd...only thing is kidd is pretty old and has maybe 1 pretty good year ahead of him and a decent one after before being done.

E-Man wrote:
yeah we'd get rid of a scorer in crawford...but with all the ball hogs on our team (maggs, jackson, monta, and jamal himself) we can afford to lose one of them and have someone like hinrich running the offense and helping jackson with perimeter defense.

word. i'd be fine with losing either crawford or mags if it meant getting hinrich. i just think hinrich offers this team, under this coach, more than either crawford or mags. we've got plenty of scoring on this team, i'd be willing to give up one less scorer that plays no D for someone who spreads things around and plays D. and fills the biggest hole. is he the best answer? hell no. is he better than the status quo? hell yes.

and another thing with hinrich is he's not getting starter minutes in chicago and his production could/should go up with more consistent minutes.

a starting 5 of hinrich/monta/jack/randolph/biedrins is pretty good.

keen, but can't see Chicago taking on a longer contract in Maggs. And would they really want Crawford back?

Quazza wrote:keen, but can't see Chicago taking on a longer contract in Maggs. And would they really want Crawford back?

i dont see them taking maggs unless they feel like unloading deng.

as far as crawford...if they dont re-sign ben gordon, then they have an open spot at the shooting guard position. it may not be starting with salmons there and if deng is healthy, but he'll get a good amount of minutes. crawford may not have as reliable a shot as ben gordon, but he is a scorer that can drop a bunch of points on any given night. plus, re-signing ben gordon would lock him down for maybe 4 more years...crawford would have 2 seasons with them and then his contract expires in time to extend tyrus thomas.

E-Man wrote:

first off wrote:

E-Man wrote:

first off wrote:craw for hinrich.
already explained in detail why in another thread.

basically they need SGs, and they need to get rid of Hinrich 10M starting PG contract. we need to get rid of Craw and need a PG that can help Monta play D and distribute.

this would be assuming crawford doesnt opt out, yeah? cuz if crawford takes the option then it might actually be a decent trade for chicago considering crawford's contract is shorter than maggs' and a year shorter than hinrich's. it would expire just in time to extend tyrus thomas and (if they wanted to) john salmons.

but again, that's IF crawford doesnt opt out.

actually it works either way IMO.
supposing he DOES opt out then the bulls have just effectively cut Hinrich's 3 year 26 million dollar contract (given to him back when they thought he was going to be the starting PG for years to come) out.

this gives them money to resign Ben Gordon if they so please.

So it's great for the bulls because:
-If Craw doesn't opt out, he gets to be on a playoff caliber team, with a future all star PG. Chicago doesn't have to resign Ben Gordon to a huge deal, and they just got rid of a starting PG they can't use.
-If he DOES opt out they still get rid of hinrich, and have money to burn on a decent SG.

OK somebody make it happen.

no, that's not what i meant...cuz if crawford opts out then we cant trade him as he would no longer be on our team. i guess if we traded him before his deadline to opt out then what you said does make sense.

oh yeah forgot to say the third option.

crawford opts out before we trade him... then throw everything we got at felton and hope it sticks.