Are we showcasing Hinrich?

parson · Post #1 » by **parson** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 3:53 am

I've been noticing that we are using him more than we did last year - not necessarily in minutes played but in possession of the ball. He's dominating the ball in a way I've never seen him do. Is it because we're trying to boost his numbers for a trade? Is our management willing to suffer with him forcing shots in order to obtain a pick (or whatever)?

Or is my memory faulty? Does anyone else remember a time when Hinrich held onto the ball and tried to score the way he has in the last few games?

Just thinking about the rumors of the Lakers wanting him.

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe he's worried about free agency and is doing this all on his own.

Skyhawk1 · Post #2 » by **Skyhawk1** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 4:32 am

If that's what they are doing it's not working. He's looked terrible.

evildallas · Post #3 » by **evildallas** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 5:09 am

Well, Joe and Willie are both out. Someone has to play SG.

Geaux_Hawks · Post #4 » by **Geaux_Hawks** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 2:40 pm

evildallas wrote:Well, Joe and Willie are both out. Someone has to play SG.

T-Mac

Rip2137 · Post #5 » by **Rip2137** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 8:27 pm

I would rather start a HUGE lineup with Marvin at the 2 (especially against the Bucks) than Hinrich play.

There is also no reason to worry about the opposing 2 hurting you tonight.

MaceCase · Post #6 » by **MaceCase** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 9:21 pm

Harden doesn't worry you, Rip? Either way he's always been shaky with his handle so has been used as a offensive weapon for ages at the 2 even if his streaky shooting never really made much sense of it. He's played primarily the 2 with damn near half the league from Duhon, Crawford, Wall, Arenas, Pargo, Rose mainly because of his damn turnovers. Only time I can think of where he was primarily the setup man rather than a scorer in a small backcourt was with Gordon. So either way it made sense starting him because TMac can only play the 2 if we go zone on D and post him on O because he's slow as sin and I doubt anybody thought Stackhouse could demonstrate this amount of activity.

Ruhiel · Post #7 » by **Ruhiel** » Sat Mar 3, 2012 10:14 pm

Just hope we make it out of OKC healthy.

Jajwanda · Post #8 » by **Jajwanda** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 1:23 am

It's actually Blake-Hinrich (with the Laker TPE including for Hinrich).

Lakers do it to save luxury tax money and because Hinrich can guard opposing SGs better than Blake. Atlanta does it because Blake really is about the same level player on a reasonable deal over the next two years. Considering that Atlanta's flexibility is nonexistent in the next two years, getting Blake means they retain their mini-MLE as well as a sizable exception to play with.

parson · Post #9 » by **parson** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 2:41 am

Jajwanda wrote:It's actually Blake-Hinrich (with the Laker TPE including for Hinrich).

Lakers do it to save luxury tax money and because Hinrich can guard opposing SGs better than Blake. Atlanta does it because Blake really is about the same level player on a reasonable deal over the next two years. Considering that Atlanta's flexibility is nonexistent in the next two years, getting Blake means they retain their mini-MLE as well as a sizable exception to play with.

Congratulations, you posted that without laughing.

ATL is at the edge of the LT. Sooooooo, we're going to pay that tax for .... Steve Blake. We have another backup PG we like, Jannero Pargo, who seems to really fit our coach's offense. By the way, we're paying him the minimum. ALSO by the way, he's better than Blake.

Blake is a lousy player. That's why the Lakers are searching so hard.

You want Hinrich? Stop trying to pawn your bad contracts on us.

Jajwanda · Post #10 » by **Jajwanda** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 2:51 am

Aren't you at 60m next year?

MaceCase · Post #11 » by **MaceCase** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 3:21 am

Jajwanda wrote:Aren't you at 60m next year?

Closer to 61 but to only 6 players. You are suggesting the team be at 65 to 7. That's a tighter window to fill out the roster than we'd currently have and even worse considering that Blake could be equaled by any vet min at the position.

Superiorblogman · Post #12 » by **Superiorblogman** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 7:33 pm

Jajwanda wrote:It's actually Blake-Hinrich (with the Laker TPE including for Hinrich).

Lakers do it to save luxury tax money and because Hinrich can guard opposing SGs better than Blake. Atlanta does it because Blake really is about the same level player on a reasonable deal over the next two years. Considering that Atlanta's flexibility is nonexistent in the next two years, getting Blake means they retain their mini-MLE as well as a sizable exception to play with.

You can keep that garbage and that garbage reasoning to yourself.

Hinrich for Darius Morris+TPE+1st rd pick or there is really nothing to talk about.

