# Phil Jackson = Jerry Krause (spiteful, deceitful, etc...)



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Check THIS out.

More and more it turns out that Krause wasn't the bad guy everyone makes him out to be.



> In particular, many Bulls staff members who had to endure his personality quirks were left harboring a long-burning resentment.
> --
> At the time and in later accounts, Jackson portrayed Bach’s firing as a result of Krause’s anger over the 1991 book “The Jordan Rules” by Chicago Tribune columnist Sam Smith. The text contained fascinating inside detail on the team’s drive to its first championship, detail that portrayed Krause as something of a buffoon and Jordan as somewhat ruthless and selfish. Both Jordan and Krause hated the book, and Jackson later joked that “The Jordan Rules” was one of the few things the team executive and star player could agree about.
> 
> ...


http://lakernoise.blogspot.com/2006/07/where-bodies-are-buried.html


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I think the snake-in-the-grass aspect of PJax is pretty well known and accepted by now. I've read his self serving books and have come up increasingly disenchanted with him with the publication of each new one.

I'm still more than happy he was the coach in the dynasty years, but I think in general he is an arrogant, axe-grinding jerk.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Laker guy said:


> Krause learned in 1998 that it was Jackson himself, not Bach, who was the source for much of Smith’s book. How did Krause discover this? He learned it from Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who was told of the situation in confidence by none other than Sam Smith himself. Smith had revealed his sources to Reinsdorf with the caveat that he not tell anyone. Reinsdorf was not supposed to give that information to Krause, but he did.


Now why would Reinsdorf do this ?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Wow, fascinating stuff. I too have thought for several years now that PJax is a jerk.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

jackson... very good at saying the things everyone likes hearing. but i've always suspected there's something going on under that surface.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

PJax was the main reason for the breakup of the MJ dynasty.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

This explains Y Jackson is portrayed as the hero of _The Jordan Rules_ while everybody else is a selfish jerk.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

SPMJ said:


> This explains Y Jackson is portrayed as the hero of _The Jordan Rules_ while everybody else is a selfish jerk.


Yep. Nothing like being very friendly to the press to help your image. 


And I've always thought Smith talks to Reinsdorf a lot. He was never as antagonistic to Jerry as other columnists in Chicago were during the 90s.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> PJax was the main reason for the breakup of the MJ dynasty.


Apparantly, besides coming up with bizarre trade scenarios, Sam Smith's main claim to fame should be a fellow "main reason" for the breakup of the MJ dynasty.

If he got the dirt from PJax, he should never have confided that fact to Reinsdorf, even with a "don't tell anyone else" promise.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> PJax was the main reason for the breakup of the MJ dynasty.


Apparantly, besides coming up with bizarre trade scenarios, Sam Smith's main claim to fame should be a fellow "main reason" for the breakup of the MJ dynasty.

If he got the dirt from PJax, he should never have confided that fact to Reinsdorf, even with a "don't tell anyone else" promise.


But I agree with you. PJax was the main reason for the breakup of the MJ dynasty.


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

Whatever means Phil used to win, it damn sure worked.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Doggpound said:


> Whatever means Phil used to win, it damn sure worked.


Two greatest players in the world helped.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

the old unnamed source routine again eh? I never trust unnamed hatchet jobs from sources too much

regardless, Phil plays mind games and sought control of the team through tactics? How rude!

Oh my stars!
*grabs purse, spins on stilletos, :Hurumphs: and switches away indignantly with nose in the air. Looks for a shoulder to cry on and hold me up from a near faint*


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

GB said:


> Two greatest players in the world helped.


Doug Collins had them also and look what he did =)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Doggpound said:


> Doug Collins had them also and look what he did =)


You mean take a team that was still forming and developing and reach the eastern conference semis and the eastern conference finals?


----------



## Doggpound (Nov 1, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean take a team that was still forming and developing and reach the eastern conference semis and the eastern conference finals?


Yes, like Del Harris did w/the Lakers and their two stars also. Phil steps in, wins titles.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

nothing anybody can write can take the great taste
of six championships out of my mouth 

and yeah, doug would have won some championships too,
if only he didn't fool around with ms. reinsdorf...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Phil is a flat out leader. I don't care if he's ruthless. In fact, I expect my leaders to be ruthless. Thats why I love Mike so much too. Always, there will be the feelings that get crushed. Tears flowing in the bathroom stalls from those who get dominated by the alphas. Dead bodies by the side of the road

give me a couple bad assed meanies all day (and thats not a hidden sado masochism reference)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> Phil is a flat out leader. I don't care if he's ruthless. In fact, I expect my leaders to be ruthless. Thats why I love Mike so much too. Always, there will be the feelings that get crushed. Tears flowing in the bathroom stalls from those who get dominated by the alphas. Dead bodies by the side of the road
> 
> give me a couple bad assed meanies all day (and thats not a hidden sado masochism reference)


There is ruthless and there is ruthless. Riding a player hard, threatening him, etc, to get the most out of a player is one thing. Lying to set up one of your assistants to lose his job to save your own is entirely another. That's not being an "alpha."


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> There is ruthless and there is ruthless. Riding a player hard, threatening him, etc, to get the most out of a player is one thing. Lying to set up one of your assistants to lose his job to save your own is entirely another. That's not being an "alpha."


honestly Tom, and I respect your feeling on this. But thats what they seem to be _feelings_

I'm sensing these feelings things in play. thats all that touchy feely ethics that personally, I don't accept as a priority when it comes to competition. 
Moral issues never matter to me when it comes to Sports. I have the warrior mentality. When people bring things up to me like political angles and baskstabbing stories about athletes and coaches..My first reflex is to reach for a boxscore and see who won


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> honestly Tom, and I respect your feeling on this. But thats what they seem to be _feelings_
> 
> I'm sensing these feelings things in play. thats all that touchy feely ethics that personally, I don't accept as a priority when it comes to competition.
> Moral issues never matter to me when it comes to Sports. I have the warrior mentality. When people bring things up to me like political angles and baskstabbing stories about athletes and coaches..My first reflex is to reach for a boxscore and see who won


So you think steroids in baseball (football/olympics) is a good thing? Only winning matters?


Its beside the point, though. I don't think getting Johnny Bach fired had anything to do with getting the Bulls to win or lose. It had nothing to do with being a warrior.

The backfire of the the event however, did have everything to do with causing the team to lose. That backstabbing came back to haunt Phil, and it seems in hindsight that it is pretty much what led to Phil having to part ways with the Bulls, thus triggering the breakup of the dynasty.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> So you think steroids in baseball (football/olympics) is a good thing? Only winning matters?


actually, I don't have that much of a problem, but I am against one player having a chemical advantage over another.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Its beside the point, though. I don't think getting Johnny Bach fired had anything to do with getting the Bulls to win or lose. It had nothing to do with being a warrior.
> 
> The backfire of the the event however, did have everything to do with causing the team to lose. That backstabbing came back to haunt Phil, and it seems in hindsight that it is pretty much what led to Phil having to part ways with the Bulls, thus triggering the breakup of the dynasty.


I think we had an owner error of judgement in the end. JR *ed up. He chose Krause. The weak sister


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Doggpound said:


> Yes, like Del Harris did w/the Lakers and their two stars also. Phil steps in, wins titles.


Ohhhh! A new disciple to convert... Repeat after me... It's not the coach - it's the players. It's not the coach - it's the players.

Anytime Phil Jackson has coached a team that didn't have two of the top five players in the game at the time, he hasn't done a whole lot.

It's not the coach - it's the players. Learn it. Live it. Be it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm with Tom B. There is competetion and being a warrior and then there is being a sneaky backstabbing lowlife, PJ choose the latter.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> I think we had an owner error of judgement in the end. JR *ed up. He chose Krause. The weak sister


Would Krause and Jackson have had a problem if it hadn't been for Jackson?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

GB said:


> Would Krause and Jackson have had a problem if it hadn't been for Jackson?


I don't know. Maybe not. Then again it does not matter to me because Jackson is the superior entity.

good by Mr Krause if it were up to me and I had the gift of seeing who the best man was. And I say best man in the caveman sense. I don't care who was the nicest most virtuous one


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

fleetwood macbull said:


> actually, I don't have that much of a problem, but I am against one player having a chemical advantage over another.


Well, steroids are exactly that.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, steroids are exactly that.


indeed. Yet if they were all on steroids, it would be aiite 

j/k
I'm not morally opposed to doing drugs as an individual, but my only stance is that employers have a right to impose restrictions on drug use if they feel its bad for business or unsafe in the workplace.
It would be bad for business, because people would be crying about 'the children'

In my perfect fantasy, I would enjoy baseball players putting on a roid show like pro wrestlers


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

If you read the Jordon Rules and some of the other Bulls books, PJax comes off as an outstanding leader and not too bad a guy. Lazeby always made his dough by digging up the nastiest dirt. Some great stuff about MJ and Pippen getting drunk on the team bus and taunting Krause big-time. 

