Jerry Krause was a great general manager

[Lebron23]

He drafted Horace Grant, traded for Scottie Pippen. Signed Toni Kukoc from europe, drafted BJ Armstrong, traded Oakley for Bill Cartright, drafted Elton Brand, Ron Artest, and signed Jamal Crawford as a player. Only mistaked of him as a gm was he traded Elton Brand to the Clippers.

[8Ball]

Yup.

Stood up to Jordan. His best trait.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yup. The thing that most exemplifies it to me is after the Bulls lost to Orlando not only did he not stand pat, in 95' he went out and get a third HOF player (no other team had 3 HOF players) who was the best player possible to fill their biggest need post-Grant: rebounding (the main reason they lost to Orlando).

Compare that to his peers. What did the Knicks, Pacers, Blazers, Cavs, Jazz, etc. do after losing? Not much. They would tinker around the edges. None of these teams swung for the fences like Krause did with Rodman, who was considered a cancer at the time and was a big risk because of that (which is why the Bulls were able to get him for a backup center).


Stood up to Jordan. His best trait.

Jordan wanted Joe Wolf and Kenny Smith instead of Pippen and Grant. Can you imagine if Krause listened to MJ?

[STATUTORY]

locked up Pippen to a very long and team friendly contract

absolutely milked him, gotta appreciat GMs who can do that. it's not always about big flashy trade, but getting value on the margins

[Phoenix]

The Rodman acquisition was major. By 95 he was considered more trouble than he was worth and could be had for a bag of chips ( which in basketball terms amounted to Will Perdue). That was an all or nothing deal, and the best possible outcome occurred.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

He was a good GM, not a great one. Also something you didn't mention was his great hiring of coaches. Jordan hated him, but loved the coaches he hired; Phil Jackson, Tex Winters and Johnny Bach were all loved by Jordan.

He can't be considered a great GM when the Bulls were so bad from 99-04. Yes he made a few good moves and had some bad luck, but overall he had time to build at least a playoff level team and couldn't do it.

[Phoenix]

He was a good GM, not a great one. Also something you didn't mention was his great hiring of coaches. Jordan hated him, but loved the coaches he hired; Phil Jackson, Tex Winters and Johnny Bach were all loved by Jordan.

He can't be considered a great GM when the Bulls were so bad from 99-04. Yes he made a few good moves and had some bad luck, but overall he had time to build at least a playoff level team and couldn't do it.


Every GM and team is gonna go through a lull period like that, though. I don't think a 5 year period of mediocrity detracts from the 15 years before that.

[8Ball]

Yup. The thing that most exemplifies it to me is after the Bulls lost to Orlando not only did he not stand pat, in 95' he went out and get a third HOF player (no other team had 3 HOF players) who was the best player possible to fill their biggest need post-Grant: rebounding (the main reason they lost to Orlando).

Compare that to his peers. What did the Knicks, Pacers, Blazers, Cavs, Jazz, etc. do after losing? Not much. They would tinker around the edges. None of these teams swung for the fences like Krause did with Rodman, who was considered a cancer at the time and was a big risk because of that (which is why the Bulls were able to get him for a backup center).



Jordan wanted Joe Wolf and Kenny Smith instead of Pippen and Grant. Can you imagine if Krause listened to MJ?

Jordan hated Kukoc ala The Last Dance. Imagine if Krause listened to Jordan and dump Kukoc for picks?

No 2nd 3 peat.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

Every GM and team is gonna go through a lull period like that, though. I don't think a 5 year period of mediocrity detracts from the 15 years before that.

That is why he is a good GM. He inherited Jordan, but was good enough to put the pieces around him and the coaching staff that won 6 rings. I have no objection to him getting a banner in the rafters at the United Center which he has.

Hard to call him great though. A great GM would have been able to build it back up. I'm not even talking winning another championship. In the 6 years after Jordan the team was garbage. The closest he came to making the playoffs was 12 games out. He was the GM for 5 of those years and built the team in that 6th year. During that time the best season was 30-52. Tim Floyd is one of the worst coaches in NBA history and he gave him 4 years. He made some good draft picks such as Brand and Artest, but then traded them away before he could reap the benefits. Hard to defend his record during that time.

