dougthonus wrote:
Didn't read the whole thread, but I very much doubt the Bulls could win if they played in 99.
#1: Scottie Pippen played no where near his 98 level in 99. Maybe this was because of his new team and his new role, but it could also simply be because he was getting older and wasn't as good.
#2: Dennis Rodman was off the reservation by this point. He had become more and more out of control with the Bulls, and he had started giving up playing defense in order to grab rebounds for his reputation.
#3: Jordan had the cigar cutter accident with his thumb during the summer, and the injury could have effected that season.
#4: This isn't really a necessity, but from a GM standpoint, I doubt they would have kept all the supporting players, because if they gave everyone the raises they earned they would have had an astronomical payroll to go for it for one more season.
#5: The Spurs, who won the title, were simply better than anyone the Bulls had faced in the finals up to that point by a huge margin. They would have also destroyed the Bulls inside with their size using Robinson and Duncan and been a worst case scenario matchup.
Granted, you can obviously make the case that the Bulls would have overcome these things, and I'm certainly not defending Krause, who's whole management of the team during the Jordan era was borderline ludicrous, but I would have put their odds at least than 25% of a 7th title if they came back.
I disagree Doug. The Bulls would have won the title in 1999.
You need to read the first post because Scottie Pippen was fine in 1999. He made the all-defensive first team and played all 50 games with a career high in minutes. Everyone says Scottie Pippen fell off in 1999, but I've provided evidence that he hadn't, which no one wants to seem to acknowledge. Same with Dennis Rodman.
I'm aware of the whole Michael Jordan cigar cutter thing. But had the Bulls known they were playing in 1999, maybe Jordan isn't cutting cigars at a party, or wherever he was. Maybe he's somewhere else, doing something else. We don't know.
But that's why I prefaced my statement with assuming everyone is healthy.
As for the payroll thing. Through all of our discussions we've had, we agree that MJ could of came back. And even though it was a PR stunt with JR offering Phil the 1-year deal, what if Phil said "ok". at that point JR probably would have paid to bring everyone back. So I don't think that would be an issue.
They would have won the title and still made boatloads of money. Believe me, no matter the payroll, the Bulls weren't gonna lose money in 1999.
I just find it comical that a team that won 3 straight championships, had the league's best record for three straight years, and a team that when they lost, barely lost, would just fall off a cliff the next season.
And everyone speaks so glowingly about the 1999 Spurs? What the hell did they do the next three years? Got spanked by La. so if the Spurs were sooooo much better than the Bulls, then how come it took them 4 more year to win a title?
The Bulls beat the Spurs in 1999. Sure Duncan and Robinson would be trouble inside. But the Bulls have played team with good big men before. Nothing new. Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc..
And Toni Kukoc would provide a big mismatch for either Duncan or Robinson. Who guards Toni on the perimeter when he's playing the 4? Duncan or Robinson? Neither would be able to.
Funny how people that say the Spurs would have won always point out the inside game but fail to mention the other three positions on the basketball court.
Lets see - Jordan, Pippen, Harper VS. Mario Elie, Avery Johnson and Sean Elliot. LOL. Yeah, that's not a colossal mismatch.
A FAR greater mismatch than the Spurs' 4/5 vs, the Bulls 4/5. At least the Bulls boasted the NBA's best rebounder and great post defender.
"The Spurs, who won the title, were simply better than anyone the Bulls had faced in the finals up to that point by a huge margin."
I disagree again. By a huge margin? You couldn't be more wrong DT. I could easily argue the Sonic and Jazz were better teams. The Sonics won 64 games and their starting 5 on paper is better than the Spurs. You don't win 64 games by accident. Perkins, Kemp, Schrempf, Payton and Hawkins was a damn good team.
The Jazz also were as good as the Spurs, and had the not been upset by the Blazers in1999 they could have beaten the Spurs with homecourt. We'll never know. But this idea that the Spurs were So much better is laughable. The Jazz had the best record in the NBa that year and they were just as old as the Bulls.
Another fact that I pointed out in my initial post that people choose to ignore so they can make their contrarian argument that the 3-time defending champs would all the sudden just fall off a cliff.
