How NBA rules prevented Michael Jordan's Bulls from facing superteams in the 1990s

[BIGJ1ER]

What did I misread?

Contenders doesn't mean a win for sure team, it means one among the favorites. And the sign "/" was intended to make you choose one or the other, which should be clear since we were talking about removing a team best player (as in a single 1).

And the Heatles in 2010 would have been for sure my beat to be on the Finals from the east. And the way the 2010 finals went, maybe they would have done even better. Obviously if you take the washed Wade years, not a chance, but that was not the point.

If your remove James (Single best player) Celtics and the Lakers both would have their number. Both teams were legit great. That’s actually my biggest knock on Garnett’s overall legacy for me. A true big 4 with Peak Rondo (End of 08 to 12’ the man was problem actually was more important wise in the big 3 ranking) and other ATG’s at that age (33) would have done more (scoring wise), people here theorycraft too much with him. It’s a fact you need a 20+ ppg scorer next to him, just how it is. On the Ranking top 100 he was getting traction around 5 I could not believe that.


It’s pretty exhaustive that 90’s was a watered down era by lower tier records of teams. You could argue 80’s was weak but Showtime & Bird Celtics supersedes the top end by a mile. Bulls never ran into one let alone two ATG teams in NBA history no dynasty’s to vs in the 90’s. Heck the Pistons were legit too (B2B winners 89-90).

Strong Disagree that Rondo was the most important player on the celtics, if that is what you're implying (Could be misinterpreting here though).

Rondo was solid, always thought he was overrated back then too, he did have a good stretch from 09-12 though, the comparisons to players like cp3 were always outlandish though.

I wouldn't have KG at 5, but I'd have him in my top 10 personally (back-end). Had such a strong CORP, strong peak, and was just a high impact monster.

[BostonCouchGM]

Why would I do that when the post I use my trademark on is entire devoid of substance or a valid argument? Even better why should I care when I have been saying the same things over and over only to read the same old debunked nonsense from ignorant posters over and over again and again?

There were loaded teams in the mid to late 90s close to if not equal to the Bulls in terms of talent.
Magic = Shaq, Penny, Grant with good shooters
Heat = Zo, Hardaway, Mashburn, plus solid supporting players like PJ brown, Dan Majerle and coached by Pat Riley.
Knicks = Ewing, Houston, LJ, Oak, Starks, coached by JVG
Hawks = Deke, Mookie, Laetner, Smitty coached by Wilkins

and that's just the Eastern Conference.
The difference was the Bulls' best player just so happened to be the best ever.

Yeah, no.

love low effort posts like this!! If you can't win an argument with words exit stage left

[DCasey91]

Contenders doesn't mean a win for sure team, it means one among the favorites. And the sign "/" was intended to make you choose one or the other, which should be clear since we were talking about removing a team best player (as in a single 1).

And the Heatles in 2010 would have been for sure my beat to be on the Finals from the east. And the way the 2010 finals went, maybe they would have done even better. Obviously if you take the washed Wade years, not a chance, but that was not the point.

If your remove James (Single best player) Celtics and the Lakers both would have their number. Both teams were legit great. That’s actually my biggest knock on Garnett’s overall legacy for me. A true big 4 with Peak Rondo (End of 08 to 12’ the man was problem actually was more important wise in the big 3 ranking) and other ATG’s at that age (33) would have done more (scoring wise), people here theorycraft too much with him. It’s a fact you need a 20+ ppg scorer next to him, just how it is. On the Ranking top 100 he was getting traction around 5 I could not believe that.


It’s pretty exhaustive that 90’s was a watered down era by lower tier records of teams. You could argue 80’s was weak but Showtime & Bird Celtics supersedes the top end by a mile. Bulls never ran into one let alone two ATG teams in NBA history no dynasty’s to vs in the 90’s. Heck the Pistons were legit too (B2B winners 89-90).

Strong Disagree that Rondo was the most important player on the celtics, if that is what you're implying (Could be misinterpreting here though).

Rondo was solid, always thought he was overrated back then too, he did have a good stretch from 09-12 though, the comparisons to players like cp3 were always outlandish though.

I wouldn't have KG at 5, but I'd have him in my top 10 personally (back-end). Had such a strong CORP, strong peak, and was just a high impact monster.

No I meant to say you could argue Rondo over Allen or Pierce in terms of importance as the facilitator/playmaker was one heck of a defender too.

