The Deadline Cometh

Conveniently enough, the Wizards played the Timberwolves the very week of the trade deadline, serving to drive home to the extent to which the basketball universe must demand a Garnett-to-Chicago trade. Garnett is a historic figure, not only one of the best players but literally an integral element of turn-of-the-century Association history; the prime mover in the death of positionality, the return of the high schooler and the subsequent Age Limit Era, the Contract Explosiion and subsequent max salary rule, etc. A guy like that deserves to be on a good team, one that pushes into the playoffs and (who knows?) could play for it all. As of now, all we have was the 2003-2004 run, and -- forgetting for a moment what Garnett deserves -- we deserve more. This is especially true given that there are a number of perfectly logical Minnesota-Chicago trade scenarios.

The other big name possibility is Jason Kidd going to the Los Angeles. Obviously, if the Lakers really do somehow manage to snag Kidd without giving up Odom or Bynum, they've got to pull the trigger on that, but as a fan, I don't really want to see it. For five season the Lakers were a delightful Evil Empire, the team I Loved to Hate. And, like many people, I found Kobe more loathsome than Shaq, and though the Lakers per se became less loathsome following the Shaq trade (how could you hate such a devastated squad) the Black Mamba became even more so. In the 2004-2005 season, however, Kobe voyaged to the underworld and appeared to re-emerge the stronger for it in his 2005-2006 campaign. Now, from the vantage point of this year, I actually believe Kobe might win another championship at some point. Not this spring, to be sure. But next year or the year after? If Bynum keeps developing? If everyone stays healthy? It would be . . . redemption. I'm not sure I could root for him, but (barring an Eastern Conference Championship for the Wizards, of course) I certainly couldn't root against him.

A return to contention through the deus ex machina of a one-sided trade for aging star Jason Kidd, however, is not the path of redemption. What makes the emerging Kobe Bryant story so unlikely is the way the Lakers dependence on development-from-within depends on precisely what we Kobe-haters never thought he could do -- become a leader, a teacher, a mentor -- and lucking into Kidd would rob what we're seeing of all its appealing qualities. The trade I'd like to see would be Andre Miller for Kwame Brown or something.

Comments

That "death of positionality" link has interesting things to say. But it characterizes Diaw as the first "point center," and that just can't be true. Sabonis was a passing machine, for one thing.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 21, 2007 4:46 PM

The other big name possibility is Jason Kidd going to the Los Angeles. Obviously, if the Lakers really do somehow manage to snag Kidd without giving up Odom or Bynum, they've got to pull the trigger on that, but as a fan, I don't really want to see it.

As I've said before, I've more or less fallen for the Lakers at this point. Please try not to fucking ruin my team. Thx.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 4:50 PM

Lakers aren't going anywhere this year. Too injured. I don't know why they want Kidd, but much as I love Kidd, if they give us Bynum, I take it.

However, I think Matthew has it backwards. You fault the aging star for ring-chasing; you don't fault the in-his-prime star for being on a team that happens to get an aging star to put them over the top. Nobody thinks Wade's championship is cheap because the Heat happened to get Shaq, for example.

Posted by Al | February 21, 2007 4:57 PM

Speaking of Garnett, I think that Matthew is right that we at least deserve to see him play in a Finals. Is he the best player ever not to even play in a Finals?

Posted by Al | February 21, 2007 5:00 PM

Nobody thinks Wade's championship is cheap because the Heat happened to get Shaq, for example.

Really? I love Dwayne Wade and all, but I can't help thinking that without Shaq, the Heat doesn't get anywhere NEAR a ring last year.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 21, 2007 5:00 PM

Nobody thinks Wade's championship is cheap because the Heat happened to get Shaq, for example.

Nobody thinks that's why Wade's championship is cheap.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 5:01 PM

I don't know why they want Kidd

OTOH, I agree entirely with that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 5:02 PM

I was really enjoying the grandiloquent tone of the post, Matt, even the teutonic capitalizations, and then you went and ended it with "or something." Oy vey.

Posted by ogged | February 21, 2007 5:24 PM

you don't fault the in-his-prime star for being on a team that happens to get an aging star to put them over the top. Nobody thinks Wade's championship is cheap because the Heat happened to get Shaq, for example.

