# Jerry Krasue?



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

910 the fan are saying Jerry Krause is in Seattle talking to some people (cough Bob Whitsitt, Paul Allen) It's just speculation, What are your thoughts?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I remember a couple of weeks ago, there was indication that Krause would be called in to consult with Allen and Whitsitt in regards to helping find the new GM, but was not considered a candidate.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

They are just speculating and having fun... :rofl:

but lets hope not...

Remember, there is a Seattle NBA team as well


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

I've said this many times... we WANT jerry krause.... who got 6 rings? he did~!... I'm an extreme Jerry Krause advocate and those who are against the idea, don't know much about him. He's just not very popular with the media, but he's the best GM out there.

responsible for 6 rings.... and should be given some credit for the 3 lakers just got, cuz they use the same formula, coaching staff, and trainer that Krause assembled... who wouldn't want a proven commodity like jerry krause!!??!?! Yes, michael jordan was the key to the championship, but it takes an extremely talented TEAM to win 6 of them. He is a great talent evaluator and brings in the best role players... exactly what the team needs... the only thing is, he probably can't coexist with pippen which is fine.. because he'll easily find some people to replace pippen


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> I've said this many times... we WANT jerry krause.... who got 6 rings? he did~!... I'm an extreme Jerry Krause advocate and those who are against the idea, don't know much about him. He's just not very popular with the media, but he's the best GM out there.
> 
> responsible for 6 rings.... and should be given some credit for the 3 lakers just got, cuz they use the same formula, coaching staff, and trainer that Krause assembled... who wouldn't want a proven commodity like jerry krause!!??!?! Yes, michael jordan was the key to the championship, but it takes an extremely talented TEAM to win 6 of them. He is a great talent evaluator and brings in the best role players... exactly what the team needs... the only thing is, he probably can't coexist with pippen which is fine.. because he'll easily find some people to replace pippen


and this explains why NO major free agent went to Chicago during the last 5 years...


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> I've said this many times... we WANT jerry krause.... who got 6 rings? he did~!... I'm an extreme Jerry Krause advocate and those who are against the idea, don't know much about him. He's just not very popular with the media, but he's the best GM out there.
> 
> responsible for 6 rings.... and should be given some credit for the 3 lakers just got, cuz they use the same formula, coaching staff, and trainer that Krause assembled... who wouldn't want a proven commodity like jerry krause!!??!?! Yes, michael jordan was the key to the championship, but it takes an extremely talented TEAM to win 6 of them. He is a great talent evaluator and brings in the best role players... exactly what the team needs... the only thing is, he probably can't coexist with pippen which is fine.. because he'll easily find some people to replace pippen


It's not that hard to fill in role players around Jordan and Pippen and win. Without a legit superstar to fill in around, I doubt he would be able to do the same here. As for the Lakers, once again, it's a lot easier to win when you have TWO superstars (and get all the superstar calls to go with it) and a bunch of role players.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

it is usually the owners are at fault when free agents are not lured in. I've heard mixed things about Reisendorf willingness to spend... hence the whole pippen contract issue... I believe that with Paul Allen, players know that money is not the issue... I'm sure that to other players, portland is the team that's paying pippen 20 mil, kemp 25 mil, damon, sheed a crapload too... players know they come to portland, they'll get more than they are worth..

Yes it's great to have pippen and Jordan.. but guess who drafted Pippen? a not very well known college player at the time..

Phil Jackson.. was a CBA coach who was on the verge of quitting basketball.. guess who made him assistant coach, then head coach?


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> 
> Yes it's great to have pippen and Jordan.. but guess who drafted Pippen? a not very well known college player at the time..


Bob Whitsett actually drafted Pippen in Seattle...he just made the mistake of trading him to Chicago for Olden Polynece.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

well it was a draft day trade.. which meant, the deal was made before he was drafted... stop trying to take credit away from a GM that won 6 more rings than Whitsitt. 

and bulls fans seem to have a great amount of respect for the man

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33521&forumid=27


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I can only hope that he is helping in the GM search with the Portland Brass. I can't believe that his health has gotten so much better that he wants to be a GM once again. I think that Portland is close to picking one and he has been brought in to give his opinion. That is my take on the Jerry Krause in a suit deal. :yes:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd say we know by the end of the week, perhaps as early as tomorrow.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> well it was a draft day trade.. which meant, the deal was made before he was drafted... stop trying to take credit away from a GM that won 6 more rings than Whitsitt.
> 
> and bulls fans seem to have a great amount of respect for the man
> ...


he's also the one that broke up team that won 6 titles...


