"The Last Dance" open thread

[BM1090]

I wouldn't say Reinsdorf escaped criticism at all. He was criticized quite heavily back in the late-90s and into the aughts for his role in the Bulls going from champions to laughingstocks.

And in Ep 10, Jordan looked into the camera and criticized his fellow NBA owner.

I was referring specifically to the documentary and admittedly posted before I watched E10 last night. Should have kept my mouth shut until I finished!

I don't share Jordan's viewpoint that each player would have taken a one year deal to go for seven, however. Unless Jordan was willing to take a significant pay cut.

[MU82]

I was referring specifically to the documentary and admittedly posted before I watched E10 last night. Should have kept my mouth shut until I finished!

I don't share Jordan's viewpoint that each player would have taken a one year deal to go for seven, however. Unless Jordan was willing to take a significant pay cut.

He didn't mention them all, but he did mention a few. He said Pippen would have been the most difficult one but he liked to think that if he and Phil signed on, Scottie would have too. I have my doubts. Kerr? We'll never know but I tend to agree with you that he might not have, especially if San Antonio made its huge offer before he re-signed with the Bulls. Longley? Probably not but who knows. Rodman already had signed a series of 1-year contracts; it isn't outrageous to think Rodman would have accepted another.

So you'd have Michael, Kukoc, Rodman, Harper, Wennington, Caffey; maybe (but probably not) Pippen; maybe Kerr; and several of the kind of role players that Krause had proven to be very good at signing. All coached by arguably the best coach in the history of North American team sports.

Why would Jordan have had to take less money? Jordan made Reinsdorf richer than rich. I don't fault Reinsdorf for it, but he got away with paying players relative peanuts for years, and got rewarded with both championships and huge profits. All it would have taken was for him to reach into his vast wealth - wealth largely created for him by Jordan - and pony up.

We'll never know, because Reinsdorf and Krause didn't even try to keep a great team together.

[jesmu84]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29195428/horace-grant-says-michael-jordan-lied-last-dance-calls-snitch?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true

[MU82]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29195428/horace-grant-says-michael-jordan-lied-last-dance-calls-snitch?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true

It was pretty common knowledge in Chicago media circles that Horace was one of the main sources for Sam's book. Perdue and Hodges also supposedly were sources, as was Reinsdorf.

[jesmu84]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/2466724/eric-bischoff-had-dennis-rodman-purposely-provoke-karl-malone-by-slapping-his-ass-during-the-1998-finals-to-promote-their-wcw-match

[WarriorDad]

It was pretty common knowledge in Chicago media circles that Horace was one of the main sources for Sam's book. Perdue and Hodges also supposedly were sources, as was Reinsdorf.

Grant is lying then?  Or are you suggesting the author shared source information with journalists in Chicago media circles, which as a journalist he should not have done.

[wadesworld]

Grant is lying then?  Or are you suggesting the author shared source information with journalists in Chicago media circles, which as a journalist he should not have done.

Well either Grant is lying or MJ is lying.

[WarriorDad]

Overall it was ok.  If you lived in the city during any of the run most of this was repeat news or confirmed rumors.  If you weren't part of the geography of it all or younger, it came off as newly discovered info.  Michael comes off as the pretty boy he is and most do not deny it.  He just was.  The question some will ask is whether the team won because of his attitude or in spite of it.  There were guys that got worn down by it psychologically and emotionally.  NY Times called his actions toxic.  Some thrived in it.  Phil was the right coach to mesh the personalities. 

I often wonder if the '90s Bulls happened in the last 10 years with social media would the outcome be the same?  There were constant rumors back then of pissed players, but they didn't have an outlet like Twitter or Instagram to say anything.  Today that stuff comes out quite often.  Would it have changed Michael's approach?  Would he have given no care?  The swirl that is created with team chemistry more out in the open?  Would it have meant an earlier end to the dynasty or have no impact at all? 