I am a huge PJax fan and this one issue about Bach's firing is the only thing that I have seen as that's really troubling. But you have to look at the big picture.

Krause is just a tool in comparision.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Learn it. Live it. Be it.


No Shirt. No Shoes.

Noooooooooooo Diiiice.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Anytime Phil Jackson has coached a team that didn't have two of the top five players in the game at the time, he hasn't done a whole lot.


Only always met or exceeded expecations. Boy, wouldn't have Larry Brown liked to have reached those lofty heights.

p.s. Hard to believe any Bulls fan who was around for the year that MJ took off to play baseball that wouldn't think PJax is one of the greatest coaches ever. 55 wins and a phantom call away from Conf. Finals.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

johnston797 said:


> Hard to believe any Bulls fan who was around for the year that MJ took off to play baseball that wouldn't think PJax is one of the greatest coaches ever. 55 wins and a phantom call away from Conf. Finals.


what he said.


and i do not care about PJ's character as a person.
the book he wrote about the lakers (especially the parts about kobe) did
nothing to change my feelings about 6 titles.

don't care about off the court behavior, or about playing "the right" way.
i care about winning, which is the only qualification for how to play.
i do not want to feel depressed at the buzzer.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Some thoughts as I read this:



> In particular, many Bulls staff members who had to endure his personality quirks were left harboring a long-burning resentment.


Yep. That's Jerry Krause.



> At the time and in later accounts, Jackson portrayed Bach’s firing as a result of Krause’s anger over the 1991 book “The Jordan Rules” by Chicago Tribune columnist Sam Smith. The text contained fascinating inside detail on the team’s drive to its first championship, *detail that portrayed Krause as something of a buffoon and Jordan as somewhat ruthless and selfish.* Both Jordan and Krause hated the book, and Jackson later joked that “The Jordan Rules” was one of the few things the team executive and star player could agree about.


Yep, that sounds about right.



> Krause alleged later that Jackson deceived him into believing that Bach was the anonymous source for most of the inside detail.


OK, here's where I start to question the underlying premise of this article. It all rests on the fact that Krause, known for his weirdness, lack of personal skills, and occasional bursts of anger, only fired Bach because he was "deceived" into believing Bach was the source of "most" of the detail.

*Krause's biggest problem throughout his tenure here was generally his ability to deceive himself*. Perhaps this is all true as written. But I also find it VERY possible that Krause, a guy with several chips on his shoulder to start with, took something Jackson said as indicating it was Bach, whether Jackson intended it or not. Or Krause could have thought of it independently and simply blamed Jackson after the fact. Or Krause could have had a whole host of issues with Jackson, Bach, and damn near everyone else he hever met. 

It's also unclear what "most" of the detail meant. How much actually needed to come from Bach to get Krause mad enough to fire him? Or perhaps Bach was simply the only guy Krause could get away with axing over it?



> Krause learned in 1998 that it was Jackson himself, not Bach, who was the source for much of Smith’s book. How did Krause discover this? He learned it from Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who was told of the situation in confidence by none other than Sam Smith himself. Smith had revealed his sources to Reinsdorf with the caveat that he not tell anyone. Reinsdorf was not supposed to give that information to Krause, but he did.
> 
> Smith independently confirmed those events and Jackson’s role in his book.


Way to go Sammy, break that cardinal rule of journalism!



> “Phil and the players had much more of a role than Johnny Bach,” Smith said in acknowledging that he had told Reinsdorf of Jackson’s part in “The Jordan Rules.”


Again, that's not saying that Bach played no role at all. And it's unclear that Jackson intentionally hung Bach out to dry.



> Jackson, though, had continued to explain Bach’s firing as a result of the elderly assistant coach’s involvement, clearly a prevarication on Jackson’s part.


Huh? The article has already established that Bach did provide information in the book, and that Krause, rightly or wrongly, and blamed Bach for much of it and fired it.

That's no lie on Jackson's part. The question is whether Jackson sold out Bach to Krause. 



> "It was Jerry Krause’s relationship with Johnny Bach that created a very uncomfortable situation," Jackson said of the firing in a 1995 interview. "It made this have to happen eventually. It had gone all wrong. It was bad for the staff to have this kind of thing because we had to work together.
> 
> "Jerry basically blamed Johnny Bach for a lot of the things in the Jordan Rules. And there’s no doubt that Johnny did provide that information. Jerry felt that Johnny talked too much. And Johnny, in retrospect, felt that animonsity that Jerry gave to back to him, the lack of respect, so Johnny refused to pay allegiance to Jerry just because he was the boss.


OK... that all seems accurate and quite likely to me. Should Jackson have stepped up at that point and said "Hey boss, you know what, I actually talked way more than Johnny did"? 

I dunno, but I suspect a couple things. First, I'm not sure Krause could have axed Jackson. Given that Reinsdorf apparently knew (and didn't tell), I've got to think he wanted to keep Jackson around. 

Actually, the power hungry move for Jackson, at that point, would probably have been to show up Krause and tell him he (Jackson) was the source. What happens then? Krause goes and knocks on Reinsdorf's door, and says he wants to fire the coach right after winning the title? In the words of the super-intelligent chimp who runs NASA in the Simpsons episode where Homer is blasted into space, "I don't think we'll be telling them that".

What would actually have happened, is that Krause would unescapably have learned that Reinsdorf already knew it all and thus Krause had more or less been cuckolded.

In any case, there would have been disaster and dissension afoot... much carnage done to the dynasty.

As a quick footnote... it's worth noting that Reinsdorf was clearly pretty instrumental in the breakup in 1998 by deciding to reveal this info to Krause, understanding full well that it'd render any working relationship between Jackson and Krause impossible.



> "It had gone on for too long a period of time," Jackson said. "I could have kept them apart, at bay from one another, I suppose for a while longer. But I didn’t like the fact that it wasn’t good teamwork. That was my staff and my area. I agreed to do it. I felt it was a good opportunity because Johnny had an opportunity to get another job in the league quickly. It worked out fine for Johnny, although I would just as soon have not put him through the disappointment, or have to go through the situation myself."


Well, you always could have taken the chance and put your name out there as the main source, Phil. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying Jackson is perfect. His gladhanding here is rather obvious. "It worked out fine for Johnny"? Laughable.

Realistically, Jackson agreed to get rid of Bach... perhaps suggested it, because he didn't think there was any way to salvage a working relationship between Bach and Krause no matter what he said. And he likely didn't know Reinsdorf knew Smith ratted _him _out, so he was wasn't going to confront Krause and get canned (thus screwing up pretty much everything) just to save Bach (who had, in fact, contributed himself to the poor relationship with Krause). 

And of course, if Jackson did tell Krause he was the main source, and Bach was only a secondary source, AND Krause had been able to fire Jackson, it's likely he would have cleaned house and fired Bach too, given the contentious relationship.



> “Phil lied to me,” Krause said in a 1998 interview. “Phil actually got Johnny fired.”


So we're to take Krause's word on this, knowing he's got the emotional range of a 14 year old girl? Perhaps Jackson lied to him. Or perhaps Krause just had a grudge to start with, heard what he wanted to hear, and was unbearable around Bach. 

And Bach, for his part, apparently didn't take to the unbearableness of Krause very respectfully. 

In any case, it's rather duplicitous to say Phil got Johnny fired when Phil not firing Johnny would have led to a continued ****ty environment, for which both Jerry and Johnny were responsible for creating.

Point is, it seems likely to me that things go well beyond exactly what Bach said or didn't say to Sam Smith. Pretty likely, saying anything at all would be enough to earn Sleuth's enmity.



> “It was Phil’s idea to fire Bach,” Reinsdorf said in 1998. “Phil told me that the bad relationship between Krause and Bach had made things impossible. It was Phil’s idea. Nobody told him to do it.”


Again, this is a pretty duplicitous statement coming from Reinsdorf in 1998, given that he knew about the book sourcing years earlier, and was clearly trying to usher Jackson out of town.

And again, it's not at all clear that the relationship between Bach and Krause had foundered on the book. Given Krause's generally contentious and suspicious nature, and Bach's apparent refusal to kow-tow to Krause, I think it's likely there was a lot more in play.



> Contrary to Jackson’s later assertions that things worked out fine for Bach, Bach himself said the firing came at a terrible time in his life, after the 1994 playoffs, just weeks shy of his 70th birthday.


Yup. The sob story. Perhaps this, and later events, are what led Krause (who treated him poorly) and Reinsdorf (who remained silent when he got canned!) to conveniently elevate him to martyr status when it suited them a few years later. 



> The irony, Bach said, was that the coaching staff had probably never worked better together. “At the end of that year I had every reason to think my contract would be renewed,” Bach recalled in a 1999 interview. “The first person that told me was Phil. He said, ‘We’re not gonna renew the contract.’ I was stunned. Before I could say much in defense, he said, ‘It’s really best for you that you do leave. The organization has made up its mind.’ I was disappointed. Shocked is a better way of saying it. I didn’t quarrel. I just couldn’t believe it. I went to see Krause and he said the same thing.


Sounds like Jackson and Krause both did this about as honestly as you can when you fire someone. Jackson did it, and didn't lay it on Krause's feet. Krause said the same thing and didn't lay it at Jackson's feet.



> I just got up and left. I had a lot of crisis in my life at that time. I was end the divorce courts ending a long-term marriage. I had to move. I thought everything was collapsing around me that summer. Then I had a heart attack. It was all a shock, and it took some time to believe and trust people again.”
> 
> An excellent coach, Bach was later hired by the Charlotte Hornets.


:sad:



> He subsequently learned that he was supposedly fired for the inside information he provided to Smith.


It's funny how memories can fade. Suddenly his general relationship, and lack of respect for Krause didn't seem so bad. And Krause suddenly didn't think whatever really irritated him about working with Bach was so bad. It was all just a big misunderstanding... someone else must be to blame. Yeah... that's the ticket!



> Bach said he went back and read the book three or four times looking for damaging information he might have provided. His quotes, though, were on the record and relatively basic.


I don't know that something like that would matter to an irritable, secretive, emotional, and grudge-towing guy like Krause. 



> “I didn’t see a single quote in that book that was out of order,” he said. “Sam is obviously a good investigative reporter. There was a portrait in there that Michael did not like, based on whoever gave it to Sam.”
> 
> The book “was quite an accurate portrayal,” Bach said. “I don’t think Sam painted someone as he wasn’t.”


Not sure how this stuff fits in to the rest of the article. Was it Bach that painted an unflattering picture of MJ? It couldn't have been that unflattering, since MJ agreed to have Bach on Doug Collins' staff in Washington. Anyway, that seems to be neither here nor there...



> Krause was supposedly distraught more than three years later to learn that he had been deceived into firing an innocent Bach. By then, Bach was working in Detroit as an assistant coach. One night when the Pistons were in Chicago to play the Bulls, Pistons executive Rick Sund told Bach that Krause would like a word with him. “I had mixed feelings,” Bach recalled. “You sort of protect yourself.”
> He agreed to the meeting, however, and was more than a bit surprised. “When Jerry spoke to me he was emotional, and so was I. I always thought the organization had made that move, not Phil. I thought it was a huge concession on Jerry’s part to come up to me. I thought he meant it,” Bach said of Krause’s apology. “And I accepted that.”


I believe all of that. I truly believe Krause, _after _everything else that happened, could well have convinced himself that it was all Jackson's fault. And perhaps Krause felt genuinely bad about his part in creating the bad environment. But I don't believe, given everything I saw and heard from Krause, that he was so calm and clear headed _when _everything was going down with Bach, the book, and the dynasty. 



> One longtime Bulls employee who worked with Jackson on a daily basis figured the coach provided the information to Smith because it helped him gain more control over his team. The end result of the book was that it served to further alienate Krause from the players, thus securing Jackson’s role as “the leader of the pack,” the team employee said.


Perhaps. Perhaps what he said was also true. Krause played similar games of his own, just less deftly.



> As far as the negative portrayal of Jordan, it was the ultimate mind game, a matter of “ ‘Let’s get down on Michael. Let’s whip this guy and keep him in line for my purposes.’ It was his way of getting on Michael’s side by alienating him from the media,” the Bulls employee suggested. “That was why Phil always used it’s the Us-Against-The-Media approach, the Us-Against-The-Organization approach, because if he did that, then he could be the leader of the pack. That’s why I’ve got a lot of qualms with the Zenmaster. You’re not even smart enough to get along with your own bosses and your own fellow employees during the greatest run in basketball history. *So how smart are you?*”


Yeah... I mean really. Jerry Krause always came across as one of the most likeable, easy to get along with guys around. You'd have to truly be a moron to get on the wrong side of him. :clown:

Sheesh.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MikeDC again.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GB said:


> Check THIS out.
> 
> More and more it turns out that Krause wasn't the bad guy everyone makes him out to be.


Well, i don't know.... We haven't talked abou this quote.



> Part of the employees’ resentment stemmed from Jackson’s insistence on shutting out everyone except the immediate group of players and coaches and trainers, thus dividing the organization into those within the team and those without. Jackson did this to increase camraderie and group identification, but it led him to treat most approaching staff members as intruders. Regardless, the few staff members allowed a view of the team’s inner workings marveled at what they saw.
> “He really did love his team, really deeply” explained a Bulls staff member who worked around the team daily. “And the team trusted him totally. He included every player, top to bottom. You really knew he cared about them, about the whole group on the deepest level.”



Phil Jackson is the guy that has moved around and a loyal staff has followed him. Left for head coaching jobs or other jobs when Jackson was not working. Came back later. Where are Krause's 
proteges? How come no team has even hired him as a consultant. Because he is an assclown. That's why.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I think PJ has proven himself over the years to be an a-hole, but at the same time, there's no way you can drop all the blame on him. 

Maybe if Krause's problems began and ended with him and Jordan, but thats not the case.

Krause managed to alienate nearly everyone he worked with over his NBA career, dating back to pre-Reinsdorf years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I think PJ has proven himself over the years to be an a-hole


How is this proven? All of his players with the execption of Kobe love him. And Kobe wanted him back as his coach.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> If you read the Jordon Rules and some of the other Bulls books, PJax comes off as an outstanding leader and not too bad a guy. Lazeby always made his dough by digging up the nastiest dirt. Some great stuff about MJ and Pippen getting drunk on the team bus and taunting Krause big-time.
> 
> I am a huge PJax fan and this one issue about Bach's firing is the only thing that I have seen as that's really troubling. But you have to look at the big picture.
> 
> Krause is just a tool in comparision.



Maybe you should read the initial post in this thread. The whole point was PJ was throwing everyone else under the bus to the media so that he WOULD look good in Jordan Rules and presumably other books as well...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> p.s. Hard to believe any Bulls fan who was around for the year that MJ took off to play baseball that wouldn't think PJax is one of the greatest coaches ever. 55 wins and a phantom call away from Conf. Finals.


Phil Jackson is the greatest coach in NBA history. Riley has re-entered the conversation, but he's still a few rings shy, and I would argue that Jackson would have done a lot better with what was the Achilles heel of Riley's Knicks and his first go-round with the Heat -- getting the star to "buy in." 

And I'm sure Auerbach was a tremendous coach, but it was a different sport back then. He could tell Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, etc., to take one-year deals for $X, or go sell life insurance. I have a lot of respect for Alex Hannum (the third coach to win titles with two different teams), Bill Sharman (invented the shoot-around), Larry Brown, Hubie Brown, Chuck Daly, etc. But Phil Jackson's won 9 frigging rings and more than 70% of his *playoff* games. Case closed.

The argument that Phil's never built a team is pure bunkum. When he took over the Bulls, they were scared of their own shadow. When he took over the Lakers, they were a dysfunctional, agenda-ridden mess. He broke those two teams down and made them champions. 

And yes, Phil's been blessed with great players. So have a lot of coaches. I challenge anyone to find an NBA championship-winning team that didn't have at least one future Hall-of-Famer. It obviously is about the players, but plenty of coaches over the years have had great players. No one's done more with great players than Phil Jackson has.

As for what occasioned the shutting down of the dynasty, it probably won't surprise anyone that I lay the blame squarely at the feet of Reinsdorf, Takiff, Judelson, Hunt, The Estate of Charles Lubin, et. al. Pippen was going to need a near nine-figure deal. It would cost $10+ million to bring back Rodman. Jordan -- sheesh, that guy would probably need close to $40 million for a single season. Phil Jackson would require 7 or 8 more. All the distractions provided a perfect cover for cutting the cord and kicking off an unprecedented profit-taking binge that lasted six agonizing years.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Phil Jackson is the greatest coach in NBA history. Riley has re-entered the conversation, but he's still a few rings shy, and I would argue that Jackson would have done a lot better with what was the Achilles heel of Riley's Knicks and his first go-round with the Heat -- getting the star to "buy in."
> 
> And I'm sure Auerbach was a tremendous coach, but it was a different sport back then. He could tell Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, etc., to take one-year deals for $X, or go sell life insurance. I have a lot of respect for Alex Hannum (the third coach to win titles with two different teams), Bill Sharman (invented the shoot-around), Larry Brown, Hubie Brown, Chuck Daly, etc. But Phil Jackson's won 9 frigging rings and more than 70% of his *playoff* games. Case closed.
> 
> ...



Interesting. I personally thought the Bulls were ready to win with Collins at the helm..not "scared" as you portrayed them. I also think the team Phil inherited in LA WAS built to win and win now. I don't think Phil ever has built a winning team in the NBA, the CBA he did though, he is building now in LA though so we will see how he does.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Interesting. I personally thought the Bulls were ready to win with Collins at the helm..not "scared" as you portrayed them. I also think the team Phil inherited in LA WAS built to win and win now. I don't think Phil ever has built a winning team in the NBA, the CBA he did though, he is building now in LA though so we will see how he does.