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> he's also the one that broke up team that won 6 titles...


he is!?!?!?!?


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

didn't it have anything to do with MJ retiring??? He knew when a team needed to be completely revamped.... unlike stubborn whitsitt.. he did it IMMEDIATELY... aside from that.. breaking up a team that won 6 championships isn't all that bad is it? much better than breaking up the team before they won any... which seems to be what whitsitt did after we lost to lakers in WCF... why did you ship jermaine fool!?!?!

of course the man wasn't flawless in his decision-making, he made a bad decision in Tim Floyd... 
But the bulls are looking good now... of course not their record, but they have great upsde... eddy curry is gonna be a great player to build a team around.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>!
> didn't it have anything to do with MJ retiring???


yah, and why did he and PhilCo retire?

because of "crumbs krause"


> He knew when a team needed to be completely revamped....


completely? yah right. They could have held together another year and won a title. Sure, Jordan claimed he wasn't going to play during the shortened year, but he has also said he never would play for another coach...and strangely enough, he did...



> unlike stubborn whitsitt.. he did it IMMEDIATELY... aside from that.. breaking up a team that won 6 championships isn't all that bad is it? much better than breaking up the team before they won any


what in the hell kinda logic is this? It's better to break up a team that could win more titles, than it is to break up a team before they win? How do the two go together in comparison here?



> ... which seems to be what whitsitt did after we lost to lakers in WCF... why did you ship jermaine fool!?!?!


1. Jermaine demanded out.
2. Jermaine was not going to guard Shaq any better than Kemp or Dale Davis could.
3. Jermaine didn't get minutes because Jermaine didn't EARN minutes.



> of course the man wasn't flawless in his decision-making, he made a bad decision in Tim Floyd...
> But the bulls are looking good now... of course not their record, but they have great upsde... eddy curry is gonna be a great player to build a team around.


Yah, maybe in 3-5 years he will be.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Krause is not the answer. He inherited Jordan. He made a good trade for Pippen. Other than that.....he's been mediocre. He filled in the pieces around Jordan and Pip, that he did do well. But Jordan left 5 years ago. In 5 years this team has shown little improvement. ANy GM would have that kind of stockpiled talent in CHicago given the draft positions they have had.

One deal he did that I am not sure about. Elton Bradn for Tyson Chandler. Chandler is a good solid prospect, but Brand was a proven commodity and still very young.

Another not so great deal. Ron Artest, Ron Mercer and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose and Travis Best. Hmmm...People are ready to run Rose's butt outa town and Best is gone. Miller made the All-Star team and Artest has turned into a very very talented player (and a nutcase).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW the Bulls could have this lineup now

PG Crawford/Williams
SG Mercer (would be better than what they have now)
SF Artest/Robinson
PF Brand/Fizer
C Brad Miller/Curry

Still young and still loaded with talent Miller is the oldest at 27.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Speaking as a long-time Bulls fan, Krause would be great as a consultant.

His legacy will look better in the next couple of years as the baby Bulls get better, but, man, the team really was really, really terrible for 5 years to get to this point. The talent is great but should be for that amount of pain.

As a full-time GM, he would probably want to tear down for a few years which may or may not fit your owner's plans.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

You're not gonna give krause an ounce of credit for assembling:

Phil Jackson (no one would give him a job at the time), clemons, winter ( was gonna retire before krause got him.. he ends up spending 15 years in the league),

how about Kukoc?

Ron Harper?

a young Ho Grant?

Steve Kerr?

Rodman?

great role players no?

Well I think the purpose of getting Jalen was to:

1) get rid of NBA biggest headcase Artest... although Krause did pick up rodman... but then again.. rodman was the best rebounder... ever for his size..... and they won 70 games that season.

