Don't really know why the Bulls, who now have a nice three-guard combo, would go for this, but the Mix hears that the Wolves could offer the No. 6 pick in a very weak draft for Bulls guard Kirk Hinrich. Think of it: A combo guard who can even defend (including forwards as big and strong and talented as Paul Pierce). One down side: He has already been in the league for five years. Trent Tucker's idea might be even better: Offer Mike Miller for Hinrich.
MORE Kirk Hinrich rumors from KFAN
9 months ago
wyn
52 comments
0 recs |
Comments
The Bulls???
Why would WE do that!?!?
by College Wolf on May 29, 2009 3:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I mean, trade the #6 pick.
I would never trade the pick for Hinrich. Miller, maybe.
by College Wolf on May 29, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I love Hinrich from his days at KU...
NO WAY I give up the #6 pick for his giant contract. I think there are some really intriguing prospects at #6.
by mnjayhawk on May 29, 2009 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't say I would endorse trading 6 for Heinrich
I understand this is a weak draft, and I like Heinrich, but he isn’t a great player, and doesn;t have an undervalued contract. It just seems like in this case they would be better off taking their chances on a guard in the draft. Cheaper, and you might hit the jackpot.
By the way, to some extent, I think the Washington situation is the same; I don’t think they are going to give up the 5th pick essentially for expiring contracts. I’m sure they have money problems, but you really never see that. The situations I can think of where a top 5 pick was traded for a player that player was at least close to all-star level. Brand to the Clippers. AD to the Raps (for Jonathan Bender), Ray Allen to the Celtics for Jeff Green.
I wouldn’t give up the 6 for Heinrich, and I don’t think the Wiz gives up 5 for Mike Miller.
by Eric in Madison on May 29, 2009 3:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This would be clinically insane
Never mind that I’m not sure how they’d get the money to work. There’s more than one downside to that deal. Insane.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 4:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It has to be Dan’s limited understanding of the NBA combined with his love of Hinrich shining through. No one in their right mind would include the #6 in a deal for a guy who can probably be had for expirings.
by Xand1 on May 29, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just realized it was Barreiro
Who, at this point in the game, needs to be taken with several grains of salt when discussing anything Wolves-related.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This doesn't make any sense....
…I can see the Wolves having interest, but I don’t see any way they’d trade the sixth pick for him. They never offered anything close last time the rumors surfaced.
By the way, there is news out of Chicago that Hinrich will be traded before next season.
by Twins Territory on May 29, 2009 4:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can almost guarantee an early start...
…to my Thunder fandom if this deal goes down without significant additions from both sides. Right now, it’s horrifying.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 4:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don't understand
the obsession with Kirk Heinrich.
A reasonable guard with a large contract. Am I missing something?
I’d rather we did nothing at all than do that deal.
by Auswolf on May 29, 2009 4:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
he's one of the few players...
…that can keep the foye dream alive.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take Hinrich...
…just not for that pick. There are other players/picks I’d move to take a shot with him.
by Twins Territory on May 29, 2009 5:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
exactly...
…using that pick for him with guys like curry, harden, and even holiday around simply doesn’t make any sense.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This would be a terrible trade for T-Wolves, but would you guys do:
Miller, #6 pick and #28 pick
for
Hinrich and Deng or Noah and Bulls’ #16 pick or Bulls #1 pick next year?
by TWolvesFanInLA on May 29, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
without a doubt
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bulls Ain't doing that
No way they trade Noah for that package. Who are thier post-players next year?
As far as Deng—that trade doesn’t work under Cap Rules. I’m not advocating trading for Deng by the way. It’s more health-concerns that game concerns.
by Jose Cordoba on May 29, 2009 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no...
…no they’re not, but it’s still fun to talk about.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on May 29, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Thomas?
They’re shopping him moreso than Noah. Replace Deng/Noah with Thomas? I’d think seriously about that.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope--
If the Wolves and Bulls are going to swap front-line players (Noah, Thomas, Love, or AlJeff), the only combo that makes sense is pairing Noah with Love, and/or Thomas with AlJeff. Maybe Noah and AlJeff, but I wouldn’t trade Noah for Love straight up.
by PoorDick on May 30, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thomas brings a few of the things Noah does...
Shotblocking and mobility being the primary ones. Maybe they wouldn’t make a good 3-man rotation at the 4/5, but Thomas would bring complementary skills as one of a 4-person rotation.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with Acquiring Thomas
Is that with his impending free agency, you’re going to have to set a value on him fairly soon when it’s not clear how much further he is going to develop. Then we’re giving up the #6 pick so essentially were trading a cheap player for an expensive one, and both players aren’t fully developed. I don’t like the idea of using #6 to acquire Thomas. Noah on the other hand is more intriguing, what a terrible blunder that was picking the wrong gator.
by Ebomb on May 30, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be more of a concern for me. I’d rather have Noah, obviously, but the fact that the Bulls are shopping Thomas with the inference that he doesn’t complement Noah well makes it seem like Noah’s staying (that and his performance in the playoffs). But with Thomas in the same draft class as Foye, I can see why they wouldn’t want to make that decision. Plus, my assumption would be that #6 wouldn’t be involved in that type of deal.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing about Thomas
is that it seemed like both he and Noah were punks at the beginning of the year, but Noah grew out of it by the playoffs and became a more reliable, trusted performer—and that fast-break dunk on Pierce cemented his adoration from the Bulls fans.