Be that as it may, the Bulls improved 8 games in the standings the year Jackson took over. They managed to take the Pistons to 7 games, then Jackson used a possibly catastrophic event (Game 7, where Pippen had a migraine and Horace Grant stunk up the gym) as a springboard to their success the next season. (this was the legendary morning-after where Jackson went to his office bright and early and discovered Grant and Pippen already in the middle of an intense workout)

The year before Jackson took over the Lakers (the lockout year), they finished with a .625 WP, or 51 wins in a regular 82-game season and were embarrassingly swept in the 2nd round. Jackson shows up, the team improves by 16 games in the regular season (mainly on the basis of their defense), and wins an NBA title.

These teams may have been built to win, but under Jackson's control they made huge, significant strides in year one and never looked back.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Be that as it may, the Bulls improved 8 games in the standings the year Jackson took over. They managed to take the Pistons to 7 games, then Jackson used a possibly catastrophic event (Game 7, where Pippen had a migraine and Horace Grant stunk up the gym) as a springboard to their success the next season. (this was the legendary morning-after where Jackson went to his office bright and early and discovered Grant and Pippen already in the middle of an intense workout)
> 
> The year before Jackson took over the Lakers (the lockout year), they finished with a .625 WP, or 51 wins in a regular 82-game season and were embarrassingly swept in the 2nd round. Jackson shows up, the team improves by 16 games in the regular season (mainly on the basis of their defense), and wins an NBA title.
> 
> These teams may have been built to win, but under Jackson's control they made huge, significant strides in year one and never looked back.



Well of course, Jackson IS a good coach, even if he is a jerkoff. And that Bulls team had some young improving players and I think that they added some players too during the offseason when PJ took over didn't they? Memory is a little fuzzy on that point. Still, it seemed to me the Bulls were poised to improve with or without PJ. The Lakers surely had some internal improvement too but I would attribute most of that to PJ's coaching ability. Of course, no one is arguing that PJ isn't a talented coach, they are just saying that what he did telling all of the Bulls secrets to Sam Smith, setting up the team as adversarial to the media with him as the packleader and allowing Bach (who probably is a better coach than Jackson quite honestly) to be fired was slimy and low...and it was.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Well of course, Jackson IS a good coach, even if he is a jerkoff. And that Bulls team had some young improving players and I think that they added some players too during the offseason when PJ took over didn't they? Memory is a little fuzzy on that point. Still, it seemed to me the Bulls were poised to improve with or without PJ. The Lakers surely had some internal improvement too but I would attribute most of that to PJ's coaching ability. Of course, no one is arguing that PJ isn't a talented coach, they are just saying that what he did telling all of the Bulls secrets to Sam Smith, setting up the team as adversarial to the media with him as the packleader and allowing Bach (who probably is a better coach than Jackson quite honestly) to be fired was slimy and low...and it was.


I don't care if Jackson's a "jerkoff," or that Michael Jordan is a horrible human being (seriously). All I care about is results. My point is that if we're going to get into a pissing match about which party was "right" when it came to the disintegration of the dynasty, I'm going to put my chips on the successful coach whose won 3 titles elsewhere and his players, not the bumbling GM and ownership group that put together the worst display of basketball in the history of the NBA.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Maybe you should read the initial post in this thread. The whole point was PJ was throwing everyone else under the bus to the media so that he WOULD look good in Jordan Rules and presumably other books as well...


And the analysis from GB in the initial post is flawed. Johny Bach, who had the falling out with Phil, is quoted as saying, "



> The book was quite an accurate portrayal,” Bach said. “I don’t think Sam painted someone as he wasn’t.”"


And this is far from the only book about the Bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't care if Jackson's a "jerkoff," or that Michael Jordan is a horrible human being (seriously). All I care about is results. My point is that if we're going to get into a pissing match about which party was "right" when it came to the disintegration of the dynasty, I'm going to put my chips on the successful coach whose won 3 titles elsewhere and his players, not the bumbling GM and ownership group that put together the worst display of basketball in the history of the NBA.



Say what? I don't see how anyone could not care about their sports icons being at least halfway decent people, whats the point of rooting for a *******? And what PJ did seems reprehensible and certainly seems to point the finger at him for being manipulative and playing mind games with both management and the players...media too for that matter. He won three titles elsewhere because he was coaching the most dominant duo in the NBA, sound familiar to how he won the first 6? And I don't know what you mean by the "bumbling GM and ownership group that put together the worst display of basketball in the histort of the NBA." Thats the same group that is also responsible for 6 championships. Naturally when you have the best players EVER retire and you get NOTHING for them in trade at the end of 6 seasons your gonna be pretty depleted and suck for a few years, I don't see how they could do anything other than that.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Of course, no one is arguing that PJ isn't a talented coach, they are just saying that what he did telling all of the Bulls secrets to Sam Smith, setting up the team as adversarial to the media with him as the packleader and allowing Bach (who probably is a better coach than Jackson quite honestly) to be fired was slimy and low...and it was.


Krause went crazy after the release of the Jordan Rules. He became unhinged. Can't see how Krause's reaction is any or all PJ's fault. Like Bach said... Back in the day, Smith traveled with the team on a daily basis and was a good investigative reporter. The truth came out.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I can't say for sure whether Phil's departure was a foregone conclusion due to financial considerations. I suppose we'll never know for sure. I think that whatever salaries they would have laid out there was still more money to be made in another championship season and the profit taking years could have been put off another year or two.

I do believe that the ownership group cringed at the salaries being paid and if it was to continue, it would have been reluctantly.

I do also think that Phil burned bridges with this behind the scenes stuff that seems to have come to light in 1988, and that sealed the deal in terms of moving forward.


I do agree that Phil is a great coach, and while that first threepeat team was probably capable of a championship or 2 under Collins, it was Phil's pulling that team together, getting it on the same page and keeping it there that allowed for not one but 2 threepeats.

Certainly, in the later years, Collins wouldn't have been able to get what PJax got out of Rodman.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I can't say for sure whether Phil's departure was a foregone conclusion due to financial considerations.


Reinsdorf begged and pleeded with Jackson to come back for one more year. It wasn't about money for PJax. It was about the long-term deal for Pippen. Krause and Reinsdorf were not going to make that commitment. PJax didn't want to come back with a lesser team. And still have to deal with a Krause. Can't blame him. PJax has an extra 3 rings due to that decision.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Say what? I don't see how anyone could not care about their sports icons being at least halfway decent people, whats the point of rooting for a *******?


Well, if you've rooted for Michael Jordan, you've rooted for as big an ******* as the planet has ever produced. Personally, I don't care about my entertainers' politics or personal behavior, as long as it's not criminal.



> And what PJ did seems reprehensible and certainly seems to point the finger at him for being manipulative and playing mind games with both management and the players...media too for that matter.


Like I said, results. I couldn't care less what mind games he played or any hurt feelings he left in his wake. PJ is a flat-out winner, plain and simple.



> And I don't know what you mean by the "bumbling GM and ownership group that put together the worst display of basketball in the histort of the NBA."


Check out their record sans MJ (who they inherited) and PJ (who they kicked out the door). It ain't pretty.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I just want to add one thing about the Bulls' ownership group.

I don't know who owns what in terms of percentages, but to the extent that blocks of ownership are held in trust, in various estates, etc., there is no use in blaming Bulls ownership for the course they have taken. The trustee of the trust has a fiduciary duty to maximize profit. The shares the trustee votes HAVE to be voted on a purely financial basis, to maximize the value of the trust.

Trustees simply CAN'T vote their shares like a Cuban or a Dolan and "pay any cost."

Perhaps they could vote for deep LT payrolls on a theory of short term cost but long term profit maximization, but if a beneficiary of the trust sued the trustee for waste, and if the trustee lost on the challenge of his exercize of judgment, he could face personal liability to the beneficiary.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I just want to add one thing about the Bulls' ownership group.
> 
> I don't know who owns what in terms of percentages, but to the extent that blocks of ownership are held in trust, in various estates, etc., there is no use in blaming Bulls ownership for the course they have taken. The trustee of the trust has a fiduciary duty to maximize profit. The shares the trustee votes HAVE to be voted on a purely financial basis, to maximize the value of the trust.
> 
> ...


I don't think this is correct. There have been articles about the Bulls ownership voting on issues.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Well, if you've rooted for Michael Jordan, you've rooted for as big an ******* as the planet has ever produced. Personally, I don't care about my entertainers' politics or personal behavior, as long as it's not criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think MJ is the biggest **** ever, I do think he has an attitude but thats not neccessarily a bad thing. He's very competetive and can sometimes be a jerk, thats different than the sort of backstabbing that article exposes on PJ's part IMO.


If all you care about is results..well, I think you sort of miss the point and I feel pity for you.