Garnett’s impact metrics are very strong though the scoring department on a great team is one ill always knock for him. I mean everyone in that top ten ranking certainly could track very well even into their 30’s and beyond. Wished he got out of the Wolves a lot sooner.

[Pg81]

There were loaded teams in the mid to late 90s close to if not equal to the Bulls in terms of talent.
Magic = Shaq, Penny, Grant with good shooters
Heat = Zo, Hardaway, Mashburn, plus solid supporting players like PJ brown, Dan Majerle and coached by Pat Riley.
Knicks = Ewing, Houston, LJ, Oak, Starks, coached by JVG
Hawks = Deke, Mookie, Laetner, Smitty coached by Wilkins

and that's just the Eastern Conference.
The difference was the Bulls' best player just so happened to be the best ever.

Yeah, no.

Compare the 93 Suns and Bulls
What's the difference talent wise?
The Suns actually seem more talented on paper.

Bulls role players have been romanticized too much because of their success.

Paxson was no better than Elliot Perry, Kerr no better than Danny Ainge.
Ceballos = Kukoc
KJ = Pip

If those Bulls were a super team so were the Suns.

MJ > Barkley
Pippen > KJ
Grant > anyone else

So no, not equally talented.

There were loaded teams in the mid to late 90s close to if not equal to the Bulls in terms of talent.
Magic = Shaq, Penny, Grant with good shooters
Heat = Zo, Hardaway, Mashburn, plus solid supporting players like PJ brown, Dan Majerle and coached by Pat Riley.
Knicks = Ewing, Houston, LJ, Oak, Starks, coached by JVG
Hawks = Deke, Mookie, Laetner, Smitty coached by Wilkins

and that's just the Eastern Conference.
The difference was the Bulls' best player just so happened to be the best ever.

Yeah, no.

love low effort posts like this!! If you can't win an argument with words exit stage left

No argument was made with that post just like every single post made by you.

[Jordan Stopper]

Yeah, no.

Compare the 93 Suns and Bulls
What's the difference talent wise?
The Suns actually seem more talented on paper.

Bulls role players have been romanticized too much because of their success.

Paxson was no better than Elliot Perry, Kerr no better than Danny Ainge.
Ceballos = Kukoc
KJ = Pip

If those Bulls were a super team so were the Suns.

MJ > Barkley
Pippen > KJ
Grant > anyone else

So no, not equally talented.

Yeah, no.

love low effort posts like this!! If you can't win an argument with words exit stage left

No argument was made with that post just like every single post made by you.

There was very little separating Pip and KJ in 92/93
In fact, KJ had already led his team to multiple 50 win seasons and to the conference finals before Barkley joined the Suns.

KJ has the better advanced stats as well.

If there was no argument made, why bother replying?

[RSP83]

Compare the 93 Suns and Bulls
What's the difference talent wise?
The Suns actually seem more talented on paper.

Bulls role players have been romanticized too much because of their success.

Paxson was no better than Elliot Perry, Kerr no better than Danny Ainge.
Ceballos = Kukoc
KJ = Pip

If those Bulls were a super team so were the Suns.

MJ > Barkley
Pippen > KJ
Grant > anyone else

So no, not equally talented.

love low effort posts like this!! If you can't win an argument with words exit stage left

No argument was made with that post just like every single post made by you.

There was very little separating Pip and KJ in 92/93
In fact, KJ had already led his team to multiple 50 win seasons and to the conference finals before Barkley joined the Suns.

KJ has the better advanced stats as well.

If there was no argument made, why bother replying?

Suns was the deeper team. Barkley, KJ, Majerle was their top 3 players, they're All-Stars. They also had former All-Star Tom Chambers, who was still more than serviceable backup PF, he can still score in double digits. And they had a really good young talent in Richard Dumas, who looked like a future All-Star but succumbed to drug problems. Ceballos was a solid sixth-man, eventually become All-Star with the Lakers. They had solid veteran bench and role players with guys like Frank Johnson, Mark West, Danny Ainge. That Suns team was the best team in the league that year. Bulls didn't even win 60 games.

[mccluskey]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

No they weren't. They just happened to have the GOAT. Were Duncan/Robinson/Elliot a super team?

exactly, this concept of the 90s Bulls as a modern style manufactured super team is just today's fans rewriting history to try to make guys like LeBron and Durant's team hopping and stacking the deck seem less pathetic.

[Pg81]

Compare the 93 Suns and Bulls
What's the difference talent wise?
The Suns actually seem more talented on paper.

Bulls role players have been romanticized too much because of their success.

Paxson was no better than Elliot Perry, Kerr no better than Danny Ainge.
Ceballos = Kukoc
KJ = Pip

If those Bulls were a super team so were the Suns.

MJ > Barkley
Pippen > KJ
Grant > anyone else

So no, not equally talented.

love low effort posts like this!! If you can't win an argument with words exit stage left

No argument was made with that post just like every single post made by you.

There was very little separating Pip and KJ in 92/93
In fact, KJ had already led his team to multiple 50 win seasons and to the conference finals before Barkley joined the Suns.

KJ has the better advanced stats as well.

If there was no argument made, why bother replying?

Pippen played behind MJ unlike KJ who had the green light. I see no argument made by you either just some vague claims without any substance whatsoever.
Nevermind that Pippen proved that he can lead a team to 50+ wins with Horace Grant as his best team mate. When it comes to defense Pippen smokes KJ and it is not even close. Never mind durabilty which was exceedingly low for KJ and as they say availability is the best ability. KJ was a better playmaker than Pippen, that is about it maybe a little better scorer if even that. Pippen was the much better defender, rebounder and smokes him in terms of longevitiy as well. There is very little argument for Kevin Johnson unless you cherry pick hard.

Edit: just looked up 1993 advanced stats up and where exactly is KJ so clear cut better? He has worse VORP, BPM and DPM by a considerable margin. Bascially every defensive metric raw and adanvanced unsuprinsingly has Pippen ahead of KJ.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

No they weren't. They just happened to have the GOAT. Were Duncan/Robinson/Elliot a super team?

exactly, this concept of the 90s Bulls as a modern style manufactured super team is just today's fans rewriting history to try to make guys like LeBron and Durant's team hopping and stacking the deck seem less pathetic.

No it is not. 1994 proved without a shred of a doubt that the Bulls were the most stacked team. No one even expected Pippen to lead the Bulls to the playoffs yet they narrowly missed the ECF with Pete Myers as MJs replacement, a bonafide bench player.
If the Suns were so great why did they make noise only once during the decade? I always find that hilarious "yeah but year 199x that team had a better record than the Bulls, therefore Bulls were not stacked!". Yet the Bulls set a new record for wins and no other team came even close to 72 wins for the decade. Bulls were the only team to be a consistent threat throughout the decade until 1998 with 6 final appearances.

MJ > Barkley
Pippen > KJ
Grant > anyone else

So no, not equally talented.



No argument was made with that post just like every single post made by you.

There was very little separating Pip and KJ in 92/93
In fact, KJ had already led his team to multiple 50 win seasons and to the conference finals before Barkley joined the Suns.

KJ has the better advanced stats as well.

If there was no argument made, why bother replying?

Suns was the deeper team. Barkley, KJ, Majerle was their top 3 players, they're All-Stars. They also had former All-Star Tom Chambers, who was still more than serviceable backup PF, he can still score in double digits. And they had a really good young talent in Richard Dumas, who looked like a future All-Star but succumbed to drug problems. Ceballos was a solid sixth-man, eventually become All-Star with the Lakers. They had solid veteran bench and role players with guys like Frank Johnson, Mark West, Danny Ainge. That Suns team was the best team in the league that year. Bulls didn't even win 60 games.

Depth does not mean much. The Kobe/Shaq Lakers were very thin in terms of depth as were the LeBron/Wade/Bosh Heat yet they won multiple titles. Depth can be a factor but far from a deciding one. Starpower dicates success far more than depth usually.

[mccluskey]

[No it is not. 1994 proved without a shred of a doubt that the Bulls were the most stacked team. No one even expected Pippen to lead the Bulls to the playoffs yet they narrowly missed the ECF with Pete Myers as MJs replacement, a bonafide bench player.
If the Suns were so great why did they make noise only once during the decade? I always find that hilarious "yeah but year 199x that team had a better record than the Bulls, therefore Bulls were not stacked!". Yet the Bulls set a new record for wins and no other team came even close to 72 wins for the decade. Bulls were the only team to be a consistent threat throughout the decade until 1998 with 6 final appearances.

my man, I'm not trying to be a jerk but your premise here that the 93-94 season "proved without a shred of a doubt that the Bulls were the most stacked team" makes no sense to me.

the returning core of Pippen, Grant, Armstrong and Cartwright from 92-93 is certainly no one's idea of a stacked roster.

if you ignore the loss of MJ, the 93-94 Bulls definitely had more talent than 92-93, especially offensively. But they were still nothing close to a stacked roster and got bounced in the second round of the playoffs.

and by the time MJ returned and the 96-98 championship run happened, the only players from 93-94 still seeing impactful minutes outside of Pippen were Kukoc, Kerr and Longley.

