K. Hinrich trade in revision..

[drzachary]

Having read through this thread, here's my quick summary:

If you look at the stats, you hate the trade.

If you actually watch the games, you love the trade.

[mrhonline]

Only stat nerds don't like this trade.

Not true. Stat nerds would:

1.) Tell you that the sample size is too small to be of any use.

2.) Not use box score stats that haven't been pace-adjusted to compare them.

TS% - Hinrich

eFG% - Hinrich

ORB% - JC2

DRB% - Hinrich

AST% - JC2

TOV% - JC2

STL% - JC2

USG% - JC2

ORrtg - Hinrich

DRtg- Hinrich

WS/48 - Hinrich

PER - JC2

Once Hinrich gets more comfortable and cuts down on his turnovers, these kind of threads will disappear. Crawford can score, but he's not doing it efficiently and he's not really doing anything else.

Edited March 16, 2011 by mrhonline

[willthepureshooter]

Only stat nerds don't like this trade. Defense wins championships. On ball defense > than BPG & SPG.

Funny that you say that when these "stat nerds" you talk about are called NBA Scouts in reality. I'm not a "stat nerd" at all my man, but I "am" an ex basketball player/student with ehough experience to call bs when I see it. If he was so good, the guy would be a Laker. Lol

[Brokentree]

Funny that you say that when these "stat nerds" you talk about are called NBA Scouts in reality. I'm not a "stat nerd" at all my man, but I "am" an ex basketball player/student with ehough experience to call bs when I see it. If he was so good, the guy would be a Laker. Lol

Lets all just be thankful we didn't trade for Dereck Fisher then.

[terrell]

....and this is why box score stats don't even tell a quarter of the story.

Agreed. And who wouldnt be tossed around or expendable when Rose and Wall were in front of you?(both #1 OVERALL picks btw). How can you not like having two good pg's after watching Bibby deteriorate is beyond me. Same people that luv Jo Craw are the same people that said Sund is awful at drafting. LMAO! Edited March 16, 2011 by terrell

[CBAreject]

If you really meant that, it's so stupid

Which part?

1) I like Hinrich....however

2) Acquiring him won't make a difference in our season (that is, first round exit)

3) Acquiring him cost us 2 assets

4) We are asset poor

5) We are one of the worst managed teams in professional sports

6) We are one of the least likely teams to win a championship in the next 5 years

7) There aren't many teams I wouldn't trade entire rosters with

Again, which part is so stupid? I suspect #7, but seriously...we are so capped out with marginal talent that I would gladly swap rosters with probably 2/3 of NBA teams, who may have less overall talent but more flexibility. I want a chance, and the Hawks have zero chance for a finals appearance. The only thing we have working for us is Al Horford. Sadly, if we want to shake up the roster, he will be the one who gets traded.

[Joker]

A+ trade. Would be a perfect fit if he was better than just solid at the PnR. His comfort will come and he gives us a great asset for going at a top gun in a trade for 11-12'. We needed him more than just for this season, his contract and value is our hope for the future.

[Joker]

Which part?

1) I like Hinrich....however

2) Acquiring him won't make a difference in our season (that is, first round exit)

3) Acquiring him cost us 2 assets

4) We are asset poor

5) We are one of the worst managed teams in professional sports

6) We are one of the least likely teams to win a championship in the next 5 years

7) There aren't many teams I wouldn't trade entire rosters with

Again, which part is so stupid? I suspect #7, but seriously...we are so capped out with marginal talent that I would gladly swap rosters with probably 2/3 of NBA teams, who may have less overall talent but more flexibility. I want a chance, and the Hawks have zero chance for a finals appearance. The only thing we have working for us is Al Horford. Sadly, if we want to shake up the roster, he will be the one who gets traded.

1. Yep

2. We could possibly beat Orlando but we aren't beating anyone else.

3.Those weren't big prospects or proven good assets, they didn't have much value. Hinrich by being wanted by other teams and his contract exp and his contract being big which is what we really lacked coming into 11'-12' gives us a shot at a top gun in a trade.

4. Josh Smith, Al Horford, Jeff Teague, Kurt Hinrich are very good to great assets. Asset poor is Orlando, New Orleans, and Cleveland. They only have one attractive player on the market.

5. It's fair to say as an organization, we have been the blueprint for how to treat current and former players. The Miami Heat even followed the Hawks in terms of treatment of their employees. As for managed, we are the worst professional team in relevant American sports history. No team has been manged more poorly than us. It's not like we are the Thrashers or Clippers, they acquired talent, just don't retain it. We can't acquire it. Our drafts at best, could be said to be the worst in pro sports history given the time period of the franchise. That explains the reason we haven't been to the conference finals since 1970.

