Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]What three players did they lose from 2001-2004 every time Shaq got injured?[/quote]

Once again, irrelevant. Two different teams with two different rosters.

[quote]It left a void. Their morale was naturally not 100% early in the season. Fortunately, when Pippen came back they went on a 30-5 roll and got their confidence back. Sort of. They weren't dumb. They realized they had a glaring weakness and SG and wanted that remedied. Pippen even publicly criticized the team for failing to do so when the Knicks replaced Doc Rivers (with Derek Harper) practically overnight when he got hurt while the Bulls never replaced MJ in 94'.[/quote]

So then why blame Jordan when it was clearly management's fault for not signing Harper? He was available late in the season when they had time to sign him.



[quote]I don't recall seeing Jeff Hornacek in Game 7. :confusedshrug:[/quote]

Lol, misread the post. My bad.



[quote]Imo yes. He was that good at his peak.[/quote]

Shaq in a run and gun system like in New York? I don't see it.

[quote]Timing. Of course he got exposure. There is no need to even discuss this. Everyone knows MJ by far had the biggest marketing campaign in American sports history behind him. If you want to compare him select a presidential campaign, not Magic or any other athlete. Jordan was on another level.[/quote]

Only from 91 and onward.

[quote]Who cares about 05'? His total record speaks for itself. 01'-04' are even better because it was the same exact team with the only difference being Shaq was out at times. What happened?[/quote]

The team was focused around Shaq, not Kobe. That's the difference between 05 and those seasons.

[quote]I won't even bother looking it up. Who cares? They were on different levels. One maybe would have hit 50 wins and the other [b]might[/b] have won 60+ if healthy.[/QUOTE]

Fixed.

[QUOTE]Two different teams with two different rosters.
[/QUOTE]

? Same rosters. The only difference is Shaq was taken off the roster.

[QUOTE]So then why blame Jordan when it was clearly management's fault for not signing Harper? He was available late in the season when they had time to sign him.[/QUOTE]

Simple: if Jordan retired in a normal fashion or at least gave notice they would have more time to swing a deal and more options. Basically all that was available by the time MJ retired was Hornacek and Harper and the Knicks quickly got Harper. Plus the Bulls did have a shot at Harper--until Scott Williams, who Dallas wanted, got hurt and that was that. See that luck thing again? 94' Bulls=very unlucky. :cry:

[QUOTE]Shaq in a run and gun system like in New York? [/QUOTE]

I forgot that. I am talking about the rosters. Put him with that roster with a normal scheme and yes.

Who cares about focus? The Bulls were constructed to fit around Jordan.

Fixed? 44-15 is a good sample size, no?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.

As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill? Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?

Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...
[/QUOTE]

Okay, and like I said, players like Mo Williams, Derek Fisher, and Terry Porter pretty much solve both of those problems, as in they're not traditional PGs yet they can score efficiently without being ball dominant. You're making it seem like ONLY Scottie Pippen or a player like him could've solved this problem. And BTW its hardly a problem. Having a great ballhandler is hardly an issue when you already have a guy like Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, or Wade since those guys rightfully will be controlling the offense for much of that itme. You're making something out of nothing.

Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. Yes, so has every great player.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
I know, I know. Greatest of all-time. He could score 30+ ppg, lead the league in FGA as a primary ballhandler, play great defense, rebound very well for a guard all in nearly 40 minutes a night and not skip a beat. I bet he could average 10 boards too if his team needed it. He was human. He had limits. I can't see Jordan doing all that and winning even aside from the obvious problem of having a primary ballhandler who is leading the league in FGA every year.[/QUOTE]

Get that sarcastic bull**** out of here. No one said anything about Jordan averaging 10 boards a game. In his one season as PG, he led a not so good team to the ECF and only 2 games away from the Finals. Its not farfetched to think he would've done better then that if he got to play that role 10+ years, especially considering he would've learned and adjusted. Anyway, I didn't even say anything about him being the "primary" ballhandler. I said he could take a larger role in that aspect if he needed to.

You're making this assumption that just cause Jordan won a certain way, that he couldn't win ANY OTHER WAY, which is a bold thing to say about someone who was arguably the greatest player ever and definitely one of the most versatile players ever. Its a bold thing to say about anyone who played at that level.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
As far as building a team from scratch, yes. Once the team is built then yeah, Shaq needs more help. Look at what Shaq actually did. He joined a 21 win team and as a rookie elevated them to 41 wins. Imagine peak Shaq on that team. Imo Shaq could win 50+ with practically any team, unless it is a horrendous team that would be a 15 win team without him. Put Shaq on a team on the level of the 10' Sixers or 10' Clippers and I can see them winning 50+ with peak Shaq. A championship? Of course not but they would be very competitive.[/QUOTE]

There you go again completely IGNORING context. Did you even bother to look at the 1992 Magic? That team was ravaged by injuries. And I know you'll say every team deals with his injuries, but not usually to this extent. Nick Anderson missed 22 games, Dennis Scott missed 64 games, Anthony Bowie missed 30 games, and alot of their other bench players missed a bunch of games. The year before when they were healthier? 31 wins.