[guy]

That is why he is a good GM. He inherited Jordan, but was good enough to put the pieces around him and the coaching staff that won 6 rings. I have no objection to him getting a banner in the rafters at the United Center which he has.

Hard to call him great though. A great GM would have been able to build it back up. I'm not even talking winning another championship. In the 6 years after Jordan the team was garbage. The closest he came to making the playoffs was 12 games out. He was the GM for 5 of those years and built the team in that 6th year. During that time the best season was 30-52. Tim Floyd is one of the worst coaches in NBA history and he gave him 4 years. He made some good draft picks such as Brand and Artest, but then traded them away before he could reap the benefits. Hard to defend his record during that time.

He was a good GM for the moves he made.

Trading for Scottie Pippen was an all-time great move.

Hiring Phil was good, maybe great - that team was on their way anyway so I'm not sure hiring him honestly made that significant of a difference vs keeping Doug Collins or having 6-7 coaches in his place.

Trading for Rodman was good, but no one else wanted him and everyone around the organization is pretty open about the fact that they were only comfortable because they had the strongest leadership of the entire league in place - and given the fact that all they had to give up was Will Perdue meant it wasn't that risky of a move anyway.

All the other moves mentioned by the OP were role players moves - not moves that were so hard to replicate with other role players in place.

However, his terrible personality and how he approached negotiations and how he was literally openly contemplating breaking up the dynasty for years even before he eventually actually did it probably negates alot of the good he did and makes him an average / possibly below average GM. I can't recall any GM actively trying to seemingly sabotage his team to the degree he did.

And as was mentioned, he was terrible after the dynasty and a big reason the Bulls couldn't attract free agents during that time and possibly TO THIS DAY as has been mentioned by players fairly recently is because of how the organization, primarily Krause, treated the leaders of the dynasty.

[light]

Of course he was great. He's in the hall of fame.

Firing Michael Jordan, after tolerating years of bullying from him, had to he the most satisfying moment of Krause's career.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Rodman acquisition was major. By 95 he was considered more trouble than he was worth and could be had for a bag of chips ( which in basketball terms amounted to Will Perdue). That was an all or nothing deal, and the best possible outcome occurred.

Yeah and how many GM's from that era would have had the stones to make that move? You saw so many teams from that era lose and do little or even nothing in the offseason (e.g., what was the Knicks' "big" move? Charles Smith? :roll: ). Krause swung for the fences and the results were an all-time great team for the next two seasons.


Every GM and team is gonna go through a lull period like that, though. I don't think a 5 year period of mediocrity detracts from the 15 years before that.

Yeah, he won 6 chips and he did revamp the team in the mid-90's. Pippen and Jordan were the only constants during the entire run..


Jordan hated Kukoc ala The Last Dance. Imagine if Krause listened to Jordan and dump Kukoc for picks?

No 2nd 3 peat.

True.

He also kept his emotions in check. He hated MJ and Pippen. Pippen received a lot of trade offers but he wouldn't give him up unless he got a king's ransom in exchange. Many GM's would simply unload the guy below his value due to hate.


I'm not even talking winning another championship. In the 6 years after Jordan the team was garbage.

The team was strong enough to contend even without Jordan (with a scrub replacing him) in 94'. That is a testament to Krause. Even in 95' losing Jordan and Grant the core still had the 2nd best SRS in the East before MJ returned.

Yeah, he didn't have success after 98' but that is splitting hairs. There aren't 10 GM's all-time who had more success than Krause did.

[Phoenix]

He was a good GM for the moves he made.

Trading for Scottie Pippen was an all-time great move.

Hiring Phil was good, maybe great - that team was on their way anyway so I'm not sure hiring him honestly made that significant of a difference vs keeping Doug Collins or having 6-7 coaches in his place.

