Knicks wanted Hinrich for Jeffries?

From Sam Smith's mailbag:

The Knicks have looked to move Jeffries, but I'd hate to see him around
as he can't score at all and the Bulls have enough of those issues. I
heard it was Hinrich the Knicks were trying to get for Jeffries not
Tyrus for Harrington.

Well this establishes somewhat of a baseline for Kirk's value right now if this is to be believed.

First, the Bulls won't trade him for a guy who absolutely sucks, but can save them one year of salary [Jeffries contract is one year shorter].   They'd also presumably save a tiny bit of money per year as well.

Would the Bulls trade Hinrich for an expiring?   I don't know, but one year of savings is apparently not enough.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I would definitely do any trade that gets us closer to dumping Kirk's contract -- that seems like the main obstacle to blowing this team up (either to try for two big free agents or just to start over from scratch). I'm not sure whether Jared Jeffries accomplishes that. The advantage of Kirk is that there might be a GM in the league somewhere who believes that Kirk will be good again with the right team around him, whereas probably nobody believes that about Jared Jeffries. However, I would probably still do it because Jared Jeffries gets paid so much less per year. On the other hand, it doesn't look like Jeffries for Hinrich works straight up, so there's a question of what else the Bulls would have to take back. I would definitely do Kirk + Salmons for Jeffries + Darko.

  • In reply to multipass:

    A trade of the starting and back up shooting guard for a couple of bad, bad big men sounds pretty terrible. Is this Pargo's mother suggesting this trade?

  • In reply to multipass:

    FWIW I watched part of the Knicks-Heat game yesterday and they were saying that the Knicks recent win streak was directly related to a team defensive effort which got their opponents ppg. down from something like 109 to 94 per game And that their best defensive player was Jeffries. Jeffries reminds me a lot of a bigger Taj Gibson.

    Interesting sidelight on this is that Jeffries was a great college player at Indiana and was a good scorer under their system. Knight may have still been the coach but I don't remember. Gibson, however, was known as basically a shotblocker and rebounder in college. Now Taj is becoming a reliable jumpshooter and Jeffries is known basically for his defense.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    Considering we and the Knicks share a similar 2010 strategy, and we both have a lot of expirings, you'd think if this had legs and the Knicks really wanted Hinrich, we could get Nate Robinson thrown in for one of our expirings. Surely not the solution to our problems, but he's an expiring guard who can score to fill a needed spot in our rotation. Hell, if he could shoot the three a bit better, he might even be an option to resign if chemistry proved good.

    But with the way Noah has progressed this year and the promise Taj is showing as a rotation player, I just don't think we need Jeffries. But if we can build successfully in the next couple years, he might be the kind of guy to round out the roster with down the road.

  • In reply to multipass:

    Doug,

    I don't know if you saw this or not, but on Hoopsworld via the Sun-Times, I guess Ty Thomas will be back in the rotation tonight and VDN is keeping the lineup changes. Hinrich will start at SG and Gibson will start at PF, while Salmons and Miller will come off the bench.

  • In reply to multipass:

    I think Minnesota would save $800,000 on this trade.

    http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=5342740

    To Bulls: Wayne Ellington and Mark Blount
    To T-Wolves: James Johnson and Jerome James

    Given the needs of each team, this trade seems logical.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    I wanted Ellington at #26 instead of Taj. Like many posters I am disaapointed with JJ but am not entirely ready to give up on him. I would do JJ for Terrence Williams however. Have you ever thought of that?

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    if we had Derrick Byars we wouldn't be in this position right now!! he would give us 3 pt shooting and provide us with HEART and LEADERSHIP!

    ... haha

  • In reply to djphillie:

    I love sarcasm.

    However, people only mock what they don't understand. Derrick Byars could have helped this team.

    Have you been watching how bad the 3pt Shooting has been this year? Obviously not.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    I have mentioned TWILL several times, especially when I found out he voiced his opinion about not wanting to be in New Jersey. From what I hear, the Bulls' management isn't that high on his goofy personality. That's ashame, because I view it along the same lines as a Joakim Noah.

    I'd take him on the Bulls over Johnson for sure.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    By the way, I'm a big pro-ponent of the Bulls getting DWADE next year. Couldn't a Rose and Wade backcout be as good, if not better than a Thomas and Dumars backcourt?

    The late 80's Pistons model might not be a bad model for John Paxson moving forward.

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    i feel we should bring in mcgrady and just try..why tank it with bums when we could just see what a star who still is one barring any injury have left as he can bring an expiring in case..just finish watchin celtics,bulls series..im starting to miss b.g..he was always loved..he just started thinkin he was a.i lately and tried to create rather than play within..bring on tmac..

  • In reply to hgarbell:

    I'd be all for this deal if we added Nate Robinson and Pargo to the deal. We would gain an additional mill in savings this year to get another body or facilitate more trades, 2.2 mill next year and 8 mill the year after. Meaning if we did the deal and salmons opted in, we could sell off JJ to get a full max deal.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    Like the idea Happy. However, won't this put the Bulls over the luxury tax? I like the trade for the Bulls, but don't see the Wolves making a move for another 4 (or, a you would argue, another 3 who struggle to shoot).

  • In reply to edwardbuell:

    No that trade wouldn't put the Bulls over the cap and into the luxury tax area. Also, Johnson is not a PF but a SF, which is what Minnesota needs.

    Right now, Ellington isn't fitting in with the T-Wolves just like Johnson isn't fitting in with the Bulls. Ellington is playing behind Brewer, Pavolic and even Wilkins.

    I think that trade makes sense.

  • I think the Bulls have to have something in the works to move Kirk or Salmons (or both). I do think that there's a chance that something to the Jazz works out now that they could use a back up point guard. And I also wouldn't rule out a move to Portland given their disappointment with Andre Miller. The Jeffries move wouldn't make sense for the Bulls because you are losing one of your best shooters (yes, that was sad to type) for a guy who cannot play offense at all.

  • Hell, after tonight, maybe on Tuesday

Leave a comment