OT- The Last Dance documentary

[transplant]

What hit me the hardest as a result of the docu-series wasn't even in it:

Jerry Reinsdorf: "When he (Krause) made that comment, 'Phil goes 82-0, he's not coming back,' I told him that was ridiculous, he had no business saying it," Reinsdorf said of Krause. "He realized it. But he couldn't walk it back."

I've been a Reinsdorf fan since he bought the White Sox and have characterized him as clearly the best Chicago sports owner in my lifetime. What I've never said about him is this: I don't believe him.

Reinsdorf has a well-earned reputation for letting his key subordinates do their jobs without undue interference. Still, the idea that Krause made a statement directly to the media (Krause hated the media so it wasn't an accident) that Reinsdorf found ridiculous, was potentially damaging to team morale and didn't represent the thinking of ownership, yet all Reinsdorf can say is that Krause "couldn't walk it back," is in itself patently ridiculous.

Couldn't walk it back? What? When your #1 direct report says something that potentially damaging, you don't ask him to "walk it back." You tell him that he's going to very publicly admit that the statement was wrong and apologize to Jackson, Reinsdorf and the players for having said it. Since Reinsdorf claims that Krause agreed that he was wrong to have said it, you'd think that Krause would have been OK with the apology. If he refused, he's gone.

Sorry, Mr. Reinsdorf, I don't believe it happened the way you described it. You're a better leader/owner than that. I don't know why you're trying to sell this bull now, but I'm very disappointed.

[dougthonus]

I posted my case for the 1999 Bulls a few weeks ago on the General Board, but given the direction of this thread I think it's worth posting here too.

Good points, but the Bulls vs Spurs matchups without Duncan are completely irrelevant. Might as well use the Bulls vs Spurs matchups in 99-2003 and say the Spurs could have easily beat the Bulls. Duncan's a top 10ish all time player in the league, so removing him from the equation isn't something you can explain away and use any other evidence for.

I'd remove all of that from your argument if ever posting it again, because it makes it look like you are reaching in entirely unreasonable ways and the rest of your argument is pretty reasonable but you throw something crazy out there and it undermines the non crazy part.

It sure would have been a fun series to have seen.

[troza]

"I didn't choose anybody," Reinsdorf said. "I went to Phil and said, 'This is a mismatch, you against Krause. Why don't you back off? Why don't you get the players to back off?'

"I told Krause, 'Take Phil for what he is. We're winning. We're winning, so forget about it; the important thing is the winning. You don't have to like each other.'

"I didn't get through to either of them."

That choice -- not to make a choice between Krause and Jackson -- is perhaps the only thing that could have changed the course of history, because the two men never reconciled.

"Years later, when Phil was coaching the Lakers and they were coming to Phoenix, I'd have lunch with him," Reinsdorf said. "At one of those lunches, he said, 'I'd really like to bury the hatchet with Jerry,' and he asked me to be the middleman."

Reinsdorf reached out to Krause, and, "Jerry said, no, he wouldn't do it."

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29187153/did-1998-the-last-dance-michael-jordan-bulls

He should have made that choice. It was pretty obvious that Jerry Krause would do one of two things: swallow is pride and accepting his fate or go for another team to try to beat the Bulls. Phil would probably want a place as GM (as I read somewhere in these forums and he would suck but he would start in an easy position).

There are things that still cost this franchise a lot to this day:
- Ending the dynasty before they actually lost (and on bad terms with some of the main guys)
- Winning stupid games before the best draft we had in years. Yes, we would guarantee the #1 pick and if we did we might not take full advantage of that as Cleveland did. But there are good chances that we get one of the following 4 players: Lebron, Carmelo, Bosh, Wade... all 4 were much better than Hinrich (that was not bad)

The first one is the origin of some stupid narratives... like people not wanting to come here because of this and that. Maybe that's true but we did treat well our former players after all was said and done with lots of returns to end the career with the Bulls. And I hope that someone brings Derrick Rose back even if it is to ride on the last place of the bench for one last time.

[HomoSapien]

I posted my case for the 1999 Bulls a few weeks ago on the General Board, but given the direction of this thread I think it's worth posting here too.

Good points, but the Bulls vs Spurs matchups without Duncan are completely irrelevant. Might as well use the Bulls vs Spurs matchups in 99-2003 and say the Spurs could have easily beat the Bulls. Duncan's a top 10ish all time player in the league, so removing him from the equation isn't something you can explain away and use any other evidence for.