[cheebs09]

Overall it was ok.  If you lived in the city during any of the run most of this was repeat news or confirmed rumors.  If you weren't part of the geography of it all or younger, it came off as newly discovered info.  Michael comes off as the pretty boy he is and most do not deny it.  He just was.  The question some will ask is whether the team won because of his attitude or in spite of it.  There were guys that got worn down by it psychologically and emotionally.  NY Times called his actions toxic.  Some thrived in it.  Phil was the right coach to mesh the personalities. 

I often wonder if the '90s Bulls happened in the last 10 years with social media would the outcome be the same?  There were constant rumors back then of pissed players, but they didn't have an outlet like Twitter or Instagram to say anything.  Today that stuff comes out quite often.  Would it have changed Michael's approach?  Would he have given no care?  The swirl that is created with team chemistry more out in the open?  Would it have meant an earlier end to the dynasty or have no impact at all?

I think the Pippen situation would have been very different if it happened now. Obviously, contracts are structured much differently, but feel like he would have forced a trade. Seems like it’s much easier to get that done now than back then.

[MU82]

Grant is lying then?  Or are you suggesting the author shared source information with journalists in Chicago media circles, which as a journalist he should not have done.

I'd say Grant is feeling burned and is probably not fessing up as much as he should be. Jordan didn't like Grant, and made a too-broad accusation in the series. As I said, Grant wasn't anywhere near the only source. So were either or both "lying"? Depends on how you want to frame it.

Sam Smith never told me anything, and I doubt he ever told others who his sources were, either. Journalists are paid to notice things. So when Sam sits down with Grant for an hour at the end of a practice, or the two are seen casually chatting all the time, and you pair that with the knowledge that Michael and Horace disliked each other ... even a journalist can put 2+2 together.

Overall it was ok.  If you lived in the city during any of the run most of this was repeat news or confirmed rumors.  If you weren't part of the geography of it all or younger, it came off as newly discovered info.  Michael comes off as the pretty boy he is and most do not deny it.  He just was.  The question some will ask is whether the team won because of his attitude or in spite of it.  There were guys that got worn down by it psychologically and emotionally.  NY Times called his actions toxic.  Some thrived in it.  Phil was the right coach to mesh the personalities. 

I often wonder if the '90s Bulls happened in the last 10 years with social media would the outcome be the same?  There were constant rumors back then of pissed players, but they didn't have an outlet like Twitter or Instagram to say anything.  Today that stuff comes out quite often.  Would it have changed Michael's approach?  Would he have given no care?  The swirl that is created with team chemistry more out in the open?  Would it have meant an earlier end to the dynasty or have no impact at all? 

I lived it. It was a huge part of my life. And I found the series to be fascinating. So don't generalize.

As for the hypothetical questions you ask in your second paragraph ... we'll never know.

The Bulls still would have had the best player ever, the best sidekick in the league, the best rebounder in the league, perhaps the best coach ever, and several very good role players. So I'm thinking they would have still been pretty good.

[wadesworld]

Overall it was ok.  If you lived in the city during any of the run most of this was repeat news or confirmed rumors.  If you weren't part of the geography of it all or younger, it came off as newly discovered info.  Michael comes off as the pretty boy he is and most do not deny it.  He just was.  The question some will ask is whether the team won because of his attitude or in spite of it.  There were guys that got worn down by it psychologically and emotionally.  NY Times called his actions toxic.  Some thrived in it.  Phil was the right coach to mesh the personalities. 

I often wonder if the '90s Bulls happened in the last 10 years with social media would the outcome be the same?  There were constant rumors back then of pissed players, but they didn't have an outlet like Twitter or Instagram to say anything.  Today that stuff comes out quite often.  Would it have changed Michael's approach?  Would he have given no care?  The swirl that is created with team chemistry more out in the open?  Would it have meant an earlier end to the dynasty or have no impact at all?

I can say with 100% certainty that the Bulls were not winning titles in spite of Michael Jordan. And if he caused toxicity in the organization, I can only hope the Brewers, Bucks, Packers, and Marquette can have the type of toxic culture that brings 6 titles in 8 years, the only 2 years without a title being when the best player took off all or most of the season.