There are so many questions about the Bulls right now, and not a lot of answers. Could they make the playoffs? If they do so, does it matter? Who on the current roster is going to be a part of the long-term rebuilding? After last night’s collapse all but sealed Boylan’s fate in my eyes, who is the next coach? What type of tempo are they going to have going forward? Does it matter that the Bulls are now the youngest team in the NBA? And last but not least, what about Kirk Hinirch? Seriously, what about Kirk Hinrich?

The maddening inconsistency of Kirk Hinrich from game-to-game and even quarter-to-quarter has to be the most surprising part of the season. While he has never been a true point guard, he had in previous years been reasonably consistent. His ability to play at a high level defensively and avoid costly turnovers were a big part of the Bulls success the past few years. Last season Hinrich was named to the 2nd team All-NBA-Defensive squad, and then on Wednesday  got run off the floor by Travis Diener. He has had games this season where he has looked like Steve Nash, and then the nights like yesterday where it appeared he had no business being the league. The amazing thing about it is no one can tell what Kirk Hinrich is going to show up on a given night. How should the team deal with him. I see a number of scenerios, none of which are necessarily the right answer. This is why I view the handling of Hinrich as John Paxson’s most difficult of the coming offseason.

Kirk is signed through 2012 with $36.5 million owed to him after this season. The Kirk Hinrich that has showed up this season isn’t worth half that amount, and therefore will be difficult to move. While it is possible a team like the Sonics would be willing to swap their overpaid, underperforming point guards -Luke Ridnour and Earl Watson - for Kirk and a small contract like that of JamesOn Curry, or Portland moving the bad contract of Darius Miles and one of their recent 1st round picks playing abroad - Fernandez or Koponen - for Kirk, I cannot see a scenerio where the Bulls will be able to move Hinrich that will undoubtedly make the team better unless they get lucky in the lottery and package him in a deal for an All-Star. Then again, should the Bulls get a top 3 pick, why would they be looking to deal it? After all, they are 23-35 with the youngest team in the league. Would getting a “star” player make a difference in this team competing for a championship next year? If not, wouldn’t the possibility of getting a possible future star like Beasley, Rose, Gordon, or Mayo fit better with the goal of winning a title in the future? Once again, no clear answer in my opinion. 

The problem with bringing back Hinrich is that the Bulls already have made the decision to let Duhon leave over the summer. This will force the Bulls to add a true point guard in either the draft, by using their free agent exceptions, or by way of a trade- probably in a sign-and-trade for Ben Gordon. The experiment of Larry Hughes, Ben Gordon, and Thabo Sefolosha at the point have been less than impressive. When Hughes or Gordon run the point, the most complex the offense will be is a high screen and roll or a pass to the wing so that he can either take his man one-on-one or call for a screen. I hope that Paxson, as a former point guard, will not undervalue the importance of the point guard position in today’s NBA. If they spend a 1st round pick, and right now the Bulls have the tenth worst record in the league, how long is it before Rose, Bayless, Lawson, Collison, Augustin make Hinrich an expensive backup? If Paxson does bank on Hinrich having a bounce back first half of the season, and then move him either next February or following the 2009 season? Also, should Hinrich bounce back, the Bulls likely will be in the mix for the playoffs in the East. It appears that the East will still be a weakling conference next year. Would they move a starter if the team was 5th or 6th in the East at the trade deadline?

The problem with moving Hinrich is that they will undoubtedly be getting 50 cents on the dollar. When Hinrich signed his deal, everyone thought he was giving the Bulls a discount. People regarded Hinrich as one of the better young guards in the league. Is it so far-fetched that Kirk is just having a bad year? Baron Davis had an absolutley garbage 2005-06 season before emerging as a star last year. Corey Maggette and Chris Kaman appeared to be part of the problem with the Clippers last season, and this year are the lone bright spots for their team. It is entirely possible that Hinrich can once again be part of the solution. I am not denying the possibility that his 2007 season will be the best of his career, but I don’t think that it is unreasonable that he play at the level he did in 2005 and 2006. Maybe it will require fewer responsibilities and the opportunity to play more minutes off the ball at the SG position, but if he does bounce back he can be a valuable part of a rebuilding team either as a player or part of a trade down the road.

Given that Paxson clearly has an affinity for Hinrich, my guess is that he is going to give him every chance to recover from this season. If Kirk can bounce back and have a better 2008-09 season, then the Bulls will likely have some flexibility in terms of making a move to get the team to the next level. If not, then it might just make more sense for John Paxson to buy a house in Secaucus because he is going to spend a lot more time there than anyone should. Saddled with his contract, a poorly performing Hinrich can keep this team from being good for a long time.

Leave a Reply