I'd remove all of that from your argument if ever posting it again, because it makes it look like you are reaching in entirely unreasonable ways and the rest of your argument is pretty reasonable but you throw something crazy out there and it undermines the non crazy part.

It sure would have been a fun series to have seen.

I get the criticism, but my reason for mentioning that was to illustrate that the Spurs really had no history of giving the Bulls trouble during that span -- specifically a prime David Robinson. There's not a lot to go off of since Duncan only played two games against the Bulls, but if the Spurs had a history of beating up on the Bulls then I think all the comments about the Bulls being overwhelmed by size would have merit. Of course you're right that adding Duncan to the equation really changes things (to be fair, the Bulls were without Jordan, Rodman, and Pippen for a lot of these games too), but Robinson in 1999 offensively wasn't really more dangerous than Rik Smits. That sounds more insulting than it's meant to be, but was no longer utilized like the old David Robinson and failed to have a 30 point game for the entire season. All that said, I agree it's a very limited argument.

[Michael Jackson]

They are playing the cinematic version of game 6 tomorrow. To that point though, was I the only person here that went to the UC for the Away games? I actually thought that was a great fun time, the UC was pretty filled and had a great energy. I did not go to game 6 but I went to 1 and 2. I almost paid a large chunk of money for game 5, which oddly was still significantly less than the tickets were going for to see Zion play NC. Even though game 5 was a loss and I felt vindicated at the time not spending that money in retrospect I still wish I did.

[HomoSapien]

Anyway, granted the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and rest of the Wild West was coming... but here's the thing: the West was a gauntlet that took a lot of energy, and only one survived. Look at the East: sure I think the Pacers might've beat the Bulls once, but I bet they'd come back and beat them again. Sixers, Nets... Come on - even in 2002, WAY past everybody's prime, I think a Pippen/Jordan/Kukoc core could've possibly contended. I'll make comparison to that really old Celtics squad that made the finals in 2010. KG's injuries kinda declined his game early, but they were on their last legs.

Anyway, interesting hypothetical. I know people will call me crazy, but besides those 2000 Pacers, I don't think there was one team in the East until the double-Wallace Pistons that could take even a seriously old MJ Bulls team (and of course at the point every Bulls player was retired). And mind you, a smart GM signs ring-chasers and uses summer MLEs/drafts to fill depth.

While I feel pretty confident in the 99 Bulls, I'm really unsure of what that same core would do in 2000. That said, you're right, a motivated GM would retool that team and keep it competitive and it sort of says everything that this option is almost never discussed. For all the talk about "The Sleuth's" drafting abilities, his real strength was finding the right role players for Jordan and the Triangle offense. As KC Johnson said, Krause was able to frame the Mona Lisa twice. Even post-Jordan, we had several players come in that I thought would have worked really nicely as role players.

Matt Maloney and Fred Hoiberg both grew up on veteran playoff teams, played hard, knew how to shoot and could have done a Steve Kerr impression.

Chris Anstey came in and instantly showed the ability to spread the floor and was pretty athletic and mobile for a center. He was like a young Wennington.

Chris Carr's leaping abilities were off the charts and even as a minimum player we picked up off the scrap heaps would have given us athleticism we never had off the bench during the dynasty years.

Even Kornel David, who was often a punchline, showed signs of being able to spread the floor which would have allowed Jordan and Pippen to operate in the post. He too was pretty athletic.

All this may sound absurd now, but in 93 the notion that unheralded guys like Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, and Jud Buchler could help replace the Bulls aging role players seemed absurd too.

[transplant]

FWIW, at the time of the Last Dance, I agreed with Jackson...it was time for it to end. This said, I understand why some fans wanted to see it go on until it was undeniably dead, but I believed a 7th championship was a lot less likely than an undignified ending that would make me sad. Then again, my generation grew up on corny western movies where the hero would say, "I've done what I came here to do" and then ride into the sunset.

[troza]

Anyway, granted the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and rest of the Wild West was coming... but here's the thing: the West was a gauntlet that took a lot of energy, and only one survived. Look at the East: sure I think the Pacers might've beat the Bulls once, but I bet they'd come back and beat them again. Sixers, Nets... Come on - even in 2002, WAY past everybody's prime, I think a Pippen/Jordan/Kukoc core could've possibly contended. I'll make comparison to that really old Celtics squad that made the finals in 2010. KG's injuries kinda declined his game early, but they were on their last legs.

