TheStig wrote:
Kush, I really don't think he wanted to come back. JR was willing to bring Phil back, it was never disputed. He was willing to pay Pip and MJ. MJ just looked really tired in the finals. Pip had back issues, Kukoc was decent but not a no2, MJ had the flu, he just looked so worn down. I really think that had a lot to do with it. We didn't have anything to make us better and we were a really old team. Rodman was old, MJ was old, Harper was old, Pip was getting up there and it was just Kukoc in his prime.
MJ is MJ, Pip is Pip, Phil Phil but you can only do so much. Krause was a key piece of the org, you can't just fire him because you don't like him. Management clearly say something in Floyd and wanted him to be the future. If Phil came back there was no doubt he'd run the team and if they came back, it wouldn't be for a year or two more anyway. Sure things could have been done to make things better but they played together over the entire decade and were worked.
Phil left, he was sick of the b.s, and I don't blame him. Phil wouldn't have left if there wasn't so much b.s with management.
JR held a presser and offered Phil a chance to come back for 1 year. It was a phoney PR attempt knowing Phil wouldn't accept. It was a way for JR to save face.
Sam Smith says in that article that JR offered Phil a multi-year deal. But Sam conveniently leaves out WHEN that deal was offered. Sam writes this from his article.
"Phil Jackson was exiting, too, but not because the Bulls pushed. Jackson admits Reinsdorf offered him a long-term deal to remain, but Jackson had this thing about the number of years players would listen to a coach and had set it at seven years with the Bulls. He now was through nine and promised himself he'd leave no matter what. It was only appeals from players that brought him back in 1996. He was determined nothing would change his mind this time."
Sam is so cleaver in the way he describes the situation. He says Phil was offered a long-term deal. But WHEN? Sam leaves that out. We know the long-term deal wasn't offered after the 1998 season. But Sam leaves out the year to give you the impression that it WAS offered after the 1998 season. It wasn't. JR made his PR move and offered Jackson 1 more year. In 1998 Jackson had just come off 2 consecutive 1-year contracts. Why would he all of the sudden accept a 3, 4 or 5-year deal? That doesn't make sense.
So JR probably offered Phil the long-term deal after the 72-10 season (1996). But Phil decided to go the year by year route. We know Phil doesn't like to take on teams rebuilding. So he wasn't gonna sign a 5-year deal in 1996 (that would expire after the 2000/01 season) because MJ could retire in 98 or 99 and Phil would be stuck in a deal. Sure he could walk away, but I'm sure there would have been limits on how long he'd have to sit out before he could accept another job etc.. He couldn't walk away from a contract with the Bulls and just sign a huge deal with LA. Unless JR just let him out. Maybe he would, who knows?
"It was only appeals from players that brought him back in 1996."
Really? Really? You just had the most successful season in NBA history, won coach of the year (for the first and only time) and had a chance to cash in on it big time personally. And it took players' persuasion to bring him back? I find that very hard to believe.
"Jackson had this thing about the number of years players would listen to a coach and had set it at seven years with the Bulls. He now was through nine and promised himself he'd leave no matter what."
This is another thing that makes me scratch my head. Something tells me that the coach of a 6-time world championship team wouldn't have to worry about being tuned out. Jordan lobbying for Jackson that entire offseason would make me think that, 1 - Jordan sure as hell wasn't tuning him out. And, 2 - Jordan was willing to come back in 1999.
Why would Jordan keep saying he would only play for Phil if he wasn't planning on coming back. And if Sam's paraphrase of what Phil said is true, then Phil was wrong because they Bulls won 2 more titles despite Phil's 7 years theory. The Bulls didn't tune him out in 1997 or 1998. Probably wouldn't have tuned him out in 1999.
As for the team itself during the 1998 season. I think it's a bit overblown how tired or old they were. I might make a separate post about this. You mixed up the year with the MJ flu thing, that was 97.
As for 1998, the Bulls still were tied for the best record in the NBA. And that was with Pippen missing 2 1/2 months. If Pippen was there the whole season the Bulls probably win 65-67 games. That would have been the third straight year the Bulls would of had the best record in the NBA. A team that wins that many games in a three-year span all of the sudden wouldn't fall off.
Pippen would have been fine in 1999. Rodman was getting up there. He was actually the oldest because he entered the league at 25 years old. Kukoc could have picked up some slack and Jordan still would have gave you 27-28 ppg.
As far as help, I don't remember the free agent crop in 1999, or exactly how the rules were before the new CBA post-lockout. But maybe the Bulls could have got a veteran that was looking for a ring on the cheap? Similar to what Payton and Malone did with the Lakers in 2003. Again, I don't know if there was an actually impact veteran that would have done it. But the veteran didn't have to be as good as Payton or Malone. Someone like Brian Williams in 1997 would have been fine. But even then I think the Bulls would have won the title.
The 8th seeded Knicks won the East in 1999. And I think the Bulls would have beat the Spurs.