They didn't kick PJ out they offered him a pretty lucrative contract, as well as Jordan and they both declined. What you mean after losing some of the most dominant players ever to retirement and after not having a high draft pick for 7 years the Bulls suddenly sucked? There's a shocker, what did you expect?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I don't think this is correct. There have been articles about the Bulls ownership voting on issues.


The trustees have to vote their votes from the wallet and not from the heart.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I just want to add one thing about the Bulls' ownership group.
> 
> I don't know who owns what in terms of percentages, but to the extent that blocks of ownership are held in trust, in various estates, etc., there is no use in blaming Bulls ownership for the course they have taken. The trustee of the trust has a fiduciary duty to maximize profit. The shares the trustee votes HAVE to be voted on a purely financial basis, to maximize the value of the trust.
> 
> ...


I've been aware of this ever since I discovered that there were several "The Estate ofs" amongst the Bulls' owners. It sucks. And it's going to get a lot worse in the next ten or so years, as a lot of the living owners are long in the tooth.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> If all you care about is results..well, I think you sort of miss the point and I feel pity for you.


And if you think MJ has many redeeming qualities as a human being outside of his basketball abilities and competitive spirit, here's some pity right back at you.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't think MJ is the biggest **** ever, I do think he has an attitude but thats not neccessarily a bad thing. He's very competetive and can sometimes be a jerk, thats different than the sort of backstabbing that article exposes on PJ's part IMO.


Read that article again. I'm certainly not saying PJ is any saint, I don't think he is, but the slant on it, and the lack of calling into any question of Krause and Reinsdorf's motivations and actions is pretty obvious. It's a hit job piece, and there seem to be a lot of other interpretations possible from the "facts" it brings to light.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Phil Jackson is the greatest coach in NBA history. Riley has re-entered the conversation, but he's still a few rings shy, and I would argue that Jackson would have done a lot better with what was the Achilles heel of Riley's Knicks and his first go-round with the Heat -- getting the star to "buy in."
> 
> And I'm sure Auerbach was a tremendous coach, but it was a different sport back then. He could tell Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, etc., to take one-year deals for $X, or go sell life insurance. I have a lot of respect for Alex Hannum (the third coach to win titles with two different teams), Bill Sharman (invented the shoot-around), Larry Brown, Hubie Brown, Chuck Daly, etc. But Phil Jackson's won 9 frigging rings and more than 70% of his *playoff* games. Case closed.
> 
> ...


i don't normally press the silly rep button much, but I did for the series of posts by you, Mike DC, and for Johnston 797s posts. The bottom line focus has been great.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Read that article again. I'm certainly not saying PJ is any saint, I don't think he is, but the slant on it, and the lack of calling into any question of Krause and Reinsdorf's motivations and actions is pretty obvious. *It's a hit job piece*, and there seem to be a lot of other interpretations possible from the "facts" it brings to light.


it was a well shaded exerpt anyways. When (if) you learn the identity and history of whoever is this 'unnamed source' (who shall remain gutlessly anonymous), many things would likely become more clear


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

while what PJax did to Bach is really unforgivable the worst thing he did was basically gave a franchise that would have done well without him (6 titles in 9 years well...maybe , maybe not) and made those years which were the best any team has done on over 30 years and made it something a great deal of the people who were doing the winning some very hard feelings about that time.

if Pjax had really been such an inspirational leader why couldn't he helped form a bridge of understanding between pip, Mj, reinsdorf and krause instead of doing his very best it appeared to drive a wedge between them, they were all working for the same goal. i find it hard to believe this was the only way.

in truth alot of the goings on make every1 look like jerks .

MJ looks ungrateful for the truly wonderful job krause did to build a championship team around him ...and then do it again after he came back from playing baseball with all new teammates except for pippen. also his tirades on the bus would make any man look like an overgrown immature child but somehow its not seen that way I think its because the media is contractually obligated to make MJ's folly's look like great theater when at times it is significantly less than that.

pippen looks small for all his griping about salary, role and coverage and his outburst against krause that in all reality have no merit at all and make him look like a fool...and at times a drunken fool.

Reinsdorf has been typecast as a cheapskate , despite spending anything needed to keep those title teams together.

Krause has put through the ringer a whole bunch for sleuthlike activities at best paranoid delusions and outright foolishness at worst.

and of course there is jackson who to me is actually the snake of this bunch yet only gets these cracks in the seams stories about him despite all this anti-org stuff he did with the bulls and basically driving jerry west from the lakers and alienating the lakers current superstar by making him the bad guy on his own team....to say the least i find his tactics unethical and deplorable.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

My rep vote goes to Grinch.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> while what PJax did to Bach is really unforgivable the worst thing he did was basically gave a franchise that would have done well without him (6 titles in 9 years well...maybe , maybe not) and made those years which were the best any team has done on over 30 years and made it something a great deal of the people who were doing the winning some very hard feelings about that time.


Blaming this mostly on phil is a bunch of revisionist bunk. People had hard feelings well before PJax come on the scene. See MJ's second year and his comeback from the broken foot.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

the idea that Phil can brainwash intelligent free thinking (strong willed) individuals ALA the way Jim Jones induced mass hypnosis on soft minded cult following dolts who will just drink the purple cyanide koolaid is taking liberties with reality.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Blaming this mostly on phil is a bunch of revisionist bunk. People had hard feelings well before PJax come on the scene. See MJ's second year and his comeback from the broken foot.


. . . and continuing all the way through 1997, when Reinsdorf tells Jordan "I know I'm going to regret this" as David Falk and a devastated Dave Checketts sit in a limo outside.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Blaming this mostly on phil is a bunch of revisionist bunk. People had hard feelings well before PJax come on the scene. See MJ's second year and his comeback from the broken foot.


i never said they didn't have hard feelings....at no point did i make it look like things were peaches and cream in bullsland before pjax , but jackson was someone krause really put himself on a limb to get trying to get him on the bulls staff the coach before collins as well as getting him on collins staff , basically grooming him for a job no one ...and I mean no one thought he was worthy of especially of a good team despite what he had done in the CBA.

that sort of devotion deserved some loyalty and krause didn't get any , in fact he got the opposite, he got someone who used krause as a patsy and a fall guy. he got some1 who got another man fired for something jackson actually was far more guilty of.

i believe you repay someone's good deed's towards with kindness not posionous acts that damages their reputation on a world stage...now anything else krause did to damage his own reputation is on him but jackson had no business furthering that especially since only through krause and his over the top actions to put him in that role to be successful.

winning is important but how you win is equally important.

and seeing how jackson handled himself in L.A. just shows more of the same, that it wasn't an abberation this is just how the man is. The showtime Lakers dont have this sort of history , West and Riley didn't like each other but you dont see Kareem and Magic getting pulled into it, where the star players now have touble with the org. same goes for the 60's and 70's celts and the early 70's knicks ....in fact the only time I have seen this kind of organizational upheaval in the NBA seems to have Phil jackson at the helm as its coach.

thats not revisionist history ...that's history period.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i believe you repay someone's good deed's towards with kindness not posionous acts that damages their reputation on a world stage...now anything else krause did to damage his own reputation is on him but jackson had no business furthering that especially since only through krause and his over the top actions to put him in that role to be successful.


Krause damaged his rep b/c the truth of his behavior and actions got out. At what point do you stop owing some ******* boss for hiring you in the first place? I think Jackson more than repaid the Bulls for hiring him with 6 rings. Or course, Krause thought the same way you did and Jackson's getting the spotlight tore Krause up.



Da Grinch said:


> and seeing how jackson handled himself in L.A. just shows more of the same, that it wasn't an abberation this is just how the man is. The showtime Lakers dont have this sort of history , West and Riley didn't like each other but you dont see Kareem and Magic getting pulled into it, where the star players now have touble with the org. same goes for the 60's and 70's celts and the early 70's knicks ....in fact the only time I have seen this kind of organizational upheaval in the NBA seems to have Phil jackson at the helm as its coach.
> 
> thats not revisionist history ...that's history period.


Where is the upheaval in LA? Kupcheck and Rambis were there b/f Phil got there in important roles and are still there.

West is on the record as saying Phil wasn't the reason he left. Kobe can pick his coach and was good with Phil coming back.

It's only Krause luvvers that want to paint some great cloak and dagger scenerio. And then call it history.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Wow, Johnston... you've long been on record as to your opinion of Jerry Krause, but you're really letting him have it this go round!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i never said they didn't have hard feelings....at no point did i make it look like things were peaches and cream in bullsland before pjax , but jackson was someone krause really put himself on a limb to get trying to get him on the bulls staff the coach before collins as well as getting him on collins staff , basically grooming him for a job no one ...and I mean no one thought he was worthy of especially of a good team despite what he had done in the CBA.
> 
> that sort of devotion deserved some loyalty and krause didn't get any , in fact he got the opposite, he got someone who used krause as a patsy and a fall guy. he got some1 who got another man fired for something jackson actually was far more guilty of.
> 
> ...