It's not that I would fault Kobe for it, it's that Kobe seems to be on track for extra credit -- re-creating the Lakers as a contender under the unlikeliest of circumstances, silencing the haters (and the Phil Jackson skeptics) in the process. If he benefits from a one-sided trade for Jason Kidd, well, then, that's just getting lucky, not an extraordinary tale of redemption.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 21, 2007 5:30 PM

I don't entirely agree that Garnett deserves to be shipped somewhere just because he is so good and we need to see him play on the biggest stage. Aren't those who deserve it the ones that learn to lead, teach, and mentor? He has been in the league ten years and hasn't achieved what Kobe appears to be doing in three. Didn't Duncan do in two? Haven't Dirk and Nash have done it as well? Methinks he has a bit of AI in him - freakish to watch, but not a natural leader.

Posted by MP | February 21, 2007 5:56 PM

None of the point guards who played in the triangle offense during the various championship seasons were quality point guards. IIRC, they all shot the ball well, with specific reference to the three point shot. Which is to say, each was basically an anti-Kidd. Why pay the luxury tax and shrink the size of the team for a player whose skills are not well-suited to the offense employed?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 6:01 PM

So it's Garnett's fault that Kevin McHale is a fucking moron? The one year they gave him a decent supporting cast, they had the best record in the regular season and gave the Lakers a decent scare in the playoffs. Garnett is truly awesome, but it's expecting a bit much for him to take that team deep into playoffs. The fact that the Twolves are usually about a .500 team, with that roster, is a testament to how awesome Garnett is. He's so good that it's actually difficult to build a losing team around him, and yet, McHale has managed.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2007 6:03 PM

Also, you guys saying "why would you want Jason Kidd?" are crazy. Yeah, he's a shadow of his former self, but he's still an incredible player. There is no offense that would not work with Jason Kidd playing the point. He's a mumbling knucklehead off the court, but put the ball in his hands and he's a genius.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2007 6:04 PM

Everybody everywhere just wants to fuck over my Mav's. All this hate.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 21, 2007 6:07 PM

No, it is not Garnett's fault that McHale is a moron. McHale will continue to be a moron all on his own.

What I said was that it is Garnett's fault that the Wolves blow. Do you recall his naivete in saying that the 2004 series with the Lakers was "over" after they took a whopping one game lead? Do you recall his meltdown and on-the-court berating of his teamates? I do. Have you noticed that he still hasn't learned to score with his back to the basket? Every damn shot is some sort of turn around jumper? Have you noticed his oddly shaped peanut head?

Posted by MP | February 21, 2007 6:23 PM

Also, you guys saying "why would you want Jason Kidd?" are crazy. Yeah, he's a shadow of his former self, but he's still an incredible player. There is no offense that would not work with Jason Kidd playing the point. He's a mumbling knucklehead off the court, but put the ball in his hands and he's a genius.

SCMT and I are saying it for completely different reasons. I think the Lakers would be dumb to get Kidd because I think they are going nowhere; they ought to focus on their young talent. SCMT doesn't want Kidd because he thinks Kidd is ill-suited for the offense, which I think it wrong (the only thing Kidd shoots well is the spot-up 3 pointer - he's at .355 this season, which isn't bad).

Posted by Al | February 21, 2007 6:23 PM

And, like many people, I found Kobe more loathsome than Shaq, and though the Lakers per se became less loathsome following the Shaq trade (how could you hate such a devastated squad)

No, no, no. Kobe is the reason why the Lakers are loathsome. He's a selfish, lying, rapist who's only accomplishment was to luck into being on a team with Shaq. He is evil incarnate. He will not be redeemed if he happens to get the Lakers past the first round of the playoffs. He will be redeemed if he charges into a burning building and rescues a dozen children and puppy dogs. When that happens, we'll know that Hell has frozen over. Until then, may the Lakers always be plagued with "potential."

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2007 7:54 PM

He's a selfish, lying, rapist who's only accomplishment was to luck into being on a team with Shaq.

