Horace Grant deserves way more credit

[Fencer reregistered]

He was the third man on the early 90s Bulls teams but is overshadowed in our memory by Dennis Rodman from the second threepeat.

Very true.

Perhaps we should flip that around and note that his role was taken by HoFer Rodman.

[ScrantonBulls]

I never said Jordan was a good GM.

Krause had his share of his blunders and he did his best to derail the dynasty and he was awful afterwards.

Yeah, he only made a number of pivotal moves that resulted in a 6 championship dynasty. But outside of those championships he wasn't that good. What a bum!

The Jerry Krause discourse from some people is hilarious. Truly mindboggling to me when people try to paint him as some mediocre GM.

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

[dk1115]

I wonder if Grant was a better player than Rodman.

[prophet_of_rage]

He was quite good, yes. For both Chicago and Orlando. Losing him made a huge difference in 95 to the Bulls, and was a big part of why they lost to Orlando.

And his injury was why Orlando lost to the Bulls the next year.

Sent from my SM-S938W using RealGM mobile app

[MavsDirk41]

He was quite good, yes. For both Chicago and Orlando. Losing him made a huge difference in 95 to the Bulls, and was a big part of why they lost to Orlando.

And his injury was why Orlando lost to the Bulls the next year.

Sent from my SM-S938W using RealGM mobile app

The Bulls won the season series 3-1
They won by 38 points in game 1 and by 19 in game 3. Its a much more competitive series with Grant but Chicago was the better team anyways. Bulls still win but probably in 6.

[MavsDirk41]

The Jordan/Pippen/Grant Bulls had plenty of depth to win those 3 championships, but calling those teams stacked is nothing more than James fans trying to diminish Jordan.

91 Bulls main supporting cast minus Jordan/Pippen
Grant 13/8
Cartwright 10/6
Paxson 9/3
BJ 9/4
King 5/3


92 Bulls main supporting cast minus Jordan/Pippen
Grant 14/10
Cartwright 8/5
BJ 10/3
Paxson 7/3
King 7/3

93 Bulls main supporting cast minus Jordan/Pippen
Grant 13/10
BJ 12/4/2
Catrwright 5/4
Williams 6/6
Paxson 4/2

There were numerous playoff teams in both conferences that had better depth then those Bulls teams. This thread went from calling out some love for Grant, which he deserves, to calling those Bulls teams stacked. James fans lmao

It's hard to argue with the team lost MJ and won 55 games the next year and two guys who'd never been allstar were. Which makes the hash tag lines a bit misleading. Obviously, you can score more when MJ's shots have to get distributed and it turned out they could do pretty decently with more shots.

Now I don't agree that for the first run that team was "stacked" but it had likely the best big 3 by a good margin. Now the second 3 peet was stacked. Rodman and Toni in a post expansion league was just unfair. Minus 98 as Rodman wasn't still rodman at all.

The second 3 peat team had one of the leagues best 6th man in Kukoc so that automatically makes them more “stacked.” But the 1st 3 peat team? 2 superstars, a great 3rd piece in Grant along with players like Cartwright, Paxson, BJ, Cliff Levingston, Bob Hansen, Stacey King, Scott Williams…..solid depth but there were teams that had 5-6 guys averaging double figures for the year. The Bulls were more top heavy with Jordan and Pippen. The 91-93 Bulls were not stacked. You know the point of this thread too….James fan diminishing Jordans accomplishments.

[SSUBluesman]

Yeah, he only made a number of pivotal moves that resulted in a 6 championship dynasty. But outside of those championships he wasn't that good. What a bum!

The Jerry Krause discourse from some people is hilarious. Truly mindboggling to me when people try to paint him as some mediocre GM.

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

Yea you've got MJ and Pip coached by Phil...but it's still 2 completely different championship rosters that he assembled.

Hell even the start of the rebuild was off to a solid start drafting Brand/Artest and signing guys like Brad Miller.

It's wild that people still dump on Krause even after everything we know about MJ being a psycho and turning everyone against him, Reinsdorf using him as a shield, Krause's terrible people skills, etc.