Anyway, interesting hypothetical. I know people will call me crazy, but besides those 2000 Pacers, I don't think there was one team in the East until the double-Wallace Pistons that could take even a seriously old MJ Bulls team (and of course at the point every Bulls player was retired). And mind you, a smart GM signs ring-chasers and uses summer MLEs/drafts to fill depth.

While I feel pretty confident in the 99 Bulls, I'm really unsure of what that same core would do in 2000. That said, you're right, a motivated GM would retool that team and keep it competitive and it sort of says everything that this option is almost never discussed. For all the talk about "The Sleuth's" drafting abilities, his real strength was finding the right role players for Jordan and the Triangle offense. As KC Johnson said, Krause was able to frame the Mona Lisa twice. Even post-Jordan, we had several players come in that I thought would have worked really nicely as role players.

Matt Maloney and Fred Hoiberg both grew up on veteran playoff teams, played hard, knew how to shoot and could have done a Steve Kerr impression.

Chris Anstey came in and instantly showed the ability to spread the floor and was pretty athletic and mobile for a center. He was like a young Wennington.

Chris Carr's leaping abilities were off the charts and even as a minimum player we picked up off the scrap heaps would have given us athleticism we never had off the bench during the dynasty years.

Even Kornel David, who was often a punchline, showed signs of being able to spread the floor which would have allowed Jordan and Pippen to operate in the post. He too was pretty athletic.

All this may sound absurd now, but in 93 the notion that unheralded guys like Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, and Jud Buchler could help replace the Bulls aging role players seemed absurd too.

In 2000 we don't know what would happen. It could happen like it did in 98... we as champions and ending of the dynasty due to egos.

But the wild thing is that in 2000 the best teams of the west were Lakers with Phil Jackson (and Ron Harper) helping them a lot... and he would be here... and Portland with Pippen having a big part in that team... that would be here.

As this is an what if... what if Duncan didn't injury himself? Or the Phoenix didn't eliminate the Spurs due to the lack of Longley there (doubtful)?

The thing is... on the East we still need to go by the Pacers on the worst season of Rik Smits. Ok, maybe Iverson gives us problems as we were having a hard time against fast guards. But I would still like our chances. But... we have no clue who would come out of the west. Lakers, Jazz, Blazers and Spurs (without Duncan's injury) would have been tough opponents. But we don't know.

[Michael Jackson]

FWIW, at the time of the Last Dance, I agreed with Jackson...it was time for it to end. This said, I understand why some fans wanted to see it go on until it was undeniably dead, but I believed a 7th championship was a lot less likely than an undignified ending that would make me sad. Then again, my generation grew up on corny western movies where the hero would say, "I've done what I came here to do" and then ride into the sunset.

At the time it was awful to accept but it wasn't a surprise. PJ wasn't coming back, Blood on the Horns put a lot of this all on Phil not wanting to come back (and who can blame him?)

It was likely time for it to be over, although one last run would have been glorious, it wasn't a shock though that Jordan's last shot in Utah was considered his last shot. That is why Game 5 tickets were going for so much money because everyone knew it was likely the last time they would see Jordan. It wasn't but it was the last time we saw that Jordan. There was a certain dignity of ending that way.

[_txchilibowl_]

I don't know which is worse...Reinsdorf breaking up the greatest team of all time over money...or Reinsdorf still defending it to this day.

For god sake man, you have to know your reputation around the league. And what does he do? Completely confirms it.

What a buffoon. He deserves all the bad press he gets....

[GetBuLLish]

I posted my case for the 1999 Bulls a few weeks ago on the General Board, but given the direction of this thread I think it's worth posting here too.

I realize this has been discussed to death in several threads, but as a die hard Bulls fan who lived, breathed, and ate everything that was related to the 98 Bulls, I felt like offering my perspective on why I think the 1999 Chicago Bulls would have won their 4th straight championship against the Spurs. This is a long post, so thanks in advance if you take the time to read it.

There’s a lot of misconceptions about the 98 Bulls, primarily that they were running on fumes and on their last legs. This notion primarily exists for two reasons. 1): The Bulls got off to a poor start during the 98 season and looked vulnerable early on. 2): The Bulls had a tough playoff series against the Pacers and Jazz.

