# People's Court: Jerry Krause, defendant



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

A lot of threads here and elsewhere seem to inexorably migrate to things Krause has done wrong since the dynasty years. I'm thinking of writing an article on the subject and would like your help. 

So, what are Krause's "mortal sins?" I'd also welcome responses defending Krause against the charges. 

Please understand that I fully intend to steal your wisdom without embarrassment.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Read my thoughts on his not creating any level of expectation, even trading away players like Brand that would have created expectations.

This is a key component to what he does I believe, and may also be the root of why he will go after a player that no one has heard of as well.

This plays into the wanting to take all the credit for it, if things do eventually work out,. Which is evident in his comments about Jackson owing him for giving him a shot., and his subsequent hirings of Floyd and Cartwright.

Just the surface, but that is a good start.

You should call your article "The Pathos of Jerry Krause"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The (in)action that will follow Jerry to his grave is his unwillingness to ascede to Jordan's demand to find a way to sign Phil to a new contract, resign Pippin, Rodman and the gang and bring 'em all back for another year.

That was JK's call to make. Most of the planet disagreed with his decision. Not a sin. A business decision, based on an arguably sound premise. We can second guess, we can make an argument based on other premises. We can reach a different conclusion, but JK has been unfairly vilified for this very difficult decision.

More fair is the criticism of JK's spotty ability to judge the talent of 6'10" PF/C's on draft night.

JK has been criticized for reniging on backroom promises allegedly made by players. If he broke such promises, shame on him. If players accepted a backroom deal in the first place, shame on them. Some of these accusations probably should be taken with a grain of salt, as you hear these things when bit players are traded to places they don't want to go or don't get offers of money they think they deserve. Pippin and JK had a bad relationship, but that is another issue, and I think each of them had reason to be mad at the other.

His "mortal sin" his "achilles heel" his "tragic flaw" is that he's fat, short and gives bad interview. And he ends up taking the blame for every last matter that doesn't go 100% the Bulls' way, from free agents who choose deals elsewhere to players who are signed and then get hurt. Sure he's to blame for some mistakes, but come on, you have to shake away a whole lot of unfair criticism to get to those nuggets.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Thanks for the start, BCH. But "Pathos?" Krause seldom evokes pity or compassion in his detractors. Heck, he doesn't even get this from his apologists.


Still, as long as you brought it up, title ideas are also welcomed.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> His "mortal sin" his "achilles heel" his "tragic flaw" is that he's fat, short and gives bad interview.


I know what they say about people in glass house, but ....

Of the seven deadly sins, I would say that Krause is challenged by Pride, Envy, Wrath/Anger, Lust and Gluttony.

For more on the seven sins, see http://www.rushman.org/seven/


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I have a hard time defending Krause. I really do. I mean, I want to like the guy and moreso I want the Bulls to win. But I just don't see it happening while he is here.

There are three ways to build a championship team: 1) the draft, 2) trades and 3) free agency.

Let's throw out number three altogether. I don't think anyone can argue his free agent acquisitions have been stellar. Rather he's given mediocre players lots of money, and we have yet to sign an All-Star caliber player the last 3 offseasons.

Number two is debatable. I like the Jalen Rose trade b/c it brought a legitamate star to the Bulls. But it DID NOT help us to win any more games than we would have w/ Miller, Artest, and Mercer. Losing their solid defensive play was offset by Jalen's gifted offensive game. But it has contributed very little to our W's, and that's the bottom line.

Which brings us to number one. In '99 we make Elton our cornerstone. In '00 we draft another PF and 3 point guards in one of the worst drafts in recent history. We miss on the likes of D-Miles, Q, Turkoglu, Big Jake, Redd, Najera and others (we had 6 of the first 32 picks). In '01 we trade a All-Star for the next 10 years for a HSer. We draft another HSer. JK buys some time. In '02 thank God for the lotto or Yao Ming would be a Bull. Thankfully Jay Williams becomes a Chicago BUll. The past 4 years of drafts have been both peculiar and unsatisfactory. The one All-Star we had we traded away for a project.

Jerry K confuses me, he really does. But I'm not going to let him off the hook until we get some W's. He bought a couple years with the Brand-TC swap.. but my patience is running short. I hope all Bulls fan realize what a long road we have to travel before we become competitive again. I'm doubtful Jerry K can get us there honestly.

VD


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I know what they say about people in glass house, but ....
> ...


Hey, at least you didn't peg him for Avarice or Sloth. (Hmmm...Avarice, maybe)

Thanks for bringing up repressed memories from 16 years of Catholic School.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Thanks for the contributes, Vin and Tom. And Johnston, the Seven Deadly Sins link is wonderful.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*He's been framed!*

I have more understanding for Krause than most people do, I guess. He's said some bad things, made some bad calculations, and picked some bad players. But I think he gets *way, WAY* more criticism than he deserves. He has become such a scapegoat / whipping boy in Chicago and around the country. I can't remember reading an article that mentioned him without making fun of his weight and appearance. He's not out on the court, and he's certainly not in showbusiness! So it doesn't matter! But who else gets so ridiculed for trivial things that have nothing to do with their talent in their field of work???

Another example of his persecution is the Darius Miles pre-draft stories. Remember, where Krause supposedly told him he couldn't wear cornrows? Many may disagree with me, but I'm siding with Krause on this one, not Miles. Why? It's simple... he's allowed cornrows before (Rodman) and after (ERob, Curry, etc).

So I don't believe Krause is guilty of half the stuff he's been accused of. He's had his low points, but high points too, as well as times of being lucky. All in all, I generally like his ideas and his enthusiasm and his aspirations for greatness. He's just a little strange and hard to understand sometimes...


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Read my thoughts on his not creating any level of expectation, even trading away players like Brand that would have created expectations.


if he traded elton away to lower the level of expectations, then what do you call the rose trade and the marshall siging?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Thanks for the start, BCH. But "Pathos?" Krause seldom evokes pity or compassion in his detractors. Heck, he doesn't even get this from his apologists.
> 
> 
> Still, as long as you brought it up, title ideas are also welcomed.


I think Krause brings up very emotional feelings and in the end whether you like or dislike him, everyone tends to feel sad (pity) for the position the guy is in whether it is his fault or not.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> if he traded elton away to lower the level of expectations, then what do you call the rose trade and the marshall siging?


The Rose trade was restart part 4.

The Marshall Plan was a signing that covered a position of weakness without raising expectations. That is hard to accomplish.

I never accused the guy of not trying to win, he just doesn't want to have the expectation to win. The team he puts together could very well win, and the way he engineers it will heap a lot of credit to him, he won;t let it fail, instead he will restart once again midstream.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> Still, as long as you brought it up, title ideas are also welcomed.


How about:

"Aye amm nawt an aneemal..Aye amm a man"


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I have a hard time defending Krause. I really do. I mean, I want to like the guy and moreso I want the Bulls to win. But I just don't see it happening while he is here.
> 
> There are three ways to build a championship team: 1) the draft, 2) trades and 3) free agency.
> ...


when was the last time a TOP free agent signed a max deal with a bottom dweller? you COULD say that the marshall signing is the closest to that


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> when was the last time a TOP free agent signed a max deal with a bottom dweller? you COULD say that the marshall signing is the closest to that


NICE point.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> NICE point.


but if antonio mcdyse re-signs with the knicks il eat my words :yes:


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I posted some at the other board but wanted to add something else. 

I think Krause should have sat down with a reporter that he trusted and defended himself once and for all. Even if he didn't do the right thing in some cases it would have been nice to hear from him how he decided the things he decided and end speculation. 

I'll never forget the first retirement ceremony they had for Jordan when he and his kids raised his jersey to the rafters. There was a huge presentation. They mentioned Krause (who was there) and the place booed him like crazy. When you look back in retrospect at the fact that the Bulls continued to pay him, let him play baseball and deal with the murder of his dad - it seems kind of sick. It was as if Krause pulled the trigger himself. I read an interview w/ Krause's wife and she said that she started sobbing when they booed Jerry. He was simply there on an important night. He probably didn't even feel comfortable celebrating after the championships b/c his name had already been dragged through the mud. Can you imagine if the Kings win a championship and Geoff Petrie is made to feel bad for being there?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> when was the last time a TOP free agent signed a max deal with a bottom dweller? you COULD say that the marshall signing is the closest to that


Tracy McGrady. Grant Hill.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Tracy McGrady. Grant Hill.


The Magic almost made the play-offs the year before McGrady signed. Doc Rivers was COY b/c he took a group of no names and made a play-off run.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> The Magic almost made the play-offs the year before McGrady signed. Doc Rivers was COY b/c he took a group of no names and made a play-off run.


True. 

The example doesn't fly too well... but that's the closest I could remember of any mediocre teaming signing a stud FA.


VD


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> True.
> ...


And the free agents who passed up the Bulls weren't even passing up mediocrity.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

Those who know me know that I typically defend Krause. Here's my version of how things have gone the past four years.

I think it's a stretch to say that Jerry Krause did anything wrong in the rebuilding of the Bulls. He made his initial plans under the old CBA but failed to foresee the labor strife which would eventually result in a reshaped labor agreement. Thus, he was completely unprepared for the new recruiting tools required to land a full boat FA in the new era. These tools were basically good PR, a winning record and a boat load of money. Krause failed on the first two and thus did not land any FA of real meaning.

Think about this. Had the old CBA been in effect two summers ago, the Bulls would have been sitting pretty. There would have been at least twice if not three times the number of quality FAs seeking a home, and the Bulls would have likely landed two, regardless of the bad PR in the post MJ era. It's like a game of musical chairs. No player wants to be left standing, even if the chair stinks, so to speak. The Bulls would have succeeded in spite of their bad press due to sheer numbers. But it wasn't to be.

So then Krause set out to rebuild via the draft. This is no certain process as evidenced by a number of perpetual bottom feeders in the NBA (i.e., Clippers, Wizards, etc.). It is easy to sink, but not so easy to rise. So in pursuing this strategy, Krause took a calculated risk that his "skill" in identifying players would be adequate reward for the poor seasons that had to be endured. And thus began the descent of the past two seasons (the first two of the four seasons were preparation for the FA period from which nothing happened).

I think Krause's big negative PR is linked to his "organizations win championships" statement which so offended MJ. We must remember the context in which this statement was made. Most throw this statement around as fact due to MJ's use of it in the post MJ Bulls era. The facts are as follows: Krause was addressing a gathering of the Bulls front office personnell (Executive VPs, VPs... all the way down to admins and interns). It was at this meeting that Krause complimented the ORGANIZATION on its achievements by saying that the front offfice staff, too, was responsible for the success achieved by the dynastic team on the floor. 

Was this true? Of course not. But Krause was trying to be a good guy by thanking all the small potatoes in the office for their role in the organization. MJ, in his hatred for Krause, utilized this statement out of context and a legend was born. 

Now I loved MJ and still revere him as a player, but I fail to comprehend what exactly it is about Krause that he hates so much. They should have a mutual respect for one another, but it failed to develop. 

So here we stand - trying to guess just how good this young team will ever be. One thing is certain - in a few seasons, Krause is either going to look very smart or have to retire in shame.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> I posted some at the other board but wanted to add something else.
> 
> I think Krause should have sat down with a reporter that he trusted and defended himself once and for all. Even if he didn't do the right thing in some cases it would have been nice to hear from him how he decided the things he decided and end speculation.
> ...


BCH, I take it all back. This is pathos at its best.

Lizzie, I was there that night, and you're right, I found it to be extremely unfair and felt bad for Krause (and his family) that night. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I'm not a Krause detractor, though. I'm not certain but most people that dislike Krause probably found that moment funny. I guess you can ask some people like Vin and others that dislike him if even they felt kind of bad for him that night.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Sup all.

For the record, I'm not a Krause hater or remotely close to that. As I've said before, he gets unfairly ridiculed for his weight, age, and lack of amyable personality. That's junk, and I try to stay away from that talk.

Jerry K deserves full credit and blame for the past 4 seasons of futility, and I try to make that the basis for any arguments against him. I give him some credit for surrounding the best player ever with pieces to build a championship team. That's fine. But this time around, the ball is completely in his court, and he hasn't shown me that he can build a championship team in the modern era of NBA.

To tell you the truth, I feel sorry for the guy sometimes. He will never get enough credit for helping to build those 6 championship teams. I can't imagine what it means to do your job day to day, get the approval of your boss, and be hated my 90% of the very fans you are trying to satisfy. Man...

Its a sad state... but honestly I'd like to see Jerry K ride off into the sunset in 1-2 seasons. He's already 65, and we need to get some younger blood to handle this team. Keep him on as a scout (which he's great at) and leave the personnel decisions up to BJ or someone else.


VD


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I have tended to steer clear of the JK debates, since most folks have pretty strong opinions one way or the other that are pretty immune to argument. Also, being a natural contrarian who likes to take a position opposite of the crowd (Remember Quit Picking on Bags!), this debate never really seemed to have a good contrarian position. (I do regret how being a contrarian really annoys people.) There are a lot of people on both poles. But here goes.

*Breaking up the Dynasty*

First of all, I don't really want to revisit the "breaking up of the dynasty" issue, but I think the only way he could have kept the dynasty together for another year or so would have been to resign. And it is hard to blame a guy for not wanting to resign.

So given that Phil and MJ weren't coming back unless he resigned, I think clearing the deck the way he did was right. Seeing how unproductive Pippen, Kukoc, Longley, Kerr, Rodman, and the rest have been since MJ left, it is hard to question the logic of that strategy.