Trading for Rodman was good, but no one else wanted him and everyone around the organization is pretty open about the fact that they were only comfortable because they had the strongest leadership of the entire league in place - and given the fact that all they had to give up was Will Perdue meant it wasn't that risky of a move anyway.

All the other moves mentioned by the OP were role players moves - not moves that were so hard to replicate with other role players in place.

However, his terrible personality and how he approached negotiations and how he was literally openly contemplating breaking up the dynasty for years even before he eventually actually did it probably negates alot of the good he did and makes him an average / possibly below average GM. I can't recall any GM actively trying to seemingly sabotage his team to the degree he did.

And as was mentioned, he was terrible after the dynasty and a big reason the Bulls couldn't attract free agents during that time and possibly TO THIS DAY as has been mentioned by players fairly recently is because of how the organization, primarily Krause, treated the leaders of the dynasty.

IIRC Wade was seriously considering the Bulls in 2010 ( a return home for him) and was put off by this.

[guy]

IIRC Wade was seriously considering the Bulls in 2010 ( a return home for him) and was put off by this.

Yup. KG mentioned this too.

[Roundball_Rock]

IIRC Wade was seriously considering the Bulls in 2010 ( a return home for him) and was put off by this.

Yeah, and this is something AK and Eversley will have to turn around. A lot of it is Krause but Krause has been gone for a decade and a half. Reinsdorf is the one who signed off on what he did. He could have forced Krause to act differently or fired him.

The other issue the Bulls have is a reputation for being cheap and they already have shown they can get Reinsdorf to pay by hiring Donovan and several expensive scouts.


Trading for Rodman was good, but no one else wanted him and everyone around the organization is pretty open about the fact that they were only comfortable because they had the strongest leadership of the entire league in place - and given the fact that all they had to give up was Will Perdue meant it wasn't that risky of a move anyway.

The fact that they were able to get him for a backup center tells you how risky it was: he had no trade value because he was so toxic, even though you would get a HOF player for a scrub. It could have blown up in their face with them being forced to cut him, which would leave them exactly where they were in 95' without Grant. The easier route would have been to go after another PF who, while not a HOF player like Rodman, could do the job of rebounding and defense like Grant did. The Bulls had 5 players on their list for that purpose in the offseason. Probably 80-90% of GM's at that time would automatically cross Rodman off.

[guy]

The fact that they were able to get him for a backup center tells you how risky it was: he had no trade value because he was so toxic, even though you would get a HOF player for a scrub. It could have blown up in their face with them being forced to cut him, which would leave them exactly where they were in 95' without Grant. The easier route would have been to go after another PF who, while not a HOF player like Rodman, could do the job of rebounding and defense like Grant did. The Bulls had 5 players on their list for that purpose in the offseason. Probably 80-90% of GM's at that time would automatically cross Rodman off.

I don't know if it was ever confirmed or not, but do we know that those 5 players were actually gettable and they just still went with the Rodman option? I don't think we know that. Furthermore, given they got him for almost nothing, that didn't deter them from getting another PF with other assets if they could.

By the way, he did let Grant walk away for nothing which put them in this position in the first place. If he didn't have such a bad relationship with his players and didn't constantly undervalue his players and always look to rebuild, they could've had Grant the whole time instead of Rodman, possibly won an extra championship in 95 and just been a better team overall in 97 and 98 without Rodman's shenanigans.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

Yeah and how many GM's from that era would have had the stones to make that move? You saw so many teams from that era lose and do little or even nothing in the offseason (e.g., what was the Knicks' "big" move? Charles Smith? :roll: ). Krause swung for the fences and the results were an all-time great team for the next two seasons.



Yeah, he won 6 chips and he did revamp the team in the mid-90's. Pippen and Jordan were the only constants during the entire run..



True.

He also kept his emotions in check. He hated MJ and Pippen. Pippen received a lot of trade offers but he wouldn't give him up unless he got a king's ransom in exchange. Many GM's would simply unload the guy below his value due to hate.