As far as building from scratch, I've already said my reasons why I would take Jordan. If you put Jordan with the worse possible NBA players there are and do the same with Shaq, I'd easily go with Jordan's teams for the reasons I've stated. If we want to talk "random teams" it'll be different in each case depending on the team.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Provided they solved the ballhandling issue and they worked out how to reconcile pairing two elite scorers together (aside from Zo') he could. I am talking about average teams in this thread, not fantasy pairings. Those pairings would have simply too much talent to not win multiple rings. The only thing that could realistically stop them is chemistry problems.
[/QUOTE]

Not fantasy pairings? Yet you mentioned Jordan with Garnett or Lebron? You can put pretty much put any starting PG and most backup PGs with Jordan and Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq and they would win multiple titles. If you don't think so you're completely underrating and/or overrating someone. That team is simply too talented to not win multiple rings, which is who I believe you're referring to.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]? Same rosters. The only difference is Shaq was taken off the roster.[/quote]

Also add Odom, Butler and a new team strategy no relying on O' Neal.

[quote]Simple: if Jordan retired in a normal fashion or at least gave notice they would have more time to swing a deal and more options. Basically all that was available by the time MJ retired was Hornacek and Harper and the Knicks quickly got Harper. Plus the Bulls did have a shot at Harper--until Scott Williams, who Dallas wanted, got hurt and that was that. See that luck thing again? 94' Bulls=very unlucky. :cry:[/quote]

So then blame Krause for not being quick enough to sign Harper. Anything that happened after Jordan retired cannot be pinned on him. Krause is the one who comes out looking bad since he had the chance to sign Derek but failed.

[quote]I forgot that. I am talking about the rosters. Put him with that roster with a normal scheme and yes.[/quote]

Maybe, I'm not too sure myself.

[quote]Who cares about focus? The Bulls were constructed to fit around Jordan.[/quote]

Yeah and when they removed him that focus was changed.

[quote]Fixed? 44-15 is a good sample size, no?[/QUOTE]

Assuming they didn't hit a slump at some point. It happens.

The 94' Bulls won 55 games even with their injury problems. Is it really a stretch to see them winning 60+ if healthy? When I say "60+" I mean 60-63. I am not saying they were going to win 67 games or anything like that.

[QUOTE]So then blame Krause for not being quick enough to sign Harper. Anything that happened after Jordan retired cannot be pinned on him. Krause is the one who comes out looking bad since he had the chance to sign Derek but failed.[/QUOTE]

I do blame Krause--and Jordan and luck (if Scott Williams didn't get hurt they may have pulled it off). Other than Magic, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders who else retired at the last minute? At least Magic had a legit reason. If Jordan even just gave them notice that he was considering retiring they could have done something as an insurance policy.

[QUOTE]Yeah and when they removed him that focus was changed.[/QUOTE]

So the 94' Bulls would have been even stronger if custom built for Pippen, not Jordan? Anyway, this is not a thread about the 94' Bulls. It is obvious that Shaq had great impact on his teams in/near his prime. Jordan did not have as much. Your argument is the reason the team stayed afloat was because of two bench players. That is a stretch. Even if we accept that what does that say about MJ's value to the team? Shaq could not be replaced by a top 10 center let alone a D-League level player out the NBA for 2 years.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The 94' Bulls won 55 games even with their injury problems. Is it really a stretch to see them winning 60+ if healthy? When I say "60+" I mean 60-63. I am not saying they were going to win 67 games or anything like that.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.

[quote]I do blame Krause--and Jordan and luck (if Scott Williams didn't get hurt they may have pulled it off). Other than Magic, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders who else retired at the last minute? At least Magic had a legit reason. If Jordan even just gave them notice that he was considering retiring they could have done something as an insurance policy.[/quote]

The guy's dad was murdered less than three months earlier and was printed in God knows how many publications. Seems like a legit reason to quit to me.

[quote]So the 94' Bulls would have been even stronger if custom built for Pippen, not Jordan?[/quote]

Lol, no. Were the 94 Bulls better than the year before?

