CBE 95: Crunch Time

[Fred]

Here are some questions asked in the latest exciting episode of the Chicago Bullseye. I'd love to see your answers:

1. Would Jordon have won a title without Scottie Pippen?

2. Has Rose surpassed Chris Paul?

3. Are we, without Deng, as good as the Charlotte Bobcats?

Just noticed that Sam talked about the Kemp question in his last mailbag:
How close were the Pippen for Kemp in 1995 deal happening or the Pippen for T-mac and Van Horn deal in 1998? I still believe we 3 peat from 1996-1998 with Kemp over Pippen. Regarding 1998 I believe we still can win with both Van Horn and T-mac (although he wasn't great at the time). - Larry A. Barron

Sam: Never know, eh. The Pippen deal in 1994 was done for Kemp. The Bulls were convinced Jordan wasn’t coming back and relations with Horace Grant had gone bad. Kemp was a huge star at the time. But the Supersonics fans were so upset—it’s hard to believe this happened—that when word leaked of the deal they so flooded the team with objections because Pippen from his playoff walkout in 1994 was viewed as such a bad guy, way worse than Kemp, they didn’t want him on the team. Seattle had agreed and backed out. Kemp, of course, went downhill eventually with paternity cases and huge weight issues. The Bulls got Rodman as the final piece. I’m not sure what would have occurred, but Kemp still was great when the Bulls played Seattle in the 1996 Finals. And there was some hook in there that would have enabled the Bulls to get Eddie Jones in the draft. That should have been enough to replace Pippen and keep winning. As for Pippen and McGrady, Reinsdorf killed that deal. Krause wanted to begin the makeover, and if he had maybe the Bulls wouldn’t have fallen so far and so quickly after 1998. He was set on drafting McGrady, who was quickly great in Toronto as in that era he also was a great defender. I don’t recall all the details, but Van Horn was a pretty good player and that would have been the time to deal Pippen in retrospect, especially the way he sat out the first half of the 1997-98 season because he had surgery late because he was mad at the team and wanted a few months off. But Reinsdorf wanted to keep the team together to go for the championship and overruled the proposal. In 1998, I’m certain, he would have again. And did. I know all the stuff Krause said, but I also know Jordan was told if he returned for the 1998-99 season the franchise would bring back all the players and Jordan could have the coach he wanted. Jordan did not want to play anymore then no matter what revisionist history you hear.
http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_100319.html

Shawn Kemp's Top 10 Dunks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OPvh7jdeeo

 

[Dpauley23]

The Krause regime seem really stupid. In 1992 and 1993 they were actually going to trade MJ for David Robinson. Then I can't remember what year, but they were going do Jordan for KJ

 

[RC_Skinny22]

Haha at 28:40 Fred sounded exactly like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3-eavMSBnk

I could not stop laughing for minutes!

 

[pinkizdead]

rose> paul? they're so very different, it seems hard to compare them. rose has done a good job against paul, if rose works on his defense, he's going to dominate smaller guards. He's got amazing athleticism and soo much size/strength. As a homer i'd say yes, but as a basketball fan, i'd say F NO!.

but i digress, what i actually wanted to say was, PERFECT TIMING! i was craving something bulls related today.

 

[Shakes]

I think Rose can be better than Paul. In 2010 he's averaging about 22.5/6 on 51% shooting. Elite guys take as big as jump from year two to three as they do year one to two. Is there any reason to think he can't average 25 a game next year?

Only West, Robinson, James, Bird and Jordan have done 25/6 on better than 50% shooting. That's seriously elite company.

 

[RPK]

Great podcast guys!

Lots of interesting topics covered (although I thought Fred was a bit over the line in his criticism of Scottie Pippen and his migraines during the Piston series).

And both of you guys are absolutely right that Vinnie should have been thrown out of a game earlier for defending Rose and the lack of foul calls. Especially considering that Rose drives as much as he does.

 

[Diddy1122]

Fred wrote:

Here are some questions asked in the latest exciting episode of the Chicago Bullseye. I'd love to see your answers:

1. Would Jordon have won a title without Scottie Pippen?

2. Has Rose surpassed Chris Paul?

3. Are we, without Deng, as good as the Charlotte Bobcats?

Haven't had time to listen to the show, but I'm bored at work so I'll give these questions a try.