2) Jalen for some "veteran leadership".. and ball handling

3) brad miller was a steal anyways... and they had high hopes for Curry and Chandler



To Hap:
And to say curry will be good in 3-5 years means that you haven't watched many bulls games... this Kid is the real deal...

You break up a team that can't win without the best player in the history of basketball anymore? you can't just move one or two players in to that lineup and form another dynasty... you rebuild... a team.. with young players... with a long term goal of forming another dynasty.... not with the hopes of another jordon coming along one day, but a team with some young players with lots of upside.

You're gonna argue that shipping jermaine wasn't a bad idea? I'm not gonna blame whitsitt 100%.. because I don't know why Jermaine didn't get his minutes.... and from what I was hearing at the time, Jermaine and Bonzi we're showing all the players up at practice... I'm still confused about jermaine's playing time those years... blame the coach I guess..


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Jerry Krause is an excellent scout and overall a good gm. He doesnt build teams to make the playoffs 21 years straight and not win, he builds teams for the sole purpose of winning championships. My only knock on him is his ego, he doesnt like to admit he made a mistake and wont trade a past pick of his for any pick that isnt equal or better to where he drafted them.

I dont think krause ended the 6 title run. Jordan is just as much at fault with the way things ended in chicago as krause is. Phil wanted out, pippen wanted a change and jordan never commited to more than 1 year extensions. The bulls were signing jordan, rodman and jackson to one year deals it seemed every year because phil didnt know how much longer he wanted to coach.

I think the people who deny krause as a solid gm are people who only hear tnt analysts opinion of him, they got their lips so far into jordans butt that they go with jordan on everything.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

There are three examples of terrible logic used in regards to Krause.

*First example:* "Krause assembled the whole Bulls dyntasy...except Jordan, which is like assembling an entire novel....except the plot."

Wrong. Jordan was the *easiest*, most obvious move of that dynasty. Jordan should have been drafted second. We know why he wasn't. The Bulls found themselves where Denver will be if Detroit inexplicably passes on Darko. A free gift falling right into their laps, no thought necessary to snatch it up.

Saying the Krause wasn't the one who drafted Jordan is like saying Krause wasn't the one who had a thousand bars of gold fall right at his feet. True, but what talent does it take to bend down and pick up free gold? Krause inherited the most obvious move the Bulls franchise ever had and ever will have.

*Second example:* "Once Krause had Jordan, he had the centerpiece. It's not hard to fill in around Jordan."

Just like it's not hard to fill in around Kevin Garnett or Tracy McGrady, I guess, two phenomenonally talented players. Once you have a "Best Player in the League"-type player, championships appear like magic, no further difficulty involved.

The fact is, Krause pulled off one of the heists of the century, trading Olden Polynice for Scottie Pippen on draft day. "Good trade?" Let's remember that Polynice has been nothing more than a role-player / bench player, while Pippen is one of the greatest players in history.

He also drafted Horace Grant, who would be one of the most effective power forwards of the '90s. He filled in tremendously good role-players, from Craig Hodges to John Paxon to BJ Armstrong to Jason Caffey to Bison Dele to Luc Longley. He netted Tony Kukoc from Europe and he simply *stole* Dennis Rodman from the Spurs, for Bill Wennington.

Jordan alone = a lot of first round playoff appearances and out. The current Orlando Magic are instructive.

Jordan combined with Hall of Famer Scottie Pippen, as well as all the other effective Krause pick-ups = one of the great dynasties of all-time.

*Third example:* "Fine, Krause created a six-time champion. But what's he done since?"

Anyone who says this, should spend some time seeing how easy it is to build a *one-time* winner. It almost sounds like a joke to say, "Other than create one of the greatest dynasties of all-time, what has he done?"

That aside, Krause's rebuilding effort was based around an incredibly smart principle. That principle being, "It's easy and useless to quickly build a playoff contender *that has little potential beyond that*. The only fanbase that's content at the end of a season is the one that wins the championship. Instead of making the easy, safe picks that will surely result in moderate success, it's better to take risks on very high-reward talents. If you fail, your fanbase is discontent, but they would be even with a first-round exit team [look at the constant dissatisfaction of many Blazers fans]. If you succeed, you have another championship-caliber team."