Myth 1: The Bulls Were On Their Last Legs
While the Bulls may have gotten off to a slow start, they still tied with Utah for the best record in the entire league. This is a pretty remarkable feat considering they were hammered with injuries during the season. Scottie Pippen famously missed 38 games, but Luc Longley also missed 24 games and Steve Kerr in a freak accident missed 32 games as well (Derrick Coleman fell on him and broke his collar bone). These injuries contributed to their lackluster start, however, when Pippen returned they were nothing short of dominant. The Bulls were 36-8 with Scottie Pippen and a staggering 25-2 after the All-Star break. Teams that are running fumes, just don’t go on runs like that. What’s further impressive about this run, is that Scottie Pippen was more or less his usual steady-all-around self without an off-season to prepare. The Bulls were dominating teams without their second-best player in his best form. In other words, the Chicago Bulls were still winning 82% of their games when relatively healthy. Assuming they could play at that level during the 1999 season, they would have won 41 games during the lockout season, which would have resulted in the best record in the league and home-court advantage throughout the playoffs (Note: The Bulls only lost two games at home during the 98 playoffs, by an average of two points).

That begs the question, could the 1999 Bulls have stayed healthy? The key to this question, in my opinion, is Scottie Pippen. While Pippen never fit in with Houston, his health had fully returned. He didn’t miss a single game for the next two seasons and played an impressive 40.2 minutes per game (6th in the league) for the Houston Rockets. Despite not being utilized properly on offense, Pippen still made the All-Defensive First team that year while posting 6.5 rebounds, 5.9 apg, and 2.0 spg. Talk of Pippen’s decline that year has always been greatly exaggerated. Toni Kukoc remained healthy in 1999 and posted great numbers on a depleted Bulls team (19ppg, 7rpg, 5apg). Steve Kerr only missed 6 games for the Spurs and Luc Longley played 78% of his games that year, compared to 70% in 98. Dennis Rodman played 80 games in 98 and proved that he was still a rebounding force in his short stints with the Lakers and Mavericks. The biggest question remaining is Jordan and the cigar cutting injury to his finger. None of us truly know the extent of that injury and when he would have actually returned, but we do know that a 39-year-old rusty Jordan was able to average 25, 5, and 5 before he tore his meniscus, so it seems fair to assume that a 36-year-old Jordan would fare even better.

Myth 2: The Bulls Were Shaky In The 98 Playoffs
To me, this is one of the bigger misconceptions. The Bulls were 15-6 in the playoffs. Four of their losses came on the road, three came from one team, and they lost by an average of 2.3 ppg (including one loss to a Reggie Miller game-winning three and a OT loss to Utah). In their 15 wins, the Bulls won by an average of 10.7 ppg. In other words, when the Bulls lost they barely lost and when they won they typically convincingly won. When people say the Bulls were running on fumes, they’re unfairly minimizing how good that Indiana Pacers team was. The playoffs aren’t supposed to be easy and the Pacers were two deep at every single position. Every rotation player, besides Dale Davis could create offense (and Dale Davis, to his credit, was great at getting in position for lobs and putbacks). Reggie Miller was one of the best playoff performers of all-time. Mark Jackson is an underrated floor general. Mullins was a top 50 player who at that age still knew how to make an impact. Smits was an incredibly skilled big man with an inside-outside game. The Davis boys were dependable and physically exhausting players with their strength and toughness. Rose, Best, Mckey, and Perkins all provided depth, veteran savvy, and a variety of skillsets. This team was just stacked and there’s no shame being pushed to the limits by them. The Jazz, who I have tremendous respect for, did not push the Bulls to the same limits. Chicago took care of them in 6 games, including a 42-point blowout in the NBA Finals! Utah was also unable to beat the Bulls in game six, despite Pippen being rendered almost useless because of a back injury. The idea that the Jazz nearly beat the Bulls has always been exaggerated.

Myth 3: The Bulls Couldn't Beat The Spurs
In 1998, the Bulls beat a Robinson/Duncan team in both of their matchups. In the first game, they beat them without Scottie Pippen. In the second game, they beat them by 10 without Luc Longley. Toni Kukoc was defended by Duncan and arguably won the individual matchup (Kukoc had 21 and 6. Duncan, who was defended primarily by Rodman, had 14 and 12, and 5 turnovers). What the Bulls discovered that game was that Kukoc’s ability to spread the floor took Duncan out of the paint and weakened the Spurs' interior defense. This allowed Jordan to comfortably post up, and he shot 55% that game.