[quote]Anyway, this is not a thread about the 94' Bulls. It is obvious that Shaq had great impact on his teams in/near his prime. Jordan did not have as much.
Your argument is the reason the team stayed afloat was because of two bench players. That is a stretch. Even if we accept that what does that say about MJ's value to the team?[/quote]

That Jordan was the difference between a repeat champion going all the way and falling out in the second round.

[quote]Shaq could not be replaced by a top 10 center let alone a D-League level player out the NBA for 2 years.[/QUOTE]

Replace him with Duncan, KG or Webber in their primes and I easily see the early 00s Lakers winning it all.

[QUOTE]Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.[/QUOTE]

You just can't bring yourself to credit that team. 5 more wins when they were 44-15 with Pippen and Grant is a stretch?

[QUOTE]The guy's dad was murdered less than three months earlier and was printed in God knows how many publications. Seems like a legit reason to quit to me.[/QUOTE]

If that is the reason he retired then he should have told them he was considering it due to that and they could have planned for him possibly retiring. Jordan didn't retire from sports. He retired from basketball btw.

[QUOTE]Were the 94 Bulls better than the year before?[/QUOTE]

No but they would still be the best team in the East and probably the NBA if you gave them a legit SG like Hornacek. With Hornacek they definitely are good enough to win it all.

[QUOTE]That Jordan was the difference between a repeat champion going all the way and falling out in the second round. [/QUOTE]

That ignores that Jordan screwed the team. To fairly compare them you need a legit replacement for Jordan, like Orlando had with Seikaly for Shaq. Plus we know what happened in the second round. It isn't as if they were not legit title contenders.

[QUOTE]Replace him with Duncan, KG or Webber in their primes and I easily see the early 00s Lakers winning it all.[/QUOTE]

All those guys were at least top 3 players at their peaks. Replace him with a good, but not great player and they do nothing. Replace him with a bench level player and they do nothing, as they showed when he got hurt.

The 00's Lakers barely beat the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002. It isn't clear that they win each time with Duncan, KG, or Webber. They could win with them but not three straight.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]You just can't bring yourself to credit that team. 5 more wins when they were 44-15 with Pippen and Grant is a stretch?[/quote]

Ok, sure, they win 60 games. But then they get swept in the second round due to overconfidence. :lol

[quote]If that is the reason he retired then he should have told them he was considering it due to that and they could have planned for him possibly retiring. Jordan didn't retire from sports. He retired from basketball btw.[/quote]

Lol, I know he played baseball.

[quote]No but they would still be the best team in the East and probably the NBA if you gave them a legit SG like Hornacek. With Hornacek they definitely are good enough to win it all.[/quote]

Maybe, if they could get past Houston which I doubt. Hakeem was a Bulls killer in the early 90s.

[quote]That ignores that Jordan screwed the team. To fairly compare them you need a legit replacement for Jordan, like Orlando had with Seikaly for Shaq. Plus we know what happened in the second round. It isn't as if they were not legit title contenders.[/quote]

Krause screwed them, you already admitted they could have gotten Harper if he had reacted fast enough. Maybe Krause would have ended up letting Hornacek slip away regardless of the circumstances?

[quote]All those guys were at least top 3 players at their peaks. Replace him with a good, but not great player and they do nothing. Replace him with a bench level player and they do nothing, as they showed when he got hurt.[/quote]

The Bulls were 0-4 without Jordan from 89-93. Not a large sample size, but it goes to show that losing the team's number 1 option and changing your gameplan doesn't mean your team is doomed without him.

[quote]The 00's Lakers barely beat the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002. It isn't clear that they win each time with Duncan, KG, or Webber. They could win with them but not three straight.[/QUOTE]

Well, the teams would be different if Webber or Duncan played on the Lakers. I'd pick Kobe/Duncan over the Kings most of the time, though and I could easily see them threepeating.

[QUOTE]You can put pretty much put any starting PG and most backup PGs with Jordan and Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq and they would win multiple titles. If you don't think so you're completely underrating and/or overrating someone. That team is simply too talented to not win multiple ring[/QUOTE]

I said the same thing. Of course, if you are talking about a random team what are the odds of someone of the caliber of Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, or Shaq being on it?

[QUOTE]Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. Yes, so has every great player.[/QUOTE]

Having an average PG reduces the odds of finding one. That is what I was saying. That leaves three positions to find one. With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.