Sure, Indiana has been successful reloading, but they started breaking down a team with players who had a lot more productive years left in them. Reggie Miller, Jalen Rose, Dale Davis, and Antonio Davis are far more productive than the ex-Bulls have been.

*Free Agents*

In the next phase of rebuilding, Krause was more lucky than good. McGrady would have been a good investment, but signing any of the other major free agents that he targetted would have been the kind of mistake that teams trying to build a championship never recover from. Having Eddie Jones, Grant Hill, Tim Thomas, Antonio Davis, or Glen Rice weighing down the payroll would have ended our chances of building a championship.

Possible mistakes like Mercer, Barry, or Robinson are not death blows, because through trades, it is possible to get a do-over on these kinds of signings, especially when a steal like Miller is thrown into the mix. (Given the price people pay for centers, Miller, in fact, may have been the biggest free agent steal in the last few years.) Do-overs with major free agents are too expensive to recover from.

Throw in Marshall (a real bargain) and Blount this year, and I would rate his post-MJ free agent signings very good, but not great, although if couple of the guys he offered contracts to would have accepted, I would rate him below average. So I am not sure how credit he should get for his luck.

*Draft Picks*

On the lottery or near lottery picks, only the Fizer pick seems a bad pick given what was available at the time. And even on that one, the jury is still out. A great GM might have traded both the lottery picks for Miles, but at the time I don't think that trade would have made sense. On the other hand, Artest was a steal at #16 and Crawford might turn out to be a steal in that draft.

Krause has had a lot of late first round and early second round picks, and to really only net one keeper out of that whole group (Hassell) is probably a little worse than average, but not a lot worse. (Bagaric may be a keeper in time, but certainly hasn't demonstrated that yet.)

So overall, I would rate his post-MJ, pre-Chandler and Curry drafts a little above average, but nothing spectacular.

*The Brand/Chandler Trade and the BCH/Sam Smith Lower the Expectations Argument*

For all the reasons that have been cited over and over again, I like this trade a lot. Trading Brand for Chandler made it possible for our cornerstones to have rookie contracts that came up in the same year and made it possible for us to get JWill in the draft this year. (Also, with Brand around, I bet Miller and Artest would not have gotten the opportunity to turn themselves into Rose.) Also, as has been cited before, I think the playing styles of Curry and Chandler mesh together better than Brand and Curry or Brand and Chandler.

And, of course, this lowered expectations for the immediate future and bought JK some extra time. But as a fan I would rather have a team that wins 20 games that I can imagine being champion than one that wins 30 games that I cannot imagine winning a championship. Especially if the guys appear to work hard and not get in a lot of trouble off the court.

And that's why you don't sign a player notorious for being lazy and getting in trouble off the court and put him on a rebuilding team. Once we become a good team, adding a Keon Clark makes perfect sense, but until then, stick with the guys who appear to have good character. Otherwise, at the first sign of trouble, fans will start ditching a losing team with a bunch of guys with questionable character. (And I realize the Bulls aren't a bunch of choirboys, but JK has successfully cultivated that image.) At at the end of the day, JK only keeps his job if he makes money for JR.

*The Rose Trade*

We needed a leader, a spokesman, and a player for the young guys to rally around. Rose has become all of this and more. Also, he is a very good passer, which will result in Curry and Chandler develop into offensive threats much quick. It will also allow us to have point guards like Crawford or JWill who are less than spectacular passers. 

Overall, I would be willing to argue that there is no other near All-Star or even marginal All-Star that is as vital to his team as Rose is to ours. Getting such a player for great center prospect who probably did not have a future here (Miller) and a talented powder keg (Artest), while unloading a bad contract (Mercer) is a great move.

*The Summer of 2003*

Marshall was a nice pick-up. He is not a defensive stopper, but I think his offensive skills will take some pressure off of Rose, allowing him (1) to play better defense and (2) to be more rested in crunch time.

I don't think Fizer and Crawford have much of a future with this team, and I worry that by holding on to them, their trade value will only fall as their playing time dwindles. But even with Crawford, someone in the Bulls' organization deserves a lot of credit. Has there ever been a player 

*Conclusion*

I bet you are all saying this should have come a dozen paragraphs ago.

JK has avoided huge mistakes and has positioned the Bulls to have as good of a chance to be a championship team starting in say 2007 as any other team in the league. Right now, if I was asked whether I would be willing to trade our whole team for any other whole team, but we wouldn't starting counting championships until 2006/2007 (five seasons from now), I am not sure that I would be willing to trade our team for any other team.

The Lakers, Kings, Spurs, Clippers, and maybe Pacers would make me think about it, but that is about it.

We do have a better chance of being a lottery team than most of those teams and many more, but JK really has positioned us for another run. What else can we ask for?

Let the man eat his Krispy Kremes in peace.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I dont think anyone can sit there and say Krause doesn't have a whole mess of baggage. It has to have some affect on his ability to perform his duties as a GM when there is a rather large negative sentiment directed toward him.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I dont think anyone can sit there and say Krause doesn't have a whole mess of baggage. It has to have some affect on his ability to perform his duties as a GM when there is a rather large negative sentiment directed toward him.


That baggage might be why he was offering a lot of money to Glen Rice, Tim Thomas and Ron Mercer. I definatly agree with you on that.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



NCBulls, nice post.

I probably disagree with the lionshare of what you said, but Jerry Krause threads usually divide most Bulls fans anyways.

But I take particular exception to your concluding argument (listed above). To say the Bulls are 5 years away from being a championship team is pretty hilarious. REally. I bet EVERY other team in the NBA thinks the same thing. If we had one bona fide young superstar on this team, then maybe such a claim would carry weight. But we do not. The young Bulls are a bunch of question marks and maybes.

The same can be said for Denver or Cleveland for that matter. These teams are all young, will have plenty of cap room next offseason, and are in similar echelon of teams in the NBA. I would argue that they are just as likely to be of 'championship caliber' as we are.

Essentially I see two forces at work here. 1) Eternal optimism on Bulls fans... considering the fact that we won 6 championships, we accept losing only b/c we've had past success. Past glory helps endure present suffering kinda thing. 2) Potential, potential. Right now that's all the Bulls are. Yes our kids may be good one day, but there's no guarantee this will happen. In light of our eternal FA fobbles, its make/break with our recent draft picks.

I'm probably coming across as a pessimist, but I consider myself more of a realist actually. If the Bulls improve and win 35-40 games next season, I'm eating crow. But I just do not see it happening. Too many young players, too many one dimensional offensive players, too little defense, and too much hype is going to make for a long season of losing. Its a long road to the top, and the jury's still out if Jerry K has positioned us to get there.

VD


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

VD:

I think I got a bit overzealous on the conclusion, but I was in a bit of a hurry at the end and didn't really think through everything that I was saying. For one thing, I certainly should have included Houston in that list.

I didn't mean that we were going to be a championship team in five years. What I meant to say was that if you count the championships between, say 2006/07 and 2015/16, I think we have as good of a shot to win the most as anyone else in the league. And I am not really saying that we stand a good chance of winning them at the beginning of that period.

I don't think the importance of centers can be underestimated, and I think we have the two best center prospects younger than Duncan in this league. That is why I would think we are different than Cleveland and Denver. Cleveland also has quite a few bad contracts to deal with.

The teams I hesitate the most on, though, are San Antonio and the Lakers. (I think Sacramento will be too old by then and I am not too sure what to think about Dallas.) Duncan and Parker are quite a nucleus to build on, so if pushed I probably would trade our prospects over that period for theirs. When Shaq leaves, the Lakers will have Kobe and a lot of cap room. Like you said, we have no proven superstar, so Kobe and a lot of cap room probably is preferable to our prospects over that period as well.

I am not as high on the Clippers as the rest of the NBA world seems to be. They have a lot of nice players, but no superstars and probably no superstars-to-be. I think they will be good, but not championship material.

And I did say that we have a better chance to be a lottery team over that period than most of those teams and a lot of other teams.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

To the original point of transplants thread, lousy looks, lousy liar, refusal to receive **** *********** from PJ and MJ. Nothing more complicated. He has 6 rings for being the greatest NBA architect since Red Auerbach. That is plenty of consolation.
Thanks to all those of you who sent me encouraging emails and <strike>to Jason Svovoda who is on my ignore list because he is a know it all bully (and I am being nice) whose post I read off an FJ reply for getting me back. Especially you Jason.</strike> (If you have a problem with a poster, please feel free to PM me.)The Rifleman, Administrator


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankly I don't think an article on Jerry Krause will have any effect on people's opinion of him.

Over the last four years many of us have read and sometimes participated in numerous threads on this very topic. Each time an intelligent poster (like NC) refutes criticisms of Jerry by offering logical objective observations and gives tangible plain English evidence to each. Without exception these defenses of Krause and the facts that support them are never refuted by the naysayers -- yet they repeat the same criticisms two threads later. 

I only wish the two camps could part ways, each taking a copy of the '89 team, one builds under JK, and the other, those Bulls fans whose birthright it is to perennially win titles, rebuilds their way. I could only guess what they would have done, since they never offer comprehensive, realistic concrete approaches that can be critiqued. 

Welcome back Song, this forum would be a lessor one without you.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Thanks for the contributes, Vin and Tom. And Johnston, the Seven Deadly Sins link is wonderful.


The seven deadly sins is not a Jewish concept which I am as well as Krause and Reinsdorf. We have our own things which does not really belong on this forum. Without pointing any fingers, I do wonder how JK's being Jewish plays into this kind of scenario. As PC as we try to be, hatred of races, creeds and nationalities is more alive than I would like it to be.

I am the civilian head of my police district and get all the crime stats. Unfortunately, hate crimes are alive and well and in enough supply to warrant a special division in the Chicago PD.

Frankly the whole things smacks of Krause's weight and I doubt a single one of you knows if he even likes donuts. I get tired of sticking up for him, but so many people criticize him so unfairly and without an even semi knowledgeable comparison to other GMs or any sense of reality or history that I stick up plenty for him based on facts and reality. I have no desire to meet or talk to him and I don't have to like him as a human being, but I sure wish the Bears, Hawks, Cubs and Sox had his equal.

Like Chandler, Curry, Williams and Rose? Well MJ or PJ didn't assemble them and MJ would have done anything in his power to make us as bad as possible for as long as possible. He actively lobied any potential FA's to not come here and may have been directly responsible for some of our FA failures 3 years ago.

It's one thing to show his dislike to the Jerrys, though earning over $30 mil a year and turning fown an open offer at a max raise for closer to $40 mil than $30 mil makes you wonder why he had a problem, but actively working to foil the success of the Bulls is deficating in the face of the loyal fans who cheered him over his career in Chicago.

Then again, it would seem loyalty wasn't his strong suit with his wife and kids either.

JK was the architect of 6 championship teams. If it was so easy because of Jordan, how come it was his 7th year before we won one. And if MJ didn't quit the first time, we would have had more.

Man, I really get tired of this stuff. 29 teams, one crown, a year, guess anyone can do it, especially 6 times. Just like Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Roberstson, Larry Bird and Magic and their GM's. Only Red Auerbach compares.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I admint, up front, that I am no fan of Krause. I have real issues with him (and no, it's not his looks, religion, or weight :0

IT IS HIS JOB to keep guys like Jordan, Pippen, and PJackson happy and under contract. IT IS HIS JOB to put a competitive team on the floor, year after year. IT IS HIS JOB to draft guys like Brand and keep them under contract. At these things he's failed miserably.

His arrogant statement about organizations winning championships did him in. An organization with Krause, Floyd, and a bunch of mediocre players proves to win 20 games a year. 

It is obvious that you don't break up a championship team until it loses, but I won't bash Krause (much) for doing so. The ultimate sin was in letting the REAL key to the organization leave - Jackson and his staff.

My observation is that only one team wins the championship each year. A dominant team in the NBA is a rare thing. However, there are coaches who seem to win with rather mediocre talent - Riley, Sloan, and Don Nelson come to mind. I don't mean win championships, I mean win ballgames - like 50 a year or more.

A QUALITY organization would have won another championship, and kept tryiing until the players retired.

Or it would have won 50+ games and lost in the playoffs. And then it would have won 50+ games again, and lost in the playoffs. And it would rebuild around those players who grew up in the system.

The Celtics had a 15 year period where they won three championships and made the finals twice. During this time they won 50+ games 5 times and 60+ games SEVEN times. finished second in their division 3 times, first in their division 11 times, and third just once. In the process, they managed to draft Reggie Lewis and Len Bias - so much for needing to tank to get good draft picks! (that's sarcasm). And if Lewis and Bias didn't die, the Celtics would probably have had a string of 20+ seasons of this ilk. 

The Celtics won a championship in 1975-76 and then totally rebuilt itself within 4 years. Krause is going on year 5 and we haven't even won 30 games in a season yet.

And I really don't like the Celtics. I could point out how the Lakers are on their third dynasty-type team, as well. They rebuilt from the Kareem/Magic team to the current one with only one season of winning less than 40 games.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> VD:
> 
> I think I got a bit overzealous on the conclusion, but I was in a bit of a hurry at the end and didn't really think through everything that I was saying. For one thing, I certainly should have included Houston in that list.
> ...


Nice post NC.

The Bulls will be a very good team in 5 years time, right? I mean that HAVE to be. =) As a fan, I just have a hard time saying something like that. In all honesty, if we had a young superstar on board already (McGrady, Pierce/Walker, KG, Duncan), then I would feel a lot more prepared for a title run (post Shaq of course). But the Bulls remain a lot of question marks, I and I hope these kids develop into something special, I really do.

Jerry K took a calculated risk in mortgaging our future around two HSers. Historically, only Kobe and KG have made any significant impact w/in their first few years and add O'Neal to the mix after year 5 or so. So for all the Kobe's and KG's (once in a generation players) there's a Korleone Young or Ousmanne Cisse or Jonathan Bender or Al Harrington (guys who are decent but not dominating players). I sure hope we have a future Moses Malone (Curry) or Marcus Camby (Chandler)... but that's a long way off. There are many many hills to climb before we get there. But here's hoping we do.

go bulls.


VD


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> 
> 
> The seven deadly sins is not a Jewish concept which I am as well as Krause and Reinsdorf. We have our own things which does not really belong on this forum. Without pointing any fingers, I do wonder how JK's being Jewish plays into this kind of scenario. As PC as we try to be, hatred of races, creeds and nationalities is more alive than I would like it to be.


You are the only person I have ever seen attribute Krause's religion to why he sucks as a GM. Maybe his religion is not an issue to anyone else and it really is for all the reasons everyone keeps pointing out. This isn't a short list.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> His arrogant statement about organizations winning championships did him in.


Do you have the facts behind this statement? Please read my post above to understand what was actually said and the context under which it was spoken. 

It is a typical media bias to take the good looking/superhero in MJ and pit him as the victor over the oafish, goofy looking Krause. Don't believe what you read. IMHO, Jackson broke up the Bulls, but that's another thread.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Song, I just want to make one thing clear: the original post referenced Jerry Krause's "mortal sins" and the later references by Johsnson and me did sidetrack briefly into further reference to mortal sins, "the seven deadly sins, etc." Clearly New Testament stuff, but I don't think anyone was trying to impute Christian religious concepts upon Jerry Krause (Jews don't recognize pride, envy, gluttony, etc. as "mortal sins" but it is my understanding that they remain unattractive traits in any religion or culture) and we certainly had no intention of belittling or minimizing the Jerrys' Jewish background and beliefs. 

Clearly, Johnny B's original post made use of the "mortal sin" term as a figure of speech, and in a secular context. I beleive the term has become common enough in the vernacular to find acceptable use outside of a strictly religious context.

I just want to make clear that the discussion was not intended to be an attack on Jerry for being Jewish or intended to be critical of Judeism in any way. I certainly had no intention of offending, and Song, if you took offense, I am truly sorry.

That being said, I disagree that there is any evidence supporting the theory, which you at least hinted at, that there is some underlying anti-semitic reason for the public's dislike of the Jerry's. I acknowledge your point, that racial, ethnic and religious hatred sadly continues to exist in this country. However, I doubt that most of the folks who criticize Jerry Krause realize he's Jewish. I do have to admit that I have heard occassional slurs of Jerry Reinsdorf -- you know, stereotypical Jew/money baloney, but by and large, I think most criticism of the Jerry's comes from people's perceptions of their job performance, not their faith.

Once again, no offense intended in the sidetrack religious overtones in the earlier posts.

Peace.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> 
> The seven deadly sins is not a Jewish concept which I am as well as Krause and Reinsdorf. We have our own things which does not really belong on this forum. Without pointing any fingers, I do wonder how JK's being Jewish plays into this kind of scenario. As PC as we try to be, hatred of races, creeds and nationalities is more alive than I would like it to be.
> 
> ...


I didn't know Jerry was Jewish. It never passed my mind.

I'm sorry if prejudice still exists out there Song, but I don't think any posters in this forum were making any abstract reference to Jerry K's religion. The weight argument I TOTALLY agree with, that's bush league and absolute junk. But the man deserves whatever criticism he gets for personnel moves, Wins and Losses, even promises made to fans, being that he is a semi-public figure.

VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I hadn't realised that Krause was jewish either. I bet he looks funny in a skullcap (or whatever they call those things). 

I find it interesting that everyone wants to blame Krause for the breakup of the Bulls. Krause offered MJ & PJ an awful lot of money, they walked away from it. It's not Krauses fault that PJ wanted his job! You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. JK offered the money and they turned it down. How did JK break up anything?

Also, that quote "orginizations win championships" was originally attributed to none other than Mr. NBA logo Jerry West. I consider it a truism and I think that only the most arrogant and ego driven of players should find offense with it. The last time I checked the "orginization" includes the team to a significant degree. Is it really so wrong to give the support staff some kudos? In my job, I'm the money man, my job is literally to bring in money to my company. I couldn't do it nearly as effectively without the support staff here to help me. I don't see how crediting the little guys became misconstrued as a bad thing.

JK doesn't have anything to defend IMO. He is probably the hardest working GM in the business, a good evaluator of talent, and a shrewd businessman. It's sad to me that so many Chicago fans villify him for no apparent reason. 

While it's true that the team has stank the last 4 years, what did you expect? I expected this team to stink and stink badly for awhile. You don't lose the greatest basketball player ever in MJ to retirement and not expect a dropoff. Not to mention the fact that Pip demanded to be traded rather than considering re-signing. By all reports this was his own fault and everyone advised him against signing the previous deal. The Bulls also lost a lot of their pieces to retirement or forced trade. Krause actually got surprising value for Longley, Harper, Kerr, Kukoc IMO. If yu have a dynasty that dominates for 8 years (6 championships in 8 years) your going to be picking LOW in the draft. Your not lilkely to be adding KG, or Kobe, or ANY superstar. The Bulls needed to reload after the dynasty and IMO that is clearly what they are doing. They missed out on the big FA bonanza because of the new CBA and they decided to get well through the draft. Did people really NOT expect the Bulls to stink for a few years? Now the Bulls have a lot of young talent and they are on the rise. If the Bulls aren't back in the playoffs and competing in 2-3 years, THEN I might have a problem with JK. But I think they will be fine, after all, they do have the hardest working GM in the business.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I hadn't realised that Krause was jewish either. I bet he looks funny in a skullcap (or whatever they call those things).


While we should probably get past this whole religious side-issue (non-issue) the "skullcap" is called a Yarmulka, and to suggest that Jerry looks funny in an article of clothing mandated by his faith is exactly the type of offensive comment that I just got through explaining that I was trying to avoid here.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Thanks for the cultural 411 Tom! I had that stored somewhere in my brain but couldn't access it. Now I recognize the term! Thanks again.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

So you think saying someone would look funny in a skullcap would be offensive? Well, if so I'm sorry. I don't consider that a slamm against anyones religion. We have to lighten up about some things or everything becomes offensive and then we can all just stop talking and start shooting each other...but whatever.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> So you think saying someone would look funny in a skullcap would be offensive? Well, if so I'm sorry. I don't consider that a slamm against anyones religion. We have to lighten up about some things or everything becomes offensive and then we can all just stop talking and start shooting each other...but whatever.


I think that's offensive, and I'm not Jewish.

And again, the term is Yarmulka, or 'beenie' as some of my Jewish friends call it, not skullcap.

The tone in which you said that line about Jerry K was disrespectful. If you had taken one minute to research this on the Internet, you wouldn't have said 'skullcap' in the bonehead manner you did.

Chicago is a melting pot of many creeds and peoples. Here's hoping tolerance supercedes ignorance.

Peace all,
VD


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The argument about Krause's religion as the cause of dislike of him without merit in my opinion. Until Songcycle brought it up, I didn't even know he was Jewish. In general, I don't think that's a very widely known fact.

As far as the other arguments, we can *SPIN* things back and forth, and opinions will vary. We don't know the absolute truth, and what's convincing to some people won't be convincing to others. Just be willing to accept your opinion without trashing those of others.

As for myself, I want to point something out.

The Bulls record in 98-99: 13-37
The Bulls record in 99-00: 17-65
The Bulls record in 00-01: 15-67
The Bulls record in 01-02: 21-61
Total since Phil and MJ left: 66-230

Consider that for a moment. That means that the Bulls would have to go *82-0 for the next two seasons JUST TO GET BACK TO .500 since the end of the dynasty!* It would take 5 60 win seasons (5!) to get us back over .500.

Some folks here will tell us that loosing all of those games doesn't matter, because the only thing that's 'important' is winning a championship. Well, I disagree, and no amount of spin or opinion is going to change things. Losing that much has sucked, and sucked hard, and it is an inescapable part of Krause's legacy here.

And to top that off, there's no guarantee that we're going to win a championship or come anywhere close to one, for that matter.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let's lighten up a little.

Ace said he didn't mean any offense, and I take his word for it.

I realize that people become VERY sensitive about religion, but that sensitivity has to go both ways. We have to not be offensive, but we also shouldn't leap to call every perceived slight as "offensive".

If someone has a problem with this, please PM me. Maybe someone re-start the religion talk in the "Everything but Basketball" forum. But let's get back to hoops here, k?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that's offensive, and I'm not Jewish.
> ...



How are you offended if your not even jewish? Awfully touchy for a big strong action hero eh? Yarmulka or beenie may be the preferred term but I don't think the term skullcap hasany negative connotations, or if it does Mel Brooks doesn't seem to know about it. I don't think saying that JK would look funny in a skullcap, beenie, yarmulka is the least bit disrespectful. And I don't think I did anything boneheaded. Obviously I will apologize to any people of the jewish faith if I have offended them because that wasn't my intent. I am not however apologizing to people like you who apparently have very thin skin. 

Incidentally, I was one of the founding members of my college's cultural diversity club. I respect the rights and apprecciate the differences of all cultures. Still, like I said before, the day we become to sensitive to talk about sensitive things, or even joke about those things a little, we may as well whip out the guns.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sorry Mike. 

Back to hoops. So, you didn't EXPECT the Bulls to have atrocious seasons the past 4 years? How in the world did you expect them not to? They had to retool, you can't just build from nothing with nothing, you have to lose and draft players...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Still, like I said before, the day we become to sensitive to talk about sensitive things, or even joke about those things a little, we may as well whip out the guns.


And on that note, I'd like to sponsor Ace for an NRA membership.

Just kidn.

In any case, does Jerry Krause's sense of humor have anything to do with the dislike of him?

If so, how legitimate is that? Having a good sense of humor about stuff can be a great asset in any work environment, and can prevent you from going off the deep end and cursing out reporters at press conferences


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

LOL! Funny Mike.

I still want you to address my question about all of the Bulls losing. But on JK's sense of humor. I thought it was hilarious the way he lashed out at Moronotti. IMO the guy had it coming, he had taken every dig he can at krause since forever. Krause actually does a pretty good job at restraining himself, I would have strangled the ever loving crap out of some ignorant reporter by now if it were me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Sorry Mike.
> 
> Back to hoops. So, you didn't EXPECT the Bulls to have atrocious seasons the past 4 years? How in the world did you expect them not to? They had to retool, you can't just build from nothing with nothing, you have to lose and draft players...


No prob. 

I expected it, I just wasn't happy about it. I brought it up a few threads ago, but some other teams have rebuilt themselves into contenders without loosing as as much as we have, and others have started from the ground up without loosing as much as we have.

I just don't accept the idea that you HAVE to loose. A charismatic and talented GM may have pulled off different FA moves, different trades, different draft picks...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> No prob.
> ...


I supposse that could be true to an extent. But you have to consider that we lost Jordan & Rodman to retirement. Pippen was a free agent who had no intentions of resigning.... What could we have done? Traded Kerr for Kobe? There really wasn't a lot of free agent options until the T-mac FA period. Rather than just sign FA's to be respectable, isn't it better to sign the ones you really want? Of course Miller & Mercer were signed to tradeable deals so I don't really take that into consideration. About other teams, it is easier to rebuild if you haven't been out of the lottery for 8 years in a row! The reward for having a dominant franchise for so many years is to go back to the bottom of the pack when your guys retire or move on. Sure, I don't LIKE The losing either, but it seems like a natural progression to me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ace -- Sorry, man. I really didn't intend to set you up for repeated pounding. I was just trying to smooth things out with Songcycle, who's feathers were already a bit ruffled. And you just can't say people look funny in their religious clothes. I'm not the P.C. police, but that's a sure way to get under someone's skin.

But back to hoops. That unfortunate yarmulka reference notwithstanding, I agree with the rest of your post. JK had to play the hand he was dealt. MJ wanted out. Pippin wanted out. Phil wanted out. It's tough to build for the future when you get the #28 pick six out of 8 years. New CBA changed the economic situation. 

Maybe the worst decision JK ever made was not offering contract extensions to the existing deals of MJ and Pip. If he had redone Jordan's contract along the way, the Bulls would never have been stuck with those last couple of record-breaking MJ contracts. If they had redone Pippins' deal, he could have got the money and respect he felt he deserved. In return, perhaps they could have signed him on for more years, giving the Bulls some post-MJ continuity, and a star to build around (although in hindsight, it is clear that Pippin's glory days lasted only about a year beyond the Bulls). 

A deal's a deal, and the Jerrys had every right to hold MJ and Pip to their contracts for the duration, but maybe it would have been to their (and our) benefit to have opted to redo the deals when they had the opportunity to do so.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Ace -- Sorry, man. I really didn't intend to set you up for repeated pounding. I was just trying to smooth things out with Songcycle, who's feathers were already a bit ruffled. And you just can't say people look funny in their religious clothes. I'm not the P.C. police, but that's a sure way to get under someone's skin.
> 
> But back to hoops. That unfortunate yarmulka reference notwithstanding, I agree with the rest of your post. JK had to play the hand he was dealt. MJ wanted out. Pippin wanted out. Phil wanted out. It's tough to build for the future when you get the #28 pick six out of 8 years. New CBA changed the economic situation.
> ...


Hey, I understand, I'm sure most of the folks on this board look funny enough without their religious apparel thrown into the mix!  

Still, religion notwithstanding, I think you are missing one very significant point in your post. When Pippen started whining and asking for a renegotiation of his contract, it was too late. Under the old CBA you only had a set amount of time that you could renegotiate. I think it was after 2 seasons orsomething a deal couldnot be renegotiated. So, JK's hands were tied whether he wanted to or not. MJ never complained about having a small contract early on, he made his money in endorsements and him having a smaller contract allowed the Bulls to put a better team around him.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The argument about Krause's religion as the cause of dislike of him without merit in my opinion. Until Songcycle brought it up, I didn't even know he was Jewish. In general, I don't think that's a very widely known fact.
> 
> As far as the other arguments, we can *SPIN* things back and forth, and opinions will vary. We don't know the absolute truth, and what's convincing to some people won't be convincing to others. Just be willing to accept your opinion without trashing those of others.
> ...


I'm glad someone went and looked up their records the past 4 seasons. (i'm too lazy to do this!)

When I look at the first two seasons I look at a team that was _purpousfully_ bad for those two seasons. Krause had a plan. Basically, it was to tank a couple of seasons, get high draft picks and then score big-time in the summer of 2000 with two "full boat" FA's. You've got to admit, the 98-99 and 99-00 rosters were simply awful. It takes some doing to field teams that bad. Couple that with a coach who didn't have a clue about the NBA and you've got a sure-fire receipe for diaster.

Krause got his draft picks. What he didn't get was his two full boat FA's. Krause grossly misjudged the effect the CBA had on the decision-making process of the top-tier FA's. With money no longer an option to players, they looked at other factors when they made a decision. Playing for a really bad team in a generally cold climate wasn't necessarily high on their lists.

So, when I look at the last 4 years, the first two were intentionally bad and I accept that. We all knew what Krause was up to and it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Now, you look at the 00-01 season. With Krause totally whiffing on the FA's and his plan completely in shambles, he had to regroup. With very little in terms of tradeable assets he had to limp through that season, and what an ugly season it was! By this time I think Krause had realized that FA's didn't want to play for a bad team with all other things being equal (ie money). He got yet another high draft pick (Curry) and pulled off a rather ballsy trade to get Chandler with his only real barganing chip (Brand).

The Bulls entered the 01-02 season as a better team, but still without any real leader and we again limped through and torturous season. He got us Jalen Rose in mid season. Again, I believe because he knew he could never get a player of Jalen's calibre to come here of his own volition, he had to trade what he had left in terms of value on this team (Miller, Artest and to a lesser extent Mercer). We finished the season OK. During the offseason, he netted what could be one of the finest PG prospects to come out of college in quite some time and he added a couple of solid veterans in Marshall and Blount at reasonable prices.

So yes, to an extent we've had 4 terrible seasons. I, personally, look at the first two seasons as lost. I drew a line atfter the 99-00 season and that is the point in time that I judge things from. We've improved in the two seasons since and I've got good reason to believe that we'll improve more this season. I'm tired of the losing and I'm sure those players that are on the team like it far worse that I. 

IMO, Krause is now firmly on the clock. I would think that revenues are dropping from reduced attendance at games as well as a fair chunck of corporate and league-generated reveunues drying up for this team. Yes, he brought himself some time with the Chandler trade - but only a little.

In the end, for a two year time-span from being outright horrible in 99-00 to where we are now - simply a below average, very young team - that's not too shabby. Krause needs to keep the upward improvement of this franchise from this point forward or I seriously think he'll be out of a job within a year or two...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I supposse that could be true to an extent. But you have to consider that we lost Jordan & Rodman to retirement. Pippen was a free agent who had no intentions of resigning.... What could we have done? Traded Kerr for Kobe? There really wasn't a lot of free agent options until the T-mac FA period. Rather than just sign FA's to be respectable, isn't it better to sign the ones you really want? Of course Miller & Mercer were signed to tradeable deals so I don't really take that into consideration. About other teams, it is easier to rebuild if you haven't been out of the lottery for 8 years in a row! The reward for having a dominant franchise for so many years is to go back to the bottom of the pack when your guys retire or move on. Sure, I don't LIKE The losing either, but it seems like a natural progression to me.


_The following is a repost of a post I made on another thread that kind of gets to what you're asking here... no one commented on it there, but maybe it'll attract more flies now_ 

I find it very hard to say Krause did a good job, but I also recognize that if i attempt to play the hindsight game, posters will come out of the woodwork to say whatever alternate version of history I propose is either A) Not possible, or B) Not as good. Someone wil surely say, well, if you had done something to improve earlier, you wouldn't have the talent you have now. For example, if you had traded Pippen to the Lakers for Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell, then you wouldn't have gotten Brand. Well, that's true, but maybe we would have gotten Andre Miller. Or McGrady. Just pointing out that hindsight is not linear. I mean, maybe if we had made an all-out push to acquire Steve Francis from the Grizzlies (in addition to getting Brand), we would have been more attractive to Tracey McGrady.

With that being said, I will put forth several things that I read in major publications as being feasible going back to the point where we started rebuilding, any of which may have significantly changed our rebuilding process.

1. Reinsdorf forcing Krause into retirement instead of siding with him.
2. Trading Pippen to the Lakers for real players (Jones and Campbell).
3. Signing Antonio McDyess, who apparently voiced interest in playing here.
4. Trading Kukoc to the lakers for real players (Jones and Campbell).
5. Drafting Steve Francis.
6. Trading for Steve Francis after the Grizzlies drafted him... damn, imagine a Brand/Francis combo.
7. Drafting Mike Miller instead of Fizer or Big Jake instead of Dalibor.
8. The second round? Michael Redd, nough said.
9. Trading Brent Barry for Hersey Hawkins. Ugh.
10. ERob.
11. Not going after the "full-boat" FAs.
12. (Thankfully we didnt) sign Tim Thomas or Glen Rice!


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

MikeDC (or anyone else with a better plan than fire JK and see what happens),

It's '98-'99. You are GM of the Bulls, in the boardroom, about to present your rebuilding plan to the owners, who saw their investment soar in value during the Jordan era. 

You have nothing but aging role players with Kukoc as the only somewhat marketable asset. How will you go about rebuilding the team via trades if you have little value to trade? Highly pursued FAs in the prime of their careers prefer to play on a winning team, yet you don't have a winning team... and thanks to the CBA, you don't have any more money to offer max FAs than do your competitiors. How will you build the team via free agency? If you are going to build through the draft, how will you go about getting top draft talent and how long will you need to accumulate these talents and develop them into a contender?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> LOL! Funny Mike.
> 
> I still want you to address my question about all of the Bulls losing. But on JK's sense of humor. I thought it was hilarious the way he lashed out at Moronotti. IMO the guy had it coming, he had taken every dig he can at krause since forever. Krause actually does a pretty good job at restraining himself, I would have strangled the ever loving crap out of some ignorant reporter by now if it were me.


I don't want to distract from what's becoming an interesting discussion again, but I don't know anything about this press conference fiasco. Anyone have a link to a story? Krause going off on Jay? Whhoo hooo! that's gotta be priceless!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> _The following is a repost of a post I made on another thread that kind of gets to what you're asking here... no one commented on it there, but maybe it'll attract more flies now_
> ...



Let me address some of these point by point, I hope you don't mind.

1.) Reisndorf certainly couldhave done this and teh outcome would have been different. PJ wouldbe our GM & coach and the Bulls probably would have added 1-2 more championships. Personally I am glad Reinsdorf didn't. JK didn't do anything to deserve disloyalty and PJ wouldn't have even been where he was if it wasn't for Krause. 

2.) The Bulls could have done this if MJ hadn't forbid it. He said that if we got rid of Pip he wouldn't have resigned. So. how much better would we have been with Jones & Campbell minus MJ?

3.) I'mnot sold on McDyess, he certainly didn't help Denver too much. Is he better than Brand?

4.) Don't think this was ever an option...

5.) IsFrancis that much better than Brand?

6.) Who would we have traded? Migraine still misses a lot of games and still turns the ball over a lot despite his obvious talent.

7.) Well, We DID have a deal to trade Fizer for J. O'neal, thats why we drafted him instead of Miller, unfotunately Indy screwed that up for us. Nig Jake had serious contract issues and any team that drafted him may not have been able to have him join the team for years...Phoenix got lucky IMO.

8.) Hindsight is always 20/20, especially on second rounders who hit it big. 

9.) Brent had to go. We took what we could get for the loudmouth punk.

10.) E-Rob, good signing if he ever gtes healthy! Not a bad thing IMO. If he doesn't get healthy, it's just one of those things, nothing that you can do about it. 

11.) We DID go after them...hard...we just couldn't sign them. Theres no guarantee that every free agent will want to rush off to Chicago, Krause or no Krause.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't want to distract from what's becoming an interesting discussion again, but I don't know anything about this press conference fiasco. Anyone have a link to a story? Krause going off on Jay? Whhoo hooo! that's gotta be priceless!


Oh man, you really missed out! Krause went off on Moronotti, he was cursing and spitting when he yelled and everything...it was way cool.


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

Sorry DC, you are quicker on the draw than I... however you list nothing but woulda, coulda, shoulda tactics. How would you have seen the competitive environment at the time? What were your strengths and opportunities? What would have been your overall strategy that guides your decision making through this whole process?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Newguy</b>!
> MikeDC (or anyone else with a better plan than fire JK and see what happens),
> 
> It's '98-'99. You are GM of the Bulls, in the boardroom, about to present your rebuilding plan to the owners, who saw their investment soar in value during the Jordan era.
> ...


My thing would be scouting, scouting, and then some more scouting. I would propose a plan that the Bulls only draft guys that are willing and eager to work hard in the offseason, I would work it so that they spent a lot of their offseason "unofficially" practicing together. I would especially scout the euro's heavily because the time was right after the dream team and all for some euros to bust out. I would keep cap flexibility and only offer deals to players I had identified as either difference makers or role players that fit the system, depending on where we were at in the rebuilding. I would also hire a coach with some previous playing experience in the NBA.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> As far as the other arguments, we can *SPIN* things back and forth, and opinions will vary. We don't know the absolute truth, and what's convincing to some people won't be convincing to others. Just be willing to accept your opinion without trashing those of others.
> 
> ...


MikeDC, this post is money. 'Spin' is one thing, results (W's and L's) are another. And I'll take results anyday.

I don't know if I can add anything to this... but I'll try. Remember (this is a repost) that a championship team has these ingredients:

1. 2 superstars or 1 uber-star and another All-Star
2. Good if not great team defense
3. Solid rotation and veteran role players
4. Veteran point guard

We have none of these. I see too many one dimensional players on this roster and a bunch of question marks. If the Bulls don't win 30 games this season, it will be a disaster. But then again, what's a 5th season of futility when Chicago fans are so optimistic and supportive?

I think some of us need to take off those rose-colored glasses and look at the team as it is. We are far from being real good. And we may never get there. And I assert that Jerry K isn't the man to get us there either.

VD


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> MikeDC, this post is money. 'Spin' is one thing, results (W's and L's) are another. And I'll take results anyday.
> ...


How about God as GM? Maybe God could have converted Tony Kukoc into 2 superstars or 1 uber -star and another All-Star plus a veteran point guard and a solid rotation of veteran role players over a 4 year time-period.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Newguy</b>!
> 
> 
> How about God as GM? Maybe God could have converted Tony Kukoc into 2 superstars or 1 uber -star and another All-Star plus a veteran point guard and a solid rotation of veteran role players over a 4 year time-period.


Newbie, we had more than just Kukoc. Jerry K traded away Kerr, Longley, and Pippen w/in a span of two days in January of 1999. This netted us Artest (good), DBags, Bubba Wells, Mark Bryant, Chuck Person, Martin Muursepp, Roy Rogers and a second round pick. Kukoc wasn't traded until halfway through the '99-'00 season anyways.

We actually got decent value for Kukoc: Starks, Bowen, and a conditional pick from Washington that turned into Jamal Crawford. Too bad we kept Starks and not Bowen. Seems like he would be a nice fit on the Bulls.


VD


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Newguy</b>!
> MikeDC (or anyone else with a better plan than fire JK and see what happens),
> 
> It's '98-'99. You are GM of the Bulls, in the boardroom, about to present your rebuilding plan to the owners, who saw their investment soar in value during the Jordan era.
> ...


Well, I gave several possibilities in my prior post. I think getting into too much detail when discussing a hypothetical/hindsight situation will only lead to people nitpicking on one or two particular ideas.  As was shown by the posts that were made between the time I started and finished writing this one  It's somewhat impossible to do historical fiction without opeining yourself to the "coulda shoulda" argument. 

That being said, I think if *I* were the GM, I would have done the following, in order of preference. Either would leave us in very good position and with a substantially shorter rebuilding time....

Alternative one:

1. Since *I* am the GM, and not Krause, I don't face the personality conflict with PJ and MJ. If they could be retained, retain them. If they both wanted to take a leave of absence, keep around PJ's staff (Hamblin?) as the coach, with the idea that when and if he want to return, he can. 

2. If MJ and PJ still leave, then try to get something real for Pippen. The popular talk at the time was Jones and Campbell. Couple them with a big FA signing (McDyess?) and we're still in the hunt for the championship. (In retrospect, that wouldn't have worked well in the long run, since McDyess got hurt, but that wasn't forseeable at the time). The trades of Kerr and Longley could stand, as far as I'm concerned.

3. Jones' and others' contracts would have been expiring, so we would have had the chance to go after Duncan, Hill, or McGrady, but we would have had a more credible team to offer one of those guys to come to. Also, the good relationship with MJ and PJ might pay dividends... maybe one of them comes back.

Alternative two:

1. OK, so imagine that Pippen wouldn't have fetched Jones and Campbell and we got the best we could. In that case, we suffer through the strike season and then land the #1 pick, Brand. Then, we offer up everything else on the team (Kukoc, Artest, a future 1st if necessary... all of which was better than what Vancouver actually got) to get Steve Francis.

2. Now, we've got a truly exciting pair of potential superstars... one in the backcourt, one in the front. We would have won a lot more with those two. And oh yeah, we've still got all that free agent money. Now, at the end of the year, when Duncan, Hill, McGrady etc are looking at the Bulls, they don't look so dreadful.... coupled with good relations between myself, MJ, and PJ, then we've got a better chance of attracting a top tier FA, and also getting back those guys after their sabaticals. Even if we don't, we've got two top-notch cornerstones of the franchise.

Just a note: I started typing this before lunch, then finished afterwards, so I didn't see the intervening posts


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Someone refresh my memory on the Pippen trade. Didn't Krause do a sign and trade, getting Pippen significantly more money 
than Pippen could have possibly gotten under the then new CBA (something like $11MM vs $15MM) and put him on a contending team (Houston)? We got Roy Rogers (no, not the cowboy singer, though good ol' "Happy Trails" would have probably been about as useful) and a second rounder, as I recall.

My recollection is that this was one of the few cases where Krause seemed to act more in a player's interests than he did in the team's interests. He may have hoped that this decision would get him some goodwill for taking care of "his guys." He couldn't have been more wrong. Pippen hardly walked away singing Krause's praises.

What Krause could have gotten for Pippen is debatable. It's not like Krause was so stupid that he thought Rogers was some sort of gem. Remember that Pippen could have effectively vetoed any deal by refusing to accept Krause's contract offer in a sign-and-trade and signed independently for the $11MM max deal. Krause has always liked E. Jones, so I seriously doubt he was gettable for Pippen.

As it ended up, Pippen got his big payday, kept blasting Krause and the Bulls, and Krause and the Bulls got virtually nothing out of the adventure. Bad judgment on Krause's part. He should have just let Pippen get his $11MM and called it a day.

If I've got this wrong (very possible...I'm no longer a young man), please advise.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Someone refresh my memory on the Pippen trade. Didn't Krause do a sign and trade, getting Pippen significantly more money
> than Pippen could have possibly gotten under the then new CBA (something like $11MM vs $15MM) and put him on a contending team (Houston)? We got Roy Rogers (no, not the cowboy singer, though good ol' "Happy Trails" would have probably been about as useful) and a second rounder, as I recall.
> 
> ...


I believe the deal that Pip signed was 5 years at 67 million dollars. Not too shabby.

But though this may have been a 'good will' jesture on JK's part, his relationship w/ Pip had long since soured. There was no turning back from this and yes... Pip slammed Bulls management as soon as he left Chicago.

Pippen's gripes started as early as the '94 - '95 season, when he was having a MVP type of year w/o MJ. He was only making 3 mil per and wanted to renegotiat a contract he had agreed to many years ago. But seeing as to the fact that Jerry R. is an astute business man, this didn't happen. That was more Reinsdorf's fault than Jerry K. For some reason though, Jerry K came out looking like the bad sheep here.

Pip did get more than he would have outright being a FA, but the Bulls could/should have obviously received more in return. 


VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Someone refresh my memory on the Pippen trade.


Sounds about the way I remember it, old man. 

The problem Krause had in getting any sort of fair value for Pippen was Pippen had been very vocal about his intentions to not re-sign with the Bulls under any circumstances. That left Krause with absolutely no leverage in the marketplace. That, and of course the fact that Pippen had to approve of any sign & trade deal, which precluded the Bulls trading him to all but a handful of contending teams.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> Pippen's gripes started as early as the '94 - '95 season, when he was having a MVP type of year w/o MJ. He was only making 3 mil per and wanted to renegotiat a contract he had agreed to many years ago. But seeing as to the fact that Jerry R. is an astute business man, this didn't happen. That was more Reinsdorf's fault than Jerry K. For some reason though, Jerry K came out looking like the bad sheep here.
> 
> VD


I mentioned the bad vibes stemming from the Jerrys' refusal to re-do MJ's and Pippins' contracts before they expired in one of the Jerrybashing threads earlier today (was it this one? I'' go back and check), and received a response post that while Pippin wanted his contract re-done, the CBA in force at the time did not permit renegotiation, as there was a limited window of a couple of years of signing to make a new deal. I had never heard anything about any such limitation on the ability to renegotiate contracts. I know some of you are CBA gurus -- my head was swimming when I read that whole salary BYC/sign and trade thread a few weeks ago. Anyone able to 'splain this to me?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> ...I think you are missing one very significant point in your post. When Pippen started whining and asking for a renegotiation of his contract, it was too late. Under the old CBA you only had a set amount of time that you could renegotiate. I think it was after 2 seasons orsomething a deal couldnot be renegotiated. So, JK's hands were tied whether he wanted to or not. MJ never complained about having a small contract early on, he made his money in endorsements and him having a smaller contract allowed the Bulls to put a better team around him.


Anyone?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Here is what Larry **** says is true in the current CBA. It would be my best guess at what was true in the last CBA, since I don't know anything about the last CBA.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

46. Can existing contracts be renegotiated? 

A contract for four or more seasons can be renegotiated when at least three years have passed since the signing of the contract. Contracts for fewer than four seasons cannot be renegotiated. A contract cannot be renegotiated until after the third anniversary of the signing of the contract, any later renegotiations, or any later extensions. A contract cannot be renegotiated between March 1 and June 30 of any year. The salary in the first year of the renegotiation is limited to 112.5% of the salary in the last year of the existing contract, with maximum 12.5% raises each year after that. The renegotiation may not contain a signing bonus. Contracts cannot be renegotiated downward (players can't take a "pay cut" in order to create salary cap room for the team). Contracts cannot be renegotiated to contain fewer seasons. 

Salaries can be renegotiated only to the extent that the team has room under the cap. A team over the salary cap cannot renegotiate a contract. An interesting case of this was Shawn Kemp with the Sonics. Kemp, who was unhappy with his contract and wanted to renegotiate, could not get a larger contract from the Sonics because they were over the cap. Kemp forced a trade to Cleveland, who was far enough under the cap at the time to give him the large contract he wanted. Kemp's contract was renegotiated soon after the trade.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I mentioned the bad vibes stemming from the Jerrys' refusal to re-do MJ's and Pippins' contracts before they expired in one of the Jerrybashing threads earlier today, and received a response post that while Pippin wanted his contract re-done, the CBA in force at the time did not permit renegotiation, as there was a limited window of a couple of years of signing to make a new deal. I had never heard anything about any such limitation on the ability to renegotiate contracts. I know some of you are CBA gurus -- my head was swimming when I read that whole salary BYC/sign and trade thread a few weeks ago. Anyone able to 'splain this to me?


I distinctly remember that there was a prohibition against renegotiating under the old CBA. Please don't ask me to cite sources...as far as I know they don't exist. Anyway, this led to the statement that "Krause couldn't have renegotiated even if he wanted to." In an historical context, what Krause would have done if he could is irrelevant. Krause's boss (Reinsdorf) views renegotiating a signed contract, absent some additional consideration for his side, as being akin to flushing money down a toilet. Personally, I'm with him on this one. If he wasn't going to renegotiate MJ's contract, no one else need inquire.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Sounds about the way I remember it, old man.


I realize that I invited this, but somehow I still hate seeing it in print.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

So, assuming the old CBA had similar provisions, there was nothing preventing the Jerrys from renegotiating Pippins' contract, of they chose to do so, at least from a contract years perspective. Did cap limitations prevent any deal, or was it (as my memory suggests) simply that the Bulls brass decided that they would rather let Pip sulk than deviate from their policy against renegotiating contracts? 

My point earlier was that had the Jerrys kept Pip happy and re-done his deal for more money AND more years, they would have had a happy superstar in place around which to anchor a new team, and that their commitment to policy on this issue (and they had every right to stick to the contract in place) may have been the biggest administrative blunder you can place on JK and JR's heads.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> I distinctly remember that there was a prohibition against renegotiating under the old CBA. Please don't ask me to cite sources...as far as I know they don't exist. Anyway, this led to the statement that "Krause couldn't have renegotiated even if he wanted to." In an historical context, what Krause would have done if he could is irrelevant. Krause's boss (Reinsdorf) views renegotiating a signed contract, absent some additional consideration for his side, as being akin to flushing money down a toilet. Personally, I'm with him on this one. If he wasn't going to renegotiate MJ's contract, no one else need inquire.


Transplant, I'll take your word for it. But it really makes me wonder. I remember following the Pippin situation closely, and I never heard anything about the deal Pippin wanted being a league contract impossibility. I only remember hearing the Bulls wouldn't do it, because it was against team policy. If the CBA prohibited renegotiation in Pippin's case, the Chicago media really fell down on the job in reporting that, and somebody shoulda explained it better to Scottie, and maybe he wouldn't have been publicly sulking about it (but with Pip, you never know).


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

TomB, I believe Pippen's unhappiness with Bulls management extended beyond his contract. To say that if they had only renegotiated it all would have been peachy I do not believe is accurate.

It has always mystified me how it is that players are allowed to publically whine about a bad contract they have signed and yet management is not.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

I want to keep this short. Krause not only did the Pippen thing as a favor to him and Pippen had been a major malcontent for years. PJ and/or MJ are even alluded to have said that if they knew Pippen was going to be that way the last year of the dynasty, they wouldn't have come back.
Reinsdorf (with JK) publicly proclaimed he wanted PJ to return Top headlines in the sports section) and would pay him top money.
Longley and Kerr were also beneficiaries of being signed big by the Bulls and then traded. The final decision was Phil's. He turned down numerous multi-year contracts at more money than any other NBA coach was making. (not coach/gm)
Krause has no public relations skills period, but that is secondary to his job. Only 3 major FA's changed teams and that was 2 years ago and 2 went to their hometowns. All went to Florida where there is no state tax and a warm climate and none have seen any real post season success.
As for the Jewish stuff, I never meant to imply anti-semitism to anyone on this board where this stuff is not a problem, but it does exist in this country and in this world. If a couple of weeks ago when I brought it up, I implied it to any specific poster, I apologize, I do get passionate on the subject and had to learn to fight when I was kid after getting beaten up for it a number of times.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> TomB, I believe Pippen's unhappiness with Bulls management extended beyond his contract. To say that if they had only renegotiated it all would have been peachy I do not believe is accurate.
> 
> It has always mystified me how it is that players are allowed to publically whine about a bad contract they have signed and yet management is not.


Kneepad, I think you know this already, but since you declared yourself to be mystified, I'll try to demystify.

You have a car that you know is a lemon. You wouldn't think of letting the world know about the car's problems because you'd like to sell it to some other sucker. 

Management CAN complain about bad contracts, but it is contrary to their own interests to do so, because it will tend to stand in the way of their selling their problem to someone else.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Transplant, I'll take your word for it. But it really makes me wonder. I remember following the Pippin situation closely, and I never heard anything about the deal Pippin wanted being a league contract impossibility. I only remember hearing the Bulls wouldn't do it, because it was against team policy. If the CBA prohibited renegotiation in Pippin's case, the Chicago media really fell down on the job in reporting that, and somebody shoulda explained it better to Scottie, and maybe he wouldn't have been publicly sulking about it (but with Pip, you never know).


Pippen signed a 7 year contract and CBA rules did not allow renegotiation period. The media reported it early but Pippen moaned and groaned so early and often, it became old news. Extensions were only allowed at certain points and that changed over the years. I am not exactly sure when and how. But, that is how players like Oakley had a huge end year (which was the strike year), and I believe Sean Kemp was also in the category. Pippen started moaning in year 3 , when at the earliest, he could only have been extended after year 5.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> ...
> Reinsdorf (with JK) publicly proclaimed he wanted PJ to return Top headlines in the sports section) and would pay him top money.
> Longley and Kerr were also beneficiaries of being signed big by the Bulls and then traded. The final decision was Phil's. He turned down numerous multi-year contracts at more money than any other NBA coach was making. (not coach/gm)
> ...


Sup Songcycle.

Hmm... we never seem to agree on the Jerrys, now do we?

Here's a few interesting old readings:
http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/ap/bkb/1998/nba/chi/feat/archive/072298/chi35181.html
http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/ap/bkb/1998/nba/chi/feat/archive/072298/chi74647.html

The question is... if the Bulls were so 'intent' on bringing PJ back, why would they offer Tim Floyd a 'Director of Basketball Operations' position in July of '98, only one month after we won the last championship? Everyone at that time knew that was a farse, and that Jerry K was intent on having Tim Floyd be the next head coach of the Bulls.

Couple that with the fact that 1) MJ had already established he was not going to play for anyone other than PJ and 2) PJ was not going to work under or with Tim Floyd, a rookie NBA coach just out of college and.. you get the picture. Its the Jerrys that got the ball rolling by signing Tim Floyd to that position. I wasn't fooled then, and I am not fooled now.

Here's a quote from the first article:



> David Falk, Jordan's agent, said today that Floyd's hiring was not a surprise.
> 
> "I think it would be a shock to anyone close to the scene had Tim Floyd not been hired," Falk said. "This was a decision that was made a year ago."


So was the final decision up to Phil? I don't think so, at least not completely. Phil was probably on a fishing trip only to learn (the inevitable I guess) that the Bulls had hired one of Jerry K's fishing buddies to a high position in the Bulls organization. He could then either 1) retire quietly for a while or 2) come back and work w/ a rookie NBA coach while already having a strained relationsihp w/ the current GM and owner. No wonder PJ chose the former.


VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Vin,

By the time the Bulls hired Floyd, PJ had long since cleared out his Berto Center office and rode off on his Harley.

The whole spiel of hiring Floyd under that bogus title was largely PR on the part of Reinsdorf, attempting to set the record straight that Phil had not been, and wasn't being, forced out. But by that time it was long done. It would have taken a minor miracle for Phil at that point to have reversed his decision and come back. To say the hiring of Floyd "got the ball rolling" is seriously inaccurate, despite what that article might say.

The other important thing it did was insure the Bulls would have their second choice, as miguided a choice as it may have been, as coach. If they had waited much longer, Floyd likely would have re-upped at Iowa State and most other quality coaches would have signed whatever deals they had in the works.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> You have a car that you know is a lemon. You wouldn't think of letting the world know about the car's problems because you'd like to sell it to some other sucker.


Yeah, but I'm talking about contracts that are so bad, the whole world already knows it. You know, contracts like Jim McIlvaine, Juwan Howard, Shawn Kemp, etc.

Did anyone ever hear the teams who signed those players to those bad contracts whine about not being able to renegotiate it? No, because teams are expected to honor signed contracts whereas for some reason players are not.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Vin D,

Sorry can't do VD for obvious reasons, this came about to Jerry Krause's lack of PR talent. He and Jackson and probably Reinsdorf sat down before the year and they negotiated and Jackson said this is it, I am out after this year, I need a year off, both mentally and for hip reconstruction. It was his 8th or 9th season and that is one hell of a long time in any pro sport.

Krause got up before the media and said before the year Phil ain't coming back, no way, no how this is it. I am paraphrasing, but he did a lousy job of presenting a real discussion.

Here is my take.
Now, he was gleeful at the prospect, way too much so, he is a lousy liar and the press picked up on it, but it was Phil's choice. Krause was probably happy because he knew Phil wanted his job.
When the kettle brewed later in the year, Reisndord stepped in and told the press point blank, if Phil wants to come back, he is our first choice, we want him and we will pay him. He made Krause chime in too.
Point is the door was open for Phil to come back, Top headlines in sports, front page of the newspapers and all the radio and TV stations.
Krause wanted Floyd in the organization and signed him. He probably wanted Jackson gone, but Reinsdorf stepped in and the door was open for Phil to come back if he wanted.
I've heard and read Sam Smith say it, Roman Modrowski of the Sun Times also.
Jackson wanted a year off, was more than sick and tired of Scottie and probably Krause and who knows who else. And isn't it funny that an underpaid Jerry West West was finally entering a big bucks stage of his Lakers contract when Phil comes, and West resigns while gming a championship team he built.
Phil Jackson is not healthy for general managers.

Were you living in Chicago when all this went down?


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

One other point to be made here, lets seperate the Jerry's.

For those who don't know, Sam Smith ghost wrote Phil Jackson's book and knows lots about what went on. Jackson refers to Reinsdorf as the honest one and told MJ among others that his word was good.
Having run some publications in Chicago and those here who know insiders on the Bull's can confirm this if they read it, Reinsdorf is a very charitable man who feels a genuine committment to help those who are less fortunate. He is not only a major contributor to Jewish charities for those in need, but the Bulls and he personally, put major money into needy communities and worthwhile charities that help the general public.
Some of the finest and best hearted people I know, sing songs of praise for his good heart, straightforwardness and his humanitarian efforts and that is something he does not publicize at all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's a 1997 Sports Illustrated article that may be of interest. It's about Pippen and the Bulls in general.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1997/bulls/pippen2.html

It is with this added maturity that Pippen faces the possibility of losing Jordan again. Michael says he is seriously considering retiring, if not this summer, then in 1998, and Pippen has said that he is prepared to assume control of the Bulls once more, only this time with the benefit of the proper seasoning he has received. 

Whether Pippen will be afforded that opportunity is another matter. He will become a free agent in 1998, and his asking price will be hefty. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf must consider all his options, including trading his hybrid forward. Reinsdorf said Pippen's unsuccessful solo run in 1993-94 will not be a factor in determining whether he is given that leadership role again. "The first time, he wasn't ready," Reinsdorf said. "But now Scottie is the complete package. Everybody has bad offensive games here and there, but Scottie almost always has a good defensive game, and that's what wins championships." 

Still, Pippen's future remains unclear. Reinsdorf has not yet committed to re-signing him, and—particularly if Jordan does retire—Pippen could be his best trade bait to help begin the rebuilding process. Reinsdorf concedes, however, that he's intrigued with the idea of keeping Pippen around.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Thanks DaBullz for the article.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

I'm going to set the facts straight on the Pippen contract situation.

First of all, for those who say that Krause should have gotten more for Pippen, he couldn't, plain and simple. He had no say in the matter because Scottie was going to Houston with or without a S&T. 

Pippen thought he could win a ring with Hakeem and Sir Charles, and Houston had plenty of cap room to pay him well (over $10 million, anyway). 

Pippen signed for $14 mil, and he was traded for Roy Rogers, who made right at $1 mil. With the 15% + $100,000 rule, $14 mil coming in = $11.8 mil that Houston had to send back to complete the trade. 11.8 - 1 = 10.8, meaning that Houston had *at least* $10.8 mil in cap space to sign Pippen outright.

Krause COULD have traded Pippen after the 1997 season and gotten full value (TMac and Mercer) for him, but think about it- people ***** now because Krause "broke up the dynasty" after the 1998 season- they'd be *****ing even more if he had done it after the 1997 season, right?

MJ said he wouldn't come back for the 97-98 season if Krause traded Pippen during the summer of 1997, and that really killed any chance the Bulls had of rebuilding on the fly. We wouldn't have ring #6, but if Krause had *truly* broken up the dynasty in 1997, we would have had TMac, Kukoc, Mercer, a lottery pick in the 1998 and 1999 drafts, and a lot of cap space to re-build around (most likely Jermaine O'Neal in the summer of 1999 with that cap room) instead of having to start from scratch like an expansion team.


As for Pippen's contract situation before that, it was his own fault he was so underpaid. He signed a long-term contract (through the 97-98 season) early in his career against the advice of Krause and Reinsdorf. The starting salary was good at the time he signed it, but it was so long that he was woefully underpaid shortly after he signed it (plus he became a premier player).

As someone showed in their excerpt from Larry ****'s site, you cannot re-negotiate a contract, you can only extend it, plain and simple. So once Pippen signed his contract, there was nothing that the Bulls could do about it, plain and simple. They could have added some years to the end of the contract- for a 12.5% raise over the low salary he was *****ing about. 

But for the years he was signed for (through the 97-98 season), the Bulls COULD NOT PAY HIM MORE EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO. 

Not to be harsh, but anyone who says that the Jerry's screwed Pippen by not renegotiating his contract is ignorant. Ignorant of the fact that the rules prevented (and still prevent) it from happening.

Now if Pippen had been smart and signed a shorter contract, when it was up, he could have re-signed for ANY AMOUNT. Infinite. That's how the CBA worked back then- when your Bird Rights came up, there was no maximum salary- that's how MJ got $30 mil for a season when the salary cap for that season was about $28 mil. 

Sorry this was so long, but I had to set the facts straight.

FACT- Houston had at least $10.8 mil in cap space in 1999. 

Krause helped Pippen a little bit, but Pippen was going to Houston anyway IMO.

FACT- The Bulls could not renegotiate Pippen's contract, he was stuck with the salary he signed for until his contract was up after the 1997-98 season.

It seems to me that anyone who bashes Krause for not renegotiating Pippen's contract WHEN HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO DO SO is an idiot (IMO, of course).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> I'm going to set the facts straight on the Pippen contract situation.


I'm sorry, but I don't see how many of those statements are any more "factual" than any of the opposing opinions that have been expressed.

Just laying claim to *the facts* of a situation when it's obvious that no one really knows exactly what went on seems more than a little bit presumptuous.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> ...
> 
> Were you living in Chicago when all this went down?


Hey Song.

When this all hit the fan I was still a youngin in college (U of I Champaign by the way). So technically I was in a cow town and not the Second City.

Honestly, I can't completely disagree with your version of the story. Its just that in my mind I remember it differently. Every fan takes what they see on TV and read in the newspapers back then and puts their own 'spin' on the issue. Hence, we get a debate like no other when we discuss Jerry Krause and the dismantling of the dynasty =)

I guess in my heart of hearts I sincerely believed PJ, MJ and the supporting cast could have been brought back for one more run (or a few more years for that matter). Maybe it had been decided the offseason before. Maybe PJ would have never come back under any circumstance. Maybe.

But I don't think anyone (including the Jerry's for that matter) could have pictured the BUlls falling so hard, and so fast. Present potential withstanding, the BUlls have been a sorry team for the past 4 seasons.. and for that I'm consistently lambasting Jerry K for. Are we in position to be really great one day? Maybe. Song, I know you have to agree that there's a whole lot that has to happen before we get there. That much is for sure.

Song, you have presented some informative posts and PMs to me concerning Jerry K. Have we agreed upon much? Not really. But it has challenged my 'historical view' of the Bulls dynasty and its breakup, and for that I'm grateful. Keep it up.

Peace all


VD


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I was only stating 2 facts, which I listed at the bottom of my post. 

FACT- Houston had at least $10.8 mil in cap space in 1999. 

FACT- The Bulls could not renegotiate Pippen's contract, he was stuck with the salary he signed for until his contract was up after the 1997-98 season.

Those FACTS seem to be ignored by some people who want to bash Krause, and they seem to be unknown to other people, and I just wanted to clarify them. 

I didn't mean to be "presumptuous" at all... :grinning:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

From what I've read, and recently re-read again, Pippen was upset about being unable to get Krause to renegotiate his contract at the time Kukoc was signed to a much bigger deal.

That would have been the 1993-94 season.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Great post BullsNews. Those are the facts as anyone who folowed the developments on a daily basis should know.

Pippen was the 2nd or 3rd higrest paid player in the NBA (more than MJ) the first 2 years of his contract (more than he was worth at the time) and he chose a front loaded contract with declining salaries to get more money early in the deal. NBA players don't get bonuses like they do in the NFL. It was only after he didn't have the full advantage of the first 2 years that he squalked and moaned, but as BullsNews and others beautifully put it, it was illegal to renegotiate.

Game. set, match to Bullsnews.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's another article that may be of interest:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/skn/jordan06.htm

Bring the rest of 'em back? Or allow the wrecking ball to come crashing down on the rest of the dynasty? 

Those are the questions Chicago Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf and general manager Jerry Krause will have to answer. As of now, it looks like they're unsure which path they'll choose. 

...

Krause, the only executive able to sign Pippen to a contract worth more than $10 million annually, makes an agreement with Pippen's agent to sign him and trade him. Under the rules of the new collective bargaining agreement, such a transaction would be permissible if Pippen's new contract was for at least three years. 

Krause then would trade Pippen to another team that could put together a package of players whose salaries would equal Pippen's. Campbell ($7 million) and Jones ($2.2 million) would put the Lakers in that ballpark, and since Los Angeles needs a ballhandler now that Nick Van Exel is gone, Pippen would be a perfect fit.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> From what I've read, and recently re-read again, Pippen was upset about being unable to get Krause to renegotiate his contract at the time Kukoc was signed to a much bigger deal.
> 
> That would have been the 1993-94 season.


Good post- Scottie really started *****ing about being underpaid not long after Toni came over and got a bigger salary, which was in the summer of 1993. 

And that was my point, the Bulls COULD NOT pay Pippen any more per season until his contract expired after the 1997-98 season. Yet some Krause-bashers will use the "he refused to renegotiate Pippen's contract" argument all day long, the FACTS be damned...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I mean you no offense, but I do not understand why all the sportswriters at the time said that the Bulls REFUSED to renegotiate and did not point out any legal issues with doing so.

In fact, many articles I've been looking at today say that Pippen qualified for the "Larry Bird" exemption.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Here's another article that may be of interest:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/skn/jordan06.htm
> ...


Thanks DaBullz, that was a great read.

Could Krause have gotten Jones and Campbell for Pippen? Probably, the Lakers would have done it IMO. Would Pippen have done it? IMO No, the Lakers got swept out of the playoffs in 1998, and I think Pippen liked his chances better with Hakeem and Barkley than with a circa-1999 Shaq and Kobe. Would Krause have done it if Pippen was OK with going to LA? Well I'm glad he didn't, as I'll explain.

But I found a couple of other passages interesting in that article...

*they will be in position to immediately become a major player in a free-agent market that includes Antonio McDyess, Damon Stoudamire, Jerry Stackhouse and Rod Strickland.*

Am I the only one who is glad that we spent our cap space on Rose instead of these guys?

But I like this one better-

*How's this for an opening night lineup: Kukoc, Harper, Eddie Jones, Elden Campbell and McDyess?*

This is the best this guy could come up with as a rebuilding plan? Would this team have ever won a title? I certainly don't think so, and I am certainly glad that Krause decided to truly rebuild instead of going for a quick fix that would have turned us into the Pacers/Knicks/Nets/Sixers of late... good enough to maybe win the East once or twice, but never close to winning a title.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I mean you no offense, but I do not understand why all the sportswriters at the time said that the Bulls REFUSED to renegotiate and did not point out any legal issues with doing so.
> 
> In fact, many articles I've been looking at today say that Pippen qualified for the "Larry Bird" exemption.


Yeah, Pippen qualified for the Bird exemption, but not until his contract ran out.