So he stocked up on potentially huge talents like Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Williams. If those four pan out completely, you could have another dynasty. If they bust, you have another rebuild on your hands. And if they pan out somewhat, you could have anything in-between.

Krause's greatest failing was a constant drive for excellence. Building a playoff contender, in the East, would have been no challenge. Krause wanted a championship team or bust. It may bust. Or it may be a championship team. What it won't be, probably, is an eternally mediocre team.

Krause has been given an unfairly bad rap, mostly because he's fat and not a good interview. Had he been handsome and charming, he'd have been a legend in Chicago and probably the nation.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> BTW the Bulls could have this lineup now
> 
> PG Crawford/Williams
> ...


Yes, they could. Miller, Robinson, Fizer and Mercer are all mediocre. Brand is good, but not great and never will be. The best talents on that team are the ones Krause put on the current Bulls: Curry, Crawford and Williams.

That team would compete for the playoffs, in the East, and nothing more. That's exactly the kind of mediocre team Krause clearly did not want to assemble and, were I a Bulls fan, I'd agree with him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I am kinda in the middle on Krause... I think that he deserves a LOT of credit for building a great team in Chicago, but I am not sure that he'd be able to do the same here.

Give him KG or McGrady to work with, and he'd do better than most GMs. 

But what I'm really posting about: 950 KJR (Seattle sports radio) was reporting that Krause was in the Four Seasons here in Seattle. There was no confirmation of WHY he was here, but it's not just Portland sports media inventing things...

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I am kinda in the middle on Krause... I think that he deserves a LOT of credit for building a great team in Chicago, but I am not sure that he'd be able to do the same here.


I agree. But, by the same token, I am not sure West will be able to do in Memphis what he did in LA.

Every situation is different and even a very bright GM won't be successful in any situation.

I'm not advocating or against hiring Krause.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> I agree. But, by the same token, I am not sure West will be able to do in Memphis what he did in LA.
> 
> ...


We agree then. I didn't read anything in your post other than a defense of what Krause did in Chicago. Which I entirely agree with.

Agreed about Jerry West, as well. Getting LeBron woulda made it a lot easier for him 

Ed O.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

*Lucky For You*

If you guys are lucky, you will get Krause as your GM. He is a visionary. The Bulls may have suffered through a down cycle, but Krause left the Bulls in terrific shape for the future.

He doesn't make moves to win five games next year. He makes moves to win championships. I still can't believe he's gone from Chicago. Those of us here who are die-hard fans very much appreciate what Krause did.

You'd have a hard time convincing me that there are other better qualified candidates out there.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

Thank you minstrel, for your defense.... I thought I was the only one in the portland forum that thought jerry krause was a great GM.


----------



## Squirrel (Jul 25, 2002)

Jerry Krause is probably the best scout of talent in the NBA, either him or Jerry West. Besides discovering players, like Pippen and Kukoc, who've previously been mentioned here. He is also one of the first cognizantis to recognize the potential, and pursue, several players who later really blossomed. KG, T-Mac, even your own Jermaine O'Neal. Matt Harping is another great role player who immediately comes to mind. Personally, I would hate to see Krause work for another organisation other than the Bulls, but since he turned down Reinsdorf's offer as a consultant already, I think Portland would be good for him.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

Krause would be a valuable addition as a scout and consultant. As a GM, I'm not sure.

As far as him breaking up the Bulls, it's just not the case. Reinsdorf wouldn't pay Pippen the long-term, big money deal he wanted and got from Houston. Pippen didn't want a one-year, 15 million deal. So with Pippen gone, Jackson didn't want to come back, and with Jackson and Pippen gone, MJ didn't want to come back.


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Krause is not the answer. He inherited Jordan. He made a good trade for Pippen. Other than that.....he's been mediocre. He filled in the pieces around Jordan and Pip, that he did do well. But Jordan left 5 years ago. In 5 years this team has shown little improvement. ANy GM would have that kind of stockpiled talent in CHicago given the draft positions they have had.
> 
> One deal he did that I am not sure about. Elton Bradn for Tyson Chandler. Chandler is a good solid prospect, but Brand was a proven commodity and still very young.
> ...