Now let’s look at how the Bulls fared against the Spurs from 94-96 (Note: I’m using this span because it includes most of the 2nd three-peat Bulls players. I’m also not including the season where the Spurs were injured and tanked).

1994-95
- Bulls beat Spurs 94-92. Key notes: Jordan is still retired during this game and Luc Longley didn’t play. Spurs obviously don’t have Duncan, but they do have Rodman.
- Spurs beat Bulls 104-102 in OT. Key notes: Pippen was ejected after 13 minutes, Jordan was still retired, Jud Bucheler played 38 minutes.

1995-96
- Bulls beat Spurs 103-94. Key notes: This victory came without Dennis Rodman.
- Bulls beat Spurs 106-87. Key notes: This is the only matchup during the second-three peat that the Bulls were at full-strength.

One other point, Phil Jackson would face the Spurs in the playoffs regularly. In 2001 he beat them in the WCF 4-1. In 2002 he beat them in the WC Semi-finals 4-3. He lost to them in the semifinals (2-4) in 2003, but then beat them again in 2004 (4-2).

Does any of this mean that the Bulls would definitively beat the San Antonio Spurs? Obviously not. But it does suggest two things. 1.) There’s no evidence that the Bulls were overwhelmed by the Spurs’ size. 2.) Phil Jackson and the Triangle Offense has a track record of being able to beat Pops and the Spurs in the playoffs.

As far as matchups go, most seem to focus on how big of a mismatch Robinson and Duncan vs Longley and Rodman is, but I think people are overlooking the bigger mismatch of Jordan and Pippen against Elie and Elliot. Their wings were pretty unathletic and they couldn’t run with the Bulls. This Spurs team was very good, but they’ve been romanticized quite a bit. It’s important to remember that this wasn’t the Manu, Parker, Duncan Spurs. The reason so many fans are upset the Bulls were dismantled in 1999 is in part because that Spurs team was never seen as unbeatable. They had very clear limitations. David Robinson had declined considerably. His back injuries had robbed him of a lot of his athleticism and mobility and he was only averaging 15.8 ppg that season. It’s hard for me to imagine him dominating the Bulls offensively, because he was no longer being used that way by the Spurs. For what it’s worth, he only scored more than 16 points once against the Knicks in the Finals. Their third-leading scorer was Sean Elliot, who was coming off a kidney transplant and had clearly lost a few steps (his TS%, PER, 3pt%, scoring had all taken significant dips). Furthermore, at 11.4 points per game he was a pretty weak third option. By comparison, Luc Longley averaged 11.4 ppg for the 98 Bulls as their 4th option. It’s also worth mentioning that Dennis Rodman, who hated the Spurs, may have come in extra-motivated to play well in this matchup.

The Bulls bench would absolutely destroy the Spurs, who had no depth. The Bulls 6th man was Toni Kukoc, a guy who arguably belongs in the Basketball Hall of Fame. The Spurs 6th man was Jaren Jackson who averaged 6 points a game. Malik Rose and Antonio Daniels had not established themselves as true rotation players yet, and their bench would be even weaker without Steve Kerr on their roster. Much is made about the Bulls age, but the Spurs outside of Duncan were an old team. Robinson was 33, Elliot was 30, Johnson was 33, Elie was 35, Jackson was 31, Perdue was 33, Kersey was 36. And again, Rose and Daniels weren’t key rotation players yet.

The Bulls were masters at exploiting mismatches, and Avery Johnson would have been eaten alive by the tall, long-armed Bulls. Scottie Pippen would be giving him the Mark Jackson full-court press treatment (He called this smothering defense "cutting the head off the snake"), while Ron Harper would defend Sean Elliot, the Bulls would preserve Jordan’s energy by matching him up against Mario Elie (Note: Jordan averaged 42.5 points per game against the Rockets in 98, with Elie guarding him quite a bit those games). Avery Johnson, could not shoot the three so Pippen would smother him up and down the court and then sag off him in the half-court so that he could double team Duncan or Robinson in the post. His ability to rotate back to Johnson off the double team would likely be even more successful than this strategy was against Mark Jackson and the Pacers. On top of that, with Avery Johnson at 5’10", you have to assume they would get a few easy post-ups for the 6-6 Ron Harper. The Bulls disrespected Johnson so much on defense that they even used to post up BJ Armstrong against him back in the day as well.

The thing about the Bulls that gets forgotten is that you never really felt like Michael Jordan could lose once he got to the top. It’s one thing beating Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston, but the mental edge the Bulls have over the Spurs during their first finals appearance cannot be overlooked. Regardless, it’s a damn shame we never got to see this matchup.

