A FA guard nobody has mentioned

He's shooting better from the field than Blake, has his whole career.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hinriki01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/blakest01.html

He's also back up to .413 from 3 and is a career .380 shooter from there. That's pretty consistent. Nobody bit on him because he was just coming off of injury. People weren't sure if he would come back and be the 06-07 Kirk or regress to the 07-08 one.

Please don't make up stuff. They wanted to trade him, but it wasn't the hyperbole you make it out to be.

Let's look at the facts. Hinrich plays good perimeter defense, he's a good outside shooter(career .380 is good), he's still fairly young(28), and despite what you think has a decent contract.

I'm always looking to upgrade the team and this is realistically the best option we might have. With a Hinrich/Blake PG tandem that gives Roy a PG that can take the pressure off and spaces the floor at all times. I think we could push 60 wins if we made this trade.

 

Exactly. Sometimes I just don't get where people come up with their analyses of other team's players (both good and bad).

 

I better stop, I've hijacked this thread and turned it into my own "get Hinrich" vendetta.

I'd like to make it clear, do I think getting Hinrich is necessary? No, just throwing some ideas out there.

 

Well, I'd rather have Hinrich than Gordon. Gordon is a bit better due to his one super talent (shooting), but Hinrich would help Portland more due to not having redundant skills. His defense at point guard would be extremely valuable and he's a slightly better distributor than Blake without giving much up to Blake in terms of shooting the ball. So, you lose none of Blake's virtues, get a little bit better passing and a lot better defense.

I'd rather have Andre Miller (and Ramon Sessions would be very exciting), but I'd be quite content if Pritchard turned the cap space into Kirk Hinrich via trade (so long as he didn't have to give up much value in terms of talent).

 

In my opinion, Miller is just on the wrong side of 30. He's also a terrible outside shooter, and he needs the ball in his hands to be effective. This ultimately takes touches away from Aldridge and Roy. Plus on top of that, I don't know how Miller would be in a slowed down offense. He's always been in really fast paced teams. Most of these same things can be said about Sessions but he's a lot younger and still has time to develop a jumpshot. But I don't think Milwaukee is seriously considering letting him go.

Hinrich on the other hand, is like Blake, a consummate team player. He can work off the ball, can hit the spot up shot, knows his role, and plays defense.

What would be too much talent? I think Webster is the odd man out here with Batum's defensive skills and upside and Outlaw being a consistent 6th man night in and night out. So Webster would probably be the first to go. Bayless might be good trade bait and so could Sergio.

Like I said, I just don't know if Bayless is the type of PG we're going to want/need.

 

Gordon would have been nice if we didn't have Rudy. He's the same kind of instant offense player, who can shoot from deep. The presence of Rudy makes Gordon redundant, so there's really no point in even talking about him. We need a point guard, not a combo guard.

 

He is a weak outsider shooter, but he's a tremendous play-maker for others which would be a big benefit to Oden and Aldridge and a benefit to Roy (not requiring him to carry as much of the distributing burden). Miller is also a strong defender. He's on the wrong side of 30, but I'm not looking for him to be a long-term solution, just a bridge for a couple of years to allow Bayless to develop.

Webster would be fine to trade, as would be Sergio.

I would not deal Bayless to get Hinrich. Hinrich is an upgrade on Blake, but not a huge one. Not enough to give up a talent like Bayless. Bayless will never be a classic point guard (of course, Miller is and you don't like him because he's not a great shooter and needs the ball in his hands like all "classic" point guards)...but I don't think the team requires a classic point guard alongside Roy. Bayless showed great shooting ability at Arizona, is great at slashing and drawing fouls, has the potential to be a very good defender and has some decent passing ability. I wouldn't trade that for a modest upgrade on Blake.

 

As our championship window opens up(which I think it starts next year) I don't think we can afford to wait and see if Bayless pans out. By all accounts he's a project. He's moving from his natural position, SG, to PG. He was a great outside shooter at Arizona but has yet to find his touch in the NBA. Till he can do that, I'm not sold.

His ability to draw fouls and get to the rim are really what I covet. You can't teach aggressiveness. Some players have it or they don't. But with Roy, I don't know how much that is needed.

