Bulls Offseason Thread

[Soul]

I don't buy that a player of Lebron's calibre would "always live in the shadow of Jordan's statue" or whatever.

 

Lebron in Chicago would be big enough to warrant another statue, right next to Jordan's.

 

I think that's a false negative. Lebron's not going to feel like he can't escape the ghost of a superstar from 10+ years ago. He's too big for that.

 

I don't think the writer does, either... He was just acknowledging a counterargument and dispelling it.

 

Understood. I've heard that sort of thing thrown around before though. I think it's valid for some players perhaps, but when it comes to the very top guys, I can't see Jordan's legacy deterring them.

 

Actually, Lebron might even consider it a challenge.

[David]

I've thought the same. Trying to out-GOAT Jordan in his own town.

[SouthSideRyan]

Of course in his 3.5 seasons in NJ, he did managed to make the playoffs and finish with a winning record coaching a team whose top players were Keith Van Horn, Sam Cassell, Kendall Gill, Jayson Williams and Kerry Kittles.

 

That's not really that bad a roster back then.

[SouthSideRyan]

I always assumed LeBron wanted to make his own path. Having a statue next to Jordan? Who cares about that. LeBron would be the man now and forever in Cleveland, New York, or New Jersey. Being 1B at best in Chicago? What kind of legacy is that? Hope you can win at least 6 titles LeBron, or you'll never be "as good as MJ"

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

 

These are very comparable situations.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

 

These are very comparable situations.

 

They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls? I guess it's a miracle that Shaq decided to play in Kareem's shadow, or that Garnett was willing to play in Bird's shadow.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

 

These are very comparable situations.

 

They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls?

 

Because by the time the NBA became "THE NBA", the Celtics and Lakers already had a host of iconic stars. The Bulls 2nd best player of all time is still just "Jordan's sidekick"

[UMFan83]

Of course in his 3.5 seasons in NJ, he did managed to make the playoffs and finish with a winning record coaching a team whose top players were Keith Van Horn, Sam Cassell, Kendall Gill, Jayson Williams and Kerry Kittles.

 

That's not really that bad a roster back then.

 

I guess every roster during that time period seems shitty to me because they didn't have Jordan and Pippen.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

 

These are very comparable situations.

 

They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls?

 

Because by the time the NBA became "THE NBA", the Celtics and Lakers already had a host of iconic stars. The Bulls 2nd best player of all time is still just "Jordan's sidekick"

 

And? Again, Jordan's gone. I suppose it would be one thing if he was anything even remotely close to a presence with the Bulls or at the UC, but he's not. To fans growing up now he's just a number in the rafters, a statue outside and someone they see in highlight clips. Anyone that is perceived as winning a championship for the Bulls from now on is going to be first in the minds of most young fans, not Jordan. The impact of playing "in the shadow of Jordan" is a load of crap, especially when it comes to player of LeBron's abilities. I mean, if you're going to argue that he'll be second to Jordan here if he doesn't win at least 6 rings, then where could he go where that wouldn't be the case? What, if he goes to the Knicks or stays with the Cavs and wins, say, 4 championships with them when all is said and done, in those cases people would argue he's as good as or better than Jordan, but not if he "only" 4 rings as a Bull?

[RedFlash]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

 

These are very comparable situations.

 

They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls? I guess it's a miracle that Shaq decided to play in Kareem's shadow, or that Garnett was willing to play in Bird's shadow.

 

I agree I thought Shaq and Kobe with the Lakers and KG and Allen (even tho both were traded to Boston and not signed) had tougher roads to forge their legacies with more historic NBA franchises then LBJ would with the Bulls.

[Andy]

The fact that the 2nd best Bull of all time is Jordan's sidekick, and that the Bulls haven't had any notable talents recently, has nothing to do with the shadow of Jordan and a lot to do with the ineptitude of the Bulls' front office the last 12 years.

[David]

Also with the fact that Scottie Pippen was really, really effing good.

[Andy]

Also with the fact that Scottie Pippen was really, really effing good.

Yes, this as well.

[SouthSideRyan]

You guys are missing my point. The Bulls had an incredible talent that the Bulls don't win any of those 6 titles without, but he's just "Jordan's sidekick" LBJ would just be "that guy that won 1 title when Jordan was able to win 6" He's not coming to Chicago. I figured you Jordan sycophants would understand what it's like to try and outdo him more than anyone.

[Sammy Sofa]

You guys are missing my point. The Bulls had an incredible talent that the Bulls don't win any of those 6 titles without, but he's just "Jordan's sidekick" LBJ would just be "that guy that won 1 title when Jordan was able to win 6" He's not coming to Chicago. I figured you Jordan sycophants would understand what it's like to try and outdo him more than anyone.

 

If he wins 1 title anywhere he's just that guy. Nobody has to "outdo" Jordan in Chicago to make the team and the town theirs.

