So what gives?
Now that the Bulls have nearly completed their failure of living up to any hype, the finger pointing has thus begun.
Noticeably not on this informed site as others, critics have pointed to Kirk Hinrich as a reason for the team's lack of success.
However, interestingly enough, he is still their most viable trade assest, according to Mr. Sam Smith and K.C. Johnson. Valuable because of his skills--which I find hard to believe since everyone has stated he sucks--and his reasonable contract.
Yet for those who watch and understand the team make up and chemistry, it's hard and obscure to tell how Hinrich is at fault. Sure his defense hasn't been up to snuff from last year, but he is still the best perimeter defender the Bulls have. He is still asked to defend bigger off guards. Rightfully targeted as a low percentage shooter, he has shown the ability to score when needed ( i.e. injuries to Gordon and Deng) and he leads the team in assists.
Beyond the stats, watching the Bulls when Hinrich is in better than without him, it's hard to argue. The flow of the offense is there--he is best passer and decision maker. The basketball experts rag on him for not being a pure point, but how many of those are there in the league, and according to who? He's an unselfish basketball player, never tries to do too much, and defers--albeit to often--to the so called shooters, volume shooters, that the team runs their half court offense through.
It's been a down year, but it's been a down year for everyone. It's easy to point the finger, but should it really be on Kirk? For Christ's sake he was asked to be on the USA Team a year ago, has he, as an individual basketball player, really dropped that badly? I would gladly have Kirk Hinrich as my starting guard, as would about more than half of the league. Think about it, no one wants Gordon, or Hughes, but yet Kirk is the one to get traded (dumped)? Lame, no loyalty, and no sense.