Scottie Pippen Hopes to Be Traded to Suns (1995)

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]You do realize Chicago [B]immediately[/B] starting winning when Pippen became a starter--and never looked back? It isn't as if it was a gradual process. Overnight the bad ole' days of .500 basketball were washed away. :bowdown:



The Bulls had a global following. Who was I supposed to root for? My home team--the Sixers. In the 90's? :roll:[/QUOTE]

The Bulls were 50-32 and Jordan won an MVP before Pippen ever started a game and was only averaging 21 MPG. The f*ck are you talking about :oldlol:

[QUOTE=guy]You realize how incredibly stupid using Woolridge, who he only played 1 full season with as a rookie, as an example and an indication of anything is right?[/QUOTE]
I agree. But this is his premise. If basketball isnt as much of a team sport as the others. Why did players like Jordan, James, and Chamberlain have such a hard time breaking through?

I know its because their teamates weren't good enough. But Andgar and Dada are making the claim that teammates dont really matter in basketball. That Trevor Ariza type players could replace Scottie Pippen and the Bulls still would've been successful. But when he had a much more talented player in Wooldridge, he couldnt get it done. What gives?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I know its because their teamates weren't good enough. But Andgar and Dada are making the claim that teammates dont really matter in basketball. That Trevor Ariza type players could replace Scottie Pippen and the Bulls still would've been successful. But when he had a much more talented player in Wooldridge, he couldnt get it done. What gives?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It is MJ stans who are saying MJ could win with any sort of production--even the type of production an Ariza, Odom or Iggy would give you (Butler is another player they have used before). So when he was getting 23 ppg from a SF what happened? That is why we call it "mythology." MJ's actual record suggests otherwise--but the mythology says MJ would win with basically any sort of 15-18 ppg production from his second best player. We saw similar talk with LeBron. There were some who thought Mo Williams would be enough; later there were some more who thought Jamison would be. What happened?

As 97 noted, players like MJ, Wilt and LeBron dominated individually for years before finally winning. The change had more to do with their teams improving than them magically taking a leap. 12' LeBron was not heads and shoulders above 09' and 10' LeBron. Jordan was a strong MVP candidate from 1987 onward--yet was not contending in 87' and 88'. Even in 89' the Bulls, while they got to the ECF after a miracle shot to get out the first round, were only 47-35. So the Bulls were nowhere near a dominant team in the 80's. They easily could have lost in the first round every year from 1985-1989 with less luck (Collins deciding to start Pippen in Game 5 in 88'--a gamble--and MJ's legendary shot over Ehlo in 89'). So "GOAT was GOAT'ing" and it wasn't enough. Just like it wasn't for early Wilt or prime KAJ in the mid to late 70's or LeBron from 2006-2010.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I agree. But this is his premise. If basketball isnt as much of a team sport as the others. Why did players like Jordan, James, and Chamberlain have such a hard time breaking through?

I know its because their teamates weren't good enough. [B]But Andgar and Dada are making the claim that teammates dont really matter in basketball.[/B] That Trevor Ariza type players could replace Scottie Pippen and the Bulls still would've been successful. But when he had a much more talented player in Wooldridge, he couldnt get it done. What gives?[/QUOTE]

When did I say that? :coleman:

And stop using Woolridge like that proves anything. Bron didn't win shit with Carlos Boozer as a teammate and Boozer>>>>>>>>>Woolridge. Great logic, right?

And Roundball's still on that Pippen starting = Bulls start winning all of a sudden... when they won 50 with him riding the bench the previous season. We've been over all of this. :facepalm

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]He was young, and had a shitty team? [/QUOTE]
The team doesnt matter according to your comrades.

[QUOTE]He still mustered crazy amount of victories as underdog with mere competent up and coming supporting casts in 1988, and 1989.[/QUOTE]
He didn't. The Bulls did. The whole team. You dont see the folly in this logic? The Bulls lose, its because his teammates werent good enough. They win its because of Jordan.

[QUOTE]"Trade me"

Soft AF as a leader ... locker room guy though.[/QUOTE]
Jordan quit on the Bulls when the front office got rid of Pippen and Jackson.

Kobe Bryant went on National Radio and demanded a trade.

Shaq yelled out "PAY ME MOTHAFER" to his boss during a Lakers game

LeBron James has basically left two teams when he felt they werent good enough to win

Magic got his Coach fired.

Larry Bird left Indiana cuz he couldnt take Bob Knight.screaming at him.

I assume you feel these guys are also soft crybabies and thus bad and weak minded as well?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I agree. But this is his premise. If basketball isnt as much of a team sport as the others. Why did players like Jordan, James, and Chamberlain have such a hard time breaking through?

