Scottie Pippen Hopes to Be Traded to Suns (1995)

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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:[/QUOTE]
Bingo, before I could.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol then why couldn't Jordan win championships before 91?[/QUOTE]

Great question. Hell, where was MJ before Pippen became a starter? He was around 0.500 every year except 88':

38-44 (with a 23 ppg SF)
9-9 (with a 22 ppg SF)
40-42 (with Charles Oakley)
50-32 (with Charles Oakley who was later the #3 player on 60, 57 and 55 win contenders)
13-12

What happened to "GOAT gonna GOAT"? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]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]

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=Roundball_Rock]
What happened to "GOAT gonna GOAT"?[/QUOTE]
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]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. [/QUOTE]

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:

[QUOTE]GOAT was goating. Unless you truly believe as a Delaware based "Bulls fan" not from Cold City that MJ wasn't GOAT.[/QUOTE]

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

[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.