[dhsilv2]

The Jordan/Pippen/Grant Bulls had plenty of depth to win those 3 championships, but calling those teams stacked is nothing more than James fans trying to diminish Jordan.

91 Bulls main supporting cast minus Jordan/Pippen
Grant 13/8
Cartwright 10/6
Paxson 9/3
BJ 9/4
King 5/3


92 Bulls main supporting cast minus Jordan/Pippen
Grant 14/10
Cartwright 8/5
BJ 10/3
Paxson 7/3
King 7/3

93 Bulls main supporting cast minus Jordan/Pippen
Grant 13/10
BJ 12/4/2
Catrwright 5/4
Williams 6/6
Paxson 4/2

There were numerous playoff teams in both conferences that had better depth then those Bulls teams. This thread went from calling out some love for Grant, which he deserves, to calling those Bulls teams stacked. James fans lmao

It's hard to argue with the team lost MJ and won 55 games the next year and two guys who'd never been allstar were. Which makes the hash tag lines a bit misleading. Obviously, you can score more when MJ's shots have to get distributed and it turned out they could do pretty decently with more shots.

Now I don't agree that for the first run that team was "stacked" but it had likely the best big 3 by a good margin. Now the second 3 peet was stacked. Rodman and Toni in a post expansion league was just unfair. Minus 98 as Rodman wasn't still rodman at all.

The second 3 peat team had one of the leagues best 6th man in Kukoc so that automatically makes them more “stacked.” But the 1st 3 peat team? 2 superstars, a great 3rd piece in Grant along with players like Cartwright, Paxson, BJ, Cliff Levingston, Bob Hansen, Stacey King, Scott Williams…..solid depth but there were teams that had 5-6 guys averaging double figures for the year. The Bulls were more top heavy with Jordan and Pippen. The 91-93 Bulls were not stacked. You know the point of this thread too….James fan diminishing Jordans accomplishments.

The point that often gets missed is that Grant is a legit allstar level player. No, not a super star or all nba guy. But he's close to a 3rd team all NBA guy than to not an allstar. Grant was a REALLY good defender. Better than guys like Thorp and Oakley from that era imo. Much more on the Karl Malone level than again, I think people give credit for. He was not just a guy getting a black and steal and solid boards. But he was a guy who could roam, had huge range, and could play his man well. Offensively, of course he was no go to scorer. Not even really a secondary scorer. But he was elite in transition. He had a 15 foot jumper that could pull rim protectors away from the basket to give room to others to drive. And he was a wildly efficient scorer when he did so, especially given he was taken the so called "bad" mid range jumpers. We don't have bulls numbers but in 1997 he shot 48.1% on long 2's. That's absolutely outstanding for that era.

Top 20 in WS 5x (peaking 3rd)
Top 20 VORP 2x (peaking 9th)
Top 20 PER 2x

For the bulls his advanced stats held up in the playoffs. Better BPM and WS/48 with a slight drop in PER.

Grant absolutely benefited from playing with Jordan and Pippen. But the reality is he was an awesome complement to them just as much as they were for him.

[NZB2323]

Yeah, he only made a number of pivotal moves that resulted in a 6 championship dynasty. But outside of those championships he wasn't that good. What a bum!

The Jerry Krause discourse from some people is hilarious. Truly mindboggling to me when people try to paint him as some mediocre GM.

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

You have to include his bad moves also, just like Joe Dumars. There was a point in time where Joe Dumars was considered to be the best GM in the NBA and then a point in time where Joe Dumars was considered to be the worst GM in the NBA, and Krause’s story is similar.

“You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.”

Can you imagine if Bob Myers was talking about firing Steve Kerr and trading away Green and Klay after the Warriors won 73 games? And Curry, Green, and Klay were talking about how much they hated Bob Myers and no NBA star would want to sign with the Warriors and play for Bob Myers? Do you think Warriors fans would use kind words to describe him?