1. Ahh the immortal question, like the chicken & the egg. I would have to say Yes. As much as I love Pip, without MJ constantly pushing him in pratice, I don't feel he would have been anywhere near as good as he was. MJ would have found a way to get a title without him. Would he win 6? No, but I could see him winning 1-2 by himself.

2. Right now: No. The Future: Yes. In terms of scoring, Rose has surpassed Paul already, however he still doesn't get to the line, which is something Paul is one of the best at. Passing & Court Vision, he's nowhere near Paul's level. Hopefully he will reach that level, but I'm not sure. In 2 years though this will all be moot, because Rose will be the top PG in the league by then.

3. Yes. The Bobcats are well known chokers. Did it several seasons in a row now & I don't see any reason why that would change this year. And even though Deng was a having a good year again, the ball has moved much more freely on offense since he's been out. It has hurt us defensively no doubt & on the offensive glass, but if Noah comes back full strength, which looks very possbile now, & as long as Taj, Kirk, B-Rad, Murray & others continue to step up, we can catch either Charlotte or Toronto.

 

[houheffna]

Here are some questions asked in the latest exciting episode of the Chicago Bullseye. I'd love to see your answers:

1. Would Jordon have won a title without Scottie Pippen?

2. Has Rose surpassed Chris Paul?

3. Are we, without Deng, as good as the Charlotte Bobcats?

1. Most definitely...

2. NO! Chris Paul is the best pg in the league, bar none...

3. No were are not as good as the Bobcats...on paper.

 

[Shakes]

Pippen played better without Jordan, so I don't know how Mark can really say Pippen was made by Jordan and would have only "maybe made a couple of all star teams".

I think people are talking about different things when they disagree on whether Jordan wins without Pippen. If we're just talking taking Pippen off the team and replacing him with nothing then I'm not 100% sure Jordan wins a title. If you replace him with another great player like Kemp then sure they win titles.

 

[Kush77]

Of course Jordan would have won titles. Multiple titles.

I always seen some loon make that comment when I'm waching old Bulls videos on Youtube. Sometimes they'll go a step further.

"Duh, Michael Jordan never won a playoff series without Scottie Pippen."

Something tells me if Scottie Pippen was never born Michael Jordan would have still won his fair share of playoff series and titles.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Jordan would have gotten some titles, come on, he's freaking Michael Jordan. Maybe not 6 all by himself, but he would've gotten 2 or 3 I'm pretty sure. Regardless, they won 6 titles together as one of the best duos of all time (or at least IMO) so I think we as Bulls fans should be glad that they played together and won multiple titles.

 

[pinkizdead]

as long as mj played with another decent - good player, mj would have gotten some titles.

 

[mlewinth]

Shakes wrote:

Pippen played better without Jordan, so I don't know how Mark can really say Pippen was made by Jordan and would have only "maybe made a couple of all star teams".

Scottie Pippen was a hell of a player. I am not trying to knock that. He would of been a hell of a player, with or without Jordan. All I am really saying is Scottie would never be held in the stature that he is, if he wasnt with Michael. Without Michael, Scottie is just another very good player and would of left little legacy. With Michael, he is a hall of famer and considered (in 1998) one of the NBA's 50 best.

 

[reignman]

IMHO you underestimate how good a player Pippen was. He was one of the top tier players in the league for years, those with and without Jordan, surely higher rated than the borderline allstars you named in the podcast.

Pippen was a team player, sacrificing individual glory (stats) for team success. He never was a 30 PPG scorer, but never had (the chance) to develop his scoring abilities that far as the second option. He was a bulldog on D, being as clutch and committed as anybody. Sure, he almost never got to shoot that last shot, but that's because of his context (MJ's excellence), not a flaw of Pippen's.

I'm sure playing with Jordan influenced that development heavily, I'd even suspect that's the only way a superstar could stick on a team with MJ.

Nobody knows what Pip could have achieved without MJ, or vice versa. Or how MJ would have meshed with a premier low post scorer like Kemp. Throughout his career, Pippen was recognized and honored for his achievements, particularly on defense. There's no point in denying that.

 

[Shakes]

mlewinth wrote:

Scottie Pippen was a hell of a player. I am not trying to knock that. He would of been a hell of a player, with or without Jordan. All I am really saying is Scottie would never be held in the stature that he is, if he wasnt with Michael. Without Michael, Scottie is just another very good player and would of left little legacy. With Michael, he is a hall of famer and considered (in 1998) one of the NBA's 50 best.