I don't like quoting long posts, but this was very well done. Lots of great points and insight. I used to be of the mind that the Bulls were on their last legs in '98, but I now think that was based on a number of misconceptions you cleared up.

[firstDance]

They are playing the cinematic version of game 6 tomorrow. To that point though, was I the only person here that went to the UC for the Away games? I actually thought that was a great fun time, the UC was pretty filled and had a great energy. I did not go to game 6 but I went to 1 and 2. I almost paid a large chunk of money for game 5, which oddly was still significantly less than the tickets were going for to see Zion play NC. Even though game 5 was a loss and I felt vindicated at the time not spending that money in retrospect I still wish I did.

Came to post. Airing Wednesday

[chitownsalesmen]

After watching the last dance the big take away for me is the role Reinsdorf played in everything. Really at his heart JR is a cheap landlord and always will be. I know he's said, "pay the player what they are worth" and "he'll pay for a winner" but in reality those where just cop-outs.

Reinsdorf used Krause as his proxy to low ball that entire Bulls team from Pippen to Phil Jackson even Jordan while he could. A lot of Krause's media interviews and such were all a well orchestrated shell game to make JR look like he was the abstinence owner who just showed up at the 11th hour because he didn't care what it took(read:costed) to get Jordan/Jackson etc back and bring the band together!

This man had money pouring out of his eyeballs during the Bulls dynasty and at the end of the day he still wouldn't pony up, this dude is a fraud, and as far as Im concerned no Reinsdorf period, not his son, not his grandson is to be trust to build the Bulls up to a true contender again.

How many times have the Bulls bulked at making a big move to save a few shekels 2011 when the Bulls obviously needed a 2 guard, 2008/2007 when the Bulls had legit chances at landing Gasol and possibly even Kobe Bryant, 2009 when they balked at giving Gordon a contract but magically the white sox had a very, very similar amount of money to give to Alex Rios.

Youre all rooting for your owners 2nd favorite team boys, Reinsdorf doesn't care about the Bulls and he never did.

I'd trade all six Bulls championships for one Whitesox championships.

[gardenofsound]

After watching the last dance the big take away for me is the role Reinsdorf played in everything. Really at his heart JR is a cheap landlord and always will be. I know he's said, "pay the player what they are worth" and "he'll pay for a winner" but in reality those where just cop-outs.

Reinsdorf used Krause as his proxy to low ball that entire Bulls team from Pippen to Phil Jackson even Jordan while he could. A lot of Krause's media interviews and such were all a well orchestrated shell game to make JR look like he was the abstinence owner who just showed at the 11th hour because he didn't care what it took(read:costed) to get Jordan/Jackson etc back and bring the band together!

This man had money pouring out of his eyeballs during the Bulls dynasty and at the end of the day he still wouldn't pony up, this dude is a fraud, and as far as Im concerned no Reinsdorf period, not his son, not his grandson is to be trust to build the Bulls up to a true contender again.

How many times have the Bulls bulked at making a big move to save a few shekels 2011 when the Bulls obviously needed a 2 guard, 2008/2007 when the Bulls had legit chances at landing Gasol and possibly even Kobe Bryant, 2009 when they balked at giving Gordon a contract but magically the white sox had a very, very similar amount of money to give to Alex Rios.

Youre all rooting for your owners 2nd favorite team boys, Reinsdorf doesn't care about the Bulls and he never did.

I'd trade all six Bulls championships for one Whitesox championships.

I'm willing to give Michael Reinsdorf the benefit of the doubt until he proves he no longer deserves it. I'm not a big hockey fan, but I saw what happened with the Blackhawks when papa Bill Wirtz died and Rocky took over. I don't think we can really objectively evaluate Michael Reinsdorf until Jerry is dead. Also worth noting is that Jerry (and Michael when the time comes) are still accountable to the board.

I agree, though, this has not been a good endorsement for Jerry, and I'm coming away from this whole thing with a diminished opinion of him. I still wonder why he's so highly regarded by former players and coaches including Phil Jackson, Jordan, etc. I suppose he is a man of his word, whether you like it or not.

[Chi town]

Troza, it’s been covered about the decline of the Bulls main players. Rodman not the same.

If they bring everyone back I don’t see them winning. Too toxic and anticlimactic. Heavy in so many ways.