Your "history period" may not be revisionist, but it sure does leave out a lot of pertinent details.

Riley became coach of the Lakers after he befriended Bulls while a player/broadcaster, then worked behind the scenes as an assistant coach in conjunction with Magic to have Westhead fired. I've never heard anyone suggest that Phil did the same to Doug Collins.

Eventually the Lakers tired of Riley's drill sergeant "art of war" shtick and lobbied for Riley to be let go. Again, I've never heard of this happening with Phil -- his guys generally love him.

A couple years later, while coaching the Knicks, Riley secretly negotiates a deal with the Heat and doesn't even have the balls to offer his resignation face-to-face.

Finally, after a few years of frustration with the Heat, facing a troubled team going nowhere -- exactly the kind of "rebuilding" team Riley and Jackson detractors accuse Jackson of never having had to coach -- Riley quits and hands over the reins to his assistant.

Then, the Heat land two superstars, and Riley's suddenly interested in coaching again. He works behind the scenes to poison the players against Van Gundy and fires him.

This is the sort of standard of behavior you'd like Jackson measured against? Seriously?

Jackson and Riley are both massively successful and I admire their accomplishments very much. But I like Jackson's approach much better than Riley's, and I think that Phil's superior record is pretty easily explained by it. Riley tries to forge a close relationship with his star(s) to the exclusion of everyone else, whereas Jackson challenges his star(s) and gets much more out of the peripheral players. It doesn't surprise me one iota that Shaq would take great pains to say Riley is the best coach he ever played for. Shaq's a path-of-least-resistance sort of guy, and Riley indulges that.

And any comparison to teams from the era before free agency is fairly meaningless in the context of this discussion. Auerbach was judge, jury, and executioner. The byproduct of his absolute power was no dissension. Maybe that floats your boat, but I like the system where the players and coaches have some rights and some mobility.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

its a cruel cruel world. 

is this the perfect moment where you go: "Don't hate the player.... hate the game"


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Krause damaged his rep b/c the truth of his behavior and actions got out. At what point do you stop owing some ******* boss for hiring you in the first place? I think Jackson more than repaid the Bulls for hiring him with 6 rings. Or course, Krause thought the same way you did and Jackson's getting the spotlight tore Krause up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i already posted krause had something to do with his own rep...that was not the point and btw being secretive is not a problem as long as you do your job, especially if that job basically needs you to have a plan that the opposing franchises cant fully know.

think of it like this , what if some other team got a woody for Pjax because they knew krause had one and did some investigating between the time Jackson got interviewed for the collin's staff and the time he got turned away from albeck and hired him?

most of the time it was a good thing and that was undeniable, i sometimes wish pax/skiles were a lil' more discreet.

and if you think poisoning the players against the bulls organization is a good thing ...i mean that pretty much shows how much of a PJax luver you are because thats crazy. I think if jackson was such a great mind he could have found another way.

because it wasn't just krause jackson was painting as the enemy, you do know that dont you , it was reinsdorf , the secretaries and all the wonderful investers as well as all in between ...thats what a us a gainst the world mentality is all about, its not really all that selective it comes with a wide brush...somehow these points are missed in your rants , i wonder why.

and jerry west officially retired how come he didn't come back to the lakers? They surely would have welcomed dont ya think?

and the point of all this is simple but you aren't getting it. or you dont want to.

winning is not the end all be all,its nice and it can even be wonderful it doesn't excuse behavoir that is bad , Pjax is no more excused for his actions than rodman is for kicking a camera man in the heat of the moment and while you are all on krause i dont think you can say he has done anything as GM that remotely comes close to what Phil jackson did (tainting reps and getting people fired for stuff Phil jackson actually did ), and you aren't cutting him any slack so why the double standard?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> krause i dont think you can say he has done anything as GM that remotely comes close to what Phil jackson did (tainting reps and getting people fired for stuff Phil jackson actually did ), and you aren't cutting him any slack so why the double standard?


Krause's out of control ego lead him to blowing up one of the great team's of all time prematurely and inflicting 6 terrible years of basketball in Chicago. Jackson's out of control ego got one of his assist coaches fired. 

Call me crazy but seems to be a major difference to me.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

johnston797 said:


> Krause's out of control ego lead him to blowing up one of the great team's of all time prematurely and inflicting 6 terrible years of basketball in Chicago. Jackson's out of control ego got one of his assist coaches fired.
> 
> Call me crazy but seems to be a major difference to me.


i agree with this, but that's only half the picture with krause.
he brought phil jackson here.
he got pippen, rodman, and kukoc for nothing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Krause's out of control ego lead him to blowing up one of the great team's of all time prematurely and inflicting 6 terrible years of basketball in Chicago. Jackson's out of control ego got one of his assist coaches fired.
> 
> Call me crazy but seems to be a major difference to me.


really I see it the other way , MJ decided to hitch his wagon to PJ , and PJax chose not to return basically forcing MJ into a corner because he had already stated he didn't want to play for any coach but Phil.

If Phil was really his friend why didn't he try to talk MJ out of that or by publicly giving Mj a way out because MJ still had some game left and still had the desire to continue playing.

the bulls offered Phil a contract but Jackson didn't accept it(that would keep him the NBA's highest paid coach btw), they cant make him work, and with that ended the dynasty. nobody made a move before Phil did.

And ego had nothing to do with getting bach fired and you know it, he led krause to believe Bach was the main supplier of info in the jordan rules when it was in fact him , and because Krause thought it was Bach he was hard on him thus causing hard feelings from bach and things went from there.

I think you are confusing ego with cowardly and backstabbing.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> nobody made a move before Phil did.


Wrong again. Phil hadn't made a move. Yet Pink Floyd was hired on and Pippen was destined to be elsewhere.




Da Grinch said:


> I think you are confusing ego with cowardly and backstabbing.


Make it a more generic. Call it Character Flaws. The post stands.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Wrong again. Phil hadn't made a move. Yet Pink Floyd was hired on and Pippen was destined to be elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sorry bud , its a fact reinsdorf flew to montana made the offer , which phil jax refused . krause had nothing to do with it as he Pjax had gone over his head in the past contract negotiation because krause wouldn't deal with his agent, krause no longer had a part in jackson's return, and reinsdorf wanted to give him a chance to return even though every1 knew he would say no and they waited on jackson to take the offer a good 6 months only when the lockout was ended(jan. 6th 1999) did they officially hire floyd(jan. 15 1999) and trade pippen almost a week later(jan. 21 1999)

destined or not phil jackson was the first to go and it was his decision...he chose not to come back to work so they had to move on.
and because MJ said he wouldn't play for a coach who wasn't jackson he retired jan. 13th 1999

and make no mistake i dont blame jackson for not coming back , i blame him for allowing MJ to tie his career to PJ's return or departure, when he knew he needed hip surgery and was going through a divorce , he was burnt out and worn and needed some time off . a real friend would have gotten MJ off the hook because he showed PJ loyalty in pressuring JR into trying to bring him back by latching his career to PJ's.

he is the snake who ended the dynasty.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> sorry bud , its a fact reinsdorf flew to montana made the offer , which phil jax refused . .


Look, Pink Floyd was hired and Pip was a goner when Reinsdorf was still asking PJax to return. 

I'm done arguing this with people that don't know the facts. Or only 1/3 of them.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Look, Pink Floyd was hired and Pip was a goner when Reinsdorf was still asking PJax to return.
> 
> I'm done arguing this with people that don't know the facts. Or only 1/3 of them.


you should quit because you are wrong .

they waited until 11 days *after* the lockout ended to hire floyd, practices were about to start, how long were they supposed to wait?


until 2002 maybe ?

they hired floyd to a waiting in the wings position in july of the previous year , much like how krause once groomed pjax to be coach if jackson takes the head coaching job up until 10 days *after* the lockout ends , he stays head coach...but he didn't.?

i know the facts and i know you are wrong.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> they hired floyd to a waiting in the wings position in july of the previous year , much like how krause once groomed pjax to be coach if jackson takes the head coaching job up until 10 days *after* the lockout ends , he stays head coach...but he didn't.?


This isn't hiring an assistant coach. The GM hoped the coach would not come back and did everything he could to make that happen including hiring his replacement b/f the coach was gone. When has this been done in the history of basketball? Any examples?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> This isn't hiring an assistant coach. The GM hoped the coach would not come back and did everything he could to make that happen including hiring his replacement b/f the coach was gone. When has this been done in the history of basketball? Any examples?


purely semantics krause hired floyd to a position that wasn't head coach , leaving the spot open for jackson, of which there was an offer , a great one, on the table.

krause had nothing to do with the resigning of jackson so his hopes have no relevance.

jackson chose not to accept the *head coach * position from reinsdorf. i dont need any examples because that superceeds everything. did Phil feel the need to get the approval of every1 in the org. above him , are you going to blame some trustees now for Jackson's decision?