[RedFlash]

You guys are missing my point. The Bulls had an incredible talent that the Bulls don't win any of those 6 titles without, but he's just "Jordan's sidekick" LBJ would just be "that guy that won 1 title when Jordan was able to win 6" He's not coming to Chicago. I figured you Jordan sycophants would understand what it's like to try and outdo him more than anyone.

 

If he wins 1 title anywhere he's just that guy. Nobody has to "outdo" Jordan in Chicago to make the team and the town theirs.

 

And who's to say LBJ can't win multiple championships in Chicago? This whole LBJ won't come to Chicago because of Jordan's presence is a weak ass argument.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yeah, the same thing happened to the Celtics and Lakers, too. Nobody great ever wanted to come play for either team again after the glory days of their dynasties.

 

These are very comparable situations.

 

They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls?

 

Because by the time the NBA became "THE NBA", the Celtics and Lakers already had a host of iconic stars. The Bulls 2nd best player of all time is still just "Jordan's sidekick"

 

And? Again, Jordan's gone. I suppose it would be one thing if he was anything even remotely close to a presence with the Bulls or at the UC, but he's not. To fans growing up now he's just a number in the rafters, a statue outside and someone they see in highlight clips. Anyone that is perceived as winning a championship for the Bulls from now on is going to be first in the minds of most young fans, not Jordan. The impact of playing "in the shadow of Jordan" is a load of crap, especially when it comes to player of LeBron's abilities. I mean, if you're going to argue that he'll be second to Jordan here if he doesn't win at least 6 rings, then where could he go where that wouldn't be the case? What, if he goes to the Knicks or stays with the Cavs and wins, say, 4 championships with them when all is said and done, in those cases people would argue he's as good as or better than Jordan, but not if he "only" 4 rings as a Bull?

 

I agree with the general thrust but Jordan is more than just a guy in highlight clips to any generation of Bulls fan. This is Michael Jordan we're talking about. He's still moving more merchandise than all about maybe 2 or 3 active basketball players (Lebron, Kobe, Yao) and is one of the most famous human beings on the planet.

[Sammy Sofa]

That just makes him a brand name. For fans that came to the game after Jordan played he's just a part of history, especially with the crappy, crappy years the Bulls produced after he was gone. If it really comes down to him trying to be as good as or as big as or better than Jordan, that'll dog him wherever he goes. It would hardly be exclusive to Chicago. People who are stacking him up against Jordan, or if he's doing it himself, that's going to happen anywhere he goes.

[SpongeWorthy]

I don't think it means much. And if it does, Lebron or anyone else has already made up their minds about it one way or another and that's not going to change between now and free agency. I was just disputing the point that Jordan is just a name in the rafters.

 

Besides, the people making it rain at the UC and pumping cash into the Bulls surely remember Jordan. The people that only know MJ through his YouTube mixtapes are begging their moms to buy them Derrick Rose jerseys (and Air Jordans).

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think it means much. And if it does, Lebron or anyone else has already made up their minds about it one way or another and that's not going to change between now and free agency. I was just disputing the point that Jordan is just a name in the rafters.

 

But it doesn't really. Again, for people coming to the game after he was gone it just makes him a guy selling shoes and underwear. It's just the nature of the game, even for the GoAT.

[snoodmonger]

Wouldnt this same reasoning stop people from going to play for the Yankees? Or the Cowboys or Packers or insert NFL powerhouse here?

 

And do athletes really care that much about being the best to ever suit up in a given team's uniform? Or would they rather just win (assuming they'll get paid wherever they go)?

 

And guys like LeBron and Kobe--total alpha males who probably think they are the best to ever walk the earth--do you really think they'd be scared of another player's legacy?

 

I'm not sure all that stuff is as big a deal as fans make it out to be.

Edited May 7, 2010 by snoodmonger

[Sammy Sofa]

Wouldnt this same reasoning stop people from going to play for the Yankees? Or the Cowboys or Packers or insert NFL powerhouse here?

 

And do athletes really care that much about being the best to ever suit up in a given team's uniform? Or would they rather just win (assuming they'll get paid wherever they go)?

 

And are guys like LeBron and Kobe--total alpha males who probably think they are the best to ever walk the earth--do you really think they'd be scared of another player's legacy?

 

I'm not sure all that stuff is as big a deal as fans make it out to be.

 

Exactly.

[Guest]

The other silly thing about this argument is that LeBron's legacy will be compared to Jordan no matter where he plays. Kobe plays in LA his whole career, but that's always been the elephant on his back, not Magic or Jerry West or any Laker.

[Guest]

Wouldnt this same reasoning stop people from going to play for the Yankees? Or the Cowboys or Packers or insert NFL powerhouse here?

 

I think the difference is what SSR was getting at. Who do you think of when you think of the Yankees or Cowboys? Any number of stars that they've had could come to mind. Same with the Lakers and Celtics. For the Bulls, it's Jordan, the end. If that sort of thing matters to a player, I can certainly see how there'd be more of a microscope in Chicago relative to somewhere else.