As for JR’s cheapness... 30m for MJ was NOTHING when the value of the Bulls and the whole NBA was lifted by Jordan into the billions. We are talking pocket change in the grand scheme. That’s was JR’s problem... not seeing the big picture and having to win his “market value” war.

After watching all of this I tend to think JR may be one of the luckiest wealthy men I’ve ever heard of. Krause was a homerun hire w no resume. MJ is the GOAT.

[Dez]

How exactly were Pippen, Phil and Jordan lowballed?

[MrFortune3]

I don't think he lowballed anyone. They signed contracts to have financial security early on. He was never going to renegotiate a great deal. Who would?

[logical_art]

Ugh KC still an organization apologist.

Watch on YouTube

[Payt10]

Anybody else notice how rough Phil's voice sounded in the doc? I hope his health is okay.

[kyrv]

Hard to say.

The Knicks and Spurs weren't exactly terrifying teams in '98-99.

With an off-season to recharge and maybe a roster tweak, I wouldn't have beat against them.

Strike shortened season
#8 seed made run to the Finals

Tends to fuel belief an aging team with injuries could have pulled it off

Spurs vs Bulls would be immense strength vs weakness matchup. Classic series but I like our chances finding some bodies to bang down low with Robinson/Duncan than the Spurs ability to find someone to guard Jordan. Sean Elliot, Mario Ellie and Avery Johnson were all out of the league within 2 years. Also Kerr is not on the Spurs bench.

2000? Yah we would be toast.

Against who? Phil and Pippen wouldn't be helping other teams to be the best in the league.

In 1999 we actually needed more big men. On 1998 that was a weakness of our team: Longley, Rodman... and then Bill Wennington? And no one else? Ok, Kukoc if you want. That would make the 99 finals very hard for us.

But as you said... Elliot, Ellie and Johnson would be eaten alive by Pippen, Jordan and Harper. The size/strength difference is huge.

The sixth title season WAS the one more year.

Should be required reading:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/jerry-krause-explains-why-bulls-dynasty-unraveled-his-words

I've posted here many times on how the Bulls were running on the fumes for the 6th title, and more than one participant used that exact phrasing.

And Scottie waited for YEARS to get his chance to get paid - he was going to take a one year deal? Come on MJ. You know that wasn't going to happen. MJ, who ya crappin'?

Scottie, Rodman, and Longley were not nearly as good after the 6th title. MJ sliced his hand open. That team wasn't sniffing a title.

The optics I agree were not good, and the Bulls didn't seem to care about the PR aspect, but there are no bad guys imo.

Great documentary, great time. Love MJ and Scottie.

I'm still wondering how a team that faced injuries on a started and ended up 62-20 and wins a title is on fumes. Surelly it wasn't the best version of the team and maybe that was really the last year but we will never know.

What is actually shown by the future is that some pieces were still good for some time: Jordan in his Wizards come back was good until the major injury vs Sacramento... now imagine a few years before that. Pippen was good for 2 years. Phil was still the best coach for a long time... Kerr and Harper still did their thing for a while (well... Kerr until 2003), Longley was the starting center of the team that took off the Duncanless Spurs in 2001.

And Rodman... he actually was averaging more than 14 rebounds in Dallas showing that the problem was mental... as it was before he joined the Bulls!

Was the team perfect? No. Was it the best version of our team? No... we would still be able to be a contender for a while even if we ended up without the title. I would say that Pacers and the Spurs would be our opponents in 99 and in 00 maybe the Portland even without Pippen? I doubt the Lakers would get there without Phil Jackson.

Scottie was worse, Rodman was worse, Jordan had a sliced hand and would have missed the regular season. Kukoc and Longley I think were as good the next season, those two aren't enough obviously to win a title. Giving Scottie a huge long-term deal at that time would have been bad, but hey it's not my money.

I won't argue anyone that would have like to have seen them go for it, some people wanted it to keep going until they lost. But there is no realistic argument that they would have likely won. I think some people don't realize how hard it is to win a title let alone two, let alone three, in a row. It's a grind. Jordan retired after both three-repeats.

"I'm still wondering how a team that faced injuries on a started and ended up 62-20 and wins a title is on fumes"

Kerr and others explained this in the doc.

Full disclosure, I didn't want Reggie Miller or someone else having the satisfaction of dethroning us. The Grant Magic thing was bad enough. But to lose as reigning champions to the Knicks or Pacers - hard pass. Things end.