Let it go it was jackson's choice and his alone.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> Let it go it was jackson's choice and his alone.


Nice try to change your arguement. Not surprising. Also not the point under discussion.. 



Da Grinch said:


> the bulls offered Phil a contract but Jackson didn't accept it(that would keep him the NBA's highest paid coach btw), they cant make him work, and with that ended the dynasty. *nobody made a move before Phil did.*


Really? Krause announced it was Jackson's last year more than a year before Reisdorf made his last offer. That's why part of the reason it was called the "Last Dance". Krause hired his replacement. Krause and Reinsdorf made it very clear that Pippen was not coming back. See "Last Dance".That's a few moves in my book.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

The Truth:

After the 6th ring, everyone in the organization got a big head. It was like a sitcom where everyone gets famous, and all their friends start telling them "your the star, your the reason the show is a hit." and then they all think they should get the money, the fame, the glory...

_Jordan_ was (is) a jerk. He wanted to run the show. To decide who is on the team, the coaching staff, the stands. Perhaps the biggest egomanic ever (and this is a big part of what made him so great). In addition, he sliced his finger, and likely would not have been 100%. He is partly to blame.

_Jackson_, also a jerk. He didn't like Krause (never did) and rallied the team/fans/media to bandmouth the guy. He also wanted control of the teams roster and staff. A huge ego, he felt he wasn't getting enough credit for the teams acomplishments. He is partly to blame.

_Krause_, in fact, deserves the least amount of blame. The crap he put up with was incredible. Mistakes were made on his part, such as not setting a deadline for Phil and thus being forced to hire Floyd (it's hard to play without a coach, and he couldn't wait forever.) His interaction with the media (or lack thereof) was certainly his downfall. Unlike Jackson, who was a master at people manipulation, Krause has little to no "people skills". Best known for his "organizations win championships" comment (to which Jerry West gave a simlilar statement) for which he was mercilessly slammed. In the end, he was good at one thing, being a GM... but in the NBA , that's not alway enough. He is partly to blame.


In the end, these three share the blame, but there was also _Kukoc_, who wanted desperatly to be a star (as he was back home). _Pippen_, who really couldn't stand anyone on the team but MJ (and maybe not even him), also felt he deserved more props (and he may have been right). _Rodman_... who... well.. who the hell knows what he's thinking.


Hmmmm... Man, looking back at this train wreck of conflicting personalities... 
...I'm actually somewhat suprised it lasted as long as it did...

But I'm sure glad it did! #1 :cheers: #2 :cheers: #3 :cheers: #4 :cheers: #5 :cheers: #6 :cheers:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Nice try to change your arguement. Not surprising. Also not the point under discussion..
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Krause announced it was Jackson's last year more than a year before Reisdorf made his last offer. That's why part of the reason it was called the "Last Dance". Krause hired his replacement. Krause and Reinsdorf made it very clear that Pippen was not coming back. See "Last Dance".That's a few moves in my book.


the point of the discussion is how bad a person phil jackson is , this is what i am doing while you are trying to turn it on krause....i find it ironic you are trying to spin it on me like that.

krause didn't coin the term "last dance" that was scottie pippen(so now you are blaming scottie for trying to sell a few hats and I guess running jackson off) , can you find me some proof that reinsdorf made it clear scottie wasn't coming back ....like before jackson refused reinsdorf's offer to come back. I'll be waiting on that.

bottom line reinsdorf made jackson an offer and phil refused it, krause could have hired his next 10 replacements nothing changes that fact, he could have bought a record label purely to make anti phil jackson music, it doesn't change that he had no part of the Phil jax negotiations so in effect he couldn't hire or fire him , he has no more blame for Phil's refusal to come than you or I .


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the point of the discussion is how bad a person phil jackson is , this is what i am doing while you are trying to turn it on krause....i find it ironic you are trying to spin it on me like that.


A quick review. You said Jackson made the first move and broke up the Bulls. Hence, he is bad. Fine if you want to back-track. I agree there is no evidence.




Da Grinch said:


> can you find me some proof that reinsdorf made it clear scottie wasn't coming back


I can find Orlando's offer to Shaq when LA got him. Or Nash's offer from Dallas when Suns got him. Surely, if the Bulls wanted Pippen back, they must have made some offer. Care to prove they made an offer? Everyone that followed the Bulls at that time knew Pip was a goner.



Da Grinch said:


> ....like before jackson refused reinsdorf's offer to come back. I'll be waiting on that.


This is why I stopped responding to your posts for a year or more. Check the thread. I never said that. said the opposite.



Da Grinch said:


> bottom line reinsdorf made jackson an offer and phil refused it, krause could have hired his next 10 replacements nothing changes that fact, he could have bought a record label purely to make anti phil jackson music, it doesn't change that he had no part of the Phil jax negotiations so in effect he couldn't hire or fire him , he has no more blame for Phil's refusal to come than you or I .


Actually, I can't blame PJax for not wanting to be in an envirnoment where the GM, although powerless to fire him, hated his guts and hired his replacement and crossed his fingers that he wouldn't return. Not surprised that you won't conceed that could be a factor in PJax's wanting to return or not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> > A quick review. You said Jackson made the first move and broke up the Bulls. Hence, he is bad. Fine if you want to back-track. I agree there is no evidence.
> 
> 
> actually i say jackson is bad for getting bach fired , for being a big cause of bad feelings between players and management(and i am not just talking about krause here) and for letting MJ tie his career to Pjax when he didn't come back essentially forcing MJ to retire as well, breaking up the dyansty as well.
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MJ is his own man. He didn't want PJax to get fired. That's why MJ said that was PJax was the only coach he would play for. Obviously, MJ didn't feel that way as he played for Wash and PJax wasn't the coach.

The Bulls never made a competitve offer to Pippen. And that was the straw that broke the camel's back. PJax came back despite Krause when he had a chance to win it all. But why stick around in unpleasent conditions when the GM pre-maturely breaks up a team?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't think MJ is the biggest **** ever, I do think he has an attitude but thats not neccessarily a bad thing. He's very competetive and can sometimes be a jerk, thats different than the sort of backstabbing that article exposes on PJ's part IMO.
> 
> 
> If all you care about is results..well, I think you sort of miss the point and I feel pity for you.
> ...


This is professional sports, you aren't going to dinner with these guys.

I used to have a roommate that was an avid WWF fan. At times when I was really bored or too tired to leave the room I would sit down and watch it with him. They would get certain characters to do "unethical" acts like cheat, beat up the ref, insult the residents of whatever ******* city they were in and so on. And these guys typically got the biggest reaction from the crowd. 

That's why I love Phil Jackson, he insults other fan bases, players, coaches, owners whatever to brew up the rivalry. It makes the wins more satisfying since you know it pissed the rival off to see that a-hole Jackson win again. Same case with a guy like Shaq. Honestly, in the end why should I be worried if a millionaire is bickering at another millionaire? Getting someone axed is another thing, but obviously Bach bounced back nicely.

This is just entertainment. If you want your sports icons to be morally upright people you can name your kids after you need some perspective (and maybe some pity yourself).

As for Phil not "developing" teams... the Lakers were picked to finish 5th in the Western Conference by their own backyard newspaper, the LA times in Phil's first season. He got their the same summer that Shaq infamously slapped Kobe in a pick-up game. The previous season they went out in a second round sweep, dealt with the Rodman fiasco, mid-season coach firing, what appeared to be a disastrous trade, it was just a mess all around. If Kurt Rambis had remained as a coach they would of imploded.

The Bulls weren't quite a wreck, but even the success of the young players could be credited to Phil. Scottie himself has been quoted praising the work Phil put in with him during his first two seasons in the league when Phil was an assistant. 

If it weren't for the Bulls waiving Tim Thomas the Lakers would of beaten the team that went to the conference finals in 6 games after missing the playoffs the year before. The only thing that kept the 94 Bulls out of the conference finals was Hue Hollins. I would say he did well the two years he didn't have hall of fame talent.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Putting on a show for the fans by being the bad guy is perfectly fine. Getting an assistant fired behind the scenes to cover your own *** isn't "entertinment."

What he did doesn't diminish his ability to win on the floor. It does make him a class #1 jackhole.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Jim Ian said:


> The Truth:
> 
> After the 6th ring, everyone in the organization got a big head. It was like a sitcom where everyone gets famous, and all their friends start telling them "your the star, your the reason the show is a hit." and then they all think they should get the money, the fame, the glory...
> 
> ...



Excellent post. Any differences I may have with your recollection are minor. It WAS all about egos...Jackson's, Jordan's and Krause's, but Jordan was the key. If Jordan had WANTED to come back, they'd've tried their damndest to make it work. Jordan knew that Jackson wouldn't come back unless he could strip Krause of some of his authority and he knew that wasn't going to happen, so he made the POSSIBILITY of his return contingent on Jackson's return. Slick. Krause was convinced that the dynasty had run its course and was right, give or take a season. He wanted to get on with the rebuilding, taking advantage of the existing free agent rules (no individual salary cap).