Im guessin the reason they traded away all those guys is to make playing time for other young players, so they could hopefully develop into superstars. Something the traded players were never going to be.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

from the chicago tribune, took this from the Chicago forum,



> The health problems Krause and the Bulls cited when he stepped down from his dream job after 18 mostly successful seasons are improving rapidly, Krause says. He has been given medical clearance to return to work full time, if he so chooses.



now he's in seattle?? hmmmm....


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

> Remember, there is a Seattle NBA team as well



YES they do but don't they already have a GM??????


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

On 910 the fan, they said both sides (Krause/Blazers) decided it wasn't a good fit


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Actually I am in the middle on Krause. PR-wise he would be an unpopular choice, but who cares if he is a bad interview, a little egotisical and secretive? He DID do a good job in CHI. I aslo think part of his struggles in rebuilding CHI post-Jordan, were due to his own doing, but also due to players not wanting to "follow in MJ's footsteps" and moreso to the problem that now faces DEN, getting FA to play for a crappy team. But look at their roster when he left Chandler, Curry, Crawford, JWill.... they have some good young talent, and I don't care if a player "falls into your lap" you still have to DRAFT them. Pierce and Amare fell into how many laps? And those GM's passed. I'm not advocating Krause by any means, but OR could do a lot worse IMO.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> On 910 the fan, they said both sides (Krause/Blazers) decided it wasn't a good fit


Damn.. hope they're wrong....


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel and some of the Bulls fans make pretty good arguments for Krause as a management genius. 

Seems to me he's made one very, very big mistake, though. Elton Brand was as close to a veteran, reliable, cornerstone type guy that the Bulls have had since Jordan. They traded him away for "upside" in Chandler. IMO, even if Chandler pans out, you should've kept Brand.

You can't just make a champ out of a mishmash of highly talented players all virtually at the same stage of beginning of development. You need a couple of veteran guys who've been around the block a while to lead the new guys and set the tone. 

Dallas has Finley. The Spurs had Robinson. Sactown has Divac. Chicago could've had Brand.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> You can't just make a champ out of a mishmash of highly talented players all virtually at the same stage of beginning of development. You need a couple of veteran guys who've been around the block a while to lead the new guys and set the tone.


You can get veteran guys a dime a dozen. You don't need a star veteran guy. Chicago got Charles Oakley for that "show them the ropes" function and it's probably also why they got Jalen Rose (though that may have backfired...I'm not completely aware of what Rose is up to in Chi-town, but everyone seems to hate him).

Keep in mind, though, that the "Krause plan" *did* factor in veteran excellence. The idea was to draft all this great, high up-side young talent and then, with all the cap room available, add in a proven star/superstar. A Duncan, a Kidd, a McGrady. However, that whole "Chicago treated Jordan and Pippen badly" claim ruined that...or players simply didn't like Chicago for some other reason.

It *does* serve to highlight how wrong things can go when you depend on cap room to equal superstars.

Maybe Chicago will still make a play for KG or someone. I'm not sure what their salary cap situation is now.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

no, you don't really NEED a star vet, but star vets certainly have more credibility. look at all the recent champs--
Spurs this year (heh): Robinson and Duncan
Lakers: Shaq
Spurs: Robinson
Bulls: Jordan and Pip
Houston: Hakeem
Bulls: well, Jordan was so great he just became that guy

The Lakers went out and stole their star vet, but otherwise the veteran leader has basically been home grown. 

In any organization, I think it's easier to build around a stand-up guy than to just buy one at the last minute and hope the organization changes around him. 

Portland came pretty close to winning it all by tacking star vets Smith and Pip onto a bunch of talent, but they only came close once. And they've ever since been known as "Team Volatile." 

Obviously, Brand isn't as talented as any of the guys on that list (except Robinson in 99). But his lunch pail mentality and his 20/10 penciled in every night are just the kind of concistency role models the Bulls are missing now.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Wanker that is one of the most insightful posts I can recall from you. That is indeed saying a lot too.

Awesome.:yes:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> no, you don't really NEED a star vet, but star vets certainly have more credibility. look at all the recent champs--


History is always a good point, but you always have to be careful that you don't assume the wrong cause and effect.