It's also not that we get a modest upgrade at the starting position but that Blake is retained and moved to the bench where he makes a second unit even stronger. And at all times gives Roy a PG that can handle, and distribute the ball, but can also space the floor.

 

His natural position is actually PG. He was recruited to Arizona as a point guard and was slated to be their point guard until an injury to their shooting guard caused them to move him over to fill that hole.

As for a championship window opening up, that's why I want Andre Miller. I don't think he needs to have lots of years left. I want him to be a steady hand at the wheel for those years where we can't have a developing player as the top option.

I think it's badly needed. Roy can't be the only one capable of doing it. Getting fouls on the opponent and getting points in the paint from perimeter players is gold.

Yeah, but I'd prefer a Miller/Blake/Bayless depth chart at point guard. I agree that Blake would be a great back-up point guard. And I'd be fine with Hinrich instead of Miller, but not at the cost of Bayless.

 

Could we keep Blake if we got Miller? Wouldn't that depend on how much he is going to be asking for?

I don't think it's badly needed, it is a need though. But, if you look at the elite teams in the league Boston, Cleveland, and LA.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...n=2009&seasontype=2&avg=pg&order=true&split=0

They're not at the top in FTA's a game. They're above us but not by much. LA is only 1.2, Boston is only 1.1, and Cleveland is only .4 more average FTA's per game. Plus we have the slowest pace team out of any of those. As our players get more experience they're going to get more calls to go their way. Especially Oden.

 

Not totally sure, depends on the demand for his services. Portland, without renouncing Blake or Outlaw, can clear a bit more than the MLE. So they can out-bid any team that's over the cap. If a team with more cap space offers more, Portland may not be able to do it. Assuming Miller would rather go to a team like Memphis for more money.

Yeah, that's a good argument. It may not be "badly needed," but it's definitely a valuable skill. His slashing is also a valuable tool in terms of play-making for others. If he can slash, draw the defense and find open teammates, he can be a valuable distributor.

 

This year's shooting percentages is a outlier in Kirk's shooting, along with the 06-07 season. If he can shoot like he has this year in the limited number of games then he actually has value to other teams despite his contract.

Uhh what? Nothing I said was inaccurate. The Bulls were trying desperately to trade him, even telling him expect to go to Sacramento but teams wouldn't bite on his contract.

38% from the 3 point is pretty good, but it's silly to ignore the low percentage inside the 3 point line. There are other opportunities to capatalize on besides the 3 point shot when you're a point guard. His field goal percentage would be even worse if it wasn't for this season's outlier. We've already gone over him playing good defense, let's keep the discussion fresh and not repeat the same stuff. And it's not despite what I think, it's despite what other NBA teams think. The Bulls have tried to rid themselves of his contract for a couple years now, not just this year. You don't think KP could have acquired him for pennies on the dollar if he wanted to? Of course he could have, fact is he's not enough of an upgrade over Blake with the type of money he makes.

Of course it's a realistic option, because he's mediocre and his trade value isn't very good. He's not horrible, but he's just not very good either. Would he be an upgrade over Sergio and Bayless in the immediate future? Probably. Would KP sacrifice the potential of Bayless and his development to get a sure thing with not a very high ceiling? Probably not. Not at the price Kirk requires. There are better options out there including Sessions, Miller, and others.

 

Blazers should push hard to acquire Andre Miller, I don't know if there is any chance they can acquire him as it looks like the Sixers pretty much want to re-sign him but he would make this team so much better right away.

 

Hate to say it, but so is Blake's and Sergio's and Bayless'. Hinrich is almost better in every area than any one of our PG's. You stated that his field percentage is horrible, which it isn't great, it's about league average. Let me ask you something, is Billups a good PG. I would say he's up near the top of the PG food chain. Well his averages are lower than Hinrich's, does that make him a worse player? No.

I've stated the reasons why I don't like Miller. He's about to turn 33, he would take away touches from Roy and Aldridge, he's not a great half-court set PG, and we don't know what type of money he's going to be asking for this Summer.

Hinrich is still a pretty good player and since they have Rose, I'm sure we could get him for a bargain.

 

If you're Miller, which team would YOU rather play for? I don't think Philly is going to max him out or anything, so I don't think money would be that big of a problem.

I would also be interested in Bibby.