As it turned out, the free agency rules changed and Krause's plan went down the crapper. He failed to adjust and his much-sought-after opportunity to rebuild the Bulls turned into Krause's, and our, collective nightmare, deservedly trashing Krause's reputation and diminishing his prior achievements in the process.

Though I'm sure that the post-dynasty debacle will be rehashed a few more times, I'm glad we again have a team we can be proud of.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> MJ is his own man. He didn't want PJax to get fired. That's why MJ said that was PJax was the only coach he would play for. Obviously, MJ didn't feel that way as he played for Wash and PJax wasn't the coach.
> 
> The Bulls never made a competitve offer to Pippen. And that was the straw that broke the camel's back. PJax came back despite Krause when he had a chance to win it all. But why stick around in unpleasent conditions when the GM pre-maturely breaks up a team?


whats a competitive offer? or the bulls apparently non-competitive offer? what were the #s?

Do you have proof that This was the straw that broke the camel's back or is this just more conjecture?


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

btw, how many of you have read _Blood on the Horns: The Long Strange Ride of Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls_ by Roland Lazenby? The book came out in '98(right after the 6th title) and it's made VERY clear in it that PJ did indeed get rid of Bach, but put the whole thing on Krause. Krause/Bach later found out abt it and had a "tearful" reunion in '97. I'm in the middle of the book right now and it's pretty darn interesting to read how disasterous the relationships really were between the trio(MJ, Pip and PJ) and Krause. Some of the feuds were so petty(like fighting over toilet time in locker rooms) it's hilarious. The trio hated Krause from the get-go because of a lot of reasons(biggest being his horrendous people skills that offended everybody he was dealing with). The book has some pretty good details abt how ruthless MJ&Pip were in making fun of Krause on bus&plane rides. Just flat out killing the guy. Also has a lot abt PJ's frustrations over Krause constantly trying to be a "part" of the team. 

From my reading so far Krause still stands out as the biggest jerk of the 4 and THE MAJOR REASON for the premature break up. Still got a lot to read though...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

SPMJ said:


> btw, how many of you have read _Blood on the Horns: The Long Strange Ride of Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls_ by Roland Lazenby? The book came out in '98(right after the 6th title) and it's made VERY clear in it that PJ did indeed get rid of Bach, but put the whole thing on Krause. Krause/Bach later found out abt it and had a "tearful" reunion in '97.


It's the same author. It's the same story. It still has all the issues that MikeDC pointed out.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> whats a competitive offer? or the bulls apparently non-competitive offer? what were the #s?


I don't think the Bulls made any offer to Pippen. Maybe they made some face-saving one year offer. I am postitive the Bulls never made a multiple year max offer which more than one team offered Pippen.

And Jackson was quoted after the fact as not being interested in rebuilding with Reinsdorf and Krause. So yes, the no Pippen offer was the primary domino.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

There appears to be an interesting dichotomy of "rooting for" something and "approving/disapproving" of some people. Rooting for the Bulls is fine, as long as we aren't cheating, but I think we can hate the people that do it.

PJ is truly a jerk and MJ isn't any better. People with incredible talent often have gigantic flaws. Most of the great writers in the last three centuries were completely mad, and most of the brilliant stars today are basically insane as well.

But if I'm going to be a BASKETBALL fan, not just a Bulls fan, and if I want to be a realist... I think I'd rather see the jibby jib and the "right way" happening. Simply because otherwise you're forced to wait for talent. Huge, incredible talent that you take at all costs and tinker with chemistry-wise with the hope that eventually wins will be cranked out.

That's how you get the Knicks, in my opinion. But I suppose that's also how you get the Heat.

The truth is, though, that unless you stumble upon a Wade or a LeBron or a Jordan, you have to try and win with what you've got. And that takes a degree of commitment.

So if I'm going to go with trying to really build a winning franchise, then I'm going to be a big fan of defense, of jib, of teamwork, of brilliant execution and discipline. I'll even be a fan of making tradeoffs of jib for talent, as long as the talent isn't uber-star talent, in which case the paradigm can shift.

But as long as there's another viable way to be a basketball fan, that means I don't have to be disjointed in being a fan of jib (on and off the court) and cleaner character, AND a winning basketball team. It's more practical, less ridiculous, more committed, and I think it will pay off in a sustainably contending basketball team and eventually championships.

On a side note, I do remember times when I heard Pippen was held out in the public for various occurrences of domestic violence, illegal possession of a firearm, very shady conduct with the women. And I was fairly young back then, between junior high and high school. Even then, I can remember caring just a little less about the wins if it was the case that Scottie Pippen is a really morally bad person.

Anyway. So I don't hold the dynastic years against them or anything, but I can be an anti-Jordan anti-PJ guy today and not feel ungrateful or untrue to being a committed basketball fan.

(p.s. I'm not anti-Jordan... that guy's a serious jerk but I agree with others that have noted that Phil Jackson's malice goes beyond just being a total jerkface)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I don't think the Bulls made any offer to Pippen. Maybe they made some face-saving one year offer. I am postitive the Bulls never made a multiple year max offer which more than one team offered Pippen.
> 
> And Jackson was quoted after the fact as not being interested in rebuilding with Reinsdorf and Krause. So yes, the no Pippen offer was the primary domino.


actually i find this funny , 

You dont *think * the bulls made an offer and you want to guess about the length an offer you dont even think they made.

you are going around in circles based on your own feelings . you have no proof at all you are just flailing away trying to defend the indefensible. with apologies to SPMJ I'm going to give away a portion of the epilogue Blood on the Horns", by Roland Lazenby

Bulls management tried to negotiate with Pippen but he didn't want to until the Lockout was over, Pjax didn't come back by the end of the Lockout so they moved Floyd to head coach MJ retires, and then they traded Pippen to the Rockets...any way you shake it Phil was the domino that set it all in motion , or ran the train off the rails.They offered him the job and he refused, they gave him time to heal and get over his personal business and he still didn't come back and in his own words in the book it had nothing to do with krause.



face it bud, it was jackson.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> Bulls management tried to negotiate with Pippen but he didn't want to until the Lockout was over


They didn't try to negociate with Pippen. Krause and Reinsdorf made it clear he was not going to get a long term deal. Pippen was gone. 

Forget proof....Find a single creditable poster that will claim otherwise.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> They didn't try to negociate with Pippen. Krause and Reinsdorf made it clear he was not going to get a long term deal. Pippen was gone.
> 
> Forget proof....Find a single creditable poster that will claim otherwise.


why? i found a best selling author with quotes from those people involved....what source should i believe over their own words.

credible posters get things wrong all the time...for instance you.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> why? i found a best selling author with quotes from those people involved....what source should i believe over their own words.
> 
> credible posters get things wrong all the time...for instance you.


If the words above are an author whose books sell for $0.01 on Amazon or yours, they are wrong. Teams couldn't negociate during lockouts. 

And Bulls were not giving Pippen a multi-year contact. Even if the book was correct which is impossible, it doesn't say the Bulls did offer multi-years. Said they were going in a different direction.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> If the words above are an author whose books sell for $0.01 on Amazon or yours, they are wrong. Teams couldn't negociate during lockouts.
> 
> And Bulls were not giving Pippen a multi-year contact. Even if the book was correct which is impossible, it doesn't say the Bulls did offer multi-years.


yeah...because teams always play by the rules, ask the t'wolves and joe smith.

what do you care what they offered, according to you they didn't make an offer period...why do you keep speculating on a contract you have stated you dont believe they even offered for any length of time at all?

and who cares if they were 1 year , 1 year was good enough for Jordan why cant it be good enough for Pippen?

And btw this is getting sad now Roland Lazenby doesn't know as much as you do, despite actually spending a whole season covering them for the book.

Do you have anything better?

I doubt it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> and who cares if they were 1 year , 1 year was good enough for Jordan why cant it be good enough for Pippen?


Why did every big name FA this year get more than a 1 year this year? Because they wanted to. Because they could.



Da Grinch said:


> And btw this is getting sad now Roland Lazenby doesn't know as much as you do, despite actually spending a whole season covering them for the book.


I'm not arguing with lazenby's knowledge. I'm debating your twisted interpretation. But no longer.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Why did every big name FA this year get more than a 1 year this year? Because they wanted to. Because they could..





Once again Jordan(Michael jeffrey jordan, you may have heard of him , I think he was a pretty big name free agent) accepted 1 year deals in consecutive years , he was easily the best free agent out there both times and if he had not retired he most likely would have signed for 1 year again , none of those other free agents were going year to year as defending champs staying to defend their crown , so its different circumstances , and if its good enough for Jordan why isn't it good enough for Pippen?




> I'm not arguing with lazenby's knowledge. I'm debating your twisted interpretation. But no longer





> If the words above are an author whose books sell for $0.01 on Amazon or yours, they are wrong. Teams couldn't negociate during lockouts.


what was this?


----------