The fact that every recent champ has had at least one veteran "star," could, as you say, be because it's nearly impossible without such a player(s) guiding his / their team.

On the other hand, it could be that winning a title is just so tough a struggle that it usually takes some years to get there and by that point *someone* important on your team is going to be veteran. You say that the lockout Spurs champion had Robinson as a "star," but I wouldn't say Robinson was a real star by that point. He was a very good player, but Duncan was already the major star. You can always identify some main player on a team that is at least a few years older and call him the "veteran star" you need.

Brand is only a year or two older than Curry or Chandler. Perhaps, in a few years, Curry and Chandler will be the "veterans." I mean, no one is looking at the Bulls to win a title this year or next year. In five years, the Bulls team may be a great team built around the veteran towers of Chandler and Curry.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I concur Minstrel. I would say that when the Spurs won the Title he was a Star, probably at the peak of his ability. It was after the RIng in 1999 that The Admiral then declined. In fact the championsip season was the start of his decline.

98/99
David Robinson Age 34
15.8 ppg 
10 rpg
2.43 bpg
Prior
89-98 (minus96-97 only 6 games played)
25 ppg
11.65 rpg
3.5 bpg

in 93/94 averaged 29.8PPG
Rookie season averaged 
24.3 ppg
12 rpg
3.89 bpg

When The Spurs won the title Robinson was a superstar, who finally go the help he needed in Duncan.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

what is your opinion of Brand's "veteran" leadership for the Clippers right now? The Clippers and Bulls are comparable in terms of experience.... I'd say Brand's leadership is non existent.... do I think bulls would be better they past two years with brand? yes, certainly... but Krause hasn't messed up horribly with talent evaluation in the past... we'll see how good chandler turns... if he's the next garnett... then we won't ever have this discussion again


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I think with Brand, Krause saw a solid player that couldn't lead a team to a championship so he took a risk. Not to mention the Clippers had a worse record than Chicago this year when many were thinking they'd make the play-offs. 

Another thing that slowed Krause's rebuilding down was the fact that the year he had the most draft picks was the worst draft in recent memory. The Martin, Swift, Miles draft. And even with that in mind Jack Ramsey said in a recent chat that of that draft class Jamal Crawford will probably be the best player. 

Anyway - it's hard to argue about what Krause has done because there is so much negative press out there. It's very easy to point a finger at him. But if you look at his tenure with the Bulls he made a lot of great moves. Many of them going against Michael's wishes which isn't easy to do. (drafting Horace Grant, firing Doug Collins)


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, the Admiral was past his prime, but he was still the veteran star leader. Just like Pip and Smith tried to be the veteran stars when they joined Portland. 

I know that Brand isn't much older than the rest of the Bulls, but he just has so much maturity for a guy his age, combined with his talent and effort, that the Bulls were just wrong to let him go. 

Yes, Chicago can wait and hope that Chandler or Curry or Williams becomes that guy, or maybe try to trade for that guy, but why should they delay when they could have him right now already? He's like Karl Malone--the sort of guy you just want to have on your team for 18 years because he'll do his best to never let the team down.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

as for Brand's inability to "lead" the Clippers, well, I don't think anybody blames him for the nightmare that team is. it's a terrible organization, an embarrassment to the NBA. 

there are certain teams that even Jordan could not lead to victory, or even legitimacy.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Wanker that is one of the most insightful posts I can recall from you. That is indeed saying a lot too.
> 
> Awesome.:yes:


thanks, Schilly! (except you then went on to agree with the guy I was arguing with...)


----------



## Modena360 (May 22, 2003)

*You guys are IDIOTS!!*

Jerry Krause??...Blazer fans is that smoke from Rasheed's truck getting to you head? Jerry Krause and Jerry West are undeniably the 2 best GM's in the NBA PERIOD!! 