Rip2137 · Post #13 » by **Rip2137** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 7:35 pm

You know full well that 9 million expiring isn't worth all that. Because Hinrich the basketball player certainly isn't whats getting traded.

Jajwanda · Post #14 » by **Jajwanda** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 8:55 pm

MaceCase wrote:
Jajwanda wrote:Aren't you at 60m next year?

Closer to 61 but to only 6 players. You are suggesting the team be at 65 to 7. That's a tighter window to fill out the roster than we'd currently have and even worse considering that Blake could be equaled by any vet min at the position.

I think that's a pretty big exaggeration on the vet. minimum part. If you're at 65 then what could the team possibly do that would drive them over the luxury tax. At the max, it'll be a couple minimum deals, a mini-MLE, and a first round pick.

MaceCase · Post #15 » by **MaceCase** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 9:44 pm

Jajwanda wrote:
MaceCase wrote:
Jajwanda wrote:Aren't you at 60m next year?

Closer to 61 but to only 6 players. You are suggesting the team be at 65 to 7. That's a tighter window to fill out the roster than we'd currently have and even worse considering that Blake could be equaled by any vet min at the position.

I think that's a pretty big exaggeration on the vet. minimum part. If you're at 65 then what could the team possibly do that would drive them over the luxury tax. At the max, it'll be a couple minimum deals, a mini-MLE, and a first round pick.

What separates Blake from Pargo? Certainly not talent because Pargo is out playing Blake tremendously but is only being paid 800K by the Hawks.

And you simply cannot refute that the Hawks would have greater flexibility at 61 million than 65.
Just do the math.....

You have 65 million to only 7 players, you have to reach the minimum of 12.
You spend the mini-mle that's 68 mil
You sign the 1st rounder to rookie scale that's 69.3 mil
You still need to fill out 3 roster spots....vet min's out the window though because you sign even one and you are at 70.6 mil......err, that's 300k over the current lux tax already to only 10 players.

Please, just give it up. Your trade sucks, it ruins what little flexibility we have.

Superiorblogman · Post #16 » by **Superiorblogman** » Mon Mar 5, 2012 9:54 pm

Rip2137 wrote:You know full well that 9 million expiring isn't worth all that. Because Hinrich the basketball player certainly isn't whats getting traded.

The Lakers play for championships. You pay whatever it takes to get those. We are not taking back anything more than a minimum salary because honestly nothing you have helps us other than Bynum, Gasol, and Kobe. Kirk could seriously help you guys. Like I said, Darius+TPE+ 1st rd pick or it makes no sense. Kirk could still be used as a part of a deal to get someone like Kaman and that would help more than anything the Lakers could give in the form of a player.

Rip2137 · Post #17 » by **Rip2137** » Tue Mar 6, 2012 4:27 pm

Kirk Hinrich can't help anyone. This year, he is COMPLETELY horrid. he is shooting horribly, defending horribly, turning the ball over without even getting that many touches. The ONLY value Kirk Hinrich has right now is his expiring contract. So like I said, getting 9 million off the books is not worth giving up a trade exception, a player and a first round pick.

Superiorblogman · Post #18 » by **Superiorblogman** » Tue Mar 6, 2012 10:04 pm

Rip2137 wrote:Kirk Hinrich can't help anyone. This year, he is COMPLETELY horrid. he is shooting horribly, defending horribly, turning the ball over without even getting that many touches. The ONLY value Kirk Hinrich has right now is his expiring contract. So like I said, getting 9 million off the books is not worth giving up a trade exception, a player and a first round pick.

Well why would the Lakers want him? I am not Sund, maybe you can get him with your slick talk but not me.

myrak433 · Post #19 » by **myrak433** » Tue Mar 6, 2012 11:55 pm

Superiorblogman wrote:
Rip2137 wrote:Kirk Hinrich can't help anyone. This year, he is COMPLETELY horrid. he is shooting horribly, defending horribly, turning the ball over without even getting that many touches. The ONLY value Kirk Hinrich has right now is his expiring contract. So like I said, getting 9 million off the books is not worth giving up a trade exception, a player and a first round pick.

Well why would the Lakers want him? I am not Sund, maybe you can get him with your slick talk but not me.

hello Superiorblogman. not trying to get into a back and forth with you. I just wanted to get your opinion of Josh Smith's play the last two games.

Ruhiel · Post #20 » by **Ruhiel** » Wed Mar 7, 2012 12:02 am

He said he was impressed in OKC thread. Knowing Smith you just jinxed him and he goes 3 for 26 in a blowout today.