Who was either never charged or had the case dropped. Which would seem to put him in the same neighborhood the Duke lacross team. At a minimum, I don't know what happened, and neither does anyone else outside of a small set of people who were either directly involved or who have seen and weighed what evidence existed.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 8:12 PM

I always preferred Kobe to Shaq. Shaq's too immature and petty. He constantly takes shots at ex-teammates and coaches, and everyone acts as if his shit don't stink.

Posted by David | February 21, 2007 8:20 PM

As a long time Laker fan, it's really stunning the way the cutsiness of Shaq's comments are aloud to apologize for his lackluster effort. And remember Shaq was the one who said it's either me or Kobe. Not the other way around.

And I'd absolutely kill for and Andre Miller for Kwame Trade. Hell, we'd win a bunch more games with ole Derek Fisher.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | February 21, 2007 8:34 PM

SCMT, remind me if a settlement was paid to the victim in Kobe's case? Don't for a second kid yourself, Kobe and the Duke players are in very different neighborhoods. Kobe belongs in a neighborhood surrounded by high fences and barberd wire while the lacrosse players are innocent victims of a ridiculous prosecutor.

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2007 8:36 PM

Kobe belongs in a neighborhood surrounded by high fences and barberd wire while the lacrosse players are innocent victims of a ridiculous prosecutor.

In other words, Kobe is a black man accussed of raping a white woman, while the Duke players are white men accussed of raping a black woman. See? Totally different.

Posted by David | February 21, 2007 8:38 PM

David, yes I see. You are a fool.

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2007 8:55 PM

People make settlement like decisions for any number of reasons. The wilding teenagers effectively "settled" on going to jail for a crime they didn't commit (they may have been busy committing other crimes). Bryant may have (a) wanted to avoid the risk of a trial, esp. in bum-fuck CO, (b) may not have wanted other image damaging information to come out during a trial, or (c) wanted to make the whole thing go away rather than letting it drag on. Or maybe he did it. I don't know. Neither does almost anyone else. All we have is rampant speculation.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 8:57 PM

Better to name-call than explain your ass-backwards reasoning.

Posted by David | February 21, 2007 8:57 PM

As a Minnesotan, I don't want the Wolves to trade Garnett. What I want is for the league to force Glen Taylor to sell the team to someone who has the balls to fire Kevin McHale.

I will say that Garnett does bear some responsibility for his current predicament. Garnett's local prestige is such that if went to the owner and said "it's me or McHale, you make the call" it might actually work.

More than one local sports columnist has speculated that McHale must have very embarrassing photographs of the owner in his pocket, such is his hold on the GM position after his incompetence has long been exposed.

Posted by Greg Abbott | February 21, 2007 9:05 PM

SCMT, the only reason that the criminal charges were dropped was because the victim was reluctant to testify. Who can blame her after officials in Co released her name and medical records. She also got death threats and was the focus of intense media scrutiny. Cases like this are the reason for rape-shield laws.

I don't believe that Michael Jackson has ever been convicted of molestation or pedophilia. All we have is rampant speculation. I guess we'll never know if he's really a pervert, either.

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2007 9:46 PM

"SCMT, the only reason that the criminal charges were dropped was because the victim was reluctant to testify."

Actually, charges were dropped because the victim repeatedly told the initial police interview that she never said "no" or otherwise told Bryant to stop. The victim didn't proceed to trial because she had no chance to win the trial, given that interview.

Basically, she just cried a lot during the encounter, and was obviously not having a good time. That doesn't Kobe a rapist by the legal standard, but it does make him a cad.

Posted by Petey | February 21, 2007 10:37 PM

"At a minimum, I don't know what happened, and neither does anyone else outside of a small set of people who were either directly involved or who have seen and weighed what evidence existed."

Actually, I think anyone in the general public who was following the case has a pretty good understanding of what happened in Eagle.

Posted by Petey | February 21, 2007 10:40 PM

Is he the best player ever not to even play in a Finals?

Dave Bing, Bob Lanier, Pete Maravich, Connie Hawkins, Dan Issel, and Bernard King.

Garnett is probably better than all of them.

Posted by Antid Oto | February 21, 2007 10:48 PM

Petey,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5861379/

With jury selection under way, the criminal case was dropped late Wednesday by prosecutors who said the 20-year-old woman accusing Bryant of rape had decided not to participate. Her exit followed gaffes that led to the public disclosure of her name and other personal details, and prosecutors said they would not carry on without her testimony.