[QUOTE]Krause screwed them, you already admitted they could have gotten Harper if he had reacted fast enough. Maybe Krause would have ended up letting Hornacek slip away regardless of the circumstances?[/QUOTE]

He reacted, tried and had a shot at doing it before Scott Williams got hurt. If Jordan gave him notice he could have swung the deal before Williams wound up getting hurt (Dallas wanted him). You are being blinded by devotion to MJ. You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place. What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.

Harper was not a great player. All they needed was a legit NBA player who could play SG. They didn't necessarily need Mitch Richmond or even an all-star caliber SG like Hornacek (who they tried to get before the trade deadline), although obviously that would be preferable. Common sense and history shows you have more options finding a player like this in the offseason then at the last minute during the season. Look at the 2010 season. No significant trades have occurred yet and by the trade deadline only a handful of players will be available.

[QUOTE]Maybe, if they could get past Houston which I doubt. Hakeem was a Bulls killer in the early 90s. [/QUOTE]

Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.

[QUOTE]The Bulls were 0-4 without Jordan from 89-93. Not a large sample size, but it goes to show that losing the team's number 1 option and changing your gameplan doesn't mean your team is doomed without him.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?

You are underrating Shaq or overrating Duncan if you think they could win three straight with Duncan. They barely won twice with Shaq despite Shaq having some of the greatest playoff runs of all-time. Duncan is a great player, top 10 all-time, but he never was in the same league as 2000-2002 Shaq.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Having an average PG reduces the odds of finding one. That is what I was saying. That leaves three positions to find one. With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions. [/QUOTE]

Okay, what makes you think Shaq could've played with an elite PF? What about PG? In fact the one time he played with a great PF and PG it didn't work out so well, although I will point out he was way past his prime at that point. Either way, there really is no evidence at all. And although I agree with you that a John Paxson-type PG is better alongside Jordan then a traditional one, what makes you think Jordan could not have played with an elite PG? Jordan did not play with any elite PGs before the title years. I have my doubts that Jordan couldn't have won titles with a Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, or John Stockton. Maybe not as much, but that duo is too talented to say without a doubt he couldn't have won with an elite PG. Just cause players like Ennis Watley, Sam Vincent, and Rory Sparrow couldn't play well with Jordan, doesn't mean no PGs can, especially when you consider none of them did anything special on other teams.

And I'm not saying Shaq couldn't have won with an elite PF and/or PG. All I'm saying is in both cases there isn't enough evidence to suggest they could or couldn't play with certain players.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
[B]You are attacking Krause[/B] for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place. What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.[/QUOTE]

Umm, and you are attacking Jordan for "screwing" the Bulls for retiring too late when this was in the aftermath of his dad getting brutally murdered.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.



:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?

[/QUOTE]

LOL, a little hypocrisy? 3 regular season games over 2 years doesn't say much either. Regular season series in general doesn't say much.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
[b]With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period.[/b] There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.[/quote]

Are you sure? What if he gets teamed up with a pg who likes to run, or joins a team with a big man who averages 20+/10 and doesn't like to play outside the lowpost?


[quote]He reacted, tried and had a shot at doing it before Scott Williams got hurt. If Jordan gave him notice he could have swung the deal before Williams wound up getting hurt (Dallas wanted him). You are being blinded by devotion to MJ. You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place.[/quote]

You're missing the bigger picture. The guys dad had been [b]shot to death[/b]. Also, here's what Krause had to say on the Hornacek issue.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/26/sports/on-pro-basketball-a-team-a-master-builder-would-really-love.html?pagewanted=1[/url]

[quote] The Knicks replaced Doc Rivers with Harper. Orlando is reportedly trying to add Danny Manning. Krause has a response to those who say that the Bulls are a shooting guard away from going over the top and that he must simply add a veteran scorer like Jeff Hornacek.

"A few years ago it was Walter Davis," he said, remembering a campaign orchestrated by Jordan. "It was as if I had to go get him. We won three championships. Where is Walter Davis now?" [/quote]

Sounds like he wasn't too concerned about getting him, does it?

[quote]What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.[/quote]

I never ragged on Sanders. I know he retired prematurely, bu I'm sure he had his reasons. Williams I don't know too much about, no comment.

[quote]Harper was not a great player. All they needed was a legit NBA player who could play SG. They didn't necessarily need Mitch Richmond or even an all-star caliber SG like Hornacek (who they tried to get before the trade deadline), although obviously that would be preferable. Common sense and history shows you have more options finding a player like this in the offseason then at the last minute during the season. Look at the 2010 season. No significant trades have occurred yet and by the trade deadline only a handful of players will be available.[/quote]

Krause had his chance to sign them, but passed them over because he wasn't worried about it. No wonder Pip hated him.