I know its because their teamates weren't good enough. But Andgar and Dada are making the claim that teammates dont really matter in basketball. That Trevor Ariza type players could replace Scottie Pippen and the Bulls still would've been successful. But when he had a much more talented player in Wooldridge, he couldnt get it done. What gives?[/QUOTE]

I don't see them making the claim that teammates don't matter. I see them making the claim that teammates are replaceable, some more or less so then others. What does that have to do with Orlando Woolridge, who he only played 1 full season with and what was his rookie year? Seriously, how in the f*ck is Orlando Woolridge even mentioned this much by you and RR? :oldlol:

The comparison is not apples to apples. Jordan played with Woolridge for 1 season when Jordan had no NBA experience and was only 21-22 years old. By the time Pippen became the player we know him for, the Bulls had a better supporting cast around its best 2 players, better coaching, more overall experience, and most importantly, a more mature and experienced and better Michael Jordan. The Bulls may have not been as successful without Pippen but they would've been successful in the 90s i.e. a title contender, no matter what was going on with Pippen's position even if he wasn't replaced.

Let me ask, if the Bulls had Trevor Ariza or Orlando Woolridge in place of Pippen during the 90s, are the Bulls going to be even close to 38-44 like they were in the only full season Jordan and Woolridge played together? If you agree that they wouldn't, then you should be able to see why this stupid comparison is not indicative of anything and should never be mentioned. If you think that they would lose that much, then please don't post ever again.

[QUOTE]Let me ask, if the Bulls had Trevor Ariza or Orlando Woolridge in place of Pippen during the 90s, are the Bulls going to be even close to 38-44 like they were in the only full season Jordan and Woolridge played together? If you agree that they wouldn't, then you should be able to see why this stupid comparison is not indicative of anything and should never be mentioned. If you think that they would lose that much, then please don't post ever again.
[/QUOTE]

They would be contenders but just one of several contenders, just like the Knicks and Pacers were for many years in the 90's. They would have good players at PF and SF (especially later when Kukoc arrived--and Kukoc would likely be starting over Ariza) along with the best player in the game. They probably would win a ring or two. What they wouldn't be, though, is the juggernaut they were with Pippen. The Bulls in 94' were contenders with Pippen as their best player. Imagine that team with Ariza, Odom, or Iggy at SF. :oldlol:

The insecurity of MJ stans vis-a-vis Pippen stems from the fact that MJ's "GOAT" resume comes from the great team success he had, success that absent Pippen the Bulls would not have had. MJ with 1, 2 or even 3 rings would not be the "clear GOAT" we know him as today. Look at Wilt. He was the most dominant player ever and few people have him as GOAT because he won "only" 2 rings. Take away team success and KAJ, Wilt have better cases than MJ. It is "6" and "6/6" (because losing in the ECF twice was a good thing :lol ) that is cited as the point of separation between MJ and KAJ and Wilt.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]They would be contenders but just one of several contenders, just like the Knicks and Pacers were for many years in the 90's. They would have good players at PF and SF (especially later when Kukoc arrived--and Kukoc would likely be starting over Ariza) along with the best player in the game. They probably would win a ring or two. What they wouldn't be, though, is the juggernaut they were with Pippen. The Bulls in 94' were contenders with Pippen as their best player. Imagine that team with Ariza, Odom, or Iggy at SF. :oldlol:

The insecurity of MJ stans vis-a-vis Pippen stems from the fact that MJ's "GOAT" resume comes from the great team success he had, success that absent Pippen the Bulls would not have had. MJ with 1, 2 or even 3 rings would not be the "clear GOAT" we know him as today. Look at Wilt. He was the most dominant player ever and few people have him as GOAT because he won "only" 2 rings. Take away team success and KAJ, Wilt have better cases than MJ. It is "6" and "6/6" (because losing in the ECF twice was a good thing :lol ) that is cited as the point of separation between MJ and KAJ and Wilt.[/QUOTE]

Okay, that's called success. So you now agree that the comparison with Orlando Woolridge from Jordan's rookie year that YOU have been using is completely stupid right?

Jordan retired with 3 rings with the majority of people calling him GOAT. Were you even alive back then? Of course he wouldn't be as "clear GOAT" as he is today if he wasn't as accomplished. So what?

The argument here is stupid anyway. If Pippen never existed, its not like the Bulls would've just been exactly what they were just without Pippen and possibly any SF replacement. The Bulls would've built the team differently, possibly tried to trade or sign another superstar, and if they didn't, Jordan could've just left. There's very few great players that don't get ample opportunities on contending teams to win titles, especially the greatest players ever. GMs aren't that stupid that they can never build championship teams around Jordan, Lebron, etc, and even if they are most players don't stick around for that. The argument that some players were just unlucky is some of the biggest bullshit here.