Prosecutors said Bryant flirted with the woman, a front desk employee, during a tour of the resort. After the two ended up in his room, they began to kiss, which she acknowledged was consensual. Investigators have said the encounter turned violent and that she told Bryant “no” at least twice.

In the civil suit, the attorneys said at some point during the kissing “Bryant’s voice became deeper and his acts became rougher” as he began to grope the woman. She asked him to stop, but Bryant allegedly blocked her exit, grabbed her and forced her over a chair to rape her. Bryant’s hands were around the woman’s neck, the attorneys said — “a perceived threat of potential strangulation if she resisted his advances.”

Rooting for Kobe and the Lakers is the moral equivalent of rooting for Michael Jackson to have hit records or OJ to make more movies.

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2007 11:11 PM

Yeah, I really don't know why we bother with trials in the country. We can just count on the prosecutors to do what's right. Gawd knows that's how it has played out over the last few years in the WoT

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 21, 2007 11:28 PM

Just Karl,

Her story was different in her initial police interview - that's where she said she didn't say "no" - which is why she never had a realistic option of going to trial.

Posted by Petey | February 21, 2007 11:58 PM

Here is Kobe's police interview. Choking women from behind before he cums in their face is just his "thing". Go ask his mistress, they do it all the time. What a sweetheart.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0924041kobea1.html

Posted by Just Karl | February 22, 2007 1:23 AM

What's your point? Unless it says "non-consensual" in there, it's irrelevant. If you don't like his sexual practices, try not to fuck him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2007 2:02 AM

"Unless it says "non-consensual" in there, it's irrelevant."

Agreed. But as far as I can tell, what happened in Eagle was indeed "non-consensual", even though it didn't rise to the legal definition of rape.

Just Karl may be a playa-hater, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kobe is a deeply problematic figure.

Posted by Petey | February 22, 2007 4:48 AM

I should just stop reading newspaper columnists when they write about the NBA. This is what the LA Times' J.A. Adande had to say about the Kidd rumors:

"The triangle offense is based on the pass, not the dribble drive that is Kidd's forte"

Yeah, Jason Kidd's a terrible passer. What the fuck? How do these guys stayed employed? At least political pundits know a little more than the median voter about politics. My sister knows more about the NBA than this clown.

Personally, I think you can never have too many good passers on the floor at once. Can you imagine Kidd, Walton, Odom and Kobe on the floor together?

Al's probably right, though. The Lakers would be trading away their top young guy, a probably All-Star center someday, for a 33-year-old with many creaky parts. To justify that, they'd have to make the finals this year or next year. I don't see that happening. Kidd makes them better, but not better than Dallas or Phoenix or SA.

Now, Mike Bibby to the Cavs would be awesome. He's the perfect point guard for that team, if he remembers how to shoot.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2007 1:30 PM

Lets get back to basketball talk instead of enabling people to voice their weird celebrity hatreds.

"None of the point guards who played in the triangle offense during the various championship seasons were quality point guards. IIRC, they all shot the ball well, with specific reference to the three point shot." SCMT

This isn't true. The best Bulls teams and the Laker teams that won 3 straight had Ron Harper as their point guard who's real weakness was his inconsistent shot. But his length on defense especially but also his hoop IQ (and by extention understanding of the triangle) made him the perfect player for those great team's situation.

Both those teams did employ quality shooters but what team wouldn't benefit from that skill? It's not unique to the triangle to need quality 3-point shooting.

Posted by Sigh | February 22, 2007 1:33 PM

The best Bulls teams and the Laker teams that won 3 straight had Ron Harper as their point guard who's real weakness was his inconsistent shot.

Not a starting point guard for anyone else in the league, though. You don't pay $20 mil. for Ron Harper. Jordan thought you shouldn't pay $4 mil. (back then) for Ron Harper.

It's not unique to the triangle to need quality 3-point shooting.

No, but it's the particularly valuable trait of the not-superstar guard on Jackson-led triangle teams. BJ Armstrong got in trouble with Jackson for not understanding just this point.