You guys only see the surface stuff, what Dan Patrick has to say on EPSN for 60 seconds. Micheal Jordan's ego is what caused Jerry Krause to look bad b/c us Chicago Fan's loved him and followed his lead. Even Scottie Pippen recently said that if he say Krause he would offer him a beer. Jordan now understands that being a GM is not that easy, and there was reason for Krause to act the way he did (aka Sleuth). Why do you think Jordan got fired? b/c of the way he acted. Jerry Krause is very creative, and with the money Portland will invest to win, and that boatload of talent (some good / some bad) Krause could get you seriously contending in 2-3 years, maybe even a championship in 5. No GM, not even Jerry West as you can see, can get you championship overnight. It takes time. Look at the ballsy move Krause made for Tyson Chandler (traded Brand). Who looks like the genius now? Tyson is 7'1 and is a defensive stopper already. Not to say Brand isnt good, but Tyson has that chance to be GREAT. You need great players to win a championship with the right mix of attitudes. Something you GM never understood and Jerry Krause will.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

hmmm. what do "You guys are IDIOTS!!!" and 11 one star votes have in common? I'll let you connect the dots yourself.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Yes, Chicago can wait and hope that Chandler or Curry or Williams becomes that guy, or maybe try to trade for that guy, but why should they delay when they could have him right now already?


Because there's also the talent vector that needs to considered. Leadership is something you can learn, grow into. Talent is not. Brand, most agree, is a "good" player but not a great one. And he doesn't have any tools that suggest he will still develop into a great one.

Chandler, the man Brand was dealt for, has brilliant athleticism and supposedly great talent. You certainly hope someone among those Bulls players has the potential for leadership within him and, meanwhile, you have collected talent that can win you a title.



> He's like Karl Malone--the sort of guy you just want to have on your team for 18 years because he'll do his best to never let the team down.


Only if he brings Malone's game. Otherwise you have Rambis, who certainly gives you all he's got and tries his best not to let the team down, but isn't going to take you to championships. Of course, Brand is better than Rambis, but I don't think he's anywhere near as good as Malone.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Just found this thread, and as someone who has followed Krause's every move for the past decade or so, I just had to weigh in.



> Jerry Krause and Jerry West are undeniably the 2 best GM's in the NBA PERIOD!!


Although I would omit the word "undeniably", this statement is pretty much on the money.:yes: 
Guys, you would be extremely lucky to have JK as your GM, trust me- I wish we still had him. Do you know why the breakup of the dynasty was pinned almost entirely on Krause? Because it was considered blasphemy in the press world to write anything negative about Michael Jordan. People didn't want to hear that- it was much easier to blame the short, fat, nerdy guy than the tall star athlete. From every inside source that I've heard, the breakup was at least (if not more) the fault of Phil, Scottie and MJ than it was Krause.
Trust me- JK is the most unfaily maligned GM in the league. 
People like to pick at the few bad moves he had made, but every GM makes mistakes- Jerry West traded Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell for Glen Rice, and then later drafted Drew Gooden over Amare Stoudamire, only to trade him for Mike freakin' Miller half a season later. Krause's moves over the past decade, as a whole, have been genius:
-rescued Phil Jax, arguably the greatest coach ever, from the CBA
-Pippen for Polynice- biggest steal ever?
-Ho Grant, a future allstar, with a #10 pick
-C.Oakley for Bill Cartwright
-signing John Paxson as an F.A.
-acquiring B.J. Armstrong, a future allstar, with a #6 pick
-acquiring Toni Kukoc, a future 6th man of the year, with a 2nd rounder
-Trading Stacey King for Luc Longley
-acquiring Ron Harper and Steve Kerr as F.A. role players
-acquiring Dennis Rodman, arguably the greatest rebounder ever, for Wil Perdue
-Drafting Ron Artest with a #15 pick
-acquiring Jamal Crawford for Chris Mihm (a move than could go down as one of the most lopsided trades ever)
-drafting Eddy Curry with a #4 pick
-getting Trent Hassell with a 2nd rounder

Even the Brand-for Chandler trade, widely considered one of Krause's most controversial moves, was a gutsy and largely underappreciated trade. Chandler will never be the scorer Brand is, but is a much better fit for the Bulls than Brand would have been, and provides an interior shot-blocking presence that Brand never could have. Chandler is not the next KG by any stretch of the imagination- he is more like an athletic version of Dikembe Mutumbo, and he has shown signs of a developing mid-range jump-shot.

I would love to see JK in PDX, if only because I'd love to see what kind of team he'd build with that much talent to work with.
:yes:


----------