Are you saying take away Jordan's team success and keep KAJ's and Wilt's? Or take away all of there's? And you do realize the difference in their team success isn't just the amount of championships right? It has a lot to do with their contributions to their team success, if they lost when they weren't supposed to lose, etc. Bringing up Wilt and Kareem when it comes to that and comparing it to Jordan is :oldlol:

[QUOTE=guy]Okay, that's called success. So you now agree that the comparison with Orlando Woolridge from Jordan's rookie year that YOU have been using is completely stupid right? [/QUOTE]
It was used to prove a point. I honestly dont feel the Bulls should've won in the 80s because as great as Jordan was.... his team wasnt. Just think about it. Jordan breaks his foot, and the Bulls are nowhere near .500. They were championship caliber. The 90s Bulls? Jordan abruptly retires? The Bulls flirt with 60 wins. It blows the whole "teammates arent that important" theory out the water doesnt it?

[QUOTE]Jordan retired with 3 rings with the majority of people calling him GOAT. Were you even alive back then? Of course he wouldn't be as "clear GOAT" as he is today if he wasn't as accomplished. So what?[/QUOTE]
The what stems from this mindset that he could be successful with any run of the mill SF or team. Jordan was considered a ball hog before he started winning. And the multiple MVPs and Championship runs dont come without sufficient support. This is what you refuse to come to grips with.

[QUOTE]The argument here is stupid anyway. If Pippen never existed, its not like the Bulls would've just been exactly what they were just without Pippen and possibly any SF replacement. The Bulls would've built the team differently, possibly tried to trade or sign another superstar, and if they didn't, Jordan could've just left. There's very few great players that don't get ample opportunities on contending teams to win titles, especially the greatest players ever. GMs aren't that stupid that they can never build championship teams around Jordan, Lebron, etc, and even if they are most players don't stick around for that. The argument that some players were just unlucky is some of the biggest bullshit here.[/QUOTE]
Youre right. But that goes both ways.

All jokes aside.

Let us get the FACTS straight.

Pip was a weak mental midget and a bitch. That is irrefutable. I don't think any person can defend that. Hell.... Kerr stood up to MJ, Cartwright threatened to end his career (as did Parrish), Pip is known to be his whipping boy (again.... FACT).

Another FACT.

MJ made Pip the player he eventually became.

Pip apologists always wanna say "94 they would've won!!!" but he wouldn't be THAT Pip if it wasn't for MJ molding him throughout the years.

[IMG]http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1482685/oakley-smacks-pippen-o.gif[/IMG]

Rookie season:

7.9 ppg 3.8 Rbd 2.1 ast .463% fg .576%ft

That is the player MJ molded into a hall of famer.

Tons of props goes out to him for not leaving the Bulls (although he cried and complained for his entire duration. Also made passive aggressive remarks about MJ).

People said that MJ never made his teammates better, and in typical MJ fashion he took on the challenge and unlike any other star in the history of sports, he took Pip under his wing and molded him into the greatest sidekick ever.

That is a FACT that can't be refuted and something that Pip apologists never want to admit.

So YES Pip is an all time great player.
YES MJ needed Pip to win multiple rings.

But MJ molded this

[IMG]http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1482685/oakley-smacks-pippen-o.gif[/IMG]

Into a champion.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]They would be contenders but just one of several contenders, just like the Knicks and Pacers were for many years in the 90's. They would have good players at PF and SF (especially later when Kukoc arrived--and Kukoc would likely be starting over Ariza) along with the best player in the game. They probably would win a ring or two. What they wouldn't be, though, is the juggernaut they were with Pippen. The Bulls in 94' were contenders with Pippen as their best player. Imagine that team with Ariza, Odom, or Iggy at SF. :oldlol:

The insecurity of MJ stans vis-a-vis Pippen stems from the fact that MJ's "GOAT" resume comes from the great team success he had, success that absent Pippen the Bulls would not have had. MJ with 1, 2 or even 3 rings would not be the "clear GOAT" we know him as today. Look at Wilt. He was the most dominant player ever and few people have him as GOAT because he won "only" 2 rings. Take away team success and KAJ, Wilt have better cases than MJ. It is "6" and "6/6" (because losing in the ECF twice was a good thing :lol ) that is cited as the point of separation between MJ and KAJ and Wilt.[/QUOTE]
Pippen wasn't shit in 88 but a role player who came off the bench because he was a foul machine. Pippen then did shit in game 6 89 and 90 game 7.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]It was used to prove a point. I honestly dont feel the Bulls should've won in the 80s because as great as Jordan was.... his team wasnt. Just think about it. Jordan breaks his foot, and the Bulls are nowhere near .500. They were championship caliber. The 90s Bulls? Jordan abruptly retires? The Bulls flirt with 60 wins. It blows the whole "teammates arent that important" theory out the water doesnt it?[/QUOTE]

What is the point? There is no point that involves Orlando Woolridge in Jordan's rookie season. Whatever theory being discussed does not matter here. Orlando Woolridge and Michael Jordan's success/failures in the very short time they played together does not support or refute any scenario with Jordan playing in the late 80s/90s that is being discussed here.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
The what stems from this mindset that he could be successful with any run of the mill SF or team. Jordan was considered a ball hog before he started winning. And the multiple MVPs and Championship runs dont come without sufficient support. This is what you refuse to come to grips with.
[/QUOTE]

What is sufficient support? Sufficient support doesn't mean its not REPLACEABLE support. The greatest players ever when you go by their skill set, intangibles, etc. tend to end up with the best teams. That's not a coincidence. Its cause they're easier to build around cause they're easier to win with.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Youre right. But that goes both ways.[/QUOTE]

How? And what way are you talking about?

Orlando Woolridge? :coleman:

That's the best ya'll got?

A crackhead that only played 2 seasons with MJ? 2 seasons and 2 different coaches?

MJ played 18 f*ckin games!!!

He's supposed to make Orlando into a HOF in that time span? man... ya'll expectations of GOAT are higher than ours.


Ariza was used as an example of a player that I farted outta my ass with similar Pippen traits. Athletic, great defender, could create, could run an offense if called for, long. So imagine if he came into the league in 87 like Pip and MJ worked with Ariza from day 1. Hell, he ended up being a decent player under Kobe imagine what MJ would've thought him? Kobe was lazy on defense but imagine he and MJ playing defense together? He showed he can play in the triangle system so...one never knows.

If Pip never ends up with the Bulls and plays with MJ he'd probably end up being a journeyman after his rookie season (7.9 ppg 3.8 Rbd 2.1 ast .463% fg .576%ft).

Ariza was never this:

[IMG]http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1482685/oakley-smacks-pippen-o.gif[/IMG]

But like I said.... MJ probably needed somebody to be that willing to take a beating so they could be molded. Somebody that could be broken down, somebody that won't challenge and simply accept their [I]role[/I].

As a [I][B]sidekick[/B][/I].

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]He was young, and had a shitty team? He still mustered crazy amount of victories as underdog with mere competent up and coming supporting casts in 1988, and 1989. Winning games, and series they had no business winning. So yea, GOAT was goating. Unless you truly believe as a Delaware based "Bulls fan" not from Cold City that MJ wasn't GOAT.

Roundball_Rock agenda gonna agenda. Stay on Pippen's mutated horse sized dong. Guy couldn't even close out a series with a super stacked Blazers squad. Always going to be beta.

"Trade me"

Soft AF as a leader ... locker room guy though.[/QUOTE]

This Fakkot SamuraiSWISH has lost his gone damn mind so far he thinks Mike was a better defender than Scottie....:biggums: :wtf: :roll: :roll: This bastard...will never stop trolling with his ****ing nonsense, retard, opinions.

[QUOTE=Smoke117]This Fakkot SamuraiSWISH has lost his gone damn mind so far [B]he thinks Mike was a better defender than Scottie[/B]....:biggums: :wtf: :roll: :roll: This bastard...will never stop trolling with his ****ing nonsense, retard, opinions.[/QUOTE]

So does the guy who coached them:

[B][INDENT]Who was the better defender? Pippen was one of the best and most gifted defenders of all time. But MJ was the better defender. Michael could shut down anyone in the world for a 3 minute span. The best he

[QUOTE=Smoke117]This Fakkot SamuraiSWISH has lost his gone damn mind so far he thinks Mike was a better defender than Scottie....:biggums: :wtf: :roll: :roll: This bastard...will never stop trolling with his ****ing nonsense, retard, opinions.[/QUOTE]

MJ would normally be the defensive stopper when Pip didn't get the job done.

i'll put it like this. when the bulls won their first ring in 91, it was [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1KPq0yi40"] pippen guarding magic[/URL] and creating hell for the lakers. it was pippen who directed the offense and defense (getting jordan in position on the wing). it was pippen who was the leader.

kerr has gone on record saying, pippen not only would get you the good shot, but knew when you weren't feeling it and would work the offense to get you a good look to get going. pippen was the more favored teammate and leader. truth.

Magic had an ok Finals in 91, the Bulls really didn't "stop" him, they just blew the doors off the rest of the Lakers. It was their year and they weren't going to be denied any longer.

The Pistons and Lakers just took the brunt of several years of frustration and waiting all finally coming out on them.

It was pretty sweet.

91 and 98 are the nicest titles IMO. 96 was good too.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]i'll put it like this. when the bulls won their first ring in 91, it was [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1KPq0yi40"] pippen guarding magic[/URL] and creating hell for the lakers. it was pippen who directed the offense and defense (getting jordan in position on the wing). it was pippen who was the leader.

kerr has gone on record saying, pippen not only would get you the good shot, but knew when you weren't feeling it and would work the offense to get you a good look to get going. pippen was the more favored teammate and leader. truth.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Jordan has arguably the greatest Finals ever but it's Pippen who was the leader :oldlol:

If this happen, Suns would've won multiple titles in the late 90s before Kobe and his Lakers take over that era.. Barkley would never went to Rockets and would stay with the suns.. Pippen would carry his fat us to multiple championships and would not retire ringless.. I think Jordan would not return and would stuck with his 3 rings.. Then Pippen would retire as top 10 GOAT, Jordan still top 5 though while Kobe would be the undisputed GOAT and LeBron would not make the NBA..

Hahaha Jordan's game was flawless they can't point out a weakness so they use his sidekick as an argument. :oldlol: :lol :roll: :applause:

[QUOTE=Asukal]Hahaha Jordan's game was flawless they can't point out a weakness so they use his sidekick as an argument. :oldlol: :lol :roll: :applause:[/QUOTE]

It's the Fatal9 strategy- passive-aggressively attack the GOAT by making believe you're a fan of someone you're clearly not. He was a closet Kobe stan who used to make believe he was a Larry Bird fan (and a few other guys along the way). Roundball is the successor to that legacy. He's a hardcore LeBron stan masquerading as a Pippen fan.

But I guess now he's an Orlando Woolridge stan? :yaohappy:

[QUOTE] Jordan breaks his foot, and the Bulls are nowhere near .500. They were championship caliber. The 90s Bulls? Jordan abruptly retires? The Bulls flirt with 60 wins. It blows the whole "teammates arent that important" theory out the water doesnt it?
[/QUOTE]

Great points. Even with MJ they were sub-.500 in 85' and 87' and only 9-9 in 86'.

[QUOTE]The argument here is stupid anyway. If Pippen never existed, its not like the Bulls would've just been exactly what they were just without Pippen and possibly any SF replacement. The Bulls would've built the team differently, possibly tried to trade or sign another superstar[/QUOTE]

What superstars have the Bulls ever acquired via trade or free agency (Pippen was de facto drafted by the Bulls since Seattle made the pick on behalf of the Bulls per the deal with Krause)? The best players Chicago has gotten outside the draft, at least since 1985, are old Gasol, Ben Wallace, Boozer and Rodman.

The problems with getting a superstar are there are so few of them--and most teams will not trade them--and if they are willing to trade a superstar does not come for free. The 90's weren't like today where players often change teams. Shaq is the only superstar who changed teams via free agency during his prime in the 90's. So you would have to make a trade. In order to make a trade you need assets. The Barkley trade is instructive. Phoenix had to give up an all-star SG and 3 starters to get him. Who was Chicago going to trade to get a Robinson, Ewing or Malone? Horace Grant, John Paxson and Bill Cartwright? Yeah, maybe in a Nintendo game. That wouldn't happen in real life. If it were so easy Cleveland would have done it and retained LeBron originally. The only reason they can get Love now is they have a #1 pick to offer in exchange. The Bulls would have had only low or average picks and players like Grant and Armstrong as their best trade assets. There is a reason only one 90's team had two superstars for an extended period.

[QUOTE=guy]:oldlol: Jordan has arguably the greatest Finals ever but it's Pippen who was the leader :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

leader =/= best scorer

pippen stopped magic, the goat offensive player, from completely dominating the bulls- testament to his greatness.

i agree that if you take everything into account, the bulls' 91,96,98 titles are the most impressive. pippen took the bulls by the horn and spear-headed the run with his defense and playmaking.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Great points. Even with MJ they were sub-.500 in 85' and 87' and only 9-9 in 86'.



What superstars have the Bulls ever acquired via trade or free agency (Pippen was de facto drafted by the Bulls since Seattle made the pick on behalf of the Bulls per the deal with Krause)? The best players Chicago has gotten outside the draft, at least since 1985, are old Gasol, Ben Wallace, Boozer and Rodman.

The problems with getting a superstar are there are so few of them--and most teams will not trade them--and if they are willing to trade a superstar does not come for free. The 90's weren't like today where players often change teams. Shaq is the only superstar who changed teams via free agency during his prime in the 90's. So you would have to make a trade. In order to make a trade you need assets. The Barkley trade is instructive. Phoenix had to give up an all-star SG and 3 starters to get him. Who was Chicago going to trade to get a Robinson, Ewing or Malone? Horace Grant, John Paxson and Bill Cartwright? Yeah, maybe in a Nintendo game. That wouldn't happen in real life. If it were so easy Cleveland would have done it and retained LeBron originally. The only reason they can get Love now is they have a #1 pick to offer in exchange. The Bulls would have had only low or average picks and players like Grant and Armstrong as their best trade assets. There is a reason only one 90's team had two superstars for an extended period.[/QUOTE]

Well this is just one of the alternatives I mentioned that could've happened.

And Grant and Armstrong actually would've been great trade assets. Either way, you can't go back and decipher what would've possibly happened cause the dynamics are completely changed. They probably wouldn't have even close to the same roster just cause of the butterfly effect. Bulls might never trade Charles Oakley. If they would've kept the same pick they traded for Pippen, they may have picked someone like Reggie Miller or Mark Jackson instead who were both available. Or maybe they keep Olden Polynice and since they have that extra big man, they don't waste their 89 draft pick on Stacey King and take someone like Mookie Blaylock, Tim Hardaway, or Shawn Kemp. Maybe they make a huge push to sign David Robinson, who was actually a free agent by the time he started playing since it was so far after he was actually drafted.

So like I said, its kinda pointless to speculate. And I don't know what you call an "extended period" but Malone/Stockton, Payton/Kemp, Shaq/Penny, Drexler and/or Barkley/Hakeem, Hardaway/Zo, Hardaway/Mullin, were all together for at least 3 years in the 90s.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]leader =/= best scorer

pippen stopped magic, the goat offensive player, from completely dominating the bulls- testament to his greatness.

i agree that if you take everything into account, the bulls' 91,96,98 titles are the most impressive. pippen took the bulls by the horn and spear-headed the run with his defense and playmaking.[/QUOTE]

Well Jordan did a lot more then just score.

So again, :oldlol: Jordan has arguably the greatest Finals ever but it's Pippen who was the leader :oldlol:

[QUOTE=guy]Well Jordan did a lot more then just score.

So again, :oldlol: Jordan has arguably the greatest Finals ever but it's Pippen who was the leader :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

having a great series doesn't make you a "leader". why do jordan fans (and only jordan fans) fail to grasp this concept? you've seen the articles and newspaper clippings RR pulled up. pippen was quite clearly "the guy" in chicago. the conductor of the offense/defense. the head of the snake.

[QUOTE]And Grant and Armstrong actually would've been great trade assets.[/QUOTE]

Yes--but not if you are seeking a superstar. Hornacek was a better player than either and the Suns still needed to give up two starters in addition to Hornacek for Barkley.

MJ was going to win rings anyway. Hakeem won without a loaded team in 94' and other teams that weren't stacked were contending in the 90's like the Knicks and Pacers. The question is whether MJ would be what he became--the best player on the biggest dynasty since the 60's--or would have been another Wilt, a great individual player (probably the BOAT) with 2 rings. MJ stans insist you could replace Pippen with any number of players and have similar results, meaning something akin to 6 rings, 8 ECF's and 3 ATG teams. The reason for their insecurity is understandable. Their argument for MJ over KAJ and especially Wilt revolves around team success. If his team success is deemed to be a product of favorable circumstances then suddenly it isn't that important, especially compared to people who did not have the same circumstances in their primes. So MJ stans for years have attempted to argue "GOAT gonna GOAT" and MJ's team doing what it did was a historical inevitably, with or without Pippen or Jackson.

[QUOTE] If they would've kept the same pick they traded for Pippen, they may have picked someone like Reggie Miller or Mark Jackson instead who were both available. [/QUOTE]

Miller was a SG. Jackson was not close to Pippen's caliber. If they wanted a SF, the next SF's taken after Pippen were average players. Only Lewis was an all-star and I believe he was the 4th SF taken that year at 22nd.

[QUOTE] I don't know what you call an "extended period" but Malone/Stockton, Payton/Kemp, Shaq/Penny, Drexler and/or Barkley/Hakeem, Hardaway/Zo, Hardaway/Mullin, were all together for at least 3 years in the 90s.[/QUOTE]

Pippen/Jordan spent almost their entire primes together. Only Malone/Stockon also did. It is no coincidence Chicago and Utah were, over the entirety of the 90's, the two most successful teams (Houston won 2 rings but was only a contender in 97' and maybe 93'. Utah was a perennial contender, reaching 5 WCF's in 7 years and 4 in 5).

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]i'll put it like this. when the bulls won their first ring in 91, it was [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1KPq0yi40"] pippen guarding magic[/URL] and creating hell for the lakers. it was pippen who directed the offense and defense (getting jordan in position on the wing). it was pippen who was the leader.

kerr has gone on record saying, pippen not only would get you the good shot, but knew when you weren't feeling it and would work the offense to get you a good look to get going. pippen was the more favored teammate and leader. truth.[/QUOTE]
Pippen only guarded Magic for game 2 2 half. Mj was the primary defender in the whole series

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]leader =/= best scorer

pippen stopped magic, the goat offensive player, from completely dominating the bulls- testament to his greatness.

i agree that if you take everything into account, the bulls' 91,96,98 titles are the most impressive. pippen took the bulls by the horn and spear-headed the run with his defense and playmaking.[/QUOTE]
Mj Won every single finals MVP.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yes--but not if you are seeking a superstar. Hornacek was a better player than either and the Suns still needed to give up two starters in addition to Hornacek for Barkley.