We're talking about a $20 mil. salary for two more years, plus any luxury tax problems it creates. For a 33 year old guard with repaired knees. In a system that least values the point guard. And giving away your interior defense. Not seeing it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2007 1:47 PM

I must sound like a broken record with my Jason Kidd crush here, but Kidd can run any offense. If he can't run your offense, then there's a problem with your offense.

Also, Ron Harper was a decent player, but not a point guard at all.

Still, I wouldn't give up Bynum for Kidd, for the reasons Al and I mentioned above. But goddamn, that would be a beautiful team to watch.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2007 1:52 PM

Yes, Harper wasn't a true point guard. But he did play that role on some of the best teams in the last 20 years. And it was his (non-shooting) skill set that made him so valuable. So, while having 3-point shooters is a need for all good teams, the ideal pg for the triangle isn't necessarily a shooter.

I think it's consensus that the Lakers shouldn't give up Bynum for Kidd. And I'm not sure if anyone is actually arguing it but if they don't think the Lakers would be much better with Kidd they'll find themselves on my 'ignore' list. In that vein, if the Lakers could get Kidd ($20 mil salary or not), they absolutely should do it.

Posted by Sigh | February 22, 2007 2:14 PM

The perfect Jackson point guard, it seems to me, is big (Harper), a good three point shooter, a good catch and shoot shooter, a good defender (Harper), is quick enough to stop the speedy point guards that have always troubled the Lakers, and is sufficiently deferential that he's OK with only being a bail out option for the rest of the offense (Harper). And if you think the second three Bulls teams were better than the first three, records or no, I think you're crazy.

I absolutely don't think that Kidd to the Lakers with no other change to the Lakers' roster makes the team as good as Phoenix or Dallas, or a clear victor over the Spurs or Houston. I'll have to live with you ignoring me.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2007 2:31 PM

I don't think that gets you the "ignore," SCMT, as long as you concede that adding Kidd makes the Lakers better. I think it might put right up around 4th in the West, but then, I have a big man-crush on Kidd's game.

Bynum's still a big gamble. He's talented, but I don't think he has The Fire. If the Lakers trade him, I'll assume it's because they see him play and practice every day, and they don't think he's going to live up to his potential.

Anyway, maybe if he gets traded, he can study under Vince Carter and learn to really give his all and love the game.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2007 2:38 PM

a good defender (Harper), is quick enough to stop the speedy point guards that have always troubled the Lakers,

Kidd is still a very good defender. He's big and has great hands, and can still move the feet fairly well. His only problem is with the quickest guys. But that includes Parker and Devin Harris (but not Nash, not Terry, not Deron Williams), which might be an issue come playoffs if he were a Laker.

Posted by Al | February 22, 2007 2:38 PM

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't say they were going to win it all if they got Kidd. But they would become a first tier team rather than a second tier team. If that combination could win it probably wouldn't be this year just by virtue of not having played toghether enough a la Dallas or Phoenix.

As far as the ideal triangle point guard you've nailed it. But how on earth were the First three better than the second? I've never heard anybody make that claim so I'd be curious to hear why you think so.

Posted by Sigh | February 22, 2007 2:42 PM

It's 3pm. Do you know where your favorite players are playing?

Posted by Al | February 22, 2007 3:05 PM

Just to clarify, Harper played backup for the Lakers during their championship seasons. Derek Fisher ran the point.

The Lakers don't particularly have an offense problem so they don't need a does-it-all offensively talented point guard like Kid. Somebody who plays good defense, can pass, and spot up shoot is more than enough.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | February 22, 2007 3:08 PM

But how on earth were the First three better than the second? I've never heard anybody make that claim so I'd be curious to hear why you think so.

This is pretty impressionistic, admittedly, but:

(1) Primarily, Jordan and Pippen were younger, quicker, less prone to injury and could do more things well. By the end of the second threepeat, the Bulls had to hope Pippen could play on game day, and Jordan wasn't playing a lot of defense. Both were just slower.

(2) Rodman was a much more versatile defender than Grant, but he wasn't that much better in the post. He was a better rebounder than Grant, but I don't remember rebounds being a problem for the Bulls. Grant was much better offensively.