I think what you're ultimately trying to say is that the 96-98 three-peat Bulls were a stacked team - I won't disagree that group had as much or more talent as anybody else during the same timeframe, but I don't think the 93-94 season did anything to prove or disprove the theory.

to me 93-94 only proved two things for the Bulls:
1) Toni Kukoc was actually going to be a solid rotation player, not an overhyped Euro bust
2) Scottie Pippen was a head case who wasn't cut out to be the #1 option for a legitimate championship contender

re: Phoenix, the main reason the Barkley-era Suns didn't make more noise was they were only together for a few years before management fired Westphal and traded Chuck.

but the West was a serious murderer's row during the 90s, too, and was generally considered quite a bit more talented top to bottom than the East throughout the decade. There were always multiple teams out west every year that were loaded with talent, whether it was the Suns, Sonics, Jazz, Rockets, Lakers, Spurs, etc., so it's not really surprising to me that there wasn't a single dominant team coming out of the conference on a more consistent basis.

[LakerLegend]

The East wasn’t thin, Celtics (08-12) was a goddamn problem for everybody. Legit Big 4 not a big three.
Bulls would have been up to their necks against that squad, if Knicks/Pacers gave em trouble.

Garnett/Allen/Pierce/Peak Rondo is heavy.

The Celtics weren't a factor in 09 and in 11 and 12 they were just shells of what they were.

So 08 and 010 doesn’t count and 012 really? How are you shells when you make the finals the next year in 010 after injuries in 09 makes no sense whatsoever. They were very very good even the 11 team was as deep as the Heat team and 12’ was a classic series. Don’t give me that nonsense. How can you be a shell yet still win what is that.
A 4 pronged core like that is heavy for stuff for any team.

08’ Champs
09’ injuriy and lost to the finalist
010’ classic 7 game series in the finals
011’ lost to the finalist
012’ ECF classic 7 game series was a way better series than the finals

Bruh.

lol.

You're comparing a bunch of guys in their mid 30's(With Garnett coming off a major injury) after over a decade in the league as being some sort of challenge for a Super Team with the core players in their prime.

All it does is speak to how overrated the players on the Heat were.

[DCasey91]

The Celtics weren't a factor in 09 and in 11 and 12 they were just shells of what they were.

So 08 and 010 doesn’t count and 012 really? How are you shells when you make the finals the next year in 010 after injuries in 09 makes no sense whatsoever. They were very very good even the 11 team was as deep as the Heat team and 12’ was a classic series. Don’t give me that nonsense. How can you be a shell yet still win what is that.
A 4 pronged core like that is heavy for stuff for any team.

08’ Champs
09’ injuriy and lost to the finalist
010’ classic 7 game series in the finals
011’ lost to the finalist
012’ ECF classic 7 game series was a way better series than the finals

Bruh.

lol.

You're comparing a bunch of guys in their mid 30's(With Garnett coming off a major injury) after over a decade in the league as being some sort of challenge for a Super Team with the core players in their prime.

All it does is speak to how overrated the players on the Heat were.

So Wade/Bosh wasn’t at their peak/injured for the duration?
So you’re discounting 14 Spurs’
Being up in 12’ for the Celtics before LBJ went Vader mode
Or 010’ when Garnett couldn’t shoulder the scoring load


I mean seriously.

[LakerLegend]

So 08 and 010 doesn’t count and 012 really? How are you shells when you make the finals the next year in 010 after injuries in 09 makes no sense whatsoever. They were very very good even the 11 team was as deep as the Heat team and 12’ was a classic series. Don’t give me that nonsense. How can you be a shell yet still win what is that.
A 4 pronged core like that is heavy for stuff for any team.

08’ Champs
09’ injuriy and lost to the finalist
010’ classic 7 game series in the finals
011’ lost to the finalist
012’ ECF classic 7 game series was a way better series than the finals

Bruh.

lol.

You're comparing a bunch of guys in their mid 30's(With Garnett coming off a major injury) after over a decade in the league as being some sort of challenge for a Super Team with the core players in their prime.