[quote]Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.[/quote]

Does that mean they would have gone all the way, though? Hakeem was an upgrade over Ewing and had better scorers around him. I still don't see Houston losing that series.

[quote]:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?[/quote]

None of them took place towards the end of the season, all took place midseason, I think.

Regardless, they had no wins without him in the lineup from 89-93. None. Zip. Zilch. 4 games isn't much, no, but it still happened.

[quote]You are underrating Shaq or overrating Duncan if you think they could win three straight with Duncan. They barely won twice with Shaq despite Shaq having some of the greatest playoff runs of all-time. Duncan is a great player, top 10 all-time, but he never was in the same league as 2000-2002 Shaq.[/QUOTE]

Even if they didn't threepeat from 00-02, what about from 03-05? Not a whole lot of competition other than New Jersey or Detroit.

I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.

You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.

[QUOTE]Sounds like he wasn't too concerned about getting him, does it?[/QUOTE]

:wtf: This is classic MJ fan revisionist history. What do you expect him to say in public? "I agree, if we don't find a legitimate NBA starting SG we are severely handicapped come the playoffs." Don't look at what he said publicly. Look at what he did. He tried to work a deal for Hornacek up until the trade deadline. Jackson, Pippen, and Grant all believed they needed to fill a void at SG. Pip even publicly called Krause out on this. It doesn't take a basketball genius talent evaluator to realize they had a massive hole at the SG position. They went from the GOAT SG to the worst starting SG in the league!

[QUOTE]I never ragged on Sanders. I know he retired prematurely, bu I'm sure he had his reasons. Williams I don't know too much about, no comment.[/QUOTE]

Sanders retired a month before the regular season began because he claimed he was tired of losing. Ricky Williams retired to smoke weed. :lol

[QUOTE]Even if they didn't threepeat from 00-02, what about from 03-05? Not a whole lot of competition other than New Jersey or Detroit.[/QUOTE]

That is a different question from the OP, which is about prime Shaq. Would anyone take prime Duncan over prime Shaq?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.[/QUOTE]

Okay, well the two best PGs of Shaq's era, Nash and Kidd, played best in uptempo systems. So pretty much, that limits who Shaq can play with according to you. And anyway, basically what you're saying is Shaq had limits by not being able to play in an uptempo system. How is that any different of a limit then Jordan not being able to play well with a traditional PG? Shaq played on some teams with young, athletic and explosive players as well as 3-point shooters who would've thrived if they played more uptempo. The Penny/Anderson/Scott Magic, Jones/NVE/Kobe Lakers, and even the three-peat Lakers would've benefitted greatly if they could've played more uptempo at times, but that wasn't much of an option (sure they did do it sometimes) mainly because of Shaq. Maybe just maybe the 97 and 98 Lakers would've beaten the Jazz and made it to the Finals if Jones/NVE/Kobe could've ran the Jazz out the building. Maybe if they were able to do that, Shaq's supporting cast wouldn't have played so badly. Like I said, you're making something out of nothing. There are certain styles and teammates that will complement all players better or worse.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.
[/QUOTE]

The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.

By the way, why don't you respond to the fact that you completely ignored the context of what happened in 93 when Shaq was supposedly the sole reason the Magic improved 20 games? And how about the "small sample size" arrgument?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.[/quote]


[quote]You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.[/quote]

He was considering it, but I think his father's death pushed him over the edge. Also, why


[quote]:wtf: [b]This is classic MJ fan revisionist history. What do you expect him to say in public? "I agree, if we don't find a legitimate NBA starting SG we are severely handicapped come the playoffs."[/b] Don't look at what he said publicly. Look at what he did. He tried to work a deal for Hornacek up until the trade deadline. Jackson, Pippen, and Grant all believed they needed to fill a void at SG. Pip even publicly called Krause out on this. It doesn't take a basketball genius talent evaluator to realize they had a massive hole at the SG position. They went from the GOAT SG to the worst starting SG in the league![/quote]

Roundball, Krause didn't go through with it because it meant giving up a first round pick. If he had, the Bulls would have gotten him. You are blaming the wrong person for the Bulls not being able to get Hornacek or Harper.

[quote]Sanders retired a month before the regular season began because he claimed he was tired of losing. Ricky Williams retired to smoke weed. :lol[/quote]

Can't say I blame either of them. :lol

[quote]That is a different question from the OP, which is about prime Shaq. Would anyone take prime Duncan over prime Shaq?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the teammates. Duncan seems like an easier player to deal with, imo, although peak Shaq was a more dominant presence.

Miguel