(3) I just remember the East being much more difficult during the first set than the second set. I remember the East as the better league, if not quite to the extent the West is now.

This doesn't account for Kukoc, though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2007 3:27 PM

No trades. Boo.

Also, Dennis Johnson, RIP.

Posted by Al | February 22, 2007 4:25 PM

Sad about DJ. Also sad about the lack of trades.

SCMT, your points are accurate for the most part but, as you said, don't take into account Kukoc. Also, what little Pip and Jordan lost in age they more than made up in experience -- especially in Pippen's case, a guy who was a late bloomer as a player to begin with (and Jordan had really perfected his jumper by then which was still a work in progress earlier). Further, the second three had Steve Kerr playing that deadly shooter role which was a big upgrade over BJ or Hodges.

Posted by Sigh | February 22, 2007 6:57 PM

Methinks you're being seduced by Steve Kerr's skills as a broadcaster. Yeah, he was a great shooter, but did he really bring that much more than BJ or Hodges? BJ could actually do things other than stand and shoot.

I'd take the second 3-peat team, by a narrow margin. Jordan was better the first time around -- he already had his awesome jumper and hadn't lost much athletecism -- but Pippen was better the second time.

I'm looking at rosters and stats of the 91-92 Bulls (the best year of the first 3), and the 96-97 Bulls (best year of the second 3):
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teampage.htm?tm=CHI&lg=n
And they're actually closer than I would have thought. Maybe Pippen didn't peak as late I remember. But anyway, they're equally week at center (man, Bill Cartwright was awful ... 5 boards a game? 14 blocks all year? But Longley was just about as bad, and he didn't have the deadly elbows). And I was wrong, Kerr was way better than Hodges. Kerr scored 8 a game and he even played more minutes than Harper in 96. I still think it's a wash in the "Steve Kerr guy" category, though, because the 92 Bulls had BJ and Hodges and Paxson to fill the Steve Kerr role.

The 96 Bulls are better because the 92 Bulls were really a 3-man team: Jordan, Pippen, Grant. Their 4th guy was either Cartwright or BJ, and that ain't good. The 96 Bulls, on the other hand, had Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, and Harper. Five legit NBA starters (though they didn't all start). And even though Rodman was past his prime, I'd give him the edge over Grant.

Man, both of those teams had terrible depth. The 92 Bulls had Will Purdue and Cliff Levingston playing serious minutes; the 96 Bulls had their 8-man rotation. The 95 Bulls had Bill Wennington and Jud Buechler.

Anyway, the 86 Celtics would destroy both teams without breaking a sweat. You think DJ was awesome when was alive? His ghost would shut Jordan down.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2007 7:28 PM

er, there was a cut and paste error there. 2nd-to-last graph should say:

Man, both of those teams had terrible depth. The 92 Bulls had Will Purdue and Cliff Levingston playing serious minutes; the 96 Bulls had Bill Wennington and Jud Buechler.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2007 7:30 PM

Well, at least we're in agreement that the second three were better than the first three.

On the other hand I fail to see how having three players who aren't as good as Kerr is as good as just having Kerr. Did they all three get to play at the same time and count as only one guy on the floor?

Posted by Sigh | February 22, 2007 8:00 PM

Good point. Maybe you could play whichever guy was hot? Anyway, I said it was a wash. Kerr was better than any of those guys at being Steve Kerr, but BJ could also dribble and pass and defend at least a little bit.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2007 8:05 PM

Yeah, I went and looked at basketballreference.com earlier, because I was so sure that mine was an easy case to make. It was much harder than anticipated. At base, my claim is that the Bulls were always something of a three man team, and the first set of three were better than the second set of three. But that leaves out Kukoc, and that's awfully hard to justify.

I'd still take the first set against the second set. A lot of it might be aesthetic preference. The first set were sheer athletic dominance: the two signature Jordan plays that get replayed over and over again are the switch-hands layup against the Lakers and the the shrug after hitting six (or whatever) threes against the Blazers. The second set of championships, the signature moments that I recall were about will (the "sick" game) and veteran wile (the steal against Malone and the "tap" on Anderson (or Russell)).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2007 8:09 PM