What if the Spurs GM was talking about firing Greg Popovich after his 4th Championship(2007) and trading away Parker and Ginobili to rebuild and Duncan, Pop, Parker, and Ginobili were taking about how much they hated their GM and no one wanted to sign with that GM? Do you think Spurs fans would side with Pop, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, or their GM, who wanted to get more credit for his ego and then failed miserably afterwards?

What if Jerry West was talking about firing Pat Riley in 1987 and trading away Kareem and Worthy, and Pat, Magic, Kareem, and Worthy were all talking about how much they hated West and no one wanted to sign with the Lakers?

[FarBeyondDriven]

Let's be honest here, most of the guys that played with Jordan deserve way more credit than they have gotten.

The media has intentionally discredited all of Jordan's teammates.

And before someone accuses me of being a Jordan hater, and/or a LeBron stan, let me just preemptively say that I think Jordan was clearly better than LeBron.

weak narrative. Nobody is discrediting anyone. The fact is MJ was incredible and just needed good role players around him and when he had that his teams won championships. Early on when he didn't and the East was stacked with all-time Celtics and Pistons teams, even as great as he was, he couldn't beat them.

Grant was a good role player. But role player is all he was. He just so happened to be a role player on stacked Bulls and Magic teams. As soon as Shaq left and that Magic team aged out he was essentially no better than any other role player you'll find and his numbers plummeted for the remainder of his career.

MJ being such a dominant offensive engine allowed role players to stay in their lane so in reality it's actually them that benefitted from MJ more than he benefitted from them. People conveniently forget that the Bulls brought Kukoc over in 1994 and returned everyone else so it was still a very talented team and the East was very weak so winning 55 games was nice and all but they got exposed in the playoffs without MJ. Then people conveniently forget that they lost Grant but didn't replace him with anyone to play his role so even with a rusty MJ coming back their roster simply wasn't built to win a championship in 95 thought that doesn't stop them from brining it up as some sort of MJ failure There's no surprise that as soon as they got Rodman to play that Grant role in 96 they would go on to three-peat again.

[VanWest82]

I'd say Horace deserves more credit in general NBA discourse and less credit on realgm where he's essentially become a vehicle to denigrate Jordan's legacy by a large and growing subset of posters.

One thing I personally appreciated about Horace was he was really good right from the start and stayed good throughout most of his career. He was definitely better than Pippen their first two years in the league, and arguably better than Scottie until about half way through 90. I thought he was pretty good on Orlando after Shaq left and Penny got hurt, and was even solid on that 2nd Lakers title team covering for fat Shaq while he played his way back into shape.

I think part of the issue is HoGrant was better than a role player in his prime but wasn't really good enough to be an all star unless he was on a stacked emsemble team like 94 Bulls in a weakening conference where he could take credit as one of the defacto best players. But his impact was (almost) always there.

Whining about credit for those early 90s Bulls teams was never a good look though, especially given his noticeably diminished effort during 93 regular season. Complicated legacy.

[dhsilv2]

Let's be honest here, most of the guys that played with Jordan deserve way more credit than they have gotten.

The media has intentionally discredited all of Jordan's teammates.

And before someone accuses me of being a Jordan hater, and/or a LeBron stan, let me just preemptively say that I think Jordan was clearly better than LeBron.

weak narrative. Nobody is discrediting anyone. The fact is MJ was incredible and just needed good role players around him and when he had that his teams won championships. Early on when he didn't and the East was stacked with all-time Celtics and Pistons teams, even as great as he was, he couldn't beat them.

Grant was a good role player. But role player is all he was. He just so happened to be a role player on stacked Bulls and Magic teams. As soon as Shaq left and that Magic team aged out he was essentially no better than any other role player you'll find and his numbers plummeted for the remainder of his career.