6. We have to see the moves we can make. Land CP3 or Dwight, we have a great chance. If we can't, we're done.

7. I agree. I would say 12 teams have a shot in the next 3 years. Six have a shot in the future with their really young talent. We are one of the 12 teams currently with no shot period. The best team out of the bunch which means it's likely that we won't be drafting in the upper half of the lottery to get that player. It could be worst, we could be Houston or Golden State. GS has the as many assets as us if not more but nowhere near good enough to command a trade for a star. Houston just doesn't have the assets to land a star and after the trade, the star wouldn't feel he can contend. Atlanta at least has the assets to give talent and contend easily afterward. That's our only advantage. The Warriors seems like they will have to decide between Curry and Ellis. The Rockets are closer to rebuilding than contending currently. We are close to contending but with our current personnel, contending is out of reach.

Edited March 17, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[Supporter]

It sucks being a Hawks fan.

[BrazilianHawk]

I don't know what the Kirk Hinrich hate is about. For that matter, I don't know why there's so much Jordan Crawford love?? Let's get theparticulars out of the way. Had he stayed, Crawford would have never been our SG. He would have not been our PG neither. He would have been a bench player who comes in and plays 14 minutes at best. He gets to start and play in Washington because they SUCK....

Let's get into this:

31 minutes, 9 pts, 14 rebs

28 minutes 12 pts, 16 rebs

29 minutes 3 pts, 8 rebs

26 minutes 14 pts, 8 rebs

36 minutes 14 pts, 10 rebs

37 minutes 13 pts, 11 rebs

41 minutes 16 pts, 17 rebs

41 minutes 21 pts, 10 rebs.

I'm not going to play the guessing game here. These are Shelden Williams rookie stats at the end of his rookie season. He had come off shoulder injury and this is what he put up for the Hawks. At the time, we sucked. Now imagine had our FO treated these numbers like you Jordan Crawford worshippers treat his? We would have never drafted Al Horford. Think about it, you have a rookie C giving you double doubles every night and manning the boards and doing dirty work. Fortunately for us, we have seen the Shelden Williams story play out. Shelly was just not that good. The thing is that when you have a terrible team and you are playing "meaningless" games, you may have a few players who shine when you give them more time. However, that's not the basis for anything. You can do the same treatment for Josh Childress in his rookie year. Some folks thought we should have not gone after Joe because of Childress' stats on a sorry team with more PT. Crawford is playing to ensure that Washington gets a good lottery bid.

So what did we lose out on? A streaky volume shooter who makes takes bad shots and makes bad decisions with the ball.. playing next to a PG who he will never replace? There will be 11 Jordan Crawfords in the 2nd round of the draft.

About Hinrich. You can't be too depressed about having a guy who plays better defense than Bibby?? I mean, this is what it was really all about. So far, it's early and we have some chemistry issues, but the truth is if you sat and watched the playoffs last year, then you should be standing and applauding everytime Hinrich's name is mentioned. We have our flaws, but the one thing is that Hinrich makes our back court defense formidable. I'm not saying that we're great but I am saying that the whole team doesn't have to cover for Bibby's OLAY defense.

I say let this trade take hold and then let's evaluate it. However, if you're trying to evaluate this trade by a Jordan Crawford Boxscore then you really don't have an understanding of this game whatsoever... Go back to your playstation.

Great post. Sorry I ran out of +1 s for today. :good:

[DJlaysitup]

A+ trade. Would be a perfect fit if he was better than just solid at the PnR. His comfort will come and he gives us a great asset for going at a top gun in a trade for 11-12'. We needed him more than just for this season, his contract and value is our hope for the future.

I would give the trade an A+ if it looked like we were actually getting a serviceable big in Armstrong.

I think the NBA needs to add another measurement in their pre-draft analysis of players. We already have height and reach...I would add neck length. Long necks like Armstrong should be minused a couple inches of height due to the length of their head stems.

[coachx]

I think the NBA needs to add another measurement in their pre-draft analysis of players. We already have height and reach...I would add neck length. Long necks like Armstrong should be minused a couple inches of height due to the length of their head stems.

Height is worhtless. All that you need to look at is standing reach and wing span.

Armstrong measured 6'10.25'' in shoes at the combine. He may have a long neck but he as long arms too. His standing reach was measured at 9'1'' and his wingspan was 7'3'' at his pre-draft combine. His max reach when jumping was 11'8.5''. Those are actually pretty good measureables for his height.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=2006&source=All&sort2=ASC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=6

For comparisons sake:

Al Horford measured 6'9.75'' in shoes at the combine. That is just .5'' shorter then Armstrong. However, Horford standing reach of 8'11'' is 2'' shorter then Armstrong. Horford's wingspan is 7'.75'' which is 2.25'' shorter then Armstrong. Horford has a better verticle though. Horford's max reach when jumping was 11'10.5''.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=2007&source=All&sort2=ASC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=6

Edited March 17, 2011 by coachx