The team was strong enough to contend even without Jordan (with a scrub replacing him) in 94'. That is a testament to Krause. Even in 95' losing Jordan and Grant the core still had the 2nd best SRS in the East before MJ returned.

Yeah, he didn't have success after 98' but that is splitting hairs. There aren't 10 GM's all-time who had more success than Krause did.

Again, he was a good GM. You are right he built a great team around MJ and built a team that was still a title conteder in 93-94 without Jordan. He certainly deserves his share of credit.

I guess to me there is a difference between good and great. I don't think what he did after Jordan left is just splitting hairs. It is relevant. If he was a great GM, he would have had more success during that time. The Bulls were awful. Think of Pat Riley and how he has built up the Heat time and time again. That is a great executive. He had 5 years to build it up and couldn't do it. It would be unfair to expect another championship, but he couldn't even get close to the playoffs after Michael and Scottie left.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

Yeah, and this is something AK and Eversley will have to turn around. A lot of it is Krause but Krause has been gone for a decade and a half. Reinsdorf is the one who signed off on what he did. He could have forced Krause to act differently or fired him.

The other issue the Bulls have is a reputation for being cheap and they already have shown they can get Reinsdorf to pay by hiring Donovan and several expensive scouts.



The fact that they were able to get him for a backup center tells you how risky it was: he had no trade value because he was so toxic, even though you would get a HOF player for a scrub. It could have blown up in their face with them being forced to cut him, which would leave them exactly where they were in 95' without Grant. The easier route would have been to go after another PF who, while not a HOF player like Rodman, could do the job of rebounding and defense like Grant did. The Bulls had 5 players on their list for that purpose in the offseason. Probably 80-90% of GM's at that time would automatically cross Rodman off.

Sure Reinsdorf deserves a lot of blame for the end of the Bulls run and their problems since. That was one of my problems with The Last Dance. They made Krause out to be the villain while basically giving Reinsdorf a pass. Reinsdorf could have fired Krause at any time or overrode him on a whole host of issues.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Drafting Pippen was a total genius move. Insisting on wanting Tex Winter and Phil Jackson was also a genius move.

Harper/Pippen/Rodman/Longely on paper doesn't really seem like it would click because the horrendous shooting/spacing. Phil Jackson/triangle offense and the era made it all work I guess.

Thinking Eddie Curry and Tyson Chandler would be the next dynasty duo was a swing and a miss. A lot of people were wrong about Curry though. Chandler did end up defensively anchoring a title team by 2011.

For the most part, I would say he was a very good but not great GM. Passing on Shawn Kemp and dumping Elton Brand are huge knocks. Tyson Chandler is also a bust if you want to look at expectations for his draft selection. Eddie Curry is a fatass. So Krause was kind of hit and miss, just like every GM. The fact that he got Tex Winter/Phil/Scottie makes him a legend though.

[Roundball_Rock]

If he was a great GM, he would have had more success during that time. The Bulls were awful. Think of Pat Riley and how he has built up the Heat time and time again. That is a great executive. He had 5 years to build it up and couldn't do it. It would be unfair to expect another championship, but he couldn't even get close to the playoffs after Michael and Scottie left.

Fair enough. I think he was great--but not on the level of a top tier GM like Riley or Aurebach.


Passing on Shawn Kemp and dumping Elton Brand are huge knocks.

How is Kemp a knock? They won 3 rings because they didn't trade for Kemp. Kemp proved in Cleveland he wasn't a player you could build even a playoff team (let alone a contender) around and Krause's idea was Kemp plus a pick swap so they could also draft Eddie Jones with the much higher pick. That wouldn't have worked since Jones went off the board a pick before, although maybe he could have moved up slightly to ensure he could get Jones like he did with Pippen in 87'. So they would be left with Kemp and Kukoc.


Harper/Pippen/Rodman/Longely on paper doesn't really seem like it would click because the horrendous shooting/spacing.