I don't know, I think there's something special about Scottie. The one guy you didn't compare him to in your podcast but I think should have is Manu. He plays with one of the best, if not the best, player of his generation in Duncan. He's won multiple titles with him while being the sidekick. He's played at a high level for years. Yet he gets hardly any mention at all. He's only made one all-star team!

Why does Pippen get more credit than a guy like Manu? If anything playing with Jordan should have hurt his legacy, he should have been just part of the supporting cast. Instead he managed to make a name for himself. I think it says something about Pippen.

FWIW I think he'd be a hall of famer without Jordan. How many better small forwards have there been? Obviously Dr J/Bird/LeBron but then what? As much as the hall needs more room for college coaches, I think letting the 4th best SF of the modern era in seems reasonable.

 

[Bullsman24]

Fred wrote:

Here are some questions asked in the latest exciting episode of the Chicago Bullseye. I'd love to see your answers:

1. Would Jordon have won a title without Scottie Pippen?

2. Has Rose surpassed Chris Paul?

3. Are we, without Deng, as good as the Charlotte Bobcats?

1. Resounding yes
2. Not yet. Although I think that Paul has many players who are just easy assists on his team, his court vision is just phenomenal. However I think rose can be the best player on a championship team and I think pass first point guards almost always need a #2 just ad good as them to be a go to scorer. Rose can be both.
3. I think that Felton is quite a bad defender, a relatively healthy Noah could render Tyson useless, but I think Stephen jacskon will abbé two big games but we'll win both and push Toronto, not Charlotte put of the playoffs

 

[Dpauley23]

As for Jordan's title I'll say there's no way they win the 91 finals without Pippen with the way he was able to contain Magic

 

[Diddy1122]

reignman wrote:

IMHO you underestimate how good a player Pippen was. He was one of the top tier players in the league for years, those with and without Jordan, surely higher rated than the borderline allstars you named in the podcast.

Pippen was a team player, sacrificing individual glory (stats) for team success. He never was a 30 PPG scorer, but never had (the chance) to develop his scoring abilities that far as the second option. He was a bulldog on D, being as clutch and committed as anybody. Sure, he almost never got to shoot that last shot, but that's because of his context (MJ's excellence), not a flaw of Pippen's.

I'm sure playing with Jordan influenced that development heavily, I'd even suspect that's the only way a superstar could stick on a team with MJ.

Nobody knows what Pip could have achieved without MJ, or vice versa. Or how MJ would have meshed with a premier low post scorer like Kemp. Throughout his career, Pippen was recognized and honored for his achievements, particularly on defense. There's no point in denying that.

People seem to have this idea that Pip would've been this amazing scorer without MJ. The fact is it's simply not true. Even at his best, 93-94 season without MJ, Pip was only a 22ppg scorer. Pip was an amazing all around player, best perimeter defender I've ever seen, & invented the point forward position. But he was not a real high volume scorer. That just wasn't his game & never really needed to be. There's no knocking Pip for all he's accomplished. I think everyone here considers him one of the all-time greats. However, playing since day 1 of your NBA career with the GOAT constantly pushing you & challenging you in pratice will get the best out of most players. I truly believe that if Pip was not around MJ from the beginning of his career, he would not have been as good as he was.

 

[TheStig]

MJ would have won a title without Pip provided that we had someone else who was at an allstar level. Without another allstar or near allstar player it would have been really hard to do. It would have been very similar to how it was when he came into the league. Pippen's lock down defense and ability to run the offense made it a dynasty.

 

[Kush77]

Fred wrote:

Just noticed that Sam talked about the Kemp question in his last mailbag:
How close were the Pippen for Kemp in 1995 deal happening or the Pippen for T-mac and Van Horn deal in 1998? I still believe we 3 peat from 1996-1998 with Kemp over Pippen. Regarding 1998 I believe we still can win with both Van Horn and T-mac (although he wasn't great at the time). - Larry A. Barron