Thomas, on other hand, always seems like he has one foot in the doghouse. I’m concerned that either he’d bolt when his contract expires, or sign a big deal with the Wolves, and then turn sour once his payday was guaranteed.
Don’t get me wrong—I’ll take Thomas or just about anybody else at the right price and trade value. It’s just that I don’t think he and Hinrich are players \who should be chased.
by PoorDick on May 30, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree and have been on record as against trading for Hinrich because of his unwieldy contract. The only guys who deserve to be chased are top-3 franchise guys or guys who could put a championship contender over the top.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there’s a very good chance that Hinrich is a TWolf next season. That said, the 6th pick (even in a weak draft) is a high price for him—Mike Miller’s contract should be more than enough. There’s no way this trade happens. Somebody has bad information.
by Andy G on May 29, 2009 6:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The #18 Pick for Hinrich...
the #6 is Tooo Freaking Steep in my opinion
by Tony_O on May 29, 2009 6:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No to Hinrich, Yes to Chris Paul
If we are going to give up draft picks for a guard, why not get an actual all-star and go after Chris Paul? New Orleans is looking to shed salary, so we could also through in Miller/Cardinal. This gives us the point guard that we need. Any talk of New Orleans looking to deal him? How many years would he have left on his contract?
by Ominuz P on May 29, 2009 9:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
NO is not trading Chris Paul for expirings
NO would be a 25 win Team after this trade.
1. NO is only 2 years away from clearing Chandler, Peja and Morris Peterson come off the books. Chandler can probably be traded before then. Peja actually could become an asset by the Fall of 2010. I think NO probably has to do is just suffer through these contracts. Looking at NO’s contracts though- they sure are terrible.
2. The Wolves have no one that could begin to fill the void as a backcourt player in a trade. The only two players that could begin to pique NO’s interest play the same positions as Chandler and David West. I just don’t see a collection of assests that would appeal from NO’s perspective.
3. To trade a 23 Year Old Elite PG for the Wolves collection of players seems a stretch. The downgrade in attendance would cost millions.
4. Looking at NO’s Finances I can’t say a trade isn’t out of the realm of possibility. I just think it would need to be a trade that brought back enough talent to keep NO’s attendance up to the point that it could be justified. I don’t see the Wolves making an offer along these lines.
by Jose Cordoba on May 29, 2009 11:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Look at SNP's trade post
for good analysis of the possibilities with NO.
http://www.canishoopus.com/2009/5/28/884160/building-a-winner-update-pt-iii
by Jose Cordoba on May 29, 2009 11:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich for Miller? In a heartbeat. But I’d want same kind of swap of our 18 with their pick and maybe thrown in Smith for them (We’d use the Bulls pick on Mullens)
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on May 30, 2009 1:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
4 first round Picks?
that is intriguing. we would probably have to package a couple of them for players, future considerations though. that would be a lot of rookies form this draft class.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on May 30, 2009 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
woops,
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on May 30, 2009 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
woops, again
stupid post button, I missed teh part about swapping picks with bulls, not aquiring their pick.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on May 30, 2009 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas...
would interest me as a package deal.
Give the Bulls # 6 and the expirings to make the salaries match (Cardinal and Madsen maybe?). We get the PG we need, and Thomas would be a perfect complement to Al / Love in our 4/5 rotation. Bulls get a high pick (which they seem to covet this year), and clear the space they need to re-sign Ben Gordon.
Seems like a good fit on both ends…
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
by mutleyil on May 30, 2009 11:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Thomas and Love
can play on the floor at the same time, unless Thomas plays the 3, Love is the 4, and Mullens or some stiff is at the 5.
by PoorDick on May 30, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not getting your resistance
I’m not saying they’re a perfect fit defensively, but offensively is a different story. To me, the perfect compliment to Jefferson/Love would be Josh Smith, and Thomas brings similar things (though they’d need a muscle guy as the 4th guy in the rotation).
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don't see
how one would rotate a trio of 6-9 guys along the front line, or have them all on the court together (offensively or defensively). Josh Smith has Al Horford and ZaZa—two bigger and better defenders than the Wolves have right now.
Jefferson’s the starting center in this scenario—that I get (although being vertically-challenged at the position to begin with, and coming off an injury, I believe that unless the perimeter defense improves, Al at the 5 will be a major interior defensive liability).
But Love and Thomas can’t play center, can they? So adding Thomas to the team means less minutes for Love at the 4, right? And there’s still no back-up at center.
The Bulls are desperate to get rid of both Kirk and Thomas. I only like Hinrich if Noah comes with him—otherwise,
Noah makes much better sense
by PoorDick on May 30, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Al Jefferson really vertically challenged?
I get the fact he was measured at 6’ 9.75" at the combine in shoes, but he also had a 7’2.5" Wingspan. His standing reach of 9’ 2" compares reasonably favorably many of the starting centers in the league.