All it does is speak to how overrated the players on the Heat were.

So Wade/Bosh wasn’t at their peak/injured for the duration?
So you’re discounting 14 Spurs’
Being up in 12’ for the Celtics before LBJ went Vader mode
Or 010’ when Garnett couldn’t shoulder the scoring load


I mean seriously.

The fact that the Heat lost to a bunch of old men in 2011 and 2014 and had their hands full with an aging and broken down Celtics team only speaks to one thing: how overrated they were.

If they had that much trouble with the Celtics in 2011 and 2012 imagine the 08 Celtics, and the 08 Celtics were still substantially older than them.

[cool93]

lol.

You're comparing a bunch of guys in their mid 30's(With Garnett coming off a major injury) after over a decade in the league as being some sort of challenge for a Super Team with the core players in their prime.

All it does is speak to how overrated the players on the Heat were.

So Wade/Bosh wasn’t at their peak/injured for the duration?
So you’re discounting 14 Spurs’
Being up in 12’ for the Celtics before LBJ went Vader mode
Or 010’ when Garnett couldn’t shoulder the scoring load


I mean seriously.

The fact that the Heat lost to a bunch of old men in 2011 and 2014 and had their hands full with an aging and broken down Celtics team only speaks to one thing: how overrated they were.

If they had that much trouble with the Celtics in 2011 and 2012 imagine the 08 Celtics, and the 08 Celtics were still substantially older than them.

08 Celtics lost 10 games in playoffs and played 7 games with garbage teams. One of the weakest chapms in history.

Sent from my G3416 using RealGM mobile app

[durden_tyler]

So can we at least stop bashing LeBron or Durant for creacting superteams, and stop talking bullsh...that Jordan would never have call Magic and Bird (and dozens of such nonsense) ? The rules in 90sand 80s were completely different.

No. We'll always call out weak competitors like LeBron and Durant, that's why they'll be seen as Top 10 maybe Top 5 of all time but we'll never forget how they got their "rings".

[camby23]

So can we at least stop bashing LeBron or Durant for creacting superteams, and stop talking bullsh...that Jordan would never have call Magic and Bird (and dozens of such nonsense) ? The rules in 90sand 80s were completely different.

No. We'll always call out weak competitors like LeBron and Durant, that's why they'll be seen as Top 10 maybe Top 5 of all time but we'll never forget how they got their "rings".

But how can you even compare the loyality and competitiveness of players from 80s/90s with players from last 15 years if the rules were completely different? Its almost like comparing loyality of football players before and after Bosman rule. Its ridiculous.

[koningcosmo]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

The two best wings in the game and then a top 2-3 defensive 4 on each team that won. Throw in guys like Toni, Harper, BJ...Jordan had a super team.

jordon did not recruit those players to play with him.

Sent from my HTC U11 using RealGM mobile app

yeah we did not see him do any talking to the bulls GM or coach what kind of players he wanted the team to join........

Never happend you can litterly see them talking about this in the last dance, before they got rodman for example, that was all Jordan, he litterly says to phil jackson i want you guys to get him in the last dance. But yeah MJ doenst recruit, only this weak era blablablabla

[alebaba]

The two best wings in the game and then a top 2-3 defensive 4 on each team that won. Throw in guys like Toni, Harper, BJ...Jordan had a super team.

jordon did not recruit those players to play with him.

Sent from my HTC U11 using RealGM mobile app

yeah we did not see him do any talking to the bulls GM or coach what kind of players he wanted the team to join........

Never happend you can litterly see them talking about this in the last dance, before they got rodman for example, that was all Jordan, he litterly says to phil jackson i want you guys to get him in the last dance. But yeah MJ doenst recruit, only this weak era blablablabla

How is Jordan recruiting Rodman when he never even talk to him? Lebron fanboys
This is what Jerry Kruase said about Jordan and they arn't even on good term...

"But I will say one thing for Michael Jordan … never came to me and asked for other players. He never came to me and asked me to draft a player. Never came to me and asked to trade for a player. Never once did that happen. Part of it was he thought he was so darn good he could win without ’em … He understood what we had to do as an organization."


Nobody ever said Jordan has a super team until Lebum brought it up. Lebron Fans.

[AdagioPace]

I'm saving this great opening post + discussion among my bookmarks even though the title is a bit problematic....In any case, a lot to learn