No one said anything like that at the time--basically only MJ stans decades later and because of their repetition everyone has to accept their narratives. :sleeping Their main three point shooters in 96' (using that as an example) shot 37%, 43%, 52%, and 40% (these four are MJ, Pippen, Kukoc, and Kerr). That is horrendous? The Bulls were 3rd in three point percentage in 96', 6th in 97'. If they are horrendous, that is a poor reflection of their era.

The lineup you reference was on the court for only a chunk of the game. Harper and Kerr were in an even time share as the the second guard. Kukoc played starter's minutes. Pippen and Jordan both spend time with the second unit in every game. Jackson liked to keep 2 scoring threats on the floor at any given time, so 2 of Pippen, Jordan, Kukoc were usually out there.

[Phoenix]

Yeah and how many GM's from that era would have had the stones to make that move? You saw so many teams from that era lose and do little or even nothing in the offseason (e.g., what was the Knicks' "big" move? Charles Smith? :roll: ). Krause swung for the fences and the results were an all-time great team for the next two seasons.


None that come to mind. Considering that Rodman was 34 in 95, had the Bulls not taken that gamble I'm not sure if anyone else would have bothered.

[Roundball_Rock]

None that come to mind. Considering that Rodman was 34 in 95, had the Bulls not taken that gamble I'm not sure if anyone else would have bothered.

Yeah and suppose the Bulls didn't get Rodman. They would likely get another PF to fulfill the Grant/Rodman role for 96' (I say likely because in 95' their signing to do that was Larry Krystowiak :lol ). If so, maybe they still win in 96' and 97' but does 72-10 happen? Probably not.

It also is unclear what would happen in 96' and 97' finals. Rodman's dominance of the glass was key in 96' and in 97' he played a major role in keeping Malone in check. So if they get a lesser player maybe those results change. It is hard to say because any other PF would be vastly inferior to Rodman as a rebounder and a lesser defender--but any other realistic replacement would contribute a lot more offensively. So the net effect of less defense, less boards but more scoring would be unclear. Maybe Malone scores more on Grant 2.0 but Grant 2.0 outscores Hornacek (Rodman averaged 2 PPG in the 97' finals) and the Bulls still win.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

Yeah trading Pippen for Kemp would have been the wrong move. Pippen is just a much better player. It is one of those trades that just sounds exciting because people like to fantasize about various star players pairing with others and how they would do together.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah trading Pippen for Kemp would have been the wrong move. Pippen is just a much better player. It is one of those trades that just sounds exciting because people like to fantasize about various star players pairing with others and how they would do together.

Plus, Jordan publicly admitted he would not have come back if Pippen was not there so the fantasy is baseless. There never would have been a MJ-Kemp pairing. It would have been Kemp "leading" the Bulls to the lottery with Kukoc like Kemp did in Cleveland as a #1 option. The Cavs went from a perennial playoff team to a bottom feeder due to the disastrous Kemp trade--they needed to draft LeBron to return to relevance.

[3ball]

He drafted Horace Grant, traded for Scottie Pippen. Signed Toni Kukoc from europe, drafted BJ Armstrong, traded Oakley for Bill Cartright,



Krause forced MJ to be the scoring champ by goat margin over teammates - that's literally the worst GM'ing, by definition

krause forced mj to be scoring champ and double Pippen's scoring average, while leading in apg for most playoff runs and assisting 33% more often.. and get more dpoy votes every year

that's NOT an optimally-built cast - winning as the scoring champ is not optimal and only mj did it

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Fair enough. I think he was great--but not on the level of a top tier GM like Riley or Aurebach.



How is Kemp a knock? They won 3 rings because they didn't trade for Kemp. Kemp proved in Cleveland he wasn't a player you could build even a playoff team (let alone a contender) around and Krause's idea was Kemp plus a pick swap so they could also draft Eddie Jones with the much higher pick. That wouldn't have worked since Jones went off the board a pick before, although maybe he could have moved up slightly to ensure he could get Jones like he did with Pippen in 87'. So they would be left with Kemp and Kukoc.



No one said anything like that at the time--basically only MJ stans decades later and because of their repetition everyone has to accept their narratives. :sleeping Their main three point shooters in 96' (using that as an example) shot 37%, 43%, 52%, and 40% (these four are MJ, Pippen, Kukoc, and Kerr). That is horrendous? The Bulls were 3rd in three point percentage in 96', 6th in 97'. If they are horrendous, that is a poor reflection of their era.

The lineup you reference was on the court for only a chunk of the game. Harper and Kerr were in an even time share as the the second guard. Kukoc played starter's minutes. Pippen and Jordan both spend time with the second unit in every game. Jackson liked to keep 2 scoring threats on the floor at any given time, so 2 of Pippen, Jordan, Kukoc were usually out there.

Because Kemp would have won the title next to Pippen in 1994. Kemp would of helped them get past magic in 1995. Kemp is still a huge upgrade over Horace. No way Kemp struggles in the triangle and next to hall of famers.

Kukoc was usually not efficient in the 3rd 2nd 3peat, harper/longely/Rodman all poor shooters, Pippen is an inconsistent 3 point shooter. Just seemed like they lacked spacing if you compare it with today's era. Kukoc would be their starting PF today and Rodman would move to center. I don't see a team starting Rodman/Longely together in today's era, its all about stretch 4's now.

[Roundball_Rock]

The trade was Pippen for Kemp/Pierce and draft pick swaps (Krause wanted the higher pick to draft Eddie Jones and have a Kemp/Jones combo as his next duo). So Pippen would be gone for the 95' season and beyond (it was a trade discussion in the offseason before 95').

The Sonics become the dominant team from 1995-1997 in this scenario instead of the Bulls (who are a lottery team with Kemp/Kukoc).

[3ball]

the cast that Krause assembled needed the #1 option to be scoring champ and average 10-30 more than his sidekick in every series - that's the definition of bad GM'ing - that's a carry-job roster

Krause forced MJ to be the scoring champ by goat margin over teammates - that's literally the worst GM'ing, by definition

[FireDavidKahn]

He was an absolute asshole and no one liked him but as a GM he was a pretty damn good one. He was responsible for the major building blocks of those Bulls teams. Without Krause then it's very likely the Bulls don't end up with 6 chips.

[3ball]

:facepalm:

[3ball]

He was an absolute asshole and no one liked him but as a GM he was a pretty damn good one. He was responsible for the major building blocks of those Bulls teams. Without Krause then it's very likely the Bulls don't end up with 6 chips.

what major building blocks? the 2nd three-peat bulls were an entirely different roster from the 1st, so mj would've won with anyone..

you're talking about replaceable role players that every team has, and re-labeling them as "major" pieces like AD, Wade, Bosh, Love or Kyrie - now if Krause had gotten all of THOSE guys, then he'd deserve props.. tbh, lebron is the goat GM, since he acquired all those guys

heck, the only reason the bulls narrowly lost to the 89' Pistons was because Pippen averaged 10 on 40%... so they already had all the pieces they needed in 1989, except a better 2nd option - mj would've won with anyone OTHER than Pippen in 89', and Phil wasn't there yet

[Phoenix]

Yeah and suppose the Bulls didn't get Rodman. They would likely get another PF to fulfill the Grant/Rodman role for 96' (I say likely because in 95' their signing to do that was Larry Krystowiak :lol ). If so, maybe they still win in 96' and 97' but does 72-10 happen? Probably not.

It also is unclear what would happen in 96' and 97' finals. Rodman's dominance of the glass was key in 96' and in 97' he played a major role in keeping Malone in check. So if they get a lesser player maybe those results change. It is hard to say because any other PF would be vastly inferior to Rodman as a rebounder and a lesser defender--but any other realistic replacement would contribute a lot more offensively. So the net effect of less defense, less boards but more scoring would be unclear. Maybe Malone scores more on Grant 2.0 but Grant 2.0 outscores Hornacek (Rodman averaged 2 PPG in the 97' finals) and the Bulls still win.