Standing Reach of Players as measured at the combine:
Love – 8’10"
Noah – 8’ 10.5"
Horford – 8’11"
Amare – 9’0.5"
Bosh – 9’1"
Brand, Hawes, Aldridge, Chandler – 9’2"
Okafor, Bogut – 9’2.5"
Curry – 9’3"
Howard – 9’3.5"
Oden – 9’4"
Thabeet, Shaq, Lopez, Haywood, McGee – 9’5"
Al Jefferson may not be as tall as some of these others on the list, but he has long arms. Al Jefferson is not undersized for center.
by Ebomb on May 30, 2009 3:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
I was referring more to his hops than his height (although defensively, I believe his intensity leaves a little to be desired, as well).
by PoorDick on May 30, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The fact he gets nearly 2 blocks per game is a testament to his length. If he had better hops and reaction time, he’d probably be an elite shotblocker.
by Rascal Flatts on May 30, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying he's ideal.
But this isn’t about guarding centers, it’s about the specific guys that would need to be guarded. Obviously, they need someone to guard bigger 5s, but this isn’t just about those guys. It’s also about the bigs who play on the perimeter.
The contract thing is obviously something that would factor in, as is the cost for such a deal. Either way, though, the Wolves need a mobile 3/4 who can block shots as well as a guy who can guard bigger 5s and protect the rim. It’s not one or the other because the number of mobile 5s like Noah and Varejao are few and far between, and if one can’t be acquired, this team still needs a guy to guard mobile 5s, even if it’s a 3/4 player.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 3:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the Bigs who work on the perimeter are the toughest matchups for the current wolves roster. A 3/4 who can block shots would be nice, a long athletic 3 would be ideal. With the amount of offense on the floor with Love and Jefferson both starting, I think you could sacrifice offense at the 3. ideally the skillset of a valuable 3/4 for this team would be.
- Height
- Athleticism
- Shot Blocking
- 3 Point Shooting
With Al and Love rebounding wouldn’t be a concern. On offense they can stand around at the 3 point line providing spacing and be ready for passes from the post, while expending most of their energy Defensively guarding mobile bigs, and floating between the perimiter and the paint.
by Ebomb on May 30, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Austin Daye is your man
Height and total Length – Check
Athleticism – Not elite, but good ’nuff
Shot blocking – Check
3-Point shooting – Check
His physical and skill profile is an ideal fit at the 3 with Love and Jefferson.
by Rascal Flatts on May 30, 2009 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A guy I like in the second round
Would be Taj Gibson out of USC. Good shot blocker and post defender. Similar height and standing reach as Al, but definitely more atheltic and a better defender.
by Ebomb on May 30, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just thinking the same thing when I saw his measurements. I’d always thought he was smaller than that, but his wingspan was crazy and he’s a legit 6’9-10. He’s been a great shotblocking junk guy for a few years now, and now that he’s shown he has NBA length I think you’re dead on that he’d be a nice fit here. He’s super skinny, but at least he’d be mobile and capable of playing good, athletic help D, which is, as we all know, our biggest front court weakness. Great pick up if he falls to the 2nd, though that might not be the case now that he put up such good measurements.
by Xand1 on May 30, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Somewhere along the line, we need to get some size and athleticism on this squad. I know Harden/Curry are consensus favorites at #6 on this board and that’s fine. But then it would be nice to get some guys with either extraordinary length or athletic ability with our later picks. Gibson is one of those guys that can play face-up 4’s and provide some weakside shotblocking off the bench…..sort of the anti-Craig Smith. He’d be a great backup to Love.
by Rascal Flatts on May 30, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s why there’s a debate between the guys like Curry and guys like Evans/DeRozan/Holiday. Every championship team has had size and length because it gives them so much positional flexibility and makes it easier to defend in the playoffs. Even if it’s just with the non-star rotation players. For the Wolves, it would seem more important if they intend to have Jefferson and Love together for a while.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 30, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guys like Gibson are why I really hope they break from the standard Wolves MO and actually see who’s available at 28 before they up and sell/trade the pick. If a guy like Gibson or Collison (if we don’t take a PG earlier) is there and they just sell the pick just because they “don’t want to bring in 3 rookies,” I’m going to be pretty mad. I know they’re scared of too much youth, but are we that up against the wall roster-wise? By my count, if we cut Bobby Brown (which we should) and bring back 1 of Sheldon or Carney, then that’s 11 players for next year, so it sure seems like we have room. I see no reason not to bring in 3 rookies if they all are talented and have the potential to make your team better. Even if you have to send the #28 guy to the D league for a year or two, what do you really have to lose?
by Xand1 on May 31, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding Brown...
I believe the contract option is his, and he’ll most likely take it. The wolves would have to buy him out – cheap at $750k, but nonetheless, wasted space.
by gill0137 on May 31, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, does he serve any actual purpose being on the roster? If the space is needed it seems to make more sense to cut loose the guy who’s not going to give you anything in favor of a cheap rook who still might develop. I just mean to say that if they need space for a rookie, they can probably find it, so that excuse doesn’t make sense to me.
by Xand1 on May 31, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs















