Printable View
[QUOTE=Soundwave]Pippen did the same thing again in '97, publicly demanding a trade (again). It was a pretty constant thing with Scottie.
He wasn't really great at controlling his emotions.[/QUOTE]
Very feminine. That's why him accepting his role as MJ's bitch made so much sense, and why the on floor chemistry worked. Pippen also served as a buffer between the big ole demanding meanie poo team captain in Jordan, as the likable intermediary with the rest of the team.
[QUOTE=Soundwave]Basketball is the sport most impacted by a singular star player. Get over yourself. Everyone knows this. The fact that you have to use examples from 1960 when the league had 10-12 teams for the majority of time kinda says it all.
If you want to watch a true "team" sport go watch hockey or something. That's a sport where one player really can't tilt the favor of the game on his own and the best player often times does lose.[/QUOTE]
Lol then why couldn't Jordan win championships before 91?
Wow, so much from the "1 Jordan fan" who hates on Pippen in every thread (maybe Soundwave is right and they are alts :lol ). So much BS/mythology that I'll have to return to this later.
Where are the phonies to denounce the agenda-driven Pippen bashing in every thread btw? :oldlol:
No such thing as myth in regards to MJ. It all happened.
[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]No such thing as myth in regards to MJ. It all happened.[/QUOTE]
Yup. He would win with Trevor Ariza. GOAT gonna GOAT! :bowdown:
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yup. He would win with Trevor Ariza. GOAT gonna GOAT! :bowdown:[/QUOTE]
Why are you acting like I said that? And what about that plays into your "Jordan Mythology" straw man based agenda? Everything we comment about Jordan was FACTUAL. Or not out of the realm of plausability.
Why was Pippen so fvking high maintenance?
[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]Why are you acting like I said that? And what about that plays into your "Jordan Mythology" straw man based agenda? Everything we comment about Jordan was FACTUAL. Or not out of the realm of plausability.[/QUOTE]
Jordan was so great he would dominate with Trevor Ariza as his second best player. That is not mythology. He was just that good. :bowdown:
[IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1372828919_goat.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol then why couldn't Jordan win championships before 91?[/QUOTE]
Well in '90, Pip's 'migraine' in Game 7 of the ECF greatly contributed to that.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Pauk]:blah [/QUOTE]
No one believes your an actual Pippen fan, bruh. Stop it already.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Krause was good as a GM in the sense of assembling teams but bad in terms of managing players, contracts, egos, etc. Jackson used Krause as a foil to motivate the players.
Every player on those championship teams outside of MJ got there under Krause's watch. Krause was able to constantly re-tool the Bulls to keep them at the top--Pippen and Jordan were the only players to be on all the championship teams. The Cartwright-Oakley trade was because Grant made Oakley expendable and Cartwright gave them a center to defend Ewing and Daughtery. He drafted Kukoc at a time when it was not common to draft foreign players. He acquired Kerr when Kerr was the 12th man on Orlando the previous year. He pulled off the Rodman trade, remedying the Bulls' biggest weakness with the best possible player to fill it--and got Rodman for backup center Will Perdue.
Krause sucked at drafting after the Bulls kept getting high picks, though (he did pretty well with high picks, getting Pippen and Grant in the same year). Kukoc is the only low pick who produced. Krause also likely cost the Bulls a championship in 94' but failing to pull the trigger on the Hornacek trade, preferring to keep the Bulls' first round pick (which turned out to be Dickey Simpkins :facepalm ). Keep in mind the context in which that happened: New York's starting PG, Doc Rivers, had just went down and Chicago was in a close race with New York and Atlanta for the #1 seed. New York got Derek Harper to replace Rivers while the Bulls did nothing to fill their gaping hole at SG.
How good was Krause? 6 rings and perennial contention for a decade speaks for itself but he did benefit from inheriting Jordan and luck. He was badly exposed after Jordan, Jackson, Pippen left Chicago.
In effect they took Pippen with the 8th pick (Seattle picked Pippen at 5th on behalf of Chicago and Seattle got Polynice from the 8th pick). He was a player other teams wanted. If Krause did not engineer the Seattle trade Sacramento would have taken him at #6. Detroit was trying to trade up to get him too--imagine Pippen hitting his prime while Isiah declined (do the Pistons win in 91' and perhaps 92' as well?). Saying Pippen was a gamble is like saying Grant was at 10th or Stacey King was at 6th. A player picked where Pippen was is projected to be an all-star. He turned out to be a superstar (which is what Detroit projected him as). If he didn't pan out it wouldn't have been a big loss like with a #1 pick. There was no major risk they were taking. He had more upside than the players taken after him. In effect, Krause swung for the fences and succeeded.[/QUOTE]
Krause was an average GM not good. He made one great move in like 20 years when he got Pippen. Any competent GM should be able to put the right role players around two superstars, one of which is one of the GOAT. And he was fortunate to get Rodman for a backup center because the Bulls had the only leadership strong enough to take him on, which has little to do with Krause. If Rodman wasn't insane, there's no way they get Rodman without including at least Pippen.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Jordan was so great he would dominate with Trevor Ariza as his second best player. That is not mythology. He was just that good. [/QUOTE]
If you gave MJ say ...
Armstrong
MJ
Artest or Iggy or Ariza / Odom combo
Grant
Cartwright
Could he still at least win a championship? Yes. I don't think that's mythology. I think that is a very plausible assumption
[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]If you gave MJ say ...
Armstrong
MJ
Artest or Iggy or Ariza / Odom combo
Grant
Cartwright
Could he still at least win a championship? Yes. I don't think that's mythology. I think that is a very plausible assumption[/QUOTE]
One championship? Possibly--but what was said is "similar results" with Ariza or a "dozen" other players (Anthony Mason? :roll: ). "Similar results" means comparing to:
*6 rings
*8 ECF's
*11 ECSF's
*55, 61, 67, 57, 55, 47, 72, 69, 62 wins
*Contending even without MJ
Jordan in fact had a player better than Ariza, Iggy, or Odom in Woolridge (a SF of all positions). What happened? Nothing.
What SF's could the Bulls have replaced Pippen with and had "similar" results or even won multiple rings with?
What is mythology is the assumption that MJ could win multiple rings with basically any random starting 5. Guys who were never even all-stars could play SF and the Bulls would keep dominating because "GOAT gonna GOAT" :bowdown: .
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Jordan in fact had a player better than Ariza, Iggy, or Odom in Woolridge (a SF of all positions). What happened? Nothing.[/quote]
Cocaine Woolridge? Um, no he wasn't
[quote=Roundball_Rock]What SF's could the Bulls have replaced Pippen with and had "similar" results or even won multiple rings with?[/quote]
Why are we limited to strict SF replacement? All MJ needed was an impactful, consistent ... non migraine receiving sidekick to be successful. And he would've won multiple rings with any kind of adequate talent as his wingman. That's not myth, that's intelligent assumption.
Woolridge was a 23 ppg scorer in 85' and put up 22 ppg in 86'. Ariza, Odom and Iggy could never do that.
[QUOTE]Why are we limited to strict SF replacement?[/QUOTE]
How do you think Ariza, Iggy and Odom came up? So what SF's could the Bulls replace Pippen with and have similar results? And how would the Bulls get such a player (meaning no fantasy "Grant Hill from 1995-1998" scenarios)?
[QUOTE] All MJ needed was an impactful, consistent ... non migraine receiving sidekick to be successful.
And he would've won multiple rings with any kind of adequate talent as his wingman. That's not myth, that's intelligent assumption.[/QUOTE]
That is a reasonable assumption--but the question is--and always has been--what kind of success would they have. MJ's legacy is based heavily on the dominance associated with 6 rings and being on 3 ATG teams (92', 96' and 97'). If he won 2-3 rings over the course of his career he would be looked at a lot differently. MJ stans assert MJ would "GOAT gonna GOAT" his way to dominance with any other player who could contribute anything decent.
The other thing is superstars don't grow on trees and when they exist teams usually don't part with them. Free agency in the 90's was not what it is now. The fact is the best players Chicago has acquired from other teams* since 1985 are Boozer, Ben Wallace and Pau Gasol. Those are the kind of players you are realistically looking at Chicago getting to put alongside MJ. That means players like Mutumbo, Schrempf or Vin Baker in 90's terms. "GOAT gonna GOAT" his way to 6 rings and 72 wins with them?
Chicago was lucky Pippen became a superstar. Very few teams had two players of that elite caliber in the 90's and other than Utah, those other teams who did had that tandem briefly (Orlando for 2 years and Phoenix for 3--and Barkley and KJ battled injuries during that period).
*Pippen was drafted by Seattle on behalf of the Bulls via a deal with Krause.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Jordan in fact had a player better than Ariza, Iggy, or Odom in Woolridge (a SF of all positions). What happened? Nothing. [/QUOTE]
Jordan only got to play with Woolridge in his rookie season really. He missed the vast majority of his second season, Orlando was gone by the third. Both playoff appearances they went up against a GOAT team candidate.
Not exactly a good sample size, a rookie year. That's like asking why LeCramp wasn't able to even make the playoffs playing alongside Boozer (Who ended up being the best player on 50+ win teams that made the WCF mind you).
What's Woolridge's claim to fame exactly? :confusedshrug: