What if the Bulls traded Jordan in 1988?

[Roundball_Rock]

Not saying you're lying, but where did you hear this? You have a link? I find it far-fetched that they were going to trade Jordan for just a few draft picks, when they could've gotten way more for a guy in the prime of his career who just won MVP and 2 scoring titles

http://www.amazon.com/Jordan-Rules-S.../dp/0671796666 Pages 106-107. The fact a link has to be even provided is telling. The MJ story is so set in stone the fact that this was seriously even considered has been "vaporized" from history.

I agree that none of those players would have the intangibles of MJ, especially the killer instinct. However, with a stacked team like that there would not be a need to have one guy dominate at the end of the game. With so many great players the most likely thing would be to give it to who was hot on that day.

Pippen/Johnson/Richmond. We are talking three HOFers. That is like Garnett/Pierce/Allen. The differences are twofold:

1) Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would team up in their youth, grow together, and have their primes together. KG/Pierce/Allen came together when they were all past their prime.

2) KG/Pierce/Allen had two mediocre at best starters in the lineup (Rondo was not good in 08'). Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would have Rik Smits as the center (after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning, and Mutumbo he was the best center of the 90's. Being 7th best at a position doesn't sound great but we are talking about the golden age for centers. If Smits played today he would be a top 3 center) and either Grant or Oakley at PF. This team would have no weakness. They would have quality at all positions and would still have BJ Armstrong and later Toni Kukoc coming off the bench.

Edit: thanks for the correction regarding MJ/Thorn. Still, every other key piece of that team was acquired by Krause. Pippen AND Grant in the same draft? Later he got Cartwright, Kukoc, Armstrong, and Rodman. Krause is the reason Tex Winter was there and hence the Triangle. Krause hired Jackson. Other than MJ, every other piece of the dynasty was put together by Krause.

[kshutts1]

During his career, Jordan was getting GOAT mentions before he won a ring. From his peers at that. And after he retired with only 3 titles, he was widely regarded as such.

Now...after time passes and memories fade, pure numbers hold much more emphasis on how a player is judged.

So I think you're wrong...and right. Wrong in that during his time, when people were actually watching him play, the number of titles and Finals MVP's he won was not the deciding factor in determining whether he was the greatest to play.

But you're right in that...since his time, the biggest case for MJ being the GOAT is his numbers.

Without Pippen, and assuming MJ didn't have as much team success, he still would have likely been labeled as GOAT even without 6 titles/6 FMVP's during his time -- as long as he won a couple. But years later, posters like RR -- who makes convincing posts about players he didn't really see too much based on statistical data - would have long killed that goose.

Fair enough, but IMO.. Kareem would have most arguments at that point... how can you be the GOAT if you don't win a lot, and convincingly, as well as put up the stats?

The best argument for Jordan as GOAT is that he is the "best combination" of: stats, wins, titles, MVPs, FMVPs, and All NBA selections..

If his titles drop from 6, and his FMVPs, to maybe 2-3... then he's got comparable #s with lots of greats, comparable or LESS wins/titles/FMVPs, and comparable All NBA selections. There would be no "clear-cut" argument to use for him, aside from Stern's marketing campaign.

[guy]

http://www.amazon.com/Jordan-Rules-S.../dp/0671796666 Pages 106-107. The fact a link has to be even provided is telling. The MJ story is so set in stone the fact that this was seriously even considered has been "vaporized" from history.

I agree that none of those players would have the intangibles of MJ, especially the killer instinct. However, with a stacked team like that there would not be a need to have one guy dominate at the end of the game. With so many great players the most likely thing would be to give it to who was hot on that day.

Pippen/Johnson/Richmond. We are talking three HOFers. That is like Garnett/Pierce/Allen. The differences are twofold:

1) Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would team up in their youth, grow together, and have their primes together. KG/Pierce/Allen came together when they were all past their prime.

2) KG/Pierce/Allen had two mediocre at best starters in the lineup (Rondo was not good in 08'). Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would have Rik Smits as the center (after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning, and Mutumbo he was the best center of the 90's. Being 7th best at a position doesn't sound great but we are talking about the golden age for centers. If Smits played today he would be a top 3 center) and either Grant or Oakley at PF. This team would have no weakness. They would have quality at all positions and would still have BJ Armstrong and later Toni Kukoc coming off the bench.

Edit: thanks for the correction regarding MJ/Thorn. Still, every other key piece of that team was acquired by Krause. Pippen AND Grant in the same draft? Later he got Cartwright, Kukoc, Armstrong, and Rodman. Krause is the reason Tex Winter was there and hence the Triangle. Krause hired Jackson. Other than MJ, every other piece of the dynasty was put together by Krause.

Thanks. I'll have to read it cause I've never had the chance. I find it very hard to believe that the Bulls ever gave this serious consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever seriously considered trading Jordan, but for that deal? Hard to believe, but I'll have to read it.

And sorry man, I don't know what you were watching back then, but Pippen/Johnson/Richmond is not on the same level as KG/Pierce/Allen. Neither Richmond or KJ are even HOFers, although KJ did play at a HOF level before he was robbed by injuries.

[kshutts1]

Thanks. I'll have to read it cause I've never had the chance. I find it very hard to believe that the Bulls ever gave this serious consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever seriously considered trading Jordan, but for that deal? Hard to believe, but I'll have to read it.

While it looks lopsided now (and then, considering production) the Bulls FO is notorious for OVERvaluing potential. See: Tyson (or Curry, but pretty sure it was Tyson) vs Brand, Tyrus Thomas vs Aldridge.. one of the few times they made the right pick was Hinrich

but the book is definitely a great read.

[Da_Realist]

Fair enough, but IMO.. Kareem would have most arguments at that point... how can you be the GOAT if you don't win a lot, and convincingly, as well as put up the stats?

The best argument for Jordan as GOAT is that he is the "best combination" of: stats, wins, titles, MVPs, FMVPs, and All NBA selections..

If his titles drop from 6, and his FMVPs, to maybe 2-3... then he's got comparable #s with lots of greats, comparable or LESS wins/titles/FMVPs, and comparable All NBA selections. There would be no "clear-cut" argument to use for him, aside from Stern's marketing campaign.

It depends. I consider Larry Bird to be as big a winner as Michael Jordan but he only has 3 titles. Knowledgeable fans -- not the media or fans that didn't see them play -- would openly admit Larry Bird has as much a case as anybody. Kobe has won more titles in his career than Bird, but I'd take Bird over Kobe 10 times out of 10. If winning only 2-3 titles leaves MJ in that company, then so be it.

Most GOAT talk is by a consensus. Most of those people couldn't tell you about real basketball so they fall on the numbers. 6 titles, 6 FMVP's is convincing as hell so they run with it. But MJ at 2-3 titles is still MJ...the only thing changed is his career. So yeah, the consensus would say that MJ didn't have a strong enough case to be GOAT, but the ones that actually saw him play would still be as convinced.

[Roundball_Rock]

Fair enough, but IMO.. Kareem would have most arguments at that point... how can you be the GOAT if you don't win a lot, and convincingly, as well as put up the stats?

The best argument for Jordan as GOAT is that he is the "best combination" of: stats, wins, titles, MVPs, FMVPs, and All NBA selections..

If his titles drop from 6, and his FMVPs, to maybe 2-3... then he's got comparable #s with lots of greats, comparable or LESS wins/titles/FMVPs, and comparable All NBA selections. There would be no "clear-cut" argument to use for him, aside from Stern's marketing campaign.

I agree. There is always hype. There were some people calling Jeff Gordon the GOAT NASCAR driver a few years ago. The "Peyton can be the GOAT" hype began a few years into his career. Some began calling Brady the GOAT QB after only a few seasons, albeit he had 3 rings by that point, unlike Manning at that point. MJ definitely would not be the majority GOAT today if he never won a ring. Would he be in the conversation? Perhaps but after the hype faded away if he had no rings what would be the case for him? Individual achievements. If that is your standard then Wilt>MJ and Wilt should be your GOAT.

History has not been kind to players who never won a championship. Look at the players usually considered to be top 10 all-time. All of the have championships. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. There is a bias toward championships in historical evaluation. Most players never win a ring. Does anyone really believe none of them were good enough to at least be top 10 all-time? Some were but they paid the price historically for not winning a ring. At best MJ without a ring would be Dan Marino: great individual numbers, in the conversation, have his partisans but ultimately the vast majority of people pick a GOAT QB with rings (Montana, Manning, Favre, Brady, et al.)

Thanks. I'll have to read it cause I've never had the chance. I find it very hard to believe that the Bulls ever gave this serious consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever seriously considered trading Jordan, but for that deal? Hard to believe, but I'll have to read it.

The reason they seriously considered it was because Krause and Collins were convinced they could never win a ring with MJ because he dominated the ball too much. At the time only one scoring champ had won a championship in the same season (Kareem). I am about 3/5 through the book. Jackson is obsessed with getting Jordan to share the ball. This is part of the purpose of the triangle. In the end, we know, MJ found the right balance between scoring and involving teammates but at the time it was reasonable to think he never would.

Yeah, I do find it odd that they considered trading MJ for draft picks. If you were going to trade MJ do it straight up for a great, albeit by default lesser, player and attach maybe a draft pick or two or another solid player with it. The Clippers had no players they were interested in. If they pulled the trigger it would have worked out given who the picks would have been. I don't know if they could have gotten Johnson but if they got Smits there would be no need to draft Perdue so they may have taken Rod Strickland with their original pick. Pippen/Richmond/Strickland/Smits/Grant or Oakley with Armstrong coming off the bench and later Kukoc coming off the bench is still a dominant team.

In retrospect it sounds unfathomable but I was surprised that the consensus within the team was that they would be more likely to win a championship by getting rid of MJ. Reinsdorf vetoed the trade on financial, not basketball grounds.

“A lot of my instincts came from guarding Michael all the time in practice,” he added. “I had four other guys on my team, but I had schemes that I would throw out there depending on what he did. I’d say, ‘If I make Michael do this, then you go trap him.’ There were things I tried to do on defense to trigger him into a mistake. He was a great player, and if you couldn’t try it on him in practice, there was nowhere else to try it.”

The scenario has him playing Kevin Johnson, Mitch Richmond (the second best SG of the 90's according to MJ) in practice. Those were easy guys to guard? Even MJ always had trouble with Richmond.

Players help teammates all the time. I assume, since you were a MJ fan, that you are a Bulls fan. Lindsay Hunter is helping Rose, Brad Miller is helping Noah. Does that mean they "made" them if they become HOF'ers? Players improve. Look at the trajectory of players. There are a handful of players like Lebron who are superstars from day 1. Others, like a Chris Paul, Yao, Deron, or Dwight Howard steadily improve (even superstars from day 1 consistently improve, albeit not at the same rate). They weren't superstars from day 1. Does this mean Ewing "made" Yao?

Jordan himself has said Pippen helped make MJ the best he could be. Does that mean Pippen "made" MJ the majority GOAT?

[Da_Realist]

I agree. There is always hype. There were some people calling Jeff Gordon the GOAT NASCAR driver a few years ago. The "Peyton can be the GOAT" hype began a few years into his career. Some began calling Brady the GOAT QB after only a few seasons, albeit he had 3 rings by that point, unlike Manning at that point. MJ definitely would not be the majority GOAT today if he never won a ring. Would he be in the conversation? Perhaps but after the hype faded away if he had no rings what would be the case for him? Individual achievements. If that is your standard then Wilt>MJ and Wilt should be your GOAT.

History has not been kind to players who never won a championship. Look at the players usually considered to be top 10 all-time. All of the have championships. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. There is a bias toward championships in historical evaluation. Most players never win a ring. Does anyone really believe none of them were good enough to at least be top 10 all-time? Some were but they paid the price historically for not winning a ring. At best MJ without a ring would be Dan Marino: great individual numbers, in the conversation, have his partisans but ultimately the vast majority of people pick a GOAT QB with rings (Montana, Manning, Favre, Brady, et al.)

So now MJ wouldn't have won ANY???

[kshutts1]

It depends. I consider Larry Bird to be as big a winner as Michael Jordan but he only has 3 titles. Knowledgeable fans -- not the media or fans that didn't see them play -- would openly admit Larry Bird has as much a case as anybody. Kobe has won more titles in his career than Bird, but I'd take Bird over Kobe 10 times out of 10. If winning only 2-3 titles leaves MJ in that company, then so be it.

Most GOAT talk is by a consensus. Most of those people couldn't tell you about real basketball so they fall on the numbers. 6 titles, 6 FMVP's is convincing as hell so they run with it. But MJ at 2-3 titles is still MJ...the only thing changed is his career. So yeah, the consensus would say that MJ didn't have a strong enough case to be GOAT, but the ones that actually saw him play would still be as convinced.

I saw him play, and I"m not convinced. And I agree with you about Kobe and Bird, as well.

Winners are not made/shown by just titles.. completely agree with that point.. and MJ would still be a winner. But I am a logical person, I need statistics to back up my opinion. I look at MJ and it's hard to argue against what he's done quantitatively... but at the same time, I keep an open eye in the sense that a lot of "Jordan's" achievements -- wins, titles, FMVPs -- are a team accomplishment. The "team accomplishment" aspect, and the differences in era and competition making it impossible to properly compare players, are the reasons for me using the tiered structure.

MJ would not be MJ for the sole reason that he would no longer be consensus GOAT. Those of us that actually watch basketball would choose MJ... or Kareem or Wilt or Bird or Magic or Shaq as is NOW done. I agree that all that would change would be the blind favoritism/bias for MJ as GOAT, and it would be an open discussion. And IMO, how can you be a GOAT if others have very strong arguments themselves?

edit - can't believe I forgot Russell when naming other GOAT candidates

[guy]

While it looks lopsided now (and then, considering production) the Bulls FO is notorious for OVERvaluing potential. See: Tyson (or Curry, but pretty sure it was Tyson) vs Brand, Tyrus Thomas vs Aldridge.. one of the few times they made the right pick was Hinrich

but the book is definitely a great read.

Okay, but you're talking about Elton Brand not Michael Jordan, who was one of the greatest players ever in the middle of his prime, the current MVP at the time, and the scoring champ of the previous 2 seasons. Its really far-fetched to think they considered trading him for a few draft picks. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but its been known that Sam Smith has a reputation as someone that stretches the truth and tries to go for some shock value, and was considered biased against Jordan for that reason (not saying anything he said about Jordan wasn't true.) His recent article about Lebron joining the Lakers is a clear example of that. I'm not saying its not possible that this deal was proposed, I just find it hard to believe that it was seriously considered. But like I said, I'll have to read it myself.

[kshutts1]

So now MJ wouldn't have won ANY???

Don't get your panties in a bunch, and read the whole thread, it is only 2 pages...

RR said in an earlier post that he would likely get 1-2 titles, which is pretty realistic. I believe it would be more like 2-3, but 1-2 is realistic.

[guy]

The reason they seriously considered it was because Krause and Collins were convinced they could never win a ring with MJ because he dominated the ball too much. At the time only one scoring champ had won a championship in the same season (Kareem).

When they had just improved by 10 games, winning 50 and got to the 2nd round for the first time in years? And Jordan was only 25 and in the middle of his prime? Sounds weird, but I'll have to read it. If they seriously considered that, then Jordan was right to consider him an idiot GM at the time (although Jordan himself is worse.) This would be the equivalent of trading Lebron today for draft picks.

[kshutts1]

Okay, but you're talking about Elton Brand not Michael Jordan, who was one of the greatest players ever in the middle of his prime, the current MVP at the time, and the scoring champ of the previous 2 seasons. Its really far-fetched to think they considered trading him for a few draft picks. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but its been known that Sam Smith has a reputation as someone that stretches the truth and tries to go for some shock value, and was considered biased against Jordan for that reason (not saying anything he said about Jordan wasn't true.) His recent article about Lebron joining the Lakers is a clear example of that. I'm not saying its not possible that this deal was proposed, I just find it hard to believe that it was seriously considered. But like I said, I'll have to read it myself.

By middle of prime you mean his 3rd season in the league? His best statistical season, but not his best season...

And Brand was obviously not on MJs level, but he was no slouch.. he was 20 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 bpg BETTER THAN THE GUY THE BULLS TRADED HIM FOR.

Edit: Also, while Brand was not MJ by any stretch again, he was still VERY young and putting up great numbers... so now you're trading a young, good post player... I mean.. that is a very coveted piece when rebuilding a team (which the Bulls were)... in hindsight, and at the time, it was a huge mistake.

[guy]

By middle of prime you mean his 3rd season in the league? His best statistical season, but not his best season...

And Brand was obviously not on MJs level, but he was no slouch.. he was 20 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 bpg BETTER THAN THE GUY THE BULLS TRADED HIM FOR.

This would've been after the 1988 season, Jordan's 4th season and first MVP season. Brand was great, but he was far from a top 3 player in the league like Jordan was.

[Roundball_Rock]

And sorry man, I don't know what you were watching back then, but Pippen/Johnson/Richmond is not on the same level as KG/Pierce/Allen. Neither Richmond or KJ are even HOFers, although KJ did play at a HOF level before he was robbed by injuries.

It is comparable. Richmond should be a HOFer but he may not get in because he played on pathetic lottery teams during his prime. Who was a better SG than him in the 90's? Obviously MJ, perhaps Drexler. Who else? He was top 3 at his position. Compare that to Allen. Where does Allen rank among 00's SG's? Kobe, Wade, and prime Carter are/were better. Roy arguably is too, but Roy came along after Allen was out of his prime.

Pippen=KG

Johnson>Pierce, although KJ lacks Pierce's longevity. Johnson made 4 all-NBA second teams. Pierce has made only one.

You also have to consider age. These guys would get together when they were young, not when they were all past their prime. Plus, they would have Smits and Oakley or Grant with them in the starting 5, not Perkins and Rondo. Pippen/KJ/Richmond is comparable to KG/Pierce/Allen but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant>KG/Pierce/Allen/Rondo/Perkins.

While it looks lopsided now (and then, considering production) the Bulls FO is notorious for OVERvaluing potential.

I don't see how it was lopsided. If anything the Bulls would be better pulling this off. Yeah, at the time dealing the best player in the league for two draft picks and a first year 9/2/6 player in KJ was lopsided on paper but look at how good Richmond, Johnson, and Smits wound up being. Given that it would be a good trade. Which lineup is stronger?

Grant
Pippen
Cartwright
Jordan
Paxson

Or

Grant
Pippen
Smits
Richmond
Johnson

Grant=Grant
Pippen=Pippen
Smits>>>Cartwright
Richmond<<Jordan
Johnson>>>Paxson

Knowledgeable fans -- not the media or fans that didn't see them play -- would openly admit Larry Bird has as much a case as anybody.

Interesting. Is there a single person on ISH who considers Bird the GOAT? He is always in the conversation but does anyone ever place him first?

Achievements, especially winning matters in historical evaluation of sports figures. Maybe this is wrong but that is just the way it is. Why do you think every top 10 all-time NBA player has a ring? The same holds true in other sports as well. Why was A Rod winning a ring such a big deal? A Rod would still be A Rod with or without a championship. What about Elway? Past his prime Elway winning 2 rings with Terrell Davis made him a better playe? No, but 2 Super Bowl championships look a lot better than being 0-3 in the Super Bowl. Of course, the best example of this is Dan Marino. 0 rings and his case for being the GOAT QB is very weak.

[kshutts1]

It is comparable. Richmond should be a HOFer but he may not get in because he played on pathetic lottery teams during his prime. Who was a better SG than him in the 90's? Obviously MJ, perhaps Drexler. Who else? He was top 3 at his position. Compare that to Allen. Where does Allen rank among 00's SG's? Kobe, Wade, and prime Carter are/were better. Roy arguably is too, but Roy came along after Allen was out of his prime.

Pippen=KG

Johnson>Pierce, although KJ lacks Pierce's longevity. Johnson made 4 all-NBA second teams. Pierce has made only one.

You also have to consider age. These guys would get together when they were young, not when they were all past their prime. Plus, they would have Smits and Oakley or Grant with them in the starting 5, not Perkins and Rondo. Pippen/KJ/Richmond is comparable to KG/Pierce/Allen but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant>KG/Pierce/Allen/Rondo/Perkins.



I don't see how it was lopsided. If anything the Bulls would be better pulling this off. Yeah, at the time dealing the best player in the league for two draft picks and a first year 9/2/6 player in KJ was lopsided on paper but look at how good Richmond, Johnson, and Smits wound up being. Given that it would be a good trade. Which lineup is stronger?

Grant
Pippen
Cartwright
Jordan
Paxson

Or

Grant
Pippen
Smits
Richmond
Johnson

Grant=Grant
Pippen=Pippen
Smits>>>Cartwright
Richmond<<Jordan
Johnson>>>Paxson



Interesting. Is there a single person on ISH who considers Bird the GOAT? He is always in the conversation but does anyone ever place him first?

Achievements, especially winning matters in historical evaluation of sports figures. Maybe this is wrong but that is just the way it is. Why do you think every top 10 all-time NBA player has a ring? The same holds true in other sports as well. Why was A Rod winning a ring such a big deal? A Rod would still be A Rod with or without a championship. What about Elway? Past his prime Elway winning 2 rings with Terrell Davis made him a better playe? No, but 2 Super Bowl championships look a lot better than being 0-3 in the Super Bowl. Of course, the best example of this is Dan Marino. 0 rings and his case for being the GOAT QB is very weak.

Huge mistake. You must look at the trade from when it would have gone down. The Bulls were not trading for those 3 players IN THEIR PRIMES. They were trading for them before they were relevant. What's to say they would have turned out the same? That the Bulls would have gotten the players in the draft they wanted? etc... at the time, seriously lopsided trade