As for why so many sportswriters ignored the fact that the Bulls couldn't renegotiate Pippen's contract, you'd have to e-mail the authors and ask them. But the only logical answers are: ignorance, they didn't know the rules of the Collective Bargaining Agreement... hatred of Krause and Reinsdorf, figuring that the general reading public doesn't know that Pippen's contract could be renegotiated, they can make the Jerrys look bad in the public eye.

If anyone else has a logical explanation, I'd love to hear it...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippen signed his long term contract in 1990-1991 season; it ran through the 1997-1998 season.

According to Larry ****'s WWW site, Pippen absolutely could have been given a 12.5% per year raise through a renegotiated contract - assuming the same CBA was in force in 1993-1994. The site says that after the 3rd anniversary of at least a 4 year contract, the contract CAN be renegotiated. It can also be extended.

Upfront bonuses are/were not allowed, which is why Pippen's contract was so loaded upfront in salary.

The full 12.5% raise Pippen could have gotten in renegotation would have worked out to at least $3M tacked onto his contract.

Due to similar 12.5% rules for extensions, Pippen and Krause would have had to agree to wait until the contract expired and then sign a new "Larry Bird" exemption sized contract.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Pippen signed his long term contract in 1990-1991 season; it ran through the 1997-1998 season.
> 
> According to Larry ****'s WWW site, Pippen absolutely could have been given a 12.5% per year raise through a renegotiated contract - assuming the same CBA was in force in 1993-1994.


The CBA that Larry **** is describing is the new CBA though (that was signed after the lockout). It was vastly different than the one in place during Pippen's contract. I'm not sure what the rules were then.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't see how many of those statements are any more "factual" than any of the opposing opinions that have been expressed.
> ...



Mike, those are factual statements because they are...ummm....facts. Not opinions, facts. Bullsnews explained the contract situation with Pip in a very nice way that is entirely wedded to the truth. Under the old CBA Pips deal COULD NOT have been renegotiated. A lot of writers failed to point that out at the time because they either didn't know or it got in the way of a dramatic element of their story, nevertheless those WERE the facts. I don't know where we can view an old copy of the CBA, I supposse someone could e-mail Larry **** and verify the Pip question if there is any doubt, but the way Bullsnews explained it was right on the money. He wasn't being presumptious, he was being right 

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Songcycles version of PJ's resignation and Floyd being brought on board, those events went down exactly as song recounted them. I even remember Floyd saying that he was Director of basketball operations or whatever because they were still hoping PJ would change his mind.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> ....
> 
> Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Songcycles version of PJ's resignation and Floyd being brought on board, those events went down exactly as song recounted them. I even remember Floyd saying that he was Director of basketball operations or whatever because they were still hoping PJ would change his mind.


I have a hard time believing that.

The decision to bring in Tim Floyd was made over a year before he was officially hired. So whether he was 'Director of BBall Operations' or not, management wanted Floyd as their next head coach. Floyd was just saying that for PR, as he didn't want to shoulder the blame for helping to break up the dynasty. [see links of my old post]

Why would you show interest in Floyd a year before hiring, hire him to some position-in-waiting for head coach, and expect Phil to come back? Knowing PJ's ego, would he have come back to work with Krause's fishing buddy and rookie NBA coach? No way. Hence the dominoes fell and MJ had long asserted he would not play for Tim 'Pink' FLoyd.

VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a hard time believing that.
> ...



Very simply because PJ told them he would not come back after the 98 season! They tried to convince him but it just wasn't happening. So, sure they had preliminary talks with Floyd, that doesn't change the sequence of events any or the fact that the Bulls DID try to resign PJ, they offered him a nice chunk of change, he just wasn't interested.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

If someone has access to the Tribune or Sun-Times archives, this could easily be proven. The press is a big part of the problem here. Most people get their news straight from TV where they can only say a few words and for those out of town, usually just wire service reports in the papers which are not lengthy or greatly detailed and often chopped up good before they hit the papers.
Id you want to find out the facts, you really have to pay attention and work at it. Sports radio can help some, but that depends on which show.
The scary thing is that the same thing happens to the news.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> The decision to bring in Tim Floyd was made over a year before he was officially hired.


Krause has always kept an eye out for coaching talent for the future. He did the same thing when he recruited Phil Jackson out of the CBA and into the Bulls organization. He did the same thing with Cartwright who I believe he always saw as a future Bulls head coach at some point. He first identified Floyd as a coaching talent several years prior when Floyd was at the U. of New Orleans, long before he was even at Iowa State. Yes, Krause cultivated the relationship because he knew Phil would not coach the Bulls forever. Building such relationships is just smart business. A manager always plans for the future. But to say that the decision to bring Floyd in was made a year prior is just not true. 

No matter how low your opinion of Krause, do you honestly think he would be so dumb as to think he could fire (or force out) arguably the greatest coach the NBA has seen?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> 
> No matter how low your opinion of Krause, do you honestly think he would be so dumb as to think he could fire (or force out) arguably the greatest coach the NBA has seen?


What does Krause have to do with Red Auerbach?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, those are factual statements because they are...ummm....facts. Not opinions, facts. Bullsnews explained the contract situation with Pip in a very nice way that is entirely wedded to the truth. Under the old CBA Pips deal COULD NOT have been renegotiated. A lot of writers failed to point that out at the time because they either didn't know or it got in the way of a dramatic element of their story, nevertheless those WERE the facts. I don't know where we can view an old copy of the CBA, I supposse someone could e-mail Larry **** and verify the Pip question if there is any doubt, but the way Bullsnews explained it was right on the money. He wasn't being presumptious, he was being right


Ace, 

As he himself pointed out, there was more in BullsNews' post than just a description of the CBA and Pippen's contract. That's where the confusion/criticism was coming from on my part. 

I still don't see, however, how citing Larry ****'s faq on the new CBA sheds any light on Pippen's contract under the old CBA. Is there a passage in there that talks about the old CBA? Even if the conclusion that Bullsnews reached is correct (*I think that particular one is*) you still can't use the new CBA to figure out what was going on with an old CBA contract.



> Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Songcycles version of PJ's resignation and Floyd being brought on board, those events went down exactly as song recounted them. I even remember Floyd saying that he was Director of basketball operations or whatever because they were still hoping PJ would change his mind.


That's not quite what I read Songcycle as saying. Yeah, they did, in fact do this, but if your immediate supervisor (Krause) had previously gleefully described your departure and had your replacement waiting in the wings, how would you feel about work?

One part of argument I disagree with is that Jackson wanted Krause's job. I think he just wanted Krause gone.... much as Krause wanted Jackson gone. Krause may have perceived that as Jackson wanting his job, but if Jackson really wanted to be a GM, you would think Mitch Kupchak wouldn't be running the Lakers these days.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Krause has always kept an eye out for coaching talent for the future. He did the same thing when he recruited Phil Jackson out of the CBA and into the Bulls organization. He did the same thing with Cartwright who I believe he always saw as a future Bulls head coach at some point. He first identified Floyd as a coaching talent several years prior when Floyd was at the U. of New Orleans, long before he was even at Iowa State. Yes, Krause cultivated the relationship because he knew Phil would not coach the Bulls forever. Building such relationships is just smart business. A manager always plans for the future. But to say that the decision to bring Floyd in was made a year prior is just not true.
> 
> No matter how low your opinion of Krause, do you honestly think he would be so dumb as to think he could fire (or force out) arguably the greatest coach the NBA has seen?


Few quick things.

David Falk was quoted that Floyd was 'hired a year ago'. Its a wire report, take it for what its worth.
http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/ap/bkb/1998/nba/chi/feat/archive/072298/chi35181.html

The Tim Floyd hiring was a failure correct? He rubbed his young players the wrong way (Crawford, Artest) and stubbornly stuck to playing players that are no longer in the NBA (El-Amin, Ruffin, etc) all while never reaching 20 wins. Granted Jerry K gave him very little talent... but Tim Floyd has the worst if not one of the worst winning percentages of an NBA coach ever. Sick.

Per the Krause discussion, yes I give him some of the blame for letting the greatest coach (sans Auerbach) ever and the greatest player ever (MJ) leave the Bulls organization. Why wouldn't I? Would any other GM that I respect: Walsh, West, Peotrie, Cuban (haha) etc. have let the greatest player and coach ever leave and tore down the franchise to rubble? I don't think so.

Admittedly, there were many, many factors involved here. Egos played a big part, Jerry K, Phil, and MJ being the biggest. I believe a GM of a lesser ego and hubris would have tried his best to keep the dynasty together. But Jerry K tore the buildign down, way down so he could get full credit for the new 'dynasty' he would build. But here's the catch. Nothing's built yet. We've been the armpit of the NBA for 4 seasons, and yes Jerry K is mostly to blame for it. We can cite 'trends in the game' or 'circumstances' to defend Krause, but the bottom line is Jerry K has not fielded a team that can win in this city, and he deserves blame for it. It really does surprise me how much patience fans in Chicago have. Would this same patience be shown in NY or Boston? Nope.

Jerry K is not the be-all and end-all of my criticism of the Bulls. MJ should have received more for being a jerk, Phil should get some for being a half*ss opportunist at times, and YES Jerry should get his for his shoddy personnel moves and people skills. When it comes down to it though, this team should have never been broken up so quickly and on account of the hubris of those who never set foot on the basketball court itself.

Eh.


VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace,
> ...



I agree that you can't use the new CBA to judge the situation with Pip simply because it doesn't apply. However, I recall, as bullsnews obviously does as well, that the old CBA was structured such that Pips deal could not be re-negotaited. **** is the CBA guru and I am sure he would be happy to weigh in on the Pip situation, he has knowledge of the old CBA as well as the new I think. 

I understand how you feel about thePJ situation, there are certainly some aspects that lend themselves to interpretation. I think Krause didn't like PJ because PJ was egotistical and wanted his job (many books and reports have indicated that PJ was after Krause's job, IMO what recently went down with West kind of confirms this). Still, the Bulls did try to sign PJ, they offered him a big chunk of money and when he showed no signs of returning, they brought Floyd in with a different title still hoping PJ would change his mind. Idon't know what else, short of waiting coachless until the tip off of the first game of the season, the Bulls could have done.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Idon't know what else, short of waiting coachless until the tip off of the first game of the season, the Bulls could have done.


Well, I suggested earlier in the thread that one solution would have been to keep the same staff sans PJ and promote Frank Hamblin or one of the other assistants.

In retrospect, it sure couldn't have been any worse than Floyd.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I suggested earlier in the thread that one solution would have been to keep the same staff sans PJ and promote Frank Hamblin or one of the other assistants.
> ...


I supposse that is true. Hamblin never struck me as head coach material though and if PJ just didn't want to sign, I can't blame Bulls management for throwing their hands up in the air and deciding to go a different direction.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> David Falk was quoted that Floyd was 'hired a year ago'. Its a wire report, take it for what its worth.


If you're going to base your case on quotes from David Falk, I'm afraid we have little hope of reaching any kind of common ground. Falk is one of the great spin-meisters of all time. Zero credibility in my book.



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> The Tim Floyd hiring was a failure correct?


Judging by W-L record, yes, Floyd was a failure. I do not believe he is as bad a coach as his record indicates. But this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, now, does it?



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Admittedly, there were many, many factors involved here. Egos played a big part, Jerry K, Phil, and MJ being the biggest.


I do not hold Krause blameless. I have always contended that what broke up the Bulls was a clash of several very large egos, none of which could learn to work with each other. Why is it the thrust of your posts, then, has been to put the blame on Krause alone?

You said, "I believe a GM of a lesser ego and hubris would have tried his best to keep the dynasty together." Could you not replace "GM" with "head coach" and still have a valid statement?

This notion that Krause tore the dynasty apart so he could get credit for a new dynasty is just laughable. That whole notion stems back to one comment Krause made years earlier-- a comment made in response to a direct question-- about looking forward to the challenge of rebuilding without MJ. As if a GM is supposed to say anything else in response to such a question.

The reason Krause didn't take one for the team to retain Jackson is because the two men grew to dislike each other and no longer had any respect for each other. The day to day routine of working together became intolerable for both.



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> We've been the armpit of the NBA for 4 seasons, and yes Jerry K is mostly to blame for it. ... the bottom line is Jerry K has not fielded a team that can win in this city, and he deserves blame for it. It really does surprise me how much patience fans in Chicago have. Would this same patience be shown in NY or Boston? Nope.


You've got to be kidding, right? If there ever was a comment to illustrate how spoiled Bulls fans are, this is it. Go ahead, ask a Knick fan how much patience they have for the Knicks. What's it been now, 30-some years since their last championship?

The Bulls have over a decade of solid success, including 6 NBA championships, and Bulls fans are impatient after 3-1/2 years? What absolutely amazes me about Chicago fans is that of all the incompetent GM's we've had in this town, the only one to have any sustained measure of success is the one they hold to the fire.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace,
> ...


Sorry for any confusion, I only brought that up because the rule was the same under the old CBA- contracts could not be renegotiated, they could only have years added to the end of the contract at a 12.5% raise over the salary the player was due do make in the last year of his contract.

Just for argument's sakes, however, let's assume that Pippen could have been given a 12.5% raise midway through his contract (let's say after the 1993-1994 season). If Pippen was making $4 mil/season (I think it was actually less than that), a 12.5% raise would have only taken him up to $5 mil/season.

Now if Pippen had been smart and signed a shorter contract, the Bulls could have used their Bird Rights to pay Pippen whatever they wanted when the contract was up, all the way up to at least $30 mil/season (just ask MJ).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> You've got to be kidding, right? If there ever was a comment to illustrate how spoiled Bulls fans are, this is it. Go ahead, ask a Knick fan how much patience they have for the Knicks. What's it been now, 30-some years since their last championship?
> 
> The Bulls have over a decade of solid success, including 6 NBA championships, and Bulls fans are impatient after 3-1/2 years? What absolutely amazes me about Chicago fans is that of all the incompetent GM's we've had in this town, the only one to have any sustained measure of success is the one they hold to the fire.


Too true. For perspective, we should probably think back to the up and down years in the first 24 years of the franchise. I agree with Vin that the time for patience with basement dwelling teams should come to an end, and expect to have a period of steady growth. But we are definitely spoiled, as the assumption that the only possible reason a free agent wouldn't be dying to come to the Bulls is a league wide conspiracy to make JK look bad demonstrates.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> If you're going to base your case on quotes from David Falk, I'm afraid we have little hope of reaching any kind of common ground. Falk is one of the great spin-meisters of all time. Zero credibility in my book.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> I only gave this fact that Floyd is a horrible head coach b/c it reaffirms that it was a terrible hiring from the start. And yes Jerry K was the man who hired him.


And it was Jerry K who hired Phil Jackson initially. Neither has anything to do with the topic at hand.



> That's my opinion. I have the say right to interpret those times as you do. Many, many of these points are debatable. But answer me this question, would any other prominent GM have allowed such a situation to happen? Name one.


You're certainly welcome to your opinion, warped as it may be.  It was a unique situation. What other star player has given their team an ultimatum such as Jordan did?

In response to your question, I can point out that the Lakers allowed Jerry West to leave their organization (after a 30-someodd year history) when he obviously wasn't ready to leave the game just yet. Lots of great coaches/GM's have been allowed to leave their teams... Pat Riley, Jeff Van Gundy, Larry Bird, Lenny Wilkens, and in other sports, Bill Walsh, Bill Parcells, Jim Leyland, Tony LaRussa, etc.



> When if comes to Phil, its likely he was burned out at the point. But this was due in large part to a strained relationship with his boss Jerry K. Phil will be regarded as one of the great coaches in NBA history, and he wasn't given enough on the plate to keep him around.


C'mon. What more did the man want? He was the highest-paid coach in the league coaching the best team of the decade. He had the world in the palm of his hand and still wasn't happy?



> This 'notion' is not laughable. You've asserted that Jerry K has a big ego, now why wouldn't this play into the fact that he wants credit for a 'new dynasty' when the credit is largely placed on MJ and PJ (to a lesser extent) for the first dynasty?


I guess we have no way of knowing this one for sure. I just think there's a big difference between looking forward to a future challenge and sabotaging the present to get to that challenge sooner.



> It boils down to this. I simply do not give Jerry Krause all the credit for building the first dynasty.


Nor do I. Nor does any sane person. However, he did put every component in place except for Jordan. That was the extent of Krause's job-- what happened after that was up to the coaches and players. People say anyone could have done it. Tell that to Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Gary Payton, Karl Malone & John Stockton, Dominque Wilkens, Jason Kidd, Kevin Garnett, Grant Hill, etc.



> Hereto, Jerry K now has his chance to 'rebuild' the Bulls. Its on him, and after year 4 he's fallen flat. So am I spoiled? Maybe. All Bulls fans are. ... Jerry K has not put us into a position to win championships, sans both of our HS kids turn out to be a superstars. That's highly optimistic and a large risk, and as a fan we may never see that full reward.


Building a championship team is an enormously difficult task. It requires a lot of luck. Krause was an idiot for raising expectations with some of his optimistic comments. But look at past championship teams-- with the exception of the Lakers, all of them were centered around young players drafted by that team out of college. Some guys (Duncan, Olajuwon, Bird, Magic, MJ) reach the pinnacle, and some (like the aforementioned players) do not. Time will tell for the young Bulls.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> And it was Jerry K who hired Phil Jackson initially. Neither has anything to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> ...



Nice post Kneepad.

We can agree to disagree on some things. Its funny, the whole Phil Jackson argument reminds me of the 'chicken and egg' debate... what came first the chicken or the egg? Likewise.. what came first, Jerry K's courting of Tim Floyd or Phil's desire to leave? Its debatable, but the result obviously cannot be undone. Time to move on.

go bulls.

VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> We can agree to disagree on some things. ... Time to move on.


Agreed. Oh to have been one of the resident flies in the Berto Center during that period.

Think transplant has enough material for his article?


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Kneepad, you have your facts straight as usual.

For the general public, and this is an old argument for a lot of us who have been together for 2 years plus, Sam Smith who ghost wrote Phil Jackson's book has clearly stated that the Jerry's were not the primary culprits in braking up the dynasty.

For those who didn't stay on top of daily developments in the Chicago papers and media, sorry. If you really want to know the truth, you really have to pay attention and probably read the articles more than once so you really get it.

Fans of Lacy Banks and Jay Marriotti would not have a clue anyway as they write fiction. And why do you think they are almost never quoted here in a forum of discerning knowledgeable Bull fans.

There are bad things that can be truthfully said about Krause, but some of you overdue it so much in an untruthful manner (not because you are deliberately lying,) but due to media BS spun by PJ and MJ that is taken at face value cause you idolize them. The definition of an idol is a false man made god. Being a serious fan is one thing, but worship is a whole different matter.

As a result I stick up for Krause more than I would like because he gets undeserevedly trashed beyond belief on the issue of job performance by people who have never done a proper analysis of the the other 28 teams over time compared to the Bulls.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Think transplant has enough material for his article?


Yup. Wrote it yesterday. Supposed to be up on the bulls4ever site later today. What is clear is that there are some very bright, knowledgeable and passionate fans lined up on both sides of the Krause debate. As a result, everyone may hate the article. In any case, thanks to all. Great material.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

http://www.bulls4ever.com/article.php?sid=75

Someone's been reading this thread


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Great job Tom/Transplant. You did your homework, accurately noted events historically and showed a great a sense of fairness and objectivity in your analysis.

Did I agree with everything? I agreed with lots and in retrospect, I think I may agree with your personal assesment the Tim Floyd business may have been JK's #1 misjudgement.

I especially thought the way you portrayed the situation with Krause in point #6 was extremely insightful and on target. 
Overall you did a great job. One of the best reads on the subject in quite some time. Major props.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Thanks, Song.

After reading through the threads, the article kinda wrote itself. The boards worked like a "thinktank," but instead of the wizards of academia, I had a bunch of smart die-hard Bulls' fans. I just sat back and took notes.

Again, thanks to all for their contributions.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> 
> 
> The seven deadly sins is not a Jewish concept which I am as well as Krause and Reinsdorf. We have our own things which does not really belong on this forum. Without pointing any fingers, I do wonder how JK's being Jewish plays into this kind of scenario. As PC as we try to be, hatred of races, creeds and nationalities is more alive than I would like it to be.
> ...


Word

Is there any other GM in the league more villified ?

Unreasoned, unbridled, hatred of Krause in what he does as a GM - I am convinced . is a sad indictment of the shallow face value judgement type of society we live in - perpetuated by people who do not have the moral courage to assess someone outside the ambit of how they look , feel and sound in going about what they do in the World 

Cut it , slice it , excuse it , justify it , mask it , conceal it any which way you want - unless you cut a rug of satorial elegance in the constituency you represent and hide under the cowardly cloak of politicised diplomacy - you are pushing the proverbial up hill

I think this says a lot about the collective in what we otherwise know as our society and what we value and what we despise

Shame.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

FJ, pretty heavy stuff before I've had my second cup of coffee.

To balance the picture, I'll point out that Krause has been far more successful in his chosen field than the vast majority of his critics.

This also says something about the society we live in.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> FJ, pretty heavy stuff before I've had my second cup of coffee.
> 
> To balance the picture, I'll point out that Krause has been far more successful in his chosen field than the vast majority of his critics.
> ...


Double Word


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> No matter how low your opinion of Krause, do you honestly think he would be so dumb as to think he could fire (or force out) arguably the greatest coach the NBA has seen?


Well, he probably could not have fired Jax on his own accord, but he sure would have if he could. 

From Krause's biggest backer....



> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> Here is my take.
> Now, [Krause] was gleeful at the prospect [of Phil leaving the Bulls organization], way too much so, he is a lousy liar and the press picked up on it, but it was Phil's choice. Krause was probably happy because he knew Phil wanted his job.


Or maybe Krause was happy because now he felt that he would no longer have his glory stolen by his own head coach. Maybe a little of both.

Frankly, given the uglyness of the breakup and our record over the last 4 years, Krause has plenty of baggage beyond issues related to his religion or image.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

*Krause's Transgressions*

Nice work, Tom, AKA Transplant.

I have stayed out of this.

But let me say, the hiring of Tim Floyd was a major disaster from a perspective that should have been clear.

Everyone thought, in early 1999, that Floyd could handle the break-up and tanking a few seasons.

In the summer of 2000, when the free agent recruiting did not go as planned, well, then maybe folks realized that the coach and the perception of management were a critical part of the equation.

It may not have mattered if a more high-profile coach had been in place, but to presume that top free agents (and we are talking top when we talk Tracy McGrady) would jump on Tim Floyd's ship is naive. Every move Krause made from June 1998 should have been to MAXIMIZE the liklihood that top free agents would sign. Clearing the cap space is one thing, going two seasons with Tim Floyd could have flew, if Krause didn't stupidly re-sign Floyd to a multi-year deal when the smart thing to do was release him and already have a high profile coach ready to step in in June 2000.

Even if it was Cartwright, Cartwright should have had the team in June 2000, not December 2001 (January 2002, actually).


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

*Floyd, continued*

But bringing Floyd in the way Krause did in the summer of 1998 was casting the die for the free agent failures of 2000.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

jammer that has been in the back of my mind as a thought for years now. When we had rumors of Jones coming to the Bulls or other FA of the past i secretly wondered to myself, "why would they play for Floyd?" I always thought that Floyd was brought in by JK to fail! As a college coach, he was to coach a young team. At least after a period of time thats the way it looked. And as a loyal Bulls fan i defended the fact many FA didnt come here, all the while thinking to myself, if i was a veteran FA would i play for Tim Floyd? But i never let other posters of other teams know that. Until now.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

*Floyd and Free Agents, contnued*

Yes, trueblue, I think that has been on the backs of everone's minds.

When Floyd got re-signed to that extension in June 2000, I cringed. If he had given Krause an ultimatum because he had an offer to leave, and Krause thought he needed one more season of losing, Cartwright still would have been a better recruiter, from a free agent point of view.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

If we're saying that hiring Tim Floyd was a purposeful attempt to produce a worse team than what might have been under a different coach, I disagree.

Though conspiracy theories are always more interesting, IMO, Krause thought Floyd would be a great NBA head coach, an updated version of his Phil Jackson discovery. He believed he could lure NBA free agents by offering more money. Then the CBA changed and he believed that the quality of the Bulls' organization could draw free agents at equal money. 

Krause wanted to lure those free agents and thought he could.

Krause was wrong about that and wrong about Floyd. Pure and simple.


----------



## Jammer (May 28, 2002)

*Floyd's Hiring and Re-signing*

Thanks for jumping in, Transplant.

What I meant, about Tim Floyd joining, and staying with the Bulls, was that there were really two separate and unrelated decisions.

The first was his initially coming on board as, I believe, Director of Basketball Operations in July 1998. That, meant Goodbye, MJ, in my opinion, although others might disagree.

That also set up the release of Rodman, and immediate trading of Pippin (who the Bulls offered a 3 year max contract, topped by Houston's offer of a 5 year max contract), Steve Kerr and Luc Longley.

That was stage one. Whether Floyd was right or not for this juncture, his hiring pretty much determined the events I just outlined.

Once those events had all ocurred in January 1999, Coach Floyd was fine for the 1999 and 2000 seasons.

The issue I brought up, besides whether we all agree with initially coming on board in July 1998, was the re-signing of Floyd to a multi-year extension in June 2000 when he had one year left on his initial contract. It has been suspected that Floyd had offers to depart at that time, gave Jerry an ultimatum, essentially; and walked away with a multi-year extension.

I simply believe that in June 2000, that Tim Floyd should have been dismissed, paid the one remaining year of salary he had; and the Bulls should have brought in as coach their recruiter/svengali/team leader to woo the free agent class in July.

So, again, there were two decision points, that should be evaluated separately. 

1) Bringing Floyd on board in July 1998, and

2) Re-signing Floyd to a multi-year extension in June 2000

Regardless of anyone's thought's on decision 1; I would hope that most of us agree that the contract extension in June 2000 was a disaster and unwarranted. I guess the conclusion that I promote, again, is that Floyd should have been released in June 2000, paid his remaining year of salary, and a new coach brought on board (Cartwright would have been OK by me.)


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

I have a question for you all: what was wrong in Floyd?
Why should he have been fired in 2k when he didn't have any chance of winning? 
I'm sure he was much more prepared than some of the former players hired in the last years even if without experience.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

what happened Ryoga is that people forget very quickly that the beginning of summer of 2000 was a time when things were looking up .


The big plan was to sign 1 or 2 big time free agents and teams in turmoil (meaning teams who are having coaching troubles) dont get players on the open market 

the resigning of floyd was a win-win situation for the bulls at that time

if they got the player(s) they wanted the stability at the head coaching position would make things easier(remember Floyd was still considered an up and comer in the coaching ranks ( even if the main reasons seem to be because JK said so and that even thogh they were losing games by the bunch the bulls played hard every night)

and if they didn't get the player(s) they wanted they still had the guy they wanted to work with a rebuilding team

so floyd was resigned and at the time it was a smart move


----------