MJ was going to win rings anyway. Hakeem won without a loaded team in 94' and other teams that weren't stacked were contending in the 90's like the Knicks and Pacers. The question is whether MJ would be what he became--the best player on the biggest dynasty since the 60's--or would have been another Wilt, a great individual player (probably the BOAT) with 2 rings. MJ stans insist you could replace Pippen with any number of players and have similar results, meaning something akin to 6 rings, 8 ECF's and 3 ATG teams. The reason for their insecurity is understandable. Their argument for MJ over KAJ and especially Wilt revolves around team success. If his team success is deemed to be a product of favorable circumstances then suddenly it isn't that important, especially compared to people who did not have the same circumstances in their primes. So MJ stans for years have attempted to argue "GOAT gonna GOAT" and MJ's team doing what it did was a historical inevitably, with or without Pippen or Jackson.



Miller was a SG. Jackson was not close to Pippen's caliber. If they wanted a SF, the next SF's taken after Pippen were average players. Only Lewis was an all-star and I believe he was the 4th SF taken that year at 22nd.



Pippen/Jordan spent almost their entire primes together. Only Malone/Stockon also did. It is no coincidence Chicago and Utah were, over the entirety of the 90's, the two most successful teams (Houston won 2 rings but was only a contender in 97' and maybe 93'. Utah was a perennial contender, reaching 5 WCF's in 7 years and 4 in 5).[/QUOTE]

Every great player can say that, relative to their competition Kareem and Russell had the benefit of better talent than Jordan did. Their team is going to tend to be better because for starters usually the best player in the league tips the scales in their favor.

The Bulls were a very good team, but they weren't a walking All-Star team like the 80s Lakers (or Celtics) were that helped shelter Kareem from the aging process and extended his career.

Russell's teams were far better than any team in 10-12 team league, the one time he faced Wilt with equal talent (1967), Wilt beat Russell handily.

If MJ had been drafted by Portland, he would've been in a situation more similar to Magic and Bird where they had very good teams from day 1 pretty much. Being drafted by Chicago was not some great break for him necessarily.

My personal feeling is if Krause mismanaged the Bulls, Jordan would've been traded (probably to the Lakers is my guess) and ended up on a good team sooner or later, even though you insist this is impossible. He was the biggest draw on the planet, he wasn't going to stay stay on a garbage team forever, David Falk (his agent) and the marketing powers that be at Nike/McDonalds/Coca-Cola etc. would push for a trade if the Bulls remained garbage.

[QUOTE=juju151111]Mj Won every single finals MVP.[/QUOTE]

rodman was the REAL finals mvp in 1996
pippen would have a finals mvp in 1998 had it not been for injury

when defense and intangibles are accounted for (leading the offense, defense, team captain), pippen played just as well as anyone in the 91, 97 and 98 finals (before injury).

problem is, these finals mvp awards are voted upon blinded individuals who are infatuated with volume scoring. you ask the bulls team who the real mvp was, and most would say pippen.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]having a great series doesn't make you a "leader". why do jordan fans (and only jordan fans) fail to grasp this concept? you've seen the articles and newspaper clippings RR pulled up. pippen was quite clearly "the guy" in chicago. the conductor of the offense/defense. the head of the snake.[/QUOTE]

For every 1 mention/implication from an article or book that Pippen was the leader (and a lot of those he pulled up didn't even say that. They said he was a great teammate. And saying he was "a leader" doesn't mean he was "the leader") there's probably like 5-10 for Jordan.

Head of the snake? Wow :oldlol:

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]rodman was the REAL finals mvp in 1996
pippen would have a finals mvp in 1998 had it not been for injury

when defense and intangibles are accounted for (leading the offense, defense, team captain), pippen played just as well as anyone in the 91, 97 and 98 finals (before injury).

problem is, these finals mvp awards are voted upon blinded individuals who are infatuated with volume scoring. you ask the bulls team who the real mvp was, and most would say pippen.[/QUOTE]

:roll: :oldlol: :lol

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]rodman was the REAL finals mvp in 1996
pippen would have a finals mvp in 1998 had it not been for injury

when defense and intangibles are accounted for (leading the offense, defense, team captain), pippen played just as well as anyone in the 91, 97 and 98 finals (before injury).

problem is, these finals mvp awards are voted upon blinded individuals who are infatuated with volume scoring. you ask the bulls team who the real mvp was, and most would say pippen.[/QUOTE]
How did Pippen play has well has Mj in 91 and 97. The **** are you smoking idiot. 31,11,6 and guards Magic the majority of the series. Not to mention 2 stls a game. **** you retarded?