MJ being such a dominant offensive engine allowed role players to stay in their lane so in reality it's actually them that benefitted from MJ more than he benefitted from them. People conveniently forget that the Bulls brought Kukoc over in 1994 and returned everyone else so it was still a very talented team and the East was very weak so winning 55 games was nice and all but they got exposed in the playoffs without MJ. Then people conveniently forget that they lost Grant but didn't replace him with anyone to play his role so even with a rusty MJ coming back their roster simply wasn't built to win a championship in 95 thought that doesn't stop them from brining it up as some sort of MJ failure There's no surprise that as soon as they got Rodman to play that Grant role in 96 they would go on to three-peat again.

Did we change "exposed" to mean "Took a team favored to beat them to a game 7 and proved how great a team they were"?

[dhsilv2]

I'd say Horace deserves more credit in general NBA discourse and less credit on realgm where he's essentially become a vehicle to denigrate Jordan's legacy by a large and growing subset of posters.

One thing I personally appreciated about Horace was he was really good right from the start and stayed good throughout most of his career. He was definitely better than Pippen their first two years in the league, and arguably better than Scottie until about half way through 90. I thought he was pretty good on Orlando after Shaq left and Penny got hurt, and was even solid on that 2nd Lakers title team covering for fat Shaq while he played his way back into shape.

I think part of the issue is HoGrant was better than a role player in his prime but wasn't really good enough to be an all star unless he was on a stacked emsemble team like 94 Bulls in a weakening conference where he could take credit as one of the defacto best players. But his impact was (almost) always there.

Whining about credit for those early 90s Bulls teams was never a good look though, especially given his noticeably diminished effort during 93 regular season. Complicated legacy.

He literally had his best year when Jordan left the bulls and made the allstar team in 94...

[JinKaz69]

It's hard to argue with the team lost MJ and won 55 games the next year and two guys who'd never been allstar were. Which makes the hash tag lines a bit misleading. Obviously, you can score more when MJ's shots have to get distributed and it turned out they could do pretty decently with more shots.

Now I don't agree that for the first run that team was "stacked" but it had likely the best big 3 by a good margin. Now the second 3 peet was stacked. Rodman and Toni in a post expansion league was just unfair. Minus 98 as Rodman wasn't still rodman at all.

The second 3 peat team had one of the leagues best 6th man in Kukoc so that automatically makes them more “stacked.” But the 1st 3 peat team? 2 superstars, a great 3rd piece in Grant along with players like Cartwright, Paxson, BJ, Cliff Levingston, Bob Hansen, Stacey King, Scott Williams…..solid depth but there were teams that had 5-6 guys averaging double figures for the year. The Bulls were more top heavy with Jordan and Pippen. The 91-93 Bulls were not stacked. You know the point of this thread too….James fan diminishing Jordans accomplishments.

The point that often gets missed is that Grant is a legit allstar level player. No, not a super star or all nba guy. But he's close to a 3rd team all NBA guy than to not an allstar. Grant was a REALLY good defender. Better than guys like Thorp and Oakley from that era imo. Much more on the Karl Malone level than again, I think people give credit for. He was not just a guy getting a black and steal and solid boards. But he was a guy who could roam, had huge range, and could play his man well. Offensively, of course he was no go to scorer. Not even really a secondary scorer. But he was elite in transition. He had a 15 foot jumper that could pull rim protectors away from the basket to give room to others to drive. And he was a wildly efficient scorer when he did so, especially given he was taken the so called "bad" mid range jumpers. We don't have bulls numbers but in 1997 he shot 48.1% on long 2's. That's absolutely outstanding for that era.

Top 20 in WS 5x (peaking 3rd)
Top 20 VORP 2x (peaking 9th)
Top 20 PER 2x

For the bulls his advanced stats held up in the playoffs. Better BPM and WS/48 with a slight drop in PER.

Grant absolutely benefited from playing with Jordan and Pippen. But the reality is he was an awesome complement to them just as much as they were for him.

Grant was never a legit all star level player and not really close to a 3rd all NBA team. His lone all star selection was more a result of the coaches wanting to reward him for the Bulls season and players like Nance and Johnson having a down year (age, injuries) that year.

He is on the same group level with players like Thorpe, Oakley, Buck Williams or Antonio Davis. All solid role players.

Much more on the Karl Malone level ??!? ^^ (Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning)

[MavsDirk41]

It's hard to argue with the team lost MJ and won 55 games the next year and two guys who'd never been allstar were. Which makes the hash tag lines a bit misleading. Obviously, you can score more when MJ's shots have to get distributed and it turned out they could do pretty decently with more shots.

Now I don't agree that for the first run that team was "stacked" but it had likely the best big 3 by a good margin. Now the second 3 peet was stacked. Rodman and Toni in a post expansion league was just unfair. Minus 98 as Rodman wasn't still rodman at all.

The second 3 peat team had one of the leagues best 6th man in Kukoc so that automatically makes them more “stacked.” But the 1st 3 peat team? 2 superstars, a great 3rd piece in Grant along with players like Cartwright, Paxson, BJ, Cliff Levingston, Bob Hansen, Stacey King, Scott Williams…..solid depth but there were teams that had 5-6 guys averaging double figures for the year. The Bulls were more top heavy with Jordan and Pippen. The 91-93 Bulls were not stacked. You know the point of this thread too….James fan diminishing Jordans accomplishments.

The point that often gets missed is that Grant is a legit allstar level player. No, not a super star or all nba guy. But he's close to a 3rd team all NBA guy than to not an allstar. Grant was a REALLY good defender. Better than guys like Thorp and Oakley from that era imo. Much more on the Karl Malone level than again, I think people give credit for. He was not just a guy getting a black and steal and solid boards. But he was a guy who could roam, had huge range, and could play his man well. Offensively, of course he was no go to scorer. Not even really a secondary scorer. But he was elite in transition. He had a 15 foot jumper that could pull rim protectors away from the basket to give room to others to drive. And he was a wildly efficient scorer when he did so, especially given he was taken the so called "bad" mid range jumpers. We don't have bulls numbers but in 1997 he shot 48.1% on long 2's. That's absolutely outstanding for that era.

Top 20 in WS 5x (peaking 3rd)
Top 20 VORP 2x (peaking 9th)
Top 20 PER 2x

For the bulls his advanced stats held up in the playoffs. Better BPM and WS/48 with a slight drop in PER.

Grant absolutely benefited from playing with Jordan and Pippen. But the reality is he was an awesome complement to them just as much as they were for him.

Grant was an awesome compliment to Jordan and Pippen. He was everything a team would want in a power forward. Elite defensively, solid on the boards, never tried to do too much, consumate pro, and could hit a 15 foot face up jumper. I would take him everyday over 2nd 3 peat Rodman. But i never viewed him as a all star player. He was awesome tho.

[PRguy23]

Yeah, he only made a number of pivotal moves that resulted in a 6 championship dynasty. But outside of those championships he wasn't that good. What a bum!

The Jerry Krause discourse from some people is hilarious. Truly mindboggling to me when people try to paint him as some mediocre GM.

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

His moves after were not horrible either. Can't blame him for the Brand situation as Brands agent was super agent David Faulk and told Chicago he was getting brand out of there.

However he drafted: Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford,

Signed : Ron Mercer, Brad Miller, Eddie Robinson, Donyell Marshall.

He was starting to build a solid team together that still had cap space available.

I never understood why he did trade Mercer, Artest and Miller for Jalen Rose. That was a over pay.

[MavsDirk41]

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

His moves after were not horrible either. Can't blame him for the Brand situation as Brands agent was super agent David Faulk and told Chicago he was getting brand out of there.

However he drafted: Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford,

Signed : Ron Mercer, Brad Miller, Eddie Robinson, Donyell Marshall.

He was starting to build a solid team together that still had cap space available.

I never understood why he did trade Mercer, Artest and Miller for Jalen Rose. That was a over pay.

He also drafted Stacey King over Kemp, Nick Anderson, Tim Hardaway, and Divac.

[Mazter]

He also drafted Stacey King over Kemp, Nick Anderson, Tim Hardaway, and Divac.