Very few available PFs would have filled that gap, especially 96 and 97. For starters Rodman was key in the Orlando series against Shaq. He was also instrumental against Malone. As you said, there's a trade-off with getting someone who may have scored more points but not offered the same defense, hustle and rebounding. I'm inclined to say what Rodman brought to the table was more important. In both the 96 Magic and Sonics series he averaged 6-7 offensive rebounds. Those extra possession were invaluable.

[coastalmarker99]

Very few available PFs would have filled that gap, especially 96 and 97. For starters Rodman was key in the Orlando series against Shaq. He was also instrumental against Malone. As you said, there's a trade-off with getting someone who may have scored more points but not offered the same defense, hustle and rebounding. I'm inclined to say what Rodman brought to the table was more important. In both the 96 Magic and Sonics series he averaged 6-7 offensive rebounds. Those extra possession were invaluable.

If Rodman had gotten hurt in the 1996 finals we actually might have seen the Bulls blow a 3 0 series lead to the Sonics that year he was that valuable to the Bulls that series and in my eyes he should have won the finals MVP over Jordan as a result.


And also if had the Bulls blown a 3 0 series lead In the finals to the sonics after winning 72 games there would be no case for Jordan being the goat any longer so think about that 3 ball when you talk about Rodman's impact on those bulls teams no Rodman no three-peat.

[Phoenix]

If Rodman had gotten hurt in the 1996 finals we actually might have seen the Bulls blow a 3 0 series lead to the Sonics that year he was that valuable to the Bulls that series and in my eyes he should have won the finals MVP over Jordan as a result.


And also if had the Bulls blown a 3 0 series lead In the finals to the sonics after winning 72 games there would be no case for Jordan being the goat any longer so think about that 3 ball when you talk about Rodman's impact on those bulls teams no Rodman no three-peat.

I'd make the case there's no guarantee they get to the Sonics to begin with. They were able to get away with Rodman playing Shaq straight up alot which allowed them to better cover the shooters ( 3D, Nick Anderson) and live with Shaqs production. Without Rodman there keeping Shaq honest he would have feasted and it could have been a different series.

[guy]

If Rodman had gotten hurt in the 1996 finals we actually might have seen the Bulls blow a 3 0 series lead to the Sonics that year he was that valuable to the Bulls that series and in my eyes he should have won the finals MVP over Jordan as a result.


And also if had the Bulls blown a 3 0 series lead In the finals to the sonics after winning 72 games there would be no case for Jordan being the goat any longer so think about that 3 ball when you talk about Rodman's impact on those bulls teams no Rodman no three-peat.

Well this is quite the reach :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Very few available PFs would have filled that gap, especially 96 and 97. For starters Rodman was key in the Orlando series against Shaq. He was also instrumental against Malone. As you said, there's a trade-off with getting someone who may have scored more points but not offered the same defense, hustle and rebounding. I'm inclined to say what Rodman brought to the table was more important. In both the 96 Magic and Sonics series he averaged 6-7 offensive rebounds. Those extra possession were invaluable.

They definitely get worse without Rodman. The questions are 1) the tradeoff of less rebounding, less defense for more scoring (of course rebounding=more team scoring so even scoring isn't a clean tradeoff 2) and how much better were the Bulls? There is a scenario where the Bulls get worse but because they had a gap to the comp still remain ahead of the comp with a Grant level player.


And also if had the Bulls blown a 3 0 series lead In the finals to the sonics after winning 72 games there would be no case for Jordan being the goat any longer so think about that 3 ball when you talk about Rodman's impact on those bulls teams no Rodman no three-peat.

Without Rodman they wouldn't have a 3-0 lead (if they even made the finals--Phoenix noted how Orlando could have beaten them)--but even if they did I doubt they would lose a series if all they needed was to win one game out of four.

People vastly overrate that Sonics team. This is the same team that choked in the first round the prior two years.

[GOBB]

Jordan hated Kukoc ala The Last Dance. Imagine if Krause listened to Jordan and dump Kukoc for picks?

No 2nd 3 peat.

Yeah because Kukoc was a major piece. Said no one ever. They win without him