I see we won't trade him for a younger three time all-star with an expiring contract, so he must be pretty key to our team, right? I don't see it. Under what circumstances does Kirk make us better next year? Kirk played 24-27mpg last year. That was with Ben but without Deng, which left Salmons to play most all of his minutes at the 3. We have supposed SF James Johnson in the mix now as well, so one imagines that with Deng playing 30+ minutes, Salmons playing 30+ minutes, JJ probably playing at least 10-15, and Rose playing 35+, we’re looking at the same 24-28mpg for Kirk. That’s a replaceable amount by a guy like Blake, Bogans, etc. We would lose something, but I don’t think the drop off is going to be huge. We’ll still make the playoffs, or not, on the backs of Rose/Salmons/Deng/Miller/Noah. In short, Kirk makes us better if all goes well, and he plays a backup role. However, what if all doesn’t go well. Isn’t it even more important to have Kirk in case something bad happens to a starter? Counterintuitively, I’d say no, it’s not. If we lose a major starter to injury, Kirk isn’t good enough to bail us out.. Why? Because suppose Salmons gets hurt. Then what happens? Kirk starts, plays and extra 15 minutes, but we’re still left with having to play Pargo and/or Lindsay Hunter pretty significant minutes. And I don’t think that’s going to go very well. Point is, Kirk makes us better, but really only in the context of being decent depth. He’s not so much better that we really have much margin for error at all. If something goes wrong, I don’t know how much he helps. Consider what happens, for example, if Deng gets hurt again. Well, if we’ve got Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw, we get something like 1- Rose 30, Blake 18 2- Salmons 36, Rose 6, Pargo 6 3- Outlaw 32, Johnson 16 With Kirk, it’s something like 1- Rose 36, Kirk 12 2- Kirk 24, Salmons 4, Pargo 20 3- Salmons 32, Johnson 16 I mean, it's not Blake and Outlaw in particular, I’m just demonstrating how more depth of somewhat lesser quality, but with nice expiring contracts, might end up being quite a bit more useful for us. I really do like Kirk as a player. I like most all of the Bulls players. And when I consider what’d be best for Kirk, it’d be totally awesome for him to go somewhere like Portland, where he’s an obvious fit with respect to age, positional need, contractual status and style of play. To me, the NBA is a league where you can have multiple allegiances. In the end, the players are the guys you should or shouldn’t be rooting for, not just the laundry they wear. I like Kirk because he’s brought me entertainment as a Chicago Bull, but the right path for the Bulls is Derrick Rose. The right path for Hinrich is Portland. Or Philly, Or Phoenix in February. You get the idea. It’s somewhere where he can have a shot to be the best he can be. Keeping him here out of whatever weird man-love this team has for him really doesn’t do Kirk any favors.
I disagree with pretty much all of that. Especially the outlaw/blake scenario. You are much better with kirk than blake/outlaw in your backcourt. Kirk is one of those rare guys that is a pg, but can play without the ball effectively, and can guard anyone on the perimeter. I think part of rose's success last year is due to kirk, and will continue to be. He's one of those players that can go anywhere and contribute in any system, so no matter what role you need him in, he'll be fine i think. If deng is healthy this year, and salmons steps up, you guys are gonna be pretty good. the only problem is the top of the east loaded up so i don't see you guys getting past the second round even if you add an all star for nothing.
I agree. Unless a miracle happens, this another year of development. We know who Kirk, Salmons, and Deng are. Unless Rose and Tyrus both make a leap, the second round is the ceiling. And that's if BG were here, too.