Sam: Never know, eh. The Pippen deal in 1994 was done for Kemp. The Bulls were convinced Jordan wasn’t coming back and relations with Horace Grant had gone bad. Kemp was a huge star at the time. But the Supersonics fans were so upset—it’s hard to believe this happened—that when word leaked of the deal they so flooded the team with objections because Pippen from his playoff walkout in 1994 was viewed as such a bad guy, way worse than Kemp, they didn’t want him on the team. Seattle had agreed and backed out. Kemp, of course, went downhill eventually with paternity cases and huge weight issues. The Bulls got Rodman as the final piece. I’m not sure what would have occurred, but Kemp still was great when the Bulls played Seattle in the 1996 Finals. And there was some hook in there that would have enabled the Bulls to get Eddie Jones in the draft. That should have been enough to replace Pippen and keep winning. As for Pippen and McGrady, Reinsdorf killed that deal. Krause wanted to begin the makeover, and if he had maybe the Bulls wouldn’t have fallen so far and so quickly after 1998. He was set on drafting McGrady, who was quickly great in Toronto as in that era he also was a great defender. I don’t recall all the details, but Van Horn was a pretty good player and that would have been the time to deal Pippen in retrospect, especially the way he sat out the first half of the 1997-98 season because he had surgery late because he was mad at the team and wanted a few months off. But Reinsdorf wanted to keep the team together to go for the championship and overruled the proposal. In 1998, I’m certain, he would have again. And did. I know all the stuff Krause said, but I also know Jordan was told if he returned for the 1998-99 season the franchise would bring back all the players and Jordan could have the coach he wanted. Jordan did not want to play anymore then no matter what revisionist history you hear.

Here's aan article from the non-trade of Pippen and Kemp.

On a side not, look at the author - J.A. Adande. Did he work for the Sun-Times? I don't recall that. Or did he just cover this deal or the draft and wrote something for the Sun-Times

Bulls Spring No Surprises - Pippen Trade Fizzles - Simpkins Team's Top Pick
Chicago Sun-Times - Thursday, June 30, 1994
Author: J. A. Adande

It seems hard to believe, but the biggest news to come out of NBA draft day was that Scottie Pippen still is a Bull.

There was a time that seemed to be one of the few safe assumptions in this summer of change for the team, but his status had come into doubt after a flurry of trade rumors this week. The strongest rumor had him going to Seattle with the Bulls' No. 21 draft pick in exchange for Shawn Kemp , Ricky Pierce and the Sonics' No. 11 pick.

That deal, or anything resembling it, was quashed yesterday and the Bulls wound up making 6-9 Providence forward Dickey Simpkins their top draft choice with the 21st selection. By drafting a power forward - their second in a row after picking Corie Blount last year - the Bulls gave another indication they don't like their chances of re-signing Horace Grant and aren't high on Scott Williams, another Bulls free-agent power forward.

The Bulls chose unheralded Kris Bruton of Benedict College in the second round.

Whose idea was the Pippen trade and who called it off? That depends on whether you believe Bulls general manager Jerry Krause or Seattle coach George Karl.

"We were really surprised when Chicago brought the deal to us," Karl said. "We thought about it and now we can move on."

"First of all, we did not seek to trade Scottie Pippen ," said Krause, contrary to the statements of several NBA general managers this week. "We listened to offers that we would for any great player. We had to be overwhelmed to make a deal. We were not overwhelmed. We decided not to trade Scottie Pippen ."

Asked when the trade died, Karl wasn't specific.

"It died sometime today," he said.

The expectations and subsequent letdown might have had something to do with the chaotic situation of Seattle's front office. Karl and Wally Walker, a former Seattle player and broadcaster who was brought in to serve as an adviser, were making the decisions.

Pippen seemed to make sense for Seattle. At 28, he is a perfect fit for Karl's aggressive defensive style and fast-break attack.

But any deal reportedly had to have the approval of Seattle owner Barry Ackerly, and he might have been dissuaded by the unpopularity of the proposed trade among the Seattle fans.

Walker said the trade talks won't resurface. "I feel pretty safe in saying that it's dead, and I will stand by that," he said.

"We were more listeners than active pursuers. The trade ultimately was called off because of Shawn. There was some back-and-forth - but when you cut through all of that, we wanted him to be here."

So, the Bulls have Pippen , already moody throughout the season and sure to be unhappy about reports he was being shopped around the league. They also have to contend with Pippen 's unfavorable reaction when the Bulls renegotiate Toni Kukoc's salary.

Krause said Pippen and Kukoc can co-exist and that he still fits in their plans despite several negative incidents this past season.

"We feel Scottie Pippen is a great player," said Krause, who also called him a "class act."

"We want him in Chicago. . . . Scottie Pippen is a Bull and we're happy with that."

Krause also denied taking a power forward when the team has obvious needs at shooting guard showed they don't think they can sign Grant.

"What that indicates is we believe he's the best player on the board and we didn't like any of the shooting guards on the board," Krause said.