Well, at that point, 4 years after hiring Tex, he finally had a head coach willing to fully implement the triangle. Every move he made was destined to fit the system. He was already going for BJ Armstrong, so no Tim Hardaway was needed. He had Grant, so Kemp wasnt needed. He had Jordan, which made Nick Anderson unneccesary. Maybe Divac would have been the better choice, but he was from communist Yugoslavia, and he wasnt sure wether he could come over inmediately. And well, Stacey King was an All American First team, who could shoot, pass and was Triangle friendly. He would be a backup to Cartwright and should eventually be the one to replace Cartwright. At the time it was the logic choice, who didnt pan out as the succesor of Cartwright but he did get Longley/Wennington after that.

[ScrantonBulls]

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

You have to include his bad moves also, just like Joe Dumars. There was a point in time where Joe Dumars was considered to be the best GM in the NBA and then a point in time where Joe Dumars was considered to be the worst GM in the NBA, and Krause’s story is similar.

“You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.”

Can you imagine if Bob Myers was talking about firing Steve Kerr and trading away Green and Klay after the Warriors won 73 games? And Curry, Green, and Klay were talking about how much they hated Bob Myers and no NBA star would want to sign with the Warriors and play for Bob Myers? Do you think Warriors fans would use kind words to describe him?

What if the Spurs GM was talking about firing Greg Popovich after his 4th Championship(2007) and trading away Parker and Ginobili to rebuild and Duncan, Pop, Parker, and Ginobili were taking about how much they hated their GM and no one wanted to sign with that GM? Do you think Spurs fans would side with Pop, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, or their GM, who wanted to get more credit for his ego and then failed miserably afterwards?

What if Jerry West was talking about firing Pat Riley in 1987 and trading away Kareem and Worthy, and Pat, Magic, Kareem, and Worthy were all talking about how much they hated West and no one wanted to sign with the Lakers?

Imagine comparing Joe Dumans and his 1 championship to Jerry Krause and his 6 championships. Even worse, imagine comparing breaking up the aging Bulls squad in 1998 to breaking up the 73 win Warriors team. Really? Do I honestly have to explain why that's a terrible comparison? That's just a bad comparison when you think about it for a minute. I'll give you a hint - look at the age of the players and the contract situations.

[ScrantonBulls]

Never said he was a bum.

But he wanted to replace Jackson with Tim Floyd. And he wanted to do it while the Bulls came off a 72 win season.

He had his flaws. And his work post-dynasty doesn't lead me to believe he was an exceptional GM.

You can think what you want. Everyone here knows your shtick.

- Traded for Pippen's draft rights
- Hired Phil while he was coaching in freaking Puerto Rico
- Replaced the popular Doug Collins with Phil Jackson
- Hired Tex Winter, who implemented the legendary triangle offense
- Hired Johnny Bach, architect of the great defenses of those twams
- Drafted Horace at 10
- Traded Oakley for Cartwright (risky move trading MJ's guy, but it worked)
- Drafted Kukoc in the 2nd round
- Traded Stacey King for Luc Longley
- Traded for Rodman when he was viewed as radioactive
- Signed Ron Harper and John Paxson

So yeah, he was responsible for getting basically EVERY important piece to the championship teams aside from MJ. His amazing moves resulted in 6 championships. So yeah, I don't really care about his results after his SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. The "Krause wasn't that good of a GM" takes are so poorly thought out. You talk about my "schtick". What's your excuse for being a Bulls fan and being so misguided about Krause?

His moves after were not horrible either. Can't blame him for the Brand situation as Brands agent was super agent David Faulk and told Chicago he was getting brand out of there.

However he drafted: Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford,

Signed : Ron Mercer, Brad Miller, Eddie Robinson, Donyell Marshall.

He was starting to build a solid team together that still had cap space available.

I never understood why he did trade Mercer, Artest and Miller for Jalen Rose. That was a over pay.

Yeah, it's not like he left it as a dumpster fire. The team he built and left Paxson may look very different his #2 pick (Jay Williams) didn't have a career ending motorcycle injury.