Just hit me what pip is (trait wise)

Submissive

[QUOTE]Every great player can say that, relative to their competition Kareem and Russell had the benefit of better talent than Jordan did. [/QUOTE]

KAJ certainly did not in his prime. When he did he was past his prime and thus his rings are diminished. His teams were going 3-14 and 7-13 without him in the mid and late 70's--not 55-27. Jordan clearly had better teams for his career than Wilt did, relative to their competition.

[QUOTE]If MJ had been drafted by Portland, he would've been in a situation more similar to Magic and Bird where they had very good teams from day 1 pretty much. Being drafted by Chicago was not some great break for him necessarily.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but Portland already had a SG. That isn't a realistic scenario. The Celtics were a 29 win team before Bird got there; he lifted them to 56 wins and the ECF as a rookie. MJ couldn't do the same. Magic was an exception because a good team had a high pick. That is rare. Usually high picks are held by bad teams, which is why most great players start out on poor teams.

It realistically is not possible to construct a scenario where MJ would have had a better situation than what he had. That isn't even a negative. He made the most of it. If MJ was on another team he could have developed differently. MJ credited his first year coach Kevin Loughery for "making me the player I am." MJ was able to join a team which, while it had a 23 ppg SF, allowed him to become the #1 offensive option out the gate.

[QUOTE]My personal feeling is if Krause mismanaged the Bulls, Jordan would've been traded (probably to the Lakers is my guess) and ended up on a good team sooner or later, even though you insist this is impossible.[/QUOTE]

I agree that he would have left if the Bulls were as incompetent as the Cavs were for LeBron under the Ferry regime. The catch, though, is you don't get MJ for nothing. When the Lakers traded for KAJ they had to gut their roster: giving up an all-star, a 16/11 center and the #2 and #8 picks from that year's draft. The net result was the Lakers with KAJ were not any better than they were the previous year because they gutted themselves for him. So MJ could have forced a trade but he would be right back where he started, under this scenario: the best player in the league surrounding by weak talent. I could still see him doing that because a competent regime could build around him over time (like Krause did in the real life scenario) but it would take time to do so, on top of the time MJ already had wasted in Chicago. He wins a title, probably multiple, in any scenario but there wouldn't be 6 rings and 3 ATG teams in these other scenarios. This is important since MJ fans rely so heavily on his team success to argue him over KAJ and Wilt.

What I say is impossible is the Bulls getting a superstar absent Pippen. They lacked the assets to do so and there is nothing to suggest Chicago can get a superstar outside of the draft. 30 years and Boozer, Wallace, Gasol and Rodman are the best non-draft players CHI has acquired. :oldlol: Think about it: the 90's Bulls did dangle peak Pippen for trades. The best offer they got was Shawn Kemp (an all-star but no superstar) and Ricky Pierce. So what do you think the Bulls would have gotten for Grant/Armstrong or Grant/Paxson? Realistically, the type of player they could have acquired was someone like Hornacek, who Krause foolishly did not trade for in 94'. MJ wasn't "GOAT gonna GOAT" his way to 72-10 and 6 rings with a Hornacek or Schrempf or Vin Baker.

Regarding the 91' Finals, imo MJ was the clear MVP of that series but without Pippen the Bulls don't win. Pippen almost averaged a triple double with 21/9/7 and his defense on Magic Johnson changed the fortune of the series, as Jackson has said. The Bulls were staring at going down 0-2 but Pippen held Magic to 14/7/10 after Magic put up a triple double on Mike in Game 1.

[QUOTE=juju151111]How did Pippen play has well has Mj in 91 and 97. The **** are you smoking idiot. 31,11,6 and guards Magic the majority of the series. Not to mention 2 stls a game. **** you retarded?[/QUOTE]

- defended magic the best of anyone in that series (20/9/7 with DPOY defense is a bill russell-like series)
- was the best defensive player and playmaker in the 97 finals (20/8/3 with DPOY defense, once again, is russell-like)

i know that jordan fans only think offense = basketball, but there's also another side. its called defense :oldlol:

Barkley was traded for Hornacek as the best player going to Philly and at that time he one really good season under his belt and 2 other solid ones.

So it's not like they sold the farm to get him.

Get Jordan to the Lakers and they eventually would surround him with very good talent IMO. Jerry Buss wanted Jordan badly especially after the LA Kings landed Wayne Gretzky and became the talk of the town.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]
i know that jordan fans only think offense = basketball, but there's also another side. its called defense :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Good thing Jordan is one of the best defensive players to ever have played the game :oldlol:

He is pretty much the apex of an NBA player mastering both offence and defence and team dominance simultaneously.

What argument are you even trying to push?